Introduction to Jonathan Mayhew
Much like Elisha Williams, finding information on Jonathan Mayhew was no simple matter. There is a memoir available and compiled by Alden Bradford entitled Memoir of the Life and Writings of Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, D.D., pastor of the West church and Society in Boston, from June 1747 to July 1766. However, when it comes to Mayhew’s impact on American history and the spiritual and political environment leading into the Revolutionary War, it is best to turn our attention to the surviving documents he wrote. His sermons and letters are most revealing of the philosophy he held and the way in which he influenced the Founding Fathers. So, as with Williams, we will provide a basic biography for Mayhew before going into the famous sermon that helped shape the opinions of the Founders on the matter of resistance and civil disobedience in cases of tyranny.
Who Was Jonathan Mayhew?
Jonathan Mayhew was a Congregationalist minister like Elisha Williams. According to the historical records we have, he was a pastor at the Old West church and society in Boston. According to Britannica’s entry on Mayhew, he was a “vigorous Boston preacher whose outspoken political and religious liberalism made him one of the most controversial men in colonial New England.” They continue on to state that “The Mayhew family had arrived in the American colonies in 1631. After a boyhood on Martha’s Vineyard, young Mayhew attended Harvard College (1740–44). In 1747 he was ordained pastor of Boston’s West Church, where he remained—outspoken, controversial, and at odds with most of the local clergy—until his death. His sermons were printed in New England and in London. He carried on a lively correspondence with several British clergymen and became, to the English, one of the best-known Americans.” (Jonathan Mayhew, Britannica).
His doctrine was most in line with Armenian philosophy on salvation, and he adamantly against both Calvinistic doctrine and Anglican authoritarianism in religion. He was a strong advocate for simple, unfeigned belief and individual responsibility with private judgment on matters of religion. As we will see in a moment, he strongly believed that resistance to tyranny was a Christian duty. His opposition to British tyranny, particularly in the matter of the Stamp Acts, earned him a reputation in England. He became well known for his fierce defense of civil liberties, and his fight against the Stamp Act was so staunch that the British accused him of inciting the riots that occurred in response to the new taxes.
Mayhew’s Contribution to American Revolt
Mayhew’s main contribution to the atmosphere that led to the American Revolution came in the form of his discourse entitled “A Discource concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers: With some Reflections on the Resistance made to King Charles I. And on the Anniversary of his death: In which the Mysterious Doctrine of that Prince’s Saintship and Martyrdom is Unriddled”. Published in 1750, it was widely read and known, and it among other writings of Mayhew’s gained him the title of the Father of Civil Liberty. It also gained him a great deal of notoriety for him in Britain.
So what did Mayhew contribute? What did he have to say on this area that roused the Founders, and James Otis in particular, to rally around the more particular cry that taxation without representation is tyranny? Let us dive in and find out.
Mayhew opens his argument with the following preface:
“The ensuing discourse is the last of three upon the same subject, with some little alterations and additions. It is hoped that but few will think the subject of it an improper one to be discoursed on in the pulpit, under a notion that this is preaching politics, instead of Christ. However, to remove all prejudices of this sort, I beg it may be remembered, that “all scripture–is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” [2 Pet. 3:16] Why, then, should not those parts of scripture which relate to civil government, be examined and explained from the desk, as well as others? Obedience to the civil magistrate is a christian duty: and if so, why should not the nature, grounds, and extent of it be considered in a christian assembly? Besides, if it be said, that it is out of character for a christian minister to meddle with such a subject, this censure will at last fall upon the holy apostles. They write upon it in their epistles to christian churches: And surely it cannot be deemed either criminal or impertinent, to attempt an explanation of their doctrine” (Mayhew, Preface, i).
He then follows it up with this: “Those nations who are groaning under the iron scepter of tyranny, were once free. So they might, probably, have remained by a seasonable caution against despotic measures. Civil tyranny is usually small in its beginning, like ‘the drop of a bucket’ [Isai. 40:15], till at length, like a mighty torrent, or the raging waves of the sea, it bears down all before it, and deluges whole countries and empires. Thus it is as to ecclesiastical tyranny also,–the most cruel, intolerable and impious, of any. From small beginnings, ‘it exalts itself above all that is called GOD and that is worshipped.’ [2 Thess. 2:4] People have no security against being unmercifully priest-ridden, but by keeping all imperious BISHOPS, and other CLERGY-MEN who love to ‘lord it over God’s heritage,’ [Mr. Leslie] from getting their foot into the stirrup at all” (Preface, vi-vii).
These two quotes demonstrate the tension that would be held between a position that states Christians must obey without any limitation and a position that states Christian liberty means we are not bound by any earthly authority. Mayhew recognized serious logical failings in the position of many Christians and state churches that Christians are bound to, at the least, passively obey in every case their rulers, or even actively to do so no matter what unless they wish to face damnation for disobeying authorities. Mayhew uses the same passage that these individuals argued from to prove out why that position is flawed, but he also recognizes the pernicious nature of an argument that claimed Christians should be free from any civil authority. With the preface covered, what did Mayhew have to say about the tension between these two?
Much of his discourse focuses on the prevalent argument of the day on submission without limitation, but his handling of the passage and notes on the background of who was being written to help us to also see his position on what those limitations should be since it cannot be said that the Bible encourages Christians not to submit at all.
He begins by quoting Romans 13:1-7, the passage frequently used to teach that Christians must submit to authority no matter how dictatorial. The passage reads as follows in his quotation of it:
“1) 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.
2) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation.
3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6) For, for this cause pay you tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honour, to whom honour.”
With his key passage quoted, Mayhew begins, “It is evident that the affair of civil government may properly fall under a moral and religious consideration, at least so far forth as it relates to the general nature and end of magistracy, and to the grounds and extent of that submission which persons of a private character, ought to yield to those who are vested with authority. …It is the duty of christian magistrates to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning the nature and design of their office. And it is equally the duty of all christian people to inform themselves what it is which their religion teaches concerning that subjection which they owe to the higher powers. It is for these reasons that I have attempted to examine into the scripture-account of this matter, in order to lay it before you with the same freedom which I constantly use with relation to other doctrines and precepts of christianity; not doubting but you will judge upon every thing offered to your consideration, with the same spirit of freedom and liberty with which it is spoken.” (Mayhew, Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers, pg. 1-2).
With his reasons for writing it and his caution to the listeners to be thinking critically on his statements for themselves in freedom and liberty, Mayhew now takes us through a history lesson on who Paul wrote to in this passage to help us to begin to understand the context and point of the passage. From this foundation, he will make his argument. For the sake of my reader, I present that whole selection below so that you may understand the basis of the argument and belief regarding Christian submission that Mayhew unfurls in his discourse here.
“It is to be observed, then, that there were some persons amongst the christians of the apostolic age, and particularly those at Rome, to whom St. Paul is here writing, who seditiously disclaimed all subjection to civil authority; refusing to pay taxes, and the duties laid upon their traffic and merchandize; and who scrupled not to speak of their rulers, without any due regard to their office and character. Some of these turbulent christians were converted from judaism, and others from paganism. The jews in general had, long before this time, taken up a strange conceit, that being the peculiar and elect people of God, they were, therefore, exempted from the jurisdiction of any heathen princes or governors. Upon this ground it was, that some of them, during the public ministry of our blessed Saviour, came to him with that question–Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cesar or not? [Matt. 22:17] And this notion many of them retained after they were proselyted to the christian faith. As to the gentile converts, some of them grossly mistook the nature of that liberty which the gospel promised; and thought that by virtue of their subjection to Christ, the only King and Head of his church, they were wholly freed from subjection to any other prince; as tho’ Christ’s kingdom had been of this world, in such a sense as to interfere with the civil powers of the earth, and to deliver their subjects from that allegiance and duty, which they before owed to them. Of these visionary christians in general, who disowned subjection to the civil powers in being where they respectively lived, there is mention made in several places in the new-testament: The apostle Peter in particular, characterizes them in this manner–them that–despise government–presumptuous are they, self willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. [2 Pe. 2:10] Now it is with reference to these doting christians, that the apostle speaks in the passage before us. And I shall now give you the sense of it in a paraphrase upon each verse in its order, desiring you to keep in mind the character of the persons for whom it is designed, that so, as I go along, you may see how just and natural this address is; and how well suited to the circumstances of those against whom it is levelled” (Mayhew, 3-4).
The background provided here is the basis for the rest of the argument. He offers a brief paraphrase for each verse to aid readers in understanding the meaning. Among the notes is this footnote from Mayhew, “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. It cannot be supposed that the apostle designs here, or in any of the succeeding verses, to give the true character of Nero, or any other civil powers then in being, as if they were in fact such persons as he describes, a terror to evil works only, and not to the good. For such a character did not belong to them; and the apostle was no sycophant, or parasite of power, whatever some of his pretended successors have been. He only tells what rulers would be, provided they acted up to their character and office” (Mayhew, 6)..
Here, Mayhew makes clear that the apostle is describing what a ruler ought to be. He was not saying that the rulers surrounding them were such rulers. Mayhew further expounds on what the apostle’s statement in verses 1-8 was with the following: “That the end of magistracy is the good of civil society, as such: That civil rulers, as such, are the ordinance and ministers of God; it being by his permission and providence that any bear rule; and agreeable to his will, that there should be some persons vested with authority in society, for the well-being of it: That which is here said concerning civil rulers, extends to all of them in common: it relates indifferently to monarchical, republican and aristocratical government.; and to all other forms which truly answer the sole end of government, the happiness of society; and to all the different degrees of authority in any particular state; to inferior officers no less than to the supreme:
That disobedience to civil rulers in the due exercise of their authority; is not merely a political sin, but an heinous offence against God and religion:
That the true ground and reason of our obligation to be subject to the higher powers, is the usefulness of magistracy (when properly exercised) to human society, and its subserviency to the general welfare:
That obedience to civil rulers is here equally required under all forms of government, the good of society; and to every degree of authority in any state, whether supreme or subordinate:
(From whence it follows, That if unlimited obedience and non-resistance, be here required as a duty under anyone form of government, it is also required as a duty under all other forms; and as a duty to subordinate rulers as well as to the supreme.)
And lastly, that those civil rulers to whom the apostle injoins subjection, are the persons in possession; the powers that be; those who are actually vested with authority” (Mayhew, 10-12).
Pause here to consider what Mayhew has said here. Note the point he makes about unlimited obedience and non-resistance being required to every form of government and all rulers under this passage if we read it as requiring unlimited obedience and non-resistance. The apostle makes no mention of any form of government or specific rulers we are to be subject to, so cannot be justly argued that only one or another has claim to our submission by this passage. Mayhew points this out because the prevailing argument in the Anglican church and among many other Christians of this opinion was that unlimited submission and non-resistance was due to the king. They made a great deal of the monarchy every time they spoke of submission, but they treated other forms of government and officials under the king as less deserving or entirely unnecessary to submit to. Mayhew pointed out the flaw in the reasoning by drawing attention to what the passage literally says and allows reasonably.
Mayhew on Limited Obedience and Non-Resistance
Now that Mayhew has explained what we should understand from the passage, he delivers his argument for limitations of obedience and non-resistance.
Mayhew’s Points of Argument
To summarize the argument points before we go into the supporting quotes from his discourse, Mayhew argues:
1) The delivery of this precept of obedience in absolute terms does not mean there is a necessity to suppose there is a demanded absolute and unlimited obedience.
2) The nature of the context on who Paul was speaking to means that he was not arguing to people who believed in obedience to authority in general but to those who did not believe in any obedience to authority general or specific. This gives us a scope to work from and precludes assuming that he was speaking specifically of particular authority with a people who denied that particular authority but not general authority.
3) Our submission is not owed to those who do not perform the duties of authority that Paul describes in the passage. We owe submission only to those exercising rightful authority, and as soon as they step outside of that authority or fail to do their duties as civil authorities to exercise reasonable, just authority for the benefit of the society they rule, they are no longer owed any of the benefits or respects Paul here enjoins us to afford them because of their position and the duties they perform.
Let us conclude our review of Mayhew’s contribution to American civics with a review of some supporting passages that prove out these arguments in his discourse.
Mayhew’s First Argument
First, we have the argument that the absolute nature of the quoted passage does not give proof that all cases of resistance to civil rulers is a sin or that obedience is in all cases a duty. Consider the following passages from Mayhew’s reasoning on this:
“Now there does not seem to be any necessity of supposing, that an absolute, unlimited obedience, whether active or passive, is here injoined, merely for this reason, that the precept is delivered in absolute terms, without any exception or limitation expresly mentioned. …And because these expressions are absolute and unlimited, (or more properly, general) some have inferred, that the subjection required in them, must be absolute and unlimited also: At least so far forth as to make passive obedience and non-resistance, a duty in all cases whatever, if not active obedience likewise. …But that unlimited obedience of any sort, cannot be argued merely from the indefinite expressions in which obedience is enjoined, appears from hence, that expressions of the same nature, frequently occur in scripture, upon which it is confessed on all hands, that no such absolute and unlimited sense ought to be put” (Mayhew, p 14).
“But to instance in some scripture-precepts, which are more directly to the point in hand.–Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants, their masters, in as absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here commanded to obey their civil rulers. Thus this same apostle–Children obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honour they father and mother,–which is the first commandment with promise.–Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with singleness of your heart as unto Christ. [Eph 6] Thus also wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands–Wives, submit your selves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church–Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. [Eph 5:22 -24] In all these cases submission is required in terms (at least) as absolute and universal, as are ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach, that children, servants, and wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters, and husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelesly make an attempt upon their lives? No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited. Why then should it be supposed, that the apostle designed to teach universal obedience, whether active or passive, to the higher powers, merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? And if this be a good argument in one case, why is it not in others also?” (Mayhew, p 15-16).
“And from hence it follows, that if barely the use of absolute expressions, is no proof, that obedience to civil rulers, is, in all cases, a duty; or resistance, in all cases a sin” (Mayhew, p 17).
Mayhew’s Second Argument
Next we turn to his argument on the grounds of scope and context.
“It is to be observed, in the next place, that as the duty of universal obedience and non-resistance to the higher powers, cannot be argued from the absolute unlimited expressions which the apostle here uses; so neither can it be argued from the scope and drift of his reasoning, considered with relation to the persons he was here opposing” (Mayhew, p 18).
He refers back to his earlier remark on the sort of Christians Paul was addressing with this remark to the Roman church. There were, as Mayhew noted, issues with Jewish and Gentile Christians alike who thought that being under God’s authority meant that they did not need to obey any magistracy or civil authority in general or in particular and, in the Jews’ case in particular, they should not need to be subject to any pagan authority, which at the time was essentially every civil authority.
Mayhew states, “Now it is with persons of this licentious opinion and character, that the apostle is concerned. And all that was directly to his point, was to show, that they were bound to submit to magistracy in general. This is a circumstance very material to be taken notice of, in order to ascertain the sense of the apostle. For this being considered, it is sufficient to account for all that he says concerning the duty of subjection, and the sin of resistance, to the higher powers, without having recourse to the doctrine of unlimited submission and passive obedience, in all cases whatever. Were it known that those in opposition to whom, the apostle wrote, allowed of civil authority in general, and only asserted that there were some cases in which obedience and non-resistance, were not a duty; there would, then indeed be reason for interpreting this passage as containing the doctrine of unlimited obedience, and non-resistance, as it must, in this case, be supposed to have been levelled against such as denied that doctrine. But since it is certain that there were persons who vainly imaged, that civil government in general, was not to be regarded by them, it is most reasonable to suppose, that the apostle designed his discourse only against them. And agreeably to this supposition, we find that he argues the usefulness of civil magistracy in general; its agreeableness to the will and purpose of God, who is over all; and so deduces from hence, the obligation of submission to it” (Mayhew, p 18-19).
Mayhew’s Final Argument
Third, and finally, we turn to Mayhew’s remarks about the duties that ought to be performed by the civil authority if they wish to be underneath the umbrella of rightful authority we are to submit to. He argues, “And if we attend to the nature of the argument with which the apostle here inforces the duty of submission to the higher powers, we shall find it to be such an one as concludes not in favor of submission to all who bear the title of rulers, in common; but only to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society. This is a point which it will be proper to enlarge upon; because the question before us turns very much upon the truth or falsehood of this position” (Mayhew, p 20).
Continuing on that grain, he quotes Peter on the duty of rulers, stating that they are for a praise to them that do well, and the punishment of evil doers. This he adds in addition to requoting the selection from Romans, which says much the same. So then, he says, “It is manifest that this character and description of rulers, agrees only to such as are rulers in fact, as well as in name: to such as govern well, and act agreeably to their office. And the apostle’s argument for submission to rulers, is wholly built and grounded upon a presumption that they do in fact answer this character; and is of no force at all upon supposition of the contrary” (Mayhew, p 20-21).
And further, “If instead of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the publick welfare, they attend only upon the gratification of their own lust and pride and ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the case, it is plain that the apostle’s argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes; and who must be obeyed according to his reasoning” (Mayhew, p 21).
He finalizes the argument by asking if we would give our tithes, obedience, and honor to a man of the clergy who never preaches more than perhaps once a year and only to boast of the dignity of their position and to demand money, who did no work, and who spent their lives using the money they received from us to live an idle life. Of course, we would not. We would give them not a cent for a service not rendered, not a bit of respect because they had not performed the duties that are conditional for the passages of scripture that tell us to honor them to apply, and would doubtless be highly astonished and offended by the impious, unjust, and roguish behavior of such a man. If that is the case with ecclesiastical authority, why then would it be any different with civil? So he states, “If those who bear the title of civil rulers, do not perform the duty of civil rulers, but act directly counter to the sole end and design of their office; if they injure and oppress their subjects, instead of defending their rights and doing them good; they have not the least pretence to be honored, obeyed and rewarded, according to the apostle’s argument” (Mayhew, p 23.)
Summing Up Mayhew’s Contribution
We might see now how Mayhew made himself a thorn in the side of the British and indispensable in shaping opinions that would eventually lead to the Revolutionary War around twenty years after he wrote this discourse. It is up to us as Christians to determine for ourselves whether we can agree with Mayhew on this based on what we find in Scripture.
To the unbeliever in my audience:
You may be wondering how this is of any use to you. The use is simple. This sermon discourse serves more as a strong support for the argument I have been making all along: Christianity, whether anyone likes what it teaches or not, was a central part of the political and social environment that allowed for the Revolutionary War. Without essays and discourses like Mayhew’s, Williams’, and Edwards’, the Revolution would likely not have happened and the States as we know them today never could have existed. Mayhew’s writings on the duty of Christians to rise up against wrongful authority served as a rallying cry for many of the men who fought to free us from Britain. They did it because they agreed with what Mayhew had said. They chose to fight and even die in defense of the natural rights that Williams so eloquently defended. They chose to sacrifice everything for a chance at the religious freedom and unity that men like Edwards and Whitfield defended so ardently.
A society’s philosophy on individual rights, the role of government, and religion has a huge impact on how that society functions and, often, on its success or failure. If we want to understand why America has been so unique in her history as compared to other nations and why in other ways, many times to her detriment, she has been similar, we have to look at their philosophy. In my studies, I have observed that one of the quickest ways to tell the philosophy of a society is to read the writing or listen to the speeches of the men or women whom that society has chosen to listen to and to be influenced by. In early American history, it was quite often the sermons of the ministers that revealed the political, social, and philosophical temperature of the people. So if we wish to understand the why behind America’s successes and failures, we would do well to study the rhetoric these ministers used and to pay attention to what they were preaching from the pulpit. They will prove a valuable resource to any student of history, religious or not, in understanding the general demeanor and attitude of the American people in these eras.
Conclusion
Mayhew had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers’ beliefs surrounding revolution and civil disobedience. He also had a direct impact on some of them through his correspondence with them or with James Otis, who knew many of them personal and seems to have adopted many of the principles Mayhew taught. It was Otis who adapted Mayhew’s remarks on not paying dues to those authorities who do not do their jobs into the rallying cry of the Revolution: Taxation without representation is tyranny. We owe a great deal to this last minister on our list and to the ministers we have discussed before him.
In the upcoming articles in this series, we will start talking about the men who were part of the Founding, both as signers of the Declaration of Independence and those who helped pen the Constitution. We will begin our study of these individuals with the most controversial figures who were involved in the Founding: Jefferson and Franklin. So many lies surround these two figures that it is astonishing to any who have read their writings, historical records from their lives, and anything credible written about them by their peers. Before we can prove out the integrity of our Founding documents or the Christian, Bible-based emphasis of the philosophies behind these documents, we must first drive straight at the heart of the false narrative being taught today. That heart places Jefferson and Franklin squarely in the center of an argument that proposes all of our Founders were racist, irreligious atheists who wrote our Founding documents only to enshrine their own power. If we are to combat that narrative, we have to take a look at the primary sources, the actual historical record, and the prevailing philosophies held by the two men that most consider to be the best “case” that the Founders were not religious or Christian. We will delve into questions surrounding the so-called Jefferson Bible, Franklin’s comments on religion, the causes they did or did not support, what they wrote about their own philosophies, the proof available to determine who fathered Sally Hemming’s children, and the laws regarding slavery at the time as it relates to Jefferson’s own ownership of slaves and his reasons for being unable to free most of them. We will start digging into the narrative that the primary sources really reveal, good or bad, about these men as well as the other Founders.
History reveals a much, much more nuanced view of these men than most prevailing views admit to today. Most either idolize them as the epitomes of Christian virtue or else drag their names through the mud and slander them as racists, the vilest of all men. Instead, history reveals to us men who had their flaws but also had incredible strength. I propose to prove that in the coming articles, and I hope you’ll embark on the journey with me.
I can promise you will find a view of history that is much more comprehensive and accurate than what you can find in most history textbooks or even a good many of the secondary sources historians have provided in the mainstream of academia. We will be going through the same sort of primary source evidence that we have been going through with all of the ministers we’ve discussed so far, and I will provide the titles of sources I have in my own archive whenever I do not have a link from an internet archive to give you the chance to read further beyond what I have quoted from the sources if it is of interest.
As always, my promise to you as the reader is that I will always strive to be faithful to what I find in the primary sources and to ensure that I am not giving you hearsay or inaccurate statements regarding any of the figures I discuss. What you will be given will either be clearly labeled as opinion or else will be straight from the primary sources without spin or angle wherever possible. I have a bias, as does every writer. I acknowledge it openly and make it as clear as possible when I am speaking from opinion or bias and when what I am saying is a fact proven out by the primary sources. I do not play games with sources or attempt to twist them to fit my purposes. I take them at their word and take what they say in context of the time period they were written in as well as proof of what the author thought. When it comes to examining history, the opinions of modern scholars and those who did not live during the time is, at best, inferior to reading the actual primary source they have an opinion of, and at worst is of no use at all in forming our own accurate opinions of the sources they have discussed. It is always best to find the primary sources or, in failing that, to find a source that holds strictly to the original source without placing their own spin on it or trying to disguise their opinion as fact.
Resources
“A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non Resistance to The Higher Powers” by Jonathan Mayhew
“Jonathan Mayhew” by Britannica
