THE laws of God, as delivered to us by his servant Moses, have been dis­tinguished into three sorts, or kinds; and pass under the several denomi­nations of ecclesiastical, moral and civil.

The ecclesiastical laws have respect only to matters in religion, describing the na­ture and attributes of God, and the general service, which he challenges as Creator and Governor, from all mankind; or particular service, which was to be rendered him by his peculiar people, according to the cere­monies of the Jewish church.

THE moral laws prescribe rules for a man's private conduct; as a moral agent.

[Page 10]BUT the civil, beside the moral ends and purposes of individuals, have also the com­munity for their object; and inform a man, how he is to conduct himself as a citizen, or a subject of a common-wealth.

NOW these precepts, which I have here read, are of a civil nature, and instruct us how we are to behave as members of a community, in cases of injury to our neigh­bour; whether that injury relate to his property or his person. For the passage more at large is to this effect.

BREACH for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. He that killeth a beast shall restore it, and he that killeth a man, shall be put to death. Ye shall have one man­ner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God.

ASSIST us therefore almighty God! that with all due attention we may acquire in the first place a proper notion of thy immence authority, and how far it exceeds that of human lawgivers; and then we shall be able more clearly to discover and duly consider the high impiety, and fatal consequences of screening or abetting murder.

[Page 11]BUT first, as the almighty here urges his authority, as the cause that challenges obedience to this law; Do it— for I am the Lord thy God—Let us consider with fear and trembling the extent of his authority, and how far it exceeds that of human lawgivers.

THE authority of God then, as the su­preme lawgiver, being founded upon two of his attributes; his infinite unerring wis­dom, in discerning always what is fittest to be done, on the one hand; and his infinite and irresistible power, always ready to com­mand obedience to his ordinances, on the other: It comes to pass from hence, that eve­ry human law must either be taken directly from the laws of God; or else be so strictly subordinate, and conformable to his laws, as not to carry with it the least appearance of opposition to the same. For if that were possible, there might be laws of human in­vention, which might oppose themselves to the will of God, which attempt we shall find by the sequel to be not only impious with respect to God, but unwarrantable, and impracticable, with respect to man.

1st, BECAUSE they are only such laws, as are conformable to the will of God, that can give a magistrate a right to command obedience.

2dly, BECAUSE they are only such, that [Page 12] can be useful to society: and therefore,

3dly, ONLY such, that will be submitted to by the bulk of mankind, without rebel­lion, or resistance.

THE first demonstration then of God's superiority as a lawgiver is evident from hence, that none but such laws as are con­formable to his will can impower an hu­man magistrate to require, or command obedience. For all human powers become powers, and derive their whole force from conforming themselves in their conduct to the will of God. Every act of theirs, which is opposed to God's ordinances, is in itself null and void. And if the whole administration of any power be only a re­petition of such acts, then that power ceases of course to be a legislature: The whole series of government from the beginning having been illegal, in being a power op­posing itself to the ordinances of God, and by consequence no power at all, since the powers, that be, must be ordained by him, and as such must conform to his ordinances in every act of their jurisdiction. If any one think that this conclusion is not fairly collected, let him consider upon this occa­sion the nature of God's supremacy.

FOR as he is the supreme being, and the center of all power, the power of making [Page 13] laws and of governing by them must be originally and independently in him alone. Nothing under God can pretend to that power independent of him. For the in­dependency of any power necessarily sup­poses supremacy. As the supremacy of God therefore gives to him alone the origi­nal and independent power of making laws, so it makes it a property to his laws, that his and only his excluded all possibi­lity of doubt and hesitation about the obedience, which we are to render them.

BECAUSE there is no will above his, which we can offend, or power above his, which we need to fear. His absolute dominion re­moves every doubt about his authority. All hesitation on that head arising from a fear of offence to a person more powerful than him, whom we are ordered to obey, and whose displeasure may for that reason bring a greater inconvenience upon our­selves. As therefore there is none more powerful than God, an immediate obedi­ence to his laws is necessarily and inexcus­ably due upon all occasions; which thing is a great intrenchment upon human pow­er, and lays us under a continual necessity of examining human injunctions by the rule of God's ordinances, in order to see that they do not clash with them.

[Page 14]FOR as man is so infinitely inferior to God, laws prescribed by any, of human race, are as different in obligation from those prescribed by God, as a creature is different from his Creator. It is of the na­ture of human laws therefore, by whomso­ever they shall be enacted, that they can­not of authority command obedience, till they appear upon the case to be agreeable to God's ordinances. Whereas laws which are conformable to the will of God would be obeyed voluntarily, without any com­mand of a magistrate, for the sole reason of their use, and excellence.

II. WHICH leads me to another reason why all human laws must be conformable to the will of God, from the consideration that only such can be beneficial to mankind.

FOR if we are sensible that the laws of God, as far as they are discerned by us, do all of them center in the happiness of man, both of individuals and of whole societies, it is a natural consequence, that whatever injunctions oppose those laws, must oppose at the same time human happiness.

THIS truth perhaps may strike and effect us more strongly if we illustrate it by par­ticular instances. For example, let us imagine that natural equity and justice [Page 15] one of the primary or principal laws of God should be violated for the sake of some opposite human law, and you will soon see in what degree that human law will be detrimental. For natural justice and equity having regard to the reason and fitness of things, and distributing to every one, what his circumstances in impartial right require, the law which goes about to reverse it, must overturn all fitness, oppose all reason, and take from every one what his condition and circumstances by impartial right re­quire. Suppose the decemviri at Rome, or the whole Roman senate, or the council of five hundred at Athens, under the pretence of quelling a riot had signed a decree to draw out a party of their forces, mercena­ries, which they paid and fed for their own defence, and place them in such manner that they should, under the pretext of the riot, privately shoot at and destroy a num­ber of their innocent subjects passing at a distance in the public ways upon their own peaceable concerns, and not suspecting danger.

SUPPOSE, that after the slaughter, they should exult publicly in a weak and cowardly manner upon the death of these innocent, unarmed, unsuspecting people, as though they had defeated the army of a [Page 16] foreign enemy, publicly thank their mili­tary executioners for their bloody service, tell them, that they had done their duty and that they highly approved of their conduct; encourage them further to do their work of blood with alacrity, promis­ing them all the protection against the laws, which their office could afford them, if such protection should ever be wanted upon a like occasion.

COULD ordinances and injunctions like these be beneficial to society, or could any one pretend to deny, but that by conform­ing to them all outward order must be destroyed, and all inward peace disturbed? For what makes the mind of man easy is, that he sees his affairs run in the right chan­nel, and that he is dealt with in the man­ner, that he might reasonably expect to be dealt with: As on the contrary if any thing reverse the equitable distribution of things, by causing misery, it as necessarily causes anxiety and discontent, as justice produces peace and harmony.

FURTHER we are to observe, that when outward order is destroyed by cruelty, and the inward peace of men's minds disturb­ed, civil troubles and commotions must by degrees ensue. For peace and security are the end and aim of all human labour; [Page 17] we keep our lives for their enjoyment, and hazard them for their purchase. As men are thus spirited and informed by nature, we may imagine that they will be very much alarmed under the apprehension of such rules or orders, as threaten their na­tural peace and security, and thereby de­stroy their happiness.

IT will appear, therefore, in the third place, that such laws or orders as are not conformable to the will of God, by being of no use or benefit, but really hurtful to mankind, will be attended with this other inconvenience, that they will rarely be re­ceived or obeyed with quietness.

FOR public discontent and trouble soon pass into open opposition. In such cases, it is generally, only a defect of the means of resistance, or the power of helping themselves, which can keep people in sub­jection, supposing that those, who are thus oppressed and irritated, are barely permit­ted but to live. Human resentment, when continually kept awake, will be contriv­ing all the means, and observing every opportunity, to resistan unjust and tyran­nic injunction. Similitude of misfor­tunes soon forms and fixes an alliance▪ Alliances multiply in an interesting cause: [Page 18] And as strength increases, accidents, when carefully watched, are seldom wanting to furnish an opportunity for open and avow­ed resistance, to which men are encourag­ed by that other consideration, that the law, which opposes their happiness, is like­wise opposite to the laws of God, and there­fore at the same time that it would injure them, in case it were obeyed, it has really no right to command their obedience. Strong motives for them to disobey! when beside their temporal interest, other re­flections at the same time naturally present themselves, and give a religious sanction to their cause; as that they are to obey God rather than man, and regard him in the first place, who is the supreme lawgiver, and far more dreadful in his punishments than earthly tyranny in all its terrors.

HAVING thus considered the immense authority of God, as the supreme legislator, and how far it exceeds that of human law­givers, namely, as far as infinite excels finite, we shall be able readily to determine, whe­ther any human power can have a right to oppose or dispense with his laws; par­ticularly that, which is so clearly and ex­pressly declared in the text, and which make the foundation of human safety in society.— He that killeth a man shall be put to [Page 19] death; in support of which I am now to shew the impiety and fatal consequences of screening and abetting murder.

IN the first place then, any opposition to this law would be the highest impiety. For as the command is so very express and clear, it would be flying in the face of God almighty to disobey it. And therefore those, who are concerned in such an attempt, let them be of what rank and condition they will, can expect nothing but God's vengeance in this life, and the insupporta­ble terrors of that, which is to come. But besides the impiety of this attempt, and consequent vengeance of God almighty, there are other arguments drawn from the injustice of slaying the innocent, and the danger arising from such horrid crimes, not only to individuals therein concerned, but even to Governors themselves in their public capacity, as render it quite imprac­ticable by the law of nature, and all the rules of just policy, that this divine injunc­tion should ever be repealed or laid aside.

FOR first, by the laws of nature, every man has a right to safety in his person, effects, and other circumstances; unless that right be some how forfeited by misde­meanor. And therefore in civilized soci­ety men are always considered in this views [Page 20] and are protected in the enjoyment of these privileges by the civil magistrate. If that magistrate acts in his true and proper cha­racter, he watches over the safety of the people, and should resist, repulse, or punish those, who hurt the subject. For imagine only these civil restraints removed, and a military armed force let loose upon the defenceless and innocent; and what devas­tations, rapine and bloodshed, what afflicti­on, and misery in every shape, and on every side, must overwhelm mankind? To fall prostrate before these savages, is to invite them to the spoil, and encourage them to such acts of violence as must end in the destruction of society, by banishing from among men their safety and their peace.

IT appears then, that in all countries some men ought to be opposers of injuries by exacting blood for blood: And throughout the known world, where societies are for­med, some men are really set apart for that purpose. It may be observed in different states and nations, that these are not al­ways people of exactly the same quality, or denomination: And for this there is good reason; because those circumstances are to be regulated from time to time accord­ing to the original compact of the state, the great charter, which binds them to society, [Page 21] and according to the various circumstan­ces, under which, the common-wealth at different seasons may subsist.

THE right of opposing injuries, and of slaying a murderer, is originally to be sure in every individual who is formed by na­ture to defend himself. But upon uniting in society, men so far transfer this right to those, they call their Governors, as to exer­cise it no more themselves, except in cases, where the Governor's power wilfully fails, or is accidentally not at hand to assist them. Rulers then, whether they be few or many, or by whatsoever titles they may be distin­guished, are, by their office constituted, and for this end hold their authority, to be a terror to murderers, and those who do violence, and to defend the natural rights and privileges of their people. There is by nature a tacit compact of this kind between magistrates and people: And in most places an express engagement confir­med by solemn oaths, and obligations on both sides. In forms of government so circumstanced, if the Governor fail to act the part assigned him, the condition of the obligation on the part of the people is void ipso facto: For by losing the character of protector he abdicates the right and title of a Prince.

[Page 22]SO that the neglect to punish murderers appears to be destructive to Princes them­selves; as it may, and has sometimes proved a means of depriving them of their autho­rity, at other times of losing the affections of their people, and drawing a long train of misfortunes upon their own ^* posterity. Certain it is, that it has been a means to deprive them of their authority. Since we find that sovereigns are by their office re­quired as far as the state can enable them to ward off injuries; and therefore in case of neglect the people have imagined, that they may resume this delegated power of resisting injuries, and executing it for them­selves.

NOR is this the only case wherein the bad conduct of Princes has furnished the people with a plea for taking the reins of govern­ment into their own hands. For suppo­sing the supreme magistrate (which is na­tural enough upon forsaking his own sub­jects) to league with the enemy; or upon his own motive, or choice to grow injuri­ous; the people have then taken upon them to resist that magistrate.

[Page 23] ‘FOR, say they, if those very persons, who are impowered and appointed for the defence of the society, turn their authority and power against it, and instead of sup­pressing, commit injuries, they are cer­tainly to be reputed public enemies. For a public enemy could do nothing worse. The power of resisting injuries therefore must in such a case immediately change place; since for the preservation of so­ciety, it must subsist some where: And as the same person cannot at the same time be both offender and the punisher of his own offences; it revolves then back to those who gave it, and in regard it is to be employed against such as do injuries, it will bear hard upon those, who are really found in that character, with­out respect had to any nominal distinc­tion.’ This is very evident from the history of Charles the first, who tho' a King by title, was formally arraigned for coun­tenancing the murder of his subjects, and executed accordingly as a criminal. From a persuasion that the laws were equally a rule of action for the subject, and the Prince; consequently, that if Princes broke the laws, they must suffer the penalties like other men.

SO dangerous is it for Princes to think, that they have a right of dispensing with, or opposing the laws of almighty God.

[Page 24]AND the deception has been quite as fatal to such, as have made themselves their tools or advocates.

THOSE who will take the trouble of con­sulting our ancient histories, which if duly attended to, contain treasures of useful knowledge both for the subject, and the Prince will find these wrerches, I mean the advocates for bloody, and despotic measures, notwithstanding their high expectation of reward, generally disappointed of their hopes, treated for the most part as the pests of society, followed by the execration of the people, or extinguished by a violent death.

IF the time or place would permit, many examples of this sort might be produced; especially in the reigns of our week and obstinate, or ignorant and unexperienced ^* Kings.

[Page 25]BUT as events, which are nearest to us, are generally apt to strike and affect us most▪ I shall content myself in this particular, with a short review of the reign of James the second. This Prince deluded by so­phistry of his lawyers and his court, affected to call the laws of England his laws; and therefore assumed a power of ^* dispensing with them as he saw occasion. The con­sequence of which was, that he might do what he liked, and indemnify his creatures▪ [Page 26] just as he pleased, let their crimes and villai­nies be as excessive as they would; yet after all these expedients, could he rescue a KIRK from public abhorrence? Or prevent the fate of JEFFERIES? Was he not obliged at last to give orders to disband his troops ^† with­out paying them? Those executioners of his arbitrary power, whose murder and ex­cesses drew an odium upon the more gene­rous part of the soldiery, and made the name of a standing army so odious to the English, that they afterwards voted King William no more than seven thousand men, to which they added, that they should be all the "King's natural born subjects?" which was not at all a wonder; the bulk of the nation out of the influence of the court always esteeming our militia or trained bands as our natural, permanent, and constitutional defence, and consider­ing the standing forces in times of peace, as no other than a band of mercenary slaves, whose trade was death, and who having then no foreign enemy to find them employment, must either be paid for their idleness, or exercise their violent call­ing against those very people, who starve their families to give them their bread. Circumstances! At times so provoking, as to [Page 27] have forced the subjects of this country to put this formidable dilemma to their Princes—disband or abdicate; or else dis­band or die.

ALL these have been the consequences of the crying sin of murder, and of op­posing, upon that head, the laws of God, which plainly shews, beside the impiety and unpardonable presumption of such a crime, the dreadful temporal evils and calamities, which attend upon all ranks and degrees of men, who dare to be abbetters of the same.

THUS then I have finished the two points of doctrine, which I intended to establish from the words of the text, and shewn you in the 1st place the supreme, and in­dispensable authority of the laws of God; and 2dly, the high impiety and fatal con­sequences of screening, and abetting mur­der, which of course puts an end to the doctrine of the sermon.

WOULD to God, that I might pass over in silence the melancholy event, which has been the occasion of it▪ But I am requir­ed to add a short narrative of the fact, and to tell you plainly, what the inhabitants are already but too sensible of, that this sermon owes its origin to the late bloody transactions in the neighbourhood of St. [Page 28] George's Fields, where, beside the particu­lar loss we here lament, by the murderous arrangement and position of the troops, so many other innocent persons were slain at a distance, who had no manner of con­nexion with the rioters, but were passing on the high roads to other places, and in­tent upon their own concerns. I therefore call this position a murderous arrangement, because, as the soldiery are represented by the papers to have taken post with their backs to the prison wall, these fatal conse­quences were unavoidable, for their shot in this situation commanded all the ave­nues across the fields. Whereas, if the troops had faced the wall, with the rioters between them and the wall, the wall would have received the random shot, and many of these evils been prevented, which arose even from the manner, in which they took their post.

BUT the soldiers concerned in the mur­der of the deceased, by what authority I know not, were off their post, and pur­suing another man across the road into a yard where there was a cowhouse; the deceased, who had just parted from a con­versation which he had with his mother, was going about his father's business, but seeing, as it is imagined, at that instant, from his father's house, the motion in the [Page 29] fields, went out into the high road before the house, to inform himself farther; when observing the man pursued, and the sol­diers following to go into the yard above mentioned, he went after them by another way nearer his father's premisses to see the event; by this time the man they had pursued had made his escape, by shutting the door of the cowhouse against the sol­diers, who coming in just as the deceased entered by another door, would not in­form themselves who he was, but with oaths encouraged each other to shoot him upon the spot. Thus fell, as the first bloody victim to a new arbitrary power in [...] land, a valuable, sober, well disposed young creature, the comfort of his parents, the delight of his friends, and whose life and conversation were so remarkably harmless and inoffensive, that in this particular he hath hardly left his equal.

THIS eagerness therefore to shed such innocent blood, must give every thinking man more cause to suspect that the com­mand for using the troops effectually was very positive, from some quarter or other, otherwise the offence of the murderers would be still more insolent and presumptuous, if committed of their own motion. It may be difficult perhaps at present to know precisely, who were their accomplices, till [Page 30] by a judicial or parliamentary enquiry, matters shall be brought to light. Some­thing, however, may be gathered from the style of the warrant from the Secretary of State to the Justices of the Peace, pre­vious to these hostilities, and likewise from the letter, which has lately appeared in print from the Secretary at war. The contents of which letter are of a more ex­traordinary nature and more alarming than any act of authority, that has been published in England since the fixing of our constitution, at the revolution under King William III. A proceeding still the stranger, as by that constitution our mer­cenary troops are no ^* part of our govern­ment. They depend upon a vote in par­liament, and may be disbanded every year. Nay, our ancestors at that time were so jealous of these instruments of tyranny, that after the battle of the Boyne, and the reduction of Ireland, they even ordered back to Holland the ^† guards of the king [Page 31] himself, giving him thereby to understand that the King of England should have no other guards than the affections of his people, which was certainly the way to make him more careful not to lose them; but now according to the true spirit and meaning of this letter from the Secretary at war, delivered it seems by way of order, the method of depending upon affection is so much altered, that the people may be murdered with their affections, and the mercenaries who committed the murders publicly applauded, and promised all protection in the deed. But does not this promise annihilate or supersede the laws? And if language has any meaning, inform us, that while we stand gazing unthink­ingly one upon another, our lives and li­berties are in danger? that is, they depend upon another's will, and that it is a doubt, [Page 32] the parole or watch-word being given, whether we have really any longer a place of safety in our own houses, or a sanctuary to fly unto, if attacked in the very house of God.

IT is to be hoped, however, and the whole issue of the thing seems at present to depend on that, that the Lords the judges entertain better principles, and principles more agreeable to our constitu­tion, than the King's Secretary at war. Bred to all the distinctions of right and wrong, and used to distribute justice, they must know it to be a law of the Almighty, that, he that killeth a man must be put to death, and that it will be very dangerous to others as well as to themselves, to oppose their authority to the authority and laws of God, who is the only lawgiver, the only potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to whom both they and we are to show our submission, and by obedience to his commands to ascribe unto him, all honor▪ glory, and dominion, which are his pre­rogative for ever and ever.