The Moral Character of the Two Belligerents.

December 7, 2019James Dodson

SERMON II.

TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. Dan. v. 27.

THIS solemn sentence was pronounced by a prophet of God, upon one of the most splendid and powerful monarchies that ever existed. At a very critical period, and under circumstances of the most alarming kind, Daniel ventured to proclaim this unwelcome truth, before the assembled lords and rulers of Chaldea.

Belshazzar, the Nabonadius of the Greek historians, and the son of Evil-merodac, by his queen, the celebrated Nitocris, now sat upon the throne of Nebuchadnezzar, his grandfather, and the most famous of the kings of Babylon. It was on the 17th year of his criminal and calamitous reign, and on the anniversary of a festival sacred to the idol-god, SHESHACH, that Belshazzar ordered an entertainment for his thousand lords, in the spacious halls of his proud palace. He forgot, amidst his wine, and his revelry, that he was in a besieged city. For two years had the united armies of the far-famed Cyrus of Persia, and of his uncle Darius the Mede, laid siege to Babylon, the most magnificent metropolis of the world. Babylon, covering a square of sixty miles circumference, watered by the great river Euphrates, surrounded by a wall of eighty-seven feet in thickness, and of corresponding height, strengthened by three hundred towers of defense, and provisioned for many years, proudly frowned upon the thousands of Media, and Persia, who, hitherto in vain, were endeavouring its overthrow.

Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded the golden vessels, taken from the house of God in Jerusalem, to be brought to him. With polluted lips, he, his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank, from the sacred relics of Zion’s former greatness, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. A brilliant candlestick, with its many lights, the rays of which were reflected from innumerable mirrors, is suspended from the ceiling; and all within the palace is mirth and song. But, at once, the king of Babylon trembles. The paleness of death sat upon his countenance. The joints of his loins were loosed; and his knees smote one against another. The whole assembly fell into disorder. There was a cause. Fingers, unconnected with mortal hand, appear on the wall over against the candlestick, and there, in writing, they leave the indelible sentence which Daniel the prophet was summoned to interpret—MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. He hath numbered, he hath numbered, he hath weighed, they divide. The King of heaven hath numbered the days of Chaldean power—He hath numbered them completely—The Judge of the earth hath weighed in the scale of moral estimation, this government—The Medes and Persians divide and destroy the empire.

That night the interpretation was verified. The Medes and Persians took the city, and massacred its nobles. The sun of Babylon set to rise no more. It is now but a tale that is told. Sic transit gloria mundi. [Thus the glory of the world passes] Human power is evanescent; but the word of the Lord endureth forever. The hand-writing upon the wall shall not be forgotten: the words are copied into our bibles: they shall be repeated over all the kingdoms of the nations, unto people of every kindred and tongue: and the maxims which they lay down, shall, in their full import, be applied to other times.

TEKEL, Thou art weighed in the balances.

The same balances still remain in the hand of the Judge of the universe—Nations still exist—and the ministers of religion, like the prophet of God, still interpret the divine will.

Acting upon this authority, I proceed, to weigh, before your eyes, in the balance of the sanctuary, THE BRITISH MONARCHY AND THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC. To each, in its turn, I say, TEKEL. In the estimate, which I make, of the moral character of each of these belligerents, I desire to exercise the impartiality of a visitant from another world. Of those things which are essential to the formation of a correct judgment, I would, designedly,

“Keep nothing back,”

“Nor aught set down in malice.”

Seeing it is not as a statesmen, a historian, or a philosopher, but as a Christian divine, and with a view to particular practical questions, I am now bound to exhibit their character, it will not be expected that I should describe the state of literature in the two countries; that I should attend to their attainments in the sciences or the useful arts; that I should give an account of their respective means and strength; that I should enter into a detail of the domestic economy or general manners of the people; or, that I should describe the slate of the churches, and the spirit of their public laws, otherwise, than as essentially necessary to an estimate of the comparative goodness of the two governments which are opposed in war.

The controversy, to be decided by the sword, is in fact between the two governments, although upon questions immediately affecting the members of each community. Independently, however, of the merits of the cause, for which war is waged, it is interesting for the Christian to understand the character of the parties in the contest. By contemplating these, in the light of the divine law, we shall be able to determine which has the least degree of the divine disapprobation, and to which, of course, the affections of the friends of God should most forcibly tend. There is a sense in which Christians are not numbered among the nations. As members of Christ’s kingdom, which is not of this world, as subjects to the Sovereign Governor of all nations, they are not to be influenced by partiality to country, so much as by correct views of the righteousness or iniquity which may belong to the constitutions of national power.

The constitutions of government as reduced to practice, are, in this case, the proper objects of examination. To these, as it respects the two belligerents, I now direct your attention, while I place them in the balances in the name of the Judge of the world.

I begin at home, with,

I. The national government of the United States.

The sin of a nation is the aggregate of all the transgressions committed by individuals in that nation: but these are properly national sins, which are notorious, prevalent, and characteristic. I speak not, however, of the nation at large, but of its constituted authorities, and therefore attend only to AUTHORIZED SINS.[1]

The public immoralities of the constitution of our federal government, may, although more numerous in detail, be classed under two heads, viz. Disrespect for God—and violation of human liberty. By the terms of the national compact, God is not at all acknowledged, and holding men in slavery is authorized. Both these are evils.

1. God is not acknowledged by the constitution. In a federative government, erected over several distinct and independent states, retaining each the power of local legislation, it is not to be expected that specific provision should be made for the interests of religion in particular congregations. The general government is erected for the general good of the United States, and especially for the management of their foreign concerns: but no association of men for moral purposes can be justified in an entire neglect of the Sovereign of the world. Statesmen in this country had undoubtedly in their eye the abuse of religion for mere political purposes, which in the nations of the old world, had corrupted the sanctuary, and laid the foundation for the persecution of godly men. The principal writers, upon government, friendly to the cause of civil liberty in the kingdoms of Europe, had generally advocated principles, which, in their application, have led, upon the part of civilians, to a disrespect for religion itself; and these principles had no small influence upon the founders of this republic. This was the case in a remarkable degree with the continental politicians; nor are [Algernon] Sydney and [John] Locke to be entirely exempted from the charge. In the overthrow of those particular establishments, favourable to the church of England, which existed here before the revolution, it was natural, considering the state of religious information in the community, to go to an opposite extreme. But no consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his Anointed from the grand charter of the nation. On our daily bread, we ask a blessing. At our ordinary meals, we acknowledge the Lord of the world. We begin our last testament for disposing of worldly estates, in the name of God: and shall we be guiltless, with the bible in our hands, to disclaim the Christian religion as a body politic?[2]

2. The constitution of our government recognizes the practice of holding men, without being convicted of any offence against society, in perpetual slavery.

This evil, prohibited by the divine law, Exod. xxi. 16. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death,[3] is equally inconsistent with what is said, in the declaration of American independence, to be a self-evident truth. The words of that very valuable document, are as follow, “We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.” In direct opposition to these self-evident maxims, the constitution provided for the continuance of the slave-trade until the year 1808, and it still [in 1815] provides for the continuance of slavery in this free country. It even gives to the slave-holder an influence, in legislation, proportioned to the number of his fellowmen he holds in bondage.[4]

For these national immoralities, I am bound, as a minister of the gospel, who derives his politics from the bible,[5] to pronounce upon this government the sentence of my text,—TEKEL, Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

Let me not be understood, however, as conveying the idea, that the other belligerent is not faulty in these respects. Great Britain set the example to her colonies, of prosecuting the slave-trade. She still retains in her numerous provinces, thousands in abject bondage. A few good men, after the repeated, the continual exertion of years in the British Parliament, obtained at last a victory honourable to themselves and to the cause of humanity, in finally abolishing the African trade; but those injured people, already in durance, have no hope of release for themselves or for their offspring. Slavery is a black, a vile inheritance left to America by her royal stepmother, whose injustice produced the Revolution.

On the score of religion, it is better to neglect, than to prostitute the church of God. Here, the framers of our law have said to the daughter of Zion, “depart from our councils. A few of us love thy cause; but there are some who hate it; and the greater part are indifferent about thee. Go, seek thy way uninterrupted through the land. Thou art free to pursue the most desirable course: but upon our aid thou must not calculate.” There, political men beheld the Christian cause with an eye that seeks to make gain of every object within its reach. The statesman said, “Come, daughter of Zion, thou must bear my yoke; thou must be my servant; thou must promote my interest; and shouldst thou refuse my mandates, thou shalt suffer for thy fidelity to Jehovah. Whatever the bible may teach, it is my business to establish such a system of religion as best suits my own political plans. This is my determination.”

Notwithstanding, therefore, the irreligion of the general constitution of our government, the church of God is, in this country, upon a better footing, as it respects the national power, than in any other country upon earth. Nay, under existing circumstances, it is our mercy, that God has so ordered it in his providence, that men, of the description of those who are elected to power among the nations, have not been permitted to interfere with ecclesiastical polity, and to exercise sovereignty over the consciences of men, in their spiritual concerns. While we reprobate the infidelity of the national compact, we rejoice in the measure of religious liberty which we enjoy; and we deprecate any attempts upon the part of political men, who do not understand the doctrines and the order of the Christian church, to imitate the corrupt example of Uzzah the son of Abinadab, who applied his hand to the ark of the covenant, or of kings Saul and Azariah, who, without authority, offered sacrifice and burned incense before the Lord, and were accordingly punished as guilty. [1 Sam. xiii. 10—13. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16—21.]

II. I now proceed to examine The moral character of the British Constitution.

It is not my design, in this examination, to give the history of this system of government, the foundation of which is to be found in the rude and barbarous institutions of the ancient Germans,[6] or to delineate its several checks and balances, in the distribution of power, according to its present practice. However instructive to the civilian such a review, it would not comport with the place in which I speak, or with the object which I contemplate. Upon its wisdom and its might, its stability and its grandeur, let others freely and fully descant: it is my business to place it in the balances, in order to ascertain its moral worth before my God and his church. TEKEL; He hath weighed it. And by his word we determine its character.

THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, as it now exists, is a despotic usurpation—A superstitious combination of civil and ecclesiastical power—A branch of the grand antichristian apostacy—Erastian in its constitution and administration—and Cruel in its policy. It is, therefore, a throne of iniquity, of which neither God, nor godly men, who understand it, can approve. [Psalm xciv. 20.] This is a heavy charge; but it is not unjust: if I do not support every article of it with sufficient documentary testimony, it is not because I have not abundance of this at my command. I lay some of the evidence before you. The impartial will say it is enough. There is no need of comment. It is selected from unquestionable authorities, or in itself notorious.

1. The British government, in the present practice of the constitution, is not a fair representation of the people over whom its power is exercised.

There are only three ways by which one set of men acquire power over others—By divine authority, by the election of the people to be governed, or by usurpation. Usurped authority, maintained as well as originally acquired by force, is immoral. Divine right cannot be pleaded without a divine revelation to support it; it follows of course that the choice of the subject is necessary in the constitution of civil order, to confer legitimate authority upon the ruler. “The blood royal,” “the ancient sovereigns,” “the rights of the crown,” “the throne of his ancestors,” are all fine and captivating expressions from the lips of an orator, to amuse and deceive the thoughtless: but have they any meaning? Do they convey any idea worthy of a man of sense and magnanimity? Have they any allurements for a good Christian? No. They are only dazzling ornaments without solidity and without worth. I lay it down as an axiom in political morality, that TRUE REPRESENTATION IS ESSENTIAL TO LAWFUL POWER; and that in all cases in which the Deity does not immediately interpose to appoint the depositaries of power, the choice of a representative belongs to the members of the community. Divide power as you will; make the arm of authority weak or strong, as suits your purpose; call your chief magistrate King, Consul, Emperor, President, Governor, or whatsoever else you please; form your legislative councils of one or of many chambers; let your courts, your judges, your officers of law, be many or few; but maintain the principle of representation inviolate; for a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS THE ORDINANCE OF GOD.

The representative system is supported by the authority of common sense—by decisions of scripture—by the general voice of the nations of the earth.

First. Men, with common sense as their guide, in all the voluntary associations which they form, act upon this principle.

They appoint their chairman, their scribe, their treasurer, their managers, their committees, at pleasure. In all free cities; in all benevolent institutions, whether composed of males or females; in all meetings for the diffusion of literary knowledge, for hilarity, or for business, this is the common course of procedure: and why deny the application of common sense to national associations for the maintenance of order under municipal law, and the defense of the state from foreign violence?

Second. Divine revelation inculcates and exemplifies the system of representation.

God deals with us, upon a knowledge of the frame of our minds and the character of our faculties; and he directs us, so, also, to deal one with another. The representative system appears in the two great establishments of heaven, in relation to mankind,—the COVENANT OF WORKS and the COVENANT OF GRACE. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man, Adam, was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. The first man is of the earthy earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. And as is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. [1 Cor. xv. 44—48.]

In the administrations of divine grace, as well as in the formation of his covenant, Jehovah directs human society by his holy word to act upon the principle of representation; and he guarantees, by divine right, to that part of the rational family, who are peculiarly under his care, a system of social order corresponding therewith. Although he appoints ecclesiastical officers, he gives the right of choice to the people over whom they rule. In the exercise of authority, ecclesiastical officers meet, and appoint their own order and agents. In the government divinely provided for the church of God, we have the best evidence of the manner in which he will have his rational creatures to act, in the formation of all their social institutions. The church is by divine right a Republic: such a system of government is of course the wisest and the best.

In civil affairs, as well as in ecclesiastical, the same principles of order are inculcated in Scripture. The law for the election of rulers, and for trial of their conduct, implies the right of election, and removal from office. The practice illustrates the law. We read, it is true, of kings, and of kings designated to office by immediate revelation. But the executive officers of Judah and Israel, although called kings, were placed under a law, and liable to deposition on account of mal-administration. These kings, even when nominated by the Lord, were still recognized as the representatives, or agents of the commonwealth, and subject to removal from office by the community whensoever they abused their trust. The covenant of God with David, I admit, did authorize the regal succession in the family of the son of Jesse; but that succession was never regulated by primogeniture, so much as by actual qualification for power. And it would be as absurd, now that Messiah is come, to whom that arrangement pointed, to plead in behalf of royal blood, as to require, after the example of the house of Aaron, that the ministry of the church should be subjected to hereditary succession.

Abimelech is the first king of whom we read among the Israelites, and he was made so by the men of Shechem. [Judg. ix.] The men of Israel had offered the sovereignty to Gideon; but, while he admitted their power of making the election, he refused their offer. [Judg. viii. 21—23.] When Saul was placed upon the throne, the institution of the monarchy, and the actual election of the incumbent, were the acts of the people of Israel, although the Lord pointed out the man. [1 Sam. xxii. 12—20. Hos. xiii. 10.] David, Solomon, and Rehoboam, Uzziah and Josiah, received the kingdom by consent of the community. All the kings of Israel and Judah were subject to the constitution and the law; obliged to act with the advice of the Sanhedrim, the great council of elders; to preserve, in their rights, the lesser Sanhedrims of the several cities, all of which were regularly elected to office; and in default, these kings were punished of the Lord, by divine judgments, and of the people by deposition, as in the case of Uzziah, or by death, as in that of his father Amaziah, king of Judah.[7]

In the third place. The general practice of nations, even where monarchy existed, is in support of the principle of representation. Kingly government is obviously, as the learned [John] Selden, a member of the Westminster Assembly, calls it, a heathen institution; but the king was considered as the agent of the public will. The history of every nation will serve to show, that I do not make the assertion without authority. The greatest tyrants have been in the habit of considering themselves as representing the nation over which they ruled; and in the present age, the high claims of arbitrary power lend only, like the fables of Pagan mythology, and the fairy tales of a ruder superstition, to decorate, with splendid imagery, poetry and romance; or, when introduced art fully into popular declamation, to flatter aspiring minds, and deceive the simple. The treaty of Paris abundantly shows that crowned heads no longer depend on the divine right of hereditary succession. Ferdinand is recognized, during the life-time of his deposed father, on the throne of Spain. [Napoleon Lucien Charles] Murat and [Jean Baptiste] Bernadotte are permitted to occupy the kingdoms of living fugitives of the blood royal; and since the partition of Poland, successful usurpation is a better title than carnal descent. If the principle of representation is forgotten, hereditary right is less depended on, than possession by force of arms. Such, alas! is the unprincipled condition of the masters of the European world.[8]

If I have succeeded in showing, that representation is essential to lawful rule, I shall take less of your time in proving, that the practice of the British constitution is, when weighed in this balance, found wanting.

The king, it is admitted, cannot do wrong. He is not accountable. He succeeds to the throne according to primogeniture. Be he wise or simple; good or bad, by the constitution of that country, which has superior pretensions to good sense and to morality, the first-born of royal blood ascends the chair of state; and without the least regard to capacity or to character, he is chief magistrate and head of the church. This is notorious. Such a monarch cannot be considered as the true representative of the kingdom. The Lords spiritual and temporal, have little of the principle stated above as necessary to lawful rule, and the House of Commons is far from being a true representation of the people.

The population of the united kingdoms amounts, according to the latest accounts, to about fifteen millions. Very few of these are represented in parliament. The whole of the members returned to that great court of the empire, have received, probably, less than three hundred thousand votes. These suffrages are commonly bought and sold as any other article in the market. The ministry can always secure a large majority. The parliament is a representation of a few powerful and opulent families; and these only serve to give the appearance of popularity to the paramount influence of the monarchy, as employed by the immediate servants of the crown.[9]

2. The British constitution of government, is a superstitious combination of civil and ecclesiastical power.

The king is head and sovereign of the church. The bishops of the church are lords of the land, and members of the legislature, and judges of the law. By order of both, the most solemn of the ordinances of the Lord our God is continually profaned: and all this is essential to the constitution of the government. These facts are notorious: and there is not upon the face of the earth greater iniquity.

The king is head of the church. “Our lawyers pronounce, that the king of England unites in his person the dignity of chief magistrate with the sanctity of a priest; and the title of Sacred Majesty appears to have commenced, when he assumed the function of head of the church.” [Pinkerton.] He, as sovereign of the ecclesiastical body, calls at pleasure his clergy together, and dissolves their meetings when they have executed his will: he fills up vacancies among his bishops; and he presents to their livings and their tithes over his subjects, the inferior clergy, unless the patronage be vested in subordinate hands. He, by his pontifical and royal sanction, confers the character of truth to his own faithful subjects upon articles of faith, whatever they may be in themselves: he confers upon ceremonies, however frivolous, the virtue of being significant and edifying: he constitutes a government, however arbitrary, pure and apostolical: in a word, he defends, he tolerates, he persecutes, according to the constitution of the establishment over which he presides with papal magnificence. And yet, O my God and my Redeemer, to such a monarchy, with all its impious usurpation of the rights of God, do any of thy disciples profess an attachment? Ah! how frail a thing is man!

Again, according to the British constitution, bishops of the church are, by virtue of their office, members of parliament and judges of the law. They are Lords spiritual, occupying a seat in the upper house of legislation; and the house of lords is the ultimate tribunal of justice. The privileges of the spiritual lords exceed those of the other peers of the realm. They hold courts of their own, of which they are the sole judges: they issue writs in a peculiar style, and in their own name: they alone can depute to others their authority; and the judges of the king cannot sit within the diocese of some of them without the bishop’s permission. [Chamber, 63—68. Blackstone, b. 1 c. 11.] Such then, is this constitution, that while the king is supreme head of the church, the prelates of the church are an essential part of the legislature and judiciary of the empire.

Is this right? Is this scriptural? Is this agreeable to the example of our Lord—conformable to the spirit of religion—corresponding with apostolical example ? And is it thus, my hearers, that men would exemplify the doctrine, my kingdom is not of this world? I, as a minister of Christ, have to reason with you in defense of the right of making a few political remarks; and I cannot flatter myself that I have succeeded with you all, in procuring a patient hearing: and yet, those ministers of religion, who neglect the paths of the Lord, and are themselves become LORDS OF THE LAND, and of God’s heritage, enjoy your sympathy: to that government you are attached, and, at me, you are displeased for examining its character. Bear with me, brethren; I would not wound your feelings unnecessarily. I even sympathize with you in your political obliquities. Man is frail. Even Abraham besought the Lord for Sodom; and the Lord dealt tenderly with his servant, though he destroyed the cities of the plain. I ask of you but the liberty of saying to this part of the system of British power, Tekel—Thou art found wanting.

If more be necessary to justify me in this application of the text, it will be found in the practice, required by the combined and impious power of church and state over the British empire—the administration of the sacramental test.

What would you think of an ordinance from the congress of the United States, requiring all officers upon the civil and military list, under pain of dismission, to take the sacrament? What would you say to a demand upon Presbyterians, and Independents, and Baptists, &c. to forego their own religious profession, and take the communion from Episcopal hands? What would you say of an act of congress that required the prostitution of the Lord’s Supper, to the profane, and the ignorant, and the infidel? What would you say of me, if instead of thus addressing you, I should be so far disposed to make traffic of my ministry, as to accept of an appointment and an equipage, and sit with the consecrated elements at the door of the capitol, to administer the body and the blood of the Lord to the whole tribe of office hunters who dance attendance in the hall of power? Could you approve of this? would you tolerate me in it? would the rulers of our land require such a profanation? would this community bear it? would the ministers of the church submit to it? It is practiced in England. It is the law of that land. It is authorized, it is demanded by the government. It is observed by the ministers. This prostitution is the door of admission to power. [Stat. 25. Car. II. Cap. 2.] Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord; and shall not my soul he avenged on such a nation as this?[10]

3. The British government is a branch of the general antichristian apostacy.

The opposition to the great protest ant doctrine in relation to antichrist, which the English commentators of more recent date have carried on, found its only support in the terror produced by the French revolution. Mr. Faber is, by far, the most plausible of those writers, who have represented that nation under the Emperor Napoleon, as the last head of the great apostacy; and at whose downfall, by the judgments of the seventh vial, the Millennium was to commence. This system of interpretation is now exploded. The empire of Buonaparte is no more; and yet the Millennium does not appear. The manners of men are as they were. Ignorance still prevails. Tyranny and superstition are sufficiently obvious. The church is in the wilderness; and although the Bourbons are restored, Europe is unsettled; and still antichrist reigns.

According to the unanimous opinion of all the protectant expositors, not excepting the English themselves, that country has once been one of the ten horns of the apocalyptical beast, influenced by Satan, the dragon. [Rev. xiii.] This could not be disputed, because the land was geographically within the bounds of the Latin Roman empire; and the people had submitted to the Latin Roman religion.

Some indeed allege, that, at the reformation, the connection of Britain with the beast was dissolved; but, the scripture prediction does not justify the expectation that any of the great powers of Europe should be severed from that connection, for centuries, or even any considerable time, before the general destruction of the man of sin. The history of that country, the tyranny and superstition of Henry VIII; the persecutions carried on against the saints, during the continuance of the succession in the Stuart race; and the terrible bloodshed caused by Charles II. and James, his successor and brother, both Popish tyrants, completely set aside the idea of England’s ceasing to be a horn of the beast, before the revolution of 1688, under William of Holland. Nor does that event itself justify the supposition. Much was certainly gained by it to the cause of both religion and liberty. The tyranny of the throne, and the persecutions arising from it, were mitigated, but not abolished. If protestant blood does not flow as formerly, the saints, in that country, the successors of the martyrs, still labour under the frowns of power, marked by ecclesiastical and civil pains and disabilities.

No country, it appears from the prospective history afforded in prophecy, which was once in connection with the beast, is to be perfectly separated from the great apostacy until the seventh vial shall have poured out its plagues. The fifth has shaken the connection by the partial reformation of several nations; but in no instance has the connection been completely and permanently dissolved.

Prophecy excludes the idea, of considering the British empire as removed from the Latin Earth: and, the character of its government, as shown under the preceding articles, demonstrates its antichristianism. The English establishment is, itself, of a beastly nature. An unhallowed connection between church and state, in which civil liberty suffers, and true religion h prostituted, can never be reconciled with that liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. It is an antichristian polity. I add to these a third argument, drawn from the consideration of recent events. The present king did take, as the condition of the crown of Corsica, an oath to support the Popish religion; [1794.] and he is at the head of the establishment of the same faith in the province of Lower Canada, in connection with the church of England. By his arms, by the wealth of his empire, and by the blood of his subjects, he has proved the principal stay of the antichristian polity in Europe. The restoration of the Bourbons, of the Pope, and of the Inquisition, sufficiently show that he is in fact a pillar of the great throne of the man of sin. The British government, once a branch of the apostacy, still within the bounds of the symbolical earth, actually antichristian in its own character, and now the chief stay of the BEAST’S authority, must necessarily be considered as continuing to be one of the ten kings or horns, which agree to give their power to the great corruption of moral order in the world.

The guilt of a nation, or an individual, is in proportion to the privileges enjoyed, and the actual immorality. That country was the most favoured of the nations. None had attained to so much light and reformation. It was once, although only by compulsion on the part of the crown and the prelacy, in solemn league and covenant with God. It has broken, like treacherous Judah, and backsliding Israel, its covenant; it has shed, like Chaldea, the blood of the martyrs; and, although persecution unto death hath ceased, this apostate nation still persists in the course of policy which the persecutor introduced—a course of opposition to true religion and regular ecclesiastical order. Ye are the children of them that killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. [Matth. xxiii. 31.] In applying the sacred measure to every branch of the apostacy, we cannot but pronounce it wanting.

4. The British government is Erastian in its constitution and administration.

The expression, Erastian, is not so well understood in this country, where the practice is happily in a great measure unknown, as in the European world, where it almost universally prevails. Certain systems, both of religion and of human science, are, sometimes, stamped with the names of distinguished men, who appear in their illustration and defense, although the principles themselves may have had a very different origin. The names of Calvin and Arminius, are attached to systems which existed since the introduction of Christianity to the fallen world. We speak of the Newtonian Philosophy, of Galvanism, &c. because the laws of nature, ancient as creation itself, were illustrated in an able manner by men of such names. The phrase Erastian often occurs in the history of British controversies about religion and government.

Thomas Erastus was both a divine and physician. He was learned and active, and influential among the distinguished men of that very remarkable age in which he lived: an age, which roused, by an extraordinary impulse, the human mind from the lethargy under which it had long laboured—the era of the reformation. Born in Baden of Switzerland, in the year 1624, and educated in Bazil and Bologna, he practiced physic [medicine] at the court of the elector Palatine, and became professor in the university of Heidelberg. In his book on Excommunication, he develops those principles which have since been called by his name. That Christ and his apostles prescribed no forms of discipline for the church—that the supreme ecclesiastical power belongs to the civil magistrate—that ministers are only teachers possessed of the right of public persuasion—That to the government of the state belongs the right of admitting members into the church, and excluding them from it—That the church of Christ is a department of the civil commonwealth, are the sentiments of Erastus. These have always been the prevailing sentiments of the court of Great Britain, since the time of Henry VIII. The clergy of the church of England, from [Thomas] Cranmer to [John] Whitgift,[11] were of Erastian principles. [Richard] Bancroft was the first to maintain the divine right of the episcopacy; and even since his day, the great body of the English hierarchy view the church “as a mere creature of the state.”[12] Indeed, the Puritans themselves, both the ministers and the members of Parliament, were willing at first to subscribe, with but little variation, to Erastian sentiments, although disposed to a greater degree of liberty, in religion and civil concerns, than was consistent with the pleasure of the court and the bishops.[13] It was not, until the Scottish commissioners explained, in the Assembly of Divines, the true polity of the church of God, as a spiritual empire, having its own officers and laws, under THE HEAD JESUS CHRIST, that the English ministers fully understood the distinction.[14] To the faithful labours of the church of Scotland, the Christian world is indebted, under the blessing of God, for the prevalence of a principle, now universally understood, and, in this country, reduced to practice by all ecclesiastical bodies—that the church is a distinct society, with an organization of its own. This important doctrine is of divine authority. Its truth hath been attested by the blood of the martyrs: and the kingdoms, which oppose this part of the faith delivered to the saints, are guilty of rebellion against the King of kings, and Lord of lords.

The Erastianism of the present British constitution of government, will now be made apparent.

The civil government makes the established church, with the king as its supreme head, an essential part of the national polity—It settles, by parliamentary law, the condition of ministerial fellowship—It determines the faith to be professed—It prescribes forms of prayer to be offered from the pulpit—It inflicts the severest censures of the church—and exercises, exclusively, the power of convoking the superior judicatories. Head, for yourselves, the references which I make, and then decide upon the accuracy of this statement.

The church, under the headship of the reigning prince, whether male or female, it matters not, is, in fact, a department of the state.

The British monarch has assumed all that power in his dominions “over all persons and all causes, whether civil or ecclesiastic,” which the Pope claimed; and the parliament have secured by statute this prerogative of the crown. The declaration of George I. who styles himself Defender of the Faith, and Supreme Governor of the Church in his dominions, proceeding upon this principle, requires that the clergy, before they can settle any differences about the external polity of the church, must first obtain leave under his broad seal. [Dec. George I. June 13th, 1715.]

It is provided by the treaty of union between England and Scotland, that the church of England, with all the civil power given into the hands of the prelacy, shall be preserved entire, and this is declared to be an essential fundamental part of the union. The temporal power of the lords spiritual, the spiritual supremacy of the monarch, together with the prostitution of the most distinguishing badge of Christian profession in the sacramental test, prove beyond a doubt that the church and state are combined into one great corrupt and impious system of misrule: and justifies the charge of Erastianism against the British Constitution.

In the Act for an union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, provision is made for rendering the English hierarchy perpetual: and the church of Scotland, although in form Presbyterian, has been constrained to submit to Erastianism, not merely by her members supporting the English religious establishment; but also, as essential to their own. The Scottish establishment is itself Erastian. The civil power SETTLES the condition of ministerial fellowship in the church. At the revolution, king William addressed letters patent to both the Presbyterian and Episcopalian clergy, determining the conditions upon which they must join together. In the letter of February 1690, addressed to the General Assembly, his Majesty says to the highest judicatory of the church, “We have thought good to signify our pleasure to you, that you make no distinction of men, otherwise well qualified for the ministry, who are willing to join with you in the acknowledgment of, and submission to the government of church and state, as it is by law now established, though they have formerly complied to the introducing of episcopacy; and that ye give them no disturbance upon that head.”

In the letter of the 15th June thereafter, it is ordained, “That neither the Assembly, nor any commission or church meeting, do meddle in any process or business that may concern the purging out of episcopal ministers.”

In the letter of January 1692, to the Episcopal clergy, the language is equally dictatorial. “We doubt not of your applying to, and heartily meeting and concurring with your brethren, the Presbyterian ministers, in the TERMS WHICH WE HAVE BEEN AT PAINS TO ADJUST for you.”

It is provided, too, by act of parliament, “That none he admitted or continued ministers, who do not take the oaths thereby prescribed, and observe uniformity of worship, &c. as the same are, or shall he allowed by authority of parliament.” [William and Mary, Par. 1. Sess. 4. Act 23.]

The civil power determines, of its own accord, the rule of faith to be professed by those ministers who are thus admitted or continued, and for the whole church in which they serve. Without ever calling an Assembly, and without any reference to former ecclesiastical acts, the parliament read and voted the Westminster Confession of Faith as the public confession of both church and nation. [Par. 1690.]

The king and parliament, no doubt, with the aid of the Lords spiritual, have provided for all the clergy of the Presbyterian establishment, the form of prayer to be used for the king and the royal family; and it must be used under pain of exclusion from the ministry of the church. [1695, Act 23. 1700, Act 2. and 1706, Act 6.] Nor is this the only case in which the civil power assumes the right of deposing ministers from the pastoral charge, however well they may be received by their people, and however great the attachment between them and their flocks. Ministers who did not appear before a certain day prescribed by the act, [Act 27. Sess. 5. Parl. I. William and Mary.] “are hereby, ipso facto, deprived of their respective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant without any further sentence.” Under a similar penalty, queen Anne enforced the oath of abjuration. George I. extended the requisition to students on trial, to schoolmasters, and to all masters in the universities. [Act 6. 1706.] George II. required an act [Act 1737.] relative to a certain Capt. Porteus, to be read from all the pulpits in Scotland, once on every Lord’s day for a whole year, “and in case,” the act of parliament says, “such minister shall neglect to read this act, he shall for the first offence be declared incapable of sitting or voting in any church judicatory; and for the second offence, be declared incapable of taking, holding, or enjoying any ecclesiastical benefice.”

The exercise of Erastian supremacy extends to the settlement of ministers in a congregation. It is not there, as in this country. The people do not elect their own pastor. The appointment is vested originally in the crown, although usually transferred into a few of the most noble and wealthy in the land. The patron gives the church to his friend; and if the people make any opposition, a company of armed men induct the pastor into office. “The Pope,” said a distinguished lawyer, “claimed the right of the patronage of every kirk, to which no third party could show a special title; but since the reformation, the crown, as coming in place of the Pope, is considered as universal patron, where no right of patronage appears in a subject.”[15]

I have only further to observe, that the king summons at his pleasure, the supreme judicatories of the church; adjourns and dissolves them as much as the civil legislature. In ordinary cases, they who compose the General Assembly, are sufficiently obsequious, and are of course permitted to meet and depart at a certain season of the year without compulsion: but instances have repeatedly occurred, when the fact was otherwise, and the uniform tenor of the commission under which they meet, maintains the supremacy of the crown.[16]

I dismiss this disagreeable subject, with a quotation from the public records of two respectable bodies of professed Christians in the British empire. From their words you will immediately perceive, that while I am describing the Erastianism of the constitution of government, I speak the language, not of an individual, but of churches, even in that country.

I begin with the judicial declaration of THE SECESSION CHURCH.

“It is peculiarly incumbent upon every civil state whereunto Christianity is introduced, to study and bring to pass, that civil government among them, in all the appurtenances of its constitution and administration, run in an agreeableness to the word of God; be subservient unto the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and to the interests of the true religion. By the good hand of God, the estates of England, but more especially of Scotland, were inspired with a noble and predominant zeal for the house of God, in all its valuable institutions: and attained to a considerable pitch of civil reformation subservient to the same. It is observable that in Scotland, the reformation of the church hath always, in a beautiful order, preceded and introduced the reformation of the state.”

“It was not long, till this beautiful work was smothered, by the woeful apostacy at, and after, the restoration of king Charles II.”

“The fatal overthrow of the former civil reformation; the devastation of the house and heritage of God; the unparalleled course of perjury, treachery, tyranny, against the King, cause, and subjects of Zion, and against the liberties of mankind; are laid open in the act and testimony. It is to be feared, the guilt thereof is still lying upon the throne, the body politic, and all ranks in these lands.”

“Thus our ancient civil reformation has been apostatized from, and grievously defaced—great guilt and wrath from the Lord is still lying and increasing upon the body politic. Moreover, as our civil settlement has been thus corrupted, so it hath natively issued in a course of defective and corrupt administrations. All the legal securities given to this church, from 1638 to 1650, were overlooked; such were retained in places of public trust, and in military office, as were enemies to our reformation, and had been deeply involved in the horrid defection, persecution, and bloodshed of the former period. The power and privileges of the church were encroached upon, as indeed by the act 1592, according to which presbytery was settled at the revolution, the Assembly is deprived of power, where the king or his commissioner are present, to nominate and appoint time and place for their next meeting.”

A very sinful and sad encroachment was made upon the costly and valuable privileges of the Lord’s people, and a door opened for the corruption of the church, and the ruin of souls, while the right of patronages, which had been abolished in the year 1649, was again restored. This kingdom hath be come subject to a parliament, whereof the bishops of England are constituent members; and an attempt is made to force the members of this church unto an approbation of the English hierarchy. A bold and fatal encroachment was made, 1737, upon the headship of Zion’s King, by that Erastian act anent Capt. John Porteus.[17] By the above-mentioned apostacy and corruption in the settlement and administration of the present civil government, the measure of guilt upon the body politic, and their Legislators is greatly filled up.” These quotations are from GIB’S DISPLAY OF THE SEC[ESSION] TEST[IMONY] Vol. I. p. 230—289. They speak the language of all Seceders, whether in Europe or America. Indeed, as to the moral character of the constitution of government in that country, there has not been much diversity of opinion among pious men who understand it. All admit its impiety.

The following quotation shows the light in which the Reformed Presbyterian Church, in the British dominions, view the national government.

“When Henry VIII. of England, cast off the authority of the See of Rome, he did, at the same time, assume to himself all that power in his dominions, which the Pope formerly claimed; and soon afterwards procured to have himself acknowledged and declared by act of parliament, to be HEAD OF THE CHURCH. This antichristian Supremacy has ever since continued an essential part of the English constitution, and inherent right of the crown. The British monarch confines not his spiritual supremacy to the church of England, but extends it also over the church of Scotland.” [Act, Declaration and Testimony. 1797. p. 76.]

“In the revolution of 1688, the settlement of religion is not a religious, but a mere civil and political one. It appears quite inconsistent with the revolution settlement, to consider church power in any other light, than as subordinate to the power of the state. [Idem. p. 60—62.] We have the idolatrous institutions of Prelacy, established in the one nation; and Erastianism, under the specious pretext of Presbytery, in the other: and both under an exotic head of ecclesiastical government. As the Constitutions, of both church and state, were Erastian and antiscriptural; so their conduct ever since has been agreeable thereto; tending evidently to discover that, while the state is robbing our Redeemer of his crown, and his church of her liberties, the church, instead of testifying against, gives consent to these impieties. [P. 63.] It would be endless to attempt an enumeration of all the instances of the exercise of Erastianism, which is annually renewed. How often, alas! have the Assemblies been prorogued, raised, and dissolved, by magistratical authority, and sometimes without nomination of another diet! How frequently, also, have they been restricted in their proceedings, and prelimited as to members, and matters to be treated of and discussed therein; depriving some members of their liberty to sit and act as members, though regularly chosen! all which exercise of Erastian supremacy natively results from the parliamentary settlement.” [P. 64.]

6. If the congress of the United States, in the year 1776, were correct in ascribing CRUELTY to the policy of the British government, it is easy to show the continuance of the same disposition until the present day.

In the Declaration of Independence, the Fathers of American liberty assert, that “the history of the present king of Great Britain, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries, to complete the work of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun, with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.” [Declaration of American Independence.]

England is secure in her vast possessions in Asia; and such is the frame of government for her territories in the East, as rarely to admit of discussion, either in the parliament or in her newspapers. Therefore popular feeling is never excited about the operations of peace and war in that country, as it is about the several events which come to pass in the kingdoms of Europe. Among the princes of Hindostan [India], Great Britain has rioted for half a century, with a policy most cruel and perfidious, without provoking discussion, or commanding general attention, either in England or America. There, under the plausible plea, which tyranny never fails to employ, of granting protection for territory to the weaker states, the British power has effected more revolutions in the course of a few years, than have been effected in Europe since the troubles in France commenced. The native sovereignties of India have been deceived, divided, and conquered: and their only recompense for the power and the territory which they surrendered, consists in the loss of their liberty and independence.

The usurpations, and the rapacity, and cruelty ascribed to the late Emperor of France, are exceeded in degree and permanence by the British government of India. In a political point of view, the miseries of Asia are not immediately interesting; but in the estimate of moral character, the remoteness from us of the scene of action, must not prevent our taking these enormities into the account. In relation to them, the most abject flatterers of British greatness have no apology to offer. These are not defensive wars. They are the offspring of the lust of power and of wealth. None of the Nabobs of the Carnatic or of Oude,[18] neither Timur, the hero of Paniput,[19] nor Tippoo Sultan,[20] nor the Great Mogul,[21] ever threatened an invasion of the islands of Britain and Ireland. “To interfere actively in the domestic affairs of all other states; to regulate the succession of their governors; to take part in every quarrel; to claim the lands of one party for assisting him, and seize the lands of the other, after beating him; to get allies by force, and take care that nobody shall rob them but ourselves; to quarter troops up on our neighbours, and pay them with our neighbours’ goods—This it is that we call Roman policy. While Tippoo is despoiled for befriending the French, and the Nizam[22] is despoiled for befriending the English; while Holkar is despoiled for beating the Peishwa, and the Peishwa is despoiled for being beaten by Holkar[23]—Who is it that is enriched by befriending and beating them all?” [Edinburgh Review. Vol. vi. p. 469.] England—England is enriched. This, and not self-defense, is the cause of war in the East Indies. War is a judgment of heaven upon the nations that are engaged in carrying it on. Britain is seldom or ever at peace with other nations. She must, as a body politic, be a heinous transgressor. There is no avoiding the inference. God is just; and all his judgments are truth. Like ancient Home, the most criminal of nations. She holds the stakes for every game that is played by the sword and the cannon, and whoever loses or wins, she is ultimately the gainer by the quarrel. Providence will overrule; and they who thrive by the wages of iniquity, must expect a day of retribution.

England, I admit, enjoys within herself comparative prosperity. Her nobles are at ease and in affluence. Her merchants are opulent and prosperous. Her yeomanry, although burdened with taxation, are healthy, and industrious, and flourishing. Her manufacturers, though embarrassed by the American war, are still influential and wealthy. The spirit of liberty in England, and Scotland, and Ireland, has given way for a time to the claims of the crown; and for fear of foreign domination, the subjects submit, with resignation, to their doom. The judiciary, with the exception of that of Ireland, which has always, like a conquered province, been ruled with a rod of iron, is sufficiently independent to administer common justice. In Scotland and England, personal liberty is in a great measure enjoyed: and yet, even in relation to her domestic policy, Britain is very cruel.

In Ireland, for reasons of state, she persecutes the Catholics. It is not on account of their religion; for this she has always supported on the continent; but for their dissent from the English hierarchy, that the Irish are oppressed. She reduces the Presbyterians to pay tithes to an indolent, and often an absent and immoral priesthood, whom they neither know nor revere. In all her dominions, she restrains the spirit of independence and emigration, not by rendering home comfortable, but by laws and officers, who bind the intended emigrant as if by right, to the spot in which he was born. She authorizes bonds and captivity, by the pressgang, that secret, sudden, and formidable engine of despotic power, which seizes upon its victim unawares, and chains him to the wheels of the cannon—A system of oppression and cruelty, compared with which, the Conscription of Napoleon was equitable and desirable. A tour of hardships, foreseen, regulated by law, equable, because extending equally to all classes, is not to be compared to a sudden seizure, partial, unexpected, unprovided for, and without the hope of escape. Regular occasional service, however hard, is not to be compared to slavery without redress.

Cruelty is exercised also on the conscience. Although subjects have the contemptible permission, of living unmolested, by the king, while they are silent and submissive; yet the government makes a mockery of conscience; corrupts the morals of the subjects with ensnaring oaths of allegiance, repeated, and repeated; and constrains them to forego integrity of religious character, by partaking of the Sacramental Test as the price of admission to power.

There is one other feature of British policy, to which, under this head, 1 would direct your attention.

The English merchants and monopolists, are men of princely fortunes. They, with the lords of the soil, and of the political church of the land, (for such is the church of England as established by law,) may easily acquire a character for splendour and munificence. But how is it supported? Not by the islands of Great Britain. It is by the policy of that government relative to its trade. The commercial monopoly is the staff of pride and power. The usurpation of the seas is an art of injustice. It is a system of cruelty towards the weaker states, that drives them from the ocean. It is the cruelty of a licensed robber, that attacks the traveler upon the highway, and prevents him from prosecuting his journey to the market. This, this is the cause of war. Britain is rarely at peace, because she seeks the destruction of her neighbours’ commerce.

War is an evil It is a school of vice. It is nursery of debauchery. By it, cities are sacked, and countries laid waste. The dearest ties of kindred are unloosed, fathers made childless, children fatherless, and wives converted into widows. You see, brethren, some of its pernicious effects in this city: and you feel and lament the evil. You hear of greater evils in other parts of our land, during the short period since war has upon our part existed. You deprecate the calamity. You regret the policy which led to such a state of things. You are tempted to call in question entirely, the legitimacy of war. It is not surprising you should. What more cruel, and less congenial with the spirit of the gospel? But England is scarcely ever at peace. Such scenes are essential to her commercial greatness. Her naval superiority is her glory. From the Baltic to the Ganges, she is shedding human blood. And is she then innocent? The agonies, the cries, the death of a thousand victims, on the shores, on the seas, in the cities of the nations, are the concomitants of that immense opulence, which the traveler admired in Liverpool and London. Twenty years of peace, in the civilized world, would reduce Great Britain from her rank among the nations. Allow the continental powers of Europe a free and fair commerce; allow to these United States the unrestrained right of carrying their trade from sea to sea, and from nation to nation; allow to all the nations equal rights, while ploughing the deep, uninterrupted by the men of war, and the glory of England, like that of Tyre, shall sink to rise no more. Her policy is in war; and that policy is cruel.

CONCLUSION.

THAT NATION, the Government of which we have thus weighed in the balances, is, nevertheless, entitled to our Christian attention and admiration. There, the sciences and the arts are patronized and cultivated, and most liberally rewarded. There, among Christians of every denomination, is the honourable strife, who shall do most for promoting the diffusion of revealed truth throughout the world. There, treasure is collected, and hands are employed, for stretching over the perishing heathen the curtains of Zion. There, exists that noble institution, which exceeds anything that has hitherto been established by Christian exertions. THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY—A river of life, which, with its thousand streams, flows through every kingdom of the world, watering, refreshing, and fructifying, until the wilderness become like Eden, and the desert like the garden of the Lord. There, in despite of the immoral tendency of the laws; in despite of the public prostitution of religion; in despite of the pride, and the debauchery, and the licentiousness of the great; and of the misery, the baseness, the wickedness of the rabble, which prowl through the street of the populous cities;—there, exist much patriotism and courage, a feeling of personal liberty and independence, learning, and talent, and piety, and great domestic order and happiness.

We admit all this with pleasure; we pray for the prosperity of Christian men and Christian institutions; we are anxious to hold them up to others for imitation; we love them sincerely; and we supplicate the throne of grace for their promotion and permanence: but we do not admit them as a justification of the evils we have pointed out. They increase instead of diminishing the guilt of the government. It is the art of the writers of romance; it is the great evil of the drama, to introduce a character possessed of certain noble traits, that may palliate and recommend vice and impiety; and so pollute the morals of the unwary. Wo to them that call good evil, and evil good; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. We distinguish; we contrast the good with the bad: and while we admit and approve what is righteous among the people of those islands, we bear our decided testimony against the usurpation, the superstition, the apostacy, the Erastianism, and the cruelty of the British system of government.

I have now, my brethren, weighed in the balances, the British monarchy and the American republic, They are both found, in some instances, wanting. But the difference, in point of immorality, between them is great. There is scarcely any comparison. Our country has indeed transgressed, and we are at this moment suffering the chastisement which we deserve. The enemy is let loose upon our borders. God grant to us the sanctified use of the blow, and direct us to the means proper forwarding it off. May the God of heaven succeed our efforts, in the field, on the lakes, on the ocean, and in the councils of negotiation, for bringing the enemy to a sense of justice.

Should we suppose an intelligent man elevated to some spot in space, above the world, whence, without partiality to either of the belligerents, he could take a survey of both, and mark the contest between them—He would, upon principles of humanity, wish success to the most innocent in the combat. Independently of the causes which produced the strife, and of the consequences which would result, this must certainly be the wishes of a philanthropist on beholding the character of the parties at war. Did you see a youth of mild demeanour, and of known integrity, engaged with an experienced and long practiced boxer, who made a trade of boasting and of battle, you would instinctively wish that this youth might escape unhurt, or come off victorious. The inference I draw is, that, in the present contest, between the belligerents, described in this discourse, humanity wishes success to our own country.

To the causes and proximate consequences of the present war, I intend, hereafter, to turn your attention. Independently of these, our acquaintance with the national character of the parties, furnishes an argument in support of our hopes.

There is an eye above the earth, that knows the nations, that marks their conduct, that observes the strife. There is a Man, elevated above the world, with whom is no respect of persons, who is touched with the feelings of our infirmities, and will award to men and to empires their due. Christians, it is your Redeemer. Behold him on high, at the right hand of God, exalted above all principalities and powers. He is Prince of the kings of the earth. He rules in the battle. He directs the storm. He is mindful of individuals. He will save them that trust in him. He will bless and protect his church, while the nations are at war. He invites you to come under the shadow of his wings. There you shall have rest. His voice of peace is heard, while his hand controls the battle. Yes, brethren, while his Almighty finger writes upon the palace-w all this sentence against the nations, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN, to you lie says. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. AMEN.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The following remarks, made upon the British nation, by a very amiable and pious divine of the church of England, apply equally to this country. “The multiplicity of oaths which are interwoven into almost every branch of public business, involves thousands in the habitual guilt of perjury, which perhaps may eminently be styled our national sin. The frequency of oaths, the irreverent manner in which they are administered, and the impunity with which they are broken, have greatly contributed to weaken the sense of every moral obligation, and to spread a desolate and daring spirit through the land. The profanation of the Lord’s day, drunkenness, profane swearing, are contrary, not only to the precept of scripture, but to the laws of the land; and yet could hardly be more prevalent if there were no statutes in force against them. Very few magistrates are concerned to enforce the observation of these laws; and, if private persons sometimes attempt it by information, they meet but little success; they obtain but little thanks. The acts of pleading, the minutæs and niceties of forms, are employed to entangle or discourage them, and to skreen [screen] offenders.”

Newton’s Works, Phil. 1792. Fol. V. page 306.

[2] If it be true, as has been asserted, by men who had the opportunity of knowing the fact, that Benjamin Franklin proposed, in the convention, the introduction into the constitution, of an article professing submission to the Lord, and that he was overruled, the sin and the reproach on the part of his opponents is the greater. It is certainly true, that an administration, often said to be more friendly to Christianity, than that which has recently existed, has disclaimed that religion in the following words: viz. “The government 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 [i.e., Muslims].”

Tripol. Treaty, Art. 11. U. S. Laws, Vol. IV.

This treaty, ratified in the year 1797, was thereby made the supreme law of the land. Const. Art. 6. Sect. 2. In a discourse published in 1803, the author has vindicated Christ’s power over the nations.

[3] The author published a discourse on this text, in 1802.

[4] The Constitution of the United States declares, Art. I. Sect. 9. Clause 1. The migration, or importation of such persons, as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. Art. I. Sect. 2, Clause 3. Representatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons—three-fifths of all other persons.

[5] “The bible is my system of politics. There I read, that the Lord reigns; that he doth what he pleaseth in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; that no wisdom, understanding, counsel, or power, can prevail without his blessing; that, as righteousness exalteth a nation, so sin is the reproach, and will even totally be the ruin, of any people.” Newton.

[6] STUART’S Hist. Diss. concerning the English Constitution.

[7] The celebrated Mr. [William] Prynne, who valiantly contended in the British parliament for religion and liberty, under the reign of Charles I. and who vindicated, with his pen, the rights of the people upon scriptural principles, treats at great length upon this subject. After a learned and full examination of the history of the kings of Judah and Israel, he adds, “From all these texts, compared with Prov. xi. 14. & xv. 22. & xxv. 5. it is most apparent, that they were no absolute sovereign princes, paramount to their whole kingdoms, or the general senate or congregation of the people, or their sanhedrim; but inferior to them in power; and not only counselled, but overruled usually, by them, in all matters of public concernment.” Sov. Power of Parl. p. 141.

[Huldrych] Zuinglius, the first herald of the reformation, says, that “the people of Israel, although they called a king, reserved to themselves sufficient authority to overrule their king in those things which seemed needful for the public welfare. The kings of the Jews, and others, might be lawfully deposed by the people. If the king be created by common suffrages, he may again be deprived by common votes, unless they will be punished with him.” Tom. I. Art. 42. quoted by Prynne.

The learned Stephanus J. Brutus, in his Vindiciæ contra tyrannos, in answer to Machiavel, writes, “As all the people are superior to the king, so are those officers of state who represent them collectively considered. In the kingdom of Israel they had elders and captains elected out of all the tribes, who had the care of the commonwealth, both in peace and in war—neither could anything be determined without their advice, which much concerned the commonwealth. And because they represented all the people, all the people are then said to have assembled together.” Quest. 3. p. 94—97.

[Carolus] Sigonius is the last writer I shall quote, in this connection. “The kings of the Israelites were created by the suffrages of the people—although the kingdom of Judah was in a sense hereditary, yet it was confirmed by the suffrages of the people.” Rep. Heb. Lab. 7. Cap. 3.

[8] That the representative system, in a greater or less degree, met with the views of the several nations, is obvious from the works of the ablest writers. Andrew Horne, an eminent English lawyer in the reign of Edward I. says, “A king is created and elected to do justice, that the first kings of England had thirty-eight companions, comites, or COUNTS, the first officers of so many counties, who collectively representing the whole kingdom, were above the king.”

Chancellor [John] Fortescue, in a work addressed to Henry VI. describes the kingdom as a body politic, of which the king is head, and the public will the heart or seat of life. “The king cannot change the laws of that body, or withdraw their substance from them against their wills. He is ordained for the defense of the laws. He receiveth power from his people. Of their own free will they submitted to the government of a king, only to the end that they might thereby maintain themselves with more safety.” De Laud. Reg. Cap. 9.

[Marius] Salamonius uses these words, “The whole kingdom and people are the original supreme sovereign power, by whose common consent and authority, all lawful kings and kingdoms were at first created and instituted, and from whom they derived all their regal jurisdiction.” Sal. de Principales, Lib. 1. p. 1—6.

[Hugo] Grotius represents the people as originally, sui juris, entitled to dispose of the government as they shall think meet—“it being a thing in its own nature not capable of an occupancy, nor seizable by any, unless the people will voluntarily desert their own liberty.” De Jure. bel. and pac. l. 3. c. 15.

“Now verily, since kings are constituted by the people, all the people are better and greater than the king. He who receiveth authority from another is inferior to his author. In the republic, which is compared to a ship, the king is the captain, the people the owner. To him, holding the helm, the people submit, when not withstanding he ought to be accounted a servant.” Jun. Brut. Vindi. con.tyrran. quest. 3. p. 41.

[9] The population of Great Britain and Ireland, is computed at fifteen millions. Of these, upwards of two are paupers. Upwards of one half the remainder is of the female sex. And of the males of mature years, which cannot be computed as far exceeding three millions, one out of six is in the pay of government. The offices in church and state, in the army, the navy, and the colonies, are filled by not less that half a million of men, deriving from the patronage of the crown not less than one hundred millions of dollars a year. These have friends and connections; and there are many office-hunters depending upon the patronage of the crown. The evil is of course enormous. Scarcely will one hundred thousand independent electors he found in the united kingdoms. In England there are only, altogether, one hundred and sixty thousand freeholders. King’s Tables.

“What then,” I use the words of a distinguished patriot of the revolution, “What is the majority of their parliament, but a flagitious combination of ministerial hirelings, conspired to erect the Babel of despotism upon the ruins of the beautiful fabric of law.” Gov. Livingston.

[10] Mr. John Newton, a minister of the church of England, preached a sermon on this text in the parish church of St. Mary Woolnoth, Feb. 21, 1781, in which he spoke as follows: “The Test and Corporation Acts, which require every person who has a post under government, or a commission in the army or navy, to qualify himself for his office, by receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, would occasion no sin, if men were generally influenced by the fear of God, or even a principle of integrity. They would then rather decline places of honour or profit, than accept of them upon such terms. We frequently see professed infidels and notorious libertines, approach the Lord’s Table as a matter of course, and prostitute the most solemn ordinance of Christianity to their ambition or interest. I am afraid we have been long guilty of a contemptuous profanation of the body and blood of Christ.” Vol. V. pp. 3, 5.

“A man cannot be an exciseman, a custom-house officer, a lieutenant in the army or navy, no, not so much as a tide-waiter, without putting on the most distinguishing badge of Christianity, according to the usage of the church of England. Is not this a strong temptation to profanation and hypocrisy? Does it not pervert one of the most solemn institutions of religion?” Neal’s Hist. Pur. Vol. IV. p. 539.

[11] “Bishop Warburton informs us, from Selden de Synedris, that Erastus’s famous book de excommunicatione was purchased by Whitgift, of Erastus’s widow in Germany, and put by him to the press in London, under fictitious names of both the place and the printer.” Supplemental Vol. Warburt. Works, p. 473.

[12] These are the words of Neal, in his history of the Puritans who also confirms the remarks I have made. Vol. I. p. 510.

[13] This was the substance of the petition signed by seven hundred ministers in the year 1641. The parliament were of the same mind, and claimed the power of reforming the church as an inherent right.

[14] In that venerable Assembly of Divines, which compiled our admirable Confession of Faith and other ecclesiastical standards, the very learned [John] Selden had a seat. He, assisted by the counsel, and the rabbinical learning of [Thomas] Coleman and [John] Lightfoot, and supported by the national feelings, and the prejudices or opinions of the parliament, argued the cause of Erastianism in the GRAND DEBATE upon ecclesiastical order. The question excited immense interest; the whole church, a great nation, awaited the result with anxiety.

George Gillespie, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and a commissioner to the Assembly from the church of Scotland, was observed to be engaged occasionally with his pen, while Selden spoke. It was supposed he was taking notes of the argument. He, too, was learned, and of great reading; but he was young, pious, modest, and a stranger in London. He had not acquired celebrity. Some of the most grave and pious divines had a previous opportunity of satisfying themselves as to his views of divine truth. They knew the sentiments of the church which he represented, to be anti-erastian. They went to his chair, and requested him to speak. They inquired if he had taken notes. He was silent. They saw the paper on which he had written. The only words upon it were, GIVE LIGHT, LORD, AND DIRECTION. These were often repeated, “Rise, George,” said a venerable friend, “Rise and defend your principles, your country, your church, and the kingdom of your God—Rise up, man, and defend the right of the Lord Jesus Christ to govern, by his own laws, the church which he purchased with his blood. Mr. Gillespie complied. He began by giving a summary of the argument of his learned antagonist, distinguishing the several principles which it involved, and then requested to be corrected if he made an unfair statement. Selden replied, if Mr. Gillespie will refute these principles with the same accuracy with which he has stated them, the controversy is over. Mr. Gillespie had in his hand a two-edged sword. He contended successfully for the prerogatives of his Redeemer’s crown, and the independency of Christ’s kingdom. He triumphed. Mr. Selden himself observed, with astonishment, “This young man by his speech has swept away the learning and labour of my life.” Erastianism was condemned, and presbytery established by the Westminster Assembly.

The parliament was unwilling to yield. There, Mr. Selden had also a seat. His hand was seen in the scruples and delays employed in the House of Commons against the establishment of the Presbyterian regimen. The Scottish commissioners remonstrated. The London ministers also petitioned. Commissioners from parliament met with a committee of the Assembly; but to the exertions of Mr. [Alexander] Henderson, another of the Scottish commissioners; supported by the voice of Scotland, and the fear of losing the co-operation of the Scottish army in the war against the royalists, the reluctant acquiescence of the English parliament is to be ascribed.

[15] Erskine’s Prin. Law. of Scot. Book I, Tit. 5.

[16] The style is, “Thus seeing by our decree, an Assembly is to meet, &c.”

[17] This man commanded the town-guard of Edinburgh. Piqued at the populace, he ordered his men to fire upon them, and killed and wounded many. He was tried and condemned by the civil authority, to suffer death as a murderer. He was a base man. The king reprieved him. The people took him from prison, and gave him a public execution. Every minister was commanded to read from the pulpit, a declaration of parliament upon this subject, offering a reward for a discovery of any one concerned in the deed. Not one was ever discovered. Scotland had no informers.

[18] [Nabobs were wealthy Englishmen of the East India Company whose misrule and extravagance led to problems governing the Indian subcontinent. Carnatic and Oude refer to the southern and eastern regions of India respectively. There was a common fear that these wealthy nabobs were seeking to undermine the English Parliament.]

[19] [Timur was a 14th century nomadic conqueror whose armies were feared throughout Asia, Europe and Africa.]

[20] [Tipu Sultan was an 18th century ruler in southern India who won several important victories against the British.]

[21] [The Great Mogul was the ruler of the empires of Moguls in 16th century India.]

[22] [This was a title held by the rulers of certain Indian states under Mogul rule and, later, under British rule.]

[23] [This references the prince Malhar Rao Holkar of the Indore state, a royal state in India. He was given this territory by the Peshwas, the leaders of the Maratha empire of the Indian subcontinent.]

tags War Sermons

Contact Us

Database

The Moral Character of the Two Belligerents.

December 7, 2019James Dodson

SERMON II.

FOOTNOTES:

Contact Us

Reformed Presbyterian Church (Covenanted) - "Steelite" Covenanters

Database

The Moral Character of the Two Belligerents.

December 7, 2019James Dodson

SERMON II.

FOOTNOTES: