Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

tions and limitations, which were omitted or unthought of then; that this difference arose naturally from the two occasions, such exceptions being as necessary to the subject of our present conference, as they would have been superfluous and unseasonable in the former.

Now the difference in these two conversations is precisely the distinction to be taken in interpreting those passages of scripture, concerning which we are debating. They inculcate the duty, they do not describe the extent of it. They enforce the obligation by the proper sanctions of Christianity, without intending either to enlarge or contract, without considering indeed the limits by which it is bounded. This is also the method, in which the same Apostles enjoin the duty of servants to their masters, of children to their parents, of wives to their husbands. "Servants, be subject to your masters."-" Children, obey your parents in all things."" Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands." The same concise and absolute form of expression occurs in all these precepts; the same silence, as to any exceptions or distinctions; yet no one doubts, but that the commands of masters, parents, and husbands, are often so immoderate, unjust, and inconsistent with other obligations, that they both may and ought to be resisted. In letters or dissertations written professedly upon separate articles of morality, we might with more reason have looked for a precise delineation of our duty, and some degree of modern accuracy in the rules which were laid down for our direction; but in those short collections of practical maxims, which compose the conclusion, or some small portion, of a doctrinal or perhaps controversial epistle, we cannot be surprised to find the author more solicitous to impress the duty, than curious to enumerate exceptions.

The consideration of this distinction is alone sufficient to vindicate these passages of scripture from any explanation, which may be put upon them, in favour of an unlimited passive obedience. But if we

be permitted to assume a supposition, which many commentators proceed upon as a certainty, that the first Christians privately cherished an opinion, that their conversion to Christianity entitled them to new.. immunities, to an exemption as of right (however they might give way to necessity) from the authority of the Roman sovereign, we are furnished with a still more apt and satisfactory interpretation of the Apostle's words. The two passages apply with great propriety to the refutation of this error; they teach the Christian convert to obey the magistrate "for the Lord's sake,"-" not only for wrath, but for conscience sake ;"" that there is no power but of God;"-" that the powers that be," even the present rulers of the Roman empire, though heathens and usurpers, seeing they are in possession of the actual and necessary authority of civil government," are ordained of God," and, consequently, entitled to receive obedience from those who profess themselves the peculiar servants of God, in a greater (certainly not in a less) degree, than from any others. They briefly describe the office of civil governors, "the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well;" from which description of the use of government, they justly infer the duty of subjection, which duty, being as extensive as the reason upon which it is founded, belongs to Christians no less than to the heathen members of the community. If it be admitted, that the two Apostles wrote with a view to this particular question, it will be confessed, that their words cannot be transferred to a question totally different from this, with any certainty of carrying along with us their authority and intention. There exists no resemblance between the case of a primitive convert, who disputed the jurisdiction of the Roman government over a disciple of Christianity, and his, who, acknowledging the general authority of the state over all its subjects, doubts, whether that authority be not, in some important branch of it, so ill constituted or abused, as to warrant the endeavours of the people to bring about a reformation

by force'; nor can we judge what reply the Apostles would have made to this second question, if it had been proposed to them, from any thing they have delivered upon the first; any more than in the two. consultations above described, it could be known beforehand, what I would say in the latter, from the answer which I gave to the former.

The only defect in this account is, that neither the scriptures, nor any subsequent history of the early ages of the church, furnish any direct attestation of the existence of such disaffected sentiments amongst the primitive converts. They supply indeed some circumstances, which render probable the opinion, that extravagant notions of the political rights of the Christian state were at that time entertained by many proselytes to the religion. From the question proposed to Christ, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar?" it may be presumed that doubts had been started in the Jewish schools concerning the obligation, or even the lawfulness, of submission to the Roman yoke. The accounts delivered by Josephus, of various insurrections of the Jews of that and the following age, excited by this principle, or upon this pretence, confirm the presumption. Now, as the Christians were at first chiefly taken from the Jews, confounded with them by the rest of the world, and, from the affinity of the two religions, apt to intermix the doctrines of both, it is not to be wondered at, that a tenet, so flattering to the self-importance of those who embraced it, fhould have been communicated to the new institution. Again, the teachers of Christianity, amongst the privileges which their religion conferred upon its professors, were wont to extol the "liberty into which they were called"—“ in which Christ had made them free." This liberty, which was intended of a deliverance from the various servitude, in which they had heretofore lived, to the domination of sinful passions, to the superstition of the Gentile idolatry, or the incumbered ritual of the Jewish dispensation, might by some be interpreted to signify an emancipation from all re

straint, which was imposed by an authority merely human. At least they might be represented by their enemies as maintaining notions of this dangerous tendency. To some error or calumny of this kind, the words of St. Peter seem to allude: "For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, (i. e. sedition) but as the servants of God." After all, if any one think this conjecture too feebly supported by testimony, to be relied upon in the interpretation of scripture, he will then revert to the considerations alleged in the preceding part of this Chapter.

After so copious an account of what we apprehend to be the general design and doctrine of these much agitated passages, little need be added in explanation of particular clauses. St. Paul has said, "Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." This phrase," the ordinance of God," is by many so interpreted, as to authorize the most exalted and superstitious ideas of the regal character. But, surely, such interpreters have sacrificed truth to adulation. For, in the first place, the expression, as used by St. Paul, is just as applicable to one kind of government, and to one kind of succession, as to another-to the elective magistrates of a pure republic, as to an absolute hereditary monarch. In the next place, it is not affirmed of the supreme magistrate exclusively, that he is the ordinance of God; the title, whatever it imports, belongs to every inferior officer of the state as much as to the highest. The divine right of kings is, like the divine right of other magistratesthe law of the land, or even actual and quiet possession of their office; a right ratified, we humbly presume, by the divine approbation, so long as obedience to their authority appears to be necessary or conducive to the common welfare. Princes are ordained of God by virtue only of that general decree, by which he assents, and adds the sanction of his will, to every law of society, which promotes his own pur

pose, the communication of human happiness: according to which idea of their origin and constitution, (and without any repugnancy to the words of St. Paul) they are by St. Peter denominated the or dinance of man.

CHAPTER V.

OF CIVIL LIBERTY.

CIVIL Liberty is the not being restrained by any Law, but what conduces in a greater degree to the public welfare.

To do what we will is natural liberty; to do what we will, consistently with the interest of the community to which we belong, is civil liberty; that is to say, the only liberty to be desired in a state of civil society.

I should wish, no doubt, to be allowed to act in every instance as I pleased; but I reflect that the rest also of mankind would then do the same; in which state of universal independence and self-direction, I should meet with so many checks and obstacles to my own will, from the interference and opposition of other men's, that not only my happiness, but my liberty, would be less, than whilst the whole community were subject to the dominion of equal laws.

:

The boasted liberty of a state of nature exists only in a state of solitude. In every kind and degree of union and intercourse with his species, it is possible that the liberty of the individual may be augmented by the very laws which restrain it because he may gain more from the limitation of other men's free dom than he suffers by the diminution of his own. Natural liberty is the right of common upon a waste; civil liberty is the safe, exclusive, unmolested enjoyment of a cultivated inclosure.

The definition of civil liberty above laid down, imports that the laws of a free people impose no restraint upon the private will of the subject, which do not conduce in a greater degree to the public happiness:

T T

« PreviousContinue »