The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-28

and conduct of men considered as members Of
that society. What then remains but that we,
as citizens, submit to the common judgment
expressed in the laws ordained by the cOmpe-
tent authority? Submit, not by surrendering
the internal convictions Of our minds-that can
only be justly required or properly yielded to
reason and fair argument-but by outward
conformity to the law This is what is de-
manded, and this only; for law is a rule of con-
duet, not symbol oftaith; it regulates, not the
opinions, but the actions Of men.
1t is true that people have a right, in eX-
IRENE cases ofobstinate oppression, to resist the
rulers and the laws; but this is revolution, this
seeks 10 overturn an existing government as
utterly iaithless to its trust and to correct the
evil by depositing the public authority in other
hands, with better safeguards against abuse.
This case has no just connection with the sub
ject now under consideration, and may be dis
missed without further remark 1t is also true,
| that it may be the duty Of an individual, on
christian principles, to refuse obedience to a
particular law. We must ''obey God rather
| than men," and therefore, if the law requires
| us TO do something against the plain, express,
| revealed command of God lorbidding us to do it,
we not only may, but should, refuse TO obey.
| Thus the early Christians, being required to
offer idolatrous worship to the statues of the
Emperor, refused to obey. Again, the Apostles
having received an express command from their
Saviour TO preach in his name, continued to
preach, notwithstanding an arbitrary order of
the Sanhedrin against it. This was in one case
a mere offering Of passive Resistance mere
declining themselves to obey; and little more
in the other. No active resistance was in
either case thought ONO commotions were
stirred up-no forcible opposition resorted to
or recommendation attempt made to de-
fame or decry the governing power, or to
bring 1t into contempt or hatred with the
people. In one case there was a simple and
respectful refusal to do what God bad expressly
forbidden, and, in the other, to forbear doing
what he had expressly commanded and the
persons refusing suffered stripes or went to the
stake, not only without resisting but even re-
joicing that they were counted worthy to suffer
in such cause. And only in these and such
| like cases-of plain manifest certainty that
Gods law is against the human law-can
active obedience be refused according to the
theory of Christianity or the practice of the
early Christians. In all others, active ODE
dience is a duty-and not even in these
will Christian morality justify active resist
ance. All that a christian can rightfully do
is TO refuse obedience, and suffer for his re-
~,
to overpower the public authorities ,-these, and
all like these are modes and means of opposi-
ton, ever forbidden TO the Christian, and
ever immoral in their nature by the law Of
the Gospel. For what say the Scriptures?
"SuLmit TO every ordinance of man for the
Lords sake''-''He that resisteth the power re-
sisteth the ordinance Of God"-"'Ye must
needs be subject not only for rrath, but also for
conscience sake" Therefore, to submit is the
Christians duty; and when he rcsiSts he vic
lates his conscience, and puts himselfin oppos-
ton 60 Ovd
In accordance with this view was the whole
conduct Of the apostles and primitive Chris
tians. In respect particularly to this very sub
ject OF slavery, what was the apostolic course?
IL was, 10 urge upon slaves active. cheerful
obedience, faithful and diligent service, to their
masters; and these "not only 10 the good, bu,
also % the froward !" without an intimation that
they ought OF might, under any circumstances.
refuse submission to, or escape from the lawful
dominion Of their masters. and, in one remark
able instance. to counsel, if not TO command, the
return Of fugitive slave to his master.
This conduct Of the Apostles is conclusive
against the Rochester meeting and the doc
trines put forth by it, Of the right aud duty pos
itively to disobey the Fugitive Slave law. For,
either the Apostles thought the institution OF
slavery in itself morally right, and. if 50. the
whole doctrine Of the Rochester meeting is al
once refuted or they thought it not NOR
ally right, and, if So then it follows that it j.
lawful aud right for a Christian 10 perform him
self, and to support and enforce upon Others
the performance Of, the duties growing out Of an
existing institution Of society. though in itself
not morally right, and 10 advise and counsel an
escaped slave. as a christian duty. 20 return
and submit himself 10 his master and. there
fUre, Christian is not bound by christian duty
10 disobey a law for restoring fugitive slaves 10
their masters. And if not bound 10 disobey. ii
follows that he is bound 10 obey. since the only
ground on which the right 10 disobey is placed
is the alleged immortality Of the law in sup
porting the institution Of slavery and that be-
ing disproved byaposiolic preccpt and example.
the duty u obedience remains.
Upon the whole, we think it appears with
sufficient cleamess, from what we have said.
that Il there be any thing in the laws 80 often
sive 90 our moral sense that we can mel
Their obey nor submit to them without con
sciousness Of guilt, we ought 10 remove To-
some country where the annoyance will not
meet us; but that while we remain members Of
a society. and ENJOY It's protection for our per
sons and property, we cannot, without criminal
Inconsistency, refuse to obey its laws, much
less dishonor and insult the public authority by
active and ostentatious disobedicnce Such con
duct would be not less a violation Of the law Of
God than Of the laws Of the country; and.
thorcftre tho Rpchoefer c,nveufioy ,.h;,l