Title: The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law - A Sermon by Ichabod S. Spencer Preached In The Second Presbyterian - Church In Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 1850
Author: Spencer, Ichabod S.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law - A Sermon by Ichabod S. Spencer Preached In The Second Presbyterian - Church In Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 1850" ***


FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.

THE

Religious Duty

OF

OBEDIENCE TO LAW:

A

SERMON,

Preached in the Second Presbyterian Church

IN BROOKLYN, NOV. 24, 1850.

BY ICHABOD S. SPENCER, D.D.

NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY M.W. DODD,
BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL, CITY HALL SQUARE,
OPPOSITE THE CITY HALL.
1850.



TO THE REV. DR. SPENCER:

The undersigned having listened, with much pleasure and as we hope
profit, to the Sermon which you delivered yesterday morning, most
respectfully request a copy of the same for publication, believing
that much good may be done to the cause of Religion and Law, by the
dissemination of the truths expressed therein.

Brooklyn, Monday, Nov, 25, 1850.

JASPER CORNING,
FRANCIS H. ABBOTT,
LEBBEUS CHAPMAN,
F. DEMING,
GEORGE A. TALBOT,
A.M. FENBY,
THOMAS COCHRAN,
WM. BARBOUR,
J.B. WICKHAM,
SAMUEL HUTCHINSON,
WM. H. AMES,
L. HOPKINS,
JARVIS BRUSH,
S.N. BROWN,
GEORGE P. LORD,
H.K. CORNING,
THOS. BAYLIS,
W.K. BROWN,
M.S. GOODMAN,
JAS. WILDE, JR.,
GEO. A. TOWNSEND,
DAVID B. BAYLIS,
HENRY W. BARNES,
ELI MERRILL,
W.M. SANDS,
ISAAC OTIS,
ALANSON TRASK,
CHARLES CLARK,
JOHN T. LAWRENCE,
A.S. MARVIN,
WM. M. HARRIS,
R.R. FIELD,
SAMUEL T. HUBBARD,
RICHARD W. HUBBARD,
A.G. TRASK,
JOHN H. PRENTICE,
WALDO HUTCHINS,
E.L. BUSHNELL,
SUMNER STONE,
JOSEPH STEELE,
JAS. McLEAN,
J.C. MEEKER,
J.S. PIERSON,
A.G. JENNINGS, JR.,
B.W. DELAMATER,
W. SPENCER,
J.C. DURYEA,
A. CRITTENDEN,
HENRY ROWLAND,
WM. BULLARD,
JN. BULLARD, JR.

       *       *       *       *       *

To JASPER CORNING, Esq., AND OTHERS:

GENTLEMEN--The sermon which you have requested, prepared without a
single thought of its publication, and amid a pressure of other
duties, I submit to your disposal;--governed more by your judgment
than my own, in reference to its fitness for the press.

Yours, very truly,
I.S. SPENCER.

Brooklyn, Nov. 26, 1850.



SERMON.


     Titus, III. 1. Put them in mind to be subject to
     principalities and powers to obey magistrates, to be ready
     for every good work.

     Ro. xiii. 1-7. Let every soul be subject unto the higher
     powers. For there is no power but of God, 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: (harm, loss, or ruin).
     For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
     Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is
     good and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the
     minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which
     is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for
     he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
     him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not
     only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this
     cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God's ministers,
     attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore
     to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to
     whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.


There are two great classes of human duty. One of them embraces
duties which we owe to God, the other embraces duties which we owe
to men.

This classification of duties received the sanction of Jesus Christ,
when he spake of _loving the Lord our God with all our heart_, as
the spirit and sum of the one class of duties, and of _loving our
neighbor as ourselves_, as the spirit and sum of the other class of
duties. It had also been previously taught at Mount Sinai, when God
gave to Moses the two tables of the law--the one enjoining our duty
to God, the other enjoining our duty to man.

This classification of duties is not arbitrary. It is founded on
truth and nature. Men have relations to God, as their Creator,
Upholder, Governor, Redeemer, and rightful Judge; and they are bound
to recognize these relations, and feel and act accordingly. Men hold
relations to one another, as parents, children, citizens, rulers,
and subjects; and they are bound to recognize these relations, and
feel and act accordingly. Such is the will of God. Such is the law
of God. There can be no holiness in man aside from conformity to the
will of God in this thing.

This principle is carried out in all the teachings of the New
Testament, with an emphasis and a plainness which no candid and
unprejudiced mind can fail to understand. Jesus Christ has
incorporated it into his sermon on the mount in many particulars,
wherein he insists upon our social duties, while he teaches
religion. He preached this principle when he said, "render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that
are God's." He practised on this principle when he made the fish
bring in his mouth the tribute-money which, as a citizen, he owed to
the government of the country,--a government a thousandfold more
oppressive than ours.

It would be a fundamental error, if we were to maintain, that
_religion_ has nothing to do with the regulation of our conduct
towards one another,--as parents, as children, as magistrates,
subjects and citizens; but that it has left all that field of duty
to be regulated by the individual preferences of men. It has not
done so. Social duties come as really within the field of
_religious_ obligation, as any other duties. "The fifth commandment
requireth the preserving the honor and performing the duties
belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as
superiors, inferiors, and equals." As men, in any relationship we
hold, neighbors, citizens of the state, children, parents, or any
other earthly connection, religion extends its authority over us;
and our conduct in each one of these relationships constitutes a
part of our holiness or our sin.

God has not seen fit to enact special or particular laws for us, to
regulate our conduct in all respects, as here associated with one
another, and owing duties to one another, as neighbors, citizens of
the commonwealth, husbands, wives, and children. He has himself
enacted only _general_ laws for us,--laid down great general
principles, under the authority and light of which, he has left men
to regulate the particulars as they please, by the governments which
they establish.--only not contravening his great general principles
and laws.

He has himself made _all_ the laws which are needful, and all
which can be justly obligatory upon us in respect to _divine
worship_,--such duties as praise, prayer, preaching the gospel, and
observing the sacramental ordinances;--and no human authority may
either repeal these laws or add to them. But in respect to the
duties which we owe to our neighbor, that is, to our fellow-man, in
any relation he holds to us or can ever hold; God has left the most
of these duties to the authoritative decision of human governments.
He has thus made a difference betwixt these two classes of duties.
The reason for this difference seems to be this; namely, man's
wisdom can reach farther in ascertaining what is fit or right
betwixt him and his fellow-man, than in ascertaining what is fit or
right betwixt him and his God: and consequently, man can legislate
in respect to property, and other matters of human right, but not in
respect to prayer, and other matters of the first class of duties.
Moreover, in respect to worship, God is himself one of the parties.
The parties are not man and man, as they are in all social duties;
but they are man and God:--and therefore, it would seem but fit and
natural, that God should legislate _exclusively_ in respect to the
duties which we owe to _Him_, and more specifically, than in respect
to the duties which we owe to one another. Hence, we find it so.
Explicit divine law regulates all the _particulars_ of the one class
of duties; the _particulars_ of the other class of duties are left
to human law, or the regulations of human society.

But this latter class of duties, that is, our social duties, are
_not left_ to the _individual_ judgment or independent choice of
men, in such a sense, that they may obey or disobey human government
just as they please. Not in the least. Human government is by the
divine will. Obedience to it is obligatory upon men, by the will and
law of God. St. Paul directing Titus how to preach, (and therefore
directing all ministers of the gospel who come after him,) says to
him, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers,
to obey magistrates:" and I am doing it in this sermon. Human
government is of divine authority, not the _kind_, but the fact. And
consequently, our action about human government, our obedience to
it, and our disobedience, are as much matters of religion, and
coming under its authority and obligation, as are any other matters.
If religion had nothing to do with them, I would have nothing to do
with them here. But it _has_ something to do with them. Human
government is a divine ordinance. It is of divine authority. It is
_not_ a thing of mere human authority. Our _religion_, therefore,
our holiness and final salvation are concerned in our sentiments,
principles, and conduct in reference to human government. If God
_has_ left to men the choice of the _kind_ of government they will
have, he has _not_ left it to their choice whether they will _obey_
human government or not. He has commanded that obedience. Human
government and law are by the will of God. This is a religious
principle. And almost the entire sum of our second class of duties,
by the will of God, lies under the regulation of human government.
God has himself legislated in respect to the other class of duties.
Human government is founded on the revealed will of God.

The different expressions contained in the texts which we have just
read in your hearing, place this principle beyond all controversy.
Glance at them again. "Put them in mind to be subject to
principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." (I am doing so--I
am preaching gospel this morning.) "Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers. For there is no power but _of God_. The powers
that be, are ordained _of God_. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance _of God_. Rulers are not a terror to
good works, but to the evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt
have praise of the same, for he is a minister _of God_ to thee for
good." We are commanded to be "subject for conscience' sake."
Magistrates "are God's ministers."--What could be plainer?--This is
_religion_: not politics, but religion. Human government is
"ordained of God." Magistrates are "ministers of God," to whom men
are commanded to be "subject for conscience' sake."

This, therefore, settles the principle, on which obedience to human
government is the religious duty of men. There may be a point where
that obedience may justly stop, (a matter which we shall consider
soon;) but the great principle before us now is an important one,
namely, that human government and Law are things which exist by the
will of God, and men are bound to submit to them on that high
ground. This is the general rule. This is a _religious_ duty;
whatever exceptions we may be able to find sometimes, among the
diversities of human Law and human condition under it,--or when
human Law would interfere with the first class of our duties, which
God does not allow it to do. "The powers that be, are ordained of
God."

Let it, therefore, be carefully noticed, that no man or body of men
has any right to say, that they will be without government, without
Law, or that religion has nothing to do with the question of their
civil obedience to Law. Such obedience must _be a part_ of their
religion, or they cannot be Christians. It is a part of the _will
and ordinance_ of God.

Among politicians and statesmen, the idea of what they call "the
social compact" is a very familiar idea, and sometimes figures
largely. They mean by this, that there exists between the different
members of every civilized and orderly community, a tacit "compact"
or agreement, by which each individual tacitly or impliedly consents
to surrender some of his natural rights into the hands of the
community in general, or the hands of its government, in order to
have the power of the community in general, or power of its
government protect him in the enjoyment of others of his rights.
Thus, they tell us, that each man receives a benefit from the power
of society or government, which he could not secure by his
individual power, and receives it in return for the individual
natural rights, which he surrenders to the general society or
government: so that, on the whole, this "compact" between him and
the body politic is beneficial to him. For example, he might not be
able to defend his farm from the violence of unjust men, who might
deprive him of it; and so he procures the aid of civil government to
defend it for him, and in return for this benefit he consents that
his farm shall be taxed, and consents also to forego his personal
right to defend it himself in any manner he could, and let the
government defend it for him in their own way. So of all other civil
provisions, rights and duties under the civil government.
Politicians are accustomed to refer them all to "the social
compact."

I do not complain of this idea of a "social compact," when the idea
is presented merely as a justification of government, or as an
_explanation_ of the propriety, necessity and equity of Law. But
when it is presented as _the foundation_ on which civil government
reposes, though it may satisfy a citizen, it ought not at all to
satisfy a Christian. The truth is, there is no such "social
compact." The idea is only a fancy. Human government is not founded
on any such "social compact" at all. It either exists by force, or
it is founded on the will of God, in every case. Its _just_
foundation is the will of God. And when men are submitting to human
government, they are not to consider themselves as merely carrying
out the implied conditions of a "social compact;" but their duty is,
to consider themselves as submitting to an _ordinance_ of their God
and Maker. Human government is of a more high and sacred and solemn
character, than the mere idea of a "social compact" would make it.
God has something to do with it--much to do with it. His will is the
solid foundation on which it rests, (even though at first it may
have been established by force,) and every man is religiously bound
to regulate his obedience or disobedience to human government on
this divinely revealed principle. "The social compact" may be a very
good idea to employ for convincing an infidel in respect to the
right of Law; but it is too low and loose an idea for a Christian;
it falls far below the truth, and below the just solemnity of
obligation.

The _necessity_ of human Law results very much, if not entirely,
from the injustice of mankind. In no age since the fall of Adam, has
any considerable body of men been found so just and upright, that
civil Law could be dispensed with. The bad would do injustice to the
good, if it were not for Law, and those magistrates appointed by
Law, who are "a terror to evil doers." Conscience is not effective
in the breast of every sinner, and therefore Law must come in, to
hinder that injustice, which, without it, would not be hindered by
individual conscience, and to compel that righteousness which,
without it, individual conscience would fail to enforce. As
individual conscience becomes more stringent, civil Law may become
more lax. If men would be just towards one another of themselves,
there would be no necessity of human Law, to compel them to abstain
from injury and to perform their duties to one another.

Consequently, Law is a friend to the human race. It is the protector
of the good man; and it punishes the bad man, only for the purpose
of securing rights,--property, liberty and life. And even the bad
would be worse off a thousand fold than they are, if there were no
efficient Law to restrain them by its authority and sanctions.

The _importance_ of civil Law is vastly great. Its importance can
scarcely be exaggerated by any representation. The most of our
earthly happiness lies under the protection of human Law, and lies
there by the will of God. We have not an item of property, in land,
or houses, or goods, or chattels, or money, which the Law does not
guard for us; and we have very little indeed, which we could
effectually guard for ourselves. If this protecting, guarding Law is
not enforced,--if the Law is obstructed, or crippled, or baffled, or
violently set at naught; then, the security of civilized society is
gone, and our property, our liberty, our rights, privileges and
life, just lie at the mercy of every unjust man, and any violent and
excited band of the wicked!--So important to us is the potential
dominion and regular administration of Law.

Moreover our very rights in religion, our privilege to have the word
of God and read it, to worship God according to the dictates of our
own conscience, to preach the gospel and hear it, are rights and
privileges, which, in this unjust world, we could not enjoy for a
single year, aside from the protection and potential administration
of human government.

If this human government, the government of Law, cannot be
maintained, therefore, there is nothing on earth valuable to us,
which is secure for a single hour! If the Law cannot be enforced,
then government is at an end and anarchy reigns, and all is
confusion, uncertainty, and violence! Order, civilization,
Christianity is not safe!

There is indeed a _limit_ to the obedience due to human government.
Such government may become, and sometimes does become, so unjust,
oppressive, tyrannical, and cruel, as not to answer the designed,
and righteous, and beneficial purposes of government for a whole
people; and in such a case, it deserves no respect as an ordinance
of God, for it is then acting contrary to the will of God and the
necessity of society; and the injured and oppressed people may
justly rise in rebellion against such a government, and overthrow
it, if they can. But, let it be carefully remembered, that any
violent resistance is positive rebellion against the government; and
either that resistance must be crushed, or the government must be
overturned. There is no middle way--there can be none. In such a
case the whole authority and power of the government come into
direct hostility and conflict with the violence which resists the
execution of Law; and government must crush that violence, or that
violence must crush the government. A government is at an end, a
nullity, when it cannot execute its laws. Let it be carefully
remembered also, that violent resistance to Law cannot be justified,
when there is no righteous design to overthrow the government
itself; for no man owes a _half_-allegiance to government, or can
commit a _half_-high-treason; and besides, Law is too important and
delicate a thing to have its majesty trifled with, by the wicked
nonsense of a _half_-obedience. Let it be carefully remembered also,
that violent resistance to Law cannot be justified, when there is no
fair prospect of overthrowing the government, and being able to
establish a better one. To justify violent resistance to the laws,
it is not enough that the government is unjust and its laws
unrighteous; it is necessary also, that there should be no good
ground to hope for a cessation of that unrighteousness in some
peaceful way, and that there should be a prospect of some good to be
gained by the resistance, which good shall be worth more than all
the labor, and treasure, and strife, and blood, which the revolution
shall cost. Let it be carefully remembered, too, that violent
resistance on any one point is rebellion on every point, for "he
that offendeth in one point is guilty of all:" such resistance is
opposition by force to one entire government--is just a conflict
with the powers that be; so that any resisting individual or number
of individuals who commence a violent resistance on any one point,
have cast off their allegiance to the entire government, and stand
in the attitude of open and hostile rebellion.

It may not be an easy thing to settle the right of rebellion--to
determine the question, when a people have a right forcibly to
resist the execution of regularly enacted Law. But we _can_ tell
_something_ about it. There are some things perfectly clear on this
point.

1. To justify rebellion, (or what is the same thing, forcible
resistance of the laws,) a government must be so bad, as to fail
manifestly of its just end, that is, to promote the happiness of the
people. If it does promote that general happiness, it answers the
just end of government--it is a good government, and ought not to be
overthrown.

2. To justify rebellion, the injustice or failure of a government
must be so great, that it cannot be endured,--so great, that it will
manifestly be better on the whole, to run all the risks of a bloody
conflict, of civil war, than to endure the execution of the
governmental laws.

3. To justify rebellion, there must be little or no prospect that
the government can be peaceably altered, as ours may be, or that the
injustice or oppression of the government can be made to cease by
any peaceable means. Violence against government, rebellion, civil
war, are no small matters. They bring horrid evils along with them.
The injury of government must be very great to justify the
introduction of such evils; and if the injury can be made to cease,
by any peaceable means and within any reasonable time, it would be
better to bear the injury for a while, than to involve the nation in
confusion and blood, with uncertainty as to _the result_.--The last
four years' experience of nations in Europe may read us a lesson.

A republic is different from a despotism. A nation where a
Constitution forming the foundation of Law, limiting its enactments
and establishing courts, is plainly written out in language that
everybody can understand,--where Constitution and Law provide for
their own amendment at the will of the sovereign people expressed in
a regular and solemn manner,--where the will of the people thus
governs, and (for example,) there is no "taxation without
representation,"--where the elective franchise is free, and every
man capable of intelligently exercising the right may give his voice
for altering the Constitution or Law,--and where, therefore, there
can be no necessity of violently opposing the laws, and no excuse
for meanly evading them;--_such_ a nation is very differently
conditioned from what it would be, if the will of one man or of a
few governed. In such a nation, rebellion, or any evasion of Law,
becomes a more serious moral evil. Rebellion _there_ can scarcely be
called for; and it were difficult to gauge the dimensions of its
unrighteousness!

4. To justify rebellion, it is necessary that there should be a fair
prospect of successful resistance--of an overthrow of the
government. If the resistance is not likely to be successful for
good, but is only likely to cost the lives of the resisting
individuals and others; then, such individuals are sacrificing
themselves and others for no good purpose,--which is a thing that
cannot be justified to reason or religion. A man has no right to
fling away his life for a mere sentiment, and leave his wife a
widow, or his gray-haired parents without a son to solace them.
There must be some fair prospect of great good to come from it,
before one can justly fling his life into the scale, in a violent
contest with the government.

5. To justify rebellion, there must be a fair prospect of the firm
_establishment of a letter government_, and the enactment of more
just laws, after the present government is overturned. Nothing can
justify a revolution, a conflict, a waste of treasure and blood,
which are not going _to gain anything_ in the end.--Again, the last
four years' experience of European nations may read us a lesson.

6. To justify rebellion, or what is the same thing, violent
resistance to the execution of the laws, it is necessary that
something more than a _small fraction_ of the people should rise in
such a resistance. If the people in general are ready for it, and
are willing to run all the hazards of a rebellious conflict with the
government, conscious that they have righteousness and the God of
righteousness on their side; this is a very different affair from
what it would be, if only a minority of the people were ready for
rebellion. Such a minority have no right, on account of their deemed
injuries, to plunge the nation into a civil war, for the purpose of
over-turning a government which suits the great mass of the
people;--a civil war, in which there is every prospect, that the
government and the majority who aim to support it will prevail; and
prevailing, must crush their hostile opponents, this hasty and
reckless minority.

These are some of the things which appear necessary, in order to
justify violent resistance of Law. They must _all_ exist, or such
resistance would be criminal,--contrary to reason, to benevolence,
and to Christ.

It is not a thing to be expected at all among mankind, that all laws
should be right, or "just and equal." Human legislation must be
expected to bear the marks of an imperfection, which attaches itself
to everything human. If obedience to government were obligatory,
only on the condition that all the laws of that government are just;
then, such obedience would mean nothing at all, and every man would
be absolved from all allegiance to the government, and from all
obligations to obey. Such is man, so limited his wisdom and so
imperfect his holiness, that human laws must necessarily be
imperfect, and must, therefore, necessarily operate hardly in some
instances, upon more or less of the people. It is impossible, that
the thing should be otherwise--in the very nature of the case, it is
impossible. And if every individual were allowed to be the judge in
his own case, whether or not the law operated so hardly upon him
that he might disobey; _then_ his _obligation_ to obedience would
mean just nothing at all, and Law would be nothing more to him than
mere advice. It might be very good advice, but he might spurn it, if
he chose. _I_ may think it hard and unjust upon myself, that, in the
great "Empire State," by a sort of "bill of attainder," (I know not
what else to call it,--I suppose I must not call it a _slave law_,)
I am prohibited from holding any "office of profit or trust,"
because I _will preach_ the gospel, and people will hear me;--but
notwithstanding this law, (which you will not allow me to call by
any hard name,) you think me under obligation to obey the
government,--and I think so too. I shall not rebel.

The _execution_ of the Law also, must necessarily be imperfect, for
the same great reason--human imperfection: judges and jurors are not
infallible. But, what then? _God knew all this_ when he ordained
human government, and commanded us to be subject to it. Such
government, with all its unavoidable imperfection and errors, on the
whole is beneficial--indispensable--we could not do without it.--And
rarely, very rarely indeed, is there a single instance of an
individual man, here or beyond the Potomac, whom Law has injured
_more_ than it has benefited. Even if that Law unjustly takes away
his liberty or his life, it may have done him more good than injury;
his liberty or his life might have been sooner and more cruelly
destroyed without it. It would be hard to prove the contrary, in any
one case that ever existed or ever will, here or elsewhere.

The best and wisest Laws ever enacted by man, or that ever will be
enacted by man, may sometimes operate hardly, even destructively,
upon some particular persons. An innocent man may be accused of
murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to ignominious execution.
But, _what then_? May this man, who _knows_ his innocence, justly
arm himself with deadly weapons, and kill the officer who would
execute the sentence of the Law upon him,--and thus get out of his
hands? May this innocent man's neighbors, who know his innocence as
well as he, "_lawfully interpose their own persons_" betwixt him and
the officer of Law, and thus rescue him?--and may they do this,
because they have decided for themselves, that this is not a case
"_where the administration of justice is concerned_?" If so, then
all Law and Government must soon come to an end, and anarchy, mobs
and confusion reign! If so, then each man becomes really his own
Lawmaker, and when _he thinks_ the Law unjust towards him, may
resist it unto blood! If one man is at liberty to "_be fully
prepared for_ his own defense," and calling the legal officer an
"assailant," or an "assassin," may resist the execution of one law
which he deems hard upon him, then another man may do the same thing
in reference to another law; and the consequence inevitably must be,
that all Government, Law and security are at end! If my neighbor may
arm _himself_, and kill a legal officer who attempts the discharge
of his sworn duty; then I may arm _myself_ also, when I deem the Law
unjust to me, and kill another legal officer, who attempts to
execute the Law! And if all this may be, LAW is nothing but a
bugbear or a bubble--is a dead letter--and the texts of God's word
which we have just read to you may be disobeyed, and ought to be
blotted from the Bible!

My brethren, this is a very solemn subject! No theme of earth could
be more so. All our earthly benefits, and no small part of our
spiritual privileges and hopes are wrapped up in it. Religion
_cannot_ prosper, if Law is not potential--if the minds of the
people are to be perpetually agitated, distracted and tormented, by
confusion, fear and uncertainty!

       *       *       *       *       *

I have stated these great principles, and made these general
remarks upon the subject presented in our texts, on account of some
recent teachings which have been put forth as _religious_--put forth
in _religious_ publications, by _ministers_ of the gospel. I have no
reference to mere politics--to political papers or political
parties, whig or democrat. I have never entered into such matters:
other things occupy me. I have never given but one vote in any legal
election, during the eighteen years I have resided in the State
since I returned to it; and I never expect to give another. And if
principles opposite to those I have laid down in this sermon were
promulgated among us, only by politicians and political parties and
papers, I should not advert to them here. I have always supposed,
that some extravagant and evil principles would be occasionally
promulgated for party purposes and political effect, and that the
people very well understand this, and therefore will not be led very
far astray by them. And whenever such evil principles have been put
forth in the name of religion, by men whose fanatical phrensy
contemned the Sabbath and other institutions of God, (like some of
our Northern fanatics, "men of one idea" and not capable of two,) I
have very seldom adverted to them at all, but have supposed it best
to leave them to be counteracted by their own extravagance and by
the character of their advocates, and let them die by their own
contemptibility. But now, principles, contrary to the plain meaning
of the texts before us, come to our ears from some more respectable
quarters, and in the name of religion. I should be a traitor to the
high trust of this pulpit, if I did not caution you against them.
Forbearance and delicacy must sometimes have limits. We owe duties
to truth and Christianity, which tenderness must not make us
violate.

The "New York Evangelical Congregational Association" recently
passed the following Resolution in respect to the "Fugitive-Slave
Law,"--a Law regularly enacted by the Congress of the United
States:--

"Resolved, That we cannot recognize this Law, as of any binding
force upon the citizens of our country."--(I am thankful that these
modest men did not go on, like him of the triple crown, to absolve
"the citizens of our country" from all allegiance to the government,
and give our rulers over into the hands of a majesty fit to take
care of them.)

A _religious_ paper, edited by Congregational clergymen, holding
respectable stations, Pastors of churches,--a paper professedly
devoted to the cause of Christ,--holds the following language in an
_Editorial_ article, under the caption, "How to oppose the
Fugitive-Slave Law":--

This _religious_ paper says,--"To the fugitives themselves ... this
Law is no Law ... and to resist it even unto death, is their right,
and it may be their duty.... To each _individual_ fugitive, to every
man or woman, who having escaped from bondage and tasted liberty, is
in hourly peril of being seized and dragged back to slavery, we
say,--Be fully prepared for your own defense. If to you death seems
better than slavery, then refuse not to die--whether on the
way-side, at your own threshold, or even as a felon upon the
gallows. Defend your liberty and the liberty of your wife and
children, as you would defend your life and theirs against the
assassin. If you die thus, you die nobly, and your blood shall be
the redemption of your race. Should you destroy the life of your
assailant, you will pass into the custody of the criminal Law ...
under an indictment for murder; but the verdict of the community,
and the verdict of almost any jury will be, justifiable homicide in
self-defense.... Or should a different verdict be found, and you be
condemned to die as a murderer, your ignominious death shall be
luminous with the halo of a martyr, and your sacrifice shall be for
the deliverance of your people."

Such are the _religious_ principles, and such is the _religious_
advice of these _religious_ ministers!

I am sorry to see this. _I never read more wicked and abominable
principles!_ They deserve not only the reprehension of every
Christian, but the entire indignation of _all civilized mankind_!
They advise private arming with bloody weapons--they advise violent
resistance and murder--the murder of officers of civil Law engaged
in the discharge of the duty which they have sworn to perform! I
have no words to express my abhorrence of these wicked and
outrageous sentiments, so directly contrary to the whole nature of
all civilized society, to the precepts of the Bible, and the whole
spirit of Christianity! I speak not of the _men_. Good men may err.
But these principles, which these ministers have published as
religious ones, are horribly and outrageously wicked!

There are other things in this religious paper, which we think are
calculated to do immense mischief. This editorial article "would
utter its remonstrance against all violent resistance to the
execution of the Law." Indeed! Very quiet and peaceful, after having
talked about being "fully prepared for defense"--about death "on the
wayside, at the threshold and on the gallows"--about "murder," and
about "martyrdom." Away with such morality! aiming at one thing and
professing another!--"If one sees a fellow man struggling with his
captors,... he may lawfully interpose his own person between the
parties and separate them." Away with such morality! encouraging
people to "act a lie," by opposing Law while professing to obey it!
And this species of morality is virtually commended to the jury-box;
and its inmates are furnished in advance with a verdict here
prepared for their use--"justifiable homicide in self-defense"! Away
with such morality! encouraging a juror to violate his oath, by
disregarding the Law, which he has just sworn to his country and to
his God, shall govern his verdict! and encouraging a fugitive to
expect him to do so!--We may yet see whether the jurymen of our
country will regard their oath, or will follow the religious counsel
of this religious paper.

I am not justifying slavery. I am pleading obedience to the texts
before me. Slavery may be wrong. Be it so; there is still a
_righteous_ method to get rid of it. But if slavery _is_ wrong, that
does not make violence and murder _right_.

I am not justifying the fugitive-slave Law. It may be wrong: it may
be unwise and unconstitutional. I think that any wise and modest man
would hesitate much to pronounce it unconstitutional, after its
enactment by a body of men who _aimed_ to abide by the constitution,
and who studied the matter most intensely, with every opportunity
for information and with minds trained for years in the depths of
legal science. But, be it wrong--be it unwise and unconstitutional;
there are civil courts to decide upon its constitutionality, and
no man has _any right_ to decide for _himself_ that it is
unconstitutional, and act upon that decision: if he had such a
right, then every man would be his own Lawmaker, and public
Constitution and Law would be nothing but a bugbear or a bubble! Be
it wrong; there is a peaceful, prescribed way of amending both Law
and Constitution,--and a wrong in the Law does not make
false-swearing by the juryman and murder by the fugitive _right_!

It is a most marvellous thing, what a number of clergymen north of
Mason and Dixon's line, have, all of a sudden, become such great
_Constitutional lawyers_! Never before was anything like it! It is a
modern miracle! A decision upon a great constitutional question is
nothing to them! How amazingly these profound legalists, these
clergyman jurists, would adorn the high courts of the country if
they would only consent to take their seat upon the bench! The
Judges of the United States Supreme Court ought to be thankful, that
these clergymen Judges have done their duty for them in advance,
deciding the law to be unconstitutional and no more is to be done!
Benevolent men, these clergymen! Some have done the duty of the
jurors for them and others the duty of the judges--the verdict and
the decision are both recorded! yea indeed, in advance, and without
pay!

But seriously, it were far better, that these clergymen should
attend to their own appropriate duties to which their Master has
bidden them, than to be engaged in fostering excitements among their
people, which _never can_ result in any good, civil or religious. If
we shall have the rebellion, disunion, and civil war, to which these
evil principles and these excitements tend, the guilt of such
clergymen will not be small! I would not have their accountability
for all the gold of Ophir!

But it is not all the clergymen of this part of the country, nor the
most of them, nor the half of them, who have turned Constitutional
lawyers, or turned law opposers. I hesitate not to say, it is only a
small minority, and those in general who are not entitled to the
most respect for erudition, sense, or excellence of character. The
(New School) Synod of New York and New Jersey, as respectable a body
of ministers and elders as is to be found in the Presbyterian
Church, at their late meeting in this city, had good sense enough,
and good religion enough, to "leave the constitutionality of the
recent enactment" (the Fugitive Slave Law) "to be adjudicated by the
civil tribunals of the country." They deserve the thanks of the
country and of all mankind. The solid sense and real religion of the
land will respect their decision.

I have nothing to do with politics or party. I am only insisting
upon religious obedience to Law. I am preaching the texts before me.
Such obedience is a religious duty. It is the will of God. I appeal
to the texts. They proclaim the Law of God. Peaceful subjection to
government _is_ his law; and men are guilty of sophistry and
falsehood, when, to excuse wicked evasion of Law or violent
resistance, they pretend to appeal to what they call "the higher
laws of God." _There are no such higher laws._ The texts before me
are his 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 villainy on
earth may be perpetrated under the sacred names of "conscience," and
"the higher laws of God!" Nothing is _safe_ in the hands of men of
such principles. These principles undermine the foundations _of all
society among men_! As I told you last Wednesday evening in my
lecture, the question before the country is _not_, (as the deceivers
pretend,) whether God's laws are not higher than man's, or whether
God's laws are to be obeyed. Nobody disputes either of these things.
Nobody ever did. But the question is, whether it is the will of God
that men should submit to the laws of the land, or aim to paralyze
law, cheat it, cripple it, resist it, and thus overthrow the
government of the country--a government at this moment more
beneficial than any other that ever existed.

Nor is it true, that the fugitive slave is made an "outlaw," and on
_that_ ground justifiable for bloody and murderous resistance of
Law. He is under the protection of Law; and if any man injures him
or kills him, the Law will avenge him, just as soon as it would you
or me. He is _not_ made an outlaw: common sense knows better.

The matter before us is a very serious matter. The wicked
principles of which I have spoken, disguise it as you will, tend
directly to anarchy, confusion, and civil war! The question _is
not_, whether slavery is right, or the Fugitive Slave Law right. It
draws deeper. The question is, shall Law be put in force, and the
government of the country stand; or shall Law be resisted, and the
government of the country disobeyed, and the nation plunged into all
the horrors of civil war? If Law cannot be executed, it is time to
write the epitaph of your country!

Suffer me to utter a few words of earnest counsel to you, my beloved
people.

1. Beware of the influence of _mere feeling_ on this serious
subject. Your feelings may be with the slave,--so are mine, so are
those of most of the Southern people. We all want men to be free;
and _no more_ do we want it now, than did the inhabitants of this
country before we were born: the extravagant fanaticism and noisy
zeal of the Northern abolitionists have not increased the sentiment
of the country in favour of freedom a single item. But what can we
_do_? This is a very grave and difficult subject. One thing is
certain,--the perpetual abuse of our Southern brethren, violence,
disunion, and bloody murder will do us no good,--whether we are
bondmen or freemen. And when we think on this subject, let us aim to
be cool, unimpassioned, deliberate, and give reason and religion
their just influence over us.

2. Beware of prejudice. Do not make up your mind hastily, and under
the impulses of mere feeling, without any just and extensive
information. Study the matter calmly, extensively, and on all sides
and aspects of it.

3. Study it _religiously_. Keep it, in your mind, aloof from all the
excitements and influences of party and party spirit. Let me say to
you, my beloved people, study it on your knees, in earnest prayer to
God. Learn your duty from God's word, praying in the Holy Ghost.

4. Aim to cultivate the entire spirit of your Lord and Master, Jesus
Christ. Feel as he felt. Act as he acted. Pray as he prayed. Seek
the _salvation_ of sinners, as he sought it,--evidently putting more
value upon _that_ for every dying son of Adam, than upon all things
earthly. Oh remember, you _will be the best citizens, just when you
are the best Christians_;--and I do believe in my heart, you will do
most earthly good to your fellow-men, just when you do them most
spiritual good,--leading them, by example, by precept, and prayer,
to "seek _first_ the kingdom of God."

5. Be obedient to the laws of your land. Do not resist these
_ordinances of God_. Stand by the Constitution of your country. If
that die, _the most_ of your happiness and your hopes die with
it!--yea, it would be a calamity to the civilized world!
Christianity herself would be hindered a whole century in her march!
Respect your rulers. Frown indignantly upon the low and vile abuse
now heaped so liberally upon the great men of your country. Be
peaceful Citizens. Be a _law-abiding people_, with all your
sentiments opposed to violence, bloodshed, and confusion; and aim to
allay all the excited and angry feelings that may come up around
you.

Finally; have your hope and your trust in God. Men women, and
children, I beseech every one of you to beware of the spirit of
worldliness, and the excitements of worldly subjects and interests;
and let not such interests and subjects prevent your conversion to
Christ, your holiness and eternal salvation. Pray for yourselves,
your children, your rulers; and let your prayerful and humble trust
in God hold you safe, amid all the agitations of a world that you
must soon leave for another. God grant it to you, through Jesus
Christ our Saviour. Amen.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law - A Sermon by Ichabod S. Spencer Preached In The Second Presbyterian - Church In Brooklyn, Nov. 24, 1850" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.