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.
All people were originally created equal, so only some later circumstance could have destroyed that equality. The differences between rich and poor can largely be explained without using harsh, unpleasant words like oppression and greed. Oppression is often the result of wealth, but seldom or never the means of gaining it. And although greed will keep a man from falling into desperate poverty, greed generally makes him too fearful to become 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.
But there is another, greater distinction with no true basis in nature or religion: the division between kings and subjects. Nature distinguishes male from female, and heaven distinguishes good from bad. But how did one line of men come to stand so far above everyone else, like some new species? We should examine how these men gained their position, and whether they bring happiness or misery to humanity.
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 monarchial 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.
According to the Bible’s chronology, there were no kings in the world’s earliest ages. As a result, there were no wars. The pride of kings throws humanity into turmoil. Without a king, Holland has enjoyed more peace over the last century than any monarchy in Europe. Ancient history supports the same point. There is something happy about the quiet, rural lives of the first patriarchs. But that happiness disappears when we turn 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!
Rule by kings first began among the pagans, and the people of Israel copied the custom from them. Kingship was the most successful invention the Devil ever created to promote idolatry. The pagans worshiped their dead kings as gods. The Christian world has improved on that plan by worshiping living kings instead. How godless it is to give the title of sacred majesty to a worm who, amid 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 Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’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.
Placing one man so far above everyone else cannot be justified by the equal rights people have by nature. Nor can such power be defended by the authority of scripture. For the Almighty’s will, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, explicitly condemns government by kings. All passages in scripture opposing monarchy have been very smoothly explained away under monarchical governments. But those passages undoubtedly deserve the attention of countries that have yet to form their governments. “Give to Cæsar what belongs to Cæsar” is the teaching from scripture favored by royal courts. Yet this teaching offers no support for government by kings. For the Jews at that time had no king and were under Roman rule.
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 administred 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.
Nearly three thousand years passed from the creation described in the Mosaic account until the Jews requested a king. They made this request under a national delusion. Until then, their government was a kind of republic run by a judge and the elders of the tribes. The exceptions were extraordinary cases when the Almighty intervened. They had no kings. Recognizing anyone but the Lord of Hosts as king was considered sinful. And when someone seriously considers the idolatrous worship paid to kings, there is no reason for surprise at the Almighty’s disapproval. Always protective of his honor, the Almighty would naturally disapprove of a government that so irreverently claims heaven’s exclusive authority.
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.
Scripture lists monarchy as one of the sins of the Jews and warns of a future curse for that sin. The story of how this happened deserves attention.
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.
The children of Israel were oppressed by the Midianites, so Gideon marched against them with a small army. Through divine intervention, Gideon won the victory. The Jews were overjoyed by their success and credited Gideon’s military leadership. They proposed making him king, saying, Rule over us, you and your son and your grandson. Here was the greatest possible temptation: not just a kingdom, but a hereditary one. But Gideon, deeply devoted to God, replied, I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. The Lord shall rule over you. These words could not be clearer. Gideon does not decline the honor, but denies their right to offer it. Nor does he flatter them with made-up expressions of gratitude. Instead, with a prophet’s authority, he accuses them of disloyalty to their rightful 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 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 reap 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 asses, 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.
About one hundred and thirty years later, they made the same mistake again. The Jews’ longing for the idolatrous customs of the Heathens is extremely hard to explain. But they seized on the misconduct of Samuel’s two sons, who had been entrusted with some nonreligious duties. They came to Samuel abruptly and loudly demanded, Look, you are old, and your sons do not follow your example. Now give us a king to judge us like all other nations. Here we must note that their motives were bad. They wanted to be like other nations, meaning the Heathens. Yet their true glory lay in being as unlike those nations as possible. But Samuel was displeased when they said, Give us a king to judge us. Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to Samuel, Listen to everything the people tell you. They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT RULE OVER THEM. They are treating you just as they have treated me since I brought them out of Egypt. From that day until now, they have abandoned me and served other Gods. Now listen to their demands. But solemnly warn them and show them how the king who rules over them will behave. In other words, this describes no particular king. It describes the general behavior of earthly kings, whom Israel was so eager to copy. And despite the great passage of time and differences in customs, that behavior remains fashionable. And Samuel told all the Lord’s words to the people who had asked him for a king. He said, This is how the king who rules over you will behave. He will take your sons for his chariots and cavalry, and some will run ahead of his chariots. (This description matches the present practice of forcing men into military service.) He will appoint commanders over thousands and commanders over fifties. He will make men plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to make sweets, cook, and bake. (This describes the extravagance and luxury of kings, as well as their oppression.) He will take your fields and olive groves, even the best ones, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and your vineyards and give it to his officers and servants. (This shows that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the constant vices of kings.) He will take a tenth of your male servants, female servants, finest young men, and donkeys, and put them to work. He will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will be his servants. Then you will cry out because of the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you then. This explains why monarchy continues. Nor do the characters of the few good kings since then make the title sacred or erase its sinful origin. The high praise given to David does not concern him in his official role as king. It concerns him only as a man after God’s own heart. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel. They said, No, we will have a king over us, so that we may be like all the nations. Our king will judge us, lead us, and fight our battles. Samuel continued to reason with them, but without success. He confronted them with their ingratitude, but nothing helped. Seeing that they were fully committed to their folly, he cried out, I will call on the Lord. He will send thunder and rain. (Rain was then a punishment because it was wheat harvest.) Then you will recognize how great your wickedness has been in the Lord’s sight, in asking for a king. So Samuel called on the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day. All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. All the people said to Samuel, Pray to the Lord your God for your servants, so that we do not die. For we have added this evil to our sins, asking for a king. These passages of scripture are direct and definite. They allow no ambiguous interpretation. Either the Almighty has declared his opposition to monarchy here, or scripture is false. There is good reason to believe that withholding scripture from the public in Catholic countries serves king-craft as much as priest-craft. 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 ass for a lion.
To the evil of monarchy we have added another evil: passing the crown down through a family. Just as monarchy degrades us and makes us less than we are, hereditary succession claims to be a right. That claim insults future generations and forces an unjust burden on them. For all people are originally equal. No one could have the right by birth to place his family above all others forever. Although he himself might deserve some reasonable honors from the people of his time, his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit those honors. One of the strongest natural proofs of the foolishness of hereditary kingship is that nature disapproves of it. Otherwise, nature would not so often make a mockery of hereditary kingship by giving humanity an ass 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.
Secondly, no man could originally hold any public honors except those others granted him. So those who granted these honors had no power to give away the rights of future generations. They might say, “We choose you as our leader.” But they could not say, without obvious injustice to their children, “your children and grandchildren shall rule over ours forever.” Such an agreement would be unwise, unjust, and unnatural, because the next succession might (perhaps) bring a scoundrel or fool to power. Most wise men have always privately viewed hereditary rule with contempt. Yet hereditary rule is one of those evils that are hard to remove once established. Many submit out of fear, others out of superstition. And the more powerful share with the king in plundering everyone else.
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 traditional 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.
This assumes that today’s royal families had an honorable origin. But if we could lift the dark veil of ancient history and trace these families to their beginnings, we would more than likely find something else. Their first king was probably nothing better than the leading thug in some restless gang. His brutal behavior or superior cunning earned him the title of chief among thieves. As his power grew and his raids spread, he frightened peaceful, defenseless people into buying safety with regular payments. Yet the men who chose him could not have intended to give his descendants a hereditary right to rule. Permanently excluding themselves from leadership conflicted with the free and unrestricted principles they claimed to live by. So, in monarchy’s early days, hereditary succession could not have rested on a claim of right. Instead, succession must have happened by chance or as a mark of respect. But few or no records existed then, and history passed down by word of mouth was stuffed with fables. After a few generations, inventing a conveniently timed superstitious tale was therefore very easy. Such a tale could, in the manner of Mahomet, force hereditary right down the common people’s throats. Perhaps the disorder that threatened, or seemed to threaten, when a leader died and another was chosen influenced many people. Elections among thugs could hardly have been very orderly. Perhaps this danger led many at first to favor claims to hereditary rule. In this way, as has happened since, something first accepted as a convenience was later 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 bastard 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 ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.
Since the conquest, England has had a few good monarchs, but has groaned under many more bad ones. Yet no sane person can call their claim to the throne through William the Conqueror very honorable. A French bastard landed with a band of armed thugs and made himself king of England without the people's consent. In plain terms, that is a shabby, scoundrel's beginning. There is certainly nothing divine about it. Still, there is no need to spend much time exposing the foolishness of hereditary right. If anyone is weak enough to believe in it, let them worship the donkey and the lion alike. They are welcome to do so. I will neither imitate 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 can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in the first, and our authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassuming some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parellels. Dishonorable rank! Inglorious connexion! Yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.
Yet I would gladly ask how they think kings first came to power. The question has only three answers: by drawing lots, by election, or by seizing power. If the first king was chosen by lot, that sets a precedent for choosing the next king. Such a precedent rules out hereditary succession. Saul was chosen by lot, yet his successors did not inherit the throne. Nor does his selection suggest that anyone ever intended them to inherit it. If any country's first king was elected, that also sets a precedent for choosing the next king. Suppose the first voters chose not only a king, but a family of kings forever. Can their choice take away the right of all future generations? Such a claim has no parallel, in or outside scripture, except the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine assumes that all people lost their free will through Adam. Hereditary succession can gain no honor from this comparison, and no other comparison fits. For just as all sinned through Adam, so all people submitted through the first voters. Through Adam, all humanity became subject to Satan. Through the first voters, all humanity became subject to royal power. Through Adam, we lost our innocence. Through the first voters, we lost our authority. Both losses prevent us from regaining a former condition and privilege. So the conclusion cannot be refuted: original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. What a dishonorable standing! What a shameful connection! Yet even the cleverest master of deceptive reasoning cannot offer a more fitting comparison.
As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.
No one would be bold enough to defend seizing power unlawfully. And no one can deny that William the Conqueror seized power unlawfully. The plain truth is that the ancient origins of the English monarchy cannot stand up to close examination.
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.
But humanity is concerned less with the absurdity of hereditary succession than with its evil. If hereditary succession guaranteed a line of good and wise men, it would carry the seal of divine authority. But because it opens the door to the foolish, the wicked, and the unfit, hereditary succession is inherently oppressive. Men who believe they were born to rule and others to obey soon become arrogant. Set apart from the rest of humanity, their minds are poisoned early by a sense of importance. And the world these men live in differs so greatly from the wider world that they rarely learn its true interests. So when these men inherit power, they are often among the most ignorant and unfit people in their territories.
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the regency, acting under the cover of a king, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens, when a king worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the public becomes a prey to every miscreant, who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
Another evil of hereditary succession is that the throne can pass to a child of any age. Throughout the child’s reign, the regents ruling in the king’s name have every opportunity and incentive to betray their trust. The same national misfortune occurs when a king, worn out by age and illness, reaches the final stage of weakness. In both cases, the public falls prey to every scoundrel who can successfully exploit the foolishness of old age or childhood.
The most plausible plea, which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.
The most plausible argument ever offered for hereditary succession is that it protects a nation from civil wars. If this claim were true, it would carry great weight. But it is the most shameless lie ever forced on humanity. The entire history of England disproves the claim. Since the conquest, thirty kings and two minors have ruled that troubled kingdom. During that time, there have been no fewer than eight civil wars (including the Revolution) and nineteen rebellions. So instead of promoting peace, hereditary succession works against peace and destroys the very foundation it seems to rest on.
The contest for monarchy and succession, between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. 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.
The struggle for the crown and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster left England bloodstained for many years. Twelve major battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Henry was twice Edward’s prisoner, and Edward in turn was Henry’s prisoner. When a quarrel rests on nothing but personal matters, the fortunes of war and a nation’s mood are deeply uncertain. So Henry was brought triumphantly from prison to a palace, while Edward had to flee his palace for a foreign land. Yet sudden changes in public mood rarely last. Henry was in turn driven from the throne, and Edward was called back to replace him. Parliament always followed 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.
This conflict began during the reign of Henry the Sixth. It did not fully end until Henry the Seventh, in whom the two families were united. The conflict lasted 67 years, 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.
In short, monarchy and hereditary succession have left the world in blood and ashes. Not just one kingdom or another, but the whole world. The word of God condemns this form of government, and bloodshed will follow 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.
If we look at a king’s duties, we will find that in some countries kings have none. These kings drift through life, bringing neither pleasure to themselves nor benefit to the nation. Then they leave the scene, leaving their successors to repeat the same idle routine. In absolute monarchies, the full burden of government and military affairs falls on the king. When the children of Israel asked for a king, they gave this reason: “that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.” But in countries like England, where the king is neither a judge nor a general, his duties are a puzzle. A person would struggle to know what his job is.
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 a 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?
The closer a government comes to being a republic, the less work there is for a king. It is somewhat difficult to find the right name for England’s government. Sir William Meredith calls England’s government a republic. But in its present state, the government does not deserve that name. The crown controls all government appointments, and this corrupt influence has effectively swallowed up the power of the House of Commons. The crown has also eaten away the integrity of the House of Commons, the republican part of the constitution. As a result, England’s government is nearly as monarchical as the government of France or Spain. People quarrel over names without understanding them. For Englishmen take pride in the republican part of England’s constitution, not the monarchical part. They value the freedom to choose a House of Commons from among themselves. And it is easy to see that when republican integrity fails, slavery follows. Why is England’s constitution so unhealthy? Is it not because monarchy has poisoned the republic, and the crown has taken over 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.
In England, a king has little to do except wage war and hand out government jobs. In plain English, that means making the nation poorer and turning its people against one another. What fine work to pay a man eight hundred thousand pounds a year for, and worship him besides! One honest man is worth more to society and in God's eyes than all the crowned thugs who ever lived.