Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he would establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the authority of principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are ill.u.s.trated and supported by "self-evident truths"--they are plainly "beside themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They are not to be argued with. They belong to the mad-house.
"COME NOW, LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD."
Are we to honor the Bible, which Prof. Stuart quaintly calls "the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to receive its instructions? Can these truths be contradicted or denied there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, or break their force, or reduce their authority? Do we long to find something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or of inference, in broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact-wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first principles? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in search of?--something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudicial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the authority of, makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, should we be constrained to hold the Bible?
Could we longer honor it, as the book of G.o.d? _The book of G.o.d opposed to the authority of_ REASON! Why, before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the sacred volume to divine authority? The tribunal of reason. _This every one acknowledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject_. And what must reason do with a book, which reduced the authority of its own principles--broke the force of self-evident truths?
Is he not, by way of eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a minister of the gospel or a professor of sacred literature, exerts himself, with whatever arts of ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the Bible at the expense of reason? Let such arts succeed and such piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is "crucified afresh and put to an open shame."
What saith the Princeton professor? Why, in spite of "general principles," and "clear as we may think the arguments against DESPOTISM, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED _and good men_, who _honestly_ believe it to be of all forms of government the best and most acceptable to G.o.d."[A] Now, these "good men" must have been thus warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in opposition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, which in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position in favor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily shook hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in despite of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in resistance to the light, they became what he found them--the advocates of despotism. If in resistance to the light--and he says they were "enlightened men"--what, so far as the subject with which alone he and we are now concerned, becomes of their "honesty" and "goodness?" Good and honest resisters of the light, which was freely poured around them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart"s "good old Book?" Their authority, where "general principles" command the least respect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, they have become the advocates of despotism, then is despotism "the best form of government and most acceptable to G.o.d." It is sustained by the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the will of Heaven! If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain theological seminaries, it must be easy to account for the spirit which they breathe, and the general influence which they exert. Why did not the Princeton professor place this "general principle" as a shield, heaven-wrought and reason-approved, over that cherished form of despotism which prevails among the churches of the South, and leave the "peculiar inst.i.tutions" he is so forward to defend, under its protection?
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12.]
What is the "general principle" to which, whatever may become of despotism with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" supporters, human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted? Clearly this--_that as capable of, man is ent.i.tled to, self-government_. And this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may well be p.r.o.nounced self-evident--_that every thing should be treated according to its nature_. The mind that can doubt of this, must be incapable of rational conviction. Man, then,--it is the dictate of reason, it is the voice of Jehovah--must be treated _as a man_. What is he? What are his distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image on him. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. Here shone his glory. Here REASON manifests its laws. Here the WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of IMMORTALITY. Why such endowments? Thus furnished--the image of Jehovah--is he not capable of self-government? And is he not to be so treated? _Within the sphere where the laws of reason place him_, may he not act according to his choice--carry out his own volitions?--may he not enjoy life, exult in freedom and pursue as he will the path of blessedness? If not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mysterious, awful attribute of will?
To be a source, profound as the depths of h.e.l.l, of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insufferable torment! Was man formed "according to the image of Jehovah," to be crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced in upon himself; to be the sport of endless contradictions; to be driven back and forth forever between mutually repellant forces; and all, all "_at the discretion of another!"_[A] How can men be treated according to his nature, as endowed with reason or will, if excluded from the powers and privileges of self government?--if "despotism" be let loose upon him, to "deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the discretion of another," and with the power of "transferring" such "authority" over him and such claim upon him, to "another master?" If "thousands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, who are forward to support "despotism" as "of all governments the best and most acceptable to G.o.d," we need not wonder at the testimony of universal history, that "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." Groans and travail-pangs must continue to be the order of the day throughout "the whole creation," till the rod of despotism be broken, and man be treated as man--as capable of, and ent.i.tled to, self-government.
[Footnote A: Pittsburgh pamphlet, p.12]
But what is the despotism whose horrid features our smooth professor tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly-selected words and nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American slavery--which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, and transforms them to cattle! At its touch, they sink from men to things!
"Slaves," with Prof. Stuart, "were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_." Yes, truly. And slaves in republican America are _property_; and as that easily, clearly, and definitely settles "all questions about their _relation_," why should the Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a definition equally ingenious and inadequate--at once subtle and deceitful? Ah, why? Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his mother"s children even from himself? If among the figments of his brain, he could fashion slaves, and make them something else than property, he knew full well that a very different pattern was in use among the southern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words, and sober earnest, and good faith, describe the thing as it was, instead of employing honied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all becoming vagueness and ambiguity what might possibly be supposed to exist in the regions of fancy.
"FOR RULERS ARE NOT A TERROR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL."
But are we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to overlook the unripe, or neglected, or broken powers of any of our fellow-men with whom we may be connected?--or the strong pa.s.sions, vicious propensities, or criminal pursuit of others? Certainly not. But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and impose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those prerogatives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ for their benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not things, not cattle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our fellow-men--reflecting, from however battered and broken a surface, reflecting with us the image of a common Father.
And the great principle of self-government is to be the basis, to which the whole structure of discipline under which they may be placed, should be adapted. From the nursery and village school on to the work-house and state-prison, this principle is over and in all things to be before the eyes, present in the thoughts, warm on the heart. Otherwise, G.o.d is insulted, while his image is despised and abused. Yes, indeed, we remember that in carrying out the principle of self-government, multiplied embarra.s.sments and obstructions grow out of wickedness on the one hand and pa.s.sion on the other. Such difficulties and obstacles we are far enough from overlooking. But where are they to be found? Are imbecility and wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of society? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing within their reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their heads, inflaming their pa.s.sions, corrupting their hearts.
All the world knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency to make men shamelessly wicked and insufferably mischievous.
And this, whether the va.s.sals over whom they domineer, be few or many.
If you can not trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under his control?--and flee from the inconveniences incident to self-government, to the horrors of despotism?
"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL."
Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, to be intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has reduced to cattle?--with the discipline by which they are to be prepared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen? Alas, of such discipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to property, they have had enough. From this sprang the vary ignorance and vice, which in the view of many lie in the way of their immediate enfranchis.e.m.e.nt. He it is, who has darkened their eyes and crippled their powers. And are they to look to him for illumination and renewed vigor!--and expect "grapes from thorns and figs from thistles!" Heaven forbid! When, according to arrangements which had usurped the sacred name of law, he consented to receive and use them as property, he forfeited all claims to the esteem and confidence, not only of the helpless sufferers themselves, but also of every philanthropist. In becoming a slaveholder, he became the enemy of mankind. The very act was a declaration of war upon human man nature. What less can be made of the process of turning men to cattle? It is rank absurdity--it is the height of madness, to propose to employ _him_ to train, for the places of freemen, those whom he has wantonly robbed of every right--whom he has stolen from themselves. Sooner place Burke, who used to murder for the sake of selling bodies to the dissector, at the head of a hospital. Why, what have our slaveholders been about these two hundred years? Have they not been constantly and earnestly engaged in the work of education?
--training up their human cattle? And how? Thomas Jefferson shall answer. "The whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous pa.s.sions; the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other." Is this the way to fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American citizens? Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding to it length? What, in 1818, was the unanimous testimony of the General a.s.sembly of the Presbyterian church? Why, after describing a variety of influences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and moral improvement, the General a.s.sembly a.s.sure us, that such "consequences are not imaginary, but connect themselves WITH THE VERY EXISTENCE of slavery. The evils to which the slave is _always_ exposed, often take place in fact, and IN THEIR VERY WORST DEGREE AND FORM[A]; and where all of them do not take place," "still the slave is deprived of his natural right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger of pa.s.sing into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships and injuries, which inhumanity and avarice may suggest." Is this the condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the slave, at least a little longer, to fit him to be restored to himself?
[Footnote A: The words here marked as emphasis were so distinguished by ourselves.]
"AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS."
The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders, the Southrons now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in the a.s.surance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will dispose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from speedy and deadly violence! What inference does all this warrant? Surely, not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of universal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us the benefit, of their wisdom, enterprise, and success? Who, that has nothing to hide, practices concealment?--"He that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in G.o.d." Is this the way of slaveholders? Darkness they court--they will have darkness. Doubtless "because their deeds are evil." Can we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it is death for us to examine? Whet good ever came, what good can we expect, from deeds of darkness?
Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West Indies; to prepare the apprentices for enfranchis.e.m.e.nt? Nay, verily. All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back the tide of blessings, which through emanc.i.p.ation was pouring in upon the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modification, can be a school for freedom?
We say such things to the many who alledge, that slaves can not at once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. However this may be, they can not be better qualified under _the influence of slavery_. _That must be broken up_ from which their ignorance, and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed to purify and elevate. _The lower their character and condition, the louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for immediate emanc.i.p.ation_. The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a little longer an infected atmosphere.
In thus referring to elemental principles--in thus availing ourselves of the light of self-evident truths--we bow to the authority and tread in the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their spiritual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives them distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves to form a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, as standing in the presence of the Messiah. "Why, EVEN OF YOURSELVES," he demands of them, "judge ye not what is _right_?"[A] How could they, unless they had a clear light, and an infallible standard _within them_, whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to eschew? From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear and certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident truths, self-manifested principles; that every man, studying his own consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical concerns of "life and G.o.dliness." It is in obedience to the Bible, that we apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general principles. When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard of their property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defense, they did homage to the sacred Scriptures--they honored the Bible. In that volume, not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practicing the lessons which "nature teacheth."[B] These lessons, the Bible requires us reverently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and faithfully to act upon in every direction and on all occasions.
[Footnote A: Luke xii. 67.]
[Footnote B: 1 Cor. xi. 14.]
Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encourage men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of G.o.d, or whether I speak of myself."[C] Natural religion--the principles which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches--he thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most piercing rays of reason--from calling off the attention of those around him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general principle. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor to the Savior of mankind.
[Footnote C: John vii. 17.]
And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible? "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."
According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may be found, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circ.u.mstances of life, we may determine what Heaven demands and expects of us. 2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and obligatory upon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite to a just application of this rule to all the cases in which we can be concerned, is simply this--_to regard all the members of the human family as our brethren, our equals_.
In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in the principles and laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and circ.u.mstances of life; that nothing can hinder our following this guide, but the bias of _selfishness_; and that the moment, in deciding any moral question, we place _ourselves in the room of our brother_, before the bar of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be p.r.o.nounced.
Does this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths!--like decrying the authority of general principles!--like exalting himself at the expense of reason!--like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity!
What then is the just application of the Golden Rule--that fundamental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and shedding light upon, all its precepts and arrangements--to the subject of slavery?--_that we must "do to" slaves as we would be done by_, AS SLAVES, _the_ RELATION _itself being justified and continued_? Surely not. A little reflection will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its demands, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The _natural equality_ of mankind lies at the very basis of this great precept. It obviously requires _every man to acknowledge another self in every other man_. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate circ.u.mstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may address me, another self in his appropriate circ.u.mstances and with his powers and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind; and this the Golden Rule requires us to admit, defend, and maintain.
"WHY DO YE NOT UNDERSTAND MY SPEECH; EVEN BECAUSE YE CAN NOT HEAR MY WORD."
They strangely misunderstand and grossly misrepresent this doctrine, who charge upon it the absurdities and mischiefs which _any "levelling system"_ can not but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, and effects, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such system. EQUALITY OF RIGHTS, the doctrine a.s.serts; and this necessarily opens the way for _variety of condition_. In other words, every child of Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, within reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own resources, according to his own choice; while he respects his social relations, to promote as he will his own welfare. But mark--HIS OWN powers and resources, and NOT ANOTHER"S, are thus inalienably put under his control. The Creator makes every man free, in whatever he may do, to exert HIMSELF, and not _another_. Here no man may lawfully cripple or embarra.s.s another. The feeble may not hinder the strong, nor may the strong crush the feeble. Every man may make the most of himself; in his own proper sphere. Now, as in the const.i.tutional endowments, and natural opportunities, and lawful acquisitions of mankind, infinite variety prevails, so in exerting each HIMSELF, in his own sphere, according to his own choice, the variety of human condition can be little less than infinite. Thus equality of rights opens the way for variety of condition.
But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties which can never be dissolved. They are mutually united by the social of their nature. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While each is inalienably ent.i.tled to a.s.sert 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 const.i.tute him the judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of?
"Whatsoever YE WOULD" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every member of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed out, is competent and authorized to pa.s.s judgment on all the cases in social life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibilities or greater confidence be reposed in men individually? And then, how are their _claims upon each other_ herein magnified! What inherent worth and solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature! In every man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the presence of _another self_, whose case I am to make _my own_. And thus I am to dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me.
Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally brought, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote each other"s welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the inalienable birth-right of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever he may possess. With exalted powers and large resources, he has a natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his "abilities" are small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, each is to exert _himself_--employ _his own_ powers, lay out his own resources, improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the natural result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and acquisitions; another, for his wealth; and a third, for power and skill in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, proceed from the basis of a _common character_, by virtue of which all men and each--one as truly as another--are ent.i.tled, as a birth-right, to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing his share to the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. Under one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, all are placed--the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as the poor, the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring their wares, the products of their enterprise, skill and industry, to the same market, where mutual exchanges are freely effected. The fruits of muscular exertion procure the fruits of mental effort. John serves Thomas with his hands, and Thomas serves John with his money. Peter wields the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage, and experience, in the service of the community, and the community serve Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and making them partakers of the general prosperity. And all this by mutual understanding and voluntary arrangement. And all this according to the Golden Rule.
What then becomes of _slavery_--a system of arrangements, in which one man treats his fellow, not as another self, but as a thing--a chattel--an article of merchandize, which is not to be consulted in any disposition which may be made of it;--a system which is built on the annihilation of the attributes of our common nature--in which man doth to others, what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of THE RELATION ITSELF, in which slavery consists. It lays its demands upon every thing within the scope of _human action_. To "whatever MEN DO," it extends its authority.
And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the work of human hands. It is what men have done to each other--contrary to nature and most injurious to the general welfare. THIS RELATION, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. Wherever its authority prevails, this relation must be annihilated. Mutual service and slavery--like light and darkness, life and death--are directly opposed to, and subversive of, each other. The one the Golden Rule can not endure; the other it requires, honors, and blesses.
"LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR."
Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment--"_Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_." "A certain lawyer," who seems to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of human obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the meshing of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. "And who is my neighbor?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter in the clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that _every man_ whom we could reach with our sympathy and a.s.sistance, was our neighbor, ent.i.tled to the same regard which we cherished for ourselves. Consistently with such obligations, can _slavery_, as a RELATION, be maintained? Is it then a _labor of love_--such love as we cherish for ourselves--to strip a child of Adam of all the prerogatives and privileges which are his inalienable birth-right?--To obscure his reason, crush his will, and trample on his immortality?--To strike home to the inmost of his being, and break the heart of his heart?--To thrust him out of the human family, and dispose of him as a chattel--as a thing in the hands of an owner, a beast under the lash of a driver? All this, apart from every thing incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATION, in which slavery, as such, consists. All this--well fed or ill fed, underwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or "tears be his meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered;--_all this_ ENTERS VITALLY INTO THE RELATION ITSELF, _by which every slave_, AS A SLAVE, _is set apart from the rest of the human family_. Is it an exercise of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing power, of such a relation?--to apply the murderous steel to the very vitals of his humanity?
"YE THEREFORE APPLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FATHERS; FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."[A]
The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing is chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly alledge, that he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed.
Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his inheritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning and rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and religion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him with their wretched sophistries?--and devour him, body, soul, and substance?
Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for _the relation_, into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. _The relation can not be forced upon him_. What though Elizabeth countenanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa?--what though James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for them in the English colonies?--what though modern Dracos have "framed mischief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slaveholding?--what though your ancestors, in preparing to go "to their own place," const.i.tuted you the owner of the "neighbors" whom they had used as cattle?--what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be drawn from the history of that dreadful process by which men "are deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_?" Can all this force you to put the cap upon the climax--to clinch the nail by doing that, without which nothing in the work of slave-making would be attempted? _The slaveholder is the soul of the whole system_. Without him, the chattel principle is a lifeless abstraction. Without him, charters, and markets, and laws, and testaments, are empty names. And does _he_ think to escape responsibility? Why, kidnappers, and soul-drivers, and law-makers, are nothing but his _agents_. He is the guilty _princ.i.p.al_. Let him look to it.
[Footnote A: You join with them in their b.l.o.o.d.y work. They murder, and you bury the victims.]
But what can he do? Do? Keep his hands off his "neighbor"s" throat. Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the chattel principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should fasten its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked tongue; whatever may betide him--scorn, flight, flames--let him promptly and steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men than the wrath of Heaven! "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into h.e.l.l."
Prof. Stuart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second great commandment "decide against the theory of slavery as being in itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts, inst.i.tutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the New Testament? Of all these, they are the summary expression--the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible enforcing our mutual obligations, can be more or less than _the application of these injunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and conditions_. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept can require; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find something in the way of permission or command, which may set him free from the obligations of the Golden Rule? What must his objects, methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon such inquiries?--to compel him to search the Bible for such a purpose? Can he have good intentions, or be well employed? Is his frame of mind adapted to the study of the Bible?--to make its meaning plain and welcome? What must he think of G.o.d, to search his word in quest of gross inconsistencies and grave contradictions!
Inconsistent legislation in Jehovah! Contradictory commands! Permissions at war with prohibitions! General requirements at variance with particular arrangements!
What must be the moral character of any inst.i.tution which the Golden Rule decides against?--which the second great command condemns? _It can not but be wicked_, whether newly established or long maintained.
However it may be shaped, turned, colored--under every modification and at all times--_wickedness must be its proper character_. _It must be_, IN ITSELF, _apart from its circ.u.mstances_, IN ITS ESSENCE, _apart from its incidents_, SINFUL.
"THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM FOR OUR FATHER."
In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a specific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay, absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us, from the right post of observation. Our stand we must take at some central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, the known circ.u.mstances and characteristic arrangements, of primitive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will be the result of our studies. We can not, therefore, be too earnest in trying to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New Testament inst.i.tutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our inquires under the bias of the prejudice, that the general maxims of social life which now prevail in this country, were current, on the authority of the Savior, among the primitive Christians! That, for instance, wealth, station, talents, are the standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, others, should be modified?--That those who are pinched by poverty, worn by disease, tasked in menial labors, or marked by features offensive to the taste of the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded from those refreshing and elevating influences which intelligence and refinement may be expected to exert; that thus they are to const.i.tute a cla.s.s by themselves, and to be made to know and keep their place at the very bottom of society? Or, what if we should think and speak of the primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resources as Heaven has lavished upon the American churches?--as if they were as remarkable for affluence, elegance, and splendor? Or, as if they had as high a position and as extensive an influence in politics and literature?--having directly or indirectly, the control over the high places of learning and of power?
If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments--if we should explain words and interpret language--under such a bias, what must inevitably be the results? What would be the worth of our conclusions?
What confidence could be reposed in any instruction we might undertake to furnish? And is not this the way in which the advocates and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primitive Christianity has upon it? They first ascribe, unwittingly perhaps, to the primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition, of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darkness and strange confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and explaining the usages of the New Testament!