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
their dues tribute to whom tribute is due custom to whom custom fear to whom fear honour to whom honour But the principal thing he has regard to in the text is Non-resistance which is the onely perfect and absolute subjection we owe to Princes We are not always bound to do what they command because they may command what we ought not what we must not do but we are always bound to be subject that is never to resist Though a Prince abuse his power and oppress his subjects we must not take upon us to right ourselves but must leave our cause to God who is the great Protector of opprest Innocence for as the Apostle tells us He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist c. This is the doctrine the Apostle teaches that we must be subject to that is that we must not resist nor rebel against soveraign Princes 2. Let us then now consider the reason whereby the Apostle proves and inforces this doctrine of subjection or Non-resistance For there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God The plain meaning of which is this That soveraign Princes are advanced to the Throne by God and are his ministers and vicegerents invested with his authority and power to govern and therefore when we resist our Prince we resist the ordinance constitution and appointment of God Such men do not resist rebel or fight against man but God As he who resists any subordinate Magistrates resists his Prince from whom they receive their authority and commission And this is a very forcible Argument to subjection to Princes for whatever our Prince be it is certain that God has an absolute and uncontroulable right over us as being the natural Lord and Governour of the world and if Earthly Princes are plac't in the Throne by him who is at liberty to put the Government of the world into what hands he pleases who will dare to oppose God or ask him Why hast thou done so Whoever has any sense of God's dominion and soveraignty dares not rebel against him and he who believes that Princes are made by God will no more dare to rebel against his Prince than against God himself The Patrons of resistance have used all manner of arts to evade the force of this Text and to make the Apostles argument signifie just nothing and therefore it will be necessary to consider briefly what they say 1. Then some of them own the truth of what St. Paul asserts that Soveraign Princes are of God are advanc't and set in their Thrones by him but then they say Princes are from God no otherwise than every thing else is of God The divine Providence governs all things and Plague and Pestilence and Famine and whatever evil and calamity befals a nation is from God too but does it hence follow that when God brings any of these Judgements upon us we must not Endeavour to remove them No more say they does it follow that we must not Endeavour to break the Yoak of a Tyrant because it was put on by God That is in plain English that when the Apostle proves that we must not resist Princes because they are set up by God he does not reason truly for notwithstanding this we may resist Tyrannical Princes as we would do the Plague though they are both sent by God and I suppose these men believe that St. Paul was no more inspired by God than Princes are made by him Otherwise they might as easily have concluded that since St. Paul founds no doctrine of Non-resistance upon God's authority and dominion in advancing Princes and his argument must be good if he were an inspired man that therefore there is some little difference between God's making a King though a Tyrant and his sending the plague and any man of an ordinary understanding might guess that when God sets up a King with a soveraign Power he sets him up to govern and therefore though he may prove a scourge and a Plague yet he is such a Plague as God will allow no man to remove but himself For it is a contradiction in the nature of the thing to give authority to a Prince to govern and to leave subjects at Liberty to resist Tyrants are God's mininisters though they be but Executioners of his just vengeance but an Executioner though he be as dangerous as the Plague cannot be resisted without resisting the Prince 2. At other times they tell us that when St. Paul asserts that there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God he means this onely of the Institution of civil power and government not of every Prince that is advanced to this power The institution of civil government they will allow to be from God but they think it a reproach to God to own that Tyrants and oppressors wicked and impious Kings are advanced by God His Providence many times for wise reasons permits this as he does all other evils but they cannot believe that such men are advanc't by his council and approbation and positive will and appointment But this admits of various answers For 1. Can there be no wise reason given why God may advance a bad man to be a Prince If there may then it is no reproach to the divine Providence The natural end of humane societies is the preservation of Publick Peace and order and this is in some measure attained even under the government of Tyrants But God has a further end than this to bless and reward a virtuous Nation or to punish a loose and degenerate age and there cannot be a greater blessing than a wise and virtuous Prince nor a greater plague than a Merciless Tyrant and therefore the Providence of God is as much concerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any people as in rewarding or punishing them Upon this account God calls the King of Assyria the rod of his anger whom he raised up for the punishment of an Hypocritical Nation 10 Isai. 5 6. 2. I have already proved that by the Powers in my Text the Apostle means the persons of Soveraign Princes and therefore according to his Doctrine those Princes who were then in being that is the Roman Emperors were advanc't by God the powers that be that is the Princes and Emperors who now govern the world are ordained and appointed by God And that thus it is God himself tells us 27 Jerem. 5 6. I have made the Earth and given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me and now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my servant Thus he called Cyrus by name many years before he was born to be his shepherd and to perform his pleasure in rebuilding Ierusalem 44 Isa. 28. 45. ch 1 2 3 4. This was the belief of the primitive Christians under heathen and persecuting
as is absolute and unaccountable If there be no supreme power in any society when ever there happens any difference among the members of such a society nothing can be done and such a society is an arbitrary and voluntary not a governed society because there is no body to govern and no body to be governed they may govern themselves by mutual consent but if they cannot agree there is an end of their government Where there is any government there must be some-body to govern and whoever has the power of government must not be contradicted or resisted for then he cannot govern for a power to govern men onely when and in what cases they please to be governed is no power Now place this power where you will in a single Person or in the hands of some select persons or in the people and the case is the same where ever the power rests there it is absolute and unaccountable wherever there is any government there must be a last appeal and where the last appeal is whether to a Prince to a Parliament or to the People there is soveraign and absolute power which cannot be resisted without a dissolution of government and returning to a state of war which is a direct contradiction to the first institution of humane societies and therefore that which cannot be allowed by the fundamental constitutions of any society The result of all in short is this 1. That in all civil governments there must be some supreme and soveraign power 2. That the very notion of supreme power is that it is unaccountable and irresistible And therefore 3. whatever power in any nation according to the fundamental laws of its government cannot and ought not to be resisted that is the supreme power of that nation the higher powers to which the Apostle requires us to be subject And from hence it is evident that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown and has all the rights of Soveraignty belonging to it Since according to the fundamental Laws of the Realm the Person and Authority of the King is sacred and irresistible The Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy those Laws which declare and acknowledge the King to be supreme in his Dominions under God to have the sole power of the Sword that it is Treason to levy War against the King within the Realm and without That both or either Houses of Parliament cannot nor lawfully may raise or levy war offensive or defensive against his Majesty his Heirs or lawful Successors That it is not lawful upon any pretence whatsoever to take Arms against the King and that we must abhor that traiterous position of taking arms by his authority against his Person or against those who are commissionated by him These I say and such like declarations as these both formerly and of late made by both Houses of Parliament and enacted into publick laws are a sufficient proof that the supreme power of these Realms is lodged in the Prince For he who is unaccountable and irresistible is supreme But to avoid all this there are some who tell us that by the higher powers in the Text the Apostle means the Law For laws are the highest and most venerable authority in any Nation and we ought indeed to be subject to Princes who themselves are subject to the Laws which they are as much obliged to by virtue of this Apostolical command as meaner Persons For the law is as much superior to them as they are to their own subjects and therefore when Princes violate publick laws they are no longer to own them for the Higher Powers but may vindicate the laws against them may defend the legal authority of their Prince against his Personal usurpations may fight for the Authority of the King against his Person But in answer to this we may consider 1. That it is evident from the whole context and manner of speaking that the Apostle does not here speak of laws but Persons not of Imperial laws but soveraign Princes Laws were never before called the higher Powers neither in sacred nor profane writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the new Testament always signifies the authority of a Person not of a law And hence it signifies the Person invested with this authority It were easy to prove this by numerous instances but it will be sufficient to shew that thus it must signifie in the Text. These are such powers as are of God appointed and ordained by God which I suppose does not signifie the laws of every nation many of which are far enough from being divine They are expresly called Rulers in the 3 v. and are the object of fear which can punish and reward if thou wilt not be afraid of the power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same Now I think no law but the Power which executes laws can apply punishments or rewards according to mens deserts and in the 4 v. this very power is called the Minister of God and said to bear the sword which does not belong to laws but Persons and in the Text the Apostle speaks of resisting these powers opposing force to force Now though laws may be disobeyed it is onely lawgivers and Rulers who are capable of resistance 2. But however these higher Powers may signifie Princes and Rulers as governing according to known laws No this cannot be neither because the Apostle speaks of such powers as were under the government of no laws as it is sufficiently known the Roman Emperours were not their will was their law and they made or repealed laws at their pleasure This Epistle was wrote either under Claudius or Nero and I think I need not tell you that neither of those Emperours had any great Reverence for laws and yet these were the higher powers to whom the Apostle commands them to be subject and indeed though there be a vast difference between a Prince who by the fundamental Constitutions of his Kingdom ought to govern by laws and a Prince whose will is his law yet no law can come into the notion and definition of supreme and soveraign Powers such a Prince is under the direction but cannot properly be said to be under the government of the law because there is no superior power to take cognizance of his breach of it and a law has no authoritie to govern where there is no power to punish But I shall have occasion to discourse this more largely hereafter 3. Let us now consider what is meant by being subject Now subjection according to its full latitude of signification includes all those duties which we owe to soveraign Princes a chearful and willing obedience to all their Just and lawful commands an humble submission to their reproofs and Censures Corrections and punishments to honour and Reverence their Persons and Authority to pay custom and tribute and all legal taxes and impositions as our Apostle addes verse the 7. Render therefore unto all