For how could Sacraments be administred the word preached So it is with Monarkes for though they have but ordinary succession yet is their power immediatly from God Our Soveraigne is a free though in some things a limited Monarch and deriveth therefore his power immediatly not mediatly as do other inferior ministers of iustice from God And as touching limitations and priviledges they are nothing else as aforesaid but acts of grace conferred on this Nation by his Maiesties predecessors in severall ages and at severall times and some of them lately by his Maiesty himselfe as the continuation of this present Parliament the abolishing of the Star-chamber and high Commission censures and the like But these priviledges and others granted to the subiects dis-invest the King of no primary or Birth-right-royalty but only oblige him in honour to observe them as covenants A Lord purchaseth a Mannor for himself and his Heires for ever his son and successors grant certain Franchises to the tenants and oblige their heires for ever to performe them so the tenants live in a more free state and condition then they did in the first purchasers dayes and paying their rents and performing their services they are not altogeher subiect to bee turned out at the pleasure or rather displeasure of the Lord but doth this Franchisement or freedome of theirs cause the Lord to derive his right or title from his tenants Law and experience tell us no. And this is our Soveraignes case The conquerour by his sword or by deed of gift or rather indeed by both came in as a Purchaser of the Kingdome of England for himself and his heires for ever and by the law of Conquest had power to have made greater alteration in the State then he did and to have induced what forme of government he had thought good even as the King of Spain hath done in Navarre and the West Indies yet hee did not but only imposed some hard things as the having of Lawes in the French tongue which the people generally understood not Cover-few-bell and the like his successors ofterwards did immune and ease the people from such grievances so that they lived and live at more liberty and enioy more securely their liberties and properties But doe therefore such immunities granted to the people cause the King to derive his power and right from the people The lawes and customes of all Nations and Kingdomes that live under Monarkes tell us no. The ancient and present Monarchies of the world being sufficient witnesses therof besides the Dictamen of Scripture and reason already inserted The Observator pag. 2. saith that it is an errour in some Princes to strive more to bee great over their people then in their people It may be some Princes have committed such an errour but withall let the observator take notice that it is convenient for a free Prince to be both that is to say to have them wealthy and yet obedient subiects for if he be only great in his people and not over them hee may resemble the now Roman or German Emperour or the ancient Kings of France the one whereof is daily in danger to bee dis-invested by commotion and combinations of his Princes the other were heretofore almost continually molested by factions of their Peeres and people and surely the French themselves have greatly occasioned the heavy burden of divers tributes impositions which they undergo for they ever and anon rising in Armes against their King gave him occasion to slave them the more by his reconquering of them or reducing them into his obedience so that had they subsisted in due allegeance 't is likely their King had been as equally great over as in them which equality or parity in government is no doubt the most happy and blessed co union that any Prince and people can enioy The Observator telleth us in the same page that the King though he be singulis major yet he is universis minor But why so The Head Naturall is not onely singulis but also universis membris major Dignitate though it may 't is not so in universis as shall be by and by declared For the Head hath in it selfe all Sences other Members receive from it but Feeling onely and Motion the Head governeth and directeth the whole Body and is therefore in dignitie more Noble then all the Members of the Body considered together and yet though it be more noble and excellent then them all for as much as Motion and Feeling dimane from the Braine which is in the Head to them all notwithstanding in universis in all things or Faculties the Head is not more excellent then all the Members for the Heart is the Seat of Life according to most Philosophers being primum vivens ultimum moriens and from it proceedeth naturall heat the Stomack likewise administreth sustenance and aliment the Feet goe and the Hands worke and without them the Head cannot subsist yet are they all subordinate to the Head and even so is it or ought it to be in the Body Politick unlesse we must beleeve the Observator who in his 19. Page sayth That the Head Politicall receives more subsistence from the Body then it gives c. But by his leave if Priviledges and Immunities are as they are matters of Grace proceeding from free Monarchs for of such the Treatise is to the People doe not such Heads give as much subsistence to the Body Politick as they receive from it The Observator telleth us Page 6. That Edward the First was the first whether he were or no it is not materiall that repaired the Breaches which the Conquest had made upon this Nation if so did not hee by such his reparation give as much subsistence to the Common wealth as he received from the Common-wealth or Body Politick And doe not his Successors give likewise as much as they receive when they conferre the like acts of Grace Surely he that considereth rightly Magna Charta and all other Priviledges and Immunities which now extend to the free-borne People of this Kingdome will finde them first to have proceeded from the Grace and Grant of our Kings and therefore it is improper to say That the Head Politick doth not give as much subsistence to the Body Politick as it receives from it The Observator sayth likewise in his second Page That id quod efficit tale est magis tale meaning thereby that the People conferring as the efficient Cause Power on the King have ioyntly more Power in themselves It hath beene shewed alreadie that free Monarchs such as our King is derive not their Power from the People but immediately from God But suppose our King did secundarily acknowledge his Power from this Nations generall consent as it may be doth the King of Poland acknowledge his Power in part from the Aristocracie of that Kingdome and as Saul and David did in part from the Iewes approbation and consent notwithstanding it followes not from
hence that the People are the sole efficient Cause of the Kings Power but onely the secundarie and partiall Now when it is said that id quod efficit tale est magis tale it is to be understood of entire and totall causes but in this case the People being at the most but the partiall cause of the Kings Power the Axiome of Rule faileth as for example the Moone being of her selfe a Body darke receives her Light at least wise her chiefest from the Sunne as from an entire cause the Sunne is therefore truly sayd to be more Light being the totall subordinate cause of Light in this case therefore it is truly sayd id quod efficit tale est magis tale but the Sunne mediante homine producit hominem mediante Leone Leonem mediante Planta Plantam for that the Sunne affordeth to all sensible and vegitable creatures an influx of vigour and naturall heat yet for as much as the Sunne is in the production of these creatures but a partiall and not an integrall cause it were absured to say that the Sunne were more a man then is a man or more a Lyon then is a Lyon or more a Plant then is a Plant and so is it to say that because a King may acknowledge his Power in part received from the Peoples generall consent that therefore the People have more Power then himselfe The Observator telleth us Page 3. That the Kings dignitie was erected to preserve the Communalty the Communalty was not created for his service This somewhat too harsh especially if wee consider our King to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill next and immediately under Christ supreme Head and Governour such words would have beene better accommodated to a Duke of Venice then to a King of England The Iewes I beleeve when they asked a King at Gods hands were somewhat inclining to the Observators opinion for they desired a King for their owne ends chiefely to Iudge them and to fight their Battailes not well considering that if they had a King hee must and ought to have a Kingly Dominion over them Whereupon God caused the Prophet Samuel to instruct them concerning the Praeeminence of a King and that if they would have a King a King would be such and such a man as is evidently characterized in the first of Samuel chap. 8. where amongst other things verse 17. the Prophet sayth Hee will take the Tenth of your Sheepe and yee shall be his servants Where by the word will hee sheweth the Authoritie which Kings would have and by the word shall hee sheweth the Obedience that subiects should have nor did the Prophet speake of some or to some few onely but of all and to all the people at least-wise to all the chiefest of them saying Yee shall be his servants I desire therefore that the Observator and all his other adhaerents would take more speciall notice of this Text of the Prophet and that of Saint Pauls confirmation of this Text Let every soule be subiect to the higher Power For though Christian Monarchs ought not by the Rules of Christianitie to Tyrannize nor make our Sonnes their Slaves or our Daughters their Concubines and the like as did many of the Kings of the Gentiles and some of the Iewes yet ought they not to be thought so contemptible as that the Communaltie was no way created for their service The Observator sayth in the same Page That the right of Conquest cannot be pleaded to acquit Princes of that which is due to the people as the authors and ends of all Power for meere Force cannot alter the course of Nature and frustrate Law and if it could there were more reason why the people might iustifie Force to regaine due libertie then the Prince might to subvert the same By the Observators leave for his first Clause it is answered alreadie That in Monarchies the people are not the authors or ends of Power for the second Clause That meere Force cannot alter the course of Nature or frustrate the tonour of Law that is to say that meere Force cannot captivate and debase a people by nature free living under a law of common consent I suppose the words cannot alter should have been cannot de jure alter or ought not to alter c. For that force can alter and de facto hath altered the freedom and lawes of people and nations is known to most men Histories and Chronicles testifying to the world the several alterations forms of government which conquerors have induced but whether they ought so to have done is a question yet should the Observator and his adherents take advice that though in Nature there is a parity of mankind and therefore dominion may not seeme to be intended by nature yet God the authour of Nature foreseeing the fall of man and the depravation in nature which did ensue thereof intended power and dominion and that some should bee masters and or hers servants some command and others obey some should become slaves to tyrants others subiects to free Monarks others members of popular Estates and these things God hath ordained by his divine wisedome according to his will and disposes and alters them at his pleasure But as for the pot it aught not to say to the Potter Why hast thou made mee thus It is enough for it to know that there is no power but of God and so to be appliable to the use it was made for if for hononr to honour if for servility to servility being subiect for conscience sake Rom 13.5 Of a strange nature therefore are those words viz. There were more reason why the people might justifie force to regaine due liberty then the Prince might to subvert the same If this doctrine had been good our Saviour would surely have counselled the Iewes when they asked him whether it were lawfull to give tribute to Caesar to have kept their money in their purses or to have made up a stock of it and by force to have sought to regaine their due liberty from Caesar and not have bid them Give unto Cesar what is Cesars If it be alledged that in case Christ had counselled the Iewes so they would have plaid the Iewes inceed and have accused him of high treason What then would Christ have concealed or did he at any time conceale the truth for seare of the Iewes accusations When hee was coniured to expresse whether or no hee were the Sonne of God a thing more hatefull to the Iewes eares then the denying of tribute could have beene to the eares of the Romans Christ answered Thou hast said it which is as much as Yes But suppose the Iewes would have accused him of high treason in case hee had denied tribute to Cesar and that God would not have such a vile imputation as treason laid on the redeemer of the world Yet had regaining of due liberty by force been lawfull Christmight have said Ye may give tribute
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.