QUEST. XII. Whether or not a Kingdome may lawfully be purchased by the sole title of conquest?

THe Prelate averreth confidently that a Title to a Kingdome* by Conquest, without the consent of the people, is so just and evident by Scripture, that it cannot be denyed; but the man bringeth no Scripture to prove it. Mr. Marshall saith, a conquered Kingdome*is but c•ntinuata injuria, a continued robbery. A right of conquest is twofold; 1. When there is no just cause. 2. When there is just rea∣son* and ground of the war; in this latter case, if a Prince subdue a whole Land, which justly deserveth to dye, yet by his grace who is so mild a conquerour they may be all preserved alive. Now amongst those who have thus injured the conquerour as they deserve death, we are to difference the persons offending, and the wives, children especially not borne, and such as have not offended. The former sort may resign their personall liberty to the conquerour, that the sweet life may be saved; but he cannot be their King properly, but I con∣ceive that they are obliged to consent that he be their King, upon this condition, that the conquerour put not upon them violent and tyrannicall conditions that are harder then death: now in reason we cannot thinke that a tyrannous and unjust domineering can be Gods lawfull meane of translating Kingdomes, and for the other part; the Page  83 conquerour cannot domineere as King over the innocent, and espe∣cially the children not yet borne.

1. Assertion. A people may be by Gods speciall Commande∣ment, subject to a conquering Nebuchadnezer, and a Caesar, as to their King, as was Iudah commanded by the Prophet Ieremiah to submit unto the yoake of the King of Babylon, and to pray for him, and the people of the Iewes were to give to Caesar the things of Cae∣sar; and yet both those were unjust conquerours: for those Tyrants had no command of God to oppresse and raigne over the Lords peo∣ple, yet were they to obey those Kings, so the passive subjection was just and commanded of God, and the active unjust and tyra∣nous, and forbidden of God.

2. Assert. This title by conquest through the peoples after con∣sent may be turned into a just title, as its like the case was with the Iewes in Caesars time, for which cause our Saviour commanded to obey Caesar, and to pay tribute unto him; as Dr. Ferne confesseth.* But two things are to be condemned in the Doctor: 1. That God manifesteth his Will to us in this worke of providence, whereby he translateth Kingdomes. 2. That this is an over-awed consent; now to the former I reply, if the act of conquering be violent and* unjust, it is no manifestation of Gods regulating and approving Will, and can no more prove a just title to a Crowne, because it is an act of Divine providence, then Pilate and Herod their crucifying of the Lord of Glory, which was an act of Divine providence, flow∣ing from the Will and Decree of Divine providence, Act. 2. 23. Act. 4. 28. is a manifestation that it was Gods approving Will, that they should kill Jesus Christ. 2. Though the consent be some way over-awed, yet is it a sort of Contract and Covenant of loyall sub∣jection made to the conquerour, and therefore sufficent to make the title just; otherwise if the people never give their consent, the conquerour domineering over them by violence hath no just title to the Crowne.

3. Assert. Meere conquest by the sword without the consent of the people, is no just title to the Crowne; 1. Because the lawfull title that Gods Word holdeth forth to us, beside the Lords choosing and calling of a man to the Crowne, is the peoples election, Deut. 17. 15. all that had any lawfull calling to the Crowne in Gods Word,* as Saul, David, Solomon, &c. were called by the people, and the first lawfull calling is to us a rule and paterne to all lawfull callings. 2. A Page  84King as a King, and by vertue of his Royall Office is the Father of* the Kingdome, a Tutor, a Defender, Protector, a Shield, a Leader, a Shepheard, an Husband, a Patron, a Watchman, a Keeper of the peo∣ple* over which he is King, and so the Office essentially includeth acts of fatherly affection, care, love and kindnesse to those over whom he is set, so as he who is cloathed with all these relations of love to the people, cannot exercise those officiall Acts on a people a∣gainst their will, and by meere violence. Can he be a Father, and a Guide, a Patron to us against our will? and by the sole power of the bloudy sword? a benefit conferred upon any against their will is no benefit: Will he, by the awsome dominion of the sword be our father, and we unwilling to be his sonnes? an head over such as will not be menbers? will he guide me as a Father, an Hus∣band against my will? he cannot come by meere violence to be a Patton, a Shield, and a defender of me through violence. 3. It is* not to be thought that, that is Gods just Title to a Crowne which hath nothing in it of the essence of a King; but a violent and bloody purchase, which is in its prevalency in an oppressing Nymrod, and the cruellest tyrant that is, hath nothing essentiall to that which con∣stituteth a King: for it hath nothing of Heroick and Royall wise∣dome and gifts to governe, and nothing of Gods approving and regulating will which must be manifested to any who would be a King, but by the contrary cruelty hath rather basenesse and witlesse fury, and a plaine reluctancy with Gods revealing Will, which for∣bideth murther, Gods Law should say, (Murther thou, and prosper and raigne) and by the act of violating the sixt Commandement, God should declare his approving Will, to wit, his lawfull call to a Throne. 4. There be none under a Law of God who may resist* a lawfull call to a lawfull Office, but men may resist any impulsion of God stirring them up to murther the maniest and strongest, and cheife men of a Kingdome, that they may raigne over the fewest, the weakest, and the young and lowest of the people against their will, therefore this call by the sword is not lawfull. If it be said, that the Divine impulsion stirring up a man to make a bloody conquest, that the ire and just indignation of God in Iustice may be declared on a wicked Nation, is an extraordinary impulsion of God, who is above a Law, and therefore no man may resist it. Ans. then all bloody Conquerors must have some extraordinary re∣velation from Heaven to warrant their yeelding of obedience to Page  85 such an extraordinary impulsion. And if it be so, They must shew a lawfull and immediate extraordinary impulsion now; but it is certaine, the sinnes of the people conquered, and their most equall and just demerit, before God, cannot be a just plea to legitimate the Conquest: for though the people of God deserved vastation and captivitie by the Heathen, in regard of their sinnes, before the throne of Divine Iustice, yet the Heathen grievously sin∣ned in conquering them, Zach. 1. 15. And I am very sore displeased with the Heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction. So though Iudah deserved to be made captives, and a conquered people, because of their i∣dolatry, and other sinnes, as Ieremiah had prophecied; yet God was highly displeased at Babylon for their unjust and bloody Con∣euest, Jer. 50. 17, 18, 33, 34. c. 51. 35. The violence done to me and to my flesh, be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitants of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say. And that any other extraordinary impulsion to be as lawfull a call to the Throne as the peoples free election, we know not from Gods word, and we have but the naked word of our Adversaries, that William the Conquerour, without the peoples consent, made himselfe by blood, the lawfull King of England, and also of all their posteritie; And that King Fergus conquered Scotland. 5. A King is a speciall gift of God, given to feed and defend the peo∣ple* of God, that they may lead a godly and peaceable life under him, Isal. 78. v. 71, 72. 1 Tim. 2. 2. as it is a judgement of God, that Israel's without a King for many dayes, Hos. 3. 4. and that there is no Iu•ge, no King, to put evill doers to shame, Iudg. 19. 1. but if a King be given of God, as a King by the acts of a bloody Conquest to be avenged on the sinfull land over which he is made a King, he cannot be given, actu primo, as a speciall gift and blessing of God to feed, but to murther and to destroy; for the genuine end of a Con∣queror, as a Conqueror, is not peace, but fire and sword. If God chang• his heart to be of a bloody Vastator, a father, Prince, and fee∣der of the people, ex officio, now he is not a violent Conquerour and he came to that meeknes by contraries, which is the proper worke of the omnipotent God, and not proper to man, who as he cannot worke miracles, so neither can he lawfully worke by contra∣ries: and so if Conquest be a lawfull title to a Crown, and an ordi∣nary calling, as the opponents presume; every bloody Conquerour Page  86 must be changed into a loving father, Prince and feeder; and if God call him, none should oppose him, but the whole Land should de∣throne their own native Soveraigne (whom they are obliged before the Lord to defend) and submit to the bloody invasion of a strange Lord, presumed to be a just Conqueror, as if he were lawfully called to the Throne both by birth and the voyces of the people. And truly they deserve no wages, who thus defend the Kings Prerogative royall: for if the sword be a lawfull title to the crown, suppose the two Generals of both Kingdomes should conquer the most and the chiefest of the Kingdome now when they have so many forces in the field, by this wicked reason the one should have a lawfull call of God to be King of England, and the other to be King of Scotland; which is absurd. 6. Either conquest, as conquest, is a just title to* the crown, or as a just conquest. If as Conquest, then all conquests are just titles to a Crown; then the Ammonites, Zidonians, Canaa∣nites, Edomites, &c. subduing Gods people for a time, have just title* to reigne over them; and if Absolom had been stronger then David, he had then had the just title to be the Lords Anointed and King of Israel, not David; and so strength actually prevailing, should be Gods lawfull call to a Crown. But strength, as strength victoriou•, is not law, nor reason: it were then reason that Herod behead Jo•• Baptist, and the Roman Emperors kill the witnesses of Christ Ieus. If Conquest, as just, be the title and lawfull claime before Gods court, to a Crown; then certainly a stronger King for pregna•t na∣tionall injuries, may lawfully subdue and reigne over an in•ocent posteritie not yet borne. But what word of God can, 1. wa•rant a posteritie not borne, and so accessarie to no offence against t•e Con∣querour (but only sin originall) to be under a Conquerou• against their will, and who hath no right to reigne over them, but the bloo∣dy sword? for so Conquest, as Conquest, not as just, maketh him King over the posteritity. But 2. the fathers may ingage the* posterity by an oath to surrender themselvos as loyall subject▪ to the man who justly and deservedly made the fathers vassals by the title of the sword of justice. I answer, the fathers may indeed dis•ose of the inheritance of their children, because that inheritance •elong∣eth to the father as well ar to the sonne; but because the liberty of the sonne being borne with the sonne, (all men being bo•ne free from all Civill subjection) the father hath no more power to resigne the libertie of his children, then their lives; and the father, as a fa∣ther Page  87 hath not power of the life of his child, as a Magistrate he* may have power, and as something more then a father, he may have power of life and death. I heare not what Gro∣tius saith, Those who are not borne have no accidents, and so no rights, Non entis nulla sunt accidentia; then Children not borne have neither right, nor liberty, and so no injury (may some say) can be done to Children not borne, though the fathers should give away their liberty to the conque∣rour, those who are not capable of Law, are not capable of injury contrary to Law. Ans. There is a virtuall alienation of rights and lives of children not borne unlawfull, because the children are not borne; to say that children not borne, are not capable of law and injuries virtuall, which become reall in time might say, Adam did not an injury to his posterity by his first sin, which is contrary to Gods Word: so those who vowed yearely to give seven innocent children to the Minotaure to be devoured, and to kill their children not borne to bloody Molech, did no acts of bloody injury to their children; nor can any say then that fathers cannot tye themselves and their posterity to a King by succession, but I say, To be tyed to a law∣full King is no making away of liberty, but a resigning of a power to be justly governed, protected and awed from active and passive vio∣lence. 7. No lawfull King may be dethroned, nor lawfull King∣dome* dissolved; but Law and reason both saith, Quod vi partum est imperium, vi dissolvi potest. Every conquest made by violence may be dissolved by violence: Censetur enim ipsa natura jus dare ad id omne, sine quo obtineri non potest quod ipsa imperat.

It is objected, that the people of God by their sword conquered seven nations of the Canaanites, David conquered the Ammonites for the dis∣grace done to his Embassadours. So God gave Egypt to Nebuchadne∣zar for his hire, in his service done against Iudah; had David no right •ver the Ammonites and Moabites but by expecting their consent? yee will say, A right to their lands, goods and lives, but not to challenge their morall subjection, well, we doubt not but such conquerours will challenge and obtain their morall consent; but if the people refuse their consent, is there no way? for providence giveth no right. So D. Ferne, so* Arnisaeus. Ans. A facto ad jus non valet consequentia, God, to whom belongeth the world and the fulnesse thereof, disponed to Abraham and his seed the Land of Canaan for their inheritance, and ordai∣ned that they should use their bow and their sword, for the actuall Page  88 possession thereof; and the like divine right, had David to the*Edomites and Ammonites, though the occasion of Davids taking possession of these Kingdoms by his sword, did arise from particu∣lar and occasionall exigences and injuries; but it followeth in no sort, That therefore Kings now wanting any word of promise, and so of divine right to any Lands, may ascend to the Throns of other Kingdoms then their own, by no better title then the bloody sword. That Gods will was the chief patent here, is clear, in that God forbad his people to conquer Edom or Esau's possession, when as he gave them command to conquer the Ammorites. I doubt not to say, if Joshua and David had had no better title, then their bloody sword, though provoked by injuries, they could have had no right to any kingly power over these Kingdoms: and if onely successe by the sword, be a right of providence, it is no right of pre∣cept. Gods providence, as providence without precept or promise, can conclude a thing is done, or may be done, but cannot conclude a thing is lawfully, and warrantably done, else you might say the selling of Joseph, the crucifying of Christ, the spoiling of Job were lawfully done. 2. Though Conquerors extort consent, and oath of Loyaltie; yet that maketh not over a Royall right to the Conque∣rour, to be King over their posterity without their consent. 3. Though the Children of Ammon did a high injury to David, yet no injury can be recompensed in justice with the pressure of the constrained subjection of Loyaltie to a violent Lord; if David had not had an higher warrant from God then an injury done to his messengers, he could not have conquered them. But 1. The Ammonites were the declared enemies of the Church of God, and raised forces against David, when they them∣selves were the injurer's and offenders; and if Davids Con∣quest will prove a lawfull title by the sword to all Conquerours, then may all Conquerours lawfully do to the conquered people, as David did; that is, they may put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and cause them passe through*the Brick-kilne. But I beseech you, will Royalists say, that Conque∣rours who make themselves Kings by their sword, and so make themselves fathers, heads, defenders, and feeders of the people may use the extreamest Tyranny in the world, such as David us•d a∣gainst the children of Ammon, which he could not have done, by the naked title of sword-conquest, if God had not laid a Com∣mandment Page  89 of an higher nature on him to serve Gods enemies so? I shall then say, if a conquering King be a lawfull King, because a Conquerour, then hath God made such a lawfull King, both a fa∣ther, because a King, and a Tyrant, and cruell, and lyon-hearted oppressour of these whom he hath conquered; for God hath given him Royall power by this example, to put these, to whom he is a* father and defender by office, to torment, and also to be a torturer of them, by office, by bringing their backs under such Instruments of crueltie, as saws and harrows of iron, and axes of iron.