The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law.
by Ichabod S. Spencer.
SERMON.
t.i.tus, III. 1. Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers to obey magistrates, to be ready for every good work.
Ro. xiii. 1-7. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G.o.d, the powers that be, are ordained of G.o.d. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of G.o.d, and they that resist shall receive to themselves d.a.m.nation: (harm, loss, or ruin).
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: for he is the minister of G.o.d 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 G.o.d, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience" sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are G.o.d"s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
There are two great cla.s.ses of human duty. One of them embraces duties which we owe to G.o.d, the other embraces duties which we owe to men.
This cla.s.sification of duties received the sanction of Jesus Christ, when he spake of _loving the Lord our G.o.d with all our heart_, as the spirit and sum of the one cla.s.s of duties, and of _loving our neighbor as ourselves_, as the spirit and sum of the other cla.s.s of duties. It had also been previously taught at Mount Sinai, when G.o.d gave to Moses the two tables of the law--the one enjoining our duty to G.o.d, the other enjoining our duty to man.
This cla.s.sification of duties is not arbitrary. It is founded on truth and nature. Men have relations to G.o.d, as their Creator, Upholder, Governor, Redeemer, and rightful Judge; and they are bound to recognize these relations, and feel and act accordingly. Men hold relations to one another, as parents, children, citizens, rulers, and subjects; and they are bound to recognize these relations, and feel and act accordingly. Such is the will of G.o.d. Such is the law of G.o.d. There can be no holiness in man aside from conformity to the will of G.o.d in this thing.
This principle is carried out in all the teachings of the New Testament, with an emphasis and a plainness which no candid and unprejudiced mind can fail to understand. Jesus Christ has incorporated it into his sermon on the mount in many particulars, wherein he insists upon our social duties, while he teaches religion. He preached this principle when he said, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar"s, and unto G.o.d the things that are G.o.d"s." He practised on this principle when he made the fish bring in his mouth the tribute-money which, as a citizen, he owed to the government of the country,--a government a thousandfold more oppressive than ours.
It would be a fundamental error, if we were to maintain, that _religion_ has nothing to do with the regulation of our conduct towards one another,--as parents, as children, as magistrates, subjects and citizens; but that it has left all that field of duty to be regulated by the individual preferences of men. It has not done so. Social duties come as really within the field of _religious_ obligation, as any other duties. "The fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor and performing the duties belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, and equals." As men, in any relationship we hold, neighbors, citizens of the state, children, parents, or any other earthly connection, religion extends its authority over us; and our conduct in each one of these relationships const.i.tutes a part of our holiness or our sin.
G.o.d has not seen fit to enact special or particular laws for us, to regulate our conduct in all respects, as here a.s.sociated with one another, and owing duties to one another, as neighbors, citizens of the commonwealth, husbands, wives, and children. He has himself enacted only _general_ laws for us,--laid down great general principles, under the authority and light of which, he has left men to regulate the particulars as they please, by the governments which they establish.--only not contravening his great general principles and laws.
He has himself made _all_ the laws which are needful, and all which can be justly obligatory upon us in respect to _divine worship_,--such duties as praise, prayer, preaching the gospel, and observing the sacramental ordinances;--and no human authority may either repeal these laws or add to them. But in respect to the duties which we owe to our neighbor, that is, to our fellow-man, in any relation he holds to us or can ever hold; G.o.d has left the most of these duties to the authoritative decision of human governments.
He has thus made a difference betwixt these two cla.s.ses of duties.
The reason for this difference seems to be this; namely, man"s wisdom can reach farther in ascertaining what is fit or right betwixt him and his fellow-man, than in ascertaining what is fit or right betwixt him and his G.o.d: and consequently, man can legislate in respect to property, and other matters of human right, but not in respect to prayer, and other matters of the first cla.s.s of duties.
Moreover, in respect to worship, G.o.d is himself one of the parties.
The parties are not man and man, as they are in all social duties; but they are man and G.o.d:--and therefore, it would seem but fit and natural, that G.o.d should legislate _exclusively_ in respect to the duties which we owe to _Him_, and more specifically, than in respect to the duties which we owe to one another. Hence, we find it so.
Explicit divine law regulates all the _particulars_ of the one cla.s.s of duties; the _particulars_ of the other cla.s.s of duties are left to human law, or the regulations of human society.
But this latter cla.s.s of duties, that is, our social duties, are _not left_ to the _individual_ judgment or independent choice of men, in such a sense, that they may obey or disobey human government just as they please. Not in the least. Human government is by the divine will. Obedience to it is obligatory upon men, by the will and law of G.o.d. St. Paul directing t.i.tus how to preach, (and therefore directing all ministers of the gospel who come after him,) says to him, "Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers, to obey magistrates:" and I am doing it in this sermon. Human government is of divine authority, not the _kind_, but the fact. And consequently, our action about human government, our obedience to it, and our disobedience, are as much matters of religion, and coming under its authority and obligation, as are any other matters.
If religion had nothing to do with them, I would have nothing to do with them here. But it _has_ something to do with them. Human government is a divine ordinance. It is of divine authority. It is _not_ a thing of mere human authority. Our _religion_, therefore, our holiness and final salvation are concerned in our sentiments, principles, and conduct in reference to human government. If G.o.d _has_ left to men the choice of the _kind_ of government they will have, he has _not_ left it to their choice whether they will _obey_ human government or not. He has commanded that obedience. Human government and law are by the will of G.o.d. This is a religious principle. And almost the entire sum of our second cla.s.s of duties, by the will of G.o.d, lies under the regulation of human government.
G.o.d has himself legislated in respect to the other cla.s.s of duties.
Human government is founded on the revealed will of G.o.d.
The different expressions contained in the texts which we have just read in your hearing, place this principle beyond all controversy.
Glance at them again. "Put them in mind to be subject to princ.i.p.alities and powers, to obey magistrates." (I am doing so--I am preaching gospel this morning.) "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but _of G.o.d_. The powers that be, are ordained _of G.o.d_. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance _of G.o.d_. Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, for he is a minister _of G.o.d_ to thee for good." We are commanded to be "subject for conscience" sake."
Magistrates "are G.o.d"s ministers."--What could be plainer?--This is _religion_: not politics, but religion. Human government is "ordained of G.o.d." Magistrates are "ministers of G.o.d," to whom men are commanded to be "subject for conscience" sake."
This, therefore, settles the principle, on which obedience to human government is the religious duty of men. There may be a point where that obedience may justly stop, (a matter which we shall consider soon;) but the great principle before us now is an important one, namely, that human government and Law are things which exist by the will of G.o.d, and men are bound to submit to them on that high ground. This is the general rule. This is a _religious_ duty; whatever exceptions we may be able to find sometimes, among the diversities of human Law and human condition under it,--or when human Law would interfere with the first cla.s.s of our duties, which G.o.d does not allow it to do. "The powers that be, are ordained of G.o.d."
Let it, therefore, be carefully noticed, that no man or body of men has any right to say, that they will be without government, without Law, or that religion has nothing to do with the question of their civil obedience to Law. Such obedience must _be a part_ of their religion, or they cannot be Christians. It is a part of the _will and ordinance_ of G.o.d.
Among politicians and statesmen, the idea of what they call "the social compact" is a very familiar idea, and sometimes figures largely. They mean by this, that there exists between the different members of every civilized and orderly community, a tacit "compact"
or agreement, by which each individual tacitly or impliedly consents to surrender some of his natural rights into the hands of the community in general, or the hands of its government, in order to have the power of the community in general, or power of its government protect him in the enjoyment of others of his rights.
Thus, they tell us, that each man receives a benefit from the power of society or government, which he could not secure by his individual power, and receives it in return for the individual natural rights, which he surrenders to the general society or government: so that, on the whole, this "compact" between him and the body politic is beneficial to him. For example, he might not be able to defend his farm from the violence of unjust men, who might deprive him of it; and so he procures the aid of civil government to defend it for him, and in return for this benefit he consents that his farm shall be taxed, and consents also to forego his personal right to defend it himself in any manner he could, and let the government defend it for him in their own way. So of all other civil provisions, rights and duties under the civil government.
Politicians are accustomed to refer them all to "the social compact."
I do not complain of this idea of a "social compact," when the idea is presented merely as a justification of government, or as an _explanation_ of the propriety, necessity and equity of Law. But when it is presented as _the foundation_ on which civil government reposes, though it may satisfy a citizen, it ought not at all to satisfy a Christian. The truth is, there is no such "social compact." The idea is only a fancy. Human government is not founded on any such "social compact" at all. It either exists by force, or it is founded on the will of G.o.d, in every case. Its _just_ foundation is the will of G.o.d. And when men are submitting to human government, they are not to consider themselves as merely carrying out the implied conditions of a "social compact;" but their duty is, to consider themselves as submitting to an _ordinance_ of their G.o.d and Maker. Human government is of a more high and sacred and solemn character, than the mere idea of a "social compact" would make it.
G.o.d has something to do with it--much to do with it. His will is the solid foundation on which it rests, (even though at first it may have been established by force,) and every man is religiously bound to regulate his obedience or disobedience to human government on this divinely revealed principle. "The social compact" may be a very good idea to employ for convincing an infidel in respect to the right of Law; but it is too low and loose an idea for a Christian; it falls far below the truth, and below the just solemnity of obligation.
The _necessity_ of human Law results very much, if not entirely, from the injustice of mankind. In no age since the fall of Adam, has any considerable body of men been found so just and upright, that civil Law could be dispensed with. The bad would do injustice to the good, if it were not for Law, and those magistrates appointed by Law, who are "a terror to evil doers." Conscience is not effective in the breast of every sinner, and therefore Law must come in, to hinder that injustice, which, without it, would not be hindered by individual conscience, and to compel that righteousness which, without it, individual conscience would fail to enforce. As individual conscience becomes more stringent, civil Law may become more lax. If men would be just towards one another of themselves, there would be no necessity of human Law, to compel them to abstain from injury and to perform their duties to one another.
Consequently, Law is a friend to the human race. It is the protector of the good man; and it punishes the bad man, only for the purpose of securing rights,--property, liberty and life. And even the bad would be worse off a thousand fold than they are, if there were no efficient Law to restrain them by its authority and sanctions.
The _importance_ of civil Law is vastly great. Its importance can scarcely be exaggerated by any representation. The most of our earthly happiness lies under the protection of human Law, and lies there by the will of G.o.d. We have not an item of property, in land, or houses, or goods, or chattels, or money, which the Law does not guard for us; and we have very little indeed, which we could effectually guard for ourselves. If this protecting, guarding Law is not enforced,--if the Law is obstructed, or crippled, or baffled, or violently set at naught; then, the security of civilized society is gone, and our property, our liberty, our rights, privileges and life, just lie at the mercy of every unjust man, and any violent and excited band of the wicked!--So important to us is the potential dominion and regular administration of Law.
Moreover our very rights in religion, our privilege to have the word of G.o.d and read it, to worship G.o.d according to the dictates of our own conscience, to preach the gospel and hear it, are rights and privileges, which, in this unjust world, we could not enjoy for a single year, aside from the protection and potential administration of human government.
If this human government, the government of Law, cannot be maintained, therefore, there is nothing on earth valuable to us, which is secure for a single hour! If the Law cannot be enforced, then government is at an end and anarchy reigns, and all is confusion, uncertainty, and violence! Order, civilization, Christianity is not safe!
There is indeed a _limit_ to the obedience due to human government.
Such government may become, and sometimes does become, so unjust, oppressive, tyrannical, and cruel, as not to answer the designed, and righteous, and beneficial purposes of government for a whole people; and in such a case, it deserves no respect as an ordinance of G.o.d, for it is then acting contrary to the will of G.o.d and the necessity of society; and the injured and oppressed people may justly rise in rebellion against such a government, and overthrow it, if they can. But, let it be carefully remembered, that any violent resistance is positive rebellion against the government; and either that resistance must be crushed, or the government must be overturned. There is no middle way--there can be none. In such a case the whole authority and power of the government come into direct hostility and conflict with the violence which resists the execution of Law; and government must crush that violence, or that violence must crush the government. A government is at an end, a nullity, when it cannot execute its laws. Let it be carefully remembered also, that violent resistance to Law cannot be justified, when there is no righteous design to overthrow the government itself; for no man owes a _half_-allegiance to government, or can commit a _half_-high-treason; and besides, Law is too important and delicate a thing to have its majesty trifled with, by the wicked nonsense of a _half_-obedience. Let it be carefully remembered also, that violent resistance to Law cannot be justified, when there is no fair prospect of overthrowing the government, and being able to establish a better one. To justify violent resistance to the laws, it is not enough that the government is unjust and its laws unrighteous; it is necessary also, that there should be no good ground to hope for a cessation of that unrighteousness in some peaceful way, and that there should be a prospect of some good to be gained by the resistance, which good shall be worth more than all the labor, and treasure, and strife, and blood, which the revolution shall cost. Let it be carefully remembered, too, that violent resistance on any one point is rebellion on every point, for "he that offendeth in one point is guilty of all:" such resistance is opposition by force to one entire government--is just a conflict with the powers that be; so that any resisting individual or number of individuals who commence a violent resistance on any one point, have cast off their allegiance to the entire government, and stand in the att.i.tude of open and hostile rebellion.
It may not be an easy thing to settle the right of rebellion--to determine the question, when a people have a right forcibly to resist the execution of regularly enacted Law. But we _can_ tell _something_ about it. There are some things perfectly clear on this point.
1. To justify rebellion, (or what is the same thing, forcible resistance of the laws,) a government must be so bad, as to fail manifestly of its just end, that is, to promote the happiness of the people. If it does promote that general happiness, it answers the just end of government--it is a good government, and ought not to be overthrown.
2. To justify rebellion, the injustice or failure of a government must be so great, that it cannot be endured,--so great, that it will manifestly be better on the whole, to run all the risks of a b.l.o.o.d.y conflict, of civil war, than to endure the execution of the governmental laws.
3. To justify rebellion, there must be little or no prospect that the government can be peaceably altered, as ours may be, or that the injustice or oppression of the government can be made to cease by any peaceable means. Violence against government, rebellion, civil war, are no small matters. They bring horrid evils along with them.
The injury of government must be very great to justify the introduction of such evils; and if the injury can be made to cease, by any peaceable means and within any reasonable time, it would be better to bear the injury for a while, than to involve the nation in confusion and blood, with uncertainty as to _the result_.--The last four years" experience of nations in Europe may read us a lesson.
A republic is different from a despotism. A nation where a Const.i.tution forming the foundation of Law, limiting its enactments and establishing courts, is plainly written out in language that everybody can understand,--where Const.i.tution and Law provide for their own amendment at the will of the sovereign people expressed in a regular and solemn manner,--where the will of the people thus governs, and (for example,) there is no "taxation without representation,"--where the elective franchise is free, and every man capable of intelligently exercising the right may give his voice for altering the Const.i.tution or Law,--and where, therefore, there can be no necessity of violently opposing the laws, and no excuse for meanly evading them;--_such_ a nation is very differently conditioned from what it would be, if the will of one man or of a few governed. In such a nation, rebellion, or any evasion of Law, becomes a more serious moral evil. Rebellion _there_ can scarcely be called for; and it were difficult to gauge the dimensions of its unrighteousness!
4. To justify rebellion, it is necessary that there should be a fair prospect of successful resistance--of an overthrow of the government. If the resistance is not likely to be successful for good, but is only likely to cost the lives of the resisting individuals and others; then, such individuals are sacrificing themselves and others for no good purpose,--which is a thing that cannot be justified to reason or religion. A man has no right to fling away his life for a mere sentiment, and leave his wife a widow, or his gray-haired parents without a son to solace them.
There must be some fair prospect of great good to come from it, before one can justly fling his life into the scale, in a violent contest with the government.
5. To justify rebellion, there must be a fair prospect of the firm _establishment of a letter government_, and the enactment of more just laws, after the present government is overturned. Nothing can justify a revolution, a conflict, a waste of treasure and blood, which are not going _to gain anything_ in the end.--Again, the last four years" experience of European nations may read us a lesson.
6. To justify rebellion, or what is the same thing, violent resistance to the execution of the laws, it is necessary that something more than a _small fraction_ of the people should rise in such a resistance. If the people in general are ready for it, and are willing to run all the hazards of a rebellious conflict with the government, conscious that they have righteousness and the G.o.d of righteousness on their side; this is a very different affair from what it would be, if only a minority of the people were ready for rebellion. Such a minority have no right, on account of their deemed injuries, to plunge the nation into a civil war, for the purpose of over-turning a government which suits the great ma.s.s of the people;--a civil war, in which there is every prospect, that the government and the majority who aim to support it will prevail; and prevailing, must crush their hostile opponents, this hasty and reckless minority.
These are some of the things which appear necessary, in order to justify violent resistance of Law. They must _all_ exist, or such resistance would be criminal,--contrary to reason, to benevolence, and to Christ.
It is not a thing to be expected at all among mankind, that all laws should be right, or "just and equal." Human legislation must be expected to bear the marks of an imperfection, which attaches itself to everything human. If obedience to government were obligatory, only on the condition that all the laws of that government are just; then, such obedience would mean nothing at all, and every man would be absolved from all allegiance to the government, and from all obligations to obey. Such is man, so limited his wisdom and so imperfect his holiness, that human laws must necessarily be imperfect, and must, therefore, necessarily operate hardly in some instances, upon more or less of the people. It is impossible, that the thing should be otherwise--in the very nature of the case, it is impossible. And if every individual were allowed to be the judge in his own case, whether or not the law operated so hardly upon him that he might disobey; _then_ his _obligation_ to obedience would mean just nothing at all, and Law would be nothing more to him than mere advice. It might be very good advice, but he might spurn it, if he chose. _I_ may think it hard and unjust upon myself, that, in the great "Empire State," by a sort of "bill of attainder," (I know not what else to call it,--I suppose I must not call it a _slave law_,) I am prohibited from holding any "office of profit or trust,"
because I _will preach_ the gospel, and people will hear me;--but notwithstanding this law, (which you will not allow me to call by any hard name,) you think me under obligation to obey the government,--and I think so too. I shall not rebel.
The _execution_ of the Law also, must necessarily be imperfect, for the same great reason--human imperfection: judges and jurors are not infallible. But, what then? _G.o.d knew all this_ when he ordained human government, and commanded us to be subject to it. Such government, with all its unavoidable imperfection and errors, on the whole is beneficial--indispensable--we could not do without it.--And rarely, very rarely indeed, is there a single instance of an individual man, here or beyond the Potomac, whom Law has injured _more_ than it has benefited. Even if that Law unjustly takes away his liberty or his life, it may have done him more good than injury; his liberty or his life might have been sooner and more cruelly destroyed without it. It would be hard to prove the contrary, in any one case that ever existed or ever will, here or elsewhere.
The best and wisest Laws ever enacted by man, or that ever will be enacted by man, may sometimes operate hardly, even destructively, upon some particular persons. An innocent man may be accused of murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to ignominious execution.
But, _what then_? May this man, who _knows_ his innocence, justly arm himself with deadly weapons, and kill the officer who would execute the sentence of the Law upon him,--and thus get out of his hands? May this innocent man"s neighbors, who know his innocence as well as he, "_lawfully interpose their own persons_" betwixt him and the officer of Law, and thus rescue him?--and may they do this, because they have decided for themselves, that this is not a case "_where the administration of justice is concerned_?" If so, then all Law and Government must soon come to an end, and anarchy, mobs and confusion reign! If so, then each man becomes really his own Lawmaker, and when _he thinks_ the Law unjust towards him, may resist it unto blood! If one man is at liberty to "_be fully prepared for_ his own defense," and calling the legal officer an "a.s.sailant," or an "a.s.sa.s.sin," may resist the execution of one law which he deems hard upon him, then another man may do the same thing in reference to another law; and the consequence inevitably must be, that all Government, Law and security are at end! If my neighbor may arm _himself_, and kill a legal officer who attempts the discharge of his sworn duty; then I may arm _myself_ also, when I deem the Law unjust to me, and kill another legal officer, who attempts to execute the Law! And if all this may be, LAW is nothing but a bugbear or a bubble--is a dead letter--and the texts of G.o.d"s word which we have just read to you may be disobeyed, and ought to be blotted from the Bible!
My brethren, this is a very solemn subject! No theme of earth could be more so. All our earthly benefits, and no small part of our spiritual privileges and hopes are wrapped up in it. Religion _cannot_ prosper, if Law is not potential--if the minds of the people are to be perpetually agitated, distracted and tormented, by confusion, fear and uncertainty!