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
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
exceptions could have beene taken and not have said Give tribute to Caesar or Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's in the Imperative Mood Or otherwise when they asked him Whether it were lawfull to pay tribute to Caesar he might onely have answered them Yes but fore-seeing in his divine wisedome that some indirect constructions might bee 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 yee doe pay it c. therefore Christ bid them shew him a piece of money and bid them Give it unto Caesar informing the covetous mindes of that perverse people that they ought and were obliged to part with their money and substance to Caesar if demanded as a tribute But to let Arguments of Divinity passe and to induce a few State reasons If the people may justifie force to re-gaine due liberty what Monarchy what Aristocracy what Popular estate can remaine secure The French subjects 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 be with the Irish Rebels for they pretend by force to re-gaine due liberty but never with loyall subjects And surely this Tenet or Position afore-said is dangerous to all the Monarchies and States of the world yea even to Parliaments themselves if rightly considered and opposite also to the law of God and Nations The Observator telleth us Page 13. That where the people by publike authority will seeke an inconvenience 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 fallacie that a Christian people should generally which God forbid desire to revolt from Christianity to Mahometanisme should their King grant it they seeme to be more interessed then the King because it concernes their salvation or damnation is it injustice therefore to deny it Surely no but most just and acceptable to God to hinder them from it Suppose this Nation should in generall which God of his goodnesse prohibit desire to turne Anabaptists and Brownists whereof there are too 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 Pilate seemes to be excuseable whom the Observator condemneth in the page before for the Jewes sought by authority of the Priests and Elders to crucifie Christ an inconvenience enough to themselves and instanced a law and that by that law he ought to die Joh. 19.7 and the Jewes were more interested in Christ he being their Countrey-man and subject 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 denyed to the Jewes Christ to have beene crucified then to have granted it Judica Deus The Observator saith Page 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 populúsque Romanus ceased to be and gave place to the name of Caesar The Ottoman name at this day dignifies that great Empire subject 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 Bourbon France And I see no reason but why the name of Stewart should doe as much in England If it be asked But what availeth the names of these great Monarches without their Kingdomes or Dominions The answer is That Dominions are to Monarches as it were materiall subjects 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 inferres as much for Monarchy is derived from Monarch not Monarch from Monarchy But it may be some will instance from hence that if it be so the good of a Monarch seemes to be preferred before the good of all his Subjects in generall so that a whole Kingdome or Empire should bee utterly pillaged wasted and consumed rather then his Treasures be destroyed Not so for though Empires and Kingdomes are but as materiall subjects and Monarches as formes 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 Monarchs cannot subsist without their people from whose subjection and obedience their power is educed immediately from God as are formes from matter by nature the good of both therefore must be 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 desireing 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 and 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 Common-wealth and not to dis-unite them by impertinent and invalid conclusions God of his goodnesse grant co-union as much as in this world may be betweene our Soveraigne and His people that He may know truely how to rule and they to obey ANIMADVERSIONS upon those Notes which the late OBSERVATOR hath published upon the seven Doctrines and Positions which the KING by way of Recapitulation he saith layes open so offensive POSITION I. THat the Parliament hath an absolute indisputable power of declaring Law so that all the right of the King and People depends upon their pleasure To this the Observator saith It hath beene answered That this Power must rest in them or in the King or in some inferiour Court or else all suits will be endlesse and it cannot rest more safely then in Parliament ANIMADVERSION I. THe Observator hath contracted His Majesties words but hath kept the sense in more generall termes and
seemes though but faintly to justifie the Position by approving I know not whose answer that this Power can rest no where mâ—re safely then in Parliament He meanes the Parliament without the King if he had allowed the King his place in Parliament I know no understanding man but will easily subscribe That the King in Parliament or the Parliament with him have an absolute undisputable power both to make and declare Law and to end all suits of what kind soever determinable by humane Law within the Kingdome And here is the most safe resting of this power and here it hath ever rested not in the King alone who claimes not that Power but is willing to governe His Subjects according to the known Lawes and much lesse in any inferiour Court But that such an absolute undisputable Power of declaring Law as hath lately beene assumed by the Major part of the present sitting Parliament should be resting in them is neither necessary for the ending of suites nor can be safe either for King or Subject If they may declare that for a Law a fundamentall Law which never yet was exacted or had any being and deny the plaine undoubted Lawes that have beene Enacted or frustrate them by some unheard of interpretation as if such interpretation had been some mentall or rather Parliamentall reservation laid up within the Parliament wals to be produced upon emergent occasions by their Successours they will have so full an Arbitrary power that the right and safety of King and People must wholly depend upon their Votes Which power can never be safe either for King or People nor can they produce one president that may warrant such a Power But they are not bound or limited by such presidents That 's the second Position POSITION II. THat Parliaments are bound to no Presidents OBSERVATOUR Statutes are not binding to them why then should Parliaments Yet there is no obligation stronger then the honour justice of a Parliament ANIMADVERSION II. IF Statutes be not binding to them there is no reason that presidents should be And he saith true Statutes are not binding to them that is de facto they are not for they in some things goe directly against them but de jure they are that 〈◊〉 they ought to be binding to them till they be repealed by the same power they were made that is by Bill orderly passed both Houses and ratified by His Majesties Royall assent And unlesse they can shew better reason then their bare Assertion Presidents as they are the best warrant so they are and ought to be the limits and bounds of their proceedings He might have said as truly That Oathes are not binding to them and therefore neither Statutes nor presidents But the Observator tells us Pag. 44. That the Oathes of Supremacie and Allegiance are not endangered by making the Kingdome not the King the proper subject of power And he yeelds reason for it For saith he hee that ascribes more to the whole Vniversality then to the King yet ascribes to the King a true Supremacie of Power and Honour above all particulars I wonder what he meanes by a true Supremacie of Power and Honour above all particulars Surely he meanes nothing but priority of place and height of Title for hee is allowed little power over some particulars namely over the Members of either House and whom else they please to exempt as they did Serjeant Major Skippon for his Power and Commands But this distinction helpes them The Members of either House are sharers in that Supremacie which is in the Universality and above his and by the power of that Supremacie they can exempt whom they please from the power of this Inferiour pardon the phrase and the absurdities cannot be exprest without a Solecisme Supremacie Very good but in good sober sadnesse doth the Observator thinke this distinction was thought on by the Framers and enjoyners of that Oath or that the Members of the House at their entring the House did take their Oath to the King as to the Supreme over all with exception of themselves or reservation of an higher Supremacy to themselves when they should be entred It is hardly credible Nor do all that desire to tender all due honour to the Parliament beleeve that they are so the Universality or the Kingdome as the Observator presumes They are trusted by the Universality and Kingdome and we pray that they may discharge that trust not knowing but that a multitude of men subject every one of them to errour may faile in their judgement and being not exempted from the common condition of the sinfull Sons of Adam may possibly not rightly discharge the trust committed to them as well as the King who is blasted with foule failings and errours in judgement Me thinks men that so much detest Popery should not borrow the grounds of their reasoning from them and I shall as soone beleeve the Councell of Trent telling us that they are the Universall Church and therefore cannot possibly erre as that the Parliament is the Universall unerring and unpervertibly just body of the Kingdome And surely the Spirit of declaring must needs reside in a strangely large measure in them who have power thus to declare not onely Law but Oathes too a greater then which the Popes flatterers never gave him and hardly ever any Pope assumed so great Quo te constringam mutantem Protea nodo How shall these men be bound to do right who so easily untie the knots of these sacred bookes of Law and Oathes why yes There is a bond that will do it The obligation of the Justice and honour of a Parliament But can any man be sure that they whom neither Law Custome Presidents of their Ancestors nor Oathes can bind will be alwayes held in by the obligation of Justice and Honour Is it not possible that they may in time finde a power in themselves of declaring that obligation void as well as they have done the other The same obligation of Justice and Honour is as strong upon Kings and hath ever beene held more powerfull and obstrictive in them then in any State mannaged by a Community and yet they dare not trust His Majesty though so obliged The Observatour then must pardon me if I desire they may rather be held in and hold themselves so to be by the old obligations of Law Presidents and Oathes rather then that the Kings liege people should be put wholly to confide to that single obligation of the Justice and Honour of a Parliament POSITION III. THat they are Parliaments and may judge of publike necessity without the King and dispose of any thing OBSERVATOUR They may not desert the King but being deserted by the King when the Kingdome is in distresse they may judge of that distresse and relieve it and are to be accompted by vertue of representation as the whole body of the State ANIMADVERSION III. HIs Majestie sets downe this Position in more words
but these are much to the same purpose and upon these the inference which His Majestie makes followes undeniably That then the life and liberty of the subject and all good Lawes made for the security of them may be disposed of and repealed by the major part of both Houses at any time present and by any wayes and meanes procured so to be and His Majestie shall have no power to protect them They see nothing that see not the misery which may follow upon such a vast transcendency of arbitrary power if it were invested in the Parliament which I dare boldly say was never claimed by any Parliament though in conjunction with the head of it the King Every the meanest Subject hath such a right and propriety in his goods that without Law they cannot bee taken from him though to be employed for the publike good And though the safety of the people be the highest Law and that doe many times give a power above other Laws and against them to the supreame Magistracy in a State to dispose of private mens estates yet the unchangeable rule of Justice must have place even in that highest Law and that requires a compensation to be made to those whose estates or goods are so disposed of and never gives power to uphold the publike good with private injury Nor can it be imagined that a State upheld by such helpes should not be able to make a just compensation to those by whom it was upheld But let us heare our Observatour They may not saith hee desert the King Gramercy for that I am glad to heare they have yet any obligation upon them to tye them to the King Yet I know not well what he meanes by deserting the King if hee meane it in that sense which he doth the Kings deserting of them which out of question is his not assenting to whatsoever they shall thinke fit Then in reason they should not by their disallowing all his Proposals have driven him to dissent from theirs and so to have deserted them Well But being deserted by the King when the Kingdome is in distresse they may judge of that distresse and relieve it All their power then is upon supposition of the Kings deserting them So that if it appeare that His Majestie hath not deserted them as many good men beleeve He hath not in the redresse of any reall grievance then they have no such power And however they claime this power onely when the Kingdome is in distresse But how if the Kingdome be not in distresse or at least that distresse be only or principally caused by their claiming of that power which cannot consist with the Honour and Royall Estate of His Majestie which all men by their late Protestation are bound to defend If it be so wee may easily discerne how farre they may stretch this power which they claime onely in order to distresse and that they may make as much use of it as the Pope doth of his power in temporals In ordine ad spiritualia He claimes no more though some have said he hath right to more and the Parliament will need no more to doe as much as he takes upon him to do with Christian Princes and States But they must have a right to their power in this case of distresse Whence have they that why they have it as the whole body of the State and that they are and must be so accompted by vertue of representation Very good But let us consider his words a little more There is no understanding man but must and will acknowledge unlesse he wilfully derogate from them that the Parliament represents the body of the State for those ends for which they convene as an Ambassadour doth the Prince that sends him in the mannage of that businesse for which he is sent But this is not an absolute representation to all intents and purposes Besides whom doe they represent The body saith he of the State Be it so but it is onely the Body without the Head And if they were not by representation onely but really the whole body of the People if it were possible they should convene together they are all but an assembly of Subjects of men to be governed not to rule to be commanded not to command their Head and Soveraigne and then there can be no virtue of representation that can advance them to the power which the Observatour ascribes to them when such power was never in the whole Body which is represented No never such power in the whole body I know the Observatours stomack will rise here Did not the Peoples consent at first make Kings and conveigh power into their hands Truely Sir not solely but grant it what then Marry he saith then it is a principle in nature Quicquid efficit tale est magis tale In English If the People make a King they are more King themselves or if they give power they have more power and may resume and exercise that power when they please Excellent learning and well applyed I beleeve hee learn'd this piece from Suarez the Jesuite But the Observatour may know that that rule admits many limitations and surely it holds onely in causis totalibus which the People are not in the constitution of Kings But suppose their consent did at first give power to Kings when their consent is given for them and their Successours to a King and His Heires can the succeeding people cut off the entaile and retract the consent their Ancestours have given By what right with what justice I know not but the people may contract for them and their Successours in the conveighance of Soveraigne power if ever they had it in their hands to give as any man may in the conveighance of his lands or goods and that such conveighance may be as binding to Successours in the one as in the other and then I am sure they cannot have power at all times and in all succeeding ages to resume what they have so given Our Kings right so far as it is derived from the people is of this kinde And if he had no other grounds for his claime of Soveraignty as it is most certaine that he hath such a consent once granted were sufficient to binde the people that it cannot ever be lawfull for them by a major part of them comming in with a Nolumus hunc regnare super nos to deprive him of that right But surely they would never make so absolute a grant of their power to Princes as to devest themselves of it Good Sir shew me that proviso in their grant But it seemes to you unnaturall they should I doe not wonder it should seeme so to you who make it agreeable to the clearest beames of humane reason and the strongest inclinations of nature and by consequence as you would perswade the World justifiable For every private man to defend himselfe by force if assaulted though by the force of a Magistrate or his owne
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