Sermon – Election – 1829, Vermont


The following election sermon was preached by Charles Walker in Montpelier on October 8, 1829.


sermon-election-1829-vermont

A

SERMON,

PREACHED AT MONTPELIER,

BEFORE

THE LEGISLATURE

OF THE

STATE OF VERMONT,

ON THE DAY OF THE

GENERAL ELECTION,

OCTOBER 8, 1829.

BY CHARLES WALKER,
PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH, EAST RUTLAND.

PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE LEGISLATURE.

 

IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

October 10, 1829.

Resolved, that a committee of two members be appointed, to wait on the Rev. Charles Walker, and return him the thanks of this House for his Election Sermon, delivered before both branches of the Legislature, on the 8th inst. And request a copy for the press.

On this resolution Mr. Warner of Sudbury, and Mr. Wooster were appointed a committee.

T. MERRILL, Clerk.

 

Rev. Charles Walker,

Sir,–In pursuance of the foregoing resolution, we have the honor of tendering to you, the thanks of the House of Representatives, for your Election Sermon, delivered before both branches of the Legislature, on the 8th inst. And request a copy for the press.

JOSEPH WARNER,
BENJAMIN WOOSTER,
Committee.

 

SERMON.
Daniel VI. 10. “Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”

THE piece of history of which this text forms a part is peculiarly interesting and instructive. It is interesting on account of the standing and character of the actors, and on account of the plot and its development, in which goodness and wickedness are opposed to each other, and virtue is rewarded and vice punished. It is instructive because it shows us, by an example taken from real life, how, in certain circumstances, we may regulate our conduct so as to meet the approbation of God, and secure his favor—how He will frown on the disobedient and reward the obedient.

Daniel, on account of the excellence of his character, enjoyed the confidence of the king of Chaldea, and notwithstanding he was a foreigner and his people captives, he was raised to the office of highest dignity and authority in the gift of the monarch. Thus elevated, he became the object of the envy and malice of other rulers in the kingdom, and they commenced a most unjust and cruel persecution against him. His mantle of integrity and robe of innocence did not secure him from the malicious attacks of those who envied his prosperity and shrunk from the blaze of his goodness. They could not endure that a foreigner, a Jew, one who belonged to a captive race, should occupy a seat of honor and power above them. And they were especially offended that one whose religion was so different from theirs, who despised their Gods and worshipped Jehovah; and whose holy life was a constant reproof of their loose principles and vicious practices, should be raised to a station from whence the lustre of his virtues shone in high conspicuity, and revealed the dark depravity of those around him.

They determined on his destruction. To accomplish this, it was necessary either to shake the confidence which the king had reposed in him, or to render him, by some act of his own, obnoxious to the laws of the kingdom. But how could this be done? How could they impeach one whose official doings were ever regulated by the strictest principles of integrity and faithfulness, and whose whole life was adorned with whatsoever is pure and honest and lovely, and of good report? That they felt this difficulty is sufficiently evident from the language of the sacred historian.—“Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.” They saw but one way in which they could find a plausible pretext for his impeachment, and this was to make his religion the occasion of his downfall, and to lay a snare which his piety would not permit him to avoid. They said among themselves—“We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”

Having observed the regularity with which he engaged in devotional exercises, and knowing that he discharged these duties of piety from principle, they rightly judged that he would not omit them. If, therefore, they could prevail on the king to make a law that no man, during a certain space of time, should pray, they believed that Daniel might be detected in violating this law, and that thus an accusation might be brought against him which would ensure his condemnation. With this malicious object in view, they did prevail on the king to sign a decree, ‘that whosoever should ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of the king himself, should be cast into the den of lions.”

The king was not aware of the purpose of those who obtained his signature to this unrighteous decree. He did not know that a plot was laid, and now sanctioned by his own hand and seal, to destroy his most trusty and approved servant. Flattered, perhaps, with the idea that he should be the only being, to whom the people, throughout his vast dominions, would present petitions or prayers for thirty days—thus elevating himself, as it were, to the place of God—he signed a writing which was intended to be the death-warrant of the man whom he prized above all others. The decree having obtained the royal signature, was irrevocable—according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, it altered not.

And now what will Daniel do? Will he yield to the machinations of his enemies and cease to worship God? Will he give up his devotional exercises, which are enjoined by the divine law, and tremble and turn pale and submit to a human mandate which counteracts the authority of Heaven? Will he let evil men triumph over his defection from his religion? Will he violate his conscience to save his life?

What did he do? Just what his enemies supposed he would. They knew the integrity of his character and the firmness of his principles. They knew his unconquerable attachment to religious duties and his sternness of purpose to obey God rather than man. They knew that, though he might not e afraid to violate an unnecessary and unrighteous human law, there was a Power that he dared not disobey—there were laws which he would not violate. They expected, therefore, that he would disregard the law which they had caused to be made; and it was this expectation which urged them to procure the wicked decree.

He hesitated not. His views of duty were maturely formed and strengthened by holy habit, and they were not now to be given up. What followed, therefore, as related in the sacred narrative, was a matter of course—“Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house, and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” It made no alteration either in the manner or frequency of his devotions. While, on the one hand, he did not seek to enrage his enemies nor pour contempt on the royal authority, by a more open or frequent performance of religious services; neither, on the other hand, did he seek to gain the favor of his persecutors or avoid the operation of the iniquitous law, by a more retired or less constant attendance on the duties of divine worship. The former would have been unnecessary bravado; the latter, considering that he was determined to worship God, would have been hypocrisy. From both, the course he pursued clearly exempted him. He simply continued in his former habits, doing exactly and only “as he did aforetime.”

It was of course soon known that the first officer in the kingdom paid no regard to the monarch’s decree. The history says—“Then these men assembled and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.” Now their object was accomplished—they had an accusation against him. To the king they went; and according to the letter and penalty of the impious decree, they had the malicious satisfaction of seeing Daniel, at the going down of the sun, cast into the den of lions.

The events which followed—the safety of this servant of God in his perilous situation—his deliverance, and the utter destruction of those who plotted against his life—though exceedingly interesting and instructive, it does not come within the compass of my present design to notice.

The history, as far as we have pursued it, shows us the conduct of a good man and of a distinguished civil ruler, in such circumstances as are fitted to develop moral character, and will afford a foundation for some profitable reflections, not inappropriate to the present occasion.

1. We have, in this historic record, a sublime example of moral courage.

We see a man who, in the discharge of duty, fears nothing but the God who made him. We see a man who, having regulated his principles and shaped his course by the standard of divine truth, refuses to be turned aside from the path of obedience by the command or the force of the mightiest power on earth. He dares to act as his conscience dictates. He dares to be singular, and, in the midst of an idolatrous nation, surrounded by opposers and enemies, to maintain the worship of Jehovah. In full view of the den of lions, and with the certain prospect of a horrible death, he dares to violate the king’s decree, and hold fast his allegiance to God.

He had adopted the principle, the correctness of which is generally admitted in theory but too seldom reduced to practice, that “we ought to obey God rather than man.” On this principle he was determined to act, whatever might be the consequences. He felt that it might not be necessary for him to live; but it was necessary for him to obey God.—This was true courage—courage, not excited by ambition, nor fed by applause; not like the courage of the warrior, roused to deeds of daring by the notes of fame’s loud trumpet; not like the courage of the conqueror in whose eyes the world’s diadem glitters and who is intoxicated with the lust of dominion; but cool, collected, and sustained by its own noble and unearthly principles. It was courage which had its origin and derived its strength, not from earth, but from heaven—not from “looking at things seen and temporal,” but from contemplating “things unseen and eternal.”

Worldly policy, I know, would condemn the conduct of Daniel. It would say that he unnecessarily exposed his life—that he might have neglected his devotions for thirty days, or have performed them only in secret. He thought otherwise—God thought otherwise, for He approved of the conduct of his servant.—The spirit of every divine command is—obey, and leave the event with God. This is the path of duty; it is the only path of safety. But to go undeviatingly and unshrinkingly forward in the path, in the circumstances we have contemplated, required the moral courage of a martyr. It demanded a courage to which many a soldier, who can breast a cannon’s mouth, is a stranger. It called for a courage as much superior to the heedless daring of those heroes whom the world applauds, as the motive which inspired it is superior to worldly ambition.

2. We see, in the example before us, how a human law ought to be treated which requires men to violate the laws of God.

The decree of the Chaldean king was directly opposed to the law of God. Men are commanded by the divine law to worship their Maker daily—to “pray without ceasing.” By the decree in question, they were forbidden to pray at all for thirty days. To obey both was impossible. He of whom the text speaks obeyed the divine law and violated the human edict. And he did right. His conscience approved his course; and his God approved it. The decree, as it counteracted the laws of God, ought not to have been obeyed. No man had a right to obey it. And no human power had a right to require obedience.

Not often, in civilized and Christian lands, have governments enacted laws which clearly and openly opposed the commands of God. But they have sometimes done it. An instance of this kind exists in the history of our own national government—in the law which requires the transportation and opening of the mail on the Sabbath. This law, being a violation of the commandment of God, ought not to be obeyed. And the man who should conscientiously refuse to obey it—though he might be rejected from office or otherwise punished for his disobedience—would stand justified at the tribunal of heaven, in regard to this act, as certainly as Daniel was justified in refusing to obey the wicked decree of the Chaldean king.

I know it is said by many, that the pecuniary interests of our country render it expedient to continue the business of the mails on the Sabbath. But I have yet to learn that such expediency, provided it exists, is a sufficient excuse for setting aside a divine commandment. Are we never to obey God when our obedience will be attended with any pecuniary sacrifice? Are we never to make an offering to God of anything but of that which costs us nothing? But does the alleged expediency exist? How happens it to exist in this country, when in the commercial emporium of the world—the city of London, there are no mails sent forth, nor is the post-office opened on the Sabbath? Does not God know what is expedient for the subjects of his kingdom? And has He not, by a positive commandment, clearly decided that it is expedient for man to rest from worldly business one seventh part of the time? And is not the wisdom of this appointment satisfactorily demonstrated by the experience and history of all Christian nations?

I know, also, when petitions were sent to Congress praying that the law, requiring the business of the mail to be attended to on the Sabbath, might be repealed—it was said, by those who opposed the petitioners, that Congress had no right to legislate concerning the Sabbath. Granted; so the petitioners thought, and they simply asked that Congress would not make laws touching the Sabbath—that they would repeal the law which required its violation. They did not ask for a statute obliging men to keep the Sabbath holy and inflicting a penalty in case of transgression. They did not ask—“as they be slanderously reported and as some affirm that they did”—that Congress would order every mail-contractor and post-master, every stage-driver and stage-passenger to keep the Sabbath, on penalty of its high displeasure. All they sought for was, that the government would no longer command men to attend to secular business on the hours of holy time.

I know, moreover, that it was said in the report of the committee of the Senate, to whom the petitions had been referred, that if Congress complied with the prayer of the petitioners, it would be deciding a disputed theological question—which day is the Sabbath—and that, as there was a difference in the views of the people on this point, government had no right to decide it. This has been regarded, by many, as a master-stroke of unanswerable argument and enlightened liberality, and as such has been praised from one end of the nation to the other. But it is nothing but a piece of sophistry, which has, in a hundred instances, been exposed and refuted. Congress has already decided which day is the Sabbath, by not holding its sessions on the Lord’s day, and by exempting that day from days of business in its courts of judicature. All that the petitioners desired was that government would be consistent with itself, and exempt that sacred day also from days of business in regard to the mails.—If a Jew or a Sabbatarian were appointed a member to Congress, would that body adjourn over Saturday to accommodate him? Must a nation’s Sabbath be disregarded because a mere handful of individuals in that nation happen to think differently from the whole body of the people? Such pretended argumentation is scarcely worthy of an answer.

I am happy in being the citizen of a State, where the divine law of the Sabbath is regarded by the public acts of the civil rulers. 1 And it is with no small degree of pain, that I have felt myself called upon by duty, to censure the conduct of the national government in relation to the Sabbath mails. I love and honor the government of my country; and in all things which do not require me to violate the laws of God, consider myself bound to obey its statutes. But no government can have a right to require its subjects to violate the laws of God. And no law, directly requiring such violation, ought to be obeyed by any citizen.

3. We see, in the example brought to view in the text, that extensive business and the multiplied calls of office do not necessarily preclude a regular attention to the duties of religion.

Few men have ever been in circumstances requiring a more constant and untiring attention to the duties of his station than he, whose history we have contemplated. He was the prime minister of a great nation—had no powerful friends to sustain him—had nothing but his reputation, growing out of his unremitting attention to the duties of his office, to recommend him either to the public favor or to the patronage of the king. And as his official conduct, even by the admission of his enemies, was above suspicion, he must have been devotedly occupied with the business of his station. And yet he found time for a strict attention to the duties of religion. Regularly, three times a day, he had a season of devotion and “prayed and gave thanks before his God.”

How this fact puts to flight many excuses that are offered for neglecting the duties of religion. How it ought to put to shame many a man, who pleads his worldly engagements as an apology for not attending to devotional exercises. This plea is often hears, The man says that the calls of office, or of business, are so constant that he has no time to spend in the daily worship of God. No time! Can this be true? Who gives you all the time you spend on earth? And is it too much that He requires some portion of what he gives to be devoted exclusively to Him? Have you time for meals and sleep, and no time to serve Him whose blessing alone can cause either to be refreshing and invigorating? Have you time to attend to the wants of your body, which is soon to moulder into dust, and no time to attend to the interests of your soul, which is to exist forever? Have you time to spend in conversation with your friends, in relaxation from toil and in amusement, and no time to spend in communion with God, in seeking salvation and laying up a treasure in heaven?—For what purpose was time given? Was it to afford an opportunity to gather a little golden dust which will be blown away by the tempest of the last day, or to collect a few wreaths of worldly honor which will wither and perish; or was it not rather given to afford an opportunity to seek durable riches, honors that never die, crowns of unfading glory in the presence of God and of the Lamb? No time to pray! No time to serve God in the daily exercises of devotion? For what, then, have you time? Were not the days and hours of this world intended principally to afford a season of preparation for eternity? For what is time really valuable, but for this? No man ought to feel that he has time for anything else, till the duties of devotion are performed. This was the grand object for which God gave us time. And, oh! let no man who lives; who measures out his existence by a succession of days and nights which God gives him; who feeds on the divine bounty, sleeps under the divine protection, moves by the divine support—let no man says that he has not time to acknowledge these benefits in daily acts of devotion.

The plea is vain. Others, who have been as busily employed as any of us can pretend to be, have been constant in their attention to religious duties. Daniel, with a principal share of the responsibility in the government of a mighty empire, was an eminent example of constancy in domestic devotion. And our own beloved Washington, than whom no man was ever more devoted to the calls of office, either in the cabinet or in the field, always found time for daily devotional exercises. All men, whose hearts are right with God, have frequent seasons of private and domestic worship. And no man, who has time for anything, can truly say he has no time for these duties. He, who gave us our being and our days, demands of us the homage of habitual thanksgiving and prayer, and no plea for neglect can be admitted before his tribunal.

4. We learn from the example before us, that patriotism alone, in the popular signification of that word, is not sufficient to secure salvation and eternal life.

The man, whose character and history we have contemplated, was a patriot. His untiring application to the duties of his office, and his singular wisdom and integrity as a ruler, are manifest and striking proofs that he sought the best interests of the country which he served. And probably if ever there was a man, who might have claimed the rewards of heaven on account of the extent and usefulness of his efforts for the public welfare, he was the man. Yet he thought it necessary to super add to the virtues of patriotism those of piety. He did not expect to obtain forgiveness and salvation on account of having consecrated his services to the public good. He sought for a seat in heaven by daily prayer and a religious life.

Doubtless he judged right. Such views accord with the standard of divine truth. While every man is bound, by the highest obligation to seek the welfare of his country and the good of his fellow men, he is bound also, by the same obligation, to honor God by discharging the peculiar duties of religion. Nor will the most devoted attention to the former excuse the neglect of the latter. The same divine authority, which commands—“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” commands also—“And render unto God the things that are God’s.” Will an obedience to the one do away the obligation of obeying the other? A man has served his country—Very well; and has he also served his God? A man has been useful as a patriot—Very good, we will give him due credit and honor; but has he been useful too as a Christian? Is not the latter as important as the former? Look into the Bible and say—which will weigh most in the balances of eternity.

But notwithstanding the plainness and positiveness with which the scriptures decide, that a life of piety and prayer is the only evidence of a title to heaven, many cherish the notion, that the man who has served his country well and faithfully will receive, on that account, the reward of eternal life. We can excuse heathen poets and orators, who were destitute of a written revelation, for always sending their departed heroes and statesmen up to a dwelling among the gods. But how can we excuse poets and eulogists and historians, called Christian, when they manifest a similar dark and heathenish disposition to exalt patriots, on account of their patriotism, to a seat in heaven? Yet this, in despite of truth and of the Bible, is often done. Thus when certain distinguished American patriots have died, a hundred writers from the formal eulogist to the newspaper scribler, have given them a place in paradise. Now I pretend not to decide concerning the eternal condition of those departed statesmen. This must be determined by their Almighty Judge. But, in the name of the Bible and of Christianity, I protest against the principle, extensively cherished and often directly avowed, that the patriotism and public services of those men entitled them to the happiness of heaven. If they were Christians and pious men, they are happy: if they were not, there is, of course, no place for them in those mansions which Christ prepared for his followers.

I honor the man who has usefully devoted his life to the service of his country. Let him have deserved praise. Yea, let him “have his reward,” the reward he sought. If he sought the “honor that cometh from man,” let him have it, up to the full measure in which it is due. If he sought the “honor that cometh from God only,” then, and only then, let him be accounted worthy of the reward, which the scriptures promise to the disciple of Jesus Christ.

I have already alluded to Washington. To illustrate the point now under discussion, I mention him again. I love to repeat his revered name. Whose patriotism was ever of a purer and more elevated kind than his? Whose devotedness to a country’s welfare was ever more entire, useful and disinterested than his? If patriotism and public usefulness could entitle any man to the happiness of heaven, was not Washington that man? But he had no such views. He sought, it is true, a dwelling in heaven; but he sought it as a sinner at the feet of his Saviour, and not as a reward for his patriotism. Some striking facts in his history will exemplify this. His servant, who waited on him during the long period in which he led our armies and presided in our councils, told a Christian minister, a few years since, that when he entered his master’s room, as he was directed to do, early in the morning, he frequently found him on his knees, pouring out his desires in fervent prayer before God. This, we have reason to believe was his habitual practice.—An original anecdote of the father of his country, recently published, gives another pleasing testimony to the genuineness of his piety. “While the American army under the command of Washington lay encamped at Morristown, N. J. it occurred that the service of the communion was to be administered in the Presbyterian church in that village. In a morning of the previous week, the General, after his accustomed inspection of the camp, visited the house of the Rev. Dr. Jones, then pastor of that church, and after the usual preliminaries, thus accosted him—‘Doctor, I understand that the Lord’s supper is to be celebrated with you next Sunday, I would learn if it accords with the cannons of your church to admit communicants of another denomination? The Doctor rejoined—‘Most certainly; ours is not the Presbyterian table, General, but the Lord’s table, and we hence give the Lord’s invitation to all his followers of whatever name.’ The General replied, ‘I am glad of it; this is as it ought to be; but as I was not quite sure of the fact, I thought I would ascertain it from yourself, as I propose to join with you on that occasion. Though a member of the church of England, I have no exclusive partialities.’ The Doctor reassured him of a cordial welcome, and the General was found seated with the communicants the next Sabbath.”—Such a man was Washington. He sought for a place in heaven, not by relying on his public services, but by obeying the precepts of his Saviour. He sought the favor of God by habitual prayer and by attending devoutly on the ordinances of the gospel. And eternity will tell to which his country is most indebted, his skill in arms and his wisdom in council, or to that spirit of humble piety and prayer by which he obtained the favor of God in all his enterprises. And now let me ask—whose patriotism will save him, if Washington’s would not?

5. We see, in the example furnished by the text, how rulers may promote the interests of religion without directly legislating on the subject.

Whatever may have been the authority with which the Chaldean ruler was clothed, it is plain that the circumstances in which he was placed prevented his establishing, by law, his own religion. He was among a nation of idolaters, and any official act on his part, designed to destroy idolatry and establish the Jewish religion, would doubtless have been resisted, and the loss of his office and probably of his life would have been the consequence. Still, however, he exerted a powerful influence in favor of true religion—an influence which even his enemies felt, and which, we have reason to believe, was widely useful among the people. This was done by his example. He was a living epistle of the truth, known and read of all men. And it is certain that even to the present day his example, as recorded by the pen of inspiration, sends forth a healthful influence, and is among the means by which the world is benefitted and men are saved.

The civil rulers of this State are not permitted by the constitution to enact laws regulating the creed or the form of worship of the inhabitants. They cannot dictate, by statute, how, or where, men shall worship God, or whether they shall worship him at all. These matters are left to be decided by every man’s conscience and to be answered for by every man’s accountability to God. This is as it should be. We are glad that is so.

But does it follow, because our civil rulers cannot legislate concerning the modes of religion, that they can do nothing in favor of Christianity and of the immortal interests of their constituents? Certainly not. You can, Honored Rulers, do much to promote the eternal welfare of your fellow men and to send the streams of salvation through our beloved State. Do not the offices you hold by the choice of your fellow citizens, show that you are men of high standing and influence? Are not your opinions, feelings and movements felt, in their effects, throughout the State? By imitating then the example of that ruler, whom the text places so prominently before us, you may recommend piety as the richest of all personal possessions—you may lead many, in the ways of truth and righteousness, up to the seats of holiness and the bliss of heaven.

And now, Respected Rulers, when you invited me to meet you on this occasion you did not expect from me a lecture on the science of legislation. On such a subject, were it needful for my usefulness, the station you occupy would seem to be proof that I might sit at your feet and take lessons of instruction from you. But you invited me, as a minister of Jesus Christ, to proclaim His messages and urge His commandments—In the name, then, of my Lord and Master, I come, and ask you all to love and obey Him. This is His will. To show how you may comply with his requisitions, I have placed before you the example of one ruler, whose character and conduct He approved, and who is now with Him in the world of glory. Will you imitate the example of that ruler in worshipping and serving God? Will you engage heartily in the work of obeying the Saviour’s commandments? Will you piously discharge all the duties of religion? Oh! do it, and Vermont shall be blessed. Do it, and though our mountains may not be greener or our vallies more fertile, a moral beauty, pleasing to the eye of God, shall be thrown over our State. Do it, and you will awaken the voice of thanksgiving and the voice of prayer in a thousand dwellings scattered over our territory. Do it, and the news that all the rulers in the State have become obedient to the Son of God, shall cause new “joy in the presence of the angels” on high. O do it, and you will comply with the message of my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Nothing less than this will please him or satisfy his demands.—And need I tell you that you are bound to obey Him? Is he not your Lord and King?

He has erected a tribunal before which we must all shortly appear. Soon the trumpet will sound and we shall stand before the Son of man. Then all these human distinctions will be done away and the ruler and the subject stand on the same level. Then these heavens shall pass away and this earth shall be burnt up. And then shall every man be rewarded according to his works. “Be wise, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.”

 


Endnotes

1 A particular instance may be mentioned.—The law, passed some years since, requiring the courts, in our several counties, to commence their sessions on Monday, was found to subject the Judges and other gentlemen attending courts to the necessity of traveling on the Sabbath, in order to pass from county to county, or to assemble from distant parts of the same county, at an early hour on Monday. Of the operations of this law, our honorable Judges and many other gentlemen, who conscientiously regard the sacredness of the Sabbath, complained. The Legislature, on hearing these facts, with a promptness for which they ought to be honored by every good citizen, altered the day of commencing the courts from Monday to Tuesday.

Sermon – Pilgrims – 1827


Lyman Beecher (1775-1863) graduated from Yale in 1797, having studied theology with Timothy Dwight (the president of Yale). He was ordained in 1798. He preached at: the Presbyterian Church in East Hampton (1799-1810), the Congregational Church in Litchfield, CN (1810-1826), the Hanover Street Church in Boston (1826-1832), and the Second Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati (1832-1842). Beecher also served as president of Lane Seminary in Cincinnati (1832-1852).


sermon-pilgrims-1827


THE MEMORY OF OUR FATHERS
A SERMON

DELIVERED AT PLYMOUTH

ON THE TWENTY-SECOND OF DECEMBER

1827

BY LYMAN BEECHER D.D.

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS………TO WIT:

District Clerk’s Office

Be it remembered , that on the twenty fourth day of January, A.D. 1828, in the fifty second Year of the Independence of the United States of America, Theophilus R. Marvin, of the said District, has deposited in this Office the Title of A Book, the Right thereof he claims as Proprietor, in the words following, to wit:

The Memory of our Fathers. A Sermon delivered at Plymouth, on the twenty-second of December, 1827. By Lyman Beecher D.D.

In conformity to the Act of the congress of the United States, entitled “An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing a copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned:” and also to an Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned; and explaining the benefit’s thereof to the arts of designing , engraving and etching historical and other prints.”

JNO. W. DAVIS, Clerk of the District of Massachusetts

PLYMOUTH, DEC. 25, 1827

Rev. and dear Sir, —-

At a meeting of the Third Church in this place, on the last evening, it was

“Unanimously Resolved,

That our Pastor be requested to thank the Rev. Dr. Beecher, in the name of this Church, for the Discourse delivered at their request, on the anniversary of the 22nd December, in commemoration of the Landing of the Fathers; and to request a copy of the Discourse for the Press.”

In communicating the above extract from the minutes of the Church, permit me to add,–we feel assured that the Discourse is well calculated to be of extensive utility to the cause of true patriotism and Christianity; and therefore hope that you will not hesitate to gratify our request.

With great respect and consideration,
yours, in the Gospel of Christ,
Frederick Freeman,
Pastor of 3rd Ch. Plymouth.

Rev. Dr. Beecher.

This Discourse was first delivered before the Legislature of Connecticut, and printed at their request. It was re-written and delivered at the Anniversary of the Landing of the Pilgrims, as the only tribute which at that time the writer could pay to the Memory of our Fathers. This departure from the ordinary course, was known and approved by the Committee who made the application, and was the more readily acquiesced by the writer, as the Discourse contains a discussion of just those topics which he regarded as most appropriate, and which he preferred to have associated with that most interesting anniversary.

 

SERMON.
Revelation 21:5

AND HE THAT SAT UPON THE THRONE SAID, BEHOLD, I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW.

The history of the world is the history of human nature in ruins. No state of society, which corresponds with the capacity of enjoyment possessed by man, or with his conceptions and desires, has been permanent and universal. Small portions only of the human family have, at the same time, enjoyed a state of society in any considerable degree desirable; while much the greatest part of mankind have, in all ages, endured the evils of barbarism and despotism.

It is equally manifest, that his unhappy condition of our race has not been the result of physical necessity, but of moral causes. The earth cis as capable of sustaining a happy, as a miserable population; and it is the perversion of her resources and of the human faculties, which has made the misery of man so great. The human intellect has given proof of vigor and ingenuity sufficient to bless the world; and powerful efforts have been made in every age, by afflicted humanity, to surmount this downward bias, and rise to permanent enjoyment. Egypt, in her monumental ruins, affords evidence of a high state of the arts. In Greece, a vigorous intellect and favoring clime thrust up from the dead level around her, a state of society comparatively cultivated and happy; but the sun of her prosperity blazed upon surrounding darkness, to set in a night of ages. Rome fought her way to dominion and civilization, and furnished specimens of mental vigor and finished culture; but the superstructure of her greatness was reared by the plunder of a devastated world. Commerce, which gave to cities a temporary eminence, elevated but a little the moral condition of the multitude; and science, which was restored to modern Europe at the Reformation, and commerce and the arts, which have followed in her train, have not, to this day, disenthralled the nations.

From these experiments so long and so hopelessly made, it appears, that, in the conflict between the heart and the intellect of man, victory has always been declared on the side of the heart; which has led many to conclude, that the condition of man, in respect to any universal abiding melioration, is hopeless. The text throws light upon this dark destiny of our race. It is a voice from heaven announcing the approach of help from above. “He that sitteth upon the throne saith, Behold, I make all things new.”

The renovation here announced, is a moral renovation which shall change the character and condition of men. It will be partial in its influence, like the sun shining through on clouds on favorite spots; but co-extensive with the ruin. Nor shall its results be national glory which gilds only the palace, and cheers only the dwellings of the noble. It shall bring down the mountains, and exalt the valleys; it shall send liberty and equality to all the dwellings of men. Nor shall it stop at the fire-side, or exhaust its blessings in temporal mercies; it shall enter the hidden man of the heart, and there destroy the power which has blasted human hopes, and baffled human efforts. Nor will the change be transient; it is the last dispensation of heaven for the relief of this miserable world, and shall bring glory to God in the highest, and upon earth peace, and good will to men. Many have doubted whether such a renovation pf the world will ever be accomplished; but, He that sat upon the throne, said, ‘it is done;’—i.e. it is certain as if it had come to pass.

I shall submit to your consideration, at this time, some of the reasons which justify the hope, that this nation has been raised up by providence to exert an efficient instrumentality in this work of moral renovation.

I observe then, that, for the accomplishment of this renovation, great changes are required in the civil and religious conditions of nations.

1. The monopoly of the soil must be abolished. Hitherto the majority of mankind, who have tilled the earth, have been slaves or tenants. The soil has been owned by kings, and military chieftains, and nobles, and by them rented to landlords, and, by these, to still smaller dealers, and by these again, it has been divided and subdivided, until the majority, who paid the rent, have sustained in the sweat of their brow, not only their own families, but three or four orders of society above them; while they themselves have been crushed beneath the weight, and have lifted on the borders of starvation; the sickness of a week, and often of a single day, rendering them paupers.

This same monopoly of the soil has sent another large class of the community into manufacturing establishments, to wear out their days in ignorance and hopeless poverty; and another to the camp and navy, where honor and wealth await the few, and ignorance and an early grave, the many.

The consequence of excluding such numbers from the possession and healthful cultivation of the soil has been ignorance, improvidence, reckless indifference, turbulence, and crime. Tortured by their oppressions, and unrestrained by moral principal, they have been prepared for desperate deeds. Such a state of society cannot be made happy: the evil is radical, and can only be remedied by giving a new direction to the physical, moral, and intellectual energies of men. We might as well as well band with iron the trees of the forest, and expect their expansion; or throw upon them in stinted measure, the light and the rain of heaven, and expect their luxuriant growth, as to cramp the human mind by unequal institutions, and expect the development of its resources, in a happy state of society. Room for action must be afforded, and light must be poured upon the understanding, and motive pressed upon the heart. Man must be unshackled and stimulated. But to accomplish this, the earth must be owned by those who till it. This will give action to industry, vigor to the body, and tone to the mind; and, by the attendant blessing of heaven, religion to the heart. From agriculture stimulated by personal rights, will result commerce, science, arts, liberty, and independence.

The attraction of gravity is the great principle of motion in the material world; and the possession of the earth in fee simple by the cultivator, is the great principle of action in the moral world. Nearly all the political evils which have afflicted mankind, have resulted from the unrighteous monopoly of the earth; and the predicted renovation can never be accomplished, until, to some extent, this monopoly has passed away, and the earth is extensively tilled by the independent owners of the soil.

2. To effect the moral renovation of the world, a change is required in the prevailing forms of government.

The monopoly of power must be superseded by the suffrages of freemen. While the great body of the people are excluded from all voice and influence in legislation, it is impossible to constitute a state of society such as the faculties of man allow, and the word of God predicts. While the few govern without responsibility, they will seek their own elevation and depress the multitude. To elevate society, and bring out the human energies in a well ordered state of things, the mass of mankind must be enlightened and qualified for self-government, and must yield obedience to delegated power.

3. Before the moral renovation of the world can be achieved, the rights of conscience must, also, be restored to man.

Few of the millions that have peopled the earth have been qualified by knowledge, or permitted by the governments under which they lived, to read the Bible and judge for themselves. The nominal religions of this world have been supported by governments, who, of course, have prescribed the creed, and modelled the worship, and controlled the priesthood. From such a state of things, what better results could be expected, than that ambitious men should be exalted to the sacred office, while religion itself was despised and persecuted? Governments and ecclesiastics, then, must cease to dictate what men shall believe, and in what manner they shall worship God. The church must be emancipated from worldly dominion, and enjoy that liberty wherewith Jesus Christ has made her free.

Is it to be expected the kingly governments shall cease, and the republican form become universal? I shall not stop now to discuss this question. I would only suggest the inquiry, whether monarchial governments can be sustained without a nobility and an established religion; and whether these privileged orders can exist without that monopoly of the soil, and of political influence, and of the rights of conscience, which are destructive to a religious and happy state of society. That governments will change their name, or their ancient forms, become so popular in their spirit, as that the political power shall be in the hands of the people, cannot be doubted.

It has been contended, that Christianity cannot exist in this world without the aid of religious establishments. But, with more truth it might be said, that, from the beginning of this day, it has existed in spite of them. It took possession of the Roman Empire in the face of a formidable establishment of false religion, and has survived the deadly embrace of establishments nominally Christian, and now, bursting from their alliance, finds in them the most bitter opposition in evangelical doctrine and vital godliness.

To accomplish these changes in the civil and religious condition of the world, revolutions and convulsions are doubtless indispensable. The usurpation of the soil will not be relinquished spontaneously, nor the chains knocked off from the body and the mind of man, by the hands which for ages have been employed to river them. He that sitteth upon the throne must overturn and overturn, before his rights and the rights of man will be restored. Revolutions of course are predicted, such as shall veil the sun, and turn the moon into blood, and shake the earth with the violence of nation dashing against nation; —until every despotic government shall be thrown down, and chaos resume its pristine reign; until the spirit of God shall move again upon the face of the deep, and bring out a new creation. The day of vengeance is no doubt begun, and will no doubt continue, until He that sitteth upon the throne shall have made all things new.

But to the perfection of this work a great example is required, of which the world may take knowledge; and which shall inspire hope, and rouse and concentrate the energies of man. But where would such an experiment be made? Africa required for herself the commiseration of the world, and in Europe and Asia, it would have required ages to dig up the foundations of despotism, and remove the rubbish, to prepare the way for such a state of society as we have described: this too must have been done in opposition to proscription and organized resistance. There was also such a mass of uninformed mind, accustomed to crouch under burdens, and so much was required to prepare it for civil liberty, that little hope remained that he old world, undirected, and unstimulated by example, would ever disenthrall itself. Some nation, itself free, was indeed, to blow the trumpet and hold up the light. But in England, though she enjoyed to some extent the blessings of civil liberty, there was so great a monopoly of the soil and of power, and so much overturning feared and needed, which should with a fearless heart and powerful hand, push on the work. But where could such a nation be found? It must be created, for it had no existence upon the earth. Look now at the history of our Fathers and behold what God hath wrought. They were such a race of men as never before laid the foundation s of an empire; athletic, intelligent and pious. But how should this portion of a nation’s population be uprooted and driven into exile? They were not permitted to remain at home. In that age of darkness, and land of bondage, they had formed some just conceptions of civil and religious liberty; and would fain have modified the civil government and the church of God according to the Gospel. But the reformation from popery, superintended by government, and regulated by policy, stopped short of what the pious expected and desired. The Puritans could not in all things conform, and were not permitted to dissent; and thus they were driven into exile, and compelled to lay as a foundation of a new empire. And now, behold their institutions; such as the world needs, and, attended as they have been by the power of God, able to enlighten and renovate the world. They recognize the equal rights of man—they give the soil to the cultivator, and self-government and the rights of conscience to the people. they enlighten the intellect, and form the conscience, and bring the entire influence of the divine government to bear upon the heart. It was the great object of our Fathers to govern men by the fear of the Lord; to exhibit the precepts, apply the motives, and realize the dispositions, which the word of God inculcates and his Spirit inspires; to imbue families, and schools, and towns, and states, with the wisdom from above. They had no projects of human device—no theories of untried efficacy. They hung all their hopes of civil and religious prosperity on the word of God, and the efficacy of his Spirit. Nor was theirs the presumptuous of grace without works. It was by training men for self-government that expected to make free men; and by becoming fellow workers with God, that they expected his aid in forming Christians; while by intellectual culture, and moral influence, and divine power, they prepared men to enjoy and perpetuate civil liberty.

The law, with sleepless vigilance, watched over the family, the church, the state; and a vigorous and united public opinion rendered its execution certain and efficacious. Every family was required to possess a Bible, every district a school, and every town a pastor. The law protected the Sabbath, and sustained the public worship of God, and punished immorality; and with mild but effectual energy, ruled over all. The great excellence of these institutions is, that they are practical and powerful; the people are not free in name and form merely, but indeed and in truth. Were all these forms blotted out this day, the people would be free, and other forms of civil freedom would arise. The governments are free governments from the foundation to the top stone, and of such practical efficacy as to make free men. The family, embodying instruction and government, was itself an embryo empire. In the school district, the people were called upon to exercise their own discretion and rights, and in the ecclesiastical society, to rear their place of worship, elect their pastor and provide for his support; and all under the protection and guidance of law. The towns, in their popular assemblies, discussed their local interests and administered their own concerns. In these, originated the legislature, and from the legislature emanated the courts of justice. In the states, as they are now recognizes in our nation, all which is local and peculiar, is superintended with a minuteness and efficacy, which no consolidated government could possibly accomplish. The people have only to ascertain from experience what their convenience or interests demands, and their wish becomes a law; and still, in the national government, there is all the comprehension of plan, and power of resource, and unity of action, which are required for the highest degree of national energy and prosperity.

It has been doubted, whether a republic so extensive as ours, can be held together and efficiently governed. But where there is this intellectual and moral influence, and the habitual exercise of civil and religious liberty from the family upward; we see not why a republic may not be extended indefinitely, and still be the strongest, and most effective government in the world.

The history of our nation is indicative of some great design to be accomplished by it. It is history of perils and deliverances, and of strength out of weakness. The wars with the savage tribes, and with the French, and at last with the English, protracted expense, and toil, and blood, through a period of one hundred and fifty years. No nation, out of such weakness, ever became so strong; or was guided through such perils to such safety. “If it had not been the Lord who was on our side, now may Israel say; if it had not been the Lord who was on our side, when men rose up against us: then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us: then the waters had overwhelmed us, the stream had gone over our soul: then the proud waters had gone over our soul.” These deliverances, the enemy beheld with wonder, and our Fathers with thanksgiving and praise. But, in the whole history of the world, God has not been accustomed to grant signal interpositions, without ends of corresponding magnitude to be answered by them. Indeed, if it had been the design of heaven to establish a powerful nation, in the full enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, where all the energies of man might find scope and excitement, on purpose to show the world by experiment, of what man is capable; and to shed light on the darkness which should awake the slumbering eye, and rouse the torpid mind, and nerve the palsied arm of millions; where could such an experiment have been made but in this country, and by whom so auspiciously as by our Fathers, and by what means so well adapted to that end, as by their institutions? The course which is now adopted by Christians of all denominations, to support and extend, at home and abroad, religious and moral influence; would seem to indicate the purpose of God to render this nation, extensively, the almoners of his mercy to this world.

For two hundred years, the religious institutions of our land were instituted by law. But as our numbers increased, and liberty of conscience resulted in many denominations of Christians, it became impossible to secure by law the universal application of religious and moral influence. And yet, without this mighty energy the whole system must fail; for physical power, without religious and moral influence, will not avail to sustain the institutions of civil liberty. We might as well rely on the harvests which our Fathers reared for bread, as to rely on the external forms of liberty which they established, without the application of that vital energy, by which the body politic was animated and moved. But, at the very time when the civil law had become impotent for the support of religion and the prevention of immoralities, God began to pour out his Spirit upon the churches; and voluntary associations of Christians were raised up to apply and extend that influence, which the law could no longer apply. And now we are blessed with societies to aid in the support of the Gospel at home, to extend it to the new settlements, and through the earth. We have Bible societies, and Tract societies, and associations of individuals, who make it their business to see that every family has a Bible, and every church a pastor, and every child a catechism. And to these have succeeded Education societies, that our nation may not outgrow the means of religious instruction. And while these means of culture are supplied, this great nation from her eminence begins to look abroad with compassion upon a world siting in darkness; and to put forth her mighty arm to disenthral the nations, and elevate the family of man. Let it be remembered also, that the means now relied upon, and precisely those which our Fathers applied, and which have secured our prosperity. And when we contemplate the unexampled resources of this country in men, soil, climate, seacoasts, rivers, lakes, canals, agriculture, commerce, arts and wealth, and all in connexion with the influence of republican and religious institutions; is it too much to be hoped that God will accept our powerful instrumentality, and make it effectual for the renovation of the world?

The revivals of religion which prevail in our land among Christians of all denominations, furnish cheering evidence of the presence of evangelical doctrine, and of the power of that Spirit by which the truth is to be made efficacious in the salvation of mankind. These revivals are distinguished by their continuance through a period of thirty years; by their extent, , pervading the nation; by their increasing frequency in the same places; by their rapidity and power , often changing, in a few weeks, the character of towns and cities, and even of large districts of country. An earnest of that glorious of that glorious time when a nation shall be born in a day, they purify our literary institutions, and multiply pastors and missionaries to cheer our own land, and enlighten distant nations.

They are without a parallel in the history of the world, and are constituting an era of moral power entirely new. Already the churches look chiefly to them for their members and pastors, and for that power upon public opinion, which retards declension, and gives energy to law and voluntary support to religious institutions.

These revivals then, falling in with these antecedent indications, seem to declare the purpose of God to employ this nation in the glorious work of renovating the earth.

If we look at our missionaries abroad, and witness the smiles of heaven upon their efforts, our confidence, that is the purpose of God to render our nation a blessing to the world, will be increased. In talents, and piety, and learning, and doctrine, and civil policy, they are the legitimate descendants of the Puritans. Everywhere they command high respect, and have been distinguished by their judicious and successful efforts. In Ceylon, and Hawaii, and among the natives of this country, they are fast supplanting idolatry by Christian institutions. Revivals of religion cheer and bless them; and churches, and all the elements of Christian civilization are multiplying around them.

Let this nation go on, then, and multiply its millions and its resources, and bring the whole under the influence of our civil and religious institutions, and with the energies of its concentrated benevolence send out evangelical instruction; and who can calculate what our blessed instrumentality shall have accomplished, when He who sitteth upon the throne shall have made all things new.

If Swartz, and Buchanan, and Vanderkemp, and Carey, and Martyn, and Brainerd, could, each alone, accomplish so much; what may not be expected from the energies of such a nation as this? Fifty such men as Paul the Apostle, unaided by the resources of systematic benevolence, might evangelize the world. What then might not be accomplished by a nation of freemen, destined in little more than half a century to number its fifty million?

If we consider also our friendly relations with the South American States, and the close imitation they are disposed to make of our civil and literary institutions, who can doubt that the spark which our Forefathers struck will yet enlighten this entire continent? But when the light of such a hemisphere shall go up to heaven, it will throw its beams beyond the waves—it will shine into the darkness there, and be comprehended; it will awaken desire, and hope, and effort, and produce revolutions and overturnings, until the world is free.

From our revolutionary struggle, proceeded the revolution in France, and all which has followed in Naples, Portugal, Spain, and Greece; and though the bolt of every chain has been again driven, they can no more hold the Hellespont vexed with storms. Floods have been poured upon the rising flame, but they can no more extinguish the fires of Etna. Still it burns, and still the mountain heaves and murmurs; and soon it will explode with voices, and thunderings, and great earthquakes. Then will the trumpet of jubilee sound, and earth’s debased millions will leap from the dust, and shake off their chains, and cry, “Hosanna to the Son of David.”

Before we conclude this discourse, let us attend to some of the duties to which we are called by our high providential destiny.

1. To cherish with high veneration and grateful recollections the memory of our Fathers. Both the ties of nature and the dictates of policy demand this. And surely no nation ever had less occasion to be ashamed of its ancestry, or more occasion for gratulation in that respect; for while most nations trace their origin to barbarians, the foundations of our nation were laid by civilized men—by Christians. Many of them were men of distinguished families, of powerful talents, of great learning, of pre-eminent wisdom, of decision of character, and of most inflexible integrity. And yet, not unfrequently, they have been treated as if they had no virtues; while their sins and follies have been sedulously immortalized in satirical anecdote. The influence of such treatment of the Fathers is too manifest. It creates and lets loose their invaluable institutions the Vandal spirit of innovation and overthrow; for after the memory of our Fathers shall have been rendered contemptible, who will appreciate and sustain their institutions? ‘The Memory of Our Fathers,’ should be the watchword of liberty throughout the land;–for, imperfect as they were, the world before, had not seen their like, nor will it soon, we fear, behold their like again. Such models of moral excellence, such apostles of civil and religious liberty, such shades of the illustrious dead, looking down upon their descendants with approbation or reproof, according as they follow or depart from the good way, constitute a censorship inferior only to the eye of God;–and to ridicule them is national suicide.

The doctrines of our Fathers have been represented as gloomy, superstitious, severe, irrational, and of a licentious tendency. But when other systems shall have produced a piety as devoted, a morality as pure, a patriotism as disinterested, and a state of society as happy, as have prevailed where their doctrines have been most prevalent; it may be in season to seek an answer to this objection. The same doctrines have been charged with inspiring a spirit of dogmatism and religious domination. But in all the struggles of man with despotic power for civil liberty, the doctrines of our Fathers have been found, usually, if not always, on the side of liberty, as their opposite have been usually found in the ranks of arbitrary power.

The persecutions instituted by our Fathers, have been the occasion of ceaseless obloquy upon their fair fame. And truly it was a fault of no ordinary magnitude that—sometimes, they did persecute. But let him, whose ancestors were not ten times more guilty, cast the first stone, and the ashes of our Fathers will no more be disturbed. Theirs was the fault of the age. And it will be easy to show, that no class of men had at that time approximated so nearly to just apprehensions of religious liberty; and that it is to them that the world is now indebted for the more just and definite views which prevail. More exclamation and invective has been called forth by the few instances of persecution by the Fathers of New England, than by all the fires which lighted the realm of Old England for centuries, and drove into exile, thousands of her most valuable subjects.

The superstition and bigotry of our Fathers are themes, on which come of their descendants, themselves far enough from superstition, if not from bigotry, have delighted to dwell. But when we look abroad, and behold the condition of the world compared with the condition of New England, we may just exclaim, ‘Were to God that the ancestors of all the nations had been not almost, but altogether such bigots as our Fathers were!’

Their strictness in the family, and in church and state, has been complained of as too rigid. But they were laying the foundations of a nation, and applying a moral power, whose impulse should extend through ages; and who that beholds the rapid and appalling moral relaxation of the present day, can believe that they put the system in motion with too much rigor? In proportion as their discipline had been less strict, our present condition had been more alarming, and our future prospects more desperate.

Our Fathers have been ridiculed as an uncouth uncourtly generation. And it must be admitted, that they were not as expert in the graces of dress, and the etiquette of the drawing room, as some of their descendants. But neither could these have felled the trees, nor guided the plough, nor spread the sail which they did; nor braved the dangers of Indian warfare, nor displayed the wisdom in counsel which our Fathers displayed. And, had none stepped upon the Plymouth rock but such effeminate critics as these, the poor natives never would have mourned their wilderness lost, but would have brushed them from the land, as they would brush the puny insect from their face; the Pequods would have slept in safety that night which was their last; and no intrepid Mason had hung upon their rear, and driven into exile the panic-struck fugitives.

2. We are called upon to cherish and extend our religious institutions.

Religion was the power on which our Fathers relied—the power which has made us what we are, and which must guarantee the perpetuity of our blessings. Every other influence has been tried and has failed, while this has been tried with ample promise of success. The application of religious and moral influence id, therefore the great duty to which, as a nation, we are called. On this influence depends our rise or fall—our glorious immortality or our hasty dissolution. Everything but this may be safely left to the operation of existing causes. Ambition will secure the interests of education and science; the love of gold will push agriculture and commerce and arts; and the pride of liberty will arm the nation and render it invincible. All these things, the nations who have preceded us have been able to do. but there was a sickness of the heart which they could neither endure nor heal;—and with this same disease this nation is sick, and intellectual culture, and civil liberty,, and national wealth will not heal it. There is but one remedy; and that is the preaching of the Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from on high. But to render the Gospel effectual , the religious education of the family, and the moral culture of our schools and colleges must be secured; and the Sabbath must be rescued from profanation . The Sabbath is the great organ of the divine administration—the only means provided by God to give ubiquity and power to his moral government. The intellectual culture of a nation requires schools and literary institutions; and that the subjects of instruction shall be brought under their influence. Let the fascinations of pleasure, or the demands of labor withdraw the children and youth from the power of intellectual culture, and ignorance will ensue; in like manner, let the stream of pleasure and of worldly cares bear away the population of the land from the house of God, and from the duties of devotion on the Sabbath; and ignorance of God and of his laws will with equal certainty ensue; irreligion will prevail, and immorality and dissoluteness, to an extent utterly inconsistent with the permanence of republican institutions. Europe can never enjoy civil liberty until she shall do more homage to the Sabbath of God; and we shall enjoy it but a short space after we have ceased to render to God his right in that sacred day: for, all the millions who violate the Sabbath will draw themselves from the moral power of the divine government, deprive their families of a religious education, and abandon them to the power of their evil hearts and their own bad example. In the meantime, the secular interests of men are so indissolubly connected, that the stream of business, put in motion by the wicked on the Sabbath day, not only pains the eye of the virtuous, but, as it deepens, and roars, and rolls onward its turbid waters, it draws into itself by the associations of business, a large, and still larger portion of the community; until it spreads unresisted over the land, obliterates the government of God, and substitutes covetousness and pleasure and dissoluteness, instead of godliness and the morality of the Gospel.

The present undoubtedly, is the generation which is to decide the fate of this great empire, by deciding whether the Sabbath of God shall be preserved or blotted out; for the temptations of the seaboard and of canals are immense, and are increasing most fearfully; and, unless public sentiment and law shall make a stand soon, we may as well attempt to stop the rolling of the ocean, or the current of our mighty rivers.

The universal extension of our religious institutions is the only means of reconciling our unparalleled prosperity with national purity and immortality. Without the preserving power of religious and moral influence, our rapid increase in wealth will be the occasion of our swift destruction. The rank vegetation of unsanctified enterprise, thrown into one vast reservoir of putrefaction, will send up over the land desolation and death. No nation will be so short lived as ours, unless we can balance the temptations of our prosperity by moral power. Our sun has moved onward from his morning to his meridian, with a rapidity and glory which has amazed the world. But, unless we can extend the power of religious institutions through the land, dark clouds will soon obscure his glory, and his descent to a night of ages will be more rapid than his rising.

When we were colonists, or unallied states, the law could make provision for the creation and application of moral power. The law could compel men to desist from secular employments and vain amusements on the Sabbath. The law could compel men to support the Gospel, and attend the public worship of God—and civil officers could see ti it, that every town should in due time settle a minister, and that every family should possess a Bible and a catechism. But these means of moral influence the law can no longer apply; and there is no substitute but the voluntary energies of the nation itself, exerted by associations for charitable contributions and efforts, patronized by all denominations of Christians, and by all classes of the community who love their country, We may boast of of our civil and religious liberty, but they are the fruit of other men’s labors into which we have entered; and the effect of institutions, whose impulse has been felt long after the hands that reared them have moldered in the grave. This impulse too, is fast failing, and becoming yearly, more and more disproportioned to the mass that is to be moved by it. Our religious institutions must be invigorated, or we are undone. They must move onward with our flowing emigration to the Mississippi—must pass the Rocky mountains, and pour their waters of life into the ocean beyond; and from the north to the south, they must bear salvation their waves. In this way the nation can save itself; but unless it can be roused to this mighty work , it will ,like the man among the tombs, become exceedingly fierce, and turn upon itself its infuriated energies, and pour out its own life blood by its self-inflicted wounds. 1

3. We are called upon to give a quickened and extended impulse to our charitable institutions.

These are the providential substitutes for those legal provisions of our Fathers, which are now inapplicable by change or circumstances. In these the nation must enroll itself spontaneously, and the spirit of the Puritans be revived, for the preservation of their institutions. And now is the time. With our growing prosperity, the fascinations of pleasure increase, and the means and temptations to voluptuousness. Now, unless the salt of the earth contained in Christian institutions can be diffused through the land, the mass will putrify. The tide of business and pleasure, bursting from our cities, rolling on our seacoast, and flowing in our canals, will soon sweep away the Sabbath, unless a vigorous public sentiment, by the preaching of the Gospel, and the power of the Spirit, can be arrayed for its preservation; while Bibles, and Pastors, and teachers are multiplied, till the knowledge of the Lord covers the land, and his saving health id extended to all the people.

4. All Christian denominations are called upon to co-operate for the preservation of religion.

It is idle to expect, and folly to desire the amalgamation of all denominations into one. The papal effort at universal comprehension has shown , what a vast, unstimulated, stagnant uniformity will accomplish ; and God, no doubt, has permitted some varying winds of opinion to move upon the face of the deep, to maintain motion, purity and life. We may say however, that jealousies and ambitious collisions between religious denominations should give place to Christian courtesy, and the magnanimity of an hearty co-operation for the glory of God, and the salvation of the world. It is in vain to expect, and it would be sinful to desire the extinction of any one denomination of real Christians. There is room for all—and work for all; and there is ample reason why each should hail the other as an auxiliary in the work of the Lord. Religious principle must be applied throughout the nation, and no one denomination can do it. The work demands the ceaseless action of each in its own peculiar way, and the magnanimous co-operation of all, for the preservation of the great principles of our common Christianity. Nor will such concert of action be in vain. It will form, extensively, a public opinion which shall accord with the morality of the Gospel—whose sanctions, expressed in the votes of virtuous freemen , shall elevate to influence and power, men of pure morality, , and consign the irreligious , immoral, and dissolute, to merited contempt:–a law which the wicked cannot repeal, and whose penalty they cannot evade. All denominations, united, and directing their suffrages to that end, can check the violation of the Sabbath; can arrest the contagion of intemperance ; can punish duelists in high places, who with shameless notoriety, set at defiance the laws of God and their country, bringing upon us the contempt of the world, and the just judgments of heaven.

5. In this great work of national preservation and universal good will, our civil rulers are, particularly, called upon to co-operate; not, as once, in convoking synods, and approving and recommending creeds; and not in coercing by law, attendance upon public worship, or the support of religious institutions. The day is gone by, in which such interposition is required, or can avail. The God of our Fathers, having giving to us a practical illustration of the efficacy of religious institutions, sustained by law during our minority;—now, in our manhood, puts the price into our hands to be preserved or abandoned spontaneously on our own responsibility. Nor are the church and the state to be so identified, as that the qualifications for civil office must be the same as for membership in that kingdom which is not of this world. Our civil rulers owe to God and their country now, the same illustrious piety, the same estimation of the doctrines of God’s Word, the same attendance upon the ordinances of the Gospel and co-operation for their support, and the same strict and pure morality, which rendered the civil Fathers of our land so illustrious in their character, and so benign in the power of their example upon their own and upon other generations. The example of men in official stations is among the most powerful moral caused which afflict or bless a community. If it be good, it descends with cheering power, like the gentle rain upon the earth; but if it be evil, from its “bad eminence,” it comes down upon the community like the mountain torrent, sweeping away landmarks. The righteous mourn under their sway, and the wicked creep from their hiding places, and walk on every side, setting their mouth against the heavens, and their foot upon all that is sacred and holy. The time has come, when the experiment is to be made, whether the world is to be emancipated and rendered happy, or whether the whole creation shall groan and travail together in pain until the final consummation: and the example of the rulers of our nation will throw decisive weights into the scales, for or against the world’s last hope. If they pour contempt upon the Bible, its doctrines and institutions—if they take in vain the name of God, or profane wantonly his holy day—if they concentrate in the capitol, and spread abroad through the land, the infection of their bad example; the whole nation will feel it, and die under it, unless the indignant virtue of an insulted community shall throw off the body of death, and , by a well-directed suffrage , call to its aid men of talents and of pure morality.

6. To perpetuate our national prosperity and hold up our light to the world, our citizens must ban party spirit, and regulates the suffrage of the nation with reference to the preservation of its moral purity.

The temporary collisions of local interest and of ambition can never be excluded from such a nation as this, and are not to be feared. It is those deep-rooted and permanent divisions, extending through the land, arousing the feelings and arraying the energies of one part of the nation in keen collision with the other, and perpetuating prejudice and strife from generation to generation, which threaten the existence of our republican institutions . Through one such fiery trial we have passed undestroyed though by no means uninjured; and no patriot of the present generation would willingly, I trust, behold our country placed in such jeopardy again. Despotic governments may pass in safety through popular commotions such as would shake down the pillars of a republic. The mobs of England, which, in the presence of a military power, are but the gambols of a kid within the scope of the lion’s paw, would be, in this country, as the letting out of waters. There is no possibility of freedom in this bad world, without so much intelligence and moral principle among the people, as shall create an efficient people sentiment in favor of law and good order. But party spirit prostrates everything within the sphere of its commotion, which is venerable and scared. It directs the attention of the people from their own common interests, to the means of gaining objects to which prejudice and passion may direct them; and the attention of the government from the public good, to the means of its own perpetuity and ascendancy. It renders a wise and comprehensive policy impossible; for party spirit has no magnanimity, no conscience, no consistency, to withhold it from resisting a steadily what is wise as what is unwise, and its victories are too transient to admit of much prospective wisdom. It is eminently hostile to the laws which watch over the morals of the nation;–for who will execute them, when patrizans on both sides fear that they may feel the consequences of fidelity at the next election. Too often, from the nearly balanced state of parties, the most worthless portion of the community actually hold the sway in the elections, even in a state of society comparatively virtuous,–occasioning impunity in the violation of law, and clothing with political consequence, and too often surrounding with adulation, men whom our Fathers would have expelled from good society. It tends to destroy in society, all distinctions of moral character, talent, and learning ,as qualifications for office; while it reconciles the people, upon the plea of necessity, to such preposterous sacrifices of conscience, and common sense, as they would never consent to, unstimulated by its madness. Indeed, in all but the name, it rears beneath the forms of freedom, a real and most horrific despotism. For every party has a soul,–some master spirit, who, without a crown and a scepter, governs with absolute sway. He is surrounded by a nobility, each of whom is commissioned to govern the public opinion within his sphere, and bring his retainers to the polls, to subserve implicitly the interests of the king and of the aristocracy. It needs only to kindle the watch-fire, and every clansman is at his post; and argument might as well avail against bullets in the day of battle, as in these determined contests of parties. There is no remedy for this state of things, but that intelligence which qualifies the people to understand their rights, interests and duties; and that calmness of feeling to which the mind, undisturbed by patrizan efforts, will not fail to come; and that deep conviction of the importance of moral purity, which shall turn the expectations of the people from party men and party measures, to the application of moral power, by the institutions of religion, and the interposition of the Holy Spirit.

Multitudes of Christians and patriots have long since abandoned party politics, and, not knowing what to do, have almost abandoned the exercise of suffrage. This is wrong. An enlightened and virtuous suffrage may, by system and concentration, become one of the most powerful means of promoting national purity and morality;–as the suffrage from which the influence of conscience is withdrawn, cannot fail to be disastrous. While then, as freemen, we remove one temptation to hypocrisy, by dispensing with a profession of religion as a qualification for office , and exclude all occasions of jealousy, by bestowing our votes without reference to Christian denomination; let all Christians and all patriots exercise their rights as electors, with an inflexible regard to moral character; and let the duelist, and the Sabbath-breaker, and the drunkard, and the licentious, find the doors of honor barred, and the heights of ambition defended against them by hosts of determined freemen, and the moral effect will be great. The discrimination by suffrage will exert upon the youth of our country a more salutary restraint and upon dissolute and ambitious men a powerful reforming influence. Let every freeman, then, who would perpetuate the liberty and happiness of his country, and transmit to his descendants of distant generations the precious legacy which our Fathers have sent down to us, inquire concerning the candidate for whom he has solicited to vote,–is he an enemy to the Bible, or to the doctrines and institutions of the Gospel;—is he a duelist, or an intemperate man, or a Sabbath-breaker, or dissolute, or dishonest?—and if, in any of these respects, he be disqualified, let him withhold his vote, and give it to a better man—and it will go far to retrieve the declensions which have taken place, and to render righteousness and peace the stability of our times.

And now, what shall we say to these things? Are they the dreams of a fervid imagination, or are they the words of truth and soberness? Will our blessings be perpetuated, or shall ours be added to the ruined republics that have been? Are we assembled today to bestow funeral honors upon our departed glory, or with united counsels and hearts to strengthen the things that remain? Weak indeed must be the faith that wavers now, and sinks and waves less terrific, and prospects more cheering, than any which our Fathers ever saw. Were it dark even as midnight, and did the waves run high, and dash loud and angry around us, still our faith would not be dismayed: still with our Fathers we would believe, “Qui transtulit sustinet;” and still would we rejoice in the annunciation of Him that sitteth upon the throne, “Behold I create all things new.” Our anchor will not fail –our bark will not flounder; for the means of preservation will be used, and the God of our Fathers will make them effectual. The memory of our Fathers is becoming more precious. Their institutions are commanding a higher estimation. Deeper convictions are felt of the importance of religion ; and more extended and vigorous exertions are made to balance the temptations of prosperity by moral power. Christians are ceasing from their jealousies, and concentrating their energies. The nation is moved, and beginning to enroll itself in various forms of charitable association, for the extension of religion at home and abroad. Philosophers and patriots, statesmen and men of wealth, are beginning to feel that it is righteousness only which exalteth a nation; and to give to the work of moral renovation their arguments, the power of their example, and the impulse of their charity. And the people, weary of political collision, are disposed at length to build again those institutions, which, in times of contention, they had either neglected or trodden down. Such an array of moral influence as is now comprehended in the great plan of charitable operations, were never before brought to bear upon the nation. It moves onward, attended by fervent supplications, and followed by glorious, and unceasing effusions of the Holy Spirit. The god of this world feels the shock of the onset, and has commenced his retreat; and Jesus Christ is pressing onward from conquering to conquer: nor will he turn from his purpose, or cease from his work, until he hath made all things new.

1. In many of the discourses and orations which commemorate the deeds of our Fathers, their character, as the apostles of civil liberty, is especially eulogized; while their doctrines, their piety, and the other peculiarities of their religious institutions, are passed off with cold commendations, or perhaps palliated and excused as the defects of the age. But no historical fact is more completely established, and that their peculiar doctrines and views of experimental religion and church order were dearer to them than life; and that it is these, which, for more than one hundred and fifty years, applied the religious and moral influence under which New England was formed, and which has made her what she is. Let the children of the Pilgrims never forget this; and let the eulogists of their patriotism cease to spread before our eyes such a glitter of style and eloquence, as shall place their civil exploits in the fore-ground, and throw their doctrines, and church order, and eminent piety in the back-ground. The religious and moral causes which have blessed New England, and are now rolling the tide of salvation to the West, can never be concealed; and can never be successfully, misrepresented. As well may the Newtonian philosophy be concealed, as the system of our Fathers—it is out, and known, and read of all men. We are the more called upon to regard this subject with deep interest, from the fact that the attempt is now openly made to destroy the religious and moral energy of the churches which our Fathers planted, by perverting their doctrines, changing the qualifications for membership, and taking from them their immemorial and sacred rights in the election of their own pastors, in the enjoyment of which, their moral power must fail. We have no apprehension that the children of the Pilgrims, when the subject shall be fairly understood, will, by adding injustice to ingratitude, sanctions such innovations.

Sermon – Thanksgiving – 1827 Yale

NATIONAL PROSPERITY PERPETUATED:

A

DISCOURSE:

DELIVERED IN THE

CHAPEL OF YALE COLLEGE;

ON THE DAY OF
THE ANNUAL THANKSGIVING:

NOVEMBER 29, 1827.

BY ELEAZAR T. FITCH.

Videte ne, ut illis pulcherrimum fuit tantam vobis imperii gloriam reliquenre, sic vobis turpissimum sit, illud quod accepistis, tueri et conservare non posse.—Cit.

NEW-HAVEN:
TREADWAY AND ADAMS
CHRONICLE OFFICE, PRINT.
1828.

 

DISCOURSE.
Psalm CXV. 15.
Ye are blessed of the Lord which made heaven and earth.

 

In his song of thankfulness, the Psalmist thus congratulated happy Israel. On the day when he composed the song, he beheld the descendants of that ancient patriarch in their prosperity:–a nation, preserved from the dark idolatry of the gentiles; happy in the possession of the lands of Palestine and in the enjoyment of the instruction, protection and favor of Jehovah; and among them, the sons of Aaron, blest with the permission of presenting their national and individual offerings of penitence, devotion and gratitude on mount Zion. The prosperity of his brethren and companions, filled his heart with joy; and induced him thus to remind them of the lovingkindness of God. Crowned with the riches of earth and of heaven, they were called upon to trace their blessings to that God who is the Maker, Proprietor, and Lord and Disposer of both worlds: “Ye are blessed of the Lord which made heaven and earth.”

Yet the eye of the sacred poet rested not simply on the prosperity of Israel at that day, blest with the benefactions of God. His object was to excite and fix the grateful confidence of the nation upon the God of their fathers—the help and the hope of Israel. Their present blessings he regarded, as so many testimonies of what the goodness of God had been towards his servants in past ages, and as so many pledges of what his goodness would still be towards them and their offspring should they continue to place their grateful confidence in him, their supreme benefactor. They were reminded that they stood on an eminence of prosperity between the fathers and posterity: and that the God from whom had originated their gifts was now present in Zion, demanding, by all his goodness until that hour, their grateful confidence, in order that he might watch over their possessions still, and transmit them, augmented, to succeeding generations. “O Israel, trust thou in the Lord….O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord….Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord….The Lord hath been mindful of us. He will bless us….He will bless them that fear the Lord, both great and small. The Lord shall increase you more and more, you and your children.”

From this address to Israel, which breathes the truth and fervency of heavenly inspiration, we learn, that, in their prosperity, God demanded of them their grateful confidence in order to perpetuate their blessings. The sentiment is one, indeed, which runs through the history of all the revelations addressed to Israel: that if they presented to God the aspect of an obedient and thankful nation, he would continue and multiply his blessings on the land; but that if they were stained with national ingratitude and rebellion, he would banish them and their children from their privileges, and scatter them into the corners of the earth, an eminent example of punishment to all nations:–which he did, when the priests and the people, before Pilate, ungratefully rejected him in the person of his Son, and he made them, for it, a monument of his indignation in every nation of the earth by their desertion and exile.

The general sentiment is worthy of our attentive consideration, that, in the day of national prosperity, gratitude to God is demanded as the necessary means of securing its perpetuity.

You will expect me, on this occasion, to illustrate this sentiment in the application which it has to ourselves: and this I shall attempt to do, under the following particulars:

    1. The goodness of God to this nation;

 

    1. The gratitude which he demands in return; and,

 

  1. The connection of the claim with the continuance of our national prosperity.

I. Let us contemplate the goodness of God to us as a nation.

I will not attempt the boundless detail which would open before me, were I to enter upon a particular enumeration of all the blessings, worldly and spiritual, which the Lord of heaven and earth has conferred upon this people. I will rather survey the whole under one or two aspects which may exhibit, more clearly to us, his exceeding great goodness. Let us contemplate, then, the bounty of God in the greatness of the privileges he has freely conferred on us, and his watchful care in maturing them for our possession.

The bounty of God is manifest in the greatness of our privileges.

Survey, for a moment, our worldly advantages. Fixed on a soil of great variety and fertility; bordered in its whole extent by the ocean, and intersected, in every part, by vast and navigable rivers; embosoming resources, immense and as yet but partially explored; enjoying the suns and skies of every variety of climate; separated far from the polluting and jarring elements of the Eastern hemisphere; this nation has every possible advantage for the enjoyment of worldly peace and prosperity. And that prosperity it highly enjoys. Even in her youth, she is already adorned with most of the internal improvements of the old world, and has added to them important inventions of her own. Through the whole extent of her coast and on the margins of her noble rivers, she has established her populous and busy marts; that vie in elegance and wealth with foreign cities and far surpass them in their rapidly increasing prosperity. From her hills and vallies, she annually rolls into these confluent marts, the products and fabrics of trade, to the amount in value of more than a hundred millions; yet leaving the granaries of the farmer full, and permitting, as does no other nation, the laborer to detain enough in his possession to furnish himself and his household with the necessaries and luxuries of life. She has filled her hundred harbors with ships, and sent them forth, with the fleetness of the wind, on every sea and to every nation, to collect the treasures of the deep, or bear the treasures of both sea and land to other marts: till her tonnage competes with that of the most favored commercial nations, and her navy, the protectress of her commerce, rivals theirs. And she collects a revenue which, for the lightness of its burthen and its competency, may well render her the envy of nations perplexed with enormous expenditure, and impoverished with oppressive taxation.

View, next, our civil privileges. This, is the dwelling of freedom. This, the home of liberty. Exiled from other lands, she here has found a resting place. Nor is the freedom which marks our institutions of government a mere word, suited to swell a thoughtless declamation. Go ask the Turk, by what tenure he holds his possessions, his personal liberty, his life: and he will tell you by the will of a Pacha, or the Grand Seignor. That is despotism; tyranny. The yeoman of this favored nation will tell you that he holds them by the will of God and unalienable right; that they are secured to him by his fellow-citizens, in a written bill of rights and constitution of authority which no power, legislative, judicial, or executive can violate. That is freedom: power emanating from the citizens; regulated by open compact, in which the majority, through their agents, protect the individual in his just rights, and restrain and punish offenders for the good of the whole. This is our shield in the house and by the way; our shelter of repose, through every innocent occupation and enjoyment; the bond of confidence, in our social intercourse and commutations; the incentive to enterprise, in every branch of honorable gain or preferment. In what nation, unless in the fatherland of our ancestors, will you find the citizens thus treated by government as being equal in their rights; left free in their intercourse with one another; or permitted to aspire to more elevated conditions than those of birth? If you doubt your superior privileges, go hold as tenants of European lords; surrender your freedom of speech to the jealous espionage of kings; and subject the liberty of your persons to the gendarmerie of power.

Look, next, at our literary privileges. Vain were it indeed for us, in the infancy of our literary institutions and means, to boast a supremacy over the older institutions of Europe, with their distinguished patronage, their immense libraries, and their vast apparatus for scientific experiment and research. We can only assert that we are advancing towards rivalry. Yet this nation is fast rearing the edifice of her literary fame. She is rapidly multiplying her men of science and letters, and infusing into them the keenest ardor of research. Her writers, her orators, her poets, are already commanding the respect of other nations as well as elevating the genius of her own children. But on this survey, it is my joy as an American to recognize that diffusion of privilege which, rather than accumulation, characterizes our happy country. Our institutions of learning are not designed for a select few: but, in the form of the college, academy and school, they are diffused through the several States, and bring the means of knowledge to every village and to the doors of almost every hamlet in the nation: and from the free and unshackled press, channels of instruction and intelligence are opened to the whole population through which knowledge is constantly circulating. How rare is that phenomenon at least in New-England, that is so common in other nations;–an adult who cannot read! Yes: you may travel to an obscure cottage on some distant mountain, apparently secluded from all intercourse with the surrounding world; and yet its inmates shall show you, that they hold communion, in their thoughts, with every part of this nation, in her minute interests; with South America, in her revolutions; with Greece, in her struggles; with Europe, in her developing policy. Yes, that they hold converse with the dead of past ages; and they will tell you of the fall and rise of empires; or inspire you with the sentiments of illustrious writers. The traveler who visits us from foreign nations, acknowledges, with surprise, this happy diffusion of knowledge and intelligence: for he leaves a peasantry at home shut out from the avenues to learning—as ignorant, almost, of what is passing on the wide theatre of the world, as the cattle that graze upon the domains of their lords.

Survey, again, the religious privileges which enrich this nation. These in their very nature are heavenly privileges. They elevate man as a spiritual being. They resemble him to the moral image of his Maker and the angels. They bring him into communion with God on earth and prepare him for that communion in more exalted stations in eternity. And how richly are they enjoyed here! Not only in the volumes of divine truth, that are on the shelves of our habitations, and constantly spread before individuals and families the ways of present and eternal happiness; not only in those temples which elevate their spires towards heaven from the spacious cities and thousand villages of our territory, and weekly open their portals of praise and instruction for the pilgrim to eternity: but in that religious freedom and toleration which dawns on us as on no other nation, and leaves the friends of piety an open field for their benevolent labors; and in the presence of the Spirit of God in our churches, with his most signal gifts;–our last and best hope of elevating a triumphant standard against the irruptions of ungodliness.

We have thus far surveyed the bounty of God in the profusion of his gifts: let us now contemplate his watchful care over their preparation and transmission.

On the opening of the seventeenth century, but a little more than two hundred years since, the fast territory which now embraces the population of these United States, was one immense forest; broken only by the silent bosom of the lake or the lonely pathway of the river; inhabited by the savage and his game. At that time Great Britain claimed authority over it; disputed in the title, only by the States General of Holland. By all in that nation, it was regarded with great interest: by the king, as an accession to his dominions; by the capitalist, as a source of profitable investment; and by the adventurer, as a scene of hardy and industrious enterprise. Divided into North and South Virginia, and held by the two companies of Plymouth and London by patent from the king, it was prepared for the introduction upon its soil of the adventurous colonist who, from any motives, might choose to fix his residence here and plant the germ of a rising empire.

A colony of Englishmen under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh, first landed as settlers on South Virginia. To North Virginia, the Puritans, exiled from their native land, or harassed in it, came; bearing in their breasts the sacred love of liberty and religion. These latter adventurers, (I confine myself to these, for their history is briefly the history of all, and soon merges itself in that of all,) these adventurers, while their ship was yet hovering on the coast, and before they disembarked, appointed a day of thanksgiving to that God who had conducted them safely across the ocean, and formed on that day a civil compact with each other that they should be ruled by the majority,–in which latter act they founded the liberties and union of a representative republic. When they landed, the germ of all our present prosperity lay concealed in their little society. Theirs was the spirit of hardy enterprise, the desire of virtuous liberty, the regard for knowledge, the attachment to religion, which was to be developed on the theatre of this nation, and to mark the character and bless the destiny of a numerous posterity—the effects of which we feel at this day in those peculiar privileges which the God of heaven and earth has secured to us as our fair inheritance.

But what is the history of the transmission? Go back and survey the adventurers, landed upon an unexplored coast, on the eve of a bleak and desolate winter, with a vast ocean on one side separating them forever from their former homes, and on the other a boundless forest filled with savage beasts or with men as wild and savage. They are to unlock the stores of temporal wealth which the God of the whole earth had concealed beneath these vallies and mountains. They are to protect, extend, and perpetuate those principles of civil and religious freedom which the God of heaven had inspired in their breasts. Yet at what toil, with what privations and sufferings, through what perils and dangers; to be endured and surmounted, only by the guiding and protecting care of Heaven! To God they commit their infant interests: and go forth, strong in heart and vigorous in nerve, to the perilous encounter. They fell the forests: they build their houses; they erect their sanctuaries; they sow their plantations; and over their harvests they raise their pious thanksgivings.

But the day of adversity soon comes. Famine, pestilence, war,–those scourges, terrible to nations abundant in resources and sympathies for lightening the evil,–were to be encountered, in their most appalling forms, by these few and feeble adventurers. The native tribes, who at first welcomed them to a residence in the territory, soon regarded their increasing prosperity with envy, were jealous of their power, and coveted their wealth. Nor was it difficult to find pretences for justifying their hatred, or occasions for venting it in the cruelties of war. Who has not read of those days of distress, when (it might be said almost literally) every village was a garrison, and every householder, a soldier; when every heart was filled with terrors by day and alarms at night; when the gun was become the most necessary of implements, and was a constant companion at the plough, by the fireside, and in the sanctuary? Or why should I relate the story of those Indian wars which terminated in the desperate battles which, under the guidance or instigation of Philip the brave, spread carnage and woe through New-England; the grand struggle for mastery—the crisis of destiny to the colonies and the aboriginal race? The blood of our fathers then flowed for us freely; and in that day of fainting and sorrow, the God of all power declared himself on their side, the helper of those that trusted in him and the destroyer of their foes. Nor in closing this series of warfare in triumph over the Indian tribes were they restrained from acknowledging the favor of God in conducting them to it, by the reflection that their cause had been unjust. “I can clearly say,” the pious governor Winslow observes, in a letter written at the time, “that before the present troubles broke out, the English did not possess one foot of land in this colony, but what was fairly obtained by honest purchase of the Indian proprietors.” The planters had protected them in their rights, by their laws; and had attempted to introduce them to a friendly participation in their own privileges. And it is a record cheering to us, as we weep over this downfall of the aboriginal race, that, at the time of the war of Philip, more than twenty towns of Indians had united with our pilgrim fathers in acknowledging the One God and Savior of nations.

But another crisis of peril was to arise with the colonists: nor in that hour were they less signally favored with the guardian watchfulness of God. They were now to encounter a powerful foe in the nation that gave them birth. Though the ties of kindred pleaded against a war so unnatural, and their inexperience was to cope with valor often tried on the field of battle and crowned with triumph; yet they saw in their liberties what was dearer to them than all they might risk in the contest. Embarking their lives and fortunes, they launched forth upon the perilous enterprise. Strong in the justice of their cause, they disowned their allegiance to their former fosterland; and called upon God to watch over their destinies through the coming, dark, eventful struggle. The note of war was sounded; the veteran troops of Europe were upon our territories; and the blood of our patriot fathers was poured forth as the price of our liberties. At this crisis of destiny, the Lord watched over our birthright. He secured to us our inheritance.

Nor do I fear the imputation of Puritanism when I acknowledge thus the goodness of God in conducting this nation up through past perils to its present height of prosperity. A Puritan ancestry is my pride. Puritan principles are my hope and my joy. I would blush rather for the American who, through inattention to the history of his country or fear of the imputation of prejudice, should prove himself so unworthy of his privileges as not to respond cordially to the grateful declaration of Washington, after he had achieved the independence of his country and resigned his military commission, when called to take the chair of chief magistracy: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

I have dwelt too long perhaps on this part of the subject. But the goodness of God toward us in conferring upon us the peculiar blessings we enjoy, and in transmitting them to us with so much care from our fathers, is worthy of a frequent and an attentive consideration. We should dwell upon it, until it affect our hearts. The survey presents to us impressive evidence, that the Lord of heaven and earth is our highest benefactor. He is seen to be with us, deserving and claiming our pious gratitude. To this thought I would now advert: and consider,

II. The gratitude which he demands in return.

Now it cannot be that the Lord, who holds in his hands all the riches of heaven and earth and who dispenses them so freely in his providence, should ever seek to be enriched gain by gifts which men can offer, or to be gratified with the flatteries of their tongues. He does not seek literal repayment. He simply asks to be acknowledged in the benefactions he has made, and to be trusted in for future, with hearts duly alive to his unbounded goodness; in order that he may consistently carry forward the works of lovingkindness that he begins. His object, like that of every good being, is to do good. He therefore seeks in men that preparation of heart which is implied in a grateful sense of his supreme goodness; which will fit them to receive, without abuse, his future favors. That was the return he sought of Israel, for the favors bestowed on that once happy but now desolate nation: and it is that, which he demands from his nation, for the goodness in which he appears before us at this day as the Guardian of our infant interests, the Giver of our present blessings, and the Promiser of increasing prosperity in years to come.

This return for his goodness involves in it, more especially, our grateful acknowledgment of what he has done and our supreme trust in him for future prosperity.

Our grateful acknowledgment of what he has done. In the lyric ode which contains the text, the Psalmist, rejoicing in the prosperity of Israel, began his strain of devotion, with a public and grateful acknowledgment of their indebtedness to God. “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth’s sake.” Such open acknowledgment, God demands from this nation. Not a merely formal acknowledgment: as if we could crowd our praise into one set day of thanksgiving and go and riot on his bounties and delight ourselves in his gifts, in a forgetfulness of him, during the other days of the year. Not a thoughtless acknowledgment: as if we might bring him the offerings of our lips and feelings, and trust to discover reasons for our thankfulness afterwards. The acknowledgment which he demands of the American citizen is an enlightened and ardent one:–that which springs from intelligent and studious minds awake in some measure to the true extent and source of our national blessings; and from warm and grateful hearts which feel how much we owe to his goodness, and carry the feeling with them through the enjoyment, the intercourse and the duties of life. There have been many in this nation in the past periods of its history who have made this intelligent and heart-felt acknowledgment of divine goodness: and presented to God the offering of thankful and obedient hearts. They have borne the sentiment with them from the closet to the family, the social circle, the popular assembly, the bench of justice, the senate, the chair of chief magistracy: and they have united in devoutly expressing it in the sanctuaries of God. There are many such, we would hope, at this day—the salt of the land to preserve it—the breath of the land to revive it;–and it is to add to their number and secure unto himself a grateful nation, that God appears before us at this day reminding us of his gifts and of his high and imperious claims.

But more especially does he demand of us supreme trust in him for our future prosperity. This was the demand which he made on Israel through the Psalmist. “O Israel, trust thou in the Lord. O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord.” And this demand is now brought to our consciences with no less power by the voice of his providence. He calls us to put our trust in him as the supreme, the only source of our future prosperity. The trust which he requires is not that formal trust, which lifts up the voice to him for aid, but goes away and seeks all its joys and resources in his gifts: not that idle trust, which sleeps in inaction, and waits for God to perform both our duties and his promises. It is the heart-felt trust which enthrones him over our affections and subjects our lives to the guidance of his commandments, and which believes, from the testimonies of his goodness with which he surrounds us, that he is ready to bestow prosperity “on them that fear him, both great and small.” It is the active trust that engages cheerfully in the duties or the conflicts through which his guiding hand directs us as the avenues to prosperity; and which, like Israel, labors, endures privation, encounters enemies, when called to it by the cloudy and fiery pillar of his guidance. This is the trust which he demands of American citizens at this day when, more than ever, we are in danger of withdrawing our confidence from him and reposing in the rich gifts that form our inheritance. He stands before us as the Author of all our prosperity; and asks that we submit ourselves to his future guidance:–that we welcome him to preside over us with his authority and dwell with us with his word and institutions and Spirit of grace, that we come around him, each in our various stations, and cast upon his care the temporal and spiritual interests of the nation, waiting as obedient servants to receive and fulfill his orders. Was ever a claim more just, ore pure and disinterested, more worthy of our attention? To this claim, multitudes have gratefully responded in this nation. In the days of past peril and adversity, our fathers trusted in him and were delivered; and in this critical day of our prosperity, when we are threatened with no less dreadful but more insidious enemies, there are many who look to him alone as the supreme hope of the nation. And it is to add to their number and secure to himself a people gratefully submissive, whom he may conduct to increasing prosperity in years to come, that he reminds us at this day of his gifts: “Ye are blessed of the Lord which made heaven and earth.”

We are now come to the remaining thought:

III. The connection which the claim has with our national welfare in time to come.

Now that the prosperity of this country can be perpetuated, only by placing, as a people, our grateful trust in God and complying with the claims imposed upon us by his goodness, will, I think, be manifest from the following considerations.

1. We can in no other way secure the favor of God upon the destinies of the nation.

The Most High ruleth over the kingdoms of men. In his hand it is to plant and build, and to pluck up and destroy. Who can doubt this, that believes there is a God and that he created the heaven and the earth. Surely, he is Lord over the domains of his own creation; and will perform his righteous pleasure among the nations. Nor does it ever enter into his purposes to treat them without regard to their conduct. For the truth rests on the foundation of his essential goodness, and it has been fully attested in his revelations to Israel and by his conduct in the earth, that he will not cast off the people who put their trust in him; and that, though he bear long with those that refuse and rebel, he will not forget to punish. And shall we be exempt from the general laws of his providence? Can this nation withdraw itself from his domains? Can it change the nature of his purposes of government? Or, if he come forth to punish, can it avoid feeling the terror of his indignation?

Truly a weighty responsibility devolves upon us. God who has been the deliverer of our fathers and has brought us into their inheritance with many added gifts, has come, demanding of us the acknowledgment and trust of grateful hearts, in order that he may continue to us, and to those who come after us, our rich inheritance. Unlike the critical times of our nation’s adversity, this is the crisis of her prosperity. The issues dependent, are most weighty; and are to be felt in the joys or woes of the many millions who are coming forward to occupy the bounds of our habitation. If we put our trust in God; if the sentiment be broad and deep in the nation; no doubt he will go with us in favor and perpetuate his heavenly and worldly gifts with us and our children, and “increase them more and more.” But if we withdraw our confidence from him; if we ungratefully merge the thought of his goodness in our own worldliness and pride and lust; the scourges of vengeance are in his storehouse, and he will no doubt draw them forth for our punishment. It is only for him to withdraw from us the heavenly gifts of his grace, and convert our worldly gifts into snares of destruction; it is only for him to commission the evils of famine, pestilence, anarchy and war to pass through the land; and we and our children shall feel the tremendous scourging of his rod.

But the question whether we respond to the demand of God or not, has a most manifest connection with many of the secondary sources of our safety or danger;–a connection which must be conceded, even by him who is so hardy as to deny that God has a direct agency over the destinies of nations. I proceed, therefore, to remark on the connection of our gratitude with our prosperity:–

2. That it is the only means of maintaining a healthy tone of moral sentiment in the nation.

Need I show you how necessary a pure state of private and public morals is, to the welfare of a people? Vices are the scourges of those who practice them; they contaminate those who are in their vicinity; they carry distress and mourning into the relations of life and society; and they embitter the possession of every gift of God. What woes does that nation embosom in itself that is corrupted in its own sins? A nation in which neither the fear of God, respect for an oath, nor regard for a future state, stand as barriers against crime or securities for truth and justice? And if such shall ever become the fate of this nation generally, that her inhabitants, casting off the fear of God and man, are openly defiled with every pollution and crime, she will need no foreign enemy, she will need no domestic intriguer, to render desolate her joys. With her own vices shall she be crushed, and perish in her sins; and her name be placed on the catalogue of nations that have been whelmed in this vortex of ruin.

How then shall we rescue our country from so tremendous a fate, and preserve the fair possessions God has given us, uncorrupt to other generations? On what secondary resources can we rely to strengthen in the minds of our citizens and of rising generations the obligations to chastity, temperance and self-government; and to truth, justice and charity in their intercourse with one another? Can we trust to the bonds of self-interest? But the one who has surrendered himself to sin, has already relinquished his best interests in time to his lusts: and how shall he, by this consideration alone, be withdrawn from his wickedness; or others be restrained from rushing upon the same mad career? Can we trust to the influence of reputation? But the law of honor sinks or rises with the men who enact it: and it is facile enough to accompany society down into all those vices which degrade, torment, and destroy. No; it is the law of God only that can sustain a healthy tone of morals in a community: a perfect, unbending standard of purity, enforced by his own eternal sanctions.

And in order that God may address his law to us and our children with power: it is for us gratefully to subject ourselves with all our interests to him as our Lord. Only as we thus put our trust in him, shall we walk in his commandments before our fellow-citizens; and carry into our various stations in society the quickening and purifying power of godly precept and example. On this will depend our support of those institutions and ordinances of his which shall weekly remind our inhabitants on every hill and vale, that there is a God who demands their homage, and who will, through Christ, accept their heart-felt offerings. All real strength for awakening a high and solemn sense of obligation in any community, for stemming the tide of corruption, or for saving those who are exposed to it; must lie, as a secondary source, in hearts devoted to God. For what shall it avail that the word of God is in our hands, if the flame of devotion be extinguished from our hearts: and our citizens, as neighbors, as heads of families, as magistrates, neglect their high and sacred duties; and breathe, from their stations of influence, the deadly contagion of vice?

If we look over this nation and mark, with an impartial eye, the varying state of its morals, we shall not want evidence to show how intimately dependent these are on the state of piety and religion. There are some happy and bright spots of moral verdure, and many dark and fearful ones of sterility and desolation, presenting themselves to us on such a survey: which, alike exemplify this truth, and stand forth to us the harbingers of peace or the beacons of danger, that call upon us, most loudly, to put our trust in God in this day of our prosperity, and secure to the generations that come after us a home and heritage of joy and not of woe. But,

3. The religious gratitude and trust of this nation is the only means of securing an inviolable bond of union among our citizens.

Need I illustrate the necessity of firm union in this Federate Republic, in order to our true happiness? One in our origin, one in our language, one in our past perils and present prosperity; it can never seem desirable to break our peaceful fellowship, and divide into different, jealous, jarring nations. At least, if the day should ever arrive in which a division would be expedient or necessary, it is desirable that these States should then separate from each other in peace and as brethren. But such a division, made in harmony and love, is not the division to which we are most exposed, or which could most affect our peace. Nor is it that cool and honest difference of opinion which good men may entertain and express respecting particular men and measures connected with the government, which, kept within the bounds of moderation, serves but to surround our rulers with a salutary vigilance. But it is the divided and dividing feeling of ambition and selfishness,–the spirit of faction—that bane of republics. It is that spirit of sectional jealousy and variance which inflames the passions of one part of a country against another: or that spirit of party which runs through a whole nation, enkindling alienations among all its citizens, separating neighborhoods and households into ranks of hostility. Every intelligent patriot is aware that this constitutes one of the most threatening sources of danger to our republic. For, faction, once wild and ungovernable, unchains the furies of anarchy and blood to roam on their work of desolation; nor will they, when loosed, surrender themselves, or the melancholy wrecks of the nation they have desolated, except to the victorious arm of the unfeeling despot.

Where then, under God, is our safety? Where is that bond which shall preserve us, in our various pursuits and opinions, on terms of fraternal confidence and fellowship? Does it exist in the written constitution of our country, which so nicely adjusts and balances the various exercises of authority in our national government? But what is that instrument, without the concurring voice and hearts of the citizens? Does it lie in our common possessions and privileges, transmitted to us from our fathers? Alas! faction may desolate the fairest heritage; and divided hearts will spoil the joys of the most beauteous dwelling! It must be some higher bond, that will lift us above our selfish passions; that will instill into our hearts the forbearance and kindness of true charity; that will give us joy in the prosperity of each other and sympathy in trial; and that will rally us around our common privileges, as one man, against every enemy that would invade so fair a heritage. That bond is the piety which puts her grateful trust in God. There never was, and never will be, a firmer bond to unite men on earth in brotherly kindness. Let there be diffused in this nation the deep and pervading sentiment that we owe all our privileges to God; let the eye of trust from all parts of our common country be directed to him as the only efficient protector and guardian of our weal; and our cemented hearts shall be bound in holier ties to one another and to our common possessions. They who thus devoutly bear the welfare of their country before God, will feel that the interests around which they are stationed are sacred; and their hearts will be as one to guard the trust.

Nor is this mere theory: it is fact;–seen in the history of our Puritan fathers when, casting their common privileges on the protection of God, their hearts were knit together in confidence as the heart of one man. And if we survey our nation at this day of our prosperity, we may easily discover what elements of division or of union there are abroad in it, which are to decide her future destinies. There stands the demon of discord, instilling the selfishness that forgets the common good in contests for sectional interests and for power and patronage in the government. There hovers the angel of union, inspiring the love of the common good, which, far stronger than the petty partialities it may feel for its own limits or its own favorite, maybe safely relied on in the hour of trial;–infusing those spiritual charities which unite the hearts of the most distant members of the republic in weeping and prayers and offerings for the spiritual good of every part of this nation and of other less favored nations of the earth. Here behold we the pledges of our future union and strength, or the preludes of our future division and ruin; accordingly as we trust, or ungratefully reject, the guidance of the God of our fathers. United before his throne and around the previous privileges that are deposited with us for posterity, we shall be strong. To every foreign foe, we shall present the rampart of united hearts; impenetrable, like the firm cemented rock that forever repels the dashing waves. And within our borders, from one extremity of the nation to the other, ten thousand wakeful eyes shall guard the common interest, to detect and awe every domestic intriguer. This unity of pious trust in God, no question of state policy or of election to office in the government, will ever be able to sunder. But if we ungratefully withdraw our hearts from God; if we foster pride and selfishness and ambition and every element of faction and anarchy, and become loose to each other as the sands of Zahara; then farewell to that union which was founded in the piety of the Pilgrim exiles, and cemented with the blood of our fathers! We shall lose the boon that was handed to us, and bequeath a sad inheritance to our children. In vain shall these hills and vallies smile upon them; for the rich gifts which blessed their fathers shall be embittered to them by faction, or rent from them by unrelenting despotism.

But in illustrating the influence which our national gratitude must have upon our national prosperity, I would remark once more:

4. That it is the only means of insuring the necessary sacrifices and exertions for the welfare of the nation.

No one who attentively surveys this nation will allow, that we can neglect to make active exertions for its welfare and yet hope to bequeath our inheritance, unimpaired, to other generations. We are called to the work of supporting those social, civil, literary and religious institutions which now bless the nation and form the hope of a future age, and we are to remove the evils which already exist in the nation: or time alone will do the work of ruin. This double task lies on our hands: and it must be performed, in order that our privileges may pass safely over those who come after us.

But in supporting our institutions,–which, more than in any nation, are cast upon the spontaneous efforts of the people,–what will secure the cheerful giving, the labors and sacrifices of our citizens? Take, for instance, the institutions of religion, which form the key stone of all the others. Where, if our citizens ungratefully forget God, will be found the persons to continue these:–to build our houses of worship and support the ministers and ordinances of religion? Custom, fashion, self-interest may prompt to these exertions awhile; but they are soon relinquished, or the institutions themselves perverted, if the true spirit of piety is gone. But the work of supporting them is not confined to places where they have already had an existence: they are to be extended to desolate places. And it is in this aspect, that a work of great magnitude is presented to the American citizen. Our territory is broad; washed by those distant oceans that divide the world. Our population is extending with a rapidity unprecedented in the annals of time. Over the vast valley of the Mississippi, it is the destiny of this age, if any,–and from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, of the next,–to extend our free and happy institutions. The work is to be met now:–or, the tide of population will extend far beyond the presence of our religious institutions or their influence. A loud call is here presented for benevolent care over the interests of this growing empire: and where shall it meet a cheerful response, but in the hearts of those citizens who gratefully welcome God to be the guardian of this nation, and who humbly wait on him to know and fulfill their allotted duties?

But a greater demand is made on the benevolence of the American citizen than is involved in supporting and extending the happy institutions of his country: evils exist that must be encountered and removed, if he would not surrender its prosperity. Beside the evils of vice and faction, to which I have already adverted;–which seem to be rolling up, every day, a more dark and portentous cloud over our prospects:–there exists, in the slave population of the South, an evil that is to be met and removed now; or that fair portion of our beloved nation is subjected, at no distant day, to all the horrors of a servile war. This is no pleasant theme. Would to God the occasion for it did not exist. But there is no concealing the evil. There is no resisting the calculations which show its rapid progress, if something be not speedily done, to the fatal catastrophe. The ties of kindred, country, humanity, religion, plead that the nation come forward to the work of removing the evil a one man. Its removal will require the exercise of great forbearance, patience and charity between the slave holding States and the others; as well as the unwavering decision of the whole that the work shall be done, and their untiring energy in the prosecution. The crisis has come. We are to seal our destiny. The evil is to be removed now, or we are to groan under its scourges. We are now to do our utmost, or despond ever afterwards. If the South and the North now unite as the brethren of one common country, and as friends of the enslaved Africans, and commit their undertaking to him who has hitherto conducted the destinies of this nation in kindness; there is hope that we may yet blot this stain from our annals, and avert this impending scourge from our country. But if the North will reproach and refuse her aids and sympathies, and if the South will be jealous and refuse her assent and co-operation; if they will not unitedly come before God and commit to him the issues of the cause, waiting on him in their appropriate duties; our hope is gone, and we or posterity shall smart for our injustice towards man and ingratitude towards God.

I trust these considerations are sufficient to show you, how essential it is to our continued prosperity as a nation, that we fulfill the obligations which we owe to God for his kindness.

And now, could I cause my voice to resound through this nation, I would call upon all its inhabitants to review what God has done for their fathers; to survey, studiously, the privileges they are now enjoying at his hands; to contemplate the blessings which he proffers to their acceptance for posterity: and urge them, by these affecting testimonies of his goodness, to accept with devout hearts his guidance, committing themselves and the interests around which he has stationed them as guardians, unto him who delights to show mercy from generation to generation. “O Israel, trust thou in the Lord. O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord. Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord.”

What sacred motives invite the citizens of this republic, to walk in this only path of prosperity!

The Lord of heaven and earth is with us, asserting his imperative claims. These claims we must face on another day of retribution. And how will we bear the stigma of ingratitude in that day, when the Lord shall appear in his glory and confound us before witnessing men and angels?

The world is before us, presenting its claims. Here the experiment is happily begun whether a nation may not perpetuate its existence and prosperity with free institutions; and the people who groan in bondage, or sigh for more liberal measures in other nations, look hither for sympathy and encouragement, and for the dawning of a brighter day. They watch anxiously the issues of an experiment which is the world’s last hope for the success of freedom. If we are so unfaithful as to alienate these blessings from our land, and cause God who has conferred them to withdraw from us in indignation; if, I say, the experiment fails in our hands; what despondency must weigh down the hearts of all the friends of freedom in the earth! They will reproach us with their doom, as they descend into a dark and hopeless night of despotism. And our shame shall be recorded on the annals of the world, as an ungrateful republic which thrusted from her the richest boon of heaven.

Posterity appear before us, urging their claims. We hold in trust the privileges of their birth-right. If we alienate the precious trust, how will they reproach our memories that we robbed them of their inheritance! They will pass through these cities and villages, the minions, it may be, of despotic power; and the chains of their servitude will be rendered more galling, as they reflect:–“These were the homes of our pilgrim fathers, and they were free. Here lived that degenerate race who lost their pleasant heritage, and left us, outcast and friendless orphans, to suffering and woe.”

My friends, enlightened piety is, under God, the hope of this nation. Let the sentiment be deeply engraven on your hearts, that the American citizen must honor the God of his fathers, if he would effectually consult the welfare of his country. And to you who are preparing for important influence and are soon to enter upon responsible stations in this community, the subject is addressed with peculiar force. With you, are soon to be deposited the hopes of other generations. If you, and the generation who are rising upon the stage of life with you, shall, in your various stations, wait on God and fulfill your appointed duties; the God of our fathers will bless you. Jehovah shall dwell in the land, its glory and defence. Iniquity shall retire at his presence, with her train of deformity and crime. The hearts of all shall be blessed with unity and joy. And from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the unnumbered millions yet to inhabit this continent, shall rejoice in inheriting the rich legacy of your institutions.

Is this picture of prosperity, too bright to realize? Indeed, we fear. The heathen republics of Greece and Rome, and the infidel republic of France, are already recorded on the page of history, the eternal monuments of failure. But the Spirit of Holiness, as was predicted by prophets of old, is now on his way to universal conquest. With hope we look to him to retain and multiply his triumphs with us, and record his name on the living tablets of this nation forever.

“Then,—, were the smiles of Heaven thine own,
The bright paternal smiles of deity.
Then, my loved country, would thy soil be known.
The hallowed and the blest, the truly free,
And every evening hour a nation’s worship see.”
END.

Sermon – Election – 1826, New Hampshire


This election sermon was preached by Rev. Ferdinand Ellis in Concord, NH on June 8, 1826.


sermon-election-1826-new-hampshire

CIVIL GOVERNMENT AN ORDINANCE OF GOD.

A

SERMON,

DELIVERED AT CONCORD,

BEFORE

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR,

THE HONORABLE COUNCIL, AND BOTH BRANCHES
OF THE LEGISLATURE

OF THE

STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE,

JUNE 8, 1826.

BY FERDINAND ELLIS, A. M.
Pastor of the Baptist Church in Exeter.

CONCORD:
PRINTED BY JACOB B. MOORE,
For the State.

1826.

 

STATE OF NEW-HAMPSHIRE.
In the House of Representatives, June 8, 1826.

Ordered, That Messrs. Flanders, Piper and Putnam, with such as the Honorable Senate may join, be a committee to wait upon the Rev. Ferdinand Ellis, and return him the thanks of the Legislature, for his ingenious and appropriate Discourse, delivered this day before his Excellency the Governor, the Honorable Council, and both branches of the Legislature, and request of him a copy for the press.

M. L. NEAL, Clerk.

Copy examined by

P. CHADWICK, Assist. Clerk.

In Senate, same day—Read and concurred.

Mr. Burgin joined.

B. B. FRENCH, Assist. Clerk.

 

SERMON.
Any and every custom, calculated to preserve and cherish a sense of obligation to God, is undoubtedly beneficial to society. The fear and love of God are not only the most important principles of conduct in moral agents, but even essential to all true virtue, whether publick or private. Without them, honour is but an empty name, and patriotism a species of refined selfishness. Hence the propriety of religious worship, at the commencement of all important undertakings.

And is this the motive which has drawn together the present assembly,–an assembly of which the legislators of the state, form a distinguished part? Have not our united prayers been intended, to propitiate the almighty ruler of the universe? Shall not our preaching be wholly consecrated to truth and righteousness?

Under these impressions, I propose for consideration the following subject, viz.

THE DIVINE APPOINTMENT OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT, AND THE ACCOUNTABLENESS OF RULERS.

The portion of scripture furnishing the subject, is the lxxxii. Psalm, part of the 6th, and part of the 7th verses.

I have said, ye are Gods; but ye shall die like men.

In this Psalm, the Most High expostulates with wicked rulers. “How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.” How just a picture this, of a disordered government! But blessed be Jehovah of Hosts, such is not the condition of our beloved country. Long ago, was the yoke of bondage broken from the necks of our forefathers; and long have we, their posterity, enjoyed the blessings of good government, of civil and religious liberty.

In attending to the subject before us, I propose the following method:

I. I shall endeavour to establish the proposition, that civil government is an ordinance of God.

II. I shall suggest some of the principles by which civil rulers ought to be governed.

III. I shall show that the highest, as well as the lowest, are accountable to God.

And may that Eternal Wisdom, by whom kings reign and princes decree justice, bestow upon us a measure of his spirit, that, in our several stations and duties, we may render an acceptable service, and be preparing to give up our accounts with joy.

I. Our first proposition is, that civil government is an ordinance of God. And in support of it, we have three sources of argument, viz. the nature of man; the necessity of the case; and the Holy Scriptures.

The nature of man furnishes evidence of the will of God, respecting his course of conduct. God is our Creator. Whatever belongs to our nature, was wrought by his hand. And would an infinitely wise and good being, endow his creatures with appetites, propensities and passions, never to be gratified, and of course, only fitted to torment them? Would our great and gracious Creator implant in our breasts, those unconquerable desires we all feel, only for the sake of making us miserable?

But man is a social being. It never was good, that he should be alone. As an insulated being, man can be neither happy nor useful. His nature must undergo an entire change, before he can delight to eat his morsel alone, or seek felicity in the solitary mountain cave.

Before dismissing this article, it may be necessary to suggest to the libertine, that he of all men, can have neither part nor lot in this matter. What! Can an appeal be made to the dictates of nature, to justify a total perversion of everything natural? What! Shall the debauchee tax the almighty with being the author of his worse than brutal lusts? Shall the drunkard charge his maker with those cravings of appetite, which are the direct and certain consequence of his own irrational, his criminal indulgences? We say again: the nature of man indicates the will of the great Creator. Man is formed for society. But society supposes government, order or rule, under and according to which, men shall conduct themselves, in their intercourse one with another.

This leads to my second source of argument, which is, the necessity of the case. It is necessary that civil government should be maintained among men; and this necessity is evidence of the will of God.

Of all relations in the present life, that of families is the most tender and interesting; and of all modes of government, that which we dominate patriarchal, was undoubtedly the first. And in families, even if we suppose every child possessed of the highest degrees of filial love, such is the relation between parents and children, that there can be no question with whom the government ought to rest. Nature itself teaches, yea absolute necessity requires, that parents should rule as well as provide: nay their superior wisdom will give them the precedence in counsel, even when they shall have lost their vigour in action. We may add, what greater perversion, than for inexperienced youth to treat with contempt the wisdom of age? What greater absurdity, than to put the scepter into the hands of infancy? Or to imagine the child, whose utmost ability reaches no higher than some attempts at imitation, as sitting on a throne?

The same mode of reasoning will be found applicable to the larger associations of men: for by these associations, the united energies of the many, make up the deficiencies of individual weakness. There is but one being in the universe, who is absolutely independent; and that being, is the mighty God. An independent man, i.e. a man who needs no aid from others, is nowhere to be found. The Nebuchadnezzars, the Alexanders, and the Caesars of ancient times, those scourges of the human race; though they had the address to secure the homage of millions, must, if denied the service of their fellow-creatures, have sunken into insignificance.

Whatever is great, whatever is extensively useful, though originating as to its first discovery or design, with a few, or perhaps with an individual, must depend for its full effect, upon the united energies of society. For, to say nothing of the pyramids and catacombs of Egypt; the temples, aqueducts, and amphitheatres of ancient Greece and Rome; it is more to my purpose to remind you, that our ordinary dwellings, our common merchant vessels, our most necessary and useful manufactures; yea, even the fruits of the earth, are, in a greater or less degree, the happy result of associated wisdom, and united strength.

But who, I might ask, who shall superintend in framing, raising and finishing your dwelling? Who, in building, rigging and navigating the merchant ship? Who, in the various branches of our manufacturing establishments? Who, in commanding fleets and armies? To these questions, common sense furnishes a ready answer.

How demonstrable, then, the necessity of government, order or rule, in society; and how evident, that all government and direction ought to rest with those, who are best qualified to fulfill the trust.

These, in fact, are the only rational ideas upon the subject. For the end of all confederation is, most assuredly, the general welfare; the means by which this important end is secured, are the united wisdom and energy of the whole body: and, as a great diversity of talent will ever prevail; and, as a body, without a head is deformed and useless; men of acknowledged excellence should hold the reins, and give laws to the community.

In establishing the proposition, that civil government is an ordinance of God, the Holy Scriptures are a third source of argument. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable,” not only in what relates to the all important concerns of a future world, but also in promoting our best interests in the present life.

The following, from Paul’s epistle to the Romans, may be considered as a summary of what the Scriptures inculcate upon this subject. “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. 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: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same, for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

In this quotation, we have the outlines and fundamental principles of good government. Here it is affirmed, that there must of necessity be a governing, controlling power; and that rulers are not to be a terror to good works, but to the evil. All this, as we have seen, is according to the dictates of common sense, and in harmony with the character of God, as the righteous governour of the world. The opposite is tyranny and oppression. Nevertheless, there is room for the enquiry; has this been the uniform character of rulers? Are there none among the potentates of the earth, who have abused their power for the sole purpose of self aggrandizement? Are there none who, dazzled by the false glare of greatness, have ascended their thrones through seas of blood? None, that have seemed to delight in the miseries of mankind? Are passive obedience and unrepining submission the only duties of those who feel the power of a despot? Are our fathers, the heroes of the Revolution, whose bold design, and glorious achievements astonished the world, to be considered as offenders against God?

Such conclusions can never, except by prejudiced minds, be drawn from the Scriptures. The Sovereign of the universe, although in the dispensations of his providence, he may have suffered the mighty to oppress the weak, and the vilest to sit on thrones, never made a tyrannical despotism lawful; nor, for a moment, laid aside the purpose of judging all, and especially the oppressors of mankind, according to their works.

The Apostle does indeed say, “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; the powers that be are ordained of God.” Yet the picture he draws is that of a wise and equitable administration of justice.

When therefore, any people, disgusted, worn out, and driven to despair under the miseries of oppression; being, at the same time, possessed of that wisdom and virtue by which they became capable of establishing for themselves a system of good government, resolve to be free; and if necessity require, to assert their rights in the ensanguined field: Jehovah of hosts will plead their cause, and humble the pride of the oppressor.

Let it also be considered, that in those laws which respect the organization of Christian Churches, the Lord has more than intimated the necessity and nature of an equitable government.

I am indeed entering upon a disputed subject.—And what subject is there either in nature, philosophy, political science, or theology, which has not been made a matter of controversy. How surprising, that, from the same unerring word of truth, systems the most opposite, hypotheses the most absurd, and maxims the most pernicious, should have been drawn. The Pope of Rome, by divine right, claimed the triple crown. By the same divine right, the high church party in Great Britain long exacted a rigorous conformity to established ceremonies. And, through the same prejudice, protestant dissenters themselves have been chargeable with persecuting, by fines, by bonds, and by banishment, those who dared to think and to judge for themselves.

Nothing however is more certain, than that in the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, no authority is given to the papal hierarchy;–nothing said of the patriarch of the Greek church;–nothing of the archbishops and lords spiritual of the English episcopacy;–but on the contrary, all lording it over God’s heritage, is most pointedly condemned. So shall it not be among you, said Christ to his disciples, (alluding to the pretentions of princes and nobles;) but he that will be greatest among you shall be servant of all. In the government of the churches, so far as it is formed according to the model of the Scripture, there is nothing of monarchy, nor yet of aristocracy. For this holy communion, godliness is the essential qualification; charity or universal love, the bond; and the glory of God, in connexion with doing good to all men, the final cause.

Nor can I forbear improving this opportunity to remind my fellow citizens, that all the blessings, by which we are so highly exalted above the nations of the earth, are derived to us through the medium of the everlasting gospel.

Our fathers were puritans. Their fervent piety rendered liberty of conscience dearer than life.—For this, they braved the dangers of the seas. For this, they hazarded their lives in an uncultivated wilderness. For this, they patiently endured, amidst the heaviest calamities. And when, through the good hand of their God upon them, the little one had become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation; having already tested the sweets of liberty, they pledged their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honour, in one united, glorious effort, to free themselves forever from a foreign yoke.

II. My second head of discourse, which is, to suggest some of the principles that should govern the conduct of civil rulers, will now engage our attention. And in doing this, propriety will require me to be concise.

Goodness and wisdom, righteousness and mercy, appear to me to embrace everything essential. Goodness, or enlarged benevolence, is the first requisite; and the more closely men, entrusted with authority, imitate the example of him, whose meat it was to do the will of his heavenly Father; the better, other things being equal, will they be found qualified to promote the happiness of their constituents. Nevertheless, much of imperfection attaches itself to the best. To expect that refinement of benevolence, that absolute disinterestedness of conduct, which would banish all ideas of emolument or honour, must lead to certain disappointment. Selfishness, unjustifiable selfishness, is so deeply rooted in the hearts of fallen creatures, as to render it extremely difficult, even for good men, however pure their intentions, always to free themselves from its influence. But if, as has been shown, publick happiness is the great end of government, publick spirit is assuredly an essential requisite in the character of all, by whom it is to be administered.

Another requisite is wisdom. The mind of a legislator should be comprehensive, his perception clear, and his judgment sound. The science of legislation is not to be acquired in a moment. Some knowledge of general history, an intimate acquaintance with the peculiarities of our own forms of government; a just regard to the conflicting interests of the body politick;–in a word, that wisdom, which is the fruit of much study, of much inherent energy of mind, and of much observation upon men and things, is indispensable, in order to successful legislation. There is also a dignity of wisdom, from which a representative, a senator, or chief magistrate, should never descend.

It is peculiar to our free institutions, that every voter is at liberty to judge for himself, as to the qualifications of men who are candidates for office; and every representative and senator may fully discuss all measures, that are proposed for the general welfare. But, if in these discussions, party spirit pours forth its bitterness, and irritated minds indulge in the groundless recrimination; or if, (what is equally inconsistent with the responsibilities of men high in office,) low intrigue, which shrinks from nothing that may serve to accomplish an object, supplant the exalted principles of publick spirit;–the more eminent the station, the more despicable the character.

“I have said, ye are Gods.” Here is an intimation that rulers, men entrusted with the well-being of their constituents, should, in the highest possible degree, imitate the supreme governor of all the universe. Is he, in goodness, the parent of all his intelligent creatures? Let magistrates, in their humble sphere, delight in the diffusion of happiness. Is wisdom, united with goodness, abundantly manifest in all the works of the great Jehovah? Let “the powers that be,” those of whom we are taught to say, “ye are Gods,” aspire to that wisdom which exalts the character, and secures the gratitude of a happy people. Are righteousness and judgment the habitation of the eternal throne? Do mercy and truth go before the face of the sovereign Lord? Let righteousness and mercy preside in our legislative assemblies; govern the hearts of our chief magistrates; and give judgment in all our courts of justice: then shall the people lead quiet and peaceable lives, in all godliness and honesty.

Before I close this part of my subject, may I be permitted to take notice of another class of men, to whom my text is, at least, in some degree applicable. This class is made up of the ministers of the gospel. For them we are to look, not only in the sacred desk, but also in the chambers of the sick, in the cottages of the poor, and at the feet of their fellow creatures, beseeching them to be reconciled to God. Among them, the community has a right to expect the purest, the most enlarged benevolence; the brightest display of holiness, the utmost perseverance in labours of love; the warmest patriotism; and the most zealous endeavours in support of good government.

“I have said, Ye are Gods,” illustrates the character and duties of gospel ministers, not as clothing them with authority to legislate, but merely to publish the will of their sovereign. But though unauthorized to add, alter, or diminish; yet, when engaged in proclaiming the law, word, and truth of the divine Immanuel, they hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What they “bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;” and what they “loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”

The question has been agitated, whether the “powers that be,” need the aids of religion for their support; or religion, the aid of the “powers that be.” Nor has this question rested in the speculations of the theorist. It has been tested by experiment. From the days of the Roman emperor Constantine until the present, crowned heads and legislative bodies have taken the church under their fostering care; and what has been the result? I appeal to history. What has been the amount of all the aid thus afforded the Redeemer’s kingdom? Let truth answer. One thing, however, may be assumed as indisputable. So far as the ministers of Christ are successful in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation, and in gaining the hearts of men to the love and practice of godliness; so far they co-operate in all the purposes of civil government. Yea, could these labourers in the Lord’s vineyard be favoured with universal success; the wolf might lie down with the lamb, the leopard with the kid, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together, and a little child lead them.

I close this article with a quotation from the amiable and pious Cowper.

“The pulpit, therefore, (and I name it fill’d
With solemn awe, that bids me well beware
With what intent I touch that holy thing,)—
I say the pulpit, (in the sober use
Of its legitimate peculiar pow’rs)
Must stand acknowledg’d, while the world shall stand,
The most important and effectual guard,
Support, and ornament, of virtue’s cause.
There stands the messenger of truth: there stands
The legate of the skies! His theme divine,
His office sacred, his credentials clear:
By him the violated law speaks out
Its thunders; and by him, in strains as sweet
As angels use, the gospel whispers peace,
He ‘stablishes the strong, supports the weak,
Reclaims the wand’rer, binds the broken heart;
And, arm’d himself in panoply complete
Of heav’nly temper, furnishes with arms,
Bright as his own, and trains, by ev’ry rule
Of holy discipline, to glorious war,
The sacramental host of God’s elect.”

I now hasten to my third, and last head of discourse, viz. the accountableness of civil rulers. “I have said, Ye are Gods; but ye shall die like men.”

The frailty, the mortality of man is an interesting subject. If we consider death as the wages of sin, it must lead to the most sincere and bitter repentance. If we consider the consequences of death, as breaking asunder the tenderest ties of our nature; as tearing from our embrace our nearest relatives and friends; how overwhelming the sorrow! And are none exempt? O death! Death! Thou destroying angel; Must the smiling infant, and affectionate parent; the useful citizen, and honoured magistrate; must kings and conquerors, smitten by thee, mingle their dust in one common grave! “As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: so man lieth down, and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.” “Till the heavens be no more.” This is the limit, prescribed by infinite mercy to the power of the grave.

The hour approaches, when the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll; the elements melt with fervent heat; the trumpet sound, and the dead awake; this mortal put on immortality; and death be swallowed up of life. After the resurrection, small and great must stand before God, and be judged according to the deeds done in the body. The certain prospect of death and judgment, should teach us the vanity of worldly distinction.

Riches are sought, not merely as a security against want, but on account of the distinction they create. Eminence of station is courted, not always for the sake of doing good on a larger scale; but for the gratification of pride and self-complacency. There is a constant strife among men, and this the prize; who shall be greatest? Ambition has deluged the earth in blood. But amidst all the gaieties, the splendor, and the triumphs of the present life, a voice is heard from the eternal throne, “ye shall die like men.” “I have said, Ye are Gods.” You have I endowed with superior talents;–you have I entrusted with authority;–ye are my ministers who, as a terror to evil doers, bear my sword to execute vengeance;–but ye, notwithstanding your exaltation, shall die like men. To me are ye accountable. At my tribunal, shall ye receive a just recompense of reward. The certain prospect of death and judgment should influence distinguished characters, to glory in being a blessing to the world. “Thus saith the Lord, let not the wise man glory in his wisdom; neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord who exercise loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth, for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.” The subject before us furnishes matter for an address to the citizens of the state, the ministers of the gospel, and the honourable legislature, together with every member of the government.

In addressing my fellow-citizens, I would remind them, that good government is an invaluable blessing. In adverting to the scenes of the American Revolution, and the events consequent upon it, we find much to admire. But in nothing, among the distinguished personages of those days, was there a greater display of wisdom and talent, than in framing that excellent constitution of civil government, which has made us the envy of monarchs, and the admiration of the world. A great nation may be compared to complicated machinery. A wise and equitable government, is the main spring, that keeps the whole in motion, and makes every part contribute to the grand result. And although in our present code of law, there might, in matters of minor importance, be some improvement; yet, in all essential points, it harmonizes with the best light of reason and revelation. That difficulties should be experienced in suppressing vice, and in bringing offenders to justice, is by no means surprising.—These difficulties it is believed, are however, less in the United States, and in New-England especially, than in any other portion of the known world. It is, indeed, a melancholy reflection, that wickedness, in some of its forms, seems to bid defiance to every human effort. Of this kind is intemperance. The abuse of ardent spirit, in destroying the faculties, in besotting the mind, in wasting property, in breaking down families, and in rendering those, who otherwise might have been ornaments, a nuisance and curse to society, is a source of incalculable misery.

My fellow-citizens will also permit me to remind them, that much depends upon the election of suitable men, to offices of trust. Our elective franchise is an important privilege. Directly or indirectly, every member of the legislature;–all who fill the judiciary department;–yea, every officer in the government, must be indebted to your election. Be it then your fixed determination, never to give your votes for men, whose qualifications are not of the most undoubted character, and whose integrity is not beyond distrust.

But when men are once chosen into office, and experience justifies such choice, let due respect be paid them, and let their measures be vigorously supported. Will not the wise and good, if they find themselves neglected and deserted, retire from public life, while the reins of government fail into the hands of the ambitious and undeserving—Another subject must, on the present occasion, be brought into view; and ought, ever, to be deeply engraven upon our hearts. “Godliness,” my fellow-citizens, “godliness is profitable unto all things.” The gospel, in its purifying and saving influences, has hitherto been, in a peculiar degree, the glory of our land. Its light is that of heaven, and its power in restraining the wicked, even more effectual and salutary, than the power of the civil arm. Let me ask of you, then, shall its institutions be neglected? Shall the Lord’s Day become a day of labour or recreation? Shall the ministry languish? Will the people rob God, by refusing to honour him with their substance, and the first fruits of all their increase?

By the present laws of the state, all denominations of Christians are now placed on the footing of the most perfect equality; and everything that relates to the support of a gospel ministry, is left to the free and voluntary effort of each religious society. And what, let me again ask, what was the intention of the Legislature, in thus committing the whole to your voluntary choice? Not surely, to prostrate our religious institutions, and of consequence, to open the flood-gates of vice and ungodliness; but rather, to ease every individual, of everything like an oppressive burden; to prove the pious liberality of their constituents; to prove also, that the kingdom of the Redeemer is able to support itself.

In addressing the ministers of the gospel, I would take the liberty of suggesting, that your office is at once the most humble, and the most exalted.

What an example have we, my brethren, in the character and ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though rich, for our sakes became poor, that we, through his poverty might be made rich. In order to accomplish the designs of Jehovah’s eternal love, he who was in the form of God, must take upon himself the form of a servant, humble himself and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. He who upheld all things by the word of his power, must be placed in circumstances to say; “the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath no where to lay his head.” And in all the life of the gracious Redeemer, what compassion do we behold; what meekness; what holy zeal; in relieving the distresses, in forgiving the injuries, and in ministering to the necessities of the children of men.

In copying out the example of his Divine Master, Paul, of the whole apostolic college, was perhaps the most distinguished. He could learn, in whatever condition he was placed, therewith to be content. He was determined in his conversation and preaching, to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. It was this holy man, who counted all things but loss, for the excellency of [WallBuilders’ copy of this sermon ends here.]

Sermon – Thanksgiving – 1838


Samuel Hopkins (1807-1887) graduated from Dartmouth in 1827. He was a pastor of a church in Montpelier, VT (1831-1835), later in Saco, ME (1835-1842), and in Standish, ME (beginning in 1844). The following Thanksgiving sermon was preached by Hopkins on November 29, 1838.


sermon-thanksgiving-1838

 

THE CURSE UPON THE GROUND, A BLESSING.

A

SERMON

PREACHED UPON THE DAY OF

PUBLIC THANKSGIVING,

NOVEMBER 29, 1838.

BY SAMUEL HOPKINS,
PASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
IN SACO, ME.

 

SERMON.
Genesis 3: 17-19

AND UNTO ADAM HE SAID, BECAUSE THOU HAST HEARKENED UNTO THE VOICE OF THY WIFE, AND HAST EATEN OF THE TREE OF WHICH I COMMANDED THEE, SAYING, THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT: CURSED IS THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE; IN SORROW SHALT THOU EAT OF IT ALL DAYS OF THY LIFE;

THORNS AND THISTLES SHALL IT BRING FORTH TO THEE; AND THOU SHALT EAT THE HERB OF THE FIELD;

IN THE SWEAT OF THY FACE SHALT THOU EAT BREAD, TILL THOU RETURN UNTO THE GROUND; FOR OUT OF IT WAST THOU TAKEN: FOR DUST THOU ARE, AND UNTO DUST SHALT THOU RETURN.

Before the fall the world was a paradise. Its roses had no thorns; its fountains, no bitterness; its charms, no disease. The sunbeam was pure life; the flow of the waters was like the flow of Love; the notes of the wind, of beast, of bird, of man, of woman – were music. The beauty of God was penciled upon everything which had life; it was mirrored in everything which had brightness. His name was spoken, his goodness, declared, his power, confessed – everywhere. The hum of the insect – the shaking of the leaf – the ripple of waters – the voice of man chimed together in the song of gladness. The chorus of praise to God was universal; for all things felt welcome inspiration of his indwelling presence.

The world was an infant heaven. It had, within itself, the living principles, the entire furniture, the budding promise of angelic bliss. All things here were such, that, had they gone on, untouched by the Spoiler, they would have developed, in the day of their maturity, as bright a display of the Godhead, as ripe and as rich a harvest of enjoyments, as heaven itself affords. Our first parents walked in Eden – as newborn spirits do in the upper courts of God-children in their conceptions, children in their enjoyments; reaching forth, and growing up, to the mark of spiritual manhood. But their infancy was without defect. Their happiness was pure and constant. Every bodily sense was a channel for some incoming enjoyment. Nature was their minister and their teacher. She brought them pleasures from throughout her storehouse. She showed them God in every pleasure;–in the moonlight, in the twilight, in the shade of their arbor, in the fruits they ate, in the waters they drank. They lay down and slept, they woke and arose, they communed and thought – with rejoicing and thanksgiving.

But the world is changed. The song of universal gladness has ceased. The bodily senses yield not only pleasure, but pain. The heat of the sun is not only genial but oppressive. And the earth itself, instead of ministering unmixed pleasure, teems with a thousand evils. Her soil – her products – are changed. She is under the curse of God. Now – it is ordained, that even the best of her productions should have somewhat of ill. Her beauties bloom to perish. Her flowers are armed with thorns and poisons. Her elements minister abounding discomfort. The whole system of nature has undergone means of subsistence. By the sweat of our face we must eat our bread, until we return unto the ground. This is the general condition of human life. Every man’s daily sustenance is the hard earning of toil and sorrow. Discomfort, and weariness, and pain, are the price of life. The few who are exempt from personal toil rely upon the toil of others.

This state of things was ordained when God uttered the words which I have chosen for my text. But for this decree, Nature would still have been as Nature was before the fall. We, like our first parents, should have been exempt from thorns and thistles and the sweat of the brow. To sustain life, we should have needed only to eat and to drink and to sleep. To partake of the bounties of nature we should have needed only to open the eye. But the decree was uttered. The ground was cursed. The result has been – want and toil, from generation to generation; a result which shall continue until the consummation of all things.

How many men have read the sacred record of this curse without understanding? How many have mourned and lamented over the change this curse has wrought. How few have discerned the loving-kindness of God herein, although that loving-kindness is woven with the very letter of the curse. Do chief magistrates call upon the people to thank God for ordaining that they must eat their bread in the sweat of the brow? Do devout men, when enumerating the mercies of the Lord, mention this? Do the children of poverty – do the hoarders of wealth – when they rise to their toils, or flee to their beds, think of this? And yet, here the blessing is – avowed in the very tenor and framework of the curse – taking effect from the very day of its utterance – only the second in the order of tie, only the second in point of value, concerning man – perpetuated, too, from generation to generation – and diffusing its precious influences throughout the world today!

But what! Is a curse a blessing! Is a curse reason for devout thanksgiving! Is not this a paradox—or rather an absurdity? I answer – neither absurdity – nor paradox. It is a simple and obvious truth that, next to our praises for Redemption by the blood of Christ, we owe God our praises for the curse recorded in the text.

That we may gain a clear view of this truth, let us examine – the reasons – and the influences – of this curse.

I. Its reasons.

Under the government of God, “the curse causeless shall not come.” He never dispenses an evil, great or small, spiritual or physical, temporary or eternal, without a reason; never, without a sufficient reason; never without a compelling reason. This is a fundamental doctrine; qualifying all the acts, the purposes, the laws, the words of God; a doctrine which he has abundantly revealed – which bears essentially upon his government, and character; upon our condition and duties.

There was a reason, then, for the curse we are considering. There is a reason for its entailment present day. God declares it. “Because thou hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying , thou shalt not eat of it.” Disobedience of God was the grand reason of the curse originally; and our disobedience of God is the grand reason of its perpetuity. The curse was ordained because of Sin; it has continued because of Sin. It was established for a perpetual decree in full view, and because, of Sin which was, and Sin which was to be. It was established because – Sin being present – it was a curse necessary to the perfect adjustment of God’s purposes; necessary to the full play of his benevolence and grace; necessary to the grand experiment of human probation; necessary in a system of things where punitive justice was kept at bay; in short – necessary to the best good of man.

Sin, then, is its primitive reason; and the good of man, its secondary reason. It is a weight—thrown into the scale of contending influences—to keep God’s grace and man’s sin at equipoise; to give grace sway upon Sin; to keep Sin from defeating grace. Its origin was in the secret counsels of God’s benevolence; its nativity, a brilliant era in the history of God’s wisdom; its introduction to the world, a wondrous display of God’s loving-kindness.

A system of things which would do well for a holy being, would not do for a sinful being. A mode of life which would consist with the best good of the one, would not consist at all with that of the other. A Garden of Eden, with its spotless, changeless, universal beauties, and luxuriant abundance, would answer the purposes of man without sin; but if so – it would answer the purposes of man with sin – not at all. And the moment the character of man became changed by sin, there must needs be, to secure his good, a corresponding change in his mode of life. Hence the necessity of ordaining some change in nature; a change compelling man to sustain life at the cost of toil and weariness. This change was wrought in the curse we are considering. And surely00if there was benevolence in profusion and glory of Nature before the fall—there is benevolence in her comparative barrenness and noxiousness since. Thorns and thistles sprang up to elicit labor. Labor was ordained to abate, for the time, the plague of Sin.

To show you that I do not speak at random, I refer you again to the very edict by which the curse was established. You find there no malediction uttered—no bolt of damnation hurled—upon the transgressor. No curse is recorded there concerning mankind. The curse was upon the ground. And the curse upon the ground was, and was declared to be, a blessing upon man. “Cursed is the ground; “cursed, that it may “bring forth to thee thorns and thistles;” cursed, that thou mayest “eat bread in the sweat of thy face;” cursed “for thy sakes.”

But observe—

II. The influences of this curse.

See how it is a blessing to men. See—how it so9ls, essentially, the influence of Sin! See—how aptly it adjusts itself in the system of Grace! See—how it accords with the arrangements of Divine Mercy! See—how it has priceless value as a co-worker in the plan of Redemption!

1. Observe its obvious influence upon salvation. Many a saint is now in heaven whose first lesson in the school of Christ was learned through the chastening influence of the burdens of life. And many are the heirs of God here, who could tell you that unceasing toil first awakened the desire for heavenly rest -; that cares and burdens taught them to expect no quietude in this world; that this conviction led them to seek a better country; that thus, they first began a preparation for heaven by contending with inbred sin.

Men labor for the meat that perisheth. It perishes with the using. They get a good thing and it passes away. They crave again, and again they labor. They go from labor to labor—from care to care—from weariness to weariness. And if, per chance, they are so schooled by the bitterness of their travail as to confess the trouble and vanity of life—; if perchance, they come to cry out for brokenness of spirit—how fitly does the voice of Christ chime in with their necessities and their convictions—“come unto me—come unto me—All ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you—rest!” How like hope to the despairing—like the breath of heaven to the fainting—like the balm of life to the dying! And how many—first dispirited by the burdens of a weary life—have caught these words in faith, found rest to their souls, and blessed God for the bitter discipline of a hard and painful lot.

And is there no one, a joint heir with Christ, who could testify that his hope of heaven is quickened, and brightened, by the exhaustion of his worldly toil? Is there no one who could tell you, that he goes to the secret feast of his closet fellowship with a better appetite because of the burdens of life?—no one who could tell you, that they make him pant the more after God, and long the more for the crown of glory—the harp of perfect praise—the fruition of sinless rest? Is there no one who is nerved for his warfare, pushing upward toward the stature of perfection, sloughing off his deformities, and growing in very meetness for heaven, under the tuition of worldly toil—under the influence of this very curse of the earth? Are there none of Christ’s beloved who are thus getting meat out of the eater—and honey out of the rock? Yes—thousands.

But take another view. Suppose the garden of Eden were still blooming and bounteous as in the days of man’s integrity. Suppose the habitation of all men were beside its fountains—and beneath its fruitful branches. Suppose no toil were requisite to gain subsistence and comfort. How many—think ye—would have availed themselves of the offer of salvation? To how many—think ye—would the blood of Christ have proved a blessing? How many—think ye—would have sought, through that blood, an entrance into a better country, an heavenly? How many, under the influence of faith which is Life, would have fled to Christ for comfort? Were the world a good and easy home—were we fed and clothed and warmed and sheltered, without care or effort—were all our wants supplied as fully and as freely as our first parents’—who would set himself to the task of earning a better inheritance? Who would sigh for a better country?

Had the earth interposed no obstacles to our enjoyment—borne neither thorn nor thistle—imposed upon us no price of hard labor for her bounties—it is to be doubted whether the scheme of Redemption would not have passed away without a single trophy; whether the grace of God in salvation would not have been published without a single proof—; whether the verity of that grace would not have been an everlasting problem—; and the rising glory of that grace, remanded to everlasting night.

So far, then, as Sin is contrary to eternal life; and so far as universal luxury and ease would have been impediments to salvation—so far the sorrowful labor which God has apportioned to men fitteth, like a key-stone, into the stupendous arch of Redemption—holdeth us, like a spell, within the reach of Grace—and overshadoweth, like a Mercy-cloud, the whole span of our probation.

And, so far, the curse upon the ground was a priceless blessing upon man.

2. Observe the influence of this curse upon the remnant of human enjoyments.

A creature of perfect holiness would pluck with pure delight, and taste with a perfect relish, every bounty of God. He could walk in an earthly paradise and appreciate every circumstance of comfort. He could gather blessings—copious as the dews, and successive as the moments—without satiety. He would find a zest in every blessing—though all should cost him nothing.

But who does not know the influence of sin upon our relish of God’s blessings? Being sinners—that which costs us nothing we esteem lightly. The light of the sun costs us nothing—how little we rejoice in it. The air of heaven costs us nothing—with what thoughtlessness we breathe it. The outspread provisions of Grace cost us nothing—with what tameness we regard them. The great work of Redemption cost us nothing—how little we prize it. And so it would be of all the comforts which have survived the wreck and ruin of the fall—where they free as the light, the air, the grace of heaven, we should prize, we should enjoy them, as little. Food, and raiment, and warmth, and shelter, and home, — and whatever we relish now—would be insipid.

God has seen fit to throw in a corrective for this baneful influence of Sin. He has seen fit to establish an order of things which has redeemed human life from utter insipidity. He has seen fit to set a price upon our most essential blessings. He has seen fit that they should come to us by cost—by the sweat of the brow—by labor and toil and weariness. And—to secure the payment of this price—for man’s sake—to give relish and vitality to his blessings—he has uttered and confirmed the decree—”cursed be the ground.”

And now—the bounties of the world yield us enjoyment in true and undeviating proportion to the price at which we secure them. The rich man enjoys his abundance because of the toil and anxiety it has cost him. The man of hard bodily labor—enjoys his homely meal and his rough bed—because of the weariness which has earned them. The man of hard mental labor (for there is sweat of the brow in the study) enjoys his food and his bed because of the weariness and pains by which he has secured them. The parent enjoys his family circle, he comes home with gladness and appreciates the life and quiet of his fireside—be he poor, or be he rich—according to the toils and weariness of the day. A mother’s joy in the probity and promise of her child is proportioned to the care, the anxiety, the pains he has cost her. A Christian minister’s joy over the recovery of a backslider, or the dawning hope of a new born soul, is measured by the unseen solicitude, by the wearing and midnight labors, by the unpublished wrestling with God, through which he has won them.

All this relish of blessings, of whatever name, is linked in with, and evolved from, the toil and hardships by which they are preceded. It is the fruit of that wise economy which God established in the curse of the ground. It is the result of that connection, then fixed, between labor and the acquisition of good. The bearings of this connection are incalculable. It is operating all over the world. It is showering its benediction upon many a natural relation; upon many a bounty of nature; upon many a luxury of art. It is as the Wisdom of God brooding over chaos. It is as the enchantment of God circumventing and baffling the Spoiler. It is as the Life of God imbreathed upon the dying. It is as the Power of God—transmuting the stone to silver—bringing back again form and luster to the shattered tarnished diamond.

3. Observe the influence of this curse in the prevention of evils in the world.

Suppose, the world over, men were exempt from hard labor. Suppose sustenance and warmth came spontaneously. Suppose the eye was delighted and the body comforted with all that the lust of the flesh and the pride of life could crave. Suppose all men could live and have their heart’s content—without exertion. What would be the result? Who would venture to meet the result? “Pride, and fullness of bread and abundance of idleness,” partial as they were—were the damnation of Sodom. They would be, if entire, the utter damnation of the world. Were they universal, the world would be like Sodom; one vast theatre of abominations—one vast charnel-house of irrecoverable death. Depravity would have one unbroken holiday of reveling. It would sweep over the earth like a whirlwind. It would tear up the slender remnant of human enjoyments—like a tornado. It would stamp upon the relics of natural affection—upon the residue of inward hope and life—till they were ground to powder. It would wake up every passion to frenzy. Vice and crime, lust and cruelty—in then thousand shapes—would reign from morning till night, from night till morning. The smoke and the cry of torment would ascend without cessation. Every fountain of domestic enjoyment would be broken up; every note of love, silenced—as in the grave; every bond of sympathetic fellowship, severed; every feature of moral beauty and promise effaced separate interests would clash in strife and grate in discord. The knell of death would boom upon every gale—and the dirge of departed joys be screamed in every ear.

This is no visionary fancy. The restless faculties of the mind will have action. They will—they must have—pursuits. Withdraw from the sphere of their existence pursuits and employments which involve no sin—still they will have action; they will go out, under the guidance of domineering sin, to countless deeds of iniquity. And—in the practice of unchecked and undiverted sin—they must grow up to a giant strength; under the iron tyranny of accursing habits; erasing every form and every foot-print of enjoyment form off the face of the earth.

But look at the omens which imperfect experiment affords. The press of worldly toil is not distributed to men alike. The compulsion to labor differs in degree. Where, now, has depravity reached its tallest stature, and expanded to its most frightful strength? Where there has been “abundance of idleness.” Where the necessity for labor, as a means of subsistence—or as a means to meet artificial wants—has been abated. Where wealth has abated it. Where barbarism has abated it. The most vicious, the most wretched, the most loathsome, portions of the earth, at this very hour, are those where men are the least compelled to hard, and unremitting toil. The most vicious classes of our own community are those who discard patient, industrious labor. The pests of society—the tenants of our prisons—the victims of our gibbets—the inmates of our dens of infamy—are idlers; men and women and children who have been suffered to evade the restraining law of honest and productive industry. On the other hand the communities—the classes—among whom probity and happiness and virtue have most prevailed, are those who have been impelled, by natural or artificial wants, to the highest exertions.

And what do these facts import? Why! Plainly this; that labor and toil and the sweat of the brow are powerful checks upon human depravity. Plainly this; that if all demand for toil should cease, if all the wants of men were met without their exertion—the surges of misery and abomination would roll over the world in unbroken and cursed succession.

So then, toil – busy occupation – is the safety-valve through which the perilous excess of depravity is diverted. Men wish to evade it; and, if they might, they would. Hence the mercy of enweaving it, strong and stern as necessity could make it, with the very condition of human existence. Hence – as a universal law – it is the very secret of temporal salvation – the bridle upon the jaw of the devourer.

Behold, then, the deep wisdom—the careful kindness—the timely forecast of God, in the enactment of the decree—“Cursed is the ground for thy sake.” See here—a counterpoise against impetuous and deadly depravity. See here—a befitting provision for the emergencies of erring human life. But for this—what would our world have been? A Golgotha—an Aceldama—a muster-field of moral and bestial defilements—a very counterpart of Hell!

Look now, my hearers, at the curse of the ground. Behold how obviously it suits with the higher antidotes to Sin; how its harmonizes with, and helps on, the great work of salvation; how it is of vital importance to the efficacy of Redemption; how it vivifies the fountains of our earthly comforts; how it comes in as a temporary alterative to our depravity, putting check upon its growth, and woe; giving to our day of probation—and vantage ground to the means of grace. Look at all this—and say if men have reason to deplore the decree “that they should earn their bread by the sweat of the brow.” Say if they should curse the thorns and the thistles—the impediments to their enterprises—the taskmasters of their toil—which God has ordained.

I might point out the bearings of this doctrine upon several subjects of high practical interest; its bearings upon domestic education and parental duty; its bearings upon legislative policy and responsibility; its bearings upon the countless artificial luxuries of life, at which green-eyed sanctity is wont to point with abhorrence.

But I must stop. With one appeal I commend the truth to your consciences.—The sweat of the brow-the pressure of care and toil—are not among you calamities. They are not things to be thought of on fast days and forgotten on feast days. They are not things to be prayed against and denounced. They are blessings. You ought to bear them with cheerfulness. You ought to grapple with the thorns and thistles of life without murmuring. You ought to give God thanks for their multiplied profusion. You are getting many a choice treasure—you are culling many a delight—you are shielded from many a curse—by means of this curse upon the ground. Where would you be—what would you be—what would your world be, were this curse recalled? Could your suffrage avail, would you dare lift up your hand for its repeal? To repeal it would be death to all your joys; your hopes; your restraints; your probation. Nay—to recall it would baffle, irrecoverably, the brilliant schemes of God’s saving grace—it would consign you and me to abandoned depravity, and despair!

Sermon – Thanksgiving – 1850

THE

AMERICAN UNION:

 

A DISCOURSE

DELIVERED ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1850,
THE DAY OF THE ANNUAL THANKSGIVING IN PENNSYLVANIA.
AND REPEATED ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19,
IN THE TENTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA.

BY
HENRY A. BOARDMAN, D. D.

Second Thousand.

PHILADELPHIA:
LIPPINCOTT, GRAMBO AND CO.,
SUCCESSORS TO GRIGG, ELLIOT & CO.
1851.

 

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by
LIPPINCOTT, GRAMBO AND CO.,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
 

To the Rev. Henry A. Boardman, D. D.

Philadelphia, December 20th, 1850.

Dear Sir:–Your friends and immediate fellow-citizens who have listened to your discourse on the Union, are naturally desirous of sharing with the country at large the advantages of so valuable a production.

The spirit of true patriotism which it breathes is especially calculated to do good y being widely diffused at the present moment, while it is distinguished by a tone of piety that is auspicious at all times, and cannot fail to be universally acceptable.

In the name of all who had the satisfaction to witness your eloquence on this interesting occasion, we respectfully ask that you would favor us with the use of the manuscript for publication.

With sincere respect and regard,
Your friends and faithful servants,
J. R. Ingersoll,            G. M. Dallas,
R. Patterson,          W. M. Meredith,
John K. Findlay,        Jos. Patterson,
W. C. Patterson,        R. M. Patterson
John W. Forney,        Edward Armstrong,
John S. Riddle.

Philadelphia, December 20th, 1850.

To the Rev. Henry A. Boardman, D. D.

Reverend and Dear Sir:–Cordially approving the sentiments expressed by you in your recent discourse on the American Union, and believing that a more general diffusion of these sentiments would tend to the formation of a sound public opinion on this very important subject, and being desirous, moreover, individually, in some explicit and formal manner, to testify our own devout attachment to the Union, and our utter dissent from those who would subvert it, and our determination to abide by the Constitution and laws, and more particularly those laws of the last session of Congress known as the Compromise Acts, we, the undersigned, do most gratefully and heartily thank you for your eloquent and timely discourse on this subject, and request a copy of the same for publication.

Alex. W. Mitchell, M.D.,        Charles B. Penrose,
Wm. H. Dillingham,         A. V. Parsons,
Lawrence Lewis,        John S. Hart,
Wm. Shippen, M.D.,        James B. Rogers,
C. B. Jaudon,        Wm. Harris, M.D.
Hugh Elliot,        J. N. Dickson,
Francis West, M.D.,        Smith, Murphy & Co.,
Wm. Goodrich,        Hogan & Thompson,
R. R. Bearden,        J. B. Ross
Turner, Harris & Hale,        James Boggs,
James Imbrie, Jr.,        Lippincott, Grambo & Co.
CORRESPONDENCE.
Jno. R. Vogdes,         Peter L. Ferguson,
John K. Townsend, M.D.,        Truitt, Brother & Co.
W. H. Gillingham, M.D.,        Martin & Smith
A. B. Cummings,        W. Kirk,
John H. Brown,        Arthur A. Burt,
Samuel Hood,        Morris Patterson,
William B. Hieskell,        Faust & Winebrenner,
Moses Johnson,        William Brown,
Dale, Ross & Withers,        D. B. Birney,
Thos. H. Hoge,                Gemmill & Cresswell,
Dundas T. Pratt,        J. G. Mitchell,
F. N. Buck,        Scott, Baker & Co.,
James Orne,        J. Anspach, Jr.,
James Schott,        Geo. C. Barber,
Wm. Veitch,        J. W. Tilford,
Lind & Brother,        Jno. McArthur,
Taylor & Paulding,        Robt. M. Slaymaker,
B. P. Hutchinson,        A. W. Slack,
Sibley, Moulton & Woodruff,        James Burrowes,
David Springs & Co.,        Knorr & Fuller,
R. B. Brinton & Co.,        De Coursey, Lafourcade & Co.,
James Leslie,        Maurice A. Wurts,
Henry R. Davis.

Philadelphia, December 23d, 1850.

Gentlemen:–I cannot doubt that the favor with which my late humble effort in behalf of the Union has been received, is to be ascribed more to the existing state of the public mind on this subject, than to the intrinsic merits of the performance itself. I do not feel at liberty, however, to decline an application emanating from a body of my fellow-citizens so honorably representing the commerce of our city, and the learned professions, and comprising gentlemen whose public services have won for them the respect and gratitude of the nation, and identified their fame with that of the Union.

In the hope that the discourse which you have in such flattering terms requested for publication may be made, by a good Providence, instrumental in promoting in some degree the cause which we all have so much at heart, I herewith place the manuscript at your disposal.

I am very faithfully,
Your friend and fellow-citizen,
H. A. BOARDMAN.
To the Hon. Joseph R. Ingersoll,
Major-General Patterson,
Hon. George M. Dallas,
Hon. Wm. M. Meredith,
Hon. Charles B. Penrose,
Hon. A. V. Parsons,
Alex W. Mitchell, M. D.
Wm. H. Dillingham, Esq.,
Professor Hart,
Lawrence Lewis, Esq., and others.

 

THE UNION.
 

Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? Is not be thy father that hath brought thee? Hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness: he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings;

So the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.

He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;

Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the graps.—‘Deut. XXXII 6-14.

THESE words delineate with great beauty of imagery the general course of the Divine dispensations towards ancient Israel. Susceptible as they are of a ready adaptation to our own country, they suggest some of the various causes for gratitude to the Supreme Disposer of events, which should animate our hearts as we assemble in our sanctuaries on this Day of Thanksgiving. But they also intimate (if we choose thus to appropriate the passage to ourselves) that we are in danger of perverting and losing the munificent blessings Providence has conferred upon us. There is, I fear, but too much occasion for this warning. The pulpit should be very slow to give countenance or currency to topics calculated to excite or alarm the public mind; but where the Union itself is in jeopardy, both patriotism and religion forbid that it should remain silent. In the judgment of discreet and upright men of all parties, a crisis of this kind has now arrived. And, indeed, the indications of it are so palpable that he only who shuts his eyes can fail to see them.

Up to a period quite within the recollection of the young men before me, the atrocious word, Disunion, was never uttered in any part of the Republic but with abhorrence. The universal sentiment was that the Union of these States was to be maintained at all hazards—that it was not a question to be discussed—and that any individual who should presume to impugn its sacred obligation would be justly chargeable with moral treason, and ought to be regarded as an enemy to his country. This wholesome public sentiment has been for several years past gradually giving way. Our ears have become familiarized to the word, Disunion. A protracted session of Congress has been consumed in discussing the thing itself. One State is at this moment almost on the verge of secession. Others are threatening it. And a large and vigilant party elsewhere are pressing favorite measures with the full conviction that, if they succeed in carrying them, the Union must and will be riven asunder. Under these circumstances, the pulpit may no more keep silence than the press. We have the same civil rights as other citizens; and we do not mean lightly to surrender them. But aside from this, the interests of religion in this country are in some sort confided to the keeping of the Ministry: and Christianity—not Christianity for our own land merely, but for the world, and for all coming generations of mankind—has so much at stake in the American Union, that, if we should refuse to co-operate with our fellow-citizens in all legitimate measures for the preservation of that Union, we should be recreant to the Master we profess to serve, and unfit to minister at his altar.

In the original manuscript of Washington’s Farewell Address, there is the following paragraph partially erased. With the exception of the last sentence, it was rejected by him; but no apology will be needed for citing it on an occasion like the present: “Besides the more serious causes already hinted as threatening our Union, there is one less dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to make it prudent to be on our guard against it. I allude to the petulance of party differences of opinion. It is not uncommon to hear the irritations which these excite, vent themselves in declarations that the different parts of the United States are ill affected to each other, in menaces that the Union will be dissolved by this, or that measure. Intimations like these are as indiscreet as they are intemperate. Though frequently made with levity, and without any really evil intention, they have a tendency to produce the consequence which they indicate. They teach the minds of men to consider the Union as precarious; as an object to which they ought not to attach their hopes and fortunes; and thus chill the sentiment in its favor. By alarming the pride of those to whom they are addressed, they set ingenuity at work to depreciate the value of the thing, and to discover reasons of indifference towards it. This is not wise.—It will be much wiser to habituate ourselves to reverence the Union as the Palladium of our National happiness; to accommodate constantly our words and actions to that idea, and to discountenance whatever may suggest a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned.”

It maybe doubted whether this paragraph would not have been retained, could Washington have foreseen the events which are passing before our eyes. For there is a tone of remark now prevalent on this subject which indicates a wide-spread and perhaps growing disposition to calculate the value of the Union. That such a problem should in any quarter be seriously entertained—that it should not, on being propounded, be as summarily and indignantly thrust away as the question would be, whether we shall not replace our present form of government with a monarchy—is symptomatic of a decay of that pure and lofty patriotism which once throbbed in every American breast. Certain it is that those who can degrade a theme like this to the computations of a mere commercial arithmetic, and resolve the value of the Union as they would adjust a marine venture, or the cost of a cotton-mill, have never even begun to comprehend the extraordinary chain of events which led to the establishment of this Union, the gigantic difficulties which opposed its formation, the manifold blessings which have resulted from it, and the legionary evils which would be produced by its destruction. A proper discussion of these several topics in a temperate and able manner might well engage the leisure of some one of our eminent statesmen at the present juncture, and could not fail to have a salutary influence on the nation at large. I propose simply to recall your attention to THE ORIGIN OF THE UNION, AND SOME OF THE MORE OBVIOUS CONSEQUENCES WHICH WOULD BE LIKELY TO FLOW FROM ITS DISSOLUTION—that we may the better understand what it is that certain parties are proposing to accomplish.

The observation has been often made, that the whole current of events connected with the settlement of America, and the growth of the Colonies, reveals a purpose on the part of Divine Providence to found, in this Western Hemisphere, a model government. They were no ordinary men who were sent here to lay the foundations of an empire in a wilderness tenanted by wild beasts and savages. No nation can boast a more honorable ancestry than that which comprises the Puritans, the Huguenots, and the Quakers, who fled to this continent, that they might enjoy

“Freedom to worship God.”

The seeding of the soil gave promise of a rare and generous harvest; and amply was the pledge redeemed. They knew not the exalted mission entrusted to them; it was impossible, without the gift of foresight, that they should have known it. But it is easy for us to see that, during the entire period of their colonial state, they were preparing for the work before them. In their privations and dangers, their sicknesses and wars, their mutual rivalries and quarrels; in the unnatural neglect and flagrant oppression with which their circumstances helped to develop; and in the continual accession to their numbers of men of kindred principles, who were driven from the old world by persecution or tyranny—we can detect a superhuman agency, which was moulding the strengthening them for the scenes of the Revolution, and the responsibilities involved in its successful termination. These, it is important to remember, demanded a training no less peculiar than the Revolution itself. It is too commonly taken for granted that, with the Peace of ’83, all danger was over; that the auspicious issue of our contest with the mother country was tantamount to the creation of a free and powerful Republic. In a word, that, as soon as their battles were ended, and the chains of their colonial vassalage broken, our fathers had but to sit down in quiet and enjoy the benign protection of that glorious Union which has, under Providence, made us the most prosperous nation on the globe. This is not only an utter misconception of the facts in the case; but it is adapted to disparage the wisdom and patriotism of the men of the Revolution, and to impair our reverence for the Union itself. It is scarcely going beyond the truth to say that their work was but half accomplished with the close of their last campaign. They had severed their allegiance to the crown; but they had no adequate government of their own, and they were in a situation most unfavorable for the establishment of one. The Union, that is, such a Union as their necessities demanded, was so far from evolving itself spontaneously from the chaos which succeeded the war, that the wisest and best men among them entertained the most anxious apprehensions as to the possibility of effecting it at all. “It may be in me,” said one of them, 1 a man whose comprehensive and penetrating intellect resolved the abstrusest theorems in political science as by intuition, and who could express his profound and luminous views in a style which would scarcely suffer by a comparison with that of Junius—“It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquility with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation without a national Government is an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a Prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals in this State [New York] and other States, are enemies to a general national Government in every possible shape.”

In a similar strain, General Washington, at an earlier period, two years after the Treaty of Peace, wrote to Mr. Jay: “What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! I am told that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical form of government without horror. From thinking proceeds speaking: thence to acting is often but a single step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for our enemies, to verify their predictions! What a triumph for the advocates of despotism, to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and salacious! Would to God that wise measures may be taken in time to avert the consequences we have but too much reason to apprehend!”

The old Confederation would have been too weak even for the purposes of war in any other hands than those of the pure and able men who were called to conduct the Revolution. And when the outward pressure was removed, and the colonies fell back under the sway of their several local usages and interests, the compact which united them proved to be but a rope of sand. The condition of the country waxed worse and worse, until it seemed to be on the verge of some terrible catastrophe. The war had dried up its resources. The government was encumbered with a debt which it had no means of paying. Commerce was at the lowest point of declension. The colonies, oppressed by their necessities, and more solicitous to retrieve their own fortunes than those of the Union, refused the supplies of money which were indispensable to the efficiency of the Confederation, and even to its prolonged existence. The Government was the very picture of imbecility; without troops, without a revenue, without credit, without power to enforce its laws at home, or to inspire respect abroad. And the reciprocal jealousies of the colonies, reviving with the return of peace, afforded little ground to hope that any scheme of union could be devised in which they would all, or even a major part of them, coalesce. The defects of the existing league were too palpable to be denied; but the most discordant opinions prevailed as to the appropriate remedy. This may be seen in the multiform objections which were made to the new Constitution when it came to be submitted to the States for their adoption. Not to speak of the monarchical party alluded to by General Washington, and which was probably very small, the following may be taken as a sample of these objections—“This one tells us that the Constitution ought to be rejected, because it is not a Confederation of the States, but a government over individuals. Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent, but not to the extent proposed. A third objects to the want of a bill of rights. A fourth would have a bill of rights, but would have it declaratory not of the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth thinks the plan would be unexceptionable but for the fatal power of regulating the times and places of election. An objector in a large State exclaims loudly against the unreasonable equality of representation in the Senate. An objector in a small State is equally loud against the dangerous inequality in the House of Representatives. From one quarter the amazing expense of administering the new government is urged; from another the cry is that the Congress will be but a shadow of a representation, and that the government would be far less objectionable if the number and the expense were doubled. A patriot in a State that does not import discerns insuperable objections against the power of direct taxation. The patriotic adversary in a State of great exports and imports is not less dissatisfied that the whole burthen of taxes may be thrown on consumption. This politician discovers in the Constitution a direct and irresistible tendency to monarchy; that is equally sure it will end in aristocracy.” 2 But it would be wearisome to go on with this catalogue, and cite the objections urged against the instrument as a whole, and those advanced against the specific provisions appertaining severally to the legislative, the judicial, and the executive departments. Enough has been said to show that the convention which assembled to frame a Constitution had an herculean task to perform; and that, without the special illumination of Divine Providence, they must have essayed in vain to frame an instrument which should unite in its support the suffrages of a majority of the States.

It is an additional consideration of great weight, bearing upon this point, that they were without a model. There was no existing government which they were willing to copy. There was no government of antiquity which would at all answer their purpose. They were, in truth, not only in advance of their own age, but of all ages, in their ideas of civil government. We may apply to them what Milton has said of the Hebrew prophets: they appear

“As men divinely taught, and better teaching
The solid rules of civil government,
In their majestic, unaffected style,
Than all the oratory of Greece and Rome;
In them is plainest taught and easiest learnt,
What makes a nation happy, and keeps it so.”
The concise instrument drawn up and signed in the cabin of the May Flower, was the charter of an embryo Commonwealth. It recognizes the great principle of equality, and the right and duty of the “civil body politic,” into which the signers organized themselves, to “enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, as should be thought most convenient for the general good of the colony.” This germ expanded. It derived nurture from the alternate indifference and tyranny of the home government. The colonists, not of Massachusetts only, but of Virginia and the other provinces, were compelled to act for themselves. They came to regard the “general good,” not the honor of a throne, or the aggrandizement of an aristocracy, as the proper end of government; and “just and equal laws,” as the legitimate means by which this end was to be promoted. Long before their difficulties with the crown reached their crisis, these ideas had become as familiar to their minds as household words. They were very unlike the prevailing ideas in the Old World. They found no place in the constitutions of the most liberal monarchies. Political equality—popular suffrage—equal laws—the right of the majority to govern—the greatest good of the greatest number as the end of government,–these were principles which, however they might be entertained by individuals, had yet for the first time to be enacted, or even recognized by any European monarchy. And when with these principles is combined another of no less importance, that of a representative republic, we shall search in vain for any adequate exposition of their views even among the so-called republics of ancient or modern times. It shows an extraordinary elevation of mind, and a moral courage stamped with true sublimity, that they should have succeeded in divesting themselves of the intolerable thraldom of precedent and authority, and dared to lay the foundations of their new structure on principles which no other government had made trial of, or which had certainly never been tested in such combinations as were now contemplated. These principles alone, however, were suited to the emergency, and they applied them with a trustful fortitude and a profound wisdom which have never ceased (unless they have now ceased) to elicit the gratitude of their posterity, and the admiration of enlightened and liberal statesmen in all lands.

Without stopping to illustrate these points in detail, let us advert for a moment to that great principle of a representative republic which they invoked to harmonize the conflicting rights and interests of the colonies. Our minds are so familiar with this principle that we are scarcely in a position to appreciate the wisdom which guided the convention to the discovery of it (for it was a discovery), and led them to adopt it as the core of the new Constitution. They were to create a Government or Governments for the colonies. Putting monarchy out of the question, these plans were before them: 1st. Consolidation; the dissolution of the thirteen Provincial or State Governments, and a general amalgamation under one republican charter. 2dly. Consolidation in the form of a pure democracy. 3dly. The organization of thirteen entirely independent Governments—republican or democratic. 4thly. A simple Confederation of thirteen sovereignties.

These were the only models to be found in the annals of the world. All Governments not monarchical had conformed to one or another of these types: and yet the statesmen of the Revolution had the sagacity to see that they were alike either impracticable or utterly insufficient for their purposes. Consolidation was out of the question; the colonies would not consent to merge their individual existence in a single organization. A pure democracy was impracticable even for the States as such. A democracy requires the periodical convocation of the entire body of the citizens, to conduct its legislation, and is of course admissible only in the case of States comprising a very limited territory. This was a favorite scheme of a party after the war; and to elude the difficulty just stated, they were for dividing the larger colonies into districts of a tractable size. The creation of thirteen isolated sovereignties would have been the sure precursor and occasion of dissensions and wars. Nor would a simple Confederation of such a cluster of sovereignties, the scheme which was advocated by many of the most patriotic and influential men of the nation, have been essentially better. Such a Confederation already existed. Its inadequacy was matter of experience. No modification would be of any avail which came short of curing its radical vice, to wit, that of providing “legislation for States or Governments in their corporate or collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the individuals of whom they consist.” So long as this principle was retained, the States might be bound together in a league, but there could be no national Union. Nor would a general government be able to enforce its decrees at home or to protect its foreign interests, if the execution of its mandates were made contingent upon the legislation of other independent sovereignties. 3 A new principle was, therefore, needed to meet the exigencies of the case; and it was found in that of a representative republic. The sovereignty of the several States was left unimpaired in respect to all matters of local jurisdiction, while the Federal Government, springing no less directly than the State governments from the bosom of the people, and operating no less directly upon the people, was clothed with the functions requisite for the efficient administration of all interests appertaining to the general welfare of the Republic. Thus was the great problem solved. From the confusion and distraction, the imbecility and exhaustion, the conflicting theories and rivalries, of these emancipated provinces, emerged the Union, clothed with majesty and honor, radiant with celestial beauty, her temples bound with a perennial olive-wreath, and her hands filled with such blessings for the expectant people as no nation but God’s chosen one had ever dreamed of. Tyrants looked upon her and gnashed their teeth with rage. The patriots of every land hailed her advent as the rising of a second sun in the heavens. The down-trodden nations of Europe found life and hope even in her far-off smile. And as her magic influence penetrated their dungeons, the martyrs of liberty felt their chains lightened, and blessed God that, although their efforts had failed, one nation had at length established its freedom. It was in truth the triumph, the first great triumph, of CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY. The records of mankind supplied no parallel to it; and it was a fitting occasion for a jubilee among the friends of human progress of every creed and country.

This cursory glance at the difficulties which were surmounted in the formation of our government may serve to enhance our appreciation of the Union, and to invigorate our gratitude to the men who founded it. A nobler race of men, or one who have a stronger claim upon the affectionate veneration of mankind, the world has never seen. It is impossible that they should be forgotten so long as integrity, patriotism, and public virtue, have a being among men. Their names (to borrow the sublime tribute of Daniel Webster to John Hancock—a tribute which we may even now appropriate to the great orator himself) have a place as bright and glorious in the admiration of mankind, “as if they had been written in letters of light on the blue arch of heaven, between Orion and the Pleiades.” Certain it is that if we ever cease to do them honor or to cherish the work of their hands, we shall deserve the execration of all future generations. For, whatever specious objections may have been urged against the Constitution at the period of its adoption, it is not with us an open question whether that immortal instrument was framed with all the wisdom which has been claimed for it, and whether it is adequate to the purposes for which it was designed. The seal of more than sixty years is now upon it, and its results are known and read of all men. In the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral, in London, is the tomb of Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of that noble structure, and the felicitous inscription upon it runs thus: “Reader, if you seek his monument, look around!” So we may say of our Constitution. If you would estimate its value, LOOK AROUND!

“How many States,
And clustering towns, and monuments of fame,
And scenes of glorious deeds.”
Contrast the thirteen colonies of the Revolution with our thirty-one States. And then contrast the Republic as a whole with any other, even the most prosperous, empires of the globe. I give utterance only to one of our familiar common-places, when I say, that whether we regard the increase of its population, the development of its resources, the augmentation of its wealth, its power, and its influence among the nations, or the steady progress of its people in all the arts of a refined civilization, the history of this country is unexampled in the annals of our race. Without wishing to chime in with that strain of self-complacent declamation which has made so many Fourth of July orations an offence to cultivated ears, the occasion not only authorizes but compels me to say, that there is no people on the earth so free as we are; none who possess such an affluence of all the immunities and appliances, social and political, secular and religious, essential to the plenary enjoyment of all personal rights, and to the greatest good of the great mass of the nation. To prove this would be a work of supererogation. If any man can “look around” and doubt it, he has mistaken his country, and should transfer his domicil to a more congenial clime.

Nor is the extraordinary growth of the United States in all the elements which constitute the true greatness and glory of a nation more indisputable than is the fact that we have been steadily opposed by most of the leading cabinets of Europe, and especially by the whole moral influence of the British Government and aristocracy. England has never forgiven us the Declaration of Independence. Whether it is because this Union is a standing memento of her folly and misgovernment, or because she is jealous of a daughter whose ships and spindles compete with her own in the markets of the globe, certain it is that she has always looked upon us with an evil eye. No maternal pride has ever betrayed her into a spontaneous burst of admiration at the enterprise, the intelligence, and the moral worth of her transatlantic offspring. When James the Second, one of her faithless kings, whom she drove in indignation from his throne, overlooked from the French coast the great naval action of La Hogue, and saw the British, after putting to flight that imposing squadron with which all his hopes were embarked, pursue their enemy in boats into the very shallows, and set fire to the ships which would otherwise have escaped, he could not restrain his admiration of their gallantry, but cried out, “Ah, none but my brave English could do this!” But no such paroxysm of generosity has ever overcome our venerable mother in contemplating this fair country. Instead of exclaiming, as she has marked the gradual transition of this vast wilderness into a cultivated continent, covered with towns and cities, and smiling harvests, “None but my brave children could have done this!” she has systematically detracted from our just fame, and disparaged our achievements. Allowing for individual exceptions, the tone of her press (not to speak of other indices of her feeling) has been marked with an illiberality and acerbity towards us which nothing could justify. Her journalists and tourists have set themselves to misrepresent and depreciate our institutions. From her stately Quarterlies down to the humblest hebdomadal repositories of provincial wit and wisdom, they have exerted their ten talents or their one talent, as the case might be, to cast ridicule upon our public acts and monuments, upon our civil franchises, our manners, our literature, our very roads and vehicles, and the whole working of our political and social systems. They have done what they could to make the impression in Europe that our great “experiment” was a failure; that there was no security here for life and property; that anarchy and semi-barbarism were already rampant; and that the Union must presently fall to pieces. And how has the country heeded these unworthy demonstrations? Precisely as a loaded train heeds the straws which sportive children scatter on the rails; or as an eagle heeds the pellets of mud cast after him as he soars upwards on his mighty pinions towards the sun. The country has advanced with a constantly accelerated momentum, which has at least changed the contempt of its maligners into the dignity of hatred. And neither defamatory presses nor official decrees, neither standing armies nor a domiciliary espionage, nor all these combined, have been able to conceal the truth from the simple-minded peasantry and the degraded operatives of Europe. Alike in their pestiferous workshops and in their remote mountain chalets, the name of the United States is a talisman to them. The salutation, “I am an American citizen,” is the best passport a stranger can have to their confidence. Often have I seen their eyes sparkle on hearing it; and the sight made me proud of my country. It was the boast of the ancient Roman that the watch-word, “I am a Roman citizen,” would secure him personal respect throughout the known world. But it was the dread of the imperial eagles which insured his safety. No such sentiment protects the American abroad. It is not the inspiration of fear, but of love, which lights up the countenances of the common people at his approach. They know little of politics, and less of geography. They have read but few books. They could give no very lucid account of this country. But they have these two ideas about it inwrought into their minds, viz., that it is a free country, and that the people are comfortable and contented. This makes it a land of hope to them. This makes them long to get here. This constitutes the subtle, mysterious influence which has gone out from our Union into all the hamlets and all the mines and forges of Europe; and which is drawing their tenantry towards us with an agency as irresistible as that which keeps the needle to the pole. This it was which made an honest, truthful peasant, who lived in one of those lofty valleys at the base of Mont Blanc, say to a party of Americans, a year or two since: “Not less than two hundred of my neighbors have gone from this small valley to your country, and nothing but the want of means keeps me from following them.” I say again, I was proud to hear it. These unbought testimonies to the all-pervading and blessed influence of my country—testimonies picked up by the wayside, and by the cotter’s hearth, and the shepherd’s fold, from reapers, and wagoners, and guides, and laborers—are worth more than all the studied compliments ever bestowed upon America by courtly diplomatists. It is something to belong to a land which looms up in this way before all nations, as a land of peace and plenty, of virtue and safety—as an asylum where the oppressed may find a refuge from tyranny, and the poor the amplest scope and encouragement for frugal industry. It is something to belong to a land which is known wherever the foot of civilized man has trod, not by her Caesars and Napoleons, not by her bloody wars and conquests, but by her Washingtons and Franklins, her civil and religious liberty, her equal laws, and her thriving populations. That such a land should draw upon the Old World is not surprising. The philosophy of the fact is sufficiently simple, and it was set forth by one of the illustrious orators of the Revolution with a felicity which is equaled only by his extraordinary prophetic announcement of the fact itself. Immediately after the close of the Revolution, Patrick Henry delivered a speech of great power in the Assembly of Virginia in favor of a liberal policy on the subject of immigration. Contrasting the expanse of our territory with the scanty population, he observed, “Your great want, sir, is the want of men, and these you must have, and will have speedily, if you are wise. Do you ask, how are you to get them? Open your doors, sir, and they will come in; the population of the Old World is full to overflowing; that population is ground, too, by the oppressions of the governments under which they live. Sir, they are already standing on tip-toe upon their native shores, and looking to your coasts with a wishful and longing eye; they see here a land blessed with natural and political advantages, which are not equaled by those of any other country upon earth; a land on which a gracious Providence hath emptied the horn of abundance; a land over which Peace hath now stretched forth her white wings, and where Content and Plenty lie down at every door! Sir, they see something still more attractive than all this; they see a land in which Liberty hath taken up her abode; that Liberty whom they had considered as a fabled goddess, existing only in the fancies of poets; they see her here a real divinity, her altars rising on every hand throughout these happy States, her glories chanted by three millions of tongues, and the whole region smiling under her blessed influence. Sir, let but this celestial goddess, Liberty, stretch forth her fair hand toward the people of the Old World, tell them to come, and bid them welcome; and you will see them pouring in from the north, from the south, from the east, and from the west; your wilderness will be cleared and settled, your deserts will smile, your ranks will be filled; and you will soon be in a condition to defy the powers of any adversary.” Li
berty did “stretch forth her hand towards the Old World,” and this eloquent prophecy glided into history. The three millions who chanted her glories have now become twenty-five millions; and the mighty current of humanity is setting towards our shores with a depth and a majesty which are enough to awe every thoughtful beholder. There are various aspects, economical, political, and religious, in which this imposing movement may be viewed. The twofold object for which it is cited here is to illustrate, on the one hand, the unprecedented growth of our country; and, on the other, the Antaean hold which this Union has taken upon the other hemisphere. Without restricting the remark to this wonderful migration from the Old World to the New, we are safe in affirming that the sublime spectacle of a self-governed and well-governed nation has told with prodigious effect upon the dynasties of Europe. For “the greatest engine of moral power known to human affairs is an organized, prosperous State. All that man in his individual capacity can do—all that he can effect by his private fraternities, by his ingenious discoveries and wonders of art, or by his influence over others—is as nothing, compared with the collective, perpetuated influence on human affairs and human happiness of a well-constituted, powerful commonwealth. It blesses generations with its sweet influence. Even the barren earth seems to pour out its fruits under a system where rights and property are secure; whilst her fairest gardens are blighted by despotism.” 4 Such an example has been before the world for more than half a century; and while it is impossible to trace the influences which have gone out from it upon the other hemisphere, all parties are agreed that it has had a most effective agency in bringing about the ameliorating changes which have taken place in the European Governments. The reforms in those governments, which have consisted essentially in raising the people from a condition of political nonentity to a substantive power in the State, have drawn their animating breath and derived their most effective support from the precedent supplied by these United States. If the Nesselrodes and Metternichs of the day are competent witnesses, this country has been the great laboratory from whence “liberal ideas” have been continually flitting across the ocean and disturbing the Dead Sea tranquility of the venerable despotisms of Europe. The extent to which these ideas have permeated the masses there is really surprising, when one considers the vigilance and severity with which tyranny everywhere guards its usurpations. Many a generous struggle has proved abortive, and hecatombs of brave but unfortunate patriots have been immolated to the Moloch of absolutism; but the cause of freedom has on the whole advanced. The nations are not where they were at the commencement of this century; and unless we betray our trust, and extinguish the light which now allures them on to freedom, there is little likelihood that they will ever consent to resume their chains. If we guard this vestal flame upon which so many anxious eyes are turned, the political renovation of the world must go on. Other lands will be emancipated, and the prophetic vision so beautifully depicted by the poet will be realized:–

“I saw the expecting regions stand,
To catch the coming flame in turn;
I saw from ready hand to hand
The bright but struggling glory burn.
And each, as she received the flame,
Lighted her altar with its ray;
Then, smiling to the next who came,
Speeded it on its sparkling way.” 5

No man who believes that there is a Providence can take even a brief retrospect of our history, like that which has now engaged our attention, without discovering innumerable evidences of his benignant agency. He who does not see a Divine hand directing and controlling the whole course of our affairs, from the landing of the colonists at Jamestown and Plymouth until the present hour, would hardly have seen the pillar of cloud and of fire had he been with the Hebrews in the wilderness. This Union is not the work of man. It is THE WORK OF God. Among the achievements of his wisdom and beneficence in conducting the secular concerns of the world, it must be ranked as one of his greatest and best works. And he who would destroy it is chargeable with the impiety of attempting to subvert a structure which is eminently adapted to illustrate the perfections of the Deity, and to bless the whole family of man.

There are, however—the fact cannot be disguised—parties actually at work in endeavoring to destroy the Union. A party at the South and another party at the North, the poles apart in their speculative views of the subject which agitates them, and inflamed with a bitter mutual hostility, have virtually joined hands for the purpose of demolishing this Government. This is not, indeed, as to one of these parties, the ostensible object they have in view; but it is essentially involved in that object, and they know it. They must, therefore, be held to the responsibility of aiming at a dissolution of the Union, equally with those inhabitants of the Southern States who avow this as their aim.

The subject which has occasioned this commotion is Slavery. The Southern Disunionists would secede because Congress, at its late session, passed certain acts abridging, as they allege, the rights of the slave-holding States; and the Northern Disunionists insist upon the repeal of a law passed at the same time, entitled the Fugitive Slave Law, even though its abrogation should involve a dissolution of the Union. My business as a Northern man, and a citizen of a free State, is with the latter of these parties, or rather with the North generally. In the few observations I am about to make on the subject, I shall simply reiterate sentiments which have been so often and so eloquently expressed both in Congress and out of it, that they have become familiar to every well-informed citizen. But I may say that the man who can put the American Union, with all its untold and inconceivable blessings, into one scale, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law into the other, and then strike the balance in favor of the latter, is without an exemplar in the history of the race until we get back to the record of that primeval tempter who said to our first mother, “Ye shall not surely die.”

She pluck’d, she eat!
Earth felt the wound, and Nature from her seat,
Sighing thro’ all her works, gave signs of woe,
That all was lost!”
In saying this, I utterly disclaim any design to become the champion of Slavery. I have never set myself to defend it; and by the grace of God I never will. I concur in the estimate which is put upon it by the people of the North, and by tens of thousands of our Southern countrymen, that it is a colossal evil; and that no consummation is more devoutly to be wished and prayed for than its removal. But I can as little undertake the championship of Northern agitators and fanatics as that of Slavery. I believe they are the worst enemies of the slave, and the most efficient protectors of Slavery; and as such, I can have no fellowship with them. The law to which they object may be, or it may not be, defective or unjust in some of its provisions. If it is, it will no doubt at the proper time be amended; if it is not, it will stand. But what we are called upon to discountenance is the spirit in which this excitement is promoted—the recklessness and violence with which the unconditional repeal of the obnoxious law is demanded, irrespective of consequences—the abusive attacks which are constantly made upon the South—and the whole system of measures put in operation to alienate the two portions of the confederacy, and bring about a disruption.

However the fact may be contemned by the radical Abolitionists, it behooves us all to remember, what even the cursory retrospect presented in this discourse must have made sufficiently manifest, that the Union of these States was a matter of compromise. Obstructed as it was by the most serious impediments, it could never have been effected had not all the parties concerned been animated by a rare spirit of accommodation. General Washington, in submitting the draft of the new Constitution to Congress, thus expresses himself in his official letter as the President of the Convention: “In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”

In this spirit the Union originated, and in this spirit it has, under God’s blessing, been preserved. On all the most important measures of the government, the country has been divided into two great parties. We have passed through various crises, which have tested the loyalty of one party or of the other, as the case might be, as in a fiery furnace. Take for example the following measures: Jay’s Treaty—the Embargo—the War of 1812—the Missouri question—the Nullification controversy—the admission of Texas—and the Mexican War. Each of these measures was highly offensive to a large portion of the American people. The legislation of Congress was, in some of the cases, resisted by Statesmen of the most eminent abilities, as being in the face of the Constitution and destructive to our best interests. But when the acts were passed, the law-abiding spirit of the Anglo-Saxon race began to work, and all parties acquiesced. We have a striking illustration of this in one of the most recent of the measures just mentioned, the admission of Texas. The major part of the population in the free States regarded this, in the manner in which it was done, as a gross invasion of the Constitution. A distinguished citizen of South Carolina, formerly Governor of that State, has remarked, in a letter recently published, that “the admission of Texas furnished a far greater provocation to the North to secede, than the admission of California does to the South, with the auxiliary stipulations incident to the former.” 6 But we did not secede. Nobody talked of seceding, except the party who are driving at disunion now. The sober sense and enlightened patriotism of the mass of the people, fortified by sixty years’ experience, have taught them the necessity of forbearance, and made them feel that it is far better to submit even to what they believe to be wrong and hurtful measures than to break up the Union. They have no notion of setting the ship on fire because the captain deals out some oppressive orders. They choose rather to wait till the ship returns to port, and then, if they can, get a new captain.—In this spirit the compromise measures of the last session ought to be treated. They were not party measures, for none of the recognized parties was, as such, satisfied with them. But they supplied the only platform on which men of all parties could meet; and this is a sufficient reason why the country should acquiesce in them.

That a statute respecting fugitive slaves should form a part of this series of pacificatory measures, was a thing of course. One of the chief compromises of the Constitution itself relates to this very subject. The South would not come into the Union without some guarantee on this point, and the following section (Art. IV. Sect. 2) was adopted by the Convention—I believe unanimously. “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” A law was enacted under Washington’s administration, and with his approval, to carry this provision of the Constitution into effect. 7 This law had of late years been rendered nugatory in some of the States by local legislation, and it became necessary to replace it with another. This is the statute which is now exciting so much opposition, and the execution of which has been resisted with so much violence. These demonstrations, although professedly directed against some of the details of the act, are to a great extent leveled against its principle. We do the party concerned in them no injustice in supposing that they would be equally hostile to any adequate law designed to effect the same object. In this view, one cannot but be struck with the flexible morality which can declaim fiercely about the inalienable rights of man, while it is trampling under its feet one of the most sacred covenants which ever bound a people together. There is no difference of opinion as to the meaning of the Constitutional provision on this subject. To that provision, in common with the others, our fathers assented, and we have assented. It is one of the terms of a compact into which we have as a people entered with one another; and which is just as binding upon us as any other of its provisions. Our judgment may condemn it. It may be very revolting to our feelings. But this is nothing to the purpose. We are under no obligation to remain in a country which we believe to be governed by oppressive laws; there is nothing to prevent our flying to any land which rejoices in a milder code and a more rational liberty. But as long as we continue citizens of this Union, we must abide by its Constitution and obey its laws. 8 And we cannot consent to take lessons in ethics from those who deny this proposition. The first requisite we demand in a teacher of morals is that he be a moral man himself. And when a covenant-breaker comes to expound to us our obligations, we feel disposed to decline his instructions and to say to him,

“Your nickname, virtue; vice, you should have spoke;
For virtue’s office never breaks men’s troth.”

To some persons this may sound very unfeeling as regards the slave. I will not reply by saying that the Apostle Paul thought it no sin to send a fugitive back to his master. But this is a case where we are not at liberty to take counsel merely of our sympathies. The obligation of contracts is not made contingent upon men’s feelings; and if this plea was to be urged at all, it should have been before the Constitution was adopted. We do not, however, rest our answer to the objection on this ground only. We are not willing to concede a monopoly of all the sympathy which is entertained for the bondman to the party which is clamoring for an unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. So far from it, we claim to be the truest friends of the slave. We believe that, as well for nations and in respect to public affairs, as for individuals, “Honesty is the best policy;” and that kindness to the colored race, no less than patriotism, demands a faithful adherence on the part of all concerned to the stipulations of the Constitution. By that instrument the exclusive jurisdiction of slavery is reserved to the several States. We have no more right to dictate to South Carolina what she shall do with her slaves than she has to prescribe to Pennsylvania what railroads we shall construct or what banks we shall charter. Nor does the responsibility of her system of servitude any more attach to us than does the responsibility of the serfdom of Russia. The Northern abolitionists (I use the term in its technical sense), impressed, it would seem, with a conviction that their proper responsibilities, sectional and national, secular and spiritual, are not commensurate with their capacities, have volunteered to shoulder by much the heaviest portion of the obligations resting upon the Southern States. The South declines the proffered civility; but they press their attentions. The South remonstrates, on the ground that the contemplated interference would be highly prejudicial to her tranquility; but her officious friends insist upon it as their right to help her manage her private affairs. The South at length puts herself in an attitude of resistance, and points to the solemn compact in the Constitution; but they reply, with an air of triumph, that they are governed by a “higher law,” and that under that law, it is not only their right but their duty to take charge of her slaves. And what have they accomplished by this Quixotic generosity? They have riveted the fetters of the slave. They have deterred at least three States, Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky, from carrying out the plans of prospective emancipation they were just entering upon when this outbreak of misguided philanthropy occurred at the North. They have scattered the seeds of discord and alienation broad-cast through the Confederacy. In a word, protesting that they were the exclusive friends of the slave, they have taken him to their breasts with a hug which reminds one of the embrace of that terrific automaton of the Virgin found in the dungeons of the “Holy Inquisition,” which, clasping the victim in its arms and pressing him to its bosom, transfixed him with a thousand concealed spikes and knife-blades. And their fitting auxiliaries in all this crusade against the South have been British emissaries; the subjects of that crown which, in the face of the remonstrances of some of the colonies, planted slavery in our soil and fostered it into manhood, and which at this moment has millions of subjects at home and in its colonies who would be the gainers in physical comfort, and even in spiritual privilege, by exchanging places with our Southern slaves.

The failure of all past efforts at the North to ameliorate the condition of the slave is not more palpable than is the certainty that the grand expedient now contemplated would prove equally abortive. For, suppose radicalism could achieve its purpose and split the Union to pieces, how would this help the slave? Does any man, not a tenant of a Lunatic Asylum, believe that Disunion would mitigate the evils of Southern servitude? Would it bring about a relaxation of the laws which regulate it? Would it incline the planters to put books and pens into the hands of their slaves? Would it facilitate the flight of fugitives? Would it conciliate the various legislatures towards schemes of emancipation? No one is so infatuated as to affirm this. The most frantic abolitionists must be aware that the disruption of the Union would put a cup of gall and wormwood to the lips of every slave; that it would be a signal for the enactment of more stringent laws than have ever appeared upon the Southern Statute-books; and for the institution of a system of surveillance on every plantation and in every household, the rigor of which has no parallel in the records of American bondage. In the name, then, of three million slaves, we protest against all schemes for dissolving the Union. We believe that, terrible as such a catastrophe would be to the whites, it would be no less so to the blacks; that it would abridge their privileges, augment their burdens, and postpone by many years the period of their ultimate emancipation. And we should be criminally indifferent to their welfare, as well as treacherous to those sacred bonds which have hitherto united the North and the South in an honorable and affectionate brotherhood, if we could remain silent when sincere but mistaken religionists and unprincipled demagogues have well nigh precipitated the country into this frightful abyss. And we are all the more disposed to break silence because we believe that, of the two classes of agitators just named, the latter has a great deal more to do with the present excitement than the former. There is, it is true, a settled conviction in the minds of the Northern people that slavery is a great evil, and there is an anxious desire to see the country rid of it. But, left to itself, this feeling is as still as it is strong and deep; and it never could have been lashed into the foaming surges which now break over the land but through the systematic, crafty and wicked exertions of political demagogues. There were men in the ancient republics whose motto was,

“Better to reign in hell than serve in Heaven;”

and they cared not what became of their country, so they were promoted. Monsters, it has been said, cannot perpetuate their species; but this species, if not perpetuated, has been reproduced, for we indubitably have them among ourselves. Like Erostratus, who, when put to the torture, confessed that his motive in setting fire to the magnificent temple of Diana at Ephesus was to gain himself a name among posterity, these men appear to be intent upon attracting to themselves the attention of the world, even though it can be done only by applying the torch of civil war to this glorious Union. Let us hope that a merciful Providence will baffle their designs; that the upright and law-abiding people whom they have, for the time, bewitched with their enchantments, will detect the real character of their leaders; and that these local ebullitions of fanaticism will soon give place to those patriotic and conciliatory sentiments which have in every previous crisis of our history proved equally efficacious against domestic faction and foreign aggression.

It would be well for all classes of our citizens, at this critical juncture, to look Disunion fairly in the face. Its unavoidable effects upon the colored population constitute but a tithe of the evils which would flow from it. Not to exhaust your patience by going into the question at large, let it suffice to say that Disunion not only involves a fratricidal war, but that it would undoubtedly lead to a continued series of contentions and disruptions among the States. It seems to be taken for granted that, if we divide, we divide into two confederations. But why stop at two? It would be quite as natural certainly to form four confederations as two. And how long should we pause at four? A sense of common danger might hold the new combinations together for a season; but this would give place, after a while, to local and more potent influences. The strength of the Union lies not in its physical, but its moral power. Its real buttresses are not its army and navy, its mines and factories, it canals and railroads—not even its written constitutions and charters, its laws and tribunals; but its sacred traditions, the inwrought and, until lately, universal conviction of its unparalleled benefits, and that sense of its sanctity which has made the nation regard it with a reverential awe akin to that with which the Hebrews looked upon the ark of the covenant. The feeling has been that the Union was another ark of the covenant to us—that it was the repository of our most precious national mementoes, the symbol of the Divine presence with us, and the pledge of his future protection. This feeling is not to be ascribed to any specific training. It is no set lesson we have learned at school, or which has been drilled into us like a code of morals or a code of manners at home. We have inherited it from the mothers who bore us; we have inhaled it in the air of heaven; it has gathered nourishment from the scenes of our firesides, from our daily employments, from our journeys, from our sanctuaries, from our national anniversaries, from all our experiences and all our associations. It has grown with our growth and strengthened with our strength, and imperceptibly become a part of our being. And this it is which, under God, has made the Union so strong; it is because its roots are struck down into our hearts, and so interlaced with the very framework of our moral being, that they seem to belong to our personal identity.

Now dissolve the Union, and not only do we cease to be what we have been, as individuals, but the power of the Union over us is gone, and gone forever. You annihilate by one stroke that feeling of its sanctity which has done more to preserve it than all other causes combined. And it matters not whether you merely cleave it in halves or divide it down into quarters or eighths. One pebble will spoil a mirror as well as a handful. The people will have learned, from a single rupture, that the Union is frangible—a most fatal discovery. For when they, have broken it once, they will not scruple, if occasion serves, to break it, or rather to break its fragments again; for it will have ceased to be the Union. We shall no longer have a national existence. The great events of our history—the illustrious names which adorn our annals—the heritage of renown committed to us—can no longer be appealed to as incentives to virtuous conduct, or as rallying-cries in seasons of peril. What orator will dare allude to Bunker Hill or Yorktown, to Champlain or Erie? What senator will dare invoke the name of Washington—or to speak of Henry and Marshall, of Greene and Morgan, of Jackson and Harrison, of Hull and Bainbridge? These illustrious men toiled and bled for the UNION; and when we shall have destroyed the work of their hands, and resolved the almost perfect government they established or defended at so great a cost into a group of petty jarring confederacies, shame will conspire with ingratitude in consigning their names, their honors, and their sufferings, to a speedy and an eternal oblivion. Nothing—if this calamity awaits us—nothing presents itself to our expectations but a future as humiliating and disastrous as our past has been bright and ennobling. Instead of that beneficent mission which we have been wont to suppose had been confided to us, of leading the nations on to freedom and happiness, we may look forward to protracted scenes of anarchy and bloodshed, which will sicken and discourage the patriots of other lands, and supply the partisans of arbitrary power with a triumphant proof that nations require a master.

We are not at liberty to disregard this consideration. Even if we were so lost to virtue and patriotism as to be reckless of the fate of our own countrymen, we could not elude the responsibilities which rest upon us in reference to the world at large. This Union cannot expire as the snow melts from the rock, or a star disappears from the firmament. When it falls, the crash will be heard in all lands. Wherever the winds of Heaven go, that will go, bearing sorrow and dismay to millions of stricken hearts. Not the dismay and sorrow incident to the blighting of their own prospects and the breaking up of their household plans’ but the deep and inconsolable grief occasioned by a calamity so startling and so disastrous in its bearings upon the happiness of mankind as to leave the mind no opportunity for expatiating on its own private misfortunes. For the subversion of this Government will render the cause of CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY hopeless throughout the world. What nation can govern itself, if this nation cannot? What encouragement will any people have to establish liberal institutions for themselves, if ours fail? Providence has laid upon us the responsibility and the honor of solving that problem in which all coming generations of men have a profound interest, whether the true ends of government can be secured by a popular representative system. In the munificence of his goodness, he put us in possession of our heritage by a series of interpositions scarcely less signal than those which conducted the Hebrews to Canaan; and He has up to this period withheld from us no immunities or resources which might facilitate an auspicious result. Never before was a people so advantageously situated for working out this great problem in favor of human liberty. And it is important for us to understand that the world so regards it. The argument with which Napoleon inflamed the ardor of his troops on the eve of the great battle of the Pyramids was in these pregnant words, “Soldiers! consider that from the summits of yonder Pyramids forty centuries look down upon you.” Whatever the rhetoricians may say of this speech, they must at least admit that the principle to which it appeals constitutes one of the most powerful springs of human action, and that no man is at liberty to disregard its promptings. We, certainly, are bound to remember that the nations are looking to us, not for themselves only, but for the “centuries” which are to follow, to learn whether “order and law, religion and morality, the rights of conscience, the rights of persons, and the rights of property, may all be preserved and secured in the most perfect manner by a government entirely and purely elective.” And if, in the frenzy of our base sectional jealousies, we dig the grave of the Union, and thus decide this question in the negative, no tongue may attempt to depict the disappointment and despair which will go along with the announcement as it spreads through distant lands. It will be at once the most unlooked-for and the most irrefragable testimony ever given to the odious theory, that princes were made to govern, and nations only to obey. It will be America, after fifty years’ experience, in the course of which period she had done more to inspire the nations with a desire for liberal institutions than all other popular Governments combined had effected in the lapse of ages, giving in her adhesion to the doctrine that man was not made for self-government. It will be Freedom herself proclaiming that Freedom is a chimera; Liberty ringing her own knell all over the globe. And when the citizens or subjects of the Governments which are to succeed this Union shall visit Europe, and see in some land, now struggling to cast off its fetters, the lacerated and lifeless form of Liberty laid prostrate under the iron heel of despotism, let them remember that the blow which destroyed her was inflicted by their own country.

“So the struck Eagle, stretched upon the plain,
No more through rolling clouds to soar again,
Viewed his own feather on the fatal dart,
And winged the shaft that quivered in his heart.
Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel
He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel;
While the same plumage that had warmed his nest
Drank the last life-drop of his bleeding breast.”
Nor is this the only aspect in which the issues of Disunion present themselves to our contemplation. We are forced to consider them as well in respect to our spiritual our civil and social interests. For the most remarkable characteristic of this whole movement is that the sacred name of RELIGION should be invoked to give a sanction to measures adapted to destroy this government; the Union is to be broken up for the sake of religion! The lofty morality of the Scriptures will not permit us to live together under a constitution which authorizes the Fugitive Slave Law; and we must separate.

“I thought where all thy circling wiles would end;
In feign’d religion, smooth hypocrisy!”
It needed but this ingredient to consummate the superlative madness and impiety of this scheme. For, if there is any one great national interest upon which the disruption of these States would fall with a crushing weight, it is our CHRISTIANITY—that interest which as much surpasses all others in importance as it will in duration.

There is no land where Christianity has achieved nobler victories than it has here. Enjoying at once plenary protection from the State and the utmost freedom, it has developed itself with a purity and an energy rarely witnessed in the Old World. It was a sublime undertaking, that of supplying, without the aid of endowments or government patronage, churches and spiritual teachers for a youthful and growing nation like this, diffused over so great an expanse of territory. And the predictions of failure were equally sanguine and universal among the adherents of the ecclesiastical establishments of Europe. But these predictions have not been verified. We may venture to assert, without violating the modesty proper to the occasion, that Christianity has accomplished far more than its friends could have anticipated; that the efficiency of the voluntary principle, as displayed here, has excited the astonishment of its bitterest opponents; and that we have done more y our example to refute the vicious theories of foreign statesmen and ecclesiastics, and to promote the progress of religious liberty on that side of the water, than could have been done by whole libraries of polemical divinity. The time forbids me to go into detail. But no candid observer can survey our country, in its moral and religious features, without being impressed with the grandeur of the results already achieved here. Not to speak of the churches with which the land is dotted over; the large body of educated and evangelical clergymen who occupy our pulpits and conduct most of the higher literary institutions; the liberal sums spontaneously contributed for the support and propagation of the Gospel; and the promptitude with which further subsidies and new laborers are supplied as fresh fields demand cultivation; look at the benign and powerful influence religion has exerted upon the population at large. There was a work to be done here so indispensable that the government could not get on tranquilly without it, but which the government could not do. Religion has done it. It has been the chief agent in establishing our systems of education. It has been the main-spring of most of the humane institutions designed to alleviate the wants and improve the condition of the people. It has gone down among the masses, and not only fed them and clothed them, but renovated their principles, restrained their passions, taught them their duties, and made them value their privileges. It has received in the arms of its comprehensive charity the myriads who land upon our wharves; and done more by its wondrous alchemy, than all other agencies combined, to transmute them into good citizens, and to homologate all creeds and parties and tongues in a harmonious brotherhood. It has redoubled its exertions to keep pace with the tide of emigration as it has rolled over the prairies, pierced the primeval forests of the West, and poured itself down the slopes of the Rocky Mountains upon the fertile plains of Oregon and into the auriferous valleys of California. And, not satisfied with domestic conquests, though stretching from ocean to ocean, it has sent forth its peaceful cohorts to distant shores; and from Asia, from Africa, from the Isles of the Sea, ten thousand voices come back to proclaim their bloodless victories, and to assure us that the wilderness and the solitary place have been made glad for them, and the desert rejoices and blossoms as the rose.

Now let the Union be dissolved, and how certainly will this vision pass away. For it is not possible that this event should occur without involving religion in the general catastrophe. It is a common maxim that, in times of public distress or alarm, credit is the first thing to suffer. It is no less true that RELIGION sympathizes at such crises, not only with credit, but with every other element of prosperity. Christianity is not a thing by itself—a mere matter of Bible-reading and Church-going, of Sundays and Sacraments. It is interfused, as we have just seen, through all our relations, comprehends all our employments, and exerts its prerogative over the whole field of human duty. The moment you touch the commerce or the husbandry of a country, you touch its Christianity. If you paralyze any branch of industry, weaken the popular confidence in the government, excite an expectation of war, or do anything else to agitate the public mind, religion feels the effect of it. It requires no prophet, therefore, to foresee that, in the event of a disruption, the churches would share in the common fortunes of the country. Amidst despondency and terror, dissensions and war, their strength would dwindle and their zeal decline. With diminished resources, the money now appropriated to the maintenance and diffusion of the Gospel would be wanted to pay troops and purchase munitions of war; or, should an appeal to arms be averted, to meet the enormous taxes for civil and military purposes incident to the new order of things, and the critical relations among the several States and Federations. It is no extravagant supposition that, if the process of dissolution once begins, it will not finally stop until the Republic is chopped up into six or eight distinct Leagues, each one of which must have its own general government, with the usual symbols and implements of nationality, such as Legislative and Judicial tribunals, ambassadors, a navy, and, what will then be unavoidable, a cordon of camps and fortresses and a considerable standing army. The very transit from our present condition to a state like this would be like the passage of a fleet through the Norwegian Maelstrom. It would extinguish hundreds of feeble churches and shatter the strongest ones. Instead of keeping pace with the spiritual wants of our nomadic population, which they are barely able to do when blessed with a redundant prosperity, the various denominations would find it difficult to sustain themselves at home. Foreign Missionaries would be recalled, and fields restored to paganism which have been won from it at a great outlay of money and life, and which are now “white to the harvest.” The circumstances of the country would be as unpropitious to the culture of sound morals as they are now favorable. Infidelity and atheism would run riot through the land, violence and crime would super-abound, and we should deteriorate in all those high oral qualities which have hitherto attested the efficacy of our Christianity and secured for us the respect of the civilized world.

And all this avalanche of evil is to be brought down upon us for the sake of RELIGION! We are to exchange our present condition for alienation, insecurity, commercial prostration, the decay of our churches, and the bankruptcy of our great charities—for the sake of religion! We are to make the Bible a nullity, and the Sabbath a day of amusement, re-open all the sluices of immorality, and deluge the land with licentiousness and profanity—for the sake of religion! We are to disband our schools and churches among the heathen, and send back the multitudes, now under Christian instruction, to worship in idol temples and sacrifice their children to devils, for the sake of religion!

We protest against this huge impiety. If fanatics and demagogues are resolved to destroy this Union, let them not pretend to sanctify the parricidal crime by perpetrating it in the name of religion. Enough that Buddhism should crush its deluded devotees under the car of Juggernaut, in the name of religion; that Mohammed should fertilize kingdoms with human blood, in the name of religion; that a spurious Christianity should keep its arsenals of chains and fagots and slaughter whole tribes of unoffending peasants, in the name of religion. Let not Satan come hither also in robes of an angel of light. Let not the august name of religion be invoked to hallow an enormity which would not only shroud this land in mourning, but inflict upon religion itself the most irreparable injury. Every consideration of virtue not only, but of decency, forbids that Christianity should be called upon to preside at an auto-da-fe of which it is itself to be the holocaust; to consecrate an action which would for the time arrest its own beneficent triumphs, clothe atheistic impiety with superhuman power, and send a thrill of sardonic joy through those infernal legions who exult only in the calamities of virtue and the victories of sin.

Not to pursue this painful theme, it must be too apparent to require argument that the dismemberment of this Union would be one of the most appalling calamities which could befall the world. “Other misfortunes (I use the words of the great statesman of Massachusetts) may be borne or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still under a new cultivation they will grow green again and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of the Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished Government? Who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns of Constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skilful architecture which unites national sovereignty with State-rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No, if these columns fall, they will not be raised again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than were ever shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw—the edifice of Constitutional American Liberty.” 9 But why should they fall? What is it which now threatens to overwhelm this Government in irretrievable ruin? Has it become so enervated by luxury as to sink into a state of inanition? Are we falling to pieces through the extraordinary and intractable expansion of our territory? Is there a victorious army at our gates? Are we ground down with oppressive laws for which there is no remedy but in a dissolution? No: none of these. But Congress, in the exercise of a power never before called in question, has admitted a State into the Union which refused to tolerate involuntary servitude; and in obedience to an imperative requisition of the Constitution, has passed a law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves! These are the grounds on which it is proposed to destroy this Government. For these reasons we are called upon, in the midst of peace, plenty, and prosperity, to exchange the best Government the world has ever seen—the most affluent blessings, the most glorious reminiscences, and the most brilliant prospects a nation ever enjoyed—for dismemberment, anarchy, and carnage. Surely, if the establishment of this Union by the voluntary consent of the people was, as Mr. Hamilton declared, a “prodigy,” its voluntary destruction by that same people or their degenerate descendants, for causes like these and after sixty years experience of its benefits, would be a far greater prodigy. The turpitude of such a crime has nothing in history to illustrate it. Language was not made to define it. The generation which perpetrates it will cover themselves with an infamy as deep as the abyss into which they will have plunged their country. And the patriots of all coming generations will execrate the memories of the men who betrayed the priceless heritage of Constitutional Liberty which was purchased with the blood of their fathers and placed in their hands as trustees for all mankind.

Let it be our aim to do what we can to avert so fearful a catastrophe. Let us cultivate a spirit of conciliation towards all portions of the Confederacy. Let us sustain the majesty of the law. Let us invoke the blessing of heaven upon our rulers. Let us, above all, be instant and earnest in commending our beloved country to the care of that benignant Providence who has brought us through so many dangers and crowned us with such unexampled prosperity.

 

END.


Endnotes

1. Mr. Hamilton.

2. Mr. Madison.

3. See these points argued in the Federalist.

4. Mr. Edward Everett.

5. I am indebted to Mr. Everett for this beautiful quotation.

6. General James Hamilton’s Letter to the People of South Carolina.

7. It must be recorded, to the lasting honor of Pennsylvania, that she was the first of the thirteen States to abolish Slavery. This was done under the administration of President Reed, in 1780. And it is a circumstance worthy of note, that the act embraces a provision for the extradition of fugitive slaves. The following is an extract from its Eleventh Section: “Provided always, and be it further enacted, that this act, or anything in it contained, shall not give any relief or shelter to any absconding or runaway negro, or mulatto slave or servant, who has absented himself, or shall absent himself, from his or her owner, master or mistress, residing in any other State or Country; but such owner, master, or mistress, shall have like right and aid to demand, claim, and take away his slave or servant, as he might have had in case this act had not been made.”

8. It is not necessary, for the purposes of the present argument, to state the limitations of this principle.

9. Mr. Webster’s Speech at the celebration of Washington’s Birthday, in Washington, 1832.

Sermon – Fugitive Slave Bill – 1850


Samuel Thayer Spear (1812-1891) graduated from the College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1833. He was pastor of the 2nd Presbyterian Church of Lansingburg, NY (1836-1843) and the South Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn, NY (1843-1871). The following sermon was preached on the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 by Spear.


sermon-fugitive-slave-bill-1850

THE

LAW-ABIDING CONSCIENCE.

AND THE

HIGHER LAW CONSCIENCE;

WITH

Remarks on the Fugitive Slave Question.

A SERMON,

PREACHED IN THE SOUTH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BROOKLYN,

DEC. 12, 1850,

BY REV. SAMUEL T. SPEAR.

 

THE LAW-ABIDING AND THE HIGHER LAW CONSCIENCE.
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. * * * Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.”—Rom. xiii, 1, 5.

“Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”—Acts v, 29.

Using these Scriptures as a basis, I design to examine a great moral question, that is now agitating and somewhat distracting the American people. My object is not denunciation, or to promote unhealthy excitement here or elsewhere. I believe in the supremacy of truth, and in the safety as well as wisdom of temperate and Christian discussion. If I did not, I should not enter upon the task now proposed. I ask no man to accept the views I shall offer, except as they conform to his sense of truth. They will represent my sense.

One of our Senators in Congress employed the phrase “Higher Law,” in such connections as to call forth much rebuke at the time, and expose him to the censure of a portion of his constituents. Let us hear the passage as it originally fell from his lips:

“The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to defense, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part—no inconsiderable part—of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure, in the highest attainable degree, their happiness.”

This is the passage; and I confess that I see in it no heresy, political or moral, no repudiation of man or God. The honorable Senator affirms a coincidence, and not a discrepancy, between the Constitution and the Higher Law; and surely no man in his senses ought to complain of such an opinion.

Innocent and harmless as is this passage, still, in connection with other causes, it has had the effect of setting before the American people a great politico-moral question, in respect to which I deem it a duty to express an opinion. I am a lover of my country, without being an approver of its wrongs. I believe it, on the whole, the best country on the earth, made such mainly by its civil and religious institutions. Nothing which concerns its welfare is indifferent to my heart. Hence, I ask the privilege of speaking with freedom and honesty; the one, a chartered right, and the other, a solemn duty. To me it seems proper that the pulpit should be heard. The crisis demands it.

No one who has listened attentively to the conversation of others, or watched the public press for some months past, can fail to have perceived the existence of at least two classes of consciences: the one, a LAW-ABIDING conscience—the other, a HIGHER LAW conscience; in some hands, each repudiating and violently denouncing the other. I respect both, without relishing the extravagance, and much less the passions of either. I belong to both parties, with such qualifications of my adherence as will be unfolded in this Sermon. In each I see some truth—not the whole in either. The truth I see, I hold, and mean on this occasion to assert, as plainly and as kindly as I may be able. I do this as a matter of duty to you, being related to you as a pastor. I do it as an humble tribute of honest service to my country. Let me invoke your attention and candor.

Our present work will be to set before you the two consciences—the law abiding and the higher law conscience; each qualifying the other, and both moving in their proper sphere. In this it will be my earnest desire to guard your minds and hearts, and not less my own, against two fanaticisms: one, the fanaticism that repudiates civil government; the other, the fanaticism that virtually repudiates God, and the eternal distinction between right and wrong. I wish to get at the simple truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. How far I succeed in this, will be for you to judge, after hearing me.

First, the LAW-ABIDING CONSCIENCE.

Civil law undertakes to prescribe and enforce some of the social duties of men. This is made necessary mainly by our depravity. Law is the creature of some organized government, addressing its commands to the subject, and threatening its penalty in case of disobedience. It is not mere advice; it is clothed with authority, and is properly accompanied with the right of self-vindication in coercion and punishment. The supremacy of law consists in its maintenance—in the due and faithful administration of its principles by its authorized agents, and in its power to control and govern the practice of the subject. This supremacy is the grand doctrine asserted by the law-abiding conscience. This conscience affirms the sanctity and authority of law, and by consequence, the obligation of obedience. It sets forth a moral rule, namely, that obedience to civil law is a religious duty. It spends its whole strength in affirming this duty. Let the simple question be, shall a law enacted by the existing civil authority, or in process of execution, be respected and observed, treated as a law by all parties whom it involves? I say, let this be the question; and a law-abiding conscience always answers in the affirmative.

Such is the general doctrine of this conscience; and as a single particular to be placed in the great temple of truth, it is unquestionably correct. Perhaps I need not argue so plain a point. Lest, however, I might seem to undervalue it in another stage of this discussion, I will pause a moment on the question of its truth.

It is manifestly a Scripture doctrine. This you see in one portion of our text. The “higher powers” spoken of by Paul, were the civil authorities of the Roman empire. He declares civil government to be of Divine appointment, for the proper regulation of human conduct, for the protection of society by the punishment of crime. He exhorts Christians to be subject to the “higher powers,” not only on account of the penalty, but also as a matter of duty. It was not his purpose to assert the Divine right of Kings, but of civil government, as such, and the duty of the subject. There was special pertinence as well as wisdom in this instruction. The “higher powers” referred to were Heathen powers; and there was no little danger that the disciples of Christ, mistaking the proper sphere of their Christian liberty, might come in conflict with them—might take up the idea that, being Christians, they owed no allegiance to a Heathen magistracy. Paul, as a judicious counselor and faithful apostle, endeavors to guard them against so fatal a mistake. Peter took the same course. “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the King, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.” The doctrine of sedition, treason, rebellion, and tumultuous resistance, in civil society, is not inculcated in the teaching or the example of the apostles, or in those of Christ himself. This is a perfectly clear point. Hence, we say, the Scriptures give their sanction to the great principle affirmed by the law-abiding conscience.

Common sense and good citizenship must take the same ground-Society in the country or the town, and especially the latter, cannot exist a moment, with any safety, if this principle is practically discarded. Destroy the restraints and retributions of civil government, and leave every man to do as he pleases, and you have so much liberty that you have none at all;–you are out at sea in a tremendous gale, without a rudder or chart. No man would stay in such a community any longer than it would take him to get out of it. Men cannot live together without the agency of government. Nothing is worse than pure anarchy. It is the most cruel and dangerous of all tyrants. Governments, as the agent in creating and executing law, must have somewhere a sustaining power, else it is no government: it can do nothing, discharge none of the duties of government—neither protect the innocent nor punish the guilty. This sustaining power lies in the strong arms, the bones and muscles of men, whose services may be legally brought into action, to enforce the civil mandate. Without this, government rests on nothing—has no practicable character—is a mere idea. If every law it enacts is to be resisted and put down by popular violence—if every effort to execute the law is to be treated in the same way—if this is the state of things in the community, then there is no government of law in that community; society is in the state of chaos. Hence, if men wish to live under law, they must support the supremacy of law. This doctrine must have some practical and efficient shape, or they cannot live together as a civil community. Somebody must have a law-abiding conscience, or government has no sustaining power. Whatever may be the inconveniences of this doctrine, at times, or even its incidental injustice, still the consequences of its practical repudiation would be far more serious. It is a wholesome principle, pre-eminently useful, blessing a vast many more than it harms, averting incalculable evils. I am conscientiously its advocate. It commends itself to my common sense, as I have no doubt it does to that of the hearer.

This doctrine ought to be peculiarly welcome and sacred to the American bosom. Our Government, both State and Federal, is based on the representative principle. We have no law-makers or law-agents, that are born such. We make them after they are born, not as kings, but men. The powers they possess the people bestow in a legal way; and if they do not faithfully perform their duty so as correctly to represent the public will, there is always at hand a peaceful and law-abiding remedy. We can discuss and even denounce a law in this country. It is not treason to call in question its equity. We can peaceably meet in large or small assemblies, and by resolutions express an opinion. We can petition Government for a redress of grievances. Through the ballot-box the people have a perfect control over the laws under which they live. No law can stand any length of time that is opposed to the public will. This fact seals its doom. Now, a people possessing such privileges clearly have no occasion for attacking legal injustice, except in the legal way—no occasion for anything like popular violence. They can correct the abuses of Government without a mob. Politicians and office-seekers are very fond of being where the people are; they generally true to think with the majority. Hence, it is far better to wait till the public mind can be enlightened, than to attempt the cure of an evil by producing a greater one. Cry out against it as long and as loud as you please; write against it; speak against it; pray against it; vote against it; but be sure to stop here; never lend your sanction to tumultuous or illegal resistance. This must be the doctrine of the American citizen; since our civil institutions are not only wholly drawn from the people, but have no sustaining power except in their law-abiding spirit. I can think of no occasion likely to occur, in which I would be the advocate of any other course. If by popular tumults you may repudiate law on one subject, you may on another. The principle is full of its dangers, especially so in a Republic. It unsettles the very foundation of civil society. It can have no place in the convictions or sympathies of the virtuous and enlightened citizen. This great community of freemen must go according to law, or they must go to ruin. I speak strongly on this point; for I have always felt strongly; and I do not feel less so now. The civil authorities must put down mobs, immaterial what the issue be; and the people must sustain them.

So much I offer for your consideration in favor of the law-abiding conscience. The grand principle it affirms, I hold to be a sacred truth.

The charm of this idea, however, does not lie in its application to an unjust and cruel law, but in the fact that it is vital to the stability and safety of civil society. Here is its excellence—here the reasons which commend it to the good sense and patriotic feelings of men. The man who silences his moral sense in respect to injustice and wrong by pleading the supremacy of law, who not only abstains from all illegal resistance, but also declines the use of lawful measures to correct unjust enactments, whose whole conscience is summed up in the single sentence, “I believe in the supremacy of the laws,” with whom this is the while idea, who refuses to apply his conscience to the moral nature of the law, and his energies, if need be, to a constitutional remedy; that man, in my judgment, does no justice to himself or his legal privileges, and perhaps not to his moral duties. He shuts up his eyes as a moral being, and parrot-like shouts the supremacy of the law, and shouts nothing else. He misapplies the doctrine, forgetting his duties. His example need only be imitated to make a bad law a permanent fixture. Between him and me there is no debate as to the supremacy of law while it exists; but neither of us should cancel our obligation to seek the correction of legal injustice by a mere glorification on the ground of our common faith. He says to me, “I am a law-abiding man.” Very well; I am glad he is; so am I. I am also a law-correcting man by such measures as are lawful. I do not go for the perpetuity of unjust laws any longer than is necessary to procure their modification or repeal. My duty to seek this is perfectly consistent with all due respect for law while it exists.

There is another perversion of this doctrine, against which the citizen ought carefully to guard his mind. He should never associate with it the practical assumption that law is beyond the reach of moral inquiry, that law is the end of the chapter, as infallible as it is authoritative. This is a very dangerous, and it may be a very immoral course. Law proceeds from imperfect, and sometimes very wicked men. It has often legalized the greatest wrongs, legislated the grossest crime into civil virtue, and the purest virtue into crime. Hence it will not do in maintaining its supremacy, also to maintain its moral infallibility. The latter doctrine is properly no part of the former, and in the bosom of the citizen should be kept distinct from it. The king can do no wrong—can require no wrong; law is always right in morals. What is this? Political popery—the doctrine of despotism, unworthy of a home in the breast of a freeman. In the American theory of civil society, law claims no such attribute. It confesses its own fallibility in the provision for amendment or repeal. Hence the question whether it is right or wrong, whether it ought to be continued or not, is not to be ignored or repudiated by declaring its supremacy. I hold to the supremacy of no human laws in the sense of their infallibility. They may contradict God’s law; they may violate the plainest dictates of natural justice; and whether they do or not, it is my privilege and duty, and equally yours, to have an opinion. If I think they do, the voice of my reason and conscience is not answered by my faith in the supremacy of law. I then believe that the laws are bad, in themselves morally vicious, though not less really laws, and that all proper means should be used for their speedy amendment. We must hold on to this doctrine, else our law-makers will become Popes, and the people lose all the rights of private conscience. If there is danger in taking too much from Government, there is also danger in conceding too much to it. One thing I never can concede; I never can say that a Government is doing right, when I think it is doing wrong.

There is another circumstance that ought always to be taken into account, when we speak of the supremacy of law, especially in a Republic. Law upon its merits, and not simply its authority, ought to be addressed to the good sense and moral feelings of the community where it is to be executed. It has no power to change the convictions of men in respect to the subjects to which it refers. It cannot make a freeman think that black is white, or white is black. I cannot subvert the Christian ethics of a community, even by its supremacy. Hence, it must not assume that the subject is a brute, and that he will blindly swallow anything and call it sweet that comes to him with a legislative endorsement. Law, in a free country, has no such charm. You must go to the scenes of despotism and popular ignorance, in order to realize this result. In this land a law against the sense of the people, be that sense a prejudice or a just sense, is always the lawgiver’s folly. It comes into existence with the sentence of death upon it; and though it is a law, still on its merits it is not welcome to the subject, and must ultimately be repealed or modified. This is the fate of all laws that upon their trial are found to misrepresent the public will. They are born to die. They must run a short race. Their supremacy cannot save them from the ordeal and the doom of the press and the ballot-box. It is well that it is so; for in this way we rectify legal mistakes in the peaceful and orderly method, without insurrections or mobs.

Secondly, the HIGHER LAW CONSCIENCE.

The cardinal propositions affirmed by this conscience, are these:–First, that there is a God: Secondly, that this God is the moral governor of the universe: Thirdly, that every rational creature is directly a subject of his government: Fourthly, that God’s will, when ascertained, is in all possible circumstances the supreme rule of duty: and, finally, that every moral creature is by himself and for himself bound to know the Divine will, and, when knowing it, never to deviate from it. These are the great doctrines of this conscience. To the vision of piety their statement is their proof. Deny them, and you overturn or make morally impractible the government of God; you release man from his allegiance to his Maker, and upset all religious systems, that of the Bible not excepted. They are not to be denied, but admitted, be the consequences what they may. They are true, or nothing is true. If they are not true, duty is a fiction—moral conscientiousness, a whim—responsibility to our Maker, a delusion; and even God himself is nothing in respect to the duties of men. I hold these truths; hence I hold the elements of the Higher Law Conscience. I confess myself to be the subject of such a conscience.

In order to advance to a just application of these principles, we must pause a moment on a question of fact. God does not administer his moral government over men simply and wholly through the agency of civil government. If he did, the sum of all his commands would be obedience to “the powers that be;” they would be taken as the authoritative exponents of all the statutes of the Eternal Throne; and the subject would be referred to them in all cases, to know the will of God. Were this the fact, there could be no conflict between Divine and human authority; the former would always be identified with the latter; God’s WHOLE will being always found in man’s law. This is not the case. It is our duty to pray, to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. Indeed, a great many duties besides subjection to the civil magistracy, are taught by the light of nature, and equally in the Bible. Hence, there may be a conflict between the requirements of the civil authorities and those of God. He is not so identified with them, neither does he so guide their action, as to make the result impossible. The event has often occurred; that is, man has commanded one thing, and God, the opposite, making obedience to both a natural impossibility. This fact is not to be put out of sight by the clamors of a mere law-mania. It is a fact. While it is true that there is no higher law than the law of God, which requires obedience to civil government, it is equally true that this is not the whole of God’s law. He has given other laws as well as this; and with these civil government may come in direct conflict. Does God require the subject to obey man, when the latter requires him to disobey God? This is a point not fairly and properly met by some, who have recently published their views on this subject. Bear these observations in mind. We shall have occasion for their use in another stage of this inquiry.

There are two distinct applications of the great principles set forth by the Higher Law Conscience, in regard to each of which I will express an opinion with its reasons.

1. The first refers to the powers that be, considered as the creators or executors of law. Are there any rules of morality for governments, for nations, as such; or do they create their own morality at option? Are law-agents responsible to God for what they do, and equally with the citizen subject bound by the principles of the Higher Law? We hold that they are. Our President, in his recent message, has uttered this sentiment. He says, “The great law of morality ought to have a national, as well as a personal and individual application.” Whatever has a moral nature as right or wrong, consonant or otherwise with the will of God, as disclosed in his Word or in the sacred rights of humanity, before legislation and compacts touch it, retains that nature. Morality is a fixture in God’s universe, neither made nor unmade by government, alike the legitimate sovereign of nations, kings and subjects. It is antecedent to all constitutions and laws—is the rule by which we try their equity. Were it otherwise, there could be no retribution for national crimes; government might become a conspiracy of unpunished assassins; and the agents of enormous wickedness might, by their official character, flee from the moral jurisdiction of the Divine law. God holds all men responsible to his rule of right, whether they are associated as a nation or exist in the state of nature, whether they are citizens and subjects, or are trusted with the duties and powers of the civil magistracy. They cannot innocently act in conflict with the Higher Law.

Assuming your assent to this view, let me remark that there are two practical questions which claim an answer.

Suppose that a people are adopting a Constitution for government, or that law-makers are giving birth to legal enactments, what in this stage of affairs is the relation of the Higher Law? Plainly, it requires them to establish justice, protect right, and provide for the punishment of wrong, to legislate not against God, but in coincidence with his authority. They ought to produce just and impartial laws. This is the mission and proper aim of civil government. It is not to be the instrument of despotism and oppression, but of justice and safety. The preamble of our national Constitution sets forth the true doctrine on this subject. “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is a sound creed.

Suppose, again, government to be established, and that the execution of its will has passed into the hands of the duly authorized agents of law, what are they to do? I answer; execute that will as it lies on the statute-book, or in the fundamental law of the land. Suppose, however, that the laws themselves, one or more, are so morally vicious, that the agents cannot execute them without sinning against the Higher Law; what then? I answer, this being their view, they must either execute the laws or resign their trust. They must either fulfill the oath of office, or vacate it. There is no other alternative. On any other principle, civil society would sink to ruin in the hands of its executive agents. A man who holds office contrary to his conscience, must not please conscience against its duties. Which shall they do? Shall they keep their oath and do wrong, or vacate the office and do right? I answer, without one moment’s hesitation—the latter. They are wanting in moral honesty unless they take this course. A military officer, for example, who is commanded to fight, but who believes fighting to be sinful, must either fight or send in his protest and resignation. The view he takes of war in general, or of a particular war, makes the latter his only possible course. He must not hold the fighting commission, and yet refuse to fight at the legal call of his country. Neither must he fight against the mandate of God. Hence he must resign.

These are my views in respect to the application of the Higher Law to the powers that be, whether you consider them as a nation establishing the principles and rules of government, or as the personal agents of that government. Both are amenable to the God of truth; and the Higher Law ought to be the ultimate standard of both. Neither has a right by any legal process to trespass upon the supreme rule of right. It will be sin in either.

2. Let us now, secondly, look at the application of the Higher Law to the citizen-subject. Of course it presents no difficulties, where Divine and human laws are in harmony—where morality and legislation wear the same features. It is their conflict, and this only, that makes an occasion to test the authority of each. This conflict may come up in one or the other of the following practical shapes:

The first is where government, in the judgment of the people, has become so unjust and oppressive, as to be utterly destructive of its legitimate and proper ends. In such a crisis, the people have the inherent right of revolution, by which I mean the total subversion of the government that exists, and the erection of a new one. Tyranny and despotism have not an eternal license. The duty of obedience has a limit somewhere; when a suffering people may say to legal tyrants, “Be gone!—We can dispense with your services. We cannot tolerate you any longer.” The undertaking is always an awful one. It is open rebellion. It is to be the last resort of an oppressed people. It is never expedient except when there is a fair hope of success; yet, when the crisis comes for it, then the act is not treason, but a legitimate revolution. Government is not such an ordinance of God, that it may not write its own doom. The right, however, of actual revolution never belongs to a minority, but always to the majority. While the many say, let government stand as it is, the few must acquiesce, and bear its grievances. They have no other alternative.

This assertion of the revolutionary right will not, I trust, sound strangely in American ears. It is the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. This government is founded upon the inherent right of revolution. Great Britain drove our fathers to its exercise; and had she triumphed, would have hung them as traitors, though we believe they were patriots—lovers of their country and their kind. No American surely, will repudiate this fundamental right of the people. The rights of government are the gift of God to the PEOPLE, and by the people to the king. His powers exist by their consent, and terminate with their dissent. Who doubts whether the collected people of Europe have a right to dethrone every monarch, and sweep away the whole system of aristocracy, that of the Pope not excepted, and establish free government? Austria thought Hungary to be guilty of treason, and butchered her heroes to satiate her vengeance. We think her to have been glorious in her struggle—not less so in her fall. The name of Kossuth has a charm, as the embodiment of the revolutionary right. The Pope thought the Italians seditious. We honor them, and despise the infamous course of the French nation. Charles I. thought Cromwell and the Roundheads to be a pack of traitors. Posterity regards them as the apostles of civil liberty. Forget not, that nearly all the liberty of the world has been procured by the revolutionary right; its exercise being actually put forth, or so menaced as to make kings tremble. Generally, despotism cannot be reasoned into justice. For a rule, the people have been compelled to frighten it or destroy it.

Thus, on this point, my doctrine, in a word, is this:–In all those cases where revolution is really a necessary expedient, being the only resource of an outraged people, resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Here the Higher Law of right intervenes, and justly sweeps away the powers that be, in order to make better ones. I grant you that it is open rebellion against the existing government; and that it must be crushed, or government must be overturned by it. The ground on which I defend it, is this:–Passive subjection to legal tyranny has a limit; and at this limit “The Higher Powers” lose all their moral authority, giving place to those that shall be the product of a revolution. This doctrine I hold as a question of morality, and not merely of strength. Hence, I qualify the doctrine which asserts the supremacy of law, by the revolutionary right. I do not believe, that revolution upon a just and sufficient occasion is a crime. I hold it to be the virtue and right of the people. I must, however, add that the experiment is always a terrible one—the last resort; and that it should be well considered before undertaken. In a Republic such as ours, I do not see how such a crisis can ever arrive. It cannot, unless our civil officers should enter upon a career of despotism, of which there is not the faintest prospect. A people living under a government of chartered rights and limited powers, whose action they control, surely have no occasion to resort to the Higher Law of revolution.

The other form of conflict with government on the part of the citizen, is where not revolution, but obedience to God with non-resistance to man, is both his right and duty. Let me carefully state my ground on this point, and ask you to receive it as I state it.

Here are three parties. God is one; the subject is the second; and the civil authorities, the third. Between the first and the third there is a conflict, the last forbidding what the first requires, or requiring what the first forbids—man by law setting aside the imperative duties or prohibitions of God’s Word—man, for example, legally requiring me to abjure Christianity, or forbidding me to pray, or commanding me to worship an idol—man, in short, rendering illegal and criminal the duties that God imposes. This is the case supposed; and it is not merely a hypothetical case. It has often occurred, and it may again. Now what shall the subject do in the premises? I answer: first, he must be clear that the supposed case is a real one—a point in regard to which so far as he himself is concerned, he is the sole judge, and yet a point where he may not innocently be mistaken and act the part of a fool; and secondly, if in his view the conflict be real, then he must obey God rather than men, and as a martyr meekly suffer the consequences. I do not see how there can be any question as to the correctness of this answer. God’s law is certainly higher than man’s. The apostles acted upon this principle: Daniel did; so did the three men that were cast into the fiery furnace; and so have all the Christian martyrs, nearly everyone of them being slain not by mobs, but by legal enactment. They had not the seditious spirit; they were pious, willing to do right and suffer for it. The most eminent examples of Christian virtue have been produced on this theatre. Obedience to God even though it conflict with the laws of man, is as distinctly a doctrine of the Bible as any other found in that book. Some are disposed to overlook this point, to shove it out of sight. They seem to be afraid of it. I am not afraid of it; to me it is a part of the great system of truth. Every man believes it, whether he asserts it or not. I can suppose forty cases, in which every one of you would affirm its truth; and you will mark, if it is true anywhere, then the principle is yielded, and the only question that remains, is its application, in regard to which we might differ though perfectly agreeing as to the principle.

But I must not stop here, for I am anxious to give you an impartial view of the whole truth. What shall the civil authorities do, when the subject disobeys the law of the land on the ground of the Higher Law? I answer; inflict upon him its penalty. They have no other course. They can never assume what he alleges, that there is any conflict between the law of the land and the law of God. They can never make his conscience the rule of penal retribution at the hands of government. They must always assume that the law is right, and that he is wrong, and is therefore to be treated as a criminal. Without this moral consciousness in fact, government is a gross and detestable hypocrite. It can never surrender its ideas of what is right, and yet possess authority. This would be a confession of judgment against itself, and disarm it of all its power. It would leave every man to decide for himself not simply the question of his personal duty, but also in what cases law should punish him; that is, his conscience would be the law of the land, and the criminal would be his own judge. This would be giving him the rights of the subject, and at the same time the prerogatives of the sovereign. Now civil society can never concede this to the conscience of the private citizen. It would be tantamount to the destruction of all law. The subject violates the law for the sake of obeying God, knowing when he does so that government will deem him mistaken and punish him accordingly. He makes his choice between the precept and the penalty; and chooses the latter—that is, he chooses suffering in his view for righteousness sake. This is a fair transaction on the part of the subject towards the sovereign; and it may be a very virtuous one.

But which, it may be asked, is right? The subject says, “I am, I correctly expound the Higher Law.” The powers that be, say, “We are, we understand justice and right.” In respect to their action they are both right; each must follow their respective sense of duty. But which is right really—that is, has the right sense of duty? Who is to decide this question? This must be left to posterity and to God. Every professed martyr virtually appeals to posterity and to God, to review his case, and settle the question whether he was a martyr or a fool, a good man or a bad one. A great many who have died as criminals, are on the records of glorious fame. The judgment of posterity has reversed that of the age, in which they suffered. And then God has instituted a tribunal based wholly on the principles of the Higher Law, for the trial of all these affecting cases. At this tribunal God Himself will give a final and impartial decision, canvassing the responsibilities, beliefs and motives of both parties.

Thus, my brethren, without passion or prejudice, I have endeavored to give you my sober and earnest views in respect to the question, that was started in the outset. In this I have consulted the creed of no party, the preferences of no class of men, but the best light of my own reason, guided by the word of God. Both consciences, the law-abiding and the Higher Law conscience, have a place in a correct system of Christian Ethics. The first is supreme except where qualified by the second. To repudiate this, is treason to God for the sake of loyalty to man. I advocate both principles, assigning to each its proper sphere. I want to be a good citizen in the land that gave me birth, and whose laws are my protection. I want more to be a good citizen under the government of God. In respect to both I have a conscience. What that conscience is, has been explained.

Many of the views recently expressed on this general subject, have failed to satisfy my mind. They lack what Locke the philosopher, used to call “the round-about view.” Some of them are greatly wanting in prudence; others, exceedingly doubtful in morality; others, positively immoral. Some have so urged the Higher Law doctrine, as virtually to throw off all the obligations due to civil government, and advance very near if not quite, to open treason. They would almost dissolve civil society, or at least stop its operations, by the force of their own conscience. Others have rushed into the extreme, pressing the duty of obedience to the civil authorities as if it had no limit, except in the rare cases of revolution.” We confess no little surprise, that even ministers of Christ should preach this as the morality of the Bible. What will they do with the case of Daniel, of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, of Peter and John, of Paul himself, and the long line of Christian martyrs? Do they mean to repudiate the allegiance to God evinced by these men, though in conflict with the laws of man? This is really a new doctrine, and as dangerous as it is new. Let it be proved that human government is such an ordinance of God, that all its decrees are to be taken as the infallible expression of His will; and then, we shall have the “Divine right of kings. The citizen will then have little else to do but seek God’s whole will in the laws of the land. This is the very worst kind of Toryism—better suited to the dark ages than to the 19th Century. It makes civil government to be what God and truth never made it. And still others have failed to distinguish between the declinature to obey an immoral mandate of civil government, and a positive forcible resistance to the execution of its laws—things morally as wide apart as the poles. Men, even great men, when excited or unduly captivated with one idea, run into extremes. They shout a single thought, true in its proper sphere, in a way to make practically a false impression, and inculcate heresy. I have sought to shun all these extremes, and speak to you as nearly as possible, in the language of simple truth.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE QUESTION.
This question at the present time is exciting much interest in all parts of our country. As I doubt not, you have supposed that I would make some reference to it in this sermon. The capture of fugitive slaves on Northern ground, and their return to Southern bondage, present a very grave matter for a Christian. I have an opinion on this subject, not hastily adopted—one which I prefer to state, rather than leave it as a matter of inference. I know of no good reason why you should not know what that opinion is; and if you will hear me patiently for a few moments, you shall be thus informed.

My first opinion is, that it is best for all men to keep cool, to separate between their passions and their moral convictions. Men of equal respectability do not see alike. The Northern mind is confessedly in an unsettled state; and I can see nothing to be gained by a crusade of denunciation. Some, in their zeal to stop “agitation,” almost repudiate the right of free discussion, except for themselves. This is as bad in policy, as it is questionable in principle. In a free country it always costs more to gag a man than it does to hear him. Violent and passionate denunciation frightens nobody in this land. Hence, I think it best to keep cool. I mean for one to have my own opinions, and yet I mean to know what I say, and what I do. I think this becomes every man.

In the next place, there are some facts to be looked at as facts. It is a fact, that the Constitution of the United States is the fundamental civil law of this land. It is also a fact, that this Constitution does provide for the capture of fugitive slaves, and their return to Southern bondage. Let me give you the words:–“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” 1 The term slave is not used, but the thing was meant. The circumstances, too, in which the agreement was made, were not those of the present time; yet the agreement has not, by any legal process, been canceled. It still remains on the national charter—the contradiction of all its other principles. It is also a fact, that a very large number of slaves have fled from their masters, and taken refuge in the free States. Some of them have become members of Northern churches. Many of them have entered into the sacred relations of domestic life—have become fathers and mothers; and probably some of them are even citizens. Every one of them is legally liable to be captured and returned to slavery. They will be so, till they die, or the Constitution is altered, or they flee to another land. I pity them with all my heart. Their condition is a sad one. It is an awful spectacle in a free country.

These, my brethren, are facts. It does no good to deny them, or to reason as if they were not facts. What then shall be done in view of such facts? I can answer this question only for myself, as an individual.

If I were a Southern man, and a friend of the Union—as I am not the former, but am most cordially the latter—I should, with my present views, say some things to my fellow-citizens at the South. This would be the substance of my speech:–As a matter of prudence, patriotism, and wisdom, I would advise them not to insist on the constitutional right secured by this provision. The argument I would use in support of this advice, is various. I would tell South Carolina, that she has on her own statute-book, laws in respect to colored citizens of other States, that expressly nullify the national Constitution; and that the wise way for her would be to keep quiet. I would remind the entire South, that in three instances, namely, in the purchase of Louisiana, of Florida, and the annexation of Texas, the national government exceeded its constitutional powers for the benefit of slavery: that although the nation has acquiesced in these acts, still there is not one syllable to show their constitutionality. I would also exhort the South to remember, that when this provision was admitted, it was not understood to be permanent, slavery, then, being supposed to be on its death-bed. I would point them to the fact, that they have never been able to recover a sufficient number of these fugitives, and in the nature of things never will be, to make the experiment one of any great practical value to them. The slave, once at the North, has facilities for escape that not the most stringent laws can ever supersede. And finally, I would ask them to turn philosophers upon human nature, and as such to remember, that the capture of slaves on Northern ground, by any process, with law or without it, must necessarily be a sore and exciting offense to the mass of the people. It brings directly before their eyes one of the very worst scenes of slavery—a scene for which they are not prepared, and with which nothing can make them sympathize. Northern civilization has entirely outgrown the thing. There is a strong element of religious feeling adverse to it; and this feeling takes hold of the better classes—men who have stern convictions, and form no inconsiderable portion of the bone and sinew of the Northern mind.

Now, in view of all these circumstances, the dictate of prudence for the South is, not to excite either themselves or the North with the effort to capture slaves in the free States. This would be the greatest “peace measure” that can be adopted. The thing cannot be done without excitement on both sides; and all the “Union meetings” in creation will not be able to avert the result. The sympathies of nine men in ten at the North are, and must be, on the side of the fugitive slave. The fact is a credit to their humanity. It is not fanaticism and wildfire, but the natural and necessary effect of existing causes. Hence, I would say to the South:–If you wish quietude, let the runaway slave go; you will not catch one in a hundred by all the laws that can be put into action, and this will never pay for the evils produced. I would say this if I were a slaveholder, and at the same time a friend to the peace of the Union.

Suppose, however, the South do not choose to act upon this advice; suppose they insist upon the execution of the provision, as they have a constitutional right to do—what then? This is the pinching question. I will endeavor to meet it with candor. It has two sides, both of which deserve our attention.

On the side of the Southern claim is the argument drawn from the compact in the national charter; and as a constitutional question, it is a complete and perfect argument. Of this there can be no doubt. The States cannot constitutionally legislate against this provision; they cannot repudiate it without invading the terms of the national charter. I am not aware that any State has ever attempted this. No State has the power to do it, except in violation of the Federal Constitution. Those who have lectured the Northern conscience on this subject, use this argument, and this only. That it is a strong argument, no candid man will deny.

On the other side of the question, is the argument drawn from the Higher Law—a law much older than the Constitution. This argument contemplates the moral nature of the thing to be done, and affirms its essential iniquity. To my conscience, as an individual, this too is a complete and perfect argument. I am not able to view the act in any other light than as a gross moral wrong against the victim. I put the matter directly to the conscience of the hearer. If it is not morally wrong before God to capture a man who has committed no crime, and forcibly drag him back to a bondage he loathes, and has a right to loathe, and which he has done his best to shun—if this be not morally wrong, then what is there in the distinction between the right and wrong, then what is there in the distinction between the right and wrong, that is of any moment? Answer my question. What would you think of the act, if made its victim? Is it any better for another than it would be for you? Possibly, my judgment on this point is incorrect. Whether it is or not, depends on two questions; first, whether the slave is a MAN; and secondly, whether the principles on which this government is founded, are true—whether there is any truth, reality, or sacredness in the natural and inherent rights of man, as a moral and immortal being, made in the image of his God’ whether the Divine law of love and equal justice to our neighbor has any claim upon human regard. I have no secrets on this subject. I will not shout one thing in the public ear, and profess another privately. My view of man is such, that I could neither agree to do the thing, nor do it to fulfill the agreement of others. I would sooner die than be its agent. The Higher Law of Eternal Right would be in my way; and by its decision I must abide.

If, however, the civil community of which I am but a member, and in which I have the rights and responsibilities of but a single man, looking at this subject in all its relations, judge differently: if the good people of the State of New York, for example, have either less or a better conscience than I have; then, let them execute the provision in the most equitable legal way; and all I will do, is in these two sentences: As a moral being I will, whenever it is my duty so to do, put on record my expression of the wrong: As a good citizen I will submit. Here I stand in moral conviction; and here I must, or be a traitor to the God who made me. Those who urge the argument of the compact which we have honored in its place, and even some of God’s ministers who have spoken on this subject, are very careful to keep clear of the moral question. Forgetting this point, they make a very easy matter of it. Let them tell us distinctly, in plain Saxon English, what they believe in respect to the righteousness or unrighteousness of capturing men and sending them back to the bondage of Slavery. Let them not shun this question, but fairly meet it; and then both the South and the North will understand them. If the thing is morally right, then say so; if not, then say this. We concede that it is constitutional, while we believe it to be morally wrong.

Here it may be asked—Do you suppose the North wish to repudiate the Constitution as a whole, and dissolve the Union on account of this provision? This may be the feeling of some; but there is no evidence that it is so with the great mass of the people. It is not my feeling, when I look at all sides of this embarrassing and difficult question. I have no idea that now such a compact could be formed; but being formed, there is no evidence to show that the civil authorities, if called upon, would not execute it, and that, on the whole, the mass of the people would not sustain them. The ground would be solely the argument drawn from the compact, and not at all the merits of the thing to be done. While my moral convictions are and must be against it, still, I see no other course that is consistent with the terms of the Union, so long as the States remain together under the provisions of the national charter. The people feel the obligation of constitutional law; and so do I as much as they; yet, being a subject of God’s government as well as man’s, I feel the obligation of the Higher Law more. “Not that I loved Caesar less, but Rome more.” No compact, no law man ever made, shall restrain me from the declinature of what I believe to be a sin. The obligation of an oath even has its limitation; for no man is morally bound before God by his oath to the performance of a wicked and immoral act. Yet, he must not profess to keep it, and at the same time mean to repudiate it. This is insincere—a virtual perjury. So the Northern States must not profess a compliance with all the terms of the Constitution, unless they mean to be faithful to its injunctions. From this there is no escape, without destroying the legal sanctity of the instrument.

It may be asked—How will you reconcile these declarations of conscience with the legal duties of good citizenship under the Constitution of the United States? I answer: My citizenship in its relations to earth must never be so interpreted, as to annihilate all the rights and responsibilities of a personal conscience. My citizenship is no obligation to execute the will of this nation, or any part of it, unless I am its officer and chosen to remain such. The Quakers believe it to be wrong to fight. Hence, they refuse to bear arms; yet, they do not resist the civil authorities when collecting the militia fine. They suffer this penalty for conscience sake. Are they traitors? Are they bad citizens? Now in respect to the capture of the fugitive slaves, I stand on the Quaker principle. I will neither do it myself, nor say that I think it right when done by the civil authorities. But does not this imply some reflection upon the Constitution? It expresses myhonest conviction in respect to one of its features. I have never been taught to worship that instrument, or highly as I appreciate it, to assume its perfection as a standard in morals, especially in those clauses which refer to slavery. Let it not be forgotten, that this very Constitution contains the toleration of the foreign slave trade for twenty years—a trade now declared piracy punishable with death; that is, the people made a bargain to tolerate for twenty years what the nation now visits with its highest penalty. Was the thing any better for the bargain? Did it cease to be a crime for this reason? Forget not that morality and God are older and more infallible than the Constitution, and that a compromise with wrong for the sake of union does not convert it into right. Those who choose to give up their moral sense to the decisions of the Constitution, let them do so; I will not. I acknowledge no such citizenship under any government man ever made, as destroys the present obligation invariable and irrepealable of the Supreme Rule. What then will you do in respect to the wrongs of your country? Just what I am doing to-day: give you my opinions; state what I believe to be the truth; do my best to have those wrongs rectified. Anything else? Nothing else. Here I stop, where good citizenship and God equally bid me to pause. This is my creed as a Christian, being a citizen.

In respect to the recent Fugitive Slave Law, professedly built on this provision of the Constitution, I will say a word. The conflicting opinions in regard to it abundantly show, that it is not adapted to meet the public sentiment of the North. To me it seems questionable, whether Congress has any legislative power in the premises. The provision in the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves is not a grant of power to Congress, but the imposition of an obligation upon the States. Such is the published opinion of Daniel Webster. In his speech in the Senate, March 7th, 1850, he says: “I have always thought that the Constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the States themselves. It is said that a person escaping into another State, and becoming therefore, within the jurisdiction of that State, shall be delivered up. It seems to me that the plain import of the passage is, that the State itself, in obedience to the injunction of the Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. This is my judgment; I have always entertained it; and I entertain it now.” Such is the opinion of Daniel Webster. Whoever examines the Constitution, will fail to find any grant of power to Congress express or implied, to pass a fugitive slave law. He will find a compact addressing itself to the States, and making the delivery of fugitive slaves a matter of State obligation, and therefore of State legislation. 2 And here I frankly confess that if it were left to the State, I see no way, in which she could constitutionally avoid the obligation, when the claim for the slave is established by “due process of law,” without repudiating so much of the national charter. The Constitution does in plain words impose this duty upon the States. I am sorry that it is so; but my sorrow does not change the fact. This is the sad consequence of an agreement to do wrong.

The main ground, however, upon which the North have most strongly objected to the recent law of Congress, is to be sought in its features. It is to be remembered, that at the North we have no slaves and no slave-laws. Hence every man, black or white, is legally presumed to be a freeman, until he is proved to be a slave. It is also to be remembered, that the provision of the Constitution does not point out the process, by which the fact of slavery as against a person claimed, shall be judicially ascertained. It simply says that the slave shall be delivered up. What! Any person whom another may choose to claim as a slave? Surely not this; but the person who is proved to be such as the Constitution describes, namely, a fugitive slave. Here then is manifestly a trial on a question of fact. Is the man a slave? The mere fact, that he is claimed as such, is no proof. There is a fact to be proved before a competent tribunal, before the Constitution in the remotest sense puts his liberty in peril. How shall this question be tried? We answer; it ought to be by the ordinary method of judicial procedure—by what is known in the Constitutions and usage of the country as a “due process of law”—that is to say, a regular, open trial by a JURY of freemen, hearing the evidence and pleading on both sides, and then giving a verdict accordingly. The burden of proof, by the rule of justice, falls wholly upon the claimant. He must show all the facts supposed in the Constitution, in relation to the particular man he claims; namely, that the man is a slave under the laws of one of the States—that he the claimant is the owner, or his authorized agent—and that the person has made his escape from his legal master. These facts ought to be proved to the satisfaction of a jury, before the legal presumption of freedom is surrendered in the Free States. If, in any instance under the sun, a jury trial should be had, it is when a man is tried on the question, whether he is a freeman or a slave. This question ought to be thus settled before the act of delivery takes place. Let it not be said that it can be tried at the South, after the delivery is effected. The North ought never to surrender colored men to be transported to the South, and there tried under the presumptions and disadvantages of the slave code. This would be injustice. It is practically equivalent to consigning them to slavery. The act of delivery is in effect a verdict of slavery against the man. Suppose, that he is a freeman; how is he to show it, where a black skin presumes slavery, and possession presumes title? How is he to procure witnesses, and provide himself with a competent defense? The delivery of a person claimed as a slave, is essentially unlike that of a fugitive from justice. The latter is delivered up that he may be tried by an impartial jury, with all the legal securities of a freeman. Such is not the fact in regard to the person alleged to be a slave. Hence, the legal ascertainment of slavery, by a “due process of law” as recognized where the claim is prosecuted, ought to precede the delivery. So it strikes a large portion of the Northern mind; and I confess, this is my judgment, as a Christian and a citizen.

What, then, are the objections to the recent Fugitive Slave Law? I answer; it does not conform to these principles. It disposes of the whole question in a “summary manner.” Without the form of so doing, it in effect nullifies the right to the writ of Habeas Corpus. It precludes a trial of the questions of fact by a jury. It contains the anomaly of judicial tribunals created by other tribunals—a principle wholly unknown in the legislation of this country. In respect to the rule of testimony to be had in the case, it throws all the advantages on the side of the claimant, and against the person claimed. It makes acts of hospitality, and gospel mercy to the unhappy fugitive, a crime for which the agent may be severely punished. It authorizes the officers of the law, to compel the services of the people in capturing the slave, and returning him to bondage. In a word, it is an effort to carry out, upon the soil of freedom, the legal principles and practice of the slave-code. Such a law would be very much in harmony with Southern institutions and ideas; but is not so with those of the FREE STATES.

I might sustain this general estimate of the law by a long list of very respectable authorities. I will give you two opinions.

The Hon. Josiah Quincy, Sen., remarks:–“Could it have been anticipated by the people that a law would be passed superseding that great principle of human freedom, and that in this State, (Massachusetts) in which the claimant of ownership for a cow, an ox, or a horse, or an acre of land, could not be divested of his right without a trial by jury, yet that by the operation of such a law, a citizen might be seized, perhaps secretly carried before a single magistrate, without the right of proving before a jury his title to himself, and be sent out of the State, on the certificate of such single magistrate, into hopeless and perpetual bondage; it is impossible, in my judgment, that the Constitution of the United States could have received the sanction of one-tenth part of the people of Massachusetts.” Again he says:–“The people of Massachusetts understood that such claim should be enforced, in conformity to, and coincidence with, the known and established principles of the Constitution of Massachusetts.” Again he remarks: “Let the laws upon this subject be so modified as to give to every person, whose service is thus claimed, the right of trial by jury before being sent out of the land, and the universal dissatisfaction would be almost wholly allayed.”—New York Tribune, Oct. 17th, 1850.

The other opinion proceeds from the Governor of Ohio, in his recent message to the Legislature of that State. He objects to the law on the following grounds:–“Because it makes slavery a national, instead of a State institution, by requiring the costs of reclaiming the slave in some instances to be paid out of the United States Treasury: because it attempts to make ex parte testimony, taken in another jurisdiction, final and conclusive, in cases where its effects may be to enslave a man and his posterity for all time, and commits the decision of this question of civil liberty to officers not selected for their judicial wisdom or experience: because it attempts to compel the citizens of free States to aid in arresting and returning to slavery the man who is only fleeing for liberty, in the same manner as they would rightfully be bound to aid in arresting a man fleeing from justice, charged with the commission of a high crime and misdemeanor: finally, in relation to the manner of trial, and other particulars, the law is contrary to the genius and spirit of our free institutions, and therefore dangerous to both free and slave States, and consequently ought to be amended or repealed.”—New York Tribune, Dec. 10th, 1850.

Now, I suppose, these opinions represent the general sentiments held by a very large portion of the Northern people. They deem the features of the law to be an infringement upon chartered rights, not required by the provision of the Constitution, and in express conflict with other provisions of the same instrument. No one will deny that it has awakened a very strong excitement among the Northern people; and this is enough to prove that it is not well adapted as a “peace measure,” to settle the vexed questions that have been agitating this Union. In my judgment, it has made things worse rather than better. The legislature of Vermont, for example, has recently passed an act, securing to the person claimed as a slave, a right to the writ of habeas corpus, and directing the judge issuing the writ, to order a trial by jury on all the questions of fact involved in the issue. This takes the person claimed from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and places him under State law. It is not done for the protection of the slave against the demand of the Constitution, but for the due protection of her own citizens. Vermont virtually says by this act, that no man on her soil shall be deemed a slave, until so adjudged by a jury. It is her legal protest against not the end, but the features of the fugitive Slave Law.

I think it a great misfortune to both sections of the Union, that Congress should have passed the law in question. It does not, and in its present form never can, answer the mission of a “peace measure.” If it is to be practically a dead letter on the part of the South, this will be one thing; but if it is to be executed with stringency and rigor, then I mistake public sentiment, especially in the interior of the country, if the petitions are not long and loud for its modification or repeal. I do not see how, in view of all the facts, we can reasonably expect anything else. It is well to look at facts as they are on all sides, as well as one side.

After having heard this expression of my views in regard to the law itself, you may ask me, what shall be done, the law having been passed? I deem it a privilege to have the opportunity of answering this question.

In the first place, let every citizen remember that our system of government provides a competent tribunal to test its constitutionality. While it is to be lamented that legislation should ever be so extraordinary, as to make its constitutionality even doubtful, still, no private citizen can authoritatively settle this point. This must be done by a tribunal having jurisdiction. I have an opinion, and so have you, and both of us have a right to an opinion; but neither your opinion nor mine is clothed with any legal authority. This fact should be remembered by those who warmly condemn the law. They may express their opinions; yet they are not the legal judges in the case.

In the second place, let no citizen, be his opinions what they may in regard to this law, think himself entitled to resist the civil authorities in its execution. The moment he does this, he makes a new issue—one in which he ought to be crushed. He has no right to an opinion that shall be made the basis of rebellion. If, in his judgment, any or all of the requirements of this law are in conflict with the Higher Law, then let him obey God, always remembering that God does not require him to fight the civil authorities; and if there is any penalty incurred by this course, then let him meekly suffer it. This is orthodox for both worlds. While I could not force one of my fellow-creatures into bondage under any law it is possible for man to create; yet, if I were a civil officer, required to do it by the legal duties of my office, I would either do it or resign my trust; and I should certainly take the latter course. This is good morality also for both worlds. I would not hold the office, and violate my oath. I would not hold it, and violate the Higher Law. Hence, I would not hold it at all.

In the third place, let no citizen feel himself authorized to advise the fugitive slave to arm himself, and prepare for a deadly conflict with the civil authorities, in case of an effort to arrest him under this law. I regard such advice as positively immoral. I regard it as wanting in every element of good sense. Whatever may be the motive, the man who gives it is not, in fact, the friend of the slave, or of the community in which he lives. He has not well considered his own words; and, in my judgment, is justly obnoxious to public censure. If he were himself to do what he advises others to do, he would be guilty of open treason. He patronizes a war upon civil society in an illegal way. Much as I hate slavery and slave-catching, I have no sympathy with this doctrine. The natural and inherent right of self-defense is not the natural and inherent right of slaughter for no purpose, for no attainable end. I would not fight for freedom even, when I should be sure to involve both myself and others in greater calamities by it. If I said anything to the fugitive slave, I would exhort him to quietude, to good behavior amid his griefs and dangers; and if he could not feel safe in this land, then with shame and sorrow of soul I would point him to the north star, and tell him, if possible, to quit a country of so much peril to himself. I pity him, though I cannot unmake the fact that he is legally a slave in this land, go where he will. He cannot destroy this government, and I do not wish to do so. Hence, I cannot tell him to fight. He never will at my instigation. I reprobate the advice. This advice has been severely and deservedly rebuked. Yet, we cannot withhold the expression of our regret, that some who have ministered this rebuke, had not applied their conscience with equal intensity to another moral question. As Christians, what do they think of capturing and returning men to slavery?

In the fourth place, this law like every other, is amenable to the power of public sentiment. It has no sanctity that places it above the judgment of the people. If it misrepresent their will, nothing can save it from repeal or modification. It is one of the glories of our system, that when the people are displeased with a law, they can freely discuss it, and then vote it into its grave. It takes a little time to do this; but the event is always certain. In respect to this law, I wish for it no other doom than the legally ascertained judgment of the people. Those who think it right as it is, let them advocate it and vote for it. This is their right—as much so as it is mine not to do so, dissenting as I do from their opinion. If the majority think as they do, the law will stand; if not, it will not stand. For one taking into view all the circumstances of the nation, I doubt the practical wisdom of any attempt to alter it by the present Congress; yet, I greatly misinterpret the signs of the times, as well as the character of the Northern heart, if this law is not ultimately modified, especially if the South seek to use it with rigor. And in the meantime, I protest against any effort to silence or frighten Northern sense on this subject. I do honestly suppose, that Northern people have a right to think, and freely to express their thoughts. I am a Unionist, and so is the great body of the Northern mind; yet, I doubt whether this Union is to be preserved by getting up a panic. Congress enacted this law; and it has as much power to change it as it had to make it. To say that its modification or repeal will dissolve the Union, is a confession that some people are ready for treason. Much as I dislike the features of the law, I am willing to wait till an ascertained public will can do its work; and in the meantime, let no man think himself acting the part of wisdom or duty, in denouncing his neighbor for a difference of opinion. Let us have light and love, always remembering that no one is justly required to put out his own eyes, or repudiate either his common or moral sense, for the sake of love.

In the fifth place, as I doubt not, the President of these United States will do his official duty, as the Chief Magistrate of this nation—“take care (I am quoting his recent Message) that the laws be faithfully executed.” As a citizen, I honor the doctrine, and the man for its utterance. As a public officer, acting under the solemnity of an oath, he has no other course; we the people, no other safety. He is the sworn executive of the will of this nation, legally ascertained. The will of this nation is not that there should be rebellion anywhere, North or South. Hence, if necessary, as I hope it never may be, he must crush it by the last resort of government—the power of the sword. He is to show no favor to the accursed spirit of treason. I mean this equally for both sections of the Union. Whoever tries this, I trust, will have an ample opportunity to judge whether this is a practicable government, whether it has any power, and can execute its own laws. If government must coax and pet every man who chooses to whine, then it is no government. Both the North and South are in this Union; and if we have a faithful President, as I trust we have, they will stay there. Let it be well understood, that this government is to go forward and do its proper work, making laws or altering them at the command of the public voice; let it be known that traitors are to be hung as high as Haman, that the first man who is guilty of treason within the meaning of the Constitution, forfeits his life, and so of the second, and the third, and so on; let not a threat be followed by a panic, but met with that calm and dignified firmness that becomes government; and there will be no civil tumult anywhere; the party of disunionists will lose all their thunder, and run down to nothing. There is no occasion for a resort to the revolutionary right. There are no grievances that call for it. Neither section has so invaded the chartered rights of the other, as to justify in either a rebellion against the Federal Government.

It is a species of incipient treason to be constantly threatening the dissolution of the Union, in case of certain contingencies. He who open resists this Government, who attempts to revolutionize it, let him be treated according to law. He starts a new question, very different from the one whether slavery and slave-catching are right or wrong. With him on this point I have no sympathy. If the Government, State or Federal, pass a law which, in his judgment, imposes duties in direct conflict with the Higher Law of his God, then let him obey God, and quietly suffer the legal consequences, if there be any, leaving the final judgment to decide whether he was a martyr or a fool.

And, finally, let us commend our country to the God of nations, invoking the care and direction of his Providence. Nations as such, are amenable under His government. In His sight “righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Of the nation that will not serve God, it is written, that it shall perish, that it shall be utterly wasted. There is no principle truer, none of more thrilling interest to this Republic, than that God holds organized communities responsible for their conduct. The American people must do right, and thus please God; or in due season the day of vengeance will come. His favor is more important than a vast navy, or strong ramparts, or the skill of politicians. Let us invoke that favor. Let us beseech the great God to dispose events for his own glory, and the nation’s good. There are great dangers in our path. There are serious evils that call for redress. There is an awful incongruity in our practice, evidenced in the melancholy fact that on this soil of freedom, blest with the purest civil system man ever formed, millions of our fellow-creatures are doomed to the toil and bondage of slavery. The sigh of the bondman has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath. Say what we will, conceal it as we may, slavery is our great danger—the most stupendous form of wrong found in the bosom of this people. It always has been, and always will be, the curse of a people who practice it. It is the source of our present difficulties. It has outlived its day. It ought long since to have gone to rest. It is the fretting sore of our institutions. It ever will be a difficulty, until a rectified public sentiment shall demand and secure its removal. Neither by a divine, nor by a human right, does it exist on this soil. That sober, and honest, and earnest, and moderate counsels—not the less determined for their modification—free, on the one hand, from the spirit of reckless passion and wild denunciation, and on the other, from that dishonorable policy which is ever ready to sacrifice the truth;–counsels neither palsied by a panic, nor driven by a storm of fury—counsels commending themselves to God for the equity of their purpose, and the wisdom of their mode – counsels that embody the honest and manly sense of enlightened Christian men, exercising their rights, and doing their duty in the fear of God: – that all this is needed, greatly needed, in all parts of this Union, is very apparent.

I see not what benefit is to arise from the sundering of the political ties that make us one nation. I thank God that there is very little desire for this at the North. Most of the menaces proceed from the South. Let them well consider before they act. The attempt would be to themselves the most perilous experiment, a misguided people ever undertook. The weakness is with themselves. The power of this nation is not in their hands, if brought into effective and vigorous action. This power is in the free States; and there it must remain, by the inevitable necessity of a natural cause. May God preserve the South from committing themselves to the dreadful issue. I can conscientiously and piously pray for the peaceful perpetuity of this Union, and not less so for the removal of the evils that constitute its danger, and so most expose us to the displeasure of God. This is my prayer. I trust it is yours, while to day we thank our common Father for blessings past, and implore others yet to come.

In closing let me say that you now have my whole soul on this great subject. God is my witness that I have not made a speech for Northern or southern ears, to manufacture capital with either. I despise the infamous trick on a theme of so much importance. I have not sought to magnify one truth at the expense of another. These are my sentiments. So I believe. Not a sentence has fallen from my lips, which, so far as I can now perceive, I should wish to recall. I came here not to please or offend any body, but to speak the truth according to the best light of my own understanding. Whether these opinions suit you, is for you to settle. I have, under a solemn sense of duty, assumed the responsibility of their utterance; and I do not expect to disclaim it. Thanking you for having attentively listened to these observation, I now commend you and my country, and the slave, to the guidance and mercy of that God, whose government is always just, whose grace is equal to our wants, whose providence is our personal and national shield, whose law is the HIGHEST in the universe, and at whose bar both speaker and hearer will soon appear. May He be merciful t us all!

 


Endnotes

1. The legal reason for this provision is very plain. Slavery is not recognized by the law of nations. Hence, as a general doctrine, the moment the slave leaves the local law of bondage, he becomes free;–he does not carry his legal chain from one civil community to another. The States in this Republic are distinct and separate communities, existing in the bosom of one nation. If, therefore, there were no provision in respect to fugitive slaves, each State might determine for itself, whether the local law of slavery shall follow the victim, when coming within its jurisdiction. The people, in adopting the Constitution, agreed that it should—that the question should not be left to the option of the States. They made an exception to a general rule of justice. They agreed that a slave, by the laws of one of the States, escaping into another State, should not in the latter become a freeman, but should be delivered up on claim of his legal owner. They limited the powers of the State in this respect, and by the Constitution created a State obligation. The manner of legally ascertaining the facts supposed, is not specified.

2. The Federal Government is, in the strictest sense, a Government of chartered powers. The Constitution is its charter. Upon Congress it confers all the legislative powers of this Government. These are granted by clauses referring to specific subjects, and by the Eighth Section of the First Article, which after enumerating seventeen particulars of Federal Legislation, makes a grant of implied powers, namely, “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof.” This is not a grant of implied powers, to carry into execution all the provisions of the Constitution, but to execute all the powers expressly vested by the Constitution in the Federal Government. Where then is the grant of power to this Government, to legislate in respect to fugitive slaves? Nowhere, unless in the provision bearing on this subject. Is this such a grant of power? Read it; see, if upon its face any such idea appears. It is a clause of compact between the people of the respective States, restricting the States from passing any laws discharging the fugitive from the legal condition of slavery, and imposing on them the duty of delivering him up on claim of his owner. It is a capital mistake to assume, that all the provisions of the Constitution are grants of power to the Federal Government. Many of them are provisions of compact, limiting state powers, or defining State duties. The provision securing to citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in the respective States, and also the provision for the recovery of fugitives from justice, are of this character. The same is true of the one in respect to fugitive slaves. It creates a State obligation; and clearly a State obligation is not a grant of Federal power. The common complaint of the South, that the Northern States have not done their duty on this subject, confesses that the delivery of fugitive slaves is the work of the States; for if not, then they have no duty to perform. If it is, then it is not properly the work of the Federal Government.

Sermon – Thanksgiving – 1850 Connecticut

Sermon
Preached in the 1st Congregational church,

New London, Conn.
On the Day of Thanksgiving
November 28, 1850

By Abel M’Ewen,
Pastor

 

“Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.”

Acts iv. 10

This Scripture has been selected as the theme for a discourse on this occasion, for the purpose of canvassing the question: How ought the people of the Free States in this country to deport themselves in relation to that law of the United States, called the “Fugitive Slave Law?”

Occasion for preaching on this subject is found in existing facts. The law is producing great and dangerous agitation in the land; the consciences of many people are tried by the demands of the law in question, as they understand it; while the consciences of others are unsettled as to what they ought to do in circumstances into which this law may bring them. The danger is great, that not a few, acting by a misguided conscience, and that others, acting without heed to conscience, may produce national calamities which will beget regret and remorse, which will be as bitter as they will be unavailing. All people will think and feel, if they do not speak on this subject. It is one, touching so vitally, the interests of this country, so jeopardizing the interests of every individual, of every family, and of the Church of God; and so pressing itself into contact with the conscience and duty of all people, that silence on the part of preachers may look more like non-committal than like prudence.

In their relation to this law, some people would regulate their duty by looking exclusively at the Constitution of these United States, without regard to the counsels of divine revelation; others would give themselves up to abstract dictates of the Bible, refusing to modify these, or to restrict the import of detached portions of the Scripture, even by principles, by which God himself has qualified and limited his own laws, in conformity to circumstances in which the subject of these laws were involved. This question of duty cannot be candidly settled, without looking at our whole condition, in which the word and providence of God have placed us.

Though it may not be practical to make out a course which every person in the Free States should tread, providing him guidance on every emergency which may betide him; I shall attempt to do something toward this provision.

  1. By an examination of some scriptural counsels, which warrant mankind, on some occasions, to disregard the injunctions of civil rulers, that they may obey the revealed will of God.
  2. By adverting to other parts of sacred Scripture, in which obedience of civil rulers is made obedience of God.
  3. By remarks upon an express prohibition of God, which some people in the Free States, conceive interdicts their compliance with the “Fugitive Slave Law.”
  4. By noticing the obligations which the Constitution of the government of the United States imposes upon all the citizens of these States.

1. By an examination of some scriptural counsels, which warrant mankind, on some occasions, to disregard the injunctions of civil rulers.

A number of texts of Scripture might be cited; sufficient however, it will be to do justice to the occasion, and to the consciences of men, to examine candidly, and in their various bearings, two authorities, which set before us, men inspired and true to their duty, who disregarded the injunctions of civil rulers that they might obey God.

The first case is that of the apostles, Peter and John, when they commenced their ministry after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. They had wrought a miracle, healing a cripple, by a word; they stated publicly that it was done by the power of God in the name of Jesus. Because they preached the gospel, and confirmed it by miracles, the rulers of the Jews thrust them into prison; the High Court of the nation brought them forth to its bar, and asked them by what authority they wrought miracles. Expressly and without disguise, the apostles answered, “by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Among themselves, the rulers said that they could not deny that a miracle had been wrought; “but,” said they, “that it spread no further among the people, let us straightly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.” And they called them and commanded them not to speak at all, nor to teach in the name of Jesus. Here is the law. It was an injunction from the highest rulers in the nation, forbidding the Apostles, and of course, all other men, from preaching the Gospel. The reply of the two Apostles follows: “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” This appeal in the form of a question to the understanding and conscience of the rulers, and of the world, was a declaration of Peter and John, that their determination was to disobey the civil edict, and to obey the command of the Divine Savior, in this specific matter of preaching the Gospel; that further than this, they should disregard civil law, they gave not the slightest insinuation. “We cannot,” said they, “but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Nor did they relieve their conscience by empty words. Forthwith, and with perseverance and until death, they did preach the Gospel. In the spirit of this disregard of a civil edict, all the Apostles and early preachers uniformly disobeyed civil rulers in this specific thing, whenever and wherever they, directly or indirectly, interdicted the preaching of the Gospel.

Inconsiderately, and without analyzing their zeal, many people seize upon this scriptural authority, as their warrant for disobedience of every civil law, which they conceive to be in letter or in principle inconsistent in any degree with a divine precept.

Justice to this investigation demands that some duties suggested by this action of the apostles be noticed, and that some mistakes made in the use of this example be detected and exposed.

The command of the rulers was a prohibition of action which had been made the main duty of the apostles and Christians, by a recent and specific command of Jesus risen from the dead, and about to ascend to heaven. This action of the apostles is an example for ministers who are commanded to preach the Gospel, to preach it though forbidden by civil rulers to do this. To regard this, however, as an example which warrants men to transgress all civil law which is inconsistent in some respect, as they conceive, with divine law, is an abuse of the example. All human laws are imperfect; the administration of them is imperfect. A human law often in some principle, or in the application of it, conflicts with divine law. Subjects of civil law are not on this account to rebel and transgress. A tax is by law laid upon the people, but it is so made that it operates unrighteously. It lays the burden comparatively upon some, and spares others from it. Divine law incumbent upon rulers and people is, “Do justly,” “Defraud not.” Hundreds perceive the iniquitous operation of the tax law. Poor widows and orphans are oppressed by it. Some rich people are exempted from its demands. Shall these hundreds take their stand and refuse to pay the tax? Shall they advise the oppressed not to pay it, and to arm themselves against the collection? Shall the advisers join the sufferers with force and arms, raising mobs to resist the collection? Shall senators and orators instruct the people to disobey such law, because they conceive it conflicts with divine injunctions to justice, and with divine prohibitions of iniquity? Shall these insurgents take words out of the mouth of Peter and say to the rulers of the land, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye?” And shall they claim that they make a legitimate use of this scriptural counsel? No, this specific action of the apostles is to be heeded and plead only as a specific example for doing the precise thing which the apostles did. Had the makers of our civil constitution, had the congress of the United States conspired to enact a law forbidding all the ministers and people of this country to preach and hear the gospel at all, doubtless it would be pertinent for us to say to these civil rulers, “Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye;” and doubtless the authority of this example would justify us in adopting methods for practically exercising the rights of conscience and of private judgment, in doing God’s will to save the soul. If this example might be carried away from its specific application, and be plead to justify insurrection against civil authority and law, in every case in which individuals and clubs of people think they see, that they or others are called to submit to some law, which in some particulars conflicts with divine law, against hundreds of laws it may be used to justify insurrection. No human government can stand under such an exposition and use of this specific text of Scripture.

Will it be said that every man has a natural right to personal liberty? He has. So has every man a natural right to all the property he can get. But men have found the necessity of restricting men in the exercise of their natural liberty to do many things, which, but for law, they might do; and might, but for law, obey their conscience and the dictates of kind affection, in doing. Were it not for law, I might go into my neighbor’s house when he forbids me, to teach his children the Gospel, when he is teaching them infidelity and the arts of seduction and villainy. The law which prohibits me, is said, perhaps, to be oppressive upon me, a kind man, or upon my neighbor’s family, made up as it is, of moral and immoral beings. Much law must, adventitiously, in many of its operations be oppressive, for the sake of the general benefit of law, as in this instance. I must submit to this restriction from my neighbor’s house, that I and all my countrymen may, by law, be protected in closing our doors against a thousand ruinous intrusions. The law which makes a man a slave is a very oppressive law; of course, the law which restores a fugitive from slavery, is a very oppressive law. Any law which introduces slavery into the world, into a nation, into any community, is an unscriptural law. But when the evil of slavery exists, some laws regulating it, are not unscriptural; for God himself has made such laws. The laws of divine enactment which regulated slavery in the Hebrew commonwealth, were very oppressive some men. The evil of slavery existed; it had originated, not by divine law or authority, but from the corrupt passions of men; and God regulated it. The people of Israel would not have been justified in rebelling against the laws of that country, touching slavery, because they were oppressive. Those laws were, for the benefit of the community, necessary slave laws emanated from the source of all Hebrew law. This was enough to impose the duty of submission while these were laws.

Any law which would have introduced polygamy into the world, would have been a law, emanating not from the will or enactment of God. God found polygamy in Israel, which the vile hearts of men had originated. And Moses, or rather God by Moses, enacted a law suffering men to repudiate wives not guilty of adultery, and to take others. This law was oppressive upon the repudiated and upon their friends. But the sore evil of polygamy existed, making the hearts of husbands hard and cruel towards wives who were not objects of affection; and God, by a law unavoidably oppressive, regulated the evil until the coming of Christ. Had men or women in Israel rebelled against this law because it was oppressive, their conduct would have been wickedness, and they would have been punished by divine authority. They might have plead for their justification in this rebellion an abstract principle, right in itself; nevertheless in their present circumstances, they would have been guilty of rebellion against divine authority. Though our fugitive slave law is, of necessity, oppressive, we cannot rebel against it, and say for our justification, it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto Him, more than unto our rulers who made this law. If we concede that it is such a law as they ought not to have made, still it is a law, made by us, by our representatives, in whose hand God has placed the authority of legislation; and it is not God’s revealed will that we use the example of Peter and John to justify ourselves in disregarding any law, emanating from this legislative authority, except law, thence coming, which interdicts us from the specific action, from which the apostles were indicted by the Sanhedrin.

We speak of the example of Peter and John, as furnishing a warrant for preachers of the Gospel, to preach it, though forbidden by rulers, in this specific action. Though the apostles conceived it to be their duty, in this isolated and great work, to obey the command of Jesus, though civil rulers imposed silence upon them; still, even this action—so important to this lost world, so peremptorily commanded, and forbidden so manifestly by human malice against Christ and his salvation—the apostles modified, and were conscious of liberty and obligation thus to act. If forbidden to preach the Gospel in one city, they fled to another; simply bearing their testimony against those who interdicted and rejected the divine message. Their ministry was thus modified in accordance with circumstances, because their commission was modified to meet such embarrassment. The servant of Christ was not to strive. The command of the Sanhedrin was, “Speak not, nor teach at all in the name of Jesus.” This command, putting the Gospel out of the world, was not to be obeyed. If the apostles were forbidden to preach in the synagogue or temple, they retired to a place more humble, and less obnoxious to the indignation of the civil magistrates, and of the people, actuated by unhallowed prejudice and zeal. They made no noisy and showy demonstrations of their conscientiousness and rights—no fiery and vindictive denunciation did they utter against opposition; but in meekness they exhibited truth against error.

Much less did the apostles, to sustain a cause which they were not at liberty to relinquish, or action which they were forbidden to suspend, arm themselves, or advise others, by force to withstand those who they knew were conscious of setting themselves, with selfishness and hostility, against God himself, and his commands. Christ had taught his followers, and all men, that, “They who take the sword, shall perish by the sword;” that subjects of civil law—interdicted even from even this specific action, preaching the Gospel, which it was right for them to perform—might not, neither they nor their adherents, as insurgents, arm themselves to resist. What a stretch of civil disobedience, then, it is, for those who lament and abhor slavery, and who feel a compassion for fugitives from it, to plead the example of Peter and John to justify armed resistance of civil law, to form armed combination—for what? To resist officers of the law in the administration of existing law. And they advise those whom they regard as sorely oppressed by the law, by arms to resist the officers of the law, even to the taking of their lives. Had the early Christians taken the life of a magistrate who imprisoned Peter and John, and who bound and scourged Paul, and Slew James and Stephen—the Record of this armed resistance, and of this perpetration of murder, would have stamped the Gospel and practical Christianity with the spirit of crime, and the world would have shrunk from it, as from a religion horrid with blood.

Some of these intemperate counselors have, manifestly, some misgivings as to the wholesomeness of their advice; and they have said that they would suffer, to any extent, under oppressive law, but that they would not, by such law, be coerced to perform acts of wickedness. Will they abide by their principle? The counsel which they adopt for the guidance of their own action, will they extend as advice to others? Without sacrifice or danger, these men of noise may engage to suffer all the evils which the fugitive slave law has in store for hem, which are just none at all. But will they advise the fugitives to submit to all the suffering which oppressive law brings to them? In giving counsel to them, these advisers lose sight of their principle of avowed subordination to civil law, to the extent it shall deal out suffering; and, instead of counseling these poor victims of oppression not to be coerced, by law, into acts of wickedness, they advise them to defend themselves from suffering, even to the extent of assault and battery, and even of murder, perpetrated upon the officers of law.

The other scriptural counsel to which I propose to advert, is, that of Daniel, who disobeyed the decree of king Darius, which was, that any man who should, for thirty days, ask any petition of any god or man, save of Darius himself, should be cast into the den of lions. Daniel, in disregard of the prohibition, continued to pray, openly, to the God of heaven. The record approves his conduct. His example is good authority for the disregard of civil law, in this specific case. Were the Congress of these States to issue such a decree, it would, on the authority of Daniel, be the duty of the people of this nation to continue their prayers to God.

But to carry the authority of this example away from the specific action concerning which it counsels us, and to plead it in justification of rebellion against any law which is thought to be oppressive, or inconsistent with some precept or principle of revealed religion—is impertinent.

Daniel meditated no violence—practiced no violence—recommended none—would have discouraged all violence, in defense of his privilege of prayer. He prayed, in disregard of civil laws, and he expected to submit; and he did submit to the powers of government, which cast him into the den of lions. Shall fugitives from slavery, take counsel from his disregard of civil law? They, in slavery, thought the law, subjecting them to bondage, was oppressive; and, to get their rights, fled. Their conduct, in this particular, resembles that of Daniel—peaceably taking their rights. Pursued by the law, which follows them to carry them back, not to the lion’s den, but to dens sufficiently terrific and cruel, we admit; will they go, like him, without resistance to existing law?

One view, which may be taken of these two instances of disregard of civil law, nullifies them effectually, as divine authority, which men may plead to justify themselves in violation of existing laws which perpetuate slavery. Persia, like all the Eastern nations in the days of Daniel, had in it, slavery. He and all the children of the Captivity were slaves. No doubt, he thought slavery was oppression and cruelty, on the part of the government and masters. He was a most favored slave; still, we know that he sighed for his liberty, for the liberty of his fellow slaves, and for their restoration to their father-land. He was a most influential slave, and was therefore, under uncommon obligations to do what it was right and proper to do, for the emancipation of himself, and of those in bonds with him. They had been carried into bondage, not from a Pagan land into a land of revealed religion, but the reverse of this. Daniel however, did not take the principle, on which he disregarded the edict, respecting prayer, and justify himself, or others, in raising an insurrection against the slave laws of Persia. If he used not his own example, his own principles for such a purpose, under all his personal temptations, and all the solicitations of his kindred and countrymen, who can make such a use of it, without perverting it from its legitimate application? Doubtless Daniel would have been himself highly gratified, and would have done, in his own estimation, a favor to Persia, and an unspeakable one to the slaves of that country, could he, by a legal operation, have abolished all slavery there, and all slave laws. To have attempted this however, by insurrection, would have been an adventure, too wicked, and too costly, as it would have been a general sacrifice of the slaves, and a subjection of the whole population to the violence, misery, and despair of anarchy.

Let us take a similar view of the other authority, which is plead for the justification of rebellion against civil authority, in the disregard of the fugitive slave law of this country. The apostles, forbidden to preach the gospel at all, said to the rulers, “whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge ye.” Slavery was at this time prevalent among the Jews, regulated by the Levitical code, and prevalent in other parts of the Roman Empire, regulated by the laws of Rome. The apostles, espousing the righteous and merciful principles and precepts of the gospel, could not have owned slaves. They regarded slavery, doubtless, a great oppression, and a great sin, and they would have advocated the legal extermination of slavery.

As they had found it to be their duty to preach the gospel, though forbidden by civil authority, why did they not carry out the principle adopted for action in this isolated case, and undertake, as some modern reformers do, to rid their country of all sin, sanctioned by human law, by preaching and practicing insurrection against all oppressive and corrupt laws. By Roman law, the power even, of taking the life of a slave belonged to his master. The apostles, however, uttered not a note, moved not a finger to encourage insurrection, even against a law so grievous. Hear Paul’s advice to a slave. “Art thou called (i.e. to be a Christian,) being a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather; for he that is called in the Lord, being servant is the Lord’s freeman.”

Facts speak louder than theories. Men may now take the action of Peter and John, preaching the gospel, when interdicted by rulers, and on the authority of this action construct a theory, which shall encourage insurrection against every existing law, which is conceived to contravene some precept, or principle of revealed religion; but the practical comment of the apostles shows, that they did not carry out this principle to justify insurrection, even against the unchristian laws, which were conservative of slavery. Senators in their places, animated by a zeal for liberty, or something else, may sound the note of rebellion against the Constitution, which they have made oath to support, and against laws, made by the legislature, of which they are a part, proclaiming to the ignorant, the fanatical, and the insubordinate, that the law of God is higher than human laws; but would these dignitaries examine the Scripture, from which, as they pass they take a maxim, they would see, that they build at least one of their political theories on other foundation than that of Christ and the apostles.

2. Some light may be gained to regulate our conduct in relation to the fugitive slave law, by adverting to parts of sacred Scripture in which obedience to civil rulers is made obedience of God.

Not to be tedious, I will confine my quotation to one broad and pertinent injunction given by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, xiii. 1—5. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained of God; Whoever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God; a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.”

This injunction to obey magistrates is general, referring to all people in nation; and to all laws under which they live; and providing no dispensation from obedience to existing law, inculcated by this injunction, except what is found in express exceptions, made and particularized by authority tantamount to this general and unqualified statute, which prescribes the subordination of every soul to law. Throughout the New Testament I know of liberty in but one case given or claimed, by divine authority, for transgressing civil law. That was liberty to preach the gospel, as claimed by Peter and John, though interdicted by civil rulers. Speaking and teaching in the name of Jesus implied, doubtless, reading the Bible, worship regulated by the gospel, and the inculcation of gospel truth by writing. With this single exception, the unqualified injunction of God, by Paul, enforcing as a matter of conscience, and as a religious duty, or, as obedience of God himself, practical subjection of every soul to every existing law, under which, in the providence of God, he is placed, stands unrepealed and unqualified. A man may think a law of the country is unwise, oppressive, and inconsistent with divine law. No matter. It is the decree, the mandate of the powers that be. Wrath from civil authority will come upon him, if he disobey, and not only to avoid that, but for conscience sake, a regard for God, whose ordinance, the powers that be, is he must obey every law. Nero’s laws were bad, cruel; the laws of the Sanhedrin were bad. Paul knew it; God knew it; and he knew that many future laws would be bad. Nevertheless, he gave the broad injunction upon all men to be subject to all law, and this injunction God has never repealed. Some people affect tenderness of conscience for obeying divine law in preference to human law. A tender conscience will not be perverse; it will cherish tenderness for this law of God, given by Paul, precisely as God has qualified it, and precisely as he has maintained it, and left it in force.

3rd. Remarks are to be made upon an express prohibition of God, which some people, in the free States, conceive interdicts their compliance with the fugitive slave law.

The prohibition, to which allusion is now made, is found in the Levitical statutes, Deut. Xxiii, 15, 16: “Thou shalt not deliver, unto his master, the servant which is escaped from his master, unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him.”

The question before us is: does this prohibition constitute a dispensation, to the people of the Free States, from the general injunction upon them, to obey all existing laws, under which they live, particularly a dispensation from a practical compliance with the demands of the fugitive slave law?

This law, recorded in Deuteronomy manifestly was a municipal law of the Jews. How far it is binding upon us, how far it excuses us, in withholding ourselves from the execution of our fugitive slave law, depends not a little, on what it was, in its application to the duties required by it of the people of Israel. They had slaves, some who were of their own blood, Jews; others whom they purchased of the heathen living around them, or in the midst of them. The language of the statute indicates that id did not regulate the conduct of the Jews, in relation to their own slaves. Occasionally some of these escaped from their masters. To whom did they flee? The language of the statute is, “The servant who is escaped from his master unto thee.” Who is designated by the word thee? The law was addressed to the commonwealth, not to a particular individual. A slave in Israel who had escaped from his master did not flee from him to that nation, he was before he absconded already in that land, under that government. The additional provisions of that statute show satisfactorily that the word thee designates the nation, and not the individual. “He (the servant) shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates.” Was any person, any family obliged to keep a slave who had fled to him, whatever he was, however he might conduct, and whatever might be the circumstances of the person to whom he fled, as to age, sex, health, sickness, or poverty? Must this individual, upon whom the fugitive quartered himself, keep him in such of his gates, that is, in such of his houses, rooms, yards, or fields, as the fugitive should choose? Something must have been meant by gates, different from any such thing, pertaining to an individual. “He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates.” Among whom? In the family; in the room which he should select? This could not have been enjoined. The word thee, designated the nation; the word gates designated the cities or towns of the land, in one of which the fugitives might choose to dwell. The word among directs that the fugitives should be permitted to dwell among the nation, not among the family of a particular individual. The nation, undeniably, was addressed by the words of the statute. The word thee meant the state. If a servant had escaped from his master to the commonwealth of Israel, he had come from a pagan nation, where the master had the disposal of the slave’s life, and he kept him in idolatry. Such a fugitive from such a foreign nation, come to the land of Israel, might dwell in some one of its cities, or towns, he should not be delivered up. Mark another provision of this statute concerning the treatment of the fugitive: “Thou shalt not oppress him;” that is, enslave him nor make his residence in Israel, onerous. The Jews might buy slaves of the heathen, but they might not enslave a fugitive from heathen bondage. Provision was made, by law, for the holding of slaves in Israel, whether the slaves were Jews or heathen, and also for the emancipation of slaves. It could not be, that in this statute, concerning fugitives, provision was made, for all slaves in Israel, to emancipate themselves by escaping and ensconcing themselves in a neighboring family, or in any in Israel.

If, then, it be settled that this statute forbade the delivery only of fugitive slaves from masters of foreign, heathen countries, what bearing has it upon our duty in relation to slaves who escape to us from masters in our own land? We have made a constitutional compact with masters who are our own countrymen, not to obstruct the recovery of persons, who by law, owe them services. It is to be lamented, that when the Constitution of the United States was made, there was any necessity for making such a compact. It was made. The fugitive slave law is based upon that compact. The statute in Deuteronomy, though it forbids us to make a covenant with foreign, pagan masters to restore a fugitive, and forbids us to restore them, does not touch our responsibilities towards masters who are our countrymen; and who, though living in the great national sin of slavery are a part of our own Christian community. It may be that our fugitive slave law is an unwise and oppressive law. It is, in substance, the same law as that, which in 1793, was made for the benefit both of the North and the South. It may be that this law, now in force ought to have more intelligibly given to those apprehended under it, what the Attorney General of the United States says it has given, the right of habeas corpus: it may be, that this law ought to have given to the apprehended, trial by jury in the State where they are arrested; it might have prevented clamor, had the law explained that the fee of the judge was doubled, on the condition of his decision that the person tried before him was a slave, because such a decision subjected himself to double Labor in the preparation of subsequent papers. Possibly the law amerces too heavily marshals and citizens who may be concerned in the apprehension of fugitives, for delinquencies, or for some interference prompted by humanity: nevertheless, the law is a law of the land, made by our representatives; therefore made mediately by ourselves. There is no dispensation from obedience of it to be got for us, from the statutes in Deuteronomy; nor from anything else. If we would get rid of it, or of something objectionable in it, at the proper time we must get it repealed or amended by a legal legislative process. He who prevents the execution of the law, while it is in force, or by withholding himself from a service which the law may demand of him, exposes his country, himself, and the fugitives too, to all the miseries of anarchy. We may show great kindness to fugitives from slavery. But by urging them to rebellion against existing law, or by indulging ourselves in such rebellion, we expose them to destruction. From government or from anarchy it must come. God saith to rebels, “Wilt thou not be afraid of the power?” “he is the minister of God: a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

4. Notice is to be taken of the obligations which the constitution of the United States imposes upon all the citizens of these States.

The section of the Constitution which pertains to the restoration of fugitive slaves is as follows: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, and escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but he shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is due.”

It may be said that no such Constitution ought to have been made. The reply is, the evil of slavery then existed in all the States, as it existed in Israel, when God made for that nation its laws for slavery. Without this Constitution, the government of these States could not have been established. As God saw that slavery could not then be abolished in Israel, and therefore regulated it; so, the fathers of our nation thought slavery could not then be abolished here; they consequently made a Constitution to regulate it. A law has been made, and it ought to have been made, to carry out this provision of the Constitution; a law officially pronounced by the Attorney General of the United States to be constitutional. If the existing law be not constitutional, the Court of the United States legally appealed to will so decide; and the legislature, and the people by it, may revise, correct and perfect the law. If the Constitution be too wicked and cruel to be endured, the nation has powers reserved to it in the Constitution, to amend and perfect that. The present generation, by their oaths, have adopted the Constitution and laws of the United States, and engaged to support them as they are or as they shall be, when constitutionally and legally amended. The people cannot annul a single law be rebellion; nor venture upon a rebellious act toward such nullification, without violating their consciences and exposing themselves to all the horrors and miseries of anarchy. If the North in this way undertakes to nullify this obnoxious law, the South may retaliate; and by the same means destroy any other law. Refractory people all over the land, following the inconsiderate and wicked example, will be emboldened by insubordination to abrogate all law.

It is unnecessary and irrational for any person in this country, because he abhors the fugitive slave law, to turn his thoughts toward revolution as a remedy. Occasion may exist in a nation for a revolution. When a foreign power holds dominion over a nation, and by law or orders in council oppresses it, transporting, it may be, its citizens out of their country for trial—or, when a domestic tyrant or a tyrannical oligarchy have repudiated written Constitutions, monopolized governmental power, appropriated all public revenues to the gratification of their own lusts, and oppressed the people by burdens and irritating privations, cutting them off not only from all participation in the government but from all redress by law—then, revolution, if it be feasible and if it promise success and relief, is justified.

But if the people of a country be, as we have already noticed, under divine injunction to be subject to the powers that be, how in circumstances of wrong, and ;peril, and suffering, can a nation justify itself in revolution? The reply is, the command of God that men be in subjection to the civil government existing over them, applies to them as separate citizens, acting not nationally, but on their private responsibility, When the nation, impelled by intolerable oppression, rises in mass, and nationally disowns its government, that government ceases to be the civil power, which, by the ordinances of God, existed to rule and protect that nation. God ordains and sanctifies every government which gets and maintains a being by, and only by, a nation’s will. The subordination which God, by Paul inculcated, was subjection on which the nation retained. A nation is not, by this edict of heaven, bound to retain, obey and honor a government which perpetrates extensive robbery and murder, or even crimes of less magnitude. When the government of a nation has become a monster of iniquity and cruelty, that nation is bound, if it can, to succor its suffering people, by throwing of the galling tyranny. Cast into abandonment and impotency by the nation’s solemn verdict, the oppressor is seen by the people; but it is no longer among the powers that be. Thus revolution may find justification.

But, for a people who hold the government of their country in their own hands, and who are at liberty to amend, and change, and perfect its constitution and laws through their own representatives, to seek revolution is idiocy or madness. It is a revolt form themselves.

“Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat in the morning!” Woe, an hundred fold to thee, O nation, when thou art thyself a child! Renounce, annihilate all existing government! This is easy. But to establish a government, to frame one for a people of diverse and conflicting interests, to agree upon one and adopt it; for a nation, in the process of all this work, to save itself in the end from the grasp of some military chieftain, or to save itself in the end from the desolation of anarchy—this is labor. Let senators and ministers of the Gospel, journalists and declaimers, conventions and all citizens understand, that if by force they resist the execution of the fugitive slave law, or produce such resistance, they wage war against the United States, and are guilty of treason!

Sermon – Execution – 1848


sermon-execution-1848


THE MURDERER AND HIS FATE

A
SERMON

OCCASIONED BY THE

EXECUTION OF HARRIS BELL

FOR THE

MURDER OF MRS. WILLIAMS.
PREACHED IN THE
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, HONESDALE, PA.,

SABBATH EVENING, OCT. 1, 1848.
BY
HENRY A. ROWLAND

HONESDALE, PA.:
BARKER & LEWIS, PUBLISHERS.

1848.

ADVERTISEMENT.

Harris Bell was executed at Honesdale, PA., Sept. 29, a.d. 1848, for the murder of Mrs. Williams wife of Rev. Gershom Williams, of Scot Township.  This discourse was prepared and preached at the request of the murderer, on the Sabbath evening succeeding the day of his execution; and on the succeeding Sabbath evening, it was repeated by request in the Methodist Chapel.  Some have earnestly solicited that it should be given to the press, believing that its publication will do good.  It is therefore submitted to the public, as an off-hand production, the subject of which is of local interest to many who reside in this vicinity, and who are acquainted with the circumstances.

Honesdale, Oct. 10, A.D. 1848.

SERMON.

Proverbs xiii.15.

THE WAY OF TRANSGRESSORS IS HARD.

When we see a gallows erected, and a fellow-creature upon it struggling in the agonies of death, the thought instantly occurs to us, that “the way of transgressors is hard.”  When we visit a prison where there are numbers of our fellow-men condemned to seclusion from the world, buried alive, as it were, and forever severed from the kind endearments of home and friendship, the same thought again suggests itself.  So also when we look abroad upon society, and see one after another of our fellow-men, who are impeached of no crime of which the law takes cognizance, but who, in consequence of their vicious and abandoned life, have reduced themselves and their families to penury, and are suffering in their own physical frames the consequences of unrestrained lust, or the delirium occasioned by intemperance, do we again accord with the testimony of the Bible, that “the way of transgressors is hard.”

Go, visit the hospitals of the insane, and you will discover a large proportion of their inmates who have reduced themselves to the pitiable condition of lunatics, and some even to a state of idiocy, in consequence of their own evil practices.  The bright and active lad, who gave promise of future success in life, and has advanced from youth to manhood the object of envy perhaps to many who seemed far inferior to him in mental capacity, has begun to droop – his mind unsteady, his bodily health impaired; and he has sunk to lunacy, and finally to idiocy, in consequence of the unnatural indulgence of his passions.  So also has many a female, who might have been an ornament in society, thus brought on herself premature disease, and found in the cells of an insane hospital, or in an early grave, the certain result of a disregard of God’s commands.  If you will examine the report of any institution established for the benefit of the insane, you will discover that almost a third of its inmates have brought themselves into their unhappy condition in this way; and these, it is generally conceded, are cases the most hopeless of relief.

Or, if summoned to the room of one who, by intemperance, has brought on himself delirium, you will need nothing more to convince you that “the way of transgressors is hard.”  The unhappy man, once kind to his family and a worthy member of society, respected in the circle in which he moved, has long persevered in a course, of the result of which he was forewarned, and which he had every reason to know would bring on himself swift destruction.  Perhaps this course may have been concealed: his most intimate friends, and the partner of his bosom even, may not have known the extent of his self-indulgence, till, in an evil hour, the nervous restlessness occasioned by the disease is on him.  The wild, rolling eye, the hideous look, excited by visions and fancies which he deems realities, exhibit the power of that terrible disease.

Sometimes, in this state, he becomes apparently religious, and calls for mercy on that God whom he has scorned; sometimes he shrieks in terror at the visions of his own fancy; sometimes he seems to feel that he is the sport of fiends, and is already shut up in the prison of the lost, and rushes with fury away from his keepers, and dashes himself from his chamber-window to the ground, unsatisfied till life has paid the forfeit of his transgression.  Did you never, as I have done, visit a family whose head had become the subject of such delirium?  It was once a peaceful and a pleasant home.  Little did the wife suspect the husband of her love of such a course.  But, in an instant, the transgression of a long life is developed.  The wife and mother is oppressed with the extent of the calamity which has befallen them.  Tears flow, but they cannot remove the load of sorrow which she bears.  Could she have seen her husband die, and followed him weeping to the grave, it would have been an evil far less to be deplored.

Herself and family would have avoided the disgrace which now attaches itself to a drunken husband and father, and she would have had some hope that death in his case would prove a happy exchange of the sorrows of earth for heaven.    But now, all hope is extinct, and she must go down broken-hearted to the grave.  It is dreadful for one to die by the halter, and the fate of such an one awakens emotions of deep sympathy in the breast of every beholder; but, oh! It is far more dreadful to die in the delirium of intemperance.  And no one can view such an end, and not say, in the language of the text that “the way of transgressors is hard.”

Often is there exhibited to view instances of suffering in life not inferior to those which have been noticed.  We see one who has long been reputed a man of integrity, who has occupied a station of trust, and enjoyed the confidence of the community, suddenly detected in some criminal act, some embezzlement of funds, or some out-breaking sin, which casts him from his elevation, and bears down with him his innocent family to the degradation and misery attendant on such crimes.  Investigation will often show that long before, in an evil moment, this individual was tempted to depart from the path of virtue.  At first it was done with trembling, and the attempt at concealment was successful.  Again and again has this temptation ensued, and as often with success concealed; till at length, emboldened by impunity, he makes a false move, and all is discovered.  And then ensue the degradation and woe consequent on such crimes.  The unhappy man becomes the scorn of the society in which he was once an ornament.  A star has fallen; and the sufferings which ensue are not un-aptly compared to those of the fallen angels in their wretched abode.  Surely, it cannot be denied that “the way of transgressors is hard.”

But this truth is still further illustrated in the case of the unhappy man who has just now paid the forfeit of his life for the crime which he has committed.  This individual was naturally possessed of a capacity sufficient, had it been properly educated, to have enabled him to fulfill the duties of life in a creditable and becoming manner.  But he was the child of vicious parents, and from his childhood had been cast out upon society to lead a wandering life and to become a vagabond.  He was neither taught to read, nor was he the subject of any moral or religious instruction.  His parents, and brothers and sisters, he said, were as vicious and abandoned as himself.  In early years he yielded himself up to the power of lust, and to the practice of that solitary vice which has wrought such havoc on the intellect and morals of the world.

This, said he, has ruined me.  It was this, he said, that inflamed his passions, and was the means of bringing him to an untimely grave.  He had no parent to warn him of his danger, nor friend to reclaim him from his pernicious and wicked course.  As he advanced in years, the natural consequences of this vice began to exhibit themselves.  His mind became impaired; and in proportion as self-control was weakened in him, his passions became excited, and began to assume the mastery.  Twice was he convicted of an attempt to commit the species of crime for which he has suffered, and years of imprisonment did he endure in consequence.  He thus became, by his own vicious courses, the creature of passion; and so strongly did it rage within him, as to become at times almost irresistible.  This is but the natural result of self-indulgence.

The miser and drunkard both, from long indulgence, come under the influence of such passions, that  it seems to them impossible to resist them.  So also does the slave of lust.  It was the case with the wretched man who has suffered the penalty of his crime.  In the fits of passion which came upon him, he lost all self-control, and acted without regard to the consequences.  Thus ensued the tragedy of crime for which he died.  The particulars of that scene I need not here relate.  It is sufficient to state, that meeting an unprotected female in the wood, where he had purposely gone with that design, as he knew that someone would likely pass that way, he seized her for a brutal purpose, and in the struggle which ensued deprived her of life.  No man could be more sorry than he was, he says, after the deed was done.  But the evil could not be repaired.  He was taken, confined in prison, tried, and condemned to lose his life as the penalty of his transgression.

The defense set up was, weakness of mind verging on idiocy.  But this was unavailing, because it was proved that he sought to conceal the evidences of his guilt; indicating that the force of conscience was not extinct, and that in this instance he knew right from wrong, both of which are sure evidences of moral responsibility.

Sympathy has been awakened I his behalf from the developments of mental weakness in him; and yet no one can doubt, from the evidence exhibited on trial, and from his own confession, that he was justly convicted.  His appearance in prison justifies a belief in the accuracy of this view of his case. His conversation was marked by not a little shrewdness, accompanied with much that was the opposite.  The characteristic qualities of his mind, in the judgment of men who had made the study of disease the business of life, indicated with unerring certainty what had been the course of his former years; and this view of his case was fully confirmed by his own frank acknowledgments the day before he was executed.  He had just that amount of mind left, and those qualities of mind which would naturally exist in one who had been the subject of vicious practices.

Such effects are discoverable in every community, and their final development is generally in the hospital of the insane.  Instances have fallen under my own observation, of a painful character, one of which I will bring to your notice.  I had a classmate in College, who was of a retiring and modest demeanor – a young man of property and character, who maintained a reputable standing, and who graduated without a blot on his fame.  Some twelve years had passed since we had separated, when, on a visit to the establishment for the insane at Bloomingdale, in the vicinity of New York, I discovered among several hundred patients, one whose lineaments I recognized.  He was this classmate.  He was pacing up and down the apartment, and wore that demented look common in such cases.  In fact he was a perfect idiot.  He remembered nothing of the college scenes through which we had passed, nor could I awaken any recognition of them in his mind; it was a blank; and it had become so, not from disease, not from any sudden stroke which bereft him of reason, but it had sunk, by slow degrees, under the influence of that solitary vice which ruins thousands, before they have a suspicion of their danger.

These are but the natural consequences of that course of life, which the criminal, who suffered upon the gallows, followed.  In his case, the evil had not advanced so far.  His animal frame had more power to resist it, that that of more cultivated, and of more mind.  And yet his shrewd cunning, and silly laugh at trifles, together with his whole appearance, and his confession, place it beyond a doubt that he brought himself into the condition in which he was, by the practice of vice.  And yet reason was not so far dethroned as to render him irresponsible.  His memory, in some respects, was good; his sense could not be denied, and he had the full consciousness of wrong doing in the commission of crime.  An idiot has no conscience: but a more accurate description of the power of conscience and its effects, I never heard, than was given from his lips.  And in the dark hours of night, while in his cell in the prison, the cries and screams of his murdered victim, and her appearance when de3ad, presented themselves to him with such power as almost to render him frantic with terror.  His discovered, when too late, that “the way of transgressors is hard.”

Some there are, who object to capital punishment as the relic of a barbarous age, and wrong, and who have therefore cherished a sympathy with the individual who suffered, as being the victim of a sanguinary law.  So far as it respects this case, my own feelings would have been gratified to have had his sentence commuted to imprisonment for life.  And yet I have no hesitancy to avow my full belief in the justice and expediency of that law which requires the crime of the murderer to be expiated by his blood.  I regard it of such unspeakable importance to protect human life, that the highest penalty in the power of man to inflict should be incurred for taking that life away.  The object of the penalty in such a case is not vindictive, but for the protection and safety of the community; and no man can doubt in this age, that individual life is, in some cases at least, to be held subject to the general good.  Some there are, who, with marked inconsistency, will urge on a sanguinary war, in which thousands of lives are offered on the altar of public ambition, who yet clamor against the justice of that law which sends the murderer to the scaffold.

It is time that such inconsistencies were abandoned.  Let the principle be assumed, either that the State has no right to require the sacrifice of life in its own defense; or that equally for its defense, but in another way, it has a right to require this sacrifice.  Who will deny that it is as important that society be protected from the dagger of the assassin as from the guns of an invading enemy?  And if it is just to demand our fellow-citizens to enroll themselves to meet an invading foe, it is equally just to demand that the murderer die upon the scaffold.  As a question of justice, therefore, or of strict rectitude, no reasonable doubt can be entertained.

The whole inquiry, as it seems to me, turns on the expediency of the one or the other course, as best adapted to protect society from crime.  And on this point my mind is equally at rest.  There is no other punishment proposed, which is of equal force to deter from crime.  Who will pretend that a life of captivity and of imprisonment, even supposing this penalty in all cases to be inflicted, is comparable in terror to the penalty of death?  The common sense of the community, expressed by law, has long ago decided this point, by making imprisonment for life a secondary penalty.  And since, even with death in view, men do commit murder, we have reason to think that this crime would be less regarded, and more common, in proportion to any relaxation of the penalty.  It belongs, therefore, to those who would remove the penalty of death from the statute book, to show that imprisonment for life is a greater and more fearful penalty than death, and would prove more efficacious in the prevention of crime, which no one can be made to believe, if he regard the future world as a state of reward and punishment, or respect his own consciousness of what he would himself prefer were he convicted.  We need not go to the Bible to settle the question of the right to take the life of the murderer in such a case; for it is a right agreeable to the law of nature; and unless directly prohibited in the word of God, exists in all its strength.  It belongs to the right of self-protection, which every community enjoys, to use, for this purpose, the wisest and most effectual means.

Another subject of inquiry introduced in this connection is, what is the comparative guilt of that crime which introduced the murderer to the scaffold, considered as an offense against law?  Law is of two kinds, as it constitutes the rule of duty enjoined by God, or that which is enacted by men for the regulation of human conduct in society.  The great law of moral duty is that which God has prescribed in the ten commandments.  This, in its different precepts, is one law, all of these several commands constituting one code, which is of universal authority and obligation.  The moral duties enjoined by this law, human legislation cannot change; and no law is of any force which is contradictory to them.

But in addition to the law of God, are those framed by human wisdom for mutual protection and safety, and to promote the ends of government.  Those laws affix different penalties to crime in proportion to the injury which that crime is thought to do to the community.  Thus, in the case of murder, every man’s life is protected by the law which requires that the blood of the murderer shall be shed; and there is every degree of penalty inflicted for various offenses, according to their estimated guilt.

In making an estimate of guilt in any crime, it is common to consider the degree of penalty which attaches itself to its commission, and whether it be a mere nominal fine, imprisonment in the penitentiary, or death upon the scaffold.  In the common estimation of mankind, a man who commits a murder and dies upon the gallows, is a monster of iniquity; and one who perjures himself and becomes an inmate of the penitentiary, is cast out of society with loathing and contempt.  This is right.  The penalty which they suffer, is just that which they invoke by their conduct, and which society properly inflicts.  But is human law the only and true standard of morality?  By no means: for this law differs with the customs of every nation.  There is but one true standard of morality in the universe, and that is God’s unerring law.

Blackstone allows, and it is affirmed by the wisest expounders of law, that all that is just and right, and conducive to happiness in human legislation on moral subjects, is based in the ten commandments of the divine law.  It is according to this, that all questions of morals, are finally to be solved.  Men may have opinions on this subject, and may give them the force of law; but all their opinions are finally to be adjudicated and settled in the grand chancery of heaven, and by that law which Jehovah has prescribed for our guidance.  When settled by this test, how does the morality of that act which has brought a wretched man to the scaffold, differ from the morality of a thousand other acts committed by other men in the daily walks of life, and which are attended by no such immediately ruinous consequences?  We do not ask how they differ in the eye of man, but of God.

Man, we know, makes a great difference between the two immoralities of the profane swearer and the murderer.  Does God know any difference between them?  Both are the express violation of his law; and who shall decide, that to blaspheme the name of God, and bring his person and government into contempt before men, is a less criminal act in his sight than to take the life of a fellow man?  The immediate effects on society differ: and for these, the law makes provision by inflicting a heavier penalty on the murderer; for human law pretends not to take cognizance of offenses committed against God.  But who shall say that God himself does not attach a heavier guilt to the conduct of the profane swearer, than to that of the murderer?  By the one offense, a fellow being is deprived of life; by the other, a whole community may be perverted, in their hearts steeled against God, and their immortal welfare jeopardized.

You look with horror on the poor wretch who has expiated his offense against human law with his life, while you glory perhaps in your own goodness, as being a more excellent man, even while you lift up your voice in blasphemy toward the God who made you, and who would lead all around, by your example, to unite in blaspheming his holy name.  But when the murderer shall have expiated his offense by death, and you have paid your fine, and both expiated your violation of human law, and come to stand side by side before God your judge, whose offense, think you, will appear greatest?  He has violated the second table of the law, you the first.  He has injured man, you have injured God.  He has defaced the image of his Maker exhibited in man; you have defied the great God himself, and openly insulted and abused him; and were a jury of sinless beings to decide your comparative guilt, you would not be bought in second in wickedness.  If there be any difference, it would be against you.  In respect to the morality of your conduct, when judged by the true standard, you would stand, at least, on an equal footing with the murderer, for each and every offense you have committed.  He has committed one murder; you have taken God’s name in vain every day, and perhaps every hour.

It is important to view this subject in its true light.  Let us then reason it still further.  God has commanded you to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  This precept belongs essentially to that moral code which affects our relations to God and the worship and reverence with which he should be treated.  No views of man can alter or change this great law, the substance of which is, that one seventh part of our time is to be devoted exclusively to the worship of our Creator.  But according to human law, the forger is sent to the penitentiary and the Sabbath-breaker punished by fine.  This difference in penalty has no respect to the different degrees of criminality in the two cases, but merely to the influence of these offenses on society considered with reference to this life only.  But, as estimated by God, how do they differ?  The one offender robs man of a portion of his property, the other robs God of that respect and reverence which are his due.  And when both shall have expiated their offences against human law, the one has endured his time in the penitentiary, and the other paid his fine, and shall come to stand before God in judgment, which will be esteemed the most immoral?  The one has done an injury to man, the other robbed God; the one has appropriated to himself another’s property, the other has withheld from the Sovereign of the universe, his creator, preserver, and benefactor, that which he had a right to demand, and treated him with utter contempt and scorn.  You may think this to be a new view of these subjects.  It may be new to you, because your opinions have been formed in accordance with the estimate of crime made by man.  But do you not perceive how partial and defective this standard is?

We may go still further and ask, which is worse in point of morals; the man who commits a single act of disobedience of the law and puts a fellow creature to death, or the man whose example, influence, and occupation, directly tend to make his associates profane, Sabbath-breakers, gamblers and drunkards?  In some of our large cities, there are places not inaptly called Hells.  One characteristic of these dens of infamy is, that they keep and expose for sale intoxicating drinks.  In connection with this, there is a billiard room, and secret rooms for gambling and other vile purposes.  Into this place young men are enticed to procure various articles of food, common to such establishments.  Drinking is there resorted to, and this forms an introduction to the secret chambers and into the very heart of vice.  Now it diminishes nothing from the character of those places that the wines and brandies are kept concealed, or that they are set up in bottles beautifully labeled on the shelves, and that an air of neatness and gentility pervades the place.  This but enhances the mischief.

And here many a son of a widowed mother takes his first step in the downward road to infamy; and many a parent’s heart bleeds and is broken, and many a child of promise and of hope is ruined for this life and for that which is to come, by the enticements offered.  Can you compare the man who keeps such a hell, in point of morality, with the victim of the law who has died upon the scaffold?  Horrible as was his crime, and dreadful as was his punishment, yet, when before God my judge, if any choice were admissible, I would prefer the lot of the degraded and miserable Bell, to that of any rum-seller on earth; much more to that of the keeper of an infamous hell, where drinking, and gambling, and Sabbath-breaking, and profanity, go hand in hand; and where vice is created by wholesale to ruin for this life, and to damn for eternity the hopeless victims of such enticements.  I speak it boldly and in the fear of God, that in point of morality, and as estimated by the eternal rule of rectitude, the man who panders to vice, that he may extract gold from the groans, the sighs, and the miseries of his fellow men, is as much inferior in point of morality to that wretched murderer, as he was inferior, in the estimation of mankind, to the thousands who pass their lives free from the reproach of such an out-breaking sin.

It is not to justify and defend the murderer that I thus speak, but to waken your attention to that which is sometimes overlooked and forgotten.  There is many a man dressed in fine apparel and in high station, and many a woman too, who, when they shall come to stand before God in judgment, will sink in the scale of morality, as estimated by Gold’s righteous law, far below the man on whose character and fate we look with such pity and horror.  Amid greater light and favored with higher opportunities, they have treated God and his law with more injury and contempt than this poor, ignorant, and vicious man.  Elevated in point of privilege far above him,  they may at last discover, that in guilt and infamy, as God estimates character, they are far below.  For it is a rule of rectitude which the just Sovereign of the universe will assuredly regard, that of those to whom much is given, much will be required; and that it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment day, than for those who have known their duty better, but have continued to live in its habitual neglect.

But we turn from pursuing these inquiries, to consider the fate of that man whose character we have partially noticed.  When first imprisoned, I called on him; but having been informed after his trial that he had invited a clergyman of this borough to be his spiritual instructor, I did not call again till requested by him with the view of attending him in a few days to the place of execution.  Though prompted by my natural feelings to refuse this request, yet how could I decline to regard the wishes of this poor man at such an hour?  I accordingly visited him in prison, and had repeated opportunities to converse with him.  He seemed very much the same as when I before visited him, excepting that the consciousness that his lamp of life had almost expired, rendered him more serious and concerned.  He told me much of his early history so far as he could remember it; that he was from his youth initiated into vice; that his parents, and brothers and sisters, were of the same stamp with himself; that having been cast forth upon the world, he was led to practice feigning himself deaf and dumb, to inspire sympathy in others and obtain food, and that he practiced this way for a year or two; that he has wandered about all his days; that when he asked people for food, people said, go to work, and when he asked for work, they would give him none; then, said he, “I pretended to be a cripple to obtain food from the sympathies of the people, for I could not starve.”  Alluding to the practice of vice in which he had lived, he said to me, with considerable emotion, “it was that which ruined me;” and he repeated again, “it was that which has brought me to this wretched state.”

In respect to the foolish speeches he had made, he felt self-condemned, for he introduced the subject of his own accord, and said, “I have made a great many foolish speeches; but people came in here to see me out of mere curiosity and ask me questions, and I answered them anyhow, I did not care how;” but, said he, “I did not feel as I talked.”  He evidently wished to impress me with the fact that he was sensible of the impropriety of many things he had said, and that it was mere talk to amuse the by-standers, and to make them laugh; but that his real feelings were at heart very different.  Of this I have no doubt; for not infrequently has he been discovered weeping, and has evinced more feeling than he has generally had credit for possessing.  He never talked foolish things to me, for I always addressed him kindly and seriously; and I very much doubt if many who have tried to laugh and jest with this poor weak-minded man in view of his awful fate, will reflect with pleasure on the course which they have pursued.

In respect to his future prospects, he said that he hoped to be saved through the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.  I asked if he thought He could save such a wicked man as himself, and his reply was, he did save the thief on the cross, and he had no doubt he could save him.  He said that he repented, sincerely repented of all his sins, and received Christ by faith as his Savior; and that it was the voice of conscience in him which told him how wicked he was, and led him not to deny but confess his sins.  I questioned him before others and alone, to ascertain the extent of his knowledge and the sincerity of his feelings.  And now, when all is over, it appears to me, on reflection, that no fault can be found with the views and feelings expressed; and how far he was truly penitent, or what were his relations to God his Savior, can be known only in the final day.

When taken from his cell, and clothed with his scaffold robes, and the rope was put on his neck preparatory to being led forth to the gallows, his countenance was solemn and expressive.  When he trembled, and was asked by a by-stander “Are you cold, Bell?” he replied, “No, it is fear!”  This was not the response of an idiot.  That changed and solemn look was not the countenance of an idiot.  Those answers which he gave, and views presented of a religious nature in his cell, were not the language of an idiot.  His whole appearance, and his brief address and prayer on the scaffold, had nothing of the aspect of idiocy.  No, he was far from being such a person.  He was an ignorant, vicious, and weak-minded man; and may we not hope, amid all his foibles, that he was truly penitent?  On the scaffold, he publicly thanked the sheriff and his family, and those who had befriended him, for their kindness – expressed his hope in the pardoning mercy of God, and that death would be a happy exchange for him; and at the close of the concluding prayer offered in his behalf the drop fell, and he was gone from this world forever!

Poor, unhappy Bell!  My heart pitied your untimely fate.  Without knowledge, without education, without any religious culture, without a friend on earth to care for you – who never knew even a virtuous mother’s love, and who drew in vice from the breast of her who gave you being – when you shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ in the last great day, and we shall be assembled there, may you not appeal to God, you judge, in the sincerity of your heart, and say, “No man cared for my soul?”  Poor Bell!  Let the man who would look upon you as the basest and most wicked of mankind, ask himself if he has never violated that precept of God’s holy law which says, “Thou shall not commit adultery.”  Let those who stand well with the world, and with the Church of Christ, ask who has made them to differ, and whether they are living as they ought to do, in view of their superior education, and their higher privileges.  Yea, were the blessed Savior present in this assembly, and should say, as he once did to those who criminated one who was brought before him, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone,” whose hand would be uplifted against this murderer?  Who would dare to cast him down and take his place, as innocent of all transgression, before that God who searches the heart, and who will judge the world in righteousness, in the last great day?

Go, you who take God’s holy name in vain; you who desecrate the Sabbath; you who pander to the vices of men to win their gold; you who seek in the private walks of life to allure the virtuous into the paths of infamy for the gratification of your beastly passions; you who do, in the darkness of the night, deeds which, if exposed, would mantle your cheek with shame – go, boast of your virtue, pride yourself before your fellow-men on that moral excellence which you do not possess, and treat with utter loathing and contempt the poor wretch whose life has been forfeited, justly forfeited, to the law; but know that the eye of God is upon you; the judgment seat of Christ is full in view before you, and how – O! how will you appear, when you shall stand before that awful tribunal?
In view of this subject, we may perceive,

1.  How necessary it is for the young to guard themselves against every vicious tendency.

It was the earnest desire of Bell, that the young should be warned against that vicious course of life which may ruin them, as completely as it did him.  Many a young man starts fair, and makes fair promises; he means to be virtuous, but is not prepared to resist at the outset the various enticements which are thrown in his way.  Allured by thoughtless companions, he enters with them the portals of sin, and Oh! How often is it never to return!

Do not, we entreat you, think that you are exposed to no danger.  The danger is on every side.  Oh! Shun it, as you would the gates of hell, did they stand open before you.  Allow no dalliance to sin, no, not for a moment; but turn with all your heart unto wisdom’s way; for it is the way of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.

2.  We learn what a curse in the community those men are, whose occupation it is to corrupt and lead into vice those whom they are able to entice, and who pander to vice, and make a gain of that which ruins men.  Not only do they do nothing to make the world better than it is, and to increase the sum of human happiness, but their influence is adverse to these great ends.  Let their character and influence be appreciated at what they are worth, and their means to do injury to others will be proportionately impaired.  When it is so difficult to reform mankind of their vices, and so easy, in consequence of the depraved inclinations of the heart, to lead them astray, how fatal must be the course which some pursue to the happiness of thousands!  Oh that those who give their influence for the gain it brings them, to the promotion of vice, would repent of their wicked conduct!  Let them observe the counsels of wisdom, lest in the final day he who has died for the murder of one victim, shall rise against them and condemn them as worthy of being beaten with more stripes, because when they knew they were doing wrong they still persisted in their course, and not only became the murderer of the bodies, but of the souls of men.

3.  The evil tendencies of sin are here portrayed in vivid colors, and the miseries which sin occasions.  It necessarily destroys peace of mind, troubles the conscience, and induces shame and remorse.  And they who live in sin, will assuredly become sensible of this by their own experience.  For the day is coming when the secrets of every heart shall be revealed and a guilty  world shall stand trembling before God.

4.  We learn the value of the Gospel, as containing a system of forgiveness with God, and of mercy to the repentant.  No man can die happy, whether upon the scaffold, or on his bed, without an assurance felt of pardoned sin, and of forgiveness through the blood of Jesus.  And with this assurance, he may die in tranquility and in peace; yea, he may feel in a dying hour joys which he cannot express.

It is the Gospel which offers this mercy to all who humbly seek it.  The thief on the cross was as freely forgiven, as the most noble of the earth who repent; and I think I never felt the force of many of the kind expressions of the Gospel to sinners as I felt then, when I stood by the side of the murderer on the scaffold, who professed penitence with tears, and openly professed Christ as his only hope of acceptance into paradise.  “It is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners.”  He “came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,”  He “came to seek and to save them that are lost; for God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whoso believeth on him should not perish.”  “Wherefore he is able to save unto the  uttermost, all who come unto God by him.”  Precious, precious Gospel!  It brings its offers of cleansing and saving mercy down, not only to the ignorant, but to the vicious, yea, to the chief of sinners, who may stand trembling upon the trap of the scaffold which is about to fall.

This Gospel, sinner, offers salvation to you, and if offers it on the same terms.  It calls on you and on all men everywhere to repent.  O listen to its voice of mercy – listen now; “for if he who despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden underfoot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was cleansed an unholy thing, and has done despite unto the Spirit of grace.”

We are all advancing to the last of earth, and to the tribunal of the great God our Maker, before which we must soon appear.  The few brief years, or hours, perhaps, which intervene between this moment and that, are swiftly passing away.  The river rushes from its mountain springs, not swifter or more certainly to the ocean, than are we borne on the rapid stream of time to meet our doom.  Tell us not of plans for rising to ambitious honors, for amassing wealth, and mere worldly enjoyment, for these may be dashed in pieces in a moment.  Like the ship amid the ocean waves which is struck with a tempest, founders, and is lost, so may be your hopes.  No mortal vision can see what is before you, or how near you have come to death and to the judgment.  “You have five minutes yet to live,” said the kind-hearted sheriff to the trembling Bell.  How solemn the annunciation! And yet you may advance to the very moment of death and breathe your last, while cherishing the expectation of many years to come, and that you will repent before you die.

But whatever may be the circumstances of your departure from the world, know, that you cannot escape the judgment.  You cannot elude the vision, or avoid the glance of that august Being who sits upon the throne.  And since you must stand before his Judgment Seat; since, whether sooner or later, death will introduce you to that standard of morality which he has set up, or to the consequences of being found there impenitent and un-forgiven, let me implore you to reflect upon your future prospects, on the sins which you have committed against a holy and just God, on the mercy which is offered you in the Gospel, and on the value of the present opportunity to obtain forgiveness, and the assurance of eternal life through Jesus Christ.  I feel that the admonitions suggested by that awful scene which has recently transpired, are of infinite value, and that they ought not to be trifled with or scorned.  It is not I, but the Eternal God who addresses you.  He adjures you by the miseries which follow sin; by the tears and sorrows of the prisoner in his gloomy cell; by his agonizing cries to God for mercy, as he stood trembling on the scaffold; by his own precious love which is offered you through his Son, to turn from the path of the destroyer, and to give no rest to your soul, till repentance has sealed your forgiveness, and you can truly say, that God is yours.

You may slight these admonitions because it is the purpose of your mind the rather to give heed to the pleasures of the world than seek them; but remember, that it is not God’s happiness, but yours, that is in jeopardy.  You assume all the responsibility respecting it.  If you would be happy; happy in this world, happy throughout the endless ages which are to come, the door to this happiness stands open before you; but if not, there is the world and all that it can offer you; and there, at the termination of these pleasures, the dark portals of hell are thrown wide open.  Enshrouded with gloom, and over its massive gates, it is inscribed in letters of fire: “The way of transgressors is hard.”  There read and learn the end of the wicked.  There, the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever.  Behold hat black and awful cloud as it rises, while groans and sighs, and cries of agony reach your ears!  It is the smoke of the torments of the wicked.  And see upon it, written as if with the pencil of the Almighty, which had been dipped in the burning lake below, “The way of transgressors is hard.”

END.

Sermon – Mexican War – 1848


Theodore Parker (1810-1860) was the grandson of Captain John Parker, who had commanded the minute men at Lexington. He was mostly self-educated though he did some Harvard course work from home. Parker was a member of the Lexington militia, and also worked as a schoolteacher. He was a pastor in West Roxbury (1837-1846), and in Boston (1846-1852). This sermon was preached on the Mexican War in 1848 in Boston.


sermon-mexican-war-1848

A SERMON

OF THE

MEXICAN WAR:

PREACHED AT THE MELODEON, ON SUNDAY, JUNE 25TH, 1848.

BY THEODORE PARKER,
MINISTER OF THE XXVIII. CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN BOSTON.

 

SCRIPTURE LESSON.
OLD TESTAMENT.

And it came to pass after these things, that Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel, hard by the palace of Ahab, king of Samaria. And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard, that I may have it for a garden of herbs, because it is near unto my house; and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seem good to thee, I will give thee the worth of it in money. And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee. And Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased, because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread. But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread? And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him, Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered, I will not give thee my vineyard. And Jezebel his wife said unto him, Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? Arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry: I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people; and set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king: and then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die. And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles, who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them, they proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And there came in two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money: for Naboth is not alive, but dead. And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed, and also taken possession? 1 Kings, xxi, 1-19.

NEW TESTAMENT.
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.—Matthew v., 3-12.

 

SERMON.
Soon after the commencement of the war against Mexico, I said something respecting it in this place. But while I was printing the sermon, I was advised to hasten the compositors in their work, or the war would be over before the sermon was out. The advice was like a good deal of the counsel that is given a man who thinks for himself, and honestly speaks what he unavoidably thinks. It is now more than two years since the war began; I have hoped to live long enough to see it ended, and hoped to say a word about it when over. A month ago, this day, the 25th of May, the treaty of peace, so much talked of, was ratified by the Mexican Congress. A few days ago, it was officially announced by telegraph to your collector in Boston, that the war with Mexico was at an end.

There are two things about this war quite remarkable. The first is, THE MANNER OF ITS COMMENCEMENT. It was begun illegally, without the action of the constitutional authorities; begun by the command of the President of the United States, who ordered the American army into a territory which the Mexicans claimed as their own. The President says “It is ours,” but the Mexicans also claimed it, and were in possession thereof until forcibly expelled. This is a plain case, and as I have elsewhere treated at length of this matter, I will not dwell upon it again, except to mention a single fact but recently divulged. It is well known that Mr. Polk claimed the territory west of the Nueces and east of the Rio Grande, as forming a part of Texas, and therefore as forming part of the United States after the annexation of Texas. He contends that Mexico began the war by attacking the American army while in that territory and near the Rio Grande. But, from the correspondence laid before the American Senate, in its secret session for considering the treaty, it now appears that on the 10th of November, 1845, Mr. Polk instructed Mr. Slidell to offer a relinquishment of American claims against Mexico, amounting to $5,000,000 or $6,000,000, for the sake of having the Rio Grande as the western boundary of Texas;–yes, for that very territory which he says was ours without paying a cent. When it was conquered, a military government was established there, as in other places in Mexico.

The other remarkable thing about the war is, THE MANNER OF ITS CONCLUSION. The treaty of peace which has just been ratified by the Mexican authorities, and which puts an end to the war, was negotiated by a man who had no more legal authority than any one of us has to do it. Mr. Polk made the war, without consulting Congress, and that body adopted the war by a vote almost unanimous. Mr. Nicholas P. Trist made the treaty, without consulting the President; yes, even after the President had ordered him to return home. As the Congress adopted Mr. Polk’s war, so Mr. Polk adopted Mr. Trist’s treaty, and the war illegally begun is brought informally to a close. Mr. Polk is now in the President’s chair, seated on the throne of the Union, although he made the war; and Mr. Trist, it is said, is under arrest for making the treaty—meddling with what was none of his business.

When the war began, there was a good deal of talk about it here; talk against it. But, as things often go in Boston, it ended in talk. The newsboys made money out of the war. Political parties were true to their wonted principles, or their wonted prejudices. The friends of the party in power could see no informality in the beginning of hostilities; no injustice in the war itself; not even an impolicy. They were offended, if an obscure man preached against it of a Sunday. The political opponents of the party in power talked against the war, as a matter of course; but, when the elections came, supported the men that made it with unusual alacrity—their deeds serving as commentary upon their words, and making further remark thereon, in this place, quite superfluous. Many men,–who, whatever other parts of Scripture they may forget, never cease to remember that “Money answereth all things,”—diligently set themselves to make money out of the war and the new turn it gave to national affairs. Others thought that “Glory” was a good thing, and so engaged in the war itself, hoping to return, in due time, all glittering with its honors.

So what with the one political party that really praised the war, and the other who affected to oppose it, and with the commercial party, who looked only for a market—this for Merchandise and that for “Patriotism”—the friends of peace, who seriously and heartily opposed the war, were very few in number. True, the “sober second thought” of the people has somewhat increased their number; but they are still few, mostly obscure men.

Now Peace has come, nobody talks much about it; the news-boys have scarce made a cent by the news. They fired cannons, a hundred guns on the Common, for joy at the victory of Monterey; at Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, New York, men illuminated their houses in honor of the battle of Buena Vista, I think it was; the Custom House was officially illuminated at Boston for that occasion. But we hear of no cannons to welcome the peace. Thus far, it does not seem that a single candle has been burnt in rejoicing for that. The newspapers are full of talk, as usual; flags are flying in the streets; the air is a little noisy with hurrahs,–but it is all talk about the conventions at Baltimore and Philadelphia; hurrahs for Taylor and Cass. Nobody talks of the peace. Flags enough flap in the wind, with the names of rival candidates. But nowhere do the Stripes and Stars bear Peace as their motto. The peace now secured is purchased with such conditions imposed on Mexico, that while every one will be glad of it, no man, that loves Justice, can be proud of it. Very little is said about the treaty. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts did himself honor, it seems to me, in voting against it on the ground that it enabled us to plunder Mexico of her land. But the treaty contains some things highly honorable to the character of the nation, of which we may well enough be proud, if ever of anything. I refer to the twenty-second and twenty-third articles, which provide for arbitration between the nations, if future difficulties should occur, and to the pains taken, in case of actual hostilities, for the security of all unarmed persons, for the protection of private property, and for the humane treatment of all prisoners taken in war. These ideas, and the language of these articles, are copied from the celebrated treaty between the United States and Prussia—the treaty of 1785. It is scarcely needful to add, that they were then introduced by that great and good man, Benjamin Franklin, one of the negotiators of the treaty. They made a new epoch in diplomacy, and introduced a principle previously unknown in the Law of Nations. The insertion of these articles in the new treaty is, perhaps, the only thing connected with the war which an American can look upon with satisfaction. Yet this fact excites no attention.

Still, while so little notice is taken of this matter, in public and private, it may be worth while for a minister, on Sunday, to say a word about the peace, and, now the war is over, to look back upon it, to see what it has cost, in money and in men, and what we have got by it; what its consequences have been, thus far, and are likely to be for the future; what new dangers and duties come from this cause interpolated into our nation. We have been long promised ‘Indemnity for the past and security for the future”: let us see what we are to be indemnified for, and what secured against. The natural justice of the war I will not look at now.

First, then, of the COST OF THE WAR. Money is the first thing with a good many men; the only thing with some; and an important thing with all. So, first of all, let me speak of the cost of the war IN DOLLARS. It is a little difficult to determine the actual cost of the war, thus far—even its direct cost; for the bills are not all in the hands of government; and then, as a matter of political party-craft, the government, of course, is unwilling to let the full cost become known before the next election is over. So it is to be expected that the government will keep the facts from the people as long as possible. Most governments would do the same. But Truth has a right of way everywhere, and will recover it as last, spite of the adverse possession of a political party. The indirect cost of the war must be still more difficult to come at, and will long remain a matter of calculation, in which it is impossible to reach certainty. We do not know yet the entire cost of the Florida war, or the late war with England; the complete cost of the Revolutionary war must forever be unknown.

It is natural for most men to exaggerate what favors their argument; but when I cannot obtain the exact figures, I will come a good deal within the probable amount. The military and naval appropriations for the year ending in June, 1847, were $40,865,155.96; for the next year, $31,377.679.92; the sum asked for the present year, till next June, $42,224,000; making a whole of $114.466,835.88. It is true that all this appropriation is not for the Mexican war, but it is also true that this sum does not include all the appropriations for the war. Estimating the sums already paid by the government, the private claims presented and to be presented, the $15,000,000 to be paid Mexico as purchase money for the territory we take from her, the $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 to be paid our own citizens for their claims against her,–I think I am a good deal within the mark when I say the war will have cost $150,000,000 before the soldiers are at home, discharged, and out of the pay of the State. In this sum I do not include the bounty-lands to be given to the soldiers and officers, nor the pensions to be paid them, their widows and orphans, for years to come. I will estimate that the $50,000,000 more, making a whole of $200,000,000 which has been paid or must be. This is the direct cost to the federal government, and of course does not include the sums paid by individual States, or bestowed by private generosity, to feed and clothe the volunteers before they were mustered into service. This may seem extravagant; but, fifty years hence, when party spirit no longer blinds men’s eyes, and when the whole is a matter of history, I think it will be thought moderate, and be found a good deal within the actual and direct cost. Some of this cost will appear as a public debt. Statements recently made respecting it can hardly be trusted, notwithstanding the authority on which they rest. Part of this war-debt is funded already, part not yet funded. When the outstanding demands are all settled, and the Treasury notes redeemed, there will probably be a war-debt of not less than $125,000,000. At least, such is the estimate of an impartial and thoroughly competent judge. But, not to exaggerate, let us all it only $100,000,000.

It will, perhaps, be said—part of this money, all that is paid in pensions, is a charity, and therefore no loss. But it is a charity paid to men who, except for the war, would have needed no such aid, and, therefore, a waste. Of the actual cost of the war, some three or four millions have been spent in extravagant prices for hiring or purchasing ships, in buying provisions and various things needed by the army, and supplied by political favorites at exorbitant rates. This is the only portion of the cost which is not sheer waste; here the money has only changed hands; nothing has been destroyed, except the honesty of the parties concerned in such transactions. If a Farmer hires men to help him till the soil, the men earn their subsistence and their wages, and leave, besides, a profit to their employer; when the season is over, he has his crops and his improvements as the return for their pay and subsistence. But for all that the Soldier has consumed—for his wages, his clothes, his food and drink, the fighting tools he has worn out, and the ammunition he has expended—there is no available return to show; all that is a clear waste. The beef is eaten up, the cloth worn away, the powder is burnt, and what is there to show for it all? Nothing but the “glory.” You sent out sound men, and they come back, many of them, sick and maimed; some of them are slain.

The indirect pecuniary cost of the war is caused, first, by diverting some 150,000 men—engaged in the war directly or remotely—from the works of productive industry, to the labors of war, which produce nothing; and, secondly, by disturbing the regular business of the country, first by the withdrawal of men from their natural work; then, by withdrawing large quantities of money from the active capital of the nation; and, finally, by the general uncertainty which it causes all over the land, thus hindering men from undertaking or prosecuting successfully their various productive enterprises. If 150,000 men earn, on the average, but $200 apiece, that alone amounts to $30,000,000. The withdrawal of such an amount of labor from the common industry of the country must be seriously felt. At any rate, the nation has earned $30,000,000 less than it would have done, if these men had kept about their common work.

But the diversion of capital from its natural and pacific direction is a greater evil in this case. America is rich, but her wealth consists mainly in land, in houses, cattle, ships, and various things needed for human comfort and industry. In money, we are poor. The amount of money is small in proportion to the actual wealth of the nation, and also in proportion to its activity, which is indicated by the business of the nation. In actual wealth, the Free States of America are probably the richest people in the world; but in money we are poorer than many other nations. This is plain enough, though perhaps not very well known, and is shown by the fact that interest, in European states, is from two to four per cent a year, and in America from six to nine. The active capital of America is small. Now in this war, a national debt has accumulated, which probably is or will soon be $100,000,000, or $125,000,000. Now all this great sum of money has, of course, been taken from the active capital of the country, and there has been so much less capital for the use of the Farmer, the Manufacturer, and the Merchant. But for this war, these 150,000 men and these $100,000,000 would have been devoted to productive industry; and the result would have been shown by the increase of our annual earnings, in increased wealth and comfort.

Then war produced uncertainty, and that distrust amongst men. Therefore many were hindered from undertaking new works, and others found their old enterprises ruined at once. In this way there has been a great loss, which cannot be accurately estimated. I think no man, familiar with American industry, would rate this indirect loss lower than $100,000,000; some, perhaps, at twice as much; but to avoid all possibility of exaggeration, let us call it half the smallest of these sums, or $50,000,000. This makes a whole of $250,000,000 as the complete pecuniary cost of the Mexican war—direct and indirect.

What have we got to show for all this money. We have a large tract of territory—containing, in all, both east and west of the Rio Grande, I am told, between 700,000 and 800,000 square miles. Accounts differ as to its value. But it appears, from the recent correspondence of Mr. Slidell, that in 1845 the President offered Mexico, in money, $25,000,000 for that territory which we now acquire under this new treaty. Suppose it is worth more—suppose it is worth twice as much, or all the indirect cost of the war ($50,000,000), then the $200,000,000 are thrown away.

Now, for this last sum, we could have built a sufficient Rail Road across the Isthmus of Panama—and another across the continent, from the Mississippi to the Pacific. If such a Road, with its suitable equipment, cost $100,000 a mile, and the distance should amount to 2,000 miles, then the $200,000,000 would just pay the bills. That would have been the greatest national work of productive industry in the world. In comparison with it the Lake Moeris and the Pyramids of Egypt and the Wall of China seem but the works of a child. It might be a work to be proud of till the world ends; one, too, which would advance the industry, the welfare, and general civilization of mankind to a great degree,–diminishing, by half, the distance round the globe; saving millions of property and many lives each year; besides furnishing, it is thought, a handsome income from the original outlay. But, perhaps, that would not be the best use which might be made of the money; perhaps it would not have been wise to undertake that work. I do not pretend to judge of such matters, only to show what might be done with that sum of money, if we were disposed to national works of such a character. At any rate, two Pacific Rail Roads would be better than one Mexican War. We are seldom aware of the cost of war. If a single regiment of dragoons costs only $700,000 a year—which is a good deal less than the actual cost—that is considerably more than twelve colleges like Harvard University, with its Schools for Theology, Law, and Medicine; its Scientific School, Observatory and all. We are, taken as a whole, a very ignorant people; and while we waste our School-money and School-time, must continue so.

A great man, who towers far above the common heads, full of creative thought, of the Ideas which move the world, able to organize that thought into Institutions, Laws, Practical Works;–a man of a million, a million-minded man, at the head of a nation, putting his thought into them; ruling not barely by virtue of his position, but by the intellectual and moral power to fill it; ruling not over men’s heads, but in their minds and hearts, and leading them to new fields of toil, increasing their numbers, wealth, intelligence, comfort, morals, piety—such a man is a noble sight; a Charlemagne, or a Genghis Kahn, a Moses leading his nation up from Egyptian bondage to freedom and the promised land. Now have the eyes of the world been fixed on Washington! In darker days than ours, when all was violence, it is easy to excuse such men if they were warriors also; and made, for the time, their nation but a camp. There have been ages when the most lasting ink was human blood. In our day, when war is the exception, and that commonly needless—such a man, so getting the start of the majestic world, were a far grander sight. And with such a man at the head of this nation—a great man at the head of a free nation, able and energetic and enterprising as we are—what were too much to hope? As it is, we have wasted our money, and got—the honor of fighting such a war.

Let me speak of the direct cost of the war IN MEN. In April, 1846, the entire army of the United States consisted of 7,244 men; the naval force of about 7,500. We presented the gratifying spectacle of a nation 20,000,000 strong, with a sea-coast of 3,000 or 4,000 miles, and only seven or eight thousand soldiers, and as many armed men on the sea—or less than fifteen thousand in all! Few things were more grateful to an American than this thought—that his country was so nearly free from the terrible curse of a standing army. At that time, the standing army of France was about 480,000 men; that of Russia nearly 800,000, it is said. Most of the officers in the American army and navy, and most of the rank and file, had probably entered the service with no expectation of ever shedding the blood of men. The navy and army were looked on as instruments of Peace—as much so as the Police of a city.

The first of last January, there was, in Mexico, an American army of 23,695 regular soldiers, and a little more than 50,000 volunteers—the number cannot now be exactly determined—making an army of invasion of about 75,000 men. The naval forces, also, had been increased to 10,000. Estimating all the men engaged in the service of the army and navy; in making weapons of war and ammunition; in preparing food and clothing; in transporting those things and the soldiers from place to place, by land or sea, and in performing the various other works incident to military operations,–it is within bounds to say that there were 80,000 or 90,000 men engaged indirectly in the works of war. But not to exaggerate, it is safe to say that 150,000 men were directly or indirectly engaged in the Mexican war. This estimate will seem moderate when you remember that there were about 5,000 teamsters connected with the army in Mexico.

Here, then, were 150,000 men, whose attention and toil were diverted from the great business of productive industry to merely military operations, or preparations for them. Of course, all the labor of these men was of no direct value to the human race. The food and clothing and labor of a man who earns nothing by productive work of Hand or Head, is food, clothing, and labor thrown away—labor in vain. There is nothing to show for the things he has consumed. So all the work spent in preparing ammunition and weapons of war is labor thrown away, an absolute loss, as much as if it had been spent in making earthen pitchers and then in dashing them to pieces. A country is the richer for every serviceable plough and spade made in it, and the world the richer; they are to be used in productive work, and when worn out, there is the improved soil and the crops that have been gathered, to show for the wear and tear of the tools. So a country is the richer for every industrious Shoemaker and Blacksmith it contains; for his time and toil go to increase the sum of human comfort—creating actual wealth. The world also is better off, and becomes better through their influence. But a country is the poorer for every Soldier it maintains, and the world poorer, as he adds nothing to the actual wealth of mankind; so is it the poorer for each sword and cannon made within its borders, and the world poorer, for these instruments cannot be used in any productive work, only for works of destruction.

So much for the labor of these 150,000 men—labor wasted in vain. Let us now look at the cost of life. It is not possible to ascertain the exact loss suffered up to this time, in killed, deceased by ordinary diseases, and in wounded; for some die before they are mustered into the service of the United States, and parts of the army are so far distant from the seat of government that their recent losses are still unknown. I rely for information on the last report of the Secretary of War, read before the Senate April 10th, 1848, and recently printed. That gives the losses of parts of the army up to December last; other accounts are made up only till October, or till August. Recent losses will of course swell the amount of destruction. According to that Report, on the American side there has been killed in battle, or died of wounds received therein, 1,689 persons; there had died of diseases and accidents, 6,173; 3,743 have been wounded in battle who were not known to be dead at the date of the report.

This does not include the deaths in the navy, nor the destruction of men connected with the army in various ways—as furnishing supplies and the like. Considering the sickness and accidents that have happened in the present year, and others which may be expected before the troops reach home, I may set down the total number of deaths on the American side, caused by the war, at 15,000, and the number of wounded men at 4,000. Suppose the army on the average to have consisted of 50,000 men for two years, this gives a mortality of 15 per cent. Each year, which is an enormous loss even for times of war, and one seldom equaled in modern warfare.

Now, most of the men who have thus died or been maimed were in the prime of life—able-bodied and hearty men. Had they remained at home in the works of peace, it is not likely that more than 500 of the number would have died. So then 14,500 lives may be set down at once to the account of the war. The wounded men are of course to thank the war, and that alone, for their smart and the life-long agony which they are called on to endure.

Such is the American loss. The loss of the Mexicans we cannot now determine. But they have been many times more numerous than the Americans; have been badly armed, badly commanded, badly trained, and besides have been beaten in every battle;–their number seemed often the cause of their ruin, making them confident before battle and hindering their retreat after they were beaten. Still more, they have been ill provided with surgeons and nurses to care for the wounded, and were destitute of medicines. They must have lost in battle five or six times more than we have done, and have had a proportionate number of wounded to “lie like a military bulletin” is a European proverb; and it is not necessary to trust reports which tell of 600 or 900 Mexicans left dead on the ground, while the Americans lost but five or six. But when we remember that only 12 Americans were killed during the bombardment of Vera Cruz, which lasted five days; that the citadel contained more than 5,000 soldiers and over 400 pieces of cannon, we may easily believe the Mexican losses on the whole have been 10,000 men killed and perished of their wounds. Their loss by sickness would probably be smaller than our own, for the Mexicans were in their native climate, though often ill furnished with clothes, with shelter and provisions; so I will put down their loss by ordinary diseases at only 5,000, making a total of 15,000 deaths. Suppose their number of wounded was four times as great as our own, or 20,000. I should not be surprised if this were only half the number.

Put all together and we have in total, Americans and Mexicans, 24,000 men wounded, more or less, and the greater part maimed for life; and we have 30,000 men killed on the field of battle, or perished by the slow torture of their wounds, or deceased of diseases caused by extraordinary exposures,–24,000 men maimed; 30,000 dead!

You all remember the bill which so hastily passed Congress in May, 1846, and authorized the war previously begun. You perhaps have not forgot the preamble, “Whereas war exists by the act of Mexico.” Well, that bill authorized the waste of $200,000,000 of American treasure—money enough to have built a Rail Road across the Isthmus of Panama, and another to connect the Mississippi and the Pacific ocean; it demanded the disturbance of industry and commerce all over the land, caused by withdrawing $100,000,000 from peaceful investments, and diverting 150,000 Americans from their productive and peaceful works; it demanded a loss yet greater of the treasure of Mexicans; it commanded the maiming of 24,000 men for life, and the death of 30,000 men in the prime and vigor of manhood. Yet such was the state of feeling—I will not say of thought—in the Congress, that out of both houses only 16 men voted against it. If a Prophet had stood there he might have said to the Representative of Boston, “You have just voted for the wasting of 2000,000,000 of the very dollars you were sent there to represent; for the maiming of 24,000 men and the killing of 30,000 more—part by disease, part by the sword, part by the slow and awful lingering’s of a wounded frame! Sir, that is the English of your vote.” Suppose the Prophet, before the vote was taken, could have gone round and told each member of Congress, “If there comes a war, you will perish in it”—perhaps the vote would have been a little different. It is easy to vote away blood, if it is not your own!

Such is the cost of the war in money and in men. Yet it has not been a very cruel war. It has been conducted with as much gentleness as a war of invasion can be. There is no agreeable way of butchering men. You cannot make it a pastime. The Americans have always been a brave people; they were never cruel. They always treated their prisoners kindly—in the Revolutionary war, in the late war with England. True, they have seized the Mexican ports, taken military possession of the custom houses, and collected such duties as they saw fit; true, they sometimes made the army of invasion self-subsisting, and to that end have levied contributions on the towns they have taken; true, they have seized provisions which were private property, snatching them out of the hands of men who needed them; true, they have robbed the rich and the poor; true, they have burned and bombarded towns—have murdered men and violated women. All this must of course take place in any war. There will be the general murder and robbery committed on account of the nation, and the particular murder and robbery on account of the special individual. This also is to be expected. You cannot set a town on fire and burn down just half of it—making the flames stop exactly where you will. You cannot take the most idle, ignorant, drunken, and vicious men out of the low population in our cities and large towns, get them drunk enough or foolish enough to enlist, train them to violence, theft, robbery, murder, and then stop the man from exercising his rage or lust on his own private account. If it is hard to make a dog understand that he must kill a hare for his master, but never for himself, it is not much easier to teach a volunteer that it is a duty, a distinction, and a glory to rob and murder the Mexican people for the nation’s sake, but a wrong, a shame, and a crime to rob or murder a single Mexican for his own sake. There have been instances of wanton cruelty, occasioned by private licentiousness and individual barbarity. Of these I shall take no further notice, but come to such as have been commanded by the American authorities, and which were the official acts of the nation.

One was the capture of Tabasco. Tabasco is a small town several hundred miles from the theatre of war, situated on a river about 80 miles from the sea, in the midst of a fertile province. The army did not need it, nor the navy. It did not lie in the way of the American operations; its possession would be wholly useless. But one Sunday afternoon, while the streets were full of men, women, and children, engaged in their Sunday business, a part of the naval force of America swept by; the streets running at right angles with the river, were enfiladed by the hostile cannon, and men, women, and children, unarmed and unresisting, were mowed down by the merciless shot. The city was taken, but soon abandoned, for its possession was of no use. The killing of those men, women, and children was as much a piece of murder, as it would be to come and shoot us to-day, and in this house. No valid excuse has been given for this cold-blooded massacre—none can be given. It was not battle, but wanton butchery. None but a Pequod Indian could excuse it. The Theological newspapers in New England thought it a wicked thing in Dr. Palfrey to write a letter on Sunday, though he hoped thereby to help end the war. How many of them had any fault to find with this national butchery on the Lord’s day? Fighting is bad enough any day; fighting for mere pay, or glory, or the love of fighting, is a wicked thing; but to fight on that day when the whole Christian world kneels to pray in the name of the Peace-maker; to butcher men and women and children, when they are coming home from church, with prayer-books in their hands, seems an aggravation even of murder; a cowardly murder, which a Hessian would have been ashamed of. “But ‘twas a famous victory.”

One other instance, of at least apparent wantonness, took place at the bombardment of Vera Cruz. After the siege had gone on for a while, the foreign consuls in the town, “moved,” as they say, “by the feeling of humanity excited in their hearts by the frightful results of the bombardment of the city,” requested that the women and children might be allowed to leave the city, and not stay to be shot. The American General refused; they must stay and be shot.

Perhaps you have not an adequate conception of the effect produced by bombarding a town. Let me interest you a little in the details thereof. Vera Cruz is about as large as Boston in 1810; it contains about 30,000 inhabitants. In addition it is protected by a castle—the celebrated fortress of St. Juan d’ Ulloa, furnished with more than 5000 soldiers and over 400 cannons. Imagine to yourself Boston as it was 40 years ago, invested with a fleet on one side, and an army of 15,000 men on the land, both raining cannon-balls and bomb-shells upon your houses; shattering them to fragments, exploding in your streets, churches, houses, cellars, mingling men, women, and children in one promiscuous murder. Suppose this to continue five days and nights;–imagine the condition of the city; the ruins, the flames; the dead, the wounded, the widows, orphans; think of the fears of the men anticipating the city would be sacked by a merciless soldiery—think of the women! Thus you will have a faint notion of the picture of Vera Cruz at the end of March, 1847. Do you know the meaning of the name of the city? Vera Cruz is the True Cross. “See how these Christians love one another.” The Americans are followers of the Prince of Peace; they have more missionaries amongst the “heathen” than any other nation, and the President, in his last message, says, “No country has been so much favored, or should acknowledge with deeper reverence the manifestations of the Divine protection.” The Americans were fighting Mexico to dismember her territory, to plunder her soil, and plant thereon the institution of Slavery, “the necessary back-ground of Freedom.”

Few of us have ever seen a battle, and without that none can have a complete notion of the ferocious passions which it excites. Let me help your fancy a little by relating an anecdote which seems to be very well authenticated, and requires but little external testimony to render it credible. At any rate, it was abundantly believed a year ago; but times change, and what was then believed all round may now be “the most improbable thing in the world.” At the battle of Buena Vista, a Kentucky regiment began to stagger under the heavy charge of the Mexicans. The American commander-in-chief turned to one who stood near him, and exclaimed, “By God, this will not do. This is not the way for Kentuckians to behave when called on to make good a battle. It will not answer, sir.” So the General clenched his fist, knit his brows, and set his teeth hard together. However, the Kentuckians presently formed in good order and gave a deadly fire, which altered the battle. Then the old General broke out with a loud hurrah. “Hurrah for old Kentuck,” he exclaimed, rising in his stirrups; “that’s the way to do it. Give ‘em hell, damn ‘em,” and tears of exultation rolled down his cheeks as he said it. You find the name of this general at the head of most of the whig newspapers in the United States. He is one of the most popular candidates for the Presidency. Cannons were fired for him—a hundred guns on Boston Common, not long ago—in honor of his nomination for the highest office in he gift of a free and Christian people. Soon we shall probably have clerical certificates, setting forth—to the people of the North—that he is an exemplary Christian. You know how Faneuil Hall, the old “Cradle of Liberty,” rang with “hurrah for Taylor,” but a few days ago. The seven wise men of Greece were famous in their day; but now nothing is known of them except a single pungent aphorism from each, “Know thyself,” and the like. The time may come when our great men shall have suffered this same reduction descending—all their robes of glory having vanished save a single thread. Then shall Franklin be known only as having said, “Don’t give too much for the Whistle”; Patrick Henry for his “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death”; Washington for his “In Peace Prepare for War”: Jefferson for his “All Men Are Created Equal”;–and General Taylor shall be known only by his attributes rough and ready, and for his aphorism, “Give ‘em hell, damn ‘em.” Yet he does not seem to be a ferocious man, but generous and kindly, it is said, and strongly opposed to this particular war, whose “natural justice” it seems he looked at, and which he thought was wicked at the beginning, though, on that account, he was none the less ready to fight it.

One thing more I must mention in speaking of the cost of men. According to the Report quoted just now, 4,966 American soldiers had deserted in Mexico. Some of them had joined the Mexican army. When the American commissioners who were sent to secure the ratification of the treaty, went to Queretaro, they found there a body of 200 American soldiers, and 800 more were at no great distance, mustered into the Mexican service. These men, it seems, had served out their time in the American camp, and notwithstanding they had—as the President says in his message—“covered themselves with imperishable honors,” by fighting men who never injured them, they were willing to go and seek yet a thicker mantle of this imperishable honor, by fighting against their own country! Why should they not? If it were right to kill Mexicans for a few dollars a month, why was it not right also to kill Americans, especially when it pays the most? Perhaps it is not an American habit to inquire into the justice of a war, only into the profit which it may bring. If the Mexicans pay best—in money—these 1000 soldiers made a good speculation. No doubt in Mexico military glory is at a premium—though it could hardly command a greater price just now than in America, where, however, the supply seems equal to the demand.

The numerous desertions and the readiness with which the soldiers joined the “foe”, show plainly the moral character of the men, and the degree of “Patriotism” and “Humanity” which animated them in going to war. You know the severity of military discipline; the terrible beatings men are subjected to before they can become perfect in the soldier’s art; the horrible and revolting punishments imposed on them for drunkenness—though little pains were taken to keep the temptation from their eyes—and disobedience of general orders. You have read enough of this in the newspapers. The officers of the volunteers, I am told, have generally been men of little education, men of strong passions and bad habits; many of them abandoned men, who belonged to the refuse of society. Such men run into an army as the wash of the street runs into the sewers. Now when such a man gets clothed with a little authority, in time of peace, you know what use he makes of it; but when he covers himself with the “imperishable honors” of his official coat, gets an epaulette on his shoulder, a sword by his side, a commission in his pocket, and visions of “glory” in his head, you may easily judge how he will use his authority, or may read in the newspapers how he has used it. When there are brutal soldiers, commanded by brutal captains, it is to be supposed that much brutality is to be suffered.

Now desertion is a great offence in a soldier; in this army it is one of the most common—for nearly ten per cent. Of the American army has deserted in Mexico, not to mention the desertions before the army reached that country. It is related that forty-eight men were hanged at once for desertion; not hanged as you judicially murder men in time of peace, privately, as if ashamed of the deed, in the corner of a jail, and by a contrivance which shortens the agony and makes death humane as possible. These forty-eight men were hanged slowly; put to death with painful procrastinations—their agony willfully prolonged, and death embittered by needless ferocity. But that is not all: it is related, that these men were doomed to be thus murdered on the day when the battle of Churubusco took place. These men, awaiting their death, were told they should not suffer till the American flag should wave its stripes over the hostile walls. So they were kept in suspense an hour, and then—slowly hanged—one by one. You know the name of the officer on whom this barbarity rests; it was Colonel Harney, a man whose reputation was black enough and base enough before. His previous deeds, however, require no mention here. But this man is now a General—and so on the high road to the Presidency, whenever it shall please our Southern masters to say the word. Some accounts say there were more than forty-eight who thus were hanged. I only give the number of those whose names lie printed before me as I write. Perhaps the number was less; it is impossible to obtain exact information in respect to the matter, for the government has not yet published an account of the punishments inflicted in this war. The information can only be obtained by a “Resolution” of either house of Congress, and so is not likely to be had before the election. But at the same time with the execution, other deserters were scourged with fifty lashes each, branded with a letter D, a perpetual mark of infamy, on their cheek, compelled to wear an iron yoke, weighing eight pounds, about their neck. Six men were made to dig the grave of their companions, and were then flogged with two hundred lashes each.

I wish this hanging of forty-eight men could have taken place in State Street, and the respectable citizens of Boston, who like this war, had been made to look on and see it all; they had seen those poor culprits bid farewell to father, mother, wife, or child, looking wishfully for the hour which was to end their torment, and then, one by one, have seen them slowly hanged to death; that your Representative, ye men of Boston, had put on all the halters! He did help put them on; that infamous vote—I speak not of the motive, it may have been as honorable as the vote itself was infamous—doomed these eight and forty men to be thus murdered.

Yes, I wish all this killing of the 2,000 Americans on the field of battle, and the 10,000 Mexicans; all this slashing of the bodies of 24,000 wounded men; all the agony of the other 18,000 that have died of disease, could have taken place in some spot where the President of the United States and his Cabinet, where all the Congress who voted for the war, with the Baltimore conventions of ’44 and ’48, and the Whig convention of Philadelphia, and the controlling men of both political parties, who care nothing for this bloodshed and misery they have idly caused—could have stood and seen it all; and then that the voice of the whole nation had come up to them and said, “This is your work, not ours. Certainly we will not shed our blood, nor our brothers’ blood, to get never so much slave territory. It was bad enough to fight in the cause of Freedom. In the cause of Slavery—God forgive us for that! We have trusted you thus far, but please God, we never will trust you again.”

Let us now look at the effect of this war on the morals of the nation. The Revolutionary war was the contest for a great Idea. If there were ever a just war it was that—a contest for national existence. Yet it brought out many of the worst qualities of human nature, on both sides, as well as some of the best. It helped make a Washington, it is true, but a Benedict Arnold likewise. A war with a powerful nation, terrible as it must be, yet develops the energy of the people, promotes self-denial, and helps the growth of some qualities of a high order. It had this effect in England from 1798 to 1815. True, England for that time became a despotism, but the self-consciousness of the nation, its self-denial and energy of the people, promotes self-denial, and helps the growth of some qualities of a high order. It had this effect in England from 1798 to 1815. True, England for that time became a despotism, but the self-consciousness of the nation, its self-denial and energy were amazingly stimulated; the moral effect of that series of wars was doubtless far better than of that infamous contest which she has kept up against Ireland for many years. Let us give even war its due; when a great boy fights with an equal, it may develop his animal courage and strength—for he gets as bad as he gives, but when he only beats a little boy that cannot pay back his blows, it is cowardly as well as cruel, and doubly debasing to the conqueror. Mexico was no match for America. We all knew that very well before the war began. When a nation numbering 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 of people can be successfully invaded by an army of 75,000 men, two thirds of them volunteers, raw and undisciplined; when the invaders with less than 15,000 can march two hundred miles into the very heart of the hostile country, and with less than 6,000 can take and hold the capital of the nation—a city of 100,000 or 200,000 inhabitants—and dictate a peace, taking as much territory as they will—it is hardly fair to dignify such operations with the name of war. The little good which a long contest with an equal might produce in the conqueror, is wholly lost. Had Mexico been a strong nation we should never have had this conflict. A few years ago, when General Cass wanted a war with England, “an old-fashioned war,” and declared it “unavoidable,” all the men of property trembled. The Northern men thought of their mills and their ships; they thought how Boston and New York would look after a war with our sturdy old Father over the sea; they thought we should lose many millions of dollars and gain nothing. The men of the South, who have no mills and no ships and no large cities to be destroyed, thought of their “peculiar institution,” they thought of a servile war, they thought what might become of their slaves, if a nation which gave $100,000,000 to emancipate her bondmen should send a large army with a few black soldiers from Jamaica; should offer money, arms, and freedom to all who would leave their masters and claim their Unalienable Rights. They knew the Southern towns would be burnt to ashes, and the whole South, from Virginia to the Gulf, would be swept with fire,–and they said, “Don’t.” The North said so, and the South, they feared such a war, with such a foe. Every body knows the effect which this fear had on Southern Politicians, in the beginning of this century, and how gladly they made peace with England soon as she was at liberty to turn her fleet and her army against the most vulnerable part of the nation. I am not blind to the wickedness of England – more than ignorant of the good things she has done and is doing; ¬— a Paradise for the rich and strong, she is still a Purgatory for the wise and the good, and the Hell of the poor and the weak. I have no fondness for war anywhere — and believe it needless and wanton in this age of the world, surely needless and wicked between Father England and Daughter America; but I do solemnly believe that the moral effect of such an old-fashioned war as Mr. Cass in 1845 thought unavoidable would have been better than that of this Mexican war. It would have ended Slavery; ended it in blood no doubt, the worst thing to blot out an evil with, but ended it forever. God grant it may yet have a more peaceful termination. We should have lost millions of property and thousands of men, and then, when Peace came, we should know what it was worth; — and as the burnt child dreads the fire, no future President, or Congress, or Convention, or Party would talk much in favor of war for some years to come.

The moral effect of this war is thoroughly bad. It was unjust in the beginning. Mexico did not pay her debts; but though the United States in 1783 acknowledged the British claims against themselves, they were not paid until 1803. Our claims against England for her depredations in 1793 were not paid till 1804; our claims against France for her depredations in 1806-13 were not paid us till 1834. The fact that Mexico refused to receive the resident minister which the United States sent to settle the disputes, when a commissioner was expected — this was no ground of war. We have lately seen a British ambassador ordered to leave Spain within eight and forty hours, and yet the English minister of foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston — no new had at diplomacy — declares that this does not interrupt the concord of the two nations! We treated Mexico contemptuously before hostilities began; and when she sent troops into a territory which she had always possessed — though Texas had claimed it — we declared that was an act of war, and ourselves sent an army to invade her soil, to capture her cities, and seize her territory. It has been a war of plunder, undertaken for the purpose of seizing Mexican territory and extending over it that dismal curst which blackens, impoverishes, and barbarizes half the Union now, and slowly corrupts the other half. It was not enough to have Louisiana a slave territory; not enough to make that institution perpetual in Florida; not enough to extend this blight over Texas – we must have yet more slave soil, one day to be carved into slave states, to bind the Southern yoke yet more securely on the Northern neck; to corrupt yet more the politics, literature, morals of the North. The war was unjust at its beginning; mean in its motives, a war without honorable cause; a war for plunder, a quarrel between a great boy and a little puny weakling who could not walk alone, and could hardly stand. We have treated Mexico as the three Northern powers treated Poland in the last century – stooped to conquer. Nay, our contest has been like the English seizure of Ireland. All the Justice was on one side – the force, skill, and wealth on the other.

I know men say the war has shown us that Americans could fight. Could fight! — almost every male beast will fight, the more brutal the better. The long war of the Revolution, when Connecticut, for seven years, kept 5000 men in the field, showed that Americans could fight; — Bunker Hill and Lexington showed that they could fight even without previous discipline. If such valor be a merit, I am ready to believe that the Americans in a great cause like that of Mexico – to resist wicked invasion – is full of the elements that make soldiers. Is that a praise? Most men think so, but it is the smallest honor of a nation. Of all glories, military glory at its best estate seems the poorest.

Men tell us it shows the strength of the nation; and some writers quote the opinions of European kings who, when hearing of the battles of Monterey, Buena Vista, and Vera Cruz, became convinced that we were “a great people.” Remembering the character of these kings, one can easily believe that such was their judgment, and will not sigh many times at their fate, but will hope to see the day when the last king who can estimate a nation’s strength only by its battles has passed on to impotence and oblivion. The power of America – do we need proof of that? I see it in the streets of Boston and New York; in Lowell and in Lawrence; I see it in our mills and our ships; I read it in those letters of iron written all over the North, where he may read that runs; I see it in the unconquered energy which tames the forest, the rivers, and the ocean; in the school-houses which lift their modest roof in every village of the North; in the churches that rise all over the Freeman’s land – would God that they rose higher – pointing down to man and to human duties, and up to god and immortal life. I see the strength of America in that tied of population which spreads over the prairies of the West, and beating on the Rocky Mountains, dashes its peaceful spray to the very shores of the Pacific sea. Had we taken 150,000 men and $200,000,000 and built two Rail Roads across the continent, that would have been a worthy sign of the nation’s strength. Perhaps the kings could not see it; but sensible men could see it and be glad. Now this waste of treasure and this waste of blood is only a proof of weakness. War is a transient weakness of the nation, but Slavery a permanent imbecility.

What falsehood has this war produced in the executive and legislative power; in both parties – Whigs and Democrats! I always thought that here in Massachusetts the Whigs were to blame; they tried to put the disgrace of war on the others, while the Democratic party coolly faced the wickedness. Did far-sighted men know that there would be a war on Mexico, or on the Tariff, or the Currency, and prefer the first as the least evil!

See to what the war has driven two of the most famous men of the nation: — one wished to “capture or slay a Mexican,” the other could encourage the volunteers to fight a war which he had denounced as needless, “a war of pretexts,” and place the men of Monterey before the men of Bunker Hill; each could invest a son in that unholy cause. You know the rest: the fathers ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth were set on edge. When a man goes on board an emigrant ship reeking with filth and fever, not for gain, not for “glory,” but in brotherly love, catches the contagion and dies a martyr to his heroic benevolence, men speak of it in corners and it is soon forgot; there is no parade in the streets; Society takes little pains to do honor to the man. How rarely is a pension given to his widow or his child; only once in the whole land, and then but a small sum. But when a volunteer officer – for of the humbler and more excusable men that fall we take no heed, war may mow that crop of “vulgar deaths” with what scythe he will – falls or dies in the quarrel which he had no concern in, falls in a broil between the two nations, your newspapers extol the man, and with martial pomp, “sonorous metal blowing martial sounds,” with all the honors of the most honored dead, you lay away his body in the tomb. Thus is it that the nation teaches these little ones that it is better to kill than to make alive.

I know there are men in the army, honorable and high-minded men, Christian men, who dislike war in general, and this war in special, but such is their view of official duty that they obeyed the summons of battle, though with pain and reluctance. They knew not how to avoid obedience. I am willing to believe there are many such. But with volunteers – who of their own accord came forth to enlist – men not blinded by ignorance, not driven by poverty to the field, but only by hope of reward – what shall be said of them! Much may be said to excuse the rank and file, ignorant men, many of them in want – but for the leaders, what can be said? Had I a brother who in the day of the nations extremity came forward with a good conscience, and periled his life on the battlefield and lost it, “in the sacred cause of God and his country,” I would honor the man, and when his dust came home I would lay it away with his fathers – with sorrow indeed, but with thankfulness of heart, that for conscience’ sake he was ready even to die. But had I a brother who merely for his pay, or hope of fame, had voluntarily gone down to fight innocent men, to plunder their territory, and lost his life in that felonious essay – in sorrow and in silence and in secrecy would I lay down his body in the grave; I would not court display, nor mark it with a single stone.

See how this war has affected public opinion. How many of your newspapers have shown its true atrocity; how many of the pulpits? Yet if any one is appointed to tell of public wrongs it is the Minister of Religion. The Governor of Massachusetts is an officer of a Christian church – a man distinguished for many excellences, some of them by no means common; in private, it is said, he is opposed to the war and thinks it wicked; but no man has lent himself as a readier tool to promote it. The Christian and the Man seem lost in the Office – in the Governor! What a lesson of falseness does all this teach to that large class of persons who took no higher than the example of eminent men for their instruction. You know what complaints have been made, by the highest authority in the nation, because a few men dared to speak against the war. It was “affording aid and comfort to the enemy.” If the war-party had been stronger, and feared no public opinion, we should have had men hanged for treason because they spoke of this national iniquity! Nothing would have been easier. A “gag law” is not wholly unknown in America.

If you will take all the theft, all the assaults, all the cases of arson, ever committed in time of peace in the United States since 1620, and add to them all the cases of violence offered to woman, with all the murders – they will not amount to half the wrongs committed in this war for the plunder of Mexico. Yet the cry has been and still is, “You must not say a word against it; if you do, you ‘afford aid and comfort to the enemy.’” Not tell the nation that she is doing wrong? What a miserable saying is that; let it come from what high authority it may, it is a miserable saying. Make the case your own. Suppose the United States were invaded by a nation ten times abler for war than we are – with a cause no more just, intentions equally bad; invaded for the purpose of dismembering our territory and making our own New England the soil of Slaves; would you be still? Would you stand and look on tamely while hostile hosts, strangers in language manners, and religion, crossed your rivers, seized your ports, burnt your towns? No, surely not. Though the men of New England would not be able to resist with most celestial love, they would contend with most manly vigor; and I should rather see every house swept clean off the land, and the ground sheeted with our own dead; rather see every man, woman, and child in the land slain, than see them tamely submit to such a wrong – and so would you. No, sacred as life is and dear as it is, better let it be trodden out by the hoof of war rather than yield tamely to a wrong. But while you were doing you utmost to repel such formidable injustice, if in the mist of your invaders men rode up and said, “America is in the right, and Brothers, you are wrong, you should not thus kill men to steal their land; shame on you!”—how should you feel towards such? Nay, in the struggle with England, when our fathers periled every thing but honor, and fought for the Unalienable Rights of man, you all remember, how in England herself there stood up noble men, and with a voice that was heard above the roar of the populace, and an authority higher than the majesty of the throne they said, “You do a wrong; you may ravage, but you cannot conquer. If I were an American, while a foreign troop remained in my land, I would never lay down my arms; no, never, never, never!”

But I wander a little from my theme—the effect of the war on the morals of the nation. Here are 50,000 or 75,000 men trained to kill. Hereafter they will be of little service in any good work. Many of them were the off scouring of the people at first. Now these men have tasted the idleness, the intemperance, the debauchery of a camp—tasted of its riot, tasted of its blood! They will come home before long, hirelings of murder; what will their influence be as fathers, husbands? The nation taught them to fight and plunder the Mexicans for the nation’s sake; the Governor of Massachusetts called on them in the name of “Patriotism” and “Humanity” to enlist for that work: but if, with no justice on our side, it is humane and patriotic to fight and plunder the Mexicans on the nation’s account, why not for the soldier to fight and plunder an American on his own account? Aye, why not?—that is a distinction too nice for common minds; by far too nice for mine.

See the effect on the nation. We have just plundered Mexico; taken a piece of her territory larger than the thirteen states which fought the Revolution, a hundred times as large as Massachusetts; we have burnt her cities, have butchered her men, have been victorious in every contest. The Mexicans were as unprotected women, we, armed men. See how the lust of conquest will increase. Soon it will be the ambition of the next president to extend the “area of freedom” a little further South; the lust of conquest will increase. Soon we must have Yucatan, Central America, all of Mexico, Cuba, Porto Rico, Haiti, Jamaica—all the islands of the Gulf. Many men would gladly, I doubt not, extend the area of freedom so as to include the free blacks of those islands. We have long looked with jealous eyes on West Indian emancipation—hoping the scheme would not succeed. How pleasant it would be to re-establish slavery in Haiti and Jamaica—in all the islands whence the Gold of England or the Ideas of France have driven it out. If the South wants this, would the North object? The possession of the West Indies would bring much money to New England, and what is the value of Freedom compared to coffee and sugar—and cotton?

I must say one word of the effect this war has had on political parties. By the parties I mean the leaders thereof, the men that control the parties. The effect on the Democratic party, on the majority of Congress, on the most prominent men of the nation, has been mentioned before. It has shut their eyes to truth and justice, it has filled their mouths with injustice and falsehood. It has made one man “available” for the Presidency who was only known before as a sagacious general, that fought against the Indians in Florida, and acquired a certain reputation by the use of Bloodhounds, a reputation which was rather unenviable even in America. The battles in northern Mexico made him conspicuous, and now he is seized on as an engine to thrust one corrupt party out of power and to lift in another party, I will not say less corrupt,–I wish I could,–it were difficult to think it more so. This latter party has been conspicuous for its opposition to a military man as ruler of a free people; recently it has been smitten with sudden admiration for military men, and military success, and tells the people, without a blush, that a military man fresh from a fight which he disapproved of is most likely to restore peace, because most familiar with the evils of war! In Massachusetts the prevalent political party, as such, for some years seems to have had no moral principle; however, it had a prejudice in favor of decency—now it has thrown that overboard, and has not even its respectability left. Where are its “Resolutions”? Some men knew what they were worth long ago; now all men can see what they are worth.

The cost of the war in money and men I have tried to calculate, but the effect on the morals of the people—on the Press, the Pulpit, and the parties—and through them on the rising generation, it is impossible to tell. I have only faintly sketched the outline of that. The effect of the war on Mexico herself—we can dimly see in the distance. The government of the United States has willfully, wantonly broken the peace of the continent. The Revolutionary war was unavoidable, but for this invasion there is no excuse. That God, whose providence watches over the falling nation as the falling sparrow, and whose comprehensive plans are now advanced by the righteousness and now by the wrath of man,–He who stilleth the waves of the sea and the tumult of the people, will turn all this wickedness to account in the history of man. If that I have no doubt. But that is no excuse for American crime. A greater good lay within our grasp, and we spurned it away.

Well, before long the soldiers will come back—such as shall ever come—the regulars and volunteers, the husbands of the women whom your charity fed last winter, housed and clad and warmed. They will come back. Come, New England, with your posterity of states, go forth to meet your sons returning all “covered with imperishable honors.” Come, men, to meet your fathers, brothers. Come, women, to your hisbands and your lovers; come. But what! Is that the body of men who a year or two ago went forth, so full of valor and of rum? Are these rags the imperishable honors that cover them? Here is not half the whole. Where is the wealth they hoped from the spoil of churches? But the men—“Where is my husband?” says one; “and my son?” says another. “They fell at Jalapa, one, and one at Cerro Gordo, but they fell covered with imperishable honor, for ‘twas a famous victory.” “Where is my lover?” screams a woman whom anguish makes respectable spite of her filth and ignorance;–“and our father, where is he?” scream a troop of half-starved children, staring through their dirt and rags. “One died of the vomit at Vera Cruz. Your father, little ones, we scourged the naked man to death at Mixcoac.”

But that troop that is left—who are in the arms of wife and child—they are the best sermon against war; this has lost an arm and that a leg; half are maimed in battle, or sickened with the fever; all polluted with the drunkenness, idleness, debauchery, lust, and murder of a camp. Strip off this man’s coat, and count the stripes welted into his flesh—stripes laid on by demagogues that love the people, the D E A R people. See how affectionately the war-makers branded the dear soldiers with a letter D, with a red hot iron, in the cheek. The flesh will quiver as the irons burn—no matter. It is only for love of the people that all this is done, and we are all of us covered with imperishable honors. D stands for Deserter,–aye, and for Demagogue—yes, and for Demon too. Many a man shall come home with but half of himself—half his body, less than half his soul.

“Alas the mother, that his bare,
If she could stand in presence there,
In that wan cheek and wasted air,
She would not know her child.”

“Better,” you say, “for us better, and for themselves better by far, if they had left that remnant of a body in the common ditch where the soldier finds his bed of honor,–better have fed therewith the vultures of a foreign soil, than thus come back.” No, better come back, and live here, mutilated, scourged, branded, a cripple, a pauper, a drunkard, and a felon,–better darken the windows of the jail and blot the gallows with unusual shame—to teach us all that such is war, and such the results of every “famous victory,” such the imperishable honors that it brings, and how the war-makers love the men they rule! Oh Christian America! Oh New England, child of the Puritans! Cradled in the wilderness, thy swaddling garments stained with martyrs’ blood, hearing in thy youth the war-whoop of the savage and thy mother’s sweet and soul-composing hymn:–

“Hush, my child, lie still and slumber,
Holy angels guard thy bed;
Heavenly blessings, without number,
Rest upon thine infant head:”

Come, New England, take the old-banners of thy conquering host—the standards borne at Monterey, Palo Alto, Buena Vista, Vera Cruz, the “glorious stripes and stars” that waved over the walls of Churubusco, Contreras, Puebla, Mexico herself,–flags blackened with battle and stiffened with blood, pierced by the lances and torn with the shot—bring them into thy churches, hang them up over altar and pulpit, and let little children, clad in white raiment and crowned with flowers, come and chant their lessons for the day:

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.”

Then let the Priest say—“Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach unto any people. Blessed is the Lord my strength. Which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight. Happy is that people that is in such a case. Yea, happy is that people whose God is the Lord, and Jesus Christ their Saviour.”

Then let the soldiers who lost their limbs and the women who lost their husbands and their lovers in the strife, and the men—wiser than the children of light—who made money out of the war; let all the people—like people and like priest—say “Amen.”

But suppose these men were to come back to Boston on a day when, in civil style, as having never sinned yourself, and never left a man in ignorance and want to be goaded into crime, you were about to hang three men—one for murder, one for robbery with the armed hand, and one for burning down a house. Suppose, after the fashion of “The good old times,” you were to hang those men in public, and lead them in long procession through your streets, and while you were welcoming these returned soldiers and taking their officers to feast in “the Cradle of Liberty,” they should meet the sheriff’s procession escorting those culprits to the gallows. Suppose the warriors should ask, “Why, what is that?” What would you say? Why, this. “These men—they broke the law of God, by violence, by fire and blood, and we shall hang them for the public good, and especially for the example, to teach the ignorant, the low, and the weak.” Suppose these three felons—the halters round their neck—should ask also, “Why, what is that?” You would say, “They are the soldiers just come back from war. For two long years they have been hard at work, burning cities, plundering a nation, and butchering whole armies of men. Sometimes they killed a thousand in a day. By their help, the nation has stolen seven hundred thousand square miles of land!” Suppose the culprits ask, “Where will you hang so many?” “Hand them!” is the answer—we shall only hang you. It is written in our Bible that one murder makes a villain, millions a hero. We shall feast these men full of bread and wine; shall take their leader, a rough man and a ready—one who by perpetual robbery holds a hundred slaves and more—and make him a King over all the land. But as you only burnt, robbed, and murdered on so small a scale, and without the command of the President or the Congress, we shall hang you by the neck. Our Governor ordered these men to go and burn and rob and kill, now he orders you to be hanged, and you must not ask any more questions, for the hour is already come.”

To make the whole more perfect—suppose a native of Loo-Choo, converted to Christianity by your missionaries in his native land, had come hither to have “the way of God” “expounded unto him more perfectly,” that he might see how these Christians love one another. Suppose he should be witness to a scene like this!

To men who know the facts of war, the wickedness of this particular invasion and its wide-extending consequences, I fear that my words will seem poor and cold and tame. I have purposely mastered my emotion, telling only my thought. I have uttered no denunciation against the men who caused this destruction of treasure, this massacre of men, this awful degradation of the moral sense. The respectable men of Boston—“the men of property and standing” all over the State, the men that commonly control the politics of New England—tell you that they dislike the war. But they re-elect the men that made it. Has a single man in all New England lost his seat in any office because he favored the war? Not a man. Have you ever known a Northern Merchant who would not let his ship for the war, because the war was wicked and he a Christian? Have you ever known a Northern Manufacturer who would not sell a kernel of powder, nor a cannon-ball, nor a coat, nor a shirt for the war? Have you ever known a Capitalist—a man who lives by letting money—refuse to lend money for the war because the war was wicked? Not a Merchant, not a Manufacturer, not a Capitalist. A little money—it can buy up whole hosts of men. Virginia sells her negroes,–what does New England sell? There was once a man in Boston, a rich man too, not a very great man—only a good one who loved his country—and there was another poor man here, in the times that tried men’s souls,–but there was not money enough in all England, not enough promise of honors, to make Hancock and Adams false to their sense of right. Is our soil degenerate, and have we lost the race of noble men?

No, I have not denounced the men who directly made the war, or indirectly egged he people on. Pardon me, thou prostrate Mexico, robbed of more than half thy soil, that America may have more slaves; thy cities burned, thy children slain, the streets of thy capital trodden by the alien foot, but still smoking with thy children’s blood,–pardon me if I seem to have forgotten thee. And you, ye butchered Americans, slain by the vomito, the gallows, and the sword; you, ye maimed and mutilated men, who shall never again join hands in prayer, never kneel to God once more upon the limbs he made you; you, ye widows, orphans of these butchered men—far off in that ore sunny south, here in our own fair land—pardon me that I seem to forget your wrongs. And thou, my country, my own, my loved, my native land, thou child of Great Ideas and mother of many a noble son—dishonored now, thy treasure wasted, thy children killed or else made murders, thy peaceful glory gone, thy government made to pimp and pander for lust of crime,–forgive me that I seem over gentle to the men who did and do the damning deed that wastes thy treasure, spills thy blood, and stains thine honor’s sacred fold. And you, ye sons of men everywhere, thou child of God, mankind, whose latest, fairest hope is planted here in this new world,–forgive me if I seem gentle to thy enemies, and to forget the crime that so dishonors man, and makes this ground a slaughter-yard of men—slain, too, in furtherance of the basest wish. I have no words to tell the pity that I feel for them that did the deed. I only say, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!”

A sectarian church could censure a general for holding his candle in a Catholic cathedral—‘twas “a candle to the Pope”—yet never dared to blame the war; while we loaded a ship-of-war with corn and sent off the Macedonian to Cork, freighted by private bounty to feed the starving Irishman, the State sent her ships to Vera Cruz, in a cause most unholy, to bombard, to smite, and to kill. Father! Forgive the State, forgive the Church. ‘Twas an ignorant State, ‘twas a silent Church—a poor, dumb dog, that dared not bark at the wolf who prowls about the fold, but only at the lamb.

Yet ye leaders of the land, know this,–that the blood of thirty thousand men cries out of the ground against you. Be it your folly or your crime, still cries the voice—WHERE IS THY BROTHER? That thirty thousand—in the name of Humanity I ask, where are they? In the name of Justice I answer, YOU SLEW THEM.

‘Twas not the people who made this war. They have often enough done a foolish thing. But it was not they who did this wrong. ‘Twas they that led the people: it was DEMAGOGUES that did it. Whig demagogues and demagogues of the Democrats,–men that flatter the ignorance, the folly, or the sin of the people, that they might satisfy their own base purposes. In May, 1846, if the facts of the case could have been stated to the voters, and the question put to the whole mass of the people, “Shall we go down and fight Mexico, spending 200,000,000 of dollars, maiming four and twenty thousand men, and butchering thirty thousand—shall we rob her of half her territory?”—the lowest and most miserable part of the nation would have said, “Yes;” the demagogues of the nation would have said as they did say, “Yes;” perhaps a majority of the men of the South would have said so, for the humanity of the nation lies not there; but if it had been brought to the great mass of the people at the North,–whose industry and skill so increase the national wealth, whose intelligence and morals have given the nation its character abroad,–then they, the great majority of the land, would have said “NO. We will have no war. If we want more land, we will buy it in the open market, and pay for it honestly. But we are not thieves, nor murderers, thank God, and will not butcher a nation to make a slave-field out of her soil.” The people would not have made this war.

Well—we have got a new territory, enough to make one hundred states of the size of Massachusetts. That is not all. We have beaten the armies of Mexico, destroyed the little strength she had left, the little self-respect—else she would not so have yielded and given up half her soil for a few miserable dollars. Soon we shall take the rest of her possessions. How can Mexico hold them now—weakened, humiliated, divided worse than ever within herself. Before many years, all of this northern continent will doubtless be in the hands of the Anglo Saxon race. That of itself is not a thing to mourn at. Could we have extended our empire there by trade, by the Christian arts of peace, it would be a blessing to us and to Mexico—a blessing to the world. But we have done it in the worst way—by fraud and blood; for the worst purpose—to steal soil and convert the cities of men into the shambles for human flesh; have done it at the bidding of men whose counsels long have been a scourge and curse—at the bidding of slaveholders. They it is that rule the land, fill the offices, buy up the North with the crumbs that fall from their political table, make the laws, declare hostilities, and leave the North to pay the bill. Shall we ever waken out of our sleep; shall we ever remember the duties we owe to the world and to God, who put us here on this new continent? Let us not despair.

Soon we shall have all the southern part of the continent, perhaps half the islands of the Gulf. One thing remains to do—that is, with the new soil we have taken to extend order, peace, education, religion; to keep it from the blight, the crime, and the sin of Slavery. That is for the nation to do; for the North to do. God knows the South will never do it. Is there manliness enough left in the North to do that? Has the soil forgot its wonted faith, and borne a different race of men from those who struggled eight long years for freedom? Do we forget our sires, forget our God? In the day when the monarchs of Europe are shaken from their thrones; when the Russian and the Turk abolish slavery; when cowardly Naples awakes from her centuries of sleep, and will have freedom; when France prays to become a Republic, and in her agony sweats great drops of blood; while the Tories of the world look on and mock and wag their heads; and while the Angel of Hope descends with trusting words to comfort her,–shall America extend slavery? Butcher a nation to get soil to make a field for slaves? I know how easily the South can buy office-hunters;–Whig or Democrat, the price is still the same. The same golden eagle blinds the eyes of each. But can she buy the PEOPLE of the North? Is honesty gone, and honor gone, your love of country gone, Religion gone, and nothing manly left; not even shame? Then let us perish; let the Union perish! No, let that stand firm, and let the Northern men themselves be slaves; and let us go to our masters and say, “You are very few, and we are very many; we have the wealth, the numbers, the intelligence, the Religion of the land; but you have the power, do not be hard upon us; pray give us a little something, some humble offices, or if not these at least a tariff, and we will be content.”

Slavery has already been the blight of this nation, the curse of the North and the curse of the South. It has hindered commerce, manufactures, agriculture. It confounds your Politics. It has silenced your ablest men. It has muzzled the Pulpit, and stifled the better life out of the Press. It has robbed three million men of what is dearer than life; it has kept back the welfare of seventeen millions more. You ask, oh Americans, where is the harmony of the Union? It was broken by Slavery. Where is the treasure we have wasted? It was squandered by Slavery. Where are the men we sent to Mexico? They were murdered by Slavery; and now the Slave Power comes forward to put her new minions, her thirteenth president, upon the nation’s neck! Will the North say “Yes”?

But there is a Providence which rules the world,–a plan in His affairs. Shall all this war, this aggression of the Slave Power be for nothing? Surely not. Let it teach us two things: Everlasting Hostility to Slavery, Everlasting Love of Justice and of its Eternal Right. Then, dear as we may pay for it, it may be worth what it has cost—the money and the men. I call on you, ye men—fathers, brothers, husbands, sons—to learn this lesson, and, when duty calls, to show that you know it—know it by heart and at your fingers’ ends. And you, ye women—mothers, sisters, daughters, wives—I call on you to teach this lesson to your children, and let them know what such a War is sin, and Slavery sin, and, while you teach them to hate both, teach them to be men, and do the duties of noble, Christian, and manly men. Behind injustice there is Ruin, and above man there is the Everlasting God.