common sense-第4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！



THAT　YOUR　WICKEDNESS　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　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。

For　monarchy　in　every　instance　is　the　Popery　of　government。



To　the　evil　of　monarchy　we　have　added　that　of　hereditary　succession；

and　as　the　first　is　a　degradation　and　lessening　of　ourselves；

so　the　second；　claimed　as　a　matter　of　right；　is　an　insult

and　an　imposition　on　posterity。　　For　all　men　being　originally　equals；

no　ONE　by　BIRTH　could　have　a　right　to　set　up　his　own　family　in　perpetual

preference　to　all　others　for　ever；　and　though　himself　might　deserve　SOME

decent　degree　of　honours　of　his　contemporaries；　yet　his　descendants　might

be　far　too　unworthy　to　inherit　them。　　One　of　the　strongest　NATURAL　proofs

of　the　folly　of　hereditary　right　in　kings；　is；　that　nature　disapproves　it；

otherwise　she　would　not　so　frequently　turn　it　into　ridicule　by

giving　mankind　an　ASS　FOR　A　LION。



Secondly；　as　no　man　at　first　could　possess　any　other　public　honours

than　were　bestowed　upon　him；　so　the　givers　of　those　honours　could　have

no　power　to　give　away　the　right　of　posterity。　　And　though　they　might

say；　〃We　chooses　you　for　OUR　head；〃　they　could　not；　without　manifest

injustice　to　their　children；　say；　〃that　your　children　and　your

children's　children　shall　reign　over　OURS　for　ever。〃　　Because　such

an　unwise；　unjust；　unnatural　compact　might　（perhaps）　in　the　next

succession　put　them　under　the　government　of　a　rogue　or　a　fool。

Most　wise　men；　in　their　private　sentiments；　have　ever　treated

hereditary　right　with　contempt；　yet　it　is　one　of　those　evils；

which　when　once　established　is　not　easily　removed；

many　submit　from　fear；　others　from　superstition；

and　the　more　powerful　part　shares　with　the　king　the　plunder　of　the　rest。



This　is　supposing　the　present　race　of　kings　in　the　world　to　have　had　an

honourable　origin；　whereas　it　is　more　than　probable；　that　could　we　take

off　the　dark　covering　of　antiquities；　and　trace　them　to　their　first　rise；

that　we　should　find　the　first　of　them　nothing　better　than　the

principal　ruffian　of　some　restless　gang；　whose　savage　manners

or　preeminence　in　subtlety　obtained　the　title　of　chief　among　plunderers；

and　who　by　increasing　in　power；　and　extending　his　depredations；

overawed　the　quiet　and　defenseless　to　purchase　their　safety

by　frequent　contributions。　　Yet　his　electors　could　have　no　idea

of　giving　hereditary　right　to　his　descendants；　because　such　a　perpetual

exclusion　of　themselves　was　incompatible　with　the　free　and　unrestrained

principles　they　professed　to　live　by。　　Wherefore；　hereditary　succession

in　the　early　ages　of　monarchy　could　not　take　place　as　a　matter　of　claim；

but　as　something　casual　or　complemental；　but　as　few　or　no　records　were

extant　in　those　days；　　and　traditional　history　stuffed　with　fables；

it　was　very　easy；　after　the　lapse　of　a　few　generations；　to　trump　up　some

superstitious　tale；　conveniently　timed；　Mahomet　like；　to　cram　hereditary

right　down　the　throats　of　the　vulgar。　　Perhaps　the　disorders　which　threatened；

or　seemed　to　threaten；　on　the　decease　of　a　leader　and　the　choice　of　a　new　one

（for　elections　among　ruffians　could　not　be　very　orderly）　induced　many

at　first　to　favour　hereditary　pretensions；　by　which　means　it　happened；　as　it

hath　happened　since；　that　what　at　first　was　submitted　to　as　a　convenience；

was　afterwards　claimed　as　a　right。



England；　since　the　conquest；　hath　known　some　few　good　monarchs；

but　groaned　beneath　a　much　larger　number　of　bad　ones；　yet　no　man　in　his

senses　can　say　that　their　claim　under　William　the　Conqueror　is　a　very

honourable　one。　　A　French　bastard　landing　with　an　armed　banditti；　and

establishing　himself　king　of　England　against　the　consent　of　the　natives；

is　in　plain　terms　a　very　paltry　rascally　original。　　It　certainly　hath　no

divinity　in　it。　　However；　it　is　needless　to　spend　much　time　in　exposing

the　folly　of　hereditary　right；　if　there　are　any　so　weak　as　to　believe　it；

let　them　promiscuously　worship　the　ass　and　lion；　and　welcome。

I　shall　neither　copy　their　humility；　nor　disturb　their　devotion。



Yet　I　should　be　glad　to　ask　how　they　suppose　kings　came　at　first？　　The

question　admits　but　of　three　answers；　viz。　　either　by　lot；　by　election；

or　by　usurpation。　　If　the　first　king　was　taken　by　lot；　it　establishes　a

precedent　for　the　next；　which　excludes　hereditary　succession。　　Saul　was

by　lot；　yet　the　succession　was　not　hereditary；　neither　does　it　appear

from　that　transaction　there　was　any　intention　it　ever　should　be。　　If　the

first　king　of　any　country　was　by　election；　that　likewise　establishes　a

precedent　for　the　next；　for　to　say；　that　the　RIGHT　of　all　future

generations　is　taken　away；　by　the　act　of　the　first　electors；

in　their　choice　not　only　of　a　king；　but　of　a　family　of　kings　for　ever；

hath　no　parallel　in　or　out　of　scripture　but　the　doctrine　of　original　sin；

which　supposes　the　free　will　of　all　men　lost　in　Adam；

and　from　such　comparison；　and　it　will　admit　of　no　other；

hereditary　succession　can　derive　no　glory。　　For　as　in　Adam　all　sinned；

and　as　in　the　first　electors　all　men　obeyed；　as　in　the　one　all　mankind

we　re　subjected　to　Satan；　and　in　the　other　to　Sovereignty；　as　our　innocence

was　lost　in　the　first；　and　our　authority　in　the　last；　and　as　both　disable

us　from　reassuming　some　former　state　and　privilege；　it　unanswerably

follows　that　original　sin　and　hereditary　succession　are　parallels。

Dishonourable　rank！　Inglorious　connection！　　Yet　the　most　subtle　sophist

cannot　produce　a　juster　simile。



As　to　usurpation；　no　man　will　be　so　hardy　as　to　defend　it；　and　that

William　the　Conqueror　was　an　usurper　is　a　fact　not　to　be　contradicted。

The　plain　truth　is；　that　the　antiquity　of　English　monarchy　will　not

bear　looking　into。



But　it　is　not　so　much　the　absurdity　as　the　evil　of　hereditary　succession

which　concerns　mankind。　　Did　it　ensure　a　race　of　good　and　wise　men

it　would　have　the　seal　of　divine　authority；　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　themselves　born　to　reign；

and　others　to　obey；　soon　grow　insolent；　selected　from　the　rest

of　mankind　their　minds　are　early　poisoned　by　importance；

and　the　world　they　act　in　differs　so　materially　from　the　world　at　large；

that　they　have　but　little　opportunity　of　knowing　its　true　interests；

and　when　they　succeed　to　the　government　are　frequently　the　most　ignorant

and　unfit　of　any　throughout　the　dominions。



Another　evil　which　attends　hereditary　succession　is；　that　the　throne

is　subject　to　be　possessed　by　a　minor　at　any　age；　all　which　time

the　regency；　acting　under　the　cover　a　king；　have　every　opportunity

and　inducement　to　betray　their　trust。　　The　same　national　misfortune　happens；

when　a　king；　worn　out　with　age　and　infirmity　；　enters　the　last　stage

of　human　weakness。　　In　both　these　cases　the　public　becomes　a　prey

to　every　miscreant；　who　can　tamper　successfully　with　the　follies

either　of　age　or　infancy。



The　most　plausible　plea；　which　hath　ever　been　offered　in　favour　of

hereditary　succession；　is；　that　it　preserves　a　nation　from　civil　wars；

and　were　this　true；　it　would　be　weighty；　whereas；　it　is　the　most

barefaced　falsity　ever　imposed　upon　mankind。　　The　whole　history　of

England　disowns　the　fact。　　Thirty　kings　and　two　minors　have　reigned

in　that　distracted　kingdom　since　the　conquest；　in　which　time　there

have　been　（including　the　Re