From the days of the American Revolution....

Another great excerpt from The Berean Call.  Not sure what John Newton thought of the American Revolution, but he sure offers some plain biblical counsel here...


=================



From John Newton's Letters

Dear Friend,

Allow me to say, that it excites both my wonder and concern, that a Christian minister such as yourself, should think it worth his while to attempt political reforms. When I look around upon the present state of the nation, such an attempt appears to me, to be no less vain and foolish, than it would be to paint the cabin--while the ship is sinking! Or to decorate the parlor--while the house is on fire!

When our Lord Jesus was upon earth, He refused to get involved in disputes or politics, "Friend, who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?" (Luke 12:14). "My kingdom is not of this world! If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight!" (John 18:36). God's children belong to a kingdom which is not of this world; they are strangers and pilgrims upon earth, and a part of their Scriptural character is, that they are the "quiet in the land" (Psalm 35:19).

Satan has many contrivances to amuse people, and to divert their thoughts from their real danger!

My dear sir, my prayer to God for you is--that He may induce you to employ the talents He has given you, in pointing out sin as the great cause and source of every existing evil; and to engage those who love and fear Him, (instead of wasting time in political speculations, for which very few of them are competent,) to sigh and cry for our abounding abominations, and to stand in the breach, by prayer, that God's wrath may yet be averted, and our national mercies prolonged! This, I think, is true patriotism--the best way in which people in private life may serve their country.

I consider the ungodly as saws and hammers in the hand of the Lord. So far as they are His instruments, they will succeed--but not an inch further! Their wrath shall praise Him, and be subservient to His designs!

If our lot is so cast that we can exercise our ministry free from stripes, fines, imprisonments, and death--it is more than the gospel has promised to us! If Christians were quiet when under the cruel governments of Nero and other wicked persecutors, when they were hunted down like wild beasts--then we ought to be not only quiet but very thankful now! It was then accounted an honor to suffer for Christ and the 'offence of the cross'!

Those are to be greatly pitied, who boast of their 'liberty'--and yet they do not consider that they are in the most deplorable bondage as the slaves of sin and Satan, under the curse of God's law and His eternal wrath! Oh! for a voice to reach their hearts, that they may know their true and dreadful state--and seek deliverance from their horrific thraldom! May you and I labor to direct them to the one thing, which is absolutely needful, and abundantly sufficient.

If I had the wisdom or influence to soothe the angry passions of mankind--I would gladly employ them! But I am a stranger and a pilgrim here in this world. My charter, my rights and my treasures, are all in heaven--and there my heart ought to be. In a very short time, I may be removed (and perhaps suddenly) into the unseen and eternal world--where all that now causes so much bustle upon earth--will be of no more importance to me--than the events which took place among the antediluvians!

In the hour, when death shall open the door into eternity--many things which now assume an 'air of importance,' will be found as light and unsubstantial as a child's dream!

How crucial then, is it for me--to be found watching, with my lamp burning, diligently engaged in my proper calling! For the Lord has not called me to set governments right--but to preach the gospel, to proclaim the glory of His name, and to endeavor to win souls! "Let the dead bury their own dead--but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God!" (Luke 9:60). Happy is that servant, whom his Master finds so doing, when He returns!

As you have forced me to respond--both duty and love have obliged me to be faithful and free in giving you my thoughts.

I recommend you to the care and blessing of the great Shepherd and Savior; and remain for His sake, your affectionate friend and brother,

John Newton
(Puritan Minister of the Revolutionary Era, 1725-1807)

as soujourners....

We have not finished typing in various notes of our own, but are indebted to the Berean Call for this excerpt.....


"Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, [living in such places] as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers...They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives...they are reviled and bless." -Author unknown, written to an inquirer named Diognetus in the 2nd century.

(The Pilgrim Church by E.H. Broadbent, pgs.39-40).

Politics or the Gospel?

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). The fact that Christ's Kingdom Is not of this world is enough to keep me out of the world's politics. If I participate in politics, then I am casting a vote of confidence in the system's ability to solve the world's problems. But frankly, I have no such confidence because I know that "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). Politics has proved singularly ineffective in solving the problems of society. Political remedies are nothing but a band-aid on a festering sore: they do not get at the source of the infection. We know that sin is the basic trouble in our sick society. Anything that fails to deal with sin cannot be taken seriously as a cure. It becomes a matter of priorities, then. Should I spend time in political involvement or should I devote that same time to the spread of the gospel? Jesus answered the question when He said, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:60). Our top priority must be to make Christ known because He is the answer to the world's problems. --William MacDonald, One Day at a Time, Gospel Folio Press, p. 24.

This quote came to us from the Berean Call.

Notes on Romans 13

Note: This is another item pertaining to the Appendix on political involvement. It contains some points which we have long held, but haven't seen elsewhere, which we have highlighted in red. We are grateful for the generous use permission of the author.

The Christian and Government

The Christian's Responsibility to Government--Part 1

by
John MacArthur
All Rights Reserved

(A copy of this message on cassette tape may be obtained by calling 1-800-55-GRACE)

Romans 13:1 Tape GC 45-97

Introduction

Romans 13:1-7 says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Those seven verses outline in brief and pointed terms the Christian's responsibility to government. This is the most clear and direct passage in all the New Testament on this subject. As a result, it is an extremely important passage for us to understand.

A. The Christian Perspective

The issue of the Christian's relationship to government has been vitally important throughout the history of the church. Christians always have been faced with a struggle in this matter because the church has found itself under all kinds of governments and rulers with different perspectives of leadership.

Traditionally and historically, the church in the United States has had less trouble with its response to government than the church has in many other countries--like our brothers and sisters who live in China, the Soviet Union, or countries behind the Iron Curtain. Since we live in a society that has been somewhat influenced by Christianity, we have had the benefit of the most benevolent of governments. But our circumstances are nothing like those of the Christians who lived in the days when the New Testament was being written, such as the believers in Rome who received Paul's letter.

1. The inadequate responses

In their struggle to answer the question of their relationship to government, Christians have not always answered it properly. Throughout the history of the church, people have decided that the right thing to do was revolt against the government in power and demand their rights--all in the name of Christianity. Wars were even begun for the same reason. Sometimes Christians have understood what their role was. But sometimes they have not understood their God-given role and have revolted instead of submitting. Laws have been violated in the name of Christianity.

a) In the past

In America, certain violations of law, civil disobedience, and subversive attempts to overthrow the powers that be on a local level, state level, or national level have been led by people who claimed to be Christians. Some Christians have decided that since they received bad treatment from certain governments, they were justified in their war against those governments.

To some people, evangelical Christianity was a proper justification for the American Revolution. They believe we had every right to load up our guns and kill Englishmen for the sake of our religious freedom. There are some Christians I know personally who refuse to pay their taxes because they believe that their freedoms are being violated. The truth is, the United States was born out of a violation of Romans 13:1-7 in the name of Christian freedom. That doesn't mean God won't overrule such violations and bring about good, which He did in this case, but that end doesn't justify the means.

b) In the present

Today we struggle about how we should identify with our government. Even though America once had a Christian orientation, we are now living in an era we could call post- Christian America. We are fortunate to have a President who affirms Christian faith and holds to Christian standards of ethics and morality, but our government no longer upholds the Bible as the source of truth and biblical morality as what is right. We are seeing the erosion of such beliefs in our country.

(1) The assumed right

Since America seems to be losing its Christian orientation, there are some who believe Christians have a right to protest and break the law. Many Christian leaders are calling for Christians to leave their present ministry and become a part of a new political Christian lobby that uses pressure and social action to effect change. Some are calling for protest and moderate revolution against our government. They say the government is taking freedom away from the church and encroaching on religion. In an effort to save the church's freedom, myriads of organizations are rising up in our country calling for action against the government. I am amazed at how many evangelical Christians who would have avoided such activity fifteen years ago are now aggressively pursuing the political lobby approach. I'm also amazed at the number of belligerent people who join together on issues of civil authority and civil rights yet who would never find any common ground on the issue of truth. You can find true believers, charlatans, frauds, and false prophets all united for the sake of "religious freedom," who believe that political lobbying will preserve the Kingdom of God in America.

(2) The attending result

One of the worst fallouts of the new preoccupation with political issues is that ultimately the ministry of the church is prostituted. People are selling themselves for something short of what the church is called to do. It cannot afford to become a flag-waving, protest voice for governmental change. That's not its calling. I am appalled to see that many pastors have turned from an emphasis on the gospel to an emphasis on politics--from an emphasis on teaching the Bible to an emphasis on coalitions that support particular kinds of legislation. Worst of all, their emphasis is based on the ridiculous premise that the growth and impact of Christianity is somehow related to government policy in America.

(a) The priority of the church

C. S. Lewis reminded Christians that human beings live forever while the state is only temporal and thus is reserved to comparative insignificance (Mere Christianity [N.Y.: MacMillan, 1977], pp. 78-79). To spend your time altering the state when you could be offering people eternal salvation is a bad bargain. To abandon the message that gives life to the eternal soul in favor of temporal change prostitutes the purpose of a believer's life. That would be like a heart surgeon abandoning his life-saving practice to become a make-up artist. The church needs to use all its power and resources to bring men and women to Jesus Christ. That's what God has called us to do.

(b) The priority of Scripture

Other than instructing us to be model citizens, Scripture says nothing at all about Christians engaging in politics. It says nothing about Christians engaging in civil change. Those things are not our priority. But that doesn't mean we're not to be involved as citizens. For example, in the Old Testament Israel was a priestly nation. It was God's design for Israel to bring men to Him. And it was the primary function of the priests to do just that. There were other people to take care of menial problems and social issues. But the heart of the nation was the priesthood. The priests could not abandon their role of bringing men and women to God. That was God's design, and it is the same for the church. I believe we are a kingdom of priests, not a kingdom of politicians. Our purpose in the world is to bring men to God. You say, "Don't you care about change?" Of course I do, but I also know that change comes from the inside, not the outside. We must administrate the things of the Kingdom of God.

2. The important calling

The Christian's role in government has nothing to do with politicizing the church. It has nothing to do with getting involved in things that are good but not of divine priority. There is no biblical mandate for us to spend our time, money, and energy in matters of civil government. We are to be the conscience of the nation through godly living and faithful preaching. We do not confront the nation through political pressure, but through the Word of God. We are to preach against sin and the evils of our time.

a) Christ's situation

Jesus came into a very interesting world:

(1) A world of slavery

Slavery flourished in the Roman Empire. There were approximately three slaves to every free man.

(2) A world of absolute rulers

The world was dominated by absolute monarchs and rulers. At the end of the Roman republic, the Caesars took power and ruled with absolute authority. Although Julius Caesar was murdered in the Roman senate in 44 B.C., that only served to accelerate the centralization of power. The senate declared Augustus pro-consul and tribune of Rome for life, and he wielded absolute power. He was the Commander in Chief of all soldiers, he reigned over the senate, and he controlled all civil affairs.

Jesus came into a world dominated by slavery and by one- man rule--the absolute antithesis of democracy that we hold so dear. All the power of the state was in one man's hands. The same thing was true in Palestine, where Herod had been placed as a puppet king under Roman rule. Herod was an Edomite, not a Jew. He ruled with such great power that he had the authority to demand that every baby in a certain region be massacred (Matt. 2:16). No one could stay his hand. He had absolute authority over life and death. He even murdered members of his family--his wife, his wife's mother, and three of his sons.

(3) A world of high taxes

When Jesus came into the world, taxes were exorbitant. Those who worked as tax collectors had sold themselves to Rome for money and then overcharged the people. For example, when Zacchaeus the tax collector was converted, he immediately said he would pay back everything he had extorted fourfold (Luke 19:8). That was typical of the extortion that existed. So, the taxes were unjust. In fact, Caesar Augustus decreed a census (a registration with a view to taxation) be taken of all people in the world (Luke 2:1).

(4) A world of persecution

When Jesus came into the world, His people the Jews had become chattel for the Romans. They were an underprivileged and oppressed minority. They had no voice in Roman government and had to pay heavy taxes to their Roman task masters.

b) Christ's solution

That's a description of the world Jesus entered into. The people didn't have democracy, the opportunity to vote, and many of the freedoms we enjoy. But what did Jesus say? He said, "Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God, the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). He did not come with power and force to overthrow Roman tyranny. He did not seek social change. He did not attempt to eliminate slavery. He did not come with political or economic issues at stake. He did not come to bring a new government or to wave the flag of Judaism. Those things were not the concern of His life and ministry. His appeal was ever and always to the hearts of individual men and women, not to their political freedom and rights under government. Jesus did not participate in civil rights or crusade to abolish injustice; He preached the gospel of salvation. Once a man's or woman's soul is right with God, it matters very little what the externals are. Jesus was not interested in a new social order, but in a new spiritual order--the church. And He mandated the church to carry on the same kind of ministry.

3. The inevitable conclusion

The problems in Jesus' day were far more severe than ours. Today people living on relief have cars, TV's, and modern conveniences. We have to look at the issue differently when we determine how a Christian should respond to his government. Throughout all the generations of the church, Christians have had to struggle with this issue. But we have to come to some conclusion about what we are called to do and be in this society. What is our priority? What right does the government have over us? What is our proper response to that right?

Admittedly we live in a tension. Personally, I'm not that concerned about political, economic, social, and civil issues. I do have a reasonable concern about those things, but they don't occupy my mind. The souls of lost men and women occupy my mind. Do they occupy yours? I'm not as concerned that people be happy, wealthy, and healthy as I am that they be saved. I only have so much energy and the church only has so much power and resource. So I struggle with the millions of dollars that come out of evangelical hands for the purpose of politics. We need to be concerned about the souls of the lost.

What is our responsibility to government? How do we respond to the tension of being preoccupied with the Kingdom of God yet desiring to be a good citizen in this world? First, the answer is not found in politics. God has called us to do two things. The first is in Romans 13:1: "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." The second is in Romans 13:6: "For this cause pay ye tribute." The Apostle Paul says two things are required of you as a Christian: submit to the government and pay your taxes. That's our duty. Beyond that you ought to be busy doing the things that are eternally valuable to the Kingdom. That is not to say the other things aren't important; it's just that they pale in importance when compared with the work of the Kingdom. Be subject to the government and pay your taxes. That's what Jesus meant when He said, "Render to Caesar." What does Caesar want? Submission to the laws and payment of taxes.

B. The Historical Background

In Paul's day, the response to government was a critical issue.

1. The rebellion of the Jews

a) The Roman domination

The Jews were notoriously zealous for their own identity, nation, independence, and religion. As a result, they constantly rebelled against Roman control. And although the Roman domination for the most part was beneficent and the Roman peace was easy to bear, the Jews did not like being under the yoke of anyone. In John 8:33 the Pharisees told Jesus that they had never been in bondage to anyone. But that was a ridiculous statement since at that very time they were under Roman domination. Prior to that they had been under the domination of the Greeks, the Medo-Persians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians. So they had a short memory. The Pharisees were actually indicating that they were not under domination externally, but that they had never been dominated in their hearts.

The Jews didn't like the tyranny they were under, even though they enjoyed exceptional privileges in the Roman Empire. The empire that advocated Caesar worship and required everyone to worship him as a god allowed the Jews the right to worship their own God. The Romans safeguarded the Sabbath day, the Sabbath laws, the dietary laws, and the prohibition of idols. They made a law allowing no one to come inside the walls of the city of Jerusalem with any image of Caesar because that violated the Jewish law regarding idols. When the Jews wanted to kill Gentiles who had entered the inner court of the Temple, the Romans upheld their right to do so because it was required by the religious law of the Jews. The Romans were very gracious, but the Jews continued to chafe under their authority. They hated Roman domination. They questioned its legitimacy and fought against it.

b) The Scriptural defense

As the basis for their hatred of the Roman yoke, the Jews used Deuteronomy 17:15: "Thou shalt surely set him king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother." They did not want to have a king who was not Jewish, and Herod, Caesar, and Pilate were not Jewish. So they used that passage as a defense for their attitude toward the government. But they had forgotten that they were no longer living under the terms of Deuteronomy. They had so violated God's covenant that they were under judgment.

c) The zealous defenders

Among the Jews was a group known as the Zealots. They believed there was no king but God and that no taxes should be paid to anyone but God. They defied the government in every way--they wouldn't submit and they wouldn't pay taxes. Instead, they embarked on violent action. The Zealots became murderers and assassins. They were known as dagger bearers-- fanatical nationalists sworn to terrorism. They had a great influence on the Jewish populace. When the Jews saw Jesus' power, they immediately wanted to make Him King. Why? Because they wanted the ultimate revolt. They wanted to defeat Rome.

2. The reaction toward Christians

a) The Roman reaction

Roman law continued to be somewhat favorable to Christianity throughout the life of the apostle Paul. Rome viewed Christianity as nothing more than an offshoot of Judaism--a type of Judaistic cult.

(1) Tolerance

An interesting incident took place in Acts 18:12-17. The Corinthian Jews accused Paul of propagating an illegal religion. The Romans didn't allow many religions to exist, but they had legalized Judaism. When Paul came preaching Christ, the Corinthian Jews wanted to get him in trouble with the Roman authorities. So they went before pro-consul Gallio and accused Paul of preaching an illegal religion. But Gallio paid no attention to their accusation, which indicates that he thought Christianity was nothing more than a few Jews disputing with other Jews about some element of theology. It was the attitude that Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism that gave Paul freedom in the Roman Empire to continue to preach the gospel of Christ over the next ten years. However, Christianity is different from Judaism, thus in reality it was not a sanctioned religion.

(2) Watchfulness

Even though Rome tolerated Christianity, they also knew it needed to be watched. The Romans knew that the founder of Christianity was Jesus Christ. They believed He was killed because He claimed to be a king and offered Himself as a rival to Caesar. So they knew there was a potential for trouble within Christianity. Although they tolerated it, they also watched it carefully.

There is no doubt that some Christians posed a threat to Roman authorities. Some were thought to be subversive. In fact, in Acts 17:6-7 unbelieving Jews said, "These that have turned the world upside down are come here also ... and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus." The belief that their founder was a rival king defined Christians throughout the Roman empire. But in spite of that there was real tolerance for Christianity.

b) The Apostles' reminder

(1) Paul

Paul was very careful in what he said in Romans 13:1-7 because he didn't want to be misunderstood. It was possible that if Christians pushed too hard for their freedoms and didn't respond properly to the Roman government, they could have been in trouble. The best thing Christians could do was continue to live peaceably and honorably as citizens in their society. They were not to be associated with the Jewish mentality of insurrection and rebellion. Paul wrote this chapter to remind believers of their duty as citizens--to establish exemplary conduct epitomized by Christ, the Apostles, and the believers in the earliest days of the church. Paul wanted to separate Christianity from insurrectionist Judaism. He wanted to affirm that Christians are to be good citizens. Good citizenship is a question not only of not committing crimes, but also of honoring and respecting those in authority over us.

In Romans 13:1 Paul established this basic principle: Whatever the form and whoever the ruler, civil government should be obeyed and submitted to by Christians. The Christian has a duty to his nation, even if the ruler is a Nero or a Hitler.

(2) Peter

First Peter 2:12 says, "Having your behavior honest among the Gentiles, that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation." In other words, "They may speak evil of you, but let that be a lie." But how are you going promote goodness in a society that wants to persecute you? Verses 13-15 say, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers [the police] .... For so is the will of God, that with well-doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." Foolish men look for something to criticize. You're lack of good citizenship and obedience to the civil authority will give them their reason. Verse 16 says not to use "your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness." So Peter told a persecuted group of believers to accept and obey their authorities.

A Testimony from the Soviet Union

I will never forget a conversation I had with Georgi Vins. He is a Christian who lived for many years in the Soviet Union. He met with our staff one day and we asked him what it was like to live under tyranny and repression in a communist country. He told us that Christians can't pursue an education or a career. They have no say in the government and no freedoms to speak of. This question was then posed to him: How do you respond to that kind of government? He said, "We obey every law in our nation, whether it appears to us to be just or unjust, except when we are told that we cannot worship God or obey the Scripture. But if we are persecuted, put into prison, or killed, it will be a result of our faith in Jesus Christ, not because we violated some law in our nation."

In Romans 13:1-7, Paul is saying the same thing Peter did: We have a serious responsibility to live out our justification by faith. Our self- sacrifice to the Lord (Rom. 12:1-2) should make us model citizens of our nation. We should not be known as protesters--as those who criticize and demean people in authority. We should speak against sin, injustice, evil, and immorality fearlessly and without hesitation. But we should give honor to those who are in authority over us. That is the biblical pattern for every age, every nation, and every Christian--it has nothing to do with America alone.

Lesson

I. THE PRINCIPLE (v. 1a)

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."

That's the principle. It's unqualified, unlimited, and unconditional.

A. The Definitions

The phrase translated "every soul" is a Hebraism for "every person." The emphasis is on every individual person. Each of us has a very precise duty. The verb translated "be subject" is an imperative. The Greek word is hupotasso, a military term meaning, "to line up to take your orders." Every one of us should get in line to submit to those who are commanding us. Who does the commanding? The higher powers. The phrase literally means, "The authorities who have authority over us." That is a double phrase in the Greek text, exousiais huperexousais. They are the supreme ruling power. They're called "rulers" in verse 3. The text makes no distinction between good rulers and bad rulers, or fair laws and unfair laws. In fact, it was the obedience of Christians, to unfair laws and unjust rulers in times of persecution during the early years of the Roman Empire, that brought tolerance and eventually acceptance of Christianity within that empire.

B. The Duty

We are called to submit. For those of us living in America, it isn't that difficult because the laws are just for the most part. They rightly represent divine truth. But they are changing fast and we are to submit. We have to live in post-Christian America, although the nation has never been Christian. There aren't Christian nations, only Christian people. Although things are changing in America, we still have the same duty.

1. The responsibility

a) 1 Timothy 2:1-3--"I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, our Savior." God wants us to live a life that is peaceable. We should make peace; we should not make trouble or protest. We should live quiet, peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. We affect the society from the inside by changing the hearts of the people, not the structure of society.

b) Titus 3:1-2--"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing all meekness unto all men." It bothers me to see people--supposedly in the name of Christ-- speak against the leaders of our nation, no matter if those leaders are adequate or inadequate, just or unjust, fair or unfair.

The principle of submission is repeated throughout Scripture. We saw it in 1 Peter, 1 Timothy, Titus, and we see it in Romans. You say, "Do you mean we're to submit to everything without limitation?" No. There is one limitation.

2. The limitation

a) The Example of Peter and John

(1) The first persecution

Acts 4:13 says that when the Jewish leaders "saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." It was evident that they had been with Jesus because they had seen them with Him and now heard their message. So they convened a council.

(a) The fearful restriction

The result of the council is in verses 16-18: "What shall we do to these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all those who dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." Now, that is the decision of the authority, even though it is the religious authority.

(b) The faithful response

Verse 19 says, ""But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." There is now a serious conflict. In the form of Jesus Christ, God told them to go "into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). But the authorities said not to preach. So Peter says, "You tell us who we should obey: you or God?" The answer is obvious, isn't it?

The one time we have a right to disobey the government is when it commands us not to do something God has commanded us to do, or when it commands us to do something God has commanded us not to do. For example, if all the laws that are being enacted for the rights of homosexuals at some point put demands on Grace Community Church to hire homosexuals, that's when we would say, "We won't hire them because you have just told us to do something that God has forbidden us to do." That is an occasion when we have justification for disobedience. I hope that if we are faced with having to disobey, we will have opportunity to speak loudly and clearly about why we stand with the truth of God.

(c) The fruitful result

Do you know what happened to Peter and John? In verse 31 they had a prayer meeting with the other believers, "and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the Word of God with boldness." That shows you whom they decided to obey. They weren't quiet at all.

(2) The second persecution

In Acts 5:28 the apostles were told again to be quiet: "Did not we strictly command you that you should not teach in this name? And, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring [Christ's] blood on us." The Apostles were not quiet; they accelerated their efforts. And part of their message was to tell the Jewish leaders that they were responsible for killing the Messiah.

Peter and the apostles had opportunities to say, "We ought to obey God rather than men." The only time a Christian can violate his government is when he is asked to disobey God. That's what Georgi Vins was referring to when he said, "If we're imprisoned or lose our life, it will be a result of our commitment to obey the Word of God when the government tells us not to."

There is no such thing as a Christian government. Don't assume that Paul is writing the book of Romans with a Christian government in mind. Certainly the government in Rome wasn't Christian, and there never has been one. The only Christian government that will ever exist will be the one in the Millennial Kingdom. Until then, all governments will be flawed.

The Status of Missions in America

I thank God for the privilege of living under one of the best of human governments. I believe God has given at least two hundred plus years to the United States of America in this time of redemptive history for one specific purpose. For the last two hundred years, America has been the primary source of missionaries to the world. We have seen that era come to a great climax in our lifetime. But now a change has been coming about. I see other countries taking the lead in sending out missionaries. For the most part, American church money has financed world missions over the last two hundred years. But our time of doing so may be done. God will bring up a new people to send out those who will reach His world for Christ.

If our government changes its form, as governments often do, we are still called to submit and be model citizens. We are called not only to obey, but to obey with a spirit of obedience. We are to give honor to those who are in authority over us so that evil might not be spoken about the name of Christ. If there are critics who are looking for ways to condemn Christians, please let them condemn us for our faith and not our political viewpoints.

Focusing on the Facts

1. Why has the church always been faced with a struggle to determine its proper relationship to government (see p. 1)?

2. Name some of the improper responses Christians have had towards their governments (see pp. 1-2).

3. What reason do some people use as justification for the American Revolution (see p. 2)?

4. What is one of the worst fallouts of the new Christian preoccupation with political issues (see p. 3)?

5. Why should Christians be considered as a kingdom of priests instead of a kingdom of politicians (see p. 3)?

6. What is God's calling for every Christian (see p. 4)?

7. Describe the kind of world Jesus came into (see pp. 4-5).

8. What are some of the things Jesus didn't do in the world? What was His main concern (see p. 5)?

9. According to Romans 13:1 and 6, what two things has God instructed Christians to do concerning their government (see p. 6)?

10. Why did the Jews constantly rebel against Roman domination (see p. 6)?

11. Describe some of the privileges that the Roman government extended to the Jewish people (see pp. 6-7).

12. What scripture did the Jews use as the basis for their hatred of the Roman domination? Explain (see p. 7).

13. What was Rome's perspective of Christianity? What did that attitude allow Paul to do (see p. 7-8)?

14. What was Paul's purpose in writing Romans 13:1-7 (see p. 8)?

15. What basic principle did Paul establish in Romans 13:1 (see pp. 8-9)?

16. What does Paul mean by the phrase "be subject" (Rom. 13:1; see p. 10)?

17. List some scriptures that delineate the Christian's responsibility to his government. Explain them (see p. 10).

18. According to Acts 4:18, what was the decision of the Jewish leaders regarding the preaching of Peter and John? How did Peter and John respond to that decision in verse 19 (see p. 11)?

19. What is the criteria for determining when Christians are allowed to disobey the government (see p. 11)?

Pondering the Principles

1. Do you struggle with your proper relationship to the government? What is your definition of a quiet and peaceable life? Begin a study of the life of Christ. You may want to obtain a harmony of the gospels to help. Based on your study, how did Jesus exemplify a quiet and peaceable life? How many times did He speak out against the evils of the society? Explain each one. Based on Christ's pattern, what should you be doing? Remember, be sure your attitude is one of glorifying God by making His truth known. Don't let your action allow people to be confused about your motives.

2. Suppose the government you lived under suddenly denied you all the social and political freedoms you now enjoy. How would you respond? Look up the following verses: Romans 13:1; 1 Timothy 2:1-3; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:12-17. Based on the instruction of Scripture, how should your response to the government that gives you freedom differ from the one that denies you freedom? Please be obedient to God's Word by being obedient to your government.

Added to the John MacArthur "Study Guide" Collection by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986

The Kingdom of Christ Among the Nations

Note: We offer this as one HUGE post, and hope to later break it down into smaller bites. tIt is about 20 pages printed out!! We are unsure of the origin of this treatise, having never found any information on its author. Comments or questions are welcome. We have found alot of good points, but have a few that are not mentioned here. We'll add them later.



Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

A TREATISE ON THE RELATION OF CHRISTIANS TO EARTHLY GOVERNMENTS, OR THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST AMONG THE NATIONS


------------------

By E. A. SLATER

------------------

LEXINGTON, KY.:
TRANSYLVANIA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.
1878
INTRODUCTION In offering the following reflections to the public, I beg leave to say that I have long been convinced, that the subject of them, merits more attention than it has received. And while the education and prejudices of the reader may be averse to the facts and truths herein evolved I beg him not to disdainfully cast aside this little book, until he has carefully examined its contents in the light of divine truth. For while, possibly, some of its parts may not be wholly devoid of sophistry, I am confident that, as a whole, in its principles, it is both logical and scriptural.

The Christian's duty can be known only by reference to the Christian's Guide-book, and if the sentiments of the following pages be in harmony with that, in its principles, it is evident that a great wrong is practiced, and a revolution is demanded. With this conviction, the Christian should begin reformation at once, not only for his own sake. but for the triumph of Christian principles; feeling that the dictates of the Spirit of unerring wisdom is the only safe guide, regardless of what human foresight may predict as the consequence.

I am indebted to others, not only for suggestions, but sometimes for the exact language used; and not knowing at all times to whom to credit the language, I have generally used quotations without regard to author, but sometimes with the language so modified, that the original author will hardly recognize it.

The subject, of course, cannot be exhausted in so small a space, and possibly, it may receive a more extended notice at some time in the future. Enough, however, is said to show that there is a gross error practiced, and a radical reform needed.

To all lovers of truth, for truth's sake, is this little book inscribed, in the interests of truth, by the author, E. A. SLATER.

CONCORDIA, Mo., October 27th, 1877.


The Relation of Christians to Earthly Governments, or the Kingdom of Christ Among the Nations.


In enlightened nations we find mankind divided into two general classes, viz: The Christian (so-called) and the non-professor or worldlian. Of the one of these classes, from a Christian standpoint, God is the acknowledged father, head, or ruler; while the Devil occupies a similar relation to the other class. As these classes commingle in the sea of humanity, certain relations are necessarily involved between them, as natural, incidental circumstantial, and organic relations; the latter of which are more prominently involved in our present inquiry.

The question, then, resolves itself thus: What are the organic relations between the Christian and the non-professor? Or, as organic bodies, between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of the world ? However important this inquiry, it is evident that but few stop to inquire definitely here. We are too apt to take things as we find them, and act upon them as a matter of course, or because those before us so acted, without stopping to inquire for ourselves as to the fitness or propriety of such acts. How humiliating the thought, that intelligent men and women simply ape their predecessors instead of inquiring for themselves as to the fitness of the action involved.

I believe it is never claimed that they are so related that the nonprofessor is one with, and entitled to all the immunities and privileges of, the Christian as such, yet it is almost universally claimed that their privileges are equal as elements in the government. Now, is this claim well founded? Is it true that the Christian is an element in, and a subject of, the respective government in which he may chance to live? Can he speak of it as his government, and of his defense of it, as the defense of his country? Does he owe allegiance to it--such allegiance as vindicates and enforces its laws? Is he so far an element, in these respective governments, that it becomes not only his privilege, but his duty, to assist in making and executing the law? Is it true, as it is often claimed, that the Christian, as such, is more justly entitled to fill and administer the offices of government? These questions seem to cover the real question and put it in its true light. Government, in this connection, comprehends all forms of civil government whose laws and their ministration are of human devise, whatever be their model. Now, if being a subject of one of these forms of government is an obligation to vindicate and enforce its laws--enforce them simply because they are laws, however varied and conflicting; then the duties of Christians, as subjects of these respective governments, would be as varied and conflicting as the governments. Who is prepared for this? The principles of right do not conflict. Christian duty is the same wherever found, and, in itself, is independent of human legislation. No requirements of human legislation are binding upon the Christian if they conflict with the Christian's law. But where is the government in which this conflict does not exist? And, for this reason, where is the government of which the Christian may be a subject, sharing in the responsibilities and bearings of the execution of its laws? Am I reminded that "the powers that be are ordained of God," and that the Christian is required to be subject to them? I answer that subjection does not imply active support and vindication. Subjection is manifested as well by suffering the penalty for noncompliance with conflicting requirements. But this idea of subjection will be considered further on.

We already see some of the difficulties in the way of regarding the Christian as a subject of these governments in the sense of the above question, but who will deny that he is a subject, that he may make and execute the laws of civil government? I say who will deny this, and thus meet the prejudice of both religious and irreligious, and run the risk of being termed a fanatic or a fit subject for the lunatic asylum? The right to vote, hold office, &c., is, as it were, bred and born in us in the United States, and we have never had a thought to its fitness for the Christian. It is a thankless task to assail customs honored by time, respectability, social position, and power. Men rarely speak against them, and so speaking never escape the laugh of scorn. Truth can claim but few votaries at this point. How shameful, that with such eternal consequences involved, truth must thus suffer at the hands of its votaries, for the sake of popular favor! Lord, enable thy servants to see the truth, to love the truth, and to vindicate the truth!

I now offer some reasons why the Christian may not make or execute the laws of civil government:

1st. It is virtually a reunion of Church and State. I do not mean merely that legal reunion found in European countries, but I mean that adulterous connection which assumes its most polluting form, when the Church and its votaries are voluntarily prostituted to the political parties of a popular government. I know we love to boast of Church and State independence in the United States. But observation shows them closely allied, indeed, amalgamated, rather than independent. Law is essential to the State, and the Church coalesces with the world to effect the law and its execution. Moreover, an amalgamation with the different political parties is formed, and Christians thus distributed, have conflicting interests, conflicting policies, conflicting efforts, conflicting feelings, conflicting prayers, and, as it were, conflicting Gods. For, can the same God answer these conflicting prayers and bless these conflicting elements? A political campaign is inaugurated, and Christians enter into the spirit of the campaign, and generally into whatever may further party success. Party spirit runs high, and not only are Christians thus at variance, but they labor, and pray, and coalesce with the world to carry these conflicting interests against one another. Each believes his party will best subserve the interests of Church and State, and though he may not stoop to all the trickery of his party, he, by his influence and efforts to carry the interests of his party, lends countenance to all its corruption, and winks at its unhallowed devices to gain power. And all this in the name of Christianity! What a pliable material must Christianity be, to be thus molded into the life and spirit of these conflicting parties, and issues! Who cannot see that in blending together, the Church and State, each hangs as it were, upon the shoulders of the other? The question usually asked by both religious and irreligious is: "What will become of us if good men stop voting?" &c. Thus showing that they regard the safety and perpetuity of the State as in the hands of Christians, or the Church, and hence the safety and prosperity of the Church is dependent upon the State. But this adoption of worldly means, of secular interests and influences, for the support of that kingdom which is "not of this world," is but bringing the world into the church. Yet we have all this blending together, this fellowship of the Church with the world, with common interests, in the face of the apostolic admonition, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? What communion hath light with darkness? What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" But this is not all. By virtue of this amalgamation, the Church becomes responsible for all the enormities of the general government--its corruption, its excesses, its oppressions. Responsible, I say, so far as it is an element in affecting the policies of the government. And if it be the element, if upon it depends the safety and perpetuity of the State, it becomes the responsible party. And how far is this short of union of Church and State? To raise the question, What will become of us, if good men stop voting? &c., is an admission that the church is the element, that upon it depends the safety and perpetuity of the State. During the last campaign churches that should unfurl only the banner of peace--the banner of Christ and the cross, were seen to post rival national flags, their votaries bedecked with the ensigns and badges of rival parties in campaign, and devotees to the policies of conflicting issues. Though rivals, each party seemed to feel that the safety of government depended upon it, and that its mission was to guide the ship of State into more pacific waters.

2nd. A second reason is, that connection with politics is certain corruption. There are ambitions, honorable in the eyes of the world, which interfere with our usefulness as Christians. Some of these are so supported by popular favor, and entrenched in the customs of people of so much respectability, and of such social power, that the remonstrant is usually in the minority; and sin, thus committed, loses much of its criminal character in public estimation. Political ambition is thus supported and thus entrenched, but the Christian's service is due to God, and if political service or any other ambition, interferes with the discharge of his Christian duty, he must not touch it. To some who cannot see the difference between active support and assistance, and the phrase "be subject," the exhortation to "be subject to the powers that be, for they are ordained of God," will be received as sufficient license for active participation. As before promised, however, this Scripture shall be duly considered by and by.

If the ambition which aspires to distinction as a politician--to have a national character as such--be right in itself, certainly the exclusiveness with which it occupies the thought, and the completeness with which it absorbs the time, is fatal to piety and to Christianity. It, as it were, becomes a god, and demands the whole and undivided homage. But as a Christian cannot serve God and mammon, neither can he serve God and politics in this absorbing sense. And if the Christian may not be political in this sense, the sense which is the life and soul of politics, by what divine enactment is he licensed in a more limited sense? But if the Christian may not enter into the life and soul of politics, he who is thus political, is out of the line of Christian duty, and he who votes for him becomes partaker of his sins. A distinguished writer has said that 'Faultless integrity and unimpeachable moral honesty constitute no part of the essential character of a politician. Whatever will carry the day, he must adopt and urge, regardless of whether it be right or wrong. In his ordinary intercourse, and in common dealings with men, he may be as honest as other men, but as a politician, and in the part he has here to act to attain his objects, is not his the life of a trickster?"

But, to proceed: "The politician is necessarily a partisan. Whether from convictions of right or policy, he is still a partisan. He must swear by his party, talk for his party, vote with his party, be true to his party. and all this without question; and, if need be, without conscience; though, in so doing, he may sacrifice his own sense of right, and ignore the higher claims of truth and justice. As a matter of fact, what is the history of politicians as Christians? Are they as a rule good Christians? Are they not, rather, the shabbiest ones that frequent the house of God, where they do at all? Now, why is this? Are these naturally worse than other men that they make such a poor exhibit of Christianity? Not at all. Not to them but to their calling are we to ascribe their failure. As a fact, then, politicians will not be good Christians, and no one has a right to conclude that he would be an exception. Or, if he has a right so to conclude, he cannot afford, in safety to himself, to incur the risk of an experiment." Look around, and where is the man who has passed through a political campaign without the taint of corruption by his associations? Where is the politician office-holder who might not except for their aspirations and their associations, have reflected more fully that gloriously beautiful life of Jesus? "The public service of God is generally laid aside by politicians. Their families become affected with a lukewarm spirit. They become fashionable in their talk, their dress, and their associations; they glimmer through life, and, when gone, leave but few traces of their Christianity; for the mind thus absorbed is unfit for the chaste and sober home of so gentle and pure a thing as the religion of Jesus. Spirituality cannot flourish in such associations. Then, how can the Christian man afford to expose his wife and children to such dangerous and bewildering temptations?" If the politician glory in the cruelty, rapacity, and falsehood of his party leaders, he is compelled to deny the Lord who bought him. "Christianity proclaims peace, independence, truth, justice, and liberty; but the spread of these will be accomplished only by reforming and elevating the individuals of whom society is composed; not by any alliance with the governments of the world; not by any vulgar partnership with politicians to kill and plunder their enemies." Judge Black, of Pennsylvania, has said that "Human government, at best, is but a compromise of selfish interests and conflicting passions. This, perhaps, gives a reason for the corrupting tendencies of political associations. They destroy the unity of the church, for Christians of the one party are blind to their own sins, but magnify the sins, real or imputed, of the opposite party. The theme of the one party is the wickedness of the opposite party and their hearts are filled with self-conceit, bigotry, spiritual pride, envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. Is this overdrawn? Who has not seen this spirit prevail, and that, too, with professed Christians? Who, that was an element in these parties during the recent campaign, has not felt it in his own heart? But I quote again from Judge Black: Christ and the apostles kept politics and religion perfectly separate. They joined no clamors for or against any administration; they expressed no preference for one form of government over another; they provoked no political reforms. If they had done so, they would have flatly contradicted the declaration that Christ's kingdom 'is not of this world,' and Christianity itself would have died out in half a century." They did not, like the popular preacher of to-day, inflame the sanguinary passions of the monarch by exaggerating the treasonable character of the rebellious, and counsel the military execution of all who sympathized in the sufferings! They did not praise Nero for his strategy because he chanced to be ruler, nor pronounce a funeral oration on his virtues when dead.

The legal profession, as such, comes in for its share of corruption. The attorney is sworn to be true to his client, promises success, and receives his fee accordingly. He reasons that the opposing counsel will do his best on the other side, and, therefore, he must do so, or his client's interests will suffer. This may do where all are seeking only the truth and the right; but the question is, May either counsel drop all moral considerations and seek victory, right or wrong? Does the wrong pursued by one counsel make it right for the opposite counsel to set aside righteous principles? May the lawyer be indifferent, morally or socially, about the execution of the law? Shall he, when his client has confessed his guilt to him stand up before God and the bar of justice, and use his ingenuity to make it appear that his client is an innocent and abused man? Shall he rule out every scrap of testimony possible that bears against his client, and press in the perjured statements of confederates with his client in crime? Shall he make the jury believe what he knows is false, and pronounce a verdict of acquittal upon a man who he knows is unworthy a place in civil society? Shall he abuse the veracity of witnesses because on the other side? Shall he intimidate and frustrate them in a bullying manner, and then take advantage of the confusion he has caused, to destroy the force of valid testimony? Must he do his utmost to turn loose upon society every villain that pays him a fee? Has not law a penalty for villains? and has he no concern for the execution of the law? May he help his client, by hook or crook, to avoid an honest debt, or keep the creditor out of it by law's delay? But suppose there are litigations in which one side is right--wholly right, what then? The other side must be wrong, if not wholly wrong, yet the wrong is advocated as right, and right is made to suffer by the ingenuity and trickery of the opposite counsel to make it appear that his is the right side. Is it the lawyer's duty, by virtue of his profession to become the patron of lying, fraud, theft, burglary, robbery, murder, and treason? What strange duties are these for the Christian--for him who is to "do to others only what he would have others do to him?" remembering that "love worketh no ill to his neighbor!" But will you promise a man success in the legal profession unless he resorts to these policies? Then, may we not conclude from the lesson observation teaches, that an abandonment to a political career is abandonment to corrupting tendencies, and yields corruption as its fruit?

3rd. A third reason is, that The duties and objects of civil government are forbidden to the Christian. This involves a direct reference to Scripture, and we are glad to have so high a source of appeal. First, Paul's language to the Romans determines these duties and objects: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. * * * For he beareth not sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." Here we learn that the power or government is God's minister, a revenger to execute wrath. Yet, while it is to execute wrath, the Christian is forbidden "to return evil for evil for any man." He is required to lift up holy hands without wrath." "Let not the sun go down on your wrath. In Colossians, third chapter, Paul enumerates the things in which they formerly walked, but now requires them to "lay aside anger, wrath, malice," &c. And while the government "is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil," Paul classes wrath as a work of the flesh, with a warning that "they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The Christian is "not appointed to wrath." (I Thess. v:9); or, as the context shows, he is not appointed to execute wrath. He is forbidden to avenge himself, (Rom. xii:9), which is to take satisfaction for an injury done. Notice, the Christian cannot do this--cannot execute wrath; yet this is the specific work of the powers or governments that be; therefore, these governments are not executed by the Christian. The government, then, is God's sword or instrument of execution; but since this is forbidden to the Christian, it can only be the duty of the opposite class. And thus the Psalmist teaches: "Deliver my soul from the wicked which is thy sword, from men which are thy hand, O, Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life." (Ps. xvii: 13, 14.) The wicked, then, is the "hand" or "sword" of God, and in the form of government, his "minister, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." But he has not appointed or ordained the Christian to wrath. He has forbidden his loving and sympathising children to execute wrath, to take vengeance, and for this purpose uses wicked agents, overruling them to effect his glory by the punishment of evil doers.

Examples are abundant in proof of this, but if history furnished no examples, the fact that government is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon the evil doer; the fact that the Christian is forbidden to do this; and the fact that the wicked is the hand or sword of God, would enable each man to find his place in the divine economy. As an example of God's use of a wicked agency to accomplish what saints could not, I refer to the means he employed for the destruction of Ahab, as recorded in I Kings, xxii:20-23. This means was a "lying spirit," which, of course, could lay no claim to saintly or angelic purity. Thus he used Judas, whom the Savior speaks of as "a devil," and "the son of perdition." Thus he used Pharaoh; thus he used Nero; thus he used Cyrus, of whom he speaks, through his prophet Isaiah, as "mine anointed." (Isa. xlv: 1). Or, in the language of Daniel, he would have us "Know that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men." (Dan. iv:17). And by Jeremiah he speaks of this same Nebuchadnezzar, "the basest of men," as "my servant." And by Isaiah he speaks of this same Nebuchadnezzar, "the basest of men," as "The rod of mine anger." (Isa. x:5). Thus the basest of men are sometimes the servants of God, and, thus, in a sense, the Devil and hell are ordained of God. Then, while he has forbidden the Christian to execute wrath, the wicked is his hand, his sword, his servant, or the rod of his anger, by which he executes wrath upon the evil doer. Christianity being divine, must be consistent. Does it require its votaries to exercise forbearance, even to suffer wrong, "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly," and then permit them to make or execute a law, the design of whose penalties is to prevent crime, rather than the reformation of the criminal, or to meet the demands of justice? Does it teach that "wrath is a work of the flesh, and that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God;" require the Christian to lay aside wrath; to "lift up holy hands without wrath," and then make him "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath?" Does it require its subjects to do only what they would have others do to them, as a common brotherhood, remembering that "love works no ill to his neighbor," and then permit them to confiscate his property or take his life? Oh Christianity, many crimes are committed in thy name, and shall thy votaries thus slander thee! Thou dost teach better things.

4th. A fourth reason is, that The Christian belongs to a distinct kingdom. He is taught that Christ is enthroned "King of kings," and that he, as an absolute monarch, has given to us a perfect law--a law sufficient to perfect us and thoroughly furnish us unto every good work. And the Christian having sworn allegiance to him, it becomes his duty to obey without question, rather than to take the law-making and executive power into his own hands. This is but rebellion--but a want of faith in our King. When Jesus says "My kingdom is not of this world," (John xviii:36), the conclusion is inevitable that the kingdoms of this world are no part of his kingdom, but necessarily belong to some other power. Now can I, as a citizen of the United States, go into the dominions of Great Britain or any other foreign power, and because I regard the law as wicked and tyrannical, proceed, with the ballot and official relationship, to alter or amend it? All know that I cannot. To act there, I must give allegiance to that government. That forfeits citizenship here. Then, I am curious to know how I, as a citizen of Christ's kingdom, can go into another, no part of his, but rather in some respects, radically incompatible with it, and perform duties involving allegiance to that other, such allegiance as enforces and vindicates its laws, and still retain loyalty to Christ. I certainly forfeit the favor and protection of Jesus, my King, as certainly as I forfeit protection and citizenship in the United States by giving allegiance to Great Britain. But this reason will be involved in other reasons which I will offer, and in them, will be fully considered.

5th. A fifth reason is, That his kingdom is to overthrow all other kingdoms. John testifies: "And the seventh angel sounded, and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign forever and ever." (Rev. xi:15). Here the kingdoms of the world are spoken of as diverse from the kingdom of Christ, and as becoming his in the sounding of the seventh trumpet, which all interpreters of prophecy admit to be yet in the future. Now, if they be not his till the sounding of the seventh trumpet, and the sounding of that trumpet be yet in the future, they have yet to become his, at some time in the future fulfillment of that prophetic vision. Being not his now, they necessarily belong to some other sovereignty, over which the Christian jurisdiction does not extend but they are to be wrested from this authority and enlarge the borders of Zion in the Kingdom of Christ. On this point, the language of Daniel is explicit: "Thou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold." (The Assyrian empire was represented by the head of gold, because of its great wealth.) "And after thee shall arise another kingdom, inferior to thee," (The Medo-Persian, which, with its silver- plated shields, was fitly represented by "the breast and arms of silver," and inferior to the Assyrian, as silver is inferior to gold), "and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth." (The Macedonian empire, with soldiers with brazen armor, and spoken of as the "brazen-coated Greek," was fitly represented by the "belly and thighs of brass.") "And the fourth kingdom," (The Roman empire in its strength, represented by "legs of iron,") "shall be strong as iron, for as much as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise." (Dan. ii:37-40) "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it break in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Dan. ii: 44,45). This is Daniel's interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, in which, in a figure, the kingdoms of the world were destroyed by the kingdom of Christ: The fourth kingdom was the Roman empire, which, though "strong as iron," by the admixture of foreigners, or "mingling themselves with the seed of men," became weak. Daniel said. "The kingdom shall be divided, they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." So they were divided, and clave asunder into many kingdoms, now represented by the nations, kingdoms, and governments of the world, which, Daniel says the kingdom of Christ is to break in pieces and consume. But all Christians constitute the kingdom of Christ, and if it is to break in pieces and consume the kingdoms of the world, then, Christians are to break in pieces and consume them; and if Christians are a part of these kingdoms, they must break in pieces and consume themselves. And if the kingdom of Christ is to overthrow these kingdoms, Christianity must be the means; but, as it is now, instead of overthrowing these powers, the Christian only perpetuates them when he votes for men, good or bad, by which they are perpetuated. Is not the tendency of this to thwart the purpose of God, with respect to their overthrow? Christ is to "put down all rule, and all authority, and power," and must reign until he has done this, says Paul, (I Cor. xv:24,25). Was it not these authorities, powers, rulers, and principalities, which he came to put down? For "He is far above all principality, and power and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come." And Paul says, "We wrestle (or fight) not with flesh and blood (mere athletes or bullies), but with governments, with powers," &c. These Scriptures show that the kingdoms of the world are yet to become Christ's; that he is to put down all rule, and authority, and power, that the antagonism existing between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdoms of the world, will result in the overthrow of these kingdoms by the kingdom of Christ, which is to "break in pieces and consume them." Our conflict, then, is with governments and with powers. It is irrepressible, for "To him every knee shall bow."

6th. A sixth reason is, that The Christian is only a sojourner rather than a citizen in these kingdoms. The first proof I shall offer is the typical nature of the Jewish institution. God, mainly, has always had "a peculiar people." He directs the affairs of these, as their King, Governor, or Ruler, and overrules the opposite power to the accomplishment of his will, as universal Sovereign. When necessary, for the good of his subjects and the perpetuity of his moral government, he punishes the rebellious. So far did rebellion prevail at one time, that only one family was loyal to the King, and he "destroyed the others from the face of the earth." But this saved family, in a few generations, became rebellious and went into idolatry, culminating in Babel. God then called and covenanted with Abraham, (Gen. xii:1-4; Gen. xvii:), promising, upon their obedience, to be a God unto him and his seed, and bequeathed to them the land of Canaan. This family, or nations he made a type, by which to represent his future plans, in effecting the redemption and sanctification of the creatures of his image. They were in bondage in Egypt, a type of the bondage of sin. God sent Moses, a type of Christ, to deliver them, and they, led by faith, and being baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, were saved or delivered from that yoke of bondage. This baptism was a type of Christian baptism, and this salvation or deliverance, was a type of salvation when baptized into Christ. God now proposes a covenant to them as a nation, to which they agree and swear allegiance to him, (Deut. v:3, and Ex. xix:5-8), and they become a "peculiar treasure unto him above all people." A holy nation. A nation distinct from other nations, with Jehovah, in person, as their God and King. They are now a nation among nations, the Jewish nation--God's nation. They are no part of other nations, and other nations are no part of them, as such; but as a nation they journey through other nations in order to reach the land of promise. "Forty years' journey is made to reach their abiding city." This promised land was a type of Heaven, or Heavenly Canaan, and this forty years' journey was a type of the conflicts of Christians, in the great warfare of life, before they are permitted to possess their Heavenly Canaan. Their dangers, trials, conflicts, and disobedience, assure us that we will gain Heaven only by obedience and much conflict.

Now, as is the type, so is the antitype. If the type, the Jewish kingdom, was a distinct kingdom, and, as such, separate from other kingdoms; the antitype, the kingdom of Christ is also a distinct kingdom, and as such, separate from other kingdoms. If in the type they were no part of other nations, in the antitype Christians are no part of other nations. In the type, however, instead of being a part or other nations, the Jews were required to avoid their idolatry and forbidden to marry of other nations. (Ex. xxxiv:12-16, Deut. vii:2-4; Josh. xxiii:12, &c.) And who will deny that we, too, are required to avoid their idolatry and forbidden to marry "only in the Lord." A gross error, however, is practiced here, for Christians disregard this requirement and marry out of Christ, and preachers, for the sake of position or a fee, solemnize the ceremony! The Jews, by their intercourse with other nations, and their desire to be like them became so corrupt and faithless, that only Caleb and Joshua were permitted to enter Canaan, and how can we practice as they did and avoid a like consequence? If only two in six hundred thousand enter the Heavenly Canaan well might the Savior say, "Straight is the gate and(l narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it; for wide is the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat." As in the type we had the King, the subjects, and the law, while the territory was only promised; so in the antitype we have the King, the subjects, and the law, while the territory is only promised, and can be attained only by a patient and faithful continuance in serving our Captain until he shall bring us in triumph to possess the Heavenly Canaan. As they, as a nation had to journey through the nations in order to reach their promised land, so we are but "sojourners" in the nations--"Strangers and pilgrims," "Having no continuing city, but seeking one to come." And as "citizens of heaven," (Phil. iii:20), we are admonished to "pass the time of our sojourning here in fear." Jesus is our Monarch, and, as such, is sole lawgiver. He has not delegated us to make laws in his kingdom, the one to which we belong, and certainly we can claim no right to make laws for a kingdom to which we do not belong, and of which we are no part but simply sojourning therein. If we be only sojourners we are not citizens, and, therefore cannot interfere with, alter, or amend the law, however tyrannical and oppressive; however contrary to our sense of right it may be. We are simply no part of these kingdoms. We owe allegiance to another. But as sojourners, we must obey the law of the nations in which we sojourn, when that law does not conflict with the law of our own government or King; just as the American citizen, sojourning in a foreign land, must submit to the law of that land, until such law conflicts with duty to his own government. Submission is enjoined by Scriptures, and required by the government in which we sojourn, but both reason and Scripture teach that this submission is not unconditional or unqualified. The American citizen can submit to the demands of a foreign government only when those demands are not in conflict with allegiance to his own government. So to the Christian, God's law is paramount. To it all conflicting demands must yield. The Apostolic language is: "We ought to obey God rather than man." "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." The wife is required to obey her husband, and the servant to obey his master, but, of course, this obedience is only to lawful demands, or, in other words, that which is in harmony with the last will and testament. If, therefore, the commands and requirements of government conflict with this standard; if, in other words, the government commands what God has forbidden, its commands must be disregarded. We have no right to obey; obedience becomes a sin. In case of such conflict, however, the Christian must not resist, but submit by suffering the penalty for noncompliance. Since God requires submission to the lawful demands of government, to refuse such submission, is not only resistance against government but against God also. Hence, we must "submit, not only for wrath," or because the government will execute wrath upon the disobedient, "but also for conscience sake," that our conscience may he void of offense toward God. "For, for this cause, pay you tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing." We must pay whatever tax they may require as the price of a safe sojourn, just as the American citizen must pay, without question, and however exorbitant the tax upon his possessions in a foreign land. As a sojourner he has no voice in the matter. Though in the foreign land, he is not of it; so the Christian, "though in the world, is not of the world." And as the American citizen cannot stop to inquire to what uses his tribute-money will be appropriated, neither can the Christian stop for such inquiry. It is no more his right to inquire, than it is to inquire what uses his alien neighbor will make of the just dues he pays him.

I have now, here, and elsewhere, redeemed my promise to consider the requirement to "be subject to the powers that be," and to all, it must be manifest that this subjection does not necessarily imply citizenship, or active support and assistance. On the contrary, it is implied that Christians do not constitute these powers, as, if so, they are exhorted to be subject to their own rule. It would be about as consistent to exhort a father to be subject to his own discipline. Government should not, and cannot, of right, require the Christian to do what is in conflict with the Christian's law; but if it should require say, for example, bearing arms, and in lieu of bearing arms, should require a tax of one hundred, two hundred, or five hundred dollars, the Christian must pay it if necessary. And if he have not so much, and government is not satisfied with what he has, still he must not fight. And if no opportunity is offered to make satisfaction by paying tribute, still the Christian must not fight. Nor can he supply a substitute, for may he not as well kill a man, as to pay another one thousand dollars to kill him? God disfranchised the Christian by forbidding him to shed the blood of his fellows. For, in voting men choose agents to kill, make war, &c., knowing that they are required to commit those acts under oath when occasion demands it. Yet many vote who think it sinful to bear arms, apparently not able to see that both must stand or fall together. He who votes, virtually says, I will fight; for what is the law enacted by our vote, without the executive force behind it? But the primitive Christian refused to fight at the bidding of the reigning monarch, under any circumstances--in many cases suffering death as a penalty for non-compliance, as history informs us.

I here pause to notice an objection. It is urged that the Christian may as well be a party in the execution of law, as to pay tax to further the demands of law. I reply that paying tax is not a sanction of the corruptions and excesses of government. If so, Jesus approbated the wickedness of the Roman government by paying taxes, and God encourages the sinner by sending him rain. The American citizen, paving taxes in a tyrannical government is not supposed to approve its tyranny. Why, then, so suppose of the Christian under similar circumstances?

At this point I must also notice another objection. We are told, says the objector, that Paul claimed Roman citizenship, and was not simply a sojourner, but enjoyed citizen rights. To which I reply, that we should not base too much upon his case, until we see what is comprehended in his citizenship--the nature and extent of his privileges. The word citizen is used with much latitude of meaning, reaching over the whole line, from unrestricted citizen's rights down to the simple rights of the alien. Blackstone says, "Local or temporary allegiance is due from an alien to the government in which he resides." Here, then, is much latitude for restricted citizenship. This, too, is characteristic of our own government. Here women and children are citizens, but denied the rights of franchise, hence are only restricted citizens. Also, he who only sojourns among us, is for the time being, a restricted citizen, enjoying many citizen rights. So of the Christian, as a sojourner in earthly governments, though his "citizenship is in heaven (Phil. iii:20). Paul being of this class, enjoyed only a restricted citizenship, as we shall see. Who believes that Paul's citizenship vindicated and enforced the laws of that power, whose pleasure it was to murder his fellow-Christians by thousands? This would have been to fight against his own dearest interests, and with his own hands to overthrow that for which he was constantly suffering. Who believes that Paul's citizenship vindicated and enforced the laws of that kingdom, which the kingdom of Christ, to which he belonged, was to "break in pieces and consume?" This would have been to overthrow himself. In the nature of things his was a restricted citizenship. But the nature of his privileges may be known by reference to the Roman law. The Dictionary in Holman's Family Bible, compiled from Smith, Kitto, and Fairbairn, says: "The Roman law had two classes of citizens. The first class were entitled to vote, hold office, and carry on public business. The second class enjoyed the protection of the law as freemen." This was Paul's privilege. Pliny and Appian tell us that Tarsus was a free city. Appian even says its citizens were not required to pay tribute. And Paul being born therein, was "free born," and entitled to the second class of citizenship- -the protection of the law as a free man. Paul, then, could claim Roman citizenship from that peculiarity of the government which made Tarsus a free city; and, doubtless, for reasons that no other apostle or any Christian of this day, could urge. Being only a citizen of the second class, he could not vote, hold office, or carry on public business, yet he could claim the protection of the law. This much he did; more than this is only conjecture.

7th. A seventh reason is, That the kingdoms of this world are of the Devil's dominions. To many this is a very unwelcome truth, if true. But if admitted to be true, then how easy to account for the tendency to corruption in political circles, and the existence of corruption in the governmental arena to-day. And, if admitted, how great the sin of the religious world, by its amalgamation with the political powers of earth--those appointed by God as "avengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." On the other hand, if it be not admitted that the kingdoms of the world belong to the Devil, then Christians must be the responsible element, and still, I say, how great the sin, and how heavily does responsibility for the present corruption and enormities of government rest upon them. We now offer the evidence of its truthfulness.

All will concede that there are but two great heads, powers, or kingdoms, in the world--that of God; and that of Satan. All mankind belong to one or the other of these kingdoms. All give allegiance to one or the other. Originally, man was subject to God, or of God's kingdom, but by rebellion the rebellious became identified with other rebellious spirits, and subjects of another kingdom, the kingdom of the Devil. The loyal are God's people, the rebellious defy him, and are the children of the Devil. Of such Jesus says, "Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lust of your father will ye do." "The tares are the children of the wicked one." "He that committeth sin is of the Devil." God's providence, however, is over all. He gives rain and fruitful seasons to all. Jesus thus classifies in the following language: "He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." These facts give a reason why the Jews were no part of other nations: For, if all other nations, except the Jewish nation, God's covenanted people, were Satanic powers, the Jew could not become a part of other nations, but by rebellion against God and allegiance to Satan. And if this were true in the type, much more is it true in the antitype, where we seek a higher life under "a more excellent way."

As there are but two powers, whatever is not of one is necessarily of the other. That which is no part of Christ's kingdom, is of the Devil's. So when Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world," the necessary conclusion is that the kingdoms of this world are no part of his kingdom; therefore, they belong to the Devil's dominions. The headship of Christ and the Devil is the sum of all power; the kingdoms of this world are not Christ's; therefore they are the Devil's. Is not this a logical sequence? If it be urged that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," we admit it, in the sense of creation--and this much is implied in the context wherever the passage occurs- -but by rebellion and by grant they are not the Lord's. Certainly the rebellious of earth are not the Lord's. -"Ye are of your father, the Devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do " said Jesus. "All that are in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eye, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." To man was given dominion over the earth, but man rebelled and gave allegiance to Satan, and Satan became master of his dominions. In harmony with this, Job says, "The earth is given into the hand of the wicked; he (the wicked one) covereth the faces of the judges thereof" (Job ix:23). In the first chapter of Job, we learn that not only were the Sabian and the Chaldean hosts his servants, but even the elements, fire and wind, did his bidding. John, speaking of Christians, says, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the wicked one" (I John v:19, by Anderson, &c). In the temptation of Jesus, the Devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and said, "I will give you all the authority and glory of these, for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it" (Luke iv:6, ibid). Here the ownership is ascribed to the Devil in explicit language. Does any object that we only have the Devil's word for it, and that he is a liar? I reply, that we want to do the Devil justice, and more especially to do our Savior justice. But, in this case, we cannot do justice to his claims to Divinity, in knowing all things, but by admitting the sincerity of the Devil's pretensions. The record says Jesus was tempted in this transaction (Luke iv:2), and it is clear as that the Devil made truthful pretensions, as is the divinity of Jesus. For Jesus knew if the Devil was asserting truth or falsehood, and his being tempted by the offer of the kingdoms, is conclusive proof the Devil asserted truth, as it could have been no temptation had Jesus known that the Devil did not possess the kingdoms.

Gentle reader, if some one should offer to you the authority and glory of all the kingdoms of the world, or even that of the Presidency of the United States, who, you know, can lay no claims to such authority and honors, would you be tempted by the offer? Certainly you would not. Then what conceptions must one have of the divinity of Jesus, with the assurance that he was tempted by the offer of the kingdoms and yet deny that the Devil made truthful pretensions in the ownership of the kingdoms? Of him Paul says, "It behooved him to be made in all things like unto his brethren," that he took upon himself our nature, "and was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin." He did not yield to the temptation offered by Satan, in the authority and glory of the kingdoms of the world; but his followers yield to the temptation offered, in the name, position, influence, wealth, and honor of an Empire, a Kingdom, or even positions of authority in a Republican government. They need more of the spirit of their Master, which says, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." They even court these positions, and to gain them, compromise Christianity by stooping to the trickery of party, and scruple not to accept the assistance and influence of intoxicating liquors, bribery, &c., as auxiliaries to the end desired. Only think of a Christian, a child of God, than whom there is none greater, begging and bribing the Devil for a position in his kingdom!

Who will deny that our "seventh reason" is established by the foregoing proofs? And being established, it is settled that the kingdoms of the world are of the Devil's dominions. Jesus asserts the same when he calls the Devil "the prince of this world" (John xiv:30). Paul calls him "the god of this world" (2 Cor. iv:4)

We have then these two great Kings, Kingdoms, or Powers. The one of light, the other of darkness; the one righteous, the other unrighteous; the one of Christ, the other of Satan. They can have no affinity. For "What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? What communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Cor. vi:14,15)

8th. An eighth reason is, That the Christian being forbidden to go to law before the world is conclusive evidence that the law and its officers are not in the hands of Christians or the church; but in the hands of and administered by the world (See 1 Cor. vi:1-8). This passage simply negatives the idea, that Christians fill and administer the offices of government. For if they did, their going to law would be before the saints rather than the "unbeliever." Bishop Butler says: "Civil government is that part of God's government over the world, which he exercises by the instrumentality of men." This, with the term men modified to embrace only the species, in moral character, rather than the genus, is certainly true. We have already seen that the wicked is the species who is the hand, instrumentality, or sword of God, and who, as his minister, is a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. But this being forbidden to the Christian, he could not hold the offices of government, and brethren who resorted to law for the adjustment of their difficulties, had to go to law before the "unjust." The language of Peter, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors sent by him," &c. (1 Peter ii:13,14), implies that all the Christian has to do with these ordinances, is to submit to them, not to make them. So the language of Paul, "Be subject to the powers that be," implies only subjection, rather than active support and assistance, and that the Christian does not make, or execute, or constitute these powers. But we should remember that the instrumentality is men, and not expect the stream to rise above its fountain. Imperfect men will devise imperfect laws and give them an imperfect ministration. God, of himself, "may graduate punishment according to the real guilt of the criminal, but no human government can do this." The inspired word is, "go to law before the unjust." So, in harmony with this, the penal sanctions of civil government are not merely to satisfy the demands of justice, or to make amends for the mischief done. In their nature, they are not retributive. Nor are they reformative. "Government has not to do with the reformation and moral character of the criminal. It inflicts punishment for its own safety in the prevention of crime." Therefore the basis of its penal sanctions is preventive. The motive power for restraint is fear, or the wrath of the insulted power, and not justice or reformation. While, for the Christian, the motive enjoined is, "Not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake."

If the foregoing "reasons" be sound, logical, and Scriptural, there can be no longer a question as to the right of the Christian to make and execute the laws of civil government. He is prohibited, because it is virtually a union of Church and State; because connection therewith is certain corruption; because the duties and objects of civil government are forbidden to the Christian; because he belongs to a distinct kingdom, because his kingdom is to "break in pieces and consume"- -overthrow and destroy, all other kingdoms; because he is only a sojourner and not a citizen in these kingdoms; because the kingdoms of this world belong to the Devil; and because, in New Testament language, the law and its offices are administered by the "unbeliever"--the "unjust." These being established, or any one of them, it is evident that any further reasoning on the subject is gratuitous; for until they are nullified, it is settled that the Christian's jurisdiction is not over the law. And from these I educe the following summary:

1. There are but two powers or kingdoms for man--that of God and that of Satan.

2. All accountable humanity belong to one or the other of these kingdoms.

3. But for rebellion all men would have belonged to the kingdom of God.

4. The Jewish people as a nation, in their bondage, and exit from Egypt, and in their journey to Canaan were typical of the bondage, deliverance, and trials of the people of Christ.

5. As they were a holy nation, and, as such, no part of other nations, but separate from them, so the Christian is a "holy nation," and, as such, no part of other nations.

6. We cannot give allegiance to two kingdoms at once, at least those so much in conflict as that of Christ and that of Satan.

7. The kingdoms of this world are no part of the kingdom of Christ.

8. They are of the Devil's dominion; hence the Christian cannot make or execute their law.

9. As the type, the Jewish nation, sojourned through other nations to reach Canaan, so Christians must sojourn through the nations to reach the Heavenly Canaan.

10. As sojourners, nothing can be required of us only as sojourners. Nothing to conflict with allegiance to our own King.

11. As sojourners, we enjoy only the privileges of sojourners, which are more or less according to the liberality of the kingdom in which we sojourn. The leaven is at work, however, and Christian liberty is becoming more universal.

I think enough has now been said to establish the foregoing reasons as both logical and Scriptural; whence it follows that all the Christian has to do with the law is to obey it. They are not, like the nations, to have "princes" among them, to "exercise dominion over them," or "great ones" to "exercise authority upon them."

9th. Having considered the rights of Christians in civil government, we will next examine the question practically, or the Christian's ability to correct the evils of government, even if his jurisdiction extended over it. With the facts before me, I cannot admit his ability to effect this end. The history and experience of the past, and the facts of the present, assure us that we need not expect reform from that source. Whatever be the imperfections of civil government, it is evident that the Christian element cannot correct them. Christians have acted a conspicuous part in the United States government since its foundation, but what is there in the recent campaign, or in the corruption, fraud, and bribery of the government to the credit of Christian principles? We will suppose that they have given it the best support they could, but instead of purifying it, has it not rather become putrid on their hands? Instead of purifying it, do not all more or less compromise the dignity and purity of Christianity, by their efforts in behalf of Caesar, and corrupt themselves? Where is the man upon the pages of history whose life might not have reflected more fully the gloriously beautiful life of Jesus Christ, but for his part in the government? The church, in its representatives has lost much of its high, God-like bearing, and is conformed to the world. Many Christians (?) who have not a dime for the cause of Christ, have dollars for the furtherance of party schemes, and for a bonfire or cannonading in triumph! Christians are as much at a loss and differ as much as to the needs of government, as do non-professors. They are divided and subdivided upon issues antagonistic, and are as much at variance as are men of the world. They labor and pray, resort to the trickery of party, and coalesce with the world, to carry these conflicting interests against one another. And we might as well try to bring order out of chaos as to try to harmonize these conflicting elements. Yet this chaotic wrangle is the saving element in the government--the means by which they are to correct and reform it! If Christians could know the needs of government, be a unit with respect to those needs and then have the co-operation of all acknowledging the superiority of Christian principles, there might be reason for hope; but in the absence of this knowledge, this unity, and this co-operation, all effort, is hopeless. On the contrary, the most oppressive governments that ever existed were under the control of professed Christians. Indeed, I think it may be said, that, as a rule, rulers have not been "a terror to good works," only when they adopted the policies dictated by religious advisers. The policies of these advisers has generally been to direct the attention of their ruler and nation away from their own sins, and magnify the sins, real or imputed, of a probable enemy. And the chances are, that while they slander the absent and undefended, they excite the bad passions of their own adherents. Instead of following in the footsteps of Jesus, "who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered he threatened not; but submitted himself to him that judgeth righteously," and instructing their adherents how to be saved eternally, they are prolific in devising means for the destruction of others, and arousing those brutal passions which result in riot, bloodshed, spoliation, civil war, and general corruption of morals. The experience of fifteen centuries is that more than half the bloody wars which, at different periods, have desolated Christendom and cursed the world, were directly instigated by such advisers; and wherever they have thrust themselves into a contest commenced by others, they always envenomed the strife and made it more cruel, savage, and uncompromising. What of the wars, in which millions of lives were lost, which followed the Arian controversy? the thirty years' war in Germany, between Catholicism and Protestantism? with similar wars between England and Ireland? or the wars waged by the clergy of England and Scotland, to settle the questions of election, reprobation, &c.? Or, coming to Massachusetts and Connecticut of our own country, in colonial times when, under the Puritan rule, they waged treacherous wars upon the Indians for purposes wholly mercenary; enslaved white men as well as red, and sold them abroad, or "swapped them for blackamoors," and were so intolerant of religion, that they whipped imprisoned, exiled, and killed the Quakers and Baptists for their conscientious opinions. As a further example of their austerity, see the "blue laws of Connecticut." These facts furnish an instance of "Protestantism fleeing from oppression, appealing to liberty, and then closing the door against her." Who ushered in the reign of Know-Nothings, Blood Tubs, and Plug Uglies, when pulpits resounded every Sunday with injurious falsehoods, and ministers met their political allies in sworn secrecy to plot against the rights of their fellow-citizens? And what was the consequence? Riot, murder, church burning, and lawless violence all over the land. Who provoked our late civil war, which clad our nation in mourning and the rags of poverty, and shocked the civilized world? Who excited servile insurrection, and while they slandered their absent brethren, and not only severed the ties of brotherly love, and disclaimed brotherly connection, but engendered such an enmity and hatred, as quickened the baser, brutal passions of their adherents into a vow of extermination against those who chanced to understand the Scripture differently --sometimes seeming to feel it an act of the highest glory to kill a Rebel or a Yankee? (I refer only to facts, not to party.) Who applied the torch, and who fanned the flame which consumed the vitals of our government, and left but the charred remains to the world and to posterity, with much the same result with the Church? Those who lived through those pages of our history, do not need to be told that all of this was the work of prominent actors in the respective churches. They were sometimes known to use their persuasive powers, accompanied by exciting speeches and other things calculated to enlist the young, that they might bind the soldier's yoke upon them, but "they would not touch it with their little finger." And when reminded that they must love and feed their enemies, their reply was, "I will feed them with bullets." Indeed, it seems that, when once they stepped over the line, to vent their wrath upon their fellows, all means were hallowed for that end. These historical references and many more that might be given, give us but little reason for hope from that source.

Another reason for the impracticability of reform here, is the impossibility of the Christian voting intelligibly. If our best statesmen not only disagree, but take opposite positions on the vital issues, how can the common citizen know the needs of government, without which he cannot vote intelligibly, and without which intelligence his act is not honorable or to his credit? I think I may safely say, that not one in one hundred, if any at all, can cast a vote with that degree of intelligence which will mark it as a noble act! What is there about a vote to make it noble, except the motives which prompt it, and the results which follow? If the motive rests upon that degree of intelligence which certainly assures us that the vote will promote, or tend to promote our highest interests, it is a noble act, and especially if the desired results are attained. But who votes thus intelligently? We must be ignorant as to the issues, and largely so as to the policies, as well as of the character and merits of the candidate.

Now, I submit to every candid mind, to every lover of truth, if we have a question among us with respect to Christian duty, upon which the evidence is more conclusive, or which is more satisfactorily settled by the inspired word, than is this, as set forth in the reasons offered in these pages? And I further submit, if it is not as well sustained by the facts before us, that whatever be the imperfections of government, the Christian element will not and cannot correct them?

This may be so averse to our former understanding, that we admit its truth reluctantly; but, if true, it must be received, and that cheerfully. For to him who receives not the love of the truth, God will send a strong delusion that he may believe a lie and be damned (2 Thes. ii:12).

It must now be regarded as settled, that the Christian is no part of earthly governments. They belong to Satan, and the Christian cannot be a law-maker or an executive therein, as such service is in behalf of Satan, the wicked subjects of whom is the "hand" or "sword" of God--his minister to execute wrath upon the evil doer.

Is Christianity, then, to have no influence upon the political destiny of the nations? Certainly it is. But is the influence of Christianity not felt only when exerted through the officers of the law? We have already seen that it is badly represented there, and we have reason to believe that it would soon be unfelt if confined to them. It generally shines more brightly in the lives of more humble citizens. And certainly the leaven of Christianity would not cease to influence government if Christians withdraw. It would rather work more favorably when divested of so incompatible an element, by which Christianity is compromised. For the government is to execute wrath, the very thing that is prohibited to the Christian. I know that some limit this prohibition to personal retaliation, but I know not where personal ends with the Christian, either in retaliation or responsibility. It is all a personal matter. We have an account of men being officers before they were Christians, but no such account afterward. On the contrary, history informs us that when officers become Christians they refused to execute their office. The Christian's influence would still be felt in all those higher qualities which will characterize the true Christian. He will hold up Jesus as the light of the world, and be careful to do his will. But if he preach a strict observance of the first day, may he for that reason preach a crusade against the Jews and Seventh-day Baptists, to have intolerant laws enacted against them for keeping Saturday? And while he must warn all against the sin of intemperance, what right has he to provoke violent hostilities against tavern-keepers, liquor dealers, and liquor makers? He may show the inconsistency of polygamy with Christianity, and its dangers to domestic happiness, but is it, therefore, lawful for him to carry fire and sword into the territory of the Mormons? Certainly no lover of truth and righteousness will be so reckless of Christian principles as to advocate a thing so incompatible with Christianity.

As a climax of the evidence now offered, I will restate numerically as follows:

1st. For Christians to make and execute the laws of civil government, is essentially a union of Church and State; but such a union has always been degrading and corrupting to the Church; therefore Christians should not make or execute the laws of civil government.

2nd. That which corrupts the children of God, and lowers the dignity of Christianity, must be spurned by the Christian; but connection with the law of civil government, in the practice, making and execution of law, both corrupts the Christian and lowers the dignity of Christianity; therefore the Christian must avoid all such connection.

3rd. While the government is the minister of God--a revenger to execute wrath upon the evil doer, the Christian is strictly forbidden to do this; but that which is forbidden to him either in principle or by express statute, he cannot do without sin; therefore he must not make or administer the laws of civil government.

4th. The laws of any distinct kingdom can be made and executed only by the subjects of that kingdom; but the kingdoms of the world are distinct from and no part of the kingdom of Christ (John xviii: 36); therefore the Christian cannot make or execute the laws of civil government.

5th. Any kingdom which is to "break in pieces and consume" another, cannot be so far a part of that other as to make, enforce, and vindicate its laws; but the kingdom of Christ is to break in pieces and consume the kingdoms of this world; therefore the Christian cannot make or execute the laws of the kingdoms of this world.

6th. The Christian, as a subject of a distinct kingdom, is sojourning in the kingdoms of the world; but the subject of a distinct kingdom, thus sojourning in another kingdom, cannot alter or amend the laws of that other; therefore the Christian cannot alter or amend the laws of the kingdoms of the world.

7th. No service, essentially of the Devil's dominions, can be performed by the Christian; but we have seen (see reason 7th) that the kingdoms of this world are of his dominions; therefore the Christian cannot render any service in these, which is essentially of them.

8th. Any kingdom whose laws and offices are not in the hands of Christians cannot be administered by them; but Paul teaches (I Cor. vi:1-8) that the laws and offices of civil government are not in the hands of Christians; therefore they cannot be administered by Christians.

The force of this evidence is, that the Christian is not a subject of earthly governments, that they belong to the Devil, and service rendered therein is his service. This, of course, the Christian cannot render in loyalty to his Savior and King. But it is still his privilege and duty to influence, so far as he can, in the way of right, those who may make and execute the law, thank God for protection and Christian liberty, and pray for rulers that they may so administer the law, that he as a Christian "may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." Whatever difficulties occur between him and his brethren must be settled in the church, and if either party will not be reconciled, he becomes as a "heathen man and a publican," and may be disposed of as such, or, if you please, as a subject of the world or Satan's kingdom. If any such as last named, interferes with his privileges as a sojourner, he may appeal to the respective power over such a subject, just as the American citizen, sojourning in a foreign land, appeals to that power, when its subjects trespass upon his person or property. In either case, the appeal may not be considered, and while an earthly power may not be able to compel another to consider such appeal, and yet for the Christian, God will bring all things into judgment.

I have never yet met with one who would logically and Scripturally endeavor to dispose of the foregoing reasons. Some simply slur the subject over with as much indifference as if it were of no consequence. They find this a very convenient way to dispose of a subject which gives them trouble at every turn; and on which they prefer to dogmatize, rather than take the position which the force of evidence compels them. Others admit the plausibility of the reasons, and their inability to detect any sophistry in them, or unsoundness Scripturally, but are content to rest upon consequences. This is just the position of Pedobaptists as to the essentiality of baptism. They rest on consequences--saying that to admit its essentiality is to unchristianize a large per cent of the best people in the world. And those who take this position should never controvert that question with them. But will not the true man of faith admit that, if the foregoing be the plan of Heaven, there should be no question on consequences? If unerring wisdom dictates the course, will human wisdom devise a better? It certainly becomes an erring being to regulate his actions by an acquiescent reference to an unerring will. Are we willing to say that the Almighty has directed us amiss, and thus impeach his wisdom or his goodness? Does our faith in Jesus lead us to set up our own views of safety and interest, rather than follow the precepts he has given us? Those who are ready to sustain the consequences of an undeviating obedience are the supporters of whom Christianity stands in need. She wants men who are willing to suffer for her principles. But why raise questions on consequences? In whose hands have these things been? In whose hands are they now? What per cent of them are true Christians? Certainly a very large per cent are only nominally such--not deserving the name. While a very large per cent of those who lay no claim to the name, acknowledge the Bible as divine, and as containing the only title to a home beyond, and even infidels admit it contains the best system of morals ever devised for man. These three classes are largely in the majority over the Christian, and credit is due to them for the blessings of government. If the Christian should withdraw, the leaven of Christianity would still be felt, and the above classes would still give tone to the government, leaving but little reason to expect a change radically different from the present, or what it might be with their continuance. Have we not seen that Christians cannot correct the evil? That in spite of their efforts, the government has become corrupt, and they have become corrupt with it? Then what change for the worse could take place? But, suppose persecution should follow, and Christian liberty be lessened, would it be worse than during the early periods of Christianity? Yet, then, the martyr was the seed of the church, and the gospel was more prolific than at any subsequent period. And in the history of our own country, when the Quakers were whipped, imprisoned, exiled, and even hanged, history informs us that their pure and unspotted lives enlisted the sympathy of many, and popular sentiment at length checked ecclesiastical intolerance, and compelled a relaxation of the severity of law; and that their constancy and courage established in Massachusetts the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Would not the principles of Christianity be alike triumphant now under similar circumstances? Would not these principles command respect now, as did the divine principles of non-resistance as exhibited by the Quakers in the settlement of Pennsylvania? The Indian said of the Quaker, "That man has the good spirit; he will not harm us." "Thus they were armed without arms; strong without strength; safe without the ordinary means of safety, and that for more than seventy years." Have we yet to learn the necessity of performing the duties of Christianity without reference to consequences? We may not always see why the Lord has led us along this road, but we should not like the Israelites, rebel, lest, like them, we fail to reach the promised land. Jesus says, "Follow me," and cannot we trust him for consequences? If Jesus has marked out non-interference with civil government as the line of the Christian's duty, will the man of faith stop to raise questions on consequences? As the seed of faithful Abraham, he will do as he who "went out, not knowing whither he went." The Christian must follow the orders of his Captain--dare to do right without regard to consequences. But if any raise such questions, the above facts and considerations, as well as others not here given, show that the consequences may be even better, rather than so direful as some would have us believe.

Having now examined the relation of Christians to civil government, the impracticability, yes, impossibility, of its imperfections being removed by them, and the consequences of their withdrawal, we leave these reflections with the reader. It must be evident to all, that the voter cannot stop short of whatever military or other operations and provisions that may be necessary for the preservation of the government. This is but the climax of Popish amalgamation. But in the most successful period of the kingdom of Christ, no such amalgamation was known; and while many steps have been taken to get back to the authority and kingship of Jesus, it seems essential that another be taken to bring the church to shine down upon the nations, in its full orbed splendor, as the light of the world.