Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 44
QUEST. XLIV. Generall reſults of the former Doctrine, in ſome few Corollaries, or ſtraying Queſtions, fallen off the Road-way: anſwered briefly.
QUeſt. 1. Whether all Governments be but broken Governments, and deviations from Monarchie?] Anſw. It is denyed; There is no leſſe ſomewhat of Gods authoritie in Government, by many, or ſome of the choiſeſt of the People, than in Monarchie: nor can we judge any Ordinance of Man unlawfull: for we are to be ſubject to all, for the Lords ſake, 1 Pet. 2. 13. Tit. 3. 1. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2, 3. 2. Though Monarchie ſhould ſeeme the rule of all other Governments, in regard of reſemblance of the ſupreme Monarch of all: Yet is it not the morall rule, from which, if other Governments ſhall erre, they are to be judged ſinfull deviations.
Queſt. 2. Whether is Royaltie an immediate iſſue and ſpring of Nature?]How Royaltie is the firſt and naturall Government. Anſw. No; For man, fallen in ſinne, knowing naturally he hath need of a Law and a Government, could have, by reaſon, deviſed Governors, one or moe; and the ſupervenient inſtitution of God, comming upon this Ordinance, doth more fully aſſure us, that God, for mans good, hath appointed Governours: but if we conſult with Nature, many Iudges and Governors, to fallen Nature, ſeeme nearer of blood, to Nature, then one only: for two, becauſe of mans weakneſſe, are better then one. Now Nature ſeemeth, to me, not to teach, that one onelyonly ſinfull man ſhould be the ſole and onelyonly Ruler of a whole Kingdome. God, in his Word, ever joyned with the SupremeMany Rulers over a great multitude, more naturall than one. Ruler, many Rulers, who, as touching the eſſence of a Iudge, (which is, to rule for God) were all equally Iudges: ſome reſerved Acts, or a longer cubite of power, in regard of extent, being due to the King.
Queſt. 3. Whether Magiſtrates, as Magiſtrates, be naturall?] Anſw. Nature is conſidered, as whole and ſinleſſe, or as fallen and broken. In the former conſideration, that either man ſhould ſtand in need of any, to compell him with the ſword to doe his duty, and not oppreſſe; was no more naturall to man, than to ſtand in need of Lictors and Hangmen, or Phyſitians for the body, which in this ſtate was not in a capacitie of ſickneſſe or death: And ſo Government by Parents and Husbands was only naturall, in the latter conſideration. Magiſtrates as Magiſtrates, are two wayes conſidered; 1. According to the knowledge of ſuch an Ordinance; 2. According to the actuall erection of the practice of the office of Magiſtrates. In the former notion, I humbly conceive, that by Natures light, Man, now fallen and broken, even under all the fractions of the powers and faculties of the ſoule, doth know, that promiſes of reward, feare of puniſhment, and the coactive power of the Sword, as Plato ſaid, are naturall meanes to move us, and wings to promote obedience, and to doe our duty. And that Government by Magiſtrates is naturall: But, in the ſecond relation, it is hard to determine, that Kings, rather then other Governours, are more naturall.
Queſt. 4. Whether Nature hath determined, that there ſhould be one ſupreme Ruler a King, or many Rulers in a free Commnitie? Anſw. It is denyed.
Queſt. 6. Whether every free Commonwealth hath not in it a ſupremacie of Majeſtie, which it may formally place in one, or many?] Anſw. It is affirmed.
Queſt. 6. Whether abſolute and unlimited power of Royaltie, be a ray and beame of Divine Majeſtie, immediately derived from God?] Anſw. Not at all: Such a creature is not in the world of Gods creation: Royaliſts, and flatterers of Kings, are parents to this prodigious birth. There is no ſhadow of power, to doe ill, in God: An abſolute power is, eſſentially, a power to do without or above Law, and a power to doe ill, to deſtroy: and ſo it cannot come from God, as a Morall power, by inſtitution; though it come from God by a flux of permiſſive providence: but ſo things unlawfull and ſinfull come from God.
Queſt. 7. Whether the King may, in his actions, intend his owne Prerogative and Abſolutenes?] Anſw. He can neither intend it as his neareſt end, nor as his remote end. Not the former: for if he fight, and deſtroy his People for a Prerogative, he deſtroyeth his People, that he may have a power to deſtroy them, which muſt be meere Tyranny, nor can it be his remote end; for granting that his ſuppoſed abſolute Prerogative were lawfull, he is to referre all lawfull Power, and all his actions to a more noble end, to wit, to the ſafetie and good of the People.To reſiſt the Will, is not to reſiſt the Power.
Queſt. 8. Doe not they that reſiſt the Parliaments power, reſiſt the Parliament? And they that reſiſt the Kings power, reſiſt the King? God hath joyned King and Power: who dare ſeperate them?] Anſw. If the Parliament abuſe their power, we may reſiſt theirPag. 9. abuſed power, and not their power Parliamentarie. Mr. Bridges doth well diſtinguiſh, in his Annot. on the [Loyall Convert] betwixt the Kings power, and the Kings will. 2. The Reſiſters doe not ſeparate King and Power; but the King himſelfe doth ſeparate his lawfull Power from his Will, if he worke and act Tyrannie, out of this principle, Will, Paſſion, Luſt; not out of the Royall principle of Kingly power: So far we may reſiſt the one, and not the other.
Queſt. 9. Why, if God might work a miracle in the three Childrens reſiſtance active; why doth he evidence omnipotencie in the paſſive obedience of theſe Witneſſes? The Kingdome of Iudah was Chriſts birthright, as man, and Davids ſonne: why did he not, by legions of Men & Angels, rather vindicate his own fleſh and blood, than triumph by non-reſiſtance, and the omnipotencie of glorie to ſhine in his meere ſuffering?] Anſ. Who art thou that diſputeſt with God? He that killeth with the jaw-bone of an Aſſe, thouſands; It is no good conſequence: Chriſt and the Apoſtles uſed not violent reſiſtance to ſpread the Goſpel, ergo, ſuch reſiſtance is unlawfull.and he that deſtroyed the numberleſſe Midianites by only three hundred, ſhould no more put the three Children to an unlawfull fact in the one, if they had by three men killed Nebuchadnezzar and all his Subjects, than in the other. But nothing is ſaid againſt us in a Sophiſme à non-cauſa pro cauſa; except it be proved, God would neither deliver his three Children, nor Chriſt from death, and the Iewes from bondage, by miraculous reſiſtance, becauſe reſiſtance is unlawfull. What? patient ſuffring is lawfull; Ergo reſiſtance is unlawfull. It is a poor conſequent, and a begging of the queſtion, both muſt be lawfull to us. And ſo we hold, of ten lawfull meanes fit to compaſſe Gods bleſſed end, he may chooſe one, and let goe nine: ſhall any inferre, ergo, Theſe other nine meanes are unlawfull, becauſe God choſe a mean, d…fferent from thoſe nine, and refuſed them, So may I anſwer by retortion. The three hundred ſinned in reſiſting Midian, and defeating them: Why? Becauſe it ſhould be more honour to God, if they had, by ſuffering patiently the ſword of Midian, glorified God in Martyrdome. So Chriſt and the Apoſtles, who could have wrought miracles, might have wrought Reformation by the ſword, and deſtroyed Kings and Emperors, the oppoſers of the Lambe: and they did reforme by ſuffering; Ergo, the ſword is unlawfull in Reformation. It followeth not. The meane Chriſt uſed, is lawfull; Ergo, all other meanes that he uſed not, are unlawfull, It is vaine Logick.
Queſt. 10. Whether is the Coronation of a King any other thing but a Ceremonie?] Anſ. In the Coronation there is, and may be, theThe Coronation of the King, in concreto, is more then a Ceremonie. Ceremonie of a ſhout and an Acclamation, and the reaching of a Scepter in his right hand who is made King; and the like: But the Coronation in concreto, according to the ſubſtance of the act, is no Ceremonie, nor any accidentall ingredient in the conſtitution of a King; 1. Becauſe Iſrael ſhould have performed a meere ceremoniall action on Saul, when they made him King, which we cannot ſay: for as the Peoples act of Coronation is diſtinctive, ſo is it conſtitutive; it diſtinguiſhed Saul from all Iſrael, and did conſtitute him in a new relation, that he was changed from no King, to be a King. 2. The people cannot by a Ceremonie make a King; they muſt really put ſome honour on him, that was not on him before. Now this Ceremonie which Royaliſts doe fancie Coronation to be, is only fymbolicall and declarative, not really dative, it placeth nothing in the King.
Queſt. 11. Whether may Subjects limit the power that they gave not to the King, it being the immediate reſult (without intervening of Law, or any act of man) iſſuing from God only?] Anſ. Though weMen may limit the Power that they gave not. ſhould give (which in reaſon we cannot grant) that Royall power were a reſult of the immediate bounty of God, without any act of man; Yet it may be limited by men that it over-ſwell not its banks, though God immediatly make Peter an Apoſtle, without any act of men, yet Paul by a ſharpe rebuke, Gal. 2. curbeth and limiteth his power, that he abuſe it not to Iudaizing; Royaliſts deny not, but they teach, That the 80. Prieſts that reſtrained Ʋzziah his power, from burning incenſe to the Lord, gave no Royall power to Ʋzziah▪ Doe not ſubjects by flight lay reſtraint upon a Kings power, that he kill not the ſubjects without cauſe? yet they teach, That ſubjects gave no power to the King; certainly this is a proofe of the immenſe power of the King of Kings, that none can fly from his purſuing hand, Pſ. 139. 1, 2, 3. Amos 9. 1, 2, 3, 4. whereas men may fly from earthly Kings. Nebuchadnezzar, (as Royaliſts teach) might juſtly conquer ſome Kingdomes, for conqueſt is a juſt title to the Crowne, (ſay they) now the Conquerour then juſtly not only limiteth the Royall Power of the conquered King, but wholly removeth his Royalty and unkingeth him, yet we know, the conquerour gave no Royall power to the conquered King. Ioſhua and David tooke away Royall power which they never gave, and therefore this is no good reaſon, The people gave not to the King Royall Power, ergo, they could not lawfully limit it, and take it away.
2. We cannot admit that God giveth Royall power immediatly, without the intervention of any Act of Law, for it is an Act of Law, that Deut. 17. the people chooſeth ſuch a King, not ſuch a King, that the people by a legall covenant make Saul, David, and Joaſh Kings, and that God exerciſeth any politicall action of making a King, over ſuch ſubjects, upon ſuch a condition, is abſurd, and inconceivable; for how can God make Saul and David Kings of Jſrael, upon this politicall and legall condition, that they rule in Iuſtice and Judgement, but there muſt intervene a politicall action, and ſo they are not made Kings immediatly. If God feed Moſes, by bread, and Manna, the Lords act of feeding is mediate, by the mediation of ſecond cauſes; if he feed Moſes 40. dayes without eating any thing, the act of feeding is immediate. If God made David King, as he made him a Prophet, I ſhould thinke God immediatly made him King; for God asked conſent of no man, of no people, no not of David himſelfe, before he infuſed on him the Spirit of Prophecy; but he made him formally King, by the politicall and legall Covenant betwixt him and the people. I ſhall not thinke that a Covenant and Oath of God is a Ceremony, eſpecially a Lawcovenant, or a politicall paction between David and the people, the contents whereof behoved to be De materia gravi & oneroſa, concerning a great part of obedience to the fifth Commandement of Gods Morall Law, the duties Morall concerning Religion, and Mercy, and Juſtice, to be performed reciprocally, between King and people. Oathes (I hope) are more then Ceremonies.
Queſt. 12. Whether or no is not the Common-wealth ever a Pupill, never growing to age, as a minor under nonage doth come not to need a Tutor, but the Common-wealth being ſtill in need of a Tutor, a Governour, or King, muſt alwaies be a Tutor, and ſo the Kingdome can never come to that condition, as to accuſe the King, it alwaies being minor?] Anſ. 1. Then can they never accuſe inferiour Iudges, for a Kingdome is perpetually in ſuch a nonage, as it cannot want them, when ſometime it wanteth a King. 2. Can the Common-wealth under Democracy and Ariſtocracy being perpetually under nonage, ever then quarrell at theſe Governments, and never ſeeke a King? by this reaſon they cannot. 3. The King in all reſpects is not a Tutor, every compariſon in ſomething beareth a Leg; for the Common-wealth, in their owne perſons doe chooſe a King. 2. Complaine of a King. 3. Reſiſt an Ʋzziah. 4. Tye their elective Prince to a Law; a Pupill cannot chooſe his Tutor, either his dying Father, or the living Law doth that ſervice for him; he cannot reſiſt his Tutor, he cannot tye his Tutor to a Law, nor limit him, when firſt he chooſeth him. Pupillo non licet poſtulare Tutorem ſuſpecti, quamdiu ſub tutela eſt, & manet impubes. l. Pietatis 6. in fin. C. de ſuſp. Tutor. l. impuberem. 7. & §. Impuberes. Iuſt. eod.
Queſt. 13. Whether or no are ſubjects more obnoxious to a King Arniſaeus de authorit. princi. c. 3. n. 6.then Clients to Patrons, and ſervants to Maſters, becauſe the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge? but ſome ſuperiour Magiſtrate muſt judge both, and the ſlave had no refuge againſt his Maſter, but only flight. And the King doth conferre infinite greater benefits on the ſubjects, then the Maſter doth on the ſlave, becauſe he expoſeth his life, Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients, Vaſſals, Children.pleaſure, eaſe, credit, and all for the ſafety of his ſubjects?] Anſ. Its denyed; for to draw the caſe to Fathers, and Lords in reſpect of Children and Vaſſals; the reaſon why Sons, Clients, Vaſſals can neither formally judge, nor judicially puniſh Fathers, Patrons, Lords and Maſters, though never ſo Tyrannous, is a Morall impotency, or a politicall incongruity, becauſe theſe relations of Patron and Client, Fathers and Children are ſuppoſed to be in a Community, in which are Rulers and Iudges, above the Father and Sonne, the Patron and the Client; but there is no Phyſicall incongruity that the politique inferiour puniſh the ſuperiour, if we ſuppone there were no Iudges on the earth, and no relation, but Patron and Client; and becauſe, for the father to deſtroy the children, is a troubling of the harmony of Nature, and the higheſt degree of violence, therefore one violence of ſelfe defence, and that moſt juſt, though contrary to nature, muſt be a remedy againſt ano…her violence: but in a Kingdome there is no politicall Ruler above both King and People; and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the politicall relation of a King, rather then many Governours, and ſubjects, yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunall of nec…ſſity, in which the people may by innocent violence, repreſſe the unjuſt violence of an injuring Prince; ſo as the people injured in the matter of ſelfe defence, may be their owne Iudge. 2. I wonder that any ſhould teach, That oppreſſed ſlaves had of old no refuge againſt the tyranny of Maſters, but only flight: for 1. The Law expreſly ſaith, That they might not only fly, but alſo change Maſters, which we all know was a great dammage to the Maſter, to whom the ſervant was as good as mony in his purſe. 2. I have demonſtratedServi indignè habiti confugiendi ad statuas, & dominum mutandi copiam habent, l. 2. De his qui ſunt ſui. Item, C. De lat. Hered. toll. before by the Law of Nature, and out of divers learned Iuriſts, that all inferiours may defend themſelves by oppoſing violence againſt unjuſt violence; to ſay nothing, that unanſwerably I have proved, that the Kingdome is ſuperiour to the King. 3. It is true, Qui plus dat, plus obligat, as the Scripture ſaith, Luke 7. He that giveth a greater benefit, layeth a foundation of a greater obligation. But 1. If benefit be compared with benefit, it is diſputable; if a King give a greater benefit then an earthly father, to whom under God the ſonne is debtor for life and being, if we regard the compenſation of eminency of honour and riches, that the People puteth upon the King; but I utterly deny that a power to act Tyrannous acts, is any benefit or obligation, that the People in reaſon can lay upon their Prince, as a compenſation or hire for his great paines, he taketh in his Royall Watch-Tower: I Iudge it no benefit, but a great hurt, dammage, and an ill of nature, both to King and people, that the people ſhould give to their Prince any power to deſtroy themſelves, and therefore that people doth reverence and honour the Prince moſt, who lay ſtrongeſt chaines and Iron fetters on him, that he cannot tyrannize.
Queſt. 14. But are not Subjects more ſubject to their Prince (ſeeing Arniſaeus De authori. principum…in popul. c. 3. n. 7.the ſubjection is naturall, as we ſee Bees and Cranes) to obey him, then ſervants to their Lord. C. in Apib. 7. 9. 1. ex Hiero. 4. ad Ruſtic. Monach. Plin. n. 17. For Juriſts teach, that ſervitude is beſide or againſt nature. l. 5. de ſtat. homi. §. 2. juſt, & jur. perſ. c. 3. §. & ſicut Nov. 89. quib. med. nat. off. ſui.
Anſ. There is no queſtion, in active ſubjection to Princes andSubjects in active obedience muſt ſubject to a Kings lawfull commandement: but in things unlawfull, they are not naturally ſubject, in paſſive ſubjection. Fathers commanding in the Lord, we ſhall grant as high a meaſure as you deſire. But the queſtion is, if either active ſubjection to ill and unjuſt mandates, or paſſive ſubjection to penall inflictions of Tyrannie and abuſed power, be naturall, or moſt naturall? or if Subjects doe renounce naturall ſubjection to their Prince, when they oppoſe violence to unjuſt violence. This is to beg the queſtion. And for the Commonwealth of B…es and Cranes, and Crown and Scepter amongſt them, Give me leave to doubt of it. To be ſubject to Kings, is a Divine morall Law of God; but not properly naturall to be ſubject to coaction of the Sword. Government and ſubjection to Parents, is naturall: But that a King is juris naturae ſtrictim, I muſt crave leave to doubt. I hold him to be a Divine morall Ordinance, to which, in conſcience, we are to ſubmit in the Lord.
Queſt. 15. Whether was King Uzzah dethroned by the People?]Whether King Vzzah was dethroned. Anſ. Though we ſhould ſay, he was not formally unkinged and dethroned; yet if the Royall power conſiſt in an indiviſible point, as ſome Royaliſts ſay: and if Ʋzzah was removed to a private houſe, and could not reigne, being a Leper; Certainly, much Royall power was taken from him. 'Tis true, Arniſaeus ſaith, he neitherArniſaeus de jure Pontif. Rom. in Regna & Princ. c. 5. n. 30. could be compelled to reſigne his power, nor was he compelled to reſigne his Royall authoritie; but he willingly reſigned actuall government, and remained King, as Tutors and Curators are put upon Kings that are mad, ſtupid, and Children, who yet governe all by the authoritie of lawfull Kings. But that Ʋzzah did not denude himſelfe of the Royall power voluntarily, is cleare. The reaſon, 2 Chro. 26. 21. why he dwelt in an houſe apart, and did not actually reigne; is, becauſe he was a Leper; for, He was cut off (ſaith the Text) from the houſe of the Lord; and Jotham his ſonne was over the Kings houſe, judging the people of the Land. Whereby it is cleare by the expreſſe law of God, he being a Leper, and ſo not, by Law, to enter into the Congregation, he was cut off from the houſe of the Lord: and he being a patient, is ſaid to be cut off from the Lords houſe. Whether then Ʋzzah turned neceſſitie to a vertue, I know not: It is evident that Gods Law removed the actuall exerciſe of his power. If we obteine this, which Gods Word doth give us, we have enough for our purpoſe, though Vzzah kept the naked title of a King, as indeed he tooke but up roome in the Catalogue of Kings. Now if, by Law, he was cut off from actuall governing; Whether he was willing, or not willing to denude himſelfe of Reigning, it is all one. And to ſay, that furious men, ideots, ſtupid men, and Children, who muſt doe all Royall acts by Curators and Tutors, are Kings jure, with correction, is petitio principii: for then hath God infuſed immediately from heaven, (as Royaliſts teach us) a Royall power to governe a Kingdome, on thoſe, who are as capable of Royaltie, as blocks. I conceive that the Lord, Deut. 17. 14, 15, 16, 17. commandeth the people, to make no blocks Kings: and, that the Lord hath not done that himſelfe in a binding Law to us, which we have no commandement from him to doe. I conceive that God made Joſiah and Joaſh Kings typicall, and in deſtination, for his promiſe ſake to David, while they were Children, as well as he made them Kings; but not actu completo ratione officii, to be a rule to us now, to make a Childe of ſixe yeares of age, a King by office. I conceive, Children are to us, only Kings in deſtination and appointment: And for Idiots and Fooles, I ſhall not believe, (let Royaliſts breake their faith upon ſo rocky and ſtony a point, at their pleaſure) that God hath made them Governors of others, by Royall office, who can ſcarce number their own fingers; Or that God tyeth a people to acknowledge ſtupid blocks for Royall Governours of a Kingdome, who cannot governe themſelves. But far be it from me to argue with Bellarmine; FromBellarm. de p… nit. l. 3. c. 2. Vzziah his bodily leproſie, to inferre, that any Prince ſpiritually Leprous, and turned Hereticall, is preſently to be dethroned. Nothing can dethrone a King, but ſuch Tyrannie as is inconſiſtent with his Royall office. Nor durſt I inferre, that Kings, now adayes, may be removed from actuall Government, for one ſingle tranſgreſſion. It is true, 80 Prieſts, and the whole Kingdome ſo ſerving King Vzzah, (their motives, I know, were Divine) proveth well that the Subjects may puniſh the tranſgreſſion of Gods expreſſe law, in the King, in ſome caſes, even to remove him from the Throne: but as from Gods commanding to ſtone the man that gathered ſticks on the Sabbath day, we cannot inferre, that Sabbath-breakers are now to be puniſhed with death; yet we may well argue, Sabbath-breakers may be puniſhed, and Sabbath-breakers are not unpuniſhable, and above all Law; So may we argue here: Vzzah, though a King, was puniſhed; Ergo, Kings are puniſhable by Subjects.
Queſt. 16. Whether or no, as the deniall of active obedience in things unlawfull, is not diſhonourable to the King as King, he being obliged to command in the Lord only, ſo the deniall of paſſive ſubjection to the King uſing unjuſt violence, be alſo no diſhonouring of the King?] Anſ. As the King is under Gods Law both in commanding, or in exacting active obedience, ſo is he under the ſame regulating Law of God, in puniſhing or demanding of us, pasſive ſubjection, and as heDeniall of paſſive obedience in things unjuſt not diſhonourable to the King, more then deniall of active obedience in theſe ſame things. may not command what he will, but what the King of Kings warranteth him to command, ſo may he not puniſh as he will, but by warrant alſo of the ſupreame Iudge of all the earth; and therefore it is not diſhonourable to the Majeſty of the Ruler, that we deny paſſive ſubjection to him, when he puniſheth beſide his warrant, more then its againſt his Majeſty and honour, that we deny active obedience, when he commandeth illegally; elſe I ſee not how it is lawfull to fly from a tyrannous King, as Elias, Chriſt, and other of the witneſſes of our Lord have done; and therefore what Royaliſts ſay here is a great untruth, namely, That in things lawfull we muſt be ſubject actively, in things unlawfull, paſſively. For as we are inLoyall Conv…rt, page 10. things lawfull to be ſubject actively, ſo there is no duty in point of conſcience, laying on us to be ſubject paſſively, becauſe I may lawfully fly, and ſo lawfully deny paſſive ſubjection to the Kings will, puniſhing unjuſtly.
Queſt. 17. Whether may the Prince make away any part of his Dominions, as an Iland, or a Kingdome, for the ſafety of the whole kingdomes he bath: as if goods be like to ſinke an over▪ burthened Ship, the Sea-men caſt away a part of the Goods in the Sea, to ſave the lives of the whole Paſſengers: and if three thouſand Paſſengers being in one Ship, and the Ship in a ſtorme like to be looſed, it would ſeeme that a thouſand may be caſt over-board, to ſave the lives of the whole Paſſengers?] Anſ. The Kingdome being not the Kings proper Heritage,The King may not make away a part of his owne Dominions. it would ſeeme he cannot make away any part of his Kingdome to ſave the whole, without the expreſſe conſent of that part, though they be made away to ſave the whole▪ In things of this kind, men are not as the commodities of Merchants, nor is the caſe alike: as when one thouſand of three thouſand are to be caſt into the Sea to ſave all the reſt, and that either by common conſent, or by Lots, or ſome other way; for it is one thing, when deſtruction is evidently inevitable, as in the caſting ſo many men into the Sea to ſave the whole and many Paſſengers, and when a King for peace, or for help from another King, maketh away part of his Dominion. TheFerdinan. Vaſquius illuſtr. queſt. l. 1. c. 3. n. 8. juri alieno quiſquam n…c in minima parte obeſſe poteſt. l. id quod noſtru. F. de reg. jur. l. jur. natu. cod. titul. l. Lord is here to be waited on in his good Providence, and events are to be committed to him; but far leſſe can it be imaginably lawfull for a King, to make away a part of his Dominions, without their conſent, that he may have help from a forraign Prince to deſtroy the reſt: This were to make merchandize of the lives of men.
Queſt. 18. Whether or no, the convening of the ſubjects without the Kings will, be unlawfull?] Anſw. The convention of men of it ſelf, is an indifferent thing, and taketh its ſpecification from its cauſes, and manner of convening, though ſome convention of the Subjects without the King, be forbidden; yet Ratio Legis eſt anima Legis, The reaſon and intent of the Law, is the ſoul of the Law. Convention of the Subjects in a tumultuary way, for a ſeditious end, to make war without warrant of Law, is forbidden; but not when Religion, Laws, Liberties, Invaſion of forraign Enemies, neceſſitateth the Subjects to conveen, though the King and ordinary Iudicatures, going a corrupt way to pervert Iudgement, ſhall refuſe to conſent to their conventions: Upon which ground, no convention of Tables at Edinburgh, or any other place, An. 1637. 1638. 1639. can be judged there unlawfull; for if theſe be unlawfull, becauſe they are convention of the Leagues, without expreſſe Act of Parliament, then the convention of the Leagues to quench a houſe on fire, and the convention of a Countrey, to purſue a Wolf entered in the Land, to deſtroy women and children, which are warranted by the Law of nature, ſhould be lawleſſe, or againſt Acts of Parliament.
Queſt. 19. Whether the Subjects be obliged to pay the debts of the King?] Anſw. Theſe debts which the King contracteth as King, in Throno Regali, the people are to pay; For the Law of nature, and the divine Law doth prove, That to every ſervant and Miniſter, wages is due, Rom. 13. 5, 6. compared with Verſ. 4. and 1 Cor. 9. 9, 10, 11, 12. 1 Tim. 5. 18. If the Prince be taken in a war, for the defence of the people, it is juſt that he be redeemed by them: So the Law ſaith, Tit. F. & C. de negotiis geſtis, & F. & C. Manda. But when Fer. Vaſquius illuſt. queſt. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. Viceſimo tertio apparet, &c.—ſaith, If the Prince was not doing the buſineſſe of the publike, and did make war without advice, and conſent of the people, then are they not to redeem him. Now certain it is, when the King raiſeth war, not onelyonly againſt his Oath, and ſaith, God do ſo …o me and mine, if I intend any thing but peace, yet maketh war, and alſo raiſeth war without conſent of the Parliament, and a Parliament at that time convocated by his own Royall Writ, and not raiſed, and diſſolved at all, but ſtill ſitting formally a Parliament; if he borrow money from his own Subjects, and from forraign Princ…s, to raiſe war againſt his Subjects and Parliament, then theHow ſubjects are obliged to pay the Kings debts. people are not obliged to pay his debts, 1. Becauſe they are obliged to the King only as a King, and not as an enemy: But in ſo raiſing war, he cannot be conſidered as a King. 2. Though, if the people agree with him, and ſtill acknowledge him King; it is unpoſſible, Phyſicè, he can be their King, and they not pay his debts, yet they ſin not, but may, ex decentia, non ex debito legali, pay his debts, yet are they not obliged by any Law of God, or man to pay his debts; but though it be true, by all Law the King be obliged to pay his debt, (except we ſay, that all the peoples goods, are the Kings, a compendious way, I confeſſe, to pay all that any voluptuous Heliogabolus ſhall contract) yet it may eaſily be proved, That what his ſubjects and forraign Princes lent him to the raiſing of an unjuſt war, are not properly debts, but expences unjuſtly given out under the reduplication of formall enemies to the Countrey, and ſo not payable by the Subjects; and this is evident by Law, becauſe one may give moſt unjuſtly moneys to his neighbour, under the notion of loan, which yet hath nothing of the eſſence of loan and debt, but is meer delapidation, and cannot properly be debt by Gods Law; for the Law regulateth a man in borrowing and lending, as in other politike actions: if I, out of deſire of revenge, ſhould lend moneys to a robber, to buy powder and fewel to burn an innocent Citie, or to buy armour to kill innocent men, I deny that that is legally debt. I diſpute not, whether A. B. borrowing money formally, that thereby he may buy a Whore, ſhall be obliged to repay it to C. D. under the reduplication of debt; or if the borrower be obliged to pay what the lender hath unjuſtly lent. I dare not pray to God, That all our Kings debts may be payed; I have ſcarce faith ſo to do.
Queſt. 20. Whether Subſidies be due to the King as King?] Anſw. Subſidies the Kingdoms due rather then the Kings.There is a twofold Subſidie; one Debitum, of deb…, another Charitativum, By way of charitie: a Subſidie of debt, is rather the Kingdoms due for their neceſſitie, then the Kings due, as a part of his rent; we read of Cuſtome due to the King as King, and for conſcience ſake, Rom. 13. 5, 6. never of a Subſidie or taxation to the Kings of Iſrael and Judah, at any convention of the States. Auguſtus Caeſar his taxing of all the World, Luk. 2. for the maintenance of Wars, cannot be the proper rent of Auguſtus, as Emperour, but the rent of the Romane Empire: and it is but the fact of a man. Charitative ſubſidies to the King, of indulgence; becauſe, through bad husbanding of the Kings rents, he hath contracted debts: I judge no better than Royall and Princely begging. Yet lawfull they are, as I owe charitie to my brother, ſo to my father, ſo to my Politique father the King. See Ferd. Vaſq. illuſt. queſt. l. 1. c. 8. who deſireth that Superiors, under the name of Charitie, hid not rapine: and citeth Cieer, gravely ſaying, offic. l. 1. Nulla generi humano & juſtitiae major peſtis eſt, quam eorum, qui dum maximè fallunt, id agunt, ut boni viri eſſe videantur, &c.
Queſt. 21. Whether the Seas, Floods, Road-wayes, Caſtles, Ports publike Magazine, Militia, Armour, Forts and Strengths be the Kings?] Anſ. All theſe may be underſtood to be the Kings, in diversIn how many divers notions the Seas, Forts, Caſtles, Militia, Roadwayes, are the Kings: and how more properly they are the Kingdomes. notions. 1. They are the Kings, quoad cuſtodiam, & publicam poſſeſſionem, as a pawn is the mans in whoſe hand the pawn is laid down. 2. They are the Kings, quoad juriſdictionem cumulativam, non privativam; The King is to direct, and Royally to command, that the Caſtles, Forts, Ports, Strengths, Armour, Magazine, Militia, be imployed for the ſafetie of the Kingdome. All the Wayes, Bridges, the publike Road-wayes, are the Kings, in ſo far as he, as a publike and Royall watchman, is to ſecure the Subjects from Robbers, and to cognoſce of unknown Murthers, by himſelfe and the inferior Iudges: yet may not the King imploy any of theſe againſt the Kingdome. 3. They are the Kings, as he is King, quoad officialem, & Regalem, & publicam proprietatem: for he hath a Royall and Princely propriety to all theſe, as his own, in ſo far as he uſeth them according to Law: And thus they are, 4. The Kings alſo, quoad uſum, in regard of officiall uſe. But they are the Kingdomes, quoad fructum, in regard of the effect and fruit. 2. They are the Kingdomes, ſinaliter, being deſtinated for the ſafetie and ſecuritie of the Kingdome. 3. They are the Kingdomes, quoad proprietatem propriam, & legalem ſtricté ſumptam; according to the proper and legall proprietie; And are not the Kings proper heritage, as he is a Man: 1. Becauſe he may not ſell theſe Forts, Strengths, Ports, Magazine, Bridges, &c. to a ſtranger, or a Forraigne Prince. 2. When the King is dead, and his Heires and Royall line interrupted, theſe all re…aine proper to the Kingdome; yet ſo, as the State cannot, as they are Men, make them away, or ſell them, more then the King: for no Publike perſons, yea the Multitude cannot make away the ſecuritie, ſafetie, and that which neceſſarily conduceth to the ſecuritie of the Poſteritie. The Lord build his owne Zion, and appoint Salvation for walls and bulwarks.
FINIS.