Study III.
“The Works of William Ellery Channing, D.D.,” in six volumes. Tenth Edition. Boston, 1849.
These volumes include essays, sermons, and lectures on various subjects. The style is easy, flowing, and persuasive; the language is generally clear, often elevated, sometimes sublime. Few can read the book and not feel the evidence, whatever may be the error of his doctrine, that the author added to his literary eminence a purity of intention. Such a work must always make a deep impression on the reader. It is this fact that prompts the present essay. It may be said of Channing what Channing said of Fenelon:
“He needs to be read with caution, as do all who write from their own deeply excited minds. He needs to be received with deductions and explanations. * * * We fear that the very excellencies of Fenelon may shield his errors. Admiration prepares the mind for belief; and the moral and religious sensibility of the reader may lay him open to impressions which, while they leave his purity unstained, may engender causeless solicitude.” Vol. i. p. 185.
Dr. Channing’s sympathies for every appearance of human suffering, for every grade of human imperfection, gave a peculiar phasis, perhaps most amiable to his intellect, religion, and writings. He sought perfection for himself—he was ardent to behold it universal. Heaven must for ever be the home of such a spirit. But the scenes of earth gave agitation and grief. Limited, in his earthly associations, to the habits of the North, the very purity of his heart led him to attack what he deemed the most wicked sin of the South. His politics were formed upon the model of his mind.Religion spread before him her golden wing, and science aided in the elevation of his view.
But, O thou Being, God Eternal! why not this earth made heaven? Why thy most perfect work imperfection? Why thy child, clothed with holiness or shod with the gospel, run truant to thy law, thy providence and government?
But, lo, we are not of thy council. We were not called when the foundations of eternity were laid. We are, truly, all very small beings. Our virtues, even purity, may lead in error. May not our best intentions lead down to wo?
“It is a fact worthy of serious thought, and full of solemn instruction, that many of the worst errors have grown out of the religious tendencies of the mind. So necessary is it to keep watch over our whole nature, to subject the highest sentiments to the calm, conscientious reason. Men, starting from the idea of God, have been so dazzled by it, as to forget or misinterpret the universe.”Channing, vol. i. p. 14.
Volume ii. page 14, Dr. Channing says—
“1. I shall show that man cannot be justly held and used as property.
“2. I shall show that man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction.
“3. I shall offer some explanations to prevent misapplication of these principles.
“4. I shall unfold the evils of slavery.
“5. I shall consider the argument which the Scriptures are thought to furnish in favour of slavery.
“6. I shall offer some remarks on the means of removing it.
“7. I shall offer some remarks on abolitionism.
“8. I shall conclude with a few reflections on the duties belonging to the times.”
In support of the first proposition, to wit, “I will show that man cannot be justly held and used as property,” the doctor has advanced seven arguments. He says, page 18—“It is plain, that, if one man may be held as property, then every other man may beso held.” * * * “Now let every reader ask himself this plain question: Could I, can I, be rightfully seized, and made an article of property,” &c. Page 19: “And if this impression be delusion, on what single moral conviction can we rely? * * * The consciousness of indestructible rights is a part of our moral being. The consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion that we cannot be owned as a tree or brute. As men, we cannot justly be made slaves. Then no man can be rightfully enslaved.”
The first idea we find, touching property, is inGen.i. 26: “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Verse 28th: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
InLev.xxv. 44: “Both thy bond-men and bond-maids which thou shalt have shall be of the heathen, that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids.” Verse 45: “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you which they beget in your land, and they shall be your possession.” Verse 46: “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen for ever.”
And if we look at the first verse of this chapter, that the foregoing was announced by God himself to Moses from Sinai; and from which it would seem that God and Dr. Channing were of quite a different opinion on this subject.
We know not what notion Dr. Channing may have entertained of “man’s indestructible rights.” But let us ask, what rights has he that may not be destroyed? The right to breath? Suppose, by his own wantonness, carelessness, or wickedness, he is submerged in water, what becomes of his right to breathe, since he can no longer exercise it? Can you name any right that, under the providence of God, may not be destroyed? Freemen have rights, but subject to alteration, and even extinction; slaves have rights, but subject to the same changes. There is no such thing as an “indestructible right” appertaining to any existence, save to the Great Jehovah! He must be an immortal God who can possess anindestructible right. We use the word “right” in Dr. Channing’ssense—just claim, legal title, ownership, the legal power of exclusive possession. You ask, has not man anindestructible rightto worship God? We answer, no! Man has no such right to worship God; such right would make him a partner. The worship of God is adutywhich man owes; the forbearance of which is forbidden by the moral law, by justice and propriety. Nothing can be forbidden or ordered touching anindestructible right; for such command, if to be obeyed, changes the quality of the right; or rather shows that it was not indestructible.
Such arguments may seem to give great aid and beauty to a mere rhetorical climax, but, before the lens of analyzation, evaporates into enthusiastic declamation,—which, in the present case, seems to be addressed to the sympathies, prejudices, and impulses of the human heart.
In his writings on slavery, in fact through all his works, we find a fundamental error, most fatal to truth. He makes the conscience the greatcynosuraof all that is right in morals, and of all that is true in religion.
Hence, in the passage before us,—“The consciousness ofindestructible rightsis a part of our moral being,”—theconsciousnessof such rights is his proof that we possess them; therefore, “the consciousness of our humanity involves the persuasion (proof) that we cannot be owned;” and, therefore, “as men (being men) we cannot justly be made slaves.” So, page 25: “Another argument against the right of property in man, may be drawn from a very obvious principle of moral science, the conscience.” Page 33. “His conscience, in revealing the moral law, does not reveal a law for himself only, but speaks as a universal legislator. He has anintuitive convictionthat the obligations of this divine code press on others as truly as on himself. * * * There is no deeper principle in human nature than the consciousness of rights.”
Vol. iii. page 18: “By this I mean that a Christian minister should beware of offering interpretations of Scripture which are repugnant toany clear discoveriesof reason, or dictates ofconscience.”
Page 93: “We believe that all virtue has its foundation in the moral nature of man; that is, conscience, or his sense of duty.”
Page 164: “One of the great excellencies of Christianity is that it does not deal in minute regulations; but, that, having given broad views of duty,” &c., * * * “it leaves us to applythese rules, and express their spirit, according to the promptings of thedivine monitorwithin us”—the conscience.
Vol. vi. page 308: “We have no higher law than our conviction of duty.”
“Conscience is the supreme power within us. Its essence, its grand characteristic, is sovereignty. It speaks with divine authority. Its office is to command, to rebuke, to reward; and happiness and honour depend on the reverence with which we listen to it.” Vol. iii. pp. 335, 336.
Such passages plainly expose the view of what Dr. Channing callsconscience: in answer to which we say, the conscience may be a poor guide to truth. The African savage feels a clear conscience when he kills and eats his captive. The Hindoo mother is governed by her conscience when she plunges her new-born infant beneath the flood, a sacrifice to her gods. The idolaters of Palestine were subdued by conscience when they thrust their suckling infants into the flames to appease Moloch; yet God did not think it was right, and forbade them to do so.
The truth is, the conscience is merely that part of the judgment which takes notice of what it deems right or wrong; consequently, is as prone to be in error as our judgment about any other matter.
For the accuracy of this definition, we refer to all the standard writers on logic, and those on the human understanding, treating on the subject. And in fact, Dr. Channing is forced to recede from his position when he finds that Abraham, Philemon, and some good men even of the present day, were slave-owners; and in vol. vi. page 55, he says—“It is a solemn truth, not yet understood as it should be, that the worst institutions may be sustained, the worst deeds performed, the most merciless cruelties inflicted by theconscientiousand the good.”
And again, page 57: “The great truth is now insisted on, that evil is evil, no matter at whose door it lies; and that men acting from conscience and religion may do nefarious deeds, needs to be better understood.”
Would it not have been more frank for Dr. Channing to have said, that the conscience would be an unerring guide so long as it agreed with his, but when it did not, why, then he would inquire into the matter?
It is to be lamented that, among the unlearned at the presentday, a confused idea of something tantamount to the conscience being a divine monitor within us has taken a deep root among the minds of men; having grown out of the fact that such was the doctrine of some of the fanatical teachers of former days.
If we shall be permitted to speak of property, in reference to our and its relation to the Divine Being, then we cannot strictly say that man canown property. Jehovah stands in no need. Behold the cattle upon a thousand hills are his; all is the work of his hand; all, all is his property alone! At most, God has only intrusted the possession, the administration of the subjects of his creation, to man for the time being,—to multiply, to replenish and subdue. It is only in reference to our relation to one another that we can advance the idea of property. Man was commanded to have dominion over the whole earth, to replenish and subdue, in proportion to the talent bestowed on him for that purpose. This command presupposes such a state of things as we find, of advancement, progression, and improvement. But in the course of the Divine administration, God has seen fit to bestow on one man ten talents, and on another but one; and who shall stand upon the throne of the Almighty, and decide that he of the ten talents shall have no relation with the progression of him of but one talent?
“Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him of ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”Matt.xxv. 28, 29; see alsoLukexvii. 24–26.
And what, in the course of Divine providence, is to become of him who buried his talent in the earth, and from whom it was taken away? “Blessed is that servant whom his Lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.”Lukexii. 43, 44. “Jesus answered them, Verily I say unto you, whoever committeth sin is the servant (δοῦλος,doulos,slave) of sin.”Johnviii. 34. “Behold for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves.”Isa.l. 1. “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”Gen.ix. 25.עֶֽבֶד עֲבָדִיםʿebed ʿăbādîmebed,ebedim, a most abject slave shall he be!
LESSON III.
The second argument in support of his first proposition is, “A man cannot be seized and held as property, because he has rights;” to enforce which, he says—“Now, I say, a being havingrightscannot justly be made property; for this claim over him virtually annuls all his rights.” We see no force of argument in this position. It is also true that all domestic animals, held as property, have rights. “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib.” They all have “the right of petition;” and ask, in their way, for food: are they the less property?
But his third argument in support of his first proposition is, that man cannot justly be held as property, on the account of the “essential equality of man.” If to be born, to eat, to drink, and die alike, constitutes an essential equality among men, then be it so! What! the African savage, born even a slave amid his native wilds, who entertains no vestige of an idea of God, of a future state of existence, of moral accountability; who has no wish beyond the gratification of his own animal desire; whose parentage, for ages past, has been of the same order; and whose descendants are found to require generations of constant training before they display any permanent moral and intellectual advancement; what, such a one essentially equal to such a man as Dr. Channing?
The truth is, such a man is more essentially equal with the brute creation. We shall consider the subject of the equality in another part of our study, to which we refer. We, therefore, only remark, that the doctrine is a chimera.
His fourth argument in support of the proposition is, “That man cannot justly be held as property, because property is an exclusive right.” “Now,” he says, “if there be property in any thing, it is that of a man in his own person, mind, and strength.” “Property,” he repeats, “is an exclusive right.”
If a man has an exclusive right to property, he can alienate it; he may sell, give, and bequeath it to others. If a man is the property of himself, suppose he shall choose to sell himself to another, and deliver himself in full possession to the purchaser, as he had before been in the full possession of himself—whose property willhe be then? See a case in point inDeut.xv. 12–17; see alsoExod.xxi. 1–7.
His fifth argument is that, “if a human being cannot without infinite injustice be seized as property, then he cannot, without equal wrong, be held and used as such.” If a human being shall be found a nuisance to himself and others in a state of freedom, then there will be no injustice in his being subjugated, by law, to such control as his qualities prove him to require in reference to the general good; even if the subject shall not choose such control as a personal benefit to himself.
The sixth argument is, that a human being cannot be held as property, because, if so held, “the latter is under obligation to give himself up as a chattel to the former.” “Now,” he says, “do we not instantly feel, can we help feeling, that this is false?” And that “the absence of obligation proves the want of the right.”
We suppose all acknowledge God as the author of the moral law. The moral law forcibly inculcates submission to the civil or political law, even independent of any promise to do so. Now, no one can have a right to act in contradiction to law. The absence of this right, then, proves the existence of the obligation.
For his seventh argument, he says—“I come now to what is, to my mind, the great argument against seizing and using a man as property. He cannot be property in the sight of God and justice, because he is a rational, moral, immortal being; because created in God’s image, and therefore in the highest sense his child; because created to unfold godlike faculties, and to govern himself by a Divine law, written on his heart, and republished in God’s word.”
Dr. Channing adds a page or two in the same impulsive strain, of the same enthusiastic character. We may admire his style, his language, the amiable formation of his mind, but we see nothing like precision or logical deduction in support of his proposition. We see nothing in it but the declamation of a learned, yet an over-ardent, enthusiastic mind. His whole book is but a display of his mental formation. He could love his friends; yea, his enemies. He could have rewarded virtue, but he never could have punished sin. He could have forgiven the greatest outrage, but he never could have yielded a delinquent to the rigid demands of justice. He was a good man, but he never could have been an unbending judge.
The laws of God have been made for the government and benefit of his creatures. God, nor his law, is, like man, changeable.His law, as expressed or manifested towards one class of objects, is also expressed and manifested towards all objects similarly situated. The law, brought into action by an act of Cain, would also have been brought into action by a similar act of Abel. The law condemnatory of the shedding of blood is still in fearful existence against all who shall have brought themselves within the category of Cain’s acts, the most of which have probably not been recorded.
We anticipate from another portion of our studies, that “sin is any want of conformity unto the law of God.” Sin is as necessarily followed by ill consequences to the sinner as cause is by effect. A man commits a private murder; think ye, he feels no horrors of mind—no regrets? Is the watchfulness he finds necessary to keep over himself for fear of exposure, through the whole of life, not the effect of the act? Is not his whole conduct, his friendships and associations with men, his very mental peculiarities, his estimate of others, often all influenced and directed in the path of his personal safety, the avoidance of suspicion? And is all this no punishment? Probably, to have been put to death would have been a much less suffering; and who can tell how far this long, fearful, and systematic working of his mind is to affect the mental peculiarities of his offspring? Shall he, who, by wanton thoughtlessness, regardless of propriety, the moral law, and the consequences of its breach, contracts some foul, loathsome, consuming disease, that burns into the bones, and becomes a part of his physical constitution, leave no trace of his sin on his descendants? Deteriorated, feeble, and diseased, they shall not live out half their days!
A long-continued course of sin, confined to an individual, or extended to a family or race of people, deteriorates, degenerates, and destroys. Such deterioration, continued perhaps from untold time, has brought some of the races of men to what we now find them; and the same causes, in similar operation, would leave the same effect on any other race; and Dr. Channing’s “child of God” ceases to be so. “Ye are of your father, the devil.”Johnviii. 44. “And Dr. Channing’s man, created to unfold godlike faculties, and to govern himself by a Divine law written on his heart,” ceases to act as he supposes: “And the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth; because there is no truth in him.”Johnviii. 44. And what saith the Spirit of prophecy to these degenerate sons ofearth? “When thou criest, let thy companions deliver thee; but the wind shall carry them away; vanity shall take them; but he that putteth his trust in me shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain.”Isa.lvii. 13.
“And if thou shalt say in thy heart, wherefore came these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare. Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil. Therefore will I scatter them as stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness. This is thy lot, the portion of thy measures from me, saith the Lord: because thou hast forgotten me, and trusted in falsehood. Therefore, will I discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.”Jer.xiii. 22–26.
“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.”Joeliii. 8.
And what saith the same Spirit to those of opposite character?
“The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet.”Isa.lx. 14.
“And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vine-dressers.”Ibid.lxi. 5.
“They (my people) shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth trouble; they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, before they shall call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.”Ibid.lxv. 234.
What are the threatenings announced in prospect of their deterioration and wickedness?
“And thou (Judah) even thyself, shalt discontinue from thy heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause theeto serve(עֲבַדְתִּיךָʿăbadtîkābe a slave to) thine enemies in a land which thou knowest not.”Jer.xvii. 4.
“Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. * * * Behold the eyes of the Lord God are upon this sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.”Amosix. 7, 8.
The consequences of sin are degradation, slavery, and death:
“A righteous man hateth lying; but a wicked man is loathsome and cometh to shame.”
“He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind; and the fool shall beservant(עֶֽבֶדʿebedebed,slave) to the wise of heart.”
“As righteousness tendeth to life, so he that pursueth evil, pursueth it to his own death.”Prov.
Dr. Channing has suffered his idea of property to bring him great mental suffering: he evidently associates, under the termproperty, those qualities and relations only, which are properly associated in an inanimate object of possession, or at most in a brute beast. He has, no doubt, suffered great misery from the reflection that a human being has ever been reduced to such a condition. But his misery has all been produced by his adherence to his own peculiar definition of the wordproperty. His definition is not its exact meaning, when applied to a slave. Had the doctor attempted an argument to show that the wordpropertycould not consistently be applied to a slave, he might, perhaps, have improved our language, by setting up a more definite boundary to the meaning of this term, and saved himself much useless labour.
Mankind apply the termpropertyto slaves: they have always done so; and since Dr. Channing has not given us an essay upon the impropriety of this use of the word, perhaps the accustomed usage will be continued. But we imagine that no one but the doctor and his disciples will contend that it expresses the same complex idea when applied to slaves, which is expressed by it when applied to inanimate objects, or to brute beasts. It will be a new idea to the slaveholder to be told that the wordproperty, as applied to his slaves, converts them at once into brute beasts, no longer human beings; that it deprives them of all legal protection; and that he, the master, in consequence of the use of this word, stands in the same relation to his slave that he does to his horse; and we apprehend he will find it quite as difficult to comprehend how this metamorphosis is brought about, as it is for the doctor and his disciples, how the slave is property.
We may say a man has property in his wife, his children, his hireling, his slave, his horse, and a piece of timber,—by which we mean that he has the right to use them, in conformity to the relations existing between himself and these several objects. Because his horse is his property, who ever dreamed that he had therefore the right to use him as a piece of timber?
No man has a right to use any item of property in a different manner than his relations with it indicate; or, in other words, as shall be in conformity with the laws of God. Our property is little else than the right of possession and control, under the guidance of the laws by which we are in possession for the time being.
The organization of society is the result of the conception of the general good. By it one man, under a certain chain of circumstances, inherits a throne; another, a farm; one, the protection of a bondman, or whatever may accrue to these conditions from other operating causes; and another, nothing. If Dr. Channing and his disciples can find out some new principles by which to organize society, producing different and better results, they will then do what has not been done.
The doctrine that slavery, disease, and death are the necessary effects of sin, we humbly claim to perceive spread on every page of the holy books. This doctrine is forcibly illustrated in the warning voice of Jehovah to the Israelites. They were emphatically called his children—peculiar people—his chosen ones. He made covenants with them to bless them; yet all these were founded upon their adherence to the Divine law. These promises repealed no ordinance of Divine necessity in their behalf. He expressed, revealed the law, so far as it was important for them at the time, and then says,Deut.xxviii. 14–68:—
“15. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee:
“16. Cursedshaltthoubein the city, and cursedshaltthoubein the field.
“17. Cursedshall bethy basket and thy store.
“18. Cursedshall bethe fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
“19. Cursedshaltthoubewhen thou comest in, and cursedshaltthoubewhen thou goest out.
“20. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou bedestroyed, and until thou perish quickly: because of the wickedness of thy doings whereby thou hast forsaken me.
“21. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
“22. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew: and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
“23. And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth thatisunder theeshall beiron.
“24. The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
“25. The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them; and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
“26. And thy carcass shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto beasts of the earth, and no man shall fraythemaway.
“27. The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
“28. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
“29. And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways; and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall savethee.
“30. Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
“31. Thine oxshall beslain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thy assshall beviolently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheepshall begiven unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescuethem.
“32. Thy sons and thy daughtersshallbe given unto another people, and thy eyes shall look, and failwith longingfor them all the day long: and thereshall beno might in thy hand.
“33. The fruit of thy land and all thy labours shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up: and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed always:
“34. So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thy eyes which thou shalt see.
“35. The Lord shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
“36. The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, and there shalt thouserve(וְעָבַֽדְתָּwĕʿābadtāve abadta,and shall slave yourselves to) other gods, wood and stone:
“37. And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee.
“38. Thou shalt carry much seed out unto the field, and shalt gatherbutlittle in: for the locust shall consume it.
“39. Thou shalt plant vineyards and dressthem, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gatherthe grapes: for the worms shall eat them.
“40. Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout, but thou shalt not anointthyselfwith the oil: for thine olive shall casthis fruit.
“41. Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them, for they shall gointo captivity.”
(Into captivityis translated fromבַּשֶׁבִיbašebîbashshebi; the prefix prepositionin,into, &c. here makesbash. The root isshebi. The translation is correct, but the idea extends to such a possession of the captive as includes the idea of a right of property. The same word is used when dumb beasts are taken as spoil in war; thus,Amosiv. 10,שְׁבִי סוּסֵיבֶםšĕbî sûsêkemshebi susekem,I have taken your horses,i. e.I havecapturedyour horses,—the right of property in the horses is changed. The idea in the text is,they shall go into slavery.)
“42. All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
“43. The stranger thatiswithin thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
“44. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.
“45. Moreover, all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed: because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee.
“46. And they shall be upon thee for asign, and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.”
(For a signאוֹתothoth,a mark,sign,&c.It may be noted that this word is used inGen.iv. 15: “And the Lord set amarkupon Cain,”אוֹתothoth,mark,sign,&c.)
“47. Because thou servedst not the Lord thy God with joyfulness and with gladness of heart for the abundance of allthings.
“48. Therefore shalt thouserve(עָבַדְתָּʿābadtābe a slave to) thine enemies which the Lord shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of allthings: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.
“49. The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth,as swiftas the eagle flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;
“50. A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young:
“51. And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: whichalsoshall not leave theeeithercorn, wine, or oil,orthe increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.
“52. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
“53. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:
“54. Sothatthe manthatis tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave.
“55. So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.
“56. The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,
“57. And toward her young one that cometh out from betweenher feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of allthingssecretly in the siege and straitness wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
“58. If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name THE LORD THY GOD.
“59. Then the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed,evengreat plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses and of long continuance.
“60. Moreover, he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and they shall cleave unto thee.
“61. Also every sickness, and every plague which is not written in the book of this law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
“62. And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the Lord thy God.
“63. And it shall come to pass,thatas the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
“64. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people from the one end of the earth even to the other, and thou shaltserve(עׇבַדְתָּʿǒbadtā,be slave to) other gods which neither thou nor thy fathers have known,evenwood and stone.
“65. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind.
“66. And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:
“67. In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even shalt thou say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thy heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
“68. And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee. Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bond-men and bond-women, and no man shall buyyou.
Ye shall be sold,i. e.be exposed to sale, or expose yourselves to sale, as the wordהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּםhitmakkartemhith maccartemmay be rendered;they were vagrants, and wished to become slaves that they might be provided with the necessaries of life.”Clarke’s Commentary.
The markets were overstocked with them, says Josephus: * * * “They were sold with their wives and children at the lowest price, there being many to be sold, and few purchasers.”
Hegesippus also says—“There were many captives offered for sale, but few buyers, because the Romans disdained to take the Jews for slaves, and there were not Jews remaining to redeem their countrymen.”
“When Jerusalem was taken by Titus, of the captives who were sent into Egypt, those under seventeen were sold; but so little care was taken of them, that 11,000 of them perished for want.”Bishop Newton.
St. Jerome says—“After their last overthrow by Adrian, many thousands of them were sold, and those who could not be sold were transported into Egypt, and perished by shipwreck and famine, or were massacred by the inhabitants.”
A similar condition happened to the Jews in Spain, when, under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, they were driven out of that kingdom, concerning which, Abarbinel, a Jewish writer says—“Three hundred thousand, young and old, women and children, (of whom he was one,) not knowing where to go, left on foot in one day: some became a prey, some perished by famine, some by pestilence,—some committed themselves to the sea, but were sold for slaves when they came to any coast; many were drowned and burned in the ships which were set on fire. In short, all suffered the punishment of God the Avenger.”
Benson, in his Commentary, says—“How these instances may affect others, I know not, but for myself I must acknowledge, they not only convince, but astonish me beyond expression. They are truly, as Moses foretold they would be,a sign and a wonder for ever.”
Scott says—“Numbers of captives were sent by sea into Egypt, (as well as into other countries,) and sold for slaves at a vile price, and for the meanest offices; and many thousands were left to perish from want; for the multitude was so great that purchasers could not be found for them all at any price. * * * To such wretchedness is every one exposed, who lives in disobedience to God’s commands. * * * None will suffer any misery above his deserts: but, indeed, we are all exposed to this woful curse, for breaking the law of God.”
Henry says—“I have heard of a wicked man, who, on reading these threatenings, was so enraged that he tore the leaf out of his Bible.”
Upon a review of all this evidence, to what conclusion is the mind inclined? Are there no circumstances under which man may become a slave—“property, in the sight of God and justice?”
Dr. Channing says, vol. ii. page 28—“Such a being (man) was plainly made to obey a law within himself. This is the essence of a moral being. He possesses, as part of his nature, and the most essential part, a cause of duty, which he is to reverence and follow.”
This is in accordance with his idea of conscience—“the Divine monitor within us.” But we are forced to differ from Dr. Channing. To obey the law of God, not some creature of man’s, or our own judgment, is the creed we inculcate; and we further teach that “such a being was plainly made” “to reverence and follow” the law of God, not his own opinion or the feelings of his own heart.
If this doctrine is not true in theology, can it be so in regard to slavery, or any thing else?
Page 29, he says—“Every thing else may be owned in the universe; but a moral, rational being cannot be property. Suns and stars may be owned, but not the lowest spirit. Touch any thing but this. Lay not your hand upon God’s rational offspring. The whole spiritual world cries out,Forbear!”
We do not quote this as an argument. If his postulate be true concerning the “law within himself,” he needs no argument; his opinion is enough: his feeling, his “sense of duty” governs the matter. But, while his disciples “reverence and follow” their “sense of duty,” by obeying a law within themselves, and, according to their conscience, “own the sun and stars,” may not those who believe the Bible to be the word of God, who “reverence and follow” it, as their “sense of duty,” and obey it as a law within themselves, according to their conscience, own slaves?
But Dr. Channing continues—“The highest intelligences recognise their own nature, their own rights, in the humblest human being. By that priceless, immortal spirit which dwells in him, by that likeness of God which he wears, tread him not in the dust, confound him not with the brute.” And he then gravely adds—“We have thus seen that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used as property. No legislation, not that of all countries orworlds, could make him so. Let this be laid down as a first, fundamental truth.”
Such were his opinions. We view them, if not the ravings, at least the impressions, of fanaticism. When counsellor Quibble saw his client Stultus going to the stocks, he cried out, “It is contrary to my sense of justice; to the laws of God and man; no power can make it right!”Yet Stultus is in the stocks!
But what shall we say of him who makes the sanction of his own feelings the foundation of his creed, of his standard of right? What of him, who, in his search for truth, scarcely or never alludes to the Bible as the voice of God, as the Divine basis of his reasons, as the pillar on which argument may find rest? Has some new revelation inspired him? Has he heard a voice louder and more clear than the thunder, the trumpet from the mount of God? Has he beheld truth by a light more lucid than the flaming garments of Jehovah? Or has he only seen a cloud, not from the top of Sinai, but from the dismal pit of human frailty?
Dr. Channing’s second proposition is: “Man has sacred rights, the gifts of God, and inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction;” in proof of which he says, vol. ii. p. 23—“Man’s rights belong to him as a moral being, as capable of perceiving moral distinctions, a subject of moral obligation. As soon as he becomesconsciousof a duty, a kindredconsciousnesssprings up, that he has arightto do what the sense of duty enjoins, and that no foreign will or power can obstruct his moral action without crime.”
Suppose man has rights as described; suppose he feelsconscious, as he says; does that give him a right to do wrong, because his sense of duty enjoins him to do so? And may he not be prevented from so doing? Was it indeed a crime in God to turn the counsels of Ahithophel into foolishness?
Page 33. “That some inward principle which teaches a man what he is bound to do to others, teaches equally, and at the same instant, what others are bound to do to him!” Suppose a few Africans, on an excursion to capture slaves, find that this “inwardprinciple” teaches them that they are bound to make a slave of Dr. Channing, if they can; does he mean that, therefore, he is bound to make slaves of them?
Idem, p. 33. “The sense of duty is the fountain of human rights. In other words, the same inward principle which teaches the former, bears witness to the latter.”
If the African’s sense of duty gives the right to make Dr. Channing a slave, we do not see why he should complain; since, by his own rule, the African’s sense of duty proves him to possess the right which his sense of duty covets.
Page 34. “Having shown the foundation of human rights in human nature, it may be asked, what they are. * * * They may all be comprised in the right, which belongs to every rational being, to exercise his powers for the promotion of his own and others’ happiness and virtue. * * * His ability for this work is a sacred trust from God, the greatest of all trusts. He must answer for the waste or abuse of it. He consequently suffers an unspeakable wrong when stripped of it by others, or forbidden to employ it for the ends for which it is given.”
We regret to say that we feel an objection to Channing’s argument and mode of reasoning, for its want of definiteness and precision. If what he says on the subject of slavery were merely intended as eloquent declamations, addressed to the sympathies and impulses of his party, we should not have been disposed to have named such an objection. But his works are urged on the world as sound logic, and of sufficient force to open the eyes of every slaveholder to the wickedness of the act, and to force him, through the medium of his “moral sense,” to set the slaves instantly free.
A moral action must not only be the voluntary offspring of the actor, but must also be performed, to be judged by laws which shall determine it to be good or bad. These laws, man being the moral agent, we say, are the laws of God; by them man is to measure his conduct.
Locke says, “Moral good and evil are the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn upon us from the will or power of the lawmaker.”
But the doctrine of Dr. Channing seems to be that this law is each man’sconscience, moral sense, sense of duty, or theinward principle. If the proposition of Mr. Locke be sound logic, what becomes of these harangues of Dr. Channing?
We say, that the law, rule, or power that decides good or evil, must be from a source far above ourselves; for, if otherwise, the contradictory and confused notions of men must necessarily banish all idea of good and evil from the earth. In fact, the denial of the elevated, the Divine source of such law, is also a denial that God governs; for government without law is a contradiction.
If the conscience, as Dr. Channing thinks, is the guide between right and wrong according to the law of God; then the law of God must be quite changeable, because the minds of men differ. Each makes his own deduction; therefore, in that case, the law of God must be what each one may severally think it to be; which is only other language to say there is no law at all. “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.”Prov.xxi. 2. But, “The statutes of the Lord are right.”Ps.xix. 8. The laws of God touching the subject of slavery are spread through every part of the Scriptures. Human reason may do battle, but the only result will be the manifestation of its weakness. The institution of slavery must, of necessity, continue in some form, so long as sin shall have a tendency to lead to death; so long as Jehovah shall rule, and exercise the attributes of mercy to fallen, degraded man.
But let us for a moment view the facts accompanying the slavery of the African race, and compare them with the assertion, p. 35, that every slave “suffers a grievous wrong;” and, p. 49, that every slave-owner is a “robber,” however unconscious he may be of the fact.
So far as history gives us any knowledge of the African tribes, for the last 4000 years, their condition has been stationary; at least they have given no evidence of advancement in morals or civilization beyond what has been the immediate effect of the exchange of their slaves for the commodities of other parts of the world. So far as this trade had influence, it effected almost a total abolition of cannibalism among them. That the cessation of cannibalism was the result of an exchange of their slaves as property for the merchandise of the Christian nations, is proved by the fact that they have returned to their former habits in that respect upon those nations discontinuing the slave-trade with them. Which is the greatest wrong to a slave, to be continued in servitude, or to be butchered for food, because his labour is not wanted by his owner?
No very accurate statistics can be given of African affairs; but their population has been estimated at 50,000,000, and to havebeen about the same for many centuries; of which population, even including the wildest tribes, far over four-fifths have ever been slaves among themselves. The earliest and the most recent travellers among them agree as to the facts, that they are cannibals; that they are idolaters, or that they have no trace of religion whatever; that marriage with them is but promiscuous intercourse; that there is but little or no affection between husband and wife, parent and children, old or young; that in mental or moral capacity, they are but a grade above the brute creation; that the slaves and women alone do any labour, and they often not enough to keep them from want; that their highest views are to take slaves, or to kill a neighbouring tribe; that they evince no desire for improvement, or to ameliorate their condition. In short, that they are, and ever have been, from the earliest knowledge of them, savages of the most debased character. We have, in a previous study, quoted authority in proof of these facts, to which we refer.
Will any one hesitate to acknowledge, that, to them, slavery, regulated by law, among civilized nations is a state of moral, mental, and physical elevation? A proof of this is found in the fact that the descendants of such slaves are found to be, in all things, their superiors. If their descendants were found to deteriorate from the condition of the parents, we should hesitate to say that slavery was to them a blessing. Which would man consider the most like an act of mercy in Jehovah, to continue them in their state of slavery to their African master, brother, and owner, or to order them into that condition of slavery in which we find them in these States? Which state of slavery would a man prefer, to a savage, or to a civilized master?
The Hebrews, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans have, on the borders of Africa, to some extent, amalgamated with them, from time immemorial. But such amalgamation has never been known to attain to the position, either physically, mentally, or morally, of their foreign progenitors; perhaps superior to the interior tribes, yet often they scarcely exhibit a mental or moral trace of their foreign extraction. The thoughtless, those of slovenly morals, or those of none at all, from among the descendants of Japheth, have commingled with them in the new world; but the amalgamation never exhibits a corresponding elevation in the direction of the white progenitor. The connection may degrade the parent, but never elevate the offspring. The great mass look upon the connection with abhorrence and loathing;and pity or contempt always attends the footsteps of the aggressor. These feelings are not confined to any particular country or age of the world. Are not these things proof that the descendants of Ham are a deteriorated race? Will the declarations of a few distempered minds, as to their religion, feeling, and taste, weigh in contradiction? What was the judgment of Isaac and Rebecca on this subject? SeeGen.xxvi. 35; xxvii. 46; also xxviii. 1.
Since the days of Noah, where are their monuments of art, religion, science, and civilization? Is it not a fact that the highest moral and intellectual attainment which the descendants of Ham ever displayed is now, at this time, manifested among those in servile pupilage? The very fact of their being property gives them protection. What, he their “robber,” who watches over their welfare with more effect and integrity than all their ancestry together since the days of Noah! By the contrivance of making themproperty, has God alone given them the protection which 4000 years of sinking degradation demand, in an upward movement towards their physical, mental, and moral improvement, their rational happiness on earth, and their hopes of heaven. What, God’s agent in this matter arobberof them!
Let us assure the disciples of Dr. Channing that there are thousands of slaves too acute observers of truth to come to such a conclusion; who, although from human frailty they may sometimes seem to suffer an occasional or grievous wrong, can yet give good reason in proof that slavery is their only safety. Let us cast the mind back to a period of five hundred years ago. A Christian ship, intent on new discoveries, lands on the African coast. The petty chieftain there, is and about to sacrifice a number of his slaves, either to appease the manes of his ancestor, to propitiate his gods, or to gratify his appetite by feasting. Presents have been made to the natives; it is thought their friendship is secured; the Christians are invited to thefête, the participants are collected, the victims brought forward, and the club uplifted for the blow. The Christians, struck with surprise, or excited by horror, remonstrate with the chief; to which he sullenly replies: “Yondermygoats,myvillage, all aroundmydomain;these are my slaves!” meaning that, by the morals and laws that have from time immemorial prevailed there, his rights are absolute; that he feels it as harmless to kill a slave as a goat, or dwell in his village. But the clothing of the Christian is presented, the viands of art are offered, the food of civilization is tasted, the cupidity of thesavage is tempted, and thefêtecelebrated through a novel and more valuable offering. What, these Christians, who have bought these slaves,robbers!
Let us look back to the days of the house of Saul, when, perhaps, David, hiding himself from his face amid the villages of Ammon, chanced upon the ancestors of Naamah, the mother of Rehoboam, a later king of Israel. Finding them about to sacrifice a child upon the altar of Moloch, “Stay thy hand!” says the son of Jesse; “I have a message to thee from the God of Israel; deliver me the child for these thirty pieces of silver!” And, according to the law of the God of his fathers, it becomes his “bond-man for ever.” What, was David a robber in all this? Suppose the child to have been sold, resold, and sold again, is the character of the owner changed thereby?
But it is concerning therightsof the descendants of these slaves that we have now to inquire. SeeLukexvii. 7–10:
“7. But which of you having a servant (δοῦλος,slave) ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he has come from the field, Go, and sit down to meat?
“8. And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink?
“9. Doth he thank that servant (δουλον,slave) because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
“10. So likewise ye, when ye have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.”
Suppose a proprietor, in any country or at any age, receives into his employment an individual, who thereafter resides and has a family upon his estate: upon the death of the individual, will his heirs accrue to any of the rights of the proprietor, other than those granted, or those consequent to their own or their ancestor’s condition, or those that may accrue by operation of law? Where is the political enactment, the moral precept, the Divine command, teaching an adverse doctrine?
Before we close our view of Dr. Channing’s second proposition, we design to notice his use of the word “nature.” He says, that man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human “nature.” We confess that we are somewhat at a loss to determine the precise idea the doctor affixes to this term. The phrase “human nature” is in most frequent use through these volumes. But in vol.i. page 74, he says—“Great powers, even in their perversion, attest aglorious nature.” Page 77: “The infinite materials of illustration which nature and life afford.” Page 82: “To regard despotism as a law ofnature.” Page 84: “His superiority tonature, as well as to human opposition.” Page 95: “We will inquire into the nature and fitness of the measures.” Page 98: “The first object in educationnaturallywas to fit him for the field.” Page 110: “From the principles of ournature.” Page 111: “Natureand the human will were to bend to his power.”Idem: “He wanted the sentiment of a commonnaturewith his fellow-beings.” Page 112: “With powers which might have made him a glorious representative and minister of the beneficent Divinity, and withnaturalsensibilities.” Page 119: “Traces out the general and all-comprehending laws ofnature.” Page 143: “A power which robs men of the free use of theirnature,” &c. Page 146: “Its efficiency resembles that of darkness and cold in thenaturalworld.” Page 184: “Whose writings seem to benaturalbreathings of the soul.” Page 189: “Language like this has led men to very injurious modes of regarding themselves, and their ownnature.”Idem: “A man when told perpetually to crucifyhimself, is apt to include under this word his wholenature.”Idem: “Men err in nothing more than in disparaging and wronging their ownnature.”Idem: “If we first regard man’s highestnature.” Page 190: “We believe that the human mind is akin to that intellectual energy, which gave birth tonature.”Idem: “Taking humannatureas consisting of a body as well as mind, as including animal desire,” &c.Idem: “We believe that he in whom the physicalnatureis unfolded.” Page 191: “But excess is not essential to self-regard, and this principle of ournatureis the last which could be spared.” Page 192: “It is the great appointed trial of our moralnature.” Page 193: “Ournaturehas other elements or constituents, and vastly higher ones.”Idem: “For truth, which is its object, is of a universal, impartialnature.” Page 196: “Is the most signal proof of a highernaturewhich can be given.”Idem: “It is a sovereignty worth more than that over outwardnature.”Idem: “Its great end is to give liberty and energy to ournature.” Page 198: “Our moral, intellectual, immortalnaturewe cannot remember too much.” Page 200: “The moralnatureof religion.” Page 202: “We even think that our love ofnature.”Idem: “For the harmonies ofnatureare only his wisdom made visible.”Page 203: “That progress in truth is the path ofnature.” Page 211: “It has the liberality and munificence ofnature, which not only produces the necessary root and grain, but pours forth fruits and flowers. It has the variety and bold contrasts ofnature.”Idem: “The beautiful and the superficial seem to benaturallyconjoined.” Page 212: “And by a law of hisnature.” Page 213: “These gloomy and appalling features of ournature.” Page 215: “These conflicts between the passions and the moralnature.”
We regret that so eminent and accurate a scholar, and so influential a man, should have fallen into such an indefinite and confused use of any portion of our language. If we mistake not, it will require more than usual reflection for the mind to determine what idea is presented by its use in the most of these instances. We know that some use this word so vaguely, that if required to explain the idea they wished to convey by it, they would be unable to do so. But there are those from whom we expect a better use of language. Many English readers pass over such sentences without stopping to think what are the distinct ideas of the writer. There are, in our language, a few words used in our conversational dialect, as if especially intended for the speaker’s aid when he only had a confused idea, or perhaps none at all, of what he designed to say; and we extremely regret that words, to us of so important meaning, asnatureandconscience, should be found among that class. The teacher of theology and morals should surely be careful not to lead his pupils into error. Might not the unskilled inquirer infer thatnaturewas a substantive existence, taking rank somewhere between man and the Deity? And what would be his notion, derived from such use of the term, of its offices, of its influence on, and man’s relation with it? What is our notion as to the definite idea these passages convey?
“Man has rights, gifts of God, inseparable from human nature, of which slavery is the infraction.” By “human nature,” as here used, we understandthe condition or state of being a manin a general sense. Our inference is, then, that God has given man rights, that is, all men the same rights, which are inseparable from his state of being a man; consequently, if by any means these rights are taken from him, then his state of being a man is changed, or ceases to exist; and since slavery breaks these rights, therefore a slave is not a man.
But the fact we find to be that the slave is, nevertheless, a man; and hence it follows that theserightswere not inseparable from his state of being a man, or that he had not therights.
If slavery is sinful because it infringes the rights of man, then any other thing is also sinful which infringes them. Will the disciples of Dr. Channing deny that these rights are infringed by the constitution of the civil government? The law gives parents the right to govern, command, and restrain minor children; to inflict punishment for their disobedience. Is parental authority a sin? Government, in every form, is found to deprive females of a large proportion of the rights which men possess. When married, their rights are wholly absorbed in the rights of the husband. This must be very sinful!
Idiots have no rights. In reality, the very idea of rights vanishes away with the power to exercise them. But in a state of civil government, it is a mere question of expediency how personal rights shall be adjusted; which is very manifest, if we look at the different constitutions of government now in the world. In one, men who follow certain occupations have certain rights as a consequence. Men who are found guilty of certain breaches of the law lose a portion or all their rights. The president of our senate loses the right to vote, except under condition; and we agree that a mere majority shall rule. Thus forty-nine of the hundred cease to find their rights available. They must submit. Man, as a member of civil society, is only a small fraction of an unit, and has no right to exercise a right unconformably to the expression of the sense of the general good. Man has no right to live independent of his fellow-man, like a plant or a tree; consequently, his rights must be determined and bounded by the general welfare. Dr. Channing ceases to be enlightened by moral science when he announces that, because a man is “conscious of duty,” therefore, what he may think his right cannot be affected by others “without crime.” So reverse may be the fact, that it may be a crime in him to claim the right his conscious duty may suggest.
Man cannot be said to be in possession of all things that he, or such theorists, may deem his rights only in a monocratic state. But how will he retain them? For then, so far as he shall have intercourse with others, every thing will come to be decided by the law ofmight; so that, instead of gaining, he will lose all rights. But suppose him to live without intercourse; what is a naked, abstract right, that yields him nothing above the brute? God never madea man for such a state of life; because it at once includes rebellion to his government; and, therefore, its every movement will be to retrograde.
Will the disciples of Dr. Channing be surprised to find that the only medicine God has prepared for such a loathsome moral disease as will then be developed, is slavery to a higher order of men?