The manner in which I would argue is this. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”—Rom. xiii. 1, 2. Now this solemn injunction, under this awful sanction, was imposed by inspiration upon the Christians of Rome, at the time that the crown of that empire was worn by Nero, one of the most cruel and blood-thirsty tyrants that ever disgraced a throne. By his own direction the city was set on fire, which raged for nine successive days, spreading desolation and ruin; and then to furnish himself a pretext for persecuting the Christians, he laid the crime to their charge, and fiercely commenced the bloody work. “Some were wrapped in the skins of wild beasts, and torn in pieces by dogs; some were crucified, and others, clothed in garments covered with pitch, were set on fire; while the cruel monster calmly sat in the window of his palace and enjoyed the scene of his own barbarities.” And yet this is the man, whom the apostle commands the Christians to revere as “the minister of God;” the resistance of whom is threatened with damnation. Was not Paul then the advocate of tyranny and oppression? Just as clearly as he was the advocate of slavery.
In the same manner I think it can be shown that polygamy is approved by St. Paul, at least among the Gentiles. He expressly ordained that “a bishop or deacon must be the husband of one wife.” 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Now the inference is fair, that all other men might have more than one. Private members of the church are not restricted in their inclinations in this respect, only the officers of the church are not indulged. I see no way to avoid this conclusion. How then shall we reconcile these apparent inconsistencies?
In my view, the solution is plain and easy. Upon the first introduction of the gospel into any pagan land, there always will be many evils existing, which are so completely wrought into the customs, interests and institutions of society, that it is impossible to correct them at once. Nay, if it were possible, the sudden revolution would instantly produce unspeakable misery. Take, for instance, the last mentioned case: Suppose, in a nation where polygamy is extensively practised, every man could be induced to repudiate all his wives but one; how many thousands of helpless women and children would be turned on the wide world, without the means of support, exposed to inevitable wretchedness and want! The sudden adoption of the true Christian principle, under these circumstances, would be productive of vastly greater misery than is now experienced from this horrid pagan practice; and the Christian religion would be execrated as a system of cruelty.
What then is to be done? Must Christianity sacrifice its holy principles at the shrine of pagan impurity? Must we be satisfied to have men embrace the faith of the gospel, while they retain their own ungodly practices? No! But wisdom is profitable to direct.—Some method must be adopted by which these deeply-rooted evils may be branded with disgrace, and thus gradually but effectually eradicated. For this purpose St. Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit, ordained in those countries where polygamy was common, that “a bishop or deacon must be the husband of one wife.” A man that sincerely embraced the gospel, might be admitted to the privileges of the church without first turning half a dozen women out of doors; but he never could arise to any dignity, or be capable of holding any office in the church. Now you plainly perceive that the necessary operation of this simple regulation, was to abolish gradually, but effectually, this vile practice; not however, by sovereign authority or absolute force, but by the voluntary consent of the party concerned.
Thus it appears to be the genius of the gospel to tolerate an evil for a while, where the immediate and total abolition would be productive of greater miseries and crimes; while, at the same time, it requires the use of all prudent and effectual measures for its ultimate extirpation.
I humbly conceive that it is on this ground alone, that the Scriptures, in certain cases, allude to despotism, slavery and many other evils without a distinct expression of disapprobation. Had the evangelists and apostles explicitly denounced the tyranny of Rome, and declared that slavery was contrary to the law of nature, and the law of God, they would have been instantly slain, or driven, at the point of the sword, from every province of the Roman empire.
On this account every argument founded on such texts of Scripture in support of slavery, is of no more weight than the dust of the balance.
That slavery is an evil is generally acknowledged in those parts of our country where the least of it exists; and of course, where the most of its horrors are unknown. And there are undoubtedly many in the slave-holding states who deplore the evil, and would gladly remove it, if there was no obstacle in the way. But it is a matter of deep regret that there are thousands of our countrymen, claiming the style of republicans, who are the unblushing advocates of slavery. And what is worse than all, and what renders the extirpation of this evil the more hopeless, is, that when our northern citizens remove to the south, many of them become not only the owners of slaves, but in many instances, the warmest advocates of the principle of slavery. This amazing change in sentiment and feeling, I am unwilling to ascribe so much to what is often alleged, that they find the evils of slavery far less than they expected, and the subjects of it contented and happy; as to the fact, that familiarity with any vice blinds the human mind to its enormity. I doubt not that the most enthusiastick republican of our country, if he found it for his interest to reside under the most despotick government of Europe, would, after a number of years, return with the report, that the subjects of that country were much better contented, and vastly more happy than he had anticipated; and it would not be strange if his zeal for democracy, and hatred of monarchy were equally diminished. But this would never prove to me, that the subjects of a despotism are as happy as they would be, if they were placed in a situation, and prepared, to enjoy the blessings of a free government.
That this is the true reason of this change, I think is evident from the fact, that our northern men, after they become familiar with slavery, can calmly indulge themselves in that kind of treatment of slaves, which would previously have made them shudder. In this connexion I will mention a fact, which for the credit of New-England, and the honour of religion, I would gladly conceal to the judgment day, if the circumstances of the case had not been publicly displayed through this region of country. Two years ago a native of Vermont, and a minister of the gospel too, who has resided some years at the South, passed with his family, through this town and put up for the night within the sound of my voice where I now stand. They were attended by a servant-girl, who was not permitted to eat at a table or sleep on a bed, though in the true spirit of northern feeling, both were kindly proffered by the landlady. She spent her night on the naked floor, with no other pillow than her bundle of clothes; and set out in the morning in an open waggon, to endure the heat of a summer’s sun, with no other covering for her head than the woolly fleece which nature gave. Such kind of treatment, for aught I know, may be deemed necessary at the south, as I understood, it was then alleged, to keep the blacks from being “exalted above measure;” yet surely it cannot be witnessed, without sentiments of indignation, in a northern clime. And for the honour of humanity, to say nothing of the gospel ministry, I pray God, that my own eyes may never again witness a similar scene.
But let the plea be reiterated as often as it may, that the slavery which exists in our country is not so appalling as northern men suppose; it is still an evil, that exists contrary to the law of nature and nature’s God, and in the face too, of American rights and privileges. And beyond this, it stands necessarily connected with other evils, which are more shocking to the feelings of humanity, than slavery itself. Take for example, these simple facts. By the laws of some of the slave-holding states, no man can emancipate his own slaves; and any person is liable to the barbarous and disgraceful punishment of being whipped on the naked back, if convicted of teaching a slave to read. Thus the poor Africans are not only deprived of their liberty, but are completely cut off from almost the only means of information, with respect to their duty to God and their fellow men, and of preparation for the eternal world; of the only means that can alleviate their sorrows and enliven their solitude. By these laws, a pious and benevolent master, who has inherited a hundred slaves, and who would gladly deliver them from bondage, or, at least, alleviate, by every means in his power, the miseries of their condition, is compelled, against every feeling of his heart, not only to hold them in servitude, but to keep them in absolute ignorance.