apprenticeship before he be qualified for any mechanical employment; and how fhall one be qualified to govern nations without any instruction in the art? Is the feience of politics more fimple, or more eafily acquired than an ordinary handycraft? Or is it easier to manage affairs of ftate than to make a pair of fhoes? Every man, furely, has a right to choose his own fhoemaker; but will that man act wifely who shall employ one for that purpose who never knew how to bristle a thread? Yea, every man has a right, if he pleafes, to make his own fhoes; but are the rights of man violated by his wearing fhoes of another man's making?In like manner, though all power belongs radically to the people, their right is not violated by committing the actual exercise of their power into the hands of a few: and the fooner the body of the people diveft themselves of that power, if it is entrusted in proper hands, the better.

3. It does not follow from this maxim, that after a particular form of government has been fet up, and continued for ages, with the consent of the body of the people, the people have a right to abolish it, and fet up another, as often as they pleafe. It has been pleaded by the friends of liberty, and no true friend of liberty will deny it, that all government is founded upon a mutual compact between rulers and people: and that such a compact, either exprefs or implicit, fubfifts wherever there is a lawful government. Now, it is plain to every rational understanding, that neither party has a right to break or diffolve any contract, without the consent of the other. Hence, it has been argued with justice, that when kings or other rulers violate that original compact, they forfeit their right to govern; the people may difplace, and even pùnith them The body of this nation, acting upon this principle, once declared, that

་

their king had forfeited his crown, and the throne had become vacant. And this declaration is a ftanding law of our country. But, may it not be argued, with equal juftice, that, if the people, or any part of them, violate the compact on their part, and refufe to fulfil their ftipulations to government ;-then government has a right to confider them as having forfeited its protection, and to punish them as rebels? Unless this doctrine is admitted, and reduced to practice, there can never be ftrength or ftability in any government.

We fhall be told that "rulers were made for the

people, and not the people for them: that they are "but fervants of the public; and that every man has a

right to dismiss his fervants when he pleases."-True: magiftrates are fervants of the state, or, if you please, of the people; and were made rulers for the people's good. But, as the people are not flaves to their rulers, fo neither are rulers flaves to the people. They ferve by contract: and surely they may be allowed the rights of a common hired fervant. If a fervant breaks his contract, and refuses to do his mafter's work according to paction, his master may doubtlefs turn him away: but, if he ferves faithfully and honeftly, according to bargain, the mafter who turns him away will find himself obliged, both in law and equity, to give him his wages and maintenance for the time ftipulated; befides damages for breach of contract.

Our new philofophers likewife tell us, that "it is "abfurd for one generation to choose a form of govern"ment for another, or for any generation to make laws. "for posterity: and therefore no fucceeding generation "is bound to adhere to that government which their

fathers fet up; nor to submit to any rulers whom "themselves have not chofen." But if this doctrine is

Once

once admitted, there is an end of all government, of all commerce, and of all fociety, civil and religious. Does not every man bind his heirs, executors, and fucceffors, as well as himself, in every civil contract? And what confufion would enfue, if heirs and executors fhould refuse to fulfil fuch engagements? Parents, at the baptifm of their children, lay their children as well as themfelves under folemn engagements to God, and to the church; and what must be the confequence to religion, and to religious fociety, if these engagements are not allowed to be binding? Have not public bodies the fame right to bind pofterity by their contracts as private perfons have? Indeed they have an additional but conright to do it; because public bodies never die; tinue the fame, when all the individuals who compofed them are changed. This is acknowledged by all mankind to be the cafe with every paltry corporation; and who can deny that it is fo with nations too? If any of the Friends of the People were poffeffed of a note for a thousand pounds, emitted by the bank of England a hundred years ago, and should apply to have it paid; would he be pleafed if the directors, acting upon his own principles, should tell him, that they never emitted that note, that their predeceffors in office had no power to bind them by engagements entered into before they were born, and therefore he should have nothing? Have not all nations, fince the beginning of the world, confidered their treaties with other nations as binding upon pofterity, as well as upon that generation in which they were made? Yea, did not God himself punish the people of Ifrael for breaking a treaty in the days of Saul that had been entered into by Joshua four hundred years before? And why fhould thofe contracts be of lefs force, that are entered into by the different parts of a

(

nation with one another? Is not George III. confidered, even by the Friends of the People, as bound by Magna Charta, though granted in the reign of King John? And why should not the people of England be as ftrictly bound by their engagements to the Crown, fuppofing them to be of as old a date?

If men could not choose a form of government, or make laws for posterity; then not only the laws, but the very conftitution of every nation, behoved to be changed every day. Every day almost a thousand persons die in Britain; an equal number are born; and fome hundreds, at least, come of age. He that comes of age to-day, may fay:-"I never confented to the form of government now fubfifting: I never had any voice in the choice "of the ruling powers, or in the making of any laws. "I will therefore be subject to no laws till I myself have

part in the making of them: nor will I fubmit to any ἐσ government, till I, in conjunction with my cotempo"raries, have framed a conftitution for ourselves."-He that comes of age to-morrow may argue in the fame manner; and infift for a general convention, in which he fhall have a voice, by himself or his representative, before he will fubmit to any government or any law whatfoever. Surely then we fhall have conventions and conftitutions in great abundance!

1

Of all others, this argument comes with the worst grace from Seceders; and I am truly forry ever to have heard it from any of their mouths. We confider ourfelves, and the whole nation, as bound by the folemn vows that our ancestors came under to God in the Na tional Covenant, and in the Solemn League. We confider it as our duty to mourn for the breach of those engagements, and to testify against it, as one of the most heinous of our national fins. But if our ancestors had

no right to bind us by contracts or covenants with men, what right could they have to bind us by fuch engagements to God? Befides, I would beg my brethren's at tention to this;-that, by thefe folemn covenants, we are as ftrictly bound to submit to the laws of our country, to adhere to its conftitution,-and ever to defend, with our lives and fortunes, the person and authority of its chief magistrate, in the execution of these laws, as we are to any other moral duty. The exprefs words of the Solemn League and Covenant, Art. iii. are these :

"We fhall, with fincerity, reality, and conftancy,— “endeavour, with our eftates and lives, to preserve the " rights and privileges of the Parliaments, and the li"berties of the kingdoms; and to preferve and defend "the King's Majesty's person and government, in the "prefervation and defence, of the true religion and li"berties of the kingdoms :-that the world may bear "witness, with our confciences, of our loyalty; and "that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish "his Majefty's just power and greatnefs."-If these engagements, come under by our ancestors in the days of Charles I. are binding upon us; how can we be otherwife than bound to defend, with our eftates and lives, the rights and privileges of the British parliament, the liberties of the united kingdom, and the perfon and authority of our fovereign George III.? -How far our words and actions correfpond to this obligation, God and our own confciences will one day determine.

Neither Scripture nor reason give an exclusive sanction to any particular form of government. Owing to the differences of national character, of fituation, and purfuits, one kind of government may be proper among one people; and a different conftitution may be better adapted to the circumstances of another. Thus, a mix

ed