servants that had rather be beaten with stripes than to take a box on the Ear. So in another place A reproach saith he is much less than an injury which we rather complain of than revenge there being no punishment assigned unto it by the Law So he in Pacuvius Patior facile injuriam si absit contumelia An injury I can easily digest provided that it be without contumely To the same purpose also is that of Demosthenes The Tongue wounds deeper than the Sword and stripes though grievous yet are more easily born if not accompanied with reproaches And the same Seneca a little after tells us That grief arising from reproach is an affection or passion occasioned by the humbleness of a mind contracting it self by reason of some word or deed tending to our disparagement Against all these passions which seem to invade the tranquillity of the mind Christ fortifies his disciples only with patience so that in case the wrong offered us either in word or deed do not much hurt us it is more magnanimous to overcome them with sufferance and patience than to seek revenge either by force or Law And lest we should be discouraged by that vulgar saying Veterem ferendo injuriam invitas novam By over calmly bearing an old injury we do but invite a new Our blessed Saviour adds that even the second is rather to be endured than the first either repelled or revenged De Statuis 1. because such kind of injuries leave no evil Characters behind them besides what consists in our own foolish conceits For what St. Chrysostom observes is very true Contumelia non ab inferentis animo sed ex judicio eorum qui patiuntur aut sit aut perit A reproach doth either vex or vanish not according to his intention that inferred it but according to the apprehension of him that suffers it To offer the Cheek is an Hebrew phrase implying the bearing of a thing patiently as may be collected from Esay 30.6 and from Jeremy 3.3 Tacitus hist 3. whence the Latines borrowed it as appears by that Phrase so often used by Tacitus Terence and others Praebere os contumeliis is To bear reproaches patiently Ter. Adelph The third Objection is taken from the words following Ye have heard that it hath been Obj. 3 said Thou shalt love thy Neighbour and hate thine enemy But I say unto you Love your enemies bless them that curse you and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you Matth. 5.43 There are some that think that these duties of Dilection and Beneficence to our enemies are directly opposite to War and Capital punishments But this objection will easily vanish if we do but understand the very words of the Hebrew Law for the Jews were commanded to love their Neighbours that is Jews or Hebrews equal unto whom were Proselytes but those laws which forbad them to do hurt reached even unto those Strangers that lived among them being uncircumcised Whereof before ch 1. §. 16. as the Talmudists note for in this sence is the word Neighbour there taken as appears Levit. 19.17 being compared with the Verse there following And yet notwithstanding were the Magistrates commanded to inflict Capital punishments upon Homicides seducers of the people to Idolatry and other hainous and obstinate Malefactors So notwithstanding this precept of loving their Neighbours the 11 Tribes did justly make war against the Tribe of Benjamin for their more than barbarous inhumanity Judg. 21. so notwithstanding this Precept did David who is said to fight the Lords battels by force of Arms recover the Kingdom being promised to him from Ishbosheth But admit that the word Neighbour doth now extend it self to all mankind for as much as all are now fellow Denizens all received into the Covenant of Grace and no one people accursed from God yet what was heretofore lawful for the Israelites will be as lawful for us both being obliged to the same duties of Love and Beneficence But you may haply say That the Evangelical Law requires an higher degree of love than the Mosaical Law did Even this also I grant with this allowance that all are not equally to be beloved our Parents and our Children are certainly to be preferred before Strangers and our Neighboâ—â—s before our Enemies 'T is true Adv. Pelag. dialog 1. saith St. Hierom I am commanded to love mine enemies and to pray for my persecutors but yet is it just that I should love them equally as I do my Neighbours and kinsmen Is it equal that I should make no difference between my Friends and mine Adversaries There are degrees of Dilection Surely the Laws of a well ordered Affection do command me to prefer the Righteous before the wicked and the publick safety before the safety of any private person Now out of the very love we bear to the righteous do we put the wicked to death and out of our care to the publick peace do we make war upon those that disturb it If therefore our Saviours precepts do admit of degrees and if the greater obligation do tye us to the stricter duty then are we not bound to preserve the nocent when in so doing we endanger if not destroy the innocent That of Seneca is very well known Tam omnibus ignoscere crudelitas est quam nulli Lib. 1. de clem It is as great a cruelty to pardon all as to pardon none Chrysostom speaking of such humane punishments as are inflicted on the obstinate saith that they proceed not from cruelty but from goodness And St. Augustine affirms That as there is sometimes crudelitas parcens a cruelty in pardoning so there is sometimes misericordia puniens mercy in punishing Those protections therefore that ripen sin by giving too great encouragement to sinners are to be removed For as Totilas in Procopius speaks Peccare See Bo. 2. ch 2◠§. 2. prohibere poenas peccantium in pari pono He that commits a crime and he that hinders a Criminal from due punishment are alike faulty Besides we are commanded to love our Enemies by the example of God himself who causeth the Sun to shine and the Rain to fall as well on the Evil as on the Good And yet doth the same God put a manifest difference between them visiting the sins of such as are incorrigible with heavy judgments in this life and yet reserving much heavier for them to be inflicted in the life to come And thus are all those Objections drawn from those precepts enjoyning Christians to mercy lenity beneficence against war and Capital punishments easily answered For Almighty God though he pleased to make himself known unto us principally by these Attributes of Gentleness Long sufferance Gods patience doth not hinder his justice and Patience John 4.2 Exod. 34.6 yet do the holy Scriptures almost in every page set forth and declare his indignation and wrath against obstinate and contumacious sinners as Numb 14.18 Rom. 2.8
but that which is to come Surely Christ commands us to forgive even this also first in case there appear any signs of repentance in the person offending Luke 17.3 Luke 17.3 And a plenary remission the Apostle requires Ephes 4.32 that is Such a remission as restores the Offender into the same degree of friendship wherein he was before the sin was committed whence it follows That nothing ought to be exacted from him by way of punishment Besides though there be no such signs of repentance yet if the damage we sustain be not very great no greater than the loss of ones Coat Christ by this Precept restrains us from requiring any revenge at all Of the same opinion were both Plato and Maximus Tyrius The like doth Musonius profess of himself namely That for small reproaches as a box on the ear c. he would neither sue any man at the Law nor perswade any man so to do because such as these are much better forgiven or dissembled But in case we cannot pass it by without giving encouragement to greater injuries either to ouâ— selves or others then we may provide for our own safety yet with the smallest damage we can to him that hath provoked us The Jews might buy off their Talio For even the Jews themselves as Josephus tells us besides the costs and charges of the hurt done whereof we have a distinct Law Exod. 21.19 did usually buy off their Talio with a Summ of Money The like they did at Rome as Favorinus in Gellius testifies Lib. 20. c. 1. So Joseph the softer Father of Jesus believing his Wife to be with child by adultery chose rather to dismiss her privately than to expose her to shame and this he is said to do because he was a just man that is as St Ambrose expounds it A man free not only from the cruelty of revenge but from the severity of an accusation for as Lactantius had before said Vid. infra Sect. 15. Lib. 6. c. 10. A good man ought not to accuse any man of a crime that is capital Thus Justin Martyr concerning those that bitterly accused Christians We saith he would not have them punished for they are sufficiently miserable in their own wickedness and in their ignorance of what is good Lastly Those punishments that are executed not for any private but for the publick good either by killing or restraining the person nocent to deter others or to prevent future mischiefs are not forbidden by Christ as we have elsewhere proved by a most irrefragable Argument seeing that when he gave those Precepts Capital punishments not forbidden in the Gospel Exod. 21.14 Numb 33.14 Deut. 29.13 Vide Aug. Qu. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. he gave also this Testimony of himself That he destroyed no tittle of the Law But the Law of Moses which in these things was certainly in force so long as the Jews had a Commonwealth did peremptorily enjoin the Magistrate to punish Capital Offenders with death And if Christ's Precepts could consist with Moses's Law as it exacted punishments even such as were capital certainly they may consist as well with those humane Laws which in imitation of the Divine Law do require and inflict the same punishments to the same end Josephus highly extols the Pharisees for their clemency and moderation in punishments whence arise so many exceptions in their Laws concerning publick punishments and this also amongst others That though the Offender must certainly be put to death Talmud Tit. Keluboth yet was the manner of his death to be gentle and with the least of torments XI The Argument from Gods mercy in the Gospel answered Yet some there are who in defence of the contrary opinion do thus plead that God especially in the new Covenant doth declare himself to be full of mercy and forbearance which all Christian men yea even Magistrates as Gods vicegerents ought to imitate which I grant to be in some measure true but not in that large and unlimited sense as they would have it understood For that infinite mercy of God declared in the New Covenant doth principally respect those sins which are committed against the Laws given to Adam and the sons of Noah or against those Laws given by Moses before the publication of the Gospel as will appear Act. 17.36 Rom. 2.25 Act. 13.38 Heb. 9.15 For those that are committed after especially if attended with contumacy and stubborness are threatned with Judgments of another nature much more severe than those threatned by Moses as Heb. 10.29 Matt. 5.21 22 28. Neither are they threatned with Judgments of the other life only but very often with Judgments of this life as 1 Cor. 11.30 Neither doth he at any time indulge pardon to a sinner nisi ipse de se quasi poenas exigeret unless he that sins do as it were inflict punishment upon himself 1 Cor. 11.3 And that with a great deal of sorrow 2 Cor. 11.27 But here they farther object that in imitation of Almighty God the Magistrate should not punish those at least that are penitent But to pass by that it will be a difficult thing for the Magistrate to discern who are truly penitent for if outward shews and professions of penitence would be sufficient no man would smart for his sin we find by the example of King David that God doth not always remit all kinds of punishment no not to the penitent for though he do remit or abate of the severity of the Law so that he doth not punish him with a violent or otherwise untimely death whereunto his sin hath subjected him yet whilst he suffers him to be chastised with the rods of men it plainly shews that his mercy is as well seen in the extenuation of punishments as in the total and absolute remission of them there is much of mercy and lenity in the mitigation of torments and lesser judgments deserve not the name of judgments when we know that we have deserved greater even so now God may and undoubtedly doth express his mercy to a sinner in remitting the punishment of eternal death which every sinner doth contract for his sin though he do visit him with an untimely death either immediately by himself or mediately by the hand of the Magistrate XII And that of depriving a sinner of the time of Repentance But others there are again that urge that together with the life of a sinner all opportunity of repentance is quite cut off whereunto we answer that no man is so suddainly snatcht away but he is allotted a certain time to make his peace with God And although he be not permitted to make a real expression of his conversion by his life and conversation yet that God doth sometimes accept of the will for the deed in such cases is most apparent by the example of the Thief upon the Cross And if it be yet objected That a longer life might haply conduce much to the glory of God in the
his time and those sayings that are there rehearsed as spoken to them of old were meant as spoken by Moses himself not by the Lawyers either in the same words Exod. 20.13 Lâ—vit 20.21 Exod. 20.14 Deut. 24.1 Exod. 20. â— Lev. 24.20.19.18 Exod. 34.2 Deut. 7.1 Exod. 27.19 or to that sense as Thou shalt not kill whosoever killeth shall be in danger of judgment Thou shalt not commit adultery whosoever shall put away his Wife let him give her a Writing of Divorcement Thou shalt not forswear thy self thou shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth that is thou mayst exact this in judgment so thou shalt love thy Neighbour that is an Israelite and hate thine enemy that is those seven Nations with whom they were forbidden to contract friendship or to whom they ought to shew no mercy unto whom we may add the Amalekites with whom they were bound to have a perpetual war Deut. 25.19 Now the better to understand the words of Christ we must necessarily understand that the Law given by Moses will admit of a twofold construction either in such a sense A twofold sence of Moses his Law Carnal as is common with all humane Laws namely as it restrains men from gross sins by the fear of publick punishments Heb. 2.2 And so it was given by Moses to restrain the Hebrews in the state of a Civil Government Heb. 7.16 Where it is called the Law of a carnal Commandment as it is also in another place called the Law of Works Rom. 3.27 Rom. 3.27 Or it is taken in a sense more proper to a Divine Law namely as it requires also the purity of the mind and such duties the omission whereof no humane Laws do punish In which sense it is called a spiritual Law Rom. 7.14 Spiritual Comforting the soul Psal 19.9 which the Latins make the 18th The Pharisees and Lawyers contenting themselves with the Carnal part of the Law wholly neglected the spiritual as superfluous and therefore never instructed the people therein as not our own writers only but Josephus and many of their own Doctors do testifie against them But as to the spiritual part also we must know That those vertues which are required from us Christians were either commanded or commended unto the Hebrews also although not in that degree and Latitude as they are unto us which we have already proved For a more perfect and exact obedience is now required from us Supra ch ◠§. ult than was formerly from the Jews because the coming of Christ doth heighten our hopes by far more precious promises And the graces of his spirit which descended unto them but as a little dew upon the Herbs falls on us as showers on the Grass Chrysost de virg c. 44. Vnder the Law God did not bind us up to so great a measure of vertue as hâ—â—ow doth under the Gospel then it was permitted to take some revenge for injuries done as to revile them that reviled us we might exact an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth it was then permitted unto us to swear though not to for swear and to hate our enemies It was not as yet forbidden to be angry to put away a Wife that offended us or to marry another nay nor to have diverse at the same time Great was the Indulgence of the Old Law in these and the like cases But since the coming of Christ the way to heaven is made much straiter and narrower than before both by the addition of many new precepts not given in the old Law and also by straining up those that were so given to a much higher Key Christ therefore opposeth his own doctrine to the doctrine of the ancients in both these senses first because his own took not hold of the outward man only to restrain it by pure negatives as other Laws did but restrained the inward man also obliging to positive duties whose omission was not punishable by Moses his Law But also in the second place because it enjoyned spiritual duties in that heighth of degree that neither Moses nor any other Law-giver did ever reach whence it is plain that what Christ delivered was not a bare interpretation of Moses his Law as some would have it But yet that these things should be known is not only pertinent to the matter in hand but to many other purposes lest we should attribute greater authority to Moses his Law than indeed is fit or due unto it VII That it is not repugnant to the Gospel to make War Omitting such arguments as are less convincing the first and principal Testimony whereby it may easily be proved that all right of making War is not fully taken away by the Evangelical Law is that of St. Paul to Timothy I exhort you saith St. Paul that above all things Prayers and suplications Intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and such as are in authority 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all Godliness and honesty for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth From whence these three things are to be learned first that it is acceptable unto God that Kings be made Christians Arg. 1 Secondly that being made so yet they cease not to be Kings Which Justin Martyr thus expresseth We pray saith he that Kings and Princes may together with their Regal Power retain a sound and perfect mind And this also in the third place we may learn that Christian Kings should use their utmost endeavours That other Christians may lead under them godly and Christian lives But you will happily say How Surely the same Apostle explains himself elsewhere thus He is the Minister of God for thy good and if thou do ill then fear The right of the Sword Non enim frustra gladium gerit For he beareth not the sword in vain for he is Gods Minister an avenger to execute wrath upon them that do evil Under the right of the Sword is comprehended all manner of restraining or coercive authority and so it is also sometimes understood by Lawyers yet so that the chief and principal part that is the true and proper use of the Sword is not excluded Psalm 2. The Second Psalm doth very much conduce to the understanding of this power which Psalm though verified of David yet was much fuller and clearer understood of Christ as we may collect out of Acts 4.25 and Acts 13.33 and out of Heb. 5.5 Now that Psalm exhorts all Kings to kiss the Son of God with reverence How Kings serve God as Kings that is to express themselves his servants as they are Kings for so St. Aug. rightly expounds that place whose very words as being pertinent to our purpose sound thus Herein saith he do
two or more have power to determine Yea though their judgment be not altogether so righteous as it might be yet Eo quod major pars decrevit stetur Curtius l. 10. Because the major part hath decreed it it must stand Whereas on the contrary In paucis jam deficiente caterva Nec persona sita est patriae nec curia constat The Assembly being dissolv'd in two or three No face of Country nor of Court can be And by and by after Prudentius Infirma minoris Vox cedat numeri parvaque in parte quiescat Of the same Opinion was Xenophon Who would have all things done according to the vote of the major part of the Suffragans And in this sence doth as well the Chaldee Paraphrast as the Jewish Rabbins understand that of Moses Exod. 23.2 Neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest Judgment which the said Paraphrast renders thus Neither shalt thou cease to speak thine own mind in judgment Juxta Sententiam plurimorum perfice judicium According to the opinion of the most give Judgment XVIII Which part carries the sentence when the Votes are equal But if the Sentences be equally ballanced nothing can be done because there is not any thing of moment sufficient to cast the scale In which case if the Sentences be equal the accused shall be held innocent And this the Greeks call the suffrage of Minerva as Aeschylus and Euripides inform us So where the Judges are equally divided in opinion Possessor rem tenet The Right goes with the Possession saith Aristotle And Seneca in one of his Controversies saith the same One Judge condemns and another absolves Orestes Electra Arist Probl. Sect. 29. Non est invidiosa potestas quae misericordia vincit Sen. Where the Judges are equal and their Judgment so unequal the milder Sentence must prevail Neither is there any reason saith Seneca that any man should envy that Power which overcomes only by shewing mercy Nay the Jews go yet further For if the condemning Part had but one single Vote more than the absolving part it stood for nothing as may be collected from the Chaldee Paraphrast upon that place of Exodus before cited and by others for so also in all Logical Collections the Inference follows that part which is least grievous XIX Where the question is not agreed unto what is to be conjoyned and what divided But here another Question ariseth namely when and what sentences are to be conjoyned and what to be divided Wherein if we consider the Law of Nature only that is if no Law or Covenant have otherwise determined we ought to distinguish between such Opinions or Sentences as are altogether inconsistent and differ in the whole and such as differ only in part that so these latter may conjoyn in that wherein they agree though the former cannot And therefore where the Question to be argued wraps up many things together it is to be divided and discuss'd in parts Thus Seneca when another man delivers his opinion in a Question whereunto I consent in part only I desire him to divide that wherein I agree with him from that wherein I disagree and I shall then joyn with him Where the Question is not assented unto it is to be disputed in parts As for example they that adjudge a delinquent to pay twenty pounds and they that adjudge him to pay but ten pounds may unite in the ten against them that would acquit him But they that censure a Malefactor to death and they that censure him to banishment cannot be reconciled because death and banishment are inconsistent neither can that part that would absolve him joyn with those that would banish him For though they both agree that he deserves not death yet is not that exprest in the sentence but deducible from it by consequence Lib. 8. Ep. ad Aristonem For he that would banish doth not absolve It was therefore well observed by Pliny that when there shall happen to be such a diversity of opinions in a free Assembly concerning one and the same thing that they cannot be included in any one question they must divide the matter into several and distinct questions for it avails but little that two are displeased with the third if in nothing they agree between themselves Polybius justly taxeth Posthumius the Praetor with fraud when in demanding the Judgment of the Senate concerning the Graecian Captives he joyns together those that condemned them and those that would have had them detained as Prisoners for a while only against those that would have released them Such a question as this we shall find in Gellius Lib. 9. c. 15. Declam 365. and another in Quintilian where it being agreed that of seven Judges what punishment the major part should think fit to decree the Malefactor should suffer two adjudged him to Banishment and two to be branded with Infamy and three to Death And when the Person so adjudged pleaded that four of his Judges agreed that he should live and three only that he should dye The Accuser desired him to recite the Judgment of the four And when he began to say Two sentenced me to Banishment and two to Ignominy he was presently answered by his Adversary That of two Sentences he made but one and that that number which being united had preserved him being divided destroyed him and how can they be united that so expresly divide themselves XX. The Right of the Absent remains with the Present Whereunto also we may add this That in all Assemblies the Right of those that either by absence or any other means are hindred from making use of their Right is devolved on those that are present yea sometimes even to one single person whose sole act shall be reputed the act of the whole So saith Seneca Think thy self to be the common servant De Coner l. 3. yet shalt thou serve that Master that is present Yet herein also as well as in that general rule of plurality of Votes humane Laws do make some exceptions as namely when they require that so many shall be present to make a Court as in our House of Commons or that the Persons absent may give their Vote by their Proxies as in our House of Peers XXI What order is to be used among persons equal The order of Nature is this that amongst equals he should be esteemed the first that first entred into that Society For so we find it is among Brethren the Eldest always precedes the rest and after him the second c. Notwithstanding all other qualifications All Brothers are equal saith Aristotle it is only their Age that makes them unequal Theodosius and Valens in designing the order that should be observed among Consuls say Of those who are in the same degree of honour who should precede but they that were first thought worthy of that honour And the ancient custom among Christian Kings and States was
is but the overflowings of a good nature Mercy Judgment and Righteousness distinguisht such are good works done meerly out of bounty and munificence Secondly To perform what we are strictly bound to do which the Hebrews call judgment but to do that which in honesty and Conscience only we ought to do this they call Righteousness or Equity Which three some Expositors upon that of Mat. 23.23 render by mercy judgment and fidelity whereby the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Greeks do commonly understand Righteousness and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment that which we are strictly obliged to do as we may find 1 Mac. 7.18 32. Moreover a man may be said to be civilly obliged by his own act either in this sense that the Obligation spring not from the mere Right of Nature but from a Civil Right or from both or in such a sense as that an action at the Civil Law may lie against him We conclude therefore that from the Covenants and Promises which a King makes with his people there may arise such a true and proper Obligation as may confer a Right unto them For such is the Nature both of Promises and Contracts even between God and Men as we have shewed already If the acts of a King be such as may be done by any other man the Civil Laws shall bind him but if they be such as are done by him merely as a King the Civil Laws do not reach him which difference was not by Vasquius sufficiently observed Nevertheless an action may arise from either of these acts so far forth as to evidence the Right of the Creditor but no enforcement there can be by reason of the quality or condition of the adverse party For that Subjects should compel him whose Subjects they are is not lawful which Equals may do against Equals by the Right of nature and Superiours against Inferiours by the Civil Laws VII How a Right gained by Subjects may lawfully be taken from them But this also must be noted that a King may take away the Right of his Subjects two ways either by way of punishment or by Vertue of his Soveraign Power But if he do it this latter way it must be in the first place for some publick profit and then also the Subject must receive if it be possible a just satisfaction out of the Common stock for the loss he shall sustain this therefore as it holds in other things so also in that Right that is gained by either Promise or Contract VIII The distinction of things gained by the Natural and Civil Law rejected Neither doth it make any alteration in the case whether the Right of the Subject were acquired by the Law of Nature or by the Civil Law For the King hath an equal Right to both nor can either of them be taken away from the Subject without cause For it is against natural Right that what Dominion or other Right a man hath lawfully gained to himself he should be causelesly deprived of And if a King should do it he ought without doubt to make restitution and to repair the damage that the Subject hath sustained because he doth thereby violate the true Right of his Subject And herein is the Right of Strangers much different from that of Subjects for the Right of Strangers and of such as in no respect are Subjects can by no means be under that supereminent Dominion of a King as the Rights of Subjects are for the publick good unless by way of Punishment whereof hereafter IX The Contracts of Kings whether they be Laws and when From whence we may collect upon how sandy a Foundation they build who hold all the Contracts of Kings to be Laws For from the Laws there ariseth no Right against a King to any man Therefore if the King should think fit to repeal those Laws he cannot be said to injure any man Yet if he do it without good cause he gives just cause of offence But from Promises and Contracts a man may claim a Right For by Contracts the Contractors only are bound but by the Laws all that are Subjects Yet may some things be of a mixt nature Partly by Contracts and partly by the Laws as when a King contracts with a Neighbour King or with Farmers of his Revenues which he presently proclaims a Law so far forth as it contains what is by his Subjects to be observed X. How by the Contract of a King his Heirs may stand bound Let us now proceed to the Successors concerning whom we are to distinguish between those that are to inherit all the goods of the deceased King together with his Kingdom as he that receives a Patrimonial Kingdom either by his Testament or from an Intestate and between those that succeed in the Kingdom only either by a new Election or by Prescript and that either in imitation of other vulgar inheritances or otherwise or whether they succeed by any mixt Right For they that inherit all the goods with the Kingdom are without doubt obliged to perform all the Contracts and Promises of the deceased King And that the goods of the deceased should stand obliged for his personal Debts is as ancient as Dominion it self XI And how his Successors But how far they that succeed to the Kingdom only or to the goods in part but to the Kingdom entirely are obliged by the Covenants and Contracts of their Predecessors is as worthy to be discust as it hath hitherto been confusedly handled They that succeed in the Kingdom but not as Heirs are not immediately bound by the Covenants and Contracts of their Predecessors because the Title they have they receive not from him but from the people whether that Succession fall like other vulgar inheritances to him that is nearest of kinn to the deceased or to those that are more remote But mediately i. e. by the City that chose him such Successors also are bound which shall be thus understood Every Society no less than every particular person hath a power to oblige it self either by it self or by its Major part This Right every Society may transfer either expresly or by necessary consequence that is by transferring the Empire for in Morals he that gives the end gives all things conducing to the end XII And how far And yet should not this be boundless neither is it at all necessary to the good Government of a Nation that this obliging power should be infinite no more than that of a Guardian is but so far forth only as the Nature of that power requires Tutor Domini loco habetur cum rem administrat non cum pupillum spoliat The Guardian saith Julian hath a power equal to the Lord whilest he orders the estate prudently but not when he wastes it And in this sense is that of Vlpian to be understood Every Society shall be bound by the acts of their Governours be the agreement profitable or damagable to that Society yet
Representative Succession admitted by the Hebrews 124. when in doubt to be allowed of ibid. but lately admitted among the Germans ibid. Reprizals what 448. the Sea-Laws concerning them 435 436. their Right reacheth not to the Lives of such as are innocent 448. they may be taken when no War is denounced page 447 When the Right of Reprizals passeth to them that take them page 449 Concerning Reprizal their difference of the Civil Law and the Law of Nations and what persons and Goods are exempted page 450 Things taken without the Territories of either Party whether lawful Prize page 480 Res rapere Res reddere what page 456 Request of a Superiour in a League equivalent to a Command page 51 To Require things what it signifies page 453 Required what is before War be denounced page 452 Resistance of the supreme Power whether in extreme necessity lawful 54 55. disallowed by the Primitive Christians even to persecuting Emperours 57 58. unlawful by the Gospel 55. the opinion of Barklay concerning it 63. in what Cases lawful 59 60 justifiable by inevitable necessity by the example of David and the Maccabees 60. naturally lawful civilly not 53. and why page 54 Obstinate Resistance justifies not the killing of men internally page 508 Resistance in some Cases may be reserved in the translation of Kingdoms page 60 To Restitution who are obliged either by doing or not doing page 201 Restitution ariseth from Dominion page 146 No Restitution of things which are anothers if in Case they perish if in Case we use them thinking them our own 148. yet are we bound restore the profits if any be ibid. Restitution must be made of the things and profits 147. necessary to repentance 495. it must be made to the right Owner 147. not due in some Cases page 149 Restitution intended justifies not Rapine unless in a Case of absolute necessity page 149 Things bought or deposited may be restored to their Right Owner page 149 Restitution of things taken in an unjust War 528. what may be deducted 529. it must be to the full page 496 No Restitution of places or persons freely surrendred unless so exprest page 546 Of Restoring things after War some Cautions page 547 No Restitution in a just War sometimes by reason of the evil intention in its prosecution page 331 Restitution where the Câ—â—se of War is doubtful how to be moderated page 530 Restitution of things taken from the Enemy who held them unjustly page 451 452 To Restitution who are wholly and who in part bound page 202 Retaliation not to extend beyond the persons offending 461 539. agreeable to the Law of Nations 367. tolerated under the Law to avoid greater mischief 371. not to be exacted by Christians ibid. in what sense required by the Hebrews its use both amongst Hebrews and Romans ibid. Retreat sounding to kill an Enemy is homicide page 534 Return to the Enemy who may be said page 531 Revenge by retaliation naturally lawful page 366 367 Revenge whether agreeable to the Law of Nature 364. whether by the Law of Nature and Nations lawful 366. whether permitted to Christians how restrained 369 370 it differs not from injuries but in order only 364. taken with delight unnatural 370. in that it mitigates grief whence it proceeds page 364 To Revenge his own Quarrel every man hath a Right naturally 66. why now committed to Magistrates 370. not to go beyond the persons that injured us page 400 Reward for labour how encreased or diminished 162. to whom due if two at once fulfil the Condition page 196 The Reward promised to Thamar due by the Law of Nature not by the Civil Law page 154 A Reward demanded by a Souldier for killing his own Brother in the head of his Enemies Troops page 458 Right in War what 2. taken for a moral qualification of a person divided ibid. for aptitude or fitness 3. taken for a Rule or Law 4 divided into natural and voluntary ibid. Right reason a Rule infallible ibid. Right by the Law of Nations distinguisht from that which hath some effects of Right Pref. xv Right of Government distinguisht from the ill management of Civil Affairs page 41 Right distinguisht from Just 54. Right extreme sometimes extreme wrong ibid. What Right of Kings it is that Samuel describes page 54 What Right a Lord hath over his Slaves 115. whether it extend to death 116. over the Children of his Slave born in his house ibid. A Right a man may have to that taken from another page 122 Right acquired by Law 121. By the Civil Law none can right himself page 122 Right of a Father over his Children distinguisht into Natural and Civil 104. of an Husband over his Wife 104 105. of Societies over their Members page 114 By the Right of Nations many things claimed that are not thereby due page 134 The Right of Strangers not subject to the supereminent dominion of a King 178. nor of a Subject without Cause ibid. Right better lost than contended for sometimes 416 417. not to be extended to the full 434. when said to be denied 448. considered directly and indirectly page 434 A Right none can give that hath none 528. incorporeal gained by War page 486 The Right of War makes no distinction of Age or Sex page 459 The Right of the Sword in Histories sacred and prophane what page 17 Right distinguisht from its exercise page 52 The Right supereminent of Kings and States whether it can free them from the breach of Faith given to their Subjects page 539 Right external what 395. how differenced from internal page 453 The Right of Kings and States when by Peace said to be remitted page 547 The Right of Nations concerning inequality in Contracts page 164 Righteousness Judgment and Mercy how distinguish'd page 177 Rivers how held in propriety 89. the whole sometimes belongs to one Territory and none to another 95. as flowing streams common 82. but as the profit his that ownes the Banks ibid. changing their course whether they change the Bounds of the Territory page 94 A River in what sense said to be always the same page 141 c. Rome once the common City 525. regardless of Captives or Prisoners and why page 488 The Romans severe in their Victories 503. they anciently abstained from fraud in their Wars page 444 c. The Roman Empire in whom now 143. founded in the People of Rome page 144 The Romans claimed that to themselves which their Enemies took from others page 471 All the Roman Tribes disfranchized for ingratitude page 39 Roman Dictators absolute though temporary page 43 The Romans chuse their Emperour when residing at Constantinople page 144 The Roman Empire not universal though sometimes so called page 407 The Romans Right over their Children 104. their custom concerning Lands taken in War 472. concerning the spoil 474 475. Captives redeemed 491. those that return by Postliminy ibid. concerning things taken 518 519 concerning their Captive Kings page 503 Rules guiding