The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume II Part 61

2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and because _as Christians they are brethren_, to forego the reverence due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, servants should in such a case, a _fortiori_, do their duty cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What the master's duty in such a case may be in respect to _liberation_, is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of.

3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were _property_ in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about their _relation_. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, for a long time, that of _life and death_. Horrible cruelties at length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great as among us.

After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have been exhibited, the _good old Book_ remains the same. Paul's conduct and advice are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity would ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew too, that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the earth; for it is fundamentally a doctrine of _true liberty and equality_. Yet Paul did not expect slavery or anarchy to be ousted in a day; and gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor _ad interim_.

With sincere and paternal regard,

Your friend and brother,

M. STUART.

--This, sir, is doctrine that will stand, because it is _Bible doctrine_. The abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have traveled out of the record; and if they would succeed, they must take a different position, and approach the subject in a different manner. Respectfully yours,

W. FISK

"SO THEY WRAP [SNARL] IT UP."

What are we taught here? That in the ecclesiastical organizations which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted as a relation, that did not violate the Christian faith; that the relation may now in like manner exist; that "the abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong;" and, of course, that American Christians may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or inflicting injury. Thus according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not a word to say against "the peculiar inst.i.tutions" of the South. If our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of exacting unpaid labor, they may multiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without exposing themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Christian character open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in human flesh ask for greater lat.i.tude? And to such doctrines, Dr. Fisk eagerly aid earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges it on the attention of his brethren, as containing important truth, which they ought to embrace. According to him, it is "_Bible doctrine_," showing, that "the abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must, "if they would succeed, take a different position."

We now refer to such distinguished names, to show, that in attempting to prove that Jeans Christ is not in favor of American slavery, we contend with something else than a man of straw. The ungrateful task, which a particular examination of Prof. Stuart's letter lays upon us, we hope fairly to dispose of in due season.--Enough has now been said, to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has its apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit; advocates and apologists, who fall behind few if any of their brethren in the reputation they have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the general influence they are supposed to exert.

Is it so? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument ent.i.tled "The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful and thorough examination of that article, he can believe that slaveholding prevailed during the ministry of Jesus Christ among the Jews and in accordance with the authority of Moses, he would do the reading public an important service to record the grounds of his belief--especially in a fair and full refutation of that Argument. Till that is done, we hold ourselves excused from attempting to prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews during our Savior's incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Could Christ and the Apostles every where among their countrymen come in contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross violation of that law which their office and their profession required them to honor and enforce, without exposing and condemning it.

In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as Stuart, Hodge, and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term "_worst_"

could be applied only to "_abuses_" of this innocent relation. Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and disgraced by the "worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses in the ancient world, Prof. Stuart describes as "horrible cruelties." And in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, as to lead a distinguished eye-witness--no less a philosopher and statesman than Thomas Jefferson--to say, that they had armed against us every attribute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior every where came in contact, among the people to whose improvement and salvation he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not a syllable, in exposure and condemnation of such "horrible cruelties," escaped his lips! He saw--among the "covenant people" of Jehovah he saw, the babe plucked from the bosom of its mother; the wife torn from the embrace of her husband; the daughter driven to the market by the scourge of her own father;--he saw the word of G.o.d sealed up from those who, of all men, were especially ent.i.tled to its enlightening, quickening influence;--nay, he saw men beaten for kneeling before the throne of heavenly mercy;--such things he saw without a word of admonition or reproof! No sympathy with them who suffered wrong--no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved his heart!

From the alledged silence of the Savior, when in contact with slavery among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent with Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms; that is, he witnessed what Prof. Stuart ventures to call "horrible cruelties." But what right have these interpreters of the sacred volume to regard any form of slavery which the Savior found, as "worst," or even bad? According to their inference--which they would thrust gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists--his silence should seal up their lips.

They ought to hold their tongues. They have no right to call any form of slavery bad--an abuse; much less, horribly cruel! Their inference is broad enough to protect the most brutal driver amidst his deadliest inflictions!

"THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS; I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFILL."

And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for suffering humanity? The forms of oppression which they witnessed, excited their compa.s.sion and aroused their indignation. In terms the most pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They could not endure the creatures, who "used their neighbors' service without wages, and gave him not for his work;"[A] who imposed "heavy burdens"[B] upon their fellows, and loaded them with "the bands of wickedness;" who, "hiding themselves from their own flesh," disowned their own mothers' children.

Professions of piety, joined with the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal scorn and execration, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the creature of such professions, that he could escape the wrath of Jehovah only by heartfelt repentance. And yet, according to the ecclesiastics with whom we have to do, the Lord of these prophets pa.s.sed by in silence just such enormities as he commanded them to expose and denounce! Every where, he came in contact with slavery in its worst forms--"horrible cruelties" forced themselves upon his notice; but not a word of rebuke or warning did he utter. He saw "a boy given for a harlot, and a girl sold for wine, that they might drink,"[C] without the slightest feeling of displeasure, or any mark of disapprobation! To such disgusting and horrible conclusions, do the arguings which, from the haunts of sacred literature, are inflictcd on our churches, lead us!

According to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the world, extinguished the torches which his own prophets had kindled, and plunged mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight! O Savior, in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer used as a "den of thieves!"

[Footnote A: Jeremiah xxii. 13.]

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

[Footnote C: Joel iii. 3.]

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

In pa.s.sing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsistent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted; to preach deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty them that are bruised; to preach the year of Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, he bound himself, from the earliest date of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties; himself "had not where to lay his head;" he exposed himself to misrepresentation and abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the outcasts of society; he stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing and dooming the heartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereavement a source of gain; and in describing the scenes of the final judgment, he selected the very personification of poverty, disease, and oppression, as the test by which our regard for him should be determined. To the poor and wretched; to the degraded and despised, his arms were ever open. They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his warmest love. His heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for the human family, reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, according to our ecclesiastics, that cla.s.s of sufferers who had been reduced immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation and distress; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of Adam, and forced to herd with swine; who, without the slightest offense, had been made the foot-stool of the worst criminals; whose "tears were their meat night and day," while, under nameless insults and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord:--this cla.s.s of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, occupying the high places of sacred literature, would make us believe the compa.s.sionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of pity; not a look of sympathy; not a word of consolation, did his gracious heart prompt him to bestow upon them! He denounces d.a.m.nation upon the devourer of the widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it is to make widows and devour them and their babes, he can calmly endure!

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

IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH.

It seems, that though, according to our Princeton professor, "the subject" of slavery "is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his personal instructions[A]," he had a way of "treating it." What was that?

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

and "inculcated the principles of justice and love."[B] And according to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished, "decide against" "the theory of slavery." All, then, that these ecclesiastical apologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alledged silence is, that he did not, in his personal instructions, "_apply his own principles to this particular form of wickedness_." For wicked that must be, which the maxims of the Savior decide against, and which our Princeton professor a.s.sures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted on, would speedily extinguish[C]. How remarkable it is, that a teacher should "hardly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon it!--should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that "slaveholding is not a crime[D]," and at the same time lend his authority for its "speedy extinction!"

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

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

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

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

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

As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only are their presence and power self-manifested, but they also shed a strong and clear light around them. In this light, other truths are visible.

Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To their authority, in every department of thought, the sane mind bows promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, and disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers as a reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus employed and when most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish? Why, to make the conclusions which he would establish and commend, _clear in the light of reason_;--in other words, to evince that _they are reasonable_. He expects, that those with whom he has to do, will acknowledge the authority of principle--will see whatever is exhibited in the light of reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to convince them, to do something more that show that the doctrines he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason--are 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.]