as the principal part of their rule of government in the Jewish theocracy? As the Jewish Church was a real church, and not merely typical, so their state was a real commonwealth or kingdom, and not merely typical: whatever, therefore, pertained to it, as a real commonwealth, is imitable in any other. The Jewish church and state were as really distinct as the church and state are now, though I do not say precisely in the same manner.' This learned and pious author proceeds to show wherein they were distinct, which he does in ten different particulars, which would be too tedious to detail here.

Those who would desire to see this subject largely and judiciously investigated, will find it in the first part of Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book I., Chaps. 1, 2, 3, &c.

Mr. Brown still farther shows wherein the Jewish and the Christian magistrate agree. This he does in fourteen different particulars, which the inquisitive reader will find in the sixtieth, sixty-first, and sixty-second pages of the treatise cited above.

Obj. 12. "Your principles are contrary to the fourth section of the twenty-third article of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which teaches, 'that infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him.'

Ans. The sense in which the General Assembly, as also the current of reformers and martyrs of the seventeenth century, understood this passage, is fully stated in our Testimony, as also in the letter from Stirling, by the Rev. John M⭑Millan, jun. They distinguished between reformed

and enlightened lands and those that were unreformed and unenlightened. In the latter many things may be borne with which ought not to be suffered in the former; particularly, when, by a solemn national act, they have made Scriptural qualifications essential to the civil constitution. This our ancestors did in their Covenants, National and Solemn League. All ranks and conditions in the realm solemnly swore to use every lawful endeavour to extirpate popery, prelacy, &c. It might have been inquired, would swearing allegiance to a constitution, afterwards erected upon the ruins of this, of which the support and establishment of any of these abhorred abominations was made an essential part, have been a means well calculated to promote the intention of their oath? This was exactly the situation of the lands of our nativity.

Prelacy, which had been nationally abjured, was made essential to the British constitution; and the king solemnly swore, in his coronation oath, to support it.

Were not these two oaths, viz., one, to extirpate prelacy, and another, to support it, flatly contradictory? To swear the latter is a declaring the former unobligatory, and, consequently, criminal, when originally entered into. Can any one, professing friendship to the reformation of these times, thus barefacedly pronounce its sentence of condemnation!!

Let the authority of the magistrate be just and legal, we will then hold ourselves conscientiously bound to yield obedience.

No authority can be just and legal, with which a contradiction to the moral law is essentially incorporated. Simple infidelity will not render it

unjust, either in a heathen country or in one emerging from pagan darkness. Neither will simple difference in religion make it void, when the nation have not by their own solemn act and deed made conformity an essential article of their constitution.

There may be many defects in a civil constitution, and yet is morally binding upon a nation: but where plain immorality, or a solemn obligation to support what the Legislator of the universe prohibits, under the severest penalties, is essentially incorporated therewith, it cannot bind the

conscience.

Obj. 13. "Your principles lead to persecution, and are cruel and unmerciful."

Ans. The church of Christ never persecuted. If our principles lead to it, they are certainly

wrong.

But what is persecution? Does it consist in executing God's law? If it does, he must be the author of it. Does it not rather consist in injuring men in their characters, property, or persons, for their tenacious and steadfast adherence to his divine commandments? If this is not persecution, then the martyrs have suffered not for the cause and testimony of Jesus, but for their obstinate rebellion against it. How does this correspond

with the character of those souls whom John saw lying under the altar," who were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held?" Rev. vi. 9. Whatsoever the law of God commands to be punished, ought to be punished with the penalties therein made and provided; but God has commanded gross heretics, blasphemers, and idolaters, to be punished with certain specified penalties. Therefore, such ought to be punished.

These commands could not belong to the cere monial law; for then they would have flowed entirely from the arbitrary will of God, and been mere signs between him and Israel. Who would dare to think so of gross heresy, &c.? Neither could they belong to that part of the judicial law which respected the Jews peculiarly. Who would dare to say that none but the Jews were, or are, under obligation to worship God in purity, or abstain from blaspheming his name and dignity? They must, therefore, belong to the moral law, and flow from the moral nature of Jehovah, who has declared he will not give his glory to another, nor his praise to graven images.

Thus we find the first, second, and third precepts of the moral law pointedly prohibiting these things, and requiring the contrary duties. All the precepts and threatenings which are to be found respecting these scattered up and down the Bible, are only elucidations of those commandments.

I would leave this particular, with proposing one question, which the judicious reader will easily solve. Was Elijah a persecutor when he caused the law of God to be executed upon the prophets of Baal?

Obj. 14. "But the constitution makes provision for its own amendment; if, therefore, you think it wrong, why don't you join and elect good representatives, who may be instrumental in rectifying it?"

Ans. A representative must swear to support the constitution before he can take a seat in the legislative assembly. This oath we have already shown to be immoral, and such as we cannot, in good conscience, swear ourselves; what, therefore, we cannot do ourselves, on account of its immorality, we ought not to employ others to do for us.

We are bound by the moral law and our covenant engagements to extirpate all heresy, blasphemy, and idolatry, as far as our influence can extend. We consider it not only unlawful, but also a very unlikely means to effect this desirable end, first to swear an oath which necessarily involves supporting them. Would not this be "doing evil, that good might come " of it? which the apostle pointedly condemns.

Supposing we were certain that a reform in these evils would be obtained next day, nay, even the next hour; should we swear an unlawful oath to obtain it, we would be violating the command of the Most High, and incurring his severe displea

sure.

But, farther, by our own solemn act and deed, we would tie up our hands from effecting the thing desired, unless we account the initiating oath unobligatory, and so mock God in taking it. Should a bill be brought into the house to make the Bible the supreme law of the land, would such a bill be constitutional? That it would not, does, not require proof. I am sworn to support the constitution. How shall I behave? There is no alternative, but either to reject that law which is a transcript of the moral perfections of Jehovah, or commit perjury: unless I consider my oath to support the constitution unobligatory, and thus mock God, and impose upon society. Surely I ought not to put myself in any predicament in which I may be brought to the awful dilemma of either rejecting the Bible, or committing perjury! Nor would it satisfy the conscience to sit silent, and give no vote. This would be a silent acquiescence in the violation of the constitution which I was sworn to support. Would silence be supporting it? Neither is it lawful for any Christian