The Peoples Right to Defend Themselves and their Covenanted Religion, Religious tract · Chapter 12
CAP. XII.
Some moe Arguments Briefly propoſed and Proſecuted.
WE have in the preceeding Chapters proponed and conſidered ſuch arguments as gave us occaſion to meet with what this Surveyer allaidged. We shall here, ere we come to conſider his objections, briefly ſumme up other arguments.
The worthy author of Lex Rex Queſt. 28. and 31. hath ſome, which we shall here ſet downe, partly becauſe that book is not in every mans hand, and partly becauſe this windy man pretends to have anſwered much of that book, though he hath not ſo much as offered to make a reply unto the ſix hundereth part thereof.
1. Pag. 261. thus he argueth, [That power which is obliged to command and rule justly and religiouſly, for the good of the ſubjects, and is only ſet over the people on theſe conditions, and not abſolutely, cannot tye the people to ſubjection without reſistence, when the power is abuſed to the deſtruction of lawes, religion, and the ſubjects. But all power of the law is thus obliged Rom. 13: ver. 4. Deut. 17: ver. 18. 19. 23. 2 Chron. 19: ver. 6. Pſal. 132. ver. 11. 12. and 89. ver. 30. 31. 2 Sam. 7: ver. 12. Jer. 17: ver, 24, 25, And hath been & may be abuſed by Kings, to the deſtruction of Lawes Religion, and Subjects. The propoſition is cleare, for the powers that tye us to ſubjection, only are of God. 2. Becauſe to reſiſt them is to reſist the ordinance of God. 3, Becauſe they are not a terrour to good works but to evil. 4. Becauſe they are God's ministers for our good: But abuſed powers are not of God but of men, are not ordinances of God, they are a terrour to good works not to evil, they are not God's miniſters for our good.]
2. (ibid) [That power which is contrary to law, and is evil and tyrannical, can tye none to ſubjection, but is a meer tyrannical power and unlawful; and if it tye not to ſubjection, it may lawfully be reſiſted. But the power of a King abuſed to the destruction of Lawes, Religion, and ſubjects, is a power contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, and tyeth no man to ſubjection; wickedneſſe by no imaginable reaſon, can oblige any man. Obligation to ſuffer of wicked men, falleth under no commandement of God, except in our Saviour. A Paſſion as ſuch, is not formally commanded, I meane a phyſical paſſion, ſuch as is to be killed. God hath not ſaid to me in any moral law, be thou killed, tortured, beheaded, but only be thou patient if God deliver thee to wicked mens hands to ſuffer theſe things.
3. (Ibid) There is not a ſtricker obligation moral, betwixt King and People, then betwixt parents and Children, Maſter and Servant, Patron and Clyant, Husband and Wife, The Lord and the Vaſſal, between the pilote of a shop, and the paſſengers, the Phiſitian and the Sick, the doctor and the Schollar: But law granteth, 1. minime 35. De Relig. & ſumpt. funer. If thoſe betray their trust committed to them, they may be reſiſted? If the Father turne diſtracted and ariſe to kill his Sones, his Sones may violently apprehend him, bind his hands, ſpoile him of his weapons, for in that, he is not a father Vaſq. lib. 1. illuſtr. quaeſt. Cap. 8. n. 18. Si dominus ſubditum, enormiter & atrociter oneraret; princeps ſuperior vaſallum poſſet ex toto eximere a ſua juriſdictione, & etiam tacente ſubdito & nihil petente. Quid papa in ſuis deciſ: parliam. grat. deciſ. 32. Si quis Baro. abutentes dominio privari poſſunt. The Servant may reſist the Master, if he attempt unjustly to kill him; So may the wife do to the Husband: If the pilot should wilfully run the ship on a roke to deſtroy himſelf, and his paſſengers, they might violently thrust him from the helme. Every Tyrants is a furious Man, and is morally diſtracted, as althuſ. ſayeth, polit cap. 28. n. 30. & ſeqq.
4. Pag. 262. That which is given as a bleſſing and a favour and a ſcrine betwixt the Peoples Liberty, and their bondage, cannot be given of God as a bondage and ſlavery to the People. But the Power of a King is given as a bleſſing & favour of God to defend the poor & needy, to preſerve both tables of the law, and to keep the People in their libertyes, from oppreſſing and treading on upon another. But ſo it is, that if ſuch a power be given of God to a King, by which actu primo he is inveſted of God to do acts of Tyranny, and ſo to do them, that to reſiſt him in the moſt innocent way, which is ſelf defence, muſt be reſiſting of God, and rebellion againſt the King his deputy; Then hath God given a royal power, as incontrollable by mortal men by any violence, as if God himſelf, were immediatly and perſonally reſiſted, when the King is reſiſted, and ſo this power shall be a power to waſte and deſtroy irreſiſtably, and ſo in it ſelf a plague and curſe; for it cannot be ordained, both according to the intention and genuine formal effect and intrinſecal operation of the power, to preſerve the tables of the Law, Religion and Liberty, Subject and lawes; and alſo to deſtroy the ſame. But it is taught by Royaliſts, That this power is for Tyranny, as wel as for peacable government, becauſe to reſiſt this royal power put forth in acts either of Tyranny or juſt government, is to reſiſt the ordinance of God, as Royaliſts ſay, from Rom. 13: 1, 2, 3. We know to reſiſt God's Ordinance and Gods deputy formaliter as his deputy, is to reſiſt God himſelf 2 Sam. 8. ver. 7. Mat. 10: ver. 40. as if God were doing perſonally theſe acts that the King is doing; and it importeth as much as the King of Kings doth theſe acts, in and through the Tyrant. Now it is blaſphemy to think or ſay, That when a Kings is drinking the blood of innocents, and vvaſting the Church of God, That God if he vvere perſonally preſent, vvould commit the ſame acts of Tyranny (God avert ſuch blaſphemy) and that God in and through the King his lavvſul deputy and vicegerent, in theſe acts of Tyranny, is waſting the poor Church of God. If it be ſaid, in theſe ſinfull acts of tyranny, he is not God's formal vicegerent, but only in good and lawful acts of Government, yet he is not to be reſiſted in theſe acts, not becauſe the acts are juſt and good, but becauſe of the dignity of his royal perſone. Yet this muſt prove that theſe who reſiſt the King in theſe acts of Tyranny, muſt reſiſt no ordinance of God, but only that we reſiſt him who is the Lord's deputy. What abſurdity is there in that, more then to diſobey him, refuſeing active obedience to him who is the Lord's deputy, but not as the Lord's deputy, but as a man commanding beſide his Maſter's warrand?
5. (Pag. 263.) That which is inconſiſtent with the care and providence of God in giving a King to his Church, is not to be taught. Now God's end in giving a King to his Church, is the feeding, ſaifty, preſervation, the peacable and quyet life of his Church, 1 Tim. 2: 2. Eſai. 49: ver. 23. Pſal. 79: 7. But God should croſſe his owne end in the ſame act of giving a King, if he should provide a King, who by office were to ſuppreſſe Robbers, Murtherers, and all oppreſſours and waſters in his holy mount, and yet should give an irreſiſtible power to one crowned Lyon a King who may kill a Thouſand Thouſand proteſtants for their religion, in an ordinary providence, and they are by an ordinary law of God to give their throats to his Emiſſaries, and bloody executioners. If any ſay, the King will not be ſo cruel. I beleeve it, becauſe, actu ſecundo it is not poſſible in his power to be ſo cruel; we owe thanks to his good will that he killeth not ſo many, but no thanks to the genuine intrinſecal end of a King, who hath power from God to kill all theſe, and that without reſiſtence made by any Mortal man: Yea no thanks (God avert blaſphemy) to God's ordinary providence, which (if Royaliſts may be beleeved) putteth no bar upon the illimited power of a Man inclined to ſin, and abuſe his power to ſo much cruelty. Some may ſay, the ſame abſurdity doth follow if the King should turne papiſt, and the Parliament and all were papiſts, in that caſe, there might be ſo many Martyres for the truth put to death, and God should put no bar of providence upon this power, more then now; and yet in that caſe. King and Parliament should be judges given of God actu primo, and by vertue of their office obliged to preſerve the people in peace and godlineſse. But I anſwere. If God gave a lawful official power to King and Parliament to work the ſame cruelty upon Millions of Martyrs, and it should be unlawful for them to defend themſelves, I should then think that King & Parliament were both ex officio and actu primo judges and Fathers, and alſo by that ſame office, Murtherers and butchers, which were a grievous asperſion to the unſpotted providence of God.
6. (Pag. 331.) Particular nature yeelds to the good of univerſal nature; for which cauſe heavy bodyes aſcend, aëry and light bodyes deſcend: If then a wild bull or a goaring Oxe may not be let looſe in a great market confluence of people; and if any man turne ſo diſtracted, as he ſmite himſelf with ſtones, and kill all that paſſe by him, or come at him; in that caſe the man is to be bound and his hands fettered, and all whom he invadeth may reſiſt him, were they his owne ſones, and may ſave their owne lives with weapons. Much more a King turning a Nero, King Saul vexed with an evil ſpirit from the Lord, may be reſiſted: and far more if a King endued with uſe of reaſon, shall put violent hands on all his ſubjects, kill his ſone and heire: yea, any violently invaded, by natures law, may defend themſelves; & the violent reſtraining of ſuch an one is but the hurting of one Man, who cannot be virtually the Commonwealth, but his deſtroying of the community of men, ſent out in warres as his bloody Emiſſaries, to the diſſolution of the Commonwealth.
7. (Pag. 335.) By the law of Nature, a Ruler is appoynted to defend the innocent: Now by Nature, an infant in the womb defendeth it ſelf firſt, before the parents can defend it; Then when parents and Magiſtrates are not (and violent invading Magiſtrates are not, in that, Magiſtrates) Nature hath commended every man to ſelf defence.
8. (Ibid) The law of nature excepteth no violence, whether inflicted by a Magiſtrate or any other; unjuſt violence from a Ruler is thrice injuſtice 1. He doth injuſtice as a man, 2. As a member of the Commonwealth. 3. He committeth a ſpecial kinde of ſin of injuſtice againſt his office. But it is abſured to ſay we may lawfully defend our ſelves from ſmaller injuries, by the law of Nature, and not from greater, &c.
Theſe and many moe, to this purpoſe, may be ſeen in that unanſvverable piece: But I proceed to adde ſome mo… here.
9. If it be lawful for the people, to riſe in armes to defend themſelves, their Wives and Children, & their Religion, from an invadeing army of cut throat Papists, Turks or Tartars, though the Magiſtrates Superiour and inferiour, should either, through abſence, or ſome other phyſical impediment, not be in a preſent capacity to give an expreſſe warrand or command, or through wickedneſſe, for their owne privat ends, should refuſe to concurre, and should diſcharge the people to riſe in armes: Then it cannot be unlawful to riſe in armes and defend their owne Lives, and the lives of their Poſterity, and their Religion; when Magiſtrates, who are appoynted of God to defend, turn enemies themſelves, and oppreſſe, plunder, and abuſe the innocent, and overturne Religion, & preſſe people to a ſinful compliance there with. But the former is true. Therefore &c. The aſſumption is cleare: Becauſe all the power of Magiſtrates, which they have of God, is cumulative, and not privative and deſtructive, it is a power to promove the good of the Realme, and not a power to deſtroy the ſame, whether by acting and going beyond their power, or by refuſeing to act and betraying their truſt. 2. No power given to Magiſtrates, can take away Natures birth right, or that innate power of ſelf defence. 3. It can fare no worſe with people in this caſe, then if they had no Magiſtrates at all; but if they had no Magistrates at all, they might lawfully ſee to their owne ſelf defence. 3. The power given to Magiſtrates can not looſe the obligation of people unto God's moral law; but by the moral law they are bound, in this caſe of imminent danger, to defend themſelves, their Wives and Children, and their Religion: theſe are acts of charity, which Magiſtrates cannot looſe them from; otherwiſe Magiſtrates might command us to kill the innocent, the widow and the fatherleſſe, and we might lawfully do it at their command; which is moſt falſe and abſurde: therefore neither can their expreſſe prohibition hinder us from relieving ſuch, whom we are bound to relieve, nor exeem us from the guilt of Murther, before God, if we do it not, but obey their prohibition. The connexion of the propoſition I cleare thus. 1. The law of ſelf defence is no leſſe valide in the one caſe, then in the other. 2. The law of charity obligeth in the one caſe, no leſſe then in the other. 3. Magiſtrates are no more appoynted of God to deſtroy the people themſelves, then to ſuffer others to deſtroy them; and ſo the reſiſting of their violence in the one caſe, is no more a reſiſting of the ordinance of God, then the reſiſting or counter-acting of their prohibition, or ſilence, in the other caſe. 4. Magiſtrates are no leſſe to be accounted, in ſo far, no Magiſtrates, when they counter-act their commiſſion, then when they ſinfully betray their truſt, and neglect their commiſſion. 5. Unjuſt violence offered in Lives, Liberties and Religion, is no leſſe unjuſt violence, when offered by Magiſtrats themſelves, then when offered by ſtrangers, Magiſtrates permitting or conniveing.
10. If it be lawful for private Subjects to joyne together in armes, and defend Themſelves, their Lands, Liberties, Wives, Children; Goods, and Religion, againſt a forraigne Enemie, invading the land to conquer and ſubdue the ſame, with the Magiſtrates approbation, or expreſſe warrand. Then it is alſo lawful to reſiſt domeſtick Enemies animated by the ſame power and authority. But the former is true, becauſe Magiſtrates, in that caſe, do profeſſe and avow themſelves tyrants, ſeeking the deſtruction of the whole Realme: and therefore are not Magiſtrates. Therefore &c. The conſequence is cleared abundantly in the preceeding argument, and cannot be denyed: for, a domeſtick enemy is more unnatural, unjuſt, ihhumane; illegal, hurtful and dangerous, then a forraigne enemy.
11. Such acts of unjuſt violence, which neither Magistrates themſelves may immediatly commit, nor may any ſubject under them, without ſin and diſobedience to God, execute, may lawfully be reſiſted by private perſones, when committed in a rage, or cruelly executed by inſeriours. But ſuch are acts of oppreſſing, plundering, ſpoyling Subjects of their libertyes, becauſe of their adhereing to their ſworne Covenanted Religion. Therefore &c. That Princes and Magiſtrates may not oppreſſe, and wronge the People, is clear 1 Sam. 12: 3, 4, 5. 2 Sam. 23:3. 1 King. Cap. 21. and 22. 2 Chron. 9: 8. Pſal. 105: 14, 15. Eſa. 1: 23. and 3: 12, 13, 14, 15. and 14: 15, to 23. and 9: 7. and 16: 5. and 32: 1, 2. and 49: 23. Ier. 22: 3, to 32. Zeph. 2: 8. and 3:3. Micah. 3:1. to 12. Obad. v. 2, 10, to 17. Ezech. 22: 6, 7, 27. and 45: 8, 9. It is contrare to their expreſſe commiſſion Rom. 13: 4, 5. That their unjuſt mandats for oppreſſion and uſeing of violence, are not to be obeyed, is no leſſe clear from Exod. 1: 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1 Sam. 22: 17, 18. Pſal. 52: 5. So likewiſe it cannot but be cleare, That it muſt alſo be lawful to reſiſt that violence when wickedly and unjuſtly acted and executed: For, what power Magiſtrates can not themſelves put into execution, is not of God nor ordained of God; and therefore the reſiſting of that, cannot be the reſiſting of any power ordained of God: And againe, what power ſubjects cannot lawfully put into execution can be no lawful Magiſtratical power appoynted of God: For, if it were, a refuſeing to put the ſame into execution were a real reſiſting of the ordinance of God: And ſo a reſiſting of this, when wickedly put into execution, is no reſiſting of the ordinance of God, which cauſeth damnation.
12. That it is juſt and lawful to flee from the violence of Magiſtrates will not be denyed. But if that be lawful, when ſubjects have no power or meanes whereby to reſiſt, or oppoſe unjuſt violence with violence, It cannot be ſimply unlawful to reſiſt the ſame unjuſt violence with force, vvhen neither flying, nor hideing, nor other ſuch like meanes of ſaifty are practicable: Becauſe it is the principle of ſelf defence againſt violence, that makes flight lavvful, vvhen there is no poſſibility of reſiſtence; and the ſame principle of ſelf defence will make reſiſtance lawful, when the other is not practicable. Againe, the principle of charity to their Wives and Children and other Relations, makes flight lawful, when they can not otherwise avoide the unjuſt violence of Tyrants; and the ſame principle will animate to reſiſtence, when practicable, & when they cannot flee with wives and children and old decrepite parents &c. Thirdly, the ſame principle of conſcience, viz that they may keep their Religion and Conſcience free and undefiled, which will prompt to a flight, when there is no other remedy, will prompt alſo to reſiſtence, when flight is not practicable. I remember, The Surveyer Pag. 41. calleth this [a monſter of a ſtoical paradex which the paire of pſeu…o - martyres brought forth; whereas flight is only a withdrawing from under his dominion, and putting ones ſelf under another dominion where his power reaches not: and ſo by flight and withdrawing from the Kingdomes, the man ceaſeth to be a ſubject to him, whoſe ſubject he was, and comes to be under other Lords and lawes.] Anſw. This muſt be a monſter of men, whoſe eyes muſt be of a magnifying glaſſe of a paradoxical quality; and he muſt have a ſtrange ſtoical phancy, who imagineth that ſuch a thing is a paradex, and a ſtöical paradox, and a monſter of a ſtöical paradox: what could his ſtoical braine have ſaid more paradoxically? Flight and non-obedience both are a reſiſting of the abuſed power; and if the cauſe be juſt which is preſſed by the Magiſtrate, flight on that account, & non-obedience, is a reſiſtence of the powers ordained of God, condemned Rom. 13. for ſuch an one is foreign he is out of due order. But. 2. As we have ſeen, the conſequence will hold, and we ſeek no more; we need not make it a reſiſtence equal with forcible reſiſtence. 3. He ſpeaketh of a flight out of the King's dominions, but what ſayes he to a flight, when the perſones flying keep ſtill within the dominions? Will he grant that this is liker unto a reſiſtence? And he muſt, if his reaſons hold; for in this caſe, the man ceaſeth not to be a ſubject nor cometh he to be under another Lord: and if he grant this, our argument will ſtand as firme as ever. 4. The man, for all the money he hath gotten from his majeſty for his paines, or paine, is not afrayed to rub, by what he ſayes here, upon his ſacred Majeſty and his Royal Councel; for, if perſons withdrawne and out of the Kingdom, ceaſe to be ſubjects to the King. How could the King and council ſummon home the Scottish officers who ſerved under the States of the Netherlands, and were ſervants to them, and under their pay, and had been in their bounds, all moſt all their dayes, yea ſome of them were borne under the States; and yet for not comeing to the Kings dominions upon his call and charge, they were denunced rebels & fore faulted, and ſtand under that ſentence to this day, for any thing I know; which, though I account the moſt unjuſt, inhumane, barbarous & irrational act, that can be, ſo that it may well be reckoned, among the Surveyer's monſters of ſtöical paradoxes; yet I think tenderneſſe to his Majeſties honour and credite, should have made him ſpare to have ſet downe this parentheſis: But, ſome men, it ſeemes, have liberty to ſay what they can or will, if it may help the deſperate cauſe, though it should reflect upon King and Council both. Let a friend goe with a foe.
13. It was not to Parliaments or inferiour Magiſtrates, that Chriſt ſaid, alittle before he was to be apprehended, Luk. 22: 36, 38. But now-he that hath no ſword, let him ſell his garment, and buy one—and they ſay Lord here are two ſwords, and he ſaid unto them, it is enough. Here is enough to evince the lawfulneſſe of reſiſting with force unjuſt oppreſſours; for if Chriſt had thought it ſimply unlawful, why would he have deſired his naked private diſciples, to buy ſwords, which are weapons for forcible reſiſtence and defence, and that at ſuch a time? It is true, he would not ſuffer them to make uſe of them as they would, not becauſe it was ſimply unlawful for them to reſcue him out of the hands of that band of robbers; for he uſeth no ſuch argument to diſſuade them: but becauſe, he was commanded of the father, to yeeld and to lay downe his life, of his owne accord; and therefore was it alſo that he would not uſe the help of angells, as he might have done, in his owne defence; therefore ſaid he Ioh. 18: ver. 10, 11. put up thy ſword into the sheath, the cup which my father hath given me shall I not drink? (& Mathew addeth Cap. 26: 52, 53.) thinkeſt thow that I cannot pray to my father, and he shall preſently give me, more then twelue legions of angells: God had revealed his will, that Chriſt behoved to ſuffer Mat. 16: ver. 21, 22, 23. Ioh. 20: 24. and that was ſufficient to reſtraine this act of ſelf preſervation hic & nunc: which was otherwiſe lawful; as well as it did reſtraine from flight, a mean which Chriſt at other times uſed, for his preſervation: Neither did his word to Peter import that this ſelf defence was unlawful; but the reaſones of it were (as River ſayes in decal. 6. praec.) 1. Becauſe it had a kinde of revenge in it; for ſo few could not repel ſuch an army as came to take Chriſt. 2. He waited not Chriſt's anſwere. 3. He could have defended himſelf another way. 4. It was contr…re to God's will revealed to Peter.]
14. That doctrine cannot be of God, which to the eye of ſound reaſon, & to all rational perſones, doth remedyleſly & unavoydably, tend to overthrow and deſtroy polities, all order, and all humane ſociety, and open a gap and wide door to all confuſion, diſorder, tyranny, oppreſſion, cruelty, and injuſtice. Our Surveyer cannot deny this propoſition; ſeing he maketh uſe if it, or of one very like unto it Pag. 43. But to ſay that a poor oppreſſed people may not defend themselves, in extreame neceſſity, againſt the oppreſſion and tyranny of Magiſtrates, and reſiſt unjuſt violence with violence is to all rational perſones a remedyleſſe and unavoydable courſe laid downe, for utter overturning of all Society, & is an opening of a door to all confuſion, diſorder, tyranny, oppreſſion, Murthers, cruelty, injuſtice, &c. for when Magiſtrates turne Tyrants, oppreſſours, ſet themſelves to ſeek the ruine and deſtruction of their Kingdomes, and of all their Subjects, in bodyes, goods, and Conſciences, and ſell themſelves to do ſuch villany and wickedneſſe, there is no remedy, by this doctrine; the Commonwealth is utterly gone; oppreſſion and Murthers are increaſed; all is overthrowne and overturned; and there is no help. Thus God shall have given a power to one man to kill and maſſacre millions of Chriſtians, to deſtroy whole Commonwealthes, and to root them out, and all their memorial, that no more mention should be made of them. But who can beleeve this? Yea if this were received as a truth, what incouragement were it to tyranny and oppreſſion? And what miſchief would not wicked hearts contrive and execute, if they did not feare oppoſition and reſiſtence? This Surveyer tels us Pag. 103. That it is enough to keep Kings right, to tell them they muſt anſwer to God, But we ſee that for all this, there are moe evil and wicked Kings, then good; and it is more then probable, that that alone vvould no more ſuppreſſe their tyranny, and keep them from wickedneſſe, then the fear of the gallowes would keep theeves from ſtealing and robbing; if they knew that no body would reſiſt them, or oppoſe them with force, when they came to ſteal and rob.
15. By this doctrine, People should be in the moſt miſerable condition imaginable when under governours; for not only should they be lyable to all the oppreſſions of Magiſtrates tyrannizing over them, and have their hands bound up, ſo that they could not helpe themſelves; but alſo unto the opreſſion and tyranny of every one who could but ſay, he had a commiſſion from his Majeſty to kill and murther all whom he pleaſed: For they might not reſiſt whether he had a real commiſſion or not, leſt they should reſiſt the ordinance of God, in reſiſting a ſervant ſent of the King to execute his luſt and cruelty, with expreſſe warrand and commiſſion: & thus there would be as many irreſiſtible tyrants, armed with abſolute and irreſiſtible power, as one Tyrant will, and the people might no more uſe violent reſiſtence againſt them, then againſt him. A doctrine, I am ſure, poynt blanck contrary to all reaſon and equity.
16. If forraigne princes may lawfully help a poor people oppreſſed by their owne Soveraigne: Then people may lawfully, if they be able, hold in the paines of theſe forraigne princes, and defend themſelves. But the former is granted by caſuiſts and politicians. Therefore &c. The conſequence cannot be denyed: for forraigners have no more power or authority over another ſoveraigne, then the people have themſelves: and what juſtice, or equity of the cauſe could warrand them to come to their reliefe and ſuccoure, the ſame will warrand the perſones injured to help themſelves, if they be able.
17. As the law of Nature will allow this ſelf defence even to private perſons, in caſes of neceſſity, So will the law of Nations, and the Civil law; for it maketh no diſtinction betwixt ſelf defence uſed by private perſons alone, and that which is uſed by private perſons having their Repreſentatives concurring: And where the law diſtinguisheth not, we should not diſtinguish. As all law permits to repel violence with violence; ſo doth it give this allowance to all perſons whatſoever l. Liberam C. quando licet unicuique ſine judic.
18. To maintaine, that in no caſe it were lawful for Private ſubjects, to reſiſt the unjuſt violence, and to defend themselves from the tyranny of Princes, would be a direct condemning of our owne Princes K. Iames, and K. Charles, who helped the private Subjects of other Princes againſt them: and is it not unreaſonable to plead for more abſolute ſubjection, then princes themſelves will plead for: Or to condemne that reſiſtence which even they will approve of, countenance and encourage to?
16. If it were not lawful for private perſons to defend themſelves againſt the manifeſt tyranny of a Soveraigne, without the concurrence or conduct of a Parliament, or their Repreſentative: Then the condition of ſuch as live under ſuch a government where there are Ephori, or where there is a Repreſentative conſtituted, should be worſe, then is the condition of theſe, who want ſuch Repreſentatives. But that were abſurd. Therefore &c. The conſequence of the Major is hence cleared: Becauſe, all the arguments, which have been adduced by any, for proving the lawfulneſſe of reſiſtence in caſes of neceſſity, will evince that a people, who have no formal Repreſentative, may reſiſt the tyranny of their Prince: But now if this were not allowed unto a People having Repreſentatives, their caſe should certanely be worſe: Becauſe their hands should be bound up from that neceſſary defence, which otherwiſe they might have uſed viz. when Repreſentatives should betray their truſt, and comply with a tyrannous Prince againſt the people. The Minor is moſt certane, becauſe Parliaments or Repreſentatives have been inſtituted for the good & advantage of the people: And therefore should not prove hurtful and deſtructive, otherwiſe they ceaſe to be a benefite and a bleſſing. A benefite should not prove onerous, ſayeth the law, ſi filiusf ff. ut legator nom. caveaetur.
20. If it be lawful for private perſons to reſiſt the Tyranny of Parliaments, and other inferiour Magiſtrates: Then it cannot be unlawful for them to reſiſt the Tyranny of others, without their concurrence and conduct. But the former is true, as all the arguments uſed by divines and politicians to prove reſiſtence, will evince; and as ſeveral of our adverſaries will very readily grant, though they will ſtifly maintaine, that no reſiſtence is to be uſed againſt the Soveraigne. Therefore &c. The connexion is hence cleare, That to whom the greater is lawful, the leſſe is alſo lawful: Now it is a greater matter to reſiſt a Parliament, then to wave them, and miskend them, or to reſiſt others vvithout their help; as all may ſee and will eaſily grant. There is not a more expreſſe command for Subjects to do nothing without the concurrence of a Parliament, then not to reſiſt them and oppoſe them: Nor are people more obliged to the one, then to the other.
21. Privat perſons without the concurrence of Parliaments, may reſiſt and oppoſe the Prince, yea and binde his hands, when in a fit of frenzie, of a diſtempered braine and madneſſe, he would ſeek to cut his owne throat, or with Saul would run upon his ſword. Therefore they may alſo reſiſt oppoſe him, when in madneſſe and fury, he would not only endanger his owne life in ſoul and body, but vvould deſtroy the inheritance of the Lord, and cut off his faithful and innocent ſubjects, and deſtroy the land. The connexion is cleare: Becauſe more reſpect is to be had unto the life of Thouſands, then to the life of one Man. The antecedent is certane, becauſe otherwiſe they should be guilty before the Lord, of his death, if they vvould not hinder it, when it was in the povver of their hands; for he vvho hindereth not a miſchief vvhen he may, he vvilleth it, and ſo is formally guilty before God.
22. Privat perſons, vvithout the concurrence of inferiour Magiſtrates, may reſiſt the Soveraigne, vvhen in a rage he runeth upon an innocent man paſſing by, and with Saul, vvhen an evil ſpirit from the Lord came upon him, vvould caſt his javelin or deadly inſtrument at the innocent Davids. This no rational perſon vvill deny, vvho knovveth vvhat a hazard it is to partake of other men's ſinnes: Love to the Prince should preſſe to this perſerving of him from shedding innocent blood; and vvho doth not this vvhen he may, conſenteth to that murther. Therefore they may alſo, no leſſe, yea much more, reſiſt him, vvhen in his madneſſe and diſtemper, he is ſeeking to deſtroy millions of the people of God: And againe, much more may vve reſiſt him, vvhen he is ſeeking to deſtroy ourſelves, vve being much more bound to love and defend ourſelves, then to love and defend others.
23. If it be lawful for private ſubjects, without the Commande or allowance of Parliaments or their Repreſentatives, to reſiſt a Tyrant, or the Tyranny of a Prince, with teares and prayers: Then alſo, in caſes of neceſſity, it shall be lawful for them to reſiſt his violent Tyranny and tyrannical violence, with violence, But the former is true. Therefore, &c. The minor is cleare: For Royaliſts themſelves will grant that praeces and lachrymae may be oppoſed to Tyranny; Thus did the ancient Chriſtians reſiſt their tyrannical Emperours with earneſt cryes and prayers to God, eſpecially Iulian the Apoſtate, whom they ordinarily ſtiled Idolianus, Piſaeus, Adonaeus, Tauricremus, alter Hieroboam, Achab, Pharaoh, &c. And we are allowed to pray againſt the Enemies of Chriſts Kingdome, againſt the Turk, the Pope that great Antichriſt, and all the little Antichriſts that make warre againſt the Lord and his intereſt. Therefore we may alſo reſiſt a Prince Tyrannically oppreſſing the People of God, deſtroying the mountaine of the Lord, makeing havock of his Church, when we are in probable capacity for that work. The reaſon is becauſe, the one is no more condemned in Scripture then the other. 2. The one is no more a ſinful reſiſting of the Ordinance of God, then is the other. 3. Adverſaries themſelves will grant that reſiſtence by prayers and tears is more powerful and effectual, then the other. 4. This perſonal reſiſtence is as conſiſtent with that command, let every ſoul be ſubject to higher powers, as the other is with that, 1 Tim. 2: ver. 1, 2. 1 exhort that ſupplications, prayers and interceſſions be made for Kings, and for all in authority. 5. If the Prince be good, the one is as unlawful as the other, and a ſinful reſiſtence of the ordinance of God, no leſſe then the other: Therefore when he becometh a Tyger, a Lyon, a waſter of the inheritance of the Lord, an Apoſtate, as I may not pray for him, except conditionally, but againſt him, as an enemy of Chriſt's; ſo I may alſo lawfully reſiſt him with violence. 6. It is cleare from other perfſons or things againſt whom or which, I may lawfully pray, as inward or outward Enemics, forraigne or domeſtick, be they inferiour or ſuperiour, againſt theſe I may uſe reſiſtence, in my ovvne ſinleſſe defence. 7. The lavves of the land make the one treaſonable as vvel as the other, and that deſervedly, vvhen the Prince is doing his duty: but vvhen he turneth Tyrant, neither can juſtly be condemned. 8. We have ſeen the one practiced in Scripture and other Hiſtories, as vvell as the other.
24. If it be lavvful for meer privat perſons to refuſe obedience unto the unjuſt and iniquous commands of Princes: Then it is alſo lavvfull for them to reſiſt the unjuſt and illegal Tyranny of ſuch. But the former is undengable. Therefore ſo is the latter. The connexion is cleare. For 1. Subjection is no more expreſly preſſed in Scripture, then is obedience, to Superiours: Therefore if not withſtanding of this command, non-obedience be allowed yea and neceſsary, vvhy not alſo non-ſubjection or reſiſtence? 2. The lavv of God doth not preſſe this as more abſolute and unlimited, then the other. 3. Non-obedience to the povver commanding juſt things is a reſiſting of the ordinance of God, as well as non-ſubjection thereunto: if notwithſtanding hereof non-obedience to unjuſt commands be allowed, why alſo shall not non-ſubjection to tyranny be allowed? 4. The one doth no more derogate from the lawful authority of the Soveraigne, then the other. 5. The one is no more a wronging of the Miniſter of God as ſuch, then the other; becauſe he is no more the Miniſter and vicegerent of God in acts of Tyranny, then in commanding unjuſt things. And therefore 6. ſuch as reſiſt unjuſt violence, can no more procure to themſelves damnation, then the ſuch as diſobey unjuſt commands.