B\\ 
 
631 
 Bll 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 Anonymous 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 ON THB 
 
 RIGHT AND OBLIGATION 
 
 OF Tlli 
 
 I 
 
 CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
 
 TO TAKE CARE OF" THE INTEREST OF RELIGION^ 
 AND PROVIDE FOR ITS SUPPORT; 
 
 IN WHICH THE ARGUMENTS; IN CO N F I RM ATIO J* 
 
 OF SAID RIGHT AND OBLIGATION, BOTH FROM 
 
 REASON AND THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, 
 
 ARE ADDUCtD : 
 
 tHEtUSUAt OBJECTIONS EX AM I N ED,--TOGETHEIi 
 
 WITH SEVERAL COROLLARIES DEDUCED 
 
 FROM THE SUBJECT, 
 
 B«;SlMON 
 
 BACKUS, A.M. 
 
 '»",...'-, 
 
 ^^ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 t 
 
 \ 
 
 Middktoiim : 
 
 PRINTED BY T. & J. B^ DUNNING, 
 
 1,,, 
 
 1 804. 
 
 {Cefj Rigit/fCured acCQrdiitg KkJQ of CoKgrt/i.} 
 
 ' -.1. . ■},> 
 

 n- 
 
 f^\^^U3{-C6^\ 
 
=p=s= 
 
 INTR ODUCTI ON. 
 
 THE propenjityofhumanncrture to.vihraiefrcm onii 
 extrtme to another, is Jo obvious as to become pro~^ 
 vtrbial : which me^y afford a clue whereby to account 
 Jpr that divet^ty of fentinents which prevails with re-, 
 gard to particular jubjiBs indifferent ages and peri? 
 ads of time. . 
 
 puring the, reign- of popery^ the civil magifirate ^'ax' 
 fuppojed not only bound by virtue of his office to patron- 
 ize and fupport- religion, in general, and to make pruvi- 
 Jioiifor the niairUenance of. the public, teachers of it ; but 
 filfo by the power of the civ.il f word,, or penal laws^ to 
 compel, an afftnt to fuch creeds and. articles of faith, 
 and a conformity tofuch ceremonies and modes of reli- 
 gious wor/hip, as were enjoined, by the church, or th^ 
 pope : knd all fuch.as prefumtd to djffent from, or re- 
 fufed d'^onformityjo fuch. eflablifhtd Jiandard of faitk 
 and worfliip, were, after convidion before an eccijitijii- 
 cal tribunal, to be deljuered-over to the f cular power, 
 or the, civil magiflrate, who by a writ deheretico comr 
 burenclo, or for burning of heretics, was to caufe thfnp 
 id be public^ burnt to death. 
 
 Nor was this intohrant and ptrfecuting fpirit con- 
 fined to the a^es.in w^ich the papal fyflem prevailed ; 
 'particularly in England; but tt continued after the 
 commencement of the , reformation. And during the 
 reign of Henry the VIII. and Mary (who indeed wa^ 
 a bigotted papifi,) and of Elizabeth, and the fever al 
 $jbranches or fueceffions of the houfe of Stuart ; the dire 
 , effeBs of which were feverely felt by mpltitudes, in the 
 ieprivation of property f liberty and life; and diverfe 
 
IV 
 
 6lher cnrp-rral pains and penalties ; for a mere non- 
 conformity tj the legal e/labh/hment of faith and worjhip. 
 
 Tkii p wer of the civil magifirete, ail protejlants at 
 th' prefent day agree to explode, as irrational, and ab- 
 furd, and to the highefl degree oppnffive and inconfijient 
 ■with the natural rigfUs of mankind. And from a con- 
 viBion and lively fenfe of this truth, deri-oed from an 
 experience of the horrid and pernicious effeBs of a powir 
 fo exorbitant^ the tranfition was very egfy to thecpp/fite 
 extreme ; or to a denial of all poiuer, .zvhatfoever, in the 
 civil magiftrate, with refpeB to matters of religion : 
 Not du'y confidering the difference between power, and 
 the ahufe and mi/application of it ; or abfolute and un'- 
 limited power, and power under due limitations and re-' 
 flriElions. This I apprehend is a rational account of 
 the origin of the di Brine maintained by many at 'the 
 frefent day, viz. That the civil raagi/trate hath no au- 
 ihjritv whatfoever in matters of religion, any further 
 thdn (as Dr. Price, exprfftth itj to keep the pea^e te- 
 ther tby dinying that it is any part of the duty or office 
 of the civil magiflratt tofupport religion, or to. take it 
 under his official patronage and proteBion, This I con- 
 ceive is the moji rational account which can be Qffigned, 
 for the origin of this doBrine, fo far as it is founded in 
 principle, or a conviBion of judgment ; or with refpeB 
 , to th'fe who are honejl in their profe^ed belief of it.. 
 
 But it IS to be prefumed that the clamors^^ which have 
 leenfo frequent, and vehement of late againjl the inter- 
 ference oj the civil magiffrate in religious ^natters, and 
 the alarms of a confpirjicy of chure^h andflaie in Con- 
 neBtcut,for the fubverfon of civil and rehgf.pu^s liberty, 
 and the eflablifhment of an ariflocr'acy in the fate, and 
 hierarchy in the church, which withfo much zeal and 
 affduity have been propagated in pamphlets, and in 
 certain newfpaper publicatiam, proceed from, a diffe- 
 rent four ce. The manifff tendency effuch produBionSf 
 tngither with that acrimony and virulence which they 
 kreaihe towards the clergy, leave no room to entertain a 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tliis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029330655 
 

 A 
 DISSERTATION 
 
 eit THE KICHT AND OBLIGATION OF THE CIVIL MAGli* 
 TKATE TO SUrrOKT KEtlGIOR. 
 
 THE fight and obligation of the civil sttagiftrare 
 to interpofein matters of religion, is a fubjeft 
 t>fno fmall controverfy at the prefent day, mariy 
 zealoufly contending that it is no part of the offlcCi 
 and duty of civil rulers, in their official capacity, to 
 make provifion for the fupport of religion ; or to 
 excrcife their authority in any refpeS relative there- 
 to. Nay, fome even go fo far as to deny the author- 
 ity of the civil magiflrate to proteft religion ; ex- 
 cluding the teachers of it from the benefit df the law 
 for the recovery of their dues for their official fervi- 
 ces, from thofe to whom they have officiated purfu- 
 ant to explicit contraft. As 1 apprehend this to lie 
 a fubjeft of great importance, fo I conceive it will 
 not be deemed an improper fubjefl: of difcuffion. 
 And fhall accordingly endeavor to maintain, '' 
 
 That the civil magiftrate hath not only a right, 
 but is indifpenfabty bound, as an cffential duty of 
 his office, to protefl and fupport religion. 
 
 This pofition I fliall endeavor to eftablifh in the 
 firft place, by adducing ppfitive and dire ft proof of 
 the point ;*and that both from reafon and thefaered 
 
rcriptares; and then by obviating tfie fcveral'ob- 
 jeftions which are ufuall)/ alleged againft it. 
 
 Previous to which, however, it may be proper to 
 intimatfjthatby the above pofition, it is not intend- 
 ed to affirm that the civil magi^rate hath a right, 
 much lefs that he is in duty bound, to enforce by 
 penal laws, a fubfcription or affent to any particular 
 creed, or articles of faith, or a conformity to any 
 |)artiii:ular ceremonicft, or modes of religious wor- 
 fhip, upon any fubjcfts of the govcrnmentj contra- 
 ry to their avowed confciencious belief. The 
 rights of confcience, and private judgment in mat- 
 ters of religion, are doubtlefs facred and unaliena- 
 ble; and cannot^c lawfully TrftriQed, or infringed, 
 by any human authority whatfoever. This conces- 
 fion, however, may require fome explanation; that 
 is, that it refpeQs thofe religious feminsents, or fuch 
 religious fyftems only, as are not incompatible with 
 the fafety of civil lociety. For when any particular 
 members of a civil community maintain opinions in- 
 confiftent with the fafety Off the community, I con- 
 ceive it a very clear point, that fuch civil fociety is 
 not bound to tolerate fuch members. Agreeably to 
 this fentiment, Mr. Locke in his treatife ort tolera- 
 tion, obferves, that a proteftant ftate is not bound to 
 tolerate roman catholics, in as much as it is one ex- 
 pj-efs article of their religion, that faith is not to be 
 kept with heretics, as they ftile all denominations of, 
 chriftians, who are not of their communion; and as 
 they acknowledge fubjeftion to a foreign jurifdic- 
 tion, viz. the roman pontiff ; who challenges a pow- 
 erto abfolve them from all oaths of allegiance, or 
 any engagements, however facred, which they may 
 be under to their own government. And by parity 
 of reafon, I fee not why the fame obfervation will 
 not apply with equal force to atheifts, and all others 
 who deny a future ftate of retribution, or who main- 
 tain any principles ipconliftent with the nature and 
 obligation of an oath. 
 
; MaViryg ma^le thefe preliminat-y. obfervationsj 
 the way is prepared to attend to'thceviednce, in fup- 
 pon of our pofition above Rated ; which' was propo4 
 fed to be derived, both from reafon and the facred 
 oracles. . . '' ' .. ' ^, , • , 
 
 f- And irt the Firjl placej reafort teaches that the 
 grand objeft and defign of the inftilution of civil 
 government, is the good and happinefs of the eom- 
 ftiunity. Tlie truth of this pofition is fo' obvious^ 
 and fo generally Conceded, that to attempt to 
 prove it, wauld be nugatory ^nd impertinent. And 
 confequenly, that Viihatever haih a manifeft tenden- 
 cy to promote ths public good, belongs to the pro- 
 viftceof the civil magiftrate., , But that religion hathi 
 B' tendency to promote the public good, or the civil 
 benefit of focietyj' is a point fb evident, that none 
 who are not infeQed with the late French mania, can 
 pretend to doubt ; Of call if in queftion. In fo 
 ftiuch that it is prefu'med,' that hiftory does not afford 
 an inftanc6ofa nation, who have attempted to lup- 
 port civil government, without the aid and interven- 
 fion of relfgionV till the late ni ad attempt in France j 
 which, hbweVefi' after aVefy fliort experiment, hath 
 proved abortive j ind the projeftors of a govern- 
 ment foifnded in afheifm, have been convinced by 
 dire experience of the folly, abfurdityj and madnefs 
 of the atterap^t." , . . 
 
 The neeefflty of feligion for the fupport of 
 civil go'vernment ; of fts tendency to promote the 
 good of fodetyj appears from two confiderations. 
 , ift. As it fs thft-grand nexus or bond of union^ 
 which binds civil fbciety together ; without which, 
 the focial compaft would want its principal force 
 find validity ; as it is the only foundation, upou 
 which ihe facredhefe, and obligation of oaihs, andf 
 eveiry kind of engagements, which are effenfial ta 
 the exiftence of , civil fociety intirely depend; 
 &nd without which government could not fubfifl",' 
 truth be inveftigated, or juftice aidminiftered to th^ 
 
 B 
 
jSrripef- fttbgeSa. Fot whefe ih€fe fundimental articled 
 of all religion, are denied or difljeiieved, viz. the 
 exiftence of a God^ the immortality of the foul, and 
 a fuiiifeftate of retribution J what imaginable foun- 
 dation can there fee left for the obligation of an oath, 
 or the moft folfcmn engagemeiritsj or declarations 
 which a petfoh dould' make ? or what dependance 
 could be rationally placed thereon ? on fuppofition, 
 of the difbelief of the abqye mentioned ^iftides, ai 
 perfon would have no poffible iflotive to fpeak the 
 triiih, rather than tht contrary,) ot" to pay the leaft 
 regard "o his moft facfed engagetnents, but what is 
 derived from a fefpeft to his temporal intereft'or hon- 
 or ; which in innumerable instances would predom- 
 inate in favor of falfhood, and canfequGntly be pro- 
 duftive cf correfp^ondent efftfls j "all motives fronnf 
 confcience, and the fear of God, being by the fup- 
 pofition precluded. From the above obfervationsj 
 it appears, as I conceive, very maniftftthat religion 
 is ofeffeniial importance, not only to the well beings 
 but even to the very exiftence of civil government 
 and fociety^ and confequenily, that according to 
 ihe above polrtion, it is what civil rulers have not 
 Giiiy a right,' bttt are indifpenfably bound,- to make 
 an objfftof their attention, as an effential par-t of 
 their official duty. Indeed, religion and govern- 
 ment have evidently a reciprocal dependance upon 
 ieach other, and one cannot ordinarily fubfift . with- 
 out the oiher ; at leaft the latter without the form- 
 er. As a confirmation of this truih^ it is obfervablej 
 that the champions of infidelity at the prefent day, 
 are no lefs oppofed to the reftfaints of human laws^ 
 than thofe of religion ; contending for univerfal li- 
 centioulhefs, or following the diftates of nature as 
 effential to liberty, and tbe acme of human perfec- 
 tion.* But, 
 
 . * Not t6 raenuon Godwin atid the mndetn French philofopherijf 
 tlie auihur hath lifen credihiy informed that a certain petfonage of 
 Aiftiiij^atffied eminence in America, htih deckjEcd, that irenev^ 
 
' ad. That rrligion is condiKJye to ikc benefit and 
 well being of civil fbciity, and confrqueiuly that it 
 is an objefcl of civil government, is evident from its 
 faJutafy influence upon the morals of irvankind, or 
 iis tendency to prevent thofe vices, crimes, and en- 
 ormities, wh ch are deftrutlive to lociety. and which 
 are inconfifteni with its fafety »nd happinefs. "> 
 
 It cannot be denied wilhbut manifeft abfurdit)^,, 
 con tradition, and the ptaineft diflates of reafoni, 
 and the common fenle of mankind, that vice and 
 immorality, or crimes of almoft ev^ry denomination, 
 Cuch for inttance, asmurder^ robbery, piracy, theft, 
 perjury, T^rgery, rape, adultery, and innumerable 
 others, needkfs to inention, have amoft dircS ten- 
 dency to prevent the profperity and happinefs of 
 civil fociety, and to involve it in mifery and ruir*. 
 Nor is it Icsfs evidently a diQate cf common fenfe,^ 
 that even the fpeculative belief of the great doc- 
 rines of religion, fuch as the beirig, and perfeQinns 
 of God, ar>d the future accout>«abilitY of mankmd, 
 for their conduct in this life, hath a very powerful 
 tendency to reftrain men from the commiffion of 
 fuch crimes, and the pradice of fuch vices ; and in 
 in3!»v inftances, a more powerful tendency, than can 
 be derived from any qther- cpnfiderations. Lfpe- 
 qially when thefe folemn truths are frequently held 
 up to th^ir vjew, a.n4.preired, i|pd urged upon their 
 minds.* - 
 
 ^»H enjay liberty io this country, till religion and goveyimpnt, anch 
 the marriage invitation, are aboHQied I Which i» the quiptefitn.ee of 
 the Godwinian fyfteni. 
 
 * Tiie traih of the above obfervation is clearly illuftrated in thp 
 (ncaiiple of (he patriarch Abraham; whp, as an apology fof calling 
 his wife his filler, alleges t^tat he thought itirely the fear of ^pd.waf 
 not in that place, and that therefore they would fl|y him for hia. 
 wife's fake : plainly intina.ating, that he did not conftder hi< lif^ fe^ 
 cure from violence, ampngft a people who were not under the it fla- 
 ence of the fear of God. ' The iame truth is alfo eXemptifi'd in an- 
 other celebrated chara^r of antlt^aity : wbo from the ii.flucpcc of 
 the fame principle, was enabled to wiihftand the follicitations of % 
 iS-vA vromaa ia wbofe power he wai ; fay ingi how fliall I do this gteaf 
 
There are few perfons under ftated and pub- 
 lic religious inftruQion, who can fo fardiveft thenir 
 ielves of the checks and reftraints of confcience, a? 
 to be able to counteraQ its admonitions, withaul 
 fenfible pain and remorfe ; and who from thai cori- 
 fideratioh alone, are not reftrained froip the perpe- 
 tration of many crimes, and enormities, which nof- 
 withftanding any other reflraint, ihey would not lies- 
 jtate at all to commit. The truth of this obreryation 
 being admitted, the truth of which, I conceive need? 
 nothing to be faid by way. of confirmation, the con- 
 fequence is undeniable,- that religion hath a mani- 
 feft tendency to 'he benefit, and bappinefs of civil 
 fociety, and confequently that it is an objeft per- 
 taining to the province of the cjyil magiftrate, to 
 make provifion for its fupporf. 
 
 Having taken a brief view of forne of the rational 
 arguments in favor of the right, and duty of the 
 civil magiftrate to fupport religion, we may in the 
 
 Second place enquire, what evidence, in fupport 
 of our pofiiion, may b^ derjvpd from divipe inipira- 
 jion ? And, 
 
 To thispurpofe, we may obferve in general, that 
 jt was the univerfal praftice of the civil rulers of ihc 
 
 wickednefs gad fin againft God ? Very pertinent to the fame pur- 
 pofe alio is the declaration of Nehemiahi the pious governor of iKe 
 Jewsj who fpeiikiqg'of the opjjreffion of his ptedeceffors in office, 
 obferves : but fo did not 1, becaufe of the fear of God : It is not a 
 little cuiiou8< however, to' obferve the contraft beween the fentiment 
 of the above mentioned patriarcb8,and a certain modern phiipfef h^r '; 
 who^appotfs it of no confequenct, or 'no injury to him, that his 
 neighbor (hould be an atheift, or a believer in no Qod : that it 
 irould neither {break his leg, or pic(c his pocket ! But with due 
 defetence to fo higH an authority, it, may, it is conceived, admit a 
 query, whether the hymenial bed of a certain gentleman, might 
 not have been lefs expofed to violation, had his neighbor been un- 
 der the influence of a reverential belief of one God, inftead of no 
 God ? As this belief operated as an efieduai teftraint upon the pa- 
 triarch J.ifeph, above referred to, from a compliance with the feduc- 
 »ions of a lacivions woihan, doubtlefs the fame principle would have' 
 been no lefs prevalent in lefttaintug him frojn ading the pf^tt of a 
 fediicer. •■,,'- . ' ■ ' . ' '• ^ 
 
Ifraelitifh*- and Jewifh nations, fanflioned wftli the 
 jmoft unequivocal expreffions of divine approba^ 
 tion. This obfervation holds emphatically true, 
 >i?ith refpeft to jhqfe, who ftand charafterifed on 
 facred record, as good irulers : particularly David, 
 Splomon, Afa, Jehofaphat, Hezekiah, and Joliah, 
 y/hq are celebrated as eminently good kinga, ana 
 l-eprefcnted as having, teen very afliduous in the 
 care and attention \yhich they exercifed, relative to 
 matters of religion, preferving it from corruption, 
 andreftoring its itiilitutions in their purity, when 
 they had been depraved, and negleSed, and making 
 provifion for the fupport of the public worfhip, and 
 ordinances of God, and the minifters of the temple 
 and the altar ; proclaiming fails, and day$ of humil- 
 iation, for national fins, and to deprecate national 
 judgments, and to implore national blefllings ; for 
 vhich they are handed down to pofterity, with hon- 
 or:, and emphatical tokens of divine approbation, 
 and as examples for the iniitatior^ of other rulers, 
 in all fucceedingages,* 
 
 • To vhich may be add:4 the e:;;itT)pIe of t^e king pf Nineveh, 
 who upon the denunciation ot de(lru£tion uppn his kingdom, for 
 their great wickednefs, by the prophet Jonah, proclaimed a faft, and 
 enjoined the obiTcrVation of it with the utmoft rigor Upon which 
 the anger of the Deity was -placated, and the threatened calamity 
 aretted. But he lived in the dark ages, and was a poor ignoianl 
 pagan ! had he been as wife, and had nnderftood the limiis of hia 
 oilvo perogativeaa well asthe illuminated legiflature of Rhode- Ifland, 
 he would not have prefumed to have meddled in fuch maiiers,even (q 
 much as to have recommended a iaft ; and Nineveh would conle- 
 queatJy have beea dellroyed. But hit condu£t met the divine i^p- 
 prpbation; and all thofe who deny the right of the civil magift-rat^ 
 to fupport religion, confequently ftand confuted. No lefs-pertinent 
 to this purpofeare the. examples of Cyrus, Datios, and Artaxerxes, 
 kings of Perfia, in the provifions which they made, and the order* 
 and commiiTuns which they iffued under diyine iri^pence, for re. 
 Bnrilding the temple, and reAoring the woilbip of God, and the in> 
 fiitutions of religion at Jetufalem ; of which we have an account at 
 large in the books of £zra and Neheiniah. Had they lived and 
 done the like in this enlightened landand age, the Tatnais, the T'nbi' 
 ahtithe Shethsrbuzoais', the SanbaUats',the Gefbams', and the Gat})-* 
 miles' of the prefent day, would doubtlefs with great zeal and pitri* 
 
8 
 
 And on the other hand, thpfe kings and rv\er.s^ 
 vho have been of an ppppfite charafltr, have beeri 
 handed down to pofleriiy, ftigmaii?ed with Knark* 
 pf infamy, and divine di'pliPa'uTe | as Jereboanij 
 Ahab, Ahaz, Manaffab, Abmoo, &c. To cite ail 
 the particular paflages icalculated to, iJLftraie the 
 foregoing ohleryations, *^ouid be to. tranrcribe a, 
 great part of the books of Judges^ Samuel, Kiiigsj 
 Chronicles, and indeed of the whol? of the old lefta- 
 ment. But there is one paffage in the book of Ne- 
 hemiah, the pertinency of which, to the preletit i'ub- 
 jetl, is fuch, as demands particular attention. The 
 paffage I refer to is contained ^j^ the 13th Chapterji 
 |Olh, 11th and lijsth verfes.. 
 
 And I perceived that the portion of the Levites,; 
 had not been given them t but the Levites, and the. 
 lingers th»t did the work (that isjUhe work of the. 
 fanftuary) had fled every one to his field. Theri 
 contended I with the rulers, and faid why is the. 
 
 Otifm have founded an alarm, that the Iib.eities oS ihe people wfra. 
 in imminent danger, from a confpiracy of chaich and ftatc. The. 
 form of government under which Jeruialem and the temple was te- 
 builti and the temple wotihip rettoied after the Babyloniih caprivi> 
 tyt was monarchical ; and therefore the infidels snd eneinies of irliir 
 gton of that day, wiih a view to frustrate the pious attempts of the. 
 Jews, and to deprive thein of the royal patronage and fypport, with^ 
 out which, they knew they could not fucced ;" reprefenied to the, 
 iPerfian monarch, that if he fulTered thetn to proceed- to build the. 
 city and temple, and ^onfequently to r^f^Qu; the Jeifith religion ;, 
 it would endanger a dimina'ion of the royal ley^nue ; and tor thjs^^ 
 (Hirpofe they wrote to the king in thefe words,, ^e i,t knoiyn unto, 
 the king, that if this city be bnilded| and the walU thereof iet up^ 
 again ; then will they not pay tpll, tribute, Qrcuftoiji ; and fo thoi), 
 ihalt endanger the revenue of tbeJcings, Ezra 4th, 13th. Had the. 
 government been popular* or repoblic^n* the tnodf pf attack wonld 
 doubtlefs have been like that of their prefent fucctflbrs, vis. by in- 
 Unuathig that lot government to sneddle with, or patronise, reli- 
 gion, would endanger the libertiei of the people. But io either, 
 cale falfhood and ^ifreprefentaiion would have l>e<;n, of eQeniial im-. 
 pottance As it is a doctrine of the roman catholic faiih, that it it, 
 la Artut and commendable to lie for the good of At church ; fo i^ 
 nefteemed no lefa lawfdl, and metitoiioqs by the infidels, and mi^ 
 ate phitoicpheit of tfa« fielcnt da;, to tit foiiti deftiiuCU^p. 
 
houfe of God foirfeken ? And I gathertd them to* 
 gether, and fet them in their place. Then brought 
 all Judah tfee tithe of the, cornj and the new winei 
 and the oil into the treafuries. From this paffage^ 
 it is eviddntj beyond controverfy that Nehemiah^ 
 ^he {)ious goiertioi- of Judah, upon his arrival at 
 lerUfalemj to take <ipon him the civil government 
 pf the Jews,makes it one of the firft objeQs of bia 
 attentionj to provide for the regular aind inftitutcd 
 worfhip of God, arid the fupport of the roinifters of 
 religion j cenfuring the fubofdiatc ^ulefsj for iheir 
 negleft of thfeir duty in this refpeftj imputing all 
 the blame <»f the hoiife of God's being forfaken^ to 
 them (then ctmtendtd I with the rulers,) faying, why 
 is the houfe of God fdrfaken ? And from a con- 
 cioufnefs of having herein^ faithfully difcharged the 
 duty of his office, he prays, as verfe 14th. Remem< 
 ber mei O my God, concerning this, and wipe not 
 out my good deedsj that i h^ve done to thie houfe of 
 my God, and the offices thereof I What clearer dc- 
 inonftration can be exhibited, that it belongs to the 
 bffice of the civil magiltrate to take care of religiohj 
 and provide for its fupport, than the example of a 
 civil magiftrate of God's pectlliar people, under di- 
 vine dire8ion and tnfpifation,- a3uali!y taking upoip! 
 ymfelfibe difcharge of this office, cenfuring, and 
 reprehending fubordinate rulers^ for their negligence 
 in this refpe8, and folemnly appealiiig to heav< 
 «n for bis fideKty, inr the performance of this 
 fervice, as a part of his official duty? Indeed 
 H muil be aefcnowledg^d, that the proof from the 
 new-teffameiit, that it i« the duty of the civil magis- 
 trate to fu'ppOrt religion, is not quite fo abundant;t 
 '^nd explicit as from the old. But if nothing had 
 been Caid, relative to the fubjeft in the new-tefta"* 
 metrt, direSly nor indireflly, except it had been irk 
 dire£i oppoStibti, and cont-radidiion thereto ; that 
 yould,.not have, invalidated the arguments, in fup- 
 port of out p^MoA from the old-teliameftt. As no 
 
i6 
 
 reAfon can be affigned, why it fliould be the Antf 
 of the civil mag ftrate, to fupport religion under the 
 bid teftament difpenfation,' whith doth not operait^ 
 with equal force under the new; (a&rtiay more ful- 
 ly appear in the fequel) as there is nothing in thfe 
 nature, or Complexion of the tbing itfelf, to lead us 
 to conclude^ thit if was a part of th6 ceremonial 
 law; or that it was peculiar to the Jewifh Economy. 
 On the contfary, thaCt it is .evidently of a moral na- 
 ture, refulting from the nature, relations, and fitnef^ 
 of things. , That ft is founded in reafon," and con- 
 ducive to the ha'()pinefs, and weH being of civil fo- 
 ciety ; as hath been mdde fufficiently ftianifeft, iri* 
 the preceding obfervaitions. But there is one paf- 
 f^ge in the prophefy of Ifaiah, (hougb an old tefta- 
 ment wfiter^ which may )et be' coniidered, as afford- 
 ing direft proof, that it is the duty and office of the 
 civil magiftrate to fupport religion under the 
 gofpel. The paffage referred to,' is in the 49th 
 Chapter, at the 23d verfe. Where, defcribing the 
 happy ftate ol" the church, in gofpel times, the proJ- 
 phet declares, that fhe fhallbe the fubjeftof the fos- 
 tering, nisrturing care of civil rulers, in thefe mem- 
 orable words. Kings fhall be thy nurfing faihej's, and 
 their queens thy nurfing mothefg. 
 
 I am not infenfible of tlie glofs put upon thefe 
 words by thofe who deny it to belong to the office' 
 and duty of civil rulers to fupport religion in their 
 official capacity, viz. That they fignify no more than 
 that civil rulers ffiall proteft chriftians in' the enjoy- 
 ment of their natural rights, allow therti liberty of 
 conference, and the free exercife of their reli- 
 gion, &c. But that this Cannot be confidered as the* 
 true conftru6iion of the prophefy, I conceive niufl: 
 be evident from feveral confi'derations. As firft, 
 that according to this • conftruftion, the words are 
 expreffive of no peculiar privilege which the church 
 or chriftians ffiould enjoy in diftin8ion frojn the reft 
 of mankind. For proteftioh againft external injury^ 
 
a 
 
 and In tlie enjoyment df natural rights, is what all 
 men are entitled to expeft from civil goyernmentj 
 and which under every good government they will 
 enjoy. But the words under confideration evident- 
 ly import fomething more tj(an this, viz. Tome fpe- 
 cial privilege which chriftians Ihould enjoy above, 
 or in diftinftion from mankind in generah Again 
 adly. That the above conftruftion cannot be the true 
 one, is evident, in that it does not comport with the 
 idea which fuch a reprefentation naturally conveys 
 to the mind > or with the charafter and office of a 
 nurfe ; whofe office and duty it is not only to guard 
 and protefli the child from external harm^nd injury, 
 but alfo to provide for it proper and wholefome food, 
 and medicine, together with the means of inftruflion 
 and difcipline, according to the age and exigence of 
 the child J which is a very proper and natural me- 
 taphor when applied to civil magiuraies and the 
 church, to reprefent the duty of the former with re- 
 fpe6l to the latter j or in other word.s to teach us^ 
 that it is the duty and office of the civil magiftratd 
 to proteQ, cherilhj patronizcj and fupport religion; 
 and alfo, that it is a privilege which the church 
 fhould eminently enjoy, in gofpel times. From 
 which a thought naturally occurs as a further con- 
 firmation of the truth of the pofition^ I have been 
 endeavoring to eftabiifh, viz. That if it is not the 
 duty and office of the civil magiftrate to fupport re- 
 ligion under the gofpel-difpenfation, then it will fol^ 
 low that the privileges of the church are diminiflied; 
 under the gofpel, and that the old-tedament church 
 enjoyed a privilege fuperior to that of the new ; or 
 rather that the former enjoyed a privilege of which 
 the latter is deprived ; unlefs it lliould be faid that 
 it was no privilege at all for the civil magiftrate to 
 take care of the intereft of religion, and provide for 
 .its fupport under the old-teftament difpenfation ; 
 which to fay, I conceive, would be nothing fhort of 
 an arrogant and impious impeachment of the wifdonx 
 
 C 
 
of Flim who was and is the divine he^d and fawgivie? 
 of his ohurchj bdth under ihe'old teftament and un- 
 der the rteW. '] 
 
 But furthermore, though it hath been conceded 
 ihat the proof of otir pofition from the flew-teftament 
 is' not fo explicit, direO:, and abundant as from thg 
 old, yet taken in connexion with the old, the argu- 
 ments in confirmation of the fame general truth, are 
 afnply fufficien'i to put the matter beyond a^l rea- 
 fonable doubt. 
 
 One probable report why the writers of the new- 
 teft^ent^ or father that divine Spirit by whom they 
 were infpired, did not fee fit to be more explicit 
 upon this fubjeB, is, that it was fo clearly and aban-, 
 dantly evident frcJnr the old ttftamenf,- as not to le- 
 qtiife to be largely and particularly infifted uport 
 under the new; and alfo as the reafbns upon whicli 
 the duty is founded appear evidently to be of a mo- 
 ral nature, and coWequently of perpetual obligation. 
 Hence our Lord declares, that he came not to de- 
 ftroy the law and the prophets -an^ that not one jot 
 or tittle thereof fhall fail, till all be fulfilled. 
 
 Another pi'obable reafon of this orniffion is, ihaE 
 \(rhen the new teftament was written, the civil pow- 
 ers of the world were oppofed to chriltianity. 
 For the Apoftles, therefore, to ha\^e explicitly in- 
 fiited 'upon the duty of the civil magiflrate to fupport 
 chiiftiatiity, would have tended greatly to incenfe^ 
 and incur th6~refentment of civil rulers againft chrif- 
 tians, and* to bring their vengeance updn them with* 
 redou.bled fury. 
 
 But'notwiihftaniJing this appate^nf caution of the 
 facred, writers of the new-teftament, relative to this 
 fubjeft, they have yCt taken ftifficient care to eftab- 
 lifh the general principle; that when the rulers of 
 the world, or any of them, fhould become chriftian, 
 they might find their dt^ty clearly defignated,- and 
 pointed out, viz, to be fluffing fathers to the church,, 
 attd to take religion under their official p^lfenago; 
 
and ppoteOion. This is rufficknily intimated i Co!?i 
 ix. 13, 14. Do ye not know that ih<v that miiitftir 
 about, holy things, live of, the things of the temple;? 
 and they that wait at the al.ar, are pm-ikcrs with thg 
 |kUa,r ? Even To baili. the Lord osdrfincd, that they 
 that preach the gofpel, Should live of ibe^gofpel. In 
 thefe words, the right of the preachers of ihc gofpel, 
 to a maintenance and fupport, is, not Only clearly 
 ?ind pofuively aiTcFted, as being of divine ordinatioa 
 aad appointment; but there is an a!lufton to the 
 provifian inade by ihe law unqler the old teftarnent, 
 for the fCi|>port of the minifters of the temple, 
 and the altar ; which provifion was under the 
 direflion '0f th: civil maaiftrate, as hath been 
 made abundantly evident in the preceding part 
 of this differta^ion. And tfee Apoftie having. 
 referred to that iruliiution as a truth which , the 
 Corinthians very -wJl knew ; do ye not know, &c. 
 proceeds to apply it to the minifters o[ the' gofpel a^ 
 to the general principle ; evm Jo .h^ih the. Lord or- 
 dained, that they that preach the gofptl, fhouid livf: 
 of the gofpel. It is not indeed pretended that the 
 words evenfoi denote a perfetb parallel or fimilarity 
 between the provifijn made by the law for the mi- 
 nifters of the old-teftament, and that which the Lord 
 hath ordained for the minifters . of- the gofpel. Iri 
 feveral eircumftaniial refpefls, there is a material dif-,* 
 ference. Particularly with refpeQ to the mode iia 
 Vfhich they were to be refpeftively fupported. Btiit 
 doubtlefs the expreffion intiports thus iihuch, yiz, that 
 with refpeft to the principle, upon which they were 
 refpeftively entitled to a fupport,there is a perfefl p2- 
 reliel, viz, the principle of morat reftitode, or juftice 
 and equity ; and alfo that with, refpefl; to both, their 
 fiipport was of divine infliiution and appointment. 
 As the Lord ordained that the minifters of the tem- 
 f\e and altar ftiould be fupported by the people, ;fo 
 hi? hath ordained the fame with refpeft to the mini- 
 fters of the gofpel. . From which the confequence is. 
 ©bvioms by genuine cQnftruflion, that as tlje obliga- 
 
i4 
 
 tion in both cafes is the fame, refulting from a prin- 
 ciple of moral reflitude, juftice, and equity, (as may 
 be more particularly confidered hereafter) and being 
 both the fubjeft of divine injunftion ; and as ihe 
 provifion for the old-teftament minifters belonged 
 to the province of the civil magiftrate, fo it is alfp 
 with ref^eflto the minifters of the gofpel. As the 
 obligation in both cafes was and is legal, fo in both 
 cafes it is fubje£t to the cognizance and jur fdiftion 
 of the civil magiftrate, whofe office and duty it is to 
 fee all legal obligations fulfilled, or juftice adminis- 
 tered to the proper fubjefts. As it was the duty of 
 the civil magiftrate, to make provifion for the fup- 
 port of religion, or the ordinances, and minifters 
 thereof, under the law, even fo hath the Lord or- 
 dained it ftiould be under the gofpel. This con- 
 clufion, I conceive naturally follows, from the pas- 
 fage which we have been confidering by genuine 
 conftruBion. 
 
 Thus I have endeavoured to fulfil the firft part of 
 the tafli, r took upon myfelf to perform, viz. To 
 adduce fome pofitive proof, both from reafon and 
 fcripture ; that it is the right, and duty of the civil 
 magiftrate in his official capacity, to proteS and fup- 
 port religion. 
 
 And, I flatter myfelf that the evidence which hath 
 been exhibited, will be deemed lufficient to eftablifh 
 the point, I undertook to fupport, unlefs the objec- 
 tions, or arguments on the other fide of the ques- 
 tion, ftiould be judged fufficient to invalidate it. 
 Whether they are or not, is the next thing propofed 
 forour confideration and enquiry. And, 
 
 ift. It is objeSed againft the doQrine, which we 
 have attempted to fupport, that there is no occafion" 
 for the interference of the civil magiftrate, for the 
 fupport of religion, becaufe, religion will fupport it- 
 felf. If it is of divine origin, its divine author will 
 take care of its prefervation and fupport without the 
 feeble aid of the civil magiftrate. To which it may. 
 
_V5_ 
 
 be replied ; llrat this is arguing againfl: undeniable 
 fa€l, admitting the truth of divine revelation. For- 
 it is a faft, beyond all controveriy, as hath been al- 
 ready evinced, that it belonged to the office of the 
 civil magiftrate, under the old teftament difpenfation, 
 to take cognizance of the intercft of religion, and 
 provide for its fupport, according to the reprefent-x 
 ations contaihed in the facred voiumn. To fav, 
 therefore, that there is no occafion for the civil ma- 
 giftrate to interfere in matters of religion, is either to 
 coritradi8: plain and demonftfative fad ; or e'fe to 
 charge the divine author of that difpenfation, -nith 
 adding the fanSion of his approbation, and the feal 
 of his authority, to a ufelefs and unnecfflary inftitu- 
 tion ; for there' can be no reafon afligned, why it 
 Ihould be moreWieceffiry, or expedient for the civil 
 magiftrate to take cognizance ot religion, and pro- 
 vide for its fapport, under the old teftament difpen- 
 fation, than under the new : not to infift upon what 
 hath already been alleged and proved, from the 
 fcriptu'res, which have been adduced, that this is in 
 fa£l a duty belonging to the office of the civil mag- 
 iftrate, under the gofpeh To fay, therefore, that 
 God is able to take care of the intereft of religion, 
 and provide for its fupport, without ihe.aid of the 
 civil magiftrate, is faying nothing to the purpofe ; 
 as it is faying no more than what may be faid with 
 equal propriety, with regard to civil government ; 
 viz. That God is able: by his own immediate power 
 to accomplifh all the ends of that inftitution, without 
 the aid andinftrumentality of men ; that he is able 
 to inform the judgment, and influence the heart of 
 men, in fuch a manner, as to difpofe them to do 
 equal juftice to one another, and to behave in all re- 
 fpeSs as good members oTfbciety, to that degree, as 
 to fdpercede the neceifity of civil government. Nay, 
 it may with equal propriety be alledgcd, and with 
 equal fmcc of argument, that God is able to ac- 
 ^ompMih all the eSeBsj iind eventc which take place 
 
in the nalurjil and moral world, bfy his own immedi- 
 ate efficiency, v/hich are produced by the interven- 
 tion of fecond caufes, n-ieans, or inftruments. As foii 
 inilai ce ; lie is able to caiife the earth to yield 
 Ip-'Ptaneoufly, or without cultivation, all thofe pro- 
 duBions, which are neceffiry for the fufientation, 
 prefervation, comfort, and delight of human life. 
 But fhall we conclude from hence, that civil gov- 
 ernment is a' ufelefs aad unneceilary inftitution, and 
 that all the beneficial and falutary effeQs, which 
 are derived therefrom, would actually take place 
 ■without it ? or that the labor of the hulhandman is. 
 al.ogether vain, and that the breffing above mention- 
 ed, would be enjoyed by mankind, without their: 
 own exertions as well a§ with them ?, The falfliood 
 and abfurdity of fuch concluGonsn are obvious to, 
 every perfon, not totally void of reafon and com- 
 mon fenfe ; as they are not only contrary to the e^- 
 prcfs declarations of divine revelation, but to the. 
 univerfal experience of mankind. Again, it may be 
 obferved that. God is able to communicate the 
 knowledge of the gofpel, to all mankind, and the- 
 faving efficacy of it upon the hearts cf men, without 
 means or inftt^uments. But, whofoever fliould infer 
 from hence, that the gofpel miniftry and the means 
 of grace, are ufelefs and unprofitable inftitutions, 
 vou:d argue againft univerfal experience, and the, 
 general tenor of the gofpel : particularly to that 
 declaration of the Apoftle Paul ; faith comes by, 
 hearing, and hearing by the word of God, for how. 
 fhalt ihey believe on him, of whom they have riot 
 heard ; and how fliaU they hear without a preach- 
 er ? In a word, the objeQioTi under eonfideration, 
 depends for all its weight and validity, upon the fup- 
 pnfed truth of this pofition, viz. That whatever 
 the Deity is able to efFejfl: by his own immediate, 
 power, without the intervention of means, or fecond 
 caufes, He evermore does, and will effe£t without^ 
 them ; and confequeti^y, i,hat He never does, or 
 
"7 
 
 Vill make ufe of any means, in tlie produftion of 
 any effjsQs whatfoever, either in the natural or moral 
 world ! Than which nothing' can be more abfurd^ 
 and repugnant to faft anduniverfal experience. 
 
 A ad. objeflion, which is often brought againft 
 the pofition which I have endeavoured to main- 
 tain, ij) 
 
 That- to admit that it belongs to the office of the 
 civil magiftrate to fupport religion, is toinveft < ini 
 with powet to fupsport a falfe religion; which the 
 objedor fuppofes to be abfiird, and fufficient to 
 pirove, that fuch a power cannot be truly lodged in 
 the hands of the civil magiftrate. 
 
 In reply to wbichj it may be obferved; that it is 
 Conceded, that under a pretext of fupporting reli- 
 gion, the civil magiftrate ma!y proftitute his power, 
 for the fupport of a falfe religion. That under a 
 pretext of fupporting the worfhip of the true God, 
 he may fupport idolatry, or the worfhip of falfe gods; 
 as was in faft, the cafe of the kings of Ifrael, from 
 Jereboam the fiirft, to the final diffolution of that 
 kingdom, and the great part of the kings of Judah. 
 But this was a perverfion and abufe of their power, 
 and not the proper exercife of it. It is no proof 
 fhat a perfdn is not inverted with power for certain 
 purpofes, becaufe he is capable of perverting it to 
 Very difFi^rent putpoles ; and that he aflually does fo 
 pervert it j even to purpofes direflly contrary to 
 thofe, for which it was given. If this objeflion, or 
 argument proves any thing, it proves too much ; 
 viz. That no man or body of men can be lawfuUy» 
 or aflually inverted with any power, which they are 
 capable of abufing, or perverting to bad purpofes. 
 Bilt this goes to deny thatariy man, or body of mert 
 are, or can be inverted with any power whatfoeverj 
 For what power can be conceived of, with which 
 men can be inverted, which cannot be thus abufed, 
 and perverted ? This argument, or objeflion, if ic 
 pfo.v^s anything, proves that no man, or body of 
 
hicn can be invefted with the power of legiflationi t>f 
 eiiaQing laws, for the equal adminiflration of jufticcj 
 and the proteftion and fecurity of men in the enjoy- 
 ment of life, liberty and property; or their juft 
 rights, and privileges ; becaufe, under fuch a pre- 
 text, they make laws ofdireQiy the contrary nature, 
 and tendency ; or as the prophet expreffes h^Jrame 
 iniquity by a law. It proves alfo that no men may, 
 or can be lawfully invefted with the power of execii^ 
 ting the laws, or adminiftering juftice between man 
 and man j becaufe, under the pretext of fuch author- 
 ity, they may be guilty of great injuftice, and op- 
 preffion, by perverting judgment, condemning the 
 innocent, and acquitting the guilty, See. It more- 
 over proves, that no man may lawfully be inverted 
 -with the power to teach the doftrine, and inculcate 
 the duties of chriftianity^ becaufe, under the cloak 
 of that power, he may teach doftrines, direftly con- 
 trary to thofe of chriftianity, and inculcate for du- 
 ties, things moft oppofite to thofe enjoined in the 
 gofpel. I fay the objeflion under confideration, if 
 there be any force in it, goes to prove all the abfurdi- 
 ties above mentioned, and innumerable more ; and 
 therefore, according to an eftabliflied rule of rea* 
 foning, proves nothing at all ; or hath no force or 
 validity in it, 
 
 A^3d. objeSion againfl; the above pofition, is, that 
 jt is an infrin£(ement of religious liberty, or liberty 
 of confcience, for the civil magiftrate to take cogni- 
 zance of, and fupport religion. Ip anfwer to this 
 objeflion, it may be obferved, 
 
 1. That it is Euperceded by the conceffion in the 
 preliminary part of this differtation^ viz. That by 
 the pofition which we have been endeavouring to 
 cftablilb, it is not intended to affirm that the civil 
 magiftrate hath a right, to enforce upon any of his 
 fubjefts, a fubfcri^tion, or affent to any particular 
 creed or articles of faith ; or a conformity to any 
 particular modes or forms of religious worfhip, or 
 
2L ' 
 
 to prohibit them the free profeffion of thofe religioiiS 
 opinions, and that religious worfliip, which they be- 
 li.eve to be mo(t agreeab'e t6 the- will of the Deityi 
 and moft acceptable to him; provided thofe 
 religious opinions and worfhip, be not fuch, as 
 to be inconfiftent \»?ith the fafety of the ftatej or the 
 community of which they are membet-s. Under 
 thefe reftrittidns, it is conceived there can be no 
 juft ground to objeQ againfl; the doftrine contained 
 ih the above pofition,oh accourit of any infringement 
 of liberty of confcience, therein implied. For what 
 imaginabfe grGund,ean there be to complain of an in- 
 fringement df liberty of confcience, or of religious 
 liberty, when every perfon hath full liberty topro- 
 fefi juft fuch a religion^ and to perform juft fuch 
 aSs of worfhip^ as he i^ perfuaded Jn his own con- 
 fcience are moft acceptable to that Being, whom he 
 {irofeffes to worfhip : except only when the religion 
 profeffed, is fuch as is fiibverfive of the.ftate, or the 
 peace and fafety of the commiinity, of which he is 
 a membdr ? Butj. 
 
 2. In reply tp this objeflion'j it may be obferved, 
 that the rights of confcience are equally ficxed, arid 
 inviolable in all ages ; and whatever can be juftly 
 confidered as an infringement of the right and liber- 
 ty of confcience now^ was equally fo four thoufand 
 years agb. Whatever is inconfiltent with liberty of 
 confcience tinder the gofpel difpenfation, was no 
 lefs inconfiftent therewith under the law. But that 
 it was not inconfiftent with the juft rights^and liber- 
 ty of confcience, for the civil magiftrate to proteft 
 and fupport religion under the law, is abundantly 
 evidetit from the facred oracles, as hath bffen already 
 evinced. From whence it aippears beyond all con- 
 tradiftion, that the civil magiftrate under that difpen- 
 fation did according to divine appointment, and with 
 the moft manifeft tokens of divine approbation, ex- 
 ercife authority in matters of religion; making pro- 
 vision for its fupport, protecting it from its adverla^ 
 
 D 
 
20 
 
 rkf-^Stc. Andi) therefore, this objeftion alfo, ifit 
 be of anv force, proves too much, viz. that G^d 
 did auihor'ife the Jewifh magiftrare to do that which 
 was an ii.fringmient of the juft rights and liberty of 
 confcience, andriianifefted his approbaiion of his fo 
 dorng. That is, that she God of truth and right- 
 ebufnefs, wiih whom it is inipoiRible to do any thing 
 but what is perfeftly juft and righfj did approve of 
 that which is in its own nature unjuft, and repugnant 
 to the eternal rule of rectitude, or the moral law I 
 iVndconfcqiientlv this objt'flion appears to be with- 
 out anyjuft foundation. But, 
 
 4thiy. It is alleged as a further objeftioh againft 
 the arguments which have been advanced in fupport 
 of our pofition^ that the civil government of thef 
 Jews was a theocracvj or a divine governmentj and 
 therefore that there is no arguing from the duty and 
 office of the civil magiftrate of the Jews in matters 
 of religion, to the duty of chriftian magiftrates in 
 the fame refpcQsjor with regard to fiihilar matters. 
 
 Upon which it may be obferved, that if by the 
 Jewiflt governmerrt being a theocracy, is rrieanti that 
 the adminiftration of that government was by the 
 immedfctte hand of Godj without the inftrumentality 
 of men > we know this to be direflly contrary to faft. 
 Or if it be meant that the Jewifii rulers were by 
 divine influence guided, and direfted by fuch art 
 infallible impulfe as to be thereby efFeflually fecur^ 
 ed from all errors,- or maladminiftration in matters^ 
 of religion, fo that the people might be affuredthaf 
 v?hatever religious opinions, or foirnrs of worfliip' 
 •were patronized by their ruler^, were infallibly rightj^ 
 and confonant to the divine mind and will-— I fay^ 
 if this is what the objeQor would infer from the 
 Jewifh government being a theocracy ; it may be 
 jeplied, that this alfo is A moft palpable miftake, be-- 
 ing repugnant to plain and undeniable faft : there 
 being nothing more evident from the hiftory of that 
 nation, than that their rulers did in a variety of in-< 
 fiiaces, by- their authority, countenance and fupport 
 
s.t 
 
 amy gftaX errors «nd corruptions in. religion, (both 
 j« principle ard praQice ; even tiie groiTt ft idolairiy 
 and pojitheifm. Or will ii l^e alleged as an infer- 
 ence from the theocrac) of th^ Jews, that ihc, true 
 religion, and vihich is agreeable to the niind and 
 will of God, was more clearly defined and delineat- 
 ed under the Jewifh difpenfation than under the 
 chriRian, and attended with lejfs darknefs. and 6b- 
 fcurity; and confequenily that it was more fafe to 
 entruft the fupport of religion in the hands of the 
 civil magiftrate under that dirpenfation, than under 
 the prefent ? The bear ftating^of this hypothefis is 
 fufficient to confute it ; as it is in direft oppofition 
 to the dof^rine of the ApoRIe Paul, and the whole 
 tenor of the go^el ; which rcprefent the evange- 
 Hcal difpenfation, on account, of the fuperabundant 
 light which it contains, and exfiibiis, with refpefl to 
 tieligion, as tranfcending that of the law as much as 
 the meridian fplendor oF the fun exceeds the twink^ 
 ling of the ftars, Tl e above are the only inferences,, 
 which I conceive of, from the theocracy of the Jews, 
 tending in the'leaft degree to invalidate the argu- 
 ments from the old teftament in favor of its being the 
 duty of the chriftian rnagiftrate to fupport religion* 
 Andthefe being evidently falfe and chimerical, the 
 argument thence arifingfiands in its full force, the 
 theocracy of the Jew4,notv?ithftanding. 
 
 A 5th objection or reafon af&g.ed by certain per- 
 fons agatnft the truth of our pofttion, is that the go f- 
 pel isfjf€;e ; ty which they feeni to fuppofe that the 
 external difpenfation of the gpfpel, or the means of 
 religious inilruSion, ought to be without expenfe 
 to tbofe who enjoy them ; or at leaft that every one 
 ought to be left to his- own opinion, whether be will,^ 
 contribute any thing to this purpofe or not. But 
 this opinion^ I fcrupTe not to fay, hath nothing to 
 inpport it, either frpm fcripture or reafon. Indeetij 
 the grace and fpiritual ble(fings which the gofpel ex- 
 liibits, are free : notching can be freer : a(i4aliar0 
 
invited to come and partake of them freely, without 
 money, and without price. But this by no meaTis 
 implies, that thofe who labor in the external difpen- 
 fation of the gofpel, fhould not be fupported by 
 thofe for whom they labor. Hence fays the Apes- 
 ftle,if wehave miniftered to you in fpiritual things, 
 is it a great thing that we fliould be partakers of your 
 carnal things ? As if he had {aid- -if we have fpent 
 our time and ftrength in laboring for your fpiritual 
 benefit, is it an unreafonable or unjuft thing, that 
 you fhould impart to us of^ thofe temporal ^good 
 things, which are neceffary for the fuppdrt and, com- 
 fort of temporal life ? By no means; it is altogether, 
 juft and reafonable. Hence fays he, let him that is 
 taught in the word communicate to him that teach- 
 eth in all good things, There is no more evident 
 di8ate of reafon and common juftice, as well as of 
 the facred oracles, than that the laborer is worthy 
 of his hire, or his reward; which are the expre^ 
 words of our Saviour, relative to this very fubjeft, 
 viz. The right of the minifters of the gofpejto a 
 compenfation for their minifterial labors. But if 
 they are worthy of tlieir reward, as other laborers 
 are, then it is their juft due : And if it is their juft 
 due, then they are entitled to fome efFeflual means, 
 whereby to obtain it; which can be no other than 
 the power of the civil magiflrate, whofe duty arid 
 office it is, to fee juftice duly adminiftered between 
 man and man ; or that every man hath his juft due. 
 So that it is evident to a demonftration, that it is no^ 
 left to everyone's option, who fits under the difpen- 
 fation of the gofpel, and enjoys the benefit of min- 
 ifterial labors, either direSly, or indirefliy, whether 
 he will contribute any thing to the fupport of it or 
 not. In this refpcft the gofpel neither is, nor ever 
 was defigned to be free. But doth not our Lord, 
 yhen he fent forth his difciples to preach the gofpel, 
 fay, freely ye have received, freely give ?, I anfwer,' 
 ihis refers to tbo.fe miraculous operations which the^; 
 
8$ 
 
 ^ere empowered to perform. Matt. x. 8. Heat 
 the fick, cleanfe the lepers, raife the dead, caft out 
 jievils; freely yfe have received, freely give. Thcfe 
 gifts were to be dirpenfed freely, being properly the 
 works of God and no^t of man. Hence to have ta- 
 ken a reward for them, would have been highly im- 
 pious; a? is particularly evident from the inftande 
 of Simon Magus, who offered money to ihe Apoftle 
 Peter, for the power of communicating the miracu- 
 lous gifts of the Holy Ghofl ; tawhom Peter re- 
 plies, thy money perijh with thee, lecaufe thou thought- 
 tjl that the gift of Go.d might be' fur chafed with money. 
 Butwiih I'eCpeft to preaching, the direQion was 
 take neither furje nor fcript (3c. for your journey, for 
 the laborer is worthy of his reward. But it is ob- 
 jefted, 
 
 - 6(hly. That our Lord declares that his kingdom is 
 not of this world ; and, ihierefore, fays the objeftor, 
 it is not to be fupported by temporal means, or the 
 power of the civil fword, or fecular power, as is the 
 cafe with refpeft to temporal kingdoms. 
 
 This declaration we have, John xviii, 36. Jefus 
 faid, my kingdom is not of tftis world ; if my king- 
 dom were of this world, then would my fervantir 
 fight for me, that I {bould not be delivered to the 
 jews. But now is my kingdom not from hen Gei 
 But I conceive it muft be by a very lingular 
 kind of logic to inf^r from the above declaration, 
 that the civil rtiagiftrate in his official capacity, hath 
 no concern with religion, or that it is not his duty 
 to protefit and fupportit. Ghrift's kingdom being 
 not of this world, might be a very good reafon 
 why he had not an army, or a life guard to defend 
 him againft his enemies j and yet be no reafon at 
 aH why the civil magiftrate ftiould not proteQ and 
 fupport religion. The force of this objeflion feems 
 to depend upon the fuppofition that no human means, 
 or inftruments, were to be employed in the propa- 
 gation and fupport of ' Ghrift's kingdom ; ^ which 
 would exclude minifters as well as magiftrates, frorn 
 
ii 
 
 Jjaviflg any concern vith it. But more dircQIy i» 
 ^nfwer to this objeQion, it Qiay be obferved, that 
 Chrift was the king of the pld-teftament church as, 
 veil as the new. He \)^as then fet as king iipoB, 
 Cod's holy hill Zion, And his kingdom was no 
 more a kingdom of this world under the former dif^ 
 penfationj than under the prefent. Though the ad- 
 ininiftration, and pofitive ordinancesi, and, modes o£; 
 worfhip, <fec. were difFerent, yet the effential nature, 
 and grand objeft of Chrill's kingdom, under the 
 old-teftaipent difp^nfation were, doubtlefs^ the fame 
 asunder the new. Chrift's kingdom, therefore, bcr 
 ing not of this world, affords no ftronger argument 
 againft the right and duty of the civil nnagiftrate, tq 
 fupport religion under the latter, than under the 
 former. And confequently, as it is evident beyond 
 ail reafonable coptrove/fy, that it belonged to the 
 pffice and duty of the civil magiftrate under the old* 
 teftament difpenfation, fp it does under the newj 
 notwithftanding the above objection, that Chrift's 
 kingdom is not of this world. But after all, it is 
 probable that fome tender cpnfcienced objeflors 
 may llili infift that, they cannot in confcience part^ 
 with their money, for the fupport of religion or the 
 teachers of if, in obedience to the civil magiftrate. 
 There are hardly any two words of more diffimilar 
 fignvfication, than confcience and money : and yet 
 it feems they are fome times ufed as fynpnimous. 
 terms. Or perhaps, to fpeak more correftly, it is 
 to be feared, that per{bns often miftake that inordi- 
 nate love of mon^, which is the root of all evil, 
 and which renders them extremely loth to part witK, 
 it, for the fupport of religion, fpr a cohfcientious^ 
 fcruple with regard of the lawfulnefs.of, fo doing. 
 One reafon ailigned by certain pertons, why they, 
 cannot in confcience part with their,mbney for the 
 fupport of religion, in compHence with the requifi- 
 tion of the civil magiftrate, is that the money is like 
 tQ be applied, or at leaft is liable to be applied to the- 
 
fupjxJrt of a religion, or form of wdrlh'p, lA'hicH 
 ihey fuppofe to be errorteous, and in which they can- 
 not in confcience join. But this plca,if it be of any 
 Validity^ will operate againft paying any taxes what- 
 foever, which vie as individuals fuppioffe will, or may 
 be applied to any purpofe we do not approve, or 
 think to be wi*ong,' or not conducive to thfe public 
 good. The civil rriagiftrate^ the Apoffile tells, is a 
 tnifiifter of God for good, and that we are bound to* 
 be fubjeft not oiily for wrath, but for confcience 
 fake. I would not be undetftood to fuppofe,' thae 
 this declaration of the Apoftie can juftly be alleged 
 in fup'ort of the doQrine of pa!ffive obedience, and 
 Ron-refiftanfce ; or that there is no cafe in which a 
 perfon may be tinder confcieritious obligations to 
 withhold obedience to the requtfitions of the civil 
 inagiftrat^. Doubtl^fs, where fuch requiiitions run 
 counter to the plain revealed will of the Deity, the 
 rule is cxprefs, that we ought to obey God rather 
 than man. But with what reafon or propriety can 
 this rule be alleged in juftification of our withhold- 
 itig our money in compliance vrith the requifition 
 of a lawful magiftratei or civil government, under a 
 pretence that fuch a demand i« Jin infringement of 
 the rights of confcience ? as where do we find that 
 a compliance with fuch a demand would be to coun. 
 ieraft the plain revealed will of God ? On the con- 
 trary, doth not our Saviour's exprefs approbation 
 of paying tribute to Caefar, put the matter beyolid 
 all reafonable doubt .-* Efpecially if it be confidered, 
 that there was ftrong reafon to apprehend as the 
 money was paid to an idolatrous emperor, it would, 
 at leafl in part, be applied to the fupport of an idol« 
 atrous religion ? j 
 
 The above objeflions are all that I recoUeS to 
 have beard advanced againft the doStrine I under- 
 took to eftablilh ; the invalidity of which I humbly. 
 OaceWe hath been fufficientiy tnanifefted in th£ 
 
30 
 
 fcregoing obfervations, and confequently the truyf 
 of the pofition remains unfliaken. 
 
 , The-re are feveral Corollaries which feem natural- 
 ly to refuk from the pofition I have endeavoured to 
 foppoit, which I conceive require fonie particular, 
 eonfideration; Asj ^,, . 
 
 ■ if>. That one important qualification of magis-v 
 trates or civil rulers, is that they fliould be men of 
 religion. , Certainly, if it is an important, not to fay 
 an effential duty of their office to patronize and fup-, 
 port religion by their authority, and thus perform" 
 the part of ntirfing fathers to the church; itJsno 
 lefs their duty to do the fame by their example. The: 
 former without the latter, -will commonly be but to 
 very little purpofe. Hence the fear of God^ a phrafe 
 frequently made Ufe of in fcripture, to exprefs a re- 
 ligious cKaraflerj is reprefented by the Pfalmift, as 
 an effential ingredient in the character of a ruler. 
 He that ruleth over men muft be jufi^, ruling in the 
 fear of God, Here juftice and the fear of God, or; 
 a devduit reverence of the divine, majeftvj are con- 
 fidered as infepafably conneflied ; and it is intimaie4 
 that we.can have no feCurity for the juftice of a rul-. 
 er's adminiftration, who is deftimte of the fear of 
 God., Agreeably hereto, an unjuft judge is charac- 
 terifed by our Savioyr as one that feared not God, 
 and, confequently, regarded not man. The fame 
 qualification Mofes is directed by his father in-law 
 Jethro, torefpeS in the appointment of rulers over > 
 l,he Ifraelhes, no doubt under divir^e direflion. 
 Look ye out from among all the people--Men that 
 fear God j &c., and make them rulers of thoufand?, 
 rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifiies,and rulers of tens. . 
 A wicked ruler is reprefented in the facred oracles a, 
 great judgment upon a people, and as a token of di- 
 vine difpleafure. Hence, fays the Moft High, with 
 refpeft to Saul, I gave them a king in mine anger. 
 And fays Solomon, as a roari.ng lion, and ranging j 
 bear, fo is a wicked ruler. And again, fajs he,i 
 
■when the righteous are in authority, the people re* 
 joice^ buftehpn the wicked beareth rule, the people 
 mourn, tie alfo obferves, that a king fitting upon 
 the throne of judgment, fcattereth iniquity with his 
 eyes. By which it is evident he means a good king, 
 one who is a terror to evil doers, and a praife and 
 ertcoura^ement 19 them, that do well ; for the oppo- 
 fite eflfefts are affcribed by the Pfalmift to the influ- 
 ence of wicked rulers, viz. .that it gives the wicked 
 courage to come forth out of, their lurking^jslaces, 
 and fhow themTelves with .boldnefs 4nd C9nfidence) 
 without fear or {hame. The wicked walk, fays he, 
 on every fide,' Mrhen the yileft.men aire exalted; Un- 
 der the adininifiration of iitfidej and irretigidus rul- 
 ers, men of (imilar chara£i(ers, becoifie priitfe favor- 
 ites at cpu'rt, and engrofs the honors and emoluments 
 of the ftate, and are the only vcieri who ftand candi- 
 (lates for pofts of dignity and profit in the govern- 
 inent— In which cafe nothing can be expe£ied, hiit 
 ihat infidelity, and immorality, and all thofe yices, 
 which are deftrufiive to fociety, will come in like » 
 ftood, and deluge the land, and involve it in linifery 
 and ruin. 
 
 Corol. 2d, It is alfo obvious from the preced- 
 ing obfervations, as a genuine conclufion naturally 
 flowing therefrom, that it is the duty of thofe who 
 are entrufted with the appointment of rulers, to have 
 a refpeft to the religious charafler of thofe for whom 
 they give their funrage. To fay that it belongs to 
 the office and duty of the civil rulers to patronize, 
 and fupport rejigion, and confequently, that they 
 ought to be men of religion themfelves; and yet at 
 the fame time to fay, that they to whom it belongs to 
 inveft them with tlieir official charafter, are under 
 no obligation to have a regard to their religious 
 qualifications, is an abfurdity, and little, if any thing 
 ihort of a contradiQion. To commie the moft import- 
 ant interefts of the cornmunity, as well as our own, 
 bo:h civil and religious, into, the hands of men, 
 
 E 
 
28 ^ 
 
 wlioTti v;e liave no reafon to apprehend, liave the. fear 
 of God before :heir eyes, is a moft irrational andpre-s 
 pofterous as well as criminal piece of conduft ; a 
 betraying the public triift, and a vile proftitution of 
 a talen:, for which we muft give an actount. What 
 fecurity can we have, that infidels, or f erfons who' 
 have no regard to religion, Or reverence for the De- 
 it), when advanced to places of public truft, will 
 not at every opportunity facrifice the intertft of 
 their conftituents, to their own private paffions, or 
 emolument ? To adminifter an oath of fidelity to 
 perfons of the above difcription would be perfeQly 
 nugatory, not to fay a profanation.* 
 
 * As an illuftrat'ion of the tfutli and propriety of the preceding 
 corollaries, the hjppy i fluence \»hich fuch a principle would pro* 
 bably have upon the praftice of dueliingi it is conceived, may per- 
 tinently b; adduced. H,)W low in the fcale of degradation muft 
 the llate of'fociety be reduced, when/uchncfarioiis crimes, fuch hor- 
 r"id abominations Sre perpetrated with' the connivance, and implicit 
 R-?pro'r)ation of public aiJthbrity ;■ and become fo prevalent, that to 
 finport the charafter of a^entleman and a man of honcur, and avoid 
 the imputation of cowardice, a man rauft diveft himfelf of his re^- 
 f)n, that godlike faculty, by which principally he is diftinguifhed 
 from the b^ntcS, throw away that life; which is the only fubftratuni 
 of all e:ij >yment of a temporal nature,' counterail the diftates of his 
 ovn confdsnce, and bid defiance to the vengeaflce of the Almighty ! 
 Alas, can no method, no expedient be dfvifed to expel this horrid- 
 J7i onfter, this hi.ira', this gorgon, this complication and confumma- 
 tion of irralionaljty, barbirifm arid impiety from this land of boafted 
 civiiiznion, and refiiieraent ; in which reafm and philofophy are fa 
 ma h cultivated, aid in which the liyht of dinne revelation fhines 
 in i s ineridlan fplendour ! Can there be a fironger demondration 
 bf a w >eful degeneracy, and corruption of principle and morals a- 
 irtongft a people ; or that the whole head is fick, and the whble heart' 
 foint, and that tne wholebody is fijji of wcunds and braifeB,and pu- 
 trifying fores ?, In point of rationality, Empedncles, who to obtain 
 sn apothe^fis cafr himfelf iieadlong into the nsming crater of mount 
 Etna, hath vaftlyjfhe preeminence v.h^n compared with him who 
 figh;« a due! on the ofual grounds. For the former, according to 
 the doftrines of tl e paeai theology in which he had been rduc3ted>' 
 and in which he doubilers firmly believed, expefled to receive an 
 ample comoentaiion (or the lofs of his temporal life, viz. an immory 
 tal and exalted felicity in the future wurld. Whereas the uiiriftlf 
 that the dnelilt can expeft as a c^umer b,ii.tncc for the lofs of his iifej- 
 and his fcpl, is tp efcape the jeers and feoffs of the iufideli-and un*' 
 
ProRv whence it follows ias a 
 3|d. Corol. That u belongs to the duty and of- 
 fice of the minifters, or public teachers of religion^ 
 to inculcate thefe duties, and make them the Deca- 
 gonal fubj.ects of their public preachitig. It is doubt- 
 lefs the duty of the minifters of the gofpel to declare 
 the whole counlcl of God ;_ oiherwife they could 
 not exonerate themfe!vp,from the guilt of the blood 
 of fouls. The Apoftle Paul declares, that he was 
 pure from the b'ood of all nien ; and as a proof of 
 lit, obfervesj that he had not fhunned to declare the 
 whole counfel of God, Adis xx. 26, 27 But 
 whatever is enjoined in the facied oracles es a duty 
 incumbent upon apy man, clafs or difoription cf 
 men, conftitutes a part of the counfel of God. 
 And, confequent'y, it is incumbent upon minifters 
 of the gofpel to make fuch duties occafionally, the 
 fiibjefls of their t preaching, as they would not be 
 guilty of Ihunning to declare the whple counfel of 
 God. All moral, relative and fecial duties are tp 
 be explained, and inculcated by the pu^ic teachers 
 of rsligion : fuch are ihe duties of hufbands and 
 vives, parents and children, rulers and fubjefls, &c. 
 And one clafs of thefc duties are no lefs properly 
 |h.e fubjeQs of a minifter's preaching than an other,. 
 
 principled pajt of nrankind, wWch raay properly be termetl the 
 laughiecof fools, and to be by iuch perfons dubbed a. man of courage. 
 A noble and heroic courage ! The courage of a madman, whp 
 tjembles at the (hajcing of a leaf, a mere phantom, an ignis fatuus, 
 a nonentity, and dalhes out his brains againft a.wall, and bids defi- 
 ance to that almighty Being whom to fear is an argument of the 
 higheft wifdom — and. whom not to fear is an evidence of the mofl: 
 flupid folly and madnefs ! Which Ihcws the vaft importance of thp 
 iear of God, or a principle of religion asi a qualification of a ruler, 
 and alfo of a confciencious regard to this qualification in thofe by 
 whom they are invefted with their olScial charafler ; from the want 
 of which principle it is that the piaflice of duelling derives its oii- 
 gin i and the predominance ot which in our fevexal bjarchc/, or 
 departments of government, would effeflually annihilate this enor- 
 m'lty, fo vile and horrible in its aatuiej a.id ia its coafcquer.ces tq^ 
 foeiety, fo fatal aad pcinicioui. 
 
for they all equally conftitute a part of the cpunfej 
 of God J being particularly, and explicitly enjoined 
 and inculcated in the Tacred fcriptures. One char- 
 after under which tniniftersof the gofpel are repre- 
 reientedjand frpip which their duty may be inferred, 
 is that of watchiperi. Ifai. Hi. 8. Where the prophet 
 fpeaking of the promulgation of the gofpel, fays, 
 jhy watchnien (hall lift up the voice &c. And Phap." 
 iji, 6. I have fe't watchmen<upon thy walls, O Jeru- 
 falem, who ftiall not hold their peace day nor night. 
 in which paflages, it is evident that by watchmen, 
 |he minif^ers of the gofpel are to be underftood. 
 In confori^ity to the fame reprefentation, the Apos- 
 tle fpeakingof niinifters, fays, they watch for your 
 fouls, as they that muft give an account. But the 
 office and duty of a watchman, every one knows, is 
 to give warning of an approaching enemy, or dan- 
 ger. And, confequently, it belongs to the office of 
 ininifters of the gofpel to warn their people of thofe 
 enemies and dangers, with regard to which they are 
 ftyled watchmen. Which, indeed, it is conceded are 
 fpiritual enemies and dangers, or which endanger 
 the lofs of their fpiritual, or religious privileges, antf 
 confequently, their falvation. But what can have a 
 more direfi tendency' to the prpdiiflion of this ef- 
 fe£l, than the prevalence, and propagation of infidel- 
 ity, immorality, and a corruption and depravation 
 of manners amongft a people .? And what can tend 
 more effeftually to promote t^iefe effeSs than ih* 
 example and patronage of rulers of infidel, and ir- 
 religious chara^ers among them; under whofe in- 
 fluence and'connivance, infidelity, and impiety raay 
 ftalk in open day-light, without a mafli or difguife, 
 fliame or remorfe i*, This being the cafe, it mufl; 
 furely be an important part of the duty of the minis- 
 ters of the igofpel, whom God haih fet as watchmen 
 upon the walls of Jerufalerii, to warn therr people of 
 the dangerous, and fatal confequences, refuking 
 from the ele£iion of men of the above difcriptioriifoc 
 
ii 
 
 rdeca over them, and the 'co'nfequent obligation inf 
 cumbent on ekaors to pay a ftrla, and confcien-' 
 tious attention to the oppofite qualifications of thofei 
 for whom they give their fuffrage. The fame infer- 
 ence is equally deducible from another charafter un. 
 der which minifters of the gofpel are defignated, viz, 
 that of pallors or fliepherds, a part of whofe officd 
 it is to defend th6 flock from the ravages of wolves,' 
 
 and other beafts of prey. 
 
 Fiom which it fqllqws ^s a * 
 
 4t'i Corol. That the cenfures pafled upon mini- 
 fters by many at the prefent day, for occafionally 
 making Tome of thefe duties the fubjefls of their 
 {^reaching j ftigmatizing them as political preachers, 
 fSrc. is very unreafonable and injurious. If for mi- 
 nifters to make the duties and qualifications of ruler* 
 and fubjefts, and particularly of eleflors, the occa- 
 iional fubje^s of their preaching, ' is to preach poli- 
 tics, then I fcruple not to fay, that it is no wife out 
 of charaSer for a minifter to preach politics. Nay, 
 it is an effential part of the duty of his funftion tO 
 pieach politics; and which he cannot ndgleft but at 
 the peril of fliunning to declare the whole counfel 
 of God ; for the bible is full of fuch politics. PrCach- 
 ing politics, or political preaching fcem to bephrafes 
 of ominous import, or cant phrafes defigned to fix a 
 ftigma upon the clergy, or to poOTefs the minds of 
 the more illiterate and undifcerning, with an idea 
 that minifters have abandoned the appropriate dutie* 
 of their fun£tion, and combined in a machivailian 
 plot to fupport one politi^cal party merely as fuch, 
 in oppofilion to another. ; Whereas, was the truth 
 properly ftated and apprehended, the phantom would 
 vanifh, and it would appear, that the grievous cry 
 againft the clergy for preaching politics, amountedi 
 to no more, than that on certain fpecial occafionsj 
 they explained and inculcated the duties and quali- 
 6catiofis of rulers, as delineated in the facred fcrip- 
 tares, viz. That they fhould be men friendly to re* 
 
8« 
 
 (Igion; men that fear God and hate covetoufncfs j 
 und that eleftors oughj to have a refpett to thefq 
 qualifications in the pecfons whom ihey defignate tq 
 places of rule and authority in the government. 
 Which every .perfon toleritbly aCQuainied with ihq 
 bible knows to be an important part of mjnifterial 
 duty.* 
 
 "^ The inculcation of the dqty of fubje8;s toward^j 
 their rulers, is exprefsly enjoined upon minifiers as 
 a part of their official duty. Put th,em in mind (fays 
 the Apoftle to Titus, a minifter of thg gofpel) to b^ 
 fubjefl to principalities and powers, and to obey 
 magiftrates. Tit. iii. t, Bijt the duties of fubjefl^ 
 and rulers are reciprocal; and confeguenily an'ex- 
 planation, and inculcation of the ore, naiiirally in- 
 volves the other. Hence the Apoftle in his epiftl^ 
 to the Romans, chap. xiii. at the beginning, alier 
 enjoining upon them the duty of fubjetlion to rulers. 
 or the higher powers, as an ordinance of God, adds 
 as a further reafon for this fubjeQion, that rulers are 
 not a terror to good works, but to the evil, and iha^ 
 they are minifters of God for good, that is to th^ 
 people; and that for this caufe they paid tribute, 
 becaufe they (rulers) were God's minifters attending 
 continiaally upon this, very thing, viz. the public. 
 
 * Perhaps the real ground of the grievous sccufattons againft the 
 clergyi which are exhibited by many at the prefent day, lor preach* 
 tng what chev call politics, niay^not be their fimply explaining and 
 inculcating the duties and qualifications of civil ruleis^ and thote of 
 cleAors, but rather the particular feotiments relative to thoie fub- 
 jedls which they endeavor to itnprefs upon the minds of their heaN 
 ers. — Should minifters adopt the other fide of the queftion, and boldr 
 ly aiTert and maintain from the deik, that civil goyernmrnt ha< 
 oothing to do in nnatters of religion ; and that eleAort ate under no 
 obligations to refpeA the religious charafters and qua ifications of 
 thofe whom they eleit to places of power and truft in the govern- 
 ment; thai it is a matter of perfefi indifference to fociety whethei ;, 
 their rulers believe in one God, in twenty Gods, or no God ; it 
 may be queried, whether they might not probably efcape tliofe fc. 
 verecenfures,' and that volley of calumnies which are fo liberally 
 beftoyed upon them ^y a cettaia clais uf men foi pteaching pollt 
 lies ? 
 
S3 
 
 good. Whicli is not to be underftood as a decta- 
 ration that this ieJa3:o is the real charaSer of )\{ 
 fucH as fuftain the nominal office or occupy the plac^ 
 of rulers ; and that unconditional, and implicit obe- 
 dience is to be paid them accordingly. For this 
 would be to revive the antiquated and exploded 
 doftrine of paflive obedience and non-refiftance, to 
 which it is prefurhed, they who are fo clamorous 
 againft miniWers for preaching politics at theprefent 
 day would be among the laft to fubfcribe. But 
 thefe reprefeniations, are doubtlefs to be underftood 
 as defcriptive of what rulers ought to be, rather than 
 as a declaration of what they really are. And con- 
 fequently when miniffers undertake in obedience to 
 the apoftolic injunfticn^ to pat people in mind to 
 be fubjeS to principalities and powers, and to obey 
 magiftrates, the charaSer of rulers, or magiftrates, 
 naturally comes into view as a fubjeft of difcuffion; 
 and alfo, the nature and extent of that fubjeSion 
 and obedience which is their due, together with the 
 ground and reafon of it, viz. their being minifters 
 of God for good to the people over whom they pre- 
 fide. But this is that preaching politics which ren- 
 ders mii>i{lers fo much the objefts of obloquy frotn 
 certain perfons at the prefent day. On the whole, 
 from the preceding obfervations, and particularly 
 from the paflages of fcriptuie which have been ad- 
 duced, I conceive it muft be very manifeft, that 
 were piinifters to be debarred preaching upon thofe 
 fubjefls which are ftigmatized by many under the 
 obnoxious epithet of politics, or which are confi- 
 dered as political fubjeQs, a great portion of fcrip- 
 iure would be excluded, and condemned, as con- 
 taining improper .matter for minifters to make the 
 fubjefts of their preaching. The ronfequence of 
 which hypothefis would be, that minifters ought not 
 to declare the whole counfel of God. But from 
 this judgment the appeal of the Apoftle Peter, in a 
 cafe not very diffimilar, I conceive, may hot imper- 
 
ii 
 
 tinehtly be adopted— Whether it be right in the 
 fight of God, to hearken unto you liioi'e than iihtd 
 ISdd— -judge ye. 
 
BV631 .B?T"' ""'"'""ty Library 
 
 "'"SSHaf/on on the rioht ^ 
 .lllllHllllllMiii;i«iWD,S,,.Haht and o^^^^^ 
 
 oiin 3 1924 029 330 655