ee ee 
$76 On the Words Rebel and Infidel. 
Greek ; fo corrects it to wécou t-te, and 
falls into the error I have juft expofed. 
Mr. Jacobs, in a note upon the Anthology, 
approves of Lennep’s correction. Let us 
try to defend the vulgar reading by a 
quotation from Ariftophanes, Eq. 478. 
Tlaig otv. 6 Typde 2y Borwreis Hoc; but, fee 
what a general prejudice has taken place 
in behalf of wécou againft poor waco! Ge- 
yard Horreus would read mécau 3 6 rupice 
This conje&ture Pierfon (on Moeris, p. 
4.24.) refutes by producing Acharn. 768. 
Ti Gado, Meyapot was 6 civos aos; to 
which when your readers have added a 
fragment of Strattis (apud Polluc. iv. 
169-) TAY ZAGh tety wig Ewarouy 5 TEerTA- 
pov Apaypedy udricra sav xddiov, they will 
confent to let Machon and Ariitcphanes 
enjoy their old reading. Iam, Sir, &c. 
OG. 11,1802. JouN Nic. Dawes. 
ee 
Ta the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
MONG the various ways practifed 
by mankind of injuring and infult- 
ing each other, a common one is the ap- 
plication of certain terms in a reproachtul 
fenfe, which are in their own nature in- 
different, and imply criminality only as 
ufed by the ftronger party relatively tothe 
weaker. I fhall explain my meaning by 
the inflance of two words, which ftand 
prominent in political and religious difpu- 
tation, viz. rebel and infidel. 
Rebel is by derivation a term perfectly 
neutral in a moral fenfe—rebellare, to fight 
again, Indeed, it rather implies refiftance 
than agereffion: and though the mean- 
ing now afhxed to it is * refiftance to lawful 
or efiablifhed authority, yet it is eafy to 
difcern, that this fignification has arifen 
from fuch authority,”’ as being originally 
derived from conquef?. A rong and mar- 
tial nation invades a weak neighbour ; 
they are oppofed, they prove victorious in 
the conteft, and the vanquifhed, to avoid 
utter ruin or extirpation, make a tempo- 
rary fubmiffion. Prefently, oppreflion 
and infult inflame their paffions, they be- 
come afnamed of their former want of 
{pirit, they re-affume their arms, and drive 
away their tyrants. It is nowin the order 
of things that they fhould be termed re- 
bels, and their manly attempt to recover 
their rights a rebellion, expofing them to 
all the penalties of high treafon. Thus 
it was that the Romans, who had per- 
fusded themfelves that univerfa] dominion 
was their natura! and indefeafible right, 
treated all the people wha did not, after 
z 
icepticilm with which the fight of the 
pL S ag" 1, 
the firt trial, fubmit quietly to the law of 
the ftrongeft; and their generals never 
hefitated to put to death all the magiftrates, 
and fell for flaves all the people, of a ftate 
which, after once acquiefcing in their 
ufurped authority, endeavoured to regain 
its independence. The Great Nation of 
the prefent day feems fully difpofed to 
adopt this principle of the jus gentium ; 
and we fhall probably foon fee the unfor- 
tunate Swifs denounced as rebels in a /ena- 
tus-confultum dittated by the Great Con- 
ful. But, although this term may at 
pleafure be affixed by fovereign power, it 
is fuccefs alone that muft decide upon the 
permanency of its application. Moft of 
us may remember the peremptory tone 
in which the name of rebels was pro- 
nounced againft the Americans at the earl 
period of their revolt. In the faft-day 
prayers, the Almighty was folemnly told, 
that we confidered them as fuch, and 
hoped he would do the fame. The po+ 
litenefs of General Gage deftined Mefirs. 
Hancock and Adams ‘* to the cord ;”” 
and the Heffians treated Yanky geefe and 
turkeys as declared rebels wherever they 
met with them. After Burgoyne’s cap- 
ture, the term began to lofe ground: in 
the prayers, the Americans were ‘¢ our de- 
luded fellow-fubjeéts ;°* and in the ga- 
zettes, fimply ‘* provincials.”” ‘The bufi- 
nefs terminated in their being ‘* the United 
States :°’ and the rebellion was converted 
into a revolution. A late rebellion has been 
lefs fuccefsful, and therefore has retained 
its name. 
Infidel, unbeliever, incredulous, alk equal- 
ly imply a deficiency of faith or belief 5 
but, with relation to what, or in what de- 
gree, they do not exprefs: they are, there- 
fore, properly middle or neutral terms. 
Yet, the firft of thefe terms has been con= 
verted into the moft opprobrious of appel- 
lations. ‘‘ Thou infidel dog (fays the 
Turk to the Chriftian, Jew, or Idolater), 
thou enemy to God and his prophet ! 
choofe between tribute, the {word, or the 
Koran.’’ Meantime, the Chriftian preaches 
a crufade againft the infidel Mahometan, 
and burns the infidel Jew at aiftake. I 
remember a pamphlet, written by an Ox- 
ford doétor, in which, with the true fpirit 
of his fchool, the writer called that zealous 
defender of revelation, Dr. Prieftley, * a 
bufy infidel.”* Probably both doétors 
would concur.in Jamenting the zufidelity 
of the age; in which they would be joined 
by the pious catholic, who would exem+ 
plify the faé&t, by remarking the criminal 
holy 
