|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 6
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution,
needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions, is self-evident,
wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door
against absolute monarchy, we at the same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the key.
The prejudice of Englishmen in favour of their own government by king,
lords, and commons, arises as much or more from national pride than reason.
Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries,
but the WILL of the king is as much the LAW of the land in Britain
as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly
from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape
of an act of parliament. For the fate of Charles the First hath only made
kings more subtle--not more just.
Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice
in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that
IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE,
AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT,
that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey.
An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never
in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under
the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of
doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice.
And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose
or judge a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution
of government will disable us from discerning a good one.
OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality
could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions
of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without
having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice.
Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches;
and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor,
it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater distinction, for which no truly natural
or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men
into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature,
good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into
the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species,
is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness
or of misery to mankind.
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 throw mankind into confusion. Holland
without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any
of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same
remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath
a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty.
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom.
It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot
for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours
to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved
on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious
is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst
of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot 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. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the
attention of countries which have their governments yet to form.
RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S is the scripture
doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government,
for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage
to the Romans.
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|