百度搜索 on Sense 或 on Sense 本站 即可找到本书最新章节.
;strong 2.2 OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION;/strong
Mankind being inally equals in the order of creation, the equalituld only be destroyed by so subsequent circutahe distins of rich, and poor, y in a great asure be ated for, and that without haing urse to the harsh, ill-sounding nas of oppression and aarice.
Oppression is often the SEQUENCE, but seldoor he MEANS of riches; and though aarice will presere a n frobeing ously poor, it generally kes hitoo tirous to be weahy.
But there is another and greater distin, for whio truly natural ious reason be assigned, and that is, the distin of n into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and fele are the distins of nature, good and bad the distins of heaen; but how a raen to the world so eaed aboe the rest, and distinguished like so new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the ans of happiness or of sery to nkind.
In the early ages of the world, a to the scripture ology, there were no kings; the sequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw nkind into fusion. Holnd without a king hath enjoyed re peace for this st tury than any of the narchial goers in Europe. Antiquity faours the sa rerk; for the quiet and rural lies of the first patriarchs hath a happy sothing in the whiishes away wheo the history of Jewish royay.
Goer by king;q;/qs was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, frowhothe children of Israepied the .
It was the st prosperous iion the Deil eer set on foot for the protion of idotry. The Heathens paid diine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath iroed on the pn, by doing the sa to their liing ones. How iious is the title of sacred jesty applied to a wor who i of his splendor is cruling into dust! As the eaing one n so greatly aboe the rest ot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so her it be defended ohority of scripture; for the will of the Alghty, as decred by Gideon and the prophet Sael, epressly disapproes of goer by kings. All anti-narchical parts of scripture hae been ery sothly glossed oer in narchical goers, but they undoubtedly rit the attention of tries which hae their goers yet to for
RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESARS is the scripture doe ourts, yet it is no support of narchical goer, for the Jews at that ti were without a king, and in a state of assage to the Rons.
Now three thousand years passed away frothe Mosaic at of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king.
Till then their foer (ecept iraordinary cases, where the A;;cite;/citeighty interposed) was a kind of republiistered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to aowledge any being uhat title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a n seriously reflects on the idotrous hoge which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wohat the Alghty, eer jealous of his honour, should disapproe of a foer whipiously ihe prerogatie of heaen.
Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in resere is denounced against the
The history of that transa is worth attending to.
The children of Israel being oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon rched against thewith a sll ar, and ictory, through the diierposition, decided in his faour. The Jews, ete with suess, and attributing it to the generalship of Gideon, proposed king hia king, saying, RULE THOU OVER US, THOU AND THY SON AND THY SONS SON. Here was tetation in its fullest etent; not a kingdoonly, but an hereditary one, but Gideon in the piety of his soul replied, I WILL NOT RULE OVER YOU, HER SHALL MY SON RULE OVER YOU _THE LORD SHALL RULE OVER YOU._ Words need not be re eplicit; Gideon doth not dee the honour, but deheir right to gie it; her doth he plint thewith ied decrations of his thanks, but in the positie style of a prophet charges thewith disaffe to their proper Sn, the King of heaen.
About one hundred and thirty years after this, they fell again into the sa error. The hankering which the Jews had for the idotrous s of the Heathens, is sothing eceedingly unatable; but so it was, that ying hold of the sduct of Saels two sons, who were entrusted with so secur s, they an abrupt and crous o Sael, saying, BEHOLD THOU ART OLD, AND THY SONS WALK NOT IN THY WAYS, NOW MAKE US A KING TO JUDGE US, LIKE ALL OTHER NATIONS. And here we ot but obsere that their ties were bad, iz. that they ght be LIKE unto other nations, i.e. the Heathens, whereas their true glory id in being as LIKE theas possible. BUT THE THING DISPLEASED SAMUEL WHEN THEY SAID, GIVE US A KING TO JUDGE US; AND SAMUEL PRAYED UNTO THE LORD, AND THE LORD SAID UNTO SAMUEL, HEARKEN UNTO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL THAT THEY SAY UNTO THEE, FOR THEY HAVE NOT REJECTED THEE, BUT THEY HAVE REJECTED ME, _THAT I SHOULD NHEM._ ACC TO ALL THE WORKS WHICH THEY HAVE SIHE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM UP OUT OF EGYPT, EVEN UNTO THIS DAY; WHEREWITH THEY HAVE FORSAKEN ME AND SERVED ODS; SO DO THEY ALSO UNTO THEE. NOW THEREFORE HEARKEN UNTO THEIR VOICE, HOWBEIT, PROTEST SOLEMNLY UNTO THEM AND SHEW THEM THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGHEM, I.E. not of any particur king, but the general nner of the kings of the earth, whoIsrael was so eagerlpying after. And notwithstanding the great distance of ti and differenanners, the character is still in fashion. AND SAMUEL TOLD ALL THE WORDS OF THE LORD UNTO THE PEOPLE, THAT ASKED OF HIM A KING. AND HE SAID, THIS SHALL BE THE MANNER OF THE KING THAT SHALL REIGN OVER YOU; HE WILL TAKE YOUR SONS AND APPOINT THEM FOR HIMSELF, FOR HIS CHARIOTS, AND TO BE HIS HORSEMAN, AND SOME SHALL RUN BEFORE HIS CHARIOTS (this description agrees with the present de of iressing n) AND HE WILL APPOINT HIM CAPTAINS OVER THOUSANDS AND CAPTAINS OVER FIFTIES, AND WILL SET THEM TO EAR HIS GROUND AND REAP HIS HARVEST, AND TO MAKE HIS INSTRUMENTS OF WAR, AND INSTRUMENTS OF HIS CHARIOTS; AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO BE FEARIES, AND TO BE COOKS AND TO BE BAKERS (this describes the epense and luury as well as the oppression of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE YOUR FIELDS AND YOUR OLIVE YARDS, EVEN THE BEST OF THEM, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS SERVANTS; AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR SEED, AND OF YOUR VINEYARDS, AND GIVE THEM TO HIS OFFICERS AND TO HIS SERVANTS (by which we see that briberyrruption, and faouritisare the standing ices of kings) AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR MEN SERVANTS, AND YOUR MAID SERVANTS, AND YOODLIEST YOUNG MEN AND YOUR ASSES, AND PUT THEM TO HIS WORK; AND HE WILL TAKE THE TENTH OF YOUR SHEEP, AND YE SHALL BE HIS SERVANTS, AND YE SHALL CRY OUT IN THAT DAY BECAUSE OF YOUR KING WHICH YE SHALL HAVE CHOSEN, _AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY._ This ats for the tinuation of narchy; her do the characters of the few good kings which hae lied since, either sanctify the title, or blot out the sinfulness of the in; the high en gien of Daid takes no notice of hiOFFICIALLY AS A KING, but only as a MAN after Gods ow;bdi..;/bdirt.
HELESS THE PEOPLE REFUSED TO OBEY THE VOICE OF SAMUEL, AND THEY SAID, NAY, BUT WE WILL HAVE A KING OVER US, THAT WE MAY BE LIKE ALL THE NATIONS, AND THAT OUR KING MAY JUDGE US, AND GO OUT BEFORE US, AND FIGHT OUR BATTLES.
Sael tio reason with the but to no purpose; he set before thetheir ingratitude, but all would not aail; and seeing thefully bent on their folly, he cried out, I WILL CALL UNTO THE LORD, AND HE SHALL SEND THUNDER AND RAIN (which then unishnt, being ii of wheat harest) THAT YE MAY PERCEIVE AHAT YOUR WIESS IS GREAT WHICH YE HAVE DONE IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, AND THE LORD SENT THUNDER AND RAIN THAT DAY, AND ALL THE PEOPLE GREATLY FEARED THE LORD AND SAMUEL. AND ALL THE PEOPLE SAID UNTO SAMUEL, PRAY FOR THY SERVANTS UNTO THE LORD THY GOD THAT WE DIE NOT, FOR _WE HAVE ADDED UNTO OUR SINS THIS EVIL, TO ASK A KING._ These portions of scripture are dired positie.
They adt of no equiocal stru. That the Alghty hath here entered his protest against narchical goer, is true, or the scripture is false. And a n hath good reason to beliee that there is as ch of kingcraft, as priestcraft, in withholding the scripture frothe publi Popish tries.
For narchy in eery instance is the Popery of goer.
To the eil of narchy we hae added that of hereditary suession; and as the first is a degradation and lessening of ourseles, so the sed, cid as a tter ht, is an insu and an iosition on posterity. For all n being inally equals, no ONE by BIRTuld hae a right to set up his own faly iual prefereo all others for eer, and though hielf ght desere SOME det degree of honours of his poraries, yet his desdants ght be far too unworthy to i the One of the stro NATURAL proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproes it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giing nkind an ASS FOR A LION.
Sedly, as no n at firsuld possess any other publiours than were bestowed upon hi so the giers of those honouruld hae no power to gie away the right of posterity. And though they ght say, quot;We chooses you for OUR head,quot; theuld not, without injustice to their children, say, quot;that your children and your childrens children shall reign oer OURS for eer.quot; Because su unwise, unjust, unnatural pact ght (perhaps) in the suession put theuhe goer of a rogue or a fool.
Most wise n, in their priate ses, hae eer treated hereditary right with pt; yet it is one of those eils, which when oablished is not easily reed; ny subt frofear, others frosuperstition, and the re powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.
This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to hae had an honourable in; whereas it is re than probable, thauld we take off the dark c of antiquities, and trace theto their first rise, that we should find the first of thenothier than the principal ruffian of so restless gang, whose saage nners or preenen subtlety obtaihe title of chief ang plunderers; and who by increasing in power, aending his depredations, oerawed the quiet and defeo purchase their safety by frequent tributions. Yet his electoruld hae no idea of giing hereditary right to his desdants, because such a perpetual eclusion of theeles was inpatible with the free and urained principles they professed to lie by. Wherefore, hereditary suession in the early ages of narchuld not take pce as a tter of ci but as sothing casual or plental; but as few or no rds were etant in those days, and traditional history stuffed with fables, it was ery easy, after the pse of a few geions, to tru up so superstitious tale, ely tid, Mahot like, to crahereditary right dowhroats of the ulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one (for eles ang ruffianuld not be ery orderly) induy at first to faour hereditary pretensions; by whis it happened, as it hath happened sihat what at first was subtted to as a enience, was afterwards cid as a right.
Engnd, sihe quest, hath known so few good narchs, but groaned beh a ch rger nuer of bad ones; yet no n in his senses say that their der Williathe queror is a ery honourable one. A French bastard nding with an ard banditti, aablishing hielf king of Engnd against the sent of the naties, is in pin ter a ery pary rascally inal. It certainly hath no diinity in it. Howeer, it is needless to spend ch ti in eposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to beliee it, let theproscuously worship the ass and lion, and wele.
I shall hepy their hulity, nor disturb their deotion.
Yet I should be gd to ask how they suppose kings ca at first? The question adts but of three answers, iz. either by lot, by ele, or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a pret for the , which ecludes hereditary suession. Saul was by lot, yet the suession was not hereditary, her does it appear frothat transa there was any iion it eer should be. If the first king of any try was by ele, that likewise establishes a pret for the ; for to say, that the RIGHT of all future geions is taken away, by the act of the first electors, in their ;q;/qchoiot only of a king, but of a faly of kings for eer, hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doe inal sin, which supposes the free will of all n lost in Ada and frosuparison, and it will adt of no other, hereditary suession derie no glory. For as in Adaall sinned, and as in the first electors all n obeyed; as in the one all nkind we re subjected to Satan, and iher to Snty; as our innoce was lost in the first, and our authority i; and as both disable us froreassung so forr state and priilege, it unanswerably follows that inal sin and hereditary suession are parallels.
Dishonourable rank! Inglorious e! Yet the st subtle sophist ot produce a juster sile.
As to usurpation, no n will be so hardy as to defend it; and that Williathe queror was an usurper is a faot to be tradicted.
The pin truth is, that the antiquity of English narchy will not bear looking into.
But it is not so ch the absurdity as the eil of hereditary suession which s nkind. Did it ensure a race of good and wise n it would hae the seal of diihority, but as it opens a door to the FOOLISH, the WICKED, and the IMPROPER, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon theeles born tn, and others to obey, soon grow i; selected frothe rest of nkind their nds are early poisoned by iortance; and the world they a differs so terially frothe world at rge, that they hae but little opportunity of knowing its true is, and when they sueed to the goer are frequently the st ignorant and unfit of any throughout the donions.
Another eil which attends hereditary suession is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a nor at any age; all which ti the regency, ag uher a king, hae eery opportunity and i to betray their trust. The sa national sfortune happens, when a king, worn out with age and infirty , ehe st stage of hun weakness. In both these cases the public bees a prey to eery st, who taer suessfully with the follies either of age or infancy.
The st pusible plea, which hath eer been offered in faour of hereditary suession, is, that it preseres a nation frociil wars; ahis true, it would be ghty; whereas, it is the st barefaced falsity eer iosed upon nkind. The whole history of Engnd disowns the fabsp; Thirty kings and two nors hae reigned in that distracted kingdosihe quest, in which ti there hae been (including the Reolution) ha ciil wars and een rebellions. Wherefore instead of king for peace, it kes against it, aroys the ery foundation it see to stand on.
The test for narchy and suessioween the houses of York and Lancaster, id Engnd in a se of blood for ny years.
Twele pitched battles, besides skirshes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoo Edward, who in his turn risoo Henry. And so uain is the fate of war and the teer of a nation, when nothing but personal tters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triuh froa prison to a pace, and Edward obliged to fly froa pace to a fn nd; yet, as sudden transitions of teer are seldosting, Henry in his turn was drien frothe throne, and Edward recalled to sueed hi
The parliant always following the stro side.
This test began in the reign of Henry the Sith, and was irely etinguished till Henry the Seenth, in whothe falies were united.
Including a period of 67 years, iz. fro1422 to 1489.
In short, narchy and suession hae id (not this or that kingdoonly) but the world in blood and ashes. Tis a foer which the word of God bears testiny against, and blood will attend it.
If we inquire into the business of a king, we shall find that in so tries they hae none; and after sauntering away their lies without pleasure to theeles or adao the nation, withdraw frothe se, aheir suessors to tread the sa idle ground. In absolute narchies the whole ght of business, ciil and litary, lies on the king; the children of Israel in their request for a king, urged this plea quot;that he y judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles.quot; But in tries where he is her a judge neneral, as in Engnd, a n would be puzzled to know what IS his business.
The nearer any goer approaches to a republic the less busihere is for a king. It is sowhat difficu to find a proper na for the goer of Engnd. Sir WilliaMeredith calls it a republic; but in its present state it is unworthy of the na, because thrrupt influence of the , by haing all the pces in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, aen out the irtue of the house of ons (the republi part iitution) that the goer of Engnd is nearly as narchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with nas without uanding the
For it is the republi and not the narchical part of the stitution of Engnd whiglishn glory in, iz. the liberty of choosing an house of ons froout of their own body - and it is easy to see that when republi irtue fails, sery ensues. Why is the stitution of Engnd sickly, but because narchy hath poisohe republic, the hath engrossed the ons? In Engnd a king hath little re to do than to ke war and gie aces; whi pin ter, is to ioerish the nation a together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a n to be allowed eight huhousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of re worth is one ho n to society and in the sight of God, than all the ed ruffians that eer lied.
百度搜索 on Sense 或 on Sense 本站 即可找到本书最新章节.