按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
this is to be found in the Scotch Annals。 Sec。 239。 In these cases Barclay； the great champion of absolute monarchy； is forced to allow； that a king may be resisted； and ceases to be a king。 That is； in short； not to multiply cases； in whatsoever he has no authority； there he is no king； and may be resisted： for wheresoever the authority ceases； the king ceases too； and becomes like other men who have no authority。 And these two cases he instances in； differ little from those above mentioned； to be destructive to governments； only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows： and that is； the breach of trust； in not preserving the form of government agreed on； and in not intending the end of government itself； which is the public good and preservation of property。 When a king has dethroned himself； and put himself in a state of war with his people； what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king； as they would any other man； who has put himself into a state of war with them； Barclay； and those of his opinion； would do well to tell us。 This farther I desire may be taken notice of out of Barclay； that he says； The mischief that is designed them； the people may prevent before it be clone： whereby he allows resistance when tyranny is but in design。 Such designs as these （says he） when any king harbours in his thoughts and seriously promotes； he immediately gives up all care and thought of the common…wealth； so that； according to him； the neglect of the public good is to be taken as an evidence of such design； or at least for a sufficient cause of resistance。 And the reason of all； he gives in these words； Because he betrayed or forced his people； whose liberty he ought carefully to have preserved。 What he adds； into the power and dominion of a
foreign nation； signifies nothing； the fault and forfeiture lying in the loss of their liberty； which he ought to have preserved； and not in any distinction of the persons to whose dominion they were subjected。 The peoples right is equally invaded； and their liberty lost； whether they are made slaves to any of their own； or a foreign nation； and in this lies the injury； and against this only have they the right of defence。 And there are instances to be found in all countries； which shew； that it is not the change of nations in the persons of their governors； but the change of government； that gives the offence。 Bilson； a bishop of our church； and a great stickler for the power and prerogative of princes； does； if I mistake not； in his treatise of Christian subjection； acknowledge； that princes may forfeit their power； and their title to the obedience of their subjects； and if there needed authority in a case where reason is so plain； I could send my reader to Bracton； Fortescue； and the author of the Mirrour； and others； writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our government； or enemies to it。 But I thought Hooker alone might be enough to satisfy those men； who relying on him for their ecclesiastical polity； are by a strange fate carried to deny those principles upon which he builds it。 Whether they are herein made the tools of cunninger workmen； to pull down their own fabric； they were best look。 This I am sure； their civil policy is so new； so dangerous； and so destructive to both rulers and people； that as former ages never could bear the broaching of it； so it may be hoped； those to come； redeemed from the impositions of these Egyptian under…task…masters； will abhor the memory of such servile flatterers； who； whilst it seemed to serve their turn； resolved all government into absolute tyranny； and would have all men born to； what their mean souls fitted them for； slavery。 Sec。 240。 Here； it is like； the common question will be made； Who shall be judge； whether the prince or legislative act contrary to their trust？ This； perhaps； ill…affected and factious men may spread amongst the people； when the prince only makes use of his due prerogative。 To this I reply； The people shall be judge； for who shall be judge whether his trustee or deputy acts well； and according to the trust reposed in him； but he who deputes him； and must； by having deputed him； have still a power to discard him； when he fails in his trust？ If this be reasonable in particular cases of private men； why should it be otherwise in that of the greatest moment； where the welfare of millions is concerned； and also where the evil； if not prevented； is greater； and the redress very difficult； dear； and dangerous？ Sec。 241。 But farther； this question； （Who shall be judge？） cannot mean； that there is no judge at all： for where there is no judicature on earth； to decide controversies amongst men； God in heaven is judge。 He alone； it is true； is judge of the right。 But every man is judge for himself； as in all other cases； so in this； whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him； and whether he should appeal to the Supreme Judge； as leptha did。 Sec。 242。 If a controversy arise betwixt a prince and some of the people； in a matter where the law is silent； or doubtful； and the thing be of great consequence； I should think the proper umpire； in such a case； should be the body of the people： for in cases where the prince hath a trust reposed in him； and is dispensed from the common ordinary rules of the law； there； if any men find themselves aggrieved； and think the prince acts contrary to； or beyond that trust； who so proper to judge as the body of the people； （who； at first； lodged that trust in him） how far they meant it should extend？ But if the prince； or whoever they be in the administration； decline that way of determination； the appeal then lies no where but to heaven； force between either persons； who have no known superior on earth； or which permits no appeal to a judge on earth； being properly a state of war；
wherein the appeal lies only to heaven； and in that state the injured party must judge for himself； when he will think fit to make use of that appeal； and put himself upon it。 Sec。 243。 To conclude； The power that every individual gave the society； when he entered into it； can never revert to the individuals again； as long as the society lasts； but will always remain in the community； because without this there can be no community； no common…wealth； which is contrary to the original agreement： so also when the society hath placed the legislative in any assembly of men； to continue in them and their successors； with direction and authority for providing such successors； the legislative can never revert to the people whilst that government lasts； because having provided a legislative with power to continue for ever； they have given up their political power to the legislative； and cannot resume it。 But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative； and made this supreme power in any person； or assembly； only temporary； or else； when by the miscarriages of those in authority； it is forfeited； upon the forfeiture； or at the determination of the time set； it reverts to the society； and the people have a right to act as supreme； and continue the legislative in themselves； or erect a new form； or under the old form place it in new hands； as they think good。
F I N I S。