hand of violence on thrones and powers, they now mock at and revile them; or worse still, pleading, with misconstruction and abuse of holy things, the inherent rights of humanity, they proclaim the doctrine that law should be the creature of popular will, and that executive authority ought to be considered as the gift of the governed-in other words, that the ruler is the servant of his subjects or constituents. This lying, ad-captandum-vulgus sentiment--deadly and demoralizing is creeping with stealthy advance, and venomous intent, among all classes of our republican society, and unless checked, must ere long do its fatal work upon our belov ed state.

These reflections are proposed to direct attention to that wide-spreading influence which seeks to revolutionize the church-that pseudo-ecclesiastical democracy, which, with a spirit akin to that of its political counterpart, so far as it dares is trampling on the necessary distinctions which have long obtained in Christ's house. To speak plainly, we wish to rebuke the doctrine, now becoming quite prevalent, that authority does not belong to the ministry, and which, by way of pleasing the popular ear is often written thus-"the minister and the people are on an equality in the church of Christ."

In denying this doctrine, we do not wish to take merely negative ground, we desire also to affirm. And that we may be systematic in our suggestions, we propose this as the sentiment which we wish to establish, namely-Authority is an inherent prerogative of the ministerial office.

The nature and limits of the power which we ascribe to the ordained ministry, we shall endeavor to make topics of reflection, before we close.

We shall be aided in considering the proposition before us by examining,

I. The principles upon which executive authority in the state is based.

By "the state," we do not mean the individual or aggregate members of a community or political compact-we rather mean that immaterial but real entity, which in legal transactions represents the general interests of all those concerned in the political relationship. We offer this definition of a common phrase to take occasion to express our conviction that no one man, nor any set of men, nor indeed the majori ty of the subjects of a government may rise up and say, "I" or we are the state."

66

The interests of the whole and nothing short of this, make up, that grand reality "the state," which mere popular will is bound always to defer to, and which claims homage of all those amenable to its jurisdiction.

The state then, representing the interests of its constituents has two great necessities.

There is need in the first place, that the various duties arising from the multiform relations and circumstances of community, should be discovered and urged upon the public in the shape of law.

The second necessity follows close after this-to wit, the need of strict and impartial enforcement of law.

These two necessities give rise to the organization of governments. The government of every state should be but a reflection of God's infinitely greater government, which has for its great end the instruction in, persuasion to, and enforcement of, duty. We mistake in saying that the civil should be a reflection of the Divine administration of affairs. The one is but a part of the other-for plainly the design of the two, namely to expound and enforce duty, is strictly identical, Hence, only those who are clearly called of God to the work have any right to undertake even civil office; for the Most High surely has a right to appoint his subordinates.

The fact that civil governments are but part of the divine system of rule, and that the officers of state should be only such men as are esignated by the almighty as fit to represent Himself, is well expressed by the apostle Paul in his epistle to the Romans, (13: 1,) “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers-For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Here the sacred writer with sufficient plainness, expresses two facts—

1. That all civil officers receive their commissions or appointments from on high-and hence,

2. That such officers in their official capacities, represent God, and on this account, ought to receive the respect of those whom they govern-and hence by implication, that instead of being the servants, they are, de jure, the rulers of the people. To pursue the inference a step further, we remark, that that doctrine which declares it to be the right of the people to make or unmake their governors, is a libel on the character of Deity and the dignity of his government.

Let us return for a moment to the consideration of the first inference from Paul's quoted sentiment, viz: That all rightful civil offices are appointed or commissioned by God.

The objector to this doctrine will tell us that since the theocracy has passed from existence, there are no means of knowing to whom Jehovah would assign power. To this we reply

1. That God may by his providences indicate whom he would have to represent Himself in civil governments. For instance, a state becomes convulsed with discords-anarchy riots on the scattered fragments of society-the hand which holds the emblems of power is too feeble to check the growing and threatening tumult. At this moment a Cromwell, emphatically a man of the times, of sturdy will and ready judgment, skillful to devise and prompt to execute, hating tyranny and fearing lawlessness-indeed, in all respects fitted to wield effectually the baton of power, is, by a train of singular circumstances, thrust upon the stage of public action. In such a case there can be no doubt that God, by his providences, has plainly said "let this man be the protector of the state."

But such instances are rare. We think that the old doctrine of "the divine right of kings" had some show of reason -that Providence, by blessing the reign of a family, by making kingship the minister of undoubted good to the state, may and sometimes does point to monarchy as a power ordained by Himself. But

2. The plan of divine ordination to authority which seems to comport best with human freedom and human intelligence, and which fully meets the objection we are replying to, is that which lies at the basis of our republican government, namely, the liberty of the people to signify whom they suppose to be chosen of Deity to hold office. This plan derogates nothing from the prerogatives of God. In revelation he makes known what ought to be the characteristics of those who hold office. Then he grants the characteristics necessary for a particular office to some members of community. Having done this, He bids the people at large to use the light they possess, and which, if used, will infallibly direct to the individuals thus prepared, and then solemnly declare whom they believe to be the ordained of God. So then, even in a republic, it is Jehovah who appoints to office-men merely expressing their assent to or belief of such a choice.

We say that it is the Almighty who appoints. We mean by this, that without an ordination from on high--that is, without those qualifications which indicate such fitness for the office claimed, as shall prove divine consent and choice

no man has a real right to any civil station of authority, however unimportant, or whatever may have been the voice of electors with respect to him.

Having thus endeavored to answer objections to the dectrine that Deity may and does appoint all rightful office-holders to their stations, we proceed to say, by way of recapitu lation and explanation, that holding this doctrine, we believe that civil office is to be regarded as the very ordinance of Heaven, and as such to be respected; and still more, that he who disobeys his legitimate earthly ruler, disobeys God; and that he who calls the ruler his servant, calls Jehovah his servant. There may be, and often are instances, in which duty to God and man claims of us a resistance to the dictation of those called our governors; but this resistance is not against the governor, but against him who by his conduct shows that Jehovah has given him no appointment to the office which he claims to hold. As another has eloquently said, "Cromwell, Pym, and Hampden, were loyal men; they loved, honored, and obeyed the king; but they believed Charles Stuart failed to be, as he assumed, the king-and hence they slew him."

In the foregoing somewhat desultory sketch, we have aimed to show how men acquire title to office, and what considera: tion is to be ascribed to them having thus become rulers. We wish now to spend a moment in inquiringWhat power or authority belongs to civil administrators?

To avoid detail, we say in general, that governments or governors have the authority, and are bound to discover, expound, and enforce duty.

They have no right to make laws, but may and must study the attitude of affairs, and decide what requirements naturally follow from the position of things; in other words, what laws. nature and necessity make; and having made such discriminations, are authorized and bound to publish the ascertained rules of action in the form of statutes. The precepts having been made known, another prerogative of government is to expound them, or to illustrate and certify ex catheara, with authority, to the subjects of the laws, the meaning and application of those laws.

A final power of rulers is to enforce obedience to prescribed statutes. But with respect to this enforcement, the government possesses no arbitrary power. Its authority ends with bringing offenders to the test and trial of law already existing, nad with executing the penalty of violated rules. Its warrant for the apprehension of the supposed criminal-its citation

to the bar of justice its sentence after a verdict of guilt-and its final execution of that sentence, must all be limited by law; but while according with law, must have the sovereign authority which God's word and action would have in like

In fine, we see if these positions be correct, that there is, if the phrase will not startle our readers, a divine power in human goverments-but that this power may never transcend law, and in republics is subject to the constant check of the popular verdict whether the existing administration merits or forfeits the authority which it claims.

We have offered the above remarks, as a preface to what we propose to consider,

II. The principles on which the ministerial office is based and some of the main facts which follow from those principles. We shall exhibit the principles alluded to, by illustrating, 1. The process of induction into the ministerial office.

We believe that all power is of God, and that any office in which either or both of the prerogatives of government, namely, to expound or enforce duty, is or are exercised, is a part of the great scheme of Divine control, and as such, is entitled and subject to the regulation of the same rules in accordance with which any other part of the universal plan of government is constructed. Now let us enquire what the ministerial office is, and how the holder of it becomes entitled to it.

The church of Christ may be considered as "a State," using the term in its law sense. It is an aggregation of most important interests. The chief necessities of this, like those of the civil state, are those of instruction in and enforcement of duty. Both of these offices are undertaken by Christ, the great Head of the church. "I am the way, the truth and the life," he says to his disciples, doubtless meaning when he calls himself "the truth" to signify that He is the grand source of instruction and duty to his people. In proof that He is the administrator of discipline to his flock, we may cite Ephesians 1:22 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church." This language seems to imply that Christ is the official administrator of disciplinary law to his people.

But in fulfilling the duties of his relation to his flock, the Savior sees fit to make use of means. Accordingly he endows certain men with those qualifications which prepare them to discharge to some branch of the body ecclesiastical, those of fices which belong primarily to himself. Thus Christ "or