clergyman by its intermixture with the hardening duties of the temporal magistrate," &c. Here, then, we have another admission that completely concedes my argu ment, that the partial, severe, inconsistent, and "hardening duties" attached to governments of human origin, are such as degrade and cannot be performed by those who direct their lives by the pure, unchangeable, perfect, and benevolent principles of the meek and humble Jesus.

But I may be told, that this acknowledgment of the Times Editor relates only to the clergy. My answer is, the sentiment is correct, and applies to all the followers of Jesus. If the clergy are not to hold political offices because they preach a religion of peace, purity, and bene. volence, why, let me ask, are those to whom they preach such sacred and heavenly principles? Can we recognize the maxim, that they should teach one thing and practise another; teach duties to others that it would be wrong for themselves to perform? Shall we thus encourage them still more to bind burdens upon other men's shoulders, that they themselves are not to touch with one of their fingers?

If the clergy are not to interfere in politics, why ought, or why can, other professors of Christianity? The supposition that they are, is formed upon most lamentable ignorance of Scripture and of the religion of Jesus. The constitution, government, and laws of the church of God, recognize no DISTINCT ORDER of men; the church of h God are to edify one another, for they "may all teach, one by one, that all may learn and all be admonished." The object they have in view is the same; the same heaven before them, the same means of obtaining it; to grow it in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; to grow up a holy temple in the Lord by no forsaking the world and becoming transformed by the

the

renewing of their minds," that they may hereafter "be presented a glorious and spotless church, not having spot a or wrinkle, or any such thing.'

To make an unscriptural distinction, therefore, among the members of this church, to set one class of men to learn the way to Heaven for the others, and to perform duties in their stead, to say to the one, you may pursue Is the unjust, hardening course of politics, while we train our minds, dispositions, and habits, by the pure and sacred principles of religion, is to make a distinction unknown to the religion of Jesus, and is calculated only to fulfil the parable of the virgins, making five wise and five foolish.

Is it not equally important for one Christian to be prepared for his Master's coming as another? Is it not equally the duty of one to possess the oil of religious enlightenment and knowledge as the other? Is one only to pursue whatsoever is sacred, pure, true, and of good report, while the other is to tread the "hardening" and disabling course of worldly policy? If not, why make this distinction between what one Christian may do and what another? If there be any thing in the worldly duties of the magistrate or politician which is necessarily injurious to the pure and holy character of one man, why is it not acknowledged to be injurious to another?

Let me call on the followers of Jesus to think of these things. I know your reply; but I know it to be based in error. Be assured the religion of Jesus knows of no distinction among his followers. The sheep on the right hand and the goats on the left is the only division which it recognizes. "One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." How those who believe that the character of a clergyman ought to be an example to his flock can imagine why politics should injure the one and not the other, shews not only an ignorance of religion, but in

volves the moral absurdity that effects are independent of

causes.

Into what inconsistencies do men plunge when they go from the authority of Jesus and the laws of divine revelation, and endeavour to establish human authority over their fellow-man!

The incongruities which must arise from an admixture of Christian principles with civil policy, we have in part shewn. Christian principles will never apply to civil governments. Human government, independent of all religion, may be consistent, however obnoxious; but immediately the pure and holy and humble principles of Jesus are intermixed with the fallacious notions of men, or whenever his authority is placed in alliance with the authorities of men, difficulties, hardships, and absurdities, immediately appear. "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." I am prepared to shew, whenever it be necessary, that all the difficulties which hang over the most important subjects of legislative discussion, in the present day, derive their existence from the impossibility of applying religious principles to human government.

Civil policy and moral justice can never go hand in hand, not merely as respects such prosecutions as those in which Sir Robert Peel and the Attorney-General, as before stated, admitted they could not, but on all other points in which man assumes to hold dominion over his fellow-man.

The authority of Jesus, and the authority of Jesus alone, can clear the mind of all those perplexities and difficulties which attend such subjects as capital punishments, Catholic emancipation, the distresses of Ireland, West-India slavery, and the like. Immediately men endeavour on these subjects, to mix Christian principles and human legislation, the greatest inconsistencies and absurdities appear; and, why? Because the religion of Jesus is

nde intrinsically at variance with the government of man over his fellow-man. Such intermixture is like (to use the language of Jesus himself) "putting new cloth to an old garment, or new wine into old bottles," and the invariable consequence is, that both are made worse.

Jes

upon

As a specimen and proof of such inconsistency, look at the late advertisement of the Anti-slavery Society in Lon don (as follows): "The right of property in man must be entirely extinguished; no third party must be allowed to interfere between man and his Maker. Freedom of conscience and personal liberty, without which freedom of conscience cannot exist, must be secured solid foundations. That accountability to himself, which the Creator has imposed upon every created being, must not be controlled by any human power. This implies the removal of every restraint upon liberty not essential to the well-being of society; but it is not inconsistent with the rigorous enforcement of every obligation which members of society owe to each other. We therefore insist upon the necessity of substituting, for the present authority of the master, a system of legal constraint, of equal, if not superior, vigour, and of maintaining that system by regulations of police as severe as the case may require. In a word, we would abolish slavery; but we would establish law: we would supersede the private cart-whip, and replace it by the magisterial treadmill."

Would that my time and talent could allow me to comment on this fair sample of the absurdity which must ever attend the conduct of those who are guided in part, and only in part, by the religion of Jesus. Let me, however, only ask this anti-slavery political Christian, how he reconciles his notions? In all he states against slavery I heartily join; but if no third party must be allowed to interfere between man and his Maker, if freedom of conscience requires personal liberty, if "that accountability

C

to himself which the Creator has imposed upon every created being, must not be controlled by any human power, then how dare "he insist upon the necessity of substituting for the authority of a master" a human system (of many masters) " of equal if not superior rigour," and of "maintaining that system by regulations of police as severe as the case may require"? How dare he, and by what authority, abolish the authority of the first master, and establish the law of a third? By what authority would he set aside the cart-whip of the master, and replace it by a magisterial treadmill? Let him answer these questions. Remember, he pretends to argue from divine authority; it is from the principles of revelation he denounces the interference of "human power." Then I call upon him to shew me from what part of that revelation he acquires the right of substituting the authority of national government, for the government of the individual master; from what part of Scripture he derives the right of inflicting the magisterial treadmilll more than the individual cartwhip? It is lamentable to see men stop short of truth, after having laid down some correct principles; but this is the invariable consequence of mixing human legislation with the government of God, or the principles he has given for his people, the church of God, with the maxims and regulations of the world.

This anti-slavery advocate appears quite ignorant of the directions of Scripture, although he pretends to lay down its principles as the foundation of his argument. Let him, I repeat, shew me his authority for taking away the authority of the one master, and transferring it to many masters. I, like him, am an enemy, a decided enemy

to slavery; but being guided by Scripture as the rule of my faith and practice, I am as willing to concede the authority to a master as to any other "human power." In the Scriptures the submission of a slave to his master is