not to swear an oath of allegiance to an evil power. The one is a duty;
the other would be sinful. It is because that no better means of doing
justice can be employed, that oaths to do justice in the said
circumstances should be given. For the assumption of power which does
not belong to them, those who make it, but not those who even make oath
before them to do what is in itself good, while they protest against
their unlawful claims to authority, are responsible.
A civil government must either be the ordinance of God or not. It cannot
be viewed as acting, in some things, in the character of a power
ordained of God, but in others, as not possessed of authority from him.
A good government, like a true Christian, often does what is evil. But a
bad government, like the wicked, even though it do what in itself is
right, cannot be viewed as in possession of privilege from God, or as
acting for his glory. Yet the inflicting of a just penalty, even by an
unwarranted power, is not to be reckoned as injustice, or--if a capital
punishment, as murder. It is the claim to power which is made, but not
the accomplishment of the deed of retribution--which in itself is just,
that is faulty. Take for example the execution of justice on a murderer.
Murder is not the crime to be laid to the charge of those who, acting
for or under the authority of a power that is not of God, on proper
evidence put to death one who has unjustly taken away the life of a
fellow creature. If a government not authorised by God, after due
investigation put a murderer to death, they do what in itself is right;
but if they do so as those who in their incorporate capacity act for
Him, they do what is wrong. By the deed they are chargeable with the
sin, not of murder, but of assuming to themselves a designation which
they do not sustain. No man in society should take upon him by himself
to execute justice for the shedding of blood, whether he live under a
good or a bad government, except the government refuse to defend the
lives and properties of subjects, and even as some, nay, many
governments have been, be chargeable with oppression and bloodshed. The
reason why none should so interfere, is, that it is likely that the
whole community would execute justice with more propriety than an
individual. Yea, a whole community under an improper civil power should
not of itself execute justice, if there were an accessible power apart
from or connected with it, in which were lodged authority from God.
Those, however, who would in such circumstances claim that power, may
often be looked upon with a jealous eye, as in general they would be
found least entitled to the possession of it. Those who have most
warrantably declaimed against evil constitutions, have been among those
who were least given to assume to themselves a title to power;--they
have been found to defend themselves, but not rashly to usurp authority.
If there were but one individual who could avenge bloodshed, and were
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account