Claims of the Divine Government Applied to the British Constitution
James Dodson
AND THE USE OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE,
VINDICATING THE AUTHORITY OF MESSIAH AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF ANTICHRISTIAN POWER.
PREPARED AND PUBLISHED BY DIRECTION OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN SYNOD IN SCOTLAND.
“For the kingdom is the LORD’S; and he is the governor among the nations.”—PSALM xxii. 28.
“Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him.”—PSALM lxxii. 11.
EDINBURGH:
THOMAS NELSON, & CHARLES ZIEGLER.
JOHN KEITH, AND WILLIAM MARSHALL, GLASGOW.
MDCCCXLIII.
To the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator belongs the throne of universal dominion. He is the alone Head of his body the church. He is also the Governor among the nations. The Reformed Presbyterian Church occupies her distinct standing on the ground of a testimony for the great principles summarily embodied in these truths. She cannot receive any as members into her communion without an acknowledgment of these principles, not in words merely, but in their true meaning and legitimate application to all the concerns of men. Regard to these principles led our suffering forefathers, before the Revolution in 1688—and has led their successors in the same cause and testimony, since that period, to occupy the position of open dissent from those institutions of the land both ecclesiastical and civil in which these holy principles were disregarded and violated.
Since the passing of the Reform Act, the attention of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland has on several occasions been called to the practical application of her recognised principles in reference to the use of the elective franchise. It is gratifying to be able to say that on all occasions the decisions of Synod on this subject have been unanimous. In 1833 the Synod unanimously adopted the following deliverance: “That, as the British constitution is, in many important particulars, inconsistent with the Word of God, and has been declared to be so in the testimony of this church, all recognition of it is at variance with a faithful adherence to said testimony. That the late Reform Act, while it confers an important political right on a large body of the people, has not removed the principal evils of the constitution, and, of course, has not materially affected the grounds on which this Church has exhibited a testimony against them. That the exercise of the elective franchise, conferred by this act, is a direct recognition of the constitution, in virtue of the political identity subsisting between the representative and his constituents, and is therefore inconsistent with the enjoyment of the privileges of this Church.” To this deliverance the Synod, in the following year, unanimously expressed their adherence. On a subsequent occasion, the attention of Synod was again called to the same subject, when the following decision was given: “It is moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed, that the court can see no sufficient reason for altering the decision formerly given on that subject; but, on the contrary, feel themselves bound by the authority of God, and their solemn engagements, to adhere decidedly to the recognised principles of the Church on that point, as a matter of essential importance to the distinctive standing and testimony of this Church. And that the Synod resolve to adopt measures without delay for giving instructions to the members of the church, many of whom seem to require information on the subject, and for giving a public exhibition of the truth respecting this matter to the world.” In accordance with this resolution, and for the purposes mentioned, the following paper was prepared by appointment of Synod. When the matter was submitted at last meeting, the Synod gave their deliverance in the following terms: “It is moved, and unanimously agreed, that the members of court express their acknowledgments to the writer for his attention to the subject, and their concurrence in the general views and principles contained in it; and without pledging themselves to every statement or particular, they recommend that it be published, as containing AMPLE AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE SOUNDNESS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH, WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN TO ILLUSTRATE AND DEFEND.”
(Signed) JOHN GRAHAM, Moderator.
A. M. ROGERSON, Synod Clerk.
C O N T E N T S.
INTRODUCTION.
Statement of General Principles,
CHAPTER I.
CLAIMS OF THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT UPON NATIONS FAVOURED WITH
All Nations under the Moral Government of God,
All authority committed to the Lord Jesus Christ as Mediator,
Applying these Principles, we are naturally led to the following conclusions:
CHAPTER II.
MORAL EVILS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
Application of the truths respecting national obligation to the public character and conduct of Great Britain,
Blasphemous supremacy over the Church of Christ granted by Law to the British sovereign,
By the deed of the British nation, the Law of Patronage established over the Church of Scotland,
Establishment and Endowment of Popery in Canada,
3. The administration of Government has not been conducted in harmony with the Law of God,
CHAPTER III.
THE DUTY OF CHRIST’S WITNESSES TO BE SEPARATE.
CHAPTER IV.
5. The practices generally carried on at elections are unquestionably in a high degree demoralizing,
CHAPTER V.
THIS SUBJECT ILLUSTRATED FROM THE STATEMENTS OF PROPHECY.
CHAPTER VI.
INTRODUCTION.
EVER since the first proclamation of mercy in the garden of Eden, there has been a controversy between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. In this controversy, the servants of the Redeemer must follow the instructions of the Lord Jesus Christ, their glorious King—march under his direction—employ the weapons he has appointed and prepared for them—and ever depend on him for the success of the enterprise. As in all ages it is the policy of Satan, by the propagation of error and the suppression or corruption of truth, to lead men in the way of sin to their everlasting ruin, so is it the benevolent plan of the Redeemer, by the manifestation of truth and love, to deliver men from the chains of error and delusion, and to lead them in the way of holiness to the enjoyment of endless felicity. And here it is the high honour of the children of God to be labourers together with the Redeemer. They are to follow him, as he goeth forth on his white horse, with his crown on his head and his bow in his hand, conquering and to conquer; and by the unceasing manifestation of truth, and love, and holiness, are they to fight the good fight of faith, and overturn the strongholds of the kingdom of darkness.
And while engaged in this spiritual warfare, it is an established law of the kingdom, for all ages, and in all circumstances, that the followers of the Lamb are to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” [Eph. v. 11.] “For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you; and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” [2 Cor. vi. 14–18.] There may be times when worldly wisdom would suggest the expediency of following a different course, and of complying to a certain extent with the maxims, and joining in some degree with the established systems of the enemy, in order to have more advantageous opportunities of fighting against the strength of his kingdom. But every such attempt is at once criminal and ineffectual. The wisdom of the world is foolishness with God. It is better to obey God than men. Never can we warrantably do evil that good may come—or attempt to promote the cause of God by disobeying his authority—or hope to advance the kingdom of Immanuel by incorporating with the kingdom of Satan. When Noah was called of God to testify against the prevailing wickedness of the antediluvian world, and to give warning of the coming wrath, he must himself be separate from the abominations of that ungodly generation, and “being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.” [Heb. xi. 7.] When the practice of idolatry had afterwards become general, and Abraham was raised up an illustrious witness for the honour of the true God, and of the promised Saviour, it was necessary that he should have no fellowship with the prevailing idolatry; and it was required of him that he should leave his country and his kindred, and go to a land which the Lord his God was to show him. [Acts vii. 3.] When Moses was called to give his testimony, accompanied with signs, and wonders, and miracles of wrath from heaven, against the wickedness of the haughty Egyptian monarch and his people, in enslaving, oppressing, and murdering the seed of Israel, it was necessary that he should previously be in a state of complete separation from the wicked and tyrannical government by which the oppression had been inflicted. Worldly wisdom would no doubt have suggested a different course as likely to be far more beneficial to his afflicted brethren. But “by faith, Moses when, he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward.” [Heb. xi. 24–26.] When the oracles of God were committed to the children of Israel, and they were appointed as Jehovah’s witnesses, to preserve among them, until the coming of the Messiah, the knowledge of the one living and true God, and of the only way of salvation, through the blood of that sacrifice which was in the fulness of time, to be offered for the sins of the world, it was necessary that the chosen people of God should be separated from the contamination of prevailing idolatry and abounding wickedness. In order that they might be completely separated unto Jehovah as a peculiar people, he took them into solemn covenant, consecrated them by the sprinkling of blood, and planted them in the promised inheritance, from which he commanded them utterly to exterminate the former inhabitants, lest they should be mingled with the heathen, and learn their works. [Psal. cvi. 34, 35.] They were to be a people dwelling alone, and not reckoned among the nations. [Num. xxiii. 9.]
It is mockery to protest against sin, if we deliberately make ourselves partakers in the guilt of it, by following a multitude to do evil. We cannot be accounted faithful and consistent witnesses for the supreme authority of Jehovah, if we concur, either with individuals, or nations, or ecclesiastical societies, in practically disregarding it. Aaron, the saint of the Lord, was severely reprehended for joining with the ungrateful Israelites in forming and worshipping the golden calf. [Exod. xxxii. 21.] Far different was the conduct of Elijah. That highly honoured servant of the Most High held forth, at the peril of his life, a noble and consistent testimony for the incommunicable honours of the God of Israel. He gave no countenance, in word or deed, to the worship of Baal, although established by the government, conducted by a numerous priesthood, and supported by the great body of the nation. [1 Kings xviii. xix.] Acting on similar principles, neither the decree of the king of Babylon, nor the heat of his anger, nor the flames of the burning fiery furnace, could induce Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, to deny for one moment the God of their fathers, by worshipping the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up in the plain of Dura. [Dan. iii.]
Upon the same principles, we hold it to be the duty of the Redeemer’s witnesses, during the dark and dreary reign of the Man of Sin, to keep themselves separate from every branch of the antichristian system, that their hands may be pure and their garments clean in the day of reckoning and retribution. It is not enough to come out and be separate from the Church of Rome, and other ecclesiastical societies which disregard the authority of Christ, either in their established constitutions, or in any department of their habitual practice. It is equally required of the Redeemer’s faithful servants, that they keep themselves free from the guilt of national societies who trample upon divine authority, either by forming immoral constitutions, or following out any course of sinful practice. It was distinctly foretold in prophecy, and the records of history clearly show the fulfilment of the prediction, that in the antichristian system, secular and ecclesiastical powers of immoral character would be closely united, and would mutually assist each other in maintaining opposition to the honour of God, the welfare of the church, and the interests of Immanuel’s kingdom. Under such circumstances, the witnesses are imperatively called on to plead for the honour of the Lord Jesus Christ, in his kingly office, as the Head of his church and the Governor among the nations,—the King of Zion and the Prince of the kings of the earth;—to condemn, both in profession and practice, every encroachment upon the crown rights and royal prerogatives of their exalted Lord,—to resist, in meekness and love, but at the same time with holy magnanimity and the energetic decision of Christian principle, every attempt to tear the crown from His head, or wrest the sceptre from His hand; and to have no fellowship in the guilt either of churches or nations which disregard his authority and despoil him of his honour. Upon these grounds, we are constrained to declare that we dare not homologate the present British government, or incur the responsibility of incorporating with the national society in its constitution and administration. This declaration, required, as we believe, by truth and duty, we utter not in wrath, but in love; not in anger, but in sorrow. We love our countrymen, and fervently desire their temporal and eternal welfare. Very many of them, in various denominations of professing Christians, we esteem and love as brethren in Christ Jesus—as children of the same Father, united to the same Saviour, partakers of the same Spirit, heirs of the same inheritance with ourselves, and fellow-travelers to the same blessed land, where sin, and error, and division, shall have no place. We feel thankful to the Father of mercies for the many civil and religious privileges enjoyed by us in this highly favoured country; and our hearts rise in special gratitude to God for the kindness of his providence, in delivering his people from persecuting violence and relentless tyranny at the memorable era of the Revolution. It is, nevertheless, our honest conviction, that there are moral evils essentially connected with the civil constitution, and habitually practiced in the course of administration, on account of which we cannot, with these convictions, without treachery to the cause of Christ, enroll ourselves as members of the national body politic, or become partakers in the deeds of the national society; and we entertain the conviction, that the time is coming when every enlightened Christian will be constrained to take the same view. We tremble on account of the accumulated guilt of the British nation. We desire to keep our hands clean, and to give faithful warning to our fellow-countrymen, and especially to our fellow-Christians, of the extreme danger of disregarding the authority of God, and uniting in closest fellowship with established systems, against which his wrath is denounced.
For the illustration of this matter, let us consider the claims of the divine government upon nations favoured with the word of God. Let us compare with these claims the constitution and administration of the British government; and let us consider the necessity laid upon Christ’s faithful witnesses, to guard against being partakers of the guilt, lest they be partakers also of the plagues.
CHAPTER I.
CLAIMS OF THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT UPON NATIONS FAVOURED
WITH THE WORD OF GOD.
I. Let us consider the claims of the divine government upon nations favoured with the word of God.
It is easy to demonstrate that all nations are under the divine government,—that by the God and Father of all they have been placed under the mediatorial authority of the Lord Jesus Christ,—and that such as are favoured with the Holy Scriptures are bound to serve and obey the Most High according to his holy will, there made known to them. No good reason can be assigned why national societies and their rulers should not be under the government of Him who is the true God, the living God, and an “everlasting King.” That nations as well as individuals are under law to God, might be made evident from many considerations. As all the sons and daughters of Adam are under unchangeable obligations to love and obey their Creator in all circumstances, and in every relation—how is it possible that they can escape from under his authority, or become exempted from the everlasting obligations of obedience, by uniting together in society. The community as well as all the individuals of which it is composed, must still be under law to God. This truth, which is evident from the light of nature, is clearly proved and forcibly illustrated by the whole history of the people of Israel, to whom the will of God was more fully revealed than to other ancient nations—who were required to recognise the divine authority by entering into covenant with God, and whose national prosperity, from generation to generation, was made to depend on their obedience to the divine will. While they obeyed the voice and kept the covenant of the Lord their God, the blessing of the Most High, according to the predictions so clearly given in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, rested upon them abundantly. But when they forsook the fountain of living waters, disobeyed his law, and violated his covenant, the wrath of God came upon them, their national prosperity ceased, and the truth of God was manifested, and his authority vindicated in the fulfilment of those threatenings, which had been so clearly denounced against them as a nation in the event of their disobedience. Nor can this argument be set aside by alleging that the children of Israel were a peculiar people. They were, indeed, in many respects a peculiar people, highly distinguished above all the nations of the earth,-and this made their guilt more aggravated, when they sinned against the clear light, and the manifold obligations under which they were laid. But in whatever the peculiarity of the divine government over the seed of Abraham consisted, it is a grievous mistake to imagine that that nation alone was under the moral government of God. The whole tenor of the divine word demonstrates, that other nations, although destitute of the high privileges bestowed upon the seed of Abraham, were nevertheless under the government of Him who is “King of nations” [Jer. x. 7.]—bound to obey his authority—responsible to him as their righteous judge—and justly punished for their iniquities. Had they not been under law to God, and bound to render obedience according to the light with which they were favoured, they could neither have been charged with guilt, nor visited with punishment, “for where no law is, there is no transgression.” [Rom. iv. 15.] “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” [Rom. v. 13.] But how often does Jehovah exhibit himself as the “Judge of all the earth,” [Gen. xviii. 25.] executing upon guilty nations the punishment of their transgressions. Witness the terrible judgments inflicted upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians, because they oppressed the people of God, and proudly refused to obey his voice. [Exod. iii.–xii.] Witness the nations of Canaan, towards which the divine forbearance was long exercised, until the cup of their iniquity was full, devoted to utter destruction for their wickedness. [Gen. xv. 16. Deut. ix: xviii. 12, compared with Joshua.] Witness the doom denounced, and righteously executed against the nation of the Amalekites. [Exod. xvii. 14-16. Num. xxiv. 20. Deut. xxv. 17–19. 1 Sam. xv.] Witness the execution of divine vengeance upon the king of Babylon and the nation of the Chaldeans. And mark the language of the divine prediction:—“And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolations. And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah hath prophesied against all the nations. For many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of them also; and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and according to the works of their own hands.” [Jer. xxv. 12–14.] The prophets of the Lord were sent not only to denounce wrath against disobedient Israel, but also to proclaim the righteous judgments of the God of the whole earth against all the surrounding nations, according to their iniquities. The Lord God of Israel, after mentioning by name a multitude of nations, with their Kings, and princes, and people, unto whom he sent “the wine-cup of this fury,” [Jer. xxv. 15–28.] commanded the prophet Jeremiah to “say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Ye shall certainly drink. For, lo, I begin to bring evil on the city which is called by my name, and should ye be utterly unpunished? Ye shall not be unpunished: for I will call for a sword upon all the inhabitants of the earth, saith the Lord of hosts.—A noise shall come even to the ends of the earth; for the Lord hath a controversy with the nations; he will plead with all flesh; he will give them that are wicked to the sword, saith the Lord.” [Jer. xxv. 28, 29, 31.] How strikingly is the same truth illustrated in the language of God by the prophet Amos, denouncing his righteous judgments against Damascus, and Gaza, and Tyrus, and Edom, and Ammon, and Moab, as well as against Judah and Israel. “Thus saith the Lord, for three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof.”—“Thus saith the Lord, for three transgressions of Gaza, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof.” And in like manner begins the denunciation of divine wrath against all the nations above mentioned. [Amos i., ii.] The language of God by the prophet Jeremiah exhibits the manner of the divine administration in governing the nations of the earth, displaying at once his righteousness and his mercy, and is of universal application. “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it: If that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it: If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.” [Jer. xviii. 7–10.]
And surely when not only the people of Israel, but the nations of the heathen were required to regard the authority of Jehovah, and were punished for their iniquities before the advent of Messiah, it cannot for a moment be maintained, that now the divine government over the kingdoms of the world has come to an end; nor that nations favoured with the clearer light of the New Testament dispensation, are less under obligation to serve the Lord. It must on the contrary be admitted that our obligations are greatly increased; and if we refuse and rebel, our guilt must be proportionally aggravated. If the sins of the people of Israel, in consequence of their peculiar privileges, were more aggravated than those of heathen nations, how much more aggravated must be the iniquities of those nations to whom are now so clearly made known the supreme authority of Jehovah, his holy law, and his glorious gospel, if after all they will not submit to him as their rightful governor.
It is not less clear that the reins of universal government have been committed into the hands of the only begotten of the Father, as the one mediator between God and men, and that all created beings in heaven and in earth are under obligation to serve and obey him, as his Father’s servant, the accredited plenipotentiary of Heaven. Taking this into consideration, all the evidence by which it is proved that nations are under the divine government, proves at the same time that they are under the authority of Messiah the Prince, for “the government shall be upon his shoulder.” [Isa. ix. 6.] As God equal with the Father, he has all power and authority in and of himself, by an essential, underived, and inalienable right. But as Redeemer, he occupies the throne by the appointment of his heavenly Father, upon the footing of the everlasting covenant, as the reward of his sufferings, and for the accomplishment of the gracious designs of his mediatorial office. And it is delightful to know, that in this character unlimited authority over the whole creation is committed to him. It is strange, that with the word of God before them, any of his real friends should endeavour to limit the authority given to the Divine Redeemer, and to maintain that, while as God he possesses universal sovereignty, as mediator he is only the head of his body the church. No language can be stronger, or more explicit than that which is employed by the inspired writers in exhibiting the unlimited mediatorial authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, over all things in heaven and in earth. The Redeemer himself, speaking of the authority given him by his heavenly Father says, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father.” [Matt. xi. 27.] “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” [Matt. xxviii. 18.] “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” [John v. 22, 23.] For the consolation of John in Patmos, he said, “Fear not; I am the first and the last; I am he that liveth, and was dead; and behold I am alive for evermore, amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” [Rev. i. 17, 18.] The testimony of his inspired apostles is no less explicit and unequivocal. We select only a few passages out of many. “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath 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.” [Phil. ii. 8–11.] “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory—raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, 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; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” [Eph. i. 17, 20–23.] If any thing could exhibit this truth in a stronger light, it is the fact that there is one exception made to the boundless extent of the authority given to him. “For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.” [1 Cor. xv. 27.] With one exception, and only one, all things are put under him; and that exception is the God and Father of all, who did put all things under him. This is only a specimen of the numerous statements contained in the word of God on this subject. The whole tenor of the language makes it evident that such statements do not refer to the authority which belongs to him absolutely, essentially, and unchangeably, as he is “over all, God blessed for ever;” [Rom. ix. 5.] but to the authority with which he is invested as mediator, by the grant of his heavenly Father, because “he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” [Phil. ii. 8.] and made “his soul an offering for sin.” [Isa. liii. 10.] And from the whole, the delightful truth is most clearly demonstrated, that the blessed Jesus, who loved his people and gave himself for them “an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour,” [Eph. v. 2.] is now exalted at the right hand of God, and clothed with universal authority as a “Prince and a saviour;” [Act. v. 31.] and that he conducts the natural and moral government of the whole creation, and has a right to the willing obedience of all rational creatures, for the benefit of his church, that he may accomplish the designs of his love, and “give eternal life to as many as” the Father hath “given him.” [John. xvii. 2.] It is right also to remark that as it has been given to the Redeemer to see of the travail of his soul in all ages since the fall of man, so from the beginning of the world he has been employed in the execution of his mediatorial work, the administration of all things has been in his hand, and universal government has been conducted by him, in the full exercise of that mediatorial authority which has been given to him for the salvation of his people. Surely the redeemed from among men may well join in the angelic song, “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.” [Rev. v. 12.] Surely it cannot be consistent with right feeling to desire in any way to limit the authority of Him whom the Father delights to honour, and who is infinitely worthy to wield the sceptre of universal government, and to receive the willing homage of his rational offspring. It is a clear conclusion from these statements, that all nations are placed under the government of Messiah, and that nations with their rulers, as well as individuals and churches, are under obligation to recognise his authority, to obey his commands, and to exert themselves as his willing subjects, according to the instructions of his word, to promote the blessed designs of his mediatorial kingdom. Many other considerations demonstrate the same truth.
The exalted Mediator is proclaimed in the divine word, as “the Governor among the nations,” [Ps. xxii. 28.] and “the Prince of the kings of the earth.” [Rev. i. 5.] It is said of the Lamb, “he is Lord of lords and King of kings;” [Rev. xvii. 14.] “and he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” [Rev. xix. 16.] The Father has issued his commands to the rulers of the earth; “Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is: kindled but a little.” [Ps. ii. 10–12.] Numerous prophecies assure us of a delightful period when “All dominions shall serve and obey him;” [Dan. vii. 27.] “Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; all nations shall serve him;” [Ps. lxxii. 11.] and there shall be “great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.” [Rev. xi. 15.] Divine judgments are denounced against those who will not submit to do him homage. “The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.” [Ps. cx. 5, 6.] “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” [Ps. ii. 9.] And to show in the strongest manner the duty of nations to promote the interests of the Redeemer’s spiritual kingdom, it is said unto Zion, “The nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea those nations shall be utterly wasted.” [Isa. lx. 12.]
Applying these principles,—recognising the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ over all people, nations, and languages,—and examining the statements of the divine word respecting the duty of national societies and the ordinance of civil government,-we are naturally led to the following conclusions.
1. Nations are not at liberty to frame their constitutions of government, or enact laws, in opposition to the divine will.—And when such iniquity forms an essential and prominent part in the constitution of any government, the nation framing and upholding such a constitution must be considered in a state of rebellion against the Majesty of heaven. This truth seems too evident to require any laboured proof or lengthened illustration. It would be rebellion in any city or province of a widely extended empire to frame laws subversive of the authority or in opposition to the published laws of the rightful sovereign. And is it possible that nations can frame laws or establish constitutions of government opposed to the published laws of the God of heaven, and subversive of the rightful authority of Immanuel, without involving themselves in the guilt of rebellion against the Majesty on high? Such procedure is condemned in the word of God in the strongest manner. It is written, “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?—And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off.” [Ps. xciv. 20, 23.] Such procedure formed a prominent part of the iniquity which brought so much wrath upon Jeroboam, and the tribes of Israel who concurred in supporting his government. Jeroboam, from motives of political expediency, set aside divine institutions, and established by law a system of idolatrous worship, which brought accumulating guilt upon Israel from generation to generation. On this account his name is held up to everlasting infamy, in those emphatic words so often repeated in the sacred volume, “Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” [2 Kings x. 29; xiii. 2, 11; xiv. 24; xv. 9, 18, 24, 28.] And against the people, the charge is brought by Jehovah,—“They have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law.—Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him.—Of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off. Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off: mine anger is kindled against thee: how long will it be ere they attain to innocency!” [Hos. viii. 1, 3–5.]
2. Nations are not at liberty to set up, as rulers over them, the known enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, the avowed opponents of true and undefiled religion.—And when they do so willingly, or when they adopt no proper measures to guard against such an evil, they involve themselves in the guilt of rebelling against God. It would not be consistent with true loyalty to an earthly sovereign to set up in authority, in any part of his dominions, persons known as insidious traitors or open rebels against his government. And can it be lawful for the subjects of the divine government to exalt to power and influence over them, such as make it manifest that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, that they have no fear of God before their eyes, and that in their hearts and by wicked works, they are alienated from the blessed and only Potentate? Such procedure is highly criminal,—dishonouring to God and injurious to the best interests of a nation. It is in direct opposition to the plainest intimations of the divine will. The qualifications of civil rulers are clearly delineated in the word of God:—“Thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” [Exod. xviii. 21.] “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” [2 Sam. xxiii. 3.] “Shall even he that hateth right, govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?” [Job xxxiv. 17, 18.] “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by righteousness.” [Prov. xvi. 12.] “Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.” [Prov. xxv. 5.] “For he is the minister of God to thee for good.” [Rom. xiii. 4.] To set up rulers who are evidently destitute of the qualifications prescribed by divine authority, is nothing less therefore than rebelling against God; and they who are guilty expose themselves to the heavy charge brought by the Almighty against the nation of Israel for disregarding his revealed will in the establishment of their rulers: “They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not.” [Hos. viii. 4.] No language could express more clearly the divine disapprobation. It is true indeed, that when the best laws are framed, and the wisest measures adopted, for guarding against the elevation of unworthy men to places of power and trust in a nation, it is not possible completely to prevent the admission of ungodly men. It is not the province of man to search the heart, so as to know infallibly the true character. Nor is this requisite in reference either to civil or ecclesiastical rulers. But there is no difficulty in deciding what ought to be done, when candidates for office have no appearance of true religion either in profession or in practice; or when they furnish unequivocal evidences of irreligion and immorality. It ought to be held indispensable in a Christian nation, that there be on the part of civil as well as ecclesiastical rulers, a scriptural profession, and, so far as man can judge, a life and conversation becoming the gospel; and when these qualifications are not sought after and held essentially necessary, there is on the part of the nation and people, a criminal disregard of divine authority. It is strange that Christian men can be so infatuated as to account it either lawful or advantageous to set up, as the “ministers of God” in the office of civil rule the known enemies of their Lord and Saviour—the declared opponents of vital godliness—the votaries of open immorality—or the avowed supporters of false religion. The injury done to a nation is incalculable when such men are exalted to places of power and trust. And when they are raised up by the choice or consent of the people themselves, both the guilt and danger are greatly increased. Beasts of prey that spread universal terror, wasting property, and destroying life, are not more injurious to a people’s welfare. It is the declaration of infallible truth, “as a roaring lion, and a ranging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people. The prince that want eth understanding is also a great oppressor.” [Prov. xxviii. 15, 16.] And whatever opinions may be held with regard to the duties of rulers in reference to matters of religion, it is undeniable that the injury done by the exaltation of ungodly men is not limited to the passing interests of time, but stretches forward through the endless duration of eternity; and on this account it is inconceivably more hurtful than the desolating ravages of sword, or famine, or pestilence. “The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” [Psal. xii. 8.] Iniquity is made to increase and abound, and becomes rampant. Can any result be conceived more deplorable than this! “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” [Prov. xiv. 34.]
It is an acknowledged maxim, that every man, in whatever station, exerts an influence on society around him, either for good or for evil, according to his own character. The people of God are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. By the manifestation of divine truth, and the hallowed influence of their character, they are instrumental in promoting true religion, and preserving the earth from corruption. The influence of the wicked is exactly the contrary. It tends to injure the cause of God, and to increase around them, and to carry forward to future generations the destructive power of error and ungodliness, like corrupting leaven, by which the mass of society is polluted and degraded. When such men are raised to eminence, and especially when they are exalted in power and clothed with official dignity, this deadly influence for the support of the kingdom of darkness and the ruin of immortal beings, is greatly increased. Besides the demoralizing influence of their personal character, which is much increased by their high station, occasions will frequently arise, both in the legislative and executive departments of government, when the enmity of the heart against God must be called into action, and the whole weight of their official influence will be exerted against the cause of true religion. Such men may profess that there ought to be no connection between religion and the affairs of legislation and government; nevertheless, by their own conduct they will demonstrate, that in this matter, there can be no neutrality. In their high places, they will treat with unhallowed mockery the scriptural observance of the holy Sabbath, cast profane ridicule on the truths of religion, or hold up to contempt any proposal that may be made to lessen the amount of intemperance, and exalt the morality of the people, by withdrawing or diminishing the temptations to crime which have obtained the sanction of law. How is it possible that such men can perform, in their official stations, the duties which they owe to God and to men, when their hearts are destitute of those holy principles that lead to obey the laws of heaven! How can they “rule in the fear of God?” “not being a terror to good works but to the evil,” “the ministers of God” to his people “for good,” “attending continually upon this very thing.” Can such men be expected to acknowledge God in all their ways, and to have their steps for a nation’s interests directed by infinite wisdom? How can the blessing of God be expected upon a people and their rulers, when they set up, as their representatives before the Most High, the enemies of his kingdom, the children of wrath, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
3. Nations are not at liberty, in the administration of government, to follow a course opposed to the divine will.—Whatever is inconsistent with the divine will, must necessarily be dishonouring to God, and injurious to man. And if in any part of their administration, nations pursue such a course deliberately and perseveringly, without repentance or reformation, they must be considered as going on in a course of rebellion against God. The moral character of a nation, like that of an individual, must be determined by the course of conduct deliberately pursued. The children of God, while endeavouring habitually to serve him in newness of life, are chargeable with much sin and manifold shortcomings, on account of which they mourn with heartfelt sorrow in the presence of Him whom their souls love. But the impenitent habitual transgressor of the divine law, in any one department of practice, must be reckoned an enemy of God. Even so it is with nations. Faults and imperfections will be found even when nations and their rulers are endeavouring to regulate the affairs of government according to the will of God. But a habitual course of policy in any one department, clearly in opposition to the divine will, must characterize the government which pursues it, as a “throne of iniquity” which can have no fellowship with God, and from which the people of God are bound to keep themselves in a state of separation.
4. Nations favoured with the word of God, are under positive obligation to render obedience in all things to its requirements,—and to employ scriptural measures for advancing the great cause of truth and holiness.—They are bound to recognise the authority of the Most High—to submit themselves cheerfully to his revealed will—and to form their governments, and conduct their administrations, in conformity with the divine word, for the good of mankind, the glory of God, and the advancement of the Redeemer’s kingdom. Every faithful servant will be ready to acknowledge and obey his master’s authority. Every dutiful subject will be ready cheerfully to give, and cordially to profess, allegiance to his rightful sovereign. So it is the duty of the nations of the earth cheerfully to obey the divine authority, and openly to profess their allegiance to the king of heaven. And as the Redeemer has all power committed to him for the benefit of his spiritual kingdom, and as nations are placed in subjection to him for this very end, they are under obligation to acknowledge him as their rightful sovereign—to take a lively interest in his cause—to yield to him their willing homage—and to make all their arrangements subservient to the glory of his name, the good of his church, the advancement of true religion, and the accomplishment of that glorious design, on account of which the Father hath made him head over all things to the church. When these things are disregarded by a nation and its rulers, the authority of God and of his Son is practically disowned, and the nation cannot be considered otherwise than as in a state of rebellion against the Most High. “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.” [Psalm ii. 1–3.]
CHAPTER II.
MORAL EVILS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.
II. Let us apply these truths respecting national obligations to the public character and conduct of Great Britain. It is our conviction, that in all these matters the British nation is guilty before God. And without attempting to give anything like a full statement of the evidence on this point, we shall mention a few particulars which deeply impress our own minds.
1. There is the clearest and most lamentable evidence, that in many instances the British nation has established iniquity by law, and in some cases declared it, in the most solemn manner, an essential and inviolable part of the British constitution.
We mention first of all, as an evil of the highest magnitude, the blasphemous supremacy over the church of Christ granted by law to the British sovereign. The Lord Jesus Christ is set King upon God’s holy hill of Zion. [Psalm ii. 6.] “He is the head of the body, the church.” [Col. i. 18.] To her, as the bride, the Lamb’s wife, who is to admit no rival in the room of her husband, it is said by the Father, “He is thy Lord; and worship thou him.” [Psalm xlv. 11.] This headship is an inalienable prerogative of his crown. And we can scarcely conceive of any impiety more daring, than for a sinful mortal to assume to himself, or a society to confer upon him, this incommunicable glory of the divine Redeemer. It is virtually robbing the Redeemer of his crown, and of the worship due to him, and transferring both to a creature of the dust. Yet, alas! this impiety has been perpetrated. And in this guilt the British nation has involved itself. The pope of Rome, pretending to be the vicar[1] of Christ upon earth, blasphemously claimed this honour; and when, in the time of Henry VIII., the pope’s authority in England was renounced, the supremacy of which he was despoiled was annexed to the British crown, and still continues an essential part of the dignity of the British sovereign, whether male or female. We quote on this subject the language of Blackstone, in his commentaries on the laws of England, the first authority on the constitutional law of this country.
“And, first, the law ascribes to the king the attribute of sovereignty, or pre-eminence. ‘Rex est vicarius,’ says Bracton, ‘et minister Dei in terra: omnis quidem sub eo est, et ipse sub nullo, nisi tantum sub Deo, (i.e., the king is the vicar and minister of God upon earth: every one indeed is under him, and he himself under none, unless only under God.)’—His realm is declared to be an empire, and his crown imperial, by many acts of parliament, particularly the statutes 24 Hen[ry]. VIII. c. 12, and 25 Hen[ry]. VIII. c. 28;[2] which at the same time declare the king to be the supreme head of the realm in matters both civil and ecclesiastical, and of consequence inferior to no man upon earth, dependent on no man, accountable to no man.[3]
“The king is, lastly, considered by the laws of England as the head and supreme governor of the national church.
“To enter into the reasons upon which this prerogative is founded, is matter rather of divinity than of law. I shall therefore only observe, that by statute 26 Hen[ry]. VIII. c. 1, (reciting that the king’s majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England; and so had been recognised by the clergy of this kingdom in their convocation) it is enacted, that the king shall be reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England, and shall have annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all jurisdictions, authorities, and commodities to the said dignities of supreme head of the church, appertaining. And another statute to the same purport was made, 1 Eliz[abeth]. c. 1.[4]
“In virtue of this authority, the king convenes, prorogues, restrains, regulates, and dissolves all ecclesiastical synods and convocations.—The statute 25 Hen[ry]. VIII., c. 19, makes the king’s royal assent actually necessary to the validity of every canon.”[5]—“From this prerogative also, of being the head of the church, arises the king’s right of nomination to vacant bishoprics, and certain other ecclesiastical preferments.—As head of the church, the king is likewise the dernier resort in all ecclesiastical causes; an appeal lying ultimately to him in chancery from the sentence of every ecclesiastical judge: which right was restored to the crown by statute 25 Hen[ry]. VIII. c. 19, as will more fully be shown hereafter.”[6]—“By that statute it is declared, that for the future no appeals from the ecclesiastical courts of this realm should be made to the pope, but that an appeal from the archbishop’s courts should lie to the king in chancery; upon which the king, as in appeals from the admiral’s court, should by a commission, appoint certain judges or delegates finally to determine such appeals.”[7]
Such, according to Blackstone, are the laws of the land respecting the supremacy of the British sovereign in all matters ecclesiastical. And are not the witnesses of the Redeemer, following the example of those who in times of persecution maintained a faithful testimony for the honour of his crown, under solemn obligation to protest against the British government in this particular, as a “throne of iniquity,” establishing mischief by a law, and endeavouring to despoil the exalted Saviour of one of the brightest gems in his crown of mediatorial glory?
We cannot refrain from mentioning the legal establishment, contrary to the word of God, and the solemn covenant engagements of these lands, of the episcopal church of England and Ireland, with its prelatic hierarchy formed after the model of the church of Rome, and its liturgy, which all the clergy of that church are by law compelled to use, containing many of the most dangerous errors of popery.[8] We cannot forget that prelacy is in itself contrary to the word of God—that before the full revelation of the “man of sin,” it prepared the way for his introduction,—that in times of reformation, it was solemnly abjured by these lands as unscriptural and antichristian,—and that, in connection with royal supremacy and arbitrary power, it afterwards, for a period of twenty-eight years, deluged our beloved land with the blood of our martyred forefathers, who contended for “Christ’s crown and covenant,” and “loved not their lives unto the death.” Yet this whole system, inseparably connected as it is with the royal supremacy and the liturgy, is now established by law, and declared by oaths, and treaties, and statutes, an essential and inviolable part of the British constitution. There is in all this an amount of national guilt which it is impossible to calculate, and the sad effects of which eternity alone will disclose.
Truth requires us also to state, that the laws of Christ were violated in the establishment given to the Church of Scotland in the Revolution settlement. This establishment was then framed both in regard to doctrine and government, and the component members of the Assembly, according to the will of the state, in the exercise of Erastian power, without any practical regard to the spiritual independence of the church of Christ, or to the inalienable prerogative of Christ himself as her alone Head. The manner of prescribing to the church her confession of faith and form of government, was directly opposed to the precious truths contained in the confession itself, the excellence of which cannot well be overrated, as well as to the faithful contendings of the Redeemer’s witnesses, during a long period, for the honour of his crown. Many of the valuable attainments of the Second Reformation were left buried, not merely in oblivion, but under a heavy sentence of condemnation, as seditious and treasonable, by the infamous Acts Rescissory, still standing in full force in the statute-book of the realm. And even the modified Presbyterianism granted to the church, was merely conceded, without regard to the authority of the divine word, on the principles of political expediency, as being “most agree able to the inclinations of the people;”[9] while at the same time Prelacy was re-established in England, with more manifest indications of royal favour.
By the deed of the British nation, the law of Patronage also is established over the Church of Scotland, by which one of their most sacred privileges, the right of choosing their own pastors, is wrested from the Christian people, to the great dishonour of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the incalculable injury of immortal souls. In connection with this iniquitous law, the right of presenting a man, with a view to his taking charge of immortal souls, comes to be considered as private property, and is exposed to public sale, and purchased like any other article of merchandise—a traffic manifestly borrowed from the Church of Rome, and by the influence of which, there can be no doubt that multitudes have been eternally undone. It is not the least of the evils of this law, that it is utterly inconsistent with the spiritual independence of the church of Christ, and a manifest violation of the Redeemer’s exclusive headship over her. By this Erastian law, to which the Church of Scotland has so long tamely submitted—and to which, although now holding it a grievous evil, she is still willing to submit, rather than break up her connection with the government,[10] the state has provided, that “the presbytery of the bounds shall, and is hereby obliged to receive and admit in the manner, such qualified person or persons, minister or ministers, as shall be presented by the respective patrons, as the persons or ministers presented before the making of this act ought to have been admitted.”[11] It is a fallacy to plead, as has of late been done by able men in the Church of Scotland, that in all this there is no Erastian interference of the civil power in the spiritual concerns of the church—that the patron only manages a civil matter, conveying a title to the benefice, while the church, it is said, by her spiritual authority, inducts to the spiritual office of the holy ministry, and the pastoral charge of immortal souls. The truth is, that the patron and the church combined, do, by their successive actings, convey a title to the benefice; and, in like manner, the patron and the church combined, do, by their successive actings, induct to the office of the ministry and the charge of immortal souls. Thus the civil power has long been treading under foot the most hallowed places of Jehovah’s sanctuary, and still continues recklessly to do so. And even if the church were to obtain from the state what she has been for some time seeking, the right or liberty of preventing the violent settlement of unacceptable presentees, the headship of the Redeemer, and the spiritual independence of the church, would still continue to be sacrificed to Erastian power, so long as the antichristian law of patronage exists, and the patron has still the right of making the first movement towards the appointment to the office of the holy ministry.[12]
We must here mention another Erastian law, deeply affecting the character and independence of the Church of Scotland—imposing government oaths as terms of ministerial qualification. “By the 5th Geo[rge]. I. c. 29, it is further provided (§ 28) that every person licensed to preach, who had not, at the date of the statute, taken the oaths to government, and every person who should, after the 1st June 1719, present himself to be tried for his qualifications to be licensed, or to be ordained, should, before that day, or before obtaining his license or being ordained, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and abjuration set forth in the statute, and record, in the sheriff-court books of the county, a certificate of his having done so;” and by section 4, it is enacted, that “if any expectant of divinity, hereby directed to take and subscribe the oaths, &c., shall presume to present himself, or sue, or apply to any presbytery to be ordained or licensed to preach, without having caused to be recorded, as aforesaid, a certificate of his having taken the oaths, he shall be liable to one month’s imprisonment, and be incapable of enjoying any benefice, &c., for the space of one year, to be reckoned from the time that he shall take the oaths, after having obtained license to preach.”[13] Dunlop states, that the Court of Session “have put a liberal construction on the act, and have held that it is enough if the presentee take the oaths any time prior to ordination;” yet he thinks it advisable that, along with the presentation, the presentee also produce to the presbytery “a certificate of his having taken and recorded the oaths to government, under the statute above recited.” This law is an humbling instance of the Erastian authority exercised over the Church of Scotland. It is conceived in a high tone of lordly supremacy, and haughtily dictates the qualifications required by the state as terms of admission to the ministerial office. And by the tenor of the oaths required, the ministers of the Church of Scotland are made directly to homologate the immoral constitution of the government with which they are in alliance—are prevented from raising a faithful protest against the evils of the system—and are rendered incapable of holding forth a full and consistent testimony for the honour of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the only head of the church, and the governor among the nations.
The British nation has made a fearful addition to all her other iniquities, by the establishment and endowment of popery in Canada, by means of which that system of false religion, with all its abominations, is upheld in that province, and the priests of Rome are employed as the hired agents of this protestant country, in deceiving and ruining the souls of men.
2. We are compelled to add, that the known enemies of the Redeemer are freely admitted to all places of power and trust in the nation. Neither the laws, nor the general practice, manifest any proper regard to the character of those who are exalted to power. Men of the worst principles and the most profligate character may occupy any place, from the highest to the lowest, either in the legislative or executive department of government. And it must be remarked, that of late there has been a closer connection formed between the government of this nation and members of the Church of Rome. The barriers by which they were formerly excluded have been removed, and it is now the law of the land that the votaries of the man of sin, the known enemies of the protestant faith and of true religion, may be admitted to sit in the British legislature, to make laws for a protestant nation and protestant churches, and to occupy all places of power and trust in the nation, a very few only excepted.
3. The administration of the government has not been conducted in harmony with the law of God. It has corresponded to the nature of the constitution, and the character of the men exalted to power. The rights of the Christian people have been trampled underfoot—the liberties of the church invaded—and ecclesiastical corruption maintained and promoted in the established churches of the empire, from age to age. The popish college of Maynooth receives the support of government. Arians and Socinians, who deny the divinity of our blessed Redeemer, as well as orthodox presbyterians and episcopalians, are supported by the revenues of the kingdom. In the scheme of national education for Ireland recently adopted, the free use of the word of God in schools is prohibited. Popery is upheld as the established religion in Lower Canada. It is sustained and cherished by pecuniary support in Upper Canada, in Newfoundland, in the Mauritius, in Malta, in the Ionian Islands, in Ceylon, in the Cape of Good Hope, in several West India Islands, in Gibraltar, in Australia, and in the vast possessions of Britain in the East Indies. There too, until very lately, (and we fear the evils are still far from being fully removed,) the temples and the priests of Hindostan have been countenanced and supported, with the sanction of the British rulers; and even in the courts of justice established by the British government, the idols of the heathen have been openly acknowledged and invoked. It is painful also to think how much guilt has been contracted by cruel, unjust, and bloody wars. How much blood and treasure has Britain expended in supporting the man of sin, and upholding antichristian governments in the Continent of Europe! Although it is impossible to find out all the details, there can be no doubt that much wickedness has been perpetrated, in enlarging, by deceit and violence, the British dominions in southern Asia. And in the administration of government among the millions of that idolatrous land, such enormities have been perpetrated as ought to fill us with the deepest humiliation in the presence of God. One single statement from competent authority, may be given as an illustration. “Our public offices, and, as we are pleased to call them, courts of justice, have been sinks of every species of villainy, fraud, chicane, oppression, and injustice, to such an extent, that men who have been robbed of their property, and whose relations have been murdered, will often pay large sums to the police to prevent investigation, from the dread of being compelled to attend one of our courts, even in the character of a prosecutor or witness.”[14] And there is undoubted evidence, that in South Africa, the policy of our government towards the native tribes of that unhappy land, has been characterized in a high degree by cruelty and blood.[15] Instead of holding forth to the native population the glorious truths of the Bible, and the loveliness of genuine Christianity, in public and private practice, as ought to have been done, the accredited representatives of the British people have been employed in bringing disgrace on the Christian name, and fearfully hindering the progress of the Christian faith, by deceiving, robbing, and cruelly murdering the inhabitants of the country.[16]
4. No proper regard has been manifested to the authority of the Redeemer and the advancement of his cause. But it will be said, does not the British government give support and countenance to true religion, and thus act in obedience to the authority of Immanuel? It is true that Protestantism has to a certain extent been acknowledged, protected, and supported in Britain; but the lamentable consideration is not to be forgotten, that by Erastian encroachments, the established churches have been held in bondage, and the supremacy of the Redeemer disregarded. And when we consider, that so far as political expediency may dictate, error and truth, popery and protestantism, the blasphemous tenets of Socinianism, and the blessed doctrines of salvation, the degrading superstitions of idolatry, and the worship of the living and true God, are all placed on a level, and supported from the national treasury; is it not manifest that the national support given to religion cannot be recognised as proceeding from any sound views of Christian duty, from love to the cause of Christ, or from any enlightened regard to the authority of God, the glory of his name, or the best interests of society? The national funds are expended, not for the advancement of true religion, and vital godliness, but to exert political influence, and to hold the ministers of religion in a state of vassalage to the ruling powers.
It is important here to remark, that while, according to the wretched views of political expediency entertained by men in power, the public funds have been employed for the support of a variety of religions, without regard to their truth or falsehood, and of course without any proper concern whether they were calculated to enlighten and sanctify and save, or on the contrary to degrade and demoralize and destroy the people; according to the same views of political expediency, which we must denounce as madness and folly, the propagation of the glorious gospel and the diffusion of the precious blessings of Christianity, among a widely extended population under British sway, have in some cases been positively discountenanced and discouraged. While the demoralizing and bloody superstitions of India have been publicly supported and encouraged among the immense population under the British government in the East Indies, in that same land there has been exhibited the melancholy spectacle of men in authority, bearing the Christian name, publicly opposing and counteracting the advancement of the Christian cause. Devoted servants of the Redeemer desiring to proclaim in that land the glad tidings of salvation, have been under the necessity of going to India by the circuitous route of America. Some of them after their arrival in India have been obliged by the government to quit the country. And those who were labouring there, while engaged in their work of faith and labour of love, have been placed under restrictions and positively obstructed by the authority of the government, on the avowed principle, that “government did not interfere with the prejudices of the natives,” and therefore requested that the missionaries “would not.”[17]
So lately as the year 1813, when there was an act of Parliament passed, “for continuing in the East India Company, for a farther term, the possession of the British territories in India,” and when anxious endeavours were made by the friends of Christianity to secure liberty for the free dissemination of the gospel in that land; the united and powerful exertions of the late Andrew Fuller and Robert Hall and other Christian men, were only successful so far, as to obtain from the British Parliament the insertion in the act of some clauses, affording a restricted, indirect, imperfect, and insecure permission, to “persons desirous of going to India, for the purpose of promoting the religious and moral improvement of the natives.” The language of Robert Hall in pleading this cause is equally powerful and just. “It must surely be considered as an extraordinary fact, that in a country under the government of a people professing Christianity, that religion should be the only one that is discountenanced and discouraged.—All that is desired on this occasion is simply that the word of God may be permitted to have free course.—Every individual of the immense population subjected to our sway, has claims on our justice and benevolence, which we cannot with impunity neglect. The wants and sufferings of every individual utter a voice which goes to the heart of humanity.—Why has the communication of the greatest good we have to bestow, been hitherto fettered and restrained; and while every modification of idolatry, not excepting the bloody and obscene orgies of Juggernaut, have received support, has every attempt to instruct the natives in the things which belong to their peace, been suppressed or discountenanced? It will surely appear surprising to posterity, that a nation glorying in the purity of its faith as one of its highest distinctions, should suffer its transactions in the East to be characterized by the spirit of infidelity, as though they imagined the foundations of empire could only be laid in apostacy and impiety; at a moment too, when Europe, convulsed to its centre, beholds these frantic nations swept with the besom of destruction.”[18]
We rejoice that since that time there has been a most important and decided change, in reference to the free circulation of the gospel in India; and that now the messengers of salvation are at liberty, without let or interruption from the civil power, to go wherever Providence may call them, through the length and breadth of that land, and freely to proclaim to the benighted inhabitants the wonders of redeeming love. And for this reason, whatever guilt may have been contracted in the extension of the British dominions, we would fondly cherish the hope that the existence of British sway over such an extensive empire may be rendered subservient, in the arrangements of Infinite Wisdom, to the accomplishment of designs infinitely glorious in conveying to perishing millions the unsearchable riches of Christ. Still the servants of the Redeemer in that land are only favoured with permission to carry on their labours under the protection of British power. The government itself gives no evidence of feeling an interest in the advancement of the great cause. And while nothing is contributed from the public revenue to promote the faithful preaching of the gospel or to advance the great work of Christian education throughout that extensive empire, it is greatly to be lamented that by the authority of government large sums are at this very time expended, to instruct those young men, who seek the advantages of a learned education, in the Shasters, or sacred books of the Hindoo religion, and thus to infuse into their minds in the susceptible period of youth all the immorality and impurity and idolatry of that degrading system. It is no light aggravation of this evil that such iniquitous policy has been adopted, after an important movement had been made, by a late Governor General [Lord William Bentinck.], in a better direction, and these funds had been converted to the purpose of conveying to the Hindoo youth the knowledge of the English language, literature, and philosophy. How lamentable that they should now be devoted to the upholding of a system which is so eminently fitted to degrade men in time, and to destroy them for ever!
Are not these things opposed to the will of God! Is not our land involved in much guilt! Is not this guilt greatly aggravated by the invaluable privileges and the clear light with which we are favoured! Is not the national iniquity greatly increased by the violation of the solemn covenant engagements into which our forefathers entered! by which the inhabitants of these lands became bound to be the people of God—to maintain the scriptural principles of the Reformation, civil and ecclesiastical—to promote the cause of God, and the kingdom of the Redeemer—and to employ all scriptural means for the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, as opposed to the glory of God, and the best interests of the three kingdoms. Considering the similarity of our circumstances, have we not reason to tremble at the denunciation against ancient Israel: “Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this.” [Jer. v. 9.]
CHAPTER III.
THE DUTY OF CHRIST’S WITNESSES TO BE SEPARATE.
III. Let us consider the necessity laid upon Christ’s faithful witnesses to guard against being partakers of the national guilt. When we contemplate in the light of God’s holy word the moral evils of the British government in its constitution and administration, and when we consider the national guilt thereby contracted, on account of which our land becomes exposed to God’s righteous judgments, it is incumbent on us seriously to inquire what is the duty of Christians in regard to these things—and specially to inquire what is our own duty as members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, as successors of the persecuted Covenanters—acknowledging as we do the supreme authority of the blessed Redeemer and the perpetual obligation of our national vows, and adhering as we do to the scriptural cause and testimony for which our forefathers laid down their lives, and which they have transmitted to us as a sacred legacy, bequeathed to us at the expense of their blood. Is there no possibility of maintaining a consistent testimony for the honour of our Redeemer and the glory of his crown, and of keeping ourselves free from those iniquities of the land by which his authority is insulted, and his crown despised? Does the fact of dwelling on the soil where God has given them their being, bind up all the inhabitants in the national society, in such a manner that they cannot avoid being partakers of the national guilt? Surely this cannot for a moment be maintained. Those who, as witnesses for God, hold forth a faithful protest against all the prevailing corruptions—who keep themselves separate—and who touch not the unclean thing, shall be graciously distinguished when the judgments of God are abroad in the earth. “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” [2 Peter ii. 9.] In the day of reckoning, when the messengers of wrath are sent forth, each with his destroying weapon in his hand, to punish for the iniquities of the land, the Lord will give command to “set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.” [Ezek. ix. 4.]
In reference to Babylon the great, this is the command of God; “Come out of her, my people, that ye not be partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” [Rev. xviii. 4, 5.] In the case of corrupt churches, it is the duty of the followers of the Lamb, in obedience to this command, to come out of them and to be separate. On this ground we protest against the Church of Rome, and hold ourselves bound to have no connection with her abominations. We protest against the Prelatic Churches of England and Ireland, which have embodied in their constitution many of the corruptions of Rome—which have made no provision whatever for the scriptural exercise of discipline-and which own a mere mortal as supreme head of the church. We protest against the Church of Scotland, which was set up by an Erastian settlement at the time of the Revolution—which has abandoned to a large extent the scriptural platform of the Covenanted Reformation—and which has tamely submitted to the iniquitous law of patronage, and other encroachments of anti-christian power, by which she has been grievously corrupted, her members deprived from generation to generation of that liberty with which Christ has made his people free, and ungodly ministers thrust in, to the dishonour of religion and the ruin of immortal souls. And are we not still more bound to protest against “the throne of iniquity,” [Psalm xciv. 20.] which, in reference to these very churches, has established mischief by a law—which has legally sanctioned all the evils of Popery—which has incorporated with itself as an essential part of the civil constitution all the corruptions of Prelacy —and which has wreathed around the neck of the Church of Scotland the yoke by which she is held in bondage, and by which at the present time she is so grievously afflicted? If we protest against the churches which are supported and corrupted by the state, and if love to the Redeemer constrains us to be separate from them—can we be free from guilt if we join with the national society itself which has enslaved and corrupted these churches; and which, moreover, has incurred the responsibility of supporting and countenancing the idolatrous systems of Popery and Hindooism? Can we become a constituent part of a political association which we know to be deliberately and habitually guilty of all these things, and yet deceive ourselves with the imagination that we have no share in the guilt? If we can do this, then on the same principle we might become members of the Church of Rome, and deceive ourselves with the vain imagination that we would be in no way partakers of her sins, and that we might expect complete exemption from her plagues. It is important to remember that when the principles, and constitution, and habitual practice of any society, whether civil or religious, are distinctly known and avowed; in such a case the simple fact of membership (even although no direct profession, or oath, or engagement, should be required) implies an approbation and support of the essential principles, and constitution, and practice of the society; and if the essential principles or habitual practice be immoral, every member is involved in all the guilt and responsibility of upholding them. If, therefore, we unite with churches whose established laws or prevailing practice in any department (whatever excellencies they may otherwise contain) are opposed to the will of God, we are partakers of their sins, and may expect to be sharers in their plagues. And in like manner, we cannot be guiltless if we unite in the national compact with governments, whose established laws or prevailing practice in any department (whatever excellencies they may in other respects possess) are in direct opposition to the authority of the Redeemer. There are many precious doctrines of the word of God, acknowledged and professed in the Church of Rome; nevertheless, on account of her errors and immoralities, the people of God are commanded to come out of her, that they be not partakers of her sins, and that they receive not of her plagues. In like manner, we freely admit that there are many excellencies connected with the British government; nevertheless, on account of the moral evils of the system, the people of God are bound to come out, and be separate, that they be not partakers of the nation’s sins. Besides all the moral evils habitually practised in the administration—it is our firm conviction, and we think it has been proved, that immoral principles and religious corruptions are essentially embodied in the British Constitution. These are distinctly known and openly avowed. They appear prominently in the statutes of the realm, in the treaties of union between the three kingdoms, and in the oaths required from the sovereign. We cannot therefore join in the national association, and be guiltless. We are constrained to continue, as did our fathers, in a state of separation from the national body politic, and to maintain our solemn protest against the evils of the British constitution, by which God is dishonoured, and the souls of men destroyed.
Ever since the overthrow of the covenanted Reformation, by the tyranny and perfidy of Charles the Second, and the persecuting violence of his brother James, when the blood of Christ’s faithful witnesses was so profusely shed for maintaining the principles we now advocate, the witnessing remnant have deemed it their duty to occupy the position of open dissent from the deeds of the national society—to bear witness for the insulted prerogatives of their divine Lord—and to testify against all the encroachments made upon his rightful authority, both in church and state. We see no cause now to abandon the principles of the persecuted Covenanters. We cannot give the glory to another which belongs to our divine Lord. We cannot recede from the position occupied by our suffering forefathers in the days of Cameron, Cargill, and Renwick, and nobly maintained by their successors, in the cause and testimony of Christ, at the time of the Revolution, and ever since until the present day. Were we to accept the proffered use of the elective franchise, this position would be entirely abandoned. We would thereby incorporate ourselves with the national association, and homologate all its iniquities. The requirements of God’s word, the example of Christ’s faithful witnesses in every age, and our covenanted allegiance to the Prince of the kings of the earth, all forbid such a course. Through divine grace, we are resolved still to occupy, and firmly to maintain, the well-trodden battle ground of our martyred forefathers. We would earnestly invite our brethren in Christ Jesus of every name, to come and join with us on this high and holy ground. And were this done, we are persuaded that ere long the evils against which we protest would be entirely removed, and “the kingdoms of this world would become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.”
CHAPTER IV.
SIN AND DANGER OF USING THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MORAL EVILS OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION.
IV. We now proceed to set forth in a few particulars, the sin and danger of using the elective franchise, in connection with the moral evils of the British constitution.
1. The first evil we would mention, is in the act of registration. This act, when registration is voluntarily claimed or accepted as a privilege, formally unites the person registered with the political association, and renders him fully responsible, as a member of the society, for the national deeds.—It has been already remarked, that “when the principles, and constitution, and habitual practice of any society, whether civil or religious, are distinctly known and avowed; in such a case the simple fact of membership (even although no direct profession, or oath, or engagement, should be required) involves an approbation and support of the essential principles, and constitution, and practice of the society.” It cannot be pleaded, that the principles of the national society, and the terms of the compact, upon the footing of which the members are united, are concealed or unknown. As has been already stated, these principles are distinctly known and avowed; and therefore all who voluntarily unite in the association, must be held as approving these principles, and deliberately engaging to uphold them. This is done by the act of voluntary registration. Those who come forward and claim to be enrolled as electors, formally avow themselves a constituent part of the society. In so doing, they homologate the known constitution, and take upon themselves the responsibility, while they claim the privileges of membership. They even claim something more than the privileges of ordinary membership, and of course undertake a greater responsibility. They seek those higher rights, which, according to the laws of the society, are conceded only to the more favoured members. They claim a right to take part in all the affairs of legislation, and, by their chosen representatives, to sit, deliberate, and vote in all matters civil and ecclesiastical, that may come before the high court of Parliament. When their claims are admitted, their names are enrolled. Thus, upon their own deliberate application, and with the consent of the national society which has fixed the terms and established the rules of admission, they are formally introduced into all the special privileges and responsibilities of the more favoured members. And even if no oaths or professions of attachment to the constitution were required of them or their representatives, or if they should never proceed to an election, the simple fact of their registration formally unites them with the national association, and involves them in all the guilt of the national compact. Instead of standing at a distance from a constitution framed upon immoral principles, and maintaining a solemn dissent, as duty requires them to do, they unite themselves in the closest connection with the whole system, and voluntarily undertake, before God and men, to bear the responsibility. We must therefore warn the members of the church against the act of registration, as in itself wrong, as leading those who are registered into temptation, and as exposing them, directly and indirectly, to dangerous consequences.
2. Those who exercise the elective franchise, do, by their representatives, bind themselves upon oath to the full extent of the national compact. They choose persons, and send them to Parliament, with a commission, in their name, and as their representatives, to take all the prescribed oaths, and upon the footing of these solemn engagements, to sit, deliberate, and vote in that high court. It is enacted, that no member be permitted to enter the House of Commons, till he hath taken the oath of allegiance before the Lord Steward or his deputy. And before the passing of what is called the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, no member could vote or sit in either house, till he had, in the presence of the house, taken the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, and subscribed and repeated the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass. By that bill, it is provided that the oaths and declarations condemning the doctrines of Popery, shall not be administered either to Roman Catholics or Protestants as a qualification for sitting in Parliament. But all Protestant members are still required to swear the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. And instead of these oaths, a particular oath, including with some variation, the substance of all the three, is required of Roman Catholics.[19]
It is to be observed, that all these oaths are imposed by the authority of law. The national society requires them as securities for the preservation of the constitution, and the maintenance and execution of the established laws. The British government does not proceed upon the principles of absolute despotism, allowing the sovereign to act according to his pleasure, and requiring the people to render obedience to his absolute will. It proceeds upon the footing of a solemn compact, framed with the concurrence of all parties, (in the responsibilities of which all are involved, who do not solemnly dissent from the national deeds,) binding the king and people to one another, by sacred engagements, which all in their respective places, are under obligation to observe. The duties of the king and of the people are mutual and reciprocal.
The British constitution does not authorize or permit the king to rule according to his own pleasure, or to dispense with any of the existing laws. Neither are the people required to give absolute and unlimited obedience; but to support the king in upholding, maintaining, and executing the established laws. Accordingly, at the time of the Revolution, “in a full assembly of the lords and commons, met in a convention, . . . both houses came to this resolution: “that king James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people; and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom; has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant.’”[20] “But however,” says Blackstone, “as the terms of that original contract were in some measure disputed, being alleged to exist principally in theory, and to be only deducible by reason and the rules of natural law; in which deduction different understandings might very considerably differ; it was, after the Revolution, judged proper to declare these duties expressly, and to reduce that contract to a plain certainty. So that whatever doubts might be formerly raised by weak and scrupulous minds about the existence of such an original contract, they must now entirely cease, especially with regard to every prince who hath reigned since the year 1688.”[21]
“But to obviate all doubts and difficulties concerning this matter, it is expressly declared by statute 12 and 13 W[illiam]. III. c. 2, “that the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof; and all the kings and queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm, ought to administer the government of the same according to the said laws: and all their officers and ministers ought to serve them respectively according to the same: and therefore all the laws and statutes of this realm, for securing the established religion, and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, are ratified and confirmed accordingly.’
“And, as to the terms of the original contract between king and people, these I apprehend to be now couched in the coronation oath, which by the statute 1 W[illiam]. and M[ary]. st. 1. c. 6, is to be administered to every king and queen, who shall succeed to the imperial crown of these realms by one of the archbishops or bishops of the realm, in the presence of all the people; who on their parts do reciprocally take the oath of allegiance to the crown. This coronation oath is conceived in the following terms:
“The archbishop or bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of the kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on and the laws and customs of the same? The king or queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.—Archbishop or bishop. Will you to your power cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? King or queen. I will.—Archbishop or bishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by the law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?—King or queen. All this I promise to do. After this the king or queen, laying his or her hand upon the holy gospels, shall say, The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep: so help me God: and then shall kiss the book.[22]
“This is the form of the coronation oath, as it is now prescribed by our laws; the principal articles of which appear to be at least as ancient as the mirror of justices, and even as the time of Bracton: but the wording of it was changed at the Revolution, because (as the statute alleges) the oath itself had been framed in doubtful words and expressions, with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at this time unknown. However, in what form soever it be conceived, this is most indisputably a fundamental and original express contract; though doubtless the duty of protection is impliedly as much incumbent on the sovereign before coronation as after; in the same manner as allegiance to the king becomes the duty of the subject immediately on the descent of the crown, before he has taken the oath of allegiance, or whether he ever takes it at all. This reciprocal duty of the subject will be considered in its proper place. At present we are only to observe, that in the king’s part of this original contract are expressed all the duties that a monarch can owe to his people: viz. to govern according to law; to execute judgment in mercy; and to maintain the established religion. And, with respect to the latter of these three branches, we may farther remark, that by the act of union, 5 Anne. c. 8, two preceding statutes are recited and confirmed; the one of the parliament of Scotland, the other of the parliament of England: which enact; the former, that every king at his accession shall take and subscribe an oath, to preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government in Scotland; the latter, that at his coronation he shall take and subscribe a similar oath, to preserve the settlement of the Church of England within England, Ireland, Wales, and Berwick, and the territories thereunto belonging.”[23]
Such are the engagements of the British monarch, prescribed by law, expressly required by the statutes of the land, and solemnly guaranteed on the part of the nations concerned by the plighted faith of national treaties. And it is important to observe that, even if no oaths or promises of any kind were required from the subjects in return, the national society, by requiring these engagements from the sovereign, becomes completely involved in all their responsibilities, and every member of the association is thereby pledged to the full extent of the engagements required from the sovereign.
But to a large extent reciprocal oaths are required. Upon the footing of these engagements which the national society imposes on the queen, the oath of allegiance on the other hand is required and taken: “I —, do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty, &c.: So help me God.” It will not be maintained by any friend of civil and religious liberty, or by any intelligent man acquainted with the British constitution, that this is an oath of unlimited passive obedience. It is clearly an oath of allegiance to the sovereign upon the principles of the constitution in church and state, as expressed in the coronation oath and other engagements of the queen. Every one who swears it binds himself to support the constitution and laws of the kingdom, and to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the sovereign in upholding, maintaining, and executing the statutes, laws, and customs of the realm. This is the amount of the engagement, neither more nor less. It is in fact neither more nor less than an oath to the whole constitution and laws of the kingdom.[24]
Every member of the House of Commons must swear this oath before entering the house. Of course, every elector, who sends a representative to Parliament, does by his representative voluntarily bind himself by this oath, and becomes both legally and morally responsible. It is in vain to plead that the constituents are not responsible for the deeds of those who represent them. They may not indeed be responsible for all their doings. Should the representative deceive his constituents, and act contrary to his profession and promises, in such a way as could not have been anticipated, in that case his constituents are not to bear the responsibility, provided they previously employed all dutiful means to ascertain his true character, and afterwards disavowed and condemned his proceedings. But it is beyond all doubt that they must be held in the fullest sense responsible for those deeds which are done by their representative in obedience to their instructions. This is the case in reference to the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, taken by the members of the House of Commons. Those who send one to act for them in Parliament give him a commission, and virtually yet imperatively require him, to swear in their name all the prescribed oaths; for otherwise he cannot sit in the house, or do any part of the work which they require of him as their representative.
But some may say, members of Parliament, having the business of legislation committed to them, have the power of altering and amending the laws, and therefore their oaths can only require them to support the existing laws, so long as they continue legally established, or until they may be constitutionally changed. We admit this to be true with regard to some of the laws of the land, those which are not declared essential and inviolable parts of the constitution. But even if it were true to the fullest extent, with regard to all the laws of the realm, it could never warrant the taking of the required oaths, if any of these laws to which the juror becomes pledged are in themselves immoral and unscriptural, dishonouring to God, and injurious to men. It is criminal voluntarily to support, for a single hour, laws which are immoral, unscriptural, and antichristian; and an oath promising such support cannot but be sinful. It is a grievous error to maintain that it is a duty to obey and support any law, however wicked, so long as it remains in the statute-book. There is a law above all the laws of men, the authority of which remains for ever unchangeable; and when any human laws are in opposition to the divine, it is our duty to obey God rather than men. Laws framed by men in opposition to the will of God, ought to receive no countenance or support, in any form whatever, from the followers of the Lamb. Could Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, have bound themselves by an oath to obey, or support for a single hour, the wicked decree which condemned to the burning fiery furnace every one who refused to worship the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up? Or could the prophet Daniel have given even a momentary approbation to the royal statute, which doomed to the den of lions every true worshipper of the Most High? And is it right for a Christian man, either personally or by a representative, to countenance, or engage to support for a single day, the law of patronage, the legal establishment of Popery, or the public support of Hindoo superstitions? Or was it right to uphold and support, as was done by the British Legislature for such a long period, the iniquitous system of slavery? or to countenance the diabolical traffic in human beings, carried on while the slave-trade was sanctioned by law? Persons who hold that there is nothing in the existing laws of the British nation essentially immoral, and who believe that the constitution in church and state is worthy of their cordial approbation and support, act consistently (however erroneous their views may be) when they enter into the Legislature, either personally or by their representatives, and solemnly bind themselves in the national compact. But if the doctrine be admitted that men may uphold laws and customs essentially sinful, and swear to do so, so long as these are legally established, upon the same principle they would have been at liberty to assist in upholding and executing the most iniquitous laws which were ever enacted in days of tyranny and persecution; and were the British Government to enact a law for the utter extermination of Christ’s covenanted witnesses, they would be at liberty to swear assent to the bloody decree, and to join in the diabolical work of seeking out, condemning, and putting to death the faithful followers of the Lamb. On account of their practical opposition to this pernicious doctrine, the martyrs of Jesus in every age have endured all their sufferings—because they would not yield obedience to the established laws of ungodly rulers, in opposition to the will of their Heavenly Father.
The tenor of the national compact, and the oaths by which it is ratified, do not, however, leave even the high court of Parliament at liberty to alter or abrogate whatever laws they please. Some parts of the system are in the most solemn manner, by statutes, oaths, and treaties, declared to be PERMANENT AND INVIOLABLE. This is particularly the case in regard to the ecclesiastical part of the constitution. Everything which laws, oaths, and treaties can do, is done, to make the united church of England and Ireland, the power of the bishops, the royal supremacy, the Book of Common Prayer, and the present established church of Scotland, PERMANENT AND INVIOLABLE FOR EVER. To this every member of Parliament and his constituents make themselves parties, under the sanction of an appeal to the Searcher of Hearts. And it deserves to be remarked, that here especially appears the antichristian character of the British Government. In the treaties of union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, the inviolability of the ecclesiastical part of the constitution is most strongly guaranteed. After stating the substance of the articles of union between England and Scotland, Blackstone says: “These are the principal of the twenty-five articles of union, which are ratified and confirmed by the statute 5 Ann. c. 8. in which statute there are also two acts of parliament recited: the one of Scotland, whereby the CHURCH OF SCOTLAND and also the four universities of that kingdom are ESTABLISHED FOR EVER, and all succeeding sovereigns are to take AN OATH INVARIABLY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME; the other of England, 5 Ann. c. 5. whereby THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY of 13 Eliz[abeth]. and 13 Car. [Charles] II. (except as the same had been altered by Parliament at that time) and ALL OTHER ACTS THEN IN FORCE for the PRESERVATION of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND, are declared PERPETUAL; and it is STIPULATED, that every subsequent king and queen shall take AN OATH INVIOLABLY TO MAINTAIN THE SAME within England, Ireland, Wales, and the town of Berwick-upon Tweed. And it is enacted, that these two acts ‘shall FOR EVER be observed as FUNDAMENTAL AND ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS OF THE UNION.’
“Upon these articles and act of union, it is to be observed, 1. That the two kingdoms are now so inseparably united, that nothing can ever disunite them again; except the mutual consent of both, or the successful resistance of either, upon apprehending an infringement of those points; which, when they were separate and independent nations, it was mutually stipulated should be ‘fundamental and essential conditions of the union.’ 2. That whatever else may be deemed ‘fundamental and essential conditions, the PRESERVATION of the TWO CHURCHES of England and Scotland, in the SAME STATE that they were in at the time of the union, and the MAINTENANCE OF THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY which establish our Common Prayer, are expressly declared so to be. 3. That therefore ANY ALTERATION in the constitution of EITHER of those churches, or in the LITURGY of the Church of England, (unless with the consent of the respective churches, collectively or representatively given,) would be an infringement of these ‘fundamental and essential conditions,’ and greatly endanger the union.”[25] The same thing is provided for in the articles of union of Great Britain and Ireland, “Art. V. That the Churches of England and Ireland be united into ONE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, to be called the United Church of England and Ireland; that the doctrine and worship shall be the same; and that the CONTINUANCE AND PRESERVATION OF THE UNITED CHURCH as the Established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed an ESSENTIAL AND FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE UNION; and that, in like manner, the Church of Scotland shall remain the same as is now established by law, and by the acts of union of England and Scotland.”[26] And this inviolability of the established churches is again explicitly recognised in the act of 1829, entitled, “an act for the relief of his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects.—xxiv. And whereas the PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the PROTESTANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are BY THE RESPECTIVE ACTS OF UNION of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, ESTABLISHED PERMANENTLY AND INVIOLABLY: And whereas the right and title of archbishops to their respective provinces, of bishops to their sees, and of deans to their deaneries, as well in England as in Ireland, have been settled and established by law, be it therefore enacted, that if any person, after the commencement of this act, other than the person there unto authorised by law, shall assume or use the name, style, or title of archbishop of any province, bishop of any bishopric, or dean of any deanery, in England or Ireland, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred pounds.”[27]
We have already remarked the solemn oaths taken by the king to preserve inviolable the ecclesiastical part of the constitution, and the oaths of allegiance to the crown reciprocally taken by all members of parliament, upon the footing of the solemn engagements entered into by the king. And it is proper to observe, that as at the time of the passing of the act for the admission of Papists to places of power and trust, fears were entertained that the established churches might be there by endangered, an enactment was then made, by which Roman Catholics are required, upon sitting and voting in either house of parliament, to swear and subscribe an oath, of which the following is a part: “I do swear, that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws; and I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present church establishment, as settled by law within this realm: And I do solemnly swear, that I NEVER will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the united kingdom: And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. So help me God.”
It is important also to observe that in the end of King William’s reign a statute was framed, entitled “An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,” limiting the succession of the crown to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; and by the statute “it was enacted, that whosoever should hereafter come to the possession of the crown, should join in the communion of the Church of England as by law established.”[28] In the second article of the union of England and Scotland, it was stipulated “That the succession of the monarchy of Great Britain shall be the same as was before settled with regard to that of England.”[29] In the second article of the union of Great Britain and Ireland, it is stipulated, “That the succession to the imperial crown shall continue settled in the same manner as the succession to the crown of Great Britain and Ireland stood before limited.”[30]
And in conformity with this, all members of parliament, both Protestant and Papist, swear to support the succession to the crown, according to the limitation of the above-mentioned act; the Protestant members in the oath of abjuration—and the Popish in the oath required of them, “instead of the oaths of allegiance, and supremacy, and abjuration.” By these oaths and treaties all members of parliament and their constituents become pledged to support, maintain, and defend the succession, as fixed and limited by the essential condition, that whosoever shall come to the possession of the crown shall join in the communion of the Church of England. Whatever changes have been made at different times in the phraseology of the oath of abjuration, in reference to the act of limitation, for the purpose of satisfying some who entertained scruples regarding it, it is undeniable, that in every form it contains the obligation to support the succession of the crown as fixed and established by law. The words referring to the succession could not otherwise have any meaning whatever, unless they were interpreted in express opposition to the law, as securing the succession to the descendants of the Princess Sophia, whatever their religion might be, Popish or Protestant.
The oath of abjuration is in other respects very exception able. It repeats the oath of allegiance, binding to the whole extent of the national compact. It declares that the reigning sovereign “ is lawful and rightful Queen of this realm;” and this lawfulness is professed, testified, and declared, in the most solemn manner, without any consideration of the sovereign possessing, or not possessing, the qualifications which the word of God requires, and although invested by the constitution with prerogatives which the word of God condemns. The oath also declares that the sovereign “is lawful and rightful Queen,” not only of this realm, but of “all other her majesty’s dominions, and countries thereunto belonging,” although there can be no doubt that many of these have been acquired by means which it is impossible to vindicate. And if it would be wrong to declare upon oath that a private individual was the lawful and rightful proprietor of houses or lands, or goods in his possession, when there was clear evidence, or strong ground of suspicion, that instead of being rightfully obtained they had been secured at the expense of violating every moral principle by means of rapine and murder; it surely cannot be held less objectionable to declare with the solemnity of an oath, that the ruler of any nation is the lawful and rightful sovereign of dominions and countries, the possession of which may have been attended by the commission of similar crimes on a larger scale.
In the same oath the jurant is made to employ the following language:—“And I do swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to her majesty, Queen Victoria, and her will defend, to the utmost of my power, against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to her majesty and her successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against her or any of them.” Now, let it be calmly considered, what is the meaning of this language, and what the amount of obligation it implies. What are we to understand by the “crown and dignity” of the British sovereign, in regard to which the jurant solemnly engages to “defend her against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever?” No one will maintain that this language is employed merely to denote the material “crown” which is placed on the monarch’s head. Neither can it be understood to denote absolute and unlimited authority; for, according to the British constitution, no such authority is allowed to the reigning sovereign. It can mean neither more nor less than the constitutional authority and dignity with which, by the terms of the constitution, the sovereign is legally invested; with all the legal rights and prerogatives which the nation, by its solemn deeds, has granted to the British crown. Every one who is in the least acquainted with the British constitution, knows that this includes the dignity and prerogative of “head and supreme governor of the national Church of England,” which is “annexed to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the title and style thereof, as all jurisdictions, authorities, and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the church appertaining.” And as this usurped dignity is directly opposed to the supreme and exclusive authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the alone king and head of his church, all who swear this oath (although many of them seem not at all aware of it) do virtually abjure the precious doctrine of the Redeemer’s sole headship over his church, solemnly bind themselves not to uphold or maintain it, and moreover engage to give information against those who do maintain and propagate this precious truth, as guilty of traitorous attempts against the crown and dignity of the British sovereign. It is quite in vain to attempt getting rid of these painful conclusions, by saying that the terms “crown and dignity” in the oath, refer only to the civil authority of the sovereign, inasmuch as the civil law has made the supreme headship of the church an essential prerogative of the British crown, and thus this supremacy over the church is made an essential part of the civil authority with which the constitution of the kingdom has invested the British sovereign. And yet, alas! to what a fearful extent has this oath of abjuration been imposed on persons of various stations and offices, civil and ecclesiastical! And to what an extent has it been taken even by men who love the blessed Redeemer! It is one of the oaths, let it be remembered, which must be taken by all who sit in the British Parliament, and which is of course virtually taken by all who join in sending them as their representatives to that court.
These things demonstrate that all members of Parliament and their constituents are bound by oath to uphold and maintain, at least in the mean time, all the laws of the realm without exception, whether good or bad; and to preserve inviolate for ever the ecclesiastical systems by law established; and that in an especial manner every method is adopted which human ingenuity could devise, for securing inviolate and for ever, the Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, including not only what is good and valuable, but the entire fabric with all the antichristian leaven essentially intermingled with its constitution, and which, we may remark, by the way, is now manifesting its malignant influence in the Popery of Oxford. There is something inexpressibly absurd in the averment, which is sometimes ignorantly made, that the oaths and treaties of the British nation refer only to civil matters, and have nothing to do with religion, when in fact this is the prominent object in regard to which, in the coronation oath and treaties of union, the most scrupulous care is manifested, and in comparison with which every thing else sinks into the shade.
In conformity with this, in the warrant for issuing parliamentary writs for the election of members of Parliament, addressed to the Lord High Chancellor, the language of the king proves, that one principal design of convoking Parliament is the firm preservation of the Church of England:—“Whereas we, by the advice of our privy council, for certain and urgent causes concerning us, the good estate and commonwealth of this our realm, and of the Church of England, and for the good order and continuance of the same, have ordained a Parliament to be holden,” &c.[31] And, accordingly, in the writ addressed to the sheriffs, upon the calling of a Parliament, they are required to take all the necessary steps respecting the election, so that every “knight and burgess” chosen “may have full and sufficient power for doing and consenting to those things which may happen to be ordained” “respecting the king, the state, and the defence of the state and the kingdom of Great Britain and the Church of England.” This is the only legal warrant for the election. In obedience to this royal mandate, and for the purposes therein specified, the election takes place. And the election being completed, the representative chosen by the people proceeds to Parliament, with full authority from his constituents to fulfil these designs; and in conformity with the commission received from the electors, pledges himself, before entering upon any parliamentary business, by taking all the oaths, which the law has established for upholding the constitution in church and state.
Can the friends of the covenanted reformation consistently join in these proceedings, and solemnly pledge themselves to the support of a system which is in so many things directly opposed to that glorious cause for which their forefathers suffered unto death! Can the friends of the Redeemer, especially in Presbyterian churches, whose fervent prayer it is that his kingdom may come and the crown flourish on his head, consistently join in such proceedings, and pledge themselves to the support of a system which despoils him of the glory which the Father hath given him as the King of Zion, and the Prince of the kings of the earth!
It has been sometimes said, that we Reformed Presbyterian Covenanters will not be satisfied without a covenanted king. But how does the matter really stand? We indeed maintain the necessity of scriptural qualifications in those who rule, in whatever station; and we also maintain the permanent obligation of the national scriptural engagements entered into by our reforming forefathers. But let it be remembered that, in every constitutional government, there is, at least in substance, a covenant or compact between the rulers and the people, and if religion be embodied in the constitution, or in any way recognised, the parties must be considered as having in their covenant a regard to God also, whose religion they profess to acknowledge. There is, in fact, at the present moment, a covenanted Queen on the throne of Britain. The covenant is not merely implied, but distinct and express; and our objection to the whole matter is, that the covenant is a sinful one, and in direct opposition to the scriptural engagements of a former period. Instead of following up the spirit and design of those solemn covenanted obligations, into which our reforming forefathers entered, and by which, we believe, these lands are still bound to maintain the glory of the Divine Redeemer as the alone Head of the church, and the Governor among the nations; and to maintain and promote the cause of true and undefiled religion, in opposition to all error and ungodliness, and particularly in opposition to Popery and Prelacy: these nations and their rulers have now entered into what may be called a counter-covenant; by which the sovereign and the people, ministers and magistrates, and all classes of men who own the constitution, solemnly bind themselves together, to maintain the authority of a mortal fallible being as head of the church of Christ, to tear the crown from the head of the Redeemer, and to uphold a variety of religions, whether true or false—Prelacy in one part of the British dominions, Popery in another, and Presbyterianism modified and corrupted by Erastian restrictions in a third. Into this unhallowed compact the successors of the martyred covenanters cannot enter. Rather than do so, they must suffer the loss of all things. Such as do enter into it, to whatever church they may belong, solemnly renounce the covenant engagements of our reforming forefathers, and can claim no rightful connection with the illustrious men of the second reformation, or with their noble-minded descendants, who maintained the banner of truth in the high places of the fields, and willingly laid down their lives for the crown and covenant of the Divine Redeemer.
3. Those who exercise the elective franchise do, by their representatives in Parliament, form a constituent part of a court, which we cannot but consider as immoral, both in its constitution and its claims.
It may be proper here to mention in the language of Blackstone, the constituent parts of that high court, commonly called a Parliament, to which the supreme power of legislation is committed. “These are, the king’s majesty, sitting there in his royal political capacity, and the three estates of the realm; the lords spiritual, (i.e. the archbishops and bishops,) the lords temporal, (who sit, together with the king, in one house) and the commons, who sit by themselves in another. And the king and these three estates, together, form the great corporation or body politic of the kingdom, of which the king is said to be caput, principium, et finis,” i.e. the head, beginning, and end. “For upon their coming together the king meets them, either in person or by representation; without which there can be no beginning of a parliament; and he also has alone the power of dissolving them.”—“The commons consist of all such men of property in the kingdom, as have no seats in the House of Lords, every one of which has a voice in Parliament, either personally or by his representatives.”—And as it would not be convenient, in a large state, that the power of legislation “should be exercised by the people in their aggregate or collective capacity,” “in so large a state as ours, it is therefore very wisely contrived, that the people should do that by their representatives which it is impracticable to perform in person; representatives chosen by a number of minute and separate districts, wherein all the voters are, or easily may be, distinguished.—And every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general; not barely to advantage his constituents, but the common wealth, to advise his majesty (as appears from the writ of summons) ‘de communi consilio super negotiis quibusdam arduis et urgentibus, ragem, statum, et defensionem regni Angliae et ecclesiae Anglicanae concernentibus; i.e. of the common counsel about certain arduous and urgent matters concerning the king, the state, and the defence of the kingdom of England and of the Church of England.’—These are the constituent parts of a parliament; the king, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons. Parts, of which each is so necessary, that the consent of all three is required to make any new law that shall bind the subject. Whatever is enacted for law by one or by two only of the three is no statute; and to it no regard is due, unless in matters relating to their own privileges.”[32]
This language shows that, although the different estates of the realm do not all sit together in the same house, yet they all constitute one court, and all the several parts are held essentially and indispensably necessary. It also shows, what indeed is evident from the nature of the case, that the people who send representatives to Parliament must be held as “doing that by their representatives which it is impracticable to perform in person.” It must also make it manifest to every one who has sound views respecting the scriptural government of the Church, that the high court of Parliament is essentially immoral in its constitution. One of the constituent parts, placed at the head, is “the king’s majesty sitting there in his royal political capacity,” invested of course with all prerogatives which the constitution of the kingdom has given him, and recognised as possessing supreme power in all matters civil and ecclesiastical—having annexed to the imperial crown of the realm, the title and style of supreme head of the Church of England, with all jurisdictions, authorities, and commodities, to the said dignity appertaining.
The lords spiritual, consisting of archbishops and bishops, form another part of the high court of Parliament. They are there recognised as invested with ecclesiastical offices which have no foundation in the word of God; and clothed with authority and lordship over the church, against which the blessed Redeemer, foreseeing the ambitious designs of men, expressly forewarned his disciples: and in virtue of these unscriptural ecclesiastical dignities, they are admitted into Parliament, and unite with the other constituent parts of that court in all the affairs of legislation, both for church and state. These we deem great evils. And we cannot see how any sound Presbyterian, or true advocate of the Redeemer’s headship over his church, can consistently, either by himself or his representatives, recognise such violations of the law of Christ, by uniting in a legislative assembly where these evils are, by the court itself and according to the constitution of the kingdom, held essential to its very existence.
The claims of this high court are also immoral. This high court, according to Blackstone, “hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical, or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal: this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of these kingdoms.”[33] These high claims of Parliament—particularly as they have been illustrated by their exercise in reference to the church of God, despoiling her of her liberties, establishing in the name of religion many things directly opposed to the Divine law, and, in many instances, oppressing and persecuting the faithful followers of the Lamb—we must protest against as in the highest degree unwarrantable.
4. It is farther to be observed, that those who use the elective franchise must be held responsible for the choice they make; and in the present state of the British constitution no choice can be made without guilt.
If the persons chosen are immoral or irreligious, or evidently destitute of those qualifications which the word of God requires, the choice involves in it a fearful responsibility. The act itself is in direct opposition to a plain command of the Most High. It involves the elector in the guilt for which Jehoshaphat was reproved, of helping the ungodly and loving them that hate the Lord. And it makes him responsible, in the sight of God, for the wickedness committed by his representative in his public capacity; and for all the evil consequences to the nation and to the cause of true religion, which naturally and necessarily arise from vile men being exalted. It is painful to think how much guilt is contracted in this way, and how very few of those chosen to represent the people give evidence, of delight in true religion.
But whatever be the character of the persons chosen, it has been already shown, that all of them must solemnly pledge themselves to uphold all the laws of the kingdom, of whatever description, or whatever immorality may be involved in them, at least in the mean time, or until they are constitutionally altered; and to uphold inviolably and for ever all those which are declared essential, fundamental, and inviolable parts of the constitution. In this way we have seen, that every elector involves himself in the entire guilt of the national compact, and becomes responsible for all the iniquities of that complex system, which is by many so often and so unhappily denominated, “our glorious constitution in church and state.”
We have no doubt, that there are many men of decided Christian principle, and really devoted to the fear of God, who greatly admire the British constitution in all its departments in church and state; and who earnestly desire its preservation and perpetuity in all its essential principles, with out any serious change or material modification. Such persons act consistently in the choice of representatives professing the same political views with themselves; although, alas! they seldom manifest any decided or settled determination to obey the divine command, by which they are required to choose such only as give evidence of Christian character. Persons entertaining such views however, act in so far consistently, when they pledge themselves, by their representatives, to uphold the royal supremacy, the English liturgy, and the ecclesiastical systems established in England, Ireland, and Scotland. But we cannot acquiesce in their views, or acquit them from the guilt of upholding what the word of God condemns.
A government incorporating with itself such an amount of moral evil and ecclesiastical corruption, cannot meet our approbation. We are constrained, as witnesses for the supreme authority of our divine Lord, most strongly to condemn it. A scriptural establishment of true religion is calculated to promote the glory of God, the good of the church, the welfare of a nation, and the salvation of immortal souls: and shall do so in those happy days, when the kingdom of Christ shall be established on the ruin of the antichristian system, when “all kings shall fall down before him,” and “all nations shall serve him.” [Psalm lxxii. 11.] But the SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLE of an establishment is ABANDONED, when the constitution of the civil government itself is framed, or its rulers appointed, without regard to the requirements of the divine word—when various systems of religion are established or supported, placing truth and error on the same footing—or when the church is united to an immoral government. The union of the church of Christ with an immoral or antichristian government, is in all cases sinful. The church of Christ, unless considerably corrupted, will not enter into such a connection. And when such a union is formed, she becomes enslaved and corrupted more and more; and in her turn she corrupts and debases the government. In every such case, there is a mutual influence for evil; the corrupt church and the immoral civil government mutually enslaving and corrupting each other. The results are deeply injurious to the interests of religion and the welfare of nations. These malignant influences have produced the deadliest effects in countries under the entire dominion of the man of sin. But it must be confessed that Protestant nations and Protestant churches have not escaped the evil. Nor can we flatter ourselves with the belief, that the British nation and the British churches are exempted from the charge. We are firmly persuaded, that by the union formed between an immoral government and corrupt established churches in our land, the laws of Christ are violated—the liberties of the church invaded and trampled underfoot—the name of the Redeemer dishonoured—and the cause of true religion greatly injured.[34] And those who support the complex system while they show no proper regard for the supremacy of Christ over the nations, and the purity of the ordinance of civil government according to God’s appointment—are chargeable also with the evil of disregarding the headship of the Redeemer over his church, and upholding the antichristianism which has been unhappily mingled up with the constitution and administration of Protestant churches.
We believe, on the other hand, that there are men of Christian principle and character, who in their hearts condemn many of the evils essentially incorporated with the British constitution, and earnestly desire their removal—and who deem it their duty to send up representatives solemnly pledged to alter the constitution, and to bring it into nearer conformity with what they consider right. In reference to these, we lament to say, that, like their political opponents, they do not manifest any proper care to select, as their representatives, men of Christian character. And in the reforms which they propose, the duty of a nation being subject to divine authority—making the law of God the standard of legislation—and making the whole arrangements subservient to the cause of religion, is wholly overlooked, and, in many cases, openly denied. We cannot, we dare not, involve ourselves in the responsibility of sending representatives to act upon such principles—and to reform a nation’s institutions without any regard to the rightful authority and revealed requirements of the supreme Lawgiver. And more over, we can never admit the lawfulness of men, either by themselves or their representatives, coming under the obligation of solemn oaths to support continually or even for a single hour, what they believe to be wrong—and what it is their desire and purpose, if possible, to destroy. We dare not give countenance to the practice of deception and perjury for the attainment of any end, however good. We could not, therefore, even were men of sounder views and better character proposed as candidates, take part in giving them a commission to the British Parliament; because, by so doing, we would incur the responsibility of requiring them—either to uphold a system which the word of God condemns—or to pledge themselves to its support, under the solemnity of an oath, with the intention of exerting themselves for its overthrow, and adopting this crooked policy in order to obtain a better opportunity of accomplishing their purpose.
5. The practices generally carried on at elections are unquestionably, in a high degree demoralizing. This matter is surely not altogether unworthy the consideration of those who really desire the prosperity of religion and the welfare of the country. It well becomes the friends of religion, and the lovers of their country, seriously to consider, whether, by joining in elections, they are not giving countenance to these wicked practices; or whether they can consistently support, in their political movements, even if there were nothing else objectionable, those who originate or carry on such practices for the accomplishment of their party purposes, reckless alike of the interests of morality and the welfare of the country.
Multitudes are induced to vote contrary to their own deliberate judgment and conscientious convictions, from the fear of worldly loss or the hope of worldly gain. How many go to the poll, like a flock of sheep, or a company of slaves, under the influence of superiors, whose favour they seek, or whose displeasure they fear. This is greatly calculated to degrade them in their own estimation—and to injure or destroy in their minds the operations of moral principle. Nor is the evil less on the part of those who exert this malignant influence over them, and by whom they are overawed or seduced into a course opposed to the free and independent exercise of their own judgment and conscience. On the one hand, there is the painful spectacle of degradation and servility, and the sacrifice of moral principle; and, on the other, of tyrannical intimidation, abject flattery, or seductive blandishment. The matter on both sides assumes a still more degrading aspect when the same object is accomplished by the direct operation of corrupting bribery. Men are found base enough to sell themselves to the highest bidder for pieces of gold and silver. And it is beyond doubt that this instrument of corruption is employed to a large extent, among all parties, by men aspiring to situations of power and influence—where honour, and integrity, and high christian principle, ought to be held indispensable for the proper discharge of their high functions—and from which every thing mean, and dishonourable, and unprincipled, ought to be for ever banished.
The scenes at elections are often most deeply humbling, In many cases, it is said, that low ruffians are deliberately employed and paid to carry forward party purposes by acts of personal intimidation, and actual deeds of personal violence; so that those who are aspiring to the honour of being the legislators of a country are often, more or less, indebted for their election to the violation of all law, by the most vile and worthless of their countrymen.
There is another practice connected with elections which is at least equal to any of those already named, if it does not surpass them all, both in its own intrinsic wickedness and the demoralizing consequences to which it leads. There can be no doubt that strong drink is largely employed, both by candidates and members of their committees, to aid them in the accomplishment of their party purposes. At the time of elections, and often for days or weeks before, poor infatuated victims of intemperance are plied with strong drink, night and day; and this not unfrequently by the agency, or under the influence, of persons making large professions of regard for religion and morality, and the welfare of the country. The consequence is, that at such times drinking and drunkenness prevail to a fearful extent—brutal excitement is promoted—all the floodgates of wickedness are opened—and the deadly waters flow out, overspreading the land with pollution and crime; and sending forth their pestiferous influences to an extent which no man can calculate, either in regard to their amount or duration.
We would hope that there are many who seek to occupy places in the British parliament, who would not consent, on any account, directly to promote or encourage such practices as these. Yet we fear that the number of those who keep themselves completely separate from all such doings is comparatively small. And we have no doubt that, considered as parties, all, whether conservatives, whigs, or radicals, are deeply involved in the guilt. No party can claim exemption from the charge. And from the frequency of the demoralizing practices to which we have referred, and the numbers of those involved in them, we fear that the minds of many are blinded, and their consciences deadened—so that there is no proper feeling of the guilt, or right impression of the amount of the wickedness—and the evils are still carried on unblushingly, without shame, or sorrow, or repentance.
The general prevalence of such practices shows that there is something sadly wrong in the political system, and in the state of public morals. We take it for granted that no Christian man will hold it warrantable personally to engage in such nefarious doings, or to give direct and personal countenance to those who do. When, however, it is remembered that “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people,” it well becomes every patriot and every Christian to consider—whether even on this ground he can consistently countenance or support any of the great parties in the state, by whom such practices are encouraged and carried on, to the demoralization of the country, the dishonour of God, and the ruin of immortal souls. Moreover, these evils are so general and so infectious, that those who venture near such scenes are in imminent danger of deep personal contamination. It is no easy matter to escape the pollution. “Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” [1 Cor. x. 12.]
6. Those who exercise the elective franchise, deliberately involve themselves in the national guilt, and expose themselves to the righteous judgments of God. It is a principle of the divine government that national sins bring down upon a people national judgments. While individual transgressors are to some extent visited with punishment in this life—and all must appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, to receive according to the deeds done in the body, whether good or evil—it is the divine arrangement, that nations should be visited for their sins in this present world. And when divine wrath is poured out on a nation, the inhabitants in general suffer; although the national crimes have been directly perpetrated, chiefly by their rulers and representatives. This arrangement must be founded in justice. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? The people must be held guilty before God, otherwise they could not be visited with punishment. And it is the dictate of reason and common sense, that they really are so—when they give their consent and sanction, either expressly or tacitly, directly or indirectly, to the unrighteous authority, or ungodly proceedings of their rulers. Their guilt becomes more manifest when those possessing power are chosen by themselves, and formally act as their representatives. These things call for deep and solemn consideration. When we consider the sins of the British nation—the moral evils essentially incorporated with the constitution—the closeness of our connection with the antichristian system—and when we remember that the blood of multitudes of God’s saints, unrighteously shed in these lands, is crying aloud for vengeance, we cannot but tremble at the prospect of approaching judgments. For ages past multitudes in our land openly or tacitly assented to the national deeds, who had no opportunity of taking part in the proceedings by the choice of representatives. By the late Reform Act the door of the constitution has been more widely opened—and such persons have had opportunity of incorporating themselves more fully with the national society—and of becoming more directly and more deeply involved in those public iniquities, on account of which we have reason to fear that divine wrath will be poured forth on our guilty land. For several generations, as already stated, we have deemed it our duty—as successors of the persecuted covenanters—under the hallowed banner of a testimony for Christ’s cause, to occupy the position of open dissent. And now that the door of the constitution is more widely opened, and that certain reforms affecting the rights of men have been accomplished—is this single fact sufficient, while the rights of God and of his Son are openly disregarded, to set aside all the weighty grounds of that dissent; to neutralize all the antichristian principles of the system which are still unchanged; and to warrant the Redeemer’s witnesses to abandon their testimony, and unite themselves in closest intimacy with one of the horns of that beast, which, according to divine prediction, is ere long to be destroyed and given over to the burning flame? Although the reform act has opened the gate, can we account it a privilege to enter within the walls of the devoted city—there to enjoy the honours and emoluments—and at the same time to incur the fearful responsibilities of the complex system? If we deem this a privilege, and choose to exercise it—enrolling ourselves as electors, and sending representatives to the British parliament, there to sit, deliberate, and vote in our behalf; we become identified with the system in the sight of God and men—we abandon the character of the Redeemer’s faithful witnesses in this matter—formally connect ourselves with the antichristian powers—and have no right to expect exemption from their doom. Is it not better to come out from among them and be separate, and not touch the unclean thing? Is it not better to occupy the position of the humble, despised, and persecuted witnesses of the Lamb? Is it not better, ten thousand times better, to be clothed in sack cloth to the end of life, or to be slain with the witnesses, and afterwards carried up into heaven, than to be partakers in the guilt, and perish in the ruins of Babylon? It would be in vain to say in reply to all this, “these things no doubt are true—the nations of the earth are under law to God—the British constitution is in many things of the highest importance essentially immoral—and to homologate it by voting for members of parliament, is clearly inconsistent with the word of God and the scriptural testimony of the church; and this testimony ought not to be abandoned;—yet, after all, might we not vote under protest?” Such language would be a mockery of all sound principle. We are never, “under protest,” or in any way whatever, to commit sin. We may, under protest, submit to physical evils—we may endure hardship or suffer wrong—we may endure the spoiling of our goods, or submit to the shedding of our blood; but the eternal principles of truth and righteousness forbid that we should abandon the cause of God, or commit iniquity under any pretext, or for any cause whatsoever. What would have been the feelings of the prophet Elijah, had it been proposed to him, “under protest” to bow the knee to Baal! or of those holy men who were cast into the burning fiery furnace, had it been proposed to them, in order to save themselves from the threatened danger, to worship, “under protest,” the image of gold set up by Nebuchadnezzar in the plain of Dura!
CHAPTER V.
THIS SUBJECT ILLUSTRATED FROM THE STATEMENTS OF PROPHECY.
The views already established respecting the authority of the divine Redeemer; the obligations under which the nations of the earth, as well as churches and individuals, are placed to obey him; the sin and danger of disregarding his righteous claims; the immorality of the British Constitution; and the duty of the people of God to be separate from every branch of the antichristian system whether civil or ecclesiastical—are greatly confirmed by the striking representations which prophecy has given of systems of iniquity which were long to prevail, and against which the faithful witnesses of the Lamb were to bear testimony, clothed in sackcloth, and at the peril of their lives. Whatever doubt may be entertained respecting the precise meaning of some unfulfilled prophecies, and respecting the time and manner of certain clear predictions being accomplished, it is the duty of God’s people to read, and endeavour to understand the prophecy; and there are many predictions now so clearly developed by the events of providence, that no rational doubt can be entertained concerning them. Dutiful attention to these is eminently calculated to direct the people of God during the long and dreary period of the church’s sufferings, and also to cheer them with the delightful hope of glorious things to be accomplished in behalf of Zion. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” [Rev. i. 3.]
There are clear predictions respecting the long and fearful opposition against the kingdom of Christ, to arise from a firmly established system of FALSE RELIGION IN ALLIANCE WITH WICKED SECULAR POWERS.
In the “great image” which Nebuchadnezzar saw, “whose brightness was excellent, and the form thereof terrible,” whose “head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay;” [Dan. ii. 31–33.] there can be no doubt there was a representation of the four successive empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. And by the ten toes of the image were represented the ten kingdoms into which the Roman empire was in the latter period of its history to be divided. According to the prophecy, these ten kingdoms, which were not then in being, but which have since come into existence, so as exactly to fulfil the prediction, are doomed to be utterly destroyed: and connected with their destruction, is exhibited the delightful prospect of the firm establishment of the kingdom of the Redeemer throughout all nations. Nebuchadnezzar saw, “till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron, and broke them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” [Dan. ii. 34, 35.] The inspired interpretation of this is given by the prophet Daniel:—“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation sure.” [Dan. ii. 44, 45.]
In Daniel’s vision of “four great beasts” that “came up from the sea;” [Dan. vii. 3.] the four great empires which had been exhibited in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, are again presented to view. The “fourth beast,” representing the Roman empire, is particularly described, as “dreadful, and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns,” [Dan. vii. 7.] representing, like the toes of the great image, the ten kingdoms into which the empire was to be divided. In connection with this great beast and its horns, a new and very remarkable object is brought into view, of which the prophet thus speaks:—“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” [Dan. vii. 8.] There can be no doubt that this “little horn” represents the power of the popish system closely connected with the immoral secular powers within the bounds of the Latin empire. During the prevalence of this system, according to the prediction, the saints of God were to be in a low and afflicted condition, exposed for a long period to cruel tyranny and oppression. Daniel “beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;” [Dan. vii. 21.] and in the inspired interpretation of this, it is said, “He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times, and the dividing of time.” [Dan. vii. 25.] Of the fulfilment of these predictions, the history of popery—written in letters of blood-affords the clearest evidence, and the most ample and distressing illustration. But this depressed condition of the people of God is not to continue for ever. According to the prophetic vision, the system of popery—and all the secular powers connected with it, on account of that connection, are doomed to utter destruction; and upon their overthrow, a glorious prospect is opened up of the universal establishment of the kingdom of Immanuel, and all people, nations, and languages rendering to him their willing homage. “I beheld then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld, even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” [Dan. vii. 11.] “I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” [Dan. vii. 13, 14.] The mighty empires represented by the four great beasts, were only to continue for a time. “But,” it is divinely foretold, “the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” [Dan. vii. 18.] Popery, with all its persecuting violence, shall have its days numbered and ended. According to the vision, “the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until 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.” [Dan. vii. 21, 22.] And according to the divine interpretation of the vision given to Daniel, the saints of the Most High are given into the hand of the little horn only for a limited period, “until a time, and times, and the dividing of time,” [Dan. vii. 25.] or 1260 years—the same period mentioned in other parts of Scripture, as “a time and times, and half a time,” [Rev. xii. 14.] or three years and a half—as “forty-two months” [Rev. xi. 2; xiii. 5.]—and as “a thousand two hundred and three-score days:” [Rev. xi. 3; xii. 6.] and then, it is foretold, the whole system shall be utterly destroyed. “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. 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, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” [Dan. vii. 26, 27.]
In the book of Revelation, there is a still fuller representation of the sufferings endured by the church of God from the same agents of the prince of darkness. In the thirteenth chapter of that book, the secular powers are represented as “a beast,” which the apostle John saw “rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of blasphemy.” [Rev. xiii. 1.] It is important to remark, that the whole of this description, and that which follows, relates not to the church of Rome, but to the ungodly secular powers of the Latin empire, for in another account of the same beast, it is expressly stated to the apostle, “The ten horns which thou sawest, are ten kings;” [Rev. xvii. 12.] and in the various descriptions of this beast, he is uniformly distinguished from the apostate church, with which he is represented as holding the most intimate connection. In the prophetic description, it is farther said, “The dragon,” that is, the “old serpent, called the devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world,” [Rev. xii. 9.] “gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” [Rev. xiii. 2.] “And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.” [Rev. xiii. 5–7.] The character of his government—the source of his wicked power—the extent of his influence—and his diabolical operations against God and his people for “forty-two months,” or 1260 years, are here described with infallible accuracy. Yet it is distressing to think of the extent to which, according to the prediction, homage is rendered to him by the infatuated inhabitants of the earth. “And all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?–And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear.” [Rev. xiii. 3, 4, 8, 9.]
In the same chapter the Church of Rome, or Romish ecclesiastical hierarchy, is represented as “another beast coming up out of the earth;” and it is said “he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth, and them which dwell therein, to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.” [Rev. xiii. 11, 12.] How clearly and emphatically does this representation set forth the true character of the Romish Church, with her holy pretensions and fearful wickedness, assuming the appearance of a lamb, and speaking as a dragon,—employing and directing all the power “of the first beast,” that is, of the secular authorities, for the accomplishment of her own designs,—and causing the inhabitants of the earth “to worship the first beast,” or to give sinful homage to the immoral governments with which she is in alliance, the beast having seven heads and ten horns.
In the same chapter another mighty power is represented as brought into existence through the deceitful agency and pretended miracles of the Church of Rome. The second beast, having two horns like a lamb, and speaking as a dragon, is exhibited as deceiving them that dwell on the earth, and causing them to “make an image” or likeness of the first beast; inducing them to erect the papal power after the model of the power of the secular Roman empire, of like immoral character, with similar extensive sway and equal claims to absolute obedience,—and giving “life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.” [Rev. xiii. 14, 15.] This gives us an accurate and dreadful exhibition of the power of the pope exercised to such a wide extent, with such frightful despotism, and for such ungodly purposes, and causing to be put to death such as would refuse to bow in humble submission to his unhallowed authority and impious claims.
In the seventeenth chapter of the same book, the ungodly secular powers of the western Roman empire are again exhibited by the emblem of “a scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns,” [Rev. xvii. 3.] under the influence and management of the Romish Church, which they at once support and obey, as a beast sustains and is managed by its rider. The prophecy in striking language describes their origin and their doom,—“the beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition.” [Rev. xvii. 8.] In close connection, the apostate church is presented to view as an adulterous “woman,” “with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication;” sitting upon the scarlet-coloured beast, “arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS, AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” [Rev. xvii. 3-5.] John, filled with amazement, says, “and I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. [Rev. xvii. 6.] And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of Saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” [Rev. xviii. 24.]
In the eleventh chapter of the same book, the same idolatrous Church and the same antichristian secular powers are set before us as leagued in opposition to the witnesses of Jesus—the idolatrous church described as “the Gentiles” occupying “the court without the temple,” and for the space of “forty-two months,” or 1260 years, treading under foot “the holy city.” [Rev. xi. 2.] And the secular powers, exhibited as “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit,” which, when the “two witnesses” “shall have finished their testimony, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.” [Rev. xi. 7.]
And in the conclusion of the prophetic history of these antichristian civil and ecclesiastical powers, they are described as “the beast” and “the false prophet.” Their doom is proclaimed. “And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army,”—against the Redeemer and his faithful followers. “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” [Rev. xix. 19–21.]
In contrast with these ungodly powers, and existing in a condition of suffering during the same period of 1260 years, we find the true church and faithful servants of the Redeemer delineated in prophecy, as “the woman” who “fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days;” [Rev. xii. 6.] to whom “were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent:” [Rev. xii. 14.] and as a company of “an hundred forty and four thousand,” standing with the Lamb “on the Mount Sion—having his Father’s name written in their foreheads;”—and following the Lamb “whithersoever he goeth;”—“redeemed from the earth;”—“redeemed from among men, being the first fruits unto God and to the Lamb.” [Rev. xiv. 1, 3, 4.] And those most distinguished for fidelity, public spirit, and enlightened zeal in bearing testimony in behalf of the glory of the Redeemer as the king of Zion and the Prince of the kings of the earth, and for the scriptural observance of God’s ordinances, both civil and ecclesiastical, in opposition to all the errors and corruptions of the antichristian system, are represented as his “two witnesses,” unto whom he gives power, “and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, standing before the God of the earth.” [Rev. xi. 3, 4.]
To sum up the whole in a few words:—In the seventh chapter of Daniel, the secular powers of the Roman empire are represented by the “fourth beast” having “ten horns”—and the Popish power by the “little horn, before which there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.” In the eleventh chapter of Revelation, the heathenish Church of Rome is accurately represented by the “Gentiles treading under foot the holy city forty and two months”—and the ungodly secular powers by the “beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit,” which “shall make war with’’ Christ’s two witnesses, “and shall overcome them, and kill them.” In the thirteenth chapter of the same book, the secular powers are represented by the “beast rising out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns,” to which “the dragon gave his power, and his seat, and great authority”—the Romish Church and hierarchy are graphically exhibited by “another beast coming up out of the earth,” which “had two horns like a lamb, and which spake as a dragon”—and the papal power by “an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword and did live,” which the second beast causeth them that dwell on the earth to make as “the image” or likeness of the first. In the seventeenth chapter, the Church of Rome is represented in lively colours, by “the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,” and “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus—and the secular powers supporting this apostate church, are represented by the “scarlet-coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns,” upon which “the woman” sits. In the nineteenth chapter, the secular powers are represented by “the beast” making war against the Lamb,—and the Church of Rome by the false prophet; both of which were taken and cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. On the other hand, the true church of Christ is represented as “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” who “fled into the wilderness” [Rev. xii. 1, 6, 14.]—the devoted followers of Christ are represented as “an hundred forty and four thousand” [Rev. xiv. 1.] with the Lamb on Mount Sion—and a succession of men, distinguished from others for pre-eminent faithfulness, opposing the antichristian corruptions, both in church and state, through the gloomy period of 1260 years, are represented as Christ’s “ two witnesses,” who “prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days clothed in sackcloth.” [Rev. xi. 3.]
Of the application of these prophecies there can be no doubt. THE POPISH CHURCH—THE HIERARCHY OF ROME—THE POWER OF THE POPE—AND THE ANTICHRISTIAN GOVERNMENTS OF THE LATIN EARTH are all set before us, opposing the church of God. That these powers are now in existence is undoubted. It is no less certain that, during the whole period of their existence, they are to be opposed by the faithful servants of Christ, and that this opposition is to be directed, not only against the abominable system of false religion, by which millions of immortal souls are deceived and ruined, but also against the ungodly secular powers which countenance and uphold that idolatrous system, and which are of “one mind to give their strength to the beast.”
It is indispensable, therefore, to enlightened fidelity, that the witnesses of the Redeemer in every land keep themselves separate from the antichristian powers—that they hold no fellowship with either civil or ecclesiastical systems, against which they are to testify, as opposed to the word of God and the authority of the Redeemer; and which the sure word of prophecy has doomed to destruction. Neither the “woman in the wilderness,” nor “the 144,000 with the Lamb on the Mount Sion,” nor the “two witnesses”—can identify with “the MOTHER OF HARLOTS”—the TEN HORNED “BEAST’’—or “the IMAGE OF THE BEAST.” If we desire to be on the side of the Lamb, and faithfully to maintain his cause, we cannot consistently unite ourselves with the powers that are leagued together against his kingdom. There must be no incorporation with “BABYLON THE GREAT”—or with “THE SCARLET-COLOURED BEAST’’—or with ANY OF HIS “HORNS.” The “WOMAN” must remain “in the WILDERNESS” and the “WITNESSES” “prophesy clothed in SACKCLOTH”—until the end of the “thousand two hundred and threescore days.”
These prophetic instructions furnish solemn warning and direction to the witnesses of the Redeemer in our own land. The description of the ten horns given to John by the angel is remarkably striking, and, as has been already stated, set forth in the clearest manner the ten kingdoms of the western Roman empire, which were not then in being, but which have since come into existence, and for a long period displayed their true character, as described in prophecy, giving their strength to the support of the antichristian system, and directing their power, with violence and cruelty, against the Lamb and his faithful followers. “The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These 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.” [Rev. xvii. 12–14.] “It is painful to us, of this highly favoured land,” says Bickersteth, “to find that Britain is included among the ten kingdoms, in almost every list of the chief interpreters of Revelation, as Mede, Lloyd, Sir I. Newton, Bishop Newton, Hales, Cuningham, &c.”[35]
The same view is exhibited with convincing evidence by the late Dr. [Alexander] M’Leod of New York, whose scriptural views of the divine ordinance of civil government rendered him peculiarly fitted for illustrating this important subject. It is impossible to find out any sufficient reason for calling in question the correctness of this interpretation. Britain is within the territories of the western Roman empire. She was unquestionably under the dominion of the Man of Sin, and her government antichristian. Unless, therefore, the character of her government has entirely changed, so that she has become one of the “kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ,” she must still be reckoned one of the “ten horns.” Alas! the character and conduct of the British power affords too melancholy evidence that no such delightful change has been accomplished. The statements which have been already made leave it undeniable, that notwithstanding all the advantages of the Reformation, many of the distinctive principles of the antichristian system are essentially incorporated in the civil constitution. Is it not antichristian to constitute, as our nation has done, a weak, fallible, sinful mortal, the supreme head of the realm, in all matters civil and ecclesiastical? Is not the Episcopal hierarchy, established by law, antichristian? Is not the law of patronage antichristian, both in its origin and its character? Are not some of the most pernicious principles of Popery embodied in the liturgy of the Church of England? And is it not the law of the land that the benefice of a vicar or parson becomes “ipso facto void, without any formal sentence of deprivation,” “for neglecting after institution to read the liturgy of the Church,” or “for using any other form of prayer than the liturgy of the Church of England?”[36] And in the days of our fathers, did not the British government act in the spirit of the woman who made herself drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus? How many thousands of the servants of God in our own land were murdered by the British power at the instigation of Prelacy, because they would not acknowledge the blasphemous supremacy of the monarch-abandon the covenanted work of reformation, to which they and the whole nation were bound by the oath of God—and unite, in opposition to the word of God and their own consciences, with the Prelatic system, which had been solemnly abjured? How many thousands, too, of faithful ministers in England were banished from their flocks, and exposed to numberless sufferings, because they would not violate truth and duty, by entire conformity with the same unscriptural system?
But perhaps it may be said, that since the revolution of 1688 matters are entirely changed, and that neither the British government of the present time, nor modern Prelacy, are involved in this guilt. It would afford us inexpressible pleasure could it be proved that our nation has become free from this heavy charge. But we can see no sufficient evidence for such a conclusion. We rejoice that the sword of persecution is now indeed sheathed. But will not He, who declared to the Jews, “that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world,” would “be required” of that “generation; from the blood of Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, who perished between the altar and the temple” [Luke xi. 51.]—will not He make inquisition for the blood of his saints unrighteously shed in this land, if it shall be found that succeeding generations are indeed the children of their fathers in spirit and character—if there have been no true humiliation, humble confession, and genuine repentance towards God? Where can we find evidence of such repentance? Is it to be found in maintaining at the Revolution, and upholding to the present hour, throughout England and Ireland, the supremacy of the king, together with the whole of that corrupt ecclesiastical system which had so copiously shed the blood of the martyrs? Or is there any evidence of penitence, either on the part of the government or of the prelacy, to be found in the melancholy fact, that, in obedience to national statutes, all the tyrannical proceedings of Charles I., and all the cruel persecutions of Charles II., are expressly homologated, by the annual observance of a day of fasting for the martyrdom of the one, and a day of thanksgiving for the restoration of the other—and that the law of the land requires the offering up to God, on those days, throughout the whole extent of the united Church of England and Ireland, of prayers expressly appointed for the purpose, which condemn as “wicked rebellion” all the faithful contendings of God’s people for religion and liberty during the period of the second reformation—which hold up to admiration the character and conduct of these blood-thirsty monarchs, applying to one of them language exclusively applicable to the Son of God—and which express gratitude to God for the restoration, “together with the royal family,” of the “ancient government in church and state;”—the family and the government, which for the space of twenty eight years immediately after their restoration, deluged our beloved land with the blood of thousands of whom the world was not worthy![37]
The true character of the British government would appear more manifest were we largely to quote and illustrate the language of the British statutes. At present we only give a few extracts. Some persons seem to imagine that the supremacy over the Church of England vested by law in the British sovereign, and guaranteed by oaths and treaties, relates only to something civil or temporal—and that there is but little in it of an antichristian character, or on account of which it could be justly said that on the British horn are inscribed the names of blasphemy. The language of the British statutes will show that there is no ground for such an imagination—and that on the contrary, the spiritual jurisdiction vested in the British crown, in so far as the Church of England is concerned, is at least as extensive as that granted to the pope by the apostate Church of Rome.
The first chapter of the statutes made at Westminster, in the 26th year of Henry VIII. and in the year of our Lord 1534, is entitled: “The King’s grace to be authorized Supreme Head.” The Act itself is in the following terms. “‘Albeit the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the Clergy of this Realm in their Convocations, yet nevertheless for Corroboration and Confirmation thereof, and for Increase of Virtue in Christ’s Religion within this Realm of England, and to repress and extirp all Errors, Heresies, and other Enormities and Abuses heretofore used in the same: Be it enacted by Authority of this present Parliament, that the King our Sovereign Lord, his Heirs and Successors, Kings of this Realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia; (2) and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, as well the Title and Style thereof, as all Honours, Dignities, Preheminences, Jurisdictions, Privileges, Authorities, Immunities, Profits and Commodities to the said Dignity of supreme Head of the same Church belonging and appertaining; (3) and that our said Sovereign Lord, his Heirs and Successors, Kings of this Realm, shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Abuses, Offences, Contempts and Enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, most to the Pleasure of Almighty God, the Increase of Virtue in Christ’s Religion, and for the Conservation of the Peace Unity and Tranquility of this Realm; any Usage, Custom, foreign Laws, foreign Authority, Prescription, or any other Thing or Things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.”
In the first and second years of Philip and Mary, an Act was passed, Chap. viii. entitled; “An Act repealing all Articles and Provisions made against the See Apostolick of Rome since the twentieth year of King Henry the eighth, and for the Establishment of all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical possessions, and Hereditaments, conveyed to the Laity.”
In the first year of Queen Elizabeth, A.D. 1558, an Act was passed, Chapter I., repealing the above-mentioned Act of Philip and Mary, and in the fullest manner restoring to the crown the spiritual supremacy which had been united and annexed to it by the Act of Henry the Eighth. This first Act of Parliament of the reign of Elizabeth is entitled: “An Act to restore to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant to the same.” The seventeenth and eighteenth sections of this Act are in the following terms; enacting the spiritual supremacy of the Crown in the strongest possible language: “XVII. And that also it may likewise please your Highness, that it may be established and enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That such Jurisdictions, Privileges, Superiorities, and Preheminences, Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, as by any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power or Authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical State and Persons, and for Reformation, Order and Correction of the same, and of all Manner of Errors, Heresies, Schisms, Abuses, Offences, Contempts and Enormities, shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. XVIII. And that your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, Kings or Queens of this Realm, shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of England, to assign, name and authorize, when and as often as your Highness, your Heirs or Successors shall think meet and convenient, and for such and so long Time as shall please your Highness, your Heirs or Successors, as your Majesty, your Heirs or Successors shall think meet, to exercise, use, occupy and execute under your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, all Manner of Jurisdictions, Privileges, and Preheminences, in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, within these your realms of England and Ireland, or any other your Highness Dominions and Countries: (2.) And to visit, order, reform, redress, correct and amend all such Errors, Heresies, Schisms, Abuses, Offences, Contempts and Enormities whatsoever, which by any Manner of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Power, Authority, or Jurisdiction, can or may lawfully be reformed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained or amended, to the Pleasure of Almighty God, the Increase of Virtue, and the Conservation of the Peace and Unity of this Realm: (3.) And that such Person or Persons so to be named, assigned, authorized, and appointed by your Highness, your Heirs or Successors after the said Letters Patents to him or them made and delivered, as is afore said, shall have full Power and Authority by Virtue of this Act, and of the said Letters Patents under your Highness, your Heirs and Successors, to exercise, use and execute all the Premisses, according to the Tenour and Effect of the said Letters Patents; any Matter or Cause to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.”
Such is the Supremacy claimed by the British Sovereign over the church of Christ, and by the authority of the British Parliament united and annexed FOR EVER to the Imperial Crown of the Realm—including “such Jurisdictions, Privileges, Superiorities, and Preheminences, Spiritual and Ecclesiastical,” as had been previously exercised or used “by ANY SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL POWER OR AUTHORITY” in connection with the Church of Rome; and in reference to all matters whatsoever, which had been formerly under the cognizance of “ANY MANNER OF SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL POWER, AUTHORITY, OR JURISDICTION.” And instead of the antichristian evils of the Prelatic System of England being removed at the Revolution, or since that time, a farther reference to the British Statutes will show that by the UNION between England and Scotland all these evils—including THE ROYAL SUPREMACY—THE HIERARCHY—and THE LITURGY—were more firmly established than ever; and Scotland became pledged by her national faith, in a manner in which she had not formerly been, along with England to uphold the whole system unchanged and unalterable for ever.
While at the time of the union Scotland was careful to provide that the faith of both nations should be pledged to preserve the Scottish establishment of religion inviolable and without change for ever, England was no less careful to provide that the faith of both nations should be equally pledged to preserve unchanged and unalterable for ever the English establishment of religion, with its Liturgy, Rites, Discipline, and Government. The Act passed in the English Parliament, in the third and fourth year of Queen Anne, chap. vii., A.D. 1704, by which the Queen was authorised to appoint commissioners to treat of a union with Scotland, is entitled: “An Act for the effectual securing the kingdom of England, from the apparent Dangers that may arise from several Acts lately passed in the Parliament of Scotland.” The twelfth section of that act is in the following terms;—“Provided always, and be it enacted and declared by the Authority aforesaid, That the Commissioners to be named in pursuance of this Act, shall not, by Virtue of such Commission, treat of or concerning any Alteration of the Liturgy, Rites, Ceremonies, Discipline, or Government of the Church as by Law established within this Realm.” In the fifth year of the reign of Queen Anne, A.D. 1706, while the treaty of union was under the consideration of the English Parliament, an Act was passed, chap. v., which is thus described in the Record of the British Statutes: “An Act for securing the Church of England, as by Law established, Acts 13 Eliz[abeth]. c. 12. and 13 and 14 Car. [Charles] 2. c. 4. &c., to be in Force for ever. Queen’s Successors at their Coronation to take an oath to maintain the Church of England, &c. This Act to be for ever an essential part of any Treaty of Union, &c. This Act is inserted in the Act of the Union, c. 8, and is therefore omitted here.”
But it is most important to give some extracts from the Act of the Union itself, chap. viii., in which the above mentioned Act is inserted in express terms, and solemnly ratified as an essential and fundamental part of the Treaty of Union, enacted and ordained to be and continue in all times coming. This Act, chap. viii., is entitled,—“An Act for an Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland.” After the preamble, and the insertion of the twenty five Articles of Union, and of the Act passed in the Parliament of Scotland, entitled, “An Act for securing the Protestant Religion, and Presbyterian Church Government,” the Act of Union proceeds in the following terms:
“‘VII. And whereas an Act hath passed in this present Session of Parliament, intituled, An Act for securing the Church of England as by Law established; the Tenor where of follows:”
“‘Whereas, by an Act made in the Session of Parliament held in the third and fourth year of her Majesty’s Reign, whereby her Majesty was impowered to appoint Commissioners, under the Great Seal of England, to treat with Commissioners to be authorized by the Parliament of Scotland, it is provided and enacted, that the Commissioners to be named in pursuance of the said Act should not treat of or concerning any Alteration of the Liturgy, Rights, Ceremonies, Discipline, or Government of the Church as by Law established within this Realm: And whereas certain Commissioners appointed by her Majesty in pursuance of the said Act, and also other Commissioners nominated by her Majesty, by the Authority of the Parliament of Scotland, have met and agreed upon a Treaty of Union of the said Kingdoms; which Treaty is now under the Consideration of this present Parliament. And whereas the said Treaty (with some Alterations therein made) is ratified and approved by Act of Parliament in Scotland; and the said Act of Ratification is, by her Majesty’s Royal Command, laid before the Parliament of this Kingdom: And whereas it is reasonable and necessary, that the true Protestant Religion professed and established by Law in the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, should be effectually and unalterably secured: Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by Authority of the same, That an Act made in the thirteenth Year of the Reign of Queen ELIZABETH of famous Memory, intituled, An Act for the Ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion; and also another Act made in the thirteenth Year of the Reign of the late King CHARLES the Second, intituled, An Act for the Uniformity of the Public Prayers and Administration of Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies, and for establishing the Form of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Church of England (other than such Clauses in the said Acts, or either of them, as have been repealed or altered by any subsequent Act or Acts of Parliament,) and all and singular other Acts of Parliament now in Force for the Establishment and Preservation of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, shall remain and be in full Force for ever.
“‘VIII. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That after the Demise of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) the Sovereign next succeeding to her Majesty in the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, and so for ever hereafter, every King or Queen succeeding and coming to the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain, at his or her Coronation, shall in the Presence of all Persons who shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise then and there present, take and subscribe an Oath to maintain and preserve inviolably the said Settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, as by Law established with in the Kingdoms of England and Ireland, the Dominion of Wales, and Town of Berwick upon Tweed, and the Territories thereunto belonging.
“‘IX. And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That this Act, and all and every the Matters and Things therein contained, be, and shall for ever be holden and ad judged to be a fundamental and essential Part of any Treaty of Union to be concluded between the said Two Kingdoms; and also that this Act shall be inserted in express terms in any Act of Parliament which shall be made for settling and ratifying any such Treaty of Union, and shall be therein declared to be an essential and fundamental Part thereof.”
The following section of the Act of Union, solemnly ratifies, approves, and confirms the twenty-five Articles of Union and the Act of Parliament of Scotland for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government. The Act then proceeds in the following terms.
“XI. And it is hereby further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That the said Act passed in this present Session of Parliament, intituled, An Act for securing the Church of England as by Law established, and all and every the Matters and things therein contained, and also the said Act of Parliament of Scotland, intituled, An Act for securing the Protestant Religion, and Presbyterian Church Government, with the Establishment in the said Act contained, be, and shall for ever be held and adjudged to be, and observed as fundamental and essential Conditions of the said Union; and shall in all Times coming be taken to be, and are here by declared to be essential and fundamental Parts of the said Articles and Union; and the said Articles of Union so as aforesaid ratified, approved, and confirmed, by Act of Parliament of Scotland, and by this present Act, and the said Act passed in this present Session of Parliament, intituled, An Act for securing the Church of England, as by Law established, and also the said Act passed in the Parliament of Scotland, intituled, An Act for securing the Protestant Religion, and Presbyterian Church Government, are hereby enacted and ordained to be, and continue in all Times coming, the compleat and intire Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland.”
It would require a treatise to unfold the amount of antichristian error and superstition, and spiritual tyranny, firmly incorporated by this Act in the British Constitution—and to which, according to the tenor of this Treaty, England and Scotland are solemnly pledged by their national faith. But into this wide field we cannot enter. And without waiting to examine the import and bearing of those Acts of Elizabeth and Charles II., and of other Acts for the establishment and preservation of the Church of England, which by this treaty are firmly established to “remain and be in full Force for ever;”—we may simply remark, that by this Treaty, the kingdoms of England and Scotland are now pledged in their united capacity to preserve “unalterably” and “for ever,” the whole “Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of England,” as an essential and fundamental part of the Treaty of Union:—the DOCTRINE, including the whole matters contained in the Articles and the Liturgy, in both of which (notwithstanding what has been sometimes unguardedly said respecting the soundness of the Articles) there are many grievous and deadly errors, of antichristian character, mixed up, after the manner of the Church of Rome, with many precious truths; the WORSHIP, including all the superstitious rites and ceremonies, imposed by human authority, and employed in the ordinary worship, in the administration of the sacraments, and in the various acts of consecration;—the DISCIPLINE, according to which on the one hand the most solemn ordinances of religion are habitually profaned, and the souls of men destroyed by the indiscriminate admission of the ungodly and profane, while on the other hand godly ministers of that church are liable to deprivation of office, ipso facto, if they shall venture to maintain “any doctrine in derogation of the king’s supremacy, or of the thirty-nine Articles, or of the Book of Common Prayer;”—and the GOVERNMENT, according to which an antichristian hierarchy is employed to rule over the house of God, and the crown which belongs to the Redeemer and to him alone, is sacrilegiously torn from his head, and given to a creature of the dust. Many of the errors and superstitions of this system, are now, under the denomination of Puseyism, putting forth an incalculable energy, and threatening rapidly to carry back the Church and nation of England into the bosom of Popery. This matter is now awakening the attention, and justly exciting the fears of enlightened and godly men in every part of the land, and calling forth the talent and eloquence of Christian men in other lands to denounce and resist the evil. But it ought not to be forgotten, that the most deadly of these errors are fundamentally incorporated in the British constitution; and their continuance in the Church of England and in the civil constitution of the kingdom, guaranteed, as far as man can do it, by the solemn engagements of the Treaty of Union. It is not the Church of England alone that is involved in these evils—but the British constitution itself; and men of all classes, both in England and Scotland, who incorporate with the national association, whether ministers or people, and to whatever Churches they may belong, whether of England or of Scotland, endowed or unendowed, established or dissenting. Knowing these things we cannot be free from the guilt unless we raise a faithful protest against every branch of the antichristian system, whether civil or ecclesiastical, and stand out faithfully and consistently in a state of separation.
Entertaining these convictions, we are constrained, by a regard to the glory of God, the honour of our divine Saviour, and the purity and peace of our own consciences, to abstain from the proffered use of the elective franchise, and to take no part in electing, commissioning, and sending up men to act as our representatives in the British House of Commons. Were it possible for us to enter into the national association without sin, then would we feel called upon to employ our influence at elections, in the manner which might appear most conducive to the glory of God, the welfare of the country, the good of mankind, and our own advantage. But there is evidence which to our minds appears irresistible, that it is impossible for us to take such a step without sinning against the Most High,-making ourselves partakers in the guilt of iniquities numberless and aggravated, and strengthening an immoral system, which the Holy One has doomed to destruction. We hold it positively sinful for any man to take part in sending members to the British House of Commons, so long as the laws of the realm are such that this cannot be done without joining in the upholding of such affecting evils as the blasphemous usurpation of Immanuel’s crown by a mortal man, the encouragement and support of Popish error and superstition, and the sacrilegious robbing of the church of God of her blood-bought privileges. We would account it infinitely better to suffer the loss of all earthly advantages—to forego all the honours and emoluments, and power and influence, which Britain could bestow—to suffer the spoiling of our goods, to endure reproach, and even to give up life itself in the cause of the Redeemer,—than to involve ourselves in the guilt of worshipping the beast or his image, or receiving his mark in our foreheads or in our hands. The evil of supporting antichristian powers, and swearing allegiance to thrones of iniquity,—or rendering idolatrous homage to the secular powers of the antichristian system, has not hitherto been well understood even by the friends of the Redeemer. We doubt not that in times past many of God’s own children have, from mistaken views of duty, given such allegiance to secular powers which had derived from the dragon their throne, and seat, and great authority, as was utterly inconsistent with enlightened fidelity to their Lord and Saviour. To take part in ascribing to HUMAN BEINGS IN SECULAR POWER the peculiar prerogatives and unalienable honours that belong to God our Saviour, is to take part in worshipping THE BEAST; and to ascribe such honours and prerogatives to the POPE OF ROME, is to worship the IMAGE OF THE BEAST. These two evils are classed together as being in very close connection, and most strongly condemned in various portions of the book of Revelation. Hitherto they have prevailed to a very lamentable extent. “All the world” has “wondered after THE BEAST.” [Rev. xiii. 3.] They have been “killed” “as many as would not worship the IMAGE OF THE BEAST.” [Rev. xiii. 15.] They have been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God,” who “worshipped not THE BEAST, NEITHER HIS IMAGE.” [Rev. xx. 4.] But the prospective history of the redeemed, with the Lamb on the Mount Zion, given in the fourteenth chapter of the Apocalypse, seems clearly to indicate that there is a period drawing nigh, when the messengers of Christ shall be enlightened more thoroughly to expose and condemn this sin,—when, consequently, the sin itself will become greatly more aggravated—and when in truth and righteousness the most fearful judgments shall be poured forth on such as are guilty. After one angel has been seen flying “in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people;” [Rev. xiv. 6.] and another angel has followed, “saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication;” [Rev. xiv. 8.]—“the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.” [Rev. xiv. 9-11.] It would seem that first the messengers of God are taught to proclaim to all people the precious doctrines of God’s salvation. This foundation being laid, they are led by their heavenly Master to denounce the wickedness of Babylon, and to predict her impending fall. And this being done, they are prepared for holding forth to terrible condemnation, the doctrine inculcated by the Church of Rome, by which she “causeth the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast,” [Rev. xiii. 12.] and which the word of God has often been perverted to support—that conscientious allegiance is due to powers of whatever character, provided only they are permitted in the providence of God to exist. They are enabled, on the contrary, clearly to demonstrate, that as the power of Satan himself is not to be willingly owned and obeyed; so neither is the homage of the soul’s allegiance due either to the Man of Sin, or to those antichristian governments which have received from the dragon their authority—and are led by divine teaching to proclaim with a loud voice, that the wrath of the Highest will be poured forth on such as are guilty of worshipping the beast and his image, transferring to immoral powers of earth the honours due to the God of heaven. The application of all this scarcely needs to be stated. We have already seen that the national society of Great Britain, disregarding the divine authority, has ascribed to mortal rulers the prerogatives which belong exclusively to the great God, even our Saviour. And were we, knowing these things, as they appear demonstrated before us, to join deliberately with the national society, homologating its deeds, and binding ourselves to uphold its anti-christian laws, we see not how we could be exempted from the heavy charge of having at least some share in worshipping the beast, and receiving his mark in our foreheads and in our hands. And the testimony which we have hitherto endeavoured to maintain, for the glory of the Redeemer, and the honour of his crown, would rise up in judgment to condemn us.
CHAPTER VI.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
AGAINST these views, many objections have been urged, which we now proceed briefly to notice.
Objection 1. It has been said, that we cannot do otherwise than form a part of the national society—that while we dwell on the soil, and form a part of the inhabitants of the country, we must be involved in the responsibilities of the nation.
The doctrine of this objection is inexpressibly absurd. There is surely a difference between the simple fact of dwelling in the land where God has given us our being, and guilty participation in the national sins. We become guilty before God in any case, if we do what he forbids, or neglect what he commands. We become partakers in the sins of the people among whom we dwell, if we join in them directly or indirectly; or if we do not, both by our profession and our practice, faithfully and consistently testify against them. But according to the doctrine of this objection, there can be no distinction between the witnesses for Christ and the upholders of iniquity. According to this doctrine we must be equally involved in all the responsibilities of the nation, whether we join in its transgressions, or bear faithful testimony against them. It is quite in vain to lift up a testimony for the cause of truth and righteousness. It is quite in vain to wash our hands in innocency. It is quite impossible, while we dwell in a land, to come out and be separate, and keep our hands free from abounding iniquity. According to this doctrine, there is no possibility of dwelling in a land without becoming partakers of its sins. And therefore, according to the tenor of the objection, we may voluntarily and deliberately join in them all without hesitation or restraint. According to this doctrine, there is no possibility of standing out in a state of separation from any system of government which is once established, however immoral, unscriptural, or antichristian it may be. And therefore, according to the tenor of the objection, we may freely incorporate ourselves with any system, however wicked. According to this doctrine, the fact of being born in a country involves us in all its iniquities;—and therefore, according to the tenor of the objection, we may voluntarily expose ourselves to the righteous vengeance due for its transgressions. According to this doctrine, Noah, dwelling among the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, must have been a partaker of their guilt, and a sharer in their punishment. But when God “spared not the old world,” he “saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood up on the world of the ungodly.” [2 Pet. ii. 5.] According to this doctrine, Lot must have been, equally with the other inhabitants, a partaker in the guilt, and a sharer in the doom of Sodom. But when God, “turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly,” he “delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.” [2 Pet. ii. 6-8.] According to this doctrine, Moses could not have kept himself free from the guilt of the Egyptian nation, as he did, by refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; and instead of enjoying the honour of delivering Israel from the house of bondage, he must have been a partaker in the sins, and a sharer in the plagues of Egypt. According to this doctrine, there could never have existed, within the limits of the Latin earth, any witnesses for Christ—consistently testifying against the mother of harlots, and the scarlet-coloured beast, by which she is supported. Such a doctrine is utterly inconsistent with facts, and not less inconsistent with the unspotted holiness, and the infinite justice of Him who is the righteous judge of all the earth. It would charge God as involving men in all the guilt and responsibility of being sinfully joined with the workers of iniquity, and then punishing them for the transgressions in which he had rendered it indispensably necessary for them to participate.
2. It is said that a member of Parliament represents all in the burgh or county, and that therefore there is an identity between him and all the inhabitants of the burgh or county, whether they vote for him or not.
This objection, so far as it has any foundation in truth, tends greatly to confirm the views we have been endeavouring to exhibit. It shows the necessity of the Redeemer’s witnesses making it undeniably manifest that they are not incorporated as constituent members of the body politic—that they are not identified either before God or men with the system against which they bear testimony—and that they do not either directly or indirectly acknowledge the legislators or rulers of the land as their representatives. It is indeed the theory of the British constitution, that all the people are represented in Parliament. And to such an extent is this doctrine carried, that it is considered unnecessary to make proclamation of any laws that may be enacted by the British Parliament, in as much as by a fiction of law all the people are considered as present at their enactment. And we readily admit, and strenuously maintain, that not only are those who vote for members of Parliament identified with the legislators and rulers, and responsible for their doings; but all the members of the community who unite in the national association, and give their consent or approbation, either expressly or tacitly, either directly or indirectly. In fact, all must be held identified with the legislators and rulers, and responsible before God and men, who do not enter their solemn dissent from the evil, and bear witness, conscientiously and consistently, against abounding iniquity. But surely it cannot for a moment be maintained that those are identified with the national society or its representatives, or responsible for their doings,—who refuse to enter the national association, solemnly dissent from the constitution, and openly lift up their protest against the sinful proceedings of legislators and rulers. . Although the faithful servants of the Redeemer and the votaries of antichrist may dwell within the limits of the same territory, it would be absurd to maintain that there is an identity between the “witnesses” of Christ who “prophesy in sackcloth,” and “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit,” which “shall make war with them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”
3. It is also objected, that whatever government may exist in divine providence, must be acknowledged, and owned, and conscientiously supported, as “the ordinance of God;” and that therefore there can be no guilt in taking part either in the legislative or executive departments of any government, whatever its moral character may be, which in the providence of God may be permitted to exist.
This objection arises from confounding two things which are entirely different. There is a wide and important distinction between what is merely permitted or ordained in the providence of God, and what is ordained according to the righteous requirements of his holy law. It is when a government is ordained according to the divine will, in the latter sense, that subjection is due to it as the “ordinance of God.” “It is certainly the duty of Christians to be meek and peaceful members of civil society. If they are permitted to enjoy their lives, their property, and especially their religion, without being required to make any sinful compliances, it is right that they should behave peaceably, and not involve society in confusion, even although the power of the empire in which they reside be in evil hands. Every burden which God in his providence brings upon them, they must cheerfully bear. But never are Christians called upon by their God to own as his ordinance anything which is contrary to his law.[38] The mere providential existence of any thing gives it no moral sanction. In the course of divine providence transactions may take place, and powers exist, in opposition to God’s revealed will, and condemned by the divine word in the strongest manner, as contrary to the unchanging principles of eternal righteousness. It is a great and dangerous error to confound the arrangements of divine providence with the ordinances of the divine law; and to make the former, instead of the latter, the rule of our moral conduct. It was an important arrangement of divine providence that Joseph should be sent into Egypt, to preserve the life of his father’s family; but his brethren, who unnaturally sold him for a slave, were not on this account the less guilty. It was a still more important and wonderful part of the providence of God, that our Lord Jesus Christ should be put to death on the cross for the salvation of his people; but this does not extenuate the guilt of those by whom he was taken, and with wicked hands crucified and slain, although he was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” It was arranged in divine providence that Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his ungodly successors should occupy the throne of Israel. But this does not free the people of Israel from the guilt which they contracted in setting up and upholding that idolatrous government. The Almighty rebukes them for their sin in this matter in the strongest manner: “Israel hath cast off the thing that is good: the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by me; they have made princes, and I knew it not; of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.” [Hosea viii. 3, 4.] In God’s mysterious providence the wicked one himself, even Satan, the great enemy of God and man, has such power, that he is called “the god of this world,” [2 Cor. iv. 4.]—“the prince of this world,” [John xii. 31; xiv. 30; xvi. 11.]—and “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” [Eph. ii. 2.] But none will maintain that this gives him any rightful claim to the voluntary obedience of rational beings. Obedience to him is rebellion against the Most High. Neither does the word of God give any moral sanction to those powers, civil or ecclesiastical, which derive their authority from the wicked one, and which are opposed in their constitution and administration to the rightful authority and unalienable claims of the Supreme Lawgiver. In the thirteenth chapter of the book of Revelation, as has been already remarked, we are told of the “beast having seven heads and ten horns,” “receiving his power, and his seat, and great authority,” from “the dragon,” that is, the “old serpent, called the devil and Satan;” and in the same infallible record, in the fourteenth and sixteenth chapters of the same book, the most fearful punishments are denounced against those who acknowledge his unrighteous claims, and render to him the homage he demands. But if the objection were well-founded, it would be the duty of men to render conscientious allegiance to such immoral governments, although deriving their power and their seat and great authority from the dragon. According to the doctrine of the objection, it would be a duty, and not a crime, to worship both the beast and his image. According to this doctrine, both active and passive obedience would be due to the most criminal usurpations, the most tyrannical or diabolical governments that ever existed, or that ever may exist on the face of the earth; and all this under the penalty of incurring divine wrath in case of resisting. Such a monstrous doctrine is unworthy of serious refutation. It has no foundation in that blessed word, which in every part of it manifests forth the glory of God, and is calculated to promote the best interests of man, both for time and eternity. It arises from perverting a most interesting portion of the word of God, in the thirteenth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and forgetting or overlooking the beautiful description given in the same portion of scripture, of the character of the rulers to whom conscientious subjection is due, and of the manner in which the office is to be fulfilled, on account of giving themselves wholly to which, as the ministers of God, this subjection is required.
The duty of subjection to rightful authorities, here denominated “the higher powers,” is distinctly stated: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” [Rom. xiii. 1, 2.]
In the following verses is a beautiful description of the character of these “higher powers,” respecting whom the apostle speaks, and of the important duties which, as “the ministers of God,” they perform. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” [Rom. xiii. 3, 4.] Immediately after, the possession of this character, and the performance of these duties, are exhibited as the reasons on account of which conscientious subjection and dutiful support are to be given to the “higher powers” so graphically described. “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” [Rom. xiii. 5, 6.]
Such statements are worthy of him from whom they come. They harmonize with the whole tenor of the divine word, They bear the impress of truth and holiness. They show the authority of God, and the requirements of the moral law extending to men in their civil relations, and prescribing the duties and obligations both of rulers and ruled. They give no countenance to any thing tyrannical, immoral, or antichristian. It would be an utter perversion of language to apply such descriptions of moral excellence, and public usefulness, to immoral powers deriving authority from the dragon; or to exhibit in such glowing expressions, as the minister of God to men for good, “a wicked ruler over the poor people,” who is compared in the divine word to “a roaring lion, and a ranging bear.” [Prov. xxviii. 15.]
4. It is farther objected, that as Joseph accepted office as second ruler in the kingdom, under Pharaoh king of Egypt; and as Daniel was proclaimed third ruler in the kingdom of Babylon, and was afterwards made chief of the three presidents who were over the hundred and twenty princes in the kingdom of Darius—there can be nothing wrong in Christians accepting offices, or acting as legislators in the British government.
To this objection the reply is not difficult. The cases are not parallel. There is a wide difference between the state of matters in a constitutional government, and in one of pure despotism. And whatever advantages a constitutional government may have, so far as its provisions are right, and for the good of the community,—and these are very great,—it has nevertheless the effect of involving all the members of the association in a peculiar and solemn responsibility, when any of its essential provisions are contrary to the divine will, dishonouring to God, or injurious to men. The objection entirely overlooks the important fact, that the British is a constitutional government—and that according to the tenor of the constitution, all the members of the national society, whether rulers or ruled, are solemnly bound together by a mutual compact. No one can be a member of the national body politic, or vote for a member of Parliament, or occupy a seat in the legislature, or hold any office, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, in connection with the British government, without being pledged to the whole extent of the national compact. Every one who becomes a member of the national body politic, or who does any of the things above mentioned, not only assumes the responsibility of membership in an association, the principles of which are publicly known and openly avowed—but pledges himself upon oath to the constitution, either personally or by his representatives. Thus every member becomes responsible before God and men, for all the evils essentially embodied in the constitution. There was nothing of this kind in the case of Joseph or Daniel. Neither of these holy men was, involved in the responsibilities of a national compact, containing sinful provisions, and pledging them to uphold immoral principles, or iniquitous laws. They were not required to bind themselves by the solemnity of an oath, or in any other way, to uphold immoral constitutions, or to support and execute enactments opposed to the holy will of the God of Israel. There is no hint of any such thing in the inspired history. Their high character affords satisfactory evidence that they would never, for the sake of any advantages whatsoever, enter into such engagements; and the nature of the governments with which they were connected did not require such obligations. And in reference to the administration of government, when it is considered, that without being in any way fettered by the obligations of an immoral constitution, both Joseph and Daniel had substantially committed to them the whole administration of the respective kingdoms in which they lived; there can be no doubt that it would be conducted in harmony with the spirit of true religion, and in conformity with the holy principles which adorned their character.
5. Another objection is derived from the practice of members and office-bearers of the church in other cases, which is supposed by the objectors to be equally opposed to the word of God, and the Scriptural principles of the church; as in paying taxes, bearing witness in courts of justice, holding property under the sanction of law, and seeking redress of injuries, or protection of property in courts appointed by the government.
This objection proceeds upon a principle, which, if carried out, would utterly subvert all the foundations of religion and morality. It is most dangerous to make one evil practice an apology for another. The natural tendency of such a principle is, when men have once departed from the living God, to lead them farther and farther from the paths of righteousness, until they are swallowed up in the pit of everlasting destruction. If the practice against which we contend is criminal in the sight of God, making all who engage in it partakers in the guilt of the British constitution, it can be no apology that other evils of a similar kind have been committed. If this one thing has been proved to be evil, let it be condemned and avoided. And if any thing else be found equally opposed to truth and righteousness, let it also be denounced, and condemned according to its demerits. Let us steadily and resolutely avoid what we know to be wrong; and whatever evils we may have done, let us search them out, and repent, and turn to the Lord with purpose of heart. Oh! let us not, because of some evil already committed, resolve to proceed onward in a course of departure from the ways of the living God.
But while we thus speak in condemnation of the dangerous principle avowed in the objection, it does not appear to us that the cases mentioned are by any means on the same footing with the use of the elective franchise. There is not, in any one of them, a solemn voluntary engagement upon oath or in any other way, to support an immoral government or iniquitous laws. There is not, in any one of them, an avowal, upon oath or in any other way, of allegiance to a throne of iniquity. There is not, in any one of them, an engagement to uphold Prelacy, condemned in the word of God, and abjured in our solemn covenants. There is not, in any one of them, an engagement to uphold a constitution, of which it is an essential part that the crown should be torn from Immanuel’s head, and placed on the head of a mortal, blasphemously invested with the prerogatives of the blessed Redeemer. Nor is there in any one of them an incorporation with the national society, an entrance into the national compact, or a homologation of the moral evils of the government. But we have seen that, in the present state of the British constitution, all these evils are connected with the use of the elective franchise. This general reply might be deemed sufficient, while there is nothing in the shape of evidence to the contrary. But let us, for a moment, consider the cases separately.
In regard to the payment of taxes: There are many of the objects for which these are raised, and to which they are applied, to which we can most conscientiously contribute; although the collection is made and the application directed by an immoral government. We can willingly bear our part in contributing for the protection of life and property, and for promoting all the ends of good government, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. And although it is a matter of fact, on account of which we are grieved, that a large portion of the national revenue is employed in supporting an immoral system, and in accomplishing unlawful objects; we do not think it immoral to submit, for wrath’s sake, to the exactions made upon us. The government have the power to take of our property to what extent they please; and we cannot think it an approbation of an immoral constitution, or in any way sinful, to yield up willingly a small portion of our worldly substance to prevent a larger portion from being taken from us by violence. The money exacted by robbers goes to support the persons who carry on the work of plunder; but none would maintain that the man who yields up a portion of his substance to a band of such persons, to preserve himself from more violent exactions, or to save his life, would be thereby uniting with them in their evil deeds, or approving of their immoral association.
In regard to bearing witness before civil or criminal courts: We feel ourselves conscientiously bound, by divine authority, to promote the ends of justice between man and man. It is a matter of intrinsic obligation, moral in itself and required by God. And when civil rulers or civil courts are engaged in that good work, for the benefit of the community, we are not at liberty to obstruct the ends of justice by withholding our testimony. We are not to refrain from performing our duty, or doing what God requires, because the same thing is required by a power which we believe to be of immoral character, and which we cannot own as the ordinance of God, according to his word. We would give faithful testimony in such a case, not because the civil power commands it, but because it is in itself a duty to which we were previously bound by higher authority.
With regard to seeking redress of injuries or protection of property in courts appointed by the government: We hold it sinful for brother to go to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. On this point the statements of the divine word are very explicit: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the Saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.” [1 Cor. vi. 1–8.] It is utterly wrong for the professed followers of the Lord Jesus Christ to go to law with their brethren, and that before the ungodly. And it were peculiarly evil for the friends of the covenanted cause, closely joined together in the brotherly covenant, and standing out in a state of separation from the national society, to exhibit the unseemly spectacle of going to law one with another.
But if we suffer wrong, or are in danger of sustaining injury, either from the national society itself, with which we refuse to incorporate, and against which we have raised our protest, or from any of its members; in such cases we are clearly entitled to protection or redress, and have a right to demand it, from the society or its accredited agents. And there is no ground for maintaining that, by doing so, we abandon our solemn protest, or incorporate with the society, from which the redress or protection is demanded. It is true the magistrates to whom the application is made are authorized by the government, and pledged to it, by solemn oaths. But this only proves that they are the accredited agents of the government. It does not afford the shadow of evidence that we, while seeking protection or redress from them, thereby give up our protest, or join in the national association. Nor is the case in any degree altered, although it may be necessary, according to the rules of the association, to convey the application through the instrumentality of agents appointed for the purpose, and qualified for so doing by pledges to the government, in the same way as the magistrates or judges themselves.
This may be illustrated by referring again to the case of an organized company of robbers. If we had suffered injury, or were exposed to danger from such a band, or from any of its members, we would be entitled to demand protection or redress from that immoral association—and it would be our duty to do so, provided there were any hope of success—without in any way incorporating with the association, or homologating its unrighteous proceedings.
When the apostle Paul perceived his life in danger from the malice of the Jews, and the unprincipled compliance of Festus, an underling of the emperor Nero, with a view to the preservation of his life, he appealed to Caesar. [Acts xxv.] This did not imply any approbation of that ungodly tyrant, or any acknowledgment of him as “the ordinance of God,” “the minister of God” to men for good. The language employed by the apostle on another occasion shows that he regarded him very differently. Speaking of the deliverance God had given him from that cruel monster, he says, “and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion;” [2 Tim. iv. 17.] which is thus paraphrased by Dr Guyse, “and was delivered from the rage and cruelty of Nero and his agents, who, like a roaring lion, under the influence of their father the devil, sought to devour and destroy me.”
The remarks already made, apply to the holding of property under sanction of law—whether as regards the payment of burdens, or the claiming of protection.
6. It is farther objected by those who plead for the use of the elective franchise: It is our duty to exert ourselves for the removal of the evils existing in the British constitution; and this we cannot do but by voting for members of Parliament, and sending up to the legislature such men as may be most likely to accomplish the object in view. Are we to stand still lamenting these acknowledged evils, and yet refuse to do any thing for their removal? Were all Christian men to stand aloof, the affairs of legislation and government would be left entirely in the hands of the ungodly, and the evils of the system must continue for ever.
This objection is extremely plausible, and, we have no doubt, produces a powerful effect on the minds of many. But it is founded on erroneous principles, and will not bear to be examined by the infallible test of the divine word. It is inconsistent with the principles of scriptural truth and sound morality. We are indeed under obligation to seek the removal of the evils of the British constitution. We are bound to exert ourselves to the utmost to attain this object, for the glory of God and the good of our beloved land. Nay more, it is our duty to seek the removal of all the evils of the antichristian system, wherever they exist; and, extending our views still farther, to labour with all our might, that the whole earth may be delivered from the evils and abominations by which it is contaminated,—and never to rest satisfied until the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, and all the nations of the world are brought under the dominion of the Prince of Peace. This is the consummation at which we are bound continually to aim. And never are we to adopt any means inconsistent with the accomplishment of this high purpose.
The objection entirely overlooks the grand means which God hath appointed, and which the people of God are to employ, for enlightening and purifying the whole earth; while it directs to the employment of other means inconsistent with these, and condemned by the word of God and the principles of sound morality. The objection plainly intimates that we cannot seek the removal of the evils of the British constitution, and that we are chargeable with criminal neglect of duty, if we do not incorporate with the national body-politic, and employ our influence by voting for members of Parliament. But it has been already shown, that those who adopt this course become solemnly bound to the whole extent of the national compact, and are consequently pledged, in the most solemn manner, to all the evils of the British constitution. This being the case, we most solemnly proclaim, in reply to the objection, that we are never to do evil that good may come. Such a course is essentially sinful, and we cannot warrantably expect that it would be crowned with the blessing from on high. We are not to incorporate ourselves with a system of iniquity, under the vain delusion that, by this means, we may reform it. We are not at liberty, in opposition to the word of God and our solemn vows, to bind ourselves by oath, or in any other way, to support and perpetuate the evils embodied in the British constitution, on any consideration or for any purpose. It would not at all lessen the guilt of such a transaction, that, at the very time when we thus bound ourselves, we were resolved to disregard these oaths or engagements, and to put forth our energies for the removal of the evils which we were binding ourselves, in the most solemn manner, to support. While seeking the removal of the evils of the British government, and all other evils existing on the earth, the means employed must be such, and only such, as are consistent with the word of God, the holy profession we have made, and our solemn engagements to the Holy One of Israel. There are lawful means which it is our duty to employ. We are not shut up to the necessity of employing means that are sinful. Whatever carnal policy may suggest to the contrary, there never can be such necessity. We are not required, in the expectation of doing good, to adopt the principles of an unhallowed expediency; neither are we at liberty, under the influence of any such delusion, to give up our testimony for the truths of God, and enter into fellowship with the antichristian system. Such a course, at the present time, would be peculiarly evil. The time draws nigh when Babylon shall fall, and thrones of iniquity shall be cast down. Our nation has of late formed a closer connection with the system of Popery, by rescinding many of the pledges formerly required against it, which explicitly condemned some of its greatest errors; and by admitting the members of the Church of Rome into places of power and trust. And is this the time for joining ourselves to the British constitution, when the national guilt in this momentous matter has been so much increased? when the close connection with the antichristian system has been made more clearly manifest? and when, in the righteous dispensations of the Most High, the day of solemn retribution may be at hand? Is it our desire to press forward, that we may enjoy the privilege of perishing in the ruins of Babylon?
But while the objection directs to the employment of means which will not stand the test, when we appeal to the law and to the testimony, it entirely overlooks the grand means which God has appointed, and which his people are to employ, not merely for removing the evils of the British government, but to enlighten, and purify, and bless the whole earth. It is by a full and faithful testimony for the truths of God, that these glorious ends are to be accomplished. This testimony for the truths of the word of God, and for all of them without exception or limitation, is to be held forth, and pressed on the attention of men of every class and in every part of the world, by all the various means of divine appointment:—by the faithful preaching of the glorious gospel—the public profession of the church—the faithful observance of all divine ordinances—the godly conversation, and Christian practice of the children of God—the scriptural instruction of the young—the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures—the diffusion of tracts, and larger writings, filled with the precious doctrines of God’s salvation, and with the practical application of divine truth to all the varieties of human conduct—the faithful condemnation of prevailing evils, whether public or private, by solemn protestation and consistent conduct—and the employment with devoted energy and Christian perseverance, of all legitimate means, which can be brought into operation, for diffusing scriptural knowledge and practical godliness among all classes of men, and throughout every portion of the inhabited earth. This is the grand means by which the earth is to be effectually purified from all the abominations by which it is now defiled. It is true that God may come in his righteous judgments to punish the nations of the earth for their iniquities. It is true that in this way systems of iniquity, which have been long established, may be visited with destruction. But it is not to be forgotten, that if all the abominations prevailing on the face of the earth were removed in one day, the same or similar abominations would speedily come again into existence, if the minds of men are not enlightened and purified by the word and spirit of the living God. If the hearts of men are not purified, the polluted streams from the fountain of evil would soon flow out, and again overspread the whole earth. This shows the wisdom of God in appointing and employing those means, by which the hearts of men are to be delivered from the power of corruption, and brought into the service of the living God; and it shows the grand means to be employed by the people of God in the service of their divine Lord. As it is by the truths of God that the minds of men individually are enlightened and purified, and prepared for the kingdom of glory; so by the same truths the whole earth is to be enlightened and purified, and brought under the dominion of the Prince of peace. Hence the amazing importance of the duties so often enjoined in the word of God, to “buy the truth, and sell it not,” [Prov. xxiii. 23.]—to be “striving together for the faith of the gospel,” [Phil. i. 27.]—and to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” [Jude 3.] The followers of the Lord Jesus are denominated his witnesses; and it is scarcely possible to over-estimate the value of their testimony. When the Redeemer was about to ascend up into heaven, he said unto “the apostles whom he had chosen,” “Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” [Acts i. 8.] The apostle John “was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.” [Rev. i. 9.] The same apostle, when the fifth seal had been opened, “saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.” [Rev. vi. 9.] In another vision he “saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” [Rev. xx. 4.] When the servants of the Redeemer gain the victory over the accuser of the brethren, that victory is gained “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” [Rev. xii. 11.] And it deserves especial remark, that the grand work assigned to the “two witnesses” of the Redeemer during the long and dreary period of antichristian domination, is to “prophesy clothed in sackcloth:”—“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” [Rev. xi. 3.] Carnal policy might suggest to the servants of the Redeemer that it would be much wiser to lay aside the sackcloth—to cease from their mourning—to array themselves in different attire—to give the up testimony on account of which they endure so much privation and suffering—and to enter into the halls of legislation and the palaces of royalty. But it is the requirement of their divine Lord, that they continue to “prophesy clothed in sackcloth,” until “they shall have finished their testimony.” Keeping these things in view, we can be at no loss to discover the means which God hath prescribed, and which it is our duty to employ, for removing the evils of the British constitution,—and for removing all the evils throughout the whole earth, by which God is dishonoured, and the souls and bodies of men are destroyed. It is our duty to maintain a faithful and consistent testimony for all the truths, and commandments, and ordinances of our divine Lord, in opposition to all the errors and iniquities prevailing on the earth; and to endeavour, in such a manner as we have never before done, with the holy courage, and earnestness, and persevering energy of apostolic zeal, to diffuse the hallowed principles of this precious testimony, every where, both at home and abroad. We are specially called as witnesses for the cause of Prince Messiah, to maintain, by an explicit and consistent testimony, the claims of our divine Lord, as the alone Head of the church, and the Governor among the nations—to hold forth the truth of God in all its bearings, upon individuals, and churches, and nations—and by a distinct and fearless testimony, to condemn every dishonour done to the Redeemer, and every encroachment made on the glory of his crown and the liberties of his church; that so we may overcome, by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of our testimony. And it is indispensable that our practice be in harmony with the testimony we bear. We are bound, therefore, as an important part of the means which God requires us to employ for the advancement of his cause—to keep our hands clean, and hold no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness—to be in a state of entire separation from every branch of the antichristian system—and to have no part in the guilt, so that we may not be sharers in the plagues of them that render idolatrous homage to the scarlet-coloured beast. For the same reason it is our duty to call upon our fellow-Christians of every name, to take this matter into serious consideration, and in the exercise of enlightened judgment, to come out and be separate—so that it may be in their power, untrammeled by the fetters of the antichristian system, to lift up a faithful and consistent testimony for the glory of Immanuel’s crown, as the King of Zion, and the Prince of the kings of the earth; and to unite in making this testimony to bear, with commanding power, on all classes of men, and on all the institutions of human society. It is another practical part of our duty, not less important, to sigh and to cry in the exercise of godly sorrow, on account of all the abominations done in our own land and throughout the earth; and to seek, in earnest prayer and supplication, that God himself may arise and plead his own cause, and take to him his great power and reign.
We are not at all alarmed at the consequences which would follow, were all Christian men to adopt these views—to refuse incorporation with the national society—and to keep themselves entirely aloof from the affairs of legislation and government, so long as the moral evils of the British constitution remain unchanged. In so doing they would be following the path of duty—and we would willingly leave the consequences to God. We have no doubt that the results would be such as to manifest the wisdom and goodness of the Most High in all the requirements of his holy law. And even in reference to the consequences, we are willing to examine the matter so far as our limited discernment can reach. The question is simply this; whether are the moral evils of the British constitution more likely to be removed, and the nation made subject to Christ, by Christian men uniting with the immoral system, and becoming pledged to its support—or by keeping themselves separate, and lifting up a faithful testimony for the claims of the divine government, against all the evils of the constitution in church and state? We think the simple statement of the question sufficient to decide the matter in the mind of every enlightened man, who knows the value of a testimony for the truths of God—and the important place which the Most High has himself assigned to it, in bringing the nations of the earth to love and obey the divine Redeemer.
What the effects have been of Christian men uniting with the system and becoming pledged to its support, may be easily seen. The system has been preserved—and its evils perpetuated from generation to generation. It was impossible it could be otherwise. No faithful and consistent testimony against its evils could be expected from men so closely connected with the system, and solemnly pledged to its support. And how does the matter at present stand in reference to all classes incorporated with the national association? We have already seen, that persons in all offices connected with government, civil, ecclesiastical, and military, are pledged by oath to the full extent of the national compact, and bound to support the sovereign in maintaining and executing all the laws, whether good or bad. The same is true of all the members of the Legislature, who must take the prescribed oaths before sitting in the high court of Parliament. And all who unite with the national society, or vote for members of Parliament, are virtually pledged to the same extent.[39] But how does the matter stand with the churches who profess to hold the truths of Christ? Here, if any where, a faithful testimony might be expected. But such testimony, we are grieved to say, is sadly prevented by close connection with an immoral government. Ministers and members of the churches generally, established and dissenting, endowed and unendowed, freely incorporate with the national society, and thus virtually all of them become pledged to the extent already mentioned. The ministers of the Church of Scotland are explicitly pledged to the full extent by the oath of allegiance and abjuration, which the state requires them to take before ordination. And the means employed to prevent a faithful testimony from ministers of the Church of England, are, if possible, still more decided. In regard to these, Blackstone states, that, “in pursuance of divers penal statutes,” . . . “the benefice is ipso facto void, without any formal sentence of deprivation,” . . . “for simony; for maintaining any doctrine in derogation of the king’s supremacy, or of the thirty-nine articles, or of the book of common prayer; for neglecting after institution to read the liturgy and articles in the church, or make the declarations against Popery, or take the abjuration oath;” . . . . or “for using any other form of prayer than the liturgy of the Church of England.”[40] In such circumstances, what hope can there be of a full and faithful testimony from any of these classes against the evils with which they are so closely connected, and to which they are so solemnly pledged. Such, in fact, is the blinding and enslaving effect of close connection with the system, that scarcely any thing is to be heard like a faithful testimony against its essential evils; but, on the contrary, we often hear men of enlightened minds and decided piety, speak of the British constitution without reserve or qualification, as “our glorious constitution in church and state.” This appears the more remarkable in those cases where there are the highest manifestations of devoted piety, and where, in reference to other matters, there is the greatest decision in bearing faithful testimony for the truths of God, and the unchanging laws of the exalted Saviour.[41]
And if close connection with the system has such an effect in preventing a full and explicit testimony against its prevailing evils, even from the most faithful and devoted of those who have joined the national association, how can we expect a remedy for these evils, unless the friends of the Redeemer occupy a position in which, untrammeled by the fetters of the corrupt system, they can maintain a full and faithful testimony for the truth in all its extent! In illustration of this, we might ask, whether the cause of true religion was more promoted by godly men remaining in the Church of Rome, and making some attempts at reformation—or by the noble exertions of those who, in obedience to the divine command, came out from that corrupt church, and fearlessly raised their testimony for the precious truths of the Bible, in opposition to all her abominations? There were in different periods before the Protestant Reformation, many godly men within the bosom of the Church of Rome. But while they remained within her, their efforts in the cause of God were comparatively feeble and powerless. But when God raised up suitable instruments, and brought them out from that corrupt Church, then the word of the Lord had free course and was glorified, multitudes were converted from the error of their ways, and the work of the Lord appeared unto his servants, and his glory unto their children.
This example is full of instruction. It is impossible to calculate the blessed effects which would follow, if all Christian men in every land were to separate themselves from every branch of the antichristian system, and exhibit a faithful and consistent testimony for the whole truth—connected with the honour of the Redeemer, the purity of the church, and the duty of nations. We are persuaded the effects could not fail to be glorious. One thing is certain, “the stone cut out of the mountain without hands,” shall smite the great “image upon his feet,” and break them in pieces; and shall itself become “a great mountain,” and fill the whole earth. “The God of heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.” In the mean time, whatever may befall, it is our duty to act the part of faithful witnesses to the Redeemer—waiting and hoping, and praying and labouring, for that blessed consummation, when the proclamation shall be made, “The kingdoms of this world are be come the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”
In conclusion, we would address a few words to our friends and brethren closely united to us in the covenanted cause and testimony of our Lord Jesus. To us, dear brethren, an important trust is committed, and it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful. We wait not to inquire about solemn events, which in the providence of God may be approaching. But whether, in the righteous arrangements of the Most High, the evils of the British constitution are to be removed by national repentance and reformation; or whether the whole system is to be swept away by divine judgments—it is our duty seriously to consider the important position we are called to occupy as the Redeemer’s witnesses, and faithfully to perform the work assigned to us by our divine Lord. The matter we have been considering does not relate to something of small moment connected with the church’s testimony; although, even if it were so, every part of divine truth is to be faithfully preserved and maintained, and we are not at liberty to abandon any part of the faith once delivered to the saints. The matter we have been considering amounts simply to this, Are we still to occupy, or are we for ever to abandon the position of the Redeemer’s witnesses—deliberately taken, and nobly maintained by our persecuted forefathers, who loved not their lives unto the death? Are we still to continue, or for ever to abandon the testimony which the covenanted church has hitherto maintained against Popery, and Prelacy, and Erastian domination, and all the other evils of the antichristian system? Are we still to continue, or for ever to abandon the testimony which the church has hitherto maintained for THE GLORY OF CHRIST AS THE ALONE HEAD OF HIS CHURCH—FOR THE AUTHORITY GIVEN HIM BY THE FATHER, OVER ALL THE NATIONS OF THE EARTH—and for THE PERPETUAL OBLIGATION OF OUR COVENANTS, NATIONAL AND SOLEMN LEAGUE; AND IN CONSISTENCY WITH THIS, THE DUTY OF A MINORITY ADHERING TO THESE VOWS, WHEN THE NATION HAS CAST THEM OFF; AND UNDER THE IMPRESSION OF SOLEMN COVENANT OBLIGATIONS, FOLLOWING OUR WORTHY ANCESTORS, IN ENDEAVOURING FAITHFULLY TO MAINTAIN AND DIFFUSE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE REFORMATION. We cannot maintain this testimony faithfully and consistently in regard to any one of these things, and at the same time become parties to the national compact, as is done by all who make use of the elective franchise. We cannot maintain a testimony consistently for the glory of Christ as the alone Head of his church; and at the same time unite with the national society in giving that glory to a created being. We cannot maintain a testimony consistently for the authority given by the Father to his beloved Son over all the nations of the earth; and at the same time unite with the national society in maintaining and upholding the manifold moral evils, already specified, by which that authority is from age to age habitually disregarded and violated. We cannot consistently maintain a testimony for the perpetual obligation of the solemn covenants entered into by our reforming forefathers, nor follow out the high and holy design of these engagements; and at the same time unite ourselves in the counter-covenant which has been framed by the national society for maintaining and upholding in these lands the evils against which the nation was formerly pledged by the covenant of God, and for burying in oblivion, or, rather, for covering with everlasting infamy the high scriptural attainments of the covenanted reformation. Neither can we consistently maintain a testimony against Popery, and Prelacy, and Erastian domination, and other evils of the antichristian system; and at the same time become pledged in solemn compact with the national society to uphold and maintain the laws by which these evils are established and perpetuated from generation to generation. Our duty is plainly indicated in these divine commands; “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy: neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.—Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.—To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” [Isa. viii. 12, 13, 16, 20.]
We are aware, dear brethren, that some of you may be compelled to endure great hardships, and to suffer much worldly loss, for maintaining faithfully your holy profession, and resolutely refusing to comply with the solicitations of those who may calculate on obtaining your suffrages. Some of you may be under tyrannical and unprincipled landlords, who will have no regard to your conscientious convictions; and who may threaten to drive you from your dwellings, and to cut off yourselves and your families from your present means of subsistence if you will not comply with their unreasonable claims. In such circumstances, dear brethren, we would most deeply sympathize with you. We would affectionately remind you, however, that God is able to provide for you and for all that are dear to you, and that you have no cause to fear, if you are found, under the influence of the love of Christ, following the path of duty. “Your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.” [Matt. vi. 32.] “Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.” [Luke xii. 4–7.] Remember that even the most unprincipled men can do nothing to you beyond what is permitted by your Father in heaven. Address your covenant God in the language of humble confidence: “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” [Ps. lxxvi. 10.] It has often been found in the history of divine providence, that those who, in other things, and in this very matter, have been most faithful to Christ, have been mercifully preserved from worldly loss, while it has been otherwise with those who have deserted the path of duty, or who have failed to make manifest the holy determination of Christian principle. But whatever worldly losses or disadvantages you may sustain for Christ’s sake, remember that God is able to compensate you for all you lose, an hundred fold in this present life; and in the world to come he will give you life eternal. Remember for your encouragement in times of trial, the gracious assurance of the Redeemer himself, “Verily, I say unto you, There is no man, that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundred-fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.” [Mark x. 29, 30.]
It is our hope, dear brethren, that in making your holy profession you have counted the cost, and that it is your fixed and immovable determination, at whatever hazard, to be ever faithful to the Captain of your salvation. Remember the value of the precious testimony you now hold, which has been transmitted to you from the days of other years, sealed with the blood of your martyred forefathers. Whatever opposition may exist at present, the precious truths contained in it, are destined, at no distant period, to triumph over all the earth—to enlighten, and purify, and bless the people of every land. Let your hearts be animated with the holy courage and christian devotedness of apostles and martyrs in the days of old, and of those never-to-be-forgotten men in our own land, who for the cause of Christ took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and willingly laid down their lives for his sake. Above all, let the love of Christ constrain you,—the love of Him who for you gave himself an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savour. And remember he is now saying to each one of you from his throne on high, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” [Rev. ii. 10.]
BALFOUR AND JACK, PRINTERS.
ENDNOTES:
[1] The word “vicar,” in Latin “vicarius,” properly signifies “one who occupies the place of another,” or “who is in the room or stead of another.” The assumption by the Roman pontiff of the name and title of “vicar of Christ upon earth,” by which he claims “to occupy the place of the Lord Jesus Christ,” or to be “in the room or stead of the Lord Jesus Christ upon earth,” clearly manifests his antichristian character, and shows the exact fulfilment of the prophetic statement, given in the second epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, respecting “that man of sin, 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, showing himself that he is God.” And in like manner, when the British sovereign is denominated “vicarius Dei,” the “vicar of God,” it affords one humbling evidence of the connection of the British crown with the antichristian system, and shows the fulfilment of the prophecy, given in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation, respecting that beast, which is employed in the Apocalyptic vision to represent the antichristian governments of the Latin earth, and which is described as “having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of blasphemy.”
[2] “See also 24 Geo[rge]. II. c. 24; 5 Geo[rge]. III. c. 27.”
[3] Blackstone, book i chap. 7, p. 242.
[4] “As Queen Mary, by 1 and 2 Ph. and M. c. 8, had repealed all the statutes made in the time of her father, derogatory to the see of Rome, and had fully reinstated the pope in all his former power and jurisdiction in this country; Queen Elizabeth, to show her attachment to the protestant cause, by the first parliamentary act of her reign, repealed this statute of Queen Mary, and revived all the statutes relating to the church, passed in the time of Henry VIII. This proves how little at that time depended upon the authority of parliament, which could accede to such immense revolutions in the course of four or five years.”—Blackstone, vol. ii. p. 279.—Editor’s note.
[5] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 279.
[6] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 280.
[7] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 280.–Editor’s Note.
[8] A full illustration of the evils which the law has established in the Church of England would require large space. The following extract, from the “Historical part of the Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland,” gives a short and clear statement of some dangerous errors contained in the liturgy, which have been derived from the Church of Rome.
“In the services appointed for the administration of baptism, for confirmation, for the visitation of the sick, and for the burial of the dead, there are many things highly exceptionable and of dangerous tendency.
“The language employed in dispensing baptism appears unequivocally to convey the doctrine that, when administered by a duly qualified person, it is regeneration, or is necessarily accompanied by that spiritual change. The words which the officiating minister is commanded to employ, are these: “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.” A doctrine so repugnant to Scripture, and disproved by so many millions of practical examples, is wholly indefensible.
“The service of confirmation, used in the Church of England, has no warrant in Scripture. It is enjoined on sponsors to take care, that the children for whom they have unwarrantably become bound, “be brought to the bishop to be confirmed by him, so soon as they can say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the ten Commandments, and be farther instructed in the Church Catechism set forth for that purpose.” In answer to the second question of that catechism, the youth is taught to say, that in his baptism he was made “a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” The prescribed knowledge may be easily acquired by any child of ordinary parts, whatever may be the state of the heart. Yet to all thus qualified, the church directs that confirmation be administered. In the service prescribed for the occasion, the following expressions occur: “Almighty and ever living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins.” “We make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom (after the example of thy holy apostles) we have now laid our hands to certify them (by this sign) of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them.”
“In the service for the visitation of the sick, it is ordered, that ‘the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins . . . after which, the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort. . . . By his (Christ’s) authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ The inspired apostles never assumed such authority as this.
“The following office for the burial of the dead is to be used for all classes of persons, those only being excepted who ‘die unbaptized, or excommunicated, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.’ ‘Forasmuch as it hath pleased God Almighty, of his great mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground . . . . in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.’ Again: ‘we give hearty thanks, for that it hath pleased thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world:’ ‘raise us from the death of sin into the life of righteousness, that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in him, as our hope is this our brother doth.’ All this must be said publicly over each person committed to the dust, although he may have lived and died an infidel, or a profligate, or has been cut off in a fit of intoxication, or by the hand of the common executioner!
“How flattering is all this, but how exceedingly ensnaring and perilous to the myriads of carnal and ungodly professors who eagerly substitute it for that faith in the Redeemer, and that ‘holiness without which no man shall see the Lord!’ How long will spiritual physicians continue to heal the deadly diseases of the soul slightly, crying, ‘peace, peace, when there is no peace?’ how long will the church herself join with Satan and the sinner’s own deceitful heart, in riveting the chains of spiritual delusion! By what gentler terms should we denounce formularies which hold forth, from age to age, to an ignorant, irreligious, ungodly world, that they are ‘regenerated’ in baptism; ‘certified of the favour and gracious goodness of God towards them’ in confirmation; ‘absolved from all their sins’ by a priest on their sickbed; and committed to the grave, whatever course of life they may have led, ‘in the sure and certain hope of a resurrection to eternal life?’”—Historical Part of Testimony, pp. 54–56.
[9] Compare “Claim of Right” by the Convention of Estates, king William’s letter to parliament, and act of parliament, l William and Mary, chap. 3.
[10] The General Assembly, in May, 1842, by a large majority adopted the following motion: “That the General Assembly, having considered the overtures and petitions anent patronage, resolve and declare that patronage is a grievance, has been attended with much injury to the cause of true religion in this church and kingdom, is the main cause of the difficulties in which the church is at present involved, and that it ought to be abolished.” This resolution was supported by those who concurred in it on a variety of grounds widely different from each other—but it was not by any means the design of its supporters to insist on the removal of the yoke of patronage as essential to the settlement of the controversy between the church and the government. On the contrary the church is up to the present time manifesting deep concern to make it clearly understood by the government that she is willing and anxious to have a settlement of the controversy, and to retain her connection with the state without insisting on any such condition. In the Minute of the General Assembly’s special commission, in reference to the Letter of Sir James Graham, secretary of state, adopted at a meeting held of date January 12, 1843; the special commission say: “It is to them matter of deep regret, that in their answer to the Claim of Right, and the Anti-Patronage Address, the government should have combined, and treated as entirely one matter, the subjects of these two documents.—The documents themselves, however, and the nature of their respective prayers, were separate and distinct, and the footing on which the two applications were placed by the Assembly was altogether different.” The Special Commission then explain the object of the Claim of Right, and having done so, proceed to show the nature of the Anti-Patronage Address. “The Anti-Patronage Address, again, while it distinctly asserted that patronage was a grievance, and also, in accordance with the fact, that it had proved the main cause of the difficulties in which the Church was involved, and while it sought to have this right altogether abrogated, in no respect represented its abolition as essential to the continuing to carry on the government of the church in connection with the state. The church doubtless sought, and earnestly sought, to have this grievance removed; nor did she apprehend that, by vesting the election of ministers as well as that of elders in the people, any danger would be incurred of its being thereby only transferred from the patrons to the church courts. But she placed her application for its removal on a totally different footing from her demands under the Claim of Right. The object of the one was to be freed from a grievance under the existing law, by a repeal of that law; that of the other, to be secured in the enjoyment of rights already belonging to her. The one she deemed eminently desirable; the other she deemed absolutely essential to her existence. Though the one were refused, she might nevertheless continue to carry on the government of the Church in connection with the state. The refusal of the other would render this impossible.” The same sentiments are anxiously repeated in the Resolutions adopted by the extraordinary meeting of the Commission of the General Assembly, held on 31st January 1843. “I. The Commission, having considered the Letter of her Majesty’s Secretary of State, together with the Minute of the Special Commission in answer thereto, cordially approve of the same Minute, which they hereby adopt as their own. II. The Commission observe, with extreme regret, that in the Letter of the Secretary of State, the claim of the Church is stated in such a manner as to indicate very serious misapprehensions in regard to that claim, in several essential points. ln particular, 1st, The Letter seems to assume, that the Church placed her application for the abolition of patronage on the same footing with her claim to be protected against the invasions of the civil courts, in the exercise of her spiritual functions and jurisdiction, as solemnly ratified by statute and by national treaty; and that the Church considered both of these measures as equally indispensable to the continuance of her connection with the state; whereas it was the vindication of her spiritual jurisdiction, which the Church claimed as being indispensable to her existence: the abolition of patronage she sought as a concession she deemed right and desirable.”
[11] Act of Parliament, Queen Anne, 1711.
[12] The reforming party in the church, in defence of their recent movements, bring forward, and ably maintain many precious truths connected with the headship of Christ, and the spiritual independence of his Church. And they have manifested a noble spirit, in resolving to sacrifice a large amount of worldly advantage, rather than yield to those violent encroachments by which the civil power would sweep away from them every vestige of liberty as a Church of Christ. We would affectionately urge them to go forward, and to follow out consistently the great principles for which they have been called to contend. It will be necessary for them to advance to much higher ground, than they have yet occupied, before it can be truly said, that they are maintaining a full and consistent testimony for the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as the alone head of his Church. Were they to do so, it would add incalculably to the weight of their testimony, and raise them to higher honour as witnesses for the cause of the blessed Redeemer. But it is to be lamented, that as yet they still cling to an Erastian settlement, framed at the Revolution, and ratified by the Treaty of Union; and by a variety of unwarrantable submissions, practically surrender both the headship of Christ, and the blood-bought liberty of his church. Truth constrains us to say, that in this matter, the great difference between the contending parties, is one not so much of principle as of degree. Both parties, to secure the advantages of establishment, are willing to submit to a large amount of Erastian encroachment. But the reforming party are determined to make costly sacrifices, rather than yield to the same extent of tyrannical domination as their opponents. It is our earnest desire, that, under the teaching of the Word and Spirit, and Providence of God, they may become greatly more enlightened, and that they may be led to break asunder the fetters by which they are bound, and to adopt, fully and faithfully, a testimony for the glorious headship of Immanuel, in all its practical bearings, in reference both to the church and the nations.
[13] Dunlop on Parochial Law, second edition, 1835. P. 253, 254.
[14] Notes on Indian Affairs, by the Honourable Frederick John Shore. Vol. ii. p. 518, 519. This work, written by the Hon. J. F. Shore, brother of the present, and son of the late Lord Teignmouth, contains much humbling information respecting the administration of the British-Indian government. In his preface to his work he says, “The facts and opinions contained in the following papers, are the result of more than fifteen years’ actual residence in India chiefly in the north-western provinces of the Bengal presidency; during which period I have held various situations in the police, revenue, and judicial departments, and have been in habits of close communication, both private and official, with the people of the country of all classes. They were first published anonymously, under the signature of “A friend to India,” in the India Gazette, one of the Calcutta daily papers; and having attracted some attention, and I hope, been instrumental in effecting some little change in public feeling on the subjects which they embrace, I am induced to republish them in England.”
In his concluding chapter he thus describes his own feelings: “There can be but little pleasure in detracting from one’s own countrymen and associates, but no man, thinking and feeling as I have done, could remain silent, unless his sense of duty were blunted. No man could contemplate the immense mass of misery and ruin which will infallibly result from the infatuation in which we are enveloped, relative to the nature of the British-Indian government, and our tenure in this country, without lifting up his hand or his pen to avert, if possible, such awful consequences.”
Such were the feelings of Mr. Shore. Not long since, all classes of the community were deeply affected by the tidings received of the melancholy disasters in Afghanistan, by which so many precious lives were sacrificed. Ought we not solemnly to ponder the doings of the Lord! Are we not bound seriously to consider if these sad disasters are not the righteous manifestations of God’s retributive justice, on account of the many sins committed towards unhappy India, by the representatives of the British nation.
Nor ought we to deem such serious consideration unnecessary, now that the British arms have been crowned with victory, the British captives released, and peace restored. It were indeed well if the goodness of God should lead us to repentance. But surely it is humbling, to think of the fearful atrocities which are said to have been perpetrated by the British troops before leaving Afghanistan; and of the pompous proclamation, issued by the representative of the British nation, of his bringing back from that land in triumph the sandal-wood gates of the temple of Somnauth, which are said to have been beyond the Indus for eight hundred years, to be presented at the idol’s temple, as an offering on the altar of Hindoo idolatry, and as an evidence of the triumph of the Hindoo religion!
[15] Narrative of a Residence in South Africa, by Pringle, late Secretary to the Anti-Slavery Society, and Researches, by Philip, the devoted missionary, who has done so much, both for the temporal and spiritual welfare of South Africa.
[16] Do not such facts as these strikingly illustrate the sin and danger of raising to offices of power and trust, men who have no fear of God before their eyes, and the disastrous results which must flow from their want of moral and religious principle, especially when they occupy responsible situations, and wield the powerful authority of the British nation in places far remote, where they can follow the bent of their own inclinations, and pursue their selfish purposes, free from the control of public opinion, and unchecked by the presence and the influence of men who love and fear God?
[17] Brief Narrative of the Baptist Mission, pp. 56–58, &c. History of the Baptist Mission by Dr Cox, pp. 256-260. It is stated by Dr Cox, that, as the period approached, in 1813, when the question of the renewal of the charter of the East India Company was to be determined at home, the friends of Christianity became naturally solicitous for the insertion of a clause to authorise the peaceable dissemination of the gospel in India. A very important meeting was held at the London Tavern, when the Right Hon. Lord Gambier was in the chair, and persons of most of the religious denominations consented to act together as a committee, and prepare petitions. An interesting document was issued by that committee, in which the following statement is given: “Although the exemplary conduct of those missionaries who were settled at Serampore, conciliated, at an early period, the favour of the local British government, and the extent of their acquirements in oriental literature, with the striking utility of their labours in that line, procured for them, but in a more restricted way, the toleration of the succeeding governments; yet it has clearly appeared, that there was no disposition to allow of an increase of their numbers, which was originally small, and had been reduced by death. For it has happened that persons sent from England, by the way of America, to reinforce their numbers, have been obliged by the government to quit the country. In no case, however, even where it has been thought proper to employ the strong hand of power in expelling such persons from India, has there, it is believed, been the slightest impeachment of the propriety of their conduct, or the purity of their intentions, or any proof produced, to show that evil had ensued, or was likely to ensue from their labours.
“It ought not to be omitted, in this brief view of the state of religion in India, that Christianity has been liable to this peculiar discouragement, that without any formal law having been passed on the subject, native converts to Christianity have, in practice, been generally excluded from official situations under the government of the East India Company, even from those situations which are freely bestowed on Mahommedans and Hindoos.”
[18] Hall, quoted by Dr Cox, History of the Baptist Mission, vol. i. pp. 258, 259.
[19] It may be proper here to give an extract from Blackstone, showing the state of the law in reference to this matter, previous to the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. “In order to prevent the mischiefs that might arise, by placing this extensive authority in hands that are either incapable, or else improper, to manage it, it is provided by the custom and law of Parliament, that no one shall sit or vote in either house, unless he be twenty-one years of age. This is also expressly declared by statute 7 and 8 W[illiam]. III. c. 25, with regard to the House of Commons; doubts having arisen, from some contradictory adjudications, whether or no a minor was incapacitated from sitting in that House. It is also enacted by statute 7 Jac. I. c. 6, that no member be permitted to enter into the House of Commons, till he hath taken the oath of allegiance before the lord steward or his deputy; and by 30 Car. [Charles] II. st. 2, and 1 Geo[rge]. I. c. 13, that no member shall vote or sit in either house, till he hath in the presence of the house taken the oath of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, and subscribed and repeated the declaration against transubstantiation, and invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass.” Blackstone, vol. i. p. 162.—“On the first day of the meeting of every new Parliament, the lord steward of his majesty’s household attends in a room adjoining to the House of Commons, and administers an oath to the members present; and he then executes a commission or deputation, empowering any one or more of a great number of members specified in it, to administer the oath to others. Com. Jour.” Blackstone, vol. i. p. 162.–Editor’s Note.
The following extract from the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, will show the changes accomplished by that measure, and at the same time exhibit the oath required from members of the Popish communion: “And whereas, by various acts certain oaths and certain declarations, commonly called the declaration against transubstantiation, and the declaration against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass, as practised in the Church of Rome, are or may be required to be taken, made, and subscribed by the subjects of his Majesty, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights: Be it enacted by the king’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the commencement of this act, all such parts of the said acts as require the said declarations, or either of them, to be made or subscribed by any of his majesty’s subjects, as a qualification for sitting and voting in Parliament, or for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right, be and the same are (save as herein-after provided and excepted) hereby repealed.
“II. And be it enacted, That from and after the commencement of this act, it shall be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, being a Peer, or who shall after the commencement of this act be returned as a member of the House of Commons, to sit and vote in either House of Parliament respectively, being in all other respects duly qualified to sit and vote therein, upon taking and subscribing the following oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration: “I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty King George the Fourth, and will defend him to the utmost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatever, which shall be made against his Person, Crown, or Dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his majesty, his heirs, and successors, all treasons, and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them: And I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession by an Act, intituled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of this realm: And I do further declare, That it is not an article of my faith, and that I do renounce, reject, and abjure the opinion, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatsoever: And I do declare, That I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm. I do swear, That I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws: And I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm: And I do solemnly swear, that I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant government in the united kingdom: And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, That I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, with out any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever. So help me God.’” Act for the relief of his Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, 1829.
The following oaths are those still required of all Protestant members of parliament.
The oath of allegiance. “I —, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, &c. So help me God.”
The oath of supremacy. “I —, do swear, that I do from my heart, abhor, detest, and abjure, as injurious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever; and I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, with in this realm.”
The oath of abjuration. “I —, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, in my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, &c., is lawful and rightful queen of this realm, and all other her majesty’s dominions and countries thereunto belonging; and I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I do believe, in my conscience, that not any of the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James the Second, and since his death, pretended to be and took upon himself the style and title of king of England, by the name of James the Third, or of Scotland by the name of James the Eighth, or the style and title of king of Great Britain, hath any right or title whatsoever to the crown of this realm, or any other the dominions thereto belonging; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to any of them; and I do swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and her will defend, to the utmost of my power, against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to her Majesty, and her successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against her or any of them; and I do faithfully promise, to the utmost of my power to support, maintain, and defend the succession of the crown against the descendants of the said James, and against all other persons whatsoever, which succession, by an act entitled, ‘an act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject,’ is, and stands limited to the princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants: And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense, and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever; and I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God.”
[20] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 211.
[21] Ibid. p. 233.
[22] “And it is required both by the bill of rights, 1 W[illiam]. & M[ary]. st. 2. cap. 2. and the act of settlement 12 and 13 W[illiam]. III. c. 2, that every king and queen of the age of twelve years, either at their coronation, or on the first day of the first Parliament upon the throne in the House of Peers (which shall first happen) shall repeat and subscribe the declaration against Popery, according to the 30 Car. [Charles] II. st. 2, c.1.”
[23] Blackstone, vol. i., p. 235,236.
[24] These views, respecting the mutual compact between the sovereign and the people, and the true import of the oath of allegiance, cannot reasonably, we think, be called in question. In reference to the oath of allegiance, it may not be improper to quote the language of persons who differ widely from each other in many things, and who are very far from being agreed in regard to the practical application of this very matter. The statements of the Rev. Dr. Cunningham, one of the ablest defenders of the Church of Scotland, and of Lord Cuninghame, who has been prominent in giving decisions adverse to the Church’s liberty, both tend clearly to confirm the views above stated. “What is the oath of allegiance? The oath of allegiance is only this, that we shall be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria; and the sum and substance of what is involved in it is this, that it is a solemn acknowledgment of Queen Victoria, in opposition to all pretenders, as the rightful sovereign of Great Britain, and pledge to give to her all loyalty and obedience, to which, by the constitution of Great Britain, the rightful sovereign is entitled.”—Speech of Dr. Cunningham on the Strathbogie case, in the General Assembly of 1841, as reported in the Presbyterian Review.—“What was the oath of allegiance? A solemn acknowledgment of Queen Victoria as the rightful sovereign of these realms. It was nothing more nor less than an acknowledgment of the constitution of the nation,” &c.—Same speech as reported in the Witness.—“The pursuers would not have been taking an erroneous view of their duty, if they had held that they were bound by their oath of allegiance to give effect to an act of Parliament, declared to be binding on them by competent authority. When men swear allegiance, they are bound to give obedience to all the lawful orders of the sovereign, and more especially to the laws and statutes of Parliament, which the sovereign is bound to execute.”—Note appended to the Interlocutor of Lord Cuninghame in the Strathbogie case, November 1842.
We may also quote here an important statement of the Associate Presbytery, contained in a work which was published in 1744, and which we believe is still retained as one of the standards in that respectable body of which the late Dr. [Thomas] M’Crie was so distinguished an ornament. “The question is not, whether it be lawful for us to swear the present allegiance to the Civil Government, which the Presbytery acknowledge they cannot do: Seeing there are no oaths to the Government in being, but what exclude the oath of our covenants, or homologate the united constitution.”—Answers by the Associate Presbytery to Nairn’s Reasons of Dissent, p. 55. The italics in the quotation are those of the Presbytery. We cannot but think that our esteemed brethren, the ministers and members of that church, holding these convictions, are bound to take higher ground than they at present occupy. We would affectionately invite them to come over and help us.
[25] Blackstone, vol. i. pp. 97, 98.
[26] Ibid, vol. i. p. 105.–Editor’s note.
[27] The words employed in these various oaths, and treaties, and Acts of Parliament, such as “essential,” “fundamental,” “perpetual,” “invariably,” “permanently,” “inviolably,” and “for ever,” show as clearly as it is possible for human language to do, that it was the design of the framers, that the things referred to should be preserved without alteration for ever; and that future Parliaments should be shut out by the strongest obligations it was possible to impose, from all right or liberty to abrogate or alter the things thus permanently and inviolably established. In illustration of this, we may quote the language of a recent document, prepared, we believe, with the advantage of the highest legal talent in Scotland, in reference to the security provided by the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland for ONE of the TWO churches, whose perpetual preservation was then guaranteed by the plighted faith of national engagements. “When Scotland entered into a legislative union with England,—a nation whose voice in the United Parliament would be so overwhelming, and among whom a form of church government was established, in resisting the imposition of which the people of Scotland, for several generations, had endured so much suffering,—she naturally took the utmost possible precaution to avoid the risk of injury to the privileges and government of the Church, the fruits of a struggle so long-continued and severe. This matter, therefore, was not allowed even to be treated of by the Commissioners for the Union, but by an antecedent stipulation, (embodied in a statute of the Parliament of Scotland, which was verbatim inserted in the Acts of the Parliaments of both kingdoms agreeing to the Treaty,) it was declared to be an ‘essential and fundamental condition thereof, under the most solemn sanctions, that this settlement of the Church, with its government, discipline, right, and privileges, should be maintained inviolate, “without alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any sort for ever.” This matter was therefore excluded from the cognizance of the federal legislature, created by the Treaty of Union, and of course from that of all subordinate authorities.”—Minute of the General Assembly’s Special Commission, January 12, 1840.
After the quotations given above from Judge Blackstone, it is scarcely necessary to say, that the treaty was mutual, and that under the same solemn sanctions, the nations stipulating pledged themselves for the perpetual preservation of the Church of England, with its liturgy and acts of uniformity.
In illustration of the legal import of the word “fundamental,” we may give a short quotation from an ancient lawyer, whose writings are still held as of high legal authority, although his name is justly held in execration on account of the part he acted in the persecution of our martyred forefathers. “All nations considering the frailty of their representatives, and that some ages and generations do too easily quit what is fit and necessary for securing their liberty, have therefore thought fit to declare some fundamentals to be above the reach of their power; and that Parliaments cannot overturn fundamentals, seems clear, because these were not fundamentals, if they could be overturned, that being the true difference betwixt fundamental and other laws.”—Works of Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh, Advocate to King Charles II, and King James VII. p. 668.
[28] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 216.
[29] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 96.
[30] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 105,-Editor’s note.
[31] “Warrant for issuing parliamentary writs,
Victoria, by the grace of God, &c., to our right trusty and well beloved Lord High Chancellor of our kingdom of Great Britain, greeting; Whereas we, by the advice of our privy council, for certain and urgent causes concerning us, the good estate and commonwealth of this our realm, and of the Church of England, and for the good order and continuance of the same, have ordained a Parliament to be holden at our city of Westminster, the day of next ensuing, in which case, diverse and sundry writs are to be issued, forth, under our great seal of Great Britain, as well for the prelates, bishops, and nobility, of this our realm, as also for the election of knights, citizens, and burgesses, of the several counties, cities, and boroughs and towns of the same, to be present at the said Parliament, at the day and place foresaid, whereupon we will and command you forthwith, upon the receipt hereof, and by warrant of the same, to cause such, and so many, writs to be made and sealed, under our great seal, for the accomplishing of the same, as in like cases hath been heretofore used and ascertained. And this bill, signed with our own hand, as well unto you, as to every such clerk and clerks as shall make and pass the same, a sufficient warrant or discharge in that behalf.”
“Given,” &c.
The form of the writ to the Sheriffs upon the calling of a Parliament, is to the same effect, but more in detail. It is in barbarous Latin, and may be seen in Bell on Election Laws, Appendix, No. 14.
[32] Blackstone, vol. i. pp. 153, 158—160.
[33] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 160.
[34] These statements might be established and illustrated by a large induction of particulars. The records of history, and the passing events of providence, might be summoned to bear witness of their truth. The whole history of the world proclaims the sin and folly of enacting wicked laws, and setting up unprincipled and ungodly rulers. And the church’s history clearly manifests the deadly evils that may be expected to the interests of religion, from the existence and operations of immoral governments. The truth is, that such governments, although God can overrule their doings for his own glory, have been in all ages, and ever must be hostile to the pure and peaceful religion of the blessed Jesus. The carnal mind is enmity against God. Ungodly men are the enemies of the cross of Christ. And governments framed and administered by such men, must partake of the same character.
This enmity against the cause of Christ may be in vigorous operation, and producing its deadly effects, when there is no controversy between the church and the government of a nation. There must be a controversy if the church is faithful to her divine Lord. But there will be no controversy, if both cordially unite in that which is evil, or if the one submits to a compliance with the will of the other. This point deserves serious consideration, and might be largely illustrated.
There was a vigorous controversy between the true church of Christ and the immoral powers of the earth, in the first ages of Christianity—when the Roman government endeavoured, by all the horrors of persecution, to destroy the Saviour’s cause, exterminate his followers, and blot out his name and his religion from the earth.—There was no controversy on this matter between the Church of Rome and the immoral governments of Europe in the dark ages of Popery, when both cordially united in corrupting the religion of Christ, despising the divine law, and destroying the liberties of men for time and their souls for eternity.—There is, at the present time, no controversy between the British government and the Church of England. That Church tamely submits to be the slave and vassal of the state, openly acknowledging the monarch as her head. And this being the case, she enjoys undisturbed, the countenance and approbation of the government: although only a small part of the whole body manifests the life of evangelical religion—another part, which is believed to be much larger and more powerful, exhibits the life of Popish error and superstition in a state of the highest vigour and activity, rapidly extending its dominion and increasing its influence over men of every class and throughout every part of the land—and another part, it is believed the largest of all, presents to view a lifeless mass of ignorance and corruption.
There was a vigorous controversy between the persecuted Covenanters and the government in the days of Charles the Second and his brother James—when these tyrannical and ungodly rulers endeavoured to establish, on the ruins of the covenanted reformation, their own absolute authority in all matters civil and ecclesiastical, and utterly to destroy all the faithful witnesses for the crown and covenant of the divine Redeemer.—This controversy in a great measure ceased between the government and the indulged Presbyterian ministers, when the latter surrendered their principles, and unfaithfully accepted the indulgences of Charles and the deceitful toleration of James, by which they were ensnared and enslaved; and then the heat and fury of the battle had to be endured by [Richard] Cameron, [Donald] Cargill, and [James] Renwick, and other members of that devoted band, who were willing to part with life, but could make no surrender of principle.
There was no controversy between the government and the present established Church of Scotland at the period of the Revolution Settlement—when the government conceded to the inclinations of the people the present ecclesiastical establishment,—and the church, constituted according to the royal pleasure, humbly accepted the arrangements prescribed for her by the government.
Since that time the Erastian encroachments of the state upon the Church of Scotland have been many and grievous—but the church submitted, and there was no controversy. There was no controversy between the church and the government, when, in compliance with the royal “pleasure,” which the king was pleased “to signify,” and according to the terms which he was “at pains to adjust,” the General Assembly most obsequiously admitted into her fellowship some hundreds of the Episcopal curates, who had been so deeply implicated in the persecution of the faithful Covenanters during the former reigns, and all of whom had taken a solemn oath that the government of the church is an inherent right of the crown. This measure introduced at once a great multitude of ungodly time-serving ministers, and the effects in corrupting the ministry of the church and marring the interests of religion have continued ever since.—There was no controversy between the church and the government, when the church submitted to the lordly domination of King William, in summoning, proroguing, and dissolving the Assembly at pleasure ; and, according to his own will, preventing it from meeting from year to year.—There was no controversy between the church and the government, when, by an act passed in the tenth year of her majesty Queen Anne, chap. 7, it was enacted, “that every minister and preacher, as well of the Established Church in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as those of the Episcopal communion protected and allowed by this act, shall, at some time, during the exercise of the divine service, in such respective church, congregation, or assembly, pray in express words, for her most sacred majesty Queen ANNE, and the most excellent Princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, while living, and all the royal family: And every such minister or preacher neglecting so to do, shall, for the first offence, forfeit the sum of twenty pounds sterling, to be recovered and distributed in such manner, as touching the other penalties in this act, is herein before directed; and for the second offence, every minister of the Established Church in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, being thereof convicted by the oaths of two sufficient witnesses before the Lords of Justiciary, shall be ipso facto deprived, and declared incapable of any church or ecclesiastical living, during the space of three years; and every Episcopal minister allowed and protected by this act, being thereof in like manner convicted, shall from thenceforth forfeit and lose the benefit of this act, and be declared incapable of officiating as pastor of any Episcopal congregation, during the space of three years.”—There was no controversy between the church and the government, when, in the reign of William and Mary, it was ordained by act of Parliament, “that no person be admitted or continued to be a minister of this Church, unless he subscribe the oaths of allegiance and assurance,” and farther ordained, “that uniformity of worship, and of the administration of all public ordinances, within this church, be observed by all the said ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed and allowed therein, or shall be hereafter declared by the authority of the same; and that no minister or preacher be admitted or continued for hereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe, and actually do observe the foresaid uniformity.”—There was no controversy between the church and the government, when, in the reign of George the First, it was ordained by act of Parliament, that “every person who should, after the 1st June 1719, present himself to be tried for his qualifications to be licensed or to be ordained, take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and abjuration.”—There was no controversy between the church and the government, when, by an Erastian order of the government in 1737, every minister was commanded to read from the pulpit on the first Lord’s day of every month, for one whole year, a proclamation concerning the death of Captain John Porteous, offering a reward for a discovery of any one concerned in the deed; and ministers scrupling to do so were to be declared, “for the first offence, incapable of sitting or voting in any ecclesiastical judicatory; and for the second, incapable of taking, holding, or enjoying any ecclesiastical benefice.”—In all these cases, although encroachments were made by the civil power which deeply affected the church in the whole extent of her spiritual concerns, and which had the effect of corrupting her grievously, and of transmitting the corruption infused, from generation to generation; there was no controversy between the church and the government. She had not sufficient fidelity to vindicate her own spiritual independence, to maintain the Redeemer’s headship over his church, or to prevent the Erastian interference of immoral power.
It would be delightful if we could add that such encroachments of the civil government had entirely ceased; or that the church, which has experienced much awakening, had become so faithful as to submit no longer. But besides the exercise of patronage, there are other encroachments which are still continued—and in regard to which there is no controversy between the church and the government. Although the General Assembly is now permitted to meet every year, every Assembly is dissolved by the royal commissioner in the name of the sovereign, and another appointed by the same authority. It is painful to observe that, in close connection with this exercise of Erastian power, the General Assembly is dissolved by the moderator, and another appointed, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ—as if it were a matter yet unsettled to whom the supremacy belongs.—According to the statute passed in the reign of George I., which remains in full force, the ministers of the church are still required by the civil power, before being ordained, to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance and abjuration; and in obedience to this Erastian law they do so accordingly. They thus become unhappily bound to uphold the sovereign in maintaining and executing all the laws and customs of the realm; not excepting the law of patronage, by which the most faithful now feel themselves oppressed and afflicted.—And in accordance with the act passed in the reign of Queen Anne, “Orders in Council” are transmitted from time to time, requiring the offering up of public prayers and thanksgivings for the various members of the royal family. One of these was issued, “At the Council Chamber, Whitehall, the 9th day of November 1841, by the Lords of her Majesty’s most Honourable Privy Council,” in which it is “ordered by their Lordships, that every minister and preacher, as well of the Established Church in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, as those of the Episcopal communion, protected and allowed by an act passed in the tenth year of her majesty Queen Anne, . . . . . . do, at some time during the exercise of divine service, in their respective churches, congregations, or assemblies, put up their prayers and thanksgivings to Almighty God for her majesty’s safe delivery of a prince.” Fidelity to the Redeemer requires the removal of all such encroachments on the spiritual freedom and independence of the Church of Christ.
There is now a warm controversy between the church and the civil powers in reference to the settlement of ministers—and it is our earnest hope, that, by the blessing of God, it may be productive of much good, in the elucidation of truth, the removal of error, and the advancement of true religion. There was no controversy on this matter between the Church and the Government, during the long and dreary period when the Church herself, under the ascendancy of the moderate party, enforced the law of patronage with the utmost rigour; and it was “no uncommon thing for a minister, professing himself an ambassador of the Prince of Peace, to be forced on an aggrieved and reclaiming parish at the point of the bayonet.” But when a majority of the ministers and elders of the church, feeling a deeper interest in true religion, resolved that violent settlements should be no longer practised; and that the presentees of patrons should not be thrust into the pastoral charge of immortal souls in opposition to a reclaiming majority of the male heads of families in full communion with the church—then was laid the foundation of the present controversy. This was indeed granting to the people a very small part of the freedom to which all Christians, male and female, are entitled as a Christian privilege. But the attempt so far to mitigate the severity of the yoke of patronage was not to be endured. Measures were adopted to thwart the endeavours of the church for the good of the people. The law which she had framed was declared illegal by the highest court in the realm. And now the duty of obeying the law of the land is loudly proclaimed—and the church charged with rebellion for disregarding it. With this charge we can have no sympathy. The law of the land, on the footing of which the procedure of the Church was condemned, is in itself sinful. Such a law ought never to have been made. It never could have any just claim to obedience—for it is always our duty to obey God rather than men. And now, were men in power to perform their duty, this unrighteous law would be instantly and for ever abolished. But it would seem that the rulers in the present government are determined to uphold the law in its utmost rigour, and recklessly to employ their power to degrade the Church, and crush the spiritual liberties of the Christian people.
These facts show clearly the extreme danger to the Church of God arising from intimate connection with immoral governments. When it is deemed expedient to gain the influence of the Church for political purposes, such governments make large professions of friendship, and seek to bring the Church into the closest intimacy with themselves. In such cases, the danger to the cause of true religion is not diminished. Their friendship is deceitful. They cannot endure the faithful testimony of true religion against their immoralities. And when persecution seems unsuitable to the circumstances of the case, the Church must be enslaved and corrupted, to prevent the utterance of a faithful testimony, and to weaken or destroy the influence which she might otherwise exert for the condemnation of sin and the advancement of true religion. Something of this kind must ever be, when the church is brought into intimate fellowship with immoral governments and ungodly men. She cannot retain her purity and her freedom, and at the same time enjoy their favour. If the latter is gained, it must be at the expense of sacrificing the former. Were the civil government of a nation conformed to the word of God, in its constitution, and administration, and the character of its rulers—then the church would be held worthy of countenance, support, and encouragement, in proportion as she manifested deep concern for the honour of her divine Lord, ardent zeal for the advancement of true religion, and earnest desire for entire conformity to the will of God in her doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. But when the character of the government is different, the whole case is reversed. When the Church tamely surrenders her independence and the headship of her Lord, and gives no disturbance to the wickedness in high places by the voice of her testimony—she will meet with the cordial approbation of an ungodly government, and all will be at peace. But if after long enduring unwarrantable encroachments, she begins in any measure practically to assert her freedom, or to seek the diminution of her bondage, she will soon be made to feel the disapprobation of those who desire still to continue the pressure of the yoke undiminished.
[35] Bickersteth on Prophecy, p. 80.
[36] Blackstone, Book I. chap. ii. p. 393.
[37] In reference to the proceedings of the government in Scotland at this period, we may quote the language of Hallam in his Constitutional History of England.
“Humbled and broken down, the people looked to the re-establishment of Charles II. on the throne of his fathers, though brought about by the sternest minister of Cromwell’s tyranny, not only as the augury of prosperous days, but as the obliteration of national dishonour.
“They were miserably deceived in every hope. Thirty infamous years consummated the misfortunes and degradation of Scotland.—No part, I believe, of modern history, for so long a period, can be compared for the wickedness of government to the Scots administration of this reign.—The enormities of this detestable government are far too numerous, even in species, to be enumerated in this slight sketch; and of course most instances of cruelty have not been recorded. The privy-council was accustomed to extort confessions by torture; that grim divan of bishops, lawyers, and peers, sucking in the groans of each undaunted enthusiast, in hope that some imperfect avowal might lead to the sacrifice of other victims, or at least warrant the execution of the present.—Every officer, every soldier, was—entrusted with the privilege of massacre; the unarmed, the women and children, fell indiscriminately by the sword; and besides the distinct testimonies that remain of atrocious cruelty, there exists in that kingdom a deep traditional horror, the record, as it were, of that confused mass of crime and misery which has left no other memorial.—It was very possible that Episcopacy might be of apostolical institution; but for this institution houses had been burned and fields laid waste, and the gospel had been preached in wildernesses, and its ministers had been shot in their prayers, and husbands had been murdered before their wives, and virgins had been defiled, and many had died by the executioner, and by massacre, and in imprisonment, and in exile and slavery, and women had been tied to stakes on the sea-shore till the tide rose to overflow them, and some had been tortured and mutilated; it was a religion of the boot and the thumb-screw, which a good man must be very cold-blooded indeed if he did not hate and reject from the hands which offered it.” Constitutional History of England, by Henry Hallam, vol. iii. pp. 433, 435, 436, 438, 443, 444. This is the language of a writer on the constitutional history of England, who has no sympathy with the scriptural principles of our reforming forefathers—who describes them as “proud and stubborn” on account of their noble struggles for the headship of their divine Lord, and the liberty and independence of his spiritual kingdom—who speaks of the enlightened and holy men, who at that time suffered martyrdom, as “enthu siasts”—and who describes the most faithful and consistent of the persecuted Covenanters as a “party rendered wild and fanatical through oppression;” but while he gives the glorious sufferers little praise, historical truth has constrained him indignantly to condemn the wickedness of the government by which they were oppressed and murdered. Yet for the restoration of this very government—followed as that restoration immediately was by such dreadful wickedness—thanksgivings are still offered at the appointed times, in obedience to the authority of the civil government, throughout the whole extent of the united Church of England and Ireland. See in the Book of Common Prayer: “A form of prayer with fasting, to be used yearly on the thirtieth of January, being the day of the martyrdom of the blessed king Charles the First; to implore the mercy of God, that neither the guilt of that sacred and innocent blood, nor those other sins, by which God was provoked to deliver up both us and our king into the hands of cruel and unreasonable men, may at any time hereafter be visited upon us or our posterity.”—“A form of prayer with thanksgiving to Almighty God, for having put an end to the great rebellion, by the restoration of the king and royal family, and the restoration of the government after many years' interruption; which unspeakable mercies were wonderfully completed upon the twenty-ninth of May, in the year 1660. And in memory thereof, that day in every year is by Act of Parliament appointed to be for ever kept holy.”—And also the royal proclamation requiring these forms “to be used yearly on the said days, in all cathedral and collegiate churches and chapels; in all chapels of colleges and halls within our Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin, and of our colleges of Eton and Winchester, and in all parish churches and chapels within those parts of our united kingdom called England and Ireland.” The proclamation, as given in the prayer-book in the possession of the writer, is in the name of king George; “Given at our court at Carlton House the twenty-first day of February, 1820, in the first year of our reign. By his Majesty’s command, SIDMOUTH.”
[38] Sketches of Ecclesiastical History, pp. 74, 75.
[39] Some express doubt about the existence of such a national compact as is mentioned above. Some seem to think, that men merely voting for members of Parliament, do not become pledged to such an extent. And some again endeavour to justify the conduct of members of Parliament in taking the prescribed oaths, on the plea, that having the business of legislation committed to them, they have the power of making alterations, and are only bound to uphold the existing laws of the realm until they may be constitutionally changed. These matters are not here considered as separate objections, inasmuch as they have been already discussed. In reference to these points, see Chapter iv. pp. 42–64.
[40] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 393.
[41] In the Resolutions of the Convocation of Ministers held at Edinburgh, November 1842, one Resolution is inserted for the express purpose of expressing their warm attachment to the “civil and ecclesiastical constitution under which they live.” We would affectionately entreat them to reconsider this Resolution in all its bearings, and resolutely to take their stand on higher ground. They desire to bear witness for the authority of Christ as the alone Head of his church. This Resolution is a practical contradiction of their whole testimony. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of his church, not in Scotland only, but everywhere, in earth and in heaven.