divine institution, and denying that, you
deprive it of its vital energy, and send it tottering to a dishonored
grave.

But here the great practical question arises, What is to be done when
the law of the land comes into conflict with the law of God--or, which
is to us the same thing, with our convictions of what that law demands?
In answer to this question we would remark, in the first place, that in
most cases, the majority of the people have nothing to do, except
peaceably to use their influence to have the law repealed. The mass of
the people have nothing actively to do with the laws. Very few
enactments of the government touch one in a thousand in the population.
We may think a protective tariff not only inexpedient, but unequal and
therefore unjust. But we have nothing to do with it. We are not
responsible for it, and are not called upon to enforce it. The remark
applies even to laws of a higher character, such, _e. g._ as a law
proclaiming an unjust war; forbidding the introduction of the Bible into
public schools; requiring homage or sanction to be given to idolatrous
services by public officers, etc., etc. Such laws do not touch the mass
of the people. They do not require them either to do or abstain from
doing, any thing which conscience forbids or enjoins; and therefore
their duty in the premises may be limited to the use of legitimate means
to have laws of which they disapprove repealed.

In the second place, those executive officers who are called upon to
carry into effect a law which requires them to do what their conscience
condemns, must resign their office, if they would do their duty to God.
Some years since, General Maitland (if we remember the name correctly)
of the Madras Presidency, in India, resigned a lucrative and honorable
post, because he could not conscientiously give the sanction to the
Hindoo idolatry required by the British authorities. And within the last
few months, we have seen hundreds of Hessian officers throw up their
commissions rather than trample on the constitution of their country. On
the same principles the non-conformists in the time of Charles II. and
the ministers of the Free Church of Scotland, in our day, gave up their
stipends and their positions, because they could not with a good
conscience carry into effect the law of the land. It is not intended
that an executive officer should, in all cases, resign his post rather
than execute a law which in his private judgment he