I need only say, in reference to this letter, that my friends having questioned my position as to the good of the agitation, I wrote the following letter to vindicate that point, as given, in the New York speech:--
HUNTSVILLE, ALA., July 14, 1856.
Brother Blackburn:--I affirmed, in my New York speech, that the Slavery agitation has done, and will accomplish, good.
Your very kind and courteous disagreement on that point I will make the occasion to say something more thereon, without wishing you, my dear friend, to regard what I write as inviting any discussion.
I saidthatagitation has brought out, and would reveal still more fully, the Bible, in its relation to slavery and liberty,--also the infidelity which long has been, and is now, leavening with death the whole Northern mind. And that it would result in the triumph of thetrueSouthern interpretation of the Bible; to the honor of God, and to the good of the master, the slave, the stability of the Union, and be a blessing to the world. To accomplish this, the sinper sedoctrine will be utterly demolished. That doctrine is the difficulty in everyNorthern mind,(where there is any difficulty about slavery,) whether they confess it or not. Yes, the difficulty with every Northern man is, thatthe relation ofmaster and slave is feltto besin. I know that to be the fact. I have talked with all grades of Northern men, and come in contact with all varieties of Northern mind on this subject. And I know that the man who says and tries to believe, and does, partially in sober judgment, believe, that slavery is not sin, yet,in his feelings, in his educated prejudices, he feels that slavery is sin.
Yes,thatis the difficulty, andthatis the whole of the difficulty,between the North and the South, so far as the question is one of the Bible and morals. Now, I again say, that thatsin per sedoctrine will, in this agitation, be utterly demolished. And when that is done,--when the North will know and feel fully, perfectly, that the relation of master and slave is not sin, but sanctioned of God,--then, and not till then, the North and South can and will, without anger, consider the following questions:--Whether slavery, as it exists in the United States, all things considered, be or be not a great good, and the greatest good for a time, notwithstanding its admitted evils? Again, whether these evils can or cannot be modified and removed? Lastly, whether slavery itself can or cannot pass away from this land and the world? Now, sir, the moment the sin question is settled, then all is peace. For these other questions belong entirely to another category of morals. They belong entirely to the category ofwhat iswiseto realizegood. This agitation will bring this great result. And therefore I affirm the agitation to be good.
There is another fact also, the result, in great measure, of this agitation, which in my view proves it to have been and to be of great good. I mean the astonishing rise and present stability of the slave-power of the United States. This fact, when examined, is undeniable. And it is equally undeniable that it has been caused, in great part, by the slavery question in all its bearings. It is a wonderful development made by God. And I must believe he intends thereby either to destroy or bless this great Union. But, as I believe he intends to bless, therefore I am fortified in affirming the good there has been and is in this agitation. Let me bring out to view this astonishing fact.
1. Twenty-five years ago, and previously, the whole slave-holding South and West had a strong tendency to emancipation, in some form. But the abolition movement then began, and arrested that Southern and Western leaning to emancipation. Many people have said, and do say, that thatarrestwas and is a great evil. I say it was and is a great good. Why? Answer: It was and would now be premature. Had it been carried out, it would have been and would now be evil, immense, inconceivable,--to master, slave, America, Africa, and the world; because neither master, slave, America, Africa, the world, were, or are, ready for emancipation. God has a great deal to do before he is ready for emancipation. He tells us so by thisarrestput upon that tendency to emancipation years ago. For He put it into the hearts of abolitioniststo make the arrest. And He stopped the Southern movement all the more perfectly by permitting Great Britain to emancipate Jamaica, and letting that experiment prove, as it has, a perfect failure and a terrible warning. JAMAICA IS DESTROYED. And now, whatever be done for its negroes must be done with the full admission that what has been attempted was in violation of the duty Britain owed to those negroes. But her failure in seeing and doing her duty, God has given to us to teach us knowledge; and, through us, to instruct the world in the demonstration of the problem of slavery.
2. God put it into the hearts of Northern men--especially abolitionists--to give Texas to the South. Texas, a territory so vast that a bird, as Webster said, can't fly over it in a week. Many in the South did not want Texas. But many longer-headed ones did want it. And Northern men voted and gave to the South exactly what these longer-headed Southern statesmen wanted. This, I grant, was Northern anti-slavery fatuity, utterly unaccountable but that God made them do it.
3. God put it into the hearts of Northern men--especially abolitionists--to vote for Polk, Dallas, and Texas. This gave us the Mexican War; and that immense territory, its spoil,--a territory which, although it may not be favorable for slave-labor, has increased, and will, in many ways, extend the slave-power.
4. This leads me to say that God put it into the hearts of many Northern men--especially abolitionists--to believe what Great Britain said,--namely, thatfree tradewould result in slave-emancipation.But lo! the slave-holder wanted free trade. So Northern abolitionists helped to destroy thetariff policy, and thus to expand the demand for, and the culture of, cotton. Now, see, the gold of California hasperpetuated free tradeby enabling our merchants to meet the enormous demand for specie created by free trade. So California helps the slave-power. But the abolitionists gave us Polk, the Mexican War, and California.
5. God put it into the hearts of the North, and especially abolitionists, to stimulate the settlement of new free States, and to be the ardent friends of an immense foreign emigration. The result has been to send down to the South, with railroad speed and certainty, corn, wheat, flour, meal, bacon, pork, beef, and every other imaginable form of food, in quantity amazing, and so cheap that the planter can spread wider and wider the culture of cotton.
6. God has, by this growth of the Northwest, made the demand for cotton enormous in the North and Northwest. Again, he has made English and French experiments to procure cotton somewhere else than from the United Statesdead failures,--in the East Indies, Egypt, Algeria, Brazil. God has thus given to the Southern planter an absolute monopoly. A monopoly so great that he, the Southern planter, sits now upon his throne of cotton and wields the commercial sceptre of the world. Yes, it is the Southern planter who says to-day to haughty England, Go to war, if you dare; dismiss Dallas, if you dare. Yes, he who sits on the throne of the cotton-bag has triumphed at last over him who sits on the throne of the wool-sack. England is prostrate at his feet, as well as the abolitionists.
7. God has put it into the hearts of abolitionists to prevent half a million of free negroes from going to Liberia; and thereby the abolitionists have made them consumers of slave-products to the extension of the slave-power. And, by thus keeping them in America, the abolitionists have so increased their degradation as to prove all the more the utter folly of emancipation in the United States.
8. God has permitted the anti-slavery men in the North, in England, in France, and everywhere, so to blind themselves in hypocrisy as to give the Southern slave-holder his last perfect triumph over them; for God tells the planter to say to the North, to England, to France, to all who buy cotton, "Ye men of Boston, New York, London, Paris,--ye hypocrites,--ye brand me as a pirate, a kidnapper, a murderer, a demon, fit only for hell, and yet ye buy my blood-stained cotton. O ye hypocrites!--ye Boston hypocrites! why don't ye throw the cotton in the sea, as your fathers did the tea? Ye Boston hypocrites! ye say,if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the slave-trade!Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them who, in fact, kidnapped and bought in blood, and sold the slave in America! for now, ye hypocrites, ye buy the blood-stained cotton in quantity so immense, thatyehave run up the price of slaves to be more than a thousand dollars,--the average of old and young! O ye hypocrites! ye denounce slavery; then ye bid it live, and not die,--in that ye buy sugar, rice, tobacco, and, above all, cotton! Ye hypocrites! ye abuse the devil, and then fall down and worship him!--ye hypocrites,--ye New England hypocrites,--ye Old England hypocrites,--ye French hypocrites,--ye Uncle Tom's Cabin hypocrites,--ye Beecher hypocrites,--ye Rhode Island Consociation hypocrites! Oh, your holy twaddle stinks in the nostrils of God, and he commands me to lash you with my scorn, and his scorn, so long as ye gabble about the sin of slavery, and then bow down to me, and buy and spin cotton, and thus work for me as truly as my slaves! O ye fools and blind, fill ye up the measure of your folly, and blindness, and shame! And this ye are doing. Ye have, like the French infidels, madereasonyour goddess, and are exalting her above the Bible; and, in your unitarianism and neology and all modes of infidelity, ye are rejecting and crucifying the Son of God."
Now, my brother, this controlling slave-power is a world-wide fact. Its statistics of bales count by millions; its tonnage counts by hundreds of thousands; its manufacture is reckoned by the workshops of America and Europe; its supporters are numbered by all who must thus be clothed in the world. This tremendous power has been developed in great measure by the abolition agitation, controlled by God. I believe, then, as I have already said, that God intends one of two things. He either intends to destroy the United States by this slave-power, or he intends to bless my country and the world by the unfoldings of his wisdom in this matter. I believe he will bless the world in the working out of this slavery. I rejoice, then, in the agitation which has so resulted, and will so terminate, to reveal the Bible, and bless mankind.
Your affectionate friend,
F.A. Ross.
REV. A. BLACKBURN.
My position as to this all-important question, in my New York speech, was made subject of remark in the "Presbyterian Herald," Louisville, Kentucky, to which I replied at length in the "Presbyterian Witness," Knoxville, Tennessee. No rejoinder was ever made to that reply. But, recently, an extract from the younger Edwards was submitted to me. To that I gave the following letter. The subject is of the first and the last importance, and bears directly, as set forth in my New York speech, on infidelity, and, of course, the slavery question:--
Mr. Editor:--In your paper of Tuesday, 24th ult., there is an article, under this head, giving the argument of Edwards (the son) against my views as tothe foundation of moral obligation.
I thank the writer for his argument, and his courteous manner of presenting it. In my third letter to Mr. Barnes, I express my preparation to meet "all comers" on this question; and I am pleased to see this "comer". If my views cannot be refuted by Edwards, I may wait long for an "uglier customer."
A word, introductory, to your correspondent. He says, "His [Dr. Ross's] theory was advanced and argued against in a former age." By this, I understand him to express his belief that my theory has been rejected heretofore. Well. It may, nevertheless, be the true theory. The Copernican astronomy was argued against in a former age and rejected; yet it has prevailed. Newton's law of gravitation was argued against and rejected by a whole generation of philosophers on the continent of Europe; yet it has prevailed. And now all school-boys and girls would call anybody a fool who should deny it. Steam, in all its applications, was argued against and rejected; yet it has prevailed. So the electric telegraph; and, to go back a little, the theory of vaccination,--the circulation of the blood,--a thousand things; yea, Edwards's (the father) theory of virtue, although received by many, has been argued against, and by many rejected; yet it will prevail. Yea, his idea of the unity of the race in Adam was and is argued against and rejected; yet it will prevail. I feel, therefore, no fear that my theory of moral obligation will not be acknowledged because it was argued against and rejected by many in a former age, and may be now. Nay; facts to prove it are accumulating,--facts which were not developed in Edwards's day,--facts showing, irresistibly, that Edwards's theory, which isthatmost usually now held, is what I say it is,--the rejection of revelation, infidelity, and atheism. The evidence amounts to demonstration.
The question is in a nutshell; it is this:--Shall man submit to the revealed will of God, orto his own will?That is the naked question when the fog of confused ideas and unmeaning words is lifted and dispersed.
My position, expressed in the speech delivered in the General Assembly, New York, May, 1856, is this:--"God, in making all things, saw that, in the relations he would constitute between himself and intelligent creatures, and among themselves, NATURAL GOOD AND EVIL would come to pass. In his benevolent wisdom, he thenwilledLAW to control thisgoodandevil; and he thereby madeconformityto that law to beright, andnon-conformityto bewrong. Why? Simply because he saw it to begood, andmade it to beRIGHT; not becausehe saw it to be right, but becausehe made it to be right."
Your correspondent replies to this theory in the following words of Edwards:--"Some hold that the foundation of moral obligation is primarily in the will of God. But the will of God is either benevolent or not. If it be benevolent, and on that account the foundation of moral obligation, it is not the source of obligation merely because it is the will of God, but because it is benevolent, and is of a tendency to promote happiness; and this places the foundation of obligation in a tendency to happiness, and not primarily in the will of God. But if the will of God, and that which is the expression of it, the divine law, be allowed to be not benevolent, and are foundation of obligation, we are obliged to conform to them, whatever they be, however malevolent and opposite to holiness and goodness the requirements be. But this, I presume, none will pretend." Very fairly and strongly put; that's to say, if I understand Edwards, he supposes, if God was the devil and man what he is, then man would not be under obligation to obey the devil's will! That's it! Well, I suppose so too; and I reckon mostChristianswould agree to that statement, Nay, more: I presume nobody ever taught that the mere nakedwill, abstractly considered, if it could be, from thecharacterof God, was the ground of moral obligation? Nay, I think nobody ever imagined that the notion of an infinite Creator presupposes or includes the idea that he is a malevolent Being! I agree, then, with Edwards, that the ultimate ground of obligationisin thefactthat God is benevolent, or is a good God. I saidthatin my speech quoted above. I formally stated that "God, in his benevolent wisdom, willed law to control the natural good and evil," &c. What, then, is the point of disagreement between my view and Edwards's? It is inthe different ways by which weGET ATtheFACTof divine benevolence. I hold that the REVEALED WORDtells us who God is and what he does, and is, therefore, the ULTIMATE GROUND OF OBLIGATION. But Edwards holds that HUMAN REASONmust tell us who God is and what he does, and IS, therefore, the PRIMARY GROUND OF OBEDIENCE.Thatis my issue with Edwards and others; and it is as broad an issue asfaith in revelation, or the REJECTION OF IT. I do not charge that Edwards did, or that all who hold with him do, deny the word of God; but I do affirm that their argument does. The matter is plain. For what is revelation? It is that God has appeared in person, andtoldman in WORD that he is GOD; andtoldhim first in WORD (to be expanded in studyingcreationandprovidence) that God is a Spirit, eternal, infinite in power, wisdom, goodness, holiness,--the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor. That WORD, moreover, he proved by highest evidence--namely, supernatural evidence--to beabsolute, perfectTRUTH as to all FACT affirmedof himandwhathedoes. REVELATION, as claimed in the Bible, was and is THAT THING.
Man, then, having this revelation; is under obligation ever to believe every jot and tittle of that WORD. He at first, no doubt, knew little of the meaning of somefactsdeclared; nay, he may have comprehended nothing of the sense or scope of manyfactsaffirmed. Nay, he may now, after thousands of years, know most imperfectly the meaning of that WORD. But he was and he is, notwithstanding, to believe with absolute faith the WORD,--that Godisall he says he is, anddoesall he says he does,--however that WORD maygo beyondhis reason, orsurprisehis feelings, oralarmhis conscience, orcommandhis will.
This statement of what revelation is, settles the whole question as presented by Edwards. For REVELATION, as explained, does FIXforever the foundation of man's moral obligation in the benevolence of God, PRIMARILY, as it isexpressedin the word of God. REVELATION does then, in that sense, FIXobligation in theMERE WILL OF GOD; for, the moment you attempt to establish the foundationsomewhere else, you have abandoned the ground of revelation. You have left the WILL OF GODin his word, and you have made your rule of right to be the WILL OF MANin theSELFof theHEART. The proof of what I here say is so plain, even as the writing on the tables of Habakkuk's vision, that he may run that readeth it. Read, then, even as on thetables.
Godsaysin his WORD, "I am all-powerful, all-wise, the Creator." "You may be," says Edwards, "but I wantprimary foundationfor my faith; and I can't take yourwordfor it. I must look first intonatureto see if evidence of infinite power and wisdom is there,--to see if evidence of a Creator is there,--and if thou art he!"
Again, Godsaysin his word, "I am benevolent, andmy willin my law is expression of that benevolence." "You may tell the truth," Edwards replies, "but I wantprimary groundfor my belief, and I must hold your word suspended until I examine into my reason, my feelings, my conscience, my will,--to see if your WORDharmonizeswith my HEART,--to see if what you reveal tends tohappinessIN MY NOTION OF HAPPINESS;or tends to rightIN MY NOTION OF RIGHT!" That's it. That's the theory of Edwards, Barnes, and others.
And what is this but the attempt to know the divine attributes and character insome other waythan through the divine WORD? And what is this but the denial of the divine WORD, except so far as it agrees with the knowledge of the attributes and character of God, obtained in THATsome other way?And what is this but to make the word of Godsubordinateto the teaching of the HUMAN HEART? And what is this but to make the WILLof Godgive place to the WILLof man?And what is this but the REJECTION OF REVELATION? Yet this is the result (though not intended by him) of the whole scheme of obligation, maintained by Edwards and by all who agree with him.
Carry it out, and what is the progress and the end of it? This. Human reason--the human heart--will be supreme. Some, I grant, will hold to a revelation of some sort. A thing more and more transcendental,--a thing more and more of fog and moonshine,--fog floating in German cellars from fumes of lager-beer, and moonshine gleaming from the imaginations of the drinkers. Some, like Socrates and Plato, will have a God supreme, personal, glorious, somewhat like the true; and with him many inferior deities,--animating the stars, the earth, mountains, valleys, plains, the sea, rivers, fountains, the air, trees, flowers, and all living things. Some will deny a personal God, and conceive, instead, the intelligent mind of the universe, without love. Some will contend for mere law,--of gravitation and attraction; and some will suggest that all is the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms! Here, having passed through the shadows and the darkness, we have reached the blackness of infidelity,--blank atheism. No God--yea, all the way the "fools" were saying in their hearts, no God. What now is man? Alas! some, the Notts and Gliddons, tell us, man was indeedcreatedmillions of ages ago, the Lord only knows when, in swarms like bees to suit the zones of the earth,--while other some, the believers in thevestiges of creation, say man is the result of development,--from fire, dust, granite, grass, the creeping thing, bird, fish, four-footed beast, monkey. Yea, and some of these last philosophers are even now going to Africa to try to find men they have heard tell of, who still have tails and are jumping and climbing somewhere in the regions around the undiscovered sources of the Nile.
This is the progress and the result of the Edwards theory; because, deny or hesitate about revelation, and man cannot prove,absolutely, any of the things we are considering. Let us see if he can. Edwards writes, "On the supposition that the will or law of God is the primary foundation, reason, and standard of right and virtue, every attemptto prove the moral perfection or attributes of God is absurd." Here, then, Edwards believes, that, to reach the primary foundation of right and virtue, he must not take God's word as to his perfection or attributes, no matter how fullyGodmay haveprovedhis word: no; but he, Edwards, he, man, must firstprovethem insome other way. And, of course, he believes he can reach such primary foundation by such other proof. Well, let us see how he goes about it. I give him, to try his hand, the easiest attribute,--"POWER." I give him, then, all creation, and providence besides, as hisblack-board, on which to work his demonstration. I give him, then, the lifetime of Methuselah, in which to reach his conclusion of proof.--Well, I will now suppose we have all lived and waited that long time: what is hisproofOF INFINITE POWER? Has he found the EXHIBITION ofinfinite power?No. He has foundproofof GREAT POWER; but he has not reached the DISPLAY ofinfinite power. What then is hisfaithin infinite power after suchproof?Why, just this: he INFERSonly, that THE POWER,which did the things he sees, can go on, and on, and on, to give greater, and greater, and greater manifestations of itself!VERY GOOD:if so be, we can have no better proof. ButthatPROOF is infinitely below ABSOLUTE PROOFof infinite power. And all manifestations of power to afinite creature, even to the archangel Michael, during countless millions of ages, never gives, because it never can give to him, ABSOLUTE PROOFof infinite power. But the word of GOD gives the PROOF ABSOLUTE,and in a moment of time!"I AM THE ALMIGHTY!" Theperfect proofis in THAT WORD OF GOD. I might set Edwards to work to prove theinfinite wisdom, theinfinite benevolence, theinfinite holiness--yea, the EXISTENCE--of God. And he, finite man, in any examination of creation or providence, must fall infinitely below the PERFECT PROOF.
So then I tell Edwards, and all agreeing with him, thatit is absurdto attempt toprovethe moral perfection and attributes of God, if he thereby seeks to reach the HIGHEST EVIDENCE,or if he thereby means to find thePRIMARY GROUNDof moral obligation.
Do I then teach that man should not seek theproofthere is, of the perfection and attributes of God, innature and providence? No. I hold that such proof unfolds themeaningof the FACTS declared in the WORD of God, and is all-important, as such expansion of meaning. But I say, by authority of the Master, thatthe highest proof, the absolute proof, the perfect proof, of the FACTS as towho God is, and what he does, and the PRIMARY OBLIGATIONthereupon, is in theREVEALED WORD.
FRED. A. ROSS.
Huntsville, Ala., April 3, 1857.
N.B.--In notice of last Witness's extract from Erskine, I remark that Thomas Erskine was, and may yet be, a lawyer of Edinburgh. He wrotethree works:--oneon theInternal Evidences, thenextonFaith, thelaston theFreeness of the Gospel. They are all written with great ability, and contain much truth. But all have in them fundamentaluntruths. There is least in the Evidences; more in the essay on Faith; most in the tract on the Freeness of the Gospel,--which last has been utterly refuted, and has passed away. HisFaithis, also, not republished. The Evidences is good, like good men, notwithstanding the evil.
As part of the great slavery discussion, Rev. A. Barnes, of Philadelphia, published, in October, 1856, a pamphlet, entitled, "The CHURCH and SLAVERY." In this tract he invites every man to utter his views on the subject. And, setting the example, he speaks his own with the greatest freedom and honesty.
In the same freedom of speech, I have considered his views unscriptural, false, fanatical, and infidel. Therefore, while I hold him in the highest respect, esteem, and affection, as a divine and Christian gentleman, and cherish his past relations to me, yet I have in these letters written to him, and of him, just as I would have done had he lived in France or Germany, a stranger to me, and given to the world the refined scoff of the one, or the muddy transcendentalism of the other.
My first letter is merely a glance at some things in his pamphlet, in which I show wherein I agree and disagree with him,--i.e.in our estimate of the results of the agitation; in our views of the Declaration of Independence; in our belief of the way men are made infidels; and in our appreciation of the testimonies of past General Assemblies.
The other letters I will notice in similar introductions.
These letters first appeared as original contributions to the Christian Observer, published and edited by Dr. A. Converse, Philadelphia.
I take this occasion to express my regard for him, and my sense of the ability with which he has long maintained the rights and interests of the Presbyterian body, to which we both belong; and the wise and masterly way in which he has vindicated, from the Bible, the truth on the slavery question. To him, too, the public is indebted for the first exhibition of Mr. Barnes's errors in his recent tract which has called forth my reply.
Rev. A. Barnes:--Dear Sir:--You have recently published a tract:--"The Church and Slavery." "The opinion of each individual," you remark, "contributes to form public sentiment, as the labor of the animalcule in the ocean contributes to the coral reefs that rise above the waves." True, sir, and beautifully expressed. But while, in harmony with your intimation, I must regard you one of the animalcules, rearing the coral reef of public opinion, I cannot admit your disclaimer of "special influence" among them in their work. Doubtless, sir, you have "special influence,"--and deserve to have. I make no apology for addressing you. I am one of the animalcules. I agree, and I disagree, with you. I harmonize in your words,--"The present is eminently a time when the views of every man on the subject of slavery should be uttered in unambiguous tones." I agree with you in this affirmation; because the subject has yet to be fully understood; because, when understood, if THE BIBLE doesnotsanction the system, the MASTER must cease to be the master. The SLAVE must cease to be the slave. He must befree, AND EQUAL IN POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIFE.Thatis your "unambiguous tone". Let it be heard, ifthatis the word of God. But if THE BIBLEdoessanction the system, thenthat"unambiguous tone" will silence abolitionists who admit the Scriptures; it will satisfy all good men, and give peace to the country. That is the "tone" I want men to hear. Listen to it in the past and present speech of providence. The time was whenyouhad the verypublic sentimentyou are now trying to form. From Maine to Louisiana, the American mind was softly yielding to the impress of emancipation, in some hope, however vague and imaginary. Southern as well as Northern men, in the church and out of it, not having sufficiently studied the word of God, and, under our own and French revolutionary excitement, looking only at the evils of slavery, wished it away from the land. It was amistakenpublic sentiment. Yet, such as it was, you had it, and it was doing your work. It was Quaker-like, mild and affectionate. It did not, however, work fast enough for you. You thought that the negro, with his superior attributes of body and mind and higher advantages of the nineteenth century, might reach, in a day, the liberty and equality which the Anglo-American had attained after the struggle of his ancestors during a thousand years! You got up the agitation. You got it up in the Church and State. You got it up over the length and breadth of this whole land. Let me show you some things you have secured, as the results of your work.First Result of Agitation.
1. The most consistent abolitionists, affirming the sin of slavery, on the maxim of created equality and unalienable right, after torturing the Bible for a while, to make it give the same testimony, felt they could get nothing from the book. They felt that the God of the Bible disregarded the thumb-screw, the boot, and the wheel; that he would not speak for them, but against them. These consistent men have now turned away from the word, in despondency; and are seeking, somewhere, an abolition Bible, an abolition Constitution for the United States, and an abolition God.
This, sir, is thefirst resultof your agitation:--the very van of your attack repulsed, and driven into infidelity.
A Second Result of Agitation.
2. Many others, and you among them, are trying in exactly the same way just mentioned to make the Bible speak against slave-holding. You get nothing by torturing the English version. People understand English. Nay, you get little by applying the rack to the Hebrew and Greek; even before a tribunal of men like you, who proclaim beforehand that Moses, in Hebrew, and Paul, in Greek,mustcondemn slavery because "it is a violation of the first sentiments of the Declaration of Independence." You find it difficult to persuade men that Moses and Paul were moved by the Holy Ghost to sanction the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson! You find it hard to make men believe that Moses saw in the mount, and Paul had vision in heaven, that this futureapostle of Libertywas inspired by Jesus Christ.
You torture very severely. But the muscles and bones of those old men are tough and strong. They won't yield under your terrible wrenchings. You get only groans and mutterings. You claim these voices, I know, as testimony against slavery. But you cannot torture in secret as in olden times. When putting the question, you have to let men be present,--who tell us that Moses and Paul won't speak for you,--that they are silent, like Christ before Pilate's scourging-men; or, in groans and mutterings,--the voices of their sorrow and the tones of their indignation,--they rebuke your pre-judgment of the Almighty when you say if the Bible sanctions slavery, "it neither ought to be nor could be received by mankind as a divine revelation."
This, sir, is thesecond resultyou have gained by your agitation. You have brought a thousand Northern ministers of the gospel, with yourself, to the verge of the same denial of the word of God which they have made, who are only a little ahead of you in the road you are travelling.
A Third Result of Agitation.
3. Meanwhile, many of your most pious men, soundest scholars, and sagacious observers of providence, have been led to study the Bible more faithfully in the light of the times. And they are reading it more and more in harmony with the views which have been reached by the highest Southern minds, to wit:--That the relation of master and slave is sanctioned by the Bible;--that it is a relation belonging to the same category as those of husband and wife, parent and child, master and apprentice, master and hireling;--that the relations of husband and wife, parent and child,were ordained in Eden for man, as man, andmodified after the fall, while the relation of slavery, as a system of labor, isonly one form of the government ordained of God over fallen and degraded man;--that theevilsin the system arethe same evilsof OPPRESSION we see in the relation of husband and wife, and all other forms of government;--that slavery, as a relation, suited to the more degraded or the more ignorant and helpless types of a sunken humanity, is, like all government, intendedas the proof of the curse of such degradation, and at the same time to elevate and bless;--that the relation of husband and wife, being for man, as man,will ever be over him, while slavery will remain so long as God sees it best, as a controlling power over the ignorant, the more degraded and helpless;--and that, when he sees it for the good of the country, he will cause it to pass away, if the slave can be elevated to liberty and equality, political and social, with his master,inthat country; orout ofthat country, if such elevation cannot be given therein, but may be realized in some other land: all which result must be left to the unfoldings of the divine will,in harmony with the Bible, and not to a newly-discovered dispensation. These facts are vindicated in the Bible and Providence. In the Old Testament, they stare you in the face:--in the family of Abraham,--in his slaves, bought with his money and born in his house,--in Hagar, running away under her mistress's hard dealing with her, and yet sent back, as a fugitive slave, by the angel,--in the law which authorized the Hebrews to hold their brethren as slaves for a time,--in which parents might sell their children into bondage,--in which the heathen were given to the Hebrews as their slaves forever,--in which slaves were considered so much the money of their master, that the master who killed one by an unguarded blow was, under certain circumstances, sufficiently punished in his slave's death, because he thereby lost his money,--in which the difference betweenman-stealingandslave-holdingis, by law, set forth,--in which the runaway from heathen masters may not be restored, because God gave him the benefits of an adopted Hebrew. In the New Testament:--wherein the slavery of Greece and Rome was recognised,--in the obligations laid on master and slave,--in the close connection of this obligation with the duties of husband and wife, parent and child,--in the obligation to return the fugitive slave to his master,--andin the condemnation of every abolition principle, "AS DESTITUTE OF THE TRUTH." (1 Tim. vi. 1-5.)
This view of slavery is becoming more and more, not only the settled decision of the Southern but of the best Northern mind, with a movement so strong that you have been startled by it to write the pamphlet now lying before me.
This is thethird resultyou have secured:--to make many of the best men in the North see the infidelity of your philosophy, falsely so called, on the subject of slavery, in the clearer and clearer light of the Scriptures.
Another Result of Agitation.
4. The Southern slave-holder is now satisfied, as never before, that the relation of master and slave is sanctioned by the Bible; and he feels, as never before, the obligations of the word of God. He no longer, in his ignorance of the Scriptures, and afraid of its teachings, will seek to defend his common-sense opinions of slavery by arguments drawn from "Types of Mankind," and other infidel theories; but he will look, in the light of the Bible, on all the good and evil in the system. And when the North, as it will, shall regard him holding from God this high power for great good,--when the North shall no more curse, but bid him God-speed,--then he will bless himself and his slave, in nobler benevolence. With no false ideas of created equality and unalienable right, but with the Bible in his heart and hand, he will do justice and love mercy in higher and higher rule. Every evil will be removed, and the negro will be elevated to the highest attainments he can make, and be prepared for whatever destiny God intends. This, sir, is thefourth resultof your agitation:--to make the Southern masterknow, from the Bible, his right to be a master, and his duty to his slave.
Thesefour resultsare so fully before you, that I think you must see and feel them. You have brought out, besides, tremendous political consequences, giving astonishing growth and spread to the slave power: on these I cannot dwell. Sir, are you satisfied with these consequences of the agitation you have gotten up? I am. I thank God that the great deep of the American mind has been blown upon by the wind of abolitionism. I rejoice that the stagnant water of that American mind has been so greatly purified. I rejoice that the infidelity and the semi-infidelity so long latent have been set free. I rejoice that the sober sense North and South, so strangely asleep and silent, has risen up to hear the word of God and to speak it to the land. I rejoice that all the South now know that God gives the right to hold slaves, and, with that right, obligations they must fulfil. I rejoice that the day has dawned in which the North and South will think and feel and act together on the subject of slavery. I thank God for the agitation. May he forgive the folly and wickedness of many who have gotten it up! May he reveal more and more, that surely the wrath of man shall praise him, while the remainder of wrath he will restrain!
Declaration of Independence.
I agree with you, sir, thatthe second paragraphof the Declaration of Independence containsfive affirmations, declared to be self-evident truths, which, if truths, do sustain you and all abolitionists in every thing you say as to the right of the negro to liberty; and not only to liberty,--to equality, political and social. But I disagree with you as to their truth, and I say that not one of said affirmations is a self-evident truth, or a truth at all. On the contrary, that each one is contrary to the Bible; that each one, separately, is denied; and that all five, collectively, are denied and upset by the Bible, by the natural history of man, and by providence, in every age of the world. I say this now. In a subsequent communication, I will prove what I affirm. For the present I merely add, that the Declaration of Independence stands in no need of these false affirmations. It was, and is, a beautiful whole without them. It was, and is, without these imaginary maxims, the simple statement of the grievances the colonies had borne from the mother-country, and their rightas colonies, when thus oppressed, to declare themselves independent. That is to say, the right given of God to oppressed children to seek protection in another family, or to set up for themselves somewhat beforetwenty-oneor natural maturity; right belonging to themin the British family;right sanctioned of God; right blessed of God, in the resistance of the coloniesas colonies--not as individual men--to the attempt of the mother-country to consummate her tyranny. But God gives no sanction to the affirmation that he hascreated all men equal; that this isself-evident,and that he has given themunalienable rights;that he has made government toderive its power solely from their consent, and that he has given themthe right to change that government in their mere pleasure. All this--every word of it, every jot and tittle--is the liberty and equality claimed by infidelity. God has cursed it seven times in France since 1793; and he will curse it there seventy times seven, if Frenchmen prefer to be pestled so often in Solomon's mortar. He has cursed it in Prussia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain. He will curse it as long as time, whether it is affirmed by Jefferson, Paine, Robespierre, Ledru Rollin, Kossuth, Greeley, Garrison, or Barnes.
Sir, that paragraph is anexcrescenceon the tree of our liberty. I pray you take it away. Worship it if you will, and in a manner imitate the Druid. He gave reverence to themistletoe, but first he removed theparasitefrom the noble tree. Do you the same. Cut awaythis mistletoewith golden knife, as did the Druid; enshrine its imaginary divinity in a grove or cave; then retire there, and leave our oak to stand in its glory in the light of heaven. Men have been afraid to say all this for years, just as they have been timid to assert that God has placed master and slave in the same relation as husband and wife. Public sentiment, which you once had and have lost, suppressed this utterance as the other. But now, men speak out; and I, for one, will tell you what the Bible reveals as to that part of the Declaration of Independence, as fearlessly as I tell you what it says of the system of slavery.
How Men are made Infidels.
I agree with you that some men have been, are, and will be, made infidels by hearing that God has ordained slavery as one form of his government over depraved mankind. But how does this fact prove that the Bible does not sanction slavery? Why, sir, you have been all your life teaching that some men are made infidels by hearing any truth of the Bible;--that some men are made infidels by hearing the Trinity, Depravity, Atonement, Divinity of Christ, Resurrection, Eternal Punishment. True: and these men find "great laws of their nature,--instinctive feelings"--just such as you find against slavery, and not more perverted in them than in you, condemning all this Bible. And they hold now, with your sanction, that a book affirming such facts "cannot be from God."
Sir, some men are made infidels by hearing the Ten Commandments, and they find "great laws of their nature," as strong in them as yours in you against slavery, warring against every one of these commandments. And they declare now, with your authority, that a book imposing such restraints upon human nature, "cannot be from God" Sir, what is it makes infidels? You have been wont to answer, "Theywill nothave Godto rule over them. Theywill nothave the BIBLEto control the great laws of their nature."Sir, that is the true answer. And you know thatthe great instinct of libertyis only one ofthree great laws, needing special teaching and government:--that is to say,the instinct to rule; the instinct to submit to be ruled; and the instinct for liberty.You know, too, that the instinctto submitis the strongest, the instinctto ruleis next, and that theaspiration for libertyis the weakest. Hence you know the overwhelming majority of men have ever been willing to be slaves; masters have been next in number; while the few have struggled for freedom.
The Bible, then, in proclaiming God's willas to these three great impulses, will be rejected by men, exactly as they have yielded forbidden control to the one or the other of them. The Bible will make infidels ofmasters, when God calls to them to rule right, or to give up rule, if they have allowedthe instinct of powerto make them hate God's authority. Pharaoh spoke for all infidel rulers when he said, "Who is the Lord that I should obey his voice?"
The Bible will make infidels ofslaves, when God calls to them to aspire to be free, if they have permittedthe instinct of submission tomake them hate his commands. The Israelites in the wilderness revealed ten times, in their murmuring,the slave-instinctin all ages:--"Would to God we had died in the wilderness!"
You know all this, and you condemn these infidels. Good.
But, sir, you know equally well that the Bible will make infidels of menaffirming the instinct of liberty,when God calls them to learn of him howmuch libertyhe gives, andhowhe gives it, andwhenhe gives it, if they have so yielded to this law of their nature as to make them despise the word of the Lord. Sir, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram spoke out just what the liberty-and-equality men have said in all time:--"Ye, Moses and Aaron, take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them: wherefore, then, lift ye up yourselves above the congregation?"Verily, sir, these men were intensely excited by "the great law of our nature,--the great instinct of freedom."Yea, they told God to his face they had looked within, and found thehigher law of liberty and equality--the eternal right--in their intuitional consciousness; and that they would not submit to his will in the elevation of Moses and Aaronabove them.
Verily, sir, you, in the spirit of Korah, now proclaim and say, "Ye masters, and ye white men who are not masters, North and South, ye take too much upon you, seeing the negro is created your equal, and, by unalienable right, is as free as you, and entitled to all your political and social life. Ye take, then, too much upon you in excluding him from your positions of wealth and honor, from your halls of legislation, and from your palace of the nation, and from your splendid couch, and from your fair women with long hair on that couch and in that gilded chariot: wherefore, then, lift ye up yourselves above the negro?"
Verily, sir, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram said all we have ever heard from abolition-platforms or now listen to from you. But the Lord made the earth swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram!
I agree with you then, sir, fully, that some men have been, are, and will be, made infidels by hearing that God, in the Bible, has ordained slavery. But I hold this to be no argument against the fact that the Bible does so teach, because men are made infidels by any other doctrine or precept they hate to believe.
Sir, no man has said all this better than you. And I cannot express my grief that you--in the principle now avowed,that every man must interpret the Bible as he chooses to reason and feel--sanction all the infidelity in the world, obliterate your "Notes" on the Bible, and deny the preaching of your whole life, so far as God may, in his wrath, permit you to expunge or recall the words of the wisdom of your better day.
Testimonies of General Assemblies.
I agree with you that the Presbyterian Church, both before and since its division, has testified, after a fashion, against slavery. But some of its action has been very curious testimony. I know not how the anti-slavery resolutions of 1818 were gotten up; nor how in some Assemblies since. I can guess, however, from what I do know, as to how such resolutions passed in Buffalo in 1853, and in New York in 1856. I know that in Buffalo they were at first voted down by a large majority. Then they were reconsidered in mere courtesy to men who said they wanted to speak. So the resolutions were passed after some days, in which thescrewswere applied and turned, in part,by female hands, to save the chairman of the committee fromthe effectsof the resolutions being finally voted down!
I know that, in New York, the decision of the Assembly to spread the minority report on the minutes was considered, in the body and out of it, as a Southern victory; for it revealed, however glossed over, that many in the house, who could not vote directly for the minority report, did in fact prefer it to the other.
I was not in Detroit in 1850; but I think it was established in New York last May that that Detroit testimony was so admirably worded that both Southern and Northern men might vote for it with clear consciences!
I need not pursue the investigation. I admit that, after this sort, you have the stultified abstractions of the New School Presbyterian Church,--while I have its common sense; you have its Delphic words,--I have its actions; you have the traditions of the elders making void the word of God,--I have the providence of God restraining the church from destroying itself and our social organization under folly, fanaticism, and infidelity. You, sir, seem to acknowledge this; for, while you appear pleased with the testimony of the New School Presbyterian Church, such as it is, you lament that the Old School have not been true to the resolutions of 1818,--that, in that branch of the church, it is questionable whether those resolutions could now be adopted. You lament the silence of the Episcopal, the Southern Methodist, and the Baptist denominations; you might add the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. And you know that in New England, in New York, and in the Northwest, many testify againstusas a pro-slavery body. You lament that so many members of the church, ministers of the gospel, and editors of religious papers, defend the system; you lament that so large a part of the religious literature of the land, though having its seat North and sustained chiefly by Northern funds, shows a perpetual deference to the slave-holder; you lament that, after fifty years, nothing has been done to arrest slavery; you lament and ask, "Why should this be so?" In saying this, you acknowledge that, while you have been laboring to get and have reached the abstract testimony of the church, all diluted as it is, the common-sense fact has been and is more and more brought out, in the providence of God, thatthe slave-power has been and is gaining ground in the United States. In one word, you have contrived to get, in confused utterance, the voice of the Sanhedrim; while Christ himself has been preaching in the streets of our Jerusalem the true meaning of slavery as one form of his government over fallen men.
These, then, are some of the things I promised to show as the results of your agitation. This is the "tone" of the past and present speech of Providence on the subject of slavery. You seem disturbed. I feel sure things are going on well as to that subject. Speak on, then, "in unambiguous tones." But, sir, when you desire to go from words to actions,--when you intimate that the constitution of the Presbyterian Church may be altered to permit such action, or that, without its alteration, the church can detach itself from slavery by its existing laws or the modification of them,--then I understand you to mean that you desire to deal, in fact, with slave-holders asoffenders. Then, sir,you mean to exscind the South; for it is absurd to imagine that you suppose the South will submit to such action. You mean, then, toexscind the South, or to exscind yourself and others, or tocompel the South to withdraw. Your tract, just published, is, I suppose, intended by you to prepare the next General Assembly for such movement? What then? Will you make your "American Presbyterian," and your Presbyterian House, effect that great change in the religious literature of the land whereby the subject of slave-holding shall be approachedpreciselyas you deal with "theft, highway-robbery, or piracy?" Will you, then, by act of Assembly, Synod, Presbytery, Session, deny your pulpits, and communion-bread and wine, to slave-holding ministers, elders, and members? Will you, then, tell New England, and especially little Rhoda, We have purified our skirts from the blood: forgive us, and take us again to your love? What then? Will you then ostracize the South and compel the abolition of slavery? Sir, do you bid us fear these coming events, thus casting their shadow before from the leaves of your book?
Sir, you may destroy the integrity of the New School Presbyterian Church. So much evil you may do; but you will hereby only add immensely to the great power and good of the Old School; and you will make disclosures of Providence, unfolding a consummation of things very different from the end you wish to accomplish for your country and the world.
I write as one of the animalcules contributing to the coral reef of public opinion.
F. A. Ross.