extraordinary spirit to fight their Battels for them and subdue their Enemies and to judge Israel and these men did every thing by a Divine impulse and inspiration as Moses and Ioshua did So that they were as immediately governed by God as any man governs his own house and Family But when the Government was put into the hands of Kings God in a great measure left the administration of it to the will and pleasure of Princes and to the methods of humane Governments and Policy Though God did immediately appoint Saul and afterwards David to be King yet ordinarily the government descended not by God's immediate choice but by the right of Succession and though some Kings were Prophets too yet it was not often so they were not so immediately directed by God as the Iudges of old were but had their Councels of State for advice in peace and war and their standing Armies and Guards for the defence of their Persons and Government They were indeed commanded to govern by the Laws of Moses to consult the Oracles of God in difficult cases and God raised up extraordinary Prophets to direct them but still it was in their own power whether they would obey the Laws of God or hearken to his Prophets good Kings did and bad Kings did not and therefore the government of Israel by Kings was like other humane governments lyable to all the defects and miscarriages which other governments are whereas while the government was immediately in God's hands they did not only receive their Laws and external Polity from him but the very executive power was in God for though it was administred by Men yet it was administred by God's immediate direction with the most exact Wisdom Justice and Goodness This was the sin of the Iews that they preferred the Government of an earthly King before having God for their King and this must be acknowledged to be a great fault but it is such a fault as no other Nation was ever capable of but only the Iews because God never vouchsafed to be King of any other Nation in such a manner and therefore we must not compare Kingly government for there is no competition between them with the Government of God but we must compare Kingly government with any other form of humane Government and then we have reason to believe that notwithstanding God was angry with the Iews and this was a case peculiar to the Iews for desiring a King that yet he prefers Kingly government before any other because when he foresaw that the Iews would in time grow weary of his government he makes provision in their Law for setting up a King not for setting up an Aristocratical or Democratical power which their Law makes no allowance for as you may see 17 Deuter. 14. 2. Another objection against Kingly power and Government is that Samuel in this place represents it as very oppressive and burdensome to the Subject For what some men answer that Samuel speaks here only of the abuse of Regal Power I think is not true for the meer abuse of power is no Argument against it because all kind and forms of power are lyable to be abused and by this reason we should have no government at all And it is evident that Samuel does not mention any one thing here that can be called an abuse of power nothing but what is absolutely necessary to maintain the State and Magnificence of an Imperial Crown For how can a Prince subsist without Officers and Servants of all sorts both Men and Women both for the uses of his Family and the service of his government both in Peace and War and how can this be maintained but by a Revenue proportionable to the expence and since none of them had such an estate as to defray this charge themselves whoever was to be chosen King must have it from others by publick Grants and publick Taxes which he here expresses by taking their fields and their vineyards and their olive-yards the tenth of their fields and their vineyards and the tenth of their sheep for himself and his servants the tenth â—â—â—ng the usual Tribute paid to the Eastern Kings This is not an abuse of power though some Princes might be excessive in all this but it is the manner of the King that which is necessary to his Royal State There is nothing of all this forbid in 17 Deuter. where God gives Laws to the King and indeed to forbid this would be to forbid Kingly power which cannot subsist without it Indeed I find some Learned men mistaken in this matter for they take it for granted that what Samuel here calls the manner of the King is such an abuse of power as God had expresly forbid to Kings in the 17 of Deuter. 16 17. but why the abuse of Regal power should be called the manner or the right of the King is past my understanding Mishpat however you Translate it must signifie something which is essential to Kingly government otherwise Samuels Argument against chusing a King had been sophistical and fallacious For there is no Form of Government but is lyable to great abuses when it falls into ill hands and this they had experience of at this very time for the miscarriages of Samuel's Sons was the great reason why the people at this time desired a King 1 Sam. 8. 3 4 5. And if we compare these two places together what God forbids the King with what Samuel calls the manner of the King we shall find nothing alike In the 17 of Deut. 16 17. v. God tells them that their King shall not multiply horses to himself nor cause the people to return into Egypt to the end that he should multiply horses for as much as the Lord hath said unto you Ye shall henceforth return no more that way God would not allow them to have any Commerce or intercourse with Egypt and therefore forbid their Kings to multiply horses with which Egypt did abound that there might be no new familiarity contracted with that Idolatrous Nation Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away Where multiplying wives seems plainly to refer to his taking wives of other Nations and other Religions as appears from what is added that his heart turn not away that is lest they should seduce him to Idolatry as we know Solomon's wives did him who are therefore said to turn away his heart 1 Kings 11. 3 4. Neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold For such a covetous humour would mightily tempt him to oppress his Subjects This is all that God expresly forbids their Kings when they should have any But now Samuel in describing the manner of the King takes no notice of any thing of all this but only tells them that their King would appoint out fit persons for his service of their Sons and Daughters that they should pay Tribute to him and should themselves be his servants not as servants signifies
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
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
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
was the Lords Anointed which is the very reason the Apostle gives in the 13 Rom. 1 2. because the powers are ordained of God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God For to be anointed of God signifies no more than that he was made King by God Thus Iosephus expounds being anointed by God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who had the Kingdom bestowed on him by God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one who was ordained by God For it seems by this phrase he look'd upon the external ceremony of Anointing to be like imposition of hands which in other cases consecrated Persons to peculiar offices For this external Unction was onely a visible signe of Gods designation of them to such an office and when that was plain they were as much God's Anointed without this visible Unction as with it Cyrus is called God's Anointed though he never was anointed by any Prophet but onely designed for his Kingdom by Prophesie 45 Isai. 1. And we never read in Scripture that any Kings had this external Unction who succeeded in the Kingdom by right of inheritance unless the Title and Succession were doubtful and yet they were the Lord 's Anointed too that is were plac'd in the Throne by him So that this is an eternal reason against resisting Soveraign Princes that they are set up by God and invested with his authority and therefore their Persons and their authority are sacred But yet there are some men who from the example of David think they can prove the lawfulness of a defensive though not of an offensive War For David when he fled from Saul made himself Captain of four hundred men 1 Sam. 22. 2. which number soon increased to six hundred 1 Sam. 23. 13. and still every day increased by new additions 1 Chron. 12. 1. Now why should he entertain these men but to defend himself against the forces of Saul that is to make a defensive War whenever he was assaulted by him 1. In answer to this I observe that David invited none of these men after him but they came Volunteers after a Beloved Captain and General which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself when such numbers resorted to him of their own accord 2. When he had them he never used them for any hostile acts against Saul or any of his forces he never stood his ground when he heard Saul was coming but always fled and his men with him men who were never used to flie and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself would he have permitted them And I suppose they will not call this a defensive War to flie before an enemy and to hide themselves in Caves and Mountains and yet this was the onely defensive War which David made with all his men about him nay all that he would make and all that he could make according to his professed Principles that it was not lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lord 's Anointed And when these men are pursued as David was by an enraged and jealous Prince we will not charge them with Rebellion though they flie before him by thousands in a company 3. Yet there was sufficient reason why David should entertain these men who voluntarily resorted to him though he never intended to use them against Saul for some of them served for spies to observe Saul's motions that he might not be surprized by him but have timely notice to make his escape And the very presence of such a number of men about him without any hostile Act preserved him from being seized on by some officious Persons who otherwise might have delivered him into Saul's hands And he being anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's death this was the first step to his Kingdom to have such a retinue of valiant men about him which made his advancement to the Throne more easie and discouraged any oppositions which might otherwise have been made against him as we see it proved in the event and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very end It is certain that Gad the Prophet and Abiathar the Priest who was the onely man who escaped the furie of Saul when he destroyed the Priests of the Lord were in David's retinue and that David enterprized nothing without first asking counsel of God But he who had anointed him to be King now draws forces after him which after Saul's death should facilitate his advancement to the Kingdom 2. It is objected further that David intended to have staied in Keilah and to have fortified it against Saul had not he been informed that the men of the Citie would have saved themselves by delivering him up to Saul 1 Sam. 23. Now to maintain any strong hold against a Prince is an act of War though it be but a defensive War And I grant it is so but deny that there is any appearance that David ever intended any such thing David and his men by God's appointment and direction had fought with the Philistins and smote them with a great slaughter and saved Keilah from them and as it is probable did intend to have staied some time in Keilah But David had heard that Saul intended to come against Keilah to destroy the Citie and take him and enquires of the Lord about it and received an answer that Saul would come against the Citie He enquires again whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up to Saul and was answered that they would And upon this he and his men leave Keilah and betake themselves to the strong holds in the Wilderness But now is it likely that if David had had any designe to have fortified Keilah against Saul he would have been afraid of the men of the Citie He had 600 men with him in Keilah a victorious Armie which had lately destroyed the Philistins who oppressed them and therefore could easily have kept the men of Keilah too in awe if he had pleased and have put it out of their power to deliver him to Saul But all that David designed was to have staid there as long as he could and when Saul had drawn nigh to have removed to some other place But when he understood the treacherous inclinations of the men of Keilah and being resolved against all acts of hostilitie he hastened his remove before Saul drew near So that these men must find some other example than that of David to countenance their rebellion against their Prince for David never rebelled never fought against Saul but when he had a very potent Armie with him he and his men always fled and hid themselves in the Wilderness and places of difficult access The sum is this God from the very beginning set up such a supreme and soveraign power in the Iewish Nation as could not as ought not to be resisted This power was at first in the hands of Moses and when Korah and his companie rebelled against him God
evident from the whole scope of the place Some persons it seems there are whom God does predestinate or fore-appoint to be conformed to the sufferings of Christ for this is not the actual portion of all Christians though it is the condition of our Discipleship and they are those whom he did foreknow Now the fore-knowledge of God includes his choice and election he chuses out of the body of Christians some fit persons to make his Martyrs and Confessors to be examples of Faith and Patience and Courage to the world And whom he did predestinate them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified that is those persons whom God thus chuses and preordains to suffer as Christ did in time he calls forth to suffer and when he does so he justifies them that is he brings them off with triumph and victory and owns and applauds their Faith and Patience For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies and therefore to be justified is expounded by to conquer and overcome 3 Rom. 4. That thou mightest be justified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy sayings and mightest overcome when thou art judged And indeed this is properly to be justified in any trial or combate to overcome and conquer and that God who gives the victory gives the reward too and whom he justifies them he also glorifies which seems to refer not to those rewards which are common to all Christians but to some peculiar degree of glory which is prepared for such Conquerours as the Apostle speaks If so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified together 17 v. So that though God has not made us slaves and vassals to the humour of every Tyrant yet all the afflictions and sufferings of Christians especially those which befal them on the account of Religion are as particularly ordered and determined by God as the sufferings of Christ himself were and therefore there is no difference upon this account between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of his Disciples and therefore though Christ came into the world on purpose to suffer in obedience to the Divine will this does not make him ever the less fit to be an example to us Nay his obedience to the will of God in suffering the hardest things from the most unjust and Tyrannical powers is an example to us of the same patient suffering and submission to the will of God It is true none of us in particular can know that God has decreed that we shall suffer such or such things and from such or such hands as our Saviour did but yet this we know that it is God's will and pleasure that we should patiently endure those sufferings which we cannot avoid without sin and since he has forbid us by express Laws to resist the higher powers whatever sufferings cannot be avoided without resistance it is God's will and pleasure that we should submit to them And since none of these sufferings which are unavoidable to us befal us without the particular decree and appointment of God we have reason in imitation of our great Master to submit to them with the same cheerfulness and self-resignation as he did There is something indeed in the example of our Saviour which in our circumstances we are not bound to imitate For he punctually knowing what God's will and pleasure was concerning him voluntarily chose that condition which he so well knew God had allotted for him He freely chose a mean and servile fortune he chose suffering and death when his time of offering up himself was come he went up to Ierusalem on purpose to die there but we are not bound to choose poverty and disgrace and suffering we are not bound voluntarily to deliver up our selves into the hands of Tyrants and Persecutours who thirst after our Blood We may and ought to use all just and honest arts to make our condition easie and comfortable in the world and to avoid the rage and fury of bloody men because we cannot tell that it is the will and appointment of God that we shall suffer till our sufferings are unavoidable and then when we must either suffer or sin when we must either renounce our Religion or resist the powers we must embrace suffering and death as that portion which God has allotted for us I shall onely observe by the way what a mighty security this is to all good Christians how absolute or tyrannical soever the power be under which they live that they are safe in God's hands and all the Powers of men and Devils cannot touch them till God by a positive decree appoints and orders their suffering There could not be greater nor more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperours were at this time and yet they had no power over the meanest Christian but by an express commission from Heaven This is the special priviledge of the Christian Church above the rest of mankind that they are God's peculiar care and charge that he does not permit any sufferings or persecutions to befal them but what he himself orders and appoints It is a great security to the World that there is no evil happens to men but what God permits and that he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wise and good ends but it is a greater happiness to have our condition immediately allotted by God God may permit a great many evils to befal us in anger and displeasure but when he takes us into his immediate protection and under his own government whatever evils he appoints for us whoever are the instruments of them are certainly for our good and therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Non-resistance as some men imagine How absolute soever this may be thought to render Princes sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it for they shall suffer nothing more nor less than what God appoints for them to suffer 2. It is also urged against the obligation of our Saviour's example to suffer as he did that Christ by his state of servitude and sufferings has purchas'd liberty for us and that not onely a spiritual and internal but an external and civil liberty We are no longer bound to submit to usurping and tyrannical powers when we have strength and power to deliver our selves from that necessity There is no help for it but men who are weak and unable to resist must obey and suffer but this is matter of force not of duty We are now bought with a price and therefore must not chuse a state of subjection and servitude to men 1. Now in answer to this we may consider first that this obedience and subjection to Soveraign Princes either was a duty before Christ's appearing in the world or it was not If it were not then our deliverance from this subjection to Princes is no part of that liberty which Christ has purchas'd for us because it was the natural right of mankind before
v. 4. and this is the true reason of our subjection Wherefore you must needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience sake 4. There is another objection against what the Apostle affirms that there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God For is the power of victorious Rebels and Usurpers from God did Oliver Cromwell receive his power from God then it seems it was unlawful to resist him too or to conspire against him then all those Loyal Subjects who refused to submit to him when he had got the power in his hands were Rebels and Traitors To this I answer that the most prosperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers while our natural Prince to whom we owe obedience and subjection is in being And therefore though such men may get the power into their hands by Gods permission yet not by Gods Ordinance and he who resists them does not resist the Ordinance of God but the usurpations of men In Hereditary Kingdoms the King never dies but the same minute that the natural Person of one King dies the Crown descends upon the next of Blood and therefore he who rebelleth against the Father and murders him continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son which commences with his Fathers death It is otherwise indeed where none can pretend a greater right to the Crown than the usurper for there possession of power seems to give a right Thus many of the Roman Emperours came to the Crown by very ill means but when they were possest of it they were the Higher Powers for the Crown did not descend by inheritance but sometimes by the Election of the Senate sometimes of the Army and sometimes by force and power which always draws a consent after it And therefore the Apostle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns but commands them to submit to those who had the power in their hands for the possession of Supream and Soveraign power is Title enough when there is no better Title to oppose against it For then we must presume that God gives him the irresistible authority of a King to whom he gives an irresistible power which is the only means whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another There are two Examples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said The first in the Kingdom of Israel after the ten Tribes had divided from the House of Iudah and the Family of David God had not entailed the Kingdom upon any certain Family he had indeed by Ahijah the Prophet promised after Solomons death ten Tribes to Ieroboam the Son of Nebat 1 Kings 11. 29. c. but had afterwards by the same Prophet threatned Ieroboam to destroy his whole Family Chap. 15. 10 11. Baasha fulfils this prophecy by the traiterous murder of Nadab who succeeded his Father Ieroboam in the Kingdom and usurpt the government himself and slew all Ieroboam's house 28 29. v. This Murder and Treason is numbred among the sins of Baasha for which God afterwards threatned to destroy his house as he had done the house of Ieroboam 16 Chap. v. 7. and yet he having usurpt the Throne and got the power into his hands and no man having a better Title than his God himself is said to have exalted him out of the dust and made him Prince over his People Israel v. 2. Elah succeeded Baasha who had no better Title than his Father and yet Zimri who slew him is accused of Treason for it v 20. Zimri usurpt the Kingdom when he had slew his Master but he was only a vain pretender to it when he wanted power for when the people who were encamped against Gibbethon heard that Zimri had killed the King they made Omri King and went immediately and besieged Tirzah where Zimri had taken possession of the Kings Palace who finding no way to escape set fire to it himself and died in the flames of it And now Israel was divided between Omri and Tibni but those who followed Omri prevailed against those who followed Tibni and Tibni died and Omni Reigned v. 21 22. All which plainly shews that where there is no regular Succession to the Kingdom there possession of power makes a King who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of treason and this was the case of the Roman Empire at the writing of this Epistle and therefore the Apostle might well say That the powers that be are ordained of God That whoever had the Supream power in his hands is the higher power that must not be resisted But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah which God himself had entailed on Davids Family as appears from the example of Ioash who was concealed by his Aunt Iehosheba and hid in the house of the Lord for six years During this time Athaliah reigned and had the whole power of government in her hands but yet this did not make her a Soveraign and irresistible Prince because Ioash the Son of Ahaziah the right Heir of the Crown was yet alive And therefore in the seventh year Iehoiada the Priest set Ioash upon the Throne and slew Athaliah and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so 2 Kings 11. Which shews that no usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a natural Prince Such Usurpers though they have the possession of the supream power yet they have no right to it and though God for wise reasons may sometimes permit such usurpations yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence he secures their Title too As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's vision The tree is cut down but the stump of the roots is left in the earth The Kingdom shall be sure to them after that they shall know that the Heavens do rule Dan. 4. 26. 3. The Apostle adds the punishment of those who resist the higher Powers They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation Where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 judgment and damnation it is plain the Apostle means the punishments of the other world Prosperous Rebellions are not always punisht in this world but they are in the next And therefore we must be subject not only for wrath for fear of men but out of Conscience towards God and a reverence of his righteous judgments The sum of all in short is this That all men whatever their rank and condition be not only Secular but Spiritual Persons not only private men but subordinate Magistrates not only single men but whole Bodies and Communities the united force and power of a Nation must be subject to Soveraign Princes that is must obey all their just and lawful commands and patiently submit even to their unjust violence without making any resistance without opposing force to force or taking Arms though it be only in their own defence For Soveraign Princes are made and advanced by God
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
to be employ'd 5. And therefore we may observe that by the fundamental Laws of our Government as the Prince must Govern by Law so he is irresistible which shews that our wise Law-makers did not think that Non-resistance was destructive of a limited Monarchy 6. And in this long succession of Princes in this Kingdom there has been no Prince that has cast off the Authority of Laws or usurpt an absolute and arbitrary Power which shews how vain those fears are which disturb the fancies and imaginations of Rebels if they be not pretended onely to disturb the publick Peace 7. Non-resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a limited into an absolute Monarchy The Laws of England have made such an admirable provision for the honour and prosperous Government of the Prince and the security of the Subject that the Kings of England have as little temptation to desire to be absolute while their Subjects are obedient and governable as their Subjects have that they should be so And if ever our Kings attempt to make themselves absolute which thanks be to God we have no prospect of yet it will be owing to the factious and traiterous dispositions of Subjects When Subjects once learn the trade of murdering Princes and rebelling against them it is time then for Princes to look to themselves and if ever our posterity should suffer under so unhappy a change of Government they will have reason for ever to curse the Fanatick rage and fury of this Age and the best way to remove that scandal which has been already given to Princes is by a publick profession and practice of this great Gospel-duty of Non-resistance 8. The last objection against Non-resistance is this that if resistance in no case be allowed the mischiefs and inconveniences to Mankind may be intolerable To which I shall briefly return these following answers 1. That bare Possibilities are no argument against any thing For that which may be may not be and there is nothing in this world how good or useful or necessary soever it be in its self but may possibly be attended with very great inconveniences and if we must reject that which is good and useful in it self for the sake of some possible inconveniences which may attend it we must condemn the very best things Modesty and Humility Justice and Temperance are great and excellent Vertues and yet we may live in such an age when these Vertues shall beggar a man and expose him to contempt Mercy and Clemency is a noble quality in a Prince and yet it is possible that the Clemency of a Prince may ruine him and he may spare Traitors Lives till they take away his Marriage is a Divine Institution which contributes as much to the happiness and comfort of humane life as any one thing in this world and yet it may be you cannot name any thing neither which many times proves so great a plague and curse to Mankind Thus Non-resistance is a great and excellent duty and absolutely necessary to the peace and order and good government of the world but yet a bad Prince may take the advantage of it to do a great deal of mischief And what follows from hence that Non-resistance is no duty because it may possibly be attended with evil consequences then you can hardly name any thing which is our duty for the most excellent Vertues may at one time or other expose us to very great inconveniences but when they do so we must not deny them to be our duty because we shall suffer by it but must bear our sufferings patiently and expect our reward from God And yet that there is not so much danger in Non-resistance as these men would perswade the world I hope appears from my answers to the last objection 2. When we talk of inconveniences we must weigh the inconveniences on both sides and consider which are greatest We may suffer great inconveniences by Non-resistance when our Prince happens to prove a Tyrant but shall we suffer fewer inconveniences were it lawful for Subjects to resist Which is the greatest and most merciless Tyrant an arbitrary and lawless Prince or a Civil War which will destroy most mens Lives a Nero or Dioclesian or a pitcht Battel who will devour most Estates a Covetous and Rapacious Prince or an insolent Army and hungry Rabble which is the greatest oppression of the Subject some illegal Taxes or Plunderings Decimations and Sequestrations Who are most likely to abuse their power the Prince or the people which is most probable that a Prince should oppress his dutiful and obedient Subjects or that some factious and designing men should misrepresent the government of their Prince and that the giddy multitude should believe them who is most likely to make a change and alteration in government an Hereditary Prince or the People who are fond of innovations While Soverain and irresistible power is in the hands of the Prince it is possible we may sometimes have a good one and then we shall find no inconvenience in the Doctrine of Non-resistance Nay it is possible we may have a great many good Princes for one bad one for Monsters are not so common as more natural productions so that the inconveniences we may suffer by this Doctrine will but seldom happen but had the people power to resist it is almost impossible that publick government should ever be quiet and secure for half an age together they are as unstable as the Seas and as easily moved with every breath and as outragious and tempestuous too These are not some guesses and probabilities but demonstrations in this unhappy age wherein we have seen all these things acted The CONCLUSION Containing a short Dissuasive from Resistance and Rebellion HAving thus largely proved that Subjection and Non-resistance is a necessary duty which Subjects owe to Soverain Princes and answered all those objections which are made against it the result of all is to perswade Subjects to the practise of it And St. Paul urges two very powerful arguments to perswade us to it Rom. 13. 1. That the powers are of God and he that resisteth the powers resisteth the ordinance of God And certainly he is no Christian who disputes obedience to the Divine Ordinance and Constitution A Prince is the Image the Vice-gerent of God and therefore Princes are called Gods in Scripture and be he what he will a good or a bad Prince while God thinks fit to advance him to the Throne it becomes us to submit and reverence the Divine Authority Will you lift up your hand against God will you cast off his authority and government too does not he know how to rule us how to chuse a Prince for us The greatest Rebel would blush to say this in so many words and yet this is the Language of Rebellion Men dislike their Prince that is that Governour whom God sets over them they rebel against their Prince they Depose him they Murder him that is