position mean? That 'tis, in itself, right, and there|fore agreeable to the will of heaven, for one nation to destroy the government of another, be that government ever so bad?—If they mean this, I answer directly, the proposition is false. All writers, on the laws of nation, without an exception, teach a directly opposite doctrine. Nay, this principle would place France above reproach.It would give her the ground she has assumed, viz. That power is the only rule of action. This is her creed.—This her friends, (I have, once and again heard them) declare to be her standard. And what is this but a principle which has ever been the single rule of conduct in Hell!—
But 'tis said, these events tend directly, to fulfil a great plan, for the good of the Universe. Do these apologists, for Frenchmen, mean, that the Directory, and their subordinates, are commissioned by God, to destroy all the governments on earth? If they mean this, I beg them to shew, first, that they are the privy counsellors of Heaven; and, secondly, that such commissions have actually issued. But do they mean that these horrid acts of plunder, treachery and murder, are under the divine control, and therefore we must acquiesce and rejoice? If they mean this, I congratulate them on their resignation, and wish that it may increase, till it produces a spirit of reconciliation to our own government. But is it a just principle, that we are to be thankful, for all events, because they are under the divine control? I think the friends of this new theory, should praise God for all the evil and misery, which men commit, and suffer, and they will be entitled, then, to the credit of being consistent.
But is it meant that these events will produce good, and therefore are the subject of rejoicing?—Thunder and lightning, volcanos and earthquakes,
