the general and himself may live; I suppose, he does not desire his gradual steps should exceed their date, as fond as he seems of miracles. I believe he is willing enough they should be confined to his grace's life and his own.
What does he mean, p. 78, by the natural and moral consequences that must lead us? If those moral consequences are consequences upon our morals, they are very small. "Whatever reason there can be for putting an end to the war but a good one, was a stronger reason against beginning it." Right! so far we allow. "And yet those very reasons, that make us in so much haste to end it, show the necessity there was for entering into it." I am in mighty hope to get out of a squabble, and therefore I had reason to get into it; generally the contrary is true. "What condition should we have now been in, had we tamely let that prodigious power settle and confirm itself without dispute?" It could never settle and confirm itself but by a war.
P. 79. "Did we not go into the war in hopes of success? The greatest argument for going on with "the war is that we may have more success." According to the doctrine laid down by our author, we must never be inclined to peace till we lose a battle: every victory ought to be a motive to continue the war. Upon this principle, I suppose, a peace was refused after the battle of Ramillies.
Ibid. "How can we doubt that we shall not still succeed, or that an enemy that grows every day weaker and weaker, &c." The doctor's zeal overbears his memory: just now the enemy was stronger than ever.
