Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 12
QUEST. XII. Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchaſed by the ſole title of conqueſt?
THe Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a KingdomeSac. ſanc. Reg. Maiest. c. 17. p. 158. by Conqueſt, without the conſent of the people, is ſo juſt and evident by Scripture, that it cannot be denyed; but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it. Mr. Marſhall ſaith, a conquered Kingdome Letter p. 7.is but c…ntinuata injuria, a continued robbery. A right of conqueſt is twofold; 1. When there is no juſt cauſe. 2. When there is juſt reaſonTwofold right of conqueſt. and ground of the war; in this latter caſe, if a Prince ſubdue a whole Land, which juſtly deſerveth to dye, yet by his grace who is ſo mild a conquerour they may be all preſerved alive. Now amongſt thoſe who have thus injured the conquerour as they deſerve death, we are to difference the perſons offending, and the wives, children eſpecially not borne, and ſuch as have not offended. The former ſort may reſign their perſonall liberty to the conquerour, that the ſweet life may be ſaved; but he cannot be their King properly, but I conceive that they are obliged to conſent that he be their King, upon this condition, that the conquerour put not upon them violent and tyrannicall conditions that are harder then death: now in reaſon we cannot thinke that a tyrannous and unjuſt domineering can be Gods lawfull meane of tranſlating Kingdomes, and for the other part; the conquerour cannot domineere as King over the innocent, and eſpecially the children not yet borne.
1. Aſſertion. A people may be by Gods ſpeciall Commandement, ſubject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer, and a Caeſar, as to their King, as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to ſubmit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon, and to pray for him, and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caeſar the things of Caeſar; and yet both thoſe were unjuſt conquerours: for thoſe Tyrants had no command of God to oppreſſe and raigne over the Lords people, yet were they to obey thoſe Kings, ſo the paſſive ſubjection was juſt and commanded of God, and the active unjuſt and tyranous, and forbidden of God.
2. Aſſert. This title by conqueſt through the peoples after conſent may be turned into a juſt title, as its like the caſe was with the Iewes in Caeſars time, for which cauſe our Saviour commanded to obey Caeſar, and to pay tribute unto him; as Dr. Ferne confeſſeth.Sect. 7. p. 30. But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor: 1. That God manifeſteth his Will to us in this worke of providence, whereby he tranſlateth Kingdomes. 2. That this is an over-awed conſent; now to the former I reply, if the act of conquering be violent andVniuſt conqueſt is no ſignification of Gods approving Will. unjuſt, it is no manifeſtation of Gods regulating and approving Will, and can no more prove a juſt title to a Crowne, becauſe it is an act of Divine providence, then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory, which was an act of Divine providence, flowing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence, Act. 2. 23. Act. 4. 28. is a manifeſtation that it was Gods approving Will, that they ſhould kill Jeſus Chriſt. 2. Though the conſent be ſome way over-awed, yet is it a ſort of Contract and Covenant of loyall ſubjection made to the conquerour, and therefore ſufficent to make the title juſt; otherwiſe if the people never give their conſent, the conquerour domineering over them by violence hath no juſt title to the Crowne.
3. Aſſert. Meere conqueſt by the ſword without the conſent of the people, is no juſt title to the Crowne; 1. Becauſe the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us, beſide the Lords chooſing and calling of a man to the Crowne, is the peoples election, Deut. 17. 15. all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word,1 Arg. as Saul, David, Solomon, &c. were called by the people, and the firſt lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings. 2. A King as a King, and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of2 Arg. the Kingdome, a Tutor, a Defender, Protector, a Shield, a Leader, a Shepheard, an Husband, a Patron, a Watchman, a Keeper of the peopleMeere violent domineering is contrary to the rules of governing, over which he is King, and ſo the Office eſſentially includeth acts of fatherly affection, care, love and kindneſſe to thoſe over whom he is ſet, ſo as he who is cloathed with all theſe relations of love to the people, cannot exerciſe thoſe officiall Acts on a people againſt their will, and by meere violence. Can he be a Father, and a Guide, a Patron to us againſt our will? and by the ſole power of the bloudy ſword? a benefit conferred upon any againſt their will is no benefit: Will he, by the awſome dominion of the ſword be our father, and we unwilling to be his ſonnes? an head over ſuch as will not be menbers? will he guide me as a Father, an Huſband againſt my will? he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patton, a Shield, and a defender of me through violence. 3. It is3 Arg. Violence hath nothing in it of a King. not to be thought that, that is Gods juſt Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the eſſence of a King; but a violent and bloody purchaſe, which is in its prevalency in an oppreſſing Nymrod, and the cruelleſt tyrant that is, hath nothing eſſentiall to that which conſtituteth a King: for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wiſedome and gifts to governe, and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which muſt be manifeſted to any who would be a King, but by the contrary cruelty hath rather baſeneſſe and witleſſe fury, and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will, which forbideth murther, Gods Law ſhould ſay, (Murther thou, and proſper and raigne) and by the act of violating the ſixt Commandement, God ſhould declare his approving Will, to wit, his lawfull call to a Throne. 4. There be none under a Law of God who may reſiſt4▪ Arg. a lawfull call to a lawfull Office, but men may reſiſt any impulſion of God ſtirring them up to murther the manieſt and ſtrongeſt, and cheife men of a Kingdome, that they may raigne over the feweſt, the weakeſt, and the young and loweſt of the people againſt their will, therefore this call by the ſword is not lawfull. If it be ſaid, that the Divine impulſion ſtirring up a man to make a bloody conqueſt, that the ire and juſt indignation of God in Iuſtice may be declared on a wicked Nation, is an extraordinary impulſion of God, who is above a Law, and therefore no man may reſiſt it. Anſ. then all bloody Conquerors muſt have ſome extraordinary revelation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to ſuch an extraordinary impulſion. And if it be ſo, They muſt ſhew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulſion now; but it is certaine, the ſinnes of the people conquered, and their moſt equall and juſt demerit, before God, cannot be a juſt plea to legitimate the Conqueſt: for though the people of God deſerved vaſtation and captivitie by the Heathen, in regard of their ſinnes, before the throne of Divine Iuſtice, yet the Heathen grievouſly ſinned in conquering them, Zach. 1. 15. And I am very ſore diſpleaſed with the Heathen that are at eaſe: for I was but a little diſpleaſed, and they helped forward the affliction. So though Iudah deſerved to be made captives, and a conquered people, becauſe of their idolatry, and other ſinnes, as Ieremiah had prophecied; yet God was highly diſpleaſed at Babylon for their unjuſt and bloody Coneueſt, Jer. 50. 17, 18, 33, 34. c. 51. 35. The violence done to me and to my fleſh, be upon Babylon, ſhall the inhabitants of Zion ſay; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, ſhall Jeruſalem ſay. And that any other extraordinary impulſion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election, we know not from Gods word, and we have but the naked word of our Adverſaries, that William the Conquerour, without the peoples conſent, made himſelfe by blood, the lawfull King of England, and alſo of all their poſteritie; And that King Fergus conquered Scotland. 5. A King is a ſpeciall gift of God, given to feed and defend the people5 Arg. A King given to a people by a bloody Conqueſt, muſt be a judgement, not a bleſſing, and ſo not p… ſe a King. of God, that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him, Iſal. 78. v. 71, 72. 1 Tim. 2. 2. as it is a judgement of God, that Iſrael's without a King for many dayes, Hoſ. 3. 4. and that there is no Iu…ge, no King, to put evill doers to ſhame, Iudg. 19. 1. but if a King be given of God, as a King by the acts of a bloody Conqueſt to be avenged on the ſinfull land over which he is made a King, he cannot be given, actu primo, as a ſpeciall gift and bleſſing of God to feed, but to murther and to deſtroy; for the genuine end of a Conqueror, as a Conqueror, is not peace, but fire and ſword. If God chang… his heart to be of a bloody Vaſtator, a father, Prince, and feeder of the people, ex officio, now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries, which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God, and not proper to man, who as he cannot worke miracles, ſo neither can he lawfully worke by contraries: and ſo if Conqueſt be a lawfull title to a Crown, and an ordinary calling, as the opponents preſume; every bloody Conquerour muſt be changed into a loving father, Prince and feeder; and if God call him, none ſhould oppoſe him, but the whole Land ſhould dethrone their own native Soveraigne (whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend) and ſubmit to the bloody invaſion of a ſtrange Lord, preſumed to be a juſt Conqueror, as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people. And truly they deſerve no wages, who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall: for if the ſword be a lawfull title to the crown, ſuppoſe the two Generals of both Kingdomes ſhould conquer the moſt and the chiefeſt of the Kingdome now when they have ſo many forces in the field, by this wicked reaſon the one ſhould have a lawfull call of God to be King of England, and the other to be King of Scotland; which is abſurd. 6. Either conqueſt, as conqueſt, is a juſt title to6 Arg. the crown, or as a juſt conqueſt. If as Conqueſt, then all conqueſts are juſt titles to a Crown; then the Ammonites, Zidonians, Canaanites, Edomites, &c. ſubduing Gods people for a time, have juſt titleStrength, as prevailing ſtrength, is not law or reaſon. to reigne over them; and if Abſolom had been ſtronger then David, he had then had the juſt title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Iſrael, not David; and ſo ſtrength actually prevailing, ſhould be Gods lawfull call to a Crown. But ſtrength, as ſtrength victoriou…, is not law, nor reaſon: it were then reaſon that Herod behead Jo… Baptiſt, and the Roman Emperors kill the witneſſes of Chriſt Ieus. If Conqueſt, as juſt, be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court, to a Crown; then certainly a ſtronger King for pregna…t nationall injuries, may lawfully ſubdue and reigne over an in…ocent poſteritie not yet borne. But what word of God can, 1. wa…rant a poſteritie not borne, and ſo acceſſarie to no offence againſt t…e Conquerour (but only ſin originall) to be under a Conquerou… againſt their will, and who hath no right to reigne over them, but the bloody ſword? for ſo Conqueſt, as Conqueſt, not as juſt, maketh him King over the poſteritity. But 2. the fathers may ingage theFathers cannot diſpoſe of the liberty of the poſteritie not borne. poſterity by an oath to ſurrender themſelvos as loyall ſubject▪ to the man who juſtly and deſervedly made the fathers vaſſals by the title of the ſword of juſtice. I anſwer, the fathers may indeed diſ…oſe of the inheritance of their children, becauſe that inheritance …elongeth to the father as well ar to the ſonne; but becauſe the liberty of the ſonne being borne with the ſonne, (all men being bo…ne free from all Civill ſubjection) the father hath no more power to reſigne the libertie of his children, then their lives; and the father, as a father hath not power of the life of his child, as a Magiſtrate heA father as a father hath not power of life and death. Hugo G…otius de iute belli & pacis l. 2. c. 4. n. 10. may have power, and as ſomething more then a father, he may have power of life and death. I heare not what Grotius ſaith, Thoſe who are not borne have no accidents, and ſo no rights, Non entis nulla ſunt accidentia; then Children not borne have neither right, nor liberty, and ſo no injury (may ſome ſay) can be done to Children not borne, though the fathers ſhould give away their liberty to the conquerour, thoſe who are not capable of Law, are not capable of injury contrary to Law. Anſ. There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull, becauſe the children are not borne; to ſay that children not borne, are not capable of law and injuries virtuall, which become reall in time might ſay, Adam did not an injury to his poſterity by his firſt ſin, which is contrary to Gods Word: ſo thoſe who vowed yearely to give ſeven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured, and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech, did no acts of bloody injury to their children; nor can any ſay then that fathers cannot tye themſelves and their poſterity to a King by ſucceſſion, but I ſay, To be tyed to a lawfull King is no making away of liberty, but a reſigning of a power to be juſtly governed, protected and awed from active and paſſive violence. 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned, nor lawfull Kingdome7 Arg. diſſolved; but Law and reaſon both ſaith, Quod vi partum eſt imperium, vi diſſolvi poteſt. Every conqueſt made by violence may be diſſolved by violence: Cenſetur enim ipſa natura jus dare ad id omne, ſine quo obtineri non poteſt quod ipſa imperat.
It is objected, that the people of God by their ſword conquered ſeven nations of the Canaanites, David conquered the Ammonites for the diſgrace done to his Embaſſadours. So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadnezar for his hire, in his ſervice done againſt Iudah; had David no right …ver the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their conſent? yee will ſay, A right to their lands, goods and lives, but not to challenge their morall ſubjection, well, we doubt not but ſuch conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall conſent; but if the people refuſe their conſent, is there no way? for providence giveth no right. So D. Ferne, ſo Part 3. Sect. 3. p…g. 20. Arniſaeus de authoritat. Pri… cip. c. 1. n. 1 …Arniſaeus. Anſ. A facto ad jus non valet conſequentia, God, to whom belongeth the world and the fulneſſe thereof, diſponed to Abraham and his ſeed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance, and ordained that they ſhould uſe their bow and their ſword, for the actuall poſſeſſion thereof; and the like divine right, had David to theThe peoples and Davids conqueſt of Canaanites, Amonites, and Edomites, do not prove conqueſt to be a good title to a Crown. Edomites and Ammonites, though the occaſion of Davids taking poſſeſſion of theſe Kingdoms by his ſword, did ariſe from particular and occaſionall exigences and injuries; but it followeth in no ſort, That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promiſe, and ſo of divine right to any Lands, may aſcend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own, by no better title then the bloody ſword. That Gods will was the chief patent here, is clear, in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Eſau's poſſeſſion, when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites. I doubt not to ſay, if Joſhua and David had had no better title, then their bloody ſword, though provoked by injuries, they could have had no right to any kingly power over theſe Kingdoms: and if onelyonly ſucceſſe by the ſword, be a right of providence, it is no right of precept. Gods providence, as providence without precept or promiſe, can conclude a thing is done, or may be done, but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully, and warrantably done, elſe you might ſay the ſelling of Joſeph, the crucifying of Chriſt, the ſpoiling of Job were lawfully done. 2. Though Conquerors extort conſent, and oath of Loyaltie; yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conquerour, to be King over their poſterity without their conſent. 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David, yet no injury can be recompenſed in juſtice with the preſſure of the conſtrained ſubjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord; if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his meſſengers, he could not have conquered them. But 1. The Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God, and raiſed forces againſt David, when they themſelves were the injurer's and offenders; and if Davids Conqueſt will prove a lawfull title by the ſword to all Conquerours, then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people, as David did; that is, they may put them under ſaws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and cauſe them paſſe through Davids conqueſt of the Ammonites more rigorous then that it can legitimate Crowns by …onqueſt.the Brick-kilne. But I beſeech you, will Royaliſts ſay, that Conquerours who make themſelves Kings by their ſword, and ſo make themſelves fathers, heads, defenders, and feeders of the people may uſe the extreameſt Tyranny in the world, ſuch as David uſ…d againſt the children of Ammon, which he could not have done, by the naked title of ſword-conqueſt, if God had not laid a Commandment of an higher nature on him to ſerve Gods enemies ſo? I ſhall then ſay, if a conquering King be a lawfull King, becauſe a Conquerour, then hath God made ſuch a lawfull King, both a father, becauſe a King, and a Tyrant, and cruell, and lyon-hearted oppreſſour of theſe whom he hath conquered; for God hath given him Royall power by this example, to put theſe, to whom he is a2 Sam. 12. 30. 31. father and defender by office, to torment, and alſo to be a torturer of them, by office, by bringing their backs under ſuch Inſtruments of crueltie, as ſaws and harrows of iron, and axes of iron.