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
of Kings was like to be very chargeable and oppressive to them He will take your sons and appoint them for himself for his chariots and to be his horsemen and some shall run before his chariots And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest And thus in several particulars he acquaints them what burdens and exactions they will bring upon themselves by setting up a King which they were then free from and if any Prince should be excessive in such exactions yet they had no way to help themselves they must not resist nor rebel against him nor expect that what inconvenience they might find in Kingly Government God would relieve and deliver them from it when once they had chose a King Ye shall cry out in that day because of your King which ye have chosen you and the Lord will not hear you in that day v. 18. That is God will not alter the government for you again how much soever you may complain of it This I say is a plain proof that their Kings were invested with that Soveraign Power which must not be resisted though they oppress their Subjects to maintain their own State and the Grandeur and Magnificence of their Kingdom But I cannot think that these words contain the original grant and Charter of Regal power but only the translation of that power which was formerly in their high-Priests or Iudges to Kings Kings had no more power than their other Governours had for there can be no power greater than that which is irresistible but this power in the hands of Kings was likely to be more burdensome and oppressive to them than it was in the hands of their Priests and Iudges by reason of their different way of living which is the onely argument Samuel uses to dissuade them from transferring the Supreme and Soveraign power to Princes And therefore I rather choose to Translate Mishpat as our Translators do by the manner of the King than as other learned men do by the right of the King thereby understanding the original Charter of Kingly power for it is not the Regal power which Samuel here blames which is no other but the very same power which he himself had while he was Supreme Iudge of Israel but their pompous way of living which would prove very oppressive and burdensome to them and be apt to make them complain who had not been used to such exactions And here before I proceed give me leave to make a short digression in vindication of Kingly Government which some men think is greatly disparaged by this story For 1. It is evident that God was angry with the Iews for desiring a King and declared his anger against them by sending a violent tempest of Thunder and Rain in Wheat-harvest which made them confess that they had added to all their sins this evil to ask a King 1 Sam. 12. 16 17. c. From whence some conclude that Kingly power and Authority is so far from being the Original appointment and constitution of God that it is displeasing to him And 2. that Samuel in describing the manner of the King represents it as oppressive and uneasie to Subjects and much more burdensome and less desirable than other Forms of Government 1. As for the first it must be acknowledged that God was angry with the Children of Israel for asking a King but then these men mistake the reason which was not because God is an enemy to Kingly Government but because he himself was the King of Israel and by asking a King to go in and out before them they exprest a dislike of Gods Government of them Thus God tells Samuel They have not rejected thee but they have rejected me that I should not reign over them 1 Sam. 8. 7. And thus Samuel aggravates their sin that they said Nay but a King shall reign over us when the Lord your God was your King 12 Chap. 12. v. Now the Crime had been the same had they set up an Aristocratical or Democratical Government as well as Regal Power in derogation of Gods Government of them Their fault was not in choosing to be governed by a single person for so they had been governed all along by Moses and Ioshua by their high Priests or those other extraordinary Iudges whom God had raised up and at this very time by Samuel himself for it is a great mistake to think that the Jews before they chose a King were governed by a Synedrial power like an Aristocracy or Democracy which there is not the least appearance of in all the Sacred History for as for those persons whom Moses by the advice of Iethro set over the people they were not a supreme or Soveraign Tribunal but such Subordinate Magistrates as every Prince makes use of for administring Justice to the People They were Rulers of thousands Rulers of hundreds Rulers of fifties Rulers of tens 18 Exod. 21. and were so far from being one standing Judicature that they were divided among their several Tribes and Families and were so far from being supreme that Moses still reserved all difficult cases and last appeals that is the true Soveraign power to himself as it was afterwards by an express Law reserved to the High Priests and Iudges extraordinarily appointed and there is so little appearance of this Soveraign Tribunal in Samuels days that he himself went in Circuit every year as our Judges now do to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpeh and judged Israel 1 Sam. 7. 16. But the fault of Israel in asking a King was this that they preferred the government of a King before the immediate government of God For the understanding of which it will be necessary to consider briefly how Gods government of Israel differ'd from their government by Kings For when they had chose a King did God cease to be the King of Israel was not their King Gods Minister and Vicegerent as their Rulers and Judges were before was not the King God 's Anointed and did he not receive the Laws and Rules of Government from him yes this is in some measure true and yet the difference is very great While God was the King of Israel though he appointed a Supreme visible Authority in the Nation yet the exercise of this Authority was under the immediate direction and government of God Moses and Ioshua did not stir a step nor attempt any thing without Gods order no more than a menial servant does without the direction of his Master In times of Peace they were under the ordinary government of the High Priest who was God's immediate servant who declared the Law to them and in difficult cases referred the cause to God who gave forth his answers by him when they were opprest by their enemies which God never permitted but for their sins when they repented and begged Gods pardon and deliverance God raised up some extraordinary persons endued with an
vindicated his authoritie by a miraculous destruction of those Rebels for the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up Afterward when they came into Canaan the ordinary exercise of this power was in their High-Priests and Iudges whom God raised up whose sentence and judgment was final and must not be resisted under penaltie of death when the Children of Israel desired a King this soveraign and irresistible power was transferred to him and setled in his Person Saul was the first King who was chosen by God and anointed by Samuel but for his disobedience was afterwards rejected by God and David the son of Iesse was anointed King to succeed after Saul's death But in the mean time David was persecuted by Saul who sought after his life And though he himself was anointed by God and Saul was rejected by him yet he durst not resist nor oppose him nor defend himself by force against the most unjust violence but fled for his life and hid himself in Caves and Mountains Nay when Saul was delivered into his hands by God he durst not stretch out his hand against the Lord 's Anointed But to proceed in the story Solomon David's son who succeeded him in his Kingdom did all those things which God had expresly forbid the King to do He sent into Egypt for Horses 1 Kings 10. 28. He multiplied Wives and loved many strange women together with the daughter of Pharoah women of the Moabites Ammonites Edomites Zidonians and Hittites 1 Kings 11. 1. He multiplied Silver and Gold 10 chap. 27. contrary to the command of God For this God who is the onely Judge of Soveraign Princes was very angry with him and threatens to rend the Kingdom from him which was afterwards accomplished in the days of Rehoboam but yet this did not give authoritie to his Subjects to rebel If to be under the direction and obligation of Laws makes a limited Monarchie it is certain the Kingdom of Israel was so There were some things which the King was expresly forbid to do as you have already heard and the Law of Moses was to be the rule of his government the standing Law of his Kingdom And therefore he was commanded when he came to the Throne to write a copy of the law with his own hand and to read in it all his days that he might learn to fear the Lord his God and to keep all the words of this law and these Statutes to do them 17 Deut. 18 19 20. and yet he was a soveraign Prince if he broke these Laws God was his Judge and avenger but he was accountable to no earthly Tribunal Baasha killed Nadab the son of Ieroboam and reigned in his stead 1 Kings 15. 25 26 27. and for this and his other sins God threatens evil against Baasha and against his house 16 Chron. 7. Zimri slew Elah the son of Baasha and slew all the house of Baasha but he did not long enjoy the Kingdom which he had usurpt by treason and murder for he reigned but seven days in Tirzah which being besieged and taken by Omri he went into the Palace of the King's house and burnt the King's house over him with fire and died v. 18. This example Iezebel threatned Iehu with Had Zimri peace who slew his master 2 Kings 9. 31. and yet Nadab and Elah were both of them very wicked Princes And if that would justifie Treason and Murder both Baasha and Zimri had been very innocent This is a sufficient evidence how sacred and inviolable the Persons and Authority of the Iewish Kings were during the time of that Monarchie But it will not be amiss briefly to consider what obligations the Iews were under to be subject to the higher powers when they were carried captive into Babylon Now the Prophet Ieremiah had given an express command to them Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives and pray to the Lord for it for in the peace thereof ye shall have peace 29 Jer. 7. Which made it a necessary duty to be subject to those powers under whose government they lived And accordingly we find that Mordecai discovered the Treason of Bigthana and Teresh two of the King's Chamberlains the Keepers of the door who sought to lay hand on the King Ahasuerus 6 Esther 2. And how numerous and powerful the Iews were at this time and what great disturbance they could have given to the Empire appears evidently from the book of Esther King Ahasuerus upon the suggestions of Haman had granted a Decree for the destruction of the whole People of the Iews which was sent into all the Provinces written and sealed with the King's ring This Decree could never be reversed again for that was contrary to the Laws of the Medes and Persians And therefore when Esther had found favour with the King all that could be done for the Iews was to grant another Decree for them to defend themselves which accordingly was done and the effect of it was this That the Iews at Shusan slew three hundred men and the Iews of the other Provinces slew seventy and five thousand and rested from their enemies 9 Esther 15 16 17. Without this Decree Mordecai did not think it lawful to resist which yet was a case of as great extremity and barbarous cruelty as could ever happen which made him put Esther upon so hazardous an attempt as to venture into the King's presence without being called which was death by their Law unless the King should graciously hold out the golden Scepter to them 4 Esth. 11. and yet when they had obtained this Decree they were able to defend themselves and to destroy their enemies which is as famous an example of Passive Obedience as can be met with in any History And therefore the Prophet Daniel acknowledges to Belteshazzar The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy Father a Kingdom and Majesty and Glory and Honour and for the Majesty that he gave him all People nations and languages trembled and feared before him Whom he would he slew and whom he would he kept alive and whom he would be set up and whom he would he pulled down 5 Dan. 18 19. And if these Heathen Kings receive their power from God as the Prophet here affirms St. Paul has made the application of it That he that resisteth resisteth the ordinance of God This may serve for the times of the Old Testament and I shall conclude these testimonies with the saying of the wise man who was both a Prophet and a King I counsel thee to keep the King's commandment and that in regard of the oath of God Be not hasty to go out of his sight stand not in an evil thing for he doth whatsoever pleaseth him Where the word of a King is there is power and who may say unto him What dost thou 8 Eccl. 2 3 4. CHAP. II. The Doctrine of Christ concerning Non-resistance LEt us now consider what Christ and his Apostles taught
exercise such a secular power and authoritie as earthly Princes do Now is it any disparagement to Kingly power to tell a Bishop that he must not exercise such a soveraign authoritie over the Church as the Prince does over the State which is the whole of what our Saviour intended in this place For the occasion of these words St. Matthew tells us was to check that vain ambition of Zebedee's two sons who came to Christ and employed their Mother to ask of him that one might sit on his right hand and the other on his left hand in his Kingdom that is that they might have the greatest places of dignitie and power next himself St. Luke tells us that it was to compose that strife and contention which was among them which of them should be accounted the greatest which most likely refers to the same story though it is plain they quarrelled more than once about this matter And the occasion of all these quarrels was a mistake of the nature of Christ's Kingdom They as well as the rest of the Iews expected their Messias should be a Temporal Prince and they being convinced by the Miracles of Christ that he was indeed the Messias who was to come they lived in dayly expectation when he would take the Kingdom upon himself and then they did not doubt but that they should be the chief Ministers of State and have the greatest places of trust and power in his Kingdom this made them jealous of each others greatness and so forward to bespeak preferments for themselves Now to cure these earthly ambitions he tells them that his Kingdom was no such thing as they dreamt of and that he had no such preferments for them as they expected Earthly Princes lived in great Pomp and Splendour and had great Places of trust and honour to bestow on their servants but they saw no such thing in him he came not to be ministred unto but to minister to live a mean industrious and laborious life and to die as a Malefactor and give his life a ransom for many And they could not expect by being his servants to be advanced to secular power and authoritie which he had not himself but when he came into his Kingdom they should indeed share with him in his power and authoritie they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel that is they should have the supreme authoritie in his Church which is his spiritual Kingdom But there was nothing of external state and grandeur in this as they expected but it was a life of humilitie and modestie and contempt of this world and earthly greatness The greatest Ministers in his Kingdom must be as humble as a child as he elsewhere tells them and as diligent and industrious and condescending as the meanest servant and should very often differ nothing from servants in their external fortune and condition of life This is the sum of what our Saviour here teaches his Disciples and he is a wonderful man and very quick-sighted who can discover any reflection on civil power and authoritie in all this I shall onely observe farther that when our Saviour calls them here the Princes and Kings of the Gentiles or Nations he does not speak this in disparagement of them that they were onely Heathen and Infidel Princes who did this for there were no other Princes at that time in the world Heathen and Pagan Princes sounds now as a note of infamie whereby they are distinguished from Christian Kings and Princes but the Kings of the Gentiles or Nations in our Saviour's time signified no more than Soveraign Princes who were invested with civil authoritie And our Saviour onely distinguishes between that civil power and authoritie which was exercised by secular Princes and that spiritual Kingdom which he was now about to erect in the world and the distinction had been of the same force though there had been at that time Jewish or Christian as well as Heathen Princes Still the difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical authoritie is the same and no Apostle or Bishop as such can challenge the power or authoritie of earthly Princes or any share in it CHAP. III. What we may learn from our Saviour's Practice about NON-RESISTANCE HAving seen what the Doctrine of our Saviour was let us now consider his Practice And we need not doubt but our Saviour lived as he preacht He taught his Disciples by his example as well as by his Laws His Life was the best Comment upon his Sermons was a visible Lecture of universal Righteousness and goodness and it is impossible to conceive a more perfect and absolute example of Subjection and Non-resistance than our Saviour has set us When our Saviour appeared in the world the Iews were very weary of the Roman yoke and in earnest expectation of their Messias who as they thought would restore the Kingdom again unto Israel and this expectation of their Messias whom they mistook for a Temporal Prince made them very apt to joyn with any one who pretended to be the Messias and to rebel against the Roman government Such most likely were Theudas and Iudas of Galilee of whom we have mention 5 Acts 36 37. and it is not impossible but the Aegyptian who led 4000 men into the wilderness 2 Acts 38. either pretended to be the Messias or some fore-runner of him to be sure such were those false Christs and false Prophets of whom our Saviour warns his Disciples 24 Matth. 23. Then if any man shall say unto you Lo here is Christ or there believe it not This being the temper of the Iewish Nation at that time so extreamly inclined to Seditions and Rebellion against the Roman powers how easie had it been for our Saviour had he pleased to have made himself very potent and formidable how easie could he have gained even the Scribes and Pharisees to his party whose great quarrel was at his meanness and poverty would he once have declared himself a Temporal Prince and invaded the Throne But he was so far from this that when he perceived the people had an intention to take him by force and make him a King he withdrew himself privately from them and departed into a mountain himself alone 6 Iohn 15. and yet I presume there might have been as many plausible pretences to have justifyed a Rebellion then as ever there were in any Nation since He had at that time fed five thousand men besides women and children with five barley loaves and two small fishes and what a formidable Enemy would he have been who could Victual an Army by Miracles and could when he pleased conquer by the same miraculous power also this the people whom he had miraculously fed were very sensible of and did hence conclude that he was the Prophet that should come into the world and that it was time to take him and set him upon the Throne but though our Saviour was indeed the Messias yet he was not such
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
at prayers and tears these have been always thought the onely remedy the Church has against persecuting powers and it seems St. Paul thought so too for he prescribes no other and yet he does not allow them to pray against the King neither but exhorts them to pray for him and that they might enjoy peace and security under his Government CHAP. V. St. Peter's Doctrine about Non-resistance HAving heard what St. Paul's doctrine was let us now consider what St. Peter taught about this matter he had as much reason to learn this lesson as any of the Apostles our Saviour having severely rebuked him for drawing his sword against the lawful powers as you have already heard And indeed his rash and intemperate zeal in this action cost him very dear for we have reason to believe that this was the chief thing that tempted him to deny his Master He was afraid to own himself to be his Disciple or that he had been in the garden with him because he was conscious to himself that by drawing his sword and smiting the servant of the high Priest he had incurred the penalty of the law and had he been discovered could expect nothing less but to be severely punish't for it it may be to have lost his life for his resistance And indeed this has very often been the fate of those men who have been transported with a boistrous and intemperate zeal to draw their swords for their Master and his Religion against the lawful powers that they commonly deny their Master and despise his Religion before they put their swords up again But St. Peter having by our Saviour's reproof and his own dear-bought experience learn't the evil of resistance never drew his svvord more and took great care to instruct Christians not to do so 1 Peter 2. 13 14 15 16. Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether it be to the King as supreme or unto Governours as to them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of them that do well For so is the will of God that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolishmen As free and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness but as the servants of God This is the very same Doctrine which St. Paul taught the Romans Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers for the same word is used in the original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore to submit and to be subject is the same thing which as St. Paul tells us signifies Non-resistance Onely as St. Paul speaks onely of not resisting the Higher Powers that is Emperours and Soveraign Princes herein including all those who act by their Authority St. Peter to prevent all cavils and exceptions distinctly mentions both that we must submit to all humane power and authority not onely to the King as Supreme that is in St. Paul's phrase to the Higher Powers to all Soveraign Princes who are invested with the supreme Authority but also to those who are sent by him who receive their Authority and commission from the Soveraign Prince St. Paul tells us at large that all power is of God and that the power is the Minister of God and he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and therefore we must needs be subject not onely for Wrath that is for fear of being punish't by men but also for Conscience sake out of reverence to God and fear of his Judgement This St. Peter comprises in one word which includes it all Submit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake for how is God concerned in our obedience to Princes if they be not his Ministers who are appointed and advanced by him and act by his Authority and if it be not his will and command that we should obey them and therefore he addes for this is the will of God that with well doing that is by obedience and subjection to Princes ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men that is that you may put to silence those foolish men who ignorantly accuse you as fond of changes and troublesome and dangerous to Government But then St. Peter observing that Christian Liberty was made a pretence for seditions and treasons he cautions them against that also As free but not using your liberty for a cloak of Maliciousness that is to cover and excuse such wickedness as Rebellion against Princes but as the servants of God You must remember whatever freedom Christ has purchas 't for you he has not delivered you from obedience and subjection to God you are his servants still and therefore must be subject to those who receive their power and authority from God as all Soveraign Princes do This is as plain one would think as words can make it but nothing can be so plain but that men who are unwiling to understand it and who set their wits on work to avoid the force and evidence of it may be able to find something to say to deceive themselves and those who are willing to be deceived and therefore it will be necessary to consider what false colours some men have put upon these words to elude and baffle the plain scope and designe of the Apostle in them As first they observe that St. Peter calls Kings and subordinate Governours an ordinance of man or a humane Creature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and from hence they conclude that Kings are onely the peoples Creatures they are made by the people and receive their power from them and therefore are accountable to them if they abuse their power In answer to this we may consider 1. That this interpretation of St. Peter's words is a direct contradiction to St. Paul who expresly asserts that there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God but according to this exposition of humane Creature or the Ordinance of Man there is no power of God but all power is derived from the People Kings and Princes may be chosen by men as it is in Elective Kingdoms and as it was at that time in the Roman Empire but they receive their power from God and thus St. Paul and St. Peter may be reconciled but to affirm that St. Peter calls Kings an Ordinance of man because they receive their power and authority from men is an irreconcilable contradiction to St. Paul who affirms that they receive their power from God that they are God's and not the peoples Ministers Now though St. Peter and St. Paul did once differ upon a matter of prudence it would be of ill consequence to Religion to make them differ in so material a Doctrine as this is and yet there is no way to reconcile them but by expounding St. Peter's words so as to agree with St. Paul's for St. Paul's words can never be reconciled with that sence which these men give of St. Peter's