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

  1. [What is good government?]
  2. [What constitutes rebellion against such government?]
  3. [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.