They are now, indeed, sons of God; but it doth not yet appear what they shall be; and the world knows them not. They are like David now-anointed, but not crowned; and like him, through much tribulation they also are entering into their kingdom. Then they will be as kings sitting upon thrones, and reigning for ever and ever. inherit the kingdom prepared for you from before the foundation of the world?" For if not, there is no alternative but your hearing the sentence, "Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Some of you are ready to ask, 'By what shall I know that I shall inherit heaven?' "Oh ! could I read my title clear And wipe my weeping eyes." 66 Men and brethren, what is the language of this subject to us? Are there any scoffers here this morning, such as are spoken of by Peter, "walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning." It is not evidence, but disposition you want; you seldom feel an inclination. You are now -you know you are-" willingly ignorant" of these things. But you will not be ignorant always; you will not be ignorant long.The philosopher of Malmesbury, Hobbes, as hew as dying said, "I yield Lastly, let Christians be animated by my body to the dust, and my soul to the this in every duty; let them be supported great Perhaps." Here was a state to die by it in every trial; and let it smooth the in! And Thistlewood, when he was as- rough path. Let it sweeten the bitter cending the drop, said to his fellow-cup of adversity; and let it cheer the traitors, "Ah! we shall soon know the great secret now." What infatuation, to leave the discovery till the discovery can only end in eternal ruin! My brethren, your denial of all this will not falsify it. If a criminal in a prison, by any process of mental delusion, can be persuaded that the assize will not take place, you know this will not hinder it. Hark! the trumpet sounds; the judge enters the town, and he must appear before him. While you deny, or reason, or ridicule, the season is approaching; and in a little time" He will return to discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God, and him that serveth Him not." What is the language of this subject? "He that hath ears to hear, let him ear.' What are you doing? What are you pursuing? The question is not, where are you to reside for a few months, or a few years; but what is to become of your souls for ever and for ever? I ask not whether you are rich or poor, whether you are applauded or censured by your fellow creatures, whether you are learned or illiterate but I ask, What will you be in a dying hour? What will you be when the dead small and great stand before God? Will you hear the delightful sound, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, : gloom of the grave. This was the lan guage that influenced the first Christians; they thought they heard―(their consciences did always hear it)—they thought they heard the voice, "Come, ye blessed of My Father ;" and they shook off from their souls every particle of idleness, and "laboured that whether present or absent they might be accepted of Him." This raised them above the pressure of their losses and their trials; this led them to "take joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing in themselves that they had a better, and an enduring substance." This led them to say, "We reckon that the sufferings of this present life are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed." "These light afflictions," said they, "which are but for a moment work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." Can such reflections as these be ever unseasonable with regard to dying creatures, and who are hastening into eternity? And how many mementoes have we, my dear brethren, that this is our own case! for we continually see men going to their long homes, and the mourners going about the streets; and by the mortality of others ought to be reminded of our own. It is rather remarkable (and I cannot help mentioning it, because it will furnish very loud calls to this Church and to this congregation) -it is remarkable how many, more or less connected with this place, have been removed from our world within comparatively a few days. I buried this morning Mrs. Pilbrook, a poor, pious member of this Church. Yesterday Mrs. Upward, a poor and pious widow, a member of this Church, was removed by death. Then there was Mr. Fox. He was not, indeed, a member of the Church, but a regular and constant attendant. From Church fellowship he was deterred by a natural and unconquerable timidity, which should not have restrained him; but he was one of those (and I love them), who feel the truth without talking about it; he was (6 an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile." Many a one exclaims in the neighbourhood, "Ah! he was a good man.' Then there was Mr. John Smith, who, though not a member of this Church, nor properly speaking a member of the congregation, yet not only occasionally and frequently, but most commonly attended here; while some of his relations, who are bewailing his loss, are in Church communion with us. Then there was Mr. Shepherd, who, though not a member of the Church, was a hearer when he was able, and has left a wife and children, honourable members of this Church, and in communion with us. Then there was Mrs. M'Dowal, who for many years has been a member with us. Her sufferings (for she was a great sufferer) so engrossed and exhausted her, as to leave little opportunity for reflection or freedom of speech yet after some conflicts she felt and expressed a blessed resignation, and a desire to "depart and to be with Christ which is far better;" and has left an only daughter to bewail her loss of a most attentive and tender mother; a devoted husband to deplore the loss of a faithful and affectionate wife; and friends to bewail the loss of a kind friend. But when we mourn for those who "sleep in Jesus,' ," we should not (6 sorrow as those who have no hope," but always remember, that what is our loss is their gain. The very day of her departure, our good and amiable friend, Mr. Kent was removed. He had resided among us many years, and walked in all the commandments and ordinances He possessed of the Lord blameless. much of the spirit of the Gospel. He was a firm dissenter, and never swerved from the principles in which he was trained up, nor ceased to be a follower or admirer of those who suffered for conscience sake, and of whom the world was not worthy. But while firm in his own views, he was catholic towards those who differed from him: for what is candour, unless it be associated with conviction of mind? He was just and liberal in his political sentiments, and therefore deserved to be, as he was for several years, in municipal office among a free and happy people. He was officially connected with some of our religious institutions, and a firm friend to them all. You well know, (for you must be pretty well acquainted with my manner, who are in the habit of hearing me,) that I never judge of a person, wholly or principally, by a particular frame, or a class of expressions, used in sickness and death; but I must confess, I have rarely visited one whose experience and language were so pleasing and edifying as his. It was a privilege to visit him. He was not only calm, but (this is a proper word to use) blessed; relying on the Saviour, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. Well, he has joined many of his pious relations, and especially a loved and excellent companion, who preceded him. Well, he has left prayers, and instructions, and examples, and the promise of God to the seed of the righteous. His connexions, and especially those of his children now in his presence, who are anxious to follow him as he followed Christ, will lament his loss; but while this is the case, we hear the Saviour saying, "I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Let us hold communion with those, who are departed in the way of meditation. Let us remember, too, that what they have passed through is the end of all; and the living should lay it to heart. We should remember, that a day is coming, when another voice shall be heard from this desk, when other hearers will fill these pewswhen not only this large assembly will be in another world, but in eternity. Where shall we be found then? God grant that we may be found at His own right hand, and then hear the words which His own beloved lips will pronounce on all that love Him and fear Him, saying, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." THE late Manchester Conference of "Ministers of all religious denominations," on the subject of the Corn laws, drew forth various expressions of opinion on the question, which we have placed at the head of this article. These we collected in our last Number; but the discussion on this point has not been allowed to terminate with the sitting of the Conference. The Patriot newspaper has invited communications upon the subject; and we are enabled to add the following to our collection. BY THE REV. GILBERT WARDLAW.—“That a minister does not lose, by his sacred character, his relations as a member of civil society, is a clear point. The duties of the citizen, therefore, attach to him personally; and he who in all things ought to be an example to others, is bound to discharge his political trust with the piety, the wisdom, the incorruptible fidelity, the courage, the patriotic philanthropy, that belong to every man who is at once a citizen and a Christian. To shrink from such claims on the ground that his religious usefulness would be injured by meeting them, would be as criminal and absurd as if he were to refuse to pay his pecuniary debts that he might have the more to give to the propagation of the Gospel. His course is plain, and for any consequences to his ministry he is not answerable. The letters of some eminent ministers have been appealed to in justification of the Convention. These show, unanswerably I think, 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 nothing to except against; but in so far as those letters approve of a political meeting of ministers in their sacred character (or are supposed to approve) I fail to perceive the soundness of their observations. I do not mean to express any doubt that the Conference has been represented from the first until now, as composed of ministers in their official character, and vindicated as such. The circular letters-the fact of official character being the ground of selectionthe statements of Dr. J. Pye Smith and Mr. Massie in their reported speechesyour own language throughout your effective advocacy of the measure—all hold forth the circumstance of minsterial character. If what has been said could be supposed to mean nothing more than that men, being ministers, met in their capacity of citizens, then much reasoning has been employed in defence in vain, and the modes of expression used have strangely mystified the subject. "To come to the point, then-How far does it belong to the ministers of religion, as such, to interfere with politics? "On the one hand, religion and morals are involved in political arrangements as a rule to direct them, and, practically considered, are affected by these arrangements in turn. But religion and morals are the special province of the minister of Christ. How, therefore, can he be justified in withholding his care from politics? On the other hand, would not the duty of interference carry us much farther than most, perhaps any of us, are yet disposed to go? Does not the choice of our national legislators immensely involve the interests of morality and religion? The character of the choice in the late general election has, in fact, made this present anti-corn law movement necessary. Why, then, should not ministers be leaders in election contests? or, if that be unbecoming the sacred function, why should they not recommend a candidate in the meeting-house? Does not war or peace involve morality and religion? Why not, then, express official opinions as to the Eastern question,' or war with China, or our relations with America, or other such business of the executive? Why not meet to prevent the recognition of Texas? Why not express our opinions as ministers on the questions of the electoral franchise, the ballot, the Government plans of education, the beer laws, reform in the criminal code, and a hundred other such objects, all closely connected, in one way or other, with the interests of morality and religion? Does not every measure by which national industry and tranquility are affected, also affect these interests? Why, then, no proceedings, in our character of ministers, to exert a right, religious and moral influence? It is, I apprehend, because we have hitherto thought that all this would not only be inexpedient, but be wrong-because we have not only felt an incongruity between the spiritual and the secular, but seen also that we should not simply have had to preach religion, but to argue questions of political science, in which, as ministers, we had no vocation-because we have judged that in a community divided upon political principles throughout all its circles, the sacred office, which is the common property of the Church, should not be given to weigh in the scale of one class of interests against another-because, such differences of interests being interminable, the man of God would be invested with a function of perpetual warand because, in thus pursuing the things of the present life, he would frustrate the vastly higher ends for which the ministry has been appointed. If we have been wrong in such notions, let us follow better light-but let us also follow it out. Why stop at the corn-law question, urgent as we now feel it to be? In its immediate pressure the evil is very sore, and cold must that heart be which does not feel at the recitals of want and woe which reach us from all parts of our beloved native isle. But there are other political ills to be cured. The remoter causes of this very distress, if we take years and generations together, have wrought, and are likely still to work, even greater lengths and breadths of national calamity. Our responsibility, then, extends itself; for if it belong to our office to be political, then it is not merely permitted us to be so, but imperative upon us; and where does the obligation cease within the circle of politics? "There appears to me to be a fallacy in the arguments which would bring us to connect politics (properly so called) with the ministerial character. That much honoured minister, Dr. J. P. Smith, is reported to have expressed himself in these words in his address at the meeting at Manchester: What are politics but the knowledge and practice of the claims of right, and the obligations of duty which belong to men as members of society?' When Mr. Massie presented this sentiment with the point of an apothegm, 'politics are but the morals of nations,' he correctly gave its spirit. But in either form, I must be so bold as to say, the learned Doctor defined the ethics of politics, not politics themselves. Politics, I conceive, are the actual business of communities, their economics, their legislation, their international transactions, to which the principles of morals ought to be applied; but they are not the morals themselves. This distinction, sir, is not a mere critical subtlety; it enters into the very essence of the question before us. It makes all the difference between a minister being a teacher of sound political morality, and an active abettor of political measures. And why not direct the measures, as well as teach the morality? Because these 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, both in science and secular experience, for which a minister might not be incompetent as a man, but with which his office has nothing to do. It will sometimes be difficult to tell the point at which the general principles of morals terminate, and the particular applications begin, just as it is often difficult to a minister to tell how much he may preach to his people without preaching at them. But the distinction is itself palpable, and the difference of moral effect in the two cases unquestionable. I cannot think, sir, that the object of the Conference can be said to bring it within that range of general instruction in political morals, for which Dr. Smith's forcible and beautiful remarks are, I think, a successful defence. The avowed design was to procure a particular political measure, as to which the country is divided a repeal of the corn laws; and no one knows better than that enlightened man, that the Conference was as truly exercising political power for the accomplishment of its design as if it had met in St. Stephen's a power recognised by our constitution, in the permission given to such peaceable deliberate meetingsthe power of expressing opinion, by which this nation, in fact, governs itself. The Conference most constitutionally and nobly exercised this power, but power it was. How a reverend gentleman, in the first day's proceedings, could say, as reported, that the object was not political, it is not easy to understand. To give bread to the hungry, the ultimate object, is certainly not political; but the same may be said of the objects of almost every political institution and measure. To introduce an alteration in the corn-laws, the immediate purpose, is truly a political one as to change a ministry; and though it ought not to be one of party politics, it has unhappily been made so. "Does the restriction of a minister to general truth in politics, leave a minister 3 K VOL. XIII. at a disadvantage in bringing religion and morals to bear upon the actual state of society? I see not how it does. He is a member of the community, and has even greater facilities than others to make his voice heard as such. And though he speak not ex cathedra, yet will the respect which is conceded to his office, and the legiti mate weight of intelligence and character, and the force of his moral and religious persuasives, carry with them all the influence a Christian patriot can desire. I sympathise with the wish which a minister naturally feels (to which Mr. Hamilton has given expression in his letter) to shun the strifes and tumults of promiscuous meetings. But are we shut up to the alternative? May there not be selection, although the principle be not official station? And is it not better for society that the feeling itself should be, to a considerable extent, foregone? "Surely it will not be said that the difference between a clerical politican and a citizen politican is too fine to be perceived. That it belongs to the office of a minister to support particular measures, is a principle which needs only to be carried out, and the State becomes the handmaid of the Church. That a minister may act like any other person in the community, is but equity, and keeps every thing right. When the two characters meet in the person of the same man, and in a particular transaction, they will appear to an undiscerning eye undistinguishable. But, like lines which meet in an angle, the principles have only to be extended in order that their divergence may appear; the one leads us to that spectacle, so pleasing in the eyes of Baronius, seen in the palmy days of Rome, when the proud successor of St. Peter made England's and France's monarchs his equerries as he rode in state; the other leads us to order, 'heaven's first law'-order in Church and State-to spirituality in the ministry, charity between Christians, peace in the community. BY THE REV. WALTER SCOTT, OF AIREDALE COLLEGE.—“I would beg leave to submit for Mr. Wardlaw's consideration, whether, when any particular act or law, on even those subjects on which the lawgivers of any community have an undoubted right to legislate, is evidently and directly contrary to the first principles of justice and the decisions of the Word of God,—when it is impious and oppressive, the ministers of religion would not be justified in meeting, in their official religious character, to express their conviction of its injustice, to rouse the public mind to a sense of its obliquity, and thus to endeavour to procure its repeal? For instance, it will, I suppose, be allowed by all, that to legislate with regard to theft, and to determine what punishment it deserves, is within the province of Government. But if our senators were, like Draco, to determine that every instance of it should be punished with death, or that a man for stealing an apple from a garden or from a stall, was to be crucified, or tortured till he expired, would it be inconsistent with the character, the office, or the duties of ministers of religion to meet, especially after many and vigorous efforts had been made in vain by others to procure its repeal-and when their assistance was requested by their fellow-countrymen—and use their influence to procure its abolition? I suppose no one will assert that it would. Now, to me it appears that the corn-laws presented a case like that which I have supposed. Whatever right a government may have to legislate respecting corn or provisions, the corn-laws were proved-I must be permitted to say, demonstrated-to be not only impolitic, but unjust in their very principle, oppressive, and irreligious; and it was on that ground that I, for one, and I believe many others, attended the Conference at Manchester, and that I am prepared to attend another, if it should be necessary, on the same subject. Human legislators are not infallible; and even when they do not go beyond their limits, they may act very unjustly and irreligiously within them, so as to render it imperative even on all classes to exert all the influence that their situation and character may give, to keep them within bounds." BY A MINISTER IN GLOUCESTERSHIRE.-"The question seems to be, Is it right in ministers to meet in their ministerial character, in order, as far as they can, to bring the business of communities, their economics, their legislation, and international transactions' into a state of more obvious harmony with the dictates of morality and religion, which it is their special province to inculcate, enforce, and diffuse among all classes in the community? I think it is right thus to act; for in |