The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority,: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of Bradfield, Berkes, on Sunday, November 28, 1830, on Occasion of the Late DisturbancesMoor, J. F. (John Frewen)
Religion
The Duty of Submission to Civil Authority,: A Sermon Preached in the Parish Church of Bradfield, Berkes, on Sunday, November 28, 1830, on Occasion of the Late Disturbances
Moor, J. F. (John Frewen)
Christianity and law; Church and state -- England -- History -- 19th century; Sedition; Sermons, English -- 19th century
act, if either the king, or the governors sent by him, command us to do
something which is _contrary to the laws of God_? Are we then to offer
no resistance to them? Here the saints of old are an example for us. How
did the three Jewish youths act, when they were commanded to worship the
golden image, which the wicked Nebuchadnezzar had caused to be set up in
the plains of Dura? Did they offer any resistance "to the king as
supreme?" Did they endeavour to raise (as it is more than probable they
could easily have done, from their rank and influence in the province of
Babylon) a rebellion against him? No: they would not obey, indeed, the
impious command of the king, because it was contrary to the commands of
God; but they willingly submitted to the punishment which the king
ordered to be inflicted on them. Here they offered no resistance.
Remember the noble answer they made to the king, when they knew that the
fiery furnace was awaiting them; "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful
to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is
able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver
us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king,
that we will not serve thy gods, neither will we worship the image which
thou hast set up."[4] Similar to this, also, was the conduct of Daniel
under the wicked edict of Darius, which forbad him to make prayer and
supplication to his God. Daniel did not rebel against the king's
authority, though he would not obey him in opposition to God. He
preferred the lion's den, either to rebellion against his sovereign, or
to disobedience to his God.[5] And so too the early Christians acted
under the persecuting edicts of the Roman Emperors. They never resisted
the authority of their governors, though they refused to obey them in
every thing contrary to the commands of God. While they were firm in
their adherence to the truth, they were submissive to the power of the
magistrate. They "obeyed God, rather than man;"[6] but they willingly
submitted to the punishment to which such obedience exposed them. They
preferred oppression to resistance, persecution and martyrdom to
sedition and rebellion. And such, brethren, should be the conduct of the
Christian in every age and country. Even suppose it possible, (which,
thank God, under our just and mild government, we have no reason to
apprehend, but even suppose it possible,) that we should have a wicked
king, and unjust governors, who were to impose upon us, commands
contrary to the laws of our God, still we must, with the Jewish youths,
and with Daniel, and with "the noble army of martyrs," rather suffer,
than resist. There appears to be no limitation to the command; "Submit
yourselves to _every_ ordinance of man."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account