506 
King,” Lord B,. declares, and _ his il- 
lustrious pupil was equally ready to 
admit, “the institution of monarchy 
to be founded in the common rights 
and interests of mankind. So plain a 
matter (says the noble writer,) could 
never haye been rendered intricate and 
voluminous, had it not been for lawless 
ambition and extravagant vanity, 
abetted by adulation and superstition. 
In this case, therefore, as in all those 
of great concernment, the shortest and 
the surest method of arriving at real 
knowledge is to re-mount to first 
principles ; for, itis about them, that 
almost all the juggling and legerde- 
main employed by men, whose trade it 
is to deceive, are set to work. Now 
he who does so, will discover soon, 
that the notions concerning the divine 
institution and right of kings, as well 
as the absolute power belonging to 
their office, have no foundation in fact 
or reason, but have risen from an old 
alliance between ecclesiastical and 
civil policy. Priests have been taught 
by experience, that the best method to 
preserve their own rank, dignity, 
wealth, and power, all raised upon a 
supposed divine right, is to communi- 
cate the same pretension to kings. 
And in the state, as well as the church, 
these pretensions to a divine right 
have been generally carried highest by 
those who have had the least preten- 
sion to the divine favour.”—pp. 73-76. 
“God has instituted neither mo- 
narchy, nor aristocracy, nor demo- 
cracy, nor mixed government; yet, by 
the general laws of his kingdom, He 
exacts our obedience to the laws of 
those communities to which each of us 
is attached by birth, or to which we 
may be attached by a subsequent and 
lawful engagement. From such plain 
reasoning the just authority of kings, 
and the due obedience of subjects, 
may be deduced with the utmost cer- 
tainty : and surely it is far better for 
kings themselves to have their autho- 
rity thus founded on principles incon- 
testible, and on fair deductions from 
them, than on the chimeras of mad- 
men, or, what has been more common, 
the sophisms of knaves.”—p. 81-2. 
“ Reverence for government obliges 
to reverence governors who, for the 
sake of it, are raised above the level 
of othermen. But reverence for go- 
vernors, independently of government, 
any further ‘than reverence would be 
due to their virtues if they were private 
men, is preposterous and repugnant to 
Remarks on Lord Bolingbroke concluded. 
[July 1, 
common sense. As wellmight we say 
that a ship is built, and loaded, and 
manned, for the sake of any particular 
pilot, instead of acknowledging that 
the pilot is made for the sake of the 
ship, her lading, and her crew, who 
are always the owners in the political 
vessel, as to say that kingdoms were 
instituted for kings, not kings for king- 
doms. All this is as true of hereditary 
as of elective monarchy ; though the 
scribblers for tyranny, under thename 
of monarchy, would have us believe 
that there is something more august 
and more sacred in the one than the 
other. They are sacred alike; and 
this attribute is to be ascribed or not 
ascribed to them, as they answer or do 
not answer the ends of their institu- 
tion.”—p. 83. 
“Nothing can be more absurd in 
pure speculation than an hereditary 
right in any mortal to govern other 
men ; and yet, in practice, nothing can 
be more absurd than to have a king to 
chuse at every vacancy of a throne. 
For in elective monarchies these elec- 
tions, whether well or ill made, are 
often attended with such national ca- 
lamities that even the best reigns can- 
not make amends for them; whereas, 
in hereditary monarchy, whether a 
good or a bad prince succeeds, these 
calamities are avoided. We may la- 
ment the imperfections of our human 
state, which is such thatin cases of the 
utmost importance to the order and 
good government of society, we are 
reduced by the very constitution of 
our nature to have no part to take that 
our reason can approve absolutely, 
But, though we lament it, we must sub- 
mit to it. We must tell ourselves, 
once for all, that perfect schemes are 
not adapted to our imperfect state. 
As I think, therefore, a limited mo- 
narchy the best of governments, so I 
think an hereditary monarchy the best 
of monarchies. I say a limited mo- 
narchy, for an unlimited monarchy, 
wherein arbitrary will stands instead 
of all rule of government, must be al- 
lowed so great an absurdity that it 
seems fitter for savages than for civi- 
lized people.”—p. 85. 
“JT will say, with confidence, that 
no principles but these, and such as 
these, can be advanced which deserve 
to be- treated seriously; though Mr. 
Locke condescended to examine those 
of Filmer, more out of regard to the 
prejudices of the times, than the im- 
portance of the work. Thegood of the 
people 
