18
cal precepts and commands of God contain the sum of our duties to him and our fellow men, and only when we perform these duties in obedience to him, we do the will of our Heavenly Father—and then, and only then, do we work righteousness—the righteousness of God in Christ.
But it is no uncommon thing for men to mistake their own wills for the will of God—and their fierce and malignant passions for zeal for the glory of God: their duty is identified with the performance of their wills and the gratification of their unhallowed passions—and doctrines the most absurd—conduct the most irrational—and deeds the most unchristian—are advanced, exhibited and performed: and this is self-righteousness; for self is the source of it all—a righteousness which few can understand—though many have it—a righteousnes that, in the judgment of the sanctuary, “is filthy and rotten rags.”
Slavery, then, instead of being prohibited by Christianity and her first teachers, was actually sanctioned by her and them—and, therefore, abolitionism is anti-scriptural and anti-Christian. Nor was the right and Christien propriety of holding slaves ever called in question until modern times—in which men have discovered more than ever God revealed, and have imposed more upon the church and the world than ever God enjoined—while they have erected other standards and tests of Christian character than what the son of God has furnished. The gospel, both in its letter and spirit, is almost as much made void by the traditions and inventions of man, as was the law, by the traditions of the Elders—the Scribes—and the Pharisees. And while these pests of the Jewish commonwealth were daily trampling the law under their feet, they were still appealing to Moses and to that law; and so is it now. It is the cry of “Lord, Lord”—but a disregard of what that Lord enjoins.
We ask you, then, if we have not, by scriptural fact and argument, demonstrated that slavery is consistent with Christianity? And that there is nothing morally wrong in holding slaves.
I have no personal motive in conducting the question to such a conclusion. I am neither a slave-holder, nor a resident of a slave-holding state; and never expect to be either. Time was, when I entertained sentiments just the opposite of those here expressed—but they were the sentiments of education, ignorance and prejudice. But a question of such tremendous magnitude must be considered as becomes its importance: and as I early adopted the plan of carry-
