of universal obedience and non-resistance to the higher powers cannot be argued from the absolute, unlimited expressions which the apostle here uses, so neither can it be argued from the scope and drift of his reasoning, considered with relation to the persons he was here opposing. As was observed above, there were some professed Christians in the apostolic age who disclaimed all magistracy and civil authority in general, despising government, and speaking evil of dignities; some, under a notion that Jews ought not to be under the jurisdiction of Gentile rulers, and others that they were set free from the temporal powers by Christ. Now, it is with persons of this licentious opinion and character that the apostle is concerned; and all that was directly to his point was to show that they were bound to submit to magistracy in general. This is a circumstance very material to be taken notice of, in order to ascertain the sense of the apostle; for, this being considered, it is sufficient to account for all that he says concerning the duty of subjection and the sin of resistance to the higher powers, without having recourse to the doctrine of unlimited submission and passive obedience in all cases whatever. Were it known that those in opposition to whom the apostle wrote allowed of civil authority in general, and only asserted that there were some cases in which obedience and non-resistance were not a duty, there would then indeed be reason for interpreting this passage as containing the doctrine of unlimited obedience and non-resistance, as it must, in this case, be supposed to have

what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistrate no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist such authority; for in so doing they do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as they are here excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an enemy."- ED.

been levelled against such as denied that doctrine. But since it is certain that there were persons who vainly imagined that civil government in general was not to be regarded by them, it is most reasonable to suppose that the apostle designed his discourse only against them; and, agreeably to this supposition, we find that he argues the usefulness of civil magistracy in general, its agreeableness to the will and purpose of God, who is over all, and so deduces from hence the obligation of submission to it. But it will not follow that because civil government is, in general, a good institution, and necessary to the peace and happiness of human society, therefore there are no supposable cases in which resistance to it can be innocent. So that the duty of unlimited obedience, whether active or passive, can be argued neither from the manner of expression here used, nor from the general scope and design of the passage.

And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here enforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to be such a one as concludes not in favor of submission to all who bear the title of rulers in common, but only to those who actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and just authority for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon, because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position. It is obvious, then, in general, that the civil rulers whom the apostle here speaks of, and obedience to whom he presses upon Christians as a duty, are good rulers, such as are, in the exercise of their office

a By "good rulers" are not intended such as are good in a moral or religious, but only in a political, sense; those who perform their duty so far as their office extends, and so far as civil society, as such, is concerned in their actions.1

1 Dr. Mayhew may have had in mind the apologies often made for

and power, benefactors to society. Such they are described to be throughout this passage. Thus, it is said that they are not a terror to good works, but to the evil; that they are God's ministers for good; revengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil; and that they attend continually upon this very thing. St. Peter gives the same account of rulers: They are "for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers." It is manifest that this character and description of rulers agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name; to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle's argument for submission to rulers is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character, and is of no force at all upon supposition of the contrary. If rulers are a terror to good works, and not to the ev; if they are not ministers for good to society, but for evil and distress, by violence and oppression; if they execute wrath upon sober, peaceable persons, who do their duty as members of society, and suffer rich

a See notes, pp. 57, 58.

Charles the First and other tyrants — their good lives as private men; but certainly he did not mean that it is a thing of indifference that bad men should be rulers. In his Election Sermon of 1754, he says that morals and religion "ought doubtless to be encouraged by the civil magistrate by his own pious life and good example." What is the security, or probability, that the weak or the bad, in private life, will be able and good men in public life, especially if it be, as Hume says, "that men are generally more honest in a private than in a public capacity, and will go greater lengths to serve a party than when their own private interest is alone concerned"? "Nations rise and fall by individuals, not numbers, as I think all history proveth," said Hollis. It was the virtue of Washington only that saved the republic, when, in 1782, the suffering army suggested to their leader the "title of king." Had his been a “low ambition," what then would have been our history? The political motto, "Principles, not men," is a dangerous doctrine. The monument to Pitt, in the Guildhall, London, was raised to show "that the means by which Providence raises a nation to greatness are the virtues infused into great men."- Ed.

case,

and honorable knaves to escape with impunity; if, instead of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the public welfare, they attend continually upon the gratification of their own lust and pride and ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the it is plain that the apostle's argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes, and who must be obeyed, according to his reasoning, Let me illustrate the apostle's argument by the following similitude (it is no matter how far it is from anything which has, in fact, happened in the world): Suppose, then, it was allowed, in general, that the clergy' were a useful order of men; that they ought to be "esteemed very highly in love for their works' sake, and to be decently supported by those they serve, "the laborer being worthy of his reward." b Suppose, further, that a number of reverend and right reverend drones, who worked not; who preached, perhaps, but once a year, and then not the gospel of Jesus Christ, but the divine right of tithes, the dignity of their office as ambassadors of Christ, the equity of sinecures and a plurality of benefices, the excellency of the devotions in that prayer-book which some of them hired chaplains to use for them, or some favorite point of churchtyranny and anti-Christian usurpation; - suppose such men as these, spending their lives in effeminacy, luxury, and idleness, or, when they were not idle, doing that which is worse than idleness; suppose such men should, merely by the merit of ordination and consecration, and a peculiar,

;·

1 The Church of England does not recognize as clergy" any but its own ministry, unless that of the papal church; but at one time it was less exclusive, and recognized Presbyterian ordination. - Hopkins's Puritans and Queen Elizabeth, vol. ii. ch. 4. -ED.

odd habit, claim great respect and reverence from those whom they civilly called the beasts of the laity," and demand thousands per annum for that service which they never performed, and for which, if they had performed it, this would be more than a quantum meruit;—suppose this should be the case (it is only by way of simile, and surely it will give no offence), would not everybody be astonished at such insolence, injustice, and impiety? And ought not such men to be told plainly that they could not reasonably expect the esteem and reward due to the ministers of the gospel unless they did the duties of their office? Should they not be told that their title and habit claimed no regard, reverence, or pay, separate from the care and work and various duties of their function? — and that, while they neglected the latter, the former served only to render them the more ridiculous and contemptible? 2 The application of this similitude to the case in hand is very easy. If those who bear the title of civil rulers do not perform the duty of civil rulers, but act directly counter to the sole end and design of their office; if they injure and oppress their subjects, instead of defending their rights and doing them good, they have not the least pretence to be honored, obeyed, and rewarded, according

a Mr. Leslie.

1 Charles Leslie, whose works were republished at Oxford, in 1832, in seven volumes, lived from 1650 to 1722. He was an eminent controversialist. His expression "their beasts, the laity," twice quoted by Dr. Mayhew, indicates his principles. He resigned his preferments on the flight of James II., and was ever a firm adherent to the Stuarts. He contended for absolute power, despotism - denying all right in the people either to confer or coerce government. - ED.

2 This was the American view of the Church of England, and they loathed the idea of its establishment in America, - a scheme assiduously prosecuted under pretence of "propagating the gospel in foreign parts," etc.-ED.