h laws forbidding them to preach Christ, but neither did they
resist the execution of the penalty attached to the violation of those
laws. Thus it was with all the martyrs; they would not offer incense to
idols, but refused not to be led to the stake. Had Cranmer, on the
ground of the iniquity of the law condemning him to death, killed the
officers who came to carry it into effect, he would have been guilty of
murder. Here is the great difference which is often overlooked. The
right of self-defense is appealed to as justifying resistance even to
death, against all attempts to deprive us of our liberty. We have this
right in reference to unauthorized individuals, but not in reference to
the officers of the law. Had men without authority entered Cranmer's
house, and attempted to take his life, his resistance, even if attended
with the loss of life, would have been justifiable. But no man has the
right to resist the execution of the law. What could be more iniquitous
than the laws condemning men to death for the worship of God. Yet to
these laws Christians and Protestants yielded unresisting submission.
This is an obvious duty, flowing from the divine institution of
government. There is no power but of God, and 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. Thus Paul reasoned. If the power is of God, it can not be
rightfully resisted; it must be obeyed or submitted to. Are wicked,
tyrannical, Pagan powers of God? Certainly they are. Does not he order
all things? Does any man become a king without God's permission granted
in mercy or in judgment? Was not Nero to be recognized as emperor? Would
it not be a sin to refuse submission to Nicholas of Russia, or to the
Sultan of Turkey? Are rulers to be obeyed only for their goodness? Is it
only kind and reasonable masters, parents, or husbands, who are to be
recognized as such? It is no doubt true, that in no case is unlimited
authority granted to men; and that obedience to the precepts of our
superiors is limited by the nature of their office, and by the moral
law; but this leaves their authority untouched, and the obligation to
submission where we can not obey, unimpaired.

Have we then got back to the old doctrine of "passive obedience" by
another route? Not at all. The scriptural rule above recited relates to
individuals. It prescribes the duty of subm