(3.) Hence may appear of how much importance it is, for a public man to guard against the spirit of the party to which he belongs; since otherwise he may be surprized into measures which he never meant to countenance. Under a notion of strengthening the hands of government, and maintaining social order, he may be led to injure the sacred cause of liberty; and, under the fair pretext of supporting the rights of men, and the privileges of citizens, he may abridge the necessary power of government, and open a door to general licence and anarchy. Let him, therefore, well study the genius of the party in which he is engaged, and how he may best guard against its irregularities. Should it be of a high prerogative or a high church complexion; let him endeavour to correct it by the sober doctrine of the rights and privileges of the people. Should it, on the other hand, have a tendency towards a democratic, a republican, and schismatical extravagance; let him try to moderate it, by insisting on the necessity of a prompt and uniform submission to the authority of the magistrate, and

on the importance of preserving a general decorum in our religious as well as civil concerns, in order to the maintenance of the public peace, and the advancement of the commonweal. Thus, in conjunction with any body of men who mean, on the whole, to promote the general welfare, he may acquit himself as becomes a good citizen, by a seasonable support or counteraction of its measures, and by his endeavours to correct its spirit by that of the constitution, and laws, and religion of his country.

4. The last rule I would suggest under this head is, To act liberally towards other parties.

(1.) Not to impute ill designs to a party, merely on account of its dissimilarity or opposi tion to our own. There is nothing more common than this among all parties, though nothing can be more illiberal, than to criminate others for no better reason than because they pursue not the same objects, or in the same way, with ourselves; as if the various position in which things are viewed by different persons, was not perfectly suf

ficient to account for their difference of opinion and conduct respecting them, without any harsh imputation either upon their understanding, or their sincerity. Nay, though the declarations and conduct of a party should be extremely dubious and exceptionable, and bear a very threatening aspect upon the state; this alone would not afford any infallible indication of bad designs. Of this I shall adduce two memorable examples from our own history. During the period between the restoration of Charles the Second and the revolution, the church of England was so lavish in her professions of passive obedience and non-resistance, as if she meant to sacrifice the national liberty to an ostentatious loyalty, and to her resentments against the puritans: yet, at the eve of the latter great event, when the misguided James the Second laid claim to a power of dispensing with the laws of the land, in order to let in upon it a deluge of popish superstition, the same church, in a noble contradiction to the slavish doctrines she had before so disgracefully maintained, was the first to erect a standard against him.

The second example fell under the reign of the unhappy father of the above princes, when the puritanic party engaged in a civil war, which, through the prevalence of a fanatical faction that sprang up among them, at length terminated in the destruction both of the king and the monarchy; quite contrary to the design of the first actors, as evidently appears from their conduct at the time, and from the principal part they sustained in the restoration of the monarchy, by the recal of Charles the Second. Now had the puritans, in the former instance, charged the church party as votaries of arbitrary power; or, in the other, had the church charged the puritans as determined republicans and sworn enemies to monarchy, the event would, in either case, have shown the accusation to have been groundless. Both of them alike displayed, in the hour of trial, their firm attachment to the same glorious cause; which may teach a lesson of mutual candour and moderation to their successors at the present important period; and induce them to unite in every regular and constitutional effort,

་

to secure and perpetuate, to the latest posterity, the laws, and liberties, and religion of their country.

(2.) It is not enough to forbear any false imputations upon a contrary party, without a readiness to bestow that just praise which belongs to it, or to any of its distinguished individuals. There is scarce any party without some laudable property; and this property a good citizen will cheerfully recognize, though it should be found on the side opposite to his own. It is laudable to guard against democratic licence and disorder; and this precaution he will readily commend, though he should be one of a popular party; and not severely condemn, though it should be extended beyond what the occasion might require. It is also laudable to watch against the tyranny of rulers; and this jealousy he will also mark with his approbation, and not rigorously censure, though it should be carried to some excess. Further, Whenever more than ordinary virtues and talents display themselves in an opposite party, (and he must be very partial to his own side not to suppose that this may often be