which were proper and peculiar to that people and government.

What is the reason of this?

66

First, Because under the Old Covenant severity and rigour obtained; but under the New, favour and mercy, whereby the rigour which these laws exacted is mitigated, as far as can be done without public detriment: for, to adopt here also the words of the apostle, we are not under the Law but under Grace." Secondly, Because under the Old Covenant God's people had a form of government prescribed and instituted by God himself; which government terminating, the laws and judicial regulations especially adapted to it, also vanished. Hence it happens that that class of laws which in their first application referred to earthly happiness, and the preservation of peace, are sometimes applied in an accommodated sense to a covenant which holds out to us scarcely any other than spiritual and celestial benefits, promising earthly advantages but very sparingly-whereas, on the contrary, in the Old Covenant, nothing but the blessings of this life was expressly and openly promised to the Israelites, as I will show you hereafter. If then any of the judicial laws of Moses are admitted into Christian governments also, it is not because they were published by him, but because without them civil society could not be preserved and maintained.

Have not then the government and administration of magistracy and of earthly commonwealths been done away?

By

.

By no means; since all power is from God (Rom. xiii. 1). Mankind could not exist without society, nor society be maintained without a magistrate and governor: and indeed the church of Christ itself supports civil government, since it could not assemble except where civil government existed. Hence the apostle exhorts (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2) " 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." And any person may engage in the magistracy, provided that in undertaking and discharging its duties he so conduct himself as not to offend against the laws and institutions of Christ 49.

Explain

40 There is not room in this place to say much upon this difficult question concerning magistracy. It is justly shown above that we are no longer bound either by the ceremonial or the judicial laws of the Old Covenant; for both the political and sacerdotal order of the Jewish Church, as the shadows of future things, have ceased; and new rites, and new laws, by which Christians ought to be judged, have been instituted by Christ, our supreme legislator, priest, and king; and also new penalties, of a corresponding nature, against those who disobey these laws. This king has also established a new government in the commonwealth of the New Covenant, and that, as already stated, a spiritual one, conformable to the property of this kingdom and covenant. Ephes. iv. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 28. But we no where read that he instituted, besides this government, any other magistracy; or ordained any kings or princes besides himself, who might exercise coercive authority, and the power of life and death, over his subjects and brethren. Indeed, it appears from Matthew xx. 25, &c.; Mark x. 42, &c.; Luke xxii. 25, &c.; that he forbade his disciples in such a way as this to exercise dominion over one another in his church and kingdom (which is not of this world, John xviii. 36),

Explain, at length, what are the moral precepts of the Law, and what Christ has added to them?

They are of two kinds : some general, and others particular,

and enforced his precept by his own example. Hence it may be concluded, that it best becomes Christians, who have here no continuing city (Heb. xiii. 14), but whose roμ is in heaven (Philipp. iii. 20), to remain in that state wherein their Lord founded the first church, and in which it flourished about three centuries, that is, under afflictions, and under persecution; to relinquish civil magistracy to the men of this world; and to refrain from usurping for themselves the right of exercising authority over others, and much more of shedding human blood, without the express command, or at least the permission, of the supreme Lord. For the persons above referred to, whom Paul directs to be obeyed, or for whom he exhorts that prayers should be offered up, were heathen magistrates. Should difficulties occur to any one, respecting these passages of Scripture, or others of a similar kind, he will find explanations of them by J. L. Wolzogenius in his Treatise de Natura et Qualitate Regni Christi, and also in his writings against Schlichtingius. For the latter, with many of his contemporaries, members of these churches, was of a contrary opinion. But, it must be observed, that the first persons in Poland, of the confession which is set forth in this Catechism, called first Pinczovians, afterwards Racovians,-of whom the leaders were Gregory Paul, Peter Gonesius, George Schoman, Martin Czechovicius,-maintained that it was not lawful for a Christian to bear the office of a magistrate. It seems that the Fathers of the Church for nearly the first three centuries were also of this opinion, as will appear from an examination of their works. B. WISSOWATIUS.

[The question considered in the preceding note, and in the answer in the text that led to it,-Whether it were lawful for a Christian to exercise magistracy and bear arms,―was one upon which the Unitarians on the continent were greatly divided in opinion, and holds a prominent place in their controversial writings. Among the earliest persons who maintained the negative of this question were Gregory Paul, Peter Gonesius or Conyza, George Schoman, and Martin Czechovicius, mentioned above by Wissowatius. To these names might be added Joachim

particular, whereby the general are explained; and are comprised in the Decalogue.

What are the general precepts ?

Those

Joachim Stegman, jun., Daniel Brenius, and above all J. L. Wolzogenius, who has entered at great length into the subject in the three following tracts above referred to, inserted among his works in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, viz. De Nutura et Qualitate Regni Christi :—Annotationes ad Questiones J. Schlichtingii de Magistratu, Bello, et privata Defensione :— Responsio ad J. Schlichting Annotationes in Annotationes de Bello, Magistratu, et privata Defensione. On the other side, the controversy was carried on by Stanislaus Budzinius, who addressed a letter on these points to the Synod of Racow, and another to Gregory Paul; by Jacob Paleologus in Transylvania; by Simon Budnæus, Samuel Przipcovius, Jonas Schlichtingius, Daniel Zwicker, and Faustus Socinus. The reader has seen above a specimen of the reasoning of those who contended for the negative of the question ;-the following extract comprises a summary of Socinus's sentiments in support of the affirmative. It is a part of a letter to Elias Arcissevius (Socin. Op. fol. p. 603), and is here inserted in Dr. Toulmin's translation (Life of Socinus, p. 235, &c.): “I think it lawful for a Christian to bear the office even of a chief magistrate, if, in the execution of his office, he do not any thing contrary to Christian charity. I can scarcely think that Christian charity by any means allows the putting of the guilty to death, or mutilating their limbs. Nor will any Christian magistrate, if he regard my advice, venture to do this. The question relative to war, whether it can be vindicated or not, is much more difficult. Whether, for instance, a Christian who fills the post of the supreme magistrate, can, without the violation of Christian charity, use the assistance of those who are disposed to hire themselves to him :-notwithstanding I am of opinion that it is not allowable for a private Christian, even in order to keep off a war, to kill any one, or to mutilate him in any limb, though the supreme magistrate command him to do it: otherwise, it appears to me lawful for a Christian to be armed, and to march with others to suppress, without the murder of any one, the attack of assailing enemies when he has first tried every measure that he may not be compelled to march forth, but may be allowed to purchase

Those wherein Christ states that the Law and the Prophets are comprised; namely, the Love of God and of our neighbour: both of which are in the Decalogue explained by particular precepts.

What is the general precept concerning the love of God?

This is expressed in the following words of Moses (Deut. vi. 5, 6), "The Lord our God is one Lord; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might:" which command is thus quoted by Mark (xii. 30) and Luke (x. 27), "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength."

What is the meaning of this precept?

That we devote to the worship and service of God, since he is ONE ONLY, whatever we possess of affection, whatever of capacity, either in respect to our will, our understanding, or our bodies, or to those powers and faculties which have been granted to us. For this precept, even as it is expressed by Moses, appears so comprehensive as to embrace the whole of the commandments of God delivered in the Law. But as

with money a leave of absence from personal services of this kind: which if he cannot obtain, it is better, in my judgement, to run some danger of giving offence to the weak in the faith, than to draw most certain ruin on himself and his connections. I will not allege that offence is not less given, nay much more offered, to a great number, when any one refuses to obey the supreme magistrate; who, all agree, in things not plainly repugnant to the precepts of Christ, is to be entirely obeyed." TRANSL.]