Dunlap's Pennsylvania packet , The general advertiser — Philadelphia, Pa., 1776-04-08 00:00:00, page 2

off our hands: a'l this can be removed by thealii
ancc prop ped. But Caro fees this would eternally
frustrate the deficits of his party : lie has therefore
laboured by every artifice d cunning, to prevent
our raking any tlep of the kind, tie hopes the coun
try will nv this means be brought to submit ; and he
will triumph in our folly But where is the real
dinger to our liberties, Cato, in accepting the a(-
tirtince of a neighbouring iLet, until we have time
to hr out one tor the purpole ? Were we to do this
would not agriculture ahd commerce flourdh as ulna?
" That much of our former tflinty was owing
" to tie protection of England, is not to be deui
" ci; anl that we might frill derive great aclvan
" tages from her protection and frimdfh p, ij not
" valued at too hi, a price, is equally ce tains" fays
Cito. I could pardon a tew lfraeliti(h'inurmu<in; s,
a.I hankerings for toe onions of £E gypt ; but to be
incetfmdy called b ick to what we enjoyed while Jo
seph lived, when behold a Pharoah now reigns who
knew him not, is intuit not to be endured. Cato
cannot pretend ignorance of the price of the friend
ship he id Rrongiy urges us to comt. If he does, he
is certainly a very dingerous guide for the good peo
ple to whom his letters are addreffel. C.ffindra af
fi ms the price is no id's fan an abfohtte farrender of
alitor Rights, Liberties ahJ Property; and these or.ee
given up, he would gladly be normed wht mme
is left for any power to invade ? All animals, under
'Abfolute domination, are nursed only t? befleeced ; how
ever problematical may be the question of surfing
the Colonies, we have had the fleecing dem >nltratrd
with a vengeance. Cato adds, " If the prefect dis
" Ferenses can be accommodated, there is /Arie a
" probability tbit the will ever renew the \\tefa'al
" bftem of policy, or attempt to employ force against
" us." Two reasons induce me to think the mode
of attack would indeed be altered : for obstinate as
the author of our oppreflions is, he cannot longer
slitter himfelf of our t tiling an easy prey to his force,
Q now incessantly continued; his clemency would
then certainly dispose him. in, graciify, to enslave
us by his experienced much more iucccLfol meth id
of intrigue. Bat as Cato allows it is not altogether
improbable th t his force may be employed against
us in fume future day ; Cadandra would gladl, be
informed oy what means we can be secured from
that force, when by the treaty of protection we are
cut off from the right of eßablilhing a force of our
oan.
Conscious that this poor contrivance is prodigi
ous dale, a tb^ufand times repeated, and as often,re
filled by most rtubborn arguments, founded on
twelve years invariable procedure, and really dc,
fyairing to hold the people long in expectation of
' former proteaion; or any more than a mere delu
fue change of the mode of attack, and that change
as ill disguised as any that have preceded it: Cato
adds, as if all were one connected propofit on; if
they will not make up on constitutional principles,
6 we have arms in our hands, and virtue enough to
' use them.' As to corruption, Cato would have us
believe there is hardly a man on the Continent in
danger from that quarter. Would to God we had
abundant evidence of this universal integrity! Re
fptdi ig the aims, Cato, with much devotion, I
p.aife the Director of human affairs that we have
them in our funds; and I pray and confide in his
over-ruling providence, that we may there keep
them till our Rights are placed on a firmer founda
tion than the mere grace of the contriver at the de-
Itru&ion of millions on one fide the globe, and con
triver of the devaluations now daily committing on
the other. Well might Cato tell us of our arms;
for he clearly forefaw that no wife man could con
ceive himbif fafe in reconcilement on bis principles
without holding them in his hands continually. This
paragraph, after flourishing away on the original
ground of the contest. concludes, " and if, here
" after, in fulnefs of time, it shall be thought ne
" ceflkry to Separate from the land that gave birth
“ to our ancestors, it will be in our perfect Rate of
" manhood, when we can wield our arras, and pro
“ te& our commerce and coatis by cur own fleets,
<' w.chont looking to any nation on earth for assist
" ance." Well laid, Cato! Here we agree for
once. But now, that we are on good terms with
each other, let me ask you, in a friendly manner,
how we are to become mailers of this fine fleet ?
Does Cato propose to infill upon it as a term of con-
Jiitutional reconciliation with the Ambassadors
that we shall be allowed to build such a fleet ? Or
does be conceive, that when we are arrived at just
twenty-one years of age and about to commence
house-keepers, our dear Mother Country will make
us a pre fentot such a fleet to set up with f I con
fefs myfelf greatly incredulous of either !If Cato
can clear up my doubts on these important heads I
will be much obliged to him.
ft has been offerted, fays Cato, “ that we are
able, with our land forces to defend ourfilves against
the whole world—that if commerce be an advantage
We may command what foreign alliance we pleafe—
that the moment we declare ourselves an independ
ent people, there are nations ready to face the Bri
tish thunder and become carriers of our commodi
ties to enrich themfelvest and if this were not the
case we can soon build navies to force and prote&
a trade, &c." Of this, Cato here intimates his fuf
y;cion because, fays he, it is not fully proved.
Cassandra will prove the fill assertion from un
questionable authority; for Cato in his fourth letter
fays, “ I will even go beyond him in expressing
my good opinion of our situation. He thinks fo
reign assistance necessary to us; I think otherwise.
We are able t® defend our own right and to frustrate
the attempt of any nation upon earth, to govern us
by farce." Chandra hopes in a short time to prove
every affirtion of Common Sen, from the fame au
thotiri ; he wishes every petition of Cato was equal
ly confident with Common Sente.
P. S. As the Common Man has called us to a fair
difeuffion of the point, we Once for all lequeft every
Printer on the Continent who publishes Cato's let
ters to publish our replies, and particularly Mr.
Joiner, of Germartwwn, triat the fuQ& may not
Only have a full discussion, but a fair hearing.
CASSANDRA.
To the PEOPLE of PENNSrLKKNIK.
LETTER VL
IN the conclusion of my last letter, I charged
the author of Common Sense with perverting
the Scripture in his account of the origin of the
%wi, monarchy. I proceed to offer some re
marks, in flipport of that charge.
“ Monarchy," fays he, (meaning probably the
institution of monarchy) " is ranked in Scripture
" as one of the fins of the Jews, for which a curie
“ in reserve is denounced against them. The his
" tory of that transaction" (either the transaction
of monarchy, or the transition of denouncing a
curse in reserve) " is worth attending to."
This confufed proposition he en fervours to ef
tablifli, by a commentary (upon I Samuel, ch. 8 )
full as far-fetch'd and ridiculous,ashe will probably
fay mine is upon the prophecy of Mount Seir. But
this matter must be treated more ferioufy, for the
fake of a country, in which (God be thanked) the
Scriptures are read and regarded with that reverence
which is due to a revelation from Heaven ; I must
therefore endeavour to refuse, out of our author's
hands, that portion of thefacred hiftery, which he
has converted into a libel against the civil confti
turion of Great Britain; and Ihew in what sense
the passage has been univer ally received, as well
by flie jews rbemfelves, as by commentators ve
nerabie for their piety and learning, ih every
Christian country.
The Jews were long priviledged with a pecu
liar form of government, called a Theocracy; under
, which the " Almighty either stirred up some per
“ son, by an immediate lignification of his will,
“ to be their judge ; or, when there was none,
" ruled their proceedings himfelf, bv Urim and
" Thummim, directing what course they r vere to
" follow in the public concerns of the nation."" But
they were of an ungovernable temper, fond of
po/np as well as dominion over their neighbours ;
and, being disgusted with the mifeopdutt of Sa
muel's sons, whom, in his old age, he had appoint
ed his affiPant-judges over Ifiael, they came to
him, and intreated him to appoint a King, who
might rule their nation, and avenge them of the
Philistines. Samuel, deeply afflided at the impi
ous design they entertained of rejelling the divine
government, praysto the Almighty for directions ;
who authorizes him to hearken to their voice ; for
they have not rejected thee, but they have receded me
(fays God) that Ifhould not reign over them. He
allo inftruas Samuel to enter a solemn protest
against them for their folly and ingratitude, in pre
ferring a human to a divine government ; and to
foew them the manner of the Ring that foal! reign
over them, free they defined a King to judge them
like all the nations.
Now, all the nations, which they knew, were
ruled by Kings whole arbitrary will flood in
the place of law; and it appears also that the
Jews, since the day that they were brought out of
Egypt, had still retained a particular hankering af
ter the customs of that country. The Almighty,
therefore, by his prophet, not only lignifies his dif
pieafure against all such arbitrary rulers, but
against every people why would impidufly and foo
lilhly prefer such a government, to one immediate
ly under himfelf, where, in his providence, he
might think fit to appoint such a one. And so far
I have no difference with our author. But Samu
el proceeds further to reason with the Jews, and
in the 12th chapter, reminds them of the many
deliverances which God had given them, by the
hands of their judges, Moles, Jepthah, Gideon,
&c. having with a strong hand, brought them out
of Egypt; having lubdued the Assyrians, Ammo
nites, Moabites and Philistines before them ; and
that, for all this, they preferred a government even
after the most corrupt models, to his just and
righteous government. And, to convince them
still further of their folly and ingratitude, the pro
phet appeals to a signal, which he would give
them from Heaven. He accordingly calls down
an uncommon storm, in the midst of Harvest, and
the afto^ifhed multitude cry out—we have ad
ded TO CVR SIN THIS EVIL TO ASK US A
King.
Here our author erells his flandard ; and here
he compliments himfelf with the mockery of tri
umph. “ These portions of Scripture (fays he,
“ in all the assurance of infallibility) are direct
“ and positive. They admit of no equivocal con
“ ftru^ion. That the Almighty hath here
" entered his protest against monarchical go
" vernment is true, or the Scripture is falfe."
—But I will take the liberty to fry that the Scrip
ture is true and that this author's inference is
fhamefully falfe; nay further, that fromthewhole
spirit of the palTage, as well as the reason of things,
it is to be inferred that the Almighty would have
as ftrqngly expressed his displeasure against the
Jew^, had they rejected his government tor one of
their own appointment ; whether monarchical or
democratic^! —whether it had been to be admi
niftered by one man or a thousand men.
The author had laid before, that Samuel did
not shew the manner of any 66 particular King,
" but the general manner of the Kings of the Earth,
" whom Israel was so eagerly copying after." If
he means to confine himfelf to these Kings, I have
given them to him to make the most of them. But
if he means to argue from particulars to generals,
and to make the old prophet extend his protefl
against all monarchical governments, such as were
to subsist some thousands of years afterwards,
however limited and mixt, particularly that of
Great-Britain (which must certainly be our au
thor's meaning, or he proves nothing to his pur
pose) I fay, if this be his meaning, 1 cannot so ea*
fily part with him. For in this lies our whole dif
ference ; and the particular case of the Jews can
not be applied to any other nation, in this instance,
as none else was ever in similar circumstances.
Acherley, in his Britannic conßitutionS (and
I think our author borrows some of his principles,
where they can serve his purpose) fays exprelsly
—“ That the nations round abdut Israel veiled
" their Kings with absolute power —and that it is
“ a wild imagination to fay that the Ifraelitifh
" Kings, who were but copies (of these Kings)
“ Should either in their election or power, be a
" pattern to Great-Britain"—“ There cannotbe
“ found, either in the old or new Testament, any
“ particular description of the race of men whi^
^ are or ever were Kings of this nation." How
then can there be a Scripture protest against a race
of men who are not even described in Scripture?
Mark ft that Common Serrfe.
Let me add one authority more, from a commen
tator at least as good as our author, and who, ne
vertheless, flatly contradills him—l mean the cele
brated Grotius. He tells us, that Samuel, in
this paflage, does not Speak of what our author
calls the “ general manner of Kings," orthe jtf
and honefl right of a King to do such things, be
cause his right is otherwise described ellewbere,
as shall be ihewn. The Prophet only freaks of
such a right as the Kings round about Israel had
acquired, which was not a true right ; for such is
* Lowth's Comment or) ^
, " Mark that Cato" is a favourite expression of
our author, in the character of the Fofeßef.
mot the lignification of the original word Mi,pet,
but such an allion as (being founded in might and
violence) hath the cfcNam juris, or comes in the
place of right.
Grotius, l fear, is too learned for us inferior
writers (fcriptores minorumgentium) to follow him
in this place. He is, however, well warranted
in Lis interpretation, not only by the Hebrew
text, but other clear pillages of fcripture,and par
ticularly the 17th chap, of Deuteronomy; where,
with the approbation of Heaven, the duty of a
good King is described and limited. The Jews
commonly understood this chapter as containing
an absolute promise from Heaven, of a royal go
vernment, and a fufoceot authority for this re
cueft made to Samuel more than three hundred
years afterwards. Others understood it condition
ally—that if they did reje& their divine govern
ment, and set up one of their own appointment,
God w®u'd permit them; but their King Should be
chosen in the manner, and with the qualifications,
in that chapter described. All this however, they
disregarded, when they afced an arbitrary King
like those oftheir neighbouring nations; and there
fore it is demonstrably certain that Samuel, in
entering his prote, against Inch Kings, did not
protest against Kings or monarchical governments
generally. Either this remark is true, cr one
part of Scripture is a direl lcontradiction to the
other. But let the paflage to which I refer, speak
for itfelf.
When thou art come into the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee —ind dealt fay I will set a King
over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
thou foalt in any wife Jet him King over thee, whom
the Lord thy God foall chufe; one from among thy
brethren, not a flranger, &c. It is further direct
ed that he Shall not be given to covetoufnefs—
nor multiply horses —nor wives to himfelf —nor
greatly multiply to himfelf gold and,lvor —That
when he Shall lit upon the throne of his kingdom, he
fcall write a copy of the law in a book (which it
was understood he was to do with his own hand=
1 hat this book shall be with him (or always car
ried about him) and he foall read therein all the
days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord,
his God, to keep the words , the law, and make it
the rule of his government, as well as private life.
If he does this, God promises a blefling on his
government, to prolong his days in his kingdom ; HE
and his children in the mid, &f Israel.
Does not this Smell strong of monarchy, and
even of hereditary monarchy ?. Is not some fort of
approbation, yea and a blefling, promised to both,
when religiously adminiftred, notwithstanding all
that this writer has said to the contrary ?
But he has not the candor to compare scripture
with scripture; nor does he give a single passage
compleat, and connected with the parts necefiary
to explain it—a clear proof that other craft may be
employed as well as King craft and Priefl-craft,
in with-holding the scripture from the people, even
in Protefant countries. Had our author proceed
ed a little further, or given the different passages
compleat, as he went along, it would have appear
ed that, notwithstanding the just displeasure of
the Almighty, and his prote, against the Jews for
throwing off his righteous government; yet as
mercy and forgivenefs are his chief delight, and
he knows there is no perfection in man, the mat
ter was pretty amicably fettled at last; and the
divine countenance given to the establishment of
monarchy, even in the person of Saul. God
himfelf directed his election and appoiptment;
and to prepare him for his office, gave him ano
ther heart, and also the spirit of prophesy. As to
the tbunder-ftotm, which our author exults in,
as an absolute difapprebation of all monarchical
governments, it Was no more than a sign, called
for by Samuel, to convince the people that he
spoke in the name of the Lord. But what did
he speak in the verses immediately preceding?
Not surely, that God had a particular quarrel
with monarchical government, as such, and that
" blood would attend it;" but rather the contra
ry- that since the Jews would still infill upon a
government of their own appointment, the, Al
mighty would yet give them a blessing under that
very form, upon condition of their obedience to
his law. If ye will fear the Lord, and serve him,
and obey bis voice, &c.— then Jha I both ye, and also
the King that reigneth over you, continue following
the Lord ; to which duty of following the Lord, a
blessing is always promised in scripture, But if
you will not obey, &c.—the hand of the Lord,call
be again, you; so it would have been exploited
for disobedience, had they not a,lked a King. And
immediately after the thunder-storm, Samuel con
firms this do&rine,and comforts the people. Fear
not, said he, although you have thus finned, the
Lord will not for,ike his people. Kt for me,
God forbid that 1 foould fa again, the Lord and
cease to pray for you—But I will inftruG you in
the good and right way. Thus it seems a good way
was yet to be found, under monarchical govern
ment. From all which it is plain, that the Al
mighty had now pardoned the Jews; and the pro
phet follows the example; promising still to pro
ceed in the difehargi of his duty among them, as
a people yet in covenant with God. But, as I
hinted before, it did not suit our author's purposes
to take notice of such passages as these; and be
has been guilty of still as great a perversion ofl'cri -
ture concerning David, whom God undeniably
approved of and appointed to monarchical rule.
“ The High encomium given of David, takes
" no notice of him officially as a King, but en'y
" as a man after God's own heart." I know the
poor equivocation which th^ author has here in
reserve, to offer for his facing that this character
was not given to David officially as a King, but as
aman. It is true, witen Samuel firft Applied the
character to David he had riot yet entered on his
office, as a King ; but it was predi&ed that the
kingdom should not be continued in the family of
Saul, because he had violated the law, and intru
ded himfelfinto the Prieftsduty, which did not
belong to him ; and therefore the Prophet tells him
that the Lord had fought him a man after hit own
heart, with the express design of making him the
successor of Saul, on account of his excellent an'd
god like difpofftioa. The Lord hath comwanded
him (this man after his c&n Lealt) to 1c C ,v
over bis people, because thou [Saul] k., rot k„
that which the Lord commanded thee. That me
man is here rejected from being a King, because
of his Hfobedience to God, and another choLu
as his successor, becaule of his goodness of heart
and regard to religion, is true, or scripture isfa,.
But one greater than Samuel, even St. Paul, puts
this beyond all doubt; and appropriates the enco
mium to David, not merely as a King eLG, but
one ecluahy exercifug the office. " When he hid
removed him (fays the Apostle, meaning Saul) he
raised up unto them David, to be their King, to
whom a, be gave tefimony and said, Ihave found
David the son o'f,e, a man after mine own heart,
which ,all fulfil all my will; namely, in his cha
racier of a King.
Numerous are the passages of scripture which
might be brought to shew that the Almighty ao
proved of David ffciilly as a King, on account of
his public virtues, and that a divine blefling was
given to the Jewish monarchy under hi s direction.
The reader may consult 2. Sam. chap. v. ver.
10. 12. chap. viii. ver. 6. 1. Kings, chap. viiL
ver. 16. Pf. 78th. ver. 70. 71. 72. Pf. 89th.
ver. 20. 28.
I have now done with our author on this head,
and can return one of his polite expressions “ I
despise him" equally as a perverter of scripture,
and of the fundamental principles of mixt govern
meat. I am threatened with being “ burned from
“ every laneand lurking hole." Hunt on. l
skulk in no such places, but keep the open streets."
“ Wait a Jittle," fay others—" Cato will soon
“ be found tripping and Tumbling upon Tory
" Doctrine, the divine right of Kings, non resist
“ ance, and thelike/' Well, Gentlemen ! wait
patiently, till it so happens; but let me, in the
mean time, have fair play. I claim it ofthe public,
as being engaged in a cause which is of the utmost
importance to them as well as to myfelf ; and
while I handle it decently, I con rely on their
candor.
I have got over what some may have viewed
as the mpft thorny part of my way ; and upon the
whole matter, I contend for this— That where a
people are left to chufe their own forms of government,
as has been the case of all the world for some thousand
years, there is 110 particular denunciation of God's
displeasure again, any Form whether Monarchi
al or Democratical, under which such a peo
ple may think their civil bappinefs be, faured, and
their duty to God be, performed.
Acherley shall again Shelter me in this con
clusion; which is the main purport ofthe present
letter. " Jesus Christ left all the potentates
“ of this world, and their fubjefls, to decide
“ their several rights by the temporal laws cf
“ each nation, and never intimated what form
'' OF GOVERNMENT WAS MOST CONVENIENT
" OR ELIGIBLE."
This directly contradicts our author, who fays
that the Almighty has entered his protest against
the particular form of monarch,. Yet Acherley
was a good whig, and desired to leave scripture
cut of the institution of modern governments. It
might be well for the author of Common Sen, to
follow the example, in his future works, without
Birring up an old dispute, of which our fathers
were long since wearied !
It has been asked—why does not Cato come to
the point? He is but jet in the faburbs —Softly,
Gentlemen ! If this be true, why do you, who
are in the citadel, make such a noise, and betray
such fears? cannot you let me purine the liege in
my own way ? I really thought that, if I could
sap cr overturn your foundations, the serial pait
of your fabric would tumble to the ground. You
call on me to shew my plan ? I have done it, and
mentioned, as such, a fafe return to a connexion
with our ancient friends and kindred, accompanied
with all the advantages we have formeriy experi
enced, and perhaps more; which I trust are things
yet praflicabe; or, if it Should prove otherwise,
we can lose nothing by the exercise of deliberation
and wisdom in the mean while.
But what have you done ? Although it was in
cumbent on you to have shewn the advantages of
your plan, to the great and refpeftable number
of good men, who will always he averse to chang
es, except in the last neoeffity; although you ought
to have resolved their honest doubts concerning
their future fafety and peace, which have been
plentifully thrown cut toyou ; in short, although
you ought to have counted the co, of year work,
and have tried toreconcile with your design, a
multitude of interefis, commercial, political, and
economical —you have only entertained us with
some loose declamations upon abuses in tire Eng
lish government; and flecked us, for want of
better arguments, by a perveTon oftbings sacred;
filling the papers with personal invectives, and
calumnies against ah who cannot swallow, at a ven
ture, every crude roriun, you ray cook u, as
the politics of the day. This will as little ag^e
with the from;cbs of others as with mine: although
I have declared that, when the last necessity conus
I have no expedient in view, but to tube my
chance with you, for better and for woife.
C A T 0.
For the PENNSYLVANIA I ACKET.
1 OBSERVE in the Packet^f the firfirßant,
X a paper direried to Cato, under the fgnatme
of the Lore,er, the intenti .-n of uhi:h appears to
be either th draw the attention of Cato from tl e
fabj^ of which be treats, to a mere peri.-ml al
tercation, or if that ftould fad, to intimidate 1 iro
and others, from a candid exammation ofthe
pieces uhjch have without any oppufition whate
ver, been Landed to the public in favour of Inde
pendence. Ibe abusive language with which ths
Writer begins, a^d the threat with which lie con
cludes, it is bofed will fri ofthe purpose, notvith
ftandiog the high dieri iiwhich they are ch.l ;for
although the writer a£ecls to take ir for granted
that the point is fettled in favor of lodeoendahce,
and that Cato and bis faGion are rot of fu, ceil
consequence “ now to turn the IcAe'- \et Ie
will find that the Good Sente of the inhri rants r f
this province, r.a\ , this continent is not so be led
captive by the a.Cubed tide and ferhy,a ddcof