A26924:581
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
L. No Man ever affirmed it: For the Law of Nature is Gods Law; yea his first and most Fundamental Law.
M. I will not deny it as to the stable Laws of Nature, tho' I think that Nature it self hath some mutable Laws, where the Nature of the matter is mutable. But then I would further know, whether to defend the Life of your self, Wife or Children against injurious Assault be any part of the Law of Nature.
L. Experience resolveth that; what Man will not defend his Life that can? yea what Beast, or Bird, even the most harmless will not use such weapons as Nature hath given them, Horns, Feet, Teeth, &c.
M. But Man hath Reason to rule natural inclinations: And sure a Malefactor if he could, should not defend his Life against Justice, I think not so much as by running away: Nor many single innocent Persons defend their Lives by a public War, because a War is more hurtful to the Commonwealth than his death is: And the Common good is better than a single Persons, or a few, and to be preferred. But I next ask, whether the Body of a Kingdom have by Gods Law of Nature a self-defending power against its notorious assaulting Foes?