"In the early ages of the world, according to the Scripture chronology,
there were no kings, the consequence of which was there were no wars. It
is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland,
without a king, hath enjoyed more peace for the last century than any of
the monarchical governments of Europe. Antiquity favors the same remark,
for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs have a happy
something in them which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish
royalty." (Common Sense, p. 12.)
Mr. Paine, did the God of the Bible approve of the Jewish royalty?
_Ans._ "As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest can not be
justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended
on the authority of Scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared
by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by
kings." * * * Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic
account of the creation, until the Jews, under the national delusion,
requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in
extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of
republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. King
they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under the
title but Lord of Hosts. * * * Monarchy is ranked in Scripture as one
of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced
against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to. The
children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched
against them with a small army, and victory, through the divine
interposition, decided in his favor. The Jews, elate with success, and
attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed making him a king,
saying, "_Rule thou over us, thou and thy son, and thy son's son._" Here
was temptation in its fullest extent; not a kingdom only, but an
hereditary one. But Gideon, in the piety of his soul, replied, "_I will
not rule over you; neither shall my son rule over you._ THE LORD SHALL
RULE OVER YOU." (Common Sense, pp. 13 and 14.)
How many Gideons are there among leading infidels whose soul-piety would
resist such a temptation as that? Say, was Thomas Paine an infidel when
he wrote that?
"In short, monarchy and succession have laid, not this or that kingdom
only, but the world in blood and ashes. 'Tis a form of government which
the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it."
(Common Sense, p. 19.) "'But where,' say some, 'is the king of America?'
I'll tell you, friend; he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of
mankind like the royal brute of Britain. Yet, that we may not appear to
be defective in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for
proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth, placed on the divine
law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world
may know that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America _the law
is king_." (Common Sense, p. 33.)
After quoting sundry passages of Scripture against a kingly form of
government, Thomas Paine says:
"These portions of Scripture are direct and positive. They admit of no
equivocal construction. That the Almighty hath here entered his protest
against monarchical government is true, or the Scripture is false. And a
man hath good reason to believe that there is as much of kingcraft as
priestcraft in withholding the Scripture from the public in popish
countries." (Common Sense, p. 15.)
From the foregoing _verbatim_ quotations it will be seen that Thomas
Paine was no infidel until he PARTED WITH "COMMON SENSE," which bears
date of February 14, 1776. Common Sense is of noble worth. We cheerfully
concede to Thomas Paine all the honor due him for services rendered in
behalf of our country while he was Thomas Paine the Quaker. He did
nothing for our country after he avowed his infidelity that deserves
being mentioned by any intelligent Christian.