Page images
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“monarchy unaccountable, is the worst sort of tyranny; and least of all to be endured by freeborn men”.' And surely no christian prince, not drunk with high mind, and prouder than those pagan Cæsars that deified themselves, would arrogate fo unreasonably above, human condition, or derogate fo bafely from a whole nation of men his brethren, as if for him only fubfisting, and to serve his glory, valuing them in comparison of his own brute wilļ and pleasure no more than fo many beasts, or vermin under his feet, not to be reasoned with, but to be trod on; among whom there might be found so many thousand men for wisdom, virtue, nobleness of mind, and all other respects but the fortune of his dignity, far above him. Yet some would persuade us that this absurd opinion was king David's, because in the li pfalm he cries out to God, Against thee only have I sinned;' as if David had imagined, that to murder Uriah and adulterate his wife had been no sin against his neighbour, whenas that law of Mofes was to the king expressly, Deut. xvii, not to think fo highly of himself above his brethren, David therefore by those words could mean no other, than either that the depth of his guiltiness was known to God only, or to fo few as had not the will of power to question him, or that the fin against God was greater beyond compare than against Uriah. Whatever his meaning were, any wise man will see, that the pa thetical words of a psalm can be no certain decifion to a point that hath abundantly more certain rules to go by: How much more rationally spake the Heathen king Demophoon in a tragedy of Euripides, than these inter, preters would put upon king David? “I rule not my people by tyranny, as if they were barbarians, but am myself liable, if I do unjufily, to suffer justly." Not unlike was the speech of Trajan the worthy emperor,

to one whom he made general of his prætorian forces: V "Take this drawn sword,” faith he, to use for me, if

I reign well; if not, to use against me.' Thus Dion relates. And not Trajan only, but Theodofius the younger, a christian emperor, and one of the best, caused it to be enacted as a rule undeniable and fit to be acknowledged by all kings and emperors, that a prince is bound



to the laws; that on the authority of law the authority of a prince depends, and to the laws ought to submit. Which edict of his remains yet unrepealed in the Code of Juftinian, l. 1, tit. 24, as a sacred conftitution to all the succeeding emperors. How then can any king in Europe maintain and write himself accountable to nane but God, when emperors in their own imperial statutes have written and decreed themselves accountable to law? And indeed where such account is not feared, he that bids a man reign over him above law, may bid as well a savage beast.

It follows, laftly, that fince the king or magistrate holds his authority of the people, both originally and naturally for their good in the first place, and not his own; then

may the people, as oft as they thall judge it v for the best, either choose him or reject him, retain him or depose him though no tyrant, merely by the liberty and right of freeborn men to be governed as seems to them best, . This, though it cannot but stand with plain reason, shall be made good also by Scripture, Deut. xvii, 14.-“When thou art come into the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt fay, I will fet a king over me, like as all the nations about me. These words confirm us that the right of choofing, yea of changing their own government, is by the grant of God himself in the people. And therefore when they desired a king, though then under another form of government, and though their changing displeased him, yet he that was himseļf their king, and rejected by them, would not be a hinderance to what they intended, further than by persuasion, but that they might do therein as they faw good, 1 Sam. viii, only he reserved to himfelf the nomination of who should reign over them. Neither did that exempt the king, as if he were to God only accountable, though by his especial command anointed. Therefore“ David first made a covenant with the elders of Israel, and so was by them anointed king, 2 Sam. V, 3, 1 Chron. xi. And Jehoiada the priest, making Jehoath king, made a covenant between him and the people, 2 Kings xi, 17. Therefore when Roboam, at his coming to the crown, rejected those conditions,

which the Ifraelites brought him, hear what they answer him, "What portion have we in David, or inheritance in the fon of Jesle? See to thine own house David.". And for the like conditions not performed, all Israel before that time depofed Samuel, not for his own default, but for the misgovernment of his sons. But fome will fay to both these examples, it was evilly done. I anfwer, that not the latter, because it was expressly allowed them in the law, to set up a king if they pleased; and God himself joined with them in the work; though in fome fort it was at that time difpleasing to him, in respect of old Samuel, who had governed them uprightly. As Livy praises the Romans, who took occasion from Tarquinius, a wicked prince, to gain their liberty, which to have extorted, faith he, from Numa, or any of the good kings before, had not been seasonable. Nor was it in the former example done unlawfully; for when Roboam had prepared a huge army to reduce the Ifraelites, he was forbidden by the prophet, i Kings xii, 24. “Thus faith the Lord, ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, for this thing is from me.” He calls them their brethren, not rebels, and forbids to be proceeded against them, owning the thing himself, not bysingle providence, but by approbation, and that not only of the act, as in the former example, but of the fit feason also; he had not otherwise forbid to moleft them. And those grave and wise counfellors, whom Rehoboam first advised with, {pake no such thing, as our old gray-headed flatterers now are wont, ftand upon your birthright, fcorn to capitulate, you hold of God, not of them; for they knew no fuch matter, unless conditionally, but gave him poJitic council, as in a civil transaction:

civil transaction. Therefore kingdom and magiftracy, whether fupreme or subordinate, is called "a human ordinance,” i Pet. ii, 13, &c.; which we are there taught is the will of God we should submit to, fo far as for the punishment of evil doers, and the encouragement of them that do well. «;«Submit," faith he, “as free men.". But to any civil power unaccountable, unquestionable, and not to be refifted, no not in wickedness, and violent actions, how can we submit as free men?'. “There is no power but' of God,” faith



Paul, Rom. xiii, as much as to say, God put it inte man's heart to find out that way at first for common peace and preservation, approving the exercise thereof; else it contradicts Peter, who calls the same authority an ordinance of man. It must be also understood of lawful and just power, else we read of great power in the affairs and kingdoms of the world permitted to the devil: for faith he to Christ, Luke iv, 6, all this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, for it is delivered to me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it: neither did he lie, 'or Christ gainsay what he affirmed; for in the thirteenth of the Revelation we read how the dragon gave to the beast his power, his feat, and great authority: which beast so authorized most expound to be the tyrannical powers and kingdoms of the earth. Therefore Saint Paul in the forecited chapter tellsus, that such magistrates he means, as are not a terrour to the good, but to the evil, such as bear not the sword in vain, but to punish, offenders, and to encourage the good. If such only be mentioned here as powers to be obeyed, and our submis fion to them only required, then doubtless those powers, that do the contrary, are no powers ordained of God; and by consequence no obligation laid upon us to obey or not to resist them. And it may be well observed, that both these apostles, whenever they give this precept, exprefs it in terms not concrete, but abstract, as logicians are wont to speak; that is, they mention the ordinance, the power, the authority, before the persons that execute it; and what that power is, left we should be deceived, they describe exactly. So that if the power be not fuch, or the person execute not such power, neither the one nor the other is of God, but of the devil, and by con, sequence to be resisted. From this exposition Chryfoftom also on the same place diflents not; explaining that these words were not written in behalf of a tyrant. And this is, verified by David, himself a king, and likeliest to be the author of the psalm xciv, 20, which faith, “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee?” And it were worth the knowing, fince kings in these days, and that by Scripture, boast the justness of their title, by holding it immediately of God, yet cannot show the time


when God ever fet on the throne them or their forefathers, but only when the people chose them; why by. the same reason, fince God ascribes as oft to himself the casting down of princes from the throne, it should not be thought as lawful, and as much from God when none are seen to do it but the people, and that for juft causes. For if it needs must be a fin in them to depose, it may as likely be a fin to have elected. And contrary, if the

people's act in election be pleaded by a king, as the act of v

God, and the most juft title to enthrone him, why may not the people's act of rejection be as well pleaded by the people as the act of God, and the most just reason to depose him? So that we see the title and just right of reigning or deposing in reference to God, is found in Scripture to be all one; visible only in the people, and depending merely upon justice and demerit. Thus far hath been considered chiefly the power of kings and magiftrates; how it was and is originally the people's, and by them conferred in trust only to be employed to the common peace and benefit; with liberty therefore and right remaining in them, to reassume it to themselves, if by kings or magistrates it be abufed; or to dispose of it by any alteration, as they shall judge most conducing to the public good.

We may from hence with more ease and force of argument determine what a tyrant is, and what the people may do against him. A tyrant, whether by wrong or by

right coming to the crown, is he who, regarding neither V law nor the common good, reigns only for himself and

his faction: thus St. Bafil among others defines him. And because his power is great, his will boundless and exorbitant, the fulfilling whereof is for the most part accompanied with innumerable wrongs and oppressions of the people, murders, massacres, rapes, adulteries, defolation, and fubversion of cities and whole provinces ; look how great a good and happiness a just king is, fo great a mischief is a tyrant; as he the public father of his country, so this the common enemy. - Against whom what the people lawfully may do, as against a common pest, and destroyer of mankind, I suppose no man of clear judgment need go further to be guided than by the

« PreviousContinue »