Assert. 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the1 King: I presuppose, that the division of Goods doth not necessarily flow from the law of nature, for God made man before the fall, Lord of the creatures indefinitely; but what Goods be Peters, and not Pauls, we know not. But supposing mans sin, though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all, and religious places be proper to none, yet it is morally unpossible, that there should not be a distinction of meum & tuum, mine and thine: and the decalogue forbidding theft, and coveting the wife of another man, (yet is she the wife of Peter, not of Thomas by free election, not by an act of natures law) doth evidence to us, that the division of things is so far forth, (men now being in the state of sin) of the law of nature, that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations; and thus far natural, that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak, and the nourishment from my own meat, are physically incommunicable to any*. But I hasten to prove the Proposition: If 1. I have leave to premit, that in time of necessity all things are common by Gods Law: A man travelling, might eat Grapes in his neighbours vineyard, though he was not licensed to carry any away. I doubt if David wanting money, was necessitated ⟨p. 121⟩to pay money for the Show-bread, or for Goliaths sword, supposing these to be the very Goods of private men, and ordinarily to be bought and sold: natures Law in extremity, for self preservation, hath rather a Prerogative Royal above all Laws of Nations, and all civill Laws then any mortal King; and therefore by the civill Law, all are the Kings, in case of extreme necessity; in this meaning, any one man is obliged to give all he hath for the good of the Common-wealth, and so far the good of the King, in as far as he is head and father of the Common-wealth*. 2. All things are the Kings, in regard of his public power, to defend all men, and their Goods from unjust violence. 3. All are the Kings in regard of his Act of conservation of Goods, for the use of the just owner. 4. All are the Kings in regard of a legal limitation, in case of a damage, offered to the Common-wealth, justice requireth confiscation of Goods for a fault; but confiscated Goods are to help the interested Common-wealth, and the King, not as a man (to bestow them on his children) but as a King;
Assert. 20. All the Goods of the Subjects belongeth not to the1 King: I presuppose, that the division of Goods doth not necessarily flow from the law of nature, for God made man before the fall, Lord of the creatures indefinitely; but what Goods be Peters, and not Pauls, we know not. But supposing mans sin, though the light of the Sun and Air be common to all, and religious places be proper to none, yet it is morally unpossible, that there should not be a distinction of meum & tuum, mine and thine: and the decalogue forbidding theft, and coveting the wife of another man, (yet is she the wife of Peter, not of Thomas by free election, not by an act of natures law) doth evidence to us, that the division of things is so far forth, (men now being in the state of sin) of the law of nature, that it hath evident ground in the Law of nations; and thus farre naturall, that the heat that I have from my own coat and cloak, and the nourishment from my own meat, are physically incommunicable to any*. But I hasten to prove the Proposition: If 1. I have leave to premit, that in time of necessitie all things are common by Gods Law: A man travelling, might eat Grapes in his neighbours vineyard, though he was not licenced to carry any away. I doubt if David wanting money, was necessitated ⟨p. 121⟩to pay money for the Shew-bread, or for Goliahs sword, supposing these to be the very Goods of private men, and ordinarily to be bought and sold: natures Law in extremity, for self preservation, hath rather a Prerogative Royall above all Laws of Nations, and all civill Laws then any mortall King; and therefore by the civill Law, all are the Kings, in case of extreme necessity; in this meaning, any one man is obliged to give all he hath for the good of the Common-wealth, and so far the good of the King, in as farre as he is head and father of the Common-wealth*. 2. All things are the Kings, in regard of his publike power, to defend all men, and their Goods from unjust violence. 3. All are the Kings in regard of his Act of conservation of Goods, for the use of the just owner. 4. All are the Kings in regard of a legall limitation, in case of a dammage, offered to the Common-wealth, justice requireth confiscation of Goods for a fault; but confiscated Goods are to help the interessed Common-wealth, and the King, not as a man (to bestow them on his children) but as a King;
- 1The Goods of the Subjects not the Kings.
- *Quod jure gentium dicitur. F. de justi tia & jure. l. ex hee. Quod partim jure civili. Justi. de rerum divisio. sect. singulorum.Quod jure gentium dicitur. F. de justi tia & jure. l. ex hee. Quod partim jure civili. Iusti. de rerum divisio. sect. singulorum.
- *L. item si verberatum. F. de rei vindicat. Jas. plene m. l. Barbarius. F. de o•fici. praetor. all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion, but not in propriety.L. item si verberatum. F. de rei vindicat. Ias. plene m. l. Barbarius. F. de o•fici. praetor. all the goods of the people are the Kings in a fourfold notion, but not in propriety.
