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 class of duties; the particulars of the other class of duties are left to human law, or the regulations of human society.

But this latter class 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 God. St. Paul directing Titus 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 principalities 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 God 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 God. This is a religious principle. And almost the entire sum of our second class of duties, by the will of God, lies under the regulation of human government. God has himself legislated in respect to the other class of duties. Human government is founded on the revealed will of God.

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 principalities 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 God. The powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. 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 God to thee for good." We are commanded to be "subject for conscience' sake." Magistrates "are God's ministers."—What could be plainer?—This is religion: not politics, but religion. Human government is "ordained of God." Magistrates are "ministers of God," 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 God, 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 class of our duties, which God does not allow it to do. "The powers that be, are ordained of God."

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 God.

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 God, in every case. Its just foundation is the will of God. 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 God 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. God 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