God himself has for the Prince has God's Authority and therefore cannot be resisted but by a greater Authority than God's And by the same reason if the whole body of the people be subject to God they must be subject to their Prince too because he acts by God's Authority and Commission Were a Soveraign Prince the Peoples Creature might be a good Maxime Rex major singulis sed minor universis that the King is greater than any particular Subject but less than All together but if he be God's Minister he is upon that account as much greater than all as God is And that the whole body of the people all together as well as one by one are equally concerned in this command of being subject to the higher Powers is evident from this consideration that nothing less than this will secure the peace and tranquillity of humane Societies The resistance of single persons is more dangerous to themselves than to the Prince but a powerful combination of Rebels is formidable to the most puissant Monarchs The greater numbers of Subjects rebel against their Prince the more do they distress his Government and threaten his Crown and Dignity and if his Person and Authority be Sacred the greater the violence is which is offered to him the greater is the crime Had the Apostle exhorted the Romans after this manner Let no private and single man be so foolish as to rebel against his Prince who will be too strong for him but if you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him if you can all consent to Depose or Murder him this is very innocent and justifiable nay an Heroical Atchievement which becomes a free-born people How would this secure the peace and quiet of the world how would this have agreed with what follows that Princes are advanced by God and that to resist our Prince is to resist the Ordinance of God and that such men shall be severely punisht for it in this world or the next for can the Apostle be thought absolutely to condemn resistance if he makes it only unlawful to resist when we want power to conquer Which yet is all that can be made of it if by every Soul the Apostle means only particular men not the united force and power of Subjects Nor can there be any reason assigned why the Apostle should lay so strict a command on particular Christians to be subject to the higher Powers which does not equally concern whole Nations For if it can ever be lawful for a whole Nation to resist a Prince it may in the same circumstances be equally lawful for a particular man to do it if a Nation may conspire against a Prince who invades their Rights their Liberties or their Religion why may not any man by the same reason resist a Prince when his Rights and Liberties are invaded It is not so safe and prudent indeed for a private man to resist as for great and powerful numbers but this makes resistance only a matter of discretion not of Conscience if it be lawful for the whole body of a Nation to resist in such cases it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it but he does it at his own peril when he has only his one single force to oppose against his Prince So that our Apostle must forbid resistance in all or none For single persons do not use to resist or rebel or there is no great danger to the Publick if they do but the Authority of Princes and the security of publick Government is only endangered by a combination of Rebels when the whole Nation or any considerable part for numbers power and interest take Arms against their Prince If resistance of our Prince be a sin it is not the less but the greater sin the greater and the more formidable the resistance is and it would very much unbecome the gravity and sacredness of an Apostolical precept to enjoyn subjection to private Christians who dare not who cannot resist alone but to leave a powerful combination of Rebels at liberty to resist So that every Soul must signifie all Subjects whether single or united for whatever is unlawful for every single Person considered as a Subject is unlawful for them all together for the whole Nation is as much a subject to the higher powers as any single man Thus I am sure it is in our Government where Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament own themselves the Subjects of the King and have by publick Laws disclaimed all power of raising any War either offensive or defensive against the King 2. Let us now consider what is meant by the higher powers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the supreme power in any Nation in whomsoever it is placed Whether in the King as in Monarchical governments or in the Nobles as in Aristocratical or in the People as in Democracies At the time of writing this Epistle the supreme power was in the Roman Emperours and therefore when St. Paul commands the Roman Christians to be subject to the higher powers the plain meaning is that they be subject to the Roman Emperour And thus St. Peter explains it 1 Epist. 2 Chap. 13 v. Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used in my Text as to him who hath a supereminent power and is above all others It is absolutely necessary in all well-governed Societies that there should be some supreme and soveraign Power from whence there lies no appeal and which cannot and must not be resisted For otherwise there can be no end of disputes and controversies men may quarrel eternally about rights and priviledges and properties and preheminencies and when every man is Judge in his own cause it is great oddes but he will give Judgement for himself and then there can be no way to determine such matters but by force and power Which turns humane societies into a state of War and no man is secure any longer than he happens to be on the prevailing side Whoever considers the nature and the end of Government must acknowledge the necessity of a supreme power to decide controversies to administer Justice and to secure the Publick Peace and it is a ridiculous thing to talk of a supreme power which is not unaccountable and irresistible For whatever power is liable to be called to an account and to be resisted has some power above it and so is not supreme Of late years whoever has been so hardy as to assert the Doctrine of Non-resistance has been thought an Enemy to his Country one who tramples on all Laws who betraies the rights and liberties of the subject and sets up for Tyranny and Arbitrary power Now I would desire those men who think thus to try their skill in framing any model of government which shall answer the ends and necessities of humane society without a supreme power that is without such a power
of Kings was like to be very chargeable and oppressive to them He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his chariots And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest And thus in several particulars he acquaints them what burdens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a King which they were then free from and if any Prince should be excessive in such exactions yet they had no way to help themselves they must not resist nor rebel against him nor expect that what inconvenience they might find in Kingly Government God would relieve and deliver them from it when once they had chose a King Ye shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day v. 18. That is God will not alter the government for you again how much soever you may complain of it This I say is a plain proof that their Kings were invested with that Soveraign Power which must not be resisted though they oppress their Subjects to maintain their own State and the Grandeur and Magnificence of their Kingdom But I cannot think that these words contain the original grant and Charter of Regal power but only the translation of that power which was formerly in their high-Priests or Iudges to Kings Kings had no more power than their other Governours had for there can be no power greater than that which is irresistible but this power in the hands of Kings was likely to be more burdensome and oppressive to them than it was in the hands of their Priests and Iudges by reason of their different way of living which is the onely argument Samuel uses to dissuade them from transferring the Supreme and Soveraign power to Princes And therefore I rather choose to Translate Mishpat as our Translators do by the manner of the King than as other learned men do by the right of the King thereby understanding the original Charter of Kingly power for it is not the Regal power which Samuel here blames which is no other but the very same power which he himself had while he was Supreme Iudge of Israel but their pompous way of living which would prove very oppressive and burdensome to them and be apt to make them complain who had not been used to such exactions And here before I proceed give me leave to make a short digression in vindication of Kingly Government which some men think is greatly disparaged by this story For 1. It is evident that God was angry with the Iews for desiring a King and declared his anger against them by sending a violent tempest of Thunder and Rain in Wheat-harvest which made them confess that they had added to all their sins this evil to ask a King 1 Sam. 12. 16 17. c. From whence some conclude that Kingly power and Authority is so far from being the Original appointment and constitution of God that it is displeasing to him And 2. that Samuel in describing the manner of the King represents it as oppressive and uneasie to Subjects and much more burdensome and less desirable than other Forms of Government 1. As for the first it must be acknowledged that God was angry with the Children of Israel for asking a King but then these men mistake the reason which was not because God is an enemy to Kingly Government but because he himself was the King of Israel and by asking a King to go in and out before them they exprest a dislike of Gods Government of them Thus God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8. 7. And thus Samuel aggravates their sin that they said Nay but a King shall reign over us when the Lord your God was your King 12 Chap. 12. v. Now the Crime had been the same had they set up an Aristocratical or Democratical Government as well as Regal Power in derogation of Gods Government of them Their fault was not in choosing to be governed by a single person for so they had been governed all along by Moses and Ioshua by their high Priests or those other extraordinary Iudges whom God had raised up and at this very time by Samuel himself for it is a great mistake to think that the Jews before they chose a King were governed by a Synedrial power like an Aristocracy or Democracy which there is not the least appearance of in all the Sacred History for as for those persons whom Moses by the advice of Iethro set over the people they were not a supreme or Soveraign Tribunal but such Subordinate Magistrates as every Prince makes use of for administring Justice to the People They were Rulers of thousands Rulers of hundreds Rulers of fifties Rulers of tens 18 Exod. 21. and were so far from being one standing Judicature that they were divided among their several Tribes and Families and were so far from being supreme that Moses still reserved all difficult cases and last appeals that is the true Soveraign power to himself as it was afterwards by an express Law reserved to the High Priests and Iudges extraordinarily appointed and there is so little appearance of this Soveraign Tribunal in Samuels days that he himself went in Circuit every year as our Judges now do to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpeh and judged Israel 1 Sam. 7. 16. But the fault of Israel in asking a King was this that they preferred the government of a King before the immediate government of God For the understanding of which it will be necessary to consider briefly how Gods government of Israel differ'd from their government by Kings For when they had chose a King did God cease to be the King of Israel was not their King Gods Minister and Vicegerent as their Rulers and Judges were before was not the King God 's Anointed and did he not receive the Laws and Rules of Government from him yes this is in some measure true and yet the difference is very great While God was the King of Israel though he appointed a Supreme visible Authority in the Nation yet the exercise of this Authority was under the immediate direction and government of God Moses and Ioshua did not stir a step nor attempt any thing without Gods order no more than a menial servant does without the direction of his Master In times of Peace they were under the ordinary government of the High Priest who was God's immediate servant who declared the Law to them and in difficult cases referred the cause to God who gave forth his answers by him when they were opprest by their enemies which God never permitted but for their sins when they repented and begged Gods pardon and deliverance God raised up some extraordinary persons endued with an
flaves and vassals but Subjects who owe all duty and service to their Prince as far as he needs them But what is it then that Samuel finds fault with in Kingly power which he uses as an argument to dissuade the Children of Israel from desiring a King why it is no more than the necessary expences and services of Kingly power which would be thought very grievous to them who were a free people and at that time subject to no publick services and exactions The government they then lived under was no charge at all to them They were governed as I observed before either by their High Priest or by Iudges extraordinarily raised by God As for their High Priests God himself had allotted their maintenance sutable to the quality and dignity of their Office and therefore they were no more charge to the people when they were their Supreme Governors than they were when the power was in other hands either in the hands of Iudges or Kings As for their Iudges whom God raised up they affected nothing of Royal greatness they had no Servants or Retinue standing Guards or Armies to maintain their Authority which was secured by that Divine power with which they acted not by the external pomp and splendour of a Court. Thus we find Moses appealing to God in the Rebellion of Korah I have not taken one Ass from them neither have I hurt any of them 16 Numbers 15. And thus Samuel appeals to the Children of Israel themselves Behold here I am witness against me before the Lord and before his Anointed whose Oxe have I taken or whose Ass have I taken or whom have I defrauded whom have I oppressed or of whose hands have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith and I will restore it 1 Sam. 12. 3. Now a people who lived so free from all Tributes exactions and other services due to Princes must needs be thought sick of ease and liberty to exchange so cheap so free a State for the necessary burdens and expences of Royal power though it were no more than what is necessary which is the whole of Samuels argument not that Kingly government is more expensive and burdensome than any other form of humane government but that it was to bring a new burden upon themselves when they had none before No humane Governments whether Democracies or Aristocracies can subsist but upon the publick charge and the necessary expences of Kingly power are not greater than of a Commonwealth I am sure this Kingdom did not find their burdens eased by pulling down their King and I believe whoever acquaints himself with the several forms of government will find Kingly Power to be as easie upon this score as Commonwealths So that what Samuel discourses here and which some men think so great a reflection upon Kingly government does not at all concern us but was peculiar to the state and condition of the Iews at that time Let us then proceed to consider how sacred and irresistible the Persons and Authority of Kings were under the Iewish Government and there cannot be a plainer example of this than in the case of David He was himself anointed to be King after Saul's death but in the mean time was grievously persecuted by Saul pursued from one place to another with a designe to take away his life How now does David behave himself in this extremity What course does he take to secure himself from Saul Why he takes the onely course that is left a Subject he flies for it and hides himself from Saul in the Mountains and Caves of the Wilderness and when he found he was discovered in one place he removes to another He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his motions not that he might meet him to give him Battel or to take him at an advantage but that he might keep out of his way and not fall unawares into his hands Well but this was no thanks to David because he could do no otherwise He was too weak for Saul and not able to stand against him and therefore had no other remedy but flight But yet we must consider that David was a man of War he slew Goliah and fought the Battels of Israel with great success he was an admired and beloved Captain which made Saul so jealous of him the eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King and how easily might he have raised a potent and formidable Rebellion against Saul But he was so far from this that he invites no man to his assistance and when some came uninvited he made no use of them in an offensive or defensive War against Saul Nay when God delivered Saul two several times into David's hands that he could as easily have killed him as have cut off the skirts of his garment at Engedi 1 Sam. 24. or as have taken that spear away which stuck in the ground at his bolster as he did in the hill of Hachilah 1 Sam. 26. yet he would neither touch Saul himself nor suffer any of the people that were with him to do it though they were very importunate with him for liberty to kill Saul nay though they urged him with an argument from Providence that it was a plain evidence that it was the Will of God that he should kill Saul because God had now delivered his enemy into his hands according to the promise he had made to David 1 Sam. 24. 4. 26 ch ver 8. We know what use some men have made of this argument of Providence to justifie all the Villanies they had a mind to act but David it seems did not think that an opportunity of doing evil gave him license and authority to do it Opportunity we say makes a Thief and it makes a Rebel and it makes a Murderer no man can do any Wickedness which he has no opportunity of doing and if the Providence of God which puts such opportunities into mens hands justifies the wickedness they commit no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does and certainly opportunity will as soon justifie any other sin as Rebellion and the Murder of Princes We are to learn our duty from the Law of God not from his Providence at least this must be a setled Principle that the Providence of God will never justifie any action which his Law forbids And therefore notwithstanding this opportunity which God had put into his hands to destroy his enemy and to take the Crown for his reward David considers his duty remembers that though Saul were his enemy and that very unjustly yet he was the Lords Anointed The Lord forbid says he that I should do this unto my Master the Lords Anointed to stretch forth my hand against him seeing he is the Lords Anointed Nay he was so far from taking away his life that his heart smore him for cutting off the skirt of his Garment And we ought to observe the reason David gives why he durst not hurt Saul Because he
who exerciseth a particular providence in the disposal of Crowns and Scepters and over-ruleth all external and second causes to set up such Princes as he himself has first chose and therefore he that resisteth resisteth not Man but God he opposeth the constitution and appointment of the Soverain Lord of the world who alone is our natural Lord and Governour and who alone has right to put the government of the world into what hands he pleases and how prosperous soever such Rebels may be in this World they shall not escape the Divine Vengeance and Justice which will follow them into another world they shall receive to themselves Damnation This was St. Paul's Doctrine about subjection to the higher powers and he did not only preach this Doctrie himself but he charges Timothy and Titus two Bishops whom he had ordained the one Bishop of Ephesus the other of Crete to preach the same Thus he charges Titus to put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers to obey Magistrates to be ready to every good work 3 Titus 1. When he commands him to put them in mind to be subject he supposes that this is a known duty of the Christian Religion and a duty of such great weight and moment that people ought to be frequently minded of it that the Bishops and Ministers of Religion ought frequently to preach of it and to press and inculcate it upon their hearers For it is a great scandal to the Christian Religion when this duty is not observed and yet in many cases this duty is so hard to be observed requires such a great degree of self-denial and resignation to the will of God and contempt of present things that too many men are apt to forget it and to excuse themselves from it And therefore St. Paul gives this in particular charge to Titus and in him to all the Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel to take special care to instruct people well in this point and frequently to renew and repeat their exhortations especially when they find a busie factious and seditious spirit abroad in the world Thus he instructs Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort therefore that first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men for Kings and for all that are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty But you will say What is this to such an absolute subjection to Princes as includes Non-resistance in it cannot we pray for any man without making him our absolute and Soverain Lord are we not bound to pray for all our Enemies and Persecutors and does our praying for them make it unlawful to resist and oppose their unjust violence How then can you prove from the duty of praying for Kings that it is in no case lawful to resist them if it were lawful to resist Tyrannical Princes yet it might be our duty to pray for them And therefore though it be our duty to pray for Princes it does not hence follow that we may in no cases lawfully resist them In answer to this I grant that praying for any man nay praying for Kings and Princes cannot of it self prove that it is unlawful to resist them if it otherwise appear that resistance is lawful but if it be our duty to make supplications prayers and intercessions for persecuting Princes as the Apostle commands them to pray for the Roman Emperors who were profest enemies to Christianity that is if they must beg all good things for them a long and happy and prosperous Reign which is included in intercessions and prayers this strongly infers that they must not resist their power nor undermine their Thrones For we cannot very well at the same time pray for the prosperity of their government and endeavour to pull it down The Apostle did not understand those conditional Prayers that God would Convert or Confound them a prayer which thanks be to God was never found in any Christian Liturgie yet which possibly is one reason why some men are no great Friends to Liturgies And when the Apostle directs them to pray for Kings and all that are in authority that they must live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty that is that they might enjoy peace and security in the profession and practice of the true Religion this seems to imply that when they are persecuted for their Religion which was the case at that time they must pray for persecuting Princes that God would incline their hearts to favour his people but must not fight against them This is the only direction the Apostle gives them in the case and we may reasonably suppose that had he known any other he would not have concealed it If it is always the duty of Christians to pray for the prosperous and flourishing state of the Empire as by this Apostolical exhortation it appears to be it could never be lawful for them to resist the powers for I cannot understand how any man without mocking Almighty God can pray for the prosperity of his Prince and the good success of his government at the same time when he fights against him When St. Paul had so freely and openly declared against resisting the higher powers which Timothy who was his Scholar and Companion and fellow-labourer could not but know what other interpretation could he make of the Apostles exhortation to pray for Kings and all that are in authority that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty but only this that prayer is the last and only remedy that we can have against persecuting Princes Had it been lawful for them to resist it had been a more proper prayer that God would give them strength and courage and counsel to oppose all his and their enemies that he would appear as miraculously for their defence as he formerly did in fighting the Battels of Israel that he would set Christ upon his Throne and make all the Princes of the earth give place to a more glorious Kingdom Time was when it was all one whether he saved with many or a few He knew how to destroy potent and formidable Armies without any humane strength and power or by such weak contemptible means as reserved the glory of the victory intire to himself and he is the same still that ever he was and his power is the same But St. Paul very well knew that it was not lawful for them to pull Emperours out of their Thrones to give any disturbance to civil powers or to attempt any changes or innovations in government and therefore since they must submit to such Princes as they had there was no other remedy left them but to beg of God so to incline the hearts of Princes that they might enjoy a quiet and peaceable possession of their Religion even under Pagan Princes For as much as some men of late days profanely scoff
pronounced by a Judge how does an illegal sentence pronounced by a Judge come to have any Authoritie for a sentence contrarie to Law cannot have the Authoritie of the Law Why is a legal or illegal sentence reversible and alterable when pronounced by one Judge and irreversible and unalterable when pronounced by another For the Law is the same and the sentence is the same either according to Law or against it whoever the Judge be but it seems the Authoritie of the Persons is not the same and that makes the difference so that there is an Authoritie in Persons in some sence distinct from the Authoritie of Laws nay superiour to it For there is such an Authoritie as though it cannot make an illegal act legal yet can and often does make an illegal act binding and obligatorie to the Subjects when pronounced by a competent Judge If it be said that this very authoritie is owing to the law which appoints Judges and Magistrates to decide controversies and orders appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts I would onely ask one short question Whether the law gives authoritie to any person to judge contrarie to law If it does not then all illegal acts are null and void and lay no obligation on the Subject and yet this is manifestly false according to the known Practice of all the known Governments in the world The most illegal Judgement is valid till it be reverst by some superiour Power and the Judgement of the supreme power though never so illegal can be repealed by no authoritie but its own And yet it is absurd to say that the law gives any man authoritie to Judge contrarie to law for to be sure this is besides the end and intention of the law Whence then does an illegal act or Judgement derive its authoritie and obligation the answer is plain It is from the authoritie of the Person whose act or Judgement it is It will be of great use to this controversie to make this plain and obvious to every understanding which therefore I shall endeavour to do as briefly as may be 1. Then I observe that there must be a personal power and authoritie antecedent to all civil laws For there can be no laws without a Law-maker and there can be no Law-maker unless there be one or more persons invested with the power of Government of which making laws is one branch For a law is nothing else but the publick and declared will and command of the Law-maker whether he be the Soveraign Prince or the People 2. And hence it necessarily follows that a Soveraign Prince does not receive his authoritie from the laws but laws receive their authoritie from him We are often indeed minded of what BRACTON saies LEX FACIT REGEM that the law makes the King by which that great Lawyer was far enough from understanding that the King receives his Soveraign power from the law for the law has no authoritie nor can give any but what it receives from the King and then it is a wonderful riddle how the King should receive his authoritie from the law But when he saies The Law makes the King he distinguishes a King from a Tyrant and his meaning is that to Govern by laws makes a Soveraign Prince a King as King signifies a Just and equal and beneficial power and authoritie as appears from the reason he gives for it Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex He is no King who Governs by arbitrarie will and not by law not that he is no Soveraign Prince but he is a Tyrant and not a King 3. And hence it evidently follows that the being of Soveraign Power is independent on laws that is as a Soveraign Prince does not receive his power from the law so should he violate the laws by which he is bound to Govern yet he does not forfeit his power He breaks his faith to God and to his Countrie but he is a Soveraign Prince still And this is in effect acknowledged by these men who so freely confess that let a Prince be what he will though he trample upon all laws and exercise an arbitrarie and illegal authoritie yet his person is sacred and inviolable and irresistible he must not be touch'd nor opposed And allow that saying of David to be Scripture still Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord 's Anointed and be guiltless Now what is it that makes the person of a King more inviolable and unaccountable than other men Nothing that I know of but his sacred and inviolable authoritie and therefore it seems though he act against law yet he is a Soveraign Prince and the Lord s Anointed still or else I see no reason why they might not destroy his person also And yet if nothing but an inviolable and unaccountable authoritie can make the Person of the King inviolable and unaccountable I would gladly know how it becomes lawful to resist his authoritie and unlawful to resist his Person I would desire these men to tell me whether a Soveraign Prince signifies the natural Person or the Authoritie of a King and if to divest him of his authoritie be to kill the King why they may not kill the man too when they have killed the King Thus when men are forc't to mince Treason and Rebellion they always speak Nonsense Those indeed who resist the authoritie of their Prince but spare his Person do better than those who kill him but those who affirm that his Person is as resistible and accountable as his Authoritie speak more consistently with themselves and the Principles of Rebellion 4. And hence I suppose it plainly appears that every illegal act the King does is not an inauthoritative Act but laies an obligation on Subjects to yeild if not an active yet a passive obedience For the King receives not his Soveraign Authoritie from the Law nor does he forfeit his authoritie by breaking the law and therefore he is a Soveraign Prince still and his most illegal acts though they have not the authoritie of the law yet they have the Authoritie of Soveraign Power which is irresistible and unaccountable In a word it does not become any man who can think three consequences off to talk of the authoritie of laws in derogation to the authoritie of the Soveraign power The Soveraign power made the laws and can repeal them and dispence with them and make new laws the onely power and authoritie of the laws is in the power which can make and execute Laws Soveraign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince and though the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws and that Prince does very ill who having consented to such a regulation breaks the Laws yet when he acts contrarie to Law such acts carrie Soveraign and irresistible Authoritie with them while he continues a Soveraign Prince But if it be possible to convince all men how vain this pretence of Laws is to justifie
all cases to give to Coesar what is Coesar's due And when our Saviour commands us to render to Coesar the things which are Coesar's without telling us what Coesar's things are this is so far from making his answer doubtful and ambiguous and of no use in this present Controversie that it suggests to us three plain and natural consequences which are sufficient to end this whole dispute 1. That our Saviour did not intend to make any alteration in the rights of Soveraignty but what rights he found Soveraign Princes possest of he leaves them in the quiet possession of for had he intended to make any change in this matter he would not have given such a general rule to render to Coesar the things which are Coesar's without specifying what these things are 2. And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to determine what is Coesar's right Whatever is essential to the notion of Soveraing Power whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Coesar's right that they must render to him for he would make no alteration in this matter So that subjection to Princes and Non-resistance is as plainly determined by our Saviour in this Law as paying Tribute for subjection and Non-resistance is as essential a right of Soveraign Power and as inseparable from the notion of it as any thing can be So it is acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations and so it is determined by the Apostle St. Paul as I shall shew hereafter 3. I observe farther that when our Saviour joyns our duty to our Prince with our duty to our God render to Coesar the things which are Coesars and to God the things which are God's he excepts nothing from Coesar's right which by the Laws of Nations is due to Sovereign Princes but what is a violation of and an encroachment on Gods right and Soveraignty that is we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to Princes which is consistent with our duty to God This is the onely limit our Saviour sets to our duty to Princes If they should command us to renounce our Religion and worship false Gods if they should challenge divine honours to themselves as some of the Roman Emperours did this we must not do because it is to renounce obedience and subjection to God who has a more soveraign power and a greater right in us than our Prince But all active and passive obedience which is consistent with a good conscience towards God and required of us by the Laws of our Country and the essential rights of Soveraignty is what we owe to our Prince and what by our Saviour's command we must render to him This I hope is sufficient for the explication of our Saviour's answer to the Pharisees and Herodians which evidently contains the Doctrine of obedience and subjection to Princes enforced on us by the authority of our Saviour himself 2. Our Saviour's rebuke to St. Peter when he drew his sword and struck a servant of the high Priest and smote off his ear is as plain a declaration against resistance as words can make it 26 Mat. 52. Then said Iesus unto him Put up thy sword into his place for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword For the understanding of which we must consider upon what occasion St. Peter drew his sword for we must not think that our Saviour does absolutely forbid the use of the sword which is to destroy all civil governments and the power of Princes and to proclaim impunity to all the villanies which were committed in the world The sword is necessary to punish wickedness and to protect the innocent In the hands of Princes it is an instrument of Justice as St. Paul tells us That they bear not the sword in vain but are the ministers of God revengers to execute wrath upon him that doth evil 13 Rom. 4. In the hands of private Persons it may be lawfully used in self-defence Thus our Saviour a little before his crucifixion gave commission to his Disciples to furnish themselves with swords though they parted with their garment for the purchase 22 Luke 36. Which we may suppose was not designed as a meer modish and fashionable thing but to defend themselves from the private assaults of robbers and such-like common enemies who as Iosephus tells us were very numerous at that time For no man wants authority to defend his life against him who has no authority to take it away But the case of St. Peter was very different he drew his sword indeed in his Master's defence but against a lawful authority The officers of the Chief Priests and Pharisees came with Iudas to the place where Iesus was to seize on him This was a lawful authority though employed upon a very unjust errand but Authority must not be resisted though in defence of the greatest innocence Men who draw their swords against lawful powers shall perish with the sword Which does not signifie what the event shall always be but what is the desert and merit of the action Rebels may sometimes be prosperous but they always deserve punishment and if they escape the sword in this world St. Paul tells us they shall receive Damnation in the next What can be said more expresly against resistance than this St. Peter never could have drawn his sword in a better cause never in the defence of a more sacred Person If we may defend oppress'd Innocence against a lawful authority if we may oppose unjust and illegal violence if any obligations of friendship gratitude or Religion it self could justifie resistance St. Peter had not met with this rebuke What should he tamely suffer his Lord and Master to be betrayed the most admirable example of universal Righteousness and goodness that ever appeared in the world Shall one who had done no evil who had neither offended against the Laws of God nor men who had spent his whole time in doing good be so barbarously used and treated like the vilest Malefactor Shall he who was so famous for miracles who gave eyes to the blind and feet to the lame shall he who was the great Prophet sent from God to instruct the world shall their dear Master be haled away from them and they stand by and see it suffer it Thus might S. Peter have argued for himself But though it was a very unjust action yet it was done by a just authority and lawful Powers must not be resisted though it were in defence of the Saviour of the world And if St. Peter might not use the sword in defence of Christ's Person there is much less pretence to fight for his religion for though some call this fighting for religion it is onely fighting for themselves Men may keep their religion if they please in despite of earthly powers and therefore no powers can hurt religion though they may persecute the Professors of it And therefore when men take up arms to avoid persecution it
is not in defence of religion but of themselves that is to avoid their suffering for religion And if St. Peter might not fight to preserve Christ himself certainly neither he nor we might take up arms to defend our selves from persecution Christ was the first Martyr for his own religion his person was infinitely more sacred and inviolable than any of us can pretend to be And if St. Peter must not fight for Christ certainly we must not fight for our selves though we absurdly enough call it fighting for our religion And who were these powers St. Peter resisted They were onely the servants and officers of the High-priest The High-Priest did not appear there himself much less Pilate much less Caesar and yet our Saviour rebukes St. Peter for resisting the inferiour officers though they offered the most unjust and illegal violence It seems he did not understand our modern distinctions between the Person and the Authority of the Prince That though his person be sacred and must not be toucht yet his Ministers who act by his authority may be opposed We may fight his Navies and demolish his Garrisons and kill his subjects who fight for him though we must not touch his Person But he is a mock Prince whose authority is confined to his own Person who can do nothing more than what he can do with his two hands which cannot answer the ends of Government A Prince is not meerly a natural but a Political person and his personal Authority reaches as far as his commission does His Officers and Ministers of State and commanders and souldiers are his hands and eyes and ears and legs and he who resisteth those who act by his commission may as properly be said to resist the Personal authority of the Prince as if he himself were present in his natural Person as well as by his authority Thus our Saviour it seems thought when he rebuked St. Peter for striking a servant of the High-priest and smiting off his ear And if S. Peter were rebuk'd for this how comes the Pope to challenge the sword in S. Peter's right when our Saviour would not allow S. Peter to use it himself And if St. Peter might not draw his sword against an inferiour officer by what authority does the Pope pretend to dispose of Crowns and Scepters and to trample on the necks of the greatest Monarchs And I suppose the Presbyter can challenge no more authority than the Pope Whether they will allow St. Peter to have been a Bishop or Presbyter this command to put up his sword equally concerns him in all capacities and ought to secure soveraign Princes from the unjust usurpations and treacherous conspiracies both of GENEVA and ROME There is but one Objection that I know of against all this from the Doctrine of our Saviour and that is that he seems to disallow that very authority which is exercised by secular Princes and therefore cannot be thought such a severe Preacher of obedience subjection for Authority and Subjection are correlates they have a mutual respect to each other and therefore they must stand or fall together There is no authority where there is no subjection due there can be no subjection due where there is no authority And yet this is the Doctrine which Christ taught his Disciples 20 Mat. 25 26 27 28 v. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you let him be your minister And whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant Even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many This text has been press'd to serve as many ill purposes as most texts in the Bible and therefore deserves to be carefully considered Some hence infer that it is unlawful for a Christian to be a Magistrate or a King As if our Saviour either intended that humane societies should be deprived of the advantages of government which is the greatest temporal blessing and security to mankind or had made it necessary that some men should continue Heathens and Infidels that they might govern Christians which I doubt would be a sore temptation to many to renounce Christianity if they could gain a temporal Crown by it Others from hence conclude that there must be no superiority of degree between the Ministers of the Gospel but they must be all equal as if because the Apostles were to be all equal without any superiority over each other therefore they were to have no superiority over inferiour Ministers As if because the Apostles might not exercise such a secular power and soveraignty as the Kings of the Gentiles did therefore there must be no different degrees of power in the Ministers of the Church that is that because secular and spiritual power differ in the whole kind therefore there are no different-degrees of spiritual power As if Christ himself were not superiour to his Apostles because he did not assume to himself the secular authority of earthly Princes but came not to be ministred unto but to minister as he commands them to do according to his example Others conclude that at least Christian Princes must not usurp such a soveraign and absolute and uncontroulable power as the Princes of the Gentiles did but must remember that they are but the Publick Servants and Ministers of the Commonwealth and may be resisted and called to an account by their people for the male-administration of government But how they infer this I confess I cannot tell for it is evident our Saviour does not here speak one word in derogation to that civil power and authority which was exercised by secular Princes He tells us indeed that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them But does he blame the exercise of this authority Does he set any narrower bounds or limits than what the Heathen Princes challenged By no means he says not one word of any such matter St. Matthew indeed expresses this power of Princes by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some think intimates the abuse of their Authority but St. Luke renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which onely signifies the exercise of soveraign power And though most of the Roman Emperours were guilty of very great miscarriages in government yet our Saviour onely refers to that lawful authority wherewith they were invested not to the abuse of it and therefore he takes notice of that honourable Title which was given to many Roman Emperours that they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Benefactors which certainly does not argue his dislike of civil Authoritie But all that our Saviour tells his Disciples is that it should not be so among them that they should not
and therefore there was no need of Christ's dying to purchase this which he cannot give us a greater right to than we had before his death If subjection and Non-resistance were our duty before and ceases to be our duty now then Christ by his death has cancelled the obligations of our duty and purchas'd a liberty and freedom not to do that now which by the Laws of God or Nature we were bound to do before that is Christ by his death has abrogated not onely the Ceremonial but some Moral Laws which I shew'd you before was contrary to the nature and designe of his undertaking 2. It is strangely unaccountable how obedience to any Law should abrogate and cancel it How Christ by subjection to the higher powers should for ever after deliver his Disciples from the necessity of subjection and make them free from the authority and government of Princes whenever they dislike their government A typical Law may be fulfilled and receive its just accomplishment and then its obligation ceases Thus the death of Christ fulfilled the Levitical sacrifices and put an end to them But the authority of a moral Law is confirmed and strengthened not abrogated and disanulled by great examples When Christ quietly and patiently submitted to the most unjust sentence in obedience to lawful authoritie he either did well or ill in it If he did ill his example indeed is not to be imitated but if he did well how did his doing well deliver us from the obligation of doing well Did his doing well make it ill for us to do as he did Why did not his perfect and unsinning obedience as well deliver us from the obligation of all the other Laws of God as from obedience and subjection to Princes The Antinomians indeed are so absurd as to say that Christ fulfilled all righteousness in our stead and that every believer has fulfilled the Law in Christ and therefore is not bound to fulfil it in his own person as a condition of life and salvation But yet they are not so absurd as to say that Christ by the righteousness of his life and death has altered the nature of good and evil and cancelled any one Law of God The Law is in force still and the dutie is the same but the Law cannot take hold of them nor exact a personal righteousness from them because they have already fulfilled the Law in Christ. But now these men must say that Christ has not onely fulfilled the Law of subjection and non-resistance as a condition of salvation but has cancelled it as a rule of life 3. The death of Christ could not purchase any civil rights or liberties which we had not before nor make any change in the external fortunes or conditions of men The death of Christ is represented in Scripture either as an atonement or expiation of sin or as the purchase and seal of the new Covenant Now how does the death of Christ by expiating our sins deliver us from subjection to our civil Governours What connexion is there between the expiation of our sins and our freedom from the authoritie of Princes that he who does one must be supposed to do the other And as for the new Covenant where does that grant any new franchises and liberties to subjects Let them produce their new Charter to justifie their exemption from subjection to Princes let them shew any one saying in the Gospel of our Saviour if they can to that purpose What the Doctrine of Christ is you have already heard and when Christ died to confirm the new Covenant in his bloud it is absurd to say that he has purchased any liberties for us but what he has expresly granted to us in his Gospel He does indeed promise libertie freedom to his subjects but it is a libertie of another nature a libertie from the power and dominion of sin Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free 8 John 32. that is the power of the Gospel-revelation should deliver them from the Empire of their lusts and give them the true government and masterie of themselves And therefore he adds Verily verily I say unto you Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin And the servant abideth not in the house for ever but the son abideth for ever If the son therefore shall make you free ye shall be free indeed 34 35 36 v. But does not St. Paul advise the Corinthians to assert even their civil and political freedom when they can and that from this argument that they are the freemen of Christ which seems to intimate that there is such a connexion between our spiritual and civil Liberties that it does not become Christ's freemen to be slaves and servants unto men 1 Cor. 7. 21 22 23 v. Art thou called being a servant care not for it but if thou mayest be made free use it rather For he that is called in the Lord being a servant is the Lord 's free man likewise also he that is called being free is Christ's servant Ye are bought with a price be not the servants of men But what is it they would prove from these words that our subjection to men is inconsistent with our freedom in Christ that the Apostle expresly denies For he that is a servont is Christ's freeman Or that Christ when he made us free did deliver us from the subjection of men not that neither For he does not advise Christian servants to leave their masters as he might and ought to have done if Christ had bestowed this civil libertie on them but he was so far from this that when Onesimus had run away from his Master Philemon and was converted by St. Paul and proved very useful and serviceable in the ministrie yet he would not detain him from his Master without asking his leave which occasioned the Epistle to Philemon as you may see 10 11 12 c. And in this place he advises the Christian servants not to be concerned at their being servants which was no injury at all to their Christian libertie But if they could procure their libertie by any fair and just means they should chuse to do it which is upon many accounts more desirable especially when Christians were servants to heathen Masters as it often was in those days But does not the Apostle expresly tell them Ye are bought with a price be not ye the servants of men Yes he does but sure this cannot signifie that servants should cast off the authoritie of their Masters For that is directly contrary to what he had advised them before and contrary to his own practice in the case of Onesimus whom he sent back to his Master Philemon But all that I understand by it is this that those Christian servants who could not obtain their freedom should yet take care not to be servants to the lusts and passions of their Heathen Masters For though a state of civil bondage and slavery is not inconsistent with their
Christian libertie yet to be ministers and servants to the vices of men is And therefore when they lay under any such temptation as Christians who served Heathen Masters could not long escape it they must then remember that they are Christ's freemen who were bought with a price and therefore must neither be servants to their own lusts nor to the lusts of other men And the reason why I chuse this sence of the words is this because the Apostle opposes being bought with a price that is their being redeemed by Christ or being Christ's freemen to their being the servants of men as inconsistent with each other And therefore their being the servants of men cannot be understood of civil servitude which he before had told them was not inconsistent with their Christian libertie but of being servants to the vices of men But what now is all this to subjection to Soveraign Princes Does the Apostle exhort the Christians too to throw off the civil powers It was possible for a Christian servant to purchase his libertie or to obtain it some other lawful ways but how can subjects deliver themselves from the authoritie of Princes unless they go into some Country where there is no government or resist and rebel against the higher powers where they are Neither of which is agreeable to our Apostles Doctrine who would not allow servants to run away from their Masters much less rebel against them to procure their libertie Nor was the case the same between Christian subjects and soveraign Princes and between Masters and Servants and therefore neither is the reason the same why subjects should desire freedom from the higher powers Servants in those days were slaves and vassals and were kept in such constant attendance on their Masters that it must needs be very difficult besides the other temptations they were exposed to to gain any time or libertie for attending on Christian Worship and the instructions of the Church But Christian subjects are more at their own disposal even under Heathen Princes and have all that libertie excepting the case of persecution which is necessary for the purposes of Religion which yet is the onely reason intimated here why the Apostle advises servants to procure their freedom if they can To conclude this Argument there were a sort of men even in the Apostles days who boasted mightily of their Christian libertie and thought scorn for a Christian either to be a servant or a subject For this reason St. Paul in this place instructs servants that their Christian libertie is not injured by their being servants for this reason are there such frequent directions to servants to obey their Masters For this reason does St. Peter caution the Christians against this pretence of Christian libertie which some abused then as they do still to the disturbance of civil governments As free but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness but as the servants of God CHAP. IV. What St. Paul Preached about Non-resistance of the Higher Powers HAving thus concluded what the Doctrine and Example of our Saviour was about subjection to the higher powers let us now consider the Doctrine and Example of his Apostles Not as if the Authority and Example of our Saviour were not sufficient of it self to make a Law but stood in need of the confirmation and additional authority of his own Apostles but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the meaning of our Saviour's words or in the intention and design of his sufferings had none of his Apostles who were immediately instructed by himself and acquainted with the most secret mysteries of his Kingdom ever preacht any such Doctrine as this of Subjection to Princes And therefore to give you the more abundant assurance of this I shall plainly shew you that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine and imitated the example of their great Master I shall begin with St. Paul who has as fully declared himself in this matter as it is possible any man can do by words 13 Rom. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation This is a very express Testimony against Resistance and therefore I shall consider it at large for there have been various Arts used to pervert every word of it and to make this Text speak quite contrary to the design and intention of the Apostle in it and therefore I shall divide the words into three general parts 1. The Doctrine the Apostle instructs them in Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers 2. The reason whereby he proves and inforces this Doctrine For there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 3. The punishment of such resistance And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation 1. I shall begin with the Doctrine That every Soul must be subject to the higher powers And here are three things to to be explained 1. Who are contained under this general expression of every Soul 2. Who are meant by the higher powers 3. What is meant by being subject 1. Who are contained under this general expression of every Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by an ordinary Hebraism signifies every man For man is a compounded Creature of Body and Soul and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole Sometimes Flesh and sometimes Soul signifies the man and when every Soul is opposed to the higher powers it must signifie all men of what rank or condition soever they be who are not invested with this higher power Popes and Bishops and Priests as well Spiritual as Secular persons the whole body of the People as well as every single individual For when every Soul is commanded to be subject without any exception or limitation this must reach them in all capacities and conditions The design of the Apostle as you shall hear more presently was to forbid all resistance of Soveraign Princes and had he known of any men or number of men who might lawfully resist he ought not to have exprest it in such general terms as to forbid all without exception Had St. Paul known the Prerogative of St. Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome would he have written to the Christians of Rome to be subject to their Emperours without making any provision for the greater Authority of their Bishops The reason he assigns why every Soul must be subject to the higher Powers is because all powers are of God So that whoever is bound to be subject to God must be subject to their Prince who is in God's stead And this I think will reach the Pope of Rome as well as any private Christian unless he will pretend to more authority on earth than
Emperors Tertullian who wrote his Apologie under Severus asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperor by their God Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque Pietate christiana in Imperatorem quem necesse est suspiciamus ut eum quem Dominus noster elegit merito dixerim noster est magis Caesar a Deo nostro constitutus Tert. Apol. cap. 33. and this he assigns as the reason why they honour and reverence and pray for him and are in all things subject to him 3. If these men will grant the institution of civil power and authority by God is a necessary reason why we must not resist those who have this power it shall satisfie me and I will dispute no further whether by Powers in the Text the Apostle means civil government or the Persons of Princes so long as the Doctrine of Non-resistance is secured but if they will not grant this then they must grant that either the Apostle reasons weakly or that this is not the sense of his words St. Chrysostom indeed by the Powers that be ordained of God understands no more than that civil power and authority is from God as being afraid to own that all Princes though never so wicked are appointed by God but then he owns the doctrine of Non-resistance because the power is from God whoever have the possession of it or however he came by it But I think the argument for Non-resistance is much stronger if we acknowledge that soveveraign Princes themselves are appointed by God and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and ordering Providence 4. Others in plain terms deny that this is true that Princes receive their power from God and are ordained and appointed by him though the words of the Apostle are very plain and express in the case But let us set aside the Authority of the Apostle a while and examine why they say so And this they think is very plain in all Nations that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the choice and consent of the People or by right of inheritance confirmed and settled by publick Laws which include the consent of the People and therefore they receive their power from those who chose them which is no more than a Fiduciary power which they are lyable to give an account of to those who choose them Now grant this to be true that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the People which will not very well hold in conquests nor in hereditary Kingdoms yet I say suppose it to be true since it was manifestly the case of the Roman Empire when the Apostle wrote this Epistle their Emperors being chosen either by the Senate or the Army yet I would desire to be resolved in some few plain questions 1. Whether God does nothing but what he does by an immediate power Whether he cannot appoint and choose an Emperor unless he does it by a Voice from Heaven or sends an Angel to set the Crown upon his head Whether God cannot by a great many unknown ways determine the choice of the people to that Person whom he has before chosen himself May we not as well say that God does nothing but miracles because every thing else has some visible cause and may be ascribed either to natural or moral agents God may chuse an Emperor and the people chuse him too and the peoples choice is onely the effect of God's choice and therefore notwithstanding all this Princes owe their crowns and secepters to God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. How does it follow that because Princes are chose by the people therefore they derive their power from them and are accountable to them This is not true in humane governments A City or any Corporation may have Authority to choose their Magistrates and yet they do not derive their power from their fellow-Citizens who chose them but from their Prince Thus the People may chuse but God invests with power and Authority For indeed how can people who have no power of Government themselves give that power which they have not God is the only governour of the world and therefore there can be no power of Government but what is derived from him But these men think that all civil authority is founded in consent as if there were no natural Lord of the world or all mankind came free and independent into the world This is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant that the institution of Civil power and Authority is from God and indeed if it be not I know not how any Prince can justifie the taking away the life of any man whatever crime he has been guilty of For no man has power of his own life and therefore cannot give this power to another which proves that the power of capital punishments cannot result from meer consent but from a superiour Authority which is Lord of life and death If it be said that every man has a natural right to defend his own life by taking away the life of any man who injuriously assaults him and he may part with this power of self-defence to his Prince and that includes the power of life and death I answer 1. Suppose the Laws of Self-preservation will justifie the taking away another man's life in preservation of our own yet this is a Personal right which God and Nature has given us and unless we can prove that we have Authority to make over this right to another as well as to use it our selves our consent cannot give Authority to the Magistrate to take away any man's life in our cause 2. This natural right of self-defence cannot be the Original of the Magistrates power because no man does give up this right Every man has the right of Self-preservation as intire under civil government as he had in a state of Nature Under what government soever I live I may still kill another man when I have no other way to preserve my own life from unjust violence by private hands And this is all the liberty any man had in a supposed state of nature So that the Magistrates power of the Sword is a very different thing from every man's right of self-preservation and cannot owe its original to it For 3. The Magistrates power of the Sword is not meerly defensive as the right of self-preservation is but vindicative to execute vengeance on evil doers which power no man has over his equals in a state of Nature For vengeance is an act of superiority and supposes the Authority of a Lord and Judge and therefore the consent of all Mankind cannot give the power and authority of a Sword to a Prince because they never had it themselves A Prince as he bears the Sword is not the peoples Officer but the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil as our Apostle adds
at prayers and tears these have been always thought the onely remedy the Church has against persecuting powers and it seems St. Paul thought so too for he prescribes no other and yet he does not allow them to pray against the King neither but exhorts them to pray for him and that they might enjoy peace and security under his Government CHAP. V. St. Peter's Doctrine about Non-resistance HAving heard what St. Paul's doctrine was let us now consider what St. Peter taught about this matter he had as much reason to learn this lesson as any of the Apostles our Saviour having severely rebuked him for drawing his sword against the lawful powers as you have already heard And indeed his rash and intemperate zeal in this action cost him very dear for we have reason to believe that this was the chief thing that tempted him to deny his Master He was afraid to own himself to be his Disciple or that he had been in the garden with him because he was conscious to himself that by drawing his sword and smiting the servant of the high Priest he had incurred the penalty of the law and had he been discovered could expect nothing less but to be severely punish't for it it may be to have lost his life for his resistance And indeed this has very often been the fate of those men who have been transported with a boistrous and intemperate zeal to draw their swords for their Master and his Religion against the lawful powers that they commonly deny their Master and despise his Religion before they put their swords up again But St. Peter having by our Saviour's reproof and his own dear-bought experience learn't the evil of resistance never drew his svvord more and took great care to instruct Christians not to do so 1 Peter 2. 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme or unto Governours as to them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well For so is the will of God that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolishmen As free and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness but as the servants of God This is the very same Doctrine which St. Paul taught the Romans Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers for the same word is used in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to submit and to be subject is the same thing which as St. Paul tells us signifies Non-resistance Onely as St. Paul speaks onely of not resisting the Higher Powers that is Emperours and Soveraign Princes herein including all those who act by their Authority St. Peter to prevent all cavils and exceptions distinctly mentions both that we must submit to all humane power and authority not onely to the King as Supreme that is in St. Paul's phrase to the Higher Powers to all Soveraign Princes who are invested with the supreme Authority but also to those who are sent by him who receive their Authority and commission from the Soveraign Prince St. Paul tells us at large that all power is of God and that the power is the Minister of God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and therefore we must needs be subject not onely for Wrath that is for fear of being punish't by men but also for Conscience sake out of reverence to God and fear of his Judgement This St. Peter comprises in one word which includes it all Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake for how is God concerned in our obedience to Princes if they be not his Ministers who are appointed and advanced by him and act by his Authority and if it be not his will and command that we should obey them and therefore he addes for this is the will of God that with well doing that is by obedience and subjection to Princes ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men that is that you may put to silence those foolish men who ignorantly accuse you as fond of changes and troublesome and dangerous to Government But then St. Peter observing that Christian Liberty was made a pretence for seditions and treasons he cautions them against that also As free but not using your liberty for a cloak of Maliciousness that is to cover and excuse such wickedness as Rebellion against Princes but as the servants of God You must remember whatever freedom Christ has purchas 't for you he has not delivered you from obedience and subjection to God you are his servants still and therefore must be subject to those who receive their power and authority from God as all Soveraign Princes do This is as plain one would think as words can make it but nothing can be so plain but that men who are unwiling to understand it and who set their wits on work to avoid the force and evidence of it may be able to find something to say to deceive themselves and those who are willing to be deceived and therefore it will be necessary to consider what false colours some men have put upon these words to elude and baffle the plain scope and designe of the Apostle in them As first they observe that St. Peter calls Kings and subordinate Governours an ordinance of man or a humane Creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from hence they conclude that Kings are onely the peoples Creatures they are made by the people and receive their power from them and therefore are accountable to them if they abuse their power In answer to this we may consider 1. That this interpretation of St. Peter's words is a direct contradiction to St. Paul who expresly asserts that there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God but according to this exposition of humane Creature or the Ordinance of Man there is no power of God but all power is derived from the People Kings and Princes may be chosen by men as it is in Elective Kingdoms and as it was at that time in the Roman Empire but they receive their power from God and thus St. Paul and St. Peter may be reconciled but to affirm that St. Peter calls Kings an Ordinance of man because they receive their power and authority from men is an irreconcilable contradiction to St. Paul who affirms that they receive their power from God that they are God's and not the peoples Ministers Now though St. Peter and St. Paul did once differ upon a matter of prudence it would be of ill consequence to Religion to make them differ in so material a Doctrine as this is and yet there is no way to reconcile them but by expounding St. Peter's words so as to agree with St. Paul's for St. Paul's words can never be reconciled with that sence which these men give of St. Peter's
and that is a good argument to me that is not the true interpretation of St. Peter for I verily believe that these two great Apostles did not differ in this point 2. St. Peter exhorts them to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake which plainly signifies that whatever hand men may have in modelling civil governments yet it is the Ordinance of God and Princes receive their power from him For it is no act of disobedience to God to resist our Prince nor of obedience to God to submit to him if he does not derive his power from God and act by his Authority and commission especially in such cases when he opposes the Government of God and the interest of Religion and oppresses not onely God's Creatures but his most faithful and obedient people who are his peculiar care and charge in such cases as these if Princes do not receive their power from God they are opposite and rival Powers and we can no more submit to them for God's sake than we can submit to a Rebel for the sake of that is out of duty and loyalty to our natural Prince And therefore when the Apostle exhorts them for God's sake to submit to their King he plainly supposes what St. Paul did particularly express that Kings receive their power from God and therefore are God's Ministers even when they abuse their power and he that resists resists the Ordinance and Authority of God 3. But suppose we should grant that when St. Peter calls Kings the Ordinance of man he means that they receive their power and authority from men yet I cannot see what good this will do them for he plainly disowns their consequence that therefore Princes are accountable to the People as to their superiours and may be resisted deposed and brought to condigne punishment if they abuse this power as will appear from these two observations 1. That he gives the King the Title of supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who is above them all and is invested with the supreme and soveraign power Now the supreme power in the very notion of it is irresistible and unaccountable for otherwise it is not supreme but subject to some superiour jurisdiction which it is evidently known the Roman Emperours of whom the Apostle here speaks were not And 2. that he requires subjection to this humane ordinance which as appears from St. Paul signifies Non resistance So that though we should grant that the King derives his power from the people yet it seems God confirms and establishes the Crown on his head and will not suffer people to take it off again when they please 4. But after all there is no colour for this objection from the Apostles words for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 humane order or ordination signifies nothing but humane authority such power and authority as is exercised by men for the good government of humane Societies And the meaning is only this that out of reverence and obedience to God from whom all power is derived they should submit to that authority which is exercised by men whether to the supream power of Soveraign Princes or that subordinate authority which he bestows on inferiour Magistrates 2. It is farther objected that though St. Peter does command Christians to submit to Kings and Governours yet it is with a limitation as far as they govern well while they exercise their authority in pursuance of the great ends of its institution for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well And here St. Peter agrees very well with St. Paul who assigns this as the reason why they may be subject to the powers For Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil wilt thou then not be afraid of the power do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same For he is the minister of God to thee for good But if thou do that which is evil be afraid for he beareth not the sword in vain for he is the minister of God an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil 13 Rom 3 4. Now we cannot be bound to obey and submit any farther than the reason of our obedience reaches and if the reason why we must obey Princes is because they punish wickedness and reward and encourage Vertue which is so great a blessing to humane Societies then we are not bound to obey them when they do quite contrary when they encourage Vice and oppress the most exemplary innocence Now in answer to this let us consider 1. Whether these great Apostles intended to oblige the Christians of that age to yield obedience to those powers which then governed the world If they did as I think no man will be so hardy as to say that they did not then it will be proper to enquire whether what they here affirm and assign as the reason of their subjection that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil were true of the Roman Emperours and Governours or not If it were true then I believe it will hold true of all Kings in all ages of the world for there cannot well be greater Tyrants than the Roman Emperors were at this time and so this will prove an eternal reason why we should be subject to Princes notwithstanding the many faults and miscarriages of their government If it were not true it is very strange that two such great Apostles should use such an argument to perswade Christians to submit to the powers as only proved the quite contrary that they ought not to be subject to the present powers because they were unjust and Tyrannical and in contradiction to the original design and institution of civil power were a terror to good works and not to the evil The Christians were at that time persecuted by Iews and Heathens by all the powers of the World The Apostle exhorts them not to resist the powers because they were not a Terror to good works but to the evil If by this he only means that they should be subject to them while they encouraged Vertue and vertuous men but might rebel against them when they did the contrary how could the Christians of those days think themselves obliged by this to submit to the higher powers For this was not their case They suffered for righteousness sake the powers were a terrour to them though they were innocent though they could not charge them either with breaking the Laws of God or Men and therefore they were not bound to submit to them whenever they could find it safe to resist So that either these men put a false comment upon the Text or while the Apostle undertakes to deter them from resistance he urges such an argument as was proper only to perswade them to rebel 2. We may also consider that this interpretation of the words makes the Apostles argument childish and ludicrous and wholly useless to perswade any man to be subject who
needs perswasion For I take it for granted that there is no need to perswade any man especially the good and vertuous not to resist the powers when he meets with the just rewards and encouragements of Vertue The usual pretence for Seditions and Treasons is to redress publick grievances to deliver themselves from a state of oppression and slavery but all mankind agree that they ought to obey Governours who govern well and no man thinks it just or honourable to rebel who has not or cannot pretend some cause of complaint The tryal of our obedience is when we suffer injuriously for righteousness sake when our Rights and Liberties are invaded when we groan under such oppressions as are enough to make a wise man mad and to transport him to irregular and unjustifiable actions This was the case of the Primitive Christians to whom the Apostles wrote and therefore we might reasonably expect that he should urge such Arguments to Subjection as should reach their case but if these men be good Expositors the Apostle says nothing to perswade any man to obedience to the powers who finds the powers uneasie and troublesome to him and those who have nothing to complain of one would think should need no Arguments to perswade them to subjection to so easie and gentle a yoak 3. Nay according to this interpretation of the Doctrine of Subjection that we are bound only to be subject to those Princes who rule well who punish wickedness and reward vertue this Doctrine of Subjection gives no security at all to the best governments in the world The most Factious and Seditious spirits can desire no greater liberty than this principle grants them For no humane government can be so exact and perfect but it may be guilty of great miscarriages Good men may suffer and bad men may flourish under a vertuous Prince and therefore ill designing men can never want pretences to misrepresent the government and to foment Discontents and Jealousies between Prince and People This unhappy Nation has been a sad example of this twice in one Age under two as just and merciful Princes as ever sate upon the English Throne When there were never fewer real grievances to be complained of and never more loud and Tragical complaints and if Subjects are not bound to obey any longer than all things please and gratifie their humors it is a vain thing to name the Doctâ—â—â—â— of Subjection which is of no use at all 〈◊〉 peace and security of humane 〈◊〉 4. This is absolutely false 〈◊〉 are bound to be subject to 〈◊〉 Princes no longer than th◠〈…〉 according to the measures 〈…〉 and righteousness The Apostle I am sure supposes the contrary when he tells the Christians But and if ye suffer for righteousness sake happy are ye and be not afraid of their terror neither be troubled 1 Pet. 3. 14. Thus he commands servants to be subject to their Masters with fear not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience towards God endure grief suffering patiently For what glory is it if when ye be buffeted for your faults ye take it patiently but if when ye do well and suffer for it ye take it patiently this is acceptable with God 2 Chap. 18 19 20. And certainly there is as perfect a subjection due to a Soverain Prince as to a Master for he is more eminently the Minister of God and acts by a more Sacred and inviolable authority And that this does extend to our subjection to Princes appears from the example of Christ which the Apostle there recommends to our imitation who was the most innocent person in the world and yet suffered the most barbarous usage not from the hands of a private Master but of the supreme powers And therefore when he commands in the same Chapter to submit to Governours as to those who are for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well it is evident that he did not intend this as a limitation of our subjection as if we were not bound to be subject in other cases since in the very same Chapter he requires subjection not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward in imitation of the example of our Lord who suffered patiently under unjust and Tyrannical powers 5. I observe therefore that the Apostle does not alleadge this as the reason of our subjection but as a motive or argument to reconcile us to the practice of it The reason of our subjection to Princes is that they are advanced by God that they are his Ministers that those who resist resist the Ordinance of God and therefore we must submit for Gods sake out of reverence to his authority But it is an encouragement to subjection to consider the great advantages of government that Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil But though this motive should fail in some instances yet while the reason of subjection lasts and that can never fail while we own the Soverain Authority of God so long it is our dutie to be subject whether our Prince do his dutie or not 6. But to examine more particularly the meaning of these words When the Apostle says that Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil that they are for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well I see no necessitie of expounding this of good and evil works in general that all good and virtuous actions shall be rewarded by them and all evil actions punish't for this is almost impossible in any humane government and there never was any government in the world that appointed rewards for all virtuous actions and punishments for all wicked ones But these good and evil works seem to be confined to the matter in hand to subjection and obedience as a good and virtuous action And so the Apostle enforces this dutie of subjection not onely from the Authoritie of God but from the power of Princes Be subject to the higher powers for Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil We need not fear the powers when we obey them and submit ourselves to them but they will punish us if we rebel The force of which argument is this The best way to obtain safetie and protection under any Government is by being peaceable quiet and obedient such men generally escape under the greatest Tyrants for Tyrants themselves do not use to insult over the peaceable and obedient but if men be seditious and troublesome to government then he beareth not the sword in vain but is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil that is upon all disobedience and rebellion for whatever wickedness escapes unpunish't Princes for their own securitie must not suffer disobedience and rebellion to escape And that this is the meaning of it appears from the next verse where the
Apostle sums up the whole argument for subjection which he reduces to Conscience towards God and fear of the secular powers Wherefore ye must needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for Conscience sake And that St. Peter by well doing means subjection to Princes is very plain For so is the will of God that with well doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men that is by obedience and subjection to Princes which is the dutie he there exhorts them to And therefore it is very probable that he means the same by well doing in the verse before that Governours are for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well to punish the disobedient and rebellious and to reward and protect those who live in all quiet and peaceable subjection And if this be the meaning of it I think they can find no limitation here of our subjection to Princes 7. But let us suppose that when the Apostle says that Rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil he understands by it in general the great advantages of civil government that is for the suppression of wickedness and incouragement of virtue which is the true end and the best improvement of humane power this also is in a great measure true of the worst and most Tyrannical Princes and therefore the argument for subjection is good even under a Tyrant Publick Justice was administred under the government of Nero and good men were rewarded and bad men punish't And though Justice be not so equally and so universally administred under a bad Prince as under a good one though a Tyrant may oppress many of his subjects and be the occasion of great Calamities yet while there is any publick government maintained in the world it lays great restraints upon the unruly lusts and passions of men and gives great securitie to the just and innocent And therefore good men are concerned to promote the peace and securitie of Government though the Prince be a Tyrant for there is more Justice to be had under a Tyrant than in a civil War In ordinary cases it is very possible for good men to live easily and tolerably under a very bad Prince though it should be their lot to suffer yet since the peace and quiet of humane Societies is in it self so great a blessing and the publick good is better consulted by the preservation of government than by resistance it becomes every good man rather to suffer patiently under a Tyrant than to shake and unsettle humane government and disturb the natural course of Justice by seditions and tumults 8. Nay let us suppose that the Apostle here speaks of such an equal administration of Justice as cannot be expected under the government of a Tyrant yet so the argument holds good against resistance though our Prince be never so bad And it lies thus we must not resist the powers because Rulers are not a terrour to good works but to the evil This is the great blessing of humane government to preserve Justice and righteousness among men For this reason God has intrusted the Princes with the power of the sword for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well and therefore we must not resist him because publick Justice is so great a blessing to the world But how does this follow you will say that we must not resist a Tyrant who is so far from administring Justice that he oppresses his subjects because Civil Government and Publick Justice is so great a blessing what agreement is there between civil government and publick Justice and a Tyrant Why the consequence is very plain Civil government which is for the administration of publick Justice is a great and inestimable blessing to the world but now there can be no civil government without a supreme and irresistible power publick Justice cannot be administred unless there is some power from whence there is no appeal It is not necessarie indeed that the power should always be in the hands of one man but if God have placed this power in the hands of a Prince there it must be irresistible too however he uses it for if once it be made lawful to resist the supreme Power wherever it is plac't you dissolve humane Societies or at least expose them to perpetual disorders and convulsions Factious and ambitious men will find pretences to resist good Princes as well as the bad and no government can be any longer secure than while ill-designing men want power to resist Now then to pass a true Judgement of this matter we must not onely consider what present inconveniencies we may suffer from the irresistible power of a Tyrant but what an irreparable mischief it is for ever to unsettle the foundations of government We must consider whether Civil Government be the greater blessing to mankind or a Tyrant the greater curse whether it be more desirable to endure the insolence and injustice of a Tyrant when the power falls into such a hand or for ever to be deprived of the securitie of government and the blessings of Peace and order And therefore there is great reason why God should so severely forbid the resistance of Princes though Tyrants and why we should quietly and contentedly submit to this divine appointment because the resistance of the supreme power were it once allowed by God would weaken the authoritie of humane Governments and expose them to the rage and frenzie of ambitious and discontented Statesmen or wild Enthusiasts This I think is a sufficient answer to this pretence that the Apostle limits our subjection to Princes to the regular exercise of their authoritie 3. It is objected also from St. Peters words that the inferiour and subordinate Magistrates receive their power from God also as well as supreme and Soveraign Princes Governours are sent by him that is say they by God for the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well and therefore though private men may not resist a Soveraign Prince yet publick Magistrates may though they be not supreme for it is their dutie also to see wickedness punish't and virtue rewarded and therefore it is part of their Commission to give check to the Soveraign Power and to defend subjects from the unjust violence and oppressions of their Prince And this the Emperour Trajan learn't from the common principles of Justice and Equitie who delivered a sword to one of his Officers with this charge to use it for him while he governed well but against him if he governed ill Now in answer to this we may consider 1. That there is no foundation at all for this in the Text for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by him cannot by any rules of Grammar be referred to God but to the King Submit to every Ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as supreme or unto Governours as unto them who are sent by
him By him by whom by God that is not said but by the King for that is the next antecedent and that is the evident truth of the case Inferiour Magistrates do not receive their power from God but from the King who having the Soveraign power in himself commits the exercise of some part of it to others and taketh it away again when he pleases And the very phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are sent by him plainly refers it to those who were sent by the Emperour into forreign countries to govern the Roman Provinces such as Pontius Pilate and Felix were and so the meaning is that they were not onely obliged to submit to the Roman Emperours but to all those Governours whom they sent to rule the Provinces under their Jurisdiction which is no more than for a Preacher to instruct the subjects of Ireland that they must not onely submit to the King but to all those whom he sent to govern them with the power and authoritie of Deputies or Lord-Lieutenants 2. Nay St. Peter as if he had foreseen this objection takes particular care to prevent it and therefore makes an apparent difference between that submission we owe to Soveraign Princes and that which we owe to Governours we must submit to the King as supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to him who is above all whose power is unaccountable and irresistible but to Governours as unto them who are sent by him which both signifies the reason of our submission to Governours and prescribes the bounds and measures of it The reason why we must submit to Governours is because they are sent by our Prince they act by his Authoritie and therefore we must submit to and reverence his Authoritie in them It is not for their own sakes nor for any inherent Authoritie in them but as they receive their power from our Prince And this also determines the bounds and measures of our subjection to Governours As that Authoritie which they receive from the King is the onely reason why we must submit to them at all so we must submit no longer than that Authoritie lasts when ever the Prince recalls them and transfers this power to another we must obey them no longer Nay since we are only bound to reverence and obey the authoritie of our Prince in them we must never submit to them in opposition to our Prince Our primarie obligation is to submit to the King who is our Soveraign-Lord and must in no cases be resisted our submission to Governours and subordinate Magistrates is onely a part and branch of our dutie to the King as they are his Officers and Ministers and therefor eit can never be our dutie to obey or comply with subordinate Magistrates but onely when it is an act of dutie and subjection to our Prince and certainly it is no act of subjection to our Prince to obey subordinate Magistrates when they rebel against their Prince for to resist a Prince or to joyn with those who do resist him is an odde kind of instance of our subjection to him This is not to submit to the King as supreme nor to Governours as unto those who are sent by him and receive their Authoritie from him but it is to submit to Governours as the supreme and soveraign Iudges of our Prince and the Patrons and Protectors of the people against their Prince which is directly contrarie to St. Peter's Doctrine It was no new thing for the Governours of remote Provinces to revolt from the obedience of the Roman Emperours and to usurp a Soveraign and Imperial Authoritie to themselves and therefore St. Peter expresses their dutie to Governours with this caution and limitation that though they must submit to those whom the Emperour sent to govern them yet it must be in subordination to the Imperial Authoritie and with a reserve of that more absolute subjection which they owe to the Emperour himself who is their Soveraign Lord. While Governours are subject to the Emperour who is their Lord and Master we must be subject to them but if they rebel we must be subject to the Emperour still and oppose those whom we were before bound to obey When St. Peter so expresly commands them both to submit to the King and to submit to Governours it is impossible he could consider the King and Governous as two distinct and rival authorities for then it might so happen that they could not submit to both if ever they should oppose each other and therefore when he commands them to submit to both he must suppose them to be both one as the fountain and the stream is one The Authoritie to which they must submit is but one it is originally in the King as in its source and fountain and it is derived and communicated to Governours but is the same power still which as necessarily depends upon the King as light does upon the Sun and therefore when these powers grow two when this derivative and dependant power sets up for it self in opposition to that power which gave it its being we are delivered from our subjection to it because it ceases to be one with that soveraign power to which we must be subject Once more St. Peter commands the Christians to submit to the King and to Governours that is to the King's Ministers who receive their authority from him to govern But when such persons rebel against their Prince who gave them authority they cease to be the Kings Ministers and Governours and therefore cease to be such Governours to whom the Apostle commands submission We are to obey them while they are the Kings Ministers and Deputies but when they assume to themselves an independant power we must submit to them no longer but to our Prince We may and ought to obey our Prince and those Magistrates whom he sets over us but we cannot submit to our Prince and to Rebels and certainly when men become Rebels they are no longer the Kings Ministers but his Rivals 3. It is a very ridiculous pretence also which has no foundation in St. Peter's words that Governours or subordinate Magistrates have power to controul or resist their Soverain Prince The Apostle tells us that the King is supreme but over whom is he supreme certainly over all in his Dominions or else he is not supreme and therefore he is supreme with respect to subordinate Magistrates as well as private Subjects and then they have no more power or authority to resist than any private Subject has For St. Paul tells us the higher Power is irresistible which would be a strange Paradox if every little Officer had authority to resist him And yet if men will grant that it is never lawful for any private man to resist his Prince it is not worth disputing whether subordinate Magistrates may or not for if private men must not resist these inferiour Magistrates cannot or at least they will resist to no purpose He may make them private men
again when he pleases or however he must be an unfortunate Prince whom all his own Officers and Ministers conspire against and he must be a very weak Prince who has not force and power to oppose them For what does the discontent of the greatest Ministers signifie who can raise no forces to oppose their Prince and yet there are no forces to be raised if private men must not resist When inferiour Magistrates must submit or rebel alone as they must do if private men must not rebel whatever authority they have to controul their Prince they will want force and power to do it And yet it would be a lewd way of burlesquing this Doctrine of Non-resistance to make no more of it than this that when St. Paul so severely threatens damnation against those who resist his meaning is that private Subjects must not resist their Prince unless they have some discontented and factious Magistrates to head them But how should these subordinate Governours come by this power to resist their Prince They must either have it from God or from their Prince Not from God For Soverain Princes receive their authority from God and if God have bestowed the supreme and Soverain Power on the Prince it is a contradiction to say that he has advanced his own Ministers and Officers above him which would be to place a superiour power over the supreme Nor is it reasonable to suppose that inferiour Magistrates receive such a power as this from their Prince though it is evident they have no power but what they receive from him For notwithstanding Trajan's complement which he never intended should be made a Law for himself or other Soverain Princes no Prince can give such power as this to a Subject without giving him his Crown He gives away his Soverain power when he gives any Subject authority to resist he ceases to be a Soverain Prince if he makes any man his Superior for he cannot give away Soverain power and yet keep it himself And it would be a hard case with Princes had they as many Judges and Masters as they have Officers and Ministers of State Indeed no Prince without parting with his Crown can grant such an extravagant power to any Subject for while he continues Soverain God has made it necessary to the greatest Subjects to obey and submit For as for Trajan's saying to one of his Commanders when he delivered him the Sword Use this for me if I govern well and against me if I govern ill it only signified his fixt resolution to govern well and that he would imploy it in no ill services but it conveyed no more power to him to rebel if he should govern ill than a Father's saying to his Son that he should forgive his disobedience if ever he would prove unkind would justifie the disobedience of the Son if his Father should prove unkind The duties of these relations are fixt by God and cannot be altered by men A Prince may divest himself of his Kingdom and royal Power but while he continues Soveraign he cannot give liberty to any man to resist him 4. There is another objection not only to invalidate St. Peters authoritie but to answer all the arguments that are produced from the doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles to inforce this dutie of Non-resistance and subjection to Princes and that is that these commands were onely temporarie and obliged Christians while they wanted force and power to resist but do not oblige us when we can resist and conquer too I have sometimes thought that this objection ought to be answered onely with indignation and abhorrence as an open contempt of the authoritie of the Scriptures and blasphemie against the holy Spirit by which they were indited but it may be it is better to answer and expose it and let the world see besides the notorious folly of it how near a kin the doctrine of Resistance is to Atheism Infidelity and Blasphemy 1. First then I observe that this very objection supposes that the doctrine of the Gospel is against Resistance for those who evade the authoritie of the Scriptures by saying that Christians were then forbid to resist because they wanted power to conquer must grant that resistance is forbid Which is a plain confession that they are conscious to themselves that all the arts they have us'd to make the Scriptures speak their sence and justifie the Doctrine of Resistance will not do And therefore when men are once reduced to this last refuge to confess that the Scriptures are against them if they have any modesty left they ought never to pretend to the authority of the Scriptures in this cause more And this is a sufficient answer to all men who have any reverence for the authority of the Scriptures that they cannot resist their Prince without disobeying the plain and express Laws of the Gospel for he is a bold man who will venture his eternal Salvation upon pleading his exemption from any express Law 2. I would desire all men who have any reverence left for the Religion of our Saviour to consider seriously how this pretence does disparage and weaken the authority of the Gospel and make it a very imperfect and a very uncertain rule of Life which every man may fit and accommodate to his own humour and inclinations Christ and his Apostles do in the most express terms and under the most severe penalties forbid the resistance of Soveraign Princes But say these men this law does not oblige us now though it did oblige the Christians of those days for our circumstances are much changed and altered The Christians at that time were weak and unable to resist and therefore were taught to suffer patiently without resistance but thanks be to God the case is not thus now and therefore we may vindicate our natural and religious rights and liberties against all unjust violence Now observe what follows from hence 1. That the Gospel of our Saviour is a very imperfect and uncertain rule of life that it absolutely forbids things which are not absolutely evil but sometimes lawful without allowing for such a difference that it gives general laws which oblige onely at certain times or in some circumstances without giving any notice in what cases they do not oblige which is a mightie snare to mens consciences or a great injury to their Christian libertie It imposes this hard necessitie upon them either to make bold with a divine law if they do resist Tyrannical powers which is grievous to a tender conscience which has any reverence for God or to suffer injuriously when they need not had they been plainly instructed in their dutie and acquainted in what cases they might resist and in what not And I think there cannot be a greater reproach to the Gospel than to make it such an imperfect and insnaring rule 2. Nay this charges Christ and his Apostles with want of sinceritie in preaching the Gospel for either they knew that
Resistance or Rebellion against a Prince who persecutes without or against Law I shall only ask two plain questions 1. Whether the Laws of God and Nature be not as sacred and inviolable as the Laws of our Country if they be and methinks no man should dare say that they are not why may we not as well resist a Prince who persecutes us against the Laws of God and Nature as one who persecutes against the Laws of our Countrey is not the Prince as much bound to observe the Laws of God and Nature as the Laws of his Country if so then their distinction between suffering with and against Law signifies nothing For all men who suffer for well-doing suffer against Law For by the Laws of God and the natural ends of humane Government such men ought to be rewarded and not punisht Nay they suffer contrarie to those Laws which commanded them to do that good for which they suffer Thus the Christians suffered under Pagan Emperors for worshipping one supreme God and refusing to worship the numerous Gods of the Heathens and therefore according to these principles might have justified a Rebellion against those unjust and persecuting powers but the Apostles would not allow this to be a just cause of resistance as I have already shewn you and yet I confess I am to seek for the reason of this difference why we may not resist a Prince who persecutes against the Laws of God as well as him who persecutes against the Laws of England 2. My other question is this Whether a Prince have any more authority to make wicked and persecuting Laws than to persecute without Law These men tell us that if Paganism or Popery were established by Law they were bound to suffer patiently for their Religion without resistance but since Christianity and Protestancy is the Religion of the Nation they are not bound to suffer but may defend themselves when they are condemned by no Law But if we examine this throughly it is a very weak and trifling Cavil For what authoritie has a wicked and persecuting Law and who gave it this authoritie what authoritie has any Prince to make Laws against the Laws of God if he have no authoritie then it is no Law and then to make a wicked Law to persecute good men is the same thing as to persecute without Law nay as to persecute against Law The pretence for resistance is when the Prince persecutes without authority Now I say a Prince has no more authoritie to make wicked persecuting Laws than to persecute without Law Should a Popish Prince procure all our good Laws for the Protestant Religion to be repealed and establish Popery by Law and make it death not to be a Papist he would have no more real authoritie to do this than to persecute Protestants without repealing the Laws A Soverain and unaccountable power will justifie both so as to make resistance unlawful but if it cannot justifie both it can justifie neither For a Prince has no more authoritie to make a bad Law than to break a good one so that this principle will lead them a great deal farther than they pretend to and let the Laws of the Land be what they will in time they may come to think it a just reason for Rebellion to pull down Antichrist and to set up Christ Iesus upon this Throne This I hope is a sufficient answer to the two first objections That we are bound by no Law to suffer against Law And that the Prince has no authoritie against Law 3. The next objection is that they have a natural right of self-preservation and self-defence against unjust and illegal violence This very pretence was made great use of to wheadle people into this late Conspiracie Those who were employed to prepare and dispose men for Rebellion askt them whether they would not defend themselves if any man came to cut their throats this they readily said they would when they had gained this point they askt them whether they did not value their Liberties as much as their Lives and whether they would not defend them also And thus they might have proceeded to any part of their Liberties if they had pleased for they have the same right to any part as to the whole and thus self-defence would at last reach to the smallest occasion of discontent or jealousie or dislike of Publick Government Now in answer to this I readily grant that every man has a natural right to preserve and defend his life by all lawful means but we must not think every thing lawful which we have strength and power and opportunity to do and therefore to give a full answer to this plea let us consider 1. That self-defence was never allowed by God or Nature against publick authority but only against private violence There was a time when Fathers had the power of life and death over their own Children now I would only ask these men whether if a Son at that time saw his Father coming to kill him and that as he thought very unjustly he might kill his Father to defend himself This never was allowed by the most barbarous Nations in the world and yet it may be justified by this principle of self-defence as it is urged by those men which is a plain argument that it is false It is an express Law that he that smiteth his Father or his Mother shall be surely put to death 21 Exod. 15. and yet then the power of Parents was restrained by publick Laws And the authoritie of a Prince is not less sacred than of a Parent he 's God's Minister and Vicegerent and Subjects are expresly forbid to resist and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural right against the express Law of God 2. For the sole power of the Sword is in the King's hands and therefore no private man can take the Sword in his own defence but by the King's authoritie and certainly he cannot be presumed to give any man authoritie to use the Sword against himself And therefore as Christ tells Peter he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword he who draws the Sword against the lawful powers deserves to die by it 3. We may consider also that it is an external Law that private defence must give place to the publick good Now he that takes Arms to defend his own life and some few others involves a whole Nation in blood and confusion and occasions the miserable slaughter of more men than a long succession of Tyrants could destroy Such men sacrifice many thousand lives both of friends and enemies the happiness and prosperity of many thousand Families the publick peace and tranquillity of the Nation to a private self-defence and if this be the Law of Nature we may well call Nature a step-mother that has armed us to our own ruine and confusion 4. And therefore we may farther observe that Non-resistance and subjection to government is the best way for every mans
to be employ'd 5. And therefore we may observe that by the fundamental Laws of our Government as the Prince must Govern by Law so he is irresistible which shews that our wise Law-makers did not think that Non-resistance was destructive of a limited Monarchy 6. And in this long succession of Princes in this Kingdom there has been no Prince that has cast off the Authority of Laws or usurpt an absolute and arbitrary Power which shews how vain those fears are which disturb the fancies and imaginations of Rebels if they be not pretended onely to disturb the publick Peace 7. Non-resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a limited into an absolute Monarchy The Laws of England have made such an admirable provision for the honour and prosperous Government of the Prince and the security of the Subject that the Kings of England have as little temptation to desire to be absolute while their Subjects are obedient and governable as their Subjects have that they should be so And if ever our Kings attempt to make themselves absolute which thanks be to God we have no prospect of yet it will be owing to the factious and traiterous dispositions of Subjects When Subjects once learn the trade of murdering Princes and rebelling against them it is time then for Princes to look to themselves and if ever our posterity should suffer under so unhappy a change of Government they will have reason for ever to curse the Fanatick rage and fury of this Age and the best way to remove that scandal which has been already given to Princes is by a publick profession and practice of this great Gospel-duty of Non-resistance 8. The last objection against Non-resistance is this that if resistance in no case be allowed the mischiefs and inconveniences to Mankind may be intolerable To which I shall briefly return these following answers 1. That bare Possibilities are no argument against any thing For that which may be may not be and there is nothing in this world how good or useful or necessary soever it be in its self but may possibly be attended with very great inconveniences and if we must reject that which is good and useful in it self for the sake of some possible inconveniences which may attend it we must condemn the very best things Modesty and Humility Justice and Temperance are great and excellent Vertues and yet we may live in such an age when these Vertues shall beggar a man and expose him to contempt Mercy and Clemency is a noble quality in a Prince and yet it is possible that the Clemency of a Prince may ruine him and he may spare Traitors Lives till they take away his Marriage is a Divine Institution which contributes as much to the happiness and comfort of humane life as any one thing in this world and yet it may be you cannot name any thing neither which many times proves so great a plague and curse to Mankind Thus Non-resistance is a great and excellent duty and absolutely necessary to the peace and order and good government of the world but yet a bad Prince may take the advantage of it to do a great deal of mischief And what follows from hence that Non-resistance is no duty because it may possibly be attended with evil consequences then you can hardly name any thing which is our duty for the most excellent Vertues may at one time or other expose us to very great inconveniences but when they do so we must not deny them to be our duty because we shall suffer by it but must bear our sufferings patiently and expect our reward from God And yet that there is not so much danger in Non-resistance as these men would perswade the world I hope appears from my answers to the last objection 2. When we talk of inconveniences we must weigh the inconveniences on both sides and consider which are greatest We may suffer great inconveniences by Non-resistance when our Prince happens to prove a Tyrant but shall we suffer fewer inconveniences were it lawful for Subjects to resist Which is the greatest and most merciless Tyrant an arbitrary and lawless Prince or a Civil War which will destroy most mens Lives a Nero or Dioclesian or a pitcht Battel who will devour most Estates a Covetous and Rapacious Prince or an insolent Army and hungry Rabble which is the greatest oppression of the Subject some illegal Taxes or Plunderings Decimations and Sequestrations Who are most likely to abuse their power the Prince or the people which is most probable that a Prince should oppress his dutiful and obedient Subjects or that some factious and designing men should misrepresent the government of their Prince and that the giddy multitude should believe them who is most likely to make a change and alteration in government an Hereditary Prince or the People who are fond of innovations While Soverain and irresistible power is in the hands of the Prince it is possible we may sometimes have a good one and then we shall find no inconvenience in the Doctrine of Non-resistance Nay it is possible we may have a great many good Princes for one bad one for Monsters are not so common as more natural productions so that the inconveniences we may suffer by this Doctrine will but seldom happen but had the people power to resist it is almost impossible that publick government should ever be quiet and secure for half an age together they are as unstable as the Seas and as easily moved with every breath and as outragious and tempestuous too These are not some guesses and probabilities but demonstrations in this unhappy age wherein we have seen all these things acted The CONCLUSION Containing a short Dissuasive from Resistance and Rebellion HAving thus largely proved that Subjection and Non-resistance is a necessary duty which Subjects owe to Soverain Princes and answered all those objections which are made against it the result of all is to perswade Subjects to the practise of it And St. Paul urges two very powerful arguments to perswade us to it Rom. 13. 1. That the powers are of God and he that resisteth the powers resisteth the ordinance of God And certainly he is no Christian who disputes obedience to the Divine Ordinance and Constitution A Prince is the Image the Vice-gerent of God and therefore Princes are called Gods in Scripture and be he what he will a good or a bad Prince while God thinks fit to advance him to the Throne it becomes us to submit and reverence the Divine Authority Will you lift up your hand against God will you cast off his authority and government too does not he know how to rule us how to chuse a Prince for us The greatest Rebel would blush to say this in so many words and yet this is the Language of Rebellion Men dislike their Prince that is that Governour whom God sets over them they rebel against their Prince they Depose him they Murder him that is
they disown the Authority of God they deface and destroy his Image and offer scorn and contempt to his Vice gerent Earthly Princes look upon every affront and disgrace done to their Ministers and Lieutenants to be a contempt of their own Authority and so does God too he who pulls down a Prince denies Gods authority to set him up and affronts his wisdom in chusing him 2. And therefore such men must not expect to escape a deserved punishment they shall receive to themselves damnation Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either signifie the punishment of Rebellion in this world or in the next and here it signifies both 1. They shall be punisht in this world And whoever consults Ancient and Modern Histories will find that Rebels very seldom escape punishment in this world How often does God defeat all their Counsels discover their secret Plots and Conspiracies and if they be prosperous for a while yet vengeance overtakes them if they escape punishment from men they are punisht by some such remarkable providence as bears the Characters of a Divine Justice in it 2. However such men shall not escape the punishments of the other world and if you believe there is a Hell for Rebels and Traitors the punishment of resistance is infinitely greater than all the mischiefs which can befal you in subjection to Princes and a patient suffering for well doing What shall it profit a man though he should gain the whole world which is something more than a single Crown and Kingdom and loose his own Soul Though an universal Empire were the reward of Rebellion such a glorious Traitor who parts with his Soul for it would have no great reason to boast much of his purchase Let us then reverence the Divine Judgments let us patiently submit to our King though he should persecute and oppress us and expect our protection here from the Divine Providence and our reward in Heaven which is the same encouragement to Non-resistance which we have to the practise of any other Vertue Were the advantages and disadvantages of Resistance and Non-resistance in this world fairly estimated it were much more eligible to submit than to rebel against our Prince but there can be no comparison between these two when we take the other world into the account The last Judgment weighs down all other considerations and certainly Rebellion may well be said to be as the sin of Witchcraft when it so inchants men that they are resolved to be Rebels though they be damned for it THE END BOOKS Printed for Fincham Gardiner 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and Stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawful to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument for Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. The Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. Some Seasonable Reflections on the Discovery of the late Plot being a Sermon preached on that occasion by W. Sherlock D. D. Rector of St. George Buttolph-lane London King David's Deliverance or the Conspiracy of Absolon and Achitophel defeated in a Sermon Preached on the day of Thanksgiving appointed for the Discovery of the late Fanatical Plot. By Thomas Long B. D. one of the Prebendaries of Exon. Milton pro Pop. Angl. defensio p. 68. Iulian the Apostate Iulian Apostate