Christianity a Doctrine of the Cross, Doctrine · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. Of Passive Obedience under Invaders of Natural Rights. And these as Defensable by Arms, as Civil Rights.
HAving hitherto shewn, that the Invasion of Civil Rights and Laws, gives no exemption from the Gospel Duties of Obedience and Non-Resistance, which I think I have made pretty plain, both from the Case of Jews, and Gentiles, and from our own Laws themselves: I now proceed to shew, in the
Fourth and last place, that if this defensibleness of Legal Rights, would exempt us; a like Defensibleness of Natural Rights, would as well have exempted all other Subjects of Sovereign Powers. And so, contrary to what the Advocates of Resistance themselves affirm, would have left no such Duty in the World, as Passive Obedience. The true Christian, and Thank worthy Passiveness, as†1 Pet. ii.19, 20. S. Peter observes, not being that of Malefactors, who suffer for their real Faults; but of Righteous Persons and Well-Doers, who cannot suffer, but by an Invasion of Rights, or unrighteous usage.
All Oppressors, invade Mens Natural Rights; if they have no Civil Laws, to make them Civil Rights. That Ruler, who has no Civil Laws to guide him, is yet bound to guide himself, by the Law of Nature and Reason. Now Nature, makes Right and Wrong, and appoints Laws for them. Else, by the mere Law of Nature, there could be no such thing, as unrighteousness, or wronging of our Brethren. Thou shalt not Kill, and thou shalt not Steal, are some of Natures Laws. And all shedding of innocent Blood, all Theft, Lies, and breach of Faith, are by Nature violations of Right, and so unrighteous Actions.
Now, Natural Rights, are as Defensible this way, as any Civil Rights are. I do not only say, they are as Sacred, and Inviolable: yea, having God, and not man for their Author; and a Divine Law, not an Human, for their Guard, they must needs be more inviolabe. But also, that they are as Defensible by Force, as any Civil Rights. Thus, Princes, and Sovereign States, take Arms against each other, to defend their Natural Rights. And so may Private Persons, (under like moderation of Christian Charity, as they are to shew in quarrelling for any other Rights,) when assaulted by Thieves, Murderers, or other unrighteous Attempters, and have no leisure, or opportunity, to call in the Protection of Government, and Guard of Civil Laws: one private Person, having Liberty to fight another in these Cases, in defence of their Lives, Persons, Liberty, and other things, which are Natural Rights. And this is the Liberty of Self-Defence: which is a Liberty of defending these Natural, (or other) Rights, by our own Natural Force; when, being out of the Cover of Laws, we are left, as in a State of Nature, to defend our selves.
Indeed, mere Natural Rights, have no Civil Defence, till they are taken in to be Civil Rights. That is, there is no Commencing an Action, and suing for them in any Civil Courts, till they are backed and defended by Civil Laws. But this way of Defending by force of Arms, is a Natural Defence, in which Laws give a Man no help at all, but he is left purely to the strength of his own Natural Powers. And for Natural Rights, a Man may make his Natural Defence, which is no more than the liberty of Self-Defence.
Nay, when Men come to defend their Civil and Legal Rights this way, viz. by running to Arms, they defend them not as Civil Rights. For what Defence any thing gets, by having a Civil Law for it, and being a Civil Right, is a Legal Defence, or Defence by Legal Process. It may be pleaded in a Law Court; and whilst Courts have Autority, and Law can be heard in them, that will defend it. But when Men leave contesting these Rights at Law, and fall to Arms, they absolutely throw off this Civil Defence; there being no Cover or Defence from Law, among drawn Swords, nor any use in War, of Witness, Judge, and Juries. And, instead of that, they come back to Natural Defence, or by their own Natural strength, which is to defend them as Natural Rights. So that Natural Rights, must needs be as defensible by Arms, I conceive, as Civil Rights: since Civil Rights, as Civil, are not at all defensible by Arms, but by Law Suits; and to defend them this way, Men must bring them out of the State of Civil, which lies in being under Government and in Courts, into the State of Natural Rights. And when, in any Case, the Law justifies this Defence afterwards, it is not as needing a Civil Law, but under the Notion of a Natural Right, or as being the Natural Liberty of Self-Defence.
But now, if Subjects might have recourse to this forcible Defence, and Levy War against their Sovereigns, upon their violation of Natural Laws, and Invasion of Natural Rights, which are as defensible this way, as any Civil Rights: then there is no such thing as Passive Obedience, nor ever was any Submission and Non-Resistance due, to ill and injust Kings. And so in reality, there should have been none due, in those times, when God always required it, both among Jews and Christians: whose Passive Obedience was never tried, but when they suffered unrighteously, by an Invasion of their Natural and Divine however, if not also of their Civil and Human Rights. So that this Plea, of the Defensibleness of these Rights by Force, will afford no ease peculiar to us, nor alter the Case of Non-Resistance with us, from what has been so long since determined of it, in the Scriptures, and the Primitive Church. Had it been true, it would have set the suffering Subjects loose in those days. And, as the Inspired Men, and Holy Fathers, taught Non-Resistance, as a Truth then: they would, were they now alive, tell us it is as true now, and bid us do the same in ours.
This forcible defence of Civil Rights then, as well as a like forcible defence of Natural Rights, must be limited to Private Persons. If Men were under no Civil Governors, they would be left each to defend their own Rights. And when they are under Government, they are still left to it against other Private Persons, in Cases that will not stay for the defence of Laws, or for recourse to Governors. But there is no liberty for Subjects, to defend their Rights thus by joyning in Arms, against their lawful Sovereigns. The Holy Scriptures, and our own Laws, as I have shown, plainly forbidding this way of Defence, when Subjects suffer Invasion of Rights. And the Pleaders for Resistance, allowing they may not take it in defence of Natural and Divine Rights, no not in defence of Religion it self, till it is taken in to stand by Civil Law; and Civil Rights, are not more defensible by force of Arms, than Natural and Divine Rights are.
To the Sovereign Power, the Command of God is, to be Subject. Then there is no Resisting, since warlike Resistance throws off Subjection. So, Levying War in Subjects, can be no way of defending Rights against their Sovereign. Nor can they take any ways of Defence, but what are consistent with Subjection. Therefore their Defence of Rights, must only be in those ways, which keep in the Order of Government and Justice. If they are oppressed by a lower Power, they may seek to a higher, and so rise, till in this way they have tried the Sovereign himself, beyond whom, in Subordination of Government, there can be no Appeal, but to God himself. So there is Human help this way, against all Governors, but the Supreme. Yea, some Kings themselves, are but imperfect Sovereigns. They have reserved Cases: and though they are Supreme, in all others; yet in these they have Superiors, to take Cognizance of, and declare their Failures, and discharge their Subjects from bearing them any more Allegiance. And here is Human Redress, and that by force, even against the King: not by breaking and casting off the Order of Government; but by keeping under, and paying subjection to those, whom, in these Cases, the Laws have made Superior unto him. This may seem the Case of Poland, where a Clause said to be in the Coronation Oath, sounds to this purpose.
But, where a King is the Sole Supreme, both over all Persons and in all Causes that can come under Judicial Cognizance: he can only have God above him. And when he Invades the Rights, and stands in it; after we have sought to Courts, and made Supplications, and used all ways for a Subjects Redress: there is no way, but to be content with so much Right, as we can have by continuing under his Government; and for the rest, to leave it to God, (who will be sure to do it first or last,) either to redress, or avenge our Cause. But the way of Subjects, by order of God, who requires them for all this to continue subject, cannot be to resume the liberties of ungoverned Persons, and fall every one to right themselves against him by force of Arms; which is to throw off the state of Subjects, and set up to be their own Governors. Nay, this way of defending Rights, would be the most unwise, and opposite to that securing of Rights they aim at, as well as most offensive to Almighty God. For however, in their heat, and uneasiness under Wrongs, Men are apt to think this a way of recovering, and defending such Invaded Rights: in the end they will find, it is the way to leave, both them and all their other Rights, defenceless, and under no Guard, or Security at all. For Government, is the best safe Guard, of our Liberties and Properties. And if once we go to pull it down, we go at the same time, when we do not think it, to pull down our selves, and to set open our own Freedoms. The Fence being broken down, the Inclosure becomes common, and our Rights lie open to all Intruders.
From this Discourse I shall observe, that as to the Point of using Forcible Defence, it seems no great difference, when Religion is Persecuted, whether it stand upon its own Right, or be taken into the Law of the Land, and stand on Civil Right. Every Man has a Right, to be truly Religious, and to serve God. He has a Right, to seek Eternal Happiness; and to Truth in Religion, as the way to it. And every Prince Invades this Right; yea, I add, and God's too, who denies him this, and Persecutes him for it. If God has a Right to our Service, we must needs have a Right, nay, be under Duty and Obligation, which I think is more than a Right, to serve him. And this Right, is unalienable; no Prince, or Power on Earth, who are all Authorized to Rule us under God, not to Rule over him, can, or ought to set it aside, or deprive us thereof.
And as no Prince can, so can no Law do it. For whence must that Law have such Authority? Is it from God? No sure, he cannot Authorize any Human Laws, to set aside his own Laws, for that were to give Men Autority over himself. It is only the Power of the Law Maker, that gives the Law its Power. And if the Human Power that made the Law, cannot take away this Right; the Stream cannot rise higher than the Spring, nor the Effect have what the Cause had not, so that the Law made by him cannot do it. If a Law attempts to take away this Right, it is as bad, as if a Prince doth it. As he is an unrighteous Prince, so is it an unrighteous Law; and we do not cease to have this Right for either, but suffer equally an Invasion of an unalienable Right in both.
Now, since Religion, however Persecuted, whether with or without Law, is an unalienable Right: how should its having, or wanting a Civil Law, either give or take away this forceable Defence of it. For its own Natural and Divine Right, is as defensable by Natural Force, as I have shown, as any Civil Right the Law will add to it.
And what is it, that a Civil Law doth, towards this way of its Defence? It maks it, say †Mr. Johnson's Remarks on Doctor Sherlock's Case of Resistance &c. p. 19, 20.they, a Civil Right and Property: And a Persecuting Law against it, though, as it is wicked, it cannot command our Obedience; yet, as it is a Law, it may dispose of our Civil Rights. True, a Civil Law, will make or unmake a Civil Right, which gives or takes away a Civil Defence, by Courts and Law Suits. When it has a Civil Right, it will have Redress in Courts, and have Men punished for invading of Civil Liberties. And when it has lost this, by a Law against it; its Professors must not come to Sue for in Court, or hope to find any help there.
But what is this Defence of Courts, by being a Civil Right, to Natural Defence, or defending it by Force of Arms? Were the Doctrine of Resistance true, as I have shewn, it need not go to Civil Right, to have this Natural Defence: or, if it did, Civil Right would send it back again to Natural Right; Civil Rights, when they come to this way of Defence, throwing aside what they have by being Civil, and coming into the State of Natural Rights. So that whilst it remains a Natural, or Divine Right, it is Defensible by Arms, as if it were a Civil Right. And such a Right, true Religion always is, and however Persecuted, whether with Law, or without, or against it. It holds this Right unalienably under the unrighteous Invasion of Laws, as much as under the illegal Invasion of Rulers. And having the Right as fully, if it were Defensible this way, it might Defend it as lawfully against their Invasions, as against his. And then the Professors of True, but Persecuted Religion, might fight for it against their Persecuting Sovereigns, not only for the Laws, but for the Truths sake; and be as Free to make this Defence for it, when it is driven out by the Law of the Land, as when it has that Law on its side. Which, besides what is said thereto above, I note against those, who make an armed Defence of Religion among us, different from a like Defence in the days of the Apostles and Primitive Persecutions: on account, Religion than had the Laws against it; but now, through the blessing of God, it has the Laws on its side.
What has been offered upon this last Point, is sufficient also, over and above what has been said to that before, against those, who make our case different, from that of the Primitive Saints, either Jews or Christians: because the Non-Resistance they paid, was not, say they, to limited Rulers, as our Kings are, being bound up by Laws; but to Absolute Governors. For, though some are more Absolute, i.e. more left to Discretion, and have fewer Human Laws to direct them, than others: yet, were no Governors ever perfectly so. There were, both Laws, and Popular Freedoms and Immunities, under the Roman Emperors, as I have shew'd. And Laws not to be alter'd, under the Medes and Persians. And a body of Laws, (which God *Deut. xvii.18, 19commanded them to keep always by them, to be well studied and vers'd therein) to rule the Administration of the Israelitish and Jewish Kings. And where Monarchs were left most to themselves, †Nobis Romulus ut libitum imperitaverat. Tacit. Ann. l. 3. p. 152.Governing ut libitum, as Tacitus says of Romulus; when ‖Populus nullis Legibus tenebatur: arbitria Principum pro Legibus erant. Just. lib. 1. cap. 1.arbitria Principum pro Legibus erant, as Justin testifies of the first Ages; and they did ‡Hoc Priami Gestamen erat, cum jura Vocatis more dabat Populis. Aeneid. 7jura Dare, as Virgil says of Priamus and the ancient Kings: i.e. when they ruled and judged their Subjects mostly, not by any written Laws, but by their own Reason and Equity: yet even then, were the Laws of God and Nature, always to be a Rule to them in their Administrations.
Besides, all the Power of People, and the Liberty of resuming their primitive natural Rights, and standing up to right themselves when wrong'd by their Governors: is grounded, by the Advocates for Resistance, on the Original Contract, whereby, in the first Framing and Constitution of every Government, when the People, as they say, parted each with their native Liberty, and set Governors over them, they every where made these Reserves for themselves. This Original Contract, is the last Ground, when things are run up to the top, of all Peoples rising in Arms against unjust Powers; thus reassuming the Autority they had formerly intrusted, when they see it misemployed, and deposing those Kings who had abused their Trust.
Now this Original Contract, particularly as to our own Nation, will not be pretended, I believe, to be any where extant upon publick Record. And the rather, for that in Magna Charta it self, the grand Record of our Liberties; those Liberties are not fetch'd from the Peoples own Reserves, as if originally we came by them that way: but from the Kings Grants and Donations. *Proem: Magn. Chart.Of our free and mere Will, we have given and granted to our Bishops, &c. and to all Free Men of our Realm, these Liberties following. —Gaudet regno Trojanus Acestes, indicitque forum, & Patribus dat jura vocatis. Aen. lib. 5.†c. 1.to have and to hold, to them and their Heirs, of us, and our Heirs for ever, says the Charter. And much less, I think are we to expect any Records of such Reserves, under the first and most ancient Governments. For under them, the People were so far from making, or recording, any such fancied Reserves of Rights and Privileges: that they had not any Record of Laws but what were in their Princes Breasts, not so much as stipulating for any Rules whereby they would be govern'd, but trusting and submitting themselves, to the Justice and Discretion of their Rulers, as I have noted of the first Kings.
But this Contract, is fetch'd from the common Reason and Nature of things: there being no other way possible, as these Men say, whereby Civil Government should take Rise. Now the Nature of things, is one and the same, to all Times and Places. And common Reason, must be as common to East as West: to the Persians and Romans under those more absolute Powers; as to the Goths, or Germans, or other Northern Nations, who have provided better for popular Liberties. And therefore, if common Reason and the Nature of things, will carry such an Original Contract, the ground of Resistance, for us; it would have done as much for them. And if it was not sufficient, to authorize Resistance in their Case, as these men themselves affirm, asserting them to have been under a tye of Conscience to Passive Obedience: it cannot suffice any more to do it in ours. Common Reason, and Nature of Government, gives equal provision to all, and as much Original Contract to the Subjects of absolute Emperors, as to those of legal Monarchs: who, whatever Liberties and Provisions they have more, have them not from common Reason, but the special limitations of their own Laws. So that on this account, we must not take more liberty to our selves, or make our Case, in point of Resistance, different from theirs.