PREFACE.

THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CATECHISM is, to a considerable extent, a compilation. The author, without hesitation, has laid under contribution every author to whom he had access, of any distinction, who has written upon the peculiar principles of the REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. He is indebted chiefly to Drs. WM. SYMINGTON, McLEOD, J.R. WILLSON, Mr. Mc[K]ENNY, and others. Yet there is a large portion of it original matter, drawn from manuscripts long since written. The compilation has been the most difficult part of the performance. He has not declined to adopt the precise form of expression, or style of the respective writers. He does not consider the work a perfect performance. It may call forth some one more competent to the complete execution of such a work. It may serve, however, until a better work is produced, the purpose of a manual of instruction, and a collection of arguments and facts confirming and illustrating the “Distinctive Principles” of the church of which he is a minister. The author is aware of its defects, and will not be vexed by criticisms: but earnestly requests those who find fault to labor diligently for the production of a better, which he will hail with pleasure.

WM. L. ROBERTS.

[INTRODUCTION]

INTRODUCTION.

Question. How many are the peculiar and more prominent principles of the Reformed Presbyterian church?

Answer. TWELVE.

Q. What are these?

A. The doctrines of

1. Christ’s Mediatorial Dominion in general.

2. his Exclusive Headship over the Church.

3. The supremacy and ultimate authority of the word God in the church.

4. Civil government a moral ordinance of God.

5. Christ’s headship over the nations.

6. The subjection of the nations to God and to Christ.

7. The word of God the supreme rule in the state.

8. The duty of nations to acknowledge and support the true Christian religion.

9. The spiritual independence of the Church of Christ.

10. The right and duty of dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government.

11. The duty of social covenanting, and the permanent obligation of religious covenants.

12. The application of these doctrines in the form of a practical testimony, to the civil governments where Reformed Presbyterians reside.

Q. What is meant by “peculiar” principles?

A. Those which distinguish Reformed Presbyterians from other Christian denominations.

Q. What is meant by “prominent” principles?

A. Those which, though hold by some other denominations, are not made practically a part of their testimony.

[ON CHRIST'S MEDIATORIAL DOMINION IN GENERAL]

SECTION I.-On Christ’s Mediatorial Dominion in General.

Q. What is the import of the title mediator given to Jesus Christ?

A. It is all official title, which exhibits Christ as transacting between God and man for man’s salvation; and in the discharge of the functions of this office, he acts in the capacity of the Father’s servant. 1 Tim. ii. 5. There is but one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Heb. xii. 24. To Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. Isa. xlii. 1. Behold my servant whom I uphold: applied to Christ, Matt. xii. 18. Isa. liii. 11. “My righteous servant.”

Q. What is the dominion of Christ?

A. The authority, or unlimited power, which he possesses over the creatures.

Q. What is his mediatorial dominion?

A. Not that which essentially belongs to him as God, but that with which he has been officially invested as the Messiah, by the authoritative act of the Father.

Q. What is the essential dominion of Christ?

A. It is that which pertains to him as the Son of God, a Person in the Godhead, and is the same with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost, original, inherent, and underived.

Q. His mediatorial dominion is, then, that which was delegated, conferred by gift, bestowed by the Father, in short, “the government” which was “laid upon his shoulders,”—that “power” which was “given him in heaven and in earth?”

A. Yes. Because, as the Son of God essentially viewed, he cannot be the recipient of a gift, “but is equal in power and glory with the Father.”

Q. Do his essential and mediatorial kingdom differ in matter or extent?

A. No. They are really the same, both in matter and extent; the difference consists in this: The kingdom over which he, as the Son of God, rules by inherent and original right, he is, as mediator, authorized to manage and direct, for a new end, namely, the salvation of men, and the best interests of the church.

Q. By whom was Christ appointed to this mediatorial dominion?

A. By the Father. Ps. ii. 6. “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” Luke xxii. 29. “My Father hath appointed unto me a kingdom.” See John v. 20, 27.

Q. When was he appointed?

A. From all eternity. Prov. viii. 23. “I was act up from everlasting.” See Ps. ii. 6, 7. Mai. v. 2.

Q. In what transaction?

A. In the covenant of grace. Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4. “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations.”

Q. What is this covenant?

A. It comprises the whole scheme agreed upon by the divine persons for the salvation of fallen man.

Q. In what capacity did the Father make this appointment?

A. As the representative of Deity in the economy of redemption.

Q. Did not this appointment proceed from the Father necessarily and originally by an inherent right?

A. No. This would be at variance with the perfect equality subsisting among the divine persons.

Q. Were the divine persons designated to their respective economical characters and offices by a sovereign Act of the divine will, essentially considered?

A. Yes. For this presupposed act preserves inviolate the essential equality of the persons in the Godhead.

Q. Has not all power and authority been, by this sovereign act of the divine will, economically vested in the Father?

A. Yes.

Q. Does this appointment of the Son proceed formally from this economical authority with which the Father is thus invested?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it not necessary to suppose that the Son was designated to his mediatory office and dominion by the above mentioned sovereign act of the divine will?

A. Yes. For this view of the case preserves inviolate the voluntariness of the Son in the whole transaction, as well as his equality with the Father.

Q. What is the first source of proof of the reality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Several interesting prefigurations of his royal authority.

Q. Was not Melchizedec one of these instructive types of Christ’s dominion?

A. Yes. He was a distinguished type of Christ. Ps cx. 4. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec.”

Q. How is it evident that he was a type of Christ’s royal dominion?

A. In three ways. 1. The import of his name, Heb. vii. 2. “King of righteousness.” Beautifully prefiguring Christ as the Sun of righteousness—the sceptre of whose kingdom is a right sceptre. 2. His designation “King of Salem,” Heb. vii. 2. That is “King of Peace”—fitly representing Him who is designated the Prince of Peace. 3. His combining in his own person the royal and sacerdotal offices, he was a royal priest—a sacerdotal King, and suitable type of Him who, exercising his power upon the footing of his purchase, sits “a priest upon his throne.”

Q. Was Moses an eminent type of Christ in his mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. As “King in Jeshuran.” Jeshuran, which signifies “upright,” refers to the people of Israel, who were required and understood to possess this character. The Jewish legislator later thus typified Him, who, being “King in Zion,” rules among the upright in heart, and governs them in integrity and truth.

Q. Was David another of these royal types?

A. Yes. Particularly in his signal overthrow of Goliath the vaunting champion of the Philistines, in his valour in war, and wisdom and humanity in peace, in the principles and character of his administration, in which he led his people, according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands, and in the covenant of royalty he made with him and his seed forever.

Q. Wherein does David’s typical character most remarkably appear?

A. 1 . In the fact that the Messiah himself is repeatedly spoken of by the prophets under the very name of David Jer xxx. 9. “They shall serve the Lord their God, and their King, whom I will raise up unto them.” Hos iii, 5 “Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their King; and shall fear Lord and his goodness in the latter days.” See also Ezek. xxxiv. 24. 2. In the fact that Christ in his incarnation described as recovering the throne of David his father according to the flesh. Luke i. 32, 33.

Q. Was not Solomon the most illustrious type of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. In the wisdom of his administration—the extent of territory over which he reigned—the wealth of his subjects and the peacefulness of his reign, He was a remarkable of the Messiah—so much so that in Song iii. 11, Christ is designated by his name, “Go forth ye daughters of Zion behold King Solomon with the crown wherewith his crowned him in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.”

Q. What is the second source of proof of the reality of Christ’s mediatorial rule?

A. Prophecy is a fruitful source of evidence in favour of his royalty.

Q. Which is the first proof from this source?

A. The very first prediction, Gen. iii. 15. “It,” the seed of the woman, “shall bruise thy head,” is conceived in terms which allude to the ancient mode by which victorious kings expressed their conquests, namely, by placing their feet upon the necks of their vanquished foes.

Q. Which is the second proof from prophecy?

A. The language of the patriarch Jacob, Gen. xlix. 10. “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver front between his feet until Shiloh come,” clearly imports that, on Christ, at his coming, shall devolve that judicial and legislative authority which had been previously exercised by others.

Q. Which is the third evidence from this source?

A. The prophecy of Balaam, Num. xxiv. 17. “There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre (the emblem of regal power) shall rise out of Israel.”

Q. Which is the fourth proof from prophecy?

A. The declaration of David in the second psalm, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” Applied to Christ, Acts iv. 25, 26.

Q. Which is the fifth proof?

A. The forty-fifth psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Messiah, and in which the royal character is sustained throughout: verses 1, 3, 6. “I speak of the things which I have made touching the King—gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. Thy throne, God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” Applied to Christ, Heb. i. 8.

Q. Which is the sixth proof, among many others which may be adduced from prophecy?

A. The forty-seventh psalm, which undoubtedly refers to the Lord Jesus in his ascension from the mount of Olives, “God is gone up with a shout,” and in which also the regal character is sustained throughout: verses 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, &c. “The Lord most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth—he shall subdue the people under us, and the nations under our feet; sing praises unto our King, for God is the King of all the earth; God reigneth over the heathen; God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.”

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ afford another source of proof in favour of his mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. They afford ample and conclusive testimony.

Q. Which is the first title?

A. He is designated “Lord” Acts ii. 11, “God hath made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Q. Which is the second title?

A. Leader and Commander. Is. lv. 4, “I have given him for a witness to the people; a Leader and Commander to the people.”

Q. Which is the third title?

A. He is entitled Judge. Is. xxxiii. 22, “The LORD is our Judge.”

Q. Which is the fourth title?

A. He is denominated a Ruler. Mic. v. 2, “Out of thee, (Bethlehem Ephratah) shall he come forth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel.”

Q. Which is his fifth title?

A. He is called the “Captain of the Hosts of the LORD.” Josh, v. 14.

Q. Which is his sixth title?

A. “Prince of the kings of the earth;” “King of kings.” Rev. i. 5, xvii. 14, xix. 16, “Jesus Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth,—the Lamb is Lord of lords, and King of kings,—he hath on his vesture and thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.”

Q. Does not Christ himself claim this dominion?

A. Yes. John xviii. 37. “Thou sayest, (Pilate,) I am a king. To this end was I born.”

Q. Does not the Father acknowledge his claim?

A. Yes. Ps. xxi. 3, Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11, “Thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head.” “Wherefore God also bath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

Q. Do not angels proclaim his sovereignty?

A. Yes. Luke i. 31-33, Rev. v. 11, 12. Gabriel thus proclaims his glory: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.”

Q. Did not the wise men of the east recognize his royalty, and perform an act of homage?

A. Yes. They proclaimed him “King of the Jews,” and unfolding their gifts, laid them at his feet,. Matt. ii. 2.

Q. Did not Nathaniel witness this good confession?

A. Yes. He confessed he was “the King of Israel.” John. i. 49.

Q. Does not Paul make the like confession?

A. Yes. He proclaims him “the King eternal.” 1 Tim. i. 17.

Q. Do not his enemies proclaim his great dominion?

A. Yes. The Jewish multitude rent the air with their shouts as he entered into Jerusalem, crying, “Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord!” The Roman soldiers unwittingly bore their part as they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” And Pontius Pilate inscribed upon his cross the unalterable title, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews,” Jno. xix. 12,—a title which was, perhaps, the principal means of conveying to the malefactor that knowledge of the Saviour’s character which led to his Conversion.

Q. Are not royal appendages assigned him?

A. Yes. He has a kingdom, a throne, a radiant crown. He sways a sceptre, the symbol of royal authority, and hath a numerous and glorious retinue. Ps. xlv. 5, 6; cii. 2; ii 9; xxi.; viii. 5; cxxxii. 18; Rev. iii. 21; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Lu ii. 13, 14; Ps. lxviii. 17; Dan. viii. 10; Jude, 14.

Q. What is the extent of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. It is universal.

Q. Is it not limited to the church?

A. No. The church is the special kingdom of Christ - the great central province of his empire, around which other provinces are made to revolve. Therefore, the dominion of Christ necessarily extends beyond its hallowed precincts Eph. i. 22, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.”

Q. Why is it necessary that Christ’s mediatorial dominion should extend beyond the limits of the church, or be universal?

A. It is necessary, 1. That he might give a general commission to his ministers to go forth among the hostile nations and preach his gospel. Matt xxviii. 18, 19, “power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go therefore, and teach all nations.” 2. That he might gather from among them his elect. Jno. xvii. 2, “Glorify thy Son as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” 3. As a reward of his mediatorial sufferings. Rev. iii. 21, “To that, overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father on his throne.” See also Phil, ii. 8, 9. 4. To subdue all his own and his people’s enemies. “He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet,” 1 Cor. xv. 26.

Q. Is not the gospel call, as it is general to all that hear it, founded rather upon Christ’s kingly than his priestly office?

A. Yes; for Christ says, Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth: go ye, then and teach.” The commission to teach, or preach, proceeded evidently from his universal dominion.

Q. Does not this view of the matter obviate the objection made to the doctrine of a definite atonement, derived from the fact of the call being general?

A. Yes. Because the ambassadors are not authorized to declare, as the ground of Christ’s invitation to those addressed, to believe, that Christ died for them, but that he died for sinners, and, as Lord of all, Christ, by them, commands all men, who hear the voice of the gospel, to believe and repent.

Q. In how many ways can you prove the universality of Christ’s mediatorial dominion?

A. Two. 1. From those passages which assert its universality in general terms. 2. From those which describe the various departments or provinces of his dominion.

Q. Which are the passages of the first class?

A. They are, 1. Mat. xi. 27, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” 2. Mat. xxviii. 18, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” 3. Acts x. 30, “He is Lord of all.” 4. Eph. i. 22, “And hath put all things under his feet.” 5. Col. ii. 10, “He is the head of all principality and power.” 6. 1 Cor. xv. 27, “He hath put all things under his feet.” 7. Heb. ii. 8, “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.”

Q. Is it not Christ’s essential dominion of which these passages treat?

A. No. It is his mediatorial dominion.

Q. How does this appear?

A. The terms “delivered,” “given,” “put,” designate his mediatory office; because, as the Son essentially considered, he cannot have authority conferred upon him, for as such he is equal with the Father, and all power belongs to him originally and inherently; but as mediator, the Father’s servant, he is properly the subject of a gift.

Q. How do these passages prove the universality of his Mediatorial dominion?

A. 1. The word all occurring so frequently designates this universality. 2. There is but one exception made-the Father, “who put all things under him,” which confirms the doctrine, as all beside the Father, (even the Spirit, who is called the Spirit of the Son), are made subject to Christ for mediatorial purposes.

Q. Is not this subjection of the Spirit in the fullest sense voluntary?

A. Yes. As that of the Son to the Father, it is altogether economical; a part of that covenant arrangement from all everlasting between the Persons in the Godhead. He is still the “free Spirit.”

Q. Of how many provinces does Christ’s mediatorial dominion consist?

A. It consists of seven. 1. The inanimate creation. Ps. viii. 6, “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet.” Mat. viii. 27, “But the men marvelled, saying, what manner of man is this, that even the winds and sea obey him?” 2. The irrational tribes. Ps. viii. 7, “All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field.” Heb. ii. 6-8. 3. All good angels. 1 Pet. iii. 22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject unto him.” See also Is. vi. 1, 2; Heb. i. 4 ; Rev. v. 11, 12 ; Heb. i. 14. 4. The wicked angels. Luke x. 17, 18, “And the seventy returned with joy, Saying, Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name and he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” See Mat. viii. 28; Rev xii. 9, 10; Col. ii. 15. 5. All men. Jno. xvii. 2, “Power over all flesh” (flesh, the human race at large). Ps. ii. 8, “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen (THE NATIONS) for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” See ver. 10, 12; xviii. 43. 6. All associations, particularly civil and ecclesiastical. Ps. lxxii. 10, 11, “The kings of Tarshish and the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts; yea, all kings shall fall down before him, and all nations shall serve him.” Dan. vii. 14, “And there was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” Col. i. 18, “He is the head of the body, the church.” 7. The kingdom of providence. Rev. v. The sealed book of the divine purposes, respecting the church and the world, is put into the hands of the Lamb, and he rules in their accomplishment.

Q. For what end is Christ invested with this universal dominion?

A. That he should render the whole administration of providence subservient to the erection, progress, and final perfection of his special kingdom, the church.

Q. What is the true nature of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom?

A. It is a spiritual kingdom.

Q. What is the proper definition of its spirituality?

A. It is a kingdom not designed merely to promote man’s corporeal and temporal interests, but chiefly the best interests of his immortal nature?

Q. In what respects is it spiritual?

A. It is spiritual, 1. In its origin. It is not from men by any mode by which men convey authority—but his dominion originates solely from the spiritual grant of the Father from all everlasting in the covenant of grace. 2. In its ends—which are, in substance, To gather his church—to protect it on earth—to sanctify the hearts and lives of her members, and to render subservient all secular things (even civil rule), to the spiritual and eternal interests of men. Eph. i. 22. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church. 3. In its administration. As to the ecclesiastical department. Its officers are pastors and teachers, elders and deacons (spiritual officers to administer all the temporalities of the church), persons endowed with ministerial authority, whose weapons are not carnal but spiritual (instruction, advice, censure and remonstrance)—and as it respects the civil department, those who bear rule according to his ordinance are the ministers of God, and are just, ruling in the fear of the Lord—whilst the rule in both cases is the same—The Law of the Lord.

Q. Is civil government a spiritual dominion?

A. Civil government is not strictly spiritual as it is in a good measure occupied about man’s temporal interests, but as it is subjected to Christ, among the all things put under his feet, it is designed to subserve, in his hands, the religious as well as temporal interests of the human race.

Q. Is the mediatorial dominion of Christ in such a sense spiritual that it can have no sort of connection with the world, or with things, that are secular?

A. By no means; because, 1. Even it portion of the most spiritual of its subjects, regenerate men, for a time, have their residence on the earth, and are occupied with secular things; and their bodies are earthly and nourished by carnal things. 2. Besides, there are things specified in the grant of dominion, which are strictly and literally worldly and secular, Ps. viii. 6-8. “Thou hast put all things under his feet: all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.”

Q. Is not his kingdom deprived of a portion of its spirituality, and secularized by this connection?

A. Not in the least. Because whatever is connected with Christ’s kingdom, however carnal in its nature, is, in his infinite wisdom, and by his almighty power, somehow or other, rendered subservient to spiritual objects. Eph. i. 22. “And gave him to be head over all things to the church.”

Q. Does not Christ himself in John xviii. 36, (“My kingdom is not of this world,”) disclaim all connection between his kingdom and secular things?

A. By no means: Because, 1. His kingdom is in this world. Matt, xxviii. 18. “All power on earth, is given unto me.” His Church, his peculiarly spiritual kingdom, is in this world. 2. The world itself, is a part of his kingdom. Eph. i. 20, 21. “Hath set him at his own right hand, far above every name that is named—in this world.” 3. In its origin, (as stated above,) it is not of this world. This Christ himself affirms, in the disputed text. “But now is my kingdom, not from hence.” (Men do not confer authority upon him.) 4. It signifies that Christ is not to reign upon earth, seated upon a visible throne as earthly kings, defending his kingdom by armies—“else would my servants fight.” 5. His laws are not of this world. They are from heaven. “Its laws, its powers, are all divine.” 6. It is not of this world, as to its benign moral influence upon society. worldly kingdoms debase and enslave; this is designed to free, to elevate and sanctify the subject, and subordinates all things, to the eternal happiness of men. John viii. 32. 30. “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. If the Son, therefore, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” 2 Cor. iii. 17. “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 7. It is not of this world, as it is designed to overthrow all the kingdoms of this world, and put them under the dominion of his saints, that they may subserve the spiritual interests of men. -Dan. ii. 44. “And in the days of those (kingdoms) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms.” vii. 27. “And 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.” 8. The doctrine of the absolute spirituality of Christ’s kingdom, would deny Christians the right of holding any worldly property—engaging in any secular enterprise—or entering into any political connection whatever; because Christ says of them, using precisely the same phraseology, “ye are not of this world!” now such an interpretation is manifestly contradictory to scripture and common sense, in this case-it follows that it is equally so in the other.

Q. Do not other religious denominations, besides the Reformed Presbyterian, recognize in their systems the doctrine of Christ’s Mediatorial dominion?

A. Yes. A few others hold it in theory—but their theoretic profession is neutralized by a practical denial.—They do not make it a matter of testimony.

[CHRIST’S EXCLUSIVE HEADSHIP OVER THE CHURCH]

SECTION II.-Christ’s exclusive Headship over the Church.

Q. What is the radical idea of the term Church?

A. It is derived from the Hebrew word קָהָל and the Greek word εκκλησια the roots of which signify to call; and denotes any assembly convened by invitation or appointment.

Q. How is it used in the scriptures?

A. It is variously employed in the scriptures, and imports 1. The whole body of the elect, Eph. v. 23, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.” 2. A small worshipping society of private Christians; Col. iv. 15, “Salute Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” 3. Regularly organized congregations; Rev. ii. 1, “Unto the angel of time church of Ephesus write.” 4. The whole visible catholic society, consisting of all who, in every age, in every place make a public and credible profession of the true religion together with their children; Acts vii. 38, “This is he that was in the church in the wilderness;” Acts ii. 47, “The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved;” Act viii. 3, “Saul made havoc of the church.”

Q. In what sense are the epithets visible and invisible applied to the church?

A. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be, gathered into one under Christ the head thereof. 2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal, under the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before, under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with their children. Eph. i. 22, 23; ch. v. 27; Acts ii. 38, 39, 41, 47; Matt. xix. 14.

Q. Are both of these views comprehended in the one church of which Christ is the Head, and over which he exercises mediatorial rule?

A. Yes; but it is the visible organic church of which we now principally treat.

Q. What are the marks by which the visible church catholic, as an organic body, may be known?

A. They are not those to which the Roman apostasy pretends, “antiquity,” “universality,” “continued succession,” “power of working miracles,” and the like, because these are not exclusive properties. 2. But the characteristics of the visible church catholic, are what belong to it, and to it alone. They are—soundness in doctrine—a lawful and regular ministry-and the due administration of gospel ordinances. Acts ii. 43; xiv. 23; Mat. xxviii. 19, 20; Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xi. 2.

Q. Is the Lord Jesus Christ the exclusive Head of this visible catholic, ecclesiastical society?

A. Yes; he alone is Head of his body the church, and governs her with an absolute supremacy.

Q. In what is his title to exclusive dominion over the church founded?

A. His title is founded, 1. In the appointment of the Father, Ps. ii. 6, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” 2. In the gift of the church to him, John xvii. 6, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them me.” 3. In his incorporating it by covenant. It is a covenant society; not founded in the covenant of grace, merely, but Christ hath made with it an express ecclesiastical covenant, as illustrated by the transaction with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1-14, “I will be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee”—which evidently has a respect to an ecclesiastical relation—hence Abraham is entitled the “Father of many nations,”—Gentiles as well as Jews. 4. It is founded on the purchase of the church with his own blood; Acts xx. 1 8, “Feed the church of God which he bath purchased with his own blood.” 5. This right is founded in the circumstance that he is the maker and builder of the church. Heb. iii. 3-6, “For this man was accounted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who bath builded the house is worthy of more honour than the house—and Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house as a servant—but Christ as a son over his own house.” Also, 1 Pet. ii. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 22.

Q. By what passages of Scripture can it be established that the Lord Jesus Christ is the exclusive Head of the church?

A. 1. By Psa. ii. 6, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” 2. Ps. cxlix. 2, “Let the children of Zion be joyful in their king.” 3. Is. ix. 6, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given—and the government shall be upon his shoulders-and he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it.” 4. Is. xxiv. 23, “The Lord of hosts shall reign on Mount Zion.” 5. Zech. ix. 9, “Rejoice, O daughter of Zion—behold thy King cometh unto thee.” 6. Zech. vi. 13, “Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, said shall sit and rule upon his throne.” 7. Luke i. 33, “He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever.” 8. Acts v. 31, “Him bath God exalted a prince—to give repentance to Israel.” 9. Rev. xv. 3, “Just and true are thy ways, thou KING OF SAINTS.” 10. Eph. iv. 18, “Who is the Head, even Christ.” 11. Eph. v. 23, 24, “Christ is Head of the Church”—“The church is subject unto Christ.” 12. Col. i. 18, “And he is the head of the body, the church.”

Q. Does not the Pope of Rome claim to be head of the visible church?

A. Yes; this is his blasphemous claim. 1. In the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, he claims to be “Successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ.” 2. The Council of Florence, A.D. 1438, decreed, “That the human Pontiff is head of the whole church, and to him, in St. Peter, was delegated, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule and govern the universal church.”

Q. Is there any foundation in Scripture for this supremacy of Peter and his alleged successors?

A. Not the least; on the contrary, every aspiration after supremacy was decidedly rebuked and forbidden by our Lord, and the strictest fraternal parity enforced. 1. Matt. xx. 25-27, “And Jesus called them unto him and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you let him be your servant.” 2. Mat. xxiii. 8, “But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father, (Pope) upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is your master, even Christ. But ho that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” 3. Mark ix. 3, “And he sat down and called the twelve, and said unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all and servant of all.”

Q. Are there not numerous arguments confuting this blasphemous claim?

A. Yes; many. 1. Paul rebuked Peter, and reckoned himself his equal. Gal. ii. 11, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Also, verse 14. 2. If the dignity of the person left any authority with the city where he resided, then Antioch had equal claims with Rome; and Jerusalem, where Christ suffered, was to be preferred to all the world, for it was really the mother church. 3. Peter had a limited province—the circumcision, as Paul the uncircumcision; the latter being of the greatest extent. And hence, Peter was not considered the universal pastor. 4. This claim was denied by the primitive church writers. CYPRIAN and other bishops, wrote to the bishop of Rome, as to their “fellow-bishop,” “colleague,” and “brother;” they were opposed to appeals to Rome; and asserted that all bishops were equal in power, as the apostles had been. 5. When the Emperor Mauritius gave the title, “Universal Bishop,” to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, complained of the, ambition of that title, which he calls “equal to the pride of Lucifer!” 6. It was not till the year 606, that Boniface the Third received, from the brutal usurper Phocas, the title of “Universal Bishop.” 7. This power was not, for centuries after, acknowledged in Germany, Scotland, England, &c, and even several sees, as Ravenna, Milan and Aquileia, plead exemption from the papal authority. From all this it is manifest, that the Pope’s power is a usurpation; and the Pope is the “Man of Sin,”—“the Antichrist,”—“the son of perdition—who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, allowing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess. ii. 4.

Q. Do not civil rulers claim a supremacy over the church?

A. Yes; They have often usurped this prerogative of Jesus Christ, and exercised a despotic authority over his church.

Q. Is there any foundation in the scriptures for this claim?

A. Not the least. The scriptures exhibit civil rule as having for its object things external, relating immediately to the outer man, in subserviency to the religious interests of society, and as having no power over things ecclesiastical.

Q. Do not the Scriptures substantially prohibit civil rulers from exercising ecclesiastical power?

A. They do. 2 Chron. xxvi. 10-20, “It appertaineth not to thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to bunt incense; go out of the sanctuary.” Yea, the Lord punished his presumption and “smote him with leprosy, and they thrust him out of the temple.” This instance clearly proves that civil rulers have no ecclesiastical power. Their whole authority is civil, and all they do in relation to the Church is in their capacity of civil rulers. They have no authority (as will be seen in another section,) in or over the church.

Q. What are some of the claims of our Lord Jesus Christ in relation to the church, as its exclusive and sovereign head?

A. He claims the exclusive right to appoint to the church, 1. Her doctrine; Gal 1:11, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of men, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ;” also, verses 8, 9, and 2 John 10. 2. All her officers; Eph. iv. 2, “And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors, and some teachers—for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Phil. i. 1, “To all the saints that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” 3. All her institutions of worship; Matt. xv. 9, “But, in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 4. All her laws; Is. xxxiii. 22, “The LORD is our lawgiver.” Isa. ii. 3, “And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion Shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

Q. What are the officers which Christ, as her head, has appointed in the Church?

A. They are, 1. Extraordinary; Eph. iv. 11, “apostles,” “prophets,” “evangelists.” 2. Ordinary; pastors and teachers, ruling elders and deacons. Eph. iv. 6, “Some pastors and teachers.” 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in word and doctrine.” 1 Tim. ii. 8, “Likewise, must the deacons be grave.”

Q. What are the respective functions of these officers?

A. The functions of the pastors are, to instruct and rule the church; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations-teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Acts xx. 28, “Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers-to feed the church of God.” Heb. xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give an account.” 2. The function of the ruling elders, is simply to rule; 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” 3. The functions of the deacons are, to receive and disburse the ecclesiastical funds, and exercise a care over all other temporalities of the church-giving a special attention to the poor; Acts vi. 1-6, “And in those days,” &c.

Q. Are the ministers of the church clothed with a despotic and discretional power?

A. No; their power is simply stewardly and ministerial.

Q. Is it not rebellion against Christ as the Head of his church, to reject any one of the officers of his appointment, or to deny any officer the exercise of any one of the functions of his office?

A. Undoubtedly; because Christ is jealous of his own authority in Zion, and will not give “His glory to another.”

Q. Where do you find the divine warrant for the office of Deacon in the New Testament church?

A. In the following Scriptures: 1. Acts vi. Where we are informed of the origin and the design of the office. 2. 1 Tim 3: 8-12. Where the inspired apostle describes their necessary qualifications,—“Likewise must the DEACONS be grave,” &c. 3. Phil. i. 1. Where the apostle exhibits their existence in the church equally with the bishops—(“with the bishops and deacons.”)

Q. What are the duties of this office?

A. To take charge of and disburse the temporalities of the church giving special attention to the poor.

Q. Where do you find the evidence in scripture that all the temporalities of the church are entrusted to the deacons?

A. In Acts vi.

Q. How does this passage prove that the temporalities of the church are confided to the deacons?

A. 1. The church had one common fund at that time, Acts ii. 44; iv. 34, 35. 2. This was laid at the apostles’ feet, Acts iv. 34-37. 3. This business was more than the apostles could manage consistently with their higher employments, Acts vi. 2. 4. The seven were set over the same business, Acts vi. 3, 4.

Q. Did the apostles except any part of this common fund?

A. No. It was ALL delivered over to the deacons.

Q. Did this officer exist universally in the church in apostolic times?

A. Yes.

Q. What evidence have you from history?

A. Mosheim says, “That all the other Christian Churches followed the example of that of Jerusalem in whatever related to the choice and office of deacon.”

Q. Does any other historian confirm this?

A. Yes. Several; Brown of Haddington, Dr. Miller of Princeton, and others.

Q. What is the testimony of Brown?

A. He states in substance—That deacons were universal in the apostolic church.

Q. What says Dr. Miller?

A. Dr. Miller states,—“For the first two hundred years every flock of professing Christians had its pastor or bishop, with its bench of elders, and its body of deacons.”—TRACT on Presbyterianism.

Q. What says Buck, in his Theological dictionary, on the existence and duties of this office in the primitive church?

A. Buck says, “The office of deacon originally was to serve tables-the Lord’s table, the minister’s, and the poor’s table. They took care of the secular affairs of the church, received and disbursed moneys—kept the church’s accounts—and provided every thing necessary for its temporal good.”

Q. Did the Reformation Church of Scotland recognise this office as it existed in the primitive church, in the full extent of its duties as illustrated above?

A. Yes. In her Second Book of Discipline she says: “The office and power of the deacon is to receive and distribute THE WHOLE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL GOODS unto them to whom they are appointed, that the patrimony of the kirk and poor be not converted unto private men’s use, nor wrongfully distributed.”

Q. Is there any evidence that this Second Book of Discipline was “binding law in said Church alter the adoption of the Westminster Standards?”

A. Yes; abundant. As a specimen, take the act, of the year 1649, abolishing patronage; in which patronage is said to be “contrary to the Second Book of Discipline,” in which, upon sound and good ground, it is reckoned among abuses that are desired to be reformed. The Form of church government was adopted Feb. 10, 1645—four years before the passage of the act which quotes it as authority. Cruikshank, vol. 1, p. 78.

Q. Does the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States recognise the office in like manner?

A. Yes. She declares that the “deacon’s power is about the temporalities of the church.”

Q. Do our brethren in Scotland thus recognise the office?

A. Yes. In their Testimony they say: “Deacons are ordained upon the choice of the congregation, and are associated with the teaching and ruling elders, in distributing to the necessities of the poor, and managing other temporalities, of the church.”

Q. Is this office perpetual in the church?

A. Yes: 1 Tim. iii. 8, 12, and Phil. i. 1. Its perpetuity is the same with that or the bishop or pastor.

Q. What say the Standards of the Reformed Presbyterian Church respecting the perpetuity of this office?

A. The Westminster Form of Church Government says of the “deacon” “WHOSE OFFICE IS PERPETUAL.”

Q. Has Christ instituted in his church, ordinances of divine worship and Christian fellowship?

A. Yes; Christ has sanctioned’ either by express institution, or by his administrative example, 1. Public prayer. 2. praise. 3. Reading of the scriptures. 4. preaching the word; Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the presence of his disciples he lifted his eyes to heaven, in solemn supplication to the Father. He sung with them a hymn before going out to the Mount of Olives. When he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, he “stood up for to read.” “Go ye into all nations and preach the gospel to every creature,” was among his last directions to the apostles and their successors. He commanded them also to “Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In reference to the ordinance of the supper, he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” And, as for that portion of time which is consecrated to the peculiar observance of all these institutions, it is written, “The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath.” There is not an institution of divine worship by Which the devotional feelings of the church are expressed, or the edification of the body promoted, which bears not the stamp of the Saviour’s authority; find in observing them all, the true saint has the satisfaction to know, that he is “serving the Lord Christ.”

Q. Is it not daring presumption and an act of rebellion, to worship by any observance of our own invention?

A. Yes; for Christ, 1. Rebukes it. “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” 2. He gives us two alarming examples of his jealousy in this respect. The cases of Nadab and Abihu, who, for offering “strange fire,” were consumed by “a vehement flame,” from the presence of the Lord—and the worshippers of the golden calf who were miserably slain.

Q. Does not the efficacy of ordinances depend upon the dominion of Christ in his church?

A. Yes; Christ, upon his ascension to the right hand of the throne of God, “received gifts for men, even for the rebellious—that the Lord might dwell among them” among which gifts are the Holy Spirit, whom he sends forth as the Spirit of truth, to lead men into the knowledge of the truth; and it is by the word of Christ rendered “quick and powerful,” by the energy of the Spirit that men are convinced of sin, enlightened in the knowledge of Christ, and their wills renewed—and are thus enabled to embrace the Saviour, as he is offered in the gospel.

Q. Has Christ instituted a form of government in his church?

A. Yes; he has not left his church in a state of anarchy or confusion or to be modelled according to the fancies of men, as may best serve their political views and designs. Every piece of the Old Testament tabernacle was to be placed according to the pattern shown in the holy mount; much more the New Testament church, which is called “the true tabernacle of David.” Compare Acts xv. 16, with Amos ix. 11.

Q. What texts demonstrate an established government in the New Testament church?

A. Many; its examples, 1 Thess. v. 12, “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.” 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” And, Hebrews xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves.”

Q. How many forms are there of church government, for which their advocates claim a scriptural warrant?

A. Four: the papal, or spiritual monarchy; the episcopal, or spiritual prelacy; independency, or spiritual democracy; and presbyterianism, or spiritual republicanism.

Q. What is the distinctive characteristic of each?

A. The first maintains the necessity of one supreme, universal, infallible head of the whole Christian body, and throughout the world, who is the authorized vicar of Christ. The second contends for all order of clerical prelates, above the rank of ordinary ministers of the gospel, who are alone, in their view, empowered to ordain, and without whose presiding agency there call be no regular church. The third holds that all ecclesiastical power resides in the mass of the church members and that all acts of ecclesiastical authority are to be performed immediately by them. The fourth maintains that Christ has made all ministers who are authorized to dispense the word and sacraments, equal in official rank and power; that in every church the immediate exercise of ecclesiastical power is deposited, not with the whole mass of the people, but with a body of their representatives styled elders; and that the whole visible church catholic, as far as their denomination is concerned, is not only one in name, but so united by a series of assemblies of these representatives, acting in the name and by the authority of the whole, as to bind the whole body together as one church, walking by the same principles of faith and order, and voluntarily, yet authoritatively, governed by the same system of rules and regulations.

Q. What is the first proof of the absolute parity of the ministers of the word?

A. Mark x. 42-44, “But Jesus called them to him, and said to them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever shall be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever will be the chiefest shall be the servant of all.” (See also Mat. xx. 25, 27; xxiii. 8-12; Luke xxii. 25, 20.)

Q. What is the second argument?

A. 1 Pet. v. 3, “Neither as being lords over God’s heritage (literally clergy,) but being ensamples to the flock.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. The highest ordinary officers mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11, are “pastors and teachers,” as given and set by Christ in the church, “for the work of the ministry.”

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. Presbyter and bishop are convertible terms; that is, they apply to the same individual, exercising one and the same office. Presbyter or elder is expressive of the authority, and episkopos, or bishop, of the duty of the pastor. Acts xx. 17-28, “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters—Greek,) of the church, And charged them, saying, Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,” (or “bishops”) Also, 1 Pet. v. 2, “The elders which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, feed the church of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof,”—episkopountes—episcopising, or watching, or performing the duty of a bishop. In both these passages, elder is the official title, and bishop the term expressive of the duties of the elder.

Q. What is the fifth argument?

A. The officers of the church are ordained by a plurality of elders, in which act they all stand on an equal platform. Acts xiv. 23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church.” 1 Tim. iv. 14, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” Paul and Barnabas acted as presbyters in ordination, and as members of a presbytery, and Timothy was ordained by the same—a plurality of elders acting in these solemn transactions as equals, and not by a lord over God’s clergy.

Q. What is the sixth argument?

A. The apostles, in ordaining elders, acted simply as presbyters. Timothy was ordained by a presbytery, of which presbytery Paul was a member, 2 Tim. i. 6.

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. All the elders have equal authority as rulers. 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour.” According to this, all elders have equal authority as rulers—the only distinction which can justly obtain among them, is not in the sense of rule, as superior or inferior—of greater diligence and fidelity in the performance of presbyterial duty.

Q. What proof is there of the existence of a class of officers, designated by the title, Ruling Elders, distinct from the pastor or teaching elder?

A. There is abundant proof; First, The New Testament church was modelled after the pattern, substantially of the Jewish synagogue. The order of the synagogue was substantially as follows. There was a preacher or angel of each synagogue; this angel was not the bishop of a diocess or province, but of a particular congregation, assembled in one synagogue or place of worship; there was associated with him a number of rulers, entitled, Luke xiii. 14, the rulers of the synagogue; and a third class—collectors and distributors of the funds.

Q. Did our Saviour sanction this order in his ministrations on earth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the apostles and evangelists preach in the Jewish synagogues, and organise congregations upon this simple and efficient model?

A. Yes. Acts xiv. 23, “And when they had ordained them elders in every church,” or congregation. As there was it plurality of elders ordained in each congregation, it is just inference that, associated with the angel, bishop, or pastor of the New Testament congregation, after the model of the synagogue, is a bench of elders, whose function it is to conduct its government. Second, 1 Tim. v. 17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.” Evidently, “Elders that rule well,” are justly denominated “ruling elders.”

Q. Is there a manifest distinction among these elders?

A. Yes; There are some whose sole business it is to rule; another class who, besides ruling, “labour in word and doctrine.” Because, if this distinction be not observed, the passage would run—substituting equivalent expressions, thus strangely: “Let the elders that do their duty well be counted worthy of double honour, especially the elders that do their duty!” This passage, therefore, requires distinction into ruling elders and teaching elders; that is, a class who rule only—another class which, besides ruling, teach, in which only they have a pre-eminence.

Q. Are not those who labour in word and doctrine contrasted with those who only rule?

A. This is the force of the word μαλιστα. It is used in several passages evidently with this view. Gal. ii. 10, “Let us do good unto all men, especially (malista) unto them who are of the household of faith.” 1 Tim. iv. 10, “Who is the Saviour of all men, especially (malista) of those who believe.” All elders that rule well are worthy of regard—but there is a reason why some elders should be regarded which does not belong to all; their duty, besides ruling, is labouring in the word and doctrine; therefore, the they are to be particularly honoured for this peculiarity, by which they are distinguished from the others who rule only. It would indeed be strange if it was the duty of each and all elders, besides ruling, to labour in word and doctrine, that Paul should account men worthy of double honour, who neglected the chief part of their duty! For the text plainly shows that some rule well, but do not labour in word and doctrine; others, in addition to ruling well, are commended for labouring in the word and doctrine. It is evident, therefore, that there are two distinct classes of elders properly designated by the appellations of RULING ELDERS AND TEACHING ELDERS. The former rule only. The latter, besides ruling, teach the words of eternal life.

Q. What other proof have you for the office of Ruling Elder.

A. Rom. xii. 7, 8, “Let us wait on our ministering—he that teacheth, on teaching—he that ruleth, let him do it with diligence.” Paul compares the church, in this chapter, to the human body—and as in that body all the members have not the same office, so all the members of the church have not the same office. There are gifts differing according to the grace given to each. In the passage quoted, evidently the ruler is distinguished from the teacher—ruling from teaching. The elders that rule are distinct from those who have, besides, the office in the body of teaching, and have grace distinguishing them for this work.

Q. What further proof?

A. 1 Cor. xii. 28, “Teachers—governments.” In addition to the standing ministry in the church, whose chief office is to teach, there is a class of officers endowed with authority to govern (as the word means) as assistants to the teachers in the government of the church.

Q. What additional proof?

A. James v. 14, “Is any man sick among you let him call for the elders of the church,” or congregation. These elders are evidently over the same congregation. If they are remote from each other, the afflicted individual could not have access to them in his exigency; and taken in connexion with Acts xiv. 23,—the ordination of a plurality of elders in each congregation—it is evidence in favour of the distinct order of officers entitled RULING ELDERS.

Q. Is there a series of judicatories, rising one above another, by which the church is bound together as one homogeneous community?

A. Yes; First, the congregational session. Second, Presbytery. Third, The synod, general assembly, &c.

Q. What proof in scripture is there for the congregational presbytery or session?

A. There is sufficient proof. First, The New Testament churches, or congregations, were modelled after the Jewish, synagogue, which was governed by an estate of elders. Acts xviii. 8-17; Mark iv. 35, 30, 38. Second, Christ refers with approbation to the order of government among the Jews, (which we will show again,) Matt, xviii. 15-21: “Tell it to the church.” Now the Jews had a lesser court of sanhedrin, called “The assembly of three,” in every place of the number of one hundred and twenty inhabitants. There must be something similar in the New Testament church. The congregational court to which we tell the offences of the offending brother. Third, Heb. xiii. 17, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves,” relates first in order to the congregational rulers, as is plain from the reason assigned for submission, for they “watch for your souls.” The immediate rulers who had to care of the particular flock; confirmed by ver. 7. Fourth, 1 Thess. v. 12, “Know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you.” A plain proof of a number of congregational rulers who immediately governed the people, clothed with the power of authoritative admonition, and to whom they were to be in meek subjection.

Q. How can you prove the divine right of presbytery?

A. The arguments are numerous. We select one—the church of Antioch. First, there were several single congregations in this one church. 1. The multitude of believers:—Acts xi. 21, “A great number believed.” By the preaching of Barnabas “Much people were added to the Lord;” (verse 24.) Barnabas and Saul, for a year together, ought much people, and disciples there so mightily multiplied, that there they were first designated “Christians;” verses 25, 26. 2. From the multitude of preachers at Antioch: Acts xi. 20, “Divers preached” there—three or four at least. There Barnabas was sent, verses 22-24. he went for Saul to help him, so great was the harvest; verses 25, 26. There came a number from Jerusalem; verses 27, 28. Five more are to be added, who are named Acts xiii. 1-3. “Yea, Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also;” xv. 35. Now sum up all. What a multitude of believers, and what a college of preachers, were here at Antioch! How is it possible that all these preachers should be occupied in one congregation (and they were not idlers,) dispensing the ordinances of Christ to them only? Or how could so many members meet in one single congregation at once, ordinarily, to partake of all ordinances. Now these numerous believers and preachers are called, Acts xiii. 1 “The church that was at Antioch;” evidently in regard of one joint administration of church government among them, by one common presbytery?

Q. What other proof?

A. In Antioch we have clearly two examples of presbyterial meetings. 1. Acts xiii. 1-3, “Now there was in the church in Antioch church that was at Antioch, certain prophets, (who prophesied by preaching or expounding the word,) and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon, that was called Niger, and Lucius, of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” This was evidently a presbyterial act. Paul and Barnabas were separated to missionary labour, by “the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” with all due formality. 2. Acts xv. “And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When, therefore, Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Can anything be plainer than that, the question of circumcision was brought before the assembly of the elders of Antioch, and reasoned at length, but they came to no decision upon the merits of the question, but, as it concerned the whole church, wisely “determined” to refer it to the highest ecclesiastical tribunal for its decision—to which synodal assembly they appointed their delegates? They decided, decreed or ordained, as the Greek for “determined” means—to send Paul, &c. Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, &c., offer equally forcible and conclusive arguments to the same point.

Q. Is there any proof for the divine right of synodal assemblies?

A. Yes; The proof is conclusive. First, The unity of the church is a valid argument. The fourth chapter of Ephesians discusses this unity, and any one who will candidly examine it, will be convinced that the ministry is given for the purpose of governing it as a unity, until the end of time. There is but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism;” and there is but “one body.” To this one body the pastors and teacher—as the ordinary ministry—are given—given, moreover, to preserve this unity, “till we all come in the unity of faith—unto the perfect man.” Being with this view given to the church, how can they preserve this unity, but by assembling in a judicatory, where they can act for the whole—take the oversight; feed, govern, and direct the whole church of God? A synod is, therefore, demanded by the unity of the church: and this unity is preserved where Christ is really recognised as the Head, and his laws are honestly administered by a synodical assembly. If synods have failed to preserve this unity, it will be found that they have deliberated upon the principles of a carnal expediency, and were not governed by the word and truth of Christ.

Q. What is the second proof for synodal assemblies?

A. Christ refers with approbation to the forms of procedure in the Jewish courts, in which the synagogues were subordinate to the Sanhedrin. There were three judicial assemblies among the Jews. The first consisted of one hundred and twenty; the second of twenty-three, and the third of three judges. The former was called the great sanhedrin; the second the sanhedrin of twenty-three, and the latter the assembly of three. The great sanhedrin sat in Jerusalem; the lesser in every place containing more than one hundred and twenty inhabitants, and the assembly of three, in every place of the number of one hundred and twenty inhabitants. This is the system of which our Redeemer approved as we have his judgement, in the eighteenth of Matthew; and he intimates very clearly from the 18th to the 20th verse, that the principle embodied in these judicial tribunals would be extended throughout the New Testament dispensation. This system was rigidly observed until after the destruction of the second temple. The assembly of three, and the sanhedrin of twenty three, were subordinate to the great sanhedrin, which had both appellate and original jurisdiction. From the recommendation of our Saviour, we may safely conclude, that a supreme assembly after the example of the great sanhedrin, will meet his approbation. He commends the court of two or three. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And when he says, “Tell it unto the church,” he shows explicitly his approbation of the judicial system by which the body of his people, under the former dispensation, were governed; for he gave the law which is recorded in Deut. xvii. 8-12, and which seems to lay down the principle of appeal according to this simple and essentially righteous judicial system.

Q. What is the third proof?

A. At Jerusalem a synod composed of the rulers of the several churches met, debuted, and determined a point of controversy in the church. We have a record of the fact—and the transactions of this synodal assembly in the fifteenth of Acts. We have here, 1. An authoritative decree; 2. Enacted by a representative body; 3. Exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction over churches and presbyteries.

Q. What is the proof of the first position?

A. As to the first Acts xvi. 4, is conclusive. “As they went, through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep which were ordained by the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Τα δογματα τα κεκριμενα. Dogma does not mean advice, but a decree that must be obeyed. The decrees of the Roman emperor are designated by the same word; Luke ii. 1; Acts xvii. 1, “There went out a decree (δογμα,) from Caesar Augustus.” “These all do contrary to the decrees (δογματων,) of Caesar.” The decrees of the Caesars were not simple advice—but, authoritative, and to be obeyed at the peril of the subject: so the acts of this synod were authoritative decrees—binding the conscience of the members of the church.

Q. What is the proof of the second position?

A. As to the second, the synod was a representative body. The apostles were not alone in this grand assembly—nor did they as members act in their apostolic character—but as elders (1 Pet. v. 1,) in their presbyterial capacity; verse 6 “The apostles and elders came together for to consider this matter.” The whole church; verse 22, The brethren verse 23. Those who are styled the whole church in the 22d, are called “the brethren,” in the 23 verse. The latter signifies, as a technical term, men of equal rank to others specified, (Acts xxii. 5, and xv. 40, xx. 32.) The equals of the elders of Jerusalem at Damascus. The elders of Ephesus, officially—and the members of the synod—equals in authority—delegates from the churches that were not of Judea. The “whole church” is the church representative. The private members of the church at Jerusalem could not be styled the whole church—and upon the principles of independency, could not bind by their acts the church in Corinth &c.; And upon the principles of Presbyterianism the members of the church in one city could not bind by their acts the members of another city. The whole church universal was not present in Jerusalem in its collective members. It was the church representative in her delegates—the brethren from the distant cities and provinces of the church. Antioch sends, as we have seen, her delegates—and other presbyteries are there in the person of their delegates—so that the decree is the act the of the ολη τη εκκλησια,—the whole church representatively.

Q. How do you prove the third position?

A. As to the third, these decrees were sent down to the whole church, to be kept—as decisions binding the conscience of all its members, officially or personally considered. Acts xvi. 4, “They went through all the cities and delivered them the decrees for to keep.” The decrees respected, and bound all the churches. Paul was now in Derbe or Lystra, in Lycaonia, having passed through Syria and Cilicia, and from Lycaonia he travelled through Phrygia and Galatia into Macedonia. Through whatever cities he passed where there was a church, he delivered them the decrees of the synod of Jerusalem “to keep.” The word φυλασσω, rendered “to keep,” signifies not only to keep in safety with care as a deposit, but to observe, so as not to violate, as a command; Matt. xix. 20; Mark x. 20, “All these things have I kept, (the same Greek word) from my youth up.” These decrees of the synod were to be observed as the commandments of Christ. Second, We have seen the question was referred from the presbytery of Antioch, which, as will be seen, acquiesced in the decision of the synod. Third, All the churches submitted to the decree; Acts xv. 30, 31, “So when they (commissioners of synod) were dismissed, they came to Antioch, and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle, which, when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.” And in the 46th verse, Paul and Silas are said to have “gone through Syria and Cilicia confirming the churches.” How confirming them but by giving them the decree; of the synod deciding the question by which they had been unsettled in their judgements? This is clearly made out by the 4th and 5th verses of the sixteenth chapter: “And so as they went through the cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem—and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” The whole church submitted cheerfully to the decision of the supreme judicatory: even the gainsayers seem to have been silenced by the authoritative decision of so august a body, acting in the name of the church’s exalted Head; and peace, establishment, and prosperity, were the happy results of this judicial decision, and the submission of the church to those who had the rule over them in the Lord, whose “authority was for edification and not for destruction.”

Q. What principle is the basis of the presbyterian system of church government?

A. The principle of representation—and from the church the nations have derived the elements of republican institutions wherever they exist.

Q. Will not this principle bind the church in the millennium—and oven the nations respectively—throughout the earth—in one homogeneous community?

A. The principle will admit of any degree of extension. An assembly may be constituted to embrace the globe; and a just interpretation of the scripture seems to justify this opinion. Jer. iii. 17, At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord to Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their own heart."

Q. Has Christ as the Head of his church authorized the exercise of discipline upon the household of faith?

A. Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ bath instituted DISCIPLINE in order to remove scandals, and prevent their unhappy effects, and no church can, without the faithful and spiritual application of it, hope for his countenance and blessing. First, Mat. xviii. 17, “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him he unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” Second, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Third, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition reject.” Fourth, Christ reproves the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira for laxity in discipline; Rev. ii. 14, 20, “But I have a few things against thee because thou hast there them that, hold the doctrine of Balaam.” “Nevertheless I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman, Jezebel, to teach and seduce my servants,” &c. Fifth, he commends the church of Ephesus for fidelity in this respect; “This thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”

Q. What are some of the characteristics of the discipline which Christ authorizes as the Head of the church?

A. First, It should be faithful—the guilty should not escape. 1 Cor. v. 5, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when they are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Second, It should he administered in all orderly manner; 1 Cor. xiv. 40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Third, In all meekness; Gal. vi. 1, “Restore such a one in the spirit of meekness.” Fourth, in a solemn manner; 1 Pet. iv. 11, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” Fifth, It should be exercised impartially; 1 Tim. v. 21, “Doing nothing by partiality.”

Q. What are the offences which should subject the members of the church to discipline?

A. They are, First, Errors in doctrine; Rom: xvi. “Mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.” Second, Immorality in practice; 2 Chron. xxiii. 19, “He set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in any thing should enter in.” Eph, v. 11, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (See also Rev. ii. 20.) Third, Despising the authority, order, or ordinances of the church; 1 Cor. xi. 2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” 2 Th. iii. 6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which ye received of us.” Fourth, Neglecting the public, domestic, or secret duties of religion; Heb. x. 25, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.” Jer. x. 25, “Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name.” Matt. vi. “But thou when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to the Father which is in secret.”

Q. What are the censures of the church?

A. They are for edification and not destruction, And are, First, Rebuke; Tit 1:3, “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Second, Suspension from the privileges of the church; 2 Thess. iii. 14, 16, “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, And have no company with him, that he may be ashamed; yet count him not as an enemy, but Admonish him as a brother.” Third, Excommunication or excision from the church; 1 Cor. v. 13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Gal. v. 12, “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”

Q. What advantage may be derived from the impartial and prudent exercise of church discipline?

A. The impartial and prudent exercise of church discipline is useful for vindicating the honour of Jesus Christ, maintaining the dignity of his ordinances, preserving the purity of the church, averting the judgments of God, And for the benefit of the offender himself, that by the administration of this ordinance of Christ, through grace, he may be humbled and recovered; 2 Cor. x. 8, “Our Authority which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction.”

Q. Would not the full recognition of the Headship of Christ over his church, and humble and implicit obedience to his authority in all things, greatly promote the unity, peace, establishment, and prosperity of the church?

A. Yes; Divisions, contentions, and schisms, usually arise in the church from a forgetfulness or rejection of the mediatorial authority of our Lord Jesus Christ in his Church. Men, even ministers of religion, are apt to act upon the principle—“Our tongues are our own, who is Lord over us?” In contrast with such—“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Q. Do not all Presbyterian denominations, at least, recognise the doctrine of Christ’s exclusive Headship over the church?

A. Yes; In theory—but many reject it practically, as they introduce inventions of their own into the worship of God—or adulterate republican presbyterianism by admitting into their administration many of the elements of democratic independency. The Reformed Presbyterians, more rigidly than all others, maintain Christ’s exclusive Headship over the church, tolerating no invasion of his prerogatives in this respect by rulers on the one hand, or by the people on the other.

[ON THE SUPREME AND ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OF THE WORD OF GOD IN THE CHURCH]

SECTION III.-On the Supreme and Ultimate Authority of the Word of GOD in the Church.

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament the only rule of faith and manners?

A. Yes; Is. viii. 20. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

Q. Are the Scriptures of the Old Testament equally with those of the New—a rule of faith and manners?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the first proof?

A. Christ exhorted the Jews to search the Old Testament Scriptures, declaring that they testified of him. John v. 39. “Search the Scriptures—they are they which testify of me.”

Q. What is the second?

A. Christ commends the Old Testament, and exhorts his disciples to attend reverently to Moses and the prophets. Luke xvi. 29. “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” Also, ver. 31.

Q. What is the third proof?

A. The Apostle Peter directs the attention of Christians to them as a rule, to he observed attentively until the day star of glory shall arise. 2 Pet. i. 19. “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto we do well to take heed, as unto it light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.”

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. The New Testament Church is erected upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The doctrines taught by the apostles and prophets. Eph. ii. 20. “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. What was recorded in the Old Testament was so recorded for the edification and comfort of the church in all subsequent ages. Rom xv. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (instruction), that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.”

Q. What is the sixth proof?

A. The Old Testament writings were the means of enlightening Timothy in the way of salvation; and still contain the instructions requisite to furnish the man of God for “every good work.” 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. “From a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 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 furnished unto all good works.”

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. The doctrines of the Old are substantially the same with those of the New Testament. Rom. xvi. 25, 20. “Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” See also Rom. i. 2, 3. Acts xxvi. 22, 23. The law is the same. Mat. xxii. 37-40.

Q. What is the eighth proof?

A. Without the Old Testament we could not fully understand the New: nor demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. Luke xxiv. 27, 44. “And beginning at Moses and the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning, himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.” Also Acts x. 43; xvii. 11; xxvi. 22. Rom. iii. 21.

Q. Are the Scriptures to such an extent the rule of faith, that there is nothing left to the wisdom and discretion of the rulers and teachers of the church?

A. In matters essential to salvation, and what relates to the institutes of worship, government, and order, the Scriptures are an absolute rule; but in carrying out the principles and putting into operation the ordinances of religion, there are some things left to the wisdom and prudence of the officers of the church—but here there is no latitude allowed beyond what is the evident meaning and design of the Scriptures themselves in these matters. 1 Cor. xiv. 40. “Let all things be done decently and in order.”

Q. Is everything pertaining to faith and manners revealed in the Scriptures directly and distinctly in so many words? or are many things to be learned from them inferentially or by legitimate consequence?

A. The Scriptures are a full and complete revelation, and great principles are directly and plainly taught; yet many things of importance both of faith and manners are learned by legitimate consequence, from other truths distinctly revealed, and from approved scriptural examples, and such truths are equally a part of the Word of God with those principles, which are taught by explicit revelation.

Q. Can you give an example of the inferential mode of reasoning, or by implication, from the Scripture?

A. Yes. The highest example-that of Christ himself; who proved the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead by a legitimate consequence, from a fact revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. Matt. xxii. 31, 32. “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God the dead, but of the living.”

Q. Are not the Scriptures a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners? or is there a deficiency to be supplied from a treasury of unwritten traditions, intrusted to the alleged successors of the apostles?

A. The Scriptures are a complete and adequate rule of faith and manners, and the alleged deposition of traditions is an invention of “The Man of Sin,” in support of his “lying wonders,” and “doctrines of devils.”

Q. How is this manifest?

A. It is manifest, 1. In the fact that the Scriptures are profitable for all theoretic and practical purposes, both in teaching matters of faith and moulding the manners. 2 Tim. iii. 10, 17.

Q. Where is found the second evidence?

A. In the fact that God has expressly forbidden any addition to, or diminution of his revealed will. Deut. iv. 2. “Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” Gal. i. 8. “But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Rev. xxii, 18. “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. In that the Word of God is perfect, containing all that is requisite for the conversion of the souls of men. Ps, xix. 7, 8. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.”

Q. What is the fourth evidence?

A. In that they were given that men by them might be put in possession of eternal life, hence they can be deficient in nothing essential to this end. John xx. 31. “But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” Also, 1 John v. 13; Rom. xvi.

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. The Scriptures are given as a rule of faith, hence they must be complete and adequate; for a rule, to answer its end, will not admit of diminution or addition. Rom. xvi. 24. The doctrines of the Scriptures are said to be “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”

Q. What is the sixth evidence?

A. Traditions are distinctly rejected. Mat. xv. 6, 9. “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.” Also, Is. xxix. 13 14; Is. viii. 20.

Q. What is the seventh argument?

A. No satisfactory reason can be given why God should commit one part of satisfactory word to writing, and the other part equally essential to the salvation of the church, to be transmitted vivâ voce—because the traditions of men are uncertain at best, and liable to be greatly corrupted in the lapse of time.

Q. What is the eighth argument?

A. There is no rule given by which can be determined the genuineness of traditions, and all that can be pleaded is that such is the testimony and the authority of the church, which is itself a matter of controversy.

Q. What is the ninth argument against tradition?

A. The origin of traditions is dubious, and their authority uncertain, their meaning perplexed and ambiguous, and the impossibility of discovering a reason for them; the only safe course is, to adhere rigidly to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and manners.

Q. Is it true that the Roman apostasy makes tradition a chief part of the rule of faith?

A. It is undoubtedly true. 1. Thus speak the writers of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 17: “All the doctrines of Christianity are derived from the word of God, which includes Scripture and tradition!” 2. thus speaks the Roman Catholic authorised version: Note on 2 Tim. iii. 16, “If we would have this whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.” 3. And the creed of Pope Pius makes Holy Mother church the only judge of the true sense of the scripture. “I also admit the sacred scriptures, according to the sense which the holy mother church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever take or interpret otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

Q. Does not the Roman church in this matter of traditions follow the example of the apostate Jews, (before and at the time of our Saviour,) who made void the law by their traditions?

A. Yes. The Jews divided the law into two parts, written and oral. The later, they taught, was received by Moses on Mount Sinai, and delivered by him to the care of Joshua, who deposited it with the 70 elders, by whom it was communicated to the prophets, and these intrusted it to the greater synagogue, and from them it was transmitted to future generations, until it was collected and treasured up in the Talmud. In like manner the Roman Pontiffs have invented a twofold revelation, the one written and the other unwritten, the substance of the latter being, as they allege, those things which Christ and his apostles taught and transacted, but of which they have transmitted no written record, but which are now exhibited in a tangible hum in the peculiar doctrines and ceremonies of the Roman church.

Q. Is not the rise of this system of tradition easily accounted for?

A. Yes. Those who had seen and heard the apostles naturally treasured up in their memories many of their observations and opinions, and brought them forward in support of their sentiments. Great attention would be paid to a man who could affirm, “I heard the apostle Paul, or Peter, say so and so.” In process of time, the true words of the apostles, by passing through so many hands, would be corrupted and gradually lost; for it is utterly impossible to preserve to any lengthened period what is dependent upon oral tradition. Nevertheless, the plea was found too advantageous to be suffered to die away. When new opinions were broached, and new rites invented, an alleged apostolical tradition supplied the place of scriptural authority; the decree of some council secured its reception, and all objection would soon be silenced by the dread of incurring the vengeance of “Holy Church.” But there is one who has said, “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Q. Is not this whole matter of tradition among Jews and Papists, an artifice of Satan to seduce men from the simplicity that is in Christ?

A. Yes: The “Traditions of the Elders” was an artifice of Satan to seduce the Jews from the practice of the written law, to extinguish this law given to Israel. In like manner the tradition of the Romans is an invention of the adversary to lead men astray from the truth as it is in Jesus, and to extinguish its light in the church; and when men “love darkness rather than light,” they are given up, judicially, to follow in the devious path of their own “invention:” Rom, i. 28, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” 2 Th. ii. 10-12, “Because they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved; for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

Q. Is not Timothy exhorted 1 Tim. vi. 20, to keep with care certain principles and observances intrusted to him; and the Thessalonians—to hold fast the traditions which they had been taught? 2 Th. ii. 15.

A. Yes. Yet in the case of the deposit made with Timothy, the form of sound words, or the gifts and graces specified its 2 Tim, i. 13, 14, and in the case of the Thessalonians the traditions referred to designate simply a two-fold mode then employed by the apostle, of delivering the will of God viz; vivâ voce and by writing, both exhibiting the same “form of sound words.”

Q. Are not the Scriptures, (or God speaking in the scriptures,) the supreme judge in all matters of controversy, and in the interpretation of Scripture? or is this the prerogative of the church or Roman Pontiff?

A. The former is the truth. The holy scriptures, (or God speaking in them,) is the supreme and infallible judge in religious controversies.

Q. What is the first proof?

A. God directs us to this tribunal only. Is. viii. 20, “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Also Luke xvi. 29.

Q. What is the second proof?

A. The example of Christ and the apostles, who in all their controversies respecting matters of faith, refer to the scriptures as supreme authority, from whose decision there is no appeal. Matt. iv. Christ repelled the temptations of the devil by “It is written.” Also xxii. 32, He proves the resurrection by an appeal to the scriptures. Jno. v. 39, He directs to them as bearing testimony to his missionship. Also Luke xxiv. 44. And the apostle Paul. Acts xxvi. 22, “Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophet Moses did say should come.” Acts xvii. 11, The Bereans are commended for resorting to the scriptures as the supreme and infallible judge. The Pharisees and Sadducees condemned for their ignorance of them as the infallible judge. Matt, xxii., xv. 3, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye do err not knowing the scriptures.”

Q. What is the third proof?

A. All other judges (church and Pontiffs) are liable to err, but the scriptures are infallible. 1 Jno. iv. 1, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” Is. viii. 20; Acts xvii. 11.

Q. What is the fourth proof?

A. As God is the author of the scriptures, he alone can be their infallible interpreter. Men are prone to err. James iv: 12, “There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another?” See Matt, xxiii. 8-10.

Q. What is the fifth proof?

A. Neither the divine author of the Scripture, nor any of the apostles, have anywhere designated this infallible judge; distinct from and independent of the Scriptures themselves.

Q. What is the sixth argument?

A. The Roman Pontiffs have not exercised their alleged infallibility in composing the controversies which rend the unity of the Papal Church-between the Thomists and Scotists—the Dominicans and Jesuits—and the Jesuits and Jansenists, &c, so to quell which would quickly redound to the honour of the Papal See.

Q. What is the seventh proof?

A. The church cannot be constituted the infallible Judge; this would give her the power of deciding in her own favour, as the controversy respects her own power and infallibility.

Q. What is the eighth argument?

A. The same argument applies to the Pope, councils and the fathers. It would be to make them judges in their own case. Besides, they are prone to err, and have erred, and flagrantly contradicted each other, council against council, Pope against Pope, father against father. Besides, not a few of the Popes have been heretics and profane and abandoned men, the pontiffs themselves being witnesses.

Q. Does not Christ constitute the church the Supreme Judge in controversies? Mat, xviii. 17. “Tell it to the church.”

A. By no means: because the injunction does not relate to matters of faith but to private offences, matters of scandal according to the Jewish discipline, who were accustomed to excommunicate the contumacious.

Q. Do not all Protestants hold the doctrine of the supreme and ultimate supremacy of the Word of God in religious controversy?

A. It is a Protestant doctrine, and, whilst it is held in theory, it is often violated in practice by the adoption of many principles and practices, for which there cannot be given—a thus saith the Lord—and which are met by the challenge—who hath required this at thy hand?

[CIVIL GOVERNMENT THE MORAL ORDINANCE OF GOD]

SECTION IV.-Civil Government the Moral Ordinance of God.

Q. What is civil government?

A. It is a divine institution for the government of mankind in their outward secular relations, in subservience to their spiritual and eternal welfare. Rom. xiii. 3, 4. “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.”

Q. Is not civil government a matter merely of human expediency, originating in the necessities and convenience of the human race?

A. No. It grows out of the relation that naturally and necessarily exists between God and intellectual moral creatures, and the relations existing between those creatures towards one another.

Q. How is this manifest?

A. In the fact that the essence of all civil power resided in Adam, upon whom God, at his creation, conferred the authority necessary for the exercise of civil government over subordinate moral agents, and over all earthly property. Ps. viii. 5-8. “For thou hast made him (man) a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field ; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.”

Q. Is civil magistracy founded in grace?

A. Civil magistracy is not founded in grace, but proceeds from God, not as the God of grace, but as the God of nature. It springs from him as the supreme moral governor of the universe, having its foundation, as we have stated in stance, in natural principles, which belong to the constitution of man, and not in the mediatorial system; At the same time (as we have proved in general, and as will be shown in the next section in relation to civil government in particular) God has placed the management of the whole affairs of the moral universe in the hands of his Son as Mediator.

Q. Is God, indeed, the supreme moral governor of the human race?

A. Yes. Although man has by apostasy thrown off his allegiance to the Creator, yet God is the Lord of man, and claims his subjection. Ps. xlvii. 7. “For God is the king of all the earth.” Dan. iv. 34. “I blessed the Most High and I praised and honoured Him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation.” Ps. xxix. “The LORD sitteth king forever.” Jer. x. 10. “The LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king.” Is. xliii. 15 “I am the LORD, your holy one, the Creator of Israel your king.”

Q. Is civil magistracy, as a legitimate authority, the ordinance of God?

A. Yes. Rom. xiii. 1, 2. “Let every soul be subject to 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.”

Q. Does not this passage teach, that any government which has a being in Providence, however immoral its constitution and administration, is the ordinance of God?

A. By no means, but describes a government possessed of moral attributes, consistent with the nature of an ordinance of God.

Q. How do you make this evident?

A. It is evident, 1. From the radical meaning of the term power, εξουσια, derived from εξεστι and signifying rightful, lawful authority, that which is licensed of God as agreeable to his own moral nature, from whom all our rights are derived. 2. From the legitimate meaning of the phrase higher powers. By comparing the text with Phil. ii. 3, we find the word higher translated better, and thus learn the power to which obedience is demanded, is a moral, or more excellent power, excelling in moral character. 3. The moral character of the power, as the ordinance of God, appears from the characteristics of the ruler. He is entitled the “Minister of God,” a representative of the Most High in his rule, a “terror to evil doers,” a “praise to them that do well.” It is as possessed of these attributes only that he can claim to be the ordinance of God. The reverse exhibits the ordinance of the devil. 4. God cannot, without denying himself ordain (in the sense of the text, as an institution that meets his approbation,) an immoral power. 5. The submission required is for conscience sake; conscience can never be bound by any immoral obligation. “It is under the law to Christ.”

Q. Do not many professed Christians interpret the passage as demanding allegiance, for conscience sake, to “powers that then were?”

A. Yes. A number do; because it is agreeable to their worldly interests, and is correspondent with their false theory of civil government. But, says an eminent Seceder, “In this text we have obviously a general statement laid down of what magistrates ought to be.”

Q. Is there not abundant evidence in the page itself, that the apostle speaks generally of the character and duties of magistracy, and not with particular reference to the tyrannical and wicked rulers, who, at that time, swayed the sceptre of Rome?

A. Yes. The apostle says, “Rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” Did Nero answer this character? The apostle says, “Do that which is good and thou shalt have praise of the same.” Had the Christians this? They were the best subjects in the Roman Empire. But had they “praise” for being so? Why, the merest tyro in ecclesiastical history knows that in spite of all the loveliness of their conduct, and their distinguished benevolence towards their very enemies, on the simple ground of their being Christians, they were deprived of their civil rights, and persecuted even to imprisonment and death. Was this on the part of the magistrates to be “the minister of God” to them “for good?”

Q. Is not the phrase ordained of God susceptible of a twofold interpretation?

A. Yes. Things are ordained either by the order of his council or providential will, or they are ordained by the order of His word, or preceptive will.

Q. Which of these is our rule?

A. The former is God’s rule, the latter is ours. Deut. xxix. 29. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but those things which are revealed unto us and to our children forever,” that we may do all the words of this law.

Q. According to which of these is civil government “ordained of God?”

A. According to the latter, civil government is “the ordinance of God to men for good.” “Ordained signifies that the powers are of God ordained; that is, are circumscribed by certain rules of right and honesty, within which rules, unless they contain themselves, they degenerate from the ordinance of God:” [David] Pareus. “The powers here (Rom. xiii.) are said to be ordained of God, and verse 2, to be the ordinance of God. The apostle speaks in the general, without application to the Roman or any other, but on the contrary, it is stood upon that he intends his precept of a lawfully called magistrate:” [Charles] Herle.

Q. Can you give any scriptural examples or illustrations of this interpretation?

A. Yes. 1. According to God’s providential will Israel rejected Samuel, whilst according to God’s preceptive will, they should have continued Samuel’s government and not sought a king. Hosea viii. 4, “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes and I knew it not.” Did not approve of the deed. 2. By the former Athaliah usurped the government, by the latter she should have resigned the government, and yielded obedience to the posterity of Ahaziah. 3. Adonijah the usurper, though he had the pretence of hereditary right, and also possession by providence, was, according to God’s preceptive will, forced to yield the government to Solomon. I Kings ii. 13, “Thou knowest,” says Adonijah, “that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign; howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s; for it was his from the Lord.”

Q. Have tyrants and usurpers no other right to rule than the fact of their elevation in God’s sovereign providence, who sends them as he does the tempest and plague, to chastise the guilty nations?

A. They have no other claim, as the scriptures abundantly testify. Zech. xi. 6, “I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour’s hand, and into the hand of ‘his king; and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.” Is. xlii., “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers, did not the LORD, he against whom we have sinned.” Also Is. x. 5, 6; Job xii. 6, Hence called by the holy spirit by the names of the most unclean ravenous beasts. 1. Lions: Prov. xxviii. 15; 2 Tim. iv. 17; Zeph. iii. 3. 2. Bears: Prov. xxviii. 15; Dan. vii. 5-1 7. 3. Bulls: Ps. xxii.; Amos iv. 1. 4. Dragons: Is. Ii, 9. 5. Serpents: Is. xxvii. 1. Yea, leopards, wolves, foxes, dogs, fishers and hunters, &c, &c. See Concordance.

Q. Is civil government, then, a moral institution as it is the ordinance of God?

A. Yes: It is designed of God to be a representation of his own moral authority and rule.

Q. How do you make this appear?

A. In addition to what is stated above, it is evident, in the first place, that civil government is instituted for the preservation of moral order among the human race. Rom. xiii. 3. According to this text, rulers are ordained to promote “good works,” by the exhibition of the rewards which follow them, and the pains which ensue upon the practice of the contrary.

Q. What is the second evidence?

A. The great object of this ordinance of God is to promote the glory of God, inasmuch as the magistrate in the administration of this ordinance is the minister of God, and as his minister must give a representation his rule of God’s moral nature; and of course have in charge the honour of God, and should suffer no encroachment upon the glory of His throne. Every species of immorality is dishonouring to God, and cannot be countenanced by his minister. 2 Samuel xxiii. “The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me, he that ruleth over men, MUST BE JUST, RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD.”

Q. How is it further evident?

A. In that magistracy as instituted of God to promote the happiness of mankind, for the ruler is not only the minister of God, BUT THE MINISTER OF GOD TO MEN FOR GOOD. God has ordained him to be the instrument in diffusing enjoyment among his subjects, by securing their obedience to the immoral law, decreed by eternal wisdom. “Whose ways are pleasantness, and all her paths peace.”

Q. What is the fourth evidence that civil government is a moral ordinance?

A. Inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve the rights of God among the human family. The rights of God are expressed in the first table of the Decalogue, as will appear more fully in another section of this work. “Render unto God the things that are God’s.”

Q. Wherein does it further appear?

A. Its morality appears, moreover, in this, that in order to render it effectual in securing glory to God, and happiness to man, the magistrate is armed with rewards and punishments, to be dispensed with justice according to the law of God, of which he is the minister. 1. Rewards: Rom. xiii. 3, “Do that which is good, and thou shalt have PRAISE of the same.” The magistrate is the encourager of practical morality and piety. 2. Punishments: v. 4, “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. His power as a revenger appealing to the principle of fear, tends to prevent crime; and he doth not bear the sword in vain—he must actually take revenge on him that doeth evil. The object of this revenge is not merely the reformation of the criminal, nor the influence of terror to prevent crime. He is a revenger ordained as the minister of God to show the righteous indignation of Jehovah in punishing the guilty. In the capital punishment of the murderer, its object evidently cannot be his reformation; and whatever modern visionaries may dream, every Bible believer must admit that the judge of all the earth did once arm the civil power with the sword to take away life. He was, at least, then an avenger; but Paul says he is so still. The word avenger admits of no other interpretation. Could we say of a father who chastises his child that he is a revenger? Might we say of our redeemer, when he chastises those whom he loveth, that he is a revenger? The magistrate then is authorized to take vengeance, to execute wrath upon criminals; and thus in a righteous, but awful manner, illustrates the moral nature of civil government as it is the ordinance of God.

Q. Does not the principle upon which capital punishment is justified prove the morality of the ordinance of civil government?

A. Yes. Capital punishment is inflicted to sustain the divine justice, which he exercises by the hand of the magistrate who acts as his minister; nothing is done here by the temerity of men, but everything by the authority of God who commands it; for we can find no valid objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice of God be restrained from the punishment of crimes, and who can lay restraints upon the Judge of all the earth, who will do right? Paul says of the magistrate, “That he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Q. Does not the dignity of the title with which God honours magistrates show the morality of the ordinance?

A. Yes. They are called “Gods.” Ps. lxxxii. 1-6. This is not an appellation of trivial importance, for it implies that they have their command from God, that they are invested with his authority, and are altogether his representatives, and act as his vicegerents; and that their commission has been given to them by God, to serve him in that office, and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they appointed, to “judge not for men but for the Lord.” If magistrates, then, are the vicegerents of God, it “behoves them to watch with all care, earnestness, and diligence, that in their administration they may exhibit to men an image, as it were, of the providence, care, goodness, benevolence, and justice of God,” and in this manner beautifully illustrate the moral excellence of this ordinance of the Deity.

Q. Does not its moral nature further appear from the design of civil government as God’s ordinance?

A. Yes. This design is thus forcibly stated by Calvin; “It is designed as long as we live in this world to cherish and support the external worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite for the society of man, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and tranquillity.”

Q. Is not its moral nature finally evident, inasmuch as it is ordained to preserve and foster the rights and liberties of mankind?

A. “To this object,” says Calvin, “the magistrates ought to apply their greatest diligence, that they suffer not the liberty, of which they are constituted guardians, to be in any respect diminished, much less to be violated. If they are inactive and unconcerned about this, they are perfidious to their office and traitors to their country.”

Q. To what kind of submission is this ordinance of God entitled?

A. It is entitled to conscientious submission. Rom. xiii. 5, “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake:” from a love to God’s ordinance, and respect for his authority, exercised by his vicegerent according to his law.

Q. It is not true, then, that every power that is set up by the majority of the people, and exists by the providence of God, is to be acknowledged and obeyed for conscience?

A. It is not true. For the will of the people is not the law in regard to the nature of magistracy, but the will of God; and as the will of the majority often sets up immoral constitution of government, in violation of the moral character of magistracy, as it is the ordinance of God, hence a distinction must ever be kept up, in respect of obligation, between magistrates set up by the preceptive will of God, and such as exist by his providential will only; and the slavish dogma, “That all providential magistrates are also preceptive,” is forever to be excluded. Hosea viii. 4, “They have set up kings, but not by me. They have made princes, and I know it not.”

Q. Which among the various forms of government approaches nearest the Scripture model, as to its outward constitution?

A. The Republican form—such as was possessed by the Israelites before they wickedly and rebelliously “set up a king.”

Q. Will this be the form in the millennium?

A. There are many arguments in favour of this opinion. 1. The gracious promise, Is. i. 20, “I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterwards thou shalt be the city of righteousness, the faithful city.” 2. From its adaptation to fulfil another prophecy—Jer. iii. 17, “At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD, and all nations shall be gathered to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem.” This can easily be verified by representation. 3. The Scriptural principle, that the people have a voice in the election of their rulers: and though a monarchy may be elective, yet such a form will not so fully as a republic preserve the liberty of the Subject. 4. The title king, in Scripture, does not signify a king in the vulgar sense, but any one possessed of the supreme power, and is applicable to the President of a Republic.

Q. Is not civil government, in one point of view, the ordinance of man?

A. Yes. It is in one view the ordinance of man, a human creation. 1 Pet, ii. 13, “Forms of magistracy, or the laws for the regulation of the commonwealth, are the ordinance of man.” It is lawful for men to model their constitutions of government in such a manner as may appear must suitable to them, provided such constitutions, in their principles and distribution of power, be in nothing contrary to the divine law. Deut. xvii. 14-17, 20, “When thou art come unto the land, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt 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. Thou shalt not set a stranger over thee. But he shall not multiply horses to himself: neither shall he multiply wives: neither silver and gold. That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment.”

Q. Is this view of civil government, as being the moral ordinance of God, a peculiar doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church?

A. It is. The prevailing sentiment is, that civil government is merely a matter of human expediency, to be regulated entirely by the will of the majority, and consequently, that every system which the majority sets up is to be sustained as a lawful power, even though in its principles and distribution of power it tramples under foot the rights of God, and robs the subject of civil liberty.

[ON CHRIST’S HEADSHIP OVER THE NATIONS]

SECTION V.-On Christ’s Headship over the Nations.

Q. What is meant by the term nations?

A. Civil associations—men existing in civil or political institutions; including the office bearers, by whom the laws are administered, as well as the people at large, for whose good they are appointed to govern.

Q. What is meant by Headship in the present application of the term?

A. A headship of authority and moral supremacy, not a headship of providential rule or physical control.

Q. Are we to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ exercises a moral supremacy over the civil or political associations of men, simply as such?

A. Yes. Directly in their secular or political character, he claims dominion over them, and demands their public recognition of his authority.

Q. Is Jesus Christ possessed of peculiar moral fitness to exercise dominion over the nations?

A. Yes he is the Son of God and the Son of Man—God manifest in the flesh—and as such is qualified to exercise this authority. Is. ix. 6 “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”

Q. In what character does he exercise dominion over the nations in their political relations?

A. In his Mediatorial character, in which alone, as has been demonstrated, he is the subject of a gift.

Q. Is this authority conferred as a gift upon Him?

A. Yes. It is the gift of the Father. Christ himself says, “All power is delivered unto me of my Father.” Luke x. 22. And the Father says, “I will make him my first born HIGHER than the kings of any land.” Psa. lxxxix. 27.

Q. Is it necessary that Christ should possess this mediatorial dominion over the nations?

A. Yes. It is necessary that he should have power over the nations, that he might commission his ministers to go within their limits, and preach the everlasting gospel (Matt. xxviii. 18,19). Unless his authority were paramount to existing governments, it would have been a usurpation inconsistent with divine perfection to have sent his ambassadors to negotiate with the inhabitants of the earth.

Q. For what other reason should Christ have power over the nations?

A. To make the Gospel efficient. The mediatory power to make his people willing could not reach into any nation over which his authority did not extend. The kings of the earth have sufficient forces to banish from their dominions the heralds of the cross; and there is enmity in the hearts of men sufficient to reject the Gospel of God, and to render its preaching all together abortive, unless the mediatorial efficiency accompany the ambassadors of Christ, and the message which they bring.

Q. What other reason makes it necessary?

A. It is necessary that he should rule the nations as the reward of his sufferings. Phil. ii. 8, 9, “Wherefore” (because he suffered) “God hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name,” &c. Christ in his humiliation was subject to rulers. Is. xlix. 7. He sat before them to be tried and judged, and although perfectly innocent, the Lord of life condescended to suffer the sentence of death, passed by an earthly ruler, to be executed upon himself. In his exalted state he must be ruler in the kingdoms of men; have a right to demand their submission to his authority, and take such measures as will secure the fulfilment of all his purposes respecting them.

Q. Why is it further necessary?

A. It is necessary that Immanuel should have power over the nations and their respective governments, as the guardians of his Church in the midst of her enemies, and as the terror of all those who are his foes; otherwise his children might be in a situation in which he could not regulate them, and his enemies might act with impunity against him. Ps. cx. 1-3 “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of city strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”

Q. Are not the promises of the Father to the Son a forcible testimony to the truth of the doctrine of his mediatorial dominion over the nations?

A. Yes. The Father has given a number of promises; to this effect, and they are conclusive proof of his dominion over the nations. 1. Ps. lxxxix. 19, 26, 27, “Then thou spakest in vision to my holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people. He shall cry unto me, Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my Salvation. Also, I will make him my first born higher than the kings of the earth.” 2. Ps. 2:8, “Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen (nations) for thine inheritance, the uttermost parts of time earth for thy possession,”—upon which grant the injunction of submission is issued to the rulers and judges—vs. 10-12, “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.” 3. Is. liii. 12, “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ; because he hath poured out his soul unto death.”

Q. Does not the prophet Daniel proclaim the fulfilment of the promises of the Father, in his exhibition of the actual investiture of the Lord Jesus Christ with this royal dominion over the nations?

A. Yes. Daniel in the seventh chapter, verses 13 and 14 of his prophecy exhibits this sublime event. “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, glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him.” In the context we have an array of the fierce nations of the earth, as enemies of the church, frowning upon her members. The Chaldean, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires. The latter, especially under its antichristian form. The ancient of days, Jehovah, occupies the throne. The angels conveying into his presence the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, in our nature, and upon him, by the authority of Jehovah, the Father, dominion is conferred, which extends over all nations.

Q. Was not a similar representation of this sublime scene made to John the apostle while in his banishment to Patmos?

A. Yes. In Rev. v. 1, 2, 5, 7. 1. This sealed book contains the mind or purposes of Jehovah, or the outline of providential events, concerning the church and the nations of the earth, from the days of John in Patmos until the end of time. 2. The opening of the seals not only reveals the events recorded in the volume, but with a view also to their actual accomplishment. This is obvious from the next chapter in which the six seals are broken, by which judgments Pagan Rome is utterly subverted. 3. The placing of the book in the hands of the Lamb to loose its seals, gave the Lamb full power over the book and all its contents, not only as matters to be revealed, but as events to be accomplished. 4. The Lamb deserved this distinction. “He prevailed, conquered, to open the book and loose the seven seals thereof.” By the merit of his blood as “the Lamb slain,” he obtained the right to administer the kingdom of providence, in order to apply his redemption to its objects. The same idea is taught in Phil. ii. 8, 9. The conclusion is obvious. The Lamb, the Mediator, has Lordship over the nations of the earth, as he, is the administrator of the kingdom of providence.

Q. Is not the Headship of Christ over the nations implied in the universality of the mediatorial supremacy?

A. Yes. 1. The declarations, Mat. xxviii. 18; Col. ii. 10; 1 Peter iii. 22. “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Christ—which is the head of all principality and power. Who is on the right hand of God. Angels, mid authorities, and powers being made subject to him—imply very distinctly his dominion over the nations. 2. The idea of universality is often expressed not merely by a general term, but by the enumeration of particulars, and by the exclusion of all exceptions. Eph. i. 21; Heb. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 27. “And set him at his own right hand—far above all principalities, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.”—“For in that he put all things in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him.” When he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that “He is excepted which did put till things under him.” It must be passing strange if, after these statements, the nations are excepted from the mediatorial rule.

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ clearly demonstrate his headship of the nations?

A. Yes. They are most satisfactory and conclusive, because it cannot be conceived that the Holy Ghost would dishonour the Mediator with a series of unmeaning titles. He is “the spirit of truth,” and does not bear false witness.

Q. What is the first title?

A. He is entitled, Ps. lxxxix. 27, the FIRST BORN—higher then the kings of the earth. To the first born belonged the dominion. It is not as the Son of God essentially considered, but as Mediator, that he is here described as “made” higher than the kings of the earth. Besides the words might have been rendered Most High, or supreme over the kings of the earth. עֶ֝לְי֗וֹן is often used to express the supremacy of God, and is translated “Most High.” Dan. iv. 32-34. The dominion of Messiah over civil rulers on the one hand, and the subjection of such to him on the other, are thus clearly implied in this title.

Q. Which is the second title?

A. In Ps. xxii. 28, he is designated “Governor among the nations.” This psalm unquestionably refers to Christ as Mediator. The preceding verse foretells the extension of the church of Christ. “All kindreds of the nations shall worship before him.” And as what follows is introduced as accounting for the universal spread of the kingdom of Messiah, it must be considered as referring to the same illustrious personage. “For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and he is the Governor among the nations.” This eminent title, consequently, must recognise the mediatorial dominion over the nations.

Q. Which is the third title?

A. In the prophecy of Jeremiah there occurs the following passage: “Forasmuch as there is none like unto the O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. Who would not fear thee, O KING OF NATIONS!” Jer. x. 4-7. Nations here means organized civil bodies. King is title of office, expressive of supreme rule or government. He to whom the title belongs is the true and living God, the God of Israel, as distinguished from heathen idols. But as the God of Israel is God in Christ, the title may be regarded as equally applicable to the Redeemer.

Q. Which is the fourth?

A. The writer of the Apocalypse proclaims Jesus Christ “THE PRINCE OF THE KINGS OF THE EARTH.” Rev. i. 5. There can be no room to doubt for a moment, that it is Christ as Mediator who is here spoken of as having the supremacy over civil rulers, supreme and subordinate—all in civil authority, whether in the legislative, judiciary, or executive branches of Government. Of such Jesus Christ is PRINCE, Μαρκων, ruler, Lord, chief, the first in power, authority, and dominion.

Q. Which is the fifth title?

A. The most splendid title of all remains to be noticed. It occurs twice in the Revelation of John xvii. 14; xix. 16. “These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Land) shall overcome them, for he is LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS.”—“His name is called the Word of God—and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written—KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” This title teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ has authority over kings as kings. “King of kings” clearly implies a sovereignty over kings in their regal character, and not merely as private members of his kingdom. A parallel case illustrates this. Esth. vii. 12. “Artaxerxes king of kings.” The empire of the Persian monarch was comprised of 127 provinces or minor kingdoms. Now, was Artaxerxes king of all the inferior kings of his empire as men only, and as ordinary subjects? Or was he their sovereign in their royal character as they occupied their regal thrones? In the latter certainly. Would one of those petty kings of his empire dared to have said, “I am your subject as a man, but as a king on my throne I am your equal, and independent of your authority.” The Persian “King of kings” would have soon crushed him as a rebel. The title therefore, in its specific import, teaches that Christ is the sovereign of kings in their regal official character and station. The title further teaches, that kings and the nations which they govern bear the same political relation to Christ, that the nations bear to their immediate kings. That is, kings and their subjects are the subjects of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and should as such be obedient to his authority.

Q. Does not Rev. iii. 7, “He that hath the key of David,” teach Christ’s civil dominion over the nations?

A. Yes. “The key of David” is the symbol of civil rule. This is illustrated by the case of Eliakim, Is. xxii. 20-22, of whom it is said, “the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder;” and, according to which promise, he was called to the government of Judah and Jerusalem. It was civil power that Eliakim exercised as treasurer to Hezekiah. He succeeded to the treasurer’s robe and key of office. “The key is an emblem of trust; and the expression alludes to the fashion of keys, in old times, which were long and made like a hook, and then laid upon the shoulder, and worn there as a badge of office.”—Lowth. “The key of the house of David,” is, therefore, the badge of civil rule, and, as applied to Christ, presents him as the son of David according to the flesh, and as succeeding to David’s throne, and exercising dominion as the ruler of the nations. David was not the head of the church, but of the state; although as the minister of God, he exercised a guardian but not a sovereign care over the church. He was the type of Christ, as the governor of the nations, making all things contribute to the good of the church—or of true religion.

Q. Was not human society, upon the apostasy of the first Adam, (whom we have seen the first example of civil sovereignty) subjected to another and more distinguished head—THE SECOND ADAM, THE LORD FROM HEAVEN, in order that the race, under him, might be brought back to Jehovah, from whom they had revolted?

A. Yes. Paul, in the second chapter of Hebrews, quotes the 8th Psalm, which we have adduced as proof of the original dominion of the first Adam, and applies it to Christ the second Adam—the Lord from Heaven thereby teaching, that the crown of dominion which fell from the head of rebel Adam, has been placed upon the brow of Jesus, constituting him “king of the whole earth.” “But now we see not yet all things put under him, but we See Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour.”

Q. Do not “the four living creatures,” the apocalyptic symbols of the faithful ministry, and the “four and twenty elders,” symbols of the united congregations of the Old and New Testament saints, acknowledge Christ’s dominion over the nations?

A. Yes. They celebrate his praise with joy. Rev. v. 8. “And when he (Christ) had taken the book, the four living creatures, and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb—and they sang a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book and open the seals thereof.”

Q. Do not the innumerable company of angels surrounding the throne of the Lamb, concur with the ministry and church in these praises of the Lamb as governor among the nations?

A. Yes. They celebrate his exaltation to the throne of the kingdom of Providence, and the government of the nations, with notes of the highest praise. Rev. v. 1 1. “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round I about the throne—and their number was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, saying, with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.”

Q. Does not the united acclamation of all other creatures testify their acknowledgment of his exaltation to the dignity of king of kings, and ruler of the heavens and the earth?

A. Yes. They honour with rapture in the Song of the Angels and of the Redeemed. Rev. v. 13. “And every creature which is in Heaven and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing and honour, and glory and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB FOREVER AND EVER.”

Q. Is not this doctrine of the moral supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ, as mediator, the great matter of controversy with the nations; the prominent principle of the Apocalypse; and peculiar to the Reformed Presbyterian Church?

A. Yes. The whole book of the Revelation relates to Christ, as mediator; and his headship over the nations is its most prominent truth. In the preface to the splendid visions of the book, Christ proclaims himself “PRINCE OF THE KINGS OF THE EARTH; and in the last conflict with the nations his enemies, amidst the fury of the final battle, he exhibits conspicuously “on his vesture and on his thigh,” the splendid title “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS;” intimating clearly, that the defence of his claims, as ruler of the nations is the great object of his warfare, and its acknowledgment the result of the victory which he obtains over his adversaries; and is, consequently, the last article in the testimony of the WITNESSES, and peculiar to them, and remaining to be sealed by their precious blood. Rev. xvii. “THE LAMB SHALL OVERCOME THEM (the kingdoms of this world), FOR HE IS LORD OF LORDS AND KING OF KINGS—AND THEY THAT ARE WITH HIM ARE CALLED, AND CHOSEN, AND FAITHFUL.”

[ON THE SUBJECTION OF THE NATIONS TO GOD AND TO CHRIST]

SECTION VI.-On the Subjection of the Nations to God and to Christ.

Q. Does not the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ over the nations, exclude Jehovah from the throne?

A. By no means. 1. The economical relation illustrated in the first section, clearly shows that Christ reigns by the mutual consent of the persons of the Godhead, being designated to the office by an act of the divine will, and constituted Lord of all by the appointment of the Father; and, consequently, the Father rules by him, as his delegate. 2. The mediatory person and the second person of the Trinity, is but one and the same person, and Jehovah reigns in the person of the Son. 3. The objection proves too much; for it may as well be argued that a work ascribed to the Son necessarily excludes the agency of the Father and the Holy Spirit; and consequently, that the first and third persons had nothing to do with creation (which is ascribed to the Son), as affirm that the ascription of an act to the Messiah excludes the agency of Jehovah. 4. Christ himself, in order to anticipate every objection of this kind, taught, while on earth, that his agency did not exclude the constancy of his Father’s working; nor did the Father’s agency, about the very same object, imply the Son’s idleness. Jno. v. 17, “My Father worketh hitherto and I work.”

Q. Upon the principle of the economical arrangement or covenant between the persons in the Godhead is the acknowledgment of the mediatorial authority of the Son substantially and acknowledgement of that of the other persons in the Trinity, and so of the dominion of Jehovah?

A. Yes; this is manifest, 1. Upon the principle laid down by the inspired Apostle, 1 Jno. ii. 23, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” If he that acknowledgeth that “Jesus is the Christ,” acknowledgeth the Father: equally so, he that acknowledges the mediatorial dominion of the Son, acknowledgeth therein the dominion of Jehovah. 2. The subjection of Israel to the government of God, was to him in the mediatorial person and character; for the relation in which he stood to them was a gracious covenant relation—relation which God absolutely considered cannot sustain to any of the guilty race of Adam, either individually or nationally. “Hear, Israel, the LORD thy God is one LORD.”

Q. Is it the duty of nations to render national subjection to Jehovah, by their national recognition of Christ’s mediatorial dominion over them, as “Prince of the kings of the earth?”

A. Yes.

Q. Which is the first proof of this?

A. The example of the commonwealth of Israel. As it has just been stated, it was the true God in the person of the Messiah, whom they acknowledged, as is plain—1. From his frequent appearances in human form to the patriarchs, Abraham, &c., the progenitors of the nation in covenant with him. 2. Christ was the angel sent before them to guide them from the bondage of Egypt, as the uncreated “angel of the covenant” who had the power to “pardon transgression,” and “in whom” was the name “Jehovah.” Exod. xxiii. 20. 3. From the vision which the elders enjoyed upon Mount Sinai, Exod. xxiv. 10, “And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire-stone, as it were the body of heaven in his brightness;” evidently a vision of the Mediator. 4. In the appearance of an armed warrior he led them to victory over the Canaanites. Joshua v. 13. 5. It was by covenant they submitted to him at Sinai, “All that the LORD hath said will we do,” which is not made with God in his essential character. 6. It was Christ whom they tempted in the wilderness. 1. Cor. x. 9, “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” 7. Now, as the Israelites had a civil government, a national territory and property, and civil relations and rights, all these were completely subjected to the government of the Son of God, in his character of Mediator.

Q. Is there any intimation in the whole volume of inspiration, that other nations should not copy after the example set them in Judea; or that the honours claimed by the Messiah and conceded to him, were peculiar to that territory, and that he doth not demand them in other quarters of the world?

A. There is no such intimation in the Scriptures, but their uniform teachings in this matter enforce the example; and all the passages already quoted in proof of his mediatorial dominion over the nations, imply the obligation of nations to acknowledge his authority by a formal national act of recognition.

Q. Were not the Jews under a peculiar Theocracy, and so, not all example in this respect?

A. We hold, with a modern writer [i.e., Robert Craig, Theocracy; or, the Principles of the Jewish Religion and Polity adapted to all Nations and Times (1848)], “that the Jews were, indeed, under a Theocracy; but so also are all baptized nations. They are as truly taught of God, and as firmly bound to serve him, as the Jews ever were. They have, at least, as great advantages for knowing, his will, and for doing it, as the Jews ever had; and it is difficult even to imagine how Christianity could ever relax the obedience of nations, or remove farther away from them the eye and the hand of Providence, which so intimately superintended the affairs of the Jews. ‘Is he the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles? Yea, of the Gentiles also,’ who have a greater abundance of his oracles and law, than the Jews, before the coming of Christ, ever enjoyed.”

Q. But was there not something in the manner in which that government was managed, altogether unlike that which obtains in other nations?

A. The same author solves this query. “Besides, it must not be overlooked, that God’s government of the Jewish nation was carried on by the usual and visible instrumentality of human government. All the orders of men were employed, as agents, in his government of the people, which have ever been employed in any civilized and well ordered state. There was among them a written statute-book of primary essential law. There were successions of supreme rulers. There were judges, priests, ministers of religion, prophets, teachers of the law, schools, places of worship, &c. God never was their king in the sense of appearing in person, sitting on a throne in the midst of them, and dispensing with the usual agents and instruments. So far was this from being the case, that all the while God was their king, the people had complete forms of government, in which they took part, and which they could and did change at their pleasure. At one time they were ruled by a military chief, as Joshua; at another, by judges; at another, by a pontificate, as Samuel; again, by an elective monarchy, as under Saul; And afterwards, by a hereditary monarchy from David down to the time of the captivity in Babylon &c. But whatever form the supreme magistracy assumed, the law by which it was to be guided was always the same.”

Q. Had not these rulers extraordinary helps of such sort, and to such an extent, as to render the whole administration God’s and not man’s?

A. “It may be objected, that the Jews had the Shechinah, the oracle, prophets, &c., to consult, which no other nation ever had, or can again expect. It is answered that Christian nations have the real Shechinah—the true Urim and Thummim—the whole Word of God or of Christ, speaking most clearly, whenever he is consulted’ on every matter which it really concerns an individual or a nation to know. They have in one book, of easiest access, all the oracles, all the writings of their prophets; all the divine hymns, and all the wisdom of God, which the Jews ever had. They have them as near at hand, spoken in as plain a language, accompanied with as much solemn and impressive grandeur, verified by as many instances of performance, and assigning as clearly the reasons for the providential acts of the same God. In fine, what did the Jews of old know of God and of his government, that we, under the full light of the gospel, have not the means of knowing greatly better than they?”

Q. Can you give any direct proof from Scripture of the duty of nations to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ as their king?

A. Yes, abundant. I adduce the first proof Dan. vii. 13,14, “And there was given him (the Son of man) dominion, glory, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” What stronger proof can be demanded of national subjection to Christ? All nations are his subjects, and if the subject is bound to submit to his lawful king, all nations are bound to acknowledge Christ as their king, and to “serve” and obey him). They must recognise his authority and engage themselves in his service.

Q. Is there any command issued to the constituted authorities of the nations to render this homage?

A. Yes. Ps. ii. 10-12, “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. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” 1. The kiss here demanded is expressive of civil homage. I Sam. x. 1, “And Samuel kissed Saul and said, Is it not because the LORD has anointed thee to be Captain over his inheritance?” 2. It is addressed to the constituted authorities of the nations—kings and judges—the whole national organization. 3. It is plain, therefore, that from the king, or chief ruler, down through all the departments of state, together with the whole national assemblage, there is to be an acknowledgment of the Son of God upon his mediatorial throne. He is to be kissed in token of subjection, and served as the Lord of all.

Q. Is there any promise that this homage shall be rendered the Lord Jesus Christ?

A. Yes; There is a direct promise to this effect. Ps. lxxii. 8-11, “He shall have dominion from sea to sea—yea, all kings shall bow down before him, all nations shall serve him.” None worthy of respect will dispute the application of this Psalm to Christ. Although David refers to Solomon in this Psalm, yet he has in view a greater than Solomon. When David intended to build a house unto the Lord, and was forbidden, God promised that a Son should be born to him who should build the house, and gave him the promise, 1 Chr. xxii. 10, “I will be his father,” which Paul applies to Christ, Heb. i. 6. With such authority we are in no danger of misinterpretation, in applying the text to the subjection of kings and of all nations to the dominion of Messiah, and the duty nationally to acknowledge his authority over them. ALL KINGS SHALL FALL DOWN BEFORE HIM, ALL NATIONS SHALL SERVE HIM.

Q. Are not the nations threatened with destruction if they do not render this national homage?

A. Yes. Ps, ix. 17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Men are contemplated in this passage individually, and in their associated capacity, as moral persons compacted by civil bonds, or organized national bodies; God is to be remembered by man both in his individual and national capacity. To remember God is plainly to recognise his being and authority, and to be obedient to his will. To forget God is not to recognise his being and authority, and to refuse obedience to his will. Every wicked individual that does so shall be literally turned into hell. Every nation that does so shall meet the like most terrible retribution—shall be cut off from the living and covered in the grave.

Q. Is not Ps. ii. 12, “Kiss the Son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little,” another fearful threatening?

A. Yes. This passage, we have seen, is addressed to kings and judges, as they wear their crowns, and are invested with the ermine. If they refuse the kiss of civil homage (as it means) they provoke the wrath of the Lamb, and perish under his iron rod. Hence the Roman Emperors and chief officers of state are represented as calling in terror to the rocks and mountains, “fall on us and hide us from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of his wrath is come.” Rev. vi. 16.

Q. Can you produce any other threatening?

A. Yes. It is also declared in the 110th Psalm, “The Lord at the right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.” They “withstand” him, they resist his authority, they refuse submission, therefore “he fills the places with dead bodies, and wounds the head over many countries.”

Q. Is there a passage which strengthens this argument?

A. Yes. This argument is greatly strengthened by a portion of the 76th Psalm, v. 11, 12, “Vow and pray unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared he shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.” According to HENRY, vowing, here, respects taking an oath of allegiance to the King of kings. Bind your souls with a vow to him, as subjects to their sovereign, he will be feared by those who think it their sole prerogative to be feared. He shall cut off the spirit of princes; he shall slip it off as easily as we slip off a flower from the stock or a bunch of grapes from the vine, for he is terrible to the kings of the earth, and sooner or later, if they be not so wise as to submit themselves to him, he will force them to call in vain to the rocks and mountains, “Full on us and hide us from the wrath of the Lamb.”

Q. Is not Christ’s sentence for the rejection of his authority awful?

A. Yes. Let nations tremble at the terrible sentence of Jesus Christ. Luke xix. 27, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, BRING HITHER AND SLAY THEM BEFORE ME.”

Q. Does not the apocalyptic declaration—Rev. xi. 15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ,”—import this natural subjection to Christ?

A. Yes. It teaches that existing kingdoms, so far from being God’s ordinances, are merely worldly kingdoms. They have their origin and all their regulations from men, corrupt men either rulers or mass of the people, as they are influenced by the devil, the god of this world. They are not such governments as meet the approbation of the Lord and his Christ, whose kingdom we have seen is not of this world, has not its origin from man, but from heaven. But throwing off their allegiance to the devil, and subjecting themselves to Christ, and taking the law at his mouth, and ruling for his glory and the good of the church, and felicity of man, they cast off their worldly character, and are clothed with the beauty and glory of the kingdom of heaven. Now they are the devil’s kingdoms, and “at war with the Lamb,” but by a national acknowledgment of the mediatorial authority of Christ, they become happily transformed into his millennial kingdoms.

Q. Is not the duty of national subjection to Messiah as king taught in Dan. vii. 18 and 27, “The Saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever—and the kingdom and dominion, and greatness of the kingdom, under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High?”

A. Yes, very distinctly. 1. They imply that a great revolution takes the in the kingdoms of the world, (such as described in the preceding answer) in the subversion of those beastly powers exhibited in this chapter, upon which all dominions, all national associations, by a voluntary subjection, serve and obey him. What shall in future be, with divine approbation, ought now to be—all nations should NOW serve and obey the Mediatorial King.

Q. Is not Rev. xxi. 24-26—“And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it—and they shall all bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.”—a further proof of the duty of national subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, as prince of the kings of the earth?

A. Yes. “This passage must be understood as describing a course of preparation that takes place on earth, as it is only in this world that national and official distinctions exist. Now, if nations, as such, are to walk in the light of the New Jerusalem; that is to say, are to derive distinguished honour and privileges from the church of Christ, they must fairly be regarded as under the dominion of the church’s head! And, if kings, as such, are to bring their glory into it; that is to say, are to subordinate their authority, power, revenues, and whole administration to the interests of Christ’s kingdom, we are not only taught that the kings themselves are under the dominion of the Messiah—but in this account of their duty land privilege; we have a beautiful illustration of national subjection to his authority.”

Q. Do not the titles given to Christ demonstrate the duty of national subjection to the authority of the Messiah?

A. They amount to a perfect demonstration. The titles, for example—“king of kings”—“prince of the kings of the earth”—“governor among the nations,” &c., show clearly that kings and nations are the subjects of Christ; and, as subjects owe subjection to the lawful authority over them; so, in like manner- nations owe national subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ—who, by the act of the Father, is constituted their Mediatorial King. The titles are significant of his authority over the nations, and of their reciprocal allegiance to him as their lawful governor.

Q. Does not this claim of Christ—the national acknowledgment of his authority—enter as a chief principle among the causes of the present conflict between the Lord Jesus Christ, and the nations?

A. Yes. The Lord Jesus Christ proclaims His authority as governor of the nations, and the duty of submission to himself on their part; his witnesses testify to the truth, and urge a national acknowledgment of his authority as King of kings. The nations refuse, saying, “We will not have this man to reign over us,” they revolt more and more, goaded on in their mad career by the Dragon, and his subordinates, until the day of vengeance cometh, when the wrath of the Lamb being kindled, burneth like an oven, consuming the rebellious hosts. Is. xlv. 23. “I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness and shall not return; that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Applied to Christ, Rev. xiv. 10, 11, and Phil. ii. 9-11; Zeph. iii. 8, 9. “Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey; for my determination is to gather the nations that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger; for all the earth shall be devoured by the fire of my jealousy-for then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.”

Q. Is not this claim of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the homage of the nations in their national character, a reasonable claim?

A. It is a most reasonable claim—for it seems it self-evident principle, that, as civil government is the ordinance of God, his authority should be recognised. That, as the Lamb is the king of kings, and has the power of civil rule delegated to him, that he should be acknowledged in the exercise of his delegated authority as the vicegerent of Jehovah.

Q. Does not the great majority of professed Christians revolt against this claim of the Messiah—as urged upon them as a peculiar principle of the Reformed Presbyterian Church—and the grand doctrine of their testimony?

A. Yes. They cherish a squeamish sentimentality in relation to civil matters. They shudder, with the infidel, at the thought of religion having any thing to do with politics—that the name of Christ should, in any view, be associated with the kingdoms of this world. Yet, they will plead his imagined sanction for their own connexion with these kingdoms, and the support which they give to their immoralities and grinding oppression. The very ministers, who shrink with a superstitious sensitiveness from the writings of those noble witnesses, who have weighed immoral governments in the balances of the sanctuary, and have pronounced them wanting—will be found at the polls voting for the elevation of the “man stealer!” But, to plead the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as king of kings and to urge the application of his law to civil society—they absolutely refuse—whilst they strenuously defend existing civil establishments, and, in so doing, betray the cause of their Lord and Master.

[ON THE WORD, OR REVEALED WILL OF GOD, THE SUPREME LAW IN THE STATE]

SECTION VII.-On the Word, or Revealed will of God, the Supreme Law in the State.

Q. Upon the supposition that God had a right, from all eternity, to resolve upon creating a world (which cannot be doubted), had he not an equal right to impose such laws upon it as his own glory and its welfare required?

A. Yes. The creator has a natural inalienable right to impose such laws upon the work of his hands as may in his wisdom seem good; and this proposition is so self-evident, that it requires no argument to prove it.

Q. Are not mankind, through their ignorance, and the blindness of their minds, and the depravity of their hearts, greatly lost to the sense of the theory of moral duty, and the source of rational obedience?

A. Yes. Especially in the reasonings of self-styled philosophers upon the institution of civil government, they seem to forget that there is a God, who claims to be the Governor among the nations.

Q. However confused the ideas of mankind may be upon this subject, in point of application to the important interests of morality, does it not appear among their most common notions, that there both is, and ought to be such a thing as Law?

A. Yes. We know of no nations, however savage, that subsist in society, without some sort of laws or regulations by which their mutual intercourse is limited and directed.

Q. Is not the idea of law most likely to be found in the original constitution of rational nature? And is it not here we ought to fix as its most probable locality, the first principle of that social intercourse which so generally draws the different tribes of the human race into their distinct national associations, which we see spread over the whole earth?

A. Yes. The sense of law, or right and wrong, seems to have been impressed upon the original constitution man’s moral nature; otherwise we could not easily conceive how beings of such a texture, and possessing such a versatility of character, as we find obtains in our own common family, could be brought so easily and universally to deliver themselves up to the restraints of civil authority, without some such principle implanted originally in their hearts.

Q. Do not all laws and regulations among men require some rule by which they ought to be moulded?

A. Yes. All the laws that ever were, or will be made, are mere “ropes of sand,” unless they possess a certain portion of His authority, who is our Law-giver and King; and until men resort to this way of making laws, these fabrics of human order will not long brave the mouldering teeth of time.

Q. Had a little more attention been paid to this principle, would the history of ancient and modern times have worn such a face of blood as it does at this day?

A. No. We should not have seen the miserable race of man outraged without end and without measure, mingling their tears with the dust, under the iron heel of civil oppressors, while there is few or none to comfort the oppressed.

Q. Is it not highly probable God has given up, in just judgment, this earth, to groan under the complicated miseries arising from tyranny find oppression, bloodshed and famine, on account of the contempt shown to his legislative character?

A. There can be little doubt of the truth of this statement: nor can we have tiny reason to believe that the disease will be removed until its causes cease.

Q. What will be the consequences to the nations of the earth of the practical restoration of this right to God, as the Supreme Lawgiver?

A. It will serve as an immovable mound to keep off the encroachments which pride, ambition, and avarice have almost generally made upon all the securities of civil liberty, which, in the depth of their wisdom, nations have been able to contrive; an infallible guardian to the rights of man is in vain sought for in the wise maxims of philosophers and patriotic statesmen; in vain do nations attempt to purchase liberty with the best blood of their citizens, while they deliver it. into the keeping of men unacquainted with, or regardless of the supreme legislative authority of God, under which his friends may sit securely and none to make them afraid.

Q. Although the remembrance of God’s legislative authority may for it time become feeble, can it entirely be obliterated from the heart of man?

A. Infidelity and impiety are often forced to relinquish their strongholds, and openly confess that the darkened prisons of human wretchedness never can expect to be visited with a general jubilee, unless God condescends to avenge the quarrel of humanity, and let the prisoners shake off their chains; sceptical philosophers, who have been obliged to invent an atheistical language to serve the interests of their pride and vanity, have, undesignedly, been obliged to recognise God’s legislative character.

Q. Can you give an illustration?

A. Yes. Philosophers, even of the infidel school, are obliged to introduce the notion of laws for the government of the physical world—as they account for the phenomena in the visible kingdom of creation by the name of laws of nature.

Q. What is the import of the term nature in such a connexion?

A. It can mean nothing more than that order of causes and effects, which the only wise God at first established, and which he continually upholds.

Q. What are the laws of nature, so termed in reference to the physical world?

A. They are nothing else than the will of God, taking continued effect upon the different parts of his extended empire: and whether they are called by specific names, such as attraction, gravitation, &c, they are but the effects of the divine will governing the movements of the material creation which his hand hath formed. Hence when infidel philosophers speak of the laws of nature, they are constrained to recognise the will of the Supreme, upon the principle of Blackstone, that “law is a rule of action dictated by some superior being;” the laws of nature being but the rules of action impressed by the Creator upon the material creation.

Q. Now, if these philosophers are obliged to introduce laws for the government of the physical world, is not this aid much more needed for the regulation of the moral system?

A. Yes. So much the more as the moral transcends in excellency the physical world.

Q. Does not the law of nature, therefore, assume a somewhat different aspect as applied to rational man?

A. Yes. It is not merely a rule impressed upon a material subject to regulate its movements, but a system of moral precepts given for the regulation of the conduct of a dependent rational agent.

Q. Had not God a right as a spirit infinite, &c, to display or give scope to the exercise of his perfections, in such a manner as he saw to be conducive to his own glory?

A. The right is indisputable. To deny man a similar right is judged to be insupportable tyranny; it cannot, therefore, be denied to God.

Q. Has God chosen to exercise this right?

A. Yes. Events have made it evident that he saw it every way worthy of his divine majesty, to command a multitude of creatures into existence.

Q. His right to do so being admitted, as it must, does not his legislative authority follow of course?

A. So necessarily are these things connected, we cannot conceive the existence of creation a moment without the continual operation of a system of laws, suitable to regulate, each of its component parts, and guide all their motions into one central point.

Q. Is not the existence of these wise regulations, rendering this world a comfortable habitation for all its inhabitants, apparent everywhere we turn our eyes?

A. Yes. he that would not believe the testimony of day and night, summer and winter, seed time and harvest, would not believe though one rose from the dead.

Q. Is not the denial of God’s right of legislating for his creatures, to assert—that he never had a right to act at all?

A. Yes. For if once his right to create be granted, it will evidently follow that he behoved to govern the creatures made, conformable to some end, or else declare by him carelessness about them, that he made them in sport, and as a trial of his skill, and for no good, wise, or holy purpose. To assert this would be the most horrid blasphemy.

Q. Has not God given abundant testimony of his own moral nature and rectoral character, in the constitution of man’s rational nature?

A. Yes. This is clear from the moral perceptive capacities with which man is endowed; for its well may we believe that the eye in animal nature, and the light in the heavens, have met and held sweet society together for thousands of years, by chance, as believe a moral capacity in man without moral objects, with which it is designed to converse.

Q. Is not this moral capacity, a distinguishing property of man’s nature?

A. Yes. It is a property which distinguishes him from all the inferior ranks of being, and he is hereby enabled clearly to discover his relation to the Supreme Being, and that the Lord hath required of him, that he should do justice, love, mercy, and walk humbly with his God.

Q. Is this power in men a subject of government?

A. It is: Because, 1. Like all other powers of a derived nature, it must be governed—unless we adopt the absurdity, that it neither needs, deserves, nor admits of such a rule. 2. The more of spiritual and intellectual essence, any creature possesses, it is the more susceptible of government; and, accordingly, as dependent beings rise in the scale of excellency, legislative authority takes the firmer hold of their natures and operations. No man, in his reason, will say that moral nature, capable of such extensive employment among God’s works, needs not a government sufficient to confine it within proper boundaries. 3. The abuse of moral power has kindled the fires of hell, and still keeps them burning. 4. Its proper application has embellished heaven with its most transparent lamps. 5. In proportion as morality prevails on earth, it blossoms like the rose, and sends forth a scent like Lebanon. In proportion as it withers, this earth becomes desolate and bare, and puts on the attire of a mourner—such a power certainly demands government. 6. When it is considered, that a moral capacity in human nature forms one of its principal ornaments, and is that wherein it makes the nearest approach to God, and on which he has expended much cost and pains since the world began, we cannot think it unreasonable that it should be a primary object of Divine legislative authority.

Q. May God’s legislative character be argued from his ends in creation?

A. Most certainly. Whatever could move God to create, must move him to govern. It is manifest that creatures cannot exist a moment independently of their Creator, and consequently cannot move on to their point of final destination without constant direction. It must, therefore, follow, 1. That either God had no end in view in forming the beautiful fabric of nature; or, 2. That he has dropped the end if he ever had one; or, 3. That he has missed the end, and given over any farther prosecution of it; or, finally, that he had an end, that he has signified the same to his dependents, and will most certainly see to its accomplishment. It will be no difficulty with any pious mind, which of these suppositions ought to be adopted.

Q. Does a consideration of the existence of civil society and practice of civil government among men, greatly strengthen the argument in favour of God’s legislative character?

A. Very much, indeed. For, 1. Experience shows, that the relation of civil society cannot exist to any advantage, unless under the protecting shade of morality. 2. An immoral society is a monster in nature; nor can anyone, completely such, ever exist, even among the most barbarous nations on earth. 3. If murder, perjury, theft, and adultery, were legitimated, society must speedily be dissolved. 4. Therefore all nations have found it necessary to encircle themselves with criminal codes of laws, by which the lives, property, and virtue of the community are preserved from destruction. 5. God, in his providence, has so ordered it, that in proportion as the moral law has been incorporated into the civil compact of any collective society, that society enjoys happiness on earth, and progresses towards that which is better beyond it. 6. It is not to be concealed, that our vicious nature often thinks otherwise, and acts upon principles agreeable to its corrupt desires; but as certainly it follows, that such departures from the law of our natures, draw after them national ruin, as has been verified in the history of all ages. The uniformity of similar effects following similar causes, clearly evidences this to be the constitution of heaven. 7. Those, therefore, who think or imagine they can perfect constitutions by abridging the moral law’s operation in civil society, are mistaken in one of those points wherein it is of the highest moment to be rightly informed. 8. And if we admit moral considerations at all to have a place in forming the bonds of human society, no doubt then, the more influence, which are communicated thence, the-social compact will be so much the stronger. So that it does appear, from the impossibility of binding the human race together by any cords but those of a moral nature, that God must have exercised his legislative right, in preparing that code by which our family may harmonize in the bonds of love, while sun and moon endure.

Q. Does not the conscience of man confirm this view of God’s legislative authority?

A. Very forcibly. 1. Whence arises the sense of blame with which men are so severely lashed, notwithstanding all their pains to shield themselves therefrom, or cure the wounds when received? The instances of remorse on record, put it beyond a doubt that the heart of man, by its constitution, is rendered susceptible of such impressions. 2. And however speculative and immortal men may, in their closets and upon paper, have attempted to reason themselves amid others into a belief, that there is no distinction between right and wrong, yet we see they have made no great progress in bringing their proselytes to act up uniformly to such a principle: for who, in his senses, has ever been known to commend the murderer of a beloved father or child? Who ever beheld with delight a beloved wife or daughter defiled before his eyes? 3. It seems, therefore, that however men may he carried away by their imaginations into Utopian fields, when they descend and mingle in real life they cease not to feel as other men do, at least in cases interesting to themselves, and to act on, the same principles.

Q. Does not Revelation confirm this reasoning upon legislative authority?

A. Yes, its evidence is decisive. For, 1. What is the whole Old Testament but a history of the giving of laws, the breaches made upon them, and the consequent punishment? or else of due obedience yielded thereunto, with the rewards annexed? And 2. The New completes the Old by adding those sections which more immediately respect the methods by which God’s law has been honoured, and its credit preserved, together with the functions which it continues to perform on the hearts of all who are redeemed from under its curse, as also what its office will be to eternity in and over those who remain destitute of a covering from its awful demands.

Q. God has not, therefore, created man independent of his authority, and sent him forth among his works exempted from the dominion of law?

A. By no means. The above induction brings us necessarily to the conclusion, that man is a dependent creature, he is dependent upon his Creator, and in the language of Blackstone, “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.”

Q. What is this will of his Maker called?

A. It is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endowed it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of its motions, so when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature.

Q. Is this law of human nature of superior obligation?

A. This law of nature, says the same civilian, “being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of superior 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 them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.”

Q. Was this law the basis of God’s covenant with Adam?

A. It was, and was the rule of Adam’s behaviour towards God, and of his dominion which he exercised over this world before his apostasy.

Q. Has this law been abrogated by the apostasy of Adam?

A. By no means. Man’s apostasy did not annul God’s regal dominion over the rebel creature, and the law inscribed upon man’s nature in his creation, whilst it binds him under its penalty, still holds him under the dominion of God; and by it he is under an indissoluble obligation to regulate his conduct in all the transactions of life.

Q. Has not the satisfaction of the law, by the obedience unto the death of Jesus Christ, released man from its obligations?

A. By no means, because believers themselves are said to be under the law as a rule of life. 1 Cor. ix. 21, “Being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.” 2. Christ did not “destroy,” but “fulfilled” the law.

Q. Is not civil magistracy, as the ordinance of God, founded in this law of nature?

A. Yes. Magistracy was first instituted in the human family when God gave Adam dominion over Eve and all the works of his hand on earth, (Ps. viii. 6) of which this law was the rule; and still abides the supreme rule of civil magistracy among the posterity of Adam, through all ages of the world. Rom. i. 32, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which do such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” ii. 14, 15, “For the Gentiles which have not the law (written) do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts, the meanwhile, accusing, or else excusing, one another.”

Q. Can there indeed exist any lawful civil power that has not its fountain and its law in this will of the Supreme Lawgiver, the Creator of the heavens and the earth?

A. No. Civil government, we have seen, as is it legitimate, is the moral ordinance of God, and the Deity himself, alone, is the supreme source of civil power; and consequently the government which he will recognise must be founded in this immutable law of human nature.

Q. Is it not a first principle of this law, that God’s authority be recognised by the constituted civil society?

A. Yes. The rejection of his authority and his law has been the source of the “judicial blindness” which God bas inflicted upon the nations. Rom. i. 28, “For even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”

Q. Is this law fully discoverable by the reason of man from the light of nature?

A. Some faint traces of this law remain upon the moral nature of man, (Rom. ii. 14, 15,) and are revealed in some degree of legibility by the light of nature, (Rom. i. 20-32; Ps. xix. 1,) “so that men are without excuse;” yet man’s intellect has been so much impaired and corrupted by the fall that he is not able fully to discover what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life, as every man finds in his own experience, that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding is full of ignorance and error.

Q. Has this blindness of human reason given occasion to the benign interposition of the Creator in giving a perfect transcript of this law, in a written revelation of his will?

A. Yes. God has been pleased at sundry times and divers manners to enforce his original law, by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law.

Q. Where are they to be found?

A. They are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures; for until they were therein revealed they were hid from the wisdom of the ages.

Q. Is this revealed law contained in the Holy Scriptures of the same obligation with the original law of nature?

A. Undoubtedly; for as the moral precepts of this law are of the same original of this law of nature, and are found, upon comparison, to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they lead in all their consequences to man’s felicity, so their intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity.

Q. Is not this revealed will of God in the Scriptures of truth of even infinitely higher authority than that moral system which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law?

A. Unquestionably. Because the 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, men 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 are never to be put in any competition together.

Q. Do not all just human laws depend upon these two foundations—The Law of Nature and the Law of Revelation?

A. Yes. No human laws should be suffered to contradict them: if they are contradictory to these they have no validity, nor binding obligation upon the conscience.

Q. What is this revealed law usually called?

A. The Moral Law.

Q. Wherein is this moral law summarily comprehended?

A. It is comprehended in a summary manner in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Q. Is this moral law, thus summarily exhibited with all the revealed precepts based thereon, placed in the hands of Jesus Christ the mediatorial King, to be administered by him in the government of the nations?

A. Yes. The law is in the hands of the mediator, and under him the human family, in its national as well as other relations, is commanded to be subject to the law of God. 1 Cor. ix. 21, “Not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.”

Q. Does the Lord Jesus Christ, as the “Governor of the Nations,” demand that their constitution and laws be founded upon his laws, revealed in the Scriptures of truth?

A. Yes. As the King of kings he hath in the Scriptures of truth promulgated his law, and demands that all people, nations, and languages should serve him, by admitting to his sceptre and “taking the law at his mouth.”

Q. Does it appear from the fact already established—the endowment of the Mediator with regal authority aver the nations—that it is the design of God to reduce the human race under him to a condition of obedience and holiness, even upon the earth, nearly resembling that which it would have enjoyed had Adam not revolted?

A. Yes. The MILLENNIUM will exemplify this happy state; and in order to reduce the race to this blessed condition, the constitution and laws of civil governments must be based upon the revealed law of Christ.

Q. Wherein is it evident that Christ claims this national recognition of, and subjection to, his law, revealed in the Scriptures?

A. It is evident, 1. In the fact that men, in their social relations, are under the same law that they are under in their individual capacity.

Q. What is the second evidence?

A. The law under which each individual is placed is “the law” (1 Cor. ix. 21)—evidently the moral law revealed in the Scriptures.

Q. What is the third evidence?

A. As this law was the rule, as proved, of civil government, as lodged in the hands of the first Adam, it remains the supreme rule in that relation still under the second Adam.

Q. What is the fourth evidence?

A. The language of its curse contains this doctrine: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” To this the people collectively were to say, Amen.

Q. What is the fifth argument?

A. The commission given to the New Testament Ministry embodies this doctrine, Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, “Go ye therefore will teach all nations, to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”

Q. What is the sixth evidence?

A. The character of civil government and its administration, described in the 13th of Romans, as the ordinance of God, and the Minister of God to men for good, plainly enforces the doctrine of national subjection to the law of God, because his law is the only rule of moral good.

Q. What is the seventh evidence?

A. The example of the commonwealth of Israel demonstrates the doctrine, Exod. xxiv. 7, “And Moses took the book of the covenant and read in the audience of the people and they said, ALL THAT THE LORD HATH SAID WILL WE DO, AND BE OBEDIENT.” also v. 3.

Q. What is the eighth evidence?

A. The king, of Israel, in their regal capacity, were to have a copy of the law, and to study and apply it in the administration of the government. Deut. xvii. 18, 19, “And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of his law, and the statutes to do them.”—v. 20.

Q. What is the ninth proof?

A. Those kings who obeyed are commended. 2 Chron. xxxv. 26. In the case of Josiah, for “his goodness” according to what was written “in the law of the LORD.” Whilst Rehoboam is blamed (2 Chr. xii. 1) because “he forsook the law of the LORD.”

Q. What is the tenth proof?

A. To possess this holy and divine law was considered the greatest blessing to the nation. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20, “He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel he hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments they have not known them.”

Q. What is the eleventh evidence?

A. It was given to the people as a nation. Thus Joshua addressed the tribes, xxii. 5, “Take diligent heed to do the commandment and the law.”

Q. What is the twelfth proof?

A. National judgments are threatened for its violation, Is: v. 24, 25. “Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the Lord, and despised the word of the holy one of Israel.”

Q. What is the thirteenth evidence?

A. The nation is reproved for its violation. Jer. ix. 13-15. “Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them; therefore, I will feed them even this people with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink.”

Q. What is the fourteenth proof?

A. It is predicted that the nations in New Testament times shall be subject to this law. Is. xlii. “The isles shall wait for his law.” Jer. iv. 17; Is. ii. 2, 3. “In the last days—many people shall go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountains of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

Q. Were these precepts, indeed, addressed not to individuals only, but to the nation as such?

A. Yes. Each precept is in the singular number, thou. This form of expression is used, not merely to indicate that every individual who heard this law is bound to obedience, but also every Christian nation as a body politic or moral person is addressed by the lawgiver, and commanded to obey.

Q. Where is the evidence of this?

A. The evidence is in the fact, that to the nation in its national capacity the decalogue is emphatically directed—I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage. Whom did he bring out of Egypt? The nation, and to it he addressed the decalogue.

Q. Were not the Jews, in their true national organization, as the ordinance of God, designed as an exemplar to all nations in subsequent times?

A. Yes. They were in civil things, “a shadow,” as it were, “of good things to come.” What was transacted by them as a nation in covenant with God, is an example all nations by whom the record of their deeds shall be read; especially in their covenant subjection and obedience to the divine law.

Q. Wherein lies the evidence of this?

A. The evidence lies in the prediction in Psalm cii. 15-18, “So the heathen (nations) shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory. This shall be written for the generation to come; and the people that shall be created shall praise the Lord.” The Jewish nation “bowed the knee” to the God of Jacob, as his servants: and after their example, “so” the organized national bodies, and kings, or supreme civil rulers, officially, shall follow their example—shall fear and serve the name of the Lord—the Messiah—the glory of the Lord; shall do him homage as the King of kings, the Father’s glory or representative in the throne of the nations.

Q. When shall this take place?

A. It shall take place, according to the context, “When the Lord shall build up Zion”—bring in the Jews with the fulness of the Gentiles. The Israelitish commonwealth therefore, stands on the inspired page, an exemplar to all the nations of the world of a just national organization; which shall be, in all its moral elements, strictly copied when the prediction recorded in the Psalm [cii] shall be fulfilled—v. 22. “When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD.” So shall they fear the name of the Lord—by a national subjection to the law of the Lord, in the hands of the Mediator—“the prince of the kings of the earth.”

Q. Is not the decalogue divided into two tables?

A. Yes. The first contains four precepts, and second six. The former teaches our duty to God—the latter our duty to man.

Q. Do the precepts of the first table express the rights of God, which he demands shall be embodied in the civil constitutions of the nations, that their governments may be his ordinance?

A. Yes. They contain “the things of God,” which all nations are bound nationally to “render” him.

Q. Can you give a simple exhibition of these rights or claims of God by the Mediator upon the nations of the earth?

A. Yes. 1. The first requires as an inalienable right of the Godhead, that every nation as such, in its organic character, acknowledge the Lord to be its God. Exod. xx. 3. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before thee.” xxxiv. 14. “For thou shalt worship no other God, for the LORD whose name is jealous, is a jealous God.” Rom. iii. 29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yea, of the Gentiles also? 2. The second precept requires the nation to establish the true worship of God, and to put down, and prevent idolatry or false worship. Exod. xx. 4. “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, &c. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them,” &c. Deut. vii. 5. “Thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.” See an example, by the king Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4-7. If idolatry and false worship is a moral evil—violation of the law—then the ruler must suppress it. Rom. xiii. 4. See also, 1 Cor. x. 19-21. 3. The third precept requires the nations to entertain an awful reverence of the holy name of Jehovah, and sincerely to respect everything whereby he maketh himself known. Ex. xx. 7. “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” Deut. xxviii. 58, 59. “If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name—THE LORD THY GOD—then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful,” &c. Mal. i. 1 1 . For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; (or nations)—and in every place, incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen (nations), saith the Lord of hosts, See Rom. xv. 4; Jam. v. 12; Zech. v. 3. 4. The fourth precept enforces the claims of God upon the nations to observe the Christian Sabbath: to consecrate it as a day of national rest and devotion. Ex. xx. 8. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” &c. See also Jer. xvii. 20-22; Ex. xvi. 22, 23; Num. xv. 32, 33; Neh. xiii. 15; Mark ii. 27. Now, as God is as jealous of his DEITY to-day as of old—as his worship is as sacred—his name as holy—and his sabbath as honourable—it is the duty still of all nations “from the rising of the sun to the setting of the same,” to recognise these his rights, and embody them in their national constitutions, find defend and enforce them by their laws and administration.

Q. Is not the church the only agent now for the application and enforcing of this table of the decalogue?

A. No. The church is an agent in her sphere, but her influence extends over her members only—but civil government is ordained of God as a grand co-operative agent with the church in the application of the divine law to society, and its arm, in the spreading of moral influence, reaches far beyond her boundaries, into the dark places of the land. Besides, if the state is not “for the Lord,” it will be “against him”—it cannot be indifferent, and may paralyse the arm of the church even in the legitimate sphere and manner of her action—as is exemplified abundantly, in our own land, in relation to all the rights of God.

Q. Does not the second table of the decalogue specifically commemorate the rights common to all mankind, and guaranteed by God to all equally, and to be secured to them in the constitutions of civil government?

A. Yes. The rights of men exist before the constitution of civil government—they exist in the divine law; and civil government confers none of them; but is ordained of God to secure and protect them as the boon of heaven, hence civil magistrates are the administrators also of the precepts of the second table of the decalogue.

Q. Have you not already informed us that civil government is the ordinance of man? How does this agree with your statement of the duty of national subjection to the law of God?

A. Whilst civil government is the ordinance of man in a certain view of it; it is, at the same time, the ordinance of God (as we have seen in it former section), in its grand fundamental moral principles, and these views are not inconsistent. Men are free as it respects one another, and have a right to erect government over themselves, and no man has a right to rule his fellows, without authority conveyed by the free suffrages of the majority. But no number of people have a right to establish it government upon any other foundation than the law of God. Civil government subordinately to the glory of God, is designed of God, for the highest good of the whole, and must be so organized as that no one will be deprived, unjustly, of his rights, which belong to him equally with the rest.

Q. Is not the law of God the fountain and rule of human rights?

A. Yes. The rights of men are all derived from God, and the law of God defines them; and the substance of that law, as it is the rule of human rights, is condensed in the golden precept,—“As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” This places all men upon an equality, without respect of persons or complexions. If men observe this rule, they enjoy an infallible security against oppression and wrong.

Q. Can you give a summary enumeration of the several rights which the second table of the decalogue, defines and guarantees to mankind?

A. Yes. The first precept of this table is designed to preserve subordination in society by regulating the mutual duties of superiors and inferiors. 1. It maintains parental authority, which is one of the main pillars of society; whilst it secures, on the other hand, the rights of the child, who is to be honoured as a rational and immortal being, and not the abject slave of a domestic tyrant. 2. It regulates the relation of master mid servant, secures obedience to the former, and the “rendering of that which is just and equal” to the latter. It does not elect the former into a lordly and irresponsible tyrant, with the scourge for his sceptre, and to reduce the latter into the groveling condition of the brutalized slave. There is no such relation recognised by the law of God. The master is the head of the family, and the servant is as the son, subordinate to the head of the domestic establishment, amid the labourer is worthy of his hire. Jer. xxii. 13. “Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that uses his neighbour’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work.” 3. It regulates the relation of husband and wife, minister and flock, and secures their reciprocal rights, as expounded elsewhere in the Scriptures. 4. Civil government, also, has its security under the aegis of this precept. It guarantees obedience to legitimate rulers administering the ordinance of God; and secures the rights of the subject, as those of the son. It presents the civil ruler as a benignant parent, and all the people surrounding him as his beloved children, whom he nourishes and cherishes as a father his son. 5. In one word, the second table guarantees to all equally the preservation of life, chastity, property, reputation, and is designed even to suppress the lustings of the depraved heart after that which is the possession of another. 6. It is true that civil government cannot reach the heart. It regulates the life. Yet it is ordained of God not only to punish overt acts in violation of any of the precepts, but to prevent crime by precautionary regulations, and a parental surveillance. As an illustration—it is the duty of civil government, for the preservation of chastity, secured by the 7th commandment to suppress the houses of temptation, and to protect society against the wiles and obscenity of “the strange women, whose house is the way to hell;” and on the other hand to protect woman from the lust of licentious and debased men, who prowl around the loveliest, that they may seize them as their prey. 7. Thus with regard to every other precept of the decalogue, civil government is its guardian, and is bound to apply it equally to all the subjects of its sceptre, not only to punish the transgressor, but to enforce its observance by such regulations as will bring the precept to bear upon the minds and consciences and lives of all under its jurisdiction.

Q. Is not civil government bound, as it is God’s ordinance, to execute the penal statute, enacted its sanctions and enforcements of the precepts of the decalogue?

A. This seems to be a necessary deduction from the principles established. Because, 1. Those particular judgements which were enacted for the defence and enforcement of the moral laws are, from the nature of the case, of perpetual obligation, for the penal sanction of a law is a part of the law itself. Take away the sanction, and the law is annulled. 2. They were the punishments decreed of God for crimes committed in violation of his own law, and he knows best what punishment is due to its transgression. 3. The moral law is of universal and perpetual obligation, its penal sanctions must carry with them a tantamount obligation. 4. They were enacted for the defence of the authority of the decalogue, which is ever to be defended—the defence should perpetually surround the law. 5. The nature of crime is invariably the same, no lapse of time destroys its punishable character; hence, like crimes in every age deserve like punishment, as they attack the authority of God the Lawgiver, and subvert the good order, purity; and peace of society with equal malignancy. 6. The judicial judgments to which reference is had, were those which were appended to precepts of the first and second table were reducible to these; were, in fact, the application of these to civil society, by the same awful authority which promulgated the decalogue. He who said, “thou shalt not kill,” said also, “The murderer shall SURELY be put to death.” He who said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” said also, “The adulterer and adulteress shall SURELY be put to death.” He who said, “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain,” said also, “He that blasphemeth the name of the LORD shall SURELY be put to death.” 7. Paul, 1 Tim, i. 8-10, which see, powerfully enforces this argument. It is evidently the penal law to which the apostle refers, because elsewhere he affirms that believers—the same with the righteous—are under the law to Christ. The righteous man is not liable to the judgments of the penal law, but the transgressor of the moral law is exposed to its sanctions. The law, as it is preceptive, is a rule of life to the righteous, and he delights in it after the inner man. The penal law applies only to the wicked, “murderers,” &c. The sanctions of the law, then, are of equal obligation with the law itself. 8. Other judicial enactments are recognised by Paul as yet binding in their principle as a moral rule. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, “For it is written in the law of Moses. Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? FOR OUR SAKES, NO DOUBT, THIS IS WRITTEN. That he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that he that thrasheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope.”

Q. Is it not at least strange, that men favoured with a pure copy of the divine law, in the volume of revelation, should reject this fountain of light, and go back to the indistinct “dictates of conscience” to regulate any part of human conduct?

A. Yes. It is more than strange, it is extremely stupid and utterly inconsistent with Christianity; especially when God declares that it is “To the law and to the testimony we must bring all actions and all relations. If they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them.” Is. viii. 20. The truth is, that revelation is given to men to supply the imperfections of the law of nature; and to restrict ourselves to the latter, and to renounce the former, in any case in which it is competent to guide us, is at, once to condemn God’s gift and to defeat the end for which it was given; and is as absurd as it would be to require men, when the sun is in the heavens, to shut out its full blaze, and go about their ordinary business by the feeble rays of a taper.

Q. Must not those who adopt anti-government principles and reject civil government as an institution necessary and beneficial to mankind, when rightly constituted, become atheists, and reject not only the authority, but also the being of a God?

A. This seems to be a necessary result of such principles because as man is a rational creature he is necessarily subject to his Creator, who has promulgated his law and instituted civil magistracy as his ordinance, and the civil ruler as his minister, for the application of this in the government of the moral subject.

Q. Is not the authority of God, therefore, and his law paramount to all other authority, even that of “We the people,” in the government of man in his civil relations?

A. Yes. Man has no natural inherent rights of his own. All his are derived from God, are, of course, subject to his law, and are to be defined and regulated by it. A right in opposition to his own, God does not, cannot give; nor is it competent to any power to impart and sanction such a right. The sentiments of Blackstone should, therefore, be deemed axioms, and recorded in letters of gold in the halls of legislation. “Upon these two foundations, THE LAW OF NATURE AND THE LAW OF REVELATION, DEPEND ALL HUMAN LAWS. THAT IS TO SAY, NO HUMAN LAWS SHOULD BE SUFFERED TO CONTRADICT THESE.”

Q. What, according to this law, are some of the qualifications of civil rulers authorized to administer civil government as the ordinance of God?

A. The law of God, revealed in the scriptures of Truth, requires that those who rule should possess much a moral character as will fully entitle them to the designation of MINISTERS OF GOD. They should, therefore, possess the following qualifications:

1. They should be wise, able, understanding men, not children, weak, ignorant, or fools. Ex. xviii. 21: “Moreover, thou shalt provide of all the people able men.” Deut. i. 13: “Take you wise and understanding men, and I will make them rulers.” Ezra vii. 25: “Set magistrates and judges that may judge the people, such as know the laws of thy God.”

2. They should be men of distinction, well known in the community. Deut. i. 13-18: “And known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men and known, and made them heads over you.” 2 Chr. xix.

3. Just men, men of truth, fearing God and hating covetousness. 2 Sam. xxiii. 2, 3: “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was on my tongue. The LORD God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: HE THAT RULETH OVER MEN MUST BE JUST RULING IN THE FEAR OF THE LORD.” Exod. xviii. 21: “Men of truth, fearing God, hating covetousness.”

Q. Is there a government on earth that can be recognised by the Christian as the ordinance of God, and to which he can be obedient for conscience sake, and in consistency with his allegiance to Jesus Christ—the prince of the kings of the earth?

A. There is not. Since the captivity of Judah, about 558 years before the Christian Era, until the present day, scarcely an instance has occurred in the whole history of nations, of a kingdom or commonwealth regulating their polity upon purely scriptural principles. Many nations, it is true, have pretended to be Christian; and religion has been scandalized by their unholy interference. Many Christians have also have deceived and misled into a belief, that the kingdoms of the nations were so constituted as to merit their conscientious acquiescence and pious support. But the prince of the kings of the earth, who gave the revelation to his servant John, teaches us, that now (under the seventh trumpet, Rev. xi. 15, yet future), for the first time, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of God and of Christ. Heretofore they have been thrones of iniquity, having no fellowship with God. (Psalm, xciv. 20), characterized as beasts and horns of beasts, both by Daniel and the writer of the Apocalypse. Servants and admirers and apologists and eulogists they have had in abundance; but there was not a voice in heaven raised in their commendation. They were to be feared but not approved by the servants of the Most High.

Q. Will not the condition of the nations, when they become voluntarily subject to Christ and his law, be most prosperous and happy?

A. Yes. The prosperity and felicity of Ancient Israel, when the law given that commonwealth was faithfully observed, will be the blessed inheritance of the nations when obedient to Christ. Deut. iv. 6-9: “Keep, therefore, and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 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? Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons.”

[THE DUTY OF NATIONS, IN THEIR NATIONAL CAPACITY, TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND SUPPORT THE TRUE RELIGION]

SECTION VIII.-The Duty of Nations, in their National Capacity, to acknowledge and support the True Religion.

Q. Is civil magistracy, as the ordinance of God, conversant only about the transient and paltry affairs of merely animal gratification?

A. Such a view, though common, is utterly incompatible with the origin and design of the institution, which has descended from the throne of God, for the express purpose of preserving moral order among men.

Q. Is there any institution given to God to men, so happily adapted to preserve moral order among mankind as the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ?

A. There is none—for its very nature is to promote “peace on earth, and good will towards men.”

Q. Are the two great institutions—civil government and the Christian religion, or church and state, hostile to, and in their nature and action calculated to frustrate each other, in the benign influence which they may respectively exert upon the human race?

A. No. They are friendly powers under the same moral regimen,—the law of God, and designed in their respective spheres and by the means peculiar to each, to advance the same objects, the glory of God on earth, and the best interests of mankind.

Q. Are they distinct powers?

A. Yes. They are distinct powers, and independent one of the other as will appear in its place, and each has its distinctive and particular sphere of action.

Q. Is it not the custom of independent civil powers to form treaties of alliance, offensive and defensive, against a common enemy and for mutual benefit?

A. Yes. It is a common practice, and generally, if the principles of the treaty are just, tends greatly to the pence, security, and mutual interests of the contracting parties.

Q. Have not church and state their common enemy?

A. Yes. Sin is their common enemy, presenting itself in the specific forms of ignorance, immorality, and irreligion. “Righteousness exalteth a nation, sin is a reproach to any people.”

Q. May not church and state form, and is it not their duly to do so, such friendly alliance for the promotion of intelligence, morality, and religion, and the suppression of the baneful influence of their common enemy?

A. Certainly. As they have a common enemy, and (as stated) a common object, they ought to form such friendly alliance, that they may have a mutual understanding of their legitimate and distinctive spheres of action ; and co-operate, encourage, and mutually strengthen each other in the advancement of the common good.

Q. Should the true church of Christ, “The bride, the Lamb’s wife,” form such all alliance with a heathen, antichristian or immoral state?

A. By no means. The same law applies to the church collectively which applies to the individual members, not to be “unequally yoked with unbelievers;” even as God’s ordinance of civil government in operation in Judea, was forbidden alliance with a heathen and idolatrous civil power. Isa. viii. 12, “Say ye not—A confederacy—to all them to whom this people may say—A confederacy.” 2 Cor. vi. 15, “What concord hath Christ with Belial?”

Q. May God’s ordinance of civil government form an alliance with a corrupt, heathenish and anti-Christian?

A. By no means: any more than a Christian man should ally himself in marriage with a polluted harlot, impenitent, and unreformed.

Q. Has not the church in past ages received detriment and does she not in some nations at the present time sustain injury by being thus unequally yoked with immoral anti-Christian civil powers?

A. Yes. She has been and is still greatly injured, and from the very nature of society, she must suffer in such connexion, until both learning and power are transferred into the hands of godly men, and so made subservient to piety. Independently of the impressive lessons of long and painful experience upon this Subject, it is quite reasonable to expect that if unsanctified men incorporate revealed religion with civil government, such a form will certainly be given to religion as may suit unsanctified power. The daughter of Zion is much better without such an alliance, for it is the very essence of anti-christianism. The Bride, the Lamb’s wife, cannot he supposed to escape pollution, if taken into the embraces of unholy men, and rendered dependent upon a government which they administer. It is safer for the friends of religion to continue like the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, faithfully struggling in poverty against the frowns of power, than to become the stipendiaries of irreligious statesmen.

Q. As you do not approve of every kind of union church and state, and as no existing union receives countenance, for what kind of union of these distinct independent powers do we plead?

A. We plead only for a union between God’s moral ordinance of civil government, duly constituted as his minister to men for good, with pure Christianity, or the Bride, Lamb’s wife.

Q. As both of those institutions, church and state, from God, is it not a just inference, that they are designed by Him to dwell together in harmonious union, and co-operation, for the promotion of the good of mankind—like the “two olive trees”—that through “the golden pipes;” pour their oil into the common bowl?

A. It cannot be justly questioned. Because, if not allied as they exist in the same community, they must frequently come into conflict with each other, and thus mar their influence respectively: for if the state has no regard, in its administration, for religion, it will desecrate its most sacred institutions, as is the case in this land with respect to the Christian sabbath.

Q. Is it not a dictate of nature (among those notices of God and our duty which we have independently of revelation) that God is to be worshipped by man, not only in his individual, but also in his social capacity?

A. Yes. Hence we find, even the most savage benighted tribes have their social, and even national religious observances and festivals.

Q. Have we not the substance of sabbatic institutions taught us by the light, of nature?

A. Yes. Heathen nations have their stated times to public national homage to their gods.

Q. Must not these times of social and public assembling for religious worship be appointed and regulated by national law?

A. Yes. Because upon no other principle could there be a general concurrence of the community in the times of meeting, and the enjoyment of tranquillity and order when assembled. Hence all nations have their times of meeting for religious purposes fixed by a national decree.

Q. Is not the idea of a nation destitute of the religious sentiment shocking to our moral nature?

A. Yes. Religious sentiment and practice is absolutely essential to national happiness, and even its existence—of the truth of which we have all awful illustration in the history of revolutionary France: where the leaders of the dominant factions discarded the religious sentiment, when iniquity in every monstrous form raised its head, and stalked through the land; virtue and piety were crushed; amid the blooming plains of France were saturated, and its rivers flowed with blood.

Q. Did not Greece and Rome bear decided testimony to the high importance of a national faith, and incorporate with their constitutions laws respecting religion?

A. Yes. The heathen teach us. These nations so celebrated in history, yielded a national allegiance to their gods, and aimed at the sanctification of their civil institutions and all their national enterprises, by the approbation of their gods. The State was the guardian of their religion and upon every victory they brought their national “votive offerings” to the temples of their gods.

Q. Is there an object on the earth so sublime in its character and so worthy of national care as the Christian church?

A. No. There is not among the ranks of created being one object worthy of comparison in point of sublimity with the Christian church—“A moral empire consisting of members animated by the Eternal Spirit, the Mediatory person, God manifest in the flesh, as its head, the vast machinery of creation moving in regular subordination to its interests, and exhibiting the ineffable glory of the Divinity, is an object to be contemplated with admiration and awe.”—“Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.”

Q. Is not the Headship of Christ over the nations a convincing argument in proof of the duty of nations to maintain and cherish his religion?

A. There cannot be anything more conclusive. Christ’s dominion over the nations, as over all other things, is for the good of the church. “He is head over all things to the Church;” and certainly so important a part of his empire, as national society, is not exempted from the duty of exerting its influence for the welfare of that church, for the special benefit of which Christ is exalted “Lord of all.” As civil government is subjected to Him, it is with the intent that, in its administration, it shall contribute to the welfare of Zion. And this is done by a national embrace of his religion to the exclusion of all others, and an engagement to its support.

Q. Have we not examples in the Old Testament scriptures, of this happy alliance between church and state?

A. Yes, several. 1. The patriarchal system of government prevailed generally in the world until the time of Moses. The Patriarch was King and Priest, exercising a species of extended family government, in which, among the godly, all temporal affairs were managed in subserviency to religion. Such were Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, who “commanded their households to keep time way of the Lord.” What an ancient Patriarch and his patriarchate or family did for advancing among themselves the interests of godliness, every nation as it body may and should in substance now do, for the present mode of government has succeeded this primitive institution—is merely an enlarged family. 2. Melchizedec was King of Salem, and at the same time Priest of the Most High God. His civil dominion was subservient to the interests of piety. 3. By divine authority the civil government of the Jews succeeded the primitive patriarchal institution—which was also rendered completely subservient to the religion of the Son of God. Legal countenance and support were given to the institutions of religion; and Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, and others, concerned themselves in the capacity of civil rulers about the interests of the Church. The erection of places of worship—the support of the ministers of religion, the removal of obstacles—and the correction of abuses, occupied much of their attention. A clear evidence that union between church and state is not necessarily, and in itself sinful—else it never could at any time have received the divine approbation and sanction. 4. The union and co-operation of the King and the Priest. Moses and Aaron, Joshua and Eleazer, David and Abiathar, Solomon and Zadok, Hezekiah and Azariah, Zerubbabel and Joshua—and Samuel “who judged Israel and built an altar unto the LORD,” [1 Sam.] vii. 17. 5. The example of Cyrus and Darius, Ezra i. 1-4; vi. 9-12. Approved of God, vi. 12, 16, 20, 24, also viii. 10. 6. The King of Nineveh, when God’s prophet denounced judgment, proclaimed a fast, giving an interesting example of the duty of magistrates to exercise a care about the moral and religious interests of their people.

Q. Were not these examples, especially that of the subserviency of the Jewish civil policy to the true religion, designed to be limited to that dispensation?

A. By no means—as is evident from the consideration, that it was founded in reason, or the immutable principles of Christian philosophy; for religion is intimately, yea, vitally connected with all that should be done by man in this life, and lies at the foundation of all that, regards his prospects of future blessedness and glory; and it is unreasonable to suppose that he should lose sight of it utterly the moment he acts as a member of the civil community. An immortal being should act everywhere with reference to his immortality. The reason is as valid to-day as in ancient times, and these examples are therefore to be copied in all succeeding ages. “What was written of old times was written for our instruction.”

Q. May not the duty of nations to acknowledge and support the true religion, be conclusively reasoned from the character of civil magistracy, as the ordinance of God described by the apostle in Rom. xiii. 2, 3?

A. The passage is conclusive, as is evident, 1. From the title given of the ruler. “The minister of God.” Can the ruler he the minister of God, and yet in his rule have no regard for religion? 2. From the objects of his office. “A terror to evil doers,’—a “revenger,”—“a terror to him that doeth evil.” Are not offences against the first table, which relates to God and his worship, evils? He is also to be “a praise to them that do well.” Are not the deeds of piety worthy of his countenance? If the magistrate is “the minister of God,” and “a terror to evil doers,” he must be so not only to the immoral, but to the profane and irreligious; and if “a praise to them that do well,” he must be so not only to the moral, but also the religious—inasmuch as the works of piety are incomparably more excellent and worthy of fostering care than those of cold morality. 3. Moreover, the passage teaches that civil magistracy is especially designed for the good of the saints. For they are particularly addressed,—“to thee,” “the saints.” Rom. i. 7.

Q. Is not this argument confirmed by the reason given for the prayer for the conversion of magistrates who were notorious enemies of Christ and persecutors of his religion? 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

A. Yes. For this is not a prayer for the success of an ungodly, immoral, civil power, but a prayer for the conversion of civil rulers to Christianity; that their government being founded upon Christian principles, and its administration regulated by the Christian law, the subjects may live under its jurisdiction “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness” or, which is the same thing, the practice of true religion.

Q. Is not idolatry punishable at the judicial tribunals and is not this a proof of the care civil rulers should exercise about the true religion?

A. Yes. Job declares it, xxxi. 26, 27, to be “an iniquity to be punished by the judge,” and thereby teaches that the civil ruler should exercise a guardian care about religion in the suppression of idolatry.

Q. 25. Does not the prophet Isaiah, xlix. 22, 23, write “Kings shall he nursing fathers,” &c., forcibly teach the duty of civil governments to acknowledge and support the Christian religion?

A. Most clearly. The passage manifestly refers to New Testament times, and predicts that a prominent feature of those times shall be the subserviency of civil rulers to the church. The figure employed, of “nursing fathers,” is a similitude which imports the most tender care, the most anxious solicitude, not mere protection, but active and unwearied nourishment and support.

Q. Does this Passage give countenance to the opinion entertained by some, that the best thing the state can do for the church is “to let her alone?”

A. Certainly not. Such an idea is utterly inconsistent with the figure. Strange and unnatural nurse, indeed, who takes no interest in the welfare of her feeble charge, but lets it alone, to shift for itself! On the contrary, the just import of the figure clearly teaches that in New Testament times it will be esteemed one of the most important and interesting functions of men in the most exalted civil stations, to nourish and cherish the church of Christ, as a tender nurse the beloved child committed to her charge.

Q. Is the opinion of some correct, who, to neutralize the force of this passage, hold that rulers are here spoken of not in their official but in their private and personal capacity, inasmuch as “queens” may be here viewed not as queens regnant, but consort?

A. We answer in the words of Dr. Symington, “It is, however, far from self-evident that queens are spoken of here in the latter capacity; for every candid person will admit that the very same phraseology might as naturally be employed in speaking of queens regnant in relation to their husbands as of kings regnant in relation to their wives. It is, therefore, not by any means clear that queens are here to be understood as consorts only; or, admitting this, will the inference follow from it legitimately that the kings are to be understood merely in their private domestic capacity, as consorts of the queens. When subjects pray for the blessing of God on their king and his queen, as they are every day in the habit of doing, the queen is of course the queen consort, but surely it cannot for a moment be supposed that they do not refer to the monarch in his official capacity. Because his partner can only be viewed as associated with him in her private capacity. Yet it is only on such a supposition as this that the meaning we attach to the passage before us can be evaded. Even admitting then, for the sake of argument, the interpretation proposed with regard to queens, they are referred to only as consorts, the inference drawn from it with regard to kings, does not follow. It does not follow that kings are referred to only in their private capacity. The kings may still after all be kings regnant, and the utmost that the passage can be made to bear is, that both kings and whether regnant or consort, are bound to exert all the influence they possess, in their own proper spheres, to aid and foster the interests of- Messiah’s kingdom in the world. Because queen consorts can do this, only in their own private sphere, it does not follow that kings regnant, in their proper sphere, are not also bound to do the same. On the contrary, the prediction before us leads us to conclude that in the times of the gospel, persons of the most exalted public stations shall exert their influence in behalf of the church of Christ.”

Q. Does not Isaiah, lx. 11, 12, 16, “Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be still day nor night: that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings,” powerfully enforce this doctrine?

A. Yes; with great power. “Here there cannot be the shadow of doubt about the sense in which kings are spoken of. The pronoun ‘their’ in this sentence, at least, is decidedly in favour of the view that they are to be regarded in their public capacity; they are spoken of as the people’s kings, or kings in the possession and exercise of official power and influence. In this capacity they are represented as ministers to the church of Christ in various ways. Nor is this passage less decisive that it comprehends a threat of awful judgement denounced on such nations and rulers as shall refuse to yield the service required.”

Q. Have we not an additional argument of great weight in Ezek. xlv. 17, “It shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all the solemnities of the house of Israel, and he shall prepare the sin offering?” &c.

A. Very weighty indeed. The mysterious prophetic vision with which the words quoted are associated, is believed by all judicious commentators to refer to the church in New Testament times. Some portions of the figurative allusions are to us mysterious, but the passage quoted plainly teaches that in those times the civil ruler, in his official capacity, will contribute largely to the support of religious institutions.

Q. Does not Psalm xlv. 12, “And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift, even the rich among the people shall entreat thy favour,” beautifully instruct us in the same grand truth?

A. It does. The church in this psalm is exhibited in the splendid array of a queen, the consort of Christ, the king of glory. The accession of the Gentiles to the church seems to be here predicted under the name of Tyre, a neighbouring city, and at that time the mart of the world; for even the richest of the nations will in due time submit to the Messiah, “consecrate their gain” to him, in support of his religion and kingdom, and court the friendship, and solicit the prayers of his church. “Thy favour,” פָּנַיִךְ. The pronoun is feminine, and the queen, the church, is especially meant.

Q. Have we not a further conclusive argument in Is. ii. 2, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the tops of the mountain, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it?”

A. Unquestionably. “The last days,” or latter days, signify the time of the Messiah. As Solomon’s temple, the centre of Israel’s worship, was placed upon a mountain, to which the people resorted with their sacrifices from distant places, so the church of Christ and its instituted worship are represented as a temple built upon a mountain. “Mountains” and “hills” are scripture symbols of the greater and lesser kingdoms of the earth (Amos iv. 1, Jer. li. 25), and the passage plainly teaches the establishment of the church by these kingdoms, or the national acknowledgment and support of the religion of Christ.

Q. Does not Rev. xi. 15, “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ,” forcibly teach this duty of nations?

A. Very forcibly. Because its manifest interpretation is, that it teaches a national recognition of the authority of Christ, and a national profession of his religion as kingdoms promised to Christ. It is not the private and individual regard of many of the inhabitants of the land that constitute it the kingdom of its Prince, but the publicly declared and pledged alliance of the people, and of their representatives. “It imports their becoming Christ’s as formerly they had been antichrist’s. As the nations under antichrist did acknowledge and submit to antichrist in a national way, so shall they as solemnly reject antichrist, and take Christ in his room, and become his people in a national capacity,” by submitting to his authority and embracing and supporting the true religion.

Q. Does not Rev. xxi. 24-26 beautifully seal this argument in proof of the duty of nations nationally to acknowledge and support the true religion?

A. Yes. Here are glorious blessings promised. “The kings of the earth in the church.” “The nations walking in the light of Zion.” The kings of the earth promoting the prosperity of the church by consecrating time wealth and glory of their empires to the Son of God, to beautify the place of his sanctuary.

Q. Is not the Christian religion, or church of Christ adapted to exert a benign influence upon the nation by which it is embraced?

A. Yes, in a great variety of ways. 1. It teaches the true character of civil government, as a benign institution of heaven, or God’s own minister for the promotion of the happiness of man, and is adapted by its teachings to restrain tyranny on the one hand, and to prevent anarchy on the other, be establishing the just spheres of rulers and ruled. 2. It. is favourable to true liberty, by checking selfishness and inspiring benevolence, and teaching a strict moral equality. 3. It operates favourably upon national wealth, as it requires all to “be diligent in business,” for “he that will not work shall not eat;” teaches moderation in the use of earthly good, and inspires all to exercise a tender regard for the poor, and prevent, or at least ameliorate, the evils of pauperism, “which spread like a leprosy over an immoral population.” 4. Greatly promotes the peace of a nation. It proclaims “peace on earth and good will towards men;” unites men and nations in the bonds of Christian love; and securing peace with God, inclines its subjects to “follow peace with all men;” and will ultimately eradicate the fierce and warlike passions of our depraved nature, and bring about, in proportion as it is nationally embraced, that blessed period when “nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” 5. It secures the true morality of a nation. It alone carries with it those influences by which corrupt man is changed in the disposition of his mind, and his affections are sanctified. Its laws and institutions are adapted to advance the same process of purification; particularly its Sabbath is a national blessing, as the most effectual instrumentality for the promotion of the national morality and piety. 6. It places the nation which embraces and practises it under the divine protection, and secures it “God’s full flood” of blessings, so that by his arm it is defended against all its foes, and by his bounty it is rendered prosperous and happy Thus Israel was protected and blessed, as the nation adhered, to the religion of the Messiah; but “wrath came upon it to the uttermost” when his religion was corrupted and abandoned.

Q. Is not God’s ordinance, as his minister, qualified to exert upon the Church the most happy influence?

A. Yes. 1. The state may legally recognise and protect the true religion, and thus make religion honourable in the nation, and secure to it a wide-spread influence. For this reason, rulers, in scripture, are called “the shields of the earth,” and as such, the property of Christ (Ps. xlvii) and “nursing fathers,” so that by a just administration the pious may “lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.” 2. The civil government can interpose the sanction of the law, and thus secure a national observance of the Christian sabbath, without which sanction the church cannot enjoy in pence her Sabbaths, and without which institution the nation will become utterly demoralized. 3. The civil magistrate may restrain many things injurious to religion and the best interests of society. Prov. xx. 24, “A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.” 1 Pet. ii. 14, “Governors, who are sent, for the punishment of evil doer, and for the praise of them that do well.” Rom. xiii. 4. Gross blasphemy, profane swearing, open idolatry and the desecration of the Sabbath, are legitimate objects of magistratical interference, not merely as prejudicial to the commonwealth and offensive to the members of society, but as injurious to religion, and highly displeasing, to the Almighty. 2 Chron. xiv. 2-5; Job. xxxi. 26-21 4. A nation may maintain religion by pecuniary support, Numb, xviii. 26, “When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance.” 2 Chron. xxxi. 4, 5; Neh. x. 32, xiii. 10. Predictions, Psa. lxxii. 10-15; Is. lx. 3,6,9.

Q. What will necessarily be the consequence to a nation of an entire separation of religion from the state?

A. Civil society will become essentially and avowedly infidel and the nation be subjected to the terrible judgment denounced by Jehovah. Is. lx. 12. “The nation and kingdom that will not, serve thee (the church) shall perish; ye those nations shall be utterly wasted.”

Q. Is it practicable for the nations to maintain an entire neutrality respecting religion?

A. No. The nations cannot separate themselves entirely from religion: but the evil is—they have usually assumed unhallowed supremacy over the church; and even where, in our own country, they profess indifference, they assume lordly power over the subject, and dare to place “the bride, the Lamb’s wife” in the same position, as it respects their “nourishing” care, with the false systems, Muslim, Papal and Pagan. Christianity scorns mere toleration as an associate with idolatry, and superstition, and falsehood—she is exclusive and uncompromising, and demands implicit acknowledgment.

Q. Is this a “peculiar” doctrine of the Reformed Presbyterian Church?

A. Nearly so. Some other denominations have maintained it. Generally, it is loosely held; and has, of late, become unfashionable, through a spirit of conformity to all infidel world—and is now left by the many in the hands of the “two witnesses,” to be maintained as a reviled and contemned portion of “the testimony of Jesus.”

[ON THE SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST]

SECTION IX.-On the Spiritual Independence of the Church of Christ.

Q. Is the church of Christ absolutely independent?

A. No, she is not; inasmuch as she is in all things subject to her only King and Head, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. In what, then, does her spiritual independence consist?

A. Her spiritual independence consists in this—SHE IS ABSOLUTELY FREE FROM ALL MERELY HUMAN SUPREMACY.

Q. If the civil ruler, as you have taught, is under obligation to acknowledge and support the church of Christ, as a nurse, must he not as a nurse have authority over it?

A. The civil ruler is a nurse to the church merely as to the care he must exercise concerning it, in the supply of nourishment, &c. (Thou shalt suck the breast of kings), but he has no authority in nor over it, the authority is in the parent and Head of the church. 2 Cor. vi. 18. “I will be a Father unto you, saith the Lord Almighty.”

Q. In what light, then, are we to consider the administration of civil rulers respecting the church?

A. Whatever service the civil ruler may be required by the law of God, to render the church, he acts only in his civil capacity, in the legitimate exercise of his civil rule, and not from any ecclesiastical authority in or over the church?

Q. Does his ministry, then, respecting the church, simply regard things external to the church, things circa sacra, which relate only to her outward prosperity and comfort?

A. This is the whole extent of his privilege in this respect. He acts simply as a civil ruler, who is “the minister of God” in that capacity, and is bound as such to promote the welfare of the church—or the interests of piety in the administration of the civil dominion with which he is intrusted. 1 Tim. ii. 2. Their administration is to be such, that Christians “may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all GODLINESS and honesty.”

Q. Are not church and state mutually dependent powers?

A. By no means. They are co-ordinate, but not mutually dependent powers. They have distinct authority and spheres of action; and are mutually in their respective spheres, absolutely independent of each other.

Q. What? Have you not taught us—that the church is to be “established” in the “tops of the mountains,” and “exalted above the hills,” pre-eminent above all the civil kingdoms of the world? Has she not, therefore, authority over the state?

A. This pre-eminence of the church in the times referred to, respects her simply as an object of care, respect, and interest, to the nations of the earth—but does not inculcate the anti-Christian doctrine—that the church (or her officers) has any dominion over the nations.

Q. What do you mean, then, by co-ordinate powers?

A. Simply that they are powers which are equal as it respects authority, and strictly independent of each other; whilst, being respectively subject to the same supreme King and Lawgiver, they may live in happy alliance, and mutually co-operate, in their respective spheres, in the promotion of the same great ends—the glory of God, and the good of man.

Q. May not church and state be mutually subservient, whilst they are not strictly subordinate, one to the other but mutually independent?

A. SUBSERVIENCY is the proper term. Neither is subordinate to the other; but, as has been fully shown, they may happily, each in its own manner, subserve the interests of the other—the church promote the good of civil society, and the state foster the interests of piety.

Q. Is the church, then, absolutely independent of all human control?

A. Yes, strictly so. No earthly power, be it king, prelate, Pope, or synod—or “We the people” (civilly or ecclesiastically viewed), has any right to domineer over the church. It is composed of Christ’s freemen, and is itself free from all outward control. Mat. xxiii. 8, 9, 10. “Call no man your father upon the earth—neither be ye called masters.”

Q. May not the state extend to the church protection, and countenance, and pecuniary support, and friendly cooperation, without exercising any supremacy over her?

A. Yes. All this, we have seen, the state may legitimately do-but has no right to dictate the creed of the church, to institute its laws, to appoint its ministers, or to interfere in any one way with either its constitution or administration.

Q. May not the church exist, independently of, and even flourish, without the friendly alliance and co-operation of the state?

A. Yes. The church has not only existed, but, flourished independently of both these, and even in defiance of the wrath, opposition, and persecuting rage of the state—because she possesses a living and almighty energy—THE ETERNAL SPIRIT, to apply her truth, and render effectual her institutions upon the conscience and life of her members, and to gather in “the travail of the (Redeemer’s) soul,” and not all the power of the civil arm when made bare in wrath, and wielding the sword of persecution, has been, or can be, able to paralyse this energy.

Q. Is it not pure and undisguised Erastianism to maintain that such alliance is essential to the being of the church?

A. Yes. Such a principle is degrading to the honour of the church, and subversive of the very end of its existence.

Q. Whilst this alliance is not essential to the existence, may it not be beneficial to the well-being of Zion?

A. Yes. This is the proper light in which to contemplate the subject.. Human beings may exist without many external things, which, however, when possessed, conduce largely to their comfort, peace, and enjoyment: consequently, the fact of the church’s capability of existence even in defiance the opposition of the state, constitutes no argument against their friendly alliance and co-operation, but is evidence, by contrast, of the mutual benefit of such alliance and co-operation.

Q. Whilst church and state are strictly co-ordinate powers, and the latter has no dominion over the ecclesiastical society as such, and the former over the civil as such, may not the same persons, in respect of different relations be superior or inferior to another person, and may require another, and be themselves required, to fulfil relative duties; and in case of delinquency, may arraign others, or be themselves arraigned pursuant to the laws of their respective courts?

A. Yes. Thus ministers, as ambassadors of Christ, have a right to require magistrates, as church members, faithfully to execute their magistratical power, so as may best promote the honour of Christ, and the welfare of his church; and in case of gross acts of maladministration, may inflict upon them censures of the house of God. And, on the other hand, magistrates have a right to require ministers as their subjects, faithfully to execute ministerial power, as an excellent means of rendering the nation pious and virtuous, in order that its happiness may thereby be promoted.

Q. Will not this principle, if duly attended to, and piously applied, free the Westminster Confession of Faith from the false imputation of Erastianism, charged upon modern reformers?

A. Most certainly. “There are several articles in twentieth, twenty-third, and thirty-first chapters, which been much inveighed against, as giving the magistrate much power in the church of Christ. Let it be considered that he can convoke synods, not formally as ecclesiastical judicatories, but only as members of the commonwealth, in which character they are his subjects. Rom. xiii. 1. “When convened, surely they are bound to do what is most calculated to promote the glory of God. If their synodical deliberations be calculated to do so, should they not essay them? Should they become remiss, ought he not to require them, as his subjects, to do their duty?” If he views these things with indifference, he cannot be “the minister of God for good to men.”

Q. Where is this duty of magistrates clearly and scripturally expressed?

A. It is clearly expressed and amply sustained by scripture in the following quotation from “Reformation Principles.” “It is the duty of the Christian magistrate to take order, that open blasphemy and idolatry, licentiousness, and immorality be suppressed, and that the church of Christ be supported throughout the commonwealth; and for the better discharge of these important duties, it is lawful for him to call synods, in order to consult with them; to be present at them, not interfering with their proceedings, (unless they become manifestly seditious and dangerous to the peace,) but supporting the independency of the church and its righteous decisions, and preserving its unity and order against the attempts of such despisers of ecclesiastical authority as should endeavour, in a riotous manner to disturb their proceedings.” This doctrine is amply sustained by the following texts: Rom. xiii. 4; Lev. xxiv. 16; 2 Chron. xiv. 2, 1; Rev. xvii. 16; Prov. xx. 26; Ps. ci. 8; Prov. xiv. 34, xvi. 12; Is. xlix. 23, lx. 10-12, lxii. 4; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3; 2 Chron. xxix. 2, 4, 15, xxx. 22; Rev, xxi. 24; Dan. vii. 22; 2 Cor. x. 31; Ps. cxxxvii. 5, cxii. 7.

Q. Would not such in exercise of authority infringe upon the liberty and independence of the church?

A. By no means. Ii the friendly alliance supposed to exist between church and state, the latter has not only engaged to “nourish” the church, but the rulers of the church, in their sphere, have engaged to discharge their duty, for the good of the state, and it is perfectly within the sphere of the civil authority to require the ecclesiastical to do its duty according to the acknowledged constitution of the church, which has become the law of the land; and so reciprocally in reference to the delinquency of the state authorities.

Q. How are we to regard any interference of the civil powers with the legitimate independence of the church?

A. Such interference must be regarded as an unhallowed invasion of the rights of the people, and a monstrous usurpation of the inalienable rights and prerogatives of the church’s glorious HEAD.

Q. Has not the church greatly suffered from such interference?

A. She has. For from such interferences have sprung some of the grossest corruptions and severest sufferings of the church; and they cannot be too jealously watched against, or too indignantly repelled.

Q. Is not PATRONAGE a gross invasion upon the liberty and indulgence of the church, and the prerogatives of her glorious, Head?

A. Yes. It is one of the most daring invasions of right and usurpation of Christ’s authority over the church, in as much its it subjects the minister of religion to the absolute control of the state.

Q. What is patronage?

A. By patronage we understand the right claimed for certain men, on the ground of property alone, to nominate ministers to parishes or congregations.

Q. What may this definition comprehend?

A. It may comprehend not only those cases in which one man exercises the right of nomination to the exclusion of all other parties, but those also in which men, on the ground of merely civil and secular qualifications, co-operate with a congregation in the selection of a minister.

Q. In how many forms does this evil appear?

A. This evil, which we condemn, appears in many forms 1. Whenever men, on account of superior wealth or elevated rank, assume the power of dictating a minister to the members of Christ’s flock—there is patronage. 2. Whenever men unconnected with the church by membership, are permitted on account of some largesse bestowed by them for the erection of a place of worship, to enjoy a share in the election of a minister—there is patronage. 3. Wherever, on condition of contributing to the support of the congregation, the interference of men, neither holding nor Seeking to hold the privileges of membership, is sanctioned in the choice of a pastor—there is patronage. 4. Wherever, by the erastian legislation of the state, a civil right to nominate ministers is conferred on men, who may be members of any church, or members of no church whatever—there is patronage, and THERE IS A CHURCH ENSLAVED.

Q. Are not such claims, especially in the fourth form, utterly inconsistent with the spiritual independence of the church?

A. Yes, most clearly. For the church is a kingdom, as we have seen, under the administration of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a kingdom of which he is the supreme and sole Head. “This truth,” to use the words of the famous GILLESPIE, “that Jesus Christ is a king, and hath a kingdom and government in his church distinct from the kingdoms of this world, and from the civil government hat this commendation and character above all other truths, that Christ himself suffered to death for it, and sealed it with his blood.” Patronage interferes with the right of the Head of the church to legislate in all matters pertaining to the internal administration of his kingdom, and with her spiritual independence under him.

Q. Can patronage stand the test of a reference to its origin?

A. Our Fathers, of the First Reformation in Scotland, clearly held that it could not, and they have recorded their conviction on the subject in language not to be misunderstood. 1. The Second Book of Discipline contains these words, “Because this order which God’s word craves, cannot stand with patronage, and presentation to benefices, used in the Pope’s Kirk, we deem all them that truly fear God, earnestly to consider that, forasmuch as the names of patronages and benefices, together with the effect thereof, have flowed from the Pope and corruption of the Canon law only—and, forasmuch as that manner of proceeding hath no ground in the word of God, they ought, not to have place in the light of Reformation.” (1578.) To the same effect, we find the Reformers of 1649 issuing the following clear decision: “Considering that patronages and presentations of Kirks is an evil and bondage under which the Lord’s people and ministers of the land have long groaned, and that it has no warrant in God’s word, but is founded only in the Canon law, and a custom Popish, and brought into the Kirk in the time of ignorance and superstition,” &c. This quotation from act of the Scottish Estate of Parliament sufficiently proves the origin to be in the darkness and superstition of Popery.

Q. How did it originate in these dark and superstitious times?

A. In several ways. 1. Individuals and communities under the influence of superstitious notions built and endowed churches, and the law in recognition of this act of benevolence reserved for them and for their successors the disposal of the benefices. 2. Ambitious men, not satisfied with civil pre-eminence, gradually obtained the right of nominating to benefices, in order that their importance in the eyes of the vulgar might be enhanced by investiture with a spiritual prerogative. 3. There was another source of patronage. Wily ecclesiastics, intent upon wealth and aggrandizement, fostered the notion that by human merit divine favour was acquired. Largesses to the church were exhibited as meritorious in the highest degree, by many plain-spoken statements, and many convenient innuendos. In return for such kindness, the right of patronage was assigned to the deluded votaries of superstition.

Such was the origin of patronage. Let us never forget, however, that hired charity is but an equivocal virtue, whilst a church that could sanction the bestowment of ecclesiastical privileges for money will find its prototype in Simon Magus with greater success than its first Pope in Simeon Peter.

Q. What is therefore the character of Patronage in any and all of its forms?

A. It is it gross violation of the rights of the freemen of Christ, and usurpation of His royal prerogatives as King in Zion; and thus subverts the spiritual independence of the church.

Q. In how many ways may a nation violate the independence of the church?

A. In a great many ways. 1. When civil rulers claim the right of prescribing a creed or confession to the church, and, perhaps, of enforcing submission to it by civil penalties. 2. When they undertake to regulate the government of the church, in virtue of usurped supremacy over her. 3. When they claim a right of nominating her office-bearers, or of authoritatively determining in whose hands that right shall be placed. 4. When they control the meetings ecclesiastical courts, convening, proroguing, or dissolving them at pleasure; or limiting them with regard to the matters discussed in them. 5. When they tamper with the worship of the church, loading it with rites and ceremonies, and disguising the beautiful simplicity of New Testament worship, by pompous additions of human inventions. 6. When they interfere with the discipline of the church, by admitting or excluding members, annulling ecclesiastical censures, or dictating terms of Church fellowship. Let her “standfast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made her free.”

Q. Is it, indeed, a truth that Christ hath granted to his people the right of electing their own pastors free from the yoke of patronage in any of its aspects?

A. Yes. Acts xiv. 23, were it alone, would be sufficient proof. “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord,” &c. Χειροτονεω (ordained) signifies to hold out the hand, compounded of χειρ, the hand, and τεινω, to extend. The action of holding out the hand is expressive of choice and resolution. It marks a decision of the will, whether intended or executed.

The word is used to signify divine appointment, Acts x. 21; human choice, 2 Cor. viii. 19; and it signifies to elect to office by holding up the hand. “At Athens some of the magistrates were called χειροτονητοι, because they were elected by the people in this manner.”—Parkhurst. “Election and consequent ordination of elders in the church! Thus it is manifest from the critical import of the Passage that Christ hath conferred the right of the choice of pastors, by the free suffrages of the MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, without respect of persons, and thus in this respect secured the independence of His church.

Q. Has not the free Church of Scotland given a noble testimony to this right of Christ’s people, and His crown right as the sole King in Zion?

A. Yes. She has nobly unrolled one fold of the ancient flag of the Covenanter, and brought to view a portion of its glorious inscription, Christ’s crown. But to be a consistent witness, she must testify to Christ’s prerogative of “KING OF KINGS, and dissenting from the British ecclesiastico-civil constitution “as a horn of the Beast,” unfurl the whole ancient flag, and display the full inscription, in rich emblazonry, CHRIST’S CROWN AND COVENANT.

[ON THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF DISSENT FROM AN IMMORAL CONSTITUTION OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT]

SECTION X.-On the Right and Duty of Dissent from an immoral Constitution of Civil Government.

Q. Is civil society a voluntary or involuntary association?

A. Civil society is a voluntary association. Men are not only social being, but rational and free agents, and all have naturally equal rights; and, consequently, have a right to judge of the character of the government about to be constituted, or already constituted, and to unite with it, or not, as their best judgment may determine. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

Q. Is a civil government bound to admit to its peculiar privileges every person who may reside within the reach of its power?

A. Certainly not. Government is, indeed, bound to extend a paternal care over all, and should oppress none; but it is not under obligation to admit every character to the enjoyment of all its peculiar privileges; for the ignorance and immorality of some, and the oaths which bind others to a foreign power (the papists to the Pope, for example) may utterly disqualify them for the discharge of the duties of loyal citizens.

Q. Has every government a right to enact laws of naturalization?

A. Yes, every government has a right to define the principles upon which it will admit aliens to the enjoyment of full citizenship. Deut. xxiii. 8: “The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in the third generation.” Acts xxii. 27, 28: “Tell me, Art thou a Roman? He said, Yes. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.”

Q. Is every person, dwelling within the limits of a nation, bound to incorporate with the national society?

A. By no means. He may claim the Privilege, as Israel in Egypt of a sojourner in the land, without fully incorporating with the national society. Gen. xlvii. 4: “And they said unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we to come.” See, also, Numb. x. 29, 30; Heb. xi. 9.

Q. Does not every individual possess the right of expatriation?

A. Yes, every individual has a right to change his residence and his country, and thus dissolve the bonds which may have bound him to a particular community, Heb. xi. 16: “And truly if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.”

Q. Are nations, in making laws of naturalization, and individuals in the exercise of the right of expatriation, at liberty to act arbitrarily according to their own will?

A. No. Both these rights are to be exercised in conformity to the law of God, the supreme Ruler and Judge. The laws, in the one case, must be founded on justice; and the individual, in the other, must be satisfied that by expatriating himself he can best promote the glory of God as well as his own good. James iv. 12, 15: “There is one lawgiver. . . . For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.”

Q. Is not the individual, who declines incorporating with the national society, entitled to protection, in the enjoyment of his inalienable rights-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

A. Unquestionably. Numbers xv. 15: “One ordinance shall he both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourner with you: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord.” Exod. xxii. 21: “Thou shalt neither vex the stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Q. Is it the duty of Christians to profess allegiance to any government that may exist in Providence, however hostile to the kingdom of Christ, though sustained by the majority of those within the reach of its Power?

A. By no means.

Q. Why? Is it not said, “The powers that be are ordained of God? and let every soul be subject?”

A. The reasons are many. 1. The powers ordained of God have been shown, in a former section, to be moral powers. The authority which he sanctions, and to which he commends conscientious allegiance, is one which is “a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well.” 2. Such powers as oppose God and Christ, are not ordained of God in any other sense than “the prince of the power of the air,” whom they serve, is. 3. There are “thrones of iniquity which decree mischief by a law,” with which God will not “have fellowship.” Ps. xciv. 20. 4. Existing governments are the organs of the devil. Rev. xiii. 12; xii. 9. “And the Dragon (‘the Devil and Satan’) gave him (the Roman empire, under all its forms of government, and especially in present divided state,) his power, and his seat, and great authority.” 5. They are described as waging war, at the present time, with the Lamb, God’s Vicegerent. Rev. xvii. 14: “These (the ten kingdoms of the beast) shall make war with the Lamb.” God, certainly, does not require any one to yield allegiance to such. 6. Consequently, “No power which deprives the subject of civil liberty, which wantonly squanders his property, and sports with his life, or which authorizes false religion, (however it may exist according to Divine providence,) is approved of or sanctioned by God, or ought, to be esteemed and supported by men, as a moral institution.” Prov. xxix. 2: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” xxviii. 16: “As a roaring lion, and a raging bear, so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.” Hos. viii. 4: “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.” Also, Ps. xciv. 20; ii. 2. 7. It follows necessarily, that to such powers Christians cannot bind themselves in allegiance, and maintain a moral subjection to Christ. Allegiance to governments of such a character is rebellion against Heaven.

Q. What kind of submission may be rendered to immoral and tyrannical governments, the ordinance of Satan, such as now exist?

A. Christians, in the exercise of their Christian liberty, and in the performance of the duty “proving all things, and holding fast what is good,” can submit to such governments “for wrath’s sake,” ONLY, which kind of submission has no respect to the power as legitimate authority, but simply, from dread of the cruelty of the tyrant, who pours forth his fury upon all who oppose his misrule. To God’s moral ordinance as described, is allegiance due for conscience sake. Submission to this is submission to God.

Q. When Christians reside under an immoral government, is not conformity to the general order of society a duty, provided this can be done without violating the divine law?

A. If the constituted authorities of a nation are not in voluntary subserviency to the Mediator, but, opposed to authority, law, and religion, for the sake of peace and order, and for the sake of contributing as much as possible to the ease and happiness of society, and from a spirit of resignation to the Divine providence, and in order to make legitimate provision for themselves and relatives, so much conformity to the prevailing system as is consistent with their oath of allegiance to Messiah, is a duty conscientiously to be practised, although very distinct from that obedience for conscience sake which they would render to the government of their choice, to the authority which has the sanction of the Divine approbation. Jer. xxix. 4-7, “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.”

Q. Whilst it is the duty of Christians thus to live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, in conformity to the laws of Christ, which are everywhere, and at all times, obligatory upon them—is it not their duty publicly to declare their dissent from an immoral constitution of civil government, within the reach of whose power they may reside?

A. This is, indeed, their duty. Because, 1. They are bound to defend God’s moral ordinance of civil government, in the purity of which, God’s own honour as “the Governor of the nations,” is deeply involved. Rev. ii. 26, 20, “That which you have already hold fast till I come; and he that overcometh—and keepeth my works unto the end—to him will I give power in the nations,” &c. Isa. viii. 16, “Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.” 2. The purity of this holy ordinance cannot be preserved, if it is confounded with the existing immoral systems, and by an indiscriminate exercise of allegiance. 3. Christians are witnesses for God among men; and having in their possession “the testimony of God,” in the Holy Scriptures, respecting the true character of civil government, and the duty of national subjection to Christ and his law, and respect for the holy religion, it is their duty to apply the doctrines of inspiration upon this subject, in stating and defending the truth and condemning the existing immoral systems, and in bearing public testimony against all who uphold them. Is xliii, .10, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.” Rev. xi. 3, “I will give power to my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three score days, clothed in sackcloth;” xii. 17, “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” See also Rev. xvii. 14, Acts v. 32, xxvi. 16, Micah iv. 8-18, Mark vi. 11. 4. The witnesses in Revelation are raised up not only to testify against the ecclesiastical apostasy, “the scarlet woman,” or Roman church—and “the image of the beast,”—the Papacy—but also against “the seven-headed and ten-horned” beast-or the civil powers-upon which the woman rides. The nations which sustain Antichrist, and are equally, with “the man of sin,” Antichristian, and are at war with the Lamb. See passages last quoted, together with Rev. xiii. 1, 2, xvii. 3-14, and xii. 11, “And they overcame him, (the devil embodied in the Roman church papacy, and civil powers,) by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony” xvii. 14, “These, (the civil powers,) shall make war with the Lamb-and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.”

Q. Are not 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, entitled to protection?

A. They certainly are entitled to protection in their lives, liberties, and property; “but they are not to act inconsistently with their declared dissent, and it would be tyranny to constrain them to such measures.” Exod. xxii. 21, “Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him.” See also Rom. xiii. 3, 1 Tim. ii. 2, Jer. xxi. 12, Esther iii. 8, 9.

Q. Should not “Christians, testifying against national evils, and striving, in the use of moral means to effect a reformation, relinquish temporal privileges, rather than do anything which may appear to contradict their testimony, or lay a stumbling-block before their weaker brethren?”

A. This is still questionably their duty. Because they cannot convince men of their own sincerity, and of the immorality of a principle or practice, whilst they themselves are found actually maintaining the immoral principle or practice, (by oath of allegiance, voting, and holding offices, &c.,) and enjoying the emoluments of iniquity decreed by law. Heb. xi. 24, 26, 36, “By faith, Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. Esteeming the reproach of Christ to be greater riches than the treasures in Egypt. And others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonments.” Numb, xxiii. 9, “Lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations.” Rom. xiv. 21, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended.”

Q. Will not such a public dissent from immoral governments, and faithful testimony against them, ultimately prevail to their overthrow?

A. Yes. By these means the witnesses will prevail, however much they may suffer in the meantime, and will be the honoured instruments of establishing the millennial kingdom of the Lamb. Rev. xii. 11, “And they overcame him, by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Dan. vii. 22, “The Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High ; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Rev. xx. 4, “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them ; and 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, (the civil powers,) neither his image, (the Papacy,) neither had received his mark, (yielded allegiance,) upon their foreheads, or in their hands ; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

Q. Is not this doctrine of the right and duty of dissent from immoral constitutions of civil government, a doctrine peculiar to the Reformed Presbyterian Church?

A. Yes. It is a principle peculiar to them, for they alone hold it as a doctrine, and allegiance, a practical exemplification of it by refusing oaths of allegiance, voting at the polls, and holding office,—and other modes by which they can declare their dissent from the immoral constitutions of government where they reside, and testify publicly against them, and exhibit in contrast the excellency and majesty of civil government as the moral ordinance of heaven.

[ON THE DUTY OF COVENANTING AND THE PERMANENT OBLIGATIONS OF RELIGIOUS COVENANTS]