which in prudence might best correspond with their condition still making people the first subject and receptacle of civill power In proofe whereof I have stayed the longer it being the foundation of all this controversie And now passe on to the fourth Proposition which is 4th Proposition SEeing that the people are under God the first subject of civill power therefore the Prince oâ— supreme Magistrate hath no more power then what is communicated to him from the communitie because the affect doth not exceed the vertue of its cause 5th Proposition ANd as the Prince hath no more power then what is communicated from the communitie so the people or communitie cannot give away from themselves the power of selfe-preservation Because the same Commandement that faith Thou shalt not kill doth also say Thou shalt preserve Precepts that forbid evill do command the contrary good Now the morall naturall Law of God forbids a man to kill himselfe and therefore commands him to preserve himselfe and as by a positive act men cannot make a Law to kill themselves no more can they not to preserve themselves the one being as strongly commanded by the morall Law and as deeply seated in Nature as the other Secondly because if the communitie should give away the power of self-preservation the state should not be in a better but in a worser condition then before The King and Prince is taken into Office for the good of the people therefore called Pater patriae Pastor gregis not because he may arbitrarily rule in the Common wealth as a Father doth in his familie but because of his tender care that he is to have over his people and that the people might live more secure and peaceably in all godlinesse and honestie But if the communitie should give such a trust to any one that they might not at all defend themselves beyond his actuall appointment they should be infinitely in a worser condition then before because before such trust they should be freemen but after the trust they should be slaves unlesse it pleases the King through his own gratious condiscention to let them be free still for what is a slave but such a one who is so absolutely at the power of anothers command that he may be spoiled or sold or put under the Gallies and there beaten daily having no power to make any resistance or selfe-defence Thirdly it is agreeable to the Law of Nations and Reason that no inferiour Court can undo what a superiour Court hath done As where an estate is setled upon children by Act of Parliament no inferiour Court of Justice can cut off the intayle Now selfe-preservation is enacted in the Court of Nature as he that hath read but Magirus unbound I meane common naturall principles will grant and therefore no act of a communitie can cut off this intayle from their posteritie or make such a deed of Conveyance whereby themselves and their children should be spoyled of self-preservation Ob. But though by nature a man is bound to preserve himself yet he may destroy or put himself upon that which will be his destruction for the publick good doth not natura particularis go crosse to its own disposition ne detur vacuum Respons True I have read indeed that Natura particularis gives way to natura universalis but never heard before that natura universalis gives way to natura particularis or that natura universalis doth seek its own destruction or loose the power of self-preservation for the good or betternesse of some particular nature Wherefore if the seat of power be in the community and therefore no more power in the supreme then was and is derived from the communitie and the people cannot give away the power of self preservation Then in case the Prince doth neglect his trust so as not to preserve them but to oppose them to violence it is no usurpation for them to look to themselves which yet may be no act of jurisdiction over their Prince or taking away of any power from him which they gave him but is in truth a stirring up acting and exercising of that power which alwayes was left in themselves CHAP. II. HAving now spoken of power in generall I shall say somewhat of the governing and ruling power of England yet because that concerns the Parliament to declare which they have done and Lawyers for to clear which they do I shall but touch upon it and no more then comes within the compasse and verge I do not say of a divine but subject I find therefore in learned Fortescue Lord Chief-Justice and after Lord Chancellor in King Henry the sixth time that he doth distinguish of governed or ruling power into two sorts the one meerly royall and the other politick When Kingdoms are ruled by royall government saith he then men in a times past excelling in power and greedie of dignity and glory did many times by plain force subdue unto themselves their neighbours the Nations adjoyning and compelled them to do them service and to obey their commands which commands they decreed afterwards to be unto the people very Laws Cap. 12. The forme of institution of a politick Kingdom is that where a King is mad and ordained for the defence of the Law of his Subjects and of their bodies and goods whereunto he receiveth power of his people for that he cannot govern his people by any other power Cap. 13. Now saith he the King of England cannot alter or change the Laws of his Realm at his pleasure for he governeth his people by power not onely Royall but also politick And accordingly Wil. the Conquerour to go no higher in whose entrance to the Crown Dr. F. makes the first contrivement of his English government for conscience to rest upon seemes to me to have possest himself of this Kingdom who though he did conquer the same yet the first claime or title that he laid to this Crown was gift which Edward the Consessor had made to him Herauld the former King having promised the Crown also to him In this right he first set foot on the English shore not in the right of a conquest but in the right of a gift and promise as Speed Cambden and others affirm And afterwards when he had obtained the Crown he swore to use and practise the same good laws of Edward for the common laws of this realme notwithstanding saith Mr Fox Amongst the said lawes I find in ancient Records this was part that the King because he is Vicar of the highest King is appointed to rule the kingdome and the Lords people to defend the holy Church which unlesse he do the name of a King agrees not to him but he loseth the name of a King c. 2ly As the King and Conqueror came into the Kingdome by this claim so we finde that in those times the consent and choice of the people was in use for the establishing of Kings amongst them For
THE TRUTH OF THE TIMES VINDICATED WHEREBY The lawfulnesse of Parliamentary procedings in taking up of Arms is justified Doctor Fernes Reply answered and the Case in question more fully resolved By WILLIAM BRIDGE Preacher of Gods word at great Yarmoth PSAL. 127. 1. Except the Lord keep the Citie the Watchman waketh but in vain Quaeso lector ut memor tribunalis Domini de judicio tuo te intelligens judicandum nec mihi nec adversario meo foveas neve personas loquentium sed causam consideres Hierom. Printed according to Order LONDON Printed by T. P. and M. S. for Ben Allen and are to be sold at his Shop in Popes-head Alley 1643. Errata IN the Frontispice for soveas read faveas In the Epistle for being asked read having asked P. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. for Truths of the time r. Truth of the times p 4 for there r. they p 5. for Althaâ—ius r. Althaâ—ius for Henomus c. r. Henonius Henning and Amisaus p 7. for yet r. yea p. 8. for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p 10. for duct a naturar dâ—cta naturae p. 13. for Rainervus r. Rainerius p. 13. for affect r. effect p. 14. for under r. into p 15. for oppose r. expose p. 15. for governed r. governing p. 26. for Junius Josephus Brutus read Junius Brutus Josephus p. 29. for ropos r. propos. p. 35 36. for dwell r. dwelt p. 37. for thats read its p 39. for Wisd. 22. r. Rev. 2. p. 39. for but passive r. not passive p 40. for if lawfull r. lawfull p. 41. for take of r. take heed of pag. 45. for to which r. which p. 45. for see will read so will p. 46. for Committe r. community p. 47. for that Prince r. the Prince p. 47. for being read bring for that that r. that it There are many faults escaped in the marginall Latine yet because the Latine is turned into English and the Authors cited I do not note those Errata TO THE RIGHT VVORSHIPFVLL The Knights and Gentlemen Deputie-Lieutenants of the County of NORFOLK Honoured Sirs GIve me leave to joyn you together in one Epistle whom God and your Countrey hath joyned together in one service It is not in my purpose to blazen your worth before the world your own actions speak you in the gate and wise men had rather do worthily then heare of it onely observing your unwearied labour of love for God and your Countrey I count it my duty to come forth and meet you with this pen-service in testimonie of my thankfull respects to you You read Numb. 25. when the wrath of God brake out against Israel that Phineas stood up and executed judgement and the wrath was not onely diverted but himself blessed yea the blessing was a blessing of peace though wrought out by the sword your like action in this time of wrath will carrie the like blessing on your selves and houses yet your work is rather to bring men to justice then to execute it Many blessed comforts wâ—it on your service First we read in Scripture but of one man so potent in heaven that he could command the Sun to stand still and he was a Souldier Joshua but of one man of whom it was said that he had an heart after Gods own heart and he was a great Souldier David but of one man of whom Christ gave that great testimonie I have not found so great faith no not in Israel And he was a Souldier too the Centurion thus haâ—h God honoured your calling Secondly your work is good for you are the Ministers of Reformation I read of a King of Meth sometimes in Ireland that being asked how certain noysome birds that came flying into that countrey and bred there might be destroyed Was answered thus Nidos eorum ubique destruendos The way to be rid of them was to destroy their nests Now for a long season many noysome birds have been flying over into this Kingdom and have bred here the work of these times is to destroy those nests of Jesuites and Jesuited persons and it is that work which now you are upon Though it cost some paines its worth your labour happie is that necessitie which leads to better things Thirdly your cause is just also agreeable to the Law of Nature for Conservatio sui ipsius est opus naturalissimum to the Law of God for David though not the representative body yâ—t lawfully took up armes for his own defence to the Law of the Kingdom for what more legall then that the Houses of Parliament should bring in Delinquents to triall and how can that be without Armes when the Delinquents betake themselves to their Armes The Schoolmen say three things concurre to a just warre First Jurisdictio indicentis and for that you have the Authoritie of Parliament which as one writes if you respect Antiquitie is of all Courts the most ancient if dignitie is of all Courts the most hononorable if authoritie and jurisdiction is of all Courts the most copious Secondly Offensio patientis and for that you have matter too much and your enemies too little the great cause of their armes is but some peece of prerogative if they pretend truly a cause infinitely beneath so unkind bloodie a war as this is Thirdly Intentïo boni convenientis and for that I dare say you are bellando pacifici your war being to prevent warre and your present bleeding to prevent some great sicknesse which this State would sink under Fourthly your Forces live and march under as many prayers as ever English Armies did you have preces armaâ—as and though Joshua fought valiantly Exod. 17. yet the prayers of Moses who was not in the fight got the field Fifthly If you do overcome you shall not make your selves slaves by your own victories we may truly say of some Dum vincunt victi sunt when they have overcome others they are slaves themselves your Religion Laws and Liberties stand all readie to reward your prowes And sixthly If you be overcome and die you die for God and your Countrey who can bring his life into a better market blessed are those that dye for the Lord so that word â— is rather to be read Rev. 14. 13. Wherefore as heretofore so now much more labour to hold forth the vertues of him that hath called you to this great imployment As Souldiers are more honoured then others so they should be more vertuous he had need carry much grace in his heart that doth daily carrie his life in his hand and your Souldiers should as well overcome the Countreys with their good examples as the Enemies with their swords When Joshua went out to battell against the Amalakites his men were all chosen or choice men Exod. 17. 9. And saith the Lord Deut. 23. 9 when the hoste goeth forth against thine enemie then keep thee from every wicked thing It is ordinarily observed that when the jews marched out
they thought For the soule of man perceiving that the Word preached is compounded with their Art and covered over with humane dung that is poluted with humane affection and passion it doth therefore nauseat the thing delivered and is rather provoked then converted Yet because I have been earnestly desired by friends to open more fully the nature of government and civill government of England I am not unwilling to set pen to paper againe For your better satisfaction therefore give me leave to lead you on by some steps or propositions which I shall lay down in the first and second chapters and then shall come more neerly to answer the Doctor CHAP. I NOw because the Basis of our Question is concerning the nature of Government Rule and Authority or ruling and governing power in which principle our Doctor is so much mistaken I must though at last shew what that is Power in it selfe therefore or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the word used Rom. 13. properly signifies a liberty or authority to c worke or act towards others translated licentia from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as licentia à licet Sometimes the word is used in the abstract as Luke 4. 6. Luke 19. 17. Sometimes in the concreate as Matth. 8. 9. Rom. 13. 1. 2. Where saith Gerard d not without great advice the Apostle Paul doth use an abstractive manner of speech to shew that subiects ought not so much to respect the persons commanding as the office it selfe in their commandements Take the word in the abstract so it is all one with jurisdiction which is ordinarily described to be Jus dicendi in invitum Now this governing power is either Ecclesiasticall or Civill civill Concerning which our question is according to the Apostle Paul as Gerard e Bucanan and others have it is that ordinance of God which is armed with the sword for the terror of those that are evill and encouragement of those that do well Rom. 13 1 2. 3. This dominion of jurisdiction is distinguished from dominion of propriety for dominion of propriety as Medina observes f is a power of disposing of any thing that is a mans owne to his own profit The power of Jurisdiction or government is not so which while some have mistaken they have attributed so much power to the Prince in regard of Townes Castles and Forts as if he had therein dominion of propriety which breeds much confusion in mens apprehensions and doth bias their thoughts into state errors According to Alman Secular or Civill power g is that power which regularly is given to one or more by the people for the ordering and preservation of the Common-Wealth according to the civill Lawes thereof I shall go no further then the Scripture will lead us plainly in this particular As Ecclesiasticall power or jurisdiction is ministeriall and therefore called Jus clavium the power of the Keyes so Civill power is Lordly and therefore called Jus gladii the power of the Sword whereby some are authorized to exercise jurisdiction in Common-wealths over others for the reward of those that are good and the punishment of those that are evill that is governing or ruling power 2d Proposition IF we take governing or ruling power as abstractively considered so it is an ordinance appointed by God himselfe By me Kings reigne saith God And our Saviour when Pilate said Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. said Thou hadst it not unlesse it were given thee from above And againe Give unto Caesar the things that are Caejars shewing that as God hath his dues in the world so the magistrate hath his Besides we are comanded to obey and submit unto the higher powers Rom. 13. And why should there be any obedience if the power it selfe were not commanded of God yea the Israelites are faulted for contemning of God himselfe in casting off the government of Samuel which there should not have been had not government been appointed by God {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} said the Heathen Luther calls Magistracie Necessarium naturae corruptaremedium the necessarie remedy of corrupt nature And Tertullian saith well Inde Imperator unde homo antequam Imperator The voice of nature is the voice of God now nature it selfe teacheth that in a commmunity or body politicke there must be justice administred otherwise the community can never be preserved but justice cannot be administred nnlesse authority power or jurisdiction be first appointed for what hath a private man to do to put another to death Thou shalt not kill is made to all men Object But the Apostle calls it {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} an humane constitution or creature how therefore is it true that ruling power is an ordinance appointed of God himselfe Answ. The Apostle dorh no where say that power it selfe or Magistracie in the abstract is an ordinance of man but the forme or qualification of it as Monarchy Aristocracie Democracie which are the chanels in which this power runs is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And therefore the Apostle having said Be subject to every ordidinance of man he addeth whether to the King as supreame or to the Governours c. h Durandus here distinguishes between institution of power and acquisition of it Secular power saith he considered according to its institution is of God but according to its acquisition and way of use so not Our Doctor doth ordinarily confound these in his reasonings yea though he distinguishes them when he sets downe his owne naked judgement yet when he comes to reason against us he will take no notice of his owne distinction neither can we perswade him to it but the thing being as visible as the Sunne I passe to the third and chiefe step of my discourse which is this following 3◠Propos. THough power abstractively considered be originally from God himselfe yet he hath communicated that power to the people so as the first subject seat and receptacle of ruling civill power under himselfe is the whole people or body politicke To this purpose Doctor Ruherfords words are very plaine Afree Common-wealth saith he containes ordines regni the States that have Nomotheticke power and they not onely by the law of Nature may use justa tutela a necessary defence of their lives from a tyrants fury but also by the law of Nations may authoritatively represse and limit as is proved by Junius Brutus Bucherius Althasius Haenomus Therefore Heming Amiceus doe well distinguish between Plebem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} populum for indeed the multitude excluding the States or base of the people can hardly have another law against i tyrant then the law of Nature But the Common-wealth including the States of a free Kingdome hath an authoritative So Isodore Origen Atistotle Plato Titus Livius Plutarch and that of the Councell of Basil Plus valet Regnum quam
when William the first sent to Herald to make good his promise Herald answered that he was rightfull King as being so by the consent and choyce of the people as is reported in Cambden in his Britannia thus As concerning the promise of King Edw. William is to understand that the Realme of England could not be given by promise neither ought I to be tied to the said promise seeing the Kingdome is fallen to me by election and not inheritance And as for his own stipulation he said it was extorted from him by force neither he if he could nor might if he would make it good seeing it was done without the consent of the people Yea Histories tell us that when William the first had beaten Herald in the field the people still were in doubt whom they should chuse and setup for their King For sayes Culiel Malmsburiens Edwin and Morcard came to London and solicited the Citie that they would preferre one of them to the Kingdome and the rest of the Nobles would have chosen Edgar if the Bishops would have stuck to them But the English who then might have healed the ruines of the Kingdome whilest they would none of their owne brought in a stranger So that though William the first had gotten the field yet was not he brought to the Crown but with the consent and choyce though much over-pow'red and over-awed of the people So sayes Speed expressely Consent thus gotten all voices given for William he was crowned King at Westminster 3ly As the Crown in those dayes was obtained by the consent choice of the people so I say that even William the Conquerour did not come to the Crown without all conditions for the Kentish men would not receive him but upon cōdition which they proposed thus Most noble Duke behold here the Commons of Kent are come forth to meet and receive you as their Soveraigne requiring your peace their own free condition or estate and their ancient lawes formerly used If these bee denied they are here presently to abide the verdict of battell fully resolved rather to die then to depart with their lawes or to live servile in bondage which name and nature is and ever shall be strange unto us and not to be exdured The Conquerour driven to these streights and loath to hazard all on so nice a point more wisely then willingly granted their desires and pledges on both parts given for performance So saith Speed in his Chronicles so that it is plain that even William the first came not to the full Crown of England without all conditions and therefore our Kings and Princes pleading their right from him cannot be Kings and Princes without all conditions I know Dr. F. tells us that the Kings oath imports no condition but is taken for confirmation and strengthning of mutuall duties whether that be true let any judge who reads but these things And indeed if the Kings of England were such absolute Monarchs as that no resistance might be made to their commandments for the taking up of Arms for the defence of the country when enjoyned by Parliament then the subjects and people of England must lose this power of selfe-defence for they once had it all men by nature having a power to defend themselves either by conquest as being by force spoyled thereof or else they gave it away by some indenture at the election of the Prince for inheritance is but succession of election inheritance or immediate donation from God or else God hath forbidden this forcible resistance by Scripture If it bee said that this people are spoiled thereof by conquest and are as a people meetly conquered then any other sword that is longer then the Princes may fetch back that power again If it be said that this people gave away this power by Indenture at the first election of their Prince then let men shew us such Indenture If it be said that God hath forbidden such a forcible resistance by Rom. 13. 1 2 3. or the like Scriptures then it must be affirmed that the Parliament are not the higher powers which Dr Ferne granteth for if the Parliament come within the compasse of those words higher Powers then that Scripture Rom. 13. doth not reach them but rather requires others to be obedient to them yea if by the higher powers is understood onely the King then the two Houses may not make any forcible resistance against any petty Constable that comes in the K◠authority to do violence to the two Houses Surely therefore this and the like Scriptures are much abused the meaning being only to command obedience to authority in all things that tend to the encouragement of good and punishment of evill and therefore there is such a power in the subjects both by the law of nature and constitution of the kingdome to take up Arms when the State or two Houses expresse it not withstanding the expression of any one man to the contrary CHAP. III. HAving shewed the nature of power in generall in the first chapter the way manner of Englands government in some measure in the second Chapter I now come to the vindication of the truth as opposed by Dr Fern in his last Book called Conscience satisfied wherein he spends the 7 former chapters mostly in answer to a book called a Fuller answer In his 8. Sect. he comes to examine such grounds as I premised for the lawfulnesse of Parliamentary proceedings in taking up of Arms as now they do That I may not weary the Reader in turning from book to book I shall somtimes briefly set down what I had written then his Reply then give my answer unto it Mr. Bridge tels us saith the Doctor that there are three grounds of their proceeding by armes to fetch in Delinquents to their triall to secure the State from forrain invasion to preserve themselves from Popish rebellon Dr. Ferne replyeth Yet this must be done in an orderly and legall way and if conscience would speake the truth it could not say that any delinquents were denied or withheld till the Militia was seized and a great delinquent in the matter of Hull was denied to be brought to triall at his Majesties instance Ans. How true this is that the Doctor writes the world knows I need not say the Parliament to this day never denied to try any that were accused by the King so that they might be tried legally by himself and the two Houses which is the known priviledge of every Parliament man according to Law Dr. F. But Mr. Bridge tels us all this is done as an act of self-preservation not as an act of jurisdiction over their Prince and the Fuller Answer would have us beleeve they are inabled to it by Law and constitution of this government and that they do it by an act of judgement let him and Mr. Bridge agree it Ans. There needs no great skill to untie this knot not mediator to make us friends the
Parliament hath raised this Army by an act of judgement and jurisdiction not over their Prince but in regard of Delinquents so the same act may be a work of jurisdiction in regard of others and yet an act of preservation in regard of our selves The execution of any malefactor in an ordinary way of Law is both preservation to the State and a work of jurisdiction in regard of the offender so here yet I do not say it is a work of jurisdiction over our Prince but in regard of delinquents that are about him Dr. F. Mr. Bridge gives us proofes for this way of self-preservation from the Law of Nature it being naturall to a man and so to a communitie to defend it self And were this argument good then might private men and the people without the Parliament take up armes and resist for self-preservation is naturall to them Ans. It follows not because though I say every thing may defend it self by nature yet I say also it must do it modo suo naturae suae convenienti we say that all creatures do defend themselves and it is naturall so to do yet we do not therefore say that a beast defends himself in the same manner as a man doth or a man as a beast but in a way sutable to every nature Now if a private person be in danger to be oppressed by a Prince flying is more fit defence for him and therefore saith our Saviour If they persecute thee in one City flie to another but if the State be wronged and oppressed which is a publick grievance then the State and those that represent them are more fit to take up Armes for its preservation For Nature in generall teacheth self-preservation Nature specificated teacheth this or that preservation now the nature of a communitie and of a particular person are distinct and therefore though I say a community is to defend it self because sui tutela is naturall to every thing yet I do not say that a particular private person may ordinarily defend himself in that way which is most sutable to the communitie as the taking up of Armes is yet I suppose no moderate man will denie this that the Subjects though not invested with authoritie have a power to keep out an enemie from landing incase of forrain invasion yea though the Kings Officers should be negligent therein or so malitious and treacherous as to forbid them to defend themselves and their Countrey Secondly saith the Doctor He proves it by Scriptures 1 Chron. 12. 19. where the Word of God saith expresly that David went out against Saul to battell but he was Sauls subject at that time A desperate undertaking to make people beleeve this is expresse Scripture for subjects to go out to battell against their King But he should have added what is expressed there it was with the Philistines that he went out and that he helped them not for he did but make shew of tendring his service to Acisâ— Ans. Here I need give no other answer then repeat those words fully that he replyes to which were these which Scripture I bring not to prove that a Subject may take up armes against the King but that the Subjects may take up arms against those that are malignant about the Kings person notwithstanding the Kings command to the contrary For seeing that Davids heart smote him formerly for cutting of the lap of Sauls garment and yet it is said in expresse words in this text that he went out against Saul its likely that his intentions were against those that were evill and wicked about him Then the Doctor brings in another peece of my argument not the whole reason or the sense of it thus Be subject to the higher powers Rom. 13. but the Parliament is the highest Court of Justice pa. 3. To which he replies modo suo well assumed and so it is for is not the highest Court of Justice an higher power We grant faith the Doctor there is a subjection due to them and if he meant by the Parliament the 3. Estates concurring all manner of subjection is due unter them It 's well he will acknowledge any subjection due to the Parliament without the third estate And if any subjection then they have some authority but none they can have if not power to bring in the accused to be tried before them And if they have power to bring in 20 by force then 100. then 1000. then 10000. which cannot be done without raising an Army Then he undertakes sayes the Doctor to shew out of Scripture that Kings receive their power from the people and hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon for examples Ans. The Doctor hath the ill hap alwayes to misse the argument which lay thus If it be the duty of the King to looke to the safety of the Kingdome and that because he is trusted therewith by the Common wealth then if the Parliament be immediatly trusted by the Common-wealth with the safety thereof as well as the King though not so much then are they to looke to it and to use all means for the preservation thereof as well as the King But so it is that the King is bound to look to the safety thereof and that because he is intrusted therwith as was Saul David and Salomon who came to their government by the consent and choice of the people Whereupon the Doctor replies He hath the ill hap to light on Saul David and Salomon But it seems the Doctor had not the good hap to meet with these severall Authors which affirme that even these Kings Saul David and Salomon were chosen by the people If he had read or minded them he would not have imputed this as an ill hap unto me for to light on these examples I will give him but the testimony of Mendoza who though not of our judgement in this matter yet ingeniously confesses that with great probability Authors do reason for a popular choise of Saul David and Salomon Whereas saith Mendoza it is objected that Samuel by anointing Saul without any consent of the people saying the Lord hath anointed thee King over his heritage did thereby clearly shew that the regall power was conferr'd upon Saul not from the people but from God that is easily answered that that Vnction was not a signe of power already conferr'd but to be conferr'd as may be proved by the anointing of David whom Samuel anointed 1 King 16. 13. Dureing Sauls Raigne yea while he had many yeares to raâ—gnt Wherby it appeares that David did not receive regall power by that unction but by that which he had afterward by all the Tribes Elders when coming to Hebron they anointed David King over Israel Therfore that first unction was not the conferring the regal power but only a signification of this latter unction by which this Kingly power was to be derived or conveyed so also that first anointing of Saul before the consent of