The Headship of Christ over the nations is maintained by the Protesting Church; on that is founded the principle of the establishment of religion by the civil magistrate; that, was recognised in the late contendings with the civil powers, and especially in the second series of resolutions made at the Convocation of November; on that principle these resolutions were carried into effect at the late disruption;--it is desirable that, in the progress of the newly modelled community the principle be properly applied. The important application of that, which is now necessary, is the lifting up of a protest against the civil power, as immoral and unscriptural, and a consistent course of procedure in consequence. What justifies the disruption requires a dissent from the civil power, as a power not of God. That State with which the Church could not be connected, so as to enjoy her own privileges, cannot be the ordinance of God. If the government has been guilty of violating the rights and 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.