that Religion has nothing to do with politics to be a mischievous sophism, designedly and deceitfully promulgated by men who find the religious feelings of the community to be a bar to their schemes, --and unwarily acquiesced in by too many conscientious Christians. I wish that this assertion might be the means of inducing some abler writer to discuss and explode a dogma which has gained, and still is gaining, ground to the great embarrassment of those who wish well to religion. It is a point which wants settling; for while the adversaries of the Church are pursuing their course unchecked, its friends are restrained, as it appears to me, by unnecessary scruples, from defending themselves on ground which they might maintain with propriety and advantage.

There are indeed some minds of so small a calibre, as to have no notion of politics, but as they are connected with the squabbles between rival parties, or the struggles for the prevalence of one set of opinions over another. If this be the

right meaning of politics, and if it be only meant to be asserted that the preacher should not meddle with the competitions for power, and the personal animosities of different parties in the State, or the local rivalries of his own neighbourhood, I have no more to say on the subject, the point is at once conceded; for the present volume contains not a syllable on such subjects. But if it be asserted that religion has nothing do with the political wellbeing of the nation; or that the only good system of politics is not based on religion; or if it be said that a Christian is not responsible before God for his political deeds, and needs not God's grace and Christian instruction to help and guide him,-I must say that I entirely differ from these opinions. The misfortune is, that it may and does sometimes happen, that those very topics with which the Gospel is most intimately concerned, are the points of contention between rival parties; and then the preacher must either abdicate a part of his office, or incur the charge of touching on party questions. In my opi

nion, the latter alternative is the best; provided only that he proceeds with Christian moderation, and does not suffer himself to be biassed by personal considerations. He will not be doing his duty to God, or to those committed to his charge, if he does not endeavour to Christianize their prevailing thoughts and ordinary actions, political as well as social.

For, can it be supposed that God will not call every man to account for his political conduct? We are all, We are all, in the present day, of necessity more or less politicians. We cannot help our thoughts being directed that way. Can we suppose it then of no importance to our everlasting welfare what we think or do on these engrossing subjects? Is the politician the only man who is irresponsible to God? Can we suppose that such men as Henry the Eighth, Cromwell, Robespierre, the fifth-monarchy men of the seventeenth century, or the revolutionary propagandists of the present, (even supposing them conscientious,) will not

have to answer for the bias of their respective consciences? Can we bring ourselves to believe that one man may murder his subjects, and another his king, and escape condemnation, because he has so perverted his moral judgment, as persuade himself that he is doing right? For myself, I think that this argument will comprehend many more than the extreme and violent of each party. It will apply to the man who with Epicurean selfishness justifies himself in resisting amendment on the plea that "things will last his time;" or, on the other hand, to him who hurries on in his fancied improvements, with vain self-conceit, and thoughtless carelessness of the havoc and misery they may cause. Surely those persons fatally deceive themselves who believe that their ill-formed, selfish, and mischievous opinions will not be brought forward in judgment against them at the last day.

I will concede, however, that the preacher will do well, for prudence' sake, to abstain from meddling with men's opi

nions, as such. Still those who are most jealous of the interference of religion must be constrained to confess, that it has at least much to do with the mode in which each man suffers his opinion to affect himself and others. Of whatever complexion of politics a man may be, surely it is a clear proof of an unsanctified spirit, if he suffer his opinions to pervert his sense of right and wrong, and exasperate his temper, and corrode his heart; and on the other hand, however excellent his political creed may be, he is alike blameable, in the present state of society, if he does not exert himself firmly and diligently for the maintenance of what he holds to be just and useful. Supine indifference in a good cause, or violence and animosity in any cause, equally need the influence of religion to correct them.

But again, there are some political topics, on which the preacher is not only at liberty to touch, but which he cannot omit without dereliction of his revealed instructions. He is bound, according to the injunction of St. Paul to Titus, "to