GRENADA.--According to the _Free Press_, it would appear that 'the

proprietors and managers of several estates in Duquesne Valley, and

elsewhere, their patience being worn out, and seeing the cultivation of

their estates going to ruin, determined to put the law into operation,

by compelling, after allowing twenty-three or twenty-four days of

idleness, the people either to work or to leave the estates. They

resisted; the aid of the magistrates and of the constabulary force was

called in, but without effect, and actual violence was, we learn, used

towards those who came to enforce the law. Advices were immediately sent

down to the Executive, despatched by a gentleman of the Troop, who

reached town about half past five o'clock on Saturday morning last. We

believe a Privy Council was summoned, and during the day, Capt. Clarke

of the 1st West-India Regiment, and Government Secretary, Lieut. Mould

of the Royal Engineers, and Lieut. Costabodie of the 70th, together with

twenty men of the 70th, and 20 of the 1st West India, embarked, to be

conveyed by water to the scene of insubordination.'

"'We have not learnt the reception this force met with, from the

laborers, but the results of the visit paid them were, that yesterday,

there were at work, on four estates, none: on eleven others, 287 in all,

and on another all except three, who are in the hands of the

magistrates. On one of the above properties, the great gang was, on

Friday last, represented in the cane-piece by one old woman!'"

"'The presence of the soldiers has had, it will be seen, some effect,

yet still the prospects are far from encouraging; a system of stock

plundering, &c. is prevalent to a fearful degree, some gentlemen and the

industrious laborers having had their fowls, &c. entirely carried off by

the worthless criminals; it is consolatory, however, to be able to quote

the following written, to us by a gentleman: "Although there are a good

many people on the different estates, still obstinate and resisting

either to work or to leave the properties, yet I hope that if the

military are posted at Samaritan for some time longer, they will come

round, several of the very obstinate having done so already." Two

negroes were sent down to goal on Monday last, to have their trial for

assaulting the magistrates.'"

"'Such are the facts, as far as we have been able to ascertain them,

which have attended a rebellious demonstration among a portion of the

laboring population, calculated to excite well-founded apprehension in

the whole community. Had earlier preventive measures been adopted, this

open manifestation of a spirit of resistance to, and defiance of the

law, might have been avoided. On this point, we have, in contempt of the

time-serving reflections it has drawn upon us, freely and fearlessly

expressed our opinion, and we shall now only remark, that matters having

come to the pass we have stated, the Executive has adopted the only

effective means to bring affairs again to a healthy state; fortunate is

it for the colony, that this has been done, and we trust that the

effects will be most beneficial.'"

TOBAGO.

The following testifies well for the ability of the emancipated to take

care of themselves.

"'Tobago.--The Gazette of this Island informs us that up to the period

of its going to press, the accounts from the country, as to the

disinclination of the laborers to turn out to work are much the same as

we have given of last week. Early this morning parties of them were seen

passing through town in various directions, accompanied by their

children, and carrying along with them their ground provisions, stock,

&c. indicating a change of location. Whilst on many estates where

peremptory demands have been made that work be resumed, or the laborers

should leave the estate, downright refusal to do either the one or the

other has been the reply; and that reply has been accompanied by threat

and menace of personal violence against any attempts to turn them out of

their houses and grounds. In the transition of the laborers from a state

of bondage to freedom, much that in their manners and deportment would

have brought them summarily under the coercion of the stipendiary

magistrate, formerly, may now be practised with impunity; and the fear

is lest that nice discrimination betwixt restraints just terminated and

rights newly acquired, will not be clouded for some time, even in the

minds of the authorities, before whom laborers are likely to be brought

for their transgression. Thus, although it may appear like an alarming

confederacy, the system of sending delegates, or head men, around the

estates, which the laborers have adopted, as advisers, or agents, to

promote general unanimity; it must be borne in mind that this is

perfectly justifiable; and it is only where actual violence has been

threatened by those delegates against those who choose to work at under

wages, that the authorities can merely assure them of their protection

from violence.'--_Morning Jour., Oct. 2._"

The _Barbadian_ of November 21, says, "An agricultural report has been

lately made of the windward district of the Island, which is favorable

as to the general working of the negroes." The same paper of November

28, says, "It is satisfactory to learn that _many_ laborers in Tobago

are engaging more readily in agricultural operations."

ST. VINCENT.

"Saint Vincent.--Our intelligence this week, observes the Gazette of

25th August, from the country districts, is considerably more favorable

than for the previous fortnight. In most of the leeward quarter, the

people have, more or less, returned to work, with the exception of very

few estates, which we decline naming, as we trust that on these also

they will resume their labor in a few days. The same may be said

generally of the properties in St. George's parish; and in the more

extensive district of Charlotte, there is every prospect that the same

example will be followed next week particularly in the Caraib country,

where a few laborers on some properties have been at work during the

present week, and the explanation and advice given them by Mr. Special

Justice Ross has been attended with the best effect, and we doubt not

will so continue. In the Biabou quarter the laborers have resumed work

in greater numbers than in other parts of the parish, and the exceptions

in this, as in ether districts, we hope will continue but a short time."

The Barbadian of November 21, speaks of a "megass house" set on fire in

this island which the peasantry refused to extinguish, and adds that but

half work is performed by the laborer in that parish. "Those of the

adjoining parish," its says, "are said to be working satisfactorily." In

a subsequent paper we notice a report from the Chief of Police to the

Lieutenant Governor, which speaks favorably of the general working of

the negroes, as far as he had been able to ascertain by inquiry into a

district comprising one-third of the laborers.

The New York Commercial Advertiser of February 25, has a communication

from Amos Townsend, Esq., Cashier of the New Haven Bank; dated New

Haven, February 21, 1839, from which we make the following extract. He

says he obtained his information from one of the most extensive shipping

houses in that city connected with the West India trade.

"A Mr. Jackson, a planter from St. Vincents, has been in this city

within a few day, and says that the emancipation of the slaves on

that island works extremely well; and that his plantation produces

more and yields a larger profit than it has ever done before. The

emancipated slaves now do in eight hours what was before considered

a two-days' task, and he pays the laborers a dollar a day.

Mr. Jackson further states that he, and Mr. Nelson, of Trinidad,

with another gentleman from the same islands, have been to

Washington, and conferred with Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay, _to

endeavour to concert some plan to get colored laborers from this

country to emigrate to these islands, as there is a great want of

hands._ They offer one dollar a day for able bodied hands. The

gentlemen at Washington were pleased with the idea of thus disposing

of the free blacks at the South, and would encourage their efforts

to induce that class of the colored people to emigrate. Mr. Calhoun

remarked that it was the most feasible plan of colonizing the free

blacks that had ever been suggested.

This is the amount of my information, and comes in so direct a

channel as leaves no room to doubt its correctness. What our

southern champions will now say to this direct testimony from their

brother planters of the West Indies, of the practicability and

safety of immediate emancipation, remains to be seen. Truly yours."

AMOS TOWNSEND, JUN.

ST. LUCIA.

Saint Lucia.--The Palladium states that affairs are becoming worse every

day with the planters. Their properties are left without labourers to

work them; their buildings broken into, stores and produce stolen,

ground provisions destroyed, stock robbed, and they themselves insulted

and laughed at.

On Saturday night, the Commissary of Police arrived in town from the

third and fourth districts, with some twenty or thirty prisoners, who

had been convicted before the Chief Justice of having assaulted the

police in the execution of their duty, and sent to gaol.

"It has been deemed necessary to call for military aid with a view of

humbling the high and extravagant ideas entertained by the

ex-apprentices upon the independence of their present condition;

thirty-six men of the first West India regiment, and twelve of the

seventy-fourth have been accordingly despatched; the detachment embarked

yesterday on board Mr. Muter's schooner, the Louisa, to land at

Soufriere, and march into the interior."

In both the above cases where the military was called out, the

provocation was given by the white. And in both cases it was afterwards

granted to be needless. Indeed, in the quelling of one of these

factitious rebellions, the prisoners taken were two white men, and one

of them a manager.

* * * * *

THE

CHATTEL PRINCIPLE

THE ABHORRENCE OF

JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES;

OR

NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY

IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

NEW YORK

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1839

_Please read and circulate._

The

NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.

* * * * *

"THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST."

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? In 1776 THOMAS JEFFERSON,

supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by the American

people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration: "We hold these

truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, _that all men are created equal; that they

are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among

these are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness._" And from the

inmost heart of the multitudes around, and in a strong and clear voice,

broke forth the unanimous and decisive answer: Amen--such truths we do

indeed hold to be self-evident. And animated and sustained by a

declaration, so inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the

result of agonizing efforts and dreadful sufferings, achieved under God

the independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived

light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the

foundation of their republic. And in the midst of _this republic_, must

we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict "the truths"

which He Himself, as their Creator, had made self-evident to mankind?

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, according to those

laws which make it what it is, is American slavery? In the Statute-Book

of South Carolina thus it is written:[A] "Slaves shall be deemed, sold,

taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_ in the

hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors,

administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes

whatever." The very root of American slavery consists in the assumption,

that _law has reduced men to chattels_. But this assumption is, and must

be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are separated from each other by

the Creator, immutably, eternally, and by an impassable gulf. To

confound or identify men and cattle must be to _lie_ most wantonly,

impudently, and maliciously. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not

in favor of palpable, monstrous falsehood?

[Footnote A: Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? How can a system, built

upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth--a system of

treating men like cattle--operate? Thomas Jefferson shall answer. Hear

him.[B] "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. The parent

storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the

same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to his worst

passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, can

not but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a

prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such

circumstances." Such is the practical operation of a system, which puts

men and cattle into the same family and treats them alike. And must we

prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst

vices in their most hateful forms are systematically and efficiently

taught and practiced?

[Footnote B: Notes on Virginia.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? What, in 1818, did the

General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm respecting its nature

and operation?[C] "Slavery creates a paradox in the moral system--it

exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings, in such

circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It

exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether they shall

receive religious instruction; whether they shall know and worship the

true God; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the gospel; whether

they shall perform the duties and cherish the endearments of husbands

and wives, parents and children, neighbors and friends; whether they

shall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of

justice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery;

consequences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very

existence. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, _often take

place_ in their very worst degree and form; and where all of them do not

take place, still the slave is deprived of his natural rights, 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." Must we prove, that Jesus Christ is

not in favor of such things?

[Footnote C: Minutes of the General Assembly for 1818, p. 29.]

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery? It is already widely felt

and openly acknowledged at the South, that they can not support slavery

without sustaining the opposition of universal christendom. And Thomas

Jefferson declared, that "he trembled for his country when he reflected,

that God is just; that his justice can not sleep forever; that

considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the

wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events;

that it may become practicable by supernatural influences! The Almighty

has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest."[A] And

must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal

christendom is impelled to abhor, denounce, and oppose;--is not in favor

of what every attribute of Almighty God is armed against?

[Footnote A: Notes on Virginia]

"YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR."

It is no man of straw, with whom in making out such proof we are called

to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist! Would to God that

our labor of love could be regarded as a work of supererogation! But we

may well be ashamed and grieved; to find it necessary to "stop the

mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, who from the heights of Zion

have undertaken to defend the institution of slavery. We speak not now

of those, who amidst the monuments of oppression are engaged in the

sacred vocation; who as ministers of the Gospel can "prophesy smooth

things" to such as pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices;

nay, who themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That

_they_ should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips

something in favor of slavery, is not to be wondered at. They consent to

the murder of the children; can they respect the rights of the Father?

But what shall we say of theological professors at the North--professors

of sacred literature at our oldest divinity schools--who stand up to

defend, both by argument and authority, southern slavery! And from the

Bible! Who, Balaam-like, try a thousand expedients to force from the

mouth of Jehovah a sentence which they know the heart of Jehovah abhors!

Surely we have here something more mischievous and formidable than a man

of straw. More than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the

General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an article in the

Biblical Repertory,[A] understood to be from the pen of the Professor of

Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is made to show, that

slavery, whatever may be said of _any abuses_ of it, is _not a violation

of the precepts of the Gospel_. This article, we are informed, was

industriously and extensively distributed among the members of the

General Assembly--a body of men, who by a frightful majority seemed

already too much disposed to wink at the horrors of slavery. The effect

of the Princeton Apology on the southern mind, we have high authority

for saying, has been most decisive and injurious. It has contributed

greatly to turn the public eye off from the sin--from the inherent and

necessary _evils of slavery_ to incidental evils, which the _abuse_ of

it might be expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit,

that whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such

thing is chargeable upon them! Thus our Princeton prophet has done what

he could to lay the southern conscience asleep upon ingenious

perversions of the sacred volume!

[Footnote A: For April, 1836. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian

Church met in the following May, at Pittsburgh, where, in pamphlet form,

this article was distributed. The following appeared upon the

title page:

PITTSBURGH:

1836.

_For gratuitous distribution_.

]

About a year after this, an effort in the same direction was jointly

made by Dr. Fisk and Prof. Stuart. In a letter to a Methodist clergyman,

Mr. Merritt, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives utterance to

such things as the following:--"But that you and the public may see and

_feel_, that you have the ablest and those who are among the honestest

men of this age, arrayed against you, be pleased to notice the following

letter from Prof. Stuart." I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity

of purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved

reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following

questions:--

1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery

existed in the primitive church?

2. In 1 Tim. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what is

the relation expressed or implied between "they" (servants) and

"_believing masters_?" And what are your reasons for the construction of

the passage?

3. What was the character of ancient and eastern slavery?--Especially

what (legal) power did this relation give the master over the slave?

PROFESSOR STUART'S REPLY.

ANDOVER, 10th April, 1837.

REV. AND DEAR SIR,--Yours is before me. A sickness of three months'

standing (typhus fever,) in which I have just escaped death, and

which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me to

answer your letter at large.

1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of

slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the

existence of slavery. The masters are in part "believing masters,"

so that a precept to them, how they are to behave as _masters_,

recognizes that the relation may still exist, _salva fide et salva

ecclesia_, ("without violating the Christian faith or the church.")

Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at

once. He could not lawfully and properly temporize with a _malum in

se_, ("that which is in itself sin.")

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. The relation did exist, may

exist. The _abuse_ of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not

that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No; "Love thy

neighbor as thyself," "Do unto others that which ye would that

others should do unto you," decide against this. But the relation

once constituted and continued, is not such a _malum in se_ as calls

for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did

not counsel.

2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are

Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and

because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence

due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is

not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay,

servants should in such a case, a _fortiori_, do their duty

cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What

the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_,

is another question, and one which the apostle does not here

treat of.

3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin

antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more

unqualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves

were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about

their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the

temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was,

for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at

length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great

as among us.

After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have

been exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct

and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity

would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew too,

that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth; for

it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. Yet

Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and

gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_.

With sincere and paternal regard,

Your friend and brother,

M. STUART.

* * * * *

--This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible

doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have

traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must

take a different position, and approach the subject in a different

manner. Respectfully yours,

W. FISK

"SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP."

What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations which

grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a

relation, that did not violate the Christian faith; that the relation

may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the essential and

fundamental wrong;" and, of course, that American Christians may hold

their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or inflicting

injury. Thus according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to

say against "the peculiar institutions" of the South. If our brethren

there do not "abuse" the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may

multiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without exposing

themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Christian

character open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in human

flesh ask for greater latitude? And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly

aid earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention

of his brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to

embrace. According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the

abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would succeed,

take a different position."

We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting to

prove that Jeans Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we contend

with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, which a

particular examination of Prof. Stuart's letter lays upon us, we hope

fairly to dispose of in due season.--Enough has now been said, to make

it clear and certain, that American slavery has its apologists and

advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and apologists, who fall

behind few if any of their brethren in the reputation they have

acquired, the stations they occupy, and the general influence they are

supposed to exert.

Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its worst

form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, they

must have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and the

spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of this may

well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument entitled "The Bible

against Slavery." If, after a careful and thorough examination of that

article, he can believe that slaveholding prevailed during the ministry

of Jesus Christ among the Jews and in accordance with the authority of

Moses, he would do the reading public an important service to record the

grounds of his belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that

Argument. Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting

to prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's

incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant

violation of the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could

Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in

contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that law

which their office and their profession required them to honor and

enforce, without exposing and condemning it.

In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole world,

not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as Stuart,

Hodge, and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term "_worst_"

could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent relation. Slavery

accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and disgraced by the

"worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses in the ancient world,

Prof. Stuart describes as "horrible cruelties." And in our own country,

such abuses have grown so rank, as to lead a distinguished

eye-witness--no less a philosopher and statesman than Thomas

Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against us every attribute of the

Almighty. With these things the Savior every where came in contact,

among the people to whose improvement and salvation he devoted his

living powers, and yet not a word, not a syllable, in exposure and

condemnation of such "horrible cruelties," escaped his lips! He

saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he saw, the babe plucked

from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn from the embrace of her

husband; the daughter driven to the market by the scourge of her own

father;--he saw the word of God sealed up from those who, of all men,

were especially entitled to its enlightening, quickening

influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for kneeling before the throne of

heavenly mercy;--such things he saw without a word of admonition or

reproof! No sympathy with them who suffered wrong--no indignation at

them who inflicted wrong, moved his heart!

From the alledged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery

among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with

Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; that

is, he witnessed what Prof. Stuart ventures to call "horrible

cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the sacred volume

to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, as "worst," or

even bad? According to their inference--which they would thrust gag-wise

into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence should seal up their lips.

They ought to hold their tongues. They have no right to call any form of

slavery bad--an abuse; much less, horribly cruel! Their inference is

broad enough to protect the most brutal driver amidst his deadliest

inflictions!

"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I AM NOT

COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFILL."

And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind the

prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for suffering

humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, excited their

compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the most pointed and

powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They could not endure the

creatures, who "used their neighbors' service without wages, and gave

him not for his work;"[A] who imposed "heavy burdens"[B] upon their

fellows, and loaded them with "the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding

themselves from their own flesh," disowned their own mothers' children.

Professions of piety, joined with the oppression of the poor, they held

up to universal scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They

warned the creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath

of Jehovah only by heartfelt repentance. And yet, according to the

ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets passed

by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to expose and

denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in its worst

forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his notice; but not a

word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw "a boy given for a

harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might drink,"[C] without the

slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark of disapprobation! To such

disgusting and horrible conclusions, do the arguings which, from the

haunts of sacred literature, are inflictcd on our churches, lead us!

According to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the

world, extinguished the torches which his own prophets had kindled, and

plunged mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O

Savior, in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer

used as a "den of thieves!"

[Footnote A: Jeremiah xxii. 13.]

[Footnote B: Isaiah lviii. 6,7.]

[Footnote C: Joel iii. 3.]

"THOU THOUGHTEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF."

In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where came

in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsistent with

himself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the poor; to heal

the broken-hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; to set at

liberty them that are bruised; to preach the year of Jubilee. In

accordance with this commission, he bound himself, from the earliest

date of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties; himself

"had not where to lay his head;" he exposed himself to misrepresentation

and abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society;

he stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the

heartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain;

and in describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very

personification of poverty, disease, and oppression, as the test by

which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and wretched;

to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. They had his

tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His heart's blood he

poured out upon the ground for the human family, reduced to the deepest

degradation, and exposed to the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of

the grand usurper. And yet, according to our ecclesiastics, that class

of sufferers who had been reduced immeasurably below every other shape

and form of degradation and distress; who had been most rudely thrust

out of the family of Adam, and forced to herd with swine; who, without

the slightest offense, had been made the foot-stool of the worst

criminals; whose "tears were their meat night and day," while, under

nameless insults and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O

Lord, O Lord:--this class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical

expositors, occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make

us believe the compassionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of

pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his

gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces damnation

upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it

is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he can calmly endure!

O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such blasphemers!

IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH.

It seems, that though, according to our Princeton professor, "the

subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his

personal instructions[A]," he had a way of "treating it." What was that?

Why, "he taught the true nature, DIGNITY, EQUALITY, and destiny of men,"

and "inculcated the principles of justice and love."[B] And according to

Professor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished, "decide

against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, that these ecclesiastical

apologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alledged silence is,

that he did not, in his personal instructions, "_apply his own principles

to this particular form of wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which

the maxims of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton

professor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would

speedily extinguish[C]. How remarkable it is, that a teacher should

"hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," and

yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon

it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that "slaveholding

is not a crime[D]," and at the same time lend his authority for its

"speedy extinction!"

[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, (already alluded to,)p.9.]

[Footnote B: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.9.]

[Footnote C: The same, p.34.]

[Footnote D: The same, p.13.]

Higher authority than sustains _self-evident truths_ there can not be.

As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are

their presence and power self-manifested, but they also shed a strong

and clear light around them. In this light, other truths are visible.

Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their

authority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly,

gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and

disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a

reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus employed and when

most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the

conclusions which he would establish and commend, _clear in the light of

reason_;--in other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He

expects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the

authority of principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of

reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince

them, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains,

and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are illustrated

and supported by "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside

themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be argued

with. They belong to the mad-house.

"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD."

Are we to honor the Bible, which Prof. Stuart quaintly calls "the good

old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to receive its

instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied there? Do we

search for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their

force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find something there, in

the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in

broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set

us free from the light and power of first principles? And what if we

were to discover what we were thus in search of?--something directly or

indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudicial to the principles, which

reason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident? In what

estimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible?

Could we longer honor it, as the book of God? _The book of God opposed

to the authority of_ REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of

the claims of the sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of

reason. _This every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on

the subject_. And what must reason do with a book, which reduced the

authority of its own principles--broke the force of self-evident truths?

Is he not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a

minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts

himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the

Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such piety

prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an

open shame."

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.]