Selected from: Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects: And Wherein They May Lawfully by God’s Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. Wherein Also is Declared the Cause of All This Present Misery in England, and the Only Way to Remedy the Same, Chapter IX, (Geneva, 1558, John Crispin), 106-123.
Editor’s Introduction
There is much contemporary confusion about the proper attitude of subjects to lawful authorities. The Apostle says (Rom. 13:1-2), “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Some have interpreted this apostolic command to imply unconditional obedience to magistrates. Others note that subjects may lawfully resist the exercise of tyrannical power, and that the Biblical doctrine of resistance to tyranny has a long pedigree. Over 1500 years ago Augustine wrote:
Do we lift up ourselves unto pride, or tell you to be despisers against the powers ordained? Not so. Do ye again who are sick on this point, touch also that border of the garment? The Apostle himself saith, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God. He then who resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” But what if it enjoin what thou oughtest not to do? In this case by all means disregard the power through fear of Power. Consider these several grades of human powers. If the magistrate enjoin anything, must it not be done? Yet if his order be in opposition to the Proconsul, thou dost not surely despise the power, but choosest to obey a greater power. Nor in this case ought the less to be angry, if the greater be preferred.
Again, if the Proconsul himself enjoin anything, and the Emperor another thing, is there any doubt, that disregarding the former, we ought to obey the latter? So then if the Emperor enjoin one thing, and God another, what judge ye? Pay me tribute, submit thyself to my allegiance. Right, but not in an idol’s temple. In an idol’s temple He forbids it. Who forbids it? A greater Power. Pardon me then: thou threatenest a prison, He threateneth hell. Here must thou at once take to thee thy faith as a shield, whereby thou mayest be able to quench all the fiery darts of the enemy.1Aurelius Augustine, Sermon 12 [Ben. 62] on the New Testament (Matt. 8.8 and 1 Cor. 8.10), in (Ed.) Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 6, St. Augustin, (New York, 1888), 302.
The Protestant Reformation brought substantial further study of the boundaries of lawful civil authority and resistance to tyranny, an example of which is the tract partially reproduced here, entitled How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects: And Wherein They May Lawfully by God’s Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. Christopher Goodman (1520-1603) wrote the tract in 1558. This was the year when the marriage of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, to the Catholic heir to the throne of France threatened the newly reformed Scottish church. Goodman was at the time in exile in Geneva. He fled there from his native England to escape persecution during the counter-reformation in the reign of Queen Mary I of England. In 1555 the congregation at Geneva chose John Knox and Goodman for their pastors.
During their time together in Geneva, Knox and Goodman became fast friends. In 1559 Goodman joined Knox at Edinburgh, escorting Knox’s wife and family on the journey from the continent. He was there appointed as pastor, he and Knox preaching daily. In November 1559 he became minister of Ayr and the following year was installed as minister in St. Andrews.
Goodman’s tract is perhaps helpful for our times in which it is asserted, even by some Christians, that the exercise of civil authority to ban Christian worship during a pandemic is both lawful and sensible. Appeals are made to the responsibility of the magistrate to uphold the sixth commandment. What seems sensible in one national context may be argued as unreasonable in another. For instance, for reasons of national security and public safety, surely an appeal to sixth commandment issues, the People’s Republic of China not only bans public Christian worship, but has, during the present pandemic, banned live streaming of Christian gatherings in some cases. Should they be obeyed, or resisted? Similar questions may arise at other times of civic crisis, such as war or natural disaster. When authorities forbid Christian worship should Christians always obey? In short, in language that is familiar these days, when is public worship essential? The apostle Paul himself faced a situation in which public safety was gravely threatened by the preaching of the gospel. And what was his answer to the advice from authorities to refrain from preaching, though they did not go so far as to ban him? He preached (Acts 19). Perhaps taking a page from Paul, William Whittingham declared in the preface to the Goodman tract:
Obedience is necessary where God is glorified, but if God is dishonored, your obedience is abominable in the sight of God, be it never so beautiful in man’s eyes. . . . [W]hen it [Scripture] commands us to obey God, we must disobey man to the contrary: for no man can serve two masters. . . . [O]bedience to God’s Laws by disobeying man’s wicked laws is very commendable, but to disobey God for any duty to man is all together damnable.
It is our hope that meditation on this excerpt From Christopher Goodman may be of help in these trying times.
— James Wanliss, Ph.D
How Superior Powers Ought to Be Obeyed by Their Subjects
The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand.
—Deuteronomy 28:49
But forasmuch as there is nothing so manifest and true, which is not either obscured utterly by contrary reasons of man’s brain, or else discredited by other places of Scripture wrongfully understood and applied by many, I have here thought it expedient before I proceed any further, for the better establishment of the truth, to answer and satisfy, so far as shall please God to give unto me, all such reasons, authorities, and Scriptures, as are alleged to the contrary, to the intent that we may not only see the truth and so be stirred to embrace it, but also may spy the falsehood and learn to avoid it.
And because amongst all other authorities and reasons, there is none of greater force than that which is written in the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans, we will first of all others begin with it. Let every soul (he says) submit himself to the authority of the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resists power, resists the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive unto themselves damnation. Here (they say) is a general doctrine affirmed by the Apostle, that every man (none excepted) must be subject to superior powers, and if every man must be subject, none ought to disobey.
Besides this, behold the Apostle does not barely affirm this proposition, saying, Every person (for that he means by every soul) must be subject to the Magistrates and rulers, of what condition soever he be, but proves the same with a most sure argument gathered of the ordinance of God, because there is no power but of God. And therefore, to resist powers is to resist God Himself, whose ordinance it is. And not content with one reason, he confirms the same with another depending of God’s punishments, which He has appointed for all them that resist, which is, to receive to themselves damnation for their transgression, so that they conclude that it is not only Paul’s authority that makes all men subject to their superiors (which notwithstanding was sufficient, he being the Apostle of Christ) but also the same is by good and strong reasons confirmed.
In answering to this objection, I will not long hold you in rendering the cause, which as we may probably gather, moved the Apostle to write this to the Romans concerning obedience to their superiors, but in few words touch so much as seems necessary. It may appear very credible (which some godly and learned do write) that amongst the Romans, after they had received the Gospel, there were many under that name, which would be delivered from all subjection, thinking the office of Magistrates no more necessary to them that professed Christ, as do this day the Anabaptists and Libertines. Others, who had been once freed from tribute and custom paying to strange Magistrates, would thereat take an occasion by preaching of the Gospel to pay no more tribute to their superiors. Such were many of the Jews, who counted it as bondage. And that kind of sect was raised up even in Christ’s days, as appeared when the Pharisees sent their disciples with Herod’s servants to know his judgment, whether it was lawful for them to pay tribute to Caesar or no. And in Acts, Gamaliel makes mention of one Judas Galilaeus, which was the author of that sect, and moved much trouble amongst the people, saying it was not lawful to pay tribute. By these and such like opinions, the Apostle, perceiving the office of Magistrates to come into contempt, and men to esteem it not lawful, which God Himself ordained in defense of His religion and civil policy, was moved to write as is before mentioned, exhorting all men to esteem the office of Magistrates as God’s ordinance, and to obey them whom God has appointed rulers over them.
Then as the Apostle writes, we confess, and so much as he speaks we grant, that is, that all men are bound to obey such Magistrates, whom God has ordained over us lawfully according to His word, which rule in His fear according to their office, as God has appointed. For though the Apostle says, There is no power but of God, yet does he not here mean any other powers, but such as are orderly and lawfully instituted by God. Either else should He approve all tyranny and oppression, which comes to any commonwealth by means of wicked and ungodly rulers, which are to be called rightly disorders and subversions in commonwealths, and not God’s ordinance. For He never ordained any laws to approve, but to reprove and punish tyrants, idolaters, papists, and oppressors. Then when they are such, they are not God’s ordinance. And in disobeying and resisting such, we do not resist God’s ordinance, but Satan’s, and our sin, which is the cause of such. Or else, if we shall so conclude with the words of the Apostle, that all powers whatsoever they be must be obeyed and not resisted, then must we confess also that Satan and all his infernal powers are to be obeyed. Why? Because they are powers, and have their powers also of God, which cannot touch man any farther than God permits. But Saint James gives us contrary commandment, saying, Resist the Devil and he will flee away from you.
And that the Apostle Paul does so restrain his words to all lawful powers, we need not to seek far off. For in the same chapter after he expounds his mind, that is, what powers and Magistrates he means: Such (he says) as if you do well, you need not to fear, but only if you do evil. And again will you be out of the fear of power? Do well then, and so shall you be praised by the same. For he is the minister of God for your benefit. But if you do evil, fear, for he bears not the sword for naught, for he is the minister of God, to take vengeance on them that do evil, etc. Whereby we may plainly understand, that although, he says, there is no power but of God, yet he means such power as is his ordinance and lawful, whose office stands in these two points: to defend the good, and to punish the evil, not to be feared for doing good, but for evil, to whom the sword is given for that purpose. And to such, with the Apostle we grant also, that every person must be subject and obedient, for they are God’s ordinance. And to disobey or resist such is to disobey and resist God Himself. And therefore do deserve justly to receive God’s punishment, which, as the Apostle threatens, is damnation. And this makes nothing against our former sentence, but rather confirms the same, approving no obedience but that which is lawful, that is to say, according to God’s appointment and ordinance, as does more evidently appear in His words following, partly in that he demands obedience to such for conscience’s sake, and not for fear of vengeance only. As though he would say, so far is it from reason and God’s word that any man should disobey or contempt the Magistrates ordained of God to punish vice and maintain virtue, that he needs no other to reprove him of evil in so doing than his own proper conscience, which will (justly examined) teach him how God’s ordinance ought to be revered, especially serving to the preservation of the people, in suppressing wickedness, and promoting godliness.
For that cause He wills for us to pay their tribute, not to every man that will demand of us (for unlawful demands may be lawfully denied) but to whom tribute belongs, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor is due.
Obedience then He requires of all men, tribute also, custom, fear, and honor, but under this condition of justice and equity, to render these duties to them that have just title thereto. And who are they, but (as I said before) such as God has appointed to rule over us in His fear, for our profit and preservation of the commonwealth?
To this also does the saying of Saint Peter well agree, though it is weighed by the other party to prove the contrary: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it is to king as to the chief, or unto rulers as unto them that are sent by Him, for the punishment of evil doers, and the praise of them that do well. Behold, how Peter here neither differs from himself in his answer before the Council, nor here disagrees with Paul, willing obedience to kings and inferior rulers, not to all, but to such as are appointed to punish evil doers, and praise to the contrary; and to disobey such, must and needs to be condemned for ungodly rebellion. For such there were as may plainly appear by Saint Peter’s words following, which under the pretense of liberty would cover and cloak their malice. And this the Apostle forbids in all manner of subjects, and justly.
But you will say the words of Peter following, concerning obedience of servants to masters, does charge us further than with godly rulers, and such as rule according to their office. For to servants he writes on this matter: Servants, obey your masters with all fear, not only if they are good and courteous, but also though they are froward, for so the Greek word does signify, a combrous, froward, or a person hard to please. Whereof they will conclude that Peter commands obedience to all kinds of persons, good and bad—whatsoever they command must be done, and why? Because he so charges servants to obey their masters.
Nevertheless this is to be observed in reading the words of Peter (as also in all the Holy Scriptures) that we must so take them as they agree with himself, and not against him. For the Spirit of God changes not His meaning: but what He says once, He says forever. Saint Peter here seems to prevent the objection which servants (desiring liberty) might have objected, being willed to obey their masters, as though he would say, I am not ignorant that there are many troublesome masters, froward, and importune over you, which are not so gentle and courteous towards you as becomes them; well, that is their fault and infirmity, which you must for Christ’s sake, whom you profess, patiently sustain and bear. For though your masters are rough or froward (he says not wicked and ungodly) that is no cause why you should not faithfully serve them for the time of your servitude, so long as they will nothing of you but that which is good and godly.
Then the mind of Saint Peter is that the shrewdness or frowardness of the master is not a lawful or just occasion why the servants should be disobedient. And as this is the very meaning of the Apostle in that place, so is it not like that he would write contrary to himself, when he said, God ought rather to be obeyed than man. Neither can he be judged contrary to the Apostle Paul, who binds up all lawful obedience with this knot, in the Lord, speaking to children and exhorting them to obey their fathers and mothers. But how? In the Lord, he says. And why? For that is just. Then if Paul charges not children with further obedience to their parents than in the Lord, to whom principally they are by God’s commandment and nature bound, will Peter bind servants to their masters any further than in the Lord? And if it is just obedience only which is in the Lord, can there be any lawful obedience against him, either of children towards their parents, servants towards their masters, or subjects towards their rulers or magistrates? No, God is the first and principal Father, Master and Lord, to whom first obedience must be given as He does demand, and to others in Him and for Him only, as we were taught at the beginning.
And that Saint Peter had only respect to the rough conditions of masters, and not to their unlawful commandment against God and their conscience (which they are bound to do for no man’s pleasure) the words do plainly witness. For this is thankworthy (he says) if a man for conscience towards God endures grief, suffering wrongfully. For what praise is it, if when you are buffeted for your faults, you take it patiently, etc? Then you see the meaning of Saint Peter is not to make us subject to any evil or ungodly commandments, but to persuade all servants not to cast off their duty during the time of their servitude, notwithstanding if they are roughly dealt with by their masters. This thing is not spoken here of Saint Peter to encourage or maintain froward masters in their frowardness, nor yet to forbid the servants which fear God to seek after lawful remedy at the hands of superior powers, who for that cause are ordained to see justice administered to all sorts of men, as well to servants as others, but that they should not think the sharpness of their masters to be a cause sufficient to free them from doing their duty upon the other party.
In like case may we conclude of princes and magistrates, though they are rough and froward, yea, though before God they are wicked, ungodly, and reprobate persons (as was Saul) yet so long as their wickedness does not extend against God and His laws, but outwardly will see them observed and kept by others, punishing the transgressors, and defending the innocent; so long are we bound to render unto such, obedience, as to evil and rough masters, because we may not take God’s office in hand to judge of the heart any further than their outward deeds do give manifest testimony. Otherwise, if without fear they transgress God’s laws themselves and command others to do the same, then have they lost that honor and obedience which otherwise their subjects did owe unto them, and ought no more to be taken for Magistrates, but punished as private transgressors, as after I have promised to prove.
Hereunto they add the saying of our Savior Jesus Christ to Peter, which bade him to put up his sword, after he had stricken the servant of the High Priest and cut off his ear, not minding by the sword to make resistance. Whereupon they gather that although it is lawful in doctrine and preaching for the servants of God to withstand and reprove the enemies, as Christ Himself and His Apostles did, yet it is not permitted to do the same by any outward or bodily force. For then as Christ answered, He might have obtained by His Father twelve legions of angels for His defense.
To this we shall soon answer, if we consider who spoke this, to whom, and for what cause it was spoken. Which circumstances well weighed give a great light to all like facts and sayings. First we must diligently consider the office of our Savior Jesus Christ, which as it was in all points spiritual, as well concerning His kingdom which He Himself affirms not to be of this world, as His Priesthood and Prophecy, even so for His own part could He use no temporal force or power for the accomplishment of the same, because He denies that He either came to reign in this world or else to be a judge therein, as He answered the man which would have had Him to command His brother to divide the lands between them, saying: Man, who made me a judge or divider over you? And being demanded to give judgment against the woman taken in adultery, He would not take that office upon Him, but said unto the woman when her accusers were gone: Neither do I condemn thee: go your way, and sin no more.
Thus as concerning Christ’s own person, who had all things and powers both in heaven and in earth at His commandment, it is evident that He would use no temporal power against His enemies, for that He was not therewith charged. Which example takes not away the office or duty of such as are charged with the temporal sword, to use it in defense chiefly of God’s glory, and the preservation of those that are under them.
Secondly, why He forbade Peter also, and in him all the rest of the Apostles, we cannot be ignorant. For who knows not that the Apostles were witnesses of Jesus Christ chosen forth of the world (as Saint John says) not to defend their master by the temporal sword (for that would have usurped upon another man’s office not appertaining to them), to whom only the spiritual sword was committed, to fight manfully with it against the world, Satan, and all spiritual powers. For as the Apostle says: Though we walk compassed with the flesh, yet do we not war fleshly. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal things, but strong by the power of God to cast down strongholds, wherewith we overthrow imaginations of every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ. Wherefore, seeing the office of the Apostles also is spiritual, as their Master was, and had only spiritual weapons to use in the defense of the Gospel whereof they were ministers, it is not good reason to conclude their purpose, that Magistrates and other inferior officers ought not to use the temporal sword in defense of religion because Christ would not suffer Peter to fight with the temporal sword. But rather as Christ requires of Peter and all the rest the faithful use of the spiritual sword, wherewith they were charged, or else they should be subject to malediction and judgment: For woe be to me (says Paul) if I preach not: even so may not they escape judgment and the curse of God, which use not the temporal sword committed unto them with all endeavors in the defense of God’s glory and His Church, wherewith every man is charged, according to his vocation and power, none excepted.
To be short, if our Savior Christ should, as He might by His Power, have withstood the Jews that came to apprehend Him and put Him to death, how should He have drank of that cup which His Father had given Him? That is, how should He, by His death and passion, have redeemed us, for which cause He came into the world, not to have His life taken from Him against His will, but willingly to lay it down for all.
Then we see that there is nothing in this saying of Christ to Peter which can condemn lawful resisting of ungodly rulers in their ungodly commandments. For though it was profitable to all men that Christ without any resistance should be crucified, being the sacrifice appointed of God the Father to salvation, yet is it not therefore lawful for the inferior officers, or permitted to the subjects, to suffer the blasphemy and oppression of their superiors to overflow their whole country and nation, when both power and means is given unto them lawfully to withstand it, and they by their profession and office are no less bound to put it into execution.
Footnotes
- 1Aurelius Augustine, Sermon 12 [Ben. 62] on the New Testament (Matt. 8.8 and 1 Cor. 8.10), in (Ed.) Philip Schaff, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 6, St. Augustin, (New York, 1888), 302. ↩︎
