QUEST. V. Whether or no P. P. the Author of Sac. San. Regum Majestas, called the sacred and Royall Prerogative of Kings, proveth that God is the immediate Author of Soveraignty, and that the King is no creature of the peoples making? (2) to QUEST. VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty, and of the designation of his person to the Crown, as that he is no waies from the people, but by meere approbation? (1)

QUEST. V. Whether or no P. P. the Author of Sac. San. Regum Majestas, called the sacred and Royall Prerogative of Kings, proveth that God is the immediate Author of Soveraignty, and that the King is no creature of the peoples making? (2)

Answ. 1. The Jesuites are the Prelates brethren, they are under one Banner, we are in contrary Camps to Iesuites. 2. The Prelate said himself, Pag. 19. Moses, Saul, and David, were by extraordinary revelation from God; sure I am, Kings are not so now. The Jews had this priviledge, that no nation had. 1. God named some Kings to them, as Saul, David, he doth not so now. 2. God did tie Royaltie to Davids house by a Covenant, till Christ should come, he doth not so now. Yet we stand to Deut. 17.

P. Prelate. Prov. 8.15. By me Kings reign. If the people had right to constitute a King, it had not been King Solomon, but King Adonijah. Solomon saith not of himself, but indefinitely. (By me) as by the Author, efficient, and constituent, Kings reign. (Per) is by Christ, not by the people, not by the high Priest, State, or Presbytery, not Per me iratum, by me in my anger, as some Sectaries say. Pauls [gap], an Ordinance by high Authoritie not revocable: So Sinesius useth the word, Aristotle, Lucilius, Appian, Plutarch, [gap] in me, and by me, as Doctor Andrews. Kings indefinitely, all Kings: none may distinguish where the Law distinguisheth not, they reign in concreto: that same power that maketh Kings, must unmake them.

Ans. 1. The Prelate cannot restrict this to Kings only, it extendeth to Parliaments also. Solomon addeth [gap] and Consules, [gap] all the Sirs, and Princes [gap] and Magnificents, and Nobles, and more [gap] and all the Iudges of the earth, they reign, rule, and decree j[gap]stice by Christ. Here then Majors, Sheriffs, Provosts, Constables, are by the Prelate extolled as persons, sacred, irresistible: Then, 1. the Iudges of England rule not by the King of

Britain, as their Author, efficient, constituent, but by Iesus Christ immediately, nor doth the Commissary rule by the Prelate. 2. All these, and their power, and persons, rule independently, and immediately by Iesus Christ. 3. All inferiour Iudges are [gap], the Ordinances of God not revocable. Ergo, The King cannot deprive any Iudge under him; he cannot declare the Parliament no Parliament; once a Iudge and alwayes, and irrevocably a judge. This Prelates poor pleading for Kings deserves no wages. Lavater intelligit superiores & inferiores Magistratus, non est potestas nisi a deo, Vatablus consiliarios. 2. If the people had absolute right, to choose Kings by the Law of Israel, they might have chosen another, then either Adonijah, or Solomon, but the Lord expressely, Deut. 17.14. put an expresse Law on them, that they should make no King, but him whom the Lord should chuse: Now the Lord did either by his immediately inspired Prophet, anoint the man, as he anointed David, Saul, Iehu, &c. or then he restricted, by a revealed promise, the Royall power to a family, and to the eldest by birth: and therefore the Lord first chose the man, and then the people made him King: birth was not their rule, as is clear, in that they made Solomon their King, not Adonijah the elder; and this proveth, that God did both ordain Kingly Government to the Kingdom of Israel, and chose the man, either in his person, or tied it to the first born of the Line. Now we have no Scripture, nor Law of God, to tie Royall dignitie to one man, or to one family; produce a warrant for it in the Word, for that must be a priviledge of the Iews, for which we have no Word of God, but we have no immediately inspired Samuels, to say, Make David, or this man King; and no Word of God to say, Let the first born of this family, rather then another family sit upon the throne; Therefore the people must make such a man King, following the rule of Gods Word, Deut. 17.14. and other rules shewing what sort of men Iudges must be, as Deut. 1.16, 17, 18. 2 Chro. 19.6, 7. 3. It is true, Kings in a speciall manner reign by Christ. Ergo, Not by the peoples free election. The P. Prelate argueth like himself: By this Text, a Major of a Citie, by the Lord, decreeth justice: Ergo, He is not made a Major of the Citie, by the people of the Citie. It followeth not, 4. None of us teach that Kings reign by Gods anger. We judge a King a great mercy of God to Church, or State: But the Text saith not, By the Lord, Kings and Iudges do not onely reign and decree justice, but also murther Protestants, by raising against them an Army

of Papists. And the word, 5. [gap], Powers, doth in no Greek Author signifie, irrevocable powers; for Vzziah was a lawfull King, and yet 2 Chron. 26. lawfully put from the throne, and cut off from the house of the Lord: And Interpreters on this place, deny that the place is to be understood of Tyrants: so the Chaldee Paraphrase turns it well, Potentes virga justitiae: so Lavater, and Di[gap] datus, and Thomas saith, this place doth prove, That all Kings, and Iudges, Laws, derivari a lege aeterna, are derived from the eternall Law. The Prelate eating his tongue for anger, striveth to prove, That all power, and so Royall power, is of God: but what can he make of it? we beleeve it, though he say Sectaries prove, by [gap], That a man is justified by faith onely: so there is no power but of God onely: but feel the smell of a Iesuite; it is the Sectaries doctrine. That we are justified by faith onely; but the Prelates, and the Iesuites goe another way, not by faith onely, but by works also. And all power is from God onely, as the first Author, and from no man. What then? Therefore men and people interpose no humane act in making this man a King, and not this man: It followeth, And let us with the Prelate, joyn Paul and Solomon together, and say, That Soveraigntie is from God, of God, by God, as Gods appointment irrevocable. Then shall it never follow: it is unseparable from the person, except you make the King a man immortall: as God onely can remove the Crown; it is true, but God onely can put an unworthy, and an excommunicated Prelate from Office and Benefice, but how? Doth that prove, that men and the Church may not also in their place, remove an unworthy Churchman, when the Church following Gods Word, delivereth to Satan? Christ onely as head of the Church, excommunicateth scandalous men: Ergo, The Church cannot do it, and yet the Argument is as good the one way, as the other; for all the Churches on earth cannot make a Minister properly, they but design him to the Ministery whom God hath gifted and called: But shall we conclude, ergo, no Church on earth; but God onely, by an immediate action from Heaven, can deprive a Minister? how then durst Prelates excommunicate, unmake, and imprison so many Ministers in the three Kingdoms: But the truth is, take this one Argument from the Prelate, and all that is in his Book, falleth to the ground, to wit, Soveraigntie is from God onely. A King is a creature of Gods making onely; and what then? Ergo, Soveraigntie cannot be taken from him: So God onely made Aarons house Priests. 2. Solomon had

no Law to depose Abiathar from the Priest-hood. Possibly the Prelate will grant all; the place, Rom. 13. which he saith hath tortured us, I refer to a fitter place, it will be found to torture Court Parasites.

I goe on with the Prelate, c. 3. Sacred Soveraignty is to be preserved, and Kings are to be prayed for, that we may lead a godly life, 1 Tim. 3. What then? 1. All in authority are to be prayed for, even Parliaments, by that text Pastors are to be prayed for, and without them sound religion cannot well subsist. 2. Is this questioned, but Kings should be prayed for; or are we wanting in this duty? but it followeth not that all dignities to be prayed for are immediatly from God, not from men. Prelate, Prov. 8. Solomon speaketh first of the establishment of Government, before he speake of the workes of Creation, ergo better not be at all, as be without government. And God fixed government in the person of Adam before Evah, or any else came into the world; and how shall government be, and we enjoy the fruits of it, except we preserve the Kings sacred Authority inviolable? Ans. Moses, Gen. 1. speaketh of Creation before he speaketh of Kings, and Moses speaketh, Gen. 3. of Adams sins before he speakes of redemption through the blessed seed; ergo better never be redeemed at all, as to to be without sin. 2. If God made Adam a governour before he made Evah, and any of Mankind, he was made a father and a husband before he had either sonne or wife. Is this the Prelates Logick? he may prove that two eggs on his fathers Table are three this way. 3. There is no government where soveraignty is not kept inviolable. It is true, where there is a King, soveraignty must be inviolable, What then? Arbitrary government is not soveraignty. 4. He intimateth Aristocracy, and Democracy, and the power of Parliaments, which maketh Kings to be nothing but Anarchie; for he speaketh here of no government, but Monarchy, P. Prelate, there is need of grace to obey the King, Ps. 18.43. Ps. 144.2. It is God who subdueth the people under David. 2. Rebellion against the King is rebellion against God. Pet. 2.17. Prov, 24.12. Ergo Kings have a neare alliance with God.

Ans. 1. There is much grace in Papists and Prelates then, who use to write and Preach against grace. 2. Lorinus your brother Iesuite will with good warrant of the texts inferre, that the King may make a conquest of his own Kingdomes of Scotland and England by the sword, as David subdued the Heathen. 3. Arbitrary governing hath no alliance with God; a rebell to God, his Country and an Apostate hath no reason to terme lawfull defence against [gap]ut-throat Irish, rebellion. 4. There is need of much grace to obey Pastors, inferiour Iudges, masters, Col. 3.22, 23. ergo their power

is from God immediatly, and no more from men then the King is created King by the people, according to the way of Royalists.

P. Prelate. God saith of Pharaoh, Exo. 9.7. I have raised thee up. Elisha from God constituted the King of Syria, 2 King 8.13. Pharaoh, Abimelech, Hiram, Hazael, Hadad, are no lesse honoured with the compellation of Kings, then David, Saul, &c. Ier. 29.9. Nebuchadnezer is honoured to be called by way of excellency Gods servant, which God giveth to David, a King according to his owne heart; and Esay 45.1, 2. Thus saith the Lord to his anoynted Cyrus, and God nameth him neere a hundreth yeare before he was borne, Esay 44.28. He is my shepheard, Daniel 2.19, 20.17.24. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will, Dan. 5.8. and p. 37. Empires, Kingdomes, Royalties are not disposed of by the composed contracts of men, but by the immediate hand and worke of God, Hos. 13.11. I gave them a King in my anger, I tooke him away in my wrath: Iob, He places Kings in the throne, &c.

Ans. Here is a whole Chapter of seven pages for one raw argument ten times before repeated, 1. to Exod. 9.7. I have raised up Pharaoh, Paul expoundeth it, Rom. 9▪ to prove that King Pharaoh was a vessell of wrath fitted for destruction, by Gods absolute Will; and the Prelate following Arminius, with treasonable charity, applyeth this to our King. Can this man pray for the King? 2. Elisha anoynted but constituted not Hazael King, and foretold he should be King; and if he be a King of Gods making, who slew his sicke Prince, and invaded the Throne by innocent bloud, judge you. I would not take Kings of the Prelates making. 3. If God give to Nebuchadnezer the same still of the servant of God, given to David, Ps. 18.1. & 116.16. and to Moses, Ios. 1, 2. all Kings, because Kings are men according to Gods heart. Why is not royalty then founded on grace? Nebuchadnezer was not otherwise his servant, then he was the hammer of the earth, and a tyrannous conquerour of the Lords people, and all the Heathen Kings are called Kings. But how came they to their Thrones for the most part? as David and Hezekiah? but God anointed them not by his Prophets; they came to their Kingdomes by the peoples election, or by blood and rapine; the latter way is no ground to you to deny Athaliah to be a lawfull Princesse, she and Abim[gap]lech were lawfull Princes, and their soveraignty as immediatly and independently from God, as the soveraignty of many heathen Kings. See then how justly Athaliah was killed as a bloody usurper of the throne; & this would licence your brethren the Iesuites to stab heathen Kings, whom you will have as well Kings [gap] the Lords anointed, though Nebuchadnezer & many of them made

their way to the Throne, against all Law of God and man, through a bloudy patent. 4. Cyrus is Gods anointed and his Shepheard too, ergo his Arbitrary government is a soveraignty immediatly depending on God, [gap]nd above all Law; it is a wicked consequence. 5. God named him neare a hundreth yeare ere he was borne, God named and designed Judas very individually, and named the Asse that Christ should ride on to Ierusalem, Zach. 9.9. some moe hundred yeares then one. What, will the Prelate make them independent Kings for that? 6. God giveth Kingdomes to whom he will. What then? this will prove Kingdomes to be as independent and immediatly from God, as Kings are; for as God giveth Kings to Kingdomes, so he giveth Kingdomes to Kings, and no doubt he giveth Kingdoms to whom he will; so he giveth Prophets, Apostles, Pastors to whom he will; and he giveth tyrannous conquests to whom he will: and it is Nebuchadnezer, to whom Daniel speaketh that, from the Lord, and he had no just title to many Kingdomes, especially to the Kingdome of Iudah, which yet God the King of Kings gave to him, because it was his good pleasure; and if God had not commanded them by the mouth of his Prophet Ieremiah, might they not have risen, and with the sword have vindicated themselves and their own liberty, no lesse then they lawfully by the sword vindicated themselves from under Moab, Iudges 3. from under Iabin, Iaakin King of Canaan, who twenty yeares mightily oppressed the children of Israel, Iudges. 4.? now this P. Prelate by all these instances making Heathen Kings to be Kings by as good a title as David and Hezekiah, condemneth the people of God as rebells, if being subdued and conquered by the Turke, and Spanish King, they should by the sword recover their owne liberty, and that Israel, and the saviours which God raised to them, had not warrant from the law of nature to vindicate themselves to liberty, which was taken from them violently and unjustly by the sword; but from all this it shall well follow that the tyranny of bloudy conquerours is immediatly and only dependent from God, no lesse then lawfull soveraignty; for Nebuchadnezers soveraignty over the people of God, and many other Kingdomes also was revenged of God as tyranny, Ier. 50.6.7. and therefore the vengeance of the Lord, and the vengeance of his Temple came upon him and his land, Ier. 50.16, 17.18.28, 29.30. It is true, the people of God were commanded of God to submit to the King of Babylon, to serve him, and to pray for him, and to doe on the contrary was rebellion; but this was not because the King of Babylon was their King, and because the King of Babylon had a command of

God, so to bring under his yoak the people of God. So Christ had a Commandement to suffer the death of the Crosse, Iohn. 10.18. but had Herod and Pilate any warrant to crucifie him? none at all. 7. He saith, Royalties even of Heathen Kings are not disposed of by the composed Contracts of men, but by the immediate hand and worke of God. But the Contracts of men to give a Kingdome to a person, which a Heathen community may lawfully doe, and so by contract dispose of a Kingdom, is not opposite to the immediate hand of God, appointing Royalty and Monarchy at his owne blessed liberty. Lastly he saith, God tooke away Saul in his wrath; but I pray you did God onely doe it? then had Saul because a King, a Patent Royall from God to kill himselfe, for so God tooke him away; and we are rebells by this, if we suffer not the King to kill himselfe. Well pleaded.

QUEST. VI. Whether the King be so from God onely both in regard of his Soveraignty, and of the designation of his person to the Crown, as that he is no waies from the people, but by meere approbation? (1)

Dr. Ferne, a man much for Monarchy saith, Though Monarchy hath its excellency, being first set up of God, in Moses, yet neither Monarchy, Aristocracy, nor any other forme, is jure divino, but we say (saith he) the power it selfe, or that sufficiency of authority to governe, that is in a Monarchy, or Aristocracy, abstractly considered from the qualification of other formes, is a flux and constitution subordinate to that providence; an ordinance of that Dixi, or silent word by which the world was made, and shall be governed under God. This is a great debasing of the Lords anoynted, for so soveraignty hath no warrant in Gods Word formally as it is such a government, but is in the world by providence, as sin is, and as the falling of a Sparrow to the ground; whereas Gods Word hath not onely commanded that government should be, but that fathers and mothers should be. 2. and not only that politick Rulers should be, but also Kings by name, and other Iudges Aristocraticall should be, Rom. 13.3. Deut. 17.14. 1 Pet. 2.17. Prov. 24.21. Prov. 15.16.3. If the power of Monarchy and Aristocracy abstracted from the formes be from God, then it is no more lawfull to resist Aristocraticall Government, and our Lords of Parliament, or Iudges, then it is lawfull to resist Kings.

But heare the Prelates reasons to prove that the King is from the people by approbation only.

P. Prelate. The people, Deut. 17. is said to set a King over them only, as 1 Cor. 6. The Saints are said to judge the world, that is, by consenting to Christs Iudgement. So the people doe not make a King by transferring on him soveraignty, but by accepting, acknowledging, reverencing him as King, whom God hath both constituted and designed King. Answ. This is said, but not a word proved: for the Queen of Sheba, and Hiram acknowledged, reverenced and obeyed Solomon as King, and yet they made him not King, as the Princes of Israell did. 2. Reverence and obedience of the people is relative to the Kings lawes, but the peoples making of a King is not relative to the laws of a King; for then he should be a King giving laws, and commanding the people, as King, before the people make him King. 3. If the peoples approving and consenting that an elected King be their King, presupposeth that he is a King designed, and constituted by God, before the people approve him as King; Let the P. Prelate give us an act of God now designing a man King: for there are no immediate voyces from heaven, saying to a people, This is your King, before the people elect one of sixe to be their King. And this infallibly proveth that God designeth one of sixe to be a King, to a people who had no King before, by no other act but by determining the hearts of the States to elect and designe this man King, and passe any of the other five. 4. When God, Deut. 17. forbiddeth them to choose a stranger, he presupposeth they may choose a stranger: for Gods law now given to man in the state of sinne, presupposeth he hath corruption of nature to doe contrary to Gods law: Now if God did hold forth, that their setting a King over them, was but the peoples approving the man whom God shall both constitute and designe to be King, then he should presuppose that God was to designe a stranger to be the lawfull King of Israel; and the people should be interdicted to approve and consent, that the man should be King whom God should choose: for it was unpossible that the people should make a stranger King, (God is the only immediate King-creator) the people should only approve and consent that a stranger should be King; yet upon supposall that God first constituted and designed the stranger King, it was not in the peoples power that the King should be a Brother rather then a stranger; for if the people have no power to make a King, but doe only approve him, or consent to him, when he is both made and designed of God to be King, it is not in their power that he be either brother or stranger▪ and so God commandeth what is simply impossible. 2. Consider the

sense of the command by the Prelates vaine Logick: I Iehovah, as I only create the world of nothing, so I only constitute and designe a man, whether Iew, or Nebuchadnezzar a stranger to be your King; yet I inhibit you under the pain of my curse, that you set any King [gap]ver your selves, but only a brother. What is this, but I inhibite you to be creators by omnipotent power? 5. To these adde the reasons I produced before, that the people by no shadow of reason can be commanded to make such a man King, not such a man, if they only consent to the man made King, but have no action in the making of the King.

P. Prelate. All the acts reall and imaginable, which are necessary for the making of Kings, are ascribed to God: Take the first King as a ruling case, 1 Sam. 12.13. Behold the King whom you have chosen and desired, and behold the Lord hath set a King over you. This election of the people can be no other but their admittance or acceptance of the King whom God hath chosen and constituted, as the words, whom ye have chosen, imply, 1 Sam. 9.17. 1 Sam. 10.1. You have Sauls election and constitution, where Samuel as Priest and Prophet anointeth him, doing reverence and obeysance to him, and ascribing to God, that he did appoint him supreame and Soveraigne over his inheritance. And the same expression is, 1 Sam. 12.13. The Lord hath set a King over you: which is Psal. 2.6. I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion. Neither man nor Angel hath any share in any act of constituting Christ King, Deut. 17. The Lord vindicateth as proper and peculiar to himselfe, the designation of the person. It was not arbitrary to the people to admit or reject Saul so designed; it pleased God to consummate the worke by the acceptation, consent and approbation of the people, ut suaviore modo, that by a smoother way he might incourage Saul to undergoe the hard charge, and make his people the more heartily, without grumbling and scruple, reverence and obey him. The peoples admittance possibly added something to the solemnitie, to the pompe, but nothing to the essentiall and reall constitution or necessitie; it only puts the subjects in mala fide, if they should contraveen, as the intimation of a Law, the coronation of an hereditary King, the inthronization of a Bishop. And, 1 King. 3.7. Thou hast made thy servant King, 1 Sam. 16.1. I have provided me a King, Psal. 18.50. He is Gods King, Psal. 89.19. I have exalted one chosen out of the people, v. 20. He anointeth them, 27. adopteth them. I will make him my first borne, Psal. 82.6. the first borne is above every brother severally, and above all, though a thousand joyntly.

Answ. 1. By this reason, inferiour Iudges are no lesse immediate

Deputies of God, and so irresistible, then the Kings, because God took off the spirit that was on Moses, and immediately powred it upon the seventy Elders, who were Iudges inferiour to Moses, Num. 11.14.15.16. Answ. 2. This P. P. cannot make a Syllogisme: I[gap] all the acts necessary to make a King, be given to God, none to the people; then God both constituteth and designeth the King. But the former the Scripture saith, ergo, if all the acts be given to God, as to the prime King-maker, and disposer of Kings and Kingdoms, and none to the people in that notion, then God both constituteth and designeth a King. Both major and minor is false. The major is a[gap] false as the very P. Prelate himselfe. All the acts necessary for war-making, are in an eminent manner given to God, as 1. the Lord fighteth for his people. 2. The Lord scattered the enemies. 3. The Lord slew Og King of Bashan. 4. The battell is the Lords. 5. The victorie the Lords; ergo, Israel never fought a battell. So Deut. 32. The Lord alone led his people; the Lord led them in the wildernesse; their bow and their sword gave them not the land: God wrought all their workes for them, Esa 26.12. ergo, Moses led them not; ergo, the people went not on their own leggs through the wildernesse; ergo, the people never shot an arrow, never drew a sword. It followeth not. 1. God did all these as the first, eminent, principall and efficacious pre-determinator of the creature, (though this Arminian and Popish Prelate mind not so to honour God.) 2. The assumption is also false; for the people made Saul and David Kings; and it were ridiculous, that God should command them to make a brother, not a stranger King, if it was not in their power whether he should be a Iew, a Scythian, an Ethiopian, who was their King, if God did only without them both choose, 2. constitute, 3. designe the person, and performe all acts essentiall to make a King, and the people had no more in them but only to admit and consent, and that for the solemnitie and pompe, not for the essentiall constitution of the King. 3. [gap] Sam. 9.17. 1 Sam. 10.1. we have not Saul elected and constituted king, and Samuel did obeysance to him and kissed him, for the honor Royall which God was to put upon him: for before this propheticall unction, 1 Sam. 9.22. he made him sit in the chiefe place, and honored him as king, when as yet Samuel was materially King, and the Lords Vicegerent in Israel. If then the Prelate conclude any thing from Samuel his doing reverence and obeysance to him as King, it shall follow that Saul was formally King, before Samuel, 1 Sam. 10.1. anointed him, and kissd him; and that must be before he

he was formally King, otherwise he was in Gods appointment King, before ever he saw Samuels face; and it is true, he ascribeth honour to him, as to one appointed by God to be supreame Soveraigne, for that which he should be, not for that which he was, as c. 9.22. he set him in the chiefest place, and therefore it is false, that we have Sauls election and constitution to be King, 1 Sam. 10. for after that time the people are rebuked for seeking a King, and that with a purpose to disswade them from it, as a sinfull desire, and he is chosen by Lots after that, and made King, & after Samuels anoynting of him, he was a private, man, and did hide himselfe amongst the stuffe, v. 22.3. The Prelate if of ignorance, or wilfully I know not, saith, the expression and phrase is the same, 1 Sam. 12.13. and Ps. 2.6. which is false; for 1 Sam. 12.13. it is [gap] behold the Lord hath given you a King, such is the expression, Hos. 13.11. I gave them a King in my wrath; but that expression is not Psal. 2.6. but this [gap] but I have established him my King; and though it were the same expression, it followeth not that the people have not hand any other way in appointing Christ their head; (though that phrase also be in the word, Hos. 1. v. 11.) then by consenting, and beleeving in him as King; but this proveth not that the people in appointing a King, hath no hand but naked approbation, for the same phrase doth not expresse the same action, nay the Iudges are to kisse Christ, Ps. 2.12. the same way, and by the same action that Samuel kissed Saul, 1 Sam. 10.1. and the Idolaters kissed the calves, Hos. 13.2. for the same Hebrew word is used in all the three places, and yet it is certaine the first kissing is spirituall, the second a kisse of honour, and the third an Idolatrous kissing. 4. The anoynting of Saul cannot be a leading rule to the making of all Kings to the worlds end; for the P. Prelate forgetting himselfe said, that onely some few, as Moses, Saul, and David, &c. by extraordinary manifestation from Heaven were made Kings, pa. 19.5. he saith it was not Arbitrary for the people to admit, or reject Saul so designed. What meaneth he? it was not morally arbitrary, because they were under a law, Deut. 17.14, 15. to make him King, whom the Lord should choose. That is true, but was it not arbitrary to them to breake a law Physically? I think he who is a professed Arminian will not side with Manicheans and Fatalists so, but the P. Prelate must prove it was not Arbitrary, either Morally or Physically to them not to accept Saul as their King, because they had no action at all in the making of a King, God did it all, both by constituting and designing the

King, why then did God, Deut. 17. give a Law to them to make such a man King, not such a man, if it was not in their free wil to have any action or hand in the making of a King at all? but that some sonnes of Belial would not accept him as their King, is expresly said, 1 Sam. 10.27. and how did Israel conspire with Absolom, to unking and dethron[gap] David, whom the Lord had made King? If the Prelate meane it was not Arbitrary to them physically to reject Saul, he speaketh wonders, the sonnes of Belial did reject him; ergo they had physicall power to doe it: If he meane it was not arbitrary, that is, it was not lawfull to them to reject him, that is true; but doth it follow they had no hand nor action in making Saul King, because it was not lawfull for them to make a King in a sinfull way, and to refuse him whom God chose to be King? then see what I inferre. 1. Then they had no hand in obeying him as King, because they sinne in obeying unlawfull commandements against Gods Law; and so they had no hand in approving and consenting he should be King, the contrary whereof the P. Prelate saith. 2. So might the P. Prelate prove men are patientes, and have no action in violating all the Commandements of God, because it is not lawfull to them to violate any one Commandement. (6) The Lord Deut. 17. vindicates this as proper and peculiar to himselfe to choose the person, and to choose Saul. What then? ergo now the people choosing a King have no power to choose or name a man, because God anoynted Saul and David by immediate manifestation of his Will to Samuel; this consequence is nothing, & also it followeth in no wise, that therefore the people made not Saul King. 7. That the peoples approbation of a King is not necessary, is Bellarmines and Papists saying, and that the people chose their Ministers in the Apostolick Church, not by a necessity of a divine Commandement, but to conciliate love betwixt Pastor and people. Papists hold that if the Pope make a [gap]pish King the head and King of Britaine against the peoples will, yet is he their King. 8. David was then King all the time that Saul presecuted him; he sinned truely in not discharging the duty of a King, onely because he wanted a ceremony, the peoples approbation, which the Prelate saith is required to the solemnity and pompe, not to the necessity and truth, and essence of a formall King. So the Kings Coronation Oath, and the peoples Oath must be Ceremonies; and because the Prelate is perjured himselfe, therefore perjury is but a ceremony also. 9. The enthronization of Bishops is like the Kinging of the Pope; the Apostles must spare Thrones, while they come to Heaven,

Luk. 22.29, 30. the P. Prelates with their head the Pope must be enthroned. 10. The hereditary King he maketh a King before his Coronation, and his Acts are as valid before as after his Coronation; it might cost him his head to say that the Prince of Wales is now no lesse King of Britaine, and his Acts, Acts of Kingly Royalty, no lesse then our Soveraigne is King of Britaine, if Lawes and Parliaments had their owne vigour from royall Authority. 11. I allow that Kings be as high as God hath placed them, but that God said of all Kings, I will make him my first borne, &c. Psalm 89.26, 27. which is true of Solomon as the Type, 2 Sam, 7. 1 Chro. 17.22. 2 Sam. 7.12. and fulfilled of Christ, and by the Holy Ghost spoken of him, Heb. 1.5.6. is blasphemous; for God said not to Nero, Iulian, Dioclesian, Belshazer, Evilmerodach, who were lawfull Kings. I will make him my first borne; and that any of these blasphemous Idolatrous Princes should cry to God, he is my Father, my God, &c. is Divinity well beseeming an excommunicated Prelate. Of the Kings dignity above the Kingdome I speake not now; the Prelate pulled it in by the haire, but hereafter we shall heare of it.