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
vindicated his authoritie by a miraculous destruction of those Rebels for the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up Afterward when they came into Canaan the ordinary exercise of this power was in their High-Priests and Iudges whom God raised up whose sentence and judgment was final and must not be resisted under penaltie of death when the Children of Israel desired a King this soveraign and irresistible power was transferred to him and setled in his Person Saul was the first King who was chosen by God and anointed by Samuel but for his disobedience was afterwards rejected by God and David the son of Iesse was anointed King to succeed after Saul's death But in the mean time David was persecuted by Saul who sought after his life And though he himself was anointed by God and Saul was rejected by him yet he durst not resist nor oppose him nor defend himself by force against the most unjust violence but fled for his life and hid himself in Caves and Mountains Nay when Saul was delivered into his hands by God he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lord 's Anointed But to proceed in the story Solomon David's son who succeeded him in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses 1 Kings 10. 28. He multiplied Wives and loved many strange women together with the daughter of Pharoah women of the Moabites Ammonites Edomites Zidonians and Hittites 1 Kings 11. 1. He multiplied Silver and Gold 10 chap. 27. contrary to the command of God For this God who is the onely Judge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplished in the days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give authoritie to his Subjects to rebel If to be under the direction and obligation of Laws makes a limited Monarchie it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the rule of his government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was commanded when he came to the Throne to write a copy of the law with his own hand and to read in it all his days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the words of this law and these Statutes to do them 17 Deut. 18 19 20. and yet he was a soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Judge and avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal Baasha killed Nadab the son of Ieroboam and reigned in his stead 1 Kings 15. 25 26 27. and for this and his other sins God threatens evil against Baasha and against his house 16 Chron. 7. Zimri slew Elah the son of Baasha and slew all the house of Baasha but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had usurpt by treason and murder for he reigned but seven days in Tirzah which being besieged and taken by Omri he went into the Palace of the King's house and burnt the King's house over him with fire and died v. 18. This example Iezebel threatned Iehu with Had Zimri peace who slew his master 2 Kings 9. 31. and yet Nadab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes And if that would justifie Treason and Murder both Baasha and Zimri had been very innocent This is a sufficient evidence how sacred and inviolable the Persons and Authority of the Iewish Kings were during the time of that Monarchie But it will not be amiss briefly to consider what obligations the Iews were under to be subject to the higher powers when they were carried captive into Babylon Now the Prophet Ieremiah had given an express command to them Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives and pray to the Lord for it for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace 29 Jer. 7. Which made it a necessary duty to be subject to those powers under whose government they lived And accordingly we find that Mordecai discovered the Treason of Bigthana and Teresh two of the King's Chamberlains the Keepers of the door who sought to lay hand on the King Ahasuerus 6 Esther 2. And how numerous and powerful the Iews were at this time and what great disturbance they could have given to the Empire appears evidently from the book of Esther King Ahasuerus upon the suggestions of Haman had granted a Decree for the destruction of the whole People of the Iews which was sent into all the Provinces written and sealed with the King's ring This Decree could never be reversed again for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Persians And therefore when Esther had found favour with the King all that could be done for the Iews was to grant another Decree for them to defend themselves which accordingly was done and the effect of it was this That the Iews at Shusan slew three hundred men and the Iews of the other Provinces slew seventy and five thousand and rested from their enemies 9 Esther 15 16 17. Without this Decree Mordecai did not think it lawful to resist which yet was a case of as great extremity and barbarous cruelty as could ever happen which made him put Esther upon so hazardous an attempt as to venture into the King's presence without being called which was death by their Law unless the King should graciously hold out the golden Scepter to them 4 Esth. 11. and yet when they had obtained this Decree they were able to defend themselves and to destroy their enemies which is as famous an example of Passive Obedience as can be met with in any History And therefore the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belteshazzar The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People nations and languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would be set up and whom he would he pulled down 5 Dan. 18 19. And if these Heathen Kings receive their power from God as the Prophet here affirms St. Paul has made the application of it That he that resisteth resisteth the ordinance of God This may serve for the times of the Old Testament and I shall conclude these testimonies with the saying of the wise man who was both a Prophet and a King I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou 8 Eccl. 2 3 4. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of Christ concerning Non-resistance LEt us now consider what Christ and his Apostles taught
as is absolute and unaccountable If there be no supreme power in any society when ever there happens any difference among the members of such a society nothing can be done and such a society is an arbitrary and voluntary not a governed society because there is no body to govern and no body to be governed they may govern themselves by mutual consent but if they cannot agree there is an end of their government Where there is any government there must be some-body to govern and whoever has the power of government must not be contradicted or resisted for then he cannot govern for a power to govern men onely when and in what cases they please to be governed is no power Now place this power where you will in a single Person or in the hands of some select persons or in the people and the case is the same where ever the power rests there it is absolute and unaccountable wherever there is any government there must be a last appeal and where the last appeal is whether to a Prince to a Parliament or to the People there is soveraign and absolute power which cannot be resisted without a dissolution of government and returning to a state of war which is a direct contradiction to the first institution of humane societies and therefore that which cannot be allowed by the fundamental constitutions of any society The result of all in short is this 1. That in all civil governments there must be some supreme and soveraign power 2. That the very notion of supreme power is that it is unaccountable and irresistible And therefore 3. whatever power in any nation according to the fundamental laws of its government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme power of that nation the higher powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And from hence it is evident that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown and has all the rights of Soveraignty belonging to it Since according to the fundamental Laws of the Realm the Person and Authority of the King is sacred and irresistible The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy those Laws which declare and acknowledge the King to be supreme in his Dominions under God to have the sole power of the Sword that it is Treason to levy War against the King within the Realm and without That both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy war offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that we must abhor that traiterous position of taking arms by his authority against his Person or against those who are commissionated by him These I say and such like declarations as these both formerly and of late made by both Houses of Parliament and enacted into publick laws are a sufficient proof that the supreme power of these Realms is lodged in the Prince For he who is unaccountable and irresistible is supreme But to avoid all this there are some who tell us that by the higher powers in the Text the Apostle means the Law For laws are the highest and most venerable authority in any Nation and we ought indeed to be subject to Princes who themselves are subject to the Laws which they are as much obliged to by virtue of this Apostolical command as meaner Persons For the law is as much superior to them as they are to their own subjects and therefore when Princes violate publick laws they are no longer to own them for the Higher Powers but may vindicate the laws against them may defend the legal authority of their Prince against his Personal usurpations may fight for the Authority of the King against his Person But in answer to this we may consider 1. That it is evident from the whole context and manner of speaking that the Apostle does not here speak of laws but Persons not of Imperial laws but soveraign Princes Laws were never before called the higher Powers neither in sacred nor profane writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament always signifies the authority of a Person not of a law And hence it signifies the Person invested with this authority It were easy to prove this by numerous instances but it will be sufficient to shew that thus it must signifie in the Text. These are such powers as are of God appointed and ordained by God which I suppose does not signifie the laws of every nation many of which are far enough from being divine They are expresly called Rulers in the 3 v. and are the object of fear which can punish and reward if thou wilt not be afraid of the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now I think no law but the Power which executes laws can apply punishments or rewards according to mens deserts and in the 4 v. this very power is called the Minister of God and said to bear the sword which does not belong to laws but Persons and in the Text the Apostle speaks of resisting these powers opposing force to force Now though laws may be disobeyed it is onely lawgivers and Rulers who are capable of resistance 2. But however these higher Powers may signifie Princes and Rulers as governing according to known laws No this cannot be neither because the Apostle speaks of such powers as were under the government of no laws as it is sufficiently known the Roman Emperours were not their will was their law and they made or repealed laws at their pleasure This Epistle was wrote either under Claudius or Nero and I think I need not tell you that neither of those Emperours had any great Reverence for laws and yet these were the higher powers to whom the Apostle commands them to be subject and indeed though there be a vast difference between a Prince who by the fundamental Constitutions of his Kingdom ought to govern by laws and a Prince whose will is his law yet no law can come into the notion and definition of supreme and soveraign Powers such a Prince is under the direction but cannot properly be said to be under the government of the law because there is no superior power to take cognizance of his breach of it and a law has no authoritie to govern where there is no power to punish But I shall have occasion to discourse this more largely hereafter 3. Let us now consider what is meant by being subject Now subjection according to its full latitude of signification includes all those duties which we owe to soveraign Princes a chearful and willing obedience to all their Just and lawful commands an humble submission to their reproofs and Censures Corrections and punishments to honour and Reverence their Persons and Authority to pay custom and tribute and all legal taxes and impositions as our Apostle addes verse the 7. Render therefore unto all
acknowledged that these five particulars do contain the whole strength of their cause and if I can give a fair answer to them it must either make men Loyal or leave them without excuse 1. They urge that they are bound by no Law to suffer against Law Suppose as a late Author does that a Popish Prince should persecute his Protestant Subjects in England for professing the Protestant Religion which is established by Law By what Law saies he must we die not by any Law of God surely for being of that Religion which he approves and would have all the world to embrace and to hold fast to the end Nor by the Laws of our Country where Protestancy is so far from being criminal that it is death to desert it and to turn Papist By what Law then by none that I know of saies our Author nor do I know of any and so far we are agreed But then both the Laws of God and of our Countrie command us not to resist and if death an illegal unjust death follow upon that I cannot help it God and our Countrie must answer for it It is a wonderful discoverie which this Author has made that when we suffer against Law we are condemned by no Law to dieâ— for if we were we could not suffer against Law and it is as wonderful an argument he uses to prove that we may resist when we are persecuted against Law because we are condemned by no Law to die which is supposed in the very question and is neither more nor less than to affirm the thing which he was to prove We may resist a Prince who persecutes against Law because we are condemned by no Law that is because he persecutes against Law This proves indeed that we ought not to die when we are condemned by no Law to die but whether we may preserve our selves from an unjust and violent death by resisting a persecuting Prince is another question 2. It is urged that a Prince has no authoritie against Law There is no authority on earth above the Law much less against it It is Murder to put a man to death against Law and if they knew who had authority to commit open bare-faced and downright Murders this would direct them where to pay their Passive Obedience but it would be the horridest stander in the world to say that any such power is lodged in the Prerogative as to destroy men contrary to Law Now I perfectly agree with them in this also that a Prince has no just and legal authoritie to act against Law that if he knowingly persecure any Subject to death contrary to Law he is a Murderer and that no Prince has any such Prerogative to commit open bare-faced and downright murders But what follows from hence does it hence follow therefore we may resist and oppose them if they do This I absolutely denie because God has expresly commanded us not to resist And I see no inconsistencie between these two propositions that a Prince has no Legal Authoritie to persecute against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does Both the Laws of God and the Laws of our Countrie suppose these two to be very consistent For notwithstanding the possibilitie that Princes may abuse their power and transgress the Laws whereby they ought to govern yet they Command Subjects in no case to resist and it is not sufficient to justifie resistance if Princes do what they have no just Authoritie to do unless we have also a just Authoritie to resist He who exceeds the just bounds of his Authoritie is lyable to be called to an account for it but he is accountable onely to those who have a superior authoritie to call him to an account No power whatever is accountable to an inferiour for this is a contradiction to the very notion of Power and destructive of all Order and Government Inferiour Magistrates are on all hands acknowledged to be lyable to give an account of the abuse of their power but to whom must they give an account not to their inferiours not to the people whom they are to Govern but to superiour Magistrates or to the Soveraign Prince who governs all Thus the Soveraign Prince may exceed his Authoritie and is accountable for it to a superiour power but because he has no superiour power on earth he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects but must be reserved to the Judgement of God who alone is the King of Kings To justifie our resistance of any power there are two things to be proved 1. That this power has exceeded its just Authoritie 2. That we have Authoritie to resist Now these men indeed prove the first very well that Princes who are to govern by Law exceed their legal Authoritie when they persecute against Law but they say not one word of the second that Subjects have authoritie to resist their Prince who persecutes against Law which was the onely thing that needed proof but this is a hard task and therefore they thought it more adviseable to take it for granted than to attempt to prove it They say indeed that an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation at all cannot oblige Subjects to obedience Now this is manifestly true if by obedience they mean an active obedience for I am not bound to do an ill thing or an illegal action because my Prince commands me but if they mean Passive Obedience it is as manifestly false for I am bound to obey that is not to resist my Prince when he offers the most unjust and illegal violence Nay it is very false and absurd to say that every illegal is an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation with it This is contrarie to the practice of all humane Iudicatures and the daily experience of men who suffer in their lives bodies or estates by an unjust and illegal sentence Every Judgement contrarie to the true meaning of the law is in that sence illegal and yet such illegal Judgements have their Authoritie and obligation till they are rescinded by some higher Authoritie This is the true reason of appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts to rectifie illegal proceedings and reverse illegal Judgements which supposes that such illegal acts have authoritie till they are made null and void by a higher power and if the higher powers from whence lies no appeal confirm and ratifie an unjust and illegal sentence it carries so much authoritie and obligation with it that the injured person has no redress but must patiently submit and thus it must necessarily be or there can be no end of disputes nor any order and Government in humane Societies And this is a plain demonstration that though the Law be the rule according to which Princes ought to exercise their authoritie and power yet the authoritie is not in Laws but in Persons for otherwise why is not a sentence pronounced according to Law by a private person of as much Authoritie as a sentence
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
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
and practised about Obedience to Soveraign Princes whereby we may learn how far Christians are obliged by these Laws of Subjection and Non-resistance 1. I shall distinctly consider the Doctrine of Christ while he lived on Earth and here are several things very fit to be observed 1. We have no reason to suspect that Christ would alter the rights of Soveraign power and the measures of obedience and subjection which were fixt and determined by God himself This was no part of his Commission to change the external forms and polities of Civil governments which is an act of secular power and authority and does not belong to a Spiritual Prince He who would not undertake to decide a petty controversie or to divide an inheritance between two contending brethren 12 Luke 13 14. can we think that he would attempt any thing of that vast consequence as the changes and alterations of Civil Power which would have unsetled the Fundamental Constitutions of all the governments of the world at that time Our Saviour tells us that he came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfil it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill it up to compleat and perfect it 5 Matth. 17. that is to fulfil the ancient types and prophecies in his own Person to perfect an external and ceremonial by a real and Evangelical righteousness to perfect the Moral Laws with new instances and degrees of vertue but he abrogated no Moral Law and therefore not the Laws of Obedience and Subjection to Princes which has always been reduced to the fifth Commandment Nay he abrogated no Laws but by perfecting and fulfilling them and therefore he could make no alteration in the Doctrine of Non-resistance which is as perfect subjection as can or ought to be paid to Soveraign Princes His Kingdom was not of this world as he told Pilate though he was a King he neither was an enemy nor rival to Caesar but had he absolved his Disciples from their obedience to Princes had he made it in any case lawful to resist which was so expresly forbid the Iews by God himself and which is such a contradiction to the very notion of Soveraign Power he had been somewhat worse than a Rival to all the Princes of the Earth for though he had set up no Kingdom of his own yet he had pulled down theirs Whereas he took great care that his Religion should give no disturbance to the world nor create any reasonable jealousies and suspicions to Princes who had been very excusable for their aversion to Christianity had it invaded the Rights and Royalties of their Crowns This makes it very improbable that our Saviour should make any alterations in Civil powers or abridge the rights of Soveraignty which is so foreign to his design of coming into the world and so incongruous to the Person which he sustained and yet he could not alter the duties of Subjects but he must alter the rights of Princes too he must take away the Soveraign power of Princes at the same time that he makes it lawful for Subjects in any case whatsoever to resist We may safely then conclude that our Saviour has left the government of the world as he found it he has indeed given such admirable Laws as will teach Princes to govern and Subjects to obey better which is the most effectual way to secure the publick peace and happiness to prevent the Oppression of Subjects and Rebellions against Princes but he has not interposed in new modelling the Governments of the world which is not of such consequence as some men imagine It is not the external form of Government but the Fatherly care and Prudence and Justice of Governours and the dutiful obedience of Subjects which can make any people happy If Princes and Subjects be good Christians they may be happy under most forms of Government if they be not they can be happy under none Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to Resist to Depose to Murder Tyrannical Princes he had done them no kindness at all for to give liberty to Subjects to resist is only to proclaim an universal licence to Factions and Seditions and Civil Wars and if any man can think this such a mighty blessing to the world yet me thinks it is not a blessing proper for the Prince of peace to give But he who instructs Princes to rule as God's Ministers and Vicegerents and to express a Fatherly Care and concernment for the happiness of their Subjects and that teaches Subjects to reverence and obey their Prince as the Image of God and quietly to submit and yield to his authority and that inforces thâ—se Laws both on Princes and Subjects in the Name and Authority of God and from the consideration of the future judgment when Princes who abuse their power shall give an account of it to their great Master when Subjects who resist shall receive to themselves Damnation and those who patiently and quietly suffer for God's sake shall have their injuries redrest and their obedience rewarded I say such a Person as this takes a more effectual course to reform the abuses of civil power and to preserve good government in the world than all our wise Politicians and State-menders who think to reform the government of the world by some Statespells and charms without reforming those who govern and those who are governed This our Saviour has done and this is the best thing that could be done nay this was all that he could do in this matter He never usurpt any civil power and authority and therefore could not new model the governments of the world he never offers any external force and compulsion to make men obey his Laws and therefore neither forces Princes to rule well nor Subjects to obey but he has taken the same care of the government of the World as he has done of all the other duties of Piety and Vertue that is he has given very good Laws and threatned those who break them with eternal punishments and as the Laws and Religion of our Saviour prevail so will the governments of the world mend without altering the Model and Constitution of them 2. But yet we have some positive evidence what our Saviour taught about Obedience to the higher powers I shall give you two instances of it which are as plain and express as can be desired 1. The first is that answer our Saviour gave to the Pharisees and Herodians when they consulted together to intangle him in his talk 22 Matth. 15. c. They come to him with great ceremony and address as to an infallible Oracle to consult him in a very weighty case of Conscience They express a great esteem and assurance of his sincerity and faithfulness and courage as well as of his unerring judgment in declaring the will of God to them Master we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in Truth neither carest thou for any man for thou regardest not the Person
their dues tribute to whom tribute is due custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour But the principal thing he has regard to in the text is Non-resistance which is the onely perfect and absolute subjection we owe to Princes We are not always bound to do what they command because they may command what we ought not what we must not do but we are always bound to be subject that is never to resist Though a Prince abuse his power and oppress his subjects we must not take upon us to right ourselves but must leave our cause to God who is the great Protector of opprest Innocence for as the Apostle tells us He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist c. This is the doctrine the Apostle teaches that we must be subject to that is that we must not resist nor rebel against soveraign Princes 2. Let us then now consider the reason whereby the Apostle proves and inforces this doctrine of subjection or Non-resistance 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 The plain meaning of which is this That soveraign Princes are advanced to the Throne by God and are his ministers and vicegerents invested with his authority and power to govern and therefore when we resist our Prince we resist the ordinance constitution and appointment of God Such men do not resist rebel or fight against man but God As he who resists any subordinate Magistrates resists his Prince from whom they receive their authority and commission And this is a very forcible Argument to subjection to Princes for whatever our Prince be it is certain that God has an absolute and uncontroulable right over us as being the natural Lord and Governour of the world and if Earthly Princes are plac't in the Throne by him who is at liberty to put the Government of the world into what hands he pleases who will dare to oppose God or ask him Why hast thou done so Whoever has any sense of God's dominion and soveraignty dares not rebel against him and he who believes that Princes are made by God will no more dare to rebel against his Prince than against God himself The Patrons of resistance have used all manner of arts to evade the force of this Text and to make the Apostles argument signifie just nothing and therefore it will be necessary to consider briefly what they say 1. Then some of them own the truth of what St. Paul asserts that Soveraign Princes are of God are advanc't and set in their Thrones by him but then they say Princes are from God no otherwise than every thing else is of God The divine Providence governs all things and Plague and Pestilence and Famine and whatever evil and calamity befals a nation is from God too but does it hence follow that when God brings any of these Judgements upon us we must not Endeavour to remove them No more say they does it follow that we must not Endeavour to break the Yoak of a Tyrant because it was put on by God That is in plain English that when the Apostle proves that we must not resist Princes because they are set up by God he does not reason truly for notwithstanding this we may resist Tyrannical Princes as we would do the Plague though they are both sent by God and I suppose these men believe that St. Paul was no more inspired by God than Princes are made by him Otherwise they might as easily have concluded that since St. Paul founds no doctrine of Non-resistance upon God's authority and dominion in advancing Princes and his argument must be good if he were an inspired man that therefore there is some little difference between God's making a King though a Tyrant and his sending the plague and any man of an ordinary understanding might guess that when God sets up a King with a soveraign Power he sets him up to govern and therefore though he may prove a scourge and a Plague yet he is such a Plague as God will allow no man to remove but himself For it is a contradiction in the nature of the thing to give authority to a Prince to govern and to leave subjects at Liberty to resist Tyrants are God's mininisters though they be but Executioners of his just vengeance but an Executioner though he be as dangerous as the Plague cannot be resisted without resisting the Prince 2. At other times they tell us that when St. Paul asserts that there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God he means this onely of the Institution of civil power and government not of every Prince that is advanced to this power The institution of civil government they will allow to be from God but they think it a reproach to God to own that Tyrants and oppressors wicked and impious Kings are advanced by God His Providence many times for wise reasons permits this as he does all other evils but they cannot believe that such men are advanc't by his council and approbation and positive will and appointment But this admits of various answers For 1. Can there be no wise reason given why God may advance a bad man to be a Prince If there may then it is no reproach to the divine Providence The natural end of humane societies is the preservation of Publick Peace and order and this is in some measure attained even under the government of Tyrants But God has a further end than this to bless and reward a virtuous Nation or to punish a loose and degenerate age and there cannot be a greater blessing than a wise and virtuous Prince nor a greater plague than a Merciless Tyrant and therefore the Providence of God is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any people as in rewarding or punishing them Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the rod of his anger whom he raised up for the punishment of an Hypocritical Nation 10 Isai. 5 6. 2. I have already proved that by the Powers in my Text the Apostle means the persons of Soveraign Princes and therefore according to his Doctrine those Princes who were then in being that is the Roman Emperors were advanc't by God the powers that be that is the Princes and Emperors who now govern the world are ordained and appointed by God And that thus it is God himself tells us 27 Jerem. 5 6. I have made the Earth and given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my servant Thus he called Cyrus by name many years before he was born to be his shepherd and to perform his pleasure in rebuilding Ierusalem 44 Isa. 28. 45. ch 1 2 3 4. This was the belief of the primitive Christians under heathen and persecuting
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
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
private defence Our Atheistical Politicians who know no other Law of nature but self-defence make this the Original of humane Societies That it is a voluntarie combination for self-defence For this reason they set up Princes and Rulers over them and put the power of the sword into their hands that they may administer Justice and defend their Subjects from publick and private violence and they are certainly so far in the right that publick Government is the best securitie not onely of the publick peace but of every mans private interest nay it is so though our Prince be a Tyrant as I have already shewn you that no Government can be secure without an irresistible and unaccountable power So that the natural right of self-defence is so far from justifying Rebellion against Princes that it absolutely condemns it as destructive of the best and most effectual means to preserve ourselves for though by Non-resistance a man may expose his life to the furie of a Tyrant so he may loose his life in any other way of defence but publick Government is the best and surest defence and therefore to resist publick Government is to destroy the best means of self-defence 5. However this principle of self-defence to be sure cannot justifie a Rebellion when men do not suffer any actual violence and therefore those men who were drawn into this late Conspiracie when they saw no bodie attempt cutting their throats when they saw none of their liberties invaded were so well prepared to be Rebels that they needed no arguments to perswade them to it 4. The next objection against the Doctrine of Non-resistance is this That it destroys the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy between a Prince whose will is his Law and a Prince who is bound to govern by Law which undermines the Foundamental constitution of the English Government If this were true I confess it were a very hard case for the Ministers of the Church of England who must either preach up resistance contrarie to the Laws of the Gospel and the sence and practice of the Christian Church in all Ages or must preach up Non resistance to the destruction of the Government under which they live but thanks be to God this is not true For the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is not that resistance is unlawful in one case and lawful in another for a Monarch the exercise of whose power is limited and regulated by Laws is as irresistible as the most absolute Monarch whose will is his Law and if he were not I would venture to say that the most absolute and Despotick Government is more for the publick good than a limited Monarchy But the difference lies in this that an absolute Monarch is under the Government of no Law but his own will he can make and repeal Laws at his pleasure without asking the consent of any of his Subjects he can impose what Taxes he pleases and is not tied up to strict Rules and formalities of Law in the execution of Justice but it is quite contrarie in a limited Monarchy where the excercise of Soveraign Power is regulated by known and standing Laws which the Prince can neither make nor repeal without the consent of the people No man can loose his Life or Estate without a legal process and Tryal no Monies can be levyed nor any Taxes imposed on the Subject but by Authority of Parliament which makes the case of Subjects differ very much from those who live under an Arbitrary Prince No you will say the case is just the same for what do Laws signifie when a Prince must not be resisted though he break these Laws and Govern by an Arbitrarie and Lawless will He may make himself as absolute as the Great Turk or the Mogul whenever he pleases for what should hinder him when all men's hands are tied by this Doctrine of Non-resistance Now it must be acknowledged that there is a possibilitie for such a Prince to Govern arbitrarily and to trample upon all laws and yet the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is vastly great 1. For this Prince though he may make his will a Law to himself and the onely rule of his Government yet he cannot make it the Law of the Land he may break Laws but he can neither make nor repeal them and therefore he can never alter the frame and constitution of the Government though he may at present interrupt the regular administration of it and this is a great securitie to posteritie and a present restraint upon himself 2. For it is a mightie uneasie thing to any Prince to govern contrarie to known Laws He offers as great and constant violence to himself as he does to his Subjects He cannot raise mony nor impose any Taxes without the consent of his Subjects nor take away any man's life without a legal Tryal which an absolute Prince may do but he is guiltie of rapine and murder and feels the same rebukes in his own mind for such illegal actions though his impositions be but reasonable and moderate and he put no man to death but who very well deserves it that an absolute Tyrant does for the most barbarous oppressions and cruelties The breach of his Oath to God and his promises and engagements to his Subjects makes the excercise of such an arbitrarie power very troublesome and though his Subjects are bound not to resist yet his own guilty fears will not suffer him to be secure and arbitrarie Power is not so luscious a thing as to tempt men to forfeit all the ease and pleasure and securitie of Government for the sake of it 3. Though Subjects must not resist such a Prince who violates the Laws of his Kingdom yet they are not bound to obey him nor to serve him in his usurpations Subjects are bound to obey an absolute Monarch and to serve his will in lawful things though they be hard and grievous but in a limited Monarchy which is governed by Laws Subjects are bound to yeild an active obedience onely according to Law though they are bound not to resist when they suffer against Law Now it is a mighty uneasy thing to the greatest Tyrant to govern always by force and no Prince in a limited Monarchy can make himself absolute unless his own Subjects assist him to do so 4. And yet it is very dangerous for any Subject to serve his Prince contrary to Law Though the Prince himself is unaccountable and irresistible yet his Ministers may be called to an account and be punish't for it and the Prince may think fit to look on quietly and see it done or if they escape at present yet it may be time enough to suffer for it under the next Prince which we see by experience makes all mon wary how they serve their Prince against Law None but persons of desperate fortunes will do this bare-fac't and those are not always to be met with and as seldom fit
THE CASE OF Resistance OF THE SUPREME POWERS Stated and Resolved According to the DOCTRINE OF THE Holy SCRIPTURES By WILL. SHERLOCK D. D. Rector of St. George Buttolph-lane London LONDON Printed for Fincham Gardiner at the White-horse in Ludgate-street 1684. TO THE Right Honourable FRANCIS Lord GUILFORD Lord Keeper of the Great Seal of ENGLAND and one of His Majesties most Honourable PRIVY COUNCIL My Lord I Humbly beg leave to present to your Lordships hands a very plain Discourse but very necessary in such an Age as this wherein the principles of Rebellion are openly profest and taught and the Doctrine of Non-resistance and Passive Obedience not confuted but laught out of countenance There have been indeed a great many excellent Books writ upon this Argument by learned men but I fear most of them are too learned for ordinary Readers who most need instruction and are most easily poisoned with Seditious Doctrines and therefore there is still occasion enough for such a small Treatise as this which I hope is fitted to the understanding of the meanest men who will be so honest as impartially to consider it and those who will not read nor consider what is offered for their conviction are out of the reach of all instruction and must be governed by other methods My Lord Your Lordships known Loyalty and Zeal for the service of the Crown which by the favour of a wise and discerning Prince has deservedly advanced you to so high as Station made me presume that such a present as this though in it self very mean might not be unacceptable to you especially when it is intended as a publick acknowledgment the best which my mean circumstances in the World enable me to make of those great favours I have received from your Lordship That God would bless your Lordship with a long Life and vigorous Age and encrease of Honour for the service of the King and of the Church is the prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most humble and most obedient Servant W. SHERLOCK THE CASE OF Resistance OF THE SUPREME POWERS Stated and Resolved According to the Doctrine of the Holy SCRIPTURES The INTRODUCTION I Presume I need make no apologie for the seasonableness of this Discourse at this time for if e-ever it be fit to put People in mind of that Subjection which they owe to the Higher Powers no time can be more proper for it than when we see the Peace and Security of Publick Government disturbed and endangered by Popish and Fanatick Conspiracies who like Sampson's Foxes though they look very different ways yet are tyed together by the Tail with a Firebrand between them and had not the good Providence of God wonderfully appeared for the preservation of his Anointed I am sure it had been a very unseasonable time now to have treated on this Subject and therefore setting aside all Apologies I shall onely give a brief account of the designe of this following Treatise There are three ways of proving and confirming the Doctrine of Non-resistance or Subjection to Soveraign Princes 1. By the Testimonies of the Holy Scriptures 2. By the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Christians 3. By the fundamental Constitutions of that particular Government under which we live I have considered the last as much as was necessary to my purpose The second I have not meddled with for whoever has a mind to be satisfied about it may consult that admirable Discourse of Archbishop Usher about the Power of the Prince and the Obedience of the Subject which will not cost much money nor take up much time to read it But the designe I proposed to my self was carefully to consider the Testimonies of Scripture which are beyond all other Authorities and to vindicate them from the Cavils and Exceptions of the several Patrons of Resistance And the whole Discourse is divided into these following Chapters 1. The First contains the Authorities of the Old Testament wherein I have plainly shewn that God himself set up a Soveraign and Irresistible Power in the Iewish Nation and that during all that time it was unlawful for Subjects upon any pretence whatsoever to resist their Princes 2. The Second contains the Doctrine of our Saviour concerning Subjection to Soveraign Princes 3. The Third contains an account of our Saviour's Example in this matter 4. The Fourth considers what Saint Paul's Doctrine was about Subjection 5. The Fifth the Doctrine of Saint Peter 6. The Sixth contains an Answer to the most popular Objections against Non-resistance In examining the Authorities of Scripture I have carefully considered whatever has been plausibly urged in defence of the Doctrine of Resistance and reduced it under those particular Texts which have been thought most to favour it and I do not know of any thing material which has been pleaded in this Cause which I have wholly omitted Possibly some may complain that I have not observed the exact Rules of Art and Method in this to propose the Question to explain the Terms of it to produce my Proofs and then to answer the Objections which are made against it Now this I must acknowledge in part to be true and I think this Discourse never the less perfect for that The Proposition I undertake to prove is this That Soveraign Princes or the Supreme Power in any Nation in whomsoever it is plac'd is in all cases irresistible This is a plain Proposition which needs no explanation and the way I take to prove it is as plain by producing the Testimonies of Scripture both of the Old and New Testament as they lie in order and shewing what Power they grant to Princes and what Obedience they require of Subjects This is the fairest way I could think on to give my Readers a full view of the Doctrine of the Scriptures in this matter and this was all I intended to do for I am verily perswaded that were men once convinced that Resistance of Princes is expresly contrary to the Doctrine both of the Old and New Testament it would be no easie matter by any other Arts or Pretences to draw the most fanatical and factious persons amongst us who retain any Reverence for God into a Rebellion CHAP. I. Wherein the Unlawfulness of Resisting the Supreme Powers is proved from the Authority of the Old Testament TO prove the unlawfulness of Resistance I shall begin with the Old Testament Now there is nothing more evident than that God set up such a Supreme and Soveraign Power in the Iewish Nation as could not and ought not to be resisted by the Fundamental Laws of their Government For this is all I am concerned at present to prove That it is never lawful to resist the Higher Powers not that the Supreme and Soveraign power is always to be in a single Person but that wherever it is it is irresistible and that whenever this Supreme power by the Laws of the Nation is invested in a single Person such a Prince must not upon any pretence
whatsoever be resisted The first Governour God set over the Children of Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt was Moses and I think I need not prove how Sacred and irresistible his Authority was This is sufficiently evident in the rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram against Moses and Aaron when God caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow them up 16 Numbers And lest this should be thought an extraordinary case Moses and Aaron being extraordinary persons immediately appointed by God and governed by his immediate direction the Apostle St. Iude alleadges this example against those in his days who were turbulent and factious who despised dominions and spake evil of dignities that they should perish in the gainsaying of Core Iud. v. 11. which he could not have done had not this example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary Cases had it not been a lasting testimony of Gods displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against the Soveraign powers But Moses was not always to rule over them and therefore God expresly provides for a Succession of Soveraign power to which they must all submit The ordinary Sovereign power of the Iewish Nation after Moses his death was devolved either on the high Priest or those extraordinary persons whom God was pleased to raise up such as Ioshua and the several Iudges till in Samuels days it setled in their Kings For as for the Iewish Sanhedrim whose power is so much extolled by the Iewish Writers who are all of a late date many years since the destruction of Ierusalem and therefore no competent witnesses of what was done so many ages before it does not appear from any testimony of Scripture that there was any such Court of Iudicature till after their return from the Babylonish Captivity But yet God took care to secure the Peace and good Government of the Nation by appointing such a power as should receive the last Appeals and whose Sentence in all Controversies should be final and uncontroulable as you may see in the 17 Deut. 8 9 10 11 12 v. There were inferiour Magistrates and Iudges appointed in their several Tribes and Cities which Moses did by the advice of Iethro his Father-in-law and by the approbation of God Exod. 18. But as the Supreme Power was still reserved in the hands of Moses while he lived so it is here secured to the high Priest or Iudges after his death for it is expresly appointed that if those inferiour Iudges could not determine the Controversie they should come unto the Priests the Levites that is the Priests of the Tribe of Levi who by the 12 ver appears only to be the High Priest and to the Iudge that shall be in those days that is if it shall be at such a time when there is an extraordinary Judge raised by God for there were not always such Iudges in Israel as is evident to any one who reads the Book of Iudges and of them they should inquire and they shall shew the sentence of Iudgment and thou shalt do according to the Sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee Where the Place which God shall choose signifies the Place which he should appoint for the Ark of the Covenant and for the Levitical worship which was the place where the high Priest and the chief Iudge or Ruler of Israel when there was any such person had their ordinary residence which was at first at Shilo and afterwards at Ierusalem And what the Authority of the chief Priest or of the Iudge when there was one was in those days appears from v. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel This is as absolute Authority as the most absolute Monarch in the world can challenge that disobedience to their last and final determination what ever the cause be shall be punisht with death and what place can there be for Resistance in such a Constitution of Government as this It is said indeed in v. 11. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment that they shall tell thee thou shalt do And hence some conclude that they were not bound to abide by their sentence nor were punishable if they did not but onely in such cases when they gave sentence according to the Law of God But these men do not consider that the matter in controversie is supposed to be doubtful and such as could not be determined by the inferiour Courts and therefore is submitted to the decision of the Supreme Iudge and as he determined so they must do and no man under the penalty of death must presume to do otherwise which takes away all liberty of judging from private persons though this Supreme Iudge might possibly mistake in his Judgment as all humane Iudicatures are liable to mistakes but it seems God Almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final Judgment from whence there should be no appeal notwithstanding the possibility of a mistake in it So that there was a Supreme and Soveraign that is unaccountable and irresistible Power in the Iewish Nation appointed by God himself for indeed it is not possible that the publick Peace and Security of any Nation should be preserved without it And I think it is as plain that when the Iews would have a King their Kings were invested with this Supreme and Irresistible Power for when they desired a King they did not desire a meer nominal and titular King but a King to judge them and to go out before them and fight their battels that is a King who had the Supreme and Soveraign Authority 1 Sam. 8. 6. 19. 20. a King who should have all that power of Government excepting the peculiar acts of the Priestly Office which either their High-Priest or their Iudges had before And therefore when Samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their King 11 ver though what he says does necessarily suppose the translation of the Soveraign and Irresistible power to the person of their King yet it does not suppose that the King had any new power given him more than what was exercised formerly by their Priests and Iudges He does not deter them from chusing a King because a King should have greater power and be more uncontroulable and irresistible than their other Rulers were for Samuel himself had had as soveraign and irresistible a power as any King being the Supreme Judge in Israel whose Sentence no man could disobey or contradict but he incurred the penalty of death according to the Mosaical Law But the reason why he disswades them from chusing a King was because the external Pomp and Magnificence
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
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
exercise such a secular power and authoritie as earthly Princes do Now is it any disparagement to Kingly power to tell a Bishop that he must not exercise such a soveraign authoritie over the Church as the Prince does over the State which is the whole of what our Saviour intended in this place For the occasion of these words St. Matthew tells us was to check that vain ambition of Zebedee's two sons who came to Christ and employed their Mother to ask of him that one might sit on his right hand and the other on his left hand in his Kingdom that is that they might have the greatest places of dignitie and power next himself St. Luke tells us that it was to compose that strife and contention which was among them which of them should be accounted the greatest which most likely refers to the same story though it is plain they quarrelled more than once about this matter And the occasion of all these quarrels was a mistake of the nature of Christ's Kingdom They as well as the rest of the Iews expected their Messias should be a Temporal Prince and they being convinced by the Miracles of Christ that he was indeed the Messias who was to come they lived in dayly expectation when he would take the Kingdom upon himself and then they did not doubt but that they should be the chief Ministers of State and have the greatest places of trust and power in his Kingdom this made them jealous of each others greatness and so forward to bespeak preferments for themselves Now to cure these earthly ambitions he tells them that his Kingdom was no such thing as they dreamt of and that he had no such preferments for them as they expected Earthly Princes lived in great Pomp and Splendour and had great Places of trust and honour to bestow on their servants but they saw no such thing in him he came not to be ministred unto but to minister to live a mean industrious and laborious life and to die as a Malefactor and give his life a ransom for many And they could not expect by being his servants to be advanced to secular power and authoritie which he had not himself but when he came into his Kingdom they should indeed share with him in his power and authoritie they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel that is they should have the supreme authoritie in his Church which is his spiritual Kingdom But there was nothing of external state and grandeur in this as they expected but it was a life of humilitie and modestie and contempt of this world and earthly greatness The greatest Ministers in his Kingdom must be as humble as a child as he elsewhere tells them and as diligent and industrious and condescending as the meanest servant and should very often differ nothing from servants in their external fortune and condition of life This is the sum of what our Saviour here teaches his Disciples and he is a wonderful man and very quick-sighted who can discover any reflection on civil power and authoritie in all this I shall onely observe farther that when our Saviour calls them here the Princes and Kings of the Gentiles or Nations he does not speak this in disparagement of them that they were onely Heathen and Infidel Princes who did this for there were no other Princes at that time in the world Heathen and Pagan Princes sounds now as a note of infamie whereby they are distinguished from Christian Kings and Princes but the Kings of the Gentiles or Nations in our Saviour's time signified no more than Soveraign Princes who were invested with civil authoritie And our Saviour onely distinguishes between that civil power and authoritie which was exercised by secular Princes and that spiritual Kingdom which he was now about to erect in the world and the distinction had been of the same force though there had been at that time Jewish or Christian as well as Heathen Princes Still the difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical authoritie is the same and no Apostle or Bishop as such can challenge the power or authoritie of earthly Princes or any share in it CHAP. III. What we may learn from our Saviour's Practice about NON-RESISTANCE HAving seen what the Doctrine of our Saviour was let us now consider his Practice And we need not doubt but our Saviour lived as he preacht He taught his Disciples by his example as well as by his Laws His Life was the best Comment upon his Sermons was a visible Lecture of universal Righteousness and goodness and it is impossible to conceive a more perfect and absolute example of Subjection and Non-resistance than our Saviour has set us When our Saviour appeared in the world the Iews were very weary of the Roman yoke and in earnest expectation of their Messias who as they thought would restore the Kingdom again unto Israel and this expectation of their Messias whom they mistook for a Temporal Prince made them very apt to joyn with any one who pretended to be the Messias and to rebel against the Roman government Such most likely were Theudas and Iudas of Galilee of whom we have mention 5 Acts 36 37. and it is not impossible but the Aegyptian who led 4000 men into the wilderness 2 Acts 38. either pretended to be the Messias or some fore-runner of him to be sure such were those false Christs and false Prophets of whom our Saviour warns his Disciples 24 Matth. 23. Then if any man shall say unto you Lo here is Christ or there believe it not This being the temper of the Iewish Nation at that time so extreamly inclined to Seditions and Rebellion against the Roman powers how easie had it been for our Saviour had he pleased to have made himself very potent and formidable how easie could he have gained even the Scribes and Pharisees to his party whose great quarrel was at his meanness and poverty would he once have declared himself a Temporal Prince and invaded the Throne But he was so far from this that when he perceived the people had an intention to take him by force and make him a King he withdrew himself privately from them and departed into a mountain himself alone 6 Iohn 15. and yet I presume there might have been as many plausible pretences to have justifyed a Rebellion then as ever there were in any Nation since He had at that time fed five thousand men besides women and children with five barley loaves and two small fishes and what a formidable Enemy would he have been who could Victual an Army by Miracles and could when he pleased conquer by the same miraculous power also this the people whom he had miraculously fed were very sensible of and did hence conclude that he was the Prophet that should come into the world and that it was time to take him and set him upon the Throne but though our Saviour was indeed the Messias yet he was not such
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
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
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
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