Common Sense | Page 7

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