really, conformed to his revealed will. So far as this is done in national affairs, so far, but no farther, may the blessing of God be expected to rest on them. The providence of God, as indicated by the Scriptures of truth, ought to be the pole-star of every Statesman who bears the name of Christian. This alone can give a steady loftiness of purpose, and guide to a successful and prosperous issue. When shall the state-vessels of Christian Europe be steered by such pilots as these?

We are glad to see that a large share of public attention has latterly been directed to the barbarous and sinful practice of duelling. The Ministers of the Crown have declared, that it is Her Majesty's decided intention to discountenance it; but they would not give their support to a Resolution, proposed by an nonourable Member, asserting it to be sinful, as being in violation of the commandment of God. Sir Robert Peel said, that he did not wish the House to undertake the interpretation of the divine commands. The House was not called to interpret, but to acknowledge. The law, "Thou shalt do no murder," is sufficiently plain; and though circumstances may render the task of legislation practically difficult, and call, therefore, for the exercise of much prudence; still, if the principle is not to be affirmed, that the violation of a positive command of God is wrong, then was Lord Howick right when he said, in the course of the "Irish Debate," that legislation was not to proceed on the basis of religious truth. We think that his Lordship was mistaken: Sir Robert Peel is more; he is inconsistent. He professes his intention of supporting the religious institutions of the country: does he think he can do this on grounds merely political? He will maintain the established Church in Ireland; but he will overlook what alone gives value to a church,-religious truth. He will defend the casket: he will say nothing of the treasure which it ought to enclose, and only for the sake of which is it worth defending. And even as to duelling, while he laid much stress on the improved state of public opinion, his VOL. XXIII. Third Series.

own views appeared to us to be very defective. What is called "public opinion," has long been opposed to duelling; and it is not that it has lately become more so, but that it has begun to make itself heard by those among whom the practice existed. Public opinion is not become more correct, but more extensive and powerful. And on what is it founded? Sir Robert, if he would inquire, would soon learn that it rested on religious truth, and the recognition of the divine commands. Public opinion acknowledges the impartiality of the divine law, and refuses to listen to the proud claim of any one class to be exempted from the obligation to obedience. Had the House adopted the Resolution proposed, it would only have asserted the principle to which public opinion is indebted for both its correctness and power.

We have observed, with deep regret, a still stronger evidence of the inclination of the Statesmen of the day, to withdraw their homage from religious truth, and to transfer it to the principle that, politically considered, truth is not more valuable than error. There are in the country various religious endowments, originally designed for the promotion of evangelical religion, which have come into the possession of Socinians, and are by them employed for the purpose of diffusing their own principles. Within the last few years, legal inquiries have been instituted as to some of these cases, the result of which was, that restitution was decreed. The effect of such decisions must, of course, be felt in cases respecting which legal proceedings have not been taken. The illegality of such Unitarian holding has been solemnly adjudicated: the holders of such property, therefore, wish to be secured in their possession against the operation of law, as declared by these adverse decrees; and as this can only be done by Act of Parliament, a Bill to this effect was introduced by the Lord Chancellor, who is, in virtue of his office, regarded as keeper of the Monarch's conscience, and one of the most distinguished heads of the party derivAPRIL, 1814. 2 B

ing its political designation from its professed determination to conserve the religious institutions of the country. This is painfully ominous. Are these institutions to be preserved only in reference to their political character, and as affording a profitable mode of investing property by means of patronage, as well as a powerful instrument of influence? When the Scotch Civil Courts pronounced their adverse decisions against the most estimable portion of the Church, -decisions which not only went to establish the principles of that moderatism from whose blight, as especially occasioned by men like Dr. Robertson, the Church was just beginning to recover, but to break up the most efficient defence of the Establishment-principle ever advanced, the parties affected by these decisions went to Government and the Legislature, respectfully soliciting relief, declaring that if it were withheld, their conscience would not allow them to retain their position as an Establishment. Relief was denied them; and they were emphatically told, that the decisions of the Courts must be supported. But are laws and legal decisions always to be supported? Can no parties obtain legislative relief? There are certain laws against gambling, by the operation of which a number of gentlemen had exposed themselves to heavy penalties, for the recovery of which actions had been brought. A bill was introduced, and hastened through both Houses, that it might become law as soon as possible, to suspend, in reference to these suits, the ordinary operation of the Acts against gambling. And now, another Bill is proposed, the effect of which will be to enable Socinians to hold property left for the support of evangelical truth, notwithstanding the actually pronounced decisions of the Judges. We again say, this is painfully ominous. But this is not all. A most melancholy and disgusting case of clerical immorality has lately been brought before the public, by means of an action instituted by the offender himself, that he might be guarded against some of the temporal inconveniences occasioned by his con

duct. On this exposure, even the papers which support the Church asked,

"What is this man's Bishop doing? Is there no power in the Church for the correction of such evils?" The Bishop himself has replied. He stated in the House of Lords that he could only govern the Church as he was allowed by Act of Parliament; and that the Act by which he would have to proceed in the present case limited his power to transactions occurring in his own diocess, within the two last years. And is this the supremacy of law in matters spiritual ? Is a Christian Bishop thus to have his hands tied up by restrictions which may be very proper in civil cases, where the liberty of the subject may require limitations on the rigorous operation of law, but which certainly assume another character when applied to matters of church government? A church is a society instituted by Christ, over which he claims to rule, and to which, for the preservation of its purity, he has given a body of laws, the execution of which he has intrusted to his officers, who are bound, by their allegiance to him, to see that those laws are observed. This principle the (now Free) Church of Scotland implored the Government and Legislature to recognise. But, no. Whatever became of spiritual independence, patronage was to be upheld, and the supremacy of the Civil Courts asserted. The operation of that asserted supremacy in matters spiritual is now exhibited. Even the "Times" newspaper, one of the most determined opponents of the Scotch Free Church, thus speaks in reference to this specimen of secular legislation for a branch of Christ's Church :-" Whether this law is made to protect delinquent Clergymen, and to secure its full value to Church patronage, or to defend congregations against unworthy Pastors, let those congregations judge. We have to confess that it completely shifts the blame from the Bishop, to the system of law under which he finds himself."

But what more can be expected when jurisdiction in spiritual matters is exercised by those who only look at the con

stitution of secular courts, the secular laws which they administer, and the secular rites which govern their proceedings, and which, of necessity, are governed by the secular objects which are to be secured by their administration? The affairs which properly belong to the Church, call for the application of other and higher principles. The whole case is included in the quaintly expressed, but proper, demand of the Scotch Divine, who, in the General Assembly, in the course of some discussion which, as he thought, was somewhat improperly conducted, exclaimed, "Rax me the Bible, Moderator." In the secular courts, books are often appealed to; but their constitution admits not of an authoritative reference to THE BOOK. Hence a decision of a very painful character, to which the Irish Judges have not long ago come. However fond of antiquity, Lawyers are contented with resting in the old canon law, founded on the human establishments of an advancing Popery, according to which the "laying on of the hands of the presbytery,” though accompanied by those of their President, possesses no ecclesiastical character, and can confer no ministerial power. By those who have studied in this school, no church is seen but in connexion with

diocesan Episcopacy. "Rax me the Bible," is a demand which they would instantly set aside. A case has lately been tried in Ireland, (and the decision may be now considered as confirmed by the House of Lords,) by which it has been declared, that marriages solemnized by a Presbyterian Minister, if both the contracting parties are not of that persuasion, are invalid, not being celebrated in facie Ecclesiæ, the Presbyterian Minister being regarded by the law as no Minister at all. The validity of Presbyterian orders, and the church state of Presbyterian religious societies,-for the law only regards them in that light,-are thus denied, and the most distressing confusion is carried into the bosom of families, the heads of which are thus declared to be unlawfully married. A remedy in point of fact for this humiliating condi

not.

tion, will be, we trust, speedily applied; but we have few hopes that the law will be altered. The dreaded and opposed subjects of the Bishop of Rome must be recognised, because episcopal; the reformed Presbyterians, yielding entire allegiance to the British Crown, not being such, are thus to be frowned upon, and told that the law knows them We do not yet see the end of the mischiefs which this bigoted exclusiveness threatens to inflict on the country. Talk of schism, indeed! Who are the schismatics but they who refuse the right hand of fellowship to all who do not agree with them in a nominal church government, even though they present indisputable proof that they are gregations of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered?"

con

The intelligence from India announces the reduction of Gwalior, and the annexation of its territory to the British empire. Whatever may be the character of these annexations in reference to the rulers concerned, it is matter of thankfulness to us to be aware that the people suffer no injustice. By coming under British rule, they cease to be goods and chattels, and acquire political existence, in which their rights of property and person will be recognised and protected. To the churches of England such enlargement of our Indian empire addresses a loud call. Our Indian fellow-subjects dwell in the thickest darkness of a degrading, demoralizing, and ruinous idolatry. It is the bounden duty of Christians to take care that their connexion with us be the means of bringing light to them that sit in darkness, and the region and shadow of death. If