co-operate to support the laws when violated against others, do not deserve the protection of those laws when violated against themselves. They must remember also, that in the Scriptures, not the thief only is condemned, but the man also who saw him, and consented with him; and therefore they will not hesitate to inform against the violators of the laws when they become acquainted in a providential, or, as men speak, accidental way, with their offences. I need scarcely add that this is essentially different from the complicated treachery of becoming spies first, hypocrites in crime, and then informers, not for righteousness' sake, but for the wages of unrighteousness.

Considering magistrates as the manifold arms of the sovereign for carrying the laws into execution, what is all this but an expansion of the apostle's language, "Put them in mind to obey magistrates; to be ready to every good work"? I will only add upon this point, that this subjection to the civil power is as truly binding upon the ministers of the Christian Church as it is upon the people. The laws of England, both the common law and the statute law, utterly reject the arrogant claim of the papal clergy to be exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

VI. This abstract would be very incomplete if confined to a statement of the duties of Christians considered as subjects under the law. Another question of deep interest arises with regard to Christian duty in making or altering the laws, and also in the selection of such representatives as shall be from time to time invested with the power of making or altering the laws. Upon this point the Christian duty of rulers demands our attention, and in considering this we are engaged in a discussion which, as will appear in the sequel, is much more largely practical than is commonly supposed.

It is in practical matters affecting present duty-matters concerning which God has spoken plainly; but public opinion has not spoken, or at least not with any emphasis of demand, and still more in matters concerning which public opinion has

spoken loudly on the other side—that the real allegiance or disaffection of a man's mind towards the revealed will and authority of God is truly tested.

In the matter now to be considered, What hath God spoken? let an inspired king give answer. "The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God."1

Here it is plainly declared by "Him from whom all power is derived," that all rulers among men should not only be religious men, living as immortal individuals in the fear of God; but also religious rulers, exercising their official authority religiously, "ruling," as well as living, in the fear of God. This, as a general principle, is of the first importance, condemning, as it does, on the express authority of holy Scripture, those who maintain that although all men of every station should be religious, considered in their individual capacity as heirs of immortality, yet that rulers, as rulers over the affairs of this world, have no concern with, and no province in, religion.2

In England the rulers are very numerous, and the discharge of their official duties demands from them, in many instances, considerations of religion. The Church of England so instructs her members; and, tracing all authority to its true source, she

1 2 Sam. xxiii. 3.

2 Dr. Wardlaw has put and answered the question, "What is the magistrate's province in regard to religion? His true and legitimate province is to have no province at all." Yet strangely enough the Doctor adds, "As a man, he is bound to believe the truths, and obey the precepts, of the word of God; as a magistrate, he is bound to fulfil all his official functions on Christian principles, from Christian motives, and according to Christian precepts, as every man is, in every condition and every relation of life; but authority in religion he has none."-Lectures on Establishments, p. 191.

Upon this I ask how the performance of his "official functions," "as a magistrate," is to be separated from his "authority"? And if his official functions, thus inseparable from his magisterial authority-which is, in truth, the meaning of official-are to be performed on Christian principles, from Christian motives, and according to Christian precepts, how is his official authority to be kept wholly separate from his Christianity? And how is he in his official functions-i.e., as a magistrate-to have no province in religion?-Lectures on the Church, pp. 187, 188.

invites them to unite in prayer to God, "for kings, and for all who are in authority."1

Elementary as the subject may seem, and thereupon, to some minds, comparatively insignificant, I have no doubt of the real usefulness of a brief review of the question, Who are the rulers in England? as well as, What is their duty?

The simplest form of government among men is an absolute monarchy. If the monarch were perfect, this would be perfect. There would be no risk of abuse of power, and therefore no need for any limitation of power. There would be no risk of any lack of wisdom, and therefore no occasion to multiply counsellors. It is such a government we are taught by the sure word of prophecy to anticipate, when He, the ceptre of whose kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness, shall take to Himself His great power, and reign over a renewed earth wherein righteousness shall dwell.

But under monarchs, themselves fallen and sinful creatures, this perfection is not to be had-is not to be expected. There is risk of abuse, and therefore need for limitation; risk of mistake, and therefore occasion for counsel. The modes of meeting this necessity, and adjusting the conflicting claims for the general good, are various-that is, there are various modes of distributing power among different individuals in a nation, and for different periods of time. But in whatever measure, or for whatever period power is distributed, the persons exercising it are, in their degree and time, rulers, and, as Christians, are bound to rule in the fear of God.

In this realm the chief ruler, and for life, is the sovereign, supported by the hereditary peerage, who are also rulers for life; and that this branch of the rule may be conducted in the fear of God, the Church of England instructs all her members to pray for Divine grace on the sacred head and heart of the monarch, that "knowing whose minister he is, he may, above all things, seek God's honour and glory." But, secondly,

1 1 Tim. ii. 1-3.

2 That the nation may have a public guarantee for this, on which Christian

our sovereign rules by the instrumentality of responsible advisers; and that they may advise and carry out the advice they give-that is, execute their part of the rule in the fear of God-the Church prays for "the lords of the council and all the nobility, that they may have grace, wisdom, and understanding." Thirdly, these lords of the council rule-that is, hold their places of authority as advisers of the sovereignaccording to the decisions of parliament. These decisions are come to by majorities after free debate; and that these majorities may decide religiously, or "rule in the fear of God," the Church continues her prayer to God, that it may please Him to "direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of His glory." One step more, fourthly, parliamentary majorities depend upon the selections of representatives made by the voters among the people. This is the appeal, in the last resort, for the rule of the kingdom; and Christian men of every rank and station ought to make conscience of answering it "in the fear of God." Every voter at every

men may confide in all the enthusiasm of allegiance, the following questions are put, and answers given, on the day of each coronation :

I quote from Blackstone, Com. b. i. c. 6.

"The Archbishop or Bishop shall say-Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?

"The King or Queen shall say —I solemnly promise so to do.

“Archbishop or Bishop-Will you, to the utmost of your power, cause law

and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?

"King or Queen—I will.

Archbishop or Bishop-Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law?

"King or Queen-All this I promise to do.

"After this, the king or queen, laying his or her hand upon the holy Gospels, shall say The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep, so help me God'; and then shall kiss the book."

On this Mr. Christian, the editor of Blackstone, has a note thus :

"And it is required both by the Bill of Rights, 1 W. and M., st. 2, c. 2, and the Act of Settlement, 12 and 13 Wm. III., c. 2, that every king and queen shall repeat and subscribe the declaration against popery, according to the 30 Car. II., st. 2, c. 1."

election is, during his appointed time, and according to his appointed measure, a ruler; and every Christian voter who has learned from the Scriptures what it is the high office of the Church to teach, that whatsoever he does in word or deed, he should do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, will not allow his conduct at the polling-booth to be an exception to his Christian life, but will endeavour, to the best of his wisdom and knowledge, to give his vote in the fear of God. To do so with intelligence, he must have regard both to the revealed will of God, which is unchangeable, and to the balanced order of things in the realm, which has been found to work well upon the whole, and which ought not to be fundamentally changed without very urgent necessity.

Referring to the former: in the details of religious doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline, there may exist differences which it is difficult for the most conscientious to adjust, which, I may perhaps say with truth, it is utterly impracticable to reduce to uniformity; and if the candidates for our parliamentary suffrages were all men of avowed godliness, agreeing in every fundamental truth substantially scriptural and Christian, and differing only where conscientious Christians may differ-if they were all men who, in the language of St. Paul, "hold the head," repudiating every species of idolatry and blasphemy and infidelity, and maintaining openly and honestly that rulers should not only live as individuals, but rule as rulers in the fear of God-then the duty of voters would be simplified, then private, personal preferences might be lawfully indulged, because, whoever was elected, the main points are But if the candidates for our suffrages differ on the most vital matters,-if some of them do not "hold the head,"do not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be God over all, neither bow down nor worship Him;-and if some of them bow down to an image of Him, and to divers other images, in direct defiance of God's most holy law;-if some others of them, rejecting these extremes of anti-Christianity, and professing themselves members of a Christian Church, avowing also that, as private individuals, they are bound to live in the fear

secure.