What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general

principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against DESPOTISM,

there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, who _honestly_

believe it to be of all forms of government the best and most acceptable

to God."[A] Now, these "good men" must have been thus warmly in favor of

despotism, in consequence of, or in opposition to, their being

"enlightened." In other words, the light, which in such abundance they

enjoyed, conducted them to the position in favor of despotism, where the

Princeton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have

forced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence. Either in

accordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he

found them--the advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the

light--and he says they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the

subject with which alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their

"honesty" and "goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which

was freely poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's

"good old Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the

least respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the

light, they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism

"the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is

sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the

will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain

theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit which

they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why did not

the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a shield,

heaven-wrought and reason-approved, over that cherished form of

despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the

"peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under its

protection?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12.]

What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of

despotism with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, human

governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? Clearly

this--_that as capable of, man is entitled to, self-government_. And

this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may

well be pronounced self-evident--_that every thing should be treated

according to its nature_. The mind that can doubt of this, must be

incapable of rational conviction. Man, then,--it is the dictate of

reason, it is the voice of Jehovah--must be treated _as a man_. What is

he? What are his distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own

image on him. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his

character. Here shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here

the WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why

such endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable

of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the sphere

where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according to his

choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, exult in

freedom and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If not, why was

he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful attribute of will?

To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of

keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man formed "according to the

image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced

in upon himself; to be the sport of endless contradictions; to be driven

back and forth forever between mutually repellant forces; and all, all

"_at the discretion of another!"_[A] How can men be treated according to

his nature, as endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers

and privileges of self government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon

him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the

discretion of another," and with the power of "transferring" such

"authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" If

"thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, who are

forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the best and most

acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the testimony of universal

history, that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain

together until now." Groans and travail-pangs must continue to be the

order of the day throughout "the whole creation," till the rod of

despotism be broken, and man be treated as man--as capable of, and

entitled to, self-government.

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12]

But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor

tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly-selected words and

nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American

slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, and

transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to things!

"Slaves," with Prof. Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That

decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes, truly. And slaves in

republican America are _property_; and as that easily, clearly, and

definitely settles "all questions about their _relation_," why should

the Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a

definition equally ingenious and inadequate--at once subtle and

deceitful? Ah, why? Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his

mother's children even from himself? If among the figments of his brain,

he could fashion slaves, and make them something else than property, he

knew full well that a very different pattern was in use among the

southern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words, and sober earnest,

and good faith, describe the thing as it was, instead of employing

honied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all becoming

vagueness and ambiguity what might possibly be supposed to exist in the

regions of fancy.

"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL."

But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to overlook

the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our fellow-men with

whom we may be connected?--or the strong passions, vicious propensities,

or criminal pursuit of others? Certainly not. But in providing for their

welfare, we are to exert influences and impose restraints suited to

their character. In wielding those prerogatives which the social of our

nature authorizes us to employ for their benefit, we are to regard them

as they are in truth, not things, not cattle, not articles of

merchandize, but men, our fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered

and broken a surface, reflecting with us the image of a common Father.

And the great principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which

the whole structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should

be adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house and

state-prison, this principle is over and in all things to be before the

eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. Otherwise, God is

insulted, while his image is despised and abused. Yes, indeed, we

remember that in carrying out the principle of self-government,

multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out of wickedness on the

one hand and passion on the other. Such difficulties and obstacles we

are far enough from overlooking. But where are they to be found? Are

imbecility and wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the

bottom of society? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately

wicked, often occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing

within their reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the

very power they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of

turning their heads, inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts.

All the world knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong

tendency to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous.

And this, whether the vassals over whom they domineer, be few or many.

If you can not trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under

his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to

self-government, to the horrors of despotism?

"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL."

Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, to

be intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has

reduced to cattle?--with the discipline by which they are to be prepared

to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen? Alas, of such

discipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to property, they

have had enough. From this sprang the vary ignorance and vice, which in

the view of many lie in the way of their immediate enfranchisement. He

it is, who has darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are

they to look to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect

"grapes from thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When,

according to arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he

consented to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims

to the esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers

themselves, but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder,

he became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war

upon human man nature. What less can be made of the process of turning

men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to

propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those whom

he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from

themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of

selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, what

have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have they not

been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of education?

--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas Jefferson shall

answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual

exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism

on the one part, and degrading submission on the other." Is this the way

to fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American

citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding

to it length? What, in 1818, was the unanimous testimony of the General

Assembly of the Presbyterian church? Why, after describing a variety of

influences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and moral

improvement, the General Assembly assure us, that such "consequences are

not imaginary, but connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE of

slavery. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, often take

place in fact, and IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM[A]; and where all

of them do not take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural

right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing

into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships

and injuries, which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the

condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least a

little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?

[Footnote A: The words here marked as emphasis were so distinguished by

ourselves.]

"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS."

The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders, the Southrons

now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great wrath,

forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in the

assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they give

us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take

observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will

dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from speedy

and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? Surely, not

that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of universal

application. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us the

benefit, of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, that has nothing

to hide, practices concealment?--"He that doeth truth cometh to the

light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." Is

this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they court--they will have

darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are evil." Can we confide in

methods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it is death for

us to examine? Whet good ever came, what good can we expect, from deeds

of darkness?

Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West

Indies; to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. All

the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back the tide

of blessings, which through emancipation was pouring in upon the

famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in England now

thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, can be a

school for freedom?

We say such things to the many who alledge, that slaves can not at once

be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. However

this may be, they can not be better qualified under _the influence of

slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their ignorance, and

viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only do what it

has always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed to purify and

elevate. _The lower their character and condition, the louder, clearer,

sterner, the just demand for immediate emancipation_. The plague-smitten

sufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a little longer an

infected atmosphere.

In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves of

the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread in

the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for

refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their

spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives

them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves

to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, as

standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," he

demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[A] How could they,

unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard _within them_,

whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had

to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood,

right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to

eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear

and certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident

truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, studying his own

consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and

in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical

concerns of "life and godliness." It is in obedience to the Bible, that

we apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general

principles. When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard

of their property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defense, they

did homage to the sacred Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that

volume, not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity,

which in the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practicing the

lessons which "nature teacheth."[B] These lessons, the Bible requires us

reverently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently

and faithfully to act upon in every direction and on all occasions.

[Footnote A: Luke xii. 67.]

[Footnote B: 1 Cor. xi. 14.]

Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage

men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and

distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. "If

any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be

of God, or whether I speak of myself."[C] Natural religion--the

principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature

teaches--he thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed

religion. So far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest

and most piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of

those around him from the import, bearings, and practical application of

general principle. And those who would have us escape from the pressure

of self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and

precepts of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do

foul dishonor to the Savior of mankind.

[Footnote C: John vii. 17.]

And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the

Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye would

that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law

and the prophets."

According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be

found, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circumstances

of life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. 2. The

just application of this standard, is practicable for, and obligatory

upon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite to a just

application of this rule to all the cases in which we can be concerned,

is simply this--_to regard all the members of the human family as our

brethren, our equals_.

In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles and

laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and

circumstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following this guide,

but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in deciding any

moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our brother_, before

the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be pronounced.

Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths!--like

decrying the authority of general principles!--like exalting himself at

the expense of reason!--like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those

whose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity!

What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that fundamental

maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding light upon, all

its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of slavery?--_that we must

"do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS SLAVES, _the_ RELATION

_itself being justified and continued_? Surely not. A little reflection

will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its

demands, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The

_natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very basis of this great

precept. It obviously requires _every man to acknowledge another self in

every other man_. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate

circumstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may address

me, another self in his appropriate circumstances and with his powers

and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind; and this the

Golden Rule requires us to admit, defend, and maintain.

"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CAN NOT HEAR MY

WORD."

They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, who

charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any "levelling

system"_ can not but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and

effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such

system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine asserts; and this necessarily

opens the way for _variety of condition_. In other words, every child of

Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within

reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own resources,

according to his own choice; while he respects his social relations, to

promote as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and

resources, and NOT ANOTHER'S, are thus inalienably put under his

control. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to

exert HIMSELF, and not _another_. Here no man may lawfully cripple or

embarrass another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the

strong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself; in his

own proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments, and natural

opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety

prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according to

his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than

infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of

condition.

But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered

individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties

which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social of

their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is

inalienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality as a man,

each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. While each owns

and honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social of their

nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its

requisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of

man, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher

honor could it do to man, as _an individual_, than to constitute him the

judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his

fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of?

"Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every member

of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out,

is competent and authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in social

life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or

greater confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are

their _claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and

solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every man

with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of _another

self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to dispose of

whatever claims he may urge upon me.

Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally brought,

in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote each

other's welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the

inalienable birth-right of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever

he may possess. With exalted powers and large resources, he has a

natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his "abilities" are

small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule

requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is

to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ powers, lay out his own resources,

improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural

result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and

acquisitions; another, for his wealth; and a third, for power and skill

in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified,

proceed from the basis of a _common character_, by virtue of which all

men and each--one as truly as another--are entitled, as a birth-right,

to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as

well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing his share to

the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under

one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are

placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor,

the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the

products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market,

where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular

exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas with

his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields the axe

for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb,

employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the service of the

community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, in

furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them partakers of the

general prosperity. And all this by mutual understanding and voluntary

arrangement. And all this according to the Golden Rule.

What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements, in which one

man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a

chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any

disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on the

annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which man doth

to others, what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The

Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one

stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the

other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in

which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every thing within the

scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO," it extends its authority.

And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human

hands. It is what men have done to each other--contrary to nature and

most injurious to the general welfare. THIS RELATION, therefore, the

Golden Rule condemns. Wherever its authority prevails, this relation

must be annihilated. Mutual service and slavery--like light and

darkness, life and death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of,

each other. The one the Golden Rule can not endure; the other it

requires, honors, and blesses.

"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."

Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou shalt

love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems to have

been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations,

once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meshing of the word

"neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my neighbor?" The parable

of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it

manifest and certain, that _every man_ whom we could reach with our

sympathy and assistance, was our neighbor, entitled to the same regard

which we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations,

can _slavery_, as a RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of

love_--such love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam

of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable

birth-right?--To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his

immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the

heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose

of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under

the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental and

extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such,

consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought,

clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his

thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly

cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE

RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A SLAVE, _is set apart from

the rest of the human family_. Is it an exercise of love, to place our

"neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a

relation?--to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of

his humanity?

"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; FOR THEY

KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[A]

The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is

chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly alledge, that he

is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.

Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his

inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But why

will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and

rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and religion

are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with

their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, soul, and substance?

Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever

holds slaves is himself responsible for _the relation_, into which,

whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. _The relation can not

be forced upon him_. What though Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in

stealing the natives of Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and

George, opened a market for them in the English colonies?--what though

modern Dracos have "framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing

and slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to

their own place," constituted you the owner of the "neighbors" whom they

had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like this, as

can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men "are

deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels

personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the climax--to

clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in the work of

slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the soul of the

whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a lifeless

abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, and

testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape

responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, are

nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _principal_. Let him look

to it.

[Footnote A: You join with them in their bloody work. They murder, and

you bury the victims.]

But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor's" throat. Let

him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel

principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of

derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten its

bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue;

whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and

steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath of

Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from

thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should

perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Prof. Stuart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great

commandment "decide against the theory of slavery as being in itself

right." What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts,

institutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the New

Testament? Of all these, they are the summary expression--the

comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible enforcing our mutual

obligations, can be more or less than _the application of these

injunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and

conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach

or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great

command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept can

require; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. What,

then, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find something

in the way of permission or command, which may set him free from the

obligations of the Golden Rule? What must his objects, methods, spirit

be, to force him to enter upon such inquiries?--to compel him to search

the Bible for such a purpose? Can he have good intentions, or be well

employed? Is his frame of mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to

make its meaning plain and welcome? What must he think of God, to search

his word in quest of gross inconsistencies and grave contradictions!

Inconsistent legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions

at war with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with

particular arrangements!

What must be the moral character of any institution which the Golden

Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? _It can

not but be wicked_, whether newly established or long maintained.

However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every modification and

at all times--_wickedness must be its proper character_. _It must be_,

IN ITSELF, _apart from its circumstances_, IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from

its incidents_, SINFUL.

"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER."

In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific

bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay,

absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us,

from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take at some

central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the

known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive

Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the

result of our studies. We can not, therefore, be too earnest in trying

to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament

institutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions must we come, if

we unwittingly pursue our inquires under the bias of the prejudice, that

the general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country,

were current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive

Christians! That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the

standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be

modified?--That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease,

tasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of

the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing

and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be

expected to exert; that thus they are to constitute a class by

themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very

bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the

primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as

Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as

remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had as

high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and

literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the high

places of learning and of power?

If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we should

explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what must

inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our conclusions?

What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake

to furnish? And is not this the way in which the advocates and

apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive

Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly perhaps, to

the primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition, of

American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange

confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and

explaining the usages of the New Testament!

"SO THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE."

Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having a

general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up the

_true standard of greatness_, deserves particular attention. In

repressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the

methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be

gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the clearest

light. "Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over the

Gentiles, exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise

authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever

will be great among you, shall be your minister; _and whosoever of you

will be chiefest, shall be servant of all_." In other words, through the

selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim widely prevails in the

world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, and mark of greatness, TO

EXACT SERVICE; that our superiority to others, while it authorizes us to

relax the exertion of our own powers, gives us a fair title to the use

of theirs; that "might," while it exempts us from serving, "gives the

right" to be served. The instructions of the Savior open the way to

greatness for us in the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in

whatever it may consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion,

and demands of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only as we

_are useful_. And "might gives right" to bless our fellow men, by

improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, affectionately,

earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus the greater the man,

the more active, faithful, and useful the servant.

The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. He

bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even, through

the most menial services, in blessing the human family. And to make this

lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, he embodied it

in a most instructive and attractive example. On a memorable occasion,

and just before his crucifixion, he discharged for his disciples the

most menial of all offices--taking, _in washing their feet_, the place

of the lowest servant. He took great pains to make them understand, that

only by imitating this example could they honor their relations to him

as their Master; that thus only would they find themselves blessed. By

what possibility could slavery exist under the influence of such a

lesson, set home by such an example? _Was it while washing the

disciples' feet, that our Savior authorized one man to make a chattel

of another_?

To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul

teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the

Thessalonian Christians, that in addition to all his official exertions

he had with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls their

attention to an arrangement which was supported by apostolical

authority, "that if any would not work, neither should he eat." In the

most earnest and solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord Jesus

Christ, he commanded and exhorted those who neglected useful labor,

"_with quietness to work and eat their own bread_." What must be the

bearing of all this upon slavery? Could slavery be maintained where

every man eat the bread which himself had earned?--where idleness was

esteemed so great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of starvation as a

punishment? How could unrequited labor be exacted, or used, or needed?

Must not every one in such a community contribute his share to the

general welfare?--and mutual service and mutual support be the

natural result?

The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true

source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. "Let him that

stole steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands

the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth."

Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed throughout

the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be universally welcomed

and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up what they had stolen to the

lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and begin at once to "labor, working

with their hands," for necessary and charitable purposes. Could slavery,

in such a case, continue to exist? Surely not! Instead of exacting

unpaid services from others, every man would be busy, exerting himself

not only to provide for his own wants, but also to accumulate funds,

"that he might have to give to" the needy. Slavery must disappear, root

and branch, at once and forever.

In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their

support, the Savior furnished a general principle, which has an obvious

and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would have them

remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of their fellow men,

that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." He has thus united wages with

work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to the other. And this

manifestly according to a mutual understanding and a voluntary

arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you to work for me for

whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, fairly opens the way

for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force me to render you whatever

wages you may choose to exact for any services you may see fit to

render. Thus slavery, even as involuntary servitude, is cut up by the

root. Even the Princeton professor seems to regard it as a violation of

the principle which unites work with wages.

The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual

laborers--of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He

calls the rich lordlings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to

"weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of the injured

laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, and that, as a

result of their oppression, their riches were corrupted, and their

garments moth-eaten; their gold and silver were cankered; that the rest

of them should be a witness against them, and should eat their flesh as

it were fire; that, in one word, they had heaped treasure together for

the last days, when "miseries were coming upon them," the prospect of

which might well drench them in tears and fill them with terror. If

these admonition and warnings were heeded there, would not "the South"

break forth into "weeping and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?" What else

are its rich men about, but withholding by a system of fraud, his wages

from the laborer, who is wearing himself out under the impulse of fear,

in cultivating their fields and producing their luxuries? Encouragement

and support do they derive from James, in maintaining the "peculiar

institution" whence they derived their wealth, which they call

patriarchal, and boast of as the "corner-stone" of the republic?

In the New Testament, we have, moreover, the general injunction, "_Honor

all men_." Under this broad precept, every form of humanity may justly

claim protection and respect. The invasion of any human right must do

dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of this command. How then,

in the light of such obligations, must slavery be regarded? Are those

men honored, who are rudely excluded from a place in the human family,

and shut up to the deep degradation and nameless horrors of chattelship?

_Can they be held as slaves, and at the same time be honored as men_?

How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer from the

admonitions and instructions which James applies to the arrangements and

usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can not allow "respect of

persons" to enter. "My brethren," he exclaims, "have not the faith of

our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For

if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly

apparel; and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; and ye have

respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, sit thou

here in a good place; and say to the poor, stand thou there, or sit here

under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are

become judges of evil thoughts? _If ye have respect to persons, ye

commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors_." On this

general principle, then, religious assemblies ought to be

regulated--that every man is to be estimated, not according to his

_circumstances_--not according to any thing incidental to his

_condition_; but according to his _moral worth_--according to the

essential features and vital elements of his _character_. Gold rings and

gay clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, a "good

place" in the church. Nor can the "vile raiment of the poor man," fairly

exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart and head

may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or practice, is to degrade

a man below a thing; for what are gold rings, or gay clothing, or vile

raiment, but things, "which perish with the using?" And this must be "to

commit sin, and be convinced of the law as transgressors."

In slavery, we have "respect of persons," strongly marked, and reduced

to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile raiment,"

which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. But the

deepest contempt for humanity here grows out of birth or complexion.

Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or improvidence,

or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of character. But how can

I be responsible for the incidents of my birth?--how for my complexion?

To despise or honor me for these, is to be guilty of "respect of

persons" in its grossest form, and with its worst effects. It is to

reward or punish me for what I had nothing to do with; for which,

therefore, I can not, without the greatest injustice, be held

responsible. It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by

confounding all moral distinctions. It is with a worse temper, and in

the way of inflicting infinitely greater injuries, to copy the kingly

folly of Xerxes, in chaining and scourging the Hellespont. What, then,

so far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of

slavery, which can not be maintained under any form nor for a single

moment, without "respect of persons" the most aggravated and

unendurable? And what would become of that most pitiful, silly, and

wicked arrangement in so many of our churches, in which worshipers of a

dark complexion are to be shut up to the negro pew?[A]

[Footnote A: In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the

following anecdote, illustrative of the character of a "grandmother" of

the Count. "Fancy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church

font; another dame striking in to take precedence of her; the dame

Mirabeau despatching this latter with a box on the ear, and these words,

'_Here, as in the army_, THE BAGGAGE _goes last_!'" Let those who

justify the negro-pew-arrangement, throw a stone at this proud woman--if

they dare.]

Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to _religious_

assemblies. It is to pervade social life every where. Even where plenty,

intelligence, and refinement, diffuse their brightest rays, the poor are

to be welcomed with especial favor. "Then said he to him that bade him,

when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy

brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also

bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a

feast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, and thou

shalt be blessed; for they can not recompense thee, but thou shalt be

recompensed at the resurrection of the just."

In the high places of social life then--in the parlor, the drawing-room,

the saloon--special reference should be had, in every arrangement, to

the comfort and improvement of those who are least able to provide for

the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, ample accommodations must

be made, whatever may become of our kinsmen and rich neighbors. And for

this good reason, that while such occasions signify little to the

latter, to the former they are pregnant with good--raising their

drooping spirits, cheering their desponding hearts, inspiring them with

life, and hope, and joy. The rich and the poor thus meeting joyfully

together, can not but mutually contribute to each other's benefit; the

rich will be led to moderation, sobriety, and circumspection, and the

poor to industry, providence, and contentment. The recompense must be

rich and sure.

A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which these

things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He freely

mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of society. At

the tables of the outcasts of society, he did not hesitate to be a

cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. And when flouted

and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, as an ultraist and

leveler, he explained and justified himself by observing, that he had

only done what his office demanded. It was his to seek the lost, to heal

the sick, to pity the wretched;--in a word, to bestow just such benefits

as the various necessities of mankind made appropriate and welcome. In

his great heart, there was room enough for those who had been excluded

from the sympathy of little souls. In its spirit and design, the gospel

overlooked none--least of all, the outcasts of a selfish world.

Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel?--a

gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social life,

to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving our warmest

sympathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor of

the world?

Those who are in "bonds" are set before us as deserving an especial

remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modification of the

Golden Rule--as one of the many forms to which its obligations are

reducible. To them we are to extend the same affectionate regard as we

would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon their limbs were fastened

upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, the enslaved have a natural

claim of the greatest strength. The wrongs they suffer, spring from a

persecution which can hardly be surpassed in malignancy. Their birth and

complexion are the occasion of the insults and injuries which they can

neither endure nor escape. It is for the _work of God_, and not them own

deserts, that they are loaded with chains. _This is persecution._

Can I regard the slave as another self--can I put myself in his

place--and be indifferent to his wrongs? Especially, can I, thus

affected, take sides with the oppressor? Could I, in such a state of

mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or keep

him in bonds? Is not the precept under hand naturally subversive of

every system and every form of slavery?

The _general descriptions_ of the church which are found here and there

in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing on the

subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words meet the eye:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there

is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."[A] Here

we have--1. A clear and strong description of the doctrine of _human

equality_. "Ye are all ONE;"--so much alike, so truly placed on common

ground, all wielding each his own powers with such freedom, _that one is

the same as another_.

[Footnote A: Gal. iii. 23.]

2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on

divine authority. "IN CHRIST JESUS, _ye are all one_." The natural

equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For--

3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether men or

women, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all are alike

entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Wherever Christianity

prevails, the _artificial_ distinctions which grow out of birth,

condition, sex, are done away. _Natural_ distinctions are not destroyed.

_They_ are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The gospel does not abolish

the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or extinguish patriotism. It

takes woman from beneath the feet, and places her by the side of man;

delivers the manual laborer from "the yoke," and gives him wages for his

work; and brings the Jew and Gentile to embrace each other with

fraternal love and confidence. Thus it raises all to a common level,

gives to each the free use of his own powers and resources, binds all

together in one dear and loving brotherhood. Such, according to the

description of the apostle, was the influence, and such the effect of

primitive Christianity. "Behold the picture!" Is it like American

slavery, which, in all its tendencies and effects, is destructive of all

oneness among brethren?

"Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with his

eye upon the condition and relations of the church, "_where the spirit

of the Lord is_, THERE IS LIBERTY." Where, then, may we reverently

recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested power, of this

spirit? _There_, where the laborer may not choose how he shall be

employed!--in what way his wants shall he supplied!--with whom he shall

associate!--who shall have the fruit of his exertions! _There_, where he

is not free to enjoy his wife and children! _There_, where his body and

his soul, his very "destiny,"[A] are placed altogether beyond his

control! _There_, where every power is crippled, every energy blasted,

every hope crushed! _There_, where in all the relations and concerns of

life, he is legally treated as if he had nothing to do with the laws of

reason, the light of immortality, or the exercise of will! Is the spirit

of the Lord _there_, where liberty is decried and denounced, mocked at

and spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church which

justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which carried

on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle have found the

fruits of the Spirit of the Lord! Let that Spirit exert his influences,

and assert his authority, and wield his power, and slavery must vanish

at once and forever.

[Footnote A: "The Legislature [of South Carolina] from time to time, has

passed many restricted and penal acts, with a view to bring under direct

control and subjection the DESTINY _of the black population_." See the

Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 352 others, against home missionary

efforts for the benefit of the enslaved--a most instructive paper.]

In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Christianity as

"_the law of liberty_." It is in other words the law under which liberty

can not but live and flourish--the law in which liberty is clearly

defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law of liberty,

how can it be consistent with the law of slavery? The presence and the

power of this law are felt wherever the light of reason shines. They are

felt in the uneasiness and conscious degradation of the slave, and in

the shame and remorse which the master betrays in his reluctant and

desperate efforts to defend himself. This law it is which has armed

human nature against the oppressor. Wherever it is obeyed, "every yoke

is broken."

In these references to the New Testament we have a _general description_

of the primitive church, and the _principles_ on which it was founded

and fashioned. These principles bear the same relation to Christian

_history_ as to Christian _character_, since the former is occupied with

the development of the latter. What then is Christian character but

Christian principle _realized_, acted out, bodied forth, and animated?

Christian principle is the soul, of which Christian character is the

expression--the manifestation. It comprehends in itself, as a living

seed, such Christian character, under every form, modification, and

complexion. The former is, therefore, the test and interpreter of the

latter. In the light of Christian principle, and in that light only, we

can judge of and explain Christian character. Christian history is

occupied with the forms, modifications, and various aspects of Christian

character. The facts which are there recorded serve to show, how

Christian principle has fared in this world--how it has appeared, what

it has done, how it has been treated. In these facts we have the various

institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church of

Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to

Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through them,

it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be studied,

explained, and understood. Without it they must be as unintelligible and

insignificant as the letters of a book, scattered on the wind.

In the principles of Christianity, then, we have a comprehensive and

faithful account of its objects, institutions, and usages--of how it

must behave, and act, and suffer, in a world of sin and misery. For

between the principles which God reveals, on the one hand, and the

precepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages he

approves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. Otherwise

we impute to God what we must abhor in man--practice at war with

principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the _principle_ that our

standing in the church must depend upon the habits, formed within us, of

readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others; and permit us _in

practice_ to invade the rights and trample on the happiness of our

fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, _in principle_ and by

example, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service,

comprehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable;

and permit us _in practice_ to EXACT service of our brethren, as if they

were nothing better than "articles of merchandize?" Does he require us

_in principle_ "to work with quietness and eat our own bread;" and

permit us _in practice_ to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their

unrequited toil? Does he in principle require us, abstaining from every

form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only to provide

for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; and permit us

_in practice_, abstaining from every form of labor, to enrich and

aggrandize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing? Does he require us

_in principle_ to regard "the laborer as worthy of his hire;" and permit

us _in practice_ to defraud him of his wages? Does he require us _in

principle_ "to honor ALL men;" and permit us _in practice_ to treat

multitudes like cattle? Does he _in principle_ prohibit "respect of

persons;" and permit us _in practice_ to place the feet of the rich upon

the necks of the poor? Does he _in principle_ require us to sympathize

with the bondman as another self; and permit us _in practice_ to leave

him unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? _In principle_,

"where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;" _in practice_, is

_slavery_ the fruit of the Spirit? _In principle_, Christianity is the

law of liberty; _in practice_, is it the law of slavery? Bring practice

in these various respects into harmony with principle, and what becomes

of slavery? And if, where the divine government is concerned, practice

is the expression of principle, and principle the standard and

interpreter of practice, such harmony cannot but be maintained and must

be asserted. In studying, therefore, fragments of history and sketches

of biography--in disposing of references to institutions, usages, and

facts in the New Testament, this necessary harmony between principle and

practice in the government, should be continually present to the

thoughts of the interpreter. Principles assert what practice must be.

Whatever principle condemns, God condemns. It belongs to those weeds of

the dunghill which, planted by "an enemy," his hand will assuredly "root

up." It is most certain, then, that if slavery prevailed in the first

ages of Christianity, it could nowhere have prevailed under its

influence and with its sanction.

The _condition_ in which, in its efforts to bless mankind, the primitive

church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early Christians in

understanding and applying the principles of the gospel.--Their _Master_

was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest poverty, and died the

most ignominious death. The place of his residence, his familiarity with

the outcasts of society, his welcoming assistance and support from

female hands, his casting his beloved mother, when he hung upon the

cross, upon the charity of a disciple--such things evince the depth of

his poverty, and show to what derision and contempt he must have been

exposed. Could such an one, "despised and rejected of men--a man of

sorrows and acquainted with grief," play the oppressor, or smile on

those who made merchandize of the poor!

And what was the history of the _apostles_, but an illustration of the

doctrine, that "it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his

Master?" Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, shining

with splendor, bloated with luxury! Were they ambitious of distinction,

fleecing, and trampling, and devouring "the flocks," that they

themselves might "have the pre-eminence!" Were they slaveholding

bishops! Or did they derive their support from the wages of iniquity and

the price of blood! Can such inferences be drawn from the account of

their condition, which the most gifted and enterprising of their number

has put upon record? "Even unto this present hour, we both hunger, and

thirst, and are naked, and _are buffetted_, and have _no certain

dwelling place, and labor working with our own hands_. Being reviled, we

bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are

made as _the filth of the world_, and are THE OFFSCOURING OF ALL THINGS

unto this day[A]." Are these the men who practiced or countenanced

slavery? _With such a temper, they WOULD NOT; in such circumstances,

they COULD NOT_. Exposed to "tribulation, distress, and persecution;"

subject to famine and nakedness, to peril and the sword; "killed all the

day long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter[B]," they would have made

but a sorry figure at the great-house or slave-market!

[Footnote A: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]

[Footnote B: 1 Rom. viii. 35, 36.]

Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of

the apostles. The position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to

the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest

persecution. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of

Christians generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive

Christianity as to suppose that believers, generally, refused to share

in the trials and sufferings of their leaders; as to suppose that while

the leaders submitted to manual labor, to buffeting, to be reckoned the

filth of the world, to be accounted as sheep for the slaughter, his

brethren lived in affluence, ease, and honor! despising manual labor!

and living upon the sweat of unrequited toil! But on this point we are

not left to mere inference and conjecture. The apostle Paul in the

plainest language explains the ordination of Heaven. "But _God hath_

CHOSEN the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God

hath CHOSEN the weak things of the world to confound the things which

are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised

hath God CHOSEN, yea, and THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, to bring to nought

things that are."[A] Here we may well notice,

[Footnote A: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]

1. That it was not by _accident_, that the primitive churches were made

up of such elements, but the result of the DIVINE CHOICE--an arrangement

of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is natural, that this

ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of Christianity. It was

nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had concealed his glory "from the

wise and prudent, and had revealed it unto babes," or that "the common

people heard him gladly," while "not many wise men after the flesh, not

many mighty, not many noble, had been called."

2. The description of character which the apostle records, could be

adapted only to what are reckoned the _very dregs of humanity_. The

foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the estimation

of worldly pride and wisdom--these were they whose broken hearts were

reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel; these were they whom

the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren.

That _slaves_ abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. _They_ have a

place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to the apostle,

the church there was composed. The most remarkable class found there,

consisted of "THINGS WHICH ARE NOT"--mere nobodies, not admitted to the

privileges of men, but degraded to a level with "goods and chattels;" of

whom _no account_ was made in such arrangements of society as subserved

the improvement, and dignity, and happiness of MANKIND. How accurately

this description applies to those who are crushed under the chattel

principle!

The reference which the apostle makes to the "deep poverty of the

churches of Macedonia,"[B] and this to stir up the sluggish liberality

of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the impression, that the

latter were by no means inferior to the former in the gifts of

Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by poverty as were the

believers in "Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased them to make a certain

contribution for the poor saints which were at Jerusalem."[C] Thus it

appears, that Christians every where were familiar with contempt and

indigence, so much so, that the apostle would dissuade such as had no

families from assuming the responsibilities of the conjugal relation[D]!

[Footnote B: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]

[Footnote C: Rom. xv. 26.]

[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vi 26,27]

Now, how did these good people treat each other? Did the few among them,

who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their influence and

employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing of the "things

that are not," as marketable commodities!--kneeling with them in prayer

in the evening, and putting them up at auction the next morning! Did the

church sell any of the members to swell the "certain contribution far

the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far otherwise--as far as possible! In

those Christian communities where the influence of the apostles was most

powerful, and where the arrangements drew forth their highest

commendations, believers treated each other as brethren, in the

strongest sense of that sweet word. So warm was their mutual love, so

strong the public spirit, so open-handed and abundant the general

liberality, that they are set forth as "_having all things common._" [E]

Slaves and their holders here? Neither the one nor the other could in

that relation to each other have breathed such an atmosphere. The appeal

of the kneeling bondman, "Am I not a man and a brother," must here have

met with a prompt and powerful response.

[Footnote E: Acts iv. 32]

The _tests_ by which our Savior tries the character of his professed

disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one

connection[F], an inquirer demands of the Savior, "What good thing shall

I do that I may have eternal life?" After being reminded of the

obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, while

claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to demand,

"what lack I yet?" The radical deficiency under which his character

labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. If thou

wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor, and

thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. On this

passage it is natural to suggest--

[Footnote F: Luke xvii 18-24]

1. That we have here a _test of universal application._ The rectitude

and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose that he

would subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, to a

trial, where eternal life was at stake, _peculiarly_ severe. Indeed, the

test seems to have been only a fair exposition of the second great

command, and of course it must be applicable to all who are placed under

the obligations of that precept. Those who can not stand this test, as

their character is radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the

inquirer to whom our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the

kingdom of heaven.

2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood to demand

is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to the welfare

of mankind, "the poor" especially. We are to put ourselves on a level

with _them_, as we must do "in selling that we have" for their

benefit--in other words, in employing our powers and resources to

elevate their character, condition, and prospects. This our Savior did;

and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and cooperation with him, how

can we be his _followers_? Apply this test to the slaveholder. Instead

of "selling that he hath" for the benefit of the poor, he BUYS THE POOR,

and exacts their sweat with stripes, to enable him to "clothe himself in

purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day;" or, HE SELLS THE

POOR to support the gospel and convert the heathen!

What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Savior

teach us? _By what standard_ must our character be estimated, and the

retributions of eternity be awarded? A standard, which both the

righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From the

"offscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity will be

selected--a "stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, hungry,

sickly; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the assembled

universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be openly

acknowledged as his representative. "Glory, honor, and immortality,"

will be the reward of those who had recognized and cheered their Lord

through his outraged poor. And tribulation, anguish, and despair, will

seize on "every soul of man," who had neglected or despised them. But

whom, within the limits of our country, are we to regard especially as

the representatives of our final Judge? Every feature of the Savior's

picture finds its appropriate original in our enslaved countrymen.

1. They are the LEAST of his brethren.

2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to command a cup of

water or a crumb of bread.

3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to procure

a nurse or employ a physician.

4. They are emphatically "in prison," restrained by chains, goaded with

whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any cell of the

prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement so rigorous and

heart-breaking as the law allows theirs to be continually and

permanently.

5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively,

STRANGERS--_strangers_ in the land which gave them birth. Whom else do

we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free institutions? The

Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, it is the _negro_

only, who may not strike his roots into our soil. Every where we have

conspired to treat him as a stranger--every where he is forced to feel

himself a stranger. In the stage and steamboat, in the parlor and at our

tables, in the scenes of business and in the scenes of amusement--even

in the church of God and at the communion table, he is regarded as a

stranger. The intelligent and religious are generally disgusted and

horror-struck at the thought of his becoming identified with the

citizens of our republic--so much so, that thousands of them have

entered into a conspiracy to send him off "out of sight," to find a home

on a foreign shore!--And justify themselves by openly alledging, that a

"single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any human creature, must

make him hateful to his fellow citizens!--That nothing but banishment

from "our coasts," can redeem him from the scorn and contempt to which

his "stranger" blood has reduced him among his own mother's children!

Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is "hungry and athirst,"

but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of bread and the

smallest drop of water?

Who "naked," but the man whom the law strips of the last rag of

clothing?

Who "sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of procuring

medicine or sending for a physician?

Who "in prison," but the man who, all his life is under the control of

merciless masters and cruel keepers?

Who a "stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the cheapest

courtesies of life--who is treated as an alien in his native country?

There is one point in this awful description which deserves particular

attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the Judge, are not

charged with inflicting _positive injuries_ on their helpless, needy,

and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often called _negative_

character. What they _had done_ is not described in the indictment.

Their _neglect_ of duty, what they _had_ NOT _done_, was the ground of

their "everlasting punishment." The representative of their Judge, they

had seen a hungered and they gave him no meat, thirsty and they have him

no drink, a stranger and they took him not in, naked and they clothed

him not, sick and in prison and they visited him not. In as much as they

did NOT yield to the claims of suffering humanity--did NOT exert

themselves to bless the meanest of the human family, they were driven

away in their wickedness. But what if the indictment had run thus: I was

a hungered and ye snatched away the crust which might have saved me from

starvation; I was thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the "cup of cold

water," which might have moistened my parched lips; I was a stranger and

ye drove me from the hovel which might have sheltered me from the

piercing wind; I was sick and ye scourged me to my task; in prison and

you sold me for my jail-fees--to what depths of hell must not those who

were convicted under such charges be consigned! And what is the history

of American slavery but one long indictment, describing under

ever-varying forms and hues just such injuries!

Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure of

their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past history.

The charges which he brought against them, they heard with great

surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away from his

necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject to poverty,

insult, and oppression! Never. And as to that poor friendless creature

whom they left unpitied and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor, and

whom their Judge now presented as his own representative, they never

once supposed, that _he_ had any claims on their compassion and

assistance. Had they known, that he was destined to so prominent a place

at the final judgment, they would have treated him as a human being, in

despite of any social, pecuniary, or political considerations. But

neither their _negative virtue_ nor their _voluntary ignorance_ could

shield them from the penal fire which their selfishness had kindled.

Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the "great

commandments" of the gospel; amidst its comprehensive descriptions and

authorized tests of Christian character, we should take our position in

disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and usages of the

primitive churches as are supposed by divine authority. The latter must

be interpreted and understood in the light of the former. But how do the

apologists and defenders of slavery proceed? Placing themselves amidst

the arrangements and usages which grew out of the _corruptions_ of

Christianity, they make these the standard by which the gospel is to be

explained and understood! Some Recorder or Justice, without the light of

inquiry or the aid of a jury, consigns the negro whom the kidnapper has

dragged into his presence to the horrors of slavery. As the poor wretch

shrieks and faints, Humanity shudders and demands why such atrocities

are endured? Some "priest" or "Levite," "passing by on the other side,"

quite self-possessed and all complacent reads in reply from his bread

phylactery, _Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! Yes, echoes the

negro-hating mob, made up of "gentlemen of property and standing"

together with equally gentle-men reeking from the gutter; _Yes--Paul

sent back Onesimus to Philemon_! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned with

noise and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd! A fair specimen this of

the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the sacred

Scriptures?

Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the apologists

for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon first demands our

attention.

1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a "prisoner of

Jesus Christ" at Rome.

2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the church at

Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their assemblies,

and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indirectly to the

ministry of Paul.

3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon; under a relation which it is

difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, though

servile, could not have been like that of an American slave; as, in that

case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could not also have

"_owed him ought_."[A] The American slave is, according to law, as much

the property of his master as any other chattel; and can no more "owe"

his master than can a sheep or a horse. The basis of all pecuniary

obligations lies in some "value received." How can "an article of

merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain commercial relations to its

owner? There is no _person_ to offer or promise. _Personality is

swallowed up in American slavery_!

[Footnote A: Phil. 18.]

4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to determine. He

and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. The

general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his relation to Philemon,

had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left him without

repairing the wrongs he had done him or paying the debts which he owed

him. At Rome, by the blessing of God upon the exertions of the apostle,

he was brought to reflection and repentance.

5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he became

painfully aware of the injuries, he had inflicted on Philemon. He longed

for an opportunity for frank confession and full restitution. Having,

however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he knew not how to appear in

his presence. Under such embarrassments, he naturally sought sympathy

and advice of Paul. _His_ influence upon Philemon, Onesimus knew must be

powerful, especially as an apostle.

6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the apostle

to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanks giving as

the good character and useful life of Philemon naturally drew from the

heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of the letter. He admits that

Onesimus had behaved ill in the service of Philemon; not in running

away, for how they had parted with each other is not explained, but in

being unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts[B] which he had

contracted. But his character had undergone a radical change.

Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness would be his aim and mark his

course. And as to any pecuniary obligations which he had violated, the

apostle authorized Philemon to put them on _his_ account.[C] Thus a way

was fairly opened to the heart of Philemon. And now what does the

apostles ask?

[Footnote B: Verse 11,18.]

[Footnote C: Verse 18.]

7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus. How? "Not as a

_servant_, but _above_ a servant."[A] How much above? Philemon was to

receive him as "a son" of the apostle--"as a brother beloved"--nay, if

he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesimus as he

would receive _the apostle himself[B]. So much_ above a servant was he

to receive him!

[Footnote A: Verse 16.]

[Footnote B: Verse 10, 16, 17.]

8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with as to

put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as "an article of merchandise,"

CARNALLY, while it raised him to the dignity of a "brother beloved,"

SPIRITUALLY? In other words, might not Philemon consistently with the

request of Paul, have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, AS A MAN, while he

admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a CHRISTIAN? Such gibberish in

an apostolic epistle! Never. As if, however, to guard against such

folly, the natural product of mist and moonshine, the apostle would have

Onesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved,

"BOTH IN THE FLESH AND IN THE LORD;"[C] as a man and Christian, in all

the relations, circumstances, and responsibilities of life.

[Footnote C: Verse 16.]

It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what

sense the apostle in such connections uses the word "_brother_." It

describes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the _servile_. It

is "NOT" the relation of a "SERVANT." It elevates its subject "above"

the servile condition. It raises him to full equality with the master,

to the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as

brothers; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense,

affecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way,

"both in the FLESH and in the Lord." This matter deserves particular and

earnest attention. It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic

instruction.

9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle

clearly defines the _moral character_ of his request. It was fit,

proper, right, suited to the nature and relations of things--a thing

which _ought_ to be done.[D] On this account, he might have urged it

upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic authority and

with great boldness.[E] _The very nature_ of the request made it

obligatory on Philemon. He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the

fitness of things, to admit Onesimus to full equality with himself--to

treat him as a brother both in the Lord and as having flesh--as a fellow

man. Thus were the inalienable rights and birth-right privileges of

Onesimus, as a member of the human family, defined and protected by

apostolic authority.

[Footnote D: Verse 8. To [Greek: anaekon]. See Robinson's New Testament

Lexicon; "_it is fit, proper, becoming, it ought_." In what sense King

James' translators used the word "convenient" any one may see who will

read Rom. i. 28 and Eph. v. 3, 4.]

[Footnote E: Verse 8.]

10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, on

the ground of CHARITY.[A] He would give Philemon an opportunity of

discharging his obligations under the impulse of love. To this impulse,

he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. How could he

do otherwise? The thing itself was right. The request respecting it came

from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was under the highest

obligations.[B] That benefactor, now an old man and in the hands of

persecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the matter, and

had the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to grant than

himself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Colosse, and had

commissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for him, must come under the

eye of the apostle. The request was so manifestly reasonable and

obligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a compliance with it,

by the strong word "_obedience_."[C]

[Footnote A: Verse 9 [Greek: dia taen agapaen].]

[Footnote B: Verse 19.]

[Footnote C: Verse 21.]

Now how must all this have been understood by the church at Colosse?--a

church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church at Corinth,

that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. Many of

them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the bitterness of the

servile condition. Would they have been likely to interpret the

apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to slavery!--And

put the slaveholder's construction on its contents! Would their past

experience or present sufferings--for doubtless some of them were still

"under the yoke"--have suggested to their thoughts such glosses as some

of our theological professors venture to put upon the words of the

apostle! Far otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and the

epistle was read in the light of "_liberty_." It contained the

principles of holy freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This

must have made it precious in the eyes of such men "of low degree" as

were most of the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon.

There let it remain as a luminous and powerful defense of the cause of

emancipation!

But what with Prof. Stuart? "If any one doubts, let him take the case of

Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology for his

running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life."[A]

[Footnote A: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 8.]

"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did the apostle,

a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him before some

heartless and perfidious "Judge," for authority to send him back to

Colosse? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence of the fat and

supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the lash to the field

of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had the apostle been like

some teachers in the American churches, he might, as a professor of

sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher of the gospel

to the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to subserve the

"peculiar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. But the venerable

champion of truth and freedom was himself under bonds in the imperial

city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He wrote a letter to the

church at Colosse, which was accustomed to meet at the house of

Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous disciple, and sent them

by the hand of Onesimus. So much for _the way_ in which Onesimus was

sent back to his master.

A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in the

parish of the Connecticut doctor, who once gave public notice that he

saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow men.[B] Under

his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. Burning with love for

the son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, our doctor resolves to send

him back to his master. Accordingly, he writes a letter, gives it to

Caesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our

republican institutions." Now, what would any Caesar do, who had ever

felt a link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_,

should we be surprized to hear him say to himself, What, return of my

own accord to the man who, with the hand of a robber, plucked me from my

mother's bosom!--for whom I have been so often drenched in the sweat of

unrequited toil!--whose violence so often cut my flesh and scarred my

limbs!--who shut out every ray of light from my mind!--who laid claim to

those honors to which my Creator and Redeemer only are entitled! And for

what am I to return? To be cursed, and smitten, and sold! To be tempted,

and torn, and destroyed! I can not thus throw myself away--thus rush

upon my own destruction.

[Footnote B: "Why should I care?"]

Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American

oppression? Do you think that the doctor and his friends could persuade

one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had escaped? And

must we believe this of Onesimus!

"Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion?--"If," writes

the apostle, "he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on my

account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus would "restore" whatever

he "had taken away." He would honestly pay his debts. This resolution,

the apostle warmly approved. He was ready, at whatever expense, to help

his young disciple in carrying it into full effect. Of this he assured

Philemon, in language the most explicit and emphatic. Here we find one

reason for the conduct of Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon.

If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Mr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should

return to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New York,

containing such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder dispose

of it? What, he exclaims, have we here? "If Cato has not been upright in

his pecuniary intercourse with you--if he owes you any thing--put that

on my account." What ignorance of southern institutions! What mockery,

to talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and his master! _The

slave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of merchandise_.

What can _he_ owe his master?--A rustic may lay a wager with his mule,

and give the creature the peck of oats which he had permitted it to win.

But who in sober earnest would call this a pecuniary transaction?

"TO BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE!" From what part of the epistle could the

expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants--so revolting to

every man who loves his own nature? From this? "For perhaps he therefore

departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever."

Receive him how? _As a servant_, exclaims our commentator. But what

wrote the apostle? "NOT _now as a servant, but above a servant_, a

brother beloved, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in

the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized the professor to bereave the

word '_not_' of its negative influence? According to Paul, Philemon was

to receive Onesimus '_not_ as a servant;'--according to Stuart, he was

to receive him "_as a servant!_" If the professor will apply the same

rules of exposition to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference

between him and them must in his view presently vanish away. The

harmonizing process would be equally simple and effectual. He has only

to understand them as affirming what they deny, and as denying what

they affirm.

Suppose that Prof. Stuart had a son residing at the South. His slave,

having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He fled to

Andover, to find a refuge among the "sons of the prophets." There he

finds his way to Prof. Stuart's house, and offers to render any service

which the professor, dangerously ill "of a typhus fever," might require.

He is soon found to be a most active, skillful, faithful nurse. He

spares no pains, night and day, to make himself useful to the venerable

sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the most delicate and tender

manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He fastens himself strongly on the

heart of the reverend object of his care. Touched with the heavenly

spirit, the meek demeanor, the submissive frame, which the sick bed

exhibits, Archy becomes a Christian. A new bond now ties him and his

convalescent teacher together. As soon as he is able to write, the

professor sends by Archy the following letter to the South, to Isaac

Stuart, Esq.:--

"MY DEAR SON,--With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dangerous

illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you, on a subject

which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, which my

acquaintance with you, and your strong obligations to me, will, I can

not doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a request, though the

thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the principles of the gospel,

obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, boldly demand, what I earnestly

entreat. But I know how generous, magnanimous, and Christ-like you are,

and how readily you will "do even more than I say"--I, your own father,

an old man, almost exhausted with multiplied exertions for the benefit

of my family and my country, and now just rising, emaciated and broken,

from the brink of the grave. I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard

with the affection of a father, and whom, indeed, 'I have begotten in my

sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be an _Isaac_ to me; for

how often did not his soothing voice, and skillful hand, and unwearied

attention to my wants, remind me of you! But I chose to give you an

opportunity of manifesting, voluntarily, the goodness of your heart; as,

if I had retained him with me, you might seem to have been forced to

grant what you will gratefully bestow. His temporary absence from you

may have opened the way for his permanent continuance with you. Not now

as a slave. Heaven forbid! But superior to a slave. Superior, did I say?

Take him to your bosom, as a beloved brother; for I own him as a son,

and regard him as such, in all the relations of life, both as a man and

a Christian.--'Receive him as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you

from complying with my request at once, I hereby promise, without

adverting to your many and great obligations to me, to pay you every

cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation which my comfort

with you may require, you will make without much delay, when you learn,

that I intend, as soon as I shall be able 'to perform the journey,' to

make you a visit."

And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should

publicly declare that Prof. Stuart of Andover regarded slaveholding as

lawful; for that "he had sent Archy back to his son Isaac, with an

apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual slavery? With what

propriety might not the professor exclaim: False, every syllable false.

I sent him back, NOT TO BE HELD AS A SLAVE, _but recognized as a dear

brother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and

ecclesiastical_. I bade my son receive _Archy as myself_. If this was

not equivalent to a requisition to set him fully and most honorably

free, and that, too, on the ground of natural obligation and Christian

principle, then I know not how to frame such a requisition.

I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough fully

to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Prof. Stuart lacks

apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of a church

consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of what the world

regard as the dregs of society--"the offscouring of all things." Nor was

slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous usages, such

horrid laws as disgrace the South.

But it is time to turn to another passage which, in its bearing on the

subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk and

Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive. "Let

as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of

all honor, that the name of God and his doctrines be not blasphemed. And

they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they

are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and

beloved, partakers of the benefit."[A]

[Footnote A: 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.]

1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes of servants, with

instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one class and

the other, in Prof. Stuart's eye, were _slaves_. This he assumes, and

thus begs the very question in dispute. The term servant is _generic_,

as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all the various offices

which men discharge for the benefit of each other, however honorable, or

however menial; from that of an apostle[B] opening the path to heaven,

to that of washing "one another's feet."[C] A general term it is,

comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and

Christian character.[D]

[Footnote B: Cor. iv. 5.]

[Footnote C: John xiii. 14.]

[Footnote D: Mat. xx. 26-28.]

A leading signification gives us the _manual laborer_, to whom, in the

division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions

the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as belong to man

in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally been considered

low and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to bodily, the

manual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous ways and in

various degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the oily tongue, have,

through extended and powerful conspiracies, brought the resources of

society under the control of the few, who stood aloof from his homely

toil. Hence his dependence upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries

which have fallen so heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages

from one degree to another, till at length, in the case of millions,

fraud and violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record

of _mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away to toil

among the cattle. _Here you find the slave._ To reduce the servant to

his condition, requires abuses altogether monstrous--injuries reaching

the very vitals of man--stabs upon the very heart of humanity. Now, what

right has Prof. Stuart to make the word "_servants_," comprehending,

even as manual laborers, so many and such various meanings, signify

"_slaves_," especially where different classes are concerned? Such a

right he could never have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or

hermeneutics. Is it his by sympathy with the oppressor?

Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "_as many_,"[A]

which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he proceeds

to others, who are introduced by a particle,[B] whose natural meaning

indicates the presence of another and a different subject.

[Footnote A: [Greek: Osoi.] See Passow's Schneider.]

[Footnote B: [Greek: De.] See Passow.]

2. The first class are described as "_under the yoke_"--a yoke from

which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if

possible.[C] If not, they must in every way regard the master with

respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his

interests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.[D] And

this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan master from heaping

profane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of the gospel.

They should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his helpless

victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand.

[Footnote C: See 1 Cor. vii. 21--[Greek: All ei kai d u n a s a i

eleutheros genesthai.]]

[Footnote D: 1 Cor. vii. 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe douloi anthropon.]]

But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the

yoke_"[E]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These he

distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"--the badge of

a slave--had "_believing masters_." _To have a "believing master," then,

was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke."_ These servants were exhorted

not _to despise_ their masters. What need of such an exhortation, if

their masters had been slaveholders, holding them as property, wielding

them as mere instruments, disposing of them as "articles of

merchandise?" But this was not consistent with believing. Faith,

"breaking every yoke," united master and servants in the bonds of

brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a relation which, excluding

the yoke,[F] placed them side by side on the ground of equality, where,

each in his appropriate sphere, they might exert themselves freely and

usefully, to the mutual benefit of each other. Here, servants might need

to be cautioned against getting above their appropriate business,

putting on airs, despising their masters, and thus declining or

neglecting their service.[G] Instead of this, they should be, as

emancipated slaves often have been,[H] models of enterprise, fidelity,

activity, and usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of

their confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing.[I]

[Footnote E: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa. lviii. 6, 9.]

[Footnote F: Supra p. 47.]

[Footnote G: See Matt. vi. 24.]

[Footnote H: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master"

James G. Birney.]

[Footnote I: The following exposition is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT,

JR.:--"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai,] in our humble opinion, has

been so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to

take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause

'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component

preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather

than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly the

sense of [Greek: metalambanein,] (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle

intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the

more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonountes], &c. (See Heb. iii.

1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause,

'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text been

used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_ of other

men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambano] is _to take in

return--to take instead of, &c_. Hence, in the middle with the genitive,

it signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_ the person or thing

expressed by that genitive. In this sense only is the word used in the

New Testament.--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts xx. 35.) If this be true, the

word [Greek: euergesai] can not signify the benefit conferred by the

gospel, as our common version would make it, but the _well-doing_ of the

servants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while

they were no longer under the _yoke_ of compulsion. This word is used

elsewhere in the New Testament but once, (Acts iv. 3.) in relation to

the '_good deed_' done to the impotent man. The plain import of the

clause, unmystified by the commentators, is, that believing masters

would not fail to _do their part towards_, or encourage by suitable

returns, the _free_ service of those who had once been under

the _yoke_."]

Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Prof.

Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves[A]--the relation of

"brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of course conferring

freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutual

service, both retaining, for convenience's sake, the one while giving

and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, _as is

usual in such cases_, under which they had been known. Such was the

instruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to

give. Was it friendly to slaveholding?

[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]

And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these

masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On

that _of a "perfect religious equality_."[A] In all the relations,

duties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects,

which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free as

their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as

free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as

high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his

master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned

no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in "_perfect

religious equality_," which the Princeton professor accords to servants

in relation to their master. Might the _master_, then, in order more

fully to attain the great ends for which he was created and redeemed,

freely exert himself to increase his acquaintance with his own powers,

and relations, and resources--with his prospects, opportunities, and

advantages? So might his _servants_. Was _he_ at liberty to "study to

approve himself to God," to submit to his will and bow to his authority,

as the sole standard of affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_

at liberty to sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?"

So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal,

and paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and

that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So were

_they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they might use

their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve their

opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in

glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable

treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the

American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. Such

equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the last link

of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit of slavery,

have given so wide and active a circulation do the Pittsburgh pamphlet,

make the experiment?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh Pamphlet, p. 9.]

In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves earnest

attention:--"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the

flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of

heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the

Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the Lord ye shall receive the

reward of the inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that

doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is

no respect of persons.--Masters, give unto your servants that which is

just and equal; knowing that ye have a Master in heaven."[A]

[Footnote A: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]

Here it is natural to remark--

1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, both

masters and servants were to act in conformity with the principles of

the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants were to do in

hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they were to be

controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To the same Lord,

and according to the same law, was the _master_ to hold himself

responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course equally at

liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard, by which

they were to be governed and judged._

2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, was

_righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias or

antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not so

light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, where

nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. There the

wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top or bottom of

society, must be dealt with according to his deservings.

3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and heartily

obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master, faithfully

to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, in his relations

to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY the _standard of his

conduct_. Under the authority of such instructions, slavery falls

discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It is flagrantly at war with the

government of God, consists in "respect of persons" the most shameless

and outrageous, treads justice and equality under foot, and in its

natural tendency and practical effects is nothing else than a system of

wrong-doing. What have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in

their "respect of persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one

brother as a thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the

least regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely

at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in the

relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one hand, and

the chattel principle on the other, are naturally subversive of each

other--proof clear and decisive that the correlates, masters and

servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, without the

grossest absurdity and the greatest violence.

"The relation of slavery," according to Prof. Stuart, is recognized in

"the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may still exist

without violating the Christian faith or the church."[A] Slavery and the

chattel principle! So our professor thinks; otherwise his reference has

nothing to do with the subject--with the slavery which the abolitionist,

whom he derides, stands opposed to. How gross and hurtful is the mistake

into which he allows himself to fall. The relation recognized in the

precepts of the New Testament had its basis and support in "justice and

equality;" the very opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which

may exist as long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the

destruction to which, in the view of Prof. Stuart, slavery is doomed.

The description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery,

raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his rights

under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Prof. Stuart can see

nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his owner. With this

relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like an evil angel, it

haunts him even when he enters the temple of justice!

[Footnote A: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]

"It is remarkable," with the Princeton professor, "that there is not

even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters to

liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and

immediate duty."[B] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were

chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have nothing

to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton professor has the

assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY, AND JUSTICE, were

enjoined with a _distinct reference to the government of God_.[C]

"Without respect of persons," they were to be God-like in doing justice.

They were to act the part of kind and merciful "brethren." And whither

would this lead them? Could they stop short of restoring to every man

his natural, inalienable rights?--of doing what they could to redress

the wrongs, soothe the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the

condition of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and

degraded by any agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to

keep the chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would

this be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of

"their Master in heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause of

freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to enjoin

the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which freedom

consists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_?

[Footnote B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 9.]

[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p. 10.]

The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has

so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural defense of

"the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout out the greater part of

Christendom"_[A]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED BOTH POLITICAL AND

DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a

fair compensation for labor; insists on the mental and intellectual

improvement of_ ALL _classes of men; condemns_ ALL _infractions of

marital or parental rights; requires in short not only that_ FREE SCOPE

_should be allowed to human improvement, but that _ALL SUITABLE MEANS_

_should be employed for the attainment of that end._"[B] It is indeed

"remarkable," that while neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an

exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such

"general principles as have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the

greater part of Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge"

emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a barrier,

heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the rights of

the husband and the fathers; gives every laborer a fair compensation;

and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes, with

free scope and all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude

and high authority. This is not only "remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes

and no--hot and cold, in one and the same breath! And yet these things

stand prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective

defense of slavery!

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 18. 19.]

[Footnote B: The same, p. 31.]

In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes

another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on

the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein

he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if

thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the

Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is

called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be

not ye the servants of men."[A]

[Footnote A: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]

In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest,

1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind the

Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the Gospel

found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, from

their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," they

ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. "If thou canst

be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer freedom to bondage and

to exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of the

former, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of

the Gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing? Their

"brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon their neck, which the

apostle would have them shake off if possible? And had such masters been

members of the Corinthian church, what inferences must they have drawn

from this exhortation to their servants? That the apostle regarded

slavery as a Christian institution?--or could look complacently on any

efforts to introduce or maintain it in the church? Could they have

expected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert

themselves in the cause of freedom?

2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it,

they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to ceaseless

anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need not fear,

that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly reduced, would

prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the light of his

countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth their sorrows, and

pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of liberty. "For

he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman."

In _him_, therefore, should they cheerfully confide.

3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile

relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. To

their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. It

should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty and

effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, to

thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are bought with

a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN."

With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the Princeton

professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"--the relation of

slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[A] And this he

applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to _American_ slavery.

Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown

under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding

their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of

usefulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance,

with his wife and babes, "the servant of men?" Could such a relation be

acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 10.]

To the Princeton professor the commend a practical trial of the bearing

of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for the unity

and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which in various

forms and under different names unite the southern with the northern

churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. Let him,

then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to Georgia. No

religious teacher[B] from any free state, can be likely to receive so

general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the

doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasioned in the

southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible collect, as he

goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now let all men,

whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Christian

institution! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the passage in

question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the slaves

around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged with

sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot deprive

you of the fatherly regards of Him "who is no respecter of persons."

Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke,"

throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the

Lord is, there is liberty;" that the Gospel places slaves "on a perfect

religious equality" with their master; so that every Christian is "the

Lord's freeman." And, for your encouragement, remember that

"Christianity has abolished both political and domestic servitude

whenever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for

labor; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all

classes of men; it condemns all infractions of marital or parental

rights; in short it requires not only that free scope be allowed to

human improvement, but that all suitable means should be employed for

the attainment of that end."[C] Let your lives, then, be honorable to

your relations to your Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is

entitled to your warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the

servants of men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of

the kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and

opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made, allay

excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord, every day

rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of the republic,

and cement "the Union?"

[Footnote B: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long

ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in the

literary and religious world from a slaveholding state, where the

"peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and maintained

with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the Princeton

professor had, through the Pittsburgh pamphlet, contributed most

powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the

persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to which

the Bible gives countenance and support_.

In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new

Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and

inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the

following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and according to

Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor. "There is scarcely

any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this subject. The great

mass of the people believing slavery to be sinful, are clearly of the

opinion that as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land

and throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of

abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is

sinful, should be instantly abandoned. The others, _by a strange sort of

reasoning for Christian men_, contend that though slavery is sinful,

_yet it may be allowed to exist until it shall be expedient to abolish

it_; or if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain

English, the sense would be, both in church and State, _slavery, though

sinful, may be allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say

that it must be abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain

way of stating a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man

to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the

Bible allows no tampering with sin."

"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions to be found in both

parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to the

Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the position,

that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of that article

is said, without contradiction, to be _Prof. Hodge of Princeton--HIS

NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU, my brethren, for in a land

of anti-slavery men, he is the ONLY ONE who has dared to vindicate your

character from the serious charge of living in the habitual

transgression of God's holy law_."]

[Footnote C: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 31.]

"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged,

that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst

forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it around him_

in JUDEA."[A] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to speak

ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which neither

belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is not denied

that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have had slaves; _but

of the Jews this is denied_. How could the professor take that as

granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was

essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct

us? How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct

his confiding readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open,

he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day?

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet p. 9.]

We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or

courage,[B] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between

Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier

stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart

instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordinary

occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with "the

lost sheep of the house of Israel."[C] The propriety of this arrangement

is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and

ourselves.

[Footnote B: The same, p. 10.]

[Footnote C: Matt. xv. 24.]

In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our

Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest

attention:--