alism and neology, which now with the colossal strides of a resistless giant, stalks unblushingly over our sacred pastures. Let it not be said that there are to be found among us, any, who like the German

that in all matters that are indifferent, and are determined by no law of God, the magistrate's authority must take place, and is to be obeyed. The Church has no authority that she can maintain in opposition to the magistrate, but in the executing the laws of God and the rules of the Gospel in all other things, as she acts under his protection, so it is by his permission. But here a great distinction is to be made between two cases that may happen; the one is, when the magistrate acts like one that intends to preserve religion, but commits errors and acts of injustice in his management; the other is, when he acts like one that intends to destroy religion, and to divide and distract those that profess it. In the former case, every thing that is not sinful of itself, is to be done, in compliance with his authority; not to give him umbrage, nor provoke him to withdraw his protection, and to become, instead of a nursing father, a persecutor of the Church. But on the other hand, when he declares, or it is visible that his design is to destroy the faith, less regard is to be had to his actions. The people may adhere to their pastors, and to every method that may fortify them in their Religion" (Burnet on the Articles, in Art. xxxvii.). We here take the opportunity of making two observations. First, we are anxious to state the extent of regal power in respect to our church; for on this point we are aware, that Presbyterians, and other such designing Sectaries, take a marvellous deal of pains, in maliciously, slanderously, and basely perpetuating among their unsuspecting and credulous auditories, a mistake, which the prejudices of ignorance, misconception, and bigotry, conspire to make venerable among them. The King, let us then inform them, is not the Spiritual Head of our Church-in fact neither in our Articles, Creeds, or any where else, is he designated by the term-Head. And even if he were so styled, they cannot but condescend to accept our own universal, authorized, and uncontradicted explanation of this terrible appellation. Though the term Head is left out by the Article, yet even that is founded on an expression of Samuel's to Saul--1 Sam. xv. 17. It is a figure, and all figures may be used either more loosely, or more strictly. In the strictest sense, as the head communicates vital influences to the whole body, Christ is the only Head of his Church; He only ought to be in all things obeyed, submitted to, and depended upon; and from Him, all the functions and offices of the Church derive their usefulness and virtue. But as Head may in a figure stand for the fountain of order and government, of protection and conduct, the King or Queen may be called, the head of the Church" (Burnet on Art. xxxvii.). This declaration of Bishop Burnet, is the approved opinion of every pastor within the pale of the Church of England. So the King has not one tittle of power in opposing the essential VOL. I.

V

neologists, profess to believe a Deity, but deny the mysterious and unseen workings of his directing Providence, whether among empires or individuals :— -nor like these, accede to the Personality of the Holy

principles of our Church --in contradicting, as regards our Establishment, any of those laws which we regard as Divine-in doing any thing among us, which we hold as derogatory to the rules of the Gospel-or in any respect whatever interfering in our spiritual ministrations. That he is the sole fountain, and instrument, in the hands of Providence, for providing us with all the earthly blessings, which God may vouchsafe to give unto us, either for the protection of our order with the Civil Sword" against the "Stubborn and Evil-doers” (Art. xxxvii.), or for the maintenance of our privileges, we have every reason to be truly thankful; and heartily pray, that this may soon be the case with every King, and every Nation, on the face of the earth. How happy should we be in having a Christian Prince as our earthly Patron-approaching our Altars in the humility of Christian devotion,—and whilst he unreservedly ascribes unlimited power to our scriptural views of Doctrine, Government, Discipline, and Ministrations, affords us likewise the encouragement of his sanction, and the succour of his protection! We should wish to know how these blundering fanatics can reconcile with their mightily tender, and scrupulous consciences, their opposition to this scriptural, reasonable, and common-sense principle! Do they forget the numerous examples and uniform practice, of the ancient Patriarchs and Kings of Israel-of Samuel's acknowledgment of Saul's authority (1 Sam. xv. 17.)-of the citation of Abimelech, the High Priest before Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 14.)—of David's laws and ordinances about several sacred things (1 Chr. xxiii. 6.), and his dying injunctions to Solomon (1 Chr. xxviii. 21.)—of Solomon's appointment of all ecclesiastical ordinances (2 Chron. viii. 14, 15.), and of his dismissal of Abiathar from the High Priest's office; all of which acts appear as the result only of their regal power-of Jehosephat's, Hezekiah's, and Josiah's regulations in sacred matters-of Mordecai who appointed the feast of Purim, by virtue of the authority, that King Ahasuerus gave him -and of both Ezra and Nehemiah, who by their commission from the kings of Persia, made several regulations in sacred things? Now do these sage Schismatics suppose, that their own inventions of church-government, and church-making, are superior to those special Revelations of heaven, which were communicated to God's highly-favoured, and special people? Ah! but say those superior intelligences, who had rather see their own notions rampant, than God's authority implicitly followed-" we have nothing to do with the Jewish dispensation, though it did come from God, and was attended with all the wondrous marks of his special favour." But they have, or ought to have something to do with the Christian dispensation, and the mandates of its Divine Founder, and his commissioned messengers. Is the temporal authority of Princes by

Spirit, but reject his enlightening, sanctifying influences, and consequently deny the all-powerful energy of Religion, either among courts or cottages:—nor like them also, believe in the Being and Divinity of

Him or Them, cancelled? Nay, but He confirmed it by his own example, and with new and unchanging sanctions. And so also did His companions and successors. We refer those Sectaries, who are not inaptly described in Scripture, as "promising liberty" (2 Peter, ii. 19.)—“ despising government”—“ presumptuous, self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of dignities" (2 Peter, ii. 10.)—“ murmurers, complainers" (Jude, 16.), to the example of our Blessed Lord, who submitted to Pontius Pilate, acting by the authority of Tiberiusthe Roman Emperor. Now who was Pilate? In this instance, he shewed himself an unjust judge-a suborned assassin, led on by lying accusers--and the deputy of a Heathen Emperor, whose authority over the Jews, was exercised by the harshest of all rights, the right of conquest over a subjugated and oppressed people. But mark the observation of our divine Master to this very Pilate"Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above" (John, xix. 11.). Our Saviour also commanded the Jews to "render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things which are God's" (Matt. xxii. 21.). The Apostles, likewise, upon the authority of their Divine Master, desired the Churches to " obey magistrates, to submit to them, and to pay taxes” (Rom. xiii. 1-7.)-and "charged every soul to be subject to the higher powers" (Ibid. v. 1.), “whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him" (1 Pet. ii. 13— 14.) ; — alleging this weighty reason, that they were "God's ministers (Rom. xiii. 6.), and the ordinance of God" (Ibid. v. 2.). It is also to be carefully remembered, that by the common consent of all antiquity, these passages of Scripture, include all persons, whether clergy or laity. And can Sectaries who pretend to have any claim to orthodoxy, refuse to pay obedience to, or turn aside from an alliance with a Christian Governor, on the plea of religious scruples, when their Religion teaches them indeed a very different lesson, and gives them scruples, if they would but mind them, in quite another direction. We see in the Scripture, how men possessed of the extraordinary inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and who were doubtless far superior in moral or political knowledge, to the most exalted princes of this world, yet by their precept and example enjoined strict obedience to a sovereign, whom they regarded as ruling by a divine right. And this sovereign, was brutal, tyrannical, and oppressive; lording it over a vanquished and subjugated nation. It is but necessary to mention the very name of Nero, to recall to the mind every scandalous excess of monstrous brutality and tyranny. Why do Scismatics then, on the pretence of a Christian Sovereign identifying himself with a Christian church, turn factiously aside, and rend the seamless vesture of Christ? Why do they not "obey

our Blessed Saviour, but deny the divine efficacy of his precepts-the sovereign greatness of his sanctions -and the all-pervading influence of his holy Religion. Is it not, therefore, our bounden duty, at all times,

God rather than men?" Why do they "resist the ordinance of God?" Why would they fondly desire to distract "the unity of the Spirit," and violate, unscripturally," the bond of peace? (Eph. iv. 3.). Are they not inexcusable-have they not a Christian King, whose highest prerogatives, extend not beyond the threshold of all that is vital, and essential in a Christian church? They have not the brutal tyranny and heathenish excesses of a Nero to grind them to the dust. They have a King, born, baptized, and educated, in the bosom of a Christian church, who disclaims any interference in our Doctrines or Faith, but as a Christian Sovereign regards himself in the hands of Providence, as the temporal fountain of all her earthly privileges. Yes, but says the conscientious Presbyterian or Quaker-“ Kings have nothing to do with Religion." Where are these doctrines to be found? Is it in God's own Church of old, or among his own chosen people? Did Christ abridge the power of even heathen princes? Did his Apostles? Did the universal practice of antiquity? The answer is indelibly recorded in the sunbeams of Revelation, and in the accredited records of the primitive ages. Ah! but Kings, say they, are not Christian men. Well, but who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. ix. 20.). Is not the example, nay, the precept of your Saviour sufficient for you? Did He think it derogatory to his Divine character, to have Himself styled-in the language of inspiration, when it was intended that the unparalleled splendours of His infinite Majesty and supremest glory, should be set forth to men-" King of Kings and Lord of Lords"-(Rev. xvii. 14.)—and "the Prince of the kings of the earth?" (Ibid.). Will you refuse the sacred relationship which a Christian subject ought to bear to a Christian Prince, when your Lord does not disdain to connect himself to earth, in a mysterious tie with those, whom His Revelation elsewhere describes as “ordained of God" (Rom. xiii. 1.)—and as having “a power which only is of God?" (Ibid.). Oh! but kings, say you, may be downright infidels. Yes, but "let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom. iii. 4.): and if you do not quite explode the overruling hand of a superintending Providence, remember that the Almighty "removeth kings and setteth up kings” (Dan. ii. 21)—that by Him "kings reign and princes decree justice" (Prov. viii. 15.)—that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men (Dan. iv. 17.)-and that 'the king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will" (Prov. xxi. 1.). Be the king, then, who or what he may, you owe him unswerving obedience, as well in religious as in secular matters, provided there is made by him no palpable infringement on the superior authority of the laws of God and the Gospel-and this infringement also, must be of such a

but more especially at the present extraordinary period, to act in the spirit of that exhortation which Israel received, when they were about to defend themselves against the heathen Ammonites and Syrians-" Be of nature, as to involve your own individual guilt, in consequence of your participation: nor should such an obedience be merely "for wrath, but also for conscience sake" (Rom. xiii. 5.). Now we may suppose a sturdy Presbyterian, or Independent, or Quaker, declaring, that if the King would profess either of these their Religions, then assuredly they could regard him, even in a religious point of view, as their supreme, earthly Head. But surely these fine sons of liberty cannot object to their King, being himself also strictly conscientious on this same point. They will certainly allow him to have one Religion, and as the Father of his people, to approve himself as the faithful, consistent, zealous professor of the one Religion of his choice, protecting its teachers, sanctioning their regulations, screening them from the attacks of the adversaries of all truth, and promoting their temporal welfare. If these Sectaries do not understand in theory, what the principles of government are, they can excellently shew us, that they rigorously regard them in their own practice. As the heads of families, as the officers of their self-constituted assemblies, though laymen, they can appoint, with an undisturbed conscience, their Ministers- dictate to their pastors and companions-and prescribe most knowing regulations to extend their own views, to propagate their own principles, and to protect their delicate consciences from the inroads of their rival schismatics! But it were impious in the extreme, say these charitable brethren, for the King to take the same course, though he may be the Fountain of all order and government! It were diabolical to take care of, and foster the religious views, either of himself or his obedient children, who as his dutiful subjects regard him as their common Father, Protector, and Friend! Yes, but these intelligent Sectaries have another happy expedientnothing less than to enlarge and extend the boundaries of the conscience of their King, and so contriving, that he should not be inordinately, or indeed sincerely attached to the principles of any one creed, party, or sect, but would have an equal regard for all, whether Papist or Protestant - Presbyterian or Quaker-Arian or Socinian— Swedenborgian or Ranter!!! As the consistent subjects of a Protestant king, and as conscientious members of the Church of England, we are not quite disposed to recommend this heterogeneous plan; but coming, as it does, from a channel so narrowed and contracted, we are somewhat surprized at the amazing comprehension of the sublime discovery! Lord Bolingbroke has not unwisely told us, that "History is philosophy teaching by examples;" and his Lordship's maxim has the effect of giving us a salutary lesson. This glorious scheme was once attempted, and the cost let the Poet narrate—

"Murder'd their King, usurp'd the Throne,

And turn'd the Kingdom upside down.”—Butler.