II. The right of the people to choose their own rulers. No man is born a magistrate, or with a right to rule over his brethren. If this were the case, there must be some natural mark by which it might be known to whom this right belongs, or it could answer no end; but no man was ever known to come into the world with any such mark of superiority and dominion. If a man, by the improvement of his reason and moral powers, becomes more wise and virtuous than his brethren, this renders him better qualified for authority than others; but still he is no magistrate or lawgiver till he is appointed such by the people.

Nor has one state or kingdom a right to appoint rulers for another. This would infer such a natural inequality in mankind as is inconsistent with the equal freedom of all. One state may, indeed, by virtue of its superior power, assume this right, and the weaker state may be obliged to submit to it for want of power to resist. But it is an unjust encroachment upon their liberty, which they ought to get rid of as soon as they can. It is a mark of tyranny on one side, and of inglorious slavery on the other.

The magistrate is properly the trustee of the people. He can have no just power but what he receives from them. To them he ought to be accountable for the use he makes of this power. But if a man may be invested with the power of government, which is the united power of the community, without their consent, how can they call

1 "Nature knew no right divine in man,

....

No ill could fear in God; and understood
A Sovereign Being but a sovereign good.
Who first taught souls enslaved, and realms undone,
The enormous faith of many made for one? . . . .
Force first made conquest, and that conquest, law;

Till Superstition taught the tyrant awe,

Then shared the tyranny, then lent it aid,

And gods of conquerors, slaves of subjects, made." POPE. - ED.

him to account? What check can they have upon him, or what security for the enjoyment of anything which he may see fit to deprive them of? They must in this case be slaves. But as every people have a right to be free, they must have a right of choosing their own rulers, and appointing such as they think most proper; because this right is so essential to liberty, that the moment a people are deprived of it they cease to be free. This, as has been already observed, is a right which the Jews always enjoyed. They elected their kings, generals, judges, and other officers; though in some few instances God did expressly point out to them the person whom they ought to choose, which, however, he has never done with any other people.1

Let us now consider,

III. The business of rulers in general.

And this is, to promote and secure the happiness of the whole community. For this end only they are invested with power, and only for this end it ought to be employed. The apostle tells us that the magistrate is God's minister for good to the people. This is the sole end for which God has ordained that magistrates should be appointedthat they may carry on his benevolent purposes in promoting the good and happiness of human society; and hence their power is said to be from God; that is, it is so while they employ it according to his will. But when they act against the good of society, they cannot be said to act by authority from God, any more than a servant can be said to act by his master's authority while he acts directly contrary to his will. And no people, we may presume, ever elected a magistrate for any other end than their own good; consequently, when a magistrate acts

1 See p. 274.-ED.

2 See pp. 75-77, 275.-ED.

against this end, he cannot act by authority from the people; so that he acts, in this case, without any authority either from God or man. He cannot, by any lawful authority, act against, but only for the good of society. This, in general, is the business of civil rulers. But there are a variety of ways and means by which they are to carry on this business, and accomplish the important end of their institution, which it is quite beyond my present design particularly to point out, though there may be occasion to suggest some of them in the progress of my discourse. Let us now consider,

IV. The qualifications pointed out in the text as necessary for rulers.

1. They must be able men. God has made a great difference in men in respect of their natural powers, both of body and mind; to some he has given more, to others fewer talents. Nor is there perhaps a less difference in this respect arising from education. And though there are none but what may be good members of civil society, as well as faithful servants of God, yet every one has not abilities sufficient to make him a good civil ruler. "Woe unto thee, O land, when thy king is a child," says Solomon, hereby intimating that the happiness of a people depends greatly upon the character of its rulers, and that if they resemble children in weakness, ignorance, credulity, fickleness, etc., the people will of course be very miserable. By able men may be intended men of good understanding and knowledge,- men of clear heads, who have improved their minds by exercise, acquired a habit of reasoning, and furnished themselves with a good degree of knowledge,- men who have a just conception of the nature and end of government in general, of the natural rights of mankind, of the nature and importance of civil and religious liberty, a knowledge of human nature, of the

springs of action, and the readiest way to engage and influence the heart, an acquaintance with the people to be governed, their genius, their prejudices, their interest with respect to other states, what difficulties they are under, what dangers they are liable to, and what they are able to bear and do. These things are ever to be taken into consideration by legislators when they make. laws for the internal police of a people, and in their transactions with or respecting other states. It would be going too far to say that an honest man cannot be a good ruler unless he be of the first character for good sense, learning, and knowledge; but it will not be denied that the more he excels in these things, the more likely he will be to rule well. He will be better able to see what measures are suited to the temper and genius of the people, and most conducive to the end of his institution; how to raise necessary supplies for the expenses of government in ways most easy and agreeable to the people; how to extricate them out of difficulties in which they may be involved; how to negotiate with foreign powers; how to prevent or mitigate the calamities of war by compromising differences, or putting the people into a condition to defend themselves and repel injuries; in a word, how to render them happy and respectable in peace, or formidable in war. These things require a very considerable degree of penetration and knowledge.

As it is of great importance to the community that learning and knowledge be diffused among the people in general, it is proper that the government should take all proper measures for this purpose making provision for the establishment and support of literary schools and colleges. But ignorant and illiterate men will not be likely to be the patrons of learning; unacquainted with its excellency and importance, and seeing no comeliness or

beauty in it, they will reject and despise it, as the Jews did the great Teacher of wisdom who came from God. It would not be strange if such men, entrusted with the government of a people, should wholly neglect to make any provision for the encouragement of literature. It is therefore proper that rulers should be men of understanding and learning, in order to their being disposed to give due encouragement and support to the teachers and professors of the liberal arts and sciences.1

It may be further observed, that weak and illiterate men at the head of a government will be likely to place in inferior and subordinate offices men of their own character, merely because they know no better.

But by "able men" may be intended men of courage, of firmness and resolution of mind, -men that will not sink into despondency at the sight of difficulties, or desert their duty at the approach of danger, - men that will hazard their lives in defence of the public, either against internal sedition or external enemies; that will not fear the resentment of turbulent, factious men; that will be a terror to evil-doers, however powerful, and a protection to the innocent, however weak; men that will decide seasonably upon matters of importance, and firmly abide by their decision, not wavering with every wind that blows. There are some men that will halt between two opinions, and hesitate so long when any question of consequence is

1 Mr. Hildreth says that only the constitutions of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and the second constitution of New Hampshire, made any mention of the all-important subject of education; and in the two former states the clauses which required the Legislature to establish schools remained a dead letter. Jefferson attempted to introduce a system of common schools in Virginia, but did not succeed. Only New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maryland, could boast anything like a system of public education, and many years elapsed before their example was imitated. - History of the United States, iii. 385–395. — Ed.