second treatise of government-第39章

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！


hich　bring　the　matter　　to　this　state。　　After　considering　it　well　on　all　sides；　I　can　　find　but　two。　　Two　cases　there　are；　I　say；　whereby　a　king；　ipso　　facto；　becomes　no　king；　and　loses　all　power　and　regal　authority　　over　his　people；　which　are　also　taken　notice　of　by　Winzerus。　　　　　　The　first　is；　If　he　endeavour　to　overturn　the　government；　　that　is；　if　he　have　a　purpose　and　design　to　ruin　the　kingdom　and　　commonwealth；　as　it　is　recorded　of　Nero；　that　he　resolved　to　cut　　off　the　senate　and　people　of　Rome；　lay　the　city　waste　with　fire　　and　sword；　and　then　remove　to　some　other　place。　　And　of　Caligula；　　that　he　openly　declared；　that　he　would　be　no　longer　a　head　to　the　　people　or　senate；　and　that　he　had　it　in　his　thoughts　to　cut　off　　the　worthiest　men　of　both　ranks；　and　then　retire　to　Alexandria：　　and　he　wisht　that　the　people　had　but　one　neck；　that　he　might　　dispatch　them　all　at　a　blow；　Such　designs　as　these；　when　any　king　　harbours　in　his　thoughts；　and　seriously　promotes；　he　immediately　　gives　up　all　care　and　thought　of　the　common…wealth；　and　　consequently　forfeits　the　power　of　governing　his　subjects；　as　a　　master　does　the　dominion　over　his　slaves　whom　he　hath　abandoned。　　　　　　Sec。　238。　　The　other　case　is；　When　a　king　makes　himself　the　　dependent　of　another；　and　subjects　his　kingdom　which　his　　ancestors　left　him；　and　the　people　put　free　into　his　hands；　to　　the　dominion　of　another：　for　however　perhaps　it　may　not　be　his　　intention　to　prejudice　the　people；　yet　because　he　has　hereby　lost　　the　principal　part　of　regal　dignity；　viz。　　to　be　next　and　　immediately　under　God；　supreme　in　his　kingdom；　and　also　because　　he　betrayed　or　forced　his　people；　whose　liberty　he　ought　to　have　　carefully　preserved；　into　the　power　and　dominion　of　a　foreign　　nation。　　By　this；　as。　　it　were；　alienation　of　his　kingdom；　he　　himself　loses　the　power　he　had　in　it　before；　without　transferring　　any　the　least　right　to　those　on　whom　he　would　have　bestowed　it；　　and　so　by　this　act　sets　the　people　free；　and　leaves　them　at　their　　own　disposal。　　One　example　of　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　ever