but misery and ruin must result from their neglect of it? We are never more liable to err, than when we endeavour to become the conservators of the Divine character and glory, and when we determine what God ought to do or ought not to do in any particular case; and we should beware of this but it is otherwise if God Himself has come forward, and has told us Himself (knowing all things) that such a method became Him; then, however mysterious it seems, we are bound to acquiesce in it. And has He not declared that "it became Him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of our salvation perfect through suffering?"

death unto life, and shall never come inte condemnation. Does it not become you to exclaim with the Church, "O Lord, I will praise thee: though Thou wast angry with me, Thine anger is turned away, and Thou comfortedst me ?” Or with the apostle: "We joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement?" With what pleasure should you pursue your course, and how careful should you be to avoid murmuring and complaining under those trials, with which you are exercised in your preparation for heaven! For there is nothing penal in any of your sufferings. Christ endured the curse; there is only the cross for you. You are made partakHas He not told us, that ers of these sufferings, that you may be being made perfect" through sufferings made partakers of His holiness and He "He became the Author of eternal salva- will sustain you under them, and sanctify tion unto all them that obey Him;" that you by them, and at last deliver you from He " once suffered for sin, the just for them, and wipe away all tears from your the unjust, that He might bring us to eyes. God;" and that "now in Christ Jesus we who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ?"

66

Thus, you see, in these few remarks we have abased the creature, and we have justified the blessed God. And my dear hearers, endeavour to get, and keep always in your minds, proper views of these two grand subjects which we have now been speaking of; namely, the condition of all men by nature, and the condition of all Christians by grace. Are you sensible of being in the former condition? Why, then, we proclaim to you the second. We come among you and say you need not despair. Though your case be helpless in itself, God has "laid help on One that is mighty;" though hopeless in itself, "there is hope in Israel concerning this thing." We announce to you a Saviour who is "able to save," who is willing to save, "to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him, seeing that He ever liveth to make intercession for them;" and who cannot deny Himself; who has said, "Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out."

Some of you have experienced this blessed transition: you have passed from

:

But hear the voice of Paul to Titus: "These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they who have believed in God be careful to maintain good works." You know, this doctrine of free grace is commonly considered, by the poor blind people of the world, as leading to licen tiousness; or, at least, as not friendly to holiness or good works. We endeavour to rectify their mistake; we appeal to many things; our best appeal should be to you. And if you "walk as becometh saints," if your "conversation" be such as "adorns the doctrine of God our Saviour," the reproach will be rolled away, and we shall "live, if you stand fast in the Lord." Let it, then, appear that the best principles produce the best practice. Letit appear, that whatever influence fear may have, or whatever influence hopemay have, love has a much greater still; and that the love of Christ shed abroad in the heart can "constrain" you to "live to Him that died for you and rose again." And therefore, brethren, "by the mercies of God, we beseech you, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reason. able service.”

PRIZE ESSAYS ON MISSIONS.

The two prizes of £200 and £100 for Essays on Missions have been adjudged, the former to the Rev. Dr. Harris of Cheshunt College, the latter to the Rev. R. W. Hamilton of Leeds.

SOME further remarks upon this question have appeared during the past month; and we proceed to add them to the collection of opinions comprised in our last two Numbers.

BY THE REV. DR. PAYNE OF EXETER.-" Mr. Wardlaw admits that a minister does not lose, by his sacred character,' his relations and responsibilities as a member of civil society. This important admission exhibits a truth, which is, I fear, sometimes overlooked by Christians and ministers. Are there not some of the latter especially, who have been too prone to imagine that the higher duties which devolve upon them, as the result of their relation to the Church of God? might be permitted to absorb all their attention, and who have further made the discharge of such duties an apology, for the neglect of those which they owe to their country? I affirm nothing on this point. Yet I must express the opinion, that, if there be such, they have committed a grievous mistake. All the duties which are incumbent upon us grow out of relations, and the whole of them might be discharged by the Christian, the inferior (if it be right thus to speak) as well as the superior, those which he owes to his country as well as those which he owes to his God. Let the principle be once admitted, that attention to one class of duties may excuse the neglect of others, and we shall speedily hear of the neglect of domestic duties. Ministers will have no time, it will be said, to devote to the instruction of their families; higher duties absolve them from the obligation. Let no man fail to protest against this species of Antinomianism. Till we cease to be members of the State, we can

not throw off the duties of citizens.

"This admission made by Mr. Wardlaw assists us in deciding upon the correctness of an assertion often made-'That Christians, and especially Christian ministers, have nothing to do with politics.' It teaches us, that, whatever be the duty of citizens in general in reference to political measures, is equally the duty of Christians and Christian ministers. And it follows from this statement, that, if ministers should express, in their citizen character, no opinion on political measures —no disapprobation of such as are, in their opinion, cruel and unjust—should use no means to prevent or alter them,-it follows that no one should do this; that a nation, bound hand and foot and tongue, is delivered up to a corrupt legislature, if such should happen to exist (for the legislature is the judge, in the opinion of Mr. Wardlaw, of the rectitude of political and fiscal enactments); and that, as it has not the power to alter them, so it has not the right to make its voice heard in the tones of indignant remonstance and condemnation! Sir, I disclaim this opinion as that not being of a Briton, but of a slave. I never surrendered any natural right to judge of political measures and movements, though I have surrendered direct controul over them. The nation has not surrendered its right to judge. It could not safely do it; for, if proposed political measures and movements should be cruel, unjust, and wicked, and the nation did not express disapprobation, it would share in the guilt of the enactments.

Secondly, Mr. Wardlaw admits that all that was done by the ministers at Manchester would have been done properly if they had met as citizens, and not as ministers. Had the chairman, at the commencement of the proceeding, just uttered the single sentence, 'Recollect, brethren, that being ministers, we only meet in our capacity of citizens,'-at any rate, had the letters of introduction made this nice distinction,—all would have been well. 'The letters' written in justification of the Conference 'show unanswerably,' he says, 'what ministers may do politically, as members of the body politic; and had the gentlemen of the Conference only met as such, I should have had nothing to except against.' Again, he tells us, that 'for the proceedings of the Conference,' with the single exception that its members met as ministers, he feels proud and thankful.' And yet that meeting was, in his opinion, a political one. Ministers may, then, in the judgment of Mr. Wardlaw, interfere with politics. Now if, in their citizen character, they may do this, is it not manifest that the extent of that interference is a difficulty, (if it involve any difficulty,) which Mr. Wardlaw, as well as his opponents, has to encounter. My friend has still to settle the point of degree. May not any member of the Con

ference retort upon him, 'If ministers, as members of the body politic, may interfere in politics, why should they not be leaders in election contests, &c. &c.?' Mr. Wardlaw does not surely need to be informed, that the next thing objected against is, that men being ministers' should interfere at all, not that they should interfere as ministers; and I suppose that this is the great difficulty in the minds of ministers themselves. Mr. Wardlaw may be assured, that allowing ministers, as he does, to be present at, and to take part in, political meetings, he will shield them from no censure by the explanation that they are not there as ministers. I fear he would expose them to heavier censure. The mere absence of their sacred character,' and not of their persons, will not shelter, when the pith of the objection is, that this sacred character should have kept them away. I need not remind Mr. Wardlaw

6

of the prelate who apologised for his profanity by stating that he swore as the baron of and not as the bishop of ; nor of the retort, And pray, my lord, when the baron is damned for swearing, what will become of the bishop?" The application is easy; and, I apprehend, that though an individual 'being a minister,' has undoubtedly the double character of citizen and minister, Mr. Wardlaw must resort to other means of justifying interference in politics than those which are indicated by his letter.

"Before I pass from this part of the subject, I would suggest that Mr. Wardlaw may be mistaken in affirming that the Conference was a meeting of ministers in their sacred character. Conceding, for the sake of argment, that it could be fairly called a political meeting of ministers, it is not certain that it was a meeting of such in their sacred character.' I doubt whether the thought occured to most of us, 'In what character do we meet-as citizens or as ministers?' The facts-that we were ministers-that ministers only were invited and admitted-do not prove that we met as ministers. For reasons which satisfied the inviters, ministers alone were asked to go to Manchester, but they were not asked to go in their offi cial character. There was nothing in the preliminary proceedings to fix the character in which we should assemble, or to render it necessary for us to regard ourselves, when sitting in the Conference, in any other light than as members of the body politic. If Mr. Wardlaw's shield be a sufficient one, there is nothing, as far as I can see, to prevent the Conference availing itself of it.

"And now I beg your indulgence to make a few remarks upon Mr. Wardlaw's argument, designed to prove that ministers must not, as ministers-though they may as citizens-interfere with politics. It rests upon an affirmed distinction between the ethics of politics, and politics themselves. The line of separation is not, I think, very clearly defined; yet I am not disposed to deny that a distinction exists, nor that Mr. Wardlaw is substantially correct in his statements. The ethics of politics, and politics themselves, sustain much the same relation to each other with theory and practice, science and art. We are within the former department, when stating the moral and religious principles by which all political measures should be regulated; we enter on the latter, when we originate or enforce the measures themselves. Now, if I correctly understand Mr. Wardlaw, he maintains that it is the province of a minister to teach the rules according to which such measures should be conducted, but not the measures themselves; and he objects to the Conference because it thus interfered with the measures, i. e., sought to obtain the abolition of the corn laws. In anticipation of a reply, that, if ministers are to teach the rules, they should unfold their practical application, i. e., direct the measures as well as teach the morality, he says, No; 'because those measures, even as to the morality involved in them, belong to the community, not to the ministerial function; while as to their substance, they involve ordinarily much besides morals, for which a minister might not be incompetent as a man, but with which his office has nothing to do.' Certainly ministers are not appointed to originate political measures, but are they not to judge of them? I am not, indeed, sure that I understand the first part of the quotation just made-viz., 'The measures, as to their morality, belong to the community.' Is it meant that it belongs to the community, and not to ministers, to judge of their moral character, or that ministers must only judge of this in their citizen character? If such be the meaning, I would ask Mr. Wardlaw, while admitting that the community are bound to form a judg

ment on political measures, whether he considers them the best able to do it -whether they can do it in any way but by applying to the measures those general principles of morality and religion, which, as he admits, it is the especial office of the minister to teach ?-whether they are to apply these general principles without any aid from the minister,-or, if he allow that such aid is to be given, whether it is to be given only in his citizen character, the character in which one would think he is less able to give it? Mr. Wardlaw, as it appears, would confine the minister to the mere inculcation of general principles in politics; he would not permit him to show the bearing of these principles upon any particular measure (for that would be teaching the measure as well as the morality); or, if he, the minister, do this, he must do it as a citizen merely. Now, it may be asked, will not the minister sacrifice usefulness by confining himself to this bare abstract statement of general principles? And again, why should he thus confine himself in reference to one particular class of duties merely? If he is to point out the practical application of general rules as they bear upon cases in the Church, in the social and domestic circle, why not in the body politic? True, it belongs not to his office to originate the political measures, any more than to devise modes of transacting business; but does it not belong to his office to judge both of the measures and the modes, when any moral principle is involved in them? Is he not bound to do this as an appointed teacher of moral and Christian principles? Doubtless the application of general moral and religious rules requires great wisdom and skill-calls for much prayer on the part of a minister; but I cannot perceive that it forms no part of his duty.

"I am not scared by the consequence which, as Mr. Wardlaw thinks, would result from this practice-viz., that the State would become the handmaid of the Church.' To see the State so far obedient to the Church of Christ as to regulate all its political measures by the great principles of truth and duty which she unfolds, is a consummation devoutly to be wished. I doubt, however, whether we shall witness this blessed time while the Church is contented to see political measures originated by irreligious men, and forbids her ministers, as Mr. Wardlaw would do, from interfering even when unrighteous measures have sprung into existence.

"There is still another ground of justification of the Conference, to which I have not as yet adverted, but which I must not pass over. Mr. Wardlaw justifies the attempt made by ministers to carry measures for the abolition of slavery, because 'that subject belongs not,' he says, 'to the politics of nations, but to their crimes.' Now, may not this be said of protective duties in general, but especially of a protective duty on food? I denounce the corn-law, imposed as it is, not for the purposes of revenue, but for the benefit of one part of the community at the expense of the rest, as a violation of justice; it belongs, therefore, to the crimes, and not to the politics of the country. It has lately been avowed, that it exists for the purpose of keeping up rent; that is, for legally stealing from the scanty pittance of the poor, the widow, and the orphan, to add to the overflowing abundance of the rich. I feel assured, that the God of the fatherless and the widow can regard a political measure of this kind with no degree of complacence."

By the Rev. GILBERT WARDLAW." In proceeding with the question of principle as to the connection between politics and the ministerial function, I return to the adjustment of cases in which politics and morality seem to be interwoven; as when legislative enactments violate some moral or religious obligation. Is a minister to be debarred from discharging his duty to teach morality, because he cannot do so without denouncing one political measure and recommending another?

"Now, here, two questions have been somewhat perplexingly mixed up in this discussion, for which I take part of the blame to myself. They are, What may a minister do, as a teacher, in giving instruction upon subjects of this kind? and, What he do as may an active abettor,' or political actor, in the measures necessary to effect a change? As to the former,-may he direct his instructions against particular evils? I have no hesitation in answering, Yes-provided the question in the case be really one of religion or morality, and not of politics. The fact of an evil being sanctioned by a political enactment, is not that which exempts it from the province of a minister's teaching. If my remarks upon the teaching of political morality be re-perused, it will be seen that they were introduced in immediate connec