LETTER I. On the abſurdity of Authoritative TOLERATION of groſs Hereſy, Blaſphemy or Idolatry.

HOW God himſelf connected religion, and the civil welfare of nations, in his ancient laws, almoſt the whole of the Old Teſtament doth bear witneſs. That religion is the great baſis of civil happineſs, was the common, the avowed belief of e⯑very ſenſible Heathen: It was, for ought I know, the infamous monſter Tiberius, who firſt pretended, That the Gods alone ought to regard or reſent the injuries done them. Before the happy Reformation, the Popiſh clergy had reduced civil rulers into mere tools for exe⯑cuting their pleaſure in religious matters; and pre⯑tended that they had no power of judging in them. To free theſe rulers from ſuch Antichriſtian claims, the Proteſtant reformers, every where, as their Confeſſi⯑ons of faith and other writings make evident, loudly maintained, That to magiſtrates themſelves indepen⯑dent of clergymen, belongs a diſtinguiſhed power in the reformation and preſervation of religion. Not long after, Eraſtus, a German phyſician and his fol⯑lowers, to curry favour with their reſpective princes, pretended, That magiſtrates are the proper lords of the Chriſtian church, from whom her miniſters and other rulers derive their whole power, and to whom they muſt be accountable. This notion, exceedingly flattering their ambition, was too greedily embraced by moſt of the Proteſtant princes; nor do I know of one Proteſtant church, which hath not ſuffered by [4] means of it. Meanwhile, the German Anabaptiſts, having experienced the frowns, and ſometimes the improper ſeverities of magiſtrates, copied after the ancient Donatiſts in the like circumſtances, and warm⯑ly contended, That magiſtrates have no more power about religious matters than any private perſon, and ought to puniſh none for different ſentiments in doc⯑trine or forms of worſhip. The Socinians and re⯑monſtrant Arminians, except when magiſtrates favour⯑ed themſelves, and promoted their cauſe, zealouſly contended for the ſame notion, at leaſt in the caſe of miniſters and worſhip, which were not maintained at the public expence. Many, if not moſt of the Eng⯑liſh Independents in the laſt century were much of the ſame mind; and hence, by their influence, ſome paſ⯑ſages in the Weſtminſter Confeſſion of Faith could ne⯑ver obtain a ratification by the Engliſh Parliament, or a place in their own Savoy Confeſſion. Part of theſe paſſages, relative to the magiſtrate's power, are alſo dropt from the Confeſſion of Faith agreed to by the Independents of New England in 1682. Moſt of the Engliſh Diſſenters of this century ſeem to be much of the ſame mind; eſpecially ſuch as might otherwiſe have been expoſed to danger on account of their open maintenance of Arian, Socinian, and Quakeriſh blaſ⯑phemies—Locke and biſhop Hoadly, and ſome others of the Epiſcopalian party, warmly eſpouſed the ſame cauſe.

This notion never received much countenance in Scotland, till Mr Glaſs of Tealing commenced a fu⯑rious new-faſhioned Independent. He mightily con⯑tended, That the Jewiſh nation was an eccleſiaſtical one, and their kings eccleſiaſtical rulers; that Chriſ⯑tian magiſtrates have no more power in religious mat⯑ters than private Chriſtians, and ought not to employ their power in advancing the true religion, or in mak⯑ing laws with penalties in favour of it; or in reſtraining or puniſhing heretics or falſe teachers, nor ought they to give more encouragement to good Chriſtians, than to other peaceable ſubjects;—that the example of the re⯑forming kings of Judah in puniſhing idolatry and falſe worſhip, and in promoting the true religion, is not now to be imitated; and that our fathers national [5] covenanting againſt Popery and other wickedneſs, in favour of the true religion was unwarrantable, and is not binding upon us.—Dr. Wiſheart, Principal of the college of Edinburgh, in his ſermons contended, That magiſtrates have only a right to puniſh ſuch crimes as ſtrike immediately againſt the perſons or property of men; but not to puniſh any thing which ſtrikes im⯑mediately againſt the honour of God, as blaſphe⯑my or hereſy; that all men ought to have civil liber⯑ty to think and ſpeak as they pleaſe, providing they make no attack upon the welfare of civil ſociety; that none ought to be hampered in their ſearch after truth by any requirement of their ſubſcriptions to Formu⯑las or Confeſſions of Faith; that children in their edu⯑cation, ought never to be biaſſed to a ſide by learning catechiſms which maintain the peculiar principles of a party. Theſe or the like notions have been adopt⯑ed by not a few of the pretenders to modern illumi⯑nation.

In her public Standards, the Church of Scotland hath renounced, and in her ſolemn covenants hath abjured both theſe extremes. In her Old Confeſſion of Faitb, which is expreſly ſworn to in the national cove⯑nant of 1581, &c. as in all points the undoubted truth of God, Art. xxiv, ſhe aſſerts, that ‘"the power and authority of magiſtrates is God's holy ordinance, or⯑dained for manifeſtation of his own glory, and for the ſingular profit of mankind—they are the lieutenants of God, in whoſe ſeſſions God himſelf doth fit and judge—to whom by God is given the ſword to the praiſe and defence of good men, and to puniſh all o⯑pen malefactors. To kings, princes, rulers and ma⯑giſtrates chiefly, and moſt principally, the conſervati⯑on and purgation of religion appertains; ſo that not only are they appointed for civil policy, but alſo for maintenance of the true religion, and for ſuppreſſion of all idolatry and ſuperſtition whatſoever."’ This doctrine is further aſſerted and explained in her ſecond book of diſcipline, chap. ix; The doctrine of her Weſtminſter Confeſſion of Faith, the WHOLE of which is ſolemnly eſpouſed and engaged to, by every Preſby⯑terian miniſter and elder in Scotland in his ordination vows, is that ‘"for their publiſhing opinions or main⯑taining [6] practices contrary to the light of nature and the known principles of Chriſtianity, whether concerning faith, worſhip or converſation, or to the power of godlineſs, or ſuch erroneous opinions or practices, as either, in their own nature, or in the manner of pub⯑liſhing and maintaining them, are deſtructive to the external peace, and order, which Chriſt hath eſtabli⯑ſhed in the church, they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded againſt by—the power of the civil magiſt [...]ate," Chap. xx. 4.—’that ‘"God, the ſu⯑preme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magiſtrates to be under him, over the people, for his own glory and the public good—they ought eſpecially, (in managing their office) to maintain PI⯑ETY, juſtice and peace, according to the wholeſome laws of each commonwealth—That the civil magiſ⯑trate—HATH authority, and it IS his duty to take order that unity and peace be preſerved in the church, and that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blaſphemies and hereſies be ſuppreſſed, all cor⯑ruptions and abuſes in worſhip and diſcipline prevent⯑ed and reformed, and all the ordinances of God du⯑ly ſettled, adminiſtered and obſerved. For the better effecting of which, he hath power to call Synods, to be preſent at them, and to provide that whatſoever is tranſacted in them be according to the mind of God," Chap. xxiii. 1, 2, 3.—’ ‘"The duties required in the ſecond commandment are—the diſapproving, deteſt⯑ing, oppoſing all falſe worſhip, and according to each one's place and calling, removing it, and all monu⯑ments of idolatry;—The ſins forbidden in the ſecond commandment are, all deviſing, counſelling, com⯑manding, uſing, and any ways approving any religi⯑ous worſhip not inſtituted by God himſelf, tolerating a falſe religion." Lar. Cat. Q 108, 109.’ Theſe de⯑clarations are an authentic explication of the power of the magiſtrate in maintaining and preſerving the true religion, the defence of which is expreſly ſworn in their ſolemn covenants with God. If therefore, Sir, you diſcredit this doctrine, and plead the toleration of idolatry, blaſphemy, hereſy, and that magiſtrates ought to meddle with nothing in religion, be ſo ho⯑neſt, as openly to renounce your ordination vows and [7] the Confeſſion of Faith and Catechiſms, as well as the national Covenant and Solemn League.

To illuſtrate the above doctrine of our excellent ſtandards, it is proper to obſerve, (1.) God alone is the neceſſarily exiſtent, and abſolutely independent Creator and preſerver, and therefore original and ſu⯑preme proprietor and governor of all things in hea⯑ven or earth, Exod. iii. 4. Gen. i. Pſal. civ. and xxiv. 1, 2. xxxiii. 6. lxxxiii. 18. xlvii. 2, 7, 9. Ezek. i. 11. Col. i. 16,—18. Dan. iv. 34, 35. (2.) All right, ci⯑vil, natural, or ſpiritual, whether of conſcience, or of perſons, or of huſbands, parents, maſters, magiſ⯑trates, miniſters, or even of Chriſt as mediator, muſt therefore wholly originate from God alone, Pſalm cxv. 16. Rom. ii. 36. Heb. ii. 10 Acts x. 25, 28. 2 Cor. v. 18. Pſal. lxxv. 7. Dan. ii. 21. iv. 32, 35. Mat. xxviii. 18. ii. 27. John v. 35. To ſuppoſe any real [...]right or being whatſoever, unoriginating from him, is to give up with the neceſſary exiſtence of God, and to plunge into the very depths of Atheiſm. (3.) All right and authority of conſcience, perſons, huſ⯑bands, parents, magiſtrates, miniſters, or even of Chriſt as mediator, being wholly derived from God, ought, neceſſarily ought, wholly to be improved, or exerciſed in his name, in conformity and ſubordinati⯑on to his law, as the ſupreme rule, and in order to promote his declarative glory as the chief end of it. Prov. xvi. 4 Rom ii. 30. 1 Pet. iv. 11. 1 Cor x. 31. John v. 30. viii. 29 vii. 18. Eph iii. 21 (4.) No right or authority derived from God can therefore be lawfully improven or exerciſed, in protecting, encou⯑raging, allowing or commanding any thing which God himſelf, on account of his infinite perfection in holi⯑neſs, juſtice, goodneſs and truth, cannot command;—or in diſcouraging, diſallowing, or prohibiting any thing which God in his law requires. It is abſurd to ſuppoſe it, that God can give men a power which he hath not himſelf; and ſhocking blaſphemy to ſup⯑poſe him capable of giving men a right and authority to contemn or counteract his own law as their rule, or his own glory as their chief end, in every thing they do, 2 Tim. ii. 13. Hab. i. 12, 13. Exod, xv. 11. Deut. xxxii. 4. Zeph. iii. 5. James i. 13. (5.) All the diverſified forms of right and authority in conſcience, [8] huſbands, parents, maſters, magiſtrates, miniſters, and even in Chriſt as mediator, being derived from the ſame God of infinite wiſdom and order, each of them may, and ought to be wholly exerciſed within its proper de⯑partment, and in a manner anſwerable to its nature, and never in the way of invading the place or inter⯑rupting the exerciſe of any other right or authority. No right of conſcience can be exerciſed to the inter⯑ruption of the due exerciſe of marital, parental, ma⯑giſterial, magiſtratical, miniſterial, or Chriſt's media⯑torial authority; nor, can any regular exerciſe of theſe powers interrupt the due exerciſe of the power of conſcience, or of one another, 1 Cor. xiv. 33, 40. vii. 20, 24. (6.) All theſe different forms of power and authority being derived from the ſame God, may have the ſame things for their object, but viewed in different reſpects. The ſame man may be ſubject to the power of his conſcience as he is a rational crea⯑ture,—ſubject to the power of parents as a child,—ſubject to the power of maſters as a ſervant,—ſubject to the power of magiſtrates as a member of the com⯑monwealth,—ſubject to the power of church-rulers as a member of an organized viſible church,—ſubject to the mediatorial power of Chriſt, as a member of his myſtical body, or an agent for promoting the wel⯑fare of it.—The ſame good work of piety or virtue may, or ought to be required by conſcience, by pa⯑rents, maſters, magiſtrates, miniſters, and even by Chriſt as mediator, in different reſpects, as calculated to promote the welfare of the perſons, families, nati⯑ons, and churches concerned,—in ſubordination to the glory of God as their reſpective proprietor and ſuperior. The performance of the ſame good work may be encouraged by rewards from all theſe diffe⯑rent powers, anſwerable to their reſpective forms.—The ſame vices of idolatry, blaſphemy, calumny, trea⯑ſon, theft, murder, &c. as in different reſpects hurt⯑ful to perſons, families, civil ſocieties, and churches, may, and ought to be prohibited by all theſe different powers, and reſented by each, as hurtful to itſelf, as ſubordinated to God,—in a manner anſwerable to its particular nature and department,—by conſcience with ſtinging rebukes,—by parents with correction, diſin⯑heriting, [9] or the like,—by maſters with frowns, ſtripes, abridgment of wages, or the like,—by magiſtrates with public diſhonour, fining, impriſonment, or death,—by church rulers with eccleſiaſtical rebuke, excom⯑munication,—by Chriſt with temporal, ſpiritual or eternal judgment, Acts xxiv. 16. Joſh xxiv. 15. Pſal. ci. Mat. v, vi, vii, &c. (7.) All theſe powers of conſcience, huſbands, parents, maſters, magiſtrates, church-rulers, and of Chriſt as mediator, proceeding from an infinitely wiſe, powerful and good God, are each of them, in its own place, altogether ſufficient to gain its own end.—Nevertheleſs, it mightily tends to the advantage of each, that all of them be rightly exerciſed at once, and to the hurt oſ all the reſt, if any of them be not. If conſcience act faithfully, this promotes the regular and comfortable exerciſe of the power of huſbands, parents, maſters, magiſtrates or miniſters. &c. And it is to the advantage of conſci⯑ence, if they regularly exerciſe their power, and eſpe⯑cially if Chriſt exerciſe his, in a remarkable manner. It is much to the advantage of Church and State, if huſbands, parents, and maſters, faithfully exerciſe their power in their reſpective departments; and much to their hurt, if they do not. If the rulers in Church and State, faithfully diſcharge their truſt, it will tend much to promote the welfare of families. The more faithfully miniſters labour in winning ſouls to Chriſt, and teaching men to live ſoberly, righte⯑ouſly and godly in view of Chriſt's ſecond coming, the more eaſy will the work of magiſtrates, and the great⯑er the happineſs of the commonwealth be.—The more faithfully magiſtrates act in curbing of crimes, and promoting obedience to God the King of nations, as a mean of ſecuring his felicitating bleſſing to the commonwealth, the more delightfully will church-power be exerciſed, and the more abundantly it will tend to the welfare of the church. Nay, though the mediatorial power of Chriſt be infinitely ſufficient in its own place, to anſwer its own ends, yet the delight⯑ful exerciſe and ſucceſs of it is not a little promoted by the faithful exerciſe of the powers of conſcience, huſbands, parents, maſters, magiſtrates and church-rulers, Acts xxiv. 16. 1 Tim. i. 5. Eph. iv,—vi. Col. [10] iii. iv. 1 & 2 Tim. Titus i.—iii. 1 Pet. ii.—v. Pſalm ii. 10, 12. Rev. ii. 15. xvii. 14, 16. xxi. 24. Iſa. xlix. 23. lx, 3, 4, 10, 16. (8.) Though the marital, pa⯑rental, magiſterial, magiſtratical, and miniſterial pow⯑ers be altogether diſtinct from, and independent of one another, and each of them have its own particu⯑lar exerciſes pertaining to it alone;—yet the ſame per⯑ſon, in reſpect of different relations, may be at once ſuperior or inferior to another perſon,—and ſo may be required to fulfil the particular duties of his ſtation, by one who hath not any lawful right to perform them himſelf. Thus magiſtrates and miniſters as ſuch, may require huſbands to perform their duties to their wives, parents to perform theirs to their children, or maſters theirs to their ſervants, as a mean of promot⯑ing the welfare of the commonwealth and of the church, in obedience to God, and aiming at his glo⯑ry. An uncrowned huſband of a queen may com⯑mand her, faithfully to exerciſe her magiſtratical power, as a means of honour and happineſs to his family; and ſhe as queen may command him in eve⯑ry thing relating to the welfare of the ſtate, as her of⯑ficer or ſubject. A parent may require his ſon, as ſuch, faithfully to exerciſe his miniſterial, magiſtra⯑tical, or magiſterial power as a mean of honour and happineſs to his family. A ſon may command his fa⯑ther, who is his ſervant, in every thing pertaining to the ſervice due from him, and even to order his fami⯑ly aright, in ſo far as it tends to promote that ſervice. Miniſters, as the ambaſſadors of Chriſt, have power to require magiſtrates, as church members, faithfully to exerciſe their magiſtratical power, ſo as may beſt promote the honour of Chriſt, and the welfare of his church. And on the other hand, magiſtrates have power to require miniſters as their ſubjects, faithfully to exerciſe their miniſterial power, as a mean of ren⯑dering the nation pious and virtuous, in order to pro⯑mote its happineſs,—and all this in ſubordination to the law, and to promote the glory of God as the ſu⯑preme governor of families, churches, or nations. (9.) Though the marital, parental, magiſterial, ma⯑giſtratical and miniſterial powers, have, each of them, [11] ſomething for its peculiar and diſtinguiſhing object, in which no other power can interfere with it;—Thus it is always unlawful for huſbands, parents, maſ⯑ters or miniſters, as ſuch, to aſſume the power of civil magiſtrates in levying taxes, adjudging criminals to death,—always unlawful for parents, maſters, or ma⯑giſtrates, as ſuch, to preach the goſpel, diſpenſe ſacra⯑ments; or church-cenſures;—yet if the exerciſe of ſome of theſe powers be fearfully neglected or abuſed, the other powers may be exerciſed, in order to rec⯑tify the diſorders occaſioned, further than would be proper if there were no ſuch neglect, abuſe, or diſ⯑order. Thus if huſbands, parents, or maſters, fear⯑fully abuſe their power, relative to wives, children, or ſervants, the rulers of church or ſtate, for the be⯑nefit of theſe ſocieties, may interfere more with their family-concerns, than would be proper in other cir⯑cumſtances. If church-rulers be notoriouſly negli⯑gent or wicked, magiſtrates as church-members, and to promote the welfare of the ſtate, may do more in the re⯑formation of the church, than would be proper for them, if church rulers were diligent and faithful. And, if through the indolence or wickedneſs of ma⯑giſtrates, the affairs of the nation be thrown into terri⯑ble confuſion, miniſters as members of the commonwealth, and to promote the welfare of the church, may do more in the rectification of affairs, than would be proper, if the magiſtrates were faithful, 2 Kings xi. 2 Chron. xxiii (10.) All governing authority empowers the poſſeſſors of it, to iſſue forth laws or commandments, binding on the ſubject of it. But theſe laws or com⯑mandments can extend their binding force no further, than the particular department belonging to that pow⯑er, as by that, every particular form of authority, de⯑rived from God, is limited. The laws or command⯑ments of parents, maſters, magiſtrates, and church-rulers, extend only to external things in the family, commonwealth, or church. Theſe of conſcience and of Chriſt extend alſo to that which is inward in the heart.—And as all human ſuperiors are imperfect in knowledge themſelves, and cannot enable their ſub⯑jects perfectly to underſtand their whole duty, it is ne⯑ceſſary that laws of families or nations, or conſtituti⯑ons [12] of churches require nothing but what is plainly a⯑greeable to the law of God, and nothing in religion but what is plainly required by the word of God, that ſo no⯑thing may be contrary to theſe laws but what is not only really, but plainly contrary to the word of God. And, the weaker the ſubjects are, the more conde⯑ſcenſion ought to be exerciſed towards them in this matter, Rom. xv, 1, 2. (11.) As men cannot bow the hearts of their inferiors unto ſubjection, they ought always to iſſue forth their commandments in the moſt prudent, mild and gaining manner. It is very im⯑proper to iſſue forth any law doubtful or obſcure, or which moſt of the ſubjects are not likely to be got peaceably to comply with. This ought eſpecially to be attended to, in the framing and impoſing of laws and conſtitutions relative to religion, which ought to be a reaſonable and voluntary ſervice. (12) As noth⯑ing, particularly in religion, ought to be contrary to any law of church or ſtate but what is plainly con⯑trary to the law of God; and nothing ought to be held cenſurable by the laws of the church, or puniſhable by the laws of the ſtate, but what is plainly contrary to theſe laws, and hath become duly public, in the pro⯑vidence of God, without requiring the party concern⯑ed to be his own accuſer.—So, on account of the weakneſs or number of the offenders, or the diſorder⯑ed ſtate of the ſociety, many real ſcandals in the church muſt be forborne without centure, and many real crimes againſt the ſtate forborne without puniſhment; notwithſtanding, it would be extremely wicked, au⯑thoritatively to licenſe or tolerate them in either. If your children be very young, raving in a fever, deli⯑rious, or apt to fall into convulſive fits, it might be very prudent and dutiful for you to forbear ſevere chaſtiſement of them for playing on the Lord's day; repeating ſome wicked expreſſions, they had heard from their fellow children, or the like. But would it be lawful in you to give them a parental licence to profane the Sabbath or name of God, and promiſe them protection in ſo doing? You dare not pretend it. God himſelf wiſely forbears the puniſhment of many things, which his law forbids. (13.) As it is never errors or corruptions of the heart, but wick⯑ed [13] words and deeds, ſufficiently and regularly mani⯑feſted, which are to be corrected in families, puniſh⯑ed in commonwealths, or cenſured in churches, Deut. xiii. 1,—14. xvii. 46. Heb. x. 28. 1 Tim. v. 1—So even in puniſhing manifeſt crimes, eſpecially in mat⯑ters of religion, all proper mildneſs ought to be exer⯑ciſed, never proceeding to extremities, where there is any hope of reformation, or where, as in the caſe of hereſy or blaſphemy, confeſſion and repentance can make any kind of reſtitution, Mat. xviii. 15,—18. Among the Hebrews, not one appears to have been puniſhed for idolatry, if he profeſſed repentance and reformation. The princes of Iſrael firſt attempted to bring the Reubenites and Gadites, whom they ſup⯑poſed guilty of it, to repentance, Joſh. xxii. Never in the reformation by Aſa, Hezekiah, or Jofiah, have we one inſtance of a penitent idolater ſlain. The idolaters condemned to death, Deut. xiii. xvii. are re⯑preſented as men of Belial, preſumptuous, and obſti⯑nate in their wickedneſs. The prophets of Baal whom Elijah cauſed be put to death, 1 Kings xviii. 40. and Mattan the prieſt, who was ſlain by Jehoiada's or⯑ders, 2 Kings xi. 18. were no doubt of this ſort; and probably alſo guilty of promoting the murder of the Lord's prophets and people. The man put to death for profanation of the Sabbath, appears to have acted preſumptuouſly, Num. xv. 30,—36. Aſa and his ſubjects covenanted to put to death ſuch as obſtinately adhered to idolatry, 2 Chron. xv. 12, 13. (14.) Ma⯑giſtrates ought never to attempt forcing men to believe with their hearts, even the moſt fundamental truths of religion, or to practiſe any religious duty,—that be⯑ing no means appointed by God for convincing them of the truth, or inducing them to a cordial perfor⯑mance of religious duties, 2 Cor. x. 4, 5. But it would be highly abſurd, hence to infer, That magiſ⯑trates may not reſtrain men from robbing nations or churches of thoſe divine truths, which God hath gra⯑ciouſly entruſted to them, and which are inexpreſſi⯑bly profitable to them,—or reſtrain them from propa⯑gating groſs hereſies, blaſphemies, idolatries, which undermine and exclude the true religion, provoke God o deſtroy nations, and are the fruitful ſeeds of [14] contention, confuſion, and every evil work. No ma⯑giſtrate can compel me to love my neighbour as my ſelf, or can juſtly compel me to divide mine inheritance with him; but he may lawfully puniſh me for calum⯑niating or robbing him.

It is, therefore, extremely uncandid in the advocates for magiſtratical tolerations of hereſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry, always to attempt blending or placing on an equal level, true and falſe religion,—mere neglect of ſome poſitive duties of religion, and ſhocking inſults u⯑pon, and oppoſition to the duties of religion,—leſſer and ſecret miſtakes in religion, and the moſt damnable hereſies, blaſphemies, and idolatries, openly and ob⯑ſtinately profeſſed and practiſed, as if theſe were e⯑qually objects of toleration, reſtraint, or puniſhment,—or, to confound a mere forbearance to puniſh, with an authoritative licence, openly to proſeſs and practiſe what is criminal reſpecting religion. The true religion ought never to need a toleration. It ought always to have an eſtabliſhment. Whereas a falſe one ought never to be eſtabliſhed, magiſtrates having no power againſt the truth but for the truth. There are many mere neglects or leſſer miſtakes in religion, againſt which it would not be proper for magiſtrates to enact civil laws, in this preſent ſtate of imperfection. And, if there be no civil law againſt them, they cannot be puniſhable as crimes. ‘"Where no law is, there can be no tranſgreſſion."’—Mere forbearance to puniſh, what is plainly contrary to law, is, in ſome caſes, ne⯑ceſſary, and in imitation of God himſelf; and gives no poſitive encouragement to wickedneſs. Whereas a poſitive or authoritative toleration, proclaims to men, a liberty to ſin, and promiſeth them protection in ſo doing. If the provider for an army deliver to them fine flour mixed with ſome particles of bran, and a large quantity of arſenic, Is his delivery of the ſine flour, or even of the mixture of bran, as criminal and puniſhable, as that of the mixture of arſenic? No man that is not mad will pretend it. For the fine flour he deſerves the higheſt encouragement: for the bran he may be juſtiy forborne; but for the arſe⯑nic he deſerves to be hanged.

[15] The toleration, which I mean to oppoſe, if plainly and candidly expreſſed, would run thus: ‘"We, the King and Parliament of —, as powers or⯑dained of God,—miniſters of God for good to men,—as the ordinance of God for the terror and puniſhment of evil doers, and the praiſe of them that do well,—as nurſing fathers to the church of Chriſt,—in or⯑der that all our ſubjects may come to the knowledge of the truth, and lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlineſs and honeſty—Do hereby, in the name and authority of The Moſt High GOD, from whom we have derived all that governing power, which we poſſeſs, that we, ruling in his fear, may exerciſe it wholly in obedience to his law, and to promote his declarative glory in the world—Grant to all and every one of you, our ſaid ſubjects, an authorita⯑tive toleration or legal licence,—openly and obſti⯑nately to pervert, contradict, and revile the decla⯑rations of God contained in his word,—and in the moſt in ſolent and abuſive manner to blaſpheme his nature, perfections, purpoſes and works, par⯑ticularly of the redemption of mankind,—and to corrupt his worſhip, repreſent him in it, in the moſt abſurd and abominable forms,—or rob him of it, giving it to devils, monſters of wickedneſs, brutes, ſtocks, or ſtones, in his ſtead,—and with all your might to exert yourſelves, in making your fellow ſubjects do the like.—And, we hereby do, In the ſame name and authority of God, the King of nations, promiſe you every kind and degree of ci⯑vil protection in all ſuch behaviour, as you can pro⯑feſs, or pretend, your conſciences do dictate or al⯑low,—providing always, that you commit your out⯑rage only againſt God, your, and our Maker and Sovereign,—but do not diſturb the external peace of the nation, in reviling the civil character, ſeizing or hurting the civil property, or any way abuſing the body of any of your fellow ſinners of mankind."’ —The correſpondent warrant of conſcience which we mean to impugn, if honeſtly expreſſed, would run thus: ‘"I Conſcience, as the great deputy of The Moſt High GOD, Lord, and Lawgiver of the world, implanted in every man's breaſt, for [16] his temporal, ſpiritual, and eternal advantage, Do hereby, In God's name and authority, and in the ex⯑erciſe of my power which is wholly derived from him, and to be exerciſed for his glory, in trying all things by his law, and approving and holding faſt that which is good,—Warrant and authorize all and eve⯑ry one of you, ſons and daughters of men, to de⯑viſe, believe, openly and obſtinately profeſs, and zealouſly propagate every damnable hereſy, and blaſphemous opinion, and to practiſe and propa⯑gate every abſurd and abominable form of idolatry, which Satan, who deceiveth the world, and a heart deceitful above all things and deſperately wick⯑ed, and given up of God to ſtrong deluſion, belief of lies, vile affections, and a reprobate ſenſe, can make you think innocent or proper.—And, I do hereby, In the ſame name and authority,—Grant you my ſacred claim of right to all manner of liberty and protection from the civil magiſtrate in ſo do⯑ing,—providing always, that you commit ſuch in⯑jury and outrage only againſt God, your infinitely excellent, high, and gracious Proprietor and Su⯑perior, and do no civil injury to the body, charac⯑ter, or property of your fellow creatures."’ Such is indeed the toleration which many praiſe or plead for; and this I proceed to impugn, by the following arguments.

I. Mens pleadings for it do, all of them, neceſſarily proceed on their adopting ſuch atheiſtical principles as the following, (1.) Mens natural or civil rights to their property, liberty, profits and honours, are not ori⯑ginally derived from God,—and ought to protect them in their moſt outragious ſinning againſt him (2,) Mens conſciences have a right and authority, unde⯑rived from, and independent of God, by which it can warrant them to think and ſpeak of, or act to⯑wards God, as inſolently and blaſphemouſly as they pleaſe. (3.) That, if the law of God, be any rule to men; it is not ſo, in reſpect of any intrinſic meaning affixed to it by him, but merely as it is underſtood by every man, particularly in that which relates to their behaviour towards God. (4.) All men being ready to miſtake, we ought always to believe that our op⯑ponents [17] may have as juſt a view of the ſcriptures as ourſelves, and never to condemn them for that which they do not own to be blaſphemy, idolatry, or hereſy. (5.) Magiſtrates right and authority to govern others, doth not originate in God as the Creator, Preſerver, and King of nations, but in magiſtrates themſelves, or in their ſubjects; and ſo may be exerciſed as they pleaſe, particularly in requiring or allowing their ſub⯑jects to belie, blaſpheme, or rob God. (6) Magiſ⯑trates may be moral governors deputies or lieutenants, under God, without having any power or authority relating to religion, or his honour. (7.) Not the law of God natural or revealed, but the laws of nations ought to be the ſupreme ſtandard of all civil govern⯑ment. (8.) Not the declarative glory of God, as the Moſt High over all the earth, but the civil peace and proſperity of nations, ought to be the chief end of ma⯑giſtrates in all their acts of government. (9) Mens natural rights of conſcience, or their civil rights, or the authority of magiſtrates, may or ought to empow⯑er, warrant, or protect them in groſs hereſy, blaſphe⯑my, idolatry, or other outragious abuſe and injury of God; but can by no means warrant or protect them in calumny, theft, murder, or any other injuries a⯑gainſt men. (10.) There is no real difference between moral good and evil, at leaſt in things pertaining to God; and ſo true and falſe religion are equally cal⯑culated to promote the welfare of civil ſociety, and the virtues which render men good, peaceable, uſeful, and honourable rulers or ſubjects,—and hence here⯑tics, blaſphemers, and idolaters may be good ſubjects. (11.) The favour or indignation of God is of no im⯑portance to civil ſociety; and therefore magiſtrates ought to uſe no means to procure his favour by the encouragement of true religion, or to avert his indig⯑nation by the reſtraint of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, or idolatry,—but only labour to procure the friendſhip of men, and prevent their injuring the character, pro⯑perty, or bodies of their ſubjects—That all theſe propoſitions are really atheiſtical, is manifeſt. They all give up with the neceſſary exiſtence, infinite excel⯑lency, and abſolute ſupremacy of God, without any of which, he cannot be God at all.—That Locke, [18] Hoadly, Blackburn, Voltaire, and others, advocates for authoritative toleration of falſe religion, found their pleadings on the above propoſitions, is no leſs e⯑vident to every judicious and unbiaſſed obſerver.—Nay, did not modeſty forbid, I might defy all the world to plead for ſuch toleration, without taking all, or ſome of the above or like atheiſtical propoſitions for granted.

II. The ſcriptures plainly repreſent magiſtrates granting of men an unreſtrained freedom to profeſs and practiſe a falſe religion as extremely ſinful and hurtful. (1.) It is in the name of God to give a li⯑berty to the fleſh, of which hereſics and idolatry are the manifeſt and damning works, Gal. v. 13, 19,—21. with Rom. viii, 7, 8. (2.) It is not merely to pity and ſpare, but to encourage ſuch as ſeek to draw away their ſubjects from God, contrary to Deut. xiii. 9, 10. Eph. xiv. 14. 2 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 13. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2, 3. (3.) In ſo doing, magiſtrates, as political ſhepherds, not only ſuffer the flock of God, the King of nations, under their charge, to wander or be driven from their fold and paſture, but encourage them in it,—contra⯑ry to Ezek. xxxiv. 5,—8. Acts xx 30. (4.) It marks a heavy judgment of God upon, and an anarchy in a commonwealth, when every man is left without reſtraint, and doth that which is right in his own eyes, in matters of religion, Judges xvii. 6. Zech. xi. 9, 16. 2 Chron. xx. 33. Amos iv. 4, 5. (5.) In granting ſuch liberty, magiſtrates are not for Chriſt, by whom they rule, Prov. viii. 15, 16. but againſt him, in encouraging and protecting the doctrines and works of the devil, which he came to deſtroy, John viii. 44. 1 Tim. iv. 2. Rev. xvi. 13, 14 with 1 John iii. 8. Zech. xiii. 2. (6) Falſe religion eats out the true doctrine of Chriſt, and the true piety and virtue which proceed from the faith of it,—which are like joints and bands to connect and eſtabliſh a nati⯑on, Iſa. liii. 5. 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17. Gal. v. 10, 11, 12. (7.) Hereſies produce diviſions, 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. make men wanton, filthy dreamers, deſpiſers and revilers of magiſtrates, Jude, ver. 4, 8. 2 Pet. ii. 10,—17. they render times perilous, and make men traitors, heady, [19] high minded, truce-breakers, falſe accuſers, fierce, with⯑out natural affection, deſpiſers of thoſe that are good, 2 Tim iii. 1,—13. They produce envy, ſtrifes, evil ſur⯑miſings, and perverſe diſputings, 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4. Gal. v. 19, 20. they ſpoil Chriſt's vines, Song ii. 15. (8.) Falſe religion deprives a nation of God's protecting hedge of favourable providence, and opens an inlet or the floods of deſtructive judgments, Exod. xxxii. 25. Ezek. xiii. 4, 5. and xxii. 30, 31. (9.) Magiſtrates indulgence of a falſe religion is repreſented as a kicking at the true religion, and an honouring of the corrupters above God, and brings a charge of the wickedneſs upon the tolerators of it. Hence Eli the judge of Iſrael is repreſented as kicking at God's ſacrifice, honouring his profane ſons [...]bove God, and making himſelf fat with God's portion of the ſacrifices, becauſe he did not effectu⯑ally re [...]orm his ſons, 1 Sam. ii. 12,—16, 23,—25. 29. Eph. v. 7, 11. and Nehemiah contended with the rulers of Judah for ſuffering the worſhip of God to be neglected, and the Sabbath profaned, Neh. xiii. 10,—18. (10) Such indulgence of falſe or corrupt religion is repreſented as tending to make men abhor the true religion, and ſpeak evil of it, 1 Sam. ii. 17. 2 Pet. ii. 1,—3.

III. The ſcriptures repreſent magiſtrates as having power to make civil laws relative to the external con⯑cerns of religion ſubordinated to the law of God, and anſwerable to their own department. (1.) They have in charge the keeping of the whole law of God, Deut. xvii. 19 1 Kings ii. 3. Joſh. i. 7, 8. 2 Chron xxiii. 11. Job xxix. 25. Rom. xiii. 1,—4. It is never hinted, that they have no charge with reſpect to religion, but the contrary. God choſe Moſes the magiſtrate, not Aaron the High-prieſt to publiſh his laws relative to religion.—Abijah avers, that in maintaining the true worſhip of God, he had kept the charge of the Lord, which Jeroboam the introducer of a falſe reli⯑gion had not, 2 Chron xiii. 10, 11. (2.) God pro⯑miſed to the Jews good magiſtrates, in order to root out abuſive practices and monuments of falſe religion, Iſa i. 25, 26. Now, if they had power to root theſe out, they had certainly power to make laws for that effect. (3.) They ought to repeal wicked and perſe⯑cuting [20] laws, and free their ſubjects from being bound over to puniſhment by them for their faithful ſervice of God, Pſalm xciv. 20. Iſa. x. 11. Mic. vi. 16. Hoſ. v. 11. If they can repeal wicked laws, they muſt have power to eſtabliſh what is contrary to them, Dan. iii. and vi. (4) If magiſtrates can make laws encou⯑raging the true religion and church of Chriſt, by an⯑nexation of civil favours to the profeſſion or practice of goſpel-truth; they can alſo by law annex civil pu⯑niſhment to the contempt of, or rebellion againſt theſe laws; they being for the terror and puniſhment of evil doers, as well as for the praiſe of them that do well, Rom. xiii. 3, 4. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14 Dan. vi. 16. iii. 29. Ezra i. 1,—5. vi. 3,—12. vii. 23,—27. (5) By enacting ſuch laws they neither invade the office of eccleſiaſtical rulers, who have no power to connect civil rewards or puniſhments, with any thing religious,—nor do they tranſgreſs any law of God.—What then can hinder their having power to make them? (6.) If all ſorts of men, church members and officers, as well as others, be ſubject to civil magiſtrates, they muſt have power, and ought to make civil laws calcu⯑lated to promote their advantage, in all theſe ſtations, Rom. xiii. 1,—4. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. 1 Tim. ii 1, 2. (7.) Unleſs magiſtrates have a power to make good laws relative to the external profeſſion and practice of religion, clergymen, if generally corrupt, will have it in their power, by Synodical conſtitutions, or other⯑wiſe, to devour and poiſon their ſubjects, with the ſeeds of confuſion, profaneneſs, and every evil work, without any poſſibility of any legal reſtraint. For to allow magiſtrates to act without law, is to introduce tyranny and arbitrary government.

But, in magiſtrates making laws reſpecting religion, it is neceſſary, that [1.] They, firſt in order, care⯑fully acquaint themſelves with the law of God, that they may form all their laws in agreeableneſs and ſu⯑bordination to it,—they having no power againſt the truth, but for it, Deut. xvii. 18,—20. Joſh. i. 7, 8. Pſalm cxix. 97,—104. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. [2.] They ought to conſult with faithful miniſters of the church, either as met in Synods or otherwiſe; as it may be expected, they know the laws of God relative to reli⯑gion, [21] Deut. xvii. 9,—12. Mal. ii. 7. 2 Chron. xv. 1,—15. Thus, in making theſe laws, church-rulers help magiſtrates with their direction, while magiſtrates help them with their civil encouragements, 2 Chron. xix. 10, 11. Ezek. xliv. 23, 24 [3.] They ought to require the miniſters, who are in their dominions, faithfully to inſtruct their ſubjects in the whole coun⯑ſel of God, contained in his word, relative to thoſe points of religion, about which they intend to make laws, that they may be thus prepared, willingly to re⯑ceive and obey them.—Thus Jehoſhaphat firſt ſent teachers, and then judges throughout his dominions, 2 Chron. xvii. xix [4.] In all matters of religion, great care ought to be taken to eſtabliſh the laws, with and by, the conſent of the ſubjects, or their re⯑preſentatives,—thus ſtrengthening theſe laws, through their binding men who are willing to obey them;—and the rather as the principal end of ſuch laws is loſt, unleſs men willingly obey them, 2 Chron. xv. 9, 13. xx. 21. Jonah iii. 4, 7. [5.] In theſe laws a ſpecial regard ought to be ſhewn to perſons of a weak and tender conſcience. Political ſhepherds ought never to over drive their flock, but to carry the lambs in their boſom. And, that the very weakeſt of their ſub⯑jects may be qualified to obey their laws, they ought never to eſtabliſh any thing in religion, but what is plainly as well as really eſtabliſhed by God in his law;—that ſo nothing may be contrary to their law, but what is plainly contrary to God's law, Ezek. xxxiv. 4.

IV. Though the law of God allows not of magiſ⯑trates attempting to force men into the faith, profeſſi⯑on or practice of the true religion, or of their puni⯑ſhing any thing relative to it, which is not an open and manifeſt violation of the law of God, and plainly de⯑ſtructive of the welfare of the commonwealth;—yet it requires them to reſtrain, and even ſeaſonably and ſuitably to puniſh blaſphemy, idolatry, and like groſſer corruptions, and inſults upon the true religion, when they become openly notorious, and eſpecially if obſti⯑nately continued in to the juſt offence and hurt of o⯑thers. (1.) Such reſtraint and puniſhment are repre⯑ſented in ſcripture as an eminent ſervice done to God, Exod. xxxii. 4, 26, 29. 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. xviii. 22. [22] Rev. xvii. 14, 16. xix. 17,—19 Song ii. 15 in which laſt text, the word rendered TAKE ordinarily ſignifies an external and forcible taking, compare 2 Sam. i. 10. Judges xii. 6. xvi. 3; 21. Pſalm. cxxxix. 9. Exod. iv. 4. Gen. xxv. 26. xxii. 13. (2.) The end of God's ap⯑pointment of magiſtrates, is the GOOD of the ſubjects, Rom. xiv. 4. Now ſuch corruptions in religion impair that good, in preventing the ſpread and ſucceſs of the goſpel, which are ſo exceedingly calculated to render men virtuous and happy, even in this life, 1 Tim. iv. 8. 1 Pet. iii. 11, 12, 13. Tit. ii. 12. and in promoting the hurt of mens morals, ſafety; eſtate, peace or li⯑berty, Rom. i. 21,—32. xvi. 18. 2 Pet. ii. 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, Jude, ver 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19. 2 Tim. iv. 3, 4. iii. 1,—9, 13. ii. 16, 17. 1 Tim. iv. 2,—5. vi. 3, 4. (3) Such re⯑ſtraint and puniſhment are repreſented in ſcripture as a bleſſing to be prayed for, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 4. and as a bleſſing for which God ought to be thanked, Ezra vii. 25.—28. Rev. xi. 15, 17. (4.) It is promiſed, that ſuch reſtraint and puniſhment ſhould be produc⯑ed by the effuſion of the holy Ghoſt upon the Chriſ⯑tian church, Zech. xii. 10, 12, 14. with xiii. 1-6. and that they ſhould tend to the advantage, even of ſome ſeducers, who ſhould be brought to account the in⯑flicters their real FRIENDS, Zech. xiii. 4, 5, 6. (5) The ſcripture repreſents EVIL as removed, and GOOD both moral and civil as obtained, by ſuch reſtraints and puniſhments, Deut xvii 2, 5, 7, 10 1 Kings xviii. 40, 41 2 Chron. xiv. 3, 4, 5. and wickedneſs and miſery as overflowing a nation, when neglec⯑ted, Eccl. viii. 11. Judg xvii. 4, 5, 6, 12 1 Sam. ii. 12,—29 and iv. Ezek. xxii 25, 26, 30, 31. (6.) When the proper judges neglected ſuch reſtraint and puniſhment, God raiſed up ſome in an extraordinary way, to execu [...]e it. Thus Elijah cauſed ſlay the pro⯑phets of Baal, 1 Kings xviii. 40. Jehu cauſed ſlay o⯑thers of them, 2 Kings x. 5,—25. The Jews, under the direction of Jehoiada, ſlew Mattan the prieſt of Baal, and Chriſt himſelf once and again drove the buyers and ſellers out of the temple, John ii. 13,—19. Mat. xxi. 12. Why ought not magiſtrates, who are [23] his vicegerents, as God, to imitate his conduct, Pſal. lxxxii. 1, 6. 2 Chron. xix. 6. Rom. xiii. 1,—4. (7.) The ſcripture affords many approven inſtances of ſuch reſtraint or puniſhment of groſs corruptions in religi⯑on, as by Jacob, Gen. xxxv 24 by the judges in the time and country of Job, Job xxxi. 26,—28. by Mo⯑ſes, Exod. xxxii. 4, 20, 22, 29. by the rulers of the ten tribes, Joſh. xxii, 10,—34. by Aſa, 2 Chron. xv. 12, 13, 15. by Jehoſhaphat, 2 Chron. xix. 3,—8. by Joſiah, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4, 33, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, 20. by Nehemiah, Neh. x. 20. by Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. iii. 29. by Artaxerxes, Ezra vii. 26. and by the Pro⯑teſtant deſtroyers of Antichriſt, Rev. xvii. 16.

V. Beſide their power, as men, to try all things by the law of God manifeſted to them, and their power of Chriſtian diſcretion (if they are Chriſtians) to judge by the word of God what is for their own ſpiri⯑tual and eternal advantage, magiſtrates, as ſuch, have a power of POLITICALLY judging and determining, what and how, principles and practices of the true re⯑ligion are to be connected with political rewards or encouragements; or, what ought to be profeſſed and practiſed by perſons, as members of their political ſo⯑ciety, in order to promote the real welfare of it, in ſubordination to the glory of God, as King of nati⯑ons. (1) If they may enact laws in the matters of God, as hath been proven; and may judge in what is fundamental in religion,—or in that which is con⯑tained in expreſs words of ſcripture,—or in matters of the ſecond table of the moral law,—then they muſt have power to judge of that which is plainly deducible from the expreſs words of ſcripture, by neceſſary con⯑ſequence,—and in thoſe matters of the firſt table of the moral law, which as much belong to the law of nature, as any in the ſecond;—have power politi⯑cally to judge why, and how, ſuch a religious profeſ⯑ſion and practice is to be encouraged by the civil au⯑thority; and how, and why, that which is notoriouſ⯑ly oppoſite to the true religion, is to be diſcouraged. (3.) Without this political judging of them, magiſ⯑trates could never determine, Whether the deciſions of eccleſiaſtical courts ought to be ratiſied by their ci⯑vil authority or not; 1 Theſſ. v. 21. Acts xvii. 11. If [24] in judging of thoſe things, magiſtrates improve the Word, the Spirit, and the faithful miniſters of God, for their counſellors, they bid fair to have a divine ſentence in their lips, and not to err in judgment, Deut. xvii. 18,—20. Pſal. cxix. 97,—105. Prov. xvi. 10. Iſa, xxxii. 1. If, neglecting to conſult theſe, magiſ⯑trates give a corrupt ſentence, they ly open to the judgment of God,—to the reſtraint and correction of the collective body of the ſubjects, or their repreſen⯑tatives,—and alſo to eccleſiaſtical cenſure, if they be church-members. (3.) If magiſtrates be nurſing fa⯑thers to the Chriſtian church, Iſa. xlix. 23. they ought to prevent her being poiſoned with corrupt food; and hence muſt have a power politically to judge what is corrupt, and what is not. (4.) If the magiſtrate be the keeper of the peace of the kingdom, then, if a party in the church, complaining of the groſs errors of the other, ſhould form a furious ſchiſm, he muſt have power politically to judge, who is in the right, or in the wrong—who adhere to the truths eſtabliſhed by law, and who do not;—and to ſhew favour accor⯑dingly, 1 Theſſ. v. 21. (5.) If magiſtrates may re⯑ſtrain and puniſh evil doers, they may exerciſe this power over church officers, if, in their Synods, they make blaſphemous or idolatrous decrees, which tend to diſturb the commonwealth, and diſhonour God, the King of nations,—and hence muſt politically judge of their conduct by the laws of God and the land.—No covenanted ſubjection to church judica⯑tures, as a member of the church, can deprive them of this political judgment, any more than of their right of cognition and diſcretion as men and Chriſtians. Ma⯑giſtrates political judgment, how principles or practi⯑ces are to be connected with civil encouragements or diſcouragements, is no infallible rule of church courts judging, how principles and practices ought to be connected with eccleſiaſtical encouragements or cen⯑ſures: nor are the deciſions of eccleſiaſtical courts any infallible rule to direct magiſtrates. But the law of God is the only infallible and ſupreme rule to both. Nor is the deciſion of the one ſubordinate to that of the other; but both, as well as every man's right to judge for himſelf according to the law of God, what he is [25] to believe and practiſe in order to his own peace and comfort, and his joyful anſwering in the final judg⯑ment of God, are ſupreme in their reſpective depart⯑ments, ſubordinated only to the judgment of God himſelf.—But, to argue the matter ſtill more particularly,

1. If magiſtracy, conſcience, and human rights, natural and civil, be all derived from God, as all but Atheiſts muſt allow, magiſtrates can have no more power, authoritatively to tolerate ſin, than God him⯑ſelf can command it. If God, by virtue of the infinite perfection of his nature, have no will, no power, au⯑thoritatively to proclaim liberty to commit ſin, he can⯑not communicate any ſuch power to the magiſtrate. Nor can the magiſtrate account to God for exceeding his power in licenſing that which is infinitely injurious to him, more than the Britiſh king's Lion-keeper hath power, or could be accountable for looſing and hunt⯑ing out the lions in the Tower upon His Majeſty. If conſcience derive all its power from God, it can have no more power to enjoin any thing ſinful, than Lord North hath to hire ruffians to aſſaſſinate his Sovereign. If all human rights be derived from God, the prima⯑ry and ſupreme proprietor of all things, it is impoſſi⯑ble they can authorize men to contrive or commit any thing ſinful, or can protect them in it.

2. Mens ſtate in this world is neither ſeparated nor ſeparable from, but cloſely connected with their eter⯑nal ſtate. And magiſtracy is an ordinance of God, ap⯑pointed by him for his own glory, and to promote the chief end of mankind in glorifying him, Rom. xiii. 2. Prov. xvi. 4. 1 Cor. x. 31. 1 Pet. iv. 11. Rom. xii. 36. But, how, Sir, do magiſtrates promote this end, if they give the ſame degree of protection, though per⯑haps, not of encouragement, to the ſoul-ruining and practice-corrupting deluſions and abominations of Satan, as they do the eternally ſaving religion of God and his Chriſt?—if they give the ſame countenance to them, who to the corruption of mens moral beha⯑viour, and their eternal damnation,—defame Jeho⯑vah to them as mere matter, a mere man, a mere crea⯑ture, a worker of contradiction and nonſenſe,—as they do to thoſe, who faithfully proclaim his infinite ex⯑cellencies, [26] and glorious works of redemption, publiſh his truths, and promote the preſent and future holi⯑neſs and happineſs of mankind?—If God chiefly aim at the glorifying of himſelf, in the advancement of the kingdom of Chriſt; how can magiſtrates, who are appointed by him, as his vicegerents, for promot⯑ing his glory on earth, be allowed, far leſs obliged by him, to exert their power, as much for protecting or promoting the kingdom of the devil, as for the ad⯑vancement of the kingdom of Chriſt? Indeed magiſ⯑trates are not the deputies of Chriſt as mediator, but they are of God, Father, Son and Holy Ghoſt, and all their adminiſtrations are, by him, ſubjected to Chriſt, as ‘"Head over all things to his church,"’ Prov. viii. 15, 16. Mat. xxviii. 18. Eph. i. 22. Why then ought they not to concur with God, in advanc⯑ing the kingdom of Chriſt, eſpecially as this mightily promotes the temporal as well as the eternal welfare of their ſubjects, Prov. xiv. 34. Iſa. i. 19. iii. 10. Pſal. cxii, cxxvii, cxxviii.

3. Magiſtrates are expreſly repreſented in ſcripture, as miniſters of God for good to men,—rulers deputed by, and under him, Rom. xiii. 4. But, how can they be miniſters, deputies, or vicegerents of God, without having power to reſtrain, and if proper and ſeaſonable, to puniſh, that which openly affronts and horridly in⯑ſults him,—blaſphemouſly gives him the lie, baſely miſrepreſents him, or devotes the worſhip due to him, to his adverſary the devil,—or any other crimes, which immediately ſtrike againſt him?—If they be God's miniſters, they muſt tranſact all their magiſ⯑tratical managements in his name,—and how can God empower his own miniſters as ſuch, and acting in his name, to promote his higheſt diſhonour, licen⯑ſing, encouraging, and protecting groſs hereſy, blaſ⯑phemy, and idolatry;—giving as much encourage⯑ment to the vileſt deluſions of Satan, as to the new Teſtament in Jeſus blood?—How can they be mini⯑ſters of God for good to men, without having power to reſtrain ſuch as, like wolves and murderers, go a⯑bout corrupting the principles and practices, and de⯑ſtroying the ſons of his and their ſubjects? How can [27] they be miniſters of God, the father of ſpirits, for good, univerſal good, to men, who are not brutes but endowed with precious and immortal ſouls, which are more, beneficial in commonwealths, than their bodies, without having power to promote the cultivation and welfare of ſouls as a means of promoting the happi⯑neſs of that ſtate? How can they be miniſters of God for good to men, if they have power, only to puniſh theſe crimes which ſtrike immediately againſt their bodies or external property, but no power to puniſh crimes, as they provoke God's wrath againſt the na⯑tion;—if they have power to reſtrain the petty thief, robber, or other leſs hurtful things,—but none to prevent the kindling of God's wrath againſt the nati⯑on, and the debauching of mens conſciences and mo⯑rals, by blaſphemy, hereſy, idolatry, &c. which may quickly do more real miſchief to a nation, than ten thouſand thieves or robbers could do?—After God hath expreſly commanded to puniſh murderers as deſtroyers of his image, Gen. ix. 6—have his mini⯑ſters no power to puniſh murder, as a deſtruction of his rational creatures, or a ſacrificing them to devils, Pſal. cvi. 37? If murder ought to be puniſhed as an injury and diſhonour to God, why not alſo public blaſphemy, idolatry, and hereſy, obſtinately continu⯑ed in?

4. Magiſtrates are appointed of God for the terror and puniſhment of evil doers, and for the praiſe of them that do well, Rom. xiii. 3, 4. 1 Pet. ii. 14. And are not, Sir, idolaters, blaſphemers, profaners of the Sab⯑bath, by teaching of damnable errors or practiſing of abominable idolatries on it, evil doers in God's ac⯑count, as well as revilers of men, thieves, traitors, murderers, &c.? Are not hereſies and idolatries ex⯑preſly declared by him, damning works of the fleſh,—evil deeds, Gal. v. 14,—21. 2 Theſſ. ii. 9,—12. Rev. xiv. 9,—11? Are not heretical teachers declared evil workers, Phil. iii. 2. Tit: i. 10, 11.—It muſt there⯑fore neceſſarily follow, that magiſtrates are appointed by God, not to be licenſers, protectors, and encou⯑ragers, but to be terrors to, and puniſhers of them, as is ſuitable and ſeaſonable.

[28] 5. The power, which magiſtrates have, as miniſters of God for good to men, ought to be ſo exerciſed as moſt effectually conduceth to make all their ſubjects live a quiet and peaceable life in all GODLINESS and honeſty, and make all men come to the ſaving know⯑ledge of the truth, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 4, But how, Sir, can their authoritative allowing or protecting of men in ungodlineſs, blaſphemy, and idolatry, pro⯑mote ſuch an end? Hath not God himſelf teſtified, that hereſies, as well as blaſphemy and idolatry, as a canker, eat out the doctrine, which is according to godlineſs, and increaſe unto more and more ungodlineſs, and make men worſe and worſe, till they be monſtrouſ⯑ly wicked, 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17. iv. 3, 4. iii. 1,—9, 13. 2 Theſſ. ii. 3,—12. 1 Tim. iv. 1,—3. vi. 3, 4 2 Pet. ii. 1,—3, 10,—20. Rom. i. 21,—32. If magiſtrates protect and encourage obſtinate ſeducers in blaſphem⯑ing God, reproaching his Son as a mere creature, or as an impoſtor, or in furiouſly rending his well com⯑pacted body the church, or in corrupting the princi⯑ples and morals, and ruining the ſouls of neighbours, children, or ſervants, how can ſuch as are truly ſe⯑rious and ardently zealous for God, fail to have their righteous ſouls vexed from day to day, with the dam⯑nable doctrines and filthy converſation of theſe wick⯑ed? Pſal. cxix. 136, 139, 158. lxix. 9. 2 Pet. ii. 8.—To truly zealous ſaints, a den of thieves, is not a more grievous neighbour than a Synagogue of Sa⯑tan.

6. All magiſtrates ruling over men, muſt be juſt, ruling in the fear of the Lord, 2 Sam. xxiii. 3. But how can they be juſt, if they diſpoſe of that protection or encouragement, to that which diſhonours and provokes God to the higheſt, ſaps the foundation of all true virtue, and natively produces the moſt ruinous prac⯑tices,—which is due to that doctrine, worſhip, and practice, which is according to godlineſs, and promotes glory, honour, immortality, eternal life? How can they rule in the fear of God, if, in their magiſtratical adminiſtrations, they ſhew no regard to that religion, by which his declarative glory is advanced, but inſtead thereof, licenſe, protect, and encourage, that which infinitely diſhonours and offends him?

[29] 7. The fourth commandment, the obligation of which is certainly moral, and perpetually binding on magiſtrates, as well as on heads of families, commands them to cauſe the weekly Sabbath to be ſanctified by all within their gates, i. e. all their ſubjects, Exod. xx. 10. Jer. xvii. 20,—25. And to this the approven example of Nehemiah correſponds, Neh. xiii. 15,—22. Now, if magiſtrates cannot anſwer to God, for en⯑couraging or protecting their ſubjects in their civil bu⯑ſineſs, which is of itſelf lawful and uſeful,—on the the Sabbath,—how will they account to him, for pro⯑tecting and encouraging men, in teaching blaſphemous errors, or practiſing abominable idolatries, on that day? How can this commandment bind them to reſtrain what is in itſelf lawful and uſeful,—and yet bind them not to reſtrain, but allow, encourage, and protect, that which is in itſelf infinitely diſhonourable to God, their ſuperior, and ruinous to his and their ſubjects, in both temporal and eternal intereſts?—Or, dare you pretend, that the obſervance of the weekly Sab⯑bath depends one whit leſs on Revelation, than the doctrine of the Trinity of perſons in the Godhead doth.

8. If magiſtrates have power, on proper occaſions, to appoint religious faſts, as means of turning away God's wrath, and of procuring or obtaining his bleſ⯑ſings to their commonwealth, as it is certain yourſelf, and perhaps every advocate for authoritative toleration, acknowledge, Jonah iii. 6,—10. 1 Sam. vii. 9, 6. 2 Chron. xx. 3,—15. Ezra viii. 21,—33. Neh. ix. 1. Jer. xxxvi. 6, 22. they cannot but have power to e⯑ſtabliſh that religion, and only that religion which an⯑ſwers to thoſe ends, and to reſtrain that damnable he⯑reſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry, which provoke God's wrath againſt his ſubjects. To command their ſub⯑jects to mourn over the grounds of his anger and ſup⯑plicate his favour, while at the ſame time they encou⯑raged and protected them in groſs hereſy, public blaſ⯑phemy and idolatry, than which nothing can more provoke his indignation, would be fearful diſſimu⯑lation with the Moſt High. Pſalm lxvi. 18. Ezek. xiv. 3,—8, If magiſtrates have power to appoint a Chriſtian faſt, and to puniſh the public contemners [30] of it, or of their authority, in appointing it,—How can they but have power to eſtabliſh the true Chriſti⯑an religion, and to puniſh, if ſeaſonable, the public and inſolent contemners and corrupters of it, and deſpi⯑ſers of their authority in eſtabliſhing it?—Dare you pretend, that the upright profeſſion and practice of the Chriſtian religion is leſs calculated to promote the happineſs of a nation in ſubordination to the honour of God, than an occaſional faſt? Or, that a Chriſtian faſt can be obſerved without entering into the very marrow of the doctrines of Revelation?—or that ma⯑giſtrates ought merely to require the day to be obſer⯑ved in faſting, leaving the manner and object of the worſhip, wholly to the choice of their ſubjects,—recom⯑mending the worſhip of devils, as much as that of Je⯑hovah; and ſuppoſing the one as able and ready to avert calamities, and beſtow neceſſary bleſſings, as the other. If you pretend, that God rewarded Ahab or the Nine⯑vites for worſhipping their idols, you muſt prove that God is ſo far from being highly diſpleaſed with ido⯑latry, as himſelf often declares, Deut. xxxii. 16, 17, 21,—26. Judges ii. 14. 2 Kings xvii. 10,—18. Pſalm cvi. 19,—40 Jer. xlviii. 7, 35, l. 38, &c.—that he is ready to accept and reward the worſhip of idols, de⯑vils, bulls, dogs, cats, ſaints, leeks, onions, conſe⯑crated wafers, &c. if men be ſincere in it. Rare doctrine this, for a Preſbyterian clergyman, of this enlightened age!

9. If every parent or maſter ought for the welfare of his family, in ſubordination to the honour of the God of all families, to eſtabliſh the true religion in it, Gen. xviii. 19. Joſh. xxiv. 15 to remove idols out of it, G [...]n. xxxv. 2,—4. and to refuſe ſeducing he⯑reties a lodging in it, 2 John x. 11.—And if accor⯑ding to this injunction, and thoſe approved examples, he ought to extrude a ſeducer, who had entered: or even a member of the family, who obſtinately en⯑deavoured to corrupt the reſt, with damnable error, blaſphemy, or idolatry,—in order to prevent the in⯑fection of the family, and hinder the deſtructive wrath of God from falling on them;—Why muſt not ma⯑giſtrates, who are God's miniſters for good, be allowed [31] power and authority to eſtabliſh and promote the true Chriſtian religion, in their large political families, and to repreſs or exclude notorious murderers of ſouls, and kindlers of the wrath of God? The relation of a parent or maſter is no more ſpiritual, than that of a magiſtrate, makes no man either member or officer of Chriſt's myſtical body, any more than magiſtracy doth.—And I dare defy all the Tolerants on earth, to point out one thing relative to religion, competent to maſters and parents, as ſuch, but magiſtrates may do what is ſimilar; or to prove that the true know⯑ledge, faith, profeſſion and practice of revealed religi⯑on, is one whit leſs neceſſary and uſeful in common⯑wealths, than in families.

10. If the power of eccleſiaſtical rulers extends to all the civil tranſactions of church-members,—all the ma⯑giſtratical and military managements of kings or empe⯑rors not excepted, in ſo far as they are regulated by the law of Chriſt, and are immediately connected with his honour and the good of his church,—there is e⯑qual reaſon, that the power of magiſtrates ſhould ex⯑tend to religious matters, in ſo far as they are con⯑nected with the welfare of the ſtate, in ſubordination to the honour of God, as King of nations. No rea⯑ſon can be aſſigned, why the vicegerents of God ſhould, as ſuch, act as atheiſts, regardleſs of religion, any more than the meſſengers of Chriſt. Nor, till it be proven, that God, the King of nations, is more inclined to damnable hereſy, blaſphemy, and idola⯑latry, than Chriſt the Head of the church, can it be poſſible to prove, that magiſtrates have one whit more power, authoritatively to licenſe, encourage, or pro⯑miſe them protection, than church-rulers have;—though as the church is a ſelect holy ſociety, called out of the world which lieth in wickedneſs, founded on, and having all her adult members inſtructed by the revelation of Chriſt, the ſame degree of forbearance to cenſure, in the church, as to puniſh in the ſtate, is by no means proper.

11. Unleſs true and falſe religion be equally calcu⯑lated to render men good ſubjects, or magiſtrates, and to promote the peace and proſperity of common⯑wealths, in ſubordination to the honour of God, as [32] King of nations, they can never deſerve or lawfully enjoy equal encouragement, protection or liberty—But the true religion exalteth a nation, Prov. xiv. 34. renders it quiet and proſperous, 2 Chron. xiv. 1,—7. it teacheth men to deny ungodlineſs and worldly luſts, and to live ſoherly, righteouſly and godly, Tit. ii. 11, 12. The fruits produced by it, are love, joy, peace, long-ſuffering, gentleneſs, goodneſs, faith, meekneſs, tempe⯑rance, againſt which there is no law, Gal. v. 22, 23.—whereas, groſs hereſy, blaſphemy and idolatry, de⯑bauch mens conſcience, make it ſeared with a hot iron, 1 Tim. iv. 2. make their affections vile, and their mind and ſenſe reprobate, Rom. i. 26, 28. they render men, filled with all deceivableneſs of unrighteouſneſs,—be⯑lievers and ſpeakers of lies in hypocriſy, giving heed to the damnable doctrines of devils,—proud, doting about queſtions and ſtrifes of words, whereof cometh envy, ſtrife, railing, evil ſurmiſings, perverſe diſput⯑ings of men of corrupt minds, and deſtitute of the truth, 2 Theſſ. ii. 10,—12. 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2, 3. vi. 3, 4. They render times perilous, and men cove⯑tous, boaſters, proud, diſobedient to parents, un⯑thankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, falſe accuſers, incontinent, fierce deſpiſers, and extirpaters of thoſe that are good, traitors, hea⯑dy, high-minded, hypocritical, diſſemblers, villain⯑ous, corrupters of families, haters and reſiſters of ſound doctrine, reprobate concerning the faith, and waxing worſe and worſe;—who will not endure ſound doctrine, but after their own luſts, heap up to them⯑ſelves teachers, having itching ears, and turn away their ears from the truth to fables, 2 Tim. iii. 1,—8, 13. iv. 3, 4. They, as a canker, eat out the princi⯑ples, profeſſion and practice of piety and virtue, and increaſe unto more ungodlineſs, 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17.—They make men ſelf deſtroyers,—their pernicious ways much followed,—the way of truth reproached, and diſpoſe them through covetouſneſs with feigned words to make damnable merchandiſe of ſouls; they render men horridly unchaſte, preſumptuous, ſelf⯑willed, deſpiſers and revilers of magiſtrates and church rulers, beguilers of unſtable ſouls, exerciſed in cove⯑tous practices, curſed children,—ſpeakers of great [33] ſwelling words of vanity, pretenders to liberty, but real ſlaves of corruption, 2 Pet. ii. 1,—3, 10,—19.—They render men ungodly turners of the grace of God into laſciviouſneſs,—filthy dreamers, who defile the fleſh, deſpiſe dominions, and ſpeak evil of digni⯑ties,—blaſphemers and calumniators of thoſe things which they know not, who go in the unnatural and maliciouſly murderous way of Cain, run greedily af⯑ter the error of Balaam for reward, and periſh in the rebellious gainſaying of Kore,—and are luxurious, unprofitable,—raging waves of the ſea, foaming out their own ſhame,—wandering ſtars, to whom is reſerved the blackneſs of darkneſs for ever:—men of ungodly deeds and hard ſpeeches,—murmu⯑rers, complainers, walkers after their own luſts, whoſe mouth ſpeaketh great ſwelling words, having mens perſons in admiration, becauſe of advantage,—ſenſual and ſeparating mockers, who walk after their ungod⯑ly luſts, Jude iv. 8, 10,—13, 15, 16, 10, 19.—They render perſons and ſocieties full of abominati⯑ons and filthineſs of fornication—a myſtery of iniqui⯑ty, and mother of harlots and abominations in the earth,—drunk with the blood of the ſaints and martyrs of Jeſus,—fighters againſt Him, who is LORD of Lords, and pretendedly conſcientious murderers of his miniſters and people, Rev. xvii. 3,—6, 14. John xvi. 2. In fine, they introduce unnatural luſts of the fleſh, and tend to fill men with all unrighteouſ⯑neſs, fornication, wickedneſs, covetouſneſs, malici⯑outneſs, envy, murder, debates, deceit, malignity, and make them whiſperers, backbiters, haters of God, deſpiteful, proud, boaſters, inventers of evil things, diſobedient to parents, without underſtanding, cove⯑nant breakers, without natural affection, implacable unmerciful,—who, contrary to their own inward convictions, commit the moſt abominable crimes, and have pleaſure in them that do the like, Rom. i, 21,—23.—Theſe, Sir, if God do know and ſpeak truth, are the native fruits of hereſy, blaſphemy and idola⯑try,—theſe the GOOD SUBJECTS, who are infected with them,—if Providence permit them to reduce their principles to practice. How then is it for the ſafety of nations, or the honour of God, as King of nati⯑ons, [34] to have them authoritatively tolerated in his name?

12. Though God never, in ſcripture, commands that any leſſer miſtakes in religion, or a ſimple ne⯑glect of religious duties ſhould be puniſhed; yet he commands magiſtrates, ſuitably and ſeaſonably, to pu⯑niſh, even unto death, idolaters, particularly ſedu⯑cers to it, Deut. xiii. 2,—15. xvii. 2,—7. Exod. xxii. 20. blaſphemers, Lev. xxiv. 15, 16. inſolent profar⯑ers of the Sabbath, Num. xv. 30,—36.—Where in all the New Teſtament, is there a ſingle hint of the repeal of ſuch laws, any more than of thoſe concern⯑ing murder, Gen. ix. 6 Numb. xxxv. 30, 31.?—Where is a ſingle hint, that Chriſt's incarnation,—his death for ſin, and to ſave men, aboliſhed theſe laws and procured for magiſtrates a right and power, in the name of God, to licenſe, encourage and pro⯑tect heretics, blaſphemers, and idolaters, who openly and obſtinately labour to offend God, and deſtroy and damn men?

13. God, in ſcripture, frequently approves of ma⯑giſtrates requiring their ſubjects to worſhip the true God, in a right manner,—and of their ſuppreſſing and puniſhing idolatry; as Abraham, Gen. xviii. 19. Jacob, Gen. xxxv. 2, 3, 4 [...] the Judges in the land of Uz, Job xxxi. 26,—28. Moſes, Exod. xxxii. 20, 27. Joſhua, Joſh, xxiv. 14, 15. Aſa, 2 Chron. xiv. 2,—5, xv. 13, 16. Jehoſhaphat, 2. Chron. xvii, xix Je⯑hoiada, 2 Chron. xxiii, 16,—19. Hezekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 4, 5. 2. Chron. xxix,—xxxi. Manaſſeh, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 15, 16. Joſiah, 2. Chron, xxxiv. xxxv. 2 Kings xxii, xxiii. Nehemiah, chap. xiii. Jehu, 2 Kings x. 24,—30. and marks with infamy magiſtrates allowing of their ſubjects to worſhip the true God in the high places, 1 Kings xv. 14 xxii. 43. 2 Kings xii. 3 xiv. 4. xv. 4, 35. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17. The ſcripture ne⯑ver hints, that thoſe magiſtrates acted as church offi⯑cers or merely typical perſons, in their reformation work. Nay,

14. Even Heathen magiſtrates, whom you cannot pretend to have been eccleſiaſtical rulers, have, with his approbation, made laws to promote the honour of [35] the true God, and againſt the contemners of him; as Artaxerxes king of Perſia, Ezra vii. 13,—26. which God in mercy put into his heart, v. 27. Cyrus and Da⯑rius Perſians, Ezra i. 1,—5 vi. 1,—14, Nebuchad⯑nezzar the Chaldean, Dan. iii. 28, 29. and Darius the Mede, Dan. vi. 26.

15. God promiſed it, as a bleſſing to the goſpel-church, that magiſtrates ſhould exerciſe their power in favours of her revealed religion, and in oppoſiti⯑on to falſe teachers, and their abominable deluſions, ‘Iſa xlix. 23. "Kings ſhall be thy nurſing fathers, and queens thy nurſing mothers."’ ‘Iſa. lx. 3, 10, 16. "Kings ſhall come to the brightneſs of thy riſ⯑ing,—Kings ſhall miniſter unto thee,—Thou ſhalt ſuck the breaſt of kings."’ ‘Pſalm lxxii, 10, 11. "Kings ſhall bring preſents—ſhall offer gifts;—all kings ſhall fall down before him; all nations ſhall ſerve him."’ ‘Pſalm ii. 8, 10,—12. "I will give thee, O Chriſt, the heathen for thine inheritance.—Be wiſe now therefore, ye kings, be inſtruc⯑ted ye judges of the earth; ſerve the Lord with fear.—Kiſs ye the Son,"’ manifeſting your cordial ſubjection to him. ‘Zech. xiii. 2, 3. "I will cut off the names of idols out of the land, and I will cauſe the prophets and the unclean ſpirit to go out of the land.—When any ſhall yet propheſy, then his fa⯑ther and his mother ſhall ſay unto him, thou ſhalt not live, for thou ſpeakeſt lies in the name of the Lord, and—ſhall thruſt him through when he pro⯑pheſieth."’ ‘Rev. xvii. 16. "The ten horns ſhall hate the Whore, and eat her fleſh, and burn her with fire."’ ‘Rev. xxi. 24. "The kings of the earth ſhall bring their glory and honour unto the goſpel church."’ ‘Rev, xi. 15. "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Chriſt."’

16. Even the law of nature plainly requires, That magiſtrates maintain and promote the honour of that God, who gave them all their power and authority,—that God, who is the original and ſupreme proprie⯑tor and Sovereign of nations and ſocieties, and the all-ſufficient ſource of all their happineſs;—that they govern their ſubjects, not as if they were dogs [36] or ſwine, having nothing but their bodies to care for, but as men endowed with rational and immortal ſouls;—that as righteouſneſs exalteth a nation, and ſin is the reproach of any people, they ſhould exerciſe their whole power and authority, as is beſt calculated to make all their ſubjects behave moſt agreeably to the law, and declarative glory of God, and moſt uſefully to each other.—It plainly teacheth, That if God graciouſly grant us a ſupernatural revelation, directive of our faith, profeſſion and practice, we ought thank⯑fully to receive, believe, profeſs and obey it;—that, if magiſtrates ought to reſtrain and puniſh groſs im⯑moralities, they ought to reſtrain that error or wor⯑ſhip, which, being a manifeſtly damning work of the fleſh, natively leads men into ſuch immoralities;—and that, if hereſy, blaſphemy and idolatry hinder the progreſs of virtue, or the increaſe of good men, who are the principal ſupport and bleſſings of a ſociety, Iſa. vi. 13. lxv. 8. Gen. xviii. 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32. they ought to be reſtrained.—If hereſy, blaſphe⯑my and idolatry eſtabliſhed or authoritatively tolerat⯑ed, eminently and notoriouſly provoke God to puniſh nations with ſword, famine, peſtilence, poverty, de⯑cay of trade, deſolation, captivity, or the like, as they have often done even among Heathens, Common ſenſe requires, That every magiſtrate, from regard to the welfare of his ſubjects, ought to reſtrain them, as far as his circumſtances can prudently permit,—inſtead of giving them as much liberty, encouragement or protection as he gives to the religion of Jeſus Chriſt, which hath the promiſes of this life, and of that which is to come, 1 Tim. iv. 8, Titus iii. 8, 14. Proverbs xiv. 34.

17. If, Sir, as you pretend, magiſtrates ought to tolerate hereſy, idolatry and blaſphemy,—then, a pow⯑er and office derived from God ought to be employed and executed in encouraging the moſt ſhocking diſ⯑honours and outrage againſt him;—the authority of God, placed in, and exerciſed by, magiſtrates, ought to be ſet in oppoſition to his own immediate authority, manifeſted in his word;—they as miniſters of God for good to men, ought to licenſe and encourage his ene⯑mies to deny, pervert, and revile his truths contained [37] in his oracles, and confirmed by the blood of his Son, and to introduce the moſt accurſed and damnable er⯑rors into their place, in his church,—ought to give the devil and his agents as much countenance and aſ⯑ſiſtance in driving men to hell, as they give to Jeſus Chriſt and his faithful ſervants in leading them to hea⯑ven,—ought to give a company of wizards as much countenance and protection in worſhipping the de⯑vil and his angels, as a ſociety of precious ſaints wor⯑ſhipping the Lord and his Chriſt, in the beauty of holineſs.—In ſhort, authoritative tolerations of he⯑reſy, blaſphemy or idolatry are ſolemn proclamations iſſued forth by the deputies of God, in his name, bear⯑ing that Satan and his emiſſaries have full liberty grant⯑ed them to caſt forth their floods of error, and every abomination that proceeds from it, for the diſhonour of God, and the temporal and eternal deſtruction of men. Nor, for ought I know, have they ever ne⯑glected to improve their opportunity; as the iſſues of the tolerations granted by Cromwell, K. James VII. and Q. Anne, in part manifeſt.

How abſurd then, after all the amazing deliveran⯑ces from it, which God hath [...] mercifully beſtowed u⯑pon us.—after all that our fathers have ſuffered from it,—after all our public and ſolemn engagements to God, or to men, againſt it, and when the very acceſ⯑ſion of our Sovereign K. George and his family to the Britiſh throne, and their eſtabliſhment depends on the nation's deteſtation of Popery, and when the tremenduous deſtruction of its votaries draweth nigh, Rev. xiv. xvi. and xviii 4,—8.—for our rulers to grant any authoritative toleration of a pretended reli⯑gion, that tramples on our Bibles, which God hath in⯑ſpired, and requires us to ſearch as the mean of our e⯑ternal ſalvation, 2 Tim. iii. 15,—17. 2 Pet. i. 19,—21. Iſa. viii. 20. John v. 39. Acts xvii. 11 Col. iii. 16. and blaſphemes theſe oracles of God as imperfect, ob⯑ſcure, deſtitute of any fixed meaning or con [...]idence-bind⯑ing authority till they receive it from the Pope or his councils, and as infinitely dangerous to the temporal, ſpiritual and eternal intereſts of men, if peruſed with⯑out a pontifical licence, Dan. vii. 25. xi. 36. 2 Theſſ. ii. 4. 2 Tim. iv. 4.—a religion, which overthrows [38] the whole mediation of our Redeemer, confining his me⯑diatorial work to his manhood,—and making ſaints, angels, croſſes, images, &c. mediators of ſatisfaction, interceſſion, or ſaving influence, along with Him,—and the Pope and his clergy infallible prophets, ſin⯑expiating prieſts, and kingly diſpenſers of ſpiritual privileges, and formers of laws and offices in the church, Dan. ii. 36,—39. vii. 25. Rev. xvii. 14.—a blaſphemous religion, which in the moſt daring man⯑ner, reproacheth and miſrepreſents God Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, and what belongs to him, and a⯑ſcribes his excellencies and prerogatives to creatures, Dan. vii, 25. xi. 36,—38. 2 Theſſ. ii. 4. Rev. xiii. 1, 5, 6. xvii. 3.—a religion wholly given to ſuperſtition, mingling multitudes of heatheniſh or other human or deviliſh ceremonies, with every part of its worſhip, Dan. vii. 25. 2 Tim. iv. 4 with Mat. xxviii. 20. Deut. xii. 32.—a religion full of abominable idolatries, giving to multitudes of ſaints and angels, images, reliques and conſecrated wafers, that worſhip and glory which is due to God alone, Dan. xi. 38, 39. 2 Theſſ. iv. 4. Rev. ix. 20, 21. xiii. 3, 4 xiv. 9,—11.—a religion pregnant with the moſt ſhocking villanies, pretended miracles, diſpenſing with, or commuting the moſt ſo⯑lemn engagements,—indulgence of equivocation and mental reſervation in oaths,—and inculcating breach of faith with heretics, if for the advantage of the Romiſh church,—and which, by holding multitudes of ſins to be venial,—by the ſale of pardons and indulgences,—by prohibiting clergymen and devotees to marry,—and by licenſing of ſtews, promotes the moſt horrible debauchery, Dan. xi. 36,—39. 2 Theſſ ii. 3, 7, 9,—12. 1 Tim. iv. 1,—3. 2 Tim. iii. 1,—6, 8, 13. Rev. ix. 21. xi. 8. xiii. 13, 14. xvi. 13, 14. xvii. 2, 3, 5. xviii. 2.—a bloody religion, in the propagation and main⯑tenance of which, about ſixty millions of mankind, many of them ſaints, have been murdered, in the moſt cruel and inhuman forms, Dan. vii. 25. Rev. viii. 13. ix. 11, 21. xi, 2, 7. xiii. 2, 7. xvii. 6. xviii. 24. xvi. 2.—a religion, the cordial and perſevering profeſ⯑ſion and practice of which, God hath declared inevi⯑tably damning, 1 Theſſ. ii. 3, 9,—12. Rev. ix. 11. xvii. 11. xiv. 9,—11. xix. 20. xx 10.

[39]OBJECT. I. ‘"God alone is the Lawgiver and Lord of mens conſcience."’ ANSW. 1. God is the only abſolute, ſupreme and infallible Lawgiver; He alone hath power to conſtitute any thing a part of religion. But that no more hinders his magiſtratical vicegerents to make political laws in favours of what he hath de⯑clared and inſtituted in religion, than Chriſt being Head of the church can hinder her ſubordinate rulers to make eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions in favours of the truth, in his name, Pſalm lxxxii. 1, 6. Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 1 Fet. ii. 13, 14. 2. Neither magiſtrates nor mi⯑niſters can make any law which of themſelves, and as their deeds, bind mens conſcience. Their authority is not infallibly exerciſed; it doth not reach to the inward actings of conſcience. They cannot oblige conſcience to theſe actings, or take any cognizance of them. They cannot free it from any guilt contracted by them, or reward it if it doth well, or puniſh or cenſure it if it doth amiſs. Nor are their conſtituti⯑ons, but God's law, the ſtandard by which it ſhall be judged at the laſt day.—But they may make laws or conſtitutions, which, as originating from, ſubordi⯑nated to, and adopted and ratiſied by the law of God. bind men to obey for conſcience ſake, Rom. xiii. 1,—4. Mat. xviii. 19. 3. God's being the only Lawgiver of men under the Old Teſtament as much as now, did not hinder Moſes, David, Aſa, Jehoſhaphat, He⯑zekiah, Joſiah, Nehemiah, Nebuchadnezzar the Chal⯑dean, Darius the Mede, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxer⯑xes, Perſians, or the king of Nineveh to make civil laws in favours of the true religion. 4. If God alone be the Lawgiver and Lord of the conſcience, it nece⯑ſſarily follows, that magiſtrates and conſcience, who are his deputies, can have no power to warrant, li⯑cenſe or protect, any thing forbidden by his law, 2 Cor. xiii 8, 10.

OBJECT. II. ‘"Every man hath a natural right to judge for himſelf, what he ought to do or forbear, eſpecially in religion. He is to be fully perſuaded in his own mind, and to follow the dictates of his own conſcience. Even the law of God is a rule to him, as he underſtands it in his own conſcience. To force [40] any man to do any thing contrary to his conſcience, is to force him to ſin, for whatſoever is not of ſaith is ſin; and to puniſh him for following the dictates of his conſcience is to puniſh him for doing his duty."’ ANSW. [1.] Already you have made mens conſci⯑ence the ſupreme governor of their actions, exalting it above The Moſt High GOD. [2.] Every man hath a natural right derived from God, to judge all things by the law of God, and hold faſt that which is good, 1 Theſſ. v. 21. He hath a right to judge by the law of God what is neceſſary to be profeſſed and practiſed, in order to the peace of his conſcience, and his fellow⯑ſhip with, and receiving of favours from God. But that no more hinders magiſtrates politically to judge what profeſſion and practice are proper for men, as members of ſuch a particular commonwealth,—or what relative to religion is to be connected with civil encouragements or diſcouragements,—than it hinders church-rulers, eccleſiaſtically to judge and define what profeſſion or practice is neceſſary, in order to comfortable fellowſhip with ſuch a particular church. [3.] Mens conſcience is no Lawgiver at all, but a witneſs of their conduct, and a judge, which enquires into the meaning of God's law, and directs according⯑ly,—and which compares their qualities, profeſſion, and practice with the law of God, and if faithful, approves or diſapproves accordingly. [4.] The law of God, not men's conſcience, is their ſupreme and on⯑ly inſallible rule, which binds even conſcience itſelf, Mark xii. 30. 1 John v. 3. and whatever men do con⯑trary to it, is ſinful, let their conſcience approve it as much as they will, 1 John iii. 4. Lev. v. 17, 18. Acts xxvi. 9. 10. 1 Tim i. 13,—16. Whatever pro⯑ceeds not from the perſuaſion of a good conſcience, founded on the word of God, is ſin. It is a ſin for mens conſcience to err in dictating any thing not per⯑fectly agreeable to the law of God.—How abſurd to pretend, that this fin can render another ſin duty, or a duty ſinful in itſelf! [5] If mens conſcience, in itſelf, or in its directing, perſuading or inſtigating influence be ſuſtained, as the immediate rule of their conduct, without reſpect to the word of God, then either their conſcience muſt be inſallible in its dictates, [41] which it certainly is not, in either ſaints or ſinners, in this world, Rom. vii. 14, 23. Prov. xxviii. 26. Jer. xvii 9. Rom. viii. 7, 8. Tit. i. 15. or, if it be fallible, God muſt have eſtabliſhed for men a fallible and de⯑ceitful rule of truth and holineſs,—and ſo be the author of confuſion in religion, ſince different conſciences dictate different things in it.—To make mens con⯑ſcience their rule in religion, would make God the au⯑thor and commander of wickedneſs,—by conſcience, requiring the tranſgreſſion of his own law.—It would make him not only acquit from criminality, but ap⯑prove as duty, the moſt damnable errors, horrid blaſphe⯑mies, deteſtable abominations, and cruel barbarities, if but dictated by the conſciences of Heathens, Maho⯑tans, Papiſts, &c. in their religion.—It would make him the author of mens ruin, if it were procured by a way which ſeemed right in their own eyes, Prov. xvi. 25.—It would render it abſolutely impoſſible to convince men of the ſinfulneſs of any thing they had done according to the dictates of their conſcience, be it ever ſo contrary to the law of God. It would ren⯑der it improper for men to repent of or mourn over any blaſphemy, murder of ſaints, or the like, which their deluded conſcience had dictated to them, or to aſk, receive, or praiſe God for the pardoning of it, contrary to 1 Tim. i. 13,—16. with Acts xxvi. 9,—11. Gal. i. 13, 14. Phil. iii. 6. It would open a wide gap for mens doing whatever they pleaſed, without being chargeable by, at leaſt any man, for it—If men ſhould be executed for the moſt horrid blaſphemy, or abo⯑minable idolatry, high treaſon, or any other deed dic⯑tated by their conſcience, they would die martyrs for righteouſneſs ſake.—And men ought to believe what⯑ever their conſcience dictated to them concerning their ſtate, experience or duty, however contrary to the teſtimony of God, contained in his word,—contrary to Pſalm iii. 22. & xvi 11. xlii. 5, 11. Rev. iii. 17. [6.] To pretend that the law of God, not in itſelf, but as underſtood by mens conſcience, is their rule, is abſurd. It, in the Popiſh manner, repreſents the law of God as deſtitute of ſenſe and authority in itſelf, and as deriving it from a creature. It, in the Quake⯑riſh manner, makes the light within the rule of mens [42] conduct. It exalts every man to an equality with, or rather ſuperiority above God, having power to give regulating ſenſe and authority to his word, ac⯑cording as an erroneous and defiled conſcience pleaſ⯑eth. It aboliſheth every real ſtandard of religion, eve⯑ry man's particular apprehenſions of the meaning of God's word being his binding rule. The ſame word of God becomes the ſtandard of Calviniſm, Popery, Socinianiſm, &c. as different men underſtand it. It ſaps the foundation of all mutual truſt and confidence among men; and opens a wide inlet for all manner of villany and diſſimulation. According to it, mens pro⯑miſes, oaths, vows, and covenants,—their ſworn and ſubſcribed Creeds, Articles, Confeſſions, Formulas, &c. bind them, not according to the common mean⯑ing of the words,—but according to the meaning which their conſcience, however ſeared, biaſſed, or deluded, puts upon them. In fine, it plunges men into the depths of Atheiſm, according to which every man be⯑lieves and acts what is right in his own eyes. [7] If mens private judgment of their own acts hindered the magiſtrates ſupreme political judgment, no laws could be made in matters of religion or any thing elſe; as ſome would be readily of a different mind, even in the fundamentals of religion and virtue.—While ſome believed that Chriſt was not true God or true man, or that idols might be worſhipped, others would believe that oaths might be lawfully violated, heretical princes aſſaſſinated, or women and goods uſed in com⯑mon. [8.] If other mens private judgment be allow⯑ed to be their ſupreme rule and reaſon of conduct, it will neceſſarily follow, that magiſtrates private judg⯑ment muſt be the rule of their conduct; and that they ought to make and execute ſuch laws as they believe in their own heart to be proper, be they as ar⯑bitrary and tyrannical as they will. [9.] It is not with mens conſcience, and its judgment in religion, any more than in matters of common honeſty, that ma⯑giſtratical authority intermeddles, but with their ex⯑ternal words and deeds. It only reſtrains and puniſh⯑eth ſuch of thoſe as are manifeſtly contrary to the laws of God and the land, and as they are hurtful to the com⯑monwealth, [43] and the public honour of God as King of na⯑tions. [10.] If all proper means of conviction be uſ⯑ed with men who obſtinately perſiſt in groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry without effect; their miſtake doth not ariſe from a conſcience regulating duty, but from one ſtiffened againſt duty. And it is perhaps ſometimes as difficult to convince a hardened thief, robber, or adulterer of his miſtake, as it is to convince a hardened heretic. Men are puniſhable, not for what their conſcience, as the deputy of God, dictates, but for what they would not have done, if they had any proper conſcience of duty. [11.] If men ſloth⯑fully and eſpecially wilfully refuſe to uſe the means of ealightening their conſcience by the word of God, they but add to their crimes both before God and men, by pretending conſcience. [12.] Mens conſcience being as much a director in their conduct towards men, as in their conduct towards God, its influence muſt have as much force to keep them from accountableneſs [...] men, for their theft, murder, calumny, as for their groſs hereſy, blaſphemy and idolatry.

OBJECT. III. ‘"To allow magiſtrates ſuch power of judging, and of making and executing laws about religious matters, is to render Chriſtians the ſervants of men, contrary to 1 Cor. vii. 23."’ ANSW. (1,) If ſo, Chriſt himſelf rendered his redeemed favourites ſervants of men under the Old Teſtament. (2) If ſo, church rulers being men, as well as magiſtrates, their reſtraints and cenſures, appointed by Chriſt himſelf, muſt as much render Chriſtians ſervants of men,—Nay to comply with the religious orders of families, would make them ſervants of men. (3.) Servilely to comply with the vain fancies, humours, ſinful luſts or laws of men, particularly in religion, is to be the ſer⯑vants of men in the ſenſe of this text: but to comply with ſcriptural reſtraints, cenſures, or puniſhments of wickedneſs, is to act as ſervants of Chriſt, and his Father and Spirit.

OBJECT. IV. ‘"To reſtrain men from what they think right in religion, and eſpecially to puniſh them for it, is contrary to that Chriſtian charity, which ſuffereth long, and is kind,—envieth not,—thinketh no e⯑vil, beareth all things, believeth all things, and hopeth all things, 1 Cor. xlii. 4,—7. contrary to that meek⯑neſs, [44] mercy and peaceableneſs exemplified in Chriſt, and required in Chriſtians, Rom. xv. 1. Gal. vi. 1, 2. Eph. iv 32. 2 Tim. ii. 15. James iii. 15."’ ANSW. Chriſtian charity rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoic⯑eth in the truth. It requires that nothing ſhould be done out of malice or envy, or raſhly on bare ſurmi⯑ſes, or without due examination of facts and circum⯑ſtances, but not that rulers, either of church or ſtate, ſhould overlook every ſcandal or crime contrary to the law of God. Even the undue delay of cenſure or puniſhment encourageth men in wickedneſs, much more would the total overlooking of it, Eccl. viii. 11. (2.) The texts quoted in the objection, are directed to Chriſtians and church-rulers. Is therefore all their holy zeal and activity in reſtraining and cenſuring the corrupters of the church, according to Chriſt's com⯑mand, Rev. ii Rom. xvi. 17. Gal. v. 10. Tit. iii. 10. 1 Tim i. 20—contrary to Chriſtian charity, meekneſs, or mercifulneſs? Had Moſes quite abandoned his un⯑paralelled meekneſs, when he ſo zealouſly puniſhed the Hebrew idolaters, Num. xxxii. 3. with Exod. xxxii. 26,—29? Was Jeſus Chriſt deſtitute of all meekneſs and mercy, when he appointed the reſtraints and pe⯑nalties under the old Teſtament; and at leaſt the tre⯑menduous cenſure of excommunication under the new? Was he deſtitute of all charity, meekneſs and mercy, in never giving us a hint that theſe laws are now repealed, as having been cruel and tyrannical? Was he deſti⯑tute of all charity, meekneſs and mercy, when the zeal of his Father's houſe did eat him up,—when he repea⯑tedly drove the buyers and ſellers from the temple, John ii. 13,—19. Mat. xxi. 12.

OBJECT. V. ‘"Even under the law, Moſes tole⯑rated mens divorcing of their wives for ſlight cauſes: Much more doth the goſpel diſpenſation call for liber⯑ty to men."’ ANSW. It is blaſphemous to pretend, that the goſpel-diſpenſation allows any more liberty to fin, than the legal did. Muſt the grace of God be turned into laſciviouſneſs? Jude, ver. 4. Gal. v. 13. (2.) To prevent worſe conſequences, Moſes directed a deliberate and ſolemn manner of divorce, which ten⯑ded to render divorces leſs frequent or irregular, but never warranted divorce for ſlight cauſes. (3.) Per⯑haps [45] you cannot prove, that the perpetual continu⯑ance of marriage relation flows as neceſſarily from the nature of God, as groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, and ido⯑latry are contrary to it; God therefore might ſovereign⯑ly diſpenſe with the one, though not with the other. (4.) This objection is rather calculated to prove that magiſtrates ſhould licenſe or tolerate murder, adul⯑tery, theft, and other ſins againſt the ſecond table of the moral law, than that they ſhould tolerate hereſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry, which pertain to the firſt table.

OBJECT. VI. ‘"Gamaliel's counſel, ‘"Refrain from theſe men, and let them alone; for if this work be of men it will come to nought, but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it,"’ was certainly prudent; and Gallio's conduct, who cared for no diſputes relative to religion, Acts v. 38, 39. & xviii. 15, 17."’ ANSW. (1.) Prove that Gamaliel's ſpeech was inſpired as a rule to us, in all religious diſputes, or that magiſtrates or others ought to be mere ſcep⯑tics in religion. (2.) That which Gamaliel pled to be let alone, was evidently good, calculated to pro⯑mote the welfare of both church and ſtate; and ſo ought to have had the utmoſt encouragement from him and his fellow rulers. (3) Prove, if you can, that the Holy Ghoſt approves Gallio's careleſſneſs; or that magiſtrates like him ought to allow parties at the bar to beat one another.

OBJECT. VII ‘"Under the goſpel it is promiſed, That men ſhould beat their ſwords into plow-ſhares, and their ſpears into pruning hooks; and that there ſhould be none to hurt or deſtroy in God's holy moun⯑tain, Iſa. ii. 4. Micah iv. 3."’ ANSW. (1.) Theſe texts import, that quarrelſome diſpoſitions, and inju⯑rious ſlaughter of men ſhould be remarkably reſtrain⯑ed, by the goſpel; but not that magiſtrates ſhould no more bear the ſword, or be terrors to, and puniſhers of evil doers, Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14;—they no more import, that magiſtrates ſhould not reſtrain or ſeaſonably or ſuitably puniſh blaſphemy and idola⯑try, than that they ſhould not reſtrain theft or mur⯑der. (2) The reſtraint or puniſhment we plead for, being God's inſtitution, cannot hurt, but profit men, [46] making many fear, and avoid ſuch horrible wicked⯑neſs. Deut. xvii. 10; nay, ſometimes do much good to the reſtrained and puniſhed perſons, Zech. xiii. 6. (3.) If heretics, blaſphemers and idolaters be as miſ⯑chievous perſons, as above deſcribed from the oracles of God, the reſtraint of them is a neceſſary mean to ſecure the peace of nations and churches. If ſuch ſcorners be caſt out, contention, ſtrife and reproach are repreſſed, Prov. xxii. 10.

OBJECT. VIII. ‘"Our Saviour commands his ſer⯑vants to let the tares grow with the wheat, Mat. xiii. 29, 30."’ ANSW. He rather repreſents, that till the laſt judgment the righteous ſhould never be fully ſepa⯑rated from the wicked. (2.) If it were a command, it is given to church rulers rather than to magiſtrates, and ſo might, with more apparent propriety, be pled in favours of eccleſiaſtical toleration of heretics, ido⯑laters, blaſphemers. (3) If theſe tares mean only hypocrites, who have a viſible appearance of holineſs or innocency, we plead, that neither magiſtrates nor miniſters ought to attempt plucking them up. If they mean all the children of the devil, as ver. 38. your ob⯑jection ought honeſtly to plead, that no crimes of theft, murder, &c. manifeſting them to be ſuch, ought to be reſtrained or puniſhed.

OBJECT. IX. ‘"By rebuking his diſciples, who would have commanded fire from heaven to conſume thoſe Samaritans who refuſed him lodging in his way to Jeruſalem; and by his declaring, That he came not to deſtroy mens lives, but to ſave them, Luke ix. 51,—56. our benevolent Saviour plainly intimated, That under the goſpel, magiſtrates ought to lay no reſtraint on hereſy, blaſphemy or idolatry."’ ANSW. (1.) As theſe Samaritans did not live under magiſtrates or laws, which eſtabliſhed the true religion, it is not pled, that even their groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, or ido⯑latry, however notorious and obſtinate, could have been regularly puniſhable by men. (2) They were in this matter guilty of no hereſy, blaſphemy or idolatry,—or of attempting to ſeduce or diſturb Chriſt or his diſ⯑ciples,—but merely of not giving lodging to a mean⯑like Jew, of whoſe Meſſiahſhip they had but little, if any information or proof. (3.) Though the Samari⯑tans [47] had been guilty of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy and ido⯑latry, publicly and obſtinately profeſſed and practiſed, contrary to the civil laws of the country, and been re⯑gularly puniſhable,—Chriſt's diſciples being no ma⯑giſtrates in that place, had no right to call them to ac⯑count. (4.) The diſciples never ſought to have the contempt ſhown to themſelves and their Maſter pu⯑niſhed by the civil law, but by the miraculous vengeance of God. Without any warrant from God, and to gra⯑tify their own proud, paſſionate, and revengeful tem⯑per, they would have required him to work a miracle for the deſtruction of theſe poor ignorant Samaritans.—So, if you will drag in this text, it ought to be to prove, That neither God nor miniſters ought to reſtrain heretics, blaſphemers, or idolaters. (5.) While Chriſt was in his debaſed ſtate, obeying and ſuffering for the ſalvation of mankind, it would have been extremely improper for God, viſibly to puniſh every ſlight put upon him. But his coming to ſave men with an everlaſting ſalvation, can no more infer, that he came to protect criminals from juſt puniſh⯑ment by men, than that he came to ſave obſtinate un⯑believers from hell. He came to ſave mens lives, by ſaving them from their ſins, not by protecting and warranting them in a public and obſtinate commiſſion of them. There is no hint in ſcripture, that he, who was manifeſted to deſtroy the works of the devil, came to procure men a liberty of conſcience, or a ma⯑giſtratical licence or protection in public and groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry, more than in theft, murder, adultery. It would be highly blaſphemous to ſuppoſe it.

OBJECT. X. ‘"Chriſt requires us not to judge others,—to judge nothing before the time. Mat. vii. 1. 1 Cor. iv. 5. We ought to believe our own opi⯑nions in religion to be as probably erroneous, as thoſe of our opponents; and if they do not acknowledge themſelves heretics, blaſphemers, or idolaters, we ought never to hold them ſuch, or plead for their being reſtrai⯑ned as ſuch."’ ANSW. (1.) We muſt never raſhly or uncharitably judge others, or judge their hearts and intentions, which God alone knoweth. But that will no more infer, that magiſtrates ought to give no judg⯑ment [48] about religious matters, than that magiſtrates and miniſters ſhould judge of nothing at all reſpecting either God or men, but encourage every perſon to live as his inclinations direct him. (2.) Is there in⯑deed no certainty in religion? If men ought to be complete Sceptics in it; why not as well downright ath⯑eiſts? (3) If mens own acknowlegments be ſuſtained as the ſtandard of our judgment concerning them, what rare work muſt enſue! None ought to be held blaſphemers, heretics, or idolaters, till they have be⯑come penitent convicts. None ought to be held thieves murderers, calumniators, &c. till they acknowledge themſelves ſuch. All impenitent criminals muſt thus eſcape every degree of infamy, reſtraint or puniſhment.

OBJECT. XI. ‘"Men ought to be perſuaded, not forced into faith and holineſs. It is in vain to attempt rooting out corruptions, eſpecially in religion, out of mens outward behaviour unleſs they be firſt rooted out of their hearts."’ ANSW. (1.) It re⯑quires no ſmall ſhare of ignorance, impudence and fraud, to inſinuate that the many thouſands of Pro⯑teſtant advocates for the magiſtrates power to reſtrain groſs hereſy, blaſphemy or idolatry, plead for the FOR⯑CING of men to faith and holineſs, when they ſo har⯑moniouſly plead for the contrary. (2) None ought to be forced into the faith and profeſſion of the true religion, as hath been repeatedly declared, but all proper methods taken to render their compliance ju⯑dicious and voluntary. Yet that will not infer, that no man ought to be reſtrained from, or even ſuitably and ſeaſonably puniſhed for, open and groſs hereſy, blaſphemy or idolatry, which, while they publicly op⯑poſe, inſult, and undermine the true religion,—pro⯑duce terrible immoralities and diſorders in churches and nations, and draw upon them the ruinous ven⯑geance of God;—and far leſs will it infer, that ma⯑giſtrates, as vicegerents of God, ought, in his name and authority, to licenſe a falſe religion, and promiſe men protection and encouragement in it No magiſ⯑trate hath power to force me to eſteem, love, delight in, ſympathize with, maintain, or even commend my neighbour. But he hath power to refuſe me a warrant to calumniate, rob or murder him, and even [49] to reſtrain or puniſh me for ſo doing. It would be abſurd to attempt forcing of the Britiſh Jacobites, to believe and ſolemnly profeſs, that K. George, not the Pretender is rightful Sovereign of this kingdom. But would it therefore be abſurd, to reſtrain and puniſh them for publicly and inſolently reviling him as an u⯑ſurper,—or ſeducing their fellow ſubjects to dethrone him,—or for taking arms againſt him, or paying his juſt revenues to the Pretender? (3) It is certain, that Chriſt, who hath power over the hearts of all men, curbed the external corruptions of the Jewiſh buyers and ſellers in the temple, without firſt caſting the corruptions out of their heart. And pray would you have all thieves, robbers, murderers, &c. to have full liberty in their courſes, till their wickedneſs can be got rooted out of their heart?

OBJECT. XII. ‘"Such is the reaſonableneſs and the glory of divine truths, that if they be but freely, clearly and diſtinctly preached, their native luſire will render them victorious over every error and corrup⯑tion in religion, however boldly publiſhed, or craftily varniſhed. What a ſingular advantage hath it been to Britain, that Deiſts have had full freedom to make their attacks upon the Chriſtian religion, and ſo to occaſion ſo many glorious defences of it?"’ ANSW. (1.) Did not God under the Old Teſtament, know the conquering power of his truth as well as you do? Did not Chriſt know it when he drove the buyers and ſellers from the temple. (2) Did the inexpreſſibly amiable and edifying conduct of Jeſus Chriſt, the way, the truth and the life, render him the univerſal, the fixed DARLING of the Jewiſh nation, among whom he went about doing good? You dare not pretend it. And yet it is certain that examples do more affect than inſtructions. (3) You muſt not only, with Pelagi⯑ans, deny original ſin, but effectually diſprove it, be⯑fore your objection can have any ſenſe in it.—While men are ſo blinded by Satan and their own luſts, and ſo full of enmity againſt God, they cannot but be much more diſpoſed to receive and practiſe error, than to diſcern, embrace, and practiſe goſpel-truths, however clearly and faithfully preached, 1 Cor. ii. 14. Rom. viii. 7, 8. 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. Iſa. liii. 1. vi. 9, 10. (4.) [50] The common experience of every one, who attempt [...] to inſtruct children and ſervants in the truths of God, even when they are young, and their minds moſt un⯑biaſſed, irrefragably demonſtrates, that almoſt any thing is more readily embraced than the plain truths of the goſpel; and that earneſt prayers, ſerious admo⯑nitions, external encouragements, and Chriſtian nur⯑ture, have all enough, and too often more than e⯑nough of work, to make men learn them. (5.) If pro⯑feſſed Chriſtians, by encouraging others in groſs error and wickedneſs, provoke God to give up themſelves to ſtrong deluſions, that they may believe lies, will the native luſtre of divine truths then enlighten and cap⯑tivate them? Far,—very far from it, 2 Theſſ. ii. 10,—12. 2 Tim. iii. 13. iv. 3, 4. (6) If we do evil in licenſing, encouraging, or protecting the free propa⯑gation of groſs errors, that good reputation may be thereby occaſioned, our damnation is juſt, Romans iii. 8. (7.) Few of thoſe boaſted glorious deſenders of Chriſtianity are real and thorough friends to the goſpel of Chriſt, but often proceed upon the Arminian, and ſometimes the Socinian ſcheme, the laſt of which is as bad, if not worſe, than Heatheniſm itſelf.—And, it is certain, that TENS, if not HUNDREDS, have been ſeduced by deiſtical publications, for every ONE, that has been been converted from Deiſm by almoſt all theſe defences of the Chriſtian religion.

OBJECT. XIII. ‘"Chriſt hath appointed for his church, rulers of her own, who govern her in every duty of religion."’ ANSW. (1.) This can no more prove, that magiſtrates ought to make and execute no laws reſpecting the duties required by the firſt table of the moral law, than it will prove that they ought to make no laws reſpecting duties of the ſecond table,—ſince church-rulers are as much authorized by God to govern, in the one as in the other. Let magiſtrates and church-rulers be allowed to govern their diſtinct departments in their different manner, in the very ſame things, and nothing but harmony, order and advantage will enſue. (2.) Magiſtrates as well as church rulers, are divinely denominated, Rulers, Watchmen, Shepherds,—and therefore ought politically to direct, govern and feed their ſubjects as members [51] of the commonwealth, by making and executing wholſome laws relative to both tables of God's law;—while miniſters eccleſiaſtically feed them, as members of the viſible church, by preaching the goſpel, admini⯑ſtring the ſacraments, and exerciſing church govern⯑ment and diſcipline, 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 4. Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 2 Chron. xiii. 10, 11. & xvii. xix. Neh. xiii. 10,—17, Ezek. xxxiv. 9, 10.

OBJECT. XIV. ‘"The church hath ſufficient power in herſelf to obtain every end neceſſary to her own wel⯑fare. That cannot be an ordinance of Jeſus Chriſt, which needs any foreign aſſiſtance to gain its proper end."’ ANSW. (1.) The church hath as ſufficient power to gain her ends, with reſpect to the duties of the ſ [...]cond table, as to gain her ends in what reſpects the firſt table. Will it therefore follow, that magiſ⯑trates ought to make no laws reſpecting murder, un⯑chaſtity, theft, calumny, &c? (2.) Public tranſgreſ⯑ſions of the firſt table of the moral law injure the ſtate, as well as they do the church. The ſtate, which alſo hath a power in itſelf ſufficient to gain all its ends, ne⯑ceſſary to promote its own welfare, ought therefore to reſtrain or puniſh ſuch tranſgreſſions as crimes inju⯑rious to itſelf, while the church reſtrains and cenſures them as ſcandals defiling and hurtful to herſelf. (3.) If ſoundneſs in the faith, purity in worſhip, holineſs in practice, and beautiful order in the church, be an excellent mean of promoting the happineſs of that na⯑tion, where the church hath her reſidence, magiſ⯑trates ought to promote thoſe things, out of a regard to the proſperity of their ſtate, in ſubordination to the honour of God. (4.) However complete the in⯑trinſic power of the church be, it is manifeſt, that it can be exerciſed to more advantage, if parents, maſ⯑ters, and magiſtrates regularly exert their power in promoting the true religion, in their different departments.—It is no leſs certain, that after the church hath done her utmoſt, by conference, in⯑junction and cenſure, ſome turbulent heretics or blaſ⯑phemers may do as much, if not more, hurt to her than before, unleſs magiſtrates reſtrain or puniſh them.

[52]OBJECT. XV. ‘"For almoſt three hundred years after Chriſt, the truths of the goſpel gloriouſly pre⯑vailed againſt errors and corruptions, without any care of magiſtrates to reſtrain or puniſh the errone⯑ous."’ ANSW. (1.) It was proper, that the Chriſtian religion ſhould be ſpread in the world, not only with⯑out the countenance of the civil magiſtrate, but alſo in oppoſition to his ſevere laws and bloody perſecuti⯑ons, that it might the more abundantly appear to be of God. (2.) In that period, it prevailed notwith⯑ſtanding the moſt furious oppoſition, and the cruel perſecution and murder of millions of its adherents, as well as without magiſtratical aſſiſtance. Will you therefore plead, that peace and freedom in preaching the goſpel ought to be hated and avoided, and furi⯑ous perſecution coveted and prayed for? (3) In that period, the miraculous powers, which atteſted the doctrines of Chriſt did more than balance the want of magiſtratical helpfulneſs to the truth, Heb. ii 4.—(4.) In that period, the hardſhips to which Chriſtians were expoſed, deterred ſuch naughty perſons from entering the church, as might have plagued her with their blaſphemies and hereſies. (5) And neverthe⯑leſs, even then blaſphemers and heretics did no ſmall hurt to the church. (6) If God had not reckoned the magiſtratical countenance a real bleſſing to his church, he had never promiſed it, as in the texts a⯑bove quoted.

OBJECT. XVI. ‘"It is horrid cruelty and unchriſ⯑tian perſecution to reſtrain or puniſh men for believ⯑ing, teaching, and worſhipping, according to the dictates of their own conſcience, as charity obligeth us to believe is the caſe with heretics, blaſphemers and idolaters.—It is altogether diabolical, the very worſt part of Popery, and that which peculiarly ſupports the whole Antichriſtian ſcheme.—Men ought to follow the dictates even of an erring conſcience."’ ANSW. (1.) Where is your proof, from either ſcripture or rea⯑ſon, that an erring conſcience binds men to believe, teach or practiſe, groſs hereſy, blaſphemy or idolatry, any more than their promiſes or vows to do evil, bind to performance?—or than it can bind them to theft, murder, adultery, calumny, or the like?—If we [53] have an erring conſcience, our immediate duty is to get rid of that error, by the illumination of God's word, as being ſinful in itſelf, eſpecially if procured through ſloth or wickedneſs; it will hinder our right performance of duty, but can never make fin lawful. If, Sir, you can believe, that an erring conſcience, can outdo the almighty power of God, in making he⯑reſy, blaſphemy, or idolatry innocent things, you may quickly believe, that a Romiſt prieſt can outdo his Maker, in making a God, and then eating him, in the myſtery of tranſubſtantiation. (2.) Even when conſcience is perfectly clear, pure and unbiaſſed, it is wholly ſubordinated and ſubjected to the authority of God's law.—How can the entrance of ſinful error into it, exalt it above his law, and make ſuch a God of it, as can ſtamp its wicked dictates into incontroulable laws, in oppoſition to the mandates of Jehovah him⯑ſelf.—This will not only prove, that Adam and Eve became Gods by the entrance of fin, but go far to juſtify Popes and devils in the whole of their conduct. (3.) If the devil, who deceiveth the world, get into mens conſcience by his ſtrong deluſions, hath God allotted him that as a quiet city of refuge, from which no means ought to be uſed to diſlodge him, and from which he may uſe the whole man unreſtrained in his ſervice,—in ſacrificing children to Moloch, murder⯑ing ſaints, blaſpheming God, &c.? (4.) Where is your proof, that I ought to believe, that the man, who hath acceſs to the Bible, acts according to the dictates of his conſcience in groſs hereſy, blaſphemy or idola⯑try, any more than that he acts according to them, in murder, treaſon, theft, unchaſtity, &c.? Men have laboured and ſuffered as much, in courſes of the latter kind, as in thoſe of the former, and died as im⯑penitently at laſt. (5.) If pretence of conſcience, and more than pretence in favours of ſin we can never be certain of, be a ſufficient ground for magiſtrates licenſing, encouraging and protecting men in contra⯑dicting and blaſpheming God, or robbing him of his worſhip, to beſtow it on devils,—or in robbing his church of his oracles or ordinances,—in murdering the ſouls of men, and ſowing the ſeeds of confuſion and every evil work,—Why ought it not to warrant [54] their licenſing, encouraging and protecting them in high treaſon, calumny, theft, robbery, murder?—It is hoped, you, who are ſo generous in allowing men, if they can but pretend conſcience for it, to a⯑buſed and rob Jehovah, will be as ready to allow them equal freedom, if they can but pretend conſcience, in abuſing and injuring yourſelf. If God's giving up men to ſtrong deluſions, that they may believe lies warrant magiſtrates to encourage or protect them, in ſpreading groſs hereſy, or in open blaſphemy and idolatry, Why ought not his giving them up to vile affections,—to their own hearts luſts, equally to warrant their encou⯑raging and protecting of them in open whoredom, be⯑ſtiality, inceſt, robbery, &c.? Men can as little con⯑quer their luſts and cleanſe their hearts, as they can rectify the errors of their conſcience. (6.) It is infal⯑libly certain, that God himſelf, under the Old Teſ⯑tament appointed magiſtrates to reſtrain and puniſh men for blaſphemy and idolatry, let their conſcience dictate them as ſtrongly as it pleaſed.—Had men in theſe early ages no conſcience to govern them? Or did God then, like the old faſhioned Proteſtants, not underſtand human liberty and the rights of mens con⯑ſcience?—Did he indeed then ſo far miſtake his way, as to appoint what is ſo cruel and diabolical; what is the very worſt part of Popery, and the principal ſupport of that abominable ſyſtem? Or hath God, or the na⯑ture of ſin, cruelty and tyranny, been changed? How ſhocking the thought!

OBJECT. XVII. ‘"As mens natural and civil rights nowiſe depend upon their being orthodox Chriſtians, magiſtrates ought to protect them in theſe privileges, be their opinions and worſhip what they will; nay, to give them legal ſecurity for their protection of them, in theſe opinions and worſhip, that they may not be expoſed to the caprices of particular magiſtrates."’ ANSW. [1.] The Chriſtian liberty, which Chriſt pur⯑chaſed, is not a liberty to commit ſin, but a ſpiritual freedom from it, Gal. v. 1, 13 Luke i. 74, 75. Heb. xii. 28, 29. Chriſt came not to ſave mens lives from reſtraint or puniſhment required by his own law, in order that they, by ſpreading groſs hereſy, blaſphe⯑my, [55] and idolatry, might ruin nations and damn mens ſouls. [2.] You might have forborne to demand le⯑gal or authoritative licenſes for men to blaſpheme God, worſhip devils in his ſtead, &c. till you had proven Satan to be the abſolute proprietor and governor of this world, and the primary granter of all civil and natural rights to men;—or proven, that God, who is infinitely holy, juſt and good, hath, or can, give men natural or civil rights protecting them in public blaſ⯑phemy, idolatry, or the like, any more than rights protecting them in inceſt, robbery, murder; or that magiſtrates, as his miniſters, ought, in his name and authority, to grant men ſuch rights. [3.] If God hath ſo frequently turned men out of their civil property and life for their idolatry and blaſphemy, Iſa. x, xiv, xxxvii, xlvi, xlvii. Jer. xlviii, li. Ezek. xxxv—how abſurd to require magiſtrates, who are his miniſters for good to men, to execute their office, which is his ordinance, Rom, xiii. 1,—6. in encouraging and pro⯑tecting men, in openly and inſolently contradicting, blaſpheming, rebelling againſt, and robbing him?—Ought the Sheriff and Juſtices of peace in Britain, as the king's miniſters for good to the nation, to have exe⯑cuted their office in protecting the arch-rebels in 1715, and 1745, in the undiſturbed enjoyment of all their civil rights, or to have given them new legal ſecurities, in order to enable them, more boldly and ſucceſsfully to carry on their treacherous and murde⯑rous rebellion againſt his Majeſty? Or ought they, by proclamation, to warrant all the ſubjects in their re⯑ſpective counties to revile, rob, and take arms againſt our king and parliament, and promiſe them protecti⯑on in ſo doing, but always prohibiting them to injure their fellow ſubjects?

OBJECT. XVIII. ‘"Magiſtrates ought not to rule their ſubjects by the Bible, but by the civil laws of the nation, according to which they are admitted to their power, by their ſubjects, from whom all their power originates"’ ANSW. [1.] That magiſtrates power o⯑riginates from their ſubjects is a notion plainly atheiſti⯑cal. It originates in God himſelf, Rom. xiii. 1, 2. Rom. xi. 36. Pſalm lxxv. 7. Dan. ii. 21. [2.] If ma⯑giſtrates muſt regulate their government by no other [56] law than that which they or their ſubjects have eſta⯑bliſhed for themſelves or one another; they muſt act as atheiſts independent of God, in the execution of an office wholly derived from him, and for every act of which they muſt be accountable to him. If the uſe⯑ful laws of one nation, may be adopted into the civil law of another, Why may not the will of God, the ſupreme governor of nations, declared in his laws of nature and revelation, be alſo adopted into it? Are God's laws more diſhonourable or dangerous,—more unfit to be adopted into our civil law, than thoſe of our ſinful neighbours? Is the Scotch law the worſe, that many of God's ſtatutes, preſcribed in his word, have been adopted into it,—nay, that all the leading doctrines of Chriſtianity contained in our two Confeſ⯑ſions of Faith and Catechiſms have been adopted into it, and the Confeſſions themſelves expreſly ingroſſed into acts of Parliament?—Indeed, if nations adopt no⯑thing of the manifeſted will of God, into their civil law, it will contain nothing but uſeleſs trifles. Will theſe be fit for directing the adminiſtrations of mini⯑ſters of God for good to men, or for ſecuring, and pro⯑moting the important welfare of any nation under heaven? (3.) If all civil authority to make laws, re⯑ſident, either in ſubjects or magiſtrates, be neceſſarily derived from God, as Former and King of nations;—If magiſtrates be ordained of God, to be miniſters of God for good to men, to be for terror and puniſhment, and revengers of evil doers, and a praiſe of them that [...] well, and to be obeyed for conſcience ſake,—for the Lord's ſake, Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. Common ſenſe loudly demands, That neither their will nor that of their ſubjects, but the manifeſted will of God, their independent and infinitely high ſuperior, ſhould be the ſupreme rule and ſtandard of all their adminiſtrati⯑ons; and that no civil law ſhould or can bind either magiſtrates or their ſubjects, but in ſo far as it is agree⯑able and ſubordinated to the laws of God.

OBJECT. XIX ‘"Magiſtracy being an office, not founded in revelation, but in the law of nature, the whole execution of it ought to be regulated by that law of nature, not by the will of God revealed in ſcripture."’ ANSW. (1.) I thank you for ſo quickly [57] overturning your preceding objection, and adopting the divine law of nature, inſtead of your civil law, as the ſupreme ſtandard of magiſtratical adminiſtration. (2.) According to your objection, parents, maſters, children and ſervants, muſt regulate their performance of relative duties, merely by the law of nature, with⯑out taking the ſmalleſt aſſiſtance from the directions of the Holy Ghoſt in ſcripture. No parents or maſ⯑ters muſt inſtruct their children or ſervants in the knowledge of the doctrines, promiſes, laws, worſhip, or virtue required in the Bible, as theſe relations de⯑pend no more on Revelation than magiſtracy doth. I de⯑fy you to prove they do. In performing the duty of our natural or civil relations, we muſt act as mere de⯑iſts, ignorant of, or pouring contempt on the inſpired oracles of the Great GOD, our Saviour.—What hurt have the laws of revelation done to ſuch relative duties, that they muſt be thus infamouſly excluded from being any part of a rule of them? (3) No man can truly obey the law of nature, without heartily em⯑bracing and chearfully improving whatever revelations God is pleaſed to beſtow on him,—as ſuch revelations proceed from the ſame divine authority as the law of nature; and muſt be a noted means of promoting true and proper obedience to it.—To exclude divine reve⯑lation, when granted, from regulating our perfor⯑mance of relative duties, muſt therefore not only a⯑mount to an heatheniſh contempt of the ſcriptures, but to an atheiſtical contempt of the law of nature, which neceſſarily requires us to adopt divine Revelation for our ſupreme rule, whenever it is graciouſly granted to us.

OBJECT. XX. ‘"Many of the above-mentioned in⯑ſtances of magiſtrates care about religion, and their re⯑ſtraint and puniſhment of idolaters, blaſphemers, and falſe prophets, related merely to the Jewiſh Theocra⯑cy which was typical, and therefore not now to be co⯑pied."’ ANSW. [1.] Many of the above-mentioned inſtances, particularly thoſe reſpecting Heathens, or contained in the promiſes to the goſpel church, have not the leaſt appearance of being typical. Nay, I de⯑fy you to prove that the inſtances of Jewiſh rulers were merely typical. [2.] Theſe typical magiſtrates of the [58] Jewiſh nation alſo exerciſed laws relative to murder, theft, unchaſtity, treaſon, and other matters of the ſecond table of the moral law. Ought therefore no magiſtrates now to do ſo? The laws reſpecting duties of the ſecond table pertained as much to the Jewiſh Theocracy, as thoſe relating to the firſt. Muſt there⯑fore the Chriſtian magiſtrate, for fear of copying the Jewiſh Theocracy, meddle with no morality at all? [3.] Muſt every thing that was once typical, be now, under the goſpel, excluded from regulating authority? Muſt all the excellent patterns of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Iſaac, Jacob, Joſeph, Job. Moſes, Aaron, Samuel, David, and other Hebrew ſaints be rejected as typical and uſeleſs?—Muſt all the laws directing to elect men, fearing God, and hating covetouſneſs, to be magiſtrates, or directing them to judge juſtly, im⯑partially and prudently, and to puniſh murderers, a⯑dulterers, thieves, robbers, &c. be diſcarded as typi⯑cal? Muſt the weekly Sabbath, public faſts and thankſ⯑givings be laid aſide as typical,—a mere ſign between God and the Iſraelites? Muſt the ten commandments, and all the explications of them in the Old Teſtament be diſcarded, as publiſhed in a typical manner, and to a typical people, and uſed as the principal part of their rule of government in the Jewiſh Theocracy? [4] As the Jewiſh church was a REAL church, and not MERELY TYPICAL, ſo their State was a REAL commonwealth or kingdom, and not MERELY TY⯑PICAL. Whatever therefore pertained to it, as a real commonwealth, is imitable in any other. [5.] The Jewiſh Church and State were as REALLY DIS⯑TINCT, as the Church and State are now; though I do not ſay preciſely in the ſame manner. (1.) They differed in reſpect of REGULATING LAWS. The ceremonial law directed the Jewiſh church. The ju⯑dicial directed the affairs of their ſtate. (2.) They differed in their reſpective ACTS. The Jews worſhip⯑ped God, offered ſacrifices, and received ſacraments, not as members of that ſtate, but as members of that church. They puniſhed evil doers by fines, im⯑priſonment, baniſhment, burning, ſtoning, and hang⯑ing; and fought with enemies, &c. not as a church, [59] but as a ſtate. (3.) They differed in reſpect of CON⯑TROVERSIES. To the church pertained the matters of the Lord, and a judging of leproſies, and between ſtatutes and judgments. To the ſtate belonged the matters of the king, and to judge between blood and blood, 2 Chron. xix. 10, 11. Deut. xvii. 8. (4) They differed in reſpect of OFFICERS. The prieſts were the only ſtated officers in the church, and pro⯑phets a kind of occaſional ones. Elders, Judges and Kings were governors in the State. The prieſts might not take the civil ſword out of the hand of the ma⯑giſtrates; nor the magiſtrates offer ſacrifices, burn in⯑cenſe, or otherwiſe execute the prieſt's office. (5.) They differed in reſpect of CONTINUANCE. When the Jewiſh civil power was taken away by the Ro⯑mans, the conſtitution of their church remained, in the days of our Saviour's debaſement. And even now the Jews pretend to be a church, but not to be a ſtate. (6.) They differed in reſpect of VARIATION. The conſtitution of their church remained much the ſame under Moſes, Joſhua, the Judges, the Kings, and after the captivity. But the form of the ſtate underwent great alterations. (7.) They differed in reſpect of MEMBERS. Proſelytes of the covenant were complete members of the Jewiſh church; but had not the ſame dignities or marriages allowed them in the State, as the natural Iſraelites. Nor had the proſelytes of the gate any church privileges, though they had ſome civil ones. (8.) They were governed by different COURTS. The church had her courts of the Synagogue, and her eccleſiaſtical Sanhedrin.—The ſtate had her courts of the gate, &c. and her civil Sanhedrin;—though often ſome Levites were judges in both, as our ruling elders in the church, may, at the ſame time, be civil judges, Exod. xxiv. 1. Deut. xvii 8,—12. 1 Chron. xxxiii. 4, & xxvi. 30, 32. 2 Chron. xix 8, 10, 11. Jer. xxvi. 8,—11, 16. xviii. 18. with Deut xvii. 10, 11, 12. Ezek vii. 26 2 Kings vi. 32. Zech. vii. 1,—3. Pſal. cvii. 32. Ezek. xiii. 9. Mat. ii 4. xvi. 21. xxi. 23. xxvi. 57, 59. xxvii. 1, 12. Luke xxii. 66. Acts iv. 5. Some Jew⯑iſh Rabbins expreſly diſtinguiſh between their judges and their church elders in the ſame places. (9) They [60] differed in their CENSURE of offenders. In the church, offenders were ſuſpended from ſacred fellow⯑ſhip, by a caſting out of the Synagogue, or a cutting off from God's people or congregation. John ix. 22. & xii. 42. Exod. xii. 15, 19 Num. xix. 13, 20. Lev. xxii. 3. with Gen. iv. 14.—Lev. vii. 20, 21. with v. 2,—1 Cor. v. 6, 7, 8, 13. with Exod. xii. 15, 19. Gen. xvii. 14. with Acts iii. 23. Pſal. i. 5. Gen. xxv. 17. In the ſtate, they were caſt off by death or ontlawry. (10) Profane and ſcandalous perſons were excluded from the Jewiſh temple-ſervice and paſſover, while they retained their civil rights in the ſtate, Ezek xliv. 7, 9 Deut. xxiii. 18. Jer. vii. 9,—11. Ezek. xxiii. 38, 39. 2 Chron. xxiii. 19. with 1 Cor. v. 11. Pſal. cxviii. 19, 20. & xv, 1,—5. & xxiv. 3, 4. & l. 16,—20. E⯑zek. xxvi. 22, 26. Ezra x. 8, 16, 17. & vi. 21.^*.—[6.] There was no ſuch difference between the Jewiſh magiſtracy, eſpecially after their rejection of the Theo⯑cracy, under Samuel, 1 Sam. viii. 5, 7, 19. & xii. 12, 17, 19. and the magiſtracy in Chriſtian countries, as it is often pretended. (1.) The Jewiſh magiſtracy was an ordinance of God, Exod. xviii. Num. xi. Deut. i. xvii. & xvi. 18, 19. Magiſtracy is ſtill an ordinance of God, to be ſubmitted to for the Lord's ſake, Rom. xiii. 1,—6 1 Pet. ii. 14. (2.) Notwithſtanding God's appointment of particular perſons to be their kings, the Hebrew nation had the power of electing and ad⯑mitting them to their office, 1 Sam. x, xi, xvi. 2 Sam. ii. 4. & v. 3. 1 Chron. xii. Our magiſtrates are pow⯑ers ordained of God, Rom. xiii. 1,—6. and yet an ordi⯑nance of men, 1 Pet. ii. 13. (3.) God himſelf was the ſupreme governour of the Hebrew nation, Deut. xii 32. Hoſ. xiii. 10. God is ſtill King of nations, Moſt High, King of the whole earth, Jer. x. 7. Pſalm lxxxiii. 18. xlvii. 7. (4.) The Iſraelites were God's peculiar kingdom, 1 Sam. xii. 12. Hoſ xiii, 10. Na⯑tions which generally profeſs the Chriſtian religion, are the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Chriſt, Rev. xi. 15. (5) The Jewiſh magiſtrates were deputies and vicegerents of God the ſovereign King, 1 Chronicles [61] xxix. 23. 2 Chron. ix. 6, 7. Pſal. lxxxii. 1, 6. Ma⯑giſtrates are ſtill powers ordained of God, miniſters of God for good, to whom we muſt be ſubject for conſci⯑ence ſake,—for the Lord's ſake, Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 1 Pet. ii. 13. By Chriſt kings ſtill reign, and princes decree juſtice, even all the judges of the earth, Prov. viii. 15, 16. with Eph. i. 22. (6.) The manifeſted will of God was the proper ſtatute book of the Jewiſh civil law, Deut. xvii. The will of God manifeſted in the laws of nature and revelation, are the ſupreme ſtandard of all civil laws in the world, in which every human conſtitution ought to be founded, and by which the whole binding force of it is circumſcribed, Acts iv. 19. & v. 29. Pſal, ii. 10,—12. and hence hu⯑man laws become an ordinance of God, Rom. xiii. 2. (7.) The judicial laws of the Hebrew nation, regulat⯑ed that which pertained to their kings, judges, war⯑riors, fields, houſes, injuries, crimes, puniſhments, mortgages, marriages, &c. Exod. xxi,—xxiii. Deut. xviii, xx, Lev. xviii, xx. Num. xxxvi,—xxxviii, &c. Our civil laws regulate the ſame things. (8.) Among the Jews, notorious diſobedience to the declared will of God was held rebellion againſt him, the King of the nation, and to be condignly puniſhed, as it tended to the good of the ſtate, Heb. ii. 2. & x. 28. Noto⯑rious diſobedience to the manifeſted will of God ought to be ſtill held as rebellion againſt Him, as king of nations, and to be condignly puniſhed, as tends to the welfare of the ſtate,—magiſtrates being ſtill ſet up by God to be terrors, revengers, and puniſhers of evil doers, and bound not to bear the ſword in vain, Rom. xiii. 1,—5. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. Nor hath it been yet proven, That our magiſtrates, who have the ſcrip⯑tures, ought to pay leſs real regard to them in the ſtat⯑ing of crimes, than the Jewiſh rulers did. (9.) The Jewiſh magiſtrates were appointed to promote the wel⯑fare of the church, in order to promote the welfare of the ſtate, in ſubordination to the honour of God, the King of the nation. Magiſtrates are ſtill bound to do the ſame, as they have opportunity, Iſa. xlix. 23. & lx. 3, 10, 16 Rev. xvii. 16. & xxi. 24, 26. Rom. xiii. 1,—6. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. 1 Tim. ii. 1,—4. (10.) The Jewiſh church and ſtate, as hath been juſt [62] now proven, were really diſtinct from, and indepen⯑dent of each other, having different laws, officers, courts, privileges, penalties, &c. The chriſtian church and the civil ſtate of Chriſtians are no leſs diſtinct and indepen⯑dant of each other. (11.) Nevertheleſs, the purity of the Jewiſh church, contributed much to the welfare of their ſtate, and the right management of their ſtate to the proſperity of their church; and bad manage⯑ment in the one always tended to the hurt of the other, Deut. xxviii,—xxxii Lev. xxvi. Judges i,—xiii. 1 Sam. ii.—to 2 Chron. xxxvi Iſa. i—to Mal. iv. Iſa i. 19, 20. & iii. 10, 11. And ſtill righ⯑teouſneſs exalteth a nation, and ſin is the reproach and ruin of any people, Prov. xiv. 34. (12.) God never commanded the Jewiſh magiſtrates to force their true religion upon their Heathen neighbours, Phili⯑ſtines, Moabites, Ammonites, or Syrians, whom they conquered, or to put them to death for their idolatry. Nor hath He ever commanded magiſtrates, who have embraced the true Chriſtian religion to FORCE men by fire or ſword, or any like puniſhments, to embrace and profeſs it,—or to inſlict t [...]e ſame puniſhments u⯑pon blaſphemers or idolaters in unenlightened coun⯑tries, which they may do upon ſuch as obſtinately re⯑bel againſt and apoſtatize from the truth, amidſt plen⯑tiful means of conviction and eſtabliſhment in it. (13) Never did God, that I know of, require the Jewiſh magiſtrates to puniſh any of their ſubjects for leſſer faults, however open or manifeſt, or to puniſh them for the ſimple neglect of duties ſtrictly religious,—or to annex ſentences of outlawry and of death to eccleſiaſ⯑tical cutting off by excommunication from the church. Nor can I find, that he hath enjoined any ſuch thing upon the Chriſtian magiſtrate. (14) Among the Jews, ſome things partaking of both a civil and religi⯑ous nature, did, in theſe different reſpects, fall under the government of both Church and State. Even cir⯑cumciſion itſelf was a national badge as well as a reli⯑gious ſeal of God's covenant.—Among Chriſtians, public faſts and thankſgivings, calling of Synods, &c. do, in different reſpects, fall under the power of both church and ſtate.—Pretend therefore no more, that there is a total difference between the caſe of our ma⯑giſtrates, [63] and that of the Jewiſh, recorded in ſcrip⯑ture.

OBJECT. XXI. ‘"To allow magiſtrates a power of judging, making and executing laws, about religion, and of puniſhing men for erroneous opinions, or for diſturbing the peace and order of the church, as in cur Confeſſion of Faith and Second Book of Diſci⯑pline, altogether confounds the kingdoms of Chriſt with the kingdoms of this world, contrary to John xviii. 36."’ ANSW. Sir, Have you in an honeſt and orderly manner, renounced theſe Confeſſions of Faith, as plainly and publicly as you ſolemnly avowed, if not alſo, ſubſcribed a ſtedfaſt adherence to the Weſtmin⯑ſter one, at your ordination? Dare you, one day, call God, angels and men to witneſs, that you ſincere⯑ly avow that Confeſſion of Faith to be the Confeſſion of your Faith, and that you ſincerely believe the WHOLE DOCTRINE contained in it, to be found⯑ed on the word of God, and will conſtantly adhere to and maintain the ſame all the days of your life;—and the next, ſlight, reproach, revile and attempt to con⯑fute an important article of it^*? (2.) Have you ſuffered as much for a zealous maintenance of the intrinſic powerof the church, and of Chriſt's ſole head⯑ſhip over her as his ſpiritual kingdom, as the compi⯑lers and cordial adherers to that Confeſſion have done? If not, modeſty, as well as equity, might have reſtrai⯑ned your revilings. (3.) Suppoſe that, contrary to my judgment, I ſhould allow, that magiſtrates as ſuch have not that power relative to religious matters men⯑tioned in our Confeſſions, and ſolemnly avowed in our Covenants, yet, being Chriſtians, they are bound as ſuch to execute their civil offices in that manner which moſt effectually promotes the honour and king⯑dom of Chriſt,—even as parents or maſters, who are Chriſtians, are bound to exerciſe their power in their families, as may beſt maintain and propagate the knowledge, faith, and obedience of the goſpel. Eve⯑ry other character or office, which a Chriſtian hath, muſt be ſubordinated to his character as a Chriſtian. [64] 1 Pet. iv. 11. Col. iii. 17. Eph. v. 21,—33. vi. 1,—9. Col. iii. 18,—25. iv. 1. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, 3. Tit. ii. 1,—10. iii. 2. 1 Pet. ii. 11,—20. & iii. 1,—7. Rom. xiii. (4.) If to prevent confounding of the king⯑dom of Chriſt with the kingdoms of this world, magiſtrates who are heads of large political fami⯑lies, muſt be excluded from all that care about religion, which is allotted them in our Confeſſion of Faith, Heads of families, muſt, for the ſame reaſon, be excluded from eſtabliſhing the goſpel-worſhip of God in their houſes, and from inſtruc⯑ting their children or ſervants in the truths of di⯑vine revelation, at leaſt from requiring them to at⯑tend ſuch inſtructions and worſhip. You pretend, there is a difference; But, Sir, I inſiſt on your ſtat⯑ing it preciſely, and proving from ſcripture and rea⯑ſon, that headſhip over families is a more ſpiritual re⯑lation than headſhip over multitudes of families; or, that magiſtrates cannot without ſin, do what is ſimi⯑lar to every thing which parents and maſters, as ſuch, are commanded to do. (5.) If, to prevent confoun⯑ding of the church with the ſtate, magiſtrates muſt ex⯑erciſe no care about religion,—muſt puniſh no public⯑ly obſtinate heretic, blaſphemer, idolater, profan⯑er of the Sabbath, or reviler of the oracles and ordi⯑nances of Chriſt, as a criminal againſt the welfare of the ſtate,—Church-courts muſt cenſure, as ſcandals a⯑gainſt the welfare of the church, no theft, murder, robbery, treaſon, unlawful war, perverſion of civil judgment, or the like; as theſe pertain to the king⯑doms of this world. (6) Though the powers of ci⯑vil and eccleſiaſtical government be COORDINATE, each ſtanding on its proper baſis, and the right exer⯑ciſe of church power contributing mightily to the welfare of the ſtate,—and of civil power to the advance⯑ment of the church,—yet they are not COLLATERAL, inſeparable from, or dependent upon each other, but are altogether diſtinct from, and different, in many reſpects^*.

[65] 1. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their FOUN⯑DATION. Magiſtracy is founded on God's univerſal dominion over all nations; and hence the law of na⯑ture is the immediate ſupreme rule of its adminiſtrati⯑ons, and the ſcriptures become the rule of them only as introduced by the law of nature, requiring magiſ⯑trates as well as others to believe and obey whatever revelation, duly atteſted, God is pleaſed to grant them.—or, by magiſtrates ſubjecting their conſciences, as followers of Chriſt, to the ſcriptures as their only rule to direct them how to glorify God and enjoy him for ever. But eccleſiaſtical power is founded in the oeconomical or mediatorial headſhip of Jeſus Chriſt over his church, as his ſpiritual kingdom; and hence the immediate ſtandard for regulating the exerciſe of it, is that Revelation, which God hath given to, and by him, in his word;—and the laws of nature have a regulating force in the church by virtue of the gene⯑ral precepts of ſcripture, as 1 Cor. xiv. 26, 40. vi. 12. xvi. 14. Phil. iv. 8. Mat. vii. 12.

2. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their IM⯑MEDIATE OBJECT. Magiſtratical power immediate⯑ly relates only to things external, pertaining to the outward man. Even, when exerciſed about ſacred things, it hath that which is external for its immediate object. It removes external hindrances of ſpiritual exerciſes, and provides external opportunities and ac⯑commodations for the performance of them. If ma⯑giſtrates call a Synod, they do not properly call it as a court of Chriſt, or as miniſters of Chriſt, but as a meet⯑ing of ſubjects, whoſe joint deliberations are calculat⯑ed to promote the honour of God the King of nati⯑ons, and the happineſs of their country, by the right government of the church. If a magiſtrate command perſons to compear before a church-court to be judg⯑ed, or to bear witneſs, be commands them not as ſpiritual members of Chriſt's myſtical body, but as his own and Jehovah's ſubjects, to take their trial or at⯑teſt the truth before proper arbitrators of their cauſe, that God may be honoured, and through keeping of order in the church, the welfare of the city or nation may be advanced and conſirmed. If he puniſh inſo⯑lent contemners of the authority and cenſures of the [66] church, he puniſheth them not as ſcandalous perſons, but as criminals, inſulters of that true religion which the civil law hath eſtabliſhed, and contemners of theſe judicatories which it hath authorized, and to which themſelves have ſolemnly engaged all due ſubjection,—and thus, as treacherous diſturbers of the good or⯑der and peace of his kingdom, and tramplers on the laws of the Moſt High Sovereign of the nation.—But church-power hath that which is ſpiritual for its only proper object. It properly deals with mens conſciences and heart, and with their outward man, only in or⯑der to affect thoſe, in the way of conviction, reforma⯑tion, comfort, &c. It conſiders the perſons with whom it deals, not as mere men, or as members of a ci⯑vil ſociety, but as members of the ſpiritual and myſti⯑cal body of Chriſt, in the viſible form of it.

3. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their TORM. Though magiſtrates be the miniſters of God for good to men, their power over their ſubjects is of a LORDLY nature. They are lordly fathers, who, by making and enforcing civil laws, can compel the diſobedient.—In this view, if they eſtabliſh any thing pertaining to the church, they eſtabliſh it as a mean of honouring God their Superior, in the advancement of the welfare of the common wealth. If they puniſh faults, they con⯑ſider them as crimes, injurious to the happineſs of the ſtate, diſhonouring God its ſupreme Governor, and provoking his wrath againſt it, and they puniſh thoſe crimes only on the outward man, by fining, impriſon⯑ment, death, &c.—But church power is altogether MINISTERIAL, diſtributing to men, reproofs, admo⯑nitions, and other ordinances, according to the in⯑ſpired preſcriptions of Chriſt, Mat. xvi. 19. & xviii. 18. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Chriſt being her alone Lord, Church-rulers have no power to make any laws pro⯑perly ſo called, Iſa. xxxiii. 22 James iv. 12. In deal⯑ing with offenders, they conſider faults, even oppreſ⯑ſion, tyranny, ſinful wars and leagues, perverſion of judgment, bribery or the like in magiſtrates, who are members, not as crimes, but merely as ſcandals, deſil⯑ing and ruining mens ſouls, plaguing the church, and diſhonouring and provoking Chriſt and his Father in [67] him, againſt it. They have no compulſory power,—can puniſh no man either in his perſon or his external property, can uſe no weapons but ſuch as are ſpiritual, mighty through God; adminiſtring church cenſures, not as puniſhments, but as ſpiritual privileges, and divinely inſtituted means of bringing offenders to a thorough repentance of their ſins, to the eternal ſal⯑vation of their ſouls.—And this whole power muſt be uſed, only in the name of Jeſus Chriſt, as Head of his church, 2 Cor. i. 24. x 4, 5, 8. xiii. 8, 10. ii. 6,—10 1 Cor, v. 4.

4. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their PRO⯑PER END. The formal end of magiſtratical power is to advance the glory of God, the King of nations, in promoting the welfare of the commonwealth;—and the eſtabliſhment of the true religion, and care to pro⯑mote the proſperity and propagation of the church, are uſed as eminent means of gaining that end. Or, the good of the church may alſo be conſidered as an acceſſory end of civil adminiſtration, as the better civil juſtice be executed, open [...] breakings reſtrained, and virtue encouraged by the magiſtrate, the fewer will probably be the ſcandals, and the greater the pu⯑rity and proſperity of the church. Nay, though the advancement of the church's welfare be not the for⯑mal end of magiſtracy, yet as Chriſt is made Head over all things to his church, every magiſtrate, who profeſſeth the Chriſtian religion, ought to purſue the formal end of his office, as ſubordinated to his Chriſtian end of promoting the glory of God in the wel⯑fare of the church and eternal ſalvation of men—But the formal end of all church power is the glorify⯑ing of God in Chriſt, by promoting the ſpiritual con⯑viction, converſion and edification of mens ſouls; and the welfare of nations is but an acceſſory or ſubor⯑dinate end, at which church-rulers, as ſubjects in the ſtate, ought always to aim;—as the better they pro⯑ſecute and obtain the end of their office, the fewer will be the crimes, the better both ſubjects and magiſ⯑trates, and the more numerous and valuable the bleſ⯑ſings of God on the nation.

5. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their PRO⯑PER EFFECTS. The proper effects of magiſtratical [68] power, rightly exerciſed, is the good of the common⯑wealth, in their commodious enjoyment of civil privi⯑leges, in a manner mightily calculated to promote the honour of God, as the Moſt High over all the earth;—and the purity, peace and proſperity of the church, ariſing from the right adminiſtration of juſtice, diſ⯑couragement of evil doers, and praiſe of them that do well, is but an acceſſory effect. But the proper effect of church power rightly exerciſed, is the converſion of men to Jeſus Chriſt, fellowſhip with him, and growth in grace and good works, to the praiſe of his glory; and the advantage accruing to cities or nations, by the virtuous laws and fervent prayers of church-mem⯑bers, is but an acceſſory effect of it.

6. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in their SUB⯑JECTS of reſidence. No eccleſiaſtical power can re⯑ſide in a heathen, a woman, or a child; and no pow⯑er of juriſdiction in a ſingle perſon;—as civil power often may, or doth. Nor can one eccleſiaſtic officer delegate his power to another.

7. They differ in their FORMAL CONSIDERATION OF THE PERSONS UPON WHOM THEY ARE EXER⯑CISED. A magiſtrate's power extends over all per⯑ſons reſident in his territory, be their moral character what it will, Jews, Heathens, &c. Rom. xiii 1. But church-power extends only to the profeſſed members of Chriſt's myſtical body, the Church, 1 Corinth. v. 12, 13.

8. Civil and eccleſiaſtical power differ in reſpect of their DIVIDED EXERCISE. The one may, and ought to be exerciſed, whether the other be ſo or not.—The end of church-cenſure being to gain ſinners to repentance and ſalvation, ſcandalous perſons appear⯑ing penitent, ought to be ſeaſonably abſolved from it, and reſtored to communion with the church in ſealing ordinances. But the end of civil puniſhment being the ſatisfaction of the law, and the deterring of others from the like faults, criminals, however penitent and fully reſtored to church-fellowſhip, may, as the na⯑ture of their crime demands, be puniſhed, even unto death. And ſuppoſe a church-member ſhould have ſatisfied the demands of the civil law for a crime, he ought to be proſecuted and cenſured for it as a ſcan⯑dal, [69] by the eccleſiaſtical courts, till he appear duly penitent. Not only ought church-rulers to cenſure ſcandalous perſons, when magiſtrates take no no⯑tice of their faults, but even to cenſure magiſtrates, who are church-members, for what wickedneſs they commit under colour of countenance from the civil law. And where magiſtrates puniſh, and church-rulers cenſure the ſame perſons for the ſame faults, the proceſſes ought to be kept entirely diſtinct from, and independent of each other;—though, to prevent unneceſſary ſwearing, the proof taken in one court may ſometimes be produced and judged of, alſo in the other.

OBJECT. XXII. ‘"Magiſtrates not being proper judges of the doctrines of Revelation, cannot be ca⯑pable to judge concerning religious matters, and par⯑ticularly to determine who are heretics, blaſphemers, or idolaters"’ ANSW. (1.) That they have a right to judge in theſe matters hath been already eſtabliſhed. (2) God, who knows all things, admits private Chriſ⯑tians to be capable of judging what is hereſy, blaſ⯑phemy and idolatry, and who are heretics, blaſphe⯑mers and idolaters, and hence commands them to keep themſelves from theſe ſins, and to avoid ſuch ſedu⯑cers, and debar them from their houſes, Rom. xvi. 17. 2 Tim. iii. 5. 1 Cor. v. 11. 1 John iv. 1,—3. & v. 21. 2 John 9,—11. Now what hinders Chriſti⯑an magiſtrates to have as much good ſenſe and [...]s much capacity of judging in theſe matters, as common Chriſtians (2.) The groſs errors, blaſphemies and idolatries which magiſtrates ought to reſtrain, and ſui⯑tably and ſeaſonably puniſh, are ſo plainly condemned by the word of God, which magiſtrates ought carefully to ſearch, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that any unbiaſſed perſon of common capacity may eaſily diſcern them. (3.) The advice of faithful miniſters, and the common conſent of Chriſtian churches, may aſſiſt magiſtrates in diſcerning from the word of God, what is groſs or damnable hereſy, blaſphemy, idolatry.

OBJECT. XXIII. ‘"If magiſtrates, as ſuch, have a power of judging in religious matters, then Heathen magiſtrates muſt alſo be allowed to make laws concer⯑ning religion and the church, while in the mean time [70] they cannot be cenſured by the church, if they do a⯑miſs."’ ANSW. (1.) What could you gain, if I ſhould plead, that it is magiſtrates Chriſtianity requiring them to execute their office in ſubordination to it, that is the immediate origin of their power about the mat⯑ters of religion, even as it is parents Chriſtianity that warrants them to receive baptiſm for their in⯑fants? But (2.) Heathen magiſtrates, with God's di⯑rection and approbation, have made laws reſpecting religion, Ezra vii. 13,—28. vi. 1,—14. i. 1,—3. Dan. iii. 29. vi. 26. Jonah iii. Dare you condemn the Al⯑mighty? (3) Heathen magiſtrates have the ſame power as Chriſtian magiſtrates, but are leſs capable to uſe it aright; even as heathen parents and maſters have the ſame power over their children and ſervants as Chriſtians, but are leſs qualified to diſcern and per⯑form their duty. (4.) Neither heathen nor Chriſtian magiſtrates have any power at all againſt the truth, but for the truth,—any power for the deſtruction of the church, but for her edification, 2 Cor. xiii. 8, 10. (5) Heathen magiſtrates therefore, ought carefully to improve what aſſiſtance they have by the light of nature and works of creation and providence, or by any Revelation from God, to which they have acceſs,—always taking heed to make no laws, but ſuch as they certainly know to be agreeable to the law of God.—It is not to be expected, that civil laws can forbid every fault and require every thing good in externals; but they ought never to encourage ſin, or diſcourage duty.

OBJECT. XXIV. ‘"To allow magiſtrates a power of judging about the matters of religion will make them church-rulers."’ ANSW. (1) No more than it made Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, and the king of Nineveh church-rulers. (2.) No more than church-rulers taking cognizance of murder, adultery, inceſt, theft, robbery, or even of the conduct of Chriſtian magiſtrates relative to ad⯑miniſtration of juſtice, wars, alliances, &c. will make them magiſtrates. (3.) How often muſt you be told, that church-rulers judge, how ſuch profeſſion or prac⯑tice ought to ſtand connected with eccleſiaſtical encon⯑couragements, [71] diſcouragements or cenſure; but ma⯑giſtrates judge, how ſuch profeſſion or practice ought to be connected with civil encouragements or diſcou⯑ragements. Church-rulers warn againſt, and cenſure mens public faults, only as ſcandals, diſgraceful and hurtful to the church Magiſtrates judge of, and pu⯑niſh them only as crimes, hurtful to the proſperity of the State. In church courts, matters are conſidered as the matters of the Lord. In civil courts, they are conſidered as the matters oſ the king, 2 Chron. xix. 8,—11. Miniſters as the deputies of Chriſt, require magiſtrates to execute their office for the honour of Chriſt, and welfare of his church, and cenſure them, if church-members, if they do not. Magiſtrates as vicegerents of God, the King of nations, require mi⯑niſters faithfully to execute their office, particularly as ſtated by the laws of the land, in order to promote virtue and happineſs among the ſubjects, and draw the bleſſing of God upon them; and they puniſh them as undutiful ſubjects, if they notoriouſly tranſgreſs, 1 Kings ii. 26. Magiſtrates have NO ECCLESIASTICAL POWER at all. They have no power to reſtrain or hinder the free and full exerciſe of church power. But, by giving full opportunity, encouragement and excitement to church officers, they have power to pro⯑vide that church power be freely and faithfully exer⯑ciſed in their dominions. They have no power to tranſact any thing eccleſiaſtical, as in admiſſion of members into the church, or to the ſeals of God's co⯑venant;—no power to chooſe or ordain church offi⯑cers;—no power to preach the goſpel, diſpenſe the ſa⯑crament, inflict cenſures, or abſolve from them.—They have no power to preſcribe or enact any eccle⯑ſiaſtical laws; but they have power to adopt ſuch law⯑ful and expedient conſtitutions, as have been made by the church-courts, into their civil code, by a legal ra⯑tification,—and power to enact ſuch political laws as are neceſſary for the more advantageous execution of theſe eccleſiaſtical conſtitutions. They have no power to frame a religion for their ſubjects, or ratify a falſe religion already received or framed, or to eſtabliſh a⯑ny thing in religion, which is not founded in the word of God; but they have a power to adopt the law of [] God, and the religion preſcribed by it, as a part of their civil law, in order to promote the glory of God in the welfare of the nation.—The more public church courts be, and the more extenſive his influence upon his ſubjects, and the welfare of the nation,—the more right hath the civil magiſtrate to exerciſe his po⯑litical power about them. The church having an in⯑trinſic right and power from Chriſt to call Synods for government, whenever her circumſtances require it, the magiſtrate hath no power to deprive her of this right. But while the church calls them as courts of Chriſt, conſtituted of church rulers appointed by him to act in his name, the magiſtrate may call them as courts eſtabliſhed by the civil law, and neceſſary to to promote the peace, order and piety, and ſo the proſperity of his ſubjects,—as courts, which conſiſt of his principal ſubjects, and to which place and protecti⯑on muſt be given in his dominions. The magiſtrate hath no power of deputing to Synods ſuch members as he pleaſeth, Acts xv. 2 Chron. viii. 18. or, to hin⯑der or recal thoſe whom the church hath deputed, unleſs the ſafety of the ſtate plainly require it. But he may compel members, and parties who have cauſes before the court, to attend, if the caſe of the church require it, as a mean of repreſſing a malicious and turbulent faction, who have, or may hurt the State. It is not neceſſary, that either the magiſtrate, or his Commiſſioner, attend eccleſiaſtical Synods;—though to ſecure their protection, curb unruly troublers of the court, and to witneſs the propriety of their pro⯑cedure, he may attend.—If he attend, He hath a power to judge for himſelf, how matters are eccleſiaſ⯑tically tranſacted,—a power politically to provide, That the members meddle with no political affairs, which do not belong to them as a court of Chriſt:—and to take care, that members, and others preſent, obſerve that due decency, in reaſoning, voting, ſubmitting, or hearing, which the nature of the court requires. If any cauſe be partly civil and partly eccleſiaſtical, he is to judge the civil part himſelf, and leave the eccleſi⯑aſtical to the church court.—Even in eccleſiaſtical cauſes, he may give his advice, nay, he may propoſe and require Synods to examine and decide concerning [73] points of doctrine or practice, if neceſſary for the ſa⯑tisfaction of his own conſcience, or the inſtruction and edification of his ſubjects, in order to promote the welfare of the ſtate, in ſubordination to the glory of God. But he hath no power to hinder others to pro⯑poſe their difficulties or grievances before the Synod for ſatisfaction or redreſs, unleſs the cauſe be partly of a political nature, a Synodical deciſion of which, at that time, endangers the ſtate.—He hath no pow⯑er to preſide in the Synod, or give his deciſive vote in any of their tranſactions. But, as a man and Chriſti⯑an, he hath right to a judgment of diſcretion, Whether their deciſions be according to the law of God or not,—and as a magiſtrate, he hath a power of political judgment, by which he doth not properly judge, Whe⯑ther theſe deciſions be true or falſe, good or bad in themſelves, but Whether, and How far, they ought to be ratified, and as it were adopted into the laws of the State, and connected with civil rewards, forbear⯑ance, or puniſhments. Thus, the power of the ma⯑giſtrate, in nothing interferes with the power of the Synod. Nothing is done by the one, as a magiſtrate, that the other can do, as a court of Chriſt. And as the deciſions of Synods are ſupreme in the eccleſiaſtic order, from which there is no appeal but to Jeſus Chriſt;—By remonſtrating as a church-member, and commanding them as their King, the magiſtrate may cauſe the Synod re-conſider its own deeds, but he can⯑not reverſe them himſelf;—ſo the magiſtrate's deed concerning the civil ratification of church-deeds is ſu⯑preme in its kind, from which there is no appeal but to God himſelf. The Synod may require him as a Church-member; and, as ſubjects, they may remon⯑ſtrate, and ſupplicate his re-conſideration of his own deed, but they cannot reverſe it themſelves.

OBJECT. XXV. ‘"To allow magiſtrates to judge in matters of religion for others, and to reſtrain and puniſh corruptions in it, is to render them Lords of mens faith and conſcience,—a power which even the inſpired apoſtles diſclaimed. For if magiſtrates impoſe any religion at all upon their ſubjects, it muſt be what their own conſcience dictates; and then what ſhall become of the private rights of conſcience, among [74] their ſubjects?"’ ANSW. (1.) Did then God, who of old commanded magiſtrates to judge about matters of religion, and to reſtrain and puniſh blaſphemers, idolaters, ſeducers, profaners of the Sabbath, Deut. xiii. 9, 10. & xvii. 5,—7. Lev. xxiv. 11,—14. Song ii. 15. Num. xv. 32,—36. command them to lord it over mens conſcience? If it was not ſo then, it can⯑not be ſo now, as conſcience, tyranny and murder, are the ſame in every age. (2) The objection ſtrikes with equal force, againſt all eccleſiaſtical eſtabliſh⯑ment of the true religion, and againſt all creeds and Confeſſions of Faith, and againſt all eccleſiaſtical judging and cenſuring of men for hereſy, blaſphemy, or idolatry, contrary to Rev. ii. 20. Titus iii 10. Gal. v. 10, 11. as againſt magiſtrates judging about eſta⯑bliſhing religion or puniſhing the public inſulters of it. (3.) Magiſtrates act in this matter as his miniſters and vicegerents, by virtue of his commandment, who is the alone Lord of conſcience, and reſtrain or puniſh nothing, but what men, under any proper influence of faith and conſcience, would abſtain from, as for⯑bidden by the Lord of conſcience, who is to be their future judge, and hath appointed magiſtrates, as his ſubſtitutes to avenge the open injuries done to him in this world, Rom. xiii. 4. And, if men perſiſt in ſins plainly forbidden in his law, he holds them as ſin⯑ners againſt, and condemned by their conſcience, Tit. iii. 10, 11. (4) The abſurdity of mens conſciences being ſuſtained as a ſtandard, as well as the proper me⯑thod of magiſtrates making laws relative to religion, have been already manifeſted. Magiſtrates conſcien⯑ces have no more juſt claim to God bead than thoſe of their meaneſt ſubjects. Not, therefore, magiſtrates pretences to conſcience, but plain and evident marks of the authority of God manifeſted in, and from the ſcriptures, muſt determine their ſubjects to receive a religion in obedience to their authority, as ſubordinat⯑ed to the authority of God, the Moſt High, ſuperior of both.

OBJECT. XXVI. ‘"In Rom. xiii. where the power of magiſtrates is more fully deſcribed than any where elſe in the New Teſtament, only the commands of the [75] ſecond table of the moral law are ſubjoined, to mark that it only extends to the concerns of men one with another."’ ANSW. (1.) Who authorized the objector to put aſunder the two Teſtaments and the two tables which God hath joined? Or, to ſeparate the firſt part of that chapter from the laſt, which certainly relates to religion, any more than from verſe 9th. (2.) The magiſtrate's character, miniſter of God for good, terror to, and revenger of evil doers, and his duty to love his neighbours as himſelf there hinted, cannot admit of his having no care about religion and the firſt table of the moral law. (3) To oblige men carefully to ſearch the whole ſcriptures, God hath ſeldom, if ever, ma⯑nifeſted his whole will, relative to any thing, in one paſſage.

OBJECT. XXVII. ‘"If we allow magiſtrates any power at all about religious matters, we muſt plunge ourſelves into inextricable difficulties, as the preciſe limits of civil and eccleſiaſtical power can never be fix⯑ed,—and every ſmall miſtake in religious opinions, or neglect of religious duties, muſt bring men to the gib⯑bet, as theft draws down the wrath of God on nati⯑ons, as well as blaſphemy and idolatry do"’ ANSW. There is no more difficulty in limiting the power of magiſtrates about either religion or virtue, than in fixing preciſe limits to the power of church-rulers re⯑lative to thoſe matters. Do you fix preciſe limits to church-power according to the word of God, and I ſhall next moment fix as preciſe limits for the power of the magiſtrate. If you limit the exerciſe of church power to duties required, and ſins forbidden in the firſt table of the moral law,—you naturally leave the care of the duties required in the ſecond table to the magiſtrate. But then, whether a church of Chriſt, having no care or power about morality toward men,—or a deputed kingdom of God without any care or power about any thing relating to the honour of God, be moſt abſurd and deviliſh, I know not. If you a⯑ver, That the power of church-rulers extends to the external obedience or diſobedience of church-members to both tables of God's law, not as civil, but as ſpiri⯑tual conduct, tending to the ſpiritual advantage or hurt of the church, and therefore connected with the [76] ſpiritual encouragements or frowns of Chriſt's viſible church; and that they meddle not with ſins againſt the ſecond table as crimes againſt mens perſon or pro⯑perty, but as ſcandals againſt the ſpiritual edification of the church, and the glory of Jeſus Chriſt therein concerned;—I immediately reply, That preciſely, in like manner, the power of magiſtrates extends to the external obedience or diſobedience of civil ſubjects as ſuch, to both tables of God's law, not as it is of a ſpiritual nature, but as it affects the civil welfare or hurt of the nation, or honour of God as the King of it, and ſo ought to ſtand connected with civil encou⯑ragements or diſcouragements. If you pretend, that it will be ſtill hard to ſhew, how far magiſtrates may, in that view, proceed in matters of the firſt table, par⯑ticularly with reſpect to offending clergymen I an⯑ſwer, that it is not one whit harder, than to ſhew how far church courts may proceed in matters of the ſe⯑cond table, particularly with reſpect to offenſive ma⯑giſtratical adminiſtrations. (2.) Your pretence, that if magiſtrates puniſh any faults in religion, they muſt puniſh all known faults in the ſame form and degree, is but a deceitful inſult on the Moſt High, who, in his word, appointed the capital puniſhment of idolaters and blaſphemers, and yet never warranted the puniſh⯑ment of many faults relative to religion, in like man⯑ner; nay, for ought I ſee, hath not required magiſtrates at all to puniſh any thing but the moſt atrocious faults in it. If you inſult Chriſt, who hath not command⯑ed any faults, but atrocious ones obſtinately continu⯑ed in, to be cenſured with excommunication, and hath never commanded many leſſer neglects and infirmities of church-members to be cenſured at all,—It is an in⯑ſult on common ſenſe. Would you, or any man in his wits, either cenſure or puniſh men as ſeverely for a ſimple neglect of a religious duty, as for an open and blaſphemous inſulting of religion? Would you cenſure or puniſh the ſtealing of a ſingle ſtraw as ſe⯑verely as the ſtealing of a man or woman? Would you cenſure or puniſh a prick with a pin, as ſeverely as the cutting of a man's throat, or the ripping up of a woman with child.

[77]OBJECT. XXVIII. ‘"Either every error in doc⯑trine, and miſtake in worſhip muſt be puniſhed by the magiſtrate, or only that which is more glaring and notorious. If it is only the latter, How are the limits of what is puniſhable, and what is not, and the degree of puniſhment proper for each, to be preciſely fixed."’ ANSW. If every ſpecies of duty muſt be neglected, and the contrary ſin allowed, where it is difficult to fix the preciſe boundaries of ſin or duty,—or where it is difficult to fix the preciſe degrees of encourage⯑ment to be given to ſuch obedience, or of cenſure or puniſhment due to ſuch ſin, men muſt be left to live like abſolute atheiſts, in both church and ſtate, every man doing that which is right in his own eyes. (2) Unleſs you prove that every inſult of, and outrage a⯑gainſt God and his religion ought to paſs unpuniſhed, and even be licenſed and authorized, yourſelf muſt be equally embarraſſed in fixing what is puniſhable and what is not, and what muſt be the form and degree of puniſhment annexed to each puniſhable fault. (3.) Nay, unleſs you prove, that all deeds, however hor⯑rid, ought to be tolerated in both church and ſtate, How are you to fix preciſely, what deeds are cenſur⯑able or puniſhable, and what not;—and what form and degree of cenſure or puniſhment is proper for each, in every particular form and circumſtance. A man may as really, and for ought men can prove a⯑gainſt him, as juſtly pretend conſcience for his wicked deeds of treaſon, murder, robbery, &c. as for his damnable hereſies, blaſphemies, and idolatrous wor⯑ſhip. Wicked deeds, if God be true, are the native fruits of groſs errors and idolatrous worſhip. A con⯑ſcience, which under the clear light of ſcripture reve⯑lation, approves the whole ſyſtem of Popery or Soci⯑nianiſm, may as reaſonably dictate the murder of ſaints, dethronement of lawful Sovereigns, community of women and goods, &c. Let once the plea of conſci⯑ence be admitted in the caſe of treaſon, theft, robbery, murder, and the like, and I will undertake, it ſhall be as commonly pled, as in the caſe of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy and idolatry; and it will be as impoſſible for judges to diſprove it in the one caſe, as in the oth⯑er. Nothing therefore, will truly anſwer your tole⯑rant [78] ſcheme, but that every man be allowed to pro⯑feſs, worſhip, and act as he pleaſeth. (4) Let there⯑fore magiſtrates, as well as church-rulers, in their puniſhing and cenſuring work, make God's word their rule; and if they do not perceive from it clearly the proper degrees of puniſhment and cenſure, let them rather err on the charitable ſide, than in approach⯑es to ſeverity.

OBJECT. XXIX. ‘"But, how are heretics, blaſ⯑phemers, and idolaters to be got judged in order to puniſhment? They muſt be judged only by their Peers, by perſons of the ſame ſtation as themſelves, quite impartial, and no wiſe attached to the contrary ſentiments or practices."’ ANSW. (1.) But, how can you prove from ſcripture or reaſon, that ſuch crimi⯑nals muſt be judged only by their Peers;—or that there is a nation under heaven, in which criminals are judg⯑ed by ſuch Peers, as you mention? (2) Allowing that our juries conſiſt of the proper Peers of the cri⯑minals, yet they judge not concerning the relevancy of the crime, or the form or degree of puniſhments, but of the proof of the fact,—which, in the caſe of hereſy, blaſphemy, or idolatry, is ordinarily no more difficult, than in the caſe of adultery, inceſt, theft, murder, &c. (3.) Nothing can be more abſurd, than to pretend, that mens deteſtation of hereſy, blaſphe⯑my, and idolatry, diſqualifies them from judging he⯑retics, blaſphemers, and idolaters. What! Doth mens abhorrence of theft, murder, adultery, diſqua⯑lify them to judge of, and puniſh thoſe crimes? Do God's infinite holineſs and equity, diſqualify him from judging of ſinners?

OBJECT. XXX. ‘"If heretics, blaſphemers and i⯑dolaters be puniſhable, orthodox magiſtrates, who happen to become governors of heretical, blaſphemous and idolatrous nations, muſt kill the moſt of their ſubjects."’ ANSW. We hold none puniſhable, eſpe⯑cially in any ſevere manner, till they appear openly obſtinate in it, notwithſtanding ſufficient means of conviction, which theſe ſubjects are not ſuppoſed to have had; and ſo are not puniſhable at all by magiſ⯑trates. (2,) Nothing, and particularly the infliction of puniſhment, ought to be done, merely becauſe it [79] is lawful, till it alſo become expedient, 1 Cor. vi. 12. & x 23. Eccl. iii. 1, 11. Now it would be highly inex⯑pedient to proceed to extremities againſt the greater part of a ſociety. Nay, in the caſe ſuppoſed, they would prove a barbarouſly ſinful mean of prejudicing men againſt the goſpel of Chriſt. (3.) Great diffe⯑rence ought to be made between ſuch as were never reformed from a falſe religion, and thoſe who obſti⯑nately apoſtatize from the true religion to a falſe one;—between ſuch as live in a nation generally corrupted with a falſe religion, and thoſe who live in a nation generally enlightened and reformed by the goſpel of Chriſt;—and between ſuch as are only ſeduced, and thoſe who exert themſelves to ſeduce others. Much more forbearance is due to the former than to the lat⯑ter; for (4) However peremptorily the Jews were commanded by God to puniſh even unto death, the obſtinate falſe prophets, idolaters and blaſphemers of their own church or nation, they were never required to puniſh their idolatrous tributaries in their conquer⯑ed countries of Syria, Philiſtia, Edom, Ammon, or Moab. And meanwhile, were never allowed, and never did grant them any legal eſtabliſhment or autho⯑ritative toleration of their idolatry. (5.) Even God himſelf, for the ends of his glory, exerciſeth much forbearance towards heretics, blaſphemers and idola⯑ters, but never grants them any legal eſtabliſhment or authoritative toleration, ſecuring them of protection in their wickedneſs. Let magiſtrates, who are his mini⯑ſters for good to men, go and do ſo like wiſe.

OBJECT. XXXI. ‘"The Chriſtian law of doing to others that which we would have them do to us, de⯑mands, That we ſhould allow every man to think, pro⯑feſs, and act in religion as he pleaſeth. If we think men heretics, blaſphemers or idolaters, our proper method is to manifeſt the utmoſt kindneſs and famili⯑arity to them, that we may gain them to the truth. Every other method is no leſs dangerous than uncha⯑ritable. If orthodox Chriſtian magiſtrates reſtrain and puniſh the ſpreading of Heathen, Mahometan, and Popiſh errors or worſhip,—Heathen, Mahometan and Popiſh princes will be thereby tempted to reſtrain and puniſh the ſpread of goſpel-truth in their dominions, [80] and can plead the very ſame right for their conduct."’ ANSW. (1.) Strange! Did not God know the mean⯑ing of his own law of equity and kindneſs between man and man, and the true method of ſecuring or propagating his own religion, when he made or en⯑couraged the laws againſt ſeducers, idolaters, and blaſphemers above mentioned;—when he commanded his people to avoid falſe teachers, and not ſo much as to lodge them in their houſes. (2) With all your pretended benevolence, Would you familiarly lodge in your family a notorious pick pocket or an harlot, along with your own children, in order to gain them to the ways of piety and virtue? You would not. Why then, in direct contradiction to the command of God, do you plead for familiarity with robbers of God, defilers, or murderers of ſouls! (3) The Chriſtian law of kindneſs and equity requires me to do all that for the real welfare of my neighbour, in ſubordinati⯑on to the glory of God, which I could lawfully wiſh him, in like circumſtances, to do for me? But, muſt I do evil that good may come, rendering my damna⯑tion juſt? Muſt I procure my juſt liberty to believe and ſerve God according to his own appointment, by granting my neighbour an unjuſt, an authoritative li⯑cence to inſult and blaſpheme God, and worſhip the devil in his ſtead? Becauſe I wiſh my neighbour to be helpful to me, in honouring God, and in labouring to render myſelf and others happy in time and eterni⯑ty, Muſt I aſſiſt and encourage them in horribly diſ⯑honouring God, and deſtroying themſelves and others. None but an atheiſt, who believes no real difference between moral good and evil, can pretend it. (4.) When and Where have Faithful adherents to goſpel-truth, got much liberty and ſafety by means of their friends encouraging and protecting groſs herely, blaſ⯑phemy and idolatry? Since Proteſtants became ſo kind to Papiſts in their dominions, Have not the Po⯑piſh powers, in return, cruelly murdered, baniſhed, or oppreſſed their Proteſtant ſubjects, in Hungary, Poland, Germany, France. &c. till they have left few of them remaining? While Britons were laviſhly expending their blood and treaſure in ſupport of the Popiſh houſe of Auſtria about 1709 and 1741, She [81] returned our kindneſs in the moſt villanous deſtruc⯑tion of about 230 Congregations of our Proteſtant brethren in Sileſia and Hungary. (5.) Ought Elijah to have ſpared, nay protected and encouraged the pro⯑phets of Baal, as a mean of ſecuring for himſelf the protection of Ahab and Jezebel, or, becauſe ſhe was diſpoſed to avenge their death? Muſt thieves and rob⯑bers be benevolently uſed, protected and ſuffered to paſs unpuniſhed, for fear of provoking their aſſoci⯑aus to revenge the juſt ſeverities uſed towards them? Let magiſtrates do their duty, and leave events to God. (6.) Till you honeſtly profeſs yourſelf an atheiſt, who believes no intrinſical difference between moral good and evil, never pretend that magiſtrates, who have their whole power from God, have any power againſt the truth, or have a right to exerciſe that power de⯑rived from God for the good of mankind, to his diſ⯑honour and to the hurt of mankind. Aſtoniſhing I Becauſe a power originating from God may be right⯑fully exerciſed in promoting his declarative glory, the ſpread or protection of his goſpel, and the happi⯑neſs of mankind,—May it, muſt it, therefore, in the hand of other magiſtrates, be rightfully exerciſed in promoting blaſphemy and robbery of God, and wor⯑ſhipping of devils?—Becauſe it may be rightfully ex⯑erciſed in puniſhing obſtinate and notorious heretics, blaſphemers and idolaters,—May it, muſt it, therefore be rightfully exerciſed in perſecuting and murdering the faithful preachers and profeſſors of Goſpel-truths, and worſhippers of the true God?—Becauſe magiſ⯑trates in Britain have a right to puniſh thieves and murderers, muſt theſe in France have as good a right to uſe Alms givers and ſkilful and diligent Phyſicians in the ſame manner?—Becauſe that which tends to the higheſt honour of God, and temporal and eternal happineſs of mankind ought to be authoritatively to⯑lerated, nay eſtabliſhed, every where,—may,—muſt, that which tends to his higheſt diſhonour, and the moſt dreadful temporal and eternal ruin of mankind, be every where, in like manner, tolerated or eſtabliſh⯑ed?—Becauſe in a dearth, benevolent perſons may be tolerated, nay highly encouraged in freely diſtribut⯑ing wholſome proviſions to the poor and needy, may, [82] or muſt, malicious murderers be therefore tolerated and encouraged in diſtributing their poiſoned morſels, eſpecially if abundantly ſweetened among the unwary infants or others? (7.) The reſtraint or ſuitable and ſeaſonable puniſhment of that which is contrary to God's law, being commanded by himſelf, can never have any tendency to introduce corruptions in religi⯑on, or perſecution for an adherence to goſpel-truth. And if ſome will abuſe their power, that muſt not hin⯑der others, either in church or ſtate, to uſe theirs a⯑right.

OBJECT. XXXII. ‘"If infidelity and difference in religion do not make void magiſtrates right to govern nations, much leſs can hereſy, idolatry, or blaſphe⯑my, invalidate ſubjects right to protection, or of ad⯑miſſion to all the privileges of other ſubjects."’ ANSW. (1.) In almoſt every caſe, the reſtraint or puniſhment of ſuperiors is more difficult than that of inferiors. (2.) If the profeſſors of the true religion be the mino⯑rity in number and power, both ſcripture and reaſon demand their ſubjection to their common rulers, in all their lawful commands, till they become manifeſt tyrants, and Providence afford a proper opportunity of ſhaking off their yoke. But, if the profeſſors of the true religion be the majority in a nation or ſociety, both ſcripture and reaſon forbid their ſetting up a magiſtrate of a falſe religion, or a wicked practice,—and allow that, if after his advancement, he apoſta⯑tize, and obſtinately attempt to promote a falſe religi⯑on, or notoriouſly wicked practice, he may be depoſ⯑ed and even puniſhed, as far as the general welfare of the ſociety, in ſubordination to the glory of God, can admit, Pſal. xv. 4. (3) Do you pretend to be wiſer than God himſelf? Without any apprehended inconſiſtency, he commanded the Jews, not authori⯑tatively to tolerate, protect, and encourage, but to puniſh blaſphemers, profaners of the Sabbath, idola⯑ters, and falſe prophets, Lev. xxiv. 15, 16 Num. xv. 35, 36. Deut. xiv, xvii. Zech. xiii. 2,—6. and yet commanded them when they were the ſmall mino⯑rity in the Chaldean empire, to ſerve the Heathen king of Babylon, Jer. xxvii. 17. & xxix. 7.

[83]OBJECT. XXXIII. ‘"Unlimited tolerations in the ſtate ought not to be granted. In Proteſtant coun⯑tries, Papiſts ought not to be tolerated, as they are ſubject to the foreign power of the Pope, as their Head, and cannot be ſuppoſed faithful ſubjects to, or to keep faith with ſuch as they pretend to be heretics. Atheiſts ought not to be tolerated, as they cannot be bound by any oath. Such as are againſt tolerating oth⯑ers ought not to be tolerated, as they will kindle ſtrife. And in churches, there ought to be no toleration at at all."’ ANSW. (1.) Then it ſeems, Chriſt and his Father muſt be excluded from all ſhare in the tolera⯑tion you plead for, on account of their intolerant diſ⯑poſition, unleſs they be infinitely altered from what they were in antient times. (2) You have already given up all your care for procuring the favour of the Popiſh powers to your Proteſtant brethren abroad, by means of tolerating Papiſts. (3.) Never pretend zeal againſt atheiſm, till you be able to maintain your tolerant ſcheme, upon other than the atheiſtical prin⯑ciples mentioned near the beginning of this miſſive; and to which you have had repeated recourſe in your objections.—and till you allow mens rights or preten⯑ces of conſcience to warrant them to defame, abuſe, rob, and murder yourſelf, as you allow with reſpect to God. (4.) Your preſent objection is partly found⯑in atheiſm. Papiſts are excluded from toleration, not at all as notorious blaſphemers and idolaters, but merely as not very like to prove faithful ſubjects to Proteſtant magiſtrates. Atheiſts are excluded, not as daring blaſphemers or intentionally malicious murde⯑rers of Jehovah, but merely becauſe they cannot give proper ſecurity for their good behaviour to magiſtrates and fellow ſubjects. Thus no more regard is ſhewed to God the King of nations, than might be expected among a nation of Atheiſts, and the intereſts of men are altogether, I might ſay, infinitely, preferred to his. (5.) How are you to fix the preciſe limits, Who are to be accounted under foreign heads;—who are to be accounted Papiſts and Atheiſts;—or who are to be held to give ſufficient ſecurity by oath,—Whether profane ſwearers, Quakers, Socinians, notorious vio⯑laters of baptiſinal engagements, ſolemn ſubſcribers [84] of, and engagers to Creeds and Confeſſions of Faith which they believe not, &c.—If, contrary to the light of nature and revelation, men zealouſly propagate the doctrines of devils and do worſhip them in idols, and follow the pernicious practices above-mentioned, as the native conſequences of error and idolatry, Are not they plainly ſubject to another Head, even the God of this world, who is not much more friendly to magiſtrates and nations, than the Romiſh Pope? If men have conſcience, villainouſly to wreſt the ſcrip⯑ture to prove that Chriſt was originally a mere mar, a mere creature, and is now a made God, What more ſecurity can we have by their oath, than if they were profeſſed Atheiſts? (6.) None who plead tor the au⯑thoritative toleration of heretics, blaſphemers and ido⯑lators by the State, can with any ſelf-conſiſtent candor, diſallow of all toleration in the church—God the King of nations, hates theſe abominations as much as Chriſt, the Head of the church. Church-rulers have no other infallible rule to direct them in their deciſi⯑ons, than magiſtrates have. They are as unfit to judge of more refined errors, as magiſtrates are to judge of groſs errors, blaſphemies, idolatries. They have as little allowance from Chriſt to lord over mens conſci⯑ences, or to impoſe their own opinions for articles of faith or rules of duty, as magiſtrates have from God. It is as difficult to fix preciſely, What is cenſurable, and what not, and the proper degree of cenſure anſwer⯑able to every ſeandal, in every circumſtance, as to ſix preciſely, what and how crimes ought to be puniſhed by the magiſtrate. Unrighteous cenſures for an adhe⯑rence to truth and duty, are as real and more ſevere perfecution than unrighteous puniſhments. Articles and Confeſſions of Faith impoſed by eccleſiaſtical an⯑thority, as much cramp Chriſtian liberty, as if they were eſtabliſhed by the ſtate. Clergymen h [...]e as of⯑ten abuſed their power about religion, as e [...] Stateſ⯑men did. Their conſtitutions and councils have done as much hurt to it, as theſe of magiſtrates ever did: If it be difficult to get groſs heretics, blaſphemers and idolaters judged, reſtrained or puniſhed by the State, it will be found as hard to get ALL errors and ALL practical miſtakes cenſured by the church. Nay, for [85] once that magiſtrates have erred in puniſhing heretics, blaſphemers and idolaters. I believe clergymen have erred ten, if not an hundred times, in their cenſures. And, ſeldom have ever magiſtrates perſecuted men for righteouſneſs ſake, but when they were inſtigated to it by ſome clergymen

OBJECT. XXXIV. ‘"No carnal influence of ma⯑giſtrates relative to religion is conſiſtent with the ſpi⯑ritual nature of the kingdom of Chriſt, which is not of this world, John xviii. 36. The apoſtles uſed no carnal weapons of warfare in promoting it, 2 Cor. x. 4, 5."’ ANSW. Why do not you ſtate preciſely, what you mean by the ſpiritual nature of Chriſt's kingdom, and its not being of this world? Is it ſo ſpiritual, that the members and ſubordinate rulers in it, are not at the ſame time members in a civil ſtate, and intereſted in the welfare or hurt of it? Is it ſo ſpiritual, that it hath no manner of connexion or fellowſhip with the kingdom of God over the nation, in which it reſides, and neither gives nor receives from it, any more help⯑fulneſs, than from the kingdom of Belial? Is it ſo ſpi⯑ritual, that the power of it cannot touch any part of mens conduct toward one another, or even the ma⯑giſtratical adminiſtrations of its members? Is it ſo ſpi⯑ritual, as to exclude the Moſt High, King of nations, and his deputed vicegerents, from all regard to the honour of God and his religion, and the welfare of the State as connected therewith, leaving them no more concern therewith, than if nations were herds of ſwine? The queſtion under conſideration is not concerning the nature of Chriſt's kingdom, of which the civil magiſtrate is not a ruler of any kind, as hath been already manifeſted, but, Whether all care about the church and her religion, as tending to promote the welfare of nations ought to be excluded from God's kingdom, as the Sovereign of nations, and he and his vicegerents obliged to manage that department, as if there were no God in the earth? (2.) Had Chriſt no ſpiritual kingdom in the days of Moſes, and the pro⯑phets, when God required magiſtrates to take care a⯑bout religion, and to reſtrain and puniſh the public atrocious inſulters of it? Had he no ſpiritual kingdom, not of this world, when he repeatedly drove the buy⯑ers [86] and ſellers out of the temple? (3.) That the ſpi⯑ritual nature of Chriſt's kingdom rendered it perfectly conſiſtent with the full exercife of the magiſtratical power in the Roman empire, or any other ſtate, which is what he meant in his anſwer to Pilate, we readily grant; but the inſpired promiſes, which have been re⯑peatedly quoted, Iſa. xlix. 23. & lx. 3, 10, 16 Pſal. ii. 8, 10, 11, 12. & lxxii. 10, 11. Rev. xi. 15. & xvii. 16. & xxi. 24. ſufficiently prove, that the ſpiri⯑tual nature of Chriſt's kingdom doth not exclude ma⯑giſtrates helpfulneſs to the truth, in authorizing the profeſſion and practice of it by their civil laws, and in reſtraining the open and inſolent blaſphemers of it? (4.) Though the weapons of miniſters warfare, in propagating the goſpel be not carnal, What is that to the caſe of magiſtrates? And as the ſpiritual weapons of church-officers reach as much to ſins againſt the ſe⯑cond table of the moral law as to thoſe againſt the ſirſt, they no more exclude the uſe of the magiſtrates carnal weapons againſt the atrocious ſins againſt the firſt ta⯑ble, than with reſpect to thoſe againſt the ſecond, 2 Cor. x. 6. 1 Cor. v. 2,—5, (4.) Magiſtratical influence cannot ſet up Chriſt's kingdom in mens heart, or o⯑blige mens conſcience to obey his laws in an acceptable manner; but it can remove many external hindran⯑ces, and afford many external opportunities, of his own ſetting up, by means of his word and Spirit. It can reſtrain burning of Bibles or abuſing and murder⯑ing of preachers and hearers of the goſpel. It can ſpread the ſcriptures, and protect preachers of the truths contained in them; and by command, example, and otherwiſe, encourage the ſubjects to ſearch the ſcriptures, and to hear, learn, profeſs, and practiſe the plain doctrines of the goſpel. In thus endeavour⯑ing to make their ſubjects attend on, receive, and ob⯑ſerve the doctrines of the goſpel, all appearance of force ſhould be carefully avoided, as that is apt to pro⯑voke a diſlike, rather than to promote a chearful em⯑bracement of them. But force may be uſed to re⯑ſtrain, or duly and ſeaſonably puniſh the inſolent op⯑poſers and revilers of the true religion, which is eſta⯑bliſhed. And, on no account, ought ſuch plagues of [87] nations, as well as of churches, to receive any autho⯑ritative licence to commit ſuch wickedneſs.

OBJECT. XXXV. ‘"The annexing of temporal en⯑couragements to the profeſſion and practice of the Chriſtian religion or external diſcouragements to the profeſſion or practice of ſuch opinions and worſhip as are contrary to it,—tends to render men hypocrites, and their religion merely carnal, in obedience to civil authority, and influenced by mere carnal motives. It makes men trample on and debauch their conſcience, and ſo ſap the foundation of all true piety and virtue."’ ANSW. (1) God, who well knows the true nature of religious worſhip and obedience, and highly re⯑gards the candor and purity of conſcience, excited the Iſraelites to it, partly by external encouragements, reſtraints and terrors, Deut. iv,—viii, xxvii,—xxxii, Lev. xviii,—xx, xxvi. and by each of his prophets. Iſa. i.—to Mal. iv. And even under the goſpel, godlineſs hath the promiſes of this life, as well as of that which is to come, 1 Tim iv. 8. 1 Pet. iii. 13.—Did you mean to blaſpheme his conduct as abſolutely deviliſh? (2.) With God's approbation, David, Ne⯑hemiah and others, by familiar intimacy, and by pre⯑ferring them to poſts of honour, encouraged ſuch as appeared eminent in the profeſſion and practice of re⯑vealed religion; and they excluded ſuch as appeared notoriouſly wicked, Pſal. cxix. 63. & ci. 6, 7. Neh. vii 2. & xiii, 28. Nay, David before hand publicly intimated his reſolution to prefer only pious and faith⯑ful men.—And why not, when ſuch bid faireſt to be eminently uſeful officers in the ſtate? (3.) Why may not men, even by external advantages be encouraged to an external attendance upon goſpel-ordinances, which, by the bleſſing of God and the working of his Spirit, may iſſue in rendering them eminently uſeful ſubjects, and in their eternal ſalvation, even as chil⯑dren may be hired to that reading of their Bible and learning of their Catechiſm, which may iſſue in their converſion and everlaſting life? (4) Regard to the command of parents, maſters, magiſtrates, and mini⯑ſters, all at once, in our religious profeſſion and prac⯑tice, is no way inconſiſtent with, but may be delight⯑fully ſubordinated to a ſupreme regard to the autho⯑rity [88] of God in them. (5.) Do you really think, that thoſe, who believe neither a God, nor a heaven, nor a hell, ought under pretence of civil right, to be as readily admitted to places of power and truſt, in ci⯑vil governments as the moſt pious?—Nay, are not even a profeſſion and practice of the Chriſtian religi⯑on much more profitable in a nation, than open blaſ⯑phemy, impiety and idolatry, which we have heard from God's own word, exceedingly corrupt mens mo⯑rals, and pull down the wrath of God on the ſociety. (6.) If ſuch things only be reſtrained and puniſhed, as are plainly contrary to the law of God, and a right conſcience, and never puniſhed, till after ſufficient means of conviction have been afforded and trampled on, how can that make men diſſemble with or ſin a⯑gainſt their conſcience, any more than the puniſhment of theft, murder, inceſt, or the like, can do it?

OBJECT. XXXVI. ‘"The aboliſhment of all civil eſtabliſhments of revealed religion, would have a re⯑markable tendency to render men truly pious, truly ſincere, in their faith, profeſſion and worſhip: and to render them excellent ſubjects, candid, peaceable, and affectionate lovers of one another. It would effectu⯑ally root out Popery and every thing ſimilar."’ ANSW. (1.) Juſt as remarkable a tendency, as the leaving of children to themſelves hath to render them truly vir⯑tuous, and a diſtinguiſhed honour to their parents, Prov. xxv. 15. 1 Sam. iii. 13.—as remarkable a ten⯑dency as the aboliſhment of all eccleſiaſtical eſtabliſh⯑ments of it would have to render men perfect ſaints. (2.) It is plain, that God, when he fixed a civil eſta⯑bliſhment of revealed religion, and when he repreſen⯑ted, as above, hereſy, blaſphemy, and idolatry, as reudering men monſters of all manner of wickedneſs, inſtead of good ſubjects, neighbours, or Chriſtians, thought otherwiſe. Are you wiſer than He? (3.) Never, that I know of, was there a nation or nume⯑rous ſociety on earth in which there was leſs of a re⯑ligious eſtabliſhment, good or bad, than among the Iſmaelians of Irak and Syria, and the Giagas of Africa. What were the noted virtues which flouriſhed among them? Murders, aſſaſſinations, which cannot be read or heard, without horror. Under the protection of [89] an extenſive toleration, how did England, about an hundred and thirty years ago, ſwarm with Sectarian errors, blaſphemies, confuſions? And, what hath eith⯑er the peace of the State, or the orthodoxy and holi⯑neſs of our church gained by our laſt Scotch tolera⯑tion? Repeated attempts in 1715 and 1745, to un⯑hinge our civil eſtabliſhment and dethrone our lawful Sovereigns in favours of Popiſh pretenders, are the noted advantages, which have accrued to our State, and an alarming increaſe of infidelity, profaneneſs, and Popery, to our church. Inſtead of ſcarce ſix hundred Papiſts, which was once all that could be reckoned in Scotland, their number now, may amount to about thirty thouſand. In about a dozen of pariſhes in the North, they have above twenty congregations, ſeveral of them pretty large, and a College and an Academy for training up prieſts. How quickly theſe, with the Scotch colleges abroad, may furniſh converters for the whole nation, God only knows. In the pariſh of South Uiſt, there are 2300 Papiſts and 300 Pro⯑teſtants; in Barra 1250 Papiſts, and 50 Proteſtants; in Ardnamurchan 1950 Papiſts, and 17 Proteſtants; in Kinkmichael and its neighbouring pariſh 1520 Papiſts; in Kilmanivaig 1600; and in Glenelg 1340.

OBJECT. XXXVII. ‘"All civil laws eſtabliſhing revealed religion muſt neceſſarily land magiſtrates in perſecuting their ſubjects; for, if theſe civil laws be contemned and violated, the breakers muſt be puniſh⯑ed"’ ANSW. For this reaſon no ſuperior, parent, maſter, miniſter, or magiſtrate, muſt make any ap⯑pointment relative to religious matters, becauſe, if it be diſregarded, puniſhment or cenſure muſt be in⯑flicted, and that will amount to perſecution in the ſenſe of the objection.—No duty muſt ever be attemp⯑ted, leſt ſome perplexing conſequence ſhould attend it. (2.) Tho' evil doers ordinarily reckon reſtraints of iniquity perſecution, the ſcripture allows nothing to be perſecution but unjuſt ſeverities exerciſed againſt the profeſſion or practice of goſpel-truth,—at leaſt a⯑gainſt innocence or virtue. Puniſhment of men for what is plainly contrary to the word of God is no per⯑ſecution for conſcience ſake, but a proper correction of them for trampling on and murdering their conſci⯑ence. [90] (3.) If, by the bleſſing of God, parents can do much to advance religion in their families, without any furious or hurtful beating of their children,—and miniſters do much to promote it in their congregati⯑ons, without proceeding, perhaps once in their life, to the higher excommunication; and if both may do much to render their children and people uſeful mem⯑bers of the commonwealth, without having power to fine, impriſon or kill them, why may not magiſtrates by their appointments, encouragements, and example, much promote the profeſſion and practice of revealed religion, without proceeding, unleſs very rarely, to any diſagreeable ſeverities?—The point we attemp⯑ted directly to eſtabliſh is, that magiſtrates ought never to grant an authoritative toleration to groſs hereſy, blaſ⯑phemy, idolatry; you therefore act uncandidly in per⯑petually haling in the affair of puniſhments; even capital ones, juſt as your tolerant friends the antient Remonſtrants perpetually haled in the doctrine of re⯑probation, in order to render the ſovereignty of God's grace odious to the people. (4) If magiſtrates take heed never to puniſh on the head of religious mat⯑ters, but when the CRIME is plainly relevant and ma⯑niſeſt, plainly contrary to the laws of God, as well as to thoſe of the land; and that the puniſhment be SUITABLE and SEASONABLE, circumſtantially calcu⯑lated to promote the real welfare of the common⯑wealth, why ſhould they be charged with perſecution, for prudently ſupporting their moſt important laws, and yet held innocent, if not virtuous, in ſupporting their comparatively inſignificant laws, relative to fiſh⯑ing, fowling, hunting, or the like?

OBJECT. XXXVIII ‘"Let things be reduced to practice. What could be done, juſt now, in Britain, without an authoritative toleration of the different par⯑ties in religion."’ ANSW. No difficulty of the per⯑formance of duties can be a ſufficient reaſon for the neglect of them. No difficulty of rectifying what is in diſorder, can be a proof that it is not duty to at⯑tempt it. Becauſe I ſind it ſo hard work to keep my heart with all diligence, and often know not how to get its ſinful diſorders rectified, it will not follow, that [91] to obtain inward quietneſs, I ſhould, in God's name, give an authoritative toleration to my ſeveral luſts, except perhaps the groſſer ones of malice, whoredom, drunkenneſs. (2.) The rules of rectifying what per⯑tains to religion in Britain, is plain. Let magiſtrates and ſubjects impartially and earneſtly ſearch the ora⯑cles of God, depending on the illuminating influence of his Spirit—Let every thing not contained in the ſcripture be thrown out of both civil and eccleſiaſtical eſtabliſhments of religion, and every thing plainly ap⯑pointed therein for the goſpel church, be authorized. Let the whole adminiſtration of government in church and ſtate, and ſubjection to it, be regulated by the law of God.—Let every prudent and winning method be taken to promote an univerſally chearful compliance.—If any continue to diſſent, let every degree and form of tender forbearance be exerciſed towards them, which the ex⯑preſs laws of God will permit, eſpecially, if by a cir⯑cumſpect life, they manifeſt themſelves perſons of a truly tender conſcience, with reſpect to what they ap⯑prehend.—If all will not concur in theſe meaſures, let particular perſons, in their ſeveral ſtations, act as becometh the goſpel of Chriſt, obeying God rather than man, and doing all that he hath commanded, without turning aſide to the right-hand or to the left. And if need be, let them take up their croſs, and pa⯑tiently follow Chriſt counting nothing too dear un⯑to them, if they may uprightly finiſh their courſe with joy—Upon trial, it would be found as eaſy for ma⯑giſtrates to rectify the diſorders in their department, relative to religion, as it would be for church-rulers in Britain, to rectify what pertains to rheirs, in which, you juſt now pled, that there never ſhould be any to⯑leration at all.

OBJECT. XXXIX. ‘"The great Dr. OWEN zea⯑louſly pled for authoritative toleration, and that ma⯑giſtrates ought not to interfere with religious matters."’ ANSW. We call no man maſter. One is our maſter even Chriſt. Dr. Owen's authority would be 100 light to balance that of many thouſands of Proteſtant divines. But let us hear his judgment, for ought I know his FINAL JUDGMENT, in his Sermon before the Engliſh Parliament, OCTOBER 13th, 1652— [92] ‘"The civil powers—ſhall be diſpoſed of, into an uſe⯑ful ſubſerviency to the intereſt, power, and kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt; hence they are ſaid to be his king⯑doms, Rev. xi. 15^*. Judges and Rulers AS SUCH muſt kiſs the Son and own his ſceptre and advance his ways. Some think, if you were well ſettled, you ought not, as rulers of the nations, to put forth your power for the intereſt of Chriſt. The good Lord keep your hearts from that apprehenſion^†. It is the duty of magiſtrates to ſeek the good, peace, and proſperity of the people committed to their charge, and to pre⯑vent and remove EVERY THING, that will bring con⯑fuſion, deſtruction and deſolation upon them, Eſther x. 3. Pſal. ci Magiſtrates are the miniſters of God for good—UNIVERSAL GOOD of them, to whom they are given, Rom. xiii. 4. and are to watch and apply them⯑ſelves to this very thing, ver. 6.—It is incumbent on them to act, even as kings and men in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godlineſs and honeſty,—and all may come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. ii. 1,—4—They are to feed the peo⯑ple committed to their charge, with all their might, unto univerſal peace and welfare—The things op⯑poſite to the good of any nation and people, are of two ſorts; (1.) Such as are really, directly, and im⯑mediately oppoſed to that ſtate wherein they cloſe to⯑gether, and find proſperity,—ſeditions, tumults, diſ⯑orders,—violent or fraudulent breaking in upon the privileges and enjoyments of ſingular perſons, with⯑out any conſideration of him who ruletb all things.—Such evils as theſe, nations and rulers, ſuppoſed to be atheiſts, would with all their ſtrength, labour to pre⯑vent.—(2.) Such as are morally and meritoriovſly oppoſed to their good and welfare, in that they will certainly pluck down the judgments and wrath of God upon that nation, where they are practiſed and allowed, Rom. i. Shall he be thought a magiſtrate to bear out the name, authority, and preſence of God to men, that, ſo he and his people have preſent peace like a herd of fwine, cares not though ſuch things as will certainly devour their ſtrength, and then utterly conſume them, [93] do paſs current.—Seeing they that rule over men muſt be juſt, ruling in the fear of the Lord, the ſole rea⯑ſon why they ſheathe the ſword of juſtice in the bowels of thieves, murderers, adulterers, is not, becauſe their outward peace is actually diſturbed by them—but princi⯑pally becauſe he, in whoſe ſtead they ſland and miniſter, is provoked by ſuch wickedneſs to deſtroy both the one and the other. And, if there be the ſame reaſon con⯑cerning other things, they alſo call for the ſame pro⯑cedure.—To gather up now what hath been ſpo⯑ken; Conſidering the goſpel's right to be propagated with all its concernments in every nation under hea⯑ven, and the bleſſings, peace, proſperity, and protection, wherewith it is attended, when and where received, and the certain deſtruction which accompanies the rejec⯑tion and contempt of it.—Conſidering the duty, that by God's appointment is incumbent on them that rule over men, That in the fear of the Lord they ought to ſeek the good, peace, and proſperity of them that are committed to their charge, and to prevent, obvi⯑ate, remove, and revenge that which tends to their hurt, perturbation, deſtruction, immediate from hea⯑ven, or from the hand of men; and in their whole adminiſtration to take care, that the worſhippers of God in Chriſt may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all god⯑lineſs and honeſty. Let any one, who hath the leaſt ſenſe of the account, which he muſt—make to the the great King and Judge of the world,—of the au⯑thority and power wherewith he was intruſted, deter⯑mine, Whether it be not incumbent on him, by all the protection he can afford; by all the privileges be can indulge; by all the ſupport he can grant; by all that encouragement he is required or allowed to give to any perſon whatſoever,—to further the propagation of the goſpel, which upon the matter, is the only thing of concernment, as well unto this life, as unto that which is to come.—And, if any thing be allowed in a nation, which, in God's eſteem, may amount to a con⯑tempt and deſpiſing thereof, men may be taught by ſad experience, what will be the iſſue of ſuch ALLOW⯑ANCE^* Although the inſtitutions and examples of the Old Teſtament, of the duty of magiſtrates in the [94] things about the worſhip of God, are not, in their whole latitude and extent, to be drawn into rules—ob⯑ligatory to all magiſtrates, now under—the goſpel,—yet doubtleſs, there is ſomething moral in theſe in⯑ſtitutions.—Subduct from theſe adminiſtrations, what was proper to the church and nation of the Jews, and what remains upon the general account of a church and nation, muſt be everlaſtingly binding; and this amounts thus far at leaſt, That Judges, Rulers and Magiſtrates, which are promiſed under the New Teſ⯑tament, to be given in mercy, and to be of ſingular uſefulneſs, as the Judges were under the Old, are to take care, That the goſpel-church, may, in its concernments as ſuch, be ſupported and promoted, and the truth pro⯑pagated, wherewith they are intruſted—Know, that ERROR and FALSEHOOD have no right or title, either from God or men, unto any privilege, protection, ad⯑vantage, liberty, or any good thing, you are intruſted withal. To diſpoſe that unto a LIE, which is the right of, and due to TRUTH, is to deal treacherouſly with Him, by whom you are employed^*. Know, that in things of practice, ſo OF PERSUASION, that are impious and wicked, either in themſelves or natural conſequences, the plea of conſcience is an aggravation of the crime. If mens conſcience be feared, and them⯑ſelves given up to a reprobate mind, to do thoſe things, that are not convenient, there is no doubt but they ought to ſuffer ſuch things as are aſſigned and appoint⯑ed by God to ſuch practices^†"’ A truly golden ſpeech, and which nothing, but the deepeſt conviction of its truth, could have drawn from an Independent, in his then circumſtances.

Upon the whole, Sir, I readily grant, that a mul⯑titude of cavils may be ſtarted againſt the magiſtrates power about religious matters mentioned in our excel⯑lent Standards, as may be againſt every divine truth, the moſt fundamental not excepted; and that the pro⯑per application of it to practice may be, in ſome cir⯑cumſtances, not a little difficult. But not cavils how⯑ever ſpecious; nor difficulty of upright performance of duty, but demonſtrative arguments of its ſinful⯑neſs [95] will warrant my renouncing a principle which I have ſo ſolemnly eſpouſed in ordination vows and co⯑venants with God; and far leſs to admit, That mens conſcience and magiſtrates ought, in the name of God, to warrant, encourage, and protect men in groſs here⯑ſy, blaſphemy and idolatry, though they cannot war⯑rant, encourage, or protect them in doing any civil injury to men. Perhaps, Tindal alone hath raiſed as many ſhrewd objections againſt the divine authority of our Bible, as have, or can be, raiſed againſt that power of magiſtrates mentioned in our Standards; and yet Wo, wo, wo for ever, to my ſoul, if, on that account, I renounce it, as an impoſture of Satan.

LETTER II. On the PERFIDY of all AUTHORITATIVE TO⯑LERATION of groſs Hereſy, Blaſphemy or Ido⯑latry, in BRITAIN.

TO exhibit the contrariety of an authoritative toleration of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, and ido⯑latry, to many, if not all the Burgeſs Oaths, in our country, and to the eſtabliſhed oaths of allegiance to His Majeſty, or even to his own Coronation Oath, to maintain the true Proteſtant religion, as by law eſta⯑bliſhed in his dominions, and to our Solemn vows in Baptiſm and the Lord's Supper, I leave to ſome fit⯑ter hand, and ſhall only repreſent it as a violation of theſe public covenants with God, which our fathers framed, as their ſtrongeſt human ſecurities againſt groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, idolatry, Popery, and every thing fimilar.

[96] Being treacherouſly and cruelly oppoſed in their re⯑formation of religion, by their two Popiſh Queens, the Proteſtant Lords and others in Scotland, entered into five ſeveral bonds, A. D. 1557, 1559, 1560, 1563, in which they ſolemnly engaged to aſſiſt and protect each other, in promoting the free exerciſe of the Proteſtant religion. It was only the ſmaller part of the Proteſtants in our land, which entered into theſe bonds,—nor doth it appear, they were intended as ge⯑neral obligations.—But, when the Papiſts abroad were labouring, with all their might, to extirpate the Pro⯑teſtant religion; and the Pope was found to have granted diſpenſations for qualifying his votaries, to undermine it in our land,—the National Covenant was formed and ſworn in 1581—in order to fruſtrate their attempts, and ſecure the reformation attained. In it the abominations of Popery were expreſly and parti⯑cularly abjured; and it was underſtood as adhered to and renewed in every religious bond that ſollowed. After God had marvellouſly fruſtrated the attempts of the Spaniards and other Papiſts againſt Britain, our fathers, in thankfulneſs to Him,—and to ſecure themſelves againſt the Popiſh confederates abroad, and their friends at home,—with much unanimity and joy renewed their National Covenant, A. D 1590, along with the ſubſcription of a General Bond for preſerva⯑tion of the Proteſtant religion, and the King's Majeſ⯑ty. In 1596, apprehenſions of danger from the Po⯑piſh Lords, and the treacherous regard ſhewed them by K. James, and eſpecially a very extraordinary effu⯑ſion of the Holy Ghoſt on the General Aſſembly, iſ⯑ſued in much ſolemn mourning for ſin, and renovati⯑on of their covenant with God. After forty years of fearful perfidious apoſtacy, and much ſinful veering towards the abjured abominations of Popery, they, awakened by K. Charles and Archbiſhop Laud's im⯑poſition of an almoſt Popiſh Liturgy and Book of Ca⯑nons,—Searched out, and lamented, their perfidy to God, as the cauſe of their manifold miſeries; and ſo⯑lemnly renewed their covenant with Him, as a mean of obtaining his gracious aſſiſtance, and ſecuring their Proteſtant religion and liberties. Affrighted by the Papiſts maſſacring of about two hundred thouſand [97] Proteſtants in Ireland, inſtigated by their diſtreſſes in England, and encouraged by the remarkable coun⯑tenance of God's Spirit and Providence to the Scotch covenanters. Moſt of the Engliſh and Iriſh Proteſtants in 1643 and 1644. along with them, entered into a Solemn League and Covenant with God, and with one another, in which they expreſly abjured Popery, and Prelacy as a branch of it.—K. Charles had ſcarce granted a peace, a kind of eſtabliſhment of their re⯑ligion to the murderous Papiſts in Ireland; and Duke Hamilton's attempts to reſtore him to his throne with⯑out giving any ſecurity for religion or liberty miſcar⯑ried in England, when the Scots, and not a few of the Iriſh renewed their Covenant, with a ſolemn acknow⯑ledgment of ſins and engagement to duties.—To manifeſt the fearful perfidy of all authoritative tolera⯑tion of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, idolatry, Popery, and every other form of encouragement to, or recep⯑tion of them, the ſolemn, the religious nature of theſe covenants, and their extenſive and perpetual obligati⯑on muſt be conſidered.

God alone bath a ſupreme and unlimited authority and right to regulate his own, and the conduct of all his creatures, Pſal. lxxxiii. 18. Dan. iv. 35. James iv. 12. But the very conſtitution of a rational crea⯑ture, implies a power derived from him to govern it⯑ſelf, even as mens ſtanding in the relation of parents, maſters, magiſtrates, or church-rulers, neceſſarily im⯑plies their power to govern others,—in ſubordination to him. By virtue of their divinely originated authority over others, parents, maſters, and other rulers make laws, or binding rules, for directing the external be⯑haviour of thoſe who are committed to their charge. And by their authority derived from God to rule their own Spirit, and to govern and keep in ſubjection their whole body, Prov. xvi. 32. James iii. 2. 1 Cor. ix. 27. all men are empowered to make for themſelves laws of ſelf engagement, in promiſes, oaths, vows and co⯑venants, which extend to their purpoſes and inclinati⯑ons as well as to their external acts. And, as all the authority, which men have over themſelves or others, is derived ſrom that ſupreme and independent autho⯑rity, which is in God himſelf, and is communicated [98] to them, by an act of his will, and is implied in his giving them ſuch a nature and ſtation, it is plain, that no human laws of authority, or ſelf-engagement, can have any obligation or binding force, but what are re⯑gulated by and ſubordinated to the divine laws of na⯑ture or revelation, 2 Cor. xiii. 8. and that, if ſuch laws and engagements be lawful, God, not only doth, but muſt neceſſarily ratify them, his law requiring the fulſilment of them, under pain of his higheſt diſ⯑pleaſure, Rom. xiii. 1,—6. Mat. v. 33.

As no deputed authority derived from God, can increaſe that ſupreme, that infinite authority, which he hath in himſelf; ſo no human command or engagement can increaſe that infinite obligation to duty, which his law hath in itſelf. But, if lawful, they have in them a real obligation, diſtinct, though neither ſeparated nor ſeparable, from the obligation of God's law. To pre⯑tend with Bellarmine and other Papiſts, that our pro⯑miſes or vows do not bind us in moral duties comman⯑ded by the law of God, is manifeſtly abſurd. It ne⯑ceſſarily infers, that all human commands of ſuperiors as well as human promiſes, oaths, vows, and cove⯑nants, are in themſelves deſtitute of all binding force, except in ſo far as they relate to ſuch trifling things, as the law of God doth not require of men in ſuch particular truths; and thus ſaps the foundation of all relative order and mutual truſt and confidence among mankind. Commands of ſuperiors muſt be mere de⯑clarations of the will of God in his law, and promiſes, oaths, vows and covenants muſt be nothing but mere acknowledgments, that God's law requires ſuch things from us,—in ſo far as relating to moral duties. It re⯑preſents the authority which God hath in himſelf, and with which he hath inveſted men, as his deputies, as ſo inconſiſtent and mutually deſtructive of each other, that men cannot be bound to the ſame thing by both. It repreſents the law of God as neceſſarily deſtructive of the being of an ordinance appointed by itſelf, to promote the more exact obſervance of itſelf,—in ſo far as that ordinance binds to a conſcientious and diligent obedience to it. It is contrary to the common ſenſe of mankind in every age, who have all along conſi⯑dered [99] mens promiſes, oaths and covenants, as binding them to pay their juſt debts, perform their juſt duties of allegiance or the like, and to declare the truth and nothing but the truth in witneſs bearing, &c. It is contrary to ſcripture, which repreſents promiſes, pro⯑miſſory oaths, vows, and covenants, as things which are to be performed, paid, or fufilled, and which may poſſibly be tranſgreſſed and broken, Mat. v. 33. Deut. xxviii. 21, 22, 23. Eccl. v. 4. Pſal. xxii. 25. & l. 14. & lxi. 8. & lxvi. 13. & lxxvi. 11. & cxvi. 13,—18. & cxix. 106. Iſa. xix. 21. Judges xi. 35. Iſa. xxiv. 5. Jer. xxxiv. 18.—which repreſents an oath as a ſtrong and deciſive confirmation, putting an end to all doubt or ſtrife, Heb. vi. 16,—18.—and which in one of the plaineſt and leaſt figurative chapters of it, repeatedly repreſents a vow, as conſtituted by our binding ourſelves, binding our own ſouls with a bond, and repreſents a vow as a bond or obligation, Heb. ISSAR, a very faſt and ſtrait binding bond or obligation,—as our own bond, that ſtands upon or againſt us, Num. xxx. 2,—12.—Self-binding, ſelf engagements, is ſo much the eſſential form of vows, and of all covenants, promiſes, or promiſ⯑ſory oaths, whether of God or man, that they can⯑not exiſt at all, or even be conceived of without it, any more than a man without a ſoul, or an angel with⯑out an underſtanding and will. To repreſent vowing as a placing of ourſelves more directly under the law of God, or any command of it; or, as a placing of ourſelves in ſome new relation to the law, is but an at⯑tempt to render unintelligible that which the Holy Ghoſt hath, in the above-mentioned chapter, labour⯑ed to make plain, if it doth not alſo import, that we can place ourſelves more directly under the moral law than God hath or can place us, or, more directly than Chriſt was placed.—To pretend, that mens commands or engagements derive their whole obligation from the law of God's requiring us to obey the one,—and pay, or fulfil or perform the other, is no leſs abſurd.—Theſe divine commands, requiring us to obey, pay, perform or fulfil human laws and engagements, plain⯑ly ſuppoſe an intrinfic obligation, in theſe laws and en⯑gagements, and powerfully enforce it. But no law of God can require me to OBEY a human law, or ful⯑fil [100] an engagement which hath no obligation in itſelf, any more than the laws of Britain can oblige me to PAY a Bill, or FULFIL a Bond conſiſting of nothing but mere cyphers.

The intrinſic obligation of promiſes, oaths, vows, and covenants which conſtitutes their very eſſence or eſſential form, is totally and manifeſtly diſtinct from the obligation of the law of God in many reſpects. (1.) In his law, God, by the declaration of his will, as our ſupreme Ruler, binds us, Deut. xii. 32. In promiſes, vows, covenants, and promiſſory oaths, we, as his deputy-governors over ourſelves, by a declaration of our will, bind ourſelves with a bond, bind our [...]uls with our own bond, our own vow, Num, xxx. Pſalm lxvi. 13, 15 & cxix. 106, &c. (2.) The obligation of our promiſes, oaths and covenants is alway ſubject to examination by the ſtandard of God's law, as to both its matter and manner, 1 Theſſ. v. 21. But it would be preſumption, blaſphemous preſumption, to examine, Whether, what we know to be the law of God be right and obligatory, or not, James iv. 11, 12. Iſa. viii. 20. Deut. v. 32. (3.) The law of God ne⯑ceſſarily binds all men to the moſt abſolute perfection in holineſs, be they as incapable of it as they will, Matth. v. 48. 1 Pet. i. 15, 16. No man can, without mock⯑ing and tempting of God, bind himſelf by vow or oath to any thing, but what he is able to perform. No man may vow to do any thing which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promiſe of ability from God. But, no mere man ſince the fall is able, in this life either in himſelf or by any grace received from God, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, Eccl. vii. 20 James iii. 2. While God remains God, his law can demand no leſs than abſolute perfection in holineſs. While his word remains true, no mere man ſince the fall, in this life, can poſſibly attain to it; and therefore ought never to promiſe or vow it. The leaſt imperfection in holi⯑neſs, however involuntary, breaks the law of God, and is even contrary to the duty of our relative ſtati⯑ons of huſhands, parents, maſters, magiſtrates, mini⯑ſters, wives, children, ſervants or people, 1 John iii. 4. Rom. vii. 14, 23, 24. But it is only by that [101] which is, in ſome reſpect, voluntary ſinfulneſs, that we break our lawful vows, Pſal. xliv. 47. Nothing can more clearly mark the diſtinction of the two obligati⯑ons, than this particular. There is no evading the force of it, but either by adopting the Arminian new law of ſincere obedience, or by adopting the Popiſh perfection of ſaints in this life. (4.) The law of God binds all men for ever, whether in heaven or hell, Pſal. iii. 7, 8. No human law or ſelf-engagement binds men, but only in this life, in which they remain imperfect, and are encompaſſed with temptations to ſeduce them from their duty. In heaven they have no need of ſuch helps to duty, and in hell they can⯑not be profited by them.

The obligation of lawful promiſes, oaths, vows and covenants, as well as of human laws, reſpecting moral duties, however diſtinct, is no more ſeparable from the obligation of God's law, than Chriſt's two diſtinct natures are ſeparable, the one from the other, but cloſely connected in manifold reſpects. In binding ourſelves to neceſſary duties, and to other things ſo long and ſo far as is conducive thereto, God's law as the only rule to direct us how to glorify and enjoy him, is made the rule of our engagement. Our vow is no new rule of duty, but a new bond to make the law of God our rule. Even Adam's engagement to perfect obedience in the covenant of works was noth⯑ing elſe. His ſallibility in his eſtate of innocence, made it proper, that he ſhould be bound by his own conſent or engagement, as well as by the authority of God. Our imperfection in this life, and the temp⯑tations which ſurround us, make it needful, that we, in like manner, ſhould be bound to the ſame rule, both by the authority of God, and our own engage⯑ments. It is in the law of God, that all our deputed authority to command others, or to bind ourſelves is allotted to us. The requirement of moral duties by the law of God obligeth us to uſe all lawful means to promote the performance of them; and hence requires human laws and ſelf-engagements, and the obſervance of them as conducive to it. Nay they are alſo expreſ⯑ly required in his law, as his ordinances for helping and hedging us in to our duty. In making lawful [102] vows, as well as in making human laws, we exert the deputed authority of God, the ſupreme Lawgiver, grant⯑ed to us in his law, in the manner which his law preſcribes, and in obedience to its preſcription. In forming our vows as an inſtituted ordinance of God's worſhip, which he hath required us to receive, obſerve, and keep pure and entire, Pſal. lxxvi. 11. & cxix. 106. & lvi. 12. Iſa. xix. 18, 21. & xlv. 23, 24. & xliv. 5. Jer. l. 5. 2 Cor. viii. 5.—we act preciſely according to the direction of his law, and in obedience to his au⯑thority in it,—binding ourſelves with a bond, binding our ſoul with a bond, Num. xxx. 2,—11.—binding our⯑ſelves by that which we utter with our lips, ver. 2, 6, 12.—binding ourſelves with a binding oath,—binding our⯑ſelves—binding our ſoul by our own vow—our own bond, ver. 4, 7, 14. In forming our vow, we, according to the preſcription of his own law, ſolemnly conſtitute God, who is the ſupreme Lawgiver and Lord of the conſcience,—the witneſs of our ſelf-engagement, and the Guarantee, graciouſly to reward our evangelical fulfilment of it, and juſtly to puniſh our perfidious violation of it. The more punctual and faithful ob⯑ſervation of God's law, notwithſtanding our mani⯑fold infirmities and temptations, and the more effec⯑tual promoting of his glory therein, is the END of our ſelf-engagements, as well as of human laws of autho⯑rity. And by a due regard to their binding force, as above ſtated, is this end promoted,—as hereby the ob⯑ligation of God's law is the more deeply impreſſed on our minds, and we are ſhut up to obedience to it, and deterred from tranſgreſſing it—In conſequence of our formation of our vow, with reſpect to its matter, manner, and end, as preſcribed by God, He doth, and neceſſarily muſt ratify it in all its awful ſolemnities, requiring us by his law, to pay it as a bond of debt,—to perform and fulfill it as an engagement to duties, and an obligation which ſtands upon or againſt us, Num. xxx. 5, 7, 9, 11. with Deut. xxiii. 21,—23. Pſalm lxxvi. 11. & l. 14. Eccl. v. 4, 5. Mat. v. 33. In o⯑bedience to this divine requirement, and conſidering our vow, in that preciſe form, in which God in his law, adopts and ratifies it, and requires it to be ful⯑filled, [103] We pay, perform, and fulfil it as a bond, wherewith we, in obedience to Him, have bound ourſelves, to endeavour univerſal obedience to his law, as our only rule of faith and manners. Who⯑ever doth not, in his attempts to obey human laws or to fulfil ſelf-enagements, conſider them as having that binding force which the law of God allows them, he pours contempt on them, as ordinances of God, and on the law of God for allowing them a binding force. Thus, through maintaining the ſuperadded but ſubor⯑dinate obligation of human laws, and of ſelf-engage⯑ments to moral duties, we do not make void, but eſ⯑tabliſh the obligation of God's law.

The obligation of a vow, by which we engage our⯑ſelves to neceſſary duties commanded by the law of God, muſt therefore be INEXPRESSIBLY SOLEMN. Not only are we required by the law of God before our vow was made; but we are bound, in that per⯑formance, to fulfil our vow, as an engagement or o⯑bligation founded in the ſupreme authority of his law warranting us to make it. We are bound to fulfil it as a mean of further impreſſing his authority manifeſted in his law, upon our own conſciences,—as a bond ſe⯑curing and promoting a faithful obedience to all his commandments We are bound to fulfil it, in obe⯑dience to that divine authority, by derived power from which, we as governors of ourſelves made it to pro⯑mote his honour. In thoſe or like reſpects, our ful⯑filment of our vows is a direct obedience to his whole law.—We are moreover bound to fulfil it, as a ſo⯑lemn ordinance of God's worſhip, the eſſential form of which lies in ſelf-obligation, and muſt be received, obſerved, kept pure and entire, and holily and reve⯑rently uſed, and ſo in obedience to Command I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil it, as an ordinance of God, in which we have pledged our own truth, ſincerity and faithfulneſs; and ſo in obedience to Command IX. I. II. III. We are bound to fulfil it, as a ſolemn deed or grant, in which we have made over our perſons, property, and ſervice to the Lord and his church; and ſo in obedience to Command I. II. VIII. nay, in obedience to the whole law of love and equity, Mat. xxii. 37, 39. & vii. 12. We are bound to fulfil it [104] from regard to the declarative glory of God, as the witneſs of our making of it, that he may appear to have been called to atteſt nothing, but ſincerity and truth; and ſo in obedience to Command I. III. IX. We are bound to fulſil it from a regard to truth, honeſty, and reverence of God, as things not only com⯑manded by his law, but good in themſelves, agree⯑able to his very nature, and therefore neceſſarily com⯑manded by him,—and from a deteſtation of falſehood, injuſtice, and contempt of God, as things intrinſically evil, contrary to his nature, and therefore neceſſarily forbidden in his law; and thus in regard to his au⯑thority in his whole law, as neceſſarily holy, juſt and good We are bound to fulfil it, from a regard to the holineſs, juſtice, faithfulneſs, majeſty, and other perfections of God, as the Guarantee of it, into whoſe hand we have committed the determination and exe⯑cution of its awful ſanction,—as the gracious rewar⯑der of our fidelity, or juſt revenger of our perfidy,—and hence in regard to our own happineſs, as con⯑cerned in that ſanction—In fine, We are bound to fulfil it in obedience to that command of God, which adopts and ratifies it, requiring us to pay, fulfil, or per⯑form our vow, oath or covenant, Pſal. l. 14. & lxxvi. 11. Eccl. v. 4. Deut. xxiii. 21,—23 Mat. v. 33.

In VIOLATING ſuch a vow, We do not merely tranſgreſs the law of God, as requiring the duties en⯑gaged, before the vow was made. But we alſo rebel againſt, and profane that divine warrant which we had to make our vow. We profane that authority over ourſelves in the exerciſe of which we made the vow, and conſequentially that ſupreme authority in God, from which ours was derived; and ſo ſtrike a⯑gainſt the foundation of the whole law. We mani⯑feſt a contempt of that law, which regulated the mat⯑ter and manner of our vow. We profane the vow, as an ordinance of God's worſhip, appointed in his law. By trampling on a noted mean of promoting obedience to all the commands of God, We mark our hatred of them, and prepare ourſelves to tranſgreſs them, and endeavour to remove the awe of God's au⯑thority and terror of his judgments from our conſcien⯑ces. We blaſphemouſly repreſent the Moſt High as [105] a willing Witneſs to our treachery and fraud. We pour contempt on him, as the Guarantee of our en⯑gagements, as if he inclined not, or durſt not avenge our villainy. Contrary to the truth and faithfulneſs required in his law, and pledged in our vow, we plunge ourſelves into the moſt criminal deceit and falſehood. Contrary to equity, we rob God and his church of that which we had ſolemnly devoted to their ſervice. Contrary to devotion, we baniſh the ſerious impreſſion of God's adorable perfections. Contrary to good neighbourhood, we render ourſelves a plague and curſe, and encourage others to the moſt enor⯑mous wickedneſs. Contrary to the deſign of our creation and preſervation, we reject the glory of God, and obedience to his law from being our end. Mean⯑while, we trample on the ratification of our vow, by the divine law in all its awful ſolemnities, and mani⯑fold connections with itſelf,—and requirement to pay it.

It is manifeſt, that our covenanting anceſtors un⯑derſtood their vows in the manner above repreſented. They never repreſent them as mere acknowledgments of the obligation of God's law, or as placing themſelves in ſome new relation to God's law, or more directly under any command of it. But declare that a man binds him⯑ſelf by a promiſſory oath to what is good and juſt—It cannot oblige to ſin: but in any thing not ſinful, being taken, it binds to performance.—By a vow we more ſtrictly bind ourſelves to neceſſary duties ^*. And, in expreſſions almoſt innumerable, they repreſent the obligation of their vows as diſtinct and different, tho' not ſeparable from the law of God^†. They no leſs [106] plainly declared, that no man may bind himſelf by oath to any thing, but what he is ABLE and reſolved to perform;—no man may vow any thing which is not in his own power, and for the performance of which he hath no promiſe of ability from God^‡. And in their ſeveral forms of covenant, they never once pretend to engage performing of duties in that abſo⯑lute perſection which is required by the law of God,—but ſincerely, really, and conſtantly to ENDEAVOUR the performance of them.

II. Theſe public covenants of our anceſtors, in which they abjured the Popiſh and other abominati⯑ons, may be called NATIONAL, becauſe the repreſen⯑tatives, or the greater or better part of the nation, jointly entered into them, as covenants of duty graft⯑ed upon the covenant of grace. But they ought never to be called national or civil, in order to exclude them from being church-covenants, and thus diminiſh the ſolemnity or continuance of their obligation. Both church and ſtate jointly promoted them, and in dif⯑ferent reſpects they related to both, being at once cove⯑nants of men with God, and with one another. In ſo far as therein they covenanted with one another, with an immediate view to promote or preſerve what belong⯑ed to the ſtate, they ſerved inſtead of a civil bond. But at the ſame time, they covenanted with one ano⯑ther as church-members, in ſubordination to their covenanting with God himſelf as their principal party.—The ratifications given to theſe covenants by the State were really civil ratifications, which adopted them as a part of the laws of the State.—But that no more rendered them merely civil covenants, than the civil ratifications given to, and embodying our Confeſſions of Faith, made them merely civil con⯑feſſions, and mere acts of Parliament,—or than the repeated legal eſtabliſhment of our Proteſtant religion in doctrine, worſhip, diſcipline and government, made it a mere civil religion. Theſe covenants were ſome⯑times uſed as means of promoting civil purpoſes. But that will no more prove them merely civil, than the [107] uſe of faſting and prayer for advancing or ſecuring the welfare of the State, will prove them a mere civil worſhipping of God.—Theſe covenants were formed for promoting the happineſs of both church and ſtate, and were calculated to anſwer that end. But ſo is the chriſ⯑tian religion and all the ordinances of it, if duly obſer⯑ved, 1 Tim. i. 8. Prov. xiv. 34. I admit, that there was ſometimes too mixed an interference of civil and ec⯑cleſiaſtical power in enjoining theſe covenants. But abuſe of things doth not alter their nature. God's ordinances are too often uſed in a carnal, ſenſual and deviliſh manner, without ever being rendered ſuch themſelves. It is only, as really religious covenants, and not as civil or ſtate covenants, they can be adopt⯑ed into ordination vows or baptiſmal engagements. And that they were ſuch, the following arguments evince.

1. The Covenanters themſelves, who beſt knew their own intentions do, times without number, re⯑preſent them as Vows, which their Confeſſion de⯑clares to be a religious ordinance, as covenants with God, which muſt be religious, if any dealings with him be ſo^*. The Aſſembly in 1649, in their laſt ſeſ⯑ſion, repreſent them as conſirmations of that right which the Father had given Chriſt to the ends of the earth.—They, times without number, call them religi⯑ous covenants,—a religious covenant with God,—among themſelves,—a voluntary covenanting with God,—a more free ſervice to God, than that which is command⯑ed by civil authority; and hence diſtinguiſh their co⯑venant, as having a religious and perpetual obligation,—from acts of parliament eſtabliſhing religion, which are changeable, and of the nature of a civil ratificati⯑on^†. Concerning the Solemn League, Principal Baillie ſays, The Engliſh were for a civil league, we [108] for a religious. They were brought to us in this^‡. The Aſſembly 1645, in their Letter to the Dutch, ſay of it, ‘"Having made a religious covenant, even as bound to God by the firmeſt bond, that God might avert his wrath already ſmoking and hanging over our heads,—a covenant renewed with God, (which ſhews that the Scots conſidered it as a real renovation of their national covenant) a religious covenant with God and among ourſelves.—If it ſhould ſeem meet to your prudence to think of joining in the religious fellowſhip of ſuch a covenant."’ How abſurd, for perſons of weaker capacities and leſs inſtructed by the Spirit of God, to pretend, at this diſtance of time, to know better the nature of their covenants, than themſelves did!

2. Except perhaps in 1581, the church, in her Ge⯑neral Aſſemblies, or Commiſſions, took the lead in promoting the covenanting work. And the ſtate, when it did any thing, did little more than ratify the deeds of the church appointing theſe covenants to be ſworn^§. Nay to me it appears evident, that even from 1581 to 1595, the national covenant was ſub⯑ſcribed more in obedience to the church, than in o⯑bedience to the ſtate.

3. In A. D. 1596 and 1638, in which the covenan⯑ting work was moſt delightfully carried on, in Scotland, the ſtate had no influence at all in promoting it. Nay in 1638, the court did all it could, to oppoſe the covenanters procedure. Indeed our zealous an⯑ceſtors in the preamble to their bond of that year quote many acts of Parliament in favours of that religion to which they engaged, and of the ſtedfaſt maintenance of it. But they never condſiered theſe acts as a part of their bond, or as a command to covenant in their manner; but as an evidence that they were doing nothing rebellious or treaſonable, as their adverſaries [109] pretended. Nay, till 1640, no act of Parliament en⯑joined covenanting work.

4. All along in Scotland, England and Ireland, miniſters not ſtateſmen, were the ordinary adminiſtra⯑tors of theſe covenants. And upon religious occaſions on the Lord's day, before adminiſtration of his Sup⯑per, or ſolemn faſting, were they appointed to be tak⯑en^*. If, without law, laymen ſometimes adminiſter⯑ed them, that will no more prove them merely ſtate covenants, than mid-wives baptizing of children, will conſtitute baptiſm a mid-wife ordinance. To protect them from the inſults of Popiſh and other profane op⯑poſers, the miniſters in A. D. 1590, had a royal com⯑miſſion, and a number of attendants appointed them, when they adminiſtered the covenant. But that will no more prove, that they acted as civil judges, than that miniſters, receiving an order from King or Par⯑liament to obſerve a public faſt, or hold a Synod, they muſt, in their faſting and judging work, renounce Chriſt's ſole headſhip over his church, and adopt the magiſtrate into his place.—If it is pretended, that mi⯑niſters marrying of perſons is not a religious but civil work, I inſiſt, that the marriage of Chriſtians, which is to be only in the Lord,—to bring up an holy ſeed for Him and his church, and the family to be a church in the houſe, and the parties mutual duty copied from, and influenced by the example of Chriſt,—and as it is a covenant of God which is not like civil contracts, diſ⯑ſolvable by the will of parties, be plainly proven to be a merely civil and nowiſe religious bond. If biſhops, as ſpiritual lords, adminiſter the king's coronation-oath, I leave it to others to explain and defend their conduct.—It is certain, the defence of religion is a lead⯑ing article in that oath.

[110] 5. There appears nothing in the origination of theſe covenants, which can prove them merely civil. No⯑thing appears in the five bonds of our Reformers, in 1557, 1559, 1560, 1563, but may well accord to the na⯑ture of a religious engagement. As Chriſtians, and not merely as civil lords, they bound themſelves,—chiefly to promote the true religion according to God's word.—Had K. James been not only the original adviſer, but even the framer of the National Covenant, it might nevertheleſs have been a religious bond. The pſalms which K. David penned and James verſified, are not thereby rendered merely civil. The faſt which K. Jehoſhaphat appointed, and at which he publicly pray⯑ed, was really religious, not merely civil. Our Con⯑feſſions of Faith and Proteſtant religion were not rendered merely civil, though in 1560 and 1690, the State took the lead in the ratification and eſtabliſhment before any General Aſſembly of theſe periods. It is not improbable, that the miniſters of the church had a principal hand in the origination of our national covenant. In 1580, James was about fourteen years of age, and by no tranſcendent genius, qualified for the work. Juſt before, and quickly after, we find him marking his hatred of true reformation. His ruling favourites were not a little ſuſpected and com⯑plained of, by the zealous clergy, as addicted to Po⯑pery.—Through the tearing out of the minutes of four ſeſſions of the Aſſembly, October 1580, by ſome paraſite of the court, Calderwood's hiſtory, at leaſt his printed abridgment, is imperfect on this period. He only ſays, that ‘"the ſecond Confeſſion of Faith, i. e. national covenant, commonly called the King's Confeſſion, was ſubſcribed by the King and his houſ⯑hold, i. e. privy council, January 28th, 158 [...], which is but an appendix to the Firſt, i e. Scotch Confeſſion, and comprehends it; and ſo both are one,—that a charge was ſubſcribed by the King, March 2d, where⯑by ſubjects of all ranks were charged to ſubſcribe the Confeſſion, (national covenant) and requiring mini⯑ſters to demand ſaid ſubſcription, and to cenſure ſuch as refuſed.—The General Aſſembly in April ap⯑proved the ſaid Confeſſion, and enjoined the ſubſcrip⯑tion of it.—The Aſſembly in October peremptorily [111] enjoined miniſters, to ſee that this Confeſſion of Faith be ſubſcribed, by all under their charge.—The Aſſem⯑bly in February 1588, enjoined all miniſters to deal with noblemen and gentry to ſubſcribe this Confeſſion of Faith.—In March 1590, the privy council, at the earneſt deſire of the Aſſembly, appointed about ninety-ſix miniſters to conveen before them, perſons of all ranks to ſubſcribe the Confeſſion and general Bond.—The Aſſembly appointed the Confeſſion and Bond to be ſubſcribed anew on copies printed by Robert Waldgrave," (in 4to, and fronted with theſe ſcriptures, Joſh. xxiv. 15. 2 Kings xi. 17. Iſa. xliv. 5. which certainly reſpect religious covenants)^*.’ Petry affirms, ‘"That Romiſh diſpenſations for Papiſts to ſwear the oaths, or do other things required of them, providing they continued true to the Pope in their heart,—being ſhewed to K. James (but whether by miniſters appointed to watch over the dangers of the church, he ſays not) occaſioned the formation and ſwearing of the national covenant, in order to defeat the intention of them. Mr. Craig, a celebrated mini⯑ſter, formed the draught of it at the deſire of King James," (and perhaps inſtigated James to deſire it)^†.’—With reſpect to James' conduct in the drawing, and firſt ſubſcription of this covenant, Spotſwood, who had the beſt acceſs to original vouchers, had he been inclined to a faithful uſe of them, ſays, ‘"So careful was the King to have the church ſatisfied and the rumours of the Court's defection from the (Pro⯑teſtant) religion repreſſed^‡"’—Remarks in Wil⯑liamſon's Sermon, 1703, ſays, ‘"The Preſbyterian party, A. D 1580, got an act of Aſſembly at Dun⯑dee againſt Epiſcopacy. That did not content them. They raiſed mighty jealouſies againſt the King and his court, as if they intended to re-introduce Popery. To convince his ſubjects of his ſincere adherence to the Proteſtant religion, His Majeſty cauſed his mini⯑ſter John Craig to compile the negative Confeſſion, (national covenant) in the form of an oath^§."’ Col⯑lier ſays, ‘"This covenant was ſigned, either by the [112] king or the lords of the council, at the requeſt of the General Aſſembly^*."’ Rapin ſays, ‘"It was drawn up by order of the General Aſſembly^†."’

The origination of the Solemn League and Cove⯑nant was equally conſiſtent with a religious vow. Not a few of the moſt pious clergymen in England had all along, from Elizabeth's eſtabliſhment of the Proteſtant religion, hated part of the ceremonies, and the lord⯑ly power of the biſhops. Many of theſe, driven from their charge, by the Prelatical perſecution, under Eli⯑zabeth and James, and Charles I had been compaſ⯑ſionately taken into the families of great men, for the education of their children. Their inſtruction and e⯑xample were remarkably bleſſed, for rendering their pupils and others intelligent and pious. They per⯑ceived the encroachments made upon their religion and liberties by Abp. Laud and his aſſiſtants, and not a few of them conceived a ſtrong reliſh for what was then called Puritaniſm. The ſucceſs of the Scotch covenanters, in their ſtruggles with the tyrannical court, made many of the Engliſh wiſh and hope for a ſimilar deliverance. In their treaty with Charles 1641, the Scots requeſted, that the Engliſh ſhould be brought to a reformed uniformity with themſelves in religion. The Scotch miniſters, who attended their Commiſſio⯑ners at London, in forming that treaty of peace, by their inſtructions and example, recommended their Preſbyterian reformation not a little to many of the moſt learned and pious of the Engliſh. A correſpon⯑dence for promoting a religious uniformity between the two churches was carried on by a number of the Engliſh clergymen with the Scotch Aſſemblies, 1641, 1642, 1643; and by the Engliſh parliament with the Aſſemblies, 1642, 1643. At their requeſt, the Aſ⯑ſembly appointed Meſſrs Henderſon, Rutherford, Gil⯑leſpy and others, to aſſiſt the Weſtminſter Aſſembly in compiling eccleſiaſtical Standards, of doctrine, wor⯑ſhip, diſcipline and government. Alarmed by the terrible maſſacre of the Proteſtants in Ireland, and re⯑duced to ſtra [...]ts in their war with K. Charles, the Engliſh Parliament requeſted, that for promoting and [113] eſtabliſhing uniformity in religion, and preſerving their reſpective liberties, the two nations might be more cloſely connected by a mutual League. The Letter from a multitude of Engliſh miniſters,—the papers from the Engliſh parliament and their Commiſſioners, and the Scotch Aſſembly's anſwers, manifeſt that an uniformity of religion was the principal thing propoſ⯑ed by this League. Henry Vane and perhaps ſome o⯑ther Engliſh Commiſſioners, nevertheleſs, from a diſ⯑like of the Scotch Preſbyterianiſm, thought to have gone no further than a civil league, but the Scots be⯑ing poſitive for a religious one, he yielded It appear⯑ed from that readineſs and avidity, with which the Solemn League was received in England, that it an⯑ſwered to the wiſhes of his conſtituents. After the Weſtminſter Aſſembly had examined and approved it, the Engliſh Parliament appointed it to be ſworn by perſons of all ranks, and iſſued forth inſtructions and an exhortation for promoting that work^‡.

6. There is nothing in the matter of theſe cove⯑nants, which doth not enter into the faith and prac⯑tice of true religion. They principally engaged to the belief, profeſſion and practice of the true Proteſ⯑tant religion, in doctrine, worſhip, diſcipline and go⯑vernment; and renounced, and promiſed the regular extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, and whatever elſe ſhould, by the word of God, be found contrary to ſaid doctrine, worſhip, diſcipline, and government, and holy practice. The preſervation of the King's perſon and authority, and of the rights and privileges of the parliament and nation was promiſed as a thing ſubordinated to the intereſts of religion, in which view, it is a very neceſſary and important branch of practical Chriſtianity, Rom. xiii. 1,—8. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. Tit iii. 1.

7. The manner of covenanting repreſented in theſe covenants, correſponds not to merely civil but to re⯑ligious Bonds. In their Bond 1581, 1590. &c. Our anceſtors covenanted as throughly reſolved in the truth [114] by the word and Spirit of God,—as believing it with their heart,—and joining themſelves to the reformed kirk in doctrine, faith, religion, and uſe of the holy ſacra⯑ments, as lively members of the ſame, in Chriſt their Head. If theſe expreſſions be but underſtood, as re⯑lating to the viſible church, her concerns as ſuch, are of a ſpiritual and religious nature, John xviii. 36. Their covenanting in 1596, was ſo much detached from the State, and ſo religiouſly conducted, that you dare not pretend it to have been ſtate-covenanting; yet they viewed it as a mere renovation of their na⯑tional covenant, in a manner ſuited to their circum⯑ſtances. Shield in Hind let looſe, De Foe, Crook-ſhanks, and Stevenſon, and Petry in their church-hiſtories, and Gilleſpy in his Engliſh Popiſh ceremonies, call it a renovation of their national covenant^*. E⯑piſtola Philadelphi ſubjoined to Altare Damaſcenum, ſays, ‘"Their ſacred and ſolemn covenant was renew⯑ed, in which men of all ranks covenanted with God, that they would adhere to the religion and diſci⯑pline^†."’ Calderwood, who was perhaps preſent, ſays, "The end of the convention March 1596, was to enter into a new league with God,—holding up their hands,—entering into a new league and covenant with God,—that the covenant might be renewed in Synods, after the ſame manner.—The covenant was renewed in Synods.—The covenant was renewed in Preſbytries.—The covenant was renewed in Pariſhes^‡.—In 1604, the whole brethren of the Preſbytry of St. Andrews and Synod of Lothian, ſubſcribed the confeſſion of faith and national covenant anew, like as they ſubſcribed the ſame—in the year 1596,—which confeſſion, i. e. national covenant is ſolemnly renewed in the covenant celebrated in the general and provincial Aſſemblies, Preſbytries, and Kirk-ſeſſions, in the year 1596; and how ſhall any be heard againſt that which he hath ſolemnly ſworn or ſubſcribed^§? The Aſſembly 1638, Seſ. 17th, ſay, ‘"The covenant was renewed in 1596."’ The preamble of the cove⯑nant, [115] 1648, affirms, that ‘"the Aſſembly 1596, and all the kirk judicatures, with the concurrence of the nobility, gentry and burgeſſes, did with many tears acknowledge before God the breach of the national covenant, and engaged themſelves to reformation."’—In 1638, they covenanted in obedience to the command of God, conform to the practice of the godly in ſormer times, and according to the laudable example of their worthy and religious progenitors, and of many yet living among them, (i. e. who had covenanted in 1596.)—They covenanted as agreeing with their heart to the true religion,—and from the knowledge and conſcience of their duty to God, their king and their country, with⯑out worldly reſpect or inducement, ſo far as human in⯑firmity will ſuffer;—as Chriſtians renewing their cove⯑nant with God;—as reſolved to be good examples of all goodneſs, ſoberneſs and righteouſneſs.—In 1643, they covenanted as unſeignedly deſirous to be humbled for their ſins, in not duly receiving Jeſus Chriſt, and walking wor⯑thy of him.—In 1648, they covenanted in imitation of their penitent predeceſſors in 1596,—as deeply affect⯑ed with their ſins, eſpecially the undervaluing of the goſ⯑pel, that they had not laboured in the power thereof, and received Chriſt into their hearts;—and as really and ſincerely penitent; denying themſelves, and reſolving not to lean on carnal confidences, but to lean to the Lord. Dare you pretend, that all theſe expreſſions, in their ſeveral bonds, repreſent men, merely as members of a commonwealth, employed in mere ſtate-covenanting?

8. The ends of their covenanting expreſſed in their ſeveral bonds are religious not merely civil. In 1581-1596 and 1604 they covenanted in order to pro⯑mote and preſerve the profeſſion and practice of the true Proteſtant religion;—in order to advance the kingdom of Chriſt, as the principal, and the welfare of their country as their ſubordinate end—In 1638, they cove⯑nanted as a means of obtaining the Lord's ſpecial ſa⯑vour, and of recovering the purity of religion ^‡. In 1643, they covenanted that they and their poſterity might as brethren, live together in ſaith and love, and the Lord delight to dwell among them; and that the Lord [116] might be one, and his name one, in all the three kingdoms, that the Lord might turn away his wrath and heavy in⯑dignation, and eſtabliſh theſe churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.—In 1648 they covenanted, for ad⯑vancing the knowledge of God, and holineſs and righteouſ⯑neſs in the land.

9. There is nothing in theſe covenants, or in the ſeaſons of taking them, which doth not perfectly har⯑monize with a taking hold of God's covenant of grace. Mens beli [...] profeſſion and practice of the true Pro⯑teſtant religion, and labouring to promote the wel⯑fare of their king and country, agree well to it, Tit. ii. 11, 12, 14. & iii. 1, 8, 14. Prov xxiii. 23. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. Rom. xiii. 1,—8, 11,—14.—Their volun⯑tary joining themſelves to the church of God as lively members in Chriſt,—and agreeing with their whole heart to his true religion and ordinances, agree exact⯑ly to it, Pſal. xxii. 27,—31. & cx. 3. 2 Cor. viii. 5. Having before their eyes the glory of God, and ad⯑vancement of the kingdom of Chriſt, and their ear⯑neſt and conſtant endeavours, in their ſtations, that they and their poſterity might live in faith and love, delightfully agree with it, Mat. vi. 9, 10. 1 Cor. x 31. Eph. iii. 14,—19. 2 Theſſ. iii. 1. Pſal. lxxviii. 4,—9. Iſa. xxxviii. 19. An unfeigned deſire to be humbled for their ſin in not duly receiving Chriſt, and walk⯑ing worthy of him, and for their unworthy uſe of the ſacraments;—a real and ſincere repentance, ſelf-de⯑nial, and reſolution to lean upon the Lord alone, ac⯑cord excellently with it, Ezek. xvi. 62, 63 & xxxvi. 25,—32. Phil. iii. 3, 8,—14. The covenanting ſea⯑ſons being remarkable for trouble or danger,—the out pouring of the Holy Ghoſt,—and deep convicti⯑ons of ſin, are preciſely thoſe marked out for that work in ſcripture, Joel ii 12, 13. Pſal. l. 14, 15. & lxvi. 13, 14. Ezek. xx. 36, 37. Hoſ. ii, 7, 14. & v. 15. & iii. 4, 5, Iſa. xliv. 3,—5. Acts ii. 2 Cor. viii 5. Jer. l. 4, 5.

Theſe covenants indeed connect fulfilment with gra⯑cious rewards, and violation with fearful judgments^‡. But this annexed ſanction no more renders them cove⯑nants [117] of works, than ſo help me God, in the concluſion of oaths, renders every oath a covenant of works. Notwithſtanding this ſanction annexed to the Iſrae⯑lites covenants of duty with God, they might well ſtand ſtedfaſt in the covenant of grace, Lev. xxvi. Deut. xxvii,—xxx. 1 Kings ix. In this world, the Law, as a rule of life, hath an annexed ſanction of gra⯑cious rewards and fearful chaſtiſements, as well as it hath as a covenant, one of legal rewards and puniſh⯑ments, Pſal. i. Iſa iii. 10, 11. Exod. xx 6, 12. Rom. ii. 7,—10. & viii. 13. Heb. xi. 6. Gal. vi. 7,—10. 1 Cor. xv. 58. Without Neonomianiſm, the Holy Ghoſt calls that which is annexed to believers obedi⯑ence, a reward, and that which is connected with their diſobedience, a puniſhment, Pſal. xix 11. & lviii. 11. Prov. xi. 18. & xxiii. 18. Mat. v. 12. & x. 41. Gen. xv. 1. Ezra ix. 13. Amos iii. 2. 2 Cor. ii. 6 Lam. iii. 39 Pſalm xcix. 8. ‘"The threatenings of God's law ſhew believers what even their ſins deſerve, and what afflictions in this world they may expect for them, al⯑though freed from the curſe thereof, threatened by the law. The promiſes of it ſhew them God's appro⯑bation of obedience, and what bleſſings they may ex⯑pect upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; ſo as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, becauſe the law encourageth the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace^‡"’

10 The remarkable effuſion of the Spirit of God, which attended the ſwearing of theſe covenants, for the conviction, converſion, and confirmation of mul⯑titudes, fixing in their hearts ſuch a deep ſenſe of reli⯑gion, as all the profaneneſs and perſecution of twenty eight years could not eradicate,—is no contemptible evidence that He looked upon them as religious, not merely ſtate covenants. It is at our infinite hazard, if we call that common and unclean, which God hath ſo ſingularly honoured.

OBJECT. I. ‘"Our Covenanters characterizing themſelves Noblemen, Barons, Burgeſſes and Commons, [118] proves their covenants to be mere civil covenants."’ ANSW. Will then others characterizing themſelves miniſters render them, at the ſame time, church-cove⯑nants? Hath Solomon's denominating himſelf King of Iſrael, in his Proverbs and Eccleſiaſtes, rendered theſe two books merely civil, not religious? If, in a Bond or Bill, I denominate myſelf miniſter of the goſ⯑pel, Will that render the Bond or Bill religious and eccleſiaſtical? (2.) As they never uſed ſuch charac⯑ters in their bonds, but when they covenanted contra⯑ry to their King's will, they probably intended no more by them, than merely to mark the great harmo⯑ny of all ranks, for the encouragement of their friends, and the terror of their malicious enemies. (3.) There was no irreligion, in ſubjecting themſelves and all their honours to the ſervice of Jeſus Chriſt, as made of God Head over all things to his Church, Revel. xxi. 24.

OBJECT. II. ‘"In 1638, and 1643, they framed their covenants to admit Epiſcopalians and Indepen⯑dents, whom they would not have admitted to the ſacraments."’ ANSW. As in taking theſe covenants, men bound themſelves to the regular reformation of every thing found ſinful, when tried by the word of God, our anceſtors agreeable to Rom. xiv. 1. Iſaiah xxxv. 3, 4. were willing to help forward the weak, and admit to their covenant and church fellowſhip, every perſon, who appeared willing to receive more light. even though they were not in every reſpect, e⯑qually enlightened and reformed as themſelves. But, I defy you to prove, that they excluded one upright covenanter from their religious communion. (2.) The covenants of 1638 and 1643, were not framed to admit any who reſolved obſtinately to adhere to Epiſcopacy or Independency. In the bond of 1638, men bound themſelves to forbear the practice of Epiſcopa⯑lian government, and of the articles of Perth, till they ſhould be TRIED and ALLOWED in a free General Aſſembly. The covenanters declare, that their inten⯑tion in that bond, was againſt all innovations and corruptions^‡. In the covenant of 1643, that para⯑graph, [119] which peculiarly reſpected the Proteſtants in England and Ireland was prudently ſuited to the weakneſs of many of them. But there is nothing in it, which favours either Epiſcopacy or Independen⯑cy. The preſervation of the reformation attained in Scotland ſworn to, excluded them both. If then E⯑raſtians or Independents, and others diſſembled with God, and their brethren, in taking it, they, not the covenant, are blameable. Mens hypocritical recepti⯑on of the ſacraments will not render them civil ordi⯑nances. (3.) You can never prove, that the covenant of 1538 was tendered to the Doctors of Aberdeen, after they had ſhown their obſtinate attachment to Prelacy. Or that Philip Nye, or any others, after manifeſting their obſtinate attachment to Independen⯑cy, had the covenant of 1643, tendered to them by any truly zealous covenanter. Baillie affirms, that the Scots were peremptory againſt keeping open a door to Independency in England^‡.

OBJECT. III. ‘"The impoſition of theſe covenants under civil penalties, proves them to have been mere⯑ly ſtate covenants."’ ANSW. No more than the re⯑quirement of men under civil penalties, to partake, at leaſt once a year, of the Lord's Supper, rendered it a merely civil ordinance. An ordinance may re⯑main religious, though a civil ſanction ſhould be ſin⯑fully annexed to it. (2.) If, which I do not, you be⯑lieve, that Aſa and Joſiah, by penal laws, compelled men to take their covenants, you can ſcarce condemn our covenanters annexing civil penalties to the refuſal of their bonds, eſpecially as they knew, it would ſcarce come from any, but ſuch as were malignant ene⯑mies to the civil as well as religious liberties of the na⯑tion. (3.) In 1596, 1638, 1648, and 1649, theſe covenants had no penalty either civil or eccleſiaſtical annexed to the not ſwearing of them, without any hint from the covenanters, that this altered the na⯑ture of the engagement.

OBJECT. IV. ‘"Our anceſtors gave up with their covenanting work, whenever they got the ſtate of the [120] nation ſettled by means of it; and having got their civil liberties otherwiſe ſecured at the Revolution, they never covenanted at all."’ ANSW. (1.) Did ten years of murderous invaſion and outrageous conten⯑tion, and twenty-eight years of horrible profaneneſs and perſecution make our nation ſo happy, that co⯑venanting with God our deliverer was no more nece⯑ſſary? Or, Have the fearful profanation of the name of God by unneceſſary and wicked oaths, or the ſhocking bribery and perjury, too common in the e⯑lection of our Repreſentatives in Parliament, and our other outrageous abominations, rendered Britain ſo holy, that theſe covenants need no more be regard⯑ed? (2.) Not the alteration of the national affairs to the better, but the alteration of mens hearts to the worſe, made covenanting with God to be ſo contemned at the Reſtoration and Revolution.

III. That theſe ſolemn and religious covenants with God, in which all groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, idolatry, Popery, and other abominations have been repeatedly abjured, bind not only the immediate ſwearers or ſub⯑ſcribers, but all their poſterity and other repreſentees, in all generations following, to a ſaithful performance of every thing engaged, muſt now be demonſtrated.

1. That which is engaged in theſe covenants, being moral duty, commanded by the law of God, is of perpetual obligation. The whole faith and practice to which we therein engage are ſtated from the oracles of God, in our excellent Standards. If the matter in itſelf, were contrary to God's law, no human cove⯑nant could bind us, or any repreſented by us, to it for a moment. We can have no power from God to bind ourſelves or others to any thing ſinful, 2 Cor. xiii. 8. Nor can any human deed be valid in oppoſi⯑tion to his ſupreme authority.—If the matter were indifferent, no vow or promiſſory oath could lawful⯑ly conſtitute a perpetual obligation, as the alteration of circumſtances might render it very unexpedient and unedifying, 1 Cor. vi. 12. & x. 23. & xvi. 14 Rom. xiv. 19. But if that which is engaged, be preciſely, what every perſon, in every age or circumſtance, is [121] bound to, by the antecedent tie of the law of God, no man can be, in the leaſt, abridged of any lawful liberty, by being brought under the moſt ſolemn obli⯑gation of an oath or vow.—The ſtricteſt fulfilment of it cannot but tend to the real profit of every one concerned, both in his perſonal and his ſocial capaci⯑ty, Pſal. xix. 11. 1 Cor. xv. 58. Iſa iii. 10. Proverbs xiv. 34. Rom. ii. 1,—10. It is therefore for the ad⯑vantage of us and our poſterity, to be hedged in, and bound up to the moſt exact conformity to God's law, by every mean which he requires or allows, in his word,—even as it is for our advantage to have our li⯑berty bounded by the ledges of bridges.—The law of God requires us to do every thing which is calculat⯑ed to promote or ſecure our own or our children's walking in the truth, Gen. xvii. 7. Pſal. xlv. 17. & lxxviii 1,—9 Iſa. xxxviii. 19 3 John, ver. 4.—It re⯑preſents ſolemn vows as a mean moſt effectual to an⯑ſwer this purpoſe, Pſal. cxix. 106. & lxxvi. 11. & l. 14. & lvi. 12. & lxvi. 13, 14. & lxi. 8. & cxvi. 12,—19. & cxxxii. 1,—5. Gen. xxviii. 20. Deut. v. 2. & xxix. Joſh. xxiv. 15, 24. 25. 2 Chron. xv. 12. & xxiii. 16, 17. & xxiv. 10. & xxxiv. 30,—32. Ezra x 3. Neh. ix. x. Iſa. xix. 18, 21. & xliv. 3,—5. & xlv. 23, 24. Jer. l. 4. 5. 2 Cor. vii. 5.

2. By the repeated judicial acts of both church and ſtate, approving and impoſing theſe covenants, they were conſtituted the adopted laws of both, proper to be acknowledged and ſubmitted to, by all their mem⯑bers, in the moſt ſolemn manner, which their circum⯑ſtances permitted.—Several of theſe acts, as well as the beſt duties of Chriſtians, had their ſinful infirmities particularly on the head of penalties, which I mean not to defend. But in ſo far as theſe acts approved and authorized theſe covenants, which bound men to receive and hold faſt ſuch temporal and ſpiritual pri⯑vileges, as God had given them, and thankfully im⯑prove them to his glory,—and required a Chriſtian, regular, and ſeaſonable taking of them,—they were certainly good and valid. Being good in themſelves, and the exact performance of them calculated to pro⯑mote the glory of God, and eminent welfare of both church and ſtate, theſe covenants, if once regularly [122] adopted as laws, muſt remain obligatory upon the a⯑dopting ſocieties, while they exiſt. Civil rulers being ordained miniſters of God for good to men, Rom. xiii. 1,—4. and church officers appointed by Chriſt for the edifying of his body, Eph. iv. 11,—14. have no power againſt the truth, but for the truth, 2 Corinth. xiii. 8, 10. and ſo can no more repeal a law, which promotes only that which is morally good, any more than they can give validity to a ſinful one.—Theſe covenants muſt therefore, in the view of God and conſcience, continue binding, as laws divinely ratifi⯑ed, upon us, as ſubjects, and as Chriſtians. But it is their much more ſolemn obligation as public Vows and Covenants with God, which I mean to eſtabliſh, par⯑ticularly with reference to Scotland.

3. The matter of theſe vows being morally good, calculated to promote the holineſs and happineſs of e⯑very perſon in every age, the immediate covenanters were ſuch as laid every poſſible foundation of tranſ⯑mitting the obligation of their vow to the whole church and nation, to all generations. The REPRESENTA⯑TIVES of both church and ſtate,—the MAJORITY of the Society, and our own PARENTS, in their reſpec⯑tive ſtations, took theſe covenants. What could tran⯑ſmit and extend an obligation to poſterity, if all this did not? You cannot but allow, that even in private civil deeds, the obligation is extended far beyond the immediate engagers. In bonds, reſpecting money or ſervice, men bind not only themſelves, but their ſuc⯑ceſſors, and aſſigns, eſpecially, if they have the con⯑tinued right to, or poſſeſſion of that fund or property from which that money or ſervice natively ariſeth. The obligations contained in a call to a miniſter, fix on the whole congregation, if ſubſcribed by the majority, without any regular diſſent,—and on ſuch as after⯑wards accede to it. The treaties of peace, traffick, &c. contracted by Kings, Parliaments, Magiſtrates, are held binding on their ſubjects, and even on their poſterity. They, who accede to any ſociety, fall un⯑der the binding force of its ſocial engagements for debt, duty, &c. If bonds and covenants did only bind immediate contractors, nothing but the wildeſt diſorder would enſue. If the immediate engagers, [123] quickly after died, they who truſted to their engage⯑ment, might be totally ruined.—A minority, who had been ſilent during the tranſaction, might, in a few days, overturn a bond or contract of the majori⯑ty. Subjects might, at their pleaſure, render void the contracts and treaties of their rulers. To pretend, that men may not uſe the ſame freedom, in binding their repreſentees and poſterity to God, as in binding them to men, is highly abſurd and ſhocking, as it repreſents God as more dangerous, and leſs honoura⯑ble and uſeful to be dealt with, than the very worſt of men. Why may not a parent, in offering his child to God in baptiſm, take hold of God to be his God, and the God of his ſeed after him to all generations,—and dedicate not only that child, but all his poſte⯑rity to God, as his honoured vaſſals and ſervants, Gen. xvii. 7. Acts ii. 39.?—Is this leſs dutiful, ſafe, or honourable, than to infeft himſelf and them in ſome earthly property, and bind them as poſſeſſors of it, to be the vaſſals of ſome ſinful ſuperior?—If the majority of a ſociety, eſpecially in diſtreſs, may put the whole under the authority and protection of a man who is a great ſinner, why muſt they act either wickedly or fooliſhly, if, by a ſolemn dedication, they put it under the eſpecial care and protection of the Great GOD our Saviour? Rev. xi. 15. Pſal. ii. 12. & xxii. 27. If the repreſentatives of a people, may bind them to live peaceably and trade honeſtly with earthly neighbours; or may, in ſome caſes, ſub⯑ject them to the power, laws, or exactions of other earthly ſuperiors,—why allow them no power to ſtu⯑dy peace with God, and to follow peace with all men and holineſs?—No power to ſurrender them to God, to be ruled by his law,—and to render him his due re⯑venues of honour?—Hath not God an original and ſupreme right to all men as his creatures, ſubjects, and children? Are they not all bound by his law to the whole of that duty, to which, we contend, any man ought to be bound by a vow of perpetual obliga⯑tion? Is it not inexpreſſibly honourable, ſafe and pro⯑fitable to ſtand under the ſpecial care of, and in rela⯑tion to God in Chriſt, Deut. iv. 7. & xxxiii. 29,? [124] Why then more ſhy of devoting poſterity, or other repreſentees to him, than to a ſinful man and his ſer⯑vice?

In covenants with men, a proper and timely diſſent may frequently be well founded; and may effectually divert this obligation from the diſſenters. But how there could be a lawful diſſent from an engagement carefully to keep all the commandments of God and nothing elſe, I know not. Had the whole, or even the body of the Hebrew nation, timely and regularly diſſented from the treaty made by their princes with the Gibeonites, it might have diverted its obligation from them.—Inſlead of this, they appear to have a⯑greed to the final ſtating of it, without a ſingle mur⯑mur, Joſh. ix. But, if theſe princes had, by cove⯑nant, devoted themſelves and their tribes to a careful keeping of God's commandments; I know not how the people's diſſent could have diverted the obligation from themſelves.—In covenants with men, the non-fulfilment of ſome condition or ſome diſpenſation or remiſſion may weaken, if not perfectly annul, the ob⯑ligation. But none can diſpenſe with, or grant re⯑miſſions, in the matters of God. Covenants made with God are more abſolute, and leſs clogged with conditions, and ſo more obliging The covenants of which we now treat, being about indiſpenſible duties of morality, upon which dependeth the glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jeſus Chriſt, the honour and happineſs of magiſtrates, and the public liberty, ſafety and peace of the nation, and the good of poſterity in all time coming, ought to have their obligation allowed to fix, wherever any ground can be found, while Chriſt hath a kingdom, and the cove⯑nanters a poſterity, particularly in Scotland; for,

(1.) Our civil Repreſentatives by theſe covenants devoted themſelves in their ſtation, and their ſubjects, in ſo far as under their power, to the ſervice of God. In 1581 and 1590, King James and his privy council took the National Covenant, and required their ſub⯑jects to follow their example. In 1638, the privy council again took it, as it ſtood in 1581. In 1640, the members of Parliament took it, as explained by the Aſſembly 1638, to abjure Prelacy and the five ar⯑ticles [125] of Perth, and appointed it to be ſworn by all the members of every future Parliament. It was ſworn by the members of Parliament 1644. In 1649, the national covenant, and the Solemn League which was materially the ſame, were renewed by the members of Parliament, with ſolemn faſting and humiliation. The oath framed in 1641, to be ſworn by members of Par⯑liament, at taking their ſeats, expreſly approved the national covenant. King Charles I. gave a ſolemn approbation of it. King Charles II. and other magiſ⯑trates took the covenants in 1650 and 1651. Now, if a covenant made by the princes of Iſrael with the repreſentatives of the Gibeonites, in a matter which concerned the Lord's land and the remote ſervice oſ his altar, extended its obligation to the whole nation of Iſrael, who conſented to it, no otherwiſe, than by ſi⯑lence at the final ſtating of it,—and to their poſterity, for many generations,—that four hundred years after, they were puniſhed with a famine on account of Saul's breach of it, Joſh. ix. with 2 Sam. xxi. and to the Gibeonites and their poſterity;—Why not allow the covenanting deed of our Princes to extend its obliga⯑tion in like manner? If magiſtrates be the miniſters of God for good to men, Why ſhould they not be ca⯑pable to ſurrender themſelves and their ſubjects to the ſpecial care and ſervice of God, their common and beneficent Superior? If they poſſeſs the powers aſſign⯑ed them in our excellent Standards, Why may they not, as nurſing ſathers of the church, devote them⯑ſelves and their ſubjects of the ſame true religion, to the enjoyment of God himſelf in his oracles and or⯑dinances, and to ſerve Him regularly in Chriſt? If Joſhua could bind himſelf and his family to ſerve the Lord, why may not magiſtrates bind themſelves and their ſubjects of the ſame true religion, to receive and hold faſt the like honour and happineſs? If for the benefit of their ſubjects, magiſtrates may, in a time of need, ſubject themſelves and their people to ſome powerful Monarch, whoſe fury is terrible, but his fa⯑vour extremely profitable, or may approve and ratify ſome former grant of that kind,—Why may they not for the ſame end, devote themſelves and ſubjects to the Great GOD our Saviour, and Prince of the kings [126] of the earth? Why may they not bring their glory in⯑to the church? and as judges kiſs the Son of God, ſolemnly approving and in their ſtation ratifying that grant which his Father made to him, of the outer⯑moſt ends of the earth? Rev. xxi. 24. & xi. 15. Prov. viii. 15, 16, Pſal. ii. 8,—12.

(2.) In theſe covenants our Repreſentatives in the church, in their ſtation, devoted themſelves and their people to the faith, profeſſion and obedience of Chriſt. In April 1581, the General Aſſembly unanimouſly approved the national covenant, and then in October enſuing, in the name of Chriſt, appointed it to be ſub⯑ſcribed by all Proteſtants. In 1588 and 1590, they made further acts for promoting this ſubſcription. The general Aſſemblies of 1596, 1638, 1639, and the Commiſſions or Aſſemblies of 1643, 1644, 1648, 1649, enjoined the ſwearing of the covenant by all a⯑dult church-members. I do not know of one Preſby⯑terian miniſter or ruling elder in Scotland, who, in a⯑ny of the covenanting periods of 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1643, 1648, declined taking it. Now, if ci⯑vil repreſentatives may bind their ſubjects and their poſterity by civil contracts, Why ought not the har⯑monious dedication of themſelves and people to God, by church-rulers to have a like binding force? If, in public prayers, miniſters may devote themſelves and congregations to Chriſt, why may not they and ruling elders conjunctly do it, by public covenant? But we do not chiefly reſt the matter on theſe grounds; for,

(3.) It is beyond all contradiction, that the lawful and public covenants civil or religious, which are made by parents, do bind their poſterity. The oath of Eſau, in which he reſigned his birthright to Jacob, bound his poſterity never to attempt recovering the privileges of it, from Jacob or his deſcendents. Hence Eſau and his family, after the death of Iſaac, remov⯑ed intirely from Canaan, Gen. xxv. 33. & xxxvi. 6. Even the public curſe, which the Jews took upon themſelves and their children, hath been manifeſtly binding on them theſe ſeventeen hundred years paſt, Mat. xxvii 25. The vow of parents in the antient circumciſion, or the Chriſtian baptiſm of their infants, [127] extends to theſe children,—nay according to the ex⯑tent of God's covenant and promiſe to all their future ſeed, Gen. xvii. 7. Acts ii. 38, 39. Hence, what⯑ever any of them do contrary to that vow, muſt at once be perfidy and rebellion againſt God. Nor will their wilful or ſlothful ignorance of that obligation, or their non-conſent to it, when grown up, free them from that guilt, any more than ignorance of Adam's covenant, or of the breach of it, can free his poſterity from the guilt of his firſt ſin, or from perfidy in their perſonal violations of that covenant of works. In Deut. v. 2, 3. God, by Moſes declares, that the co⯑venant made with the Iſraelites at Sinai, was not made with them only, but with all that new generation of their children and grand children, who ſurvived them, Num. xxvi. 64.—In Deut. xxix. 14, 15. he declares, that the covenant taken by that new genera⯑tion in the plains of Moab, did not only bind them who were alive and preſent at the entrance into it, but alſo others, even their poſterity.—Their covenant with the Gibeonites did not only bind the immediate engagers and conſenters, but alſo their poſterity, ma⯑ny ages afterward, Joſh. ix. 15, 19. with 2 Sam. xxi. 1.—Now, theſe covenants of allegiance to God and duty to men, of which we are treating, were ſworn and ſubſcribed by our own natural, tho' now mediate parents, and when it is conſidered, how FREQUENT⯑LY that covenant, the ſame in ſubſtance in the ſeve⯑ral Bonds, was ſworn or ſubſcribed, and how GENE⯑RALLY;—and how readily ſome covenanted on one occaſion, whoſe anceſtors had not on a preceding;—and how families have been ſince intermixed, it will ſcarce remain probable, that there is a Scotchman, at leaſt on the continent of Britain or Ireland, who is not deſcended from ſome covenanter. If any, to his own diſgrace, will contend that in all theſe and diffe⯑rent periods of covenanting 1581, 1590, 1596, 1638, 1639, 1643, 1648, &c. all his progenitors were ſuch mere neutrals, or malignant oppoſers of the true reli⯑gion and liberties of the country, that none of them took the covenant, let him take heed, leſt, after all, God his Creditor find him a perjured tranſgreſſor of the covenant of his fathers,—or at leaſt, of the cove⯑nant [128] made by his church and nation, and their reſpec⯑tive Repreſentatives.

(4.) That lawful covenants, made by the greater part of a ſociety bind the whole, and every future acceder to it,—at leaſt, unleſs the minority or acceders have, by a proper diſſent, diverted the obligation from themſelves;—and that, if remarkably calculated to promote the common advantage, they bind the mem⯑bers of it, while it continues a ſociety,—Common ſenſe will not allow us to doubt. That the exact ful⯑filment of our covenants with God, is remarkably cal⯑culated to promote the honour of Chriſt and his Fa⯑ther, and the welfare of both church and ſtate, hath been formerly hinted. No perſon therefore could, or can, by any lawful diſſent, divert their binding force from himſelf. Nor do I remember of any, who regularly attempted it in Scotland.

Without doubt, the majority, nay body of the Scotch nation nation entered into their Solemn Cove⯑nant with God. In 1581, both the privy council and the General Aſſembly, in their reſpective acts enjoined the taking of the National Covenant. ‘"In this year, in the month of March, was the National Covenant ſolemnly taken by the king, his council and court, and afterwards by the inhabitants of the kingdom^*." "The National Covenant (was) ſubſcribed by the King, his court, and council, and afterwards by all ranks of people in the land^†." "That good order of the church was three years ago approved, ſealed, and confirmed with profeſſion of month, ſubſcription of hand, and religion of oath, by the King, and eve⯑ry ſubject of every eſtate^‡."—"In 1590, the Natio⯑nal Covenant was again ſubſcribed by all ſorts of per⯑ſons^§" "In March 1590, the bond for religion was again ratified in council and about ninety-ſix mini⯑ſters, in different parts of the kingdom, were appoint⯑ed [129] to conveen before them the godly of all ranks, and miniſter unto them the National Covenant, and to take their ſubſcriptions; and an hundred and thirty of the nobility and gentry to aſſiſt them, as ſhould be neceſſary—In conſequence hereof, copies of the co⯑venant and general Bond were diſperſed through the whole kingdom, and the covenant ſubſcribed^*." "Their Confeſſion of Faith and Solemn League and Covenant (was) ſubſcribed by the whole Scotch na⯑tion^†." "It was ſubſcribed by all ſorts of perſons, the whole land rejoicing at the oath of God. It was attended by many choice bleſſings from the Lord^‡."’ About this time the General Aſſembly appointed this covenant to be renewed in Univerſities every year.—In 1596, the covenant was renewed in the General Aſſembly by about four hundred miniſters, beſides el⯑ders and others, with great ſolemnity, and attended by a remarkable effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, and bit⯑ter mourning for ſin, and earneſt reformation from it. It was afterwards renewed in Synods, Preſbytries, and Pariſhes; but in many pariſhes, particularly in Edinburgh, where the court had much influence, it was delayed and neglected. In 1604, the covenant was ſubſcribed by all the members in the Preſbytery of St. Andrews and Synod of Lothian^§.

The renovation of the covenant in 1638, was ſtill more univerſal and harmonious. ‘"This covenant like an alarm bell brought together all the Scots, who were diſſatisfied with the government, that is almoſt the whole nation. It was ſubſcribed by the great men and the people, except the privy counſellors, the jud⯑ges, and the biſhops, and ſuch miniſters as were dig⯑nitaries [130] in the church.—By the publication of this covenant, the Royaliſts were not above one to a thou⯑ſand. The covenant was the ſole law the people would follow, with reſpect to religion^‡‡." "All ranks and conditions, all ages and ſexes flocked to the ſubſcrip⯑tion of this covenant. Few in their judgment diſap⯑proved it, and ſtill fewer dared openly to condemn it. The King's miniſters and counſellors were, moſt of them, ſeized by the general contagion.—The cove⯑nanters found themſelves ſeconded by the zeal of the whole nation^*." "In the ſeveral counties and ſhires, it was received by the common people as a ſacred ora⯑cle, and ſubſcribed by all ſuch, as were thought to have any zeal for the Proteſtant religion, and the li⯑berties of their country. The privy counſellors, the judges, the biſhops and the friends of arbitrary power were the principal who refuſed it^†." "Theſe right⯑ly judging that the procuring cauſe of all the calami⯑ties of the nation was the violation of their National Covenant, unanimouſly reſolved to renew the ſame. The town of Aberdeen was the only place of any note in the kingdom, that declined joining in the covenant,—(yet even there) ſeverals of ſpecial note cheerfully put their hands to the covenant, which was ſworn by the generality of all ranks through the nation, before the end of April^‡." "They reſolved upon renew⯑ing the national covenant, which had been almoſt bu⯑ried for forty years before.—Being read in churches, it was heartily embraced, ſworn, and ſubſcribed by all ranks, with many tears and great joy; ſo that the whole land great and ſmall, a very few excepted, with⯑out any compulſion from church or ſtate, did, in a few months cheerfully return to their antient princi⯑ples, and ſubject themſelves to the oath of God for reformation. Both the court and prelates were enrag⯑ed againſt them for it; but the Lord remarkably countenanced them with the extraordinary manifeſta⯑tion of his preſence and down-pouring of his Spirit^§." [131] "The whole body of the people of Scotland were en⯑gaged to God, by ſolemn covenants and vows fre⯑quently renewed, to own and endeavour the preſerva⯑tion of the reformed religion, &c.—Not only did the body of the commonalty, ſwear theſe covenants, but the magiſtrates themſelves did take on the ſame vows and engagements,—ſolemnly promiſed to proſecute the ends of this covenant. All the lovers of God and friends to the liberties of the nation did ſolemnly renew the na⯑tional covenant, wherein they were ſignally counte⯑nanted of the Lord^*."’ So much for the teſtimony of foes and friends, who lived at ſome diſtance of time.

Let us now hear eye and ear witneſſes of that work. ‘"Upon the firſt of March 1638, the covenant was publicly read and ſubſcribed by them all, with much joy and ſhouting—Afterward the covenant was ſubſcri⯑bed every where in pariſhes, with joy, except in the North^†." "Within not many months, almoſt the whole land did ſubject themſelves to the oath of God, which was attended with more than ordinary influen⯑ces of the Spirit^‡." "The Lord did let forth much of his Spirit on his people in 1638, when this nation did ſolemnly enter into covenant.—Then did the nati⯑on viſibly own the Lord, and was viſibly owned by him. A remarkable gale of Providence did attend the actings of his people, which did aſtoniſh their ad⯑verſaries, and force many of them to own ſubjection.^§" "Except one day at the kirk of Shots, I never ſaw ſuch motions from the Spirit of God,—all the people generally and moſt willingly concurring (in ſwearing the covenant) thro' the whole land, except the profeſſ⯑ed Papiſts, and ſome few who for baſe ends, adhered to the prelates, the people univerſally entered into the co⯑venant [132] of God^‡‡."’ When the covenanting work of that year was ſtill unfiniſhed, Dickſon, Henderſon, and Cant affirm, that almoſt the whole kirk and kingdom had joined in the late covenant, and that they had been ſent to Aberdeen from almoſt the whole kirk and kingdom. And this the Prelatic Doctors there, grant to be true^*. ‘"The covenant being drawn up, was ſubſcribed by all preſent (at Edinburgh) and copies thereof ſent to ſuch as were abſent, and being read in the churches, it was heartily embraced, ſworn and ſubſcribed, with tears and joy. Great was that day of the Lord's power; for much willingneſs and cheerfulneſs was among the people, ſo as in a ſhort time, few, in all the land did refuſe, except ſome Papiſts, ſome aſpiring courtiers, ſome who were addicted to the Engliſh ceremonies, and ſome few, who had ſworn the oath (of ſupremacy and canonical obedience) at their entry^‡." "This covenant was ſubſcribed by almoſt every aſſertor of liberty, who was preſent (at Edinburgh). Copies of it were ſent to ſuch as were abſent, to be communicated to all the inhabitants of the kingdom, that every one who had religion at heart, might ſwear this covenant.—The non-cove⯑nanters were firſt all the Papiſts, the number of whom ſcarce exceeded ſix hundred,—ſome court paraſites, who had lately been advanced to dignities, or eagerly graſped at them, or who were more addicted to the Engliſh rites and canons,—as the doctors and magiſ⯑trates of Aberdeen.—Some others for a time declin⯑ed ſubſcribing from a regard to the oath (of Supre⯑macy and Canonical obedience) which they had tak⯑en, and becauſe the king had not enjoined this cove⯑nant, and becauſe it bound them to aſſiſt one another in this cauſe^§." "The national covenant having been agreed to, with ſo great harmony, amidſt a world of difficulties,—upon the firſt of March was ſubſcrib⯑ed by ſeveral thouſands, conſiſting of all the nobles, who were then in Scotland, (except the Lords of pri⯑vy council, and four or five more)—and of commiſſio⯑ners [133] from all the Shires within Scotland, and from e⯑very Burgh, except Aberdeen, St. Andrews, and Crail,—and of other gentlemen and miniſters—Be⯑fore the end of April; every pariſh through Scotland, where the miniſter was friendly to the reformation then ſought, having obſerved a faſt, to humble them⯑ſelves for the former defection and breach of covenant, did renew the ſame with great ſolemnity, ſcarce a per⯑ſon oppoſing himſelf, but every one, women as well as men, concurring, and publicly avouching the Lord to be THEIR God, with their right hand lifted up, except, (1.) Papiſts, to whom it was not offered,—the number of whom in all Scotland, was not reckon⯑ed above 600 perſons. (2.) Courtiers, who had no will to diſpleaſe the king. (3.) Some of the clergy, who had ſworn the oath for conformity, (to Prelacy) or were dignitaries in the church, the chief of whom were the doctors of Aberdeen.—The moſt of the Hamiltons, Douglaſſes, all the Gordons who were under the influence of Sutherland and Kenmure,—all the Campbells, Forbeſes, Fraſers, Grants, M'Kenzies, M'Kenzies, M'Kays, M'Intoſhes, M'Leans, M'Donalds, Irvines, and Inneſſes, ſubſcribed the covenant. Many in Aber⯑deen and Glaſgow, who for a time refuſed, ſubſcrib⯑ed. Not a burgeſs in St. Andrews refuſed.—In E⯑dinburgh Dr. Elliot a miniſter, and Robert Rankin, and John Brown, Regents of the college, were the only perſons of note, who declined ſubſcription^*."’ Add to all theſe, the 28,000, who, at King Charles' command, ſubſcribed the covenant as it ſtood in 1581, declared to be the ſame in ſubſtance with the other Bond,—and it will appear that few, very few, then neglected to ſwear or ſubſcribe the covenant ‡. What numbers took the covenant from 1639 to 1643, in o⯑bedience to the peremptory acts of church and ſtate enjoining it, I know not.

In 1643 and 1644, the ſwearing of the Solemn League and Covenant by all adult perſons, was very peremp⯑torily [134] required by both church and ſtate. From a co⯑py of it before me, I have reaſon to think, that the ſubſcription of it was pretty univerſal. The takers of it in Scotland are affirmed to have been ſeven to one of their oppoſers^‡. ‘"It was ſolemnly ſworn and ſubſcribed almoſt in all parts of the nation^§." "With a marvellous unanimity was this every where received. In God's great mercy all that I have yet heard of, have taken this oath. Our land now, I hope, in a happy time, hath entered into a league with Eng⯑land^{{horizontal ‡}}."’ In their ſpeech to the council of London, after their return, Henry Vane and Stephen Marſhal affirm, That they believed the Solemn League had been univerſally taken by the whole Scotch nation. The exhortation of the Engliſh Aſſembly and Parlia⯑ment affirms, that the ‘"whole body of Scotland had willingly ſworn it, with rejoicing."’ Rutherford, and his ſixteen faithful brethren, affirm, that ‘"the So⯑lemn league was actually ſworn and taken by the whole body of Scotland, from the higheſt to the loweſt—by the whole body of the land^{{right †}}."’ Sir James Stew⯑art and Mr. Stirling who, perhaps, both covenanted that year, affirm, that ‘"in 1648, in the month of December, (the Solemn League) was, for the ſecond time, ſworn in all the congregations of Scotland, upon the ſame day, except where a vacancy, or the mini⯑ſter's being under ſcandal, did occaſion a delay till a⯑nother day,—with great ſolemnity and ſuch mixture of joy and ſorrow, as became people entering into covenant with the Lord.—There was at that time a great zeal for God, from clear knowledge and ſad ex⯑perience, generally and ſolemnly profeſſed before God and all men, in our public acknowledgments 1648,—in conſequence whereof, the League and Covenant was alſo, by the whole kingdom, renewed that ſame year, and in anſwer thereto, the Lord did mightily ſave us.—He did highly advance his bleſſed work^*."’

That the body of the Engliſh nation alſo ſwore the Solemn League and Covenant, is manifeſt. The [135] Weſtminſter Aſſembly and Engliſh Parliament, af⯑firm, ‘"The honourable houſes of Parliament, the Aſſembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes of other perſons of all ranks and qua⯑lity in this nation, and the whole body of Scotland, have all ſworn it, rejoicing at the oath ſo graciouſly ſeconded from heaven. God will, doubtleſs, ſtand by all thoſe, who with ſingleneſs of heart ſhall now enter into an everlaſting covenant with the Lord^§."’ Ru⯑therford and his ſixteen faithful brethren, affirm, that ‘"this Solemn League was actually ſworn and taken by the whole body of Scotland,—alſo by the honourable houſes of the parliament of England, the Aſſembly of Divines, the renowned city of London, and multitudes not only of the people, but of perſons of eminent rank and quality throughout that nation, and the nation of Ireland, and all this by the authority of the powers, civil and eccleſiaſtic. Who can have for⯑got, how deliberately it was reſolved, and how unani⯑mouſly it was concluded? The reſpective authorities of both church and ſtate in Scotland, did all with one voice approve and embrace the ſame, as the moſt power⯑ful mean by the bleſſing of God for ſettling and preſer⯑ving the true Proteſtant religion, with perfect peace in theſe nations, and propagating the ſame to other na⯑tions, did ordain it to be, with humiliation and all reli⯑gious ſolemnities, received, ſworn and ſubſcribed by all miniſters and profeſſors within this kirk, and ſub⯑jects within this kingdom,—which was accordingly done by the whole body of the land, and in many congregations attended with the feelings of that joy, and comfortable influence of the Spirit of God,—which they did find in ſo great a meaſure upon the re⯑novation of the national covenant in 1638.—And this ſolemn oath of God being taken by the honoura⯑ble houſes of the Parliament of England, by the re⯑nowned city of London, by the reverend Aſſembly of Divines,—the Lords and Commons, upon the account of its being thought a fit and excellent means to ac⯑quire the favour of God towards the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, and to eſtabliſh [136] and propagate the true reformed religion, peace and proſperity of theſe kingdoms, did—ordain, that the ſame covenant be ſolemnly taken throughout the kingdom of England. And upon theſe grounds, and according to theſe inſtructions and exhortations of the Aſſembly and Parliament, was that ſolemn covenant taken by multitudes of all ranks and ſorts, many of which did rejoice at the oath of God. A little there⯑after, it was ordered by the Houſe of Commons, that the Solemn League and Covenant be, on every day of humiliation, (i. e. once every month) publicly read in every church and congregation, within the king⯑dom; and that every congregation have one of the ſaid covenants fairly printed on a fair letter, in a ta⯑ble to hang up in ſome place of the church, to be read, (where many copies continued hanging till the reſto⯑ration).—No power on earth can abſolve either them⯑ſelves or others from the bond and tie of this ſacred oath of the Moſt High^*."’ An apologetical declara⯑tion of the conſcientious Preſbyterians of the province of London, and of many thouſands of other faithful and covenant-keeping citizens and inhabitants, which was ſubſcribed by theſe many thouſands in January, 1649, at the hazard of every thing dear to them, hath theſe words, ‘"calling to mind our Solemn League and Covenant, which was ſo religiouſly and unanimouſ⯑ly ſworn^†." "The ſacred oath was firſt taken by the Lords and Commons legally aſſembled in Parlia⯑ment, then by the generality of the people in Eng⯑land.—They (the parliament) no ſooner met in 1649, but they ordered it to be hung up before their eyes, as a conſtant monitor to them^‡." "If all ta⯑bles were as legible as thoſe of the Lords and Com⯑mons, I believe their (i e ſubſcribers of the covenant) number would be found more than a 4th part of the nation (in 1660, notwithſtanding the death of perhaps more than one half of them from 1644 to 1660).’ Can any conſiderate obſerver, take notice, that the cove⯑nant (in England) was impoſed on, and ſubmitted to, by all ſorts and degrees of men in all counties, cities, [137] and towns, tendered, and fince teſtified, by their public ſubſcriptions, by the moſt of miniſters in their ſeveral counties, and to their individual congregations, and yet without the ſuppoſal of a very great mortali⯑ty, imagine not a fourth part of the nation (now liv⯑ing in 1660) to have taken it?—Nor ſhall I inſiſt on the univerſal alacrity, joy and content of the moſt ſerious in England and Scotland, that accompanied the firſt making of the covenant, and the ſolemnities and order, in which it was taken in the city of Lon⯑don, and the ſeveral counties and congregations of England,—than which—no act ever paſſed among the people of England, more ſolemnly or more religiouſly.—The Solemn League and Covenant is really public and national (in England). (1.) Its matter is public and national, relating to the kingdom under its civil, religious and reformed capacity, being the reformati⯑on and defence of religion, under a national profeſſion, and the honour and happineſs of the king, privileges of the Parliament, and liberties of the ſubjects. (2.) Theſe matters were conſulted, debated and agreed to, by two diſtinct nations in their moſt public capacities. (4) The end of it was public and national,—the true liberty, peace, and ſafety of the kingdom, wherein every one's private condition is included;—and that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three kingdoms; and the kingdoms of England and Scotland may remain conjoined in a firm peace to all poſterity,—in a caſe that concerned the good of theſe kingdoms (5.) The covenant was ſworn by the nation. [1.] Collectively, in the moſt full and complete body, that could, or e⯑ver did repreſent the ſame, the Parliament conſiſting of Lords and Commons, and that in their public capaci⯑ty, and with the greateſt ſolemnity imaginable, did as the repreſentative body of the kingdom, ſwear the co⯑venant, which as a further teſtimony that it was a na⯑tional covenant, they cauſed to be printed with their names ſubſcribed, and to be hung up in all churches, and in their own (Parliament) Houſe, as a compaſs, whereby to ſteer their debates, and to dictate unto all that ſhould ſucceed them into that place and capa⯑city, what obligations before God ly upon the body of [138] this nation. [2.] It was univerſally ſworn by the people of this kingdom, (England) ſolemnly teſtified in their particular places of convention, all over the kingdom, and by all manner of perſons, from eigh⯑teen years and upwards, and that at the command of, and by the authority of the Parliament, who, in their place, and in behalf of this nation, did order it to be univerſally ſworn.—Certainly, whoever will but weigh the directions given and duly executed, in the tender⯑ing of the covenant in all counties and pariſhes, and ta⯑ken by all perſons, religious, military or civil.—If the ſeveral rolls within the ſeveral pariſhes and pre⯑cincts of this kingdom, in which the ſeveral names of ſuch, as did ſwear the Solemn League and Cove⯑nant, were ingroſſed, be viewed, it will be found that it was ſworn by the univerſality of the nation;—and I hope we, who are a free people, tied by no bonds but ſuch as we lay upon ourſelves, may be al⯑lowed to bind ourſelves by an oath. [3.] His Majeſ⯑ty (Charles II) did ſwear the Solemn League and Covenant, in behalf of himſelf and his ſucceſſors, and that as King of Great Britain and Ireland.—More than ſix hundred miniſters of England in thirteen dif⯑ferent counties, in their teſtimonies, (1648) to the truths of Chriſt and to the Solemn League and Cove⯑nant, atteſt it as national.—The Yorkſhire miniſters ſay, ‘"It cannot but be known to the churches abroad, that all the three kingdoms ſtand engaged by virtue of the Solemn League and Covenant^*."’ The Lon⯑don miniſters ſay, ‘"We ſhall never forget, how ſo⯑lemnly and chearfully the ſacred league was ſworn,—wherein the three kingdoms ſtand engaged jointly and ſeverally. The Parliament have not only enjoined it to be taken by all men above eighteen years of age, throughout the kingdom of England and dominion of Wales; but the Commons have alſo required it to be publiſhed on every monthly faſt-day, for the better remembrance and obſervation of it, and that every congregation have one of the ſaid Covenants fairly printed in a fair letter, in a table, fitted to hang [139] up in ſome public place of the Church, to be read.^†"’

In IRELAND, Rutherford and his ſixteen faithful brethren, who had full acceſs to know the truth, af⯑firm, That multitudes ſwore the ſolemn league. In Cox' hiſtory of Ireland, Ormond, then Lord lieute⯑nant there, ſays, ‘"The covenant hath been impoſed by ordinance of (Engliſh) Parliament, (which hath the ſupreme power over Ireland as a dependent king⯑dom Act 6. Geo. I.)—The covenant was impoſed on all that were under the power of the Parliament."’ In a ſubſequent page it is affirmed, That all the pro⯑vince of Ulſter (in which the Proteſtants chiefly re⯑ſide), and a conſiderable part of Munſter were under the power of Parliament; and that in 1649. The Puritans and Preſbyterians proſeſſed, that their re⯑gard to their covenant made them ſide with Charles II, againſt the Sectarians headed by Cromwel^§." In the Chriſtian loyalty of the Preſbyterians, particularly in Ulſter, ſince their Settlement there by K James,—the moſt of which is verified by original papers inſerted, we have the following and like hints,—‘"The petiti⯑on of many thouſand Proteſſant inhabitants of Ulſter preſented to the Engliſh Parliament 1640, avows their approbation of the Scotch national covenant; and complain, that the Iriſh Prelates had exclaimed againſt it, and concurred with Lord lieutenant Strafford in impoſing an oath, renouncing it;—The Scots, who were generally diſſenters, i. e. Preſbyterians took arms againſt the Popiſh maſſacrers, and were the firſt that appeared in Ulſter againſt the common enemy, who were then exerciſing unheard of cruelty;—With the Scotch army of ſix thouſand, under Gener. Alexan⯑der Leſly, which were ſent to check the ravage of the murderous Papiſts, miniſters were ſent to attend the ſeveral regiments, who, aſſociating themſelves with ſome formerly in Ireland, formed themſelves into a Preſbytery, in which Leſly and ſeveral other officers of the army, ſat as ruling elders.—They preached both in camp and country.—At this time, thoſe who [140] had fled from Ireland, on account of the oath impoſ⯑ed by Strafford, before the maſſacre begun, returned in great numbers, and joined with the Scotch army, and Sir John Clotworthy, a zealous puritan; ſo that he with his party ſcoured the whole county of Antrim from maſſacring Papiſts.—When the eſtabliſhed (i. e. Epiſcopalian) clergy were generally deſtroyed by the maſſacre, or had fled, the work of the miniſtry was moſtly in the hands of Preſbyterians, who, with in⯑defatigable induſtry, attended both camp and country, not without comfortable ſucceſs.—In 1642, the I⯑riſh Proteſtants petitioned the Scotch General Aſſem⯑bly, that ſome miniſters of the goſpel might be ſent to comfort them in their great calamity, when, by the maſſacre, left as without ſhepherds; and particularly that their own miniſters, who had been formerly ba⯑niſhed by Abp. Laud's partizans, might be reſtored to them.—Six miniſters were ſent to concur with thoſe of the Scotch army ſent thither by authority of king and Parliament; and as they came very ſeaſonably to encourage the army and their friends, God mightily bleſſed their endeavours with ſucceſs^*."’ Upon a re⯑queſt of very great numbers, the Aſſembly 1643, ſent them further ſupply of miniſters.—A petition of the diſtreſſed Chriſtians in the North of Ireland, ſubſcrib⯑ed by very many hands to the Aſſembly 1644, ſays,—‘"Your reward is with your God, for your zeal and care to have your reformation ſpread, in ſending hi⯑ther that bleſſed League and Covenant, which we much deſired and longed for,—which hath had a wiſhed and gracious ſucceſs, by the bleſſing of God accompanying the pains of thoſe, to whom the ten⯑dering of it was intruſted by you.—When the ſaid—covenant was preſented to the regiments (of your army) we made bold to lay hold on the opportunity, and chearfully and unanimouſly joined ourſelves thereto, that, if we die (by the hand of the Popiſh murderers) we may die a covenanted people;"’ and they beg ſup⯑ply of miniſters for twenty-four deſolate congregations^‡ Much about the ſame time, "the Engliſh Parliament [141] by an ordinance enjoined that covenant to be taken in Ireland; and accordingly it was ſworn by almoſt all the Proteſtants in Ulſter, who acknowledged the au⯑thority of the Parliament,—the greateſt part of the Proteſtants in Ireland all concurred in it,—and their poſterity enjoy large eſtates from that Engliſh Parlia⯑ment which enjoined the taking of the covenant.—It known, that the Iriſh army under the Lord of Ards, were all Preſbyterian covenanters.—Many of the I⯑riſh Proteſtants renewed the Solemn League about 1649; and hence the Preſbytery of Bangor in their declaration that year affirm, "That they and others had renewed their covenant,—and warn, that none who had renewed covenant, ſhould join the army of Ards, who, after he and they had lately renewed the covenant, had turned over to aſſiſt the malignants; and foretel that the quarrel of the covenant ſhould purſue them,—as it ſoon did, in their ruin and of Or⯑mond's army which they aſſiſted.—The Iriſh Preſ⯑byterians, in their repreſentation againſt the procedure of the Sectarians with K. Charles I, publicly read in their ſeveral congregations, avow the Solemn League, as their covenant; and warn the well affected to that covenant, to avoid all compliance with the Sectaries.^† The Preſbyterian miniſters in their Narrative to go⯑vernment of their ſtedfaſt loyalty, and of their ſuffer⯑ings under Cromwel, ſay, ‘"We could not own them, i. e. Cromwel and his ſubſtitutes, as lawful ma⯑giſtrates, and could not pray for their ſucceſs, &c.—conſidering the ſtrong obligation of the oath of God, that lay ſtill upon us, to maintain His Majeſty's power and greatneſs according to our covenant^‡."’—Not⯑withſtanding all the cruel baniſhment, impriſonment, &c. which they had ſuffered under Cromwel, for their attachment to K. Charles, there remained ſo many ſtaunch covenanters in Ireland, that in one Synod of Bellimenoch, fifty-nine miniſters, in 1662, refuſed to conform to Prelacy, which is more than were in ſome ſix Synods in Scotland. Nor, in any Synod here, except in that of Glaſgow, which conſiſts of a⯑bove [142] 130 miniſters, and in which the Proteſtors chief⯑ly reſided, was that number of Non-conformiſts ex⯑ceeded^*. From theſe hints it appears, that the body of Proteſtants in Ireland took the Solemn League and Covenant; and that the number of Covenanters there, could not be leſs than 50 or 60,000, if it was not dou⯑ble or triple that reckoning.

If then, Sir, the public engagements of repreſenta⯑tives of Church and State can bind thoſe repreſented by them and their poſterity;—if the public engage⯑ments of parents can bind their deſcendents;—if the public engagements of the greater part of a ſociety can bind the whole and their ſucceſſors;—Our pub⯑lic covenants with God muſt bind the Proteſtants in Ireland, the whole nation of England, and in a pecu⯑liar manner the Scots, who are ſo manifeſtly affected by all the four ſources of obligation, that no not our perjured Prelatiſts, for their own vindication, ever dar⯑ed, that I know of, to conteſt it. And anſwerable to this ſource, theſe fourfold vows muſt fix upon us a kind of fourſold ſolemn obligation to God, frequently repeated, renewed, or confirmed: How fearful then muſt be our guilt, if we caſt all the cords of God behind our back, in favours of groſs hereſy, blaſphemy, idolatry, Popery!

4. Our anceſtors did not covenant with God as mere individuals, but as a BODY. Covenanting at the ſame time with each other, they made a joint ſur⯑render of themſelves to God. In their Bond of 1636, they call it a bleſſed and loyal conjunction. In their Reaſons againſt giving it up, they call it a Bond of u⯑nion and conjunction.—a mutual union and conjunction a⯑mongſt themſelves; and in reaſons of proteſtation they call it a bond of inviolable union amongſt them⯑ſelves^‡ The Aſſembly Auguſt 6th, 1649, ſay,—‘"Our engagement therein is not only national, but perſonal."’—The ſubject bound by the covenant being thus, not merely particular perſons, but a church and nation, the obligation of it muſt be as permanent as the ſociety bound by it.

[143] 5. Our anceſtors did what they could to make their covenant as binding as poſſible. The expreſs terms in which the different forms of it are conceived, manifeſt it a promiſe, an oath, a vow, a covenant. If then there be any binding force in a promiſe from the truth of men which is therein pledged; if there be any reli⯑gion in an oath becauſe of the reverence we owe to the ſacred name of God interpoſed in it; if any obli⯑gation reſults from a vow, becauſe of the fealty we thereby owe to God; if a man be obliged to keep his covenant from regard to truth or juſtice due to others, who are parties in it;—all theſe, tranſacted with the utmoſt ſolemnity, muſt concur in conſtituting the bin⯑ding ſorce of this public engagement.—Hence the Com⯑miſſion 1651, in their Warning, ſay, ‘"The bonds and obligations that lie upon us to this duty, by the law of God, the law of nature and the National Covenant and Solemn League, and the pains therein contained, whereunto we have devoted ourſelves, if we ſhall de⯑ſert or fail^*."’

6. Our anceſtors plainly intended, that their pub⯑lic covenants ſhould bind all future generations. In 1638, they lamented their own ſins as breaches of the covenant made or renewed in 1581, 1590, 1596^†. In their Reaſons againſt giving up their ſworn cove⯑nant, they aſfirm, ‘"Our religious anceſtors, by the like oath, have obliged us to the ſubſtance and tenor of this.—This our oath being a religious and perpetu⯑al obligation, ſhould ſtand in vigour, for the more firm eſtabliſhment of religion in our own time, and in the generations following.—Although the innovations of religion were the occaſion of the making of this covenant, yet our intention was againſt theſe and all other innovations and corruptions, to eſtabliſh religion by an everlaſting covenant, never to be forgotten^§."’ In their preamble to the covenant that year, they ſay, ‘"Being convinced in our own minds, and profeſſing [144] with our months, that the preſent and ſucceeding ge⯑nerations are bound to keep the foreſaid national oath and ſubſcription (of 1581, 1590, 1596) inviolable."’ In the Solemn League, they ſwear, ‘"We ſhall en⯑deavour that theſe kingdoms may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all poſterity."’

7. The ends of theſe covenants declared in their ex⯑preſs words are perpetual till the end of time, viz. ‘"To maintain the true worſhip of God, the majeſty of our king, and the peace of the kingdom, for the common happineſs of ourſelves and our poſterity,—that religion and righteouſneſs may flouriſh in the land to the glory of God, &c ^‡." "To promote the glory of God, and the advancement of the kingdom of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt,—the honour and happineſs of the King's Majeſty, and his poſterity, and the pub⯑lic liberty, ſafety, and peace of the kingdoms; that we and our poſterity may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord delight to dwell in the midſt of us;—that the Lord may be one and his name one in the three kingdoms,—may turn away his wrath, and eſtabliſh theſe churches and kingdoms in peace^§."’

If then, the matter being moral duty, was proper for a covenant of perpetual obligation; if the cove⯑nanters had full power to bind the whole ſociety and their poſterity; if the ſubject upon which the obligati⯑on was laid be permanent; if the end of the covenan⯑ters and their covenant was to fix the obligation upon poſterity, as well as upon the immediate engagers; and if they did every thing in their power to render that obligation ſolemn and permanent, What ſurther evidence of the perpetuity of that obligation can any man demand, who ſingly regards the honour of God, or the welfare of this church and nation? May I therefore adopt the words of a truly great man, "It was the glory of Scotland, that we were ſolemnly in covenant with God,—wherein our forefathers, for themſelves engaged and ſwore againſt Popery, Prelacy, ſuperſtition, and every thing contrary to the word of God;—and to the doctrine, worſhip, diſcipline and government of the reformed church of Scotland, [145] and that as we ſhould anſwer to Jeſus Chriſt at the great day, and under the pain of his everlaſting wrath;—May not our hearts bleed to think on our defecti⯑on from old covenanted principles, and our violation of our engagements, yea of the burning and burial of our covenants,—and the prevalence of abjured Popery in this land.—Covenant obligation to duty is what we ſtill ſtand under,—though many be aſhamed and re⯑fuſe to own theſe obligations,—the glory of our land.—Let us go forward—lamenting our ſinful defection from a covenanted reformation, and acknowledging our ſolemn covenant-obligation ^†.—Never was a na⯑tion more ſolemnly bound to the Lord by national co⯑venants. Religious covenants in ſcripture comprehend abſent as well as preſent, and poſterity to come as well as the covenanting forefathers, Deut. xxix. 14, 15, 22, 24, 25. Now, our ſolemn covenants, which our forefathers entered into, being nothing but a ſuper-added and accumulative obligation, to what we were previouſly bound to by the word of God, they cannot but ſtand binding upon us their poſterity^§.—As Iſ⯑rael avouched the Lord to be their God by ſolemn covenants, that were binding upon them and their poſ⯑terity after them; ſo in this moral duty, We, in our forefathers, followed the example,—entering into a ſolemn covenant with him, which he many ſignal ways countenanced,—attended with internal diſplays of (his) power and glory.—To diſparage theſe covenants is to caſt dung upon our glory. I think it worſe than the breaking, burning, and burying of them. To be⯑ſpatter their reputation, and deny their obligation, is to render them odious to all generations^‡.—There is—a ſuperadded obligation lying on us by our covenants of gratitude and duty, which, though it bind us to nothing, but what we were authoritatively bound to before, yet it ſtrengthens the obligation^{{horizontal ‡}}.—When God hath manifeſted his covenant of grace to a peo⯑ple, receiving them to be his people, and they there⯑upon have entered into a covenant of duty with him, avouching him to be their God, and promiſing thro' [146] grace, ſubjection to him, though it were four hun⯑dred, yea four thouſand years, it ſtands; and they who ſucceed are bound by the covenant.—A num⯑ber of honeſt covenanters, when they avouched the Lord to be their God, and promiſed obedience to him, did it in the faith of his avouching them to be his people, and truſting to his covenant of grace and promiſe, and not to their covenant or engagement. We, in theſe lands, have devoted ourſelves to the Lord, in which we were warranted by many ſcripture precedents.—Never was an action done more ſe⯑dately and adviſedly.—The binding obligation of it upon us is plain. If we have the benefit of that reli⯑gion to which our forefathers ſwore, we muſt be heirs of that oath they came under to the Moſt High (as Levi paid tithes in his father's loins, ſo we, in our forefathers, ſwore to this covenant). We are obli⯑ged to ſtand to it, though it were never ſo many years after.—Being partakers of the benefit, we are bound to do that which they promiſed to do for it. If a pa⯑rent bind his children, are not their ſeed and heirs bound by his promiſe as well as they were? What continual changes and confuſions would there be in the world, if perſons themſelves were only to be tied by their own perſonal bonds?—How much more im⯑piety is it for men, to deny that obligation by covenant to God, made by their forefathers in their name.—Our ſolemn covenants, are one of the grounds of our claim to him,—and of his continuing his claim to us, who own theſe covenants.—How will God avenge the violation of a lawful oath, made with himſelf in this land?—Unleſs theſe profeſſed Preſhyterians can now prove, that Preſbytry is ſinful, they muſt acknowledge that our national covenants are binding on us in this matter.—If a covenant in things lawful be not binding, then no covenant ever was^§.

[147] OBJECT. I. ‘"Many things were wrong in the impoſing and taking of theſe covenants; and their words are ill choſen, as to extirpate Popery, Prelacy, i. e. to kill Papiſts and Prelatiſts."’ ANSW. (1) Let us allow no malignant enemy or perjured violator of theſe covenants to be held a ſufficient witneſs againſt them. Nor let us have the long ago refuted calum⯑nies of ſuch men revived upon their mere authority. (2) Though the covenant had had inſirmities, even infirmities ſufficient to have hindered the ſwearing of it, as the Doctors of Aberdeen and Oxford pretend⯑ed, was the caſe,—it may nevertheleſs bind when once it is ſworn. Though its matter had been in part ſin⯑ful and ſelf-contradictory, it would bind to the part which was lawful.—Though the authority which impoſed it, had been inſufficient, and the manner of impoſing it improper, it would bind when once ſworn. Zedekiah was in ſome reſpect compelled to ſwear al⯑legiance to Nebuchadnezzar, whoſe ſovereignty over Judah was very diſputable, yet his oath bound him, Ezek. xvii. 12,—19. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13.—Though our covenanters ends had been carnal, or even ſinful, the oath, as far as lawful in its matter, is binding, when once it is ſworn.—Without allowing theſe things as fixed principles, no oaths or covenants could be any ſecurities among mankind. (3) If Popery and Prelacy be plants which God hath not planted, why may we not, as lawfully, in our ſtations, endeavour to extirpate or root them out, as we may mortify the deeds of our body, that we may live? The one in⯑cludes no more violence againſt mens perſons than the other, Rom. viii. 13. Do you imagine, that the co⯑venanters ſwore to cut their own throats, or tear out their own hearts, when they engaged to endeavour, in their ſtation, to extirpate every thing contrary to the power of godlineſs, as indwelling ſin, vain thoughts, &c. which adhere to believers in this life, certainly are.

OBJECT. II. ‘"Many in England and Ireland never took the Solemn League, or took it in a ſenſe conſiſ⯑tent with Prelacy or Independency."’ ANSW. I do not expect that any hater of that covenant will ever be able to invalidate the proof which hath been given of the number [148] of the covenanters in both theſe kingdoms. (2.) The covenanters declared ‘"that an oath is to be taken in the plain ſenſe of the words, without equivocation or mental reſervation.—It cannot bind to ſin; but in a⯑ny thing not ſinful, being taken, it binds to perfor⯑mance, although to a man's own hurt^*."’ All but Jeſuits profeſs the ſame principle. And indeed if oaths, vows, or covenants bind not men, according to the plain meaning of their words, they become quite uſe⯑leſs. Mens prevarication therefore, in favours of Pre⯑lacy or Independency, cannot free them from the ob⯑ligation of an oath, which ſtrikes againſt both. (3) As the Scots ſtood bound by their National Covenant to every duty contained in the Solemn League, long before the Engliſh had a thought of covenanting a⯑long with them, and did alſo ſwear the ſolemn league, no neglect or prevarication of either Engliſh or Iriſh can free us from our obligation. It was neither to the Engliſh nor to the Iriſh, but chiefly to the faithful and unchangeable God of all grace, that our fathers bound themſelves and their ſeed. The Aſſembly in their Letter to the council of London, juſtly obſerve, ‘"It is not in the power of any human authority to abſolve you from adhering to this ſo ſolemnly ſworn League and Covenant."’ And in another letter, ‘"The cove⯑nant hath been broken by many in both kingdoms.—We do not doubt, but there are many ſeven thou⯑ſands in England, who have retained their integrity in that buſineſs."’ And in their Warning 1648, ‘"The violation of the covenant by ſome in England doth not ſet us free from the obligation of it. No laws, nor authority on earth can abſolve us from ſo ſolemn an obligation to the Moſt High.—We are not acquit⯑ted from the obligation of our ſolemn covenants be⯑cauſe of the troubles.—In the worſt of times, all thoſe duties whereunto by covenant, we oblige our⯑ſelves, do ſtill ly upon us.—We have ſworn, and we muſt perform it."’ And in their Warning 1649, ‘"Al⯑beit the League and Covenant be deſpiſed by that pre⯑vailing party in England, yet the obligation of that covenant is perpetual; and all the duties contained [149] therein are conſtantly to be minded and proſecuted, by every one of us and our poſterity, according to their place and ſtation."’ And in their Letter to breth⯑ren in England, ‘"Although there were none in the one kingdom, who did adhere to the covenant, yet were not the other kingdom, nor any perſon in either of them, abſolved from the bond thereof; ſince in it, we have not only ſworn by the Lord, but alſo cove⯑nanted with him. It is not the failing of one or more that can abſolve others from their duty or TIE to him. Beſides, the duties therein contained being in them⯑ſelves lawful, and the grounds of our TIE thereto moral, though others forget their duty, yet doth not their defection free us from that obligation which lies upon us by the covenants, in our places and ſtations. The covenant being intended as one of the beſt means of ſtedfaſtneſs, it were ſtrange to ſay, that the back⯑ſlidings of any ſhould abſolve others from the TIE thereof, eſpecially ſeeing our engagement therein is not only national, but perſonal.—All theſe kingdoms joining together to aboliſh that oath by law, could not diſpenſe therewith, much leſs can any one of them, or any party in either do the ſame.—(They are) teſti⯑monies which the Lord Chriſt hath entred as proteſta⯑tions, to preſerve his right in theſe ends of the earth, long ago given unto him for his poſſeſſion, and of late confirmed by ſolemn covenant."’

OBJECT. III. ‘"The influence of the Highland thiefs, and the groſs ignorance of the Scotch iſlands, together with the general diſlike of the covenant at the Reſtoration and Revolution, are internal eviden⯑ces, that but a part, perhaps a ſmall part, of the Scots took the covenant."’ ANSW. I boldly defy you to in⯑validate the proofs I have brought to the contrary. Nay, for ought I know, you cannot produce one of theſe perjured Prelatiſts, that pretended that only the ſmaller part of the Scotch nation took the covenant, eſpecially in 1590, 1638, & 1643. (2.) Were the Highland chiefs, and the groſs ignorance of the iſlan⯑ders, occaſioned by the negligence of the curates, a whit more able to withſtand the enlightening and heart-bowing power of God, ſo remarkably manifeſt⯑ed on theſe occaſions, than K. Charles and many o⯑thers [150] on the continent? Have we not produced evi⯑dence that multitudes of the Highlanders entered into the reformers covenant, 1638, and were not Argyle, Mar, and many other Highland chiefs zealous cove⯑nanters? Did not ſuch as were otherwiſe minded take the covenant of 1581, as impoſed by the Privy coun⯑cil according to its original meaning? Did not even the Doctors and Prelatic inhabitants of Aberdeen take that bond, without approving the council's limitation of it to its original meaning? (3) You can produce no evidence that the covenanting work was not carried on in the Scotch iſlands, but ſuch as we have, that ne⯑ver a Hebrew child was circumciſed on the 8th day, from Iſaac to John Baptiſt;—or that never a weekly Sabbath was obſerved from the creation till the manna fell around the Hebrew camp, i. e. want of poſitive evidence to the contrary,—and that too in places, of which, to this moment, we have little account, except what relates to their ſituation, ſoil, product, or the like. (4.) It is highly abſurd to pretend, that the ſo general diſregard of the covenants, twelve or forty years after the laſt taking of them, is internal evidence that few had taken them. Will it irrefragably prove, that Adam was never made after the image of God, or taken into covenant with him, becauſe within a few days or hours he had become a ſinner, hating both God and his covenant.—or that devils were never created holy and happy, becauſe within a few days they had left their firſt eſtate? Will the gene⯑ral concurrence of the Hebrews in worſhipping the gol⯑den calf, prove that they had not entered into ſolemn covenant with God, about forty days before? Will their ſubſequent apoſtaſies, prove that but few of them had covenanted with God, under Joſhua, Aſa, Joaſh, Hezekiah, Joſiah, Ezra and Nehemiah? Will Peter's fearfully heinous and repeated denial of Chriſt, prove that he had not, a few hours before, ſolemnly engaged againſt it?

OBJECT. IV. ‘"Force or fear cauſed many to cove⯑nant."’ ANSW. Though force or ſear ſhould have rendered the manner of covenanting unacceptable to God, they cannot render void an oath which is ſworn. (2.) I will never contend, that the penalty annexed by [151] law to the refuſal of the covenant in 1643, or even on ſome other occaſions, was proper. But, after a labo⯑rious ſearch, I find no proper evidence, that any force was ever uſed in Scotland to make any take the cove⯑nant, except in 1639, by Montroſe and Monro, two military men, without any warrant from either church or ſtate,—the former, if not both of whom afterward turned out a malignant murderer of his covenanting brethren. Never, Sir, pick up or retail the mere in⯑ventions of perjured violators of theſe covenants, who were glad to ſay any thing to conceal or excuſe their own wickedneſs. (3.) In 1638, when the covenanting was moſt univerſal, the biſhops and ſome other anti⯑covenanters, afraid of proſecution for their enormous debts, or for their oppreſſive and other wicked deeds,—and perhaps chiefly to calumniate the covenanters at court, did flee their country. But none were obli⯑ged to do ſo for refuſing the covenant. Fear of dan⯑ger probably reſtrained ſome from reviling a Bond which the nation ſo highly eſteemed But none, that I know of, were thereby conſtrained to ſwear it. Some mobs happened, occaſioned by the king's ſuſpenſion of the common exerciſe of the civil law, and the ſitting of its courts. But theſe were deteſted by the zealous covenanters, and not one of them appears either to have been intended, or to have iſſued in favours of the covenant. If the influences of God's Spirit, and the affecting appearances of his Providence—as at Sinai or in the apoſtolic age, awed or allured numbers to take the covenant whoſe hearts were not ſincere before him,—ſhould we quarrel with the Almighty on that ac⯑count?—But, Sir, Henderſon, Dickſon, and Cant, who being the principal leaders of the covenanting work that year, affirm to the doctors of Aberdeen, who were eager to have detected them of falſehood, if it had been poſſible, ‘"No paſtors in our knowledge have been either forced to flee or have been threatened with the want of their ſtipends for refuſing their ſub⯑ſcription; but ſome have of their own accord, gone to court for procuring protection againſt their credi⯑tors,—and have made lies between the king and his people. Others have wilfully refuſed to abide with their flocks, for no reaſon, but becauſe the people [152] have ſubſcribed.—Arguments have been taken from (promiſed) augmentation of ſtipends to hinder ſub⯑ſcription. Fear of worldly loſs rather hinders men to ſubſcribe, than ſcruples of conſcience.—The prelates flight ſeems rather to have proceeded from inward fu⯑ries of accuſing conſciences, &c.—In this day of the Lord's power, his people have moſt willingly offered themſelves in multitudes like the dew of the morning. Others, of no ſmall note, have offered their ſubſcrip⯑tions, and have been refuſed till time ſhould try their fincerity, from love to the cauſe, and not from the fear of man. No threatenings have been uſed, except of the deſerved judgments of God, nor force, except the force of reaſon from the high reſpects which we owe to religion, to our king, to our native country, to ourſelves, and to our poſterity^*."’ (4.) Since the covenanting work was ſo remarkably countenanced by the Holy Ghoſt,—attended with perhaps more ſincere mourning for ſin,—more ſerious repentance and ſolid converſion to God, than hath within an equal ſpace of time and place, happened any where in the world, ſince the apoſtolic age,—and ſince the covenanters in their vow deponed, that they covenanted without any world⯑ly reſpect or inducement, as far as human in firmity would allow,—Take heed, Sir, leſt after your objection hath manifeſted the carnality, ſelfiſhneſs, and diſſimu⯑lation of your own religious appearances.—God, at laſt, ſhould publicly expoſe you as a blaſphemer of his great work, and a malicious ſlanderer of his peo⯑ple, as wilfully perjured.

OBJECT. V. ‘"It is impoſſible our covenanters could underſtand their bonds, particularly in that which relates to Popery in the notional covenant, or to prelacy in the ſolemn league."’ ANSW. Ignorance indeed hin⯑ders a right and acceptable ſwearing of oaths or cove⯑nants, but cannot invalidate their binding force if once they be ſworn; otherwiſe millions in Britain would, [153] through ignorance; be freed from all their ſolemn en⯑gagements in Baptiſm and the Lord's ſupper; and thouſands freed from all obligation of their oaths of allegiance or fidelity to magiſtrates; or even their oaths to declare the truth and nothing elſe, in witneſs bearing. Candidates for the miniſtry needed but keep themſelves in a great meaſure ignorant of the doctrines of the Confeſſion of Faith and duties of the miniſteri⯑al office, in order to render their ordination vows or ſubſcriptions altogether unobligatory. (2.) Being trai⯑ned up in the abominations of popery or prelacy, or having frequent acceſs to witneſs them, our covenan⯑ting anceſtors, who had common ſenſe, might have more knowledge of them, than moſt clergymen in Scotland now have; even as a common ſailor, who hath ſerved 20 years in a man of war, may have more knowledge of her tackling and other pertinents, than all the learned doctors of fix Britiſh univerſities.

OBJECT. VI ‘"If nothing be engaged to in theſe covenants, but what God hath declared or required in his word, they never could lay any obligation upon the covenanters, much leſs a perpetual obligation upon their poſterity: It is abſolutely inconſiſtent with ſound philoſophy, Chriſtianity or common ſenſe to imagine that any human deed can bind to any thing de⯑clared in the word, or required by the law of God"’ ANSW. 1. Then it ſeems the common Proteſtant doc⯑trine of our Confeſſion of Faith, which in your ordi⯑nation vows you ſolemnly declared to be founded on the word of God, viz. That a man BINDS HIMSELF by oath to what is GOOD and JUST, that in ANY THING not ſinful, it BINDS to performance; That by a vow we more ſtrictly BIND OURSELVES TO NECESSARY DU⯑TIES, &c. muſt be groſly erroneous. (2) Inſtruct⯑ed by ſome Papiſt or ſome ring-leader in the perjuri⯑ous violation of theſe covenants in the laſt century, you have indeed now hit upon a ſentiment, which if proven, would effectually undermine the obligation of our covenants, and for ought I know, all religion,—all morality,—all mutual truſt and order among man⯑kind along with it. If our promiſes, oaths, vows or covenants can have no binding force except in things to which the revelation and law of God cannot reach; [154] neither Adam, nor Chriſt as Mediator, could bind themſelves to fulfil God's law; and ſo there muſt be no proper, no real covenant of works or of grace; and ſo no religion among mankind. And, for the ſame reaſon, the promiſes of God, in ſo far as their matter correſponds to his natural excellencies can have no binding force; and thus the foundation of our faith and hope is quite overturned. All engagements in Baptiſm or the Lord's Supper to believe what God re⯑veals, receive what he offers, and do what he com⯑mands, muſt be abſolutely null and void, deſtitute of all binding force.—Jeſuitical equivocation and mental reſervation are no more neceſſary in the making of promiſes, covenants or vows, or in ſwearing promiſ⯑ſory oaths of allegiance, fidelity or witneſs bearing; or in ſubſcribing Articles, Creeds or Confeſſions of Faith, Calls to miniſters, Bonds or Bills of ſervice or debt.—If the law of God, which is exceeding broad can but reach to the matter of them, and require the believing, maintaining or practiſing of what is therein engaged, that alone renders them null and void, and not binding to all intents, and purpoſes. And ſo there can be no ſuch a thing as perjury, perfidy, or breach of promiſe, except it be with reſpect to ſuch things as the law of God could not directly or indirect⯑ly reach,—which if it be as perfect and exceeding broad as the Bible affirms, muſt certainly be very few and very triſling;—for where there is no law,—no binding of a law,—there can be no tranſgreſſion.—Mens promi⯑ſes, covenants, oaths and vows, in word or writ, in ſo far as they reſpect things to which the law of God can reach, muſt be mere villainous impoſitions, ſeeming to bind, while they do not, in the ſmalleſt degree; and therefore ought to be deteſted, inſtead of being requir⯑ed, made, or truſted.—For the ſame reaſon, no com⯑mands of parents, maſters, magiſtrates, or any other ſuperiors being human deeds, can have any binding force in any thing relative to religion, equity, kindneſs, &c. to which the law of God can reach its requirements, and hence cannot be lawfully OBEYED, or their autho⯑rity regarded, except when they commend what is ab⯑ſolutely indifferent and triſling.—If human engage⯑ments and commands can only bind men to that which [155] is abſolutely indifferent, it is plain, that we can only be anſwerable to men for ſuch parts of our conduct as the law of God did not reach;—but, let men once firmly believe, that their promiſes, covenants, oaths or vows, and the commands of ſuperiors, have no bin⯑ding force, but in that which is left abſolutely indiffe⯑rent by the law of God; and that they are anſwerable to men only for ſuch parts of their conduct as the law of God could not reach,—how naturally they will ruſh headlong into all manner of profligacy, every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, in every thing important. (3) How abſurd to pretend honouring of religion, or of the law of God by making it the murderer of that deputed authority which God hath, by it, granted to men; or of theſe covenants, oaths or vows, which He hath therein appointed as means of his worſhip—Not only ſcripture, but even common ſenſe dictates, that the authority of God in his law cannot be rightlyregarded, unleſs in a way of alſo regard⯑ingthat authority which he hath deputed to men, and all the commands or ſelf engagements which proceed from it, in due ſubordination to it. If I read my Bible daily, in obedience to the command of God as my God in Chriſt,—in obedience to Chriſt as appointed by God to be my mediatorial, prophet and king,—and at the ſame time in due ſubordination hereto,—in obedience to my civil ruler, as the miniſter of God for good to men,—in obedience to my paſtor or church judicature as the meſſenger of Chriſt to me,—in obedience to my parents or maſters as God's deputy-governors over me,—and in fulfilment of the vow, which I as God's de⯑puty-governor over myſelf, have laid myſelf under, according to his appointment, Where is the inconſiſ⯑tency? Muſt I wickedly put aſunder the immediate and deputed authority of God, which he hath ſo cloſely and delightfully joined together? God forbid.

OBJECT. VII. ‘"What have we to do with our fa⯑ther's engagements in religion, to which we never gave any perſonal conſent, eſpecially after we have become capable to judge and chooſe for ourſelves,—nay to do with engagements, which I cannot prove my anceſtors ever took."’ ANSW. (1.) To reſt obligation to pay debt or perform duty on the debtor's proving the contraction of it, or engagement to it, is highly ab⯑ſurd [156] in itſelf, and opens a wide door for breaking through almoſt every engagement. According to this ſcheme you may hold your anceſtors, who lived 130 years ago unbaptized Heathens and perhaps yourſelf too, and ſo renounce your baptiſm, becauſe you can⯑not prove that ever you received it. If God, who is our creditor in theſe covenants, can prove our anceſ⯑tors taking of them, he will hold us bound by their deed; and even though they did not take them, he will hold us bound by the deed of the ſociety and its repreſentatives. (2.) You know, that Lord —, about four hundred years ago, granted your anceſtor, the valuable eſtate of —, to be held under him and his heirs, for a very ſmall honorary ſervice, as an ac⯑knowledgment of vaſſalage; and that the celebrated farmer A. B. about ſix years ago took a ninety-nine years leaſe of one of your farms at a very high rent. Have you certified the preſent heirs of that Lord and Farmer, That they are no-wiſe bound by their proge⯑nitors deeds, unleſs they have given their own perſonal conſent,—and that the one may recal your eſtate, and the other may keep your farm, and refuſe to pay you any rent?—You have not, nor ever will You al⯑low ſuch freedoms only to be uſed with God,—not with yourſelf;—too ſtrong a preſumption, That you more value your eſtate and rent, than all that you hold of God in religion, and all the honour you owe to him. (3.) If our fathers bound us to any thing in religion which is not warranted by the word of God, we have nothing to do with it, but to bewail their ſin in ſuch engagement. But, if they bound us to what is commanded by the law of God, we muſt ſtand bound,—till we prove from ſcripture, that vows binding to duty are not lawful; or that fathers have no right to devote their children to God's ſervice. No ſlothful or wilful ignorance or withholding of perſonal con⯑ſent, can ſo much as excuſe the non-performance of ſuch engagements. Nothing can free from their binding force, which would not annual our baptiſmal vows. (4) Once more, Sir, be pleaſed to review theſe public covenants of our fathers, in their princi⯑pal contents and meaning. They were a ſolemn acqui⯑eſcence in and confirmation of God's grant of the utmoſt ends of the earth to his Son Jeſus Chriſt for hs poſſeſ⯑ſion. [157] They implied a ſolemn acceptance of God him⯑ſelf in Chriſt as the God, Saviour and portion of the covenanters and their poſterity freely granted to them in the goſpel,—and of his oracles and ordinances as the means of familiar fellowſhip with Him,—a reſolution through his grace to retain him and them, as their ineſtimable privileges,—and a ſolemn engagement, thank⯑fully to improve theſe privileges in an holy obedience to all his commandments, to promote his glory, and the temporal, ſpiritual and eternal advantage of theſe covenanters and their ſeed. Now, Sir, do you ſo heartily envy our Redeemer his Father's grant of the ends of the earth for his poſſeſſion, Pſal. ii. 8. that you would gladly renounce our anceſtors ſolemn ac⯑quieſcence in it? Do do you ſo heartily diſlike the hav⯑ing of a reconciled God in Chriſt for your and your poſterity's God, Saviour and portion, and his pure o⯑racles and ordinances for your privileges, that you would fondly renounce a ſolemn acceptance of God's gracious grant of them ſealed and conſirmed by the re⯑markable influences of his Spirit? Do you ſo under⯑value theſe enjoyments, and hate a grateful and ſelf-profiting obedience to all the commandments of God, that you would gladly renounce a ſolemn obligation to it? Or, are you offended with the declared ends of theſe covenants, viz. the glorifying of God, the pre⯑ſervation and reformation of religion and promoting the welfare of the nation,—and that God may delight to dwell among us to the lateſt poſterity?—You will perhaps pretend, that you love our reformed doctrine. worſhip, Preſbyterian government and diſcipline; but hate to be bound to them, eſpecially by others than yourſelf. But, Sir, for the ſame reaſon you muſt re⯑nounce your baptiſmal engagements, and ſtate your quarrel with God himſelf, who hath appointed vows. as his ordinance for hedging up men to their duty, and who hath entered into covenants with parents for their poſterity as well as for themſelves. Moreover, it is ſcarce credible, that you can love every thing engaged to in a vow, and yet hate to be bound by it, after God hath ſignally countenanced it. It is ſcarce poſſible, that my wife can dearly love her huſband, and the or⯑der and enjoyments of my family, if ſhe hate and wiſh to renounce her marriage Vow.