A Restatement Of The Sixth Question
be judged guilty of lying, for openly declaring that David was waging the wars of the Lord,1 when he availed himself of a just defense against an unjust persecutor. We have another very clear example concerning the town of Libnah, which was the dwelling place of the priests. For it revolted from Jehoram, the sixth successor of David, that it might no longer be subject to him. The reason for that revolt is given in the context of the history; namely, that King Jehoram had forsaken the Lord God of his fathers. 2 But since this town itself belonged to the priests,3 it is evident that this conduct of the people of Libnah was far different from the revolt of the people of Edom, which occurred under the same king and at the same time. For it is not probable that the people of Edom withdrew themselves from their subjection to the Israelites, in order to cling to the true God whom they had never served in sincerity; they did so only from hatred of the Israelites, and a desire to regain their liberty. But the priests who revolted, after God held sway in Libnah [against the Edomites], furnished remarkable proof of their piety.4 Being unable to simultaneously obey God and the tyrant, they shook off the yoke of the tyrant, so that they might continue in devotion and obedience to God.
These two examples, apart from the considerations quoted above, are so reliable and authentic, that in my judgment they should be adequate to strengthen the consciences of subordinate magistrates as often as unavoidable necessity constrains them (after all those other remedies have been put to the test) to have recourse to arms, so that they may protect their people against manifest tyranny, and preserve them. This is not for the sake of stirring up rebellion, but rather to avoid it. For in the time of our ancestors, the tyranny of those who were oppressing the Swiss, offered the municipal magistrates an occasion to assert that independence which they enjoy at present.5
A RESTATEMENT OF THE SIXTH QUESTION
The Orders or Estates, established to curb the supreme magistrates, can and should in every way offer resistance to them when they degenerate into tyrants.
It still remains for us to speak of the third class of subjects. Though in one particular respect, they are truly subject to obedience to the supreme rulers, yet in another respect, especially in straitened and extreme circumstances, they have been appointed as the defenders and champions of the rights of the supreme power as such. They must keep the supreme rulers to their duty, and they must, if need be, constrain and punish them.
Here, however, we must keep in mind the remarks made above; namely that the people existed before there was any magistrate, and the magistrates were made for the sake of the people, not vice versa. Some people seem to derive their origin from their kings. For example, the Roman people was said to have been created by Romulus, because there had not been an original people before, but only a multitude scraped together from a variety
1 1Sam 25:28.
2 2Chr 21:8-10.
3 Jos 21:13.
4 2Kng 8.:22; 2Chr 21.11-15. – WHG 5 The 14th century in Switzerland was a time of transition away from the old feudal order administrated by regional families of lower nobility. The House of Habsburg was growing in power, and had rivals in Burgundy and Savoy. The free imperial cities were forced to look for allies, and entered into a series of pacts. A Swiss Confederacy wedged itself between Habsburg Austria, the Burgundy, France, Savoy, and Milan. Habsburg attempted to gain influence over the cities of Lucerne and Zürich, with riots or attempted coups. This led the cities of Lucerne, Zürich, and Berne to attach themselves to the Swiss Confederacy. – WHG