Lex Rex, Question 10
QUEST. X. Whether or not Royall birth be equivalent to divine unction?
SYmmons holdeth, that Birth is as good a title to the Crowne, as any given of God. Edward Symmons, in his loyall subjects beleefe, sect. 3. p. 16. Royaltie not transmittable from father to sonne. VponUpon what tearme a people chooseth a Familie to reigne over them by succession.How this question can be cleered, I see not, except we dispute tha…, 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 onelyonly 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,The Throne by speciall promises of God, made to David and his seed, Ps. 89. no ground to make birth in foro dei a iust title to the Crowne. 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, 3 Arg.and if birth speake and declare to us the Lords appointment and Will, M. Symmons, Loyall Subjects beliefe, Sect. 3. p. 16.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, Title to a Crown by conquest must be unlawfull if truth be Gods just Title to a Crowne.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, Royalists who hold conquests a iust title to the Crowne, teach manifest treason against our Soveraigne King Charles and his Heires.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 onelyonly, in Law, those which Heathen call bona fortunae, 4. Arg.OnelyOnly bona fortunae, not honour is transmittable from father to son.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, Violent conquest cannot regulate the consciences of people to submit to a conquerour as their lawfull King.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, Naked birth is inferiour to the divine unction, which yet made no man a King, without the peoples election.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 onelyonly 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, Symmons loyall Subiects beleef. Sect. 3. p. 16.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 family, after the first unction, except the contest was betwixt two Brethren, that is said, not proved, for 2 King. 23.30. when good Iosiah was killed, and there was no contest concerning the Throne of that beloved Prince, the people of the Land took Iehoahaz his son and anointed him, and made him King in his fathers stead; and the Priests were anointed, Levit. 6.22. yea, all the Priests were anointed, Num. 3.…. yet read we not in the History, where this or this man was anointed. 2. In that Adonijah, Solomons elder Brother was not King, it is clear, That Gods anointing, and the peoples electing, made the right to the Crown, and not birth. 3. Birth de facto did design the man,Birth a typical designment to the crown. because of Gods speciall promises to Davids house; but how doth a typicall discent made to David, and some others by Gods speciall promise, prove, that birth is the birth-right, and lawfull call of God to a Crown in all after ages? For as gifts to reign, goeth not by birth, so neither doth Gods title to a Crown go.
M. Symons. A Prince once possessed of a Kingdome coming to him by inheritance, can never, by any, upon any occasion be dispossessed thereof, without horrible impietie, and unjustice. Royall unction was an indeleble Character of old, Saul remained the Lords anointed till the last gaspe; David durst not take the right of Government actually into him, although he had it in reversion, being already anointed thereunto, and had received the spirit thereof.
Answ. That is the question, If a Prince once a Prince by inheritance, cannot be dispossessed thereof without unjustice: For if a Kingdom be his by birth, as an inheritance transmitted from the father to the son,If a Kingdom were by birth, the King might sell it. I see not but any man upon necessary occasions, may sell his inheritance; but if a Prince sell his Kingdom, a very Barclay and an Hug. Grotius with reason will say, he may be dispossessed and dethroned, and take up his indeleble Character then. 2. A Kingdom is not the Princes own so, as it is unjustice to take it from him, as to take a mans purse from him; the Lords Church (in a Christian Kingdom) is Gods heritage, and the King onelyonly a shepheard, and the sheep in the court of conscience, are not his. 3. Royall unction is not an indeleble Character; for neither Saul nor David were all their dayes Kings thereby, but lived many dayes private men after divine unction, while the people anointed them Kings, except you say, 1. That there were two Kings at once in Israel. 2. And that Saul killing David, should have killed his own Lord, and his anointed. 4. If David durst not take the right of Government actually on him, then divine unction made him not King, but onelyonly designed him to be King: the peoples election must make the King.
M. Symons addeth, He that is born a King and a Prince, Symons, sect. 3. pag. 7.can n…ver be unborn, Semel Augustus semper Augustus; yea, I beleeve the eldest son of such a King is in respect of birth, the Lords anointed in his fathers life time, even as David was before Sauls death, and to deprive him of his right of reversion, is as true unjustice, as to dispossesse him of it.
Answ. It is proper onelyonly to Jesus Christ to be born a King, sure I am, No man bringeth out of the womb with him a Scepter, and a Crown on his head. Divine unction giveth a right infallibly to a Crown; but birth doth not so, for one may be born here to a Crown, as was hopefull Prince Henry, and yet never live to be King. The eldest son of a King, if he attempt to kill his father, as Absolom did, and raise forces against the lawfull Prince, I conceive he may be killed in battell, without any unjustice. 2. If in his fathers time he be the Lords anointed, there be two Kings, and the heir may have a son, and so there shall be three Kings, possibly four; all Kings by divine right.
The Prelate of Rochester saith, The people and nobles give no right to him, who is born a King, they onelyonly declare his right.Joan. Episc…. Roffens. de potest. Papae. l. 2. c. 5.
Answ. This is said, not proved. A man born for an inheritance, is by birth an heir, because he is not born for these Lands, as a mean for the end, but by the contrary, these Lands are for the heir as the mean for the end: But the King is for his Kingdom, as a mean for the end, as the watch-man for the Citie, the living Law for peace, and safetie to Gods people; and therefore is not heres hominum, An heir of men, but men are rather heredes regis, heirs of the King.
Arnisaeus. Many Kingdoms (saith he) are purchased by just war, and transmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the son, Arnisaeu… de authorit. princip. c. 1. n. 13.beside the consent of the people, because the son receiveth right to the Crown, not from the people, but from his parents, nor doth he possesse the Kingdom, as the …trimony of the people, keeping onelyonly to himself the burden of protecting and governing the people, but as a proprietie given to him lege regni, by his parents, which he is obliged to defend and rule, as a father looketh to the good and welfare of the family, yet so also as he may look to his own good.
Answ. We read in the Word of God, That the people made Solomon King, not that David, or any King can leave in his Testament, a Kingdom to his son. 2. He saith, The son hath not the right of reigning, The heir of a Crown hath the Crown as the patrimony of the Kingdom, not of the King his father.as the patrimony of the people, but as a proprietie, given by the Law of the Kingdom, by his parents: Now this is all one, as if he said, The son hath not the right of the Kingdom, as the patrimony of the people, but as the patrimony of the people, which is good non-sense; For the proprietie of reigning, given from father to son, by the Law of the Kingdom, is nothing but a right to reign, given by the Law of the people, and the very gift and patrimony of the people, for Lex regni, This Law of the Kingdom is the Law of the people, tying the Crown to such a Royall Family; and this Law of the people is prior and ancienter then the King, or the right of reigning in the King, or which the King is supposed to have from his Royall father, because it made the first father, the first King of the Royall Line. For I demand, How doth the son succeed to his fathers Crown, and Throne? Not by any promise of a divine Covenant, that the Lord maketh to the father, as he promised, that Davids seed should sit on his throne, till the Messiah should come: this, as I conceive, is vanished with the Commonwealth of the Iews, nor can we now finde any immediate divine constitution, tying the Crown now to such a race: nor can we say, this cometh from the will of the father King, making his son King: For 1. there is no Scripture can warrant us to say,The choice of a family to the Crown, resolveth upon the free election of the people, as on the fountain-cause. The King maketh a King, but the Scripture holdeth forth, that the people made Saul and David, Kings. 2. This may prove, That the father is some way a cause, why this son succeedeth King; but he is not the cause of the Royaltie conferred upon the whole Line; because the question is, Who made the first father a King? Not himself; nor doth God now immediately by Prophets anoint men to be Kings, then need force, the people choose the first man, then must the peoples election of a King, be prior and more ancient then the birth-law to a Crown: And election must be a better right then birth. 2. The question is, Whence cometh it that not onelyonly the first father should be chosen King; but also …hence is that, whereas it is in the peoples freewill to make the succession of Kings go by free election, as it is in Denmark and Pol; yet the people doth freely choose, not only the first man to be King, but also the whole race of the first born of this mans Family to be Kings. All here must be resolved in the free will of the Communitie; now since we have no immediate and propheticall enthroning of men: it is evident, That the lineall deduction of the Crown from father to son, through the whole line, is from the people, not from the parent.
Hence I adde this, as my sixth Argument,6. Argum. That which taketh away that naturall aptitude, and natures birth-right, in a Communitie given to them by God and nature, to provide the most efficacious, and prevalent mean for their own preservation and peace in the fittest Government, that is not to be holden, but to make birth the best title to the Crown, and better then free election, taketh away and impedeth that naturall aptitude, and natures birth-right of chosing, not simply a Governour, but the best, the justest, the more righteous, and tyeth, and fettereth their choice to one of a house, whether he be a wise man, and righteous, and just, or a fool and an unjust man; therefore to make birth the best title to the Crown, is not to be holden.
It is objected: That parents may binde their after Generations, to choose one of such a line; But by this Argument, their naturall birth-right of a free choice, to elect the best and fittest, is abridged and clipped, and so the posterity shall not be tyed to a King of the Royall Line, to which the Ancestors did swear. See for this, the learned Author,Sect. 4. p. 39. of Scripture, and Reasons, pleaded for defensive Arms.
Answ. Frequent elections of a King,Election of a family to the Crown lawfull. at the death of every Prince may have, by accident, and through the corruption of our nature, bloody, and tragicall sequels, and to eschew these, people may tie and oblige their children to chose one of the first born; Male or Female, as in Scotland and England, of such a line; but I have spoken of the excellencie of the title by election, above that of birth, as comparing things according to their own nature together; but give me leave to say, That the posterity are tyed to that Line, 1. Conditionally: So the first born, ceteris paribus, be qualified, and have an head to sit at the helm. 2. Elections of Governours would be performed, as in the sight of God; and in my weak apprehension, the person coming neerest to Gods judge, Fearing God, hating covetousnesse, and to Moses his King, Deut. 17. one who shall read in the Book of the Law, and it would seem now, that gracious morals are to us insteed of Gods immediate designation. 3. The genuine and intrinsecall end of making Kings, is not simply governing, but governing the best way in peace, honesty, and godlinesse, 1 Tim. 2. Ergo, These are to be made Kings, who may most expeditely procure this end: neither is it my purpose to make him no King, who is not a gracious man, onelyonly here I compare title with title.
7. Argument. Where God hath not bound the conscience, men may not binde themselves, or the consciences of the posterity. But God hath not bound any nation irrevocably, and unalterably to a Royall Line, or to one kinde of Government. Ergo, No nation can binde their conscience, and the conscience of the posterity, either to one Royall Line, or irrevocably and unalterably to Monarchy. The proposition is clear.
1. No Nation is tyed, jure divin…, by the tie of a divine Law to a Monarchy, rather then to another Government. The Parisian Doctors prove, That the precept of having a Pope is affirmative, and so tyeth not the Church, ad semper, for ever; and so the Church is the body of Christ without the Pope; and all oaths to things of their nature indifferent, and to things, the contrary whereof is lawfull, and may be expedient and necessary, lay on a tie onelyonly conditionally, in so far, as they conduce to the end. If the Gibeonites had risen in Joshuaes dayes, to cut off the people of God, I think no wise man can think, that Joshua and the people were tyed by the oath of God, not to cut off the Gibeonites in that case: For to preserve them alive as enemies, was against the intent of the oath, which was to preserve them alive, as friends demanding, and supplicating peace, and submitting. The assumption is clear If a Nation seeth that Aristocraticall Government is better then Monarchy, hic & nunc: That the sequels of such a Monarchy is bloody, destructive, tyrannous, that the Monarchy compelleth the free subjects to Turcisme, to grosse Idolatry, they cannot by the divine bond of any oath captive their naturall freedom, which is to choose a Government, and Governours, for their safetie, for a peaceable and godly life; or fetter and chain the wisdom of the posterity unalterably to a Government, or a Royall Line, which hic & nunc, contrary to the intention of their oath, proveth destructive, and bloody. And in this case, even the King, though tyed by an oath to govern, is obliged to the practices of the Emperour Otho. And as Speed saith,Speed, Hist. pag. 757. of Richard the second, to resign the Crown, for the eschewing of the effusion of blood: And who doubteth but the second wits of the experienced posterity, may correct the first wits of their fathers; nor shall I ever beleeve, that the fathers can leave in legacie, by oath, any chaines of the best gold to fetter the after-wits of posteritie to a choice destructive to peace and true Godlinesse.
To these adde; 8. That 1. an heritor may defraud his first borne of his heritage, because of his dominion he hath over his heritage: A King cannot defraud his first-borne of the Crown. 2. An heritor may divide his heritage equally amongst his twelve sonnes: A King cannot divide his Royall Dominions in twelve parts, and give a part to every sonne; for so he might turne a Monarchie into an Aristocracie, and put twelve men in the place of one King. 3. Any heritor taken captive, may lawfully oppignorate, yea and give all his inheritance as a ransome for his liberty; for a man is better then his inheritance: but no King may give his Subjects as a price or ransome.
Yet I shall not be against the succession of Kings by birth, with good limitations; and shall agree, that through the corruption of mans nature, it may be in so far profitable, as it is peaceable, and preventeth bloody tumults, which are the bane of humane societies. Consider further for this, Aegid. Romanus, l. 3. de reg. princi. cap. 5. Turrecremat. and Joan. de terra Reubea, 1 tract. contr. Rebelles, ar. 1. con. 4. Yet Aristotle the flower of Natures wit, l. 3. polit. c. 10. preferreth Election to Succession; He preferreth Carthage to Sparta, though their Kings came of Hercules. Plutarch in Scylla, saith, he would have Kings as dogs, that is, best hunters, not those who are borne of best dogs. Tacitus, lib. 1. Nasci & generari à Principibus, fortuitum, nec ultra aestimantur.