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
of man that is thou wilt not conceal nor pervert the truth for fear nor favour and then they propose an insnaring question to him Tell us therefore what thinkest thou is it lawful to give Tribute to Caesar or not They thought it impossible that he should give any answer to this which would not make him abnoxious either to the Roman Governours if he denied that the Iews might lawfully pay Tribute to Caesar or to the Pharisees and People if he affirmed that they might for there was a very potent Faction among them who thought it unlawful for the Iews to own the authority or usurpations of any Foreign Prince or to pay Tribute to him as to their King They being expresly forbid by their Law to set a stranger over them for their King who is not their Brother i. e who is not a natural Iew 17 Deuter. 15. and it seems they could not distinguish between their own voluntary Act in choosing a stranger for their King which was indeed forbid by their Law and their submitting to a Foreign Prince when they were Conquered by him Our Saviour who knew their wicked intention in all this that they did not come with an honest design to be instructed in their duty but to seek an advantage against him expresses some indignation at it Why tempt ye me ye Hypocrites but yet to return them an answer to that their question he bids them shew him the Tribute-money that is the money in which they used to pay Tribute and inquires whose Image and Superscription it had For Coining of money was as certain a mark of Soveraignty as making Laws or the power of the Sword Well they acknowledge that the Image and Superscription on the Tribute-money was Coesars upon which he replies Render therefore unto Coesar the things that are Coesars and unto God the things that are God's The plain meaning of which answer is this That since by the very impression on their money it is evident that Coesar is their Sovereign Lord they must render to him all the rights of Soveraignty among which Tribute is one as St. Paul tells us Render therefore unto all their dues Tribute to whom Tribute is due Custom to whom Custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour 13 Rom. 7. Whatever is due to Soveraign Princes and does not interfere with their duty to God that they must give to Coesar who at this time was their Soveraign In which answer there are several things observable 1. That our Saviour does not examine into Coesar's right nor how he came by this Soveraign power but as he found him in possession of it so he leaves him and requires them to render to him all the rights of Soveraignty 2. That he does not particularly determine what the things of Coesar are that is what his right is as a Soveraign Prince Hence some men conclude that this Text can prove nothing that we cannot learn from it what our Saviour's Judgment was in this point that it is only a subtil answer which those who askt the question could make nothing of which was a proper return to their ensnaring question This I think is as great a reproach to our Saviour as they can well cast upon him that he who was the wisdom of God the great Prophet and Teacher of Mankind should return as sophistical and doubtful answers as the Heathen Oracles and that in a case which required and would admit a very plain answer It is true many times our Saviour when he discourst of what concerned his own Person or the Mysteries of his Kingdom which were not fit at that time to be publisht in plain terms used a mystical Language as when he called his body the Temple or he taught them by Parables which were not obvious at the first hearing but still what he said had a certain and determined sense and what was obscure and difficult he explained privately to his Apostles that in due time they might explain it to others but to assert as these men must do that Christ gave them such an answer as signifyed nothing and which he intended they should understand nothing by shews that they are not so civil to our Saviour as these Pharisees and Herodians were who at least owned in Complement 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 of men But certainly the Pharisees did believe that there was something in our Saviour's answer for they marvelled and left him and went their way and yet those who had wit enough to ask such ensnaring questions could not be so dull as to be put off with a sophistical answer an art below the gravity of our Saviours Person and Office but would have urged it a little further had they not been sensible that they were sufficiently answered and had nothing to reply For indeed can any thing be plainer than our Saviour's answer They ask him whether it were lawful to pay Tribute to Coesar he does not indeed in express words say that they should pay Tribute to Coesar but he gives them such an answer as withal convinc'd them of the reason and necessity of it He asks whose Image and Superscription was on the Tribute-money they tell him Coesar's from whence he infers Render therefore unto Coesar the things that are Coesar's Therefore wherefore because the Tribute-money had Coesar's Image on it therefore they must render to Coesar the things that are Coesar's which certainly signifies that Tribute was one of those things which belonged to Coesar and must be rendred to him as appeared by it's having Coesar's Image not as if every thing that had Coesar's mark and stamp on it did belong to Coesar and must be given to him as some men profanely enough how wittily soever they imagine burlesque and ridicule our Saviour's answer for at this rate all the money of the Empire which bore his Image was Coesar's but the money which was stampt with Coesar's Image and was the currant money of the Nation was a plain sign as I observed before that he was their Soveraign and paying Tribute was a known right due to Soveraign Princes and therefore the very money which they used with Coesar's Image on it resolved that question not only of the lawfulness but the necessity of paying Tribute and this was so plain an answer that the Pharisees were ashamed of their question and went away without making any reply for they no more dared to deny that Coesar was their King than they thought he dared either to own or deny the lawfulness of paying Tribute to Coesar And this was all the subtilty of our Saviour's answer But then our Saviour not confining his answer meerly to the case of paying Tribute but answering in general that we must render to Coesar the things that are Coesar's extends this to all the rights of Soveraign Princes and so becomes a standing rule in
Christian libertie yet to be ministers and servants to the vices of men is And therefore when they lay under any such temptation as Christians who served Heathen Masters could not long escape it they must then remember that they are Christ's freemen who were bought with a price and therefore must neither be servants to their own lusts nor to the lusts of other men And the reason why I chuse this sence of the words is this because the Apostle opposes being bought with a price that is their being redeemed by Christ or being Christ's freemen to their being the servants of men as inconsistent with each other And therefore their being the servants of men cannot be understood of civil servitude which he before had told them was not inconsistent with their Christian libertie but of being servants to the vices of men But what now is all this to subjection to Soveraign Princes Does the Apostle exhort the Christians too to throw off the civil powers It was possible for a Christian servant to purchase his libertie or to obtain it some other lawful ways but how can subjects deliver themselves from the authoritie of Princes unless they go into some Country where there is no government or resist and rebel against the higher powers where they are Neither of which is agreeable to our Apostles Doctrine who would not allow servants to run away from their Masters much less rebel against them to procure their libertie Nor was the case the same between Christian subjects and soveraign Princes and between Masters and Servants and therefore neither is the reason the same why subjects should desire freedom from the higher powers Servants in those days were slaves and vassals and were kept in such constant attendance on their Masters that it must needs be very difficult besides the other temptations they were exposed to to gain any time or libertie for attending on Christian Worship and the instructions of the Church But Christian subjects are more at their own disposal even under Heathen Princes and have all that libertie excepting the case of persecution which is necessary for the purposes of Religion which yet is the onely reason intimated here why the Apostle advises servants to procure their freedom if they can To conclude this Argument there were a sort of men even in the Apostles days who boasted mightily of their Christian libertie and thought scorn for a Christian either to be a servant or a subject For this reason St. Paul in this place instructs servants that their Christian libertie is not injured by their being servants for this reason are there such frequent directions to servants to obey their Masters For this reason does St. Peter caution the Christians against this pretence of Christian libertie which some abused then as they do still to the disturbance of civil governments As free but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness but as the servants of God CHAP. IV. What St. Paul Preached about Non-resistance of the Higher Powers HAving thus concluded what the Doctrine and Example of our Saviour was about subjection to the higher powers let us now consider the Doctrine and Example of his Apostles Not as if the Authority and Example of our Saviour were not sufficient of it self to make a Law but stood in need of the confirmation and additional authority of his own Apostles but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the meaning of our Saviour's words or in the intention and design of his sufferings had none of his Apostles who were immediately instructed by himself and acquainted with the most secret mysteries of his Kingdom ever preacht any such Doctrine as this of Subjection to Princes And therefore to give you the more abundant assurance of this I shall plainly shew you that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine and imitated the example of their great Master I shall begin with St. Paul who has as fully declared himself in this matter as it is possible any man can do by words 13 Rom. 1 2. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no power but of God the Powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation This is a very express Testimony against Resistance and therefore I shall consider it at large for there have been various Arts used to pervert every word of it and to make this Text speak quite contrary to the design and intention of the Apostle in it and therefore I shall divide the words into three general parts 1. The Doctrine the Apostle instructs them in Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers 2. The reason whereby he proves and inforces this Doctrine For there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God 3. The punishment of such resistance And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation 1. I shall begin with the Doctrine That every Soul must be subject to the higher powers And here are three things to to be explained 1. Who are contained under this general expression of every Soul 2. Who are meant by the higher powers 3. What is meant by being subject 1. Who are contained under this general expression of every Soul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by an ordinary Hebraism signifies every man For man is a compounded Creature of Body and Soul and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole Sometimes Flesh and sometimes Soul signifies the man and when every Soul is opposed to the higher powers it must signifie all men of what rank or condition soever they be who are not invested with this higher power Popes and Bishops and Priests as well Spiritual as Secular persons the whole body of the People as well as every single individual For when every Soul is commanded to be subject without any exception or limitation this must reach them in all capacities and conditions The design of the Apostle as you shall hear more presently was to forbid all resistance of Soveraign Princes and had he known of any men or number of men who might lawfully resist he ought not to have exprest it in such general terms as to forbid all without exception Had St. Paul known the Prerogative of St. Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome would he have written to the Christians of Rome to be subject to their Emperours without making any provision for the greater Authority of their Bishops The reason he assigns why every Soul must be subject to the higher Powers is because all powers are of God So that whoever is bound to be subject to God must be subject to their Prince who is in God's stead And this I think will reach the Pope of Rome as well as any private Christian unless he will pretend to more authority on earth than
Emperors Tertullian who wrote his Apologie under Severus asserts that Caesar was chosen by God and therefore that the Christians had a peculiar Propriety in Caesar as being made Emperor by their God Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque Pietate christiana in Imperatorem quem necesse est suspiciamus ut eum quem Dominus noster elegit merito dixerim noster est magis Caesar a Deo nostro constitutus Tert. Apol. cap. 33. and this he assigns as the reason why they honour and reverence and pray for him and are in all things subject to him 3. If these men will grant the institution of civil power and authority by God is a necessary reason why we must not resist those who have this power it shall satisfie me and I will dispute no further whether by Powers in the Text the Apostle means civil government or the Persons of Princes so long as the Doctrine of Non-resistance is secured but if they will not grant this then they must grant that either the Apostle reasons weakly or that this is not the sense of his words St. Chrysostom indeed by the Powers that be ordained of God understands no more than that civil power and authority is from God as being afraid to own that all Princes though never so wicked are appointed by God but then he owns the doctrine of Non-resistance because the power is from God whoever have the possession of it or however he came by it But I think the argument for Non-resistance is much stronger if we acknowledge that soveveraign Princes themselves are appointed by God and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and ordering Providence 4. Others in plain terms deny that this is true that Princes receive their power from God and are ordained and appointed by him though the words of the Apostle are very plain and express in the case But let us set aside the Authority of the Apostle a while and examine why they say so And this they think is very plain in all Nations that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the choice and consent of the People or by right of inheritance confirmed and settled by publick Laws which include the consent of the People and therefore they receive their power from those who chose them which is no more than a Fiduciary power which they are lyable to give an account of to those who choose them Now grant this to be true that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the People which will not very well hold in conquests nor in hereditary Kingdoms yet I say suppose it to be true since it was manifestly the case of the Roman Empire when the Apostle wrote this Epistle their Emperors being chosen either by the Senate or the Army yet I would desire to be resolved in some few plain questions 1. Whether God does nothing but what he does by an immediate power Whether he cannot appoint and choose an Emperor unless he does it by a Voice from Heaven or sends an Angel to set the Crown upon his head Whether God cannot by a great many unknown ways determine the choice of the people to that Person whom he has before chosen himself May we not as well say that God does nothing but miracles because every thing else has some visible cause and may be ascribed either to natural or moral agents God may chuse an Emperor and the people chuse him too and the peoples choice is onely the effect of God's choice and therefore notwithstanding all this Princes owe their crowns and secepters to God the powers that be are ordained of God 2. How does it follow that because Princes are chose by the people therefore they derive their power from them and are accountable to them This is not true in humane governments A City or any Corporation may have Authority to choose their Magistrates and yet they do not derive their power from their fellow-Citizens who chose them but from their Prince Thus the People may chuse but God invests with power and Authority For indeed how can people who have no power of Government themselves give that power which they have not God is the only governour of the world and therefore there can be no power of Government but what is derived from him But these men think that all civil authority is founded in consent as if there were no natural Lord of the world or all mankind came free and independent into the world This is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant that the institution of Civil power and Authority is from God and indeed if it be not I know not how any Prince can justifie the taking away the life of any man whatever crime he has been guilty of For no man has power of his own life and therefore cannot give this power to another which proves that the power of capital punishments cannot result from meer consent but from a superiour Authority which is Lord of life and death If it be said that every man has a natural right to defend his own life by taking away the life of any man who injuriously assaults him and he may part with this power of self-defence to his Prince and that includes the power of life and death I answer 1. Suppose the Laws of Self-preservation will justifie the taking away another man's life in preservation of our own yet this is a Personal right which God and Nature has given us and unless we can prove that we have Authority to make over this right to another as well as to use it our selves our consent cannot give Authority to the Magistrate to take away any man's life in our cause 2. This natural right of self-defence cannot be the Original of the Magistrates power because no man does give up this right Every man has the right of Self-preservation as intire under civil government as he had in a state of Nature Under what government soever I live I may still kill another man when I have no other way to preserve my own life from unjust violence by private hands And this is all the liberty any man had in a supposed state of nature So that the Magistrates power of the Sword is a very different thing from every man's right of self-preservation and cannot owe its original to it For 3. The Magistrates power of the Sword is not meerly defensive as the right of self-preservation is but vindicative to execute vengeance on evil doers which power no man has over his equals in a state of Nature For vengeance is an act of superiority and supposes the Authority of a Lord and Judge and therefore the consent of all Mankind cannot give the power and authority of a Sword to a Prince because they never had it themselves A Prince as he bears the Sword is not the peoples Officer but the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil as our Apostle adds