The plea that the Jewish rulers were types of Christ will not prove that the power which they exercised about religion was altogether peculiar and in no way exemplary. It will not be easily proved that they were all types of Christ or that the magistratical or even regal office among that people was typical. Besides, they were types of Christ in acting about civil as well as religious matters. David has usually been considered as a type of Christ in subduing the Philistines as well as in bringing the ark to Zion, and Solomon in the wise administration of justice among his people, and in the peace which he granted to them as well as in building the temple. This suggests another remark which is commonly overlooked in declamations respecting a typical nation and church. The circumstance of actions being in one view typical is not inconsistent with their being in another view moral and exemplary. Joseph may be viewed as a type of Christ in feeding his father and brethren, but did he not by the same act give an eminent example of filial and fraternal affection and duty? While David is viewed as a type of Christ in subduing the enemies of Israel, did he not also discharge a moral duty in defending his subjects? and may not his example be used to prove that all wars are not unlawful? Our argument is confirmed by the consideration that the scripture records approved examples of magistrates who were not Jewish, who exercised their authority for the advancement of religion and the ordinances of God. We find Nebuchadnezzar and Darius publishing decrees to promote the knowledge and worship of the true God among their subjects and prohibiting them from speaking anything amiss against him. In the books of Ezra and Nehemiah we have an account of the edicts which several of the Persian monarchs published in which they not only give permission to rebuild the house of God and restore his worship in it, but positively favored and publicly countenanced the work and supported those who were engaged in it. These were not typical kings, nor did they exercise their power in virtue of the Jewish constitution. But we proceed to take notice of some things which refer immediately to the state of religion and the church under the New Testament. The true religion is substantially the same in every age, and notwithstanding accidental changes in outward situation and particular ordinances, the church of God has been essentially the same in every period since her erection. For a long time she appeared principally in the domestic and patriarchal state, Afterwards, she was advanced to the national state, and since the coming of Christ her boundaries have been enlarged to receive all nations. When her members were a few men in number, yes, very few, when they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another, God reproved kings for their sakes and inclined their hearts to protect and favor them. When he had increased them with men like a flock, and settled them in the lands of the heathen, he raised up judges who delivered them, and rulers whom he commanded to feed them. And with reference to the times of the New Testament, when the abundance of the sea shall be converted, and their forces come unto her, he hath promised that kings shall be her nursing fathers, her officers peace, and her extractors righteousness. This is connected. with the advancement of the interests of the mediatorial kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in, but not of, this world, and as subservient to which the kingdom of providence is committed unto him. The kingdom of Christ is erected in an external form in the world, and in this respect, as it is subject to injury, restraint, and persecution from the men and powers of the earth, so it is capable of receiving and stands in need of protection, encouragement, and countenance from them. I might interject at this point that the verse that the kingdom of Jesus Christ which is in but not of this world is scripturally refers to the source of the power of Christ's kingdom not being of this world as is clearly proven by the context of the scripture and not as many would think therefore the Lord's kingdom is not part of this world or that we as Christians are not to To return to the text, the kingdom of Christ, again, is erected in an external form in the world, and in this respect, as it is subject to injury, restraint, and persecution from the men and powers of the earth, so it is capable of receiving, and stands in need of protection, encouragement, and countenance from them. To these it has a divine claim. Though the institution of civil magistrates is from God as the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, and not properly from Christ as Mediator, yet a right to have the kingdoms of this world rendered subservient and tributary to His spiritual kingdom in the visible church belongs to Him as Mediator. And as He by His power and the management of the kingdom of providence committed to Him will bring them into this state, so it is the duty of these kingdoms and their rulers to be actively subservient and tributary unto His kingdom by advancing its interests. The shields of the earth belong unto God, who has gone up with a shout, and who reigneth over the heathen, and He has a right to their service. See Psalm 47 verse 9. In Psalm 2 we have the Father's solemn introduction of Christ as His King, whom He had set upon His holy hill of Zion, unto the kings and rulers of the earth, with injunctions to them to serve Him in this character. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings, be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest ye be angry, and ye perish from the way. This is an exhortation and command to the rulers to lay aside that enmity and opposition which they had managed against Christ and His kingdom, and to do homage and service unto Him. If the question be asked in what character are they to serve Christ, it may be answered by proposing another question, in what character did they oppose Him? Was it not in their public character as rulers? Verses 2 and 3 says, The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings, etc. Shall we suppose, when they are reprehended in their public character for opposing Christ, that the exhortation to serve Him respects merely their private character as individuals? Shall not the honor and homage to be paid to God's own king be as conspicuous and decided as the ignominy which was poured upon him? The words of a father of the church have been greatly, generally quoted upon this subject. As a man, he serves God in one way, but as a king in another. As a man, he serves him by a faithful life, as a king by laws commanding what is right and forbidding the contrary. In this, therefore, do kings serve the Lord as kings when they do those things for His service which none but kings can do. It is the unanimous opinion, divines, that the declaration of the royal prophet, Psalm 2, is applicable to kings under the New Testament. Now, therefore, kings be wise, etc., that is, yield obedience, and that not merely as other members of the church, but chiefly as kings and supreme judges. Judges and rulers as such must kiss the sun, says Dr. Owen in his sermon preached before the Parliament of England, and own his scepter and advance his ways. Some think if you were well settled, you ought not, as rulers of the nation, to put forth your power for the interest of Christ. The good Lord keep your hearts from that apprehension," said Owen. As this view of the words is agreeable to the concurrent judgment of the most judicious interpreters, so it is necessarily suggested by the scope of the whole psalm, which relates to the public state of the kingdom of Christ, by the characters addressed, their being in the same station with those mentioned in the beginning, and by the judgments threatened for noncompliance with the injunction. Indeed, the exposition which confines this and similar texts to the private character and conduct of rulers would not be borne with if applied unto any other person in authority as ministers, parents, etc. What is enjoined upon rulers by divine precept, God promises they shall perform in the way of homage to the Redeemer and service to His church. In Psalm 72 we have a remarkable prophecy relative to the extent and glory of the kingdom of Christ. Among other things, the subjection and service of the nations and their rulers are particularly mentioned. The kings of Tarshish and of the Isles shall bring presents. The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him, all nations shall serve him. The presents and gifts here mentioned refer to the custom of princes who paid tribute to those kings who had conquered them, or to whose authority they owned subjection, while they reigned as princes over their own subjects. Solomon had many kings and kingdoms who were tributary to him, and who sent presents, and performed services to him in this view. Read 1 Kings 4.21 and 2 Chronicles 9.26. These strikingly illustrate the promises here made to Christ. Whether with some we shall suppose that this psalm refers in the first place to Solomon as the type, and ultimately to Christ as the anti-type, or rather with others that it refers immediately to Christ, but describes the glory and extent of his kingdom in the way of continued allusion to that of Solomon, the illustration is in either view the same. It shows that kings in their kingly states should fall down before him, that nations in their national states should serve him, and exposes the foolish, not to say wicked, import of the new scheme which would limit the whole meaning to individual conduct and the character of church members. We have an additional promise to this purpose in Isaiah 49 verse 23. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers. They shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet, and thou shalt know that I am the Lord, for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me." To which may be added, chapter 60, verses 10, 12, 16. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee. For in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favor have I had mercy on thee. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish, yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings, and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob. Concerning these promises, it may be briefly remarked, one, that they have a place among the most precious promises which are made to the Church as testimonies of the singular favor of God unto her in comforting and honoring her after the afflictions and disgrace to which she had been subjected, and they are connected with her great increase in prosperity, external and spiritual. This will appear from a perusal of the context in both chapters and ought to prevent any from looking upon the subject as of little importance. Secondly, while the promises refer to the period of the New Testament, there is an allusion to what took place under the old, particularly in the countenance and aid that were afforded by the Persian kings in the restoration of the temple and its worship. The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto them. Some, indeed, view the prophecy as accomplished in what took place at the return from the Babylonian captivity. But, upon better grounds, the most judicious interpreters consider it as referring to the church under the New Testament as receiving a begun accomplishment in the time of Constantine, when the Christian church first obtained the countenance and support of the civil powers, and a more full accomplishment in the Protestant churches after the Reformation from anti-Christianism and in the glory yet to be expected. 3. These promises secure unto the church the public countenance of kings and kingdoms as such. Kings shall be her nursing fathers. Nations and kingdoms shall serve her. The authority and means competent unto them as such shall be employed on the side of the church, and for the advancement of the true religion, whereas they had formerly been employed against her, and for the support of a false religion. To limit the sense of the words to that common protection which is given to all subjects and to any society is to explain away the promises of God. Kings shall act as nursing fathers, as curators, or tutors, as some render the words, who exercise a special care and oversight over the orphans who are committed to them. Or, as the metaphors elsewhere illustrated, carrying them in their bosom as a nursing father beareth the suckling child. It is equally unreasonable to confine the meaning of the promise to the private or personal conduct of rulers and of their subjects. This would never suggest itself to any who, in reading the passage, had not formed the notion that the church cannot be benefited by civil power. It offers violence to the plain meaning of the words. It does not accord with the context which speaks of the public state of the Church, and those means which tend to advance its interests in this view. It entirely sets aside the analogy between what is predicted and what had formerly taken place, which is suggested by the description. It does not correspond to what God actually did for His Church at the period to which the promises refer. It gives an improper sense to the words, in opposition to what is intimated in the divine threatening against those who shall refuse service to His Church. For the nation and kingdom, as such, and not merely individuals of them, that will not serve her, shall perish, shall be utterly wasted. In fine this view is contrary to that of the most judicious interpreters. The Hebrew word sesualeus, which is rendered nurse, is from the root aman, and properly signifies to strengthen, to establish. Therefore, the breasts of kings and queens which the Church sucks are nothing less than the authority and power of magistrates by which the Church of Christ is strengthened, as the child is by the milk of the nurse. The Church is compared, says Rivett, to orphans and pupils whose tutelage and guardianship it is the magistrate's duty to undertake, which certainly he cannot do if in his administration he is excluded from all care of religion. These promises, says Dr. Owen, assert that magistrates shall put forth their power for the welfare of the church. Kingdoms are said to serve the church. And how can a kingdom, as a kingdom, serve the church but as putting forth its power and strength in her behalf? What God hath promised kings, magistrates, rulers, nations shall do, that is their duty to do. Surely these promises will scarcely be accomplished in bringing commonwealths to be of Galileo's frame to take care for none of these things. The same is the opinion of that celebrated commentator on Isaiah, the Tringa, whose judgment ought to have the greater weight as he is allowed to be sufficiently attentive to evangelical and spiritual interpretations of the Old Testament. His views of these promises, as far as they respect the present subject, we shall therefore give more largely in the note." And by this he refers to the footnote, and since the author has made special reference to this footnote, I felt it was important that we read it. He writes, quoting the Tringa, the hand of God, and the standard which he has said to lift up to the Gentiles." Chapter 49 verse 22, the Tringa explains as referring to the edicts of the emperor, particularly of Constantine, after the removal of Licinius, by which edicts the people were obliged to supply the necessities of the church and to promote her interests. And he quotes the words of Eusebius to prove the effect which these had in gathering persons to the church. The promise in verse 23 teaches, he says, that about this time kings and queens should take care of, nourish, and cherish the church, and promote her increase, which those who do are said to act as nurses to the church, for milk is the means of increase. Also that the same person should treat in a kind and loving manner, and supply the necessities of the church, both in her ministers and members, and among the rest those who were poor, needy, and helpless. And, in addition to this, the kings themselves, princes, queens, and illustrious matrons should demonstrate and explain the salutary doctrine of truth to others, exhorting and comforting them, etc. If you turn to the time of Constantine and those which followed, adds he, all is clear. We ourselves, and Christians who live under the government of pious princes of both sexes, or of either sex, do by the grace of God see and experience what is here said. It appears that kings and illustrious ladies, not those mentioned only, but many others, from the time of Constantine, began to nourish and cherish the church, promoted her increase, advanced her interest by their edicts as well as their example, builded places of worship for her use, granted immunities to her ministers from public burdens, appointed stipends to them from the public treasury, etc. He is still more express on the corresponding passage in chapter 60 verse 10. Such as our princes and nobles, says he, shall protect and promote religion, shall honor and cherish her ministers, procure necessary support for her schools and seminaries, defend and agent the cause of the church, and, without offering violence to consciences, shall, according to the rule of the gospel, employ their authority and means for the increase and enlargement of the church. And on verse 16, thou shalt suck the breasts of kings, he says, the simple meaning is that kings shall convert their power, authority, wealth, care to the cherishing, nourishing, and guarding of the church. Milk here denotes everything belonging to kings which is fitted to cherish, nourish, support, and comfort the church. We return to the text. We might have urged here that the whole tenor of the declarations, promises, and predictions of the Old Testament lead to the conclusion that Christianity shall be owned, countenanced, and supported in a national way. God addresses the nations in a collective capacity, reproves them for their idolatry, and calls them to his worship in Isaiah chapter 34 verse 1 and 41 verses 21 through 29. He proposes Christ as his anointed servant to them. Chapter 42 verse 1 declares that he has given him the nations for his inheritance and that he shall inherit them all. Psalm 2 verse 8 Psalm 82 verse 8 Isaiah 52 verse 15 Isaiah 55 verse 5 Christ addresses himself not only to individuals, but to whole islands. Isaiah 49 verse 1. Nations join themselves to him, own and worship him. Isaiah 2 verse 2. Micah 4 verse 1 and 2. Zechariah 2 verse 11 and chapter 8 verses 20 through 22. bless themselves and glory in him, Jeremiah 4 verse 2. All nations and dominions serve him, Daniel 7 verses 14 and 27. They consecrate all things in them and employ them in his service, Isaiah 60 verses 6 through 12, Zechariah 14 verses 20 and 21. He owns these nations as His and blesses them while He breaks in pieces and wastes others. Psalm 33 verse 12 Psalm 145 verse 15 Isaiah 19 verse 25 Psalm 2 verses 9 and 12 and Isaiah 60 verse 12 It is commonly pleaded that there is nothing in the New Testament which countenances a national religion or proves that magistrates as such have any concern with the interests of religion in the Church of Christ. And those who maintain this are often triumphantly asked to produce a proof of it from the New Testament. This plea is neither relevant nor well-founded. It is irrelevant. For if the Old Testament is a rule of faith and manners to us as well as the new, it is sufficient that what we plead for is warranted by the former, although it should not be expressly mentioned, in the latter." In a footnote he says, the magistrate's power and duty respecting religion is not pleaded for by Presbyterians as a positive institution of Christ or of the Christian Church, That there are duties and rights, religious as well as moral, which are not explicitly commanded or exemplified in the New Testament is proved by the writers in defense of the morality of the Sabbath, of infant baptism, and covenanting. Returning to the text, we have showed that the power in question is warranted by the Old Testament and that it records approved examples of its exercise which proceeded upon moral grounds. Those who affirm that it is abrogated or has ceased under the New Testament must produce proof of this. We deny that it is. Our adversaries in this matter must affirm that it is. Otherwise, they do not so much as enter into the question and controversy. And it is incumbent on those who take the affirmative side of a question to prove their assertion. It is contrary to the rules of just reasoning to tell us that we cannot instruct the warrantableness of the magistrate's power about religion unless we produce a positive institution of it in the New Testament, if the whole word of God be the rule of our faith and practice. The apostle declares that rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Both by the law of nature and the law revealed in the Old Testament, magistrates had power to restrain and publish evil works against the first as well as the second table of the law. Let those who affirm that the magistrate's power is, under the gospel, restricted to the second, prove their assertion. The same apostle asserts that the magistrate is the minister of God for good. We have seen that by the law of nature in the Old Testament, he is bound as such to maintain the honor of God and to countenance religious institutions for the good of his subjects. Let it be proved that this has been abrogated or is inconsistent with the gospel dispensation. Besides, we have already shown that there are manifold passages to this purpose in the Old Testament, evidently respecting New Testament times. If any will not believe the Old Testament to be obligatory upon us, even wherein it has a declared respect to the New Testament times, they may with equal reason deny both. But neither is the plea well founded. It is true that the New Testament does not give express commands or directions to magistrates as such, either as to civil or religious matters. The Apostles in their epistles, inculcating chiefly the duties incumbent upon Christians in those stations in which they were at the time emplaced. Anything in this way is to be found connected with the duties incumbent upon Christians to rulers. The Apostle in 2 Timothy 2 verse 1 exhorts that prayers be made by Christians for kings and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty. What Christians are here to pray for that magistrates must be bound to promote as their end. And this is not simply a quiet and peaceable life, but in all godliness and honesty. Rulers are not in their official capacity to be indifferent to godliness any more than to honesty. Both are to be countenanced and promoted by them. Ezra 6 verses 8 through 10. The New Testament also contains, as well as the Old, predictions and promises which confirm what we maintain. When the seventh angel sounded, there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ. This refers to the period of the Reformation from Popery, and includes, besides other things, the public state and actings of these kingdoms with reference to the religion of Jesus Christ. On the accomplishment of the promises formerly mentioned, says Dr. Owen, kingdoms are said to become the kingdoms of the Lord Christ, Revelation 11 verse 15, because as kingdoms they serve him with their power and authority. There is not the least color left for turning off and rejecting all these promises as if they were merely metaphorical, shadowing forth spiritual glories. Neither their beginning nor ending will bear any such corrupting interpretation. They had formerly been the kingdoms of Antichrist, not merely by having his ordinances set up in them, by the greater part of the people submitting to these, but by a public and national acknowledgment of his authority and subjection to him. But they should now acknowledge and submit to the Lord. Their kings had formerly given their power to the beast, but now they should withdraw it and employ it on the side of the Lamb. Again, in describing the glory of the church in the latter days, it is said the kings of the earth did bring their glory and honor into it, and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations into it. Revelation 21 verses 24 and 26. The following is the explication of that passage by a commentator formerly quoted. The Tringa says, quote, Then also princes, kings, emperors shall serve Christ in his church. shall bring their glory, majesty, and power into it, that is, shall convert them to her use and advantage. They shall publicly celebrate the true religion, honor its ministers, and by their authority and power maintain and defend the same, which the church hath already experienced in part from the time of Constantine, and lately from the period of the Reformation, and partly has yet to look for." There is a reference here to Isaiah 60 verses 10 and 11 and 49 verses 22 and 25. It appears very clearly from this place that this vision refers to the state of the church on earth. Pious princes and kings in the state of perfection shall not bring their glory to her, but shall receive it. The titles and external prerogatives which distinguish men in civil and sacred societies shall be there abolished. And on verse 16 he says, The meaning is that whatever is eminent, beautiful, splendid, or praiseworthy among the nations shall be consecrated to the use of the church of Christ. The command of wealth and of earthly prerogatives, the gifts of erudition, prudence, eloquence, the dignity of nobles, the majesty of kings and princes shall promote the interests of the church. It is readily granted that many specious objections may be started against this, as well as every other truth and duty. And when great industry is used and misrepresented, these objections are urged by multitudes from different quarters, and by those to whom persons look up as teachers, they may gain an easy and general belief. But if we are to be staggered in our belief of everything against which difficulties may be raised, upon which persons can declaim with great ease, assurance, and plausibility, we may reject the most important articles of religion and revelation. It is only a very short and general answer to the most popular objections on this subject that we can overtake at present. It is objected that the power in question is very liable to be abused, has been abused in all ages, and that if we give power to magistrates about religion, they will employ it for the support of a false religion as well as the true. This is an objection which has the greatest influence upon the ignorant, and is accordingly most frequently urged, and represented with all possible aggravations. It will not, however, bear examination. It is not just reasoning to argue from the abuse of anything against its use. What power is there among fallible and corrupt men which is not liable to be abused, greatly abused, which has not been abused in every age, which is not daily abused by many? Some kinds of power may be more liable to be abused than others, or when abused, may be productive of worse consequences. The corruption of the best things is the worst. That's a common maxim. Shall we therefore abolish and reject these altogether on account of their abuse? It is well known that the power committed by Christ to the office bearers of his church has been very grossly abused. Great and highly culpable as the encroachments of civil rulers upon the prerogatives of Christ and the consciences of men have been and are, let us not forget the greatest enemy on earth that ever the Church of Christ saw or will see, was a power not civil, but spiritual or ecclesiastical, sitting in the temple of God, which principally by claims of a spiritual kind rose to such a surprising ascendancy as to exalt himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped. And during so many ages usurped the supremacy of Jesus Christ, the prerogatives of princes, and the rights of mankind. It is not uncommon with many from this abuse to declaim against and decry all church power, and Presbyterian courts in particular, as proceeding upon the same principles and liable to similar abuses. This is unreasonable. And it is equally unreasonable to confound the power allotted by Presbyterians to magistrates with that which has been claimed or exercised by persecuting tyrannical, popish, or Erastian governments, or to discard the exercise of civil authority about religion, when duly limited, from a dread of the wildest excesses which have been committed by the rage of tyranny, bigotry, or fanaticism. There is no more affinity between these than there is between the legitimate principles of government or of necessity of necessary defense and the numerous unjust wars, massacres, rapine, and oppression which have been practiced at all ages by nations and their rulers. The misapplication of civil power to the support of a false religion is common to it with all other power among men. The true religion must still continue to have the only just claim to support, although its rivals may often supplant it. Nor are we to go over to the camp of skepticism by representing it as impossible to distinguish between truth and falsehood in the matter. The objection drawn from abuse was as strong against the power of the Jewish kings. But it is objected that the principle itself involves or necessarily leads to persecution. For, if magistrates have a power about religion, they must also have a right to punish those who do not comply with what they enact, command, or prohibit in these matters. When they make laws ratifying a particular profession of faith, form of worship, etc., does it not follow that they have a right to secure obedience to these by civil penalties in the way of making their subjects to profess and worship accordingly? To this we answer that there are many things here confounded which are essentially distinct, both as to religion and the operation of laws. There are various actions of men about religion, respecting which magistratical authority may be justly employed in the way of restraint and punishment, such as blasphemy, the open contempt of religion, or even of Christianity and the Bible in Christian states, the profanation of the name of God, of divine ordinances, and of the Sabbath. These and similar practices, we are of opinion, magistrates, in view of their office, may restrain or punish, according as the nature of the offense and the good of society may require, without being chargeable with any persecution. But it will not follow from this, or from any regulations and restrictions which may be necessary in the reformation or settlement of religion in a nation, that magistrates are warranted forcibly to impose a profession of faith upon their subjects, or to oblige them to worship God in a certain mode, under civil penalties to be inflicted upon all who dissent or refuse compliance. Nor is anything of this kind necessarily implied in laws which recognize, establish, and support a particular profession of Christianity and church state. It is of no avail to plead here that the magistrate's power is compulsory, and that, if it be interposed at all about religion, it must ultimately force it, as a compulsory power must always be supposed at hand to secure respect to the law. We readily grant that the magistrate's power is compulsory, and that a compulsory power is employed about religion. But the question is, how is this power employed, and upon whom does the penalty fall? Is it employed in compelling men to believe, profess, worship, etc., and in punishing those who may think, profess, or act in any way different from the national establishment? This is what we deny, and what ought to be proved as a necessary consequent. It is so indeed with those laws which are intended to gain the end directly and immediately by their own influence. But it is quite otherwise with those laws which are intended to accomplish the ends by the intervention of institution and means adapted unto them. In this case, the law is directly employed in sanctioning, securing, providing for the public support and maintenance of these institutions, and the penalty falls upon those who shall attempt, in a factious, disorderly, or turbulent manner, to prevent their being carried into execution, or to interrupt, hinder, disturb, or overturn them. This is the case with many of those laws which are calculated to promote religion, morality, education, arts, and sciences, with other things connected with the public good of a nation. Those must be strangers to the operation of government who do not know how many laws are enacted and carried into execution from time to time for promoting public improvements in institutions where neither the private judgment nor public conduct of men are controlled with respect to anything necessarily connected with true liberty. When laws are enacted for promoting certain acts and sciences, a compulsory power is employed about them. But are men forced to become artisans and philosophers? Or are these things promoted by fines and imprisonments? When laws are enacted for promoting education and for erecting schools and colleges as seminaries of national instruction, sanctioning their internal regulations, endowing them, and granting them certain immunities and privileges, a compulsory power is in like manner employed. It is the same as to an establishment of religion. A compulsory power is exercised in various ways about the established church of Scotland, but is it by compelling all to become members of that church, or inflicting penalties upon those who dissent? When a particular profession or confession of faith, form of worship, and ecclesiastical government obtain the formal sanction of civil authority, they are recognized by the legislature as declaratory of that religion which obtains the national countenance and support, and according unto which the legal privileges and emoluments appropriated for this purpose are to be conferred and enjoyed. But this by no means implies that all should be obliged under civil pains to conform unto this establishment or to be punished for dissenting from it. There is a wide and essential distinction between the exercise of a compulsive power about religion and compulsion in religion. Yet there are masters in Israel who can magisterially decide this controversy without having learned its first principles or attending to the most necessary distinctions on the subject. It is further objected that magistrates, by sanctioning the laws of Christ or by enacting laws respecting religion, encroach upon his prerogatives as the sole king and legislator of his church and the rights of his independent kingdom. We answer that rulers, both civil and ecclesiastical, may invade and have invaded the prerogatives of Christ But that this is necessarily implied in the exercise of civil authority in advancing the interests of religion and the kingdom of Christ, we deny. The objection proceeds upon a confounding of those authorities which are of the same kind with that which is subordinate. When the subordinate authority recognizes the laws of the Supreme and is employed within its own sphere in setting them forward and making provision for their being carried into execution instead of invading, it acknowledges and does homage unto that authority. When magistrates make laws for preventing the profanation and promoting the observance and sanctification of the Sabbath, they do not pretend to give additional authority to the divine command, nor do they usurp the prerogatives of Him who is Lord of the Sabbath. The Lord was the lawgiver and king of his church under the Old Testament as well as he is under the New, and he was as jealous of his honor then as now. It was his royal will and command that the temple should be rebuilt, and he claims this as his prerogative. Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, that saith to Jerusalem thou shalt be inhabited, and to the cities of Judah thou shalt be built. Isaiah 44 verses 24 and 26 But was it inconsistent with this for Cyrus to issue his royal mandate to the same purpose? Let the following words declare, Betsaith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built, and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. In such cases, the law of God and the law of the King are not inconsistent with each other, but one is subordinate to the other, and a respect is due to both. We will build, said the Jews, unto the Lord God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us, and they builded and finished it according to the commandment of the God of Israel and according to the commandment of Cyrus. and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia. But it is objected that the kingdom of Christ is holy of a spiritual and heavenly nature, and cannot be promoted by secular power. In proof of this we are referred to our Lord's declaration, My kingdom is not of this world. Those must surely have read or thought superficially upon this subject who imagine that this declaration determines the present controversy. The kingdom of Christ, though spiritual and heavenly and different from the kingdoms of this world in its origin, laws, immediate objects and ends, has still in various respects a connection with the things of this world as visibly erected in it, and is capable of standing in a friendly relation with earthly kingdoms and of receiving benefit from them. Has not the Church external privileges, which are capable of being secured? Has she not external ordinances, assemblies, courts, etc., which need to be celebrated and held? Are there not various means and encouragements of an external and worldly nature, which she needs and is capable of receiving, by which religious knowledge may be more extensively diffused and the dispensation of all divine ordinances maintained? And may she not receive the countenance and aid of civil government in all these and in similar respects? But it is objected that the Christian church did not enjoy the assistance of the civil power during the first three centuries. If this had been such a benefit, God would certainly have conferred it upon her. Besides, she flourished as long as she was without it, but became corrupt as soon as she received it. We answer that it does not become us to prescribe to God with respect to the times and the seasons at which He shall confer any blessing which He has promised. He discovers His sovereignty in this matter and has wise reasons for His conduct of which we may be left in ignorance or which we may overlook. The possession of the land of Canaan was promised as an eminent blessing to the seed of Abraham, but it was hundreds of years before He actually bestowed it upon them. They sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange country dwelling in tabernacles. Even when the time of the promise drew nigh and the people multiplied, they were kept under the iron rod of persecution and were made to pass through the waste and howling wilderness. Nor did they fail to abuse the pleasant land and quiet habitation after they were put in possession of it. Besides, it is easy to perceive that, if there is any force in the objection, it may be retorted. It cannot be denied that there are promises given to the Church respecting godly kings and magistrates. Now, in whatever sense these are explained, it may be asked, if these were to be of so great advantage to the Church, why did not God give them at the beginning of Christianity? There were other means besides civil power, which God declined to employ in the propagation of the gospel. Human learning, though lawful in itself and capable of being improved for the advancement of Christianity, was overlooked. God did choose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, as well as the weak things of the world to confound the mighty. And he adopted this method to give a signal demonstration that the gospel was from heaven, and that its propagation throughout the world, not only without the aid of, but in spite of, the most determined opposition from the united efforts of human wit and power, was the work of his own hand. Because the persons whom Christ chose at first to propagate the gospel among the nations and the greater part of the pastors of the primitive church were unlearned men, because religion flourished greatly at that time, or because the introduction of human learning into the church brought along with it many corruptions, shall we adopt another sectarian error, maintain that human learning is altogether useless, if not pernicious to the church, and abolish our colleges and halls of divinity? The one is not more unreasonable than the other. Nor is it a fact that the Church continued to flourish always until she obtained the support of the civil powers, or that this was the first and sole cause of her corruption. The spirit of Antichrist did long before work. Numerous errors prevailed. Superstitions of different kinds had crept in. A spirit of pride and ambition had discovered itself among the governors of the Church. Bishops had exalted themselves above the presbyters, and the government of the church was, previously to this, much altered from what it had been in the days of the apostles. That the enjoyment of external peace and prosperity, and the countenance of the civil powers, among other things, contributed, or were abused to the increase of these evils, who can doubt? That the Christian emperors, in the favors which they conferred on the church, acted in many instances injudiciously, we readily grant. Their donations to the bishops were excessive and tended to cherish a spirit of secular ambition and grandeur. And the alterations which were soon introduced in the external form and government of the church raised that hierarchy by which the man of sin attained his great ascendancy. But we must not confound the abuse of this power with its due use as far as it took place, not only in granting freedom from persecution, which the Christians had enjoyed at intervals under pagan emperors, but in the public settlement of the laws on the side of Christianity, the decided countenance given unto it by government, with the encouragements conducive to the spread of the gospel and the maintenance of the institutions of Jesus Christ which it bestowed. This distinction is carefully observed on the intimations of prophecy with references to this event. The overthrow of the pagan form of the Roman Empire, with the conversion of its authority to the support of Christianity, is there celebrated as the triumph of the gospel, the coming of the kingdom of God, the casting down of Satan from heaven, and the exaltation of the church to that place which he had occupied. Although Satan, enraged at being deprived of his authority, attacked the Church in another way and employed the very privileges now conferred upon her to her corruption and injury, this did not prevent the Church from rejoicing at the command of God in these privileges. And we should suspect those sentiments which lead us to opposite exercise. And I heard, says John, a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ. For the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night." If the kings of the earth gave their kingdom to the beast, it was also predicted that they should hate the whore and make her desolate, and the word of God contains promises of the countenance of civil authority to the church, subsequent to the reign of Antichrist, so that this is not necessarily connected either with anti-Christianism or with the corruption of religion. There are also some texts which are commonly urged as unfavorable to the employment of civil power in the support of religion. One of these is Zechariah chapter 4 verse 6. Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts. From these words it is inferred that civil power ought not to be employed in promoting religion. Let us inquire if this is a just or a forced inference. These words were spoken to the governor of the Jews and primarily referred to the building of the Second Temple. The people engaged in the work were few, destitute of might and power, and despised by their numerous and powerful enemies, who scoffingly said, What do these feeble Jews? Will they sacrifice? Will they make an end in a day? Will they revive the stones out of the heaps of the rubbish which are burnt? The Jews themselves were greatly discouraged, and had repeatedly desisted from the work, saying, The time is not come, the time that the Lord's house should be built. But amidst these discouragements, this is the word of the Lord, not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, i.e., although ye are destitute of might and power for this work, the success of it does not depend upon these. My Spirit remaineth among you, fear ye not, he will carry on and consummate the work. But was this declaration made to the governor of the Jews to cause him to drop the scepter from his hands and take no direction in the work, lest there should be an appearance of human authority about it? Or was it any contradiction of it when the Spirit of the Lord turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel? We do not mean that the application of this passage is confined to the rebuilding of the temple. We consider it as applicable to the advancement of the work of God under the New Testament. All that we plead is that the proper import of the words, as ascertained by the circumstances in which they were spoken, be preserved, and that a sense inconsistent with this be not imposed upon them. In this view, the words contain a glorious and comfortable truth, particularly encouraging to the friends of religion, when its interests are low and they may be destitute of means for supporting or reviving them. The work is the Lord's. The success of it depends upon His Spirit. He has engaged to carry it on, and He will do it, as He has formerly done, not only without, but in opposition to the power of authority, numbers, wealth, learning, eloquence, etc. But what God does is one thing, what men ought to do is another. Nor, because he may proceed in one way at one time, are we to limit him to the same mode of operation at all times. For who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor, hath taught him." Continued on tape four. This Reformation audio track is a production of Stillwater's Revival Books. You are welcome to make copies and give them to those in need. SWRB makes thousands of classic Reformation resources available, free and for sale, in audio, video, and printed formats. It is likely that the sermon or book that you just listened to is also available on cassette or video, or as a printed book or booklet. Our many free resources, as well as our complete mail-order catalog, containing thousands of classic and contemporary Puritan and Reform books, tapes, and videos, at great discounts, is on the web at www. swrb.com We can also be reached by email at swrb.com, by phone at 780-450-3730, by fax at 780-468-1096, or by mail at 4710-37A Edmonton, that's E-D-M-O-N-T-O-N, Alberta, abbreviated capital A, capital B, Canada, T6L3T5. You may also request a free printed catalog. And remember that John Calvin, in defending the Reformation's regulative principle of worship, or what is sometimes called the scriptural law of worship, commenting on the words of God, which I commanded them not, neither came into my heart. From his commentary on Jeremiah 731, writes, God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions, since He condemns by this one phrase, I have not commanded them, whatever the Jews devised. There is then no other argument needed to condemn superstitions than that they are not commanded by God. For when men allow themselves to worship God according to their own fancies, and attend not to His commands, they pervert true religion. And if this principle was adopted by the Papists, all those fictitious modes of worship in which they absurdly exercise themselves would fall to the ground. It is indeed a horrible thing for the Papists to seek to discharge their duties towards God by performing their own superstitions. There is an immense number of them, as it is well known, and as it manifestly appears. Were they to admit this principle, that we cannot rightly worship God except by obeying His word, they would be delivered from their deep abyss of error. The prophet's words, then, are very important, when he says that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never came to his mind, as though he had said that men assume too much wisdom when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never knew.