66

kings of Israel, in other words, were no usurpers; they swayed no sceptre gained by conquest and blood. Yet even of these God said they were set up "not by Him," He "knew it not." The assent of the people they had, but God did not acknowledge nor recognise them. Surely, it would have been no "damnable" sin for a fearer of God to withhold from such kings conscientious submission; to such no allegiance could be due "for the Lord's sake." (2.) We have declarations equally explicit in relation to the existing idolatrous, tyrannical authorities of the old world. We refer to the language of prophecy, which denominates them as "beastly" in their origin and character, and blasphemous in their pretensions, and denounces them as doomed of God. "I saw," says Daniel, (chap. vii..) "and, behold, the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea, and four great beasts came up from the sea.' The last of these the fourth beast-was "dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet." And so John: (Rev. xiii. 7,)" And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, haivng seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy." All intelligent Protestants apply these symbolic representations to the divided Roman empire-the existing anti-Christian thrones of Europe. Did God send them? No. For even still more expressly as to their origin, John says"And the dragon"-the devil-"gave him his power, and seat, and great authority." Can any thing be clearer? How could this beast-these kings claim conscientious submission? The

devil-not God-gave them their power: a fact written as clear as the sun in the heavens upon their constitution and administration. The former, adverse to the rights of the people-the latter, directed not to the advancement of God's glory, and the interests of morality and religion, but in diametrical opposition to all these. God sends them! Yes. As he sends tempests and plagues, to scourge the nations for their sins. As he raised up Pharaoh, to show in these last times his power in their utter and signal ruin.* (3.) It cannot be that God, in any such way, sends immoral powers, for then the only inquiry would be, Does a government exist? Has it the requisite vigour and resources to compel obedience to its decrees? Behind this, we could not-dare not go. Every usurper, every tyrant, every Nero, Caligula, Heliogabalus, or Borgia, might justly demand conscientious allegiance as God's minister! Do the advocates of existing powers, as God's ordinance, admit this? No. They fall back from their own argument—

* We append Dr. Junkin's exposition of this passage The dragon invested him with authority. The Scripture account of absolute despotism, is, that Satan gave it, and the blasphemous slander of God is the argument by which the doctrine of legitimacy is sustained from the Bible. All power is of God; the powers that be are ordained of God,' therefore iron-handed despotism is a divine institution. This is the conclusion of its friends, but the word of truth proclaims it to be from below. The same kind of logic will prove the devil's own usurpations to be right and proper. The fallacy here lies in a false assumption. Paul says, 'The powers that be,' ovora, that is, the civil government, is an ordinance of God; but the assumption is, that he means arbitrary power, might without right. This is the logic by which Diabolus has blasphemed the Creator for a score of centuries."

they insist upon some attributes as essential to a right to reign. We live in the age of revolutions. The world will not hear even the enunciation of the doctrine of passive obedience. The nations have risen, and are still rising, to demand, at least some, credentials of these pretended vicegerents of the Almighty. But, are they not powers?-are they not "powers that be?" How, then, except on our principle, can we go behind this fact, and investigate the validity of their commission? We affirm, on no other.

Who, then, are "sent" of God? We answer, those who come bearing the law, and exhibiting, in measure, the image of God. Those who, honouring God, and seeking to accomplish the ends of his moral ordinance of magistracy, do really sustain the character, as they perform the duties of his ministers. To no others are we called upon, in God's name, and for his sake, to yield a conscientious submission.

2. The passage expressly defines them as righteous-v. 14-"As unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." That this language defines a righteous administration of justice between man and man as an indispensable feature of civil government, without which it would have no validity-no claims upon our allegiance, is scarcely disputable. Few will be even disposed to deny this, at least in this land. For, whatever the abettors of a "divine right to rule wrong" may affirm, it is here universally acknowledged, (we go farther, maintained,) that tyrants have no claim upon the conscientious submission of their subjects: that, instead, it is even a duty to throw off the yoke the very first oppor

tunity. The contrary doctrine would involve the notion-reproachful to the Almighty-that He not merely recognises the proud and hard-hearted despot as His vicegerent, but obliges the wretched victims of his power to look up to him with reverence as God's minister to him for good.

But, is this all? Is it enough to characterize a government as "sent " of God "for the punishment of the evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well," that common justice be dispensed, the lawless and the turbulent restrained, and the rights of the peaceable guarded? Certainly not. Are none, in the sight of God's law-we speak of it as revealed as the law of society-are none 66 'evil-doers" but rioters and robbers, disturbers of the public peace, and invaders of private rights? And are we to limit the phrase, "such as do well," to those who pay due regard to the common welfare, and to the rights of their fellow-citizens? By no means. Wrong-doing and well-doing are both to be measured by the divine law-not merely its second, but its first table. He does wrong who dishonours God, and blasphemes his name, and profanes his Sabbath,-he does well, in a high sense, who does the opposite of all these.

We

might rest our argument on this point with a fair interpretation of the phrases themselves-evil and well-doing-but we have additional evidence. God so explained it in the code which he prepared for ancient Israel. The book of Revelation exhibits the same principle in its denunciation of civil government-not as tyrannical merely, but as impious; and, finally, we may appeal to the common opinion of all nations-pagan and Christian, ancient and modern. For where is the nation which has taken no account-we except revolutionary

France for a very short time-of such crimes as open blasphemy?

If this be granted, our principle is established. The government that claims the conscientious submission of the faithful, must be, in the sense in which we have now explained it, as well as in the former, a restraint upon evil doers, and a praise to them that do well. And why not? We admit, as we have already said, that a government that tramples upon human rights is not to be acknowledged as the minister of God. How, then, we ask, can a government be so acknowledged which puts no restraint upon the open enemies of the Most High, pays no regard to the prerogatives of Christ, and throws open its honours, and thus gives "power" to the avowed despisers of his law? Is this to answer the ends of a divine ordinance? Surely the rights of God and of Christ, are not less worthy of recognition than human rights. To permit, and especially to patronize, their violation, is no less a crime than to refuse to the citizens of the commonwealth protection of life or property.*

Now observe, all agree,-with the few exceptions already referred to,-that there are limits to the duty of submission, that at least the rights of man must not be seriously infringed. Some would, however, stop at this point. They would be satisfied with the very narrowest sense that the terms will possibly bear. We make no such re

It is implied in the above, and follows as a consequence from it, that a government which itself refuses to own God and Christ, must be invalid. For if the mere refusal to vindicate the honour of Jehovah, invalidates, much more, the practical denial of his supreme dominion.