TO prove the unlawfulness of Re­sistance, I shall begin with the Old Testament. Now there is nothing more evident, than that God set up such a Supreme and Soveraign Power in the Iewish Nation, as could not, and ought not to be resisted by the Fundamental Laws of their Govern­ment. For this is all I am concerned at present to prove, That it is never law­ful to resist the Higher Powers; not that the Supreme and Soveraign power is al­ways to be in a single Person, but that wherever it is, it is irresistible, and that whenever this Supreme power by the Laws of the Nation, is invested in a sin­gle Person, such a Prince must not upon any pretence whatsoever be resisted.

The first Governour God set over the [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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.

[Page 10]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 [Page 11] 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. [Page 12] 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 of Kings was like to be very chargeable and oppressive to them. He will take your sons and appoint them for [Page 13] 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. [Page 14] 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.

[Page 15]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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 [Page 18] 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 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 [Page 19] 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [...]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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 flaves and vassals, but Subjects, who owe all duty and service to their Prince as far as he needs them.

But what is it then that Samuel finds fault with in Kingly power, & which he u­ses as an argument to dissuade the Chil­dren [Page 25] of Israel from desiring a King? why it is no more, than the necessary expen­ces and services of Kingly power, which would be thought very grievous to them, who were a free people, and at that time subject to no publick services and exactions. The government they then lived under was no charge at all to them They were governed, as I ob­served before, either by their High Priest, or by Iudges extraordinarily rai­sed by God. As for their High Priests, God himself had allotted their main­tenance sutable to the quality and dig­nity of their Office; and therefore they were no more charge to the people when they were their Supreme Governors, than they were, when the power was in other hands, either in the hands of Iudg­es or Kings. As for their Iudges whom God raised up, they affected nothing of Royal greatness, they had no Servants or Retinue, standing Guards or Armies to maintain their Authority, which was secured by that Divine power with which they acted, not by the external pomp and splendour of a Court. Thus we find Moses appealing to God in the Rebellion of Korah, I have not taken one Ass from them, neither have I hurt any of [Page 26] them, 16 Numbers 15. And thus Sa­muel appeals to the Children of Israel themselves, Behold, here I am, witness a­gainst me before the Lord, and before his Anointed; whose Oxe have I taken? or whose Ass have I taken? or whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or of whose hands have I received any bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will restore it, 1 Sam. 12. 3. Now a people, who lived so free from all Tributes, ex­actions, and other services due to Prin­ces, must needs be thought sick of ease and liberty, to exchange so cheap, so free a State, for the necessary burdens and expences of Royal power, though it were no more than what is necessary; which is the whole of Samuels argument, not that Kingly government is more expensive and burdensome than any other form of humane government, but that it was to bring a new burden upon themselves, when they had none before. No humane Governments, whether De­mocracies or Aristocracies, can subsist, but upon the publick charge; and the necessa­ry expences of Kingly power are not grea­ter than of a Commonwealth. I am sure this Kingdom did not find their burdens eased by pulling down their King; and [Page 27] I believe, whoever acquaints himself with the several forms of government, will find Kingly Power to be as easie up­on this score, as Commonwealths. So that what Samuel discourses here, and which some men think so great a refle­ction upon Kingly government, does not at all concern us, but was peculiar to the state and condition of the Iews at that time.

Let us then proceed to consider how sacred and irresistible the Persons and Authority of Kings were under the Iew­ish Government; and there cannot be a plainer example of this, than in the case of David. He was himself anointed to be King after Saul's death, but in the mean time was grievously persecuted by Saul, pursued from one place to ano­ther, with a designe to take away his life. How now does David behave himself in this extremity? What course does he take to secure himself from Saul? Why he takes the onely course that is left a Subject; he flies for it, and hides himself from Saul in the Moun­tains and Caves of the Wilderness; and when he found he was discovered in one place, he removes to another: He kept Spies upon Saul to observe his motions, [Page 28] not that he might meet him to give him Battel, or to take him at an advantage; but that he might keep out of his way, and not fall unawares into his hands.

Well, but this was no thanks to Da­vid, because he could do no otherwise. He was too weak for Saul, and not a­ble to stand against him; and therefore had no other remedy but flight. But yet we must consider, that David was a man of War, he slew Goliah, and fought the Battels of Israel with great success; he was an admired and beloved Captain, which made Saul so jealous of him; the eyes of Israel were upon him for their next King, and how easily might he have raised a potent and formidable Re­bellion against Saul! But he was so far from this, that he invites no man to his assistance; and when some came unin­vited, he made no use of them in an of­fensive or defensive War against Saul. Nay, when God delivered Saul two se­veral times into David's hands, that he could as easily have killed him, as have cut off the skirts of his garment at En­gedi, 1 Sam. 24. or as have taken that spear away which stuck in the ground at his bolster, as he did in the hill of Hachilah, 1 Sam. 26. yet he would neither touch [Page 29] Saul himself, nor suffer any of the peo­ple that were with him to do it, though they were very importunate with him for liberty to kill Saul; nay, though they urged him with an argument from Providence, that it was a plain evidence that it was the Will of God that he should kill Saul, because God had now delivered his enemy into his hands, ac­cording to the promise he had made to David, 1 Sam. 24. 4. 26 ch. ver. 8. We know what use some men have made of this argument of Providence, to justifie all the Villanies they had a mind to act: but David, it seems, did not think that an opportunity of doing evil, gave him license and authority to do it. Oppor­tunity, we say, makes a Thief, and it makes a Rebel, and it makes a Murder­er: no man can do any Wickedness, which he has no opportunity of doing; and if the Providence of God, which puts such opportunities into mens hands, ju­stifies the wickedness they commit, no man can be chargeable with any guilt whatever he does; and certainly op­portunity will as soon justifie any other sin, as Rebellion and the Murder of Princes. We are to learn our duty from the Law of God, not from his Provi­dence; [Page 30] at least, this must be a setled Principle, that the Providence of God will never justifie any action which his Law forbids.

And therefore, notwithstanding this opportunity which God had put into his hands to destroy his enemy, and to take the Crown for his reward, David considers his duty, remembers, that though Saul were his enemy, and that very unjustly, yet he was the Lords A­nointed. The Lord forbid, says he, that I should do this unto my Master the Lords Anointed. to stretch forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lords Anointed. Nay, he was so far from taking away his life, that his heart smore him for cutting off the skirt of his Garment. And we ought to observe the reason David gives, why he durst not hurt Saul, Be­cause he was the Lords Anointed; which is the very reason the Apostle gives in the 13 Rom. 1, 2. because the powers are ordained of God; and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For to be anointed of God, signifies no more than that he was made King by God. Thus Iosephus expounds being anointed by God, [...], one who had the Kingdom bestowed on him by [Page 31] God; and [...], one who was ordained by God. For it seems by this phrase, he look'd upon the external ceremony of Anointing to be like impo­sition of hands, which in other cases consecrated Persons to peculiar offices. For this external Unction was onely a visible signe of Gods designation of them to such an office; and when that was plain, they were as much God's Anoin­ted without this visible Unction as with it. Cyrus is called God's Anointed, though he never was anointed by any Prophet, but onely designed for his Kingdom by Prophesie, 45 Isai. 1. And we never read in Scripture, that any Kings had this external Unction, who succeeded in the Kingdom by right of inheritance, unless the Title and Succes­sion were doubtful; and yet they were the Lord's Anointed too, that is, were plac'd in the Throne by him. So that this is an eternal reason against resisting Soveraign Princes, that they are set up by God, and invested with his authori­ty; and therefore their Persons and their authority are sacred.

But yet there are some men, who from the example of David, think they can prove the lawfulness of a defensive, [Page 32] though not of an offensive War. For David, when he fled from Saul, made himself Captain of four hundred men, 1 Sam. 22. 2. which number soon in­creased to six hundred, 1 Sam. 23. 13. and still every day increased by new ad­ditions, 1 Chron. 12. 1. Now why should he entertain these men, but to de­fend himself against the forces of Saul? that is, to make a defensive War when­ever he was assaulted by him.

1. In answer to this, I observe, that David invited none of these men after him, but they came Volunteers after a Beloved Captain and General; which shews how formidable he could easily have made himself, when such numbers resorted to him of their own accord.

2. When he had them, he never u­sed them for any hostile acts against Saul, or any of his forces; he never stood his ground, when he heard Saul was coming, but always fled, and his men with him; men who were never used to flie, and were very ready to have served him against Saul himself, would he have permitted them. And I suppose they will not call this a defen­sive War, to flie before an enemy, and to hide themselves in Caves and Moun­tains: [Page 33] and yet this was the onely de­fensive War which David made with all his men about him: nay, all that he would make, and all that he could make, according to his professed Principles, that it was not lawful to stretch out his hand against the Lord's Anointed. And when these men are pursued, as David was, by an enraged and jealous Prince, we will not charge them with Rebelli­on, though they flie before him by thou­sands in a company.

3. Yet there was sufficient reason why David should entertain these men, who voluntarily resorted to him, though he never intended to use them against Saul: for some of them served for spies to observe Saul's motions, that he might not be surprized by him, but have time­ly notice to make his escape. And the very presence of such a number of men about him, without any hostile Act, pre­served him from being seized on by some officious Persons, who otherwise might have delivered him into Saul's hands. And he being anointed by Samuel to be King after Saul's death, this was the first step to his Kingdom, to have such a re­tinue of valiant men about him; which made his advancement to the Throne [Page 34] more easie, and discouraged any oppo­sitions which might otherwise have been made against him; as we see it proved in the event, and have reason to believe that it was thus ordered by God for that very end. It is certain, that Gad the Prophet, and Abiathar the Priest, who was the onely man who e­scaped the furie of Saul when he de­stroyed the Priests of the Lord, were in David's retinue; and that David enter­prized nothing, without first asking counsel of God: But he who had anoin­ted him to be King, now draws forces after him, which after Saul's death should facilitate his advancement to the Kingdom.

2. It is objected further, that David intended to have staied in Keilah, and to have fortified it against Saul, had not he been informed that the men of the Citie would have saved themselves by deli­vering him up to Saul, 1 Sam. 23. Now to maintain any strong hold a­gainst a Prince, is an act of War, though it be but a defensive War. And I grant it is so, but deny that there is any ap­pearance that David ever intended any such thing. David and his men, by God's appointment and direction, had [Page 35] fought with the Philistins, and smote them with a great slaughter, and saved Keilah from them; and as it is probable, did intend to have staied some time in Keilah. But David had heard that Saul intended to come against Keilah, to de­stroy the Citie, and take him; and en­quires of the Lord about it, and recei­ved an answer, that Saul would come against the Citie. He enquires again, whether the men of Keilah would deli­ver him up to Saul, and was answered, that they would. And upon this, he and his men leave Keilah, and betake themselves to the strong holds in the Wilderness.

But now is it likely, that if David had had any designe to have fortified Keilah against Saul, he would have been afraid of the men of the Citie? He had 600 men with him in Keilah, a victorious Armie, which had lately destroyed the Phili­stins who oppressed them; and there­fore could easily have kept the men of Keilah too in awe, if he had pleased, and have put it out of their power to deliver him to Saul. But all that David de­signed was, to have staid there as long as he could, and, when Saul had drawn nigh, to have removed to some other [Page 36] place: But when he understood the trea­cherous inclinations of the men of Kei­lah, and being resolved against all acts of hostilitie, he hastened his remove be­fore Saul drew near. So that these men must find some other example than that of David, to countenance their rebellion against their Prince: for David never rebelled, never fought against Saul; but when he had a very potent Armie with him, he and his men always fled, and hid themselves in the Wilderness, and places of difficult access.

The sum is this: God from the ve­ry beginning, set up such a supreme and soveraign power in the Iewish Nation, as could not, as ought not to be resisted. This power was at first in the hands of Moses; and when Korah and his com­panie rebelled against him, God 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 [Page 37] 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 [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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.

LEt us now consider, what Christ and his Apostles taught 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 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 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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; [Page 52] 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, [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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 [Page 55] 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 all cases, to give to Coe­sar what is Coesar's due. And when our Saviour commands us to render to Coe­sar the things which are Coesar's, without telling us what Coesar's things are, this is so far from making his answer doubt­ful 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.

[Page 56]2. And therefore he leaves them to the known Laws of the Empire to de­termine what is Coesar's right. What­ever is essential to the notion of Sove­raing 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 So­veraign 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 Coe­sar the things which are Coesars, and to God the things which are God's, he ex­cepts nothing from Coesar's right, which by the Laws of Nations is due to So­vereign 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 [Page 57] Princes which is consistent with our du­ty 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 Em­perours did; this we must not do, be­cause it is to renounce obedience and subjection to God, who has a more so­veraign 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 So­veraignty, 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 Sa­viour's answer to the Pharisees and He­rodians, 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 ser­vant of the high Priest and smote off his ear, is as plain a declaration against re­sistance, as words can make it, 26 Mat. [Page 58] 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 in­nocent. 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 ex­ecute wrath upon him that doth evil, 13 Rom. 4. In the hands of private Persons it may be lawfully used in self­defence. Thus our Saviour, a little be­fore 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 pri­vate assaults of robbers, and such-like common enemies, who, as Iosephus tells [Page 56] us, were very numerous at that time. For no man wants authority to defend his life against him who has no authori­ty to take it away.

But the case of St. Peter was very dif­ferent: he drew his sword indeed in his Master's defence, but against a lawful au­thority. 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 em­ployed 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▪ Re­bels 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 Dam­nation in the next.

What can be said more expresly a­gainst resistance than this? St. Peter ne­ver could have drawn his sword in a bet­ter cause, never in the defence of a more sacred Person. If we may defend op­press'd Innocence against a lawful autho­rity, [Page 60] if we may oppose unjust and ille­gal violence, if any obligations of friend­ship, 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 nei­ther 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, & suf­fer 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 pre­tence to fight for his religion: for though some call this fighting for reli­gion, [Page 61] 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 reli­gion, 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 suffer­ing for religion. And if St. Peter might not fight to preserve Christ himself, cer­tainly neither he nor we might take up arms to defend our selves from persecu­tion. Christ was the first Martyr for his own religion; his person was infi­nitely more sacred and inviolable than any of us can pretend to be. And if St. Peter must not fight for Christ, certain­ly we must not fight for our selves, though we absurdly enough call it fight­ing 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 him­self; 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 under­stand [Page 62] 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 op­posed. We may fight his Navies, and demolish his Garrisons, and kill his sub­jects, 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 re­buked 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 [Page 63] 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 a­gainst an inferiour officer, by what au­thority 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 chal­lenge 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 un­just usurpations and treacherous conspi­racies both of GENEVA and ROME.

There is but one Objection, that I know of, against all this from the Do­ctrine 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 se­vere Preacher of obedience & subjection: for Authority and Subjection are corre­lates, 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 [Page 64] no authority. And yet this is the Do­ctrine which Christ taught his Disciples, 20 Mat. 25, 26, 27, 28 v. Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise domi­nion 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 mini­ster. 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 ran­som for many. This text has been press'd to serve as many ill purposes, as most texts in the Bible; and therefore de­serves 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 secu­rity to mankind; or had made it neces­sary 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 [Page 65] there must be no superiority of degree be­tween 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, there­fore they were to have no superiority o­ver 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 pow­er. As if Christ himself were not su­periour to his Apostles, because he did not assume to himself the secular autho­rity 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 Chri­stian Princes must not usurp such a sove­raign, 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 resi­sted, and called to an account by their [Page 66] 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 do­minion 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 li­mits, than what the Heathen Princes challenged? By no means; he says not one word of any such matter. St. Mat­thew indeed expresses this power of Princes by [...], and [...], which some think intimates the abuse of their Authority: but St. Luke renders it by [...], and [...], which onely signi­fies 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 where­with they were invested, not to the a­buse of it: and therefore he takes notice of that honourable Title which was gi­ven to many Roman Emperours, that they were called [...], or Benefactors; [Page 67] which certainly does not argue his dis­like 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 Mo­ther to ask of him, that one might sit on his right hand, and the other on his left hand, in his Kingdom; that is, that they might have the greatest places of digni­tie and power next himself. St. Luke tells us, that it was to compose that strife and contention which was among them, which of them should be accoun­ted the greatest; which most likely re­fers to the same story, though it is plain they quarrelled more than once about this matter. And the occasion of all these quarrels, was a mistake of the na­ture of Christ's Kingdom. They, as well as [Page 68] the rest of the Iews, expected their Mes­sias should be a Temporal Prince; and they being convinced by the Miracles of Christ, that he was indeed the Messias who was to come, they lived in dayly expecta­tion when he would take the Kingdom upon himself; and then they did not doubt but that they should be the chief Ministers of State, and have the greatest places of trust and power in his Kingdom: & this made them jealous of each others greatness, and so forward to bespeak pre­ferments for themselves. Now to cure these earthly ambitions, he tells them, that his Kingdom was no such thing as they dreamt of, and that he had no such preferments for them as they expect­ed.

Earthly Princes lived in great Pomp and Splendour, and had great Places of trust and honour to bestow on their ser­vants; but they saw no such thing in him: he came not to be ministred unto, but to minister, to live a mean, industrious, and laborious life, and to die as a Male­factor, and give his life a ransom for ma­ny. And they could not expect by be­ing his servants, to be advanced to secu­lar power and authoritie, which he had not himself; but when he came into his [Page 69] Kingdom, they should indeed share with him in his power and authoritie; they should sit upon twelve Thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; that is, they should have the supreme authoritie in his Church, which is his spiritual King­dom. But there was nothing of exter­nal state and grandeur in this, as they expected; but it was a life of humilitie and modestie, and contempt of this world, and earthly greatness. The greatest Ministers in his Kingdom must be as humble as a child, as he elsewhere tells them, and as diligent and industri­ous, and condescending, as the meanest servant, and should very often differ no­thing from servants in their external fortune and condition of life. This is the sum of what our Saviour here tea­ches his Disciples; and he is a wonder­ful man, and very quick-sighted, who can discover any reflection on civil pow­er and authoritie in all this.

I shall onely observe farther, that when our Saviour calls them here, the Princes and Kings of the Gentiles or Na­tions, he does not speak this in dispa­ragement of them, that they were onely Heathen and Infidel Princes, who did this: for there were no other Princes [Page 70] at that time in the world. Heathen and Pagan Princes sounds now as a note of infamie, whereby they are distinguished from Christian Kings and Princes; but the Kings of the Gentiles or Nations in our Saviour's time, signified no more than Soveraign Princes, who were inve­sted with civil authoritie: And our Sa­viour onely distinguishes between that civil power and authoritie which was exercised by secular Princes, and that spiritual Kingdom which he was now a­bout to erect in the world; and the distinction had been of the same force, though there had been at that time Jewish or Christian, as well as Heathen Princes. Still the difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical authoritie is the same; and no Apostle or Bishop, as such, can challenge the power or authoritie of earthly Princes, or any share in it.

HAving seen what the Doctrine of our Saviour was, let us now con­sider his Practice. And we need not doubt but our Saviour lived, as he preacht. He taught his Disciples by his example, as well as by his Laws. His Life was the best Comment upon his Sermons, was a visible Lecture of uni­versal Righteousness and goodness; and it is impossible to conceive a more per­fect and absolute example of Subjection and Non-resistance, than our Saviour has set us.

When our Saviour appeared in the world, the Iews were very weary of the Roman yoke, and in earnest expecta­tion of their Messias, who, as they thought, would restore the Kingdom again unto Israel; and this expectation of their Messias, whom they mistook for a Tem­poral [Page 72] Prince, made them very apt to joyn with any one, who pretended to be the Messias, and to rebel against the Roman government. Such most likely were Theudas and Iudas of Galilee, of whom we have mention, 5 Acts 36, 37. and it is not impossible but the Aegypti­an, who led 4000 men into the wilder­ness, 2 Acts 38. either pretended to be the Messias, or some fore-runner of him: to be sure, such were those false Christs, and false Prophets, of whom our Savi­our warns his Disciples, 24 Matth. 23. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo here is Christ, or there, believe it not.

This being the temper of the Iewish Nation at that time, so extreamly incli­ned to Seditions, and Rebellion against the Roman powers, how easie had it been for our Saviour, had he pleased, to have made himself very potent and formi­dable! how easie could he have gained even the Scribes and Pharisees to his party, (whose great quarrel was at his meanness and poverty) would he once have declared himself a Temporal Prince, and invaded the Throne! But he was so far from this, that when he perceived the people had an intention to take him by force and make him a King, he with­drew [Page 73] himself privately from them, and departed into a mountain himself alone, 6 Iohn 15. and yet I presume, there might have been as many plausible pre­tences to have justifyed a Rebellion then, as ever there were in any Nation since. He had at that time fed five thousand men, besides women and children, with five barley loaves and two small fishes; and what a formidable Enemy would he have been, who could Victual an Army by Miracles, and could, when he pleased, conquer by the same miraculous power also! this the people, whom he had mi­raculously fed, were very sensible of and did hence conclude, that he was the Pro­phet that should come into the world, and that it was time to take him; and set him upon the Throne: but though our Saviour was indeed the Messias, yet he was not such a Messias, as they expect­ed; he was not a Temporal Prince, and therefore would not countenance their Rebellion against Coesar, though it were to make himself a King.

It is sufficiently known, that Christ submitted to the most unjust sentence, to the most ignominious and painful death, rather than resist the higher powers, though he could so easily have called for [Page 74] Legions of Angels to his rescue. But he went as a lamb to the slaughter, and as the sheep before the shearer is dumb so he opened not his mouth: when he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered he threatned not, but committed himself to him who judgeth righteously. He rebuked Peter, when he drew his Sword in his defence, and tells Pilate the reason, why he was so easily apprehended, and used at their pleasure, without any resistance and op­position, though he had been formerly attended with such crouds of his Disci­ples; Because he was no Temporal Prince, and therefore did not require his Disci­ples to fight for him, as other Temporal Princes used to do. Iesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my King­dom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delive­red to the Iews; but now is my Kingdom not from hence, 18 Iohn 36. Which plainly shews, that our Saviour's sub­jection was not matter of force and con­straint, because he wanted power to re­sist; but it was matter of choice, that which was most agreeable to the nature of his Kingdom, which was not to be pro­pagated by carnal weapons, but by suf­fering and death.

[Page 75]And when our Saviour has set us such an example as this, it is wonderful to me, that any, who call themselves his Disciples, can think it lawful to Rebel a­gainst their Prince, and defend them­selves from the most unjust violence by a more unjust resistance. But there are few men, who are contented to follow Christ to the Cross; they do not like that part of his example, and are wil­ling to perswade themselves, that they are not bound to imitate it. And there are two things, which I find urged by some men to this purpose, which must be briefly considered.

1. That it is no wonder, that Christ suffered patiently and quietly without resisting the most unjust violence, because he came into the world to die, and to make his Soul an offering for sin. And how could so innocent a person die, but by the hands of unjust and Tyrannical powers? and it was inconsistent with his design of dying for sin, to resist and op­pose. This is the account our Saviour himself gives of his patient suffering. When St. Peter drew his Sword in his defence, he tells him, Thinkest thou, that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve [Page 76] Legions of Angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? 26 Matth. 43. 54. And the cup which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it? 18 Iohn 11. But what is this now to us? our Saviour did not resist the most unjust and Tyrannical powers, because God had decreed he should die by their hands, and he came into the world for this very purpose; but has God as peremptorily decreed, that we must suffer also by unjust violence? were we born for this very end, to suffer death by Herods and Pontius Pilates? to be the slaves and Vassals, the scorn and the Triumph of insolent Tyrants? certainly God had a greater care and re­gard for Mankind than so: and then our case is very different from our Saviour's; and though he died patiently, we may defend our Lives, and our Liberties, which are as dear as our Lives, if we can.

2. And therefore they add, that Christ took upon himself the person not only of a private man, but of a servant, that he might make us free, and that not only as to our Spiritual, but as to our Civil Liberties, as the Virgin Mary sings▪ He hath shewed strength with his arm, he hath scattered the proud in the imaginati­on [Page 77] of their heart: he hath put down the mighty from their seats, and hath exalted them of low degree, 1 Luke 51, 52. which they think, does not signifie that Christ has established Tyrants in their Thrones, and subjected Christians to the vilest slavery. As Christ has taught us by his example to bear servitude and sufferings with an equal mind, when we cannot help it; so he has not forbid us to vindicate and recover our natural rights and liberties, when we can, accor­ding to the express direction of St. Paul, Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men, 1 Cor. 7. 21, 23.

Now in answer to this, we may con­sider in general, that if all this proves any thing, it proves, that Christ did not intend, that his sufferings should be an example to us: and yet St. Peter expresly tells us, that he did; Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps: & wherein we must imitate Christ in suffering, he tells us in the same place, viz. in suffering wrong­fully, in taking it patiently, when we do well, and suffer for it, 1 Pet. 2. 19, 20, 21. [Page 78] And I think St. Peter's Authority in this case is better then all the Arguments that can be urged against it; and there­fore whether we could answer these Ar­guments or no, yet it is evident, that they are not good, because they prove that which is manifestly false, that Christ is not our Example in suffering, when St. Peter tells us, that he is: but yet it is a mighty satisfaction, not only to know, that an Argument is false, but to discover, wherein the fallacy consists; and therefore I shall give a more parti­cular answer to these objections.

1. As for their first Argument, that Christ came into the world on purpose to die as a sacrifice for sin, and therefore it was inconsistent with his design, and the person he undertook, to resist and oppose, had it been never so lawful to resist; I grant it is very true, but yet this does not prove, that he cannot be our example in suffering. For,

1. This is not the only reason our Sa­viour gives of his Non-resistance, and pa­tient suffering. He gives Peter ano­ther reason, Because it is unlawful to draw the Sword against a just Authori­ty, though our cause be never so just: Put up thy Sword again into his place, for [Page 79] all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword; which I have already explain­ed to you at large. So that our Saviour acknowledges it as unlawful to resist a lawful Authority, as it was inconsistent with his design of dying for the sins of men; and herein certainly he is fit to be our example, in not resisting a law­ful Authority in his own defence.

2. I grant, it had not been agreeable to the Person which our Saviour took, to have avoided death by a forcible re­sistance; but then our Saviour volunta­rily took such a Person, as was fit to be an example to us. His Person and his Religion were very well suited to each other; a meek, humble, suffering person, to be an example of a meek, humble and suffering Religion. His person and ex­ternal circumstances of his appearance were on purpose fitted to his Religion; and it is none of the least wonders of the Divine wisdom, that the work of our redemption was accomplisht in such a mysterious way, as at once made our Saviour the Author of our redemption, and an example of all the graces and vertues of the Christian life.

Might not these men, if they pleased, by the same Argument prove, that [Page 80] Christ is not to be our example in meek­ness and poverty, and contempt of this world, and forgiving enemies, &c. be­cause he came into the world on this design, not to be ministred unto, but to mi­nister? He chose a mean and low for­tune▪ and all the affronts and indignities he suffered, were part of his voluntary humiliation, and therefore it became him to bear them patiently, and to forgive them, as much as it did to die patiently by wicked hands; but there is not the same reason for us to do so: and thus it will be hard to find any thing, wherein Christ is to be our example, because the very reason of his coming into the world, the manner and circumstances of his ap­pearance, all that he did and suffered, may be resolved into the decree and appoint­ment of God, and his voluntary under­taking, and the accomplishment of an­cient Types and Prophecies; and there­fore he is no more to be an example to us, than a man who acts the part of a beggar or of a Prince, is to be an exam­ple to all that see him.

But methinks it is worth considering, why Christ chose such a person as this. Why he was born of mean and obscure parents, and chose a poor and industrious [Page 81] life, and an accursed and infamous death? was it impossible for Infinite wisdom to have laid a more glorious and trium­phant scene of our redemption? was there no possible way, but the condes­cension and sufferings of his own Son? Let those say that, who dare venture to determine, what infinite wisdom can do. It is enough for me to know, that Christ took such a mean and suffering person upon him, because it was most a­greeable to the Religion, which he preacht, and of which he was to be an example; and therefore though Christ suffered for other reasons, and to other ends and purposes, than we do or can suffer, yet his sufferings are an exam­ple to us, because God chose to save and redeem us by the sufferings of his Son, not only that he might expiate our sins by his blood, but also that he might be an example to us of meekness, and pa­tience, and submission to the Divine will, and subjection to government, even in the most unjust and infamous suffe­rings.

3. We may consider further, that Christ's suffering in obedience to the will and appointment of God, does not make him unfit to be our example. For [Page 82] though God has not so peremptorily de­creed, that all Christians should suffer, as he did that Christ should suffer, yet whenever we are called forth to suffer, (as we always are, when we cannot avoid suffering without resisting a lawful Au­thority) our sufferings are as much the ef­fects of God's decree and appointment, as the sufferings of Christ were; and in such cases every Christian may, and ought to say, as his Lord did, The Cup which my Father hath given me▪ shall I not drink it? Thus St. Peter expresly tells the Chri­stians to whom he wrote, and gives it as a reason, why they should suffer pa­tiently, even for doing well. For even hereunto were you called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps, 1 Pet. 2. 21. Now calling in the New Testament signi­fies the choice and election of God, and al­ways supposes a divine decree, appoint­ment, and constitution, as the foundation of it. Thus St. Paul tells us, that the gifts and calling ( [...]) of God are with­out repentance, 11 Rom. 29. that is, that decree he made to choose the pe­sterity of Abraham for his people, which still intitled all those of them to the blessings of the Gospel, who would be­lieve [Page 83] in Christ. Thus the state of Chri­stianity is our calling, and holy calling, 2 Tim. 1. 9. 3 Heb. 1. because it is the way and means God hath chosen and ap­pointed for the Salvation of Mankind: and Christians are often stiled the Called, because God has now decreed to chuse all the sincere Disciples of Christ, as he formerly did the posterity of Abraham, to be his peculiar people; and through­out the Scriptures of the New Testa­ment, God is never said to call, nor any one to be called of God, but with respect to some divine decree and constitution; and therefore when St. Peter tells the Christians, that they are called to suffer, it signifies that God has appointed them to it, by his positive will and decree.

This St. Paul discourses more at large in his Epistle to the Romans, and com­forts them under their sufferings from this very consideration, that the suffe­rings which they underwent, were not the effects of meer chance and accident, nor of the wickedness and injustice of men, nor barely of Gods permission, but of his decree and appointment; and therefore they might certainly con­clude, that what ever their sufferings were, they should turn to their good, [Page 84] 8 Rom. 28, 29, 30. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called accor­ding to his purpose, [...], to those who are called, that is, to suffer, which is the argument the Apostle is discoursing of, according to his will and pleasure and appointment.

Sufferings are not for the good of all profest Christians, for they may tempt Hypocrites to renounce their Religion, and great and severe sufferings may be too powerful a temptation for weak though sincere Christians; and there­fore when the rage and malice of men boils and swells, God sets bounds to it, and does not suffer these persecutions and afflictions promiscuously to light up­on all Christians, but exerciseth a very particular providence in chusing out fit persons to suffer, in directing the storm and tempest of Persecution to fall where he pleases, upon such Persons, who are armed with saith and patience to resist its fury, and to bear and conquer its rage. And such persons, who are thus ap­pointed, who are thus called by God to suffer, shall be sure to conquer, and to receive the reward of Conquerours. For thus the Apostle adds, For whom he [Page 85] did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. This conformity to the Image of Christ in this place, does plainly sig­nifie a conformity to him in sufferings, as is evident from the whole scope of the place. Some persons it seems there are, whom God does predestinate or fore-appoint to be conformed to the suf­ferings of Christ: for this is not the actual portion of all Christians, though it is the condition of our Discipleship; and they are those whom he did fore­know. Now the fore-knowledge of God includes his choice and election; he chuses out of the body of Christians, some fit persons to make his Martyrs and Confessors, to be examples of Faith and Patience and Courage to the world, And whom he did predestinate, them he al­so called; and whom he called, them he al­so justified; and whom he justified▪ them he also glorified; that is, those persons whom God thus chuses, and preordains to suf­fer as Christ did, in time he calls forth to suffer; and when he does so he justifies them, that is, he brings them off with triumph and victory, and owns and ap­plauds their Faith and Patience. For [Page 86] so [...] sometimes signifies; and there­fore to be justified, is expounded by to conquer and overcome▪ 3 Rom. 4. That thou mightest be justified ( [...]) in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. And indeed this is properly to be justified in any trial or combate, to overcome and conquer; and that God who gives the victory, gives the reward too; and whom he justifies, them he also glorifies: which seems to refer not to those rewards which are common to all Chri­stians, but to some peculiar degree of glory, which is prepared for such Con­querours, as the Apostle speaks; If so be, that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together, 17 v.

So that though God has not made us slaves and vassals to the humour of every Tyrant, yet all the afflictions and suffe­rings of Christians, especially those, which befal them on the account of Re­ligion, are as particularly ordered and determined by God, as the sufferings of Christ himself were: and therefore there is no difference upon this account be­tween the sufferings of Christ, and the sufferings of his Disciples; and there­fore though Christ came into the world on purpose to suffer in obedience to the [Page 87] Divine will, this does not make him ever the less fit to be an example to us. Nay, his obedience to the will of God in suffering the hardest things from the most unjust and Tyrannical powers, is an example to us of the same patient suffering, and submission to the will of God.

It is true, none of us in particular can know that God has decreed, that we shall suffer such or such things, and from such or such hands, as our Saviour did; but yet this we know, that it is God's will and pleasure, that we should patiently endure those sufferings, which we cannot avoid without sin; and since he has forbid us by express Laws to re­sist the higher powers, whatever suffe­rings cannot be avoided without resist­ance, it is God's will and pleasure, that we should submit to them. And since none of these sufferings, which are una­voidable to us, befal us without the par­ticular decree and appointment of God, we have reason in imitation of our great Master, to submit to them with the same cheerfulness and self-resignation as he did.

There is something indeed in the ex­ample of our Saviour, which in our [Page 88] circumstances we are not bound to imi­tate. For he punctually knowing, what God's will and pleasure was concerning him, voluntarily chose that condition, which he so well knew, God had allot­ted for him. He freely chose a mean and servile fortune, he chose suffering and death; when his time of offering up himself was come, he went up to Ierusalem on purpose to die there: but we are not bound to choose poverty and disgrace and suffering, we are not bound voluntarily to deliver up our selves into the hands of Tyrants and Per­secutours, who thirst after our Blood. We may and ought to use all just and ho­nest arts to make our condition easie and comfortable in the world, and to avoid the rage and fury of bloody men, be­cause we cannot tell, that it is the will and appointment of God, that we shall suffer, till our sufferings are unavoidable▪ and then when we must either suffer or sin, when we must either renounce our Religion, or resist the powers, we must embrace suffering and death, as that por­tion, which God has allotted for us.

I shall onely observe, by the way, what a mighty security this is to all good Christians, how absolute or tyran­nical [Page 89] soever the power be under which they live; that they are safe in God's hands, and all the Powers of men and Devils cannot touch them, till God by a positive decree appoints and orders their suffering. There could not be greater nor more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperours were at this time, and yet they had no power over the mean­est Christian, but by an express commis­sion from Heaven. This is the special priviledge of the Christian Church a­bove the rest of mankind, that they are God's peculiar care and charge; that he does not permit any sufferings or persecutions to befal them, but what he himself orders and appoints. It is a great security to the World, that there is no evil happens to men but what God permits, and that he permits no­thing but what he can over-rule to wise and good ends; but it is a greater happiness to have our condition imme­diately allotted by God. God may permit a great many evils to befal us in anger and displeasure; but when he takes us into his immediate protection, and under his own government, what­ever evils he appoints for us, whoever are the instruments of them, are cer­tainly [Page 90] for our good: and therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Non-resistance, as some men imagine. How absolute soever this may be thought to render Princes, sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it: for they shall suf­fer nothing, more nor less, than what God appoints for them to suffer.

2. It is also urged against the obli­gation of our Saviour's example to suf­fer as he did, that Christ by his state of servitude and sufferings, has purchas'd liberty for us; and that not onely a spi­ritual and internal, but an external and civil liberty. We are no longer bound to submit to usurping and tyrannical powers, when we have strength and power to deliver our selves from that necessity. There is no help for it, but men who are weak and unable to resist, must obey and suffer; but this is mat­ter of force, not of duty: We are now bought with a price, and therefore must not chuse a state of subjection and ser­vitude to men.

1. Now in answer to this, we may consider first, that this obedience and subjection to Soveraign Princes, either was a duty before Christ's appearing in the world, or it was not. If it were [Page 91] not, then our deliverance from this sub­jection to Princes, is no part of that li­berty which Christ has purchas'd for us, because it was the natural right of mankind before; and therefore there was no need of Christ's dying to pur­chase this, which he cannot give us a greater right to than we had before his death. If subjection and Non-resistance were our duty before, and ceases to be our duty now, then Christ by his death has cancelled the obligations of our du­ty, and purchas'd a liberty and freedom not to do that now which by the Laws of God or Nature we were bound to do before; that is, Christ by his death has abrogated not onely the Ceremonial, but some Moral Laws; which I shew'd you before was contrary to the nature and designe of his undertaking.

2. It is strangely unaccountable, how obedience to any Law should abrogate and cancel it. How Christ by subjecti­on to the higher powers, should for e­ver after deliver his Disciples from the necessity of subjection, and make them free from the authority and govern­ment of Princes, whenever they dislike their government. A typical Law may be fulfilled and receive its just accom­plishment, [Page 92] and then its obligation ceases. Thus the death of Christ fulfilled the Levitical sacrifices, and put an end to them: But the authority of a moral Law is confirmed and strengthened, not abrogated and disanulled by great ex­amples. When Christ quietly and pa­tiently submitted to the most unjust sentence, in obedience to lawful autho­ritie, he either did well or ill in it: If he did ill, his example indeed is not to be imitated; but if he did well, how did his doing well deliver us from the obligation of doing well? Did his do­ing well, make it ill for us to do as he did? Why did not his perfect and un­sinning obedience as well deliver us from the obligation of all the other Laws of God, as from obedience and subjection to Princes?

The Antinomians indeed are so absurd as to say, that Christ fulfilled all righ­teousness in our stead, and that every believer has fulfilled the Law in Christ; and therefore is not bound to fulfil it in his own person as a condition of life and salvation. But yet they are not so absurd as to say that Christ by the righ­teousness of his life and death, has alter­ed the nature of good and evil, and can­celled [Page 93] any one Law of God. The Law is in force still, and the dutie is the same; but the Law cannot take hold of them, nor exact a personal righteousness from them, because they have already fulfilled the Law in Christ. But now these men must say, that Christ has not onely fulfilled the Law of subjection and non-resistance, as a condition of salvation, but has cancelled it as a rule of life.

3. The death of Christ could not purchase any civil rights or liberties which we had not before, nor make a­ny change in the external fortunes or conditions of men. The death of Christ is represented in Scripture either as an atonement or expiation of sin, or as the purchase and seal of the new Covenant. Now how does the death of Christ, by expiating our sins, deliver us from sub­jection to our civil Governours? What connexion is there between the expia­tion of our sins, and our freedom from the authoritie of Princes, that he who does one, must be supposed to do the o­ther?

And as for the new Covenant, where does that grant any new franchises and liberties to subjects? Let them produce their new Charter to justifie their ex­emption [Page 94] from subjection to Princes; let them shew any one saying in the Go­spel of our Saviour, if they can, to that purpose. What the Doctrine of Christ is, you have already heard; and when Christ died to confirm the new Cove­nant in his bloud, it is absurd to say that he has purchased any liberties for us, but what he has expresly granted to us in his Gospel.

He does indeed promise libertie & free­dom to his subjects, but it is a libertie of another nature; a libertie from the power and dominion of sin. Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free, 8 John 32. that is, the power of the Gospel-revelation should deliver them from the Empire of their lusts, and give them the true government and maste­rie of themselves: And therefore he adds, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Who­soever committeth sin, is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the son abideth for ever. If the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed, 34, 35, 36 v.

But does not St. Paul advise the Co­rinthians to assert even their civil and political freedom when they can, and that from this argument, that they are [Page 95] the freemen of Christ? which seems to intimate, that there is such a connexion between our spiritual and civil Liber­ties, that it does not become Christ's freemen to be slaves and servants unto men. 1 Cor. 7. 21, 22, 23 v. Art thou called, being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it ra­ther. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free man: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price, be not the servants of men.

But what is it they would prove from these words? that our subjection to men is inconsistent with our freedom in Christ? that the Apostle expresly de­nies. For he that is a servont, is Christ's freeman. Or that Christ, when he made us free, did deliver us from the subjection of men? not that neither. For he does not advise Christian servants to leave their masters, as he might and ought to have done, if Christ had be­stowed this civil libertie on them; but he was so far from this, that when O­nesimus had run away from his Master Philemon, and was converted by St. Paul, and proved very useful and serviceable in the ministrie, yet he would not de­tain [Page 96] him from his Master, without ask­ing his leave: which occasioned the E­pistle to Philemon, as you may see 10, 11, 12, &c. And in this place he ad­vises the Christian servants not to be concerned at their being servants; which was no injury at all to their Chri­stian libertie: But if they could procure their libertie by any fair and just means, they should chuse to do it; which is upon many accounts more desirable, e­specially when Christians were servants to heathen Masters, as it often was in those days.

But does not the Apostle expresly tell them, Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men? Yes, he does: but sure this cannot signifie that servants should cast off the authoritie of their Masters. For that is directly contrary to what he had advised them before, and contrary to his own practice in the case of Onesimus, whom he sent back to his Master Philemon. But all that I understand by it, is this; that those Christian servants who could not obtain their freedom, should yet take care not to be servants to the lusts and passions of their Heathen Masters. For though a state of civil bondage and [Page 97] slavery is not inconsistent with their Christian libertie, yet to be ministers and servants to the vices of men, is: And therefore when they lay under any such temptation (as Christians who served Heathen Masters could not long escape it) they must then remember that they are Christ's freemen, who were bought with a price; and there­fore must neither be servants to their own lusts, nor to the lusts of other men. And the reason why I chuse this sence of the words, is this; because the Apostle opposes being bought with a price, that is, their being redeemed by Christ, or being Christ's freemen, to their being the servants of men, as inconsistent with each other. And therefore their being the servants of men, cannot be under­stood of civil servitude, which he before had told them was not inconsistent with their Christian libertie, but of being ser­vants to the vices of men.

But what now is all this to subjection to Soveraign Princes? Does the Apostle exhort the Christians too to throw off the civil powers? It was possible for a Christian servant to purchase his libertie, or to obtain it some other lawful ways; but how can subjects deliver themselves [Page 98] from the authoritie of Princes? unless they go into some Country where there is no government, or resist and rebel a­gainst the higher powers where they are: Neither of which is agreeable to our Apostles Doctrine, who would not allow servants to run away from their Masters, much less rebel against them to procure their libertie.

Nor was the case the same between Christian subjects and soveraign Princes, and between Masters and Servants; and therefore neither is the reason the same, why subjects should desire freedom from the higher powers. Servants in those days were slaves and vassals, and were kept in such constant attendance on their Masters, that it must needs be very difficult; besides the other temp­tations they were exposed to, to gain a­ny time or libertie for attending on Christian Worship, and the instructions of the Church. But Christian subjects are more at their own disposal, even under Heathen Princes; and have all that libertie, excepting the case of per­secution, which is necessary for the pur­poses of Religion; which yet is the one­ly reason intimated here, why the Apo­stle advises servants to procure their freedom, if they can.

[Page 99]To conclude this Argument; there were a sort of men, even in the Apostles days, who boasted mightily of their Christian libertie, and thought scorn for a Christian either to be a servant or a subject. For this reason St. Paul in this place instructs servants, that their Chri­stian libertie is not injured by their being servants: for this reason are there such frequent directions to servants to obey their Masters. For this reason does St. Peter caution the Christians against this pretence of Christian libertie, which some abused then, as they do still, to the disturbance of civil governments; As free, but not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

HAving thus concluded what the Doctrine and Example of our Sa­viour was, about subjection to the high­er powers; let us now consider the Do­ctrine 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 mean­ing of our Saviour's words, or in the in­tention and design of his sufferings, had none of his Apostles, who were imme­diately instructed by himself, and ac­quainted 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 a­bundant assurance of this, I shall plain­ly shew you, that the Apostles taught the same Doctrine, and imitated the ex­ample of their great Master.

[Page 101]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 pow­er but of God: the Powers that be, are or­dained of God Whosoever therefore resist­eth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.

This is a very express Testimony a­gainst 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 in­structs them in: Let every Soul be sub­ject 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 them­selves damnation.

[Page 102]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 ge­neral expression of every Soul, [...]. which by an ordinary Hebraism, signi­fies every man. For man is a compoun­ded Creature of Body and Soul, and either part of him is very often in Scripture put for the whole. Some­times Flesh, and sometimes Soul signi­fies the man; and when every Soul is opposed to the higher powers, it must sig­nifie all men, of what rank or conditi­on soever they be, who are not invested with this higher power. Popes and Bi­shops and Priests, as well Spiritual as Se­cular persons; the whole body of the People, as well as every single individu­al. For when every Soul is comman­ded to be subject, without any excepti­on 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 [Page 103] 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 excepti­on. Had St. Paul known the Preroga­tive 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 pre­tend 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 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, [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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, [Page 107] 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 [Page 108] 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 well­governed 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, [Page 109] 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 Non­resistance, 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, 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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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, [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. But the principal thing he has regard to in the text, is Non-re­sistance, which is the onely perfect and absolute subjection we owe to Princes. We are not always bound to do what they command, because they may com­mand, what we ought not, what we must not do; but we are always bound [Page 116] to be subject, that is, never to resist. Though a Prince abuse his power, and oppress his subjects, we must not take upon us to right ourselves, but must leave our cause to God, who is the great Protector of opprest Innocence: for as the Apostle tells us, He that re­sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist, &c. This is the doctrine the Apostle teaches, that we must be subject to, that is, that we must not resist, nor rebel against soveraign Princes.

2. Let us then now consider the rea­son, whereby the Apostle proves and inforces this doctrine of subjection or Non-resistance. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. The plain meaning of which is this: That soveraign Princes are advanced to the Throne by God, and are his mini­sters and vicegerents, invested with his authority and power to govern; and therefore when we resist our Prince, we resist the ordinance, constitution, and appointment of God. Such men do not resist, rebel, or fight against man, but God. As he who resists any sub­ordinate [Page 117] Magistrates, resists his Prince, from whom they receive their autho­rity and commission. And this is a very forcible Argument to subjection to Princes: for whatever our Prince be, it is certain, that God has an absolute and uncontroulable right over us, as being the natural Lord and Governour of the world; and if Earthly Princes are plac't in the Throne by him, who is at liberty to put the Government of the world into what hands he pleases, who will dare to oppose God? or ask him, Why hast thou done so? Whoever has any sense of God's dominion and soveraign­ty, dares not rebel against him; and he, who believes that Princes are made by God, will no more dare to rebel against his Prince, than against God himself.

The Patrons of resistance have used all manner of arts to evade the force of this Text, and to make the Apostles ar­gument signifie just nothing; and there­fore it will be necessary to consider brief­ly what they say.

1. Then some of them own the truth Milton pro Pop. Angl. de­fensio. p. 68. of what St. Paul asserts, that Soveraign Princes are of God, are advanc't and set in their Thrones by him; but then they say, Princes are from God, no other­wise [Page 118] than every thing else is of God. The divine Providence governs all things; and Plague and Pestilence and Famine, and whatever evil and calami­ty befals a nation, is from God too; but does it hence follow, that when God brings any of these Judgements upon us, we must not Endeavour to remove them? No more, say they, does it follow, that we must not Endeavour to break the Yoak of a Tyrant, because it was put on by God. That is, in plain English, that when the Apostle proves, that we must not resist Princes, because they are set up by God, he does not reason truly; for notwithstanding this, we may resist Tyrannical Princes, as we would do the Plague, though they are both sent by God: and I suppose these men believe that St. Paul was no more in­spired by God, than Princes are made by him. Otherwise they might as easily have concluded, that since St. Paul founds no doctrine of Non-resi­stance upon God's authority and domi­nion in advancing Princes, (and his ar­gument must be good, if he were an inspired man) that therefore there is some little difference between God's making a King though a Tyrant, and [Page 119] his sending the plague: and any man of an ordinary understanding might guess, that when God sets up a King with a soveraign Power, he sets him up to govern; and therefore though he may prove a scourge and a Plague, yet he is such a Plague, as God will allow no man to remove, but himself. For it is a contradiction in the nature of the thing, to give authority to a Prince to govern, and to leave subjects at Liber­ty to resist. Tyrants are God's mini­nisters, though they be but Executi­oners of his just vengeance; but an Ex­ecutioner, though he be as dangerous as the Plague, cannot be resisted, without resisting the Prince.

2. At other times they tell us, that when St. Paul asserts, that there is no power but of God, the powers that be, are ordained of God, he means this onely of the Institution of civil power and go­vernment, not of every Prince that is advanced to this power. The institu­tion of civil government they will al­low to be from God, but they think it a reproach to God to own that Tyrants and oppressors, wicked and impious Kings, are advanced by God. His Pro­vidence many times, for wise reasons, [Page 120] permits this, as he does all other evils; but they cannot believe, that such men are advanc't by his council and appro­bation, and positive will and appoint­ment. But this admits of various an­swers. For,

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

2. I have already proved, that by [Page 121] the Powers in my Text, the Apostle means the persons of Soveraign Princes; and therefore according to his Doctrine, those Princes who were then in being, that is, the Roman Emperors, were ad­vanc't by God; the powers that be, that is, the Princes and Emperors who now govern the world, are ordained and ap­pointed by God. And that thus it is, God himself tells us, 27 Jerem. 5, 6. I have made the Earth, and given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me: and now I have given all these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon my servant. Thus he called Cyrus by name, many years before he was born, to be his shepherd, and to perform his pleasure in rebuilding Ierusalem, 44 Isa. 28. 45. ch. 1, 2, 3, 4.

This was the belief of the primitive Christians under heathen and persecu­ting Emperors. Tertullian who wrote his Apologie under Severus, asserts that Caesar was chosen by God, and therefore that the Christians had a peculiar Pro­priety in Caesar, as being made Emperor by their God. Sed quid ego amplius de religione atque Pietate christiana in Im­peratorem, quem necesse est suspiciamus, ut eum quem Dominus noster elegit, & me­rito [Page 122] 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 in­stitution 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 di­spute no further, whether by Powers in the Text the Apostle means civil go­vernment, 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 au­thority 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-resi­stance, 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 [Page 123] stronger, if we acknowledge, that sove­veraign Princes themselves are appoin­ted by God, and have this power put into their hands by his peculiar and or­dering 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 ve­ry 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 con­sent 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 King­doms; yet, I say, suppose it to be true, [Page 124] 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 resol­ved 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 peo­ple, 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 vi­sible 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 one­ly the effect of God's choice; and there­fore 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, there­fore they derive their power from them, and are accountable to them? This is [Page 125] not true in humane governments. A City or any Corporation may have Au­thority 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 Go­vernment 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 in­to 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 guil­ty 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 can­not result from meer consent, but from a [Page 126] 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-preser­vation will justifie the taking away ano­ther man's life in preservation of our own, yet this is a Personal right, which God and Nature has given us; and un­less we can prove, that we have Autho­rity to make over this right to another, as well as to use it our selves, our con­sent cannot give Authority to the Ma­gistrate to take away any man's life in our cause.

2. This natural right of self-defence cannot be the Original of the Magi­strates 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 Na­ture. 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 [Page 127] 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. Where­fore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

4. There is another objection against what the Apostle affirms, that there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God. For is the power of victorious Rebels and Usurpers from [Page 128] God? did Oliver Cromwell receive his power from God? then it seems, it was unlawful to resist him too, or to conspire against him: then all those Loyal Sub­jects▪ who refused to submit to him, when he had got the power in his hands, were Rebels and Traitors.

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

It is otherwise indeed, where none can pretend a greater right to the Crown, than the usurper; for there possession of power seems to give a right. Thus ma­ny of the Roman Emperours came to [Page 129] the Crown by very ill means, but when they were possest of it, they were the Higher Powers; for the Crown did not descend by inheritance, but sometimes by the Election of the Senate, some­times of the Army, and sometimes by force and power, which always draws a consent after it. And therefore the A­postle does not direct the Christians to enquire by what Title the Emperours held their Crowns, but commands them to submit to those, who had the power in their hands: for the possession of Su­pream and Soveraign power is Title e­nough, when there is no better Title to oppose against it. For then we must presume, that God gives him the irresi­stible authority of a King, to whom he gives an irresistible power; which is the only means, whereby Monarchies and Empires are transferred from one Nation to another. There are two Ex­amples in Scripture which manifestly confirm what I have now said.

The first in the Kingdom of Israel: after the ten Tribes had divided from the House of Iudah, and the Family of David, God had not entailed the King­dom upon any certain Family▪ he had indeed by Ahijah the Prophet promised [Page 130] after Solomons death ten Tribes to Iero­boam the Son of Nebat, 1 Kings 11. 29. &c. but had afterwards by the same Prophet threatned Ieroboam, to destroy his whole Family, Chap. 15. 10, 11. Baasha fulfils this prophecy by the trai­terous murder of Nadab, (who succee­ded his Father Ieroboam in the Kingdom) and usurpt the government himself, and slew all Ieroboam's house, 28, 29. v. This Murder and Treason is numbred among the sins of Baasha; for which God af­terwards threatned to destroy his house, as he had done the house of Ieroboam, 16 Chap. v. 7. and yet he having usurpt the Throne, and got the power into his hands, and no man having a better Title than his, God himself is said to have exalted him out of the dust, and made him Prince over his People Israel, v. 2. Elah succeeded Baasha, who had no better Title than his Father; and yet Zimri, who slew him, is accused of Trea­son for it, v 20. Zimri usurpt the King­dom when he had slew his Master, but he was only a vain pretender to it, when he wanted power; for when the people who were encamped against Gibbethon, heard that Zimri had killed the King, they made Omri King, and went imme­diately [Page 131] and besieged Tirzah, where Zimri had taken possession of the Kings Palace; who finding no way to escape, set fire to it himself, and died in the flames of it. And now Israel was divi­ded between Omri and Tibni; but those who followed Omri prevailed against those who followed Tibni; and Tibni di­ed, and Omni Reigned, v. 21, 22. All which plainly shews, that where there is no regular Succession to the Kingdom, there possession of power makes a King, who cannot afterwards be resisted and opposed without the guilt of treason: and this was the case of the Roman Empire, at the writing of this Epistle; and there­fore the Apostle might well say, That the powers that be, are ordained of God. That whoever had the Supream power in his hands, is the higher power, that must not be resisted.

But it was otherwise in the Kingdom of Iudah, which God himself had en­tailed on Davids Family, as appears from the example of Ioash, who was concealed by his Aunt Iehosheba, and hid in the house of the Lord for six years. During this time Athaliah reigned, and had the whole power of government in her hands; but yet this did not make [Page 132] her a Soveraign and irresistible Prince; because Ioash the Son of Ahaziah, the right Heir of the Crown, was yet alive. And therefore in the seventh year Iehoi­ada the Priest set Ioash upon the Throne, and slew Athaliah, and was guilty of no Treason or Rebellion in doing so, 2 Kings 11. Which shews, that no usurpations can extinguish the Right and Title of a natural Prince. Such Usurpers, though they have the possession of the supream power, yet they have no right to it; and though God for wise reasons may some­times permit such usurpations, yet while his Providence secures the Persons of such deposed and banished Princes from violence, he secures their Title too. As it was in Nebuchadnezzar's vision; The tree is cut down, but the stump of the roots is left in the earth. The Kingdom shall be sure to them, after that they shall know, that the Heavens do rule, Dan. 4. 26.

3. The Apostle adds the punishment of those, who resist the higher Powers: They that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. Where, by [...] judgment and damnation, it is plain the Apostle means the punishments of the other world. Prosperous Rebellions are not always punisht in this world, but they are in the [Page 133] next. And therefore we must be sub­ject not only for wrath, for fear of men; but out of Conscience towards God, and a reverence of his righteous judg­ments.

The sum of all in short is this. That all men, whatever their rank and condi­tion be; not only Secular, but Spiritual Persons; not only private men, but sub­ordinate Magistrates; not only single men, but whole Bodies and Communi­ties, the united force and power of a Nation, must be subject to Soveraign Princes; that is, must obey all their just and lawful commands, and patiently submit even to their unjust violence, without making any resistance, without opposing force to force, or taking Arms, though it be only in their own defence. For Soveraign Princes are made and ad­vanced by God, who exerciseth a parti­cular 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 con­stitution and appointment of the Sove­rain Lord of the world, who alone is our natural Lord and Governour, and [Page 134] who alone has right to put the govern­ment 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 him­self, 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 fre­quently minded of it; that the Bishops and Ministers of Religion ought fre­quently 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 [Page 135] 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 se­ditious spirit abroad in the world.

Thus he instructs Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus, 1 Tim. 2. 1. I exhort there­fore, 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 hone­sty.

But you will say, What is this to such an absolute subjection to Princes as in­cludes 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 [Page 136] 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 re­sist Tyrannical Princes, yet it might be our duty to pray for them. And there­fore 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 prospe­rous Reign, which is included in inter­cessions 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 con­ditional Prayers, that God would Con­vert [Page 137] or Confound them; a prayer, which thanks be to God, was never found in any Christian Liturgie yet; which possi­bly 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 securi­ty in the profession and practice of the true Religion; this seems to imply, that when they are persecuted for their Reli­gion, 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 a­gainst 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 ap­pears to be, it could never be lawful for them to resist the powers▪ for I cannot understand how any man without mock­ing Almighty God, can pray for the prosperity of his Prince, and the good [Page 138] success of his government, at the same time, when he fights against him. When St. Paul had so freely and openly decla­red against resisting the higher powers, which Timothy, who was his Scholar and Companion, and fellow-labourer, could not but know; what other inter­pretation 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 mi­raculously for their defence, as he for­merly did in fighting the Battels of Is­rael; 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 [Page 139] the glory of the victory intire to him­self: 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 di­sturbance to civil powers, or to at­tempt any changes or innovations in go­vernment; 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 one­ly remedy the Church has against per­secuting powers; and it seems St. Paul thought so too, for he prescribes no o­ther; and yet he does not allow them to pray against the King neither, but ex­horts them to pray for him, and that they might enjoy peace and security un­der his Government.

HAving heard what St. Paul's do­ctrine was, let us now consider what St. Peter taught about this mat­ter: he had as much reason to learn this lesson as any of the Apostles, our Sa­viour having severely rebuked him for drawing his sword against the lawful powers, as you have already heard. And indeed, his rash and intemperate zeal in this action cost him very dear; for we have reason to believe, that this was the chief thing, that tempted him to deny his Master. He was afraid to own himself to be his Disciple, or that he had been in the garden with him; because he was conscious to himself, that by drawing his sword, and smiting the servant of the high Priest, he had incurred the penalty of the law, and had he been discovered, could expect nothing less, but to be severely punish't for it, it may be to have lost his life for [Page 141] his resistance. And indeed, this has ve­ry often been the fate of those men, who have been transported with a boi­strous and intemperate zeal to draw their swords for their Master and his Religion against the lawful powers, that they commonly deny their Master, and despise his Religion, before they put their swords up again.

But St. Peter having by our Sa­viour's reproof, and his own dear-bought experience learn't the evil of resistance, never drew his svvord more, and took great care to instruct Christians not to do so, 1 Peter 2. 13, 14, 15, 16. Sub­mit your selves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the King as supreme; or unto Governours, as to them that are sent by him, for the punish­ment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing, ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolishmen. As free, and not using your liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

This is the very same Doctrine, which St. Paul taught the Romans: Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers; for the same word is used in the [Page 142] original [...] and [...], and there­fore to submit and to be subject is the same thing, which, as St. Paul tells us, signifies Non-resistance. Onely as St. Paul speaks onely of not resisting the High­er Powers, that is, Emperours and Sove­raign Princes, herein including all those, who act by their Authority; St. Peter, to prevent all cavils and exceptions, di­stinctly mentions both, that we must submit to all humane power and autho­rity, not onely to the King as Supreme, that is, in St. Paul's phrase, to the High­er Powers, to all Soveraign Princes who are invested with the supreme Autho­rity; but also to those, who are sent by him, who receive their Authority and commission from the Soveraign Prince.

St. Paul tells us at large, that all pow­er is of God, and that the power is the Minister of God, and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and therefore we must needs be subject, not one­ly for Wrath, that is, for fear of being punish't by men, but also for Conscience sake, out of reverence to God, and fear of his Judgement. This St. Peter com­prises in one word, which includes it all; Submit your selves to every ordi­nance of man for the Lord's sake: for [Page 143] how is God concerned in our obedience to Princes, if they be not his Ministers, who are appointed and advanced by him, and act by his Authority, and if it be not his will and command, that we should obey them? and therefore he addes, for this is the will of God, that with well doing, that is, by obedience and subjection to Princes, ye may put to si­lence the ignorance of foolish men, that is, that you may put to silence those foolish men, who ignorantly accuse you, as fond of changes, and troublesome and dangerous to Government. But then St. Peter observing, that Christian Li­berty was made a pretence for seditions and treasons, he cautions them against that also, As free, but not using your liber­ty for a cloak of Maliciousness, that is, to cover and excuse such wickedness as Rebellion against Princes, but as the ser­vants of God: You must remember, whatever freedom Christ has purchas't for you, he has not delivered you from obedience and subjection to God; you are his servants still, and therefore must be subject to those, who receive their power and authority from God, as all Soveraign Princes do.

This is as plain, one would think, as [Page 144] words can make it; but nothing can be so plain, but that men who are unwil­ing to understand it, and who set their wits on work to avoid the force and evi­dence of it, may be able to find some­thing to say, to deceive themselves, and those who are willing to be deceived: and therefore it will be necessary to consider, what false colours some men have put upon these words, to elude and baffle the plain scope and designe of the Apostle in them.

As first, they observe, that St. Peter calls Kings and subordinate Governours an ordinance of man, or a humane Crea­ture, [...]. and from hence they conclude that Kings are onely the peo­ples Creatures; they are made by the people, and receive their power from them, and therefore are accountable to them if they abuse their power. In an­swer to this, we may consider,

1. That this interpretation of St. Pe­ter's words, is a direct contradiction to St. Paul, who expresly asserts, that there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God: but according to this exposition of humane Creature, or the Ordinance of Man, there is no power of God, but all power is derived from [Page 145] the People. Kings and Princes may be chosen by men, as it is in Elective King­doms, and as it was at that time in the Roman Empire; but they receive their power from God, and thus St. Paul and St. Peter may be reconciled: but to af­firm, that St. Peter calls Kings an Or­dinance of man, because they receive their power and authority from men, is an irreconcilable contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that they receive their power from God, that they are God's and not the peoples Ministers. Now though St. Peter and St. Paul did once differ upon a matter of prudence, it would be of ill consequence to Re­ligion, to make them differ in so mate­rial a Doctrine as this is: and yet there is no way to reconcile them, but by ex­pounding St. Peter's words so as to a­gree with St. Paul's; for St. Paul's words can never be reconciled with that sence, which these men give of St. Peter's; and that is a good argument to me, that is not the true interpretation of St. Peter; for I verily believe, that these two great Apostles did not differ in this point.

2. St. Peter exhorts them to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's [Page 146] sake; which plainly signifies, that what­ever hand men may have in modelling civil governments, yet it is the Ordi­nance of God, and Princes receive their power from him. For it is no act of disobedience to God to resist our Prince, nor of obedience to God to submit to him, if he does not derive his power from God, and act by his Authority and commission; especially in such cases, when he opposes the Government of God, and the interest of Religion; and oppresses not onely God's Creatures, but his most faithful and obedient people, who are his peculiar care and charge▪ in such cases as these, if Princes do not receive their power from God, they are opposite and rival Powers, and we can no more submit to them for God's sake, than we can submit to a Rebel for the sake of, that is, out of duty and loyal­ty to our natural Prince. And there­fore when the Apostle exhorts them, for God's sake to submit to their King, he plainly supposes, what St. Paul did particularly express, that Kings receive their power from God, and therefore are God's Ministers, even when they abuse their power; and he that resists, resists the Ordinance and Authority of God.

[Page 147]3. But suppose we should grant, that when St. Peter calls Kings the Or­dinance of man, he means, that they receive their power and authority from men; yet I cannot see, what good this will do them: for he plainly disowns their consequence, that therefore Princes are accountable to the People, as to their superiours, and may be resisted, de­posed, and brought to condigne punish­ment, if they abuse this power; as will appear from these two observations. 1. That he gives the King the Title of supreme, [...], who is above them all, and is invested with the supreme and so­veraign power. Now the supreme power in the very notion of it, is irresistible and unaccountable; for otherwise it is not supreme, but subject to some supe­riour jurisdiction; which it is evident­ly known the Roman Emperours, of whom the Apostle here speaks, were not. And 2. that he requires subjection to this humane ordinance, which, as appears from St. Paul, signifies Non re­sistance. So that though we should grant that the King derives his power from the people, yet it seems, God confirms and establishes the Crown on his head, and will not suffer people to take it off a­gain, when they please.

[Page 148]4. But after all, there is no colour for this objection from the Apostles words: for this [...]: humane order or or­dination, signifies nothing but humane authority, such power and authority as is exercised by men for the good govern­ment of humane Societies. And the meaning is only this; that out of reve­rence and obedience to God, from whom all power is derived, they should submit to that authority, which is exercised by men, whether to the supream power of Soveraign Princes, or that subordinate authority which he bestows on inferiour Magistrates.

2. It is farther objected, that though St. Peter does command Christians to submit to Kings and Governours, yet it is with a limitation, as far as they go­vern well, while they exercise their au­thority in pursuance of the great ends of its institution; for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. And here St. Peter agrees very well with St. Paul, who assigns this as the reason, why they may be subject to the powers: For Rulers are not a ter­rour to good works, but to the evil; wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have [Page 149] praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the mini­ster of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, 13 Rom▪ 3, 4. Now we cannot be bound to obey and submit, any farther than the reason of our obedience reaches: and if the rea­son why we must obey Princes, is, be­cause they punish wickedness, and re­ward and encourage Vertue, which is so great a blessing to humane Societies, then we are not bound to obey them, when they do quite contrary▪ when they en­courage Vice, and oppress the most ex­emplary innocence. Now in answer to this, let us consider,

1. Whether these great Apostles in­tended to oblige the Christians of that age to yield obedience to those powers▪ which then governed the world. If they did, (as I think no man will be so hardy as to say, that they did not) then it will be proper to enquire, whether what they here affirm, and assign as the reason of their subjection, that Rulers are not a terrour to good works, but to the evil, were true of the Roman Em­perours and Governours, or not. If it [Page 150] were true, then I believe it will hold true of all Kings, in all ages of the world; for there cannot well be greater Tyrants than the Roman Emperors were at this time: and so this will prove an eternal reason, why we should be subject to Princes, notwithstanding the many faults and miscarriages of their govern­ment. If it were not true, it is very strange, that two such great Apostles, should use such an argument to perswade Christians to submit to the powers, as only proved the quite contrary, that they ought not to be subject to the pre­sent powers, because they were unjust and Tyrannical, and in contradiction to the original design and institution of ci­vil power, were a terror to good works and not to the evil.

The Christians were at that time per­secuted by Iews and Heathens, by all the powers of the World. The Apostle exhorts them not to resist the powers, because they were not a Terror to good works, but to the evil. If by this he only means, that they should be subject to them, while they encouraged Vertue and vertuous men, but might rebel a­gainst them, when they did the contra­ry; how could the Christians of those [Page 151] days think themselves obliged by this to submit to the higher powers?

For this was not their case. They suffered for righteousness sake; the pow­ers were a terrour to them, though they were innocent, though they could not charge them, either with breaking the Laws of God or Men; and therefore they were not bound to submit to them, whenever they could find it safe to re­sist. So that either these men put a false comment upon the Text, or while the Apostle undertakes to deter them from resistance, he urges such an argument as was proper only to perswade them to rebel.

2. We may also consider, that this interpretation of the words makes the Apostles argument childish and ludi­crous, and wholly useless to perswade any man to be subject, who needs per­swasion. For I take it for granted, that there is no need to perswade any man, especially the good and vertuous, not to resist the powers, when he meets with the just rewards and encouragements of Vertue. The usual pretence for Sedi­tions and Treasons, is to redress publick grievances, to deliver themselves from a state of oppression and slavery; but all [Page 152] mankind agree, that they ought to obey Governours, who govern well; and no man thinks it just or honourable to re­bel, who has not, or cannot pretend some cause of complaint. The tryal of our obedience is, when we suffer injuri­ously for righteousness sake, when our Rights and Liberties are invaded, when we groan under such oppressions, as are enough to make a wise man mad, and to transport him to irregular and unjustifi­able actions. This was the case of the Primitive Christians to whom the Apo­stles wrote, and therefore we might rea­sonably expect, that he should urge such Arguments to Subjection, as should reach their case: but if these men be good Ex­positors, the Apostle says nothing to perswade any man to obedience to the powers, who finds the powers uneasie and troublesome to him; and those who have nothing to complain of▪ one would think, should need no Arguments to perswade them to subjection to so easie and gentle a yoak.

3. Nay, according to this interpreta­tion of the Doctrine of Subjection, that we are bound only to be subject to those Princes, who rule well, who punish wick­edness and reward vertue; this Doctrine [Page 153] of Subjection gives no security at all to the best governments in the world. The most Factious and Seditious spirits can desire no greater liberty, than this prin­ciple grants them. For no humane go­vernment can be so exact and perfect, but it may be guilty of great miscar­riages. Good men may suffer, and bad men may flourish under a vertuous Prince, and therefore ill designing men can never want pretences to misrepre­sent the government, and to foment Discontents and Jealousies between Prince and People. This unhappy Na­tion has been a sad example of this, twice in one Age, under two as just and merciful Princes, as ever sate upon the English Throne. When there were ne­ver fewer real grievances to be com­plained of, and never more loud and Tragical complaints: and if Subjects are not bound to obey any longer than all things please and gratifie their humors, it is a vain thing to name the Doct [...] of Subjection; which is of no use at all [...] peace and security of humane [...]

4. This is absolutely false, [...] are bound to be subject to [...] Princes no longer than th [...] [...], according to the measures [...] [Page 154] and righteousness. The Apostle I am sure supposes the contrary, when he tells the Christians, But and if ye suffer for righteousness sake, happy are ye; and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled, 1 Pet. 3. 14. Thus he commands ser­vants to be subject to their Masters with fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank­worthy, if a man for conscience towards God endure grief, suffering patiently. For what glory is it, if when ye be buffe­ted for your faults, ye take it patiently? but if when ye do well and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God, 2 Chap. 18, 19, 20. And cer­tainly there is as perfect a subjection due to a Soverain Prince as to a Master, for he is more eminently the Minister of God, and acts by a more Sacred and in­violable authority. And that this does extend to our subjection to Princes, ap­pears from the example of Christ, which the Apostle there recommends to our imitation, who was the most innocent person in the world, and yet suffered the most barbarous usage, not from the hands of a private Master, but of the supreme powers. And therefore when he commands in the same Chapter to [Page 155] submit to Governours, as to those who are for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well, it is evi­dent, that he did not intend this as a li­mitation of our subjection, as if we were not bound to be subject in other cases; since in the very same Chapter, he requires subjection not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, in imitation of the example of our Lord, who suffered patiently under un­just and Tyrannical powers.

5. I observe therefore, that the Apo­stle does not alleadge this as the reason of our subjection, but as a motive or argument to reconcile us to the practice of it. The reason of our subjection to Princes is, that they are advanced by God, that they are his Ministers, that those who resist, resist the Ordinance of God, and therefore we must submit for Gods sake, out of reverence to his authority. But it is an encouragement to subjection, to consi­der the great advantages of government, that Rulers are not a terrour to good works, but to the evil. But though this motive should fail in some instances, yet while the reason of subjection lasts, (and that can never fail, while we own the Sove­rain Authority of God) so long it is [Page 156] our dutie to be subject, whether our Prince do his dutie or not.

6. But to examine more particularly the meaning of these words. When the Apostle says, that Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; that they are for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; I see no necessitie of expounding this of good and evil works in general, that all good and virtuous actions shall be rewarded by them, and all evil actions punish't; for this is almost impossible in any hu­mane government; and there never was any government in the world, that ap­pointed rewards for all virtuous actions, and punishments for all wicked ones. But these good and evil works seem to be confined to the matter in hand, to subjection and obedience, as a good and virtuous action. And so the Apostle enforces this dutie of subjection, not one­ly from the Authoritie of God, but from the power of Princes: Be subject to the higher powers; for Rulers are not a terrour to good works, but to the evil. We need not fear the powers, when we obey them, and submit ourselves to them; but they will punish us if we rebel. The force of which argument is this: [Page 157] The best way to obtain safetie and pro­tection under any Government, is by be­ing peaceable, quiet, and obedient; such men generally escape under the greatest Tyrants, for Tyrants themselves do not use to insult over the peaceable and o­bedient: but if men be seditious and troublesome to government, then he beareth not the sword in vain, but is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil, that is, upon all disobedience and rebellion; for whatever wickedness escapes unpunish't, Princes for their own securitie must not suffer disobedience and rebellion to e­scape. And that this is the meaning of it, appears from the next verse, where the Apostle sums up the whole argument for subjection, which he reduces to Con­science towards God, and fear of the secu­lar powers: Wherefore ye must needs be sub­ject, not onely for wrath, but also for Con­science sake. And that St. Peter by well doing means subjection to Princes, is ve­ry plain. For so is the will of God, that with well doing, ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; that is, by obedience and subjection to Princes, which is the dutie he there exhorts them to. And therefore it is very probable [Page 158] that he means the same by well doing in the verse before, that Governours are for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; to punish the disobedient and rebellious, and to re­ward and protect those, who live in all quiet and peaceable subjection. And if this be the meaning of it, I think they can find no limitation here of our sub­jection to Princes.

7. But let us suppose, that when the Apostle says, that Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil, he under­stands by it in general, the great advan­tages of civil government, that is, for the suppression of wickedness, and incourage­ment of virtue, which is the true end and the best improvement of humane power; this also is in a great measure true of the worst and most Tyrannical Princes, and therefore the argument for subjection is good even under a Ty­rant.

Publick Justice was administred un­der the government of Nero, and good men were rewarded, and bad men pu­nish't: And though Justice be not so e­qually and so universally administred under a bad Prince, as under a good one; though a Tyrant may oppress many of [Page 159] his subjects, and be the occasion of great Calamities, yet while there is any pub­lick government maintained in the world, it lays great restraints upon the unruly lusts and passions of men, and gives great securitie to the just and in­nocent. And therefore good men are concerned to promote the peace and se­curitie of Government, though the Prince be a Tyrant: for there is more Ju­stice to be had under a Tyrant, than in a civil War. In ordinary cases it is very pos­sible for good men to live easily and tole­rably under a very bad Prince; & though it should be their lot to suffer, yet since the peace and quiet of humane Societies is in it self so great a blessing, and the publick good is better consulted by the preservation of government, than by re­sistance, it becomes every good man ra­ther to suffer patiently under a Tyrant, than to shake and unsettle humane go­vernment, and disturb the natural course of Justice by seditions and tumults.

8. Nay let us suppose, that the A­postle here speaks of such an equal ad­ministration of Justice, as cannot be ex­pected under the government of a Ty­rant; yet so the argument holds good a­gainst resistance, though our Prince be [Page 160] never so bad. And it lies thus: we must not resist the powers, because Ru­lers are not a terrour to good works, but to the evil. This is the great blessing of humane government, to preserve Ju­stice and righteousness among men. For this reason God has intrusted the Princes with the power of the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; and therefore we must not resist him, because pub­lick Justice is so great a blessing to the world. But how does this follow, you will say, that we must not resist a Ty­rant, who is so far from administring Justice, that he oppresses his subjects, because Civil Government and Publick Justice is so great a blessing? what a­greement is there between civil govern­ment, and publick Justice and a Ty­rant? Why the consequence is very plain. Civil government, which is for the administration of publick Justice, is a great and inestimable blessing to the world: but now there can be no civil government without a supreme and ir­resistible power; publick Justice cannot be administred, unless there is some power from whence there is no appeal. It is not necessarie indeed, that the [Page 161] power should always be in the hands of one man; but if God have placed this power in the hands of a Prince, there it must be irresistible too, however he uses it: for if once it be made lawful to resist the supreme Power, wherever it is plac't, you dissolve humane Socie­ties, or at least expose them to perpe­tual disorders and convulsions. Fa­ctious and ambitious men will find pre­tences to resist good Princes as well as the bad, and no government can be any longer secure, than while ill-designing men want power to resist. Now then, to pass a true Judgement of this matter, we must not onely consider, what pre­sent inconveniencies we may suffer from the irresistible power of a Tyrant, but what an irreparable mischief it is for e­ver to unsettle the foundations of go­vernment. We must consider whether Civil Government be the greater bles­sing to mankind, or a Tyrant the grea­ter curse: whether it be more desirable to endure the insolence and injustice of a Tyrant, when the power falls into such a hand; or for ever to be deprived of the securitie of government, and the blessings of Peace and order. And there­fore there is great reason, why God should [Page 162] so severely forbid the resistance of Prin­ces, though Tyrants; and why we should quietly and contentedly submit to this divine appointment, because the resi­stance of the supreme power, were it once allowed by God, would weaken the authoritie of humane Governments, and expose them to the rage and frenzie of ambitious and discontented States­men, or wild Enthusiasts. This I think is a sufficient answer to this pretence, that the Apostle limits our subjection to Princes to the regular exercise of their authoritie.

3. It is objected also from St. Peters words, that the inferiour and subordi­nate Magistrates receive their power from God also, as well as supreme and Soveraign Princes; Governours are sent by him, that is, say they, by God, for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well; and therefore though private men may not resist a Soveraign Prince, yet publick Magi­strates may, though they be not su­preme; for it is their dutie also to see wickedness punish't, and virtue rewar­ded; and therefore it is part of their Commission to give check to the Soveraign Power, and to defend subjects from the [Page 163] unjust violence and oppressions of their Prince. And this the Emperour Trajan learn't from the common principles of Justice and Equitie, who delivered a sword to one of his Officers with this charge, to use it for him, while he go­verned well, but against him if he go­verned ill. Now in answer to this, we may consider,

1. That there is no foundation at all for this in the Text, for this [...] or by him, cannot by any rules of Grammar be referred to God, but to the King. Submit to every Ordi­nance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the King as supreme, or unto Govern­ours, as unto them who are sent by him. By him? by whom? by God? that is not said, but by the King, for that is the next antecedent; and that is the evident truth of the case. Inferiour Magistrates do not receive their power from God, but from the King, who having the Sove­raign power in himself, commits the ex­ercise of some part of it to others, and taketh it away again, when he pleases. And the very phrase of [...], those who are sent by him, plainly re­fers it to those who were sent by the Emperour into forreign countries, to go­vern [Page 164] the Roman Provinces; such as Pon­tius Pilate and Felix were: and so the meaning is, that they were not onely obliged to submit to the Roman Empe­rours, but to all those Governours, whom they sent to rule the Provinces under their Jurisdiction; which is no more than for a Preacher to instruct the sub­jects of Ireland, that they must not one­ly submit to the King, but to all those whom he sent to govern them, with the power and authoritie of Deputies, or Lord-Lieutenants.

2. Nay St. Peter, as if he had fore­seen this objection, takes particular care to prevent it, and therefore makes an apparent difference between that sub­mission we owe to Soveraign Princes, and that which we owe to Governours; we must submit to the King as supreme, [...] as to him who is above all, whose power is unaccountable and irre­sistible; but to Governours, as unto them who are sent by him: which both signifies the reason of our submission to Gover­nours, and prescribes the bounds and mea­sures of it.

The reason why we must submit to Governours, is because they are sent by our Prince, they act by his Authoritie, [Page 165] and therefore we must submit to, and reverence his Authoritie in them. It is not for their own sakes, nor for any in­herent Authoritie in them, but as they receive their power from our Prince.

And this also determines the bounds and measures of our subjection to Go­vernours. As that Authoritie, which they receive from the King, is the one­ly reason why we must submit to them at all: so we must submit no longer, than that Authoritie lasts; when ever the Prince recalls them, and transfers this power to another, we must obey them no longer. Nay, since we are on­ly bound to reverence and obey the au­thoritie of our Prince in them, we must never submit to them in opposition to our Prince. Our primarie obligation is to submit to the King, who is our So­veraign-Lord, and must in no cases be resisted; our submission to Governours and subordinate Magistrates is onely a part and branch of our dutie to the King, as they are his Officers and Ministers: and therefor eit can never be our dutie to obey or comply with subordinate Magistrates, but onely when it is an act of dutie and subjection to our Prince; and certainly it is no act of subjection [Page 166] to our Prince to obey subordinate Magi­strates, when they rebel against their Prince: for, to resist a Prince, or to joyn with those who do resist him, is an odde kind of instance of our subjection to him. This is not to submit to the King as supreme, nor to Governours, as un­to those who are sent by him, and receive their Authoritie from him; but it is to submit to Governours, as the supreme and soveraign Iudges of our Prince, and the Patrons and Protectors of the people against their Prince; which is directly contrarie to St. Peter's Doctrine.

It was no new thing for the Govern­ours of remote Provinces to revolt from the obedience of the Roman Emperours, and to usurp a Soveraign and Imperial Authoritie to themselves; and therefore St. Peter expresses their dutie to Go­vernours with this caution and limitati­on, that though they must submit to those, whom the Emperour sent to go­vern them, yet it must be in subordina­tion to the Imperial Authoritie, and with a reserve of that more absolute subjecti­on, which they owe to the Emperour himself, who is their Soveraign Lord. While Governours are subject to the Emperour, who is their Lord and Ma­ster, [Page 167] we must be subject to them; but if they rebel, we must be subject to the Emperour still, and oppose those, whom we were before bound to obey.

When St. Peter so expresly com­mands them both to submit to the King, and to submit to Governours, it is im­possible he could consider the King and Governous, as two distinct and rival authorities; for then it might so happen, that they could not submit to both, if ever they should oppose each other: and therefore when he commands them to submit to both, he must suppose them to be both one, as the fountain and the stream is one. The Authoritie to which they must submit is but one, it is originally in the King, as in its source and fountain, and it is derived and com­municated to Governours; but is the same power still, which as necessarily depends upon the King, as light does up­on the Sun; and therefore when these powers grow two, when this derivative and dependant power sets up for it self in opposition to that power which gave it its being, we are delivered from our subjection to it, because it ceases to be one with that soveraign power, to which we must be subject▪

[Page 168]Once more. St. Peter commands the Christians to submit to the King, and to Governours, that is, to the King's Mini­sters, who receive their authority from him to govern. But when such persons rebel against their Prince who gave them authority, they cease to be the Kings Mi­nisters and Governours, and therefore cease to be such Governours to whom the Apostle commands submission. We are to obey them while they are the Kings Ministers and Deputies; but when they assume to themselves an indepen­dant power, we must submit to them no longer, but to our Prince: We may and ought to obey our Prince, and those Magistrates whom he sets over us, but we cannot submit to our Prince and to Rebels; and certainly when men be­come Rebels, they are no longer the Kings Ministers, but his Rivals.

3. It is a very ridiculous pretence al­so, which has no foundation in St. Pe­ter's words, that Governours or subor­dinate Magistrates have power to con­troul or resist their Soverain Prince. The Apostle tells us, that the King is supreme; but over whom is he supreme? certainly over all in his Dominions, or else he is not supreme; and therefore he [Page 169] is supreme with respect to subordinate Magistrates, as well as private Subjects; and then they have no more power or authority to resist, than any private Subject has. For St. Paul tells us, the higher Power is irresistible; which would be a strange Paradox, if every little Officer had authority to resist him.

And yet if men will grant, that it is never lawful for any private man to re­sist his Prince, it is not worth disputing, whether subordinate Magistrates may or not; for if private men must not resist, these inferiour Magistrates cannot, or at least they will resist to no purpose. He may make them private men again when he pleases; or however, he must be an unfortunate Prince, whom all his own Officers and Ministers conspire a­gainst; and he must be a very weak Prince, who has not force and power to oppose them. For what does the discon­tent of the greatest Ministers signifie, who can raise no forces to oppose their Prince? and yet there are no forces to be raised, if private men must not resist. When inferiour Magistrates must sub­mit, or rebel alone, (as they must do, if private men must not rebel) whatever [Page 170] authority they have to controul their Prince, they will want force and power to do it. And yet it would be a lewd way of burlesquing this Doctrine of Non-resistance, to make no more of it than this, that when St. Paul so severely threatens damnation against those who resist, his meaning is, that private Sub­jects must not resist their Prince, unless they have some discontented and facti­ous Magistrates to head them.

But how should these subordinate Go­vernours come by this power to resist their Prince? They must either have it from God, or from their Prince. Not from God. For Soverain Princes receive their authority from God; and if God have bestowed the supreme and Sove­rain Power on the Prince, it is a contra­diction to say, that he has advanced his own Ministers and Officers above him, which would be to place a superiour power over the supreme. Nor is it rea­sonable to suppose, that inferiour Magi­strates receive such a power as this from their Prince, though it is evident, they have no power, but what they receive from him. For notwithstanding Tra­jan's complement, which he never in­tended should be made a Law for him­self, [Page 171] or other Soverain Princes; no Prince can give such power as this to a Subject, without giving him his Crown. He gives away his Soverain power, when he gives any Subject authority to resist; he ceases to be a Soverain Prince, if he makes any man his Superior: for he cannot give away Soverain power, and yet keep it himself. And it would be a hard case with Princes, had they as ma­ny Judges and Masters, as they have Officers and Ministers of State. In­deed, no Prince without parting with his Crown, can grant such an extrava­gant power to any Subject: for while he continues Soverain, God has made it necessary to the greatest Subjects to obey and submit. For as for Trajan's saying to one of his Commanders, when he de­livered him the Sword, Use this for me if I govern well, and against me if I go­vern ill, it only signified his fixt resolu­tion to govern well, and that he would imploy it in no ill services: but it con­veyed no more power to him to rebel, if he should govern ill, than a Father's saying to his Son, that he should forgive his disobedience, if ever he would prove unkind, would justifie the disobedience of the Son, if his Father should prove [Page 172] unkind. The duties of these relations are fixt by God, and cannot be altered by men. A Prince may divest himself of his Kingdom, and royal Power; but while he continues Soveraign, he can­not give liberty to any man to resist him.

4. There is another objection not on­ly to invalidate St. Peters authoritie, but to answer all the arguments that are produced from the doctrine and practice of Christ and his Apostles, to inforce this dutie of Non-resistance and subjecti­on to Princes; and that is, that these commands were onely temporarie, and obliged Christians while they wanted force and power to resist, but do not o­blige us, when we can resist and conquer too.

I have sometimes thought, that this objection ought to be answered onely with indignation and abhorrence, as an open contempt of the authoritie of the Scriptures, and blasphemie against the holy Spirit, by which they were indited; but it may be, it is better to answer and expose it, and let the world see, besides the notorious folly of it, how near a kin the doctrine of Resistance is to Atheism, Infidelity, and Blasphemy.

[Page 173]1. First then I observe, that this very objection supposes that the doctrine of the Gospel is against Resistance; for those who evade the authoritie of the Scriptures, by saying, that Christians were then forbid to resist, because they wanted power to conquer, must grant, that resistance is forbid. Which is a plain confession, that they are conscious to themselves, that all the arts they have us'd to make the Scriptures speak their sence, and justifie the Doctrine of Resistance, will not do. And therefore when men are once reduced to this last refuge, to confess, that the Scriptures are against them, if they have any modesty left, they ought never to pretend to the au­thority of the Scriptures in this cause more. And this is a sufficient answer to all men, who have any reverence for the authority of the Scriptures, that they cannot resist their Prince without diso­beying the plain and express Laws of the Gospel; for he is a bold man, who will venture his eternal Salvation, upon plea­ding his exemption from any express Law.

2. I would desire all men who have any reverence left for the Religion of our Saviour, to consider seriously how [Page 174] this pretence does disparage and weaken the authority of the Gospel, and make it a very imperfect, and a very uncertain rule of Life, which every man may fit and accommodate to his own humour and inclinations.

Christ and his Apostles do in the most express terms, and under the most severe penalties, forbid the resistance of Sove­raign Princes. But say these men, this law does not oblige us now, though it did oblige the Christians of those days; for our circumstances are much changed and altered. The Christians at that time were weak, and unable to resist, and therefore were taught to suffer pa­tiently without resistance; but thanks be to God, the case is not thus now; and therefore we may vindicate our na­tural and religious rights and liberties against all unjust violence. Now ob­serve what follows from hence:

1. That the Gospel of our Saviour is a very imperfect and uncertain rule of life; that it absolutely forbids things, which are not absolutely evil, but some­times lawful, without allowing for such a difference: that it gives general laws, which oblige onely at certain times, or in some circumstances, without giving [Page 175] any notice in what cases they do not ob­lige; which is a mightie snare to mens consciences, or a great injury to their Christian libertie. It imposes this hard necessitie upon them, either to make bold with a divine law, if they do re­sist Tyrannical powers, which is grie­vous to a tender conscience, which has any reverence for God; or to suffer in­juriously, when they need not, had they been plainly instructed in their dutie, and acquainted in what cases they might resist, and in what not. And I think, there cannot be a greater reproach to the Gospel, than to make it such an im­perfect and insnaring rule.

2. Nay, this charges Christ and his Apostles with want of sinceritie in preaching the Gospel; for either they knew, that this Doctrine of Non-resi­stance did not oblige all Christians, but onely those who are weak and unable to resist, or they did not. If we say they did not, we charge them with igno­rance: if we say they did, with dishone­stie: for if they knew, that all Christi­ans were not obliged to such an abso­lute subjection to Princes, as in no case to resist, why did they conceal so im­portant a truth, without giving the least [Page 176] intimation of it? Did they think this so scandalous a Doctrine, that they were afraid or ashamed to publish it to the world? and can any thing be a Doctrine of the Gospel, which is truly scandalous? But was the Do­ctrine of resistance more scandalous▪ than the Doctrine of the Cross? Would this have offended Princes, and make them more implacable enemies to Chri­stianitie? But would it not also have made more converts? would not a li­bertie to resist the powers, and defend themselves, been a better inducement to imbrace Christianitie, than a necessitie of suffering the worst things for the Name of Christ? would not this have contri­buted very much to the conversion of the whole Iewish Nation, who were fond of a Temporal Kingdom, had Christianitie allowed them to cast off the Roman Yoke, and restored their ancient liber­ties? How soon should we have seen the Cross in their Banners, and how gladly would they have fought under that vi­ctorious signe, under the conduct of so many wonder-working Prophets? and how soon would this have made the Do­ctrine of Non-resistance useless and out of date, by making Christians powerful e­nough [Page 177] to resist? So that there is no ima­ginable reason, why Christ and his Apo­stle should conceal this Doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting persecuting and Tyrannical powers, especially at that time, when if it had been lawful, there was as much use for it, and as great reason to preach it, as ever there was, or ever can be. And therefore we must either think very ill of our Saviour and his Apostles, or a knowledge, that this is no Gospel-Doctrine, never was, and never can be any part of the Reli­gion of the Cross. There is no reason, why Christ should at first plant Christi­anity in the world by sufferings, if it might afterwards be maintained and pro­pagated by glorious rebellions.

3. If this plea be allowed, it weakens the Authoritie of all the laws of the Gospel, and leaves men at libertie to di­spence with themselves, when they see or fancie any reason for it. Non-resistance is as absolutely commanded, as any other law of the Gospel; but these men imagine, without any other reason, but because they would have it so, that this law one­ly concerned Christians in the weak and Infant-state of the Church, while they were unable to resist. Now should o­ther [Page 178] men take the same libertie with o­ther laws (and I know no reason but why they may) how easie were it to expound Christianitie out of the world? Meekness, patience, humilitie, selfdenial, contempt of the world, forgiving ene­mies, contentment in all conditions, are parts and branches of this suffering Re­ligion; and may we not with as much reason say, that these duties were calcu­lated for the afflicted and suffering state of the Church, when the profession of Christianitie was discouraged in the world, and exposed them to the loss of all things, and therefore made it impos­sible for them to enjoy those pleasures and advantages of life, which other men did; but that they do not more oblige us than resistance, now the Church is flourishing and prosperous? And thus men may justifie their pride and ambi­tion and covetousness, and may be as ve­ry Idolaters of the riches and pleasures and honours of the world, as Heathens themselves, when Christianity became the Religion of the Empire: it did indeed make too great an alteration in the lives of Christians. But according to this way of reasoning, it made as great an altera­tion in Religion it self; at this rate we [Page 179] ought to have two Gospels, one for the afflicted, the other for the prosperous state of the Church; which differ as much as Christianity and Paganism in the great rules of life. But we are hard dealt with, that we have but one Gospel, and that the Suffering Gospel; and for my part, I dare not undertake to make another. So that this plea for resistance in opposition to the plain and express Laws of the Gospel, in the consequences of it, strikes at the very foundations of Christianitie, and becomes the mouth of none but an Atheist or an Infidel.

4. This is a very absurd pretence▪ that the Apostle forbids the Christians of those days to resist, onely because they were weak, and unable to resist. This is a great reproach to the Apostle, as if he were of the temper of some men, who crouch and flatter, and pretend great loyaltie, when they are afraid to rebel, but are loyal no longer than they have an opportunitie to rebel. This is dissimulation and flatterie, and incon­sistent with the open simplicitie of the Apostolick Spirit; but it is very strange that the Apostle should so severely for­bid resistance, when he knew they could not resist. One would think common [Page 180] Prudence should teach such men to be quiet and Subject; and therefore his zeal and vehemence would perswade one, that as weak as the Christians were, yet in those days they could have resi­sted. Nay, it is evident, that there were a sort of men who in those days called themselves Christians, and yet did resist the powers; such were the Gnostick Hereticks, who despised Govern­ment, who were presumptuous and self­willed, and were not afraid to speak evil of dignities, 2. Peter 2. 10. Jude v. 8. for to reproach and vilifie Government, is one degree of resistance; and no men are so weak, but they may do that. Nay, though Christians had not power enough of their own to have rebelled a­gainst the Roman Government, yet they had opportunitie enough to joyn and conspire with those who had, and to have made good terms and conditions for themselves. They lived in a very factious age, when both Jews and Hea­thens were very apt to rebel, and could both have promoted and strengthned the Faction, if they had pleased, and have grown very acceptable to them by doing so; and though no man knows what the event of any rebellion will be▪ [Page 181] till he tries, yet they might have escaped as well as other men. This the Apostle knew, and this he was afraid of, and this he warns them against; and that for such reasons, as plainly shew, that it was not a meer prudential advice he gives them, for that time, but a standing Law of their Religion.

5. For this Doctrine of Non-resistance is urged with such reasons and argu­ments, as are good in all ages of the Church, as well when Christians have power to resist and conquer, as when they have not. Thus (1.) St. Paul in­forces this dutie of subjection to the Higher powers, because all powers are of God; the powers that be are ordained of God; and therefore he that resisteth the powers, 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 [Page 182] shall receive unto himself damnation; which supposes, that there is a moral e­vil in resistance, and therefore that Non­resistance 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 [Page 183] 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, [Page 184] 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 [Page 185] 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.

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 [Page 187] 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.

[Page 188]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 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 Iulian the A­postate. 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, [Page 189] 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 die [...]; 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 [Page 190] 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, [Page 191] 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 [Page 192] 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 [Page 193] 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 [Page 194] 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 [Page 195] 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 [Page 196] 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, [Page 197] 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 [Page 198] 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 [Page 199] 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 [Page 200] 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 Resistance or Rebellion against a Prince, who persecutes without or a­gainst Law, I shall only ask two plain questions.

1. Whether the Laws of God and Nature be not as sacred and inviolable as the Laws of our Country? if they be, (and methinks no man should dare say that they are not) why may we not as well resist a Prince, who persecutes us against the Laws of God and Nature, as one, who persecutes against the Laws of our Countrey? is not the Prince as much bound to observe the Laws of God and Nature, as the Laws of his Country? if so, then their distinction between suffering with and against Law [Page 201] signifies nothing. For all men, who suffer for well-doing, suffer against Law▪ For by the Laws of God, and the natu­ral ends of humane Government, such men ought to be rewarded, and not pu­nisht. Nay, they suffer contrarie to those Laws, which commanded them to do that good, for which they suffer. Thus the Christians suffered under Pa­gan Emperors, for worshipping one su­preme God, and refusing to worship the numerous Gods of the Heathens; and therefore, according to these principles, might have justified a Rebellion against those unjust and persecuting powers; but the Apostles would not allow this to be a just cause of resistance, as I have already shewn you; and yet I confess I am to seek for the reason of this diffe­rence, why we may not resist a Prince, who persecutes against the Laws of God, as well as him, who persecutes against the Laws of England.

2. My other question is this, Whether a Prince have any more authority to make wicked and persecuting Laws, than to persecute without Law? These men Iulian Apo­state tell us, that if Paganism or Popery were established by Law, they were bound to suffer patiently for their Religion, with­out [Page 202] resistance; but since Christianity and Protestancy is the Religion of the Nati­on, they are not bound to suffer, but may defend themselves, when they are condemned by no Law. But if we exa­mine this throughly, it is a very weak and trifling Cavil. For what authoritie has a wicked and persecuting Law? and who gave it this authoritie? what au­thoritie has any Prince to make Laws a­gainst the Laws of God? if he have no authoritie, then it is no Law; and then to make a wicked Law to persecute good men, is the same thing, as to persecute without Law, nay as to persecute a­gainst Law. The pretence for resist­ance is, when the Prince persecutes with­out authority. Now I say, a Prince has no more authoritie to make wicked per­secuting Laws, than to persecute with­out Law. Should a Popish Prince pro­cure all our good Laws for the Protestant Religion to be repealed, and establish Popery by Law, and make it death not to be a Papist, he would have no more real authoritie to do this, than to per­secute Protestants without repealing the Laws. A Soverain and unaccountable power will justifie both, so as to make re­sistance unlawful; but if it cannot ju­stifie [Page 203] both, it can justifie neither. For a Prince has no more authoritie to make a bad Law, than to break a good one; so that this principle will lead them a great deal farther than they pretend to; and let the Laws of the Land be what they will, in time they may come to think it a just reason for Rebellion, to pull down Antichrist, and to set up Christ Ie­sus upon this Throne. This I hope is a sufficient answer to the two first objecti­ons, That we are bound by no Law to suffer against Law; And that the Prince has no authoritie against Law.

3. The next objection is, that they have a natural right of self-preservation and self-defence against unjust and illegal violence. This very pretence was made great use of to wheadle people into this late Conspiracie. Those who were em­ployed to prepare and dispose men for Rebellion, askt them, whether they would not defend themselves, if any man came to cut their throats: this they readily said they would: when they had gained this point, they askt them, whe­ther they did not value their Liberties, as much as their Lives; and whether they would not defend them also. And thus they might have proceeded to any [Page 204] part of their Liberties, if they had plea­sed; for they have the same right to any part, as to the whole, and thus self-de­fence would at last reach to the smallest occasion of discontent or jealousie, or dislike of Publick Government.

Now in answer to this, I readily grant, that every man has a natural right to preserve and defend his life by all law­ful means; but we must not think every thing lawful, which we have strength and power and opportunity to do; and therefore to give a full answer to this plea, let us consider,

1. That self-defence was never allow­ed by God or Nature against publick authority, but only against private vio­lence. There was a time, when Fathers had the power of life and death over their own Children; now I would only ask these men, whether if a Son at that time saw his Father coming to kill him, and that as he thought very unjustly, he might kill his Father to defend himself. This never was allowed by the most bar­barous Nations in the world; and yet it may be justified by this principle of self-defence, as it is urged by those men; which is a plain argument that it is false. It is an express Law, that he that smi­teth [Page 205] his Father or his Mother shall be sure­ly put to death, 21 Exod. 15. and yet then the power of Parents was restrain­ed by publick Laws. And the authori­tie of a Prince is not less sacred than of a Parent; he's God's Minister and Vice­gerent, and Subjects are expresly for­bid to resist; and it is a vain thing to pretend a natural right against the ex­press Law of God.

2. For the sole power of the Sword is in the King's hands, and therefore no private man can take the Sword in his own defence but by the King's authori­tie, and certainly he cannot be presu­med to give any man authoritie to use the Sword against himself. And there­fore as Christ tells Peter, he that takes the Sword shall perish by the Sword; he who draws the Sword against the lawful powers, deserves to die by it.

3. We may consider also, that it is an external Law, that private defence must give place to the publick good. Now he that takes Arms to defend his own life and some few others, involves a whole Nation in blood and confusion, and occasions the miserable slaughter of more men, than a long succession of Ty­rants could destroy. Such men sacrifice [Page 206] many thousand lives, both of friends and enemies, the happiness and prospe­rity of many thousand Families, the publick peace and tranquillity of the Na­tion, to a private self-defence; and if this be the Law of Nature, we may well call Nature a step-mother, that has armed us to our own ruine and confusi­on.

4. And therefore we may farther ob­serve, that Non-resistance and subjection to government, is the best way for eve­ry mans private defence. Our Atheisti­cal Politicians, who know no other Law of nature, but self-defence, make this the Original of humane Societies; That it is a voluntarie combination for self­defence. For this reason they set up Princes and Rulers over them, and put the power of the sword into their hands, that they may administer Justice, and defend their Subjects from publick and private violence: and they are certain­ly so far in the right, that publick Go­vernment is the best securitie not onely of the publick peace, but of every mans private interest; nay it is so, though our Prince be a Tyrant, as I have al­ready shewn you, that no Government can be secure without an irresistible and [Page 207] unaccountable power. So that the na­tural right of self-defence is so far from justifying Rebellion against Princes, that it absolutely condemns it, as destructive of the best and most effectual means to preserve ourselves: for though by Non­resistance a man may expose his life to the furie of a Tyrant, so he may loose his life in any other way of defence; but publick Government is the best and su­rest defence, and therefore to resist pub­lick Government, is to destroy the best means of self-defence.

5. However, this principle of self-de­fence, to be sure, cannot justifie a Rebel­lion, when men do not suffer any actual violence; and therefore those men who were drawn into this late Conspiracie, when they saw no bodie attempt cutting their throats, when they saw none of their liberties invaded, were so well pre­pared to be Rebels, that they needed no arguments to perswade them to it.

4. The next objection against the Do­ctrine of Non-resistance is this, That it destroys the difference between an ab­solute and limited Monarchy, between a Prince whose will is his Law, and a Prince, who is bound to govern by Law; which undermines the Foundamental [Page 208] constitution of the English Government. If this were true, I confess, it were a very hard case for the Ministers of the Church of England, who must either preach up resistance, contrarie to the Laws of the Gospel, and the sence and practice of the Christian Church in all Ages, or must preach up Non▪resistance, to the destruction of the Government under which they live; but thanks be to God, this is not true. For the difference between an absolute and limited Mo­narchy, is not, that resistance is unlawful in one case, and lawful in another▪ for a Monarch, the exercise of whose power is limited and regulated by Laws, is as ir­resistible, as the most absolute Monarch, whose will is his Law; and if he were not, I would venture to say, that the most absolute and Despotick Govern­ment, is more for the publick good, than a limited Monarchy.

But the difference lies in this, that an absolute Monarch is under the Govern­ment of no Law, but his own will; he can make and repeal Laws at his plea­sure, without asking the consent of a­ny of his Subjects; he can impose what Taxes he pleases, and is not tied up to strict Rules and formalities of Law▪in [Page 209] the execution of Justice; but it is quite contrarie in a limited Monarchy, where the excercise of Soveraign Power is re­gulated by known and standing Laws, which the Prince can neither make nor repeal without the consent of the people. No man can loose his Life or Estate with­out a legal process and Tryal; no Monies can be levyed, nor any Taxes imposed on the Subject, but by Authority of Par­liament; which makes the case of Sub­jects differ very much from those, who live under an Arbitrary Prince.

No, you will say, the case is just the same: for what do Laws signifie, when a Prince must not be resisted, though he break these Laws, and Govern by an Arbitrarie and Lawless will? He may make himself as absolute, as the Great Turk or the Mogul, whenever he pleases; for what should hinder him, when all men's hands are tied by this Doctrine of Non-resistance? Now it must be ac­knowledged, that there is a possibilitie for such a Prince to Govern arbitrarily, and to trample upon all laws; and yet the difference between an absolute and limited Monarchy is vastly great.

1. For this Prince, though he may make his will a Law to himself, and [Page 210] the onely rule of his Government, yet he cannot make it the Law of the Land; he may break Laws, but he can neither make nor repeal them; and therefore he can never alter the frame and constituti­on of the Government, though he may at present interrupt the regular admi­nistration of it: and this is a great secu­ritie to posteritie, and a present restraint upon himself.

2. For it is a mightie uneasie thing to any Prince, to govern contrarie to known Laws. He offers as great and constant violence to himself, as he does to his Subjects. He cannot raise mony, nor impose any Taxes without the con­sent of his Subjects, nor take away any man's life without a legal Tryal (which an absolute Prince may do) but he is guiltie of rapine and murder, and feels the same rebukes in his own mind, for such illegal actions, though his impositi­ons be but reasonable and moderate, and he put no man to death, but who very well deserves it, that an absolute Tyrant does for the most barbarous oppressions and cruelties. The breach of his Oath to God, and his promises and engage­ments to his Subjects, makes the excer­cise of such an arbitrarie power very [Page 211] troublesome: and though his Subjects are bound not to resist, yet his own guilty fears will not suffer him to be secure: and arbitrarie Power is not so luscious a thing, as to tempt men to forfeit all the ease and pleasure, and securitie of Government, for the sake of it.

3. Though Subjects must not resist such a Prince, who violates the Laws of his Kingdom▪ yet they are not bound to obey him, nor to serve him in his usur­pations. Subjects are bound to obey an absolute Monarch, and to serve his will in lawful things, though they be hard and grievous; but in a limited Monarchy, which is governed by Laws, Subjects are bound to yeild an active obedience one­ly according to Law, though they are bound not to resist, when they suffer a­gainst Law. Now it is a mighty un­easy thing to the greatest Tyrant, to go­vern always by force; and no Prince in a limited Monarchy can make himself absolute, unless his own Subjects assist him to do so.

4. And yet it is very dangerous for any Subject to serve his Prince contrary to Law. Though the Prince himself is unaccountable and irresistible, yet his Ministers may be called to an account, [Page 212] and be punish't for it; and the Prince may think fit to look on quietly, and see it done: or if they escape at present, yet it may be time enough to suffer for it under the next Prince; which we see by experience makes all mon wary how they serve their Prince against Law. None but persons of desperate fortunes will do this bare-fac't; and those are not always to be met with, and as seldom fit to be employ'd.

5. And therefore we may observe, that by the fundamental Laws of our Government, as the Prince must Go­vern by Law, so he is irresistible: which shews, that our wise Law-makers did not think, that Non-resistance was de­structive of a limited Monarchy.

6. And in this long succession of Princes in this Kingdom, there has been no Prince that has cast off the Authori­ty of Laws, or usurpt an absolute and arbitrary Power: which shews how vain those fears are, which disturb the fancies and imaginations of Rebels, if they be not pretended onely to disturb the pub­lick Peace.

7. Non-resistance is certainly the best way to prevent the change of a limited into an absolute Monarchy. The Laws [Page 213] of England have made such an admirable provision for the honour and prosperous Government of the Prince, and the se­curity of the Subject, that the Kings of England have as little temptation to de­sire to be absolute, while their Subjects are obedient and governable, as their Subjects have, that they should be so. And if ever our Kings attempt to make themselves absolute (which thanks be to God, we have no prospect of yet) it will be owing to the factious and traite­rous dispositions of Subjects. When Subjects once learn the trade of murder­ing Princes, and rebelling against them, it is time then for Princes to look to themselves; and if ever our posterity should suffer under so unhappy a change of Government, they will have reason for ever to curse the Fanatick rage and fury of this Age; and the best way to remove that scandal, which has been al­ready given to Princes, is by a publick profession and practice of this great Go­spel-duty of Non-resistance.

8. The last objection against Non-re­sistance is this, that if resistance in no case be allowed, the mischiefs and in­conveniences to Mankind may be into­lerable. To which I shall briefly return these following answers.

[Page 214]1. That bare Possibilities are no ar­gument against any thing. For that which may be, may not be; and there is nothing in this world, how good or useful or necessary soever it be in its self, but may possibly be attended with very great inconveniences; and if we must reject that which is good and useful in it self, for the sake of some possible in­conveniences, which may attend it, we must condemn the very best things. Modesty and Humility, Justice, and Temperance, are great and excellent Vertues; and yet we may live in such an age, when these Vertues shall beggar a man, and expose him to contempt. Mer­cy and Clemency is a noble quality in a Prince, and yet it is possible, that the Clemency of a Prince may ruine him, and he may spare Traitors Lives, till they take away his. Marriage is a Divine Institution, which contributes as much to the happiness and comfort of humane life, as any one thing in this world; and yet it may be you cannot name any thing neither, which many times proves so great a plague and curse to Mankind. Thus Non-resistance is a great and excellent duty, and absolute­ly necessary to the peace and order and [Page 215] good government of the world; but yet a bad Prince may take the advantage of it, to do a great deal of mischief. And what follows from hence? that Non-resistance is no duty, because it may possibly be attended with evil conse­quences? then you can hardly name any thing, which is our duty; for the most excellent Vertues may at one time or other expose us to very great inconve­niences; but when they do so, we must not deny them to be our duty, because we shall suffer by it; but must bear our sufferings patiently, and expect our reward from God. And yet that there is not so much danger in Non-resistance, as these men would perswade the world, I hope appears from my answers to the last objection.

2. When we talk of inconveniences, we must weigh the inconveniences on both sides, and consider which are grea­test. We may suffer great inconveni­ences by Non-resistance, when our Prince happens to prove a Tyrant; but shall we suffer fewer inconveniences were it lawful for Subjects to resist?

Which is the greatest and most merci­less Tyrant? an arbitrary and lawless Prince, or a Civil War? which will de­stroy [Page 216] most mens Lives? a Nero or Dio­clesian, or a pitcht Battel? who will de­vour most Estates? a Covetous and Ra­pacious Prince, or an insolent Army, and hungry Rabble? which is the greatest oppression of the Subject? some illegal Taxes, or Plunderings, Decimations, and Sequestrations?

Who are most likely to abuse their power? the Prince, or the people? which is most probable, that a Prince should oppress his dutiful and obedient Subjects, or that some factious and designing men should misrepresent the government of their Prince, and that the giddy multi­tude should believe them? who is most likely to make a change and alteration in government? an Hereditary Prince, or the People, who are fond of inno­vations?

While Soverain and irresistible power is in the hands of the Prince, it is possi­ble we may sometimes have a good one, and then we shall find no inconvenience in the Doctrine of Non-resistance. Nay, it is possible, we may have a great ma­ny good Princes, for one bad one; for Monsters are not so common, as more natural productions: so that the incon­veniences we may suffer by this Do­ctrine [Page 217] will but seldom happen; but had the people power to resist, it is almost impossible, that publick government should ever be quiet and secure for half an age together: they are as unstable as the Seas, and as easily moved with eve­ry breath, and as outragious and tempe­stuous too. These are not some guesses and probabilities, but demonstrations in this unhappy age, wherein we have seen all these things acted.