The case of resistance of the supreme powers stated and resolved according to the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures by Will. Sherlock ...

CHAP. II. The Doctrine of Christ concerning Non-resistance. (Book 2)

LEt us now consider, what Christ and his Apostles taught and practised about Obedience to Soveraign Princes; whereby we may learn, how far Chri∣stians are obliged by these Laws of Sub∣jection and Non-resistance.

1. I shall distinctly consider the Do∣ctrine 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 Sove∣raign power, and the measures of obe∣dience 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 inhe∣ritance between two contending bre∣thren, 12 Luke 13, 14. can we think that he would attempt any thing of that vast consequence, as the changes and al∣terations of Civil Power, which would have unsetled the Fundamental Consti∣tutions 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to fill it up, to com∣pleat and perfect it, 5 Matth. 17. that is, to fulfil the ancient types and prophe∣cies in his own Person, to perfect an ex∣ternal and ceremonial, by a real and E∣vangelical righteousness, to perfect the Moral Laws with new instances and de∣grees 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 abroga∣ted no Laws, but by perfecting and ful∣filling them; and therefore he could make no alteration in the Doctrine of Non-resistance, which is as perfect sub∣jection 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 law∣ful to resist, (which was so expresly for∣bid the Iews by God himself, and which is such a contradiction to the very no∣tion 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 sus∣picions to Princes, who had been very excusable for their aversion to Christia∣nity, had it invaded the Rights and Roy∣alties of their Crowns.

This makes it very improbable that our Saviour should make any alterati∣ons in Civil powers, or abridge the rights of Soveraignty; which is so fo∣reign to his design of coming into the world, and so incongruous to the Per∣son 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 Prin∣ces to govern, and Subjects to obey bet∣ter; 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 ima∣gine. It is not the external form of Go∣vernment, but the Fatherly care and Prudence and Justice of Governours, and the dutiful obedience of Subjects, which can make any people happy. If Prin∣ces and Subjects be good Christians, they may be happy under most forms of Go∣vernment; if they be not, they can be happy under none. Had our Saviour given Subjects Liberty to Resist, to De∣pose, 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 Mini∣sters 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 au∣thority, and that inforces th••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 o∣bedience 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 State∣spells 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 ci∣vil power and authority, and therefore could not new model the governments of the world: he never offers any ex∣ternal force and compulsion to make men obey his Laws, and therefore nei∣ther 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 threat∣ned those who break them with eternal punishments: and as the Laws and Reli∣gion of our Saviour prevail, so will the governments of the world mend, with∣out altering the Model and Constitution of them.

2. But yet we have some positive evi∣dence, 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 de∣sired.

1. The first is, that answer our Savi∣our gave to the Pharisees and Herodians, when they consulted together to in∣tangle

him in his talk, 22 Matth. 15. &c. They come to him with great ceremo∣ny 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 there∣fore, 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 Ro∣man Governours, if he denied that the Iews might lawfully pay Tribute to Cae∣sar, 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 na∣tural Iew, 17 Deuter. 15. and it seems they could not distinguish between their own voluntary Act in choosing a stran∣ger for their King, [which was indeed forbid by their Law] and their submit∣ting 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, ex∣presses 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 in∣quires whose Image and Superscription it had. For Coining of money was as cer∣tain 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, Ren∣der 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 So∣veraignty, 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 exa∣mine 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 de∣termine, 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 en∣snaring 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 Pro∣phet and Teacher of Mankind, should re∣turn 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 no∣thing, 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 be∣lieve, 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 an∣swer, (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 suffici∣ently answered, and had nothing to re∣ply.

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 Coe∣sar's; from whence he infers, Render there∣fore unto Coesar the things that are Coe∣sar'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 Coe∣sar, and must be rendred to him, as ap∣peared 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 witti∣ly 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 obser∣ved 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 que∣stion, 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 questi∣on, 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 de∣ny 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 all cases, to give to Coe∣sar what is Coesar's due. And when our Saviour commands us to render to Coe∣sar the things which are Coesar's, without telling us what Coesar's things are, this is so far from making his answer doubt∣ful and ambiguous, and of no use in this present Controversie, that it suggests to us three plain and natural consequences, which are sufficient to end this whole dispute.

1. That our Saviour did not intend to make any alteration in the rights of Soveraignty, but what rights he found Soveraign Princes possest of, he leaves them in the quiet possession of; for had he intended to make any change in this matter, he would not have given such a general rule, to render to Coesar the things which are Coesar's, without specifying what these things are.

2. And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to de∣termine what is Coesar's right. What∣ever is essential to the notion of Sove∣raing Power, whatever the Laws and Customs of Nations determine to be Coesar's right, that they must render to him; for he would make no alteration in this matter. So that subjection to Princes, and Non-resistance, is as plainly determined by our Saviour in this Law, as paying Tribute; for subjection and Non-resistance is as essential a right of So∣veraign Power, and as inseparable from the notion of it, as any thing can be. So it is acknowledged by the Laws and Customs of Nations, and so it is determined by the Apostle St. Paul, as I shall shew hereafter.

3. I observe farther, that when our Saviour joyns our duty to our Prince, with our duty to our God, render to Coe∣sar the things which are Coesars, and to God the things which are God's, he ex∣cepts nothing from Coesar's right, which by the Laws of Nations is due to So∣vereign Princes, but what is a violation of, and an encroachment on Gods right and Soveraignty; that is, we must pay all that Obedience and Subjection to

Princes which is consistent with our du∣ty to God. This is the onely limit our Saviour sets to our duty to Princes. If they should command us to renounce our Religion, and worship false Gods; if they should challenge divine honours to themselves, as some of the Roman Em∣perours did; this we must not do, be∣cause it is to renounce obedience and subjection to God, who has a more so∣veraign power, and a greater right in us, than our Prince: But all active and passive obedience, which is consistent with a good conscience towards God, and required of us by the Laws of our Country, and the essential rights of So∣veraignty, is what we owe to our Prince, and what by our Saviour's command we must render to him. This I hope is sufficient for the explication of our Sa∣viour's answer to the Pharisees and He∣rodians, which evidently contains the Doctrine of obedience and subjection to Princes, enforced on us by the authority of our Saviour himself.

2. Our Saviour's rebuke to St. Peter, when he drew his sword and struck a ser∣vant of the high Priest and smote off his ear, is as plain a declaration against re∣sistance, as words can make it, 26 Mat.

52. Then said Iesus unto him, Put up thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. For the understanding of which, we must consider upon what occasion St. Peter drew his sword: for we must not think that our Saviour does absolutely forbid the use of the sword; which is to destroy all civil governments, and the power of Princes, and to proclaim impunity to all the villanies which were committed in the world. The sword is necessary to punish wickedness, and to protect the in∣nocent. In the hands of Princes it is an instrument of Justice, as St. Paul tells us, That they bear not the sword in vain but are the ministers of God, revengers to ex∣ecute wrath upon him that doth evil, 13 Rom. 4. In the hands of private Persons it may be lawfully used in self∣defence. Thus our Saviour, a little be∣fore his crucifixion, gave commission to his Disciples to furnish themselves with swords, though they parted with their garment for the purchase, 22 Luke 36. Which we may suppose was not designed as a meer modish and fashionable thing, but to defend themselves from the pri∣vate assaults of robbers, and such-like common enemies, who, as Iosephus tells

us, were very numerous at that time. For no man wants authority to defend his life against him who has no authori∣ty to take it away.

But the case of St. Peter was very dif∣ferent: he drew his sword indeed in his Master's defence, but against a lawful au∣thority. The officers of the Chief Priests and Pharisees came with Iudas to the place where Iesus was, to seize on him. This was a lawful authority, though em∣ployed upon a very unjust errand; but Authority must not be resisted, though in defence of the greatest innocence. Men who draw their swords against lawful powers, shall perish with the sword. Which does not signifie what the event shall always be, but what is the desert and merit of the action▪ Re∣bels may sometimes be prosperous, but they always deserve punishment; and if they escape the sword in this world▪ St. Paul tells us, they shall receive Dam∣nation in the next.

What can be said more expresly a∣gainst resistance than this? St. Peter ne∣ver could have drawn his sword in a bet∣ter cause, never in the defence of a more sacred Person. If we may defend op∣press'd Innocence against a lawful autho∣rity,

if we may oppose unjust and ille∣gal violence, if any obligations of friend∣ship, gratitude, or Religion it self could justifie resistance, St. Peter had not met with this rebuke. What, should he tamely suffer his Lord and Master to be betrayed, the most admirable example of universal Righteousness and goodness that ever appeared in the world? Shall one who had done no evil, who had nei∣ther offended against the Laws of God nor men, who had spent his whole time in doing good, be so barbarously used, and treated like the vilest Malefactor? Shall he who was so famous for miracles, who gave eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame? shall he who was the great Prophet sent from God to instruct the world, shall their dear Master be haled away from them, and they stand by, and see it, & suf∣fer it? Thus might S. Peter have argued for himself. But though it was a very unjust action, yet it was done by a just authority: and lawful Powers must not be resisted, though it were in defence of the Saviour of the world. And if St. Peter might not use the sword in defence of Christ's Person, there is much less pre∣tence to fight for his religion: for though some call this fighting for reli∣gion,

it is onely fighting for themselves. Men may keep their religion, if they please, in despite of earthly powers; and therefore no powers can hurt reli∣gion, though they may persecute the Professors of it: And therefore when men take up arms to avoid persecution, it is not in defence of religion, but of themselves, that is, to avoid their suffer∣ing for religion. And if St. Peter might not fight to preserve Christ himself, cer∣tainly neither he nor we might take up arms to defend our selves from persecu∣tion. Christ was the first Martyr for his own religion; his person was infi∣nitely more sacred and inviolable than any of us can pretend to be. And if St. Peter must not fight for Christ, certain∣ly we must not fight for our selves, though we absurdly enough call it fight∣ing for our religion.

And who were these powers St. Peter resisted? They were onely the servants and officers of the High-priest. The High-Priest did not appear there him∣self; much less Pilate, much less Caesar: and yet our Saviour rebukes St. Peter for resisting the inferiour officers, though they offered the most unjust and illegal violence. It seems, he did not under∣stand

our modern distinctions between the Person and the Authority of the Prince; That though his person be sacred, and must not be toucht, yet his Ministers, who act by his authority, may be op∣posed. We may fight his Navies, and demolish his Garrisons, and kill his sub∣jects, who fight for him, though we must not touch his Person. But he is a mock-Prince, whose authority is confined to his own Person, who can do nothing more than what he can do with his two hands; which cannot answer the ends of Government. A Prince is not meerly a natural, but a Political person, and his personal Authority reaches as far as his commission does. His Officers and Ministers of State, and commanders, and souldiers, are his hands, and eyes, and ears, and legs; and he who resisteth those who act by his commission, may as properly be said to resist the Personal authority of the Prince, as if he himself were present in his natural Person, as well as by his authority. Thus our Saviour, it seems, thought, when he re∣buked St. Peter for striking a servant of the High-priest, and smiting off his ear.

And if S. Peter were rebuk'd for this, how

comes the Pope to challenge the sword in S. Peter's right, when our Saviour would not allow S. Peter to use it himself? And if St. Peter might not draw his sword a∣gainst an inferiour officer, by what au∣thority does the Pope pretend to dispose of Crowns and Scepters, and to trample on the necks of the greatest Monarchs? And I suppose the Presbyter can chal∣lenge no more authority than the Pope. Whether they will allow St. Peter to have been a Bishop or Presbyter, this command to put up his sword, equally concerns him in all capacities, and ought to secure soveraign Princes from the un∣just usurpations and treacherous conspi∣racies both of GENEVA and ROME.

There is but one Objection, that I know of, against all this from the Do∣ctrine of our Saviour, and that is, that he seems to disallow that very authority which is exercised by secular Princes; and therefore cannot be thought such a se∣vere Preacher of obedience & subjection: for Authority and Subjection are corre∣lates, they have a mutual respect to each other; and therefore they must stand or fall together. There is no authority where there is no subjection due, & there can be no subjection due where there is

no authority. And yet this is the Do∣ctrine which Christ taught his Disciples, 20 Mat. 25, 26, 27, 28 v. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise domi∣nion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your mini∣ster. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministred unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ran∣som for many. This text has been press'd to serve as many ill purposes, as most texts in the Bible; and therefore de∣serves to be carefully considered. Some hence infer, that it is unlawful for a Christian to be a Magistrate, or a King. As if our Saviour either intended that humane societies should be deprived of the advantages of government, which is the greatest temporal blessing and secu∣rity to mankind; or had made it neces∣sary that some men should continue Heathens and Infidels, that they might govern Christians: which I doubt would be a sore temptation to many to renounce Christianity, if they could gain a temporal Crown by it.

Others from hence conclude, that

there must be no superiority of degree be∣tween the Ministers of the Gospel, but they must be all equal; as if because the Apostles were to be all equal, without any superiority over each other, there∣fore they were to have no superiority o∣ver inferiour Ministers. As if because the Apostles might not exercise such a secular power and soveraignty as the Kings of the Gentiles did, therefore there must be no different degrees of power in the Ministers of the Church; that is, that because secular and spiritual power differ in the whole kind, therefore there are no different-degrees of spiritual pow∣er. As if Christ himself were not su∣periour to his Apostles, because he did not assume to himself the secular autho∣rity of earthly Princes, but came not to be ministred unto, but to minister, as he commands them to do according to his example.

Others conclude, that at least Chri∣stian Princes must not usurp such a sove∣raign, and absolute, and uncontroulable power as the Princes of the Gentiles did, but must remember that they are but the Publick Servants and Ministers of the Commonwealth, and may be resi∣sted, and called to an account by their

people for the male-administration of government. But how they infer this, I confess, I cannot tell: for it is evident our Saviour does not here speak one word in derogation to that civil power and authority which was exercised by secular Princes. He tells us indeed, that the Princes of the Gentiles exercise do∣minion over them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them: But does he blame the exercise of this authority? Does he set any narrower bounds or li∣mits, than what the Heathen Princes challenged? By no means; he says not one word of any such matter. St. Mat∣thew indeed expresses this power of Princes by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which some think intimates the abuse of their Authority: but St. Luke renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which onely signi∣fies the exercise of soveraign power. And though most of the Roman Emperours were guilty of very great miscarriages in government, yet our Saviour onely refers to that lawful authority where∣with they were invested, not to the a∣buse of it: and therefore he takes notice of that honourable Title which was gi∣ven to many Roman Emperours, that they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Benefactors;

which certainly does not argue his dis∣like of civil Authoritie. But all that our Saviour tells his Disciples is, that it should not be so among them, that they should not 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 Mo∣ther 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 digni∣tie 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 accoun∣ted the greatest; which most likely re∣fers 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 na∣ture of Christ's Kingdom. They, as well as

the rest of the Iews, expected their Mes∣sias 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 expecta∣tion 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 pre∣ferments 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 expect∣ed.

Earthly Princes lived in great Pomp and Splendour, and had great Places of trust and honour to bestow on their ser∣vants; 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 Male∣factor, and give his life a ransom for ma∣ny. And they could not expect by be∣ing his servants, to be advanced to secu∣lar 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 King∣dom. But there was nothing of exter∣nal 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 industri∣ous, and condescending, as the meanest servant, and should very often differ no∣thing from servants in their external fortune and condition of life. This is the sum of what our Saviour here tea∣ches his Disciples; and he is a wonder∣ful man, and very quick-sighted, who can discover any reflection on civil pow∣er 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 Na∣tions, he does not speak this in dispa∣ragement 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 inve∣sted with civil authoritie: And our Sa∣viour onely distinguishes between that civil power and authoritie which was exercised by secular Princes, and that spiritual Kingdom which he was now a∣bout 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.