caucus, and at the freeman’s ballot-box. Religion must control and sanctify the whole life of the individual and of the nation. And yet this doctrine is repudiated; yes, openly and in high places. And this doctrine of repudiation,—not a birth of yesterday, but as old as civil government,—is that which should be most indignantly rejected by honest men and good citizens. It is said, that men need not be as scrupulous in their public as in their private relations. There is a morality for the public man, and another for the private citizen. There are two standards of conduct even for the same person, in his private and in his public capacity. I have heard it said by those who knew him well that an individual of great influence, who had been placed in the most elevated offices within the people’s gift, was a man of strict integrity and the mildest character in his private connexions, though as a politician he was distinguished for his disregard of truth, his violence, and his use of any means to carry the ends which his party espoused. And on the other hand we hear men whose private vices are notorious—profane, profligate, unprincipled—commended for the consistency and purity of their political course. Is not this wrong, is it not deplorable? Shall we for a moment countenance this distinction between public and private character, as if they were not subject to the same principles of moral judgment? Shall they in whose veins Puritan blood runs freely admit a doctrine, the bare mention of which would have made Winthrop and Bradford and a thousand more like them tremble with horror? It came not from them, it does not belong to the New England soil. It came from the corrupt Courts of Europe, from ages when Christianity was scarcely known, and from scenes where its influence was unfelt. To the Old World let it be restored; to past ages be it consigned. And let us no more hear the abominable doctrine—as irrational as it is detestable—that what would be scandalous in private life may be just and commendable in the management of political affairs. I reaffirm, that religion should purify the currents of thought and control the movements, whether secret or open, that belong to this part of human agency. And if I needed other support for this assertion than is furnished by the very terms in which it is expressed, I might quote the words of Washington, who in his Farewell Address, after remarking that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,” adds, “In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labour to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.” “And let us,” he further adds, “with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Words worthy to be inscribed over every hall of legislation and every place of public resort in this or any other land.

The principles which have now been presented must not be confined to individual action. They should also control the associated energy which makes politics the scene of its efforts. Political parties should respect these principles. Any organization or enterprise in which they are disregarded should meet with instant rebuke. The existence of parties may not be regretted. They are useful, and they are inseparable from any system of government which gives to the people an interest in the management of public affairs, or which even permits discussion upon public measures. Where men form and express opinions, variety of opinion will be sure to spring up; discussion will elicit sympathy and enkindle debate. Here we have at once the elements of party. Its advantages, in the more thorough examination to which measures of general or local importance are subjected, and in the restrictions which reciprocal vigilance imposes upon the use of power or opportunity, are as great as they are obvious. It is, then, both foolish and useless to inveigh against parties as in themselves evil. Let them be formed on correct principles, and conducted in a right spirit, and they will be found among the best securities of liberty and the most effectual means of intelligence. But let them be formed on unsound principles, or without principle, or let them be conducted in a greedy or vindictive spirit, and they will become the occasions of incalculable mischief. When falsehood and violence are the weapons which one party provokes another to adopt; when the passions of men are addressed, and their prejudices are fostered instead of being enlightened; when the aim is not to serve the country so much as on the one side to get, and on the other to retain power; when recourse is had to means for baffling an opponent or securing a triumph, which the very men who guide the party would be ashamed to use as private individuals; when excitement is made the great instrument of success, and the people are carried along blindfold by sympathy, like a herd of animals, moved by an impulse which they are unable to explain and care not to understand; when office is the prize that stimulates exertion, and worldly gain the object which lies at the heart of party strife; then is that which might be a blessing converted into a curse. Vice and ruin are its fruits. A despotism could not inflict on a country greater evils than must result from the action of parties born of selfishness and nursed in injustice. It is sad to believe—yet who can deny—that political parties in this country bear too much the character which we have described. Oh! for a party that shall plant itself upon principle, shall appeal to the good sense and candid judgment of the people, shall look not at reward, but at duty, and shall adopt no measures but such as virtue can approve and on which religion can invoke the benediction of a righteous God. A party composed of good men and true patriots, each of whom should interpret the charge which the Roman Senate gave to the Dictator whom public emergencies called into office as applicable to himself and as indicating the aim which he must pursue, let the cost to himself or the consequence to his party be what it may,—“see that the Republic sustain no harm,”—such a party would be the salvation and glory of our land.

Sentiments are advanced which contradict this view of duty. Maxims of political action have been promulgated,—not only in the fierce struggle that attends an election, but in calmer moments,—which shock common sense as well as religious feeling. It is said, but by no one it may be presumed who has any sense of character, that all is fair in politics; as if success were the only thing to be regarded. But I need not stop to expose such an atrocious rule of action, which would justify whatever is base or criminal. It is urged, however, in vindication of methods of acquiring influence which offend a clear-sighted conscience, that if a party cannot prevail but by using the weapons with which it is attacked, it must resort to these means of self-preservation. What is this but another way of expressing the doctrine on the enormity of which we have just remarked? Self-preservation should not be the object most studied by a party. The preservation of a character which will stand the test of moral principle should be far dearer. If a party cannot live without adopting what it condemns, let it perish; let falsehood and shamelessness triumph. It will be only