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? (1) to 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? (2)

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? (1)

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 above 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, presupposing 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, 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. Dried[gap] 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 sort 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 mothers 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 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 subj[gap]ction 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 were 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 sacra, 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. de invtil. scrupl. l. inter Stipulantem. S. Sacram. F. de verber. Obligat.

3 Assert. Every man by nature is a freeman borne, that is, by nature no man commeth out of the wombe vnder 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[gap]ure, though borne in a single familie, the only naturall

and first societie in the world. 2. Man is borne by nature free 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 as 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 foul 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 he 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 f[gap]om 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. Manumiss. F. de just. & jur. S. jus autem gentium, Ins. de jur. nat. We are all by nature free. and D. L. ex hoc jure cum simil. 6. Politicians 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, and 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 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 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 i[gap] 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 occasioned by force or extreame indigence, but to submit to Government congruous 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 unlawfull 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 [gap] subject to 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,

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? (2)

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 hmselfe 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.