AN APPENDIX TO THE LATE ANSWER Printed by His Majesties COMMAND OR Some seasonable ANIMADVERSIONS upon the late Observator and his seaven Anti-monarchicall ASSERTIONS TOGETHER With a VINDICATION of the KING And some OBSERVATIONS upon the TWO HOUSES Printed Anno Dom. 1642. Seasonable ANIMADVERSIONS upon the late Observator and his seaven Anti-monarchicall ASSERTIONS IT is usuall I know for Books to have Prefaces and Playes Prologues but whosoever peruseth this must expect nothing but concise reasons forasmuch as Vnusqâ—isque 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 primariò per se according to that of the Apostle Rom. 13. and in the King or people but onely secundariò derivativè 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 equall 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 Righteousnesse 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 was very probable that it was also agreeable in Reason and Nature and 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 might belong unto him by birth-right although it may be God confirmed it unto him extraordinarily But to returne power and 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 Jewes before they subjected themselves to Kings being formerly freed from the bondage of Egypt by the finger 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 subjection 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 Monarches are more limited then others as is the King of France more then the great Turke 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 his owne cause so is it to say that a priviledged people should cause the Princes power or that Power should remaine originally in such a priviledged people Some Nations elect their Kings or Princes and restraine them far more by conditionall inaugurations then hereditary Monarches are or ought to be restrained or limited Yet have not such Nations power in themselves totally but onely partially that is they have power to conditionate with their Kings or Princes how farre forth they will be subject and by what Rules they will be governed but they have not power to conditionate with their Kings or Princes that they will only be subject 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 that they may do 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 be elective yet is their power permanent jure constituto Coronae which though they claime not as from progenitors yet are they invested therewith as from Predecessors And therefore being enthroned they enjoy 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 he is meerly titulary and a cypher and such Kings first and principally claime their authority from God the author of all power who enspheareth them in the Orbe 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 he was appointed by God 1 Sam. 9.17 then anointed by Samuel Chap. 10. v. 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 chiefe claime was immediately from God and their second from the consent of the people Nor is it of any consequence to alleadge as the Observator seemeth to inferre pag. 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 be 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 Judah and Israel reigned afterthem 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 especially the Prophets the Priests or Ministers of the Gospell 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 Surely no For how could Sacraments be administred and the word preached So is it with Monarchs
For though they have but ordinary succession yet is their power immediately from God Our Soveraigne is a free though in some things a limited Monarch and derived therefore his power immediately not mediately as do other inferiour Ministers of justice from God And as touching limitations and priviledges they are nothing else as is aforesaid but acts of grace conferred on this Nation by His Majesties predecessours in severall ages and at severall times and some of them lately by His Majesty himselfe as the continuation of this present Parliament the abolishing of the Starre-Chamber and High Commission censures and the like But these priviledges and others granted to the subjects dis-invest the King of no primary or Birth-right-royalty but onely oblige him in honour to observe them as covenants A Lord purchaseth a Mannor for himselfe and his Heires for ever his sonne and successors grant certaine 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 altogether subject to be 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 tels 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 himselfe 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 Spaine hath done in Navarre and the West Indies yet hee did not but onely imposed some hard things as the having of Lawes in the French tongue which the people generally understood not Cover-fue-bell and the like his successours afterwards did immune and ease the people from such grievances so that they lived and live at more liberty and enjoy more securely their liberties and properties But do 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 Monarchs tell us no The ancient and present Monarchies of the world being sufficient witnesses thereof 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 be 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 Subjects for if he be onely great in his people and not over them hee may resemble the now Roman or German Emperor or the ancient Kings of France the one whereof is daily in danger to be disinvested by commotion combinations of his Princes the other were heretofore almost continually molested by factions of their Peeres and people And sure the French themselves have greatly occasioned the heavie burthen of divers tributes and impositions which they undergoe for they ever and anon rising in Armes against their King gave him occasion to enslave them the more by his reconquering of them or reducing them into his obedience so that had they subsisted in due allegiance '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 enjoy 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 only singulis but also universis membris majus 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 Senses other Members receive from it but Feeling only and Motion the head governeth and directeth the whole Body and is therfore in dignity 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 stomacke 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 politicke unlesse we must beleeve the Observator who in his 19. Page saith 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 do not such Heads give as much subsistence to the body Politicke as they receive from it The Observator telleth us Pag 6. That Edward the first was the first whether he were or not 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 Politicke And do not his Successors give likewise as much as they receive when they conferre the like acts of Grace Surely hee 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 saith 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 joyntly more Power in themselves It hath been shewed already 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 Nation 's generall consent as it may be the King of Poland doth acknowledge his power in part from the Aristocracie of that Kingdome and as Saul and David did in part from the Jewes approbation and consent notwithstanding it followes not from hence that the people are the sole efficient cause of the Kings power but onely the secundary 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 or 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 truely said to be more light being the totall subordinate cause of light in this case therefore it is truely said id quod efficit tale est magis tale but the Sunne mediante homine producit hominem mediante Leone Leonem mediante Plantâ Plantam for that the Sunne affordeth to all sensible and vegetable 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 absurd 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 dignity was erected to preserve the Communalty the Communalty was not created for his service This is somewhat too harsh especially if we consider our King to be in all Causes as well Ecclesiasticall as Civill next and immediately under Christ supreame Head and Governour such words would have beene better accommodated to a Duke of Venice then to a King of England The Jewes 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 chiefly to judge 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 Wherefore 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 vers. 17. the Prophet saith He will take the Tenth of your Sheepe and yee shall be his servants Where by the word will he sheweth the Authority which Kings would have and by the word shall hee sheweth the obedience that Subjects 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 adherents would take more speciall notice of this Text of the Prophet and that of Saint Pauls confirmation of this Text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers For though Christian Monarches ought not by the Rules of Christianity to Tyrannize or 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 Jewes yet ought they not to be thought so contemptible as that the Communalty was no way created for their service The Observator saith 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 justifie Force to re-gaine due liberty then the Prince might to subvert the same By the Observators leave for his first Clause it is answered already 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 tenour of Law that is to say That meere Force cannot captivate and debase a people by nature free and living under a law of common consent I suppose the words cannot alter should have beene cannot de jure alter or ought not to alter c. For that force can alter and de facto hath altered the freedome and lawes of People and Nations is knowne to most men Histories and Chronicles testifying to the world the severall alterations and formes of Government which Conquerours 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 mankinde and therefore Dominion may not seeme to be intended by Nature yet God the author of Nature fore-seeing the fall of Man and the depravation in Nature which did ensue thereof intended power and dominion and that some should bee masters and others servants some command and others obey some should become slaves to Tyrants others subjects to free Monarches 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 ought not to say to the Potter Why hast thou made me thus It is enough for it to know that there is no power but of God and so to be applyable to the use it was made for if for honour to honour if for servility to servility being subject 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 re-gaine due liberty then the Prince might to subvert the same If this Doctrine had beene good our Saviour would surely have counselled the Jewes 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 re-gaine their due liberty from Caesar and not have bid them Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's If it be alleadged that in case Christ had counselled the Jews so they would have played the Jews indeed and have accused him of high Treason What then Would Christ have concealed or did he at any time conceale the truth for feare of the Jewes accusations When he was conjured to expresse whether or no he were the Sonne of God a thing more hatefull to the Jewes 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 Jewes would have accused him of high Treason in case he had denied tribute to Caesar and that God would not have such a vile imputation as Treason laid on the Redeemer of the World Yet had re-gaining of due liberty by force beene lawfull Christ might have said Yee may give tribute to Caesar in the Potentiall Mood in which words no
Father and though he be not without all confidence by flight c. I wish whilest you have such recourse to nature you would not forget Christianity which teaches subjection and obedience and gives no liberty either to private men or the major part of the Communalty of resistance but saith They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation And if the Observatur be a Gentleman he should tender how he hath recourse to nature in point of right lest he give occasion to some Wat. Tyler's Chaplaine to preach againe upon that Text When Adam dolve and Eve span Who was then a Gentleman He may finde a goodly Sermon upon that Text set downe by John Stow in Richard the second and such Doctrine delivered upon it the use of which would shake his title to his inheritance and the name of Gentleman POSITION IV. THat no Member of the Parliament ought to be troubled for Treason c. without leave OBSERVATOUR This is intended of suspitions onely and when leave may seasonably be had and when competent accusers appeare not in the impeachment ANIMADVERSION IV. HIs Majestie hath said so much of this and so little of it hath beene answered or indeed is answerable that I shall not need to say much Onely I observe the modesty of this Observatour that hee doth not absolutely say they are not to be troubled for those crimes but not upon suspition onely c. I know not what hee may call suspitions but I beleeve the best evidences may easily be held for bare suspitions if they may not have liberty to speake out and that they cannot have unlesse the accused be first in safe custody and brought to tryall where they may legally be produced And I beleeve few wise men will thinke it reasonable that the grounds of suspition of Treason should necessarily be opened before tryall POSITION V THat the Soveraigne power resides in both Houses of Parliament The King having no negative voyce OBSERVATOUR This power is not claimed as ordinary nor to any purpose but to save the Kingdome from ruine and in case where the King is so seduced as that he prefers dangerous men and persecutes his loyall Subjects ANIMADVERSION V. HIs Majestie infers upon this Position That himselfe must be subject to their Commands This sounds but harshly in the eares of loyall Subjects That any posture wherein they can be put can raise Subjects to a capacity of Soveraignty and reduce their Soveraigne to become their Subject But hee comforts us here and tels us this power is not claimed as ordinary nor to any purpose c. This is but poore comfort it is not but it may be in good time if they please Hee doth not say they shall not hereafter and cannot claime it as ordinary and to other purposes then that he names So that there may be other causes that may make them claime this power as well as this But indeed they need no other if it be in their power to declare that to be the case of the King and Kingdome when they please But they will never doe it but where there is a just cause for it and the truth leads them to it Truly I believe honourably of the Justice and Wisedome of Parliaments but I doe beleeve that they are not either infallible or that they cannot possibly do amisse And the Observator must bring better arguments and I fear he cannot bring so good to make me beleeve otherwise then ever yet were brought for the infallibility of a generall Councell But I have said enough for the present of the residence of soveraigne power in the Parliament and the ground of their claime to it by the vertue of representation in my third Animadversion I shall here onely give the Reader a briefe glosse upon the language here used by the Observatour to save the Kingdome from ruine that is from Monarchy or being governed by the King The King is seduced that is he is perswaded by his owne understanding and other evill Counsellours not to part with his Soveraignty nor to become a Subject to his Subjects He preferres dangerous men that is such as would have him still to be their King persecutes his loyall Subjects that is such as would rule him and the people at their pleasure POSITION VI THat the Levying of Forces against the personall commands of the King though accompanied with his presence is not levying of warre against the King but warre against his authority not Person is warre against the King OBSERVATOUR If this were not so the Parliament seeing a seduced King ruining himselfe and the Kingdome could not save both but stand and looke on ANIMADVERSION VI I Thought this Position so strangely Paradoxall and so apparently contrary to reason and common sense that no man would have appeared in the defence of it Yet this Observator never blushes nor blinkes at it but affirmes it stoutly But for all that I shall beleeve very slowly That the Kings Person can at any time be without the King or without his Authority Or that they may destroy the Kings Person to preserve the King My faith is not strong enough to beleeve these sublime points and mysteries of State I shall subscribe thus farre That warre against the Kings Authority though in the absence of his Person is warre against the King But that the King and his Person should be ' intwo places will never I feare downe with mee But however I le see his reason What 's that Why else the Parliament seeing a seduced King ruining himselfe and his Kingdome could not save both but must stand and looke on Surely this reason is full of weight and ready to burst it is so big with probability I suppose the Reader understands his language here by my former glosse But if we should take the words as they sound the reason would seeme as strange as that which it is brought to confirme The King ruining himselfe and his Kingdome a mad King or an Ideot hee meanes and then 't were fit the Parliament appointed him a guardian Ruining himselfe and his Kingdome Is it possible that the King should ruine himselfe and his Kingdome What The King alone Is he alone able to doe it without the people It is hardly credible If he have the people on his side and a prevailing major party I thinke the Observatour standing to his own Principles will not deny that he hath Soveraigne power with him and that it is unnaturall to thinke the Community should destroy it selfe But the Community he will say is to be lookt at in Parliament Well But good Sir may not the people withdraw the power of representation which they granted to the Parliament was their grant so absolute and so irrevocable that they dispossesse themselves wholly of taking or exercising that power in their owne proper persons Remember your principles about the conveying of Soveraigne power into the hands of Kings and if you can shew no better Cards for their power of representation than the peoples revocable consent and I would faine know why it should be more revocable from Kings than men you will find their tenure in it very tickle POSITION VII THat according to some Parliaments they may depose Kings OBSERVATOUR 'T is denied that any King was deposed by a free Parliament fairely elected ANIMADVERSION VII I Like this note better then all the rest and am wholly of his mind That never any free Parliament fairely elected deposed any King and I hope whatsoever his principles seeme to insinuate they doe not beleeve they have power to do it pray that they may never attempt at least not be able to depose the King or destroy Monarchy FINIS Seth and his generation began first to call upon the name of the Lord that is to say to give to God some set forme of worship as Priests did c. Pag. 2. Pag. 3. Pag. 16 Rom. 13