Preface The subject of civil government is, in all its aspects, of no little importance. It occupies a large share of man's thoughts in all enlivened countries, and awakens, just now, the liveliest concern. This is not strange, for its influence is felt in every department of human action. It has to do with the peace, the order, the material prosperity of the Commonwealth, with the rights and liberties of the citizens, and exercises no inconsiderable influence upon the interests of morals and religion. In all these respects, in the last particularly, the institution of civil government is deserving the attention of the Christian and of the Christian minister. Moreover, the inspired writers take occasion, not unfrequently, to state, sometimes summarily in the doctrinal form, and sometimes in narrative and in detail, leading principles by which the intelligent and faithful may be directed as to the part which they are to take in setting up, in administering, or in supporting political constitutions. Hence, no apology is necessary in entering upon such an examination, as that which is now proposed, The topic itself is a great moment, and the light and authority of God's Word are before us. Again these researches are imperatively called for, inasmuch as the particular passage, to which the attention of the reader is asked Romans 13, 1-7 has been grievously perverted. One class of expositors endeavor to derive from these teachings of Paul the offensive principle of unresisting, unquestioning subjection to civil authority of whatever stamp. Rulers, say the, may be ungodly, tyrannical, immoral, they may use their power for the worst ends, they may subvert the liberties, and take away the rights of their subjects. Still, but one course is open, even to such rulers and to such authority, there must be yielded at least a passive obedience, no resistance is ever lawful, though made by the entire body of the oppressed, and that under peril of eternal damnation for the powers that be are ordained of God, and he that resisteth the power receiveth unto himself damnation. This principle was a very prominent topic among the controversies that arose in England after the restoration of Charles II, in 1660. The advocates of high episcopacy particularly the Oxford theologians stated it in the strongest terms, maintaining the divine right of the restored government to an unlimited allegiance. It was revived, after the revolution of 1688, by the non-jurors and their friends, who urged it against that settlement of affairs. The conflict raged long and was very bitter, for all, whether in church or state, who favoured the expulsion of James II and the establishment of the succession to the throne in the House of Brunswick, the Friends of Civil Liberty, were equally earnest in maintaining the right of a nation to take measures for the prevention of tyranny and of an arbitrary power over the rights of the subjects. All these, including such men as Burnet and Hodley, while they vindicated monarchy as the best form of government, in this agreeing with their opponents, were no less vehement in asserting and also in proving that the Apostles' doctrine implied certain limitations, that it must be interpreted so as not to conflict with the plain dictates of reason, or the liberties of nations. This form of the controversy regarding this celebrated passage, has passed away. Even Oxford found it impossible to carry out its own doctrine, and hence won James II. Attempted to lay violent hands upon its chartered rights and amenities, Oxford resisted it heed its own words, and took rank with the most decided adversaries of that popish king in his assaults upon English law and Protestantism. While power was in the hands of a court professedly Protestant, and zealous for the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Church of England, it was all well enough, but when a new government arose, which sought to transfer all the posts of honor and influence in church and state into Popish hands, these conscientious defenders of an absolute divine right took the alarm, and refused to be bound by their own repeatedly asserted doctrines. After the revolution, this principle did not outlast the generation, which felt a self-chagrin at the toleration of dissenters from the established religion. They had fought at a disadvantage, and lost ground. A new generation arose, and at last, as a topic of controversy, the subject was dropped, and hence, whatever private views may have been since entertained by the more bigoted loyalists and ecclesiastics, it has long ceased to figure in the annals of literature. However, even the exploded doctrine of no resistance has not entirely succumbed. It has found a place in the commentaries of Haldane and Chalmers, and still lingers in thou mind, at least, in the form of doubts as to the propriety and lawfulness of setting aside institutions and men by violence, if necessary, that have proved themselves incompetent to answer the ends of political arrangements and authority. There is another class of expositors, embracing a large proportion of the more modern, and some of the ancient, commentators, who, while they admit that nations may remodel their constitutions so as to suit themselves, and even resort to violence for the overthrow of tyrannical power in other words, they admit the right of revolutions still hold and teach, as the doctrine of this passage, that so long as a government exists, whatever be its character, it is entitled to, and may demand, in the name of God, a conscientious obedience to its laws, unless they conflict with the laws of God. This is a view highly plausible and popular, and yet is say nothing, at present, of its inconsistency, for, how could there be a revolutionary movement, unless conscience had previously ceased to feel any obligation to respect and honor and fear the existing government? it will appear in the sequel that it gains no countenance from the teachings of Paul, and for the reason that the passage makes no reference, as we think will appear upon strict examination of its terms, to any power but that which answers in some good measure the ends of its institution. Whatever may be the regard, if any, due to an immoral and tyrannical, and, of course, hurtful government, this passage makes no reference to it. It teaches one set of truths, and one only, the nature, functions, and claims of a good government. In the language of Bishop Oatley, as the Apostle's words stand at present, and have ever stood, it is impossible to prove that he had in view any particular magistrate acting against the ends of this institution, and again, all that we can possibly collect for his Paul's injunctions in this place is this, that it is the indispensable duty of subjects to submit themselves to such governors as answer the good ends of their institution. There is nothing to make it probable that Paul had any governors particularly in his eye, who were a terror to good works and not to evil, or that he had any other design in this place, but to press submission to magistrates, upon those who acknowledged not to be due in point of conscience, from the end of their institution, and the usefulness of their office. And in whatever instances submission can be proved to be due from this argument, I am ready to acknowledge that Paul extended it to all such instances. But as for submission in other instances, the apostles reasoning here cannot defend or justify it, but rather implies the contrary. For if submission be a duty, because magistrates are carrying forward a good work, the peace and happiness of human society, which is the argument Paul usef, it is implied in this that resistance is rather a duty than submission, when they manifestly destroy the public peace and happiness. One we are aware that the truth of these assertions remains to be proved their truth will appear in the analysis of the passage, but we would now state it distinctly and emphatically, for it is the key to the right understanding of this, and parallel passages. Keeping this in mind, the scope and bearing of Paul's doctrine on civil government and submission to authority, is as clear as a sunbeam. He gives no countenance to any slavish doctrine to any claim of divine right, to do wrong to any principle that would tie up our hands, or in the least interfere with the right of the Christian citizen to prove, by moral and scripture rules, as well as by the laws of self-preservation, any and all institutions and laws. In what light we are to regard tyrannical and ungodly powers, we may ascertain elsewhere, but cannot here, accept, and the exception is important, that inasmuch as Paul gives us the character of government, as God approves it, and then enjoins subjection, we can pretty directly infer that in case a government does not possess, at least, a due measure of the requisite qualifications, the command to obey cannot apply to it. A greater interest is, moreover, to be attached to such investigations as we propose, from the fact that the infidels of our times make use of this passage to serve their own purposes. We live in an age and country of liberal ideas regarding government and age, when the rights of the people are watched with the utmost sagacity and vigilance. Popular rights are matters taken for granted, and anything that runs counter to them is at once rejected. Infidelity attempts to turn this feeling in behalf of liberty into its own channel, to rouse it against the Bible, as if it favored absolute and irresponsible power, and they avail themselves, and with no little success, of the mistaken exposition of the very passage before us. The expositors to whom we have referred intend to strengthen the arm of any and all civil authority these interpretations the infidel school use for the overthrow of the authority of the Bible. Both are met and foiled by one process simply by a just analysis of the passage itself. This we now proceed to attempt, hoping to demonstrate, on the one hand, that a good government finds here both a guide and a pillar and on the other, that a bad government finds not the faintest shadow of countenance, but is inferentially, but not the less effectually, condemned. Exposition of Romans 13 1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that rest shall receive to themselves damnation. 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 God 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 God, 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 God'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. This passage will be found, upon careful analysis, to embrace the following topics 1. The duty in general of obedience to civil authority verse 1. 2. General considerations enforcing this obedience verse 1 and 2. 3. The design of the appointment of rulers, or of the institution of government verse 3. for the application of these principles to the case both of good and bad citizens. Verse 3, 4. 5. The principle of obedience to civil rule. Verse 5. 6. A more specific statement of the duties owing to civil government, as previously described. Verse 6, 7. Section 1. The duty, in general, of obedience to civil authority. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Verse 1. Al-civil governments are called powers. The term here used iqazja is employed to denote any species of authority paternal, ecclesiastical, magisterial. That in this instance it means civil rule, is abundantly clear from the whole tenor of the passage. It is important, however, to remark that a designate civil government, not as an institution endued with ability, to execute its will for this another term denamige would have been more appropriate, but as invested with the right to enact and administer law. By what authority, Ecclesiastes scribes to our Lord, doest thou these things? Who hath given thee this authority? Matthew 21, 23. 2. They are called higher powers. The word Upper Exousa Iger rendered higher, properly signifies prominence, or eminence, and hence it comes to mean excellent, or excelling, and must be translated by these or equivalent expressions in a number of passages in the New Testament. Let each esteem other better Upper Exodus than themselves, Phil 2, 3. And the peace of God, which passeth Upper Exousa all understanding, Phil 4, 7. for the Excellency Dea to Upperexon of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, Phil 3, 8. In fact, the passage now before, Us, and Peter 2, 13, a parallel passage, are the only instances, in which our translators have furnished a different rendering. Hence, some expositors have been disposed to lay no little stress upon this epithet, as distinctly defining the character of the powers here intended, and as limiting to such the subjection here enjoined, the excelling powers, that is, powers possessing a due measure of the qualifications requisite to the rightful exercise of the power of civil rule. that such is the fact, that the duty of subjection to civil rule is not absolutely unlimited, that it must be determined by other and higher considerations than the mere fact that it exists and brandishes the sword, is a most important truth a truth nowhere taught more clearly, as we shall find, than in the passage before us. Still we are not disposed to insist upon any different rendering. We neither deny nor affirm, To elicit the true meaning and import of the passage does not require the aid of minute, and, after all, doubtful criticism. Civil rule is the higher power it is invested with an eminent dignity. It spreads it aegis, when properly constituted and administered over the whole commonwealth, with all its varied interests, and claims an unopposed supremacy. There is an inherent majesty in lawful governmental power calculated, and designed to impress subjects and citizens of every class and character with a salutary awe. And whether the attributes of inherent moral excellency be expressed in the designation here given or not, it may be readily inferred, for power, without moral character, is a monster indeed. It is, however, government and not the particular magistrates, by whom authority is exercised, to which Paul here refers. The distinction is important. Rulers are mentioned for the first time in verse 3. He now treats of the institution of civil rule. The powers the higher powers, government in the abstract the institution of civil rule. 3 Subjection is enjoined to civil government, verse 1b Subject that is, voluntarily, freely, and cheerfully rendering allegiance and homage, and yielding a uniform and conscientious obedience to the wholesome laws enacted by the higher powers. In other words, what is here meant is something far different from an unresisting submission to what cannot be helped, as when the unarmed traveler submits to be despoiled by the highway robber. This kind of submission is, indeed often called for. The slave must, of necessity, do the bidding of his master. The power is unjust. It may be tyrannically exercised. It is, in its very nature, despotheic. But the victim of wrong has, for the time, no alternative. By obedience alone can he secure exemption from greater suffering. So the unhappy subject of arbitrary civil rule. He is beneath the iron hill of the despot. He must obey. but it is a forced obedience, wrung from him by the irresistible might of the tyrant's scepter. So also, the Christian may be compelled to yield a kind of submission to overwhelming power. He is in his hand. The sword is ready to enforce the mandates of unholy authority. The salve, and the subject of despotic civil rule, alike submit, but both for the same reason the impossibility of escape, or of successful resistance. To nothing of all this does the inspired apostle here refer. He employs a term a patacysk, that denotes an orderly and due submission a genuine and hearty subjection, and to fix the meaning of the injunction beyond dispute, he defines it more fully, afterwards, in verses 5 and 7 wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake fear, to whom fear honor to whom honor. In short, whatever may be the duty of the oppressed, and whatever his rights, Paul does not here consider either. He deals with but one topic the duty of subjection to civil government civil government, as he afterwards describes it, with its duties, its character and its claims. To such a government there is due, not mere obedience, but an obedience hearty and prompt, and obedience importing an acknowledgment of its being an authority and obedience originating in an intelligent perception and appreciation of its character, design, and happy fruits. But even this, we may safely say, is not inconsiderate or unlimited, for it is an obedience limited, after all, by the paramount claims of the Law of God. For surely none but an atheist can deliberately affirm that even the law of the land can set aside, weaken or nullify the authority of the law of God. To the best government, obedience can be yielded only in things lawful, for there is a higher law too, which rulers and subjects are like amenable. The heavens do rule. There is a God above us, and to Him every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, Phil 2, 10, 11. And, surely, if obedience to the best government is thus limited, it need hardly be added, that submission to an unholy power does not go beyond this. This also is limited by the Law of God. It can only be yielded, when this can be done without sin. In every other case, the subject the slave even should imitate the noble example of Daniel, and of myriads of the faithful before and since, and suffer rather than sin. To return the duty here inculcated is that of a hearty recognition of a rightful civil authority, together with an active support of its claims, and a personal and respectful obedience to its lawful enactments. 4. This injunction lies upon every citizen. Let every soul be subject, and etc. There is no exception. The rich and the poor, the young and the old, the Christian and the infidel, the minister of Christ, as well as the private member of the church must be subject. In this lies much of the emphasis of the Apostles language, for it is clearly intended to rebuke the notion, earthly entertained, and that has still found a place among the professed followers of Christ, that it is unworthy of a Christian to be subject to civil rule, that having one master, even Christ, Obedience is due, in no sense, no even with suitable limitations, to any other authority, and, also, to confute, beforehand, the arrogance of the Popish priesthood, who claim, as all know, exemption from civil control. Equally opposed to both these is the explicit declaration of Paul, let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Nor can this be rested to the establishment of any authority on the part of the civil magistrate over the Church of Christ. The Church is an independent society. Her constitution, her doctrines, her laws, her administration, all are from Christ. To Him alone is she subject. She exists, indeed, among and in the kingdoms of the world, but owns no allegiance to any other head than to Christ. To claim supremacy over her is a presumptuous and unwarranted usurpation, God alone is Lord of the conscience. Inferences 1. Christians should endeavor to understand, and should take suitable interest in the subject of civil government. It is neither remote from them, nor too unholy to occupy their attention. From the mere contests of faction they may, indeed, stand aloof, but, surely, that which attracted the attention of an inspired apostle is not beneath the study of the most spiritually minded of the followers of Christ. he should study the subject, moreover, for without this, he cannot with becoming high intelligence perform his own duty respecting it. 2. The Christian minister may and ought to present the doctrine of the Word of God, on this, as on other subjects of which the inspired writers treat. The time was, when it would have been necessary to argue elaborately in defense of this statement. It is not necessary now. The pulpit has been compelled to enter this field long almost abandoned. an age of, at least, attempted social reformation, has driven every party in turn to seek the powerful aid of the Christian ministry, and while we cannot in many instances find much to commend in the manner in which the subject has been presented, it is still so far well that portions of the Word of God which exhibit the character, functions, and claims of civil power, are no longer regarded as forbidden ground. Still, there is need of wisdom, In such discussions, the ambassador of Christ should keep close to the footsteps of his master and of his inspired followers, and rising above the transient conflicts and unworthy behests a party, should essay to exhibit and illustrate the entire subject of governmental arrangements and polity, in a manner becoming an exalted moral institution so as to bring a revenue of glory to Christ the supreme lawgiver. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video, or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail-order catalog, Thank you. by phone at 780-450-3730 by fax at 780-468-1096 or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since He condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The Prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.