QUEST. XLIV. Generall results of the former Doctrine, in some few Corollaries, or straying Questions, fallen off the Road-way: answered briefly. (1) to QUEST. XLIV. Generall results of the former Doctrine, in some few Corollaries, or straying Questions, fallen off the Road-way: answered briefly. (2)

QUEST. XLIV. Generall results of the former Doctrine, in some few Corollaries, or straying Questions, fallen off the Road-way: answered briefly. (1)

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?] 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 onely sinfull man should be the sole and onely Ruler

of a whole Kingdome. God, in his Word, ever joyned with the Supreme 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.

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 their 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; 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[gap]fferent from those nin[gap], 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, the 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 symbolicall 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 we 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 Vzziah his power, from burning incense to the Lord, gave no Royall power to Vzziah. 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 Law-covenant, 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 Vzziah. 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 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, 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 j[gap]st, though contrary to nature, must be a remedy against another 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 necessity, 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 demonstrated 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. XLIV. Generall results of the former Doctrine, in some few Corollaries, or straying Questions, fallen off the Road-way: answered briefly. (2)

Quest. 14. But are not Subjects more subject to their Prince (seeing 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.

Monarch. 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. eff. sui.

Ans. There is no question, in active subjection to Princes and 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 Bees 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? ] 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 Vzzah 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 neither 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 Vzzah 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 Vzzah 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; From 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 he 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, Tha[gap] in things lawfull we must be subject actively, in things unlawfull, passively. For as we are in 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 hath: 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, it would seeme he canno[gap] 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. The 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 onely against his Oath, and saith, God do

so to 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 Princes, to raise war against his Subjects and Parliament, then the 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 H[gap]liogabolus 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. There is a twofold Subsidie; one Debitum, of debt, 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

[gap]

[gap]

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 Cleer, 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 divers 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, finaliter, 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 remaine 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.