Selected quad for the lemma: hand_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A55056
|
The present state of New-England impartially considered in a letter to the clergy.
|
Palmer, John, 1650-1700?; F. L.
|
1689
(1689)
|
Wing P247; ESTC W19307
|
40,586
|
47
|
so strictly enjoyned that if we perform them not we may justly be put to Death As for a Centinel to forsake his Station But neither is this rashly to be understood to be the Will of the Law-giver Nor do men assume so much Right over either themselves or others unless it be when so far forth as extreme Necessity requires it For all humane laws are so constituted or so to be understood as that there should be some allowance for humane Frailty The right understanding of this Law of Resisting or not-Resisting the Highest powers in cases of inevitable Necessity seems much to depend upon the Intention of those who first entered into Civil Society from whom the Right of Government is devolved upon the persons governing who had they been demanded Whether they would have imposed such a yoke upon all Mankind as death it self rather than in any case by force to repel the Insolencies of their Superiours I much question whether they would have granted it unless it had been in such a case where such Resistance could not be made without great Commotions in the Common-Wealth or the certain Destruction of many Innocents for what Charity commends in such a case to be done may I doubt not pass for an humane Law. But some may say that this rigid Obligation â—o dye rather than at any time to Resist Injuries done by our Superiours is not imposed on us by any Humane but by the Divine Law. But we must observe That men did not at first unite themselves in Civil Society by any special Command from God but voluntarily out of a sence they had of their own impotency to repel force and Violence wh lst they lived solitarily and in Families appart whence the civil power takes it Rise For which cause it is that St. Peter calls it an humane Ordinance although it be else-where called a Divine Ordinance because this wholesome Constitution of men was approved of by God Himsef But God in approving an humane Law may be thought to approve of it as an humane law after an humane manner Barkly who was the stoutest Champion in defending Kingly Power doth notwithstanding thus far allow That the People or the Nobler part of them have a Right to defend themselves against cruel Tyranny and yet he confesseth that the whole Body of the people is subject unto the King. Barkley Lib. 3. contra Monarchomach c. 8. Now this I shall easily admit That the more we desire to secure any thing by Law the more express and peremptory should that Law be and the fewer exceptions there should be from it for they that have a mind to violate that Law will presently seek shelter and think themselves priviledged by those Exceptions though their Cases be far different yet dare I not condemn indifferently either every private man or every though lesser part of the people who as their last Refuge in cases of extream Necessity have anciently made use of their Arms to defend themselves yet with respect had to the Common Good. For David who saving in some particular Facts was so celebrated for his integrity did yet entertain first four hundred and afterwards more armed men to what end unless for the safegaurd of his own person against any violence that should be offered him But this also we must note That David did not this until he had been assured both by Jonathan and by many other infallible Arguments that Saul sought his life and that even then he never invaded any City nor made an offensive Warr against any but lurked only for his own security sometimes in Mountains sometimes in Caves and such like devious places and sometimes in forreign Nations with this Resolution to decline all occasions of annoying his own Countrey-men A Fact parallel to this of David's we may read in the Maccabees For whereas some seek to defend the Wars of the Maccabees upon this ground That Antiochus was not a King but an Usurper this I account but frivolous for in the whole Story of the Macabees we shall never find Antiochus mentioned by any of their own party by any other Title than by that of King and deservedly For the Hebrews had long before submitted to the 〈◊〉 Empire in whose Right Antiochus succeeded And whereas the Hebrew Laws forbad a Stranger to be set over them this was to be understood by a voluntary Election and not by an involuntary Compulsion through the Necessity of the times And whereas others say That the Maccabees did act by the peoples Right to whom belonged the Right of Governing themselves by their own Laws neither is this probable For the Jews being first conquered by Nebuchadâ—osor were by the Right of War subject unto him and afterwards became by the â—ame Law subject to the Medes and Persians as successours to the Chaldeans whose whole Empire did at last devolve upon the Macedonians And hence it is That the Jews in Tactius are termed The most servile of all the Eastern Nations neither did they require any Covenants or Conditions from Alexander or his successours but yielded themselves freely without any Limitations or Exceptions as before they had done unto Darius And though they were permitted sometimes to use their own Rites and publickly to exercise their own Laws yet was not this due unto them by any Law that was added unto the Empire but only by a precarious Right that was indulged unto them by the Favour of their Kings There was nothing then that could justifie the Maccabees in their taking of Arms but that invincible Law of Extream Necessity which might do it so long as they contained themselves within the bounds of Self-Preservation and in imitation of David betook themselves to secret places in order to their own security never offering to make use of their Armes unless violently assaulted In the mean time great Care is to be taken that even when we are thus enforced to defend our selves in cases of certain and extream danger we spare the person of the King for they that conceive the carriage of David towards Saul to proceed not so much from the Necessity of Duty as out of some deeper consideration are mistaken for David himself declares that no man can be innocent that stretcheth forth his hand against the Lord 's Annointed 1. Sam. 26. 9. Because he very well knew that it was written in the Law Thou shalâ— not â—â—e Gods that is the Supream Judges Thou shalt not curse the Rulers of thy people Exod. 22. 28. In which Law special mention being made of the Supream power it evidently shews That some special Duty towards them is required of us Wherefore Optatus Melevitanus speaking of this Fact of David saith That God's special Command coming fresh into his memory did so restrain him that he could not hurt Saul though his mortal enemy Wherefore he brings in David thus reasoning with himself Volebam hostem vincere sed prius est Divina praecepta observare Willingly I would overcome
Private men may make war against Princes if not theire owne as Abraham against the King of Babylon and his Neighbours So may Soveraign Princes against private men whether they be their owne subjects as David against Ishbosheth and his party or Strangers as the Romans against Pirates The onely doubt is whether any person or persons publique or private can make a lawful War against those that are set over them whether supream or subordinate unto them And in the First place It is on all hands granted That they that are Commissionated by the highest powers may make War against theire Inferiors as Nehemiah against â—obiâ— Sanballat by the Authority of Artaxtrxes But whether it be lawful for Subjects to make warre against those who have the supream power over them or against such as act by according to their Authority is the thing in question It is also by all good men acknowledged That if the Commands of a Prince shall manifestly contradict either the Law of Nature or the Divine precepts they are not to be obeyed for the Apostles when they urged that Maxim Act. 4. Deo magis quam hominibus obediendum That God is rather to be obeyed than man unto such as forbad them to preach in the Name of Jesus did but appeal to a principle of right Reason which Nature had insculp't in every mans breast and which Plato expresseth in almost the very same words But yet if either for this or any other cause any Injury be offered unto us because it so please him that hath the Soveraigne power it ought rather to be patiently tolerated than by Force resisted For although we do not owe an active Obedience to such commands of Princes yet we do owe a passive though we ought not to violate the laws of God or of Nature to fulfill the Will of the greatest Monarch yet ought we rather patiently to submit to whatsoever he shall inflict upon us for not Obeying than by Resistance to violate our Countryes Peact The best and safest Course we can steer in such a case is Either by Flight to preserve our selves or resolvedly to undergo whatsoever shall be imposed upon us 2. War against Superiors as such is unlawful And naturally all men have a Right to repell Injuries from themselves by Resisting them as we have already said but Civil Societies being once Instituted for the Preservation of the Peace there presently succeeded unto that Common-Wealth a certain greater Right over us ours so far forth as was necessary for that end And therefore that promiscuous Right that Nature gave us to râ—ssst the Common-Wealth for the maintaining of good Order and publick Peace hath a Right to prohibit which without all doubt it doth seeing that otherwise it cannot obtein the end it proposeth to it self For in case that Promiscuous Right of forcible Resistance should be tolerated it would be no longer a Common-Wealth that is a Sanctuary against Oppression but a confused Rabble such as that of the Cyclops whereof the Poet thus Where every Ass May on his wife children judgement pass A dissolute Company where All are speakers and none hearers like to unto that which Valerius records of the Bebriâ—ii Who all Leagues and Laws disdain And Justice which men's minds in peace retain Salust makes mention of a wild and savage people living like Beasts in Woods and mountains without Lawes and without Government whom he calls Aborigixes and in another place of the Getuli who had neither Lawes good Customs nor any Princes to govern them But Cities cannot subsist without these Generale pactum est societatis humanae Regibus obâ—aiâ—â— All humane societies saith St. Augustine unanimously agree in this to obey Kings So Aeschylus Kings live by their owne Lawes Subject to none And Sophocles They Princes are obey we must what not To the same Tune sings Euripides Folly in Kings must be with patience born Whereunto agrees that of Tacitus Principi summum rerum arbitrium Dii dederunt c. Subditis obsequii gloria relicta est God hath invested a Prince with Soveraign power leaving nothing to Subjects but the Glory of Obedience And here also Base things seem noble when by Princes done What they Impesâ— bear thou be 't right or wrong Sen. Wherewith agrees that of Salust Impune quid vis facere hoc est Regem esse To do any thing without fear of punishment is peculiar to Kings for as Mark Anthony urged in Herod 's Case If he were accountable for what he hath done as a King he could not be a King. Hence it is that the Majesty of such as have Soveraign power whether in one or more is fenced with so many and so severe Lawes and the Licentiousnesse of Subjects restrained with such sharp and exquisite Torments which were unreasonable if to resist them were lawfull If a Souldier resist his Captain that strikes him and but lay hold on his Paâ—tizan he shall be cashiered but if he either breake it or offer to strike againe he shall be put to Death For as Aristotle observes If he that is an Officer strike he shall not be struck againe 3. The Vnlawfulness of making War against our Superiours is proved by the Jewish Law. Jos 1. 18. 1. Sam. 8. 11. Dent. 17. 14. By the Hebrew Law He that behaved himself contumaciously against either the High Priest or against him who was extraordinarily by God ordained to govern his people was to be put to death and that which in the eighth Chapter of the first Booke of Samuel is spoken of the Right of Kings to him that throughly inspects it is neither to be understood of their true and just Rights that is of what they may do â—ustly and honestly for the Duty of Kings is much otherwise described Deut 8 11. nor is it to be understood barely of what he will do for then it had signified nothing that was singular or extraordinary for private men do the same to private men But it is to be understood of such a Fact as usurps or carries with it the priviledge of what is right that is that it must not be restisted although it be not right for Kings have a Right peculiar to themselves and what in others is punishable in them is not That old saying Summâ—m jus summa injuria Extreme right is extreme Wrong is best sitted to the Case of Kings whose absolute power makes that seem right which strictly taken is not so There is a main difference between Right in this sense taken and Just for in the former sence it comprehends whatsoever may be done without fear of Punishment but Just respect only things lawful and honest And though some Kings there be who are what Servius in Cicero's Philippicks is commanded to be Magis justitiae quam Juris consulti more regardful of their honour and duty than of their power and prerogatives yet this doth not diminish their Soveraign Right because if they will they may do