Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-09-04
duty of the citizen to obey the

and principles resulting from the whole re
yealed will of God, and may conclude, tina
these rules and principles are opposed to
law Of the country, and that he is Therefore
authorized and required to disobey it.
The reasoning, on which this position i
based, is unsound and the position itself il
unauthorized by the divine commandment.
and precepts.
Few persons could be found, who would
agree upon all the rules and principles result.
ing from the whole of the revealed will Of
God. Such rules and principles would be
different when presented by those who were
more or less highly endowed with intellectu-
al power, and by those whose minds were
more or less highly cultivated and trained to
profound, elaborate, and intricate courses oil
investigation and deduction and by those
who were more or less under the guidance OF
a correct moral sense and religious influence,
and who were more or less perfectly instruct.
ed in the divine precepts. These rules and
principles might be as numerous and various
as the degrees of mental power, of mental
cultivation, and of correct and moral reli-
gious instruction.
1t could not have been the intention Of the
divine Instructor to leave men in such a con-
dition, that when called upon to obey the
laws of their country, there should be found
no certain rule of conduct prescribed by Him,
applicable alike to all persons, and so clearly
made known that all persons of common ca
pacitv, who could read, or comprehend what
was read by Others, could understand and act
upon it. 1t must have been His intention to
a common and plain rule for all
classes of persons, or there would be no COM
mon and plain rule of duty.
When, therefore, a person can find no d.
rect and Dalpable conflict between divine
and human law, he is not at liberty 10 enter
upon an elaborate course of investigation and
inquiry, whether a rule cannot be deduced
by his ~scriptural studies and mental opera
tons, as resulting from the whole of the d.
vine precepts, which rule will be in conflict
with human laws, and to act upon this rule Of
his ownfHfaking.
Rules and principles thus deduced, are not
of God. They are the workmanship of man.
To pursue such a course is to set up a ruls of
ten elaborated from his own pride Of intellect
and of cultivation, or from self. will, or igno-
or fanaticism, in place of the divine
will, and to make it the foundation of a will
opposition to the regularly established
laws of the country.
1t is not intended to deny that such rules
may be useful, and may be used to determine
the moral duties of man, when those duties
are not plainly prescribed by divine or human
laws.
When one is required and obliged to dis
obey a human law, because it is opposed to
the plain letter and declaration of the divine
law, is he therefore authorized to oppose by
force the execution of the human law ? Ger
tainly not. 1t is his duty to disobey calmly
and quietly, without the least attempt to re-
sist, or otherwise to oppose the execution of
the human law by the officers appointed to
execute it. He is simply to disobey it, and
to abide the consequences of his di~sobedience,
whatever they may be, without any attempt
by force or violence, or by melting others to
use it, to prevent the full effect Of the penal
ty, imposed by the human law for its viola
ton, being inflicted upon his person or prop
erty.
The duty is plainly inculcated in the Scrip
lures not to oppose by force or violence the
laws OF an existing government irrespective oil
their character. 1t is ones duty to follow the
example of Daniel and refuse to worship Da-
RUS, and to follow his example also by sub.
hitting to go into the den of lions without
any attempt by force or violence to prevent
the execution of the law upon himself.
This is not a fit occasion to consider under
what circumstances a person may by the di.
vine law be permitted to overthrow an exist.
ing government by revolution, and these re.
marks are not applicable to such a question
Nor are they intended to question the righ'
OF every citizen to discuss with entire free.
dom the character of existing laws, and t.
show, that they permit or encourage mora
misconduct, and that they are otherwise un
wise or inexpedient, and that they ought {,
be altered or repealed.
Some persons attempt to justify their disc
bedience of human laws by asserting. tina
they cannot in conscience obey them.
The present occasion is not an ~appropriat
one to consider whether conscience may no
be the best guide for the determination o
mans moral duties, where the revealed will
OF God, respecting them is not aud canno
be known.
1t may be safely asserted, that conscience
is not to be relied upon as affording a correC
or sale RUE or duty Nre-rvvrIsL-LA.
the will of God has been made known.
The revealed will of God constitutes tn
rule of right and wrong. There can be moth
ing right, which is opposed to it nethin
wrong, which is in accordance with it.
Mans conscience during all his past his
tory has been frequently and greatly oppose
to it.
Mems consciences differ according as the.
moral and religious and mental ~instructio
has been more or less correct and thorough
The divine will, as plainly revealed an
made known in the Scriptures, has, in tn
manner already stated, determined man
duty respecting obedience and ~disobedienc
of human laws. 1t is the only perfect rul
of duty. No man can be assured, that h
own conscience does afford a perfect rule
He, that would substitute for the divine wi
the conscience of man, or his W corssienc,
would in effect cast away the Christian rel
gion as a rule of duty and unite himse
with those who may have 10 better or safe
guide than conscience, often blunted by tn
indulgence of pride, passion, self will, an
self-inter Isl, darkened by erroneous and pr,
vailing opinions and instructions, and blinC
ed by superstition and fanaticism. He, tn
would do this, knoweth not what manner
spirit he is of, or he would not attempt
thrust aside the revealed will of God as
rule of duty and to set mp his own conscien,
in its place. 1t is but an exhibition of sci
%conceit and of revolving presumption for al
man favored with a revelation Of the diviI
. will to present his own conscience as affor,
ing a more correct and infallible rule Of d
ty than the revealed will of God; or to que
ton the suficiency of the divine prccer
and to attempt to supply their defects by
voice within him.
1t is not intended to deny that the CO
> science of man was given to aid him in Il
discharge of his moral duties or that
should be used for that purpose. 1t shou
however occupy its proper position of a mo
itor to man, to walk in the right ways of t
: Lord, and it should not exalt itself to t
position of a revelator of the divine will.
When it attempts to do this, it displaces tn
revealed will, and usually becomes the rev
latOr of the self-will and perversity of ma