pardonable if not meritorious when it is to preserve the Chastity and Freedom of our common Parent The Subject of the Book being of the Disposal of Kingdoms and conferring of Power the Measures of Power or manner of enjoying it might seem not to fall within the Question and yet it will appear that here lyes the Hinge of the Controversie for if the Government of England be in King Lords and Commons then Vid. Grot. de Jure belli pacis de modo habendi potestatem whatever Difference there be in the Modus habendi potestatem the manner in which the Sovereignty or absolute Power whereby the Nation is governed is enjoyed the King may as Grotius has it in partem non suam involare seize upon or usurp that part of the Soveraignty which does not belong to him or to speak strictly as the Soveraignty is indivisible though enjoyed by several he may take to himself alone what the laws have communicated to him and to others And there would be no manner of Consequence that a Conquest over the King should ipso facto transfer the Dominion to the Conqueror so far as to make the Subjects (a) P. 20. In giving one Prince a Conquest over another he thereby puas one in Possession of the others Dominions he makes the others Subjects become his Subjects or his Slaves as they come in upon Conditions or at the Will of the Conqueror Slaves unless they obtain Conditions from the Conqueror which is maintain'd in this Book And whereas the learned Author pretends that he has sufficiently provided against the Charge of (b) Vid. Pref. Novelty by the Number of Authorities to no purpose as I shall shew I challenge him to bring one Author of clear Credit who holds any thing like this I take Grotius to have given a much safer Rule in this Grot. de Jure belli P. 503. Potest autem Imperium victori acquiri vel tantum ut est in rege aut alio imperante tunc in ejus duntaxat jus succeditur non ultra vel etiam ut in populo est c. and yet to have gone to the utmost Stretch when he says Dominion may be acquir'd by a Conqueror either only so much as is in the King or other Ruler and then he succeeds only to his Right and no farther or also so much as is in the People All the Right of the People Grotius supposes not to be acquired meerly by a Victory over the Prince where the Prince had not the Soveraignty absolutely and solely in him and that in such Case the Conqueror succeeds only to that Right which the other had that is to a Government according to the Laws of that Country But our Reverend Author is express P. 49.50 That though the Prince that is disseized was obliged by that Law while he was in Possession it never was a Law to the Prince that is now in his Place And thus by the Conquest of a Prince limitted by Laws according to him the Conqueror would not only acquire all the Power which the Law gave the other but would be let into a Power by Gods Gift without any legal Limits But this Supposition as it is wholly precarious is very absurd in any Government where the Sovereignty is communicated to more than one And how it is in England next to the Determination of our Law-makers who are the Judges ordained by God recourse ought to be had to Men whose Profession it is to be acquainted with the Laws and History of the Government but the Divine thinks himself insignisicant if he cannot like the Pope of Rome hook-in Civil Power and the Decision of its Rights in Ordine ad Spiritualia and therefore some Rule must be found out common to all Soveraign Princes or Kings as such and that Rule must be one of which Divines may be allowed to be the most competent Judges or Interpreters Whereas therefore this Author resolves all Gods ways of conferring Power 1. Into the Right of the First Parents called Patriarchical 2. Conquest 3. God's Nomination 4. Consent of the People 1. He makes those Rights which belong to one who was King by Divine Nomination equally to belong to all of them For says he David P. 5. as being a Prophet inspired best knew the Mind of God and his ways of dealing with Mankind And David as being called to be a King by the immediate Designation of God best knew what belonged to that Dignity His word therefore is on all accounts a sufficient Proof He is indeed there speaking of the Exaltation to Power P. 4. but either the Exaltation is all that belongs to the Power and then there is only a Name without Power till Man has consented or else by what belongs to the Dignity he means all its Rights or the Rights of Sovereignty Whatever therefore was a Right of Sovereignty in David is according to him the Right of all Kings as such because David was a King by the immediate designation of God And therefore where one who is called King has not such a Right of Sovereignty P. 18 19. as he supposes to be common to all Kings he will have the Government to be properly a Commonwealth Wherein he has thought fit to explain the mystery how it came to pass that all who hold Their present Majesties Right to this Government after the Declaration of the States of the Kingdom upon the late King's breach of the Original Contract and Abdication are run down as Republicans and Enemies to the Monarchy though they are the only Men who would preserve it to Their present Majesties And it is not an unpleasant story for the truth of which I will not vouch That when a Man was recommended to a Place of very great Trust though he had been a constant Companion of them who Caball'd against their Majesties this being objected his Patron should say O Sir he is a Friend to the Monarchy 2. As with this High Monarchical Author the Rights of all Sovereign Princes and Kings as such are equal he is not shy of letting the World know what Their Right is P. 20. P. 64. and that it is a Right to make the Subjects Slaves or in other words of his own to do with them and theirs what they please For that he tells us is the Right of War or of a Conqueror and all Kings have the same Right or else what David shews to have belonged to the Dignity would not be a Rule to this day 3. One would think that the consent of Men who are at liberty to dissent proceeds from their Choice and that they who chuse one to reign over them who had no Right before that Choice P. 11. P. 11. give him the Kingdom and that this as himself calls it is the Act of Man and merely an Human Act. But if this were only an Human Act then the Government would be founded in Contract if it was
not given in an absolute manner and the King that was chosen might be no other sort of Sovereign than Humane Laws made him Wherefore it is necessary that this meer Humane Act should not be a meer Humane Act but should be spiritualiz'd to come within Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and that the Authority should be immediately from God only and become such an Authority as he gives a King of his own Nomination or one to whom he has given the Kingdom in way of Judgment upon an Appeal to him and Tryal by Battle To get clear of the troublesom Objection here you must understand that there are but two grounds for their Election 1. Real Merit in the Person chosen 2. Favour towards him P. 13. Where there is Real Merit they could not go beside him in their Choice they took him as one already chosen of God As to Favour P. 14. whereby they prefer one before others of as much Merit it is the same great God who rules the roaring of the Sea and the multitude of the People But if the Translators of the Bible were as well skill'd in the Hebrew Psal 6 .7 and rightly rendred it tumult or madness of the people the most tumultuous irregular and undue Election would by this be ascrib'd to God as his immediate act But whether the Choice were regular or irregular they it seems were not free to chuse or not to chuse And as the Poet has it Thus like a Pris'ner in an Isle confind Man walks at large a Pris'ner in his mind Wills all his Faults while Heav'n th' Indictment draws And pleading Guilty justifies the Laws Dryden And according to our B where Men thought they exercis'd a Free Faculty given them by God the Man of Merit took their Subjection as his Right because God had mark'd him out as their King which would warrant the Usurpations of any Man who could latter himself into a perswasion that he merited to be King But where they chose without Merit it seems it was Choise without liberty to dissent and consequently tho' his Choice were a sinful act as sometimes it might be â—et he who makes God the Author of the Choice by is immediate Act makes him the Author of the Sin (a) Puf. Elem. Juris prud p. 1. Dof 1. Actiones humanae dicuntur actiones hom voluntariae cum imputatione effectuum But as the Choice of the People is made no Choice â—ery little room is left by this Author even for that â— Choice For 1. Where a Kingdom is Hereditary P. 16. there â—e Ancestors consented once for all following â—enerations and then though the Heir who Claims by Descent from the first Monarch should be a natural Fool or Mad-man God has given him the Kingdom for a perpetual Inheritance and all the acts of the People alone to set him aside before his actual Possession are a meer nullity they can acquire no right against that which God alone has given the Prince by reason of his (a) P. 16. For the Derivation of that Right to their Persons they owe it only to God for it comes to them by their Birth and they owe their Birth only to God Birth 2. As the Succession is continued to the Heir of the Family (b) Pag. 15. Sect. 26. without other Human Act than the first consent if the Crown be taken from the Heir of the Family and another comes to enjoy it 't is God who (c) Pag. 19. This says he can be understood of nothing else but the Conquest of one Prince over an other This which seems there to be only a Conquest over the Prince he soon advances to a Conquest over the Nation For thereby he says God makes the others Subjects become his Subjects or Slaves accordingly as they come in c. God's putting down one being here extendable to all cases of removals even by Death or cession he Pag. 49. finds it needful to insinuate as if he had proved in Sect. 26. only That Conquest is the way by which a Kingdom is taken from a Sovereign Prince against his will puts down one and sets up another and in all cases where God does this it is by Conquest and can be no otherwise understood And in the case of Conquest no consent of the People is required but thereby God puts one in possession of the other's Dominions before the People express any consent to receive him for their Prince and tho' the Conqueror should condescend to make them his Subjects they are his Slaves by right of War Should they capitulate with their Swords in their Hands while the Event of a War which they might threaten were doubtful Yet God has given them up for (e) Pag. 20. He makes the others Subjects become his Subjects or Slaves accordingly as they come in upon Conditions or without Slaves they have no Right to capitulate but in their very capitulating resist God's Ordinance while they would put Limitations upon a Prince who by a Right given of God ought to be Absolute and extort by force a Promise (d) Pag. 11. perhaps to observe the Laws of the Country from one to whom they never were nor ought to be Laws Here our State-Casuists would find these Flaws in the Claim which the Subjects might make to their Ancient Freedoms 1. The Prince his Promise is but the Grant of one in full Possession of an Absolute Power and the Sovereign Power cannot bind it self 2. It cannot have the nature of a binding Contract because the People were but Slaves at the time of the Contract 3. The Terms are extorted by force 4. God Almighty has prior to any consent of the People entrusted the Prince with an Absolute Power which he must exert upon necessity and has made him the Judge of the necessity Since therefore according to Men of these Notions W. I. was a Conqueror and the late King succeeded to the Right of the Conqueror it is pretty plain that the Exercise of the Dispensing Power would not have brought the Vnion between the late King and his Subjects to a State next to a Dissolution P. 66. had it not fell heavy upon the Clergy who always intended to exempt themselves from the Consequences of their own Doctrine 3. But suppose the Conqueror or his Heir should use the Right of Conquest over his Subjects and make them his Slaves notwithstanding former Concessions the People are by this Author tied up from freeing themselves He says indeed very truly P. 24. If a Prince will have no Law but his Will if he tramples and oppresseth his People their Patience will not hold out always they will at one time or other shew themselves to be but Men. But may they shew themselves to be Men No God forbid What shall Slaves rebel because they are used as Slaves It is enough that they are allowed Prayers and Tears the Arms of the Church if the Prayers are in Church-Form and
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
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
the Tears flow decently and in order God will raise up to them a Deliverer in some Foreign Sovereign Prince till then they must wait And for their Comfort P. 32. though all their Proceedings towards their Deliverance by War have an Original Nullity even their Invitation of a Foraign Prince how great soever the Occasion be yet a Forraign Prince need not be very scrupulous If he be of their Religion P. 45. He hath discovered an Hostile Mind towards the Professors of it Na Pufendorf allows Subjects to use even an absolute Prince as an Eneiny if he discover an Hostile Mind towards them Nay allows this to any one whom the Prince thus casts out of the Number of his Subjects Pufend. Elim Jurisprud P. 340. and they are persecuted upon the Acount of their Religion their Persecutor having discovered an Hostile Mind against all of the Religion this is a Cause of War which will justifie the Arms of a Foreign Prince But Religion is not to be preserved by any Sword that is not Canonically ordained or Consecrated If a Foreign Prince see himself in extream Danger of suffering an intollerable Injury P. 36. by another Prince's Oppression of his own People though God had given them up for Slaves then he may make an open actual Invasion Ibid. in Defence of another Kings Subjects but rather to ward off the Injury which he was in danger of suffering But this Rule is not limitted to an intollerable Injury but may be extended to justifie a War P. 24. Princes have no other way to right themselves for the least Injury P. 30. Their Rights and Injuries are inseparably Joyned with those of their Kingdoms and Nations c. They must insist upon those Rights with which God hath entrusted them for others more than themselves It is not only their Interest but their Duty so to do upon the receiving or fearing the least Injury and it is not only Lawful but a Duty to God for the Sakes of their own Subjects to right themselves by War But the Sufferings of the People of other Nations are then only to be relieved by a Foregin Prince when he has a particular Interest or Cause of his own and receives immediate Prejudice thereby or fears that he may Indeed P. 47. As it is necessary c. so when it is necessary to do this for themselves then they ought to do it much the rather for the Sakes of their oppressed Brethren no sufficient Cause it seems is to be found in that common Relation between Mankind Grotius de Jure Belli pacis lib. 2 c 25. Sect. 6. Postrema latissimeque patens est hominum inter se conjunctio que vel sola ad opem ferendam sufficit upon which alone Grotius and others would justifie the Heroes of Past Ages who have undertaken the Deliverance of oppressed Nations meerly for the Sake of common Humanity and as they were fit Objects of their Compassion They who confine Deliverers to selfish Ends seem to envy them their greatest Glory or to have been so sordiâ— themselves as to have had no Idea of this Vertue and like Mr. Hobbs to draw a Scheme of Humane Naturâ— from too solitary a Dwelling at Home Whatever Latitude was given to warrant the Expeditions of Soveraigns here they are confined because per haps some could not imagine that they should take Pleasure in what is so disinterested But for Subjects P. 32. how much soever oppressed they have no Right to make War without Leave of their Prince Ibid. None have Right of making War but they that are in Soveraign Power Whoever it seems is in Soveraign Power though he be not the Supream or Chief in Power he is no Subject and you may be sure the Prince will never give his Subjects leave to make War against himself It must therefore be some Foreign Soveraign Prince who makes War against the oppressing Prince otherwise the War is not only unjust P. 32. but no Right can be accquired by Success there is an original Nullity in all the Proceedings Very good But let us now apply this to our present Case that we may come out of the Clouds To make the Discourse pertinent it must be admitted that a War was made upon the late King while he continued King and that he was dispossessed against his Will Here I would ask this serious Question Is not our Deliverance and the Settlement of the Crown occasioned thereby Vid. Pref. No other Doctrine than that which has been received and past for cur rent in the Church of England ever since the Reformation not only condemned but rendered a meer Nullity by the plain Consequence of this Doctrine insinuated as the Doctrine of the Church of England All must agree that King William while he was but Prince of Orange and Stadholder of Holland was invited over by many of the Nobility Gentry and Clergy of this Land that his Arms were joyned by Men of all Orders immediately upon his Landing that he was upon the late King 's Withdrawing petitioned to accept the Administration of the Government and after that freely chosen togetheir with his Princess to supply the vacant Throne without any Force offered by him to the late King or the People much less setting up for himself and compelling them to declare him King This I take to be the true State of the Question but if we suppose such a State of it as may make the B s Discourse consistent and to purpose it must be admitted 1. That all they who invited the Prince to assist them departed from the Doctrine of the Church of England 2. That however he having had Success thereby immediately became rightful King and that all who were for the Regency or opposed his being King equally departed from the Doctrine of the Church of England But upon the true State of the Case there may naturally arise these two Questions not here to mention more 1. Whether if King James were conquered Vid. P. 49. it was by the then Prince of Orange or by the People of England and whether the Prince or the People took the Dominion from the late King against his Will 2. Whether the Deliverance in which his present Majesty was so gloriously instrumental was according to this Discourse by a Soveraign Prince That our King was not a Soveraign Prince barely as Stadholder of Holland must be granted and then as to the Principallity of Orange even according to this Book though the Cause of War between the French King and the States or their Stadholder were unjust on that King's side yet it was not only lawful but a Duty for the Subjects of that Principality P. 57. to obey the French King Nay the Government is so far setled in that King that we are to presume a Right for says he Wheresoever this is once setled P. 51. whether by length of time or even sooner by general Consent
of the People there it ought to be presumed there is a Right at least there ought to be no farther Dispute of it But the Principallity of Orange is now setled in the French King by a general Consent of the harassed People his Right to it therefore is not to be disputed Farther yet if that Principallity were feudatory to France then by the Feudal Law it was subject to Forfeiture for the Fault of the Owner and then according to the Discourse he was no Soveraign Prince P. 19. for all Soveraign Princes as they have their Authority from God so they are only accountable to him 2. Perhaps it may be said Inconsistencies that my Questions here are not properly applied they belonging to his Notion of Conquest whereas our Case is not of a Conquest but of an Eviction and a Deliverance thereupon which leads me to his Inconsistencies But I must premise that no Man can avoid his own Positive Assertions by contradicting himself elsewhere especially by Contradictions to the very Ground-work and Foundation which he lays The only way to Merit a Pardon of dangerous Positions is ingenuously toretract them Besides as he denies the Right of Conquest to any but one who was a Sovereign Prince before so he denies him the Right of a Deliverer not allowing him to make War for a Deliverance So that admit he were consistent throughout yet my second question would deserve an answer But in truth it will appear that either a Deliverer is one who but calls or suffers himself to be call'd a Deliverer when he is a real Conqueror or else his Notion herein is a direct Contradiction to his Fundamental Positions and the manifest Drift of his Arguments or rather Affirmations for perhaps his Book is as improperly call'd a Discourse as any that has come out a good while If Page 66. says he another Prince having a just cause of War is so far concerned for an oppressed People as to take them into his care and to declare that he makes War for their Deliverance The Effect of this War though we may call it a Conquest because it has a Resemblance of it yet it cannot be properly so in any respect c. As to the Prince on whom it is made it is properly an Eviction by the just Sentence of God Page 67. c. As to the People it cannot be a Conquest over them who are so far from having the War made against them that it was made chiefly for their Sakes If there be any Pretence of a Conquest it is only over them that were their Oppressors But as for them that were oppressed it makes all together on their side so that they are the Conquerors in Effect for they have the Benefit of it And he that obtain'd this for them hath a much more glorious Title than that of a Conqueror for he is properly their Restorer and Deliverer And elsewhere he says Page 70. Though one may Conquer and drive out an Oppressing Prince he may have no Right of Conquest This seems very plausible but either is a downright Contradiction to his Fundamental Position or is none of the ways in which according to him God disposes of a Kingdom when he puts down one Prince and sets up another for according to him in all cases where God does this immediately upon the Conquest of the Prince the Conqueror thereby in vertue of that Conquest is by God put into Possession of the others Dominions V. sup Discourse p 56 57. No consent of the People c So p. 28. he makes the others Subjects become his Subjects or Slaves Accordingly as they come in or submit and it is their Duty to obey him before he has their Consent Farther yet he says Vid. inf p 49. Conquest being the way by which a Kingdom or Dominion is taken from a Sovereign Prince against his Will and by which another Prince gets into his Possession as often as this happens there arises a question between the two Princes whether of them hath a Right to the Kingdom or Dominion This he will have to be decided by the Law of Nations a Law common to both P. 50. That cannot be the Law of the Kingdom for the the Prince that is disseiz'd was oblig'd by that Law while he was in Possession yet now it seems he is not and it never was a Law to the Prince that is now in his place for the Law of the Land he holds that to be a Law to neither Where the People may take this for their Comfort that if the Prince dispossessed or evicted should be restored again he will come back freed from all the Laws of the Country Nor is the Prince who Conquers him a Restorer of those Laws eo nomine as he is a Deliveror for whatever the Assurances might have been to induce the People to assist him or not to assist the other they are his Slaves till he has condescended to grant them Liberty upon their coming in or submitting after he has conquered their Prince or delivered them from his Person but as to the Oppressions what might have been an Usurpation in their Legal King would be but Right of War in a Deliverer And thus if the Restorer or Deliverer dispossess the other the Deliverer and Conqueror differ not as to the Right which they acquire or in Reality but in name P. 27. so 28. The Eviction was by God's Sentence the effect of which he says is a just Conquest And if he be consistent with himself he must agree that however the People please themselves with the sound of the word P. 63. Sect. 47. the Deliverer may by right of War do with them and theirs what he pleases for this he makes the right of War in all cases where a War is made upon their Prince for just cause and the Deliverer is one whom he supposes to have had a just cause of War P. 66. Sect. 48. P. 59. but where the Justice of the War is certain the Right of a Conquest he takes to be clear And if we consider what he says against a Deliverer's acquiring the Right of War we may see that it is not with intent of opposing if he insists upon that Right 1. P. 67. sup The People are the Conquerors in effect because they have the Benefit of it but if that Benefit is denied they are not Conquerors in effect 2. He says it has always been judged by the People of God that such an one as he describes is not properly a Conqueror but mark his Proof we have the Example of the Jewish Church in the time of Alexander the Great I need not observe that this is a palpable Contradiction to our B 's Letter about Jaddus * Vid. The Letter to Dâ— Sherlock about Jaddus p. 28. This Story of Jaddus affords us a very good unquestionable instance of the Judgment of the Jewish Church in his Age That it
a Prince is overcome in a just War till the Subjects consent the State of War continues and there is no Obligation nor Faith and so no Dominion 3. In all cases where God puts down one and sets up another this is by Conquest this Conquest must be by a Foreign Sovereign Prince and the Conqueror has the Right of War over the Subjects of the dispossessed Prince From which Rule thus laid down absolutely there must be these several Exceptions 1. Himself excepts and not excepts the Case of a Deliverance 2. Reason will oblige him to except the case of a limited Monarchy 3. The case of a Prince's assisting the People to dispossess an Usurper 4. All Instances when the People have renounced their Allegiance to one King and set up another from among themselves as when Jeroboam Solomon's Servant having headed the People of Israel 1 Kings 11.26 when they urged for an Assurance of a Regular Government from his Master's Son Rehoboam the Servant was advanced to the Government of Ten of the Tribes 1 Kings 12.13 after all Israel had renounced the Family of David Edward the Second among us being governed by Gaveston and the Spencers murdered his Uncle Thomas Earl of Lancaster and numbers of Great Men the People rose against him Imprisoned him and a full Representative of the Nation Anno 1326. Vid. The Porm of it Knighton Col. 2549. in a Solemn manner renounced their Allegiance to him but comforted their Abdicated King with the Declaration which they made that they would suffer his Son Edw. 3. to succeed him Rich. 2. had been carried on in the like Extravagancies by the Loyal Men of his time the Duke of Ireland and other Minions these Men finding a Storm coming upon them by the just Judgment of the Nation perswaded the King to give himself up as a Vassal to France The Nation to secure their publick Regiment and Laws deposed him and set up H. 4. a Subject of this Kingdom till they made him King Upon these Instances and more which might be brought I would ask 1. If there was a Conquest in any one of them who was the Conqueror the Prince constituted by the People or the People who constituted him 2. Whether the Prince so constituted had a Right of War over the People 3. Whether it was a Duty in all these cases to expect a Deliverance from some Foreign Sovereign Prince when perhaps all Neighbour Princes might be Brib'd by Moneys extorted from the Subjects by Oppression and Tyranny when all might be of the same Religion or might have the same end in their Government and would assist each other to Enslave their People 5. Reason would except all cases when a Prince comes with Title or pretends it and where he declares the occasion of his Arms or condition of Success These being used for Inducements to have Right done or for the Subjects to joyn with or not oppose him are implicit Contracts and either of them is a full bar to farther Claim More Exceptions would lye but these are enough to set aside his General Rule 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 It must be confessed that in this Book he is not come to his second Head wherein he undertakes to shew That the work of God in bringing his Majesty into this Kingdom was truly Gods making use of his Prerogative in putting down one and setting up another But since his Discourse is with the professed intention of so applying it surely it is allowable for me to try his Rule for him before hand if it were only to perswade him to find out other Topicks for the Justification of their Majesties Right and pâ—oving that her Majesty is of Gods setting up as well as his Majesty This I hold but am sure I cannot prove it from his Rule applied either to the Case of an Absolute Conqueror or to a Deliverer nor does he so much as pretend to say any thing to shew that God has made her Majesty our Sovereign Lady The supposed Conquest would barr her Hereditary or other Right and her Right whatever it is will not admit of a Conquest But the States of the Kingdom have declared That King William and Queen Mary are and of Right ought to be our Sovereign Lord and Lady Tho this Declaration was made in a Convention of the People by its Representatives not called by a King or Queen yet the Parliament following declared the Acts of that Convention which became a Parliament upon acting in Conjunction with their Majesties to be binding Laws And if there be any question of her Majesties Sovereignty because the Administration was placed in his Majesty the Act of this present Parliament impowering her Majesty to Administer the Government during his Majesties Absence has removed that Objection Neither before that was her Majesty a Subject Nor can a King make a Viceroy to act in his Absence but such an one as must be a Subject punishable for Treason against the King What shall be thought of them who Swear Allegiance to Two and yet believe it to be due to but One This alone were enough to shew that the Quotations and Positions in thaâ— Discourse are not to the purpose if it be to justifie the Settlement and Submission to it The best which can be said of it is That the Design is not for the Strength or Honour of the Government but of the Clergy And to shew that though many of them were degenerate Sons of the Church in contributing to the Revolution for all they are given up yet in submitting to it they have done nothing but what is agreeable to that Doctrine Preface which as the Preface has it has pass'd for the Doctrine of the Church of England ever since the Reformation But if it has pass'd for the Doctrine of our Church and is not it were a labour worthy of a Bishop to undeceive Men. If it is the Doctrine why should they not admit that it has been assented to only for the sake of Peace As they say of other Doctrines which the Church undeniably holds And why do they continue to maintain it when it so much disturbs the Peace of this Land divided only by the means of it Farther yet Our B must admit that being the Church is incorporated into the State the late Bishops are duely depriv'd by the Law though not Canonically Why therefore is not an Act of Parliament which places our present Settlement upon a down-right Contradiction to this Doctrine enough to set aside a Doctrine which has not so much as a Canon excepting always the Laudaean to colour it And which has no better Foundation than the Roman Traditions The Doctrine perhaps may be suitable to the Canons of 1640. or to the Oath generally taken by the Clergy not to bear Arms against the King or any one
8. He takes no notice of the dispersion upon the Confusion of Tongues from which time to God's setting up a King in Israel he elsewhere owns that perhaps in some Nations it was the Peoples part to chuse who should rule over them Page 9. This if we consider it will be more than a perhaps Upon the Confusion of Tongues there were 70 Cluverius Epit. Hist as Cluverius holds Noah's Children were not so many as there were different Tongues and Nations The Heads of Families could not then be distinguished and the People of every different Tongue must have chosen to themselves Heads or have so many Commonwealths or Communities without a Sovereign or Supreme Head When says he the Fathers or some of those Nations made Conquests upon one another as Nimrod did on the Nations about him who was called a mighty Hunter before the Lord or when they were otherwise incorporated together These made the ancient great Monarchies whereof the Assyrian and Egyptian are famous in ancient History This his great Hunter before the Lord or upon the face of the Earth was an Usurper and a Tyrant And (a) The Septuagint 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Via Sir W. Rat. f. 158. citing St. Austin Men of greater Authority than himself instead of before the Lord render it against the Lord. But 1. The Heads of those Nations as appears were not all Patriarchical Heads but many of them must have been Chosen by the People 2. He leaves room for a voluntary Incorporation of all Fathers of Families in which we say consists a Civil Society 3. Families so incorporated cannot be dissolved at pleasure of every Individual as his Patriarchate may 4 Several Powers and Necessities arise upon such an Incorporation of Men who have distinct Interests and Properties which are not within single Families where the Property is in one 5. According to himself God had given the Power to every one of these Fathers before the Incorporation And the Sons of these Fathers are admitted at full age to make themselves Families and so ad infinitum these are a Community or People And all these as Fathers of Families have equal Patriarchical Power If then this Power be Sovereign when they or the majority give up their Power to One the People give him a Sovereignty over them which he had no Right to before their Gift And thus with God's Permission the People confer Power Quod erat demonstrandum Upon his supposed Expiration of the Patriarchate in Egypt Pag. 9. to the setting up of Kings he will have it That God's People were governed first by Moses as a King and after by Judges of God's Nomination or what was equivalent to a Nomination Which equivalent he soon stretches to a proper Nomination For speaking of the Government among God's chosen People from the Beginning to Solomon inclusive Pag. 10. he says There was no other standing Government in that Nation which God chose to be his peculiar People but what was administred by single Persons And those Persons Title to the Government was Patriarchical or by Divine Nomination He seems to have put in the word standing for a fence against instances of other Governments set up among God's People within that time But if the Publick Affairs were regularly administred at any time under any other known Form of Government the word standing either will not help him or ought to be struck out And I desire him to shew the single Person that Govern'd the Commonwealth of Israel or Headed them upon every Emergency from the time of (a) Judges c. 1. Vid. Sir W. Rawl Hist f. 350. Tit. Of the Intrregnum after Josuah's Death Josuah to Othniel during which interval they carried on several Wars with success in the Name of the People of Israel I think I need not put him to prove that the Judges in Israel were Sovereign Princes or to Answer Mr. Harrington's Commonwealth of Israel Nor to evade those Texts which besides the Prophet seem to place the High-Priest above the Temporal Judge When God's Chosen People came to have Kings he tells us God was pleased so far to grant his Peoples request that they should be an Hereditary Kingdom The request was to have a King that they might be like all the Nations 1 Sam. 8.20 But himself says In most Nations we read of at that time it was the Peoples part to Chuse who should Rule over them pag. 9. According therefore to them who would have the manner of the Kings of other Nations at that time to infer a Right in the Jewish Kings and the manner of the Jewish Kings a Right in all others the request of the Jews was not to have such an Hereditary Kingdom as he contends for but a Kingdom wherein the People might chuse their King If by Hereditary Kingdom he means an established Monarchy where the People were to be Governed by a Succession of Kings and no other Form of Government that might be the effect of a Promise made long before And yet even that related not to all the People of Israel The Scepter shall not depart from Judah if it be taken for the Government of one alone over the whole Body of that Nation For that People was divided into two Kingdoms however they might have a settled Monarchy and yet the People might have chosen the first King and every Successor For the first King of the reigning Line he says God would have the chusing of him himself and accordingly he chose Saul But himself admits That the Kingdom was not Hereditary to him Observe so much of the Fundamental Law of the Jewish Kingdom as is now extant concerning the setting up of a King among them When thou shalt say I will set a King over me like as all the Nations that are about me Deut 17.14 Thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse one from among thy Brethren shalt thou set King over thee Thou mayst not set a Stranger over thee which is not thy Brother ver 15. Was this a Law to God himself or a Promise That he would never set a Stranger over them Or was it a Law to them for a Limitation upon their Choice If it were God's Promise then he would never have suffer'd them to be in Captivity to any Foreign Prince If it were a Law to them then how much soever it might be God's Choice as being within the Rule which he gave them yet it was properly the Choice of the People Suitably to which the Learned Grotius (a) Grotius de Jure Belli Pacis lib. 1. cap. 4. sect 7. Quod lex vetat alieniginam popuso prefici de voluntaria electione intelligendum est c. rightly observes That the Law which forbids a Stranger 's being set over the People is to be understood of a Voluntary Election not of what the People was compelled to do through the necessity of Times If
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-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