Divine Sovereignty vs. Human Government

By Adin Ballou

By "divine principles" I mean those stated in Part 1. I affirm that whatever is plainly repugnant to those principles is absolutely wrong and of no rightful authority whatever.

I have met with two exactly opposite minds who demurred to the doctrine of the sovereignty of divine principles. One of them said it struck a fatal blow at the sovereignty of all established human governments, whether Monarchical, Aristocratic or Democratic, whether Despotic or Constitutional. He acknowledged it was right in the abstract; but, said he, Human Government must be sustained in its assumed sovereignty for the present, right or wrong.

He was right to this extent, that no one man, nor class of men, nor national people, can rightfully do or require to be done any thing whatsoever which is plainly contrary to divine principles. Man is ever a bounden subject of the divine law. He cannot repeal it, nor annul it to the least extent, nor violate it with impunity. If any man, or combination of men, claims a sovereignty of this nature, they are rebels against God, and in a state of insurrection to his authority.

If autocrats, monarchs or constitutional governments set up and enforce laws which they deem just, and which I deem wicked, as being plainly contrary to divine principles, I shall protest against all such laws, as morally null and void. I shall deny that their enactors have any sovereignty or right to make such requirements. I shall refuse to obey such laws, and stand upon my conscience before God. If they enforce the penalties of those laws upon me, then I shall try to suffer their inflictions meekly, patiently and heroically, without physical resistance, but with a solemn moral protest, even unto death, against the wrong done. . . . .

Policy toward Sword-Sustained Governments

Our Policy is founded strictly on acknowledged divine principles, and allows of no time-serving expediency contrary to those principles. This is our duty. Yet it is not the less Policy. We call it Policy because it takes on the character of prudential forecast, and indicates precautionary measures with reference to possible difficulties with outsiders.

By "sword-sustained governments of the world" I mean all human governments which hold to the rightfulness of resorting to war, capital punishment and penal injury for the maintenance of their own existence and authority whenever they deem the same necessary. I know of no human governments not sword-sustained, excepting our incipient Republic. And here is a great moral gulf which separates us from the old order of society. We renounce the sword and all manner of penal injury as a dernier resort for self-preservation, whether individually, socially or governmentally.

What, you may ask, if we should gain the ascendancy in any country, so that the responsibility were thrown upon you by the common wish of the people to exercise the government thereof? In such an event they would adopt our government in all its length and breadth, and our course would be straightforward. Our moral power would then have become so strong and consolidated in that country, that we should have no need of the sword or any kind of injurious penalties to sustain our government. We might have our turbulent individuals at home and some foreign aggressions, yet our policy founded on our principles would be equal to all emergencies. We should be under no necessity to kill or injure our offenders. We should have a more excellent way of getting through our difficulties; I mean that of overcoming evil with good. Anyhow, it is useless to borrow trouble from so far off a future. We expect that the members of our Republic are to live for years, perhaps centuries, under these sword-sustained governments; we can anticipate nothing else.

Assuming that our members live under a sword-sustained government, they must not come into anti-Christian conflict with it. What is anti-Christian conflict? A conflict of arms, a conflict by deadly or injurious force, a conflict by resisting any kind of evil with moral evil. Should we resist or attempt to thwart a government by means contrary to our principles, we should carry on an anti-Christian conflict with such government. This we cannot do. We may maintain a righteous moral conflict in a good cause, but cannot resort to injurious force, nor to immoral expedients of any kind. We may suffer wrong, but we must not do wrong. In this lies the secret of our strength.

Succor and Protection of Members

We intend to govern, succor and protect our own people, to the utmost of our ability, so far as we can go without coming into anti-Christian conflict with "the powers that be." We all stand solemnly pledged to succor and protect such of our members as may need sympathy, counsel, money or moral influence, by reason of misfortunes, oppressions, persecutions and tribulations which from any cause or quarter may befall them. We are bound to do so. They are "bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh," in the best social sense of those terms. So long as our members demean themselves worthily of the Republic, it would be shameful in us not to succor and protect them to the utmost extent of our ability. I mean ability compatible with our principles. We cannot fight with carnal weapons, even in self-defense. Nor is our revolution one to be promoted by violence. It is a peaceful one altogether, though so radical.

In legislating, adjudicating and executing we can go very far; because we are a voluntary body politic, and may do what we are agreed among ourselves is right. You would not expect such a people to look up to a sword-sustained human government to teach them what was right, nor to settle their controversies, nor to regulate their domestic police. They will govern themselves, and government outside will do little but impose taxes and subject them to its general laws. Now the policy prescribed is, to do everything for ourselves in the way of government that we can do without coming into anti-Christian conflict with the sword-sustained government of the old order of society.

Therefore, if we have talent, wealth, influence, we must pour them out like water for the succor and protection of our suffering members. The pure white flag of our Republic must proclaim to all the world, that its humblest citizen will receive all the sympathy and protection which an undivided people can righteously render. Our poor are not to be thrown upon the old order of society for support. Our widows and orphans are not to go abroad begging relief and protection. And if any of our citizens are fined, imprisoned or in any manner oppressed by "the powers that be" for acting conscientiously according to our standard of Practical Christianity, they are to be aided and befriended by us to the utmost extent of our power, i.e. within the limits of innocence. We are to suffer with them - to make common cause with them. So, if our feebler members are crowded upon, injured and taken advantage of by unprincipled men of the world, the stronger members in talent, wealth and weight of character are to interpose a shield of protection over them, without money and without price; that it may be known by all in due time, that what they do unto the least of us they do unto the mightiest and unto the whole Practical Christian Republic. We could do less without shame and contempt, in view of our professions. . . .

Non-participation in Government and Politics

The third specification of our Policy is to abstain from all participation in the working of the political machinery of sword-sustained governments, and to be connected as little as possible with their system of operations. This is the fundamental love-principle itself, which forbids man to kill or injure man. Those who object to it either do not accept that principle as forbidding all injury between man and man, or they will not allow its application to government, or they plead that the time has not come for insisting on it. Indeed, they seem to be quite indisposed to recognize, appreciate and reason from fundamental religious and moral principles at all. They take everything up by pieces, and look at it in the light of expediency. And their expediency is like the child's world, bounded by the sensible horizon, which terminates in all directions where the sky seems to shut down upon the earth. It is a very short-sighted expediency. But they are none the less confident it comprehends all things. Such is their mole-eyed wisdom.

With this sensible horizon of expediency for their universe, and the self-confidence which is its concomitant, these objectors generally begin thus: "What, not vote, not take office, not participate in the government of the country, stand off by themselves as a separate people or nation! That is preposterous! That spoils the whole thing! I should think something of the scheme, were it not for this silly nonresistance and no-governmentism. I admire the larger part of their Constitution; but such weak, absurd and impracticable notions damn it for me."

I should ask such an objector: "Is the old order of human society right? Are you satisfied with it?"

He would answer promptly, "O no, no; it is very bad - full of selfishness, antagonism, hatred, violence and misery."

"Do you want a better order of society established in the earth?"

He would answer, "Yes, yes, certainly."

"How do you expect that better order of society is to be established?"

He would reply, "By Association, unselfish, peaceful Association."

"By Association on any radically different principles from the now prevailing order of Association?"

"Yes, certainly, more just, fraternal and unselfish principles, and more scientific too - more unitary."

"Would you exclude war and vindictive punishments from the new order?"

"Most assuredly. Stop; exclude? no not formally, perhaps; but in true attractive Association all these evils would be transcended. They would cease with the cessation of their causes and occasions, which would not exist in the true order of society. So they would need no other preclusion."

"But you would have the new order of society in close fellowship with the old, so that your members might vote, hold office, litigate, fight and do everything else in the governments thereof just like the rest of its citizens?"

"Yes; only they should be more virtuous and honorable than ordinary, and should do everything constitutionally, legally and properly."

"You would have them soldiers, generals, hangmen, sheriffs, etc., etc., etc. - all bound by solemn oath to sustain the old order of society and its government, by force of arms if necessary?"

"Certainly; leave all these things to take their course. Only I would have our Associationists and Communists aim continually to improve the old order of society, to favor the new order as much as possible, and to make their influence felt for the general good. That is the beauty of the thing. Just think how much good we could do by exercising our political rights in the old order of society and government!"

"But what would become of your new order of society, and who would take care of its growth, while its most talented and enterprising minds were taking such beautiful care of the bad old order of society and government; and while, too, they were in a scramble with each other for the rich loaves and fishes of office, as partisans of rival leaders?"

"O, I would not have our Socialists neglect their own work, nor be mere office seekers, or salary hunters, nor get divided among themselves into rival squads of politicians. Not at all."

You would have them attend to their own business, and other people's too! Expend their best energies in improving the old order of society, and at the same time show all the world the excellences of the new order! Be devoted to the politics of rival parties in sword-sustained governments, and still be united at home in the bonds of peace! Serve two masters with equal fidelity! Sit on two stools, and not come to the ground between them! All this may be very beautiful, but is not very likely to come to pass in such a world as ours. I venture to suggest that it would savor more of common sense, if not of honesty, to confess at once, that the only road to a new order of society is through the old one by gradual improvement, whereof politics is the indispensable "staff of accomplishment." In that case, let the objector cease to amuse himself and others by talking of a new order. Let him stick to the old like a pertinacious tinker till he shall have patched it into a new kettle. I can excuse him from joining the Practical Christian Republic till he takes a few more lessons in the school of experience. It is ridiculous, as well as utterly impracticable, to ride two such different horses, on two such different roads, at the same time.

It is objected that our policy seems to be to leave government wholly in the hands of bad men, by withdrawing all good men from it. What is to become of the world if bad men are to be left to wield all the power of government? Why not vote for State and National officers, to aid in keeping out bad men, and getting in good men? For seven reasons.

1. We seldom know which of the candidates is best.

2. The best as a man is not always the best as a partisan officer.

3. The best man of the best party must bind himself by oath or affirmation to do some things which are in plain violation of our sovereign divine principles.

4. By voting we become complicated with the political party whose general course we most approve, which nevertheless we must radically differ from.

5. We invite discord into our own circles, where there can hardly fail to be honest differences of opinion about the merits of opposing parties, or the propriety of taking sides in such contests.

6. Or, if our people all voted one way, we should provoke public suspicion against ourselves as an ambitious, consolidated clan, ripening for political mischief.

7. We should neglect our own sacred enterprise to help govern an order of society from which we profess to have separated ourselves for conscience' sake; and thus we should not only open the door for all our members to meddle continually with the political, seditious and revolutionary turmoils of the world, but actually involve our whole movement in the uncertain issues of those commotions.

For these reasons it would be folly, madness and suicide, for Practical Christian Republicans to participate in such elections. Our cause would have nothing to gain, but everything to lose, from such meddling. "Let the potsherds of the earth contend with the potsherds of the earth." Let each order of society be managed by its own adherents, on its own professed principles. Then by their fruits good men will know which is most worthy of support. The two cannot be amalgamated. Nor can the new wine of love and peace be put into the old war-bottles. And there would be nearly the same objection to our members voting in municipal affairs - so nearly that it would hardly be worth while to pick out the possible cases which might be exceptions.

I have no fear that I shall succeed in withdrawing all good men from the support of the world's sword-sustained governments. I do not doubt that good men are much needed to countervail bad ones in most governments; but I am afraid they are more needed than welcome, generally. At any rate, I am sure the Practical Christian Republic will not rob any government of the ability or the will to do good in its own sphere and way.

1. The kind of good men thereby withdrawn from sword-sustained governments will be precisely those who would not be wanted if they could be had, and would not be allowed to lead if they were introduced into government. They might be acceptable as appendages of moral respectability, to make well-meaning people think favorably of the government as a whole; but they would be allowed no real influence in shaping important public measures, or in working its powerful machinery. This kind of good men are always deemed impracticables, or visionaries, by the world's leading politicians and statesmen.

2. All the people brought into our Republic will be of real service to the governments under which they may live. They will govern themselves and their dependents in the best possible manner almost entirely at their own expense. They will exert a healthful moral influence on all around them, and do as much at least as ordinary peace officers to preserve good order. They will be a check on vice, crime and violence wherever they are known. They will dispense alms and relieve much surrounding want. They will make no criminals nor paupers among themselves to be a charge on government. They will breed no lawsuits, and require no police nor military interpositions, either to restrain or to protect them. They will be good customers of the Post Office, being far more than ordinarily addicted to correspondence and to reading public intelligence. At the same time they will be liberal, peaceable and prompt tax-payers to government. If more than all this is wanted of them, to demonstrate that they are the very best subjects any government can have, I should like to know what!

3. There are several grades of very respectable good men who will still adhere to all these sword-sustained governments; who will be glad to hold any office of honor or emolument to be had; and who will not be troubled with scruples about doing anything required by the established Constitution or laws of the land. So there will be no lack, on that score, for generations to come.

4. There are always plenty of bad men and rogues ready to serve these governments for money, in hunting down and punishing their own like; and it is well known that such are always remarkably expert and efficient on the police, among the prisons, at the gallows and in the military department. There is nothing like setting a rogue to catch a rogue, or a ruffian to kill a ruffian. Thus our secession from the old order of society will still leave sufficient help in the punishing and fighting line.

5. If by possibility it should ever so happen that any sword-sustained government in any country is obliged to dissolve, on account of the growth of our Republic, we pledge ourselves to take its subjects under our care, and see that nobody in the world is a loser by the change.

I think these reasons conclusively show that no serious calamity is likely to happen from the establishment of our Republic, or from its rigid adherence to the policy under consideration.

Non-participation in the Legal System

Granting that it is totally inconsistent for the members of our Republic to profess allegiance to the sovereignty of divine principles and yet participate in war, preparations for war, capital punishment and penal injuries, either as officers or subordinates of sword-sustained governments, still, why may they not seek redress at law for injuries done them?

It is possible they might innocently resort to judicial assistance in some cases. They are not precluded from doing so, except in cases prescriptively involving the infliction of death, or some other absolute injury, by man on man. Yet our policy is to stand aloof as much as possible from participation in the machinery of these sword-sustained governments, even in cases where our principles might permit it. This would so seldom happen, and would be so little in unison with the usual course to be pursued, that it would be safest to make no calculation on such a resort at all.

In all sword-sustained governments, the sword, or some other instrument of penal vengeance, is necessarily always behind the civil authorities as their dernier resort. To sue a man for debt, or for the purpose of compelling him to conform to our will, is to call on the government to use their sword-sustained power in our behalf. If it is right for us to sue to them for the use of such power for our convenience, why have we any scruples against doing the same thing ourselves? If wrong for its to use the sword ourselves, is it not also wrong to ask others to do so for us? Would it not be adding meanness to our inconsistency? We should do more harm than good, both to ourselves and the world, by departing from our general course. In some cases, few and far between, it might be best for us to use our rights and innocent liberties in the particulars referred to; but such exceptions will take care of themselves, without disturbing the general tenor of our Policy.

Our principles will not preclude our appearing in the Courts of sword-sustained governments to plead in our own defense, when wrongfully prosecuted or accused by others. The difference between being defendants and plaintiffs in those Courts, is the difference between dragging a man into Court with the strong arm of power backed by the sword, and being dragged thither unjustly by such an arm against our choice. I am not absolutely obliged to plead in my own defense; but I have a natural right to defend myself by truthful testimony and speech against false accusations and unjust allegations. Most human Courts concede this right. I may therefore use it, as Paul did before Felix and Festus, or waive it, as Jesus did before Pilate. If I use it, I violate none of my principles. If I waive it, I do so at my own option. I am arraigned before "the powers that be" at the prosecuting instigation of another. I did not ask the government to bring me into Court, nor to compel him to come. I am the coerced party; and if I defend myself there, it is not by injurious force, nor by invoking the injurious force of government to help me. I stand up as a man, with the common consent, to plead my cause by the force of truth. And when I have done so, I am in the hands of that authority before which my prosecutor compelled me to appear.

We shall doubtless be wronged more or less in person and estate, both by individuals and governments. But all we shall lose and suffer will not be a tithe of what the same number of people with the same amount of property in the old order of society will lose and suffer during the same period of time.