Such is the doctrine which was taught in the secession, both in public acts and in private writings, in conformity to and vindication of the principles contained in the word of God and the confessions of the Reformed churches. And it is easy to see that they must have maintained such sentiments to be consistent with their subscriptions and the testimony to which they avow an adherence. If it were not to avoid tediousness, we might have contrasted these with sentiments advanced of late by seceders and different publications in which the doctrine of the Confession on this head is yielded up as unjustifiable and condemned. The civil establishment of any particular profession of religion is represented as incompatible with the genius and constitution of the Christian Church and anti-Christian. The divine promises and providence about the church are urged as superseding all necessity of human securities. The conduct of the church in seeking to be secured in her collective capacity by the sanction of human laws is compared to the sin of the people of Israel in desiring a king that they might be like the rest of the nations. Religious tests in general, as qualifying men for civil offices, are condemned, as evidently inconsistent with the natural rights of men, and the abolition of the public funds for supporting religion is recommended. These are sentiments which are now not only current amongst the cedars and avowed in private writings, but introduced in all their leading articles into the new deeds of synod. Some may be ready to inquire here how the Synod can pretend that they are still of the same profession, or deny the change of principle which is so obvious. Upon what principle do they attempt to vindicate themselves in this? In general, they have done so by taking shelter under some general principle or expressions contained in the former standards and public papers, and alleging that they approved of and agreed to other things in them only insofar as they were consistent with these. Nothing, however, can be more untenable and dangerous than such a mode of defense. It contradicts every rule of just reasoning and interpretation as to the declarations of both God and of men. Certainly, general declarations are to be explained and limited by those which are particular and more specific, and not the latter by the former. If an opposite practice is adopted, the writings of no man or body of men can ever be understood as expressing any definite set of principles, nor can they be free from perversion. This would overturn all use of tests of orthodoxy. A person has only to lay hold of some general declaration or expression and explain it in his own way, drawing inferences from it directly contradictory to those allowed in the public standard, to say that he agrees to all other things in that standard, only insofar as they are consistent with this, that is, only insofar as they are consistent with his private construction of it. There are certain general propositions in which Sassinians and Arminians may agree with the Orthodox, while, in the sense which they affix to them, and the inferences which they draw from them, they essentially differ. Take, for example, the fifth question in the Shorter Catechism, Are there more gods than one? Answer, there is but one only, the living and true God. To this the Sassinian asserts. Assents, rather. But could he conscientiously and honestly approve of and adopt the shorter catechism with his salvo, that he understood other parts of it in inconsistency with his fundamental principle? Or if he should revise and throw into a new mold this catechism, expunging the sixth question with everything that implied the doctrine of the Trinity, could he defend himself by saying that he had advanced no new principle, no principle that was not taught in some part of that book, and that he had only rendered it more consistent with itself? The answer would be easy that it was only his private construction of that question in direct opposition to the meaning of the compilers as appears from what they immediately add. Another example may be taken from the first question in their formula. Do you believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God and the only rule of faith and manners? The opposers of subordinate standards and tests of orthodoxy agree with the affirmative of this, and they think that it completely sets aside all use of any other standard or rule. What then? This is only their particular construction of the question. That the compilers of the formula thought otherwise is plain, because in the following question they proceed to put a subordinate test to the candidate to try his orthodoxy by a subordinate rule. They think there is a glaring inconsistency here. The compilers certainly saw none, and we do not allow that there is any. The same reasoning is applicable to those passages in the Confession and other public papers under which the Synod attempts to screen themselves, as will appear from a very little attention to them. One passage to which they refer is in the Confession, chapter 20, section 2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word or beside it in matters of faith or worship, so that to believe such doctrine or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience, and the requiring of an implicit faith and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also. from this, the Synod infer that civil authority is wholly inapplicable to matters of religion. Nothing, however, can be farther from the design of the Confession than the countenance of this notion, which they expressly guard against in the following paragraph, in which they state that the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended to destroy, but mutually to uphold one another. that they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, oppose any lawful power or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God, and that there is a lawful exercise of civil power about religious matters, they declare both in that passage and in chapter 23. But further, as it was not the design of the Confession and the above quotation to condemn this exercise of civil authority, so no such doctrine can justly be inferred from the words. 4. 1. If they condemn all exercise of civil authority, then they condemn also all exercise of every other species of human authority about these things, whether ecclesiastical, parental, etc. Is it not equally true that God has left the conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his word or beside it, in matters of faith or worship, whether these be the doctrines and commandments of ministers or magistrates, of masters or parents? Is not an implicit faith or an absolute and blind obedience unreasonable and sinful whether it be yielded to synods or parliaments? The design of the words is to teach the subordination of all human power to the sovereignty and laws of God, particularly in matters of faith and worship. Nay, they seem in that passage to be more immediately leveled against invasions by church authority, which have been fully as frequent and pernicious in religion as those of civil rulers, such as the assumed lordship of popes, councils, prelates, and convocations in devising new articles of faith decreeing and imposing unscriptural rites and ceremonies, canons, etc., here called the doctrines and commandments of men, in contradistinction from divine institutions, as the traditions and superstitions of the scribes and Pharisees, superadded to the divine law, are called by our Lord. If civil rulers concur in these impositions, or if they shall attempt the like by their own sole authority, and the claim of an ecclesiastical supremacy, this doctrine equally condemns their tyranny, and teaches that no error, will-worship, or any species of false religion, by whomsoever commanded in churches or states, can lay any obligation on conscience which is immediately subject to God alone. but no such thing is taught as that men's consciences are set free from obedience to any human authority when acting in entire consistency with the word of God and enjoining nothing beside it or beyond its own proper limits, which authority of any kind may certainly do. 2. The lordship of God over the conscience here asserted extends to morality as well as religious And, if it sets aside all exercise of human authority about the latter, it must do also as to the former. Persons often speak of conscience as if it were confined to the worship of God, whereas it extends to all duty. The lordship of God and liberty of conscience may be invaded by rulers in the one as well as in the other, and if they shall command anything which is contrary to the second table of the law, or prohibit what it requires, they are not to be obeyed. any more than if their commands contradicted the first. We ought to obey God rather than man is a sufficient answer in both cases. God has left the conscience free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word as well as in those which are beside it in matters of faith and worship. But shall we infer from this that there can be no exercise of civil authority respecting matters of morality and of the duties of the second table? Certainly not. Another general principle to which recourse is had to vindicate the new sentiments adopted by the Synod is contained in the Associate Presbytery's Declaration and Defense of Principles Respecting Civil Government, in which they state that the whole institution and end of the office of magistrates are cut out by and lie within the compass of natural principles. The inference which is drawn from this is that the power of magistrates does not extend to religion, particularly to matters of revelation. And it is pleaded that this declaration of the Associate Presbytery did limit and set aside that power in religious matters which is ascribed to civil rulers by the Confession and other public papers of the Secession. The answer to this is similar to what was given to the preceding plea. This never was, it could not be, the design of this paragraph or of the Associate Presbytery. On the contrary, what is there taught in regard to the origin, object, and extent of the office of civil magistrates is an introduction to the fullest approbation of what is ascribed to them in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, which, it is asserted, may be vindicated upon the same principles. By withholding this concluding part of the sentence and paragraph in their quotations of it in their new deeds, the Synod have given a mangled view of its meaning. and limit their adherence to a part of the doctrine taught in the Declaration. After having done this, they hold forth this part of a paragraph, dismembered and detached from its connection, and understood in a sense contradictory to it, as exhibiting a just and adequate representation of the doctrine of the Associate Presbytery in their Declaration, although all office-bearers were hitherto taken bound to the whole doctrine contained in that paper. Further, in the same declaration, the Presbytery expressly approve of the application of civil power to religion, in what they say respecting the former reformation of this land, and in the doctrine which they lay down as to the duty of a nation and its rulers in settling their constitution and conducting its ministration as we are formally shown. The general principle above referred to must be understood in a sense consistent with these expressed in particular specifications. But it is, in a sense inconsistent with them, that it is now explained and applied by the synod. Nor is this imposed meaning less inconsistent with the proper import of the words than it is with the intention of the associate presbytery and the whole scope of their declaration. For 1. Natural principles include religion as one of their most important branches. This, however, is entirely overlooked by the Synod in their new deed, as well as in the defense of them read in the Synod. Although they affect to make the difference, to turn chiefly upon matters of revelation, yet they have preserved a deep silence respecting religion, as founded in natural principles, and forming in this view a great object of magistratical concern and duty. They have taught nothing respecting the duty of civil rulers to preserve these principles, but on the contrary have excluded all interference of authority about them, as well as matters of supernatural revelation, by confining it to things merely civil and the secular interests of mankind, and by proclaiming a universal liberty in matters of religion and the worship of God. Thus they have, insofar, gone over to the principles and patronized the designs of those modern philosophers and politicians who have made a total separation between religion and civil government, a scheme which, considering its extensive spread of late times and its pernicious tendency, there was a louder call to testify and guard against than as to many things which the Synod have condemned in their new testimony. 2. The right which magistrates have to interfere with religion, and to employ their power for its support, is founded in natural principles, and is not pleaded for as originating from the mediator's office, or as of supernatural institution, any more than his other parts of his official power and duty. 3. Natural principles teach that if God be pleased to grant a supernatural revelation of His will, declaring in what manner He will be worshipped, as He has done in the Scriptures, it is the duty of all magistrates and people to whom it is made known to embrace and, in their several stations, to promote and support this. The form which religion assumes in consequence of supernatural revelation is the only true one, and has a divine claim upon all that countenance and support which human laws can give it. and the application of the common principles of magistracy to the support of the true religion and of the kingdom of Christ as visibly erected in the world does not remove it from its proper foundation or ascribe new powers to the office. 4. Much error is also occasioned by an improper limitation of the end of the magistratical office. This is, indeed, the public good of outward and common order, in distinction from the disorders of men's hearts about which the gospel ministry is versant. But, instead of excluding, this must comprehend the care of religion, which, as we shall see, is necessarily connected with the welfare of society, and particularly the true religion is eminently calculated to promote this. 5. What belongs to magistracy in general, and to all magistrates, is not to be confounded with those things which belong to, and are incumbent upon, those who enjoy the benefit of divine revelation, and who rule over a people who make a profession of Christianity. Such a people have peculiar interests and privileges to secure in advance, and, as it is their duty to provide for these in their constitution, so it is the duty of their rulers to attend to the same great Without this, they cannot exercise their office for promoting the Church's public good and the public good of that society over which they are placed in all of its circumstances. Another distinction connected with the above may be also here mentioned. What the magistrate owes to all his subjects in common, in the administration of justice and the preservation of order and peace among them, is not to be confounded with what is competent to and incumbent upon him in promoting and countenancing by his authority such institutions as contribute materially to the prosperity of the people over whom he rules, among which religion and pure Christianity must hold an important place. This distinction is laid down and illustrated by Mr. Gibb. After stating that, quote, as to all temporal jurisdiction about men's natural rights and privileges, the civil power is to proceed only upon natural, not upon revealed principles, he adds, quote, In all public or magistratical administrations which do not affect men's natural rights or privileges, the civil power, when Christian, is to proceed upon revealed as well as natural principles. He is to exercise his Christian judgment of discretion as to his countenancing or discountenancing of any in the matter of their religious principles and profession. As to what particular church state should be favored with legal securities and privileges, and as to what person should be entrusted the places of power under him, for the public good of ecclesiastical as well as civil society, in all which he encroaches upon no man's birthright, but only maintains a good conscience about a proper subserviency of his power to the kingdom of Jesus Christ." Before leaving this part of the subject, It may be proper to advert, very briefly, to another pretext for departing from the principles of the Church of Scotland on this head, which is taken from the Act of Assembly receiving the Westminster Confession of Faith. This Act may be seen prefixed to the Confession, and any person who gives it an attentive perusal may be convinced that, instead of giving any countenance to the proceedings of the Synod, it condemns them. The explication which it contains does not refer to the general doctrine which the Confession teaches respecting the magistrate's power about religion, which the Assembly approved, as well as its other doctrines, as most orthodox and grounded upon the word of God. It bears no reference whatever to chapters 20, section 4, chapters 23, section 3, against which the Synod accepts. It refers exclusively to some parts of the second article of the thirty-first chapter and to the single point of the calling of ecclesiastical assemblies. It does not condemn the doctrine they are taught, but simply declares that the assembly understandeth it only of Kirk's not settled or constitutionally appointed government. It asserts the intrinsic right of the Church to hold her own assemblies as often as necessary, although the magistrate, after proper representation, should withhold or deny his consent, which had always been the avowed principle and right of the Church of Scotland. When we consider the faithfulness of that Church in asserting and holding fast what she had always professed and had sworn to maintain at the time she was receiving a new confession It is certainly preposterous to urge this as a vindication of the conduct of a synod who have departed from a doctrine which they have received and accepted and set aside articles contained in that confession, the whole doctrine of which they had about sworn to maintain and defend against all contrary errors. Besides, the act of assembly expressly allows to magistrates a power of calling assemblies occasionally, it being always free to the magistrate to advise with synods of ministers and ruling elders meeting upon delegation from their churches either ordinarily or being indicted by his authority occasionally and pro renuta. This allowance is also expressly made by the associate presbytery in the judicial testimony, in the very place in which they assert the spirituality, freedom, and independence of the Church, and the intrinsic warrant which her office-bearers have from the Lord Jesus to hold ecclesiastical assemblies. So far were they from thinking that the exercise of civil power about ecclesiastical concerns, when duly limited, was inconsistent with these important truths. so that, in every point of view, the plea from this Act is untenable and only serves to involve those who urge it in contradiction and inconsistency. By the preceding statement, of the doctrine of the Reformed Churches and the Secession, it is far from our design to rest the truth of the doctrine or our adherence to it upon the opinions of men or the authority of churches. We have been necessitated to state these things so particularly by the bold and unaccountable allegations of men who, in order to cover the introduction of a new scheme of principles and the imposition of it upon others, have denied all change. and attempted to fix principles upon men and churches opposite to those which they have publicly avowed, and who by such conduct have struck at the foundation of all certainty as to any knowledge of sentiments conveyed by the plainest and most unequivocable expressions. and thus insofar frustrated the great end for which subordinate standards were composed and received. As we have no hesitation respecting the agreeableness of the sentiments which we maintain to reason and revelation, it would have been a more grateful task to us to have confined ourselves to this part of the subject and to have begun with what we now perceive to state. Though we have such a noble cloud of witnesses to lead us in this contest, let none of our adversaries think that we fly to their great names for shelter to a weak cause. No, we are willing it be tried at the bar of scripture or reason as they please, though indeed they may know how often hath been tried there already and come off with triumph, and, we are persuaded, will still do so. Section 7. Again, we are reading selections. We are not reading the entire book, but we are currently reading selections from Thomas McCree's book, Statement of the Difference between the Profession of the Reformed Church of Scotland as Adopted by Seceders and the Profession Contained in the New Testimony and Other Acts. Section 7. brief view of the evidence for the exercise of civil authority about religion. In maintaining the lawfulness and duty of employing civil authority for the public support and advancement of religion, we have the advantage of proceeding upon the broadest, most liberal, and solid principles. We have the aid of the light of nature, the principles of sound government, and the inspired dictates of revelation. The nature of the present work does not admit of a full and argumentative discussion of these. All that can at present be proposed is a summary exhibition of some of the principal grounds, leaving the more ample illustration and confirmation of them to a future opportunity. There are different ways in which the right to exercise a particular authority or the warrant for performing certain duties may be established. Among these, the following are mentioned by approved writers. the light of nature, approved scripture examples, scripture precepts, and scripture promises and predictions. The power in question is supported by all these. By the light of nature, the force of the argument which arises from this is allowed by all sound divines. Those who agree that the whole institution and end of magistracy are founded in natural principles, and that its exercise may be argued for and defended from them, cannot refuse an appeal to these principles, and must submit to the award which they pronounce. The employment of civil power in the support of religion will appear to be founded in the light of nature, whether we consider this as manifested by the general consent of mankind, the relation in which rulers stand to the great creator and moral governor of the world, with the obligations resulting from this, or the end of civil government, with the means which are necessary and conducive to the attainment of this end. The general consent of mankind is allowed to be the strongest presumption in favor of a natural principle. From this, moralists and divines have argued strongly in support of the being of God, public and social worship with its various parts, a providence, the distinction between moral good and evil, and a future state. We read in the New Testament of a vice which crept into the church at Corinth, and was for some time tolerated in it, which was, quote, not so much as named among the Gentiles, 1 Corinthians Of the error which has crept into the secession, and which is now so zealously patronized, it may be said, it is an error which was not so much as named among the Gentiles. No sentiment has been more common among all nations than this, that it is the most important duty of those invested with public authority to pay attention to the interests of religion. The legislators and wise men among the heathen bear united testimony to this truth. In a footnote, he states, Plato asserts that religion ought to be the principal object of care in every republic. Aristotle assigns the first place among political duties to the care about divine things. The first law of the Constitution says Archytas should be for the support of what belongs to the gods, the second for what relates to our parents. In the codes of law established in Greece and Rome, there were laws respecting religion, which were reckoned the most sacred and inviolable. The first law on the twelve tables of the ancient Roman institute was reverence for the gods, and by the laws of the Greeks, blasphemy, the violation of religion, etc. were made objects of punishment. And in almost all nations, not only the civilized but the more barbarous, ancient as well as modern, the public countenance of religion with provision for its institutions has formed, in one way or another, an important branch of their political regulations. These are the dictates of common reason, received and They are the voice of God, speaking by men of all ages and countries. This argument is not invalidated by the application of the principle to the support of a false religion, and the worship of them who were by nature no gods. Wherever superstition, idolatry, and polytheism prevail, they will obtain the public countenance and support, in every way in which it can be given, and which is due only to the true religion. But this is not an objection to a national religion any more than it is to public and social worship, stated places of meetings, ministers of religion, with many things of a similar kind, which in such a state of matters are all perverted and misapplied. Rather, let us say with the prophet, All people will walk everyone in the name of his God, and we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever. The common sentiments of men on this point are justified by the strongest reasons. The obligation which all are under individually to maintain the honor and support the worship of God attaches in a special manner to nations and those who are in public authority over them. Let us begin with God is a maxim applicable to the formation of civil societies and laws, as well as to other important undertakings. Men are not to herd together like a number of cattle, making provision merely for their external protection, accommodation, and order, forgetting the God that is above. A constitution which did not recognize religion, nor make any provision for its maintenance and defense, would be, in so far, an atheistical constitution. As magistracy is an ordinance of God, and those invested with it, though chosen by men, are the ministers of God, as the Scripture says, such persons must be under special obligations to maintain his honor. This they are bound to do, not merely by the preservation of justice and peace, but by promoting His worship in their official station, and by resenting open indignities and contempt offered to the Majesty of Heaven by whom they rule and decree justice. As this is a quote from the Bishop of London's sermon on Psalm 119 verse 136, As all power, whether it be in a natural or civil capacity, is derived from God, so in all commissions of power, of whatever kind or nature, a strict obligation to maintain the honor and character of Him from whom we receive our power is always understood, though it be not expressed. For is there any master upon earth who will account that his servant has done his duty barely by attending the work and business more immediately belonging to his station, if it appear that such servant can sit still contentedly and unconcerned when he hears his master reproached and reviled? The sum of this argument is that the honor and worship of God ought to be preserved and promoted by those large societies which are collected, superintended, and maintained by His providence, by magistracy, which is His ordinance, by laws which are an emanation from His authority and justice, and by magistrates who act as His vice-regents on earth. and consequently that these are not to be confined to mere civil and secular concerns to the exclusion of religion. The principle is further confirmed by the consideration that religion lies at the very foundation of civil society and that its sanctions and influence are necessary in order to gain even the direct and immediate end of government in the preservation of justice and peace among men. From this connection between religion and civil polity, the most enlightened writers and jurisprudence have inculcated it as the duty of rulers to give public countenance to religious institutions. Hence it becomes the high duty of legislators and rulers to avail themselves of the sanctions and obligations of religion, to take order that their subjects be instructed in its principles, and that those institutions be maintained and respected among them which are calculated to impress a sense of it upon the mind, and to dispose them to act under its powerful influence. Truth and utility, duty to God and sound policy, conspire here in the same demand. The mere laws of men, even when sanctioned with the severest in capital punishments, will prove ineffectual for restraining the wickedness of mankind from breaking out into acts of injustice and violence. It is the belief of a supreme being, a providence with a future state of punishment, which renders capital execution so dreadful. Let legislators and magistrates once allow the impressions of these to wear off the minds of their subjects, and they will no longer stand in awe of the axe or the halter. Let them listen to the delusive doctrine that in the government of men they are to trust to the use of means merely civil, and that the preservation and support of religion form no part of their official duty, and they shall soon find that the swelling torrent of ignorance, irreligion, infidelity, and contempt of divine ordinances with that profligacy of manners which is their never-failing attendant, will overbear all the barriers of civil restraints, fence with the highest penalties, render their execution fruitless and at last dangerous and impracticable. the deplorable condition of some countries at certain times, when every restraint respecting religion has been thrown loose, the minds and manners of the people debauched by infidelity and impiety, or debased by ignorance and gross superstition, When executions have been in vain, heaped upon executions, with the view of checking the most abominable vices and the most daring crimes, until both spectators and criminals have become callous and cease to regard them with horror, is an awful proof of this, and a monetary example to rulers and to all who may endeavor to mislead them in this important affair. By taking religion under the protection of law, giving public and decided countenance to its institutions, and by a national establishment which provides for the religious instruction of their subjects, they employ means the best adapted for preventing or reforming such evils, and which conduce to lessen the necessity for the execution of penal and sanguinary laws, which will always be an object of great moment in the eye of a wise and humane legislature. In a footnote he states, quoting from Freeholder, quote, Common sense, as well as the experience of all ages, teaches us that no government can flourish which does not encourage and propagate religion and morality among all its particular members. Cicero makes it of doubt whether it be possible for a community to exist that had not a prevailing mixture of piety in its constitution. A man who would hope to govern a society without regard to these principles is as much to be condemned for his folly as detested for his impiety." Returning to the text, we might also have shown that there are many vices hurtful to civil society which yet do not come under penal laws or cannot be suppressed by the direct exercise of civil authority. as well as various duties and virtues, the practice of which is of high utility, although they cannot be directly commanded or enforced by laws. The former are prevented or corrected, and the latter produced and cherished by religion. It is by publicly countenancing and supporting religion, and the institutions of a church state where this is enjoyed, that government gains these important ends. It is surely unnecessary to add that Christianity as the true religion, and in the purest form of it, being eminently calculated to promote these purposes, is best entitled on these grounds, as well as in account of its divine claims, to all that countenance which civil authority can give to its doctrines and institutions. The last consideration which we shall urge on this branch of the argument is, that besides the direct and proximate end of the magistrate's office, there are other ends more remote, though not less important, and connected with the public good of his subjects, which it is his duty to promote. Although the preservation of justice, outward peace, and order is his immediate end, yet he is not to rest satisfied with the bare attainment of this. The amelioration of mankind ought surely to be the grand aim and constant study of patriotic legislators and Christian rulers. To satisfy themselves with such order and peace as are common to the inferior animals, or essential to human society, would be to forget that they are placed over reasonable and immortal beings. The improvement of various arts and sciences, and the advancement of knowledge in general, cannot be called the direct and immediate ends of civil government, but who would say that it has no concern with them? And if civil rulers paid no attention to them, and made no laws for their encouragement, under the pretext that they belonged to artisans and philosophers, would they be considered as discharging all the duties of their office and employing their power as they ought for the public good? The observation applies more forcibly to morality and religion, which not only have the greatest influence upon the outward prosperity of nations, but embrace the most interesting concerns and enlarged good of all the individuals of which they are composed. Civil government was not instituted, nor magistrates appointed, for the direct end of promoting the spiritual interests and eternal welfare of men. Yet whatever assistance they can afford to those institutions which have these for their object, it must be a high and indispensable duty in all who occupy this station to yield. And who could doubt that they have much in this way in their power? by a public establishment which provide this means of religious instruction and for the dispensation of all divine ordinances where the true religion is enjoyed, and by taking order in their station that these be preserved and perpetuated, they may contribute, not merely to make those over whom they rule better subjects and members of society, but to the conversion and salvation of thousands. The views of the Christian and of the magistrate do here coincide. And here, also, the hurtful tendency of the new opinions appears, as by excluding religion from the province of magistrates, they hinder them from supporting institutions which contribute to advance the highest interests of mankind, both individually and socially. But say we these things as men, saith not the law the same also? Revelation confirms what the law of nature teaches. These two cannot be at variance as they proceed from the same author, although in different ways. The revealed law contains a more sure and full exhibition of the rule of righteousness by which the conduct of all ought to be regulated. The moral law in all its extent is binding upon men socially as well as individually, and it is the duty of everyone, according to his place and station, to provide that its commandments be regarded. It is a rule given by sound casuists in the interpretation of the moral law that what is forbidden or commanded to ourselves we are bound according to our places to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others according to the duty of their places. See Genesis chapter 18 verse 19 chapter 35 verses 1 and 3 Exodus 20 verse 10 1 Samuel 3 verse 13. This rule applies to both tables of the law. By the sixth commandment, we are not only prohibited from taking away or injuring the life of our neighbor, but we are obliged to use all lawful endeavors according to the station in which we are placed to prevent others from committing this crime. And if we neglect these, the blood of the person will be required at our hands. In like manner, by the fourth commandment, we are bound not only to sanctify the Sabbath ourselves, but to use all means competent to us in our station to prevent its profanation by others. And so respecting all the other commandments. This holds especially true respecting all persons in authority as parents, masters, and magistrates, who are bound to use not merely their advice and example, but also their authority for promoting the observance of the divine law and for preventing or restraining open violation of it. Magistrates, in particular, are keepers or guardians of the moral law of the first as well as the second table. and as the ministers of God, as called by in Romans, are eminently bound to promote his honor and to see that his law is respected. With this view, the fourth commandment is particularly directed to them, as well as to parents and masters. Quote, Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. The prophet Jeremiah was commanded to, quote, stand in the gates of the children of the people by which the kings of Judah come in, and by which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem, and to renew his command to bring in no burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, and to hallow the Sabbath to do no work therein, promising that if they hearken to him there should enter into the gates of this city kings and princes sitting upon the throne of David. but denouncing the judgments of God if they transgress this command. That's Jeremiah 27 verses 19 through 27. Compare it with Jeremiah chapter 22 verses 1 through 9. The reason annexed to the third commandment implies that magistrates should hold men guilty and punish them for transgressions of it, although they often suffer such to escape with impunity. And the signal vengeance which God in the second commandment threatens to execute upon a people who deprave his worship, particularly by idolatry, with a special promise made to those who preserve it, urges strongly upon magistrates the duty of providing that the ordinances of heaven be kept pure and entire among those over whom they rule. This not only excited the godly kings of Judah to remove the monuments of idolatry and to provide for the restoration of the worship of God, 2 Kings 22 9-17 and 22 1-8, but it also had a powerful influence upon the Persian monarchs in disposing them to exert their authority for rebuilding the temple and advancing the worship of God at Jerusalem. I, Darius, make a decree what ye shall do to the elders of these Jews for the building of the house of God, that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, etc., for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, let it be given them day by day without fail, that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savors unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons." And again, quote, I, even I, Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily unto a hundred talents of silver, etc. Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done for the house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his sons?" Is God less jealous about the observance of His worship now than He was of old? Or shall Christian rulers have less concern with it in their official character and administrations than the Persian kings? Read Isaiah 60 verses 9-12 and Zechariah 14 verses 17-19. He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God, says the Lord in 2 Samuel 23 verse 3, not merely by acting religiously himself but by promoting religion among those over whom he rules scattering away all evil and cutting off all wicked doers from the city of the Lord Proverbs 20 verse 8 and 26 Psalm 101 verse 8 and Psalm 75 verses 4 and 10 Matthew Henry, on 2 Samuel 23, 3 says, Magistrates must rule in the fear of God, i.e., they must themselves be possessed with the fear of God, by which they will be effectually restrained from all acts of injustice and oppression. They must also endeavor to promote the fear of God, i.e., the practice of religion among those over whom they rule. The magistrate is to be the keeper of both tables, and to protect both godliness and honesty. Seek the welfare of the children of Israel, not only by generously sacrificing the emoluments of his office, but by exerting his authority for preventing the profanation of the Sabbath, and issuing his commands and threatenings to those who persisted in its violation." That's Nehemiah 8, verses 17 and 18. In the same religious manner did he act in repairing the house of God, purging it from the defilement which the priest had suffered, and in providing for the regular performance of divine ordinances. And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given them, for the Levites and singers that did the work were fled every one to his field, then contended I with the nobles, etc. Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and the offices thereof. It was formerly stated that one way in which a divine right or the warrant for any duty is established is by approved examples in Scripture. The Word of God contains examples to persons in every character and station in life. In particular, it exhibits examples of godly magistrates. But where do we read, in all the book of God, of approved magistrates who confine themselves in their official capacity to civil matters, and the secular interests of mankind, and who did not employ their authority for the advancement of religion? Where do we read, in all the book of God, of approved magistrates who confine themselves in their official capacity to civil matters and the secular interests of mankind, and who did not employ their authority for the advancement of religion? We have a large account of the conduct of Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Who will deny that their actions are recorded as an example to rulers? But they are commended chiefly for the warm zeal and activity which they displayed in their station in settling or reforming religion, providing for the instruction of their subjects, and the due administration of divine ordinances. No magistrate who consults the Bible will ever imagine that religious matters are excluded from his province. This notion must have been imbibed from some very different source. At those times in which God was about to effect an establishment of religion or a general reformation of its interests among his ancient people, he raised up and employed magistrates to cooperate in this work with those to whom the immediate charge of religious administrations was committed. When he first established his ordinances among Israel as a nation, he not only employed Aaron the priest, but Moses the king and Jeshurun, and afterwards Joshua and Eleazar, David and Abiathar, Solomon and Zadok, Hezekiah and Azariah, Zerubbabel and Joshua. When deprived of their native princes and under the dominion of a foreign power, the Lord stirred up the Persian monarchs to favor the cause of his people. and not merely to tolerate, but encourage them by public edicts and by granting them positive assistance for building the house of God and maintaining his worship. And although for special and wise reasons, which we may afterwards notice, he was pleased at first to spread the gospel among the nations, not only without the assistance of civil rulers, but in the face of their most determined opposition. Yet, among the blessings promised to the Church in New Testament times as a testimony of His distinguished favor are the countenance and aid of earthly powers, expressed with evident allusion to what had formerly taken place. includes the statement, quote, The sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee. Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings. It is not pleaded that all the actions of rulers among the Jews are imitable by Christian magistrates, or that the latter have exactly the same power which was allotted to and exercised by the former, Even in ascertaining the power which belonged to Jewish magistrates as such, we must distinguish what they did and the proper exercise of their magistratical office from those things which they performed in a different character. For example, Moses acted not only as an ordinary magistrate, but also as a prophet, an extraordinary messenger in the establishment of religion in the wilderness. David, too, sustained the character and discharge of the office not only of a king, but also of a prophet and inspired penman in the composition of the psalmody and in the arrangement of the public worship of God in the sanctuary. The power which was exercised by Jewish rulers was also warranted, in many cases, by judicial laws which were peculiar to the nation of Israel. founded upon that singular constitution given unto them by God, and bearing a necessary reference to the system of ceremonial and sacrificial worship which was erected among them, but now abolished. Presbyterians, who have defended the power of Christian magistrates from these examples, have not pleaded an absolute parody, and have made more accurate distinctions on this head than are to be found in the writings of the advocates of the modern scheme, who usually confound the characters in which Jewish rulers acted, represent their power as wholly ecclesiastical, and extending to almost everything with the view of making it appear totally inapplicable to the Christian dispensation. But it will not follow from this that we can draw no argument from the conduct of Jewish rulers to establish the warrantableness and duty of Christian magistrates employing their power in support of religion, Some are ready to conclude that the argument is entirely set aside when it is allowed that there is not an absolute sameness between the two cases. Nothing can, however, be more unfounded than this conclusion. Such a mode of reasoning is of the most dangerous tendency, and if applied in all the extent to which it will lead, it would cut off the practical use of the greater part of the Old Testament. According to it, no argument could be drawn from the approved examples which it records of persons of any rank, or in any station, of parents or children, husbands or wives, masters or servants, because many of their actions were peculiar or clothed with extraordinary circumstances. Upon the same principle, a great part of the New Testament may also be set aside as to any ordinary or current application. for many things recorded in it were peculiar and in some respects extraordinary. Persons possessed of apostolic powers and extraordinary gifts were employed in all important ecclesiastical transactions, in founding churches, ordaining office-bearers, inflicting censures, pronouncing decrees, and administering all ordinances. It is sometimes difficult to discriminate between what was extraordinary and peculiar to that period and what belongs to the ordinary power of office-bearers. Besides, those actions of Old Testament rulers which proceeded upon moral grounds and which had for their object things which are substantially immutable, such as the support of public worship and the prevention of blasphemy, profanation of the name of God, and Sabbath-breaking, There is an application of their example in the way of analogy, which, while it makes all allowances for the diversity of circumstances and change of dispensation, proceeds upon a general resemblance in certain common principles and ends. Although there is a great difference between the government of the Church under the Old and the New Testament, yet the writers in defense of Presbyterian government do argue from the Old Testament in behalf of courts of judicature with their subordination. even as to positive institutions of worship. This mode of reasoning must be admitted, unless we become holy and a baptistical. There is a difference in various respects between circumcision and baptism, yet we reason from the circumcision of infants under the Old Testament to the baptism of them under the New, although we have no explicit command or example for the practice in the New Testament. The Apostle argues for the support of a gospel ministry from that which was given to the Levitical priesthood, but his argument did not imply that they should be supported exactly in the same way. See 1 Corinthians 9 verses 13 and 14. The priestly and prophetical offices were extraordinary and typical, in a sense in which the regal among the Jews was not. Yet we do not scruple to illustrate the office and enforce the duties of ministers of the gospel from those of the priests and prophets, especially in their actions with reference to the public state of religion and in advancing reformation. The judgments inflicted upon the Israelites in the wilderness were in many respects peculiar, Yet the Apostle holds them out as monetary examples to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 10. The prayer of Elijah was extraordinary, yet the Apostle James urges it as exemplary to Christians, chapter 5 verses 16-18. And shall we suppose that the actions of Jewish magistrates form a single exception, and that they were so peculiar that we cannot reason from them in the way of example or analogy? We cannot propose here to enter particularly upon the consideration of the Jewish Constitution. Extremes on both hands are to be guarded against. Those who maintain that it was altogether peculiar and inimitable due as well as those who hold that it is in all respects a model for Christian nations. The golden mean is to be studied on this, as in many other subjects, although the discovery of it may cost more trouble than the readier expedient of an extreme. It was a constitution immediately framed by God, adapted to the state of that nation, to the system of religious ordinances established among them, and to the designs of providence in preserving them as separate people. But although taken as a whole, it was certainly singular and not to be paralleled or exemplified in any other nation. Several of the considerations mentioned serve to show that it is entitled to the particular regard of all nations who are favored with divine revelation. In it, we have the example of a system of legislation adopted to the state of a people who were favored with the true religion. Everything in it was subordinated to this important concern. The laws expressly recognized religion, provided for the maintenance of its ordinances, and the rulers were taken solemnly bound to support them in their station. Thus, those principles which are founded in the light of nature, and by which all nations are obligated to regulate themselves in framing their constitution and conducting their administrations so as to promote the honor of God and to accord with secure and advanced religion the highest of all their interests, were recognized and sanctioned by Jehovah himself and applied to the true religion revealed from heaven. In this respect, the Jewish Constitution is exemplary to Christian nations. Is it urged that the office of Jewish rulers was sacred? This sanctity must have extended to all their official conduct, and if it proves that their acts about religion are in no respect exemplary, it must prove the same as to their acts about civil matters. Is it urged that the office was typical? A similar answer may be returned. The Jewish rulers were types of Christ in acts which respected civil matters as well as religious. Is it pleaded that the laws respecting religion which the Jewish rulers executed were immediately given by God? This was the case also which respected the administration of common justice. In fine is it pleaded that the punishments inflicted by the Jewish law on account of offenses against the first table of the law were severe and enacted on some grounds which were peculiar to the Jewish people. The same thing is true with respect to the offenses against the second table. If he that blasphemed God or profaned the Sabbath was to be stoned to death, The person who smote or cursed his father or mother or who proved a stubborn or rebellious son was to be put to death. Exodus 21 verses 15 through 17. Deuteronomy 21 verses 18 through 21. Christian nations are not bound in all cases to inflict the same penalties which were appointed by the judicial law for offenses against the second table any more than for such as were committed against the first table. But this does not say that persons guilty of offenses of both kinds are not still proper objects of punishment to a certain degree by human laws, or even that they may not, in certain circumstances, become justly obnoxious to the same punishments. Persons may affect a talk of the difficulty of ascertaining what is moral and exemplary in this matter, from what was peculiar, and by dwelling on the more intricate cases may endeavor to lead away the attention from the subject altogether. But why should it be magnified and represented as insurmountable any more than others of a similar kind? The peculiarity of the divine government of Israel, or, as it is commonly called, the theocracy, consisted in general in two things. In a system of laws, which was immediately given unto that people from heaven, and in the exercise of a peculiar providence in supporting and sanctioning that system by conferring national mercies and inflicting national judgments, often in an immediate and extraordinary way. Now, why are not the difficulties which are stated as to the application of the first of these urged also as to the application of the last? If we cannot apply what is said in the Old Testament concerning the duty of the rulers and nation of Israel respecting religion unto Christian nations and rulers because the former were under a peculiar law, then we cannot apply what is said in the Old Testament respecting the judgments denounced against the nation and rulers of Israel unto Christian nations and their rulers because the Israelites as a people were under a peculiar providence which constituted a part of their theocracy. The same distinctions will remove the difficulty in both cases. By email we're at swrv at swrv dot com. Our mailing address is 4710-37A Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L3T5. By phone, 403 450 3730. After February of 1999, our area code will change and we can be reached by phone at 780 450 3730. And keep in mind that William Hetherington, commenting on the Solemn League and Covenant, the epitome of Second Reformation attainments, in his History of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1856 edition, page 134, writes, No man who is able to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and aim, will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document ever framed by uninspired men.