Glass. Book E ANTI-SLA'^'^B-R Y EXAMINER. .^ CHATTEL PRINCIPLE / IHE ABHORRENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; OR, NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY BERIAH GREEN. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 113 NASSAU STREET 1839. This No. contains 4i sheet. — Postage, under 100 miles, 7 cts. over 100, 10 ctp It^ Pleaae Read and circulate, .j^ ^ Jf> NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. ■■ygj >^^ " TUE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST." Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery 1 In 1776 Thomas Jefferson, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are creaied equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certai?i inalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes around, and in a strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous and decisive an- swer : Amen — such truths we do indeed hold to be self-evident. And animated and sustained by a declaration, so inspiring and sublime, they rushed to arms, and as the result of agonizing efforts and dread- ful sufferings, achieved under God the independence of their country. The great truth, whence they derived light and strength to assert and defend their rights, they made the foundation of their republic. And in the midst of this republic, must we prove, that He, who was the Truth, did not contradict " the truths " which He Himself, as their Creator, had made self-evident to mankind ? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? What, according to those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery ? In tlie Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written : *" Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels person- al in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, adfninistrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes * Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23. in: i"oot of AmenC>iiP Avhatever." The ^y^root of AmenKiWlavery consists in the as- sumption, that lawml^educed ?nen to chaMels. But this assumption is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are separated from each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and by an impassable gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must be to lie most wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous falsehood? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? How can a sys- tem, built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth — a system of treating men like cattle — operate ? Thomas Jefferson shall answer. Hear him. •' The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions ; the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. The parent storms, the oliild looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exer- cised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."* Such is the practical opera- tion of a system, which puts men and cattle into the same family and treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of a school where the worst vices in their most hateful forms are systematically and clficicntly taught and practiced ? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery'/ What, in 1818^ did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm respecu ing its nature and operation '{ " Slavery creates a paradox in the moral system — it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings, in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether they shall receive religious instruction ; whether they shall know and worship the true God ; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the gospel ; whether they shall perform the duties and cherish the endear- ments of husbands an^ wives, parents and children, neighbors and friends ; whether they shall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery ; consequences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which the slave is always ex[)osed, ojlen take place in their very worst degree and form ; and where all of them do uoi take place, still the slave is • Notes on Virginia, BoHton lid. I8:{-'. pp. 109, 17t>. deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a human being, and ex- posed to the danger of passing into the hands of a master who may inflict upon l)im all the hardships and injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest."* Must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of such things ? Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? It is already widely felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. And Thomas Jefterson declared, " I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just ; that his justice can not sleep forever ; that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events ; that it may become practicable by supernatural influences ! The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest."! And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of what universal Christendom is impelled to abhor, denounce, and op pose; is not in favor of what every attribute of Almighty God is ar- med against? " YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR. It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist ! Would to God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of super- erogation ! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it necessary to " stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the institution of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the monuments of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation ; who, as ministers of the Gospel, can " prophesy smooth things " to such as pollute the altar of Jehovah with human sacrifices ; nay, who themselves bind the victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they should put their Savior to the torture, to wring from his lips something in favor of slavery, is not 'to be wondered at. They consent to the murder of the children ;* can they re- spect the rights of the Father ? But what shall we say of distinguished theologians of the North — professors of sacred literature at our oldest divinity schools — who stand up to defend, both by argument and au- thority, southern slavery ! And from the Bible ! Who, Balaam-like, try a thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sen- * Minutes of the the General Assembly for 1818, p. 29. t Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832. pp. 170, 171. 6 tence which they know the lieart ol' Jehovah abhors ! Surely we have here something more mischievous and formidable than a man of straw. More than two years ago, and just before the meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an ar- ticle in the Biblical Repertory,* understood to be from the pen of the Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is made to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any ahxises of it, is ?iot a violation of f he precepts of the Gospel. This article, we are informed, was industriously and extensively distributed among the members of the General Assembly — a body of men, who by a frightful majority seemed already too much disposed to wink at the horrors of slavery. The efluct of tlie Princeton Apology on the southern mind, we have high authority for saying, has been most decisive and injurious. It has con- tributed greatly to turn the public eye off from the sin — from the in- herent and necessary evils of slavery to incidental evils, which the abuse of it might be expected to occasion. And how few can be brought to admit, that whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows where or how, any such thing is chargeable upon them ! Thus our Princeton prophet has done what he could to lay the southern con- science asleep upon ingenious perversions of the sacred volume ! About a year after this, an cflbrt in the same direction was jointly made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Sluart. In a letter to a Methodist clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives utterance to such things as the following : — " But that you and the public may sec and feel, that you have the ablest and those who arc among the honestest men of this age, array- ed against you, be pleased to notice tlic following letter from Prof. Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of purpose, his unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved reputation as a scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following questions: — 1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that slavery existed in the primitive church ? 2. In 1 Tiin. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., what is the relation expressed or implied between " they " (servants) and " believing masters ?" And what are your reasons for the con- struction of the passage ? • For April, 1H3G. Tiic General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in the following May, at Pittsburg, where, in pamjililut form, this article was dis- tributed. The following appcart d upon the title page : PITTSBURG: 1836. For graluiious distribution. 3. What \vas the character of ancient and eastern slavery ? — Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over the slave ? PROFESSOR STUARt's REPLY. Andover, lOlh April, 1837. Rev. and dear Sir, — Years is before me. A sickness of three months' standing (typhus fever,) in which I have just escaped death, and which stOl confines me to my house, renders it impossible for mc to answer your letter at large. 1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the exist- ence of slavery. The masters are in part " believing masters," so that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, recognizes that the relation may still exist, salva fide et salva ecclesia, (" without violating the Christian faith or the church." Otherwise, Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. He could not law- fully and properly temporize with a malum in se, (" that which is in itself sin." ) If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesi- mus back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, may exist. The abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No ; " Love thy neighbor as thyself," " Do unto others that which ye would that others should do untjo you," decide against this. But the relation once con- stituted and continued, is not such a mulum in se as calls for imme- diate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not counsel. 2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are Chris- tians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and because as Christians they are brethren, to forego the reverence due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is not, as a mat- ter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, servants should in such a case, a fortiori, do their duty cheefuUy. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What the master's duty in such a case may be in repect to liberation, is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of. 3. Every one knows, Avho is acquainted with Greek or Latin anti- quities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more un- qualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were property in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about their relation. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, for a long time, that of life and death. Horrible cruelties at length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great as among us. After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been exhibited, i\iQ good old Book remams the same. Paul's con- duct and advice are still sale guides. Paul knew ivell il„i r),,- , ,^ would ultimately destroy La,y. as it cer a L y wi So k ™' 00, hat, t would destroy u.onarehy and aristocraey from tl" ear* Pari did 'l';"""""'r 1 '""'"''•' °^ fruemert,Lie,,.am Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarcliy to be ousted in a dav • Id gave precepts to CWsUatts respecting th^ir demea,?:: „S ^Si^ Wjth sincere and paternal regard, Your friend and brother, M. STUART. Tliri^oli^lo;^: ^h''°'^""'=' ^^^^ ^^'"l «'«"d, because it is Bible doctrine. I he abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, Sy must 'akV a different position, and approacii the subject in a different manner. Respectfully yours, W. FISK." "so THEV WRAP [snarl] IT UP." What are we taught here ? That in the ecclesiastical organizations which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith : that the relation may now in like manner exist ; that « the abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or in- ftictmg injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to say against « the peculiar institutions " of the South If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Chris- tian character open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater latitude ! And to such doctrines, Dr t isk eagerly and earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges It on the attention of his brethren, as containing important trufh, which they ought to embrace. According to him, it is -Bible cIocMne" showing, that «■ the abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must « if they would succeed, take a approbation ! To such disgust- * Jeremiah, xxii. 13. t Isaiah, Iviii. G, 7. \ Joel. iii. 3. 11 ing and horrible conclusions, do the arguings whicli, from the haunts of sacred literature, are inflicted on our churches, lead us ! According to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the world, extin- guished the torches which his own prophets liad kindled, and plunged mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight ! O Savior, in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer u.^d as a " den of thieves !" " THOU THOUGIITEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS THYSELF." In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsis- tent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the poor ; to heal the broken-hearted ; to preach deliverance to the cap- tives ; to set at liberty them that are bruised ; to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties ; himself " had not where to lay his head ;" he exposed himself to mis- representation and abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the out- casts of society ; he stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereave, ment a source of gain ; and in describing the scenes of the final judg- ment, he selected the very personification of poverty, disease and op- pression, as the test by which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and wretched ; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according to our ecclesiastics, that class of suflfurers wlio had been re- duced immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and distress ; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, and forced to herd with swine ; v/ho, without the slightest of- fence, had been made the footstool of the worst criminals ; whose "tears ViX-rc their meat night and day/' while, under nameless insults and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord : — this class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us believe the com- passionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of pity ; ivA a look of sympathy ; not a word of consolation, did his gracious heart 12 prompt him to bestow upon them ! He denounces damnation upon the devourer of tl.e widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, lie can calmly endure' O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such blasphemers ! "it is the SPIKIT THAT QUICKENETH." It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, " the •subject" of slavery -is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his per- sonal instructions,"* he had a way of « treating it." What was that ? Why, " he taught the true nature, dignity, equality, and destiny of men," and «• inculcated the principles of justice and love."t And ac cording to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished " decide against" " the theory of slavery." All, then, that these eccle-' s.astical apologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alleged si- lence is, that he did not, in his personal instructions, apply his own principles to iMs particular form of wickedness:' ForwickeJ that mu==t be, which the maxim., of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily extinguish.! How remarkable it is, that a teacher should " haidly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon It!— should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that ''slaveholding IS not a crimc,'§ and at the same time lend its authority fjr its " speedy extinction !" Higher authority than sustains self-evident truths there cannot be. As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are their presence and power self.manifested, but they also shed a •strong and clear light around them. In their light, other truths arc visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of thought, the sane^mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus em- ployed and when most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish ? Wliy, to make the conclusions which he would establish and commend, clear in the light of reason ;—m other words, to evince that ///c^ a /e reasonable. lie expects that those witli whom he has to do will ac * lMlsljurfr|,:ui,i,l,I,jt, (alr.^aily alliid.d to,) p.'.). + Pitlshiirir paii.plilcf, p.<). t TliP sam-N l>. :il. ,S TlirRanic. p. 13. IS knowledge the authority of principle — will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to do something more than show that the doctrines he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason — are illustrated and supported by " self-evident truths" — they arc plainly " beside themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be argued with. They belong to the mad-house., "come now, let us reason TOGr.THER, SAITH THE LOED." Are v/e to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls "the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to receive its instructions ? Can these truths be contradicted or denied there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their force, or reduce their authority ? Do we long to find something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact- wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first princi- ples ? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in search of? — something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudi- oial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible ? Could we longer honor it as the book of God ? The look of God opposed to the authority of reason ! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the sacred volume to divine authority ? The tribunal of reason. This every one acknow. ledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject. And what must reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of its own princi- ples — breaks the force of self-evident truths ? Is he not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the Bible at the expense of reason ? Let such arts succeed and such piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is " cru- cified afresh and put to an open shame." What saith the Princeton professor ? Why, in spite of "general principles," and " clear as we may think the arguments against des- potism, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED onr? ^ftO. 12. 14 been tlius warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in oppo- sition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position in fa- vor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he found them — the advocates of des- potism. If in resistance to the light — and he says they were " en- lightened men" — what, so far as the subject with which alone he and we arc now concerned, becomes of their " honesty" and "goodness?" Good and honest resistors of the light, which was freely poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least re- spect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, they have become the" advocates of despotism, tlien is despotism " the best form of government and most acceptable to God." It is sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the will of Heaven 1 If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why did not the Princeton pro- fessor place this "general principle" as a shield, heaven-wrought and reason-approved, over that cherished form of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the "peculiar institutions" he is so forward to defend, under its protection ? What is the " general principle" to which, whatever may become of despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" support- ers, human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted ? Clearly this — that as capable of, man is entitled to, self -gov ernmenl. And this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may well be pronounced self-evident — thai every thing should be treated according to its nature. The mind that can doubt this, must be incapable of ra- tional conviction. Man, then, — it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of Jehovah — must be treated as a man. What is he ? What are liis distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on liim. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. H(;re shone his glory. Mere reason manifests its laws. Mere the WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of immortality. Why such endowments ? Thus furnished — the image of Jehovah — is he notcapaljle of self-government? And is he not to bo so treated ? Within the sphere vhre the latos of reason place him, may lie not act according to his clioice — carry out his own volitions? — may he not 15 t enjoy life, exult in freedom, and pursue as lie will ihc path of blessed- ness? If not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mys- terious, awful attribute of will ? To be a source, profound as the depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insulTerable tor- ment ! Was man, formed " according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced in upon himself ; to be the sport of endless contradictions ; to be driven bach and forth for- ever between mutually rcpellaiit forces ; and all, all "at the discretion of another r'* How can man be treated according to his nature, as endowed with reason or will, if excluded from ihc powers and privi- leges of self-government? — if "despotism" be let loose upon him, to " deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the discretion of another," and with the power of •' transferring" such " authority" over him and such claim upon him, to " another master?" If " thou- sands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, who are forward to support " despotism" as "of all governments the best and most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the testimony of universal history, that " the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail-pangs must continue to be the order of the day throughout " the whole ci-eation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated as man;— as capable of, and entitled to, self-government. But what is the despotism whose horrid features , our smooth pro- fessor tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly-selected words and nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American slavery — which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, and trans- forms them to cattle ! At its touch, they sink from men to things ! "Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, '• were 'propeiiy in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about their relation.^' Yes, truly. And slaves in republican America arc properly ; and as that en.sily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their relaiioa,^^ why should the Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and inadequate — at once subtle and deceit- ful ? Ah, why 1 Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his mother's children even from himself? If among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make them something else than property, he knew full well that a very different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words and sober earnest, and good faith, describe the thing as it, was, instead of » Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12. 16 employing lionied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all be- coming vagueness and ambiguity, what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy. " FOll nULERS ARE NOT A TEutiOR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." But arc we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to over- look the uniipe, or ncglecied, or broken powers of any of our fellow- men with whom wc may be connected ? — or the strong passions, vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others ? Certainly not. But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and im- pose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those preroga- tives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not things, not cat- tle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our fellow-men — reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, reflecting with us the image of a common Father. And the great principle of self-govern- ment is to be the basis, to which the whole structure of discipline un- der which they may be placed, should be adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house and state-prison, this principle is ever and in all things to be before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. Yes, indeed ; we remember, that in carrying out the principle of self-government, multiplied embarrassments and obstructions grow out of wickedness on the one hand and passion on the other. Such difficulties and obstacles wc are far enough from overlooking. But where are they to be found ? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of socie- ty ? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing within 'heir reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power, they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency to make men shamelessly wicked and insuflorably mischievous. And this, whether the vassals over whom tliey doniineer, be f«.w or many. If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under his control? — and flee from the inconveniences incident to self-government* to the horrors of despotism ? 17 "THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, to be intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has reduced to cattle ? — with the discipline with which they are to be pre- pared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen ? Alas, of such discipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to proper- ty, they have had enough. From this sprang the very ignorance and vice, which in the view of many, lie in the way of their immediate en- franchisement. He it is, who has darkened thi;ir eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look to him for illumination and re- newed vigor! — and expect "grapes from thorns and figs from this- tles !" Heaven forbid ! When, according to arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufTerers themselves, but also of every philanthro- pist. In becoming a slaveholder, he became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war upon human nature. What less can be made of the process of turning men to cattle ? It is rank absurdity — it is the height of madness, to propose to employ him to train, for the places of freemen, those whom he has wantonly robbed of every right — whom he has stolen from themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of selling bodies to the dis- sector, at the head of a hospital. Why, what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years ? Have they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of education ? — training up their human cattle ? And how 1 Thomas Jefferson shall answer. " The whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual exercise of the jnost boisterous passions ; the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding to its ength ? What, in 181S, was the unanimous testimony of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ? Why, after describing a va- riety of influences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General Assembly assure us, that such "con- sequences are not imaginary, but connect themselves with the very EXISTENCE of slavery. The evils to which the slave is always exposed, qfte7i take place in fact, and in their very avorst degree and form ;* • The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished by ouroclvea. 3 18 and where all of them do not take place," " still the slave is deprived of his natural right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of passing into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and injuries which inhumanity and avarice may sug- gest." Is this the condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least a liule longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? " AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders, the South- rons now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will dis- pose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from speedy and deadly violence ! What inference does all this warrant ? Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of uni- versal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, an success? Who, that has nothing to hide, practices concealment? " He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." Is this the way of slaveholders ? Darkness they court — they will have darkness. Doubtless " because their deeds are evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it is death for us to examine? What good ever came, what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness ? Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modifica- tion, can be a school for freedom ? We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the influ- ence of slavery. Tfuit must hehroken tip from which their ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed to purify and elevate. The lower their character and condition, the 19 louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for immediate emancipation. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a Ut- tie longer an infected atmosphere. In thus referring to elemental principles — in thus availing ourselves of the light of self-evident truths — we bow to the authority and tread in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their spirit- ual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, as standing in the presence of the Messiah. " Why, even of yourselves," he de- mands of them, "judge ye not what is right?''* How could they, un- less they, had a clear light, and an infallible standard within them, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to eschew '.' From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident truths, self-manifested principles ; that every man, studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical concerns of "life and godliness." It is in obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defence, they did homage to the sacred Scriptures — they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons which "nature teacheth."f These lessons, the Bible requires us reve- rently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encour- age men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. "J Natural religion — the princi- ples which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches — he thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most * Luke, xii, 57. 1 1 Cor. xi. 14. t John, vii. 17. 20 piercing rays of reason — from calling off the attention of those around him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor to the Savior of mankind. And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible ? " Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the prophets." According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be found, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circum- stances of lift', we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. 2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and obligatory upon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this — to regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our equals. In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in t!ic principles and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and cir- cumstances of life ; that nothing can hinder our following this guide, but the bias of selfishness ; and that the moment, in deciding any moral question, wo place ourselves in the room of our brother, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be pronounced. Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths ! — like decrying the authority of general principles! — like exalting himself at the ex- pense of reason ! — like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity ! What then is the just application of the Golden Rule— ' at funda- mental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and sheoding light upon, all its precepts and arrangements — to t..e subject of slavery? — that we must "do lo^'' slaves as we would be done by, as tlaves, the rela- tion itself being just fied and continued ? Surely not. A little reflec- tion will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its dcmand.s, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The natural equality of mankind lies at the very basis of this great precept. It o'ninusly requires every man to acknowhdge another srlf in every other num. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate circumstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may ad- dress me, another self in his appropriate circumstances and with his powers and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind ; and 'bis ihc Golden Rule requirt s us to admit, defend, and maintain. 21 "why do ye not understand siy speech; even because ye can- not HEAR MY word." They strangely misundorstand and grossly misrepresent this doc- trine, who charge upon it the absurdities and mischief;j which any " le- velling system'* cannot but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and efTecis, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such system. Equality of rights, the doctrine asserts ; and this necessa- rily opens the way for variety of condition. In other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own re- sources, according to his own choice ; — the rights while he respects his social relations, to promote as he will his own welfare. But mark — HIS own powers and resources, and not another's, are thus inaliena. bly put under his control. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert himself, and not another. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarrass another. The feeble may not hin- der the strong, nor may the strong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself, in his own proper sphere. Now, as in the constitutional endowments, and natural opportunities, and lawful acqui- sitions of mankind, infinite variety prevails, so in exerting each him- self, in his own sphere, according to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of condition. But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties which can never be dissolved. They arc mutually united by the social of their na,Vire. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is int-iienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. While each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its requisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of man, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher honor could it do to man, as an individual, than to constitute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of? " What- soever ye would" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every mem- ber of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in 22 social life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibili- ties or greater confidence be reposed in men individually ? And then, how are their claims upon each other herein magnified ! What inhe- rent worth and solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature ! In every man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the pre- aence o{ another self, whose case 1 am to make my own. And thus 1 am to dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally broucrht, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote eacirother's welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever he may possess. Whh exalted powers and large resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his « abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is to exert Tiim^e//— employ his own powers, lay out his own re- sources, improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, fov his wealth ; and a third, for powerandsk.il in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis of a comnu>n character, by virtue of which aU Ln and each-one as truly as anolher-are entitled, as a birthright, to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing h.s share to the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are placed-the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring then- wares, the products of their enterprise, skill and industr>s to the same „.arke , where n.utual exchanges are freely effected. 1 he Iru.s of muscular exertion procure the fruits of mental effort John serves Thomas with his hands, and Thomas serves ohn with his money. Peter wields the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage and experi- Le in the service of the community, and the community serve Mo- les ioshua, and Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and n a'ku" hem partakers of the general prosperity. An a 1 tins by mu tual u^lersta,' ing and voluntary arrangement. And all tins according " mlitrbeles of .^....-a system of arrangements in whid. one man tr-nts his follow, not as another self, but as u tlnng-a chattel 23 — an article of merchandize, which is not to be cMsulted in any dispo- sition which may be made of it ; — a system which is built on the anni- hilation of the attributes of our common nature — in which man doth to others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of the relation iTSELFt in which slavery consists. It lays i*s demands upon every thing within the scope of human action. To ** whatever men do," it extends its authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to each other — con- trary to nature and most injurious to the general welfare. This re- lation, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. Wherever its authori- ty prevails, this relation must be annihilated. Mutual service and slavery — like light and darkness, life and death — are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The one the Golden Rule cannot endure ; the other it requires, honors, and blesses. " LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment — " Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." " A certain lawyer," who seems to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of hu- man obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. " And who is my neighbor ?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every 7iian whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can slavery, as a relation, be main- tained ? Is it then a labor of love — such love as we cherish for our- selves — to strip a child of Adam of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birthright ? To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality? — To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of his heart? — To thrust liim out of the human family, and dispose of him as a chattel — as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under the lash of a driver ? All this, apart from every thing incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATioif, in which slavery, as such, consists. All this — well fed or ill fed, un derwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or " tears be his 24 meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered ; — all this EiXTERS VITALLY INTU THE KELATION ITSELF, by which CVCry slavc, AS A SLAVE, is set apart from the rest of the liuinan family. Is it an exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a relation? — to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanitv ? *' i'E THEREFORE Al'PLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FA- THERS; FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."* The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, that he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his in- heritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and reli- gion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with their wretched sophistries? — and devour him, body, soul, and sub- stance ? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for the relation, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. The re- lation cannot he forced iipon him. What though Elizabeth counte- nanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa ? — what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for them in the English colonies? — what though modern Dracos have "framed mis- chief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slavcholding? — what though your ancestors, in preparing to go " to their own place," con- stituted yoM the owner of the •' neighbors" whom they had used as cattle 1 — what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men are " deemed, held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels jiersonal?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the clima.x — to clinch the nail by doine happiness of our fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, in principle and by ex- ample, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service, or com. prehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable ; and permit us in practice to exact service of our brethren, as if they were notiiing better than " articles of merchandize ?" Does he require us in principle " to work with quietness and eat our own bread ;" and per- mit us in practice to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their unre- quited toil ? Does he i?i prijiciple 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 aggran- dize 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 princi- ple " '.o honor all men ; and permit us in practice to treat multitudes like cattle? Does he m p7nc«/»Ze 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 bond- man 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 ; i?', prac- tice, 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 govern- ment of God, should be continually present to the thoughts of the in- terpreter. Principles assert what practice must be. Whatever princi- ple condemns, God condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung- hill which, planted by " an enemy," his hand will assuredly " root up." 36 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 Chris- tians in understanding and applying the principles of ihe 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 fa- miliarity 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 op- pressor, 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 witii luxury ! Were they ambitious of distinction, fleecing, and trampling, and devouring " the flocks," that they them- selves 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 bo drawn from the ac- count 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 tvith our own hands. Being reviled, we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it ; being deliimed, wc entreat ; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all THINGS unto this day.' * Are these the men who practised or counte- nanced slavery ? With such a temper, they would not ; //j such cir- cumstances, they COULD not. Exposed to " tribulation, distress, and persecution ;'" subject to famine and nakedness, to peril and tiie sword ; "killed all the day long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"! they would liave made but a sorry figure at the great. house or slave- market. Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of the apostles. Tlic position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to • ICor. iv. 11-13. t Rom. viii. 35,.%. I 37 the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest persecu- tion. 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 suf- ferino-s 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 ihe 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 nouglit things that are."* 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 ar- rangement 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 con- cealed his o-lory " from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it unto babes," or that " the common people heard him gladly," while "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, had been called," 2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be adapted only to what are reckoned the very dregs of humanity. The foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the estimation of worldly pride and wisdom — these were they whose broken hearts were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel ; these were they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. That slaves abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. They have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable class found there, consisted of "things which are not"— mere no- bodies, not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level with "goods and chattels;" of whom no account was made in such arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, and happiness of mankind. How accurately this description applies to those who are crushed under the chattel principle ! ♦ 1 Cor. i. 27, 28. The reference which the apostle makes to the " deep poverty of the churches of Macedonia,"* and this to stir up the sluggish libe- rality 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. "f Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were familiar with con. tempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle would dissuade such as had no families from assuming the responsibilities of the conjugal relation ! J Now, how did these good people treat each other ? Did the few among them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their in- fluence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities! — kneel- ing 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 arrange- ments 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."^ Slaves and their holders here? Neither the one aox 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. 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, II an inquirer demands of the Savior, " What good thing shall 1 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 de- mand, '• what lack I yet ?" The radical dtliciency under which his character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. "If th(ni wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou iiast and give to the • 2 Cor. viii. 2. + Rom. xv. 2G. t Cor. vii. 26, 27. ^ ActB, iv. .32. II Lull'-, xviii. lB-2.'"). 39 poor, and thou shalt 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 amplication. 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 t!;e second great com- mand, and of course it must be applicable to all who are placed under the oblio-ations of that precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as their character is radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the in- quirer to whom our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the king- dom of heaven. 2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood tode- mand 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 ele- vate 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. In- stead of " selling that he hath" for the benefit of the poor, he buys the POOK, and exacts their sweat with stripes, to enable him to " clothe himself in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day ;" or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support the gospel and convert the heathen ! What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Sav- ior 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 assem- bled°universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be openly ac- knowledged as his representative. " Glory, honor, and immortality," will be the reward of those who had recognized and clieercd their Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, anguish, and des- pair, will sdze on "every soul of man" who had neglected or des- pised them. But whom, within the limits of our country, are we to regard especially as the representatives of our final Judge ? Every 40 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 comnnand 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 heart-breaking as the law allows theirs to be continu- ally 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 institu- tions? 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 them- selves by openly alleging, that a " single drop" of his blood, in the veins of any human creature, must make him hateful to iiis fellow citi- zens ! — That nothing but banishment from " our coasts," can redeem him from I he 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 ond 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 strijis of the la.st 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 untler the control of merciless masters and cruel keepers? Who a " stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the 41 cheapest courtesies of life — who is treated as an aHen in his native country ? There is one point in this awful description which deserves partic ular 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 neg- ative character. What they had done is not described in the indict- ment. 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 hu- man 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, des- cribing 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. Tlie 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 unhclped in the hands of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his own re- presentative, they never once supposed, that he had any claims on their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he was des- tined 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 ncgatice virtue nor their voluntary ignorance could shield them from the pena! fire which their selfishness had kindled. Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the <' great 42 commandments" of the gospel ; amidst its comprehensive descriptions and authorized tests of Christian character, we should lake 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 alPcomplacent, reads in reply from his broad phylactery, Paul sent hack 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 hack Onesimus to PhUem,on ! 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 de- mands 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 as- semblies, and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indi- rectly 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 aught.'"* The American slave is, according to law, as much the property of his master us any other chattel ; and can no more "owe" his master than can a siicep or a hors«. The basis of all pecuniary obligations lies in some " value received." How Philemon, 18. 43 can " an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain com- mercial relations to its owner ? There is no person to offer or promise. Personality is swallowed up in America7i slavery ! 4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to deter- mine. He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on ill terms. The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his re- lation to Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to have left him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or pay- ing 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 re- pentance. 5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he be- came 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 apos- tle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanksgiv- ing 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 ex- plained ; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts* which he had contracted. But his character had undergone a radi- cal 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 ac- count, f 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 Q.S di servant, but aJoue a servant. "| 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 Onesi- mus as he would receive the apostle himself.^ So much above a ser- vant 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 mer- * Verse 11, 18, + Verse 18. t Verse 16. § Verse 10, 16, 17, 44 chandise," carnally, while it raised him to the dignity of a " brother beloved," spiritually ? In other words, might not Philemon consist- ently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, as A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a Chris- tian ? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle ! Never. As if, how- ever to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and moon- shine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to the dignity of a brother beloved, "both in the flesh and in the Lord ;"* as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circumstances, and respon- sibilities of life. It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what sense the apostle in such connections uses the word " brother." It de- scribes 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 rai.ses 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, af- fecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way, " both in the flesh and in the Lord." This matter deserves pjirticular 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 7noral character of his request. It was fit, proper, right, suited to the nature and relation of things — a thing which ought to be done.f On this account, he might have urged it upon Philemon in the form of an injunction, on apostolic authority and with great bold, ness. J 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 in- alienable 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. § He would give Philemon an opportunily of discharging his obligulions under the imi)ulsc of love. To this im- pulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. How •Verse 16. t Verse 8. To avitKov. See Robinson's New Testament Lexicon ; " it is fit, pro- per, l)erominf!,it oufflit." In what Bcnso Kinpf James' translators used the word " convunienl" any one may s(!i; who will read Rom. i. 28. and Epk. v. 3, 4. I Verse B. I) Verse 9 — ^la rnv nymriiv. 45 could he do otherwise ? The thing itself was right. The request re- specting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was under the highest obligations.* That benefactor, now an old man, and in the hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the mat- ter, and had the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to grant than himself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Col- losse, and had commissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for hin), must come under the eye of the apostle. The request was so manU festly reasonable and obligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a compliance with it, by the strong word " obedience. "-\ Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at Co- losse ? — 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 bitter- ness of the servile condition. Would they have been likelj'^ to inter- pret 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 suflferings — 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 pur 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 princi- ples 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 apolo- gy for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant lor hfe."t " 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 thoapos- tie been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, as a professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher * Verso 19. t Verse 21. X Sec his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8. of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to subserve the " pecuhar" 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 dis- ciple, and sent them by the liand 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.* Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. Accordingly, he ■writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to the "corner-stone of our republican institutions." Now, what would any Caesar do, who had ever felt a link of slavery's chain ? As he left his spiritualjather, 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 re- turn ? 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. Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American oppression ? Do you think that tiie doctor and his friends could per- saade 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 liclp iiis young discij)lc in carrying it into full cficct. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most • " Why should I care ?" 47 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 re- turn to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New-York, con- taining such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder dispose of it ? What, he exclaims, have we here ? " If Cato has not been up- right in his pecuniary intercourse with you — if he owes you any thing — put that on my account." What ignorance of southern institutions! What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and his master ! The slave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of merchandise. What can he owe his master ? A rustic may lay a wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck of oats which he had permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, would call this a pecuniary transaction ? " To BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE !" From what part of the epistle could the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants — so revolting to every man who loves his own nature ? From this ? " For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him for ever." Receive him how? As a servant, exclaims our com- mentator. But what wrote the apostle ? " Not noio 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 1 Ac- cording to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus " 7iot as a servant ;" — according to Stuart, he was to receive him '^ as a servant!" If the profi.ssor will apply the same rules of exposition to the writings of the abolitionists, all difference between him and them must in his view pre- sently vanish away. The harmonizing process would be equally sim- ple 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 vene- rable' 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, 48 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 dan- gerous 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, magnani- mous, 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 mc ; 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 mani- festing, 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 lum as myself.' And that nothing may hinder you from complying with my request at once, I hereby pro- mise, without adverting to your many and great obligations to mc, 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 per- form tiic 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 slavehold- ing 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 ? 49 With what propriety might not the professor exclaim : False, every syllable false. I sent him back, not to be held as a slave, but re- cognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and ecclesiastical. I bade my son receive Arcliy 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 princi- ple, 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 ofTscouring of all things." Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous usages, such horrid laws as digrace 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 the'r own mas- ters worthy of all honor, that the name of God anr! ;. 'octrines be not blasphemed. And they that have believing .K-^tpj them not despise them because they are brethren ; but j-ariior du service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers ct the 1 * * 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this p.' - nen of Elizur Wright, Jr. : — " This word [avTiKafijiavtaOai] in our humble opinion, has used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to takt '? part. ' excellent translators, in rendering the clause ' partakers of the bei. 'fit,' evidei; V.\ lost sight of the component preposition, which expresses the oppos procity, rather than the connection of participation. They have givei. the sense of iJcraXafiPamv, (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle intend., sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the more commoi. HCToxoi, KoivuvovvTCi, &c. (ScB Hcb. ill. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, wliere the word is used in the clause, ' neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had verb in our text been used, it might have been rendered, ' neither be the part-tak,. of other men's sins.') The primary sense of iiiriAa/i/iKi/w 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 evtiiysaai 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 commonfa 7 50 1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes ol' 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 ser- vant 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 * opening the path to heaven, to that of washing " one another's feet."t A general term it is, comprehending every office which belongs to human relations and Christian character.| 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 Jind the slave. To reduce the servant to his condition, requires abuses altoge- ther 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 labor- ers, so many and such various meanings, signify " slaves," especially where diflferent 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, dilfercnt classes. This is implied in the term ' as many,"^ which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he pro- torn, is, that believing maBtors would not fail to do their part towards, or en- courage by suitable returns, the free service of those who had once been under the ij'ilic." • Cor. iv. 5. t John, xiii. 14. t Mat. xx. 26-28 ^ Oaot, See Passow's Schneider. 51 ceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,* whose natural meanino- indicates the presence of another and a different subject. 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. f If not, they must in every way regard the master with re- spect — bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his inter- ests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.:}: 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. But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not " under the yoke"^ — 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 "helievivg master" ihen^ 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 ser- vants in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a relation which, excluding the yoke,|| 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 mas- ters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. IF Instead of this, they should be, as emancipated slaves often have been,** models of en- terprise, fidelity, activity, and usefulness — especially as their masters were " worthy of their confidence and love," their helpers in this well- doing. Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Profes- sor Stuart; were Christian masters and Christian slavesff — the relation * As. See Passow. t See 1 Cor. vii. 21 — AXX' tt Kai S w a a a i eXevdcpof yovcaOai. X 1 Cor. vii. 23 — Mj; yivcaOE iovKoi avdpanuyv. § See Lev. xxvi. 13 ; Isa. Iviii. 6, 9. II Supra p. 44. If See Mat. vi. 24. ** Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" James G. Bimey. tt Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7. 52 of " brethren," which, excluding " the yoke," and of course confer, ring freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutu- al service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the one while giving and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, as is usual ifi 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 ? And on what gi-ound, 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."* 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 re- sults, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his master im- posed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned no in- jury. 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 rela- tions, and resources — with his prospects, opportunities, and advan- tages? So might his servants. Was he at liberty to " study to ap- prove 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 en- joyment, which they arc capable of yielding ? So were tiny. 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 re- ligious equality to the AmeKican slave, and the most eager abolitionist must be satisfied. Such equality would, like the breath of the Al- miglity, dissolve the last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those who, for the benefit of slavery, have given so wide and active a circu- lation to the Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment ? In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves earn- est attention : — " Servants, obey in all things your masters according • Pittsburg Pamphlet, y. 9. 53 to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in singleness of lieart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men ; knowing, that of the Lord ye shall re- ceive 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."* 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 princi- pies 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 whoso 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, hy ivhich they were to be governed a?id 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 noi 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 mas- ter, faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, in his relations to the servants, waste make justice and EQUALirr 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 eflfects 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 • Col iii. 22 to iv. 1. 54 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 Christj doing the will of God from the heart ; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men : knowing that what- soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he he 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."* Without repeating here what has already been offered in expo- sition of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say : — 1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their muster, was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an affec- tionate service. 2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had its soul in good-will, mutuallj^ cherished and properly expressed. Hence " the same things," the same in principle, the same in sub- stance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the mas- ter 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, unfaith- ful. Of course, the master must " FORBEAR threatening." Slavery without threatening ! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of necessity a system of threatetiing, 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 prin- ciples of the divine government, where "respect of persons" could not be admitted. It was, thorofbre, totally inconsistent with, and .sub- missive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery is deve- loped in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and hurttul. No Abolitionist, howivor eager and determined in his opposition to • F,|)l>( siimp, vi. .'i-9 55 elavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once obeyed, would be sure to confer. " The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recog- nized in " the precepts of the New Testament," as one which " may still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."* Slavery and the chattel principle ! So our professor thinks ; otherwise his ]'eference has nothing to do with the subject — with the slavery which the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. How gross and hurtfnl is the mistake into which he allows himself to fall. The rela- tion 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 Pro- fessor 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 ! " 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 immedi- ate duty."t 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 ? Thxit not even the Princeton professor has the assurance to af- firm. He admits that kindness, biercy, and justice, were enjoined with a distinct reference to the government of God.X " Without respect of per- sons," they vv'ere 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 na- tural, inalienable rights ? — of doing what they could to redress the wrongs, sooth the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condi- tion of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and de- graded 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 liavc * Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7. t Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9. % The same, p. 10. 56 subserved the cause of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectu- ally, than to enjoin the -principles, and sentiments^ and habits, in which freedom consists — constituting its living root and fruitful germ ! The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural de- fence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "general PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL haVC DESTROYED SLAVERY throughout the greater part of Christendom"* — '' That Christianity ttas abol- ished both political AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD FREE SCOPE — that it ^TiJoiNS 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 improve- ment, but that ALL SUITABLE BIEANS should be employed for the attain- ment of that end^] It is indeed " remarkable," that while neither Chriirt nor his apostles ever gave " an exhortation to masters to libe- rate their slaves," they enjoined such " general principles as have de- stroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom ;" that while Christianity forbears " to urge" emancipation *' as an im- perative and immediate duty," i. 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 inexplieallc. 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 ! In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes an- other lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on the subject of slavery. •' Let every man abide in the same calling where- in he was called. Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it ; but if thou niayest 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. "J 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 gos- • Pittsburg i)amphlcl, p. IH, 19. 1 The same, p. 31. 1 1 Cor. vii. tiO-23. 57 pel 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 bond- age 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 offif possible ? And had such mas- ters 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 re- fused 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 cease- less anxiety. " The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly re- duced, 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 kirn, 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 Prince, ton professor asserts that " Paul represents this relation" — the rela- tion of slavery — " as of comparatively little account."* 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 use- fulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, * Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10. 9 58 with his wife and babes, " the servant of men ?" Could such a rela- tion be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle ? 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* from any free State, can be likely to re- ceive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasion- ed in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible, col- lect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now • Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conver- sation 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 cfTectually 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 Presby- terian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Chris- tian 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 clear- ly 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 aban- doned. The others, hy a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men, contend that though slavery is sinful, yet it may he allowed to exist until it shall he expedient to abolish it; or, if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain Eng. lish, the sense wo\ild 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 he 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 the8<^ remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be fotmd in both parties in tlie churcii. Thi- South owes a debt of gratitude to the Biblical Repertory, for the fearless argument in behalf of the posit. on, that slavery is not forbidden by the Bible Tlie writer of that article is said, witliout contradiction, to be Professor Hodge, of Priuceton-UIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND RE- VKREl) A MONd YOU, my brethren, for in a land of anti.slavery men, he is the ONLY ONE who has dared to rindiratc your character from the serious charge of living in the haliitunl transgression of Ood'/i holy law." 59 let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Chris- tian institution ! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the pas- sage 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 en- couragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished both po- litical and domestic servitude whenever it has had free scope. It enjoins a fair compensation for labor ; it insists on the moral and intellectual improvement of all classes of men ; it condemns all infrac- tions 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."* 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 ef- fective 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 hot- ter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement " the Union ?" " It is," affirms the Princeton professor, " on all hands acknow. ledged, 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 Mm in JuDEA."f To say that he found it in Judea, is to speak ambiguously. JMany things were to be found " in Judca," which nei- ther belonged to, nor were characteristic of the Jeivs. 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 onto a position which, if his own eyes were open, he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day ? * Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31. t The same, p. 9 60 We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, or courage,* 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 in- struction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordina- ry occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with " the lost sheep of the house of Israel, "f The propriety of this ar- rangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor and ourselves. 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. J In all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews^ during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to have been scrupu- lously observant of the institutions and usages of the " Old Dispensa- tion." They stood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Sa- maritans 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. uv .• 2. While, therefore, John the Baptist, with marked fidelity and gr^f^ power, acted among the Jews the part of a reprover, he found no occa- sion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,^ in exposing and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the prophets, have been less efTectually 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 injuri- ous forms ? 3. The Savior was not backward iu applying his own principles plainly and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. These principles, wlienever they have been freely acted on, the Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had this prevailed within the sjjhcre of our Savior's ministry, he could not, consistently with his general character, have failed to expose and con. demn it. The oppression of tlie people by lordly ecclesiastics, of pa. • PiUsburp pamiihlcl, p. 10. t Matt. xv. 21. t " Tliu Bible ajrainet Slavery." 6P8almlxxxii; Isa. Iviii. 1-12 Jcr. xxii. 13-16. 61 rents by theii* selfish children, of widows by their ghostly counsellors, drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible denunciations.* 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 liave made widows, by driving their husbands to some flesh-market, and their chil- dren not orphans, but cattle ? 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. ")f This passage has opened the way for different commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and genei:al 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. "f It was, Kuinoel affirms, customary even for Jew- ish teachers to unite labor (opificium) with the study of the law. This he "-nfirms by the highest Rabbinical authority. § Heinrichs quotes a P