Christianity a Doctrine of the Cross, Doctrine · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. No Resistance, on Pretence that acts against Law are inautoritative.
BUT when our Rulers invade us against Right, say *Julian Ap. p. 84. Thoughts of a Priv. Person about Justice of Gent. Undertak. at York, p. 11.14.16.some, What Authority is there in their Invasions? Has any Man Authority to invade our Rights? And if our Governors have no Authority for their Invasion: since we are to be subject only to Authority, is there any Obligation on us for Submission? And may we not make Resistance, against unautoritative Acts? A Liberty for Resistance, needs not Superiority, but Parity; for we may defend our selves against our Equals. And when Kings act illegally, and invade Rights: in those Acts, say some, they have no Authority, and Acts done against Law, which are the Rule of the Polity, are politically powerless. So that we may resist them in such Case, as we may our Equals; they acting there without Authority, which is the same, as private Persons.
No, say I, under those illegal Actings, they are still Kings and Sovereigns. Tho there be no Authority derived into the Action, which, if it be against the Laws of God and the Land, is condemn'd and vacated, not authorized and enforced by either of them: yet the Authority abides still in the Person. And as to the dueness of Non-resistance in such illegal Actings, the Question is not, whether the illegal Act has any Authority; but whether the Sovereign that acts so, retains his Authority. For Passive Obedience, is due to the Person in Authority: and whatever liberty we might otherwise take, to oppose such an Action; we must keep passive, under such a Person. If, for all his illegal Act, he is still thy Father; the fifth Commandment says, Honor and obey him. If he retains his Authority over us, and continues to be the foreign or Higher Power; S. Paul tells us, that in Conscience towards God, we must needs be subject to him. And whilst we are to be subject, we must not resist: for when once we fall to warlike Resisting, there is an end of Subjection. So that it is not enough to say, the Illegality doth disauthorize the Action, or hinder it from being binding; unless it also disauthorize the Person, and make a Forfeiture of his Authority over us. For whilst his Authority lasts, we are bound to continue his Subjects; and that tyes us to be passive in such Cases.
Now, a King may keep his Autority, for all he doth some inautoritative, and illegal Actions. He doth not lose Power, by abusing his Power, or stretching to make it more: nor make away that real Autority which he has, by going beyond it in an unautoritative Act, or pretending to some Authority which he has not.
What Autority have any Sovereign Powers, to make Laws against the true Religion? If their Autority is from God, I am sure he has given them no Commission, to forbid what he has commanded. They go quite against the Rule of Legislation, when they employ it in making Laws against him. And those Laws, carry no binding Force from God along with them, to oblige Subjects to their Observance. So that if by inautoritative Acts, be meant Acts against the Rule of Administration; or without any real Right, to warrant the King himself in commanding, and to oblige others to obey them: all Laws are inautoritative Acts, which are made against the true Religion. But yet, they that urge this Objection, will not say, that any Kings forfeit their Crowns, or ease their Subjects of the Duty of Passive Obedience, by making persecuting Laws. Nay, †Julian the Ap. p. 74, 75.92. & others.they say there is a necessity of not resisting, but being passive under them, because they have such Laws whereby to persecute them.
What is the real and intrinsick Authority, or Legality, of a Sentence grosly unjust, and apparently contrary to Law? I mean not only contrary to Legal Forms, as a Judgment would be without a Jury: but contrary to those particular Laws in any Case, which the Judge, proceeding in Form, ought to pronounce by. A Man comes to a Judge and Jury, to have Law, or the benefit of those particular Laws, which he grounds his Claim upon. And the Judge, is to pass Sentence according to these Laws, and to give what the Laws give him. And, I suppose, those Laws do not authorize this Sentence, if it grosly and corruptly perverts, what they say. In this Case, if they authorize what the Judge says, I think they must no longer authorize what they say themselves, since his Saying is directly contrary to theirs. And accordingly, instead of authorizing, they will reverse it, so soon as they fall into the hands of a more upright Judge and Jury, that will find and pronounce aright. So that here is a Sentence against the Laws, that should have ruled it: which, not having the Laws concern'd therein, to autorize and bear it out, if Autority must come from Law, I think will be an inautoritative Act. But I imagine these Objectors do not believe, he ceases thereupon immediately to be a Judge, which would vacate all the Sentences he passes afterwards. Or, that the aggrieved Parties have Remedy any other way, than by legal Appeals. Wherein, if they can find no Redress at last from the Supreme Power it self, yet are they not thereby set loose from being any longer his Subjects, nor have any Discharge, as I think is confess'd on all hands, from their Passive Obedience.
How many illegal, and unautoritative Acts, were done by Saul, and Ahab, Ahaz, and Manasse, and other ill Kings among the Jews; which yet did not unking them? And by the Roman Emperors, as I have shown, which yet did not disrobe them of their Purple, or free the poor oppressed Christians, and other Subjects of the Empire, from being subject to, and passive under them? Among these, are instances enow, as may appear from what is said above, of illegal Acts, against the Autority of all Laws, both of God, and of their own Realms. And yet of the Sovereigns, who were the illegal Actors, still retaining their Sovereign Autority, and holding the Sufferers in their former state of Subjects, and under an obligation of Conscience to Passive Obedience. And this is a clear proof, that God, tho he has given Rules to higher Powers, which are Duties of Governors, and according to which, at the great Day, he will judge them himself: Yet, has not made these Rules of exercising Power, Conditions of their holding Power, or Grounds of Forfeiture. He himself, under the most enormous Breaches of these Rules, having plainly declared, by the inspired Pen-men, of those Princes that broke them, that they were still in Autority, and that their Subjects, as they would answer the contrary to him, were to keep in their Obedience and Duty to them notwithstanding. So that wheresoever any Forfeiture of Crowns comes in, it must be, by some special provisions in a Peoples own Laws. And where Law makes a Forfeiture, it will make a Prince forfeit in a legal way, by appointing some superior Power to try the Fact, and judicially to declare the Forfeiture. But I do not conceive, how there can be any legal way of forfeiting, where the Prince is declared by Law, to be the Sole Supreme.
Now, if unautoritative Acts do not disautorize the person, and make him sink into a private Man; but for all them, a King continues still to be a King: where is the Argument for Resistance from such inautoritative Acts? Yes, ‖Thoughts of a Priv. Pers. &c. p. 11.say they, when unjust Acts have no Autority in virtue of Self-defence, we may resist, and defend our selves against them. True, where there is no other hindrance to resisting, and defending our selves by Arms, but what is to be looked for in the Action. But Resistance, and warlike Defence, tho it be for an Action, must be of some Person. And what if there is something, to bar such Resistance, in the Person? As I think the Law appoints in the Persons of Father and Mother, when it declares, he shall surely be put to death, that smiteth them. Exod. xxi.15. And in the Persons of Higher Powers, when it calls us to honor, to keep subject, and not to resist them. So there is something in his person, to keep out all Resistance, and arming against our Sovereign. The Argument for not resisting, or making a warlike Defence against him, is because he is King. And then, what takes off this, and can be an Argument for Resistance, must be something that doth unking him. And since such unautoritative Acts, are no Forfeitures of Crowns; 'tis plain, whatever other Immunities they are a ground of, they are no ground of levying War, or armed Resistance.
This, I take to be a very good, and sufficient Ground, and I think it is the true Ground, of Submission and Passive Obedience, under illegal Violence and Persecutions. The illegal Act, I conceive, has nothing in it self to bar Self-defence; having no Autority to bear out and inforce it, as may seem, either from God or Man. Not from God; for if his Law carries his Autority, (and where doth he display his Autority, if not in his Laws?) what is against his Law, is against his Autority. Nor from Man, for the same Reason, of its being against humane Laws, which carry their Autority. But the Autority of the Person, is a Bar to this way of Defence against our Sovereign. And when the Sovereign will do such illegal Acts, tho he has no Autority to justifie himself therein, nor to make his unrighteous or illegal Commands, really obligatory and binding: yet, because he is a Person, under whose Autority and Obedience we all are, this will be the effect of them. Seeing Subjects under Government, can have no Remedy, but what keeps the order of Government, and must be content with so much, as keeping to that Order allows: till God alter his mind, we can have no present Redress. And being his Subjects, we cannot go to arm against him, to defend or right our selves. And this is Passive Obedience. So that when the irreligion or illegality of the Command, exempts us from any Obligation, to active Performance: this Autority of his Person, doth notwithstanding lay on us an Obligation, of keeping under his Obedience, and making no warlike Resistance.
And on these Grounds it will be easie to give a rational, and plain Answer to those Questions, which the Disputers for Resistance shall think most posing, about the Authority of Kings, when they act against Laws.
If it be asked, What is a Kings Autority, when he doth such illegal Acts? 'Tis just the same it was before he did them; for as he doth not get, so he doth not lose any rightful, and real Autority thereby.
But what doth his Autority give, to the illegal Act, or Order? Doth it authorize the Subjects in an illegal thing? or make the Law, which forbids it, cease to be a Rule to them? No, the Laws of God and Men, are to be the Rules of conscionable acting. The Autority of the Law, is the Autority of a Rule. And for a Rule, it is the best Autority. And an humane Law, is the best Humane Autority. And where Kings, neither make, nor unmake and repeal Laws, alone; the King commanding in the Laws, is of more Autority to rule the Subjects Actings, than the King commanding against them.
And what doth his Autority give him, as to that particular illegal Act? Not to be questionable, or accountable for it among Men, or coercible by Force and armed Opposition. And that, because for all that act, he is still our King, and we owe him Subjection. Receiving such illegal Acts from our King, we must receive them as Subjects. And the obligation of continuing Subjects, excludes all Liberty of armed Resistance.
Whence, say they, in an illegal Act, has a Sovereign Prince this Autority? From the Fifth Commandment, and from all those Commandments, that require Submission, and Obedience, and being subject unto Princes. For the plain intent of all those Precepts, as may sufficiently appear, I think, from what I have said on this Argument; duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page is to require these, to Princes that break, as well as to those that keep Laws; to unjust, as well as to righteous Sovereigns. And if God commands us to submit, and keep in Subjection to a Sovereign Prince, that acts against Laws; he must forbid us to resist such: for men put off Subjection, when they fall to Resisting.
It may be asked still, has he it from the Law of the Land? Yes. What, from the Law he invades? Doth the Law give him Autority to break it self? No, but by all those Laws, that declare he incurs no Forfeiture by such Invasions. For all those Laws, that own and declare such Invader to be still our King, determine our Subjection to him, and forbid us to resist him. For Men are no longer in the state and posture of Subjects, when they come to arm against their Sovereigns.
If a Man suffers illegally, they will demand by what Law? By none surely, for then there is an end of the Illegality. But to ask for a Law for his suffering, is to ask for something to justifie, or make it just in the eye of Law, that he should suffer. But this is not pretended from the Kings Autority; and it is supposed to be an unjust, and illegal Suffering. But if the King has no Autority, to justifie the illegal Suffering; has he any Autority, to bar the illegal Sufferers resisting? Yes, the Regal Autority not being lost by that illegal Act, but still abiding in him. For all he makes a Man suffer against Law, he is still his King. And that is a Reason against Resisting. For by all Law, both of God and Man, we must be subject to our King. And he ceases to be subject, that draws his Sword against him.