hence the political doctrines of Hobbes, who, though an innovator in philosophy, was a conservative in politics, and an enthusiastic lover of peace, greatly alarmed at the revolutionary spirit of his times. He attempted to supply a philosophical basis for these feudal notions of kingly right, and taught, that, men having once conferred absolute authority on a prince, as the only means of escaping out of an original and natural state of anarchy and private war, the right to govern thus conferred, like the original distribution of landed property, was morally indefeasible and for ever binding, and for precisely the same reason, to wit, the good of society. In more modern phrase, the right of the king to govern had become a vested right, which could not be disregarded without fatal consequences. Society, for its own benefit, had armed the prince with unlimited power, and for the sake of escaping the greater evils of perpetual anarchy, had consented beforehand to every thing he might do. Absolute power in the prince being essential to the welfare of society, no imaginable misconduct on his part could justify resistance to his authority, since the anarchy and universal war of men against each other, which must result from the overthrow of an established government, is a far greater evil than any isolated or temporary acts of oppression. The conclusion of Hobbes, though he was very little of a mystic, was precisely that of Luther. Princes are not responsible to their subjects, but only to God.

But though the right to rule was morally indefeasible, that is to say, not to be defeated without a

great violation of right, a great crime, Hobbes held, that, this crime being once committed, the usurper stood exactly in the position of the former ruler, and was equally entitled to implicit submission. In this point he departed from the feudal doctrine, for the sake of escaping those destructive wars of succession which had grown out of it.

The English clergy detested Hobbes's system of philosophy and morals not so much from any particular errors in it, as because, being founded upon reason and observation, and not upon authority, it struck a great and fatal blow at mysticism, and however narrow and erroneous in many particulars, yet tended directly and avowedly towards the emancipation of mankind from priestly domination. But they were delighted with his conservative politics, which seemed to tend the other way; and while they repulsed him with one hand, they caressed him with the other. This same odd procedure upon their part was repeated over again in the case of Hume, and for similar reasons.

8. Against Hobbes and the bishops, against the doctrines of the divine right, and of the indefeasible right of kings, it was argued by Locke and the English Whigs, that if kings and governments have rights as against their subjects, they have also duties towards them; duties for the performance of which they are responsible, not only to God, but to man; the non-performance of which duties works a forfeiture of their rights, and creates in the people a right of resistance and revolution.

9. But the English Whigs were aristocrats and

even monarchists; the friends of liberty and equality took higher ground. They availed themselves of the admission of Hobbes, that all men are naturally equal, and following in the footsteps of Locke, presently hit upon the idea of setting up the natural rights of men, as a counterpart to the divine right of kings, priests, and nobles. The terms, nature and natural rights, possessed a happy ambiguity very favorable to the spread of these new ideas. With those whom the instructions of their childhood, habit, and general consent, still kept adherents to the mystic hypothesis, nature was but another name for God, and natural rights were rights emanating from the Divine will; in fact, Divine rights. But while these terms corresponded so well to mystical ideas, they were also fully susceptible of a philosophic interpretation. Nature, in the philosophic sense, is the apparent constitution of things, such as men perceive and feel it; and natural rights are the rights which spring out of that constitution of things. According to the exposition of morality contained in this treatise, the Natural Rights of men are those benefits from others, and that abstinence on the part of others from the infliction of pains, which the average force of the moral sentiment gives us ground to expect. Of course, they are not fixed, but always varying with the varying average force of the sentiment of benevolence.

10. But the partisans of Natural Rights, ignorant of their true nature, that is, of the true foundation of moral distinctions, following the scholastic instead of the inductive method of reasoning, and anxious

to encounter the arrogant pretensions of kings, priests, and nobles, by corresponding pretensions on the part of the people, fell into paradoxes which exposed their doctrine to danger and disgrace. They attempted to set aside the indefeasible rights of kings maintained by their opponents, by setting up against them the doctrine of the absolute indefeasibility of all natural rights. Thus they pronounced life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be indefeasible and unalienable rights; a doctrine which has been justly characterized, when thus broadly laid down, as utterly anarchical; since, if these rights be really indefeasible, every restraint of any kind is against right; and government itself becomes a wrong. We have shown elsewhere how the assumption of the identity of benevolence and virtue leads to the same paradoxical results.*

* The leaders of the American and French Revolutions made great use of the doctrine of the Natural Rights of Man. They figure at length in the American Declaration of Independence, and in the American and French Constitutions. The authority of Rousseau, who was the most eloquent advocate of this doctrine, is well known to have been paramount during the early days of the French Republic. The mysticism with which Rousseau was so much imbued combined with other causes to produce in his followers a political fanaticism, which differed but in some trifling particulars from the religious fanaticism of two centuries previous. The idea of the public good in the one case, like the idea of the will of God in the other, almost extinguished any mercy for individuals considered hostile to those great objects. Robespierre, it is well known, was Rousseau's devoted disciple. He has been as much misrepresented and belied as ever Cromwell was, though far more honest. It has become the fashion to make him the scapegoat for all the crimes of the French Revolution. I am astonished to find such a writer as Carlyle pandering to so vulgar and unjust a prejudice. I am still more astonish

11. Laying aside, as untenable, the idea of indefeasible rights, whether natural or divine, either on the part of governors or the governed, the duties of good citizenship include all the duties of private morality; and in addition, a certain readiness to make sacrifices and to submit to pains and labors for the benefit of the community. It is this disposition. which we denominate Patriotism or Public Spirit. The ordinary degree in which it exists differs greatly under different forms of government. In theocracies and most absolute monarchies, it is hardly found at all. Under such governments, the ruling power is all, the community is nothing; and patriotism is replaced by obedience and loyalty. In aristocracies, among members of the privileged class, it frequently reaches a high pitch. In democracies it becomes diffused through the whole body of the people. In mystical systems of morals the virtue of patriotism is hardly recognized; in forensic systems the rank it holds in any given community depends. upon the extent, in that community, of political rights.

ed to find him lavishing so much admiration upon Mirabeau and Danton, men more showy, but not more able, and far below Robespierre in disinterestedness. Robespierre asked nothing for himself but power, which power he intended to use for the public good. Mirabeau and Danton wanted power just as much, but they wanted it as a means of amassing money to be lavished in luxurious indulgence. The leading idea of Robespierre was, the rescue of France from kings and aristocrats; the leading idea of the other two, to provide for themselves.

16*