  LESSON I.“The Works of William Ellery Channing, D.D.,” in six volumes. Tenth Edition. Boston, 1849. These volumes include essays, sermons, and lectures on various subjects. The style is easy, flowing, and persuasive; the language is generally clear, often elevated, sometimes sublime. Few can read the book and not feel the evidence, whatever may be the error of his doctrine, that the author added to his literary eminence a purity of intention. Such a work must always make a deep impression on the reader. It is this fact that prompts the present essay. It may be said of Channing what Channing said of Fenelon: “He needs to be read with caution, as do all who write from their own deeply excited minds. He needs to be received with deductions and explanations. * * * We fear that the very excellencies of Fenelon may shield his errors. Admiration prepares the mind for belief; and the moral and religious sensibility of the reader may lay him open to impressions which, while they leave his purity unstained, may engender causeless solicitude.” Vol. i. p. 185. Dr. Channing’s sympathies for every appearance of human suffering, for every grade of human imperfection, gave a peculiar phasis, perhaps most amiable to his intellect, religion, and writings. He sought perfection for himself—he was ardent to behold it universal. Heaven must for ever be the home of such a spirit. But the scenes of earth gave agitation and grief. Limited, in his earthly associations, to the habits of the North, the very purity of his heart led him to attack what he deemed the most wicked sin of the South. His politics were formed upon the model of his mind. But, O thou Being, God Eternal! why not this earth made heaven? Why thy most perfect work imperfection? Why thy child, clothed with holiness or shod with the gospel, run truant to thy law, thy providence and government? But, lo, we are not of thy council. We were not called when the foundations of eternity were laid. We are, truly, all very small beings. Our virtues, even purity, may lead in error. May not our best intentions lead down to wo? “It is a fact worthy of serious thought, and full of solemn instruction, that many of the worst errors have grown out of the religious tendencies of the mind. So necessary is it to keep watch over our whole nature, to subject the highest sentiments to the calm, conscientious reason. Men, starting from the idea of God, have been so dazzled by it, as to forget or misinterpret the universe.” Channing, vol. i. p. 14. LESSON II.Volume ii. page 14, Dr. Channing says— “1. I shall show that man cannot be justly held and used as property. “2. I shall show that man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction. “3. I shall offer some explanations to prevent misapplication of these principles. “4. I shall unfold the evils of slavery. “5. I shall consider the argument which the Scriptures are thought to furnish in favour of slavery. “6. I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it. “7. I shall offer some remarks on abolitionism. “8. I shall conclude with a few reflections on the duties belonging to the times.” In support of the first proposition, to wit, “I will show that man cannot be justly held and used as property,” the doctor has advanced seven arguments. He says, page 18—“It is plain, that, if one man may be held as property, then every other man may be The first idea we find, touching property, is in Gen. i. 26: “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Verse 28th: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” In Lev. xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men and bond-maids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen, that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids.” Verse 45: “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.” Verse 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen for ever.” And if we look at the first verse of this chapter, that the foregoing was announced by God himself to Moses from Sinai; and from which it would seem that God and Dr. Channing were of quite a different opinion on this subject. We know not what notion Dr. Channing may have entertained of “man’s indestructible rights.” But let us ask, what rights has he that may not be destroyed? The right to breath? Suppose, by his own wantonness, carelessness, or wickedness, he is submerged in water, what becomes of his right to breathe, since he can no longer exercise it? Can you name any right that, under the providence of God, may not be destroyed? Freemen have rights, but subject to alteration, and even extinction; slaves have rights, but subject to the same changes. There is no such thing as an “indestructible right” appertaining to any existence, save to the Great Jehovah! He must be an immortal God who can possess an indestructible right. We use the word “right” in Dr. Channing’s Such arguments may seem to give great aid and beauty to a mere rhetorical climax, but, before the lens of analyzation, evaporates into enthusiastic declamation,—which, in the present case, seems to be addressed to the sympathies, prejudices, and impulses of the human heart. In his writings on slavery, in fact through all his works, we find a fundamental error, most fatal to truth. He makes the conscience the great cynosura of all that is right in morals, and of all that is true in religion. Hence, in the passage before us,—“The consciousness of indestructible rights is a part of our moral being,”—the consciousness of such rights is his proof that we possess them; therefore, “the consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion (proof) that we cannot be owned;” and, therefore, “as men (being men) we cannot justly be made slaves.” So, page 25: “Another argument against the right of property in man, may be drawn from a very obvious principle of moral science, the conscience.” Page 33. “His conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator. He has an intuitive conviction that the obligations of this divine code press on others as truly as on himself. * * * There is no deeper principle in human nature than the consciousness of rights.” Vol. iii. page 18: “By this I mean that a Christian minister should beware of offering interpretations of Scripture which are repugnant to any clear discoveries of reason, or dictates of conscience.” Page 93: “We believe that all virtue has its foundation in the moral nature of man; that is, conscience, or his sense of duty.” Page 164: “One of the great excellencies of Christianity is that it does not deal in minute regulations; but, that, having given broad views of duty,” &c., * * * “it leaves us to apply Vol. vi. page 308: “We have no higher law than our conviction of duty.” “Conscience is the supreme power within us. Its essence, its grand characteristic, is sovereignty. It speaks with divine authority. Its office is to command, to rebuke, to reward; and happiness and honour depend on the reverence with which we listen to it.” Vol. iii. pp. 335, 336. Such passages plainly expose the view of what Dr. Channing calls conscience: in answer to which we say, the conscience may be a poor guide to truth. The African savage feels a clear conscience when he kills and eats his captive. The Hindoo mother is governed by her conscience when she plunges her new-born infant beneath the flood, a sacrifice to her gods. The idolaters of Palestine were subdued by conscience when they thrust their suckling infants into the flames to appease Moloch; yet God did not think it was right, and forbade them to do so. The truth is, the conscience is merely that part of the judgment which takes notice of what it deems right or wrong; consequently, is as prone to be in error as our judgment about any other matter. For the accuracy of this definition, we refer to all the standard writers on logic, and those on the human understanding, treating on the subject. And in fact, Dr. Channing is forced to recede from his position when he finds that Abraham, Philemon, and some good men even of the present day, were slave-owners; and in vol. vi. page 55, he says—“It is a solemn truth, not yet understood as it should be, that the worst institutions may be sustained, the worst deeds performed, the most merciless cruelties inflicted by the conscientious and the good.” And again, page 57: “The great truth is now insisted on, that evil is evil, no matter at whose door it lies; and that men acting from conscience and religion may do nefarious deeds, needs to be better understood.” Would it not have been more frank for Dr. Channing to have said, that the conscience would be an unerring guide so long as it agreed with his, but when it did not, why, then he would inquire into the matter? It is to be lamented that, among the unlearned at the present If we shall be permitted to speak of property, in reference to our and its relation to the Divine Being, then we cannot strictly say that man can own property. Jehovah stands in no need. Behold the cattle upon a thousand hills are his; all is the work of his hand; all, all is his property alone! At most, God has only intrusted the possession, the administration of the subjects of his creation, to man for the time being,—to multiply, to replenish and subdue. It is only in reference to our relation to one another that we can advance the idea of property. Man was commanded to have dominion over the whole earth, to replenish and subdue, in proportion to the talent bestowed on him for that purpose. This command presupposes such a state of things as we find, of advancement, progression, and improvement. But in the course of the Divine administration, God has seen fit to bestow on one man ten talents, and on another but one; and who shall stand upon the throne of the Almighty, and decide that he of the ten talents shall have no relation with the progression of him of but one talent? “Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him of ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Matt. xxv. 28, 29; see also Luke xvii. 24–26. And what, in the course of Divine providence, is to become of him who buried his talent in the earth, and from whom it was taken away? “Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.” Luke xii. 43, 44. “Jesus answered them, Verily I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (d?????, doulos, slave) of sin.” John viii. 34. “Behold for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves.” Isa. l. 1. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” Gen. ix. 25. ?????? ?????????ebed ?abadÎm ebed, ebedim, a most abject slave shall he be! LESSON III.The second argument in support of his first proposition is, “A man cannot be seized and held as property, because he has rights;” to enforce which, he says—“Now, I say, a being having rights cannot justly be made property; for this claim over him virtually annuls all his rights.” We see no force of argument in this position. It is also true that all domestic animals, held as property, have rights. “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib.” They all have “the right of petition;” and ask, in their way, for food: are they the less property? But his third argument in support of his first proposition is, that man cannot justly be held as property, on the account of the “essential equality of man.” If to be born, to eat, to drink, and die alike, constitutes an essential equality among men, then be it so! What! the African savage, born even a slave amid his native wilds, who entertains no vestige of an idea of God, of a future state of existence, of moral accountability; who has no wish beyond the gratification of his own animal desire; whose parentage, for ages past, has been of the same order; and whose descendants are found to require generations of constant training before they display any permanent moral and intellectual advancement; what, such a one essentially equal to such a man as Dr. Channing? The truth is, such a man is more essentially equal with the brute creation. We shall consider the subject of the equality in another part of our study, to which we refer. We, therefore, only remark, that the doctrine is a chimera. His fourth argument in support of the proposition is, “That man cannot justly be held as property, because property is an exclusive right.” “Now,” he says, “if there be property in any thing, it is that of a man in his own person, mind, and strength.” “Property,” he repeats, “is an exclusive right.” If a man has an exclusive right to property, he can alienate it; he may sell, give, and bequeath it to others. If a man is the property of himself, suppose he shall choose to sell himself to another, and deliver himself in full possession to the purchaser, as he had before been in the full possession of himself—whose property will His fifth argument is that, “if a human being cannot without infinite injustice be seized as property, then he cannot, without equal wrong, be held and used as such.” If a human being shall be found a nuisance to himself and others in a state of freedom, then there will be no injustice in his being subjugated, by law, to such control as his qualities prove him to require in reference to the general good; even if the subject shall not choose such control as a personal benefit to himself. The sixth argument is, that a human being cannot be held as property, because, if so held, “the latter is under obligation to give himself up as a chattel to the former.” “Now,” he says, “do we not instantly feel, can we help feeling, that this is false?” And that “the absence of obligation proves the want of the right.” We suppose all acknowledge God as the author of the moral law. The moral law forcibly inculcates submission to the civil or political law, even independent of any promise to do so. Now, no one can have a right to act in contradiction to law. The absence of this right, then, proves the existence of the obligation. For his seventh argument, he says—“I come now to what is, to my mind, the great argument against seizing and using a man as property. He cannot be property in the sight of God and justice, because he is a rational, moral, immortal being; because created in God’s image, and therefore in the highest sense his child; because created to unfold godlike faculties, and to govern himself by a Divine law, written on his heart, and republished in God’s word.” Dr. Channing adds a page or two in the same impulsive strain, of the same enthusiastic character. We may admire his style, his language, the amiable formation of his mind, but we see nothing like precision or logical deduction in support of his proposition. We see nothing in it but the declamation of a learned, yet an over-ardent, enthusiastic mind. His whole book is but a display of his mental formation. He could love his friends; yea, his enemies. He could have rewarded virtue, but he never could have punished sin. He could have forgiven the greatest outrage, but he never could have yielded a delinquent to the rigid demands of justice. He was a good man, but he never could have been an unbending judge. The laws of God have been made for the government and benefit of his creatures. God, nor his law, is, like man, changeable. We anticipate from another portion of our studies, that “sin is any want of conformity unto the law of God.” Sin is as necessarily followed by ill consequences to the sinner as cause is by effect. A man commits a private murder; think ye, he feels no horrors of mind—no regrets? Is the watchfulness he finds necessary to keep over himself for fear of exposure, through the whole of life, not the effect of the act? Is not his whole conduct, his friendships and associations with men, his very mental peculiarities, his estimate of others, often all influenced and directed in the path of his personal safety, the avoidance of suspicion? And is all this no punishment? Probably, to have been put to death would have been a much less suffering; and who can tell how far this long, fearful, and systematic working of his mind is to affect the mental peculiarities of his offspring? Shall he, who, by wanton thoughtlessness, regardless of propriety, the moral law, and the consequences of its breach, contracts some foul, loathsome, consuming disease, that burns into the bones, and becomes a part of his physical constitution, leave no trace of his sin on his descendants? Deteriorated, feeble, and diseased, they shall not live out half their days! A long-continued course of sin, confined to an individual, or extended to a family or race of people, deteriorates, degenerates, and destroys. Such deterioration, continued perhaps from untold time, has brought some of the races of men to what we now find them; and the same causes, in similar operation, would leave the same effect on any other race; and Dr. Channing’s “child of God” ceases to be so. “Ye are of your father, the devil.” John viii. 44. “And Dr. Channing’s man, created to unfold godlike faculties, and to govern himself by a Divine law written on his heart,” ceases to act as he supposes: “And the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; because there is no truth in him.” John viii. 44. And what saith the Spirit of prophecy to these degenerate sons of “And if thou shalt say in thy heart, wherefore came these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil. Therefore will I scatter them as stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness. This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord: because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood. Therefore, will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.” Jer. xiii. 22–26. “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Joel iii. 8. And what saith the same Spirit to those of opposite character? “The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet.” Isa. lx. 14. “And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vine-dressers.” Ibid. lxi. 5. “They (my people) shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth trouble; they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, before they shall call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.” Ibid. lxv. 234. What are the threatenings announced in prospect of their deterioration and wickedness? “And thou (Judah) even thyself, shalt discontinue from thy heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve (?????????????abadtÎka be a slave to) thine enemies in a land which thou knowest not.” Jer. xvii. 4. “Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. * * * Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon this sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.” Amos ix. 7, 8. The consequences of sin are degradation, slavery, and death: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind; and the fool shall be servant (???????ebed ebed, slave) to the wise of heart.” “As righteousness tendeth to life, so he that pursueth evil, pursueth it to his own death.” Prov. Dr. Channing has suffered his idea of property to bring him great mental suffering: he evidently associates, under the term property, those qualities and relations only, which are properly associated in an inanimate object of possession, or at most in a brute beast. He has, no doubt, suffered great misery from the reflection that a human being has ever been reduced to such a condition. But his misery has all been produced by his adherence to his own peculiar definition of the word property. His definition is not its exact meaning, when applied to a slave. Had the doctor attempted an argument to show that the word property could not consistently be applied to a slave, he might, perhaps, have improved our language, by setting up a more definite boundary to the meaning of this term, and saved himself much useless labour. Mankind apply the term property to slaves: they have always done so; and since Dr. Channing has not given us an essay upon the impropriety of this use of the word, perhaps the accustomed usage will be continued. But we imagine that no one but the doctor and his disciples will contend that it expresses the same complex idea when applied to slaves, which is expressed by it when applied to inanimate objects, or to brute beasts. It will be a new idea to the slaveholder to be told that the word property, as applied to his slaves, converts them at once into brute beasts, no longer human beings; that it deprives them of all legal protection; and that he, the master, in consequence of the use of this word, stands in the same relation to his slave that he does to his horse; and we apprehend he will find it quite as difficult to comprehend how this metamorphosis is brought about, as it is for the doctor and his disciples, how the slave is property. We may say a man has property in his wife, his children, his hireling, his slave, his horse, and a piece of timber,—by which we mean that he has the right to use them, in conformity to the relations existing between himself and these several objects. Because his horse is his property, who ever dreamed that he had therefore the right to use him as a piece of timber? The organization of society is the result of the conception of the general good. By it one man, under a certain chain of circumstances, inherits a throne; another, a farm; one, the protection of a bondman, or whatever may accrue to these conditions from other operating causes; and another, nothing. If Dr. Channing and his disciples can find out some new principles by which to organize society, producing different and better results, they will then do what has not been done. LESSON IV.The doctrine that slavery, disease, and death are the necessary effects of sin, we humbly claim to perceive spread on every page of the holy books. This doctrine is forcibly illustrated in the warning voice of Jehovah to the Israelites. They were emphatically called his children—peculiar people—his chosen ones. He made covenants with them to bless them; yet all these were founded upon their adherence to the Divine law. These promises repealed no ordinance of Divine necessity in their behalf. He expressed, revealed the law, so far as it was important for them at the time, and then says, Deut. xxviii. 14–68:— “15. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee: “16. Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. “17. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. “18. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. “19. Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. “20. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be “21. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. “22. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew: and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. “23. And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. “24. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed. “25. The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them; and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. “26. And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. “27. The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. “28. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart: “29. And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways; and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee. “30. Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof. “31. Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thy ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them. “32. Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thy eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long: and there shall be no might in thy hand. “34. So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thy eyes which thou shalt see. “35. The Lord shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head. “36. The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, and there shalt thou serve (????????????we?abadta ve abadta, and shall slave yourselves to) other gods, wood and stone: “37. And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee. “38. Thou shalt carry much seed out unto the field, and shalt gather but little in: for the locust shall consume it. “39. Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes: for the worms shall eat them. “40. Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil: for thine olive shall cast his fruit. “41. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them, for they shall go into captivity.” (Into captivity is translated from ?????????baŠebÎ bashshebi; the prefix preposition in, into, &c. here makes bash. The root is shebi. The translation is correct, but the idea extends to such a possession of the captive as includes the idea of a right of property. The same word is used when dumb beasts are taken as spoil in war; thus, Amos iv. 10, ????? ?????????ŠebÎ sÛsÊkem shebi susekem, I have taken your horses, i. e. I have captured your horses,—the right of property in the horses is changed. The idea in the text is, they shall go into slavery.) “42. All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume. “43. The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. “44. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. “45. Moreover, all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed: because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee. (For a sign ????oth oth, a mark, sign, &c. It may be noted that this word is used in Gen. iv. 15: “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain,” ????oth oth, mark, sign, &c.) “47. Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart for the abundance of all things. “48. Therefore shalt thou serve (??????????abadta be a slave to) thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee. “49. The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; “50. A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young: “51. And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. “52. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land which the Lord thy God hath given thee. “53. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: “54. So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave. “55. So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. “56. The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, “57. And toward her young one that cometh out from between “58. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name THE LORD THY GOD. “59. Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses and of long continuance. “60. Moreover, he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and they shall cleave unto thee. “61. Also every sickness, and every plague which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed. “62. And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God. “63. And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. “64. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people from the one end of the earth even to the other, and thou shalt serve (??????????obadta, be slave to) other gods which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. “65. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind. “66. And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: “67. In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even shalt thou say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thy heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. “68. And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-women, and no man shall buy you. Ye shall be sold, i. e. be exposed to sale, or expose yourselves to sale, as the word ???????????????hitmakkartem hith maccartem may be rendered; The markets were overstocked with them, says Josephus: * * * “They were sold with their wives and children at the lowest price, there being many to be sold, and few purchasers.” Hegesippus also says—“There were many captives offered for sale, but few buyers, because the Romans disdained to take the Jews for slaves, and there were not Jews remaining to redeem their countrymen.” “When Jerusalem was taken by Titus, of the captives who were sent into Egypt, those under seventeen were sold; but so little care was taken of them, that 11,000 of them perished for want.” Bishop Newton. St. Jerome says—“After their last overthrow by Adrian, many thousands of them were sold, and those who could not be sold were transported into Egypt, and perished by shipwreck and famine, or were massacred by the inhabitants.” A similar condition happened to the Jews in Spain, when, under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, they were driven out of that kingdom, concerning which, Abarbinel, a Jewish writer says—“Three hundred thousand, young and old, women and children, (of whom he was one,) not knowing where to go, left on foot in one day: some became a prey, some perished by famine, some by pestilence,—some committed themselves to the sea, but were sold for slaves when they came to any coast; many were drowned and burned in the ships which were set on fire. In short, all suffered the punishment of God the Avenger.” Benson, in his Commentary, says—“How these instances may affect others, I know not, but for myself I must acknowledge, they not only convince, but astonish me beyond expression. They are truly, as Moses foretold they would be, a sign and a wonder for ever.” Scott says—“Numbers of captives were sent by sea into Egypt, (as well as into other countries,) and sold for slaves at a vile price, and for the meanest offices; and many thousands were left to perish from want; for the multitude was so great that purchasers could not be found for them all at any price. * * * To such wretchedness is every one exposed, who lives in disobedience to God’s commands. * * * None will suffer any misery above his deserts: but, indeed, we are all exposed to this woful curse, for breaking the law of God.” Upon a review of all this evidence, to what conclusion is the mind inclined? Are there no circumstances under which man may become a slave—“property, in the sight of God and justice?” Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. page 28—“Such a being (man) was plainly made to obey a law within himself. This is the essence of a moral being. He possesses, as part of his nature, and the most essential part, a cause of duty, which he is to reverence and follow.” This is in accordance with his idea of conscience—“the Divine monitor within us.” But we are forced to differ from Dr. Channing. To obey the law of God, not some creature of man’s, or our own judgment, is the creed we inculcate; and we further teach that “such a being was plainly made” “to reverence and follow” the law of God, not his own opinion or the feelings of his own heart. If this doctrine is not true in theology, can it be so in regard to slavery, or any thing else? Page 29, he says—“Every thing else may be owned in the universe; but a moral, rational being cannot be property. Suns and stars may be owned, but not the lowest spirit. Touch any thing but this. Lay not your hand upon God’s rational offspring. The whole spiritual world cries out, Forbear!” We do not quote this as an argument. If his postulate be true concerning the “law within himself,” he needs no argument; his opinion is enough: his feeling, his “sense of duty” governs the matter. But, while his disciples “reverence and follow” their “sense of duty,” by obeying a law within themselves, and, according to their conscience, “own the sun and stars,” may not those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, who “reverence and follow” it, as their “sense of duty,” and obey it as a law within themselves, according to their conscience, own slaves? But Dr. Channing continues—“The highest intelligences recognise their own nature, their own rights, in the humblest human being. By that priceless, immortal spirit which dwells in him, by that likeness of God which he wears, tread him not in the dust, confound him not with the brute.” And he then gravely adds—“We have thus seen that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used as property. No legislation, not that of all countries or Such were his opinions. We view them, if not the ravings, at least the impressions, of fanaticism. When counsellor Quibble saw his client Stultus going to the stocks, he cried out, “It is contrary to my sense of justice; to the laws of God and man; no power can make it right!” Yet Stultus is in the stocks! But what shall we say of him who makes the sanction of his own feelings the foundation of his creed, of his standard of right? What of him, who, in his search for truth, scarcely or never alludes to the Bible as the voice of God, as the Divine basis of his reasons, as the pillar on which argument may find rest? Has some new revelation inspired him? Has he heard a voice louder and more clear than the thunder, the trumpet from the mount of God? Has he beheld truth by a light more lucid than the flaming garments of Jehovah? Or has he only seen a cloud, not from the top of Sinai, but from the dismal pit of human frailty? LESSON V.Dr. Channing’s second proposition is: “Man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction;” in proof of which he says, vol. ii. p. 23—“Man’s rights belong to him as a moral being, as capable of perceiving moral distinctions, a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he becomes conscious of a duty, a kindred consciousness springs up, that he has a right to do what the sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign will or power can obstruct his moral action without crime.” Suppose man has rights as described; suppose he feels conscious, as he says; does that give him a right to do wrong, because his sense of duty enjoins him to do so? And may he not be prevented from so doing? Was it indeed a crime in God to turn the counsels of Ahithophel into foolishness? Page 33. “That some inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him!” Suppose a few Africans, on an excursion to capture slaves, find that this “inward Idem, p. 33. “The sense of duty is the fountain of human rights. In other words, the same inward principle which teaches the former, bears witness to the latter.” If the African’s sense of duty gives the right to make Dr. Channing a slave, we do not see why he should complain; since, by his own rule, the African’s sense of duty proves him to possess the right which his sense of duty covets. Page 34. “Having shown the foundation of human rights in human nature, it may be asked, what they are. * * * They may all be comprised in the right, which belongs to every rational being, to exercise his powers for the promotion of his own and others’ happiness and virtue. * * * His ability for this work is a sacred trust from God, the greatest of all trusts. He must answer for the waste or abuse of it. He consequently suffers an unspeakable wrong when stripped of it by others, or forbidden to employ it for the ends for which it is given.” We regret to say that we feel an objection to Channing’s argument and mode of reasoning, for its want of definiteness and precision. If what he says on the subject of slavery were merely intended as eloquent declamations, addressed to the sympathies and impulses of his party, we should not have been disposed to have named such an objection. But his works are urged on the world as sound logic, and of sufficient force to open the eyes of every slaveholder to the wickedness of the act, and to force him, through the medium of his “moral sense,” to set the slaves instantly free. A moral action must not only be the voluntary offspring of the actor, but must also be performed, to be judged by laws which shall determine it to be good or bad. These laws, man being the moral agent, we say, are the laws of God; by them man is to measure his conduct. Locke says, “Moral good and evil are the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn upon us from the will or power of the lawmaker.” But the doctrine of Dr. Channing seems to be that this law is each man’s conscience, moral sense, sense of duty, or the inward principle. If the proposition of Mr. Locke be sound logic, what becomes of these harangues of Dr. Channing? If the conscience, as Dr. Channing thinks, is the guide between right and wrong according to the law of God; then the law of God must be quite changeable, because the minds of men differ. Each makes his own deduction; therefore, in that case, the law of God must be what each one may severally think it to be; which is only other language to say there is no law at all. “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.” Prov. xxi. 2. But, “The statutes of the Lord are right.” Ps. xix. 8. The laws of God touching the subject of slavery are spread through every part of the Scriptures. Human reason may do battle, but the only result will be the manifestation of its weakness. The institution of slavery must, of necessity, continue in some form, so long as sin shall have a tendency to lead to death; so long as Jehovah shall rule, and exercise the attributes of mercy to fallen, degraded man. But let us for a moment view the facts accompanying the slavery of the African race, and compare them with the assertion, p. 35, that every slave “suffers a grievous wrong;” and, p. 49, that every slave-owner is a “robber,” however unconscious he may be of the fact. So far as history gives us any knowledge of the African tribes, for the last 4000 years, their condition has been stationary; at least they have given no evidence of advancement in morals or civilization beyond what has been the immediate effect of the exchange of their slaves for the commodities of other parts of the world. So far as this trade had influence, it effected almost a total abolition of cannibalism among them. That the cessation of cannibalism was the result of an exchange of their slaves as property for the merchandise of the Christian nations, is proved by the fact that they have returned to their former habits in that respect upon those nations discontinuing the slave-trade with them. Which is the greatest wrong to a slave, to be continued in servitude, or to be butchered for food, because his labour is not wanted by his owner? No very accurate statistics can be given of African affairs; but their population has been estimated at 50,000,000, and to have Will any one hesitate to acknowledge, that, to them, slavery, regulated by law, among civilized nations is a state of moral, mental, and physical elevation? A proof of this is found in the fact that the descendants of such slaves are found to be, in all things, their superiors. If their descendants were found to deteriorate from the condition of the parents, we should hesitate to say that slavery was to them a blessing. Which would man consider the most like an act of mercy in Jehovah, to continue them in their state of slavery to their African master, brother, and owner, or to order them into that condition of slavery in which we find them in these States? Which state of slavery would a man prefer, to a savage, or to a civilized master? The Hebrews, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans have, on the borders of Africa, to some extent, amalgamated with them, from time immemorial. But such amalgamation has never been known to attain to the position, either physically, mentally, or morally, of their foreign progenitors; perhaps superior to the interior tribes, yet often they scarcely exhibit a mental or moral trace of their foreign extraction. The thoughtless, those of slovenly morals, or those of none at all, from among the descendants of Japheth, have commingled with them in the new world; but the amalgamation never exhibits a corresponding elevation in the direction of the white progenitor. The connection may degrade the parent, but never elevate the offspring. The great mass look upon the connection with abhorrence and loathing; Since the days of Noah, where are their monuments of art, religion, science, and civilization? Is it not a fact that the highest moral and intellectual attainment which the descendants of Ham ever displayed is now, at this time, manifested among those in servile pupilage? The very fact of their being property gives them protection. What, he their “robber,” who watches over their welfare with more effect and integrity than all their ancestry together since the days of Noah! By the contrivance of making them property, has God alone given them the protection which 4000 years of sinking degradation demand, in an upward movement towards their physical, mental, and moral improvement, their rational happiness on earth, and their hopes of heaven. What, God’s agent in this matter a robber of them! Let us assure the disciples of Dr. Channing that there are thousands of slaves too acute observers of truth to come to such a conclusion; who, although from human frailty they may sometimes seem to suffer an occasional or grievous wrong, can yet give good reason in proof that slavery is their only safety. Let us cast the mind back to a period of five hundred years ago. A Christian ship, intent on new discoveries, lands on the African coast. The petty chieftain there, is and about to sacrifice a number of his slaves, either to appease the manes of his ancestor, to propitiate his gods, or to gratify his appetite by feasting. Presents have been made to the natives; it is thought their friendship is secured; the Christians are invited to the fÊte, the participants are collected, the victims brought forward, and the club uplifted for the blow. The Christians, struck with surprise, or excited by horror, remonstrate with the chief; to which he sullenly replies: “Yonder my goats, my village, all around my domain; these are my slaves!” meaning that, by the morals and laws that have from time immemorial prevailed there, his rights are absolute; that he feels it as harmless to kill a slave as a goat, or dwell in his village. But the clothing of the Christian is presented, the viands of art are offered, the food of civilization is tasted, the cupidity of the Let us look back to the days of the house of Saul, when, perhaps, David, hiding himself from his face amid the villages of Ammon, chanced upon the ancestors of Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam, a later king of Israel. Finding them about to sacrifice a child upon the altar of Moloch, “Stay thy hand!” says the son of Jesse; “I have a message to thee from the God of Israel; deliver me the child for these thirty pieces of silver!” And, according to the law of the God of his fathers, it becomes his “bond-man for ever.” What, was David a robber in all this? Suppose the child to have been sold, resold, and sold again, is the character of the owner changed thereby? But it is concerning the rights of the descendants of these slaves that we have now to inquire. See Luke xvii. 7–10: “7. But which of you having a servant (d?????, slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he has come from the field, Go, and sit down to meat? “8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? “9. Doth he thank that servant (d?????, slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. “10. So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” Suppose a proprietor, in any country or at any age, receives into his employment an individual, who thereafter resides and has a family upon his estate: upon the death of the individual, will his heirs accrue to any of the rights of the proprietor, other than those granted, or those consequent to their own or their ancestor’s condition, or those that may accrue by operation of law? Where is the political enactment, the moral precept, the Divine command, teaching an adverse doctrine? Before we close our view of Dr. Channing’s second proposition, we design to notice his use of the word “nature.” He says, that man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human “nature.” We confess that we are somewhat at a loss to determine the precise idea the doctor affixes to this term. The phrase “human nature” is in most frequent use through these volumes. But in vol. We regret that so eminent and accurate a scholar, and so influential a man, should have fallen into such an indefinite and confused use of any portion of our language. If we mistake not, it will require more than usual reflection for the mind to determine what idea is presented by its use in the most of these instances. We know that some use this word so vaguely, that if required to explain the idea they wished to convey by it, they would be unable to do so. But there are those from whom we expect a better use of language. Many English readers pass over such sentences without stopping to think what are the distinct ideas of the writer. There are, in our language, a few words used in our conversational dialect, as if especially intended for the speaker’s aid when he only had a confused idea, or perhaps none at all, of what he designed to say; and we extremely regret that words, to us of so important meaning, as nature and conscience, should be found among that class. The teacher of theology and morals should surely be careful not to lead his pupils into error. Might not the unskilled inquirer infer that nature was a substantive existence, taking rank somewhere between man and the Deity? And what would be his notion, derived from such use of the term, of its offices, of its influence on, and man’s relation with it? What is our notion as to the definite idea these passages convey? “Man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction.” By “human nature,” as here used, we understand the condition or state of being a man in a general sense. Our inference is, then, that God has given man rights, that is, all men the same rights, which are inseparable from his state of being a man; consequently, if by any means these rights are taken from him, then his state of being a man is changed, or ceases to exist; and since slavery breaks these rights, therefore a slave is not a man. If slavery is sinful because it infringes the rights of man, then any other thing is also sinful which infringes them. Will the disciples of Dr. Channing deny that these rights are infringed by the constitution of the civil government? The law gives parents the right to govern, command, and restrain minor children; to inflict punishment for their disobedience. Is parental authority a sin? Government, in every form, is found to deprive females of a large proportion of the rights which men possess. When married, their rights are wholly absorbed in the rights of the husband. This must be very sinful! Idiots have no rights. In reality, the very idea of rights vanishes away with the power to exercise them. But in a state of civil government, it is a mere question of expediency how personal rights shall be adjusted; which is very manifest, if we look at the different constitutions of government now in the world. In one, men who follow certain occupations have certain rights as a consequence. Men who are found guilty of certain breaches of the law lose a portion or all their rights. The president of our senate loses the right to vote, except under condition; and we agree that a mere majority shall rule. Thus forty-nine of the hundred cease to find their rights available. They must submit. Man, as a member of civil society, is only a small fraction of an unit, and has no right to exercise a right unconformably to the expression of the sense of the general good. Man has no right to live independent of his fellow-man, like a plant or a tree; consequently, his rights must be determined and bounded by the general welfare. Dr. Channing ceases to be enlightened by moral science when he announces that, because a man is “conscious of duty,” therefore, what he may think his right cannot be affected by others “without crime.” So reverse may be the fact, that it may be a crime in him to claim the right his conscious duty may suggest. Man cannot be said to be in possession of all things that he, or such theorists, may deem his rights only in a monocratic state. But how will he retain them? For then, so far as he shall have intercourse with others, every thing will come to be decided by the law of might; so that, instead of gaining, he will lose all rights. But suppose him to live without intercourse; what is a naked, abstract right, that yields him nothing above the brute? God never made Will the disciples of Dr. Channing be surprised to find that the only medicine God has prepared for such a loathsome moral disease as will then be developed, is slavery to a higher order of men? Dr. Channing’s third position is to offer explanations to prevent misapplication of the principles presented in his first two propositions. Vol. ii. page 51, he says—“Sympathy with the slave has often degenerated into injustice towards the master.” We fully agree with him; and we also admit “that the consciences of men are often darkened by education.” This short chapter is evidently written in a spirit of conciliation, and contains many truths eloquently told; yet, he finally grasps his doctrines, and repeats his elucidations. His fourth position is, “To unfold the evils of slavery.” He says the first great evil is the debasement of the slave. Page 60: “This word, (slave,) borrowed from his condition, expresses the ruin wrought by slavery within him. * * * To be an instrument of the physical, material good of another, whose will is his highest law, he is taught to regard as the great purpose of his being. Here lies the evil of slavery. Its whips, imprisonment, and even the horrors of the middle passage from Africa to America, these are not to be named in comparison with this extinction of the proper consciousness of a human being, with the degradation of a man into a brute.” If it be a fact that the debasement of the negro race has been brought about by their having been made slaves in America; then it will be a very strong argument, we are willing to acknowledge, an insurmountable one, against the institution. That Dr. Channing thinks such to be the fact, we have no doubt; for we cannot a moment admit that he would assert what he did not believe was true. But “the consciences of men are often darkened by education.” We hold that the assertion is capable of proof, that the debasement The leading object, through all our studies, is the elucidation of the fact, that sin has a poisonous effect upon the moral, mental, and physical man, that is in constant action in the direction of deterioration, debasement, ruin, death. Such we teach to be the doctrine of the holy books, spread through the whole volume, elucidated upon every page; that slavery, like a saviour, steps in upon this descending road, arresting the downward progress, the rapid fall to final, to unalterable ruin and death. “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments,—then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.” Ps. lxxxix. 30–32. “A righteous man hateth lying: but a wicked man is loathsome, and cometh to shame.” Prov. xiii. 5. “Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, return, ye children of men.” Ps. xc. 3. “I have therefore delivered unto the mighty one of the heathen; he shall surely deal with him: I have driven him out for his wickedness.” Ezek. xxxi. 11. “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off; for the Lord hath spoken it.” Joel iii. 8. “Nevertheless they shall be his servants (???????????la?abadÎm slaves), that they may know my service (?????????????abÔdatÎ, and the service (????????????wa?abÔdat, slavery) of the kingdoms of the countries.” 2 Chron. xii. 8. “The show of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Wo unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.” Isa. iii. 9. “Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.” “And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled: but the Lord of hosts shall be exalted in judgment, and God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness.” Isa. v. 13, 15, 16. Dr. Channing’s book before us goes on to specify this debasement as to the intellect; its influence on the domestic relations; how it “produces and gives license to cruelty.” The fact that Channing, pp. 78, 79. “I proceed to another view of the evils of slavery. I refer to its influence on the master. * * * I pass over many views. * * * I will confine myself to two considerations. The first is, that slavery, above all other influences, nourishes the passion for power and its kindred vices. There is no passion which needs a stronger curb. Men’s worst crimes have sprung from the desire of being masters, of bending others to their yoke.” It is to be lamented that man is so prone to sin; that he is not more undeviating in the paths of virtue, of goodness, of perfection. The charge made by Dr. Channing in the passage quoted, we are sorry to acknowledge, is too true. But so far as we have any knowledge of the history of man, even in the absence of slavery, the time has never been when the passion for power and its kindred vices did not find sufficient food for their nourishment. The evil passions alluded to are not so particular as to their food but that, if they do not find a choice thing to nourish themselves on, they will feed and nourish themselves on another. It, perhaps, would not be difficult to show that the love of power and its kindred vices first operated to bring on us “all our wo;” stimulated Cain to kill Abel; in fact, has been in most powerful action among those causes that have introduced slavery to the world. Slavery gave no birth to these passions. They drove Nebuchadnezzar from his throne down to the degradation of the brute. “Is not this great Babylon that I have built for the house of the kingdom, by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?” Dan. iv. 12. He had great power, great wealth, and, it is true, he had great possessions in slaves. The prophet understood his case, and spoke plainly. If his owning thousands of slaves merely had nursed in him a forgetfulness of God, the seer would not have hesitated so to inform him. Great prosperity in the affairs of the world in his case, as in some others of a somewhat later day, so puffed him up that he forgot who he was. The owning of slaves may puff up a silly intellect—doubtless, often does; but the same intellect would be Doubtless, the disciples of Dr. Channing will agree that abundant instances of such tumidity might be found in any country, even among those who never owned a slave. It may be a fact, that, to some, the having control over and owning a slave have a greater tendency to produce the effect of puffing up the owner than would his value in money or other property; because it may be a fact that a given amount in one kind of property may possess such tendency to a greater extent than another. But the truth probably is, that one man would be the most puffed up by one thing, and another man by another. We agree that being thus puffed up is a sin; that it leads to consequences extremely ruinous, and often fatal. Very small men are also liable to the disease, and they sometimes take it from very slight causes. It is true, “there is no passion that needs a stronger curb.” What we contend is, that it is not a necessary consequence of owning slaves, any more than it is of owning any other property, or of possessing any other command of men; and that so far as it is an argument against owning slaves, it is also an argument against owning any other property, or of having any other control, or of possessing any other command among men. LESSON VII.Dr. Channing continues his view of the evils of slavery, and says, p. 80, 81— “I approach a more delicate subject, and one on which I shall not enlarge. To own the persons of others, to hold females in slavery, is necessarily fatal to the purity of a people: that unprotected females, stripped by their degraded condition of woman’s self-respect, should be used to minister to other passions in man than the love of gain, is next to inevitable. Accordingly, in such a community, the reins are given to youthful licentiousness. Youth, everywhere in peril, is, in these circumstances, urged to vice with a terrible power. And the evil cannot stop at youth. Early licentiousness is fruitful of crime in mature life. How far “But the worst is not told. As a consequence of criminal connections, many a master has children born into slavery. Of these, most, I presume, receive protection, perhaps indulgence, during the life of the fathers; but at their death, not a few are left to the chances of a cruel bondage. These cases must have increased since the difficulties of emancipation have been multiplied. Still more, it is to be feared that there are cases in which the master puts his own children under the whip of the overseer, or sells them to undergo the miseries of a bondage among strangers. “I should rejoice to learn that my impressions on this point are false. If they be true, then our own country, calling itself enlightened and Christian, is defiled with one of the greatest enormities on earth. We send missionaries to heathen lands. Among the pollutions of heathenism, I know nothing worse than this. The heathen who feasts on his country’s foe, may hold up his head by the side of the Christian who sells his child for gain, sells him to be a slave. God forbid that I should charge this crime to a people! But, however rarely it may occur, it is a fruit of slavery, an exercise of power belonging to slavery, and no laws restrain or punish it. Such are the evils which spring naturally from the licentiousness generated by slavery.” The owner of slaves who acts in conformity to the foregoing picture, to our mind displays proofs of very great debasement, and his offspring, stained with the blood of Ham, we should deem most likely to be quite fit subjects of slavery: we cannot therefore regret that the laws do not punish nor restrain him from selling them as slaves; we should rather regret that the laws did not compel him to go with them. That there are instances in the Slave States where the owner of female slaves cohabits with them, and has offspring by them, is We hold that cohabitation with the blacks, on the part of the whites, is a great sin, and is proof of a great moral debasement; nor will we say but that the conservative influences of God’s providence may have moved the abolitionists to the action of for ever placing a bar to the emancipation of this class of slaves, such coloured offspring, in order that the enormity of the sin of such cohabitation may be brought home, in a more lively sense, to the minds of their debased parents. “I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left. “And the Lord said, Who will entice Ahab, king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth Gilead? And one spake after this manner, and another saying after that manner. “Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will entice him; and the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? “And he said, I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou shalt entice him.” 2 Chron. xviii. 18–21; 1 Kings, xxii. 19. We wish to state a fact which may not be generally known to the disciples of Dr. Channing: we speak of Louisiana, where we live. Here is a floating population, emigrants from all parts of the world, especially from free countries and states, nearly or quite equal in number to the native-born citizens who have been raised But again, there are instances where an individual from this class, who thus cohabits with some master’s slave, and has offspring, and, succeeding in some business, buys her, probably with the intention of emancipation; but, as he becomes a proprietor and fixed citizen, procrastination steals upon him, and he finds himself enthralled by a coloured family for life. Let the number of these instances be compared with those where the delinquents have been habituated, from the earliest youth, to the incidents of slavery, and the former class is found to be entitled to the same pre-eminence. From this class also there are instances where the white man, so cohabiting with the slave whom he has purchased for the purpose of emancipation, sends her and his offspring to some free State, often to Cincinnati, the Moab of the South! “Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab.” Isa. xvi. 4. Let such instances as this last named be contrasted with like instances emanating from among the native-born, or those raised among slaves, and the former class are still far in the majority. In short, the fact is found to be, that those who have been born, raised, and educated among them, and as the owners of slaves, are found more seldom to fall into this cohabitation than those who are by chance among slaves, but had not been educated from youth among them. Far be it from us to recriminate. Our object alone, in presenting these facts, is to show, to give proof, that slavery is not the cause of the debasement which urges the white man on to cohabitation with the negro. We will ask no questions as to the frequency of such intercourse in some of the large Northern cities, in which blacks are numerous as well as free, between them and the debased of the whites. What if we should be told, in answer, if the charge were established, that such whites acted from conscience, under a sense of the essential equality of the negro with the white man, and under the religious teaching of the advocates of amalgamation! He who writes on and describes moral influences, must be expected to view them as he has been in the habit of seeing them manifested. We therefore regret exceedingly to see that Dr. Channing has made the assertion that, “to own the persons of If this assertion is warranted by the moral condition of society as displayed before him, may we not find in it a solution of the fact, that those who have been reared up under all the influences of slavery on the master, are far less frequently found to fall into the odious cohabitation with the negro than are those who have not. However, we have among us some very wicked and debased men, who own slaves, and who have been born and educated in the midst of the influences of the institution of slavery, and who yet cohabit with their female negroes. But the moral sense of the community, from day to day and from year to year, more and more distinctly gives reproof, more and more emphatically points to such the finger of contempt and scorn, and continues to increase in energy, expressing its loathing and abhorrence; and all this is taking place under the influences of slavery on the master. Do all these things give proof that slavery is the progenitor of this debasement, or the reverse? Dr. Channing was mistaken; his mind was in error: he substituted the consequent for the cause. We deem it useless to spend time or argument with those who will pertinaciously deny and refuse to listen to facts, unless they shall be in support of their previously conceived views or prejudices. We are aware that the numerical proportion which we have ascribed to what we call “a floating population” may seem incredible to those in other countries, where the facts are quite different. Yet we are sure that such estimate is within the truth. Here, as everywhere else, the government, the legislative power of the country, is in the hands of the permanent and more elevated and wealthy classes; in the hands of slave-owners. Would such a class consent to laws throwing difficulties in the way of emancipation, if the effect of such laws were to be expended on their own offspring? To the more elevated and cultivated class of community in any country (and here such are all slave-owners) is to be ascribed the tone of moral feeling. Does any man covet for himself the loathing and scorn of community? The family of the slave-owner is taught to regard the negro as a race of man radically inferior, in moral capacity, in mental The child, the mere youth, and those of more experience, see proofs of these facts in every comparison. The master feels them to be true, and is taught, that, while he governs with compassion, forbearance, and mercy, and as having regard to their improvement, any familiarity on terms of equality, beyond that of command on his side, and obedience on theirs, is, and must be, disgrace to him. He is taught to consider the negro race, from some cause, to have deteriorated to such extent that his safety and happiness demand the control of a superior; he regards him as a man, entitled to receive the protection of such control; and that he, like every other man, will be called to account unto God, according to the talents God has given him. He is taught, by every hour’s experience, to know that slavery to the negro is a blessing. He is taught to feel it a duty to teach, as he would an inferior, the negro his moral duty, his obligations to God, the religion of the Bible, the gospel of Christ. But the man born and educated in the Free States is taught that “he who cannot see a brother, a child of God, a man possessing all the rights of humanity, under a skin darker than his own, wants the vision of a Christian.” Channing, vol. ii. p. 14. “To recognise as brethren those who want all outward distinctions, is the chief way in which we are to manifest the spirit of him who came to raise the fallen and save the lost.” Ibidem. Vol. ii. pp. 20, 21, 22, he says—“Another argument against property (in slaves) is to be found in the essential equality of men.” * * * “Nature indeed pays no heed to birth or condition in bestowing her favours. The noblest spirits sometimes grow up in the obscurest spheres. Thus equal are men;—and among these equals, who can substantiate his claim to make others his property, his tools, the mere instruments of his private interest and gratification?” * * * “Is it sure that the slave, or the slave’s child, may not surpass his master in intellectual energy, or in moral worth? Has nature conferred distinctions, which tell us plainly who shall be owners and who shall be owned? Who of us can unblushingly lift up his head and say that God has written ‘master’ there? Or who can show the word ‘slave’ engraven May we aid the disciples of Dr. Channing by referring them to Prov. xvii. 2, “A wise servant (???????ebed ebed, slave) shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance among the brethren?” And will the doctor and his disciples believe the proverb any the more true, when we inform them that it is a matter of frequent occurrence in slave-holding communities. Vol. v. p. 89, 90, he says—“But we have not yet touched the great cause of the conflagration of the Hall of Freedom. Something worse than fanaticism or separation of the Union was the impulse to this violence. We are told that white people and black sat together on the benches of the hall, and were even seen walking together in the streets! This was the unheard-of atrocity which the virtues of the people of Philadelphia could not endure. They might have borne the dissolution of the national tie; but this junction of black and white was too much for human patience to sustain. And has it indeed come to this? For such a cause are mobs and fires to be let loose on our persons and most costly buildings? What! Has not an American citizen a right to sit and walk with whom he will? Is this common privilege denied us? Is society authorized to choose our associates? Must our neighbour’s tastes as to friendship and companionship control our own? Have the feudal times come back to us, when to break the law of caste was a greater crime than to violate the laws of God? What must Europe have thought, when the news crossed the ocean of the burning of the Hall of Freedom, because white and coloured people walked together in the streets? “Europe might well open its eyes in wonder. On that continent, with all its aristocracy, the coloured man mixes freely with his fellow-creatures. He sometimes receives the countenance of the rich, and has even found his way into the palaces of the great. In Europe, the doctrine would be thought to be too absurd for refutation, that a coloured man of pure morals and piety, of cultivated intellect and refined manners, was not a fit companion for the best in the land. What must Europe have said, when brought to understand that, in a republic, founded on the principles of human rights and equality, people are placed beyond the laws for treating the African as a man. This Philadelphia doctrine deserves no mercy. What an insult is thrown on human nature, in making it a heinous crime to sit or walk with a human being, whoever it may Such are the lessons taught the youth as well as the aged of the Free States, even by Dr. Channing himself. We now ask, under the teachings of which school will the pupils be the best prepared for this cohabitation with the negro? The burning of the Hall of Freedom was, no doubt, a very great outrage, well meriting severe condemnation. Yet we cannot but notice, that Dr. Channing has nowhere, in all his works, said one word about the burning of the Convent on Mount Benedict, by his own townsmen, the good people of Boston. We care not with what severity he punishes such outrages. But it is the influence of his lesson in palliating the familiarity, and mitigating the evil consequences of a coalition of the white man with the negro, that we present to view. It is with grief that we find him infusing into his disciples this nauseating, disgusting, moral poison; preparing their minds to feel little or no shame in a cohabitation with the negro, so degrading to the white man, and so disgraceful in all Slave States. Yea further, what are we to think of the judgment, of the taste,—may we not add, habits, of a man who could unblushingly publish to the world his partiality to the negro of Jamaica, after his visit there, as follows: “I saw too, on the plantation where I resided, a gracefulness and dignity of form and motion, rare in my own native New England.” Vol. vi. p. 51. Again, page 52. “The African countenance seldom shows that coarse, brutal sensuality which is so common in the face of the white man.” May we be pardoned for feeling a strong desire,—rather, a curiosity,—to be made acquainted with the faces of the white men with whom he was the most familiar! LESSON VIII.In vol. ii. page 82, Dr. Channing says— “I cannot leave the subject of the evils of slavery, without saying a word of its political influence.” He considers that “slave labour is less productive than free.” This is doubtless true; and if so, it proves that the master of the slave does not require of him so much labour as is required of a hired labourer. Are the friends of abolition angry, because, in their sympathy for the slave, they have found something to be pleased with? He considers that “by degrading the labouring population to a state which takes from them motives to toil, and renders them objects of suspicion or dread,” impairs “the ability of a community to unfold its resources in peace, and to defend itself in war.” This proposition includes the idea that the Slave States have degraded a portion of their citizens to a state of slavery. This is not true. Our ancestors, contrary to their will, were forced to receive a degraded race among them, not as citizens, but slaves;—and does it follow now, that we must again be forced to make this degraded race our political equals? Even the British Government, with all its claim to sovereign rule, never dreamed of imposing on us a demand so destructive to our political rights; so blighting to social happiness; so annihilating to our freedom as men; so extinguishing to our very race. Do the friends of abolition deem us so stupid as not to see, if, even when the negro is in slavery, cases of amalgamation happen, that, when he shall be elevated to political freedom, the country would, by their aid, be overspread by it? Do they think that we do not see that such a state of things is degeneracy, degradation, ruin, worse than death to the white men? And will they chide, if, in its prevention, we drench our fields in our own blood in preference? The British Government urged the race here as an article of property, of commerce and profit, as they did their tea. They stipulated, they guaranteed them to be slaves, they and their posterity for ever—not citizens! On such terms alone could they have been received. The South then, as now, to a man would have met death on the battle-field, sooner than have suffered their presence on other conditions. There is falsity in the very language that frames the proposition which inculcates that these slaves are a portion of population that ever can be justly entitled to equal political rights, or that they are, or ever were, degraded by the community among whom they are now found. So degraded, both mentally and physically, is the African in his own native wilds, that, however humiliating to a freeman slavery may seem, to him it is an elevated school; and however dull and stupid may be his scholarship, yet a few generations distinctly mark some little improvement. We cannot doubt, some few individuals of this race have been so far elevated in their constitutional propensities that they might be well expected to make provident citizens; and the fact is, such generally become free, without the aid of fanaticism. But what is the value of a general assertion predicated alone upon a few exceptions? Some few of our own race give ample proof that they are not fit to take care of themselves: shall we, therefore, subject our whole race to pupilage? That such a population, such a race of men, is as conducive to national grandeur, either as to resources or defence, as the same number of intellectual, high-minded yeomanry of our own race might be well expected to be, perhaps few contend; and we pray you not to force us to try the experiment. But if such weakness attend the position in which we feel God has placed us, why distress us by its distortion? Why torment our wound with your inexperienced, and therefore unskilful hand? Why strive ye to enrage our passions, by constantly twitting us with what is not our fault? Do you indeed wish to destroy, because you have no power to amend? Why, then, your inexperience as to facts, aided by misrepresentation and sophistry in the digestion of language and sentiment,—and we exceedingly regret that we can correctly say, open falsehood,—as found on pages 86, 87?— Let not the looseness of the doctor’s regard for the Union surprise. With him a dissolution of the Union had become a fixed idea. On pages 237 and 238, he says— “To me it seems not only the right, but the duty of the Free States, in case of the annexation of Texas, to say to the Slave-holding States, ‘We regard this act as the dissolution of the Union.’ * * * A pacific division in the first instance seems to me to threaten less contention than a lingering, feverish dissolution of the Union, such as must be expected under this fatal innovation. For one, then, I say, that, earnestly as I deprecate the separation of these States, and though this event would disappoint most cherished hopes for my country, still I could submit to it more readily than to the reception of Texas into the confederacy.” “I do not desire to share the responsibility or to live under the laws of a government adopting such a policy.” * * * “If the South is bent on incorporating Texas with itself, as a new prop to slavery, it would do well to insist on a division of the States. It We do not quote these passages for the sake of refuting them. “In Europe, the doctrine would be thought too absurd for refutation.” “What must Europe have thought when” these sentiments “crossed the ocean.” * * * “What must Europe have said, when brought to understand that, in a republic founded on the principles of human rights and equality,”—and this writer acknowledges the doctrine that “the constitution was a compromise among independent States, and it is well known that geographical relations and the local interest were among the essential conditions on which the compromise was made;” and concerning which, he adds, “Was not the constitution founded on conditions or considerations which are even more authoritative than its particular provisions?” (see vol. ii. p. 237,)—“What must Europe have said,” when informed that these sentiments were expressed against the right of the South to hold slaves? Slaves, whom she, herself, in our childhood, had sold us? Why, she must have thought that we were on the eve of a civil war, and that Dr. Channing was about to take command of an army of abolitionists to compel the South to submit to his terms! “Europe might well open its eyes in wonder” at such extravagance. “Such,” says our author, are “the chief evils of slavery;” and we are willing to leave it to “Europe” to decide whether he has not furnished us with declamation instead of argument. Under the head, “Evils of Slavery,” he examines those considerations that have been urged in its favour, or in mitigation, which we deem unnecessary to notice further than to note a few passages in which there is between us some unity of sentiment. Page 89. “Freedom undoubtedly has its perils. It offers nothing to the slothful and dissolute. Among a people left to seek their own good in their own way, some of all classes fail from vice, some from incapacity, some from misfortune.” Page 92. “Were we to visit a slave-country, undoubtedly the most miserable human beings would be found among the free; for among them the passions have a wider sweep, and the power they possess may be used to their own ruin. Liberty is not a necessity of happiness. It is only a means of good. It is a trust that may be abused.” The African may exhibit mildness and attachment in slavery when others would exhibit a reverse feeling; but it is not true that he exhibits these qualities as a fixed moral principle, resulting from intellectual conclusion. Page 95. “No institution, be it what it may, can make the life of a human being wholly evil, or cut off every means of improvement.” Idem. “The African is so affectionate, imitative, and docile, that, in favourable circumstances, he catches much that is good; and accordingly the influence of a wise and kind master will be seen in the very countenance and bearing of his slaves.” Or, rather, we find traces of these qualities developed among their descendants. But the truth is far below this description. We had expected to have received light and pleasure from the examination of Dr. Channing’s view of slavery in a political attitude. We confess we are disappointed. His political view of it is, at least, jejune. To us, it suggests the superior adaptation of his genius and education to the rhapsody of a prayer-meeting than to the labours of a legislative hall. We doubt much whether he had ever arrived to any very clear and general view of the organization of society. Finding, under this head, very little in his volumes that a politician can descend to encounter, we shall close our present Lesson with a very few remarks. Capital and labour can exist in but two relations; congenerous or antagonistic. They are never congenerous only when it is true that labour constitutes capital, which can only happen through slavery. The deduction is then clear, that capital for ever governs labour; and the deduction is also as clear, that, out of slavery, capital and labour must be for ever antagonistic. But, again, capital governs labour, because, while capital now exists, labour can possess it only by its own consumption. But when the two are congenerous, labour, as a tool, is not urged to its injury, because the tool itself is capital; but when antagonistic, the tool is urged to its utmost power, because its injury, its ruin touches not the capital. Hence, we often hear slave-labour is the less productive. The proposition is not affected by facts attending him who is said Such is the first degree of slavery to which sin has subjected all mankind. Therefore, in such case, labour is capital. But the very moment a lower degradation forces him to sell his labour, capital is the only purchaser, and they at once become antagonistic. On the one hand, labour is seeking for all; on the other, capital is seeking for all. But the capital governs, and always obtains the mastery, and reduces labour down to the smallest pittance. Thus antagonistic are capital and labour, that the former is for ever trying to lessen the value of the other by art, by machinery; thus converting the tool of labour into capital itself. The political difference between the influence of these two relations, capital and labour, is very great. We feel surprised that the sympathies of the abolitionists are not changed, from the miseries where capital and labour are decidedly congenerous, to a consideration of that morass of misery into which the worn-out, broken tools of labour are thrown, with cruel heartlessness, where capital and labour are antagonistic. Under the one system, beggars and distress from want are unknown, because such things cannot exist under such an organization of society. But, under the other, pauperism becomes a leading element. The history of that class of community, in all free countries, is a monument and record of free labour. We ask the politician to consider these facts, while he searches the history of man for light in the inquiry of what is the most tranquil, and, in all its parts, the most happy organization of society. Under the head of “The Political Influence of Slavery,” Dr. Channing has taken occasion to inform us of his feelings as to the stability of this Union; that he prefers its dissolution to the perpetuation of slavery; and that he proposes a “pacific division.” And what is his “pacific division?” Why, he says, (if we must repeat it,) “the South must studiously keep itself from communion with the Free States; to suffer no railroad from the Free States to cross its border; and to block up all intercourse by sea and land!” Why, it is “death in the pot!” O most unhappy man! the most unfortunate of all, to have We think Dr. Channing’s declarations and proposals wholly uncalled for. We regret the existence of such feelings at the North. We say feelings, because we are bold to say, such sentiments are alone the offspring of the most ignorant, wicked, and black-hearted feelings of the human soul. Their very existence shows a preparedness to commit treason, perjury, and the murders of civil war! The disciples of Dr. Channing, on the subject of abolitionism, may be too stupid to perceive it; for “Evil men understand not judgment.” Prov. xxviii. 5. We regret this feeling at the North the more deeply on the account of the extraordinary generant quality of sin. For it propagates, not only its peculiar kind, but every monster, in every shape, by the mere echo of its voice! Will they remember, “He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it; and whoso breaketh a hedge, a serpent shall bite him.” Or, that, “It is an honour to cease from strife; but every fool will be meddling.” Prov. But since such feelings do exist, we feel thankful to God that the sin of the initiative in the dissolution of this Union is not with the Slave States. We know there are many good men in the North. Much depends on what they may do. We believe the union of these States need not—will not be disrupted. But if the laws of Congress can neither be executed nor continued, nor oaths to be true to the constitution longer bind these maniacs, the issue will finally be left in the hand of the God of battles! It becomes the South to act wisely, to be calm, and to hope as long as there can be hope. And to the North, let them say now, before it be too late, “We pray you to forbear. We entreat you to be true to your oaths, and not force us, in hostile array, to bathe our hands in blood.” But, if the term of our great national destiny is to be closed, and war, the most cruel of all wars, is to spread far beyond the reach of human foresight,—the South, like Abraham in olden time, will “arm their trained servants,” and go out to the war, shouting under the banner of the Almighty! LESSON IX.As a fifth proposition; Dr. Channing says—“I shall consider the argument which the Scriptures are thought to furnish in favour of slavery.” In the course of these studies, we have often had occasion to refer to the Scripture in our support. We have shown that even the Decalogue gave rules in regulation of the treatment of slaves; that commands from the mouth of God himself were delivered to Abraham concerning his slaves; that the Almighty from Sinai delivered to Moses laws, directing him whom they might have as slaves,—slaves forever, and to be inherited by their children after them; rules directing the government and treatment of slaves, who had become such under different circumstances. We have adverted to the spirit of prophecy on the subject of the providence of God touching the matter, to the illustrations of our Saviour, and the lessons of the apostles. Others have done the same before us. But Dr. Channing says, page 99—“In this age of the world, and amid the light which has been thrown on the true interpretation of the Scriptures, such reasoning hardly deserves notice.” Had Tom Paine been an abolitionist, he could scarcely have said more! He continues—“A few words only will be offered in reply. This reasoning proves too much. If usages sanctioned in the Old Testament, and not forbidden in the New, are right, then our moral code will undergo a sad deterioration. Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, was the practice of the holiest men, and was common and licensed in the age of the apostles. * * * Why may not Scripture be used to stock our houses with wives as well as slaves.” We know not what new light has come to this age of the world, enabling it to interpret the Scriptures more accurately than is afforded by the language of the Scriptures themselves. Whatever it may be, we shall not deprive Dr. Channing nor his disciples of its entire benefit, by the appropriation of its use to ourselves; and therefore we shall proceed to examine his position, by interpreting the Scriptures in the old-fashioned way—understanding them to mean what they say. Same chapter, verse 22: “Made he a woman,” ????????iŠÂ ishsha, woman, wife. Ver. 23: “Shall be called woman,” ????????iŠŠÂ ishsha, woman, wife. Ver. 24: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife,” ???????????iŠtÔ ishto, his wife, his woman, “and they shall be one flesh.” Ver. 25: “The man and his wife,” ???????????iŠtÔ ishto, wife, woman. These terms are all in the singular number. We propose for consideration, how far these passages are to be understood as a law and rule of action among men. Gen. vii. 7: “And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark.” Ver. 9: “There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah.” We propose also for consideration, how far these passages are an indication of the law of God, and his providence, as bearing on polygamy. Exod. xx. 17 (18th ver. of the Hebrew text): “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife,” ????????eŠet, esheth, in the construct state, showing that she was appropriated to the neighbour in the singular number. If the passage had read, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wives, or any of them, the interpretation must have been quite different. So also Deut. v. 21: “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife,” ????????eŠet, esheth. The twenty-second chapter of Deuteronomy relates the law concerning a portion of the relations incident to a married state; but we find the idea always advanced in the singular number. There was no direction concerning his wives. Had the decalogue announced, “Thou shalt have but one wife,” the language of these explanations and directions, to be in unison therewith, need not have been changed. But the institution of marriage was established, before the fall of man, by the appropriation of one woman to one man. Now, that this fact, this example, stands as a command, is clear from the words of Jesus Christ, in Matt. xix. 4, 5: “And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh.” We trust, “at this age of the world,” there is a sufficiency of light, among even the most unlearned of us, whereby we shall be enabled to interpret these scriptures, not to license polygamy, but to discountenance and forbid it, by showing that they teach a contrary doctrine. But, perhaps, the explanation is more decided in Mark x. 8–11: And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” “And he saith unto them, whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.” Surely, if a man commit adultery by marrying the second when he has turned off the previous, it may be a stronger case of adultery to marry a second wife without turning off the first one! We think St. Paul interprets the Scriptures in the old-fashioned way, Eph. v. 31: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” “These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in purity.” 1 Tim. iv. 11, 12. And we now beg to inquire whether this lesson to Timothy is not founded upon the law as delivered to Moses? “And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them:” * * * “They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God.” * * * “They shall not take a wife that is a whore, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband.” * * * “And he that is the high priest among his brethren * * * shall take a wife in her virginity.” “A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or a harlot, these he shall not take; but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.” “Neither shall he profane his seed among his people: for I the Lord do sanctify him.” Lev. xxi. 1, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15. We doubt not it will be conceded that the teachings of the Bible are, that polygamy includes the crime of adultery and fornication, both of which have a tendency towards a general promiscuous intercourse. In addition to the express commands as to the views thus involved, to our mind there are specifications on the subject equally decisive. “If any man take a wife * * * and give occasion of speech against her, * * * then shall the father of the damsel and her mother take and bring forth the tokens; * * * and the damsel’s father shall say, * * * and, lo, he hath given occasion of speech against her. * * * And the elders of the city shall take that man and chastise him; and they shall amerce him in a hundred shekels of silver, * * * and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.” “But if this thing is true, and the tokens of her virginity be not found for the damsel; then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of the city shall stone her with stones that she die.” * * * “If a man be found lying “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even unto his tenth generation.” Idem, xxiii. 2. “These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father’s house.” Num. xxx. 16. “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, * * * and shalt say, I will set a king over me,” &c. * * * “But he shall not,” &c. * * * “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” Deut. xvii. 14–17. The inferences to be drawn from a review of these statutes, in opposition to polygamy, we deem of easy deduction. We leave them for the consideration of those who shall examine the subject. We deem it extraordinary that, “at this age of the world,” we should find men who seem to think that because Moses had a statute which, under certain circumstances, authorized husbands to divorce their wives, that thereby he permitted polygamy. “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her,” (it is the same word elsewhere translated nakedness,) “then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; her former husband which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for this is abomination before the Lord.” Deut. xxiv. 1–4. This interpretation seemed most conducive to the power of the husband, and, therefore, probably had the most advocates; and it is said that the Jewish rulers so suffered it to be understood, and that even Moses, as a man, suffered it; noticing that where the wife became greatly hated by the husband, she was extremely liable to abuse, unless this law was so explained as to permit a divorce. The Jews kept up the dispute about this matter down to the days of our Saviour; when the Pharisees, with the view to place before him a difficult question, and one that might entangle him, if answered adverse to the popular idea, presented it to him, as related in Matt. xix. He promptly decides the question, whereupon they say— “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoever marrieth her that is put away, doth commit adultery.” Matt. xix. 7, 8, 9. Mark describes this interview thus: “And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife, tempting him? And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept: but from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” Mark x. 2–6. But do these answers, either way, favour polygamy? Is it not clear that the law was in opposition to it? It is true, the Jews, corrupted by the neighbouring nations who fell into it, practised the habit to a great extent; and so they did What truth can there be in the assertion that they were allowed a thing, in the practice of which they had to trample their laws under foot? And, under the statement of the facts, what truth is there in the assertion that “polygamy was licensed in the age of the apostles?” If such was “the practice of the holiest men,” it proves nothing except that the holiest men were in the practice of breaking the law. It is true that a looseness of adjudication on the subject of divorce grew up, perhaps even from the time of Moses, among the Jews, on account of the dispute about the interpretation of the law. But upon the supposition that the law was correctly interpreted by those who advocated the greatest laxity, which Jesus Christ sufficiently condemned, yet there is found nothing favouring polygamy in it; for even the loosest interpretation supposed a divorce necessary. The dispute was not about polygamy; but about what predicates rendered a divorce legal. In the books of the Old Testament we find the accounts of many crimes that were committed in those olden days; but can any one be so stupid as to suppose the law permitted those crimes, because the history of them has reached us through these books? If the polygamy of Jacob, rehearsed in these books, teaches the doctrine that these books permitted polygamy,—then, because these books relate the history of the murder of Abel, it must be said that these books permit murder? And because, in these books, we have the account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, that therefore disobedience to the command of God is legalized also! Before we can say that polygamy is countenanced by the Old Testament as well as slavery, we must find some special law to that effect. And some of the advocates of abolition, striving to make a parallel between slavery and polygamy, pretend they have done so in Lev. xviii. 18: “Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, besides the other in her lifetime.” These advocates interpret this law to permit a man to marry two wives or more, so that no two of them are sisters; and because few take the trouble to contradict them, they seem to think their interpretation to be true, and urge it as such. It was clear the law permitted no additional wife, so as to allow two or more wives, unless, by the example of Jacob, the law was But to the Hebrew scholar we propose a small error in the translation of this passage. The preceding twelve verses treat on the subject of whom it is forbidden to marry on the account of consanguinity, the last of which names the grand-daughter of a previous wife, declaring such act to be wicked, and closes the list of objections on account of consanguinity, unless such list be extended by the passage under review; for the succeeding sentence is a prohibition of all females who may be unclean; consanguinity is no more mentioned; yet these prohibitions continue to the 23d verse; and it is to be noticed that each prohibition succeeding the wife’s grand-daughter commences with a ??w (vav with sheva), whereas not one on the ground of consanguinity is thus introduced; illustrating the fact that each prohibition, succeeding the wife’s grand-daughter, is founded upon new and distinct causes. The widow of a deceased husband who had left no issue was permitted to marry his brother; it was even made a duty. Therefore, by parity of reason, there could be no objection, on the account of consanguinity, for the husband of a deceased wife to marry her sister. It is clear then that the person whom this clause of the law forbids to marry, is some person other than a deceased wife’s sister. We propose for consideration, as nearly literal as may be, to express the idea conveyed—Thou shalt not take one wife to another, to be enemies, or to be exiles, the shame of thy bed-chamber through life. The doctrine it inculcates is, if a man has two wives, he must either live in the midst of their rivalry and enmity, or exile one or both; either of which is disgrace. The reading may be varied; but let the Hebrew scholar compare the first three words of the original with Exod. xxvi. 3, where they twice occur, and also with the 6th and 17th verses of the same chapter, in each of which they are also found. Let him notice that, in the passage before us, in the word translated sister, the vav, under holem, is omitted; whereas such is not the case in the preceding instances, where the Can Dr. Channing’s disciples point out to us a law allowing polygamy in as direct terms as the following would have done, substituting the word wives for slaves? “Thy wives which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy wives.” “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy wives”—“and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land, and they shall be your wives.” “And ye shall take them as wives for your children after you, and they shall have them for wives”—“they shall be your wives for ever.” Compare Lev. xxv. 44, 46. Until they can do so, until they shall do so, we shall urge their not doing it as one reason why the Scripture “cannot be used to stock our houses with wives as well as with slaves.” Dr. Channing says, page 101, vol. ii.— “Slavery, at the age of the apostle, had so penetrated society, was so intimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war were so abundant, that a religion, preaching freedom to the slave, would have shaken the social fabric to its foundation, and would have armed against itself the whole power of the state. Paul did not then assail the institution. He satisfied himself with spreading principles which, however slowly, could not but work its destruction. * * * And how, in his circumstances, he could have done more for the subversion of slavery, I do not see.” May we request the disciples of Dr. Channing to read the chapter on “Slavery,” in Paley’s Moral and Political Philosophy, and decide whether the above is borrowed in substance therefrom. And we beg further to inquire, whether it does not place Paul, considering “his circumstances,” in an odious position? What, Paul satisfying himself to not do his duty! What, Paul shrink from assailing an institution because deeply rooted in power and sin! Why did he not manifest the same consideration in behalf of other great sins? Would it not be an easier and more rational way to account for his not assailing slavery, by supposing him to have known that it was the providence of God, in mercy, presenting some protection to those too degraded and low to protect themselves? If such supposition describes the true character of the institution of slavery, then the conduct of Paul in regard to it would have been just what it was. Paul lived all his life in the midst of slavery; as a man among men, he had a much better opportunity to know what was truth in the case than Dr. Channing. But as an apostle, Paul was taught of God. Will the disciples of Dr. Channing transfer these considerations from St. Paul to the Almighty, and say that he was afraid to announce his truth, his law, then to the world, lest it should stir up a little war in the Roman Empire? In what position does Dr. Channing place Him, who came to reveal truth, holding death and judgment in his hand! “Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee: For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them.” John xvii. 7, 8. “I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Acts xx. 26, 27. “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.” Rom. iii. 4. But we propose to the disciples of Dr. Channing an inquiry: If he could not see how St. Paul in his circumstances could have done more for the subversion of slavery, why did he not take St. Paul for his example, and suffer the matter to rest where St. Paul left it? For he says, vol. iii. page 152—“It becomes the preacher to remember that there is a silent, indirect influence, more sure and powerful than direct assaults on false opinions.” Or was he less careless than St. Paul about stirring up a servile war, and of shaking our social fabric to its foundation? Or did the doctor’s circumstances place him on higher ground than St. Paul? Had “this age of the world” presented him with new light on the true interpretation of the Scriptures? Had the afflatus of the Holy Spirit commissioned him to supersede Paul as an apostle? Are we to expect, through him, a new and improved edition of the Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. p. 104—“The very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed.” Is then the Christian religion a fabrication of men? Was Christ himself an impostor? And could Dr. Channing loan himself to such a consideration? “Upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. xvi. 18. LESSON XI.The sixth position in the treatise under consideration is, “I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.” His plan is, page 108—“In the first place, the great principle that man cannot rightfully be held as property, should be admitted by the slaveholder.” Dr. Channing seems to suppose that his previous arguments are sufficient to produce the proposed admission. Page 109. “It would be cruelty to strike the fetters from a man, whose first steps would infallibly lead him to a precipice. The slave should not have an owner, but he should have a guardian.” We take this as an admission that the slave is not a fit subject for freedom. But he says— Page 110. “But there is but one weighty argument against immediate emancipation; namely, that the slave would not support himself and his children by honest industry.” Dr. Channing’s plan in short is, that the names, master and slave, shall be exchanged for guardian and ward; but he awards no compensation to the guardian;—that the negro shall be told he is free; yet he should be compelled to work for his own and his family’s support;—that none should be whipped who will toil “from rational and honourable motives.” Page 112. “In case of being injured by his master in this or in any respect, he should be either set free, or, if unprepared for liberty, should be transmitted to another guardian.” Dr. Channing proposes “bounties,” “rewards,” “new privileges,” “increased indulgences,” “prizes for good conduct,” &c., Page 114. “To carry this and other means of improvement into effect, it is essential that the slave should no longer be bought and sold.” Page 115. “Legislatures should meet to free the slave. The church should rest not, day nor night, till this stain be wiped away.” We do not choose to make any remark on his plan of emancipation; we shall merely quote one passage from page 106: “How slavery shall be removed is a question for the slaveholder, and one which he alone can answer fully. He alone has an intimate knowledge of the character and habits of the slaves.” In this we fully concur; and we now ask our readers, what does Dr. Channing’s confession of this fact suggest to their minds? Dr. Channing’s seventh proposition is, “To offer some remarks on abolitionism.” The considerations of this chapter are evidently addressed to the abolitionists, with which we have no wish to interfere. There are, however, in it, some fine sentiments expressed in his usual eloquent style. The eighth and concluding subject is, “A few reflections on the duties of the times.” These reflections, we are exceedingly sorry to find highly inflammatory; they are addressed alone to the Free States. We shall present a few specimens. They need no comment: there are those to whom pity is more applicable than reproof. Page 138. “A few words remain to be spoken in relation to the duties of the Free States. These need to feel the responsibilities and dangers of their present position. The country is approaching a crisis on the greatest question which can be proposed to it; a question, not of profit or loss, of tariffs or banks, or any temporary interests; but a question involving the first principles of freedom, morals, and religion.” Page 139. “There are, however, other duties of the Free States, Page 140. “At this moment an immense pressure is driving the North from its true ground. God save it from imbecility, from treachery to freedom and virtue! I have certainly no feelings but those of good-will towards the South; but I speak the universal sentiments of this part of the country, when I say that the tone which the South has often assumed towards the North has been that of a superior, a tone unconsciously borrowed from the habit of command to which it is unhappily accustomed by the form of its society. I must add, that this high bearing of the South has not always been met by a just consciousness of equality, a just self-respect at the North. * * * Here lies the danger. The North will undoubtedly be just to the South. It must also be just to itself. This is not the time for sycophancy, for servility, for compromise of principle, for forgetfulness of our rights. It is the time to manifest the spirit of MEN, a spirit which prizes, more than life, the principles of liberty, of justice, of humanity, of pure morals, of pure religion.” Page 142. “Let us show that we have principles, compared with which the wealth of the world is as light as air. * * * The Free States, it is to be feared, must pass through a struggle. May they sustain it as becomes their freedom! The present excitement at the South can hardly be expected to pass away without attempts to wrest from them unworthy concessions. The tone in regard to slavery in that part of the country is changed. It is not only more vehement, but more false than formerly: once slavery was acknowledged as an evil; now, it is proclaimed to be a good.” Page 143. “Certainly, no assertion of the wildest abolitionist could give such a shock to the slaveholder, as this new doctrine is fitted to give to the people of the North. * * * There is a great dread in this part of the country that the Union of the States may be dissolved by conflict about slavery. * * * No one prizes the Union more than myself.” Page 144. “Still, if the Union can be purchased only by the imposition of chains on the tongue and the press, by prohibition of discussion on the subject involving the most sacred rights and dearest interests of humanity, then union would be bought at too dear a price.” LESSON XII.The abolition writers and speakers are properly divided into two classes: those who agitate and advocate the subject as a successful means of advancing their own personal and ambitious hopes; sometimes with “One eye turned to God, condemning moral evil; The other downward, winking at the devil!” Thus, one seeks office, another distinction or fame. Small considerations often stimulate the conduct of such men. But we have evidence that another class zealously labour to abolish slavery from the world, because they think its existence a stain on the human character, and that the laws of God make it the duty of every man to “cry aloud and spare not,” until it shall cease. Our author had no secondary views alluring him on to toil; no new purpose; no new summit to gain. What he thought darkness he hated, because he loved the light; what he thought wicked, to his soul was awful and abhorred, because, even in life, he was ever peering into the confines of heaven. Ardour was cultivated into zeal, and zeal into enthusiasm. In its eagerness to accomplish its object in behalf of liberty, the mind is often prepared to subvert without reflection—to destroy without care. Hence, even the religious may sometimes “record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” Rom. x. “Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? Canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?” Answer thou, Why “leaveth the ostrich her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in the dust? Why forgetteth she that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them?” “Why is she hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers?” “Why is her labour in vain without fear?” “Why feedeth the fish upon its fellow, which forgetteth and devoureth its young?” “Who looketh on the proud and bringeth him low? and treadeth down the wicked in their place? hiding them in the dust, and binding their faces in secret?” Who hardeneth the heart of Pharaoh? and multiplies signs and wonders before the children of men? Who is he who “hath mercy on whom he will?” Why was Esau hated or Jacob loved before they were born? Wilt thou say, “Why doth he find fault? for who hath resisted his will.” See Rom. ix. 19. Or wilt thou rather say, “Behold I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. Once have I spoken; but I will not answer thee: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.” Job xl. 4. There are in these volumes several other essays, under different titles, on the same subject; but in most instances, although the language is varied, the same arguments exert their power on the mind of the writer. Aided by the common sympathy of the people among whom he lived, and the conscientious operations of his own mind, his judgment on the decision of the question of right and wrong became unchangeably fixed; while the evidence forced upon him by the only class of facts in relation to the subject which his education and associations in society enabled him to comprehend, became daily more imposing, more exciting in their review, more lucid in their exposing an image of deformity, the most wicked of the offspring of evil. Filled with horror, yet as if allured by an evil charm, his mind seems to have had no power to The following extracts will perhaps sufficiently develop the state to which his mind had arrived on this subject of his study. Vol. vi. p. 38, he says—“My maxim is, Any thing but slavery!” Page 50. “The history of West India emancipation teaches us that we are holding in bondage one of the best races of the human family. The negro is among the mildest and gentlest of men. He is singularly susceptible of improvement from abroad. His children, it is said, receive more rapidly than ours the elements of knowledge.” Page 51. “A short residence among the negroes in the West Indies impressed me with their capacity for improvement; on all sides, I heard of their religious tendencies, the noblest of human nature. I saw, too, on the plantation where I resided, a gracefulness and dignity of form and motion rare in my own native New England. And that is the race which has been selected to be trodden down and confounded with the brute.” If slavery in the West Indies has thus elevated the African tribes above the majority of the people of New England, we will not ask the question, whether the doctor’s disciples propose the experiment on their countrymen. But there is, nevertheless, abundant proof that slavery to the white races does necessarily, and from philosophical causes, have the most direct tendency to elevate the moral, mental, and physical ability of the African; in fact, of any other race of men sunk equally low in degradation and ruin. If the negro slaves of the West Indies exhibit moral, mental, and physical merit in advance of most of Dr. Channing’s countrymen, who were never in slavery, we beg to know how it is accounted for; what are the causes that have operated to produce it? For we believe no sane man, who knows any thing of the African savage in his native state, whether bond or free, will so much as give a hint that they are as elevated in any respect as are his countrymen, the people of New England. Will the fact then be acknowledged, that slavery, however bad, does yet constitutionally amend and elevate the African savage! At the moment the foregoing paragraphs were placed on paper, We war not with Dr. Channing, nor his character. He no longer liveth. But his works live, and new editions crowd upon the public attention, as if his disciples were anxious to saturate the whole world with his errors, as well as to make known his many virtues. We do not design to garble; and therefore requote the extract more fully, from vol. vi. pp. 50, 51: “The history of the West India emancipation teaches us that we are holding in bondage one of the best races of the human family. The negro is among the mildest, gentlest of men. He is singularly susceptible of improvement from abroad. His children, it is said, receive more rapidly than ours the elements of knowledge. How far he can originate improvements, time only can teach. His nature is affectionate, easily touched; and hence he is more open to religious impression than the white man. The European race have manifested more courage, enterprise, invention; but in the dispositions which Christianity particularly honours, how inferior are they to the African! When I cast my eyes over our Southern region, the land of bowie-knives, Lynch-law, and duels, of ‘chivalry, honour,’ and revenge; and when I consider that Christianity is declared to be a spirit of charity, ‘which seeketh not its own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and endureth all things,’ and is declared to be ‘the wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits,’—can I hesitate in deciding to which of the races in that land Christianity is most adapted, in which its noblest disciples are most likely to be reared.” Pp. 52, 53. “Could the withering influence of slavery be withdrawn, the Southern character, though less consistent, less based on principle, might be more attractive and lofty than that of the North. The South is proud of calling itself Anglo-Saxon. Judging from character, I should say that this name belongs much more to the North, the country of steady, persevering, unconquerable energy. Our Southern brethren remind me more of the Normans. They seem to have in their veins the burning blood of that pirate race.” “Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore Will the disciples of Dr. Channing account for the curious facts developed by the census of 1850, as follows?— “A writer in the New York Observer calls attention to some curious facts derived from the census of the United States. These facts show that there is a remarkable prevalence of idiocy and insanity among the free blacks over the whites, and especially over the slaves. In the State of Maine, every fourteenth coloured person is an idiot or a lunatic. And though there is a gradual improvement in the condition of the coloured race as we proceed West and South, yet it is evident that the Free States are the principal abodes of idiocy and lunacy among them. “In Ohio, there are just ten coloured persons, who are idiots or lunatics, where there is one in Kentucky. And in Louisiana, where a large majority of the population is coloured, and four-fifths of them are slaves, there is but one of these unfortunates to 4309 who are sane. The proportions in other States, according to the census of 1850, are as follow:—In Massachusetts, 1 in 43; Connecticut, 1 in 185; New York, 1 in 257; Pennsylvania, 1 in 256; Maryland, 1 in 1074; Virginia, 1 in 1309; North Carolina, 1 in 1215; South Carolina, 1 in 2440; Ohio, 1 in 105; Kentucky, 1 in 1053. This is certainly a curious calculation, and indicates that diseases of the brain are far more rare among the slaves than among the free of the coloured race.” LESSON XIII.Sympathy probably operates more or less in the mind of each individual of the human family. Traces of it are discovered even in some of the brute creation; but yet we are far from saying that it is merely an animal feeling. But we do say that sympathy often gives a direction to our chains of thought; and that, in some minds, such direction is scarcely to be changed by any subsequent reflection, or even evidence. Some minds seem incapable of appreciating any evidence which does not make more open whatever way sympathy may lead; consequently a full history of its exercise Among the rude tribes of men, and in the early ages of the world, its action seems to have taken the place of what, in a higher civilization and cultivation of the mind, should be the result of moral principle founded on truth. But even now, if we look abroad upon the families of men, even to the most intellectual, shall we not find the greater number rather under the government of the former than the latter? One inference surely is, that man, as yet, has not, by far, arrived at the fullest extent of intellectual improvement. But suppose we say that God punishes sin; or, by the laws of God, sin brings upon itself punishment;—we propose the question, how far, under our relation to our Creator, is it consistent in us to sympathize with such punishment? It may be answered, we are instructed to “remember” to sympathize with those who are under persecution for their faith in Christ; so also, impliedly, with our brethren, neighbours, or those who have done us or our ancestors favours, or those who have given or can give some proof of goodness, when such have fallen, or shall fall into bondage; and, perhaps, with any one giving proof of such amendment as may merit a higher condition. But in all these cases, does not the injunction, “remember,” look to an action resulting from principle, emanating from truth, or the conformity of the person or thing to be “remembered” with the law of God? In the holy books, the word nearest to a synonyme of our word sympathy, will be found in Deut. vii. 16: “Thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity ???????ta?Ôs thehhos) upon them,” (no sympathy for.) So, xix. 13: “Thine eye shall not pity ( This word, when used in relation to punishment, is usually associated with the word implying the “eye,” as if the feeling expressed thereby partook more of an animal than a moral sensation. The feeling of sympathy, commiseration, or mercy, is inculcated in the latter clause of Lev. xlvi. 26. The circumstances were these:—The descendants of Ham occupied the whole of Palestine, and the most of the adjoining districts. Those of Palestine had become so sunken in idolatry, and the most grievous practices, counteracting any improvement of their race, that God, in his providence, gave them up to be extirpated from the earth, and forbid the Israelites to have any “pity,” any sympathy for them; but to slay them without hesitation. While those of the adjacent tribes, who had, since the days of Noah, been denounced as fit subjects of slavery, on the account of their degradation, brought upon them by similar causes, were again specified to Moses as those whom they were at liberty in peace to purchase, or in war to reduce to perpetual bondage. But such is the deteriorating effect of sin, even individuals of the Israelites themselves were often falling into that condition. But God made a distinction between the condition of these heathen, and the Israelites that might thus fall into slavery. The slavery of the heathen was perpetual, while that of these improvident Jews was limited to six years, unless such slave preferred to continue in his state of slavery; his kin at all times having the right to redeem him, which right of redemption was also extended to the Jewish slave himself. But no such right was ever extended to the heathen slave, or him of heathen extraction. Under this state of facts, the Jewish master is forbidden to use “rigour” towards his Jewish slave: “But over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another with rigour.” This evidently inculcates a feeling of commiseration for such of their countrymen as may have fallen into slavery; and in conformity with such precepts, all nations, at all times, who were advanced in civilization, seem to have ever felt disposed to extend relief when practical. Hence Abraham extended relief to the family of Lot: hence the prophet Obed succeeded to deliver from slavery two hundred thousand of the children of Judah from the hand of the king of Israel, during For several centuries, Britain supplied slaves for other parts of the world; but, during the time she did so, she took no steps for the redemption of any; and such has invariably been the case at all times of the world. All races of men, sunk in the lowest depths of degradation, have never failed to be in slavery to one another, and to supply other nations with their own countrymen for slaves; and, perhaps, this may be adduced as an evidence of their having descended to that degree of degradation that makes slavery a mercy to them. Sympathy for them could do them no good; because a relief from slavery could not elevate them,—could do them no good, but an injury. Hence such sympathy is forbidden. The degradation of the children of Jacob became almost extreme; yet they went not into slavery until it was accompanied by a fact of like nature. Who shall say that slavery and the slave-trade in Britain was not one of the steps, under Divine providence, whereby God brought about the elevated condition of the race of man there? Who will say that the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt was not to them a mercy, and did not bring to them an ameliorated, an elevated condition, necessary to them before the Divine law could fulfil its promise to Abraham? But this was a mere temporary slavery; whereas the slavery pronounced on the races of Ham was through all time, perpetual. During the dark ages of the world, the races of men generally became deteriorated to an extraordinary extent. If our doctrine be true, slavery was a necessary consequence, and continued, until by its amendatory influence on the enslaved, in accordance with the law of God, they became elevated above the level of its useful operation. But, during these periods, the slave in Africa, little sought after by other races, became of small value to the African master, and was the prey, frequently an article of food, even to the slaves themselves, as well as to his own master; and this state of facts existed until the other races of man had mostly emerged from slavery; when the African slave became an article of commerce, and cannibalism, in consequence, became almost forgotten. Was this no blessing? Was this not a mercy—an improved condition? But, as if God really intended, contrary to the apparent wishes of some men, to fulfil his word, and establish their condition of “The rod and reproof give wisdom.” “A servant (??????ebed abed, a slave) will not be corrected by words; for though he understand, he will not answer.” Prov. xxix. 15, 19. In close, may we inquire what benefit has resulted to the slave in the South,—what benefit to poor, bleeding Africa, from the sympathy of the world on the subject of their slavery? What, none! If none—has it done them no evil? And will ye continue to do evil? In your weakness, will ye think to contend against God? LESSON XIV.The abolitionist will probably consent to the truth of the proposition that God governs the universe. It may be that they will also agree that he is abundantly able to do so. But, whatever may be their decision, it is one of the revealed laws of God, that— “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am, It is not to be supposed that man can comprehend God as it may be said he comprehends things within the compass of his own understanding. If so, there would have been no need of revelation. Revelation has given us all the knowledge of God necessary to our welfare and happiness. We have not yet learned that man has become able to go beyond revelation in his knowledge of God. But suppose some one should take it into his fancy to say and believe that the Sabbath was not a Divine institution, or that “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal,” were mere human contrivances, and contrary to the will and laws of their God; now, if the God who has revealed these laws to us is the genuine God, would not the god who should teach these forbidden acts to be lawful be a different god? And although he would exist only in the imagination of those who believed in such a being, yet would it be any the less idolatry to worship him than it would be if a block were set up to represent him? Is it any sufficient excuse, because such worshipper acts from ignorance, or under the influence of a sincere conscience? Is it to be presumed that those who sacrificed their children, and even themselves, to a false god, were not sincere? Did not Paul act with a sincere conscience when he persecuted the Christians? But can we suppose that the real Jehovah would, in a revelation to man of his will, his law, recognise a thing as property among men, when, at the same time, it was contrary to his will and his law that such thing should be property among men? “Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife; neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his man-servant (????????????we?abdÔ his male slave), or his maid-servant (??????????wa?amatÔ his female slave), his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” Deut. v. 21, the 18th of the Hebrew text. Would it not have been just as easy for God to have said, if such was his will, “Thou shalt not have slaves,” as to have said this, as follows? “And also of the heathen shall ye buy slaves, and your children shall inherit them after you, and they shall be your slaves for ever!” But Dr. Channing, speaking of the various exertions now making in behalf of the abolition of slavery, gives us to understand that the Christian philanthropy and the enlightened goodness, (and, he We know that some say that slavery is contrary to their moral sense, contrary to their conscience, that under no circumstances can it be right. But if God has ordained the institution of slavery, not only as a punishment of sin, but as a restraint of some effect against a lower degradation, had not such men better cultivate and improve their “moral sense” and “conscience” into a conformity with the law of God on this subject? They cannot think that, on the account of their much talking, God will change his government to suit their own peculiar views. In our judgment, their views must bring great darkness to the mind, and, we think, distress; for is it not a great distress itself, to be under the government of one we think unjust? We know not but that we owe them, as fellow travellers through this momentary existence, the duty of trying to remove from their minds the cause of such darkness and distress. Shall we counsel together? Will you, indeed, stop for a moment in company with a brother? Will you hear the Bible? Will you, through a child, listen to the voice of God? All agree that slavery has existed in the world from a very remote age. Wicked men and wicked nations have passed away, but slavery still exists among their descendants. Good men and enlightened nations have gone the way of all that is and has been, but slavery still abides on the earth. Upon the introduction of Christianity, men, who little understood its spirit, suddenly rose up to abolish slavery in cases where the slave became converted to its faith; also to cut loose the believing child from all obligations of obedience to the unbelieving parent, and also the husband or wife from his or her unbelieving spouse. Yet this new doctrine only met the condemnation of Peter and Paul. And even at the present day, we find men ready to give up the religion of Christ, and the gospel itself, rather than their own notions concerning slavery. “If the religion of Christ allows such a licence” (to hold slaves) “from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on our race.” Barnes on Such writers may be conscientious, but their writings have only bound the slave in stronger chains. God makes his very enemies build up his throne. Thus the exertions of man are ever feeble when in contradiction to the providence of God. The great adversary has ever been at work to dethrone the Almighty from the minds of men. Abolition doctrines are no new thing in the world. We concede them the age of slavery itself, which we shall doubtless find as old as sin. Stay thy haste, then, thou who feelest able to teach wisdom to thy Creator: come, listen to the voice of a child; the lessons of a worm; for God is surely able to vindicate his ways before thee! When Adam was driven out of paradise, he was told— “Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” “Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.” The expression, “Thou shalt eat the herb of the field,” we think has a very peculiar significance; for God made “every herb of the field before it grew;” and one of the reasons assigned why the “herb was made before it grew,” we find to be, that “there was not a man to till the ground.” Now, the word to till is translated from the word ?????????la?abod la ebod, and means to slave; but in English we use the term not so directly. We use more words to express the same idea; we say to do slave-labour on the ground, instead of to slave the ground, as the expression stands in Hebrew. The doctrine is, that the herb, on which the fallen sinner is destined to subsist, was not of spontaneous growth; it could only be produced by sweat and toil, even unto sorrow. Sin had made man a slave to his own necessities; he had to slave the ground for his subsistence; and such was the view of David, who, after describing how the brute creation is spontaneously provided for, says— “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service (???????????la?abdoat la ebodath, the slavery) of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth.” Ps. civ. 14. This state of being compelled to labour with sweat and toil for subsistence, is the degree of slavery to which sin reduced the whole “Now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thou tillest (????????ta?abod tha ebod, thou slavest) the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.” * * * “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” “Shall not yield unto thee her strength;” either the earth should be less fruitful, or from his own waywardness, it should be less skilfully cultivated by him, or that a profit from his labour should be enjoyed by another; or, perhaps, from the joint operation of them all. Thus an aggravated degree of sin is always attended by an aggravated degree of slavery. The next final step we discover in the history of slavery appears in Ham, the son of Noah; and he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” “Servant of servants,” ?????? ??????????ebed ?abadÎm ebed ebadim, slave of slaves. This mode of expression in Hebrew is one of the modes by which they expressed the superlative degree. The meaning is, the most abject slave shall he be to his brethren. Heretofore slavery has been of less intensity; here we find the ordination of the master, and it is not a little remarkable that he is distinctly blessed! “And he said, I am Abraham’s servant. And the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants And of Isaac it is said— “Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year a hundred fold: and the Lord blessed him, and the man waxed great, and went forward and grew until he became very great: for he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of herds, and great store of servants (????????????wa?abudd va ebuddah, and a large family of slaves): and the Philistines envied him.” We pray that no one in these days will imitate those wicked Philistines! And of Jacob it is said— “And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maid-servants (???????????ÛŠepa?Ôt vu shephahoth), and female slaves and men-servants (???????????wa?abadÎm va ebadim, and male slaves), and camels, and asses.” “And the Lord said unto Jacob, Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.” “He that is despised, and hath a servant (??????ebed ebed, a slave), is better than he that honoureth himself, and lacketh bread.” Prov. xii. 9. “I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it that men should fear before him. That which hath been is now; and that which is to be, hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.” Eccl. iii. 14. LESSON XV.We shall, in the course of these studies, with some particularity examine what evidence there may be that Ham took a wife from the race of Cain; and we propose a glance at that subject now. Theological students generally agree that, in Genesis vi. 2, “sons of God” mean those of the race of Seth; and that the “daughters of men” imply the females of the race of Cain. The word “fair,” in our version, applied to these females, does not justly teach us that they were white women, or that they were The fact is well known that all races of animals are capable of being improved or deteriorated. A commixture of a better with a worse sample deteriorates the offspring of the former. Man is no exception to this rule. Our position is, that sin, as a moral poison, operating in one continued strain in the degradation and deterioration of the race of Cain, had at length forced them down to become exceedingly obnoxious to God. Intermarriage with them was the sure ruin of the race of Seth: it subjected them at once to the curses cleaving to the race of Cain. Even after the flood, witness the repugnance to intermarry with the race of Ham often manifested by the descendants of Shem; and that the Israelites were forbidden to do so. Now, for a moment, let us suppose that Ham did marry and take into the ark a daughter of the race of Cain. If the general intermixture of the Sethites with the Cainites had so deteriorated the Sethites, and reduced them to the moral degradation of the Cainites, that God did not deem them worthy of longer encumbering the earth before the flood, would it be an extraordinary manifestation of his displeasure at the supposed marriage of Ham with one of the cursed race of Cain, to subject the issue of such marriage to a degraded and perpetual bondage? But again, in case this supposed marriage of Ham with the race of Cain be true, then Ham would be the progenitor of all the race of Cain who should exist after the flood; and such fact would be among the most prominent features of his history. It would, in such case, be in strict conformity with the usages of these early times for his father to have called him by a name indicative Some suppose that this question would be answered by saying that the term was applied to the youngest son of Ham; but all the sons of Ham were born after the flood; yet the planting of the vineyard and the drinking of the wine are the first acts of Noah which are mentioned after that deluge; and further, Canaan, the son of Ham, was most certainly not the individual whose ill-behaviour was simultaneous with and followed by the curse of slavery. Have we any proof, or any reason to believe, that Canaan, the son of Ham, was then even born? But in the catalogue of Noah’s sons, even before the planting of the vineyard is mentioned, Ham is called the father of Canaan, even before we are told that he had any sons. Why was he then so called the father of Canaan, unless upon the fact that by his marriage he necessarily was to become the progenitor of the race of Cain in his own then unborn descendants? Under all the facts that have come down to us, we are not to suppose that there was any Cainite blood in Noah, or in Noah’s wife. Why then did Ham choose to commemorate the race of Cain, by naming his fourth son Cain, a term synonymous with Cainite, or Canaanite? And why did the race of Ham do the same thing through many centuries, using terms differently varied, sometimes interchanging the consonant and vowel sounds, as was common in the language they used? These variations, it is true, when descending into a language so remote as ours, might not be noticed, yet the linguist surely will trace them all back to their root, the original of “Cain.” God never sanctions a curse without an adequate cause; a cause under the approbation of his law, sufficient to produce the effect the curse announces. The conduct of Ham to his father proved him to possess a degraded, a very debased mind; but that alone could not produce so vital, so interminable a change in the moral and physical condition of his offspring. And where are we to look for such a cause, unless in marriage? And with whom could such an intermarriage be had, except with the cursed race of Cain? The ill-manners of Ham no doubt accelerated the time of the announcement of the curse, but was not the sole cause. The cause must have previously existed; and the effect would necessarily have been produced, even if it had never been announced. The history of man since the flood is accompanied with a sufficiency of facts by which we are enabled to determine that the descendants of Ham were black, and that the black man of Africa is of that descent. “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him would kill him.” The word “mark” is translated from ?????Ôt oth; its signification is, a mark by which to distinguish; a memorial or warning; miraculous sign or wonder, consisting either in word or deed, whereby the certainty of any thing future is foretold or known; and hence it partook of the nature of a prophecy. In the present case it was the mark of sin and degradation; it was the token of his condition of slavery, of his being a vagabond on the earth. It distinguished his rank of inferiority and wickedness, proclaiming him to be the man whose greatest punishment was to live and bear his burthens, below all rivalship. Hence its protective influence. Now, by the common consent of all men, at all times, what has been the mark of sin and degradation? Were we even now, among ourselves, about to describe one of exceedingly wicked and degraded character, should we say that he looked very white? Or should we say that his character was black? And so has been the use of the term since language has been able to send down to distant times the ideas and associations of men. “Their visage is blacker than a coal.” “Our skin was black.” “I am black: astonishment hath taken hold on me.” “For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” And who shall say that the wicked, disgusting mode of life, the practices deteriorating the physical and mental powers imputed to the Cainites, do not constitute what some may call a philosophical But allow the fact to have been that, in the case of Cain, the physical change was instantaneous, God had the power to institute in a moment what should thereafter be produced only by progression or inheritance. God created man; but, thereafter, man was born and became mature through the instrumentality only of physical causes. “The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.” Isa. iii. 9. In fact, “The faces of them all gather blackness.” Nahum ii. 10. But we know that the descendants of Ham were black; nor is it stated that any personal mark was placed upon him, although the name applied to his first-born son, “Cush,” signifies that he was black, giving proof that the colour was inherited; but from whom? Not from his father! “Can the Ethiopian (????????kÛŠÎ Cushi, the Cushite, the black man) change his skin?” The evidence forced on the mind leads to the conclusion that the descendants of Ham were black, not by the progressive operation of the laws of God on the course of sin which they doubtless practised, but that they were so at birth,—consequently an inheritance from parentage. And a further conclusion also is, that the wife of Ham must have been black, of the race of Cain, inheriting his mark, and that that mark was black. A further proof that Ham took to wife a daughter of the race of Cain is found in the traces of evidence indicating her person, who she was. Lamech, of the race of Cain, had a daughter, Naamah; her name is given as the last in the genealogy of Cain. Why did the inspired penman think it necessary to send her name down to us? Why was the genealogy of Cain given us, unless to announce some fact important for us to know? If this whole race were to be cut off by the flood, we see nothing in the genealogy teaching any lesson to the descendants of Noah. Why was the particular line from Cain to Naamah selected, unless she was the particular object designed to be pointed out? Hundreds of other Inasmuch as Naamah belonged to a race distinct from that of Seth, could the family of Noah have any desire to preserve her lineage from any other cause than that of her having become a member of that family?—in which case the cause of its preservation is obvious, and a thing to have been expected. On any other state of facts, would they have carefully handed down the genealogy, so far as we are informed, of a mere uninteresting woman of the cursed race of Cain, and neglected to have given us the name and genealogy of Noah’s wife, of the more holy race of Seth? The presumption then being that she did become the wife of one of Noah’s sons, the first inquiry is, to which was she attached? A sufficient answer to this question, for the present moment, will be found in the fact that Ham was doomed to perpetual and bitter slavery, while his brothers were blessed and ordained to be his masters. Now since an amalgamation of the races of Seth and Cain was deemed a most grievous sin before the flood, if Japheth or Shem had either of them taken Naamah to wife, it would be past understanding to find them both highly blessed and made the masters of Ham. But a more direct evidence that Ham did take to wife Naamah, of the race of Cain, is found in the fact that the descendants of Ham commemorated her name by giving it to persons of their These names are varied, often, from the original form, as are a great number of proper names found in use among the ancient nations. These words we shall have hereafter occasion particularly to examine. We shall merely add, that in the marriage of Ham and Naamah we may find a reasonable explanation for the otherwise inexplicable speech of Lamech to his two wives,—since such marriage would have produced, what we find was produced, the ruin and degradation of Ham,—we might say, his moral death, his extinguishment, from the race of Seth. Some commentators deduce the name Naamah from the root “nam,” and consequently make it signify beautiful. We give it quite a different origin, which we shall explain at large elsewhere. It is to be expected that men will differ in opinion as to the historical facts of these early days. Some have made Naamah a pure saint; some, the wife of Noah; some, of her brother, Tubal-Cain; some make her the heathen goddess Venus; others, the mother of evil spirits. Thus diversified have been the speculations of men. We present our view, because we believe it better sustained by Scripture and known facts than any we have examined: but we deem it no way important in the justification of the ways of God to man; for, whatever the truth may be, this we know, that the curse of slavery was, if Scripture be true, unalterably uttered against the race of Ham,—in which condition, as a people, they ever have been and still are found: a condition so well adapted to their physical and mental organization, the result of ages spent in bad, degenerating habits, that when held in such relation by the races of Japheth or Shem, the race of Ham is found gradually to emerge from its native brutality into a state of comparative elevation and usefulness in the world; a condition without which they, as a race, have never been found progressing, but ever exhibiting the desire of wandering backward, in search of the life of the vagabond, in the midst of the wilderness of sin;—unless in this author, Dr. Channing, we find an exception; for he more than intimates that he found the negro women of Jamaica rather to excel the white ones of New England. We believe, according to his own taste and judgment, what he said was true; but we also believe his taste was very depraved, and his judgment of no value on this |
|
