at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it
hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience,
was afterwards claimed as a right.

England, since the conquest, hath known some few good monarchs,
but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his
senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very
honourable one. A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and
establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives,
is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original. It certainly hath no
divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing
the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it,
let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome.
I shall neither copy their humility, nor disturb their devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first? The
question admits but of three answers, viz. either by lot, by election,
or by usurpation. If the first king was taken by lot, it establishes a
precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was
by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear
from that transaction there was any intention it ever should be. If the
first king of any country was by election, that likewise establishes a
precedent for the next; for to say, that the RIGHT of all future
generations is taken away, by the act of the first electors,
in their choice not only of a king, but of a family of kings for ever,
hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin,
which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam;
and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other,
hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned,
and as in the first electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind