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 ...

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 ru∣ling civill power under himselfe, is the whole people or body po¦liticke.

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 li∣mit, as is proved by Junius, Brutus, Bucherius, Althasius, Haeno∣mus. Therefore Heming, Amiceus doe well distinguish between Ple∣bem & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, populum: for indeed the multitude (excluding the States) or base of the people, can hardly have another law against i ty∣rant, 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 Rex, The Kingdome is more worth then the King, approved by all. Thus farre Doctor Rutherford, pro∣fessor of Divinity in Scotland. The reasons of my position are these:

First, when God gave the power of the Sword to men, Gen. 9 6. he gave it indiscriminatim, without difference, to all the world, Noah and his sonnes being all the men that were then alive in the world; and he gave not the Sword onely to Noah, but to all his sonnes that then were upon the face of the earth; not that every one might ordinarily use it, but that they might, as they thought fit, appoint one or more who might exercise that power that was given to all, as the first seat of it.

Secondly, because the power of ruling and governing is natu∣rall, and what ever is naturall, doth first agree to the communitie, or totum, and afterward to the particular person or part, as the power of seeing and hearing (ask Facultas Parisiensis observes to this purpose) is firstly in the man and from the man in the eye or eare or particular member.

Thirdly, because the Fluxus and Refluxus of civill authoritie, is from and to the people: If the authority of ruling in a Com∣monwealth be given by the people to him that ruleth (I speake what is Jure & Regulariter) and returneth to them againe to see

justice done in case that there is no particular supreme Magistrate left to rule then the first subject seat and receptable of ruling po∣wer must needs be in the people. Now so it is, that both these are true, which I shall prove one after another: As first, The Fluxus of civill authority is from the people, civill government or authority is derived from the people to the Prince, or him that ru∣leth: they ordinarily and regularly doe and are to communicate that governing power where with such or such a person is so in∣vested: therefore saith the Lord, D••ut. 17. 14. 15. When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possesse it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a King over me, like as all the nations that are about me, thou shalt in any wise set him King over thee whom the Lord thy God shall chuse, thou shalt not set a stranger over thee whi h is not thy brother.

Where we shall see, that the whole power of appointing and setting a King over them, was given unto that people (as other Nations had it) by God himselfe. For first, God directing them herein, doth not say thus: When thou dwellest in the land which I shall give thee, Take heed that thou do not set a King over thee, which thing belongs not to thee; but as a matter belonging to the people, he saith, when thou shalt say, I will set a King over me, be sure that he be a good one, and such as is pleasing to me. Secondly, In that he doth take away the power from them of making a stranger, he granteth them a power to make a brother, asl Mendoza well observes. Now saith God to them, thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Thirdly, what can be more plaine then the words themselves? In the 15. verse the words are reduplicated, Ponendo pones, according to the Hebrew, in placing thou shalt place: And that there might bee no mistake in the matter, God is pleased to explaine the former word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate, set or place, by an afterward in the ••5. verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to give, Thus, thou mai••st not give a stranger over thee, so that setting and giving in these two verses, are all one, shewing that is firstly in the people to set or give a power unto others to rule over them. Secondly the A∣postle Peter calis this civill power 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Now it is not therefore called so, onely because it concerns men, or because it is conversant about men, or appointed for the good of men: for then the governmentm of the Church also should be so called but because the way of governing is raised appointed, established by

man himselfe, as is observed out of Oecumeniusn. Thirdly, this derivation of authority from the people will appeare also, if men do seriously consider the state of Jewish government. There was no people nnder heaven whom God did so immediatly reigne over, as their King; yet if we observe those Kings that were the most immediatly appointed by God himselfe, we shall finde the intervening choice of the people, insomuch as it is said of Saul expresly, that the people did chuse him, 1 Sam. 12. 13. Behold your King whom you have chosen and desired, upon which words Mendoza observes, that by the word chosen cannot be meant desi∣red, because that word was added too, as different from the for∣mer, yet it is said, 1 Sam. 11. 15. That all the people went to Gilgall, and there they made Saul King: Whereupon, sayeso Mendoza, What is more plain? Neither could they make him King otherwise, then by conferring Kingly power upon him. I doe not say that God did not make a designation of his person to the Crowne, there is much difference between the designation of person, and collation of power. When the Israelites were under the government ofthe Judges, they desired & chose a new way of government, saying to Samuel: Now make us a King to judge us, like all the Nations, 1. Sam. 8 5. And when God had yeelded to them, and had de∣signed Saul over them, the people also came in with their electi∣on and sufftages. Neither are these two, Gods designation and mans election repugnant, but may stand together: For as Zeppe∣rus observes on those words, Deut. 17.p Thou shalt set over thee a man whom God shall choose; the election may be of God, the constitution, susception and comprobation of the people by their suffrages. And Car. Scribaniusq who purposely writes of the forme and manner of the Jewes government and Common-wealth, speaks abundantly and plainly thus: But for that which concernes the creation of the King of Israel, he was first (saith he) created by the suffrages of the whole peo∣ple. And if God would have it so then among the children of Is∣rael, whom he intended in speciall manner to reigne over him∣selfe, much more may we thinke that God would have the first constitution of Kingdomes to be so ordered now, and amongst other people: Wherefore I conclude this, That the Prince doth and ought at first to receive his government and authoritie from the people, and that the people themselves do give it to him. And if so, then the first seat and subject of civill government, is the people:r For that nothing can give that to another, which it hath not it selfe first either formally or virtually.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

And now secondly, for the reflux of authority, so it is, that in case there have been a supreme Magistrate in a State, and all par∣ticulars cease, and the Royall line be spent▪ and justice to be exe∣cuted, it returnes to the whole body to see to it. As when Josua and divers Judges had ruled in Israel yet we read that after them, Judg. 19 1. There was no King in Israel, and then was the great sinne committed by the men of Gibeah with the Levites Con∣cubine: whereupon all Israel did take the sword of justice, and they said Judg. 20. 13. to the men of Gibea, Deliver us the men the children of Belial, which are in Gibea, that we may put them to death; which Gibea refusing, they did all as one man, goe up in Armes against them, God himselfe approving their act. And what had all Israel to doe to execute justice, if the power of the Sword did not returne to the people, vacante magistratu supremo: Neither can it be objected, that though Israell had no King and supreme Magistrate amongst them, yet they had severall heads of the Tribes, by whose power they did come together for the execution of justice, as it might seeme to be Judges. 20. 2. For sometimes the chiefe of the Tribes doth in Scripture phrase signi∣fie those that are chiefe in age, wisedome and riches, not such as were chiefe in authority. Besides, this action is imputed to all the people, there being foure hundred thousand men that came together upon this designe, vers. 2, unto whom the Levite made his com∣plaint, vers 7. Yee are all children of Israel, give here your advice and counsell And all the people arose as one man, vers 8 saying vers. 9. Now this shall be the thing we will doe to Gibea, and vers 11 So all the men of Israel were gathered against Gibea. And least that any should thinke that this worke was done by the power of some re∣maines of regall authority amongst them, it is not onely said be∣fore this work begun, that there was no King in Israel in those dayes▪ Judg. 19 1. But after all was done▪ i is said further chap. 21. 25. In those dayes there was no King in Israel, and every man did that which was right in his owne eyes; so that Jus gladii, the right of the sword, in case of defection, returneth to them again, so far as to see that justice be duly executed: And therefore if both the Flu∣xus and Refluxus of authority, be from and to the people, then must they needs be under God the first seat, subject and recepta∣cle of civill power.

Object. But the Scripture tells us, that the powers that be are or∣dained of God Rom. 13 1. And it ordained of God, then not of man, nor by any Fluxus, or appointment from or of man.

Ans. Not to speake of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies ra∣ther

ordered then ordained: Government is of God two wayes, either by immediate donation, as that of Moses, or by mediate derivation, as that of Iudges, and the Kings of Israel. The go∣vernment of Princes now is not by immediate donation or de∣signation, but by mediate derivation, and so it is both of God and man too, as Fortescue speakes, Quicquid facit causa secunda, facit & causa prima.

But the Doctor tells us, that Kings at first were not by choice of the people, but that election was a defection from, and a disturbance to that naturall way of descent of governing Kingly power by a paternall right, pag. 9. of his Reply. That Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of man, as Democracie and Aristocracie are; but that it is ra∣ther ductunaturae, though not jure naturae, we being led there unto through the veines of Nature in a paternall or fatherly rule, pag. 8. as is plaine by the Booke of God, that the first fathers of mankinde, were the first Kings and Rulers: For we see (saith he) that the earth was divided amongst Noah and his three sonnes, and still as they increased, new Colonies were sent out, who had the government both Regall and Sacerdotall, by primogeniture; whence it appeares, (saith he) that Monarchy was the first government, it being late ere any popular rule Aristocraticall or Democraticall appeared in the world: And that Monarchy, how ever we cannot say that it was jure divino, yet it was exemplo divino, the government which God set up over his people, being Monarchicall still in Moses, Judges and the Kings of Israel, pag. 8.

Ans. First, whereas the D^r saith, that the first Kings were not by the choice of the people at the first, p. 8. And that popular election was a kinde of defection from and a disturbance to that naturall way, &c. I refer Doctor Fern unto Doctor Fern, who saith both in his first and se∣cond book, pag. 67. of his Reply, It is probable that Kings at first were by election here as elswhere. This I have spoke to already, and shall speak to yet afterwards; neither doe we take it unkindly that the Doctor cannot agree with us, seeing he cannot agree with himselfe.

Secondly, whereas he saith, Monarchicall government is not a meere invention of Man, as Aristocracie and Democracie are, I refer him to what he saith himselfe: For in his first booke, pag. 13. 14. he saith:

We must distinguish power it selfe, and the qualification of that power in severall formes of government: If we consider the quali∣fication of this governing power, and the manner of executing it, accor∣ding to the severall formes of government, we granted it before to

be the invention of man. And when such a qualification or forme is or∣derly agreed upon, wee say it hath Gods permissive approbation.

Yet in his Reply he makes this forme of Monarchicall government, rather an appointment of God, both ducta natura, and exemplo di∣vino, and not a meere invention of man, as other formes of go∣vernment are. Here I must leave him to agree with himselfe.

Thirdly, whereas he saith;

That the first Fathers of mankinde, were the first Kings and Rulers: for we see the earth divided amongst Noahs three sonnes, &c.

I referre him for information to the 1 Chron. 1▪ 10. where it is said expressely of Nimrod, that hee be∣gan to be mighty upon the earth; whereas if Noah and his sonnes were Kings, their dominions being greater before the d••vision of the earth into after Colonies, they should have been more migh∣ty then he. And what his might was▪ is declared to us, Gen. 10. 10. And the beginning of his kingdome was Babel, &c. Here is the first time, as Mendoza well observes, that we read of a kingdome after the flood, and that is marked with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rebellavit: For Nimrod comes of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to rebell, as if in erecting his Kingdome, he had rebelled against the way of government which before wasused if not appointed. And it should seem strange if God had appointed that way of government by making the sonnes of Noah Kings; that Cham, from whom came Nimrod, who was that cursed and wicked posterity of Noah, should keep that go∣vernment alive which was set up by God; and that Shem, who was the godly posterity of Noah, from whom came Abram, should not: for we read not that Abraham was a King, or that his government was Monarchical▪ but rather the contrary, as 1 Chro. 1. 43. Now these are the Kings that reigned in the land of Edom, be∣fore any King reigned over the children of Israel. To this purpose Mendozas writeth who saith, Before the descent into Egypt, the Jewes did not constitute a Common-wealth, but a family: for (as Ari∣stotle) a Common-wealth doth not arise but from a conjunction of many families; but the•• Abrahams family was one, to which Isaac's succee∣ded, and to that the house of Jacob. And although in Jacobs time, af∣ter severall marriages there sp••ang up divers families (the government of all which could not be Occonom••••al•• or Domesticall) yet were there not so many families as could constitute any politicall Common-wealth,

but a middle kinde of Community, which is called Vitalis, or Col∣lectanea. Yea in Sect. 6. he proves out of Austine, Anton. Isidore, that Kingly government fell in the fourth age of the world: and therefore Rupertus compares the fourth Age of the world to the fourth day of the creation,t Because as that did shine with starres, so this with Kings.

And whereas the Doctor tells us, that

this Regall Monar∣chicall government is naturall, though not jure, yet ductu naturae, we being led thereunto through the veines of Nature, in a paternall or fatherly rule, as is plaine by the Booke of God, that the first Fathers of mankinde were Kings, and so Regall government to descend upon the first borne by primogeniture, as their families increased and spread further, &c.

pag. 8.

I referre him to what Molina and Pineda say,u Molina will tell him, that power is of two sorts, some that hath its rise ex solo jure naturali, and therefore called naturall, as the po∣wer of the Father over his children, and those that descend from him: Other power there is, which hath its origination from the will of Men, they being willing to subject themselves to the su∣preame, and is therefore called a civill power. So that paternall and civill power are not the same, but have two originals.

And if Monarchicall government should bee by pater∣nall right, then is it not onely ductu, sed jure naturae; ductus naturae is that whereby wee are led to any thing by the principles of Nature: and that which wee are led to by the principles of Nature, is jure naturae: For naturale est (sayes the Philosopher) quod fluit ex principiis naturae. And so the Membra dividentia should interfeere, whereas they ought to be fully opposite. Besides, if paternall govern∣ment doe lead us to Regall, and Monarchicall, then Kings should and ought to rule as arbitrarily in their Kindomes, as Fathers doe in their Families: And if subjects doe deny this Arbitrary power to them, they sinne, because they are led thereunto by Nature, and so all the Kingdomes of the world should he in this sinne: for in what Kingdome of the world doth a King rule as arbitrarily as a Father in his fa∣mily.

Again, this contrivance of government by the Doctor, supposes that the eldest Man, or Father after the Flood,

though he were never so silly and weake, should be King, and that this Regall government must necessarily descend upon the first borne, by vertue of primogeniture.

For this I referre him to Pineda, where at large in his Booke de rebus Salomonis, he may read Pineda proving that among the Israelites the Crown did not descend upon the first born, but was alwayes disposed of according to the will of the parent, appointing it to this or that childe; where he brings in Abulensis retracting his opinion, and profes∣sing, that though he did formerly thinke that the Crowne did descend upon the first borne, by vertue of primogeni∣ture, yet at the last he was of another sentence, because it is said, 1 Chron. 5. 1. 2. Ruben the first borne of Israel, because he defiled his Fathers bed, his birthright was given to the sonnes of Joseph; yet verse 2. Juda prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chiefe Rulers.

Now as they argue, if the Crowne belonged to the first borne, as part of the Birthright that should have been gi∣ven unto the sonnes of Joseph; unto whom it is here said expressely the Birthright was given: but the rule and Crowne was given unto another Tribe, arguing that it was no part of the birthright, or any necessary annexum to the primogeniture in those dayes.

This doctrine Pineda proves by examining the series of all the Kings, instancing especially in Solomon who was ap∣pointed King by David, notwithstanding he was not Davids eldest sonne; and Abiah who was appointed by Rehoboam, though Rehoboam had many elder children▪ as he clears from 2 Chron. 11 18, 19, 20, 21 22.

Fifthly, whereas the Doctor saith, This Monarchicall go∣vernment was the first government that God set up; In Moses, Judges, and Kings of Israel, and so though not jure divino, yet exemplo divino. I consesse I cannot but wonder at the con∣ceit,

seeing the difference between the government of Judges and Kings is so abundantly made out by Car. Sigonius, Fe∣verdentius, Ranervus, Abulensis, and many others (a) Si∣gonius saith expresly, the first government among the Hebrews was by the chiefe of the people, and after by Kings, that by the Greeks being, called Aristocracie, and this Monarchie; Aristo∣cracie, saith he, was under the Judges, Joshua, and others, Mo∣narchie under Kings, which Aristocraticall government of theirs is signified to us by these words in Deut. 12. 1. 8. These are the statutes and judgements which ye shall observe to do in the Land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Verse 1. then verse 8. Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man what∣soever is right in his own eyes. And indeed if the Israelites were under Monarchicall government in the times of the Judges and Monarchie was then on foot; why should they desire it as another kind of government which yet they had not, 1. Sam. 8. saying to Samuel, Now make us a King to judge us like all the Nations: verse 5. By which it appeares that the go∣vernment which they had before under the Judges was not Monarchicall as that which they had afterwards.

Let no man therefore swallow this principle so often in∣culcated by the Doctor, that the government of Israel un∣der Judges was Monarchicall. For though some of the Judges were called Kings, yet as Drusius and others observe, the word King was taken either more strictly for Monarchs, or more largely for such Captains and Governours as did rule over them; Surely God at the first, by all we can read in the Scripture, was pleased to appoint Magistracie it selfe and left the children of men free to set up that way and forme of government, which in prudence might best cor∣respond 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.

Notes

• i

  Ioh. Brut. q. 3. Bucher. lib. 1. p. 6. Althusius po∣lit. cap. 15. Henomius po∣lit. dis. 2. 1 1. 6 Isod. lib. 9. Origen cont. Celsum. cap. 9. Aristot. polit. lib. 1. c. 3. Plato de Rep. cap. 8. Livi lib 4. Aeneus Silvi∣us de gestis Concil. Basil. Vide Ruther∣ford in his plea for Pres∣bytery, chap. 4. pag. 46.
• k

  Vulgare est atque indu∣btratum fidei axioma Deum & naturam prius atque immediat us ad totam suppositum quam ad aliquam partem suppositi quam∣vis nobilissimam intendere; eum que ob causam faccultatem videndi datum esse bomini ut per ocu∣lum tanquam per organum & ministrum hominis exerceretur; namoculus per & propter homi∣nem exist it. Facultas Parifiensis de pol. Eccles▪ Et istudetiam deduci potest ex Thom Aquin. 2. 2••. q▪ 64. Omnis enim pars ordinatur ad totum, cujus est pars vel imperfectum ad perfectnm, & sisalutitotius corporis expediat abscissio alicujus membri puta quia est putridum aut cetero∣rum infectivum in toto corpore residet potestatem illud perscmdendi. Quid ergo quelibet persona comparetur ad totam communitatem sicut pars ad totum, ideo si aliquis sit pernitiosus in commu∣nitate laudabiliter a communitate interimitur. Almain. de authorit. Ecclef. apud Gers. cap. 1.
• l

  Auferendo potestatem ad faciendum ex∣ternum suppo∣nit ad facien∣dum natura∣lem nam qui potestarem so∣lam excipit ad regem ex pere∣grina natione constituendum plane illam supponit ad constituendum expropria. Mendoza in Sam. 1. 8. 12.
• m

  Et sic ••angitur prima differen∣tia inter has duas potest a∣tes quia Ec∣clesiastica estimmediate a Ob▪ sto instituente, sed laua quamvis sit a D••o ex ordinatione quan∣tum ad debitum nu••qu••m tamene••. a Leo regula••iter & immediate instituendum. Almain. de potest. Ecccles. & laic cap. 1.
• n

  Vocatur hu∣man a ordina∣tio non respe∣ctuprime ori∣ginis & prin∣cipalis causae efficient is, sed respectu cause instrumenta∣lis, quia per bo∣minem sapius constituitur magistratus ut Oecume∣num in Com∣meut. huma∣nam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 opponit per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quod constitutus & positus sit ma∣gistratus ab hominibus Deo tamen sic in∣nuente & san∣ctiente Gererd loc. com. fol. 481.
• o

  Quil aper∣tius neque e∣nim videtur aliter eum Re∣gem fa••ere po∣tuisse quam ei regiam potesta∣tem conferen∣do. Mendoza 1 Sam. 8.
• p

  Ʋbielectio regis Deo con∣stitutio suscep∣tio velcompro∣batio populi suffragiis tri∣buitur. Zeppe∣perus leg. Mo∣saic. Forens explan▪ lib. 3. cap 7.
• q

  Qnod autem adcreationemipertinet creatus est primum s••ffragiis populi universi▪ &c. Car. Scr. de rep Hebr l. 7. c. 3.
• r

  Ergo illa authorit as est perprius in communitate quia nemo alteridet quod non habet. 〈…〉〈…〉
• s

  Ante dis∣censum in E∣gyptum in quo Hebraei non Ren publicam sed samiliam constituebat; Nam (ut A∣ri••t) non nisi ex multis sa∣miliis coales••it respub▪ tune autem una erat Abrah••e domus, in quam successit Isaac, & in bane do∣mus Jacob, & quamvis in tempore Jacob: post connub••a plures ••am familtae darentur, quarum omnium gubernatio non potuit esse Oeconomica, ta••en non e••ant it a m••ltae u•• politicum Rem∣publicum▪ conflarent, sed medtant quandam commitatem quam vitalem seu collectaneam appellant. Mendoza 1 Tom. Annot. 3. Proem. Sect. 10.
• t

  Quia ut hec sideribus, it a illa regibus fulgurant. 6. Sect Proem.
• u

  Quaedam namque pote∣st as est quae ortum babet ex solo jure naturali, quae de causa pote∣stas naturalis dicitur talis est potest as pa∣tris in filios & in alios descendentes alia vero est quae ortum babet ex bominum volun∣tatibus se illi subjicere voluntium & idcirco civilis potest as dicitur-Molina de Jure & Just. Disp. 20. Tract. 2.
• Ex succeden∣tium line•• in qua paucissimos invenies pri∣mogenitos succedentes parentibus, qua e Abu∣lensis aperte satetur se re∣tractare com∣munem senten∣tiam quam ipse aliquan∣de sequutus fuisset, & jam tunc asserere successionem in regnum aut principatum nunquam fuisse ••lligatum ••ut debitum primogenitis, & confirmat ex to quod Paralip. 1. 5. 1 Primogenita Ruben data fuere Josept, Fili••s & tamen Juda regnabat. Pineda derebus Salomonis, lib. 2. cap. 1. Ipsonatur•• jure omnes aequaltter Filios Patri succedere do••uit. Arist 7 Ethick. Decreto item & voluntate divina indiscriminatim Salomonis posteritati pollicetar. Dem regnum sed ub••plures erunt filii ad solum parentis voluntatem spectasse videntur.

  Abulensis addit posteriorum regum tempore invalescente consuetudinem b••reditarium regni jus ad primogenitos devolutum esse; Ego vero perpetuum fuisse existimo ut regni successor expar••utis a rbitrto & voluntate penderet ut ex serie regum patet. Pineda lib. 2. de rebus Salomonis cap 1. 2. 3.
• a

  Ceterum cum deforma Rei∣pub. quaritur nibil aliud quaeritur nisi penes quem principatum summa rerum fuerit consti∣tuta; hae•• vero apud Haebreos primum penes optimates po∣sita fuit dein∣de penes Reges quorum princi∣patum illum Aristacr••cian, hoc regnum Greci voca∣runt, Aristo∣cratia suit sub Mose, Iosua, ••••••ioribus & Indicibus, reg••um sub re∣g••bus de Ari∣sto••ratia 〈…〉〈…〉 non fa∣cietis, &c. Car. Sigon. li▪ 1. ca. 5.