THE RELIGIOUS BASIS OF HUMAN GOVERNMENT.

THERE

HERE are few subjects which need to be examined more circumspectly than the one proposed for consideration in this paper. For it is evident from the air of easy assurance with which many profess to solve the problems offered by it, that they have not yet discovered all the difficulties of the task. When, for instance, it is said that Christianity is the one true religion, that a particular state or government is Christian, and that this state is therefore bound to give the benefit of its honor, if not its aid, to the Christian religion, positions are taken which involve very serious consequences. For unless there is some way of determining just what the Christian religion is, and just what makes a government Christian, and just what favor in kind and amount the government should show to that religion, these positions virtually endorse all the wrongs against individual faith and conscience which have tormented and, we think, disgraced Christendom in the past. But a way of determining these points for the government, in such a manner as to warrant it in requiring men to support a religion which they believe to be false, can never be found. Yet when it is said, on the other hand, that the state is purely secular, having no basis in the authority of God, and hence that civil rulers should not suffer themselves to be influenced in their conduct by religious belief, positions equally dangerous are taken, though the

peril lies in another direction. We propose, therefore, to examine the language of the New Testament in respect to human governments, with the hope of finding in that language a solution of the difficult problems which the subject of this essay presents.

It will be natural to look first at the remarkable passage in Paul's epistle to the Romans. In the translation of Dean Alford, it reads as follows:

Let every soul submit himself to the authorities that are above him: for there is no authority except from God: those that be have been ordained by God. So that he which setteth himself against the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Dost thou desire not to be afraid of the authority? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same; for he is God's minister unto thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he weareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger for wrath unto him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs submit yourselves, not only because of the wrath, but also for your conscience sake. For this cause ye also pay tribute; for they are ministers of God, attending continually to this very thing. Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

The same apostle, writing to Titus, says: "Put them in mind to submit themselves to governments, to authorities, to obey magistrates;" and, writing to Timothy, he exhorts, that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and gravity." To the same purpose is the language of Peter: "Honor all. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king." He also declares that the Lord "knoweth how . . . to reserve the unrighteous unto the day of judgment under punishment; but chiefly them that go after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise governments. Presumptions, self-willed, they are not afraid to rail at dignities." And Jude refers to the same class of persons as "dreamers, who defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities."

These sentences, taken from different parts of the New Testament, all teach, with more or less clearness, that civil government rests on divine authority. It is said to be characteristic of certain very wicked men to despise governments or dominion, and rail at dignities. It is urged as a special duty of Christians to "honor the king," and to offer 'prayers, supplications, intercessions, giving of thanks," especially

"for kings and all that are in authority." The duty of submission to magistrates is distinctly enjoined. And "the powers that be" are affirmed to have been ordained by God, to be God's ministers, and to execute vengeance, wearing not the sword in vain; while obedience to them is put upon grounds of conscience as well as upon grounds of fear. Were the points just named the only ones made in these sentences, the conclusion might be almost natural that the action of civil rulers as such, whatever its character when judged by other standards, must be accepted as right by virtue of their divine commission, or at least that their commands, however repugnant to the spirit of the moral law, must be obeyed as virtually from God. Indeed, it would be quite as easy, we think, to prove from isolated portions of the New Testament, the absolutely divine and unrestricted authority of civil rulers as it is to prove the infallibility of the pope; and there have been times in the history of the church, when many of her bishops have maintained the divine right of kings to the obedience of their subjects in every sphere of human action. Nor do we say that their position can be proved wholly untenable by anything laid down in these passages; yet it seems to us evident that several expressions in them ought to shake one's confidence in that position.

For it is plain, in the first place, that the rulers here described are contemplated by the writers, and certainly by Paul, as being a terror to the evil work, and not to the good. From this it may be inferred that their official action in the domain of faith was not taken into the account. For the government of Rome was not then favorable to the Christian religion, and, if ready to interpose at all in religious affairs, was in favor of the evil work, instead of the good. It is, therefore, necessary to suppose one of the two following hypotheses true, namely, that Paul is speaking of the function of civil government, according to its idea as an institution intended to encourage good and repress evil, or else that he is speaking of conduct which is criminal or not, in the ordinary sense of the word criminal, that is, conduct which does or does not violate the rights of other men. We believe the latter hypothesis more likely to be correct than the former. Paul was thinking that within the proper domain of human government, the domain of natural rights and duties, the Roman authorities, and indeed all other authorities the world over, are as a rule favorable to right conduct and opposed to wrong; murder, theft, dishonesty, falsehood are condemned as wrong and disreputable, if they are not otherwise punished, while the corresponding virtues are honored. In the second place, it is said expressly: "Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." Now it is plain that the standard

of "what is good" cannot be the will of the rulers simply; for in that case "doing that which is good," would be but another name for obedience, and we should be brought to the idea of despotism, pure and simple: might makes right. But to suppose the apostle guilty of such teaching is impossible. Moreover, this view of the passage in Romans destroys all richness and progress of thought, making Paul's language a mere iteration of a very meagre idea. Let us read a few verses according to this view:

So that he which setteth himself against the authority, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation. For rulers are not a terror to the work of obedience to themselves but to the work of disobedience. Dost thou desire not to be afraid of the authority? Do that which it commands, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is God's minister unto thee for good. But if thou disobey, be afraid; for he weareth not the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger for wrath unto him that disobeys his [the ruler's] law. Wherefore ye must needs submit yourselves, not only because of the wrath, but also for your conscience' sake.

If this be not the useless iteration of a most unchristian idea, we have read the Scriptures to little purpose. Such a view of the meaning must be rejected at once. The import of the word "good" in this place must be determined by the moral law, which, like its author, is the same, yesterday, to-day, and forever. But the apostle plainly declares: "Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise" from the rulers of the people. Could he have meant that which is good in a religious sense? That which is right as to the worship of God and the preaching the gospel? Is it conceivable that he could pledge the general favor of the state to good conduct in this respect? To ask these questions is, we believe, to answer them.

Having learned from these portions of the sacred record, that human government, in so far as it holds itself to its proper work, has a sure support in the authority of God, and having also found reason to think that its appropriate work was not supposed by the apostle to lie in the domain of religion, but rather in that of natural rights and duties, we are prepared to seek further light on this latter point from the same infallible source. In doing this it may be wise to begin with a passage which seems to imply much more than it clearly teaches. "Submit yourselves therefore to every human institution— másŋ àviρwning xrise-for the Lord's sake; whether to the king, as supreme, or to governors, as being sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and the praise of those who do well." It is perfectly

plain from the connection that the term "evil-doers" refers in this passage to those who commit offences against natural right and morality, and offences of such a character as to be condemned by the heathen, while the phrase "those who do well" refers to such as discharge honorably the social and civil duties of life. Accordingly the language of Peter in this place confirms our view of Paul's meaning in the famous thirteenth of Romans. But this is not our principal reason for bringing forward the words of Peter. That reason is contained in the phrase "every human institution," plainly signifying every branch or officer of the state, beginning with the highest, or king, and comprehending all who derive their authority from him. All civil rulers are therefore of man's creation; none of them hold their place or power directly from God. Two inferences seem to follow from this statement; first, that the form of government, as well as the persons who administer it, must naturally depend on the circumstances and will of the people, since neither has been prescribed by the Most High; and, secondly, that the authority of human government should never be allowed to set aside the plain commands of God; for a human institution, though ordained of God, is still human and imperfect; it cannot overrule the higher authority under which it acts. If, then, we find that any part of human life has been brought under the control of the Supreme Ruler by direct law or teaching, if there is a spiritual kingdom among men, having ends, officers, and methods of its own prescribed by the King of kings, it is plain that no human institution should be suffered to interfere with it. The inference now drawn from the language of Peter in his first epistle is confirmed by his words on two memorable occasions, as recorded in the Acts. For when Peter and John had been brought before the Sanhedrim, had been questioned as to the power or authority by which they had healed the lame man at the gate of the temple, had answered that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, and had been therefore commanded not to speak at all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus, they answered: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard." They had been charged by the Lord himself to be his witnesses, testifying of what they had seen him do and heard him say, and this command they held to be binding in face of the highest human authority which they knew. But their disobedience to the highest court of their people led to another examination. When brought before the council again the high-priest questioned them, saying, "We strictly commanded you not to teach in this name, and lo! ye have filled Jerusalem