†In Baeoticis Pausanius tells us That Greece so Fruitful afterwards in Aristocracies and Democracies that teeming Africa never bred more Monsters was Antiently under Regal Government 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his Words But Tully goes further and boldly asserts if for a certain Truth That all the Nations of Old were under Monarchial Regiment ‖ Cicero 3. de Leg. Certum est sayes he omnes antiquas Gentes regibus paruisse And when the Vniversal Deluge had put a Period to all Mankind except Noah and his Three Sons by whom the World was to be Re-peopled I think we may with Reason enough look upon Noah as the Universal Monarch notwithstanding the Learned Selden would have us believe that God by his Blessing recorded Gen. 9.2 made him Tenant in Common with his Children For besides that this Benediction seems most-likely to be rather an Enlargement of the Charter that was given to Adam than any thing else It appears something Unreasonable to suppose that God Almighty should Disinherit Noah whom for his Justness and Piety he had Chosen to be the Restaurator of Mankind Nor do the Words necessarily imply any such thing since the Promise of God would no doubt be fulfil'd if his Sons after his Death or in his Life time by his Consent enjoy'd and possess'd the World as their Property which 't is certain they did Gen. 10.9 By these sayes the Divine Historian were the Isles of the Gentiles divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations Which is not to be understood as a * Mr. Med◠Learned Man in his Discourse upon this Place assures as if it were a Scattering and Consusion but a most distinct and orderly Division because the Original Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwayes bears the latter Signification And that there was such a Partition and that made by Noah we are assured also from Eusebius and Cedrenus who tells us That Twenty Years before his Death ‖ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedren f. 9. according to an Oracle Received from Heaven he Divided the whole World amongst his Sons assigning to every one his several Share And this he Confirm'd by his Last Will and being about to Dye he gave it into the Hands of Sem and admonished them to Live peaceably and not to Invade one anothers Territories I might now proceed to those Texts of Scripture wherein Monarchy is declared to have been instituted by God But they have been so often insisted on by Others and those learned Persons that I shall pass them over only there is one which I cannot but take notice of wherein God by the Royal Prophet sayes of Kings Psalm 82.7 I have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Gods or more consonant to the Original and expresly according to the Chaldee Paraphrase Angels by which Phrase is not only signified the Office of Princes viz. That they are God's Vicegerents but the manner of their Mission that is by the immediate Commission and Constitution of God Almighty from whom alone and not from the People they derive their power Which origine of theirs I think is further evident from hence that the Supreme Governour is invested with such an Authority as does include in it a Power of Life and Death for which single Prerogative we must have recourse to the Fountain and Source of all Power for seeing we neither have nor ever had a power over our own Lives but on the contrary God has expresly told us That he that sheddeth Man's Blood of Man shall his Blood be shed it is impossible that Kings should derive their Power from the People for 't is an infallible Maxim Nemo plus Juris in alium transferre potest quam ipse habet So that it must necessarily follow from hence That Kings must have been instituted by God for 't is He and He only could bestow this great Priviledge upon them and since we find the Fathers of Families Exercising this Power we may assure our selves that originally Patriarchal and Regal Jurisdiction were all one as likewise appeares from this that Obedience and Submission to Magistrates is commanded us by the Fifth Commandment where it is only said Honour thy Father c. So that as Paternal Power was from the Begining so must Regal too Besides from hence I take it to be plain that even at that time that God gave his blessing to Noah Gen. 9.6 there was a Regiment established which could be no other than Monarchy for else that command of putting the murderer to death given at that very time could not have been put in Execution but must needs for a long time have continued ineffectual for had any private man assumed that Power he must necessarily have been guilty of the same crime so that either we must allow of Magistracy at that time or else make God command a thing and not appoint means for the execution of it And I cannot see why we should date the original of Government any later than the Creation for certainly we cannot perswade our selves that Nature that so carefully provides for the preservation and well-being of all Creatures should only be defective in her care for the noblest Animal in the universe since nothing can be more necessarily required for the happiness of any thing than Government for mankind Cicero 3. de Leg. for sine imperio nec domus ulla nec civitas nec gens nec hominum universum genus stare nec ipse denique mundus potest without Empire neither the whole nor any the least part of the world could be conserved in peace and order but all would immediately run into Ruin and Confusion And now if I had a mind to enter into so large a Common-Place it were very easie to cloy even the most greedy of such kind of Pedantry with sentences from the Fathers and other Primitive writers to show with what full Cry they all assert Monarchy to be sounded by God and Nature but waving a thing so obvious to every body I shall take notice that this opinion is so far from being a Stranger to our Laws that it is expresly resolved by all the Judges in England in Calvin's case that subjection is from no Humane Law Co. 7. Rep. 1. but from the Law of Nature and if so then of necessity must Regal Right be from the same Law because no man supposeth subjection where he does not presuppose power Besides you cannot but have observed above Rot. Parl. 39. H. 6. Rot. Parl. 2. E. 4. Rot. Parl. 1. R. 3. how many Parliaments of different Interests and Tempers have agreed in this that the Kings of England hold their Crowns by the Laws of God and Nature and therefore cannot be reputed of Humane Institution and hence it is that the King is stiled in our Statutes our Natural Liege Lord and his People likewise Natural Liege Subjects and the fidelity owing to the Crown
such Title therefore their Thrones instead of being supported are hereby very much shaken for a Man need but a small stock of Judgment to discern his premises to be as true as his inference is false for where-ever the Lawful Heirs are supposed to be dead or unknown the actual Possessour has the greatest Right and can with as little Justice be dispossessed of what he enjoys as if he were the rightful owner for even as Robbers and Thieves while they are possessed of Stolen Goods have a Title in Law against all others but the true Proprietors insomuch that it is a Sin for any other to deprive them of such Goods So Usurpers have a Title in the Government against all Persons but the true Heirs who alone and those impowered by them can legally and justly go about to molest and disturb them And where the Usurpation has continued so long that the knowledge of the right Heir is lost by the People it is no longer to be look'd upon as such but every one is obliged to comply with the Government and Governours then established so that no Prince has any reason to be Alarm'd at this Doctrine unless this Gentleman can produce the Lawful and Lineal Heir to Adam which I am perswaded will be somewhat an hard matter to do Nor are either the Properties or Laws of any Countries endangered since they have all the Security that Oaths and Promises can give them for them and greater Security Subjects cannot have from their Prince unless they had a Power to call their Soveraign to an account for the Male-administration of his Trust a thing no Men in their right Wits can pretend to As for the rest of our Gentleman 's impertinent Cavils about this Matter I shall not give them the Honour of an Examination for he may as well undertake to prove Marriage to be no Institution of God because not observed by some Nations where the Men and Women without any Ceremony accompany one another promiscuously as from the Practice of the Venetians Netherlands Poland Germany and Aragon where by the By the Case is quite alter'd from what it once was by the Conquest of that Country by Philip the Second conclude Monarchy to be a humane Invention And thus I think I have sufficiently made out my First Proposition that Monarchy is a Divine Ordinance and undoubted Institution of Nature The Second thing I undertook to prove was that the Crown according to the Law of God Nature and Nations ought to Descend according to Primogeniture and Proximity of Blood which will I doubt not very Evidently appear from the foregoing Discourse for if Monarchy be of Divine Right as I think I have made more than probable and that Adam was during his Life Universal Monarch there is no question to be made but that Right was by his Death transfer'd to his Eldest Son and Successor Seth I call him Eldest tho Born after Cain because God who as He hath given can take away had disinherited the latter for the Murder of his Innocent Brother Abel so that being Excommunicated and made a Vagabond driven from his Parents and turn'd into the wide World as we say to seek his Fortune I reckon of him as if he were not in being Nor is this bare Conjecture for Cedrenus can tell us that as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedren f. 9. Adam was Emperour of the World during his Life so was †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedren ubi supra Seth after his Decease his Successor in the Dominion over all Mankind And that the rest of the Patriarchs Succeeded and Governed the World by the same Right I take to be beyond Dispute if this be admitted as I can see no Reason why it should not I am sure of Canaan the Son of Enoch and Grand-Child of Seth We have a very remarkable and express Testimony he was Emperour over all the World and lies Buried in an Island of the East-Indian Sea the Memory whereof remained there in Tables of Stone in Alexander's time as Alexander relates in his Letter to Aristotle Recorded by ‖ lib. 2. cap. 11. Josephus Ben-Gorion When after the Universal Deluge Noah remained Master of the whole Earth he by that Right which God and Nature had invested in him divided the World amongst his Children to every one he gave their share but over and above that a kind of Supremacy over the whole as Lord in chief after the old Patriarch's Death was transfer'd to his Eldest Son Sem of whom his younger Brethren held their Kingdoms in Fee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayes the * Cedrenâ—â— sol 12. Historian speaking of Sem. Tho perhaps this Notion of an Universal Empire may seem strange to some yet 't is the Opinion of not a few Learned Men That Babel was designed for the Chief Seat of it And if Melchisedec be as I think the Learned Dr. Willet in his Commentary on Genesis has made more than probable no other than Sem I think the Scripture will afford us some very considerable Hints of it from the great Respect paid and offering of part of his Substance to him as an Acknowledgment of his Supremacy over the Universe But tho there be so good Evidence for this Opinion in History yet I cannot think that it stands in need of it for 't is so expresly and clearly laid down in several Places of Scripture that he must industriously shut his Eyes against Truth that cannot see it For Can any thing be more plain than this Text where God Almighty sayes to Cain of his Younger Brother Abel Gen. 4.7 Vnto thee shall be his Desire and thou shalt Rule over Him Unless by the Divine Law of Nature such a Right had been annexed to Primogeniture Would God have put him in mind of such a Prerogative We cannot suppose he did then bestow it upon him lest he should take Pet because his Offering was Rejected and his Brother 's Accepted Certainly there is more Reason to believe God would at that time have deprived him of that Preheminence which belong'd to him by Birth-Right and that no doubt he was afraid would be the Consequence from whence sprung the Hatred he bare to Abel But God was graciously pleas'd to remove that Distrust from him by telling him That tho he had offended yet should not that Prerogative be taken from him he should still continue to be Lord over his Brother †Vid. Calvin in loc S. Chryâ—â—st Homiâ— 18. To thee shall be his Desire and thou shalt Rule over him A clearer-Proof than this perhaps cannot be shewn for Honouring and Obeying Parents or any other Moral Duty except that of doing no Murder before the Promulgation of the Decalogue But if this be not sufficient it will further appear from the Blessing given to Jacob by Isaac his Father where he tells him He shall be Lord over his Brethren Gen. 27.29 and his Mother's Sons shall how down before him
From which Place all the Commentators with one Consent conclude That a Royal Power was due to the Eldest Son by Birth-Right and certainly there must have been something more than ordinary due to the First-Born or Esau could never have deserved the Title of Profane Heb. 12.16 which is bestowed upon him by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews I know 't is generally agreed to be upon the Account of the Priesthood which together with the rest was due to the Eldest And since we have so clear Evidence for this Right due to the Eldest by Birth as appears from Numb 3. Vers 12. where God declares he had made Choice of the Levites instead of the First-Born to be Priests I cannot conceive why that Prerogative of a Superiority and Dominion over their Brethren should be denyed to belong to them by the Law of Nature too since we have such clear Intimation of it For when Jacob blessed his Sons and told 'em what would happen to 'em in the latter Dayes Gen. 49.3 he calls Reuben his First-Born The Excellency of Dignity and the Excellency of Power Whereby is signified the Right he had by Birth to the Priesthood and Kingdom and Double Portion to which Sence the Chaldee Paraphrase exactly agrees But because of his Sins and Transgressions God had deprived him of 'em the Priesthood was given to Levi the Kingdom to Judah and the Double Portion to Joseph Nor are we to look upon Jacob as taking upon him to dispose of these Things himself but only fore-telling what would in due time by God Almighty be brought to pass and of which they were patiently and cheerfully to expect the Event But when Moses by God's Command delivered the Law to the Jews this Precept of Nature Of giving a Double Portion to the First-Born is there again repeated and enjoyn'd and so made a Part of the Positive and Revealed Will of God who gives this Reason for it because He is the Beginning of his Father's Strength Deut. 21.17 and the Right of the First-Born is his Which way of Expression is never used but when something is commanded which by the Law of Nature they were obliged to the Observation of before And of this Opinion is the Great Selden who sayes 'T is injoyned in such a manner ‖ Selden de Successionibus c. cap. 5. Ac si recepto antea in gentem more subniteretur as if it had been the Constant Practice and Custom of the Nation to observe it before And in this Precept 't is not to be question'd Succession to the Royalty is included for in the †Titulo de Regibus Talmud 't is said Qui praecipuum jus habet in Haereditate is in possessione Regni ideo filius natu major praeferur minori i. e. Whoever has the greatest Right to Succeed in any Inheritance he ought to be Advanced to the Throne and therefore the Eldest Son is alwayes prefer'd before the Younger And accordingly we are told That Jehoram succeeded Jehosophat and the Reason given 2 Chron 21.3 Because he was the First-Born Which would not have been added if upon that account the Kingdom had not been his due And if we take the pains to look into History we shall find the Practice of the World agreeable in preferring the Eldest Son before his Younger Brethren ‖ In Polyphm Herodotus can tell us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That it was the Custom of all Nations for the First-Born to enjoy the Royalty And consonant to this Lib. 2. is what we are told out of Trogus by Justine Artabazanes Maximus natu aetatis privilegio regnum sibi vindicabat quod ordo Nascendi natura ipsa gentibus dedit Artabazanes the Eldest Son challenged by the Prerogative of Age the Kingdom to which by Priority of Birth and the Law of Nature common to all People he had an Undoubted Right I might here produce a great Multitude of Quotations from these as well as other Authors to shew how Universally this Custom prevailed in all Places how generally it was Received But I shall content my self to take notice of the Unanimous Agreement of the great Doctors of the Civil and Canon Laws in this Matter †Ex hoc jure D. de Justit Jure Baldus sayes positively Semper fuit semper erit ut primogenitus in Regno succedat It alwayes was and ever shall be that the First-Born and next of Blood Succeedeth in the Kingdom And herein he is followed with the full Cry of all the Best and Choice Interpreters of both Laws who with one Voice agree That in Kingdoms and other Dignities which are Indivisible without Dis-membring the Eldest Son doth entirely Succeed And this many of them do call the Law of all Nations derived from the Order of Nature and from the Institution of God and Confirmed by the Canon Civil and other Positive Laws Now what hath been said of Primogeniture in Point of Succession to the Crown doth so evidently by Consequence extend it self to Proximity of blood that I shall say no more of it but proceed to Answer an Objection drawn from the Holy writ For say some If this Birthright be so sacred a thing as I have asserted it to be How comes it to pass that so many have been deprived of it How came the tribe of Judah to get the Scepter from Reuben And Why was Solomon advanced to the Throne to the total disinherison of his elder Brethren I answer That those that make this objection never consider that this was all done by the express command of him who ruleth in the Kingdom of men Dan. 4.25 and giveth it to whomsoever he will t is well known that David of the Tribe of Judah was immediately chosen by God himself and appointed to be Ruler of his own People and it was by an express warrant from the same God 1 Chron. 28.5 that Solomon was made his successor as appears from the mouth of David himself 1 Chron. 28.5 And of all my Sons saith he for the Lord hath given me many Sons 1 Chron. 29.1 he hath chosen Solomon my Son to sit upon the Throne of the Kingdom of the Lord over Israel So that these and the like Instances and none other can be produced signifie nothing to the purpose And if we do but impartially weigh the Recognitions of so many several Parliaments as I have taken notice of above we shall find this great Truth openly and fully acknowledged 't is unanimously agreed That the King 's of England come to the Crown not by any Human Right but by the Laws of God and Nature And thus I think I have effectually proved my Two First Propositions viz. That Monarchy Jure Divino Naturali is Founded in Paternity and in the next place That the Crown of England is and ought to be inseparably annexed to the Proximity of Blood by the Laws of God and
Nature and this Realm Cons Rot. Parl. 1. E. 4. Rot. Parl. 1. R. 3. 1 Jac. c. 1. if we may give Credit to the Declarations of so many Parliaments of different Humours and Tempers So that it will prove no very hard Matter to make good what I undertook in the Third place to wit That an Act to Exclude his R.H. would be utterly Unlawful and ipsofacto void because contrary to all Laws Divine Natural and Humane and so it ought to be adjudged when ever it comes to the Question before the Reverend Judges For the Laws of God Nature are the Rays and Emanations of the Divinity they are Undeniable Eternal and Immutable and therefore cannot be Altered or Impeached by any Humane Power or Authority but only by the God of Nature it self who did Originally ordain them and so many and plentiful are the Instances of Statutes expounded void because contrary to the Law of Nature that it would be loss of time to take notice of or enumerate any of them no doubt upon this ground it is that those two great and learned Dectors of the Law Jason and Angelus do positively aver that tho the Eldest Son of a King be either a Fool or a Madman either of which qualifications are as pernicious to the Government every whit as being a Papist yet can he not be excluded from Succession And I doubt not it may be made evidently appear that Succession of the Crown to the next Heir of the Blood Royal is so Fundamental and Primary a Constitution of this Realm so antient and received a Custome that against it There never hath been nor ought to be any dispute as †His Argument of the Case of the Postnati pag. 36. the Lord Chancellor Egerton will inform us and if we look into our Antient Records we shall find more than one Parliament declaring that Jura Sanguinis nullo Jure civili dirimi possunt And it is held by several great Lawyers that a Prerogative in Point of Government cannot be restrained or bound by Act of Parliament And surely then much less can such an Act he of any force in so high a case as this of Succession for certainly if this were once allowed the Government would cease to be Hereditary and degenerate into an Elective One And 't is not to be question'd but such a Power as enables the Parliament to break off one link may give them a sufficient Authority to shatter in pieces the whole sacred Chain and totally exclude the present Line and together with that Monarchy which I pray God may not be the bottom of too many Men's designs let them gild over their proceedings with never so specious and popular Pretences and no doubt out of a provident Foresight of the Calamity and dismal consequence of such designes it was that the Lords and Commons did declare That they could not assent in Parliament to any thing that tended to the Disinherison of the King Rot. Parl. 42. E. 3. Num. 7. and the Crown which this Bill of Exclusion evidently does whereunto they were sworn no tho the King himself should desire it But what comes more home to the point is the answer of Richard Duke of York to the Kings Friends who urged an Act of Parliament against him who told them That such an Act was to take no place Rot. Parl. 39. H. 6. Numb 10 c. nor was of any force or effect against Him the Right Inheritor of the Crown as it accorded with God's Laws and all Natural Laws And this Answer of the Duke's is by express Act of Parliament then assembled recognized and acknowledged to be Good True Just Lawful and Sufficient so that in effect we have an ingenuous and full Declaration as can be that the Right of Succession is absolutely unimpeachable by any Humane Power and that the Kings of England in possession their Heirs and Successors in reversion have an indefeasible right to the Crown which they cannot be deprived of by any Authority less than that which invested them therewith Besides 't is a Maxim of our Law That as the King never Dyes which is meant of that Political Capacity which in that very Moment one King Expires is Superadded to the Body Natural of the Next Heir whereby he immediately becomes King And this Political Capacity being of that Sublimity that it is no wayes subject to any Human Imbecilities of Infamy Crime or the like it draweth all Imperfections and Incapacities whatsoever from that Natural Body where with it is Consolidate as it were Consubstantiate so the Crown once gain'd takes away all Defects removes all manner of Bars and Lets laid in the way to the Succession For 't is impossible to hinder the Descent to the Next Heir because that being removed beyond the Reach of a Mortal Arm must go exactly in that Course prescribed by God and Nature and being joyn'd to and indivisible in one Royal Person thereby this later Capacity being added to the former purgeth eo instante all Obstructions of what Nature soever And tho his Natural Body before this Union was subject to the Lash of the Law yet upon the Conjunction of this Political and Immortal Capacity with it they grow inseparable And consequently by reason of those Divine Perfections inherently and indubitably annexed to that Coalition the Prince what ever Crimes he might have formerly been guilty of is now placed above Humane Justice and answerable solely to God Almighty to whom and none other he owes Subjection And thus it has been expresly resolved by all the Judges of England in the Case of Two Princes who were as much Disabled as an Act of Parliament could â—o it The First was when Henry the Sixth by the Assistance of the Great Earl of Warwick re-assumed the Crown for Edward the Fourth had pass'd an Act to disable him from all Regiment and attaint him of High Treason But notwithstanding all this the Judges were of Opinion That in the same Moment that Henry Re-assumed the Crown the said Parliamentary Incapacities were to all Intents discharged and avoided not because as our Pamphletier pag. 17. would have us believe Edward was not Lawful King For if either Right of Blood or an Act of Parliament could give him a Just Title there 's no doubt to be made but he had One But for this very Reason That the Crown once gain'd taketh away all Defects The next Instance is of Henry the Seventh who being once possessed of the Throne the Reversal of his Parliamentary Attainder was unanimously agreed by the Judges to be unnecessary for That the Crown takes away all Defects in Blood and Incapacities by Parliament And that from the Time the King did assume the Crown 1 H. 7.4 Fitz. Parl. pl. 2. Plowdens Com. 238. Co. 1. In. stit 16. a. the Fountain was cleared and all the said Attainders and Corruptions of Blood and other Impediments absolutely discharged And this being constantly received for