Selected quad for the lemma: england_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.
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