Selected quad for the lemma: prince_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
prince_n duke_n king_n poland_n 2,753 5 11.6962 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

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

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

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.