Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
CHAPTER 2 OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only
be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and
poor, may in a great measure be accounted
for, and that without having recourse to the harsh ill sounding names of oppression
and avarice.
Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and
though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally
makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or
religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and
SUBJECTS.
Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of
heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and
distinguished like some new species, is
worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to
mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no
kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings
which throw mankind into confusion.
Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the
monarchical governments in Europe.
Antiquity favors the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first
patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom
the children of Israel copied the custom.
It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of
idolatry.
The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the christian world
hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones.
How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his
splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal
rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for
the will of the Almighty, as declared by
Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings.
All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in
monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of
countries which have their governments yet to form.
"RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S" is the scripture doctrine of
courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were
without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.
Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till
the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.
Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty
interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of
the tribes.
Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title
but the Lord of Hosts.
And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the
persons of Kings, he need not wonder, that the Almighty ever jealous of his honor,
should disapprove of a form of government
which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in
reserve is denounced against them.
The history of that transaction is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them
with a small army, and victory, thro' the divine interposition, decided in his
favour.
The Jews elate with success, and attributing it to the generalship of
Gideon, proposed making him a king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US, THOU AND THY SON AND THY
SON'S SON.
Here was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an hereditary one,
but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I WILL NOT RULE OVER YOU, NEITHER
SHALL MY SON RULE OVER YOU.
THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU.
Words need not be more explicit; Gideon doth not DECLINE the honor, but denieth
their right to give it; neither doth he compliment them with invented declarations
of his thanks, but in the positive stile of
a prophet charges them with disaffection to their proper Sovereign, the King of heaven.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the same error.
The hankering which the Jews had for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens, is
something exceedingly unaccountable; but so it was, that laying hold of the misconduct
of Samuel's two sons, who were entrusted
with some secular concerns, they came in an abrupt and clamorous manner to Samuel,
saying, BEHOLD THOU ART OLD, AND THY SONS WALK NOT IN THY WAYS, NOW MAKE US A KING TO
JUDGE US LIKE ALL THE OTHER NATIONS.
And here we cannot but observe that their motives were bad, viz. that they might be
LIKE unto other nations, i. e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory laid in
being as much UNLIKE them as possible.
BUT THE THING DISPLEASED SAMUEL WHEN THEY SAID, GIVE US A KING TO JUDGE US; AND
SAMUEL PRAYED UNTO THE LORD, AND THE LORD SAID UNTO SAMUEL, HEARKEN UNTO THE VOICE OF
THE PEOPLE IN ALL THAT THEY SAY UNTO THEE,
FOR THEY HAVE NOT REJECTED THEE, BUT THEY HAVE REJECTED ME, THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN
OVER THEM.
ACCORDING TO ALL THE WORKS WHICH THEY HAVE DONE SINCE THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM UP
OUT OF EGYPT, EVEN UNTO THIS DAY; WHEREWITH THEY HAVE FORSAKEN ME AND SERVED OTHER
GODS; SO DO THEY ALSO UNTO THEE.
NOW THEREFORE HEARKEN UNTO THEIR VOICE, HOWBEIT, PROTEST SOLEMNLY UNTO THEM AND
SHEW THEM THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER THEM, I.
E. not of any particular king, but the general manner of the kings of the earth,
whom Israel was so eagerly copying after.
And notwithstanding the great distance of time and difference of manners, the
character is still in fashion. AND SAMUEL TOLD ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD
UNTO THE PEOPLE, THAT ASKED OF HIM A KING.
AND HE SAID, THIS SHALL BE THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER YOU; HE WILL
TAKE YOUR SONS AND APPOINT THEM FOR HIMSELF, FOR HIS CHARIOTS, AND TO BE HIS
HORSEMEN, AND SOME SHALL RUN BEFORE HIS
CHARIOTS (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) AND HE WILL
APPOINT HIM CAPTAINS OVER THOUSANDS AND CAPTAINS OVER FIFTIES, AND WILL SET THEM TO
EAR HIS GROUND AND TO READ HIS HARVEST, AND
TO MAKE HIS INSTRUMENTS OF WAR, AND INSTRUMENTS OF HIS CHARIOTS; AND HE WILL
TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO BE CONFECTIONARIES, AND TO BE COOKS AND TO BE BAKERS (this
describes the expence and luxury as well as
the oppression of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR FIELDS AND YOUR OLIVE YARDS, EVEN THE
BEST OF THEM, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS SERVANTS; AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF
YOUR FEED, AND OF YOUR VINEYARDS, AND GIVE
THEM TO HIS OFFICERS AND TO HIS SERVANTS (by which we see that bribery, corruption,
and favoritism are the standing vices of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR
MEN SERVANTS, AND YOUR MAID SERVANTS, AND
YOUR GOODLIEST YOUNG MEN AND YOUR ***, AND PUT THEM TO HIS WORK; AND HE WILL TAKE
THE TENTH OF YOUR SHEEP, AND YE SHALL BE HIS SERVANTS, AND YE SHALL CRY OUT IN THAT
DAY BECAUSE OF YOUR KING WHICH YE SHALL
HAVE CHOSEN, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY.
This accounts for the continuation of monarchy; neither do the characters of the
few good kings which have lived since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the
sinfulness of the origin; the high encomium
given of David takes no notice of him OFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN
after God's own heart.
NEVERTHELESS THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO OBEY THE VOICE OF SAMUEL, AND THEY SAID, NAY, BUT WE
WILL HAVE A KING OVER US, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE ALL THE NATIONS, AND THAT OUR KING MAY
JUDGE US, AND GO OUT BEFORE US, AND FIGHT OUR BATTLES.
Samuel continued to reason with them, but to no purpose; he set before them their
ingratitude, but all would not avail; and seeing them fully bent on their folly, he
cried out, I WILL CALL UNTO THE LORD, AND
HE SHALL SEND THUNDER AND RAIN (which then was a punishment, being in the time of
wheat harvest) THAT YE MAY PERCEIVE AND SEE THAT YOUR WICKEDNESS IS GREAT WHICH YE HAVE
DONE IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, IN ASKING YOU A KING.
SO SAMUEL CALLED UNTO THE LORD, AND THE LORD SENT THUNDER AND RAIN THAT DAY, AND
ALL THE PEOPLE GREATLY FEARED THE LORD AND SAMUEL.
AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO SAMUEL, PRAY FOR THY SERVANTS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD THAT
WE DIE NOT, FOR WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING.
These portions of scripture are direct and positive.
They admit of no equivocal construction.
That the Almighty hath here entered his protest against monarchical government is
true, or the scripture is false.
And a man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of king-craft, as priest-
craft, in withholding the scripture from the public in Popish countries.
For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.
To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession; and as the first
is a degradation and lessening of ourselves, so the second, claimed as a
matter of right, is an insult and an imposition on posterity.
For all men being originally equals, no ONE by BIRTH could have a right to set up his
own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and though himself might
deserve SOME decent degree of honors of his
cotemporaries, yet his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.
One of the strongest NATURAL proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is,
that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into
ridicule by giving mankind an *** FOR A LION.
Secondly, as no man at first could possess any other public honors than were bestowed
upon him, so the givers of those honors could have no power to give away the right
of posterity, and though they might say "We
choose you for OUR head," they could not, without manifest injustice to their
children, say "that your children and your children's children shall reign over OURS
for ever."
Because such an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool.
Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated hereditary right with
contempt; yet it is one of those evils, which when once established is not easily
removed; many submit from fear, others from
superstition, and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the
rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an honorable
origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take off the dark covering of
antiquity, and trace them to their first
rise, that we should find the first of them nothing better than the principal ruffian
of some restless gang, whose savage manners or pre-eminence in subtility obtained him
the title of chief among plunderers; and
who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations, over-awed the quiet and
defenceless to purchase their safety by frequent contributions.
Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his descendants,
because such a perpetual exclusion of themselves was incompatible with the free
and unrestrained principles they professed to live by.
Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place
as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no
records were extant in those days, and
traditionary history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few
generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet like, to
cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar.
Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a
leader and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very
orderly) induced many at first to favor
hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that
what at first was submitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a
right.
England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs, but groaned beneath
a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim
under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one.
A French *** landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself king of
England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally
original.
It certainly hath no divinity in it.
However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right,
if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the *** and
lion, and welcome.
I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first?
The question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by
usurpation.
If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which
excludes hereditary succession.
Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from
that transaction there was any intention it ever should.
If the first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a
precedent for the next; for to say, that the RIGHT of all future generations is
taken away, by the act of the first
electors, in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever,
hath no parrallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin, which
supposes the free will of all men lost in
Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession
And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but
personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph
from a prison to a palace, and Edward
obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land; yet, as sudden transitions of temper
are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne, and Edward recalled
to succeed him.
The parliament always following the strongest side.
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely
extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united.
Including a period of 67 years, viz. from 1422 to 1489.
In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the
world in blood and ashes.
'Tis a form of government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will
attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in some countries they
have none; and after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves or
advantage to the nation, withdraw from the
scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round.
In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and military, lies on the
king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea "that
he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles."
But in countries where he is neither a judge nor a general, as in England, a man
would be puzzled to know what IS his business.
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business there is for a
king. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper
name for the government of England.
Sir William Meredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of
the name, because the corrupt influence of the crown, by having all the places in its
disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up
the power, and eaten out the virtue of the house of commons (the republican part in
the constitution) that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of
France or Spain.
Men fall out with names without understanding them.
For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution of
England which Englishmen glory in, viz. the liberty of choosing an house of commons
from out of their own body--and it is easy
to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues.
Why is the constitution of England sickly, but because monarchy hath poisoned the
republic, the crown hath engrossed the commons?
In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places;
which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears.
A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a
year for, and worshipped into the bargain!
Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the
crowned ruffians that ever lived.