can we suppose that the scriptures are so inconsistent with themselves as to teach in one place that resistance to rulers is never lawful, while in other cases they contain those plain facts which so evidently of themselves justify resistance in some cases, and that without an intimation that it was not pleasing to God?

I might further argue the same thing from the people's resistance of Saul when determined to destroy Jonathan; from his servants' refusing to obey in slaying the priests of the Lord; from the case of the Egyptian midwives; from David's war with Ishbosheth; from his joining the Philistines against Saul; from the conspiracies against Joash and Amaziah, which seem to be mentioned with approbation, or at least without disapprobation; from the frequent revolts of the Israelites from under the dominion of the Philistines and other nations, by whom they had been as really conquered as by the Romans in the times of our Savior; and also from the brave and vigorous resistance of the Maccabees and their adherents, to Antiochus Epiphanes and the other kings of Syria, which is spoken of approvingly by the prophets.

But passing by these things in the Old Testament, I would mention one or two things in the New which are worthy of our notice. The first is the direction of our Lord to his disciples, when they were persecuted in one city to flee to another. Now fleeing from under the government of a prince is one kind of resistance; for if the generality of his subjects or all of them should flee, this would as effectually break up his government and dethrone him as a universal rebellion. The other case is where the apostle Peter says, in his first epistle, "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 those that are sent by him." It ought to have been translated, "submit yourselves to every "creature of man;" for so it is in the originalthe words being "avoonivy xrio." So that the apostle here ἀνθρωπίνῃ κτίσει. declares all civil rulers, whether supreme or subordinate to be "creatures of men." But if they be the creatures of men, surely men have a right to resist or even to unmake and annihilate them, if they rule not according to the will of God and the good of the subject.

Thus I have endeavored briefly to lay before you the scriptural views concerning resistance of civil rulers. The arguments from reason respecting the matter I have not even hinted at, as this was beside my present purpose.

Upon the whole I think we may justly infer that the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance are not the doctrines of the Bible, and that non-resistance to the supreme powers is no

more taught in the scriptures, than non-resistance to our fellow men, and even to thieves, robbers, and those who use the most abusive violence. I hope, therefore, that our text, and some other passages of scripture, all of which are to be taken in the same sense, will no more be quoted to prove and sustain the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance, especially in times like these. The truth is, and the whole spirit of scripture sustains it, that rulers are bound to rule in the fear of God and for the good of the people; and if they do not, then in resisting them we are doing God service.

Having now finished what it was proposed to say directly upon this subject, I shall be expected to say something to the freemen present, with respect to the immediate business of the day. And since it has become customary upon this occasion to point out to the freemen what should be the character of the men for whom they shall vote, and whom they shall now choose for rulers, I am willing to comply with the custom, and also to show mine opinion.

1. In the first place, then, as you ought always on this anniversary to make choice of those only to rule over you, who are real friends to your country and its constitution, so you ought to be especially careful in this day when the rights, the liberty, and the peace of our country are so immediately threatened. One man who is not a friend to the rights and liberty of his country, now chosen to any office in the civil government, may do more harm than ten good men in the same office can do good. Now in the light of enemies to our country I think we may fairly consider those who themselves reject the result of the late Continental Congress, and the similar votes and proceedings of our own House of Representatives, and who not only do this, but also endeavor to stir up a party to oppose them. Agreeably to this general rule, you ought by no means to choose a man who says that the plan adopted by the Congress is altogether wrong, and that if we ever obtain relief, it must be in a way entirely different, viz. by barely petitioning the king and parliament. Brethren, you have reason to resent such speeches as these, not only as they tend to divide the country in this critical juncture, and thereby make us an easy prey to our enemies, but also as they are utterly contradictory to your own sentiments expressed in your public votes. You have almost unanimously voted your approbation of the result of the late Congress, a result which we doubt not time will show was most wisely ordered and brought about by Divine Providence for his own glory and the freedom and prosperity of this people. For you therefore to promote men to civil

rule, who publicly declare their disapprobation of that result, is to act a part very inconsistent and very unwise.

2. For the same reason you ought by no means to vote for a man who declares "that he considers the citizens of Boston not as suffering in the common cause of American liberty, but as suffering the fruits of their own folly and rashness." Such speeches have been made, and by some who would like to be chosen to office. But you ought to mark such men, and show your disapprobation of their sentiments and your love for your country, by refusing to give them your votes. Our Congress have abundantly declared that they consider Boston as suffering in the common cause of American rights and liberty; and so it most manifestly is. He therefore, that declares the contrary, does not agree with the Congress, nor with the manifest interests of the country; nor can you vote for such a man without declaring your disagreement with that same Congress, whose result you have publicly and solemnly adopted as your own, and your disregard for the best interests of your country.

3. Nor ought you to vote for those who speak contemptuously of the late law of our Assembly so necessary to put us in a posture of self-defence; who either say, that it was foolish to make any such law, and that it is the most easy thing in the world for Great Britain to subdue this country; or who say, that they never were for these armings and trainings of the soldiers; that all the burden comes upon the farmers; that they must pay the expenses of the soldiers' training, and also must train themselves; and that they must go to Boston, and expose their lives in battle, for that gentlemen, and particularly the gentlemen of the Assembly never expected to go there or anywhere else to fight. Of such persons I might observe, that he that is not willing, if need be, to defend his liberty, deserves to be a slave. But without dwelling on this, I would especially say, that the manifest tendency of all such speeches is to disaffect the minds of the people towards our General Assembly, and to raise in them a spirit of jealousy towards those whom these men call gentlemen; and such a sower of discord among the people, especially in such a day as this, when so much depends upon our unanimity, ought to be frowned upon with indignation by every friend to the people and the country.

4. Once more, let me caution you against giving your votes for a man who being a farmer himself, and a known candidate for office, goes round among the farmers and tells them that it is by all means best for them to send a farmer to the Assembly, and not one that lives in the town or city. Such bare-faced impudence is intolerable! I am astonished at it! And he must be short

sighted indeed, who cannot see through it. As well might such a one say, "gentlemen, I would have you vote for me. I am the fittest one in town to be sent as your representative. Let me have your votes." Again I say, I am astonished at such impudence; and those who are guilty of it ought to be ashamed of it! This, I know, is plain speaking; but the occasion calls for it. And if any should think I have spoken too plainly, I would only say, that it is the business of ministers to tell men their sins; and he is unworthy of his office who has not the firmness to do it.

5. Finally; I would observe that we of this town, by some means or other, are become the objects of suspicion to many of our neighbors of the other towns about us. They suspect that we are not sincere and hearty friends to the cause of American liberty. This day we have a fair opportunity to remove this suspicion, by unanimously choosing men to represent us in the next legislature, who are known, and who on all occasions have appeared themselves to be, not only men of integrity and ability, but also hearty friends of the rights and liberties of their country, and steady opposers of every encroachment on these rights. But if we shall this day make choice of men, who are known either now to be, or to have been, in time past, opposed to the rights and liberty of their country, and advocates for the rights of the British parliament to tax us; or if we even choose men whose characters in this respect are doubtful, we shall, in either of these cases, confirm the suspicions of our neighbors, and fix upon ourselves the character which many have already, without sufficient reason, attributed to us, of being friends to parliamentary taxation, and enemies to our country. Let us bear in mind what may be our influence, and what are our high responsibilities, and so act as to endeavor to meet them, whether in relation to God, our country, or our fellow men.

SERMON XV.

MERE REPENTANCE NO GROUND OF PARDON.*

ACTS 3: 19. Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

WHETHER God will pardon our sins, is a most important question. And if he will pardon at all, the next question is, in what way and on what conditions will he do it? The scriptures assure us that on our repentance and faith he will pardon us for Christ's sake. But what is the doctrine of reason, or of the light of nature? If we may believe infidels, it is that we shall be pardoned on our bare repentance, without a mediator and without any atonement. This is a main principle of infidelity, on which the whole system, so far as it is allowed that we are sinners, depends. Therefore let us consider it attentively, and inquire whether it be indeed the voice of reason that we shall be pardoned on our repentance barely.

Several eminent infidels, as Hume and Bolingbroke, deny that there is any evidence of the moral perfections of God, or that he is a good being. On this principle there cannot possibly be evidence that he will pardon at all, either in consequence of repentance, or without it. For unless we have evidence of his goodness, it is impossible that we should know but that he will take pleasure in torturing his creatures, whether it answer any good purpose or not, or whether they deserve it or not. When infidels say that God will pardon on bare repentance, they must believe either that justice requires such pardon, or that mere goodness and grace require it; either that pardon is no more than strict justice requires, or that though it is indeed beyond the requirement of strict justice, it is required by divine goodness and grace. Let us consider the proposition on both these grounds. I. That the pardon of the penitent is a mere act of JUSTICE, and that if he be not pardoned, he suffers injustice. Concern

ing this I observe,

1. If this be the case, it is no pardon at all, and it is absurd

* No date.