government, and the enactment of more just laws, after the present government is overturned. Nothing can justify a revolution, a conflict, a waste of treasure and blood, which are not going to gain anything in the end.—Again, the last four years' experience of European nations may read us a lesson.

6. To justify rebellion, or what is the same thing, violent resistance to the execution of the laws, it is necessary that something more than a small fraction of the people should rise in such a resistance. If the people in general are ready for it, and are willing to run all the hazards of a rebellious conflict with the government, conscious that they have righteousness and the God of righteousness on their side; this is a very different affair from what it would be, if only a minority of the people were ready for rebellion. Such a minority have no right, on account of their deemed injuries, to plunge the nation into a civil war, for the purpose of over-turning a government which suits the great mass of the people;—a civil war, in which there is every prospect, that the government and the majority who aim to support it will prevail; and prevailing, must crush their hostile opponents, this hasty and reckless minority.

These are some of the things which appear necessary, in order to justify violent resistance of Law. They must all exist, or such resistance would be criminal,—contrary to reason, to benevolence, and to Christ.

It is not a thing to be expected at all among mankind, that all laws should be right, or "just and equal." Human legislation must be expected to bear the marks of an imperfection, which attaches itself to everything human. If obedience to government were obligatory, only on the condition that all the laws of that government are just; then, such obedience would mean nothing at all, and every man would be absolved from all allegiance to the government, and from all obligations to obey. Such is man, so limited his wisdom and so imperfect his holiness, that human laws must necessarily be imperfect, and must, therefore, necessarily operate hardly in some instances, upon more or less of the people. It is impossible, that the thing should be otherwise—in the very nature of the case, it is impossible. And if every individual were allowed to be the judge in his own case, whether or not the law operated so hardly upon him that he might disobey; then his obligation to obedience would mean just nothing at all, and Law would be nothing more to him than mere advice. It might be very good advice, but he might spurn it, if he chose. I may think it hard and unjust upon myself, that, in the great "Empire State," by a sort of "bill of attainder," (I know not what else to call it,—I suppose I must not call it a slave law,) I am prohibited from holding any "office of profit or trust," because I will preach the gospel, and people will hear me;—but notwithstanding this law, (which you will not allow me to call by any hard name,) you think me under obligation to obey the government,—and I think so too. I shall not rebel.

The execution of the Law also, must necessarily be imperfect, for the same great reason—human imperfection: judges and jurors are not infallible. But, what then? God knew all this when he ordained human government, and commanded us to be subject to it. Such government, with all its unavoidable imperfection and errors, on the whole is beneficial—indispensable—we could not do without it.—And rarely, very rarely indeed, is there a single instance of an individual man, here or beyond the Potomac, whom Law has injured more than it has benefited. Even if that Law unjustly takes away his liberty or his life, it may have done him more good than injury; his liberty or his life might have been sooner and more cruelly destroyed without it. It would be hard to prove the contrary, in any one case that ever existed or ever will, here or elsewhere.

The best and wisest Laws ever enacted by man, or that ever will be enacted by man, may sometimes operate hardly, even destructively, upon some particular persons. An innocent man may be accused of murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to ignominious execution. But, what then? May this man, who knows his innocence, justly arm himself with deadly weapons, and kill the officer who would execute the sentence of the Law upon him,—and thus get out of his hands? May this innocent man's neighbors, who know his innocence as well as he, "lawfully interpose their own persons" betwixt him and the officer of Law, and thus rescue him?—and may they do this, because they have decided for themselves, that this is not a case "where the administration of justice is concerned?" If so, then all Law and Government must soon come to an end, and anarchy, mobs and confusion reign! If so, then each man becomes really his own Lawmaker, and when he thinks the Law unjust towards him, may resist it unto blood! If one man is at liberty to "be fully prepared for his own defense," and calling the legal officer an "assailant," or an "assassin," may resist the execution of one law which he deems hard upon him, then another man may do the same thing in reference to another law; and the consequence inevitably must be, that all Government, Law and security are at end! If my neighbor may arm himself, and kill a legal officer who attempts the discharge of his sworn duty; then I may arm myself also, when I deem the Law unjust to me, and kill another legal officer, who attempts to execute the Law! And if all this may be, LAW is nothing but a bugbear or a bubble—is a dead letter—and the texts of God's word which we have just read to you may be disobeyed, and ought to be blotted from the Bible!

My brethren, this is a very solemn subject! No theme of earth could be more so. All our earthly benefits, and no small part of our spiritual privileges and hopes are wrapped up in it. Religion cannot prosper, if Law is not potential—if the minds of the people are to be perpetually agitated, distracted and tormented, by confusion, fear and uncertainty!

I have stated these great principles, and made these general remarks upon the subject presented in our texts, on account of some recent teachings which have been put forth as religious—put forth in religious publications, by ministers of the gospel. I have no reference to mere politics—to political papers or political parties, whig or democrat. I have never entered into such matters: other things occupy me. I have never given but one vote in any legal election, during the eighteen years I have resided in the State since I returned to it; and I never expect to give another. And if principles opposite to those I have laid down in this sermon were promulgated among us, only by politicians and political parties and papers, I should not advert to them here. I have always supposed, that some extravagant and evil principles would be occasionally promulgated for party purposes and political effect, and that the people very well understand this, and therefore will not be led very far astray by them. And whenever such evil principles have been put forth in the name of religion, by men whose fanatical phrensy contemned the Sabbath and other institutions of God, (like some of our Northern fanatics, "men of one idea" and not capable of two,) I have very seldom adverted to them at all, but have supposed it best to leave them to be counteracted by their own extravagance and by the character of their advocates, and let them die by their own contemptibility. But now, principles, contrary to the plain meaning of the texts before us, come to our ears from some more respectable quarters, and in the name of religion. I should be a traitor to the high trust of this pulpit, if I did not caution you against them. Forbearance and delicacy must sometimes have limits. We owe duties to truth and Christianity, which tenderness must not make us violate.

The "New