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!What, Paul, the apostle of God, fearing, hesitating, failing to denounce a great sin, because it was penetrating through and intimately interwoven with society!
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.”Johnxvii. 7, 8.
“I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of allmen, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”Actsxx. 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’scircumstancesplace 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 thegospel? And is this the reason why an argument drawn from the Old Edition now “hardly deserves notice?”
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.
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.,as substitutes for thelash. He supposes that the slave may be “elevated and his energies called forth by placing his domestic relations on new ground.” “This is essential; we wish him to labour for his family. Then he must have a family to labour for. Then his wife and children must be truly his own. Then his home must be inviolate. Then the responsibilities of a husband and father must be laid on him. It is argued that he will be fit for freedom as soon as the support of his family shall become his habit and his happiness.”
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,to which they may prove false, and which they are too willing to forget. They are bound, not in their public, but in their individual capacities, to use every virtuous influence for the abolition of slavery.”
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 ofMEN, 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.”
In his concluding note, he says, page 153—“I feel too much about the great subject on which I have written, to be very solicitous about what is said of myself. I feel that I am nothing, that my reputation is nothing, in comparison with the fearful wrong and evil which I have laboured to expose; and I should count myself unworthy the name of a man or a Christian, if the calumnies of the bad, or even the disapprobation of the good, could fasten my thoughts on myself, and turn me aside from a cause which, as I believe, truth, humanity, and God call me to sustain.”
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!”
“One eye turned to God, condemning moral evil;The other downward, winking at the devil!”
“One eye turned to God, condemning moral evil;The other downward, winking at the devil!”
“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.
They are convinced that they alone are right. But, “Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself?Is itany pleasure to the Almighty, that thou art righteous? oris itgain, that thou makest thy ways perfect.”Jobxxii. 2, 3.
“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.” SeeRom.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.”Jobxl. 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 tobanish from its sight its horrid vision. Nor is it singular that it should, to some extent, become theone idea—his leading chain of thought. To him, the proofs of his doctrine became a blaze of light, so piercingly brilliant that nothing of a contrary bearing was worthy of belief or consideration.
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 arehiscountrymen, 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,there happened to be present a Northern gentleman, who very justly entertained the most elevated regard for the personal character of Dr. Channing, to whom they were read. His views seemed to be that the extracts from Channing weregarbled, and the deductions consequent thereon unjustly severe.
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? Thereforehave I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.”Jobxlii. 3.
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 freeof the coloured race.”
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 exercisewould prove that it has been frequently expended on mistaken facts, imaginary conditions, or fictitious suffering. In such cases, it may produce much evil, and real suffering. It therefore may be of some importance to the sympathizer and to community, that this feeling be under the government of a correct judgment founded on truth.
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 wordsympathy, will be found inDeut.vii. 16: “Thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have nopityתָ֥חוֹסtāḥôsthehhos) upon them,” (no sympathy for.)
So, xix. 13: “Thine eye shall notpity(תָח֤וֹסtāḥôsthahhos) him.” So xiii. 8 (the 9th of the Hebrew text): “Neither shall thine eyepityhim,” (תָח֤וֹסtāḥôsthahhos.)
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.InGen.xlv. 20, our translators finding our idea of sympathy inapplicable to inanimate objects, expressed it by the word “regard,” meaningcare, orconcern. Now, since the command forbids this gush of feeling (whether merely animal or not) in the cases cited, is it not evident that the feeling inculcated as proper must be the produce of moral principle, cultivated and sustained by a truthful perception of the laws of God?
The feeling of sympathy, commiseration, or mercy, is inculcated in the latter clause ofLev.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, duringthe days of Ahaz. But in no instance have such acts of mercy been manifested by a people sunk as low in degradation as the African races.
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 ofnever-ending bondage, he has suffered the slave-trade with Africa to be abolished among the Christian nations. The great surplus of slaves in Africa has rendered them of little value there; and these anthropophagi have again returned to their ancient habits, giving proof that their condition of slavery, so far as mortal eye can see, is now for ever past hope. The theological philosopher did once hope that the only commerce which could bring them generally in contact with Christian nations would have a permanent influence on the character of these people. But God, in his providence, has seen proper to order it otherwise. The slave-trade that has been carried on between them and Western Asia, for more than four thousand years, now the only external influence on them as a people, may doubtless extend the standard of Islam, and spread some few corruptions of its religious systems. But neither the religion nor the trade carries to the home of these savages a sufficiency of interest to excite new passions or stimulate into existence new habits or chains of thought.
“The rod and reproof give wisdom.”
“Aservant(עֶבֶדʿebedabed, 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?
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 likenessof any thingthatisin heaven above, or thatisin the earth beneath, or thatisin the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God,am,a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourthgenerationof them that hate me.”
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 sincereconscience? 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 sincereconsciencewhen 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 hisman-servant(וְעַבְ֑דּוֹ֜wĕʿabdôhis male slave), or his maid-servant (וֲאֲמָתוֹ֙wăʾămātôhis 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, hemeans, sympathy alone,) now pouring forth in prayers and persuasions from the press, the pulpit, from the lips and hearts of devoted men, cannot fail. “This,” he says, “must triumph.” “It is leagued with God’s omnipotence.” “It is God himself acting in the hearts of his children.” Vol. ii. p. 12. Does Dr. Channing mean the God who revealed the law to Moses? If so, has he changed his mind since that time?
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 onSlavery, p. 310. (He quotes the passage from Dr. Wayland’s Letters, pp. 83, 84, which work we have not seen.)
Such writers may beconscientious, 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 theherbof the field,” we think has a very peculiar significance; for God made “everyherbof 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 wordto tillis translated from the wordלַֽעֲבֹֽדlaʿăbōdla ebod, and meansto slave; but in English we use the term not so directly. We use more words to express the same idea; we sayto do slave-labour on the ground, instead ofto 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 hadto slave the groundfor 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, andherbfor the service (לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣תlaʿăbdōatla 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 wholehuman family. If we mistake not, the holy books include the idea that sin affects the character of man as a moral poison, producing aberrations of mind in the constant direction of greater sins and an increased departure from a desire to be in obedience to the laws of God. If we mistake not, the doctrine also is prominent that idleness is not only a sin itself, but exceedingly prolific of still greater sins. This mild state of slavery, thus imposed on Adam, was a constant restraint against a lower descent into sin, and can be regarded in no other light than a merciful provision of God in protection of his child, the creation of his hand. If it then be a fact that a given intensity of sin draws upon itself a corresponding condition of slavery, as an operating protection against the final effect of transgression, it will follow that an increased intensity of sin will demand an increased severity of the condition of slavery. Thus, when Cain murdered Abel, God said to him—
“Now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. When thoutillest(תַֽעֲבד֙taʿăbōdtha 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,”עֶ֖בֶד עֲבָדִ֖יםʿebed ʿăbādîmebed 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, themost abject slaveshall 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, andmen-servants(וַֽעֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîmva ebadim, and male slaves), andmaid-servants(וּשְׁפָ֔חֹתûšĕpāḥōtva shephahoth, and female slaves), and camels and asses.” “And Sarah, my master’s wife, bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath.”
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 (וַֽעֲבֻדָּ֥הwaʿăbuddâva 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, andmaid-servants(וּשְׁפָחוֹתûšĕpāḥôtvu shephahoth),and female slavesandmen-servants(וַ֥עֲבָדִיםwaʿăbādîmva 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 isdespised, and hath aservant(עֶבֶדʿebedebed, 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.
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, inGenesisvi. 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 wereof a light complexion. It is translated from the Hebrewטֹבֹתṭōbōttovoth, being in the feminine plural, fromטוֹבṭôbtov, and merely expresses the idea of what may seemgoodandexcellentto him who speaks or takes notice: it expresses no quality of complexion nor of beauty beyond what may exist in the mind of the beholder; it is usually translated good or excellent. Immediately upon the announcement that these two races thus intermarry, God declares that his spirit shall not always strive with man, and determines to destroy man from the earth. Is it not a plain inference that such intermarriages were displeasing to him? And is it not also a plain inference, these intermarriages were proofs that the “wickedness of man had become great in the earth?” Cain had been driven out a degraded, deteriorated vagabond. Is there any proof that his race had improved?
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 indicativeof such fact: instead of calling him Ham, he would announce to him a term implying his relationship with the house of Cain. If such relation did not exist, why did he call himCanaan?
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.
But again, the condition of slavery imposed on the descendants of Ham, subjected them to be bought and sold; they became objects of purchase as property, for this quality is inseparable from the condition of the most abject slavery. Now the very nameCainsignifies “one purchased.” “I havegottena man from the Lord.” The word “gotten,” in the original, is the word his mother Eve gave her son for his name, “Cain.”I have purchased, &c., evidently shadowing forth the fact that his race were to be subjects of purchase.
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 fromאוֹתʾôtoth; 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 philosophicalcause of the physical development of the mark of sin? Does not our own observation teach us that a single lifetime, spent in the practice of some degrading sins, leaves upon the person the evidence, the mark, the proof of such practice? We are under no compulsion of evidence or belief to suppose that the mark set upon Cain was the product of a moment; but the gradual result of his wicked practices, as a physical and moral cause.
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.”Nahumii. 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 theEthiopian(כּוּשִׁיkûšîCushi,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 hismark, and thatthat markwas 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 othergenealogies, commencing in Cain and terminating in some one just at the coming of the flood, existed; but not written down nor transmitted, for the obvious reason that such list could be of no benefit to posterity. Are we not, then, led to believe that there was some design in the preservation of the one terminating in Naamah? But this genealogy could only be preserved through the family of Noah; through whom we also have a genealogy of the line from Seth, terminating in Noah’s youngest son. These two stand in a parallel position, at the foot of each separate list. But it is so extremely unusual for ancient genealogies to give the name of a female, who had brothers, that it becomes strong evidence, when such catalogue terminates in the name of such a female, that she personally was the individual on whose account the catalogue was formed. Is not this consideration, and the fact that it could only be preserved by the family of Noah, evidence that they attached sufficient importance to it to make its preservation by them a desirable object?
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 thenameandgenealogy 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 theirrace, as descendants might be expected to do, who wished to keep it in remembrance. The name of her mother also is found in similar use.
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 signifybeautiful. 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 thissubject; yet we feel less astonishment at the degenerate sons of Seth before the flood, on the account of their admiration of the black daughters of the race of Cain; and we should feel it a subject of curious solicitude, if Dr. Channing’s taste and judgment on this subject were to become the standard among his disciples, whether they will, by their practice, illustrate the habit of these antediluvians!