“1. I shall show that man cannot be justly held and used as property.
“2. I shall show that man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and
inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction.
“3. I shall offer some explanations to prevent misapplication of these
principles.
“4. I shall unfold the evils of slavery.
“5. I shall consider the argument which the Scriptures are thought to
furnish in favour of slavery.
“6. I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.
“7. I shall offer some remarks on abolitionism.
“8. I shall conclude with a few reflections on the duties belonging to
the times.”
In support of the first proposition, to wit, “I will show that man
cannot be justly held and used as property,” the doctor has advanced
seven arguments. He says, page 18—“It is plain, that, if one man may be
held as property, then every other man may be so held.” * * * “Now let
every reader ask himself this plain question: Could I, can I, be
rightfully seized, and made an article of property,” &c. Page 19: “And
if this impression be delusion, on what single moral conviction can we
rely? * * * The consciousness of indestructible rights is a part of our
moral being. The consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion
that we cannot be owned as a tree or brute. As men, we cannot justly be
made slaves. Then no man can be rightfully enslaved.”
The first idea we find, touching property, is in _Gen._ i. 26: “And let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Verse 28th: “And God
blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth.”
In _Lev._ xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men and bond-maids which thou shalt
have shall be of the heathen, that are round about you: of them shall ye
buy bond-men and bond-maids.” Verse 45: “Moreover of the children of the
strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their
families that are with you which they beget in your land, and they shall
be your possession.” Verse 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they
shall be your bondmen for ever.”
And if we look at the first verse of this chapter, that the foregoing
was announced by God himself to Moses from Sinai; and from which it
would seem that God and Dr. Channing were of quite a different opinion
on this subject.
We know not what notion Dr. Channing may have entertained of “man’s
indestructible rights.” But let us ask, what rights has he that may not
be destroyed? The right to breath? Suppose, by his own wantonness,
carelessness, or wickedness, he is submerged in water, what becomes of
his right to breathe, since he can no longer exercise it? Can you name
any right that, under the providence of God, may not be destroyed?
Freemen have rights, but subject to alteration, and even extinction;
slaves have rights, but subject to the same changes. There is no such
thing as an “indestructible right” appertaining to any existence, save
to the Great Jehovah! He must be an immortal God who can possess an
_indestructible right_. We use the word “right” in Dr. Channing’s
sense—just claim, legal title, ownership, the legal power of exclusive
possession. You ask, has not man an _indestructible right_ to worship
God? We answer, no! Man has no such right to worship God; such right
would make him a partner. The worship of God is a _duty_ which man owes;
the forbearance of which is forbidden by the moral law, by justice and
propriety. Nothing can be forbidden or ordered touching an
_indestructible right_; for such command, if to be obeyed, changes the
quality of the right; or rather shows that it was not indestructible.
Such arguments may seem to give great aid and beauty to a mere
rhetorical climax, but, before the lens of analyzation, evaporates into
enthusiastic declamation,—which, in the present case, seems to be
addressed to the sympathies, prejudices, and impulses of the human
heart.
In his writings on slavery, in fact through all his works, we find a
fundamental error, most fatal to truth. He makes the conscience the
great _cynosura_ of all that is right in morals, and of all that is true
in religion.
Hence, in the passage before us,—“The consciousness of _indestructible
rights_ is a part of our moral being,”—the _consciousness_ of such
rights is his proof that we possess them; therefore, “the consciousness
of our humanity involves the persuasion (proof) that we cannot be
owned;” and, therefore, “as men (being men) we cannot justly be made
slaves.” So, page 25: “Another argument against the right of property in
man, may be drawn from a very obvious principle of moral science, the
conscience.” Page 33. “His conscience, in revealing the moral law, does
not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator.
He has an _intuitive conviction_ that the obligations of this divine
code press on others as truly as on himself. * * * There is no deeper
principle in human nature than the consciousness of rights.”
Vol. iii. page 18: “By this I mean that a Christian minister should
beware of offering interpretations of Scripture which are repugnant to
_any clear discoveries_ of reason, or dictates of _conscience_.”
Page 93: “We believe that all virtue has its foundation in the moral
nature of man; that is, conscience, or his sense of duty.”
Page 164: “One of the great excellencies of Christianity is that it does
not deal in minute regulations; but, that, having given broad views of
duty,” &c., * * * “it leaves us to apply these rules, and express their
spirit, according to the promptings of the _divine monitor_ within
us”—the conscience.
Vol. vi. page 308: “We have no higher law than our conviction of duty.”
“Conscience is the supreme power within us. Its essence, its grand
characteristic, is sovereignty. It speaks with divine authority. Its
office is to command, to rebuke, to reward; and happiness and honour
depend on the reverence with which we listen to it.” Vol. iii. pp. 335,
336.
Such passages plainly expose the view of what Dr. Channing calls
_conscience_: in answer to which we say, the conscience may be a poor
guide to truth. The African savage feels a clear conscience when he
kills and eats his captive. The Hindoo mother is governed by her
conscience when she plunges her new-born infant beneath the flood, a
sacrifice to her gods. The idolaters of Palestine were subdued by
conscience when they thrust their suckling infants into the flames to
appease Moloch; yet God did not think it was right, and forbade them to
do so.
The truth is, the conscience is merely that part of the judgment which
takes notice of what it deems right or wrong; consequently, is as prone
to be in error as our judgment about any other matter.
For the accuracy of this definition, we refer to all the standard
writers on logic, and those on the human understanding, treating on the
subject. And in fact, Dr. Channing is forced to recede from his position
when he finds that Abraham, Philemon, and some good men even of the
present day, were slave-owners; and in vol. vi. page 55, he says—“It is
a solemn truth, not yet understood as it should be, that the worst
institutions may be sustained, the worst deeds performed, the most
merciless cruelties inflicted by the _conscientious_ and the good.”
And again, page 57: “The great truth is now insisted on, that evil is
evil, no matter at whose door it lies; and that men acting from
conscience and religion may do nefarious deeds, needs to be better
understood.”
Would it not have been more frank for Dr. Channing to have said, that
the conscience would be an unerring guide so long as it agreed with his,
but when it did not, why, then he would inquire into the matter?
* * * * *
It is to be lamented that, among the unlearned at the present day, a
confused idea of something tantamount to the conscience being a divine
monitor within us has taken a deep root among the minds of men; having
grown out of the fact that such was the doctrine of some of the
fanatical teachers of former days.
If we shall be permitted to speak of property, in reference to our and
its relation to the Divine Being, then we cannot strictly say that man
can _own property_. Jehovah stands in no need. Behold the cattle upon a
thousand hills are his; all is the work of his hand; all, all is his
property alone! At most, God has only intrusted the possession, the
administration of the subjects of his creation, to man for the time
being,—to multiply, to replenish and subdue. It is only in reference to
our relation to one another that we can advance the idea of property.
Man was commanded to have dominion over the whole earth, to replenish
and subdue, in proportion to the talent bestowed on him for that
purpose. This command presupposes such a state of things as we find, of
advancement, progression, and improvement. But in the course of the
Divine administration, God has seen fit to bestow on one man ten
talents, and on another but one; and who shall stand upon the throne of
the Almighty, and decide that he of the ten talents shall have no
relation with the progression of him of but one talent?
“Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him of ten
talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that
which he hath.” _Matt._ xxv. 28, 29; see also _Luke_ xvii. 24–26.
And what, in the course of Divine providence, is to become of him who
buried his talent in the earth, and from whom it was taken away?
“Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so
doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all
that he hath.” _Luke_ xii. 43, 44. “Jesus answered them, Verily I say
unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος, _doulos_,
_slave_) of sin.” _John_ viii. 34. “Behold for your iniquities have ye
sold yourselves.” _Isa._ l. 1. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants
shall he be unto his brethren.” _Gen._ ix. 25. עֶֽבֶד עֲבָדִים _ebed_,
_ebedim_, a most abject slave shall he be!
------------------