While we would have the affairs of the nation managed as if there were no _church_ in the world, we would not have them managed as if there were no GOD in the world. Could our voices reach the millions of our countrymen, as Joshua's voice reached the thousands of Israel, we would say as he said, 'IF THE LORD BE GOD, SERVE HIM.' In a word, while we believe that the civil and ecclesiastical departments ought to be distinct, and that their union is a departure from the intention of Him who formed both, and that it is fraught with the most disastrous consequences to both, we do _not_ believe that the almighty Ruler has excluded himself from the control of either, or given the least permission that either should be managed on any other principles than the eternal principles of right, which are embodied in his character, and laid down in his word.
When we speak of a sense of religious obligation, we mean more than a general undefined belief that such an obligation exists. Such a belief is withheld, we trust, by comparatively few who hold important places in our national and State governments. But can it be doubted by any man who has accustomed himself to contemplate the distinction between mere intellectual assent, and the warm, practical conviction which reaches the heart, and controls the conduct, that this belief may coexist with as total an insensibility to the claims of Jehovah, as if it were William IV., or Nicholas of Russia, who performed them, instead of the Most High God?
Is it too much to desire, nay to infer, as a _duty_, from what has already been said, that our rulers in the executive, legislative, and judicial departments, both in the general and State governments, should have _an abiding consciousness of accountability_--should live under _a felt pressure of obligation_--to the Sovereign of the universe, which should assume, as it must where it exists at all, a practical, binding force? Is it too much to ask, that they should remember that they are the servants of God for good to this great people, and that to their own Master they stand or fall? That they rule by God's permission, and for his ends; and that a higher tribunal than any on earth awaits the termination of their responsibility to man? That they should remember their obligation, in common with those who elevated them to office, "whatever they do, to do all to the glory of God;" and the solemn truth, that a sin against God or man, whether of omission or of commission, whether committed in private, in the family circle, or in the high places of authority, is no less a sin, when committed by a judge, or a legislator, or a chief magistrate of a State or nation, than by the humblest of his constituents? In a word, do we claim too prominent a place for religious principle in the administration of public affairs, when we avow our desire that the rulers of a people, who are the nominal, and in a free government the _real_, representatives of the people, should be daily and practically aware, that they are accountable to a higher Power, thus realizing, if not in the highest and most Christian sense, yet in the literal signification, the picture of a good ruler drawn by the prophet, who, in the name of the almighty Ruler, declares, "He that ruleth over men, must be just--_ruling in the fear of God_!"