of means devised by Jehovah for carrying forward his work; and it must be observed. His work, by this and other means, will be completed. Though the evils that have occurred in the world have been permitted, yet some are chargeable with blame for committing them, and others are culpable for not having used various means, of which Covenanting is one, in order that they might have been prevented. Though the Romish apostacy was permitted, yet who can tell how far the Church of God was culpable in not using extensively enough for its prevention, Covenanting-one means directly adapted to that purpose? And who can tell what effect the performance of the duty will have in leading to the good in store for the Church, even on earth, and to the prevention of evil which, if allowed, would arise?

8

The duty, therefore, should be observed. It is irreligion that disregards it. Superstition and infidelity alike trifle with an oath; for Satan hates and tries to discredit this institution of heaven. Who, by not observing the ordinance of Covenanting would practically say, that it ought to be abolished? Who would say that one flower of the field should cease to exist in the vegetable world, because that many others emit a fragrance whose elements are the same as those of the sweets which it breathes, or display tints due to the same colours that afford its glorious hues? And who would say that this part of the glorious system of the means of grace is unnecessary? Let this ORDINANCE be observed, that evil, as a corrupt thing under the atmosphere and sun of heaven, may perish before it; that many may enjoy the blessedness of the inheritance of the saints; and that God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, the MEDIATOR of the New Covenant.

8 Appendix D.

APPENDIX.

A.

EVERY species of co-operation with the appointed functionaries of an immoral and unscriptural civil government, may not imply the recognition of that power to be the ordinance of God. To co-operate with these for example, in the execution of justice, is not necessarily to acknowledge that the power is of God. If the forms of proce. dure be in themselves proper, and the laws just, the carrying of them into effect for the good of society and for the glory of God, is in itself right. But it is one

thing to say that justice should be done in society, and also to aid in the execution of it, and it may be quite another to acknowledge that the civil rulers of the given society have a right to do so in virtue of authority from God. Justice should be done, by a civil power-agreeable to God's preceptive will. If no such power exist, the community are to blame for not originating such a power. And if justice be not done, they are also culpable ;-be. cause of the want of such a power justice is not to be undone. Were such to be allowed, the community would be chargeable with the crimes of both remaining without a proper civil power and permitting evil to be committed with impunity. To co-operate with an unlawful civil power in doing justice, is therefore to do less evil, yea more good, than would be done by refraining from cooperation.

The swearing of an oath by those called to testify to truth, or to act in the weighing of evidence, as on a jury, in order to the execution of justice, does not necessarily imply a recognition of the authority that calls to do so, to be of God. It is the using of a lawful means of giving assurance regarding truth necessary to be ascertained, but does not essentially imply that the claims of those exercising power to the use of that power, are good. A lawful constituted authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, has a right to claim an oath for proper purposes. But an oath may be sworn to others besides. It may be sworn for a good end, even to those whose pretensions to power and authority may not be well founded, but not as

if they had a right to claim it, but merely because of the giving of it being in itself right. The oath may be sworn for a proper purpose before an individual who has correct impressions of its sacredness, even though he may be acting for an unwarranted civil authority. It is not easy to conceive, however, how one could swear an oath to an infidel, or to any other who regards not the oath as a solemn religious engagement. The giving of an oath before a judge and jury, or on a jury before a judge, under an unscriptural government, does not include the recognition of those as using a power deputed by God; but contemplates them as christian men, though mistaken as to their power, yet doing what is in itself right, and which, if done by those possessed of authority from God, would be done in all things, though imperfectly, according to his will. To swear to do justice, is not to swear an oath of allegiance to an evil power. The one is a duty; the other would be sinful. It is because that no better means of doing justice can be employed, that oaths to do justice in the said circumstances should be given. For the assumption of power which does not belong to them, those who make it, but not those who even make oath before them to do what is in itself good, while they protest against their unlawful claims to authority, are responsible.

A civil government must either be the ordinance of God or not. It cannot be viewed as acting, in some things, in the character of a power ordained of God, but in others, as not possessed of authority from him. A good government, like a true christian, often does what is evil. But a bad government, like the wicked, even though it do what in itself is right, cannot be viewed as in possession of privilege from God, or as acting for his glory. Yet the inflicting of a just penalty, even by an unwarranted power, is not to be reckoned as injustice, or-if a capital punish, ment, as murder. It is the claim to power which is made, but not the accomplishment of the deed of retribution-which in itself is just, that is faulty. Take for example the execution of justice on a murderer. Murder is not the crime to be laid to the charge of those who, acting for or under the authority of a power that is not of God, on proper evidence put to death one who has unjustly taken away the life of a fellow-creature. If a government not authorised by God, after due investigation put a murderer to death, they do what in itself is right; but if they do so as those who in their incor porate capacity act for Him, they do what is wrong. By the deed they are chargeable with the sin, not of mur. der, but of assuming to themselves a designation which

they do not sustain. No man in society should take upon him by himself to execute justice for the shedding of blood, whether he live under a good or a bad government, except the government refuse to defend the lives and properties of subjects, and even as some, nay, many governments have been, be chargeable with oppression and blood.. shed. The reason why none should so interfere, is, that it is likely that the whole community would execute jus. tice with more propriety than an individual. Yea, a whole community under an improper civil power should not of itself execute justice, if there were an accessible power apart from or connected with it, in which were lodged authority from God. Those, however, who would in such cirstances claim that power, may often be looked upon with a jealous eye, as in general they would be found least entitled to the possession of it. Those who have most warrantably declaimed against evil constitutions, have been among those who were least given to assume to themselves a title to power;-they have been found to defend themselves, but not rashly to usurp authority. If there were but one individual who could avenge bloodshed, and were his mind in a proper state, he would seem to have a call addressed to him to do so; failing to attend to it he would err. Were a community under an authority not of God, to fail to execute justice, they would be chargeable with two sins,-that of letting the murderer go unpun.. ished, and that of not, in recognising the law of God, forming a constitution or government gifted with power lawfully to proceed against the criminal. Thus were either an individual or a community to avenge bloodshed, a lawful power being awanting, such would not be chargeable with murder. Were a community to do so without acknowledging themselves to be possessed of authority from God, they would be chargeable with sin, for not endeavouring to constitute an authority having attributes which He would recognise as in accordance with his will. Were they to do so as if possessed of that authority, while destitute of it, they would be chargeable with the sin essentially of usurpation; and with them, because of this, others acting so as to support their claim, would be guilty.

B.

Reflecting on the descending obligations of the British. Covenants on the people of these lands, by the current of an eventful providence we are conducted to the consideration of the circumstances of the "FREE PRESBY

TERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND." The events in the National Church of Scotland which have led to the separation from her communion, of the Protesting Church, and finally, the disruption itself, cannot be forgotten. The struggle that was maintained for the rights of the Chris. tian people, for the independence of Christ's house, and the glory of the Redeemer as King of Zion and King of kings, is worthy of the most cordial approbation. With those who were employed as the willing and honoured instruments of emancipating the Church from the tyrannical restraints under which she so long groaned, and effected a dissolution of a connection with the State, fraught with so many evils as have been long felt by her, there ought to be but one feeling of Christian sympathy. A testimony for the truth, calmly, and effectively, and devotedly, has been borne by her, to her lasting honour. The Church has declared that the government has acted a tyrannical and wicked part by interfering with her privileges; and the people of Scotland have practically and memorably said, that it is sinful for the Church of Christ to be connected with an anti-christian State. The government of the land has been baffled. The rulers were not overborne by the voices of a majority in either House of Parliament; but by a calm and efficient resolution, we do not say, becoming the Scottish people, but worthy of Christian men, they have been defeated; and that would be wise policy, indeed, which would remove the shame of their overthrow. For the steps of reformation taken, for the noble sacrifice made by those who gave up their emo luments that they might be faithful, commendation is due; and that the Free Protesting Church may come to maintain, to its utmost extent, not merely doctrinally but practically, the testimony of Christ, is ardently to be desired. The accession of a great proportion of the youth preparing for the ministry, and of those engaged as itinerants in preaching the gospel, is a token for good; and the devotedness of the people of Scotland on the great emergency, in adhering to the "Protesting Church," and in yielding of their substance for it, is peculiarly cheering to the mind. The countenance given by those of the Presbyterian Church in England who were present, was encouraging and estimable, as it might have been expected; while the approving sentiments expressed by those from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in their circumstances, were truly honouring to them, and to that community. It was becoming others that by deputation they testified to their approval of the step taken at the great disruption. And, though what is here said is as