Prefatory Rationale

The abridged sermons in this series were generally delivered between 1744 and 1795, a half-century period that is definitely pre-partisan. Thus, these should be received as free from the bias of modern partisanship. They are also produced by a non-sectarian cadre, including Anglicans, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Presbyterians, and Baptists. Some of the texts employed New Testament passages, and others used the Hebrew Scriptures. Some were discourses, some were articles, some were delivered to sitting rulers, and some to congregations.¹ Most supported the colonists, but a few supported the king. While these may differ from sermons of today, I offer these to a reading public that is willing to consider light from other eras and other voices. After all, these cannot hurt.

Defensive Arms Vindicated

by Alexander Shields

Introduction

Can a preacher in good conscience address moral issues of the day that also overlap with political matters without forfeiting the church’s rightful mission? Or is that automatically a misuse of the pulpit? Is silence required instead? Many congregations will be challenged to find the right balance in this area during an election year. Once upon a time, pulpits did what they were designed to do: their parsons plumbed the depths of God’s Word and then opened that revelation up to congregations, fearlessly applying God’s wisdom. Earlier exemplars neither shied away from addressing the day’s pressing issues from Scripture, nor did they become meddlesome imitators of political hacks. Despite being children of their day as we all are, they sincerely believed that God’s Word guided them in all things. Accordingly, they produced a body of literature for their generation and others.

The work in the focus of today’s installment is unique to this series in that it was originally published by the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Alexander Shields, in 1687 as a chapter in his volume, A Hind Let Loose; or, An historical representation of the testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the interest of Christ . . . .² Almost a century later in June, 1783, Stephen Case republished the chapter under the pseudonym, “A Moderate Whig,” along with a preface explicitly addressing Shields’ work to America’s contemporary circumstances during the American Revolution.³ Case’s reappropriation of Shields’ volume for his own period demonstrates the abiding strength and relevance of the church’s political ethics tradition. To these ends, it will be Shields’ republished work along with Case’s own preface which we will consider.⁴

Alexander Shields’ chapter, “Defensive Arms Vindicated,” alluded to John Knox, even citing specific page numbers to Knox’s work.⁵ In this same sermon, Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex was cited twice (once with reference to Rutherford’s original Question 32 about warrant for popular revolt), as was the later Jus Populi.⁶

In his added preface, in which he adapted and quoted much of Shields’ own introductory remarks, Case pays tribute to Thomas Paine’s Common Sense for having offered some value; he did not, however, believe that a sufficient apologetic had been proffered for resistance, armed if necessary.⁷ Presumably, this sent him to the older argument of Shields’. As a first principle, Shields believed that “self preservation and defence is right and lawful, because it is congenite [i.e., consistent] with, and irradicated in every nature that hath a self which it can preserve.”⁸ The battles on American soil would not have been as protracted, Case thought, had it not been for (quoting Shields) “monsters in nature [who] are malignant in religion; and as great perverters of the law of nature as they are subverters of municipal laws, and everters of the laws of God.”⁹

Case defended the patience of Americans but asserts that when they finally took up arms—after many petitions and peaceful efforts—they merely followed the patterns of other nations. To buttress this line of argument, he drew upon Shields’ knowledge of the well-known political disciples of Calvin. Shields esteemed Rutherford’s work as “unanswerable,” and viewed these Scottish authors as “learned patrons and champions for this excellent privilege [armed resistance] of mankind.”¹⁰ Shields also cited Westminster Assembly member Stephen Marshall’s “Meroz Cursed” sermon.¹¹

Case thought it a duty—unless his peers were “passive slaves”—to resist tyranny whenever one is “by a good providence of God, called thereunto; and this we must do, if we would not be found betrayers of the liberties of our country and brethren, together with the ruin of our poor posterity.”¹² To neglect such duties would, he thought, render citizens “instruments of delivering up these inestimable blessings into the devouring jaws of tyranny; which if we should be tame enough to do, shall we not bring on us [now quoting Shields] the curse of Meroz and the curse of our brethren’s blood, crying for vengeance on the heads of the shedders thereof, and upon all who being in a capacity came not to their rescue.”¹³

After this preface, Shields’ older piece takes the stage. Shields outlined his argument as summarized below—interestingly, in a fashion typical to the Reformers. One may appreciate the divisions and analysis. The following summary is presented in roughly the order it is found in Shields’ piece and demonstrates the logic of his argument.

Summary

• I do allow that the ordinance of majestracy, which is of God, is not to be resisted; no, not so much as by disobedience or non-obedience; nay, not so much as mentally, by cursing in the heart, Eccles. x. 20. But a person clothed therewith, abusing his power, may be so far resisted; but tyrants, or magistrates turning tyrants, are not God’s ordinances; and there is no hazard of damnation for refusing to obey their unjust commands; but rather, the hazard of that is in walking willingly after the commandment, when the statutes of Omri are kept . . .
• I do allow that rebellion is a damnable sin, except where the word is taken in a lax sense, as Israel of old is said to have rebelled against Rehoboam, and good Hezekiah against Senacherib, which was a good rebellion and a clear duty. Being taken there for resistance and revolt, in this sense, the Americans rising in arms may be called rebellion, for it is right and lawful, to all intents and purposes, to rebel against tyrants, as all are who offer, or attempt, to govern contrary to the laws of the land; for where law ceases, tyranny begins. But because the word is generally taken in an evil sense, many do not make the proper distinction between a lawful rebellion against tyrants, and an unlawful one against lawful authority. . . .
• I do allow passive subjection, in some cases, even to tyrants, when the Lord lays on that yoke. But I do not say passive obedience, which is a mere chimera, invented in the brains of such sycophants and jack asses as would make the world slaves to tyrants. Whosoever suffereth, if he can shun it, is an enemy to his own being, and is a first cousin to a self-murderer; for every natural thing must strive to preserve itself against what annoyeth it; and also, he sins against the order of God who, in vain, hath ordained so many lawful means for the preservation of our being, if we suffer it to be destroyed, having power to help it.
• I do abhor all war of subjects, professedly declared against a lawful king, who governs and rules according to law; as also all war against lawful authority, founded upon, or designed for maintaining principles inconsistent with government, or against policy and piety; . . .
• I do disallow all war, without real necessity and great wrongs sustained; and that it ought not to be declared or undertaken upon supposed grounds, or pretended causes; and so the question is impertinently stated by the tories, whether or not it be lawful for subjects, or a party of them, when they think themselves injured, or to be in a capacity, to resist or oppose the supreme power of a nation?
• I condemn all rising to revenge private injuries, whereby a country may be covered with blood, for some petty wrongs done to some persons great or small. I also abhor all revengeful usurping of the magistrates sword, to avenge ourselves for personal injuries . . .
• I do also disclaim all rising in arms for trifles of our own things, or small injuries done to ourselves, but in a case of pure necessity, for the preservation of our lives, religion, laws, and liberties, when all that is dear to us as men and christians, are in hazard. So I am not for rising in arms to force any people to be of any particular religion, but to defend my own, and my country’s religion and liberties, from unjust force and violence, against kings and tyrants, that may encroach thereon.
• Further from the rules of government it may be argued several ways. First. That power which is contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, can tie none to subjection; but if it oblige to any thing, it ties to resistance. But the power of a king against law, religion, and liberty, is a power contrary to law, evil and tyrannical, therefore, &c.
• From the very end and true design of government, which must be acknowleged by all to be the glory of God and the good of mankind; yea all that have been either wise or honest have always held that the safety of the people is the supreme law.
• From the obedience required to government it may be argued thus: First. If we may flee from tyrants then we may resist them; but we may flee from tyrants therefore we may resist them.
• From the resistance allowed in all governments, it may be argued thus: If it be duty to defend our religion, lives and liberties, against an invading army of cut throats, Turks, Tartars, &c. without or against the king’s warrant, then of course, it is and must be duty to defend the same against home bred tyrants, except we would subscribe ourselves home born slaves.¹⁴

Reflection

At one point, quoting the massive On the Republic by Bodin, Shields’ summary seems ineluctable:

‘If a king turn tyrant, he may lawfully, at his subjects request, be invaded, resisted, condemned, or slain by a foreign prince’—hence, if a foreign prince may lawfully help a people, oppressed by their own sovereign, then people may resist themselves, if they be able; but the former is true, therefore the latter. The consequence cannot be denied, for foreigners have no more power or authority over another sovereign, than the people have themselves.¹⁵

Both full of Scripture and full of references to political history, this is one of the sturdiest messages of both Case’s and Shields’ periods. The relief for this political sculpture is the history of Calvinistic political thought.

The panels of Geneva’s Reformation wall monument are all represented. This single treatise and preface contained references to Knox (three times), George Buchanan (twice), William of Orange, Admiral Coligny, the French Huguenots;¹⁶ and to cap off the Hall of Fame, Shields even referred to one of Peter Martyr’s commentaries.¹⁷ Thus, not only were the ideas of the Reformers still vital, but their writings were deemed authoritative enough to be cited and revived in popular religious discourse several centuries later.

Sounding very similar notes to Calvin’s earlier political melodies, Shields asserted that private citizens were not justified in seeking revenge, but that self-defense was a “privilege of nature” and not an act usurping rightful jurisdiction.¹⁸ He summarized his thesis this way: “All laws permit force to be repelled by force; and the great and first law of nature allows self-defense.”¹⁹ Shields’ history of resistance holds forth many of the same examples as the works of Beza, Buchanan, and Knox. He clearly knew Reformation sources very well. He brought up the 1550 Magdeburg Confession (and relied upon by Knox, Calvin, Beza, and others) as teaching that resistance was permitted whenever Caesar should attempt “to root out religion, and subvert our liberties.”²⁰

Perhaps acquaintance with Shields’ treatise and Case’s reappropriation of it, and other sermons of its ilk will help Christians as they consider important moral issues of the day, especially if trumpets are not sounding clear notes.

Notes

1. Original punctuations and spellings have been preserved.
2. Alexander Shields, “Defensive Arms Vindicated,” A Hind Let Loose; or, An historical representation of the testimonies of the Church of Scotland for the interest of Christ . . .  (n.p.: 1687).
3. The identity of Alexander Shields as the original author of the main body is a recent discovery. Most publications cited in this article predate that discovery and as such designate the author of the whole piece as Stephen Case or “A Moderate Whig” (the identity of Stephen Case himself is not known with certainty). Unless otherwise stated, note that the author o fthe body is actually Alexander Shields, who wrote it in 1687 (with the exception of Case’s added preface). For more on the authorship of this piece, see the editor’s note in, “Defensive Arms Vindicated, by Stephen Case [presumably] (June 17, 1782),” The Constitutional Sources Project.
4. This edition of Shields’ work republished by Case can be found in a later assembled collection of political sermons as: A Moderate Whig, “Defensive Arms Vindicated,” in Ellis Sandoz, ed., Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, 1730–1805, vol. 1 (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1991). For online access to this edition, see the Online Library of Liberty.
5. A Moderate Whig, “Defensive Arms,” 756, 673.
6. A Moderate Whig, 720, 755, 731, 758.
7. A Moderate Whig, 717–18
8. A Moderate Whig, 719.
9. A Moderate Whig, 719.
10. A Moderate Whig, 720.
11. A Moderate Whig, 721, 759. Nathaniel Whitaker also drew on Marshall for his 1777 sermon (dedicated to George Washington), “An Antidote Against Toryism.” See Daniel C. Palm, ed., On Faith and Free Government (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997), 154.
12. A Moderate Whig, “Defensive Arms,” 721.
13. A Moderate Whig, 721.
14. A Moderate Whig, 722 ff.
15. A Moderate Whig, 731. Here, Shields cites “Bodin de Repub. lib. 2. chap. 5.”
16. A Moderate Whig, 722, 724, 749.
17. A Moderate Whig, 756. The reference is to Martyr’s 2 Chronicles commentary.
18. A Moderate Whig, 726.
19. A Moderate Whig, 726.
20. A Moderate Whig, 748.

©David Hall. All Rights Reserved.

You can find this whole series here.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• David Hall

  

  Reverend David W. Hall is married to Ann, and they are parents of three grown children and grandparents of eight grandchildren. He has served as the Senior Pastor of Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA) since 2003. Previously, he served as Pastor of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (1984–2003) and as Associate Pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in Rome, Georgia (1980–1984). He was ordained to pastoral ministry in 1980. He was educated at Covenant Theological Seminary and is the editor and author of several volumes.

  More by David Hall ›