the grand constitutional law of the universe, it is null and void. The State cannot frame injustice into a fundamental law.

The powers of the government are limited by the constitution. The government can do that only which the constitution authorizes it to do. The legis lature has no power to make a law contrary to the constitution. A law so made would possess no authority. It would be declared null and void by the tribunal authorized to do so by the constitution.

No individual is authorized to say, This law is unconstitutional and therefore not binding; I will not obey it. He is under obligation to obey every law (excepting those contrary to the law of God) until the authorized tribunal has decided that it is unconstitutional. Then it is null and void.

Government cannot rightfully do any thing contrary to the constitution, even though all the people were to desire it. The will of the people is supreme only when it is right and constitutionally expressed. The people can change their constitution, but only in the mode pointed out by the constitution.

Constitutions should not be changed for slight causes. It is better to suffer some inconveniences than to lessen, by frequent changes, the reverence felt for the constitution. If constitutions could be changed as easily as ordinary laws, they would have no more value than ordinary laws.

Constitutional law is the highest human law. The law of God is higher than all human law. If any part of the constitution, or if any law made in pursuanco thereof, is contrary to the law of God, it is null and void. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts v. 29). Government or the law can render that obligatory which was not previously obligatory, but it cannot change moral distinctions. It cannot authorize one to do wrong. It cannot nullify the law of God.

Questions relating to a conflict of the law of the land with the law of God, must be decided by each one for himself. There is no divinely authorized tribunal for the decision of such questions. "Every one of us shall give account of himself unto God" (Rom. xiv. 12). He must learn his duty for himself and do it. He must avail himself of all the assistance within his reach, but he must decide for himself. He cannot throw the responsibility of decision on the church or on the government.

This will not, as some suppose, lead to anarchy. Some think that, for every one to decide for himself whether a law is contrary to the divine law or not, and to obey or disobey according to his decision, is to make obedience to law optional. One man, say they, will regard one law as conflicting with the divine. law, and another will regard another law as conflicting. Thus every one will do that which is right in his own eyes.

No such consequences will follow the proper exercise of the right of private judgment in regard to duties connected with obedience to law. Suppose the question to arise, Does this law come in conflict with the law of God? does it enjoin what God has for bidden? If the conscientious man, on full consideration, comes to the conclusion that the law does enjoin what God has forbidden, he will not obey it, but he will submit without resistance to the penalty attached to disobedience. He thus does not set the law

at defiance. He yields a passive obedience by submitting to the penalty. When every law is thus obeyed, either actively or passively, there is no danger of anarchy.

Governments originating in fraud or violence may become legitimate, and may rightfully claim obedience. When they have become established and fulfil the ends of government as well as any government which it might be possible to establish, it is the duty of the people to obey those governments. It is certainly their duty to obey the government they are under, till they can lawfully establish a better one in its place. A government may have no right to command, and yet it may be the duty of the people to obey till there is a fair prospect that they can overthrow the government, and substitute a better one in its place, with less suffering than continued obedience would occasion.

Every act of injustice on the part of the govern ment does not absolve the citizen from his obligation to obedience. Every act of oppression does not justify forcible resistance to the government. There is a right of revolution; that is, there are times when it is right for a people to forcibly overthrow the govern ment. These times cannot be accurately defined. The exact amount of oppression which justifies a revolution cannot be gauged and measured. It must be wellnigh intolerable, and there must be a fair prospect that a revolution will be successful. No amount of oppres sion would justify an attempt at revolution when there was no prospect of success. The attempt would only occasion greater suffering. The worst kind of government is better than anarchy; that is, the worst kind of government is better than no government. Anarchy is always followed by military despotism.

CHAPTER V.

COLONIAI. GOVERNMENTS-CONTINENTAL CONGRESS-REVOLU TIONARY GOVERNMENT.

THE Colonial governments had a powerful influence in educating the American people for self-government. The first representative Legislature in America sat in Virginia in 1619. Up to that time the people of that colony were governed by a governor and council appointed by the crown. As subjects of the king, and entitled to all the privileges of British subjects, they claimed the right to be represented in the govern ment. The governor, Sir George Yeardly, called a general assembly of the representatives of the various plantations, and permitted them to act as a legislature.

The Pilgrim Fathers, while on board the May Flower, at Cape Cod, drew up the following compact "In the name of God, amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign lord King James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken, for the glory of God and the ad