DOEG, THE EDOMITE;
OR,
THE INFORMER.








DOEG, THE EDOMITE;
OR,
THE INFORMER.
A LECTURE ON THE FIFTY-SECOND PSALM,
DELIVERED IN THE
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA,
JANUARY 6, 1861,
BY ALBERT BARNES.
NOT PUBLISHED.
PHILADELPHIA:
IENRY B. ASHMEAD, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER,
SANSOM STREET ABOVE ELEVENTH.
1861.








THE following Lecture was delivered in a regular course on the
Psalms, without having been written. It has since been written out
from the brief notes which had been prepared, with the same train
of thought, the same illustrations, and, as nearly as could be recollected, in the very words which were used in the delivery.  Of
course, entire accuracy in this respect could not be expected; but there
has been no intentional alteration of the language or the sentiments.
It is not'published,' but it is nowprinted for reasons which will be
readily understood by many.  It is due to any who may have felt
themselves aggrieved, that they should be put in possession of the
means of stating precisely what it was that gave them, as they supposed, just grounds of offence; and it is equally due to myself
that the exact words-even the unstudied utterances in a discourse which was wholly unwritten, should be stated, that I may
not suffer from  misapprehension.  The principal subject of the discourse, moreover, is one which is not often brought into the pulpit;
and pertaining, as it does, to an important and difficult point of
morals, the interest which has been excited in the discourse by
another topic springing out of that, may, perhaps, do something to
direct attention to the main topic.
A note has been added, explanatory of what was said in the discourse, on the part which has excited most attention.  As what
is contained in this note was not said on the occasion, it could not
honestly be introduced into the body of the Lecture, but it cannot
be wrong or unfair for me to explain, in such a note, what was
meant on the occasion, and what are the views which I hold on that
point. Perhaps after the excitements of the present time shall have
passed away, it will be regarded as remarkable that any offence
should have been taken by the expression of an opinion as to what
is fairly taught in the Bible, and what seemed to be in the fair line
of my duty as a Pastor in explaining the Sacred Scriptures.
ALBERT BARNES.
PHILADELPHIA, January 24, 1861.








DOEG, THE EDOMITE.
To the chief Musician, MaschiI, A Psalm of David, when Doeg the Edomite came
and told Saul, and said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech.
WHY boastest thou thyself in mischief, 0 mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually. Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working
deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak
righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, 0 thou deceitful tongue.
God shall likewise destroy thee forever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee
out of thy dwelling-place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah.
The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him: Lo, this is the man
that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and
strengthened himself in his wickedness. But I am like a green olive tree in the
house of God: I trust in the mercy of God forever and ever. I will praise thee
forever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good
before thy saints.-Psalm lii.
I HAVE never in my ministry, now not a short one,
preached on the subject on which I propose to address
you  this  afternoon.   I never should have  done  it if it
had not occurred in the course of a regular exposition of
the  Scriptures.    I  never  could  have  done  it  without
giving  occasion  to  an  inquiry  why that particular subject had  been  selected; whether  there  had  been  anything in my personal intercourse with others which suggested it; whether there was anything in the congregation which made it proper to preach on that particular
subject; or whether there was any prevailing custom in
the community around, or in the country at large, which
required that it should be made the particular subject of
a public discourse.
The fact here adverted to will illustrate the following
things in regard to the mode of preaching which I have
so long practised among you, to wit, by a regular exposition of continuous portions of the Sacred Scriptures.




6
(a.) The advantage of this kind of preaching in enabling me to introduce a great variety of subjects which
could not perhaps otherwise be referred to without giving
offence; for when a subject occurs in a regular course of
exposition-of explaining the Book which it is the principal business of my life to explain-it is clear that no
offence should be taken in such a course of exposition,
whatever may be the subject, if a fair interpretation is
given to the Word of God.
(b.) The advantage derived from the necessity of introducing many important subjects which could not, or
would not, be referred to in any other mode of preaching. It cannot be denied that there are many subjects
connected with religion and morals, in themselves of great
importance, which we should not be likely to bring forward in any other mode of preaching. We may avoid them,
either because we do not think that we fully understand
them; or we may regard some other subject as more immediately desirable to be considered; or it may require
more study to prepare ourselves on the subject which
would occur in the regular course of exposition, than we
are disposed to bestow upon it, preferring some easier
topic of discourse; or there may be something in the
state of public feeling, or some known views prevailing,
which would make it probable that offence would be
given if that subject were selected of design, and all
this might induce us to defer it to a future occasion, or
to avoid it altogether. None of these things will be as
likely to influence us, when the subject is one that is
suggested by a regular course of exposition, and that is,
in a measure, forced upon us.
(c.) The fact here adverted to will furnish an illustration of the wonderful variety which there is in the Scriptures, and the adaptation of the teaching of the Bible to




7
the actual circumstances of human life. It is only when
we pass, in a regular course of exposition, from book to
book, and chapter to chapter, and verse to verse, that we
learn to appreciate properly the variety and fullness
which there is in the teaching of the Bible; the adaptedness of that wonderful volume to the actual wants of
man; and the evidence furnished by that fullness, that
variety, and that adaptedness, to the fact that it has proceeded from Him who knows the secrets of all human
hearts, and who can take a comprehensive view of all
the wants of mankind. There is not a duty which man
is ever required to perform, in respect to which he cannot find in the Bible a direct precept or a principle to
guide him; not a trial for which there is not, either by
a direct promise, or by the experience of some one tried
in like manner, a specific consolation; not a sin which
man ever commits, which is not, by a direct command
in the Bible, or by the recorded consequences of sin in
some historical illustration, forbidden.
The subject to which I have referred as that suggested
by this Psalm, is " The Informer;" the character of him
who tells, or who gives information of others, of their
conduct or their concealment.
The title of the Psalm indicates the occasion on which
it was composed, and suggests the topic on which I am now
to address you. That title is, "A Psalm of David, when
Doeg, the Edomite, came and told Saul, and said unto
him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech." Of the
correctness of this title, there is no reason to doubt. It
accords exactly, as we shall see, with the facts, the
record of which has been preserved in one of the Books
of Samuel.
The Psalm is designed to describe the character of the




8
man who had thus given "information" to Saul in regard to the conduct of Ahimelech in showing kindness
to David, and at the same time to express the feelings
of David in respect to the meanness and the guilt of
such an act; to show the punishment which must certainly overtake such a man; and at the same time to
express his gratitude to God that he, an innocent man,
to whom the information especially pertained, had been
preserved, and that now, notwithstanding the conduct
of the informer, he was "like a green olive tree in the
house of God."
A  few explanatory remarks on the Psalm, will prepare us for the consideration of the general subject.
Why boasteth thou thyself in mischief. Why dost thou
exult in that which is wrong; why dost thou find pleasure in evil rather than in good; why dost thou seek to
triumph in the injury done to others. The reference is
to one who prided himself in the schemes and projects
which tended to injure others; or who congratulated
himself on the success which attended his efforts to wrong
other men.  0 mighty man. The clear reference of this
is to Doeg as a man of power. The original word is one
that is often applied to a hero or warrior. In this case,
the power was that which was principally derived from
wealth. ver. 7. The goodness of God endureth continually.
Literally, all the day. That is, he could not hope to prevent the exercise of goodness on the part of God towards him whom he persecuted, or whom he sought to
injure.  The goodness of God was so great and so constant that he would protect his true friends from such
machinations; or, was so unceasing and watchful that
the informer and accuser could not hope to find an interval of time when God would intermit his watchfulness,
and when, therefore, he could hope for success.  7'y




9
tongue deviseth mischiefs.  The word rendered mischiefs,
means (a) desire, cupidity; then (b) fall, ruin, destruction, wickedness.  The meaning here is, that he made
use of his tongue to ruin others. The particular thing
referred to, is the fact that Doeg sought the ruin of
others by giving information in regard to them. He informed Saul of what Ahimelech had done; he informed
him where David had been, thus giving him, also, information in what way he might be found and apprehended.
All this was designed to bring ruin upon David and his
followers. It actually brought ruin upon Ahimelech and
those associated with him. Like a sharp razor.  His
slanders were like a keen knife with which one stabs another. So we say of a slanderer, that he " stabs" another
in the dark. Working deceitfully. That is, it was by deceit
that he accomplished his purpose. There was no open
and fair dealing in what he did.  Thou lovest evil more
than good.  Thou dost prefer to do injury to others,
rather than to do them good. In the case referred to,
instead of aiding the innocent, the persecuted and the
wronged, he had chosen rather to attempt to reveal the
place where he might be found, and where an enraged
enemy might have an opportunity of wreaking his vengeance upon him. And lying rather than to speak righteousness. He preferred a lie to the truth; and when he
supposed that his own interest would be promoted by it,
he preferred a falsehood that would promote that interest, rather than a simple statement of the truth. The
lying in this case was that which was implied in his being
desirous of giving up David, and betraying him to Saul,
as if David was a bad man, and as if the suspicions of
Saul were well founded. He preferred to give his countenance to a falsehood in regard to him, rather than to
state the truth respecting his character. His conduct in




10
this, was strongly in contrast with that of Ahimelech.
fHe, when arraigned before Saul, declared his firm belief
of the innocence of David; his firm conviction that he
was true and loyal.  For that fidelity, he lost his life.
(1 Sam. xxii. 14.)  Doeg was willing to lend countenance to the suspicions of Saul, and practically to represent David as a traitor to the king.  Thou lovest all devouring words.  All words that tend to devour or swallow
up reputationand happiness.  0! thou deceitful tongue.
An address to the tongue, as loving deceit and fraud.
God shall likewise destroy thee forever. The reference here
is not to the tongue, but to Doeg himself.  The language
of the verse is intensive and emphatic. The main idea
is presented in a variety of forms, all designed to denote
utter and absolute destruction -  a complete and entire
sweeping away, so that nothing should be left.  The
word here used would suggest the idea of pulling down,
as a house, or a wall; that is, completely demolishing it,
and the meaning is, that destruction would come upon
the informer and the slanderer like the destruction which
comes upon a house or a wall when it is entirely pulled
down.  He shall take thee away.  The word here used is
employed elsewhere only in the sense of taking up and
carrying fire or coals. (Isa. xxx. 16; Prov. vi. 27; xxv.
22.) The idea in this place may be that he would be seized
and carried away with haste, as one who takes up fire or
coals does it as rapidly as possible, lest he should be
burned.  And shall pluck thee out of thy dwelling-place.
Literally, out of the tent. The reference is to his dwelling.
The allusion in the word here used is to the act of
tearing up plants, and the meaning is, that he would
be plucked up as a plant that is torn from its roots. And
root thee out of the land of the living. As a tree is torn
up from its roots, and thus destroyed.  He would be no




11
more among the living.  The righteous shall see, andfear.
The effect of such a judgment will be to produce solemn
reverence in the minds of good men-a solemn sense of
the justice of God; to make them tremble at such fearful judgments, and to fear lest they should violate the
law, and bring like condemnation upon themselves. And
shall laugh at him. The idea here is not that of exultation in the sufferings of others, or joy that calamity has
come upon them, or the gratification of a selfish and revengeful feeling that an enemy is deservedly punished;
it is that of approbation that punishment has come upon
one who has deserved it, and joy that wickedness is not
allowed to triumph. It is not wrong for us to feel approbation and joy that the laws are maintained; that
justice is done; and that wickedness is not allowed to
triumph, even though this does involve suffering, for we
feel that the guilty deserve it, and that it is better that
they should suffer than  that the righteous should
suffer through them, and that they should be permitted
to roam  at large.  All this may be entirely free
from any malignant or revengeful feeling, and may be
identified with the deepest piety, and the purest benevolence towards the sufferers themselves. Lo this is the
man that made not God his strength. That is, the righteous
would say this. They would designate him as a man
who had not made God his refuge, but who had trusted
in his own resources. The result would be that he would
be abandoned by God, and that those things on which he
had relied would fail him in the day of his calamity. He
would be pointed out as an instance of what must occur
when a man does not act with a wise reference to the
will of God, and who, confiding in his own strength and
resources, pursues his own plans of iniquity.  But
trusted in the abundance of his riches. From this it would




12
seem that Doeg was a rich man, and that, as a general
thing, in his life, and in his plans of evil, he felt confident in his wealth. He had that spirit of arrogance and
self-confidence which springs from the conscious possession
of property where there is no fear of God; and to all
that he did, he carried this reliance on his own importance as derived from wealth.  In the present instance,
the meaning is, that he would perform  the iniquitous
work of giving "information," with the proud and
haughty feeling springing from wealth and from his own
importance; the feeling that he was a man of consequence, and that whatever such a man might do, it would
be entitled to special attention.  And strengthened himself in his wickedness.  That is, he had a malicious pleasure in doing wrong, or in injuring others, and by every
art, and against all the convictions and remonstrances of
his own conscience, he endeavored to confirm himself in
this unholy purpose and employment.  But I am like a
green olive tree in the house of God. I am safe and happy,
notwithstanding the effort made by my enemy, the informer, to secure my destruction. I have been kept unharmed, like a green and flourishing tree-a tree that
should grow up and be protected in the very courts of
the sanctuary, safe under the care and the eye of God.
I trust in the mercy of Godforever and ever.  (a.) I have
always done it. It has been my constant habit in trouble
or danger to do it. (b.) I will always do it. As the result of my experience, I will still do it, and in thus trusting in God, I shall have the consciousness of safety. I
willpraise thee forever, because thou hast done it.  Because
thou art the source of my safety. The fact that I have
been delivered from the designs of Saul, and saved from
the efforts of Doeg to betray me, is to be traced wholly
to God. It has been ordered by thy Providence that




13
the purposes alike of Doeg and of Saul have been defeated, and I am safe.  And I will wait on thy name.
There is here (a) the expression of entire dependence
on God; and (b) a willingness to await his interposition
at all times; a belief that at the proper time he would
always interpose, and bring deliverance; a confident
feeling that however long such interposition might on
any occasion seem to be delayed, yet that God would
interfere, and a purpose calmly and patiently to wait
until the time of deliverance should come. For it is
good before the saints.  That is, God is good; and I
will confess it before his " saints." His mercy has been
so marked and signal that a public expression of it
is proper, and I will declare what he has done for
me in the presence of his assembled people.  Among
the saints there is a common bond of union-a common
interest in all that pertains to each other; and when
special mercy is shown to any one of the great brotherhood, it is proper that all should join in the thanksgiving,
and render praise to God.
The point, therefore, before us, in considering the
Psalm, relates to the conduct of Doeg in giving information, or as an informer; that is, his conduct in making
use of information in his possession for the ruin of the
innocent.
It will be proper to illustrate this under two heads:
I. Considered as a trial of David, or as one of the
many afflictions of his life; and,
II. Considered in respect to the morality of the action,
or as an act of guilt on the part of Doeg.
I. As one of the trials of David.
In order to understand this, it will be proper to state
the case. somewhat more at length, and then to show what
was the peculiar nature of the trial.




14
The full circumstances of the case are stated in the
record preserved in the first Book of Samuel, and are
the following:
"Then Saul said unto his servants that stood about him,
Hear now, ye Benjamites; will the son of Jesse give
every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all
captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds; that
all of you have conspired against me, and there is none
that showeth me that my son hath made a league with
the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry
for me, or showeth unto me that my son hath stirred up
my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?
Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over
the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse
coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. And
he inquired of the Lord for him, and gave him victuals,
and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine. Then
the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of
Ahitub, and all his father's house, the priests that were
in Nob: and they came all of them to the king. And
Saul said, Hear now, thou son of Ahitub. And he answered, Here I am, my lord. And Saul said unto him,
Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of
Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword,
and hast inquired of God for him, that he should rise
against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful
among all thy servants as David, which is the king's sonin-law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honorable in
thine house? Did I then begin to inquire of God for
him? be it far from me: let not the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father:
for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more.
And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech,




15
thou, and all thy father's house. And the king said
unto the footmen that stood about him, Turn, and slay
the priests of the Lord; because their hand also is with
David, and because they knew when he fled, and did not
show it to me. But the servants of the king would not
put forth their hand to fall upon the priests of the Lord.
And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the
priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon
the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. And Nob, the city of
the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both
men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and
asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword."-2 Sam.
xxii. 7-19.
The case, then, was this. David, the son-in-law of
Saul, had become exposed to his enmity and jealousy,
principally from the praises bestowed on him foruhis valor
in slaying Goliath, the Philistine. This jealousy had
been, in a special manner, excited by the songs which
were sung in the celebration of the triumphs achieved
over the Philistines, and by the prominence given in
those songs to David. " When David was returned from
the slaughter of the Philistines, the women came out of
all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king
Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of
music. And the women answered one another as they
played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David
his ten thousands." (1 Sam. xviii. 6, 7.) David, therefore,
became an object of jealousy and of envy. His life was
in danger, and he was constrained to seek safety by
flight. In his distress and want, he had come to Ahimelech, the officiating priest, at Nob, and Ahimelech had
given him, to supply his wants, the " show bread" in the
tabernacle; and, as a proof of special confidence, had




16
also given him the sword of Goliath, the Philistine, which
had been entrusted to him. (1 Sam. xxi. 1-9.) Yet David
felt that he was not safe there. In another part of the
narrative there is a statement made, not inserted in this
part of the transaction, which shows why he did not feel
safe even in the presence, and under the protection of
Ahimelech. After Ahimelech had been put to death by
Doeg at the command of Saul, (1 Sam. xxii. 18, 19,)
David stated to a son of Ahimelech why he did not consider himself safe with his father. " I knew it that day,
when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell
Saul." (1 Sam. xxii. 22.)  Doeg was, therefore, present
when David presented himself before Ahimelech. He
saw what Ahimelech had done. He had it thus in his
power to betray Ahimelech, and through him, to betray
David, if Ahimelech should be unfaithful. The character of Doeg was, from some cause, well known; and
David felt that he would not hesitate to betray any one,
or do any act of wickedness or meanness, if it would
subserve his own purposes. David, therefore, fled to
Achish, king of Gath. Achish was suspicious of him,
and dreaded the consequences of harboring him; and
David, for greater security, feigned himself mad,-with
what propriety it is not needful now to inquire. Under a
professed unwillingness to harbor a mad man, Achish refused him protection, and David again fled. He found a
refuge for a time in the cave of Adullam, and gathered
to himself there a company of four hundred men. (1
Sam. xxii. 1, 2,) Then, to secure a place of safety for
his father and mother in the time of trouble, he crossed
the Jordan, and applied to the king of Moab for a shelter
for his parents. (1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4.) Having secured
this, at the instance of the prophet Gad, he recrossed the
Jordan, and came into the land of Judah, and found a
refuge in the forest of Hareth. (1 Sam. xxii. 5.)




17
At this time the events occurred, which are referred
to in the Psalm. Saul complained that no one had informed him of the treasonable conduct of his own son,
and of the conspiracy against him and his government.
(1 Sam. xxii. 7, 8.)'Doeg, therefore, came forward as a
voluntary informer against Ahimelech for having harbored
David; for having shown him countenance; for having
aided and assisted him. He had seen David with him.
Ahimelech had provided for him; had given him the
sword of Goliath; had showed himself to be his friend. He,
therefore, knew of him; he was in his confidence; he must
know where he was. Ahimelech had resisted the government of Saul, and had been the protector of the fugitive.
It was presumed that he understood what were the relations at that time of David to Saul, and that he meant
to harbor a rebel. It might still be presumed, also, that
he was in league with David, and that he could give information to Saul of his place of retreat.
Ahimelech was summoned to meet Saul (1 Sam. xxii.
II,) and with him were summoned also all "his father's
house, the priests that were in Nob." In reply to the
charge that he had conspired against Saul; that he had
befriended David; that he had " given him," in modern
language, " aid and comfort;" that he had assisted him
so that he could "rise against Saul;" and that he had so
befriended him, that he could "lie in wait for him" at
that time; he boldly declared his conviction that Saul
had not a more faithful subject in his realm than David
was. "And who is so faithful among all thy servants as
David, which is the king's son-in-law, and goeth at thy
bidding, and is honorable in thine house." And he says
that he did not originate any movement in regard to
David; he had not led him into any act of violating the
law; he had done nothing to induce him to depart from
2




18
Saul, or to set up rebellion. He came to him a fugitive,
and he helped him; he was hungry, and he fed him; he
was a poor wandering man —an outcast —-and he befriended him.  " Did I then begin to inquire of God for
him?  Be it far from me. Let not the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all the house of my fathers:
for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more."
(1 Sam. xxii. 14, 15.) There Ahimelech stood-an example of a bold. firm, independent, honorable, honest man.
He maintained the innocence of David, as well as his own.
He sought no favor by joining in the clamor against David.
He did not seek to avert the blow which he could not
but see was impending over himself, by any sympathetic
or mean compliance with the prejudices of the king. Ile
did nothing to flatter the offended monarch, or to gratify
him in his purpose to arrest David, the fugitive. He
made no offer to disclose to him the place of his concealment.  Any one of these things —any act in the line
of that which Doeg had performed - might have saved
his life. That he knew the place of David's retreat, is
apparent from a circumstance incidentally referred to in
the ultimate account of the affair; for, after Ahimelech
had been put to death, it is said that one of his sonsAbiathar-fled at once to David, (1 Sam. xxii. 20, 21,)
and disclosed to him the dreadful manner of his father's
death; thus showing that the knowledge of the place of
his retreat was in the possession of the family, and could
easily have been disclosed to Saul, and yet it was not
done.  Neither Ahimelech, nor any one of his family,
even intimated to Saul that they knew where David then
was, and that they could put him in possession of the
means of securing him. That the fact that they did not,
and would not, betray the place of his retreat, was one
cause of the wrath of Saul, is apparent from the reason




19
assigned why the "footmen" were commanded to put
them to death.  "And the king said unto the footmen
that stood about him, Turn, and slay the priests of the
Lord, because their hand also is with David, and because
they icnew vhen he fled, and did not show it unto me." (1
Sam. xxii. 17.)
It cannot be doubted, therefore, that if there had been
an offer of furnishing the information; if there had been
a. tender of their services in the case; if there had been
evinced a spirit of ready compliance with the prejudices
and passions of Saul; if there had been among them the
same spirit of mean sycophancy which characterized Doeg,
Ahimelech and the whole fanmily would have been safe.
But no such thing was done; no such offer was made;
no such spirit was evinced. There they stood - nobleminded men -father, son, all the family, true to honor,
to virtue, to religion; true to God, to Saul, to David, and
to themselves.  They lodged the secret in their own
bosoms: they neither proffered nor submitted to any
mean and dishonorable compliances that they might save
their own lives.  There was, on the one hand, Doeg, the
"mingty" man, but the mean informer; there was, on the
other, a noble-minded man, standing up in the conscious
integrity of what he had done, and maintaining it even
at the hazard of life.
The result is well known, and was that which, so far
as the fate of Ahimelech was concerned, could easily
have been anticipated. Saul, maddened against David,
was now equally infuriated against the honest man who
had befriended him. He commanded him to be put to
death at once. And here, in this remarkable transaction,
where so much of meanness and honor, of fidelity and
falsehood, of integrity and corruption, of soberness and
passion, come so near together, we have another striking




20
instance of fidelity and virtue. Saul commanded the
"footmen," (marg. the runners,) who were about him, to
"turn and slay" Ahimelech and his sons. " Their hand,"
he said, "was with David, and they knew where he fled,
and did not show it to him." They had refused to inform
him, and were all alike to be held guilty. Yet the "footmen" declined to do the bloody work. Noble men, themselves, they saw here an instance of true nobleness of
character and of deed in the priests of the Lord, and
they refused, even at the peril of the wrath of Saul, to
execute an unrighteous sentence on men so noble, so
honorable, so true.  There was one, however, that would
do it. There stood the mean, the sycophantic, the base
man, Doeg, who had'informed' against the priests, and
he was ready to do the work. The command was given,
and he consummated the work of betrayal and of meanness. by putting at once to the sword, four score and five
priests of the Lord, and by carrying desolation and death
through the city of their habitation, " smiting with the
edge of the sword, both men and women, children and
sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep." (1 Sam.
xxii. 18, 19.)
We are now prepared to look on this as a trial in the
life of David.
On this, I may make the following remarks:
(1.) As a personal trial; or as a part of his personal
sufferings. It was a trial added to all that there was in
the alienation of Saul, and to all that there was of personal danger in his case. It was the trial resulting from
the fact that he was never safe; that he knew not whom
to trust. It was not the mere trial derived from open
enemies, and from personal dangers, but it was that form
of trial which is most difficult to be borne when one
does not know whether he is among friends or foes;




21
when he feels that he is surrounded by spies and malignant observers; when confidence has failed; and when
a man knows that he may be at any moment betrayed
by secret enemies, or abandoned by professed friends.
David had much of this to encounter in his life. Thus
in Psalm liv. he refers to another trial precisely similar
to this:" When the Ziphims came and said to Saul, Doth
not David hide himself with us?" (Title.) Thus in
Psalm xli. he records a similar act of treachery and
secret malignity:-" Mine enemies speak evil of me,
When shall he die, and his name perish? And if he come
to see me he speaketh vanity, [he makes false professions of friendship,] his heart gathereth iniquity to
itself; [he seeks to find occasion to carry out the wickedness of his heart by something that I may say in my
trouble;] when he goeth abroad he telleth it; [he discloses
what I may have said in my trouble and sorrow that
may be construed to my disadvantage.] Yea, mine own
familiar friend, in whom [ trusted, which did eat of my
bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." So also in
Psalm lv. he records a similar trial:-" It was not an
enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it:
neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from
him; but it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and
mine acquaintance. We took sweet counsel together,
and walked unto the house of God in company." Thus,
wandering from  place to place; driven from  one refuge to another-only to find that unsafe; homeless
and waylaid; not knowing whom to trust; suspecting
that there might be a lurking enemy anywhere and
everywhere; encompassed by men who were mean
enough to profess friendship with the purposes of traitors; and feeling that at any time his place of retreat




22
might be made known to Saul by those who were base
enough to act the part, and covetous enough to seek for
the gains of wickedness by performing the work of informers, he had no place of security; he knew not whom
to trust; he had before him the basest form of human depravity. There are no trials more difficult to be borne
than those which spring from such sources as these, and
it is no wonder that his heart overflows with holy indignation in this Psalm against conduct so unprincipledso base.
(2.) A trial as bringing calamity on the innocent who
befriended him.  The trial was not merely personal.
He had been the innocent occasion of bringing a horrid
death on his protector and friend-the faithful, firm, honorable man who had provided for him in his want; and on
all the family of that friend. It added to this, that he
had been apprehensive that this would occur, and that he
had had no power to avert it.  When Ahimelech had
met him so kindly, he had noticed this same Doeg there,
for what purpose is not specified, and from that moment
he anticipated what actually followed. He felt assured
that the base man would disclose to Saul all that he had
seen, and he could not doubt what would be the result
in regard to Ahimelech.  "And Abiathar had shown
David that Saul had slain the Lord's priests.  And
David said unto Abiathar, 1 knew it that day, whlen Doeg
the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I
have occasioned the death of all the persons of thy
father's house." (1 Sam. xxii. 21, 22.) This form of
the trial was this: It was that which occurs —as it may
among the trials of life-when our conduct, however
proper, is made the occasion of bringing calamity on
others; when in consequence of what we have done,
sorrows which we cannot avert rush upon them; when




23
they suffer because they have taken our part-have befriended us-have aided us-have spoken a good word
for us —have done us an act of kindness. It is the sorrow which comes over us when the circumstances are
such that we cannot step in and avert what is coming
upon them by taking it on ourselves; or when they
are cut off from life, and we feel that we have it not in
our power now to express our sorrow and our sympathy
in their sufferings. It is often much harder to bear this
kind of affliction than it is to endure that which comes
directly upon ourselves. No burden of life is greater
than that which we are called to sustain when our conduct involves others in calamity, br when they are made
to suffer on our account.
(3.) This may be referred to as illustrating the sorrows which came upon the decendant of David —the
Redeemer.  In the proper sense of the term, we cannot,
indeed, regard the trials of David as "'typical" of those
of the Saviour —for in the very nature of a type there is
the idea that it was divinely appointed to represent or
adumbrate some future event, and we cannot well understand how that could occur in the voluntary actions
of men, even of good men.  But there was so much in
the life of David which resembled what occurred in the
life of the Redeemer, that it often seems as if the one
had been ordered with an express design to shadow
forth the other; so similar as naturally to suggest what
occurred in his life; so much alike, that what took place
in the life of the one may be made use of in illustrating
what took place in the life of the other.  How closely,
in this instance, did the trials of David resemble those
of the Saviour!  How naturally is the mind turned
from the one to the other, as if the one had been designed
to shadow  forth the other! For he, too, was a wan



24
derer and an outcast; he had no home and no security;
he was driven from place to place; he was surrounded
by enemies, open and secret; he was approached, under
the garb of friendship, by the crafty and the mean; he
was uncertain as a man whom he could trust; he had
with him always a secret enemy-a spy upon his conduct, among his most intimate friends, ever watching
him, and ever ready to betray him; and at last he was
given up to a cruel death for a paltry consideration, by
a man most mean, base and treacherous-an informer of
whom Doeg might at least be regarded as a type and
emblem-by a crime similar in character, and only higher
in degree as he whom he betrayed was more exalted
than David.
II. We are now prepared to consider this act with
respect to the morality of the action, or as an act of
guilt on the part of Doeg.
This brings before us the question respecting the guilt
of an informer; or, the larger question of casuistry, in
what cases it is our duty to give information which may
be in our possession about the conduct of others, and in
what cases it becomes a moral wrong or a crime to do it.
This is a question of much importance in respect to
our own conduct, and often of much difficulty in its
solution. I confess myself unable to answer all the inquiries which might be made on this subject, or to lay
down principles of undoubted plainness which would be
applicable to every case which may occur, and all that
I can hope to be able to do will be to suggest a few
general principles which may be a guide on some of
those questions.
The question on the subject is one which may occur
at any time, and in any situation of life. Is it never
right to give such information? Are we never bound




25
to do it? Are there no circumstances in which it is proper
that it should be voluntary?   Are there any situations in which we are exempt by established customs
or laws from  giving such information?   Are there
any in which we are bound, by the obligations of
conscience, not to give such information whatever may
be the penalty?  May there be information or knowledge in our possession which no earthly power should
wrest from us?  And where and when does guilt begin
or end in our volunteering to give information of the
conduct or the concealments of others?
These questions often come with much perplexity before the mind of an ingenuous school-boy, who would
desire to do right, and who yet has so much honor that
he desires to escape the guilt and the reproach of being
a' tell-tale.' They are questions which occur to a lawyer, or, rather, which did occur before the general principle, which I will soon advert to, had been settled by
the courts, in regard to the knowledge of which he has
been put in possession under the confidential relation of
advocate and client.  They are questions which may
occur to a clergyman, either, in respect to the confidential disclosures made at the Confessional of the Catholic
priest, or, in respect to the confidential statements of
the true penitent made to a Protestant pastor, in order
that spiritual counsel may be obtained to give relief to a
burdened conscience. They are questions which it was
necessary should be settled in regard to a fugitive
from justice, who seeks protection under the roof of
a friend or a stranger. They are questions respecting
fugitives from oppression in foreign lands, when they
flee to other countries-suggesting the inquiry whether
they shall be welcomed there, or whether there shall be
any law by which they shall, on demand, be restored




26
to the dominion of a tyrant.  They are questions which
the conscience will ask, and does ask, about fugitives from
bondage, who apply to us for aid in securing their liberty,
and who seek an asylum beneath our roof-questions
whether the law of God requires or permits us to render
any active assistance in making known the place of their
refuge, and returning them to bondage. When, and in
what cases, if any, is a man bound to give information
in such circumstances as these?-I have said that I cannot solve all these questions.  I admit that cases may
occur in which there would be great difficulty in determining what are the exact limits of duty, and I do not
know that writers on the subject of morals have laid
down such clear rules as would leave the mind perfectly
free from doubt, or be sufficient to guide us on all these
points. It will be admitted that some of them are questions of much difficulty, and where instruction would be
desirable.
Much may be learned in regard to the proper estimate
of human conduct among men, from the language which
they employ-language which, in its very structure,
often conveys their sentiments from age to age.  The
ideas of men on malny of the subjects of morals, in respect to that which is honorable or dishonorable, right
or wrong, manly or mean, became thus imbedded-I
might almost say fossilized-in their modes of speech.
Language, in its very structure, thus carries down
to future times the sentiments cherished in regard to the
morality of actions-as the fossil remains that are beneath the surface of the earth-in the strata of the
rocks-bring to us the forms of ancient types of animals
-of ferns and palms, of which there are now no living
specimens on the globe.  They who have studied Dean
Trench's Treatise on'words' will recollect how  this




27
idea is illustrated in that remarkable work; how, without any other information about the views of men in
other times, the very words which they employed, and
which have been transmitted to us, convey to us the estimate which was formed in the remotest ages in regard
to the moral quality of an action, as proper or improper
as honorable or dishonorable-as conformed to the
noble principles of our nature, or as indicating the reverse.
As illustrating the general sentiments of mankind in
this respect, I will select two words as specimens of many
which might be selected, and as words in which men
have been agreed in applying to some of the acts referred to in the questions of difficulty which I have just
mentioned, and which may enable us to do something in
determining the morality of an action, so far as those
words, in their just application to the subject, indicate
the judgment of mankind.
One of these words is the word " meanness"-a word
which a school-boy would be most likely to apply to the act
of a tell-tale or an informer, and which we instinctively
apply to numerous actions in more advanced periods of
life, and which serves to mark the judgment of mankind
in regard to certain kinds of conduct.  The idea in such
a case is not so much the guilt or the criminality of tile
act, considered as a violation of law, as it is that of
being opposed to just notions of honor, or as indicating a
base, low, sordid, grovelling spirit-" lowless of mind,
want of dignity and elevation; want of honor."- Webster.
The other word is the word " sycophant."  The Athenians had a law prohibiting the exportation of figs. This
law, of course, had a penalty, and it was a matter of importance to the magistrate to ascertain who had been
guilty of violating it. It suggested, also, a method of
securing the favor of such a magistrate, and perhaps of




28
obtaining a reward, by giving information of those who
had been guilty of violating the law. From these two
words-the Greek word fig, and the Greek word to show,
or to discover, we have derived the word sycophant,
and the word has come down from the Greeks, and
through the long tract of ages intervening between its
first use in Athens to the present time, always bearing
in every age the original idea imbedded in the word, as
the old fossil that is now dug up bears the form of the
fern, or the leaf, or the worm, or the shell that was imbedded there perhaps millions of ages ago. As such a
man would be likely to be mean, and fawning, and flattering, so the word has come to describe always a parasite; a mean flatterer; a flatterer of princes and great
men; and hence it is, and would be applied as one of
the words indicating the sense of mankind in regard to
a " tale-bearer," or an "informer."- Webster.
Such words as these indicate the general judgment of
mankind on such conduct as that referred to in the
Psalm before us. Of course, to what particular actions
among these general questions they are properly applicable, would be another point; they are referred to here
only as indicating the general judgment of mankind in
regard to certain kinds of conduct, and to show how
careful men are in their very language to express their
permanent approbation of that which is honorable and
right, and their detestation of that which is dishonorable
and wrong.
Let us now  consider more particularly the subject
with respect to duty, and to criminality. The question
is, whether we can find any cases where it is rightwhere it is our duty to give such information; or, in
what cases, if any, it is right, and in what cases it is
malignant, guilty, wrong. The points to be considered
are



29
(1.) When it is right, or when it may be demanded
that we should give information of another; and
(2.) When it becomes guilt.
(1.) When it is right, or when it may be demanded
of us.
This is not, indeed, the main point before us, and I
confess that I am not able to determine the exact limits
of right in the case.  A few remarks may be made,
however, as bearing on the subject.
(a.) It is to be admitted that there are cases in which
the interests of justice demand that men should be required to give information of others; or, there are cases
where the courts have a right to summon us, to put us
upon our oaths, and to demand the information which
may be in our possession. The courts constantly act on
this; and the interests of justice could not be promoted
without this right, nor could a cause ever be determined
without exercising this right. If all men were bound
in conscience to withhold information simply because
they have it in their possession, or from the mode in
which they came in possession of it; or if they withheld it from mere stubbornness and obstinacy, of course,
all the departments of justice must stand still, and the
officers of justice might be discharged, since it can neither
be presumed that they would possess all the knowledge
necessary to the administration of justice themselves,
nor would the law allow them to act on it if they did.
The law never presumes that a judge is to decide a case
from a knowledge of the facts in his own possession, or
simply because lie knows what was done in the case.  The
ultimate decision must be made in view of testimony
given, not of knowledge possessed. In most cases, however, there is no difficulty on this point. There is no
necessary violation of confidence in giving this informa



30
tion.  There have been no improper means used to obtain it.  There has been only an observation of that
which any other man might have seen. There has been
no baseness in spying out what was done.  There has
been no " sycophantic" purpose; there is no voluntariness in betraying what we know; there is no dishonorableness in making known what happened to be in our
possession.  A man may regret that he witnessed the
act of crime, but he does not blame himself for it; he
may feel pained that his testimony may consign another
man to the gallows, but he does not deem it dishonorable, for he has no mean purpose in it, and the interests
of justice demand it.
(b.) It is an admitted principle that one employed as
counsel in a case-a lawyer-shall not be required to
give up information which may be in his possession as
counsel; information which has been intrusted to him
by his client.  It is held that it is essential to the
interests of justice, that whatever is thus communicated to a professional adviser shall be regarded by the
court as strictly confidential, and that the counsel incurs
no blame if he does not give information on the subject;
or, in other words, that the true interests of justice do
not demand, and that the principles of honor will not
admit, that he should betray the man who has intrusted
his cause to him.  How far a man governed by a good
conscience, and by the principles of honor, may undertake a cause which from the statements of his client in
the beginning he may regard as doubtful, or where in
the progress of the case he may become sure that his
client is guilty, is a point which does not come under the
present inquiry, and which may, in fact, be in some respects a question of difficult solution. It must still,
however, even in such a case, be held that he cannot be




31
required to give the information in his possession, and
every principle of honor or of right would be understood
to be violated, if, abandoning the case, he should become
a voluntary "informer."*
(c) In like manner, it is understood that the law does
not require that a juryman should give voluntary " information" of what may be within his own knowledge in
the case that may be submitted for trial. The extent
of his oath and his obligation is that he shall give a verdict according to the testimony submitted under the proper forms of law.  He may not go back of that a.nd base
his opinion in the verdict on any private knowledge
which he may have in his own possession, and which
has not, under the proper forms of law, been laid before
the court; nor may what he himself may have seen and
heard enter at all into his verdict, or influence it in any
manner, unless it has been submitted with the other testimony in the case to the court.  The verdict is to be
based on evidence given; not on what he has seen.  An
accused man has a right to demand that all that shall
bear on the sentence in the case; all that shall enter
into the verdict, shall be submitted as testimony, under
the solemnities of an oath, and with all proper opportunities of cross-examination, and of rebutting it by counter
testimony.  A juryman may, indeed, be called as a witness in a case. But then he is to be sworn and examined
as any other witness, and when he comes to unite in
making up the verdict, he is to allow to enter into the
verdict only that which is in possession of all the members of the jury, and is not to permit any knowledge
which he may have, which was not obtained from him
in giving testimony, to influence his own judgment in
the case.t
* 3 Blackstone, p. 370, Book iii., ch. 23.
t 3 Blackstone, p. 375, Book iii., ch. 23. See p. 370. Note.




32
(d.) There are cases, however, in which matters entrusted to one as a secret, or in confidence, may be required
to be given up. Such cases may occur in a matter of private friendship, or in a case of professional confidence.*
In the case of a clergyman of our own denomination, it
has been  held  lately  that he was bound  to  submit a
letter to the court which had been addressed to him by
the accused as her pastor, and which was supposed to
contain important disclosures in regard to her criminality.t   In this case, however, the  disclosure was not originally made by the pastor; nor was the fact of the existence of such a letter made known by him.  The fact
that such a letter had been sent to him, was stated by
the party herself; and the court, having this knowledge
of it, demanded  its production  in  court.   It was submitted after taking legal advice, and the community will
justify the conduct of the pastor. So the principle is
regarded as well settled that a minister of religion may
be required to disclose what has been communicated to
him, whether  at the  "'confessional,"  or as  a  pastor,
which may be necessary to establish the guilt of a party;
and that the fact that it had been communicated in confidence, and for spiritual advice, does not constitute a
reason for refusing to disclose it.
(2.) But the point before us relates rather to the in* " The confidence which is placed in a counsel or solicitor, must necessarily be inviolable when the use of advocates and legal assistants is admitted.
But the purposes of public justice supersede the delicacy of every other species of confidential communication. In the trial of the Dutchess of Kingston,
it was determined that a friend might be bound to disclose, if necessary, in a
court of justice, secrets of the most sacred nature which one sex could repose
in another. And that a surgeon was bound to communicate any information
whatever, which he was possessed of, in consequence of his professional attendance. And those secrets only, communicated to a counsel or attorney, are
inviolable in a court of justice, which have been entrusted to them whilst
acting in their respective characters to the party as their client."-3 Blackstone,
370, Note.
t In the " Burch" case, recently tried in Chicago.




33
quiry when the act of giving such information becomes
guilt, or in what circumstance is it forbidden and wrong?
Perhaps all that need to be said on this point can be
reduced to three heads: when it is for base purposes;
when the innocent are betrayed; and when professional
confidence is violated.  The illustration of these points,
after what has been said, need not detain us long.
First. When it is for base purposes. This would include all those cases where it is for gain; where it is to
secure favor; and where it is from envy, malice, spite,
or revenge. The case of Doeg was, manifestly, an instance of this kind, where the motive was not that of
promoting public justice, or preserving the peace of the
realm, but where it was to ingratiate himself into the
favor of Saul, and secure his own influence at court.
The parallel case of the Ziphims (Psalm liv.) was another instance of this kind, where, so far as the narrative goes, it is supposable that the only motive was to
obtain the favor of Saul, or to secure a reward, by betraying an innocent and a persecuted man who had fled
to them for a secure retreat.  The case of Judas Iscariot
was another instance of this kind.  He betrayed his
Saviour; he agreed, for a paltry reward, to disclose his
place of usual retreat-a place to which he had resorted
so often for prayer, that Judas knew that he could be
found there. It was for no wrong done to him. It was
from no regard to public peace or justice. It was not
because he even supposed the Saviour to be guilty. He
knew that he was innocent. He even himself confessed
that in the most solemn manner, and in the very presence of those with whom he had made the infamous
bargain; and with just such a result as the mean and
the wicked must always expect, when those for whom
they have performed the mean and the wicked act, have
3




34
no further use for them.*  Such, also, is the case of the
"sycophant." That a man might, in some circumstances,
give information about the exportation of "figs" contrary to law, or might even be required to do it, may be
true; but it was equally true that it was not commonly
done with any patriotic or honorable ends, but from the
most base and ignoble motives; and hence the sense of
mankind in regard to the nature of the transaction has
been perpetuated in the word itself. So, in a school,
there is often no better motive than envy, or rivalship, or
malice, or a desire to obtain favor or reward, when information is given by one school boy of another; and
hence the contempt and scorn with which a boy who
acts under the influence of these motives is always regarded-emblem of what he is likely to meet in all his
subsequent life.
Second. The innocent are never to be betrayed. The
divine law pertaining to this seems to be perfectly plain,
and the principles of that law are such as to commend
themselves to the consciences of all mankind.  At this
point, I will read two passages of Scripture as illustrations of what that law is. The first is in Isaiah xvi. 3,
4, "Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow
as the night in the midst of the noonday; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth.  Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them
from the face of the spoiler." The other is in Deuteronomy xxiii. 15, 16, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his
master the servant which is 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."
* " I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said,
What is that to us?"-Matthew xxvii. 4.




35
On these passages of the Bible, I remark:
1. That they seem to me to be settled principles of
the law of God. There is no ambiguity in them. They
have not been repealed. They are, therefore, still binding, and extend to all cases pertaining to the innocent
and the oppressed.
2. They accord with the convictions of the human
mind-the deep-seated principles which God has laid in
our very being, as designed to guide us in our treatment
of others.
3. They accord with some of the highest principles
of self-sacrifice, as illustrated in history-the noblest exhibitions of human nature in giving an asylum to the oppressed and the wronged; instances where life has been
periled, or even given up, rather than that the persecuted,
the innocent, and the wronged, should be surrendered or
betrayed. How often, in the history of the church, has
life been thus periled, because a refuge and a shelter was
furnished to the persecuted Christian-the poor outcast,
driven from  his home under oppressive laws!  How
honorable have men esteemed such acts to be! How illustrious is the example of those who have at all hazards
opened their arms to receive the oppressed, and to welcome the persecuted and the wronged! In the year
1685, by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantz, eight
hundred thousand professed followers of the Saviour -
Huguenots —were driven from their homes and their
country, and compelled to seek safety by flight to other
lands. In their own country, fire and the sword spread
desolation everywhere, and the voice of wailing filled
the land. Those who could flee, did flee. The best men
of France-those of noblest blood-fled in every direction, and sought a refuge in other countries. They fledcarrying with them not only the purest form, and the




36
best spirit of religion, but the best knowledge of the
arts, to all the surrounding nations. Belgium, Holland,
England, Scotland, Switzerland, opened their arms to welcome the fugitives. Our own country welcomed themthen, as now, an asylum   for the oppressed.  In  every
part of our land they found a home. Thousands of the
noblest spirits —the best men of the South and the North,
were composed  of these  exiles and wanderers.   Thousands found a home in North Carolina and South Carolina; aye, in South Carolina —alas! where are those descendants now? But suppose the world had been barred
against these exiles and wanderers. Suppose they had
been driven back again to their native land, poor persecuted men and women returned to suffering and to death.
What would have been the just execration of mankind
at such an act?
There is a law  in this land on the subject here referred
to, which cannot be executed.  It is against the moral sense
-the conscience of mankinld, and such a law cannot be carried  out.  And  believing, as I do, that the principles laid
down  in  the texts of Scripture which I have quoted, are
binding on the conscience, if a man should come to me as a
fugitive from  oppression anywhere, I would treat him  precisely as I would desire that my own son should be treated
in a similar case, and as I would treat my own brother.  He
should find in me a helper and a sympathizing friend.
* I have emphasized this passage, for it was this which gave offence. In
the expression which I used, "There is a law in this land on the subject here
referred to which cannot be executed," I did not say that it " ought" not to be
executed; nor did I mean to say that it can never be executed; or that there
would be any organized and open resistance to its execution in any part of our
country; nor did I intimate that if there should be such resistance, it
ought to be countenanced. Though the language was strictly unpremeditated,
yet it happens exactly to express the idea which I intended, though not so fully
as to preclude the propriety of a few remarks in explanation of its meaning.
I meant by it, then, as I expressed it, that where there is a law in any country




37
Third. Professional confidence is not to be betrayed.
We have seen, in the remarks before made, that those
who are employed as counsellors in the courts, cannot be
required to communicate facts that are stated to them by
which is against the moral sense or the conscience of mankind, or which,
however proper some law may be on the subject, contains provisions which
require any considerable portion of the community to violate their consciences
in carrying it into execution, though under a penalty, it will infact not be executed in the spirit and intent of the law, or it will practically become " a dead
letter," and will be inoperative.  There may be no organized resistance to it,
no open violence, and no actual hinderance thrown in the way of those who
are appointed to carry it out, but, although it may be executed in any particular
case, there will be so much odiousness attached to it; there will be so much
expense in carrying it out; there will be so many ways of evading it; there will
be so much to prevent its execution by simply standing aloof and not co-operating in the case, that ten cases will occur in which it will not be executed
for one case where it is.
I did not mean, therefore, that in respect to the particular law referred to,
there would be any organized resistance to it at the North, or any legislative
interference that would set it aside, nor did I express any approbation of such
a course, if there should be. On the contrary, it is a fact, that in all the specific cases where the law has been attempted to be put in force, it has been executed,
and the North has shown all the fidelity which could be demanded, so far as
public acts are concerned, to carry it out, and even has shown an EXCESS of
zeal on this subject bordering on servility, and, as a matter of fact, the
South on this score has no reason whatever to complain. On this point, the
following remarks of the Princeton Review, in an article understood to have
been prepared by the Rev. Dr. Hodge, are strictly in point, and are exactly
just.
" On whom does the obligation to restore such slaves rest? Upon the Federal Government, or upon the state authorities? Upon the Federal Government, according to the solemn decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States, our highest judicial authority.  Assuming that the obligation rested
upon the states, Pennsylvania passed certain laws to regulate the manner in
which the Duty should be performed.  The Supreme Court pronounced those
laws unconstitutional, on the ground that it belonged to the Federal Government to carry into effect that provision of the Constitution. Has the General
Government refused to perform that duty? It is the party on whom the obligation rests. Has-it failed to discharge that obligation? Not at all. Stringent laws for carrying into effect that part of the constitutional compact have
been passed by both houses of Congress, and approved by the President. The
whole judicial and executive power of the Government is pledged to their execution. In not one instance have the judicial or executive officers charged
with this duty failed to perform it. So far from it, the judicial officers have notoriously erred on the other side. They have sent free meno to the South alS slaves, who




38
their clients, but that confidential communications made
to others may be demanded in promoting the interests of
justice. The point now, however, relates only to the
cases where professional confidence is voluntarily viohave been returned on their hands.  They have shocked public justice in their zeal to
carry out the law. The United States troops have been called out to secure its
execution. Slaves have been returned to their masters, in some instances, at
an expense of twenty, thirty, or forty thousand dollars to the Government.
Educated men, professors in our colleges, have been condemned to imprisonment for attempting to interfere with the execution of the fugitive slave law.
At this moment, if any Southern man can point out a slave living in Massachusatts or Vermont, he will be restored, though it should cost a hundred
thousand dollars, or even a civil war. The Federal Government, the party
bound, has never failed to discharge to the utmost its constitutional obligations
in this matter.  It is not true, therefore, that the national compact has been
broken.  The North, as represented in the Federal Government, the only organ
through which it can constitutionall?/ act in the premises, has not only been faithful
in this matter, but it has carried its fidelity to the verge of servility. Contrast the
zeal of the General Government in carrying out the provision of the Constitution in reference to fugitive slaves, with its conduct in regard to the provision
which requires that the citizens of one state shall have in all other states the
same privileges as the citizens of those states themselves. This provision of
the Constitution, so far as concerns colored persons, is a dead letter in some
of the Southern states. It has been formally nullified by law. A gentleman
of the highest social and professional standing was sent to Charleston, peacefully and respectfully to bring the validity of that law before the United
States courts. He was not allowed to do so. He was ordered and forced to
leave the city.  No judicial officer of the General Government has been commissioned to carry out that prevision of the Constitution.  United States
troops have not been ordered out to secure its faithful observance. It has not
been executed, and it can not be executed. The attempt to enforce its observance would inevitably split the Union, and therefore the North quietly submit."
pp. 14, 15, 16.
At the same time, however, it is true, as alleged by the South, that very few
of all those " who have escaped from service," have been restored; and it is
true that this must continue to be so-especially vnder the law as it now
stands. There is no disposition on the part of the North to do an unconstitutional act, but it may as well be understood everywhere what the real difficulty is. It is possible to conceive that a law on this subject that would be
strictly constitutional might be framed that would be much more likely to be
executed than the present law. The law referred to (that of 1850) may be
" constitutional"-that is, it may have no article or clause that can be demonstrated to be contrary to the Constitution, but it is also true that another law
might be equally "constitutional" that had few or none of the offensive features.of the present law, and that would secure a much more ready acquiescence




39
lated, or where knowledge thus obtained is made use of
in a manner which cannot be sanctioned either by the
principles  of  honor  or  religion.   Two  such  instances
may be referred to as illustrations:
from the people of the North. The old law of 1793 on the subject was undoubtedly, also, constitutional, but was far less offensive to the people of the
North than the present law. It seems-and indeed this has been said to have
been avowed-that in the law of 1850 there were some clauses inserted in the
bill which were designed to be as offensive to the North as possible, and yet so
as to give the government the power to execute it; intended, in fact, to try the
temper of the North as much as possible, by making it the duty, in certain
circumstances, of every man, under a heavy penalty, to assist in the execution
of a law which, at the same time, " according to the solemn decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, our highest judicial authority," pertained
to the Federal Government alone, and should be executed, if at all, by its own
officers and armies, and not by the individual citizens or civil officers of any
state.
I have advised no open resistance to the law. I have never advised or
countenanced open resistance to law. When, in 1838, Pennsylvania Hall was
fired by a mob-the mayor of the city, the police, the firemen, and the citizens, calmly looking on, with no attempt to disperse the mob or to extinguish
the flames, and evidently with gratified feelings at the doings of the mob-I
preached and printed a sermon on " The Supremacy of the Laws," designed to
show the guilt and danger of suffering the laws to be prostrated by a mob,
and the fearful consequences which must follow when the laws are not executed. I should do the same thing again in any attempt to resist by violence
the execution of any constitutional law of my country, however distasteful that
law might be to me, and however, in proper circumstances, I might express
my disapprobation of it, and seek, in constitutional methods, its repeal, and
however I might refuse, on conscientious grounds, to assist in its execution, except in cases where an evil reaches such a point as to justify revolution, or the
overthrow of a government, when all other methods fail, as is supposed to have
been the case in our own Revolution in 1776, I do not believe that resistance is
the way to remove the operation of unjust laws, or to prevent their execution.
The true method, in all other cases, is to seek the change by a constitutional
mode-a way secured in our country in reference to all laws, even when they
are made a part of the very constitution of the land-a right reserved to every
man who lives under these laws. The duty of good citizens in all such cases
is to endeavor to secure the alteration of the Constitution and the laws in a
peaceful manner, and, in the mean time, if their consciences will not allow
them to aid in the execution of the laws, quietly to submit to the penalty, as
the Quakers do in regard to church-rates in England, and to the militia laws
in our country, but not to resort to open resistance or violence. The early
Christians offered no open resistance to the laws under the government of the
Emperors, but when they were required to worship Roman idols-to throw




40
(a.)  One  occurs  when  a  clergyman, to  whom   such
knowledge  is  imparted   as  a  clergyman  for  spiritual
advice, instruction, or comfort, abuses the trust reposed
in him, by making use of that information for any other
even a grain of incense on the altar-rather than do this they prepared calmly
to die. If they had lived under a constitution they would have sought at the
ballot-box a change of the laws or the government: as it was, they suffered
the penalty, and left it to time, under the providence of God, to work out what
they had it not in their power to do in a peaceful manner, and what they had
too much principle to attempt to do by violence.
But all this is a different question from  the inquiry whether a law which
violates the conscience, or which shocks the moral sense of any considerable
portion of a community, will be executed, or whether I, as a Christian man,
ought to aid in carrying it out. If I consent to be a magistrate in such a case,
my duty, of course, becomes plain. But whether a Christian man should obey
or refuse to comply with a law requiring him to offer incense in honor of a
heathen divinity, or whether a Quaker should obey or refuse to comply with
the law which requires the payment of church-rates, or which taxes a people
for the purpose of waging war, is a far different inquiry, and is an inquiry
which, after many struggles in the development of the principles of true
liberty, it was supposed was well determined. At least there is very little
difference of opinion on the subject in the standard writers on morality. The
true principle was stated long ago, and has been generally acquiesced in as a
correct principle. At any rate, it contains all that made the conduct of the Christian martyrs capable of defence. It is in the following language: " Then Peter
and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than
man." Acts v. 29.  It is implied also in the command of the Great Teacher,
" Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and unto God the things that
are God's." Matth. xxii. 21. The principle is, that we may refuse to exert our
influence in the execution of such laws, and be blameless. On this point the
following remarks of Dr. Hodge (Princeton Review, January, 1861) seem to
me to be so just that they will commend themselves to every one.  I have not
said as much in the discourse to which this note is appended, as is implied in
these remarks.
" There is a very prevalent mistake as to the responsibility of individuals
for the Constitution and laws under which we live. We are bound to use all
our influence to make the Constitution and laws what they ought to be. But
if, without our agency, or in despite of our efforts, constitutional provisions
are adopted, or laws enacted, which our conscience does not approve, it is not
our fault.  We are not at liberty to resist them. Submission to their operation implies no approbation.  We are not bound to co-operate in giving them
effect.  We may quietly refuse, and submit to the legal penalty.  It is thus the
Quakers act with regard to church-rates in England, and to the militia laws
in this country. They do not muster for military training as the law requires,
but they pay the prescribed penalty. The moral responsibility of such laws




41
purpose whatever.   It is entrusted to him  for that purpose alone.   It is understood  that the secret is to  be
with him.   It is committed  to him   as a man  of honor.
The secret is lodged with him, with  the  implied  underrests upon those who pass them, not on those who have no agency either in
their enactment or their execution." *
I might have said, and would have said it if the train of thought in the Lecture had demanded it, that I would not go into any state or country where
oppression prevails and excite an insurrection; that I would not go and present
an inducement to a slave to escape from his master; that I would not send an
agent there for that purpose, or lend my countenance to such an agency; that
I would not uphold, but would set myself against any purpose to invade a state
secretly or publicly with a view to excite slaves against their masters; and
that I would not by force or violence interfere with the law existing on this
subject. What I would do, and all that I would do, except in endeavoring to
secure a constitutional change of laws, should be done by the fair influence
of the Gospel in disposing the hearts of men to " do to others as they would
that others should do to them." So I understand the early Christians did in
regard to slavery, to idolatry, and to every other form of evil that was entrenched in the laws. No man ever heard me utter a word, in public or in
private, or ever will, in defence of the " raid" at Harper's Ferry, or in condemnation of the act of Virginia in punishing the.perpetrators of that act, or in the
expression of any doubt as to the propriety of that punishment, saving perhaps
the utterance of a doubt whether the principal actor in that scene was not so
far an insane man that all the interests of justice might have been secured by
his perpetual imprisonment-putting it out of his power to do the same thing
again.
Except in stating and defending the great principles of liberty, my duty to
one who is held in servitude begins when he comes to me: -when he comes a
fugitive and needs shelter; when he comes hungry and needs bread, thirsty
and needs drink, naked and needs to be clothed, a stranger and asks me to
take him in, an ignorant man and asks for a guide to a better land or a better
world, a man trembling with fear and needing a sympathizing word-when he
comes to me panting for that freedom to which, in accordance with the principles of our Declaration of Independence and the Bible, I believe God has
entitled all men; when he sighs for the same liberty which I enjoy, and wishes
that his children may possess the same freedom as mine; when, having thus
come to me, the question occurs whether I shall inform of him, or force him
back to bondage, or help him in securing that which I have been taught to
regard as the right of all men, and which I have learned to value beyond all
price-liberty.  Here then comes to me a voice from  the Bible, from my
nature, from the patriot deeds and bloody fields of the Revolution, from the
Declaration of Independence, from the universal sentiment of humanity, which
* The italic8 are my own.




42
standing that it is there to remain, and to be employed
only for that purpose. Whether at the " confessional"
of the Roman Catholic, or whether made in the confidence reposed in a Protestant pastor, the principle in the
I dare not and will not disobey; and in saying this, I am only saying what the
great mass of menfeel, though multitudes do not dare to express it. In thus
saying, I am only declaring that I would act as others do act, and will act in
such circumstances, though they might not think it wise or prudent to say it.
It is there, and there only, I apprehend, when a man thus comes to me-a
fugitive, poor, hungry, thirsty, naked, and a stranger, that my duty begins.
But there it DOES begin-for thus it will be said on the final day to numberless
millions: "I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed
me. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye
have done it unto me."
To this long note I may add that these views are not the result of mere
abstract study and reflection. I have been taught a practical lesson on this
subject which I shall not be likely to forget in this world, or ever. About
twenty-five years ago, as I was entering the gate of my church to go into my
study in the morning, while it was yet quite dark, I saw standing at my gate
a fine-looking colored man, apparently about twenty-five or thirty years of
age, who addressed me, and told me, after a little conversation, that he was a
runaway slave from Maryland, and desired some assistance to help him forward. Influenced by feelings which prevailed commonly at that time, and, as
I then thought, in accordance with the Bible, I endeavored to show him the impropriety of his leaving his master, and to convince him that he ought to return.
I labored to prove this from the Bible, but I observed that I made no impression
on his mind. I referred him, as many would do now, to the case of Onesimus
(Epistle to Philemon), and tried to show him that the Apostle Paul had returned a fugitive slave to his master, but he was wholly insensible to the force
of my reasoning. Satisfied that I was right, and that he was wrong, I declined to aid him, and left him. Yet the remembrance of the act did not leave
me.  I was induced to re-examine the position which I had taken, and the
force of the reasoning which I employed on that occasion. For the error
which I committed in that case I have never ceased to feel regret, and as I
believe that I did him a wrong, and since I cannot repair the wrong which I
did to that poor stranger-a man descended from the same ancestor as myself,
and redeemed by the same blood, and entitled by him who made him to all the
blessings of liberty which have ever been conferred on me, I owe a debt, which
I intend to discharge, as I may have opportunity always, to suffering humanity.
From the beginning of the world I do not believe that any slave who has escaped from
his master, has been induced to return into bondage by any reasoning drawn from
the Bible, or that the slightest impression has ever been made on any such man's
mind, by all the commentaries in favor of returning slaves to their masters, which
have been written on the Epistle to Philemon!




43
case is the same. Whatever advantage may be taken of
that for the promotion of any other ends; whatever object
the minister of religion may propose to secure, based on
the fact that he is in possession of that secret; whatever influence he may choose to exert, founded on the
assumption that he could divulge it; whatever statement
he may make in regard to such a person, based on the
fact that he is in possession of knowledge which he has,
but which he is not at liberty to communicate, and designed to injure the person; whatever use he may make
of it as enabling him to form an estimate for his own
purposes of what occurs in a family; or, in general,
whatever communication he may make of it, of any kind,
except under process of law, and because the law demands it, is to be regarded as a betrayal of professional
confidence.  The interests of religion require that a
pastor should be regarded as among the most faithful of
confidential friends; and no man, or class of men, should
be placed in such circumstances that they may, at the
"confessional," or in any other way, have the means of
arriving at secrets which may be employed for any purposes of their own whatever.
(b.) It is a breach of professional confidence when a
lawyer is entrusted with knowledge in one case by a
client, which, by being employed in another case, and
on another occasion, he uses against him. The secret,
whatever it may be, which is entrusted to him  by a
client, is for that case alone; and is, to all intents, to die
when that case is determined. It is dishonorable in any
way for him to engage as counsel for another party
against his former client when, by even the remotest possibility, the knowledge obtained in the former occurrence
could come as an element in the determination of the case,
or could be made use of to the advantage of his new client.




44
Every sentiment of honesty and honor demands that if
there is a possibility of this, or if there would be the remotest temptation of the kind, he should at once promptly
and firmly decline to engage against his former client.
Every sentiment of honor demands that such confidential disclosures should be held sacred in the bosom, and
should on no account, and under no pretence, be made
subservient to the interests of the advocate himself, or
be employed to the injury of the man who has confided
in him.
In human nature fallen, and, as I believe, wholly destitute of holiness, or of any tendency to spiritual good,
there are two classes of propensities or principles:-those
which are generous, magnanimous, gentle, kind, benevolent, large-hearted, humane, noble; and there are those
which are low, grovelling, sordid, sycophantic, mean,
ignoble.
Though man is destitute of holiness, and though, as I
believe, notone or all of these things which I have referred
to as generous and noble, can by cultivation become true
religion, or constitute, by mere development, what is
needful to secure the salvation of the soul, yet they are
to be cultivated, for they are invaluable in society, and
necessary to the happiness and the progress of mankind.
On these things, more than on most other things, the
happiness of families, and the welfare of the world depend; and whatever may be our views of the necessity
and value of religion, we are not required to undervalue
" the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit," or those virtues which we connect, in our apprehensions, with that
which is manly and honorable, and which tend to elevate
and ennoble the race.
Christianity has, if I may so express it, a  L"natural




45
affinity" for one class of these propensities; it has none
for the other. It, too, is generous, humane, gentle, kind,
benevolent, noble; and it blends easily with these things
when it finds them in human nature, and produces them
in the soul which is fully under its influence, where
they did not exist before. It has no more affinity for
that which is mean, ignoble, morose, sycophantic, than it
has for profanity or falsehood; for dishonesty or fraud;
for licentiousness or ambition.
That true religion may be found in hearts where these
virtues, so generous and noble, are not developed, or
where there is not a little that dishonors religion as not
large, and liberal, and courteous, and gentlemanly, it is,
perhaps, impossible to deny. There are souls essentially
so mean, so sycophantic, so narrow, so sour, and so morose,
that a large part of the work of sanctification seems to
be reserved for the close of life - for that mysterious
and unexplained process by which all who are redeemed
are made perfect when they pass " through the valley of
the shadow of death."  But though there may be religion in such a case, it is among the lowest forms of piety.
What is mean, ignoble, and narrow, is no part of the religion, and can never be transmuted into it.
There has come down to us as the result of the progress
of civilization in this world, and with the highest approbation of mankind, a. class of virtues connected with the
ideas of honor and honorableness. That the sentiment
of honor has been abused among men; that an attempt
has been made to make it the governing principle in cases
where conscience should rule; that in doing this it has
established a code which, in many respects, is a departure from the rules of morality, there can be no doubt;
but still there are just principles of honor which Christianity does not disdain; which are to be incorporated




46
into our principles of religion, and which we are to endeavor to instill into the hearts of our children.  Whatever there is in the world that is " true, and honest, and
just, and pure, and lovely, and of good report;" whatever belongs to the name of " virtue," and whatever deserves " praise,"* is to be blended with our religion, constituting our idea of a Christian man.
It is the blending of these things-the union of Christian principle with what is noble, and manly, and generous, and humane, which, in any case, entitles to the
highest appellation which can be given to any of our race,
that of THE CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN.
* Phil. iv. 8.