that the Law of a State or Kingdom Will they allow the Law of the Kingdom to be thus superior to their Sovereign The Rolls of this Law some Jewish Rabbins affirm that their Kings destroyed When therefore our Learned B shall produce an authentick Copy of the Law or that manner of the Jewish Kingdom which Samuel wrote in a Book 1 Sam. 25. and laid up before the Lord his Arguments from the Jewish Polity may deserve Consideration and yet what the present B of Worcester says in his Irenicum would have its due weight Those who plead the obligatory nature of Scripture-Examples Iren. p. 13. must either produce the Moral Nature of these Examples or else a Rule binding us to follow these Examples especially when these Examples are brought to found a new positive Law obliging all Christians From hence he proceeds to treat of God's ways of conferring Sovereign Power immediately in the Patriarchs time Vid. p. 7. Marg. Ib Sect. 8. This he says at first was from God we are sure because it was from the beginning of Mankind The first Men that were born into the World were all of Adam 's Family And so were all that came after till some of them went forth as Cain did to make Families for themselves Observe the reasoning here We are sure it was from God because it was from the beginning of Mankind Does he mean here from the Creation of Man from the first Multiplying or Infancy of the Subjects or from their Maturity and years of Discretion If the first then we are sure Civil Polity or Sovereignty was not from the Beginning of the World unless there was a King without a Subject The second cannot be said to be Subjects of a Civil Polity Pufend. Elementa Jurisprud cap. ultim and Pufendorf grounds the Paternal Power over them upon their presum'd Consent But for the last it would be no Consequence that because they were Subjects while they were not capable of Dissenting therefore they must continue so when they are at years of consent And if the Sovereignty began when they commenced Men then there is no Presumption to the contrary but that it began upon their consent nor will they be oblig'd to give up their Lives and the Fruits of their Labours to their Parents meerly for their having exercised that Affection towards them in their Childhood which Nature both requires and delights in Himself admits that the Sons when they come of Age may chuse whether they will be under their Fathers Government or no for he places the Power in being Father of the Family and allows the Sons then to make Families by themselves and to set up for Independent Princes This is plain from the instance of Cain Gen. 4.16 17. he of his own accord left his Fathers Family and built him a City Till then says our B they were govern'd by the common Father of Mankind Page 8. So that Cain who voluntarily deserted his Fathers Family by that act of his set up himself King in the Life-time of his Father But this Man was not the Patriarch had no Divine Nomination or Appointment nor is it likely he should have for he went out from the presence of the Lord Gen. 4.16 cast off the Theocrasie nor had any Appointment that appears from his Father Either then that City or Civil Society was govern'd popularly or if he was a Sovereign it was of the Free Choice of the Society for otherwise he had no Right at all And thus Cain bids fairest for being the first Independent Monarch in the World while Adam was under the Theocrasie and this he must grant in consequence of his own words elsewhere For says he when Jacob and all his Family went down into Egypt Page 9. there ended their Patriarchical Government It appears therefore that the Patriarchical Government was inferior to the Monarchical And if Adam should have gone to dwell in Cain's City his Patriarchical Government would have ended This matter is so intreagued that I need not enquire 1. Vid. Gielfusii op pol. p. 5. An fuisset futura politia instatu Innocentiae Aff. Quia fuissent futurae Societates in primis duae priores eaeque certo ordine inter se devinctae nulla tamen fuisset in imperando violentia vel injustitia sed dulcis harmonia Hooker 's Eccles Pol. c. 1. f. 26. There were as yet no Civil Societies no manner of Publick Regiment established Whether there was any occasion for the Rights of Sovereignty in the State of Innocence 2. V. Gen. 9.3 5 6. Whether Power over Life was given by God to Man till after the Flood 3. Targum of Onkelos Polyg f. 35 Quicunque effuderit sanguinem hominis per testes ex sententia judicum sanguis ejus fundetur Whether that Power when it was given was an Arbitrary Power or only to be exercised in the way of Judicature 4. Digests Lib. 1. Tit. 61. Whether the Compilers of the Digests were in the Right when they say That the Law whereby Children begotten in Lawful Marriage are in the Power of the Parents and that as the Commentator explains it so far as that they acquire for their Parents is Jus proprium civium Romanorum a Law peculiar to the People of Rome But to follow our Author to Noah Noah was the Father of all them that lived after the Flood P. 8. Sect. 8. and he was their Governor too till his Children were too many to live in one Country or under one Government and then they branched themselves into Nations among whom the Earth was divided Is this agreeable to Holy Writ what matter for that it serves the Hypothesis Tho the Scripture shews expresly that God gave the whole Earth Vid. Gen. 9.1 2 3 4 5 6 7. and the Power over Life to Noah and his Sons and the whole Covenant was between God on one part and Noah and his Sons on the other Upon which Mr. Mare Clausum f. 13. Certe non obscura verum plane communionis vestigia occurrunt in donatione illa numinis qua Noachus tres filii ejus c. domini pro indiviso rerum omnium facti sunt That Noah and his Sons were by Gods Donation Lords of all things in common Either no natural Right can be inferred from this because it was Gods immediate Free Gift or it shews that they who are adult have Right to share in Dominion with their Parents Either way it cuts off the Patriarchical Power which he would continue till Jacob went into Egypt Pag. 9. The Scripture says Gen. 10.32 The Nations were divided in the Earth after the Flood by the Families of the Sons of Noah And that the Families were after their Tongues He will have it to be by Noah's Children and speaks of it as if it were a regular branching themselves into Nations because the Children were too many to live in one Family Page
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
is lawful to submit to a Prince that comes in by Conquest wherein he holds that the Jewish Church submitted to Alexander as coming in by Conquest He gives other Examples of the like Nature in Cyrus and Constantine but what he says of the last runs through all * P. 69. though he had acquired a Title by the Expulsion of those Princes who had been Oppressors and might have taken the Government upon him as a Conqueror he did not But the Titles which all these Deliverers acquired the Right which they might have us'd was Conquest and if they had thought fit to use the right of Conquest according to himself they were compleat Conquerors and if they lost that Right it was only for their Lenity An admirable Admonition to Princes to have a care of being too generous Two of these Princes were Pagans the third appears not to have been Christened when he set this Example And yet because he held the a First General Council and gave the Clergy Secular Power he by receding from his Right made a binding Law to restrain the Right of following Princes Oh! the strength and weight of the Argument a P. 69. 3. What has been observed under the former Head might be enough to shew the doubtfulness and ambiguity of the Discourse The doubtfulness and ambiguity of the Discourse as if intended to serve either Prince or People and to impose upon both But sometimes it is not unprofitable to shew the same Notions in different Lights One who comes to the Possession of a Crown by Succefs in War over a Sovereign Prince may think he has Right of Conquest for that is ascribed to all Princes whom God sets up upon dispossessing another But then 1. It is not enough to become a Prince by God's Gift of the Kingdom but he must have been a Sovereign Prince before or all is a nullity God's Gift is void 2. He must be sure not to suffer himself to be called a Deliverer without Right of Conquest for if he were such an one he would not be a Prince of God's setting up and therefore as he would maintain his Title from God he must assert the Right of a Conqueror 3. But call him Conqueror Deliverer or what you please the Discourse founds his Right upon the Dominions being taken from one against his Will and another's coming into Possession If therefore both the one and the other be in some cases the Act of the People then he lays no Foundation for any Right of Conquest but what will be an equal Right in all Conquests though the People be themselves the Conquerors over themselves Farther yet he comforts Princes P. 23. That though they should be guilty of Breach of Faith not only to their People but to God also yet they may not therefore be deposed by them And yet he admits That the Laws are the Bond of Vnion between Prince and People P. 66. and that by these the Prince holds his Prerogative But the Breach of this Bond on the Prince's side by his Act he will have only so to loosen the Vnion that it may be next to Dissolution It seems there is some School-distinction between breaking a Bond and dissolving a Bond. But one would think that when the Bond is broken by the Prince it is dissolved by the Prince and no doubt he meant so but thought not fit to say so much But perhaps since he speaks of a Sovereign Prince according to his Notion of Sovereignty he might believe that he may break his Faith or Promise and yet not break the Law because his Will is the Law However he grants P. 7. Sect. 6. That whosoever disobeys or resists the publick Order and Government of the Kingdom or State where he lives he disobeys or resists the Ordinance of God The King therefore in a limited Government where his Will is not a Law nor can he dispense with Laws may himself disobey the publick Order and Government And by his breach of those Laws by which he holds his Prerogative and which are the Bond of Vnion between him and his Subjects may break or dissolve the Bond and then he is no more their King And thus the People are decently let into the Sovereignty and may make War against him without Rebellion Nay he who was their Prince till the Dissolution of the Bond resists the publick Order and Government if he goes about to force himself upon them again Which are the lucid Intervals those that bind up the Peoples Hands in all cases unless Foreign Princes interpose or those that set them free by the Act and virtual Cession of their Kings we shall know when Elias or someother Great Prophet comes But the Book seems not so much to justifie submitting to a Deliverer as to condemn them that have not the patience in all cases to wait God's time for raising up some Foreign Prince for their Deliverer Nor have Men reason to flatter themselves with the Notion of a Deliverer which has no Foundation in this Book and if the Prince be a Deliverer he must set up himself or the People must set him up For all that are of God's setting up are Conquerors with Right of Conquest Again the People may use the formality of a Choice but it is no such thing in reality this Act was not meerly humane but divine And the Prince may think this God's immediate Act and yet though he were a Conqueror and had the Right of Conquest given and adjudged to him (a) Vid. p. 18. It is God that does this 2. He does it judicially by God himself this might have been by (b) P. 53. So it was by those Conquests that God removed Kings and set up Kings though we see not that it was any more than by the permissive Providence of God c. no more than the permissive Providence of God 4. It has appeared already that he would have what David mentions as belonging to the Royal Dignity The weakness of 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 to be a Rule in all Ages and Countries But David says of God Almighty agreeably to what I shall shew of the Donation to Noah and his Sons The Earth hath he given to the Children of Men. Which certainly comprehends Dominion as well as Soil and is a Confutation of his Notion of the Patriarchical Power David says God established a Testimony in Jacob and appointed a Law in Israel Here God was the Law-Maker not the King as every Prince truly a Sovereign according to the Notion which I oppose is It appears that the Law which David tells us God established in Israel Vid. Deut. 17. ver 18 19 c. had particular Clauses limiting the Right of the King Here at least was a Law of the true nature of a Contract superior to the King and