Part 1

GOVERNMENT AND REBELLION

A sermon delivered in the North Broad Street Presbyterian Church, Sunday Morning, April 28 1861,

By

Rev. E. E. Adams.

Published by Request.

1861.

Government and Rebellion.

An evil man seeketh only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.--Prov. xvii. 11.

We have in these words this plain announcement--that Rebellion is a crime, and shall be visited with terrible judgment. Solomon here speaks his own convictions; God declares his thought, and utters his sanction of law. This is also the expression of natural conscience,--vindicating in our breast the Divine procedure, when the majesty of insulted government is asserted, and penalty applied.

God never overlooks rebellion against his throne--never pardons the rebel until he repent and submit. God does not command us to forgive our offending fellow-men, unless they repent. "If thy brother trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn to thee, saying, I repent, thou shalt forgive him." God is in a forgiving attitude; so ought we to be. But he does not _express_ forgiveness until the rebel expresses penitence; neither are we under obligation to _pronounce_ an enemy forgiven until he signify his compunction and sorrow, and desist from his injurious conduct. If my child rebel against my law and my rightful discipline, I am not allowed by the spirit of love to pursue him with vengeance; neither am I bound by the law of God to release him from the penalty of his sin, until he shall have exhibited signs of submission, of sorrow, and of obedience. I may pity him, and cherish toward him the _spirit_ of forgiveness; but for his own sake, for the order of the household, and on account of my innate sense of justice, I must not pronounce his acquittal, nor declare the controversy ended, until he shall have satisfied my governmental authority, and the sentiment of justice which both his own conscience and mine, constitutionally, and therefore by necessity, cherish. And I do not see that Government can safely pardon a rebel against its statutes, its honor and its common brotherhood, until his rebellion cease; until he bow to law, confess his crime, and signify his sorrow. I speak not of oppressive government, of iniquitous law; but of _good_ government, of statutes healthful, humane, equal. Although in the former case rebellion cannot be justified until every constitutional measure has been resorted to for redress,--then, if redress be not given, the voice of the people in all representative governments may legally change oppressive for just laws, and oppressors for rulers who shall regard the popular will. And in despotisms, when the people have the _power_ to redress their wrongs, and to enter on a career of development in mind and morals, in the arts of civilization,--when every other course fails--"resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!" Man was not _made_ for tyranny. He was not made for any form of government that crushes out his intellect and his religious capabilities. He was made to be governed morally; to be under righteous law; law which, while it restrains passion, selfishness and crime, gives a man all the freedom that he is able and willing to _use_ safely for himself, and for the commonwealth; all that is consistent with individual development and the national good.

I am not one of those who believe that the voice of the people is, without exception, the voice of God. It was not so at the Deluge, but quite the reverse. It was not so when Israel clamored for a king--not in mercy but in anger, God gave them their request. It was not so when Absalom stole the hearts of the people, and stirred up rebellion against his father. And yet, when a nation, independent of party, free from the excitements of momentary interest, without the influence of ambitious leaders, under the calm guidance of reason, history, and the spirit of the age,--rises spontaneously against oppression, against iniquity, and _demands_ just laws; rights for all; free thought, free speech, free labor, free worship; when compacts are not violated; when moderation is maintained; when the spirit of humanity is preserved,--_then_, I believe, "the voice of the people _is_ the voice of God." I have no question that, in the great principle, Cromwell and his puritan hosts were right in their revolutionary action. I could never doubt that our fathers did a noble, glorious, and Christian deed in throwing off the yoke of Britain, and proclaiming a new government for themselves and their posterity. It was right to contend and bleed for equal representation, for freedom of conscience, and for an independent nationality in which these high ends could be secured.

The first government of which we have account was a Theocracy--that is, "the government of God." _He_ was the only King. He revealed the law, appointed leaders, gave rules for worship, instruction and warfare. Thus in the outset did he set up his claims among men. He established the great precedent, which men ought to have followed, which the world has ignored; but to which the thoughts and the will of the race shall ultimately return. It is true _now_ that government, as such, is ordained of God. All government, in its elemental authority, is a theocracy. All power is of God; he ordains law. He originates the idea of civil compact. While, therefore, the principles of governments among men may be defective, and the administration wrong and hurtful, the great _fact_ of government is a _Divine fact. Good_ government is _emphatically God's_ government--intended to suppress evil, to promote holiness and happiness. "The powers that be are ordained of God." "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Despisers of government are enumerated by the Apostle as among the most flagitious of men. There are _statutes_ in almost every government which may not be absolutely right; some which may be oppressive. These are to be distinguished from the principles, from the general bearing of a government, and endured for the good therein, or be rid of by constitutional and safe methods. It is a duty of each subject and citizen to surrender some of his desires and preferences--some of his convictions possibly--for the _general_ sentiment--the comprehensive good; while he has the privilege of convincing by fair argument all others, and winning them to his views and measures if possible, without violence, without infringement of law. It is not to be expected that every man should be absolutely satisfied with any government. If he is called to yield only his share of personal interest and preference, for the sake of all the protection and blessing in which he participates in common with the state, his reason, his conscience, his patriotism will joyfully acquiesce; he will freely make so much sacrifice for the interests of the whole, knowing very well that every other citizen is likely to be under an equal sacrifice. Natural, individual liberty, without law, is only barbarism. Where every man is free to do whatever his worst passions prompt, there is in fact no freedom; there is tyranny; for the strong will subdue the weak, bone and muscle will govern mind and conscience. In laws and governments men have their best thoughts; human _law_ is likely to be better than human nature. Men feel the need of restraint--are convinced of the necessity of law. They therefore make laws in self-defence; if thereby they would _not_ restrain their own selfishness, they _would_ restrain the selfishness of others; but that which is made a barrier to _one_ bad subject is also a defence against all;--thus men do restrain themselves by their defences against others. Thus it is that, with healthful convictions, men may control diseased passion; with a right _ideal_ is intimately joined a safe actuality; with good law, a comparatively good condition. Even in the worst administration, and when the public mind is most demoralized, there may remain the purity of law; the sublime thought. If the mind finds itself sinking into lawlessness and disorganism, and borne away by the pressure of evil, it can look upward, and, catching new energy from the unquenched light--

"Spring into the realm of the ideal."

Our destiny is ideal. We are on our way to the Unseen. The ideal draws us upward,--_real_ now, to the spirits of just men made perfect--to be real to us when we are perfect--_once_ ideal to them, as now to us. We must keep above us the model of life and of law which we have not yet attained. Let it never be dim. It is a star shining through time's night! A banner waving from the throne of God. It tells us of the goal. It points out our futurity--the altitude of our virtue, our exaltation, our bliss.

Our subject is GOVERNMENT AND MAN. We proceed to consider it in a three-fold aspect, inquiring

I. _What is good government?_ II. _What constitutes rebellion against such government?_ III. _What is the duty of each citizen when rebellion exists?_

I. _What is a good government_?

No citizen looks for an absolutely perfect form of nationality--of law. But we have a right to ask for good government. We have been accustomed to think that it depends more on administration than on principle; and the line of the poet, "That which is best administered, is best," is a proverb, to the sentiment of which we too freely yield. No doubt a government with bad statutes and wrong laws, may be so administered as to produce a tolerable degree of national comfort and development for a season; while a Constitution perfect in its theories and principles, may be so maladministered as to corrupt and distract, impoverish and demoralize, a people. And yet, I agree with an old patriot of the past century who said, "There is no foundation to imagine that the goodness or badness of any government depends solely upon its administration. It must be allowed that the ultimate design of government is to restrain the corruptions of human nature; and, since human nature is the same at all times and in all places, the same form of government which is best for one nation is best for all nations, if they would _only agree to adopt_ it."

There is a deep thought in this remark. We often say, for example, "France is not fit for a republican form of government," and it is true; but that is _not_ to say, "A republican form of government is not fit for France," if the population would agree to adopt and preserve it. Man, in his fallen state, is not fit for the holy government of God; but that holy government is, nevertheless, the _only_ one that is fit for man as a moral being; and it is man's ignorance and folly, his guilt and ruin, that he does not adopt it. It is owing to the ignorance and wickedness of the world that it is not fit for a representative government; and that all do not choose Christ to be their King.

Were a score of the professional politicians of our land to frame a Constitution for us in full accordance with their own schemes and choice, we would soon find ourselves under an oligarchy of schemers, who cared for the Republic only so far as to secure from it their own fame and emolument. Were as many brokers or merchants to make and administer our laws, without regard to other industrial interests, we should have an oligarchy of trade. Were as many husbandmen, or mechanics, or lawyers, to have full control of our legislation and government, we would have one interest towering above all others, and true equalization, true brotherhood, just representation, healthful nationality would be impossible. Or, were we dependent on officers in the army or navy for our government, legislative and administrative, we would be likely to have many of our rights circumscribed. Were as many clergymen to frame a Constitution, and administer laws, we might be under a crushing priesthood. A government of mere scholars, poets or orators, would be only a sublime dream. A Constitution of philosophies alone, would glitter with abstractions beautiful, cold, grand as the snow-capt Alps, and as distant, too, from the actualities of men! A government of mere gentlemen who have nothing to do but think for slaves, to enjoy the chase and the race-ground, to extol their pedigree, and traduce labor, and lead retainers to war--would be a government for the few over the many, an aristocracy of blood and privilege, of curled moustache and taper fingers; but not a republic of patriots, of self-made men, of equal privilege and just laws. It would be a return to semi-barbarism, to the age of Louis XIV., or even of Charles I.

This is now the strong tendency in the Rebel States: even along our free border, but below it, such is the system of representation, that a county containing only about 3,000 inhabitants, sends as many representatives to the legislature as another county of 30,000, and a single proprietor casts as many votes as a whole commune. So much liberty of citizens is already sacrificed to the chevalier, to the system of forced service.

But were a select number of experienced men, of true statesmen, embracing different pursuits and professions, educated in different parts of the world, and drawn together by grand national events,--statesmen born in the age when liberty had its first grand revival, and was guarded by soberness of thought, and tried by every variety and extent of sacrifice--by men who had no professional, exclusive interest to provide for, but who expected to fight and die for their convictions, who sought only to lay the foundation of a nationality for future generations, and for the world; who aimed at a healthful union of all popular interests, both among poor and rich, among masters and dependents; who provided for freedom of action under law; of worship and education, of commerce, agriculture, and the arts; for the easy and equitable support of government,--for its perpetuity indeed, infusing into it elements that appeal powerfully, both to the self-interest and the patriotism of the citizens,--I say, were such men, with such ends in view, by such sacrifice, to frame such a government, containing the most delicate balance of interests, with strong checks against the encroachment of any branch, either the legislative, executive or judicial, giving all trades and professions, and all men, an equal chance for excellence, influence, and honor; you would not hesitate to pronounce that a good government, even though you might find slight exception to some of its terms, though you might not interpret as others do, all its constitutional phrases.

In view of the protection which such a constitution affords, especially if it had been tested, for a period of eighty years, by all the inward strain of domestic evils, and all the outward pressure of invasion; by the influence of foreign envy, of intrigue, of hostility; by the debasing power of disloyalty, the incompetency of rulers, and the general degeneracy of human nature; I say, in view of all these untoward influences, the government which could still retain its majesty and power, still stretch its Aegis over every national and individual right--you would pronounce the best, both for ruler and people, that ever blessed a nation. And you would not hesitate to declare _that_ man a _traitor_, who should attempt _to weaken_ and destroy it!

Now we pretend to say that _our_ government was thus formed by the choicest wisdom and patriotism of the world, with the largest liberty in view, under the restraint of law, giving equitable privilege to all its citizens, and so balancing its different departments that they are mutually a defence. We pretend to claim for our government the loftiest purpose, the most comprehensive views, and the best practical results. We claim for it justice, equality, and power. It does not stand out--a thing distinct from the people and the states. It is not an objective power only, but subjective; it is in every State and in every freeman. It is not in machinery, which can be set in motion and work out certain results, as if every part of it were iron or steel, and put into action by applied heat; but in _men_, in minds, in hearts, in the family circle, in the church, in every throb of patriotism, in every fibre of the husbandman and the artizan, in the pastor's prayers, and the student's living thoughts. It is in the _nation_ like latent fire, like a hidden life--evoked in time of peril, and flashing along the telegraph, breathed in song, uttered in oratory, thundered from the cannon's mouth, hung out in streaming banners whose "every hue was born in heaven," felt in firm resolve, illustrated in response to the call of country and of law. Where is our government? Not at Washington alone. That is but its symbol. It is throughout all our Loyal States. It is enthroned on the granite hills of New Hampshire, sends its voice along the Alleghanies, and on the swelling floods of the Mississippi, and spreads its wing over the children of the West, even to the shores of Oregon. It lives in every cottage, and every mansion, and has a throne in every true, free, noble, Christian heart.

That it is a _good_ government, you have only in imagination to blot from the face of the earth whatever has grown up under its protection and encouragement, by the will and the blessing of the Almighty, during the fourscore years of its existence; level all the cities, sink the commerce, prostrate the schools and churches, obliterate all the science, history and thought it has fostered, quench the light of oratory, turn back the wheel of improvement, and leave us at the opening of 1776; estimate all the freedom of act, of utterance, of industry; reckon the sum of human comforts, even of luxuries, it has brought to our hand. Look at all our ships, our mechanism, our homes, our sanctuaries, our institutions of morality, of mercy and of religion; our wealth, intelligence, order, power; consider the elevation given to millions in the worst form of civilization in the land, showing that such is the vitalizing force of our national life, that even slavery here, bad as it is--and we know of nothing worse as a system--lifts men above the natural license of savage existence. Consider all this, and much more, that I may not stop to utter, and you cannot--you _do_ not--no sane mind _can_ question the supreme excellence--I had almost said the _divine_ excellence--of our government. And if there were need of other proof, we have only to remind you with what promptness the call of our noble Chief Magistrate was answered from every free State--from the city and the hamlet; from the bank, the bar, the press and the pulpit; from the workshop and the soil; from the calm and comfort of home and ease and affluence, and from the cottage of the poor, as if the pulse of the government were beating in every vein, and the will of the Cabinet had its home in every bosom! Strong men, young men, aged men, men of leisure, Christian men--all ready to march under the stars and stripes, or to pour out their treasure for others. Mothers and wives and sisters, with breaking hearts and tremulous benedictions, bidding the heroes go--offering them on their country's altar. Oh, it would not be thus but for the true manhood which our government infuses into loyal citizens. It would not be so, but for the Christianity it protects without dictation, and acknowledges without ostentation.

II. We come now to the question, _What constitutes rebellion against good government_?

There may be criminal rebellion even against a wicked and oppressive government. The people may take the law into their own hands, and put to death, or imprison their rulers, without _first_ having tried constitutional methods of redress. But I speak of rebellion against _good_ government--such as we have already had in review. There is a difference between insurrection and rebellion. The former is an act of a people or population against a single statute, or against a portion of the legislative enactments, without necessarily growing into warfare, or revolt against the whole constitution and the laws. This may become rebellion. There is also a difference between rebellion and revolution. The latter, in a political sense, is a change, either wholly or in part, of the constitution. This may be effected by argument and a peaceful vote--by abdication, by a change of national policy in view of some new relation, and by general consent, or by warfare. "The revolution in England in 1688, was occasioned by the abdication of James II., the establishment of the House of Orange on the throne, and the restoring of the constitution to its primitive state."

Our revolution of '76, and onward, was not a rebellion; it was resistance of oppression, of burdensome taxation without equal representation, and it resulted in our distinct nationality.

The revolutions of France have been of a similar character; they have sprung from oppression of the most severe and unnatural kind. This was the fact, at least, in 1797 and in 1830. In 1848, when it was my lot to be in the midst of it, the revolution arose from the selfish conduct of Louis Philippe, who enriched himself and his family out of the national treasury, and encouraged his sons in a course which was at war with national precedent, with the commercial interests and democratic individualism of the French; for with their imperial prestiges and tastes they are extreme in their personal democracy.

But all these revolutions resulted in good to the people. Education, public spirit, enterprise, labor, all the arts of civilization, and even evangelical Christianity received a new impulse. Mind was opened and enlarged; the people thought for themselves, and sighed for knowledge and a better faith.

Revolution is going on silently, from year to year, in England. The nobility yield by slow, almost imperceptible degrees, to the demands of the people. It is by this process that the Government avoids the shocks which startle Austria, France and Italy.