strangers;" Jesus saith unto him, " then are the children free; notwithstanding lest we should offend them, &c. give unto them for thee and for me." Expositors differ upon this place, whom this tribute was paid to; some say it was paid to the priests, for the use of the sanctuary; others that it was paid to the emperor. I am of opinion, that it was the revenue of the sanctuary, but paid to Herod, who perverted the institution of it, and took it to himself. Josephus mentions divers sorts of tribute, which he and his sons exacted, all which Agrippa afterwards remitted. And this very tribute, though small in itself, yet being accompanied with many more, was a heavy burden. The Jews, even the poorest of them in the time of their commonwealth, paid a poll; so that it was some considerable oppression that our Saviour spoke of and from heuce he took occasion to tax Herod's injustice (under whose government, and within whose jurisdiction he then was) in that, whereas the kings of the earth, who affect usually the title of fathers of their country, do not use to oppress their own children, that is, their own natural-born subjects, with heavy and unreasonable exactions, but lay such burdens upon strangers and conquered enemies; he, quite coutrary, oppressed not strangers, but his own people. But let what will be here meant by children, either naturalborn subjects, or the children of God, and those of the elect only, or christians in general, as St. Augustine understands the place; this is certain, that if Peter was a child, and therefore free, then by consequence we are so too, by our Saviour's own testimony, either as Englishmen, or as christians, and that it therefore is not the right of kings to exact heavy tributes from their own countrymen, and those freeborn subjects. Christ himself professes, that he paid not this tribute as a thing

that was due, but that he might not bring trouble upon himself by offending those that demanded it. The work that he came into this world to do, was quite of another nature. But if our Saviour deny, that it is the right of kings to burden their freeborn subjects with grievous exactions; he would certainly much less allow it to be their right to spoil, massacre, and torture their own countrymen, and those christians too. He discoursed after such a manner of the right of kings, that those to whom he spoke suspected his principles as laying too great a restraint upon sovereignty, and not allowing the license that tyrants assume to themselves to be the rights of kings. It was not for nothing, that the Pharisees put such questions to him, tempting him; and that at the same time they told him, that he regarded not the person of any man: nor was it for nothing, that he was angry when such questions were proposed to him, Matth. xxii. If one should endeavour to ensnare you with little questions, and catch at your answers, to ground an accusation against you upon your own principles.concerning the righ of kings, and all this under a monarchy, would you be angry with him? You would have but very little reason. It is evident, that our Saviour's principles concerning government were not agreeable to the humour of princes. His answer too implies as much; by which he rather turned them away, than instructed them. He asked for the tribute-money. "Whose image and superscription is it?" says he. They tell him it was Cæsar's. "Give then to Cæsar," says he," the things that are Cæsar's; and to God, the things that are God's." And how comes it to pass, that the people should not have given to them the things that are theirs? "Render to all men their dues," says St. Paul, Rom. xiii. So that Cæsar must not engross all to himself. Our liberty is

1

not Cæsar's; it is a blessing we have received from God himself; it is what we are born to; to lay this down at Cæsar's feet, which we derive not from him, which we are not beholden to him for, were an unworthy action, and a degrading of our very nature. If one should consider attentively the countenance of a man, and inquire after whose image so noble a creature were framed ; would not any one that heard him presently make answer, That he was made after the image of God himself? Being therefore peculiarly God's own, and consequently things that are to begiven to him, we are entirely free by nature, and cannot without the greatest sacrilege imaginable be reduced into a condition of slavery to any man, especially to a wicked, unjust, cruel tyrant. Our Saviour does not take upon him to determine what things are God's, and what Cæsar's; he leaves that as he found it. If the piece of money, which they showed him, was the same that was paid to God, as in Vespasian's time it was; then our Saviour is so far from having put an end to the controversy, that he has but entangled it, and made it more perplexed than it was before for it is impossible the same thing should be given both to God, and to Cæsar. But, you say, he intimates to them what things were Cæsars; to wit, that piece of money, because it bore the emperor's stamp ; and what of all that? How does this advantage your cause? You get not the emperor, or yourself, a penny by this conclusion. Either Christ allowed nothing at all to be Cæsar's, but that piece of money that he then had in his hand, and thereby asserted the people's interest in every thing else; or else, if (as you would have us understand him) he affirms all money that has the emperor's stamp upon it, to be the emperor's own, he contradicts himself, and indeed gives the magistrate a property in every man's

estate, whenas he himself paid his tribute-money with a protestation, that it was more than what either Peter or he were bound to do. The ground you rely on is very weak; for money bears the prince's image, not as a token of its being his, but of its being good metal, and that none may presume to counterfeit it. If the writing princes names, or setting their stamps upon a thing, vest the property of it in them, it were a good ready way for them to invade all property. Or rather, if whatever subjects have been absolutely at their prince's disposal, which is your assertion, that piece of money was not Cæsar's, because his image was stamped on it, but because of right it belonged to him before it was coined. So that nothing can be more manifest, than that our Saviour in this place never intended to teach us our duty to magistrates (he would have spoken more plainly, if he had) but to reprehend the malice and wickedness of the hypocritical Pharisees. When they told him, that Herod had laid wait to kill him did he return an humble, submissive answer? "Go, tell that fox," says he, &c. intimating, that kings have no other right to destroy their subjects, than foxes have to devour the things they prey upon. Say you, " he suffered death under a tyrant." How could he possibly under any other? But from hence you conclude, that he asserted it to be the right of kings to commit murder and act injustice. You would make an excellent moralist. But our Saviour, though he became a servant, not to make us so, but that we might be free; yet carried he himself so with relation to the magistracy, as not to ascribe any more to them than their due. come at last to inquire what his doctrine was upon this subject. The sons of Zebedee were ambitious of honour and power in the kingdom of Christ, which they persuaded themselves he would shortly set up in the world;

Now, let us

he reproves them so, as withal to let all Christians know what form of civil government he desires they should settle amongst themselves. "Ye know, "says he," that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; and they that are great exercise authority upon them: but it shall not be so among you; but whosover will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." Unless you had been distracted, you could never have imagined, that this place makes for you; and yet you urge it, and think it furnishes you with an argument to prove, that our kings are absolute lords and masters over us and ours. May it be our fortune to have to do with such enemies in war, as will fall blindfold and naked into our camp instead of their own: as you constantly do, who allege that for yourself, that of all things in the world makes most against you. The Israelites asked God for a king, such a king as other nations round about them had. God dissuaded them by many arguments, whereof our Saviour here gives us an epitome; "You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them." But yet, because the Israelites persisted in their desire of a king, God gave them one, though in his wrath. Our Saviour, lest Christians should desire a king, such a one at least as might rule, as he says the princes of the Gentiles did, prevents them with an injunction to the contrary; " but it shall not be so among you." What can be said plainer than this? That stately, imperious sway and dominion, that kings use to exercise, shall not be amongst you; what specious titles soever they may assume to themselves, as that of benefactors; or the like. "But he that will be great amongst you" (and who is greater than the prince ?) "let him be your servant." So that the lawyer, whoever he be, that you