it seems that the Apostle meant that they should submit themselves only to such as were legall by the Law of Nature and Nations as the very next verse imports or unto Governours as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evill doers and for the praise of them that doe well Now the Apostle could not call any thing well done for good there was none amongst the Heathenish Kings and in his daies there were no Christian Kings neither in old Babilon or new but if there were it maketh no matter I say the Apostle could not call any thing ordained by man or of the Ordinance of man well done but such as should be congruous to the Law of Nature and Nations such thing or things which albeit they were not de Evangelio yet they were not contra Evangelium such as the Apostle St. Paul speakes of that the Heathens without the Law written did according to the Law to the Ordinances of such naturall and nationall things doth the Apostle Peter command obedience when he saies Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man c. but not to unjust Ordinances for that he could not meane if contrary to the Law of God or of Nature and Nations 4. Others greatly insist upon the 2. and 4. verses of the eight Chapter of the Booke of Ecclesiastes viz. I counsell thee to keep the Kings commandement and that in regard of the oath of God where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him what dost thou First it is to be noted that Solomon speakes of a King who had as almost all the Kings of the East his neighbours had Potestatem vitae necis ad placitum and were in a manner absolute and such a one was Solomon himselfe upon the matter for the people of Israel when they desired a King desired such a one as all the Nations had 1 Sam. 8. 5. and those were such as I have instanced especially those of their neighbour Kings insomuch that God was angry or displeased with the people that they would put themselves into so great a bondage as to desire or become subject to such a King or Kings of such a nature therefore God bad Samuel shew them the nature of such a King Now Solomon by way of counsell or prudent policie adviseth men to keepe the legall commandements of such a King illegall he could not advise in respect they had sworne to him in the name of God as it seems to do so And if as I have already instanced a man become a slave to the great Turke or sweare slavery to him he ought to perform it for he hath sworne it in the name of God but if not hee is not bound he ought rather to make use of his freedome according to that of the 1 Cor. 7. v. 21. and as for the words who may say to him what dost thou it is true such Kings were uncontroleable but our Kings are not Kings of such a nature we only sweare to be true and loyall to them de jure Regnandi viz. that wee in conscience believe them to be our lawfull Kings and that wee will defend their Crowne Dignities c. to the uttermost of our power which God forbid any one should so much as imagine to deprive our Kings of but we sweare not to our Kings that they shall be the absolute disposers de jure Regni we have otherwise conditioned and therefore we are not any way comprehended in or by the before recited Texts to become slavish by keeping or obeying all Commandements of our Kings of what nature soever There are some other Texts of Scripture of the nature of these last recited and reducible to the same exposition 5. Yet furthermore I will instance one Text Matth. 5. v. 39. But I say unto yee resist not evill c. Hence some will that free Subjects ought to suffer all indignities oppressions and tyrannies rather then to resist or defend themselves by Armes But it is to be noted that the true meaning of that Textis that where Gods name may by suffering be magnified there men ought to suffer all indignities rather then to resist but where Gods name may by suffering be rather dishonoured then magnified there men ought not to suffer actually but intentionally as thus A Judge if a base fellow should strike him on the one eare or cheek ought to have so much patience as that he could turne the other yet he ought not actually to doe it lest his Authority and the Lawes of the Land also should suffer contempt And a King if an usurper should endeavour to dispose of his Scepter or lawfull power exercised ought to have so much humility as that he could let him have his Crowne also or right of Reigning but yet he ought not actually to doe it lest he injure not only his Regall Authority but also his Subjects in generall whose wellfare he is bound to protect And even so likewise a people if a Nationall Potent or Potencie should tyrannize or oppresse them ought if it were possible all of them to have so much patience and humility as that they could suffer all indignities yet they ought not alwaies to suffer them lest in some cases by too much suffering the Law of God of Nature and of their Nation all which they are bound to conserve should be violated in the Chapter before recited v. 22. it is forbidden to call a brother foole yet St. Paul called the Galathians fooles or foolish Gal. 3. But how out of admonition and compassion not in hate or contempt but in ordine ad Deum to reprove and advise them and every act morall is specified by the object and end so that if a People to whom jus Regni belongs take Armes to defend their Laws and liberties c. they doe it not out of Rebellion but in ordine ad Deum to reduce and reforme usurping or exorbitant Potentates or Potencies Thus I conclude for the present praying the Almighty Governour of all things that King Parliament and People might in a happy union enjoy their just Power Priviledge and Proprieties Amen WILLIAM BALL
To the Honourable Major Generall SKIPPON William Ball of Barkham wisheth all good successe and happinesse SIR AT Your being in Redding about what time the Kings forces relinquished that place in May 1644. I presented unto You a paper De jure Regnandi et Regni wherein was contained the heads and chiefe points of that Subject and therein I promised to give farther satisfaction which I hope I have now effected to the satisfaction of all indifferent men and I have thought fit to dedicate it to Your Honour to whom I first of all tendered the Epitome remaining October 27. 1645. Your Honours servant William Ball. Tractatus De jure Regnandi Regni OR The Sphere of Government c. MAny there are too many at this day who velis remisque or rather vi armis do contend that the Kings Prerogative power as it is denominated is like to Terra Australis Incognita which is vast and unknowne and in a manner unlimited extending from the Equator as divers Cogmosgraphers describe to the Pole Antartick in latitude and of an huge yet uncertaine longitude some suppose it answers to all the degrees and even so they would have the Kings Prerogative power vast and unknowne and in a manner unlimited extending from the Equator of Law 90 degrees to the Pole or Period of sole Arbitrary Government in latitude and in longitude so huge and uncertaine as that it answers to all the degrees of selfe end to doe every thing that Power would admit Others there are who suppose that the power of Parliament is like the Great Sea which not only environs the Land and enters into all the creeks and harbors wheresoever its flux or currents can make way but is thought also to extend from Pole to Pole and to answer to all degrees of longitude by one denomination or another as it were boundlesse for even so they would have the Parliaments power not only to environ by limitation the King and by their flux and currants of consultation to enter into all creeks and harbours of private policie to make them beneficiall for King and People but it must be thought also to extend from Pole to Pole of Arbitrary jurisdiction quasi ad placitum de omnibus and as these men would have it to all degrees of absolute Authority and as it were boundlesse But these men must give mee leave to tell them that I cannot thinke the Kings Terra Australis Incognita of Prerogative power or the Parliaments Great Sea of Iuridicall power to be so unlimited or boundlesse or if they were yet as the Aire environs both the Land and the Great Sea and gives life to all the creatures in them and without which Aire both Land and Sea would be desolate and of no use even so the Peoples good in generall environs both King and Parliament and gives life to all their actions and without which Peoples good both King and Parliament would be null and of no use and to make good this my opinion or Assertion I have inserted as compendiously as I could what of right generally belongs to King Parliament and People submitting my selfe to more solid reasons or Arguments if given or produced 1. It is certaine that all power is of God Rom. 13. and that it is derived from him either by extraordinary calling or appointment as was that of Moses Aaron c. or by ordinary which is either naturall as that power which a Parent hath naturally grounded upon humane reason as well as the Word of God over his childe or Nationall as that power which Potentates or States have over their Subjects or People And of power Nationall or Politicall there are severall species or forms viz. Monarchy Oligarchy Aristocracy Democracy or mixt or compounded of these forms Monarchy is either unlimited or limited unlimited is where tam jus Regni absolutê quâm Regnandi as well the Law of the Realm absolutely as the Law of Reigning or ruling over resides in one alone as it did in Nebuchadnezzar and is said to bee in some of the Kings of the East and of Affrica at this day limited is where Ius Regnandi et Regni conditionatê the Law of Reigning or ruling over and of the Realme conditionally resides in one alone as it seemeth to have been in Darius Dan. 6. who made not the Decree concerning sole petitioning himselfe by himselfe alone as did Nebuchadnezzar the adoration of the Image Dan. 3 but by advice of his Princes and Councellours nor could he alter his Statutes at his pleasure as appeares Dan. 6. v. 15. and such like limited Monarchs are the Great Turke the King of Persia and it may be the Emperours of Russia and Aethiopia for these Potentates albeit they can ad arbitrium command to strangle or deprive one man of his life and he is deprived and disposses another of his goods and he is dispossessed yet can they not at their pleasure disanull or alter their Religion or fundamentall Laws of their Nation and this power of Monarchy unlimited or limited hath been imposed upon enslaved Nations either by violent and unnaturall conquests as it was by the Assyrian Caldean and Persian Monarchs c. or by conquest and consent or agreement as it were to undergoe and be governed by such power as in Turky Muscovy and in a manner in these dayes in France Castile and Florence Oligarchy is where Ius Regni sive Imperii vel Reipublicae the Law of the Realme or Empire or Commonwealth is intrusted to and resident in a few as it was in the Roman Triumviri who were not absolute for they could not alter at their pleasure the Roman Lawes but were rather themselves alterable Aristocracy is where Ius Regni sive Imperii vel Reipublicae the Law of the Realme or Empire or Common-wealth is resident in the Princes or chiefest of the people and this power may be either inherent and as it were absolute as it is in Venice or intrusted or limited or qualified as in Holland and Geneva for the Aristocraticall Power or States in those parts give some account of their actions to satisfie the people Democracy to speake properly is where Ius Reipublicae the Law of the Commonwealth resides in the people who have not only a perpetuall power of nominating what Rulers and Governours they please but also of dictating or prescribing by what rules they will be governed by and of this Democracy if there be not an Exact yet there is a near form in the Cantons of Switzerland 2. Mixt or compound formes of Government consist sometimes and in some places of Monarchy and Aristocracy as in Poland or of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy as in England in Poland the Aristocracy hath been most prevalent in England for the most part the Democracy hath prevailed but I intend not to insist or instance what hath been defacto or what ought to be de jure in England jus Regnandi is the Kings he hath it introduced by
conquest which albeit that barely of it selfe it created not a just Title yet joyned with the consent of the Nation it Conquest without speciall warrant froÌ„ God as had the Israelites against the people of Canaan or without a just Nâ—tionall Tiâ— is unjust â—â—cause it is â— compained â— with two grâ—si is pride aâ— covetousneâ— and is direcâ— opposite to â— Law of natuâ— in that it depriveth otheâ— men of theiâ— liberty and propriety did and to signifie the Kings introduction by conquest the words â conquestu are to this day inserted in all Fines The King hath his jus Regnandi Dei non populi gratiâ and so hath the King of Poland although he be elective his jus Regnamdi Dei gratiâ but not without but by consent of his Nobility in England it is our Kings by birthright neither Nobility or people can or ought to deprive him of it as long as he protecteth them according to the Lawes and conserveth them to the utmost of his power from forraigne slavery or subjection And as Ius Regnandi is the Kings in England so Ius Regni Actuals Potentiale is the peoples in generall that is to say the people in their severall Degrees have right to their Lawes in Beeing and by their Feoffees the Knights Citizens and Burgesses whom they intrust to give their consents they have also right to the Lawes in Posse or to be the King cannot nor ought to nullifie the Law or Lawes at his pleasure for as in a Lordship or Mannor the Law of Right of inheriting belongeth to the Lord his heires and successors of which Right of inheriting the Tenants of a Mannor cannot nor ought not to deprive the Lord his lawfull heires and successors and also in the same Lordship or Mannor the Law or right of customes belongeth to the Tenants their heires or successors of which right of customes the Lord cannot nor ought to deprive the Tenants their heires or successors even so is it or ought to be in this Kingdome of England between the King and the people in generall 3. And having said that Ius Regnandi is the Kings I will first briefly insert what Ius Regnandi comprehends it comprehends a power ordinary and extraordinary both limited and qualified neither absolute and this last some call Prerogative The ordinary power of a King of England is to convene or assemble Parliaments and to ratifie or disanull what they shall generally approve or disaprove of for the good of the Kingdome or any essentiall part or member thereof for as a Body politick the King is obliged in foro conscientia to doe any thing for the good of the Kingdome provided that it destroy not his owne right The ordinary power also of a King of England is to nominate and constitute Judges and Civill Magistrates Commanders and Officers Military provided that such as concerne the Publicke be not generally disliked by the Publicke because although it belongs to the King to appoint who shall sustaine his person or vices suas gerere yet for as much as those persons doe meddle with and are conversant about the affaires of the Kingdome more then of the King if Kingdome or Publick therefore dislike them the King ought in fore conscientiae to displace them and appoint such as they may like of It is in the Kings ordinary power also to confer dignities and to dispose of those things that meerly concerne his owne Interest I say meerly because the Crowne is the Kings Interest but not meerly his interest he is owner of it but for his naturall life neither can he dispose of it The King hath relation to the Crowne but for his naturall life and then cedit alii The extraordinary or Prerogative power of a King of England I define thus Est virtus sive potentia in personâ Regiá benefaciendi sibi populo in quibus leges non sufficienter se extensas habent a power residing â—xi extensas â—â leges se â—per intenâ— ad summuÌ„â—ctum cui â—dinantur haâ—nt etsi nâ—n â—per dicunt â—dum illius â—ensionis or beeing in a King whereby he may doe good to himselfe and people in things wherein the Lawes doe not sufficiently extend and this power may be said to be intra legem sed non delege this power is environed by the Law and hath the same end that the Law hath viz. the good of King and people from this power extraordinary it follows that if a sudden invasion should be before a Parliament could be conveened or assembled a thing not very likely the King for the raising of forces for defence might impose taxes upon his Subjects such as were usually imposed upon them by consent of former Parliaments in such like cases and for the doing or accomplishing thereof hee may issue forth his Proclamations sufficiently strengthned with penall injunctions But he ought forthwith to call or assemble a Parliament because the Publicke is involved as much or more then himselfe and that being assembled not to do any thing without their consent for to speake truly a King of England is but in nature of an high Steward of the Kingdome by inheritance By this extraordinary power also a King may in some cases pardon as they call it or rather suspend or exempt the penalties due to convicted or condemned felons or traytors for the Law only provides punishment due to such offenders but the King may exempt the punishment where the parties vertues or deserts have formerly countervailed his misdeeds or otherwise where there is hope and possibility that he may by his good endeavours benefit the King and Country as much as he hath dampnified them for these causes ought to be the end of exempting from punishment delinquents for matters or crimes of an high nature and in such things as these consists the Kings extraordinary power or Prerogative 4. Yet there is one thing greatly insisted upon and affirmed by some to be a most essentiall part of the Kings Prerogative and that is the Kings negative voice in Parliament for my part I must confesse that I could never be otherwise satisfied but that all Statutes or Acts of Parliament here in England were made by consent of our Kings or Queens and that the said Statutes or Acts doe themselves either explicitly or implicitly demonstrate as much for if it be not inserted in any Act or Statute Be it therefore enacted by the Kings or Queens most excellent Majesty with assent of the Lords and Commons c. then is it dictated be it therefore enacted by Authority of this present Parliament c. wherein the King is comprehended as the head or chiefe of his Parliament without whose consent it seems such Acts had not beene in their full force and vertue not withstanding I do not see that because the Kings consent doth give force or vertue to an Act or Statute that therefore his non-consent or negative voice is a most essentiall part of his
could assemble together there were no need of such election so that these are the true Representative Body Democraticall of this Kingdome the Lords are in nature of a Body Aristocraticall and the King in form of a Monarch and these three viz. King Lords and Commons are in themselves so indifferently and exactly composed without excesse or defect ab origine that as soule and body make but one entire man so these three make but one entire power of government the which if defects or exorbitances should not or doe not distemper as diseases doe sometimes the soundest bodies is without any flattery or vain-glorious praise the most excellent known form of government in the world 2. This power aforesaid may enact any thing in beneficium Regni for the benefit of the Kingdome be it generall or speciall c. but this power in detrimentum libertatis aut proprietatis generalis subditerum Angliae cannot doe any thing not any thing I say to damnifie the generall liberty and propriety of the Subjects of England and the reason is becaus the English are subditi potius quam subjecti such as have rather put themselves under a law by common consent then enforced to undergoe a Law Wherefore I conceive the L. Digby to be greatly mistaken who affirmed that a King of England ensphered in his Parliament was as absolute as any Monarch of the East some Monarchs of the East can command to strangle one and he is strangled and to deprive another of his goods or estate and he is deprived and this they can doe ad placitum without shewing any cause but the King and Parliament in England cannot doe so those Monarchs can and some of them have and doe make Lawes that all their subjects estates shall be at their owne disposalls viz. that The Parliament by imposing Subsidies and the like do not dispose of the Subjects estates in generall ad placitum but only apply equally so much of every mans estate as seems convenient in necessitatem Regni c. the necessity of the Kingdome and such like they may take from whom they please what they please all if they please ad placitum but in England the King and Parliament cannot doe so for the King as aforesaid is but in nature of high Steward of the Kingdome by inheritance and the Parliament seoffees in Trust and both tyed by the great Indenture of Magna Charta to conserve the generall liberty and propriety of the people And it is to be noted that since Magna Charta was confirmed which upon the matter is but an Abridgement or Epitome of the liberties and rights of the Subjects of England before the conquest which liberties and rights are grounded upon the Law of God and naturall reason when any King of England would have extraordinary supplies from the people that the Parliament being conveened the King hath given or shewne some probable or seeming reasons why he desired or had need of such supplies and the Members of Parliament I meane those of the House of Commons at their returne to the places which intrusted them have likewise shewne or manifested some generall reasons or causes to the people why such extraordinary supplies were by them granted And surely were there now an account taken and given of the extraordinary and vast supplies levied on the estates of the people it would give a great satisfaction so that neither King or Parliament did at any time take ad placitum but ad necessitatem nor did the people otherwise grant any extraordinary supplies of mony 3. But some it may be will object and say suppose the King and Parliament should make an act that they would might dispose of all the Subjects estates in England themselves excepted or not excepted and consequently that they might take from whom they please what they please all if they please ad placitum what remedy might the Subjects have I answer that for my part I suppose it almost impossible that the King and Parliament should doe such a thing but admitting of a kinde of impossible possibility I answer further that in such case the Counties Cities and Townes corporate might and ought first to petition against so great an injury and if not remedied then they might declare and protest against such an act if violated then they might defend themselves by Armes for if the Representative Body of the Kingdome may in the behalfe of the Kingdome raise Arms for the defence of themselves and the Kingdome may not the essentiall is not the cause more noble then the effect in that it gives being to the effect doe not the Counties Cities and Townes corporate give being or a well-being to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses by intrusting their power Iudiciall to them And yet by reposing or granting such Trust they doe not disinvest themselves of their right naturall no more then one that passeth an estate to feoffees in Trust for some causes and considerations disinvesteth himself of the use intended or reserved so that they may defend their liberties and proprieties even by law of Nature which no speciall or Nationall Lawes can nullifie unlesse men will become or be made slaves and lose the right of Nature And besides it is an Axiom Politicall ubi nulla protectio ibi nulla subjectio if therefore the King or Parliament or King and Parliament should make an Act that they might dispose of all Subjects estates ad placitum as aforesaid deficiunt â protectione they faile or fall from the protection of the people and then the people may deficere â subjectione and protect themselves their liberties and proprieties even by Law Politicall 4. But some will farther object that it may be that the Counties Cities and Townes corporate doe intrust all their power both Iudiciall and Naturall fully and wholly as it were to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses at their election promising and covenanting to stand to all that they shall doe in Parliament c. And they will it may be object and say moreover that the King and Parliament are the Legislative power in England and that they may as well make a Law to dispose of all Subjects estates in England ad placitum c. as they have made and can make Lawes concerning Religion and the like I answer that albeit the Counties Cities and Townes corporate doe intrust their power Iudiciall not naturall to the Knights Citizens and Burgesses and promise to stand to what they shall doe yet they intrust it in beneficium Regni nonperniciem that is the proper and adequate object and end of their trust and they promise to stand to what they shall doe in matters disputable whether Religion is a matter disputable they be Actuall or de facto or Potentiall wherein the Kingdom may be either benefited or damnified and of such things the people make them their Judges but not in matters indisputable wherein without any dispute the Kingdome would be wholly damnified and
Prerogative or power extraordinary but rather of his ordinary power and I conceive moreover power extraordinary or ordinary to consist rather in reason positive then negative in beeing rather then in non beeing and consequently in the Kings power to consent and Act rather then in his power to non consent and non-act which upon the matter is but ens negativum a deniall of acting enacting or coenacting with the Parliament â—d hath free â—er to doe at be pleaâ— yet the tribute of Omnipoâ—ce is not â—ominated â—â— his not â—lingnesse to â— but from power of â—ng able to â— if willing though the â—g have free â—er to conâ—â— or dissent â—is Parliaâ—nt even as â—s a body â—tick yet the â—ue of his â—thority canâ— bee denoâ—ated from non-wilâ—gnesse to â—sent but â—â— his powâ—â—facting c. â—illing wherefore concerning the Kings negative voice in Parliament I state the case thus viz. that his consent is either necessary or unnecessary to the consummating of an act in Parliament if unnecessary to what end should it be insisted upon if necessary then is his consent either voluntary free as in reason it may seem to bee as well as the consent of either House of Parliament or else the King is tyed and obliged not only in foro conscientiae but jure determinato to give his consent this last cannot be made appeare for a King of England hath power to write if willing to give his consent Le Roy It veult or if unwilling Le Royle avisera as for that allegation which some bring viz. that the King never writes Le Roy le neult or the King will not it seemeth to me of no great consequence for if the King may as a Politick body advise as he pleaseth he may consequently not will till he please wherfore his consent-must be voluntary that is to say the King hath free power to consent or dissent even as he is a Body Politick not withstanding that the vertue of his Authority consists in his possitive power of consent or being able to Act c. as aforesaid 5. Furthermore for my part I conceive that although the King have free power to consent or dissent even as he is a Politick body and that his consent give force and vertue to an Act and Statute as aforesaid yet his dissent doth not or cannot frustrate or make void an Ordinance concluded of and avouched by both Houses of Parliament and generally accepted of by the whole or major part of the Kingdome and the reason is because the Parliament is the representative Body of the Kingdom intrusted by the Kingdome and may therefore conclude of and constitute what shall seem expedient for the good of the Kingdome and such constitution or Ordinance generally admitted as aforesaid hath or ought to have the nature and vigor of Law for Ius Regni tâm Actuale quâm Potentiale is the peoples in generall they are interested in that the Kings interest consists in jure Regnandi but to this some it may be will object that almost all immunities and priviledges to Cities and especially to Townes corporate have been conferred by our Kings yea some will not sticke to affirme that all the liberties of the Kingdome have been granted by our Kings and that therefore it may seem unjust that any constitution or ordinance should have the nature or vigor of Law nolente Rege to this I answer that almost all such immunities or priviledges are included Radically in the generall liberties of the shares or shires of the Kingdome so that they are not meer Grants of our Kings but Treasures of the Kingdome in more speciall manner applied by our Kings to some places and persons and as touching all liberties of the Kingdome to have been granted by Kings I confesse I was once inclined to that opinion in respect of the conquest but having considered that conquest barely of it selfe createth no just Title as formerly instanced and that the Laws and liberties which this Kingdome now enjoyeth were upon the matter existent before the conquest that the Conqueror his heires and successors were obliged stricte in foro conscientia to conserve and maintaine them albeit they violated too many of them I say these things considered I cannot finde how the liberties of the Kingdome should proceed from our Kings but that they are the peoples in generall by right even as the Crowne or Ius Regnandi is the Kings by birthright yet admitting that some immunities or priviledges were granted by our Kings to some places and persons or to the Kingdome in generall may not the people or their feoffees in trust the Parliament make the best use of such Grants as well as Kings have made use of Grants from their Subjects And why should then the Kings Grants of priviledges or liberties if any such have been impeach the Subjects in generall or Parliament from doing what they may doe jure Regni for their generall good any more then the Subjects Grants to Kings should impeach them from doing what they may doe jure Regnandi for their owne good surely there can no reason be shewne so that for my part I conceive that Ordinances in nature as aforesaid have and ought to have the force and vigor of Law 1. And I intend now by way of reason to instance the generall benefit and liberty which the Subjects of England have by the Law or rather their Law I exclude not the King from any benefit thereof but only from power of violation The Law here in England to comprehend all speciall Lawes in one generall terme is as I conceive A rule admitted by common consent by which all men from the highest to the lowest according to their severall degrees are to regulate their actions to this both King and people have consented by this both King and people are preserved with this both King and people are united and as it were linked together This Law is the true Robur Britanicum whereof the Common-Law is the root and stock and the Statutes Acts and Ordinances of Parliament are the branches which at severall times upon severall occasions have spred themselves to solace the Subjects of this Kingdome under which they might in peace repose Now the Subjects of this Kingdom which live under this Law of common consent may be considered either as the Body essentiall and so all naturall or native persons of what degree soever in all Counties Cities and Towns corporate and wheresoever within the limits of this Kingdome are comprehended or else the Subjects of this Kingdome may be considered as the Body representative and so the Parliament is only intended consisting of Lords or Peers quasipares inter se and of Knights Citizens and Burgesses for the Counties Cities and Townes corporate These Knights Citizens and Burgesses are elected by the Democraticall body of Freeholders and such like of the people and doe represent or vices suas gerere if the people without confusion or disorder
enslaved and deprived of its naturall right as in the King and Parliament having a power to dispose of all mens estates ad placitum as aforesaid of such things they make them no Judges and the word Represent inferres as much for to represent or alterius vices gerere doth not import as some would have it to be an absolute Iudge or Vmpire in all things for then he doth not represent or vices gerere but is absolute and independent but in some things moreover the writ whereby the Parliament is conveened declares that they are not called together de omnibus sed de quibusdam arduis Rebus negotiis regentibus c. some things need not Parliament Assemblies to determine of them but only to conserve them from violation as the generall and fundamentall liberty and propriety of the subject c. and as concerning that the King and Parliament are the Legislative power in England I grant that they are in things disputable as aforesaid but not in things indisputable such as is the generall and fundamentall liberty and propriety of the Subject grounded upon the Law of Nature c. concerning their lives and estates as formerly mentioned 1. And now to satisfie such who by mis-interpreting some places or texts of Scripture suppose it most unlawfull and heynous for a Nation or People to defend by Armes against a naturall or rather Nationall power whether Potentate or Potency it makes no matter their Lawes and liberties if violated I have thought good to discusse and resolve some of their chiefest Allegations and first that of the 13. to the Romans Let every soule be subject to the higher power for there is no power but of God c. Concerning which Text I say that every soule ought to be subject to the higher power so far forth as that power doth lawfully extend for God commandeth no unlawfull thing either by divine Law or by Law of Nature or by Law of Nations Power by Divine Law is that which hath extraordinary or speciall appointment by God as I have already instanced in the beginning that of Nature is grounded upon common principles of reason that of Nations upon prudent and politicall reasons and considerations Now to this last Power subjection may bee due more or lesse for some Nations have agreed and covenanted as it were to be slaves as the Persians Muscovites Turkes c. others have made a better bargaine for themselves in matters of subjection as the English Aragonez c. Now when the Apostle saies Let every soule be subject to the higher power c. he intends not that such as were lesse subject should make themselves slavish by undergoing any kind of needlesse or enforced subjection but only that they should be so far forth subject as God had made or caused them to be subject And the Apostle infers as much in the same Chapter v. 7. Render therefore to all their dues tribute to whom tribute custome to whom custome feare to whom feare honour to whom honour he doth not say Render more then is due if it be exacted Moreover the Apostle in the words Let every soule be subject c. induces a generall cause of obedience not a speciall or in some cases for suppose the Apostle had said Spare or be mercifull to all men for there is no man but he is of God or the Image of God this had not prohibited but it might have been lawfull to punish malefactors so when the Apostle saies Let every soul be subject to the higher power for there is no power but of God c. This hinders not but that it may bee lawfull to oppose Tyrants usurpers and such like And when the Apostle saies farther for whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God c. it must surely be understood of power one way or other lawfull as the 3. v. in the same Chapter and the verses following shew for if otherwise the enslaved or oppressed people may free themselves if they finde convenient occasion from their bondage without any speciall warrant from God as did the petty Kings and people of Sodome and Gomorah who were enslaved or made Tributaries Gen. 14. yet their leavying War or Rebellion was not reprehended but rather countenanced by the high Priest in the time of the Law of Nature and the usurping Tyrants of the Nations called enemies of just Abraham their assistant who surely would not have aided or rescued his brother and the rest of his brothers friends without some speciall warrant from God whereof we read of none if their leavying of War or Rebellion to free themselves from bondage had been unjust but indeed the Law of Nature dictated their War to be just 2. Another Allegation greatly insisted upon albeit I see no great reason for it to prohibit Subjects to take Arms in any case of Tyrany and oppression against a Nationall Potentate is the Text Matth. 22. v. 21. Render therefore to Caesar the things which are Caesars and to God the things which are Gods whereby some would conclude that all temporall estates of Subjects are Caesars or of such like as Caesar and that therefore if Caesar should and would demand men to surrender all their estates into his hands they ought to doe it or otherwise if he should by violence take it they ought to permit him and no way to resist him but I answer to such that there is in those words not only a distinction of things spirituall and temporall Gods and Caesars but also a limitation of things temporall for it is not said Render all your mony or substance to Caesar but the things which are Caesars so much as is due to him his tribute mony and such like It may be some Critick will object and say that it is also said And to God the things that are Gods and that therefore according to this interpretation God may seem also to be limited not so for where the Text will admit of limitation as aforesaid there it ought to be admitted but where it will not without incongruity there it ought not to be admitted when we have done all what we can do in respect of Gods service we are but unprofitable servants we cannot punctually performe our duties but we may give or Render too much to Caesar or Caesars â—e renâ—â—â—â—ore â— is Potentates or Potencies unlesse they make it appeare that what we Render is for our good as well as for theirs 3. Some there are also who alleadge the 1 of Peter 2. 13. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme c. and hence they would infer that all Acts or Ordinances of Kings ought to be obeyed or otherwise undergone and suffered they must not be resisted But surely Acts 4. v. 19. and also 5. v. 19. in things touching God their Ordinances ought not to be obeyed if opposite to the Ordinances of God and for Ordinances of man