A treatise of civil policy

And if a private man may inflict bodily punishment of two degrees, to preserve the life and chastity of his neighbour, far rather then suffer his life and chastity to be taken away, then he may inflict violence of four degrees even to killing, for his life, and much more for his own life. So when a Robber, with deadly weapons invadeth an innocent traveller to kill him, for his goods, upon the supposition that if the Robber be not killed, the innocent shall be killed; Now the question is, which of the two, by Gods moral Law and revealed will in point of conscience, ought to be killed by his fellow; for we speak not now of Gods eternal decree of permitting evil, according to the which murderers may crucify the innocent Lord of glory: by no moral Law of God, should the •• just robber kill the innocent traveller, therefore in this exigence of providence, the traveller should rather kill the robber. If any say, by Gods moral Law not one should kill his fellow; and it is a sin against the moral Law in either to kill other; I answer: If a third shall come in when the robber and the innocent are invading each other for his life, all acknowledge by the sixth Commandment, the third may cut off the robbers arm to save the innocent; but by what Law of God he may cut off his arm, he may take his life also to save the other; for it is murder to wound unjustly, and to dismember a man by private authority, as it is to take away his life: If therefore the third may take away the robbers member, then also his life, so he do it without malice or appetite of revenge, and if he may do it out of this principle, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self; because a man is obliged more to love his own flesh, then his neighbours, Ephes. 5. 28. and so more to¹ defend himself, then to defend his neighbour, then may he oppose violence to the robber; As two men drowning in a water, the one is not obliged by Gods Law, to expose himself to drowning to save his neighbour; but by the contrary, he is obliged rather to save himself, though it were with the loss of his neighbours life: As in war, if soldiers in a strait passage be pursued on their life, nature teacheth them to flee;

And if a private man may inflict bodily punishment of two degrees, to preserve the life and chastity of his neighbour, far rather then suffer his life and chastity to be taken away, then he may inflict violence of foure degrees even to killing, for his life, and much more for his owne life. So when a Robber, with deadly weapons invadeth an innocent traveller to kill him, for his goods, upon the supposition that if the Robber be not killed, the innocent shall be killed; Now the question is, which of the two, by Gods morall Law and revealed will in point of conscience, ought to be killed by his fellow; for we speake not now of Gods eternall decree of permitting evill, according to the which murtherers may crucisie the innocent Lord of glory: by no morall Law of God, should the just robber kill the innocent traveller, therefore in this exigence of providence, the traveller should rather kill the robber. If any say, by Gods morall Law not one should kill his fellow; and it is a sin against the morall Law in either to kill other; I answer: If a third shall come in when the robber and the innocent are invading each other for his life, all acknowledge by the sixt Commandement, the third may cut off the robbers arme to save the innocent; but by what Law of God he may cut off his arme, he may take his life also to save the other; for it is murther to wound unjustly, and to dismember a man by private authority, as it is to take away his life: If therefore the third may take away the robbers member, then also his life, so hee doe it without malice or appetite of revenge, and if he may doe it out of this principle, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe; because a man is obliged more to love his owne flesh, then his neighbours,