yet, brethren, this is "the king" to whom, "as supreme," the Apostle exhorts Christians, in the text, to submit themselves. This is the king to whom, we know, he not only exhorted others to submit, but to whom he submitted himself, even "unto bonds, and imprisonment, and death. But if the duty of submission to civil authority extended even to such a monster as this, and to the governors that were sent by him; if the Gospel gave no sanction to rebellion, even under such a reign as this, but, on the contrary, required of its professors a patient endurance of all the cruelties they were exposed to in it; how much more must the Gospel require submission of him who lives under a just and a righteous government. We have not a heathen Nero for a king, but one whose throne is established in righteousness, and who is ever ready, when applied to through the lawful channel, both to defend the oppressed and to relieve the distressed. Well, therefore, may it be said to us, "Submit yourselves," &c. But it may perhaps be asked, _what is it to submit rightly_ to every ordinance of man? 1st. _It is to offer no resistance to the powers that be._ This St. Paul shews in Rom. xiii. 1. &c. where, describing the submission required of Christians, he opposes it to the act of resisting them: "Let every soul," he says, "be subject to the higher powers;" (and, be it remembered, he is here writing to those, who were living under the government of the cruel Nero;) "for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God; whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." It is plain, therefore, that any open _act of resistance_ to the king, or the governors sent by him, is a breach of the duty enjoined in the text. Any _conversation_, too, that excites others to such resistance, is a breach of it. There may be resistance in words, as well as in deeds; and those who excite others to rebellion, though they do not themselves engage in the open act, are nevertheless with them partakers in the guilt. Cherishing any _principles_ of resistance in our hearts too, is a breach of the duty. Such resistance, indeed, is not to be punished, as in other cases, by the arm of civil authority. It is not for man to punish for principles, or for the thoughts and intents of the heart, unless the person holding them, render them mischievous, by communicating them to others; but though they be never made known to others, yet, if they are cherished in the heart, they are known to God, and in his judgment, the person holding them is as guilty, though not to the same degree, of resistance, as though he had given utterance to them in words, or proceeded to any open acts of violence. Clearly then, would we submit to every ordinance of man; we must offer no resistance, either open or secret, either "to the king as supreme, or to the governors sent by him." But it may perhaps occur to some one to inquire, how are we to