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

ton TO rights and conduct, and these differences
influence our views of what should be the legis-
ation Of the country. But there must in every
society be rule, one rule, as 10 the rights
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 suuendering
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 rule of con
duet, not a symbol of faith; it regulates, not the
opinions, but the actions of men.
1t is true that people have right, in eX-
IRENE cases ofobstlnate oppression, to resist the
rulers and the laws; but this is revolution, this
seeks to overturn an existing government as
utterly aithless to its trust, and 10 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 1t 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 forbidding 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 connections 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 had expressly
| forbidden, and, in the other, to iorbear doing
what he had expressly commanded and the
persons refusing suffered stripes or went to the
|
jocing that they were counted worthy to suffer
| in such a cause. And only in these and such
4 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
dence is duty-and not even in these
will Christian morality justify active resist
ance. All that christian can rightfully do
is to refuse obedience. and suffer for his re-
| fusal; but mobs-violence- arms-combinatio
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?
"Submit 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 tcrath, but also for
conscience sake Therefore, to submit is the
Christians duty; and when he resiSts he vic
lates his conscience. and puts himself in opposi-
.i0i dvd.
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?
1t was, to urge upon slaves active, cheerful
obedience faithful and dilgent service, to their
masters; and these "not only TO the good, bu,
also to the froward, - without an ntimation that
they ought or 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 a fugitive slave to his master.
This conduct Of the Apostles is conclusive
against the Rochester meeting and the doc
trnes put forth by it, Of the right and duty pos
itively to disobey the Fugitive Slave law For,
either the Apostles thought the institution OF
slavery in itself morally right, and, if so, the
whole doctrine Of the Rochester meeting is al
once refuted or they thought il not NOR
ally right, and if so, then it follows that it is
lawful and right for a Christian to 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 to advise and counsel an
escaped slave, as a christian duty, 10 return
and submit himself TO his master and, there
fore, Christian is not bound by christian duty
TO disobey law for restoring fugitive slaves 10
their masters. And il not bound TO disobey. il
follows that he is bound to obey, since the only
ground on which the right to disobey is placed
is the alleged rnmOrality Of the law in sup
porting the institution Of slavery and that be-
ing disproved byapostoic precept and example.
the duty Of obedience remains.
Upon the whole, we think it appears with
sufficient cleaness, from what we have said,
that if there be any thing in the laws 80 often
sive 20 our moral sense that we can nei
ther obey nor submit to them without con
sciousness Of guilt, we ought 10 remove 10
some country where the annoyance will not
meet us but that while we remain members Of
society, and ENJOY its protection for our per
sons and property, we cannot, without criminal
inconsistency, refuse to obey its laws, much