Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King 1then Clients to Patrons, and servants to Masters, because the Patron cannot be the Clients Judge? but some superior Magistrate must judge both, and the slave had no refuge against his Master, but only flight. And the King doth confer infinite greater benefits on the subjects, then the Master doth on the slave, because he exposeth his life, 2pleasure, ease, credit, and all for the safety of his subjects?] Ans. Its denied; 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 Moral impotency, or a political incongruity, because these relations of Patron and Client, Fathers and Children are supposed to be in a Community, in which are Rulers and Judges, above the Father and Son, the Patron and the Client; but there is no Physical incongruity that the politic inferior punish the superior, if we suppose ⟨p. 460⟩there were no Judges 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 self defence, and that most just, though contrary to nature, must be a remedy against another violence: but in a Kingdom there is no political Ruler above both King and People; and therefore though Nature have not formally appointed the political relation of a King, rather then many Governors, and subjects, yet hath Nature appointed a Court and Tribunal of necessity, in which the people may by innocent violence, repress the unjust violence of an injuring Prince; so as the people injured in the matter of self defence, may be their own Judge. 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 expressly saith, That they might not only fly, but also change Masters, which we all know was a great damage to the Master, to whom the servant was as good as money in his purse. 2. I have demonstrated3 before by the Law of Nature, and out of divers learned Jurists, that all inferiors may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence;
Quest. 13. Whether or no are subjects more obnoxious to a King 1then 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, 2pleasure, 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 ⟨p. 460⟩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 just, though contrary to nature, must be a remedy against ano•her 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 nec•ssity, 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 demonstrated3 before by the Law of Nature, and out of divers learned Iurists, that all inferiours may defend themselves by opposing violence against unjust violence;
- 1Arnisaeus de authorit. princi. c. 3. n. 6.
- 2Subjects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients, Vassals, Children.Subiects not more obnoxious to a King then Clients, Vassals, Children.
- 3Servi indignè habiti confugiendi ad statuas, & dominum mutandi copiam habent, l. 2. De his qui sunt sui. Item, C. De lat. Hered. toll.
