A Sermon

For this purpose, we would fix oti any previous period, rather than that at which they determined that they would have a king. The history of that event proves indeed the liberty of the people to choose their form of government, and their responsibility for the choice they should make. It proves that the act of determining to have a king, ■was evidence that they had rejected the Lord, and renounced the principles which he had ordained to promote their happiness and prosperity. It proves that a king was given them as a punishment, who would reduce them to a state of vassalage, employ them in his own service, and plunge them into a thousand miseries. It proves, in a word, not the divine right of kings, but every thing the reverse of it. We maintain this position from the terms in which the event is spo- ken of in the scriptures : We maintain it also from the subsequent history of that nation. Their first sovereign, when invested with the power, soon acquired the spirit of a tyrant. Jealousy and revenge rankled in his bosom against bis most useful and virtuous subjects; and he fell at last a victim to his own capricious spleen. The sec- ond, from being a man after God's own heart, was transformed by the magic influence of a throne, into a deliberate adulterer and mur- derer, and laid a foundation for bitter repentance. The third, though a wise politician, extended by his example the liberties of the crown to the widest range of libidinous indulgence and sensual grati- fication, sacrificing together his honour and his innocence. And the fourth, approaching nearer the time when the operative influence of their errors had prepared them for their ultimate results, divided the nation, demolished their altars, built up the high places of idolatry, extended and established his state religion, by making priests of the lower orders of the people, suited to his inclinations and dependent on his royal pleasure, and laid a foundation for the destruction of the houseof Israel. Thenceforward there was not so much as one virtuous prince in Israel ; and very few in Judah. And at this mo- ment the condition of the Jewish people exemplifies the truth of those denunciations which were uttered agjainst them by their prophet, in ease of disobedience to the statutes of true morality.

Upon such neglect, we justly charge their misery and their ruin. And it was in vie,w of this consequence of rejecting the Lord and fol- lowing their own ways, that Moses, dictated by the spirit of inspira- tion, warned them of their danger, and admonished them to shun it. He employed every motive which could move their feelings and affect their hearts. By pointing out with the utmost precision the miseries which would follow a course of disobedience and rebellion, he en- deavoured to alarm their fears, and convince them that in neglect of the plain principles of moral truth, religion itself would be only a name, and its ceremonies the mere badges of hypocrisy and supersti- tion — that in such a state, the God of justice would frown upon, an4 curse them as a nation. And by holding up to view the happy con? sequences of obedience and submission, he endeavoured to inspire tliem with a desire to preserve a character and reputation whic& would secure the favour of heaven, and render them respected and happy in the midst of surrounding nations. " Keep, therefore, and' do them," said he, " for this is your wisdom in the sight of the na- tions." I have detained you with these remarks, as necessary to show the leading doctrine of the text, from which I shall deduce this single proposition : That a correct public mofality, is essential to render a nation res- pected and happy. The truth of our proposition will appear evident, if we consider the influence which principles, formed into a system of government, and observed in the administration of it, have on the character and condition of the people under such government. The moral charac- ter of a system of government may be determined with little less cer- tainty than that of an individual. That which is most consistent with the will of God, and tends in the greatest degree to promote the du- ties of justice, benevolence and piety, is most moral ; that which is farthest removed from this standard, is least so.

Like all other moral principles, those which relate to governraentj have their first existence in the heart. In this incipient state, in which they must be viewed, to determine their elementary qualities^ I can admit of but two kinds ; those which are despotic, or those which are liberal. Pride is the disposition in which despotism is founded : liberal principles are the offspring of that benevolence which is dictated by an enlightened morality, and a feeling heart. The first associates with it, invidious distinctions, unjust oppressions, cruelty, and the whole catalogue of human crimes and human woes. The other unites in its sacred compact, piety and justice, equal rights and privileges, humanity and mercy, and the whole train of social virtues and social felicities. The first laws of despotism are injustice and oppression. The pride which produces it, can never be satisfied with equal rights and privileges. It requires that one portion of the community be reduced to a state of poverty and degradation, to support the other in splen- dour and prodigality ; and thus render their elevation conspicuous by the contrast. It is absolute no where, because while it is unbounded in its claims, it is limited in the means to enforce them. The man who is vile enough to yield a willing submission to the spirit of des- potism, would, if he (iould, usurp the Throne of the Eternal, and con- trol the destinies of the universe ! …