abolitionists, however, are not among those with whom we can thus associate. They occupy a position hostile alike to us, and to the word of God, and to every principle of charity. They do not attack the accidents of slavery, and attempt to show that they are essentials, but slavery itself they stigmatize as an unutterable crime, and slaveholders as on a footing with thieves and pirates. Is it to be expected that such libels will convince persons here, or that hard words will commend anybody as wiser and more courageous and better than the Saviour and his apostles? Examine all the anti-slavery publications, and what do they contain? Denude them of bold assertion and unmeasured invective against the accessories of slavery, and what is left? The simple question is, whether it is necessarily, and amidst all circumstances, a crime to hold men in a condition where they labor for another without their consent or contract? and in settling this matter all impertinences must be retrenched. But, if impertinences be removed, what remains in the abolition treatises? For example, slavery in these States may or may not be different from that mentioned in the Bible, and this may be a very important inquiry; but it is not the inquiry before us. So, with regard to the cruelty too often practised by unprincipled men: here is guilt, guilt punishable by our laws, and which should exclude such persons from Christian fellowship; the crime, however, is not slaveholding, but cruelty. The popular argument, that a human being should not be treated as a chattel, is in the same category of impertinences. The proposition is self-evident, but wholly irrelevant, The since it is by no means an attribute of slavery that a master may treat his slave as a chattel; the Bible forbids this, and every feeling of our nature rises up and must forever and effectually prevent it. Slavery is bondage, and nothing more. slave has his rights, many of which are protected by our laws, and all by the Bible. The power of the master to transfer his authority, surely does not alter the character of that authority; and to confound this with his right in things which he may destroy at pleasure, is to overlook the plainest distinctions. It seems monstrous to you that a man should be the property of another man; but why is it so monstrous ? Simply because you suppose that the word "property" involves a degradation to the state of a chattel. This, however, is plainly fallacious. Property in my furniture is one thing; property in my horse is a very different thing; and property in a slave entirely distinct still. To treat the brute as I might a chair, would be barbarous; and to use the slave as I might the brute, would justly make me infamous in any society, and draw down the vengeance of laws, human and divine. Property in a slave is only a right to his service without his consent or contract; and if this be necessarily criminal, then the authority of a father over his child, and of a government over its citizens, must be criminal too. I might easily protract these remarks, but it is unnecessary. Let it be recollected that the only proposition is this abstract assertion: slavery is itself a sin-always and by necessity a sin; and it appears to me you must either abandon the Bible, or make it teach an expediency and "keeping back" of truth, which it abhors, or modify your views. The matter stands thus: the Bible did authorize some sort of slavery; if now the abuses admitted and deplored by me be essentials of all slavery, then the Bible did allow those abuses; if it be impossible that revelation should permit such evils, then you must either reject the Scriptures, as some abolitionists are doing, or concede that these sins are only accidents of slavery, which may, and perhaps, in cases of many Christians, do exist without them. Before I dismiss this subject, I would glance at two arguments which are sometimes urged, and require a passing notice. The first is thus summed up by Dr. Wayland : "The manner in which the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, therefore, affords no ground for the assertion, that the gospel authorizes one man to hold another in bondage, any more than the command to honor the king, when that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor, or that the command to turn the other cheek when one is smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by an injurious man. To this the reply is easy. The gospel does not recognise either Nero or the injurious man as a Christian brother, but it does so recognise those who hold slaves. 66 The second argument is thus put by Dr. Channing. Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, was the practice of the holiest men, and was common and licensed in the age of the apostles. But the apostles nowhere condemn it, nor was the renunciation of it made an essential condition of admission into the Christian Church." And of this the sophistry is hardly specious. What if all that is affirmed be granted? it would only prove that polygamy is not sinful, and how is this connected with the matter at issue? But the gospel does forbid, and did at once abolish polygamy. That those who hold slaves are unfit members for a Christian church, is a novel doctrine, a new light, which would have been scouted from our churches fifty years ago. But no polygamist has ever been admitted or tolerated as a Christian since the establishment of Christianity. The Saviour expressly gave a new law as to divorce; and the very letter of that precept, and every word in the epistles as to marriage, recognise and require only one wife. Jesus says, "Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” Now what constitutes the adultery? Not "putting away his wife," but "marrying another :" therefore he who marrieth another without putting away is guilty. Paul says, "For the woman which hath a husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband; so then if while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.' "To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." Is not this express enough? Besides, it is a mistake in Dr. Channing and others to suppose that polygamy was common in the days of the Saviour and his apostles. The Roman and Grecian laws did not permit it; and such are the inconveniences and evils of the custom, that it had nearly ceased in Judea: hence, in the whole New Testament not a single instance is even alluded to. 12 LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. No further notice was therefore required than the language of Christ and the directions in the Epistles. But slavery was everywhere a part of the social organization of the earth; and slaves and their masters were members together of the churches; and minute instructions are given to each as to their duties, without even an insinuation that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery were "a heinous sin?" No! every candid man will answer, no! What, then, are we to think of those who revile us as pirates and thieves, and fulminate anathemas and excommunications against every Christian at the South, no matter what his conduct or character, simply because he will not submit to the arrogant behests of mortals who at best are, like himself, loaded with imperfections; and because he esteems the Bible a safer directory than the dogmas of men, most of whom are every day proving themselves destitute of the sound mind and charity of the gospel-of people who are essentially monomaniacs-who cannot live without running into some insanity-who, if slavery were abolished, would be just as mad upon amalgamation, or masonry, or Millerism, or some other matter-and with whom, in fine, whatever your course may be as to us, neither you, nor anybody at the North who loves Christ and the gospel better than self, and strife, and fanatical intolerance, will long be able to harmonize? In the charity of the gospel, and with all respect, Beaufort, S. C. |