Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

both. The christian's course is forward. He will do the infidel no wrong. He will spoil him of no'right. But let not the avowed enemy of the Redeemer of man hope for the confidence of him who loves and honours that Redeemer. The enlightened christian will not by his gifts, arm and elevate the man who avows his hostility to all that he believes calculated to bless immortal beings, in time and through eternity. He will not requite his Redeemer for his love, by giving power to his enemy to make war more effectually against his throne. The dark page of the history of infidel misrule, furnishes the patriot on this subject, with an admonitory lesson. Let not the profligate murmur, if the friend of a pure morality refuse to him his suffrage.

POSITION VII.-In perfect accordance with the last position, it is held, that until a nation make it so by its own deed, the recognition of no principle peculiar to the system of grace, can be considered as necessary to the validity of its actual constitution of government, as a moral ordinance of God.

I am fully apprized of my liability in the assertion now made, to be misunderstood by some good men, and to be opposed by others who have confined their habits of thought upon this subject, too exclusively to the consideration of what ought to be, and what will be, the final attainments of society, not duly regarding the intermediate agency appointed of God for its accomplishment, nor considering what may be, and what ought to be admitted and embraced by the friends of social morality, as a step leading toward that which shall be ultimately gained. You will, therefore, indulge me in a few remarks illustrative of the position now stated.

1. The question, then, is not, whether a state has a right to apostatize from its moral attainments, and to cast off the obligations of its plighted faith. It is at once admitted that it may not so do. The question is not, in any given case, whether the community and its social institutions ought to be better; for the importance of progressive improvement is readily conceded. Nor is it a question, whether a nation may be justified in substituting oppression in place of equity, falsehood for truth, or wrong for right. It is not whether every, or any member of a state-it pursuing such a downward courseis bound to incorporate with the body politic, and run with it in

its chosen course of iniquity. The friend of sound morals has no doubt upon any of these points. They have all been discussed, and upon them many an upright man has acted; many an upright man has done more ;-he has submitted to inconvenience in not acting, when the case was doubtful, rather than impinge upon the peace of a good conscience; waiting until the providence of God should cast more light upon his path. Such a character, so conducting, will always command the respect of the virtuous, and be trusted as a man of rectitude.

2. The question is, whether a state just forming, or formed, not chargeable with apostacy, or constitutional oppression; embracing no immoral principle, and imposing no immoral act; but resting, by common consent, its constitution upon the principle of universal equity, in affording protection to persons, reputation, liberty, property, and the pursuits of virtue and happiness, is to be rejected as the work of the evil one, merely on the score of certain defects in the assertion of religious obligation. It is supposed to possess, substantially, all the fundamental principles of government, for the attainment of its more immediate and proper ends; and only to be defective in the recognition of things, in themselves, indeed, important, but incidental to the institution, and not radically belonging to it. This, it will be observed, is in some sort a new question. It has been glanced at in speculative discussions, but has rarely been examined as a practical inquiry. This aspect of the subject is that which is now before us, and it is worth while to employ some time and patience, to ascertain whether there be any circumstance that marks and distinguishes the condition of an individual, obliging him to stand aloof from a society so constituted. Such a state of society must not be confounded with one based on immorality, and maintained by unrighteousness. The exceptions justly taken to the establishments of anti-christianism, can have no place in the case now supposed.

3. I sustain my position by the admitted truth, that civil order and its authority are not founded in grace. I take for granted that the foundation and superstructure may be homogeneous. If the one be legitimate so will the other; and though nothing of a nature superior to the foundation be introduced into the fabric, the system may be legitimate. Indeed

-

to give it legitimacy, according to its primitive institution, nothing that is unhomogeneous can be contended for. That which is supernatural may be, and in the case already specified, ought to be, superinduced upon what is natural. This may greatly, and in this case, does greatly improve it; but to its legal and moral being, it cannot be claimed as necessary.Nothing that is peculiar to the system of grace, is essential to the constitution of man as a social being, the subject of God's moral government; though there is much of it essential to his being, in the sight of God, a morally good man. Civil government in its institution, primarily and directly, contemplates man as a social, moral agent: his christianity is incidental to his being, of infinite moment, indeed, to his duty and his happiness, but neither essential to his constitution as a man, nor to the lawful fellowship of others with him, in the general concerns of man. In these facts we have the foundation of the whole matter. The application of the principle so far as this discussion is concerned, is very easy indeed. government is not founded in grace."

"Civil

God has not founded But when reared upon its own

it there, and man may not. proper basis, the law that is common to the family of man,nations favoured by his gospel, are authorized, nay, they are required to employ its light and its aids in beautifying and perfecting their political systems; but until they, by their own voluntary act, submit, less or more extensively, to the system of grace, introduce its principles, and build them upon the foundation already laid, nothing peculiar to that system is necessary to give legitimacy to their civil fabrics.

Do you then reply to this view of the subject: If all this be so, will it not follow, that nations may neglect the light of the Bible and yet be innocent? By no means. Nations which have access to the light of the gospel, and yet neglect it, greatly sin. Allow me to illustrate this remark by a case already referred to, that of marriage: The family that is formed and lives in disregard of the system of grace, its principles, and institutes, in a land of gospel light, grievously sins. Yet if the fundamental laws of domestic society be observed, you recognize the legitimacy of the relation. This too, furnishes a remark to obviate another objection to this view of the subject -that it suspends the authority of God upon the will of man. This it does not. The authority of God, binding to duty, is

predicated upon the relation existing between him and his rational creature. The creature may sin in not duly regarding this; but the observance of that duty may not be compelled by man, irrespective of a previous voluntary engagement. It may be the duty of a man to enter into matrimonial bonds, and to do so in the Lord; he sins if he do not; and yet until he does, the discharge of the duties of domestic life, in that relation, may not be required as a condition of our intercourse with him. It may be the duty of a well qualified church member, to give himself up to the work of the ministry; he sins if he do not, yet until he engages voluntarily in it, we cannot require of him the duties of that office; nor can we urge his engagement in it, as a term of communion with him in the church of God; he in other points acting a consistent part. The conclusion is, and it might be illustrated by a thousand instances, that a moral relation or institution constituted upon its own fundamental principles, though defective,—if it be simple defect only,-in many important incidental points, is nevertheless to be recognized as of divine authority.

In the case before us, civil society, existing upon its original basis, and its affairs administered in correspondence with its own primitive law, is legitimate. Mere defect in what is incidental, will not nullify what God's ordinance has already settled upon its own foundation. Whatever of christian principle or influence is added, by the voluntary and dutiful submission of the citizens, is so much moral gain, and to be accordingly prized. The distinct agency of man is indispensible to the progressive advancement of his social state. In employing it in this case, he must continue on the foundation which God has laid. The Creator has attached more importance to the voluntary actings of man, than fellow men are sometimes willing to award to them. In most points God has held in his own hand the exclusive right to punish neglect of duty; and where he has done so, men may not become the executors of the penalty of the law, directly nor indirectly, either upon the individual or upon society.

My position is sustained by authorities of high name.Indeed I am not apprized that any sound moralist or theologian has deliberately asserted, upon full examination of the subject, an opposite opinion. The whole assembly of Westminster divines, the Church of Scotland in her brightest day,

and the several denominations of Presbyterians, the descendants of that church, maintained and still maintain, the assertion I have made. "Infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate's just and legal authority," is a part of the creed of the whole Presbyterian family, solemnly recognized and professed. The Reformed Presbyterian branch of this household, adheres with decision to this, as well as to the other principles of her venerable Confession. She, too, very highly regards the cxI Propositions to which reference has already been made, in which civil government is declared to be "grounded upon the law of nature itself, and-common to infidels with christians." Her voice is distinctly raised against all who hold "that civil government is founded in grace."— Incidental expressions, or doubts, upon certain points, entertained under circumstances of a transient character, in point of authority can never compare with settled constitutional principles, deliberately formed and of perpetual standing. Even Occasional judicative deeds, did such pass, inconsistent with established principles, must yield to the superior obligation of such principles.

If I do not greatly mistake, and I am persuaded I do not misapprehend the subject, it will readily be admitted, after the remarks just now offered, that in a land where public apostacy cannot be charged, where there is no obligation to approve of an unsound principle, or to perpetuate either an abuse or a defect, where the institutions are in correspondence with the substantial principles of righteousness, provide for and are in progress toward greater excellence, no christian could expose himself to censure before the well ordered courts of the Church of God, for associating with his fellow-citizens of the state, under such institutions, though altogether silent in respect of principles and ordinances peculiar to the system of grace. It is not needful to argue this as a practical question; for such it is not. But were it required to pursue it, the arguments and illustrations are abundant, by which it might be substantiated. The bearing of this position on the subject before us will hereafter appear.

You will readily perceive by the tenor of this letter, that I am a decided advocate of moral attributes, as necessary to give validity to any constitution of state or national government; and farther, that I maintain the claims of Messiah

« AnteriorContinuar »