Treatise of Civil Policy, Treatise · Question 30
QUEST. XXX. Whether or no Paſſive Obedience be a meane to which we are ſubjected in conſcience, by vertue of a Divine Commandement, and what a meane Reſiſtance is. That Flying is Reſiſtance.
MUch is built, to commend patient ſuffering of ill, and condemne all reſiſtance of Superiors, by Royaliſts, on the place 1 Pet. 2. 18. Where we are commanded, being ſervants, to ſuffer buffets, not onelyonly for ill doing, of good maſters, but alſo undeſervedly, and when we doe well, we are to ſuffer of theſe maſters that are evill; and ſo much more are we patiently, without Reſiſtance, to ſuffer of Kings. But it is cleare, the place is nothing againſt Reſiſtance, as in theſe Aſſertions I cleare.
Aſſertion 1. Patient ſuffering of wicked men, and violent reſiſting are not incompatible, but they may well ſtand together: So this conſequence is the baſis of the argument, and it is juſt nothing. To wit, Servants are to ſuffer unjuſtly wounds and buffeting of their wicked Maſters, and they are to bear it patiently; Ergo, Servants are in conſcience obliged to non-reſiſtance. Now Scripture maketh this clear; The Church of God is to bear with all patience, the indignation Patient bearing of ill, and reſiſtance, are compatible in one and the ſame perſon.of the Lord, becauſe ſhe hath ſinned, and to ſuffer of wicked enemies, which were to be troden as mire in the ſtreets, Micah 7. 9, 10, 11, 12. but withall they were not obliged to non-reſiſtance, and not to fight againſt theſe enemies, yea they were obliged to fight againſt them alſo. If theſe were, Babilon, Iudah might have reſiſted and fought, if God had not given a ſpeciall commandement of a poſitive law, that they ſhould not fight, if theſe were the Aſſyrians and other enemies, or rather both, the people were to reſiſt by fighting, and yet to endure patiently the indignation of the Lord. David did bear moſt patiently the wrong that his own ſon Abſolon and Achitophel, and the people inflicted on him in purſuing him to take his life and the kingdom from him: as is cleare by his gracious expreſſious, 2 Sam. 15. 25, 26. chap. 16. ver. 10, 11, 12. Pſal. 3. 1, 2, 3. Yea he prayeth for a bleſſing on the people, that conſpired againſt him. Pſal. 3. 8. Yet did he lawfully reſiſt Abſalom, and the conſpiratours, and ſent out Ioab and a huge army in open battel againſt them. 2 Sam. 18. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. and fought againſt them. And were not the people of God patient to endure the violence done to them in the wildernes, by Og king of Baſhan, Siho… king of Heſhbon, by the Ammorites, Moabites, &c? I think Gods law tyeth all men, eſpecially his people, to as patient a ſuffering in wars, Deut. 8. 16. God then trying and humbling his people, as the ſervant is to endure patiently, unjuſtly inflicted buffets, 1 Pet. 2. 18. And yet Gods people at Gods command did reſiſt theſe Kings and people, and did fight and kill them, and poſſeſſe their land, as the hiſtory is cleare. See the like Ioſh. 11. ver. 18, 19. 2. One act of grace and vertue is not contrary to another. Reſiſtance is in the Children of God an innocent act of ſelf-preſervation, as is patient ſuffering, and therefore they may well ſubſiſt in one. And ſo ſaith Amaſa by the ſpirit of the Lord, 1 Chro. 12. 18. Peace, peace be unto thee, and peace to thy helpers, for God helpeth thee. Now David in that, and all his helpers were reſiſters of King Saul. 3. The ſcope of the place 1 Pet. 2. is not to forbid all violent reſiſting,Reſiſtance not forbidden, 1 Pet. 2. 18. but patient ſuffering onelyonly recommended. as is clear, he ſpeaketh nothing of violent reſiſting either one way or other, but onelyonly he forbiddeth revengefull reſiſting of repaying one wrong with another, from the example of Chriſt, who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he ſuffered he threatned not. Therefore the argument is a falacy, ab eo quod docitur foreign, ad illud quod dicitur foreign. Though therefore the maſter ſhould attempt to kill an innocent ſervant, and invade him with a weapon of death. 1. Suddenly. 2. Without all reaſon or cauſe. 3. Vnavoidably, DoctorD. Ferne, part 3. § 2. p. 10. Ferne in that caſe doth free a Subject from guiltyneſſe, if he violently reſiſt his Prince: Ergo the ſervant who ſhould violently reſiſt his Maſter in the aforeſaid caſe, ſhould, and might patiently ſuffer, and violently reſiſt, notwithſtanding any thing that Royaliſts can conclude on the contrary. 4. No Prince hath a Maſterly or herile dominion over his ſubjects, but onelyonly a free, ingenious, paternall and tutorly over-ſight for the good of the people, Rom. 13. 4. The Maſter, eſpecially in the Apoſtle Peters time, had a dominion over ſervants, as over their proper goods.
2. Aſſertion. Neither ſuffering formally as ſuffering, and ſo neither can non-reſiſting paſſive fall under any morall law of God, exceptSuffering and non-reſiſtance paſſive, fell under no law. in two conditions: 1. In the point of Chriſts paſſive obedience, he being the eternall God, as well as Man, and ſo Lord of his owne blood and life, by vertue of a ſpeciall commandement impoſed on him by his Father, was commanded to lay downe his life, yea and to be an Agent as well as a Patient in dying. Ioh. 10. 18. Yea and actively he was to contribute ſomthing for his own death, and offer himſelf willingly to death, Mat. 28. 20. And knowing the houre that he was to depart out of this world unto the Father, Iohn Chriſts nonreſiſting of Pilate, no plea againſt reſiſtance of unjuſt violence▪13. 1. would not onelyonly not flee, which is to Royaliſts lawfull, to us a ſpeciall point of reſiſtance, Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh. 18. 4, 5, 6, 7. and but upbraided Peter, as the Agent of Sathan, who would diſſwade him to die, Mat. 16. 22, 23. and would fight for him. And he doth not fetch any argument againſt Peters drawing of his ſword, from the unlawfulneſſe of ſelf-defence, and innocent reſiſtance, (which he ſhould have done, if Royaliſts plead with any colour of reaſon from his example, againſt the lawfulneſſe of Reſiſtance and ſelf-defence) but from the abſolute power of God. 2. From Gods poſitive wil, who commanded him to die, Mat. 26. 53, 54. if therefore Royaliſts prove any thing againſt the lawfulneſſe of reſiſting Kings, when they offer (moſt unjuſtly) violence to the life of Gods ſervants, from this one meerly extraordinary and rare example of Chriſt, the like whereof was never in the world, they may from the ſame example prove it unlawfull to flee; for Chriſt would not flee, Pſal. 40. 6, 7. Heb. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9. Ioh. 14. 31. Ioh. 18. 4, 5, 6, 7. 2. They may prove that people ſought by a Tyrant to be crucifyed for the Cauſe of God, or to reveale and diſcover themſelves to an Armie of men who come to ſeek them, Ioh. 13. 1, 2. Ioh. 18. 4, 5, 6, 7. 3. That Martyrs are of purpoſe to goe to the place where they know they ſhall be apprehended and put to death, for this Chriſt did, and are willingly to offer themſelves to the enemies Armie, for ſo did Chriſt, Ioh. 14. 3. Mar. 14. 41, 42. Mat. 26. 46, 47. and ſo by hisMany things not imitable by us in Chriſts non-reſiſtance. example, all the Parliament, all the Innocents of the Citie of London, and Aſſemblie of Divines, are obliged to lay downe Armes, and to goe to their owne death to Prince Rupert, and the bloody Iriſh Rebels. 4. By this example it is unlawfull to reſiſt the cutthroats of a King, for Ceſar in his owne Royall perſon, the High Prieſt in perſon came not out againſt Chriſt. Yea it is not lawfull for the Parliament to reſiſt a Iudas, who hath fled as a traiterous Apoſtate from the Truth and the Temple of Chriſt. 5. It is not lawful for innocents to defend themſelves by any violence againſt the invaſion of ſuperiours in D. Fernes three caſes, in which he alloweth reſiſtance. 1. When the Invaſion is ſudden. 2. Vnavoidable. 3. Without D. Ferne, part 3. §. 2. p. 10.all colour of Law and Reaſon. In the two laſt caſes, Royaliſts defend the lawfulnes of ſelf-defence. 6. If the example be preſſed, Chriſt did not this and this, he reſiſted not with violence to ſave his owne life, therefore we are to abſtaine from reſiſtance, and ſuch and ſuch meanes of ſelf-preſervation, then becauſe Chriſt appealed not from inferiour Judges to the Emperour Caeſar; who, no doubt, would have ſhewne him more favour, then the Scribes and Phariſees did, and becauſe Chriſt conveyed not a humble ſupplication to his Soveraigne and Father Caeſar, then becauſe he proffered not a humble petition to Prince Pilate for his life, he being an innocent man, and his cauſe juſt, becauſe he neither conduced an Orator to pleade his owne juſt cauſe, nor did he ſo plead for himſelfe, and give in word and writ, all lawfull and poſſible defences for his own ſafety, but anſwered many things with ſilence, to the admiration of the Judge, Marke 15. 3, 4. 5. and was thrice pronounced by the Judge to be innocent, Luke 22. ver. 23. becauſe, I ſay, Chriſt did not all theſe for his owne life, therefore it is unlawfull for Scotland and England to appeale to the King, to ſupplicate, to give in Appologi…s, &c. I thinke Royaliſts dare not ſay ſo. But if they ſay, he would not reſiſt, and yet might have done all theſe lawfully, becauſe theſe be lawfull meanes, and reſiſtance with the ſword unlawfull; becauſe, He that taketh the ſword, ſhall periſh by the ſword. Let me Anſwer then, 1. They leave the argument from Chriſts example, who was thus farre ſubject to higher powers, that he would not reſiſt, and plead from the unlawfulneſſe of reſiſtance; this is petitio principii. 2. He that taketh the ſword without Gods warrant, which Peter had not, but the contrary, he was himſelfe a Sathan to Chriſt, who would but councell him not to die; but there is no ſhadow of a word to prove that violent reſiſting is unlawfull, when the King and his Iriſh cut-throats purſue us unjuſtly; onelyonly Chriſt ſaith, when God may deliver extraordinarily by his Angels, except it be his abſolute will, that his Son ſhould drink the cup of death, then to take the ſword, when God hath declared his will on the contrary, is unlawfull; and that is all: Though I doe not queſtion but Chriſts asking for ſwords, and his arreſting all his enemies to the ground, Ioh. 18. 6. backward, is a juſtifying of ſelfe-defence. But hit herto it is cleare by Chriſts example, that he onelyonly was commanded to ſuffer. Now the ſecond caſe in which ſuffering falleth under a Commandement, is indirectly and comparatively, when it commeth to the election of the witneſſe of Jeſus, that it is referred to them, either to deny the truth of Chriſt and his name, or then to ſuffer death, the choiſe is apparently evident, and this choiſe that perſecuters referre us unto, is to us a Commandement of God, that we muſt chooſe ſuffering for Chriſt, and refuſe ſinning againſt Chriſt: but the ſuppoſition muſt ſtand, that this alternative is unavoydable, that is not in our power to decline either ſuffering for Chriſt, or denying of Chriſt before men; otherwayes no man is to expect the reward of a witneſſe of Ieſus, who having a lawfull poſſible meanes of eſchewing ſuffering, doth yet caſt himſelfe into ſuffering needleſly. But I prove that ſuffering by men of this world, falleth not formally and directly under any divine poſitive Law, for the Law of nature, what ever Arminians in their Declaration, or this Arminian excommunicate think with them, (forConſeſ. Remonſtrant. they teach that God gave a Commandement to Adam, to abſtaine from ſuch and ſuch fruit with paine and trouble to ſinleſſe nature) doth not command ſuffering, or any thing contrary to nature as natureSuffering not commanded of God formally. is ſinleſſe: I prove it thus, 1. What ever falleth under a poſitive Commandement of God, I may ſay here, under any Commandement of God, is not a thing under the free will and power of others, from whom we are not diſcended neceſſarily by naturall generation, but that men of the world kill me, even theſe from whom I am not diſcended by naturall generation (which I ſpeake to exclude Adam, who killed all his poſterity) is not in my free will, either as if they had my common nature in that act, or as if I were acceſſory by counſell, conſent, or approbation to that act, for this is under the free-will and power of others, not under my owne freewill: Ergo, that I ſuffer by others is not under my free-will, and cannot fall under a Commandement of God: And certainly, it is an irrationall Law, (glorified be his name) that God ſhould command Antipas either formally to ſuffer, or formally not to ſuffer death by theſe of the Synagogue of Sathan, Revel. 2. 13. becauſe if they be pleaſed not to kill him, it is not in his free-will to be killed by them; and if they ſhall have him in their power (except God extraordinarily deliver) it is not in his power, in an ordinary providence, not to be killed. 2. All theſe places of Gods word, that recommendeth ſuffering to the followers of Chriſt, do not command formally that we ſuffer; Ergo, ſuffering falleth not formally under any Commandement of God; I prove the Antecedent, becauſe if they be conſidered, they prove only that comparatively we are to chooſe rather to ſuffer, then to deny Chriſt before men, Mat. 10, 28, 32. Revel. 2. 13. Mat. 10. 37. Mat. 16. 24. c. 19. 29. or then they command not ſuffering according to the ſubſtance of the paſſion, but according to the manner, that we ſuffer willingly,We are comparatively rather to ſuffer, then to deny the truth, but we are not commanded formally to ſuffer. cheerfully, and patiently. Hence Chriſts word to take up his Croſſe, which is not a meere paſſion, but commendeth an act of the vertue of patience. Now no Chriſtian vertue conſiſteth in a meer paſſion, but in laudable habits, and good and gracious acts, and the Text we are now on, 1 Pet. 2. 18, 19. doth not recommend ſuffering from the example of Chriſt, but patient ſuffering, and ſo the word foreign, not ſimply enjoyned, but foreign, in all feare, ver. 18. and the words foreign and foreign, to ſuffer with patience, as 2 Tim, 3. 11. 1 Cor. 10. 13. and foreign is to ſuffer patiently, 1 Cor. 13. 7. Love, foreign, ſuffereth all things, Heb. 12. 17. if you ſuffer correction, 1 Tim. 5. 5. She continueth patiently in prayers, Heb. 12. 2. Chriſt endured the Croſſe (patiently) & Rom. 15. 5. Rom. 8. 25. Luk. 8. 15. & 21. 29. the derivats hence ſignifie patience, ſo doe all our Interpreters, Beza, Calvin, Marlorat, and Popiſh expoſitors, as Lorinus, Eſtius, Carthuſian, Lyra, Hugo Cardinalis expound it of patient ſuffering, and the text is clear, it is ſuffering like Chriſt, without rendring evil for evil, and reviling for reviling. 3. Suffering ſimply according to ſubſtance of the paſſion (I cannot ſay action) is common to good and ill, and to the wicked, yea to the damned in hell, who ſuffer againſt their will, and that cannot be joyned according to its ſubſtance as an act of formall obedience and ſubjection to higher powers, Kings, Fathers, Maſters, by force of the fifth commandement, and of the place Rom. 13. 1, 2.Patience in ſuffering is commanded, not ſuffering it ſelf formally. Which according to its ſubſtance, wicked men ſuffer, and the damned in hell alſo againſt their will. 4. Paſſive obedience to wicked Emperours can but be enjoyned, Rom. 13. but onelyonly in the manner, and upon ſuppoſition, that we muſt be ſubject to them, and muſt ſuffer againſt our wills, all the ill of puniſhment, that they can inflict, we muſt ſuffer patiently; and becauſe it is Gods permiſſive will that they puniſh us unjuſtly; for it is not Gods ruling and approving will (called voluntas ſigni) that they ſhould againſt the law of God and man kill us, and perſecute us, and therefore neither Rom. 13. nor 1 Pet. 2. nor any place in Gods word, nor any common Divine, naturall, of nations, or any municipal Law commandeth formally obedience paſſive, or ſubjection paſſive, or non-reſiſtance under the notion of paſſive obedience, yea to me obedience paſſive, (if we ſpeak of obedience properly called as relative eſſentially to a law) is a chymera, a dream, and repugnantia in adjecto, and therefore I utterly deny that reſiſtance paſſive or ſubjection paſſive, doth formally fal under either commandment of God affirmative, or negative, onelyonly the unlawfull manner of reſiſtance by way of revenge, or for defence of Popery and falſe Religion, and out of impatient tolleration of Monarchy or any Tyranny is forbidden in Gods word, and certainly all the words uſed Rom. 13. as they fall under a formal commandement of God, or words of action, not of any Chymericall paſſive obedience, as we are not to reſiſt actively Gods ordinance, as his ordinance, ver. 1. 2. that is, to reſiſt God actively. 2. We are to do good works, not evil, if we would have the ruler no terror to us, ver. 3. 3. We muſt not do ill, if we would be free of vengeances ſword: ver. 7. we are to pay tribute and to give fear and honour to the ruler, ver. 7. all which are evidently actions, not paſſive ſubjection, and if any paſſive ſubjection be commanded, it is not here, nor in the firſt commandement, commanded, but in the firſt commandement under the hand of patience and ſubmiſſion under Gods hand in ſufferings, or in the third commandement under the hand of rather dying for Chriſt, or denying his truth before men; hence I argue here Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. and Tit. 3. is nothing elſe, but an expoſition of the fifth commandement, but in the fifth commandement onelyonly active obedience is formally commanded, and the ſubordination of inferiours to ſuperiours is ordained, and paſſive obedience is no where commanded, but onelyonly modus rei, the manner of ſuffering, and the occaſion of the commandement, here it is thought that the Iewes converted under this pretext, that they were Gods people, beleeved that they ſhould not be ſubject to the Romans. A certaine Galilean made the Galileans beleeve that they ſhould not pay tribute to Strangers, and that they ſhould call none Lord, but the God of heaven, as Ioſeph. ſaith, Antiq. Iudaic. l. 20. c. 2. and De bell. Iudaic. l. 7. c. 29. yea and Hieron. Com. in 3. Tit. ſaith, At this time the ſect of the Galileans were on foot. It is like the Jews were thought to be Galileans, and that their liberty purchaſed in Chriſt could not conſiſt with the order of maſter and ſervant, King and ſubject. And to remove this, Paul eſtabliſheth Magiſtracie, and commandeth obedience in the Lord; and he is more to prove the office of the Magiſtrate to be of God, then any other thing; and to ſhew what is his due, then to eſtabliſh abſoluteneſſe in Nero to be of God; yea to me, every word in the Text ſpeaketh limitedneſſe of Princes, and cryeth downe abſoluteneſſe: 1. No power of God, 2. No ordinance of God, 3. Who is a terror to evill, but a praiſe to good works, 4. No miniſter of God for good, &c. can be a power to which we ſubmit our ſelves on earth, as next unto God, without controlment. 5. That paſſive obedience falleth formally under no commandement of God, I prove thus: All obedience lyable to a divine commandement, doth commend morally the performer of obedience, as having a will conformed to Gods morall Law, and deformity betwixt the will of him who performeth not obedience, involveth the non-obedient in wrath and guiltineſſe. But non-paſſive ſubjection to the ſword of the Judge doth not morally commend him that ſuffereth not puniſhment, for no man is formally a ſinner againſt a morall law, becauſe he ſuffereth not the ill of puniſhment; nor is he morally good, or to be commended, becauſe hee ſuffereth ill of puniſhment, but becauſe he doth the ill of ſin. And all evil of puniſhment u…juſtly inflicted hath Gods voluntas beneplaciti, the inſtrumentall and hidden decree of God, which ordereth both good and ill, Epheſ. 1. 11. for its rule and cauſe, and hath not Gods will of approbation called, voluntas ſigni, for its rule, both is contrary to that will; I am ſure Epiphanius li. 1. tom. 3. hereſ. 40. Baſilius in Pſal. 32. Nazianzen Orat. ad ſubd. & imper at. Hilar. li. ad Conſtant. Auguſt. citeth theſe words, and ſaith the ſame. If then paſſive ſubjection be not commanded, non-ſubjection paſſive cannot be forbidden, and this text, Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2. cannot a whit help the bad cauſe of Royaliſts; All then muſt be reduced to ſome action of reſiſting, arguments for paſſive ſubjection though there were ſhip-fulls of them, they cannot help us.
Aſſert. 3. By the place 1 Pet. 2. The ſervant unjuſtly buffeted isRe-offending in ended is contrary to patient ſubjection. not to buffet his maſter again, but to bear patiently as Chriſt did, who when he was reviled, did not revile again. Not becauſe the place condemneth reſiſtance for ſelf-defence, but becauſe buffeting again is formally re-offending, not defending; defending is properly a warding of a blow or ſtroak: if my neighbour come to kill me, and I can by no means ſave my life by flight, I may defend my ſelf, and all Divines ſay, I may rather kill, ere I be killed, becauſe I am nearer by the law of nature, and dearer to my ſelf, and my own life then to my brother: but if I kill him out of malice, or hatred, the act of defending, by the unlawfull manner of doing, becometh an act of offending, and murther, whence the mind of the blood-ſhedder will vary the nature of the action, from whence this corolarie doth naturally iſſue, that the phyſicall action of taking away the life makethThe phyſicall act of taking away of the li… make…h not hom…cide. not murther, nor homicide, and ſo the phyſical action of offending my neighbour is not murther: Abraham may kill his ſon, he for whom the cities of refuge were ordained, and did kill his brother, yet not hating him, he was not, by Gods law, judged a murtherer. And 2. It neceſſarily hence followeth, that an act which is phyſically an act of offending my brother, yea even to the taking away of his life is often morally and legally an act of lawfull ſelf-defence: an offending of another neceſſitated from the ſole invention of ſelf-defence is no more but an act of innocent ſelf defence: if David with his men had killed any of Sauls men, in a ſet battel, David and his men onelyonly intending ſelf defence, the waren Davids part was meere defenſive, for phyſicall actions of killing, indifferent of themſelves, yet imperated by a principle of naturall ſelf-defence, and clothed with this formall end of ſelf-defence, or according to the ſubſtance of the action, the act is of ſelf-defence. If therefore one ſhall wound me deadly, and I know it is my death, after that, to kill the killer of my ſelfe, I being onelyonly a private man, muſt be no act of ſelf-defence, but of homicide, becauſe it cannot be imperated by a ſinleſſe dictate of a naturall conſcience, for this end of ſelf-defence, after I know I am killed. Any mean not uſed for preventing death, muſt be an act of revenge, not of ſelf-defence, for it is phyſically unſutable for the intended end of ſelf-defence. And ſo for a ſervant buffeted, to buffet againe, is of the ſame nature: the ſecond buffet not being a conducible meane to ward the firſt buffet, but a meane to procure heavier ſtroakes and poſſibly killing, it cannot be an act of ſelf defence, for an act of ſelf defence muſt be an act deſtinated ex naturarei, onelyonly for defence, and if it be known to be an act of ſole offending, without any known neceſſary relation of a mean to ſelfdefence as the end, it cannot be properly an act of ſelf-defence.
Aſſert. 4. When the matter is lighter, as in paying tribute, or ſuffering a buffet of a rough maſter, though un juſtly, we are not to uſeWe have a greater dominion over our goods and members (mutilation excepted) then over our life. any act of re-offending. For though▪ I be not abſolute Lord of my owne goods, and ſo may not at my ſole pleaſure give tribute and expend monies to the hurting of my children, where I am not by Gods Law or Mans Law obliged to pay tribute; and though I be not an abſolute Lord of my members, to expoſe face, and cheeks, and back to ſtripes and whips at my owne meere will, yet have we a comparative dominion given to us of God in matters of goods, and diſpoſing of our members, (I think I may except the caſe of mutilation, which is a little death) for buffets, becauſe Chriſt no doubt to teach us the like, would rather give of his goods, and pay tribute, where it is not due, then that this ſcandall lay on the way of Chriſt, that Chriſt was no loyall ſubject to lawfull Emperors and Kings. And 1 Cor. 9. Paul would rather not take ſtipend, though it was due to him, then hinder the courſe of the Goſpel. And the like is 1 Cor. 6. where the Corinthians were rather to ſuffer loſſe in their goods, then to goe to Law before Infidel Judges, and by the like to prevent greater inconveniences, and mutilation, and death; the Chriſtian ſervant hath that dominion over his members, rather to ſuffer buffets, then to ward off buffets with violent reſiſtance. But it is no conſequent that innocent ſubjects ſhould ſuffer death of tyrants, and ſervants be killed by maſters, and yet that they ſhall not be allowed by the law of nature to defend themſelves, by re-offending, when onelyonly ſelf-defence is intended, becauſe we have not that dominion over life and death. And therefore as a man is his brothers murtherer, who, with froward Cain, will not be his brothers keeper, and may preſerve his brothers life, without loſſe of his owne life, when his brother is unjuſtly preſerved; ſo when he may preſerve his owne life, and doth not that which Natures Law alloweth him to doe, rather to kill ere he be killed, he is guilty of ſelf-murther; becauſe he is deficient in the duty of lawfull ſelf-defence. But I grant to offend or kill is not of the nature of defenſive warre, but accidentall thereunto, and yet killing of cut-throats ſent forth by the illegal commandement of the King may be intended, as a mean and a lawfull mean of ſelf-defence. 2. Of two ills of puniſhment, we have a comparative dominion over our ſelves, a man may caſt his goods in the ſea to redeeme his life. So for to redeeme peace, we may ſuffer buffets, but becauſe death is the greateſt ill of puniſhment, God hath not made it eligible to us, when lawfull ſelf defence is at hand; But in defending our own life againſt Tyrannicall power, though we do it by offending and killing, we reſiſt no ordinance of God, onelyonly I judge killing of the King in ſelf-defence not lawfull, becauſe ſelf-defence muſt be national, on juſt cauſes. Let here the reader judge, Barcley l. 3. c. 8. pag. 159. con. Monar. If the King (ſaith he) ſhall vex the Commonwealth or one part thereof, with great and intollerable cruelty; what ſhall the people do? they have (ſaith he) in that caſe a power to reſiſt and defend themſelves from injury, but onelyonly to defend themſelves, not to invade the Prince, nor to Populo quidem hoc caſu reſiſtendi actuendi ſe ab inju…ia poteſtas competir: ſed tuendiſe tantum▪ non autem …in…ipem in…di, & reſiſ…end… injuriae illa…ae, n…n re…dendi a de…ra reveren…ia—non vim p…am u… …iſ… … ….reſiſt the injury, or to recede from reverence due to the Prince. I anſwer 1. Let Barclay or the prelate (if he may carry Barclayes books) or any, difference theſe two, the people may reſiſt a Tyrant, but they may not reſiſt the injuries inflicted by a Tyrants officers & cut-throats. I cannot imagine how to conciliate theſe two: for to reſiſt the cruelty of a King, is but to hold off the injurie by reſiſtance. 2. If this Nero waſte the Common-wealth unſufferably with his cruelty, and remaine a lawful King, to be honoured as a King, who may reſiſt him, according to Royaliſts way? but from Rom. 13. they reſiſt the Ordinance of God. 3. Reſiſting is not a meere ſuffering, nor is it a morall reſiſting by alledging lawes to be broken by him. We had never a queſtion with Royaliſts about ſuch reſiſting. 2. Nor is this reſiſting non-obedience to unjuſt commandements; that reſiſting was never yet in queſtion, by any, except the Papiſts, who in good earneſt, by conſequent, ſay, It is better to obey men, then God. 3. I… is then reſiſting by bodily violence; but if the King have ſuch an abſolute power given him by God, as Royaliſts fancie from Rom. 13. 1, 2. 1 Sam. 8. 9, 11. I know not how Subjects have any power given them of God, to reſiſt the power from God, and Gods Ordinance. And if this reſiſting extend not it ſelfe to defenſive wars,Defen…ve warres cannot be without offending. how ſhall the people defend themſelves from injuries and the greateſt injuries imaginable, from an Armie of Cut-throats and Idolaters in war comming to deſtroy Religion, ſet up Idolatry, and root out the name of Gods people, and lay waſte the mountaine of the Lords houſe? And if they may defend themſelves by defenſive wars, how can wars be without offending? 3. The law of Nature teacheth to repell violence with violence, when one man is oppreſſed, no leſſe then when the Common-wealth is oppreſſed. Barclay ſhould have given either Scripture, or the law of Nature for his warrant here. 4. Let us ſuppoſe a King can be perjured, how are the Eſtates of the Kingdome, who are his Subjects, by Barclays way, not to challenge ſuch a Tyrant of his perjurie? He did ſwear, he ſhould be meek and clement, and he is now become a furious Lyon, ſhall the flock of God be committed to the keeping of a furious Lyon?
D. Ferne, p. 3. ſect. 2. pag. 9. addeth, Perſonall defence is lawfull againſt ſudden and illegall invaſion, ſuch as Eliſha practiced, even if it were againſt the Prince to ward blowes, and to hold the Princes hand,D. Ferne acknowledgeth violent reſiſting to be lawfull, but not defenſive warres. but not to returne blowes, but generall reſiſtance by Armes, cannot be without many unjuſt violences, and doth immediatelie ſtrike at the order, which is the life of the Common-wealth.
Anſw. If it be naturall to one man to defend himſelf againſt the perſonall invaſion of a Prince, then is it naturall and warrantable to ten thouſand, and to a whole Kingdome; and what reaſon to defraud a Kingdome of the benefit of ſelf-defence, more then one man? Neither grace nor policy deſtroyeth nature: and how ſhall ten or twenty thouſand be defended againſt Cannons and Muſquets that killeth afar off, except they keepe Townes againſt the King, which D. Ferne and others ſay had beene treaſon in David, if he had kept Keilah againſt King Saul, except they be armed to offend, with weapons of the like nature to kill rather then be killed, as the Law of nature teacheth. 3. To hold the hands of the Prince is no leſſe reſiſting violence, then to cut the lap of his garment, which Royaliſts think unlawfull, and is an oppoſing of externall force toDefenſive wars are offenſive only by accid…nt. the Kings perſon. 4. It is true, warres meerely defenſive cannot be but they muſt be offenſive, but they are offenſive by accident, and intended for meere defence, and they cannot be without warres ſinfully offenſive, nor can any warres be in rerum naturâ now, (I except the warres commanded by God, who onelyonly muſt have beene ſinfull in the manner of doing) but ſome innocent muſt be killed; but war…es cannot for that be condemned. 5. Neither are offenſive warres againſt theſe who are no powers and no ordinances of God, ſuch as are cut-throate Iriſh, condemned Prelates and Papiſts now in Armes, more deſtructive to the order eſtabliſhed by God, then acts of lawfull war are, or the puniſhing of robbers; and by all this Proteſtants in Scotland and England, ſhould remaine in their houſes unarmed, while the Papiſts and Iriſh come on them armed and cut their throats, and ſpoyle and plunder at will.
Nor can we think that reſiſtance to a King in holding his handsThere is …o holding of an ar…ies hands, or warding of ſtroakes, …ut by …ffenſive wars conjoyned by accid…nt with defenſive wars. can be naturall, if he be ſtronger, it is not a naturall meane of ſelfepreſervation: Nature hath appoynted innocent and offending violence, againſt unjuſt violence, as a meanes of ſelfe-preſervation. Goliahs ſword is no naturall meanes to hold Sauls hands, for a ſword hath no fingers; and if Saul, 1. ſuddainly, 2. without colour of Law or reaſon, 3. inevitably ſhould make perſonall invaſion on David to kill him; Dr. Ferne ſaith he may reſiſt, but reſiſting is eſſentially a reaction of violence; ſhew us Scripture or reaſon for violent holding a Kings hands in an unjuſt perſonall invaſion, without any other reaction of offence: Walter Torrils killed King W. Rufus, as he was ſhooting at a Deere; the Earle of Suffolk killed Henrie the 8. at Tilting; there is no treaſonable intention here, and ſo no homicide: Defenſive wars are offenſive, ex eventu & effectu, not ex cauſa, or ex intentione.
But it may be asked, if no paſſive ſubjection at all be commanded as due to Superiours? Rom. 13. Anſw. None properly ſo called, that is, purely paſſive, onelyonly weare for feare of the ſword to doe our duety. 2. We are to ſuffer ill of puniſhment of Tyrants, ex hypotheſi, that they inflict that ill on us, ſome other way, and in ſome other notion then we are to ſuffer ill of equals, for we are to ſuffer of equals not for any paternall authority that they have over us, as certainly wee are to ſuffer ill inflicted by Superiours. I demand of Royaliſts, if Tyrants inflicting evill of puniſhment upon Subjects unjuſtly, be powers ordained of God. 2. If to reſiſt a power in Tyrannicall acts be to reſiſt God. 3. Since wee are not to yield active obedience to all the commandements of Superiours, whether they be good, or ill, by vertue of this place, Rom. 13. how is it that we may not deny paſſive ſubjection to all the Acts of violence exerciſed whether of injuſtice, whether in theſe Acts of violence, wherein the Prince in actu ex cito, and formally puniſheth not in Gods ſtead, or in theſe wherein he puniſh…th Tyrannically in no formall or actuall ſubordination to God we owe paſſive ſubjection: I deſire an anſwer to theſe.
Aſſert. 5. Flying from the tyranny of abuſed Authority, is aFlying is reſiſtance. plaine reſiſting of Rulers in their unlawfull oppreſſion and perverting of judgement.
All Royaliſts grant it lawfull, and ground it upon the Law of Nature, that thoſe that are perſecuted by tyrannous Princes may flee, and it is evident from Chriſts Commandment, If they perſecute you in one City, flee to another, Mat. 10. 23. and by Mat. 23. 34. Chriſt fled from the fury of the Jewes, till his houre was come; Elias, Vriah, Ier. 26. 20. Ioſeph and Mary fled; the Martyres did hide themſelves in caves and dens of the earth, Heb. 11. 37, 38. Paul was let downe through a window in a basket at Damaſcus; this certainly is reſiſtance: For looke what legall power God hath given to a tyrannous Ruler, remaining a power ordained of God, to ſummon legally, and ſet before his tribunall the ſervants of God, that he may kill them and murther them unjuſtly, that ſame legall power he hath to murther them: For if it be a legall power to kill the innocent, and ſuch a power as they are obliged in conſcience to ſubmit unto, they are obliged in conſcience to ſubmit to the legall power of citing; for it is one and the ſame power: Now if reſiſtance to the one power be unlawfull, reſiſtance to the other muſt be unlawfull alſo, and if the law of ſelf-defence, or command of Chriſt warrant me to diſobey a tyrannous power, commanding me to compeir to receive the ſentence of death, that ſame Law farre more ſhall warrant me to reſiſt and deny paſſive ſubjection, in ſubmitting to the un-unj…ſt ſentence of death. 2. When a murtherer ſelf-convicted fleeth from the juſt power of a Judge lawfully citing him, he reſiſteth the juſt power ordained of God, Rom. 3. Ergo, by the ſame reaſon if we flee from a tyrannous power, we reſiſt that tyrannous power, and ſo by Royaliſts ground we reſiſt the ordinance of God by flying. Now to be diſobedient to a juſt power ſummoning a malefactor, is to hinder that lawfull power, to be put forth in lawfull Acts, for the Judge cannot purge the land of blood, if the murtherer flee. 3. When the King of Iſrael ſendeth a Captaine, and fifty Lictors to fetch Eliſha, theſe come inſtructed with legall power from the King, if I may lay fetters on their power by flight upon the ground of ſelf-preſervation, the ſame warrant ſhall allow me to oppoſe harmeleſſe violence, for my owne ſafety. 4. Royaliſts hold it unlawfull to keepe a ſtrong hold againſt the King, though the Fort be not the Kings houſe; and though that David ſhould not have offended, if he had kept Keilah againſt Saul, Dr. Ferne and Royaliſts ſay, it had beene unlawfull reſiſtance. What more reſiſtance is made to Royall power by wals interpoſed, then by Seas and miles of earth interpoſed? Both are phyſicall reſiſtance, and violent in their kinde.