\z\zwwww\n/wuvwuvw\A7TOln/vnAA/wwin/www\A/winnnA/ 
 
 
 THANKSGIVING DISCOURSE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE GOOD LAND IN WHICH WE LIVE. 
 
 OAK ST. HDSF 
 
 UVWIA/UUWUWVWUVO 
 
 lA/WWWWUVUVW \J\f\nJXOJ\J\J WWWWVWVWWWIAAA/IAA/yVv" 
 
t 
 
 s 
 
 * 
 
THE GOOD LAND IN WHICH WE LIVE. 
 
 A 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 PREACHED AT CONCORD, N. H., 
 
 ON THE DAY OF 
 
 PUBLIC THANKSGIVING 
 
 NOVEMBER 28, 1850. 
 
 BY NATHANIEL BO UTON, 
 
 Pastor of the First Congregational Church in Concord. 
 
 CONCORD: 
 
 PRINTED BY McFARLAND & JENKS, MAIN STREET. 
 
 1850. 
 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Concord, Nov. 30, 1850. 
 
 Rev. N. Bouton: 
 
 Dear Sir :— 
 
 The undersigned, members of your Society, having list¬ 
 ened with much interest to the Discourse delivered by you on our late an¬ 
 nual Thanksgiving Day, and believing that its publication will be produc¬ 
 tive of good at the present time, in its tendency to induce men to consider 
 their obligations as citizens of the United States to support the Constitu¬ 
 tion and existing laws of the country, respectfully request a copy for pub¬ 
 lication. We remain, very truly, 
 
 Your Friends and Parishioners, 
 
 FRANCIS N. FISK, RICHARD BRADLEY, 
 
 SAMUEL COFFIN, CHARLES MOODY, 
 
 SAMUEL MORRIL, ROBERT DAYIS. 
 
 To the Rev. Nathaniel Bouton: 
 
 Dear Sir:— 
 
 The undersigned, citizens of Concord, though not members 
 of your Society, having been present at the North Church this morning, 
 and listened with great satisfaction and cordial approval to your able and 
 patriotic Discourse upon our duty as citizens and Christians to stand by the 
 Constitution and Union, and obey the laws of the country;—believing, at 
 this time of doubt and danger, when opinions so hostile to the Constitution 
 and Union of these States *, so at war with all civil, religious and social or¬ 
 ganization, are publicly propagated, that the dissemination of the senti¬ 
 ments and arguments contained in that Discourse would have a tendency 
 to correct the errors of the misguided friends of the Union, and to thwart 
 the wicked purposes of its foes, as well as to strengthen the hands and en¬ 
 courage the hearts of the great and good men all over the country who 
 are laboring in its defence ;—believing, too, that you have uttered the real 
 sentiments of a large majority of the good people of this State—would 
 respectfully ask the favor of a copy for publication. 
 
 JOSEPH ROBINSON, E. H. ROLLINS, 
 
 ARTHUR FLETCHER, WM. P. HILL, 
 
 JOSEPH LOW, HENRY WOOD, 
 
 EPHRAIM HUTCHINS, WILLIAM PRESCOTT 
 
 EDW. H. PARKER, 
 
 Concord, Thanksgiving dv£., Nov. 28, 1850. 
 
■J 
 
 
 
 
 • /"N. A 
 
 i 
 
 > 
 
 NOTE BY THE AUTHOR. 
 
 As appears from the foregoing communications, this Discourse is sub¬ 
 mitted for publication in compliance with the request, both of members of 
 his own Society, and of other highly respected citizens who heard it, of 
 different political parties and religious denominations. In preparing a 
 copy for the press, the author would state, that without altering a single 
 sentiment, as first delivered, he has endeavored to give more logical pre¬ 
 cision to the Scripture argument for obedience to civil authority; has added 
 a paragraph to show the nature and certainty of the u explicit and 
 solemn compact” into which our fathers entered in adopting the Fed¬ 
 eral Constitution; and has also appended several notes, to which he would 
 respectfully ask the attention of his readers. The author’s desire and 
 prayer is, that the sentiments herein expressed may serve to increase 
 and cherish, in the hearts of all who may read them, that love of country 
 and subjection to lawful authority, which, with love to God, constitute an 
 essential element in the character of a Christian citizen. 
 
 - ' 
 
 \ 
 
 BUr.TON r:Q* 
 
 ; a - 
 
 «> 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ;. > Jk * 
 
 UtfV. - j 
 
 / * 
 
 
 :Q ■ 
 
 c -iA 
 
 l >•: . 
 
 
 -J 
 
 r>.% 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 
 https://archive.org/details/goodlandinwhichwOObout 
 
DISCOURSE. 
 
 DEUT. 8 : 10. 
 
 WHEN THOU HAST EATEN AND A TIT FULL, THEN THOU SHALT BLESS THE LORD 
 THY GOD, FOR THE GOOD LAND WniCn HE HATH GIVEN THEE. 
 
 We welcome, with grateful and joyous emotions, this an¬ 
 nual festival of thanksgiving and praise. In the language 
 of our chief magistrate, “ we can rejoice that the circling 
 seasons have again passed, rich and overflowing with the 
 beneficence of Heaven to the people of this State ; that nei¬ 
 ther our unfaithfulness nor our ingratitude have dried up the 
 fountains of God’s goodness to us.” 
 
 We are assembled in our usual place of worship, “ reve¬ 
 rently to offer up the homage of humble and grateful hearts 
 to our Almighty Father and Benefactor, for his countless 
 mercies and blessings.” Among the particular subjects of 
 thanksgiving recommended in the proclamation of our chief 
 magistrate, we are invited to unite in fervent thanks to God, 
 “for having given to us the pleasant and goodly land in 
 which we live ; for the freedom, health, peace and prosper¬ 
 ity he has permitted us to enjoy; for the plenty with which 
 he has filled our dwellings; for our means of intellectual, 
 moral and social advancement; and for that crowning bless¬ 
 ing, the revelation of mercy and of hope, the Christian Reli¬ 
 gion.” As it is impossible to dwell at any length upon these 
 several topics, it will, I trust, be deemed altogether appropri¬ 
 ate to the occasion, to select as the <&ie|j theme of our grat- 
 
6 
 
 itude, the first subject named— the pleasant and goodly 
 land in which we live ; especially as we may view it in 
 connection with the “ crowning blessing’ 5 —the glorious gos¬ 
 pel of the Son of God. 
 
 1 observe, then, that the inspired description of the good 
 land which God gave to his ancient people , fitly applies to 
 our own country. 11 The Lord thy God bringeth thee into 
 a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains, and 
 depths that spring out of the valleys and hills ; a land of 
 wheat, and barley, and vines, and fig-trees, and pomegran¬ 
 ates ; a land of oil-olive and honey; a land wherein thou 
 shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any 
 thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose 
 hills thou shalt dig brass.” This beautiful land of Palestine 
 was the gift of God to his covenant people. Though com¬ 
 paratively small in extent, it had its goodly mountains of 
 Lebanon on the north; the rich and fertile valley of the 
 Jordan running through its centre, to the Salt Sea in the 
 south-east; on the west, its coast was washed by the Med¬ 
 iterranean Sea, by means of which it enjoyed a lucrative 
 commerce with all adjacent and even distant nations ; and 
 the productions of its soil were rich in variety and abundance. 
 
 But all, and much more than all that can truly be said of 
 Palestine, may be said of our own country. Survey its 
 magnitude, grandeur, exuberance, resources, and population. 
 Behold it extending the entire width of the continent, from 
 ocean to ocean—stretching through twenty-five degrees of 
 latitude, and twice that of longitude—all within the temper¬ 
 ate zone, the most healthful portion of the globe, and best 
 adapted to develop the physical and mental constitution of 
 man. Look at its vast ranges of mountains; its long and 
 mighty rivers ; its inland seas ; its beautiful and vast plains ; 
 its inexhaustible mines of coal, and iron, and copper; of lead, 
 and silfer, and gold. Look dTlhe interminable forests of 
 
 •. i s ' 
 
 i, 
 
 \ .... ■ - ; 
 
 * • . * 
 
7 
 
 most valuable wood ; at the exuberance and boundless vari¬ 
 ety in the productions of the soil; with a commerce carried 
 on within its boundaries and with all the nations of the 
 earth, more numerous in ships, more enterprising in men, 
 and more extensive, it is said, than that of any other nation 
 under heaven. It may help to fill up what the imagination 
 alone finds it difficult to conceive, to state in figures that, 
 “ exclusive of the late acquisitions from Mexico, the area of 
 our country admits of division into 376 States as large as 
 Massachusetts ; and, including the territories ceded by Mex¬ 
 ico, the number of such States rises to 448. Three millions 
 two hundred and fifty thousand square miles of territory 
 form a broader field than 26 kingdoms like Great Britain 
 could cover, and is exceeded only in 500.000 square miles 
 by the whole continent of Europe.”* Occupying this 
 vast, beautiful, grand area of the earth’s surface, is already 
 a population of about 23.000.000, increasing at the rate of 
 800.000 souls a year, and destined, unless checked by some 
 unknown and unforeseen cause, “ to swell within a hundred 
 years to a larger population than China boasts, and to double 
 the number of all Europe.” 
 
 This is the goodly and pleasant land which God hath 
 given us. He gave the original deed and first occupancy to 
 our pilgrim fathers, and to the founders of the other little 
 colonies who settled on more southern shores. In his prov¬ 
 idence, he bade them go up and possess the land, and from 
 one period to another, and by various means, he hath opened 
 the way to obtain complete, undisputed and peaceable pos¬ 
 session. The right indeed to this vast domain has some¬ 
 times been brought into debate. But without attempting to 
 vindicate every particular acquisition of territory by pur¬ 
 chase, by cession, or by conquest; still, looking at the sub¬ 
 ject in its wide relations, it must, I think, be conceded that 
 ■ ' ~ * ' " 
 
 * See statistical tables and estijoates in Home Missionary, Nov.* 1846, 
 Oct., 1849. . 'V 
 
 *.\ 
 
8 
 
 I 
 
 God hath in his providence as truly given this land to us to 
 possess, as he gave Palestine to ancient Israel. Hence, an 
 important practical inquiry arises :— What do we owe to this 
 land as our common country ? 
 
 In attempting, my hearers, to answer this question, I wish 
 to forestall any surmises or fears you may have, that your 
 pastor is now going to enter the arena of political strife, to 
 express crude opinions on matters that divide the people, or 
 that he will adopt some party Shibboleth , and give offence 
 to esteemed and valued friends. Rather, I purpose to avoid 
 as much as possible all party and political allusions ; to enter 
 into a calm, dispassionate inquiry respecting what the Scrip¬ 
 tures teach of the duties we owe to our country. A great 
 question has arisen, which, by common consent, is designated 
 “ Conscience and the Constitution What relation subsists 
 between them ? To what duties does conscience bind us 
 in respect of the constitution and laws of the land ? And 
 is there any 11 higher law ” which exempts us from obedience 
 to the latter ?* These are grave and momentous questions ; 
 and, as you will all admit, fairly come within the province 
 of a religious teacher, without subjecting him to the charge 
 of meddling with party politics. They are questions, too, 
 on which an interested community—yea, an inquiring and 
 agitated nation—demands light. And surely it becomes 
 every minister of the word, divested of all prejudice and 
 party bias, to examine for himself the word of God, and 
 give utterance to what he believes to be its divine and au¬ 
 thoritative teachings. 
 
 I. I need hardly observe, in the first place, that we are 
 bound to be grateful to God, for all the blessings which we 
 actually enjoy in the good land he hath given us. In the 
 
 * The author regrets that he has never had an opportunity to read the 
 essay of Prof. Stuart on this subject, and is therefore entirely ignorant how 
 far his own views coincide with those of the venerable Professor. 
 
 % 
 
 
9 
 
 text this is a matter of divine injunction. “ When thou hast 
 eaten and art full, then shalt thou bless the Lord thy God, 
 for the good land which he hath given thee.” 
 
 Though there may be coexistent evils which we deplore, 
 yet the good demands our praise. We should, therefore, fre¬ 
 quently, and especially on annual festive occasions like the 
 present, review and enumerate our blessings. We are au¬ 
 thorized to trace the line of our national descent backwards 
 to the fathers and founders of our Republic; to make grate¬ 
 ful mention of their Christian virtues and of their heroic 
 firmness in enduring privations of every kind, that they 
 might plant the institutions of freedom, of learning, and re¬ 
 ligion, in this land which God gave them. We should re¬ 
 fresh our memories with a rehearsal of scenes in which our 
 own immediate ancestors took a part, when they freely 
 pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, and 
 poured out their blood like water in their country’s defence. 
 We should recal the names of the brave, the wise, and the 
 good, whom God raised up to be our leaders in the councils 
 of the nation and in the fields of war. Sacred in our lips 
 be the names of Washington, the Adamses, Hancocks, 
 Franklins, Shermans, Jays, Hamiltons, and other worthies, 
 who either put their hand to the great Instrument of Inde¬ 
 pendence, or who maintained the Declaration with their for¬ 
 tunes and their blood. Contrasting our happy condition in 
 this good land, with that of other nations—with the be¬ 
 nighted and down-trodden subjects of despotic power in 
 Asia and Africa; with the serfs of Russia; with the unen¬ 
 lightened and poverty-stricken tenants of Ireland ; with the 
 vassals of Spanish and Turkish domination ; with the chang¬ 
 ing, convulsive and unintelligent liberty of France; with 
 the religious tyranny, upheld by foreign bayonets, at Rome; 
 or with the mixed freedom and oppression, wealth and pov¬ 
 erty, protestantism and persecution, of England—we should 
 
 thank God that he hath given us this good land in whidh to 
 2 . 
 
 ' ‘J ' 
 
 * . . a 
 
 A ' ** 
 
 / 
 
10 
 
 dwell; that here a government, administered by rulers of our 
 own choice, spreads the broad shield of its protection over 
 and around us, guarding and defending our persons, property, 
 liberty and life; that we enjoy, what no other people under 
 the whole heaven enjoy in an equal degree, the liberty and 
 right to worship God according to the dictates of our own 
 consciences, without any wishing or daring to molest us ; 
 that the means of a generous education are widely diffused ; 
 that throughout our broad land the Holy Scriptures are dis¬ 
 seminated and read ; churches are reared, which are every 
 Sabbath filled with intelligent and devout worshippers ; and 
 that from year to year a benignant Providence pours over 
 our land the showers of plenty in such abundance that lean 
 and famishing want is unknown, and the millions of our 
 population have unceasing occasion for thanksgiving and 
 praise. For these and ten thousand other blessings which 
 we enjoy, should this goodly and pleasant land be every 
 year and every day more and more endeared to us; yes, to 
 us— 
 
 “ Be this the land, of every land the pride ; 
 
 Beloved of heaven, o’er all the world beside; 
 
 Where brighter suns dispense serener light, 
 
 And milder moons emparadise the night; 
 
 A land of beauty, virtue, valor, truth, 
 
 Time-tutored age, and love-exalted youth. 
 
 The wandering mariner, whose eye explores 
 The wealthiest isles, the most enchanting shores, 
 
 Views not a realm so beautiful and fair, 
 
 Nor breathes the spirit of a purer air.” 
 
 Then “ bless the Lord thy God, for the good land which 
 he hath given thee.” 
 
 II. It is a scriptural duty to pray for the rulers of our 
 land. Suffice it, on this topic, to cite the apostolic injunc¬ 
 tion : u I exhort that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and 
 giving of thanks, be made for all men: For kings, and for 
 all that are in authority ; that we may lead a quiet and 
 
11 
 
 peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty ; for this is good 
 and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” I Tim. 
 2 : 1-3. When we reflect on the responsibilities which al¬ 
 ways, and at times with overwhelming weight, rest on the 
 rulers of a great nation, the importance and necessity of 
 prayer for them cannot be too much magnified. It is a posi¬ 
 tive Christian duty, binding on all the ministers and disci¬ 
 ples of Christ;—a duty which not only ensures the blessing 
 of God on the rulers themselves, but also the peace, happi¬ 
 ness and usefulness of all Christian men. Oh ! had more 
 prayer been offered for our rulers, in the pulpit, at domestic 
 altars, and in the closets of our land, during the late session 
 of our national Congress, we cannot believe that such divid¬ 
 ed counsels would so long have prevailed ; that the hearts of 
 our ablest statesmen had been oppressed with anxiety and 
 fear for the safety and perpetuity of our union ;—perhaps the 
 great heart of our heroic Chief Magistrate had not been 
 crushed with the burden of the nation’s care. Of all the 
 affecting representations of the fathers of our country which 
 the pencil of the painter has transmitted to us, I know of no 
 one more so than the scene in the Convention at Philadel¬ 
 phia, that formed the Constitution of our Union ; when, in 
 compliance with a resolution offered by Dr. Franklin, prayer 
 was offered that they might be enlightened and guided in 
 their deliberations by wisdom from above. There is Wash¬ 
 ington on his knees ; others, in like posture, by his side j 
 some recline ; some stand in solemn attitude, with face up¬ 
 lifted or covered; while the minister of God lifts up his 
 hands in devout and earnest supplication to the throne of 
 mercy. From that day the business of the Convention pro¬ 
 ceeded with unwonted unanimity ! “ Pray, therefore , for 
 
 all that are in authority .” 
 
 III. I now observe, thirdly, our duty, no less than our 
 true interest and happiness, requires that we conform to the 
 
12 
 
 Constitution and obey the Laws of our land. As this, at 
 the present time, seems to be the most important point in 
 our discussion, let us endeavor to ascertain what the Scrip¬ 
 tures teach on the subject of submission and obedience to 
 civil authority ; what limits or exceptions, if any, they make : 
 then we shall be able to apply the principles to our particular 
 duty. 
 
 1. First, we are struck with the fact that in the whole 
 life of our Saviour he carefully avoided all conflict with the 
 existing civil authorities. He conformed to all the institu¬ 
 tions and regulations of the government, though administer¬ 
 ed by cruel, oppressive, and eminently wicked men. The 
 charge of being an enemy to Caesar, and of aspiring to royal 
 authority over the Jews, was false, as both Herod and Pon¬ 
 tius Pilate themselves testified. To evince his regard and 
 subjection to existing laws, he once even wrought a miracle 
 to obtain tribute-money for himself and his disciple Peter. 
 For so doing, he assigns this significant reason—“ Lest we 
 should offend them ” Matt. 17 : 27. On another occasion 
 the Herodians—a crafty political party—attempted to ensnare 
 him, and make him commit himself, in words, against the 
 government. “ Tell us,” said they, “ what thinkest thou? 
 Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not ? Jesus said 
 unto them, shew me the tribute money: and they brought 
 unto him a denarius —a Roman penny. And he saitli unto 
 them, Whose is this image and superscription ? Whose like¬ 
 ness is this stamped on the coin ? And they said, Caesar’s. 
 Then saith he unto them, Render , therefore , unto Ccesar the 
 things that are Ceesar’s, and to God the things that are 
 God’s.” Here observe, the very question was a question of 
 conscience ; and of the greater importance to them, because, 
 as is believed, it had respect to a law of Moses, that a stran¬ 
 ger should not be set over the Jews as a king.* Is it lawful 
 for us Jews to pay tribute to a foreign power? Though 
 
 * See Deut. 17 : 15. Barnes’s Notes on Matt. 22 : 16—22. 
 
13 
 
 conquered and held in subjection, must we not, in accord¬ 
 ance with Moses’s law, refuse tribute-money to Cassar? 
 Christ’s answer, marked with superhuman wisdom, is, Caesar 
 has rights, to which you are bound in conscience to yield. 
 Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s ; 
 and at the same time render unto God the duties which you 
 owe him. 
 
 2. Turn next to the injunctions of Paul, the apostle, Rom. 
 13 : 1—7. “ Let every soul be subject to the higher pow¬ 
 
 ers. 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 damnation”—or just punishment. 
 The “ higher powers” here spoken of, are rulers ,—the con¬ 
 stituted civil authority,—which is ordained of God in the 
 sense that God authorizes, and in his providence institutes, 
 civil government, as a means necessary for the well-being of 
 men in society. “He is the minister of God to thee for 
 good.” v. 4. This is the true end and object of civil gov¬ 
 ernment. But on this passage let me cite to you the com¬ 
 ment of Dr. Scott. “The higher powers,” says he, “at 
 Rome were not only heathen, but usurping, oppressive, and 
 even persecuting governors ; and Nero, who was then empe¬ 
 ror, was a monster of cruelty, caprice and wickedness, almost 
 unparalleled in the annals of mankind; yet no exceptions 
 were made on that account. Christians were required to look 
 above such concerns, and to consider God as the source of 
 all authority, and civil society as his appointment for the 
 benefit of mankind. It was therefore incumbent on Chris¬ 
 tians to render a prompt and quiet obedience to those govern¬ 
 ors under whom their lot was cast; patiently submitting to 
 the hardships, and thankfully receiving the benefits thence 
 resulting, without objecting to the vices of the constitution, 
 the administration, or the rulers, as an excuse for refusing 
 subjection.” 
 
14 
 
 Having thus asserted that civil government is an ordinance 
 of God, for the welfare of mankind, the apostle urges obedi¬ 
 ence to it on the ground of conscience , and not simply through 
 fear of punishment: “ Wherefore, ye must needs be subject, 
 not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.” v. 5. That 
 is, as a matter of conscience, or of duty to God , because civil 
 government is his ordinance.* Hear again this same apos¬ 
 tle, addressing Titus, bishop of the church in Crete : “ Put 
 them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to 
 obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” This 
 is an essential part of a bishop’s or minister’s office ;—to in¬ 
 culcate obedience to every class of civil rulers. Titus 3 : 1. 
 
 3. The apostle Peter places subjection to civil authority 
 on precisely the same ground. Writing to Christians scat¬ 
 tered over different provinces of the Roman Empire, he says, 
 I. Pet. 2: 13 : 11 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.” In thus submitting u to every ordinance of man,” 
 they were to have regard to the influence of their example: 
 “ For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may 
 put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.” v. 15. Let 
 your conduct as citizens of the State—peaceful, and obedient 
 to the laws—adorn the religion which you profess. 
 
 Now, viewing the above passages as they stand by them¬ 
 selves, they seem to leave no room for disobedience or resist¬ 
 ance to any human law. They make no exception in any case, 
 but with absolute authority, as the will and command of God, 
 they enjoin— u Let every soul be subject to the higher pow¬ 
 ers." u Submit to every ordinance of 7nan, for the Lord's 
 sake." While these passages thus in unqualified terms 
 urge obedience to civil government as an ordinance of God, 
 
 c 
 
 5r v- 
 
 # See Barnes’s comment on Rom. 13 : 1—7. 
 
 ' 
 
15 
 
 and the Saviour in his life exemplified the same, it further 
 demands consideration, that the Scriptures contain no hint 
 or caution that possibly we may carry that obedience too far. 
 
 On the contrary, the frequent repetition of commands on 
 this subject imply that we are in special danger of sinning 
 against God, by disobedience to civil authority, and even by 
 disrespect. “ Curse not the king ; no, not in thy thought .” 
 “Thou shalt not revile nor curse the ruler of thy people.” 
 u The man that will not hearken unto the judge shall die.” 
 See Eccl. 10 : 20. Ex. 22 : 28. Deut. 17 : 12. In the 
 day’s of Israel’s degeneracy, “ they would not hearken to 
 their judges.” Judges 2 : 17. So conscientious was the 
 apostle Paul on this subject, that he made a public apology 
 for speaking in a reproachful manner, even inadvertently , of 
 one invested with civil authority. Acts 23: 5. And let it 
 ever be borne in mind, that in the long, dark catalogue of 
 human offences, the sin of obeying magistrates is never 
 mentioned, while that of despising and resisting is ranked 
 among the worst of crimes! See II. Pet. 2: 10. Jude, v. 8. 
 
 The question then arises, are there no limits and no ex¬ 
 ceptions to the duty of subjection to civil authority ? I an¬ 
 swer, there are ; and they are contained, not in commands of 
 God, but in the approved examples of good men, in at least 
 three instances. 
 
 The first is the noble example of the three Jewish breth¬ 
 ren in Babylon, who refused to bow down and worship the 
 golden image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up ; and who, 
 when threatened for refusal, that they should be cast into 
 the midst of a burning fiery furnace, replied to the king :— 
 
 “ O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in 
 this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to * 
 deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver 
 us out of thine hand, O King. But if not, be it known 
 unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor wor¬ 
 ship the golden image which thou hast set' up.” Dan. 3: 
 
8-—18. Similar was the example of Daniel, when prohibit¬ 
 ed by royal edict from offering prayer to Israel’s God for the 
 space of thirty days, on penalty of being cast into the den 
 of lions. “ When Daniel knew that the writing was sign¬ 
 ed, he went into his house ; and his windows being opened 
 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.” Dan. 6 : 4—10. And he did 
 right, for the law was a direct and designed infringement of 
 his personal duties to God. We have, further, the example 
 of the two apostles, Peter and John, who, after they had re¬ 
 ceived commission and authority from their Saviour, were 
 commanded by the Jewish Sanhedrim “ not to speak at all, 
 nor to teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John an¬ 
 swered, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken 
 unto you more than unto God, judge ye ; for we cannot but 
 speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Acts 4 : 
 18—20. Here, you observe, are direct and palpable viola¬ 
 tions, by human edicts, of the rights of conscience in regard 
 to the worship of God and the preaching of the gospel. To 
 have yielded to them, would have been sin against God ; 
 and were any similar' cases ever to occur any where in the 
 wide extent of our country, duty to God would demand in¬ 
 stant refusal to obey. Happily we are in no danger, for this 
 freedom of conscience in respect of the worship of God is 
 expressly secured to us, both in the Constitution of our own 
 State and that of the United States. The language of the 
 latter is, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an estab¬ 
 lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 
 
 Thus far, therefore, the Scriptures are a plain guide. They 
 do, by examples, warrant disobedience to civil authority, 
 when the laws thereof come in direct conflict with the com¬ 
 mands of God, in respect of the worship due to him. Ob¬ 
 serve, however, they are examples, not of personal resist¬ 
 ance or violence , but of passive suffering ;—preferring to en~ 
 
17 
 
 dure the penalty of the laws, rather than disobey an express 
 command of God.' 
 
 On the same principles, it may be admitted that govern¬ 
 ment has no right to require its subjects to commit murder, 
 robbery, or violate any other explicit command of God. 
 But who would dare intimate that we are in danger of 
 being coerced into such sins, under a constitutional govern¬ 
 ment, one object of which is to prevent and punish them? 
 It is safe further to admit, that when human laws become 
 intolerably oppressive upon the whole or a major part of the 
 people, resistance, even to revolution , is justifiable ;—as our 
 fathers resisted oppressive laws, and gained their independ¬ 
 ence. But let no one quote the above* scriptural examples, 
 to justify opposition to the government in the exercise of its 
 constitutional authority, and in reference to the civil and 
 municipal affairs of the State.* 
 
 *Mr. Barnes sums up his views on Bom. 13 : 1-7, with the following 
 just and judicious remarks: 
 
 “ On the subject discussed in these seven verses, the following principles 
 seem to be settled by the authority of the Bible, and are now understood: 
 1. That government is essential, and its necessity is recognized by God, 
 and it is arranged in his providence. God has never been the patron of 
 anarchy and disorder. 2. Civil rulers are dependent on God. He has 
 the entire control of them, and can set them up or put them down when 
 he pleases. 3. The authority of God is superior to that of civil rulers. 
 They have no right to make enactments which interfere with Ms authority. 
 4. It is not the business of civil rulers to regulate or control religion. 
 That is a distinct department, with which they have no concern, except to 
 protect it. 5. The rights of all men are to be preserved. Men are to be 
 allowed to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, 
 and to be protected in those rights, provided they do not violate the peace 
 and order of the community. 6. Civil rulers have no right to persecute 
 Christians, or to attempt to secure conformity to their views by force. 
 The conscience cannot be compelled, and in the affairs of religion man 
 must be left free.” 
 
 Mr. Barnes further says: “ It is matter of devout thanksgiving that the 
 
 subject is now settled, and the principle is now understood. In our own 
 land there exists the happy and bright illustration of the true, principle on 
 
 3 
 
 }. 
 
18 
 
 I say, therefore, notwithstanding these admitted exceptions 
 to the general law of obedience to civil authority, yet we, 
 above all people, have reason to conform to our own Consti¬ 
 tution and Laws. For surely if Christians in the primitive 
 age were required to obey the existing civil authorities—- 
 governments administered by such men as Caligula, Nero 
 and Domitian ; tyrants who ruled with arbitrary sway—what 
 language can adequately express the duty of subjection to 
 our own government?—a government established by our 
 fathers in good faith and solemn compact ;—adopted as our 
 own, and administered by rulers of our own deliberate choice! 
 To oppose, t,o refuse to submit to our own Constitution and 
 Laws, is virtually to raise the standard of rebellion against 
 ourselves ; to repudiate our own acts ; to annul our own 
 covenants ; to draw down on our own heads all the pains 
 and penalties we have authorized against the disobedient and 
 rebellious. It is to raze the foundations of the temple of 
 freedom, and tear down the glorious superstructure which our 
 fathers reared and cemented with their blood. 
 
 Listen to the simple but sublime declaration prefixed to 
 the articles of our glorious Constitution :—“ We, the people 
 of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, 
 establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for 
 the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure 
 the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do 
 
 this great subject. The rights of conscience are regarded, and the laws 
 peacefully obeyed. The civil ruler understands his province, and Chris¬ 
 tians yield a cheerful and cordial obedience to the laws. The Church and 
 State move on in their own spheres, united only in the purpose to make 
 men happy and good; and divided only as they relate to different depart¬ 
 ments, and contemplate, the one, the rights of civil society; the other, the 
 interests of eternity. * * Thanks should be rendered without ceasing 
 
 to the God of our fathers, for the wondrous train of events by which this 
 contest has been conducted to its issue ; and for the clear and full under¬ 
 standing which we now have of the different departments pertaining to 
 church and state.” 
 
 <r> 
 
 L? 
 
 t V 
 
19 
 
 ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of 
 America.” Every word is worthy of being written in letters 
 of gold and spread out on the canopy of the skies, to be 
 read and rejoiced in by a nation of free, grateful and obedient 
 subjects. It is your own declaration; it is mine; it was 
 our fathers’, 11 by explicit and solemn compact.” God grant 
 that, it may be our children’s and children’s children to the 
 latest generation ! 
 
 I beg leave to add that we, citizens of New-Hampshire, 
 should be the last in the nation to violate this Constitution 
 of our country; for this was the State which completed the 
 number necessary to carry the glorious instrument into effect, 
 and to set the wheels of the new government in motion.* 
 Here—in this town-—in yonder ancient edifice, it was adopt¬ 
 ed in a Convention of the people, 21 June, 1788. When 
 they had gone over the Constitution, and debated it article 
 by article, and adopted the whole, then, in the name of the 
 State of New-Hampshire, they say : “ The Convention hav¬ 
 ing impartially discussed and freely considered the Constitu¬ 
 tion of the United States of America, reported to Congress 
 by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of 
 America, and submitted to us by a resolution of the General 
 Court of said State, passed the 14th December, last past; 
 and acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the 
 Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in affording the people of 
 the United States, in the course of his providence, an op¬ 
 portunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or sur¬ 
 prise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact 
 with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Consti¬ 
 tution, in order ‘ to form a more perfect union, establish jus¬ 
 tice,’ &c., do , in the name and in behalf of the people of 
 said State of New-Hampshire , assent to and ratify the said 
 
 * The Convention was held (by adjournment from Exeter,) in the Old 
 North Church. “ This was the ninth State in the Union which accepted 
 the Constitution, and thus the number was completed which was necessary 
 to put in motion the political machine.”— Belknap's Hist. N. H. 
 
Constitution of the United States of America.”* Thus 
 stands the “ explicit and solemn compact” of our fathers! 
 What son of New-Hampshire will accuse them of sinning 
 against Cod in making it, or allege that we are guilty in 
 keeping it ? 
 
 At this point the reflection forces itself on us, What a 
 wonderful instrument this Constitution of our Union is ! 
 What wisdom pervades every article ! Going into operation, 
 at first, with only nine States, it has been found, after a trial 
 of more than sixty years, to be adapted equally to all the 
 enlarged and changing circumstances of our country, so that 
 now it extends the broad shield of its protection over thirty- 
 one States of the Union. Though nothing human can be 
 called perfect, yet this seems so nearly so as to awaken our 
 profound admiration for the wisdom that dictated it, and our 
 thanksgiving to God for the innumerable blessings which, 
 under his providence, it has insured to our country! 
 
 It is, however, now said, that somewhere among the arti¬ 
 cles of that Constitution is one that contravenes the rights 
 of conscience ; at least, asserts and enjoins a duty which we 
 cannot discharge. The suspicion is not for a moment to be 
 entertained ; it could have no such aim ; it cannot be. If 
 there is an article that seems to have such a bearing, we 
 must conclude that we put a wrong construction on it, or 
 that we have raised a question of conscience, in opposition 
 to it, rather than that it intentionally infringes conscience ; 
 for one express object of the Constitution is to guard the 
 rights of conscience. True, there is an article in the great 
 Instrument, which was introduced as a part of the compro¬ 
 mise on which the union of the people of the United States 
 was formed, and without which we should probably to this 
 day have been a separated, broken, distracted—yea, a hostile 
 and warring people;—and without which, too, if now blot¬ 
 ted out or trampled down bv a part, and against the consent 
 
 * See Original Records, in Secretary of State’-s office. 
 
21 
 
 and remonstrances of the rest, would inevitably lead to a 
 dismemberment of our Union, and a defeat of all the glori¬ 
 ous ends proposed to be secured by it.* 
 
 Although, therefore, as an individual you may not approve 
 that particular article, have you any right, before God, vio¬ 
 lently to oppose or resist it ? Is “ the explicit and solemn 
 compact” to be broken at your will ? Let that conscience 
 which God himself addresses, when he commands obedience 
 to every ordinance of man, utter its loud tones of admoni¬ 
 tion, that you touch not with violent hand that great Instru¬ 
 ment—the bulwark of our union, our defence, our liberty, 
 our glory. 
 
 But yet, again, it is said, that in carrying out the provis¬ 
 ions of that article, in a law of the land, duties are prescrib¬ 
 ed and penalties threatened, at which every generous, hu¬ 
 mane and moral instinct of our nature recoils. It may be 
 so ; and if so, deeply are the requirements of the law to be 
 deplored. But were they meant by the framers of the law 
 -—our own chosen representatives, in whom the legislative 
 power is vested—thus to wound any man’s feelings ? to 
 trench upon any one’s humane or moral sensibilities ? or to 
 enjoin a duty with which any individual’s conscience had a 
 cause to interfere ? I cannot believe it—much as I may and 
 do regret the apparent severity of the law. The effect as¬ 
 cribed to it must grow out of some misconception either of 
 the nature or necessity of the law.f For, as I understand 
 
 * The Article referred to, is Art. 4, § 2. “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 is due.” 
 
 f It deserves consideration, that the language of the Constitution, on 
 which this Law is founded, is such, that were slavery abolished this year, 
 in every State of the Union, it would stijl need to remain, unchanged, in 
 reference to other classes of persons, who are held to service by indentures 
 for a term of years. In tlie debate in the N. H. Convention that adopted 
 
 r 
 
22 
 
 it, with the exception of a change in some of its provisions, 
 to render it more effectual, it is the same law that has stood 
 on the statute book of the nation fifty-seven years ; that was 
 signed by the hand of the immortal Washington himself; 
 that has been pronounced by the highest judicial authorities 
 of the land to be in accordance with the sacred purposes of 
 the Constitution, and not in a single respect to contravene it. 
 It is now generally conceded that the late law suspends no 
 habeas corpus act; sets not aside the right of trial by jury ;* * 
 and, properly understood, interferes not with any of the offi¬ 
 ces of humanity, except as they may throw obstacles in the 
 way of the execution of the law by legal officers. Nor does 
 it require any personal act to be done, by any private citizen, 
 directly to execute it, except in the last extreme, when worse 
 comes to worse, and the officers of the law must be sustain¬ 
 ed by the mass of the citizens, or REBELLION triumph. 
 
 Here let me enquire by what right you charge upon any 
 law of your country that it is unjust, oppressive and unright¬ 
 eous ? that it conflicts with your duty to God or to man, and 
 therefore may and ought to be disobeyed ? Have you no 
 trust in the rulers of your own election, that they will act 
 according to their oath, and enact only such laws as accord 
 with the benign ends of our government ? Is there not a 
 high judicial tribunal to which such questions are to be re¬ 
 ferred ? Is it safe or right in a private citizen to assume so 
 vast a responsibility as to condemn the laws of his country, 
 and at his will disobey them ? May everyone set his private 
 judgment above the legislative, executive and judicial au¬ 
 thority of the land ? Reflect for a moment on the necessary 
 consequence of adopting such a principle. You assume to 
 
 the Federal Constitution, there is no evidence in the records that a single 
 objection was made to the 2d section of the 4th Article. 
 
 * It is well known that trials for freedom, by jury, are common in the 
 courts at the South, and, when there is any legal claim, it is as likely to be 
 gained as anywhere else. 
 
 \ 
 
pronounce upon every law, and to obey or disobey, according 
 as you judge it right or wrong, irrespective of the judgments 
 of your lawful rulers ; and you regard yourself at liberty to 
 nullify and violate every human law which does not accord 
 with your private judgment. You claim to be governed by 
 some “ higher law.” What is that law? How revealed to 
 you in distinction from others? Is it a voice from God, so 
 plain as not to be misunderstood ? Rather, are you not quite 
 as likely to err in regard to it as others? But, if you are 
 right in this position, then certainly every other individual 
 may assume the same ; and when one law regulates the use 
 or descent of property; another, the degrees of consanguin¬ 
 ity in marriage; another, the business of trade, by license 
 or tariff; another, imposes penalties for crime; and another, 
 establishes police regulations for the common good;—then, 
 if such law conflicts with your or my private judgment or 
 conscience in regard to that matter, you and I are therefore 
 exempt from obligation to obey that law. And following 
 still the “ higher law,” possibly of my own selfishness, or 
 pride, or obstinacy, I trample under my feet the law of civil 
 society, which as a citizen 1 am already sworn to support. 
 Then it cometh to pass, that each man is a law unto him¬ 
 self, and, like Israel in the days of deepest degeneracy and 
 corruption, without priest or judge, “ every one does that 
 which is right in his own eyes.” Where now, I ask, is the 
 authority of God, which has ordained civil society and gov¬ 
 ernment, of which you and I are subjects? Where is the 
 obligation which he himself has imposed on us in this rela¬ 
 tion ? What becomes of any subjection for conscience’s 
 sake? Where is the Christian example of submitting to 
 every ordinance of man “for the Lord’s sake?” 
 
 It has indeed been plausibly suggested that to inculcate 
 obedience to the “ higher law,” i. e., to what our conscience 
 deems right, in all cases, would supersede human enactments, 
 and would itself ensure all the good ends of government. 
 
24 
 
 But who, in such a world as this, would dare try it ? On 
 what nation or what selected number of individuals could 
 the experiment safely be made ? If two of them differed 
 on any point, and that difference lead to conflict, who should 
 decide between them ? After all, you say, I must follow my 
 conscience. I do not object to your decision, but you must 
 not expect a martyr’s crown unless you are sure, infallibly 
 sure, you are right, and the event shall so confirm it.* 
 
 * Among those who on conscientious grounds are opposed to the recent 
 Law of Congress respecting the return of fugitives from service, I recog¬ 
 nize men—some of my own brethren in the church and ministry—for 
 whom I entertain a high esteem and sincere affection. With them I agree 
 in deeply regretting the original necessity of such an article in our Consti¬ 
 tution, and such a law to carry it out. But I cannot agree with them that 
 » duty to God binds me to oppose, revile, denounce or resist the law. Rather, 
 duty to God , as a subject of civil government, obliges me to submit. I know 
 it is said that the law is contrary to the express command of God, in Deut. 
 23 : 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.” My reasons for not considering 
 myself obliged by this law to disobey the law of my own country in regard 
 to the class of persons spoken of, are, 1. That the law in Deut., in my 
 judgment, had respect to foreign servants, fugitives from heathen tribes, to 
 whom the Israelites were under no obligations; and the retaining of ser¬ 
 vants from such could not therefore be reasonably complained of, much less 
 their return lawfully demanded. 2. That the law, though humane and ex¬ 
 cellent in itself, was not designed to be necessarily of universal obligation, 
 any more than some others of the Mosaic institutes, which are generally 
 admitted not to be binding on us. For example, the law in verses 19 and 
 20 of the same chapter, respecting usury, with many others, in Chapters 
 XIX, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXIY and XXY. See, also, Dr. Scott’s com¬ 
 ment on Deut. 23 : 15, 16. 
 
 I am also aware that it is said our law is repugnant to the command, 
 “ Love thy neighbor as thyself.” “ Do unto others as ye would they should 
 do to you.” The proper answer I conceive to be, that the manner in which 
 love to our neighbor is manifested, must always be modified by our rela¬ 
 tions to society. The judge that condemns a criminal to die, and the sheriff 
 that executes the sentence, must entertain no personal ill-will, but their 
 love to the individual criminal must not lead them to disregard their higher 
 . obligations to the State. So my love to a fugitive from service must be 
 
 t 
 
 
2 o 
 
 Still it is said by one and another, ‘ That law I can never 
 approve :—that law I can never voluntarily aid to executed 
 Doubtless, as a private citizen, you have a right to say thus 
 much. Yea, more: if on mature reflection, investigation and 
 prayer, your judgment is adverse to the law, you have an 
 unquestionable right, secured by the Constitution itself, to 
 seek to change or repeal it. You have liberty of speech, 
 to express in becoming terms your convictions ; liberty to 
 petition the proper authorities for a repeal ; liberty to vote 
 for men who accord with your views, and who, as far as in 
 them lies, will carry them out. You have still greater lib¬ 
 erty—viz. : to seek in a constitutional way to have the Con¬ 
 stitution itself amended. But, if after all your efforts, a 
 majority of your fellow-citizens throughout the wide Union 
 have no scruples of conscience in sympathy with you ; if 
 they, under all the circumstances of the case, think the law 
 not only necessary, but equitable and just, though repulsive 
 to their humane feelings ; and if they, as under oath to God, 
 are resolved to abide by “ the explicit and solemn compact ,J 
 into which they have entered to sustain the Constitution as 
 it is ; then I say your duty as a citizen is also plain. Con¬ 
 science towards God demands that you peaceably submit to 
 the execution of the law by the proper authorities. If you 
 do this at a sacrifice, you must patiently endure it. But 
 you may not lift up the hand of rebellion ; you may not 
 strike a blow at the Constitution—which is at once the char¬ 
 ter of all our civil blessings ; the guarantee of our liberties; 
 the anchor of our national hopes. 1 entreat, I warn you, by 
 all that is sacred in the name of conscience and religion, 
 commit not such a more than parricidal deed against your 
 
 regulated by a consideration of the effect which my conduct towards him 
 is to have upon the peace and welfare of the whole country. If doing him 
 good in a particular way ; i. e., aiding his escape, contrary to the law of the 
 land, should lead, as a probable or necessary result, to civil war ; then 
 surely I should forbear to show my love in that way. I respectfully sub¬ 
 mit these views to the sober reflection of all conscientious and candid men. 
 
 4 • "'**.’* 
 
26 
 
 country. “Submit to this ordinance of man for the Lord’s 
 sake”—until by lawful means you can secure its repeal or 
 amendment. 
 
 IV. I am now prepared to say, briefly, in the last place, 
 We ought to seek , by all lawf ul and moral means , to remove 
 existing evils from the good land in which we live, and to 
 perpetuate our national union and prosperity. We justly 
 deplore the existence of Slavery, as the chief source of our 
 country’s dishonor, disquiet and danger. In honest and 
 truthful, but not denunciatory tones, should we utter our 
 convictions against it, as a grievous moral wrong, and a blot 
 on the fair escutcheon of our liberty. We may labor, by 
 argument and persuasion, to induce our brethren in the States 
 where it exists, to abolish the system by law—as they only 
 have the right and power to do. Through our representa¬ 
 tives in the National Legislature, we may seek to guard 
 against the extension of the evil, and hem it in with a wall 
 of freedom which it can never pass. We may pray the God 
 of heaven, in his wise and far-reaching providence, to inter¬ 
 pose and set the oppressed free, in such way and time as his 
 infinite wisdom alone can see best ; but we may not and 
 must not, as citizens of a common country, bound to each 
 other by “explicit and solemn compact,” threaten, on this 
 account, to break the bands of our union, nor exasperate our 
 brethren, either by words or overt acts, to seek that terrible 
 issue of sectional agitation and dissension. 
 
 Have I then, it is asked, become the apologist of Slavery ? 
 Do I seek to lessen in the public mind the enormities of the 
 evil ? And is it not a glaring inconsistency to profess to be 
 the enemy of slavery, and to pray for its removal, and yet 
 defend the Constitution and laws which uphold it ? No, no. # 
 
 * The author professes to be, sincerely and on principle, opposed to Slav¬ 
 ery, wherever it exists. But he has yet to learn that it is his duty on that ac¬ 
 count, to cease to preach, on apostolic authority, obedience to civil govern¬ 
 ment; or to offer prayer fo i r rulers, or for the oppressed and enslaved. The 
 
27 
 
 But situated as we are ; citizens of a common country, un¬ 
 der a Constitution which we have covenanted with one an¬ 
 other to abide by ; our duty as well as true happiness lies 
 in maintaining its provisions, until such time as they can be 
 lawfully changed. I stand on the word of God and on the 
 Constitution of my country, and on that two-fold platform 
 use all lawful and moral means in my power to remove the 
 only —certainly the chief —evil that afflicts us. But if I go 
 against the Constitution and laws of the land, to remove or 
 overthrow this evil, then one or the other of these alterna¬ 
 tives, it seems to me, must follow: Either we must become 
 involved in all the horrors of a civil war, in which, if slavery 
 is terminated, it must be in the commingled blood of both 
 the enslaved and free ; or else a southern and hostile Con¬ 
 federacy will be formed, in which slavery itself, as an insti¬ 
 tution, must be made perpetual ! From either of which al¬ 
 ternatives we may well pray, “ Good Lord , deliver us .” 
 
 But there are other, almost innumerable social evils, which 
 love to our country should prompt us to remove. There is 
 Intemperance, with its retinue of vices, crimes and woes. 
 There is profaneness, and Sabbath-breaking, and licentious¬ 
 ness. There is a sickly and sentimental philanthropy, 
 which, virtually setting aside the authority of both human 
 and divine laws, seeks to advance the welfare of mankind 
 by modes of its own devising; and, under the plausible 
 names of “ brotherhoods ” and “fraternities ”, acts on prin¬ 
 ciples adverse to all penal enactments, and ‘‘despises govern¬ 
 ments.” Then there is springing up in our cities, and thence 
 spreading out into villages and country, a bold and blasphe¬ 
 mous infidelity, which denies the inspiration and supreme 
 authority of the Holy Scriptures in matters of faith and 
 practice, and substitutes therefor its own violent impulses or 
 
 less we can personally do for their liberation, the mpre earnestly should 
 we supplicate God’s grace, to dispose those who hold them in bondage, “ to 
 break every yoke, and to let the oppressed go free.” . 
 
 > 
 
 / » 
 
28 
 
 infatuated reasonings—dignifying these with the appellation 
 of “ the higher law To meet and overcome these and 
 other evils of our goodly and pleasant land, we have a great 
 duty to perform as citizens, patriots and Christians. Let the 
 minds of the people be called back to the foundation-prin¬ 
 ciples of Liberty and Law, Education and Religion, on 
 which the superstructure of our country’s glory has been 
 reared. Let the means of instruction be coextensive with 
 our expanded population. Let a pure Christianity be main¬ 
 tained by our firesides, and be sent abroad as the only con¬ 
 servative and restorative influence that can secure and per¬ 
 petuate our blood-bought, privileges. Let the hearts of all 
 men, without distinction of party or denomination, of State 
 or territory ; all who desire the lasting happiness and honor 
 of their country ; pledge themselves anew upon their coun¬ 
 try’s Constitution ; and let them invoke by fervent praj^er 
 the blessings of our fathers’ God to abide with us. 
 
 I would appeal, on this behalf, to all the ministers of reli¬ 
 gion, never to assume the strange, anti-apostolic and anti- 
 christian position of teaching, or any way countenancing 
 insubordination to the “ powers ordained of God,” anymore 
 than they cease to “ plead for the oppressed.” and to “ open 
 their mouth for the dumb.”f To the youth of our land I 
 would say, in the language of Jefferson, “ Be just, be true ; 
 
 * In a Sermon on Conscience , recently published by Theodore Parker, 
 of Boston, who openly denies the inspiration and authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures, he justifies a juror in violating his oath to clear a man ac¬ 
 knowledged to be guilty of violating a law of his country. “ If I value 
 my manhood, I shall answer, after my natural duty to love a man and not 
 hate him, and shall say, 'not guilty,’ and I think human nature will justify 
 the verdict.” Again in the same Discourse he says : “ The man who at¬ 
 
 tacks me to reduce me to slavery, in that moment of attack alienates his 
 right to life ; and if I were the fugitive, and could escape in no other way, 
 I would kill him with as little compunction as I would drive a musquito 
 from my face.” v, 
 
 •j- S?nce the delivery of this Discourse, a printed “ Sermon for the Times,” 
 by Rev. A. Woodbury, of Concord, has been put into my hands. * I have 
 
 
fear God, honor your parents, and love your country more 
 than life.” 1 entreat the aged fathers and mothers, whose 
 recollections go back to the early days of the Republic, to 
 rehearse the scenes of their childhood and the traditions of 
 their fathers in the ears of the rising generation, and thus 
 extend and perpetuate the hallowed memories of those who 
 lived, and suffered, and died for their country. 1 would 
 that such examples be multiplied, as one that has recently 
 occurred* in a neighboring State. An aged matron, the wi¬ 
 dow of a revolutionary pensioner, on her last birth-day call¬ 
 ed her children and grand-children together, and after their 
 festive greetings were over, and the day drew towards a 
 close, she led her eleven children into a parlor chamber, in 
 the centre of which stood a table, bearing a new silver cup, 
 surmounted by a circle of eleven silver cups of like fashion. 
 The venerable mother then stepped forward and took one 
 cup from the eleven, and presented it to her eldest daughter, 
 —a woman of sixty-three years of age. It bore the inscrip¬ 
 tion — u Presented to-- by her mother, as a part of pension 
 
 received for services rendered in the United States army by 
 her father, in 1776.” The daughter received the cup with 
 her mother’s blessing, and retired to her place. Then the 
 
 read the Sermon with attention and candor. To the doctrine of the Ser¬ 
 mon, that “ we ought to obey God rather than men,” when the authority 
 of the one clearly conflicts with that of the other, I have no objection; it 
 is a Scriptural doctrine, which I have ever preached. But I respectfully 
 submit to a discerning public, and to the author himself, whether it is not 
 a fundamental objection to this “ Sermon for the Times,” that it does not 
 recognize civil government as an institution of God , which He commands men 
 to obey; that it practically allows every man to be his own judge as to 
 what does and what does not accord with conscience; and thus encourages 
 insubordination to civil laws; and, above all, that a necessary inference 
 from the Sermon is, that the whole American people are in danger of rush¬ 
 ing into open Atheism , through an adherence to the Constitution and Laws 
 of their country! ^ ^ 
 
 * Mrs. Pliebe Wood, of Woodville, Ilopkinton, Ms. See PuritsQf Re¬ 
 corder, Nov. 21, 1850. 
 
30 
 
 next born came up and received his cup and mother’s bless¬ 
 ing ; and so all, in the order of their age, until the youngest 
 was blessed, and held in his hand the cup bearing his own 
 name, and that of father and mother surmounting the eagle 
 of his country. Then together, each holding in hand the 
 cup of blessing, they sung— 
 
 “ Blest be the tie that binds.” 
 
 Then they read the word of God, bowed in prayer and 
 thanksgiving to the God of all their mercies, and their fa¬ 
 ther’s God, and parted after singing the Christian Doxology. 
 
 This is true patriotism and religion. Let them ever be 
 united in our hearts. Let us now and ever bless the Lord 
 our God for the good land which he hath given us. Let us 
 pray for her peace, prosperity and perpetuity. In every 
 hour of trial and danger to our Union, let us adopt the sen¬ 
 timent of the faithful and trustful in Israel, and say of our 
 country, as they of theirs— 
 
 u If I forget thee , O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget 
 her cunning; if I do not remember thee , let my tongue 
 cleave to the roof of my mouth ; if I prefer not—my coun¬ 
 try-above my chief [earthly] joy .” 
 
 • * '' 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 v* 
 
 * ■ 
 
 : 
 
 ■ ♦ 
 
 . 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 ' V ' 
 
 
 .y.v 
 
 
 ■ ' ,W 
 
 • ‘ 
 
 "t ■ ■’ 
 
 ■ • .£ ' 
 
 
 ' - ■ 
 

 
 \ 
 
 V 
 

 
 , ’ 
 
 "-w.; . 
 
 
 ■x 
 
 
 *;vk 
 
 ’• ■' 
 
 ■'■V' 
 
 
 
 .. - -LV. > 
 
 *■'. -X? 
 
 < 
 
 oi