tained in that instrument becomes common to them all.

The recognition of such rights of conscience, is insulting to the Majesty of Heaven, and repugnant to the express letter of God's word. Deut. xvii.

18. God prescribes to the magistrate the divine law, as the supreme standard of all his administrations; and which obliges men, in every station, to conduct themselves accordingly. Deut. xii. 32. "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add to it, nor diminish from it." But, in the framing of these constitutions, the revealed law of God is not attended to; though even the law of nature requires the adoption of every new communication which God, in mercy, may be pleased to reveal.

The rejection of the divine law, as revealed in the Scriptures of truth, we consider as a contempt of the beneficence of Heaven, and an obstinate drawing back to heathenism.

3. The government gives a legal security and establishment to gross heresy, blasphemy and idolatry, under the notion of liberty of conscience.

It would be too tedious to examine each of the state constitutions on this head. One may suf

fice.

We shall select that of the state of Pennsylvania. See the preamble, together with the third and twenty-sixth sections of the ninth article. Here, the constitution recognises and unalterably establishes the indefeasible right of worshipping Almighty God, whatever way a man's conscience may dictate; and declares that this shall, for ever, remain inviolable. We believe that no man has a right to worship God in any other way than he himself hath prescribed in his law. We also

think it criminal for a man's conscience to approve any way repugnant to this sacred rule; and that this crime cannot legitimate another, or make an action right, which God expressly condemns, under pain of eternal wrath.

If conscience can legitimate what God's law condemns, it must be paramount to the divine law, and, consequently, to the Legislator alsó, in having a negative over the requisitions of both the one and the other.

Were this the case, it would not only free from criminality, but would render virtuous, laudable and praiseworthy, the most damnable errors—1 -the most horrid blasphemies and detestable abomina-' tions, if but dictated by the consciences of Pagans, Mahometans, &c. Then, the Egyptians worshipping God under the form of a snake or crocodile as lawful, yea, as commendable, as doing it would be precisely according to the manner which he has prescribed in his word, provided, that, in both cases, conscience said amen!

But supposing for a moment that men had such a right, let us inquire how they came by it?' Either they must have it by derivation from God, or hold it independently of him.

It cannot be by derivation from God. It would be absurd in the nature of it, and incompatible with the essential holiness of his character.

To suppose God giving his moral subjects a law, to the breach of which he annexes eternal punishment, and at the same time giving them a right to break it, is inconsistent, and impossible. Right would be opposed to right. A right to obey, and a right not to obey!

Absurd as this may appear, we find the doctrine advocated both from pulpit and press.

× Was

Scarcely any where, however, is it more barefacedly maintained than in the following declaration: "To worship God after that way and manner they judge most agreeable to his will, is a right common to all men. They may, and often do, err, and offend the Most High, by substituting a false religion in place of that which he requires: but no power on earth can take their right from them."*

Here there is a certain right established. To do what? To worship God whatever way a man may think most proper. But he may, and often does, think a false way most proper. Well, he has a right to worship the false way! But worshipping the false way offends God. No matter, he has a right to offend God; for, if worshipping falsely, and offending God, are equivalent, seeing he has a right to do the one, he has a right to do the other!!! "Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon: lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph." 2d Sam. i. 20.

To maintain that men have a right to break the divine law, is too glaring. Does it not look very like blasphemy, to allow that God has given them such a right? If they have it, therefore, it must be independently of him. It would be pretty nice, to draw the discriminating line between this and atheism..

This pretended right, however, is guarantied to all by the constitution of this state.

Every thing, suggested by conscience, which may not interfere with temporal safety, is un

* See the Declaration and Testimony of the Associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania, Part 1, Sect. 17..

alterably established by the permanent law of the land. Should it dictate obstinately to profess the most damnable heresy, and zealously practise and propagate every absurd and abominable form of idolatry, which a heart given up to strong delusions, vile affections, and a reprobate sense, could make one think innocent, the good people of this state have recognised his right to do so: and solemnly pledged themselves, in their constitutional instrument, to give him security and protection; the solemn prohibition of Almighty God notwithstanding!

Does not this amount to an establishment of religion?

That civil rulers should exercise their power, in protecting and defending the religion of Jesus, we do, and always did, maintain.

The dispute, then, will not turn upon the point, whether religion should be civilly established? (we take it for granted that Americans think so, seeing they have done it,) but it is, concerning what religion ought to be civilly established and protected. Whether the religion of Jesus alone, should be countenanced by civil authority? or every blasphemous, heretical, and idolatrous abomination, which the subtle malignity of the old serpent, and a heart deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, can frame and devise, should be put on an equal footing therewith? The former we contend for, the latter we reject. The latter, however, is the plain doctrine of the constitution.

That it may appear that this is no invidious comment on the articles of that instrument, let us, for a moment, attend to its application to practice, by the legislature. Their views of it will be

considered as impartial. In the discharge of their legislative duty, did they not incorporate a Roman Catholic society in the city of Philadelphia, and grant them special privileges, such as raising money by lottery, &c., for erecting a chapel? Who ever heard any of the approvers of the constitution complain that said law of incorporation was unconstitutional? Indeed, no man of common sense could allow that it was.

If this be an evil, the constitution should be purged from such principles as sanction it; unless it be contended that the people of these states have among them rights, ONE of which authorizes them to give their power to the beast, and prop up the tottering fabric of that man of sin, whom God has threatened to "destroy with the breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming."

We cannot, in conscience, however ill others may look upon it, swear allegiance to a constitution so friendly to the enemies of Jesus. We are bound in him, and cannot serve two masters. Is this putting of all religious sects upon an equal footing, consistent with the declaration concerning New Testament times, Isaiah xlix. 23: "Kings shall be thy nursing fathers?" Would he not be a hard-hearted father, who would put his child upon the same footing with the wolves, tigers, and other voracious beasts of prey? The political father, who leaves the child Truth in the jaws of enemies, still more deadly, cannot be allowed to possess much more tender feelings. Will the church of Christ enjoy no other privilege than this, by "sucking the breast of kings?" Isaiah Ix. 16. "When her officers shall be peace, and her exactors righteousness." Verse 17.

4. We farther object to the civil government