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

CHAP. IV. What St. Paul Preached about Non∣resistance of the Higher Powers. (Book 4)

HAving thus concluded what the Doctrine and Example of our Sa∣viour was, about subjection to the high∣er powers; let us now consider the Do∣ctrine and Example of his Apostles. Not as if the Authority and Example of our Saviour were not sufficient of it self to make a Law, but stood in need of the confirmation and additional authority of his own Apostles; but we might justly suspect our selves mistaken in the mean∣ing of our Saviour's words, or in the in∣tention and design of his sufferings, had none of his Apostles, who were imme∣diately instructed by himself, and ac∣quainted with the most secret mysteries of his Kingdom, ever preacht any such Doctrine as this, of Subjection to Princes. And therefore to give you the more a∣bundant assurance of this, I shall plain∣ly shew you, that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine, and imitated the ex∣ample of their great Master.

I shall begin with St. Paul, who has as fully declared himself in this matter, as it is possible any man can do by words, 13 Rom. 1, 2. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers; for there is no pow∣er but of God: the Powers that be, are or∣dained of God Whosoever therefore resist∣eth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.

This is a very express Testimony a∣gainst Resistance, and therefore I shall consider it at large; for there have been various Arts used to pervert every word of it, and to make this Text speak quite contrary to the design and intention of the Apostle in it: and therefore I shall divide the words into three general parts.

1. The Doctrine, the Apostle in∣structs them in: Let every Soul be sub∣ject to the higher powers. 2. The reason whereby he proves and inforces this Doctrine: For there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 3. The punishment of such resistance: And they that resist, shall receive to them∣selves damnation.

1. I shall begin with the Doctrine, That every Soul must be subject to the higher powers. And here are three things to to be explained. 1. Who are contained under this general expression of every Soul. 2. Who are meant by the higher powers. 3. What is meant by being subject.

1. Who are contained under this ge∣neral expression of every Soul, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which by an ordinary Hebraism, signi∣fies every man. For man is a compoun∣ded Creature of Body and Soul, and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole. Some∣times Flesh, and sometimes Soul signi∣fies the man; and when every Soul is opposed to the higher powers, it must sig∣nifie all men, of what rank or conditi∣on soever they be, who are not invested with this higher power. Popes and Bi∣shops and Priests, as well Spiritual as Se∣cular persons; the whole body of the People, as well as every single individu∣al. For when every Soul is comman∣ded to be subject, without any excepti∣on or limitation, this must reach them in all capacities and conditions.

The design of the Apostle, as you shall hear more presently, was to forbid all

resistance of Soveraign Princes; and had he known of any men, or number of men, who might lawfully resist, he ought not to have exprest it in such general terms, as to forbid all without excepti∣on. Had St. Paul known the Preroga∣tive of St. Peter, and his Successors the Bishops of Rome, would he have written to the Christians of Rome to be subject to their Emperours, without making any provision for the greater Authority of their Bishops?

The reason he assigns why every Soul must be subject to the higher Powers, is, because all powers are of God. So that whoever is bound to be subject to God, must be subject to their Prince, who is in God's stead. And this I think will reach the Pope of Rome, as well as any private Christian; unless he will pre∣tend to more authority on earth, than 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 sub∣ject to God, they must be subject to their Prince too, because he acts by God's Au∣thority and Commission. Were a So∣veraign 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 peo∣ple, 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 So∣cieties. The resistance of single per∣sons is more dangerous to themselves than to the Prince, but a powerful com∣bination of Rebels is formidable to the most puissant Monarchs. The greater numbers of Subjects rebel against their Prince, the more do they distress his Go∣vernment, and threaten his Crown and Dignity: and if his Person and Autho∣rity 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 a∣gainst 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 be∣comes 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 ad∣vanced by God, and that to resist our Prince, is to resist the Ordinance of God, and that such men shall be severely pu∣nisht for it in this world or the next? for can the Apostle be thought abso∣lutely 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 Sub∣jects.

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 Na∣tion 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 in∣vades

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 re∣sistance 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 for∣bid 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 Prin∣ces, and the security of publick Govern∣ment, is only endangered by a combi∣nation of Rebels, when the whole Na∣tion or any considerable part for num∣bers, power, and interest, take Arms a∣gainst 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 gravi∣ty and sacredness of an Apostolical pre∣cept,

to enjoyn subjection to private Christians, who dare not, who cannot re∣sist alone; but to leave a powerful combi∣nation 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 con∣sidered 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 Com∣mons assembled in Parliament own them∣selves 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, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] which signifies the supreme power in any Nation, in whomsoever it is pla∣ced. Whether in the King, as in Monar∣chical 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 ordi∣nance of man for the Lord's sake, whe∣ther to the King as supreme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 di∣sputes, and controversies; men may quarrel eternally about rights and pri∣viledges, and properties, and prehemi∣nencies; 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 de∣cide 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 ir∣resistible. For whatever power is liable to be called to an account, and to be re∣sisted, 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 liber∣ties of the subject, and sets up for Tyran∣ny 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, with∣out such a power, as is absolute and un∣accountable.

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 govern∣ment.

Where there is any government, there must be some-body to govern, and who∣ever 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 unaccount∣able: wherever there is any govern∣ment, 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 dis∣solution of government, and returning to a state of war; which is a direct con∣tradiction to the first institution of hu∣mane 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. what∣ever power in any nation according to the fundamental laws of its govern∣ment, cannot and ought not to be re∣sisted, 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 be∣longing 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 su∣preme 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 Parlia∣ment 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 authori∣ty 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 un∣accountable 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 vene∣rable 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 vi∣olate 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 con∣sider, 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the new Testament always signifies the authority of a Per∣son, not of a law. And hence it signi∣fies the Person invested with this autho∣rity. It were easy to prove this by nu∣merous instances; but it will be suf∣ficient 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 sig∣nifie 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 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 go∣verning according to known laws. No, this cannot be neither, because the Apo∣stle speaks of such powers as were under the government of no laws; as it is suf∣ficiently 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 Reve∣rence for laws, and yet these were the higher powers to whom the Apostle commands them to be subject: and in∣deed, though there be a vast difference between a Prince, who by the funda∣mental 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 can∣not 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 occa∣sion to discourse this more largely here∣after.

3. Let us now consider, what is meant by being subject, Now subjecti∣on, according to its full latitude of sig∣nification, 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 tri∣bute, and all legal taxes and impositions, as our Apostle addes, verse the 7. Ren∣der therefore unto all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. But the principal thing he has regard to in the text, is Non-re∣sistance, which is the onely perfect and absolute subjection we owe to Princes. We are not always bound to do what they command, because they may com∣mand, what we ought not, what we must not do; but we are always bound

to be subject, that is, never to resist. Though a Prince abuse his power, and oppress his subjects, we must not take upon us to right ourselves, but must leave our cause to God, who is the great Protector of opprest Innocence: for as the Apostle tells us, He that re∣sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, &c. This is the doctrine the Apostle teaches, that we must be subject to, that is, that we must not resist, nor rebel against soveraign Princes.

2. Let us then now consider the rea∣son, whereby the Apostle proves and inforces this doctrine of subjection or Non-resistance. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. The plain meaning of which is this: That soveraign Princes are advanced to the Throne by God, and are his mini∣sters and vicegerents, invested with his authority and power to govern; and therefore when we resist our Prince, we resist the ordinance, constitution, and appointment of God. Such men do not resist, rebel, or fight against man, but God. As he who resists any sub∣ordinate

Magistrates, resists his Prince, from whom they receive their autho∣rity and commission. And this is a very forcible Argument to subjection to Princes: for whatever our Prince be, it is certain, that God has an absolute and uncontroulable right over us, as being the natural Lord and Governour of the world; and if Earthly Princes are plac't in the Throne by him, who is at liberty to put the Government of the world into what hands he pleases, who will dare to oppose God? or ask him, Why hast thou done so? Whoever has any sense of God's dominion and soveraign∣ty, dares not rebel against him; and he, who believes that Princes are made by God, will no more dare to rebel against his Prince, than against God himself.

The Patrons of resistance have used all manner of arts to evade the force of this Text, and to make the Apostles ar∣gument signifie just nothing; and there∣fore it will be necessary to consider brief∣ly what they say.

1. Then some of them own the truth* 1.1 of what St. Paul asserts, that Soveraign Princes are of God, are advanc't and set in their Thrones by him; but then they say, Princes are from God, no other∣wise

than every thing else is of God. The divine Providence governs all things; and Plague and Pestilence and Famine, and whatever evil and calami∣ty befals a nation, is from God too; but does it hence follow, that when God brings any of these Judgements upon us, we must not Endeavour to remove them? No more, say they, does it follow, that we must not Endeavour to break the Yoak of a Tyrant, because it was put on by God. That is, in plain English, that when the Apostle proves, that we must not resist Princes, because they are set up by God, he does not reason truly; for notwithstanding this, we may resist Tyrannical Princes, as we would do the Plague, though they are both sent by God: and I suppose these men believe that St. Paul was no more in∣spired by God, than Princes are made by him. Otherwise they might as easily have concluded, that since St. Paul founds no doctrine of Non-resi∣stance upon God's authority and domi∣nion in advancing Princes, (and his ar∣gument must be good, if he were an inspired man) that therefore there is some little difference between God's making a King though a Tyrant, and

his sending the plague: and any man of an ordinary understanding might guess, that when God sets up a King with a soveraign Power, he sets him up to govern; and therefore though he may prove a scourge and a Plague, yet he is such a Plague, as God will allow no man to remove, but himself. For it is a contradiction in the nature of the thing, to give authority to a Prince to govern, and to leave subjects at Liber∣ty to resist. Tyrants are God's mini∣nisters, though they be but Executi∣oners of his just vengeance; but an Ex∣ecutioner, though he be as dangerous as the Plague, cannot be resisted, without resisting the Prince.

2. At other times they tell us, that when St. Paul asserts, that there is no power but of God, the powers that be, are ordained of God, he means this onely of the Institution of civil power and go∣vernment, not of every Prince that is advanced to this power. The institu∣tion of civil government they will al∣low to be from God, but they think it a reproach to God to own that Tyrants and oppressors, wicked and impious Kings, are advanced by God. His Pro∣vidence many times, for wise reasons,

permits this, as he does all other evils; but they cannot believe, that such men are advanc't by his council and appro∣bation, and positive will and appoint∣ment. But this admits of various an∣swers. For,

1. Can there be no wise reason given, why God may advance a bad man to be a Prince? If there may, then it is no reproach to the divine Provi∣dence. The natural end of humane so∣cieties is the preservation of Publick Peace and order; and this is in some measure attained even under the go∣vernment of Tyrants. But God has a fur∣ther end than this, to bless and reward a virtuous Nation, or to punish a loose and degenerate age; and there cannot be a greater blessing than a wise and virtuous Prince, nor a greater plague than a Merciless Tyrant: and therefore the Providence of God is as much con∣cerned in setting a good or a bad Prince over any people, as in rewarding or punishing them. Upon this account, God calls the King of Assyria the rod of his anger, whom he raised up for the punish∣ment of an Hypocritical Nation, 10 Isai. 5, 6.

2. I have already proved, that by

the Powers in my Text, the Apostle means the persons of Soveraign Princes; and therefore according to his Doctrine, those Princes who were then in being, that is, the Roman Emperors, were ad∣vanc't by God; the powers that be, that is, the Princes and Emperors who now govern the world, are ordained and ap∣pointed by God. And that thus it is, God himself tells us, 27 Jerem. 5, 6. I have made the Earth, and given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me: and now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my servant. Thus he called Cyrus by name, many years before he was born, to be his shepherd, and to perform his pleasure in rebuilding Ierusalem, 44 Isa. 28. 45. ch. 1, 2, 3, 4.

This was the belief of the primitive Christians under heathen and persecu∣ting Emperors. Tertullian who wrote his Apologie under Severus, asserts that Caesar was chosen by God, and therefore that the Christians had a peculiar Pro∣priety in Caesar, as being made Emperor by their God. Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque Pietate christiana in Im∣peratorem, quem necesse est suspiciamus, ut eum quem Dominus noster elegit, & me∣rito

dixerim, noster est magis Caesar, a Deo nostro constitutus. Tert. Apol. cap. 33. and this he assigns as the reason, why they honour and reverence, and pray for him, and are in all things subject to him.

3. If these men will grant, the in∣stitution of civil power and authority by God is a necessary reason why we must not resist those who have this power, it shall satisfie me; and I will di∣spute no further, whether by Powers in the Text the Apostle means civil go∣vernment, or the Persons of Princes, so long as the Doctrine of Non-resistance is secured: but if they will not grant this, then they must grant, that either the Apostle reasons weakly, or that this is not the sense of his words.

St. Chrysostom indeed by the Powers that be ordained of God, understands no more than that civil power and au∣thority is from God, as being afraid to own that all Princes, though never so wicked are appointed by God; but then he owns the doctrine of Non-resi∣stance, because the power is from God, whoever have the possession of it, or however he came by it. But I think the argument for Non-resistance is much

stronger, if we acknowledge, that sove∣veraign Princes themselves are appoin∣ted by God, and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and or∣dering Providence.

4. Others in plain terms deny, that this is true, that Princes receive their power from God, and are ordained and appointed by him, though the words of the Apostle are very plain and express in the case.

But let us set aside the Authority of the Apostle a while, and examine why they say so. And this they think is ve∣ry plain in all Nations, that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the choice and consent of the People, or by right of inheritance, confirmed and settled by publick Laws, which include the con∣sent of the People, and therefore they receive their power from those who chose them; which is no more than a Fiduciary power, which they are lyable to give an account of to those who choose them.

Now grant this to be true, that Princes are advanc't to the Throne by the People, which will not very well hold in conquests, nor in hereditary King∣doms; yet, I say, suppose it to be true,

since it was manifestly the case of the Roman Empire, when the Apostle wrote this Epistle, their Emperors being chosen either by the Senate or the Army; yet I would desire to be resol∣ved in some few plain questions.

1. Whether God does nothing, but what he does by an immediate power? Whether he cannot appoint and choose an Emperor, unless he does it by a Voice from Heaven, or sends an Angel to set the Crown upon his head? Whether God cannot by a great many unknown ways, determine the choice of the peo∣ple, to that Person, whom he has before chosen himself? May we not as well say, that God does nothing but miracles, because every thing else has some vi∣sible cause, and may be ascribed either to natural or moral agents? God may chuse an Emperor, and the people chuse him too, and the peoples choice is one∣ly the effect of God's choice; and there∣fore notwithstanding all this, Princes owe their crowns and secepters to God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. How does it follow, that because Princes are chose by the people, there∣fore they derive their power from them, and are accountable to them? This is

not true in humane governments. A City or any Corporation may have Au∣thority to choose their Magistrates, and yet they do not derive their power from their fellow-Citizens, who chose them, but from their Prince. Thus the People may chuse, but God invests with power and Authority. For indeed, how can people, who have no power of Go∣vernment themselves, give that power, which they have not? God is the only governour of the world, and therefore there can be no power of Government, but what is derived from him. But these men think, that all civil authority is founded in consent; as if there were no natural Lord of the world, or all mankind came free and independent in∣to the world. This is a contradiction to what at other times they will grant, that the institution of Civil power and Authority is from God; and indeed if it be not, I know not how any Prince can justifie the taking away the life of any man, whatever crime he has been guil∣ty of. For no man has power of his own life, and therefore cannot give this power to another: which proves that the power of capital punishments can∣not result from meer consent, but from a

superiour Authority, which is Lord of life and death.

If it be said, that every man has a natural right to defend his own life by taking away the life of any man who injuriously assaults him, and he may part with this power of self-defence to his Prince, and that includes the power of life and death: I answer,

1. Suppose the Laws of Self-preser∣vation will justifie the taking away ano∣ther man's life in preservation of our own, yet this is a Personal right, which God and Nature has given us; and un∣less we can prove, that we have Autho∣rity to make over this right to another, as well as to use it our selves, our con∣sent cannot give Authority to the Ma∣gistrate to take away any man's life in our cause.

2. This natural right of self-defence cannot be the Original of the Magi∣strates power, because no man does give up this right. Every man has the right of Self-preservation, as intire under civil government, as he had in a state of Na∣ture. Under what government soever I live, I may still kill another man, when I have no other way to preserve my own life from unjust violence by private

hands. And this is all the liberty any man had in a supposed state of nature. So that the Magistrates power of the Sword is a very different thing from every man's right of self-preservation, and cannot owe its original to it. For,

3. The Magistrates power of the Sword is not meerly defensive, as the right of self-preservation is, but vindicative, to execute vengeance on evil doers; which power no man has over his equals in a state of Nature. For vengeance is an act of superiority, and supposes the Authority of a Lord and Judge; and therefore the consent of all Mankind cannot give the power and authority of a Sword to a Prince, because they never had it themselves. A Prince, as he bears the Sword, is not the peoples Officer, but the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, as our Apostle adds, v. 4. and this is the true reason of our subjection. Where∣fore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

4. There is another objection against what the Apostle affirms, that there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. For is the power of victorious Rebels and Usurpers from

God? did Oliver Cromwell receive his power from God? then it seems, it was unlawful to resist him too, or to conspire against him: then all those Loyal Sub∣jects▪ who refused to submit to him, when he had got the power in his hands, were Rebels and Traitors.

To this I answer, that the most pro∣sperous Rebel is not the Higher Powers, while our natural Prince, to whom we owe obedience and subjection, is in being. And therefore though such men may get the power into their hands by Gods permission, yet not by Gods Ordinance; and he who resists them, does not re∣sist the Ordinance of God, but the u∣surpations of men. In Hereditary King∣doms, the King never dies, but the same minute that the natural Person of one King dies, the Crown descends upon the next of Blood; and therefore he who re∣belleth against the Father, and murders him, continues a Rebel in the Reign of the Son, which commences with his Fathers death.

It is otherwise indeed, where none can pretend a greater right to the Crown, than the usurper; for there possession of power seems to give a right. Thus ma∣ny of the Roman Emperours came to

the Crown by very ill means, but when they were possest of it, they were the Higher Powers; for the Crown did not descend by inheritance, but sometimes by the Election of the Senate, some∣times of the Army, and sometimes by force and power, which always draws a consent after it. And therefore the A∣postle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns, but commands them to submit to those, who had the power in their hands: for the possession of Su∣pream and Soveraign power is Title e∣nough, when there is no better Title to oppose against it. For then we must presume, that God gives him the irresi∣stible authority of a King, to whom he gives an irresistible power; which is the only means, whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another. There are two Ex∣amples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said.

The first in the Kingdom of Israel: after the ten Tribes had divided from the House of Iudah, and the Family of David, God had not entailed the King∣dom upon any certain Family▪ he had indeed by Ahijah the Prophet promised

after Solomons death ten Tribes to Iero∣boam the Son of Nebat, 1 Kings 11. 29. &c. but had afterwards by the same Prophet threatned Ieroboam, to destroy his whole Family, Chap. 15. 10, 11. Baasha fulfils this prophecy by the trai∣terous murder of Nadab, (who succee∣ded his Father Ieroboam in the Kingdom) and usurpt the government himself, and slew all Ieroboam's house, 28, 29. v. This Murder and Treason is numbred among the sins of Baasha; for which God af∣terwards threatned to destroy his house, as he had done the house of Ieroboam, 16 Chap. v. 7. and yet he having usurpt the Throne, and got the power into his hands, and no man having a better Title than his, God himself is said to have exalted him out of the dust, and made him Prince over his People Israel, v. 2. Elah succeeded Baasha, who had no better Title than his Father; and yet Zimri, who slew him, is accused of Trea∣son for it, v 20. Zimri usurpt the King∣dom when he had slew his Master, but he was only a vain pretender to it, when he wanted power; for when the people who were encamped against Gibbethon, heard that Zimri had killed the King, they made Omri King, and went imme∣diately

and besieged Tirzah, where Zimri had taken possession of the Kings Palace; who finding no way to escape, set fire to it himself, and died in the flames of it. And now Israel was divi∣ded between Omri and Tibni; but those who followed Omri prevailed against those who followed Tibni; and Tibni di∣ed, and Omni Reigned, v. 21, 22. All which plainly shews, that where there is no regular Succession to the Kingdom, there possession of power makes a King, who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of treason: and this was the case of the Roman Empire, at the writing of this Epistle; and there∣fore the Apostle might well say, That the powers that be, are ordained of God. That whoever had the Supream power in his hands, is the higher power, that must not be resisted.

But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah, which God himself had en∣tailed on Davids Family, as appears from the example of Ioash, who was concealed by his Aunt Iehosheba, and hid in the house of the Lord for six years. During this time Athaliah reigned, and had the whole power of government in her hands; but yet this did not make

her a Soveraign and irresistible Prince; because Ioash the Son of Ahaziah, the right Heir of the Crown, was yet alive. And therefore in the seventh year Iehoi∣ada the Priest set Ioash upon the Throne, and slew Athaliah, and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so, 2 Kings 11. Which shews, that no usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a natural Prince. Such Usurpers, though they have the possession of the supream power, yet they have no right to it; and though God for wise reasons may some∣times permit such usurpations, yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence, he secures their Title too. As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's vision; The tree is cut down, but the stump of the roots is left in the earth. The Kingdom shall be sure to them, after that they shall know, that the Heavens do rule, Dan. 4. 26.

3. The Apostle adds the punishment of those, who resist the higher Powers: They that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Where, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 judgment and damnation, it is plain the Apostle means the punishments of the other world. Prosperous Rebellions are not always punisht in this world, but they are in the

next. And therefore we must be sub∣ject not only for wrath, for fear of men; but out of Conscience towards God, and a reverence of his righteous judg∣ments.

The sum of all in short is this. That all men, whatever their rank and condi∣tion be; not only Secular, but Spiritual Persons; not only private men, but sub∣ordinate Magistrates; not only single men, but whole Bodies and Communi∣ties, the united force and power of a Nation, must be subject to Soveraign Princes; that is, must obey all their just and lawful commands, and patiently submit even to their unjust violence, without making any resistance, without opposing force to force, or taking Arms, though it be only in their own defence. For Soveraign Princes are made and ad∣vanced by God, who exerciseth a parti∣cular providence in the disposal of Crowns and Scepters, and over-ruleth all external and second causes, to set up such Princes as he himself has first chose; and therefore he that resisteth, resisteth not Man, but God; he opposeth the con∣stitution and appointment of the Sove∣rain Lord of the world, who alone is our natural Lord and Governour, and

who alone has right to put the govern∣ment of the world into what hands he pleases; and how prosperous soever such Rebels may be in this World, they shall not escape the Divine Vengeance and Justice, which will follow them into another world: they shall receive to themselves Damnation.

This was St. Paul's Doctrine about subjection to the higher powers; and he did not only preach this Doctrie him∣self, but he charges Timothy and Titus, two Bishops whom he had ordained, the one Bishop of Ephesus, the other of Crete, to preach the same.

Thus he charges Titus, to put them in mind to be subject to Principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates▪ to be ready to every good work, 3 Titus 1. When he commands him to put them in mind to be subject, he supposes, that this is a known duty of the Christian Religion, and a duty of such great weight and moment, that people ought to be fre∣quently minded of it; that the Bishops and Ministers of Religion ought fre∣quently to preach of it, and to press and inculcate it upon their hearers. For it is a great scandal to the Christian Religion, when this duty is not observed: and yet

in many cases this duty is so hard to be observed, & requires such a great degree of self-denial and resignation to the will of God, and contempt of present things, that too many men are apt to forget it, and to excuse themselves from it. And therefore St. Paul gives this in particular charge to Titus, and in him to all the Bishops and Ministers of the Gospel, to take special care to instruct people well in this point, and frequently to renew and repeat their exhortations; especially when they find a busie, factious, and se∣ditious spirit abroad in the world.

Thus he instructs Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort there∣fore, that first of all, supplications prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for Kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and hone∣sty.

But you will say, What is this to such an absolute subjection to Princes as in∣cludes Non-resistance in it? cannot we pray for any man, without making him our absolute and Soverain Lord? are we not bound to pray for all our Enemies and Persecutors? and does our praying for them, make it unlawful to resist and

oppose their unjust violence? How then can you prove from the duty of praying for Kings, that it is in no case lawful to resist them? if it were lawful to re∣sist Tyrannical Princes, yet it might be our duty to pray for them. And there∣fore though it be our duty to pray for Princes, it does not hence follow, that we may in no cases lawfully resist them.

In answer to this, I grant, that praying for any man, nay praying for Kings and Princes cannot of it self prove, that it is unlawful to resist them, if it otherwise appear, that resistance is lawful; but if it be our duty to make supplications, prayers, and intercessions for persecuting Princes, as the Apostle commands them to pray for the Roman Emperors, who were profest enemies to Christianity; that is, if they must beg all good things for them, a long and happy and prospe∣rous Reign, which is included in inter∣cessions and prayers; this strongly infers, that they must not resist their power, nor undermine their Thrones. For we cannot very well at the same time pray for the prosperity of their government, and endeavour to pull it down. The Apostle did not understand those con∣ditional Prayers, that God would Con∣vert

or Confound them; a prayer, which thanks be to God, was never found in any Christian Liturgie yet; which possi∣bly is one reason, why some men are no great Friends to Liturgies. And when the Apostle directs them to pray for Kings and all that are in authority, that they must live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty, that is, that they might enjoy peace and securi∣ty in the profession and practice of the true Religion; this seems to imply, that when they are persecuted for their Reli∣gion, which was the case at that time, they must pray for persecuting Princes, that God would incline their hearts to favour his people; but must not fight a∣gainst them. This is the only direction the Apostle gives them in the case; and we may reasonably suppose, that had he known any other, he would not have concealed it. If it is always the duty of Christians to pray for the prosperous and flourishing state of the Empire, as by this Apostolical exhortation it ap∣pears to be, it could never be lawful for them to resist the powers▪ for I cannot understand how any man without mock∣ing Almighty God, can pray for the prosperity of his Prince, and the good

success of his government, at the same time, when he fights against him. When St. Paul had so freely and openly decla∣red against resisting the higher powers, which Timothy, who was his Scholar and Companion, and fellow-labourer, could not but know; what other inter∣pretation could he make of the Apostles exhortation, to pray for Kings, and all that are in authority, that we may live quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty, but only this, that prayer is the last and only remedy that we can have against persecuting Princes? Had it been lawful for them to resist, it had been a more proper prayer, that God would give them strength and courage and counsel to oppose all his and their enemies: that he would appear as mi∣raculously for their defence, as he for∣merly did in fighting the Battels of Is∣rael; that he would set Christ upon his Throne, and make all the Princes of the earth give place to a more glorious Kingdom. Time was, when it was all one, whether he saved with many or a few. He knew how to destroy potent and formidable Armies, without any humane strength and power, or by such weak & contemptible means, as reserved

the glory of the victory intire to him∣self: and he is the same still that ever he was, and his power is the same. But St. Paul very well knew, that it was not lawful for them to pull Emperours out of their Thrones, to give any di∣sturbance to civil powers, or to at∣tempt any changes or innovations in go∣vernment; and therefore since they must submit to such Princes as they had, there was no other remedy left them, but to beg of God so to incline the hearts of Princes, that they might enjoy a quiet and peaceable possession of their Religion, even under Pagan Princes. For as much as some men of late days profanely scoff at prayers and tears, these have been always thought the one∣ly remedy the Church has against per∣secuting powers; and it seems St. Paul thought so too, for he prescribes no o∣ther; and yet he does not allow them to pray against the King neither, but ex∣horts them to pray for him, and that they might enjoy peace and security un∣der his Government.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Milton pro Pop. Angl. de∣fensio. p. 68.