« AnteriorContinuar »
duty here enjoined: it seems adequately to consist of two things,
1. A forbearance of all hostile actions; and that in a double respect. (1.) In a way of prevention, 8. (2.) Of retaliation, 10.
2. A forbearance of injurious, provoking words, 13.
II. The measures and proportions by which it is to be determined are expressed in these words: if it be possible,
Now possible may be taken two ways: 1. As it is opposed to naturally impossible, and that which cannot be done, 15. 2. As opposed to morally impossible, and that which cannot be done lawfully, 15.
But the observance of peace being limited by the measure of lawful, all inquiries concerning the breaking of it are reducible to these two:
1. Whether it be at all lawful.
2. Supposing it lawful, when and where it ought to be judged so.
Under the first is discussed that great question, whether war can be lawful for Christians, 17.
War is of two distinct kinds. 1. Defensive, in order to keep off and repel an evil designed to the public. 2. Offensive, for revenging a public injury done to a community. And it is allowable upon the strength of these arguments:
(1.) As it (the defensive) is properly an act of self-preservation, 17.
(2.) As it (the offensive) is a proper act of distributive justice, 19.
(3.) Because St. John the Baptist, Christ himself, and the apostles, judged the employment of a soldier lawful, 21.
The ground of the Socinians' arguments in this case, viz. that God, under the Mosaical covenant, promised only temporal possessions to his people, therefore war was lawful to them; but now, under the covenant of grace through Christ, has made no promise of temporal enjoyments, but on the contrary bids us to despise them, and therefore has
taken from us all right of war and resistance. This argument examined and confuted, 23. And
The scriptures produced by those who abet the utter unlawfulness of war examined and explained. As,
I. Matt. v. 89. Rom. xii. 17, 19. 28.
II. Isaiah ii. 4. 31.
III. Matthew xxvi. 52. 33.
IV. James iv. 1. 34.
Under the second inquiry, supposing it lawful, when and where it ought to be judged so?
First, some general grounds, that may authorize war, are laid down. As when those with whom we are at peace,
1. Declare that they will annoy us, unless we cut off our limbs, &c. and upon our refusal disturb us, 37.
2. Declare war with us, unless we will renounce our religion, 37.
3. Injure us to that degree as a nation, as to blast our honour and reputation, 38.
4. Declare war with us, unless we will quit our civil rights, 38.
Secondly, some particular cases are resolved; as,
First case. Whether it be lawful for subjects in any case to make war upon the magistrate? 39.
Grotius's seven cases, wherein he asserts it to be lawful,
David Paræus his arguments, in a set and long dispute upon Rom. xiii. examined and answered, 43.
Second case. Whether it be lawful for one private man to make war upon another in those encounters which we commonly call duels? 49. And here are set down,
1. The cases in which a duel is lawful. As (1.) When two malefactors condemned to die are appointed by the magistrate to fight, upon promise of life to the conqueror, 49. (2.) When two armies are drawn out, and the decision of the battle is cast upon a single combat, 50. (3.) When one challenges another, and resolves to kill him, unless he accepts the combat, 50.
2. The cases in which duels are utterly unlawful. As
(1.) When they are undertook for vain ostentation, 52. (2.) To purge oneself from some crime objected, 53. (3.) When two agree upon a duel, for the decision of right, mutually claimed by both, agreeing that the right shall fall to the conqueror, 53. (4.) When undertaken for revenge, or some injury done, or affront passed, 54.
But other arguments there are against duels, besides their unlawfulness. As,
1. The judgment of men generally condemning them,
2. The wretched consequences of the thing itself; which are twofold: (1.) Such as attend the conquered person, viz. 1. A disastrous death, 58. 2. Death eternal, 59. (2.) Such as attend the conqueror. 1. In case he is apprehended, 60. 2. Supposing he escapes by flight, 61. 3. Supposing by the intercession of great friends he has outbraved justice, and triumphed over the law by a full acquitment, 62.
Third case. Whether it be lawful to repel force by force, so as to kill another in one's own defence? 64.
If a man has no other means to escape, it is lawful upon two reasons. 1. The great natural right of self-preservation, 65. 2. From that place where Christ commands his disciples to provide themselves swords, 65. Add to this, the suffrage of the civil law, 66.
Yet so to assert the privilege as to take off the danger, it is stated under its due limitations by three inquiries.
1st, What those things are which may be thus defended ; namely,
1. Life, 66. 2. Limbs, 67. 3. Chastity invaded by force, 69. 4. Estate or goods; which case admitting of some more doubt than the others, the opinions for the negative are stated and answered, 69.
Whatsoever a man may thus do for himself, the same also is lawful for him to do in the same danger and extremity of his neighbour, 73.
2dly, What are the conditions required to render such a defence lawful; which are these: