other sense. And see, in this Newspaper before us', M. Portalis, contending for the Concordat, says-" The multitude are much more impressed with what they are commanded to obey, than what is proved to be RIGHT and JUST." This will be complete nonsense, if RIGHT and JUST mean Ordered and commanded.

H.-I will not undertake to make sense of the arguments of M. Portalis. The whole of his speech is a piece of wretched mummery employed to bring back again to France the more wretched mummery of Pope and Popery. Writers on such subjects are not very anxious about the meaning of their words. Ambiguity and equivocation are their strong holds. Explanation would undo them.

F.-Well, but Mr. Locke uses the word in a manner hardly to be reconciled with your account of it. He says "God has a RIGHT to do it, we are his creatures."

H.-It appears to me highly improper to say, that God has a RIGHT as it is also to say, that God is JUST. For nothing is Ordered, directed or commanded concerning God. The expressions are inapplicable to the Deity; though they are common, and those who use them have the best intentions. They are applicable only to men; to whom alone language belongs, and of whose sensations only Words are the representatives; to men who are by nature the subjects of Orders and commands, and whose chief merit is obedience.

F.-Every thing then that is Ordered and commanded is RIGHT and JUST!

two. Mr. Upton's edition, and Tonson's of 1758, follow the original reading-In one alone LEFT hand."

Mr. Todd has well explained the meaning of the passage; but is not at all aware that LEFT is equally a participle in both its applications.

But Mr. Todd no where shows himself a Conjurer.]

1 Morning Chronicle, Monday, April 12, 1802.

2 What Ariosto fabled of his horses, is true of mankind:

"Si che in poche ore fur tutti montati,

Che con sella e con freno erano nati."

Orl. Fur. canto 38, st. 34.

H.-Surely. For that is only affirming that what is Ordered and commanded, is-Ordered and commanded'.

F-Now what becomes of your vaunted RIGHTS of man? According to you, the chief merit of men is obedience and whatever is Ordered and commanded is RIGHT and JUST! This is pretty well for a Democrat! And these have always been your sentiments?

H.-Always. And these sentiments confirm my demo

cracy.

F. These sentiments do not appear to have made you very conspicuous for obedience. There are not a few passages, I believe, in your life, where you have opposed what was Ordered and commanded. Upon your own principles, was that RIGHT?

H.-Perfectly.

F-How now!

Was it Ordered and commanded that you should oppose what was Ordered and commanded? Can the same thing be at the same time both RIGHT and WRONG?

H.—Travel back to Melinda, and you will find the difficulty most easily solved. A thing may be at the same time both RIGHT and WRONG, as well as RIGHT and LEFT. It may be commanded to be done, and commanded not to be done. The LAW, Læg, Lag, i. e. That which is Laid down, may be different by different authorities.

1 [Dr. Taylor, in his Elements of Civil Law, erroneously condemns Ulpian's Definition of the Law of Nature. The Doctor's error springs from his not having been aware of the meaning of the words JUS, REC

TUM, LEX.

Jus naturale est quod Natura omnia animalia docuit." Digest, book 1. tit. 1. law 1. parag. 3.

Instead of docuit, he might have said JUSSIT.]

2 In an action for damages the Counsel pleaded,-" My client was travelling from Wimbledon to London: he kept the LEFT side of the road, and that was RIGHT. The plaintiff was travelling from London to Wimbledon he kept the RIGHT side of the road, and that was

WRONG.

"The rule of the road is a paradox quite.

In driving your carriage along,

If you keep to the LEFT, you are sure to go RIGHT;

If you keep to the RIGHT, you go WRONG."

I have always been most obedient when most taxed with disobedience. But my RIGHT hand is not the RIGHT hand of Melinda. The RIGHT I revere is not the RIGHT adored by sycophants; the Jus vagum, the capricious command of princes or ministers. I follow the LAW of God (what is Laid down by him for the rule of my conduct) when I follow the LAWS of human nature; which, without any human testimony, we know must proceed from God: and upon these are founded the RIGHTS of man, or what is ordered for man. I revere the Constitution and constitutional LAWS of England; because they are in conformity with the LAWS of God and nature: and upon these are founded the rational RIGHTS of Englishmen. If princes or ministers or the corrupted sham representatives of a people, order, command, or lay down any thing contrary to that which is ordered, commanded or laid down by God, human nature, or the constitution of this government; I will still hold fast by the higher authorities. If the meaner authorities are offended, they can only destroy the body of the individual; but can never affect the RIGHT, or that which is ordered by their superiors'.

CHAPTER II.

OF ABSTRACTION.

F. WELL, Well. I did not mean to touch that string which vibrates with you so strongly: I wish for a different sort of

1 ["Quædam JURA non scripta, sed omnibus scriptis certiora."Seneca (the father) I. Controv. 1. quoted by Dr. Taylor in his Elements of Civil Law, p. 241. CUSTOм.

"Ante Legem Moysi scriptam in tabulis lapideis, LEGEM fuisse contendo non scriptam, quæ naturaliter intelligebatur; et a patribus custodiebatur."-Tertullian. adversus Judæos, edit. Rigalt. p. 206.—Also quoted by Dr. Taylor.

"No custom can prevail against right reason, and the law of nature." -Dr. Taylor, Elements of Civil Law, p. 245.

Again, p. 246: "The will of the people is the foundation of custom. But if it be grounded not upon reason, but error, it is not the will of the people. Quoniam non velle videtur, qui erravit."]

information. Your political principles at present are as much out of fashion as your clothes.

H.-I know it. I have good reason to know it. But the fashion must one day return, or the nation be undone. For without these principles, it is impossible that the individuals of any country should long be happy, or any society prosperous.

F.-I do not intend to dispute it with you. I see evidently that, not He who demands RIGHTS, but He who abjures them, is an Anarchist. For, before there can be any thing RECT-um, there must be Reg-ens, Reg's, Rex', i. e. Qui or Quod Reg-it. And I admire more than ever your favourite maxim of―Rex, Lex loquens; Lex, Rex mutus. I acknowledge the senses he has given us the experience of those senses-and reason (the effect and result of those senses and that experience)—to be the assured testimony of God: against which no human testimony ever can prevail. And I think I can discover, by the help of this etymology, a shorter method of determining disputes between well-meaning men, concerning questions of RIGHT: for, if RIGHT and JUST mean ordered and commanded, we must at once refer to the order and command; and to the authority which ordered and commanded.

But I wish at present for a different sort of information. Is this manner of explaining RIGHT and JUST and LAW and DROIT and DRITTO peculiarly applicable to those words only, or will it apply to others? Will it enable us to account for what is called Abstraction, and for abstract ideas, whose existence you deny?

H.-I think it will: and, if it must have a name, it should rather be called subaudition than abstraction; though I mean not to quarrel about a title.

The following lines have more good sense than metre :
"Dum Rex a regere dicatur nomen habere,

Nomen habet sine re, nisi studet jura tenerc."

So Judicans.

Vindicans.
Ducens.

Indicans.

S'implicans.

Duplicans.

Sup-plicans.

Judic's. Judix. Judex.

Vindic's. Vindix. Vindex.

Duc's. Dux.

Indic's. Indix. Index.

Simplic's. Simplix. Simplex.
Duplic's. Duplix. Duplex.

Supplic's. Supplix. Supplex, &c.

2 [Buchanan, De Jure Regni apud Scotos.]

The terms you speak of, however denominated in construction, are generally (I say generally) Participles or Adjectives used without any Substantive to which they can be joined; and are therefore, in construction, considered as Substantives. (aliquid) Act-um.

An Act
A Fact

(aliquid) Fact-um.

Such words compose the bulk of every language. In English those which are borrowed from the Latin, French, and Italian, are easily recognized; because those languages are sufficiently familiar to us, and not so familiar as our own: those from the Greek are more striking; because more unusual but those which are original in our own language have been almost wholly overlooked, and are quite unsuspected.

These words, these Participles and Adjectives, not understood as such, have caused a metaphysical jargon and a false morality, which can only be dissipated by etymology. And, when they come to be examined, you will find that the ridicule which Dr. Conyers Middleton has justly bestowed upon the Papists for their absurd coinage of Saints, is equally applicable to ourselves and to all other metaphysicians; whose moral deities, moral causes, and moral qualities are not less ridiculously coined and imposed upon their followers.

It will easily be perceived, that we adopt the whole Latin word, omitting only the sequent Latin Article; because we use a precedent Article of our own. For a similar reason we properly say-The Corun, and not the Al-coran.