Mayhew, Jonathan. 1750. A Discourse, Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance
to the Higher Powers : with Some Reflections on the Resistance Made to King Charles I.
and on the Anniversary of His Death. Boston Boston.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CY0100651055/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=bookmark-
SABN&xid=967654de&pg=1.
- But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach, that children, servants and
wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters and husbands
respectively, never making on any opposition to their will, even although they should
require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly make an
attempt upon their lives? No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however
absolute and unlimited. Why then should it be supposed, that the apostle designed to
teach universal medians, whether active or passive, to the higher powers, merely
because this precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? (18f)
- It is to be observed, in the next place, that as the duty of universal obedience and non
resistance to the higher powers, cannot be argued from the absolute elevated
expression 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. (20)
- 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 argued the usefulness of civil magistracy in general; Its
agreeableness the will and purpose of God, who is overall; And so to deuces from hence,
the allegation is 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. (21)
- And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here enforces the
duty submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to be such an 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 their reasonable and just
authority, for the good of human society. (21)
- if those who bear the title of civil rulers comma do not perform the duty of civil rulers,
but act directly counter to the soul and design of their office, if they injure and oppress
their subjects, instead of defending the rights and doing them good; they have not the
least presents to be honored, obeyed and rewarded, according to the apostles
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. (24)
- 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 is by his permission and Providence, that
they are exalted to bear rule; and as magistracy duly exercise, and authority rightly
applied, Indian acting and executing good laws, dash laws a tempered and
accommodated to the common welfare of the subjects, must be supposed to be
agreeable to the will of the beneficent officer and supreme Lord of the universe; (24)
- Thus, of on careful review of the apostles reasoning in this passage, it appears that his
arguments to enforce submission, are such a nature, is to conclude only in favor of
submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of
society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public
oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of anything here
laid down by the inspired apostle. (28)
- If it be our duty, for example, to obey our king, merely for this reason, that he rules for
the public welfare, (which is the only argument the apostle makes use of ) it follows, by a
parity of reason, that when he turns tyrant, and makes his subjects his prey to devour
and to destroy, instead of his charge defendant cherish, we are bound to throw off our
allegiance to him, and to resist; and that according to the center of the apostles
arguments in this passage. Not to discontinue our allegiance, in this case, would be to
join with the sovereign and promoting the slavery and misery of that society, the welfare
of which, we ourselves, as well as our sovereign, our indispensably obliged to secure and
promote, as far as in us lies. (29)
- It is true the apostle puts no case of such a tyrannical Prince; But by his grounding his
argument for submission wholly upon the good of civil society; it is plain he implicitly
authorizes, and even requires us to make resistance, whenever this shall be necessary
for the public safety and happiness. (30)
- for a nation the sub used to arise unanimously, and to resist their Prince, even to the
turning him, is not criminal; But a reasonable way of indicating their liberties and just
right; It is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their
power, for mutual and self defense. And it would be highly criminal in them, not to make
use of these means it would be stupid tameness, and unaccountable folly, for well whole
nations to suffer 100 reasonable, ambitious and cruel man, to wanton and ride in their
misery. (37)
- Pop by whom was this resistance made? Not by private junto; - not by a small seditious
party; -- not by a few desperados, who, to mend their fortunes, would embroil the state;
-- But by the Lords and commons of England. It was they that almost unanimously
opposed the King's measure for overturning the constitution, and changing that free and
happy government into a wretched, absolute monarchy. (41)
