QUEST. VIII. Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason, that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government? (2) to QUEST. IX. Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people, that it remaineth in them in some part, so as they may in case of necessitie resume it? (1)

QUEST. VIII. Whether the Prelate proveth by force of reason, that the people cannot be capable of any power of Government? (2)

Answ. I am not to follow the Prelates order every way, though God willing, I shall reach him in the fore-going Chapters. Nor purpose I to answer his treasonable railing against his own Nation, and the Iudges of the Land, whom God hath set over this seditious excommunicated Apostate. He layeth to us frequently the Iesuites Tenets, when as he is known himself to be a Papist: In this Argument he saith, Abimelech did reigne onely three yeers, well neer Anti-Christs reign: Is not this the basis, and the mother principle of Popery, That the Pope is not the Antichrist? for the Pope hath continued many ages. 1. He is not an individuall man, but a race of men, but the Antichrist, saith Belarmine, Stapleton, Becanus, and the nation of Iesuites, and Poplings, shall be one inviduall man, a born Iew, and shall reign onely three yeers and a half. But 1. The Argument from successe, proveth nothing, except the Prelate prove their bad successe to be from this, because they were chosen of the people. When as Saul chosen of God, and most of the Kings of Israel and Judah, who undeniably, had Gods calling to the Crown, were not blessed of God, and their Government was a ruine to [gap] people and Religion, as the people were removed to all the Kingdoms of the earth, for the sins of Manasseh, Iere. 15.4. Was therefore Manasseh not lawfully called to the Crown? 2. For his instance of Kings unlawfully called to the Crown, he bringeth us, whole two, and telleth us, that he doubteth as many learned men do, Whether Ieroboam was a King by permission onely, or by a commission from God. 3. Abimelech was cursed, because he wanted Gods calling to the throne, for then Israel had no King, but Iudges extraordinarily raised up by God, and God did not raise him at all, only he came to the throne by blood, and carnall reasons moving the men of Sechem to advance him: The Argument presupposeth, that the whole lawfull calling of a King, is the voices of the people; This we never taught, though the Prelate make conquest a just title to a Crown, and it is but a title of blood and rapine. 4. Abimelech was not the first King, but onely a Iudge; all our Divines with the

Word of God maketh Saul the first King. 5. For Ieroboam he had Gods Word and Promise to be King, 1 King. 11.34, 35, 37, 38. But in my weak judgement he waited not Gods time, and way of coming to the Crown; but that his coming to the throne was unlawfull, because he came by the peoples election, is in question. 5. That the peoples Reformation, and their making a new King, was like the Kingdom of Scotlands Reformation, and the Parliament of Englands way now, is a traiterous calumny. For 1. It condemneth the King, who hath in Parliament declared all their proceedings to be legall. Rehoboam never declared Ieroboams Coronation to be lawfull, but contrary to Gods Word made war against Israel. 2. It is false that Israel pretended Religion in that change, the cause was the rough answer given to the supplication of the Estates, complaining of their oppression, they were under in Solomons reign. 3. Religion is still subjected to policie by Prelates and Caveliers, not by us in Scotland, who sought nothing but Reformation of Religion, of Laws, so far as they serve Religion, as our Supplications, Declarations, and the event proveth. 4. We have no new Calves, new Altars, new Feasts, but professe, and really do hazard life and estate, to put away the Prelates Calves, Images, Tree-worship, Altar-worship, Saints Feast-dayes, Idolatry, Masses; and nothing is said here but Jesuites, and Cananites, and Baalites, might say, (though falsly) against the Reformation of Iosiah: Trueth and purity of worship this yeer, is new in relation to Idolatry the last yeer, but it is simpliciter older. 5. We have not put away the Lords Priests, and Levites, and taken in the scum of the vulgar, but have put away Baals Priests, such as excommunicated Prelate Maxwel, and other Apostates, and resumed the faithfull servants of God, who were deprived and banished, for standing to the Protestant Faith sworn too, by the Prelates themselves. 6. Every action of Christ, such as his walking on the Sea, is not our instruction in that sense, that Christs refusing a Kingdom, is directly our instruction: And did Christ refuse to be a King, because the people would have made him a King? that is, non causa pro causa; he refused it, because his Kingdom was not in this world, and he came to suffer for men, not to reign over man. 7. The Prelate and others who were Lords of Session, and would be Iudges of mens Inheritances, and would usurpe the sword by being Lords of Counsell, and Parliament, have refused to be instructed by every Action of Christ, who would not judge betwixt brother and brother.

P. Prelate. Jephtah came to be a Iudge by Covenant, betwixt him and the Gileadites; here you have an interposed Act of man, yet the Lord himself in authorizing him as Iudge, vindicateth it no lesse to himself, then when extraordinarily he authorized Gideon and Samuel, 1 Sam. 12.11. Ergo, whatsoever act of man interveeneth, it contributeth nothing to Royall Authority, it cannot weaken or repeal it.

Answ. It was as extraordinary that Jepthah a bastard, and the sonne of an harlot, should be Iudge, as that Gideon should be Iudge. God vindicateth to himselfe, that he giveth his people favour in the eyes of their enemies; but doth it follow, that the enemies are not agents, and to be commended for their humanitie in favouring the people of God? So Psal. 65.9, 10. God maketh corne to grow; therefore clouds, and earth, and sun, and summer, and husbandry contributeth nothing to the growing of corne. But this is but that which he said before. We grant that this is an eminent and singular act of Gods speciall providence, that he moveth and boweth the wills of a great multitude to promote such a man who by nature commeth no more out of the wombe a crowned King, then the poorest shepherd in the land: and it is an act of grace to endue him with heroick and royall parts for the government. But what is all this? doth it exclude the peoples consent? in no wayes. So the works of supernaturall grace, as to love Christ above all things, to beleeve in Christ in a singular manner, are ascribed to the rich grace of God: but can the Prelate say, that the understanding and will in these acts are meere patients, and contribute no more then the people contributeth to Royall authority in the King, and that is just nothing, by the Prelates way? And we utterly deny, that as water in baptisme hath no action at all in the working of remission of sinnes, so the people hath no influence in making a King, for the people are worthier, more excellent then the King, and they have an active power of ruling and directing themselves toward the intrinsecall end of humane policie, which is the externall safety and peace of a societie, in so far as there are morall principles of the Second Table for this effect written in their heart, and therefore that royall authoritie, which by Gods speciall providence, is united in one King, and as it were overgilded and lustered with Princely grace and royall endowments, is diffused in the people, for the people hath an after-approbative consent in making a King, as Royalists confesse, water hath no such action in producing grace.

QUEST. IX. Whether or no Soveraigntie is so from the people, that it remaineth in them in some part, so as they may in case of necessitie resume it? (1)

THe Prelate will have it Babylonish confusion, that we are divided in opinion. Jesuites (saith he) place all Soveraigntie in the communitie. Of the Sectaries; some warrant any one subject to make away his King, and that such a worke is no lesse to be rewarded then when one killeth a wolfe: Some say, this power is in the whole Communitie: some will have it in the collective body, not conveened by warrant or writ of Soveraignty, but when necessitie (which is often fancied) of reforming State and Church, calleth them together. Some in the Nobles and Peeres, some in the three Estates assembled by the Kings writ, some in the inferour Iudges.

I answer: If the Prelate were not a Iesuite himselfe, he would not bid his brethren take the mote out of their eye: but there is nothing here said but which Barclaius said better before this Plagarius. To which I answer, We teach that any private man may kill a a Tyrant voyd of all title: and a great Royalist Barclaius saith so also. And if he have not the consent of the people, he is an usurper, for we know no externall lawfull calling that Kings have now, or their familie to the Crown, but only the call of the people; all other calls to us are now invisible and unknown, and God would not command us to obey Kings, and leave us in the darke, that we shall not know who is the King: the Prelate placeth his lawfull calling to the Crown in such an immediate, invisible, and subtile act of omnipotencie, as that whereby God conferreth remission of sinnes by sprinkling with water in baptisme, and that whereby God directed Samuel to annoint Saul and David, not Eliab, nor any other brother. It is the Devill in the P. P. not any of us, who teach that any private man may kill a lawfull King, though tyrannous in his government. For the subject of Royall power, we affirme, the first, and ultimate, and native subject of all power is the Communitie, as reasonable men naturally inclining to a societie: but the ethicall and politicall subject, or the legall and positive receptacle of this power is various, according to the various constitutions of the policie. In Scotland and England, it is the three Estates of Parliament, in other Nations some other Iudges or Peeres of the Land. The Prelate had no more common sense for him to object a confusion of opinions to us,

for this, then to all the Common-wealths on earth, because all have not Parliaments, as Scotland hath; all have not Constables, and Officials, and Churchmen, Barons, Lords of Councell, Parliaments, &c. as England had. But the truth is, the Communitie orderly conveened, as it includeth all the Estates civill, have hand, and are to act in choosing their Rulers: I see not what priviledge Nobles have above Commons in a Court of Parliament, by Gods law; but as they are Iudges, all are equally Iudges, and all make up one congregation of Gods. But the question now is, if all power of governing (the Prelate, to make all the people Kings, saith, if all Soveraignty) be so in the people, that they retaine power to guard themselves against Tyranny? And, if they reteine some of it, habitu, in habit, and in their power? I am not now unseasonably, according to the Prelates order, to dispute of the power of lawfull defence against tyranny; but I lay down this maxime of Divinitie; Tyranny being a worke of Sathan, is not from God, because sinne either habituall or actuall, is not from God; the power that is, must be from God; the Magistrate as Magistrate, is good, in nature of office, and the intrinsecall end of his office, Rom. 13.4. for he is the Minister of God for thy good; and therefore a power ethicall, politick, or morall, to oppresse, is not from God, and is not a power, but a licentious deviation of a power, and is no more from God, but from sinfull nature, and the old serpent, then a license to sinne: God in Christ giveth pardons of sinne; but the Pope, not God, giveth dispensations to sinne. 2. To this adde, If for nature to defend it selfe be lawfull, no Communitie, without sin, hath power to alienate and give away this power: for as no power given to man to murther his brother, is of God, so no power to suffer his brother to be murthered, is of God; and no power to suffer himselfe (à fortiori) far lesse can be from God. Here I speake not of physicall power, for if free will be the creature of God, a physicall power to acts which in relation to Gods law are sinfull, must be from God.

But I now follow the P. Prelate. Some of the adversaries,

as Buchanan, say that the Parliament hath no power to make a law, but only a [gap] without the approbation of the Communitie. Others, as the the Observator, say, that the right of the Gentry and Communalty is intirely in the Knights and Burgesses of the House of Commons, and will have their Orders irrevocable. If then the common people cannot resume their power, and oppose the Parliament,

how can Tables and Parliaments resume their power, and resist the King?

Answ. The ignorant man should have thanked Barclaius for this Argument, and yet Barclaius need not thanke him, for it hath not the nerves that Barclaius gave it. But I answer, 1. if the Parliament should have been corrupted by fair hopes (as in our age we have seene the like) the people did well to resist the Prelates obtruding the Masse Booke, when the Lords of the Counsell pressed it against all Law of God and man, upon the Kingdome of Scotland, and therefore it is denyed that the Acts of Parliament are irrevocable, the observator said they were irrevocable by the King, he being but one man, the P. Prelate wrongeth him, for he said onely, they have the power of a Law, and the King is obliged to consent, by his Royall Office to all good Lawes, and neither King nor people may oppose them. Buchanan said Acts of Parliament are not Lawes obliging the people till they be promulgated, and the peoples silence when they are promulgated is their approbation, and maketh them obligatory Lawes to them; but if the people speak against unjust Lawes, they are not Lawes at all, and Buchannan knew the power of the Scottish Parliament, better then this ignorant Statist. 2. There is not like reason to grant so much to the King, as to Parliaments, because certainly Parliaments who make Kings under God, or above any one man, and they must have more authority and wisedome then any one King, except Solomon (as base flatterers say) should returne to the thrones of the earth. And as the power to make just Lawes is all in the Parliament, only the people have power to resist tyrannicall Lawes, the power of all the Parliament was never given to the King, by God, the Parliament are as essentially Iudges as the King, and therefore the Kings deed may well be revoked, because he acteth nothing as King; but united with his great or lesser Councell, no more then the eye can see, being separated from the body. The Peeres and Members of Parliament have more then the King, because they have both their owne power, being parts and speciall Members of the people, and also they have their high places in Parliament, either from the peoples expresse, or tacite consent. 3. We allow no Arbitrary power to the Parliament, because their just Lawes are irrevocable, for the irrevocable power of making just Lawes doth argue a legall, not an irreovocable Arbitrary power; nor is there any arbitrary power in the people, or in any mortall man, but of the Covenant betwixt King and people hereafter.

P. Prelate, If Soveraigne power be habitually in the community so,

as they may resume it at their pleasure, then nothing is given to the King but an empty title, for at the same instant he receiveth Empire and Soveraignty, and layeth downe the power to rule or determine in matters which concerne either private or publick good, and so he is both a King and a Subject. Ans. This naked consequence the Prelate sayeth, and proveth not, and we deny it, and give this reason, the King receiveth Royall power with the States to make good Lawes, and 2. power by his royalty to execute those Lawes, and this power the community hath devolved in the hands of the King, and States of Parliament, but the community keepeth to themselves a power to resist tyranny, and to coerce it, and [gap]atenus in so far is Saul subject, that David is not to compeare before him, nor to lay downe Goliahes sword, nor disband his Army of defence, though the King should command him so to doe.

P. Prelate. By all Polititians, Kings,

and enferiour Magistrates are differenced by their different specifice entity, but by this they are not differenced; nay a Magistrate is in a better condition then a King, for the Magistrate is to judge by a knowne Statute and Law, and cannot be censured and punished but by Law. But the King is censurable, yea disabled by the multitude, yea the basest of subjects may cite, and convent the King, before the underived Majesty of the community, and he may be judged by the Arbitrary Law th[gap]t is in the closet of their heart, not only for reall misdemeanour, but for fancied jealousies—It will be said, good Kings are in no danger—the contrary appeareth this day, and ordinarily the best are in greatest danger; no Government except Plato'es Republick wanteth incommodities, subtile spirits may make them, apprehend them. The poore people bewitched, follow Absolom in his treason, they strike not at Royalty at first, but labour to make the Prince, naked of the good counsell of great Statesmen, &c.

Ans. Whether the King and the under Magistrate differ essentially, we shall see. The P. Prelate saith all Polititians grant it, but he saith untruth; he bringeth Moses, and the Iudges, their power to prove the power of Kings; and so either the Iudges of Israel and the Kings differ not essentially, or then the Prelate must correct the spirit of God tearming one booke of Scripture [gap] Kings, and another [gap] Iudges, and make the booke of Kings the booke of Iudges. 2. The Magistrates condition is not better then the Kings, because the Magistrate is to judge by an knowne Statute and

Law, and the King not so. God moulded the first King, Deut. 17.18. when he sitteth judging on his Throne, to looke to a written Coppy of the Law of God, as his rule. Now a power to follow Gods Law is better then a power to follow mans sinfull will: so the Prelate putteth the King in a worse condition then the Magistrate, not we, who will have the King to judge according to just statutes and lawes. 3. Whether the King be censurable and deposable by the multitude, he cannot determine out of our writings. 4. The communities law is the law of nature, not their arbitrary lust. 5. The Prelates treasonable raylings, I cannot follow; he first saith, that we agree not ten of us to a positive faith, and that our faith is negative, but his faith is Privative, Popish, Socinian, Arminian, Pelagian and worse, for he was once of that same faith that we are of. 2. Our Confession of Faith is positive, as the confession of all the reformed Churches, but I judge he thinketh the Protestant Faith of all the reformed Churches but negative. 3. The incommodities of Government before our reformation were not fancied, but printed by Authority, all the body of Popery was printed, and avowed as the Doctrine of the Church of Scotland and England, as the learned Author, and my much respected brother evidenceth in his Ludensium, [gap], The Canterburian selfe conviction. 4. The Parliament of England was never yet found guilty of Treason. 5. The good Counsellers of great States-men, that Parliaments of both Kingdomes would take from the Kings Majesty, are a faction of perjured Papists, Prelates, Iesuites, Irish cut-throates, Strafords, and Apostate subverters of all Lawes divine, humane, of God, of Church, of State.

P. Prelate. In whom so ever this power of Government be, it is the onely remedy to supply all defects, and to set right what ever is disjoynted in Church and State, and the subject of this super-intending power must be free from all errour in Iudgement and Practice, and so we have a Pope in temporalibus; and if the Parliament erre, the people must take order with them, else God hath left Church and State remedilesse. Ans. This is stollen from Barclaius also; 1. but the same Barclaius saith, Si Rex regnum suum alienae ditioni manciparit, regno cadit. If the King shall sell his Kingdome, or inslave it to a forraigne power, he falleth from all right to his Kingdome: but who shall execute any such Law against him, not the people, not the Peeres, not the Parliament; for this Mancipium ventris & aulae, this slave

saith, p. 147. I know no power in any to punish or curbe Soveraignty, but in Almighty God. 2. We see no super-intending power on earth in King or people infallible, nor is the last power of taking order with a Prince who inslaveth his Kingdome to a forraigne power placed by us in the people, because they cannot erre; Court flatterers, who teach that the will of the Prince is the measure of all right and wrong, of Law and no Law; and above all Law must hold that the King is a temporall Pope, both in Ecclesiasticall and Civill matters; but because they cannot so readily destroy themselves, (the law of Nature having given to them a contrary internall principle of selfe preservation) as a Tyrant who doth care for himselfe, and not for the people. 3. And because Extremis morbis extrema remedia in an extraordinary exigent, when Achab and Iezabell did undoe the Church of God, and Tyrannize over both the bodies and consciences of Priest, Prophet, and people, Elias procured the convention of the States, and Elias with the peoples helpe killed all Baals Priests, the King looking on, and no question, against his heart. In this case I thinke its more then evident that the people resumed their power. 4. We teach not that people should supply all defects in Government, nor that they should use their power when any thing is done amisse by the King, no more then the King is to cut off the whole people of God, when they refuse an Idolatrous service obtruded upon them against all Law; the people is to suffer much before they resume their power, but this Court slave will have the people to doe what he did not himselfe, for when King and Parliament summoned him, was he not obliged to appeare? Non-compearance when lawfull, royall, and Parliamentory power summoneth, is no lesse resistance, then taking of Forts and Castles.

P. Prelate. Then this super-intending power in people, may call a King to accompt, and punish him for any misdemeanour, or act of injustice. Why might not the people of Israels Peeres, or Sanedrin have convented David before them, judged and punished him for his Adultery with Bathsheba, and his murther of Uriah▪ but it is holden by all, that Tyranny should be an intended universall, totall, manifest destruction of the whole Common-wealth, which cannot fall in the thoughts of any but a mad man. What is recorded in the Story of Nero his wish in this kind, may be rather judged the expression of transported passion, then a fixed resolution.

Ans. The P. Prelate contrary to the scope of his booke, which is