Page images

ment, which so many men have at their tongues' end, and have been deceived by, to wit, that tyrants are to be obeyed because St. Paul enjoins a subjection to Nero, is evident to have been but a cunning invention of some ignorant parson. He that resists the powers, to wit, a lawful power, resists the ordinance of God. Kings themselves come under the penalty of this law, when they resist the senate, and act contrary to the laws. But do they resist the ordinance of God that resist an unlawful power, or a person that

goes about to overthrow and destroy a lawful one? No man living, in his right wits, can maintain such an assertion. The words immediately after make it as clear as the sun, that the apostle speaks only of a lawful power; for he gives us in them a definition of magistrates, and thereby explains to us who are the persons thus authorized, and upon what account we are to yield obedience, lest we should be apt to mistate and ground extravagant notions upon his discourse. “ The magistrates," says he, "are not a terror to good works, but to evil: Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon

him that doeth evil.” What honest man would not willingly submit to such a magistracy as is here described? And that not only to avoid wrath, and for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake. Without magistrates, and some form or other of civil government, no commonwealth, no human society can subsist, there were no living in the world. But whatever power enables a man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistracy no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist such authority ; for in so doing they do not resist the power, nor the magistracy, as they are here excellently well described ; but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an enemy; who if he may notwithstanding in some sense be called a magistrate, upon this acccunt only, because he has power in his hands, which

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

perhaps God may have invested him with for our punishment; by the same reason the devil may be called a magistrate. This is most certain, that there can be but one true definition of one and the same thing. So that if St. Paul in this place define what a magistrate is, which he certainly does, and that accurately well, he cannot possibly define a tyrant, the most contrary thing imaginable, in the same words. Hence I infer, that he commands us to submit to such magistrates only as he himself defines and describes, and not to tyrants, which are quite other things. “ For this cause you pay tribute also :” he gives a reason together with a command. Hence St. Chrysostom: Why do we pay tribute to princes? Do we not,” adds he, thereby reward them for the care they take of our safety? We should not have paid them any tribute, if we had not been convinced that it was good for us to live under a government.” So that I must here repeat what I have said already, that since subjection is not absolutely enjoined, but on a particular reason, that reason must be the rule of our subjection : where that reason holds, we are rebels if we submit not; where it holds not, we are cowards and slaves if we do. But," say you, “the English are far from being freemen; for they are wicked and flagitious." I will not reckon up here the vices of the French, though they live under a kingly government; neither will I excuse my own countryinen too far: but this I may safely say, whatever vices they have, they have learnt them under a kingly government; as the Israelites learnt a great deal of wickedness in Egypt. And as they, when they were brought into the wilderness, and lived under the immediate government of God himself, could hardly reform, just so it is with us. But there are good hopes of many amongst us; that I may not here celebrate those men who are eminent for their piety and virtue and love of the truth; of which sort I persuade myself we have as great a number, as where you think there are most such. “ But they have laid a heavy yoke upon the English nation.” What if they have,

” upon

those of them that endeavoured to lay a heavy yoke upon all the rest? upon those that have deserved to be put under the hatches ? As for the rest, I question not

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

but they are very well content to be at the expense maintaining their own liberty, the public treasury being exhausted by the civil wars. Now be betakes himself to the fabulous rabbins again: be asserts frequently, that kings are bound by no laws; and yet he proves, that, according to the sense of the rabbins,“ a king may be guilty of treason, by suffering an invasion upon the rights of his crown.” So kings are bound by laws, and they are not bound by them; they may be criminals, and yet they may not be so. This man contradicts himself so perpetually, that contradiction and he seem to be of kin to one another. You say that God himself put many kingdoms under the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. I confess he did so for a time, Jer. xxvii. 7; but do you make appear, if you can, that he put the English

, nation into a condition of slavery to Charles Stuart for a minute. I confess he suffered them to be enslaved by him for some time; but I never yet heard that himself appointed it so to be. Or if you will have it so, that God shall be said to put a nation under slavery, when a tyrant prevails ; why may he not as well be said to deliver them from his tyranny, when the people prevail and get the upper hand ? Shall his tyranny be said to be of God, and not our liberty? There is no evil in the city, that the Lord hath not done, Amos iii. So that famine, pestilence, sedition, war, all of them are of God; and is it therefore unlawful for a people afflicted with any of these plagues, to endeavour to get rid of them ? Certainly they would do their utmost, though they know them to be sent by God, unless himself miraculously from heaven should command the contrary : and why may they not, by the same reason, rid themselves of a tyrant, if they are stronger than he? Why should we suppose his weakness to be appointed by God for the ruin and destruction of the commonwealth, rather than the power and strength of all the people for the good of the state ? Far be it from all commonwealths, from all societies of freeborn men, to maintain not only such pernicious, but such stupid and senseless principles ; principles that subvert all civil society, that, to gratify à few tyrants, level all mankind with brutes; and by setting princes out of the reach of human

laws, give them an equal power over both. I pass by those foolish dilemmas that you now make, which that you might take occasion to propose, you feign some or other to assert that the“ superlative power of princes is derived from the people ;” though, for my own part, I do not at all doubt but that all the power that any magistrates have is so.

Hence Cicero, in his Orat. pro Flacco, “ Our wise and holy ancestors," says he,“ appointed those things to obtain for laws that the people enacted.” And hence it is that Lucius Crassus, an excellent Roman orator, and at that time president of the senate, when in a controversy betwixt them and the common people, he asserted their rights, “ I beseech you,” says he, “ suffer not us to live in subjection to any but yourselves, to the entire body of whom we can and ought to submit.” For though the Roman senate governed the people, the people themselves had appointed them to be their governors, and had put that power

into their hands. We read the term of majesty more frequently applied to the people of Rome than to their kings. Tully in Orat. pro Flancio, “ It is the condition of all free people,” says he, “ and especially of this people, the lord of all nations, by their votes, to give or take away to or from any, as themselves see cause. It is the duty of the magistrates patiently to submit to what the body of the people enact. Those that are not ambitious of

have the less obligation upon them to court the people: those that affect preferment must not be weary

of entreating them.” Should I scruple to call a king the servant of his people, when I hear the Roman senate, that reigned over so many kings, profess themselves to be but the people's servants? You will object, perhaps, and say that all this is very true in a popular state; but the case was altered afterwards, when the regal law transferred all the people's right unto Augustus and his successors. But what think you then of Tiberius, whom yourself confess to have been a very great tyrant, as he certainly was? Suetonius says of him, that, when he was once called Lord or Master, though after the enacting of that Lex Regia, he desired the person that gave him that appellation to forbear abusing him. How does this sound in your ears? a tyrant thinks one of his subjects abuses him in calling


him Lord. The same emperor, in one of his speeches to the senate, “ I have said,” says he, “ frequently, heretofore, and now I say it again, that a good prince, whom you have invested with so great power as I am intrusted with, ought to serve the senate and the body of the people, and sometimes even particular persons; nor do I repent of having said so: I confess that you have been good, and just, and indulgent masters to me, and that you are yet so.” You may say that he dissembled in all this, as he was a great proficient in the art of hypocrisy; but that is all

No man endeavours to appear otherwise than he ought to be. Hence Tacitus tells us that it was the custom in Rome for the emperors, in the Circus, to worship the people; and that both Nero and other emperors practised it. Claudian, in his panegyric upon Honorius, mentions the same custom. By which sort of adoration what could possibly be meant, but that the emperors of Rome, even after the enacting of the Lex Regia, confessed the whole body of the people to be their superiors? But I find, as I suspected at first, and so I told ye, that you have spent more time and pains in turning over glossaries, and criticising upon texts, and propagating such-like laborious trifles, than in reading sound authors so as to improve your knowledge by them. For had you been never so little versed in the writings of learned men in former ages, you would not have accounted an opinion new, and the product of some enthusiastic heads, which has been asserted and maintained by the greatest philosophers, and most famous politicians in the world. You endeavour to expose one Martin, who

you tell us was a tailor, and one William, a tanner; but if they are such as you describe them, I think they and you may very well go together; though they themselves would be able to instruct you, and unfold those mysterious riddles that you propose : as,“ Whether or no they that in a monarchy would have the king but a servant to the commonwealth, will say the same thing of the whole body of the people in a popular state? And whether all the people serve in a democracy, or only some part or other serve the rest ?” And when they have been an Edipus to you, by my consent you shall be a sphinx to them in good earnest, and throw yourself headlong from


« PreviousContinue »