Right to Revolution
Synopsis: For many years, the "divine right of Kings" was taught to English people. The idea is that the royals are God's servants, and therefore it is never appropriate to revolt. Some English intellectuals, called Whigs, declared that this does not hold when the royal is a tyrant. John Locke was the most prolific Whig in England. His writings were loved or hated in America, depending upon whether one was a Whig or a Tory.
Rev. Jonathan Boucher
BOUCHER v. MAYHEW
The Right to Revolt
Rev. Jonathan Mayhew
REV. JONATHAN BOUCHER
Obedience to government is every man's duty, because it is every man's interest; but it is particularly incumbent on Christians, because (in addition to its moral fitness) it is enjoined by the positive commands of God; and, therefore, when Christians are disobedient to human ordinances, they are also disobedient to God. If the form of government under which the good providence of God has been pleased to place us be mild and free, it is our duty to enjoy it with gratitude and with thankfulness and, in particular, to be careful not to abuse it by licentiousness. If it be less indulgent and less liberal than in reason it ought to be, still it is our duty not to disturb and destroy the peace of the community by becoming refractory and rebellious subjects and resisting the ordinances of God.
It is, therefore, the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures that it is under the deputation and authority of God alone that kings reign and princes decree justice. Kings and princes (which are only other words for supreme magistrates) were doubtless created and appointed, not so much for their own sakes, as for the sake of the people committed to their charge; yet are they not, therefore, the creatures of the people. So far from deriving their authority from any supposed consent or suffrage of men, they receive their commission from Heaven; they receive it from God, the source and original of all power. However obsolete, therefore, either the sentiment or the language may now be deemed, it is with the most perfect propriety that the supreme magistrate, whether consisting of one or of many, and whether denominated an emperor, a king, an archon, a dictator, a consul, or a senate, is to be regarded and venerated as the vicegerent of God.
Mr. Locke, like many inferior writers, when defending resistance, falls into inconsistencies and is at variance with himself. "Rebellion being," as he says, "an opposition not to persons, but to authority, which is founded only in the constitution and laws of the government, those, whoever they be, who by force break through, and by force justify their violation of them, are truly and properly rebels."
Romans 13:1-2
REV. JONATHAN MAYHEW
What unprejudiced man can think, that God made ALL to be thus subservient to the lawless pleasure and frenzy of ONE man, so that it is always a sin to resist him! Nothing but the most plain and express revelation from heaven could make a sober, impartial man believe such a monstrous idea, and, indeed, the thing itself, appears so shocking, so out of all proportion, that it may be questioned, that this teaching really comes from God.
At present, there is not a single syllable in scripture which gives any support to it. The hereditary, indefensible, divine right of kings, and the idea of non-resistance, which is built upon the supposition of divine right, are altogether as fabulous and chimerical, as transubstantiation; or any of the most absurd myth of ancient or modern writers. These notions are fetched neither from the bible, nor human reason; and if they are derived from neither of those sources, it does not matter from whence they come, or whither they go. Only it is a pity that such ideas should be taught.