A summary on Jonathan Mayhew's "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission"

In regards to the governmental ruling over men, Jonathan Mayhew brings forth the question: "What unprejudiced man can think, that God made all to be thus subservient to the lawless pleasure and frenzy of one, so that it shall always be a sin to resist him?"

He continues with the thought of how far we are obliged to submit to our rulers? If we may innocently disobey and resist in some cases, why not all? What is the measure of our duty? He points that if we are not careful, such a doctrine could lead to the total dissolution of civil government, and introduce such scenes of wild anarchy and confusion - which would be more fatal to society than the worst tyranny.

However, Mr. Mayhew draws an analogy to children submitting to parents, and how it is most commonly acceptable for children to often submit or obey to their parents - but not in all cases. When a child does question or disobey the rule of parents, is this always a sin, or does it seak to subvert the parental authority? "We know in general that children and servants are obliged to obey their parents and masters respectively. We know also, with equal certainty, that they are not obliged to submit to them in all things, without exception; but may, in some cases, reasonably, and therefore innocently, resist them."

While Jonathan Mayhew creates a case for disobedience against those who lead over us, he also says that "turbulent and vicious-minded men, may take occasion from this principle, that their rulers may, in some cases, be lawfully resisted, to raise factions and disturbances in the state; and to make resistance where resistance is needless, and therefore sinful."

In the case of a nation of people abused by their ruler (or governmental leaders), Mayhew says that the dethroning of such leadership is not criminal, but a "reasonable way of vindicating their liberties and just rights; it is making use of the means, and the only means, which God has put into their power, for mutual and self-defence." Not only does he conclude with this thought, but he continues with the statement, "It would be stupid, tameness, and unaccountable folly, for whole nations to suffer one unreasonable, ambitious and cruel man, than to wanton and riot in their misery."

To conclude, Mr Mayhew draws the following points for a people to consider before resisting their governors:

• No civil rulers are to be obeyed when the enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: all such disobedience is lawful and glorious - particularly if resisting against any legal establishment of religion.

• All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void; and therefore disobedience to them is a duty.

• If therefore, in any case, the common safety and utility would not be promoted by the submission of government, but the contrary, there is no ground or motive for obedience and submission, but on the contrary.

• If it be evident that a ruler abuse their trust and power, then neither the law of reason or religion requires obedience or submission. The ruler should be discared, and the authority which they were vested with transferred to others.

• If people find themselves greatly abused and oppressed by their governors, they are not apt to complain; and whenever they do, in fact, find themselves thus abused and oppressed, they must be stupid not to complain.

• The people know for what end they set up, and maintain their governors; and they are the proper judges when they execute their trusts as they ought to do it. When a ruler exalts himself to that of tyrant and requires his subjects to be that of slaves to his will, he plunders them and makes them his prey.