QUEST. XIII. Whether or no Royal dignity have its spring from nature, and how that is true (every man is born free) and how servitude is contrary to nature?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?
pp. 89–9515 passages
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
QUEST. XIII. Whether or no Royal dignity have its spring from nature, and how that is true (every man is born free) and how servitude is contrary to nature?
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?
I Conceive it to be evident that Royal 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 merely natural, neither can subjection to Royal power be merely natural; but the former is rather civill, then natural: and the question of the same nature is, Whether subjection or servitude be natural?
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 above1 us, some way natural, and therefore I rank them in order thus. 1. There is a subjection in respect of natural 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 Royal 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