QUEST. IX. Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people, that it remaineth in them in some part, so as they may in case of necessitie resume it? (2) to QUEST. X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to divine unction? (1)

QUEST. IX. Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people, that it remaineth in them in some part, so as they may in case of necessitie resume it? (2)

all for the subject and seat of Soveraigne power, against all order hath plunged himselfe in the deep of Defensive armes, and yet hath no new thing. 1. Our law of Scotland will warrant any subject, if the King take from him his heritage, or invade his possession against Law, to resist the invaders, and to summon the Kings intrudors before the Lords of Session for that act of injustice: Is this against Gods Word, or Conscience? 2. The Sanedrim did not punish David; Ergo, it is not lawfull to challenge a King for any one act of injustice: from the practice of the Sanedrim, to conclude a thing lawfull or unlawfull, is logick; we may resist. 3. By the P. Prelates doctrine, the law might not put Bathshebah to death, nor yet Joab the neerest agent of the murthering of innocent Vriah, because Bathshebaes adulterie was the Kings adulterie, she did it in obedience to King David: Ioabs murther was Royall murther, as the murther of all the Cavaliers; for he had the Kings hand-writing for it. Murther is Murther, and the murtherer is to dye, though the King by a secret Let alone, a private and illegall warrant command it. Ergo, the Sanedrim might have taken Bathshebaes life, and Joabs head also: and consequently the Parliament of England, if they be Judges (as I conceive God and the Law of that ancient and renowned Kingdome maketh them) may take the head of many Joabs and Jermines, for murther; for the command of a King cannot legitimate murther. 4. David himselfe, as King, speaketh more for us then for the Prelate, 2 Sam. 12.7. And Davids anger was greatly kindled against the man, (the man was himselfe, v. 7. Thou art the man) and he said to Nathan, as the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this, shall surely dye. 5. Every act of injustice doth not un-King a Prince before God, as every act of uncleannesse doth not make a wife no wife before God. 6. The Prelate excuseth Nero, and would not have him resisted, if all Rome were one neck, that he might cut it off with one stroke (I read it of Caligula; If the Prelate see more in Historie then I doe, I yield.) 7. He saith, the thoughts of totall eversion of a Kingdome, must only fall on a mad man. The King of Britaine was not mad, when he declared the Scots Traytors, because they resisted the service of the Masse; and raised an Army of Prelaticall cut-throats to destroy them, if all the Kingdome should resist Idolatry, (as all are obliged.) The King sleeped upon this Prelaticall resolution many moneths: passions in fervor have not a dayes raigne upon a man. And this was not so

cleare as the sun, but it was as cleare as written printed Proclamations, and the pressing of Souldiers, and the visible marching of Cut-throats, and the blocking of Scotland up by sea and land could be visible to men having five senses.

Covaruv. a great Lawyer, saith, 1. that all Civill power is penes remp. in the hands of the Common-wealth. 1. Because Nature hath given to man to be a sociall creature, and impossible he can preserve himselfe in a societie, except he being in communitie, transforme his power to an head. 2. He saith; Hujus vero civilis societatis & resp. rector ab alio quam ab ipsamet repub. constitui non potest justè & abs

que Tyrannide. Siquidem ab ipso Deo constitutus non est, nec electus cuilibet civili societati immediatè Rex aut Princeps. Arist. polit. 3. c. 10. saith, It is better that Kings got by election then by birth; because Kingdomes by succession are verè regia, truly Kingly: these by birth are more Tyrannicall, masterly, and proper to Barbarous Nations. And Covarruvias, tom. 2. pract. quest. de jurisd. Castellan. Reip. c. 1. n. 4. saith, Hereditary Kings are also made hereditary by the tacit consent of the people, and so by law and consuetude.

Spalato. Let us grant (saith he) that a societie shall refuse to have a Governour over them, shall they be for that free? in no sort:

but there be many wayes by which a people may be compelled to admit a governour; for then no man might rule over a Communitie against their will. But nature hath otherwise disposed, ut quod singuli nollent, universi vellent, that which every one will not have, a Communitie naturally desireth. And the P. Prelate saith, God is no lesse the author of Order, then he is the author of Being; for the Lord who createth all,

conserveth all; and without government all humane societies should be dissolved and goe to ruine: Then government must be naturall, and not depend upon a voluntary & arbitrary constitution of men. In nature, the liveles creatures inferior give a tacit consent & silent obedience to their superiour, and the superiour have a powerfull influence on the inferiour. In the subordination of creatures, we ascend from one superior to another, till at last we come to one supreme, which by the way pleadeth for the excellencie of Monarchie. Amongst Angels there is an order: how can it then be supposed that God hath left it to the simple consent of man to establish a heraldrie of sub & supra, of one above another, which neither nature nor the Gospel doth warrant? To leave it thus arbitrary▪ that upon this supposed principle, Mankind may be without government at all, is vain; which paradox cannot be maintained. In nature God hath

established a superiority inherent in superior creatures, which is no ways derived from the inferior by communication, in what proportion it will, and resumeable upon such exigents as the inferior listeth: therefore neither hath God left to the multitude, the communitie, the collective, the representative or virtuall body, to derive from it selfe, and communicate soveraigntie, whether in one or few, or more, in that measure and proportion pleaseth them, which they resume at pleasure.

Answ. 1. To answer Spalato: No societie hath liberty to be without all government, for God hath given to every societie (saith Covarruvias) a faculty of preserving themselves, and warding off violence and injuries; and this they could not doe, except they gave their power to one or many Rulers. But all that the Prelate buildeth on this false supposition, which is his fiction and calumnie, not our doctrine, to wit, that it is voluntary to man to be without all government, because it is voluntarie to them to give away their power to one or moe Rulers, is a meere non-consequence. 1. We teach that Government is naturall, not voluntary; but the way and manner of Government is voluntarie: All societies should be quickly ruined, if there were no Government: but it followeth not therefore, God hath made some Kings, and that immediately, without the interveening consent of the people, and ergo, it is not arbitrary to the people to choose one supreme Ruler, and to erect a Monarchie, or to choose moe Rulers, and to erect an Aristocracie. It followeth no way. It is naturall to men to expresse their minde by humane voyces; Is not speaking of this or that language, Greeke rather then Latine, (as Aristotle saith) [gap] by humane institution? It is naturall for men to eat; ergo, election of this or that meat is not in their choise. What reason is in this consequence? and so its a poore consequence also; Power of Soveraigntie is in the people naturally; ergo it is not in their power to give it out in that measure that pleaseth them, and to resume it at pleasure. It followeth no way. Because the inherencie of Soveraigntie is naturall, and not arbitary, ergo, the alienation and giving out of the power to one, not to three, thus much, not thus much, conditionally, not absolutely and irrevocably, must be also arbitrary. It is as if you should say, a father having six children, naturally loveth them all, ergo, he hath not freedome of will in expressing his affection to give so much of his goods to this sonne, and that conditionally, if he use these goods well; and not more or lesse of his goods, at his pleasure. 2. There is a naturall subordination

in nature, in creatures superior and inferior, without any freedome of election: the earth made not the heavens more excellent then the earth, and the earth by no freedome of will made the heavens superior in excellencie to it selfe. Man gave no superioritie of excellencie to Angels above himselfe: the Creator of all Beings did both immediately without freedome of election in the creature, create the being of all creatures, and their essentiall degrees of superiority and inferiority, but God created not Saul by nature King over Israel; nor is David by the act of creation, by which he is made a man, created also a King over Israel; for then David should from the wombe and by nature be a King, and not by Gods free gift. Here both the free gift of God, and the free consent of the people interveene: indeed God made the office and royaltie of a King above the dignitie of the people; but God by the interveening consent of the people maketh David a King, not Eliah; and the people maketh a covenant at Davids inauguration, that David shall have so much power, to wit, power to be a Father, not power to be a Tyrant; power to fight for the people, but no power to waste and destroy them. The inferior creatures in nature give no power to the superiour, and therefore they cannot give in such a proportion power. The deniall of the positive degree, is a deniall of the comparative and superlative, and so they cannot resume any power: But the designing of such a man, or such men to be Kings or Rulers, is a rationall voluntary action, not an action of nature, such as is Gods act of creating an Angell a nobler creature then a man, and the creating of man a more excellent creature then a beast: and for this cause the argument is vaine and foolish: for inferior creatures are inferior to the more noble and superior by nature, not by voluntary designation, or, as Royalists say, by naked approbation, which yet must be an arbitrary and voluntary action. 3. The P. Prelate commendeth order, while we come to the most supreme: hence he commendeth Monarchie above all governments, because it is Gods government. I am not against it, that Monarchie well tempered is the best government, though the question to me is most problematick; but because God is a Monarch, who cannot erre or deny himselfe, therefore that sinfull Man be a Monarch, is miserable logick: and he must argue solidly forsooth by this, because there is order (as he saith) amongst Angels, will he make a Monarch and a King-Angell? His argument, if it have any weight in it, driveth at that,

even that there be crowned Kings amongst the Angels.

QUEST. X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to divine unction? (1)

SYmmons holdeth, that Birth is as good a title to the Crowne, as any given of God. How this question can be cleered, I see not, except we dispute tha[gap], Whether or not Kingdomes be proper patrimonies derived from the father to the sonne? 2. I take, there is a large difference betwixt a thing transmittable by birth from the father to the sonne, and a thing not transmittable. 3. I conceive, as a person is chosen to be a King over a people, so a familie or house may be chosen, and a Kingdome at first choosing a person to be their King, may also tye themselves to choose the first borne of his body: but as they transferre their power to the father, 1. for their owne safetie and peace, (not if he use the power they give him, to their destruction) the same way they tye themselves to his first borne, as to their King. 2. As they chose the father not as a man, but a man gifted with Royall grace, and a Princely facultie for government; so they can but tye themselves to his first borne, as to one graced with a facultie of governing: and if his first borne shall be borne an idiot and a foole, they are not obliged to make him King; for the obligation to the sonne can be no greater then the obligation to the father, which first obligation is the ground, measure and cause of all posterior obligations. If Tutors be appointed to governe such an one, the Tutors have the Royall power, not the Idiot; nor can he governe others, who cannot governe himselfe. That Kings goe not as heritage from the father to the sonne, I prove; 1. God, Deut. 17. could not command them to choose such a one for the King, and such a one who sitting on his throne shall follow the direction of God speaking in his word, if birth were that which gave him Gods title and right to the Crowne; for that were as much as such a man should be heire to his fathers inheritance, and the sonne not heire to his fathers crown, except he were such a man: But God in all the Law morall or judiciall, never required that the heire should be thus and thus qualified, else he should not be heire: but he requireth that a man, and so that a familie should be thus and thus qualified, else they should not be Kings: and I confirme it thus: The first King of divine institution must be the rule, paterne and measure of all the rest of the Kings, as Christ maketh the first Mariage,

Mat. 19.8. a paterne to all others, and Paul reduceth the right administration of the Supper to Christs first institution, 1 Cor. 11.23. now the first King, Deut. 17.14, 15. is not a man qualified by naked birth, for then the Lord in describing the manner of the King and his due qualifications, should seeke no other but this; You shall choose onely the first borne, or the lawfull sonne of the former King. But seeing the King of Gods first moulding is a King by election, and what God did after by promises and free grace give to David and his seed, even a throne till the Mesiah should come, and did promise to some Kings, if they would walke in his Commandements; that their sonnes, and sonnes sonne should sit upon the Throne, in my judgement is not an obliging Law, that sole birth should be as just a title, in foro Dei, (for I now dispute the question in point of conscience) as royall unction. 2. If by divine institution God have impawned in the peoples hand a subordinate power to the most High, who giveth Kingdomes to whom he will, to make and create Kings, then is not sole birth a just title to the Crowne. But the former is true; both by precept, Deut. 17.1. and God expresly saith, Thou shalt choose him King, whom the Lord shall choose. And if it had not been the peoples power to create their own Kings, how doth God after he had designed Saul their King, yet expresly 1 Sam. 10. inspire Samuel 17. to call the people before the Lord at Mizpeh, to make Saul King? and how doth the Lord v. 22. expresly shew to Samuel, and the people, the man that they might make him King? and because all consented not that Saul should be King, God will have his Coronation renewed, v. 14. Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and let us goe to Gilgall, and renew the Kingdome there. 15. And all the people went to Gilgall, and there they made Saul King before the Lord in Gilgall. And how is it that David anoynted by God is yet no King, but a private subject, while all Israel make him King at Hebron?

3. If royall birth be equivolent to royall unction, and the best title,

and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will,

that the first born of a King should be King, as M. Symmons and others say; then is all title by conquest, where the former King standeth, in title to the Crowne, and hath an Heire, unlawfull. But the latter is against all the nation of the Royalists, for Arnisaeus, Barclay, Grotius, Io. Roffensis Episco. the Bishop of Spalato, Dr. Ferne, M. Symmons, the excommunicate Prelat, if his poore learning may bring

him in the roll, teach that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne. I prove the Proposition, 1. because if birth speake Gods revealed Will, that the Heire of a King is the lawfull King, then conquest cannot speake the contradicent Will of God, that he is no lawfull King, but the conquerour is the lawfull King. Gods revealed Will should be contradictory to himselfe, and birth should speake it is Gods Will, that the Heire of the former King be King, and the conquest being also Gods revealed Will, should also speake that that Heire should not be King. 2. If birth speake and reveale Gods Will that the Heire be King, it is unlawfull for a conquered people to give their consent that a conquerour be their King. For their consent being contrary to Gods revealed Will, (which is, that birth is the just title) must be an unlawfull consent. If Royalists say, God the King of Kings who immediately maketh Kings, may, and doth transferre Kingdomes to whom he will, and when he putteth the sword in Nebuchadnezers hand, to conquer the King and Kingdome of Iudah, then Zedikiah or his sonne is not King of Iudah, but Nebuchadnezer is King, and God being above his Law, speaketh in that case his Will by conquests, as before he spake his Will by birth; this is all can be said. Ans. They answer black treason in saying so, for if Ieremiah from the Lord had not commanded expresly, that both the King and Kingdome of Judah should submit to the King of Babylon,

and serve him, and pray for him, as their lawfull King, it had been as lawfull to them to rebell against that Tyrant, as it was for them to fight against the Philistimes, and the King of Ammon; but if birth be the just and lawfull title, in foro Dei, in Gods Court, and the only thing that evidenceth Gods Will without any election of the people, that the first borne of such a King is their lawfull King, then conquests cannot now speake a contrardictory Will of God; for the question is not whether or not, God giveth power to Tyrants to conquer Kingdomes from the just Heires of Kings, which did raigne lawfully before their sword made an empty Throne; But whether conquest now, when Jeremiahs are not sent immediatly from God to command? for example; Britaine to submit to a violent intruder, who hath expelled the lawfull Heires of the royall Line of the King of Britaine, whether I say doth conquest in such a violent way, speake that it is Gods revealed Will, called Voluntas signi, the will that is to rule us, in all our Morall duties to cast off the just Heires of the blood Royall, and to sweare homage

to a conquerour, and so as that conquerour now hath as just right, as the King of Britaine had by birth. This cannot be taken off by the wit of any, who 1. maintaine that conquest is a lawfull title to a Crowne, and 2. that royall birth without the peoples election speaketh Gods regulating Will in his Word, that the first borne of a King is a lawfull King by birth; for God now a daies doth not say the contrary of what he revealed in his Word. If birth be Gods regulating Will, that the Heire of the King is in Gods Court a King, no act of the conquerour can anull that Word of God to us, and the people may not lawfully, though they were ten times subdued, sweare homage and allegiance to a conquerour, against the due right of birth, which by Royalists Doctrine revealeth to us the plaine contradictory Will of God. It is, I grant, often Gods Decree revealed by the event, that a conquerour be on the Throne, but this Will is not our rule, and the people are to sweare no Oath of Allegiance contrary to Gods Voluntas signi, which is his revealed Will in his Word regulating us.

4. Things transferrible and communicable by birth from father to sonne, are onely, in Law, those which Heathen call bona fortunae,

riches, as lands, houses, monies and heritages; and so saith the Law also. These things which essentially include gifts of the mind, and honour property so called, I meane honour founded on vertue, as Aristotle with good reason maketh honour praeminum virtutis, cannot be communicated by birth from the father to the sonne; for royall dignity includeth these three constituent parts essentially, of which none can be communicable by birth. 1. The royall faculty of governing, which is a speciall gift of God, above nature, is from God. Solomon asked it from God, and had it not by generation from his father David. 2. The royall honour▪ to be set above the people because of this royall vertue, is not from the wombe, for then Gods spirit would not have said, Blessed are thou O Land, when thy King is the sonne of Nobles, Eccles. 10.17. this honour springing from vertue, is not borne with any man, nor is any man borne with either the gift, or honour to be a Iudge; God maketh high and low, not birth. Nobles are borne to great estates, if judging be heritage to any, it is a municipall positive law. I now speake in point of conscience. 3. The externall lawfull title, before men come to a Crowne must be Gods Will, revealed by such an externall signe, as by Gods appointment and warrant is to regulate our will, but

according to Scripture nothing regulateth our will, and leadeth the people now that they cannot erre, following Gods rule in making a King, but the free suffrages of the States choosing a man whom they conceive God hath endued with these royall gifts required in the King whom God holdeth forth to them in his Word, Deut. 17. now there be but these to regulate the people, or to be a rule to any man to ascend lawfully (in foro Dei) in Gods Court to the Throne; 1. Gods immediate designation of a man by Propheticall and Divinely inspired unction, as Samuel annoynted Saul, and David; this we are not to expect now, nor can Royalists say it. 2. Conquest, seeing it is an act of violence, and Gods revenging Justice for the sinnes of a people, cannot give in Gods Court such a just title to the Throne, as the people are to submit their consciences unto, except God reveale his regulating will by some immediate voice from Heaven, as he commanded Iudah to submit to Nebuchadnezer as to their King by the mouth of Ieremiah; now this is not a rule to us, for then, if the Spanish King should invade this Iland, and as Nebuchadnezer did, deface the Temple, and instruments and meanes of Gods Worship, and abolish the true worship of God, it should be unlawfull to resist him, after he had once conquered the Iland, neither Gods Word, nor the Law of nature could permit this; I suppose even by grant of adversaries, now no act of violence done to a people, though in Gods Court they have deserved it, can be a testification to us of Gods regulating Will; except it have some warrant from the Law and testimony, it is no rule to our conscience to acknowledge him a lawfull Magistrate, whose sole law to the Throne is an act of the bloody instrument of divine wrath, I meane the sword. That therefore Iudah was to submit, according to Gods Word, to Nebuchadnezer, whose conscience and best warranted calling to the Kingdome of Judah was his bloody sword, even if we suppose Ieremiah had not commanded them to submit to the King of Babylon, I thinke cannot be said. 3. Naked birth cannot be this externall signification of Gods regulating Will to warrant the conscience of any to ascend to the Throne, for the Authors of this opinion make royall birth equivalent to divine unction, for David anoynted by Samuel, and so anoynted by God, is not King, Saul remained the Lords anoynted many yeares, not David, even anoynted by God; the peoples making him King at Hebron founded upon divine unction, was not the only externall lawfull calling that we read of,

that David had to the Throne, then royall birth, because it is but equivalent only to divine unction, not superiour to divine unction, it cannot have more force to make a King, then divine unction. And if birth was equivalent to divine unction, what needed Ioash who had royall birth, be made King by the people? and what needed Saul and David, who had more then royall birth, even divine unction, be made Kings by the people? and Saul having the vocall and infallible testimony of a Prophet, needed not the peoples election, the one at Mizpeh and Gilgall, and the other at Hebron.

5. If royall birth be as just a title to the Crowne as divine unction, and so, as the peoples election is no title at all; then is it unlawfull that there should be a King by election in the world now: but the latter is absurd, so is the former. I prove the Proposition, because where conquerours are wanting, and there is no King for the present, but the people governing, and so much confusion aboundeth, they cannot lawfully appoint a King, for his lawfull title before God must either be conquest, which to me is no title, (and here, and in this case there is no conquest) or if the title must be a Propheticall word immediatly inspired by God, but this is now ceased; or thirdly the title must be royal birth, but here there is no royall birth, because the government is popular; except you imagine that the society is obliged in conscience to goe and seek the sonne of a forraine King to be their King. But I hope that such a royall birth should not be a just title before God to make him King of that society, to which he had no relation at all, but is a meere stranger. Hence in this case no title could be given to any man to make him King, but onely the peoples election; which is that which we say. And it is most unreasonable that a people under popular Government cannot lawfully choose a King to themselves, seeing a King is a lawfull Magistrate, and warranted by Gods Word, because they have not a King of royall birth to sit upon the throne.

Mr. Symmons saith that birth is the best title to the Crowne, because after the first of the family had been anoynted,

unction was no more used in that family, (unlesse there arose a strife about the Kingdome, as betwixt Solomon and Adonijah, Ioash and Athalia) the eldest sonne of the predecessor was afterward the chosen of the Lord, his birth-right spake the Lords appointment, as plainly as his fathers unction. Ans. It is a conjecture that unction was not used in the