A DISCOURSE

ON THE DUTIES OF THE CITIZEN SOLDIER.*

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive unto themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's minsters attending continually upon this very thing."-Romans xiii, 1-6.

I HAVE chosen this passage of Scripture this morning, for the theme of my discourse, in order to explain, as far as I am able, the position, the duties, and responsibilities of the citizen soldier. The soldier in the house of God

* Delivered before the Maryland Cadets and the Boston City Greys, on Sunday, July 21, 1844, immediately after the riots in Philadelphia.

is thought to be out of place, as if Christianity was inconsistent with bearing arms under any circumstances, and as if it were true that the moment a man is clothed in military array, that moment he renounces his allegiance to Christ. And I doubt not there are many before me, at the present time, who feel an embarrassment as to their duties as citizens and soldiers, as if the moment they armed themselves, even in the best of causes, they put themselves in the wrong. I have sometimes feared that it is the want of clear ideas upon this subject which has produced an indecision in the civil authorities, destructive to social order, and finally fatal to all free government.

This reluctance to resort to force, this unwillingness to take the life of a fellow being, is on the whole a good indication, an evidence of the moral advancement of the age. It shows that the mild and gentle spirit of the religion of Christ is becoming more and more inwrought into the habits of thought and feeling of the Christian world. It shows that mankind, under the auspices of Christianity, has left far behind that barbarism in which their chief employment was rapine and war. The very fact that such a government as ours is practicable, shows a great improvement in the human condition, a government mainly of moral influence, instead of physical force, in which there is so very

little of external control. But with the growth of our country, and the increase of our large cities, in which moral force no longer avails to maintain order and secure public safety, there are occasionally outbreaks of lawless violence, striking at the very existence of society itself. How can such proceedings be stopped, and the rights of society secured? This is a very, serious question, involving the very existence, or rather the possibility of republican institutions.

We have, we ought to thank God, no standing army. Our government consists of the people themselves. A military force is enrolled, which, for the time being, becomes a part of the government. It is indeed the executive power, to which society delegates the office of seeing that the laws are observed. But a mob assem-. bles, and commences to violate the rights of person or property, the executive force is called out, and they and the mob are brought face to face. Here is the great crisis. It is vital to the very existence of society, that the military force should prevail, and the mob be: put down. The mob can not be put down without taking life. There is naturally an awful pause. There is a reluctance to shed blood, and to take human life. Some of the rioters are the brothers or sons of the military, or at least their neighbors and acquaintance.

i

2

And there is behind these feelings a doubt of the religious propriety of the act. There is written in the New Testament, which all Christians recognise as the standard of duty, such a precept as this, "Resist not evil," but "overcome evil with good." "Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is this precept to be literally obeyed without any limitation? Then those weapons are not to be used, and the military are to look quietly on and see their fellow citizens massacred and their city given to the flames. There is a conflict, then, between the duties of the Christian and the citizen, and Christianity must be considered as forbidding that self-defence which is necessary to the very existence of society. The common sense of mankind has decided, the necessity of the case has decided, that this precept must be, like many other universal propositions in the Scriptures, interpreted with certain limitations. This is evidently the case with many other commandments, such for instance as this, "Take no thought for to-morrow;" or this, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." That such universal precepts require limitation, we have not only the reason of the case to assure us, but other and opposite pre

cepts. To the first, then, we oppose the following declaration: "If any provide not for his own, specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Such provision can not be made without taking thought for the morrow. To the latter we oppose the declaration of the apostle, that one of the worst obliquities of the heathen was to be "without natural affection," that is, without love to father, mother, sisters and brothers.

These conflicting precepts must be allowed to modify each other, and we must consider Christ to forbid in the latter case, not natural affection, but that degree and exercise of it, which would lead a man, out of attachment to his natural kindred, to prove false to his obligations as a Christian. In the former case it is an over anxiety, not a proper care for the future, that is forbidden. So I believe we are justified in interpreting the precept, "Resist not evil," as forbidding not self-defence, but revenge. The very animals are provided with the weapons and the instincts of self-defence. Man has been provided with them too, and reason and the moral sense are given him to control him in their exercise, but not to paralyze and destroy them. God would not have given that which is never to be exercised.

To throw light upon this whole subject, and