Submission to “The Powers That Be,”

September 8, 2020James Dodson

SCRIPTURALLY ILLUSTRATED:

A DISCOURSE,

IN THREE PARTS.

BY WILLIAM L. ROBERTS,

Pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Congregation in

Sterling, Galen, and York.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”―Rom. xii. 1, 2.

ROCHESTER:

PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR BY E. PECK & CO.

1828.

INTRODUCTION.

1 PETER, ii. 13-17.―“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto those that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

It is not an uncommon practice, its courtesy is not affirmed, to brand with the title of a mere “political reformer,” the Clergyman who, in the discharge of his commission, fearlessly applies the law of his God to the civil transactions of men. The title considered in itself, is not by any means opprobrious. The opprobrium arises from intention. Such was a Knox, and his kindred spirits of the reformation. They were political as well as ecclesiastical reformers. They acted upon the principle, that a reformation in the religion of the nations could not be effected, without a correspondent change in their civil constitutions. Hence civil and religious liberty, by their successful operations, went hand in hand; whilst, on the contrary, the churches were corrupted, in proportion as the rulers of the nations abandoned their legitimate rule. These magnanimous spirits, however, did not transcend the boundaries of their heavenly commission. “Go ye therefore,” is the injunction of their Lord: “and teach all nations.” The command is predicated upon the unlimited authority given him as the Mediator: “All power is given unto me in heaven and earth.” What were the apostles to teach the nations? “Teach them,” says Christ, “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Whatever instructions Christ has given in the volume of revelation are embraced in the commission of his ambassadors. They are not justifiable therefore, neither do they declare the whole counsel of God; if they omit the illustration and application of the principle, “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord.”

Certain it is, also, that it cannot be conceived how “the kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and their kings nursing fathers and their queens nursing mothers to the church of God,” unless the ministers of religion direct the attention of the nations to the “Testimonies of Israel.”

These observations are the only apology offered for the discussion of the doctrines of the passage now soliciting the attention of the reader. Two directly contradictory opinions are entertained by different communities respecting its true import. One of these opinions is, “that it enforces the doctrine of implicit submission to the government that may providentially exist, its immorality notwithstanding; that we are permitted to inquire no farther than the fact of its existence in the providence of God, to assure ourselves that it is his ordinance, when the text meets us, and enjoins upon us conscientious submission and support.”

The other sentiment, and the one we embrace is, that the passage is a description of civil government as it is moral, founded in the moral law of God, and in this respect his ordinance, exhibiting also the duty of the subject with a reference to God’s moral institution: and does not, by any means, deny the right of dissent from immoral constitutions.

In order that this sentiment may be confirmed, and at the same time give a scriptural explanation of this disputed passage, and an illustration of the true nature, of submission to “the powers that be,” it will be necessary to attend to the Divine rule of exposition: namely, speaking, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth: comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

I. In accordance with this rule, passages of scripture will in the first place be introduced, and explained, which exhibit the governments of the nations in their present constitution, in opposition to God and his law, and the true interest of their subjects.

II. The passage and parallel texts must in the second place be explained in consistency with such scriptures, and the received axiom, “The scriptures agree, they do not contradict themselves.”

III. Justify the dissent of Reformed Presbyterians from the constitution of the United States.

PART I.

EXPLANATORY SCRIPTURES.

I. The scriptures describe the governments of the nations, as bestial and blasphemous in their constitutions. “And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of blasphemy.” “And I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.” [Rev. xiii. 1.-xvii. 3.] The beasts of these chapters are obviously the same, and designate the Roman empire. “The seven heads are seven mountains―and there are seven kings.” [Rev. xvii. 9, 10. See McLeod on Revelation.] This description can be applicable only to this empire. This view corresponds with the sentiment of every judicious expositor of Revelation. “The seven heads are seven mountains.” This passage has a twofold application. The capital of the Roman empire was built upon seven hills; hence called “The city of seven hills.” The allusion is evidently to this capital. For where is there another thus situated?

“The administration of the supreme power in the Roman commonwealth passed under various forms, and these different forms are called kings, because each was in its turn supreme.” These are designated by the seven heads. “There are seven kings.” The Roman commonwealth has actually passed under seven different forms of government: Kings, Consuls, Dictators, Decemvirs, Military Tribunes, Emperours; Patriclans becoming as the seventh or eighth head Emperours, have in their turn reigned. The Germanick Empire is its septime-octave head.

“The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings.” [Rev. xvii. 12.] These ten kings can mean none other than the ten kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is divided, the kingdoms of modern Europe, which partly constitute what is blasphemously called the Holy Alliance.

This interpretation is confirmed by Daniel’s vision of the four beasts. [Dan. vii. chap.] “Daniel saw in his night visions, four beasts rising out of the sea. The first was like a lion; the second like a bear; the third like a leopard; and the fourth dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that went before it; and it had ten horns.” “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.” [Dan. vii. 17.] What four kingdoms have arisen in succession in the earth, but the Chaldeans, Medo-Persian, Grecian and Roman Empires? The three former have passed away, but the latter yet remains, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, pushing fiercely with its ten horns. “The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise.” [Dan. vii. 23, 24.] Further confirmation is derived from Nebuchadnezzar’s image. “The head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of brass, legs of iron, and its feet part of iron and part of clay.” [Dan. ii. 32, 33.] This image likewise pointed out four universal monarchies or kingdoms, that should arise in succession in the world. Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold; after him was to arise an inferior kingdom; and a third kingdom of brass; and the fourth strong as iron, but divided, because composed of iron and clay, which will not adhere. This can be explained only by a reference to the four kingdoms mentioned as having successively flourished in the world. The first was governed by Nebuchadnezzar; and the fourth still remains divided into as many kingdoms, as there were toes to the image, which exert their iron strength against “the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands.”

The only mode of evading the force of this illustration, is by applying all the symbolical beasts to the Roman church and papacy. It is easy to perceive what confusion and obscurity this mode of interpretation introduces into the Revelation. Let us try it.

1. It must be made to appear, (that this mode may instruct us,) that the first beast and second beast of Rev. xiii. can be the same beast. That first and second are the same.

2. That the same beast can be the production of the sea and earth. There are amphibious beasts―but their origin is either in the sea or on the land, although they are capable of living upon the land or in the water.

3. That a beast with seven heads and ten horns can be the same beast with one which has but one head and but two horns. There must be something in the object to which the symbol applies, correspondent with the nature of the symbol.

4. That the image of a beast is the same with the beast itself: and that a beast which makes an image of another beast, “before it,” makes that image of itself.

5. That the woman, that sits upon the beast is the same with the beast which supports her. Rev. xvii. 3.

Such are some of the absurdities of this mode of interpretation―absurdities which common sense rejects; and it is impious to ascribe them to the Spirit, that has inspired our “much sure word of prophecy.”

On the other hand, how beautiful, consistent, accurate and instructive, is the system of those commentators, whose interpretation we adopt.

1. “The seven-headed and ten-horned beast,” is interpreted as designating the Roman empire under its seven different forms of administration, and under its division into ten kingdoms.

2. The “two-horned beast,” as designating the Roman Catholic church, with its regular and secular clergy, the two horns of its power and influence.

3. The “image of the beast,” the papacy, caused to be made by the Roman Catholic church, in imitation of the “first,” or secular beast.

Here is system, a system founded in the distinctions of Revelation itself, and illustrated abundantly by ecclesiastical and profane history.

This interpretation being correct, what is the true character of these kingdoms? They are compared to the most ravenous among the wild beasts of prey―beasts of fierce and cruel nature. Their character must partake of the nature of their emblems. The symbols are highly significant. Their character is essentially bestial. The Roman government is especially monstrous. No beast that prowls the forest is sufficiently odious, to represent its lawless and despotic character. The Spirit of God, therefore, exhibits it under the emblem of a non descript, that it may distinctly appear not the creation of a God of wisdom and order, of purity and goodness.

This character appears especially monstrous, from the description given in the 13th chap. “In this vision he is a monster, in general form resembling the leopard, having the mouth of the lion, and the paw of the bear; swift in his conquest, like the leopard, son of Philip, treading down the nations, like the Persian bear, and like the royal lion of Assyria and Chaldea, roaring aloud and devouring its prey.” [McLeod on Rev. p. 417.]

Not only are they beastly in their nature, but also there appears upon the heads of the fourth beast, as seen by John, “the name of blasphemy.” The heads are the constitution or forms of government. By these God is blasphemed. They pretend to be of God; and a divine right is plead for them by their panders, whilst they establish principles of rule, and support an idolatrous system of religious, which God cannot recognize, and are reproachful to his holy name, who is “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.” “They are full of names of blasphemy.” “The word blasphemy on their foreheads, says [Matthew] Henry, (in loco) proclaims their direct enmity, and opposition to the glory of God.”

Does not that man, therefore, who swears allegiance to these bestial and blasphemous governments, who “receives the mark of the beast,” become partaker of their bestiality, and make their blasphemies, established in their constitutions, his own, and thereby become a blasphemer? Let their apologists answer the inquiry.

II. The scriptures describe these governments, as having received their constitution from the devil. This “prince of devils,” is the grand adversary of the Messiah, and his righteous administration of the government of God. In the permissive purpose of Jehovah, he has become “the prince of the power of the air,” and the god of this world. These texts distinctly mark the extent of his malign rule. They instruct us that his kingdom is not confined to hell, nor his rule over the fallen angels; but that he has by conquest extended his empire, erected his throne in our world, sways his sceptre over the air we breathe, and rules “in the hearts of the children of disobedience.” He was “Lucifer the son of the morning,” and although he hath by apostacy lost his righteousness, and the vigour of his youth, he is yet “the strong man armed,” exerting all his energies to maintain his throne in the air, and his dominion over the hearts of men; yea, the empire of the world, which he usurped in his conquest of our original parents. It must be expected therefore that this active and malignant spirit would erect in the world kingdoms upon the principles of his own infernal rule. He has justified the expectation. “I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw, was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” [Rev. xiii. chap.] This dragon is no other than the devil. “The great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan.” [Rev. xii. 9.] The beast has been interpreted as designating the Roman empire, and its horns its divided kingdoms. It is the devil, according to this scripture, who has given to the Roman empire under its various forms of administration, and in its divided state, all its force and strength and terribleness. From the devil it receives the robe of investiture; and he it is also that gives it all its great authority―its national right to reign. With this sentiment the testimony of all judicious commentators is concurrent.

‘The dominion exercised by this beast (the Roman empire) is unjust, tyrannical, oppressive, diabolical. It is not a power legally administered for the good of the subject; for such “power is ordained of God;” but the authority of the beast is founded on another sanction; on that of the dragon, or satan. When the legislative and executive powers act from the impulse of worldly and diabolical passions, this dire usurpation and tyranny will appear. But it is the work of Christianity, by introducing other motives of government, to repress these enormities, and finally, by the intervention of heavenly aid, to extirpate them.’ [John Woodhouse in loco.] “For this dragon, mentioned Rev. xii. 3, 4, is expressly asserted to be the ancient serpent, who is called the devil.―This was seen clearly by the most ancient commentators.―The seven heads of the dragon express an immense command of worldly power. The number ten seems to have reference to those passages of the Apocalypse and Daniel, wherein are to be seen just so many kings or kingdoms, promoting the interests of the adversary.―The dragon is to have great sway among the kings of the earth, whom he beguiles by the offer of that worldly power which was rejected by the Son of God.” [Lord Napier.]

“What throne and seat can this be else, that the devil giveth to the Romans, but that which he promiseth to give Christ, Matt. iv. 9. to wit, the empire of the world, as being the prince of this world?” [Scott. as quoted by McLeod on Rev. p. 331.]

“Then the dragon had transferred his dominion to the beast, or the devil had appointed another vicegerent: and all the world knows that this accords to the history of the Roman empire.” [Paisley Edition.]

It originates therefore not in heaven; its origin is from “the bottomless pit.” It is not the ordinance of God, but the ordinance of the devil. Its constitution was digested into the gates of hell, that it might be a mighty engine of resistance to the ordinance of heaven, the holy “kingdom,” which the God of heaven hath determined “to set up.” It is, therefore, according to Dr. Scott, “the vicegerent of the devil.” Is it the decree of the God of heaven, that his holy people are bound, that any man is bound upon the pain of damnation, to submit to the ordinance of the devil? Is not the command rather, “resist the devil?” If we may conscientiously resist Beelzebub, may we not with equal security from the divine wrath, resist his blasphemous vicegerent? Let those who support the tottering throne of the devil answer for the consequences.

III. The scriptures represent these governments as in league with, and supporting antichrist. An argument to prove that the Roman church is the antichrist of scripture, would be out of place in this discussion. It is generally admitted. It is admitted by those with whom we have the present argument, and they with us pray for his overthrow. The question to be decided is, do the kingdoms of the world support antichrist upon his throne? We establish the affirmative by the scripture; and appeal to matter of fact. “Come hither; and I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.” And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the earth.” [Rev. xvii. chap.] “The seven-headed and ten-horned beast,” has already been demonstrated as designating the Roman empire in its various modes of existence. The mother of harlots symbolizes with the two-horned beast of the earth mentioned in the xiii. chap. with the “little horn of Daniel’s vision which makes war with the saints, and speaks great words against the Most High;” also with the “false prophet,” who works miracles before the beast, with which he deceives them that have the mark of the beast and that worship his image. [Rev. xix. 20. Dan. vii. 8-21.] Apply these titles and descriptions of character to the Roman church―the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and their agreement is easily perceived. All judicious expositors consider this to be the correct interpretation. This antichristian church, this mother of abominations, in conjunction with the image of the beast, which she causes them that dwell upon the earth to make, [Rev. xiii. 14, 15.] sits upon the “scarlet-colored beast” of the sea, the Roman government in its “ten-horned” state. This image of the beast is the papacy. The Pope of Rome is not only an ecclesiastical, but a civil ruler; a temporal prince having civil jurisdiction. In this respect he resembles the kings of the nations―is “the image of the beast, the ten-horned beast.” The nations of Europe support the Pope upon his ecclesiastical and civil throne: the “woman sits upon the beast.” The beast upon which I sit, or ride, supports me, and is my servant. In like manner the kingdoms of the world support the antichristian apostacy, and are its debased servants. “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” [Rev. xvii. 18.] What is the matter of fact? Is not the religion of Rome the established religion of many of the nations; and have not the nominally protestant kingdoms been instrumental in restoring the Pope to his throne in “the city of seven hills?” and do not several of them give establishment to the unhallowed system, in some part of their dominions? Who restored the [house of] Bourbon to the throne of France? These inquiries are direct. They are plain, and are easily answered by anyone who has an eye to observe the nations, and who has been contemporary with the late convulsions and revolutions of Europe. Will any plead for conscientious submission to the Pope? If they do, then they may with propriety plead for submission to the beast upon which he sits. Will any Protestant denounce damnation as the wages of the man, who will renounce allegiance to the Pope as one of “the powers that be,” that exist, in their sense, in the providence of God? Then wo, wo, wo to Luther, Calvin and Knox! yea, wo to the Protestant churches! But if we are justifiable in renouncing connexion with, or withholding allegiance from a tyrannous and corrupt ecclesiastical establishment, which is a common sentiment and practice; by what argument am I bound to yield to civil tyranny and misrule―to swear to give my support to a corrupt civil constitution with support antichrist? Is there anything peculiarly pleasing to a holy and righteous God in civil corruption, that I am bound, upon the penalty of damnation, to give it my conscientious support, whilst I may lawfully reject the authority of a corrupt antichristian church? Let the consistent give a just reply.

IV. The scriptures represent these governments as at war with Jesus Christ, “the Prince of the kings of the earth.”

Notwithstanding satan has given establishment to the present kingdoms of the world, and they are his vicegerents, doing his commandments, yet over them as well as over satan himself, the Mediator has unlimited authority: which authority he exercises, that he may fulfil the purpose of his appointment, the “destruction of the works of the devil.”

Many passages of scripture illustrate this doctrine, of which we select but one: “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords and King of kings.” [Rev. xvii. 14.] This passage we have selected for a twofold purpose: to show the mediatorial authority of Christ, and the fact, that “the kingdoms of this world” are at war with him.

The last clause of the verse answers the former purpose. “The Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings.” It is generally admitted that Jesus Christ, essentially considered, as he is the Son of God, does govern the nations, for as such he is “the true God,” equal with the Father, and necessarily must govern the works of his hands: whilst it is denied that as Mediator, “God manifest in the flesh,” the Father’s servant, he has delegated power to rule the nations; but that his dominion is limited to the church. The passage quoted, however, proves him to be, as Mediator, “King of nations,” as well as “King of saints.” “The Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.” Now who is the Lamb? Not certainly, the Son of God in his essential character, as the second person of the Trinity, separate from his mediatory office. By no means. He is called “the Lamb of God,” because his Father’s chosen victim, who was “led as a lamb to the slaughter;” “the Lamb slain,” because he was crucified on Calvary; “the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world,” because, “by one offering of himself he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified.” Was it the Son of God essentially considered; was it the divine nature of Jesus Christ that was led as a lamb to the slaughter; that was slain a sacrifice for sins; that by that sacrifice has taken away the sins of the elect? The child that recites his catechism will answer, no. It was his human nature that was sacrificed, and his divine nature the altar which “sanctified the gift.”

It appears, therefore, that the Lamb is the Son of God, after he had taken “upon himself the form of a servant, making himself of no reputation, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” [Phil. ii. 7, 8.] It was in his mediatorial character that Christ did this―that he thus humbled himself. In performing this humiliating work, he is entitled the Lamb. The Lamb, therefore, is the Mediator. But he is called, “the Lord of lords and Kings of kinds,” as he is the Lamb. The Lamb is the Mediator. The Mediator, therefore, is “Prince of the kings of the earth.”

Having established this point, we proceed to show that the kings of the nations and their subjects are at war with the Lamb. “These shall make war with the Lamb.” The demonstrative particle, “these,” directs our attention to the 13th verse, “and the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings.” The ten horns which are ten kings, have been shown to designate the Roman empire, in its present dismembered state. “These” divided kingdoms, the present nations of Europe, “make war with the Lamb.”

Jesus Christ, or the Lamb, as we have seen, has received universal dominion from the Father: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.” [Dan. vii. 13, 14.] This is a vision of the Son of man, a title of the Mediator receiving dominion over the nations from the Ancient of days, the eternal Father. He has a right to claim by virtue of this commission, the service of the nations―their homage and submission. Do they render this homage? Do they yield submission? No, they rebel against his authority, and maintain their allegiance to their founder, the devil. “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.” [Ps. ii. 23.] This is the ground of the warfare. The intention of the Lamb is, to subdue them to himself―to put down “all” opposing “rule and authority,” and make them his footstool; “for he must reign until he hath made all his enemies his footstool.” In the execution of this end of his reign, we have him exhibited of the xix of Rev. as riding forth on his white horse, heading the armies of heaven, and righteously “judging” and “making war.” He smites the nations with a sharp two-edged sword; rules them with a rod of iron; treads the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God; having on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, “King of kings, and Lord of lords.” [Rev. xix. chap.]

On the other hand, his enemies exert themselves against him to the utmost. “The dragon and his angels fight:” satan heads the legions of hell, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, against the Lamb. “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him who sat on the horse, and his army.” [Rev. xix. 19.] The battle now rages, and will continue to rage until the shout of victory is heard, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” [Rev. xi. 15.]

This argument reduces the controversy to a single question: Is it lawful to fight for the Lamb? Will God approve of our enlisting under the banner of his Son Jesus Christ? If not, then we are bound to swear allegiance to the existing nations at war with the Lamb; we are bound to enlist under their banner. But who dare affirm either, when we learn that “the armies of heaven are with the Lamb, called and chosen, and faithful?” Yet the advocates of submission to the kings of the earth, that they may be consistent, must deny the former inquiry, and affirm the latter principal. What a dilemma! Those who profess to be the friends of Jesus, must, that they may support their system, become his enemies. In the battle of the great day of God Almighty, which is rapidly approaching, for the opposing hosts are on the march, they must take their stand in the ranks of his inveterate foes―the beast, the kings of the earth, and the false prophet. For “these shall make war with the Lamb.” Are they prepared for this? We hope not. Rather renounce a principle, which if supports in its true spirit, would bind the chains of slavery on mankind for ever; and go and tell the unhappy victims of despotism, they have a right to be free. If you persist, however, you must make war against the Lamb. There is no neutral ground. “He that is not for me, is against me,” is the declaration of the Lamb himself―the Captain of the Lord’s hosts. How much more are they against him, who take their stand in the ranks of his enemies; who swear allegiance to the thrones with which he is at war, and call upon men, upon the pain of damnation, to bow the knee to them, to receive the mark of the beast? Are they not rather themselves exposed to the anathema, “Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help[ of the Lord, to the help of the Lord against the mighty.” [Judges v. 23.] Will they not be chargeable also with “worshipping the dragon which gave power unto the beast, and with worshipping the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?” [Rev. xiii. 4.]

V. The scriptures represents these governments as in opposition to the interests of the church of Christ. Since the decree of the impious [emperor] Phocas, constituting the bishop of Rome [i.e., Boniface III] universal head of the church, in the year 606; and more especially since the year 756, when Pepin, the king of France, raised Pope Stephen the second to the dignity of a temporal prince, by conferring upon him the Exarchate of Ravenna and other Italian territories, the true church has had her abode in the wilderness, and has been persecuted with the most malignant fury. Early in the fifth century, darkness began to cover the earth, and gross darkness the people. Amidst this increasing gloom, antichrist arose, the terror and oppressor of the true disciples of the Lamb. When the wound of the beast of the sea was healed, and its sixth head was revived in the person of Justinian, by the victories of the great Belisarius and the eunuch Narses, [See McLeod on Rev.] “it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome then: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” [Rev. xiii. 7.] To the extensive power of this healed head, or more correctly to that of the beast under its “seventh or eighth head, is added all the power of the horns of the beast.” These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.―For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast. [Rev. xvii. 13, 17.] This beast in its septimo octave head was first exhibited in the restoration of the western empire in the person of Charlemagne [i.e., in December of the year 800]. This revived empire, in league with the two-horned beast of the earth, or Roman church, in conjunction also with the image of the first beast, the papacy, now risen to the highest rank by the influence and liberality of the Emperor of the east, and king of France, employs its strength and power in “making war with the saints;” which war however is more especially conducted by the ecclesiastical beast and papacy, making the power of the first beast and its horns subservient to their infernal cruelty: and by this influence they have been enabled to prevail against the followers of the Lamb. Dreadful have been the sufferings which the witnesses of Christ have been made to endure by this antichristian system and enemy of God: and the engine employed has been the civil arm of the nations. It is a fact worthy of remembrance in this argument, that the church of Rome did not usually by the hands of its priesthood shed the blood of the saints, but by the hands of the civil arm. By the judgment of the former, they were condemned to death; by the hand of the latter, the unrighteous sentence was executed. It is indeed certain, and the Roman Catholics themselves acknowledge it without hesitation, that “by the blessed reformation,” the papal doctrines, jurisdiction and authority, would have fallen into ruin in all parts of the world, had not the force of the secular arm been employed to support the tottering edifice, and fire and sword been let loose upon those who were assailing it only with reason and argument.” [Mosheim, vol. 4, p. 89.]

Heavy has been the hand of the nations upon the faithful witnesses, and most grievous their sorrows. Boldly did they testify against the system of misrule, superstition and idolatry established by law; and their blood has been mingled with their testimony. Cast your eye over the history of the Waldenses, those holy Christians who peacefully dwelt in the retired valleys of Piedmont, worshipping God according to his own pure institutions. Behold them driven from their peaceful retreats by the brutal soldiery of the beast with ten horns, rode by the mother of harlots! See their villages wrapped in flames, and their farms laid waste! See the old men falling beneath the sword of the murderers; and the young men slain in defence of all their hearts held dear! Behold their maidens ravished; their wives violated; and their helpless infants dashed against the inflamed dwellings from which their mothers were flying with them in their arms, when arrested by their inhuman ravishers! See the few that escape the sword and flames, and lust of the soldiery, climbing the steep cliffs of the Alps; some sink into the snow and perish, some are famished: while the few that survive, wander over the mountains, shadows of human beings, making their abode in the “caves and dens of the earth,” or in its flinty rocks.

These scenes were exhibited before the reformation: since that period the exhibition has been repeated. You, my brethren, have read the history of the martyrs of Jesus; of your fathers of the reformation, in whose footsteps you profess to walk in the maintenance of the same testimony. How often have your tears flowed at the recital of the bitter sufferings they endured, with such heroic patience, under the persecuting tyranny of the house of Stuart, which sat upon the throne of one of the horns of the beast? When you think of the thumb-screws and boots by which they were tortured, when you see them shot down in the fields, because they carried their bibles in their bosom as they wandered about, “destitute, afflicted, suffering the spoiled of their goods;” or behold them burnt at the stake, or beheaded on the scaffold; do not your souls shudder, and are you not forced to exclaim, how cruel is man! how cruel the kings of the earth, in their warfare with the Lamb! yea, cruelty marks their path, desolation and death follow their hosts!

Faint is this description of the bitter sufferings which the servants of the Lamb have endured from the kings of the earth, who have given their power and strength to the beast of the earth, that he might make war with the saints. It is sufficient to prove the malignant opposition of the nations to the interests of the true church of Christ. It is for the interest of antichrist that the present thrones of the nations may be established, but destructive of the interests of Zion. If perpetuity be given to them, the mountain of the Lord’s house can never be exalted. They are the same now that they have been, and they want but a suitable opportunity, to react the same bloody tragedy; and the period is not far distant, when desolation and death will again follow their hosts, in their victorious march through the church of God, when, “the woman” will against “be seen drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” [Rev. vi. 9, 10.]

Such being the malignant opposition of the kingdoms of the world to the church of Christ, does any friend―any lover of Zion desire their stability; and will he prop their bloody thrones? or does God require this at his hands? Rather let him join in the prayer of “the souls under the altar, of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: who cry with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth!” [Rev. xvi. 8.] Yea, “Lord give them blood to drink, for they are worthy.” “Amen―so let it be.”

VI. The scriptures describe these governments, as thrones with which God will not have fellowship.

Jehovah is a holy being; the law of Jehovah is holy, as he is holy: and unholy being cannot enjoy his favour; an unholy principle cannot receive the sanction of his authority. “He cannot look upon sin.” Why? It “is a transgression of his law, which is holy, just, good, perfect;” the transcript of his moral perfections. Hence the sentence, “Depart from me, ye that work iniquity, I never knew you:” I never approved of you. He providentially knew them. “For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” If God does not approve of the individual sinner, and his sinful actions, will he approve of an organized association of men; an association constituted upon immoral principles, and in its operations violating his pure law? Is there anything in the mode of establishing or committing iniquity by communities that will mitigate the evil of transgression and propitiate the divine favour? We would be glad to learn, for we have not sufficient perspicacity for its discovery. We believe that God is unchangeably holy, and his law immutably the same; that no change of relation among men can remove the odious nature of transgression; that sin is unchangeably the same, whether committed by individuals or associated man; that whatever may be the civil circumstances of men, God is invariably “of purer eyes than to behold iniquity” with approbation. “Whoever says that nations and governments should have a system of morality different from that of individuals, calumniates human nature, and proves himself to be ignorant and silly.” I go farther, and assert that he insults the majesty of heaven, and casts dishonour upon the divine law.

These principles have the force of axioms, and apply to the subject under consideration. If there is found a throne in the world, a government embracing in its constitution an immoral principle, that immoral principle diffuses its corrupting influence throughout the operations of the system, as “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” If there be found, I say, such a government, such a throne, does God approve it? Has he fellowship with it? Let the scriptures determine. “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They condemn the innocent blood.” This scripture is emphatic, and teaches distinctly that civil iniquity is odious to God, and the iniquitous throne is excluded his fellowship. Fellowship implies a community of interest. God does not make a common interest with the throne of iniquity, “that frameth mischief by a law.” It is not his throne. It is not his ordinance. For the ordinance of God is the best possible system. It does not, and cannot admit the idea of iniquity. But if there is iniquity, it is not his ordinance. The iniquity of the text does not direct us to a single act of mal-administration, but to the throne itself; mischief framed―established by law. A single immoral principle, therefore, established in the constitution of any land, deprives it of the honour of being God’s ordinance. For the text does not say “the throne of iniquities,” but singular, “the throne of iniquity” framing “mischief by a law,” not laws. Let the iniquity be established in the constitution―the supreme law of the land; let that constitution be in other respects good; the single immoral principle mars the whole instrument. I cannot take the oath of allegiance to the instrument without binding the immoral principle upon my conscience, as a rule of duty; because I am not allowed to make the exception. That one immoral principle interweaves itself with the whole machinery of government. This is a fact which cannot be controverted. Take as an illustration, the operation of the immoral principle established in the constitution of the United States. This constitution authorizes slavery, “deprives unoffending men of liberty and property;” [See Con. U. S. Art. I. sec 9; and Art. X. sec .3.] condemns the innocent blood. This single principle “leavens the whole lump,” embarrasses the government in its operations, binds the legislator in the halls of Congress, and every officer in the land, governor, judge, and juror. It pervades the whole system, and has become a sine qua non with some, indispensable to the preservation of the Union. All this is produced by virtue of framing this mischief by a law. It renders the government a throne of iniquity, with which God will not have fellowship. He hears the cry of the prisoner, and the groan of the oppressed, and when “Ethiopia stretches out her hands unto God,” he will not make common interest with the government; but will nerve by his power the arm of the African in his righteous cause. And ah! land of my nativity! dreadful will be his vengeance!

If God, therefore, will not receive into his fellowship the throne of iniquity, does he bind his people to enter into fellowship with it? Does he bind them to violate his own law, and swear to do it, and thereby give establishment to iniquity? Friends of humanity, and ye who love the law of God, do you credit this, and command me to bow the knee? I must refuse obedience; I cannot swear to enslave my fellow men. God of mercy, “Let the sighing of the prisoner come before thee: according to the greatness of thy power preserve thou those that are appointed to die.” [Psalm lxxix. 79.]

VII. The scriptures describe the governments of the nations, as systems of iniquity, which God hath destined to a fearful destruction.

If this proposition can be established, the argument will be reduced to narrow bounds. It will then appear that those who support the thrones of the nations, as at present constituted, are at war with God, and rush against “the thick bosses of his buckler.” They will be found endeavouring to give stability to that which God is engaged in destroying, and are madly exposing themselves to the ponderous “wheels of his judgments.”

The point has already been established, that the nations are hostile in their present system of rule to the interests of the church of Christ. This church God hath “loved with an everlasting love.” It is “dearer in his sight” than all the world beside. On its account, the nations themselves exist; and the world is established upon its pillars by the Messiah, who is “head over all things to the church, which is his body,” of whose members be declared, “Ye are the salt of the earth.” God requires of the nations, that they deal kindly with his church, and promote her true interests; that she be established and supported throughout the commonwealth. “Kings shall be thy nursing fathers.” “Kings shall minister unto thee.” [Isa. xlix. 23.] Do we find kings acting in obedience to this expression of the divine will? We do not. On the contrary, they are nursing fathers to antichrist. “Will not the Lord visit for these things, and shall not his soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” [Jer. v. 9.] His visitation will be awful, his vengeance dreadful. For he will “arise and shake terribly the earth.” Let the Lord speak for himself on the behalf of his Zion. “The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” [Isa. lx. 12.] Destruction is denounced against them by the righteous Lord.

We reason farther from another principle, which has been established. “The nations make war with the Lamb.” The Lamb is destined to overthrow them. “The Lamb shall overcome them.” [Rev. xvii. 14.] Satan may lead forth the kings to the battle; they may marshal all their mighty hosts, and exert their prowess: the Lamb will overcome them, and they shall melt away before the breath of his nostrils in the battle of the great day. “I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet.” [Rev. xix. 19, 20.] Thus the Lamb, the exalted Mediator, “leads captivity captive.” Into his hands are the purposes of God committed, for their accomplishment. He pours out the vials of divine wrath upon the thrones of the nations. These tremendous dispensations are under his control. “He alone is found worthy to take the book of the divine purposes, and open the seals thereof.” [Rev. v. 9.] “The seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple from the throne, saying, It is done. And there were voices, and thunders, and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the earth, so mighty an earthquake, and so great. And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.” [Rev. xvi.] This is the last vial charged with the fulness of divine wrath, and poured out according to the purpose of God, for the destruction of the guilty nations. Messiah triumphs in the dispensation. The imagery instructs us that the wretched kings of the earth, and their thrones, will be overthrown by the most terrible convulsions of the nations: as when the awful tempest sweeps from the north, hurrying with it clouds pregnant with destruction, the volleyed lightning issues from their bosom, and hoarse thunders in deafening peals rend the air; whilst great hailstones, everyone about the weight of a talent, are discharged upon the inhabitants of the earth. Amidst this war of elements above, a mighty earthquake shakes the solid ground; the rocks are rent, the mountains moved to their deep foundations, and the earth opened in awful chasms engulfs the cities of the nations. By these tremendous convulsions of nature, are exhibited to us the dreadful conflicting of nations, by which the Lamb will overthrow the enemies of his throne. “Nation shall rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” Those nations which were banded together to war against the Lamb, shall break their leagues, dissolve their alliances, and turn the artillery of war against each other, as the sword of Midian of old was turned against Midian. By the war of the elements of the moral world, a tempest shall produced which shall desolate the nations, as when a whirlwind sweeps over the earth. The elements are even now marshalling for the conflict. The allied powers have, by their act in the bay of Navarino, virtually declared war against the Ottoman. The Messiah in his omnipotent and sovereign rule, will, probably, make them the instruments of the destruction of Mahomet. Then the tempest shall sweep from the north, and lay prostrate and desolate their thrones for ever; and out of their ruins shall be erected in grandeur the millennial kingdoms of the Messiah.

Such is the destiny of these nations, in the righteous judgment of God. The decree has gone forth for their destruction. The destroying angel is on the wing. Does God command his saints on earth to stay his flight, and resist his arm? Certainly not. His command is the reverse. Before Babylon falls, and with her falls the beast on which she rides, a voice is heard from heaven, saying, “Come out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Those, therefore, that are found supporting the thrones of the nations upon which we see antichrist sitting, are exposed to the “plague of the hail, the plague whereof shall be exceeding great.” Verily they have reason of trembling, who prefer allegiance to the despots of the earth, to the glorious service of the Lamb; they are in danger that their blood be mingled with that of his enemies, with which he will stain all his raiment, when he treads the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. For “the day of vengeance is in his heart, and the year of his redeemed is come.”

VIII. Those who support these thrones have the curse of God denounced against them, whilst those who withhold allegiance are blessed of God.

This point, if established, must settle the dispute―must put the question at rest for ever. For if vengeance is due to the supporters of iniquitous thrones, it is the Lord’s, “and he will repay.” If blessings are appointed to them who withhold allegiance, the windows of heaven shall be opened, and they shall be blessed indeed. The word of God must decide. “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” [Rev. xiv. 9-11.] Three things in this passage demand our attention, in order to its correct illustration; the beast, the image of the beast, and his mark. The beast designates the ten-horned beast, already demonstrated as signifying the Roman empire in its divided state. This is plain from the passage itself. The beast is that one of which there is an image made. This cannot be the image of the “two-horned beast of the earth,” or Roman church. It is this beast that causes the image to be made, not of itself, but of another beast. “And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth: and he had two horns like a lamb, and he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and deceived them that dwell on the earth; saying to them, that they should make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword and did live.” [Rev. xiii. 11, 12, 14.] This beast is “the seven-headed and ten-horned beast of the sea.” [Rev. xiii. 1.] The image is made after the character of the system of civil misrule: it resembles this beast.

What is this image? is the next inquiry. “This image is the papacy. The Pope of Rome is the most striking representation of the old Roman emperors that can be conceived of by the imagination of man.” [McLeod.] “He is the common centre and cement which unites all the distinct kingdoms of the empire; and, by joining with them, procures them a blind obedience from their subjects.” [Whiston.] “He is the principle of unity to the ten kingdoms of the beast, and causeth, as far as he is able, all who will not acknowledge his supremacy to be put to death. In short, he is the most perfect likeness and resemblance of the ancient Roman emperors―is as great a tyrant in the Christian world, as they were in the heathen world―presides in the same city―affects the same titles, and requires the same universal homage and adoration. So that this prophecy [Rev. xiii.] descends more and more unto particulars, from the Roman state or ten kingdoms in general, to the Roman church or clergy, in particular, and still more particularly to the person of the Pope.” [Bishop Newton.]

The mark now demands our attention.―“We are not to imagine that any external mark was to be impressed on any part of the bodies of the votaries of Rome; but that they should be known to be the votaries of Rome, by certain traits in their character.” [Johnston.] “This mark of the Latin empire―the Roman beast, is nothing else but that professed servitude, obedience, confederacy, or concurrence, which the subjects thereof have avouched.” [Lord Napier.] For the purpose of a fuller illustration of this important topic, I quote some of the remarks of Dr. [Alexander] McLeod in his invaluable Lectures of the Revelation, [Am. Ed. pages 433, 434, 438.] with but one apology for the length of the quotation. It is the best elucidation which can be given of the subject.

“It is the mark of the first or ten-horned beast, the civil Latin empire, chap. xix. 20, the mark of the beast, (to charagma tou thēriou,) and in this verse the first beast is distinguished from the hierarchy which is called the false prophet: it is also the mark of his name, xiv. 11. 2. The charagma, or mark of the secular power, is imposed by the false prophet, or second beast; it is he who had the two horns like a lamb, and spake as a dragon, that both gives life to the image, and imposes the mark “caused to be received.” 3. It is imposed upon all descriptions of people throughout the Roman empire, except the saints and martyrs, chap. xx. 4. that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark. 4. It is differently imposed,―on the foreheads of some, and on the hand of others, the right hand. 5. It is the effect of “strong delusion” to receive this mark, chap. xix. 20. The false prophet deceived them that had the mark of the beast. 6. It, nevertheless, secures their worldly interest throughout the empire: no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark. 7. This badge, or charagma, while it secures secular advantages, subjects the possessor to the plagues of the vials, chap. xv. 2. And 8thly, This mark devotes to destruction: chap. xiv. 11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Grotius and Spencer, [Spen. de leg. Heb. lib. ii. Cap. 20. Sect. 1-4.] with their wonted industry and erudition, have furnished the means of explaining this symbol by the customs of antiquity. The slave received the mark of his master; the soldier of his general; and the devotee of his idol: these marks impressed on the hand of the forehead, consisted of the name at length, or the initials of the name; of some cipher which had a definite conventional signification; or of certain hieroglyphics generally understood. Thus, he who imposed the mark, declared his property, and they who received it avowed their submission and their determination to serve.

The mark in the forehead, is avowed subjection to the complex and impious power of the nations, in all cases, civil and ecclesiastical, to the full extent of their tyrannical claims; and that in the hand denotes activity, in supporting these thrones of iniquity, whether with or without the profession of the Roman Catholic creed, or any other heresy whatsoever.

“Support to the secular power, urged by the ecclesiastical, upon all descriptions of men, avowed and acted upon, under the influence of delusion, and for the sake of temporal gain, while it involves an admission of those antichristian principles which oppose the rights of God and man, and which tend to perpetuate the unholy despotism of the European nations, cannot but be criminal in the sight of the moral Governor of the world, and must expose to punishment all upon whose heads its guilt doth rest.”

It being thus demonstrated that the mark imports avowed servitude, obedience or allegiance to the thrones of iniquity established in the world; how are they esteemed by the God of heaven, who receive this mark? Are they his favourites, upon whom his name is written, and who have their own recorded in the Lamb’s book of life? Nay, verily. They are the children of wrath. They are exposed to present woes―the vials of Jehovah’s wrath. “The first angel went and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.” [Rev. xvi. 2.] They have no interest in the book of life of the Lamb, who is exalted to the midst of the throne of God. “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of world,) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” [Rev. xvii. 8.] Their woes are not yet consummated; eternal pains await them: the indignation of an avenging God they must endure for ever. “The smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” Verily such have woes, such have unmingled sorrows.

But one principle, and one only, rescues certain of the adherents of the existing thrones of iniquity, from the threatened destruction of the last passage. It militates not against the argument, but gives it at the present time peculiar force, as a warning to flee from impending woes. The principle is this: the period has not yet fully arrived when the denunciation will be literally accomplished. It is not half a century distant, according to prophetic calculation, when the friends of the Lamb, and those who receive the mark of the beast, will be distinctly marked, and when a complete separation will be made, and the latter given over to temporal and everlasting destruction. It takes place under the vintage which is comprehended under the seventh vial, now pouring out. “Never, until the time of the third angel, was eternal death expressly denounced in scripture upon every advocate of anti-christianism: and it is only at the time of the vintage, that the saints are completely distinguished from the supporters of the beast and the false prophet. Then God’s people have all obeyed the command, ‘Come out of her.’ Thus separated, the enemy is put into the wine-press, and Christ alone doth tread it in his fury. ‘He treadeth the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.’ [Rev. xix. 15, 16.] Great is the consequent destruction: the blood comes to the horse-bridles, by the space of sixteen hundred furlongs.” [McLeod on Rev. p. 476.] Willful allegiance therefore must be at present most daring presumption.

On the other hand, ye, thrice blessed ones, who hold the testimony of Jesus, and boldly testify against the iniquity of the thrones of the nations, be not cast down; ye have nothing to dread: but, if there is any consolation in the word of God, it opens up to you fountains of living joy; yea, a thousand years of glorious rule with the Lamb on earth, in the person of your successors of a kindred spirit. “I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” [Rev. xx. 4.]

The point is thus established beyond controversy, if we take the word of God for our rule. Those who support the thrones of the nations, have the curse of Jehovah denounced against them; whilst those who withhold allegiance, are blessed of the Lord. Where is the power, therefore, that can bind me to conscientious obedience, to an “allegiance of the whole heart,” to the corrupt constitutions of the nations? Must I not obey my God? Must I not flee the wrath which is to come? Or shall I cleave to the accursed thrones, and drink for ever of the unmingled wrath of God from the cup of his indignation? Nay, rather should I suffer with the “beheaded” martyrs of Jesus, and reign for ever with the Lamb. “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” [Rev. xiv. 12.]

PART II.

The last argument conducts us to the second proposition, namely: The explanation of the text, with its parallel passages, in consistency with the principles already demonstrated from scripture, and with the received axiom, “The scriptures agree, they do not contradict themselves.”

That this necessary duty may be performed,

I. Compare the argument in full with the text and its parallels, and reconcile the apparent contradiction. It has been, to our satisfaction at least, and let the reader judge, demonstrated, that the scriptures describe the existing governments of the nations: 1. As bestial and blasphemous in their constitutions. 2. As receiving their establishment from the devil. 3. As in league with and supporting antichrist. 4. As at war with Jesus Christ, “the Prince of the kings of the earth.” 5. As malignant to the interests of the church. 6. As thrones of iniquity with which God will not have fellowship. 7. As systems of iniquity which God hath destined to a fearful destruction. 8. And finally, it has been demonstrated from scripture, that those who support these thrones of the nations, have the curse of God denounced against them; whilst those who withhold allegiance are blessed of God.

Let the reader weigh well these illustrations of scripture, and compare them with the following passages:―

1. The text―“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

2. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.―Whosoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” [Rom. xiii. 1-7.]

3. “Put them in mind to be subject to the principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” [Tit. iii. 1.]

4. “I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” [1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.]

By a comparison of the scriptural arguments or illustrations that have been advanced with these passages, there is an apparent contradiction, if we are to be carried away by the mere sound of words. Especially does this contradiction appear between the last argument, from the denunciation of wrath against all “who receive the mark of the beast,” recorded in Rev. xiv. chap. 10th and 11th verses, and Rom. xiii. 1, 2. “The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day and night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

Here is a flat contradiction, if the Spirit of God is speaking in both passages of the same system of existing governments. Where is the rule of my duty? My path is obstructed; I am confounded. If I receive the mark of submission, eternal torments are my portion: if I resist, I receive to myself damnation. “Where’er I go is hell.”

Here is a dilemma! Let us attempt the task of untying this “gordian knot,” without recourse to the Alexandrian mode, without doing violence to the sacred word of God.

1. Let us try the first mentioned principle: This principle asserts, “that these passages enforce the doctrine of implicit submission to the government that may providentially exist, its immorality notwithstanding; that we are permitted to inquire no farther, than the fact of its existence in the providence of God, when the texts meet us an enjoin conscientious submission and support.”

This principle does not solve the difficulty―cannot untie the knot; it gives me no neutral ground, upon which I may stand, between the opposing denunciations: it commands me to submit, which if I do, I am plunged into everlasting “torments of fire and brimstone.” If this principle is correct, the harmony of the word of God cannot be maintained; the scriptures must fall to the ground, and infidelity must triumph. They cannot be the word of that God, “who is of one mind;” they contradict themselves. “Whither, ah whither shall I flee?”

But perhaps those who are disposed to quibble, will charge us with not stating the question fairly―will tell us that we have not given their real sentiments. Let us see. “It is the duty of Christians, plainly and frequently enjoined on them in the word of God, and acknowledged in the confessions of all the Reformed churches, to submit to the government of that country in which providence has ordered their lot. It is a sad truth, that civil societies, in setting up forms of government, and magistrates, frequently neglect to acknowledge God, and give things injurious to religion a place in their constitutions. Against these evils Christians ought to testify, as the Lord gives them opportunity. But they ought by no means, on account of such blemishes in any government established by the consent of the people, to refuse submission to it in all lawful commands, especially while it grants the same protection to them as to the other members of the community.” [Associate Presbyterian Declaration and Testimony. 3d Ed. revised 1813, page 68.] This must be admitted as a fair and candid statement of the question. Will this untie the knot? We will try.

2. It distinctly asserts what we have stated, that it is the duty of Christians to submit to the government that exists in the providence of God; qualified, however, by the phrase “lawful commands,” to which we will attend.

3. It presents before us a government established by the will or consent of the people, which nevertheless neglects to acknowledge God, and give things injurious to religion a place in its constitution.

This government, of course, upon this principle, is the ordinance of God, although he himself is entirely neglected, and his religion injured. Thus God is represented as establishing, by his own ordinance, his own dishonour and injuries done to his religion; an evident contradiction to his first commandment, which forbids “the denying or not worshipping and glorifying the true God,” [Shorter Cat. Question 47―an acknowledged formula.] themselves being judges. Thus God is made to deny himself, and the consent or will of the people is set up as paramount to the authority of God, and the good of his holy religion. “The voice of the people is the voice of God,” is an assertion unsound in morals. Should a nation’s voice decree an immorality, is it in this instance the voice of God? When revolutionary France established (if I may so write) Atheism, was the people’s voice the voice of God, and was the government then the ordinance of God? This existed in his providence. There is something of impiety in this sentiment. The voice or will of the people can be the voice or will of God, only when it responds to the principles of his holy law, and his ordinance recognizes his authority.

4. It admits the right and duty of Christians to testify against these evils. How? Is it by swearing allegiance, conscientiously, to the complex system? If we judge from uniform practice, this is the reply. Because it is in vain I write and preach, if I at the same time engage by oath to support the complex system, not being allowed, when taking the oath, to make exception to the evils having a place in the constitution. In vain I testify against the crime of intemperance, or any other immorality, if I am seen daily myself intoxicated, or guilty of the reprobated immorality. Example is illustration of principle.

5. It commands submission, notwithstanding the blemishes in the constitution. To say nothing about the levity manifested in calling the neglect of God, and injuries done to his religion, mere blemishes; it is necessary to inquire into the import of the word submission, as here employed.

It evidently does not signify a mere endurance of the evils that may exists, without any insurrectionary attempts at remedying them; but leading peaceable and quiet lives, in all godliness and honesty, whilst by the pen, and press, and pulpit, we testify against these evils. This cannot be its meaning, if the practice of those who maintain the principles is any evidence of their manner of understanding what they teach. Practice is the best comment upon “dark” and mysterious “sayings.” Do not those who hold the principle, swear allegiance to, and hold offices under existing governments, in whose constitutions these blemishes are to be found? Do they not teach that allegiance is to be given with the whole heart? This is matter of fact, if we are to credit their practice and their approved writers upon this subject. The submission, therefore, which is here enjoined, is of the same import with “receiving the mark of the beast,” which has been demonstrated as implying “a professed servitude, obedience, confederacy, or concurrence, which the subjects of the government have avouched.” [Lord Napier.]

The explanatory clause “in all lawful commands,” avails nothing in removing the difficulty. It is calculated by its sound, indeed, to mislead. When I examine the little clause by itself, it looks very fine; when I pronounce it, it sounds pleasantly to the ear; but when I look into the uniform practice of those whose testimony I am analyzing, I am compelled, however pleasing its musick, to declare it “a sounding brass, and tinkling cymbal.” When it is compared with an unqualified expression which the passage contains, it will be found but a thin veil covering a great evil. That expression is, “any government established, &c.” The beast certainly is not excepted, whose very constitution has been seen to be blasphemous. The enjoined submission has been proved to mean allegiance. I am bound, therefore, by this rule, to swear allegiance to the beast “with all my heart.” The qualifying expression “in all lawful commands,” avails nothing here. The allegiance is given to the complex system. No exception is made, or is allowed, when taking the oath. All blemishes in the constitution are unequivocally embraced: which blemishes are nothing less than immoralities, and prominently exhibit the most odious feature in our first and general statement of the question, “immoralities notwithstanding.”

That this allegiance is given, is matter of fact. History conducts my mind across the Atlantic. It contemplates with keenest anguish the “Emerald isle,” the land of my fathers. It sees its generous inhabitants wearing chains forged and riveted by a usurping conqueror, one of the “horns of the beast.” It learns from the law of nature, that usurpation can give no right, any more than robbery. Yet dominion is claimed and maintained, at the expense of the best blood of the land. I have had reason to expect that allegiance would be withheld by a certain class of its inhabitants, from the unlawful authority established by usurpation, where “the consent of the people is not granted,” which is with them the supreme rule of obedience. I am painfully disappointed. I see the chief of the association reaching forth their hand, and receiving from the usurper and tyrant, a Regium Donum, a well known reward of allegiance, and thereby riveting more firmly the chains of despotism upon the already galled inhabitants.[1]

Let us now return to the gordian knot. It must yet remain untied, unless violence be used. Allegiance is still enjoined to “any government,” even to “the beast from the bottomless pit,” which is destined with its votaries to go into perdition. If I submit, I am exposed to the tremendous denunciation of eternal torments, or I must deny the scriptures to be the word of that God “who knoweth the end from the beginning,” and so at once remove the difficulty. This I am not prepared to do. I cannot commit my Bible to the flames; neither can I surrender eight of its important principles; principles important to the regulation of my civil deportment, for the sake of a slavish doctrine, supported by the mere sound of words.

Happily for the glory of God and the interest of humanity, the principle we advocate unites these apparently conflicting scriptures in the most pleasing and harmonious union. It presents to us the ordinance of God as moral in its nature, and illustrates the fact that there are existent in his providence, governments, which neither God, nor the friends of God, can recognize with approbation, but are to be disclaimed upon the penalty of eternal “torments:” whilst the moral ordinance of God must be supported upon the pain of “damnation.” It completely solves the difficulty, unites the gordian knot with case, which has baffled, as we have seen, every attempt of the former principle. We repeat it with the highest confidence in its powers of harmonizing.

“The passage under consideration, is a description of civil government as it is moral, founded in the moral law of God, and in this respect his ordinance: exhibiting at the same time the duty of the subject with a reference to God’s moral institutions, and does not by any means deny the right of dissent from immoral constitutions of government.”

Four principles are here presented. 1. That the ordinance of God is moral. 2. That there are immoral governments established in the world. 3. That the latter may be dissented from without the fear of damnation. 4. That the former must be submitted to “for wrath and for conscience’ sake.” The second and third have been already illustrated. It has been demonstrated from scripture, that the devil has given the governments at present existent over the nations of Europe, their establishment: and that the curse of God is denounced against those who yield them their allegiance. [See argument 2d and 8th.] The first and fourth remain to be more fully confirmed.―This will now be done.

1. Magistracy as it is the ordinance of God, is moral. From what has been proved under the sixth argument, little need be added, to show that the throne which God will receive into his fellowship must necessarily be moral. It cannot be conceived that the holy God should “decree mischief by a law,” as a rule of duty―that he should ordain an immorality, and enjoin submission to it upon his moral creatures. It is true that he has “foreordained whatsoever comes to pass,” because he “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” [Eph. i. 11.] Sin, therefore, since it has entered into the world in the providence of God, cannot have entered against his will. To assert this, would be to deny his omniscience, omnipotence and sovereignty. He hath therefore foreseen, permitted, and consequently foreordained its entrance. It is blasphemous, however, to infer from God’s permission, or foreordination, that he is the author of sin, and approves of it, and enjoins its commission: nay, he approves only of holiness, and “sin is the abominable thing which he hates.” Those with whom we dispute, abhor the idea of charging God with approving sin; whilst with us they maintain strenuously the doctrine of predestination. Apply this reasoning to the case in hand. Immoral governments have been proved, and are found to exist. They exist in the providence of God. Their existence must have been foreordained, for providence is but the evolution of the divine decrees of their accomplishment. Yet are they approved of God? No more than sin is by him approved. Why is this? It is the fact of their immorality. They are sinful; sin is odious to a holy God. It is the same in his view, by whomsoever committed―by individual or associated man, and he will punish it wherever it may be found. If God thus hates immorality, we infer justly, that magistracy as it is God’s ordinance must be moral. Of a moral government alone can be approve, and it alone he imposes upon his rational and moral subjects.

2. Magistracy as it is moral, and thus the ordinance of God, is founded in his moral law―the law of nature.

“Law,” says a distinguished civilian, [Blackstone’s Com. p. 58.] “is a rule of action dictated by some superior being. The principles at first impressed upon the material creation, are laws regulating its motions, from which it never departs. Such are the laws of attraction, gravitation, &c. These laws are the will of the sovereign Creator, as it respects the government of the material world; and may be called the law of nature with a reference to that world. The law of nature, however, assumes a somewhat different aspect as it is applied to rational man. It is not merely a rule impressed upon a material subject, governing absolutely its movements, but moral precepts given for the regulation of the conduct of a rational agent. Man is a dependent creature. He is dependent upon his Creator, and must necessarily be subject to his laws. Consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker’s will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so when he created man, and endued him with free will to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature. This law of nature being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this, and such of these as are valid, derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.” [Blackstone, p. 39-41.]

This law was the basis of God’s covenant with Adam―was the rule of his behaviour toward God, and of his dominion which he enjoyed over this world before his apostacy. This law was never abrogated, but is still binding upon man, wherever he may dwell. To it he is bound, by the most solemn sanction, to conform in all the relations of life, and in it magistracy is founded as it is the ordinance of God. Magistracy was first instituted in the human family, whom God gave Adam dominion over Eve, and all the works of his hand in this lower world. Then man was “made a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour: he was made to have dominion over the works of God’s hand, and all things were put under his feet.” [Psalm viii. 5, 6.] The law which regulated his rule was the law of the covenant of works, and the same law must be the rule of magistracy among his posterity, through all ages of the world. This law has lost nothing of its purity and righteous demands upon men, by the apostacy; but is ever holy, just, good and perfect―cannot countenance the least appearance of evil, but commands man in all relations of life, saying, “Be ye holy in all manner of conversation, for God is holy.” This is obvious from the fact, that the heathen world is condemned for not recognizing this law in all its transactions; “who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” [Rom. i. 32.] Among the crimes reprobated by the apostle, is a neglect or refusal to acknowledge God; “even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge:” [Rom. i. 23.]―instructing us distinctly that the acknowledgement of God is a fundamental law of nature. If individuals neglect it, they violate his law. If nations neglect it, they are equally criminal, and alike “given up of God.” From this whole process of argumentation, it follows, as a legitimate inference, that magistracy as it is the ordinance of God, is founded in his law, and is essentially moral, and cannot tolerate the establishment of an immoral, or neglect of a moral principle.

3. This truth appears with still greater lustre when it is proved that the law of nature is the same law with the law revealed in the Bible. Here it gives me satisfaction to record the lucid argument upon this topic, of the celebrated civilian already so liberally quoted.

“If our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passion, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease, and intemperance, the task of discovering what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life, would be pleasant and easy: we should need no other guide than this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience―that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.

“This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered, we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man’s felicity. But we are not thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason in its present corrupted state; since we find, until they were revealed they were hidden from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and is denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws shall be suffered to contradict these.”

This manly and pious reason is so excellent, and so conclusive, that we offer no other apology for the length of the extract. It is worthy of being “set in pictures of silver,” for its words are like “apples of gold.” It incontestably established the principle, that the law of nature and the law of revelation are the same law; the latter the most perfect expression of the divine will. With this corresponds the claims of revelation itself. “The Gentiles, which have not the law, (evidently the revealed and written law, which is not in the possession of the heathen,) do by nature the things contained in the law, (the written law). These, having not the law, (the written law,) are a law unto themselves.”―“The law of the Lord is perfect.”―“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of god may be perfect, thoroughly finished unto all good works.” [Rom. ii. 14.—Ps. xix. 7.—2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.] The last clause of this last passage, when compared with another, conclusively demonstrates that the revealed law is the rule of civil transactions. “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” That we may possess this readiness, “all scripture given by the inspiration of God,” must be the source of our furniture. This position thus illustrated puts the morality of magistracy as an ordinance of God beyond a doubt, because “he that ruleth over men,” declares the revealed law, “must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” [Tit. iii. 1.]

4. This moral ordinance demands, and is entitled to my conscientious support. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” This terrible denunciation has its application here, and here only, because it is God’s moral institution―the power ordained by a holy God, upon the righteous principles of his eternal rule. “Holiness becometh” his institution “for ever.” The nature of the power here intended is determined by the character given of the ruler. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” In what terms could we better describe the moral ordinance of God, than it is described in the terms of this passage? The ruler is the minister or servant of God for good; to reward those that do good, and to punish those that do evil: in one word, the guardian and executor of the divine law, “attending continually upon this very thing.” Just as the clergyman is the minister of Christ Jesus, who faithfully “declares the whole counsel of God” to sinners, and whose deportment adorns his profession; he having been inducted into office in agreeableness to the divine rule. Justice and judgment are the habitation of the throne of the ruler, as it is of the founder; and the law of his God the rule of his administration, as the minister of God. To such a government we must needs be “subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” Here is the application of the instruction to Titus: “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” If this command is unlimited, embracing all principalities and powers, then it enjoins obedience to satan, and the evil powers under his control. But we are commanded to “wrestle against these principalities and powers.” [Eph. vi. 12.] It is limited, therefore, and the limitation must be regulated by God’s moral ordinance, the minister of God to men for good, that we may be “ready to every good work.” Morality reigns throughout the whole.

But reverse the description. Injustice and perverted judgment are the habitation of the throne, the ruler is a terror to good works, and a praise to them that do evil; a revenger, executing wrath upon him that doeth good, attending continually upon this very thing.

This description exhibits to us a beast. Is this the ordinance of God? Is this the power of the text? Nay, verily. What is it then? It is the ordinance of the devil, a power, a principality of darkness: a Kosmokratos, a civil ruler “of the darkness of this world,” [Eph. vi. 12.] whom we are commanded to “resist,” having on “the whole armor of God;” and whom if we support, whose mark if we receive, we expose ourselves to the awful denunciation of eternal torments “with fire and brimstone, in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” [Rev. xiv. 10, 11.] Such a power was the brutal Nero, “a head of the beast;” and such was the bloody house of Stuart, occupying the throne of one of his “ten horns!!”

Thus we distinctly perceive the principle which we maintain, brings into harmony the apparently contradictory denunciations, and the scriptures maintain their authority. One denounces the enemies of the moral ordinance of God; the other denounces the friends of the “beast,” the unholy ordinance of the “devil and satan.”

It gives us pleasure to quote from the Lectures on Revelation, [A footnote, p. 418.] in illustration of this principle, a work from which we have borrowed already so freely.

“Plain Christians are deceived by a trite sophism. The sophism is this: ‘There is no power but of God, therefore this power is from heaven, and to it you must submit, as unto the ordinance of God.’ This argument will suit every case, and it has been universally resorted to by the friends of passive obedience. It has always been the refuge of those who plead the divine right of kings, and popes, and emperors, over their unhappy subjects. It applies alike to all power, good or bad. It avails Beelzebub the prince’s, as well as any of his servants or instruments. ‘Satan is powerful; there is no power but of God; therefore it is wrong to resist the adversary.’

“This sophism is of easy solution. There are distinct kinds of power: one is authorized of God, and is moral; the other is permitted of God, and is immoral. There are distinct kinds of obedience: one is the result of allegiance, and is voluntary; the other, the consequence of force, and is compulsory. The captive marches to the place of confinement, at the command of his conqueror, but still holds his allegiance to his own country. A man must shut his eyes, not to see the distinction.” [See Appendix.]

If the present thrones of the nations are the ordinance of God, they would be agreeable to his moral rule; but it has been, we think, eight times demonstrated that they are immoral, and consequently are not entitled to our conscientious allegiance.

Further.―If they are the ordinance of God, then they would be the best possible system, approved by the unchangeable mind of Jehovah; consequently they are never, while the world stands, to experience a change for the better. It would be impious for man to attempt, to even desire a change. Upon this principle, these governments have, ever since their foundation, been the ordinance of God, and have met with his approbation. Upon this principle, therefore, what is the predicament of the United States? They are founded in a resistance to, and rejection of the authority of one of the divine ordinances; consequently they must receive to themselves damnation. If the doctrine which we oppose is true, then, that these United States may escape the divine wrath impending because of their resistance to one of “the powers that be,” the sooner they acknowledge their error, and the authority of George IV as their sovereign, the better. They may escape punishment. This sentiment we think must grate upon the patriotic feelings of every American who appreciates his liberty. Yet this sentiment is a legitimate inference from the doctrine we are engaged in refuting. The heart of every true American must respond with gladness to the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian, because by them alone are his liberties established; as by acting upon them, they have been gained.

Further.―Upon the principle that the existing governments are the ordinance of God, the present antichristian system of misrule embraces our millennial kingdoms, whose kings are “nursing fathers,” and their “queens nursing mothers” to the church of God. We have even at this present time a political millennium. Yet it is declared that the “kingdoms of this world” are in future to “become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.”

II. Having reconciled the apparent though not real opposition of the scriptures to themselves, it becomes us, in the present stage of the argument, to lead the attention of the reader directly to our text, whilst an exposition is given of it, consistent with the moral ordinance of God. In order to accomplish this, we will state in general propositions the principles we believe it contains, and illustrate them briefly in order.

1. This scripture confirms the right to men of framing their powers of government, and of choosing their rulers.

“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors.” Tyranny, usurpation of right, a government in opposition to the will and consent of the governed, the scriptures do not tolerate, but confirm the right of free election. The Bible is not a chain let down from heaven, to bind to the will of the few the mass of mankind. It does not create an order of men, few in number, booted and spurred, with authority to ride the majority of mankind, created for this purpose with saddles on their backs. [The sentiment of Col. Richard Rombold, a Scottish martyr. See Howie’s Scot’s Worthies.] It ratifies the right to mankind of exercising the principles of their social nature in civil society. Society is ordained for the happiness of social beings, next to the glory of God; and this glory is advanced in proportion as the felicity of social life is enjoyed. The Bible proclaims “good will to men;” it frees them from the yoke of tyranny, by guaranteeing to them the right of framing government―the right of electing their rulers. Hence government is called “the ordinance of man,” (anthrōpinē ktisei,)―a human creation. “Forms of magistracy, or their laws for regulating the commonwealth, are called an ordinance of man.” [Brown’s Dictionary “in verbo.”] It is further the ordinance of man, as it implies the will of the people fairly expressed, and not the will of an arbitrary tyrant. Thus the liberty of the subject is preserved. This liberty, however, does not authorize, in framing the instrument or constitution of government, the neglect or rejection of the authority of God, or give the privilege of enacting an immoral principle, injurious to the rights of God, or the rights and liberty of mankind. “They set up kings, but not by me; princes, and I knew it not:” was the fault of Israel. Submission is required for “the Lord’s sake.” To be rendered, the instrument requiring it must recognize his authority, and be in accordance with his law; otherwise, the submission cannot be for his sake, but evidently in opposition to his honour and glory, which are concerned in the preservation of holiness. The word “every,” therefore, as it is connected with “ordinance,” cannot import, whatever the people may ordain, but what is ordained for the Lord’s sake, in consistency with his character and law: if not, “we must obey God rather than man.”

The right of the people to elect, and respect to the authority of God in their election, are beautifully illustrated in the transactions of the commonwealth of Israel. Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, had authority from God to regulate this commonwealth. Clothed with this high commission, he does not proceed arbitrarily in the appointment of their rulers. “Take ye wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.” [Deut. i. 13, 14.] Whilst he maintains the majesty and authority of the supreme Lawgiver, he respects also the rights and liberties of the people, who had a vote in the creation of government. “When thou art come into the land, and shall dwell therein, and shall say, I will set a king over me, thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose.” [Deut. xvii. 14, 15. See also 2 Sam. v. 3.—2 Kings xi. 17.] The sentiment is therefore correct, and founded upon the moral ordinance of God, that “it is the duty of all men voluntarily to form civil societies, establishing such authority as may best tend to promote order, liberty, and religion, among them; and it is lawful for them to model their constitution of government in such a manner, as may appear most suitable to them: provided, that such constitutions, in their principles and distribution of power, be in nothing contrary to the divine law.” [Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Chap. xxix. Sec. 2.]

The name of the chief magistrate is of no account, provided the constitution be for the Lord’s sake, and for the good of the subject; and it is not for the Lord’s sake, if the liberty of the subject is violated: for he will honour the rights which he hath vouchsafed to mankind, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” “whether it be unto the king, as supreme, or unto governours.”

2. This constitution, or frame of government, must therefore be moral―in nothing offensive to the honour of God, by the direct establishment, or toleration of immoral principles, and in no wise destructive of the just rights of the subject. So much argument has already been employed, in the demonstration of the morality of God’s ordinance of civil government, that any further reasoning would exhaust the patience of the reader. If he is not prejudiced, he must be already established in the principle.

Our object in again stating the doctrine, is, that it may be illustrated from the text, which is our present business.

It has already been proved from the passage that the government must be “for the Lord’s sake,” that upon the same principle it may demand submission, δια του Κυριον, on account of the Lord; whose majesty shines forth in the moral constitution of government, and demands my reverence. Whilst the divine majesty is displayed in the morality of the throne, the ruler himself, as the minister of God, represents that majesty, and gives us a living resemblance of it in his moral rule over his subjects. His throne established upon a moral basis, himself fearing the God of heaven, and his acts of administration regulated by the divine law, he becomes the most dignified representative of God upon earth. It is not the brilliancy of the diadem that encircles his brow; it is not the beauty of the purple robe embroidered with gold, that invests his person; it is not the splendour of his carved ivory throne; it is not all the pomp of courtiers that “bow the knee;” it is not the hosannas of the multitude, that make the ruler the representative of the majesty of the “King of kings; but the celestial grandeur of “justice and just judgment.” “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” This is his constant practice, and so continual is his attendance given to this “very thing,” that the governour, or the inferior rulers, who are “helps” to him in the management of civil affairs, are, according to the text, “sent by him,” as he himself is sent of the Lord, “for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.” Did a Nero thus represent the divine majesty as a minister of God, when he illuminated the streets of Rome with the blazing bodies of the martyrs of Jesus? Did a Charles II. represent the divine majesty, when he commissioned a Dalziel and a Claverhouse to pursue the covenanted people of God, who feared his holy name, and reverenced his prerogatives above kings, through the glens and upon the mountains of Scotland, with “fire-brands, arrows, and death?” “Masters of the world, if it was God who gave you the rule and government of it, did he give it to you in order that you might drench your dominions with human blood? If you owe your sway to nations, did they give it to you in order that you might butcher them?” If such cruel tyrants are the ordinance of God, then the saints whom they slew without mercy were the most abandoned of men―the worst of “evil-doers.” I cannot believe this, when it is said of them, “These are they that keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus.”

3. This constitution of government is entitled to submission and support. This has already been admitted and illustrated, in the reconciliation of the apparently contradictory denunciations. God himself is entitled to the obedience of mankind, and the representative of God’s moral rule in the governments of the nations must needs be obeyed for the Lord’s sake. “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake.” This subjection is not passive obedience, υποταγητε, an orderly subjection: “arrange yourselves in order under,” evidently implying that all things are adjusted upon principles of just order. Immorality is disorder―a derangement of the moral system. The whole system is therefore morally arranged, and the individual falls into the ranks of the moral subjects, as they respectively occupy their proper stations, and yield, as moral agents, due submission to a morally constituted leader. God is a moral being who institutes; the government constituted is moral; the ruler elected is moral; the law by which he governs is the moral law; and the moral subject steps into his rank, voluntarily engaging to support the moral system. It is not a compulsory obedience; it is not an involuntary submission to misrule; but an orderly, voluntary, and cordial submission to the moral arrangement of Jehovah, “all whose works are true and righteous, as King of saints.”

Under a system like this, the members of the community are united in a holy “brotherhood.” There is mutual honour given according to the dignity of the station of each: and under the influence of the “fear,” the reverence of the authority of God at the head of the grand system, and only in consistency with this “fear,” they “honour the king,” as his vicegerent, just in his administration, ruling himself “in the fear of God,” and for the best interests of the harmoniously and morally arranged community. “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” But do I reverence or fear God, if I submit to, and thereby contribute to establish an immoral system, in opposition to the character of the moral head of the universe? Light may as soon have communion with darkness.

4. In yielding this allegiance or submission, the subject is free. “As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.” What right has any fellow-man to bind me in chains, except I forfeit my liberty by the transgression of a moral precept? What right has a society of individuals to claim my allegiance, until I understand and consent to the social compact? I am not morally bound to swear to what I do not know. Where knowledge is requisite to, the performance of an action, there judgment is implied. Upon this principle, I cannot be compelled, morally, to receive an instrument as binding me, to which I cannot conscientiously, instructed by the natural or revealed law, give my consent. “Civil society is a voluntary compact or association. The nation is not bound to admit to all its peculiar privileges, every person who may reside within the reach of its power; nor is every person dwelling within the limits of a nation, under obligation to incorporate with the national society. Every government has the right of making laws of naturalization, and every individual possesses the right of expatriation; and both these rights are to be exercised in conformity with the law of God.” [Test. Ref. Pres. Ch. Chap. xxx. Sec. 1.] Will any American deny this principle? We think not, if he is consistent. We are aware, however, that it is not agreeable to the flatterers of kings, and the panders of arbitrary power―the advocates of passive obedience to tyrannical misrule.

The passage as quoted, is consistent with the scripture: “One ordinance shall be for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you.―Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger.” [Num. xv. 15.—Deut. xxiv. 17.] The stranger had a right to sojourn within the limits of the Jewish commonwealth, protected in all his rights, without incorporating with the national society; because, upon his incorporation, his alienation would cease: he became a fellow-citizen, when there would have been no need of these particular laws. Incorporation would invest him with all the privileges of the Jewish citizen. The word of God, therefore, recognizes human liberty―confirms to me the right of choosing my companions. In yielding allegiance to government, I am free; I have a right of examination, of “trying” the system which men may erect, “whether it be of God;” and upon the result of this scrutiny, I have a right to act, to give or withhold allegiance, I have no right turbulently and madly to interfere with the operations of government, for the purposes of reformation. I have a right, however, to state the reasons of my dissent from the constitution of the nation. Living under the government, I am bound to demean myself according to the principles of moral order, at all times and everywhere obligatory upon me; to “arrange myself in order under” the moral law, conforming to the common regulations of society in things lawful: whilst the same principles of moral order bind me to withhold allegiance from an immoral system of governments. This is the doctrine of the text: “as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness.” The word imports “freeman,” enslaved to no human lord or master, endowed with all the rights of humanity, and enjoying a freedom of will, with respect to society around them. Their liberty is not a licentious liberty, but is regulated by the wholesome restraints of the law of God. They have not a right to act as appears “right in their own eyes,” but they are bound to live and act “as the servants of God.”

This last expression, whilst it restrains human liberty from dissipating into licentiousness, also shows man the rule of his submission to governments. He is not allowed to connect himself with a system, or subject himself to a rule, that will interfere with his “serving the Lord in spirit and in truth.” He is not permitted to bind himself to support an immoral principle, for by doing so, he becomes the “servant” of the devil, and not of the holy Lord his God.

To the moral ordinance of God man is bound to submit; and in yielding this submission, he is the “servant of God.” If he cannot obtain his ordinance, but must dissent from the constituted authorities, he does not cease to be the servant of God. His moral law is still the rule of his deportment in all the relations of life, and he dare not desire to be clear from its sacred obligations. “Foolish and ignorant men” may reproach him for his singularity―may mock his unwillingness to “follow the multitude to do evil;” but “by well-doing,” by the “beauty of holiness,” and by maintaining a manly and consistent testimony, he will eventually triumph, and “put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:” for “the Lord God omnipotent reigneth,” and light must soon prevail over darkness, and order ever confusion and misrule. “Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that, whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may, be your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” [1 Peter ii. 12.] But if happily he enjoy the ordinance of God, he must exemplify its moral principles in his deportment. There will be, perhaps, even in the millennium, ignorant and foolish men, who make a mock of holiness, and carp at God’s institutions. The mouths of such are to be stopped, by a conviction of the superiority of such institutions, as manifested in their sanctifying power in the lives of those who are under their divine influence. But if our lot is cast among the “Gentiles,” or heathen, as was the lot of those whom the apostle addresses immediately, we are not to be employed in conspiracies, wild insurrections, and vain attempts, by violence, to overturn the existing system of government. Our duty is to comply with the good regulations of society conformable to the law of nature. “For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God,” “having your conversation honest among the Gentiles.”

PART III.

I. It now becomes a duty to justify the conduct of Reformed Presbyterians, or, as they are familiarly called, Covenanters, in relation to the government of the United States. We have endeavoured to illustrate the great principle, which influences their deportment under the governments where they reside. It is a well known fact that they do not swear allegiance to any existing government among the nations. The principle which governs them, is the one illustrated, the moral ordinance of God. Considering magistracy as the ordinance of God, they are compelled, keeping in view the holiness of his nature, to believe that it is moral as it is his ordinance, and does not authorize the establishment of an immoral principle in the constitution of government; or make it obligatory on the consciences of men. For this principle their fathers contended on the ensanguined plains and mountains of Scotland.

The question therefore between Reformed Presbyterians, and those opposed to their principles, is, the question of allegiance. This is the chief point of debate. It must supersede all minor questions arising from the subject. Let it be fairly stated.―Am I bound by the law of God, natural or revealed, to take an oath of allegiance to an instrument in which is established, as a supreme law, an immoral principle? Reformed Presbyterians, say not; and their principle and practice, we think, are justified by the preceding argument. Neither the natural law of God, nor his revealed law, they think, bind men in chains, and deliver them over to the domination of an immoral rule. The question is not, therefore, whether they are to live peaceable and quiet lives in all godliness and honesty, under whatever government their lot may be cast, and to seek the quiet, order, good and peace of society? but whether they are by oath to swear to support an immoral principle, or rather, the constitution of government in which the immoral principle is established, a supreme law? The question is, allegiance by oath, or non-allegiance? Reformed Presbyterians say, swear not. They say, non-allegiance; and claim the right of dissent, while their practice keeps their conscience pure from the guilt of national violation of the law of God, by establishing an immoral rule; and they enjoy the exalted satisfaction of maintaining a consistent testimony.

It is upon this principle they dissent from the constitution of the United States. To this instrument they object upon several grounds.

1. It does not recognize the being or providence of God, nor the authority of Jesus Christ, who is “the Prince of the kings of the earth.”

2. It does not recognize God’s revealed law, the same with, as we have seen, and the best transcript of, the original law of nature, in which magistracy has its foundations.

3. It neglects the Christian religion, or the church of Christ, and esteems it no more worthy of its support than Mahometanism.

4. It makes no provision for securing moral, religious, and upright rulers; but infidels and ungodly men may be, and are, under its protection, appointed to the highest offices of the land.

5. The constitution contains a positive, a direct, and lamentable immorality, namely, Negro Slavery. It deprives, by solemn conventional enactment, unoffending men of their natural rights of liberty and property.

6. The constitution violates the sacred principle of equal representation.

It would not be necessary to expend much time and paper, in proving these to be evils, were the public mind awakened to a serious consideration of such subjects. It is too much at rest, and imagines “all is well.” A few remarks upon each charge are therefore requisite.

1. It is even considered by some, a blemish that God is not acknowledged in the constitution. We judge more severely, and consider it a positive evil.

A first principle of the law of nature must be, that there is a God, the Creator and Governor of all things, and that he should be acknowledged and adored. A neglect of God, therefore, is a positive infraction of the first precept of the law of nature, upon the principle that the omission of duty is sin. That this is a precept of the law of nature, should be evident to all who admit the existence of such a law. For if it is admitted that there exists such a law, there must necessarily be a Lawgiver, whose authority gives the law all its consequence in society. That the law, therefore, may possess any validity, the recognition of its author must be its first principle or precept, because without him it is a nullity; it can have no sanction. Destroy the legislative authority of Congress, and what power have your laws? In like manner, without the authority of the Supreme Lawgiver, the law of nature is a mere name; the human will would be its own law. Everyone would then be a law unto himself, and there could be no uniform and consistent principles of government: all would be confusion and wild disorder. “They cut the nerves of the law of nature, so to speak, who conceive or define it independently of all regard to God; and so feign to themselves a law without a lawgiver. All who have philosophized about it with accuracy, as well as religiously, have acknowledged that it proceeds from God, as its author and founder; and that if the divine existence be denied, there remains no difference between just and unjust.”[2] The law of nature, therefore, instructs us in the positive duty of acknowledging God: a neglect to do so, must be, upon this principle, a positive evil.

This evil appears more aggravating, upon the common sense doctrine, that the revealed law is the same essentially with the law of nature, and of higher authenticity than the faint and scattered light of reason; because it is immediately delivered from the hand of God, as the transcript of his will. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” is the first precept of that law. This requires, “the knowing and acknowledging God,” and forbids “Atheism,” or not having a God. [Larg. Cat. Question 104 and 105.] To omit the performance of this commandment, must be a positive evil. It evidently exposes to the divine indignation, and he punishes not the innocent. “If we have forgotten the name of our God, shall not God search this out?” “Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not,” consequently do not acknowledge him. [Ps. xliv. 20.―Jer. x. 25.]

The Lord Jesus Christ is revealed to us as “the Prince of the kings of the earth.” Nations should acknowledge their supreme Lord: if they do not, they are exposed to his vengeance. “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 he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” [Ps. ii. 10-12.] This Son is the Lord Jesus Christ. [Heb. i. 5.] The kiss here demanded, is an expression of civil homage. This is obvious from the homage, which, in this manner, Samuel rendered Saul, when he divested himself of the judicial robe, and anointed him king over Israel. “Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his (Saul’s) head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance.” [1 Sam. x. 1.] Similar homage is demanded to be rendered Christ, “the Captain of the Lord’s hosts,” by the heads of administration over the nations, and that in their character as rulers. The penalty of neglecting to give this fealty is nothing less than destruction in his wrath. “Every knee must bow, and every tongue must confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” [Phil. ii. 10, 11.] If they do not, they will be “ruled with a rod of iron, and dashed in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” If such is the punishment of neglect of the Lord and his Anointed, is it not a positive evil? Hear this, O ye nations! If it is a positive evil, and it has been proved to be such, the constitution of this Union is therefore defective, and the government cannot be approved of God, and of course cannot be his ordinance; because what he does not approve, he does not ordain as a rule of duty, otherwise he would “deny himself.” But wrath, we learn from his word, is denounced for the neglect. “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” [Ps. ix. 17.] This should settle the question. “God, the supreme Governor, is the fountain of all power and authority, and civil magistrates are his deputies,” [Test. Ref. Pres. Ch., chap. 28, sec. 3.] which they cannot be if they deny his authority. Is that ambassador the minister of the king, who rejects this king’s authority? We think not.

2. It is admitted by both sides of this question, that the law of nature is the foundation of magistracy. Some who admit this, deny, however, that the revealed will of God, when it obtains, should be the supreme law of the land, and the rule of magistratical duty. “The public good, and common order in all reasonable society, unto the glory of God, is the great and only end which those invested with magistracy can propose, in a sole respect to that office; and as the whole institution and end of their office are cut out by, and lie within the compass of natural principles, it were absurd to suppose there could or ought to be any exercise thereof toward its end in the aforesaid circumstances, but what can be argued for, and defended from natural principles.”

To say nothing about the smooth manner in which “the glory of God” is kept out of view, as one great end of magistracy as it is his ordinance, and placing before the magistrate, as an only end, the public good, this is certainly a circuitous and hidden mode of expressing the sentiment which the language is intended to convey. If it means anything, it means this: that as magistracy is founded in the law of nature, the law of nature as discoverable by the corrupt reason of man, is the only rule to regulate the magistrate’s duty, although he may have in his possession the most luminous copy of that law, the revealed will of God. It is absurd for him ever to look into his Bible for “instruction in righteousness,” in the performance of the duties of his office. It would be absurd for him to take the revealed maxims as rules of official transactions. “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of the Lord.” “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” “He is the minister of God to thee for good.” Although our brethren [of the Associate Church.] reject the revealed law as a civil rule, yet they teach in another place, that “the duty which God requires of man, is obedience to his revealed will.” [Shorter Cat. Ques. 39―a part of their creed.] Is it not strange that our brethren should prescribe the revealed law as a rule of submission, and from its sacred pages denounce anathemas upon those who are disposed to examine the claims of “the powers that be,” while they exempt these powers from its sacred obligations, and permit them to seek this rule of duty from the faint and scattered rays of natural light? This is an excellent instruction for tyrants. They will receive it kindly. Upon this principle, it will be true: “The king can do no wrong;” all that is required of him is to follow the dictates of natural reason, forming its deductions upon natural principles. Our brethren certainly forget, that “the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be.” Their sentiment would be very fine, if it were true that the reason or understanding of man is uncorrupted. But it is “darkened;”―darkness itself. Man is “blind,” as well as “wretched.” It is a pity, a great pity, that good men should espouse a system, that in its spirit tends to weaken the obligation of the divine law, and to turn men’s minds away from the blessed Gospel. This we know they do not intend, but their avowed principles lead to this lamentable result. We prefer the pious and sound reasoning of the distinguished civilian already quoted, [Blackstone.] and the enlightened decision of another, “the Bible is the supreme law.” [Kent.]

It must be an evil, therefore, that the constitution of the United States does not recognize the Bible as the chief rule of legislation, and administration. Ignorance cannot be pleased. They had the Bible in their hands, yet they preferred acting upon natural principles.

We live in the age of Bible societies. We see statesmen in different lands, leaving the halls of legislation, and urging in these societies, by all the force of their eloquence, the cause of the Bible. Have we heard from any of them, a proposition requiring the recognition of the Bible as the supreme law of magistracy? We have not. Yet the Bible is destined in the millennial state to rule the nations. “The tribes” of the nations must “go up unto the testimony of Israel.” If men in the state are sincere; if men in the church are sincere, in their zeal for the cause of the Bible; if it is not mere policy, or fashion, they cannot object to the principle we advocate, and must embrace it, and urge it upon the attention of mankind.

What objection can then be made to it? Certainly, if we desire the happiness of civil society, if we love our liberties, we cannot place them under better protection, than the protection of God and his law. Happy was Israel under this protection. “For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” “Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance. In thy name shall they rejoice all the day; and in thy righteousness shall they be exalted. For thou art the glory of their strength: for the Lord is our defence, and the Holy One of Israel is our King.” [Deut. iv. 7, 8.―Ps. lxxxix. 15-18.] The rejection of the law of God will, on the other hand, prove the destruction of that nation. We know it wrought the desolation of Israel. We do not hesitate to say, that wrath is impending over the United States, because they have neglected the law of the God of Israel. Time will determine. We know of a certainty, that “the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Behold, he cometh with clouds;” all nations shall be assembled before him, “and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” [2 Thes. i. 7, 8.—Rev. i. 7.] If individual transgressors, in that dreadful day, are punished “with everlasting destruction,” nations must expect most desolating judgments in this world, when he cometh in the power of his kingdom, because they will not “receive the law at his mouth:” and certainly in the final account, individual statesmen will suffer for the part they have taken in the national transgression. They must “account for every deed that is done in the body.” “Be wise, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear.” Hear him, O ye nations, when he saith, “O that there was such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them and their children for ever.” [Deut. v. 28.] Reformed Presbyterians are therefore excusable for their attachment to the Bible, and justifiable in calling upon the nations to receive it as their law.

3. No one denies that the church of Christ is neglected. Few admit that it is an evil. The manner in which the church has been treated in other nations, and the persecutions which have arisen from the corrupt establishments in antichristian kingdoms, have terrified men; and the timidity and reasoning of certain Christians, have conduced to settle the belief, that Christianity is adverse to civil liberty. No principle is more erroneous. It preaches, in every sense of the expression, “liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison-doors to them that are bound.” In proportion as genuine Christianity has been embraced among the nations, the rights of men have been brought to light, and secured, and the character and condition of man has been exalted. All persecutions have been conducted upon having sprung from antichristian principles. “The wisdom which is from above is gentle.”

When the Reformed religion was established in the united kingdoms of Great Britain, for several years, who was injured? who was persecuted? Britain never before nor since saw such glorious days. The wicked, the licentious, the malignant, indeed were restrained; but the Presbyterians exercised their power with lenity. Persecution arose, not from the establishment of the Reformed religion, but from the overthrow of Reformation principles, and the introduction of antichristianism and irreligion, from which flowed tyranny, and persecution, and misrule.

What harm could there arise from constitutionally declaring the Christian religion the religion of the nations, and the Bible the supreme rule? This would not be giving to any sect the pre-eminence, but would be a public recognition of the religion of the Saviour.

We esteem it a privilege to be called a Christian people, and an insult to be branded as heathen or infidels. Why then not rejoice to record the fact, in the first record of the nation’s principles? Why not declare in the constitution, or by national law, that we are a Christian people, and worship none other God than the Saviour, “besides whom there is none else?”

Unhappily, while we boast of the Christian name, we are ashamed of a public or national acknowledgment of the Christian religion! Indeed, we have gone farther. We have publicly, and before the world, denied the name and the principles it covers; and this by a constitutional clause, [See Amendment to the Constitution.] and a public national treaty; especially by the latter. In the treaty with Tripoli, Mahometanism is declared equally to be the religion of the nation with Christianity. “The government,” says that instrument, “of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. It has in itself no character of enmity against the laws or religion of Mussulmen.” [Tripoli Treaty, Art. 11. U. S. Laws, Vol. 4.] This instrument and the principle it avows are, by a clause of the constitution, the supreme law of the land. Thus it is distinctly evident, that whatever may be the character of some of our private citizens, this nation is not nationally a Christian community. Is not this a humbling consideration, and a great evil? Has not God and his Christ an interest in that church which the latter “hath purchased with his own blood?” Is not Jehovah concerned for his own religion? Will he not plead his own cause? Will he not visit for this neglect, yea, this positive national contempt thrown upon his church? Yes, he will visit for these things. “The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee, (the church,) shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” [Isa. lx. 12.] This is therefore a positive evil, or God, the just Judge, would not punish it. The Christian religion is positively rejected by the constitution, and Tripolitan treaty, the supreme laws of the land. Can such a government be the ordinance of God―a government against which destruction is denounced, because it does not, and will not serve his church? Is the Christian “who prefers Jerusalem above his chief joy,” bound by God, to render conscientious allegiance? Are not rather Reformed Presbyterians at least excusable, for publishing their dissent, lest they become partakers of this nation’s plagues? Let the candid judge and decide.

4. There is no constitutional barrier to admission to the highest offices in the gift of the nation, the profane, immoral, irreligious and infidel. Does not nature teach us that this is an evil? The law of nature, in which magistracy is founded, demands morality, and teaches virtue. Heathen philosophers and civilians perceived this: hence Aristides is praised for his justice, and Cato for his virtue.

If we had no other guide, we would be taught the duty of excluding the licentious and profane from places of power and influence. No man has it in his power more to corrupt the morals and religion of society, than a civil ruler who is immoral and irreligious. Civil offices confer respectability, and influence; and the occupants of civil stations usually give a tone of fashion, and control in a great measure the habits of society. “One sinner,” therefore, in a high civil station, may be the means, by his immoral example, of “destroying much good.” “The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” [Ps. xii. 8.]

The constitution, nevertheless, of the United States, opens the doors of the halls of legislation, and admits to the highest civil stations, the irreligious, the profane, the infidel. It positively decrees there shall be no religious test. [See Amend. is to the Constitution.] Were it meant by this, that the solemn ordinances of the Christian religion are not to be prostituted as tests of admission to civil offices, as the practice is in England, there could be to it no objection. It strikes at religious character. Religious qualifications are not to be the test of admission to any of the offices of this land. Thus, we think, distinctly speaks the constitution. Is not this an evil positively established? Is it not at least an evil? Does not the moral sense of the community rise up against the thought, of the immoral, licentious, and abominable, bearing rule over the land? What should be the sensibility of the religious portion of the community on a subject like this? We should think it would be alive and active for a remedy. But no: it is paralyzed. The constitution is the cause of this paralysis of the moral sensibility of the community. It in effect decrees the admission of the profane, when it forbids a religious test. Because it is a constitutional iniquity, a mischief framed by a law, the righteous God, in his adorable rule, hath given this nation into the hands of wicked and licentious rulers; and upon this subject the moral and religious have no sensibility. We may say with Israel, “for our iniquities have we been delivered into the hands of the kings of the land, the kings whom thou hast set over us because of our sins.” [Neh. ix. 37.―Ezra, ix. 17.] Therefore it is, we find men at the present time, in the halls of Congress, whose hands are yet dripping with the blood of their fellow-men. The duelist must be judged a murderer. No man more deliberately takes this fellow’s life. Life is not taken in resistance to an assassin―in self-defence against one who has lurked for his prey. It is a pre-concerted plan of the parties; and the victim to unbridled and barbarous passion, falls by the hand of a murderer, and is himself a murderer in intention, in the moment of his falling.

The survivor ought to be punished as a murderer. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed;” is the sentence of the Lord of life. This law, in the case of the duelist, is trampled upon. Instead of being justly exposed upon the gibbet, he figures with applause in our halls of legislation. His exaltation is constitutional. The constitution forbids “a religious test.” The moral character of a man, to say nothing of his religion, is no barrier to his election to office. This is the fault of the constitution. This is the fault of the people. In no country are the people so especially chargeable with the immoralities of their rulers, as the people of the United States. The right of modelling their government is enjoyed by them, and they exercise it. They have the power of altering the constitution, by their representatives. Those whom they elect are chosen from among themselves: of their character they cannot be ignorant. They have bound themselves by oath to support an immoral constitution, and they are given up in the righteous judgment of God, to blindness of mind, and moral insensibility; and suffer, in the abominations of their rulers, which they have constitutionally established. Until the amendment of the constitution, we have little hopes of a remedy.

How much more glorious would be our land, did the constitution present a barrier to the admission to office of the immoral and profane? and under its influence, did the people “provide from among themselves able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness?” because, “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” “As a roaring lion, and a raging bear, so is a wicked ruler.”

Are not Reformed Presbyterians, when such is the constitution of government, justifiable in their dissent? They dissent from a constitution that gives the ungodly a right to bear rule, as they should from the throne of iniquity which frameth mischief by a law, with which God will not have fellowship.

5. The constitution of the United States positively establishes the gross violation of human right―Negro Slavery. To this evil we have already referred, [See under the 6th argument of Part I.] and have directed to those parts of the national instrument in which it is contained. Would it not be insulting to the moral sensibility, to the generous sympathies of the reader, for me to reason the subject of slavery? Have you never mourned over the unhappy condition of the African, when you heard the clanking of his chains, or the groans of his tedious and hopeless bondage! Have you not viewed the captivity of the negro as a foul stain upon the national honour, a flagrant outrage upon the rights of humanity, and a direct lie given to the exalted principles of the declaration of independence, and our happy revolution?

Your constitution, yea, ye the sovereign people, every man that casts his ticket into the ballot-box, and thereby gives his allegiance to the constitution, by appointing another to take the oath of allegiance to it in his room, and to act for him in its administration; ye the sovereign people thus acting, bind around and rivet upon the unhappy and unoffending negro, the chains of his inhuman bondage. Think of this, O ye supporters and advocates of immoral power, and tremble at the denunciation of avenging heaven! “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, shall surely be put to death.” Every captive negro is held in bondage, as it were, “by the hands” of the national constitution. This constitution is the work and establishment of the people of the Union. Every individual, therefore, who supports by oath of allegiance, by holding office, or by voting others into office under the constitutions, as the former is the supreme law of the whole land, of all the states, does virtually support the principle of slavery, and “hold the enslaved African in his own hands.” Let such reflect. Let them remember, that thus acting, they expose themselves to the vengeance of that God, “who is the God of the oppressed,” and who has no attribute of his nature that will forbid his taking part with them in the day of bloody revolution, among the events which are possible, and highly probable. God will execute his own law, should men neglect it. His sentence is, that he “in whose hands the stolen man is found, shall surely be put to death.” Who can deny, but that he may rise terribly in his wrath, and in his righteous dispensation, arm the long-injured slave for the execution of his law? This reasoning is not singular, but is justified by the remarks of an eminent writer. “With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies―destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patriæ of the other! And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the public that their liberties are the gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just―that his justice cannot sleep forever―that an exchange of situation is among possible events―that it may become probable by supernatural interference.” [Jefferson’s Notes.]

There is no evading our argument by any subtlety of construction. It will not do to say, I am a citizen of a non-slave-holding state―I am a northern man. You are at the same time a citizen of the United States, the constitution of which collects the several states into one confederated nation―is their supreme law. The oath of allegiance comprehends the national as well as the state constitution; and your representative, appointed by your vote, takes in the halls of congress this solemn oath. The act of the representative is your act. Neither will it avail anything to say, “the constitution provides for its own amendment, and this fact clears me of its guilt.” This is a deception. When the oath is taken, it is taken to the constitution as it exists at the time, with all its established evils. The immoral principle which we are now reprobating, you swear to support, as a constitutional principle: you swear to maintain the constitutional right of the slave-holder to the slave, as his property. If the constitution should be amended tomorrow, the amendment affects not the criminality of the oath taken to-day. You have sworn to-day to support an immoral principle. It is not, moreover, a fact, that you have the amendment of the constitution in view when you cast your ticket into the ballot-box. You send your representative to administer the constitution, not with a view, immediately, to its amendment. Elections have been held for nearly half a century, and the evil of slavery still exists in the constitution. It is only since the year 1808, that upon this subject an amendment was constitutionally possible: and your northern man in the halls of Congress, at the present day, is afraid to touch the question of slavery, and dare not interfere with the constitutional right of the southern slave-holder. The latter is sure to triumph there. But suppose your principle was of any avail, it could possibly benefit only the representatives in Congress, in whose hands the power of amendment is lodged. It can avail nothing the thousand other offices of the land, who from year to year take the oath of allegiance to the constitution in its existing form, and who cannot make, not being permitted, any exception to its principles. Upon no principle can the oath be taken, but upon the principle “that we may do evil that good may come;”―a base principle, which no Christian can make a rule of duty. It is reprobated with the utmost abhorrence by the apostle. [Rom. iii. 8.] We are not to give place to moral evil, “no not for an hour.” We cannot swear to give support to an immoral principle, no not for a moment. God does not tolerate, for the least duration of time, the violation of his holy law. The will of God, expressed in his word, is the rule of the Christian’s duty, and not the arbitrary decisions and distinctions of men.

How then am I to escape impending wrath, but by a public dissent―but by withholding allegiance from an instrument that establishes by law so foul immorality; that holds in its hands, and gives over to proud and lordly men, millions of unoffending human beings to be their slaves and property―beings who, according to the national declaration, have equal rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Reformed Presbyterians, therefore, are justifiable in withholding their allegiance. They speak the truth when they declare, “that no power which deprives the subject of civil liberty, however it may exist in the providence of God, is approved of or sanctioned by God, or ought to be esteemed or supported by man as a moral institution.” [Ref. Pres. Tes. Ch. 28, Sec. 3.]

6. The constitution of the United States violates the sacred principle of equal representation.

This principle is not introduced as a mere political question. If the constitution is established upon righteous principles―principles securing the rights of God and the liberties of man, we do not affirm, that the mere form of government would deny it the glory of being the ordinance of God. The following argument is introduced as an illustration of the evil of slavery as authorized by the constitution of the United States.

The power being possessed by the people in a representative government, that the representation may be equal, it should be in proportion to the number of its acknowledged citizens, who have the privilege of voting, either in their own persons, or by their legal representatives. The latter part of this sentence refers to minor children, who are represented legally in all civil transactions by their parents; hence, I believe, they are justly computed in the amount of population which regulates the representation. This sentiment would perhaps be more plainly stated, were it asserted, that the representation should be in proportion to the amount of the free acknowledged citizens. This does not exclude those who may be bound apprentices for a term of years, because they would certainly be taken into the computation, had they remained in the family of their parents. They are servants, it is true, but not slaves. This sentiment appears just and natural.

Representation, predicated upon property, the amount of wealth which the elector may possess, so that he has a number of votes over his fellow-citizen who may be poorer than he, in proportion to the excess of his riches, has in it the essence of tyranny. It gives the wealthy an undue preponderance in society, and the power of lording it over their brethren;―is a violation of the sacred principle of equal representation; and destroys the sound doctrine, “that all men are free and equal by nature.” The children of the rich are thus endowed with higher privileges than the children of the poor, because by birthright they are heirs to an inheritance: but cut off this adventitious distinction, and they fall to the level of the inferior rank. How absurd such a principle! However absurd, the constitution of the United States is chargeable with this―shall I repeat―absurdity? I make it stronger―this violation of natural right! It gives the southern freeman a distinction above, and an influence over, his northern brother in the commonwealth. In assigning the proportion of representation to the whole amount of free population in the slave-holding states, it authorizes the addition of “three-fifths of all other persons.” [Con. U. S. Art. 1. Sec. 2.] These persons designate slaves. There could be no objection to this principle, were it the fact that these “other persons” were recognized as fellow-citizens, enjoying their rights, and freely exercising the elective franchise. They enjoy, alas! no civil rights. They have no voice in the choice of their representatives, any more than the cattle with whom they are associated in the cultivation of the farms of their masters. The master has all their rights vested in his own person, and by this means, he is exalted to an undue influence in the halls of the national representatives. Upon the supposition that there are two million of slaves in the United States, at the ratio of one representative to every thirty thousand, there are now in Congress forty legislators representing the slave population. This phraseology, unhappily, is not correct. They do not represent their enslaved constituents. Their will, their interests, their rights, are not consulted. If they were honestly represented, their rights as men would be recognized; their chains would be knocked off; they would be established in the enjoyment of their liberties, and exalted to their proper dignity in society―to an equality with their haughty representatives. Although the contrary is the case, yet upon their number is established a considerable proportion of the southern and western representation. Cut off the slave population, and you dock the south and west of forty representatives.

The slaves are indeed called “persons,” by the constitution; but they are held as the property of their masters. The representation predicated upon their number, is a representation predicated upon property. This is a fair construction. This is, and ever will be the principle, so long as the slave enjoys not the privilege of exercising in his own person the elective franchise. Freemen of the south―of the slave-holding states, have therefore a preponderance in the national representation, in proportion to the amount of property they have vested in slaves. Is not the northern freeman equally entitled to a representation in proportion to the amount of property he has vested in the animals that assist in the cultivation of his farm? I by no means compare the unhappy slave to the beasts of the field. They are men, and ought to be freemen. It is the constitution that thus degrades them―that levels them with the beasts of the field. They have no rights above the horses which they drive, as they have no vote in the election of those by whom they are nominally represented; and whose right to a seat in Congress is constitutionally predicated upon their number. Let the honest freeman seriously reflect on this subject. Let him candidly judge, and he must come to the conclusion, that the constitution establishes the violation of human right, and the infraction of this sacred principle of equal representation. In this respect, it is anti-republican, and aristocratic. It authorizes an aristocracy, based upon and supported by the most odious slavery. This view of the subject illustrates the evil of slavery, and distinctly shows that it is entwined with the most vital principles of the constitution.

II. Let no man infer from the preceding argument, that Reformed Presbyterians are the enemies of their country, or brand them with the invidious epithet of anti-government men. They are their country’s best friends. It is true that they swear not allegiance to its constitutions; yet they are its friends. They are able to discriminate, and are just. Whilst they blame, and candidly tell their country its faults, they perceive with joy its many excellences, and give due praise: and their desire is, that it should be yet more excellent, and enjoy the protection “of the wings of him who is the Almighty.” Americans in general are so much in the habit of exulting in their free institutions, that they are not qualified to discern the faults of their, in many respects, excellent constitution. Reformed Presbyterians are necessary, to point out these faults, upon the principle of Solomon, that “faithful are the reproofs of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.” Acting, as he judges, faithfully, the author of this discourse has blamed; yet this does not prevent his asserting that the American government is the best existing on the earth―that its constitution is the best constitution of existing nations; better ascertains and establishes human right, except in the case of the unhappy negro, than any other system in the world. It neglects, however, the rights of God. Reformed Presbyterians feel themselves happy, and are grateful to a benevolent Providence, that their lines have fallen to them in pleasant places, and they are permitted to dwell under their own vine and fig-tree, and none to make them afraid; far remote from the land of their fathers’ woes, from those mournful scenes of the Covenanter’s sufferings, where he fought, and bled, and died, in defence of the rights of God, and the liberties of man.

Let the principles of the modern Covenanter be fairly understood, and he will be found, like his ancestors beyond the floods [i.e., the oceans], the consistent friend of his country; that he is not her friend only in the time of her prosperity, when from a liberal hand, and with a smiling aspect, she scatters her bounty around; but that he cleaves to her in the day of her calamity, when her countenance is sad and marred with grief and wo. Let the reader call to his remembrance the events of the late war. Who, in that dark and trying hour, when hostile fleets devastated our coasts, and threatened our maritime cities with desolation; when an invading foe had marshalled his armies in the lovely fields of our free country; who were then found impeding the wheels of government? and whose pulpits resounded with the doctrines of an eastern Convention? Let those who flatter their country in the day of her prosperity, and cowardly forsake her in the hour of her danger, give an honest reply.

But who was it, on the other hand, in that dark hour, who was it that stepped forward in the majesty of exalted talent, and with gigantic power, defended the cause of his adopted country against her recreant sons, and reanimated her drooping spirit? He was a Covenanter. [See Dr. McLeod’s “War Sermons.”]

Let this suffice: and let it be known to the world, that Reformed Presbyterians are prepared to act in every case, that does not require an oath binding upon their consciences the support of an immoral principle: that they are bound by solemn covenant engagement to oppose irreligion, tyranny and misrule, wherever they may erect their bestial and blasphemous heads. Let justice be done, and let their testimony declare their sentiments. “Virtuous persons, who, in their private capacity, are endeavouring to further the true end of civil government, the maintenance of peace and quietness in all godliness and honesty, although they dissent from the constitution of civil government of the nation in which they reside, have a right to protection in their lives, liberties, and property, they contributing their proportion of the common taxation: but they are not to act inconsistently with their declared dissent, and it would be tyranny to constrain them to such measures.” [Test. Ch. 29. Sec. 3.]

III. An inquiry here arises, and is proposed as an objection to the principles advocated, which we must not pass without some notice. The inquiry is this: Do not the text and its parallel passages apply to the duty of Christians to whom they were at first addressed, with a reference to these existing governments? We reply in the affirmative. What will this concession avail the objector? Less, if possible, than nothing.

Let the reader remember, that the government under which Christians then lived, was the “seven-headed and ten-horned beast of the sea,” or the Roman government existing in its sixth head. Let him remember, also, that upon that head was “written the name of blasphemy”―that it received all its authority from the dragon, or satan, who is also described as having “seven heads and ten horns,” [Rev. xii. 3.] to intimate the power by which he carries on his operations against the church, and to instruct us that his power is his vicegerent. [Arg. 2.] Let him bring to bear upon this subject the other arguments employed in the first part of this discourse, and apply, in connexion with them, the only mode of reconciling the apparently contradictory denunciations of scripture, illustrated in the second part, with the explanation given of the text; and then let him ask himself the question: Did the moral Governor of the world command, upon pain of damnation, the humble followers of the Lamb, with whom the kings of the earth are at war, living in the first ages of Christianity, to swear allegiance to such a blasphemous and diabolical system? He must, if he has any moral sense, or love for the moral character of God, reply to the question in the negative.

The principle, let it constantly be remembered, to be kept in view, is allegiance. We can affirm, with the highest confidence, that they were not instructed to yield allegiance, in the sense in which it is employed in this discourse, and illustrated by the conduct of those who oppose the principles of Reformed Presbyterians, which is the strict sense of the word. The ground of our confidence is this. They were put to death by this head of the beast for non-compliance with the unhallowed pagan systems of misrule. “I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands.” [Rev. xx. 4.]

Let the reader further recollect the fourth particular, in illustration of the text, and he will distinctly perceive the instruction the first Christians derived from these passages. They were instructed in the true nature of God’s ordinance of civil magistracy, and were taught also their particular duty under a system of misrule. They were taught the true dignity of their character―that they were freemen, and not slaves, bound by the law of God, to the thrones of brutal despots. Yet they were not permitted “to use their liberty for a cloak of maliciousness,” but were to “lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty, as the servants of God.” While they bound no immoral principle upon their consciences, they were to act under the dominion of the moral law of God; and, if unmolested, to create no disturbance in society, but conform to its lawful regulations. This was their uniform practice during the existence of pagan Rome. This has been, all history testifies, the uniform practice of the witnesses in every age, and with it corresponds the sentiment of Reformed Presbyterians. “It is lawful for Christians residing in nations in which the light of the gospel has not been generally diffused, to continue in submission to such authority as may exist over them agreeably to the law of nature, which, where revelation does not exist, is the only standard of civil duty. In such cases, the infidelity of the ruler cannot make void the just authority conferred upon him by the constitution.” [Test. Ch. 28. Sec. 5.]

In correspondency with this sentiment, we are happy in quoting the doctrine of the Associate Reformed Church, who are Reformed Presbyterians in the language of their theory, if they understood the true history of their opinions. The intelligent observer of the churches would expect as much, when he learned the fact that they are compounded originally of members of the Associate and Reformed Presbyterians Churches, united upon principles of mutual accommodation. He would expect some mixture of Covenanterism, rendered, perhaps, more palatable, by adaption to existing circumstances. The A[ssociate] R[eformed] Church have adopted as their confession, or constitution, the Westminster Confession of Faith, verbatim, except the section which treats of the duty of the Christian magistrate in reference to the church. In this there is some alteration. On the present subject it is as follows: “Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.” [Asso. Ref. Con. Ch. 23, Sec. 4.] This sentiment I adopt as my own, as it is that of the confession of my faith, and in nothing differs from the sentiment quoted from “Reformation Principles.” I am aware, however, that a different construction is put upon it, from that entertained by Reformed Presbyterians. This construction is not correct. This is demonstrated by the history of the opinion. Its history justifies the construction given it by Reformed Presbyterians, and proves it to be the only just interpretation. The history of this sentiment is as follows:

About the year 1640, a civil war arose between the parliament of England, and Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland. On January 30, 1649, Charles was beheaded by the independent party of the English army, who overruled the parliament of England, which had held Charles a prisoner since the year 1646. During the civil war in England between the king and parliament, the latter called the assembly of divines to sit at Westminster, not as a general assembly of the church, but an extraordinary convocation of the ministry, to consult with them about religion and church government, in order to promote reformation in that kingdom. The fruit of this consultation between the parliament and assembly was that invaluable compilation of doctrine, well known by the title of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This confession having been agreed upon by the assembly at Westminster, and the parliament of England at the close of the year 1646, it was examined and approved in January of the following year, by the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, and ratified by the act of the Scottish parliament, 1649. In this confession we have the sentiment quoted from the Associate Reformed Constitution. “Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.”

What does this history prove? Certainly not the construction given it by those who reject the doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. It does not teach submission, in its strict sense, to any government that may exist in providence, notwithstanding blemishes in its constitution, which is the supreme law, or the ungodliness of the rulers of the land. For the sentiment was ratified by the assembly and parliament of England, at the very time they were engaged in war with the king, and maintained an army in the field. After the sentiment was digested and ratified, they held him prisoner for several years, and in the year 1648, defeated, by their general, (Cromwell,) the army of the Duke of Hamilton, raised for the purpose of his rescue from their hands.

Can it be conceived, therefore, that such intelligent bodies of men as were the English parliament and assembly, should have ratified a sentiment, and published it to the world, directly condemning their own conduct at the time, in opposing by the violence of war, a magistrate of a different religion? Charles I was a papist. The supposition is inconsistent with human nature, which seeks rather a justification of its conduct. It therefore cannot be conceived. The construction is incorrect. It does not give the idea of those who compiled the instrument in which the sentiment was first published to the world. If it does give this idea, then it follows, as a just inference, that the learned assembly and parliament of England were the most perverse men on earth, acting in violent opposition to their own avowed principles; principles which they had ratified by solemn covenant. They were not such inconsistent men. They acted in strict consistency with their principles and covenant, which precluded the possibility of an infidel, or one of a different religion from the true religion, being seated upon the throne of the British kingdoms, united in truly holy alliance. The people of those kingdoms were bound by their covenants to support the king only in consistency with the preservation of the true reformed religion and the liberties of the kingdom. This is a just account of the opinion. [See Crookshank’s History of the Church of Scotland, p. 56-59. and the Solemn League and Covenant, Art. 3.]

Certainly then it does not bind the Christian to take an oath of allegiance to an infidel or immoral system of civil rule. It treats only of “due obedience to just and legal authority.” We must look, therefore, for its application in the time of its first publication, not to the Reformed Covenanted Kingdoms of Britain, but to other lands, where the light of the revealed law had not shone, and where the governments of those nations were regulated by the law of nature. “In such a case, the infidelity of the ruler cannot make void the just and legal authority conferred upon him by the constitution;” and in such a land, “it is lawful for Christians residing there to continue in submission to such authority, as may exist over them, agreeably to the law of nature, which, where revelation does not exist, is the only standard of civil duty.” Such a sentiment does not exalt a Nero or a Charles to the dignity of ministers of God―to the dignity of God’s vicegerents.

CONCLUSION.

1. What is the duty of Christians upon the principles advocated in this discourse? This is a subject worthy of their most serious reflection. Certainly there is no friend of Zion, who desires to perpetuate the existing heart-rending divisions of Reuben! Every Christian must exult in the hope that the time is not far distant, when “the envy of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.”

How is this happy state of things to be produced? Certainly not by a perpetuation of present differences of sentiment. There must be an endeavour after harmony. Every false, every untenable principle must be given up―must be cheerfully abandoned, and the churches must harmonize upon the principles of revelation.

One principle must be kept steadily in view: “that the kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” This can never take place but by a universal political reformation. In a certain sense, therefore, the ministers of religion, like the noble spirits of the Reformation, must become political reformers. Not that they are to descend from the lofty dignity of their station, and engage in the party politics of the day. This is far, very far beneath their character. What is then required of them? It is required that they study more the politics of their Bibles, and call upon the nations of the world to embrace the sacred principles which the word of God exhibits for the government of mankind.

By a careful investigation of the “oracles of God,” the theologian will learn, not only doctrines of rich and free grace adapted to the condition of the individual sinner, but important political maxims, illustrating the moral government of the Messiah, and regulating the establishment and administration of civil government among mankind.

He will ascertain that magistracy as it is the ordinance of God, is founded in the moral law originally given to man, and must be regulated by the revealed law, where that law obtains. He will learn that Jesus Christ is “the Prince of the kings of the earth;” and that magistracy is among the “all things” put under his feet: “that all kings must bow down before him―all nations must serve him.” [Ps. lxxii. 11.] He will perceive that the church is the great object of Messiah’s regard in his mediatorial reign over “all things in heaven and in earth, and under the earth:”―that in comparison with it, the most splendid empires are “a very little thing,” and their supreme glory consists in serving her, in being her “nourishers.” [Isa. xlix. 23.—Eph. i. 20-23.] He will learn from the sacred oracles, that his duty is not limited to what pertains to the individual Christian alone, but that he is appointed to “teach the nations,” and enjoin them “to observe whatsoever the Messiah hath commanded them.” [Matt. xxviii. 18-20.] In a word, there is no relation of life, there is no condition of man, but the faithful minister of Jesus Christ will find, in “the lively oracles,” appropriate principles of instruction. Upon these broad principles, therefore, if he desire “to show himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth;” upon these broad principles he must study the “testimony of Jesus.”

Let the ministers of the churches reflect seriously upon this subject. Let them bring candid and unprejudiced minds to the investigation of the doctrine of this discourse. Let them test it by the word of God, drawing high to the throne of grace; for by the word of God alone it must stand or fall: and may it sink for ever into oblivion, if it is not the truth of the testimony of the living God. If its doctrines are false, the author will rejoice, he trusts, to see them scripturally refuted.

Should they, however, be found to be the truth; should they endure the scrutiny “of the law and the testimony;” then the ministers of Christ are bound, as they expect to give an account of their stewardship, as they desire to be “pure from the blood of all men,” as they wish to “declare the whole counsel of God,” as they hope to receive from their heavenly Master the cheering welcome, “Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joys of thy Lord;” they are bound, by every obligation that can rest upon accountable men, to embrace and teach them: they dare not “keep them back.”

What true-hearted Christian is there, who does not love Zion―who does not desire to “prefer Jerusalem above his chief joy,”―who does not pray that Jerusalem may become “a quiet habitation,” and that the mountain of the Lord’s house may be established in the tops of the mountains, and exalted above the hills, and all nations made to flow unto it? There is certainly not one. But how are these things to be accomplished, without a political reformation? and how will this be effected, but by the ministers of religion becoming, not political partisans, but political reformers, after the example of a Knox, and his kindred spirits of the reformation? Let ministers “think on these things.”

We live in an eventful age of the world. “The first rays of the millennial morning are streaming over the mountains of future years.” After the storms of approaching revolutions have passed away, “the Sun of righteousness” shall shine in the fulness “of his strength” in the political heavens. Ere this happy event shall be accomplished, the ministers of the gospel must buffet the storm; and happy will that man be, who shall have, when the clouds of divine wrath, now surcharged with vengeance, “shall burst in thunder” upon iniquitous thrones, an ark of safety, in which he may ride triumphantly over the billows of the tumultuous “sea” of revolutionary nations!

He will find the Messiah his ark, if he is faithful to his interests, as “the Prince of the kings of the earth.” The nations now declare that “they will not have this man to reign over them.” He must consequently urge his claim to the submission of the nations; and must not cease until the kings of the earth, now at war with the Lamb, break their weapons of rebellion, bring gifts and offerings, “and cast their crowns at his feet.” Let the divine prediction of this event encourage his heart, and animate his exertions. “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. 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.” [Ps. lxxii. 9-11.]

This submission is evidently voluntary. That it may be rendered, kings must be instructed in their duty. They must hear the word of God. “How shall they hear without a preacher?” For this purpose, “the priest’s lips must keep knowledge, and they must seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.” [Mal. ii. 7.] Animated with the heroism of David, the priest, the messenger of the Lord of hosts, must “speak of his testimonies before kings, and not be ashamed;” and to encourage him, he has a promise of success in his ministry. “All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O Lord, when they hear the words of thy mouth.” [Ps. cxix. 46.—cxxxviii. 4.] How plain is the duty of ministers upon this subject?

Whilst ministers are to speak the word of God to kings, kings and all rulers are bound to hear. “Be wise, now, therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.”

In a country where the sovereign power is exercised by the people, and the people enjoy the rights of modelling their form of government, the people must be particularly addressed. This is the condition of the people of the United States. The ministers of religion have thousands of them before them at least once a week; and they mingle with them frequently in the indulgence of social feeling. Do they ever present the subject of this discourse before their minds? It is the fewest number who do so. They need not tremble for the sanctity of the sabbath. It will not be violated by its discussion. The Bible is full of it. There is no part of the Bible that may not be read on the sabbath; consequently there is no part that may not be a subject of pulpit discussion on that holy day. It interrupted not the solemnity of the Jewish feasts, to hear “the testimonies of Israel” expounded by their priests. For this purpose the Jews endured, three times a year, the toils of a weary journey to Jerusalem. “Whither the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, unto the testimony of Israel.” [Ps. cxxii. 4.] This testimony contains many political maxims, which were undoubtedly expounded to the assembled tribes, because they enjoyed not the privilege of reading the law in their own tents. Let the people of the United States then be instructed faithfully by their ministers, in the political economy of the Bible, and Reformed Presbyterians will not be long singular―will not long “dwell alone, not reckoned among the nation.” Point out, ye ministers of the Lord, the errors of the constitution, and call loudly for a reform, and who can calculate the effect? It is often asked the Reformed Presbyterian, why he does not vote? why he does not take an active part in the conduct of civil affairs? The only answer is, he cannot, and keep a pure conscience. He cannot vote; because he cannot appoint another to do that for him, which it is not lawful for himself to do; namely, to swear an oath of allegiance to an immoral law. Had he the majority with him, he could rectify the instrument. But he is in the minority. The majority oppose him. The people tie his hands, and he cannot act, however willing. But he can speak, and his voice will yet be heard above the clamour of faction, and will be obeyed. Let those who have the power in their hands, employ it for the purpose of reform. Let them purge the constitution of the immorality of slavery in all its bearings, and subject themselves to the Lord, his Christ, and his law; and the Reformed Presbyterian will join hand with hand, and with the voice together will sing with him the high praises of “the Lord God omnipotent that reigneth.”

2. Descendants of the martyrs, and adherents of the principles of reformation, what can be said to you, in reference to the subject of this discourse? Are you sufficiently alive to the importance of the principles which you advocate? Are you truly sensible of the grandeur of the system which you have espoused? If you are, why so little life? why so little energy? O, awake, arise, put on the armour of light, and stand firmly in defence of the high prerogatives of Emanuel’s crown. His glory, his honour, his church’s repose and happiness, are intimately connected with the movements of the nations.

In setting out on this warfare on the behalf of the interests of the Lamb, with whom the kings of the earth are at war, the first consideration of moment, respecting yourselves individually, is, have we a true and saving interest in the blood of the Lamb? Remember the character of his soldiery. “They that are with him (in the conflict with kings) are called, and chosen, and faithful.” [Rev. xvii. 14.] Such being their character, your first business is, that you may be able to endure “the hardness of a good soldier of the Lord Jesus Christ.” That you may be strong in the grace of the Lord Jesus, your first business is to “use all diligence in making your calling and election sure.” The ground of your confidence is his righteousness, the merit of his blood in the eyes of law and justice. This blood is the price of your redemption. “We were not redeemed by corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.” [1 Pet. i. 18, 19.] Not only does the Lamb head “the armies of heaven righteously, judging and making war,” but he is also “the Lamb slain,” whose “blood is shed for many for the remission of sins; and we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” [Eph. i. 7.] Have on, therefore, “the armour of righteousness, on the right hand and on the left.” This will be a covering for you in the day of battle, and by it you “will come off more than conquerors through him that loved you and gave himself for you.”

Difficulties you must encounter, trials you must endure, sacrifices you must make, in defence of your testimony; but the cause is the cause of God; it is glorious, and must ultimately triumph. Gird on, therefore, “the weapons of your warfare, which are not carnal, but spiritual, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.”

Whilst you forget not “the girdle of truth,” nor “the breastplate of righteousness,” nor “the shield of faith,” nor “the helmet of salvation,” nor “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” be mindful of prayer. “The effectual fervent prayer of the righteous man availeth much.” You are exposed to shame; you are exposed to reproach; you are exposed to the odium of rulers, and to the malice of the flatterers of kings: “but be of good cheer; although in the world ye shall have tribulation, in Christ Jesus ye shall have peace.” Go to him, therefore, in prayer. The throne of grace is prepared for you; strength is provided, and will be given. Forget not in your prayers, those who are appointed in the church on earth to lead you in the conflict with the kings of the earth―the subordinate captains of Messiah’s hosts. “Brethren, pray for us,” that we may be wise, prudent, faithful, united, undaunted: and at the same time remember that your exalted Messiah “has the hearts of kings in his hands, and can turn them as the rivers of water, whithersoever he will.”

Obey, therefore, the injunction of the apostle: “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.” [1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.] Understand this prayer. You are not justifiable in using it as a prayer to be offered up for the stability of the thrones of “the kings of the earth.” Remember they are at “war with the Lamb,” are “full of names of blasphemy,” and a righteous God hath devoted their thrones to destruction. This, however, does not, necessarily, forbid the salvation of the occupants of these thrones. This is the true import of the prayer. No earthly dignity can exempt from the necessity of an interest in “the great salvation,” in order to the enjoyment of a heavenly throne, and eternal crown. Your prayers, therefore, are to be offered up for kings, and presidents, and “all in authority,” as they are “wretched sinners,” and that “they may come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved.” [1 Tim. ii. 4.] Although “not many mighty, not many noble are called,” yet there are a few. “For God will have all men to be saved;” that is, men of all ranks, and conditions of life: because they that are “with the Lamb upon Mount Zion, are redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” One great benefit, which is promised as the fruit of this prayer is, “ a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” under the reign of those for whom you may pray; for God “maketh the wrath of men to praise him, and restrains the remainder of wrath.” We may pray therefore consistently for the salvation of even such as a Nero, or a Charles, should such occupy the throne under which we may dwell; and in our prayers we may have an eye to our own “peace and quietness.”

But who can calculate the good that a pious President of the United States, “brought to the knowledge of the truth,” might be the instrument in effecting. His great influence thrown into the scale of morality and religion, we might soon behold the constitution purged of its immorality, and this nation become the first-born of the kingdoms of Messiah.

Be not cast down. Let the goodness and greatness of the cause support you amidst all vicissitudes. Be not cowardly, be not rash, and be not headstrong. Now is the period for noble and bold exertion. There is need of enterprise. You are about to be rendered, in the providence of the Messiah, conspicuous among the churches of the nations. Every eye will be upon you; the eyes of friends, and the eyes of foes. Avoid not the scrutiny.―Court examination, court discussion: avoid not the conflict of opinion.

The day of skirmishing, I am persuaded, is passed away. The battalions of the Messiah’s hosts must be led forth into the wide and public field; they must display “their banners on the high mountains of Israel.” They must not, through a timid and cowardly spirit, shun any field of warfare, decline any challenge to the conflict. The battles of opinions must be fought; the sooner it is fought, the better will it be for the peace and harmony of Zion. The Reformed Presbyterian has nothing to fear, but everything to hope. If he is faithful he must be successful, and ere long he will have the exalted satisfaction of beholding the “flag of the covenant” waving over the thrones of the nations, and “every knee bowing, and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father:” for “the kingdom, and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” [Daniel, vii. 27.] Amen and Amen.

APPENDIX.

[To show the harmony that exists between the principles of the modern Covenanter and those of his ancestors, the following passage is quoted from “Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland.” First ed. pp. 26-28, 147-148. The style is antiquated. It is the style of the seventeenth century. Its principles, however, must be grateful to the feelings of the true-hearted American.]

“It is observable. That though the Practices of these first Times were Extraordinary, and to many may appear Disorderly, yet the faithful Men whom the LORD honoured both to Suffer and Do for His Name, did constantly and boldly Charge both the Rise and Progress of these Disorders, upon the Persons then in Power and Authority, who, being ordained and entrusted by GOD, for the Defence and Maintenance of Truth and Righteousness, (as the only true Foundations, and solid Grounds of the Peoples Felicity, whether Temporal or Eternal; and including all the Ends, for which either the Power of Persons of Governours are appointed; and consequently the principal Bonds of all Obedience and Subjection, for which all these Engagements are intended, and to which they do ultimately refer) be resiling [drawing back] and starting out from this most sacred and fixed Line of Subordination; As they could not claim Obedience to their unjust Commands, so far less could they oblige the People, to that more than slavish and brutish Subjection, in the submitting of their Souls. Bodies and Goods to the Arbitrament of their cruel Tyranny contrary unto, and destructive of all these holy and great Ends, both of GOD’s Glory, and the Peoples Spiritual and Temporal Good, for which they were constituted Governours.

“That this was the Source and Fountain of all Disorders in these Times, and that it was so reputed to be, by these valiant Worthies, who then opposed them, the History thereof doth plainly verify. We are not forgetful, how vehemently the Powers on Earth, which set themselves against the LORD, and their Creatures and Flatterers, have in all Times decried such Assertions. The Noise, and Thundering of Treason, Treason, wherewith the very mentioning of such positions, useth at once to be attended and condemned, do already sound in our Ears; Let such as are thereby Alarmed, read the Debates and Controversies, both of former and latter Times; especially these two Martyrs against Tyranny, Lex Rex, and the Apologetical Narration upon this subject. This is our Peace and Establishment before the LORD and all Men; that we with our Noble Reformers do acknowledge and honour Authority, as the great Ordinance of GOD, for the uphold and Maintenance of Truth and Righteousness; and the Persons therewith vested, not only as eminently dignified, but also as most signally impressed, by a very sacred and illustrious Charter of the glorious Majesty of the most High, who hath appointed them: But on the other Hand, we cannot but wish, that these same Persons would constantly remember that not only they are the Ministers of GOD, and to him accountable; but also His Ministers to the People for their Good, whom they neither ought to Tyrannize over at their own pleasure, nor Rule only for their own Profit. O! that these sacred Boundaries had ever been observed, and that both Tyranny ad Rebellion, with all their Antidotes and Remedies had been perpetually unknown. But shall Tyranny, unto which, Power, both in itself is so easily corrupted, and by the flattery of others more frequently abused, be not only shrouded under the Privilege and Impunity of a divine Examination; but thereby, in effect be more intolerably Licensed, to the Acting of all Wickedness and Violence, and the perverting and overturning of all the Ends of Government? And in the mean Time, shall the Peoples most just and necessary Defence of themselves, (whereunto they are seldom and very hardly provoked, even by the most extreme necessity) and of all their most precious concernments, the very Ends for which the Powers are ordained, but continually at the Arbitrament of any Court-Creature or Flatterer, proscribed and persecuted under these odious Names of Treason and Rebellion? Certainly, neither the All-wise Providence of GOD, nor yet the Frame of Nature, can endure such a Solecism. For our Part, as we are persuaded, that none pleadeth for this absolute Submission in the People, and Exemption of the Prince, but such as for advancing their own Interest, have first Prostrated their Consciences to the Princes Arbitrament, in a blind and absolute Obedience.

“That GOD the Fountain of all Power, and Authority of all Right, as, wherever he hath granted to any Creature a Being, he hath also Armed it with a Love and Power of Self Preservation suitable to it’s Capacity; so much more, where, unto a Being, He hath Superadded a Right, as in all Rational Creatures, which cannot be Violated but both by Force and Injury, hath He granted both the Power and Right of Self Defence, which is really one and the same Thing with it, and in Effect nothing else but that Divine Impress and Rational Instinct, whereby the very Course of Nature is upholden, so inseparable from the Being and Right of the Creature, that it never ceaseth, except where by the Sovereign will and Law of GOD, the Right is first annulled and the Being may be destroyed. Which Position, being the clear and true Foundation of all Rule and Righteousness, and even of the Being of all Things, it may justly be wondered, that Men should be found, who deny and would subvert it in it’s first, Principal and most Immediate Effects. But if according hereunto any will substitute and prove, that either by the LORD’s ordaining of Powers, or Men’s Surrender and Submission thereto, (made mainly for Self-preservation,) the foresaid Right and Power was or could be revoked or renounced, we shall most willingly quite the Plea, and prostitute ourselves to all the Violences, that Tyranny can Invent, since in that case there could be no Injury.

“That as all Societies, Governments and Laws are appointed in a due Subordination to GOD and His Superior Will and Law, for His Glory and the Common Good of the People, including the Safety of every Individual; so, if either this Subordination be notoriously infringed, or these Ends Intolerably perverted, the Committee of both Society, Government and Law, is in so far dissolved. Hence is it, that a King or Rulers Commanding Things directly contrary to the Law of GOD may be, and have been justly disobeyed, and by Fury or Folly Destroying or Alienating the Kingdom, may be and have been Lawfully resisted. These are Conclusions which our greatest Adversaries cannot but admit, and are not deducible from any other Premises. Let us hear King James, whose Loyalty none can doubt, in a Speech to the Parliament in the Year, 1609. He saith a King Degenerateth into a Tyrant when he learneth to Rule by Law, much more when he beginneth to Invade his Subjects Persons, Rights and Liberties, to set up an Arbitrary Power, Impose unlawful Taxes, Raise Forces, make War upon his Subjects, to Pillage, Plunder, Waste and Spoil his Kingdoms.”

THE END.

ENDNOTES:

[1] The author refers to this fact―not from any disposition to reproach, or to rouse evil feelings. It is a matter of ecclesiastical history. It is the act, not of an individual member, but of the Secession church in Ireland, a sister church to those bearing the same title. The author despises the principle and the men, who endeavour to support an untenable system by ferreting out and publishing to the world the failings of individuals, which are not approved by the body to which they may belong. “Report, say they, and we will report,” is the disposition of such.

[2] Heineccius, Counsellor of state to the King of Prussia, and Professor of Philosophy at Hull, on the Law of Nature and Nations. Book I. Sec. 14.―Scholium.

tags William Louis Roberts

Contact Us

Database

Submission to “The Powers That Be,”

September 8, 2020James Dodson

SCRIPTURALLY ILLUSTRATED:

A DISCOURSE,

IN THREE PARTS.

BY WILLIAM L. ROBERTS,

INTRODUCTION.

PART I.

EXPLANATORY SCRIPTURES.

THE END.

ENDNOTES:

Contact Us

Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) - "Steelite" Covenanters

Database

Submission to “The Powers That Be,”

September 8, 2020James Dodson

SCRIPTURALLY ILLUSTRATED:

A DISCOURSE,

IN THREE PARTS.

BY WILLIAM L. ROBERTS,

INTRODUCTION.

PART I.

EXPLANATORY SCRIPTURES.

THE END.

ENDNOTES: