Constitutio Liberi Populi. OR, THE RULE OF A Freeborn People. BY WILLIAM BALL OF BARKHAM, ESQUIRE.  In Deum Omnia. 
Printed, Anno Dom. 1646.   

TO THE HONOURED. The Right Worshipful SIR FRANCIS PILE BARONET.  
William Ball of Barkham, wisheth health, and happiness.  
SIR,  
THE distressed County of Berks thinks itself happy in these unhappy times (I speak in respect of the present extrinsecall calamities) to have access, for redress to so worthy a Patriot as yourself; and myself also, think myself happy in so honoured an acquaintance: what benefit Berks hath my Pen may spare, their Tongues speak; what benefit I have, I cannot gratify; but to show or manifest Actum Amicitiae, an Act, or Term of due respective friendship, I have dedicated unto you this small subsequent Endeavour, wherein if any thing may be worthy acceptation, I request your acceptance thereof, and to acknowledge  
Quicquid bonum, Bonum Dei;  
Quicquid malum, malum mei.  
Which courteous favour I know you will vouchsafe to  
LONDON, this 12. of May, 1646. Your Friend, and Servant to his power, WILLIAM BALL.   

Constitutio Populi liberi. OR, THE RULE OF A FREEBORN PEOPLE.  
FIrst, Reason is Queen-Regent of Humane Affairs; by the sight whereof men discern to walk in the prudent paths of Morality and Policy, even as by the Light of the Day they discern to tread the paths of the Earth; And albeit that this interior light of understanding is in Divine things darkened, by the fall of our first Parent, yet doth the Eternal Light eve● communicate to Mankind sufficiency of Reason (I intent for worldly things) thereby to direct his go out, and come in according to the un-necessitating determination of God) as it were by a cloudy Daylight, though not a clear Sunshine, whereby the Actions of men may severally be discerned.  
2. Not ●ong since I wrote a small Treatise, entitled▪ Tractatus de ju●e Regnandi, ei Regni, or the Sphere of Government the which a●beit I conceived that I had squared it according to t●e Ru●e of Reason; yet some conceive, that it wants its true proportion, or line, and that I have too much extended the In●●te liberty of the Freeborn People o● England: to satisfy (or otherwise convince) such, I have published this Epitome of State-Ru●e, or Government desiring all men to weigh, and con●ider what I have written, not with the Prejudicating Eye of Affectation (whic● many times mis●eadeth apprehensive judgements) but with the Balance of Reason to ponder every Grain, and if the weight ●e just and level to approve and accept of it; if somewhat too light, to add of their own understandings what is deficient  
3. It is certain that had Man never fell from his state of Innocence, there had ●in ● superiority, or rather priority in Nature (viz. That the Parent ●hou●d have been known and reverenced as the Instrumental cause of the Child, etc.) but there had been no so●eraignty, and consequently no subjection; for 
Spirituum coelestium datur supe●iori●as, sive Prio●itas; quamvis omnes ●isione beatifica perfruuntur: non tamen subjectantur inter se, vel ad in 〈◊〉, quia talis subjectio visioni 〈◊〉, cui Omnes illi spiritus ordi●antur, opposita foret; et Ratio est, quia si natura est libera, liberrima Glo●ia; at summae libertali non conve●it subjectio, subordinata: preterea quilib●t spiritus caelestis apprehenden● Gloriam Dei per se, vel in se, & non per al●um, vel in alio, non sufficiens habe●et beneficium, ut se ●al●● creaturae subjiceret, cum in Creatore perf●ctam simul omnium fruitionem habeat; utcunque tendentiam Reve●enciae inferiores ordine spiritus supe●io●●bus, B●nig●itatis superiores inferio●ibus adhibere probabile est.  had there been no s●nne there had ●een no need of a justiciating Power, nor a Subject to which that Power could have determinated or terminated itself; every man's Actions would have been regulated by the Eternal Law, written in the hearts of men; So that there had been no need of Additionall, or Nationall Laws: wherefore (by the way) I cannot assent to the Opinion of that Gentleman (Fortescue) who said, that all Mankind shoul● have been governed by the Laws of England, if Adam had not sinned in Paradise; for by his favour if Adam had never sinned [in School-Reason, or Divinity] he had either always lived in Paradise, or else finished a complete thousand years (which the Apostle Peter calls a Day with God, 2 Pet. 3. 8.) and then had he either been assumed into Heaven alive or else (if God had decreed a separation between his Soul and Body) he had yielded himself into the hands of his Creator, sine do●ore mo●tis, sine t●more paenae, without pain of death, or fear of punishment, and had left his Earthly habitation to his posterity, who should have possessed and enjoyed the same without any the least contention, or controversy regulated only by the Eternal Law aforesaid. But (to return) no sooner sin, but with it subjection entered as a cur●e, and therefore God said to woman, that she should not only bring forth in pain (which God would have dispensed withal if she had not sinned) but also that her ●esir● should be subject to her Husband, and he should reign over her, Gen. 3. 16. It is very probable that if she had not sinned, she should notwithstanding have tendered a re●erence to her Husband as more noble in Sex, and created before her in time but she should not have rendered a subjective Obedience, if disobedience had not made her subject.  
4 And albeit that subjection is a scourge of sin, yet it hath plea●ed the Almighty according to his divine will, to cause some Persons, and Nations▪ to be more subject than other some; many times enthralling, and enslaving them by Tyrannical, or Imperious Instruments for their sins (as the sacred Books of the Judges, Kings and Chronicles sufficiently declare) and upon their Humiliation, or for other secret causes known to his Divine wisdom, he hath mercifully released, or mitigated their yoke as the sacred Writ▪ yea and humane Records testify at large: And sometimes God hath done this by special, or miraculous means, as he did to the people of I●rael; sometimes by ordinary ways, as the Florentines (albeit of late enslaved) purchased their liberty of the Emperor for money, and so also did other Cities of Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, others by plain defiance and Arms, have regained their Freedom (that is, to dispose of themselves) as did the Cantons of Switzerland, the Provinces of Holland, Zoland, etc. and either of these ways may be said to be just; for Id juris est, quod Nationis est, that is lawful, or Law which a 
Id ●uris est, qu●d Nationis est; id est, Id Jure humane obligat Nationem intra se, cujus consensu Generali quid constitutum est, quamvis illud non sit semper synodice Juri Divino, et rectae Rationi consentaneum; et Ratio est, quia Homines se mutuo tam inconvenienter; quam conve●i●nter obligare possunt.  Nation generally approveth, or admitteth of; and there need no special Warrant from God for any thing that they shall do agreeable to their Natural or Humane Reason, any more than it needed to the petty Kings and people of So●om, and Gomorrah (instanced in my former Treatise) or to the Nation of the Jews in the time of the M●chebees: And albeit that a Nation in general should approve, and admit an erroneous Law (as I know not any Nation, State, or Parliament that is infallible) yet such 
States or Parliaments are collective, or Representative Nations not Universal, or Essential; ●● in England and Holland.  Law ought to be kept, and observed as a Law, because men have power to tie and oblige themselves to inconveniences (if God prevent not and prudent Reason dictate not the contrary) as to conveniences, and their Error being Nationally general, must either be admitted of all persons (comprehended within their Rule) as legally just, or else permitted, because it is constituted by the highest Power humane, from which there is no appeal but to God, who in his good time will either mercifully illuminate their understandings ro reform their Error, or justly chastise them for their perseverance in Error.  
5. And the Rule of a Freeborn People, or a People free to dispose themselves consists in that, wherein the People in general constitute or determine themselves, not in that wherein they are constituted, or 
Constitutio populi liberi constat in eo quo se constituit Populus, non in eo quo constituitur Populus; et Ratio est quia talis constitutio debet esse Active libera, non passive reactiva.  determined, tanquam ab alio ag●nte, by some other instrumental cause, for then are they not free: So that it is destructive to the very Essence of their Freedom not to be able to determine themselves to that which they conceive to be Bonum common, that being their adequate, and proper object: and this they must not be able to do sometimes only, and originally, but perpetually, otherwise, deficiunt a libertate proprie loquende, & sunt tantum liberi secundum quid, vel denominative; they cease to speak truly, to be free, and are only free in Denomination, or a kind of Titulary Freedom; for natural Reason dictates, that every thing ceases to continue, when the Form thereof, or the Original Form ceases to be; so that if a people can Originally dispose or determine themselves, and cannot afterwards Actually do it, their Original power, or form of disposing, or determining themselves 
A free Nation or People can ever Actually do it, when they are necessitated, or enforced to use their Primitive or intensive Power, and resume their Power entrusted.  ceases to be.— But it is to be noted, that no People in the world (intending to be free) subditi potius quam subjecti, and who have either conserved their Original Freedom, or Actually regained it, do, or did ever grant a Power to one, or more, or constitute a Power in one, or more that should be destructive to their intended Original Freedom; For as john Cook of Grays-Inne Barrister, in his Epistle Dedicatory, in a Book entitled the Vindication of the Professors, and Profession of the Law, hath ingeniously said; All Power and Authority is given for preservation, and edification, nothing for destruction and desolation; so that albeit a People, or Nation, to avoid disorder, do constitute a Ruler, or Rulers to conserve Order, and do generally consent to direct their humane Affairs according to such Rules as shall be by him, or them or both given, or prescribed; yet they ever intent that such Rules must not be directly opposite, or against the Law of Nature, or their Natural Liberty; if they be, they may choose whether, or not they will admit, or receive, them; they constitute, or institute in their Ruler, or Rulers their power extensive, but not primitive, or intensive, that is to say, their innate and inseparable Freedom ever intended to dispose, or determine themselves, In bonum common 
In bonum common, etc. urgent necessitate coactiva; ut Antea.  prout omnibus visum▪ erit, this they never part, or parted withal; for at what time soever they should do it, they cease to be Populus liber, or liberi subdits, a free People, or a People which are freely under a Law by common consent as aforesaid.— And of this I shall instance a similitude in Nature: The Element of Water is not of itself extensively coloured, but is apt or applicable to receive any colour; yet it is intensively white (it being Nature's Innocent Original colour) as is sufficiently discerned, when it is converted into Snow, or congealed into Ice, or precipitated Torrent-like, by an extraordinary fall: so People or Nations are not of themselves extensively regulated but apt or applicable to receive any Rule, which they, whom they institute, or intrust, shall apply unto them; howsoever they are intensively free to dispose themselves (it being their Natural-Innocent-Originall Rule) as is sufficiently discerned by the several Alterations of Government in Athens, Rome, Geneva, Switzerland, Holland, and many other places, where the people's affections have been either congealed by their over-domineering Lords (as it were creatures of the second Region of the Air) or (Torrent-like) have been precipitated by an extaordinary fall, occasioned by some violent disturbers of their common Liberty (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the general benefit of Mankind. For my part, Anathema be to such, who desire to deprive a King of His just Prerogative; Anathema be to such, who desire to deprive a Parliament of their just Privilege: but Anathema Maranatha be to such who should any way desire to deprive a Freeborn People of their just Liberty, or Propriety.  
6. Nor can I conceive, but that the English Nation, or People are (if rightly considered) one of the most freest Nations in the World; for they cause, or require their Kings to take their Oaths to conserve their Laws and Liberties, before the Crown actually invest their Temples; thereby showing that they reserve, and intent their general Liberty and Propriety; And albeit, that a King of England have his Ius Regnandi, or Right of Reigning by Inheritance as I have instanced in my former Treatise; yet illud jus quamvis sit quoad potentiam, sive officium potestatis derivativum, est tamenquoad exercitium potestatis Relativum, that Right of Reigning, although it be derivative in respect of the King's personal Authority, or rather Office 
Derivativum a Deo ordinari● per successionem.  for Authority, yet is it relative in respect of his Exercising, or performing that Authority; for though the people obey the King as their chief Ruler, or Magistrate before his Oath taken, yet it is ever with reference, or relation, that He should take His Oath for their preservation, and good in general, and perform the same; otherwise they have recourse to their primitive, or intensive power, as in the case of Edward the second, from whom Sir William Russell, Speaker of the Parliament, in the name of all men, or people of 
Graston Chron. Hoc factum fuit legitime, secundum Jus Primitivum, sive intensivum Populi, Anne tamenlegitimo in foro conscientiae & rectae Rationis modique questio est.  England, constrained, or took his Royal Office, or Authority; or to speak more truly, deprived him of it, without any former precedent, exercising the intensive power of the people; for Trussell said not to EDWARD the second, in the Name of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, or in the Name of the Commons assembled in Parliament, but in the Name of all men or people of England, etc. thereby expressing, or manifesting the People's Primitive, or intensive Power, more than the Parliaments secundary or extensive Authority.  
7. And as the English Nation, or People cause their Kings formally to swear, or take their Oaths to conserve their Laws, and Liberties; so they cause the Parliament (I mean the Body collective, or representative of the People, viz. the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses) to take their Oaths (if not formally) yet at the least virtually, to conserve their general Liberty, and Propriety, to do all good they may for the places that intrust them; all which they faithfully promise at their Elections: So that the English Nation, or People never gave, or voluntarily assented, that their Kings, or Parliaments, or Both, should have an absolute Domineering, or Arbitrary power over them, but only a Discretive, or Legal Authority intended ever for their good in general; their ever reserved, and as it were Essential Propriety.  
8. Wherefore I cannot but marvel at such (whether Kingly Royalists, or Parliamentary Realists, in this case it makes no matter) as by a kind of Idolising King, or Parliament, or King and Parliament, would suppose, or persuade the People, that their Lives, Liberties, and Proprieties are disposable by King, and Parliament, ad Placitum; one john Cook of Grays-inn Barrister, by me already cited, hath in his Vindication of the Professors, and Profession of the Law inserted, that I have in my former Book, entitled, The Sphere of Government, introduced a dangerous Opinion, by putting, or stating a supposition, or rather a Praesuppositive case, that if King, and Parliament, or King, or Parliament, should make an Act that they would, and might dispose of all Subjects Estates in England (he should have added ad Placitum, for those are my words) that in such case the Counties, Cities, and Towns corporate might if not remedied declare, and protest against such an Act, if violated, than they might defend themselves by Arms.— And to convince this my Assertion, in the next Page, he says, if the supreme Court be not supreme to all intents, it is not supreme to any intent, because there is an higher above it; this is no good consequence; for a Power (and consequently a Court of Power) may be supreme to some things, yet not to all: the King of Poland, for life, is supreme to appoint what place he thinks fit within the Precincts of the Dominions of Poland for the convening or assembling the Diets, or Courts of the Peers Spiritual and Temporal of that Kingdom; and the King of Poland is also supreme to censure, or punish any of his own Tenants, and Vassals, or Slaves; yet is he not supreme to censure, or punish any of the chief Nobility, but by consent of his Assembly, or Court of Peers; nor can he meddle with any of their Tenants, Vassals, or Slaves; or determine absolutely of Peace or War, etc. In the Commonwealth of Geneva (which he calls a pure Democracy) the People in general are supreme ●o nominate, or elect Two Hundred which are the Grand-Councell; and those Two Hundred are supreme to nominate, or elect the Twenty five, and yet not supreme to elect the four Syndiques, or Annual Governors, or rather Rulers, etc. So that it is no good consequence (as aforesaid) to affirm that, if the Supreme Court be not supreme to all intents, it is not supreme to any intent, because there is another above it; For in Geneva it is evident, that the Two Hundred, or Gra●d-Councell, is the supreme Gourt, and yet not supreme to all Intents; the People indeed, or Commonwealth in general, (which are the supreme Power, though not Court) are supreme to all Intents; but of that hereafter.  
9 But the Gentleman says, that there are in the Kingdom so many thousand Acres of Land, either the Parliament may settle, and determine the Right of all their Acres (he meant surely those Acres) or not of any one of them, for there is no medium, etc. But what is this to the purpose, of the Parliament having a power to dispose of all Subjects Estates ad placitum? who knows not, but that the Parliament can determine the Right of all Acres in England, in foro judicii, as v. g. the Parliament can determine whether White Acre belong of Right to Oakes, or Styles, let the Title of either of them be never so difficult, or obscure, and the Parliament can determine whether or no, Oakes or Styles have forfeited their Propriety of, or to White Acre for Delinquency, etc. Moreover the Parliament can (which no other Court can do) applicare in necessitatem Regni, apply to, or for the necessity of the Kingdom so much of the profits of White Acre, as to them shall seem convenient; provided that the cause, or causes thereof be made manifest, that Oaks, Stiles, and all men may (if they will) take notice thereof; and provided also, that an Account be given how and which way the profits of White Acre have been for such cause, or causes applied, and disposed of; for no Freeborn Englishman (much less the Nation in general) ought to be deprived of any his Right, or propriety without good cause: Notwithstanding the Parliament of England cannot disponere ad Placitum, dispose at their will and pleasure barely of White Acre (no, nor of one 
quo modo una particula terrae ad placitum disponi potest eo modo & omnis Terra in Regno Angliae disponenda sor●t.  Acre of waste in England) v. g. that whereas White Acre belongs of Right to Oakes, Stiles shall notwithstanding have it because it is their will and pleasure; this they cannot do; for at what time they should do it (albeit I suppose it almost impossible that they should do it, as I have formerly instanced) they fail, or fall from the Protection of the People, and usurp to themselves an absolute Arbitrary and irregular Power, destructive to the general good of the People, and consequently cease to be a Parliament, and become Tyrants, and Oppressors.  
10. I cannot therefore but somewhat admire, that a Lawyer, and one that seemeth unto me to have understood Logic, should be (having been as it seems to me sometimes seasoned with Intellectuals) so unsound in his Intellectuals, as not to distinguish between Disposing at Pleasure, and Determining of Right, or settling according to Right, being things of a different species, and not magis, or minus in the same species. But it is not amiss to take a little notice how the Gentleman opposes himself; in his Book Page 4. he says, it is resolved in the Earl of Leicester's Case, that an Act of Parliament against the Law of God and Nature is void; but this must be cautiously understood (says he) that I speak not of secundary, or less principals of Nature, etc. Pray let him tell me, whether to dispose of Oaks, or Styles white Acre ad Placitum, be not directly against the Law of God and Nature; the Decalogue says, Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not desire thy Neighbour's house, etc. and Nature dictates, do, as thou wouldst be done unto; Now he, or they that dispose at their own pleasure, of their Neighbours Acre, or Acres, do steal, for that he, or they deprive their Neighbour, or Neighbours of their Right, and Propriety; they covet also, for that they desire, and acquire to themselves a power of disposing at pleasure; they oppose also directly the Law of Nature, for they would not have any one to dispose of their Propriety, ad Placitum, or at their own wills, and therefore ought not to do it to another; so that if the King and Parliament should make an Act, or King, or Parliament make an Ordinance, that they might dispose of all Subjects Estates, ad Placitum, etc. they oppose the Law 
Plowdens Comment.  of God and Nature, and even by his own citation, and assertion, it is void; and I am sure it is also directly opposite to the Rule, frame, and constitution of a free Nation (such as are the English, being no Turkish, or Muscovian slaves) where the Rulers and Governors are but entrusted (as I in my former Treatise have instanced) for the general good of the Nation: And the Gentleman, albeit he hath cavelled at me in the latter end of his Book, yet hath he confessed, and acknowledged as much in his Epistle Dedicatory in two several places: the first is by me already cited, notwithstanding I will mention the words again; which are, all Power and Authority is given for Preservation, and Edification, nothing for destruction, 
Dispositio mere ad Placitum, est destructio & desolatio.  and desolation; the others in the same page are, for by the fundamental constitutions of this Kingdom, and the very frame and series of Government, the Power is entrusted into their hands to superintend and supervise all other Courts of justice; Now surely if Power be entrusted to t●e Parliament (as truly it is) then can they not go beyond their Trust to dispose of the Free People of England their Estates, ad Placitum, but only to determine of them, ad Rectum, or Ius, or to apply them ad necessitatem Regni, to or for the necessity of the Kingdom, of which necessity they are the 
☞  Judges.— The Gentleman says, that many a man marries a widow that would be gladly rid of her children: for my part, I know not whether, or no, the Gentleman be married; or whether he have married a Maid, or Widow, but I am sure (if he rightly consider it) he may be glad to be rid of his sick-brain begotten Child [his Asseveration that the Parliament is unlimited, and consequently may dispose of all the Subjects, or People's Estates, ad Placitum] for I verily believe, that no man found in his Intellectuals will harbour it, or give it entertainment, nor can himself sustain it.  
11. I grant him that the Parliament is the highest 
Deus est causa efficiens, & finalis mundi, quia operatus est Omnia per se, et propter se. Populus etiam est causa efficiens, & finalis Parliamenti quia per se, & propter se illos eligunt, etc.  Court extensive (viz. to conserve Rule, Order, etc.) but the People in general (viz. the Counties, Cities, and Towns corporate) are the highest, or greatest Power Intensive, in that they are the efficient, and final cause under God, of the Parliament; Now the efficient and final causes are the most noble of causes, nor are they, or can they be subject, or subordinate to their own effects, so fare forth as they are causes of such effects; so that the Parliament can never deprive the Counties, Cities, and Towns Corporate, by any Act, or Ordinance whatsoever, of their innate, and inseparable Right and Power of Electing, or creating Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, the future, or for time to come, whereby a Parliament might be instituted, or assembled by any other way, then by way of free Election; no more can the Parliament deprive the free People, or Nation of England, of their General Liberty, and Propriety, for in these things the Sphere of the Parliaments Activity is circumscribed by the Nations large Bulk of Primitive, or intensive Power; Wherefore the Gentleman mistakes when he says page 89. It is impossible that the supreme Court in any Kingdom should be limited, etc. In these Precedents, amongst free Nations all supreme Courts are d● facto, limited; as in Arragon Gene●a▪ etc.  
And for my part, I cannot find that the Parliament 
In Arragon, Valentia, and C●●●lonia, the three Estates, or Cortes delos Regnos, as they call them cannot alter so much as one of their Municipal Privileges.  Practiceth an unlimited or absolute Power, for amongst other things they have instituted Committees, and Sub-Committees of Accounts, not only to vindicate themselves from the scandal imputed by some, (viz. that the Parliament should exact more from the people than the necessity of the Kingdom req●●●ed, etc.) but also to give the people a general satisfaction, how, and which way their Estates are applied, and employed for the Necessity of the Kingdom.  
12. And now I think good further to satisfy the Gentleman and such as adhere or incline to his opinion aforesaid, concerning the Primitive or Intensive power of a free People; I have already aid that a free People are ever free to dispose, and determine themselves▪ in Bonum common, prout omn●bus visum erit, to a general common good, as it shall seem good to themselves; and that they never part, or parted with this power, for that at what time soever they should do it they cease to be 〈◊〉 liber, or liber● subdit, a free People▪ etc. And to make this Assertion more conspicuous, and plain, I instance this simile; Joint Freeholders', or Freeholders' jointly, let a Lease for one thousand, or two thousand years, if the World endure so long, with reservation notwithstanding of a continual acknowledgement to themselves, or otherwise the said Lease shall determine, and cease to be, and it shall be lawful for the said Freeholders', their Heirs, or Successors to re-enter into the said , or Free-holds, and to dispose and settle them, at their pleasure: even so a free Nation, or People let a Lease of their power for one thousand, two thousand, ten thousand years if the World so long endure, (no matter what time) to their Rulers (whom they institute and intrust) in which they give and grant power to them of Determining conserving, and applying their Liberties, Rights, and Proprieties justly, So to the particular good of every man, 
☞  as may not repugn the general good of all; so to the general good of all men, as may not annihilate the particular good of one unjustly, or indirectly; with reservation notwithstanding of a continual acknowledgement to, or for themselves, that they (viz. the Nation, or People) are the efficient cause of their power, by electing, and creating them; and that they are not to domineer over, or dispose of the●r Liberties, and Proprieties, ad placitum, but only to determine of them ad Rectum, and apply them to the general good of the Kingdom, according to the necessity of the Kingdom, Nation, or People, as aforesaid; if otherwise their Power determines, and ceases to be; and it may be lawful for the Nation or People to re-enter, viz. to make use 
Eo modo quo quid constituitur, eodem modo & dissolvi potest.  of their first primitive power, and to dispose, and settle themselves at their pleasure, or as they shall think good: And even as the Freeholders' cease not to be Freeholders', notwithstanding their long Lease, for that there is a Reservation of a continual acknowledgement due unto them, and a power of Reentry in case of Breach of Covenants, and the like; even so a free Nation, or people, cease not at any time to be free, notwithstanding their long Lease of Trust, for that there is a Reservation of a continual acknowledgement belonging unto them (viz. that they are the efficient cause, de saculo in saeculum, from Age to Age) and they have likewise a power of using their power p●●m●tive, and intensive, or power always intended and reserved, in cases aforesaid: Notwithstanding, as the 
Immediate sub Deo Populus liber, est causa efficiens, & perpetua potestati● Regulatae.  Freeholders' cannot re-enter, but only in case of Breach of Covenant aforesaid; for if otherwise they do it, they are mere Usurpers, and Oppressors; so the free Nations, or people cannot use their primitive, or intensive power, but only when the fundamental frame of their Efficient Power▪ and their Liberties, and Proprieties are destroyed, or violated ad placitum, as aforesaid, if otherwise they do it, they are mere Rebels and Anarchists, for they have entrusted all their other Judicial Power concerning Determination, Conservation, and Application to their Rulers.  
13. The Gentleman whom I have formerly cited hath said in his Book, that he never heard or read of any thing more prejudicial to the Parliaments Authority, than my Assertion in my last Book, and in this, (viz. that the Parliament cannot dispose of the Free-peop●e, or Subject's Estates here in England, ad placitum; but I must tell him that I never read of a more prejudicious, or pernicious to the Parliament, then to say that they may do it; for what say many of the vulgar; if the Parliament may dispose of our Estates at their pleasure, how shall we know t●at they will not? if any man tell them, that it is very unlikely, that so many will never consent to do such a thing, for that they might by that mean enslave their own Posterities: what say they, if they can dispose of all the Subjects' Estates ad placitum, for aught we know they might exempt themselves, their Heirs, and Successors; and likewise for aught we know they might make a Law that they will no more be Elected, or cteated by the Counties, Cities, and Towns Corporate, but by a perpetual Denomination by, or from themselves: and what can be of more dangerous consequence, then that such an Opinion, or Opinions as these should once take root in the minds of the Common People? and what can sooner cause them to take root then that they find and read a printed Book allowed of to that purpose? But if one tell the vulgar, that the Parliament cannot dispose of the Subject's Estates ad placitum, or merely at their pleasure, but that they can only apply in an equal way the Estates of the People to or for the necessity of the Kingdom, of which Necessity they are the Judges; and likewise that the PARLIAMENT cannot make a Law, or Ordinance that the Knight's Citizens, and Burgesses; shall, or may be appointed or denominated by themselves (thereby to alter the frame and constitution of this NATION) but that they must perpetually from Age to Age be Elected, or created by the Counties, Cities, and Towns Corporate; then they begin to harbour a better Opinion, and are more inclinable to undergo their Ordinances: And I believe that the intent why the HONOURABLE HOUSE OF COMMONS published lately a Declaration the Seventeenth of April. 1646. Ordered to be read in Churches, was to undeceive the People that they never had any thought to dispose of their Estates ad placitum, and so forth; for they expressly say, and Declare, To maintain the Ancient and Fundamental Government of the Kingdom, to preserve the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, etc.— Wherefore I would not have the Gentleman or any other to run be 〈◊〉 the mark; I like not Quid ●imis; it hath been 〈…〉 of many Enormities in Church and Common 〈◊〉▪ my part I wish, ●● I have ever wished, and formerly expressed myself, that the King might enjoy his just Prerogative (as some call it) or Right of Reigning; and I wish, and desire as much as any other, that the Parliament might sustain their Privileges, and Judicatory Power; But I could never suffer, nor would I if it were in my power any way to prevent it, endure that my Nation, or Fellow Subjects should be enslaved ●y any Exorbitant Power (Potentate or Potencies) Forlain or Domestic; And I doubt not, but that the Ruler of Heaven and Earth will by his Divine Providence establish such Rulers and Rules in this KINGDOM, as may be a means to conserve this Nation from slavery and thraldom, AMEN.  
furthermore, having in my former Treatise and in this affirmed that the Parliament is the supreme Power Judicatory to censure and determine all matters doubtful, and disputable (for such hath been the constitution of this Kingdom for many Ages) I conceive therefore that the Parliament may▪ and have only Power to settle what Form of Religion they shall think good; and albeit they should err therein (as Parliaments may err, and some de facto have erred) yet their Ordinances oblige jure ●u●●no; that is men ought ●ither to obey such Ordinances, or if otherwise their Consciences dictate such Ordinances to be erroneous, they ought to undergo such penalties 
Quicquid est contra conscientiam edificat ad peccatum.  as should be by them inflicted if they should impose or ordain any such: And as it is in the power of the Parliament to inflict penalties, so is it in their power to mitigate penalties, or inflict none at all for matter of Religion; wherefore for my part I greatly honour and reverence the ●are that the Parliament seemeth to take, and which the Honourable House of Commons have published in their Declaration 17. April 1646. already mentioned, That they, have not as yet resolved how tender Consciences, such as differ not in Fundamentals may be provided for, so as may stand with the peace of their fowls, and peace of the Kingdom; thereby intimating that they intent not to use severity, for matters of Religion merely (a course though practised by Pagans, befitting no men much less Christians) but rather by clemency to induce men to embrace, o● follow such Orders, or Ordinance; touching Religion, as they shall institute: Moreover, I cannot but greatly blame such as would have m●ns Consciences wracked and enforced in disputable matters, or Tenets of Religion; such as blame Domineering in others, and yet would exercise it themselves not considering what the Apostle Pet. hath written, 1 Pet. ●. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 t●at Rulers should not be as over-domineering Lords of Christ's Flock, but as Types, or examples to the flock; nor do such considerately weigh the Apostles words, Gal. 6. 1. Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted; he bids them not menace much less persecute for error, nay the Apostle directly forbids it, Gal. 5. 15. But if ●e bit●, and devour one another take ●eed ye be not consumed one of another, as if he had said, if ye break the Bond of Christian Charity take heed lest God give you not over to your malicious intentions and practices by which ye may become Instruments one to destroy another; The holy Apostle likewise Rom. 14. 10. forbiddeth men directly not so much as to judge a Brother for things indifferent, or for things which Christian Liberty in Christ giveth leave unto; for saith he, We shall all stand before the Indgment Seat of Christ: but it may be some will say, these, and such like Counsels, or Precepts of the Apostle were spoken, or delivered by him concerning meekness, to he used in admonishing our Brethren, in errors merely of Practice not of Doctrine, or in things not clearly expressed in Scripture, not in things evident, and plain in Scripture: to such I answer; what are the great matters in debate and controversy, or rather small matters in great strife, and contention now a day's agitated, but either matters merely Practical or exterior Forms of Worship, and Ceremonies, whether tolerable, or intolerable; or else matters obscure, or but by probable Arguments deducible out of Scripture, as Lay-Elders (a Business now of days, of no small consequence) whether they be not sufficiently warranted by this Text, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Let the Elders that rule well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine; the Greek hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labouring in Word and Doctrine, and from hence it must be deduced forsooth, that there were some Elders that did not labour in the Word and Doctrine, and consequently that such were Laymen; Truly others that are as sound in their judgements (it may be) as those that make this Deduction, will say that the meaning of that Text is this viz. Presbyters (or Elders) 
It is very probable that some Apostles and Disciples in the Primitive times, laboured more than others in preaching etc.  that rule well be accounted worthy of double honour, in respect of the younger or inferior; but chief such as beside their care, and ordinary performance of their charge labour extraordinarily in Preaching, and exhorting or edifying; even as one might say, let Civil Magistrates that govern well, be counted worthy of double honour, in respect of other ordinary, and inferior Persons; but chief such as beside their care, and ordinary performance of their Offices according to their Oaths, and Duties, labour extraordinarily for the Public good by advising, and consulting; I do not find that it could be deduced from this last inference, that Clergymen were or aught to be Civil Magistrates; nor can I find, that it can well be deduced from the Apostles words, that Laymen ought to be Presbyters, or Church-Elders: and yet a great deal of stir is kept about this business, and such like; and some would feign have their but probable Deductions, if so much, to be Orthodoxal Expositions, and so to be held de jure Divina, that's no presumption: but by the favour of such, I would fain know whether they are infallible or no; if no why would they then impose their Expositions de jure Divina; if they are infallible I would gladly know how they now come by such an extraordinary gift of Infallibility, and that the World (by their own acknowledgement) hath wanted it for so many Ages, as they say, in all Ages since the Apostles time; as I have said, that in Civil Affairs there should not be Quid nimis; so I say in Church-Affaires and wish that men (for alas what are we all but men) would not take upon them Quid nimis, especially in matters either indifferent, or else obscure and difficult, or such as may admit of several interpretations and Constructions. I will instance for Example sake one Text of Scripture; viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
1 john.  etc. In the beginning was the word, etc. All Divinity te●s us that Eternity is Identicu● nunc, the selfsame now, and that it hath neither Prius or Posterius, beginning, or ending what beginning then can the Eternal Word or Son of God) have? no beginning in time because Eternal, nor 
Pater Aeternus non semel sed semper dixit verbum Aeternum mentis suae (sive gagnis filium) et Ratio est, quia quod agit Pater semel ad intra, semper agit hodie, & quotidie, quia ad intra nec Prius, nec Posterius: verba Psalmistae, ergo, ex utero ante luciferum Genui te; non dicunt consummationem Actus Aeterni, sed completionem ejus, sive perfectionem.  in Nature because Increase: what beginning then? or what may the word Beginning in that place signify? Some will have the meaning of that Text to be this; In the beginning when the World was created, the word (verbum meniis) of the Father's understanding was, and so if that were in the Beginning, that was before all Beginning; but this is no good consequence, says an Arrian, for the word might be before the World, and yet be a patre ta●quam effectus a causa, be as an effect caused by God the Father, and so have some beginning (as every effect hath) though before the World, and to hold this is Heresy, for that the Father is not causa filti, but only Principiu● fil●i, not the cause, but natural beginning of the Son: others will have the meaning to be thus; in that beginning, or instant (which was and is ever, or Eternal) wherein the Father knew formally his Essence, and Attributes, he spoke, or begot the word of his mind, or understanding, being a Term of his infinite Knowledge, not produced by necessity, or will, but emaning, or flowing as it were by natural faecundity: Others will have the meaning to be thus; in that beginning or instant aforesaid, wherein the Father knew not only formally his Essence, and attributes, but also all creatures possible and existent, he spoke or begot the word of his mind or understanding; for ●ay they, the word which is the Term of the Father's infinite Knowledge is a perfectissim●, & plenissima cognitione ejus, from his most perfect, and fullest knowledge; and from hence arise divers Arguments pro & contra, not only between the Thomists, Scotists and other Schoolmen but also amongst other sorts or Sects of Christians; but must men for these, or the like disputable differences cut one another's throats, or persecute one another? God forbidden, there is not the least warrant in the New Testament for it: in the time of our blessed Saviour's passing his humanity on the Earth, some there were casting out Devils in his Name, whom his Disciples for●ad because they followed not Christ as they did; but our Saviour rebuked them, and bade them suffer them, and let them alone, saying he, or they that are not against us, are with us, adding moreover that it was not likely that any one should 
Mar. 9 40.  do a miracle in his Name and speak ill of him; our Saviour said not, that such as worked miracles in his Name should confess, and speak all that aught to be confessed, and spoken of, or to his honour; but that such as spoke not ill of him should (if they confessed his Name) be permitted, or suffered in this World; and shall not we then suffer one another in matters of Religion? Shall we ambitiously compass our Neighbour's goods, or means, under pretence of Religion, thereby scandalising Christianity: No! let all self-ends be abolished, and Peace and Union be embraced, that we of this Nation may become an Elisiu● of comfort of Christian Charity, and mutual Amity, one to another, and a Precedent of them all to other Nations.  
WILLIAM BALL.  
FINIS.