EQUALITY. 
tute the will of the community; and men will more cheer¬ 
fully and readily obey laws which they, by their repre- 
fentatives, have concurred in making, than thofe which 
are impofed by arbitrary controul, and in the eftablifh- 
ment of which they had no concern. Arbitrary meafures 
at once deftroy the fundamental principles of civil focie- 
ty, and militate completely againft the propofition, “ that 
men are equal in point of natural rights.” That this fpe- 
cies of equality ought to be maintained and admitted in 
all governments, there can be no doubt, becaufe all men 
are left at liberty by their Creator to exert the faculties and 
talents which he has given them, in purfuing their own 
proper happinefs, according to thofe modes which appear 
bed to their own calm and fober reafon, affifted by the 
reafon of others, and by the revelation which he has made 
known to them. In the fight of God, every man, with¬ 
out exception, is juftified, if he defends this liberty in 
himfelf; and every man is condemned, if he attack it in 
another. In this refpeft, all menare equal and on a level: 
whence it follows, that no man is bound to obey any mere 
human laws, but thofe to which he has previoully alTent- 
ed ; or in other words, every man has a right to govern 
himfelf, or to be governed by his own confent; and which 
confent is either exprefsly or tacitly acknowledged in the 
formation of every free conftitution. 
Equality in right, as thus explained, is, indeed, fo far 
from being a novelty, that it is the balls of that excellent 
conftitution under which we have the happinefs to live ; 
and fo obvious is this principle of right, that profeflTor 
Brown maintains, though it may appear paradoxical, “that 
an equality the moft exadt and perfect, in refpedl of every 
moral and focial obligation, fpringsfrom inequality itfelf.” 
In this light, the profeffor feems to confider thefe rights, 
when he obferves that there are certain principles fo 
ftrongly interwoven with the human frame, fo intimately 
blended with its effence, fo efficient of all that is human, 
that the violation of them cannot be regarded in any other 
refpedt than in that of a degradation, nay, an entire ex- 
tinftion, of the diftindlive attributes of the human cha- 
rafter. Of confequence, (he adds,) every man ftipulates, 
by entering into fociety with his fpecies, that the enjoy¬ 
ments grounded on thefe principles, or, in other words, 
the rights which attach to them as the gifts of God to his 
rational creatures, {hall be maintained to him inviolate, 
and referves to himfelf the privilege of defending them 
at all hazards, whenever it is attempted to wreft them 
from him. For, as every human being is a conftituent 
member of the focial body, he is, while he difeharges the 
duties incident to his peculiar capacity, entitled, equally 
with every other, to the grand prerogatives of human 
nature, which civil fociety is intended to maintain and 
improve. Thefe rights are the neceftary appendages of 
that equality, which fubftfts among all men, amidft the 
diverfities which fociety'and civilization have introduced. 
Civil fociety, therefore, does not neceflarily make any 
one member of the community either the mafter or the 
flaveof his fellow-citizens, but only confirms the relations 
whichalready exifted. Infteadof thuselevating fomeabove 
others, it places all on an equal footing, by making 
all equally fubjedt to the common authority of the laws, 
which conftitute the will of the community. This, fays 
Dr. Paulus, is the only objedl of fociety which concurs 
with the precepts and defign of our Saviour and his apof- 
tles. Chriftianity is founded on univerfal brotherly love, 
and commands men to love their fellow mortals as them- 
felves ; that is, to live as in a fraternal fociety of equals. 
Our own Englifh laws delight in equality : for whatever 
offence be committed againft them, whether of murder, 
of fraud, or of mifdemeanour, either by the peer or the 
peafant, the punifhment of the crime admits of no diftinc- 
tion, fo precifely equal do the culprits (land. In affairs at 
corflmon law, equality of rights is fcrupuloufly maintain¬ 
ed ; fo that when a charge is made againft any one perfon, 
and divers ought to bear it, he fhall have relief againft the 
reft. 2 Rep. 25. And where a man leaves a power to 
Von. VI. Mo. 399. 
877 
his wife to give an eftate among three daughters, in fuch 
proportions as (lie fhall think fit : it has been held that 
file muft divide it equally-, unlefs good reafon be given for 
doing othervvife. Preccd. Cane. 256. And in our courts of 
equity it is a maxim , that “ equality is equity.” 
Francis's Maxims, Jol. 9. With refpedt to that perverted 
dodlrine of univerfal equality among men, which would level 
all diftindlions, and divide equally the goods of fortune, 
the principles of it are fo abfnrd, fo incompatible with 
reafon, and fo utterly impoffible to every (late and condi¬ 
tion of fociety, that we might well be furprifed how the 
public mind could for one moment be deluded by it. On 
this fubject M. Turgot has fatisfadtorily fhewn, that in¬ 
equality in the divifion of property inevitably flows from 
natural caufes. His principles are clear, and his argu¬ 
ments convincing. They are well worth the confideration 
of thofe who think that an equal diftribution of a man’s 
eftate between his children would banifh from the world 
that inequality of fortune, which has always exifted in 
fociety. This may indeed be combated on a moral prin¬ 
ciple : phyfical principles are however too ftubborn to 
give way to what may be called moral propriety. M. 
Turgot’s argument is as follows:—“ The primeval or 
original proprietors would occupy as much land as their 
ftrength would permit them with their families to culti¬ 
vate. A man of greater ftrength, more laborious, more at¬ 
tentive about the future, would occupy more than a man of 
a contrary character. He, vvhofe family is the moft numer¬ 
ous, having greater wants and more hands, extends his pof- 
feflions farther ; this is a firft caufe of inequality. Every 
piece of ground is not equally fertile ; two men with the 
fame extent of land, may reap a very different harveft ; 
this is a fecond fource of inequality. Property in de¬ 
fending from fathers to their children, divides into 
greater or lefs portions, according as the defendants are 
more or lefs numerous, and as one generation fucceeds 
another, fometimes the inheritances again fubdivide, and 
fometimes re-unite again by the extinction of fome of the 
branches ; this a third fource of inequality. The differ¬ 
ence of knowledge, of adtivity, and, above all, the ceco- 
nomy of fome, contrafted with the indolence, inadtion, 
and diffipation, of others, is a fourth principle of inequa¬ 
lity, and the moft powerful of all : the negligent and 
inattentive proprietor, who cultivates badly, who in a 
fruitful year, confumes in frivolous things the whole of 
his fuperfluity, finds himfelf reduced on the leaft accident 
to requeft affiflance from his more provident neighbour, 
and to live by borrowing. If by any new accident, or 
by a continuation of his negligence, he finds himfelf not 
in a condition to repay, he is obliged to have recourfe to 
new loans, and at laft has no other'refource but to aban¬ 
don a part, oreven the whole, of his property to his credi¬ 
tor, who receives it as an equivalent; or to affign it to 
another, in exchange for other valuables with which he 
difeharges his obligation to his creditor.”—Hence it fol¬ 
lows moft clearly, that if all the individuals now on the 
face of the earth were to be made equal in the prefent 
hour, they could not poffibly be found fo in the next. 
Yet an apparently ingenious writer, Mr. Pilkington, in¬ 
fills, that by following the benevolent precepts of our 
blefled Saviour, in diftributing our property among thofe 
who are deftitute, it would foon annihilate all difference 
of rank and condition, and quickly eftablifh univerfal 
equality ainonglt men. If this writer could but enforce 
his opinion, many perfons'would think him, inftead of an 
advocate for an equality of rights, a much more formidable 
opponent than even Thomas Paine. A propofition fo 
chimerical may fuit the poor ; but it will never operate 
upon the rich, particularly while a man may be as good a 
Chriftian with twenty tkoufand pounds, as wirh twenty pounds 
a-year. But that this dodlrine of univerfal equaldy is not 
only mifehievous in its operation, but completely falfe in 
fadt, is fhewn in very linking colours by the Rev. Dr. 
Rennell, mafter of the Temple, in his difeourfes, lately 
publiflied. We fhall give the paflage in his own words 
jo O “ AS 
