legitimacy of the government that issues it. An unlawful government cannot make a lawful national currency. Hence, our Lord called for a denarius or Roman penny, in order to determine the question about Cesar's title to tribute.

It may be observed, that the passage you just now recited, seems exceptionable, as it implies, that there are right things which persons are to do, from the fear of being compelled to do them by physical force, while they are not bound to do them, because they are required by the moral law. But certainly we must allow the moral law, the law of God, to be a perfect rule; and therefore, it is evident, that there is nothing right, nothing that ought to be done, which that law does not require. The moral law, no doubt, requires things to be done in some circumstances, which it does not require to be done in other circumstances. But in every case, as it is circumstanced, the moral law determines what is duty, and requires it: and whatever is duty ought to be done, because the law requires it. Farther, it may be observed, that according to this distinction, there is one class of right things which persons are to do, because they may be compelled to do them by physical force; and another class of such things which are to be done, because the moral law requires them. But, in truth, that which is always to determine what ought to be done, is the moral law, the only rule of duty, and not motives or external occasions suggesting motives. It is certainly the doctrine of the holy scriptures, that we should not make the impulse of any passion, of hope or fear, of love or hatred, the standard by which we are to determine any act to be sin or duty. The revealed will of God, and nothing else, is that standard. These two questions, What things ought to be done, and what should move us to do them, are always formally distinct, and require different answers.

§ 63. Alex. Have not this body lately published a new statement of their profession, entitled, Reformation Principles Exhibited?

Ruf. Yes. I suppose, however, they will not disapprove a reference to the former testimony as a declaration of their genuine tenets. With regard to the new work, of which you speak, it may not be improper to observe, that the Seceders have reason to complain of the first part of it, as misrepresenting some of their principles. This will. appear by reading a short paper, which I have written, containing a contrast, in some particulars, between the statement which the Seceders themselves give of their principles, and that which is given in this publication.

Statement given by Seceders.

1. Mere usurpers can have no lawful authority and if they shall acquire the consent of the people, whether expressed or tacit, they then cease to be such, and are invested with authority, whereunto God commands subjection and obedience in matters lawful. Again, in order to render one an habitual tyrant, it is at least necessary that he leave ruling by

Statement given in Reformation Principles Exhi

bited.

1. The Seceders condemned all distinction between such rulers as happened, in Divine Providence, to have the power of a nation upon unlawful principles, such as ruled by Divine ap

and

Statement given by Seceders.

and bring to pass, that civil government among them, in all the appurtenances of

Ibid.

its constitution and administration, run that magistrates have noin an agreeableness to the word of God, thing to do with christianity. and to the interests of the true religion and reformation of the church; as otherwise they cannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched by the blessings of the gospel.

The whole people, adjoining themselves to the true church, should approve themselves to be true members thereof; and, considered in their conjunct and public capacity, (as thus only the matter is competent unto them) should, by their deed of civil constitution, provide, that their magistrates be obliged to concur in the same true religion and reformation, and to rule them by laws nowise prejudicial, but serviceable thereto.

Display of the Secession Testimony,

Vol. 1st, page 280.

3. What the apostle ascribes unto magistrates, (viz. their being ministers of God for good, being not a terror to good works, but to evil,) is, in some measure, competent to all such in every nation or state. But the advantage lies very far on the side of such as have occasion to exercise their office for promoting the church's public good; while, at the same time, they are privileged with, (and endeavour to discharge their other special business, as well as this, according to) the full discovery which God's word hath made of those natural principles that comprehend the due exercise of their office, as well as its institution and end. The christian magistrate ought to determine himself, not merely by natural, but also by revealed or christian principles, Display of the Secess. Test. Vol. 1, pages 312, 313.

4. That our Lord's Mediatory government and administration doth extend to all outward things in the world of nature and providence, in so far as these things are supernaturally ordered unto supernatural ends, in the spiritual advantage of his church and people, or so far as

3. Seceders maintain, that Divine Revelation is not the rule by which men are to act in their civil constitutions and laws.

Reform. Princip. Exhib. pages 114, 115.

4. The Seceders maintain, that Jesus Christ does not, as Mediator, govern the world.

Reform. Princ. page 115.

When we endeavour to correct the errors of any, we should beware of imputing opinions to them which they do not hold. In this, as in many other controversies, the opposite parties often misunderstand one another. It should be the concern of both parties to discern the snare that keeps them asunder, while both are professing adherence, in other respects, to the same testimony for a covenanted reformation. On this subject, I shall only add one remark: Under the New Testament dispensation, the Lord's people are dispersed through the world as pilgrims and strangers, under a great variety of magistrates; and being always a minority, have little or no share in the choice of these magistrates. On this account, it might have been expected, that if the Holy Spirit had foreseen that most of these magistrates would be unlawful, or such as could not be submitted to or obeyed in their lawful commands, without sin, he would have given his people very particular warning of this danger. On the contrary, there is a deep silence through the whole scripture, as to this matter. We are, indeed, forbidden to walk after the commandment of rulers in any thing unlawful, or in the imposition of human devices in religious worship. But there are no warnings in scripture against submitting to and obeying the lawful commands of the magistrates of any country, who have been chosen and are acknowledged as such by the people there.

§ 64. Alex. Another subject, on which I wished to have some conversation at this time, is the controversy among the Seceders, about a religious clause in some burgess oaths. Though we, in America, are not concerned in these oaths, yet the dispute concerning this matter is interesting, as it must necessarily occupy a conspicuous place in the history of the christian church.

Ruf. The importance of a controversy is to be estimated not only by the occasion which may often seem trivial, but by the manner in which it is conducted, by its bearing on other subjects, and by its consequences. It is certain, that a great deal of truth, both doctrinal and historical, was either denied or maintained by the parties in this dispute. Instances of Divine mercy in upholding any in a steadfast adherence to their witnessing profession, ought to be recorded.

The contested words of the clause in some burgess oaths, are these: "Here I protest before God, and your lordships, that I profess and "allow with my heart the true religion, presently professed within "this realm, and authorised by the laws thereof:-I shall abide thereat, and defend the same to my life's end, and renounce the "Roman religion called Papistry."

Alex. Many think, that the Seceding ministers should not have meddled with this oath, and that it was a thing they had no business with.

Ruf. In the year 1744, the associate presbytery, being considerably increased, agreed to divide themselves into three presbyteries, which were to compose the associate synod. That synod, having met in March 1745, it was proposed, that as the members had agreed to set about public covenanting in their several congregations, so they should endeavour to remove any public bars that might be found to their proceeding in that work. It was then found, that the case of some of their people, who had sworn a burgess oath, having the said

1