The next VERSE is to the fame Purpose. The Reafon hereof he annexes in the following Verfes. E'er long we hope the Grave fhall render up Though in St. Paul's Time the Multitude at Athens were fo abfolutely unacquainted with the Refurrection of the Dead, that when they had the Happiness to hear him preach concerning it, fome of them apprehended him to speak of a God, and all of a new strange Thing; Yet at the fame time, there were fome at Rome, that were most clean and full in their Belief of it; who not unlikely with their other Knowledges, receiv'd this at Athens. 'Tis true, Catullus, in fome amorous Verses to his beloved Lesbia, denies any other Life after Death, and Pliny in as extravagant a Talk and Sally, in his natural Hiftory, derides the Refurrection, than which nothing is most certain; for as Death is but only an Interruption, not a total Abolition of Life, there will a Day come, when we fhall repoffefs the Light. The Apoftles Creed confirms this Doctrine; and among the many Proofs in Scripture which affure it, this of the moft patient Man upon Earth is as evident as any: I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall ftand at the latter Day upon the Earth. And though after my Skin, Worms deftroy this Bo dy, yet in my Flefh fhall I fee God. Job. xix. 25, 26. Q. May a Chriftian lawfully put out Money to use? A. The original Defign of Money was not that it fhould beget its Like; but only to be a Medium for determining the Value of each Commodity. Now Ufury Now to Ufury, on the other Side, is a kind of Excife upon the Borrower: Or, a Spel over and above the Princi pal, in Confideration of the Loan of it. Therefore Ufury may be juftly cenfured, because oppofite to the primitive End for which Money was coyn'd; which was (as above hinted) Convenience of Traffick, and not Self-increase: But here Money begets Money. Ufury is term'd Fanus by the Latins, becaufe Offfprings do moftly refemble their Begetters. Wherefore, this way of fcraping Wealth, is to be deem'd of all others, the most contrary to Nature, upon these two Arguments too. First, where the Ufe of any thing is the Confumption of it, the Ufe is infeparable from the thing it felf; but in this Cafe the Ufe is wholly diftinct from the Subftance, therefore against Nature. Secondly, things naturally barren, ought not to be efteem'd fructiferous: But Ufury requires Gratifications for Money, as fructiferous, though in its own Nature it be intirely deftitute of any fuch Quality. the Queftion propos'd, whether a Christian may lawfully put out Money to ufe? We anfwer, that as Christians do partake of the Benefit of other political Establishments, fo may they fafely make fuch Bargains. and Contracts, as the Laws do adjudge to be honest. Now 'tis true, that the old Imperial Laws permitted. Ufury; but yet they never undertook for the Honefty of it. And who is fo weak as not to understand the Difference of a Toleration and an Approbation?. It is no more to be expected that the Laws fhould extirpate all Evils out of a State, than that a Physician fhould cure all Diseases: But as he prohibits any Medicines at all, in some Distempers, for fear of Irritation, even fo is Policy fain to diffemble with fuch Vices, as having been authoriz'd by antient Custom, are not removable, but at great Hazards. We are indeed wholly against a Chriftian's taking up a Jew's Trade of Ufury, and would advife him to any other Courfe of Life, that is commendable. Q. What What Sort of Government is really moft agreeable to the Genius of the English Nation? A. Examine the various Revolutions that have happen'd to this Ifland, Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, and Normans; or (more nearly) the Changes in their Defcents, from the direct Line to the collateral, or (yet nearer) the Times of Infurrection and depofing Kings, Edward and Richard, both Seconds of the Name, and you fhall find Kingship ftill in Fashion. Nay, that of King John is more notorious, for when the People had in a Sort dethron'd him, and fworn Allegiance to Lewis of France, yet, when John died, the fame People not only expell'd the Foreigner, but having got the Power into their own Hands, they Crown'd King John's Son, being then an Infant, with out Intereft or Adherents: Nor will all our Chronicles afford us one fingle Inftance of any Defign or Endeavour to erect a free Eftate, before the unnatural Times of Forty Eight furnish'd the Precedent. No, not when Wat Tyler or Jack Straw revell'd it with their Clowns. Nor yet is this Genius ever to be chang'd, for reflect we next, that as our English Nature is not like the French, fupple to Oppreffion, and apt to delight in that Pomp and Magnificence of their Lords, which (they know) is fupported with their Slavery and Hunger; nor like the Highland Scots, where the Honour and Intereft of the Chief is the Glory of the whole Clan; lo doth it as little (or less) agree with the Dutch Humour, addicted only to Traffick, Navigation, Handicrafts, and fordid Thrift, and (in Defiance of Heraldry) every Man fancying his own Efcutchion. Befides, you can→ not but remember, how that bare Glympfe and Shadow of Monarchy under Oliver Cromwell, and his Son Dick, (tho' Perfons even at that very Time hated and fcorn'd, and that too upon a moft impious and fcandalous Account) was for meer Refemblance-Sake admitted as tolerable, and (in refpect of a Commonwealth) counted; which clearly evinces, how grate ful ful the Subftance muft needs be to all true English Spirits. Q. How came Laws at first to be made? A. From the Multitude of Injuftices that were con tinually acted under the Cover of Arbitrariness, proceeded the Invention of Laws, as the best means to free the People from burthenfome Oppreffions; and for preventing Affronts to the Language of the Magiftrate; for the placing the Reasons of their Determi nations upon Record, took away all Sufpicion of Partiality, or Error in the Judgment; which tho' it might perhaps feem fevere, yet the Legality of it was its Juftification And although the Lofs of a Man's Cause might fometimes make him unfatisfied with the Reafonableness of the Law that occafion'd it, yet the Complaint refted there; because that was the Rule agreed upon, for the determining Right and Wrong; and the Generality of its Reception made its Validity unqueftionable. Q. What is the Difference betwixt a Supreme and Abfolute Empire? A. The Difference that we understand betwixt a Supreme and Abfolute Empire, is, that in an abfolute Empire, the Rule of the Peoples Obedience is only the Sovereign's Will. So it is in Turkey, Muscovy, and all fuch Princes as retain entire the Right of Conqueft; and was in fome Part under the Roman Emperors, after the Lex regia was eftablifh'd by the People's Confent; whereby they transferr'd their entire Right unto him. Supreme Empire we take to be, when a King has a Supremacy and Sovereignty over all, but his abfolute Power is limited and reftrain'd by reciprocal Pacts, Laws, and Stipulations betwixt Prince and People, which is the Cafe of the Crown of England: And to thefe Pacts the King and People are equally bound before God and Man; and the King is as much bound to Juftice, to the Protection of his Subjects, and to the Obferyance of the Laws (not only out of Religion, but even of of moral Honesty alfo) as the Subject is to Obedience. And he is not only accountable to God, but even his People have certain juft and legal Ways to feek Redrefs, wherein he fhall do wrong; notwithstanding that Axiom of our Common-Law, That the King can do no wrong; which is falfe in many Senfes, and may very well be call'd Fictio juris, a kind of metaphyfical Fiction: Le roy ne fait tort, being only to be under flood in the ordinary Courfe of Juftice; which the King adminiftring by his Minifters, and not in Perfon, it is they that are the Wrong-doers, and not the King; and the Subject against them is to feek his Remedy. For Kings may do wrong, and be as wicked as other Men, commit Murther, and wrongfully take away other Mens Estates; which no Fiction of the Law can make not to be wrong; altho' his Perfon be exempt from Punishment. But to fpeak ftill in plainer intelligible Terms, a King both may do wrong, and the People may feek their Redrefs, in fuch fort as the Law of the Land allows. And the Difference betwixt King and Peoples failing in their reciprocal Duties, is not but that they do wrong alike, offend God alike, and are both of them liable to be queftion'd, according to the Extent of the Law, by both their Confents eftablifh'd. The Subjects tranfgreffing the Law, fhall be punifh'd according to the Quality and Measure of the Offence: Felony, by the Lofs of their Goods and Chattles, and by a milder Death; Treafon, by a more fe vere Death, and Confifcation both of Goods and Inheritance. But hereof they must be convicted, per Pares, by People of their own Condition, and adjudg'd by a fuperior Jurifdiction; which can be deriv'd only from the King. So that the King, having not his Peer, nor any of his own Condition, cannot have a legal Tryal and having no Jurifdiction fuperior to himself, cannot be adjudg'd or fentenc'd by any; For neither the Extent of the Law, nor any Condition of the Pacts, or Stipulation, do reach to the punishing of the Per C fon |