to the apostle's argument. For his reasoning, in order to show the duty of subjection to the higher powers, is, as was before observed, built wholly upon the supposition that they do, in fact, perform the duty of rulers.

If it be said that the apostle here uses another argument for submission to the higher powers besides that which is taken from the usefulness of their office to civil society when properly discharged and executed, namely, that their power is from God, that they are ordained of God, and that they are God's ministers; and if it be said that this argument for submission to them will hold good, although they do not exercise their power for the benefit, but for the ruin and destruction of human society, this objection was obviated, in part, before." Rulers have no authority from God to do mischief. They are not God's ordinance, or God's ministers, in any other sense than as it is by his permission and providence that they are exalted to bear rule; and as magistracy duly exercised, and authority rightly applied, in the enacting and executing good laws, -laws attempered and accommodated to the common welfare of the subjects, must be supposed to be agreeable to the will of the beneficent Author and supreme Lord of the universe, whose "kingdom ruleth over all," b and whose "tender mercies are over all his works." It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers. They are more properly "the messengers of Satan to buffet us. " d No rulers are properly God's ministers but such as are "just, ruling in the fear of God." When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution, when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare,- they

a See notes, pp. 60, 61. b Ps. ciii. 19.

c Ps. cxlv. 19.

d 2 Cor. xii. 7.

C

e 2 Sam. xxiii. 3.

immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen. So that, whenever that argument for submission fails which is grounded upon the usefulness of magistracy to civil society, as it always does when magistrates do hurt to society instead of good, the other argument, which is taken from their being the ordinance of God, must necessarily fail also; no person of a civil character being God's minister, in the sense of the apostle, any further than he performs God's will by exercising a just and reasonable authority, and ruling for the good of the subject.

This in general. Let us now trace the apostle's reasoning in favor of submission to the higher powers a little more particularly and exactly; for by this it will appear, on one hand, how good and conclusive it is for submission to those rulers who exercise their power in a proper manner, and, on the other, how weak and trifling and inconnected it is if it be supposed to be meant by the apostle to show the obligation and duty of obedience to tyrannical, oppressive rulers, in common with others of a different character.

The apostle enters upon his subject thus: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of

1 Parallel with this is Milton's distinction, where he says: "If I inveigh against tyrants, what is this to kings? whom I am far from associating with tyrants. As much as an honest man differs from a rogue, so much I contend that a king differs from a tyrant. Whence it is clear that a tyrant is so far from being a king, that he is always in direct opposition to a king."-The Second Defence. James I., in 1603 and 1609, in his speeches to parliament, said: "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws." And Locke, of "Civil Government,” says: “Wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority."— ED.

God." Here he urges the duty of obedience from this topic of argument: that civil rulers, as they are supposed to fulfil the pleasure of God, are the ordinance of God. But how is this an argument for obedience to such rulers as do not perform the pleasure of God by doing good, but the pleasure of the devil by doing evil; and such as are not, therefore, God's ministers, but the devil's? "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." b Here the apostle argues that those who resist a reasonable and just authority, which is agreeable to the will of God, do really resist the will of God himself, and will, therefore, be punished by him. But how does this prove that those who resist a lawless, unreasonable power, which is contrary to the will of God,' do therein resist the will and ordinance of God? Is resisting those who resist God's will the same thing with resisting God? Or shall those who do so "receive to themselves damnation? For rulers are not a terror 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 praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good." e Here the apostle argues, more explicitly than he had before done, for revering and submitting to magistracy, from this consideration, that such as really performed the

a Rom. xiii. 1.

b Rom. xiii. 2.

c Rom. xiii. 3, 4.

1 This lesson was well conned: hear one of Dr. Mayhew's disciples, John Adams, twenty-five years afterward, in 1775, in defence of resistance to the despotism of the British Parliament: "We are not exciting rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. Hampden, Russell, Sydney, Somers, Holt, Tillotson, Burnet, Hoadley, etc., were no tyrants nor rebels, although some of them were in arms, and the others undoubtedly excited resistance against the tories."- ED.

a

duty of magistrates would be enemies only to the evil actions of men, and would befriend and encourage the good, and so be a common blessing to society. But how is this an argument that we must honor and submit to such magistrates as are not enemies to the evil actions of men, but to the good, and such as are not a common blessing, but a common curse to society? "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil." Here the apostle argues, from the nature and end of magistracy, that such as did evil, and such only, had reason to be afraid of the higher powers; it being part of their office to punish evil-doers, no less than to defend and encourage such as do well. But if magistrates are unrighteous, if they are respecters of persons, -if they are partial in their administration of justice, then those who do well have as much reason to be afraid as those that do evil: there can be no safety for the good, nor any peculiar ground of terror to the unruly and injurious; so that, in this case, the main end of civil government will be frustrated. And what reason is there for submitting to that government which does by no means answer the design of government? "Wherefore ye must needs be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." Here the apostle argues the duty of a cheerful and conscientious submission to civil government from the nature and end of magistracy, as he had before laid it down; i. e., as the design of it was to punish evil-doers, and to support and encourage such as do well; and as it must, if so exercised, be agreeable to the will of God. But how does what he here says prove the duty of a cheerful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of rulers? - to

a Rom. xiii. 4.

b Rom. xiii. 5.

b

those who encourage the bad and discourage the good? The argument here used no more proves it to be a sin to resist such rulers than it does to resist the devil, that he may flee from us. For one is as truly the minister of God as the other. "For, for this cause pay you tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes from this consideration, that those who perform the duty of rulers are continually attending upon the public welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavoring to ruin the public; and especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design? "Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Here the apostle sums up what he has been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers; and his argument stands thus: "Since magistrates who execute their office well are common benefactors to society, and may in that. respect properly be called the ministers and ordinance of God, and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public, it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom, and to reverence, honor, and submit to them in the execution of their respective offices.” This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor, and obedience to such persons as, although they bear the title of rulers, use all their power to hurt and injure the public?such as are not God's ministers, but Satan's? such as do not take care of and attend upon the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no just claim at all to

a James iv. 7.

b Rom. xiii. 6.

e Rom. xiii. 7.