into the lighter scale: wise men and most useful, up to the
moment when the two parties are engaged in actual civil war,
and the question is--which shall conquer? For no man can
pretend to limit the success of a party, when the sword is the
arbitrator: he who wins in that game does not win by halves:
and therefore the only question then is, which party is on the
whole the best, or rather perhaps the least evil; for as one
must crush the other, it is at least desirable that the party
so crushed should be the worse."

Dr Arnold--rightly, we hope--assumes, that in lectures addressed to
Englishmen and Protestants, it is unnecessary to vindicate the
principles of the Revolution; it would, indeed, be an affront to any
class of educated Protestant freemen, to argue that our present
constitution was better than a feudal monarchy, or the religion of
Tillotson superior to that of Laud--in his own words, "whether the
doctrine and discipline of our Protestant Church of England, be not
better and truer than that of Rome." He therefore supposes the
Revolution complete, the Bill of Rights and the Toleration Act already
passed, the authority of King William recognized in England and in
Scotland, while in Ireland the party of King James was still
predominant. He then bids us consider the character and object of the
parties by which Great Britain was then divided; on the side of the
Revolution were enlisted the great families of our aristocracy, and the
bulk of the middle classes. The faction of James included the great mass
of country gentlemen, the lower orders, and, (after the first dread of a
Roman Catholic hierarchy had passed away,) except in a very few
instances, the parochial and teaching clergy; civil and religious
liberty was the motto of one party--hereditary right and passive
obedience, of the other. As the Revolution had been bloodless, it might