nd privileges of the Presbyterians of Scotland, has it not been
acting in opposition to the will of Christ, and setting at nought his
authority? Were the civil government possessed of less influence than it
really has, men would likely be disposed to esteem it more agreeably to
its true character, than they really are. Is an individual denounced for
an act of injustice or oppression? And why should not a government? Even
is a government, acting for the time being, worthy of being denounced
for some things, and yet worthy of approbation, as if acting for God?
Yea, is that constitution sound which admits of tyranny over the
Church--injustice of a highly aggravated character, to be cordially
supported by those who complain of its oppression? The same pretensions
to power over her, that were put forth in acts of parliament,[793] when
the Church was disorganised, and for acting on which the house of the
Stuarts was driven from the British throne, have been of late made in
the councils of the nation. Can the power that would do so be approved?
Why should any cling to an oath of allegiance to a power that, in this
particular, as well as in others, is anti-christian? All have reason to
beware of the attractions of such civil powers. What is it that gives
evil governments their influence, but their power to terrify, and their
wealth and honours to seduce? In one case, the ministers of the
Community to whom we now direct our thoughts, have nobly cast the latter
aside. It becomes her to act in other matters consistently with this.
There are those who would overthrow the institutions of the land, that
are noble, and plant anarchy where oppression flourished. But her
principles, yea, the principles of all who hold the truth, are the
reverse. These would wish that good men in power should be brought to
see what is duty. They would not refuse to obey laws that in themselves
are right. But they should not do so from a regard to the authorities in
the land that enjoin them. If the present system of civil government
cannot stand of itself, why should the people of Scotland, escaped from
the trammels of tyranny, pledge themselves to support it? They ought not
to bring in revolution, but neither ought they to continue, by adhering
to their oath of allegiance, to give countenance to an unlawful civil
power. Let their determination, and that of their brethren in the other
parts of the empire, prove itself to be of a nobler order than what will