Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · 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, asEdward 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. any given of God. How this queſtion can be cleered, I ſee not, except we diſpute that, 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 giveThe Thron… 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. 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, 3 Arg. M. Symmons, Loyall Subjects beliefe, Sect. 3. p. 16.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 lawfullTitle to a Crown by conqueſt muſt be unlawfull if truth be Gods juſt Title to a Crowne. 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 Royaliſts who hold conqueſts a iuſt title to the Crowne, teach manifeſt treaſon againſt our Soveraigne King Charles and his Heires.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 people 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 father4. Arg. OnelyOnly bona fortunae, not honour is tranſmittable from father to ſon. to ſonne, are onelyonly, 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 properly ſo called, I meane honour founded on vertue, as Ariſtotle with good reaſon maketh honour praeminum virtu…is, 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 art 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, no… 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 DivinelyViolent conqueſt cannot regulate the conſciences of people to ſubmit to a conquerour as their lawfull King. 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 theNaked birth is inferiour to the divine unction, which yet made no man a King, without the peoples election. 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 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 Symmons loyall Subiects beleef. Sect. 3. p. 16.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 pred…ceſſor 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 a 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. 8. 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,Birth a typical deſignment to the crown. made the right to the Crown, and not birth. 3. Birth de facto did deſign the man, 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 birthright, 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 indeloble 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, I ſee not but any man upon neceſſary occaſions,If a Kingdom were by birth, the King might fell it. may ſell his inheritance; but if a Prince ſell his Kingdom, a very Barelay 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, canSymons, ſect. …. pag. 7. never 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 rightJoan. Epiſ… Roffenſ. de poteſt. Papae. l. 2. c. 5. to him, who is born a King, they onelyonly declare his right.
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,Arniſaeus de authorit. princip. c. 1. n. 13. and tranſmitted by the Law of heritage from the father to the ſon, 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 patrimony 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 The heir of a Crown hath the Crown as the patrimony of the Kingdom, not of the King his father.of reigning, 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 King maketh The choice of a family to the Crown, reſolveth upon the free election of the people, as on the fountain-cauſe.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 whence 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, That which taketh6. Argum. 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 birthright 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, at the death of every PrinceElection of a family to the Crown lawfull 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 divine, 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 a live 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, of Richard the ſecond, to reſign the Crown, for theSpeed, Hiſt. pag. 757. 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. …on. 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.