reſiſt them. Theſe principles are acknowledged upon all hands, whatever difficulty there may be in fixing the exact limits of ſubmiſſion. Now there is at leaſt as much difficulty in ſtating the meaſure of duty in theſe two caſes, as in the caſe of rulers and ſubjects. So that this is really no objection, at leaſt no reaſonable one, againſt reſiſtance to the higher powers: Or, if it is one, it will hold equally againſt reſiſtance in the other caſes mentioned.—It is indeed true, that turbulent, viciouſ-minded men, may take occaſion from this principle, that their rulers may, in ſome caſes, be lawfully reſiſted, to raiſe factions and diſturbances in the ſtate; and to make reſiſtance where reſiſtance is needleſs, and therefore, ſinful. But is it not equally true, that children and ſervants of turbulent, vicious minds, may take occaſion from this principle, that parents and maſters may, in ſome caſes be lawfully reſiſted, to reſiſt when reſiſtance is unneceſſary, and therefore, criminal? Is the principle in either caſe falſe in itſelf, merely becauſe it may be abuſed; and applied to legitimate diſobedience and reſiſtance in thoſe inſtances, to which it ought not to be applied? According to this way of arguing, there will be no true principles in the world; for there are none but what may be wreſted and perverted to ſerve bad purpoſes, either through the weakneſs or wickedneſs of men.[1]
- ↑ We may very ſafely aſſert theſe two things in general, without undermining government: One is, That no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconſiſtent with the commands of God: All ſuch diſobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly, if perſons refuſe to comply with any legal eſtabliſhment of religion, becauſe it is a groſs perverſion and corruption (as to doctrine,
