THAT man is a peculiar object of ſupreme regard, that his happineſs and comfort have employed the attention of the almighty creator and preſerver of the univerſe, is a truth ſo evident to all who will look round, attentively, that nothing but the blackeſt ingratitude and moſt unpardonable negligence can prevent their beholding and acknowledging. This, the whole face of nature proclaims. Scarcely a viſible object but man derives from it ſome uſe or convenience. Light and air, indeed, he enjoys in common with other animals; but numberleſs are the bleſſings which are peculiar to man: Even thoſe very animals, which partake the common benefits, are ſubject to his controul and devoted to his uſe by their creator.

The diſpenſations of God likewiſe, all, declare his love: Even the corrections are proofs of his regard; for He chaſteneth whom he loveth, and ſcourgeth every ſon whom he receiveth. The proofs of God's regard for man are, in ſhort, ſo many, and ſo glaring in nature and the declarations of his word, that, a grateful mind, will readily acknowledge whence all his happineſs and bleſſings come.

Liberal minds have been, ever, ſtudious to "vindicate the ways of God to man." They have been conſtant in aſſerting, that God, in his providence, is, uniformly, purſuing the one grand object, the happineſs of mankind. It is, likewiſe, an opinion which ſhould readily obtain our belief, that he intereſts himſelf in every thing that concerns that happineſs; and that his providence interpoſes whenever it is endangered. Nay, it is highly impious, 'tis blaſphemous, to ſuppoſe that every interpoſition of God's providence is not from a benevolent motive, and with a view to general good.

It is a truth, fully confirmed by daily experience, that the happineſs of mankind depends, in a great meaſure, on the well ordering of ſociety; on a right adminiſtration of juſtice, and a due ſubmiſſion to wiſe and equitable laws. Since this is evident, beyond contradiction, it cannot be deemed an abſurd ſuppoſition that the providence of God interpoſes in events of ſuch importance as the political regulations and government of ſociety; it is argument ariſing from the infinite goodneſs of God, and is confirmed to us by numerous proofs, of divine teſtimony; all which, clearly, evince the will and intentions of the deity; that man's welfare is the grand object of his diſpenſations; that, with this view, he conſtituted laws for them, and that, for this end, he appointed rulers over them. This reflection muſt occur to every one who will read the ſcriptures with becoming attention: But leſt it may have eſcaped the obſervation of ſome who hear me, I ſhall lay before you a few remarkable inſtances; from all which it will be evident, that the intentions of God, in the appointment of temporal rulers, was the advancement of general happineſs: That the elevation and aggrandiſement of thoſe who were diſtinguiſhed by him, proceeded from no partial attachment, but that they were choſen merely for their virtue and piety, and conſequently, were better qualified to anſwer the benevolent deſigns of the Almighty.

One of the firſt inſtances (Geneſis xli. ch.) of God's interpoſition, in the appointment of a temporal ruler, is that of Joſeph over the country of Egypt. It was, evidently, his diſcretion and wiſdom that cauſed Pharaoh to promote him to that honour, who rightly judged, that none could be ſo wiſe and diſcreet as him, who had given the ſtrongeſt proof of his poſſeſſing the ſpirit of God. It is beyond a doubt, that Joſeph's exaltation was by divine appointment, and to anſwer the gracious purpoſe of reſcuing from death not only Jacob and his houſe (with whom he had entered into covenant) but to preſerve Pharaoh and his people from the diſtreſſes of a ſevere famine.

The command given to Moſes (Deuter. xvi. 18, 19, 20) when he was ordered to appoint judges and officers over the children of Iſrael, was, "Judges and officers ſhalt thou make thee, and they ſhall judge the people with JUST JUDGMENT. Thou ſhalt not wreſt judgment, thou ſhalt not reſpect perſons; that which is altogether juſt ſhalt thou follow."

Among other commands which Moſes received, reſpecting the king which God foreſaw would be ſet up among the Iſraelites, he received this alſo (Deuter. xvii. 18 to the end) "And it ſhall be when he ſitteth upon the throne of his kingdom that he ſhall write him a copy of this law in a book; and it ſhall be with him, and he ſhall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the Lord his God; to keep all the words of this law and theſe ſtatutes, to do them; that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren; and that he turn not aſide from the commandment, to the right hand or to the left, to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom." Theſe were the terms upon which favour and protection from Heaven were to be continued to rulers, even of DIVINE APPOINTMENT.

God's dealings with Saul, the firſt perſon appointed king over Iſrael, were exactly after theſe conditions. Succeſs and victory were the fruits of his labours, whilſt he turned not aſide from the holy commandment delivered. But the prophet Samuel tells us (1 Samuel, xv. ch.) when he turned back from following the Lord, the Lord alſo rejected him from being king. His ſucceſſour, David, by a more faithful adminiſtration, continued to enjoy the kingdom to a good old age, and procured a conditional promiſe of it to his poſterity. This great and good man, far from being elated at the diſtinction ſhewn him by God, ſaw, clearly, the true reaſon of his promotion and the purpoſe of God in appointing him: This he confeſſed when he was anointed king in Hebron, and repeats among the laſt words which he ſpoke. The prophet Samuel tells us (2 Samuel, v. 12) "David perceived that the Lord had eſtabliſhed him king over Iſrael, and that he had exalted his kingdom FOR HIS PEOPLE ISRAEL'S SAKE." In his dying hour he declared (2 Samuel, xxiii. 3) "He that ruleth over men muſt be juſt; ruling in the fear of God."

The queen of Sheba bleſſed God, who delighted to ſet Solomon on his throne. "Becauſe," ſaid ſhe, "thy God loved Iſrael to eſtabliſh them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and juſtice." (2 Chron. ix. 8)

With theſe ſcriptures, the ſpirit which runs through the whole of the evangelical writings, coincides to prove that the bleſſings derived to mankind by the Chriſtian diſpenſation, proceeded from the ſame divine principle of love. "Herein is love," ſays the apoſtle John (1 John iv. 10) "not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and ſent his ſon to be the propitiation for our ſins."

Notwithſtanding the love of God to man is ſo loudly proclaimed by the voice of nature, and the benevolence of his intentions ſo clearly revealed in his word, and declared in all his diſpenſations; yet there are not wanting in the world, thoſe, who though they cannot but aſſent to the general truths, here aſſerted, yet deny them in effect. By aſſerting that contrary opinions are more agreeable to the word and will of God, and more favourable to the happineſs of mankind, they deny, in ſubſtance, what is demonſtrably proved to be true. They inſiſt that, though rulers are bound to govern according to the immutable laws of equity, yet an obligation lies on Chriſtians to pay an exact obedience to all their commands: That no abuſe of power will juſtify diſobedience; and, however contrary their laws may be to the benevolent deſigns of the creator, that Chriſtians are bound to obſerve them with the moſt ſtrict conformity.

They agree that God's care and attention is employed for the welfare of his creatures. They admit that ſocial regulations and the preſervation of order are neceſſary; and that the adminiſtration of juſtice is eſſential to peace and ſecurity. They agree with us as to the end, but differ concerning the mode; while the mode they contend for, is, as we humbly conceive, deſtructive of that very end which all good men deſire, and for which government was, at firſt, eſtabliſhed.

The advocates for deſpotiſm and an implicit obedience contend, that the licentious and refractory diſpoſition of man requires a reſtraint which only an uncontroulable power can lay upon him: That a ſenſe of honour, of religious obligations, and regard for his fellow creatures, are motives too weak to influence him when his own deſires and intereſt interfere: And that no power, but one independent and uncontroulable, would make laws ſufficiently rigorous to ſecure the peace of ſociety. They inſiſt that popular governments are inſufficient for this end; as popular and other unworthy motives, too often induce men to propoſe laws that are deſtructive, from their lenity. That it is neceſſary an implicit obedience ſhould be paid to every law of their impoſing, in order to preſerve the authority of the legiſlature; without which, ſay they, order muſt ceaſe, peace be deſtroyed, and juſtice interrupted.

To give farther weight to theſe opinions, they add, that the all-wiſe God, foreſeeing the beſt method of conducting human affairs, has declared, in his revealed will, it ſhall be ſo; and, among other proofs, they bring in ſupport of their doctrine the words of my text; which, they ſay, amount to a full proof, that God commands and expects us to follow, implicity and blindly, every dictate of our ſuperiours.

That God requires obedience from his people, to all laws that are equitable: That he expects them to be obedient to magiſtrates and rulers, when their commands do not contradict his own, is, undoubtedly, true, and abundantly confirmed by his word: But I hope to be excuſed when I cannot agree with them, that mankind are to follow every dictate of their ſuperiours, without doubting or murmuring. It is a principle ſo ſlaviſh, that no man who conſiders himſelf in his true light, as deſcended from the common parent of his ſpecies, can aſſent to. It is a doctrine ſo full of danger tending to deſtroy every diſtinction between right and wrong, and to make juſtice or injuſtice depend upon paſſion and caprice: It is a principle ſo deſtructive in itſelf; tending ſo greatly, to debaſe the human mind, and to extinguiſh every virtuous effort, that if deſerves to be rejected by every friend of truth and mankind: And I doubt not to prove, from the example of St. Paul's conduct, that he never meant, by the declaration in my text, to give ſanction to the crimes of wicked and deſpotick men.

But it may be ſaid, you would, then, have thoſe to be judges of right and wrong, from whom nothing is required but obedience; you would have thoſe, to govern, whom the laws were intended to reſtrain: How will ſuch a mode anſwer the important point you contend for; the preſervation of order and juſtice? A ſyſtem of this kind, gives an opening for the moſt flagitious and licentious practices; which, inſtead of ſecuring, muſt deſtroy that peace and harmony you recommend. I would wiſh to have it believed, that I am, by no means, an advocate for anarchy. I am, very fully, convinced of the neceſſity of ſubordination in ſociety, in order to its happineſs: But I muſt, ſtill, think, that this happineſs is not beſt promoted by a ſcheme of deſpotiſm. Was infallibility conveyed to man with the powers of government, I would inſtantly ſubſcribe to the doctrine. But, unhappily for human nature, we ſee the old Latin proverb (humanum eſt errare) verified daily; and if any concluſions may be drawn from the practice and policy of courts and princes, through all ages of the world, we may venture to affirm that, abundantly more determinations have proceeded from ſelfiſhneſs and ambition, than from diſintereſted and benevolent motives.

Ignorance, darkneſs and ſuperſtition, have, ever, had their ſource in oppreſſion and injuſtice; while truth and ſcience have been the conſtant attendants upon liberty. The ſpirit of freedom will, indeed, ſometimes, if accompanied with imprudent conduct in rulers, be attended with diſagreeable conſequences: But, few inſtances can be ſhewn where theſe conſequences have followed, when the publick good alone has influenced the councils of princes. Mankind can, in general, diſtinguiſh between right and wrong; between juſtice and oppreſſion; where they ſee their rulers actuated by principles of benevolence and a love of juſtice, there needs little elſe, than this confidence, to ſecure their obedience: And how happy have thoſe periods been, where ſentiments, of mutual obligation and duty, have ſubſiſted between rulers and their ſubjects. But how miſerable the ſtate of that people, whoſe prince, diſdaming the ties of humanity and juſtice, trampling on their moſt ſacred rights, and ſporting with their wretchedneſs, impiouſly conceits himſelf the anointed of God, and dares to preſume on the authority of Heaven to ſanctify his crimes.

From the proneneſs of man's heart to ſelfiſhneſs and ambition, little pains need be taken to perſuade him to the belief of opinions that are favourable to his views and inclinations; the many miſchiefs which have ariſen in the would from the ſucceſsful arts of ſycophants are too notorious to be denied: Much happier would it be for mankind, were princes and rulers, taught, faithfully, to believe theſe truths, that no character, however dignified, can give ſanction to inhumanity and oppreſſion; that juſtice and benevolence are principles of univerſal obligation; that a mutual obligation ſubſiſts between the governed and their rulers; that the happineſs of mankind is the end of their appointment; and that the uprightneſs of their conduct will be their beſt ſecurity for the favour of Heaven and the obedience of their ſubjects. Where princes are not deeply impreſſed with a ſenſe of theſe truths, we may expect neither peace nor happineſs where they rule.

If we recur to experience, for ſatisfaction concerning this doctrine, what will that teach us? Will it prove that truth and juſtice have prevailed, more, in free countries? Or, that ignorance and errour have been the inſeparable attendants on freedom? Will it not, on the contrary, be evident, that in kingdoms where theſe principles have been eſtabliſhed, the moſt inſolent tyranny, and moſt violent oppreſſions, have been exerciſed upon the wretched ſubject by his lordly ruler? This is a truth, with which the world is, but too well, acquainted. How great a part of mankind are, at this day, ſmarting under the iron rod of power, and all the calamities which oppreſſion can deviſe, or tyranny inflict, no one can be ignorant of who is, in the leaſt acquainted with the affairs of the world.

And can we ſuppoſe, that God is diſpleaſed with thoſe unhappy nations who, when ſtimulated to complaints by the bitter laſh of oppreſſion, utter their diſquietude before him? Did he reprove that diſtinguiſhed people the Iſraelites, for complaining of the ſevere treatment of Pharaoh, who made their lives bitter with hard bondage? Did he expect that they ſhould pay a blind obedience to all his ordinances? Did he rebuke their murmurs, or refuſe to hear their complaints? Surely neither: "I have ſeen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, ſays God to Moſes (Exodus iii. ch.) and have heard their cry, by reaſon of their taſk-maſters: For I know their ſorrows, and am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians." What a deliverance he wrought for thoſe murmurers and complainers; and what judgment was exerciſed on their oppreſſors, the ſacred book of God declares.

Upon a review of the ſubject; and from conſidering the many arguments that convince us of God's gracious diſpoſition towards man: From conſidering him as impartial and diſpaſſionate; that he has, manifeſtly, in his revealed will, declared his intentions in appointing temporal rulers, and, clearly, pointed out for them a line of conduct, from which they may not deviate without incurring his diſpleaſure; I cannot be induced to believe, that God will be angry with his creatures for diſregarding the injunctions of thoſe who have departed from that rule of rectitude laid down by him, and who would force them into meaſures, which, they are convinced, are neither for the advancement of his glory nor their own happineſs.

Nor can I, upon a candid inquiry, admit that St. Paul meant, by the words of my text, to enjoin Chriſtians the practice of this doctrine. In order to underſtand him rightly, let us compare the doctrine with his own practices. It would hardly be ſuppoſed, of Paul, that he would practiſe any thing that was contrary to the truths he was preaching: That an apoſtle of Jeſus Chriſt, who was deſiring others to walk as they had him for an example, would, by the pattern of his life, lead mankind into fatal errours. Yet, we find it recorded, in the Acts of the Apoſtles, that this very man, when apprehended and puniſhed wrongfully and contrary to the laws and uſages of the Romans, to which nation he was ſubject, and entitled to all the privileges of one of their free citizens, did not, tacitly and ſubmiſſively, endure it, but complained aloud of their injuſtice; and appealed to the laws and conſtitution of his country. We are told (Acts xxii. ch.) that the chief captain of the Roman garriſon, in order to ſatisfy the Jews, was about to examine Paul by ſcourging, and had ordered him to be bound with throngs for that purpoſe; but we do not find that the apoſtle ſubmitted to his authority, implicitly and without complaining: No; he condemned this conduct, as unjuſt and tyrannical, and appealed to the Roman conſtitution for that juſtice which he was not like to meet with from the officer. "Is it lawful for you, ſays he to the centurion, to ſcourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? This remonſtrance had the expected effect; for we are told, the chief captain was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman and becauſe he had bound him; and, the next day, he was looſed from his bands.

When the high prieſt commanded Paul to be ſmitten on the mouth, for aſſerting that, he had lived in all good conſcience, before God, until that day; he replied, "God ſhall ſmite thee, thou whited wall, for ſitteſt thou to judge me AFTER THE LAW, and condemneſt thou me CONTRARY TO THE LAW?" By which ſaying he has, clearly marked 〈◊〉 the line of conduct for thoſe in power; and, 〈…〉 time, left the moſt bitter and morti ••••• reproof to thoſe who have not exerciſed their authority agreeable to this rule.

In the ſixteenth chapter of the Acts, we are told 〈◊〉 when the magiſtrates of Philippi, ſent to diſmiſs Paul and Silas privately, after they had beaten them openly and uncondemned, who were Romans: they, abſolutely refuſed to obey the command: Nay verily, ſays St. Paul, but let them come, themſelves, and fetch us out: Nor did they go till the magiſtrates came and beſought them, and brought them out; and deſired them to depart out of the city. Here is, beyond contradiction, an inſtance where this very Paul, who is ſaid to have recommended paſſive obedience to Chriſtians, abſolutely refuſed to obey the command of magiſtrates. The reaſon, why he did, is obvious; he meant to reprove prove them for the unjuſt puniſhment, inflicted on him and Silas; and for exerciſing their authority in a tyrannical manner.

Again, when Feſtus, willing to do the Jews a pleaſure, would have ſent Paul up to Jeruſalem, to be tried there, he loudly exclaimed againſt it; well knowing, how little juſtice he might hope for in that city. I ſtand at Caeſar's judgment ſeat, ſaid he (Acts xxv. ch.) where I ought to be judged. To the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou, very well, knoweſt: For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing, worthy of death, I refuſe not to die; but if there be none of theſe things whereof theſe accuſe me, NO MAN MAY DELIVER ME UNTO THEM: I appeal unto Caeſar. Here he, poſitively, denied Feſtus's right to do what the Jews required; and appeals, for juſtice, to the laws of his country; well knowing that, by them, no man could be delivered to death, before that he which is accuſed have the accuſers FACE TO FACE, and have licenſe to ANSWER FOR HIMSELF, concerning the crime laid againſt him.

Such was the practice of that Paul, of whom it is aſſerted that he taught the doctrine of paſſive obedience. That he, ever, paid the moſt ſcrupulous obedience to the eſtabliſhed and juſt laws of the various nations he travelled through, is reaſonable to ſuppoſe. But that he endeavoured to impreſs Chriſtians with the belief that, they were to obey, implicitly, every dictate of power, however unjuſt and oppreſſive, and however contrary to the divine will and intentions, is hardly to be imagined; becauſe it is, as we have inſtanced, inconſiſtent with his own conduct at Caeſarea, at Philippi and at Jeruſalem.

St. Peter beſeeches us to ſubmit ourſelves, to every ordinance of man. But are we, hence, to infer that this is without any exception whatever; or that Chriſtians are to pay no regard to the rectitude of thoſe laws, of human authority, to which they pay obedience? This, certainly, never could have been St. Peter's meaning: for we find (Acts iv. ch.) that when he and John were forbid preaching, by the high prieſt and rulers, they actually refuſed to comply. "Whether it be right, IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, ſay they, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." But it may be ſaid, theſe men were acting by immediate command from their ſaviour; and where his command is poſitive, man's is not to be regarded. To which it may be anſwered: whenever oppreſſion and injuſtice are exerciſed by the ruling powers, the commands of God are broken: That God expects no obedience of his people to thoſe who live in daily violation of his commands; who deſtroy, by their acts of power, the cauſe of truth and the happineſs of mankind; and pervert, by their nefarious ſyſtems, the very deſign of ſocial regulations. If we would underſtand St. Peter, rightly, let us conſider the whole of what he ſays, upon this ſubject, together (1 Peter ii. ch.) "Submit yourſelves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's ſake, whether it be to the king, as ſupreme, or unto governours, as unto them that are ſent by him for the puniſhment of evil doers, and for the praiſe of them that do well." The divine intention in the appointment of temporal rulers, is, here, evidently, declared to be for the happineſs of ſociety, to reſtrain vice and cheriſh virtue: And while they act conformably to the divine will, 'tis, doubtleſs, the duty of every Chriſtian a be obedient to their authority. But when they miſtake their commiſſion, when evil doers get rewards inſtead of puniſhment, and the good meet perſecution inſtead of praiſe; when, not juſtice, but power and ſelf aggrandiſement are the objects of their purſuit; when ambition prompts, not humanity and benevolence; when paſſion rules unreſtrained, and the voice of reaſon is drowned by the clamours of ſenſe, will any body, under ſuch circumſtances, ſay that it is the duty of Chriſtians to pay an entire obedience to their ſuperiours, or to conſent to, and be aiding in the execution of their wicked purpoſes? If the example of apoſtles ſhould have any influence over us, doubtleſs no obedience is due, from Chriſtians, to the impious and unlawful commands of their ſuperiours.

To apply this doctrine to our own caſe, and the circumſtances of the preſent times, it will be neceſſary to conſider it in another light. Hitherto, I have conſidered it as it reſpects nations where princes are allowed an abſolute domination; where the power of legiſlation is veſted, ſolely, in the chief magiſtrate. And if in countries, ſo circumſtanced, reſiſtance, or a diſregard to laws, in certain caſes, is not only juſtifiable, but a neceſſary duty; how much more juſtifiable is reſiſtance in a limited monarchy, where the people have an equal ſhare of the powers that be; that power which is ordained of God; the power of legiſlation? The free exerciſe of which is the only ſecurity that can be found againſt oppreſſion and injuſtice.

As St. Paul has aſſerted, in my text, that the powers which be are ordained of God; it will be neceſſary, in order to aſcertain the line of obedience, to know in what hands power is lodged by the conſtitution of our country. The nature of this conſtitution having been frequently and fully explained of late, by able pens; and the privileges of the ſubject clearly pointed out; I ſhall ſpend no time in expatiating on its excellencies and the bleſſings which flow from it to mankind. It is ſufficient, for my preſent purpoſe, to ſay, that by the conſtitution of England, the lives, liberty and property of every individual are ſecured: That the commons, or the body of the people, make one branch of the legiſlature; and have a ſhare of power: That they have not only the power of keeping and enjoying ſecurely, peaceably, and at their diſcretion the fruits of their honeſt induſtry, but alſo the power of making laws by their repreſentatives, by themſelves choſen; and that they are accountable to no laws but ſuch as they in this manner aſſent to. It is a fact, agreed to on all hands, that the ſubject of England is veſted with a ſhare of power and legiſlation; and that, whilſt he chooſes to keep it, no earthly power can, lawfully, deprive him of this privilege. Allowing St. Paul's aſſertion to be true, then, in the moſt literal and confined ſenſe that any deſpot would chooſe to affix to it, it does not appear that, in the preſent conteſt between Great Britain and her colonies, the coloniſts are reſiſting a power ordained of God, a power to whom they owe obedience, an authority they are ſubjected to by the conſtitution of their country. The diſpute, as I conceive, is, whether the king's ſubjects in America, their lives and property, are at the ABSOLUTE DISPOSAL of the king and his ſubjects in England? Whether the legiſlature of Great Britain has a right to make laws, binding of America, IN ALL CASFS WHATSOEVER? The coloniſts think that, if this be the caſe, their ſituation is truly ſlaviſh, and are juſtly alarmed for the conſequences. They contend that their fellow ſubjects in Britain are but their equals: That the power ordained of God; that ſhare of power which exiſts in the people, is, equally, the privilege of every individual ſubject: They inſiſt that a Briton cannot boaſt a ſingle bleſſing from the conſtitution, but what an American is, equally, entitled to: They ſay the claim of the commons of Britain is an innovation; that it is unnatural, unjuſt and oppreſſive; and deſtructive of that equal juſtice and liberty which, by the conſtitution, was meant to be ſecured to all. While, therefore, the coloniſts are contending with their equals, only; with thoſe who are ordained to have no greater ſhare of power than themſelves: While they refuſe obedience to thoſe who have no right to exact it; and aſſert their rights when it would be highly criminal to reſign them: thoſe rights which God has appointed them and the laws confirmed; I cannot be of opinion that they may be charged, juſtly, with a breach of God's ordinances.

Were the people of the colonies labouring to ſubvert the conſtitution; to aboliſh monarchy, or even to diminiſh the juſt prerogative of the crown, they might, truly, be ſaid to be reſiſting the ordinances of God. But, upon an impartial examination, it does not appear to be the caſe: For whatever may be the wiſh of individuals, the body of the people are firm in their attachment to the conſtitution; and all the great repreſentative bodies have warmly declared their loyalty, and an utter averſion to a change of government. In all their petitions and remonſtrances, to the King and legiſlature of Britain, they ſay their only wiſh is to have their former privileges and liberties confirmed. While, therefore, an oppoſition is carried on upon the principle of ſelf-defence. While they contend for the preſervation of that power which alone can render them ſecure and happy: While they do not aim at innovation, or to infringe the rights of others, the coloniſts cannot, with the leaſt degree of juſtice, be charged with reſiſting the ordinances of God. The coloniſts, as St. Paul was, are not free by purchaſe but by birth: Though not born in Britain, are as much entitled to the privileges of Engliſhmen, as St. Paul was to thoſe of a Roman citizen, though born at Tarſus. Like him, too, they have aſſerted their claim and appealed to the conſtitution of their country for relief from the arbitrary will of man. But alas, their plea is rejected; it, therefore, reſts with the infallible judge to decide the controverſy as to him ſeemeth good.

I am aware of the objection which the enemies of American freedom are conſtantly urging in favour of their pretenſions. In my opinion, the doctrine of tranſubſtantiation is not a greater abſurdity than the notion of America's being repreſented in the Britiſh parliament. To attempt a refutation of this incomprehenſible doctrine would be vain: The voice of reaſon and of juſtice are too feeble to be heard amidſt the clamours of ambition and intereſt. Many members of the Britiſh ſenate have, of late, intereſted themſelves greatly to procure relief from ſubſcription to the articles of our church; and for this reaſon, principally, that the doctrines they contain are incomprehenſible and abſurd: Yet thoſe very members, who wiſh to be excuſed from acknowledging, publickly, truths which they cannot comprehend, would compel the coloniſts to ſubſcribe doctrines, which, they are convinced, are neither juſt nor true. Conſcience may prompt the one, but the impartial world can be at no loſs to determine what influences the other reſolution. So blind is human nature to its own failings; ſo deaf to the cries of honour and juſtice, when ſelf interferes, that what is juſt one day is moſt unjuſt the next; what, at one time, is truth, is at another time errour.

Upon the principle of ſelf, alone, can the conduct of the enemies of America be reconciled. The voice of God, of truth, of juſtice, of humanity, are, totally, againſt it.

Sophiſtry may guild over the faſhionable doctrine of expediency, which is, now, become a ſubſtitute for truth and juſtice: We may be told of the "dignity, ſafety and welfare of the Britiſh empire." But can the moſt flagrant injuſtice add dignity to a ſtate? Is the ſafety of a nation increaſed by a diminution of affection and confidence among the ſubjects? Or will the decreaſe of commerce add any thing to its welfare? And will any body ſay that Chriſtians are obliged to ſubmit, tacitly, to meaſures ſo inconſiſtent and deſtructive; to obey, paſſively, ſchemes of expediency and human policy which contradict the laws of juſtice and humanity? If the laws of God are more to be revered than thoſe of man's invention, ſurely the Chriſtian is to be juſtified in rejecting whatever is contrary to divine precept.

There, never, was a time when it was more neceſſary to conſider the truth of the doctrine laid before you than the preſent. It has, long, perplexed the minds of many pious and well diſpoſed perſons, who have been fluctuating between duty to God and to themſelves; and ſo long as they have acted from conſcientious motives, and have endeavoured to make the laws of God the rule of their actions, their conduct is highly commendable. But it is high time that the miſts of errour ſhould be removed from the eyes of every American, from every friend to truth and juſtice; that while ſelfiſh and unworthy motives actuate ſome, others may not be prevented, by bigotry, from uniting in the moſt important cauſe that ever engaged their concern.

I would not be thought to ſtand here, "a mover of ſedition" or an advocate for licentiouſneſs. It would ill become this ſacred place, and the character of a miniſter of the goſpel of Chriſt, to inſpirit rebellion and foment diſorder and confuſion: But it becomes us, highly, to remove every impediment from the progreſs of truth and juſtice to eſpouſe the cauſe of humanity and the common rights of mankind. In a particular manner, it becomes us to vindicate that holy religion we profeſs; which does not ſeem altogether free from danger ſince ſome late regulations in Britain. The temporal concerns of mankind claim the laſt regard of a Chriſtian: Things which end with this life, they ſhould regard with the indifference of a gueſt that tarrieth but a day: But the cauſe of truth, immutable and eternal, ſhould engage their warmeſt and unremitted attention. The cauſe of an innocent and helpleſs poſterity; of millions, yet unborn, plead ſtrongly for the utmoſt exertion of our care and vigilance, in defence of their rights: And gratitude to the memory of our anceſtors, ſhould inſpire an awful reverence for that noble cauſe they have ſo often ſtood forth to defend, and which, through their glorious efforts (under God) has been, to this day, preſerved.

To look towards futurity and contemplate poſſible events, is, at this day, painful: The moſt conſolatory reflection we now have, is, that the cauſe of truth and juſtice is the cauſe of God, and that his almighty arm is irreſiſtible. From the example of paſt times we may, likewiſe, draw conſolation; the hiſtory of which proves, that zeal and unanimity, in a righteous cauſe, have often been an overmatch for numbers and power. Next to divine protection, let us place our hopes in, and exert all our faculties to effect this moſt deſirable object. Let no man ſtrive, but who ſhall, beſt, ſerve the cauſe of truth and his country. Let diſtinctions and prejudices ceaſe; and let the flame of patriotiſm, alone, blaze out to an exceſs. O that it may riſe to ſuch height and power in the boſom of every American, as to conſume every engine and render uneffectual every effort of injuſtice, tyranny and oppreſſion.

May that great and gracious being, whoſe friendly aid and interpoſition are eſſential to the happineſs of his creatures, benignly ſmile upon the cauſe of the injured and oppreſſed, the bleſs all our virtuous endeavours. May civil diſcord ceaſe: And may peace, with all its uſual bleſſings, be again reſtored; never to be interrupted by an unfriendly and unnatural conteſt between Great Britain and her colonies.

For the ſake of Jeſus Chriſt. AMEN.