SERMON XIV. SUBMISSION TO RULERS.* ROMANS 13:1, 2.—Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. ever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For there THE nature of civil government, and the extent and limits of the authority of magistrates, have been so frequently and largely discussed, especially in later times, that scarce anything new concerning them can be said. Still, to be reminded of what is old and has often been said, especially on such important subjects, is by no means without its use. If therefore this shall be all that is done in my present discourse, it will not be in vain. The sources of argument for the exhibition and confirmation of the truth as to civil government are two, reason and scripture. And of the passages of scripture referred to by writers on the subject, the text is probably the chief. Now it is of great importance that we know the scriptural doctrine on these points. For if God has revealed his mind concerning the nature, extent, and end of civil government, we may be sure that such a revelation is a perfect and infallible rule for us. And as our text is supposed by many to be the passage in which above all others God has made known his will concerning these things, so we are under peculiar obligation, in our inquiries after truth on these subjects, to attend to it, and to endeavor by all means to possess ourselves of its true meaning and import. This we now propose to do. The text has been understood very differently by different persons. Some suppose that in it we have a very plain precept, requiring passive obedience and non-resistance to our rulers in all cases, and especially to those in supreme authority. And though such rulers may do what they will; though they oppress us ever so much, and break through all law, and overturn the very foundations of our constitution, and tear from us every right and lib * Preached at the annual Freemen's Meeting for voting, etc. 1775. It is published, as being in many respects a curious and interesting "sign of the times" in which it was preached. erty whether civil or religious; though they plunder our estates, and sport themselves with our very lives, still these persons suppose that we ought not in the least degree to oppose this the wantonness of their tyranny and cruelty, but patiently to submit, and endure it all. Such persons further suppose that the words of the text have a particular reference to those who held civil power in the time of the apostle; that he especially enjoins submission to them, though they were some of the most unjust and tyrannical rulers that ever lived; and that, consequently, if christians were then obliged to submit and not resist, they must be obliged to do the same in every other case, as it will rarely happen that they will live under rulers more tyrannical than were the Roman emperors and their subordinate magistrates; and that as even these were ordained of God, and therefore their subjects were obliged to submit to them; so, for the same reason, must all subjects, in all cases, do the same. On the other hand, it is supposed by some that these words are well capable of another construction, and will not bear this which has been mentioned. They hold that they refer to those civil rulers who rule justly, and according to the laws and constitution of the state; and that the apostle meant to limit what he here says by what follows, where he tells us " that rulers are the ministers of God to us for good; that they are not a terror to good works, but to evil; and that if we do well, we shall have praise of them." It is such rulers only, say they, that the apostle forbids us to resist. Whether this be the true sense or not, I have not time now to argue. I would only say that it does not appear to me to be the true sense; for I cannot but think these words were intended to teach us the general duty of obedience to civil magistrates, without reference to any particular rulers whether Roman emperors or others, and that they were never written with a view to determine the particular bounds and extent of that obedience. It is doubtless true, and is conceded on all hands, that it is our general duty to be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of him. He not only expressly ordained civil magistracy among his ancient people the Jews; but by his providence, and the light of nature, and reason, he has led mankind in general to form themselves into civil societies, under proper rulers, both supreme and subordinate. Whosoever, therefore, shall in ordinary cases resist the established supreme authority, resists the ordinance of God, and is guilty before him. All must grant that to justify resistance and rebellion against the ruling powers in any state, there must be some extraordinary reason. So long as the established powers rule according to law, justice, and the constitution, none can pretend that it is lawful to resist them. Nor is every violation of law, justice, or the constitution, a sufficient reason of resistance. It must always be considered whether the evil consequences of resistance be not likely to overbalance the good; and then only is resistance justifiable, when the rulers rule tyrannically, and there is also a good prospect that the public good will be promoted, more than injured, by resistance. But whether, even in this case, resistance be justifiable or not, the apostle did not mean expressly to determine. He only gives the general rules of obedience and submission, and does not touch, one way or the other, the question I have now presented. We are to understand this passage in the very same manner as we would any other passages on other subjects, expressed as this is, in general and absolute terms. For instance in Matt. 5: 39, etc. it is said, "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Here our Lord, in express and absolute terms, forbids all resistance to any private person whatsoever, however injuriously and abusively he may treat us, just as the apostle in the text forbids all resistance of the civil powers. But who ever understood these words in the most literal and extensive sense? Who ever supposed that they make it our duty to suffer every ruffian to beat and mangle us as much as he may please? Who ever imagined that our Savior intended to forbid our using means to protect our property from thieves and robbers, or to make us the dupes of every impertinent and assuming villain who should take it into his head to command us to go with him a mile, or to give up our garment to him? I know, indeed, that the Quakers rest upon this passage their doctrine of abstaining from all violence. Yet I question whether there is a soul among them, who, if he were violently smitten on the one cheek, would patiently turn the other to receive a second blow, or who would think he was in duty bound so to do. The truth is, that in this passage, all resistance in case of private assault or injury, is as much forbidden, as all resistance of the supreme power is forbidden in the text. Nor is there anything left on record, in any other part of the New Testament, to justify such resistance in the one case more than in the other. Yet the words quoted, you will all grant, are not to be taken in the literal sense. You all hold that they only contain the general rules of patience and gentleness under the greatest private abuses, and teach us that we should not be forward to resist and retaliate injuries, but should rather, as a general rule, patiently suffer wrong. And why may we not-why ought we not, to put the same construction on these words of the apostle? Plainly we may; for there is no more difficulty attending the construction in the one case than the other. In the same universal terms the apostle enjoins upon servants obedience to their masters. Col. 3: 22, "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh." What words could be more comprehensive and universal? Yet no man will hold that they are to be taken in their most extensive and literal sense. For in some cases we know, and the apostles have taught us that we ought to obey God rather than man. Nor will any hold that servants are obliged to obey their masters in all things which are not of a religious nature, and wherein the rights of conscience are not immediately concerned. Suppose any of you were taken captive by our neighboring savages, and by them held in a state of servitude, and that by resisting your master you might regain your liberty and return to your family and friends; would you in this case feel yourself conscientiously bound by this precept, still to continue to obey your master in all things, and to forego the opportunity to escape? No; never! And yet there is no more reason why we should put such a construction upon our text than upon this passage. Another instance that I would mention is recorded in Matt. 5: 34, etc., "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven for it is God's throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." And to the same effect is James 5: 12, "But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath; but let your yea, be yea, and your nay, nay, lest fall into condemnation." Now in these ye Now in these passages, all swearing is peremptorily and absolutely forbidden, as all resistance of the higher powers is in the text. Yet we all understand the former with some limitation; and for aught that appears the same limitation may as reasonably be put on the text, as upon these passages. As in these passages we suppose our Lord and the apostles only meant to teach us that in general we ought to be cautious of swearing; that we ought never to use an oath on common and trivial occasions; and especially that we ought never to swear profanely, as was so frequently done both among the Jews and the heathen; so, with the same reason, we may suppose that the apostle, in our text, only meant to teach the general duty of submission, and the sin of resistance in ordinary cases, without at all intending to touch the question whether resistance may not, in some cases, be lawful. That the interpretation thus given of the text is the true one, I think we may gather from the immediate context. "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 a minister of God to thee for good, but a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They who suppose that these words contain an absolute prohibition of all resistance of the supreme power, must, at the same time, hold that the character here given of civil rulers applies to all rulers without exception; for no reason can be given why the word "rulers" in the third verse should be less extensive than the words "higher powers" in the first. And such persons actually do hold, that what is said in the first and second verses, had a special and direct reference to the rulers who were in power when the apostle wrote; and therefore they must also hold that what is said in the third and fourth verses, has the same reference to these rulers. But this is impossible, because with reference to them it was not true. It was by no means the true character of those rulers, that they were a terror to evil works, and not to good; and that if a man did that which was good, he should certainly have praise of them, or that they were the ministers of God to christians for good, or that they were revengers to execute wrath upon the evil. Their true character, in general, was quite the reverse of all this. Whereas if we understand the words in the sense that has now been given, no such difficulty occurs. The apostle lays down the general duty of submission and obedience; and as a reason of it states the end of the institution of civil government and of the appointment of civil rulers, which is, to be a terror to evil doers, and a praise and a recompense to those that do well. There are several other things that make it still further plain that such must be the true construction of this passage. It seems very evident from the whole New Testament, that neither Christ nor his apostles intended to intermeddle in any curious questions or disputes upon politics. Our Lord with indignation rejected the thought of being a judge and a divider over the people. And |