produce sedition and change of government. In these western parts of the world, we are made to receive our opinions, concerning the institution and rights of commonwealths, from Aristotle, Cicero, and other men, Greeks and Romans; that, living under popular states, derived those rights, not from the principles of nature, but transcribed them into their books, out of the practice of their own commonwealths, which were popular; as the grammarians describe the rules of language out of the practice of the time; or the rules of poetry, out of the poems of Homer or Virgil. And because the Athenians were taught (to keep them from desire of changing their government), that they were freemen, and all that lived under monarchy were slaves; therefore Aristotle puts it down in his Politiques (lib. vi. cap. 2.) in democracy liberty is to be supposed: for it is commonly held, that no man is free in any other government. And as Aristotle, so Cicero and other writers. have grounded their civil doctrine on the opinions of the Romans, who were taught to hate monarchy, at first, by them that, having deposed their sovereign, shared amongst them the sovereignty of Rome; and afterwards by their successors. And by reading of these Greek and Latin authors, men from their childhood have gotten a habit (under a false shew of liberty) of favouring tumults, and of licentious controlling the actions of their sovereigns, and again of controlling those controllers with the effusion of so much blood: as, I think, I may truly say, there was never any thing so dearly bought, as these western parts have bought the learning of the Greek and Latin tongues."-On the former part of this passage, Mr. Harrington re-' marks, that "to say, that a Luchese hath no more li * Hobbes's Leviathan, p. 110. fol. Lond. 1651. berty or immunity, from the laws of Luca, than a Turk hath from those of Constantinople; and to say that a Luchese hath no more liberty or immunity by the laws. of Luca, than a Turk hath by those of Constantinople; are pretty different speeches. The first may be said of all governments alike; the second scarce of any two; much less of these, seeing it is known, that whereas the greatest bashaw is a tenant as well of his head, as of his estate, at the will of his lord: the meanest Luchese, that hath land, is a freeholder of both, and not to be controlled but by the law; and that framed by every private man unto no other end (or they may thank themselves) than to protect the liberty of every private man, which by that means comes to be the liberty of the commonwealth ".”But Mr. Hobbes, I think, is much mistaken in attributing our notions of liberty, and the consequences of these notions, to the reading of Greek and Latin writers. Our ancestors in Germany, who understood neither Greek nor Latin, entertained them. The feudal system, in the formation of which neither Aristotle nor Cicero were consulted, introduced in these Western parts by the Northern nations, in a good measure adopted them; and they are still subsisting in several parts of the globe, where the Greeks and Romans were never heard of. This writer, I suppose, had in his eye the civil wars of his own time and country, when he speaks thus severely of the doctrines of liberty, and the supposed patrons of it. The Greek philosopher, and the Roman orator, the historians of both nations, and many even of their poets, celebrate the patrons of liberty, and consign to eternal infamy her foes. However, if I am not much mistaken, it was not from these Harrington's Oceana. odious in the eyes of the government, and at the same time so terrible, the press that the spirit of freedom was catched, which produced effects so wonderful. From the Reformation, the Hebrew historians had been read; read diligently and constantly by the bulk of the people: more especially by those stiled Puritans, who aided the parliament, and rendered their cause successful. The overthrow of Pharoah, for his tyranny; the destruction of Sihon, and Og, for inhumanity; the hanging the king of Ai, and the five kings, by Joshua, after having overcome them; the treatment of Adonibezek! and the present from the Lord of a dagger, by Ehud to Eglon, whereby the Israelites were restored to freedom; and a multitude of other instances which might be produced; tended much to fill their minds with notions of the lawfulness of resistance, and the right of punishing ty ranny and oppression. And the writers of the books of the New Testament, though they have laid down the doctrine of submission to the higher powers in clear and express terms; yet never thought, as appears by their own history, that the magistrate was entitled to absolute, unconditional obedience. Now is it to be wondered, that men conversant, daily conversant, in such writings, should imbibe the spirit of freedom? These writings did that on the main body of the soldiery at this time, which Aristotle or Cicero could not have done: that is, they excited them to action by examples held, on all hands, to be sacred and divine. But what are the mischiefs resulting from these doctrines ? do they, indeed, favour tumults; and licentiously tend to controul the actions of sovereigns; more than their contraries? by no means. If we look into the histories 24 and secured was most strictly guarded and such as were found to be the authors of the Turkish or the Russian empires, we shall find more tumults, more controuling, more deposing, and murdering of sovereigns; than are to be found in the annals of those nations where the principles of liberty have most prevailed. Sha Hussein was deposed, his children massacred, and the crown transferred from his family, even in our own days; though the Afghans, and their chiefs, were wholly uninstructed by the masters Mr. Hobbes speaks of. The gentleman, however, was unnecessarily alarmed. "The right of resistance," as Mr. Locke observes, " even in manifest acts of tyranny, will not suddenly, or on slight occasions, disturb the government. For if it reaches no farther than some private mens cases, though they have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what, by unlawful force is taken from them; yet the right to do so will not easily engage them in a contest wherein they are sure to perish: it being as impossible for one, or a few oppressed men to disturb the government, where the body of the people do not think themselves concerned in it; as for a raving madman, or heady malecontent, to overturn a well-settled state: the people being as little apt to follow the one, as the other "." The press was strictly guarded and secured.] The liberty of the press was always a matter of lamentation to the friends of despotism. "Printing," says one of these, in an address to his majesty, Charles II. " is like a good dish of meat, which, moderately eaten of, See Hanway's Revolutions in Persia. p. 381. 8vo. Lond. 1674. 5 b Locke on Government, or publishers of things disagreeable, under turns to the nourishment and health of the body; but, immoderately, to surfeits and sicknesses. As the use is very necessary, the abuse is very dangerous. Cannot this abuse be remedied any other way, than depriving your majesty of your antient and just power? How were the abuses taken away in queen Elizabeth, king James, and the beginning of king Charles his time, when few or no scandals or libels were stirring? Was it not by fining, imprisoning, seizing the books, and breaking the presses of the transgressors, by order of council-board? Was it not otherwise when the jurisdiction of that court was taken away, by act of parliament, 17 Car. If princes cannot redress abuses, can less men redress them? I dare positively say, the liberty of the press was the principal furthering cause of the confinement of your most royal fathers person: for, after this act, every male-content vented his passion in print; some against his person, some against his government, some against his religion, and some against his parts. The common people, that before this liberty believed even a ballad because it was in print, greedily suckt in these scandals, especially being authorized by a god of their own making. The parliament, finding the faith of the deceived people to be implicitly in them, printed the Remonstrance, the Engagement to live and dye with the Earl of Essex, the Covenant, &c. and so totally possest the press that the king could not be heard. By this means the common people became not only statists, but parties in the parliaments cause, hearing but one side, and then words begat blows. For though words of themselves are too weak instruments to kill a man; yet they can direct how, and when, and what men shall be killed. In |