Franco-Gallia | Page 5

am in the Wrong. They will have it so. If the Mahometan comes with me to Christendom, I am in the right, and he in the wrong; and hate each other heartily for differing in Speculations, which ought to have no Influence on Moral Honesty. Nay, the Mahometan is the more charitable of the two, and does not push his Zeal so far; for the Christians have been more cruel and severe in this Point than all the World besides. Surely Reprizals may be made upon us; as Calvin burnt Servetus at Geneva, Queen Mary burnt Cranmer at London. I am sorry I cannot readily find a more exact Parallel. The Sword cuts with both Edges. Why, I pray you, may we not all be Fellow-Citizens of the World? And provided it be not the Principle of one or more Religions to extirpate all others, and to turn Persecutors when they get Power (for such are not to be endured;) I say, why shou'd we offer to hinder any Man from doing with his own Soul what he thinks fitting? Why shou'd we not make use of his Body, Estate, and Understanding, for the publick Good? Let a Man's Life, Substance, and Liberty be under the Protection of the Laws; and I dare answer for him (whilst his Stake is among us) he will never be in a different Interest, nor willing to quit this Protection, or to exchange it for Poverty, Slavery, and Misery.
The thriving of any one single Person by honest Means, is the Thriving of the Commonwealth wherein he resides. And in what Place soever of the World such Encouragement is given, as that in it one may securely and peaceably enjoy Property and Liberty both of Mind and Body; 'tis impossible but that Place must flourish in Riches and in People, which are the truest Riches of any Country.
But as, on the one hand, a true Whig thinks that all Opinions purely spiritual and notional ought to be indulg'd; so on the other, he is for severely punishing all Immoralities, Breach of Laws, Violence and Injustice. A Minister's Tythes are as much his Right, as any Layman's Estate can be his; and no Pretence of Religion or Conscience can warrant the substracting of them, whilst the Law is in Being which makes them payable: For a Whig is far from the Opinion, that they are due by any other Title. It wou'd make a Man's Ears tingle, to hear the _Divine Right insisted upon for any human Institutions_; and to find God Almighty brought in as a Principal there, where there is no Necessity for it. To affirm, that Monarchy, Episcopacy, Synods, Tythes, the Hereditary Succession to the Crown, &c. are Jure Divino; is to cram them down a Man's Throat; and tell him in plain Terms, that he must submit to any of them under all Inconveniencies, whether the Laws of his Country are for it or against it. Every Whig owns Submission to Government to be an Ordinance of God. _Submit your selves to every Ordinance of Man, for the Lord's Sake_, says the Apostle. Where (by the way) pray take notice, he calls them Ordinances of Man; and gives you the true Notion, how far any thing can be said to be Jure Divino: which is far short of what your high-flown Assertors of the _Jus Divinum wou'd carry it, and proves as strongly for a Republican_ Government as a Monarchical; tho' in truth it affects neither, where the very Ends of Government are destroyed.
A right Whig looks upon frequent Parliaments as such a fundamental Part of the Constitution, that even no Parliament can part with this Right. High Whiggism is for Annual Parliaments, and Low Whiggism for Triennial, with annual Meetings. I leave it to every Man's Judgment, which of these wou'd be the truest Representative; wou'd soonest ease the House of that Number of Members that have Offices and Employments, or take Pensions from the Court; is least liable to Corruption; wou'd prevent exorbitant Expence, and soonest destroy the pernicious Practice of drinking and bribing for Elections, or is most conformable to ancient Custom. The Law that lately pass'd with so much Struggle for Triennial Parliaments shall content me, till the Legislative shall think fit to make them Annual.
But methinks (and this I write with great Submission and Deference) that (since the passing that Act) it seems inconsistent with the Reason of the thing, and preposterous, for the first Parliament after any Prince's Accession to the Crown, to give the publick Revenue _arising by Taxes, for a longer time than that Parliament's own Duration_. I cannot see why the Members of the first Parliament shou'd (as the Case now stands) engross to themselves all the Power of giving, as well as