fuppofe it the beft and the pureft, that ever was brought from the eternal oracles of truth, the impofing of it on a nation, who had never been confulted in the making of it; and who could not in confcience receive it, is totally repugnant to the first idea every man forms of liberty. The fubmiffion of the people would likewife have been a material acknowledgement, of an abfolute legislative power in the perfon of the Prince, by which he might, the very next day, have established Popery, Paganism, the Mahometan religion, or whatever else he had a mind. Some historians have very unjustly, represented as highly criminal that refiftance, which fhewed the moft rational attachment to the religion, and to the liberties of their country. Had the innovations attempted by Charles, been adopted by the parliament; had the natural rights of men been fecured by a full toleration, no doubt would remain, whether the pretence of confcience would juftify the minority in oppofing, by force of arms, the general wifhes of the nation. Did Christianity cherish fuch a fpirit of turbulence, it was never provided with a better apology than in its earliest days, when the worship of the Roman empire was wholly composed of the most abfurd fuperftition. And yet we know, that the Apoftles of Chrift acted a very different part. So well was their zeal tempered with prudence, that they never offered an infult to the national worship of thofe countries in which they preached; that they never employed reproachful language, to inflame the minds of men against it, but meekly preached, that they fhould turn from their vanities to the living God. But let us fuppofe the civil constitution of a Kingdom to be violated, its liberties deftroyed, its religion changed, and the hand of tyranny ftretched out to wreft from its inhabitants, every thing they accounted dear, facred, or venerable, the voice of reafon and of nature is the fame, that meanly to furrender them, them, is the basest treachery to themselves; and the baseft ingratitude to God, whofe bleffings they are. That these were the circumftances of our neighbours at the time to which I refer, no man will difpute, who has not already made a facrifice of his understanding, either to his religious, cr to his political principles. That refiftance was become, a duty, I need not attempt to prove to any perfon, in whofe breast every spark of generofity is not wholly extinguished. As it was determined, that the freedom of the State, and the liberty of individuals fhould perish together, high commiffion courts, (with wonderful propriety fo called) formed on the model of those then established in England; and both taken from that of the Inquifition, were appointed to inftruct the fcrupulous, by fines, by prifons, by whips, and by pillories, in the happiness and religious tendency of the new worship. These arguments were more familiar to the imposers, as what they had more frequently used than fcriptural ones, and befides, it was thought their force would be more univerfally felt. The UNDER the cloud which hung over their civil and religious liberties, the people were not wanting to themselves. Roufed by the love of them both, men of every rank agreed, to drop for the prefent every other conteft, that they might act with vigour and with concert, in repelling the dangers which threatened them. Knowing how feeble reafon,muft ever prove, when it is oppofed by force, they determined to affert their rights by their arms. King had levied an army to fupport his power and his liturgy, but his foldiers were cold, and difaffected to the fervice. The paffion for freedom had preferved itself alive even under military discipline, and spreading from breast to breaft, began to blaze. As men, they felt the wrongs which others fuffered. As citizens, they reflected upon their own. After provoking equally the indigna tion of both his kingdoms, Charles found himself obliged by his weakness, to affemble an English Parliament, irritated by the violences of the court. To the wisdom of this Parliament, the Englifh owe, many of the nobleft pillars of a free conftitution. To their deep refentments, or immoderate ambition, the nation, as well as themfelves, owed a series of difafters. Inftead of circumfcribing monarchy within reasonable bounds; inftead of retaining what would have been able to protect, without being able to injure liberty, they at last set up a commonwealth upon the ruins of the former goverment. The dangers they had juft efcaped, from the arbitrary and violent adminiftration of kingly power: the want of a proper model by which they might temper, without destroying that form of government, will, to every reasonable man greatly alleviate, though they will not justify the measures of the Commons. In the profecution of the civil war, as well as in the steps that led to it, it would be abfurd to place the whole blame on the one fide. It is fufficient for our purpose, that we are able, with full evidence, to find out the aggreffor. When the people have fucceeded in bursting the chains of tyranny, to fuppofe they will always act with moderation to him, who has acted with fo little toward them, is to fuppofe them more than men. Our attachment however to the caufe of civil and religious liberty, should never hurry us into an approbation of the exceffes, committed by those who were enlifted in their fervice. Here, as in every tranfaction, we ought to feparate the means from the end, the evil from the good; and never to apologize for the one, by the fanctity of the other. At the conclufion of the war, the King, having no other recourse, fled to the Scots, by whom he was most difhonourably fold to the English parliament. But that affembly did not long enjoy the fruits of their victory. Their own fervants, with very little ceremony difmiffed them, them, and took the reins of government into their own hands. The kingdom was now ruled by an army, and the civil employments were parcelled out among its officers. By them, the trial of the King was conducted; and by them, that sentence was executed, of which the body of the nation declared their abhorrence. I faid, that the tragical end of this Prince is partly to be accounted for, by the circumstances of the time in which he lived. It must be confeffed that many of the arbitrary measures he adopted, were not peculiar to his government. From former reigns, it is easy to bring precedents totally fubverfive of a limited constitution. The genius of liberty was then afleep, and repeated fhocks were neceffary to awaken it. Now, men were roufed from their lethargy. They began to feel the rights of human nature; and were determined to defend them. It is but reasonable to fuppofe, that the keen fenfibility of indignities the temper of the nation began to discover, would be thought a fufficient course for increasing them, in order to crush at once, those principles of refiftance, whose future ftrength, many symptoms began to prognofticate. From thefe confiderations it is evident, that the opinion we form of Charles's tyranny, ought not to be taken from contrafting it with the liberty our happy conftitution cherishes. A conftitution fo tempered, nowhere existed; neither did the history of human fociety contain the perfect model of it. Much time, nay the wisdom of several ages was neceffary, to adjuft the different wheels in the political engine, to the prefent movements of power; that monarchy and liberty might co-operate, to the ftrength and beauty of the whole frame. Even after every reasonable allowance is made, a confiderable degree of blame muft remain on the memory of that unfortunate Prince. But let us, for a moment, suppose, that the oppreffions of his administration had been equalled in former reigns; where is the man who will tell us, that because our fa-thers had quietly worn the fhackles of tyranny, therefore it becomes us to forget, that we had received trom nature the rights of men; and that because they are taken from us by force, we ought to fit down contented without them. It is true, a celebrated hiftorian has thought proper to inform us, that "the praise bestowed 66 on thofe patriots, to whom the nation was indebted for "its privileges, ought to be given with some reserve; and furely without the least rancour against those, who ad"hered to the antient conftitution*." If, by the first part of this obfervation he mean that we ought not indifcriminately to praise their actions, he is certainly right, and the fame rule will apply to all men who ever lived. But it feems to be an improvement on the ordinary methods of inftruction, to tell a nation, that they muft praise their patriots with some reserve, because it is to them that they are indebted for their privileges. In the latter part of the fentence, I find he has availed himself of his usual arts, to impofe upon the reader's understanding; and perhaps to put the cheat likewise upon his own. "The praise bestowed on patriots," fays he, "ought to "be given, without the least rancour against thofe, who "adhered to the antient conftitution." Here, too, he is undoubtedly in the right, and by the dexterous fhuffling in of two words, gives us one idea for another. Suppose I should fay to any man, in order to enforce the practice of Chriftian charity: "your religion obliges "you to cultivate a temper, gentle and forgiving. Even 66 against the worst of mankind, it forbids you to enter"tain rancour and hate. Were Judas alive, you ought "to pity the wretch, not to follow him with spite." This doctrine is certainly clear, falutary, and confiftent. But were I to fay, "The praise you beftow upon the * Hume's Hift. of England, Appendix III. vol. v. p. 365. "Apostles, |