perfluous; that in this chapter I may demonftrate, that nothing is more fuitable to the law of nature, than that punishment be inflicted upon tyrants. Which if I do not evince, I will then agree with you, that likewife by the law of God they are exempt. I do not purpose to frame a long difcourfe of nature in general, and the original of civil focieties; that argument has been largely handled by many learned men, both Greek and Latin. But I fhall endeavour to be as fhort as may be; and my defign is not fo much to confute you (who would willingly have fpared this pains) as to fhow that you confute yourself, and deftroy your own pofitions. I will begin with that firft pofition, which you lay down as a fundamental, and that fhall be the groundwork of my "The law of nature," say you, enfuing difcourfe. 66 is a principle imprinted on all men's minds, to regard the good of all mankind, confidering men as united together in focieties. But this innate principle cannot procure that common good, unlefs, as there are people that muft be governed, fo that very principle afcertain who fhall govern them." To wit, left the ftronger oppreis the weaker, and thofe perfons, who for their mutual fafety and protection have united themfelves together, fhould be difunited and divided by injury and violence, and reduced to a beftial favage life again. This I fuppofe is what you mean. "Out of the number of thofe that united into one body," you fay, "there muft needs have been fome chofen, who excelled the reft in wifdom and valour; that they either by force, or by persuasion, might restrain thofe that were refractory, and keep them Iwithin due bounds. Sometimes it would fo fall out, that one fingle perfon, whofe conduct and valour was extraordinary, might be able to do this, and fometimes more affifted one another with their advice and counfel. But fince it is impoffible, that any one man fhould order all things himself, there was a neceffity of his consulting with others, and taking fome into part of the government with himfelf; fo that whether a fingle perfon reign, or whether the fupreme power refide in the body of the people, fince it is impoffible, that all fhould adminifter the affairs of the commonwealth, or that one

man fhould do all, the government does always lie upon the fhoulders of many. And afterwards you say, "both forms of government, whether by many or a few, or by a fingle perfon, are equally according to the law of nature, viz. That it is impoffible for any fingle perfon fo to govern alone, as not to admit others into a fhare of the government with himfelf." Though I might

have taken all this out of the third book of Ariftotle's Politics, I chofe rather to tranfcribe it out of your own book; for you ftole it from him, as Prometheus did fire from Jupiter, to the ruin of monarchy, and overthrow of yourfelf, and your own opinion. For inquire as diligently as you can for your life into the law of nature, as you have defcribed it, you will not find the leaft footstep in it of kingly power, as you explain it. "The law of nature," lay you, "in ordering who fhould govern others, refpected the univerfal good of all mankind." It did not then regard the private good of any particular perfon, not of a prince; fo that the king is for the people, and confequently the people fuperiour to him which being allowed, it is impoffible that princes fhould have any right to opprefs or enflave the people; that the inferiour thould have right to tyrannize over the fuperiour. So that fince kings cannot pretend to any right to do mifchief, the right of the people muft be acknowledged, according to the law of nature, to be fuperiour to that of princes; and therefore, by the fame right, that before kingthip was known, men united their ftrength and counfels for their mutual fafety and defence; by the fame right, that for the prefervation of all men's liberty, peace, and fafety, they appointed one or more to govern the reft; by the fame right they may depose those very perfons whom for their valour or wifdom they advanced to the government, or any others that rule diforderly, if they find them by reafon of their flothfulness, folly, or impiety, unfit for government: fince nature does not regard the good of one, or of a few, but of all in general. For what fort of perfons were they whom you fuppofe to have been chofen? You fay, "they were fuch as excelled in courage and conduct," to wit, fuch as by nature feemed fitteft for go

vernment; who by reafon of their excellent wisdom and valour, were enabled to undertake fo great a charge. The confequence of this I take to be, that right of fucceffion is not by the law of nature; that no man by the law of nature has right to be king, unless he excel all others in wisdom and courage; that all fuch as reign, and want thefe qualifications, are advanced to the government by force or faction; have no right by the law of nature to be what they are, but ought rather to be flaves than princes. For nature appoints, that wife men fhould govern fools, not that wicked men fhould rule over good men, fools over wife men: and confequently they that take the government out of fuch men's hands, act according to the law of nature. To what end nature directs wife men fhould bear the rule, you fhall hear in your own words; viz. "That by force or by perfuafion, they may keep fuch as are unruly within due bounds." But how should he keep others within the bounds of their duty, that neglects, or is ignorant of, or wilfully acts contrary to his own? Alle ge now, if you can, any dictate of nature, by which we are enjoined to neglect the wife inftitutions of the law of nature, and have no regard to them in civil and public concerns, when we fee what great and admirable things · nature herself effects in things that are inaniinate and void of fenfe, rather than lofe her end. Produce any rule of nature, or natural juftice, by which inferiour criminals ought to be punished, but kings and princes to go unpunished; and not only fo, but though guilty of the greatest crimes imaginable, be had in reverence and almost adored. You agree, That "all forms of government, whether by many, or few, or by a fingle perfon, are equally agreeable to the law of nature." So that the perfon of a king is not by the law of nature more facred than a fenate of nobles, or magiftrates, chofen from amongst the common people, who you grant may be punished, and ought to be if they offend; and confequently, kings ought to be fo too, who are appointed to rule for the very fame end and purpose that other magiftrates are. "For," fay you, "nature does not allow any fingle perfon to rule fo entirely, as not to have part

ners

ners in the government." It does not therefore allow of a monarch; it does not allow one fingle person to rule fo, as that all others should be in a flavifh fubjection to his commands only. You that give princes fuch partners in the government, as in whom," to use your own words, "the government always refides," do at the fame time make others colleagues with them, and equal to them; nay, and confequently you fettle a power in those colleagues of punishing, and of depofing them. So that while you yourself go about, not to extol a kingly government, but to establish it by the law of nature, you deftroy it; no greater misfortune could befall fovereign princes, than to have fuch an advocate as you are. Poor unhappy wretch! what blindness of mind has feized you, that you fhould unwittingly take fo much pains to difcover your knavery and folly, and make it visible to the world, (which before you concealed in fome measure, and difguifed) that you should be fo induftrious to heap difgrace and ignominy upon your felf? What offence does Heaven punifh you for, in making you appear in public, and undertake the defence of a defperate caufe, with fo much impudence and childishness, and inftead of defending it, to betray it by your ignorance? What enemy of yours would defire to fee you in a more forlorn, defpicable condition than you are, who have no refuge left from the depth of mifery, but in your own imprudence and want of sense, fince by your unfkilful and filly defence, you have rendered tyrants the more odious and deteftable, by afcribing to them an unbounded liberty of doing mischief with impunity; and confequently have created them more enemies than they had before? But I return to your contradictions. When you had refolved with yourself to be fo wicked, as to endeavour to find out a foundation for tyranny in the law of nature, you faw a neceflity of extolling monarchy above other forts of government; which you cannot go about to do, without doing as you use to do, that is, contradicting yourself. For having faid but a little before, "That all forms of government, whether by more or fewer, or by a fingle perfon, are equally according to the law of nature,'

P 3

now

now you tell us, "that of all thefe forts of government, that of a fingle perfon is moft natural:" nay, though you had faid in exprefs terms but lately, "that the law of nature does not allow, that any government should refide intirely in one man." Now upbraid whom you will with the putting of tyrants to death; fince you yourself, by your own folly, have cut the throats of all monarchs, nay even of monarchy itself. But it is not to the purpofe for us here to difpute which form of government is beft, by one fingle perfon, or by many. I confefs many eminent and famous men have extolled monarchy; but it has always been upon this fuppofition, that the prince was a very excellent perfon, and one that of all others deferved beft to reign; without which fuppofition, no form of government can be fo prone to tyranny as monarchy is. And whereas you refemble a monarchy to the government of the world, by one divine Being, I pray anfwer me, whether you think that any other can deferve to be invefted with a power here on earth, that fhall refemble his power that governs the world, except fuch a perfon as does infinitely excel all other men, and both for wifdom and goodnets in fome meafure refemble the Deity? and fuch a perfon, in my opinion, none can be but the Son of God himself.And whereas you make a kingdom to be a kind of family, and make a comparifon betwixt a prince and the mafter of a family; obferve how lame the parallel is. For a mafter of a family begot part of his household, at leaft he feeds all thofe that are of his houfe, and upon that account deferves to have the government; but the reafon holds not in the cafe of a prince; nay, it is quitecontrary. In the next place, you propofe to us for our imitation the example of inferiour creatures, efpecially of birds, and amongst them of bees, which according to your kill in natural philosophy, are a fort of birds too; "The bees have a king over them." The bees of Trent you mean; do not you remember? all other bees, you yourfelf confefs to be commonwealths. But leave off playing the fool with bees; they belong to the Mufes, and hate, and (you fee) confute fuch a beetle as you are. "The quails are under a captain." Lay

fuch