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.