LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 899 049 3 
 
 penmailtlfe* 
 pH8^ 
 
c$^^ E 449 
 ^1 .C595 
 
 \ y*,/^. ^-y" V\ ^ z^.-^- /*• 
 
 CONSCIENCE AND LAW 
 
 DISCOURSE 
 
 PREACHED IN THE 
 
 NORTH CHURCH, PORTSMOUTH 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE, 
 
 FAST DAY. APRIL 3, 1851. 
 
 RUFUS W. CLAEK, 
 
 PASTOR. 
 
 BOSTON : 
 
 TAPPAN & WHITTEMORE. 
 
 P R T S IM O U T H : 
 
 SAMITEL A. BADGER. 
 
^ 
 
CONSCIENCE AND LAW 
 
 DISC OUKSE 
 
 PKKAniHD IX TIIK 
 
 NORTH CHI lUUr. PORTSMOITH. 
 
 KEAV HAMPSHIRE^ 
 
 FAST DAY, APRIL 3, 1851, 
 
 BV 
 
 RUFUS W. CLARK, 
 
 PASTOR. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 TAPPAN & WIIITTEMORE. 
 
 PORTSMOUTH: 
 SAMUEL A. BADGER.. 
 
 1 8 5 1 
 

 rfifi 
 
 i b^ (^ 3 H 
 

 
 J 
 
 I) I S C U R S 15 
 
 Romans xiii, 1, 2. 
 
 Lot cvpry soul be subjwt unto the lilgher powers. For there U no power but of flod : 
 the powers that be arc ordHinoil of God. Whosoever therefore reslsteth the power, reaiiteth 
 the orJimmce of God ; and tliey that resist shall receive to themselves duinnatiou. 
 
 Acts iv, 19. 
 
 liut Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be riijht In the sight of 
 Cod. to hearken unto jou more than unto God, judge ye. 
 
 These passages of Scripture bear directly uj>on a question 
 of vital importance, which for some months past has deeply 
 agitated the community. Nor is it among the least of the 
 peculiarities of this ([uestion, that it has, in a certain sense, 
 iwo right sides. It is right for every man to obey the dictates 
 xjf an enlightened conscience ; and it is the duty of every 
 citizen to yield obedience to human governments. The fact 
 that these general propositions are undeniably true, and yet in 
 their application to a recently enacted obnoxious law, apparently 
 antagonistic, has surrounded the question of "conscience and 
 Jaw" with many difficulties, called forth a great deal of angry 
 discussion, and arrayed even good and able men in hostility 
 to each other. We have had discounses, speeches and news- 
 paper articles innumerable, upon the supremacy of divine 
 government, and our duty to obey God rather than man ; and 
 we have had as many, if not more, inculcating implicit obe- 
 dience to human laws in general, and the fugitive slave law m 
 particular. "Writers have denounced "conscience" as an 
 unsafe guide, and at the same time have virtually appealed to 
 conscience to induce the community to obey even wicked laws. 
 Pulpit has been arrayed against pulpit, and press against 
 press, rtrave divines and patriotic statesmen have labored to 
 
4 
 
 reconcile the claims of God and the U. S. Constitution. Chris- 
 tianity, which commands that "every soul be subject unto the 
 higher powers," and which enforces obedience to rulers by se- 
 vere penalties, is found, at the same time, to have been the 
 most formidable enemy that bad governments have encountered 
 during the last eighteen centuries. In spite of the declara- 
 tion of St. Paul, "Whosoever therefore resistcth the power, 
 resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist shall 
 receive to themselves damnation," Christianity has shaken the 
 despotic kingdoms of Europe to their very centre, has hurled 
 tyrants from their thrones, has forced free principles into the 
 British constitution, has severed this nation from its allegiance 
 to a foreign power, and erected on this soil free institutions 
 that are disturbing by their direct and indirect influence every 
 system of oppression upon the globe. 
 
 He whose mission it Avas to calm the angry passions of men, 
 and who has said, ." Blessed are the peacemakers," has also 
 said, " I came not to send peace, but a sword." 
 
 These apparently conflicting principles it w^ill be our pur- 
 pose to attempt to reconcile, and we hope to show that Ave 
 may be obedient to God and true to the dictates of humanity, 
 without infringing in the least degree upon the soundest patriot- 
 ism, and the highest reverence for human law. 
 
 With the extremes of fanaticism on this question Ave have 
 nothing to do. And Avhile avo Avould not force into the ranks 
 of the ultra slavery supporters, that large class of respectable 
 citizens Avho have felt themselves called upon to make speeches 
 and preach discourses in faA'or of sustaining the Union, and 
 rendering implicit obedience to human laAvs ; Ave Avould at the 
 same time protest against the disposition that not a few persons 
 have manifested, to class AA-ith disunionists and rebels those 
 masses of our citizens Avho are conscientiously opposed to the 
 fugitive slave bill. If the anathemas, Avhich have been so freely 
 hurled from the pulpit and the press, have been aimed against 
 these opponents of the law as disunionists and traitors, then 
 th'^se writers have been fighting a man of straAv. If, on the 
 other hand, this expenditure of acute Icgic and fervid eloqnencG 
 
5 
 
 has been culled forth hy the ultra lactions to which rcforcncc 
 has been made, then are the threats and power of these fac- 
 tions entitled to more consideration than we have been accus- 
 tomed to give them. They have suddenly reached a position 
 of influence and power, to which we never dreamed they would 
 attain. 
 
 Not a little of the opposition that has been manifested 
 against this bill, has grown out of a love for the Union, grown 
 out of an honest and intense patriotism. Multitudes are look- 
 ing upon it as a measure that is leveling the heaviest blows 
 against the stability of our Union ; that is im})airing and wast- 
 ing away that love of country, for which American citizens 
 have been in past times, so distinguished. They are in the 
 position of persons standing around a magazine of powder in 
 which there is a torch Ijurning, and who demand for the safety 
 of all, that the fire be extinguished. Besides, if men cannot 
 make a free and honest expression of their opinion of the laws 
 of the land without being accused of holding views that they 
 have never entertained ; if proper measures for the repeal of 
 an odious law cannot be adopted without the cry of treason 
 being raised, and if heaven and earth arc to be searched for 
 influences and forces to stifle the promptings of humanity and. 
 religion, then are we all under a system of despotism that 
 even the autocrat of Russia could not desire to have improved.. 
 
 The disposition of some good and many bad men to decry 
 ^'conscience," is a feature of this discussion that deserves 
 attention. 
 
 It has been for many years the special design of our best 
 systems of education, secular and religious, to purify and en- 
 lighten the public conscience — to render men sensible of their 
 obligations to God, and sensitive under every species of wrong.. 
 It is by no means an antiquated doctrine, that on the virtue,, 
 integrity and conscientiousness of this people depend the 
 stability of our Union, the supremacy of onv laws, and the 
 prosperity of our nation. AVe have been taught to regard a 
 hicrh de<7Tee of conscientiousness as a virtue rather than a 
 fault ; fi? a mark of mental e-trength, deserving of respect, 
 
rather than a Avcakness, callin;^ forth the \nty of others. But 
 if tlie views of some of our eminent statesmen and religious 
 teachers are to prevail, then conscience is destined no longer 
 to enjoy its high reputation. If it is moved or agitated at a 
 view of the horrors of American slavery, or leads one to hesi- 
 •tate to lay violent hands on a panting and trembling fugitive, 
 ut is to be made the butt of ridicule and the theme of pious, 
 not impious, jests. Already do we find the terms "conscience" 
 -and "higher law" used by a time-serving and venal press, to 
 bring into contempt that class of our community who are un- 
 'der the influence of moral principle, humane feelings and an 
 honorable patriotism. 
 
 In former years, when "conscience" enjoyed the respect of 
 the community, a distinguished statesman used with reference 
 to it the following language* : — 
 
 " Conscience * * * * prepares the mind to act and to suiFer 
 beyond almost all other causes. It sometimes gives an im- 
 pulse so irresistible that no fetters of power or of opinion can 
 withstand it. History instructs us that this love of religious 
 liberty, a compound sentiment in the breast of man, made up 
 of the clearest sense of right and the highest conviction of 
 duty, is able to look the sternest despotism in the face, and 
 with means apparently most inadequate to shake principal- 
 ities and powers. If the hand of pow"er be laid upon it, this 
 only seems to augment its force and elasticity, and to cause 
 its action to be more formidable and terrible. Human inven- 
 tion has devised nothing, human power has compassed nothing 
 that can forcibly restrain it when it breaks forth. Nothing 
 ■can stop it but to give way to it : nothing can check it but in- 
 dulgence. It loses its power only when it gains its object." 
 
 Most potent truths, most potently uttered I Nor will the 
 ■conscience of this nation, in regard to the right of all to be 
 free, " lose its power" until it has "gained its object." Men 
 :may turn around and ridicule that principle which they for- 
 ; mei'ly so much venerated ; but this very ridicule will clothe 
 , conscience with a more intense and terrible poAver. It will 
 .then be most emphatically true that ^^Jtunian invcntionhas de- 
 vised nothing, human power has compassed nothing that can 
 
 Webster's Siipcthes Vol. T. p. 2!>, Rtli K.Ution. 
 
fornhhf ventral)! it." Tho.se avIio sn]»|ioso that the Ainpncaii' 
 mind and tlic American conscience are to Itc controlleil <>i- in- 
 fluenced ))y contempt, have fallen into an c_LiTegious error. Tiiose 
 who woidd stitic conscience and shatter the moral sentiment 
 of the community, must aim their blows at our schools, churches, 
 literature, and the various means that arc employed to elevate 
 the intellectual and moral character of the peoi)le. They must 
 effect an entire change in our education, habits of thought and 
 religious sentiments, before their Avork is accomplished. If 
 conscience becomes once enlightened and active, we may say 
 of it as the elocjuent statesman just referred to has said of the 
 spark of liberty if once kindled — "It Avill burn. Human 
 agency cannot extinguish it. Like the earth's central fire, it 
 may be smothered for a time : the ocean may overwhelm it ; 
 mountains may press it down ; but its inherent and uncon- 
 querable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at 
 some time or another, in some place or another, the volcano 
 will break out and flame up to heaven." 
 
 In considering the relations of conscience to human law, 
 we would lay down the following propositions : — 
 
 1. That there are duties that we owe to God, and duties 
 that we owe to our fellow men. 
 
 2. That there is somewhere a line of separation between 
 these two classes of duties. 
 
 3. That Avlien our obligations to the divine government come 
 into collision with human laws, we are solemnly bound to obey 
 God rather than man. 
 
 4. That an enlightened christian conscience is our guide in 
 all the duties of life, religious, civil and social. 
 
 These propositions, which, imder the light of christian ethics, 
 we might regard as axioms, have, to some extent, at least, 
 been called in question. In some of the numerous speeches 
 and discourses which have been sent to us for our edification, 
 we have found the right of private judgment in civil matters 
 denied, the idea of the supremacy of conscience repudiated, and 
 the authority of God acknoAvledged only as enforcing obedience 
 to human law. Wo have fouml, too, a vast deal of sophistrv 
 
8 
 
 under the garb of logic, empty declamation designed for fervid 
 eloquence, and the moat cold-hearted inhumanity under the 
 head of patriotism. American citizens have been exhorted to 
 stifle the finest feelings of their nature, ignore the dictates of 
 conscience, and obey God by bowing their necks in silent sub- 
 mission to the fugitive slave law. In commenting upon the 
 command, " Render unto Cagsar the things that are Caesar's, 
 and to God the things that are God's," the latter part of the 
 injunction has been almost entirely overlooked, and the at- 
 tempt made, to force upon us the belief, that all things are 
 Caesar's. 
 
 We allow that it is not so easy to draw the line between 
 these two classes of duties, and yet, in the spirit of christian 
 honesty and a sincere patriotism, we should be willing to make 
 the attempt. 
 
 All will admit that Christ and his apostles, in laying down 
 rules for human conduct, have given us general, rather than 
 specific commands. In interpreting them we are bound to 
 look at the spirit as well as the letter, and to consider their 
 mutual relations as well as the bearing of each particular in- 
 junction. For example, if we take the command, " Submit 
 yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake," 
 literally, as some writers have done, it proves too much — proves 
 that every ordinance which human governments may enact, 
 even such as forbid christian worship, and command that divine 
 honors be paid to idols, must be obeyed. Enforce it to the 
 very letter, and you must condemn the three Jews who refused 
 to bow down and worship the golden image which Nebuchad- 
 nezzar had set up. You must pronounce their solemn declar- 
 ation, " Be it known to thee, King-, that we will not serve 
 thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set 
 up," as open rcbelUon. You must condemn Daniel for dis- 
 obeying the ordinance of King Darius, and persisting in going 
 to his chamber, and, with his window open, kneeling upon his 
 knees three times a day, and praying and giving thanks to God, 
 "as he did aforetime." For the laAV of the Medes and Per- 
 sians was as sacred and unchangeable as the constitution of 
 
9 
 
 the United States, and agitation was as much to be feared in 
 Babylon, as it now is in the city of Boston. You must con- 
 demn, also, Peter and John for not obeying the Jewish Sanhe- 
 drim, who had commanded them not to speak at all, nor to 
 teach in the name of Jesus." You must regard their reply 
 to the "proper authorities" as containing the very essence of 
 rebellion ; for they answered, " Whether it be right in the 
 sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge 
 ye ; for we carmot but speak the things that we have heard 
 and seen." You must commend the course and applaud the 
 patriotism of Judas for obeying the following ordinance (John 
 xi. 57) : " Now both the chief priests and Pharisees had 
 given commandment that if any man knew where he [Christ] 
 was, he should shew it, that they might take him." This law 
 the other apostles had too much "conscience" to obey. They 
 were unable to so far "conquer their prejudices," and blunt 
 their sense of right and justice, as to discharge this "disagree- 
 able duty ;" although Peter did succeed, after Christ was 
 arrested, in denying in an emphatic manner that he had any 
 thing to do Avith this disturber of the peace. But Judas, 
 with an alacrity worthy of some of his successors, fulfilled to 
 the very letter his "constitutional obligations." Having heard 
 of the law, "he went unto the chief priests, and said unto 
 them. What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you ? 
 And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver." 
 In fulfilling his agreement you will observe that he proceeded 
 with great exactness "according to the law." If he knew 
 where Christ was, he w^as simply "<o shew it^'' that he might 
 be taken. He was not called upon to use any force or violence 
 himself. The "disagreeable duty" was made as agreeable as 
 possible. He was simply to indicate by a sign which of the 
 company was Christ, and the soldiers, who had come armed 
 to execute the law, would attend to the rest. And if any 
 conscientious person at that time had charged him for this act 
 with being "the son of perdition," and asserted that "the devil 
 had entered into him," he would have been materially aided in 
 his reply, by language which is used in reference to the binding 
 
10 
 
 authority of human law, in several of the recent Thanksgiv- 
 ing (!) sermons Avhich have been published. 
 
 From these, and other instances which we might adduce, it 
 is evident, that in interpreting and expounding the teachings 
 of the Bible, we are to exercise our reason and common sense, 
 comparing precept with precept, and deducing from the whole 
 instruction to guide us in all the duties of life. The Gospel, 
 while it teaches submission to every ordinance of man, also 
 teaches submission to every ordinance of God ; and Chris- 
 tianity, while it is the most powerful supporter of good gov- 
 ernments, is, at the same time, the most formidable foe of bad 
 governments that the world has over seen. 
 
 But we hasten to point out the relations of conscience to 
 human and divine government. And we start with this gen- 
 eral proposition : — 
 
 1. Human governments are of divine appointment, and 
 hence are entitled to our respect and obedience. This truth 
 is clearly stated and enforced by St. Paul in his epistle to the 
 Romans, xiii. 1. " The powers that be are ordained of God. 
 Whosoever therefore resisteth the poAver, resisteth the ordi- 
 nance of God ; and they that resist shall receive to themselves 
 damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to 
 the evil." In his epistle to Titus, iii. 1, he says — " Put them in 
 mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey mag- 
 istrates, to be ready to every good work." St. Peter enforces 
 the same duty — 1st Epistle, ii. 13, 14 — " 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 them that 
 are sent by him for the punishment of evil doers, and for the 
 praise of them that do well." Christ, the highest authority, 
 says — " Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are 
 Cpesar's." 
 
 In these and other passages we find the doctrine which we 
 have laid down, stated in an explicit and unqualified manner. 
 The divine origin of government is presented as the ground of 
 our obedience, and severe penalties are threatened against 
 those who resist "the powers that be," 
 
11 
 
 What shall be the/wmof the government, whether a mon- 
 archy, an oligarchy, or a republic, is not stated. Whether we 
 are in France under Louis the Sixteenth, or Napoleon Bona- 
 parte ; or in England under Charles the First, or Oliver Crom- 
 well ; or in America under George the Fourth, or President 
 Washington ; — we are equally bound to "submit to every or- 
 dinance of man, for the Lord's sake." This is the general 
 law. The inspired writers do not stop to give us any excep- 
 tions, nor to instruct us how to demean ourselves in times of 
 revolution, or when a usurper takes the throne, or when a 
 "reign of terror" is established, and a Robespierre seizes 
 the reins of government, or when wicked laws are passed, — 
 such as Nebuchadnezzar, King Darius, King Herod, and 
 afterwards the Scribes and Pharisees enacted — such as the 
 bloody Charles the Ninth, of France, and the bloody Mary, of 
 England, established — and such as the American Congress has 
 recently enacted. Our conduct in such circumstances is left 
 to be regulated by the dictates of a sound judgment and an 
 enlightened conscience. If these are not to be our guides, 
 pray let those who are so zealous in undermining the "right of 
 private judgment" tell us by what we are to be governed ! 
 Let us see what light we can get from these teachers. A 
 distinguished Presbyterian divine, of Brooklyn, N. Y., says, 
 on the authority of the passages of Scripture that we have 
 cited, " The texts before me are His [God's] law. If one 
 man has a moral right, either cunningly to evade, or openly to 
 violate law, under such pleading, then another man has the 
 same right to violate another law, and thus any villany on 
 earth may be perpetrated under the sacred names of 'con- 
 science' and 'the higher laws of God.' Nothing is safe in the 
 hands of men of such principles. These principles undermine 
 the foundation of all society among men!^' 
 
 Another Doctor of Divinity says, "A man has no more 
 control over the law, so as to take upon himself to say whether 
 it ought to be obeyed or not, after it is once passed, than he 
 has over his own sign-manual when he has given it to a bond or 
 deed of conveyance ; and no more under a republican than' 
 
12 
 
 under tlie most despotic foiin of government." Another cler- 
 gyman, in Maine, says, "Over all such [foreigners and na- 
 tives] servants and minors, as well as others, the sceptre of 
 this nation stretches, and requires obedience. Nor is there 
 any room for hesitancy, for conflict, or collision here. The 
 constitutionality or unconstitutionality of any given law of 
 our National Congress is not left to the judgment of any state 
 or any individual. Private opinion is not the tribunal to decide 
 any such questions." "We might quote other passages of a 
 similar character. Now imagine this doctrine, as thus stated, 
 read in the hearing of the mother of Moses, as she is hiding 
 her infant son from the cruel laws of Pharaoh, or in the hear- 
 ing of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, as they are walking 
 in the fiery furnace for disobeying the laws of their king, or 
 in the hearing of Daniel while in the den of lions for disobe- 
 dience, or read to the wise men who, after having searched 
 diligently for "the young child," disobeyed the king's orders 
 to return, and "departed into their own country another way," 
 or read to Peter and John when they were forbidden to preach 
 in the name of Christ ; what reply would they have made ? 
 "Would they not have said, " "Wliether it be right in the sight 
 of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." 
 It is plain, therefore, that there are exceptions to the gene- 
 ral rule laid down by the Apostles — that there is a dividing 
 line beyond which obedience to man would be treachery to 
 God. On which side of this line the fugitive slave law lies, 
 we shall consider hereafter. "We are at present concerned 
 with general principles, and we would contend as earnestly as 
 any one for obedience to civil enactments. We would have 
 human laws respected, reverenced, obeyed. We would have 
 every American citizen "render unto all their dues ; tribute 
 to whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear to whom 
 fear ; honor to whom honor." But we would not take any 
 one precept or principle of the Bible, and run it to such ex- 
 tremes, as to ride over the consciences and moral sense of the 
 community. We would not be so full of zeal to " honor the 
 Icing," as to utterly neglect to "fear God." 
 
ir, 
 
 We have eaid that tlie funn of govcnimcut was not pre- 
 scribed in the Scriptures. We may add that the doctrine so 
 earnestly advocated in Europe and by tyrants generally, of 
 the "divine right of Kings," is far from receiving any sanc- 
 tion from the Bible. This doctrine has for ages been made 
 use of to perpetuate one form of civil government, to enforce 
 the most unjust and cruel laws under the sanction of religious 
 authority, and to denounce the spirit of revolution as impiety 
 and atheism. In the time of Henry VIII., Cranmer main- 
 tained the position "that God had immediately committed to 
 Christian princes the whole cure of all their subjects, as well 
 concerning the administration of God's word for the cure of 
 souls, as concerning the ministration of things political." 
 James I. planted himself upon this doctrine, and frequently 
 alarmed his parliament, and enraged the people, by his arro- 
 gant claims to supreme and unlimited authority. Bishop 
 Horsely and the philosopher Hobbes wrote with great zeal in 
 favor of the divine right of kings, and maintained that those 
 who resisted them were guilty of rebellion against God. This 
 principle, we readily see, closed the door against all improve- 
 ment in government, condemned every Christian patriot who 
 conscientiously refused to yield to the unjust requirements of 
 despotism, and branded every revolution as an outbreak of 
 impiety. 
 
 The opposite doctrine, that government is destitute of all 
 divine authority, and rests solely upon the social compact into 
 which subjects have entered for mutual protection and advan- 
 tage, is also, in my view, erroneous. The idea is here, that 
 we voluntarily surrender certain rights for the better security 
 of other rights, and that our obligations to obey the laws grow 
 out of the contract into which we have entered. Under this 
 theory, the existence of government itself depends upon the 
 votes of the people, and it can reach their consciences only so 
 far as they have given to it their personal and voluntary sanc- 
 tion. Such a basis for government all must allow is too inse- 
 cure, fluctuating and weak, to secure the ends of civil author- 
 ity. But admit that government is a divinely appointed 
 
14 
 
 institution, and that men are bound to render allegiance to the 
 civil poAver as a religious duty, and you, at once, place govern- 
 ment upon a firm basis. You establish it upon the same 
 foundation, upon which the institutions of marriage and the 
 church, rest — and secure for it the support of all who consci- 
 entiously regard the will and authority of God. 
 
 2. Human government grows out of the nature and condition 
 of man, and is indispensable to the welfare of society. The 
 Creator, having made us social beings, and rendered our 
 highest happiness dependent upon our living in communities 
 rather than in an insulated state, it is obvious that there must 
 be certain principles of action, to which we all must conform. 
 There must be laws to define the rights and protect the fives, 
 property and reputation of each subject ; to encourage indus- 
 try, promote education, defend virtue, and bring criminals to 
 justice. Without just and wholesome laws, society, in any 
 desirable state, could not exist. No progress could be made 
 in civilization, in knowledge, in the development of man's 
 intellectual and moral powers. And in a community where 
 there is the highest reverence for just laws, and a disposition 
 manifested to protect the rights and interests of all the sub- 
 jects, there we find the highest state of civilization. There 
 the arts flourish, trade increases, commerce is extended, insti- 
 tutions of learning are established, and the greatest number 
 of the comforts and blessings of life are enjoyed by the great- 
 est number of the people. But break down the laws of a 
 nation, and the reign of anarchy is at once established. Self- 
 ishness in its worst form, becomes the ruling passion in each 
 breast. Liberty is crushed. Property and life have no secu- 
 rity. The fountains of happiness are dried up, and wretched- 
 ness becomes the portion of society. Even those who bid 
 defiance to law, and break away from all the restraints of 
 n-overnment, are forced to frame one for themselves. Thieves 
 and pirates must organize and enact their laws with penalties, 
 else they could accomplish nothing. We readily see, therefore, 
 that the maintenance of law, lies at the foundation of all our 
 blessings, civil, social and religious. And in a country like 
 
15 
 
 ours, where we must depend for obedience to tlie law iipon 
 the consciences of the people, rather than upon physical force 
 and standing armies, it is of the first importance that reve- 
 rence for law be held inviolable. Every blow that is struck 
 against this reverence, falls, in fact, upon the government, and 
 puts in jeopardy the stability of our institutions, and the high- 
 est interests of the nation. Nor could our government pursue 
 a more suicidal course, than to enact such laws as tend to 
 lower the standard of reverence for law. To array itself 
 against the consciences of the people, is to occupy a position 
 of vast responsibility and peril. For in proportion as conscience 
 is Aveakened, its dictates trampled in the dust, its solemn voice 
 silenced, in the same proportion does the government lose its 
 power. Its right arm is palsied, when conscience ceases to be 
 the guide of the people. Did our government rest upon bay- 
 onets, and were we under a system of military despotism, the 
 case would be different. But in a christian republic like ours^ 
 the integrity of conscience and the stability of the government 
 stand or fall together. The latter cannot exist a day without 
 the former. As well might a despot array himself against his 
 body-guard, or a Napoleon rush upon his own soldiers, as for 
 our government to bid defiance to the conscience of the nation. 
 It is obvious that if conscience is weakened on one point, it 
 is weakened on all points. The standard of morality is lowered, 
 and the very existence of our institutions is endangered. 
 Professor Park, in his recent eloquent and able Election Ser- 
 mon, very justly says — " There is also a present danger, that, 
 for the purpose of making men obedient to law, they will be 
 encouraged to disown the authority of their moral sense ; but 
 this is a suicidal policy, for when men are encouraged to trifle 
 with their moral sense in one sphere, they will soon do it in 
 every sphere of life, and thus disregard its injunctions of obe- 
 dience to the civil- law." Besides, let the "right of private 
 judgment" be denied, and we inust fight over again the bat- 
 tles of the Reformation. We must struggle anew for the very 
 principle for Avhich the Protestant Church so long contended 
 against the Papal authorities of Europe — a yirinciple 
 
IG 
 
 ii'liich is the very essence of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 The eminent statesman, from whom we have already quoted, 
 used, some years since, the following language in reference to 
 the point before us : — 
 
 " The subject [slavery] has not only attracted attention as 
 a question of politics, but it has struck a far deeper-toned 
 chord. It has arrested the religious feeling of the country ; 
 it has taken strong hold on the consciences of men. He is a 
 rash man indeed, and little conversant with human nature, and 
 especially has he a very erroneous estimate of the character 
 of the people of this country, who supposes that a feeling of 
 this kind is to be trifled wdth or despised. It will assuredly 
 cause itself to be respected. It may be reasoned Avith, it may 
 be made willing. I believe it is entirely willing to fulfil all 
 existing engagements and all existing duties. * * * * But ^q 
 coerce it into silence, to endeavor to restrain its free expres- 
 sion, to seek to compress and confine it, warm as it is, and 
 more heated as such endeavors would inevitably render it, 
 should all this be attempted, I know nothing, even in the Con- 
 stitution or the Union itself, Avhich Avould not be endangered 
 by the explosion which might follow."* 
 
 Mark this language. Ponder over it. Test its truth by 
 reason, facts, and experience. Let the whole nation listen to 
 the earnest, truthful words of one of its most distinguished 
 and eloquent statesmen. He says seriously, emphatically, 
 that, if conscience is coerced into silence, if the endeavor is 
 made "to restrain its free expression, to seek to compress and 
 confine it, warm as it is, and more heated as such endeavors 
 would inevitably render it," he knows ^^notJiing, even in the 
 Constitution, or in the Union itself, which would not be en- 
 dangered hy the explosion which might folloiv.''^ 
 
 3. We are prepared now to remark, that while human 
 government is of divine appointment, and is essential to the 
 very existence of society, yet it has no power to require its 
 subjects to commit sin. To this position, I presume, every 
 good man will cordially assent. There can be no dispute as 
 to the general statement that government has no authority to 
 compel us to do wrong. Our first and highest duty is that 
 which we owe to God. His government has the first claim to 
 
 •Webster's Speeches, Vol. Ill, p. 144. 
 
17 
 
 our regard and our obedleuce. Tlie greatest of all legislators 
 has said, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
 heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the 
 first and great counnandment. And the second is like unto it. 
 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two com- 
 mandments hang all the law and the prophets." Any human 
 law, therefore, that conflicts with either of these two great 
 enactments, cannot be binding upon the consciences of men* 
 To maintain the contrary of this, is to attempt to overthrow 
 the government of Heaven. It is to place human constitutions 
 above the Constitution of God's moral universe. It i« to value 
 the union of these states, above the Union of the millions of 
 worlds, that comprise the Kingdom of the Supreme Lawgiver 
 and Judge. 
 
 But the question arises, who is to decide as to whether any 
 particular human law is right or wrong ? This is indeed the 
 important question, in the controversy before us. Let us look 
 at it carefully. Let us inquire w'hether there is a tribunal 
 before which the question can be safely tested and satisfacto- 
 rily settled. Shall the law-makers decide it ? But to leave it 
 to them, is virtually to admit their infallibiUty, and to give up 
 the point at issue. Shall wo. trust the matter Avith judges and 
 juries in a court of law ? We may respect their decisions, 
 but our relations to the Divine Government imperatively de- 
 mand that we decide the question for ourselves. Our guide 
 must be an enlightened conscience. "We must decide neither 
 rashly, nor hastily, nor under the influence of prejudice or 
 passion, but in the fear of God, and conscious of our respon- 
 sibility to him, for the faithful discharge of our civil .dutieg. 
 And here I would remark, that among all the C/<rjs/i(Wi. writers 
 that I have met with, who, in discussing this question, have 
 denied the right of private judgment, I have not found one 
 who, in the course of his reasoning, has not fully acknowledged 
 it. Under the influence of zeal to sustain or apologize for ^ 
 particular obnoxious law, they have rashly taken positions, froi»i 
 which, in other parts of the controversy, under the Jight .of 
 God's truth, they have been glad to retreat. I ^night ci,te 
 
18 
 
 troDi these writers, instances, of the most palpable contradic- 
 tions — contradictions which these good men are not conscious 
 of making, but into which they fall from carelessly making 
 statements under the influence of one class of ideas or truths, 
 without considering at the time their bearing upon other 
 classes of truths. 
 
 But those who persist in denying all right of private judg- 
 ment, I would ask, if a man is not to follow the guidance of 
 an enlightened conscience, what shall he follow ? If his rea- 
 son and judgment and sense of right and wrong are not to 
 govern him, pray, what shall govern him ? 
 
 Two years since, the supremacy of conscience in the dis- 
 charge of our civil and religious duties, would not have been 
 called in question by a single respectable writer in our country. 
 And it is only because this viceroy of Heaven's King in the 
 soul, stands in the way of the extension and perpetuity of an 
 enormous evil, that wicked men are designing to shatter it, 
 and some good, but deluded men, are laboring to smother its 
 dictates. 
 
 What say the wise and patriotic of past ages upon this 
 principle ? John Adams, writing to his son John Quincy Ad- 
 ams, ia the year 1782, says : — 
 
 " Your conscience is the minister plenipotentiary of God 
 Almighty in your breast. See to it that this minister never 
 negotiates an vain. Attend to him in opposition to all the 
 .courts in the world." 
 
 John €alvin, iu speaking of the limitation of our duty to 
 human government, remarks : — 
 
 " In the obedience which we have shown to be due to the 
 SAiithority of governors, it is always necessary to make one 
 exoeptaon, and that is entitled to our first attention — that it 
 do not seduce us from our obedience to Him, to whose will the 
 desires of a!l kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees all 
 their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty all their 
 sceptres ought to submit. And, indeed, how preposterous it 
 would be for us, with a view to satisfy men, to incur the dis- 
 pleasure of Him <m whose account we yield obedience to men ! 
 The Lord, therefore, is the King of kings ; who, when he hath 
 opened his sacred mouth, is to be heard alone, above all, for 
 all, and before all ; in the next j^ce., we are subject to those 
 
19 
 
 men who preside over us ; hut no otherwise than in Hiin. If 
 they command any thing against him, it ought not to have the 
 least attention ; nor, in this case, ought we to i)ay any regard 
 to all the dignity attached to magistrates ; to which no injury 
 is done when it is suhjected to the unrivaled and supreme 
 power of God." 
 
 Jonathan Edwards the younger, whose logical skill, pro- 
 found learning and deep piety no one will dispute, lays down 
 the following principles : — 
 
 " 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 mcm,^ for so it is in the original. 
 So that the apostle here 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. * * * 
 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's service." — [Works, vol. ii. pp. 244-5. 
 
 President Wayland thus disposes of the whole question. In 
 his elements of Moral Science, p. 366, speaking of unrighteous 
 laws, he says : — 
 
 ^^Passive obedience, in many cases, would be manifestly 
 wrong. We have no right to obey an unrighteous law, since 
 we must obey God at all hazards." 
 
 He then discountenances ^^Besistance by force^'' and re- 
 commends ^^ Suffering in the cause of riglit.''^ 
 Let us listen to the opinion of Robert Hall : — 
 " The limits of every duty must be determined by its rea- 
 sons, and the only ones assigned here [Romans xiii.], or that 
 can be assigned, for submission to civil authority, are its 
 tendency to do good; wherever, therefore, this shall cease to 
 be the case, submission becomes absurd, having no longer 
 any rational view. But at what time this evil shall be judg- 
 ed to have arrived, or what remedy it may be proper to 
 apply, Christianity does not decide, but leaves to be deter- 
 mined by an appeal to natural reason and right." 
 
 Professor Hodge, in his comments on Romans xiii. savs i 
 
20 
 
 " The obedience which the Scriptures command us to 
 render to our rulers is not unlimited ; there are cases in 
 ■which disobedience is a duty. This is evident, first, from 
 the very nature of the case. The command to obey mag- 
 nstrates is, from its nature, a command to obey them as 
 magistrates in the exercise of their rightful authority. 
 They are not to be obeyed as priests or as parents, but 
 ■as civil rulers. * * * No command to do any thing moral- 
 ly wrong can be binding ; nor can any which transcends 
 the rightful power of the authority whence it emanates. 
 What that rightful authority is, must be determined by the 
 institutions and laws of the land, or from prescription and 
 usage, or from the nature and design of the office with Avhich 
 the magistrate is invested. The right of deciding on all these 
 points, and determining where the obligation to obedience 
 •ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the na- 
 ture of the case, rest with the subject, and not with the ruler. 
 The Apostles and early Christians decided this point for them- 
 selves, and did not leave the decision with the Jewish or Roman 
 authorities. Like all other questions of duty, it is to be de- 
 cided on our responsibility to God and ovir fellow men." 
 
 We might, did our limits allow, cite many other authorities 
 equally clear and decisive. 
 
 But it is admitted by many who sustain the fugitive slave 
 bill, that in matters of religious worship, we are not bound by 
 the restraints of human government, while in all other res- 
 pects, there is no course left to us, but that of active obedience 
 to the civil law. 
 
 W^ere our religious duties confined to acts of worship, and 
 were we able to meet all the requirements of God hy adoring 
 and praising Him, this proposition would be a correct one. 
 But is it true, that after we have worshipped God, we are 
 bound on the authority of the Bible to render blind and im- 
 plicit obedience to every human law ? Suppose that I am 
 living under a government that enacts two laws, one requiring 
 mc, under heavy penalties, to abandon christian worship, and 
 bow down to idols, — and the other requiring me, under heavy 
 penalties, to aid in putting chains upon a panting fugitive, 
 and returning him to a cruel and unjust bondage. We will 
 suppose that, as a conscientious man, I have adopted as the 
 
21 
 
 rule of my life, the two great laws whicli Christ laid down, 
 requiring me to love God supremely, and my neighbor Jis my- 
 self. I have also, we will suppose, clear and discriminating 
 views of my civil duties, of the importance of sustaining hu- 
 man government, of the evils of rebellion, and the horrors of 
 a state of anarchy. I am no fanatic, no rc1)cl,no disnnionist. 
 I love my country, I reverence law, I believe that government 
 is of divine appointment, and that "whosoever resisteth the 
 power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist 
 shall receive to themselves damnation." This is my political 
 creed — orthodox enough surely. But what shall I do ? Shall 
 I neglect christian worship, and bow down to idols ? All 
 Christendom thunders out. No. The most furious and ultra 
 supporters of slavery and the fugitive slave bill say. No. But 
 why ? Is not this an ordinance of man, and am I not bound 
 to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ? 
 But I am told that this is contrary to the law of God, and that 
 when human laws contravene the Divine Law, the latter must 
 be obeyed. Then there is a "• higher law," is there? In 
 accordance with this advice, I continue my christian worship, 
 and refuse to bow down to the idols. But as I am passing 
 out of the church, where I have solemnly renewed the dedi- 
 cation of myself to God, and among other petitions, prayed 
 that I may do good unto all men, and love my neighbor as 
 myself, I encounter an officer, who commands me to aid him 
 in fastening chains upon a man whose only guilt is, a love of 
 freedom. I have been taught to believe that man could not 
 hold as property his fellow man, that slavery is a sin, that God 
 abhors it. I have conscientious scruples in relation to this 
 matter — "prejudices," if you please to term them such, which 
 I cannot "conquer." I have just heard in the church, per- 
 haps, a solemn exposition of the following passages of Scrip- 
 ture — " Then shall he say to them on the left hand. Depart 
 from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepai-ed for the devil 
 and his angels. For I was an hungered, and ye gave me no 
 meat ; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a 
 stranger, and ye took me not in ; naked, and ye clothed me 
 
22 
 
 not ; iiick and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall 
 they also answer him saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hun- 
 gered, or athirst, or naked, or ack, or in prison, and did not 
 minister imto thee ? Then shall he answer them, saying, Ver- 
 ily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the 
 least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away 
 into everlasting punishment." I am stinick with the applica- 
 tion of the passage to the present case : a poor christian ser- 
 vant, hungry, thirsty, a stranger in this free state ; poorly 
 clad ; sick from fatigue ; on his way to prison. What shall I 
 do ? Shall I leave my religion in the church, and aid in fast- 
 ening on the chains ? Shall I go to politicians for advice ? 
 The Lord deliver me from their standard of religious duty ! 
 Shall I go to some editors of newspapers, a self-constituted 
 ecclesiastical hierarchy, who are dictating to churches what 
 they must do, and to clergymen what they must preach ? 
 Shall I go to some Doctors of Divinity, whose "politics and 
 the pulpit" is of that innocent kind, that will neither endanger 
 the Union, disturb the slumbers of the most ambitious aspirant 
 for the presidential chair, nor provoke the wrath of the most 
 noisy pro-slavery demagogue in the country ? These men are 
 indeed prepared to afford me relief. They deny to me the 
 "right of private judgment " in the case. They declare that 
 the laws of the land are supreme. They are prepared to 
 reason away all scruples of conscience, and solemnly urge me 
 to d\scha.Tge ^Hhe disac/reeable duty. ^^ Shall I do it'/ With 
 God, and His angels, and millions of freemen as witnesses, 
 shall I put on the chains, and sink a fellow man into the depths 
 and horrors of southern slavery ? The heavens and the earth 
 shall jMss awaij first. With the Bible in my hand, and chris- 
 tian vows on my lips, and christian hopes in my heart, I can- 
 not do this great wickedness and sin against God. I can en- 
 dure the penalty. I can submissively suffer wrong, but no 
 earthly power can compel me, or any other man, to do wrong. 
 I will offer no forcible resistance to the officers of government. 
 But to obey their orders in this case would be treason against 
 -conscience, against humanity, against justice, against God, 
 
But let us look at the course which christians, in different 
 periods of the world, Have pursued when human laws have 
 conflicted with the Divine Law. Soon after the establishment 
 of Christianity, its converts, as well as other citizens, were 
 commanded to enlist in the army, and march against the ene- 
 mies of their country. This was not a case of worship, but 
 one calculated to test the application of conscience to other 
 matters. These early christians had before them the solemn 
 injunctions of the Apostles, in reference to the duties that we 
 owe to civil rulers. But we find that they regarded war as 
 contrary to the principles and precepts of the Gospel, and 
 consequently refused to fight. For nearly three centuries, 
 while the purity of the christian religion was preserved, this 
 sentiment was avowed and maintained by the champions for 
 itbe truth. Justin Martyr, Clemens of Alexandria, Tatian, 
 Tertul'lian, Cyprian, and a multitude of others, declared that 
 sao christian could lawfully bear arms. They took the ground 
 that the followers of the Prince of Peace could under no cir- 
 cumstances be justified ia using "the implements of war ;" 
 and Origen informs us, that in a part of the Roman army, con- 
 sisting of several legions, "not a christian could be found." 
 
 So conscientious were these christians on this point, that 
 they preferred to suffer the penalty rather than violate "the 
 higher law." Some chose martyrdom even, rather than obey 
 the law requiring them to fight. " Maximilian, as related in 
 the Acts of Ruinart, was brought before the tribunal to be 
 enrolled as a soldier. On the pro-consul's asking his name, 
 Maximilian replied, * I am a christian, and cannot fight.' It 
 was however ordered that he should be enrolled ; but he re- 
 fused to serve, still alleging that he was a christian. He was 
 immediately told that there was no alternative between bear- 
 ing arms and being put to death. But his fidelity was not to 
 be shaken. ' I cannot fight,' said he, ' if I die.' He contin- 
 ued steadfast to his principles, and was consigned to the exe- 
 cutioner."* 
 
 Marcellus, a centurion in the legion called Trajana, while 
 
 *S«f Peiu-« Manual, p. IM, &c. 
 
24 
 
 holding Ills commission became a christian, and believing with 
 others that he could no longer consistently engage in war, 
 threw down his belt at the head of his legion, and declared 
 that he wonld serve no longer. He was committed to prison, 
 3^et remained steadfast to his christian principles. " It is not 
 lawful," he said, "for a christian to bear arms, for any earth- 
 ly consideration," and he was in consequence put to death. 
 
 We might cite other instances of a similar character, in 
 which martyrdom was preferred to a violation of conscience. 
 
 In Germany, in the time of Luther — in France, in the time 
 of Calvin — and in England, in the time of the Puritans — we 
 have abundant evidence of the authority of the "higher law." 
 
 But we are told that unless we submit to the fugitive slave 
 law, we endanger the Union. Is it then true that if I, as a 
 conscientious man, prefer to suffer the penalty rather than aid 
 in the execution of this law, that the Union must perish ? Is 
 this Union so frail a thing that my sitting quietly six months 
 in a prison, and paying cheerfully a fine of a thousand dollars 
 will shatter it into atoms ? 
 
 Besides, have we in this matter no other power to fear, but 
 the slave-holding power ? Do men dream that satisfying the 
 South will secure the perpetuity of the Union ? Is there not 
 a Sovereign over and above all, whose prophet has said, "the 
 nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish ; yea, 
 those nations shall be utterly wasted." Shall I not, by com- 
 mitting sin, fear to provoke Him, who by a breath can blast 
 this nation, and number it with the wrecks of other nations 
 that have defied His authority ? So called patriots may, by 
 compromising with the tremendous evils of slavery, and 
 silencing the dictates of conscience, and trampling in the dust 
 the Divine LaAV, imagine that they are thus securing the safe- 
 ty and perpetuity of the nation. But " He that sitteth in the 
 Heavens shall laugh ; the Lord shall have them in derision." 
 
 I indeed tremble for the Union, and for the same reason 
 that alarmed Thomas Jefferson, when he said, in reference to 
 slavery, '''■Indeed, I tremble for my coimtry ivhen I reflect 
 ihat God h just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever .'" 
 
•Lo 
 
 when, from the fulness of his patriotic heart, he said, 'TZ/o 
 Almiglity has no attribute scinch can take side with ?^<? in •«?'<"/< 
 a contesty 
 
 In all seriousness, I would ask, are those men who sneer at 
 conscience, and deny to us the right of private judgment, and 
 ignore the Higher LaAV, atheists ? Do they not believe in a 
 God ? Do they not believe in a divine moral government, in- 
 stituted over and above all earthly governments — in a King in 
 whose hands "the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are 
 counted as the small dust of a balance ?" 
 
 Still we are told that the continued agitation of this subject 
 will disturb the peace of the country, and endanger the Union. 
 But how is it possible, I would ask, for American slavery and 
 American freedom to come in conflict, and no agitation be 
 produced ? How is it possible for us to have on the one hand 
 the tremendous evils of a cruel and disgraceful bondage, and 
 on the other, christian chui'ches, christian schools, and a chris- 
 tian literature, and yet the community remain perfectly calm ? 
 
 Besides, with all our zeal to extend liberty over Europe , and 
 enhghtenthe dark portions of the earth, if we cannot seriously 
 discuss the evils that are around us ; if we cannot adopt all 
 proper and legal means to secm"e the enactment of good laws, 
 and the repeal of bad ones ; if, when called upon to lay violent 
 hands upon a fellow man, and drag him back to his chains and 
 toil and degi*adation, we cannot express our objections to doing 
 such a villainous act ; if, besides performing this "disagreeable 
 duty" with alacrity, we are required to stop the throbbings of 
 conscience, and stifle any utterances that are struggling to 
 come forth from the humanity and Christianity within us, — then 
 are we all slaves, and it becomes us to look to our otcn chains. 
 Then are our enthusiastic boastings of freedom a mere phan- 
 tasm, our professed sympathy for the oppressed a mockery, 
 and our Declaration of Independence a satire upon American 
 liberty. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 899 049 3 
 
 L 
 
\ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 899 049 3