Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A77907
|
A caveat for subjects, moderating the Observator. Wherein his chiefest arguments are confuted, the Kings iust prerogative manitained [sic]: and the priviledge of the subiect no wayes preiudiced: by William Ball, Gent.
|
Ball, William.
|
1642
(1642)
|
Wing B587; Thomason E118_7; ESTC R19366
|
9,502
|
16
|
A CAVEAT FOR SVBJECTS Moderating the Observator WHEREIN His chiefest Arguments are confuted the Kings iust Prerogative manitained and the Priviledge of the Subiect no wayes Preiudiced By William Ball Gent. Printed at London 1642. A Caveat for Subiects IT is usuall I know for Bookes to have Prefaces and Playes Prologues but whosoever peruseth this must expect nothing but concise reasons forasmuch as Vnusquisque suo sensu abundat so let him reflect and censure of this at his pleasure The Observator pag. 1. saith That power is originally inherent in the people c. To this the answer is that power is in God primario per se according to that of the Apostle Rom. 13. and in the King or people but only secundario derivative Power or dominion is not a gift of Nature that is to say naturally inherent in us for if it were then might all men have equal power for that by nature we are all equall but power is a gift of God to Nature and is gratia gratis data and yet power is congruous in nature as was the power of King and office of Priesthood in Melchisedec for surely he had them both given or appointed to him by God being by interpretation King of Righteousnes and King of Peace Heb. 2.7 And therefore it is not likely that he usurped to himselfe the Regall title of King no more then he did of being Priest and yet it is very probable that it was also agreeable in Reason and Nature that although not tyrannicall yet peaceable Kingly reigne and sacred Priesthood did fitly belong to him for he is by most Divines thought to have been Sem the eldest sonne of Noah and by the law of Nature of Moses and of most Nations the eldest is to inherit so that what was the right of Adam Seth and Noah Seth and his generation began first to cal upon the name of the Lord that is to say to give to God some set forme of worship as priests did c. might belong unto him by birth-right although it may be God confirmed it unto him extraordinarily But to returne power or dominion is derived from God and congruous in Nature but the power is in the people onely when they are absolutely free to chuse to themselves what forme of government they please as were the Iewes before they subiected themselves to Kings being formerly freed from the bondage of Egypt by the singer of God The Romanes when they erected their Senate and Consuls having rebelliously for it was no better shaken off the yoke of Kings The Venetians when they first instituted their Common-wealth But in Monarchies where the people have been brought into subiection either by the sword as in Turky Persia and the like or by innate and prescribing and prevalent authority as in Florence or by both as in France and Castile in these Dominions power is not inherent in the people but in the Prince And although some hereditary Monarkes are more limited then others as is the King of France more then the great Turk and the King of England more then the King of France yet is their power derived immediately from God and inherent in themselves not in the people for those limitations are in conquered Nations but mere donatives of grace proceeding from the Prince or his successors to the people touching certaine immunities and priviledges so that the Prince his power is the efficient cause of them and such immunities or priviledges are but as materiall effects Now as it is most improper to say that the effect should cause its owne cause so is it to say that a priviledged people should cause the Princes power or that Power should remain originally in such a priviledged people Some Nations elect their Rings or Princes and restrain them farre more by conditionall inaugurations then hereditary Monarkes are or ought to bee restrained or limited Yet have not such Nations power in themselves totally but onely partially that is they have power to conditionare with their Kings or Princes how farre forth they will be subiect and by what Rules they will bee governed but they have not power to conditionate with their Kings or Princes that they will only bee subiect at their owne pleasures and as themselves shall thinke good that is to say if they please at any time to assume more liberty unto themselves and to alter and disanull former Constitutions of Government they may doe it without the consent of their Kings or Princes This they cannot doe without treason to their Crownes or Diadems For although the persons of such Princes bee elective yet is their power permanent jure constituto Coronae which though they claime not as from progenitor yet are they invested therewith as from predecessors And therefore being enthroned they enioy their dignities by prescription that is to say what belonged to their predecessors belongeth in the same manner to them being once invested nor can such Nations revolt from their elected princes without being reputed rebels Now of this nature are the Kings of Poland Hungary and some other to speake nothing of the Duke of Venice for hee is meerely titulary and a cypher and such Kings first and principally claime their authority from God the authour of all power who enspheareth them in the Orb of dignity above others And secondly they acknowledge it from the generall consent of the Nation which made choyce of them and over which they rule And surely such was the right and title of Saul the first King of Israel for hee was appointed by God 1 Sam. Chap. 9. vers 17. then annointed by Samuel chap. 10. vers 1. afterwards approved by the people ibid. vers 24. And finally confirmed in his Kingdome Chap. 11. vers 14. And in the same manner was David likewise established in his Kingdome so that their first and chiefest claime was immediately from God and their second from the consent of the people Nor is it of any consequence to alledge as the Observator seemeth to inferre page 1. that those Kings had an extraordinary institution from God and therefore they might more lawfully claime their right as appointed and appropriated to them by God For to such Allegation it will bee answered That there is no power but of God Rom. 13. So that whether God institute Kings by extraordinary or ordinary meanes it maketh no matter For although Saul and David were instituted extraordinarily by Gods speciall appointment yet most of the Kings of Iudah and Israel reigned after them but by ordinary succession had they not therefore the same power that Saul and David had Surely the Scriptures tell us they had The Priests and Prophets in the old Law had an extraordinary vocation especialy the Prophets the Priests or Ministers of the Gospel have but an ordinary vocation are they therefore defective in power to those of the old Law Or have they not their vocation from God because they have not extraordinary calling Surly no.
to Cesar in the potentiall Mood in which words no exception could have been taken and not have said give tribute to Cesar or give unto Cesar what is Cesars in the imperative mood Or otherwise when they asked him whether it were lawful to pay tribute to Cesar he might only have answered them Yes but foreseeing in his divine wisedome that some indirect constructions might be made of such a single word as Yes t is lawfull to pay it yee may pay it if yee please t is not against the law of God if ye doe pay it c. therefore Christ bid them shew him a peece of money and bid them give it unto Cesar informing the covetous minds of that perverse people that they ought and were obliged to part with their money and substance to Cesar if demanded as a tribute but 〈◊〉 let Arguments of Divinity passe and to induce a few State reasons If the people may justify force to regaine due liberty what Monarchy what Aristocracy what Popular estate can remain secure the French subiects being in generall oppressed with taxes may revolt from their King if this Tenet be good and so may the Spanish the Polish Peasants may rebell against the King and their Lords for that they hold them in villinage and the Townsmen and Boores in Holland and the Pisani in Venice against the States for their imposing on them terrible excizes This Tenet or Position may quadrate it may bee with the Irish rebels for they pretend by force to regaine due liberty but never with loyall subiects And surely this Tenet or Position aforesaid is dangerous to all the Monarchies and States of the world I even to Parliaments themselves if rightly considered and opposite also to the law of God Nations The Observator telleth us p. 13. that where the people by publick authority will seek an inocnvenience to themselves and the King is not so much interested as themselves it is more inconvenience to deny it then grant it This is a strange assertion and against all rule of Monarchicall government Suppose for a supposition is no fallasie that a Christian people should generally which God forbid desire to revolt from Christianity to Mahometanisme should their King grant it they seeme to bee more interessed then the King because it concernes their salvation or damnation is it iniustice therefore to deny it Surely no but most iust and acceptable to God to hinder them from it Suppose this nation should in generall wich God of his goodnes prohibit desire to turn Anabaptist Brownists whereof there are to many already is the King bound or ought he to condescend to their desires Surely no but as Gods Vice gerent to oppose such exorbitant inclinations of the people but if the Assertion of the Observator be good Pilat seems to be excusable whom the Observator condemneth in the page befoere for the Iewes sought by authority of the Priests Elders to crucifie Christ an inconvenience enough to themselves and instanced a law and that by that law he ought to die Ioh 1 9.7 and the Iewes were more interested in Christ he being their Countrey-man and subiect to their lawes as they conceived then was Pilate so that according to this assertion of the Observator it was more inconvenience and injustice for Pilate to have denied to the Iews Christ to have been crucified then to have granted it Iudica Deus The Observator saith pag. 17. The name of a King is great I confesse and worthy of great honour but is not the name of a people greater The Observator must give me leave to tell him that in Monarchies where there were or are Kings the name of a people neither was nor is greater then the name of a King Senatus populusque Romanus ceased to be and gave place to the name of Cesar The Ottoman name at this day dignifies that great Empire subiect to that family and so doth the name of Sophy the Persian The name of the House of Austria decorates their dominions and so doth that of Burbon France And I see no reason but why the name of Stewart should doe as much in England If it bee asked But what availeth the names of these great Monarchs without their Kingdomes or Dominions The answer is that Dominions are to Monarchs as it were material subiects themselves from whom their names result as Formes Now as the Forme is more worthy then its matter so is a free Monarch more worthy then his Empire in respect of dignity politicall And indeed the word Monarch infers as much for Monarchy and is derived from Monarch not Monarch from Monarchy But it may bee some will instance from hence that if it be so the good of a Monarch seems to be preserred before the good of all his subiects in generall so that a whole Kingdom or Empire should be utterly pillaged wasted and consumed rather then his treasures bee destroyed Not so for though Empires Kingdoms are but as materiall subiects and Monarchs as forms politicall yet even as in nature formes cannot subsist without matter from whose power all formes except the rationall soule are educed so in policy Monarchy cannot subsist without their people from whose subiection obedience their power is educed immediatly from God as are formes from matter by nature the good of both therefore must bee consistent together so that not salus populi alone as the Observator would have it but salus Regis populi is the true end of Monarchicall government Thus have I briefly answered the Observators chiefe arguments from whence all his other assertions and conclusions are drawne desiring him and all others rather to study how to produce reasons for obedience where it is due to Monarchs then to derogate from Monarchicall government to endeavour how to incline not to disaffect by nice positions the distracted mindes of the people towards the King to propound prudent Arguments which might move the King to accommodate with his Parliament and not by lessening his authority to divert him from it Finally to seeke how to unite the King and Commonwealth not to disunite them by impertinent and invalid conclusions God of his goodnes grant co-union as much as in this world may be between our Soveraigne and his people that 〈◊〉 may know truly how to rule and they to obey FINIS