QUEST. VII. Whether or no the P. Prelate the aforesaid Author doth by force of reason evince, that neither constitution nor designation of the King is from the people? (2) to QUEST. VIII. Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason, that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government? (1)

QUEST. VII. Whether or no the P. Prelate the aforesaid Author doth by force of reason evince, that neither constitution nor designation of the King is from the people? (2)

these men combined in a Citie, or Societie, have not power in a joynt Politicall body, to chose Inferiour or Aristocraticall Rulers. 3. The P. Prelates reason is nothing. All the Contribution (saith he) in the compact body to make a King, is onely by a surrender of the native right of every single man, (the whole being onely a voluntary constitution.) How then can there be any majestie derived from them? I answer. Very well. For the surrender is so voluntary, that it is also naturall, and founded on the Law of nature, That men must have Governours, either many, or one supreme Ruler: And it is voluntary, and dependeth on a positive institution of God, Whether the Government be by one supreme Ruler, as in a Monarchie, or in many, as in an Aristocracie, according as the necessitie and temper of the Common-wealth do most require. This Constitution is so voluntary, as it hath below it, the Law of nature for its generall foundation; and above it, the supervenient institution of God, ordaining, That there should be such Magistrates, both Kings, and other Iudges, because without such, all humane societies should be dissolved. 4. Individuall persons in creating a Magistrate, doth not properly surrender their right, which can be called a right; for they do but surrender their power of doing violence to these of their fellows in that same Communitie; so as they shall not now have Morall power to do injuries without punishment; and this is not right or libertie properly, but servitude: for a power to do violence and injuries, is not liberty, but serv[gap]tude and bondage. But the Prelate talketh of Royaltie, as of meer Tyranny, as if it were a proper Dominion, and servile Empire, that the Prince hath over his people, and not more paternall and fatherly, then lordly, or masterly. 5. He saith, Violation of faith plighted in a contract amongst equals, cannot be called disobedience, but disobedience to the authoritie of the Soveraign is not onely breach of Covenant, but high disobedience and contempt. But violation of faith amongst equals, as equals, is not properly disobedience; for disobedience is betwixt a superiour and an inferiour: but violation of faith amongst equals, when they make one of their equals their Iudge and Ruler, is not onely violation of truth, but also disobedience. All Israel and Saul while he is a private man seeking his fathers Asses, are equals by Covenant obliged one to another; and so any injury done by Israel to Saul in that case, is not disobedience, but onely violation of faith; but when all Israel maketh Saul their King, and sweareth to him obedience, he is not now their equall, and an injury done to

him now, is both a violation of their faith, and high disobedience also. Suppose a Citie of Aldermen, all equall amongst themselves indignitie and place, take one of their number, and make him their Major and Provost; a wrong done to him now, is not onely against the rules of fraternitie, but disobedience to one placed by God in authoritie over them. 6. 1 Sam. 11.7. The fear of the Lord fell on the people, and they came out with one consent to obey Saul. Ergo, God hath placed authority in Kings, which is not in people: It is true, because God hath transferred the scattered authorities that are in all the people, in one Masse; and by vertue of his own Ordinance, hath placed them in one man who is King. What followeth? Ergo, God conferreth this authoritie immediately upon the King, without the mediation of any action of the people; yea, the contrary rather followeth. 7. God looseth the bond of Kings; that is, when God is to cast off Kings, he causeth them to lose all authoritie, and maketh them come in contempt with the people. But what doth this prove? That God taketh away the majestie and authority of Kings Immediately; And therefore God gave to Kings this authoritie Immediately, without the peoples conveiance? Yea, I take the Prelates weapon from him. God doth not take the authority of the King from him immediately, but mediately by the people their hating and dispising him, when they see his wickednesse, as the people see Nero a Monster, a prodigeous blood-sucker; upon this, all the people contemn him, and dispise him, and so the majesty is taken from Nero, and all his Mandates and Laws, when they see him trample upon all Laws divine and humane; and that mediately by the peoples heart, dispising of his majestie, and so they repeat and take again that aw-some authoritie, that they once gave him: And this proveth, that God gave him the authoritie mediately, by the consent of man. 8. Nor speaketh he of Kings onely, but Vers. 21. He powreth contempt [gap] super munificos. Pineda. Aria. Mont. super Principes. Upon Nobles and great men. And this place may prove, That no Iudges of the earth are made by men. 9. The Heathen say, That there is some divinity in Princes, as in Alexander the great, toward his enemies, and Scipio: But this will prove, That Princes and Kings have a Superiority over those who are not their native Subjects; for something of God is in them, in relation to all men, that are not their Subjects. If this be a ground, strong and good, because God onely, and independently from men, taketh away this majestie; as God onely, and independently giveth it, then

a King is sacred to all men, subjects, or not subjects; then it is unlawfull to make war against any forraign King and Prince, for in invading him, or resisting him, you resist that divine majestie of God, that is in him; then you may not lawfully flee from a tyrant, no more then you may lawfully flie from God. 10. Scipio was not a King. Ergo, This divine majestie is in all Iudges of the earth, in a more or lesse measure. Ergo, God onely and immediately, may take this spark of divine majestie from inferiour Iudges: It followeth not. And Kings certainly cannot infuse any sparkle of a divine majestie, on any inferiour Iudges; for God onely, immediately infuseth it in men. Ergo, It is unlawfull for Kings to take this divinitie from Iudges, for they resist God, who resist Parliaments, no lesse then those who resist Kings. Scipio hath divinity in him, as well as Cesar, and that immediately from God, and not from any King. 10. Moses was not a King when he went to Pharaoh, for he had not as yet a people; Pharaoh was the King, and because Pharaoh was a King, the Divines of Oxford must say, His Majestie must not, in words of rebuke, be resisted, more then by deeds. 11. Moses his face did shine as a Prophet receiving the Law from God, not as a King: and is this Sunshine of Heaven upon the face of Nero, and Julian? It must be, if it be a beam of Royall Majestie, if this pratler say right, but 2 Cor. 3.7. this was a majestie typicall, which did adumbrate the glory of the Law of God, and is far from being a royaltie due to all Heathen Kings. 12. I would our King would evidence such a Majestie in breaking the Images and Idols of his Queen, and of Papists about him. 13. The fear of Noah, and the regenerated, who are in Covenant with the Beasts of the field, Job 5.23. is upon the Beasts of the earth, not by any approbation only, as the people maketh Kings, by the Prelates way; nor yet by free consent, as the people freely transfer their power to him, who is King. The creatures inferiour to man, have by no act of freewill, chosen man to be their Ruler, and transferred their power to him, because they are by nature inferiour to man, and God by nature hath subjected the creatures to man, Gen. 1.28. and so this proveth not, that the King by nature is above the people, I mean the man who is King; and therefore though God had planted in the hearts of all subjects, a fear and reverence toward the King; upon supposall, that they have made him King: It followeth not, That this authoritie and majestie, is immediately given by God to the man who is King, without the interveening consent of the people; for there

is a native feare in the Scholler to stand in awe of his Teacher, and yet the Scholler may willingly give himselfe to be a disciple to his Teacher, and so give his Teacher power over him. Citizens naturally feare their supreame Governour of the City, yet they give to the man who is their supream Governour, that power and Authority which is the ground of awe and reverence. A Servant naturally feareth his Master, yet often he giveth his liberty, and resigneth it up voluntarily to his Master, and this was not unordinary amongst the Iewes, where the servant did intirely love the Master, and is most ordinary now when servants doe for hyre, tye themselves to such a Master; and Souldiers naturally feare their Commanders, yet they may, and often doe, by voluntary consent make such men their Commanders; and therefore from this it followeth no way, that the Governour of a City, the Teacher, the Master, the Commander in War have not their power and authority only and immediatly from God, but from their inferiours, who by their free consent appointed them for such places.

P. Prelate. This seemeth, or rather is an unanswerable Argument, No man hath power of life and death,

but the Soveraign Power of life and death; to wit God, Gen. 9.5. God saith thrice he will require the blood of man at the hands of man, and this power God hath committed to Gods Deputy, who so sheddeth mans blood [gap] by man shall die, by the King, for the world knew not any kind of goverment at this time, but Monarchiall; and this Monarch was Noah; and if this power be from God, why not all soveraigne power? seeing it is Homogeneous, and as Iurists say in indivisibili posita, a thing in its nature indivisible, and that cannot be distracted, or impaired, and if every man had the power of life and death, God should not be the God of Order.

The P. Prelate taketh the paines to prove out of the text that a Magistracy is established in the text. Ans. 1. Let us consider this unanswerable Argument, 1. It is grounded upon a lye, and a conjecture never taught by any but himselfe; to wit, that [gap] by, or in, or through man, must signifie a Magistrate. 2. and a King onely. 3. This King was Noah, never interpreter; nay not common sence can say, that no Magistrate is here understood but a King; the consequence is vaine, his blood shall be shed by man, ergo by a Magistrate, it followeth not, ergo by a King, it followeth not: there was not a King in the world yet as; some make Belus the father of Ninus the first King, and the builder of Babylon, this Ninus is thought the first builder of the City, after called Ninivie, and

the first King of the Assyrians, so saith Quintus Curtius ▪ and others; but grave Authors beleeve that Nimrod was no other then Belus the father of Ninus, so saith Augustin,

Hierome,

Eusebius,

Hieronym. And Eusebius maketh him the first founder of Babylon: So saith Clemens,

Pirerius; and Iosephus saith the same. 1. their times, 2. their cruell natures are the same. Calvin saith, Noah yet lived while Nimrod lived: and the Scripture saith, Nimrod began to reigne, and be powerfull on the Earth. And Babel was [gap] the beginning of his kingdome. No writer, Moses nor any other can shew us a King before Nimrod. So Eusebius,

Paul. Orosius,

Hieronym.

Iosephus say that he was the first King. And Tostatus Abulens. and our own

Calvin,

Luther,

Musculus on the place, and Ainsworth, make him the first King, and the founder of Babylon. How Noah was a King, or there was any Monarchicall government in the world then, the Prelate hath alone dreamed it: There was but Familie-government before this. 2. And if there bee a Magistracie heere established by God, there is no warrant to say it is onely a Monarchie: For if the Holy Ghost intendeth a policie: it is a policie to be established to the worlds end, and not to bee limited (as the P. Prelate doth) to Noahs dayes: all Interpreters upon good ground establish the same policie that our Saviour speaketh of, when he saith, He shall perish by the sword, who taketh the sword, Matth. 26.52. So the Netherlands have no lawfull Magistrate, who have power of life and death, because their Government is Aristocraticall, and they have no King. So all acts of taking away the lives of ill-doers, shall be acts of homicide in Holland: how absurd? 3. Nor doe I see how the place in the native scope doth establish a Magistracie. Calvin saith not so: & Interpreters deduce by consequence the power of the Magistrate from this place. But the Text is generall: He who killeth man, shall be killed by man: either he shall fall into the Magistrates hand, or into the hand of some Murtherer: so Calvin,

Marlorat. And he speaketh (saith (w) Pirerius) not of the fact and event it selfe, but of the deserving of murtherers; and it's certaine, all murtherers fall not into the Magistrates hands; but he saith, by Gods and mans

laws. Ergo, They ought to dye, though sometime one murtherer killeth another. 4. The Soveraign power is given to the King, ergo, it is given to him immediately without the consent of the people. It followeth not. 5. Power of life and death is not given to the King only, but also to other Magistrates, yea, and to a single private man in the just defence of his own life. Other arguments are but what the Prelate hath said already.

QUEST. VIII. Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason, that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government? (1)

P. Prelate. God and nature giveth no power in vain, and which may not be reduced into action; but an active power, or a power of actuall governing, was never acted by the Communitie; therefore this power cannot be seated in the Communitie as in the prime and proper subject; and it cannot be in every individuall person of a Communitie, because Government intrinsecally and essentially includeth a specified distinction of Governours, and some to be governed; and to speak properly, there can no other power be conceived in the Communitie naturally and properly, but only potestas passiva regiminis, a capacitie or susceptabilitie to be governed, by one or by moe, just as the first matter desireth a forme. This obligeth all, by the dictate of Natures law, to submit to actuall government: and as it is in every individuall person, it is not meerly and properly voluntary, because howsoever nature dictates, that government is necessary for the safety of the society, yet every singular person, by corruption and selfe-love, hath a naturall aversenesse and repugnancie to submit to any; every man would be a King himselfe: This universall desire, appetitus universalis aut naturalis, or universall propension to Government, is like the act of the understanding assenting to the first undeniable principles of truth, and to the wills generall propension to happines in generall, which propension is not a free act, except our new Statists, as they have changed their faith, so they overturne true reason, it will puzzle them infinitely to make any thing in its kinde passive, really active and collative of positive acts and effects. All know, no man can give what he hath not: an old Philosopher would laugh at him who would say, that a matter perfected and actuated by union, with a forme, could at pleasure shake off its forme, and marrie it selfe to another: they may as well say, every wife hath power to resume her freedome, and marrie another, as that any such power active is in the Communitie, or any power to cast off Monarchie.

Ans. The P. Prelate might have thanked Spalato for this Argument, but he doth not so much as cite him, for feare his theft be deprehended, but Spalato hath it set downe with stronger nerves, then the Prelates head was able to copie out of him. But Iac. de Almain, and Navarrus, with the Parision Doctors said in the Concell of Paris, that politick power is immediatly from God, but first from the community; but so, that the community apply their power to this o[gap] that Government, not of liberty, but by naturall necessity, but Spal[gap]to and the Plagiarie Prelate doe both looke beside the booke. The question is not now concerning the vis rectiva the power of governing in the people, but concerning the power of government, for these two di[gap]fer much, the former is a power of ruling and Monarchicall commanding of themselves, this power is not formally in the people, but only vertually; and no reason can say, that a vertuall power is idle, because it cannot be actuated by that same subject that it is in, for then it should not be a vertuall, but a formall power. Doe not Philosophers say such a Hearb vertually maketh hot, and can the sottish Prelate say, this vertuall power is idle, and in vaine given of God, because it doth not formally heate your hand when you touch it. 2. The P. Prelate who is excommunicated for Popery, Socinianisme, Arminianisme, and is now turned Apostate to Christ, and his Church must have changed his faith, not we, and be reasonlesly ignorant to presse that axiome, that the power is idle that cannot be reduced to acts; for a generative power is given to living and sensitive creatures, this power is not idle though it be not reduced in act, by all and every individuall sensitive creature. A power of seeing is given to all who naturally doe, or ought to see, yet it is not an idle power, because divers are blind, seeing it is put forth in action in divers of the kind; so this power in the community is not idle, because it is not put forth in acts in the people, in which it is vertually, and is put forth in action in some of them, whom they choose to be their Governours; nor is it reasonable to say that it should be put forth in action by all the people, as if all should be Kings and Governours. But the question is not of the power of governing in the people, but of the power of Government, that is, of the power of making Governours and Kings, and the community doth put forth in act this power, as a free, voluntary, and active power, for 1. a Community transplanted to India or any place of the world, not before inhabited have a perfect liberty to choose either a Monarchy, or a

Democracy, or an Aristocracy; for though nature incline them to Government in generall, yet are they not naturally determinated to any one of those three, more than another. 2. Israel did of their free will choose the change of government, and would have a King, as the Nations had, ergo they had free will, and so an active power so to doe, and not a a passive inclination only to be governed, such as Spalato saith agreeth to the first matter, 3, Royalists teach that a people under Democracy, or Aristocracy have liberty to choose a King, and the Romanes did this, ergo they had an active power to do it, ergo the Prelates simile crookes, the matter at its pleasur[gap] cannot shake off its forme, nor the wife cast off her husband being once married; but Barclaius, Grotius, Arnisaeus, Blackwood, and all the Royalists teach that the people under any of these two formes of Democracy or Aristocracy, may resume their power, and cast off these formes and choose a Monarch, and if Monarchy be the best government as Royalists say, they may chose the best, and is this but a passive capacity to be governed? 2. Of ten men fit for a Kingdome they may designe one, and put the Crowne on his head, and refuse the other nine, and Israel crowned Solomon and refused Ad[gap] niah. Is this not a voluntary action, proceeding from a free active, elective power? It will puzzle the pretended Prelate to deny this, that which the community doth freely, they doe not from such a passive capacity, as is in the first matter, in regard of the forme. 3. It is true that people through corruption of nature are averse to submit to Governours, for conscience sake, and as to the Lord, because the naturall man remaining in the state of nature can doe nothing that is truely good, but it is false that men have no active Morall power to submit to superiours, but only a passive capacity to be governed, he quite contradicteth himselfe, for he said before, c. 4. pag. 49. that there is an innate feare and reverence in the hearts of all men naturally, even in Heathen toward their Severaign; yea as we have a naturall morall active power to love our Parents and superiours (though it be not Evangelically, or legally in Gods Court, good) and so to obey their commandements, only we are averse to penall Lawes of superiours; but this proveth no way, that we have only by nature, a passive capacity to government; for Heathens have by instinct of nature both made Lawes morally good, submitted to them, set Kings and Iudges over them; which clearely proveth that men have an active power of Government by nature:

4. yea, what difference maketh the Prelate betwixt men and beasts, for beasts have a capacity to be governed, even Lyons and Tigers; but here is the matter, if men have any naturall power of Government, the P. Prelate would have it with his brethren Iesuites and Arminians to be not naturall, but done by the helpe of universall grace, for so doe they confound nature and grace. But it is certaine our power to submit to Rulers and Kings as to rectors, and guides and fathers, is naturall, to submit to Tyrants in doing ills of sinne, is naturall, but in suffering ills of punishment its not naturall. 5. No man can give that which he hath not, is true, but that people have no power to make their Governours, is that which is in question, and denyed by us. 6. This argument doth prove that people hath no power to appoint Aristocraticall Rulers more then Kings, and sothe Aristocraticall and Democraticall Rulers are all inviolable and sacred, as the King. 2. by this the people may not resume their freedome if they turne tyrants and oppressors; this the Prelate shall deny, for he averreth, p. 96. out of Augustine, that the people may without sin change a corrupt Democracy into a Monarchy.

P. Prelate. If Soveraignty be originally inherent in the people, then Democracy, or Government by the people, were the best Government, because it commeth nearest to the fountaine and streame of the first and radicall power in the people, yea and all other formes of government were unlawfull; and if Soveraignty be natively inherent in the multitude, it must be proper to every individuall of the community, which is against that false Maxime of theirs, Quisque nascitur liber, every one by nature is borne a free man, and the posterity of those who first contracted with their elected King, are not bound to that Couenant, but upon their native rest and liberty, may appoint another King without breach of covenant. The posterity of Ioshua, and the Elders in their time, who contracted with the Gibeonites to incorporate them, though in a serving condition, might have made their fathers government nothing.

Ans. The P. Prelate might thanke Spalato for this Argument also, for it is stollen, but he never once nameth his name, lest his theift should be deprehended; so are his other Arguments stollen from Spalato, but the Prelate weakeneth them, and it is seene, stollen goods are not blessed. Spalato saith then, by the law of nature every Common-wealth should be governed by the people, and by the law of nature, the people should be under the badest▪ Government, but this consequence is nothing; for community of many families

is formally and of themselves under no government, but may choose any of the three, for popular government is not that wherein all the people are Rulers, for this is confusion, no government, because all are Rulers, and none are governed and ruled; but in popular government many are chosen out of the people to rule, and that this is the worst government, is said gratis, without warrant, and if Monarchy be the best of it selfe, yet when men are in the state of sin, in some other respects, it hath many inconveniences. 2. I see not how Democracie is best, because neerest to the multitudes power of making a King; for if all the three depend upon the free will of the people, all are alike a far off, and alike neer hand, to the peoples free choice, according as they see most conducible for the safety and protection of the Common-wealth: And seeing the forms of Government are no more naturall, then politick Incorporations of Cities, yea, then of Shires: But from a positive institution of God who erecteth this form, rather then this, not immediately now, but mediately by the free will of men; not one cometh formally, and ex naturâ rei, neerer to the fountain then another, except that materially Democracie may come neerer to the peoples power, then Monarchie, but the excellencie of it above Monarchie, is not hence concluded; for by this reason, the number of four should be more excellent then the number of five, of ten, of an hundreth, of a thousand, or of millions, because four cometh neer to the number of three, which Aristotle calleth the first persit number, cui additur [gap] of which yet formally all doe alike share in the nature and essence of number. 2. It is denied, that it followeth from this antecedent, The people have power to chose their own Governours. Ergo, All Governments, except Democracie, or Government by the people, must be sinfull and unlawfull. 1. Because Government by Kings is of Divine institution, and of other Iudges also, as is evident by Gods Word, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3. Deut. 17.14. Prov. 8.15, 16. 1 Pet. 2.13, 14. Psal. 2.10, 11, &c. 2. Power of chosing any form of Government, is in the people: Ergo, There is no Government lawfull, but popular Government; it followeth no wayes, but presupposeth that power to chose any form of Government, must be formally actuall Government, which is most false, yea, they be contrary, as the prevalency or power, and the act are contrary, so these two are contrary, or opposite; neither is Soveraigntie, nor any Government formally inherent in either the Communitie, by nature,

nor in any one particular man, by nature; and that every man is born free, so as no man, rather then his brother, is born a King and Ruler, I hope, God willing to make good, so as the Prelate shall never answer on the contrary. 3. It followeth not, that the Posteritie living, when their Fathers made a Covenant with their first elected King, may without any breach of Covenant on the Kings part, make voyd and null their Fathers election of a King, and chose another King, because the lawfull Covenant of the Fathers in point of Government, if it be not broken, tieth the children; but it cannot deprive them of their lawfull libertie naturally inherent in them to chose the fittest man to be King: But of this hereafter more fully. 4. Spalato addeth, (the Prelate is not a faithfull theef) If the Communitie by the Law of nature, have power of all forms of Government, and so should be, by nature, under popular Government, and yet should refuse a Monarchy, and an Aristocracie; yet Augustine addeth, If the people should preferre their own private gain to the publike good, and sell the Common-wealth, then some good man might take their libertie from them, and against their will erect a Monarchie, or an Aristocracie: But 1. the Prelate and Augustine, supposeth the people to be under Popular Government; this is not our case, for Spalato and the Prelate presupposeth by our grounds, that the people by nature, must be under Popular Government; Augustine dreameth no such thing, and we deny that by nature, they are under any form of Government. 2. Augustine in a case most considerable, thinketh one good, and potent man, may take the corrupt peoples power of giving Honours, and making Rulers from them, and give it to some good men, few, or many, or to one; then Augustine layeth done as a ground, that which Spalato and the Prelate denieth, That the people hath power to appoint their own Rulers; otherwayes, how could one good man take that power from them? And the Prelates fifth Argument, is but a Branch of the fourth Argument, and is answered already.

P. Prelate, Chap. 11. He would prove, That Kings of the peoples making, are not blessed of God. The first creature of the peoples making, was Abimelech, Iudg. 9.22. who reigned onely three yeers, well neer Anti-Christs time of endurance; he came to it by blood▪ and an evil spirit rose betwixt him, and the men of Sechem, and he made a miserable end. The ne[gap] was Ieroboam, who had this Motto; He made Israel to sin, the people made him King, and he made the same

pretence of a glorious Reformation, that our Reformers now make, new Calves, new Altars, new Feasts are erected; they banish the Levites, and take in the scum and drosse of the vulgar, &c. 3. Every action of Christ, is our instruction; Christ was truely a born King, notwithstanding, when the people would make him a King, he disclaimed it, he would not be an arbiter betwixt two brethren differing.