strictions. We interpret them in the light of Scripture, and of the entire history of our race, so far as it contains examples worthy of being followed. Without hesitation, we repeat our assertion that the passage enjoins conscientious submission to such a government, and to such a one only, as vindicates not merely human rights, but the rights of God,—of Him who is "King of kings and Lord of lords." ""*

3. The fact that civil government is a divine ordinance demands this interpretation. As we have already said, provision has been made in the very constitution of human nature for the existence of civil institutions among men. And the language of Rom. xiii. 1, is express to the point that civil government is, not a mere contrivance of men, a matter of expedience or necessity,—but an ordinance of God. "The powers that be are ordained of God." " He," the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good." But what does this ordinance comprehend? Does it embrace no more than the affixing of a divine sanction to the exercise of such authority among men as is denominated civil?-leaving every thing relating to its ends, its limits, its exercise, completely independent of God's will and direction? Certainly not. A divine ordinance is something. God's minister has something to do in that character.

* It is a singular fact that many expositors in explaining Rom. xiii. 1-7, introduce, and make essential to the being of a lawful government, what is not in that passage, viz.: that it originates with the people, or has their assent, while they leave out, both in that passage and in the one before us, or at all events, lay little stress upon what is the turning point of both, the description of the power!

And whatever government is, it must be moralfor God is holy and good. Whatever his servant has to do, he must, in doing it, bear the image of God for whom he acts. It is monstrous even to imagine that the Most High has impressed his sanction upon every kind of human authority, however immoral, profane, blasphemous, requiring of the unhappy and tempted subject of such dominion, not merely a peaceful subjection to irresistible power, but a conscientious reverence of its officers and agents, as his ministers. We are not left to adopt any such revolting conclusion. The scriptures are plain. They define, as we have already remarked, the ends of civil authority, -the good of society, and God's glory; they fix the character of its officers-able men. Ex. xviii.

21; just men, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God," 2 Kings xxiii. 3. They prescribe many of its laws, and enjoin upon it special duties. Now, we repeat, every ordinance of God, in its institution, is like himself, and only as it bears his image in its constitution and administration, can it possibly be required of us to yield it that high regard, and hearty acquiescence, and conscientious obedience, which is due to those to whom so high and important trusts are com mitted.

But, it will be said, the government then existing, which claimed the submission of Christians, -the Roman,-certainly did not possess the character of a righteous government, as we have defined it, did not acknowledge Christ-nor regard his law. The fact is admitted, the conclusion is denied. Because, (1.) This government was one of conquest, so far as related to the provinces in which the Christians resided, whom

Peter addresses, and even in Rome itself, was a military and not a popular government, and, hence, on the principles of objectors themselves, could not claim a conscientious allegiance: in other words, it was a government which might lawfully have been thrown off, even by a violent revolution. The advocates of passive obedience, and non-resistance, are consistent-no others are, in adducing this objection. It strikes at the fundamental, and, in this country, generally admitted doctrine, that a mere government of force cannot claim to be God's ordinance, cannot demand conscientious allegiance, but may be resisted, overturned, and another substituted in its stead. (2.) Intelligent Christians knew, as they know now, that this government had been denounced by the Spirit of God as the enemy of the kingdom of Christ. They understood the prophecies of Daniel, to which we have already referred, and could have had no difficulty in applying them to a government with whose history they were familiar, as one of destruction,of trampling down and breaking in pieces. Nor, (3.) does our view involve the conclusion that these directions were of no use to the churches. This passage was designed, and would have this effect, to arrest any tendency on the part of Christians to reject entirely the ordinance of civil government; to meet the case of a class of persons which began to make their appearance at that early age, as we learn from Peter's Second Epistle to these churches, as they have often since, who rejected the ordinance of civil government altogether, true anti-government men,-holding it to be inconsistent with Christianity, under any circumstances, to have to do with civil power. Moreover, the Scriptures were intended to be a

complete rule in every age, and such passages as the one before us, would point out to the faithful one grand object at which they should aim-the reformation of national organizations until they should be brought into conformity with the characteristics embodied summarily, but distinctly, in these passages themselves. These admonitions, then, were far from being useless or inapplicable, at the time, and are of immense use now. deed, the very fact that such directions were needed at that time, is no inconsiderable argument in favour of our view. For how could the idea have originated that Christians were adverse to civil authority, unless from the perversion of the apostolic teachings in regard to the unholy nature and unchristian character of existing institutions?

In

Our interpretation must stand. The passage teaches the duty of acknowledging a righteous civil government, and no other. It makes this an essential characteristic. And that, as much when the government is of popular origin, as under any other circumstances. Even of such a government, if it had this attribute, God says, as he said of the popular government of the ten tribes, "They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not."

4. To a righteous government hearty allegiance is imperatively required. "Submit yourselves therefore." There are two kinds of submission to civil authority. One is forced-for "wrath's sake:" the other is that to which we have so often alluded, a sincere, cheerful subjection-for "conscience sake," for "the Lord's sake." As to the former, circumstances may render it 'expedient, and even dutiful. It may be expedient, from regard to a man's personal safety,-like the submis

sion of the peaceable inhabitant to the unjust exactions of an invading host, pouring into his country with irresistible might; or, more nearly, like the peaceable subjection of the slave to the unjust and sinful claims of his pretended owner. A subjection based upon no higher principle than the impossibility of successful resistance, and the fear of making things worse by attempting the use of violent means of relief. On these grounds, submission for wrath's sake may be expedient, and even in a sense, dutiful. Still more, the Christian re gards the peace of society-he knows that the re formation of the government is a work of time and of Christian effort he has, as a willing subject of Christ's government, a high regard for the welfare of the body politie, and is thankful for every law, and every act of administration that accords with the divine will, and thus tends to promote the object of the ordinance of magistracy-and, besides, is careful that no just reproach shall fall, through any act of his, upon the pure and peaceful character of the gospel of Christ, and cherishes, with habitual concern, the honour of his exalted Prince and Saviour: On these grounds, the intelligent Christian démeans himself quietly and honestly in all godliness, so long as his privileges and those of his fellow-Christians, and the community, are not interfered with, whatever the moral character of the government. And thus, as a matter of duty, and we may even say for "conscience sake," not as regarding the existing authorities as God's ministers, but as for other and higher reasons.*

* In fact, those who adopt the views which we advocate will be found the most peaceful members of society, better deserving of its protection than a large proportion of those who acknowledge, merely as existing, the powers that be.