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 the 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 in it 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 rust of them should be a witness against them,
and should eat their flesh as it were fire; that, in one word, they
had heaped treasures 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 admonitions 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"
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 anything 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 transgressor."
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 of 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 cannot, without the greatest
injustice, be held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains
of justice, by confounding all moral distinctions. What, then, so
far as the authority of the New Testament is concerned, becomes of
slavery, which cannot 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 worshippers
of a dark complexion are to be sent up to the negro pew?[20]
[Footnote 20: 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 everywhere. 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 cannot
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, cannot 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 great 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 their 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."[21] 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_.
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. Whether
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
the 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?
[Footnote 21: Gal. iii. 28.]
"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 be 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,"[22]
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 for ever.
[Footnote 22: "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 cannot 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, or comprehending offices that 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_, it is 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 _of God_, 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 dung-hill 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."[23]
Are these the men who practised 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,"[24] they would have made
but a sorry figure at the _great-house_ or slave-market.
[Footnote 23: 1 Cor. iv. 11-13.]
[Footnote 24: 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."[25] Here we may well
notice,
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.
[Footnote 25: 1 Cor. i. 27, 28.]
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 the 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,"[26] 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."[27] Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere 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![28]
[Footnote 26: 2 Cor. viii. 2.]
[Footnote 27: Rom. xviii. 18-25.]
[Footnote 28: Cor. vii. 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 for the poor saints at Jerusalem!" Far
other wise--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_."[29] 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 29: 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,[30] 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 shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me."
On this passage it is natural to suggest--
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 cannot 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
co-operation 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!
[Footnote 30: Luke, xviii. 18-25.]
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 vigorous and heartbreaking 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
alleging, 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 gave 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 supported 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 broad
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."[31] 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_!
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
thanksgiving 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[32] 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.[33] Thus a way was fairly opened to the
heart of Philemon. And now what does the apostles ask?
7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not as a
_servant_, but above a _servant_."[34] 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_.[35] _So
much_ above a servant was he to receive him!
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;"[36] as a man and Christian, in all the relations,
circumstances, and responsibilities of life.
[Footnote 31: Philemon, 18.]
[Footnote 32: Verse 11, 18.]
[Footnote 33: Verse 18.]
[Footnote 34: Verse 16.]
[Footnote 35: Verse 10, 16, 17.]
[Footnote 36: 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 relation of things--a
thing which _ought_ to be done.[37] On this account, he might have
urged it upon Philemon in the form of an _injunction_, on apostolic
authority and with great boldness.[38] _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 birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of the
human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority.
10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command,
on the ground of CHARITY.[39] 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.[40] 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 Collosse, 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_."[41]
[Footnote 37: 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 38: Verse 8.]
[Footnote 39: Verse 9--[Greek: dia taen agapaen]]
[Footnote 40: Verse 19.]
[Footnote 41: 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 defence of the cause of emancipation!
But what saith Professor 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."[42]
[Footnote 42: See his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 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 a 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 of Divinity, who once gave
public notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of
his fellow men.[43] 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 my Caesar do, who had ever felt a
link of slavery's chain? As he left his _spiritual father_, should
we be surprised 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 cannot
thus throw myself away--thus rush upon my own destruction.
[Footnote 43: "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 the aught, 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. Dr. 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 has 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 shouldst
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 Professor 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 Professor 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, skilful,
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 Archy
with 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 our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations
to me, will, I cannot 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 forgotten in my
sickness.' Gladly would I have retained him, to be _an Isaac_ to me;
for how often did not his soothing voice, and skilful 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 Professor 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. Professor 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." [44]
[Footnote 44: 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this
passage is from the pen of ELIZUR WRIGHT, JR.:--
"This word [Greek: antilambanesthai] in our humble opinion, has been
so unfairly used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to
take its part. Our excellent translators, in rendering the clause
'partakers of the benefit,' evidently lost sight of the component
preposition, which expresses the _opposition of reciprocity_, rather
than the _connection of participation_. They have given it exactly
the sense of [Greek: metalambanein], (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle
intended such a sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of
the more common words, [Greek: metochoi, koinonomtes, &c.] (See Heb.
iii. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, where the latter word is used in the clause,
'neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had the verb in our text
been used, it might have been rendered, 'neither be the _part-taker_
of other men's sins.') The primary sense of [Greek: antilambans] is
_to take in return_--_to take instead of, &c._ Hence, in the middle
with the genitive, it signifies _assist_, or _do one's part towards_
the person or thing expressed by that genitive. In this sense only
is the word used in the New Testament,--(See Luke i. 54, and Acts, xx.
35.) If this be true, the word [Greek: emsgesai] cannot signify the
benefit conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it,
but the _well doing_ of the servants, who should continue to serve
their believing masters, while they were no longer under the _yoke_
of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the New Testament but
once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the '_good deed_' done to the
impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the
commentators, is, that believing masters would not fail to do
their part towards, or encourage by suitable returns, the free
service of those who had once been under the yoke."]
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 Professor 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[45] opening the path to heaven, to that of washing "one
another's feet."[46] A general term it is, comprehending every
office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.[47]
[Footnote 45: Cor. iv. 5.]
[Footnote 46: John, xiii, 14.]
[Footnote 47: Mat, xx, 26-28.]
A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in
the division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his
exertions the bodily powers are especially employed--such powers as
belong to man in common with mere animals--his sphere has generally
been considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is
superior to bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in
very numerous ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning,
intrigue, the oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful
conspiracies, brought the resources of society under the control of
the few, who stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence
upon them. Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so
heavily upon him. Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree
to another, till at length, in the case of millions, fraud and
violence strip him of his all, blot his name from the record of
_mankind_, and, putting a yoke upon his neck, drive him away
to toil among the cattle. _Here you find the slave_. To reduce
the servant to his condition, requires abuses altogether
monstrous--injuries reaching the very vitals of man--stabs upon the
very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart to make
the word "_servants_," comprehending, even as manual laborers, so
many and such various meanings, signify "_slaves_," especially where
different classes are concerned? Such a right he could never have
derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is his by
sympathy with the oppressor?
Yes, different classes. This is implied in the term "as many,"[48]
which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he
proceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,[49] whose
natural meaning indicates the presence of another and a different
subject.
[Footnote 48: [Greek: Ochli] See Passow's Schneider.]
[Footnote 49: [Greek: Dd.] See Passow.]
2. The first class are described as "_under the yoke_"--a yoke from
which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if
possible.[50] If not, they must in every way regard the master with
respect--bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his
interests so far as might be consistent with Christian
character.[51] And this, to prevent blasphemy--to prevent the pagan
master from heaping profane reproaches upon the name of God and the
doctrines of the gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions,
which, as his helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or
withstand.
[Footnote 50: See 1 Cor. vii, 21--[Greek: All' ei kai dunasai
eleuphoros genesthai].]
[Footnote 51: See 1 Cor. vii, 23--[Greek: Mae ginesthe doulos
anthroton].]
But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not "_under the
yoke_"[52]--an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These
he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a "yoke"--the
badge of a slave--had "_believing masters_." _To have a "believing
master," then, was equivalent to freedom from "the yoke_." These
servants were exhorted not _to despise_ their masters. What need of
such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding
them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of
them as "articles of merchandise." But this was not consistent with
believing. Faith, "breaking every yoke," united master and servants
in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a
relation which, excluding the yoke,[53] placed them side by side on
the ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they
might exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of
each other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting
above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their
masters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. [54]
Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often
have been, [55] models of enterprise, fidelity, activity, and
usefulness--especially as their masters were "worthy of their
confidence and love," their helpers in this well-doing.
[Footnote 52: See Lev. xxvi. 13; Isa lviii. 6, 9.]
[Footnote 53: Supra p. 44.]
[Footnote 54: See Mat. vi. 24.]
[Footnote 55: Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master"
James G. Birney.]
Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of
Professor Stuart, were Christian masters and Christian slaves
[56]--the relation of "brethren," which, excluding "the yoke," and of
course conferring freedom, placed them side by side on the common
ground of mutual service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the
one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the
correlative name, _as is usual in such cases_, under which they had
been known. Such was the instruction which Timothy was required, as
a Christian minister, to give. Was it friendly to slaveholding?
[Footnote 56: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7.]
And on what ground, according to the Princeton professor, did these
masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other? On
that _of a "perfect religious equality."_[57] In all the relations,
duties, and privileges--in all the objects, interests, and prospects,
which belong to the province of Christianity, servants were as free
as their master. The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range
and as free an exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids,
and as high results, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant
to his master imposed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments,
occasioned no injury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in
"_perfect religious equality_," which the Princeton professor
accords to servants in relation to their master. Might the _master_,
then, in order more fully to attain the great ends for which he was
created and redeemed, freely exert himself to increase his
acquaintance with his own powers, and relations, and resources--with
his prospects, opportunities, and advantages? So might his _servants_.
Was _he_ at liberty to "study to approve himself to God," to submit
to his will and bow to his authority, as the sole standard of
affection and exertion? So were _they_. Was _he_ at liberty to
sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the "solemn assembly?" So were
_they_. Was _he_ at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and
paternal relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and
that source of enjoyment, which they are capable of yielding? So
were _they_. In every department of interest and exertion, they
might use their capacities, and wield their powers, and improve
their opportunities, and employ their resources, as freely as he, in
glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and in laying up imperishable
treasures for themselves! Give perfect religious equality to the
American slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied.
Such equality would, like the breath of the Almighty, dissolve the
last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit
of slavery, have given so wide and active a circulation to the
Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment?
[Footnote 57: Pittsburg Pamphlet, p. 9.]
In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves
earnest attention:--"Servants, obey in all things your masters
according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but
in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it
heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing, that of the
Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve
the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong
which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.--Masters,
give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that
ye have a Master in heaven."[58]
[Footnote 58: Col. iii. 22 to iv. 1.]
Here it is natural to remark--
1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them,
both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the
principles of the divine government. Whatever _they_ did, servants
were to do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they
were to be controlled and by whose hand they were to be rewarded. To
the same Lord, and according to the same law, was the _master_ to
hold himself responsible. _Both the one and the other were of course
equally at liberty and alike required to study and apply the standard,
by which they were to be governed and judged_.
2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed,
was _righteousness_--strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias
or antipathy. Birth, wealth, station,--the dust of the balance not
so light! Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal,
where nothing of "respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for.
There the wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top
or bottom of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings.
3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and
heartily obedient; and both in the presence and absence of the master,
faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part,
in his relations to the servants, was to make JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
the _standard of his conduct_. Under the authority of such
instructions, slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It
is flagrantly at war with the government of God, consists in
"respect of persons" the most shameless and outrageous, treads
justice and equality under foot, and in its natural tendency and
practical effects is nothing else than a system of wrong-doing. What
have _they_ to do with the just and the equal who in their "respect
of persons" proceed to such a pitch as to treat one brother as a
thing because he is a servant, and place him, without the least
regard to his welfare here, or his prospects hereafter, absolutely
at the disposal of another brother, under the name of master, in
the relation of owner to property? Justice and equality on the one
hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally
subversive of each other--proof clear and decisive that the
correlates, masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves
and owners, without the grossest absurdity and the greatest
violence.
"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters according
to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart,
as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the
servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good
will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that
whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the
Lord, whether _he be_ bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same
things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master
also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with
him."[59]
[Footnote 59: Ephesians, vi. 5-9.]
Without repeating here what has already been offered in exposition
of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say:--
1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their master,
was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment.
Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an
affectionate service.
2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had
its soul in _good-will_, mutually cherished and properly expressed.
Hence "THE SAME THINGS," the same in principle, the same in
substance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of
the master and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth
by the one and the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual
service. Do we here find the chattel principle?
3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving,
unfaithful. Of course, the master must "FORBEAR THREATENING."
Slavery without threatening! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is
of necessity a _system of threatening_, injecting into the bosom of
the slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and
torment him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it
derives from "threatening," and you annihilate it at once and
forever.
4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the
principles of the divine government, where "RESPECT OF PERSONS"
could not be admitted. It was, therefore, totally inconsistent with,
and submissive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery
is developed in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and
hurtful. No Abolitionist, however eager and determined in his
opposition to slavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once
obeyed, would be sure to confer.
"The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is
recognized in "the precepts of the New Testament," as one which "may
still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."[60]
Slavery and the chattel principle! So our professor thinks;
otherwise his reference has nothing to do with the subject--with the
slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to.
How gross and hurtful is the mistake into which he allows himself to
fall. The relation recognized in the precepts of the New Testament
had its basis and support in "justice and equality;" the very
opposite of the chattel principle; a relation which may exist as
long as justice and equality remain, and thus escape the destruction
to which, in the view of Professor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The
description of Paul obliterates every feature of American slavery,
raising the servant to equality with his master, and placing his
rights under the protection of justice; yet the eye of Professor
Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant but a slave and his
owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly possessed, that, like
an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters the temple of
justice!
[Footnote 60: Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7.]
"It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, "that there is
not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles "to masters
to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and
immediate duty."[61] It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were
chargeable with a defect so great and glaring. And so they have
nothing to say upon the subject? _That_ not even the Princeton
professor has the assurance to affirm. He admits that KINDNESS, MERCY,
AND JUSTICE, were enjoined with a _distinct reference to the
government of God_.[62] "Without respect of persons," they were to be
God-like in doing justice. They were to act the part of kind and
merciful "brethren." And whither would this lead them? Could they
stop short of restoring to every man his natural, inalienable
rights?--of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the
sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condition of the
degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and degraded by any
agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to keep the
chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? Would this
be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great command of
"their Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles have subserved the cause
of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectually, than _to
enjoin the principles, and sentiments, and habits, in which
freedom consists--constituting its living root and fruitful germ_!
[Footnote 61: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]
[Footnote 62: The same, p. 10.]
The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South
has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural
defence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "GENERAL
PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL _have_ DESTROYED SLAVERY _throughout the
greater part of Christendom_"[63]--"THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ABOLISHED
BOTH POLITICAL AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE
SCOPE--_that it_ ENJOINS _a fair compensation for labor; insists on
the mental and intellectual improvement of_ ALL _classes of men;
condemns_ ALL _infractions of marital or parental rights; requires, in
short, not only that_ FREE SCOPE _should be allowed to human
improvement, but that_ ALL SUITABLE MEANS _should be employed for the
attainment of that end_."[64] It is indeed "remarkable," that while
neither Christ nor his apostles ever gave "an exhortation to masters
to liberate their slaves," they enjoined such "general principles as
have destroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of
Christendom;" that while Christianity forbears "to urge"
emancipation "as an imperative and immediate duty," it throws a
barrier, heaven high, around every domestic circle; protects all the
rights of the husband and the father; gives every laborer a fair
compensation; and makes the moral and intellectual improvement of
all classes, with free scope and all suitable means, the object
of its tender solicitude and high authority. This is not only
"remarkable," but inexplicable. Yes and no--hot and cold, in one and
the same breath! And yet these things stand prominent in what is
reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of slavery!
[Footnote 63: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 18, 19.]
[Footnote 64: The same, p. 31.]
In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes
another lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings
on the subject of slavery. "Let every man abide in the same calling
wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for
it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is
called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise
also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are
bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." [65]
[Footnote 65: 1 Cor. vii. 20-23.]
In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest:
1. That it _could_ not have been the object of the apostle to bind
the Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the
gospel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible,
from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke,"
they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity.
"If thou canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer
freedom to bondage and to exert themselves to escape from the latter
for the sake of the former, could their master consistently with the
claims and spirit of the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in
so doing? Their "brother" could _he_ be, who kept "the yoke" upon
their neck, which the apostle would have them shake off if possible?
And had such masters been members of the Corinthian church, what
inferences must they have drawn from this exhortation to their
servants? That the apostle regarded slavery as a Christian
institution?--or could look complacently on any efforts to introduce
or maintain it in the church? Could they have expected less from him
than a stern rebuke, if they refused to exert themselves in the
cause of freedom?
2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it,
they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to
ceaseless anxiety. "The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need
not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly
reduced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or
the light of his countenance. _He_ would respect their rights, sooth
their sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the
spirit of liberty. "For he that is called in the Lord, being a
servant, is the Lord's freeman." In _him_, therefore, should they
cheerfully confide.
3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile
relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations.
To their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased.
It should be their great object, therefore, to render _Him_ a hearty
and effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be,
to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. "_Ye are
bought with a price_; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN."
With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the
Princeton professor asserts that "Paul represents this relation"--the
relation of slavery--"as of comparatively little account."[66]
And this he applies--otherwise it is nothing to his purpose--to
_American_ slavery. Does he then regard it as a small matter, a
mere trifle, to be thrown under the slave-laws of this republic,
grimly and fiercely excluding their victim from almost every means
of improvement, and field of usefulness, and source of comfort; and
making him, body and substance, with his wife and babes, "the
servant of men?" Could such a relation be acquiesced in consistently
with the instructions of the apostle?
[Footnote 66: Pittsburg pamphlet, p.10.]
To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the
bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard for
the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which
in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with
the northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his
feelings. Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit,
proceed to Georgia. No religious teacher [67] from any free State, can
be likely to receive so general and so warm a welcome there. To
allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the
abolitionists have occasioned in the southern mind, let him with as
much despatch as possible, collect, as he goes from place to place,
masters and their slaves. Now let all men, whom it may concern, see
and own that slavery is a Christian institution! With his Bible in his
hand and his eye upon the passage in question, he addresses himself
to the task of instructing the slaves around him. Let not your hearts,
my brethren, be overcharged with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your
servile condition cannot deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him
"who is no respecter of persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to
prefer. If you can escape from "the yoke," throw it off. In the mean
time rejoice that "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;"
that the gospel places slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with
their master; so that every Christian is "the Lord's freeman." And,
for your encouragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished
both political and domestic servitude wherever it has had free scope.
It enjoins a fair compensation for labor; it insists on the moral and
intellectual improvement of all classes of men; it condemns all
infractions of marital or parental rights; in short it requires not
only that free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all
suitable means should be employed for the attainment of that end."
[68] Let your lives, then, be honorable to your relations to your
Savior. He bought you with his own blood; and is entitled to your
warmest love and most effective service. "Be not ye the servants of
men." Let no human arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the
kingdom of heaven, from making the most of your powers and
opportunities. Would such an effort, generally and heartily made,
allay excitement at the South, and quench the flames of discord,
every day rising higher and waxing hotter, in almost every part of
the republic, and cement "the Union?"
[Footnote 67: Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very
long ago, a free conversation with a gentleman of high standing in
the literary and religious world from a slaveholding State, where
the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great warmth and
maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that the
Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed
most powerfully and effectually to bring the "whole South" under the
persuasion, _that slaveholding is in itself right_--a system _to
which the Bible gives countenance and support_.
In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a
new Presbyterian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina,
and inserted in the Christian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find
the following paragraphs from the pen of Rev. C.W. Howard, and,
according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed by the editor.
"There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon this
subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful,
are clearly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished
throughout this land and throughout the world. They differ as to the
time and mode of abolition. The abolitionists consistently argue,
that whatever is sinful should be instantly abandoned. The others,
_by a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men_, contend that
though slavery is sinful, _yet it may be allowed to exist until it
shall he expedient to abolish it_; or, if, in many cases, this
reasoning might be translated into plain English, the sense would be,
both in Church and State, _slavery, though sinful, may be allowed to
exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must be
abolished_. This is not slander; it is simply a plain way of stating
a plain truth. It does seem the evident duty of every man to become
an abolitionist, who believes slavery to be sinful, for the Bible
allows no tampering with sin.
"To these remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be found in
both parties in the church. _The South owes a debt of gratitude to
the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the
position, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible_. The writer of
that article is said, without contradiction, to be _Professor Hodge,
of Princeton_--HIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND REVERED AMONG YOU,
_my brethren, for in a land of anti-slavery men, he is the_ ONLY
ONE _who has dared to vindicate your character from the serious
charge of living in the habitual transgression of God's holy law_."]
[Footnote 68: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31.]
"It is," affirms the Princeton professor, "on all hands acknowledged,
that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its
worst forms prevailed over the whole world. _The Savior found it
around him_ IN JUDEA."[69] To say that he found it _in Judea_, is to
speak ambiguously. Many things were to be found "_in_ Judea," which
neither belonged to, nor were characteristic of _the Jews_. It is
not denied that _the Gentiles_, who resided among them, might have
had slaves; _but of the Jews this is denied_. How could the
professor take that as granted, the proof of which entered vitally
into the argument and was essential to the soundness of the
conclusions to which he would conduct us? How could he take
advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct his confiding
readers on to a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must
have known they could not hold in the light of open day!
[Footnote 69: The same, p. 9]
We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or
courage,[70] for refusing to "break down the wall of partition between
Jews and Gentiles" "before the time appointed." While this barrier
stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption,
impart instruction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on
extraordinary occasions, he might have done so. But his business
then was with "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [71] The
propriety of this arrangement is not the matter of dispute between
the Princeton professor and ourselves.
[Footnote 70: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10.]
[Footnote 71: Matt. xv. 24.]
In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our
Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest
attention:--
1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the
proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more
or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded
to.[72] In all the external relations and visible arrangements of
life, the Jews, during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to
have been scrupulously observant of the institutions and usages of
the "Old Dispensation." They stood far aloof from whatever was
characteristic of Samaritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and
slaveholding--those twin-vices which had always so greatly prevailed
among the heathen--they seem at length, as the result of a most
painful discipline, to have been effectually divorced.
[Footnote 72: "The Bible against Slavery."]
2. While, therefore, John the Baptist; with marked fidelity and
great power, acted among the Jews the part of a _reprover_, he found
no occasion to repeat and apply the language of his
predecessors,[73] in exposing and rebuking idolatry and
slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been
less effectually aroused by the presence of "the yoke," than was
Isaiah?--or less intrepid and decisive in exposing and denouncing
the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injurious forms?
[Footnote 73: Psalm lxxxii; Isa. lviii. 1-12 Jer. xxii. 13-16.]
3. The Savior was not backward in applying his own principles plainly
and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews.
These principles, whenever they have been freely acted on, the
Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had
this prevailed within the sphere of our Savior's ministry, he could
not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose
and condemn it. The oppression of the people by lordly ecclesiastics,
of parents by their selfish children, of widows by their ghostly
counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible
denunciations.[74] How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the
presence of such tyranny, if _such tyranny had been within his
official sphere_, as should _have made widows_, by driving their
husbands to some flesh-market, and their children not orphans,
_but cattle_?
[Footnote 74: Matt. xxiii; Mark, vii. 1-13.]
4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the _industry_,
which, _in the form of manual labor_, so generally prevailed among
the Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are
informed, that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain
Jew, named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his
wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to
depart from Rome;) and came unto them. And because he was of the
same craft, he abode with them and wrought: (for by their occupation
they were tent-makers.")[75] This passage has opened the way for
different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and
general practice of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual
labor. According to _Lightfoot_, "it was their custom to bring up
their children to some trade, yea, though they gave them learning or
estates." According to Rabbi Judah, "He that teaches not his son a
trade, is as if he taught him to be a thief."[76] It was, _Kuinoel_
affirms, customary even for Jewish teachers to unite labor
(opificium) with the study of the law. This he confirms by the
highest Rabbinical authority.[77] _Heinrichs_ quotes a Rabbi as
teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train his son
to honest industry.[78] Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though
brought up at the "feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of
a most illustrious teacher, practised the art of tent-making. His
own hands ministered to his necessities; and his example is so
doing, he commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation.[79]
That Zebedee, the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various
hints in the New Testament render probable.[80] Yet how do we find
him and his sons, while prosecuting their appropriate business? In
the midst of the hired servants, "in the ship mending their
nets."[81]
[Footnote 75: Acts, xviii. 1-3.]
[Footnote 76: Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3.]
[Footnote 77: Kuinoel on Acts.]
[Footnote 78: Heinrichs on Acts.]
[Footnote 79: Acts, xx. 34, 35; 1 Thess. iv. 11.]
[Footnote 80: See Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John.]
[Footnote 81: Mark, i. 19, 20.]
Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were
used to manual labor! What occasion for slavery there? And how could
it be maintained? No place can be found for slavery among a people
generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if
men of learning, wealth, and station, "labor, working with their
hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish
maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the "peculiar
institution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak.
5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished
in the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most
servile employments among the Jews. With profligates, _publicans_
were joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of society
were described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a
place among Samaritans and publicans. They were "_hired servants_,"
whom Zebedee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a
wealthy Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The
prodigal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described
their condition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change
which should place him by their side? His remorse, and shame, and
penitence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them
all. But these--what was their condition? They were HIRED SERVANTS.
"Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the
lowest menials known in Jewish life.
Lay such hints as have now been suggested together; let it be
remembered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy;
that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no
reference "to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like
Isaiah, have condemned; that the Savior, while he took the part of
the poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the
pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence,
of the chattel principle, that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever
they might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, "to labor,
working with their hands;" and that where reference was had to the
most menial employments, in families, they were described as carried
on by hired servants; and the question of slavery "in Judea," so far
as the seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of.
With every phase and form of society among them slavery was
inconsistent.
The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper,
the Princeton professor takes, is sufficiently remarkable. Northern
abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern
slaveholders. The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of
the human family were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the
battle, he throws himself between the belligerent powers. He gives
the abolitionists to understand, that they are quite mistaken in the
character of the objections they have set themselves so openly and
sternly against. Slaveholding is not, as they suppose, contrary to
the law of God. It was witnessed by the Savior "in its worst
forms"[82] without extorting from his laps a syllable of rebuke. "The
sacred writers did not condemn it." [83] And why should they? By a
definition[84] sufficiently ambiguous and slippery, he undertakes to
set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon as consistent with the
law of Righteousness. From this definition he infers that the
abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that American
slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting that
it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the
slaveholding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally,
as if a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment.[85]
[Footnote 82: Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9.]
[Footnote 83: The same, p. 13.]
[Footnote 84: The same, p. 12.]
[Footnote 85: Supra, p. 58.]
A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate.
1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces innocent
_the form_ witnessed by our Savior "in Judea?" That, _he_ will by
no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the "worst"
kind. _How then does he account for the alleged silence of the
Savior?--a silence covering the essence and the form--the
institution and its "worst" abuses_?
2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor,
Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so
earnestly wish to see abolished? Let us see.
_Christianity in supporting Slavery, _The American system for
according to Professor Hodge_, supporting Slavery_,
"Enjoins a fair compensation for Makes compensation
labor" impossible by reducing the
laborer to a chattel.
"It insists on the moral and It sternly forbids its
intellectual improvement of all victim to learn to read
classes of men" even the name of his
Creator and Redeemer.
"It condemns all infractions of It outlaws the conjugal
marital or parental rights." and parental relations.
"It requires that free scope It forbids any effort, on
should be allowed to human the part of myriads of the
improvement." human family, to improve
their character,
condition, and prospects.
"It requires that all suitable It inflicts heavy
means should be employed to improve penalties for teaching
mankind" letters to the poorest of
the poor.
"Wherever it has had free scope, Wherever it has free
it has abolished domestic bondage." scope, it perpetuates
domestic bondage.
_Now it is slavery according to the American system_ that the
abolitionists are set against. _Of the existence of any_ such form
of slavery as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the
requisitions of Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met
their notice, and of course, has never roused their feelings or
called forth their exertions. What, then, have _they_ to do with the
censures and reproaches which the Princeton professor deals around?
Let those who have leisure and good nature protect the man of
_straw_ he is so hot against. The abolitionists have other business.
It is not the figment of some sickly brain; but that system of
oppression which in theory is corrupting, and in practice destroying
both Church and State;--it is this that they feel pledged to do
battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty God it is thrown,
dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss.
3. _How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may
be thrown over_ SUCH SLAVERY, _as may be consistent with what the
Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity_?
Is _this_ THE _slavery_ which their laws describe, and their hands
maintain? "Fair compensation for labor"--"marital and parental
rights"--"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement,
moral and intellectual, of all classes of men;"--are these,
according to the statutes of the South, among the objects of
slaveholding legislation? Every body knows that any such
requisitions and American slavery are flatly opposed to and directly
subversive of each other. What service, then, has the Princeton
professor, with all his ingenuity and all his zeal, rendered the
"peculiar institution?" Their gratitude must be of a stamp and
complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for throwing their
"domestic system" under the weight of such Christian requisitions as
must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to powder."
And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitions,
which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which
he has elaborated? "All the ideas which necessarily enter into the
definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty,
obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the
transferable character of the authority and claim of service of the
master."[86]
[Footnote 86: Pittsburg pamphlet p. 12.]
_According to Professor Hodge's _According to Professor Hodge's
account of the definition of Slavery_,
requisitions of Christianity_,
The spring of effort in the The laborer must serve at the
laborer is a fair compensation. discretion of another.
Free scope must be given for He is deprived of personal
his moral and intellectual liberty--the necessary condition,
improvement. and living soul of improvement,
without which he has no control
of either intellect or morals.
His rights as a husband and The authority and claims of the
a father are to be protected. master may throw an ocean between
him and his family, and separate
them from each other's presence
at any moment and forever.
Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so
cunningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the
peace of the respective parties, that he placed _his definition_ so
far from _the requisitions of Christianity_. Had he brought them
into each other's presence, their natural and invincible antipathy
to each other would have broken out into open and exterminating
warfare. But why should we delay longer upon an argument which is
based on gross and monstrous sophistry? It can mislead only such as
_wish_ to be misled. The lovers of sunlight are in little danger
of rushing into the professor's dungeon. Those who, having something
to conceal, covet darkness, can find it there, to their heart's
content. The hour cannot be far away, when upright and reflective
minds at the South will be astonished at the blindness which could
welcome such protection as the Princeton argument offers to the
slaveholder.
But _Professor Stuart_ must not be forgotten. In his celebrated
letter to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that "_Paul did not expect slavery to
be ousted in a day_."[87] _Did not_ EXPECT! What then! Are the
_requisitions_ of Christianity adapted to any EXPECTATIONS which
in any quarter and on any ground might have risen to human
consciousness? And are we to interpret the _precepts_ of the gospel
by the expectations of Paul? The Savior commanded all men every
where to repent, and this, though "Paul did not expect" that human
wickedness, in its ten thousand forms would in any community
"be ousted in a day." Expectations are one thing; requisitions quite
another.
[Footnote 87: Supra, p. 7.]
In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds,
"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." _That_ he
did. Of what character were these precepts? Must they not have been
in harmony with the Golden Rule? But this, according to Professor
Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as a
"theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, _without respect of
persons_, to do each other justice--to maintain equality as common
ground for all to stand upon--to cherish and express in all their
intercourse that tender love and disinterested charity which one
_brother_ naturally feels for another. These were the "ad interim
precepts."[88] which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery,
"root and branch," at once and forever.
[Footnote 88: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]
Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that "_Christianity
will ultimately certainly destroy slavery_." Of this _we_ have not
the feeblest doubt. But how could _he_ admit a persuasion and utter
a prediction so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that
"_slavery may exist without_ VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE
CHURCH?"[89] What, Christianity bent on the destruction of an ancient
and cherished institution which hurts neither her character nor
condition?[90] Why not correct its abuses and purify its spirit; and
shedding upon it her own beauty, preserve it, as a living trophy of
her reformatory power? Whence the discovery that, in her onward
progress, she would trample down and destroy what was no way hurtful
to her? This is to be _aggressive_ with a witness. Far be it from
the Judge of all the earth to whelm the innocent and guilty in the
same destruction! In aid of Professor Stuart, in the rude and
scarcely covert attack which he makes upon himself, we maintain that
Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on account of its
inherent wickedness--its malignant temper--its deadly effects--its
constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the
authority of God and the welfare of man.
[Footnote 89: Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7.]
[Footnote 90: Professor Stuart applies here the words, _salva fide et
salva ecclesia_.]
"Christianity will _ultimately_ destroy slavery." "ULTIMATELY!" What
meaneth that portentous word? To what limit of remotest time,
concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look? Tell us, O
watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries have
rolled over this world of wrong and outrage--and yet we tremble in
the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang
is death! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but
for a single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen
in such cold blood, to write that word "ultimately," how, under the
sufferings of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the
lamentable cry, "How _long_, O Lord, HOW LONG!" In the agony of
beholding a wife or daughter upon the table of the auctioneer, while
every bid fell upon his heart like the groan of despair, small
comfort would he find in the dull assurance of some heartless prophet,
quite at "ease in Zion," that "ULTIMATELY _Christianity would
destroy slavery_." As the hammer falls, and the beloved of his soul,
all helpless and most wretched, is borne away to the haunts of
_legalized_ debauchery, his hearts turns to stone, while the cry
dies upon his lips, "_How_ LONG, _O Lord_, HOW LONG!"
"_Ultimately_!" In _what circumstances_ does Professor Stuart
assure himself that Christianity will destroy slavery? Are we, as
American citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero? When, as integral parts
of this republic--as living members of this community, did we forfeit
the prerogatives of _freemen_? Have we not the right to speak and
act as wielding the powers which the privileges of self-government
has put in our possession? And without asking leave of priest or
statesman of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the
freedom which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven
and the Constitution of our country! Can we expect to see Christianity
on higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon? In
the midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of
mankind, where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state,
freely wields the highest political rights and enjoys the richest
political privileges; where the unanimous demand of one-half of the
members of the churches would be promptly met in the abolition of
slavery, what "_ultimately_" must Christianity here wait for before
she crushes the chattel principle beneath her heel? Her triumph over
slavery is retarded by nothing but the corruption and defection so
widely spread through the "sacramental host" beneath her banners!
Let her voice be heard and her energies exerted, and the _ultimately_
of the "dark spirit of slavery" would at once give place to the
_immediately_ of the Avenger of the Poor.
No. 12.
THE
ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.
* * * * *
DISUNION.
ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
AND
F. JACKSON'S LETTER ON THE PRO-SLAVERY CHARACTER
OF THE CONSTITUTION
NEW YORK:
AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.
142 NASSAU STREET.
1845.
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY DAVID H. ELA,
NO. 37, CORNHILL.
ADDRESS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY
TO Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the U. States.
At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, held
in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844,--after grave deliberation,
and a long and earnest discussion,--it was decided, by a vote of
nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the
cause of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who
are held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to
God, require that the existing national compact should be instantly
dissolved; that secession from the government is a religious and
political duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom
should be, NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for
tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together
for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the
interests of Liberty; and that revolutionary ground should be
occupied by all those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good
may come, and who do not mean to compromise the principles of
Justice and Humanity.
A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calculated
to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of
things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the
American Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This
is due not only to the Society, but also to the country and the world.
It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth,
"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." It is further
maintained by them, that "all governments derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed;" that "whenever any form of
government becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of
the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government,
laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers
in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and happiness." These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed
with their blood. They would not brook even the menace of oppression.
They held that there should be no delay in resisting, at whatever
cost or peril, the first encroachments of power on their liberties.
Appealing to the great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of
their course, they pledged to each other "their lives, their
fortunes and their sacred honor," to conquer or perish in their
struggle to be free.
For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic
sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish
their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their
deeds, and glory in their triumphs.
It is not necessary, therefore, for us to prove that a state of
slavery is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or
that it is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the
sacred rights of mankind.
We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every
man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment,
invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step is
one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the
influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are
of--whether they have counted the cost of the warfare--what are the
principles they advocate--and how they are to achieve their object--is
the first duty of revolutionists.
But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in
every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever
they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.
We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at
the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle,
and to this hour is cemented with human blood.
We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains provisions,
and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the
oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to
favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one
portion of the people a prey to another.
We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an
insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all
legal and constitutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to
protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard
of American slavery.
These charges we proceed briefly to establish:
I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in
any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question
beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty
compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words,
by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by
depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by
incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive
and pertinent language of scripture, it was "a covenant with death,
and an agreement with hell"--null and void before God, from the first
hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty,
and the supporters of which are equally guilty.
It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that,
without such a compromise there could have been no union; that,
without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the
mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity,
deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to
the safety of the republic.
To this we reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical.
It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It
is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its
perpetration. It is at war with the government of God, and
subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our
refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape
the overflowing scourge. "Therefore, thus saith the Lord God,
Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet;
and the bail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters
shall overflow the hiding place." Moreover, "because ye trust in
oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this
iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in
a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he
shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken
in pieces; he shall not spare."
This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and
villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since God said,
"Let there by light." It assumes that to be practicable, which is
impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union
with injustice, and safety with blood guiltiness. A union of virtue
with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership
between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the
principles of Justice, is the deification of crime.
Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it
should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were
guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful
consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of
all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was
sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a
greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the
same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its
corruption?
The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union,
rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to
understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the
whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just
use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an
imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the
criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently
sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had
not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the
colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to
crime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to
dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the
rights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any
mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and
devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say
that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they
would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England.
II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national compact.
We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind
himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-Christian
requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that,
in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been
uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts
and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual
interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is
not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party
contrivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of
words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the
accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it
may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted
it meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and
compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else,
without violence to its language, such construction is not to be
tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest
use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its
framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to
serve under it_.
To the argument, that the words "slaves" and "slavery" are not to be
found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended
to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is
sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that
instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically,
TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in
good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be
effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no
intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected,
that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as
they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse,
it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially
as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that
this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting
parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express
agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the
clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by
pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in
which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed,
and robbed of their constitutional rights.
Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and
void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is
also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of
which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore,
_because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION
TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the
Constitution.