are not to be observed! It is all very well, it seems, to observe them in little matters, but for our more important concerns we want rules commensurate with their dignity-we cannot then be bound by the laws of God! The next reason is, that we cannot foresee "the future conduct" of a nation.-Neither can we that of an individual. Besides this, inability to foresee inculcates the very lesson that we ought to observe the laws of Him who can foresee. It is a strange thing to urge the limitation of our powers of judgment, as a reason for substituting it for the judgment of Him whose powers are perfect. Then "patriotism" is a reason: and we are to be patriotic to our country at the expense of treason to our religion!

The principles upon which these reasonings are founded, lead to their legitimate results: "In war and negotiation," says Adam Smith, "the laws of justice are very seldom observed. Truth and fair dealing are almost totally disregarded. Treaties are violated, and the violation, if some advantage is gained by it, sheds scarce any dishonor upon the violator. The ambassador who dupes the minister of a foreign nation, is admired and applauded. The just man, the man who in all private transactions would be the most beloved and the most esteemed, in those public transactions is regarded as a fool and an idiot, who does not understand his business; and he incurs always the contempt, and sometimes even the detestation, of his fellow citizens."'*

Now, against all such principles-against all endeavors to defend the rejection of the moral law in political affairs, we would with all emphasis protest. The reader sees that it is absurd :—can he need to be convinced that it is unchristian? Christianity is of paramount authority, or another authority is superior. He who holds another authority as superior,

* Theory of Moral Sentiments.

rejects Christianity; and the fair and candid step woul be avowedly to reject it. He should say, in distinct terms-Christianity throws some light on political principles; but its laws are to be held subservient to our interests. This were far more satisfactory than the trimming system, the perpetual vacillation of obedience to two masters, and the perpetual endeavor to do that which never can be done-serve both.

Jesus Christ legislated for man-not for individuals only, not for families only, not for Christian churches only, but for man in all his relationships and in all his circumstances. He legislated for states. In his moral law we discover no indications that states were exempted from its application, or that any rule which bound social did not bind political communities. If any exemption were designed, the onus probandi rests upon those who assert it: unless they can show that the Christian precepts are not intended to apply to nations, the conclusion must be admitted that they are. reality, to except nations from the obligations is impossible; for nations are composed of individuals, and if no individual may reject the Christian morality, a nation may not. Unless, indeed, it can be shown that when you are an agent for others you may do what neither yourself nor any of them might do separately —a proposition of which certainly the proof must be required to be very clear and strong.

But in

But the truth is, that those who justify a suspension of Christian morality in political affairs, are often unwilling to reason distinctly and candidly upon the subject. They satisfy themselves with a jest, or a sneer, or a shrug; being unwilling either to contemn morality in politics, or to practise it: and it is to little purpose to offer arguments to him who does not need conviction, but virtue.

Expediency is the rock upon which we split-upon

which, strange as it appears, not only our principles but our interests suffer continual shipwreck. It has been upon expediency that European politics have so long been founded, with such lamentably inexpedient effects. We consult our interests so anxiously that we ruin them. But we consult them blindly: we do not know our interests, nor shall we ever know them whilst we continue to imagine that we know them better than he who legislated for the world. Here is the perpetual folly as well as the perpetual crime. Esteeming ourselves wise, we have, emphatically, been fools-of which no other evidence is necessary than the present political condition of the Christian world. If ever it was true of any human being, that by his deviations from rectitude he had provided scourges for himself, it is true at this hour of every nation in Europe.

Let us attend to this declaration of a man who, whatever may have been the value of his general politics, was certainly a great statesman here: "I am one of those who firmly believe, as much indeed as a man can believe anything, that the greatest resource a nation can possess, the surest principle of power, is strict attention to the principles of justice. I firmly believe that the common proverb of honesty being the best policy, is as applicable to nations as to individuals.""In all interference with foreign nations justice is the best foundation of policy, and moderation is the surest pledge of peace."-"If therefore we have been deficient in justice towards other states, we have been deficient in wisdom."*

Here, then, is the great truth for which we would contend to be unjust is to be unwise. And since justice is not imposed upon nations more really than other branches of the moral law, the universal maxim *Fell's Memoirs of the Public Life of C. J. Fox.

When will this truth be When shall we cast away and unworthy policy and

is equally true- to deviate from purity of rectitude is impolitic as well as wrong. learnt and be acted upon? the contrivances of a low dare the venture of the consequences of virtue? When shall we, in political affairs, exercise a little of that confidence in the knowledge and protection of God, which we are ready to admire in individual life? -Not that it is to be assumed as certain that such fidelity would cost nothing. Christianity makes no such promise. But whatever it might cost it would be worth the purchase. And neither reason nor experience allows the doubt that a faithful adherence to the moral law would more effectually serve national interests, than they have ever yet been served by the utmost sagacity whilst violating that law.

The contrivances of expediency have become so habitual to measures of state, that it may probably be thought the dreamings of a visionary to suppose it possible that they should be substituted by purity of rectitude. And yet I believe it will eventually be donenot perhaps by the resolution of a few cabinets-it is not from them that reformation is to be expected-but by the gradual advance of sound principles upon the minds of men-principles which will assume more and more their rightful influence in the world, until at length the low contrivances of a fluctuating and immoral policy will be substituted by firm, and consistent, and invariable integrity.

CHAPTER II.

CIVIL LIBERTY.

Loss of Liberty-War-Useless laws.

OF personal liberty we say nothing, because its full possession is incompatible with the existence of society. All government supposes the relinquishment of a portion of personal liberty.

Civil liberty may, however, be fully enjoyed. It is enjoyed, where the principles of political truth and rectitude are applied in practice, because there the people are deprived of that portion only of liberty which it would be pernicious to themselves to possess. If political power is possessed by consent of the community; if it is exercised only for their good; and if this welfare is consulted by Christian means, the people

No man can divine the particular enjoyments or exemptions which constitute civil liberty, because they are contingent upon the circumstances of the respective nations. A degree of restraint may be necessary for the general welfare of one community, which would be wholly unnecessary in another. Yet the first would have no reason to complain of their want of civil liberty. The complaint, if any be made, should be of the evils which make the restraint necessary. The single question is, whether any given degree of restraint is necessary or not. If it is, though the restraint may be painful, the civil liberty of the community may be said to be complete. It is useless to say that it is less complete than that of another nation ; for complete civil liberty is a relative and not a positive enjoyment. Were it otherwise, no people enjoy, or are likely for ages to enjoy full civil liberty; because none enjoy so much that they could not, in a more virtuous state of mankind, enjoy more. "It is not the