OR,
THE CONDITIONS OF OBEDIENCE TO THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT:
A
DISCOURSE
J. G. FORMAN,
MINISTER OF THE SECOND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN NANTUCKET; UNTIL RECENTLY MINISTER
OF THE FIRST CHURCH AND CONGREGATION IN WEST BRIDGEWATER, MASS.
TO WHICH IS ADDED,
a trfen'f  l etter to sat ZEtrcD anb Conaregatfon
PRO-SLAYERY INFLUENCES THAT OCCASIONED HIES REMOVAL.
BOSTON:
WM.  CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS,
111, WASHINGTON STREET.
1851.
(C,  t  (C  t'lt'an  Alartqr   it
BY
I
p 
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON AND SON,
No. 22, SCIIOOL-STFREET. 
PREFATORY NOTE.
THE following Discourse is published by the request, and at the expense,
of a portion of the parish in West Bridgewater, Mass., of which I was,
until recently, the minister. It has been delivered in three of the Bridge waters; originally at the South as a lyceum-lecture, and afterwards, with
some changes in its structure and language, and the prefixing of a text, as
a religious discourse in the Unitarian Congregational Churches of the
West and East. The historical narrative, the authorities, and argument,
remain as first written. Though well received abroad, it offended some
of my own people; but, since I no longer stand in the same relation to them, I can hardly think its candid perusal will have the same
effect now. The question discussed is one of great importance; and,
though the truth seems almost too plain to need more than a simple statement of it, yet the minds of thousands have become so blinded by party
zeal, and the sophistries of their political leaders, in support of the
Fugitive Slave Law, as not to see it. Knowing the great weight attached
to eminent examples and the authority of great names, I adopted this
method of presenting the subject, because I felt sensible it would have
greater influence than a discussion of the abstract principles involved in it.
To occupy common ground with the Apostles of our Lord, with the
Christian Martyrs, with the Protestants of the Reformation, and the Puritans of England, and to be sustained by the most learned and eminent of
scholars and divines in Church and State, is a consideration of no little
weight and importance. It was my object, therefore, in connection with a
clear statement of the truth, to show how amply it is sustained by this
kind of evidence, and to present it in such a light as to make it tell upon
our present duty.
The Letter, which I have added on my own responsibility, together with
the Discourse, though intended in part for the benefit of a particular
locality, are adapted to general circulation, and are commended to the
friendly consideration of those into whose hands they may fall, and more
especially of my brethren in the ministry.
J. G. F.
NANTUCKET, MASS.
N,
tq
..4
11
Rhe
.3il
I
h
. i
X - C>    9e      t-Wt 
I 
DISCOURSE.
"THEY WILL DELIVER YOU UP TO THE COUNCILS, AND THEY WILL SCOURGE
YOU IN THEIR SYNAGOGUES; AND  YE SHALL BE BROUGHT  BEFORE
GOVERNORS AND KINGS FOR MY SAKE.... THEY SHALL DELIVER YOU
UP TO BE AFFLICTED, AND SHALL KILL YOU.... FEAR NOT THEM THAT
KILL THE BODY, BUT ARE NOT ABLE TO KILL THE SOUL." - Jesus.
" THEN PETER AND THE OTHER APOSTLES ANSWERED AND SAID, WVE OUGHT
TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN."- Acts of the Apostles.
IT has lately become a question of great importance, whether there is any limit to the obedience we owe to civil
governments.   Through  the influence  of distinguished
statesmen and the teaching of popular divines, many of
our people have been persuaded that they owe an unlimited
and indiscriminate obedience to the laws of the land; that
they may not refuse obedience to a particular law, however repugnant it is to their moral sense, the Christian
religion, or the law of God. The only question they are to
ask is, Is it the law of the land?  Was it enacted by the
regularly constituted authorities?  If so, it must be obeyed
at all hazards. In determining one's duty, the inquiry is not
to be entertained, whether the law conflicts with the principles of justice and humanity, the precepts of our religion,
and the divine law. If the government has enacted it, we
have only to obey. That such a doctrine should be received and acted upon by the descendants of the English
Puritans; that they should have so soon forgotten the dis 
6
obedience of their fathers, for many long years, to the Act
of Uniformity of Charles II., and other penal laws, and the
fines, imprisonments, and persecutions they suffered for con
science' sake, is almost incredible. It can only be accounted
for by the moral degeneracy of a portion of their children,
under the corrupting influences of material prosperity, and
the demoralizing tendency of political organizations.*
The question is not whether an individual may forcibly
resist the government, molest its officers, and incite others to
civil war and bloodshed. It is not whether we ought not
to submit to the law.  If men can be found who are bad
enough to hold an office which makes it their business to
* "If, by any act of legislation by this confederated government, we are
required to restore to them (the slaveholders) that property (their slaves) to
which they have a legal right, however  nuch wse mnay doubt the morality of that
claim, or of the law Spool which it is fourded, the duty of good citizenship and
the claims of true patriotism would demand obedience to the law." - Rev.
L. E1. LATHROP, of Auburn, N.Y., quoted in the Annual Report of the Arnerican and Foreign Anti-slavery Society for 1851.
Similar sentiments have been uttered by a large number of pro-slavery
clergymen at the North; and some of the discourses containing them published by Union Safety Committees, and circulated gratuitously, in large
numbers, by members of Congress, under the franking privilege. A gentleman writing from Washington, April 11, 1851, says, "You may think some
of my reflections upon pro-slavery clergymen too harsh. You would not,
had you seen the cart-loads of their arguments in favor of the Fugitive Act,
and slavery generally, kept for distribution in this city, and now kept, which
I have seen." In this category of clergymen, we may name Rev. Robert
Davidson, D.D., of New Brunswick, N.J.; Rev. Ichabod S. Spencer, D.D.,
of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Rev. Nathan S.S. Beman, D.D., of Troy, N.Y.; Rev.
John M. Krebbs, D.D., of New York city; Rev. John C. Lord, D.D., of
Buffalo, N.Y.; Rev. Moses Stuart, of Andover; Rev. Orville Dewey, D.D.;
Rev. William Crowell, of Waterville, Me.; Rev. Dr. Taylor, of New Haven;
Rev. Dr. Parker, of Philadelphia; Rev. Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont.
The following is an instance of the same kind of preaching at the South,
which is the universal Christianity of that region: -" The New Testament
decides, in the plainest terms, that Christians are bound to acquiesce in and
support those laws and regulations concerning slavery which are enacted by
the respective civil governments under which they live.... Let him (the
clergyman) at all times preach unconditional submission to civil laws and
institutions." - Rev. THEODORE CLAPP, of New Orleans.  Pro-slavery statesmen, jurists, and lawyers, inculcate the same sentiments 
7
execute a wicked law, and they will execute it, we must
and ought to submit, until it can be repealed, or rendered a
dead letter, by the force of public sentiment. The right of
a peaceful or bloody revolution is not the question, though
the latter is sanctioned by the general opinion and practice
of mankind. But it is simply whether a conscientious man,
in the fear of God, may calmly take the responsibility of
disobeying a wicked law, and bear the penalty of his disobedience. To my understanding and moral sense, it is
plainly the duty of every Christian to take this stand. It
is the course I have sincerely recommended to you in reference to the recent law, requiring us to deliver a certain
description of our fellow-men, many of them disciples of our
divine Master, into slavery; forbidding us, under pains and
penalties, to aid and succor them in their sore distress.* It
is a course that has the sanction of the most eminent
examples mentioned in the Bible. It is confirmed by the
teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and sealed by
their blood, which was shed by the civil authorities, as the
penalty of their disobedience. It is commended to us by
"the noble army of martyrs," who were cruelly tormented
and put to death because of their disobedience to wicked
laws. It is enforced by the glorious example of the English
Puritans and Dissenters, whose children we are, and rendered illustrious by good men in every age. It is maintained by legal authorities of the greatest eminence and
learning, and is only denied in this country by the political,
legal, and clerical demagogues that hoodwink and deceive
the people.
It is my purpose, in the present discourse, to give an historical sketch of several illustrious martyrdoms under the
Roman empire, in confirmation of this doctrine; to adduce
some eminent authorities on the subject; and to intersperse
* Reference is here made to a Discourse on the Fugitive Slave Law,
delivered some months before. 
8
the whole with such reasoning and reflections of my own
as seem appropriate to the theme, and the times in which
we live.
We have been taught by our ancestors, and in all histories of the church, to regard with peculiar reverence and
affection the memory of the Christian martyrs. We have
learned to look upon them as holy men, who lived in an
age of wickedness and persecution, distinguished alike by
their virtues, and their fidelity to their religion and the law
of God. They have been so regarded by the enlightened
sentiment of the Christian world, and have left imperishable
names on the pages of church history. In the language of
the ancient liturgy, they are called, with approbation, "the
noble army of martyrs;" their memory is embalmed in
the prayers of the church, and their names recorded in the
calendar of the saints. The reason they are thus honored
is because their conduct has been approved by Christians
in all ages, and their example deemed worthy to be followed by all who bear the Christian name.
The cruel sufferings and death they underwent, rather
than violate the precepts of their religion, are awful in the
extreme, and show how unswerving was their fidelity to
conscience and the law of God, which no human law,
no earthly consideration, could induce them to disregard.
They were burned at the stake, tortured on the rack,
scourged, stoned, stabbed with forks of iron, fastened to the
cross and gibbet, put to the sword, devoured by wild beasts,
flayed alive. Some had their tongues cut out; some were
starved with hunger; some had their hands cut off, and
were otherwise dismembered. Their torments were as
various as the ingenuity of wicked men could devise, and
their numbers almost incredible. It is said, that, notwithstanding the horrible cruelties inflicted upon them, they
endured their sufferings with wonderful fortitude, counting 
9
it a joyful death to die for the religion they professed, and
receive a martyr's crown. So great was the number who
were thus called to suffer for the cause of Christ, that Hierome, in his epistle to Cromatius and Heliodorus, says,
"There is no day in the whole year unto which the number
of five thousand martyrs cannot be ascribed, except only
the first day of January."*
The first and most illustrious of the Christian martyrs
was St. Stephen, whose martyrdom is recorded in the Acts
of the Apostles; at which Saul, afterwards the Apostle
Paul, was present, consenting to his death. It was on this
occasion those memorable words were uttered, so often
repeated by the martyrs of succeeding ages, "Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit." This expression arose from Stephen at
the moment when he was stoned to death by the civil
authorities; to which he added the generous and forgiving
prayer, "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge."  What
effect this scene might have had on Saul, who had doubtless listened to the speech of Stephen before the council,
and, with them, beheld his face glowing with a serene and
heavenly expression, "as it had been the face of an angel,"
it is impossible to tell; but we may well conjecture, that it
was not without its effect as he journeyed on his way to
Damascus, and perhaps led him into that penitent and
meditative frame of mind, in which he had the vision, and
was so suddenly converted.
It is stated that the death of Stephen was followed-by a
severe persecution in Jerusalem, in which two thousand
Christians, with Nicanor the deacon, were martyred, and
many others obliged to leave that country.
Of the twelve apostles, the only one who escaped a violent death was John, the beloved disciple; though he suffered the equivalent of martyrdom, -having been cast, by
* Fox's Book of Martyrs.
2
I 
10
order of the Emperor Domitian, into a caldron of boiling
oil, from which he escaped with his life, and was afterwards
banished to the isle of Patmos. The rest of the apostles
were crucified, beheaded, and otherwise cruelly put to death.
It is mentioned of the Apostle Peter, who was crucified,
that, when he came to the place of execution, he requested
of the officers that he might be crucified with his head
downwards, alleging that he was not worthy to suffer in the
same manner his divine Master had done before him. His
request was granted; and St. Gregory states that his body,
with that of St. Paul, was buried in the catacombs, two
miles out of Rome.* In these instances, the apostles were
convicted of having disobeyed some law or command of the
civil authority, that conflicted with their moral and religious
duties; and they suffered martyrdom as the penalty of their
disobedience.
It was during the first three hundred years of the Christian era that the greatest number of martyrdoms occurred.
The Roman empire at that time embraced almost the whole
of the civilized world. It had an established religion, consisting of pagan rites and ceremonies; and the people were
required by law to repair to heathen temples, and offer sacrifices and worship to the heathen deities. This system of
idolatry was interwoven with the laws, government, and
political institutions of the empire. Sometimes we hear it
said in our day, as an apology for the continuance of American slavery, that it is interwoven with the laws the governments, and political institutions of the Southern States. It
was so with the religion of the Roman empire. The Roman
people and their rulers were as jealous of the rights and
honors of their gods, as the people of the South are of their
alleged right of property in human beings. The pagan
worship was "the peculiar institution" of the Roman em
* Butler's Lives of the Saints. 
11
pire; and the government and people of that empire were
as much opposed to any "interference" with it, as our
neighbors of the South can possibly be with their "peculiar
institution." When this fact is considered, it will not strike
you as very surprising that they should have enacted laws
against the introduction of any new religion into the state,
and against all secret assemblies of the people; and that
those who were found violating these laws should have been
severely punished. They certainly had as good ground to
enact such laws as our Southern States have to enact that
no one shall preach anti-slavery sentiments, or circulate
anti-slavery writings, denominated  "incendiary publications," iii the South. There are many in our day who
regard such preaching as the essence of Christianity; and,
were they to attempt to propagate it in the Southern States
of this republic, would very soon meet with the fate of the
martyrs whose history we are considering. To preach practical Christianity in the South at this day would provoke
as dangerous and bitter a persecution, as it did on its first
introduction in the Roman empire.
This simple and brief statement of the government,
laws, and religion of the Roman people, will enable us to
understand the cause of the persecutions that were waged
against the Christians during that period of the church.
From the reign of Nero to that of Dioclesian, a period not
far from two hundred and fifty years, there were ten
general persecutions of the Christians. Many distinguished
fathers and bishops of the church received the crown of
martyrdom; and hundreds of thousands more were put to
death, because they confessed that they were Christians,
and refused to obey those laws and edicts of the empire
which required them to sacrifice to the gods, or enlist as
soldiers in the imperial armies, both of which they deemed
equally inconsistent with the precepts of their religion.
Clement of Alexandria, who wrote soon after the death of 
12
Commodus, says, "Many martyrs are daily burned, crucified, beheaded, before our eyes."
For more than two centuries, the primitive Christians
steadfastly refused to do military service, deeming it contrary to their religion for a Christian to fight; but, at a
later period, when the purity of the Christian faith had
become in a measure lost, many who embraced it continued
their profession as soldiers, or entered the service on the
requisition of the emperor. Of this description there was
a legion, consisting of more than six thousand men, which
contained none but Christians. It was called the Theban
Legion. This was about two hundred and eighty-six years
after Christ. While this legion was under the command
of Maximian, a general order was given to the whole army
to sacrifice to the gods; and they were required to take the
oath of allegiance, and swear at the same time to assist
the emperor to extirpate Christianity. This they could not
do, and remain true to their religion. Having resolutely
refused either to sacrifice or take the oaths prescribed,
Maximian, in a paroxysm of rage, ordered the legion to
be decimated. Every tenth man having been put to the
sword, the remainder of the legion still continued inflexible,
when he ordered them to be decimated a second time.
But this second severity made no more impression on them
than the first. The soldiers preserved their fortitude and
their principles; but, by the advice of their officers, drew
up a remonstrance to the emperor, in which they told him
that they were his subjects and his soldiers, but they could
not at the same time forget the Almighty. " While your
commands," said they, "are not contradictory to those of our
common Master, we shall always be ready to obey, as we have
hitherto; but, when the orders of our prince and those of {he
Almighty differ, we must always obey the latter.  Our arms
* Neander's Church History. 
13
are devoted to the emperor's use, and shall be directed
against his enemies; but we cannot submit to stain our
hands with the effusion of Christian blood. And how,
indeed, could you, O emperor! be sure of our allegiance
and fidelity, should we violate our obligations to our God?
You command us to search out and destroy Christians.*
It is not necessary to look any further for persons of that
denomination. We ourselves are such, and we glory in
the name. We saw our companions fall without the least
opposition, and thought them happy in dying for the sake
of Christ. Nothing shall make us lift up our hands against
our sovereign. We had rather die wrongfully, and by that
means preserve our innocence, than live under a load of
guilt. Whatever you command, we are ready to suffer.
We confess ourselves to be Christians, and therefore cannot
persecute Christians, nor sacrifice to idols." t
This pathetic and Christian address failed to produce
any good effect upon the mind of the emperor. Instead of
softening his disposition towards them, he was only the
more enraged at the unanimity and firmness with which
they refused obedience to his commands, and immediately
ordered that the whole legion should be put to death; which
was accordingly done by the other troops, who cut them to
pieces with their swords; in which the saying of our Lord
was remarkably fulfilled, that they who take the sword shall
perish by the sword.
This was a dreadful martyrdom; but it was no more
than was suffered in all the large cities and provinces of
the empire by peaceable and unoffending Christians, whose
only crime consisted in their refusal to obey the legally con
* This command finds a parallel in our Fugitive Slave Law, which authorizes the slaveholder to "search out" and capture men and women, many
of them Christians; and commands us to "aid" him in returning them to
slavery, - a much greater crime than to put them to death.
t Fox's Book of Martyrs. 
14
stituted authorities, when they were commanded to injure
and destroy their fellow Christians, to sacrifice to idols, and
to blaspheme the name of Christ.
Under the Emperor Severus there was a bloody persecution waged against the Christians in all parts of the
empire. It was during this reign that Irenmus, the Bishop
of Lyons, was put to death, after suffering many tortures;
and, together with him, almost all the Christians of that
vast and populous city, whose numbers could not be
reckoned up, so that the streets of the city flowed with the
blood of Christians.'
One of the most illustrious of the Christian martyrs was
St. Justin, commonly known as Justin Martyr. He was
a man renowned for his learning and Christian piety,
and rendered great service to the Christians by his writings.
At the time he was arraigned before the tribunal which
sentenced him, with many others, to a violent death, he
made a full and clear statement of the Christian faith, and
of their reasons for disobeying the law requiring them to
sacrifice to the gods; after which the governor pronounced
this sentence upon them: "They who refuse to obey the
imperial edict, let them be first scourged, and then beheaded, according to the laws." * These holy men blessed
God that they were permitted to seal the truth with their
blood; and, the sentence being shortly afterward executed,
they passed to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and
that fadeth not away.
The martyrdom of the aged and venerable Polyearp
evinces the same faith and moral courage that marked the
character of Ireneus and Justin, and the same resolute
firmness in refusing obedience to an unjust law. When he
stood before the proconsul, who urged him to swear and
curse Christ, promising to release him, the proposal was
* Cave's Lives of the Fathers. 
15
resented with a noble scorn, and drew from Polycarp this
generous confession:" Eighty and six years have I served
Christ, and he never did me any thing but good: how can
I curse him, my King and my Saviour?"  The proconsul
again commanded him to swear by the genius of Caesar; to
which he replied, "I tell you frankly I am  a Christian.
Would you know what the doctrine of Christianity is,
appoint me an hour, and hear me." The proconsul, touched
with a feeling of compassion for his age and noble bearing,
urged him to persuade the people. He answered again,
"To you I choose rather to address my discourse; for our
religion teaches us to pay due honor to the powers ordained of
God, so FAR AS IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PRECEPTS OF
OUR DIVINE MASTER. As for them (referring to the mniultitude), I think them not competent judges to whom I
should apologize, or give an account of my faith."
The governor having once more urged him to comply
with the law, and threatened him with the wild beasts and
the stake, he still refused; and it was proclaimed by the
herald, "Polyearp has declared himself to be a Christian."
With these words was pronounced the sentence of death;
and the Roman populace, with an infuriate shout, cried,
"This is the teacher of atheism, the father of the Christians,
the enemy of our gods, by whom so many have been turned
from their worship and sacrifice." When he was taken to
the stake to be burned, they were about to fasten him with
nails; but he said, "Leave me thus: He who has stlengthened me to encounter the flames will also enable me to
stand firm at the stake." Before the fire was lighted, he
offered up this prayer:  " O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved Son,
Jesus Christ, from whom we have received the knowledge
of thyself; God of angels and of the whole creation, of the
human race, and of the just that live in thy presence,- -I
praise thee that thou hast judged me worthy of this day and 
16
hour, that I may receive a portion in the number of thy holy
martyrs, and drink of Christ's cup for the resurrection to
eternal life. Wherefore I praise thee for all thy mercies;
I bless thee; I glorify thee, through the eternal High Priest,
thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ; to whom, with thee and the
Holy Spirit, be glory now and for ever."
The manner in which this aged servant of Christ underwent his sufferings and death evinced the sublimest moral
and Christian heroism; and, as Neander remarks, "was so
ordered that he might exhibit what was the essential character of evangelical martyrdom." He was nearly a hundred years of age at the time of his death, and had been a
disciple of the Apostle John in his youth. Irencus says of
him, that "he lived a very long time, and arrived at an exceeding great age, when he underwent a most glorious and
illustrious martyrdom for the faith."
It was my desire to have mentioned a few particulars of
the martyrdom of Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who was
placed in the amphitheatre at Rome, and the lions let loose
upon him, who quickly devoured him; and of Cyprian, the
Bishop of Carthage, who, when he was advised to comply
with the law, requiring sacrifices to the gods, answered,
"No: I am a Christian, and cannot obey your law."  But
the importance of what remains will not permit me to occupy more of your time with them. There was a class of
martyrdoms for another cause, however, which I cannot
wholly pass over.
I have already mentioned, that the Christians, during the
first and second centuries of the Christian church, refused
to comply with the laws requiring military service, as the
Quakers have done in modern times, and many of them
suffered martyrdom for this cause. The following instance
will serve as an example of this class: A young man, named
* Neander, Cave, and Milman. 
Maximilian, was brought before the proconsul as a proper
subject for military duty.  As soon as he came up, and was
about to be measured to see if his size corresponded with
the standard of the service, he exclaimed, "I cannot serve
as a soldier; I cannot do what is wrong; I am a Christian,
and cannot fight." He persisted in his refusal to become
a soldier, and was put to death. And this is but one of
many instances in which they bore a like testimony to the
unlawfulness of war to a Christian.
Of several Christians who were put to torture in order to
draw confessions from them, one of them gave signs of great
agony; whereupon the proconsul said, "You should have
obeyed the law of the emperor." He replied, with a strong
spirit, "I reverence the law of God more than that of the emperor."   To one who had read the Scriptures at an assembly of Christians, held in his own house, the proconsul said,
"You ought not to have received them."  He replied, under the rack, "I could not do otherwise than receive my brethren."   "But the emperor's command," said the proconsul,
"should have been of more consequence to you."   "God,"
he replied, "is greater than the emperor." t
I have mentioned this class of instances to show that the
early Christians not only refused to obey the law when it
interfered with their religious faith and the worship of God,
but when it conflicted with the moral precepts of Christianity, and the duties they owed their fellow-men. It is
the testimony of Giesler, that "the Christians were- con
* The Christians of the United States have now a like opportunity to
show their reverence for God's higher law of Christian love and mercy, by
receiving the hunted fugitive from Southern bondage, and aiding him to
escape from the oppressor. Should they be visited with the penalties of
the recent law on this subject, and the government officials say to them,
"You should have obeyed the law," they may well reply, in the language
of this old Christian martyr, "I could not do otherwise than receive my
brethren."
t Neander's Church History.
3
17 
18
stantly obliged to annex a condition (in their promises of
obedience to the civil authorities), namely, that the commands of the magistrate should not contradict the divine
law."
Such is a brief sketch of some of the martyrdoms that
occurred during the primitive ages of the church, under the
emperors of Rome, showing that the Christians of that period were unanimous in regard to the duty of disobeying all
laws that are contrary to the precepts and morality of the
Christian religion. Time would fail me to tell of other
Christian martyrs who have since suffered from the persecutions of the Romish church; of Huss and Jerome and
Rogers and Hooper and Bradford and Farrar and Ridley
and Latimer and Cranmer, and a host of others, of whom
their age was not worthy, who bore a like testimony to this
rule of duty, and sealed it with their blood.
That the martyrdoms I have sketched were occasioned
by the disobedience of the Christians to certain laws of
the Roman empire, which they regarded as contrary to the
precepts of their religion, is asserted by every church historian who has written on the subject. Neander quotes the
following advice of Micenas to Augustus, which, he says,
expresses the prevailing views of the Roman state at that
period: "Worship the gods, in all respects, according to the
laws of your country, and compel others to do the same....
Suffer no man to deny the gods;" or, in other words, suffer
no man to be a Christian. The Roman civilian, Julius
Paulus, cites, as one of the ruling principles of the civil law,
the following provision: "Whoever  introduces new religions, the tendency and character of which were unknown,
whereby the minds of men might be disturbed, should,
if belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the
lower, be punished with death."  "It is easy to see," says
Neander, "that Christianity came under the operations of
this law, because it induced Roman citizens to renounce 
19
the religion of the state, to the observance of which they
were bound by the laws; and it introduced a new religion,
not admitted by the laws of the state.... Hence the common taunt of the Pagans against the Christians, according
to Tertullian: Non licet esse vos -I You are not permitted
by the laws;' and of Celsus, who accuses them of secret
compacts, contrary to the laws."
Under the emperor Trajan, a rescript was promulgated,
which had special reference to the Christians. Neander
says, "The change produced by this rescript was  this:
Christianity, which hitherto had tacitly passed for an unlawful religion, was now condemned as such by an express
law." When one of the more humane of the Roman emperors was inclined to pardon such of the Christians as
confessed they were in the wrong, the same historian says,
"They could not be induced to acknowledge that they had
done wrong: they rather persisted in that which was forbidden by the laws."  Again, he says, "It must be allowed
that the laws denounced death, in general terms, as the
penalty for perseverance in Christianity."*
Giesler, in his Ecclesiastical History, says, "The laws
against religiones peregrince and collegia illicita still remained in force, even in reference to the Christians." Thus
it will be seen that the primitive Christians were brought in
frequent conflict with the laws of the Roman empire, of
which they were themselves the lawful subjects, and many
of them citizens by birth. Thus were the predictions of
our Lord fulfilled: "They will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge and kill you; and ye shall be
brought before governors and kings for my  sake;"  and
thus did they continue to act upon that divine maxim of
the apostles, "We  ought to obey God rather than men."
* Wherein does this differ, in its spirit, from a law which now makes it
penal to persevere in our Christian duty towards those of our brethren who
have escaped from slavery? 
20
For their noble and heroic conduct, their faithfulness to
the truth, and their steadfast adherence to righteous principles; for the willingness with which they went to the
martyr's stake, rather than abjure their religion, or violate
its precepts; counting it joy to suffer for the truth, and
glorying in the cross of Christ, we bless their holy memory,
and hold them up to the admiring gaze and grateful recollection of mankind. The church consecrates their deeds
by religious festivals and sacred days, and continues to
remind the multitudes that throng her temples and offer
worship in the name of Christ, of "the glorious company
of apostles," and "the noble army of martyrs," whose lives
and actions have rendered her illustrious in the eyes of
the world, and exhibited to such advantage the simple
power of Christian faith.
When we remember that the sufferings of these Christian martyrs were among the agencies by which multitudes of pagan worshippers were converted to the truth,
appealing as it did to their sympathies, and exhibiting the
beauty and power of a religion that could inspire such
faith and courage, we see how the wickedness of man is
often overruled to subserve the best of purposes. Even
the very means by which wicked men undertake to injure
a righteous cause are made instrumental in promoting its
triumph and success. This has beon strikingly verified
in the history of Christianity, and in every other instance
in which temporal power and authority have bpen brought
against a great moral principle.
"Men slay the prophets; fagot, rack, and cross
Make up the groaning record of the past;
But evil's triumphs are her endless loss,
And sovereign beauty wins the soul at last." *
These holy martyrs met with nothing but scorn and ill
* James Russell Lowell. 
21
treatment from the world; but they had an inward faith,
that filled them with dauntless courage and a heavenly joy.
What sublimer scene can we imagine than that in which
the aged Polyearp is brought before the proconsul of Rome,
and gives an account of his faith? It was then he uttered
the sentiment of every Christian, when he said to the
governor, refusing to address himself to the senseless rabble that clamored for his life, " To you I choose rather to
address my discourse; for our religion teaches us to pay due
honor to the powers that are ordained of God, so FAR AS IT
IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE PRECEPTS OF OUR DIVINE MASTER."
In these words of the sainted martyr were expressed the
true limit of the obedience we owe to the civil government,
whether it be a despotism, a monarchy, or a republic.
Would that all the bishops and clergy and laity of the
present day who profess the same faith were as true to
their religion as the venerable Polycarp! As I behold
him, in imagination, before that dread tribunal, his locks
whitened with the frosts of a hundred years, surrounded by
an infuriate mob of heathen worshippers, how sublime the
dignity and conscious rectitude with which he declares
himself a Christian! What a heavenly light illumes and
kindles up his aged eyes, as he answers the proconsul,
"Eighty and six years have I served Christ, and he never
did me any thing but good: how, then, can I curse him, my
King and my Saviour?" What courage animates him at
the stake, when they propose to fasten him with nails, and
he replies, "Leave me thus: He who has strengthened me
to encounter the flames will also enable me to stand firm
at the stake"! Ay, there was a nobler courage in the
heart of that aged servant of Christ than ever animated
the breast of the military conqueror, -a courage that shall
live in many a Christian heart, when the trophies of the
field and the monuments of brute force are levelled with
the dust. 
22
It now remains to consider the conduct of the martyrs in
another point of view. Were they justifiable in their disobedience to the civil government, when it required them
to do what they deemed contrary to their religion and the
law of God? We know that they have been justified by
the enlightened sentiment of the Christian world, the voice
of the church, and the example of Him who was put to
death on Calvary.' But a new doctrine has arisen in later
times, that we owe an unconditional and indiscriminate
obedience to the laws of the land. The idea that a Christian man should set up his conscience above the law is
ridiculed in the high places of the church and state, and a
law higher than the constitution of the United StatesGod's eternal law of right -has become a mark on which
great men expend their wit, and excite to boisterous mirth
the rabble of mankind. According to these men, the
Christian martyrs were fools and fanatics, false to their
country, and false to the teachings of that martyred and
risen Saviour, for whom they suffered and died. But we
deny the interested and perverted judgment of men who
are seeking the loaves and fishes of office in both church
and state, and place them in their proper company, among
the priests and civilians, the consuls and proconsuls of a
heathen government that persecuted the Christians, and put
to death the martyrs of the church.
We object to this doctrine, because it destroys the individual responsibility of the citizen; it makes the state the
keeper of his conscience, and strikes down the fundamental
principle of all Protestant churches, -the right of private
judgment in matters of faith and moral conduct; which no
Christian can yield, and remain faithful to his religion and
his God. It is the child of the Romish church, and needs
the infallibility of the Pope to sustain it. If we knew that
* " The Jews answ(,red him, We have a law, and by our law he ought
to die." - JOHN, xix. 7. 
23
our rulers were infallible men, we might confide to them
this sacred trust; but, so long as we have so many proofs
to the contrary, we cannot do it. We cannot place at
their disposal all the cherished principles of our religion, all
individual responsibility, beyond their election, and the
privilege to legislate away the rights of man. We cannot
go back to the darkness and despotism of heathen and papal
Rome. We cannot accept this doctrine; no, never! We do
not believe it would ever have been advocated in this country by Protestants, had it not become necessary to subserve
the ends of the government, and put down the rising
conscience of the people of the Free States, lest it should
utter its voice against an iniquitous and inhuman law.
But, nevertheless, there is a limit to the obedience we
owe the state; and by trampling down the enlightened
conscience of its citizens, the government is destroying the
highest and best safeguard of the republic. There is a
limit to the obedience we owe the civil power; and that
limit is clearly indicated in the examples I have brought
before you from ecclesiastical history, comprising a few of
that noble army of martyrs whose conduct under a tyrannical and oppressive government is still the pride and glory
of the church. That limitation is well expressed in the dying
testimony of Polycarp. We owe it all honor and obedience,
"so far as it is not contrary to the precepts of our religion;"
and in the condition which Giesler says the Christians under
the Roman government were constantly obliged to annex
to their promises of obedience, namely, "that the commands
of the magistrate should not contradict the divine law."  So
long as human governments keep within this boundary,
our religion teaches us to give them our obedience and
support. So far, they are ordained of God, are a terror to
evil-doers, and are necessary to the well-being of society.
No matter how unwise we may think their legislation, or
how hardly it may operate on us as individuals: so long as 
24
they leave us free to practise the precepts of our religion
and obey the law of God, it is our duty to honor and
uphold them. To concede this, and live up to it, is to be a
good and loyal citizen. To concede more than this, and
avow our readiness to support and obey whatever laws the
government may enact, however unrighteous they may be,
however much they may violate our sense of justice and
the law of God, is to say that we are ready to do wrong at
its bidding, and withhold our allegiance from the government of God. The truth is, whenever a government commands us to do a moral wrong, that moment our obligation
to obey it ceases in that particular instance, and a higher
law - the law of right - intervenes, and commands us
to disobey, and take the consequences. In every such
instance, we ought to tell the government plainly and
frankly, "We  are Christians, and cannot obey this law;"
and, if need be, prove our sincerity by suffering its penalties
peaceably, for conscience' sake.
Such a course tends to uphold the authority of government, and is far more honorable and more likely to command its respect than to connive at disobedience, and
pretend at the same time to uphold and support the law.
The men who would thus deceive the government would,
under different circumstances and with sufficient temptation, violate any other law. Let some law be passed of
doubtful morality, some law against the rights and liberties of a portion of their fellow-men against whom they
have imbibed a prejudice, and, though it conflicts with the
Bible, with justice and humanity, with the requirements
of the Christian religion, and the principles on which the
government was founded, these are the men who are
always the most clamorous for the execution of that particular law. When the law ought not to be obeyed, they
are most loyal in its support. Yet these are the men
who are most ready to trample on the laws that regulate 
25
society, whenever they prove obnoxious to their prejudices,
or inconsistent with their interests. They are the men
who  oftenest "take the law into their own hands," and
molest their fellow-citizens in the enjoyment of their right
of speech, if they happen to use that speech in behalf of
human freedom. They are the instigators of mobs, and
not unfrequently the actors in them. They can evade
and violate the usury-laws; swear in a false invoice in
the custom-house, in violation of the tariff-laws; defraud the
post-office of its revenue, contrary to law; and sell intoxicating drinks, contrary to the statute. They are the last
men in the world who should be trusted with the affairs of
government, or the control of the state, because they have
no abiding sense of justice in their bosoms, no fixed principles or rules of conduct to guide them in life. Self-interest
and prejudice are their ruling motives; and they are neither
loyal to the government of the state, nor to the government
of God.
In asserting the superior obligation of God's law over
all human enactments, we are supported by the most
eminent authorities in the church, and the most learned
and distinguished writers on the science of government
and law. I propose now to adduce a few of these authorities.
Says John Calvin, whose opinions have had such an
immense  influence in the church:  "In  the obedience
which we have shown to be due to the authority of governors, it is always necessary to make one exception, and
that is entitled to our first attention, that it do not seduce
us from our obedience to Hilm to whose will the desire of
all kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees all their
commands ought to yield, to whose majesty all their
sceptres ought to submit.... If they command any thing
against him, it ought not to have the least attention." *
* Calvin's Institutes, vol. ii. p. 662.
4 
26
Says Neander: "The essence of Christianity struggles
against the demand of a blind submission to human authority."' *
Jeremy Taylor thus defines a Christian's duty to the
state: "We must obey all human laws appointed and
constituted by lawful authority,.... all laws, I mean, which
are not against the law of God." t In a sermon before the
king and parliament on the obedience due to magistrates,
he says: "But what if our prince or our prelates command
things against the word of God?  What then?  Why,
nothing then, but that we must obey God, and not man:
there is no dispute of that." t
Says Chillingworth: " Though seditious men may pretend conscience for a cloak of their rebellion, yet this, I
hope, hinders not but that an honest man ought to obey
his rightly informed conscience, rather than the unjust
commands of his tyrannous superiors; otherwise with
what color can you defend the ancient martyrs and apostles, who oftentimes disobeyed the commands of men in
authority, and for their disobedience made no other but
this apology,' We ought to obey God rather than men'? " ~
Says Rev. Prof. Hodge, of Princeton,  N. J.:  "This
injunction,' We ought to obey God rather than men,'
was the principle which the early Christians avowed, and
on which they acted. They disobeyed the Jewish and
heathen authorities, whenever they required them to do
any thing contrary to the will of God. Thert are cases,
therefore, in which disobedience is a duty.... No command
to do any thing morally wrong can be binding."
Says Dr. Dwight: "Subjects are bound to obey magistrates, when acting agreeably to the laws, in all cases not
* Church History.
t Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living.
+ Works, vol. ii. p. 45.
~ Quoted in a Sermon, by Rev. Mr. Dexter, of Boston. 
contrary to the will of God, as unfolded in the Scriptures.
This I take to be the true import of the directions given
by St. Peter and St. Paul." *
President Wayland, of Brown University, makes the
following explicit declaration:  "We  have  no  right to
obey an unrighteous law, since we must obey God at all
hazards." t  In three sermons on the "Duty of Obedience
to the Civil Magistrate," hlie thus points out the limit of
that obedience:  "We  ought to obey  God  rather than
man. His claim over us transcends that of the civil
magistrate.... If the magistracy commands us to disobey God, it has transcended its proper powers; its commands are of no authority; and a Christian may not
obey them.... But this may become a yet more practical
matter.  The magistrate may not only do wrong himself,
but he may command me to do wrong. How shall I
regard this command? I will regard it as I do any other
command to do wrong, - I will not obey it. I will look
the magistracy calmly and respectfully in the face, and
declare to it that in this matter I owe it no allegiance.
I will have nothing to do with its wrong-doing........
The magistracy may punish me: I cannot help that. I
will not resist; but I will not do wrong, nor will I be a
party to wrong, let the magistracy or aught else command
me."
Prof. Stuart, of Andover, once said: "Implicit subjection
to the magistrate in cases of a moral nature, where he
enjoins what God has plainly forbidden, would be a gross
violation of the true principles of Christianity.":
Rev. Albert Barnes takes the same view. He says in
substance: "When the laws interfere with the rights of
conscience; when they command any moral wrong, it is
* Quoted in a Sermon, by Rev. Asa D. Smith, D.D., of New York
t Elements of Moral Science, p. 408.
++ Commentary on Romans.
27 
28
our duty to refuse obedience."* Prof. Park, of Andover,
maintains the same doctrine in his election sermon before
the Legislature of Massachusetts.
Says Dr. Channing: "Allow it that our moral sense
(in regard to slavery) is too scrupulous. We must still
reverence and obey it. We have no higher law than our
conviction of duty." t
To these distinguished writers on ethics and religion I
add a few authorities on the civil and common law,
equally eminent in their sphere.
Says Chief Justice Blackstone:" This  law of nature
being co-eval with mankind, and dictated by God himself,
is superior in obligation to any other: no human laws are
of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as
are valid derive all their force and all their authority,
mediately or immediately, from this original." Specifying
a particular act forbidden by God's law, he says: "If
any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it,
we are bound to transgress that human law." t
Lord Chief Justice Hobart, another high English authority, takes the position that "even an act of Parliament
made against natural justice.... is void in itself."
Vattel, and all writers on international law, declare that
"the solemn sanctions of a treaty are void, if the provisions
are opposed to natural justice."
Noyes says that "the inferior -must give place to the
superior; man's laws, to God's laws. If, therefore, any
statute-law be enacted contrary to them, it ought not to
be considered of any authority in the laws of England."
Edmund Burke, the great English statesman, thus eloquently maintains the doctrine of the higher law: "We
are all born in subjection; all born equally, high or low,
* Commentary on Romans.
t Channing's Works, vol. vi. p. 308.
+ Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. i. pp. 36, 38. 
29
governors and governed, in subjection to one great, immutable, pre-existent law, prior to all our devices, prior to all
our contrivances, paramount to all our ideas and all our
sensations, antecedent to our very existence; by which we
are knit and connected in the eternal frame of the universe,
out of which we cannot stir. This great law does not
arise from our conventions or compacts: on the contrary, it
gives to our conventions and compacts all the force  and
sanction they can have."
Says Judge M'Lean, of the Supreme Court of the
United States: "Statutes against fundamental morality
are void."
In the Congress of the United States, the Hon. R. C.
Winthrop recognized the truth of the principle I have
maintained in this discourse.   Said he:  "I recognize,
indeed, a Power above all human lawmakers, and a code
above all earthly constitutions; and, whenever I perceive
a clear conflict of jurisdiction and authority between the
constitution of my country and the law of my God, my
course is clear."
If the example of the Christian martyrs, the general
sentiment of the church, and a strong array of eminent
and learned authorities, can settle such a point, we have
clearly made out the duty of every Christian to take his
stand on the law of God, and refuse obedience to any
human law that commands what is contrary to it.
One other point only remains to be discussed. It is
this: Who shall be the judge when this conflict of divine
and human laws occurs? Who shall determine what is
the divine law? Who shall say when a human law is
contrary to the precepts of Christianity, or when it commands what is morally wvrong? To these questions the
answer is plain: Every man for himself, on his own
responsibility as a moral and accountable being. There
is no other tribunal than his own conscience and the word
~    e,s.      
30
of God to which he can refer such a question. He knows
of no Pope or other infallible head of the church on earth
to which he can refer it. As a Protestant Christian, he has
taken the Bible as his rule of faith and practice, and must
interpret it in the exercise of his own private judgment. The
conclusions to which he arrives in this way must govern his
moral conduct in every relation of life. Shall the government interpret the law of God to his conscience, or decide
for him what his religion teaches in reference to any particular duty? This would be to make the government a
Pope, God's vicegerent on earth. Would it not be better
in such a case to transfer the government at once to the
Pope of Rome, and acknowledge him as our supreme lawgiver and head?
No: the Christian citizen reserves to himself the right to
judge in every case whether the legislation of the government is consistent with the law of God, and how far it is
his duty to obey it. In the language of President Wayland, " If it commands him to do wrong, he will regard it
as he would any other command to do wrong: he will
not obey it." No man can give up his enlightened conscience to the magistrate.   To  quote still further this
eminent Christian moralist and divine: "The Christian is
at liberty to inquire whether any act of the government
transgresses the limit within which its action is by reason
and revelation restricted; and yet more to determine concerning every one of its actions, whether it be right or wrong.
At liberty, did I say? He is more than at liberty: he is
obliged thus to inquire and to determine. He is a party
to every act of the society of which he is a member. He
is an intelligent moral agent, responsible to God for his
actions, whether they be personal or associated; and therefore he must think about civil government, and act about
it, according to the light which God has given him, all
things else to the contrary notwithstanding." *
.... -:. * Sermons on the Obedience due to Civil Magistrates.
~,e.~  
31
" The right of deciding all these points," says Professor
Hodge, "and of determining where the obligation of obedience ceases and the duty of resistance (disobedience)
begins, must, from the nature of the case, rest with the
subject, and not with the ruler. The apostles and early
Christians decided this point for themselves. Like all
other questions of duty, it is to be decided on our responsibility to God and our fellow-men."
If the apostles and martyrs had conceded to the civil
government the right to judge whether its laws conflicted
with the law of God or the duty of its subjects, it would
have decided in its own favor, as every other government
would do; and where then would have been the Christian
religion, which has come down to us through their testimony, attested by their sufferings, and made sacred by
their blood?
And now, my hearers, do you see any thing revolutionary
or treasonable or seditious in these doctrines? If you do,
it is more than I can see. I have advocated nothing contrary to the peaceful principles of Christianity. I maintain
the duty of submission to the civil government, but not the
duty of obedience to its unjust laws. This is an important
distinction. I counsel no violence, no physical resistance
to the law or its officers, but, on the contrary, a peaceful
submission to their authority. Should a law be enacted
which requires me to do an act contrary to natural justice,
to the religion I profess, and clearly opposed to the jdivine
law, or which forbids me to do what religion and humanity
require I should do, I would calmly and firmly disobey that
law, and suffer the penalty of disobedience. If the magistrate should see fit to punish me for it, I would bear it
patiently for Christ's sake. "Every one must be convinced," says President Wayland, "upon reflection, that
this is really the course indicated by the highest moral
excellence." 
* Elements of Moral Science. 
32
Can it be justly said that men who mark out such a
course are dangerous citizens and enemies of the state?
Are the Quakers, who have always maintained this position with respect to human governments, a dangerous
class of citizens? Are they not, on the contrary, a most
peaceable, law-abiding, and upright portion of the community? Were the primitive Christians dangerous subjects
of the Roman empire? Were they ever detected in plots
and conspiracies for the overthrow of the government?
Did they not submit willingly to the laws, even those they
had disobeyed; suffer the penalty without offering the
least resistance, and go rejoicing to the stake, that they
might be accounted worthy to suffer in the cause of their
Lord and Master? Did not six thousand men and more
of that Theban legion stand to be decimated and cut down
by the sword, with arms in their hands, rather than lift
them against the emperor? What danger has a government to apprehend from such men? They are only demagogues and dishonest politicians who pretend it. These
are the peace-men, the disinterested patriots and reformers
of our time, who seek the true welfare and glory of the
country; who would save the government from war, unrighteousness, and oppression, and restore it to its original
foundations, justice, freedom, and the rights of man. These
are the last men it can afford to alienate from its support.
When it shall drive them from its councils, and commit its
interests and direction to corrupt and unprincipled men;
when it shall disregard the moral sense of the best portion
of its subjects, and enact laws that are a disgrace to an
enlightened and Christian age; when it shall scorn and
defy God's higher law, written in his holy word and on the
tablets of the human heart, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself;" and require its people to trample on that holy
precept of our religion, "Whatsoever ye would that men
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them;" and, con 
33
tinning long in such a course, shall fill up the measure of
its iniquity,-then farewell the union of these States'!
farewell the peace and liberty that still remain to bless our
land!  Then shall we say, Alas! our country! her desolation draweth nigh!
In taking our leave of this subject, let us bear in our
memory the glorious example of the Christian martyrs:
"Their holy lives were nobly spent
From sin and woe their race to save:
The wrong they labored to prevent
Has shed a halo round their grave." *
Let us strive to imitate their fidelity to truth, to conscience, and the law of God; and should the corruption and
wickedness of the times in which we live demand similar
sacrifices of us, may we have the undoubting faith and
moral courage to follow their example! There is great
need at the present time that we should stand by the
principles they so nobly vindicated by their lives. Let no
man persuade you, that, in any conflict between the laws of
the State and the laws of God, you can obey both.t It is
one of the devices of despotism. The authorities of the
Roman government, in some instances, preached the same
doctrine to the Christians; but they knew better, and so do
we. There is but one standard of right; and that is the
moral law, as revealed in the Scriptures and in the intuitions of the human soul.
A moral warfare is now going on between the principles
I have endeavored to illustrate and defend, and the doctrine
of unconditional obedience to magistrates and civil rulers.
May God give us strength to maintain the righteous cause,
and raise up just and good men to defend it! We cannot
* Mrs. Follen.
t This doctrine has recently been maintained in a charge of Judge
Sprague, one of the Judges of the United States Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
5 
34
have too many such, in whom the spirit of our Puritan
ancestors, and the faith and courage of the ancient martyrs,
shall live and act again.
In concluding this extended discourse, let me exhort you
to consider the subject with candor and impartiality, in the
fear of God, and with a sincere desire to know your duty;
and then decide upon that course which seems to you most
in accordance with the principles of true religion, the duty
of the Christian citizen, and the true glory and welfare of
the state.
"By all for which the martyrs bore their agony and shame;
By all the warning words of truth for which the prophets came;
By the Future which awaits us; by all the hopes which cast
Their faint and trembling beams across the blackness of the Past;
And by the blessed thought of Him who for earth's millions died,
0 my people! 0 my brothers! let us choose the righteous side." *
* John G. Whittier. 
35
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE.
Since this discourse was delivered, I have met with some persons who
profess to admit the doctrine it maintains, but say it does not apply to the
recent law for the delivery of fugitive slaves to their masters, which is
continually suggested throughout the discourse. In reply, I can only say,
that, if the analogy is so perfect between this law and those which the
martyrs felt called to disobey as to keep it continually before the mind,
this fact goes very far to prove that it comes under the same denomination
of laws. The whole question, of course, turns on the point whether this
law requires us to violate the law of God, or do a moral wrong. This
point it was not my purpose in the present discourse to consider; having
a few months previously devoted a sermon to that subject. But it may be
proper enough here to say, that he who does not perceive it to be morally
wrong to enslave a human being, or to compel one by force to return to
such a state after escaping from it, would not be likely to feel the force of
any argument that could be used on the subject. If to send a human
being, against his will, and innocent of crime, into a state of slavery,
where he is treated as an article of property, and not as a man; where
all his rights are taken away, and he and his posterity doomed to a life
of hopeless and unrewarded toil; denied all moral and intellectual
improvement; denied the sacred institution of marriage; denied the
protection of female chastity; denied the attributes of humanity; bought
and sold and driven in herds like cattle and swine; separated from each
other, husband and wife, father and mother and child, for ever,- if this
is no moral wrong, and does not violate God's law of natural justice, and
the Christian rule, that "whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, do ye even so unto them," then in Ieaven's name what is a moral
wrong? what is contrary to God's law?  The man who  cannot see that
this is sin, God forgive him, and have mercy on his poor, benighted soul!  
LETTER
TO THE
FIRST CHURCH AND CONGREGATION IN WEST
BRIDGEWATER, MASS.
IT is but a few weeks since I tendered you a resignation of my
office as your Pastor, which you have since accepted. Before the
third year of my ministry among you had expired, it is thus
brought to an abrupt conclusion. That it had been a useful
ministry until we became divided on the slavery question, is, I
believe, universally acknowledged. The congregations have been
larger, on an average, than for thirty years; the church has
received important accessions; and a larger salary has been paid
than during any former period of the society's history.
In taking my leave of you, I have preached no farewell sermon.
It has been a sudden step on my part, influenced by the opposition I saw growing up in the parish to my speaking upon, or
alluding in any way to, the great sin of this nation, - the support
of American Slavery, and the enactment of the Fugitive Slave
Law. In tendering my resignation, however, I announced to the
parish my intention to address you a letter reviewing my ministry
in regard to this question, and now proceed to fulfil my purpose,
which I shall endeavor to do in a fraternal and Christianspirit.
My object is to lay before you certain facts which I hope may
have a favorable influence on your future action, and to place my
ministry in its true light.
I shall give a statement of the opposition that has been brought
against me on account of a few discourses in which I have discussed or alluded to the subject of slavery; and then proceed to
show what was the understanding, at the time of my settlement, in
regard to this question; what my preaching has been on the subject; and who has violated the understanding.
37 
38
During the first year and a half of my ministry, I had enjoyed
perfect freedom in the discussion of the various questions of reform
that agitate the religious and moral world. I had preached occasionally on the sin of American slavery; on the extent to which
this nation is involved in it; and on the duty of Christians to
resist its encroachments, to withhold all voluntary support and
sanction of it, and to exert all their inflaence and power for its
removal. Though I was sensible that there were a few influential
persons in the congregation who entertained strong prejudices
against such preaching, I supposed they were convinced of my
sincerity, and were willing to tolerate it occasionally, since I had
expressly stipulated in my engagement with the parish that I
should sometimes preach on this subject. The great body of the
congregation-some of them agreeing, and others dissentingappeared perfectly willing to hear what I had to say upon it; and
thus all things went on well, the society enjoying great prosperity
and harmony under my labors.
During the summer of 1850, the Congress of the United States
enacted that wicked and unchristian law for the recapture and
delivery of human beings into slavery which has so disturbed and
agitated the country. The measure was carried by the influence
and support of Daniel Webster, a Whig Senator from Massachusetts; passed by a Whig administration; and approved by a Whig
President. Though it was at first received with loathing and
abhorrence throughout the Free States, very soon the leading
politicians and editors of both the old political parties, with a
few honorable exceptions, began to fall in with the measure; the
law was put in force in New York, and its execution threatened
in Massachusetts.
While the Bill was under consideration in Congress, I had
preached a Fast-day sermon, entitled "Duties of the Christian
Citizen," in which I maintained the duty of Christians calmly to
disobey, without forcible resistance, any human statute in con flict with the divine law or the clearly revealed principles of our
religion; submitting peaceably to its penalties, with a moral pro test against its iniquity. I then referred to this contemplated law
as such an instance, should it be enacted, and enjoined upon my
hearers the superior obligations of God's law. A few weeks later,
I uttered similar sentiments in reference to the proposed law in a
sermon on "The Christian Ministry;" and in neither instance was 
39
any opposition manifested. My salary was easily and promptly
subscribed about the same time; no one refusing, or objecting to
the course I had pursued.
But, after the Bill had become a law in the manner I have
stated, and the Whig party had become responsible for it, a change
came over the minds of certain of my Whig parishioners. It now
became apparent to them, that my humble expositions of the gospel were in conflict with the interests and newly adopted policy
of their party; and they were no longer willing to hear such sentiments promulgated from the pulpit.
Now, it happened that these men were some of them persons of
wealth and influence in the community, highly respectable, but
not religious men. They were not members of the church, with
perhaps a single exception, and have never taken upon themselves
the character of disciples of Jesus Christ. They might properly
be set down as patrons of the gospel, willing to patronize it so
long as it agrees with their political creed and worldly interests,
but no longer. Others of them were of less respectability and
influence, and of no religious character, who might be said,
generally, to adopt their opinions second-hand and follow blindly
the leaders of their party; among whom also were a few persons
of the baser sort, who usually spend their evenings with their
comrades at the village-store, discussing principles far above their
comprehension in a low and vulgar manner, and setting on foot
the scandal of the neighborhood. From some of these persons I
foresaw that I must encounter a fierce and malignant opposition.
They were a class of men not likely to sever their party connections, or hesitate to follow its leadings, from moral and religious
considerations. I saw that they were governed by an unscrupulous party spirit as the fall elections approached, and that the
gentle pleadings of humanity and the teachings of Jesus Christ
appealed to them in vain; that Daniel Webster was their great
leader, and no other could come between him and them, not even
the Saviour of the world. The result has proved that I was not
mistaken. They who at first condemned the Fugitive Slave Law
became its open apologists and advocates, and the supporters of
the men who procured its enactment.
Notwithstanding this change in the position and feelings of
some of my parishioners, I could not see that my duty had
changed.   If what I had preached before it happened was true 
40
then, it was just as true afterwards, and needed still more to be
preached, since there was another class of hearers who looked to
the pulpit for moral instruction, and were anxious to know their
duty. I was extremely desirous not to offend anybody; several
months had elapsed since I had alluded to the subject; the
unrighteous thing had become the law of the land; steps were
taken to enforce it in Massachusetts; and it had become a serious
question what was a Christian's duty under the circumstances. I
felt a necessity laid upon me, as far as I was able, to enlighten the
consciences of my hearers on the subject. It was my business
and calling to do so, and I determined to do my duty.
I accordingly prepared a calm, dispassionate sermon on the
iniquity of the law; its conflict with the law of God, as revealed in
the Scriptures of divine truth; its opposition to the principles of
our holy religion and the dictates of humanity; and the duty of
Christians to disregard it entirely, to disobey its provisions, and
unresistingly and peaceably submit to its penalties. Having previously announced my purpose to preach on the subject solely
from a moral and religious point of view, stating that I felt moved
by a sense of duty, and desired a calm and patient hearing, I was
somewhat surprised to find a portion of the congregation absent
when the time arrived. I preached the sermon, however, and it
was afterward published. It gave great offence among the class
of persons I have mentioned, though some of them did not hear
it. It was called a political sermon, though there was not the
slightest allusion to any political party in it; and suddenly a number of persons who had previously sustained me in the same general course of preaching became very conscientious, and had scruples
of conscience about supporting a minister with such principles.
Intimations of a withdrawal of support were thrown out, and of the
necessity of my resigning my place; while others, dissenting from
my conclusions, regretted I had preached the sermon, but remained
firm in their support of my ministry. I was accused of having
designed to aid the election of a Free Soil representative to the
General Court, and, as such a representative was chosen by a
single vote, of having actually elected him; though I did not vote
myself, and had uniformly kept aloof from all political associations
whatsoever.
If men were influenced by moral and religious considerations
to vote in a more conscientious manner, and were governed in a 
41
greater degree by Christian principles in the selection of their
rulers and law-makers, I think it right that religion should have so
much to do with politics at least; and, if my discourse had this
effect, I have no reason to regret preaching it. If the people of
the Free States had been more careful to-choose Christian men to
represent them in the councils of the nation, and held them to a
stricter accountability, we should not have had the Fugitive Slave
Law.
But my discourse had a higher aim than this. It was that I
might influence my hearers, not only to seek its repeal by all constitutional and Christian means, but to help make it a dead letter
on the statute-book, incapable of being executed by reason of the
moral force that should be arrayed against it.~ It was a matter
of perfect indifference to me, as it is now, by what political party
this law is repealed, only so that it is repealed. What I urge is,
that God's law and word shall be respected; and that the Christian religion and the rights of humanity shall not be trampled
under foot by the government, let who will administer it. It is a
source of gratification to me to know, that, notwithstanding the
opposition I have encountered on account of that sermon, it did
influence even one person in favor of the right; and that ninetenths of the church, or the more religious part of the society,
though a minority of the whole congregation, heartily approved
of it.
* It was the opinion of Dr. Channing, that "no law, no constitution, can
prevail against the moral convictions of the people. These are stronger than
parchminents, statutes, or tribunals. There is a feeling in regard to slavery
spreading rapidly which cannot be withstood. It is not fanaticism, a fever;
but a calm, moral, religious persuasion; and whatever in our institutions
opposes this will be a dead letter. No violence is needed to annul a law
which the moral feelings of a free community condemn. The simple
abstinence of the people from action in favor of an unrighteous law, and the
displeasure with which they visit such as are officious in its support, will
avail more than armies."- (Channing's Works, vol. vi., p. 318.) It was my
aim to strengthen these convictions, of which Channing speaks, among my
people.  In another place he says: "A State obeying this (the provision of
the Constitution for returning fugitive slaves) seems to me to contract as
great guilt as if it were to bring slaves from Africa. No man who regards
slavery as among the greatest of wrongs can in any way reduce his fellowcreatures to it. The flying slave asserts the first rights of a man, and should
meet aid rather than obstruction. Who that has the heart of a freeman, or
breathes the love of a Christian, can send him back to his chain?" - (Works,
vol. vi., p. 77.)
6 
42
From this time onward, a spirit of cavilling and fault-finding
took possession of those who were disaffected. Several months
afterward, I preached an historical discourse on "The  Christian
Martyrs;" hoping to convince them, by a strong array of eminent
examples, authority, and argument, that there are cases in which
it is a Christian's duty to disobey the laws of the land, and peaceably suffer the penalty; but it was of no use; -they were more
offended than ever. That discourse is now published for the first
time along with this letter, at the request and by the contributions
of the friends of Christian liberty in the parish.
A few weeks afterward, as we were approaching the beginning
of a new parochial year (April 1, 1851), seeing the extent of the
disaffection, I tendered a resignation of my place from the pulpit,
with some remarks upon it. This produced a re-action in favor
of my remaining. A number of dissatisfied persons expressed
themselves to that effect. Some were afraid it would break up
the society, if I left; and so I was persuaded to leave the matter
with the parish, to which I addressed a letter, stating what ground
I must occupy if I remained. The following extract will show
that there was no room for any misunderstanding as to my course
in future: -
"During the two years of my ministry spent among you, I have desired
to do you only good; to impart to you and your children exalted views of
religion and humanity; to attract you to the Saviour, that you may be converted to his truth, and saved by his grace; to interest you in the condition
of all those for whom he suffered and died; to quicken your consciences
in regard to the rights of your fellow-men, and their claim upon your
Christian sympathy; and to urge you to the performance of every Christian duty. That I have done all this very imperfectly I know: but such
has been my aim; and, if I felt now that I could serve you acceptably
and still remain faithful to my divine Master, I should be most happy to
do so....
"It cannot but happen, in the course of a ministry of any considerable
duration, that a faithful minister will sometimes differ from many of his
congregation, and they from him. But it is much better that such differences should be allowed to pass without contention and strife than to
make them the occasion of stirring up the evil passions of men, and unsettling the foundations of so sacred a relation as that which a minister sustains to his people. It is an easy thing for either party to find fault; but
it were far better to exercise a broad and liberal charity, and a mutual
toleration when differences arise.
"The mission of a Christian minister is not so much to please his people 
43
as it is to inculcate Christian principles; to reprove their worldliness,
selfishness, and hardness of heart; and to call them to repentance and a
Christian life. If he is at all faithful to his duty, he is sure to encounter
their prejudices, and often to provoke the animosity of those who are
unwilling to submit to the requirements of religion. It is therefore a
question for your consideration, whether it is better to have such a minister, at the risk of being sometimes displeased with him; or one that will
pander to the prejudices of his hearers, and lower the standard of Christian
truth to suit their habits, feelings, and preconceived opinions.
"If you wish it, I am willing to remain, with the understanding, which
I supposed had always existed between us, that there is to be a mutual
toleration of all differences of opinion on moral questions, and a free utterance from the pulpit on all subjects that concern the moral and spiritual
welfare of mankind, - including all those reforms which have for their
object the abolition of war and slavery, and the establishment of peace and
righteousness in the world. Unless this understanding continues, I cannot
remain."
At the parish meeting, this letter was read, and a vote passed to
pay me my usual salary for the ensuing year, as though nothing
had happened. All this took place without the slightest opposi tion; there being a full attendance of all parties, and the dis affected generally voting in favor of the motion.   Every one
supposed now that all difficulty was at an end. In soliciting
subscriptions, however, it was found that there were three persons,- two of them aged and honorable men (I say nothing of
the third), -the largest supporters I had, who declined to subscribe any thing. The deficiency, however, was promptly made
up, and I withdrew my resignation, knowing that these two gentlemen were personally friendly to me, having otherwise befriended
me, and that they would interpose no obstacle to my success.
From this time forward until the close of my labors in this
place, a period of four months, I made but two passing allusions
to the subject of slavery; yet the cavilling and fault-finding spirit
continued with unabated zeal on the part of a few low-minded
persons who would not let the subject rest. I was supposed to
have a hidden meaning in my words, and to be personal in my
discourses, when it was the farthest from my thoughts. I became
more and more the subject of ungenerous criticism, and finally of
gossip and scandal, from these persons, until I felt compelled, by a
regard for the peace and comfort of myself and family, to seek
another settlement. In this I was immediately successful, and
have already entered on a new field of labor highly advantageous 
44
to myself, and with encouraging prospects of usefulness and
success. Thus ends a brief sketch of the pro-slavery influences
by which my ministry has been brought to a close in West
Bridgewater.
Before proceeding with the remainder of this letter, I ought
to state, that through all this trial I was sustained by the hearty
sympathy and generous support of the more religious portion of
the society. Although the opposition was waged on political
grounds, I had no affiliation with any party as such, and numbered among my friends and supporters persons of all parties.
A few of the best friends I had were Whigs, and condemned the
opposition that arrayed itself against me; while the larger number were of the Free Soil party, though not one of them, I think,
supported me on political or party grounds, but entirely from
religious considerations and a desire to sustain the proper freedom
and independence of the pulpit. From these true and faithful
friends I regret to be separated; but they know  the difficult and
trying circumstances in which I was placed, and kindly approve of
the step I have taken, while they express deep regret at the necessity.
I now proceed to show what was the understanding had with
this parish at the time of my settlement in regard to all questions
of reform, and the anti-slavery question in particular; what my
ministry has been on these questions; and who has violated the
understanding.
When I received an invitation to become your minister in the
spring of 1849, it was known to the parish that I was strongly
imbued with reformatory principles, the advocate of Peace, Temperance, Freedom, and the Rights of Man. The very first sermon
I preached here indicated my position on these subjects, and had
given offence in another place and to another political party, because
of a reflection it contained against the Mexican war,- facts with
which you were well acquainted. That no such difficulty might
arise in future, I was careful to define my position very distinctly
in my letter of acceptance to the parish, and in my introductory
sermon.  The following extract is from the letter of acceptance:
"Allow me to say further, that I have a deep sympathy with the reform
movements of the age, and feel it my duty to make such an application of
Christian truth as will tend to diminish the causes of poverty and crime,
t 
45
and aid in bringing about a state of society when war, intemperance, and
slavery, and all vindictive and oppressive legislation, shall be done away.   On
these subjects [I now italicize these words to arrest attention] I desire to be
free to express my convictionsfrom the pulpit as often as duty may seem to
require."
This letter was the basis, and formed part of the contract, of
settlement between us. It expressly stipulated for the freedom
of the pulpit on the subjects named.  Much has been said about
preaching against the laws of the land. Was it not the understanding that I should preach against "unjust and oppressive
legislation," should occasion arise? It is so entered on the records
of your parish, where you will find this letter copied at the time.
And did not the occasion arise when the government enacted the
Fugitive Slave Law?
In my introductory discourse I find this passage: 
"I wish to say a few words in reference to the reforms of the age.
From what has been said in a former part of this discourse, it will be seen
that I regard Christianity as covering the whole of human life; as having
to do with mankind in every relation and circumstance in which they can
act. In no case can they divorce themselves from its requirements. I
feel it a Christian duty, therefore, to labor for the reform of oppression
and vice, of public as well as private wrongs; to advance the interests of
peace, temperance, and human freedom; to maintain the right of the slave
to himself, -to the use of his own powers for himself; and to urge the
duty of dealing justly by all men, of doing unto others as we would they
should do unto us. On these subjects, therefore, I shall feel it my duty
sometimes to speak more at length."
Such was the understanding fully and freely expressed at the
time of my settlement, before I had moved my family among you,
and when the slightest objection on account of these sentiments
would have prevented my coming. 
Sometimes I hear it said, that the first year and a half of my
labors gave great satisfaction; and the question is asked, "W hy
could you not have continued on in the same way?" as though,
with the preaching of the sermon against the Fugitive Slave Law,
my course had been entirely changed. The truth is, that, during
that year and a half, I had preached precisely the same sentiments
I have preached since then, as my manuscripts will show. On
Fast-day, a few days after I accepted your call, I discoursed
against the punishment of death, - a law of the land, - which 
46
was then about to be executed upon Washington Goode. Nobody
called it preaching politics, or found any fault that I had preached
on the subject, however they might have differed from me, or
doubted the propriety of it.
On the next Fast-day (April, 1850), I discoursed on "The
Duties of the Christian Citizen." The Fugitive Slave Bill was
then under consideration in Congress, and the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts had come out "in favor of all its
provisions to the fullest extent." Yet it was not known at that
time that the Bill would pass, and become a measure of the administration; much less that the Whig party of Massachusetts would
be brought into its support. My discourse, therefore, gave no
offence, although it contained sentiments identical with the
discourse preached on the same subject after these changes had
taken place. Men who have since refused their subscriptions
subscribed at that time readily and cheerfully, without a word of
fault. I quote the following extracts from this discourse:
"We are to render unto human governments that which is their due,
and unto God that which is his due. The image of earthly rulers stamped
on the coin signifies that their jurisdiction is over temporal affairs. The
image of God stamped on the soul of man signifies that his jurisdiction is
over the soul, the conscience, and the whole sphere of moral duties. If
human governments do not transcend their proper limits, there will be no
conflict between them and the divine. The duties of the Christian citizen
will not clash. But if they require of us what is contrary to God's law,
or a sacrifice of our moral principles; if they command us to do an act
that is morally wrong, we are bound to disobey them, and take the consequences. We must not violate the law of God for any earthly consideration. In temporal matters we are to submit to the government; and, so
far as its laws are according to the ordinances of God, it is our duty to
render it obedience and homage; but no farther. This was the doctrine
of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and in their faithful adherence to it they
suffered martyrdom. They were put to death by the pubtic authorities,
according to the forms of Roman law, and were succeeded by a noble
army of Christian martyrs, who illustrated the same doctrine, and met
the same fate.
"And now I come to the practical application of this principle to our
own circumstances as citizens of the state. We owe respect and obedience
to the laws of the land, whose protection we enjoy, provided they do not
conflict with the law of God, or command us to do what is morally wrong.
This is what our religion teaches us; but, if the government clearly
transcends this limit, we are released from all further obligation, and
disobedience becomes a duty. The question that presents itself to our 
47
minds is this: Has the government under which we live transcended this
limit? There is one particular in which I think it has. As the Constitution of the United States has been interpreted by the legal tribunals of the
country, we are required to deliver up our fellow-men, innocent of any
crime except the color of their skin, to be carried into hopeless slavery, if
it can be proved that they ever escaped from such a condition; and a law
is now in contemplation for that purpose. If this construction of the Constitution prevails and such a law is enacted, it is plainly contrary to natural
justice and the law of God. If we can justify the Sultan of Turkey in
refusing to deliver up Kossuth and his compatriots to Austrian oppression,
and extend to them aid and sympathy, why should we not equally refuse
to deliver up fugitives from a worse than Austrian oppression? Are not
the rights of human nature as sacred in America and in the person of
Frederick Douglass, and his oppressed and injured race, as in the person
of those who escape to us from the oppressions of a foreign land?
" But it is said that this was a compact or compromise entered into by
our fathers, and we must fulfil it.  If this were true, I ask, is such a compact binding upon their posterity?  It is a principle of the Common Law,
that all statutes and contracts, and even an act of Parliament, contrary to
natural justice, or that require the doing of an immoral act, are null and
void. So much, therefore, of the Constitution of the United States as is
supposed to require the delivery of a fugitive slave to his master ought to
become a dead letter, or receive the better construction of which it is
capable; making it apply only to such persons as, by indenture or legal
contract, owe service from which they have escaped into another State. At
any rate it should be left to the States to pass such laws as are necessary
to carry the clause into effect, since it creates no obligation on the part of
Congress, and confers no power, to legislate on the subject.
"There is another consideration which relieves us of any obligation to
return fugitive slaves. The framers of the Constitution never designed this
clause to be of perpetual obligation.  They acted under the conviction, that
slavery would gradually disappear in all the States after the discontinuance
of the African Slave-trade; and they purposely adopted a disguised
phraseology, so that it might not appear in after-ages that there were any
traces of such an institution under the Constitution. The time to which
they looked forward for the consummation of this event has more than
arrived; the enlightened conscience of the Christian world is nowgin open
conflict with this sin; and, in all justice and good faith, the Free States,
having themselves abolished it, are released from  this obligation.   It
ought no longer to be insisted on by the Southern States, since it is by
their own wrong, and in opposition to the principles of justice and
humanity, that they have perpetuated this wicked institution. If, however, all these considerations avail nothing, and a law is passed requiring
us to capture the fugitive, and deliver him to his master to be carried into
slavery, we know that such a law is contrary to the Christian religion, and
we ought not to obey it.
"I hope I shall live to see the peaceful removal of this unchristian insti 
48
tution from our beloved country, for which the Governor enjoins it upon us
to pray Almighty God this day. I would that our rulers should do nothing
to retard this desirable result; that they should not stand in the way of
the increasing sentiment of liberty and human brotherhood that is spreading over the world, and demolishing thrones and tyranny everywhere.
Let them not, by new enactments and more stringent legislation, bring
about an issue between the religious convictions of the people and the
laws of the land. No law can be executed in a country like this that has
not the conscience and moral sentiment of the people on its side. There
is danger to our best institutions and the stability of our government,
whenever such an issue is made. Let not the government, then, trifle
with the conscience of its subjects, nor make it a penal offence for a Christian to obey God's law, which commands him to perform the kind offices
of humanity towards the poor and needy, and to give protection and
refuge to the injured and oppressed. He cannot forget that the awards of
the judgment will be based upon the performance or neglect of these
duties; and sad will be his condition if the righteous Judge shall say to
him,' Inasmuch as ye did it not unto the least of these my brethren, ye
did it not to me.'"
In a sermon on "The Christian Ministry," preached a few
weeks later, I said:
"Is it a true idea of the Bible or of Christianity that they contain
nothing in opposition to the great public and national sins of mankind?nothing that bears upon the sin of intemperance, the custom of war, and
the iniquity of human slavery?  Whence arises the prevalent and increasing moral sentiment against these evils? It comes from Christianity. In
proportion as mankind become acquainted with the gospel and receive its
truths into their minds, they begin to see their wrongfulness. Those who
oppose the reform of these sins oppose the religion of Jesus Christ.
"It has been more than intimated, that the Bible says nothing on these
subjects; that Christianity is silent in regard to them. The intimation is
a mark of great ignorance. Let me call your attention to what the Bible
says of slavery. And, first, What is slavery? It is the condition of a
human being held in ownership as an article of property or merchandise;
subject to the will and control of another for life; compelled to labor for
him without compensation; his children born to the same lot; bought and
sold and worked as men buy and sell and work cattle, and often treated
with less kindness. It is a condition in which a man is robbed of his
natural right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is usually a penal offence to teach him to read, even the Bible.
His mind is darkened and his nature brutalized by the position he is made
to occupy. His marriage, if such a ceremony is permitted him, is a sham;
and his wife and children are prostituted and sold, whenever it suits his
master to make such a disposition of them. ie does not live for himself
or his family.  He does not belong to himself, and has neither rights nor 
49
privileges, except at the will of his master. He cannot own property; he
cannot leave the plantation; there is nothing he can do without the permission of another. He is effectually robbed of all his rights as a human
being and a child of God; he is robbed of all his faculties of body and
mind; he is robbed of himself. Such is the condition of human slavery.
"Now, can it be pretended that the Bible sanctions such treatment of
a fellow-creature as this. Can those who set up such a pretension be
honest men? Let us see what the law of Moses says in reference to this
sin:' He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his
hands, shall surely be put to death.' It is true that a mild form of
slavery existed among the Hebrews; but the laws that regulated it were
mostly, if not altogether, in favor of the slave, and secured him many rights
and privileges. These laws operated so as to effect a gradual emancipation
of those who were held as bondsmen.  Every seventh year, the Hebrew
slave went free, and received compensation for his servitude; and, every
fiftieth year, liberty was proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the land.
Again, the law of Moses contains the following commandment,- a law
somewhat in conflict with another of human authority which our national
Legislature is about to pass:' Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the
servant which has escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with
thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy
gates, where it liketh him best. Thou shalt not oppress him.' *
"Besides these express declarations of the divine law against slavery
and the delivery of an escaped slave to his master, there is the general
spirit of the Bible, which is equally opposed to this crime, and the tendency
of which is' to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens,
and to let the oppressed go free.'t The Bible regards every man as an
accountable moral agent, addresses him as a child of God and a subject of
divine law. It requires that we' do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly
before God;' which equally forbids that we should kidnap and enslave our
fellow-men. It teaches us that God has made of one blood all the nations
of the earth; that all have one Father, and are created in his likeness.
"So the general spirit, as well as the plain truths, of the Christian religion, is likewise opposed to slavery. Christianity recognizes to the fullest
extent the brotherhood of all'mankind, and prescribes to us that beautiful
rule of conduct, I Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do
ye even so unto them.' It enjoins the duty of love to universal man, and
seeks to reconcile and bless all the nations and kindreds of the earth.
The Christian minister, therefore, who preaches the Bible,- whose calling
it is to teach the Christian religion, -must, if he is faithfiul to the truth,
apply it to the condition of human society, and bring it to bear against the
sins of the world. He cannot be entirely silent in regard to them, and be
a true minister of the everlasting gospel."
These are sentiments to which you listened from time to time
* Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.
7
t Isa. xviii. 6. 
50
during a year and a half (I address myself now to the disaffected)
without dissatisfaction or complaint; and to preach which, full
liberty was conceded me by the contract of settlement. During
that period, you were willing to hear all I desired to say on these
subjects, though I was sensible that some of you differed from
me in your views of them. Since the enactment of the Fugitive
Slave Law, and the support it receives from the present administration, you are not willing to hear the subject discussed at all.
The least mention of it is sufficient to excite your displeasure, and
call forth the most uncharitable remarks from you. I doubt, if
certain portions of the Scriptures that speak of our duties to the
injured and oppressed were read in your hearing, whether it
would not offend some of you, and be called "preaching politics."
What, then, is the cause that has led to this disaffection, and
finally to our separation? It is that you have allowed yourselves
to become heated by an over-zealous party spirit, and have followed your political leaders into the support of principles which
you yourselves a short time ago condemned. It is that you think
more of your political party than you do of the Christian religion,
and are more ready to follow Daniel Webster than you are to
follow Jesus Christ. I have never been accustomed to mention
from the pulpit the names of politicians or political parties; but
in this communication I feel it right and proper to tell you the
whole truth on this subject, and have you understand, that, if your
parish is divided and your prosperity at an end, it is you that
have done it, and you must bear the responsibility, and not your
minister.  It is you that have changed, and not I.  If you could
have profited by the excellent advice of the late Dr. Reed, my
venerable predecessor, addressed in a letter to this parish in 1780,
and which your fathers thought worthy to be placed on the records
of the parish, you would not now occupy this unfortunate position.
If it could be followed even in future, it would restore your parish
to union and harmony. Permit me, therefore, before closing my
letter, to quote it for your consideration, and to commend it to
your practice. Said he: -
"I trust you will study unanimity and concord; that you will not
forsake the assembling of yourselves together for instruction and religious
worship;.... that you will hear without prejudice; not with a desire and
a design to cavil and find fault, but with constant impartiality and attention, and a meek and teachable disposition of mind. I presume you will 
51
never make the doctrines and commandments of men.... a standard to
try orthodoxy and divinity by; but that you will search the Scriptures,
.... and make [them] the rule and criterion of all preaching and sentiment." I have italicized the passage.
I have felt much interest in the spiritual welfare of yourselves
and your children. I could have labored long and patiently
for your moral advancement, but you have placed it out of my
power; and I now bid you farewell, - praying that you may be
converted from all political and religious intolerance and from a
partisan spirit; from all low and selfish views and wicked prejudices; from all support and sanction of American slavery; and
from all other vices to which you may be liable. May you be
brought to a more complete knowledge of the truth as it is in
Jesus Christ; join the remnant of the ancient church that still
remains a part of your parish; and devote yourselves to the service of God and the good of mankind!
To those who have stood by me through these trials - faithful
and true-hearted men and women -I can only say you have my
warmest gratitude, and will continue in lasting remembrance
wherever Providence may cast my lot. If you cannot have the
gospel preached in its fullest application to the sins of the world,
and of this nation and people in particular; if it must be narrowed down, modified, and expurgated, to suit the prejudices and
political creed of men who sanction and uphold the heaven-daring
and God-defying sin of American slavery,- I trust you will give
no countenance or support to such a gospel. It were better to forsake the church of your fathers, if it falls into such hands, and
form a new and living church, in which God can be worshipped as
the Father of all mankind, his laws be respected and obeyed,
and man be taught the equal rights and brotherhood of man.
I remain your friend and brother,
J. G. FORMAN.
WTEST BRIDGEWATER, Aug. 25, 1851. 
6 —--