CHAPTER V.

THE JEWISH COMMONWEALTH BEING A CHURCH CANNOT BE A MODEL FOR CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

THE

HE idea that the temple and its priesthood were intended to be a model for the Christian Church naturally led to the corresponding idea that the Jewish Commonwealth was intended to be a model for Christian states. The two ideas though closely connected are nevertheless distinct, because, even although it were true that the temple was intended to be the model of the Christian Church, it would not follow that the Jewish kings were intended to be a model for Christian civil magistrates.

To answer the question in the affirmative, it would not be necessary to assume that Christian magistrates must copy the actions of the kings of Judah, even when they did right, irrespective of constitutional restraints and the demands of modern civilisation. The question is, Was the Jewish nation capable of becoming a model for Gentile states? and were the kings of Judah capable of becoming models for Christian magistrates? We now proceed to show that they could not, and that all the miseries, the persecutions, and the bloodshed which have stained the history of the Church since the time of the Reformation have been caused by this gigantic blunder of the Reformers, who avowed their belief in the

monstrous doctrine, that "Whatsoever God requireth of the civil magistrate in Israel and Judah concerning the observation of true religion during the time of the law, the same doth He require of lawful magistrates professing Jesus Christ in the time of the Gospel."

Such was the basis upon which all the Churches of the Reformation were founded, which burned Unitarians for blasphemy, and hanged Roman Catholic priests for idolatry, which made kings and queens the dictators of the nation's faith, and rent in pieces the Church of Christ because it could not conscientiously conform to the religion of the

state.

It is true that modern civilisation has drawn the teeth of this monster, and that only in Roman Catholic countries it is permitted to go the full length of its chain; but it is still domiciled in the constitutions of both Church and state, and it is still with difficulty restrained by the jealous watchfulness of the civilised world.

We at once admit that in the chronicles of the kings of Judah, as well as in all God's dealings with His people Israel as a nation, there is much to instruct us in regard to the duties of civil magistrates, and the best interests of the community; but we must be careful how we draw a parallel between the one and the other, because the Jewish nation occupied a position entirely different from that of any Gentile state, and the kings of Judah an entirely different place from that of any Gentile civil magistrate.

The Jewish commonwealth could never become a model for a Gentile state, because it was in reality a Church, or rather we should say it was the Church of God. The Jewish nation was His peculiar people, which He had called out from the world to be a holy nation under the covenant of Abraham. And surely the government and constitution of a Church must be altogether different from

the government and constitution of a Gentile state. Church watches over the spiritual wellbeing of its members, taking cognisance of sins against God. Lying, drunkenness, immorality, heresy, and such like sins come under its jurisdiction, things which neither the police nor the public prosecutor can take up. Sabbath observance comes under the jurisdiction of the Church; Sabbath protection under that of the civil magistrate. He has no power to command Sabbath observance, but he can prevent any one from depriving others of their sacred day of rest.

Civil government on the other hand deals with crimes against society, not sins against God. What the Romanists call heresy, and Protestants call idolatry, are equally removed from the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate. because God alone is Lord of the conscience. Religious opinions, and forms of worship of whatever kind they may be, are free to all, except in so far as they invade the rights, or outrage the decencies of society. For example, murder is a crime as well as a sin, and when it is committed by a member of the Church, the Church takes cognisance of it as a sin, and deals with it as a sin against God; and if it be repented of the Church must forgive him. The civil magistrate on the contrary, must deal with it not as a sin against God, but as a crime against society, and he must punish it.

If the Jewish commonwealth had been nothing more than an earthly monarchy, the kings of Judah would have had no right to dictate to the people whom they should worship, or how they should worship Him. But the Jewish commonwealth was more than a civil government, it was a Church, called out from the world, and separated to be a peculiar people, with God for their king. Their rulers therefore, were really ecclesiastical office-bearers, taking cognisance of sins against God; and that included

crimes against society. God was their king, not only in a moral sense, but also in a political sense, and as the kings of Judah were said to sit upon the throne of Jehovah, 1 Chron. xxix. 23, they acted as vicegerents of God, not as kings upon their own account. For that reason, blasphemy and idolatry were not merely sins, they were also political offences, amounting to high treason against their sovereign, and punishable with death, being subversive of all government and all law.

The Abrahamic covenant was confirmed with an oath, and declared to be everlasting. The seed of Abraham, (not they who say they are Jews and do lie), continue to this day a holy people destined to be the heirs of the world; and it matters not what their outward condition might be, they were and still are God's Church, whether they were slaves in Egypt, or wanderers in the wilderness, whether they were an independent nation under their own kings, captives in Babylon, or crushed beneath the power of Rome. Their form of government might be different at different times, but whatever it was, this one fundamental principle predominated, that God was their king, and that they were to be governed by His laws in defiance of all earthly power. Whoever might be their master, God was their king. Their rulers were first patriarchs, then elders, then judges, and then kings, but whatever might be the form of their government, God's law must be paramount and must be obeyed. Neither their kings nor their judges had any legislative power. Their function, which was merely executive, might be summed up in the charge given to Abraham: "I know that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment."

The seed of Abraham was a holy nation, not because it

was better than other nations, but because it was a nation. separated from the world and belonging to God. To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the promises, and to them were committed the oracles of God. According to Paul it was the good olive tree, of which Abraham was the root, and of which the Jews were the natural branches. It was in fact the very Church into which the Gentiles were grafted, and from which so many of the natural branches were cut off. There has never been but one olive tree since the days of Abraham; for although there have been many changes of administration, cuttings off and graftings in, the tree itself remains the same. The only ecclesiastical standing which we Gentiles have as members of the Church of Christ, is as adopted Jews. Abraham is our father, and "salvation is of the Jews."

As long as the holy nation was an independent people, there was no need for distinguishing between what was civil and what was ecclesiastical, because all was ecclesiastical, and because crimes against society were also sins against God. But in God's providence and for the future guidance of the Church, the commonwealth of Israel was placed in circumstances that rendered it necessary to distinguish between sins against God only, and crimes against society. When captives in Babylon, and more especially when under the dominion of Rome, they learned to distinguish between the two, and that as a nation they might submit themselves to a heathen government in civil matters, but that in religious matters as a Church, they must be subject to God only. They did not object to being judged and even punished by heathen magistrates for crimes against society because these they recognised as proper subjects for civil jurisdiction. They regarded heathen magistrates as "ministers of God for good" in