we observe the Circumstances previous to Saul's Accession to the Throne we shall find that though God had annointed him by his Prophet that was not a Nomination made known to the People 1 Sam. 10.16 Ib. ver 20 21. the matter of the Kingdom was a Secret kept even from his own Relations And as the People chose to have a King they proceeded regularly to the Choice of the Man within the limitation chosen or appointed by God The method agreed upon was what in some sense may be called God's Choice as Men thereby leave the matter to Chance or to God's permissive or over-ruling Providence as he shall think fit Themselves chose how many Lots to use but indeed could not put in one for a Stranger God here as in other Instances as it were to baffle the Notion of Patriarchical Right permitted or directed the Lot to fall upon Saul of the House of Benjamin the youngest Son of Jacob or Israel by Leah and upon one who was not the Head of the Tribe nor Head of a Family within that Tribe Then says our B God made choice of David David having many Sons among them all God chose Solomon to continue the Succession in him and his Heirs as he did till the Babylonish Captivity He by his reference in the Margin founds God's Choice upon the Declaration of his Judgment against Saul 1 Sam. 13.14 when David is not named 1 Sam. 16. and it could not be known to Saul or to the People whom God design'd Successor Samuel indeed had in Saul's life-time privately anointed David the youngest Son of Jesse and this was known in Jesse's Family From whence it seems to have been published but depending upon their Credibility and meer Human Testimony was not obligatory to the People yet they having resolved upon chusing David then took notice of this as a Divine appointment 1 Chron. 11. which hindred not their making a Covenant with him There was a Free Choice on their side and Stipulation on David's with a Free People or rather a mutual Stipulation and Contract Our B 's Notion of an Hereditary Kingdom of Man's setting up is That it descends to the next in the Line by Right of Birth Page 15. and that this Right cannot be forfeited Yet it appears in the Sacred Story that the Right of Birth which Adonijah had upon his Hypothesis was forfeited because he exalted himself for King in the life-time of his Father 1 Kings 1. Nor did the Crown descend to the next after him Nor yet does it appear that God immediately interpos'd Ibid. ver 20. but David set up Solomon or recommended him to the People in pursuance of the Promise that he had made to the beautiful Wife of Uriah 1 Kings 1.17 And whereas he will have it that Solomon and his Heirs continued the Succession till the Captivity it is plain the Succession was but to two Tribes of Twelve the other Ten freely chose their King their Choice was approved of by God and he never permitted them to return to the House of David the reason of which according to Sir Walter Rawleigh was Sir W. Rawl History f. 437. that the Kings of the House of Israel used a more temperate Method of Government than the Kings of Judah did The Promise that the Scepter should not depart from that House Judah Jacob 's fourth Son by Rachel till the Shiloh should come was such an Exaltation to that Younger House that no wonder if it had the like Effect with our Passive Doctrines here But consider the Import of the word Heir in the Jewish Law from whence this Writer would derive his Authorities and it will appear that the Eldest Son is not according to that the Patriarch or sole Father of the Family upon his Fathers Death two parts of three was the utmost that the eldest Son was entitled to And this as Mr. Selden observes Deut. 21. v. 15. Selden de jure Succes ad Leges Ebraeorum f. 24. was only of what was in the Fathers Possession what came in right of the Mother or descended from the Grand-father who survived the Father descended to all Males equally How well he has shewn Page 14. that all the Kings that God set over his People were by Divine Nomination either themselves alone or they and their Heirs I leave to his second Thoughts I have dwelt too long upon his Scripture account of Power wherefore shall advertise him but of one Mistake more which he might have rectified by his Skill in Profane as well as Sacred Story I do not says he speak all this while of Free States or Commonwealths Page 16. because I do not believe any such Government was known in David 's time for as we read of no such Scripture so it is agreed among the most Learned Heathen Writers that the first Government every where was by Kings Observe the reasoning there was none in David's time for the first was by Kings as if notwithstanding there might not have been Commonwealths both then and before But what thinks he of the Commonwealth of Israel Vid. Harrington's Common-wealth of Israel in the Interval before mentioned between Joshua and Othniel And what thinks he of the several Free Cities and Islands inhabited by Grecian Colonies in David's time Cluverii epit Hist Tit. David I cannot but again return to his gross Mistakes about Conquest 1. No Consent of the People is requisite to establish the Right 2. Be the Sovereign in Possession possessed of the Soverignty only in the Supream manner tho it be not Absolute yet by the Conquest of him it was the Duty of all to whom the Sovereignty was communicated to give it up tho they had Power to maintain it and to restore their former King for they are become Slaves immediately by the Conquest over the Prince And tho it were in an unjust War Page 56. Page 57. He refers to Pufend. de Jure Nat. Gent. 7 8 10. If the Usurper has no Pretence of Right no Prescription of time no consent of the People but only an unjust Possession it is a Duty to obey him when the Legal King can no more do the Office of a King Is not this a mighty thorough Settlement This surely is not to be found in the convocation-Convocation-book which has been so much tossed about much less I am sure is it in that admirable Author Pufendorf tho the B makes a general reference to several Sections in his Book of the Law of Nations as if it were to be gathered from thence and yet himself in the next Page cites one of those very Sections which he refers to Page 58. in Terms directly contradictory to what he would infer from him unless a Prince who Conquers in an unjust War has a Right beyond him who Conquers in a just one Pufend. de jure Nat. Gentium VII 7.3 for Pufendorf is there express that after
Animadversions ON A DISCOURSE ENTITULED GOD's WAYS OF DISPOSING OF KINGDOMS LONDON Printed for W. Rayner 1691. Animadversions ON A Discourse of God's Ways of Disposing of Kingdoms NEXT to the Treachery of Men Vid. Pref. Seem to be too jealous of themselves for fear some worldly Considerations c. who have not had that jealousie of themselves which the Right Reverend and Learned Author of the late Discourse makes a Vertue in his Brethren who have renounced the Benefit of that Protection which this Government has extended towards them nothing has more promoted the Interest of him who as some Great Men insinuate still remains our Rightful King than an obstinate Justification of all the Follies and Flatteries of some Clergy-men at a time when in their Tantivy speed to Preferments they not only trampled upon the poor Persecuted Dissenters but upon those Laws which forbad their making Riots of Religious Meetings and Statutes of Royal Edicts or Proclamations Rather than it should be thought that they who call themselves the Church of England were to blame in these Matters and held Erroneous Opinions of Civil Power this Government which is a reverse to their Doctrines shall be maintained to be an Usurpation either upon King James or upon the People of England who invited their Deliverer and made the most suitable Acknowledgment of such a Deliverance It is a Melancholly Consideration to think how many are imposed upon by Doctrines made for no Lay-end whatever and which will serve no Government but what is against or above Law if there come in such consent of Men Vid. Hooker Eccl. Pol. as the Learned and Judicious Mr. Hooker thought absolutely necessary for the making of Laws this consent either must lose the nature of consent or want Authority for fear some Clergy-men should be condemn'd for having ascribed to Princes those Powers which were never given or allowed by the consent of the Nation and if one who exercised such an Illegal Power be Dispossessed against his will Allegiance must be transferred to another still without Humane Consent for otherwise Passive Obedience to no Law could not revive again and be transplanted Nor could those Divines whose Doctrines encouraged the late King to attempt what occasioned his Abdication have expected to make Atonement by the Difficulties which they and their Partizans might bring upon the Successor and yet hope to impose upon him as if they were the only Loyal Men. If they were as Passive themselves when their Loyalty comes to be tried as they would have others be it were something but they who take to themselves all the Priviledges belonging to Gods Lot or Peculiar Inheritance are like the Men of Kent Vid. Camd. Brit. Parker's Antiq. Brit. Dicit Canrii Comitatus quod in ipso Comitatu de jure debet de ejusmodi gravamine esse liber quia dicit quod Comitatus ille ut residuum Angliae nunquam fuit Conquestus who having opposed William I. after the rest of the Nation had submitted to him would have it that all but themselves were a conquered People No respect to any Man's Person or Character ought to come in Competition with the Duty which we owe our Country on the contrary while the Errors of Men Great for Name of Learning or Pomp of Office derive Authority from their Persons those Errors or Artifices which tend to the Prejudice of the most valuable Interest of Men as united in Societies ought to be treated with the greater Freedom and with that Contempt or Laughter which is due to the Folly or the Disguise That the World may judge of the Merits of those Notions which are vented under the Venerable Authority of the L A and as it should be thought with such a charitable Design as becomes that Office I shall 1. As far as they are consistent and hang together give a true Representation of them with their plain and direct Consequences 2. Shall shew their Inconsistencies 3. Their Doubtfulness and Ambiguity as if intended to serve either Prince or People and to impose upon both 4. The Weakness of the Reasoning want of Authority and gross Mistakes in relation to those Rights of Princes which he would infer from Passages or Omissions in Sacred or other Writings 5. That the shew of Reading and the Positions are wholly beside the Cushion not applicable to the Constitution of this Government nor to the present Debate 1. The manifest Scope of the Book A Representation of the Doctrine is to prove or rather to maintain by the Authority of the Person without Proof that all Kingdoms are disposed by Gods immediate Act P. 30. without the allowable Interposition of any but Soveraign Princes P. 32. and that the Acts of all others have an original Nullity Upon which I may make this general Reflection to justifie my Anti-Title If Acts proceeding from the Free Wills of Soveraign Princes are no Objections against Gods Disposal of Kingdoms so far by his immediate Act as that himself confers the Power by his sole Authority neither would what proceeds warrantably from the Free Will of the People be less Gods Act or have his Authority less immediately from his Gift But how much soever God Almighty influences Mankind in the Choise of their Actions we must suppose that they act with Freedom even in the Changes of Kingdoms and States or otherwise we must impute to the Almighty those Crimes by which Changes are sometimes brought about which to surmise were Blasphemy And if Changes are made according to natural Equity and more especially the known Rights of any Kingdom agreeable to that Equity and allowed of and exercised as there has been occasion in all times from the first Erection of the Kingdom we may well say that those Acts of such a free People which God permits and blesses with Success are by and with his Authority What are the Rights and lawful Powers entrusted by God Almighty with the People of this Land Vid. Bp. Bilsons Christian Subjection for the Preservation of their ancient Regiment and Laws it is not needful here to prove but it is necessary to shew in their proper Colours those Arts or in Truth Weaknesses of Clergy-men whereby they would bring in God Almighty to Authorize the Contrariety of their avowed Principles to the Right of this Government and of their Actions to any Principles but such as may free them from Slavery to their Promises or Oaths and at the same time might enslave all others as if their Freedom were purchased at this Price and were the Reward of such Merits I cannot but use this Book of one of so setled a Reputation for learning as a Demonstration that it is necessary for their own Sakes as well as for the Good of Mankind that Clergy-men should not in these Matters be wise beyond what is written in our Law If I am thought to expose the Nakedness of a Spiritual Father I doubt not but it will be
Commissionated by him The Great and Victorious King Edward I. Stat. 7. E. 1. Rast f 25. An. 1279. the Prelates Earls Barons and Comonalty of the Realm above Four hundred Years ago set up a Land-Mark to Posterity Which one would have thought they could not have gone beyond declaring That the Subjects are to Aid the King to Defend Force and Punish Offenders according to the Laws and Vsages of the Realm But in the ferment of Loyalty upon the Restauration the Flowers of some falling in with the prevailing humour and hopes of Preferment made Men quit the substance of lawfully Commissionated though they were convinc'd by the solid Arguments of the Great Vaughan afterwards Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas That this was in effect to give up Magna Carta and all the ancient Liberties purchasd at the expence of so much Blood and Treasure It was therefore yielded by the Chief Advocate for a Commission without the incumbrance of lawful that it ought to be implyed But however it past as a Snare at a time when it was well known that if Charles II. was not a Papist his Brother James was But as to the Laudaean Canons of 1640. it was the same Year unanimously resolv'd by the House of Commons Rash Hist Col. 2d Vol. Resolv'd Decem. 17. 1640. Nullo contradicente That they do contain in them Matters contrary to the King's Prerogative the fundamental Laws and Statutes of the Realm to the Right of Parliament to the Property and Liberty of the Subject and Matters tending to Sedition and of dangerous Consequence Nay Stat. 13. Car. 1. c. 1. Not to confirm the Canons made An. 1640. that very Parliament in which the High Church or Laudaean Party so far prevaild as to pass the cramping Oath put a particular Mark of Reprobation upon the Canons of 1640. And the Oath is now repeal'd so that if it ought to have been taken strictly the Constitution of the Government is now freed from the Invasion But there is a Notion which makes specious Pretences to be part of the Constitution Which is That this Government has been made Hereditary in such a sence Discourse p. 15. that a Right to it is given by God alone to the Person who stands next by reason of Birth This imposes upon our B to believe a necessity to maintain that this Divine Right has been set aside by a Divine Judgment and that our present Settlement results from the Event of a just War made by a Sovereign Prince Or to go in the path of the Answer to Ashton's Paper Discourse p. 47. An excellent Book c. to which our B gives his Approbation or Episcopal Confirmation That the Right to the Government is Conquest His Notion of Hereditary as it has appeard has no Foundation from among the Jews Answer to Asht pag. 23. from whose Polity he would fetch Examples obligatory to us Dr. Hicks admits Pref. to Jov. p. 11. That the words Heir Hereditary c. never in the Latin or Greek Authors signifie in that especial manner which he presumes that they do here And it has been shewn Vid. The Fundamental Constitution of the English Government proving Their Majesties our Lawful and Rightful King and Queen and may appear more fully That no such Notion has been anciently receiv'd in our Law Our B says indeed from Cerdic King of the West Sanons the Descent of our Royal Family is unquestionable If he means that the Descent of the Crown has always from that time gone in a right Line there is no colour for the Assertion Nay it will be difficult to shew the Right of the Family acknowledg'd and observ'd before Ina's time If he means that the present Royal Family can make out their Pedigree from Cerdic what is that to the inalienable Right of Inheritance in the next of the Line If by Hereditary be meant no more than the Inheritance of a Family such an Inheritance as may solve all the Breaches or rather Windings in the Royal Line from Ina's time to this day we might agree by putting in Ina at the Head of the Right of the Family But I challenge him to shew that the next Heir of the Family has always succeeded even from Inas time or been accounted to have had Right to succeed or which is us'd as a Supplement that the Nomination of the Rightful Possessor has been always had or thought necessary where he that succeeded was not the next upon the Line But to shew to how little purpose he has laboured I must mind him of the Clause in S. Edward's Laws the Receiving and Keeping which is part of the Coronation Oath by which if those Laws are wilfully broken by the King Nec Nomen Regis in eo constabit Not so much as the Name of King shall abide in him Suitable to this is that Passage in a Speech made by K. James I. to his Parliament Cited pag. 23. wherein he tells them Every King in a settled Kingdom is boundto observe the Paction Na. Paction or Contract made to his People by his Laws in framing his Government agreeable thereto And that a King governing in a setled Kingdom leaves to be a King and degenerates into a Tyrant as soon as he leaves off Governing according to his Laws In which case the King's Conscience may speak to him as the poor Widow said to Philip of Macedon Either Govern according to your Law Aut ne Rex sis Or be no King All this our B himself refers to in his Margin but tells us in such case Kings are not to be deposed by the People nor indeed is there need of it for it appears that they by their own act cease to be Kings and therein depose themselves If there were any doubt upon so much of the Speech as we now have there was none in the words then spoken to the Parliament at least there is none in that Sense in which they took his Speech and he submitted to For they to keep him to his word and handsomely to admonish all future Kings of the Consequence of breaking Fundamental Laws wisely repeat the Substance of his Speech in the Preamble to an Act of Parliament wherein they say His Majesty hath vouchsafed to express many ways Stat. 1. Jac. 1. c. 1. how far it is and ever shall be from his Royal and Sincere Care and Affection to the Subjects of England to alter or innovate the Fundamental and Ancient Laws Priviledges and Good Customs of this Kingdom whereby not only his Regal Authority but the Peoples Security of Lands Livings and Priviledges both in General and Particular are Preserved and Maintained And by the Abolishing or Alteration of the which it is impossible but that present Confusion will fall upon the whole State and Frame of this Kingdom Here is in effect the Judgment of Parliament as well as Confession from the King of the Consequence of a King 's altering or innovating the Fundamental Laws After this there will be no need to refer to Pufendorf whom the B himself cites to Grotius Bishop Bilson and even Falkner besides many more I need only ask him whether he who assumes a Legislative Power in dispenceing with Laws would not cease to be King of England or by altering a Fundamental Law dissolve the State of this Kingdom But this I find needful to mind him of which I was in hopes he would have attended to that the Parliament has declared that the Throne was vacant upon the late King's Breach of the Original Contract and the Abdication whether one alone were enough to make a Vacancy it is not needful to determine for Vindication of the Settlement both at least were And if King James ceased to be King upon the Breach of the Contract this was a full Justification of them who invited over His Majesty and were at his first Landing ready to Fight on his side against the late King However if there were a Vacancy upon either or both of the Grounds then the Kingdom or Dominion was not taken from a Sovereign Prince against his Will but himself by his own Act Vid. p. 66. dissolved the Bond of Union between Prince and People Now here was no King of Gods setting up after the Vacancy according to the B 's Notion for upon the Abdication the Government did not thereby come immediately to their present Majesties but there was a Vaeancy Vid. The Act reviving Law Proceedings till their Majesties accepted the Crown and the Parliament provided that all Indictments for Misdemeanors in the Interval should be laid Contra pacem Regni against the Peace of the Kingdom or People During that time it seems the Power was lodged in the People how then came it out of them but by the Free Consents of all that were not infected with such Principles as are contrary to the Settlement I would desire him therefore when he treats of Politicks again not to fill his Margin with Quotations which are not in the least to that case to which he would apply them And especially I would advise him as he values what he holds forth for the Doctrine of the Church not to put Men in mind of reading that admirable Author Pufendorf whose Works if they were translated into English would convince all not obstinate against Conviction that this Revolution and Settlement which we say was begun and finished with full Legal Warrant is according to Natural Equity and has the Suffrages of the best Writers of Politicks And let me intreat him not to encourage or raise Scruples against complying with this Government by yielding those Grounds upon which Men may Scruple till they find an Oracle less doubtful a more sure word of Prophesie than Bishop Overal's convocation-Convocation-book or this Discourse of God's Ways of Disposing of Kingdoms FINIS