QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds, ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars? (1) to QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds, ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars? (2)

QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds, ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars? (1)

THe P. Prelate without all ground, will have us all Iesuites in this point; but if we make good, that this Truth was in Scripture before a Iesuite was in the earth, he falleth fron his Cause.

P. Prelate. The Begardi saith, There was no Government,

no Law given to the just. It f[gap]reth me, this age fancieth to it self, some such thing, and have learned of Core, Dathan, &c.

Ans. This Calumniator in the next words belieth himself, when he saith, We presuppose, that these with whom we are to enter in Lists, do willingly grant, That Government is not onely lawfull and just, but necessary both for Church and Common-wealth: then we fancie no such thing as he imputeth to us.

P. Prelate. Some said, that the right of Dominion is founded on grace; whether the Waldenses and Hus, held any such Tenet, I cannot now insist to prove, or disprove. Gerson and others held, that there must be a new Title and Right to what men possesse: Too many too confidently hold these, or the like.

Answ. 1. That Dominion is founded upon Grace, as its essentiall Pillar; so as wicked men be no Magistrates, because they are in mortall sin, was falsly imputed to ancient Protestants, the Waldenses, Wickcliff, and Hus, by Papists; and this day by Iesuites, Suarez, Bellarmine, Becan. The P. Prelate will leave them under this Calumny, that he may offend Papists and Iesuites as little as he can, but he would lay it on us; but if the P. Prelate think, that Dominion is not founded on Grace, de jure, that Rulers should have that spirit that God put on the seventy Elders for their Calling, and that they ought not to be men fearing God, and hating covetousnesse, as Gerson and others did, he belieth the Scripture.

2. It is no errour of Gerson, that beleevers have a spirituall Right to their civill possessions, but by Scripture, 1 Cor. 4.21. Revel. 21.7.

P. Prelate. The Iesuites are ashamed of the errour of Casuists, who hold that, directum imperium, the direct and primary power, Supreme, Civill, and Ecclesiasticall, is in the Pope; and therefore, they give an indirect directive, and coercive power to him, over Kings and States, in ordine ad spiritualia: So may he King and un-King Princes at his pleasure. Our Presbyterians, if they run not fully this way, are very neer to it.

Answ. The Windy man would seem versed in School-men, he should have named some Casuists, who hold any like thing.

2. The Presbyterians must be Popes, because they subject Kings to the Gospel, and Christs Scepter in Church Censures, and think Christian Kings may be rebuked for blasphemy, blood-shed,

&c. Whereas Prelates, in ordine ad diabolica, murther souls of Kings. 2. Prelates do King Princes. An P. Arch-Prelate, when our King was crowned, put the Crown on King Charls Head, the Sword and Scepter in his hand, anointed him in his hands, Crown, shoulders, arms, with sacred Oyl: The King must kisse the Archbishop, and Bishops; is not this to King Prince[gap], in ordine ad spiritualia: And these that Kingeth may unking, and judge what relation the P. Arch-Bishop Spotwood had, when he proffered to the King, The Oath that the Popish Kings sweareth to maintain, the professed Religion (not one word of the true Protestant Religion) and will carefully root out all Hereticks, and enemies (that is Protestants as the expone it,) to the true Worship of God, that shall be convicted by the true Church of God of the foresaid crimes. And when the Prelates professed, they held not their Prelacies of the King, but of the Pope indeed: Who are then nearest to the Popes power, in ordine ad spiritualia? 3. How will this black mouthed Calumniator, make Presbyterians to dethrone Kings? He hath written a Pamphlet of the inconsistency of Monarchie and Presbyterian Government, consisting of lies, invented Calumnies of his Church, in which he was baptized. But the truth is, all his Arguments prove the inconsistencie of Monarchs and Parliaments, and transform any King in a most absolute Tyrant; for which Treason he deserveth to suffer as a Traytor.

P. Prelate. Q. 1. c. 1. The Puritan saith, That all power Civill, is radically and originally seated in the Communitie; he here joyneth hands with the Jesuite.

Answ. In six pages he repeateth the same things. 1. Is this such an Heresie, that a Colonie casted into America by the Tyranny of P. Prelates, have power to choose their own Governours; all Israel was Hereticall in this, for David could not be their King, though designed and anointed by God, 1 Sam. 16. till the people, 2 Sam. 5. put forth in act, this power, and made David King in Hebron. 2. Let the Prelate make a Syllogisme, it is but ex utraque affirmante in secunda figura, Logick like the bellies of the Court, in which men of their own way is disgraced and cast out of Grace and Court, because in this controversie of the King with his two Parlia[gap]ents, they are like Erasmus in Gods matters, who said, Lutherum nec accuso, nec defendo. 1. He is discourted who ever he be, who is in shape like a Puritan, and not fire and sword against

Religion and his Countrey, and Oath and Covenant with God, and so it is this. The Iesuite teacheth, that power of Government is in the Communitie originally. The Puritan teacheth, that power of Government is in the Communitie originally. Ergo, The Puritan is a Iesuite. But so the Puritan is a Iesuite, because he and the Iesuite teacheth, that there is one God, and three persons; And if the Prelate like this reasoning, we shall make himself and the Prelates, and Court-Divines, Iesuites upon surer grounds.

Jesuites teach, The Pope is not the Antichrist. 2. Christ locally discended to Hell, to free some out of that prison. 3. It was sin to separate from Babylonish Rome. 4. We are justified by works. 5. The merit of fasting is not to be condemned. 6. The Masse is no idolatry. 7. The Church is the judge of controversies. 8. All the Arminian points are safer to be beleeved, then the contrary; yea, and all the substantials of Popery are true, and Catholick doctrine to be preached and Printed: The Prelates and Court-Divines, and this Prelate conspireth, in all these with the Iesuites, as is learnedly and invincibly proved in the Treatise, called [gap] the Canterburian self-conviction: to which no man of the Prelaticall and Romish Faction durst ever make answer for their hearts: and see then who are Iesuites. 3. This doctrine was taught by Lawyers, Protestants, yeilded to by Papists before any Iesuite was whelped in rerum naturâ. Never learned man wrote of policy, till of late; but he held power of Government, by the light of nature must be radically and originally, in a Communitie: the P. Prelate saith, Iesuites are not the father of this opinion, Cap. 1. pag. 12. How then can the Liar say, that the Puritan conspireth with the Iesuite? Suarez the Iesuite de primat. sum. pontifi. l. 3. c. 2. n. 10. Non est novum, aut a Cardinali Bellarmino inventum. The Iesuite Tannerus will not have their Family the mother of this opinion, Tom. 2. disp. 5. de leg. q. 5. in 12. q. 95, 96. Dubi. 1. n. 7. Sine dubio communis omnium Theologorum & Iurisperitorum sententia, &c. The Iesuite Tolet, in Rom. 13. taketh it for a ground, That the Civill powers are from God, by the naturall mediation of men, and Civill Societies. 4. Iesuites teach, That there is no lawfull Christian society truely politick that hath a neer and formall power, to choose and ordain their own Magistrates, but that which acknowledgeth subjection, and the due regulation of their creating of Magistrates, to be due and proper to the Pope of Rome. We acknowledge

no wayes the Bishop of Rome, for a lawfull Bishop and Pastor at all: But this Popish Prelate doth acknowledge him, for he hath these words, Cap. 5. pag. 58. It is high presumption in the Pope, to challenge to himself, the Title or Right of Christs universall Vicar on earth, by Divine right. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, hath no more by Divine right, (what he may have by positive Ecclesiasticall right, is not pertinent for us now to examine and discusse) no higher priviledge (except it be in extent) then the meanest Bishop of the world in his Diocesse. And amongst all proofes, he passing by Scriptures, which should prove, or improve a Divine right, he will content himselfe with one proofe of Cyprian, de unitat. Eccles. And endeth with these words: Would God, both sides, in this, and other controversies, would submit to the judgement of the holy Fathers.

Hence the P. Prelate, in his 4. Article, (the other two I shall touch anon) maketh Puritans grosser then Jesuites, in dethroning Kings; because, if the King be deficient, the People may resume their power, and governe for him, and so dethrone the King. But Bellarmine, l. 3. q. de laic. holdeth, the people cannot dethrone the King, but, in certis casibus, in some cases, that is, (as Suarez saith) si Rex sua potestate iu manifestam (Civitatis ceu Regni) perniciem abutatur. But I will demonstrate, that if Papists hold that the Pope may dethrone Kings, this Prelate is of their mind: for, 1. the words I cited, make good that he is for the Popes Supremacie; (now it is a joynt or lith of his supremacie, to King and un-King Princes.) 2. They make good that he is a Papist: for, 1. It is presumption in the Pope to challenge to himselfe, that he is Christs Vniversall Vicar on Earth by Divine right. Why saith he not, by no right at all, but only he is not Christs Vicar by Divine right: for it is evident that Papists make him Christs Vicar, only by Ecclesiasticall right; for they professe, succession of Popes to this day, cannot be proved but by Tradition, not by Scripture.

2. The Popes supremacie, by Papists, is expresly reckoned amongst unwritten Traditions, and so there is no necessitie that the right of it be proved from Scripture.

3. The Prelate expresly saith, He will not discusse the Ecclesiasticall right that the Pope hath to be Christs Vicar. And by that he clearely insinuateth, that he hath a right to be Christs Vicar, beside a Scripturall and Divine right: only, for offending Papists, he will not discusse it.

4. He hath no higher priviledge (saith he) then other Bishops, except in extent, by Divine right. Now other Bishops, as officers in nature different from Presbyters, (for of such the P. Prelate must speak in his own dialect) have their office by Divine right: and this the Prelates words must include, else he saith non-sense to the matter in hand. And in extent the Pope hath by Divine right more then other Bishops have. Now what is the Pope of Rome his extent? All knowes it is the whole Catholike visible Church on earth. If then all Bishops be particular Ambassadours in Christs stead, 2 Cor. 5.20. and so Legates and Deputies of Christ; He who by Divine right is a Bishop in extent over the whole world, is as like one that calleth himselfe the universall Vicar of Christ, as one egge is like another. 2. The doctrine taught by this Prelate, so Popish, & hints, yea are more then evidences of grosse Poperie in this book, and his other Pamphlet against Presbyteries; And his desire that the Controversie concerning the Popes supremacie, and others, were determined with submission to the judgement of the Fathers: doe cry, that he is but a rotten Papist. For why will he submit all other controversies to the judgement of the Fathers? Why not to the Prophets and Apostles? Can Fathers decide Controversies better then the Word of God? A reason cannot be dreamed of, why the Fathers should be Iudges, and not the Scriptures, except that Scriptures are obscure. 2. Their authoritie and light cannot determine and judge controversies, except in so far as they have authoritie from Fathers and the Church: and we know this to be proprium 4 to modo, proper to Jesuites and Papists, to cry Fathers, Fathers, in all controversies, though the Fathers be more for us, then for them, except two things; 1. What Fathers speake for us, are corrupted by them: 2. What were but errors in Fathers, when children adde contumacie to error, becomes the heresies of the sonnes.

And it is most false, that we joyne with Jesuites. 1. We teach no more against Tyrants, in exercitio, then Grotius, Barclay, Winzetus, in the matter of deposing Kings. And in this, Royalists conspire with Jesuites. 2. We deny that the Pope may loose Subjects from the oath of Fidelitie, when a King turneth Hereticall; 3. That People at the Popes commandement, are to dethrone Kings, for Heresie, So doe the Prelates, and their fellowes the Papists teach. So Gregorie the 7. practised: so Aquinas taught, 22 q. 12. ar. 2. Antonin. sum. par. 3. t. 22. c. 3. §. 7. Thou hast put all things under the Popes feet:

oves, id est, Christianos; boves, Iudaeos & Hereticos; pecora, Paganos. So Navar. l. 1. c. 13. Pagans have no jurisdiction. Iaco. Symanca, de Catho. Instit. tit. 45. n. 25. Catholica uxor heretico viro debitum reddere non tenetur. Item. Constat Haereticum privatum esse omni dominio, naturali, civili, politico, naturali quod habet in filios, nam propter haeresin patris efficiuntur filii sui iuris, civili, quod habet in servos, ab eo enim servi liberantur, politico, quod rerum domini habent in subditos, ita Bannes 22. q. 12. art. 10. Gregor. de valent▪ 22. dis. 1. q. 12. p. 2. lod. Mol. to. 1. De just. & jur. tract. 2. dis. 29. v. 3. 2. Papists hold that Generatio clerici est corruptio subditi, Churchmen are not subjects under the Kings Law. It is a Canonicall priviledge of the Clergy, that they are not subject to the Kings Civill Lawes. Now this Prelate and his fellowes made the King sweare, at his Coronation, to maintaine all Canonicall Priviledges of the Prelaticall Clergy, the very Oath and words sworne by all the Popish Kings.

P. Prelate. Power is given by the multitude to the King immediatly, and by God mediately, not so much by collation, as by approbation, how the Iesuite and Puritane walke all along in equall pace. See Bellarmine l. 1. de liac. c. 6. Zuarez cont. sect. Angl. l. 3. c. 3.

Answ. It is a Calumnie, that we teach that the power of the King is from God mediatly, by meere approbation; indeed a fellow of his, a Papist writing against the Kings Supremacy, Anthony Capell Cont. 1. c. 5. saith, Saul was made King, and others also by Gods permission, and Deo invito & irato, God being angry, that is not our Doctrine; but with what reall efficiencie God hath made men, and communities, rationall and sociall men, with the same hath he made them by instinct of nature, by the mediation of reason, to create a King; and Bellarmine and Suarez say, Not God maketh Kings by approbation only.

P. Prelate. The people may change Monarchy into Aristocracy or Democracy, or Aristocracy into Monarchy; for ought I know, they differ not in this neither.

Ans. The P. Prelate knoweth not all things, the two Iesuites, Bellarmine and Suarez are produced only, as if they were all Iesuites; and Suarez saith, De prim. po. l. 3. n. 4. Donationem absolutam semel valide factam revocari non posse, neque in totum, neque ex parce, maxime quando onerosa fuit. If the people once give their power to the King, they cannot resume it without cause, and laying downe

the grounds of Suarez and other Iesuites, that our Religion is Heresie, they doe soundly collect this consequence, That no King can be Lord of the consciences of their subjects, to compell them to an Hereticall Religion. We teach that the King of Spaine hath no power over the consciences of Protestant Subjects, to force them to Idolatry, and that their soules are not his subjects, but only their persons, and in the Lord. 2. It is no great crime, that if a King degenerate in a Tyranny, or if the Royall Line faile, that we thinke the people have liberty to change Monarchy into Aristocracy, aut contra. Iesuites deny that the people can make this change without the Popes consent. We judge neither the great Bishop the Pope, nor the little Popes ought to have hand in making Kings.

QUEST. XLI. Whether doth the P. Prelate upon good grounds, ascribe to us the doctrine of Jesuites in these Questions of lawfull defensive Wars? (2)

P. Prelate. They say the power is derived to the King from the people, Cumulativè, or Communicativé, non Privativé, by way of communication, not by way of privation, so as the people denude not themselves of this soveraignty. As the King maketh a Lieutenant in Ireland, not to denude himselfe of his Royall power, but to put him in trust for his service. If this be their mind, the King is in a poore case. The principal authority is in the Deligate, and so the people is still Iudge, and the King their Deputy.

Ans. The P. Prelate taketh on him to write he knoweth not what, this is not our opinion. The King is King, and hath the peoples power not as their Deputy.

1. Because the people is not principall Iudge, and the King subordinate. The King in the executive power of Lawes, is really a Soveraigne above the people, a Deputy is not so.

2. The people have irrevocably made over to the King, their power of governing, defending, and protecting themselves, I except the power of selfe preservation, which people can no more make away, it being sinlesse natures birth-right then the liberty of eating, drinking, sleeping; and this the people cannot resume, except in case of the Kings Tyranny, there is no power by the King so irrevocably resigned to his Servant or Deputy, but he may use it himselfe.

3. A Delegate is comptable for all he doth to those that put him in trust, whether he doe ill or well. The King in acts of Iustice is not comptable to any, for if his acts be not lyable to high suspitions of Tyranny, no man may say to him What dost thou? onely in acts of unjustice, and those so tyrannous, that they be inconsistent with the

habituall fiduciary repose and trust put on him, he is to render accounts to the Parliament, which representeth the people.

4. A Delegate in esse, in fieri, both that he may be a Delegate, and that he may continue a Delegate, whether he doe ill or well, dependeth on his pleasure who delegateth him; but though a King depend in fieri, in regard of his call to the Crowne, upon the suffrages of his people, yet that he may be continued King, he dependeth not on the people simply, but only in case of Tyrannicall administration, and in this sense Suarez and Bellarmine spake with no more honesty, then we doe, but with more then Prelates doe, for they professe any Emissary of Hell may stab a Protestant King ▪ We know the Prelates professe the contrary, but their judgement is the same with Iesuites in all points; and since they will have the Pope Christs Vicar, by such a Divine right as they themselves are Bishops, and have the King under Oath to maintaine the Clergie, Bishops, and all their Canonicall priviledges, amongst which the Bishops of Rome his indirect power in ordine ad spiritualia, and to dethrone Kings who turne Heritickes, is one principall right. I see not how Prelates are not as deepe in treason against Kings as the Pope himselfe, and therefore P. Prelate, take the beame out of your owne eye.

The P. Prelate taketh unlearned paines, to prove that Gerson, Occam, Iac. de almaine, Parisian Doctors maintained these same grounds a nent the peoples power over Kings in the case of Tyranny, and that before Luther and Calvine was in the world, and this is to give himselfe the lye, that Luther, Calvin, and we have not this Doctrine from Iesuites, and what is Calvines mind, is evident, Instit. l. 4. c. all that the estates may coerce, and reduce in order a Tyrant, else they are deficient in their trust that God hath given them over the Common-wealth and Church; and this is the Doctrine for which Royalists cry out against Master Knox of blessed memory, Buchanan, Iunius Brutus, Bouchier, Rossaeus, Althusius, and Luther, in scripto ad pastorem, to 7. German. fol. 386. bringeth two examples for resistance; the people resisted Saul, when he was willing to kill Ionathan his sonne, and Ahikam and other Princes rescued Ieremiah out of the hands of the King of Iudah: and Gerardus citeth many Divines, who second Luther in this, as Bugenliagius, Iustus Ionas, Nicholas Ambsderffius, George Spalatinus, Iustus Menius, Christopher Hofmanus. It is knowne what is the mind of

Protestant Divines, as Beza, Pareus, Melancthon, Bucanus, Polanus Chamer, all the Divines of France, of Germany, of Holland. No wonder then Prelates were upon the plot of betraying the City of Rochel, and of the Protestant Church there, when they then will have the Protestants of France, for their defensive warres to be Rebels, and siders with Iesuites, when in these warres Iesuites sought their blood and ruine.

The P. Prelate having shewn his mind concerning the deposing of Childericke by the Pope (of which I say nothing, but the Pope was an Antichristian Usurper, and the poore man never fit to beare a Crowne) he goeth on to set downe an opinion of some mute Authors, he might devise a thousand opinions that way, to make men beleeve he had been in a wood of learned mens secrets, and that never man saw the bottome of the controversie, while he, seeing the escapes of many Pens (as supercilious Bubo praiseth) was forced to appeare a Star new risen in the firmament of Pursevants, and reveale all dreames, and teach all the New-Statists, the Gamaliels, Buchanan, Iunius Brutus, and a world who were all sleeping, while this Lucifer the sonne of the night did appeare, this new way of Lawes, Divinity and casuists Theologie.

They hold (saith P. P.) Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude, from it derived to th[gap] King,

immediatly from God. The reason of which order is, because we cannot reape the fruites of government, unlesse by compact we submit to some possible and accidentall inconveniences.

Ans. 1. Who speaketh so the P. Prelate cannot name. That Soveraigne power is primarily and naturally in the multitude. Vertually (it may be) Soveraignty is in the multitude, but primarily and naturally, as heat is in the fire, light in the Sun; I thinke the P. Prelate dreamed it, no man said it but himselfe: for what attribute is naturally in a Subject, I conceive may directly and naturally be predicated thereof. Now the P. Prelate hath taught us of a very naturall predication. (Our Dreadful and Soveraign Lord the multitude commandeth this and this.)

2. This is no more a reason for a Monarchy, then for a Democracy, for we can reape the fruites of no government, except we submit to it.

3. We must submit in Monarchy (saith he) to some possible and accidentall inconveniences. Here be soft words, but is subversion of

Religion, Lawes, and Liberties of Church and State, introducing of Popery, Arminianisme, of Idolatry, Altar-worship, the Masse proved by a learned Treatise, The Canterburian selfe conviction, printed the 3. edit. an 1641. never answered, couched under the name of inconveniency? The pardoning of the innocent blood of hundreds of thousand Protestants in Ireland, the killing of many thousands, Nobles, Barons, Commons, by the hands of Papists in Armes ag[gap]inst the Law of the Land, the making of England a field of blood, the obtruding of an Idolatrous Service-Booke, with Armies of men, by Sea and Land, to blocke up the Kingdome of Scotland, are all these inconveniences only?

4. Are they only possible and accidentall? but make a Monarch absolute, as the P. Prelate doth, and tyranny is as necessary and as much intended by a sinfull man, inclined to make a God of himselfe, as it is naturall to men to sinne, when they are tempted, and to be drunken and giddy with honour and greatnesse; witnesse the Kings of Israel and Iudah, though de jure they were not absolute. Is it accidentall to Nero, Iulian, to the ten hornes that grew out of the womans head, who sate upon the scarlet colloured beast, to make warre against the Lambe, and his followers, especially the spirit of Sathan being in them?

P. Prelate, They inferre, 1. They cannot without violation of a Divine ordinance, and breach of faith resume the authority, they have placed in the King. 2. It were high sin to rob authority of its essentials. 3. This ordinance is not [gap] but [gap] and hath urgent reasons.

Ans. 1. These namelesse Authors cannot inferre that an Oath is broken, which is made conditionally; all authority given by the people to the King is conditionall, that he use it for the safety of the people, if it be used for their distruction, they breake no faith to resume it, for they never made faith to give up their power to the King upon such tearmes, and so they cannot be said to resume what they never gave.

2. So the P. Prelate maketh power to act all the former mischiefes, the essentialls of a King. Balaam he is not worthy his wages, for Prophecying thus, that the Kings essentialls is a power of blood, and destructive to people, Law, Religion and liberties of Church and State, for otherwise we teach not, that people may resume from the King Authority and power of disarme Papists, to

roote out the bloody Irish, and in justice serve them, as they have served us.

3. This ordinance of the people giving lawfull power to a King, for the governing of the people in peace and godlinesse, is Gods good pleasure, and hath just reasons and causes. But that the people make over a power to one man, to act all the inconveniences above named, I mean the bloody and destructive inconveniences, hath nothing of God, or reason in it.

P. Prelate. The reasons of this opinion are. 1. If Power soveraigne were not in one, he could not have strength enough to act all necessary parts and acts of government. 2. Nor to prevent divisions which attend multitudes, or many indowed with equall power; and the Authors say, They must part with their native right entirely, for a greater good, and to prevent greater evills. 3. To resume any part of this power, of which the people have totally devested themselves, or to limit it, is to disable Soveraignty from government, loose the sinewes of all society, &c.

Ans. 1. I know none for this opinion, but the P. Prelate himselfe. The first Reason may be made rhyme, but never reason: for though there be not absolute power to good and ill, there may be strength of limited power in abundance in the King, and sufficient for all acts of just Government, and the adequate end of Government, which is, salus populi, the safetie of the people. But the Royalist will have strength to be a Tyrant, and act all the Tyrannicall and bloody inconveniences of which we spake, an essentiall part of the power of a King; As if weaknesse were essentiall to strength; and a King could not be powerfull as a King, to doe good, and save and protect, except he had power also as a Tyrant to doe evill, and to destroy and waste his people, This power is weaknesse, and no part of the image of the greatnesse of the King of Kings, whom a King representeth.

2. The second Reason condemneth Democracie and Aristocracie, as unlawfull, and maketh Monarchie the only Physick to cure these; as if there were no Government an ordinance of God, save only absolute Monarchie, which indeed is no ordinance of God at all, but contrary to the nature of a lawfull King, Deut. 17.3.

3. That people must part with their native right totally, to make an absolute Monarch; is, as if the whole members of the Body would part with their whole nutritive power, to cause the Milt to swell;

which would be the destruction of the Body.

4. The people cannot divest themselves of power of defensive Warres, more then they can part with Nature, and put themselves in a condition inferior to a slave, who, if his master, who hath power to sell him, invade him unjustly, to take away his life, may oppose violence to unjust violence. And the other Consequences are null.