BXTIA8 
 .CSTT 
 
THE MORAL LAW 
 
 THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF AMERICAN LIBERTY. 
 
 THE SUBSTANCE OP A LECTURE, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 READ APRIL 19, 1839, 
 
 / 
 
 BY N. 11EW1T. 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THEIR REQUEST 
 
 BRIDGEPORT: 
 Stills Nichols & Co., Printers^ 
 
 1S39. 
 
LECTURE. 
 
 The changes which happen in communities, either for the better 
 or the worse, in any particular age, proceed from causes which be- 
 gan to operate in the past. One generation sows, and the next reaps. 
 The most important of these changes respect opinion and belief: 
 for the general mind and character of a people shape those events 
 which affect their common welfare. 
 
 Opinions, which originate and lead on great civil and religious 
 changes in states and nations, under the ordinary course of Provi- 
 dence, are, at the first, entertained by a few ; not unirequently by 
 one only. They spread slowly ; and in the face of resistance and 
 reproach. They are promoted at the expense of hard labor, and 
 many dangers and losses of their authors and abettors. But seldom 
 docs the planter of a prolific thought, live to see it a great tree, and 
 find rest from his labors beneath the shadow of its branches, and a 
 rich reward from its fruit. But although new and revolutionary doc- 
 trines are of slow growth, still they grow ; and with accelerated mo- 
 tion as they advance. Resistance slackens ; for it is wearisome to 
 be long on the defensive merely. To resist and defend is a nega- 
 tive good ; to advance and to obtain is positive, and therefore inviting 
 and inspiring. The best that defendants can gain by their labor and 
 hardship is merely not to lose, and every defection from their ranks 
 is disheartening, and lessens the means of further resistance ; whilst 
 every convert to the new party is every way great gain. Hence all 
 innovators, by perseverence, ultimately succeed. 
 
 It becomes now a matter of the highest moment to the coming 
 generation, for their friends in this, to keep a watchful eye on the 
 current opinions of the present day. No matter by whom, or in 
 what form, or for what professed end, doctrines concerning the fun- 
 
tiamental concerns of man are brought forward and thrown into cir- 
 culation. They merit the strictest scrutiny ; for they are either true 
 or false, good or bad, and if not properly disposed of, and in season, 
 the next age will rue our negligence. 
 
 Induced by these reflections, I submit with freedom to your con- 
 sideration, my thoughts on the notion of self '-sovereignly , advocated 
 by many in our times, as one of the essential attributes of a freeman. 
 By self-sovereignty, as this phrase is employed by those who harbor 
 and scatter dangerous opinions, is meant that man by nature is the 
 supreme lord of himself, and cannot rightfully be bound by any ob- 
 ligation or law, otherwise than by his free consent. Under the shel- 
 ter of the abused name of liberty, this false and pernicious dogma is 
 propagated in a thousand forms. 
 
 On the present occasion, but one or two instances of the introduc- 
 tion and partial adoption of this dogma, will be stated and illustra- 
 ted ; and this in rather a desultory manner. Preparatory lo their 
 specification, it will subserve my design briefly to advert to the opin- 
 ions and belief of our forefathers, as their sentiments appear in their 
 most deliberate and momentous declarations and acts. They assert- 
 ed their civil rights, and claimed their political independence of the 
 mother country, not because they were by nature invested wilh self- 
 supremacy, but because they were the dependent creatures of God, 
 and from him had received all the rights and liberties necessary to 
 their well-being. "We hold," they say, "these truths to be self- 
 evident: That all men are created equal: that they are endowed 
 by their Creator with certain unalienable rights : that among these, 
 are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The sages and he- 
 roes of '7G, regarded American liberty as the legitimate daughter of 
 reason and piety. They held the rights of man as the gifts of God, 
 and in the light of self-evident truth, saw them descending from 
 heaven ; and as the children of God, claimed them, fresh and fair, 
 from the hands of their maker. Justice and reason, not will and 
 passion, led them to assert their civil freedom and political indepen- 
 dence. It was not will, but reason ; it was not passion, but duty, 
 and both sanctioned by piety, which prompted, and wrought out the 
 American Revolution. On no other grounds could they have justi- 
 fied themselves, nor can we now justify them, from perfidy and trea- 
 son. The blood shed in the war of the revolution, cries to God for 
 vengeance, if his laws cannot be plead in their defence. They 
 claimed not a lawless will — an irresponsible self-sovereignty. If so, 
 
why needed lliey adduce self-evident truth ? Why appeal to the 
 charter of rights, under the seal of the Lord of all ? They might 
 have said, " It is our sovereign will and pleasure to he free," and said 
 no more. This is the style royal ; the set form of speech for abso- 
 lute monarclis. Our will is reason, and our might is justice. Had these 
 heen the sentiments of our patriot fathers, they would have heen 
 savages ; nay, worse than these : perfidious traitors to their king 
 and country. The moral and civil code of savages and villains, is 
 simple and short ; will and might are the reason and the rule. Had 
 our fathers assumed the dogma that man can be bound by his volun- 
 tary consent only, and that these obligations may be dissolved at 
 will, tliey would not have given reasons for their refusing 9f submis- 
 sion to the British crown: they would not have used arguments in 
 justification of their revolt from it. He who resorts to reason — who 
 appeals to justice and to God in defence of his declarations and acts, 
 thereby renounces all claim to sovereignty. The Declaration of In- 
 dependence, it is hence most evident, repudiates the doctrine of 
 man's self-sovereignty, and puts his subjection to truth and right- 
 eousness, and his allegiance to the throne of God, as the corner-stone 
 of American Liberty. 
 
 The subsequent proceedings of our predecessors, throughout the 
 war of the revolution, and in the constitution, organization, and ad- 
 ministration of the General and State Governments proceeded on 
 the same principles. In no public acts of theirs, whether organical, 
 legislative, executive or judicial, can the atheistical and brutal dog- 
 ma be found, that either the citizens singly, or the nation collective- 
 ly, are irresponsible and absolute sovereigns. Suppose now that the 
 Government of the United States should proclaim to the nations of 
 the earth, that it asserted for itself the prerogative of absolute sove- 
 reignty — a lawless will, and its irresponsible exercise, regardless of 
 the law of nature and of nations — would not the human race with one 
 voice, denounce us as a horde of pirates, and the enemies of man- 
 kind ? What validity would there be in our treaties, or security in 
 our promises? In short, how can society exist at all, and in its ru- 
 dest stale, if the individuals composing it claim, each one for himself, 
 the absolute dominion over himself, to will and act according to his 
 pleasure ? The first self-evident truth mentioned in the Declaration 
 of Independence, " that all men are created equal," which is the 
 theoretic axiom of our civil pohly, necessarily implies the reciprocal 
 relation of each to all, and the corresponding duties of that relation. 
 
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," is a moral rule result- 
 ing directly and unavoidably from the axiom, " men are equal." 
 
 In our time, this notion of self-sovereignty, so much at war with 
 the true spirit of our government and laws, as well as with truth and 
 righteousness, has crept in, and is making progress with frightful ra- 
 pidity. Under the current phrase " the will of the people is su- 
 preme law," the implication that there is no law to govern the will 
 of the people, is caught up and appropriated to individuals singly, as 
 well as to the people collectively. Hence the strong tendency in the 
 popular mind to abridge the authority of law, and to narrow down 
 its dominion to the fewest possible cases. The efforts making to 
 subject alLjudges and other law officers to popular election, and to 
 shorten their term of office in order to augment their immediate de- 
 pendence on the will of the people, spring from the same bitter root. All 
 must have observed the rapid growth of an unwillingness to convict 
 and punish offenders against criminal law ; and also to soften down 
 all punishment, and even to convert punishment into benefit to the 
 criminal himself. If this tenderness for villains sprung from genuine 
 benevolence to mankind, it would be a weakness only ; but proceed- 
 ing from lawlessness and indifference to the turpitude of crimes against 
 the peace and safety of society, it is a proof of the extent and depth 
 of false and barbarous principles. 
 
 I come to the first of the specifications mentioned, as evidential of 
 *he existence and operation of that dogma of self-sovereignty, which 
 I have exploded. It is, that electors have the absolute right of vo- 
 ting for whomsoever they please, without respect to any other law 
 of choice in selecting the officers of government, than their mere 
 will and pleasure. 
 
 That this claim of sovereignty in voting is contrary to the consti- 
 tution and laws of our country, appears by the qualifications for par- 
 ticular officers specified both in the constitution of the General and 
 State Governments, and by their statutes. The President of the 
 United States, for example, must be a native, and of a certain age ; 
 Senators and Members of the House of Representatives in like man- 
 ner, must have given qualifications before they can be candidates for 
 election. In Connecticut, no member of the legislature can hold an 
 office of the General Government. The freeman's oath, and the stat- 
 ute against bribery at elections, limit and define the rights of elect- 
 tors. But all these limitations of the choice of freemen in selecting 
 their rulers are inconsistent with the notion of absolute sovereignty 
 
as free voters. Tlic right of voting is restricted, and is not there- 
 fore absolute. Every elector is bound by law and his oath, to vote 
 for those men who have the qualities specified therein, and of course 
 he is confined by his obligations to his oath and to his country, to 
 vote, not just as he pleases, but just as he ought. He is then not at 
 liberty to consult his will, but to do his duty. Think a moment of 
 the consequences which necessarily follow the supposition that eve- 
 ry freeman has the prerogative of absolute choice in selecting the 
 officers of Government. In this case, as his choice is unlimited, he 
 may vote for foreigners, Indians, slaves, women and children ; nay, 
 for mules, and cats, and dogs. For however ridiculous and mon- 
 strous this inference may appear, it is no more than a just and ne- 
 cessary consequence from the assumption that freemen are at per- 
 fect liberty to vote for whom they please. 
 
 That freedom of electing our rulers, and the personal right of 
 choice which is secured to us by that civil and political liberty which 
 is our birth-right and our glory, is a legal and moral attribute. To 
 exercise it, men must obey the laws, and act conscientiously. A 
 lawless will, and an irresponsible self-sovereignty are subversive of 
 all social order, alike destructive of law and liberty. 
 
 Closely allied to the notion of the absolute right of voting for officers 
 as each one pleases, and growing out of it, is the practice of subject- 
 ing principles of law and policy to the tribunal of the ballot box, as 
 the court of last resort, whose decisions are final and imperative. — 
 There are principles of policy merely — questions of discretion and 
 prudence about current affairs, not involving fundamental principles 
 of duty and order, of law and authority, which may be submitted to 
 the popular will at each recurring election. But the fault in ques- 
 tion goes deeper. It is now maintained that every subject of pub- 
 lic interest should be brought, as soon as may be, to the ballot box, 
 and there decided. Now nothing is plainer, than that the theory of 
 our free institutions embraces fixed principles, which are embodied 
 in the constitution, and which cannot be altered except in a peculiar 
 and specific way, differing essentially from that in which the will of 
 tho people is manifested at the stated election of our rulers. Two 
 things are now united in practice, which the constitution carefully 
 separates. For at the election of a President of the United States, 
 as at present conducted, not only is a particular person selected, but 
 also constitutional and other fundamental questions are decided, and 
 the decision is expressed by the choice of that officer. Thus all the 
 
8 
 
 fundamental doctrines of our government and laws are subjected ta 
 the caprice and hazards of violent partizan elections. The author- 
 ity of the Supreme Court of the United States extends to jurisdic- 
 tion over the acts of Congress, and may set them aside whenever 
 they are, in the judgment of the Court unconstitutional. Hence, if 
 by the ballot box men are sent to Congress, having the will of the 
 people on constitutional questions to govern their legislation, all their 
 acts must pass under the revision of the Supreme Court, and stand 
 or fall by its supreme and final judgment. Of course the will of the 
 people, as expressed at ordinary elections, is not supreme law.— 
 Otherwise, it would govern the Supreme Court, as well as the other 
 branches of the government. This Court holds the popular will in 
 check, and makes it feel its subjection to fixed principles and nation- 
 al law. Hence the- growing hostility to that Court. It is in the way 
 of that boundless liberty which is the ruling passion of the times. — 
 It is moreover, a barrier to the selfish and lawless schemes of par- 
 ties, and of one State against another. As the interpreter of trea- 
 ties, it is the guardian of the honor and faith of the nation. For- 
 eigners may find justice there. The power of this Court to resist 
 the tide of popular feeling, and to enforce the faith of the nation, 
 was brought to bear in the great case of the Cherokees. Had the 
 upright and legal decision of the Court been faithfully executed, the" 
 Florida war would have never occurred. If the Indians could have 
 had justice according to law, and their treaties with us, they would 
 have never appealed to the rifle and tomahawk. We see in this in- 
 stance the consequences of making the will of the people supreme 
 law, and the ballot box the organ of its publication. 
 
 The other specification of the application of the dogma of self- 
 sovereignty asserted in our day, is " the right of instruction," accor- 
 ding to the famous Virginia Resolutions. This doctrine grows out 
 of the popular axiom, that the will of the people is supreme law. 
 But it is subversive of a representative government. For in a rep- 
 resentative government, the constituted authorities are in the place 
 and room of the people, and hold for the time being all their power. 
 They represent the people ; and of course the people are merged in 
 them. The sovereignty of the whole people passes by delegation from 
 themselves to their substitutes, and there remains until the period of 
 a new election returns ; and when it returns, they merely furnish 
 persons to fill offices, and not both the offices and the persons to filt 
 them. When the people of the United States adopted the consihu- 
 
lion they transferred their sovereignty to the officers created by that 
 instrument, reserving to themselves the right of filling a part of those 
 offices by persons of the requisite qualifications, selected by them- 
 selves, and the remainder by those thus selected. The whole peo- 
 ple thus appear and act in the government by delegation, by repre- 
 sentation. As individuals, or as towns, counties and States; as the 
 north or the south, the east or the west ; as free or as slave-holding ; 
 as commercial, agricultural or mechanical, the whole people collec- 
 tively, and each and every one singly, gave up their power and will 
 to the authorities created by the constitution. These authorities 
 hold "the delegated will of the nation." To them the people are 
 subject, and they are bound to obey them. Washington, in his fare- 
 well address, says: " The basis of our political system, is the right 
 of the people to make and alter their constitution of government : 
 but the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an ex- 
 plicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory 
 upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people 
 to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to 
 obey the established government." 
 
 Now, it appears to me, the right of instructing the persons who 
 fill either of the departments of government, whether executive, le- 
 gislative or judicial, is nothing short of a resumption, by the people 
 who claim this right, of those powers which they have transferred to 
 these constituted authorities, and it amounts to an abrogation of the 
 constitution. If the people speak for themselves and exert their own 
 authority, they put aside, in the case, their representatives. He 
 that speaks for himself has no use for an attorney ; he that acts for 
 himself, is his own agent and factor ; he that appears for himself, 
 needs not a delegate. It is plain then, that in those cases where the 
 people, or any part of them, impose their judgment or will on their 
 rulers for the purpose of directing and controlling them, they take 
 back the powers they had given them, and destroy their represent- 
 ative character, and render them the mere messengers and organs 
 of their will. In this light the subject appeared to Washington, who 
 in his address beforementioned, says : "All obstructions to the exe- 
 cution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatev- 
 er plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, coun- 
 teract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted 
 authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, [see previ- 
 ous quotation,] and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize fac* 
 
10 
 
 tion, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the 
 place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party." 
 
 But it is maintained by the abettors of the right of instruction, that 
 the United States Senate is the representative of the several States 
 in their capacity as States, and therefore the Legislatures, which 
 choose the Senators, are their immediate constituents, and as their 
 Senators are their representatives, it is necessary to instruct them, 
 that they may represent them justly. All that has been adduced on 
 the subject generally, may, in answer to this, be appositely and con- 
 clusively referred to. If Senators are the representatives of States, 
 they are as much in the room and stead of the States, as the mem- 
 bers of the lower House are in the room and stead of the people ; 
 and hence the right of instruction, if it exist in the former case, ought 
 by parity of reason, to be admitted in the latter. 
 
 If the Senate may be instructed by the Legislatures of the States, 
 and be bound by them, they are not representatives. They are 
 mere messengers, agents, or factors. They are no longer a deliber- 
 ative assembly, but an executive organ to ratify the deliberative acts 
 of other assemblies. In this case Senators are in the same grade 
 with marshals, and sheriffs, who are the functionaries of other's wills, 
 without any of their own, except that of implicit obedience to the 
 mandates of authority. In short, the doctrine of instruction anni- 
 hilates the Senate as a legislative body, and thus dismembers Con- 
 gress, and fundamentally subverts the government of the United 
 States, according to the constitution. 
 
 The right of instruction is, moreover, contrary to the constitution 
 in another respect. According to it, each Senator is not only the 
 representative of that State by which he is chosen, but also of every 
 other State of the Union. The Senators from Connecticut, for ex- 
 ample, have the same jurisdiction over South Carolina or Virginia, 
 as they have over their own State. The Senate is a unity. Both 
 jointly and severally the Senators have concurrent authority over 
 each and every State of the Union. Virginia has as much interest 
 in the Senators of Connecticut as in her own, and is as much sub- 
 jected to their power. Hence it follows, that if Virginia has the 
 right of instructing her own Senators, as she claims, she ought to 
 go further, and instruct ours also, and even the whole. It is plain, 
 therefore, that the doctrine of instruction, carried out logically to its 
 results, dissolves that union of all the States in one body politic, 
 which the constitution intends, and is virtually a dissolution of the 
 Union, 
 
11 
 
 The doctrine of instruction is not only contrary to the theory of 
 our government, but it is inconsistent with all government, and at 
 war with a social state under any possible form. For the notion of 
 society is the union of several individuals in some one or more re- 
 spects, where that which was before separate and peculiar to each 
 individual is given up to be the common property of all. If, for ex- 
 ample, the owner of a field, for certain valuable considerations, ad- 
 mits his neighbors to use it in common with himself for pastur- 
 age, or a highway, he gives up what was before his own and at his 
 own sole disposal, to be the joint and common property of all. — 
 Suppose now one of his neighbors gives the original owner instruc- 
 tions concerning the way and manner in which this common field, this 
 social property, shall be used, both by him and the others of the com- 
 pany, it is plain that he steps aside from his place as one of the part- 
 ners, and usurps the exclusive control of that which is not his exclu- 
 sively. Every other partner has as good a right to say how the com- 
 mon field shall be used, and to insist on a compliance of the rest to his 
 will. In such a case, society in the use of the field is impossible. In 
 like manner as to all the joint and common affairs and interests of states 
 and nations, individuals must merge their peculiar and several wills 
 in one that shall be common to all, and binding on all, or society is 
 impossible. In our social state, the axiom of union is that in all or- 
 dinary cases the will of the majority shall govern. As to fundamen- 
 tal principles, like those which are embodied in the constitution, the 
 will of two thirds is necessary. It is plain, therefore, that the will 
 of the minority must submit, or our union is at an end. Hence the 
 notion of our political union may be expressed thus : the majority is 
 the representative of the whole. If now constituents may rightfully 
 instruct their representatives, why may not the minority instruct the 
 majority 1 Thus this doctrine of instruction runs headlong to absur- 
 dity and all confusion. 
 
 Unaccustomed, gentlemen, to speak on secular topics, I have with 
 some embarrassment ventured to offer my views on a fundamental 
 question of national policy. You will receive them with candor.— 
 If our young men, on whom the future hopes of our country under 
 Divine Providence depend, wish to be the supporters of order and 
 the friends of true liberty, they must study the first principles of 
 morals. Justice is the cement of society, for it is benevolence acting 
 by rule. " Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself," is the equitable 
 rule of justice, and the basis of society, A rule implies and requires 
 
12 
 
 a,Ruler. As now this law of morals forms and regulates society, it 
 is anterior both to society and its laws, and of course its author and 
 protector. God, therefore, is that Roler. So long as his authority 
 is felt, so long the elements of society will maintain their life and 
 vigor. The fear of God then is the foundation of all order. Gov- 
 ernment, law, liberty, peace, all flow from piety to God. 
 
 " Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political pros- 
 perity," said Washington in his farwewell address, " religion and 
 morality are indispensible supports. In vain would that man claim 
 the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great 
 pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men 
 and citizens. The politician, equally with the pious man, ought to 
 respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their con- 
 nexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, 
 where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense 
 of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of 
 investigation in courts of justice 1 And let us with caution indulge the 
 supposition, thai morality can be maintained without religion. What- 
 ever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds 
 of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect 
 that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious prin- 
 ciple. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary 
 spring of popular government. The rule extends indeed, with more 
 or less force, to every species of free government. Who, then, that 
 is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to 
 shake the foundation of the fabric V 1 
 
 Note. — "Judge Hopkins, of Pa., says, that the last words the late 
 Chief Justice Marshall spoke to him, about a week before he died, 
 were these : 'The Virginia doctrines about the right of instruction, 
 are incompatible not only with the government of the United States v 
 but with any government.' " — Alexandria Gazette. 
 
 New York Spectator, June 30th, 1836. 
 
Princeton Theologic 
 
 1012 01082 0258 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 ^___^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M$P*1!IMH 
 
 III 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A.