Daniel 3:2

Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, sent to gather together the princes, the governors.

Society

Society, the union of the many for the interest of all, seems ever to have been a principal object of God’s care and protection. His providence, in the order of nature, is manifestly directed to gather men together, to bind them to one another by the powerful bonds of mutual responsibility, and by the ineffaceable sentiments of justice and humanity.
In the revealed or written law God has caused religion and society to advance together. He has, in a manner, amalgamated them with each other. In defining our obligations with respect to Himself, He has defined our mutual engagements towards each other. All the precepts of the decalogue tend to the general utility of mankind. The object of the Gospel is to make of all the inhabitants of the world but one single people--of that people but one family; and to imbue that family with but one single aspiration: “Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one as We are.” And we may assert of Jesus Christ in reference to Society, what He asserted of Himself in reference to the ancient law, that He “did not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” In fact, the intercourse which we carry on among ourselves gives birth to four descriptions of duty essential to the happiness of mankind, and to the tranquility of the social condition. Political duties, which are the foundations of society; magisterial duties, which are its security; charitable duties, which are its bonds; conventional duties, which are its elegancies. Now, it is religion alone that enforces and sanctifies those duties, and, therefore, it alone really protects the interests of society. Now, the error of all others prejudicial to society, and nevertheless an error which is very common, is to imagine that the various conditions existing in the world are no more than the result of chance or of necessity--that it is not necessary to refer to Divine wisdom for the explanation of the fact, that our wants once ascertained, it is perfectly natural that we should seek in the industry of others for those resources we cannot discover in ourselves--that this exchange of services has produced that variety of conditions into which society is divided--and that independently of Providence, nature has conferred authority upon the father of a family, strength given rule to kings, adulation created the influence of the great, the public safety suggested the office of the magistrate, luxury and appetite have been the parents of all the elegant arts. Would a father (and this is the title by which He delights to be called) forget his children, and leave their future prospects uncertain and wavering? No; and, therefore, religion displays to us His providence directed to abundantly supplying our wants and even luxuries. And how? Why, by means of that variety of social conditions, of which He alone is the Author. For what other Being than He, who from the discord of the elements called forth the harmony of the universe, could bind together and incorporate so many opposing influences, and direct them towards one only end? What other Being than He, who by means of a few grains of sand arrests the fury of the waves, could discipline so many furious passions, and fix the invisible limits which they cannot pass?
Nevertheless, I cannot deny that there is a specious objection often urged to this fundamental truth; and that is, the great inequality of conditions among mankind. “Wherefore,” it may be said, “wherefore is it that of the same clay are fashioned vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour? Why that immense distance that separates one man from another? Why so many enjoyments and so much liberty on the one hand, and so many privations and so much bondage on the other? Is God an accepter of persons?” What do you require Him to do? That He should establish complete equality amongst us? Let us suppose that He has done so, and nosy mark the consequences. We are all equally independent, equally powerful, equally great, equally rich. And now tell us of what advantage would that independence be to us. Should we be competent to supply all our own requirements, and should we have no need to apply to others to assist us in our necessity? Of what advantage would our power be to us? To what use could we apply it? Of what advantage would our grandeur be to us? Would it attract towards us one single particle of homage or of respect? Of what advantage would our riches be to us? how could we employ them? That complete equality once established even, would it last long? Would our ambition continue to be satisfied? Would it patiently endure so many equals? Would it not aspire to domination? And what restraint would be applicable to control it? We should all be rivals, and continually in a state of civil war. That complete equality once established, who amongst us would undertake to cultivate the ground, to supply the most pressing wants, to procure the ordinary necessaries of life? What law, what authority would there be to compel us to do so? We should perish in consequence of our greatness and abundance; we should obtain nothing but worthless superfluities while we were requiring actual food and shelter. In short, to make men all equally fortunate is but another term for rendering them all equally wretched. There must be a head of a state, that the state may escape the infliction of many tyrants; there must be great men, “princes and governors,” to protect the weak; there must be warriors “and captains,” to defend the country; there must be magistrates, “judges,” “counsellors, and sheriffs,” to prevent injustice, and to punish crime; there must be the rich, “the treasurers,” to employ labour and to reward it; there must be the poor and needy, that the inconveniences which poverty entails may serve as a spur to indolence and a warning to sloth. Society rests upon these different states as upon buttresses that support it. Now, it would be perfectly superfluous in me to prove to you that labour is the condition on which society exists--that in certain respects even political commotions themselves are less dangerous than apathy and sloth--that happiness consists in the mutual understanding which should exist between various classes, who, acting in concert, and depending upon each other for an interchange of good offices, meet together by different roads which converge towards the same centre. Well, it is religion alone which imparts a true impetus to that activity, by the peculiar stress it lays upon the conscientious discharge of the various social duties--duties so peculiar to each separate condition, that every individual is required personally to fulfil them--so essential, that they will hold the foremost place in the examination, which at the last great day the Sovereign Judge will institute--so indispensable, that their absence implies an absence of piety as well,since “without holiness no man shall see the Lord.” Does human policy watch as carefully over the interests of society? Does it rise up to protest with equal sternness against those indifferent spectators who reap abundantly in the field wherein they have not sown? Of the vast multitude of men of whom society is composed, how few serve it from other motives than ambition or emolument! The love of glory urges on the former, the thirst of riches influences the latter. Fortunately nature condemns from their very birth the greater number to struggle and to toil. And now observe the distinguishing glory of our holy faith. Not content with enjoining the fulfilment of the various social duties, it sets forth as well the manner in which those duties should be fulfilled. Is it no service to society that religion enjoins that the duties of the state be discharged with intelligence?” Abound in knowledge and in all diligence.” And who can fail to feel how fatal to the interests of society would be the influence of those in power if destitute of the necessary knowledge? If they be warriors, in spite of their valour and intrepidity, to what dangers would they not expose their country? Or is it no service to society that religion enjoins that the duties of the state be discharged with decorum? “Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, that ye may walk honestly towards them that are without.” Or does religion confer no benefit on society when it enjoins, that the motive of action when we are serving our fellow-men should be a desire to please God--“not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord?” No other motive would be pure enough nor noble enough to elevate us above human considerations and our own self-interest. Were Christianity universally practised even there only where it is professed--were all mankind to regulate their conduct by the maxims of the Gospel, and careful to be guided by heavenly motives only; with God over all disposing everything according to His wisdom, regulating everything by His will, animating everything by His Spirit, enriching everything by His liberality, sanctifying everything by His grace, sustaining everything by His power--at the sight of a state of society like this, who would not be tempted to exclaim with Balaam, as he contemplated the camp of Israel, “How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel?” (J. Jessopp, M.A.)