Divine and human rights: or, the Westminster Confession and the Constitution of the United States tested by the Holy Scriptures

Preface

The following pages contain the substance of a discourse delivered to the people of the author's charge on the evening of November 14th, 1844; the notes and most of the authorities have been added since the discourse was delivered. The author is not to be understood as adopting the sentiments of the authorities quoted any farther than they are expressed in the quotations themselves. He has laboured rather to be perspicuous than ornamental. He has written in the hope of being useful to plain unsophisticated Christians.

The author has four inducements for offering this discourse to the public: First, the request of many who heard it. Second, he coi^dently believes that a general regard to the principles it advocates is no less essential to the well being of the church, than to the country. Third, he is desirous of adding his testimony, however feeble it may be, to principles believed essential to the temporal and spiritual prosperity of his native land. Fourth, the questions agitated are at present occupying a good share of public attention, as is evident from their discussion by the periodicals of the day. If this production should be judged worthy of notice, by any person who may entertain views differing from those here advanced, it is hoped they will level their artillery not against the writer, nor the defects of his performance, but that they will demonstrate his facts to be unfounded and his reasoning fallacious.

It is confidently believed, so far as different views prevail in the church respecting the constitution of the United States, that difference relates to points which are not terms of communion among us; consequently, these points are legitimate subjects of free discussion, if that discussion be conducted in a proper spirit and manner. The author requests the reader not to infer from his condemnation of certain principles, any reproach of those who may hold and preach them, unless they do so against light which they have, or might have, but wilfully reject.

IV PREFACE.

So long as church courts leave their members free to vote or not, as they may think proper, the discussion of the question of allegiance to the constitution should produce no alienation of brotherly love. It belongs to those who cannot vote, to bear with their brethren who can, or secede. Those who do vote have no right to take offence at such as do not, so long as their own liberty remains untouched. Yet, there is a disposition in many of the voters to persecute non-voters, which is wrong, and a sad evidence of a bad cause.

Thomas Paine published a book containing many good and many bad things, entitled "Rights of Man." This book, notwithstanding all its good, was entirely consistent with the same author's "Age of Reason." All his theories rejected the rights of God as repugnant to the rights of man. He assumed that the rights of the Creator could not harmonize with the rights of his creatures. France reduced Paine's theory to practice. The world know the result. In our own land the attempt is made, not so much directly to reject altogether the rights of God, as to effect a total separation between his rights and the rights of his creatures. The creature has certain supposed unalienable rights independent of the Creator. These must be maintained. God has also some rights, which may be maintained, so far as they do not interfere with this supposed independence of the creature. Whether we, as a nation, are destined to meet with any better success than that which attended the experiment of France, a little time will demonstrate. But the author of these pages believing that human and divine rights are as indissoluble and consistent with each other as the relation of creature and Creator, has chosen for the title of his unpretending book, — divine and human rights. C. W.

Philadelphia, 1845.

DIVINE AND HUMAN EIGHTS.

It is generally conceded that the gospel ministry is degraded by meddling with the mere party conflicts of the times. But the science of civil government embraces moral principles immutable in their nature, and of paramount obligation. A knowledge of these principles being necessary for the welfare of communities, they must be legitimate subjects of sober pulpit discussion. For who, that has the common properties and feelings of our nature, can regard without interest both the glory and the shame of his native land? The love of country is firmly seated in the human breast. No distance, no lapse of time can wholly eradicate this feeling of the heart. In adversity, in exile, in captivity, in far distant and barbarous climes, the mind involuntarily wanders back in its musings to the familiar and cherished objects of childhood, while imagination arrays these retrospective visions in robes of surpassing beauty and excellence. " If 1 forget thee, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If 1 do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. 3 '

Love of country, then, is in all a natural affection, and in some a Christian virtue. But the degree of a Christian's affection for the government of his country, and the nature and extent of his obedience to her laws, should be regulated by the moral character of that government, and those laws; for the simple reason that he is also the subject of a higher power, whose government and laws are not only supreme, but also perfect and divine. His affections, his interests, and his enjoyments, are concentrated in a kingdom, which, though not of this world, is of right, and will soon be in fact, universal. Its government claims dominion over the mightiest monarchies of the earth. Its supremacy is already acknowledged by Christians, who hold

1* its laws paramount to all human obligations; and the rapid flight of time will soon usher in the day, when these laws shall be obeyed by the inhabitants of all lands. The question, then, is the government of our country in harmony with this superior authority? or, in other words, is the government of the United States such, that Christians may with a good conscience yield a voluntary obedience to all its requirements, and swear in the name of the living God, as they shall give account to him in the great day, to give it an active support? can neither be uninteresting nor unimportant: for if they cannot do this without rebellion against God, by doing it, they certainly expose themselves to the divine anger.* So, on the other hand, if they can do this without the violation of any divine law, by refusing, they also expose themselves to wrath. " For the powers that be are ordained of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Consequently, it seems necessary that

* Christians must indeed be subject to the laws of the land for wrath's sake, in a passive way. That is, they must make no active forcible resistance; unless either the magistrate require them to do some act of a moral character which God has prohibited, or require them to neglect some such act which he has required; or unless they have the majority or physical power sufficient to throw off the yoke of bondage in the use of lawful means. There is no doubt in my mind respecting the application of Rom. xiii. Titus iii. 1, and 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, to the then existing Roman government; and I have read every thing I could obtain from the writings of those who deny this application. This view is confirmed by Paul's appeal to Caesar. But it is worthy of special attention that in every one of those passages it is not obedience but subjection that is commanded. Subjection in these places denotes a passive obedience to the will of a superior whose power cannot be successfully resisted, in the use of lawful means, while there is no proper assent of the will. We yield to necessity. Obedience proceeds from that free choice of the will which arises from a sense of duty. Thus it appears that a voluntary obedience is due to those commands of civil rulers which are lawful, if they rule by the consent of the people, notwithstanding they may be transgressors in their laws, administrations, or persons. It is, however, impossible to separate civil government from religion and morals. It never has been, never can be done. We might as readily expect to see a living man without a soul, as a civil government without a moral character. It is this fact which renders it so necessary that Christians should make themselves acquainted with the moral character of every social and civil action of their lives. Such aetions must harmonize with their Christian profession, or that profession becomes a mere nullity. If they would escape the pollutions of the world, let them inquire into the moral character of the laws, of the administration, and of the rulers of their country, and conduct themselves accordingly. Obey or disobey as the government obeys or disobeys the Supreme Lawgiver. There is a passage in the work, entitled, " A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies," by George Gillespie, a member of the Westminster Assembly., which, though long, is worthy of being committed to memory:

we should know the requirements of the divine law in reference to civil government, — the obligations we assume by our religious profession, — the requirements of the government of

" Since the power of princes to make laws about things ecclesiastical is not absolute, but bound and adstricted unto things lawful and expedient, which sort of things, and no other, we are allowed to do for their commandments; and since princes many times may, and do, not only transgress those bounds and limits, but likewise pretend that they are within the same, when indeed they are without them, and enjoin things unlawful and inconvenient, under the name, title, and show of things lawful and convenient; therefore it is most necessary as well for princes to permit, as for subjects to take liberty to try and examine by the judgment of discretion, every thing which authority enjoineth, whether it be agreeable or repugnant to the rules of the word; and if, after trial, it be found repugnant, to abstain from the doing of the same.

For, 1. The word teacheth us, that the spiritual man judgeth all things, 1 Cor. ii. 15; trieth the things that are different, Phil i. 10; hath his senses exercised to discern both good and evil, Heb. v. 14; and that every one who would hold fast that which is good, and abstain from all appearance of evil, must first prove all things, 1 Thess. v. 21.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. xiv. 23. But whatsoever a man doth without the trial, knowledge, and persuasion of the lawfulness of it by the word of God, that is not of faith; therefore a sin. It is the word of God, and not the arbitration of princes whereupon faith is grounded. And though the word may be without faith, yet faith cannot be without the word. By it therefore must a man try and know assuredly the lawfulness of that which he doth.

3. "Every one of us shall give account of himself to God." But as we cannot give an account to God of those actions which we have done in obedience to our prince, except we have examined, considered and understood the lawfulness of the same; so an account could not be required of us for them, if we were bound to obey and keep all his ordinances in such sort that w T e might not try and examine them, with full liberty to refuse those which we judge out of the word to be unlawful or inconvenient; for then princes' ordinances were a most sufficient warrant to us: we needed try no more. Let him make an account to God of his command; we have account to make of our obedience.

4. If we be bound to receive and obey the laws of princes, without making a free trial and examining of the equity of the same, then we could not be punished for doing, unwillingly and in ignorance, things unlawful, prescribed by them. Whereas every soul that sinneth shall die; and when the blind leads the blind, he who is led falls in the ditch as well as his leader.

5. No man is permitted to do every thing which seemeth right in his eyes, and to follow every conceit which takes him in the head; but every man is bound to walk by rule, Gal. vi. 6. But the law of a prince cannot be a rule, except it be examined whether it be consonant to the word of God, index secundem legem, and his law is only such a rule as is ruled by a higher rule. In so far as it is ruled by the own rule of it, in as far it is a rule to us; and in so far as it is not ruled by the own rule of it, in as far it is not a rule to us. Quid ergo? an non licebit Christiano cuique convenie?itiam regula et regulati (ut vocant) observare? saith Junius.

0. The rule whereby we ought to walk in all our ways, and according to our country, — and also the degree of harmony that exists between these divine and human authorities, before we can know either the nature or extent of that obedience which is due to the civil authorities under which we live. Without this knowledge we can neither be intelligent nor useful Christians or citizens; but are continually liable to be made the mere tools of ambitious and designing men, to become partakers of other men's sins, and finally to make a total shipwreck of faith and a good conscience.

How then is this knowledge to be obtained? Obviously by an examination both of our religious obligations, and the constitutional law of the country, accompanied with a candid comparison of the one with the other. This can be the more easily and readily accomplished, as we have a written constitution

which we ought to frame all our actions, is provided of God a stable and sure rule, that it being observed and taken heed unto, may guide and direct our practice aright about all those things which it prescribeth. But the law of a prince (if we should, without trial and examination, take it for our rule,) cannot be such a stable and sure rule. For put the case that a prince enjoin two things which sometimes fall out to be incompatible and cannot stand together, in that case his law cannot direct our practice, nor resolve us what to do; whereas God hath so provided for us, that the case can never occur wherein we may not be resolved what to do if we observe the rule which he hath appointed us to walk by.

7. Except this judgment of discretion which we plead for be permitted unto us, it will follow that in point of obedience we ought to give no less, but as much honour unto princes as unto God himself. For when God publisheth his commandments unto us, what greater honour could we give him by our obedience than to do that which he commandeth, for his own sole will and authority, without making farther inquiry for any other reason?

8. The Apostle, 1 Cor. vii. 23, forbiddeth us to be the servants of men, that is, to do things for which we have no other warrant beside the pleasure and will of men. Which interpretation is grounded upon other places of Scripture, that teach us we are not bound to obey men in any thing which we know not to be according to the will of God, Eph. vi. 6, 7; that we ought not to live to the lusts of men; but to the will of God, 1 Fet. iv. 3, and that, therefore, we ought in every thing to prove what is acceptable to the Lord, Eph. v. 20.

9. They who cleanse their way must take heed thereto according to the word, Fsal. cxix. 9; therefore, if we take not heed to our way, according to the word, we do not cleanse it. They who would walk as the children of light, must have the word for a lamp unto their feet, and a light unto their path, Fsal. cxix. 105; therefore, if we go in any path without the light of the word to direct us, we walk in darkness and stumble, because we see not where we go. They who would not be unwise, but walk circumspectly, must understand what the will of the Lord is, Eph. v. 17; therefore, if we understand not what the will of the Lord is concerning that which we do, we are unwise, and walk not circumspectly.

DIVINJ2 AND HUMAN RIGHTS. 9

which is the supreme law of the land. Let us then inquire,— First, What are the moral qualities necessary, in a civil government, in order that it may harmonize with the divine law? Secondly, Whether the Westminster Confession of Faith harmonize with the holy scriptures in reference to the magistrate's power and duty concerning religion? Thirdly, Whether the constitution of the United States possess the requisite moral qualities?

I. What are the moral qualities necessary in a civil government, in order that it may harmonize with the divine law? We answer,—

1. It must recognise the being of God, and enter into a formal obligation, to yield obedience to his law.* This obligation obviously arises from God's essential dominion over his creatures. The light of nature clearly teaches that God is, and must be, the moral governor of the world, the fountain of all governmental authority. This first principle of nature's light is fully confirmed by the light of revelation. " There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God," Rom. xiii. 1. "Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth," 2 Kings, xix. 15, Is. xxxvii. 16. "0 Lord God of our fathers, rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen?" 2 Chron. xx. 6. "Who would not fear thee, king of nations?" Jer. x. 7. Accordingly, God in his providence not only raises up distinct and independent nations, and appoints the extent of their jurisdiction, but also gives and removes their rulers. " The Most High divided to the nations their inheritance," Deut. xxxii. 8. "He hath determined the times before appointed, and the boundsof their habitation," Acts xvii. 26. "He removeth kings, and setteth up kings," Dan.

* " By the law of God I understand here jus divinum naturale, that is, the moral law or decalogue, as it bindeth all nations (whether Christians or infidels,) being the law of the Creator and king of the nations. The magistrate, by his authority, may, and in duty ought, to keep his subjects within the bounds of external obedience to that law, and punish the external man with external punishments for external trespasses against that law. From this obligation of the law, and subjection to the corrective power of the magistrate, Christian subjects are no more exempted than heathen subjects, but rather more straitly obliged. So that if any such trespass is committed by officers or members, the magistrate hath power and authority to summon, examine, judge, and (after just conviction and proof) to punish these, as well as other men. We do therefore abominate the disloyal papal tenet, that clergymen are not to be examined and judged by civil, but by ecclesiastical courts only, even in cases civil and criminal." — Aaron's Rod Blossoming, p. 121.

ii. 21. Such being God's authority and right of dominion over the nations of the earth, in their conventional character, he has punished and will continue to punish all national disobedience to his law. " If they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the Lord," Jer. xii. 17. "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God," Ps. ix. 17; see also Ps. Ixxix. 6. Even national forgetfulness of national duties to God, where no iniquity is positively decreed by law, shall be punished with national destruction and with future wrath upon the individuals thus guilty. But here we are met with an objection that Joseph and Daniel held office under heathen govern ments which were not only forgetful of God, but also guilty of active disobedience to the divine law; and therefore that Christians may now lawfully hold office under such governments. But suppose the objection true as here stated, it can no more prove the inference, than the fact that Moses permitted a plurality of wives will prove that polygamy is a Christian duty. But it is evident that neither Joseph nor Daniel obeyed any human authority inconsistent with the claims of the divine law; nor did they enter into any engagement by oath, covenant, or otherwise to obey or enforce any human law not in harmony with the divine law. Pharaoh acknowledged that Joseph was in possession of the Spirit of inspiration, and that his people should be ruled according to the word of Joseph, before he accepted office under the king of Egypt, Gen. xli. 38 — 40. The same thing is also true of Daniel, — " The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is God of gods, and a Lord of kings," Dan. ii. 47. It is sufficient cause for deep grief that people should be led astray by a misapplication of these examples. They fully sustain our position. Thus it is demonstrated that no nation can violate the divine law, and hope to escape with impunity.

2. Nations who enjoy the light of revelation, must, in order to harmonize with the divine law, recognise the Lord Jesus Christ in his mediatorial office, and enter into a formal obligation to yield obedience to him in their conventional character, as he is the administrator of the law of nature.

To prevent misapprehension, and enable the attentive reader to understand our meaning in this proposition, it is necessary to advert briefly to the nature of the mediatorial office. " There is," says Gillespie, " in the Mediator Jesus Christ, 1. Dignity, excellency, honour, glory, and splendour. 2. Mighty power, by which he is able to do in heaven and earth whatsoever he will. 3. His kingdom,' 7 by which he means the church. But he denies that civil government is put into his hand. It is true, as will be at once admitted by all who have studied the subject, that magistracy is founded in nature, not in the mediatorial authority of Christ; that magistrates hold their office from the three one God as the moral governor, and not from God as the saviour of sinners; that the natural law is the rule of administration, and not the law as connected with the arrangements of the covenant of grace. These truths are now so generally admitted that we need not offer any proof in this place. But subsequent writers have stated the doctrine of Christ's mediatorial office in a more clear and satisfactory manner, although Mr. Gillespie's book taken as a whole has probably never been surpassed. The Lord Jesus Christ should be considered by us both in his person and office. In his person and essential dominion he is equal with the Father and the Spirit. " Thou art my Son." The declaration of a fact, an eternal truth, expressing the necessary, eternal sonship of Christ, "This day have I begotten thee," to the mediatorial office.* Therefore it has been well said, — " He had been the natural son of God, though he had not been mediator, and though men had not been redeemed. But if you suppose the Son of God reigns not as God, with the Father and the Holy Ghost from everlasting to everlasting, then you must needs suppose that he is not the natural and eternal Son of God." Christ then has a two-fold kingdom, essential, and mediatorial. It is the latter after which we now inquire. Here we observe, — 1. That this kingdom is the church, not simply all the redeemed, but all who by a public profession of his name acknowledge him as their King and Redeemer. We know that some in this kingdom are unworthy subjects, and will not reign with Christ in glory. But they acknowledge his authority and their obligation to obedience. 2. As King in Zion he is invested with universal dominion. Therefore it has been beautifully remarked, almost in the words of David, that " he ruleth in Jacob and for Jacob to the ends of the earth." This doctrine shines throughout the

* Many refer the term "begotten" to his sonship instead of his office: we will not dispute with them, but we cannot comprehend their meaning.

inspired volume. "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all," 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. On this passage, let it be observed, 1. In the end Christ is to deliver up the kingdom to the Father. What kingdom? Not his essential, not his peculiar kingdom, his headship over the redeemed; for in regard to this kingdom the Father saith, "Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever." " He shall reign for ever." It is true, he shall introduce his redeemed children to his Father without spot or blemish, that they may receive a visible token of the Father's love, as Joseph presented his children to his father, but he shall not cease to reign over them for ever and ever. To suppose otherwise would rob both him and his redeemed of the most precious gem in their mutual crown of glory. While he is crowned, in our nature and as our king, in that :ft *giory which he had with the Father before the world was," his children will rejoice in seeing him as he is, in being like him, and in eternally filling heaven with the melody of his praise. "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." If these things be so, then it is, it must be, his universal kingdom or dominion over all the creatures for the good of his church which is then surrendered to the Father. This dominion was always incidental, tributary, or subsidiary, and its exercise will then be no longer necessary, all enemies having been subdued. But this does not render his universal dominion the less obligatory upon the creatures, so long as it shall continue; nor will it exempt the disobedient from condign punishment. " He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." 2. Civil authority, though it emanate from God as moral governor, is under the dominion of Christ as mediator. The natural law of magistracy is administered by him. The providential government of the world is also in the hand of

Christ as mediator. He only is "excepted which did put all things under him." The Mediator led Israel out of Egypt and hrough the wilderness, opening the sea, raining manna, arresting the natural laws of the material world again and again, ' ill David and Solomon, his eminent types, held heathen nations tributary to their thrones. " Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and bring thee into the place which I have prepared/' Exod. xxiii. 20. "And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is Wonderful?" Judges xiii. 18. "His name shall be called Wonderful," Is. ix. 6. " In all their afflictions he was afflicted, and the Angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them: and he bare them and carried them all the days of old," Is. Ixiii. 9. This doctrine does not exclude the Father from the exercise of government, or providence, but includes both the Father and the Spirit; they indeed act through, or by the Mediator. " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," John v. 17. " The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me," John xiv. 10, 11. We see not, then, how the conclusion can be avoided, that the nations of the earth are bound to acknowledge the Lord Jesus Cn ist in his mediatorial office, and enter into a formal obligation to obey him in their conventional character, as he is the administrator of the law of nature. It follows, also, that as our Lord overrules and directs natural things to supernatural ends for the good of his church, so he has a mediatorial dominion over natural things; for how should he give direction to that over which he possesses no dominion?