Scripture and Reason Pleased for Defensive Arms, Section 1
SECT. I. The Question rightly ſtated.
THe Queſtion which the Doctor hath propounded, as neceſſary to be ſcanned is thus expreſt [Whether if any King will not diſcharge his Truſt, but is bent or ſeduced to ſubvert Religion, Lawes and Liberties, Subjects may take up Armes and Reſiſt?] He maintaines the negative, and his principall place of ſtrength is, Rom. 13.2. Whoſoever reſists ſhall receive to themſelves damnation. This he interprets of reſiſting the higher power, mentioned ver. 1. by which he underſtands the King or Supreame; and the reſiſting, a reſiſting by Armes. But it ſeemes to me, however he make a ſhew of diſtinct handling his matter, that he either careleſly, or ſophiſtically confounds things, which ought to have been more diſtinctly expreſt by one that truly deſired to have reſolved conſciences in ſo weighty a cauſe, as forbearing to defend Religion, Laws and Liberties, when they are all in danger of ſubverſion. To which purpoſe, I ſhall make bold to propound divers conſiderations towards a better clearing of the true ſtate of the queſtion; and the ſtrength of his proofes for it.
1. It cannot be imagined that a King, who is bent, or ſeduced to ſubvert Religion, Lawes and Liberties, meanes to doe this by a meere perſonall ſtrength; (For which no Sampſon-like ſtrength would ſuffice) but by the aſſiſtance of others, whether men in office, and truſted with the civill Sword under him, if he can draw them into his deſigne, or by the ſouldiery ordinary or extraordinary; and that not in one part of the Kingdome, but in ſeverall parts, as faſt as he can get inſtruments for his turn.
2. Here then will come divers queſtions belonging to the caſe. 1. Whether the reſiſting by Armes, the illegall attempts of an under Officer of Juſtice; ſuppoſe a Major or Sheriffe, though armed with Commiſſion under the Kings hand or ſeale, be a reſiſting of the higher power and damnable. 2. Whether the reſiſting a Captaine of the Souldiery, comming to act any illegall commands with his bands of armed men, though he alſo have a like Commiſſion from the King; be a reſiſting of the King, and ſo forbidden? Both theſe where the King is not preſent, but in another part of the Kingdome.
3. It will be further queſtioned (in caſe he ſhould grant reſiſtance lawfull thus farr) whether it be lawfull to reſiſt the officers or ſouldiers of the King, he being beſides them, and animating them with his commands to doe violence? I will ſuppoſe for the preſent the Kings perſon is and ſhall be ſafe, notwithſtanding the reſiſtance, or that els the reſiſtance muſt be forborne. I onelyonly aske, whether his followers commanded by him, ſtanding by to doe murthers and rapes may be reſiſted with armes or not.
4. If he will ſay that in all theſe caſes reſiſtance may be made; ſo the Kings Perſon may be ſafe. 1. The King may thanke him for the care of his Perſon, but his Power and Authority is as much impugned by this, as by many that plead for the defence now actually under-taken. 2. The Cavaliers and Followers of the King will thanke him never a whit; For they may all be knocked on the head or ſtarved, and yet the Kings Perſon be ſafe. And they would ſoon deſert the cauſe, if this were beleeved, or would be rooted-out, if this were generally practiſed; and that is all the Defendants deſire, who honour the Kings Perſon and authority, as much as the Doctor or any of his fellows, not to ſay more; how ever they reſiſt his Cavaliers.
5. If he will deny reſiſtance where the King is preſent, becauſe there his commands are certainly knowne to be his, which may be doubted of in remote Countries. Then, 1. So ſhould it have been expreſt for cleare underſtanding, and not coucht in uncertainty. 2. Then all theſe Cavaliers are juſtly reſiſted where the King is not preſent, which againe if it were believed and practiſed would ſoone end the buſineſſe; For even in the next Pariſh to the King, they might be reſiſted, though not where he appeares and ſpeakes. 3. What if it be doubted whether the King be not forced by threatnings and feare of his life to command ſo and ſo. Kings have been priſoners, and have commanded ſo, and by wiſe and good Subjects, Caſtles and Townes have bin kept by force of Armes againſt ſuch as they bad to aſſault it, if not yeelded. Our Law ſuppoſes, The King can doe no wrong, yet ſuppoſes wrong may be done in his name by his followers; If he then command a notoriouſly wicked thing: The Law will ſuppoſe him forced or the like; And then reſiſtance ſhall be as well lawfull, as if he were abſent. Or even neceſſary to reſcue him out of ſuch wicked hands. 4. What if it be doubted, whether a King be bewitched by ſorceries? There have bin ſuch things of old, and the Devills power doth not ſeeme to be leſſned now? 5. What if it be doubted, whether the King be diſtracted? A thing that hath befallen Kings as well as meane men? Are ſubjects bound from reſiſting the commands of a bewitched or diſtracted Perſon to the ruine of Religion, Lawes, and liberties? ſtill preſerving his perſon ſafe. 6. Suppoſe it be certaine he is not forced, nor bewitched, nor diſtracted: Yet doing as bad as any forced, bewitched or diſtracted perſon can poſſibly doe, by commanding ſuch tyrannicall Acts, what reaſon can be imagined, why ſuch a command ſhould tie ſubjects hands from reſiſting his followers, offering to act his tyranny, more then if he were forced, bewitched or diſtracted? Is the liberty of his body and mind from thoſe violences, an enſlaving of his people to his lawleſſe luſts of crueltie and miſchiefe?
6. If he ſay further, that even his officers or ſouldiers, if they have his Seale or warrant may not be reſiſted in the remoteſt Country. Then beſides the former inconveniences, theſe are to be added. 1. Any that come among ignorant common people may abuſe them at their pleaſure, if they will but pretend the Kings Seale or Warrant. It hath bin counterfeited for Briefes: How ordinary would it be, if it might not be reſiſted? How would malicious men murther with it? Robbers ſpoyle with it, and who could remedy it? 2. By this meanes any that had a deſigne to depoſe the King and uſurpe the Kingdome, might by a counterfeit Seale and Warrant, kill all the Kings faithfulleſt Subjects, and ſtrengthen ſo himſelfe and his party, as the King ſhould after have no power to ſave himſelfe. Lawes obſerved will ſecure ſufficiently from this. And liberty to reſiſt illegall violences will appeare to be neceſſary to the Kings ſafety, as well as the Subjects. Kings have ſeldome or never bin murthered or depoſed, where Lawes have bin preſerved in their vigour: But often where illegall violences have had place. Let this alſo not be forgotten.
7. Well but thus the caſe I ſuppoſe is underſtood (if not by the Doctor, yet) by the generall of thoſe that take the Kings part againſt the Parliament, that neither the King in Perſon, nor any of his officers or ſouldiers, that have commiſſion from him may be reſiſted, becauſe that were to reſiſt the King, which ſay they all, the Apoſtle forbids and threatens, Rom. 13.2. But here again I blame the Doctors negligent handling of that place upon divers conſiderations further.
1. Without doubt the firſt verſe is to be regarded, as being the foundation of the ſecond, as appeares by the word [Therefore] Yet that he hath greatly neglected. Perhaps for feare the ſcanning of it would doe him an ill turne, as I ſhall by and by endeavour to ſhew, by comparing the ſubjection commanded with the reſiſtance forbidden.
2. In the firſt verſe he doth very ill to reade alwayes (except once by chance, as I thinke) higher power for higher powers, and ſo never to tell us whether the other powers (who are higher in relation to the common-people, though inferiour in relation to the ſupreme) S. Peters governours may be reſiſted or not? even with Arms. Perhaps this fraudulently alſo.
3. In the ſecond verſe, he is very careleſſe to tell us, whether reſiſtance (which is three times in Engliſh, but there are two Greeke words, the firſt being different from the ſecond and third) ſignifie all kind of oppoſition, though without Armes, to the higher and ſupreme power at leaſt, but then much more with Arms? Or whether it only ſignifie reſiſting with Armes, and no other there forbidden, and made damnable. Yet this a needfull Queſtion, for a conſcience to be reſolved in, and more ordinarily then about reſiſting. And ſo would well have become the Doctors learning and pretended care of Conſcience, and even regard of Authority to have diſcourſed upon. But ſince he hath not vouchſafed to doe any of theſe, I ſhall take the paines to doe it for him, and for the conſcientious Readers, as well as I can.
1. The firſt verſe begins, foreign. Let every ſoule be ſubject to the higher Powers. Here are two queſtions. 1. What is meant by being ſubject. 2. What by higher Powers. By being ſubject is meant yeelding obedience, either active or at leaſt paſſive, that is doing or forbearing acccording to command, or ſubmitting to ſuffering when one do's otherwiſe. It cannot be denied but both theſe are parts of ſubjection, and that ſo much is commanded by the word foreign at leaſt in ſome caſes. But the ſecond Queſtion, What is ment by higher Powers, will cleare in what caſes either of theſe is required? By the higher powers then is meant all civill legall Authority, which in St. Peters phraſe is of the King as Supreame, or governour (for theſe are higher then the people, though lower then the King) but it is to be obſerved that the word is in the abſtract powers, which notes the authority, wherwith the perſon in authority is legally inveſted, and not the perſon in the concrete, leaſt that might be underſtood of his perſonall commands without or beyond, or even againſt his Authority. Which conceit the Apoſtle doth greatly prevent by uſing the word Power, which he doth alſo all the while he treats of this matter, except only that once he names Rulers, v. 3.
2. It is to be obſerved that the things about which the authority, and ſo the ſubjection in this place is converſant are civill matters, belonging to the ſecond Table between man and man. Not that I deny Magiſtrates to have Authority to command things belonging to the firſt Table, and that ſubjection is due to them in ſuch commands concerning Religion, ſo that it be according to the will of God. But I ſay, that this is to be fetcht from other Texts rather then this. My reaſon is, becauſe the Roman Magiſtrates, of whom properly the Apoſtle ſpeakes, were ſo farre now from commanding things for Religion, that they commanded things againſt Religion, and the firſt Table▪ and therfore certainly the active ſubjection at leaſt here required is limited to civill matters.
3. And now that ſo much as I have ſaid is required, active Obedience to legall, civill Authority to all Magiſtrates in their legall commands in civill matters; or at leaſt paſſive yeelding to the penalty of the Laws, in caſe of not obeying actively; and neither further then to legall commands of legall Authority, appeares by the Apoſtles reaſon in this 1. verſe. For there is no power but of God; which he redoubles in a ſecond phraſe, The powers that be are ordained of God, or under God foreign. Every ſoule muſt be under their order, which is foreign, becauſe they all are ordered by God under him, his deputies and vicegerents in their order and degree, higher and higheſt. This is true of all powers, and therefore to all muſt ſubjection be performed. And to none hath God ordered or ordained any Authority but legall. Which as none will deny (no not the Doctor himſelfe) of other Governours beſides the ſupreme: So can none with reaſon affirme, that any hath more authority then the Laws, whether ſpeciall or generall, written or unwritten, have allotted them. Which Lawes God ratifies (being not againſt his) and ſo the Authority according to them. And this our Doctor alſo confeſſes (in ſence) in m…re places then one of his Booke, for active Obedience, that no more is due, but according to the Lawes of God, and the eſtabliſht laws of the Land. Only he argues for paſſive obedience beyond this, every where. 1. Becauſe he argues againſt reſiſtance even of Tyranny. But in a word to refute this from the Apoſtles reaſon in the firſt verſe. If I be bound to be ſubject to tyranny, (or to ſuffer violence of a tyrant) by vertue of the commandement here. Then tyranny is the Ordinance of God, or Magiſtrates have power ordained of God to uſe tyrannous violence (for thus the Apoſtle argues for ſubjection from Gods ordaining the power) But this is falſe. Ergo, ſo is that, that I ſhould be bound to ſuffer tyrannous violence.
And now if this be the true and whole meaning of the precept in the firſt verſe, It will not be hard to cleare the meaning of the prohibition and threatning in the ſecond verſe, which runnes thus, foreign. Whoſoever therefore reſiſts (or carries himſelfe diſorderly againſt the power, or oppoſes) the power, reſiſts or ſets himſelfe againſt the Ordinance (or order appointed) of God, and they that reſist (or ſo ſet themſelves againſt man and God both) ſhall receive to themſelves Damnation. Now here we are to reſolve two Queſtions. 1. What reſiſtance is? 2. Who (or what) may not be reſiſted? 1. Reſiſtance is contrary to ſubjection, as foreign is to foreign, and this alſo the word [Therfore] notes. For it ſhews that the ſin of Reſiſtance is a tranſgreſſion of the duty of ſubjection. It is then two-fold, either in not obeying commands, or in not ſuffering penalties. He that is wilfully, and obſtinately diſobedient to ſome commands, is (by the Apoſtles ſcope, and by the conſent of all interpretours that handle it fully) a Reſiſter, foreign, though he never offer to take up Armes, but yeelds to ſuffer any penalty. A man that refuſes to anſwer at the Law, he ſhall be outlawed; he that refuſes to yeeld poſſeſſion ſhall have a Writ of Rebellion out againſt him; he that refuſes to put himſelfe upon a legall tryall at his arraignement, ſhall be preſſed to death, as a moſt obſtinate reſiſter of authority, and ſo in many other caſes. Or ſecondly, Reſiſting is in not ſuffering penalties, reſiſting by force, and even by Armes. This is one kind of reſiſting, and the worſt kind againſt a lawfull power: but what it is, our ſecond Queſtion is to determine; which againe breakes it ſelfe into two. What is the power that may not be reſiſted? and who? In both, the former verſe may, and muſt guide us, as the word power repeated, and the conjunction, therefore, and the mention of Gods Ordinance the third time aſſures us. 1. Then what is the power that may not be reſiſted? The legall authority of the Magiſtrate, or the Magiſtrate legally commanding according to his authority. For as the ſubjection reaches to this, and no further. So the ſinfull reſiſtance extends to this, and is by it limited: becauſe Gods Ordinance hath confirmed all this, and no more. Only upon the change of the phr…ſe, and not ſaying he that is not ſubject, but he that reſiſts, the Spirit of God ſeemes to favour in ſome caſes a ſimple not obeying, and will not charge that with reſiſting Gods Ordinance; Namely in ſuch Laws as being of an inferiour nature, may be generally good to be made and kept. Yet to ſome perſons in ſome caſes ſo extremely inconvenient as the penalty according to man is much rather to be ch…ſen, then the practiſe of that Law in that caſe. Now in ſuch a caſe (as our Divines generally uſe to ſay, that obedience may be forborne to many civill Laws, Extra caſum ſc…ndali) the Holy Ghoſt ſeemes to favour (I ſay) the not obeying, and only charges guilt upon a not ſubmitting to the penalty which is undeniable reſiſting: But I ſay againe, that by all the foregoing context, and the reaſon from Gods Ordinance in the ſecond verſe: The prohibition of blaming of reſiſtance, go's no further, then, of legall commands of legall authority. The Doctor will not (doth not) ſay that the moſt peremptory, or obſtinate refuſing to obey actively tyrannous and illegall commands is reſiſtance. By what authority then of the Text or context will he ſtretch the prohibition to refuſing to ſuffer tyrannous violence? Or how does any reſiſt unlawfully (though by Armes) when unlawfull violence is offered him? which God no where gave authority to uſe to him, nor ever commanded him to yeeld unto? In a word, till Gods Ordinance can be prov'd allowing tyranny (which can never be) or undeniably ordaining a man to ſuffer it, which is no where in his word (I meane the extremity of tyranny depriving of life, or ſo) though often it is ſo in his providence, when he affords no meanes of reſiſtance: This Text of the Apoſtle will no way condemne the reſiſting by Armes tyrannous and illegall outragious violences. Beſides all that, the context following refuſes this ſence of the Doctor, as I have already ſhewed.
But let me not forget my ſecond Queſtion, or branch about reſiſtance. Who may not be reſiſted? The Text ſaith, The power, any Magiſtrate acting with lawfull authority legally. The Dr. would reſtraine it to the ſupreame, becauſe he thinks it was hard to aſſert all Governours irreſiſtable though tyrannous. But I ſay, interpreting reſiſtance …right, as before; and ſo the Governour or Magiſtrate may be no more reſiſted, then a Monarch. And the King is reſiſted in reſiſting the meaneſt Officer. Even high Treaſon may be committed in taking up Armes with ſome circumſtances againſt a Magiſtrate, who is not Supreme. The Laws cannot be obeyed, but by obeying other Governours in the Kings abſence (who cannot be every where) and ſo obſtinate diſobedience, which is reſiſtance; may be, when only a petty Officer, or Magiſtrate is preſent; but commands according to Law. Contrarily in the Doctors interpretation, reſiſtance is not forbidden, neither with reference to the leſſer Magiſtrate, nor to the Supreame as hath beene ſhewed. And if it were forbidden to reſiſt with Armes a tyrannous King; of neceſſity (as hath been ſhewed) this would extend to forbid reſiſtance of any that he imployes …n his tyranny. Or elſe all the diſpate about it would ſoone be at an end, as was alſo noted. But if the Doctor ſay that he includes under the Supreame all that A…t his Will, and only denies that ſubordinate Magiſtrates are within the ſecurity of this prohibition of reſiſtance by Armes, if they be tyrannous without any command from the Supreame. I would have him ſhew me a ground of this diſtinction upon a Text of Scripture, (which ſpeaking before of all powers, names, the power indefinitely) a ground I ſay out of Scripture, which himſelfe requires in the beginning of his ſecond Section, or religious reaſon, or elſe what conſcience ought to regard what he ſaith? If both Governours and Supreme be to be acknowledged Gods Ordinance, and both to be ſubjected to for that cauſe, as S. Paul here, for the Lords ſake (as S. Peter, Epheſ. 2.12.) then either both may be reſiſted by Arms if tyrannous; or neither? Let him now take his choice, and ſay what he will, If he ſaith only the Inferiour may be, then he looſes this Text, which matches them both equally. If he ſay neither may be; Then beſides all that hath been ſaid on the Text and context, I only adde this: That then every meaneſt Officer (if wicked) may ruine the whole neighbourhood, becauſe he may not be reſiſted by Armes, who yet will bring Armes to act his villanies. And ſo the bleſſed Ordinance of God in Magiſtracy ſhall turne to the greateſt curſe to Mankind (the beſt and moſt conſcientious of them) that can be imagined, in regard of outward ſufferings, and generall confuſion. It remaines therefore that as the Apoſtle in the following verſes, baniſhes tyranny out of the context, deſcribing every where a righteous Magiſtrate, and not a tyrant: So tyranny is to be baniſht out of the interpretation of this Text, which allowes him that is a tyrant, no ſecurity, that he ſhall be endured, and not reſiſted even with Armes. Though it doth (and that moſt juſtly and neceſſarily) ſecure a juſt ruling Prince or Magiſtrate from all reſiſtance, even when he puniſhes moſt ſeverely according to Law and juſtice, upon the heavieſt guilt of being found reſiſters againſt God (that reſiſt ſuch a rule) and the heavieſt penalty of damnation.