Of Resisting the Lawful Magistrate Under Color of Religion, Part 4
A Vindication of Christs reprehending Saint Peter, from the Exceptions of Master Marshall.
THere is nothing more unjust and uningenuous, then Master Marshall's dealing about Christs reprehension of Saint Peter's Vid. suprà pag. 7.using the Sword; whilst hee labours to answer the Objection, which from thence is brought against the use of Armes, though but defensive, taken up against a lawfull Magistrate. The Argument is briefly this: Saint Peter, in defence of his Master (Christ himselfe) drew his Sword, and cut off the Eare of Malchus, one of the High Priests Servants, sent by Commission from their Masters, to apprehend Jesus: and our Saviour commands him to put up his Sword; adding by way of reason, for they that take the sword (take it not when 'tis put into their hands by God, or the supreme Magistrate, or any Delegate of his, who hath the power of the Sword; but take it, usurpe it, without legall authority or concession, giving or permitting it to them) shall perish by the sword. Which reason, or backing of Christs reprehension, is brought to inferre, That 'tis a sinne for any to use the Sword against the supreme Magistrate, though for defence of Christ, or Christian Religion. To this Master Marshall's Answer is three-fold: 1. That the speech of Christ to Peter, is not a reproofe of the sword taken for a just defence; but of the sword taken for unjust oppression, and a comfort to those who are oppressed with it. For Origen, Theophylact, Titus, Euthymius, interpret the meaning to be, that Christ doth not rebuke Peter for using defensive Armes; but to let Peter know, that hee need not snatch Gods worke out of his hands; for God would in time punish those with the sword, that came thus with the sword against him. And that these words are a prophecy of the punishment which the Roman sword should exact of the bloudy Jewish nation, according with the like expression, Revel. 13. 10. Hee that kills with the sword, must be killed with the sword: here is the patience and faith of the Saints; i. e. this may comfort the Saints in their persecutions, that God will take vengeance for them: and for all this, the Margine advises the Reader to consult Grotius de jure belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. This is the place at length in Master Marshall his Letter to a friend, which (being of some concernment and importance to the present controversie of the times, though not to confirme his cause by this exposition, yet to dispatch one of his speciall adversaries out of the way) I shall now beg leave to examine; and of all together, observe these foure things: First, that the ancient Writers, vouched by him, are not vouched from his owne reading, but taken upon trust from Grotius, as also the observation of the Roman Sword, and the place in the Revelations. Secondly, that the interpretation, asserted by him out of them, is not asserted by them. Thirdly, that it is not asserted by Grotius. Fourthly, that Grotius, to whom hee owes all this seeming aid to his cause, is the most declared enemy of this whole cause of his, in behalfe of defensive resistance of the Magistrate, that hee could possibly have falne on; and upon occasion of these words of Christ to Peter, hath said as much against it. If these foure things be made good, I cannot guesse what could be further added, to prove the injustice and uningenuousnesse, I shall adde, the untowardnesse and unluckinesse of this Answer. And for the particulars, I shall but require a Reader with eyes in his head, and suppose him not possest with a beliefe of an absolute infallibility in Master Marshall, and then I shall be confident to demonstrate them.
For the first, the proofe will be short, if you please but to look on Grotius in the place directed to in his Annotations on the Gospels, pag. 465. almost verbatim transcribing what hee had before published de jure belli; you shall in each find every of the particulars mentioned: but for this I would not charge Master Marshall, I wish hee would alwayes gleane out of so good Writers. The onelyonly fault here is, that having borrowed so much from him, and digested it into nourishment of his owne errour, hee did not also take the paines to borrow what was present to be had, a most soveraigne antidote for his owne poyson, meanes of rectifying his mistake: but like the man in Gellius, that had eat so much poyson, and therewith so invenom'd his bloud, that hee could poyson the Flea that came to bite him: so, hee the Grotius, that came to prick and wound; or, if hee had pleased, to convert, to b…ing him to repentance.
For the second, I shall not expect to evince it against so great an authority of Master Marshall, without transcribing the very words of those Writers in this matter. Origen upon the place in Mat. 26. tr. 35. p. 118. explaines the whole period in these words, (I shall omit no word that is pertinent to the matter in hand:) Unus eorum qui erant cum Jesu, nondum manifestè concipiens apud se Evangelicam patientiam illam traditam sibi à Christo, nec pacem quam dedit discipulis suis, sed secundùm potestatem datam Judaeis per legem de inimicis, extendens manum accepit gladium, &c. Peter it seemes had not perfectly learned the doctrine of Christian patience, and the peace which Christ commended to his Disciples, but proceeded according to the Jewish Law of dealing with enemies. This concludes Peter's act contrary to Christian patience and peaceablenesse, and so makes him capable of Christs reproofe, which Master Marshall will wholly divert from him, and cast upon the Jewes. Then hee goes on, Mox Jesus ad eum, converte gladium in locum suum: Est ergo gladii locus aliquis, ex quo non licet excipere eum, qui non vult perire maximè in gladio. (This clearly of Saint Peter againe, and not the Jewes, that hee must not take the sword out of its place, unlesse hee will be content to perish by the sword:) Pacificos enim vult esse Jesus discipulos suos, ut bellicum gladium hunc deponentes, (O that Master Marshall would remember this, and after so faire an admonition, put the military sword out of his mouth also.) Alterum pontificium accipiant gladium, quem dicit Scriptura gladium Spiritûs. Simile autem mihi videtur quod dicit, Omnes qui accipiunt, &c. i. e. omnes qui non pacifici, sed belli concitatores sunt, in eo bello peribunt quod concitant, &c. Et puto quòd omnes tumultuosi & concitatores bellorum, & conturbantes animas hominum, maximè Ecclesiarum, accipiunt gladium, in quo & ipsi peribunt. Excellent seasonable doctrine for these times, if it might be laid to heart; but no way excusing Saint Peter. Againe, Qui accipiunt What if a man should construe this (not o… occasion of the Militi…gladium, &c. cavere nos convenit, ut ne occasione militiae, vel vindictae propriarum injuriarum (remember, not for revenge of ones owne injuries) eximamus gladium, aut ob aliquam occasionem, quam omnem abominatur haec Christi doctrina, praecipiens ut impleamus quod scriptum est, Cum his qui oderunt pacem, eram pacificus. Si ergo cum odientibus pacem debemus esse pacifici, adversus neminem gladio uti debemus. These are the words of Origen; out of which, he that shall inferre that Origen conceived the meaning of the Scripture to be, that Christ did not rebuke Peter for using defensive Armes against Malchus, I shall resolve, he hath gotten the Philosophers stone, is Alchymist enough to extract fire out of water; any the most contrary sense out of any words. Not so much as one word here of the Jewes or the Roman sword that should give them their payment; but all of Peter's sword, and the miscarriages of that. And so much for Origen.
Then for Theophylact; hee is also punctuall enough to this purpose: foreign In Matth… p. 162.foreign. Let us not find fault with Peter, (make not too much haste Master Marshall to catch that, till you see the consequents) for hee did this not for himselfe, but in zeale for his Master: Herein I shall interpose my conjecture, that Theophylact might think Peter did this, as a Zealot; as James and John would have destroyed the Village of the Samaritanes, jure Zelotarum: so his words also sound on Luke, pag. 518. foreign: and then though that were unlawfull for a Christian, a piece of Judaisme outdated by Christ; yet in Peter, as a Jew, not perfectly illuminate, or instructed in the Christian doctrine, (as Origen before observ'd) it was not so blameable yet, till after the coming of the Holy Ghost, who was to bring all things to their remembrance which Christ had taught them. And therefore perhaps it is, that, although Saint Augustine calls this of Peter, earnalem amorem; yet, amorem Magistri still. The same Authour upon Saint Marke hath these words, upon this same occasion, foreign. Counting this zeale, as in a Jew, rather a commendable thing. If all this be yeelded, yet will it be no justification of the like in a Christian; because now Christ hath reformed that law, and checkt that Peter, And therefore, the same Theophylact goes on; that though wee should not aggravate Peter's fault, nor chide him for it, foreign ▪ yet Christ reformes him, turnes him to the Gospel-discipline, and teaches him not to use the sword, though by so doing hee seeme to defend or vindicate God himselfe. Could any man have spoken more expresly or prophetically against Master Marshall his doctrine, then this father doth. (So likewise in other places upon Saint Lukes Gospel, pag. 518. foreign ▪ hee confesses Peter was chid for his zeale. And on Saint John's Gospel, foreign &c. The Lord reprehends Peter, and threatning, saith, put up, &c. threatning whom? sure that person, in Theophylact's opinion, to whom hee said, put up: and that sure was Peter, not the Jewes.) But to shew you the occasion of Master Marshall's mistake: It followes indeed in Theophylact on Matthew, foreign. Insinuat autem, as Oecolampadius renders it: Christ insinuates that by the Romans sword, the Jewes that took the sword against him, shall be destroyed. This acknowledged truth, (that the Romans should destroy the Jewes, the apprehenders and crucifiers of Christ, i. e. that were guilty of crucifying him,) was, saith hee, insinuated in those words of Christ, wherein, as before wee shewed out of Theophylact's words, hee reproved Saint Peter. Now wee know that foreign, or insinuating, or intimating, signifies a secundary or allegoricall sense of a Scripture, as it is frequent in that Authour. Speaking of the cutting off Malchus his Eare, foreign, saith hee, hee insinuates, foreign, that the Jewes did not heare and obey the Scripture, as they should: a meere allegoricall interpretation. So when Christ bids him that had no sword, sell his garment and buy one, Luk. 22. 36. foreign, &c. hee speaks aenigmatically; and tells them by way of insinuation, what warres and dangers should betide them. Which insinuated or aenigmaticall sense, though it be acknowledged true, will not evacuate that other literall. For I hope, in Master Marshall his owne judgement, that 'tis lawfull to use a sword in ones owne defence, in time of warre and danger, and that that lawfulnesse is authorized by Christ, in those words: which I shall not doubt to acknowledge with him, if it be not against the lawfull Magistrate.
The product then of Theophylact's interpretation will be this; that by those words, (for all they that take the sword, shall perish by the sword) Christ reprehends and chides Peter for drawing his sword, and using it, as hee did: and withall, insinuates aenigmatically the destruction of the Jewes by the Romans. Which if it be acknowledged true in both senses, 'twill no way prejudice us, or serve Master Marshall, whose cause depends upon rejecting of the former sense, not on asserting the latter: and doth not onelyonly affirme, that it is a reproofe of the sword taken for unjust oppression, but also that it is not a reproofe of the sword taken for just defence: which is absolutely false in Theophylact's opinion, if defending of Christ be just defence, or chiding be reproving; or if teaching not to use the sword, though one seeme to defend God himselfe, be rebuking Peter for using defensive Armes for Christ. The short is, though Theophylact's interpretation bring the Jewes under Christs threatning and reprehension, yet doth it no way free Peter from the same; but primarily subjects him to it: The contrary to which is the onelyonly thing would be for Master Marshall his purpose. 'Tis true indeed, in his Scholia on Saint John, hee saith, Christ comforted Peter, which seemes opposite to rebuking; but that was not in those words, For they that take the sword, &c. but in those, the cup, &c. (foreign, &c.) which Saint John immediatly adds, omitting the words of the threatning out of the law. And so much for Theophylact also.
Now that which hath been thus largely set down out of Theophylact, will sufficiently cleare this whole businesse, without proceeding to examine what may be found in Titus Bostrensis, or Euthymius, to this purpose. The former of these, in his Exposition of Saint Luke, in the Bibliotheca patrum Graec. hath not the least word sounding that way, but rather contrary; interpreting Christs command of buying a sword, as a designation onelyonly of the Jewes preparation against him, foreign, and that they were about to apprehend him: which (as Theophylact did, so) hee calls, foreign, the intimation of the sword; and saith, that therefore Christ adds, that the things written of him must be fulfilled. And againe, that if Christ would have had his Disciples use any humane help at his apprehension, a hundred swords would not have been sufficient, foreign, and if hee would not, even these two would be too many. But all this hee saith upon the passage of the two swords. The truth is, in the Exposition of the Gospel, hee saith nothing of this reprehension of Peter, but passes it over in silence. And for his notes on Saint Matthew, as also for Euthymius his, though, I confesse, that I have them not by me, yet (besides that I find nothing that way in those Excerpta that Lucas Burgensis hath out of them, who would not probably have omitted the mention of such a rarity, if it were there,) I thinke I may take upon me at a venture to say, that hee that examines those bookes, shall not possibly meet with more then out of Theophylact was cited: These three Expositors running generally on the same notions, and all of them for the most part gleaning from Chrysostome, (Euthymius being his Scholler, Titus his profest Epitomater) who I am sure hath nothing in favour … this Exposition. Out of him, as the Homes of those after-Expositors, I shall transcribe these few passages, foreign, in his homil. 54. on Mat. c. 26. Why did hee bid buy a Sword? to give them assurance that hee should be betray'd: foreign Not that they should be armed on that occasion, (away with that) but to signifie his betraying. Then, that their having those two weapons at that time, was upon occasion of killing the lambe for the Passeover, and the Disciples then coming from Supper, and hearing that some would come to apprehend him, took them out from thence with them, foreign, meaning to fight for their Master; foreign, which was their opinion onelyonly, not Christs intention: foreign, wherefore Peter is chid for using of it: foreign, and that with a sound threat; which what can it be, but that about which wee now contend, they that take the sword, &c? upon the hearing of which words, saith hee, hee straight obeyed, and did so no more. Againe, citing the passage in Saint Luke, foreign, hee chid and threatned the Disciples into obedience; and then sets down the words of the threat, foreign, &c. for all that take, &c. And yet after all these plaine words of reprehending and threatning Peter, in those words (all they that take the sword, shall perish by it) hee yet adds, that hee comforted his Disciples by two things, first the punishment of the betrayers, applying to that the same speech in a Parenthesis (They that take, &c.) and that hee suffered not unwillingly. All which together signifie clearly the same that wee found in Theophylact, (and presume the utmost either of Titus or Euthymius their exposition) that in that threatning of Peter, is intimated also or insinuated aenigmatically a threat of those other Swordmen that came out with swords and staves to take Jesus: which will not be denyed by any, or disputed of by me, so the other be granted, viz. that Peter was here reprehended and threatned; which is the onelyonly thing we quarrell in Mr. Marshall. And so much for the second under-taking.
Now that, in the third place, Grotius himselfe who cites these foure Ancients, and is here cited by Master Marshall, de jure belli, l. 1. c. 3. n. 3. doth not in this place, or any other of his writings, assert this interpretation, I shall thus prove: The thing that in that place hee hath in hand is to enquire, Whether all use of the sword, for a mans owne defence, be unlawfull under the Gospel? And hee resolves, that in case of one private mans being invaded by another, 'tis lawfull by the law of Christ, (not necessary, but lawfull; a man is onelyonly not obliged to the contrary) or notwithstanding the prescribed rules of Christian patience, to kill another in defence of my owne life. Against this, three objections hee mentions out of the New Testament, Mat. 5. 39. Rom. 12. 19. and the saying of Christ to Peter, Put up thy sword, &c. For all they that take the sword, &c. To those three hee answers:
1. By opposing some other places of Scripture; that of Christ to his followers Luk. 22. 36. that to buy a sword, they should sell a coat. In which company of his auditors there were, saith hee, at that time none but his Disciples; and although, saith hee, it be a proverbiall speech, signifying the great dangers approaching, yet it referr'd to the ordinary use of swords at that time, for private mens defence in time of danger, not there prohibited by him: applying that of Cicero, Gladios habere certè non liceret, si uti illis nullo pacto liceret: Wee might not be allowed to have swords, if it were in no case lawfull to use them. Which still confirmes his point in hand, that in some case, the use of the private sword is lawfull.
2. Hee proceeds to the particular places, saith, in the foreign, there is some exception allowed, that it binds onelyonly in tolerable injuries; such as the box on the cheeke, &c. there mentioned: in the foreign signifies not defence, but revenge. Then for that of Peter, it containes, saith hee, a prohibition of using the sword, but not in case of defence: for hee needed not defend himselfe; for Christ had said, Let these goe, Joh. 18. 8. nor Christ, for hee would not be defended, &c. Besides, saith hee, Peter took up the sword (in eos qui nomine publicarum potestatum adventabant, quibus an ullo casu resistere liceat, peculiaris est quaestio, infra à nobis peculiariter tractanda;) against those that came in the name of the publike powers; against whom, whether it be lawfull to make resistance in any case, is a peculiar question, to be handled afterward peculiarly. (And, let me pawne my faith for it, stated negatively.) As for that which Christ adds, All they that take the sword, &c. that is, either a Proverb, or (which is the opinion of Origen, Theophylact, Titus, and Euthymius,) indicat, it shewes or intimates, that wee should not snatch revenge out of Gods hands: and to this applies the place in the Revel. a place in Tertull. Adeò idoneus patientiae sequester Deus, &c. and adds, Simúlque his Christi verbis vaticinium videtur inesse de poenis, quas à sanguinariis Judaeis erat exacturus gladius Romanus: And also in the words there seemes to be included a Prophecy of the punishment, that the Romane sword should exact of the bloudy Jewes. From all which put together, this will be the utmost that Master Marshall can conclude, That Grotius conceived, that the speech of Christ to Peter prohibited not all use of the sword, for private defence; (no man saith it did; or that all such defence is unlawfull; our case is onelyonly of resisting Magistrates) that Origen, Theophylact, &c. owned an exposition of it, that thereby wee should be taught, not to take Gods office of revenging out of his hand; (which wee also make a speciall part of the importance of that speech, both there, and in the Revel. and so a plaine check of Peter, who did take it;) and that withall in these words a Prophecy seems to be implied, of the revenge of Christs death, wrought by Titus upon the Jewes; (and wee can acknowledge the Scripture so rich a mine of variety, that it may have this propheticke sense also: though by the way, Grotius cites not this out of those foure Writers, (nor could hee, for in Origen we find it not) but as from himselfe, simúlque vaticinium videtur inesse, &c. But for the literall sense, that Peter should not be rebuked by Christ, for using defensive Armes against the Magistrate, (when with the use of those, the leaving vengeance to God is utterly unreconcileable) and Christians conceive themselves bound not to use those Armes against the Magistrate, for this very cause, because hee is foreign, punishable, revengeable by God alone:) and yet be rebuked for snatching Gods work out of his hand: Or that these words should not belong in the prime sense to Peters fact, as well as in a secundary propheticall seeming one to the Jewes, there is not any appearances of sound of any word in Grotius there, or in any other place in that book, or his large Annotations on the Gospels: which if Master Marshall had read with his own eyes, hee would confesse with me. And so much for his citation of Grotius.
Now, in the last place, for the opinion of this learned man Grotius, (an excellent Casuist, exactly distinguishing the severall obligations of Nature, of Moses, and of Christ; a Protestant, and, if an Arminian, farre from deserving that part of the censure which Master Cheynel layes on such, of being …f Socin. …3.as lawlesse as that faction at Munster, whose law it was, Magistratibus ac Principibus nullus subjiciatur) in the businesse of taking up Armes against a King for just defence, I shall referre you to his first Book de jure belli, & cap. 4. (Not that I can hope you will be moved with his authority, when hee appeares against you, that is not the manner of men now-a-dayes, to be content to be tried by your owne witnesses; but for the satisfaction to conscience, which this Authours reasons and perspicuity will yeeld any Christian Reader) the very place whereto hee referr'd the Reader even now for his resolution in that point; and the state of this question being set (An aut privatis aut publicis personis bellum gerere liceat in eos, quorum imperio subsunt;) Whether any private or publike persons may lawfully wage warre against them, under whose command they are; hee defines, that by the very Law of Nature (so much now talkt of) 'tis not lawfull. 2. That by the Law of the Jewes it was not allowed. 3. That it was lesse allowed, but become more unlawfull by the Evangelicall Law, Rom. 13. 1. & 1 Pet. 2. 12, &c. and practice of ancient Christians. 4. Confutes the opinion of those that affirme it lawfull, for inferiour Magistrates to wage warreagainst the Supreme, by reasons and Scriptures. 5. Proposes the case of extreme and inevitable necessity, when the King goes to take away a mans life unjustly: and (whatsoever might from nature or practice of the Jewes, as of David, or of the Macchabees, be brought to assert resistance in this case) hee defines from the Christian Law, (which commands so oft to take up the Crosse) an exacter degree of patience; and particularly, when for Religion our Superiours goe about to kill us, though hee will allow flight to some sort of men, yet to no man more then flight; but rather rejoycing when wee suffer as Christians. This, saith hee, was the course that brought Christian Religion to such an height in the world: and resolves it the greatest injury that can be done to the ancient Christians, to say, that it was want of strength, not of inclinations that way, that they defended not themselves in time of most certaine danger of death. Tertullian, saith hee, had been imprudent and impudent, if in a writing presented to the Emperours (who could not be ignorant of the truth) hee had dared to lye so confidently, when hee saith, Non deesset nobis vis numerorum, &c. most admirable passages out of ancient Writers hee there cites, for a leafe together to the same purpose, of dying for the truth of Religion; and never defending themselves by Arms, against the illegall will of the lawfull Magistrates. (I beseech Master Marshall to send to the shop and read the passages, and consider how farre hee hath departed from the Primitivenesse, and Christianity of those examples.) And to conclude, Though Grotius (according to his manner; which is to say all that can be wisht in any subject) mentions some cases wherein a King may be resisted, yet if you read them, you will find little joy in any of them: As in case a King shall abdicate his Kingdome, and manifestly relinquish his Power, then hee turnes private man, and so may be dealt with as any other such. And some other the like.
Well, I have said enough of Grotius in the businesse, and should adde no more; but, I remember, I promised to shew that on occasion of these words of Christ to Saint Peter, hee hath as much against the Exposition pretended to be his, and the whole doctrine of resistance, as the Kings friends could desire; and that is in his Annotations on the place, Mat. 26. 52. foreign, In Luk. p. 464.&c. Neque vero ad Petrum tantùm admonitio ista pertinet, sed & ad Christianos omnes, qui à publicis potestatibus ad poenam expetuntur ob pietatis professionem: The admonition belongs not to Peter onelyonly, but to all Christians, when they are called by the Magistrate to suffer for the profession of piety: and sets the rule in that case, foreign, to commit our soules to God, to expend our lives in his cause that gave us them; alledging to this purpose, what this Peter had learned from this Master, 1 Pet. 4. 16, 19. and answering the common frivolous objection, fetch from the law of naturall defence, or selfe-preservation, shewing the difference between the use of that liberty against theeves, &c. (against which the Lawes and Magistrates give us the liberty) and against the commands of the Supreme Magistrate; whom if in any case of injury, &c. private men may have permission to resist, or repell force with force, omnia erunt tumultuum plena; nulla legum, nulla judiciorum authoritas: the perfect image of our Kingdom at this time, when the words are Englished, as God knowes the sense is: and then hee concludes with the case of Religion, wherein there is no place of resisting the higher powers, be their violence never so unjust.
I have undoubtedly made good my foure under-takings in this businesse; and shall beseech Master Marshall hereafter to write more cautiously, lest hee provoke men to put him and the world in mind of other unjustifiable passages in his writings; to tell him of (that which in meere charity to him I desire hee should know men doe take notice of) his dealing in a Sermon of his, about Josiah's reformation, preacht before the House of Commons long since: and of the applying of the curse that fell on the Inhabitants of Meroz, Judg. 5. (for not helping their Soveraigne, namely Deborah, against a forraigne Enemy, Jabin) to those that will not joyne with himselfe against his Soveraigne, and his Cavaleirs; i. e. those Forces raised by him. I wish heartily that Master Marshall, having gotten so much authority as to be the Augustine, the truly polemicall Divine of our times, would be so charitable to his disciples, as to imitate him, in retracting so many of his misadventures, as hee cannot chuse but know to be such; and not to impose too intolerably on their credulity: or so tender of his owne reputation, as to acknowledge those himselfe, which every man that hath eyes doth discerne in his books; and would, were it not for meere pity, and the duty of loving enemies, give a large account of.
But I must remember, that Master Marshall adds two appearances of answer more to that allegation from Christ to Saint Peter; a word or two of those. Secondly, saith hee, supposing it was a reproofe of Peters using the sword, then the plaine meaning is to condemne Peters rashnesse, who drew his sword, and never staid to know his Masters mind whether hee should strike or not; and so reproves those who rashly, unlawfully, or doubtingly use the sword. But, I pray Sir, are those the words of Christ, They onelyonly that take the sword without asking, or knowing my mind, shall perish, &c. Or have we any reason to think, that Christ would have then dispensed with a known law if hee had answered him, and not rather have referred him to be regulated by it, as you see hee doth, for all that take, &c.
2. To see the unluckinesse of it againe, the text Luk. 22. 49. saith expresly, that they did ask him, said unto him, Lord, shall wee smite with the sword? so that the question was aske before hee smote: And sure, if it had been Christs pleasure they should smite, one syllable would have exprest it, and justified them; and that might have intervened before his striking: and that it did not intervene, is no argument of the lawfulnesse of that striking in him, or the like in us; especially when so sharp a reprehension immediately followes.
3. I shall grant the meaning is to condemne Peter's rashnesse, in doing a thing so unlawfull, without any commission; especially, when it was denyed by Christ upon asking; but not that the matter of the fact was perfectly justifiable, if abstracted from that rashnesse: or that now Christs judgement being declared by his answer to him, it should be more justifiable in us, who have his example for our document.
4. I shall aske Master Marshall, whether hee hath asked and received knowledge of his Masters mind or no? hee must not meane any of his great earthly Masters, (that joyne with him in the warre against the Supreme; for sure, if such tell us wee may, or be so minded, that doth not prove that 'tis lawfull; for then I must aske them what Master they asked? and so, if they have none, conclude them in the number of the rash smiters;) but Christ, (for sure hee was Peter's Master) or some taught by him in his word, who may give him assurance of the mind of Christ: and if this be produc'd wee will be his disciples also. For, for his Supreme Master on earth, the meer-humane Christ, the Lords anoynted, I beleeve hee meanes not that hee should be asked, whether hee may be, and should be resisted? and as little reason is there for us to be satisfied by being told by any others inferiour to him, (especially by the chiefe resisters) that wee may lawfully resist.
3. Master Marshall adds a consideration, that now was the houre come of Christs suffering, and not of his Apostles fighting, wherein Christ would not be rescued, no not by twelve legions of Angels, much lesse then by the sword of man: therefore hee saith to Peter, Put up, &c. but intended not, that it should alwayes be unlawfull for his people to use the sword in their just defence against unjust violence; for then hee would never have commanded them but a little before, that hee that hath two coats, let him sell one and buy a sword. To this I answer, 1. That Christ might suffer, though Peter did resist; as wee know hee did; and consequently, the houre of his suffering being come, could not make it in him a crime to resist, if otherwise it were not: It might make Christ refuse the help of his sword, but not produce the text proper to man-slayers against him, unlesse the fact in it selfe were of that nature. 2. This patient manner of Christs suffering, and prohibiting resistance in his just defence, though it were then peculiar, and by decree necessary to Christ; yet is it since become matter of example, and necessary imitation to us, by force of that observation past upon it by Saint Peter, and entred into the Canon of our Scripture, 1 Pet. 2. 21. Christ suffered for us, leaving us an example that wee should follow his steps, &c. And this used as an argument to enforce on us that duty, vers. 18. of being subject not onelyonly to good and gentle, but also to froward Masters. So that now, thirdly, though that checke had been peculiar to Saint Peter's act, clothed with those circumstances, of being done when 'twas Christs houre of suffering; yet it will be obliging to us also, who are hereunto called, vers. 21. to suffer as patiently as Christ did. But then fourthly, wee conclude not from any or all of this, that it should be alwayes unlawfull for Christians to use the sword in their just defence: nor indeed, that it was unlawfull then; Kings may and might subdue by the sword their rebellious Subjects: and private men might defend themselves from private invaders, and besides the proverbiall meaning of that speech (of selling a coat and buying a sword, whereby, say the fathers, hee foretold them the dangers impendent over their heads, foreign Chrys. and advised them to provide for their owne security) I shall not doubt to acknowledge that this liberty of private defensive resistance is authorized by that same Scripture: But the resisting of the Magistrate by the Subject, is the thing that from Christs words to Peter wee undertake to shew unlawfull, and not any other resistance; and that the swords were appointed by Christ to be bought to that purpose, is not attempted to be proved by Master Marshall; and to suppose it without proofe, is to affirme, that no man could invade, or be fit to be killed, but Magistrates. The truth is, here is some art used, either by Master Marshall, or some other Artificer (interest, prejudice, or the like) by Master Marshall to deceive the Reader; or by that other to deceive the Composer, by using the phrase of just defence against unjust violence, (which every man grants lawfull among private men) and concluding that not to be made unlawfull by this text, (which we doe not affirm,) whereas all the dispute is, of resisting (not simply any man, but peculiarly) the Magistrate (and those that come with authority from him,) which wee doe affirme to be the very thing exemplified and rebuked in this Text, and so still stands (by that reprehension of Christ) forbidden to us, in despight of Master Marshall's evasions.
'T will be now matter of wonder to any, that all this paper should be spent in defence of this one Argument, so briefly confuted and dispatcht by Master Marshall; but I shall answer that wonder too: First, that at the entring on this examination of those few, the necessity of this length of words was not fore-seen. Secondly, that though the escaping the force of this place would not be matter of triumph to Master Marshall, because there be other places of the New Testament produced by his adversaries, yet unanswered, and one is enough to establish a Christian truth; yet the vindicating and clearing of this one from all exceptions, is the absolute carrying the cause against him by that one: And therefore if this may be compassed, (which I am confident is by this discourse) wee may spare all further travell in this business; and command the Subjects sword taken out (though upon supposition of just defence, how unjustly soever that be pretended) against the lawfull Magistrate, to returne to its sheath againe. I wish to God it would obey the command.
Tu verò discipuli & amorem pium & humilitatem considera: alterum enim ex diligendi fervore; alterum ex obedientiâ fecerat. Nam cùm audisset, Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam, statim obtemperavit, & nusquam postea istud fecit. Titus Bostr. in Matth.
Non se sed magistrum est ultus, praeterea nondum perfectae & consummatae virtutis erat. Quod si vis Petri sapientiam intelligere, videbis posteà caesu… & sexcentas injurias passum, nullis malis, nullis calamitatibus pertur… … omnia tolerantem. Euthym. in Johan.
Ille utitur gladio, qui nullâ superiori ac legitimâ potestate vel jubente vel concedente, in sangninem alicujus armatur. Nam utique Dominus jusserat, ut ferrum discipuli ejus ferrent, sed non jusserat ut ferirent. Quod ergo incongruum, si Petrus post hoc peccatum factus est pastor Ecclesiae: sicut Moyses post percussum Aegyptium factus est rector istius Synagogae? uterque enim non detestabili immanitate, sed emendabili animositate justitiae regulam excessit, uterque odio improbitatis alienae; sed ille fraterno, iste Dominico, licèt adhuc carnali, tamen amore peccavit. Aug. lib. 22. cont. Faust. Man. cap. 70.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, Of Resisting the Lawful Magistrate Under Color of Religion (1644)