Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 13
QUEST. XIII. Whether or no Royall dignitie have its ſpring from nature, and how that is true (every man is born free) and how ſervitude is contrary to nature?
I Conceive it to be evident that Royall dignity is not immediately, and without the intervention of the peoples conſent given by God to any one perſon. 2. That conqueſt and violence, is no juſt title to a Crown. Now the queſtion is, If Royalty flow from nature, if Royalty be not a thing meerly naturall, neither can ſubjection to Royall power be meerly naturall; but the former is rather civill, then naturall: and the queſtion of the ſame nature is, Whether ſubjection or ſervitude be naturall?
I conceive, that there be divers ſubjections to theſe that are above7 ſorts of ſuperioritie and inferioritie. us, ſome way naturall, and therefore I rank them in order thus. 1. There is a ſubjection in reſpect of naturall being, as the effect to the cauſe, ſo though Adam had never ſinned, this morality of the fifth command, ſhould have ſtood in vigour, that the ſon by nature, without any poſitive Law, ſhould have been ſubject to the father, becauſe from him he hath his being, as from a ſecond cauſe: But I much doubt, if the relation of a father, as a father, doth neceſſarily infer a Royall or Kingly authority of the father over the ſon; or by natures Law, that the father hath power of life and death over, or above his children, and the reaſons I give, are, 1. Becauſe power of life and death is by a poſitive Law, preſuppoſingPower of life and death from a poſitive law, not from the ſuperioritie of father & children. ſin, and the fall of man; and if Adam ſtanding in innocency, could lawfully kill his ſon, though the ſon ſhould be a Malefactor, without any poſitive Law of God, I much doubt. 2. I judge, that the power Royall, and the fatherly power of a father over his children, ſhall be found to be different, and the one is founded on the Law of nature, the other to wit, Royall power on a meere poſitive Law. The 2. degree or order of ſubjection naturall, is a ſubjection in reſpect of gifts, or age: ſo Ariſtotle, 1 Polit. cap. 3. ſaith,foreign. that ſome are by nature ſervants: his meaning is good, that ſome gifts of nature, as wiſedom naturall, or aptitude to govern, hath made ſome men of gold, fitter to command, and ſome of iron, and clay, fitter to be ſervants and ſlaves. But I judge this title to make a King by birth, ſeeing Saul whom God by ſupervenient gifts made a King, ſeemeth to ow ſmall thanks to the womb, or nature, that he was a King, for his crueltie to the Lords Prieſts ſpeaketh nothing but naturall baſeneſſe. Its poſſible Plato had a good meaning, Dialog. 3. de legib. who made ſix orders here. 1. That fathers command their ſons. 2. The noble the ignoble. 3. The elder the younger. 4. The maſters the ſervants. 5. The ſtronger the weaker. 6. The wiſer the ignorant. 3. Aquinas 22. q. 57. art. 3. Driedo de libert. Chriſt. l. 1. pag. 8. following Ariſtotle, polit. l. 7. c. 14. hold, though man had never ſinned, there ſhould have been a ſortA dominion antecedent and conſequent. of dominion of the more gifted, and wiſer, above the leſſe wiſe and weaker, not antecedent from nature, properly, but conſequent, for the utilitie and good of the weaker, in ſo far, as it is good for the weaker to be guided by the ſtronger, which cannot be denyed to have ſome ground in nature: but there is no ground for Kings by nature here. 1. Becauſe, even theſe who plead, that the mothersKings and ſubjects no naturall order. womb muſt be the beſt title for a Crown, and make it equivalent to Royall unction, are to be corrected in memory, thus; That it is meerly accidentall, and not naturall, for ſuch a ſon to be born a King, becauſe the free conſent of the people making choice of the firſt father of that Line to be their King, and in him making choice of the firſt born of the family, is meerly accidentall to father and ſon, and ſo cannot be naturall. 2. Becauſe Royall gifts to reign are not holden by either us or our adverſaries, to be the ſpecifice eſſence of a King; for if the people Crown a perſon their King, ſay we, if the womb bring him forth to be a King; ſay the opponents, he is eſſentially a King, and to be obeyed as the Lords annointed, though nature be very Parca, ſparing, and a niggard in beſtowing Royall gifts: Yea, though he be an idiot, ſay ſome, if he be the firſt born of a King, he is by juſt title a King, but muſt have Curators and Tutors to guide him, in the exerciſe of that Royall right that he hath from the womb. But Buchanan ſaith well▪ He who cannot govern himſelf, ſhall never govern Buchan. de jure Regni apud Scoles. A man is born conſequenter, in a politique … lation.others.
1 Aſſert. de facto, As a man commeth into the world a member of a politick ſocietie, he is by conſequence borne ſubject to the laws of that ſocietie; but this maketh him not from the wombe and by nature ſubject to a King, as by nature he is ſubject to his Father who begat him; no more then by nature a Lyon is borne ſubject to another King-Lyon; for it is by accident that he is borne of parents under ſubjection to a Monarch, or to either Democraticall or Ariſtocraticall governours, for Cain and Abel were borne under none of theſe formes of Government properly: and if he had been borne in a new planted Colonie in a wilderneſſe, where no government were yet eſtabliſhed, he ſhould be under no ſuch Government.
2 Aſſert. Slavery of ſervants to Lords or Maſters, ſuch as wereSlavery not naturall. of old amongſt the Iews, is not naturall, but againſt nature; 1. Becauſe ſlaverie is malum naturae, a penall evill, and contrary to nature, and a puniſhment of ſinne. 2. Slaverie ſhould not have been in the world, if man had never ſinned, no more then there could have been buying and ſelling of men; which is a miſerable conſequent of ſin, and a ſort of death, when men are put to the toyling paines of the hireling, who longeth for the ſhadow, and under iron harrowes and ſawes, and to hew wood, and draw water continually. 3. The originall of ſervitude was, when men were taken in warre, to eſchew a greater evill, even death, the captives were willing to undergoe a leſſe evill, ſlaverie. S. Servitus, 1. de jur. Perſ. 4. A man being created according to Gods image, he is res ſacrae, a ſacred thing, and can no more by natures law be ſold and bought, then a religious and ſacred thing dedicated to God. S. 1. Inſtit. do invtil. ſcrupl. l. inter Stipulantem. S. Sacram. F. de verber. Obligat.
3 Aſſert. Every man by nature is a freeman borne, that is, by natureEvery man by nature free borne in regard of civill ſubjection. 1 Arg. no man commeth out of the wombe vnderunder any civill ſubjection to King, Prince, or Judge, to maſter, captaine, conquerour, teacher, &c. 1. Becauſe freedome is naturall to all, except freedome from ſubjection to Parents: And ſubjection politick is meerly accidentall, comming from ſome poſitive lawes of men, as they are in a politique ſocietie; whereas they might have been borne with all concomitants of n…ure, though borne in a ſingle familie, the only naturall and firſt ſocietie in the world. 2. Man is borne by nature free2 Arg. from all ſubjection, except of that which is moſt kindly and naturall, and that is fatherly or filial ſubjection, or matrimoniall ſubjection of the wife to the husband, and eſpecially he is free of ſubjection to a Prince by nature; Becauſe to be under juriſdiction to a Iudge or King, hath a ſort of juriſdiction. Argument. L. Si quis ſit fugitivus F. de edil. edict. in S. penult. vel fin. eſpecially to be under penall lawes now in the ſtate of ſinne. The learned Senator Ferdinandus Vaſquez ſaith, l. 2. c. 82. n. 15. Every ſubject is to lay down his life for the Prince: now no man is borne under ſubjection to penall lawes or dying for his Prince. 3. Man by nature is borne free, and as free as3 Arg. beaſts; but by nature no beaſt, no Lyon is born King of Lyons; no Horſe, no Bullock, no Eagle, King of Horſes, Bullocks, Eagles; nor is there any ſubjection here, except that the young Lyon is ſubject to the old, every ſoul to its damme, and by that ſame law of nature no man is borne King of men, nor any man ſubject to man in a civill ſubjection by nature, (I ſpeake not of naturall ſubjection of children to parents) and therefore Ferdi. Vaſquez. illuſtr. queſt. l. 2. c. 82. n. 6. ſaid that Kingdomes and Empires were brought in, not by Natures law, but by the law of Nations: he expoundeth himſelf elſewhere to ſpeak of the law of nature ſecondary, otherwiſe the primarie law of Nations is indeed the law of Nature, as appropriated to man. If any reply, that the freedome naturall of beaſts and birds who never ſinned, cannot be one with the naturall freedome of man who are now under ſin, and ſo under bondage for ſin: my anſwer is, That the ſubjection of the miſerie of man by nature, becauſe of ſinne, is more then the ſubjection of beaſts, comparing ſpece and kind of beaſts and birds with mankind, but comparing individuals of the ſame kinde amongſt themſelves, a Lyon with Lyon, Eagle with Eagle, and ſo Man with Man; in which reſpect, becauſe he who is ſuppoſed to be the man borne free from ſubjection politike, even the King borne a King, is under the ſame ſtate of ſin, and ſo by reaſon of ſinne, of which he hath a ſhare equally with all other men by nature, he muſt be, by nature, borne under as great ſubjection penall for ſinne (except the King be borne voyd of ſinne) as other men; Ergo, he is not borne freer by nature then other men, except he4 Arg. come out of the wombe with a Kings crown on his head. 4. To be a King, is a free gift of God, which God beſtoweth on ſome men above others, as is evident, 2 Sam. 12. 7, 8. Pſal. 75. 6. Dan. 4. 32. and therefore all muſt be borne Kings, if any one man be by nature a King borne, and another a borne ſubject. But if ſome be by Gods grace made Kings above others, they are not ſo by nature; for things which agree to man by nature, agree to all men equally; but all men equally are not borne Kings, as is evident; and all men are not equally borne by nature under politique ſubjection to Kings, as the Adverſaries grant; becauſe thoſe who are by nature Kings, cannot be alſo by nature ſubjects. 5. If men be not by nature free from5 Arg. politique ſubjection, then muſt ſome, by the law of relation, by nature be Kings; But none are by nature Kings, becauſe none have by nature theſe things which eſſentially conſtitute Kings, for they have neither by nature the calling of God, nor gifts for the throne; nor the free election of the people, nor conqueſt: and if there be none a King by nature, there can be none a Subject by nature. And the Law faith, Omnes ſumus naturâ liberi, nullius ditioni ſubjecti. l. Manu…iſſ. F. de juſt. & jur. S. jus autem gentium, Iuſ. de jur. nat. We are all by nature free. and D. L. ex h…c jure cum ſimil. 6. Politicians 6 Arg. Politque ſocietie naturall in radice, free in modo rei.agree to this as an undeniable truth, that as domeſtick ſociety is naturall, being grounded upon Natures inſtinct; ſo Politique ſocietie is voluntary, being grounded on the conſent of men; and ſo politique ſocietie is naturall, in radice, in the root, and voluntary and free, in modo, in the manner of their union: and the Scripture cleareth to us, that a King is made by the free conſent of the people, Deut. 17. 15. and ſo not by nature. 7. What is from the wombe, and7 Arg. ſo naturall, is eternall, and agreeth to all ſocieties of men: but a Monarchie agreeth not to all ſocieties of men; for many hundred years de facto, there was not a King, till Nimrods time, the world being governed by families, and till Moſes his time we find no inſtitution for Kings, Gen. 7. and the numerous multiplication of mankind did occaſion Monarchies, otherwiſe Fatherly government being the firſt, and meaſure of the reſt, muſt be the beſt; for it is better that my father governe me, then that a ſtranger governe me; and therefore the Lord forbad his people to ſet a ſtranger over themſelves to be their King. The P. Prelate contendeth for the contrary. Every Sac. ſanct. Reg. ma. c. 12. p. 12▪man (ſaith he) is borne ſubject to his father, of whom immediately he hath his exiſtence in nature: and if his Father be the ſubject of another, he is borne the ſubject of his fathers ſuperiour. Anſw. But the conſequence is weake, every man is borne under naturall ſubjection to his father, ergo he is borne naturally under civill ſubjection to his fathers ſuperiour or King, it followeth not; yea becauſe his father was borne only by nature ſubject to his owne father, ergo he was ſubject to a Prince or King only by accident, and by the free conſtitution of men who freely chooſe politick government, whereas there is no government naturall, but fatherly or martiall, and therefore the contradictory conſequence is true.
P. Prelat. Obj. 2. Every man by nature hath immunity and liberty from deſpoticall and herill Empire, and ſo may diſpoſe of his owne at will, and cannot inſlave himſelfe without his owne free will; but God hath laid and cannot inſlave himſelfe without his owne free will; but God hath laid a necesſity on all men to be under government, and nature alſo laid this necesſity on him, therefore this ſoveraignty cannot protect us in righteouſneſſe and honeſty, except it be intirely indowed with ſoveraigne power to preſerve it ſelfe, and protect us.
Anſ. The Prelate here deſerteth his owne conſequence, which is ſtrong againſt himſelfe, for if a man be naturally ſubject to his fathers ſuperiour, as he ſaid before, why is not the ſonne of a ſlave naturally ſubiect to his fathers ſuperiour & maſter? 2. As a man may not make away his liberty without his own conſent, ſo can he not without his owne conſent give his liberty to be ſubject to penall Lawes, under a Prince without his owne conſent, either in his fathers or in the repreſentative ſociety in which he liveth. 3. God and nature hath laid a neceſſity on all men to be under government, a naturall neceſſity from the wombe to be under ſome government, to wit, a paternall government, that is true; but under this government politique, and namely under ſoveraignty, it is falſe; and that is but ſaid, for why is he naturally under ſoveraignty rather then Ariſtocracy? I beleeve any of the three formes are freely choſen by any ſociety 4. It is falſe that one cannot defend the people, except he have intire power, that is to ſay, he cannot doe good, except he have a vaſt power to doe both good and ill.
Obj. 3. It is accidentall to any to render himſelfe a ſlave, being P. Prelate.occaſioned by force or extreame indigence, but to ſubmit to Government congrnous to the condition of man, and is neceſſary for his happy being, and naturall, and neceſſary by the inviolable Ordinance of God and nature. Anſ. If the father be a ſlave, it is naturall and not accidentall, by the Prelates Logick, to be a ſlave. 2. it is alſo accidentall to be under Soveraignty, and ſure not naturall, for then Ariſtocracy and Democracy muſt be unnaturall, and ſo unlawfullPolitick Government how naturall. Governments. 3. If to be congruous to the condition of man be all one with naturall man (which he muſt ſay if he ſpeake ſenſe) to beleeve in God, to be an excellent Mathematician, to ſwim in deepe waters, being congruous to the nature of man, muſt be naturall. 4. Man by nature is under government Paternall, not Politique properly, but by the free conſent of his will.
Obj. 4. Luke 11. 5. Chriſt himſelfe was foreign ſubject to P. Prelate. Sac. ſanct. Mai. p. 126.his Parents, the word that is uſed, Rom. 13. ergo none is exempted from ſubjection to lawfull government, Anſ. We never ſaid, that any was exempted from lawfull goverment; the Prelate and his fellow Ieſuites teach that the Clergy is exempted from the lawes of the civill Magiſtrate, not we; but becauſe Chriſt was ſubject to his Parents, and the ſame word is uſed, Luk. 11. that is, Rom. 13. it will not follow therefore, men are by nature ſubject to Kings, becauſe they are by nature ſubject to parents.
Obj. 5. The father had power over the children by the Law of God and nature to redeeme himſelfe from debt, or any diſtreſſed condition, by inſlaving his children begotten of his owne body, if this power was not by the right of nature, and by the Warrant of God, I can ſee no other, for it could not be by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers, Inſlaving of children by the parents not naturall.Anſ. 1. Shew a law of nature, that the father might inſlave his children by a Divine poſitive law preſuppoſing ſin, the father might doe that, and yet I thinke that may be queſtioned, whether it was not a permiſſion rather then a law, as was the Bill of devorce, but a law of nature it was not. 2. The P. Prelate can ſee no Law but the law of nature here, but it is becauſe he is blind or will not ſee; his reaſon is, it was not by mutuall and voluntary contract of children and fathers, ergo it was by the law of nature; ſo he that curſed his father was to dye by Gods Law. This law was not made by mutuall conſent betwixt the Father and the Sonne, ergo it was a law of inature, the Prelate will ſee no better. Nature will teach a man to inſlave himſelfe to redeeme himſelfe from death, but that it is a Dictate of nature that a man ſhould inſlave his ſonne, I conceive not. 3. What can this prove, but that if the ſonne may by the law of nature, be inſlaved for the father, but that the ſonne of a ſlave is by nature under ſubjection to ſlavery, & that by natures law, the contrary whereof he ſpake in the page preceding, and in this ſame page.
As for the Argument of the Prelate to anſwer Suarez, who laboureth to prove Monarchy not to be naturall, but of free conſent, becauſe it is various in ſundry nations, it is the Ieſuites Argument, not ours▪ I owne it not. Let Ieſuites plead for Ieſuites.