OCR Text |
Show NOTES ON Srcond, 've agree in looking upon the sl:l:'e ns a man nn<l a !Jrothc1·; :L sharer in th:tt lu11n:mity in whH;h the J .. ord of Gl ory wnlk c1l our earth; in which Ito sufrered, was crucified, dc:Hl and Luriecl, rose again, ascendcll it1lo licavcn, sittcth on the right hand of God the Father, n.ml shall come to judge the quick ami the dead. But C\'CH hc.re, you cannot enter wi th us into tlte full nH.'aning of nll tlu s, you cannot look on the sbve in the same light tkt.t we do, unless you are far, very far, in advance of ninc ty-nine-hun(\redths of the New England Congregationalists. So much for the course of tho C!Jureh on tliis subj ec t. 'l,he fourth and fifth clwpters n,re full of pa,ra1ogisms ; I can only notice :L single one. I refer to the parallel you draw at the end of the fifth chapter, which is, in truth, no parallel, Lut a parody. Did you really think, when writing the last paragraph, that the white man, at the South, had taken anything fr om the negro '?-that he had not, on tho contrary, given him alll1e ha s, and nll he hopes for, for time, ::md for eternity? If you did, then I have nothing further to say : it woultl be a. waste of breath to no purpose. In Chapter Sixth is the following : " 'l,bere is an argument which has been much employed on this su'bject, an rl which is specious. It is this. That the apostles treated sbvery as one of tho !a.wful relations of Iifr, like that of parent and el1iltl, husband and wife. "Tile argument is thus statctl: The apostles found all the rchtions of life much conuptcd by varions abuses. " 'J1hcy clitl not n ttack the 1·elations, but reformed the abuses, antl thus restored the rcbtions to a. heal thy state. ,, The mi:--take here li es in nssuming that shvcry is the bwful relation. Sla\'ery is the corruption of a lawful rclatiotL The l:n\ful relation is sen•itncle, and sbvery is the coNIIJdion of servitU(lc. "\\ hen the apostles c::tmc, all the relations of life in tho UNC T,g 'rOM'S CABIN. 200 I R omrm empire were thoroughly permeated with the principle of slavery. '11110 rela tion of child to parent was slavery. 'l'he relation of wife to husband was slavery. ~'he relation of servant to master was sb\•ery.'' '_.Che sophistry of this argument is transparent, ana the wonder is that you did not sec through it yourse lf. If, n~ you sa.y, "the lnwfulrebtion is se1·vit~tde, and ~davcry is tho corruption" of "that lawful relation," why did n o ~ our IJord require of all who would bo his disciples that they shoul<l manumit their slaves and turn them into !tired servm!la. This they could haxe done without coming in to collision with the civil power, as I have already shown (p. G3 ), anrl as you yourself admit in the paragraph next following the one last above quotCLl, in which you tell us that "by Roman law,'' (and the whole civilized world was then untler llomnn law,) the son could be "formally liberated" only "by an act of manumission three times repeateJ, while the sl a.\'O could be manumitted by performing the act. only once;" antl it would have been, moreover, nothing strange, for l1ired servan ts were not at all uncommon, as is shown by St. Luke xv. 17, and St. James v. 4. The fact, therefore, that while our Lord did prohibit even the formalrela.tion of polygamy and concubin;-~ge, as being corruptions of the marriage reb~ tion (Matt. xix. 3-0, Luke xvi. 18, et al.) he did not pro· hibit the formal relation of slavery, shows clearly that he did not regard it as a. " em-rnption of servitude." "What is to be done?" ':ehis is the title of your last chapter. "'Vhat is to be clone?" Nothin,.,! Let the wl~ole subject alone! Every time you touch i~, you make tlnngs worse, not only for the slave but for the free colored man. 1'hey understand thi s, if you don•t. Read the following resolutions, being the first and second of a. series adopted by a "Con¥ention of the Free Colored People of :Mary land, ~' composed of Delegates from the several counties, •* |