The Bible Friendly to Civil Liberty

Every considerate friend of civil liberty, in order to be consistent with himself, must be the friend of the Bible. I have yet to learn, that tyrants have ever effectually conquered and subjugated a people, whose liberties and public virtue were founded upon the word of God. The American people, I am confident, owe much in this respect to the influence of this great charter of human freedom. I need scarcely soUcit the favourable regard of my audience, therefore, when I say to them, that the topic of the present lecture is the influence which the Holy Scriptures have exerted, and are adapted to exert upon civil liberty.

Civil liberty is not freedom from restraint. Men may be wisely and benevolently checked and controled, and yet be free. No man has a right to act as he thinks fit, irrespective of the wishes and interests of others. This were exemption from the restraints of all law, and from all the wholesome influence of social institutions. Heaven itself were not free, if this were freedom. No created being holds any such liberty as this, by a divine warrant. The spirit of subordination, so far from being inconsistent with liberty, is inseparable from it. It is essential to liberty that men should be subjected to the restraints of law j and where this restraint is limited by a wise regard to the best interests of the State, there men are free. Every restraint of natural liberty that is arbitrary and needless *, that is imposed on one class of society, merely for the sake of aggrandizing, and augmenting the influence of another 5 every restraint that is not called for, for the purpose of securing to men of every rank and condition their just rights, and of diffusing the spirit of industry, virtue and peace, is in its own nature tyranny and oppression. The highest degree of civil liberty is enjoyed where natural liberty is so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society or State. A community may be free, for example, without extending to persons of all ages and both sexes the right of suflrage; without making all eligible to office 5 without abolishing the distinction of rank; without annihilating the correlative and reciprocal rights and duties of master and servant without destroying filial subordination and parental claims j without abolishing the punishment of crime j without abjuring the restraints of sanative and maritime law and without giving up the right of those compulsory services of its subjects which the common weal demands. The civil liberty of men” depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from them as in the due restraint of the natural liberty of There are a few leading principles on which all free governments must forever rest. They are such as the following: That government is instituted for the good of the people — that it is the right and duty of the people to become acquainted with their public interests — that all laws constitutionally enacted, should be faithfully and conscientiously obeyed — that the people, by their representatives, should have a voice in the enaction of these laws — that mild and moderate laws should be invested with energy — that the life, liberty, and property of no man shall be infringed upon, except by process of law — that every man who respects and obeys the laws has a right to protection and support — and that all that is valuable in civil institutions rests on the intelligence and virtue of the people. Such, as far as I am acquainted with them, are the great principles of civil liberty and a free government, let the form of that government be what it may. It may be monarchical, or republican 5 its constitution may be written, or unwritten 5 but wherever the duties of magistrates and subjects are prescribed and deffi.ed, and their rights protected by the preceeding principles, a people may be said to be free.

There never has been any such thing as true freedom among those who were ignorant of the word of God. The great mass of men from the more early ages of the world to the present time, have been controlled by mere arbitrary power. They have known very little of exemption from the arbitrary will of others. In many countries, this exemption has indeed been secured by established laws, and has had the semblance of salutary restraint 5 while the laws themselves have been lawless and arbitrary; at one time extravagantly severe, and at another extravagantly indulgent, and the mere expression of individual fickleness and authority.

There are few profane historians, with the exception of Herodotus and Thucydides that can be relied upon, which give any account of the world earlier than Alexander. From that time downwards, the history of nations becomes more clear, just, and authentic; but from that time upwards, the Bible is the only source of authentic information. There was a general dispersion of mankind into various parts of the world, as early as the days of Peleg, and probably, just before the death of Noah, and under his direction. Eusebius and Winder give some very plausible reasons, to say the least, for this opinion. The dispersion was completed at the Tower c^abel, when the posterity of Ham, who, under me direction of Nimrod had wrested the plains of Babylon from the descendants of Shem, were scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. The beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom was Babel. And the Bible informs us what a despot he was 5 everywhere instigating war and bloodshed, laying the nations under tribute, and transmitting his despotic and warlike power from generation to generation, till the Egyptians drove his descendants into Canaan and Joshua drove them into Greece. Ninus inherited the tyranny of his father 5 and the whole history of the Assyrian empire from the days of Ninus to its overthrow by the Babylonians and the Medes, is a history of the most absolute despotism. Such also was the character of the Babylonian empire from the revolt of Nebopolassar to its destruction by Cyrus. Egypt and Persia also were equally strangers to civil liberty. And with some partial restrictions, by which the authority of the former was controlled by established customs, and that of the latter by the senate, such was the character of imperial Greece and Rome. The republics of Greece and Rome were comparatively free; though their freedom was far from being founded upon a correct understanding of the rights of man. I do not know that there is in antiquity a single example of a free state, in which the people have exerted any due influence upon the government until you come to the Jewish republic. When I cast my eyes over the earth at the present day, I cannot fix them on a flftgle Pagan, Mahomedan, or Antichristian country, where the genius of liberty has a dwelling place; she may at times have hovered over them, like the dove over the waste of waters, but like her, has found no rest for the sole of her foot.

The Bible is the great protector and guardian of the liberties of men. It is the true basis, and the only basis of the temple of freedom. It is the necessary result of an acquaintance with the word of God that a people should be restive under a tyrants yoke, and sooner or later break from their chains. It is a maxim in the Romish Church, that “ignorance is the mother of devotion 5” but the true origin of this aphorism is, that ignorance rivets the chains of civil as well as ecclesiastical power. It were impossible for a people to be ignorant of their own rights, or the responsibilities of their rulers, who are deeply and honestly imbued with the principles of the Bible. Where the Bible forms public opinion, a nation must be free. Who does not see that such a tyrant as Nero, or Caligula j or such a wretch as Henry VIII. of England, or Charles IX. of France, or Juhus II. or Alexander IV. would not be tolerated in Protestant Christendom for an hour? The reason is, men read and understand the Bible. Moral and religious knowledge is everywhere circulated, and men can no more submit to chains in a Christian land, than they can be suffocated, while they live and breathe a vital atmosphere.

Considering the age of the world in which the Jewish code was established, and how little the doctrine of personal rights was understood in the world generally, is it not somewhat remarkable that the laws of Moses were so decidedly the friend of civil liberty? I have taken some pains to examine some of the most instructive writers, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the heau-ideal of a free government were not realized in the Hebrew State. And I confess I have been not a little delighted and surprised. I know not where to look for any single work which is so full of the great principles of political wisdom as the laws of Moses and the history of the Kings of Judah and Israel. There is not to my knowledge any where to be found such abundant and effective illustrations of these great principles, as are found in the laws and history of this people. Notwithstanding their recent servitude to a foreign and despotic prince, and though just entering upon a tedious pilgrimage in the deserts of Arabia, they adopted a regular form of government. It was a government which lasted almost half a century before they came to their promised land; and which, when they were ultimately settled in that land, remained for a series of years undisturbed, and enabled them to maintain their independence throughout all the varieties of their national history. And yet, with the exception of the writ of habeas corpus a privilege not required under their government, because it did not allow of imprisonment, I do not know that there is a single feature of a free State, but is here distinctly developed. They were a people remarkably well acquainted with their rights and form of government. One reason, no doubt, why God left them wandering forty years in the desert of Arabia, was that the various parts of their political machinery might be arranged and adjusted, and well understood among themselves, before they took possession of the promised land. And it was thus arranged and understood, and proved itself not less adapted to their prosperity, than their adversity j to their final settlement in Palestine, than their pilgrimage in the wilderness. Though rich in resources, and powerful in arms, they were free. Though holding, as they did in the time of David and Solomon, the balance of power between the two great monarchies of Egypt and Assyria, and giving law to all the petty kingdoms between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean, they remained a free people. They were free in choosing their own form of government 5 free in the enaction of their laws; free in that “the laws governed, and not men.” The superior excellence of the Mosaic institutions, when compared with the institutions of the most celebrated pagan nations, is strikingly displayed in their attachment to the cause of freedom. They were founded on a sound knowledge of human nature, and such as the art and science of government rest upon every where. There was every security for the preservation of social order which could be imparted on the one hand by a veneration for power, and on the other by a high sense of personal independence and individual rights.

The form of government established by Moses was republican y though, with salutary restrictions, the people were at liberty to change it when they desired. It consisted of twelve great tribes 5 each under its own leader constituting a little commonwealth, while all were united in one great repubhc. They were a nation of confederated states, bound together for the purposes of defence and conquest. Their government was more nearly assimilated to that of the Cantons of Switzerland, and the Confederated States of our own Union, than any other government. It bore some resemblance to that of the ancient Gauls, or Celtse 5 and still more to that of the ancient Britons, except that the Gauls and Britons had no federative bond. During the commonwealth, they chose and accepted God as their King, and he chose and declared them his peculiar people. When their form of government was changed, it was at their own request and solicitation. From a republic, it became an elective, hmited monarchy; under which their kings, whether appointed by God, or hereditary, did not enter upon the functions of their office until they were accepted and crowned by the people, and by a sworn capitulation were restricted in their prerogative. Their laws, though originating for the most part with God, were approved by themselves. The nation, in other words, adopted their own laws. Nor is there an instance on record, to the best of my knowledge, in which their laws were not proposed to the representatives of the people, and received their unanimous consent. On the one hand, there were some strong democratic tendencies in their government, and in the other some strong tendencies to despotism; but both under so many checks and balances, that never was nation better acquainted with their public interests, and rarely have the rights and duties of rulers and subjects been more definitely prescribed, or life, liberty and property more secure.

The liberties of a people depend much on the proper distribution of landed property. The Hebrew government was founded on an equal agrarian law. Unlike the agrarian law of Lycurgus, which debased the Spartans to a state of semi-barbarism, and ultimately committed the culture of their lands to their slaves j and equally unlike the feudal system of the middle ages, which has given shape and colouring to all the political and civil institutions of modern Europe; it made provision for the support of 600,000 yeomanry, with from six to twenty-five acres of land each, which they held independant of all temporal superiors, and which they might not alienate, but on the condition of their reverting to the families which originally possessed them, every fiftieth year.* Such

* Graves’ Lectures on the Pentateuch. were the immunities of the mass of the Hebrew population, not of its lords, nor its vassals, but its medium population. There were the poor beneath them, and men of superior rank and property above them, — the princes of their tribes and the heads of their thousands. But there was no degraded peasantry and no hereditary noblesse. And notwithstanding all that has been said of the pre-eminence of one poor, dependant tribe — a tribe that were disqualified from becoming the proprietors of a single foot of landed property — never was there less of a proud aristocracy in any form to trample on the rights of the poor, or, until a late period of their kingdom, of a merciless oppression of the lower orders of the people. No nobler people, no better organized community ever existed, than the ancient Hebrews. Inured to honourable industry — wealthy, but without ostentatious magnificence — ready at a moments call to resist every attack upon their countrys freedom — with an honest pride exulting in their revered ancestry — they may well be regarded, during the more auspicious periods of their history, as the noblest specimen of a free and independant nation. The proud descendant of Abraham was not always what he is now. “Many- that are first shall be last, and many that are last shall be first.” We may conceive of the sadness and despondency with which some lineal son of the ancient family of God, seated by the rivers of some modern Babylon, would exclaim, “how shall I sing the Lord’s song in a strange land!” And we may easily conceive of the high enthusiasm that would enkindle in his bosom as he turns his thoughts in prospect toward the hills of his own loved Palestine, and anticipates the time when his people shall be no longer a hissing and a by-word among the nations. How would his eye kindle, as by the light of prophecy he beholds the lion of the tribe of Judah displace the crescent that even now waves over the ruined Temple, and the mosque of Omar fall before the man who in the visions of God had a “line of flax and a measuring reed in his hand,” to rebuild the walls that are once more to contain the emblems of the divine presence and glory! How would his heart beat with hope as such visions passed before him, and taking his harp from the willows, with what emotions would he again sing, “The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation j he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my fathers God, and I will exalt him.”

“Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” The love of liberty thus expressed in the Old Testament is still more clearly indicated by the Christian dispensation. One of the most unfounded objections to Christianity that ever originated with designing, or was believed by foolish men, is that it is adapted to subject the many to the few. So far from this, it is the only religion which honestly and effectually c6nsults the interests of men for time, as well as eternity. It is the only instrument by which the poor can defend their rights and resist the encroachments of the proud and oppressive. The whole spirit and genius of Christianity are everywhere friendly to freedom. It teaches us that men of every tribe, language, clime, and colour are the creatures of God. It announces that the great Creator “hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth.” It pronounces the incidental, and circumstantial, and temporary distinctions between men, as of minor consequence, and of no account whatever, when compared with the great points of similitude which result from their common origin, their common depravity, their common suffering, common dependance, and common responsibilities.

It is remarked of the divine Founder of the Christian faith, that the “common people heard him gladly.” He was himself one of the common people. He was raised from an obscure family in Israel, and was from the humbler walks of life. All his sympathies were with the common people. He knew the heart of the suffering and oppressed, and was touched with the feeling of their infirmities. Of the same character were his Apostles, and the principal teachers of his religion. And of the same character do we find all their doctrines and precepts. “To the poor the gospel is preached. In Christ Jesus, there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free.” “The cultivated heathen,” says Tholuck, “were offended at Christianity precisely for this reason, that the higher classes could no longer have precedence of the common people.“* We have very justly regarded the Kingdom of Spain, as furnishing no very enviable exhibition of civil liberty. But notwithstanding all the corruptions of Christianity in that Papal Kingdom, evidence is not wanting, that it exerted some influence at least in restraining arbritrary power. In the last hours of the distinguished Queen Isabella, a recent and accomplished historian of our own country informs us, that” she expressed her doubts as to the legality of the revenue of the alcavalas constituting the principal income of the crown. She directed a commission to ascertain whether it were originally intended to be perpetual, and if this were done with the free consent of the people: enjoining her heirs in that event, to collect the tax so that it should press least heavily on her subjects. Should it be found otherwise, however, she directs that the legislature be summoned to devise measures for supplying the wants of the crown — measures depending for their validity on the good pleasure of the subjects of the realm.’^^^

Never, with the Bible in our hands, can we deny rights to another, which under the same circumstances we would claim for ourselves. “Christianity,” says Montesquieu,” is a stranger to despotic

* Biblical Repository. Vol. II.

j” Prescot’s Hist, of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella. power.” “The religion,” says De Tocqueville, “which declares that all are equal in the sight of God, will not refuse to acknowledge that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law.” Elsewhere, this elegant and instructive writer remarks, “Religion is the companion of liberty in all its battles and all its conflicts 5 the cradle of its infancy and the divine source of its claims.” Nor is it any unusual thing for the friends of liberty in France to speak in terms of enthusiastic commendation of the republicanism of the Scriptures. Even the Abbe de la Mennais, whom a late writer distinguishes as one of the most powerful minds in Europe, little as he regards Christianity as a revelation from God, familarly speaks of its Author as the Great Republican of his age. Our distinguished countryman, the late Dewitt Clinton, in a highly polished address before the New York Alpha of the Phi Beta Kappa, writes the following thoughts which are so truly worthy of his character as a statesman, and his creed as a believer in divine revelation. “Christianity is in its essence, its doctrines, and its forms, republican. It teaches our descent from a common pair; it inculcates the natural equality of mankind 5 and it points to our origin and our end, to our nativity and our graves, and to our immortal destinies, as illustrations of this impressive truth.” And what is more to our purpose, considering the prepossessions which the writer has so often avowed against the religion of the New Testament, the author of Travels in England France Spain and the Barhary States, pays the following unreluctant homage to the beneficial influence which Christianity exerts upon civil liberty. After landing in France from the last named country, he remarks, “I could breathe freely, speak freely, I no longer viewed my fellow men with distrust, and I thanked God that I was in a Christian land.”*

And what is the language of facts? Whence, with the exception of slavery in the United States, an evil brought into the country originally under the authority of the British government, and continued in defiance of all the remonstrances of our ancestors, whence is that equality of condition which is so indicative of liberty, so much more complete in Christian countries, than in any other part of the world? Who but a Christian poet has ever sung,

“‘Tis Liberty alone that gives the flower Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume; And we are weeds without it?”

Every where the men whose minds have been imbued with the light and spirit of the Holy Scriptures, have been the devoted friends of civil liberty. Such were the Lollards in England, the adherents of Luther in Germany, and of John Knox in Scotland. Such was Holland, when her

* Travels in England, France, Spain and the Barbary States, by Mordecai M. Noah. sturdy republican virtues, the learning and piety of her clergy, and the excellence of her moral and literary institutions spread her fame throughout the earth. Such was Switzerland, not only during those periods when she was most free, but those in which she struggled, however unsuccessfully, for her freedom. Such were the protestant nonconformists from the days of the Reformation to the death of Queen Elizabeth. Such were the Presbyterians in the days of the first Charles. Such were others, who, though in some respects misguided men, laid their hands upon the Bible, and boldly proclaimed, that “resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Such were those noble men, the Huguenots of New York and New Jersey, as well as others of their suffering companions, who fled from France, and sealed their testimony with their blood, on the fatal revocation of the edict of Nantz. Such also were the Puritans of New England, who through the favour of Divine Providence, opposed, though not a bolder, a more successful resistance to despotic power. With the courage of heroes and the zeal of martyrs, they struggled for, and obtained the charter of liberty now enjoyed by the British nation. Even the historian, Hume, whose prepossessions all lay on the side of absolute monarchy, and who was sufficiently prejudiced against the Bible, was constrained to the confession, “that the precious spark of liberty had been kindled and was preserved by the Puritans alone and that it was to this sect the English owe the whole freedom of their constitution.” It has been common with a certain class of writers to speak evil of these excellent men. Those who would not do this ignorantly, should acquaint themselves with their character as it is exhibited in Brodies’ British Empire, from the accession of Charles I. to the Restoration 5 in Vaughn’s Stuart Dynasty; in Godwin’s History of the Commonwealth, and in Bishop Burnet’s History of his own times. The general character of the dissenters of the independent denominations in England also verifies the scope and spirit of these remarks. On the celebrated motion in the House of Lords, for inquiry into the cause of the death of the devoted missionary, Smith, in one of the West India Islands, Lord Brougham spoke of the Independents as a” body of men to be held in lasting veneration for the unshaken fortitude with which, in all times, they have maintained their attachment to civil liberty: men, to whose ancestors England will ever acknowledge a boundless debt of gratitude, as long as freedom is prized among us. For they, I fearlessly confess it, they, with whatever ridicule some may visit their excesses, or with whatever blame others, they, with the zeal of martyrs, the purity of early Christians, the skill and courage of the most renowned warriors, obtained for England the free constitution she now

enjoys.

It is worthy of remark, that the Bible recognizes and maintains the only principle on which it is possible for a nation ever to enjoy the blessings of civil liberty. That principle is, that all that is valuable in the institutions of civil liberty rests on the character which the people sustain as citizens. The fear of God is the foundation of political freedom.

“He is the freeman whom the truth makes free, And all are slaves beside.”

Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is impossible that a nation of infidels or idolaters should be a nation of freemen. It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains. The principles of liberty and the principles of the Bible are most exactly coincident. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience is incompatible with freedom. Nothing short of the strong influence of that system of truth which God has revealed from heaven is competent so to guide, moderate, and preserve the balance between the conflicting interests and passions of men, as to prepare them for the blessings of free government. Holland was free, so long as she was virtuous. She was a flourishing republic, she produced great and enlightened statesmen, until she became corrupt, and infidelity spoiled her of her glory. France would have become free on the accession of her present citizen king, but for the radical deficiency in her moral virtue. When the distinguished Perrier, who succeeded La Fayette in the office of prime minister to Louis Philippe, was on his bed of death, he exclaimed with great emphasis and fervour, La France doit avoir une religion I “France must have reUgion.” Liberty cannot exist without morahty, nor morahty without the religion of the Bible. It is a nation’s love of law, its love of wise and benevolent institutions, its attachment to the public weal, its peaceful and benevolent spirit, its love of virtue, and these alone that can make it free. Take these away and there must be tyrants in their place. I hold no axiom more true or more important than this, that man must be governed by moral truth, or despotic power. As soon as a nation becomes corrupt, her liberties degenerate into faction 5 and then nothing short of the strong arm of despotism will restrain the passions of men, and controul their pride, their selfishness, their love of gold, their thirst for domination, and their brutal licentiousness. The Bible alone is the source of that high-toned moral principle which is necessary to all classes, in all their intercourse, for the exercise of all their rights, and the enjoyment of all their privileges. Without it, rulers become tyrants, and the people are fitted only for servitude, or anarchy. Without it, there is no such thing as an intelligent, lofty, ardent, honourable and disinterested character. Nothing else is capable of combining a nation into one great brotherhood — annihilating its divisions — quenching its hate — destroying its spirit of party — bringing all parts with all their jarring interests into one great whole, and inscribing on the banner, forever sacred to freedom and virtue, E plurihus unum. Nothing else will rightly controul its suffrages 5 send up a salutary influence into its senate chamber 5 diffuse its power through all ranks of office 5 direct learning and laws 5 act on commerce and the arts, and spread that hallowed influence through every department of society that shall render its liberties perpetual. Statesmen may be slow to learn from the Bible 5 but they will find no surer guide to political skill and foresight. The common people may be slow to learn from the Bible; but they will no where find their interests so watchfully protected, and their liberties defended with such ability and so many counsels of wisdom. The designs of ambitious and intriguing men, the artifices of demagogues, the usurpations of power, the corrupting influence of high places, and the punishment of political delusion, all find their prototype and antidote in the principles, prophecies, biography, and history of the Bible. Where may a people learn a more aflfecting lesson, than in the succession of weak and wicked princes, from the death of Josiah to the destruction of the city and temple, and the capture of

Zedekiah, by Nebuchadnezzar? Read the history of the subtle and traitorous Absalom. Bold, valiant, and revengeful 5 haughty, eloquent and popular, he “stole the hearts of the people;” expelled his venerable father from Jerusalem and having conciliated the affections of a misguided and deceived populace, became after a short period as much the object of their contempt, as he was before the object of their veneration. Were such a monument as Absolam’s pillar of stones erected over the body of every demagogue at the present day, it might be a wholesome comment upon the influence the Bible exerts upon the principles of civil liberty. Read too the history of Jeroboam the son of Nebat; a base idolater, the descendant of a slave, a turbulent, ambitious prince, a fugitive from public justice, corrupt and intriguing, raised to supreme power by an unprincipled majority, corrupting and destroying the people, drying up the sources of national wealth, entailing poverty and abjectness upon the ten tribes to the latest generation, and drawing down upon them the wrath of heaven for twenty successive reigns, and more than two centuries after his death! Contrast also the reign of Solomon with the reign of Jeroboam; the reign of Asa with the reign of Ahab j the reign of Jehoash with the reign of Jehoahaz 5 and you will form a just estimate of good rulers, and see what a fearful scourge wicked rulers are to their subjects. The God of the Bible is the king of nations. The Lord is with them while they are with him. Creation and providence are under his controul. With all their influences, all their power, all their glory, they are under him as the Prince of its princes, the Lord of its lords, and all subservient to his designs. A heathen prince was once constrained to say, that “his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation.” His service is freedom 5 alienation from his empire is the veriest bondage.

The land we live in is a Christian land. The Bible is here recognized as true; and in our own State, has been solemnly decided as constituting a part of the common law. We shall be a free people, only as we remain a Christian people. If a low and degraded infidelity should ever succeed in its already begun enterprise of sending up from the whole face of this land her poisonous exhalations, and the youth of our country become regardless of the God of their fathers j men in other lands who have been watching for our downfall, will in a few short years enrole us on the catalogue of enslaved nations. You will have a part to act on this great theatre, my young friends, when older heads shall sleep beneath the clods of the valley. Act it like Christian men. Love your country, and for your country’s sake. Hold those in detestation who disturb her peace, and tamper with the minds of the young for the purposes of office and gain. It will be in vain that infidel politicians plot the ruin of this fair land, if her young men remain firm to the interests of moral virtue and the Bible. Would that my voice could reach the ear of every young man in the land, and announce to him, how much his country expects from every intelligent friend of the Bible. There is no want of effort to corrupt and demoralize the young men of this nation 5 and when once this is done, they in their turn will become the corrupters and demoralizers of others, until the nation becomes ripened for ruin. The Bible is your protection. There is a natural propensity in the human mind to lawless indulgence, and to hostility to all those systems of human government that are based on the word of God. Beware of being carried down this fatal current. There is nothing that may be so safely trusted in the formation of your political sentiments and influence, as the Bible. I have never known a great political struggle in a Christian land which was not a great moral struggle, and would not have been decided in an hour by the appropriate influence of the Bible. Here is the danger of this Republic. So long as the Bible remains our glory and happiness, our liberties will remain; but beyond this, there is nothing to forbid the fear, that we shall gradually become an enslaved nation.

But I must close, with a single thought more. “If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” Seriously considered, other liberty is an imaginary theory — an illusion — a name — a sound. You may chant its praises and celebrate its conquests, and yet be slaves. You may deify it, and erect to it monuments, and build its altars, and pour upon them costly libations, and yet be the slaves of sin. But there is a liberty that is worth the name. It is that intellectual and moral condition of the soul which constitutes her highest excellence and glory. It is that spiritual liberty — that Christian freedom — that liberty of mind, and conscience, and heart, which through divine grace the soul enjoys, when she breaks the bonds of her iniquity and possesses the liberty of the children of God. It is to be no longer the servant of sin; no longer the slave of passion *, no longer in bondage to vanity, pride, self and the world; but to be the loyal and happy subject of the divine government, the renovated citizen of the commonwealth of Israel, and the servant of that Divine Master, whose every requisition is a benefit, whose every command is a promise, and to whose service every sacrifice becomes a favour, every act of self-denial a blessing. Such a man is free — free every where j free in solitude — free in the midst of the world — free in his abundance — free in his poverty — free in life — free in death — always free — “free forever, because he is forever with God.”