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
whatsoever be resisted The first Governour God set over the Children of Israel when he brought them out of the Land of Egypt was Moses and I think I need not prove how Sacred and irresistible his Authority was This is sufficiently evident in the rebellion of Korah Dathan and Abiram against Moses and Aaron when God caused the earth to open her mouth and swallow them up 16 Numbers And lest this should be thought an extraordinary case Moses and Aaron being extraordinary persons immediately appointed by God and governed by his immediate direction the Apostle St. Iude alleadges this example against those in his days who were turbulent and factious who despised dominions and spake evil of dignities that they should perish in the gainsaying of Core Iud. v. 11. which he could not have done had not this example extended to all ordinary as well as extraordinary Cases had it not been a lasting testimony of Gods displeasure against all those who oppose themselves against the Soveraign powers But Moses was not always to rule over them and therefore God expresly provides for a Succession of Soveraign power to which they must all submit The ordinary Sovereign power of the Iewish Nation after Moses his death was devolved either on the high Priest or those extraordinary persons whom God was pleased to raise up such as Ioshua and the several Iudges till in Samuels days it setled in their Kings For as for the Iewish Sanhedrim whose power is so much extolled by the Iewish Writers who are all of a late date many years since the destruction of Ierusalem and therefore no competent witnesses of what was done so many ages before it does not appear from any testimony of Scripture that there was any such Court of Iudicature till after their return from the Babylonish Captivity But yet God took care to secure the Peace and good Government of the Nation by appointing such a power as should receive the last Appeals and whose Sentence in all Controversies should be final and uncontroulable as you may see in the 17 Deut. 8 9 10 11 12 v. There were inferiour Magistrates and Iudges appointed in their several Tribes and Cities which Moses did by the advice of Iethro his Father-in-law and by the approbation of God Exod. 18. But as the Supreme Power was still reserved in the hands of Moses while he lived so it is here secured to the high Priest or Iudges after his death for it is expresly appointed that if those inferiour Iudges could not determine the Controversie they should come unto the Priests the Levites that is the Priests of the Tribe of Levi who by the 12 ver appears only to be the High Priest and to the Iudge that shall be in those days that is if it shall be at such a time when there is an extraordinary Judge raised by God for there were not always such Iudges in Israel as is evident to any one who reads the Book of Iudges and of them they should inquire and they shall shew the sentence of Iudgment and thou shalt do according to the Sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee and thou shalt observe to do according to all they shall inform thee Where the Place which God shall choose signifies the Place which he should appoint for the Ark of the Covenant and for the Levitical worship which was the place where the high Priest and the chief Iudge or Ruler of Israel when there was any such person had their ordinary residence which was at first at Shilo and afterwards at Ierusalem And what the Authority of the chief Priest or of the Iudge when there was one was in those days appears from v. 12. And the man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken to the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel This is as absolute Authority as the most absolute Monarch in the world can challenge that disobedience to their last and final determination what ever the cause be shall be punisht with death and what place can there be for Resistance in such a Constitution of Government as this It is said indeed in v. 11. according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the judgment that they shall tell thee thou shalt do And hence some conclude that they were not bound to abide by their sentence nor were punishable if they did not but onely in such cases when they gave sentence according to the Law of God But these men do not consider that the matter in controversie is supposed to be doubtful and such as could not be determined by the inferiour Courts and therefore is submitted to the decision of the Supreme Iudge and as he determined so they must do and no man under the penalty of death must presume to do otherwise which takes away all liberty of judging from private persons though this Supreme Iudge might possibly mistake in his Judgment as all humane Iudicatures are liable to mistakes but it seems God Almighty thought it necessary that there should be some final Judgment from whence there should be no appeal notwithstanding the possibility of a mistake in it So that there was a Supreme and Soveraign that is unaccountable and irresistible Power in the Iewish Nation appointed by God himself for indeed it is not possible that the publick Peace and Security of any Nation should be preserved without it And I think it is as plain that when the Iews would have a King their Kings were invested with this Supreme and Irresistible Power for when they desired a King they did not desire a meer nominal and titular King but a King to judge them and to go out before them and fight their battels that is a King who had the Supreme and Soveraign Authority 1 Sam. 8. 6. 19. 20. a King who should have all that power of Government excepting the peculiar acts of the Priestly Office which either their High-Priest or their Iudges had before And therefore when Samuel tells them what shall be the manner of their King 11 ver though what he says does necessarily suppose the translation of the Soveraign and Irresistible power to the person of their King yet it does not suppose that the King had any new power given him more than what was exercised formerly by their Priests and Iudges He does not deter them from chusing a King because a King should have greater power and be more uncontroulable and irresistible than their other Rulers were for Samuel himself had had as soveraign and irresistible a power as any King being the Supreme Judge in Israel whose Sentence no man could disobey or contradict but he incurred the penalty of death according to the Mosaical Law But the reason why he disswades them from chusing a King was because the external Pomp and Magnificence
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
God himself has for the Prince has God's Authority and therefore cannot be resisted but by a greater Authority than God's And by the same reason if the whole body of the people be subject to God they must be subject to their Prince too because he acts by God's Authority and Commission Were a Soveraign Prince the Peoples Creature might be a good Maxime Rex major singulis sed minor universis that the King is greater than any particular Subject but less than All together but if he be God's Minister he is upon that account as much greater than all as God is And that the whole body of the people all together as well as one by one are equally concerned in this command of being subject to the higher Powers is evident from this consideration that nothing less than this will secure the peace and tranquillity of humane Societies The resistance of single persons is more dangerous to themselves than to the Prince but a powerful combination of Rebels is formidable to the most puissant Monarchs The greater numbers of Subjects rebel against their Prince the more do they distress his Government and threaten his Crown and Dignity and if his Person and Authority be Sacred the greater the violence is which is offered to him the greater is the crime Had the Apostle exhorted the Romans after this manner Let no private and single man be so foolish as to rebel against his Prince who will be too strong for him but if you can raise sufficient forces to oppose against him if you can all consent to Depose or Murder him this is very innocent and justifiable nay an Heroical Atchievement which becomes a free-born people How would this secure the peace and quiet of the world how would this have agreed with what follows that Princes are advanced by God and that to resist our Prince is to resist the Ordinance of God and that such men shall be severely punisht for it in this world or the next for can the Apostle be thought absolutely to condemn resistance if he makes it only unlawful to resist when we want power to conquer Which yet is all that can be made of it if by every Soul the Apostle means only particular men not the united force and power of Subjects Nor can there be any reason assigned why the Apostle should lay so strict a command on particular Christians to be subject to the higher Powers which does not equally concern whole Nations For if it can ever be lawful for a whole Nation to resist a Prince it may in the same circumstances be equally lawful for a particular man to do it if a Nation may conspire against a Prince who invades their Rights their Liberties or their Religion why may not any man by the same reason resist a Prince when his Rights and Liberties are invaded It is not so safe and prudent indeed for a private man to resist as for great and powerful numbers but this makes resistance only a matter of discretion not of Conscience if it be lawful for the whole body of a Nation to resist in such cases it must be equally lawful for a particular man to do it but he does it at his own peril when he has only his one single force to oppose against his Prince So that our Apostle must forbid resistance in all or none For single persons do not use to resist or rebel or there is no great danger to the Publick if they do but the Authority of Princes and the security of publick Government is only endangered by a combination of Rebels when the whole Nation or any considerable part for numbers power and interest take Arms against their Prince If resistance of our Prince be a sin it is not the less but the greater sin the greater and the more formidable the resistance is and it would very much unbecome the gravity and sacredness of an Apostolical precept to enjoyn subjection to private Christians who dare not who cannot resist alone but to leave a powerful combination of Rebels at liberty to resist So that every Soul must signifie all Subjects whether single or united for whatever is unlawful for every single Person considered as a Subject is unlawful for them all together for the whole Nation is as much a subject to the higher powers as any single man Thus I am sure it is in our Government where Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament own themselves the Subjects of the King and have by publick Laws disclaimed all power of raising any War either offensive or defensive against the King 2. Let us now consider what is meant by the higher powers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies the supreme power in any Nation in whomsoever it is placed Whether in the King as in Monarchical governments or in the Nobles as in Aristocratical or in the People as in Democracies At the time of writing this Epistle the supreme power was in the Roman Emperours and therefore when St. Paul commands the Roman Christians to be subject to the higher powers the plain meaning is that they be subject to the Roman Emperour And thus St. Peter explains it 1 Epist. 2 Chap. 13 v. Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as supreme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word used in my Text as to him who hath a supereminent power and is above all others It is absolutely necessary in all well-governed Societies that there should be some supreme and soveraign Power from whence there lies no appeal and which cannot and must not be resisted For otherwise there can be no end of disputes and controversies men may quarrel eternally about rights and priviledges and properties and preheminencies and when every man is Judge in his own cause it is great oddes but he will give Judgement for himself and then there can be no way to determine such matters but by force and power Which turns humane societies into a state of War and no man is secure any longer than he happens to be on the prevailing side Whoever considers the nature and the end of Government must acknowledge the necessity of a supreme power to decide controversies to administer Justice and to secure the Publick Peace and it is a ridiculous thing to talk of a supreme power which is not unaccountable and irresistible For whatever power is liable to be called to an account and to be resisted has some power above it and so is not supreme Of late years whoever has been so hardy as to assert the Doctrine of Non-resistance has been thought an Enemy to his Country one who tramples on all Laws who betraies the rights and liberties of the subject and sets up for Tyranny and Arbitrary power Now I would desire those men who think thus to try their skill in framing any model of government which shall answer the ends and necessities of humane society without a supreme power that is without such a power
acknowledged that these five particulars do contain the whole strength of their cause and if I can give a fair answer to them it must either make men Loyal or leave them without excuse 1. They urge that they are bound by no Law to suffer against Law Suppose as a late Author does that a Popish Prince should persecute his Protestant Subjects in England for professing the Protestant Religion which is established by Law By what Law saies he must we die not by any Law of God surely for being of that Religion which he approves and would have all the world to embrace and to hold fast to the end Nor by the Laws of our Country where Protestancy is so far from being criminal that it is death to desert it and to turn Papist By what Law then by none that I know of saies our Author nor do I know of any and so far we are agreed But then both the Laws of God and of our Countrie command us not to resist and if death an illegal unjust death follow upon that I cannot help it God and our Countrie must answer for it It is a wonderful discoverie which this Author has made that when we suffer against Law we are condemned by no Law to dieâ— for if we were we could not suffer against Law and it is as wonderful an argument he uses to prove that we may resist when we are persecuted against Law because we are condemned by no Law to die which is supposed in the very question and is neither more nor less than to affirm the thing which he was to prove We may resist a Prince who persecutes against Law because we are condemned by no Law that is because he persecutes against Law This proves indeed that we ought not to die when we are condemned by no Law to die but whether we may preserve our selves from an unjust and violent death by resisting a persecuting Prince is another question 2. It is urged that a Prince has no authoritie against Law There is no authority on earth above the Law much less against it It is Murder to put a man to death against Law and if they knew who had authority to commit open bare-faced and downright Murders this would direct them where to pay their Passive Obedience but it would be the horridest stander in the world to say that any such power is lodged in the Prerogative as to destroy men contrary to Law Now I perfectly agree with them in this also that a Prince has no just and legal authoritie to act against Law that if he knowingly persecure any Subject to death contrary to Law he is a Murderer and that no Prince has any such Prerogative to commit open bare-faced and downright murders But what follows from hence does it hence follow therefore we may resist and oppose them if they do This I absolutely denie because God has expresly commanded us not to resist And I see no inconsistencie between these two propositions that a Prince has no Legal Authoritie to persecute against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does Both the Laws of God and the Laws of our Countrie suppose these two to be very consistent For notwithstanding the possibilitie that Princes may abuse their power and transgress the Laws whereby they ought to govern yet they Command Subjects in no case to resist and it is not sufficient to justifie resistance if Princes do what they have no just Authoritie to do unless we have also a just Authoritie to resist He who exceeds the just bounds of his Authoritie is lyable to be called to an account for it but he is accountable onely to those who have a superior authoritie to call him to an account No power whatever is accountable to an inferiour for this is a contradiction to the very notion of Power and destructive of all Order and Government Inferiour Magistrates are on all hands acknowledged to be lyable to give an account of the abuse of their power but to whom must they give an account not to their inferiours not to the people whom they are to Govern but to superiour Magistrates or to the Soveraign Prince who governs all Thus the Soveraign Prince may exceed his Authoritie and is accountable for it to a superiour power but because he has no superiour power on earth he cannot be resisted by his own Subjects but must be reserved to the Judgement of God who alone is the King of Kings To justifie our resistance of any power there are two things to be proved 1. That this power has exceeded its just Authoritie 2. That we have Authoritie to resist Now these men indeed prove the first very well that Princes who are to govern by Law exceed their legal Authoritie when they persecute against Law but they say not one word of the second that Subjects have authoritie to resist their Prince who persecutes against Law which was the onely thing that needed proof but this is a hard task and therefore they thought it more adviseable to take it for granted than to attempt to prove it They say indeed that an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation at all cannot oblige Subjects to obedience Now this is manifestly true if by obedience they mean an active obedience for I am not bound to do an ill thing or an illegal action because my Prince commands me but if they mean Passive Obedience it is as manifestly false for I am bound to obey that is not to resist my Prince when he offers the most unjust and illegal violence Nay it is very false and absurd to say that every illegal is an inauthoritative act which carries no obligation with it This is contrarie to the practice of all humane Iudicatures and the daily experience of men who suffer in their lives bodies or estates by an unjust and illegal sentence Every Judgement contrarie to the true meaning of the law is in that sence illegal and yet such illegal Judgements have their Authoritie and obligation till they are rescinded by some higher Authoritie This is the true reason of appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts to rectifie illegal proceedings and reverse illegal Judgements which supposes that such illegal acts have authoritie till they are made null and void by a higher power and if the higher powers from whence lies no appeal confirm and ratifie an unjust and illegal sentence it carries so much authoritie and obligation with it that the injured person has no redress but must patiently submit and thus it must necessarily be or there can be no end of disputes nor any order and Government in humane Societies And this is a plain demonstration that though the Law be the rule according to which Princes ought to exercise their authoritie and power yet the authoritie is not in Laws but in Persons for otherwise why is not a sentence pronounced according to Law by a private person of as much Authoritie as a sentence
pronounced by a Judge how does an illegal sentence pronounced by a Judge come to have any Authoritie for a sentence contrarie to Law cannot have the Authoritie of the Law Why is a legal or illegal sentence reversible and alterable when pronounced by one Judge and irreversible and unalterable when pronounced by another For the Law is the same and the sentence is the same either according to Law or against it whoever the Judge be but it seems the Authoritie of the Persons is not the same and that makes the difference so that there is an Authoritie in Persons in some sence distinct from the Authoritie of Laws nay superiour to it For there is such an Authoritie as though it cannot make an illegal act legal yet can and often does make an illegal act binding and obligatorie to the Subjects when pronounced by a competent Judge If it be said that this very authoritie is owing to the law which appoints Judges and Magistrates to decide controversies and orders appeals from inferiour to superiour Courts I would onely ask one short question Whether the law gives authoritie to any person to judge contrarie to law If it does not then all illegal acts are null and void and lay no obligation on the Subject and yet this is manifestly false according to the known Practice of all the known Governments in the world The most illegal Judgement is valid till it be reverst by some superiour Power and the Judgement of the supreme power though never so illegal can be repealed by no authoritie but its own And yet it is absurd to say that the law gives any man authoritie to Judge contrarie to law for to be sure this is besides the end and intention of the law Whence then does an illegal act or Judgement derive its authoritie and obligation the answer is plain It is from the authoritie of the Person whose act or Judgement it is It will be of great use to this controversie to make this plain and obvious to every understanding which therefore I shall endeavour to do as briefly as may be 1. Then I observe that there must be a personal power and authoritie antecedent to all civil laws For there can be no laws without a Law-maker and there can be no Law-maker unless there be one or more persons invested with the power of Government of which making laws is one branch For a law is nothing else but the publick and declared will and command of the Law-maker whether he be the Soveraign Prince or the People 2. And hence it necessarily follows that a Soveraign Prince does not receive his authoritie from the laws but laws receive their authoritie from him We are often indeed minded of what BRACTON saies LEX FACIT REGEM that the law makes the King by which that great Lawyer was far enough from understanding that the King receives his Soveraign power from the law for the law has no authoritie nor can give any but what it receives from the King and then it is a wonderful riddle how the King should receive his authoritie from the law But when he saies The Law makes the King he distinguishes a King from a Tyrant and his meaning is that to Govern by laws makes a Soveraign Prince a King as King signifies a Just and equal and beneficial power and authoritie as appears from the reason he gives for it Non est enim Rex ubi dominatur voluntas non lex He is no King who Governs by arbitrarie will and not by law not that he is no Soveraign Prince but he is a Tyrant and not a King 3. And hence it evidently follows that the being of Soveraign Power is independent on laws that is as a Soveraign Prince does not receive his power from the law so should he violate the laws by which he is bound to Govern yet he does not forfeit his power He breaks his faith to God and to his Countrie but he is a Soveraign Prince still And this is in effect acknowledged by these men who so freely confess that let a Prince be what he will though he trample upon all laws and exercise an arbitrarie and illegal authoritie yet his person is sacred and inviolable and irresistible he must not be touch'd nor opposed And allow that saying of David to be Scripture still Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord 's Anointed and be guiltless Now what is it that makes the person of a King more inviolable and unaccountable than other men Nothing that I know of but his sacred and inviolable authoritie and therefore it seems though he act against law yet he is a Soveraign Prince and the Lord s Anointed still or else I see no reason why they might not destroy his person also And yet if nothing but an inviolable and unaccountable authoritie can make the Person of the King inviolable and unaccountable I would gladly know how it becomes lawful to resist his authoritie and unlawful to resist his Person I would desire these men to tell me whether a Soveraign Prince signifies the natural Person or the Authoritie of a King and if to divest him of his authoritie be to kill the King why they may not kill the man too when they have killed the King Thus when men are forc't to mince Treason and Rebellion they always speak Nonsense Those indeed who resist the authoritie of their Prince but spare his Person do better than those who kill him but those who affirm that his Person is as resistible and accountable as his Authoritie speak more consistently with themselves and the Principles of Rebellion 4. And hence I suppose it plainly appears that every illegal act the King does is not an inauthoritative Act but laies an obligation on Subjects to yeild if not an active yet a passive obedience For the King receives not his Soveraign Authoritie from the Law nor does he forfeit his authoritie by breaking the law and therefore he is a Soveraign Prince still and his most illegal acts though they have not the authoritie of the law yet they have the Authoritie of Soveraign Power which is irresistible and unaccountable In a word it does not become any man who can think three consequences off to talk of the authoritie of laws in derogation to the authoritie of the Soveraign power The Soveraign power made the laws and can repeal them and dispence with them and make new laws the onely power and authoritie of the laws is in the power which can make and execute Laws Soveraign Power is inseparable from the Person of a Soveraign Prince and though the exercise of it may be regulated by Laws and that Prince does very ill who having consented to such a regulation breaks the Laws yet when he acts contrarie to Law such acts carrie Soveraign and irresistible Authoritie with them while he continues a Soveraign Prince But if it be possible to convince all men how vain this pretence of Laws is to justifie
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
and practised about Obedience to Soveraign Princes whereby we may learn how far Christians are obliged by these Laws of Subjection and Non-resistance 1. I shall distinctly consider the Doctrine of Christ while he lived on Earth and here are several things very fit to be observed 1. We have no reason to suspect that Christ would alter the rights of Soveraign power and the measures of obedience and subjection which were fixt and determined by God himself This was no part of his Commission to change the external forms and polities of Civil governments which is an act of secular power and authority and does not belong to a Spiritual Prince He who would not undertake to decide a petty controversie or to divide an inheritance between two contending brethren 12 Luke 13 14. can we think that he would attempt any thing of that vast consequence as the changes and alterations of Civil Power which would have unsetled the Fundamental Constitutions of all the governments of the world at that time Our Saviour tells us that he came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfil it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to fill it up to compleat and perfect it 5 Matth. 17. that is to fulfil the ancient types and prophecies in his own Person to perfect an external and ceremonial by a real and Evangelical righteousness to perfect the Moral Laws with new instances and degrees of vertue but he abrogated no Moral Law and therefore not the Laws of Obedience and Subjection to Princes which has always been reduced to the fifth Commandment Nay he abrogated no Laws but by perfecting and fulfilling them and therefore he could make no alteration in the Doctrine of Non-resistance which is as perfect subjection as can or ought to be paid to Soveraign Princes His Kingdom was not of this world as he told Pilate though he was a King he neither was an enemy nor rival to Caesar but had he absolved his Disciples from their obedience to Princes had he made it in any case lawful to resist which was so expresly forbid the Iews by God himself and which is such a contradiction to the very notion of Soveraign Power he had been somewhat worse than a Rival to all the Princes of the Earth for though he had set up no Kingdom of his own yet he had pulled down theirs Whereas he took great care that his Religion should give no disturbance to the world nor create any reasonable jealousies and suspicions to Princes who had been very excusable for their aversion to Christianity had it invaded the Rights and Royalties of their Crowns This makes it very improbable that our Saviour should make any alterations in Civil powers or abridge the rights of Soveraignty which is so foreign to his design of coming into the world and so incongruous to the Person which he sustained and yet he could not alter the duties of Subjects but he must alter the rights of Princes too he must take away the Soveraign power of Princes at the same time that he makes it lawful for Subjects in any case whatsoever to resist We may safely then conclude that our Saviour has left the government of the world as he found it he has indeed given such admirable Laws as will teach Princes to govern and Subjects to obey better which is the most effectual way to secure the publick peace and happiness to prevent the Oppression of Subjects and Rebellions against Princes but he has not interposed in new modelling the Governments of the world which is not of such consequence as some men imagine It is not the external form of Government but the Fatherly care and Prudence and Justice of Governours and the dutiful obedience of Subjects which can make any people happy If Princes and Subjects be good Christians they may be happy under most forms of Government if they be not they can be happy under none Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to Resist to Depose to Murder Tyrannical Princes he had done them no kindness at all for to give liberty to Subjects to resist is only to proclaim an universal licence to Factions and Seditions and Civil Wars and if any man can think this such a mighty blessing to the world yet me thinks it is not a blessing proper for the Prince of peace to give But he who instructs Princes to rule as God's Ministers and Vicegerents and to express a Fatherly Care and concernment for the happiness of their Subjects and that teaches Subjects to reverence and obey their Prince as the Image of God and quietly to submit and yield to his authority and that inforces thâ—se Laws both on Princes and Subjects in the Name and Authority of God and from the consideration of the future judgment when Princes who abuse their power shall give an account of it to their great Master when Subjects who resist shall receive to themselves Damnation and those who patiently and quietly suffer for God's sake shall have their injuries redrest and their obedience rewarded I say such a Person as this takes a more effectual course to reform the abuses of civil power and to preserve good government in the world than all our wise Politicians and State-menders who think to reform the government of the world by some Statespells and charms without reforming those who govern and those who are governed This our Saviour has done and this is the best thing that could be done nay this was all that he could do in this matter He never usurpt any civil power and authority and therefore could not new model the governments of the world he never offers any external force and compulsion to make men obey his Laws and therefore neither forces Princes to rule well nor Subjects to obey but he has taken the same care of the government of the World as he has done of all the other duties of Piety and Vertue that is he has given very good Laws and threatned those who break them with eternal punishments and as the Laws and Religion of our Saviour prevail so will the governments of the world mend without altering the Model and Constitution of them 2. But yet we have some positive evidence what our Saviour taught about Obedience to the higher powers I shall give you two instances of it which are as plain and express as can be desired 1. The first is that answer our Saviour gave to the Pharisees and Herodians when they consulted together to intangle him in his talk 22 Matth. 15. c. They come to him with great ceremony and address as to an infallible Oracle to consult him in a very weighty case of Conscience They express a great esteem and assurance of his sincerity and faithfulness and courage as well as of his unerring judgment in declaring the will of God to them Master we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in Truth neither carest thou for any man for thou regardest not the Person
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
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
resisteth the Ordinance of God Now if they must obey the powers because they are from God Subjection and Non-resistance is as much our dutie when we have power to resist as when we have not and is as much our dutie at this day as it was in the time of the Apostle if we believe that God has as great a hand in setting up Kings now as he had then 2. He threatens eternal damnation against those who resist He that resists shall receive unto himself damnation which supposes that there is a moral evil in resistance and therefore that Non-resistance is an eternal and unchangeable Law which cannot be true if it be lawful to resist when we can resist to some purpose when we can resist and conquer It is foolish indeed to resist a Prince when we have not sufficient force to oppose against him but it would be a hard case if a man should perish etenally for doing an action which is lawful in it self but imprudently undertaken These men had need look well to themselves how lawful soever they think resistance to be if every imprudent and unfortunate Rebel must be damned 3. St. Paul addes that we must needs be subject not onely for wrath but also for Conscience sake that is not onely out of fear of men but out of Conscience of our dutie to God Now if resistance were not in its nature sinful it were a very prudential Consideration not to resist for fear of wrath that is for fear of being punish't by men if we cannot conquer but there would be no conscience in the case no sence of any dutie to God unless we think that Non-resistance is our duty when we cannot conquer and resistance when we can 4. St. Peter tells us that this subjection to Kings and Governours is a good and vertuous action and therefore he calls it well-doing For so is the will of God that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men that is by submitting to Kings and Governours as you have already heard Now the nature of Vertue and Vice cannot alter with the circumstances of our condition that which is good in one age is so in another which shews that Subjection and Non-resistance was not a temporary law and meer matter of prudence but an essential duty of Christian Religion 5. For it appears by what he adds that it was a great credit and reputation to Christianity that it made men quiet peaceable and governable By well-doing they put to silence the ignorance of foolish men by their peaceable and obedient behaviour to their Governours they sham'd those men who ignorantly reproach't the Christian Religion Now hence there are two plain consequents 1. That subjection to government is a thing of very good repute in the world or else it could be no Credit to Christianity and this is a good argument that subjection to Government is a great Vertue because all men speak well of it It is a thing of good report and therefore becomes Christians 4 Phil. 8. 2. It hence follows also that subjection to Government was a standing Doctrine of the Christian Religion because it was the will of God that they should recommend Christianity to the world by subjection to Princes But certainly God never intended they should put a cheat upon the world and recommend Christianity to them by that which is no part nor duty of Christianity This is abundantly sufficient to confute that vain pretence that the Doctrine of Subjection and Non-resistance obliged Christians only while they were unable to resist and defend themselves and this is enough to satisfie us what the Doctrine of the Apostles was about subjection to Princes As for their examples I think there was never any dispute about that It is sufficiently known that they suffered Martyrdom as a vast number of Christians in that and some following Ages did without either reproaching their Governours or rebelling against them and this they did as they taught others to do not meerly because they could not resist but out of duty and reverence to God who sets Princes on Thrones and has given them a sacred and inviolable Authority and in imitation of their great Lord and Master who went as a Lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep before the shearer is dumb so he opened not his mouth CHAP. VI. An ANSWER to the most Popular Objections against NON-RESISTANCE I Proceed now to consider those objections which are made against the Doctrine of Non-resistance though methinks after such plain and convincing proof that Non-resistance is the Doctrine both of the Old and New Testament though witty men may be able to start some objections yet wise and good men should not regard them for no objection is of any force against a plain and express Law of God Indeed when we have no evidence for a thing but only Natural Reason and the reason seems to be equally strong and cogent on both sides it renders the matter very doubtful on which side the truth lies but when on one side there is a plain and express Revelation of the will of God and on the other side some shew and appearance of reason I think there can be no dispute which side we chuse unless any man think it doubtful which is the most certain and infallible rule Scripture or meer natural reason And therefore till men can answer that Scripture-evidence which I have produced which I am not much concerned about for I guess it will take them up some time to do it all their other objections whether I could answer them or not signifie nothing at all to me and ought to signifie as little to any man who reverences the Scriptures But let us consider their objections for they are not so formidable that we need be afraid of them Now I know no body but will acknowledge that in most cases it is the duty of Subjects not to resist their Prince but they only pretend that this is not their duty when their Prince oppresses and persecutes them contrary to Law when their Lives and Liberties and Properties and Religion are all secured by the Laws of the Land they see no reason why they should tamely suffer a Prince to usurp upon them why they should not defend themselves against all unjust and illegal violence and they urge several arguments to prove that they may do so which may be reduced to these five 1. That they are bound by no Law to suffer against Law 2. That the Prince has no authority against Law 3. That they have a natural right of self-defence against unjust violence 4. That otherwise we destroy the distinction between an absolute and limited Monarch between a Prince whose will is his Law and a Prince who is bound to govern by Law which undermines the Fundamental Constitution of the English Government 5. That if resistance in no case be allowed the mischiefs and inconveniencies to mankind may be intolerable I suppose it will be