Common Sense

enough to put the crown in possession of the key.

  The prejudice of Englishmen, in favour of their own government by
king, lords and commons, arises as much or more from national pride
than reason. Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in
some other countries, but the WILL of the king is as much the LAW
of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that
instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the
people under the more formidable shape of an act of parliament. For
the fate of Charles the first, hath only made kings more subtle--not
more just.

  Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour
of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in
Turkey.

  An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form of
government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a
proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under
the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable
of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate
prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted
to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a
rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a
good one.

             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,