« PreviousContinue »
right, if I please, to take it
you again to morrow?
§. 195. I will not dispute now whether princes are exempt from the laws of their country; but this I am sure, they owe subjection to the laws of God and nature. No body, no power, can exempt them from the obligations of that eternal law. Those are so great, and so strong, in the case of promises, that omnipotency itself can be tied by them. Grants, promises, and oaths, are bonds that kold the Almighty: whatever fome flatterers say to princes of the world, who
, all together, with all their people joined to them, are, in comparison of the great God, but as a drop of the bucket, or a dust on the balance, inconsiderable, nothing!
$. 196. The short of the case in conquest is this: the conqueror, if he have a just cause, has a despotical right over the persons of all, that actually aided, and concurred in the war against him, and a right to make up his damage and cost out of their labour and estates, fo he injure not the right of any other. Over the rest of the people, if there were any that consented not to the war, and over the children of the captives themselves, or the possessions of either, he has no power ; and so can have, by virtue of conqueft, no lawful title himself to dominion over them, or derive it to his posterity; but is an aggressor, if he attempts upon their properties, and
thereby thereby puts himself in a state of war against them, and has no better a right of principality, he, nor any of his successors, than Hingar, or Hubba, the Danes, had here in England; or Spartacus, had he conquered Italy, would have had; which is to have their yoke cast off, as soon as God shall give those under their subjection courage and opportunity to do it. Thus, notwithstanding whatever title the kings of Affyria had over Judah, by the sword, God aflisted Hezekiab to throw off the dominion of that conquering empire. And the lord was with Hezekiah, and be profpered; wherefore he went forth, and be rebelled against the king of AfSyria, and served him not, 2 Kings xviii. 7. Whence it is plain, that shaking off a power, which force, and not right, hath set over any one, though it hath the name of rebellion, yet is no offence before God, but is that which he allows and countenances, though even promises and covenants, when obtained by force, have intervened : for it is very probable, to any one that reads the story of Abaz and Hezekiah attentively, that the Assyrians subdued Ahaz, and deposed him, and made Hezekiab king in his father's lifetime; and that Hezekiah by agreement had done him homage, and paid him tribute all this time.
Ş. 197. A reign ufurpation, fo ufurpation
c H A P. XVII. Of USURPAȚION. S conquest may be called a for
, is a kind of domestic conquest, with this difference, that an usurper can never have right on his fide, it being no ufurpation, but where one is got into the poleffion of what another has right to. This, so far as it is ufurpation, is a change only of persons, but not of the forms and rules of the govern, ment: for if the usurper extend hịs power beyond what of right belonged to the lawful princes, or governors of the commonwealth, it is tyranny added to usurpation,
$. 198. In- all lawful governments, the designation of the persons, who are to bear rule, is as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and is that which had its establishment originally from the people; the anarchy being much alike, to have no form of government at all; or to agree, that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to defign the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Hence all commonwealths, with the form of
government established, have rules also of appointing those who are to have any share in the public authority, and settled methods of conveying the right to them:
for for the anarchy is much alike, to have no form of government at all; or to agree that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to know or design the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power, by other ways than what the laws of the community have preferibed, hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved; since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and consequently not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an ufurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title, till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented to allow, and confirm in him the power he hath till then üsurped.
§. 199. A
power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which' no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own, private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his com
mands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.
$. 200. If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James the first, in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus, I will ever prefer the weal of the public, and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and conftitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine ; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant : for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an ufurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people. And again, in his speech to the parliament, 1609, he hath these words, The king binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as