AN EXAMINATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS Upon His MAJESTY'S ANSWERS. Wherein the absurdities of the OBSERVATORS Positions, and Inferences are discovered. — Nunquámne reponam Vexatus toties rauci Theseide Codri? Juvenal. Sat. 1. Printed in the Year of our LORD. M.DC.XLIII. AN EXAMINATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS Upon his MAJESTY'S ANSWERS. WE shall for methods sake, first take a general examination of the Observators chiefest Positions, and their supposed properties: then fall to a stricter examination of them, upon a particular survey of the whole discourse: not omitting the least argument materially urged by him; which we purpose to discuss in that order, the nature of the thing examined and examination doth prompt us to; not limiting ourself to any particular government, but looking upon all in their efficients and ends: descending to particulars only and as often as the Observator goeth before us: The principal subject of his discourse is, That power is originally inherent in the people, pag. 1. and transferred by them always upon certain limitations and conditions of reentry, pag. 4, 5. he taketh this admitted and then urgeth the following properties incident to the people. The people more noble than the King, pag. 3. He proveth this by two reasons. 1. From the end. The King is for the people instituted, not the people for the King. pag. 3. 2. From the cause. Quod facit tale est magis tale, pag. 2. The King is singulis major, universis minor, pag. 2, 44. What Parliaments be, and the praises of them, pag. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Hothams' resisting the King's entrance into Hull is justified, pag 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31. These opinions are maintained, saving that of the Parliament and Hothams' act by Cardinal Bellarmine, with all the reasons used by the Observator. L 1. de pont. c. 7. et de Clericis. c 28. and Theologically answered by our late British Solomon of happy memory; the first that I observed of English Protestants that seemeth to favour this opinion, is the Gentleman who delivered upon the Earl of strafford's trial these words, If a King by the right of a Conqueror gives laws to the people, shall not the people by the same reason be restored to the right of the conquered, to recover their liberty if they can: if indifinitely meant for all people; if by conquered is meant the people, it seemeth to me that he supposeth the original of all governements to proceed from the people. The Observators arguments pretend to be drawn from the fundamentals of nature, which shall be discussed in their proper places, a Christian Writer in a business of this weight, should have had his recourse to Scripture, and measured nature by it, which is the true Lydian stone, to distinguish spurious from genuine principles of nature, the sacred book is copious and evident in this matter, but because not urged by the Observator, I shall content myself to pass by the great advantage Scripture giveth me, and touch it only with that caution I limited myself in the ensuing Treatise. Power you say is originally inherent in the people. You say so, but offer no proof of it. What power? to make Kings? all Kings? or some Kings? at all times? or some times? and is this power originally inherent in them de facto or de jure, if de jure is it divino, naturali, or jure Gentium. De facto, Ignorance itself hath not the face to aver it, dominion is the chief ingredient of Royalty: Adam had it, and used it over man and beast, a gift not of man but of God, Genes. c. 1. v. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after his likeness, after his image God created man: his image in the substance, especially soul of man, his likeness in the qualities he endowed man with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like God, as he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strong powerful: strength and power being essential properties of sovereignty, the posterity of the first man before the law, when they were a law to themselves, had potestatem vitae et necis derived to their first borne in their generations, the holy book averreth this: no modern, no ancient authority oppugneth it. Potestas vitae et necis, are infallible marks of Sovereignty, constantly exercised by the first borne before the Law, without limitation without condition or contract had with them over whom they exercised this authority, how then is Power originally inherent in the people, did the constant practice of the first age run a course contrary to nature in moral businesses for the space of sixteen hundred years: for from the creation to the deluge about so many years are reckoned by the best Chronologers: neither is this birthright of sovereignty during that time suspended, interrupted, or crossed in the line of Seth, for aught I ever heard or read of: no man I believe is of that unbelief, to say, that nature from its cradle was dispossessed of this birthright, and could not regain it in so many ages, it is said Naturam expellas furcâ licet usque recurret, less time than this might make custom nature, unless this custom did cross 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prima naturae, which we shall examine in its proper place: the purity of nature probably in moral actions, grew more corrupted in process of ages; witnesseth the increase of laws, occasioned by the increase of vice: After the Deluge, Nimrod put up the first Monarchy; the People had not the chief hand to elect him; but you reply, he was a Hunter of men, a Tyrant, an Inverter of Nature's Institutions. what Nature meant, or assented to, shall be examined in one consideration of Inherent power, De jute naturali: that he was a Monarch and not elected by the People, fully satisfieth our present purpose: he is branded with Tyranny, not so properly for usurpation of Sovereignty, but for the unnatural and inordinate exercise of his Dominion; for he in whom Sovereignty is lawfully vested, be it from People, or Patrimonial and inheritable from his Ancestors, by the unnatural exercise of his power is ordinarily and properly styled a Tyrant: the World being Peopled, several Dominions arose of several natures, one man sometimes, and in some places engrossing Sovereignty, and some times the people: the passions of depraved Nature still breaking our for their seeming best advantage: to run upon particulars is needless, nor much to the purpose, examples of both natures are numerous; though questionless unequal: the four Monarches, and the practice of the first age own not their births to popular elections: examples parallel to these for antiquity, and fame the continued voice of History assureth me cannot be found in any election made by the people: hence it is evident, that it cannot without much Immodesty or Ignorance be alleged, that Power is originally inherent in the People, de facto, in respect of practice in the People, to make all Kings, and at all times. Whether this power is originally inherent in the People de jure of right, falleth next to be examined: if this power is originally inherent in the people de jure, it is then so inherent in them jure Divino, by Divine right, naturally by the law of Nature, or jure Gentium, by the law of Nations; to aver the people entitled to this power by any Civil law; that is, by the law of any particular Nation, cometh not to the purpose: for your tenant is indefinite, not limited to any particular government; and endeavoured to be maintained by indefinite arguments: therefore if the people hath any right to this power we must find it out in one of the three rights proposed by us, and we will here first inquire after this power in the Divine law. God is donour of all Dominions witnesseth yourself, page 1. therefore not the people. but you will say God and the people: to prove this, I find not one argument drawn from Scripture in all your Observations, and if any text had the least colour of advantage for you, without doubt it had been urged: and sacred History is most energetical and too frequent in the mouth of conscious Heterodoxy, we shall to keep closer to you, decline to examine your Observations according to the rule of Scripture, and keep our discourse to run within the Channels of natural Reason; touching only Divinity as we pass along, so far as it descendeth to communicate itself with reason: if you must needs therefore justle in man to share with God in the constitution of Royalnesse, reason (reason and nature being the Idols of your discourse) forceth you to confess, that God is either the mediate, people immediate; or the people mediate, God the immediate, or both immediately concur as immediate efficients of principalities: no other sort of operation or influx can be assigned to efficient Causes, and reducible to the Observations advantage: if God is made to be mediate, people immediate efficients, it followeth of necessity, that the people must either be a mere instrument, or a free Agent enabled by the first cause, to settle this power in whom they please; and that in an absolute or conditional estate: a mere instrumental Cause, I am assured you will deny the people to be, for Instrumentum non movet nisi motum: and the effects of it, are properly and usually called the effect of the mover, I mean by mover, not the final cause, but efficient or Agent, which indeed hath the most influence upon the effect, and whose quality still specificates and denominates accordingly this efficient, and not the instrument: he that killeth a man with a Sword, is called the , not the Sword: a virtuous or vicious exploit is attributed to the man, not the sword wherewith he did it: to take God and people in this state, is to allow God to be the Well from whence doth flow principality, and the people the Conduit-pipe: and he that hath the least drop of Reason, will not aver the water to have its being from the Conduit-pipe, that conveyeth it: people in this notion have not the powers dreamt of by the Observations, either original or inherent in them; nor can your quod fecit tale, est magis tale be applied to them, that have not sufficiency fit to denominate them tale; we shall look then upon the people as free Agents, enabled by God, the mediate or remoter Cause, with power by them grantable and transferrable upon whomsoever their public voice and consent electeth; this power is by them grantable absolutely, or conditionally; or both, if they may do it both ways; we will for methods sake look upon them in their first capacity; if they make an absolute grant, they are irrevocably concluded; neither is it of any purpose to urge, that the nature of the thing granted is incompatible with an absolute conveyance of it, this is to deny our supposition: neither doth the nature of the thing granted, gainsay an absoluteness of grant; for power ever lives and estates, is at most the thing conveyed; which was and may be absolutely and irrevocably given; a free man by the law of this Land, may by confessing himself a villain in a Court of Record, bind himself and his heirs to servitude and estate to the disposal of their Lord: a man sui juris in the Roman Law, usually called the Civil law, may subject himself and posterity to another man, over whom and fortunes he hath an absolute Dominion, Gell. l. 11. c. 8. and Instinian. Institut: de servis; the Jewish Law hath an express testimony for this addition in 21. Chapter of Exodus, verse 6. his Master, speaking of Servant, he shall boar his ear through with an Awl; and he shall serve him for ever; the Logic of these examples is evident; by the same reason, that one, so many that are sui iuris, may convey to one or more absolute dominion over themselves and posterity. And though I would admit unto you, that it is, pag. 20. Unnatural for any Nation to give away its own propriety in itself, and yet this gift is both natural and necessary to the being of all Societies and States; for if every man reserveth to himself the power given him by nature to resist violence and injury; though offered by a Magistrate; then every man would be a law to himself, to the extirpation of all Societies and civil Justice. The inconveniency arising from the supposition of such absolute grant objected by the observator fale to the ground, for conditional as well as absolute tralation of power is obnoxious to inconveniences, neither is it insisted so much by us, whether this power is ever or more usually granted; but whether rightfully grantable irrevocably, which no reasonable judgement will deny by the examples urged by us, drawn from the Constitutions of those three most considerable Commonwealths, neither is this absolute subjection, as the Observator falsely urgeth, contrary or dissonant to the Law of Nature: by the Law of Nature he understandeth that which right reason assenteth unto, pag. 44. Natural reason many times approveth and consenteth to this irrevocable conveyance: poverty sometimes, or inability to defend themselves by the strength of their own Laws, compelleth the people irrevocably to subject themselves to another power; and right reason assenteth to this grant, induced thereunto by these or the like exigences of State. Campani (said incomparable Grotius) olim necessitate subacti, populo Romano se subiecerunt in hunc modum: populum Campanum urbemque Capuam agros, delubra Deum, Divina Humanaque in vestram ditionem P. C. dedimus; here is an absolute conveyance over lives and fortunes by the people, without reservations or conditions: neither standeth this example single in History: Learned Grotius in his exquisite book De Jure Belli & pacis fol. 49. reckoneth many Conveyances of the same nature, which for brevity we pass over, referring the scrupulous, if any can be in a matter so evident, to the foresaid cited Author to be fully satisfied, and shall further view the superstructure of your discourse upon the foundation yourself have laid: Admit Supremacy derived from the people, hence Quod facit tale est magis tale, The people more noble than the King, because he is for them, not they for him instituted. Salus populi Suprema Lex, and the Law of prerogative is subservient to this: the King, singulis major universis minor; 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 mere force cannot alter the course of Nature, or frustrate the tenor of Law, and if it could, there were more reason why the people might instisie force to regain due Liberty, than the King might subvert the same. And this is all I find in your Observations reducible to maintain the principal subject of your observation: the residue being either matter of fact, admonitions or reprehensions, I shall not meddle with, being Heterogencous to our present purpose, Quod facit tale etc. Wine maketh a man drunk, therefore Wine itself is more drunk than man: the inference holdeth not you see in causes by accident. Sol & homo generant hominem; therefore the Sun is more man than the man generated; this I am assured you will confess to be a very bad consequence; so than the Maxim is not current in partial efficients; and the people are at most but partial causes; for you allow God also a sharer of this Supremacy: but I will admit further unto you; Supremacy wholly derived from the people: the maxim is not true in all total causes: Adam was the author or cause of sin; God was the total Author or cause of Adam, therefore God was more Author or Cause of sin: your Religion will not allow this Logic; the axiom therefore holdeth not in total free agents, and though I admit you the people to be whole cause of this power, yet I know you will say they are free Agents in conferring of it; and if you allow them that freedom, your Axiom you see is ill applied. To come yet nearer unto you, a Servant giveth the Master the title of Master: Relatives as these are, are Causa sibi invicem doth it follow therefore that the servant is more Master, than he that is made master by him: the passage between Valentinian and his Soldiers recorded by Sozom. in his Ecclesiastical History cleareth the point, me ad imperandum vobis eligeretis, in vestra situm erat potestate ô milites; at postquam me elegistis, quod petitis in meo est arbitrio, non vestro; vobis tanquam subditis competit parere, mihi quae facienda sunt cogitare: That I was chosen your Emperor lay in your power, Soldiers, but after I am so chosen by you, what you demand of me, lieth now in mine, not your power, it befits you as subjects to obey, and me to consider what I am to do. Your Quod facit jail in point of government holdeth true in him or them, whose power continually dependeth upon the will of him or them that gave it, not in them who have it transacted by one Act, be it absolute or with certain limitation, that this power is transactable is allowed by yourself, and that absolutely, some thing is already proved; the conditional relation of it we shall refer to be further examined, in the second member of the division of immediate efficients; and here we will sift the second property you annex to the subject of your discourse, this supposed popular Supremacy. The People more noble than the King, because he for them, not they for him is instituted: that universally taken, is apparently false: some Government is only for the Governor, not the Governed erected; as that between the Master and Servant; whom the Master taketh for his own, not his Servant's profit; and though the Servant gaineth by the service, yet his gain was neither the cause nor end of this dominion; not of that gained by conquest, the end and efficient of some Government are both the Governor and Governed; as that between the Husband and the Wife, whose subjection still referreth to her and her Husband's goods. So the Campani subjected themselves to Rome for their own safety, and the Roman Honour and greatness; both you see proved the object of this Government; the Conqueror is the efficient and end of his Government; by his contract with the people to limit his power with certain caution over them, maketh them thereby a partial end of his Supremacy; it is false than that all Kings are erected for the people, and not the people for them; but that you may perceive the weakness of your inference, I shall admit unto you, that all Kings are for the people, and not the people for them; doth it follow therefore, they are more noble than the King: tutorage is instituted for pupillage, not pupillage for it; is the pupil therefore more noble than the tutor that hath power over him; the tutor upon misusage of his power over the pupil I confess is removed; but by a positive Law made by those above him; where that positive Law is, & by whom made, appeareth not in any considerable Monarch of the world. some but sew and inconsiderable Antiquity make mention of Mezentius in Virgil seemed to be of such conditional powers. Ergo omnis furiis surrexit Etruria justis, Regem ad supp●●sium prasenti morte reposcunt. This pretended Nobility we have quitted the people of by what is already said. Next your Salus populi, suprema lex, cometh to be discussed: if you mean by People a Commonwealth with all the parts of it, I allow you that Salus populi suprema lex, but if you understand by people the Subject contrà distinguished from the King, if you take people for the Members without the Head of a Society, your Salus populi is not Suprema lex: if you take Members apart, the worthier Member challengeth the first respect, and consequently the King, who is the Head of the Commonwealth, claimeth in reason the pre-eminence of the inferior Members: Art imitateth Nature; and if the Reason of Nature giveth it so, Reason of policy being grounded upon that of Nature cannot deny this prerogative: and so much concerning that adjunct. Rex singulis maior, universis minor: you understand mayor & minor in respect of Supremacy; and by universis, singulis simul sumptis, all the Subjects, and the representation of them the Parliaments, for they you say are essentially the same, pag. 5. He can command all singly, but all jointly can command him. This of all your opinions carrieth most absurdity with it. The people you say give a power over them to the King, and yet reserve it to themselves. In the Oath of Supremacy you confess the King supreme next under God; but by this you introduce an interposition of the people; the representative Body of the Kingdom the Parliament which is the Kingdom itself, so you term it, pag. 5. do jointly and universally in most acts preface the King, with May it please your most Excellent Majesty, if it proceedeth from an inferior to his superior, he cannot choose but take it as a jeer, or at least a compliment of ignorance: mistakes and ignorance are incompatible with that infallibility you deify the Parliament with; the King in respect of the universi, all the Subjects, must of necessity be considered as Head of them, or a subordinate Member. If a Head, Supremacy must be incident to it; the Head commandeth the parts to obey; if a Member, He must obey them, to be cut off or left according to the Head, the universi'es Judgement: this is to meet more than half way with the Jesuits; let not your popular kingliness stoop to a dishonourable league with the children of Belial. I shall not more enlarge myself to confute this absurdity, though I conceive this enough to any unpreiudicated man. Another hath gone before me upon this subject, who did very rationally discover the silliness, nay contradiction of this paradox. I shall pass over that of the holy Text, Statuam supra me Samuel, and urge some authority drawn from Heathens, to shame this opinion from a Christian Head; Marcus Aurelius, Magistratus de privatis principes de magistratibus, Deum de principibus judicare, Hor. Regum timendorum in ipsos greges, & in ipsos reges imperium est Jovis. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hom. Il. 1. Otanes in Heredotus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to do what he will, and not bound to give an account to any, Dion Penseensis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, So to govern that he is not accountable to another, Dion lib. 5.3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He is free, having power over himself and Law, so what he pleaseth he doth; what displeaseth him he doth not; this indefiniteness of power few Kings at this day have; time and experience upon occasional reasons of State bring Kings to descend to limit their power to certain rules agreed upon by themselves and people: and these rules have divers degrees of latitude, which the positive Laws of many Countries do manifest and distinguish, but to whom the King is to yield his account for breach of his Covenant, we shall touch hereafter; and here fall to discuss the last remarkable property your observation attributed to this supposed Ochlo-Supremacie. 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 mere force cannot alter the course of nature, or frustrate the tenor of Law, and if it could there were more reason why the People might justify force to regain due liberty, than the Prince might to subvert the same. People are not the sole end or Authors of this power, and if they were, the nature of the thing granted may be absolutely transferred by them, without express or tacit condition, as is fully proved already: than it followeth, the right of Conquest may be pleaded, to acquit Princes of that which is due, you mean to acknowledge the people the end and Author of Government, to acknowledge them the Authors of it, with power to cancel the Authority given when they please, to acknowledge a supremacy in the Prince derived from the People, and nevertheless still to reside in the People: how then doth mere force alter the course of nature or frustrate the tenor of Law, the Law of Nature you intent, if a Prince gaineth a Principality from him upon whom it was absolutely conferred, suppose from People? the Conquerors Title standeth firm against all, but the rightful Owner: and the People if they have a Title or interest in this power, more than seldom conclude them for ever: the examples we have already urged questionless force any impartial Judgement to believe it. The most considerable Monarchies, (and the greatest Govenments were Monarchies) the present or past age presenteth to us were begun and settled by Conquests; and that these Monarches descended to covenant with their Subjects to regulate their power by certain limitation desired and approved by the People, hath more of the Prince's bounty than obligation in it, being a free donative bestowed upon the people, and if the Covenant in part or in all is infringed or broken by the King, what advantage the people hath by it, passeth my understanding to apprehend; a Title of reentry cannot be reserved by them, from whom no estate passed; and if it did, this reservation must be expressed or implied; we have no expression of it urged by you, and we are assured you cannot produce any popular Charter with this express reservation; and if this is implied, this impliednesse you must discover unto us either by reason or authority: this Supremacy is of that indifferency, that may be transferred conditionally or absolutely: and I demand of you whether a tacit condition is ever annexed naturally, (I mean by the Law of Nature to take off the Constitutions of municipal Laws therein) to a business conveyable with such indifferency; to affirm it destroyeth the nature of all absolute grants. The Jews claimed themselves free from all Pagan Jurisdiction, and Caesar was their King by that right the sword did give him, if that right was not warrantable, the edicts grounded upon that right, might justly be disobeyed by the Jews: Christ preached obedience to them, for he paid the general taxation imposed by Caesar upon the Jews and others in the Roman dition, exhorted those to the same actual obedience, who came with an intent to entrap him; where then is your frequent distinction? All lawful Powers come from God, and are to be obeyed; unlawful are not of God, and therefore not to be obeyed; this power is unlawful I am assured you are ready to aver in most respects, in respect of title, and in respect of the thing enjoined, for a free Nation to pay a tribute, to part with their goods to a Pagan, to a stranger in Israel; yet though the thing commanded, though the title is by your own confession unlawful, it is enjoined not only not to be resisted, but unfeignedly obeyed by the supreme Lawgiver, and the last expositor of it our blessed Saviour. The Christians of the first age sealed this obedience with their dearest blood, here then falleth your example of the Generalissimo, pag. 4. to be considered, his soldiers are exempted from his subjection, if he turneth the Cannons upon his own people; I grant it, his Commission is derived from the King, who giveth him power over his Soldiers, to destroy or punish them only, and as often as they do transgress positive edicts; but they are not his Soldiers or his Subjects in so large a manner as they are to their King; and if they were, the one is entitled to them by God, at least partially, the other wholly by man. Sir Edward Cook a strong Champion for the English Liberty in his Institutions, l. 1. fol 1. saith, that the King holdeth the Lands hehath as King immediately from God, because he hath, saith he, no superior but the Almighty. Bracton is of the same language, Omnis quidem sub eo, ipse sub nullo nisi tantùm deo: Omnis not singuls, to take off your singùlis maior universis minor: and tantùm sub deo, spoken negatively, to exclude this eclipse, this interposition of the people. But of this sufficiently already is spoken. It cannot be objected to the Martyrs of the first age, that they could not resist the torture they were at the least seemingly willing to undergo. Tertullian in his Apology telleth the Emperor, the Christians were more in number, and stronger, and able to defend themselves: his Scholar Cyprian is of the same Language, Quamvis nimins & copiosus noster populus, non tamen adversus violentiam se ulciscitur. Lactantius confirmeth him, lib. 5. and August. in many places of his De Civitate Dei. Of all other the passage between the Thebean Legion is most considerable, and the Emperor Maximian they consisted of 6666 Soldiers, the Emperor sent unto them upon pain of death to commit formal idolatry; they refused to obey his command, they were able enough to resist him and his power, they knew and confessed it, they laid their heads to the block, and lifted no hand against him: his command was injust, was impious; by natures dictates they were to conserve themselves; yet they relinquished nature, yielded to die. Let us compare Hothams' action to this primitive passage, the King would have entered the gates of Hull, a Town within his Dominion, Hotham being within, the King's allegiance shut the gates against him, resisting his entrance with armed men; Hotham conceived his entrance would put his life in jeopardy, and the Kingdom's safety endangered; he conceived it probably not inevitably to follow thereupon; suppose the ruin of both had inevitably ensued; yet it is not so fare pressed. The Thebean example doth not warrant the resistance, they obeyed to the loss of life: this desire to enter the Town came from the Cavaliers and ill Counsellors, not from the King himself. Caesar's taxation was by his ministers assessed, collected, and probably invented. Maximians servants brought the command to the Thebean Legion to commit idolatry, they brought the punishment and executed it, and it was very probable they were the authors of both: yet no resistance made against the Emperor's command, though delivered by his ministers; yet our King in person, and viuâ voce demanded entrance, and was resisted; and resistance of the King's authority is to resist the King, as was declared by this present Parliament, upon the Earl of Strafford; trial: you will object, the Emperor had a more absolute Dominion, than our King hath, over his Subjects persons and estates; I confess it, the Emperor's power was in most things illimited; the Kings limited by our municipal Laws, obliged by a solemn Oath to keep them; and if he commandeth any thing opposite to these Laws, we are not bound to obey this command; but we are not warranted by this Law to resist the King with force of Arms, if other Christians made a conscience actually to resist their Kings command even in things contrary to the Law of Nature and the divine Law, and those that concerned salvation, and can the conscience of our Christianity allow us to raise Arms to resist the King's commands, supposed by inferences to prove destructive to our positive Laws? Our Law doth not warrant us, and if it did there is no warrant for that Law given by the supreme Lawgiver. But this resistance is approved by Parliament; by Parliament is meant by you the representative Body of the Lords and Commons, assembled by the King's Authority. I deny this to be Parliament by the Constitution of this Kingdom without the concurrence of the King, and if it were, I deny that the greater part is conscious of this resistance; and if the greater part were, I deny an infallibility tied to them; and if they were infallible, I deny that they alone without the King are competent Judges, makers and declarers of Law; if they were, than they should be both parties and Judges, and disposers of that which belongeth to the King, jure personae, without his consent, himself being neither there in person, nor represented by them or any of them; an opinion dissonant to reason or conscience, and the institution of nature for the Members to raise Arms against the Head. Aesop giveth us an example, and the effect of such War; and hereupon we will digress a little to examine the definition and properties given by your Observations to the Parliament, which you define, pag. 5. to be the essence of the Kingdom, that's false, for a thing cannot be separated from its essence; the Kingdom and Parliament can. A thing hath no being when the essence is destroyed; the Kingdom hath its being when the Parliament is suppressed, dissolved, or not in rerum natura, as in the vacancy of a Parliament: the same numerical qualities that inhere in the Parliament do not inhere in the Kingdom, and so è eontra: the Parliament may be sick at the time the Kingdom is well, the Parliament may err, when the Kingdom doth not: in the same manner, that general Counsels the representative Body of the militant Church may err when the Church general doth not. This representative Body is a select number of men entrusted for a greater, with a large Commission to treat and conclude for the trusters good: the trusters are men and subject to ercour, unless a supernatural assistant spirit of infallibility is necessarily pinned to their sleeves: that they are remoter than ordinary Courts from erring I allow you, but not absolutely free from it, as you aver, pag. 8. The praises you give to Parliaments swell up most of your Observations: and much are I confess deservedly attributed. For mine own part, as I was borne under the English Government, so I conceive it without affectation the exquisitest I know of: and in these the Parliament shineth above other Constitutions, ut inter ignes Luna minores. Let a Parliament run within its own channel, if it break the banks it overwhelmes, it destroyeth public Liberty, and looseth its being, and the end for which it was instituted. I love the fundamental Liberty of this Kingdom, as well as the Observatour doth, but without dotage, as the Observator professeth to love monarchical Government, pag. 41. Parliaments have done wrong, witnesseth the deposal of Richard the Second, therefore it is good Logic to say they may do wrong. But you say, they were forced by Henry the Fourth his victorious Army, p. 32. I say so too, than they may be forced, and force we know are of several nature, I pray God the present be not conscious of it; I leave to the effect ofevery Parliament to elogize itself. Parliaments are of a sovereign good, but as in natural so in politics, I believe, Corruptio optimi est pessima: and so much for Parliaments. We shall now reflect upon the next member of our division that falleth next in order to be discussed: that this Supremacy is grantable and granted by the people upon what condition and limitation best pleaseth them, they are so enabled by express or tacit causality of the first cause mediate and remoter God: if tacitly, it is an instinct contracted with them, and then it falleth properly to be discussed in the Law of Nature, which we shall consider in its due place; if expressly, either it is committed to writing, and so in the sacred Book, or else traditionally practised by all ages and confessed by all or most Nations: neither of these is pressed or can be justly by you: hence we have clearly evinced, that the people by the divine Law cannot be the immediate efficient of this Supremacy, whether you will consider them as mere instruments or free agents enabled by God the mediate Cause to settle and convey this Principality upon whom and in what manner they please. Next we shall inquire, whether the people is the mediate, God the immediate Cause of this power; if you so consider God and man, it followeth that the people worketh through God as a mere instrument or free agent receiving his authority from man. To aver either is hardly distinguished from blasphemy; therefore we will pitch upon the last consideration of this Supremacy in the divine Law, and see whether God concurreth as a partial immediate cause with the people to produce and convey this power upon one or many, I shall admit unto you as your last refuge this mutual and immediate concurrence, the people being but a partial cause cannot in reason divest; as they did not alone invest this power, without the concurrence of God the social cause: unless you will say, the forfeiture and power of reentry to be only reserved to the people or accrueing to them by Survivership: either of these portents of opinions madness itself will not own. Again, the Creator and Creature cannot have the same numerical influence, and if it could, the effect still denominateth the worthier cause, therefore unless the people be held the worthier cause they cannot properly or justly be called the author or cause of this Supremacy. Hence is undeniably inferred, that the people are not nor cannot be styled properly and justly the Cause mediate or immediate of Principalities. God is the Donor of Aristocracy and Monarchy, pag. 1. but few lines after of the same page you retract that opinion; disseise him of the title of Donor, holding God well repaid with the title of a Confirmer of Principalities: — Quo te mutantem Protea nodo. First, a Donor to give a being, then rob him of that, only a Confirmer to give a well being at most; the confirmation of a Charter presupposeth a Charter: God is a free Agent, suppose he suspendeth or not at all confirmeth the popular conveyance, Is the conveyance void, or voidable? if void, then either the people giveth no being at all, or this being still floweth, and not otherwise from them at that instant that God confirmeth it: and if it must always flow from them at the same instant that God confirmeth it, and not before, escapeth (I believe) any man's reason to find out. If voidable, than they give a being before God confirmeth it, and then popular election is supposable without divine concurrence; and if it be, the people prove efficients, and fall to be considered under one of the branches of efficients discussed before, and that they have not there the least shadow to this pretended Sovereignty is already and clearly evinced. Whether Nature entitleth them to this Royalnesse resteth next to be examined, Ignoratis terminis ignoratur scientia; we shall therefore explain what we mean by the Law of Nature: what dominion ariseth by this Law of Nature, and in whom this dominion is naturally resident, by the Law of Nature we understand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 statutes, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right, and this is not in so large a sense as the Roman Lawyers use it, for that which is common to man and beast, is improperly applied to beasts, according to that of Hesiod. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. God gave mankind a Law, which is Denied to beast, winged fowl, and fish. These when ere their nature need Do out upon another feed. But we restrain this to mankind, and this restrained we consider that which is properly the Law of Nature, which we conceived to be the dictate of right reason commanding or prohibiting an Act by the congruity or incongruity of the Act with rational nature and consequently enjoined or forbidden by the Author of Nature: Order and Subornation is assigned by most Astronomers to celestial Bodies, the Inhabitants of Heaven, I am assured by divine Authority, the Angels, Archangels, Principalities and Dominions; the Earth and the parts of it are created with subordinate dependency; the meaner Creatures of the Earth as Bees discover in themselves and actions Order and Subalternation in place and Authority; to deny this to Man, to whom all earthly Creatures were given; that Anarchy should only run in Mankind, cannot be imagined to be intended by Nature or the Author of it. The Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so called for Order and Decency, and shall this be denied to Microcosmos the little world, Man? whose parts are guided by the Head, from thence proceed commands to all the Members. The contemplation of these Subordinations and Offices invite us to consider the World and the things therein with respect to the Head and Monarch of it Man; and in Man the worthier to whom Nature gave a respect and priority; the Son as Son owing his being to his Father, owed him also Honour: hence Honour thy father, etc. is re-written in the heart the characters that Nature first impressed, being by the corruption of it blotted and defaced. Hereupon, Basil wittily styleth a Parent, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a visible Deity, the Patriarches of the first age, as we have already urged, derived from their Father Adam Supremacy, and left to the firstborn successively in their Generations. The contemplation thereof induceth me to believe that had Adam stood in the state of innocence, one had been subject and subordinate to one another, but without tyranny or oppression on the Commander's part, or reluctancy on the Subject. When rapine and violence the issue of corrupted Nature broke forth, necessity of safeguard forced men to draw into societies, the easier to protect themselves; and from thence you say sprung all Principalities: but whether the People chose over themselves Governors or Kings, or those Governors and Kings made themselves so at first over the People, seemeth to me not so evident, as the confidence of your Observations would have me believe: to lay aside Authorities that speak of either, we will inquire after the Truth of this, especially the Principality of the first Age by all the means reason can discover to us. When oppression appeared, probably it began in one, then more, and so in multitudes, and proportionably the number of the oppressed did increase: the oppressor in case he prevailed was Lord over his Captives life's and estates, whose increase and number increased his Dominion, swelling by degrees to the extent of a considerable Monarchy: the oppressed whether one or more (it began with few) being not able to resist violence fled without question for succour to him whom they thought was able to defend them: and that he made himself King over them seemeth to me more probable, than that he was made by them; for it will be admitted on both sides, the oppressed hath power to subject himself, and the protector power to command it; for the oppressed sheltreth himself probably under a stronger patronage than himself: without question then the Patron would erect and enlarge his Dominion with more speed and will, than the oppressed would undergo perpetual slavery, the one being dissonant to Nature, the other congruous to humane ambition: hence we gather by our consideration of the probable actions of the first oppressors, and oppressed, Principality forced by oppression cannot claim in any likelihood its original from the People: and Dominion thus gained whilst it is not accompanied with tyranny cannot be called unnatural, or to cross the dictates of reason, reason embraceth that which it forceth best to prevent violence and settle quietness; and that which Nature delighteth most in, can no way be held unnatural, witness the works of it, all woven in subjection and dependency, only oppression too frequent a companion of Sovereignty in corrupted Nature is that which is contrariant to Nature, and the chief cause of all contracts between King and people. Lastly, let us see what footing your popular Supremacy hath in the Law of Nations which is defined to be a humane voluntary Law and obligative among all or most Nations, that Law Supremacy was acknowledged by all or most Nations to be the end and efficient of all powers is neither affirmed nor proved by you. Their constant practice as we have touched already disallowing your opinion, and if you join this issue with me, you will never be able to give in evidence any convincing testimony, but we shall expect your palinodia, with Tu vicisti me & ego errorem, orthodoxally concurring with our opinion, that power is not originally inherent in the people de facto, or by any Law. The result of our discourse is that Monarchies and all other Govenments own their original to God, who is the Donor efficient and ultimate end of them, the people are by him made the instrument to convey this, but not all people, nor at all times. The King and people are the subordinate end of the Government they live in. King's contracts with their Subjects in a Government, gained by Conquest is more the Prince's bounty, than a discharge of his duty; and if otherwise, Princes so settled cannot be removed or forcibly resisted by the people without traitorous Rebellion against God and his Deputy. The residue of your discourse is either matter of fact, admonitions, or sarcasmes. for the matter of fact, as I do not disallow the truth of any of them, so I do not much credit a single testimony, especially of him whose eyes are infected with 〈◊〉 Jandize, sees the King's actions all of one colour. Sarcasme● are disallowed by the holy Text against the sacred person or a King, Ne maledices principi in populo tuo, Deuter. 22.28. or foment Rebellion with malicious paradoxes against Gods Anointed; and if by a Pythagorean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thersites liveth in your Antipathy to Regal Government, most English hearts will with me return unto you the check Thersites had; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. FINIS.