Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

culiar people, in peculiar circumstances, could repeal the laws of Christ in the New Testament, equally applicable to all nations, at all times, to the end of the world, and made 1500 years after.

The author is remarkably unfortunate in his illustrations. Who, besides himself, ever thought that the duty of parents to educate their children for future usefulness, has any analogy with the apostle's injunction to obey the powers that be? Can words more plainly express the powers that then governed? The apostle, indeed, does not name Nero, but names the powers that be, viz. that then governed the Roman empire. The principal organs of government frequently changed. Nero was degraded, and condemned to death by the Roman senate; but the power of the Roman government over the nations of whom it was composed, continued the same. Christ and his apostles taught subjection to that government, and confirmed their doctrine by their example, during the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. Neither Christ nor his apostles denounced the government on that account. If the author's principles are correct, the Saviour and his apostles have been very unfaithful testimony bearers for the truth in their day. The author himself must be much preferred to them.

If these practical precepts of Christ and the apostles were not applicable to the church at that period, why did not the author inform us when they would become applicable, or if at any time, or if like Moore's Eutopia, they were mere fanciful theories, never to be be reduced to practice? I believe they were applicable, and reduced to practice at that time--and, with the apostle (2 Pet. i. 2.) that they were not of private

interpretation, but equally applicable to all times of the church.

The apostle, in confirmation of the doctrine of Christ, says, 66 wherefore, we must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake. For this cause pay we tribute also," &c. The author says, (p. 66) "Simple payment of tribute never was considered as any homologation of the authority imposing it." This is mere assertion, unsupported by testimony. He has appealed to approved commentators; not only these I have quoted, but all others that I have had access to, are decidedly opposed to the author's assertion. All English dictionaries, and moral and political writers, define tribute to be an acknowledgment of the authority of the government to which it is paid. Whether paid by a tributary prince, or by a subject, the result is the same.

CHAPTER VI.

The origin and obligation of the national and solemn league and covenant-Covenants, and of national uniformity in religion by human authority, considered-The great evil of divisions in the church, without scriptural authority.

THOUGH

HOUGH the author of the Sons of Oil advocates in his book, what has been called the covenanted work of reformation, yet he does not make much mention of those covenants in the body of the work; until, in his concluding exhortation, page 81. He there charges us "By our covenanting obligation, you have sworn allegiance to God. After vows, dare not to make enquiry." And he has added to the work an essay solely on the subject of covenanting; in which he connects the duty of covenanting with the moral law, so as that though distinct, it is not separable from the divine law, "which (he has said in the paragraph above) suggests and commands that of covenanting as an ordinance.” Again" It is in the moral law that we are required to make them"-p. 88. But, as usual, he brings no proof for these positions from the moral law, only his own assertion; and what he has asserted in several instances already, shews that this proof is of no great

weight. We know, however, that vows, free-will of ferings, &c. were a part of the ritual service prescribed and regulated in the Sinai covenant, which is abolished. We know also, that they were again introduced into the christian church, by which means many a church was built and endowed, and many a monastery and nunnery erected, and the clergy greatly enriched-and, in return for this, many of the most scandalous and outrageous sins against God, and crimes against society, were forgiven; many a weary pilgrimage taken, and many bones of martyrs discovered and enshrined. But we have no information of it in the moral law, nor in the New Testament, that I remember of, except the covenant to kill Paul, before the parties would eat or drink.

As to the contracts, covenants, and promises, between man and man, with respect to things lawful, and within the power of the party engaging, binding to a faithful performance, so much of the knowledge of the moral law of nature remains with man, that there is no difference of opinion between christians, mahometans, and heathens, on this subject. Greeks, Romans and Turks, as well as christians, are agreed in this, except that the catholic church has, in several instances, denied its operation in favour of heretics; and, what is not much better, several protestant states have also, in their establishing or changing their national religion, broken their national covenant or contract, with such as did not approve of the change. Every ex post facto law is a breach of national faith. No law can take away the rights, or punish for doing what was lawful before the law was made, especially if they are natural, viz. religious rights. It is not law,

but instruction, that can cure error. It belongs to law to prevent the abuse of natural rights, but not to take away such as are unalienable.

It is not my intention to follow the author through his refined distinctions on this subject; but I will take notice of a few of the examples which he substitutes for proofs (p. 91, 96.) He introduces God's covenant made with Noah-The Abrahamic covenant-The covenant made with Jacob-The Sinai covenant, called the covenant of Horeb-and the renewed engagement to that covenant by the ministry of Moses.

These all stand on the same footing. They were all dictated by the most high God, and not by sinful man. The Sinai covenant is also very frequently, in scripture, called a law. It was, as has been shewed elsewhere, a divine law, for the peculiar purpose intended by that dispensation. It was not propounded by man, nor changeable by human authority. It engaged to confer temporal rewards for obedience, and to inflict temporal punishments for disobedience. These conditions were not dictated by man, but by God, as the peculiar king and lawgiver of that nation.

Were it not that we have before found so many examples of the facility with which the author finds analogies where they do not exist, we might be sur prised at him in this instance, bringing the authority of God down to a level with his creature, man. But he has (p. 81) prepared the way. He there, in the first place, introduces the authority of our covenants in the superior rank of obligation. The authority of the divine law in the second rank, and the law of nature in the fifth, and our relationship to God, in the sixth and lowest rank of authority.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »