3

their enactment. The Christians of that day were liable, both for religious and political reasons, and especially because of their exposure to persecution, to the mistake of supposing that they owed no subjection to the heathen government under which they lived; and they might therefore be tempted to offer resistance to the laws, or to deny allegiance to the public authorities. They were often accused of turbulence and sedition; and under this accusation they endured much suffering. It appears to have been the design of the Apostles to remove this mistake, while they enjoined such submission as would both wipe away this reproach and tend to their own safety. And in this view, they are reminded of the divine appointment of civil government, and its beneficent design. The truth of this doctrine has not diminished by the lapse of time since it was uttered; but is as applicable to us as it was to the primitive church. It belongs to the dispensation of grace under which we live, and obliges us to yield a religious homage to the laws of the land.

I prefer then before all things to hold up the simple testimony of the Word of God, in the breadth of its authority and power over our consciences, as that which obliges us to allegiance.

But, while this is the case, the obligation becomes even stronger, when we consider the beneficent design of civil government. It is expressed

by the declaration that the constituted authorities are appointed for the good of those who are subject to them. And although the history of the world

presents not a few instances of misgovernment and oppression, through the ignorance, the selfishness and the caprice of rulers, it is nevertheless a fact that a stable government, even with all these drawbacks, is better than anarchy; and as such it is the will of God that it should exist. And it is farther true that the true interest and the policy of rulers require of them to pay regard to the promotion of the peace and safety of their citizens, and that the authority and administration of the laws does in the main promote this end. There never was a worse government than that of the Roman empire at the very moment when these injunctions before us were written. And yet under it, we find the Christians under their persecutions appealing for protection to the laws, and actually obtaining that protection. Paul asserted his rights as a citizen before the tribunals, and more than once had them acknowledged. And when he was pressed hard by the persecutions stirred up against him by the Jews, he plead his cause before the heathen magistrates, and at length appealed unto Cæsar, and vindicated himself before the bloody Nero himself, and for at least two years, was protected from molestation, with liberty to exercise his ministry under the very shadow of the imperial throne. And, if such was the characteristic of government even under the ancient despotisms, how much more is this the fact under the conditions to which government has been brought, in the progress of society, through the meliorating influence of the gospel.

The dreadful evils which would result from the absence or imbecility of all law and government, may be readily imagined. The wicked would desolate society. The good and the peaceful would have no security against violence, rapine, and fraud. There was once a period in Israel when "there was no king, and every man did what was right in his own eyes." And this is the significant record which explains the state of things-a series of the most atrocious and horrible events-abuse, and lawless revenge, civil war and extermination-flowing out of the absence of law and government. Who could live in such a state of anarchy? To what but the presence and influence of the law, do we owe the security of our personal rights? That which was said by Tertullus to conciliate the Roman governor is unquestionably true concerning the law: "By it we enjoy great quietness, and very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by its providence." It is the sword that the magistrate bears, which represses the out-breaking of evil-doers, whom

"con

science" cannot restrain, but whom wrath and terror wielded by public authority make afraid, and thus afford us a quiet and peaceable life.

It matters not for the form under which government exists, or even how it came into power, God has willed that there shall be government, and man must have it. It presides, of indispensable necessity, in the family, and over every gradation of tribes and states. In the state, it has its birth out of the fact that men live together, under cer

2

1

tain instincts and wants which prompt them to express in laws, those rules of social life which their conscious necessities suggest and demand. These laws are the expression of their sense of what is right and needful for their living together in harmony and safety. And this fact is so indestructible that if our governments were all overthrown to-day, their constitutions, statutes, and functionaries exterminated, and not a vestige of their existence left, the people would be impelled to come together to-morrow, to construct other governments. Three years ago, France drove away her king of the barricades, as eighteen years before she drove out his predecessor; in each case destroying the very fundamental constitutions of her government; and then, under the impulse of her necessities, as much as of her taste, set herself to construct another, because she could not live without it. Constitutions do not create states, but states make constitutions, and exist before them. The pilgrim fathers were a state before they were landed on Plymouth Rock, and even before they framed their constitution in the cabin of the Mayflower. Their need of law gave birth to the forms of law. And it was the need of the constitution under which these states are united as one nation, which prompted them to adopt it sixty years ago; and under its provisions we enjoy the blessings it was designed to secure. As soon as communities exist, they are under law, written or unwritten, despotic or free, of force or of consent. And they must have it, or fall apart to ruin.

There may be, and there are, greater or less degrees of approximation to perfection,*—for the best is but an approximation to perfection, in human governments,—whether we regard the laws themselves, or their administration.

But there is always this advantage in being under law, that it is the only security for liberty. It defines its conditions, and is ever present, applicable and authoritative. By its impartiality, it has no respect of persons; and by its permanency it is as vigorous to-day as it was yesterday, and at the end of a thousand years its unrepealed authority is still fresh and unexhausted. It is the guardian of right and the tribunal of universal appeal.† Well' pronounced was that immortal eulogium of Hooker, in which he sums up his elaborate exposition of law

* See Note, page 20.

"They who make and those who administer law, should of course be bound by it indiscriminately with the rest of the people. It is the law, and not men, who ought to rule. Law,' says Plutarch, ‘is queen over mortals and immortals.' The edict of 1499, of Louis XII. is a rare instance of magnanimity in a prince possessing the absolute disposal of the laws. The law only,' says he, 'is to be obeyed, notwithstanding any orders to the contrary which importunity may elicit from the monarch.'”—Ed. Encycl. (Law.)

"The prince ought to submit to the laws. We find this truth established in a piece published by order of Louis XIV. one of the most worst absolute princes that ever reigned in Europe. 'Let it not

be said that the sovereign is not subject to the laws of his state, since the contrary proposition is one of the truths of the laws of nations, which flattery has sometimes attacked, and which good princes have always defended as a tutelar divinity of their states.' -Vattel, chapter iv.