A reply to the Reconstructionist Theonomist

The following is reply I had written a few weeks back for to show the difference between Covenanter Theonomy (Historic Theonomy)  and Reconstructionist Theonomy (Neo-Theonomy). I am reposting here so I can share when I need to. I will only modify the name of the person in the first paragraph of who this was written to..

[Name deleted],

You do realize that the theonomist during the formation of our country heavily disagree with you regarding the Constitution and our government? In fact the first generation of Covenanters after the signing and ratification of our Constitution refused to swear loyalty and refused to even acknowledged the legitimacy of the government.. By doing so they could not have citizenship in this nation and remained aliens within this land- a land in which they were born in.. Yes their children born after the signing and ratification were de-factoed in as citizens but even they refuse to swear loyalty, acknowledge the legitimacy of the government/constitution, serve in the military, run for office, vote in elections, serve on juries, etc (all in which I agree with). Why? Because any of the above would be a recognition of something illegitimate and unlawful. I could not be part of the military in a pagan nation or many of the things listed above. Regarding the Military, 1. Because the ruler would be a tyrant and thus unlawful. So in essence you would be a mercenary working for a tyrant robbing and pillaging and murdering on behalf of the tyrant in unlawful warfare. If you do not say anything and/or do something about what the tyrant is doing you become an accomplice in the crimes of that tyrant, Psalm 50:18 “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.” The same is true for murder. This passage even replies to robbers and murderers who masquerade as magistrates in the high places, see Act, Declaration, and Testimony of 1761 on this from a confessional stand point who quotes from Donald Cargill. My second problem would be taking an oath to an unlawful and anti-christian government and constitution and thus legitimatizing that government and constitution which is unlawful and sinful in the first place. Regarding running for office or voting. I could not conscientiously run for office because I would have to swear to uphold an ungodly and antichristian constitution. Nor could I vote for someone (even if they meet the essential qualifications of Scripture) because then I would be an accomplice in their unlawful oath taking to the constitution.

The Constitution is radically and willfully defective in that it does not recognize the existence of God, the supremacy of Christ the King of Nations, and the Word of God as the supreme law. On account of these radical defects, and the many immoralities which naturally flow from them, Reformed Presbyterians cannot recognize it as a scripturally constituted civil government, nor swear allegiance to it. The relation of Christ to the nation is that of a Sovereign to a moral subject—a moral person, upon whom the law of His Kingdom is binding.

The document reads: “We, the people of the United States * * * do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This declaration is historically, philosophically and scripturally untrue. I dare say Blasphemous. It replaces the God Yahovah who is creator of all things and sovereign over all nations with a new god “the people”. The Constitution in all its essential elements was in existence before the document thus called was penned; constitutions are not ordained of men, but grow; and the Scripture affirms that the powers that are legitimate powers at all, are ordained of God. These glaring defects, with the denial of any religious qualification, the absence of the name of God from the oath, and the license of immorality and crime upon which it sets its official seal, give the document, called the Constitution, such a character of infidelity and irreligion that no true Christian ought to give it his full sanction. For these reasons and many more, Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanters) have never voted at any of the elections, nor held office under the government. They have refused, to recognize the authority of the government, and its right to legislate.

“The preamble is, “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It should be — We, the people of the United States, acknowledging the being and authority of God, and our obligation to submit to his Son Jesus Christ as King of nations, for the glory of God, to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do adopt, sanction and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” -The Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, Vol. I. MARCH, 1863. No. 3.

The objectional features of the Constitution of the United States were clearly pointed out and testified against. Its wilful omission of all reference to God the Author, Christ the King, and the Word of God as the Supreme Law of nations and civil government, and other permissions of evil, excluded all conscientious Covenanters from swearing allegiance to it.

“NO consideration will justify the framers of the Federal Constitution and the administration of the Government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and His anointed from the grand charter of the nation.” — Rev. Alexander McLeod, D. D

“IN the United States the refusal to acknowledge God in the Constitution has probably been more explicit than it ever was in any other nation.” — Rev. James R. Willson, D. D.

“THE Federal Constitution of the United States does not recognize the existence of God, the King of Nations; * * and shall a nation act as if independent of the God of the Universe, and expect to be guiltless? * * The principles of reformation are not fashionable. They were once, however, considered as the glory of Presbyterians. For civil and ecclesiastical reformation, for a glorious covenanted cause, thousands bled and died. * * I have endeavored to advocate that cause because I thought it the doctrine of the Bible, and the cause of Christ.” — Rev. Samuel B. Wylie, D. D.

For constitutions religious test as well as recognizing God, Christ as king of the nations and His law as the supreme laws of the land are essential for legitimate authority at ALL levels of government. State constitutions, Federal constitutions, confederacies of nations as well as treaties between nations. I believe in a civil type presbytery system in the same way as the church presbytery is setup. Ex. 18 is where the civil presbytery is ordained. From the local level to the highest level in the land.

The Act, Declaration and Testimony of 1761 a Covenanter Confessional work states:

“And further we maintain, that a due measure of those qualifications which God, the great lawgiver requires in his word, together with what other stipulations according to the same unerring rule, a christian people, who are blessed with the light of divine revelation, have made the fundamental conditions of civil government among them, are essentially necessary to the constitution and investiture of lawful authority over such people. No other but such a constitution or investiture, can either be approves of by God, or answer the ends, ultimate or subordinate, of this ordinance, unto the honor of the great institutor, appears from Prov. 7:15,16; Psa. 142:19,20, and 149:6,7,8,9; Isa. 49:28; Rom. 13:1,2,8,4; Deut.. 17:14,15; 2 Sam 23:2,3,4; Exod. 18:21. “

When it comes to Magistrates themselves they are required to have a due measure of those qualifications which God has ordained in His Word and they are essentially necessary to the constitution and investiture of any lawful authority over a people. What are these essential qualifications?

“The New Testament gives a definitive statement of civil government in Romans ch. 13 v. 1-9 and 1 Timothy ch. 2 v. 1-2; which is a summary of the pattern also found in the Old Testament. We shall first take in review these Old Testament passages where we have the epitome of kingship delineated. Thus the qualifications of those who exercise civil rule are that, They must be men of truth, fearing God and hating covetousness (Ex. 18.21); they must be just, and not deceitful, false or oppressive: He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God (2 Sam. 23.2-3); they must be men of understanding, they must be of the same nation, and not strangers (Deut. 13 v. 1 & 17; Jer. 30 v. 21). They are to be elected by all the people, that is, by the adult men among whom they are to rule: The men of Judah made David king (2 Sam. 2 v. 4) or again: The people made Saul King (1 Sam. 11.15) and as also in the words of Hushai: Whom the Lord and this people, and all the men of Israel choose, his will I be (2 Sam. 16.18). Any perversion of this order by those who thrust in upon the people however they accomplish it, is usurpation; as in Hos. 8.4: ‘They made kings but not by me; that is, strictly and only in the way appointed by God, and which is said to be “by” him as if God himself had actually done it.” -Alexander Shield, A Hind Let Loose, 1638

Legitimate Governments are established by God under His theocratic kingdom. They are one of the two sons of oil that serve the Lord of all the Earth (Zech. 4:14) They are to submit themselves to His rules or be dashed into pieces (Ps. 2) Magistrates are ordained civil minister of God (Romans 13) and they must rule according to His laws and permission (Ps. 2). If they violate His laws and permissions they disqualify themselves as being ordained of God. If men who are not qualified sit in the seats of magistrates they are robbers and thieves (Isa. 42:24) and not ordained magistrates. They are usurpers as in Hos. 8.4: ‘They made kings but not by me; that is, strictly and only in the way appointed by God. So we have now seen what is required as essential for nations and constitutions as well as what is essential for magistrates for lawful legitimate rulers who are ordained of God but what about duties?

Seven duties of civil magistrates outlined in Scripture and enforced in the Westminster Standards:

1. Nationally eradicate idolatry and false religion (cf. 2 Chron. 34:3-7; 2 Chron. 31:1; 2 Chron. 15:8; 2 Chron. 15:16, etc.).

2. Nationally promote the true worship, discipline, and doctrine of the church of Christ (2 Chron. 29:11-30:6; 2 Chron. 30:12-27; Ezra 10:10vv.; Neh. 10:31-32, etc.).
3. Nationally establish the one true religion and church (cf. 2 Chron. 34:8- 17; 2 Chron. 29:3-5; 2 Chron. 31:2-3; 2 Chron. 31:20-21; 2 Chron. 32:12, etc.).

4. Nationally confess their own sins and the sins of their fathers (2 Chron. 34:21; 2 Chron. 29:6-7; 2 Chron. 30:7-9; Ezra 9:6-10:2; Neh. 9:2-37, etc.).

5. Nationally publish the truth (2 Chron. 34:30; Ezra 10:7-8, etc.).

6. Nationally renew covenant with God and set the state upon a fully covenanted biblical pattern, agreeing to nationally obey the law of God (2 Chron. 34:31; 2 Chron. 29:10; 2 Chron. 15:12-15; Ezra 10:3-4; Neh. 9:38-10:31, etc.).

7. Nationally cause (by civil power) the inhabitants of the nation to stand to the covenant (2 Chron. 34:32-33; 2 Chron. 15:12-13; Ezra 10:5, etc.).
Isaiah 49:22-23 is very clear that Magistrates are to be nursing fathers to the church and that their duty is not minimized in the New testament times

Speaking of New Testament Times Isaiah says,

Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me. (Isaiah 49:22-23)

William Symington says,

The prophecy refers to New Testament times, when the Gentiles are to be gathered unto the Redeemer. A prominent feature of these times shall be the subserviency of civil rulers to the church, which surely supposes their subjection to Christ her Head. Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers is a similitude which imports the most tender care, the most endearing solicitude; not mere protection, but active and unwearied nourishment and support. If, according to the opinions of some, the best thing the state can do is to let her alone, to leave her to herself, to take no interest in her concerns, it is difficult to see how this view can be reconciled with the figure of a nurse, the duties of whose office would certainly be ill discharged by such a treatment of her feeble charge. -William Symington, Messiah the prince or, the mediatorial dominion of Jesus Christ (1839)

Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford says,

“But the Magistrate is fore-prophesied Isai. 49. 23. and 60. 10. Rev. 21. 26. to be a Nurse-father to the Church under the New Testament, to keep and guard both Tables of the Law, and to see that Pastors do their duty, to minister to the Church by his royal power, yea when the fountain shall be opened in David’s house, that is under the New Testament, he shall thrust through the false Prophet that speaketh lies in the Name of the Lord, Zach. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Kings as Kings must confer some royal service to the Church, over which they are Nurse-fathers. But all the power that Kings have, is essentially co-active, and in order to rewarding or punishing, Rom. 13. 3, 4. therefore they must confer coactive service. Piscator saith well, That the Prince is called the keeper of both Tables of the Law by our Divines, therefore he is to vindicate God’s glory in both. He that hath the keeping of two pits, one more horrible and dark, another more mild and heartsome for two malefactors, a thief, and an adulterer, he must not cast the thief in such a dark dungeon as the adulterer: so if the Magistrate keep both Tables, he must not punish according to his own will, but according to the rule and prescript of God.” Samuel Rutherford, A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, Chapter XXV, Arg. 4

John Calvin speaking on Psalm 2 and Isaiah 49:23,

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23). I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?” -Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79Libertines, p. 79

Pastor James M Willson speaking on Isaiah 49:23

“Prophecy speaks in the plainest terms, and manifestly expresses the divine approval of that which it foretells. “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles, shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts,” Ps. 72:10. “Kings shall be thy nursing fathers and their queens thy nursing mothers,” Is. 49:23. The preceding verse fixes both the person referred to in this prophecy, and its application to New Testament times. The sixtieth chapter of Isaiah, abounds with similar prophecies. The language of the sixteenth verse is very explicit, “thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breasts of kings.” Under these figurative expressions it is intimated, that when the nations are brought to submit to the sceptre of Christ, their allegiance will be manifested by efforts to aid the church in promoting the great designs of the Redeemer’s mission. Happy, indeed, will such nations be, while “the nation and kingdom that will not serve Christ and the church shall perish.”” Christ’s Dominion Over The Nations, Chapter 3 “The Duty of Nations, 1842

They are to rule according to the civil laws of God as they pertain to the nations. They are even required to suppress heresy..

Westminster divine George Gillespie (one of the most brilliant men on the assembly) said,

“Things immutable, and common to all Nations are the laws concerning Moral trespasses, Sins against the Moral law, as murder, adultery, theft, enticing away from God, blasphemy, striking of Parents. Now that the Christian Magistrate is bound to observe these Judicial laws of Moses which appoint the punishments of sins against the Moral law … 1. If it were not so, then it is free and arbitrary to the Magistrate to appoint what punishments himself pleaseth. But this is not arbitrary to him, for he is the Minister of God, Rom. 13.4. and the judgment is the Lord’s, Deut. 1.7; 2 Chron. 19.6. And if the Magistrate be Keeper of both Tables, he must keep them in such manner as God hath delivered them to him. 2. Christ’s words, Matt. 5.17, Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, are comprehensive of the Judicial law, it being a part of the law of Moses …”

Gillespie continued,

“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament for abolishing the Ceremonial law, yet we nowhere read in all the new Testament of the abolishing of the Judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the Moral law, of which Heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and to shew some scripture for it. “ -George Gillespie, Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty, 1644

[Name deleted], you have frequently said because Rushdoony and others have said that the Constitution recognizes God because of the Date and mention of a Sabbath day off. But these were already answered a century before by able Reformed Theologians..

The Testimony against the Moral Evil’s of the U,S, Constitution states regarding the Sabbath day off,

“In reply to all this, it has been urged that Sunday is mentioned in the constitution. True, it is so. But in what connection? “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law.” (Art. I. Sec. vii. specification 2.) Is it a violation of the tenets of a Jew, Deist, Mahometan, or Hindoo, to retain a bill, in some cases, eleven or twelve days, instead of ten? Does he thereby acknowledge the Sabbath to be a divine institution? Were two merchants to enter into partnership, on condition that their store should not be opened on Sabbath, a deistical partner would not violate the contract by spending the whole of that day in some other secular employment—as many Presidents have done, their oath of office notwithstanding. The mention of the Sabbath, and by its pagan name too, is no more a recognition of that day as set apart by God in his word for devotion, than the naming of Thursday for any transaction by christians, is a recognition of the worship of the pagan idol Thor, to whom, among the heathen, that day was sacred.—Besides, it was not the intention of those who framed the constitution, to exclude christians from the office of President. They intended to put all on an equal footing. Had they not excepted the Sabbath, an advantage would have been given to an infidel President, over a christian, who might entertain conscientious scruples as to the examining of bills on the Lord’s day. After all, were there, as there is not, a recognition of one precept of the law of God, would that be an acknowledgment of the whole law? It might as well be pled that the punishment of theft, by the government of China, is a recognition of the Christian religion, and proves that government {45} to be Christian, because one commandment of the Bible is—”Thou shalt not steal.” By this argument, all the governments of the world might be proved to recognize christianity, and to acknowledge Messiah as their prince! The advocates of the christianity of the United States’ government must be hard pressed in the field of argument, when they are compelled to rear the superstructure of their advocacy on so narrow a basis.”

Regarding the Date “in the Year of our Lord” Bible Magistracy Christ Dominion over the Nations by James Willson answers this objection in 1842,

“Now there is no reference to the Messiah in the Constitution. Neither in the phraseology of that instrument, nor in any of its provisions, would any alteration be required, were there no such person as the Saviour of sinners. The only allusion to Christ, is in the date appended to it; it is dated “in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth.” If this be a profession of subjection to the Messiah, or even an acknowledgment of his being, then will it be exceedingly difficult to find man or woman in all western Europe, or in the greater part of this western world, who is not a disciple of Jesus Christ, not in profession only, but in reality, for all date their deeds, their correspondence, their ages, &c., in the same form. Then would Socinians, Infidels, and even Atheists, be every day of their lives, and every time they write “Anno Domini,” acknowledging that the Saviour of sinners is their Lord and Saviour! The truth is, that the prevalence of the Christian religion in Europe has introduced there, and among the descendants of Europeans, the custom of reckoning the lapse of time, and of marking its intervals, from the incarnation of Christ. It is utterly absurd to suppose that the use of this era makes all who do so, Christians.

To return to our argument. Did any one ever think of charging an Infidel with inconsistency in swearing to support the Constitution? Could such a person be rejected if offering to swear the oath? Could an officer be impeached for blaspheming the Saviour? None of all these were ever thought of. Indeed, those very persons who endeavour, on the one hand, to make us believe that the United States as a nation acknowledge Christ, are as clamorous, on the other, against any arrangement which would exclude from office Socinians, Infidels, &c. “The legs of the lame are not equal.” Would Infidels, be eligible to office, provided this nation had made in its constitutional arrangements an acknowledgment of Christ? Decidedly not. The conclusion is manifest. The nation has made no such acknowledgment. “

Ultimately, the issue here is Historical theonomy vs. Neotheonomy. Bahnsen, Rushdoony, Demar, etc were a new type of theonomist that deviated from the historical theonomic views. That is not to say that they were not good men. I respect these men greatly but I do disagree with them on numerous points. I believe the historic covenanter theonomy is the most biblical and most consistent principle regarding the issue of civil magistracy.

Is. 8:12, “Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy.”

“the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” Dan. 7:27.

Links for further reading, Highly recommended,

The Act, Declaration and Testimony of 1761 (First two parts are historical and can be avoided, The Meat is in Part 3 with a Confessional Summary in Part 4)

Act, Declaration and Testimony of 1761 Part 3

http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/actdeclarationandtestimony/actpart3.htm#part3

Act, Declaration and Testimony of 1761 Part 4

http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/actdeclarationandtestimony/actpart4.htm

Testimony Against the Moral Evil’s of the U.S. Consitution, 1839

http://www.truecovenanter.com/reformedpresbyterian/rpcna_testimony_against_constitution_of_usa_corrected.html

Bible Magistracy Christ’s Dominion Over the Nations by James Willson, 1842

http://www.covenanter.org/JMWillson/Magistracy/biblemagistracy.htm

Wholesome Severity Reconciled with christian Liberty by George Gillespie, 1644

http://www.covenanter.org/GGillespie/wholesome_severity.html
Additional Quotes,

American Covenanter James Willson declared the following in a sermon 32 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the USA the following:

“Britain and the United States are colonies within Jehovah’s government; and if they refuse to acknowledge the authority of Messiah, he will treat them as rebel provinces of his empire. In the United States, the refusal to acknowledge God, has probably been more explicit than it ever was in any other nation. Soon after we had obtained, through the beneficent providence of God, liberation from the dominion of a foreign power; soon after the most eminent displays of Jehovah’s goodness to our land; the convention, elected to form articles of fundamental law for the commonwealth, rejected the government of God, and with a degree of ingratitude, perhaps without a parallel, formed a constitution in which there is not the slighest hint of homage to the God of heaven; in which God receives no more honor than the devil. They force all within their territories to bow before them, but they refuse to bow before the throne of God. This is a species of national atheism, almost as enormous as that of the French republic, whose representatives voted, that there is no God. It is to all intents practical atheism; and we cannot doubt that those who planned such rebellion against the King of kings and Lord of lords, were practical atheists and professed infidels.”

_The Subjection of Kings and Nations to Messiah_, p. 65 in _Political Danger_ published by Crown and Covenant Publications.

That all nations are to be subject to King Jesus, even in the OT is evident. That the Church and State were ALWAYS separate is also evident, even if modern day PhDs say nay…nay them…they are in error trying to out smart the Truth…

“The command is to all—to states, republics, kingdoms, and empires, in whatever quarter of the world they may be found, from whatever branch of the human family they may be descended, and whatever may be their local peculiarities and pursuits—let all bow down before the Mediator and serve him. But we must be more particular.

1. It is their duty to bind themselves to him by covenant engagement, consecrating themselves to him, swearing allegiance to him as their King and Lord, binding themselves to one another, and, as united together in social compact, to seek the protection and the blessings of Messiah, Heaven’s Almighty Vicegerent. ”

…

The subjection of Israel to the government of God, was to him in the mediatorial person and character; for the relation in which he stood to them, and they to him, was a gracious covenant relation—a relation which God, absolutely considered, cannot sustain to any of the guilty race of Adam, either individually or nationally. Whatever may be said of their national polity, of the connexion, or rather as some ignorantly assert, of the perfect sameness of their church and civil state, still it is abundantly evident, that they had a civil government, a national territory and property, and civil relations and rights; and that all these were completely subjected to the government of the Son of God, in his character of Mediator.

Is there any intimation in the whole volume of inspiration, that other nations should not copy after the example set them in Judea? Any hint that the honors there claimed by Messiah, and conceded to him, were peculiar to that territory, and that he does not demand them in other quarters of the world? Nothing like it; but quite the reverse. “The uttermost parts of the earth are given to him for inheritance;” “he is the governor among the nations;” “Sheba’s and Seba’s kings shall offer gifts, yea all kings shall fall down before him;” “the isles shall wait for his law;” “the gathering of the people shall be to him.” The lion of the tribe of Judah has the volume of providence committed to him, and he prevails to open the seals of the book in which the destiny of the nations is recorded: “he is prince of the kings of the earth;” and “hath on his vesture and on his thigh written, King of kings, and Lord of lords.” Indeed, is not easy to conceive, how God could have expressed his will more plainly, or have more fully and distinctly asserted the claims of his Son to universal dominion, and the duty of nations to acknowledge him.”

from James Willson’s sermon _THE SUBJECTION OF KINGS AND NATIONS TO MESSIAH_

Covenanter’s Reply to Jury Duty

Having been summoned to act as a juror on the 8th of the present month, I humbly assign the following reasons why I can not serve in such capacity with a safe conscience:—

1. Civil government being the ordinance of God, his holy Word ought to be the rule of its constitution and administration.

2. I find that God, and Christ, and the Bible, are all excluded from the national Constitution.

3. I believe that the juror’s office, like every other civil office, is created by that Constitution; and that I as a juror, would be chargeable with denying Christ before men; and He says He will deny all such before his Father. Matt. 10:33.

4. I do not believe that in a country favored with the Holy Scriptures, Jews, Mahometans, Heathens, &c. should be fellow-citizens with Christians, and Christians be compelled to identify with such persons. “It would be tyranny to constrain them to such measures.”

5. Reformed Presbyterians have dissented from the government from its origin, and for such reasons as above indicated. They approve many of the laws as equitable between man and man, but in civil relations they cannot disown God, his Son and his Law, as I in the position of a juror would be obliged to do.

6. The Quaker’s conscience is respected in military affairs, and I think the same exemption should be accorded to me in civil affairs; especially when I cheerfully contribute my proportion of the common taxation, for the protection of my personal liberty and security of my property.

7. Finally, I find that the Constitution guarantees “liberty of conscience;” and I only claim the just application of this provision of the fundamental law.

Robert Alexander, Phila. Feb. 5th 1875

Advertisement