hands, act according to the law of nature. To what end nature directs wise men should bear the rule, you shall hear in your own words; viz. "That by force or by persuasion, they may keep such 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? Allege now, if you can, any dictate of nature, by which we are enjoined to neglect the wise institutions of the law of nature, and have no regard to them in civil and public concerns, when we see what great and admirable things nature herself effects in things that are inanimate and void of sense, rather than lose her end. Produce any rule of nature, or natural justice, by which inferior criminals ought to be punished, but kings and princes to go unpunished; and not only so, 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 single person, are equally agreeable to the law of nature." So that the person of a king is not by the law of nature more sacred than a senate of nobles, or magistrates, chosen from amongst the common people, who you grant may be punished, and ought to be if they offend; and consequently, kings ought to be so too, who are appointed to rule for the very same end and purpose that other magistrates are. "For," say you, "nature does not allow any single person to rule so entirely, as not to have partners in the government." It does not therefore allow of a monarch; it does not allow one single person to rule so, as that all others should be in a slavish subjection to his commands only. You that give princes such partners in the government," as in whom," to use your own words, "the government always resides," do

at the same time make others colleagues with them, and equal to them; nay, and consequently you settle a power in those colleagues of punishing, and of deposing them. So that while you yourself go about, not to extol a kingly government, but to establish it by the law of nature, you destroy it; no greater misfortune could befal sovereign princes, than to have such an advocate as you are. Poor unhappy wretch! what blindness of mind has seized you, that you should unwittingly take so much pains to discover your knavery and folly, and make it visible to the world, (which before you concealed in some measure, and disguised) that you should, be so industrious to heap disgrace and ignominy upon yourself? What offence does Heaven punish you for, in making you appear in public, and undertake the defence of a desperate cause, with so much impudence and childishness, and instead of defending it, to betray it by your ignorance? What enemy of yours would desire. to see you in a more forlorn, despicable condition than, you are, who have no refuge left from the depth of misery, but in your own imprudence and want of sense, since by your unskilful and silly defence, you have rendered tyrants the more odious and detestable, by ascribing to them an unbounded liberty of doing mischief with impunity; and consequently have created them more enemies than they had before? But I return to your contradictions. When you had resolved with yourself to be so wicked, as to endeavour to find out a foundation for tyranny in the law of nature, you saw a necessity of extolling monarchy above other sorts of govern ment; which you cannot go about to do, without doing. as you use to do, that is, contradicting yourself. For having said but a little before, "That all forms of government, whether by more or fewer, or by a single

person, are equally according to the law of nature," now you tell us, " that of all these sorts of government, that of a single person is most natural:" nay, though you had said in express terms but lately, "that the law of nature does not allow, that any government should reside intirely in one man." Now upbraid whom you will with the putting of tyrants to death; since you yourself, by your own folly, have cut the throats of allmonarchs, nay even of monarchy itself. But it is not to the purpose for us here to dispute which form of government is best, by one single person, or by many. I confess many eminent and famous men have extolled monarchy; but it has always been upon this supposition, that the prince was a very excellent person, and one that of all others deserved best to reign; without which supposition, no form of government can be so prone to tyranny as monarchy is. And whereas you resemble a monarchy to the government of the world, by one divine Being, I pray answer me, whether you think that any other can deserve to be invested with a power here on earth, that shall resemble his power that governs the world, except snch a person as does infinitely excel all other men, and both for wisdom and goodness in some measure resemble the Deity? and such a person, 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 comparison betwixt a prince and the master of a family; observe how lame the parallel is. For a master of a family begot part of his household, at least he feeds all those that are of his house, and upon that account deserves to have the government; but the reason holds not in the case of a prince; nay, it is quite contrary. In the next place, you propose to us for our imitation the example of inferior creatures, especially

of birds, and amongst them of bees, which according to your skill in natural philosophy, are a sort of birds too; "The bees have a king over them." The bees of Trent you mean; do not you remember? all other bees, you yourself confess to be commonwealths. But leave off playing the fool with bees; they belong to the Muses, and hate, and (you see) confute such a beetle as you are. "The quails are under a captain." Lay such snares for your own bitterns; you are not fowler good enough to catch us. Now you begin to be personally concerned. Gallus Gallinaceus, a cock, say you, "has both cocks and hens under him." How can that be, since you yourself that are Gallus, and but too much Gallinaceus, by report cannot govern your own single hen, but let her govern you? So that if a Gallinaceus be a king over many hens, you that are a slave to one, must own yourself not to be so good as a Gallinaceus, but some Stercorarius Gallus, some dunghill-cock or other. For matter of books, there is no body publishes huger dunghills than you, and you disturb all people with your shitten cock-crow; that is the only property in which you resemble a true cock. I will throw you a great many barley-corns, if in ransacking this dunghillbook of yours, you can show me but one jewel. But why should I promise you barley, that never pecked at corn, as that honest plain cock that we read of in Æsop, but at gold, as that roguey cock in Plautus, though with a different event; for you found a hundred Jacobusses, and he was struck dead with Euclio's club, which you deserve more than he did. But let us go on : "That same natural reason that designs the good and safety of all mankind, requires, that whoever be once promoted to the sovereignty, be preserved in the possession of it." Who ever questioned this, as long as his preservation is

66

consistent with the safety of all the rest? But is it not obvious to all men, that nothing can be more contrary to natural reason, than that any one man should be preserved and defended, to the utter ruin and destruction of all others? But yet (you say) " it is better to keep and defend a bad prince, nay one of the worst that ever was, than to change him for another; because his ill government cannot do the commonwealth so much harm as the disturbances will occasion, which must of necessity be raised before the people can get rid of him." But what is this to the right of kings by the law of nature ? If nature teaches me rather to suffer myself to be robbed by highwaymen, or if I should be taken captive by such, to purchase my liberty with all my estate, than to fight with them for my life, can you infer from thence, that they have a natural right to rob and spoil me? Nature teaches men to give way sometimes to the violence and outrages of tyrants; the necessity of affairs sometimes enforces a toleration with their enormities; what foundation can you find in this forced patience of a nation, in this compulsory submission, to build a right upon, for princes to tyrannize by the law of nature? That right which nature has given the people for their own preservation, can you affirm that she has invested tyrants with for the people's ruin and destruction? Nature teaches us, of two evils to choose the least; and to bear with oppression, as long as there is a necessity of so doing; and will you infer from hence, that tyrants have some right by the law of nature to oppress their subjects, and go unpunished, because, as circumstances may fall out, it may sometimes be a less mischief to bear with them than to remove them? Remember what yourself once wrote concerning bishops against a jesuit; you were then of another opinion than you are now: I have quoted