I
II
THE
CHRISTIAN IDEA
OF
CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
N MBrl'' & CO., PRINTERS.
A.   ": i, I,'"E
0 A 
T'HE
CHRISTIAN IDEA
OF
CIVIL GOVERNMENT
BY
FRANCIS VINTON, D. D.
A SE RMON
Preached in TRINITY CHURCH,New-York, on the occasion of the Prov. Bishop's Pastoral
Letter. Repeated, by request, in GRACE CHURCH, Brooklyn Hieights,
and in TRINITY CHAPEL, New-York.
PUBLTISHED BY PEHRMISSION.
NEW-YORK:
GEORGE F. NESBITT & CO., PRINTERS,
CORNER OF PEARL AND PINE STS.
1861. 
Ai A) 7 5 i~
p, ~~~
SERM ON.
"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers; to obey magistrates."
-TITUS iii, 1.
"Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."
-RoMANS xiii, 5.
The Christian Religion prescribes the duties of men in all the
relations of human life. When St. Paul instituted Titus as bishop
of the Church in the island of Crete, the inspired apostle incorporated the instructions of the Holy Ghost iii the Epistle to Titus,
wherein political duties are enjoined among the rest:  "Put them
in mind to be subject to principalities and powers; to obey magistrates." So likewise, in the Epistle to the Romans, wherein God's
will reveals itself in the mighty sweep of his eternal purpose
towards mankind. our subjection to civil government is duly enjoined:  "Let every soul be subject under the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever therefore resistetli the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist 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 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: honor to whom  honor."
-(Rom. xiii, 1-8.)
4.  - 
4
It is evident from this Holy Scripture, without need of argument, that Civil Government is a Divine institution over mankind;
that the magistrate is a minister of God; and that submission to
established Aovernments, and obedience to magistrates, is a religious obligation   The duty of civil ol)edience is made to rest on
conscience, because God personally rules over the nation, in the
powers and principalities;" that is, in those abstract and fun(lamental principles wvhichl we call a Constitution, and in the Laws of
the nation; and, by His ministers, the Magistrates of the nation.
The aword "ordained" expresses a definite, specific appointmentsomething deliberately planned and specially instituted   Commeniitators do not differ in assigning this meaning to the term.
"The powers that be are ordained of God," signifies that God
governs the nation, in its Constitution and laws, and by its officers
-not by his permissive will, by way of mere toleration, as He
permits evil in the world; nor in virtue of the will of the people;
nor by withholding His intervention: but by His positive ordinance, by His constant presence, and by His perpetual decree.
Hence, the Apostle. in the text, commands a bishop in the church
"to put men in mind to be subject to civil government;" because
men are prone to forget their civil obligations; and because selfwill, or some transient grievance, or fancied hardship, prompts to
sedition and rebellion.  He distinguishes "powers and principalities " from "magistrates," because those are the abstract principles
embodied in the Constitution and Laws, and these are executors
of the law. Hence to the Constitution and Laws of the State we
must be "subject;'" to the Magistrates w,  must be  "obedient."
"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, and
to obey magistrates."  In short, he inculcates allegiancee and compliance.   And he further bases these duties of loyalty on the
ground of piety.   "He is the minister of God to thee "-not of
thee, nor from thee, but " to thee, for good."  God gives authority
to the civil magistrate, not man. He is " God's minister," not "the
servant of the people."  "And,  therefore, ye must needs be subject "-necessity is laid upon you-" not only for wrath "-from
fear of punishment from the sword of the magistrate —" but for
conscience sake,"-as a religious duty, as an obigation of piety.
~
~ 
Such are the politics of St. Paul. Civil Government is a Di vine institution, and is administered by Divine authority. The
vode of a)ppointment is indifferent.  It may be by election; it may
be by descent; it may be by the sword.  At the time wNhen the
New Testament was written, every sort of municipal government
prevailed within the circuit of the despotic rule of the Roman
Empire.  Yet "the powers that be are ordained of God," was a
truth alike of all, exacting, the same loyalty for "conscience sake."
ThIe mode of appoiitmnen! is indifferent; but the ad isatio  of
the government is " of God." St. Paul does not say the persons
that be, but the "powers that be are ordained of God."  St. Chry sostom marks this distinction in his homily on the Epistle to the
Romans.  "The apostle refers," says he, "not to persons, but pow ers."  "fHe does not say, for there is no ruler but of God; but it
is the thing he speaks of, and says there is no p)ower but of God.
And the powers that be are ordained of God."'  (Homily xxiii.)
And this distinction is important as evincing the fallacy in that
theory of Civil Government which is known as "the Divine right
of Kings," and that opponent theory denominated "the Sovereignty of the People."' It is a real distinction, of which the Bible
gives us the illustration, in the most august transaction on record,
viz.: the establishment of the Theocracy.  When Jehovah took
upon himself the immediate political administration of the Jewish
nation, the people were summoned, and actually gave their consent.  "And Moses went up to God; andl the Lord  called unto
him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house
of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did
unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagle's wings, and
brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my
voice, indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me, above all people; for all the earth is mine, and ye
shall be a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.  And
Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded  him.
And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord
hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the 
6
people unto the Lord." So that the Theocracy was elective; yet
it was never alleged that the election gave the Theocracy its Divine authority. (See Exodus xix., 3-9.) And on the other hand,
when the Jewish nation, in the time of Samuel, revolted against
the political government of Jehovah —demanding "a king to judge
us like all the (heathen) nations"-God did not renounce His authority, nor withhold His presence; but vindicated His unseen,
but real, Sovereignty, in every subsequent vicissitude of their political fortune. (See Kings and Chronicles.) Wherefore, inasmuch  as  Jehovah  himself abdicated  the  visible throne  at
the voice of the people, no human Potentate may claim
the crown in defiance of the popular consent, by Divine
right; while, on the other hand, since Jehovah demanded the
assent of the nation before He visibly assumed the throne
of Theocracy, it follows that the people's Sovereignty (so-called)
is all exhausted in the simple exercise of electing its rulers.
The Government becomes, in either case, the Government of God;
and the people are at once made "subject " under the "powers
and principalities," established and instituted as Divine ordinances,
in fundamental principles and laws; and are, thenceforth, bound
by religious obligations, to "obey the magistrates," as "the ministers of God to them, for good."
This view of the character and authority of Civil Government
represents the conscience, as the soul's eye, looking heavenward
and seeing the sanction of eternal judgment vindicating the duty
of political loyalty. It appeals to the conscience, as the judicial
faculty of the soul, to determine the moral obligation of submission and of obedience to the constituted authorities of the
State. It elevates politics among the interests of man, along
with ethics, and flings around the Civil Government of a nation
the sacredness of the Divine Presence, and the authority of
Almighty God.  This is the religious aspect of Civil Government.
But there is, furthermore, the Christian aspect; and this is
embraced in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection: "' All power is given unto ME, in Heaven and in earth."
(Matt. xxviii, 18.)  He is the only Sovereign,  "the  King of
Kings, and Lord of Lords." Wherefore, the authority of Civil 
I
Government, which, in the Bible, is ascribed to God, is lodged in
the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the token of the higher
Christian civilization to which nations should attain under the
dispensation of the Gospel. As in the Religious aspect, so in
the Christian aspect; national life is organic, and the Nation is
an organic body.  Jesus Christ is the Head, from whom  the
Body derives its life, its nourishment, and its g'rowth.  The Constitution of a nation makes it a unit, and organizes its members into
a corporation.  Man is developed therein to his fullest capacity;
for it is society that developes man, and the Christian nation is
the highest type of society; for as the body is one, and hath many
members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are
one body, so also is the Nation; and the eye cannot say unto the
hand, I have no need of thee; nor the hand to the feet, I have no
need of you; but God has set the members, every one of them,
in the body as it has pleased Him, that there should be no schism,
nor, much less, "secession," in the body; but that the members
should have the same care, one for another, and whether one
member suffer, all the members suiffer with it; or one member be
honored, all the members rejoice with it.  (See 1 Cor., x, 12-26.)
'This is the aspect of Society in the organic relations of National
being. Individualism is recognized, but in its associations.  Alone,
man would perish, like a limb cut off.  And as the individual
man is the product of society in the family, so the true and( natural
development of man is in society, of which the Christian nation is
the Divine organism atid highest exponent, for man's terrestrial life
and happiness.
In opposition to this DIVIN'E IDEA of the Nation, is the theory
of the SOCIAL  COMPACT.  When  the ruleIs in the  Church,
and the rulers in the State, perverted the Scripture by confounding the distinction between the "powers" and the persons
in the Government, the Divine right of kings, in the line of hereditary descent, became a personal prerogative of absolute power.
Nations were regarded as made for kings, and not kings for the
nations. It was the saturnalia of royalty, amid the groanings of
the populace. But when the imprisoned soul burst its shackles,
and hurled them at its oppressor in the Vatican, proclaiming free 
8
doni in religion, there sprang, also, a pIotestantism in politics.   At
length it assumed the dignity of a philosophy, under the tuition
of Locke, who published the theory of "the Social Compact." According to this philosopher, Society originated in a mutual agreement amongo  individuals: magistrates derived their powers from
the gift and appointment of the people: allegiance to the government was based on interest and selfish safety: Society was but an
aggregation of single persons; a conglomerate and  not an organic
thing: revolution was not only a right but a law: and majorities
were supreme, while minorities were powerless. This theory of
the Social Compact took root in France, where the pupils of Locke
oitran the precepts of their master, and enacted the bloody scenes
of political tragedy with which  the awful history of the French
Revolution has made us familiar.*
The philosophy of Locke was materialism. Bald and haggard,
it had no spiritual beauty.   Deriving all knowledge from the outwvard world; denyiing intuitive ideas, and dignifying the senses as
the  only  channels  of  truth, that miserable  philosophy  left no
place for spiritual facts, and utterly ignored the rule and presence
of God in the world.   It professed respect for the second table of
the law, but put the first table out of sight. It was negatively
atheistie,  and  worked  out  practical  atheism  in society.    As  a
corollary in civil government, it decried capital punishment; because the magistrate, being endowed with no Divine vicegereney,
but merely a fellow-citizen, was invested with no authority over
the life of man.   And  yet, with  singular inconsistency, it gave
NOTE.-Locke was boin in 1632, and died in 1704. As a proof of the good influence
of the philosophy of Locke, historians attribute the settlement of the British Constitution, at the Revolution in 1688, largely to the principles and maxims of that philosopher.
But as an instance both of the arroganev and weakness of Locke, as a practical civilian, the fate of his political Constitution for South Carolina is significant. In 1669, the
"Proprietaries" of South Carolina applied to LOCKE and SHAFTESBURY for a Constitutioni for the colony. It was a queer medley; providing for a "nobility" of "Palatines," "Landgraves," and "Caciques," with biennial assemblies of the Legislature.  It
was promulgated by its author, (Locke,) as "immortal."  It was abrogated by the Proprietaries themselves, in April,' 693, after a life of less than a quarter of a century.
It left the system of "biennial assemblies," with slight changes, as the only relic of that
social compact;" unless we say it bequeathed a traditional and chronic discontent with
existing governments, and a disposition to make fresh experiments in constitutions. As
the Huguenots "were fully enfranchised. as though they had been free-born citizens,"
May l, 1691, (Statutes II., 58-60, S. C.,) it is probable that they were instrumental in
overturning the "fundamental constitution," so soon as they had acquired political
power. See Bancroft's History U.S., vol. III., pp. 10-16.
ii
I 
9
scope to the political passions to leg,alize murder for l)olitical
opinions.  It was seeming philanthropy, but real cruelty.  It pro  fessed to inculcate the riglhts of man, yet admitted no Divinity,
therefore, no chlarity, in its composition.  It had no authority but
the caprice  of self-will,  iind  in  the motives of  self-interest.
Chlangre and revolution were its rule.  Subjection and obedience
for conscience salke had no place in its ethics.  God and con science were obliterated.
The hoary dogma of the "divine riglt of king,s," and the popu.lar demand of the rilght of  self government," with many incon sistencies and extravaganit claims ol  either side, came into colli sion.  These two opponent systems l)attled for years in Europe.
There seemed to be no point of coalescence, until the English
Revolution perfected the British Constitution, an(d a Constitutional
monarch presided over the destinies of the 13Britisli Empire.   The
ConstitutionI became the principality and  sovereilgn poweI-the
kingi, the chief mag,istrate.  Submission to the Constitution was
the diity alike of king and subject' whi-le ohedience to the magis trate was the tolkeii of the loyalty of thle people.  r'hle right of
revolutioln was the:timia qatio- the exception, not the i'nle-of
libert-.  And this right was founde(l not in self-will, but in duty
to the will of God. as embodied ia tlhe Constitution of tle British
nation.
Our Fathlers acted on this p)rinciple in the Amerial(n Revolution:
maintaining the Constitution of the British enpire, in antagonism
to a faithless M1inistry.  The Patriots of our l,cvolution were the
true Loyalists, not rel)els.  Iin resisting the Cabihet, tley contended
for the supremac(y  of the Constitution of the BritishL iation.  They
were " sublject" ulIto "' principalities and powers " for conscience
sake, while denotuncing the necessity of disobeying "magistrates."
On the principle of Constitutional Liberty, oer fthers established
the Government of these IUnited States.  The Federal Constitution is the type and the organic instrument of national life.  The
magistrate uinder that Constitution is "the minister of God to
thee," to me, to all our countrymen, "for good."  The old "Confederation" was an abortive experiment of the Compact of States.
It resulted in imbecilitv.  The theory of the social compact has 
10
been tried and condemned.  It has produced imbecility, anarchy
and woe. Its principle of individual liberty is, however, embalmed in the fact of a free, consolidated Republic.
The thleoly of a promiscuous conglomeration of mlen, miscalled
society, is false in history, faithless in its principles, weak and selfdestructive in its execution, and is among the pliantasies of the
past hour. Wherc it is galvanized into ghastly imitations of life,
it is too horrid in its grimaces of fireedom to engager the affections
of any lover of Liberty and Law.   Demag,ogues and religionists attempt now and then the revolting experiment.
I was wrong when I said tlhese counterfeits of liberty are past.
For, since that sentence was penned, the newnspapers have reported
the words of a noted Abolitionist and boastful Independent-a
man of aclknlowledged talent, of wide influence for his private virtues, and of some authlority among a class of our fellow-citizensa Representative man, therefore, or I woul(d not thililk it seeming, in
this house, on this occasion, to quote his words-whlo, as the orator
at the late Puritan festival in Philadelphia, on " Forefathlers' Day,"
so called, pronounced witlh applause these words:   " Men need
governments of restraint only as they are not developed anld not
free.  As thle individual becomes educated aid strongl iiLi his whole
nature, moral and intellectual, lie needs no gov-ernment, for God
made the human soul suflicient for all its own exigencies.  It is a
perfect state.  It is competent to entire sovereignty." *
These statements are put forthl as the latest results of tlc cardinal doctrines of Puritan tlhecology, and Puritan ethics, and Puritan
politics.   According to them, in Iteaveii, where man is perfect,
there is 7io governmeit.  But to the Clhristian's iitlh in IHoly
Scripture, such sentiments are shocking for tlheir blasphemy.   To
a sinfull man's humility, they are offensivc for their arrogance.
To a patriot's loyalty, they are deserving of denunciation, as contravening all law, and as expressing,  the demoniac spirit of
anarchy.  Each man miay "do that which is righlt in his own
eyes."
It is a silgular example of the coalescence of extremes in
*H. W. Beechlier's Oration in Phliladelphia, Dec. 22, 1860. 
1l
fanaticism, that these Purital Abolition sentiments of the North,
and the self-vwilled Secessionist doctrines of the South, are practi cally one thling: grounded in thlie same vicious philosophy, pro ducing the same fruits of sedition and rebellion, and shaking
hands in an unholy alliance of hostility against  the organic
Constitution of the Nation.  FTor the law of our Union represses
the vagaries of selfishness.  AWhether it be the individual man
or the individual State, the Word of God in I-Ioly Scripture, and
the teachling of thic Episcopal Church in this land, unite in enjoiniilg loyalty on every citizen, as the pious obligation on  tlhe
conscience of the Clhristian.
The people of these United States, under the Fcderal Constitu tionl, are ONE NATION, organic, corporate, divinely established, subject to government, and bound in conscience to obedience.  Dis loyalty to the Constitution, is, therefore, impiety toward God.
Revolution is not justifiable, except in extreme oppression.   Only
where "life, liberty. and the pursuit of happiness" are positively
hindered, does ourl American Dclaratioon of Indcependence justify
revolution.  In no otlher emergency is subjection to the Constitution and obedience to the magistrate superseded by any higher law
of obedience to God.  To destroy this Union, therefore, is to commit a sin, which God will righlteously punish by evils which no prescience can foresee, and no wisdom can repair.  "Lawfully to secede"' is a self-contradiction, a solecism.  Secession is disunion,
and Disunion is Teasonii; for, the CONSTITUTIox abidles as our
"principality and power"' "ordained of God,"  securing Life,
Liberty, and Happiness to the Nation.
There is, therefore, but one thling to do in the exigency of the
Republic.  That thling is for the magistrate "who beareth not the
sword in vain" to execute the laws; and for the citizen to obey,
and be subject to "the powers that be."  But for the present distress there needs forbearance, with lhonest endeavor to redress real,
or even fancied, grievances; to silence just complaints; and to
reconstruct National intercourse into a more perfect harmony of
confidence with patience and mutual love and prayer for one
another, among the fellow-citizens of our Nation.  By confessing
and obeying Jesus Christ as our Sovereign, we shall be united 
12
again in heart, and be a mo)del among the kingdoiiis of the world.
But disloyal to Him, we sliall be scattered an(l peeled-a dismembered( body, a reproaclh and a bissing, and a l)ycewordl among the
nations.
Thanks be to the long-sufferingn and blessing of our God, we
have lived an(l prospered as fellow-citizens of the -Uiited States,
under a National Constitution.  BuLt, destroy the IUniion, we are
dead.  And the ruins of the noblest Temple that political wisdom,
guided and inspired by God's Word, hlas ever reared around tlhe
altars of Liberty and Law, for the protection and for the developmenet of man, shall, in times to come, be visited by ourI degener
ated posterity of pigmy children; who shall gaze upon thie shattered, colossal fiagments of our Constitution with  stiupid wonder
at the  -'reatness of their forefatlheis, and with muLttered curses
against the suicidal treason of this generation,  whlo deprived
themselves of a secure IHome;  whlo exiled tleir offspring to vagrancv and despair; and who blasted the blooming expectations
of Hiumanitv, just as the firuit of Constitutional Liberty was becoming set in the Tree of political life in the miidst of Europe,
amolng the civ-ilized nations of the Earth.