Election Sermon

NATH. GORHAM, Speaker.

p. 5AN Election SERMON.

ECCLESIASTES, 8th Chap. 4th Verse.

Where the Word of a King is, there is Power; and who may say unto him what doest thou?

LEST it should be thought, by any of this assembly, that the preacher has stumbled at the threshold in chusing a text contrary to the genius of our present constitution, it may not be amiss to observe, that according to the language of scripture, the word king signifies any kind of governor, or the ruling power of any state. Accordingly Moses is called king in the 33d chapter of Deuteronomy; the p. 6Judges have the same appellation, Judges xvii; to the four great Monarchies, the government of some of which was democratic, viz. Greece and Rome, the same title is given; and in the new testament, the seven kings, mentioned Rev. xvii. 10, are, by some of the latest and best expositors, understood of seven particular emperors of Rome. So that by king in the text, without putting any force upon the words, may be understood the ruling power of any nation, be it called in modern language by what name soever. Were this not the truth of fact, it would be necessary for us, as we have changed our form of government, to omit a considerable part of the scripture as inapplicable to our condition. But interpreted in the manner above suggested, those passages are as proper to be used by us, as by any people under heaven. The truth of the case seems to be this. At the time the text was penned, kingly rule was the most prevalent. Those who were called by this name, were vested with different degrees of power. Some governed by standing laws; and others conducted the great affairs of states and kingdoms according to their own arbitrary pleasure. Amongst the Jews, the king was only the p. 7supreme executive magistrate. He had little or nothing to do with matters of legislation. Their code of laws was previously settled by God himself, and given to Moses for the rule of their conduct, in all the subsequent stages of their political existence. In the times of the Judges the administration of their government was in the hands of God; and hence by the learned it is frequently called a theocracy: But the Jews, tired with having Jehovah for their supreme ruler, and perceiving that the nations around them had a mortal man to stand in this place, desired, as is too common at the present day, to be in the fashion, and to have a king like others. The request, as being to their own disadvantage, was displeasing to the God of heaven. But, as he would not rule them in a manner contrary to their own inclination, he consented to their petition, after pointing out to them the oppressive manner of the king. Their kings for several generations ruled in righteousness, and made the institutes of Moses the measure of their administration. Concerning such, Solomon pronounces as in our text, where the word of a king is, there is power. Whilst they keep within constitutional p. 8limits they cannot be resisted with impunity. Disobedience to such, exposes both to temporal and eternal punishments. To temporal; as the king is vested with great authority, and may do whatever he pleases for the preservation of order and the advancement of the public happiness: To eternal also; as government is of divine institution; and it is the will of heaven that we should obey not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake, provided the ruling power be the minister of God for good.

p. 8There is no necessity of supposing the declaration of Solomon true only of kingly government, properly so called. It is, or ought to be true of all kinds of government; and if there be any concerning which the assertion of the wise man may not, with truth, be made, it is evidently defective, and ought immediately to be amended, or totally changed. Three different modes of civil rule have been prevalent among the nations of the earth, a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy; and indeed some have a combination or mixture of all three, as England. This has been esteemed by enlightened foreigners to be p. 9the happiest of any other, and infinite encomiums have been passed upon it. Under such a form the people were free for many centuries. Corruption has at length taken place, and deprived the community at large of many of the blessings which they formerly enjoyed. [There was formerly a proper balance of power between the three constituent branches of the British constitution; and at that time it was a noble one. It had the strength and dispatch of Monarchy; the dignity and wisdom of Aristocracy, and the freedom of Democracy all combined in one. But this happy equipoise of power was destroyed, when the Commons granted to the king certain duties and customs, in lieu of personal service due to the Lord paramount, by the feudal system, together with the disposal of all the lucrative places that became necessary for the collection of those customs. This gave the king an undue influence, and enabled him to carry any point in Parliament. He is now vertually, though not nominally, an absolute monarch; especially as the people are very venal and corrupt. Innovations in government are dangerous.] Hence we learn that something else is necessary towards making a people free and happy, besides a good constitution.

p. 9Amidst the different forms, it has often been enquired, which is the best? To such a question it may truly be answered, that no particular one is suitable for all people; nor any one for the same people always. p. 10As the tempers and manners of nations change, a change in their government becomes necessary. The Jews, at first, lived under a free commonwealth. …