AN ANSWER TO A PRINTED BOOK INTITULED OBSERVATIONS UPON SOME OF HIS MAIESTIES LATE ANSWERS and Expresses Printed by His MAIESTIES Command AT OXFORD By LEONARD LICHFIELD Printer to the Vniversity 1642. AN ANSWER TO A PRINTED BOOKE INTITULED OBSERVATIONS Vpon some of His MAIESTIES late Answers and Expresses IN this discourse concerning Regall authority it is needlesse to wast time in declaring the originall since it is granted to be at least mediately from God Who intending the good of mankind which was not to be obtained without preservation of order hath therefore commanded all to be subject to the lawes of society not only for wrath but for conscience sake not only whil'st they enjoy the benefit of Governours but likewise whilst they doe suffer under some accidentall abuses The reason of which obligation may be this we cannot reap the constant fruits of an established policy unlesse by compact we submit our selves to some possible inconveniences Hence it follows after a people hath by solemne contract devested it selfe of that power which was primarily in them they cannot upon what pretence soever without manifest breach of divine ordinance and violation of publique faith resume that authority which they have placed in another to the end that being united in one it may thence receive strength be enabled to protect all as also to prevent those fatall divisions which attend multitudes endued with equall power where almost every one upon reall or fancyed injuries undertakes to right himselfe and although before positive constitution this is not absolutely unjust yet reason informes us it is most fit by some agreement to part with this native right in consideration of greater good and prevention of greater evills which will ensue and to restraine our selves from being judges in our own cause It followes moreover though the people should conceave they might live more happily if the Kings prerogative were more bounded his revenews diminished and it is no hard matter to perswade them to think so to effect this wants not so much rhetorique as malice since what is taken from the King turnes to their present profit though they oft-times dearely pay for it by disabling their King to provide for their security it were high sinne to entrench upon his rights For hereby they loosen the very sinewes of government by receding from that compact which crafty men out of their own private interests perswade them they might have made more advantagious It doth no way prejudice Regall authority that God is the author of Aristocraticall he may adde Democraticall power also If these were not lawfull formes of government their execution of judgement would be sinne and whilst they punish they would commit murder Yet in these kindes we may observe more or lesse perfection according to the aptnes they beare to those ends which States ayme at which are safety and plenty To haue riches and not be able to defend them is to expose our selves as a prey to be safe and poore is to be securely miserable Besides if we had leisure to look back to the Originall of Governments we might finde that God was the immediate donor of Regall power whereas other formes referre to him onely as confirming the peoples Act. This the Author cunningly dissembles and therefore treading in the steps of Mariana and Buchanan sworn enemies to Monarchy he presents us with J know not what rude multitudes living without lawes without government till such time as out of the sense of their sufferings which evidently proceeded from this want they were inforced to fly to such remedies However this fancy might passe for currant among such heathen Polititians as were ignorant of the originall of the world dreamed that the first men were bred as Insects out of the mud of the earth whence that frequent mention in their writings of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Aborigenes yet we who are satisfied with the history of the creation cannot imagine that Anarchy was before a regulated Government and that God who had digested one Chaos into order should leave the most noble creatures in a worse confusion unlesse we will deny to Adam either that power or providence which is naturall and ordinary in a father over his children and granted by this observer pag. 18. to be more then the King can challenge over his people We find in this infancy of the world upon the multiplying of mankinde Colonies were sent out and a City was built by Cain Those long lived Patriarchs had this advantage by begetting a numerous posterity they might people a Nation out of their own loynes and be saluted Patres patriae without a metaphor the same being their subjects and their children In relation to this it was properly said by the Ancients a Kingdome was but a larger family Aristotle tells us a Regall power belonged to the Paterfamilias and accordingly Homer I. 1. pol. c. 8. Odyssâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it was then no more possible in right for such a people to choose their rulers then to choose their Fathers Thus Regall power sprang first from Paternall and Trogus made a truer observation then this author when he said Principio rerum as well as gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat And therefore may challenge more from God nature then other formes of government and certainly it hath received larger elogies from God in Scripture then any other can pretend to To say nothing of the Kings of Israel who are confest by the adversary to be of divine institution very heathen Monarchs are acknowledged by God himselfe to be no lesse Where he calls Nebuchadrezzar his servant Ier. 43.10 and Cyrus his annointed Es 45.1 Notwithstanding this to the end I may give the clearest satisfaction I have thought it fit not to take advantage from the excellency of Monarchy whether in regard to its antiquity as being not much younger then man himselfe or the severall commodities thereof For the truth is it were no excuse for such endeavours of innovation were it the most imperfect governement I shall therefore take into consideration this Authors grounds in the method they lye upon which he would overthrow so ancient and well founded a monarchye His first exception is The King attributeth the originall of his Royalty to God and the Law making no mention of the grant consent or trust of man therein A groundles cavill wheÌ„ God is first named under what notion can be apprehend Law but as an agreement of the people deriving their power and committing the Kingdom to his trust within few lines he confutes himselfe telling us that Law which the King mentioneth is not to be understood to be any speciall ordinance sent from heaven by the ministery of Angels or Prophets as amongst the Iewes it sometimes was It can be nothing else amongst Christians but the pactions and agreements of such and such politique corporations if so he might have spared this observation That Dominion which
equally follows the people ought not to account that a profit or strength to them which is a losse and wasting to the King nor ought they to think that perisht to them which is gained to him Regall dignity was erected to preserve the commonalty It was so for out of the sense of those miseries which the want of due administration of justice produced routs became societies and placed a head over them to whom they paid the tribute of reverence for the benefit of Protection But that which is the end is farre more honourable and valuable in nature and policy then that which is the meanes The conclusion implied is therefore the Commons more honourable then the Soveraign J will frame some other arguments upon the same principle see how he approves them Angels are ministring spirits for the good of men but the end more honourable and valuable then the meanes therefore men more honourable then Angels Once more in a closer paralel Christ is made the head of the Church for the salvation of man but that which is the end is far more honourable and valuable c then that which is the meanes therefore man far more honourable and valuable then Christ If any should think these instances doe not fully conclude because the highest end of Angels ministration and the obedience of Christ is the glory of God he must consider Gods glory is the supream end of government also And therefore this being common to both cannot difference the case Though we grant the good of the people is more valuable he cannot hence infer a greater worthinesse or more power to be in them though the safety of patients is most to be regarded yet the Physitian is much better qualified to effect that end Marriage was ordained for the lawfull procreation of children that is honourable amongst all men we doe not read this is so The rule doth hold in such meanes as are only valuable by that relation they beare unto their ends and have no proper goodnes of their owne But a King is not so to his people if we looke back unto his first extraction when he was taken from among the people to be set over them we must needs behold him even then as a man of some worth honour and eminency which the superaddition of Royalty did not destroy but encrease To be a meanes of his peoples preservation is very consistent with the height of honour The case is not unlike in the noblest professors the Divine the Lawyer the Physition compared to their severall charges they the meanes these the ends shall we from thence conclude the poore client a better man then his learned counsell or the simple patient then his Doctor This directs as to the transcendent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all politiques to the Paramount law that shall give law to all humane lawes whatsoever and that is Salus populi How many nations hath this abused principle brought to ruine and confusion It is unquestionable in the constitution of all Governments this is the prime end as being most agreeable with the joynt interest both of rulers and people It is as much without doubt that after estates established the governours proportion all their lawes to this end for who that is wise will not provide for their safety as well as he can in whose destruction his own is involv'd notwithstanding this the multitude not comprehending the reason which made all people commit themselves their lives and fortunes to the trust of their rulers who were wiser and therefore could better foresee dangers and had the greatest share in the present state and therefore would more carefully endeavour to prevent them readily hearken to crafty men who seeme to pitty their sufferings and tell them they are not so well governed as they might be Thus Absalon stole away the hearts of his Fathers Subjects O that I were made judge in the land 2. Sam. 15.4 that every man which hath any suit or cause might come unto me and I would doe him justice There is little good to be expected from those who will doe wrong that they may have opportunity to do right Such men have great advantage on weake understandings because there is no state wherein it might not be wished that somethings were amended and they presse upon them present inconveniences and frame some new form wherein they promise them they shall be free from all and therefore desire their assistance in bringing this happy change about The people full of great hopes cry up these men as the only fit instruments of state who pretend only to take care for the publique and though they have nothing yet would be thought not to desire any thing Having thus gained the affections of the people their next worke is to pick a quarrell with great officers they conceave because they accuse so zealously it will be presumed they are innocent themselves that by displacing them they may make roome for themselves If such men will not easily out of their preferments the people are acquainted these are the only rubs which stand betwixt them and an happy government these are the close enemies to the State and so much the more dangerous because they carry their malignant designes so secretly they cannot find proofes against them Salus populi is now concerned the whole Kingdome is in danger no way to scape this imminent perill but by tearing these men from the Prince if in a Monarchy or putting them out of the Senate if in an Aristocracy Amongst these distractions and unsettlement of Government what course is to be taken The best way I know but 't is difficult is to make the people wise and make it appeare there is no reall danger except from their tumultuous endeavours to avoyd those which are imaginary Let them rely upon their governours who have most to loose especially if they have given them great late signes of their affection to care of them this is the most probable way of safety but if they should miscarry which they can have no reason to suspect they will perish with a great deale of discretion It seemes unnaturall to me that any nation should be bound to contribute its owne inherent puissance meerely to abet Tyranny and support slavery The inconveniences of Tyranny conclude nothing against just monarchs we are acquainted only with those happy names of King and Subject It is so farre from being unnaturall that any nation should be bound by which I suppose he meaneth consent from which an obligation naturally followes for it is as with him in the Comoedy voluntate coactus sum meâ to contribute it's power to that end that some have made it their choice others their refuge Seneca tells us speaking of the state of Rome in Iulius and Augustus his times Salva esse Roma non poterat nisi beneficio servitutis How is it against nature for the Turkes to be obedient to the grand Seigneur or the
French Pesant to his Prince There may be reasonable motives why a people should consent to slavery as if in danger of a potent enemy they could hire none on gentler conditions to undertake their defence or if reduced to extream want they had not wherewith to sustain themselves they may very probably like Esau passe away their birthright liberty We finde an example of each case in holy Scripture The Egyptians parted with all their mony and cattle and past away the right to their lands and became servants to Pharaoh Gen. 47. upon this condition that Joseph would afford them bread Jos 9. And the Gibeonites bought their lives of the children of Israel with the price of their liberty and thought they had a cheap purchase From the word trust used by his Majesty he gathers the King does admit his interest in the crown in part conditionate No ground for this collection for there may be a trust and that is so much the greater if free from condition But the thing is true de facto in some sense and his Majestie hath alwaies acknowledged He is bound to maintain the rights and liberty of the subject Yet we must not so understand it as if the right to His Kingdome were so conditionate that it were capable of forfeiture upon a not exact performance of covenant As for the word elegerit whether it be future or past it skills not much If he take notice of the conclusion deduced thence he may find as much difference between the Tenses as between Democracy Monarchy But the consuetudines which cannot refer to the future undeniably evinces it was meant of the time past and the oath in english is free from all ambiguity rendring consuetudines quas vulgus elegerit by rightfull customes which the commonalty of this your Kingdome have I may adde the different manner of the Kings answer as it is set down in their Remonstrance Where to other questions which respect the future the King answers in the future in this as referring to what is past He answers per verba de praesenti concedo permitto The King is bound to consent to new lawes if they be necessary as well as defend the old His Majestie never thought otherwise but He is not bound to an implicite faith to believe all necessary which is pretended to be so The word elegerit if it be in the preterperfecttense yet shewes that the peoples election had been the ground of ancient lawes and customes and why the peoples election in Parliament should not be now of as great moment as ever J cannot discover The election there spoken of is the election of the diffusive not of any representative body and that with the tacite consent of the Prince and so of much other authority and for the representative their ancient right is not denyed no law shall be abrogated none enacted without their assent But there is a mean between doing nothing and all The result of all is our Kings cannot be said to have so unconditionate and high a propriety in all the subjects lives liberties and possessions or in any thing else to the crown appertaining as subjects have in the Kings dignity The King pretends not to have any unconditionate proprietie in the subjects lives liberties and possessions he would onely be allowd it in his own And what he can mean by subjects having an unconditionate and high propriety in the Kings dignity surpasses my understanding It may seem to speak this wicked doctrine that subjects may dispose of the Soveraignty as they please for this right an absolute propriety gives If the King had such high right as subjects it were not lawfull or naturall for him to expose his life and fortune for his country How is it lawfull for subjects then to doe so The people have as great nay greater obligation of exposing their lives for the King This appeares by the Protestation as also by the ancient oath of fealty at the Coronation Je deviene vostre Liege de vie de biens c. Sir Hen Spelman gives us a form of sacramentum ligiantiae still in use Tu I. S. jurabis quòd ab ista die in antea eris sidelis legalis leaux domino nostro Regi suis haeredibus fidelitatem legalitatem Leaultie ei portabis de vita de membro de terreno honore quòd tu eorum malum aut damnum nec noveris nec audiveris quod non defendes i.e. prohibebis pro posse tuo ita Deus te adjuvet I cannot imagine any possible colour for such an inference I would sooner make a rope of sand hang together may not a tyrant expose his life in defence of his slave without breach of any law He doth but defend his owne goods â—xod 21.1 for the Scripture calls his slave his money His owne instance confutes him bonus pastor ponit vitam pro ovibus suis for it is evident this good pastor was our Saviour absolute Lord of his flock Parliaments have the same efficient cause as Monarchyes if not higher What higher then the law of God and of the whole land yes for in truth the whole Kingdome is not so properly the author as the essence itselfe of Parliaments just as a Proctour is the essence of him for whom he appeares or an Ambassador is essentially the King But suppose it true this declares the materiall cause proves no greater dignity in the efficient But the reason is to come by the former rule he had no good fortune with that before 't is magis tale because we see ipsum quid quod efficit tale what magis tale in essences or can a thing be magis tale then it selfe This I conceave is beyond the sense of the house However this confession and the rule quod efficit tale est magis tale subjects the Parliament to the people as well as the same rule would doe the King and proves as well that the Parliament is vniversis minus though it be singulis majus Parliaments have also the same finall cause as Monarchyes if not greater what greater then salus populi nay then to promote the Subject to all kind of Politicall happines which he told us was the end and duty of a King His reason is publique safety and liberty could not be so effectually provided for by Monarchs till Parliaments were constituted This proves not the end higher but shewes they are good helpes in government which is readily granted Two things especially are aimed at in Parliaments not to be attained to by other meanes Not so easily attained indeed but certainly many Kingdomes have enjoyed a most high degree of civill happines under arbitrary Monarchs who knew no Parliaments Such as have abundantly satisfied the inter est of the people in all weighty affaires advised with the ablest counsellors Two other ends might have been named as essentiall as those which are to supply his Majesties