ANTIDOTE 
 
 REV. H. J. VAN DYKE'S 
 
 i PRO-SLAVERY DISCOURSE, 
 
 REV. WM. H. BOOLE. 
 
 AMERICAN SLAVERY HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE SCRIPTURES/' ([A 
 
 ^ *-,^^ 
 
 DEI.IVF.RKD IN THE 
 
 M. E. CHURCH, MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK, ps 
 
 On Sunday, January 13, 1861. 
 
ANTIDOTE 
 
 REV. H. J. VAN DYKE'S 
 
 PRO-SLAYERY DISCOURSE, 
 
 REV. WM. H. BOOLE. 
 
 "AMERICAN SLAVERY HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE 
 
 M, E. CHURCH, MOUxXT VERNON, NEW YORK, 
 
 On Sunday, January 13, 1861. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 EDMUND JONES & CO., PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 
 
 No. 26 .Ton.f Street. 
 
 1861. 
 
4 ^■"' 
 
SERMON 
 
 Is. V : 20. "Woe unto them that call evil good : (Heb. : that say concerning evil, it is 
 good:) that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and 
 sweet for bitter." 
 
 Surely, the condemnation of the text was never more fully 
 deserved by any, than by those " blind leaders of the blind," 
 who, in this age and day of Gospel light and influence, have 
 lifted up their voice, in the pulpit of the church of God, to de- 
 fend, and attempt to cover Avith the sanction of divine enact- 
 ments, that which is the condensation of barbarism, the only 
 remaining relic and last vestige of an odious institution, 
 founded in iniquity and perpetuated in fraud, and an utter dis- 
 regard of all the holy claims of humanity — American slavery ! 
 
 We propose to discuss the sermon of the Rev. Henry J. Van 
 Dyke, of Brooklyn, preached in his church on Sabbath evening, 
 December 9th last, 1860, on " The Character and Influence of 
 Abolitionism," in which Slavery — American slavery — is lauded 
 as a divine institution, and lifted to the high position of an 
 appointed agency in the salvation of the human race. 
 
 This we deny. And we accept the " sublime challenge " 
 and appeal against him, " to the law and the testimony." " We 
 are not blind devotees, to bow down to the dictation of any man. 
 We acknowledge in this place but one standard of morals, but 
 one authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice — the 
 Bible." From that book of God, wherein we are taught the 
 precept of the Golden Rule, "As ye would have others do 
 to you, do ye even so to them," that " this is acceptable unto 
 God," " to break the bands of the oppressed," the Rev. Mr, 
 Van Dyke attempts to draw his proofs in defense of a vile 
 system of slavery, " the sum of all villanies." Randolph, him- 
 self a slaveholder, truly said : " I envy not the head nor the 
 
heart of that man that seeks to defend slavery from the word 
 of God " 
 
 I have prepared a single proposition on the subject of 
 slavery, to maintain and defend with the word of God, " which 
 is the sword of the Spirit." 
 
 The last three theses of Mr. Van Dyke's discourse, " Abolition- 
 ism leads by logical process to infidelity," &c., &c., I summarily 
 dispose of by a simple and absolute denial of their relevancy 
 and of the statements therein contained ; they are a web of 
 misrepresentations unworthy the subject and the position of 
 their author. 
 
 I shall confine myself to the Scripture argument, the first 
 proposition of the discourse, "Abolitionism has no foundation 
 in the scriptures." 
 
 The reverse of this I hold to maintain, American slavery 
 has no foundation in the Scriptures. 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke first defines the term " Abolitionist." " What 
 is an Abolitionist? He is one who believes that slaveholding 
 is a sin, and therefore ought to be abolished. This is the fun- 
 damental, the characteristic, the essential characteristic of 
 Abolitionism, that slaveholding is sin, a crime in the sight of 
 God, He must believe that slaveholding is morally wrong." 
 
 This we accept, after simply snbstituting the term "sla- 
 very" for " slaveholding." We prefer striking at the root of 
 the tree. Slaveholding is its branch and fruit. And in this 
 discussion Mr. Van Dyke uses the word "slaveholding" as a 
 gloss to hide the true intent of Scripture, and to avoid the full 
 bearing of facts which make against his argument. 
 
 Under the head of his first thesis, " Abolitionism has no 
 foundation in the Scriptures," Mr. Van Dyke has a cunningly 
 devised argument, in which, by a species of legerdemain, he 
 wraps the garments of ancient divine ordinances around all 
 slavery, including Southern slaveholding, and thus dressed in 
 borrowed robes to hide its deformity, baptizes it as " an im- 
 portant and necessary process in their (the slaves') transition 
 from heathenism to Cliristianity." 
 
Purposely keeping wide of a discussion on the causes, nature, 
 and practical workings of Slavery under the Mosaic dispensa- 
 tion, he assumes that God gave commandments sanctioning 
 and governing that, and as he could " never anywhere counte- 
 nance that which is morally wrong," therefore it follows that 
 slavery is right now. And further, as there is no prohibition 
 of it in the New Testament, it was therefore " intended to be 
 continued," and the conclusion is, it is " continued'^ in Southern 
 slavery. 
 
 This may be an ingenious defense, but it does not include a 
 statement of the truth. It is putting darkness for light. There 
 are points of difference between Jewish bondage and Ameri- 
 can slavery, which put these systems as wide apart as heaven 
 and earth. Slavery among the Jews was a mitigation of the 
 sentence of extermination against the heathen nations that 
 had "filled up the cup of their iniquity" and called down upon 
 them the wrath of Almighty God. These people were captives 
 of war, reduced to a condition of national servitude, com- 
 pletely in the power of their captoi-s. 
 
 No people are so disposed to cruelty, and the abuse of 
 power, especially when suddenly acquired, as those that have 
 themselves suffered in vassalage. The history of every suc- 
 cessful revolution made by the lower classes, the ignorant and 
 degraded of a nation, is a commentary upon this truth. 
 
 Now we know, from the divine records, that the Israelites, 
 just taken by a " strong arm," from a grinding and most 
 degrading slavery of four hundred years' duration, were 
 ignorant, degraded, hard of understanding, willful and rebel- 
 lious, a hard-hearted and stiff-necked race. 
 
 This is the inspired testimony concerning this people through 
 generations. The curb and bit of the severest enactments and 
 penalties, issued by Jehovah amid thunders and lightnings, 
 were necessary to their restraint. The nation of the Jews 
 suddenly found themselves in possession of the long-sought 
 land of promise. Successful in every battle, by the power of 
 God, from being a nation despised, they were rulers over kings 
 and many nations. 
 
To prevent the abuse of this power, which was given the 
 Jews for the good of the world as much as for their own profit 
 and g'h)ry, they were forbidden by divine enactments to exercise 
 the right claimed by all conquerors of forcibly reducing to 
 abject and uncompensated slavery their captives. God there- 
 fore enacted, "Both your bondmen and bondmaids, which thou 
 shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you. 
 Of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids" (they shall not 
 be taken by force and for naught because ye have conquered 
 them). " He that stealeth a man shall surely be put to death." 
 
 Now, this was a step in advance in civilization and morals, 
 of the laws and customs of those barbarous times concerning- 
 the disposition of the inhabitants of conquered countries. 
 
 It is a matter of history that the victors had full power of 
 life and death over their captives, could subject them to punish- 
 ment and violence and abuse of authority without "let or 
 hindrance." By this enactment all this abuse by the Jews 
 was prohibited and restrained. Such was the intention of this 
 prohibition. Mr. Van Dyke says that by this enactment slavery 
 was "anticipated." Yes, slavery by the fate of war, in which 
 the Jews, at command of God, were soon to engage for the 
 extermination of heathen nations, whose " cup of iniquity" was 
 full to the brim, but which were, in part, by the disobedience 
 of the Israelites, permitted to remain among them, and became 
 " thorns in their flesh." And this enactment " anticipated " also 
 the abuse of acquired power, by their ignorant, stiff-necked, and 
 hard-hearted Israelitish conquerors. 
 
 This divine enactment did not "anticipate" slavery by fraud, 
 man-stealing, the selling of spurious offspring, the unjust appro- 
 priation of the fruits of unacknowledged and brutally repudiated 
 marriage ties. Such by nature and growth is American slav- 
 ery. And for such, no provision has been made by divine 
 authority, in Old or New Testament, save to punish the willful 
 and wicked participators in such iniquities. 
 
 Our minds arc not to be blinded by any jingle of words, to 
 the fact that the subject treated of in this whole discussion, to 
 
be proved or disproved from the word of God, is Southern 
 negro slavery, none other. If it can be shown that these oracles, 
 to whose aiithority we reverently bow, do " sanction" sxich a 
 system of bondage, well ; if not, " woe to them that pervert the 
 rig-ht ways of the Lord, and put darkness for light, and say of 
 evil, it is good." Under this institution of mercy, Hebrew 
 slavery, established for the moral education of the people of 
 God, and for the improvement of the condition of the heathen 
 around them, there was a recognition and respect of the rights 
 of the marriage relation among the bondmen. Children were 
 not separated from parents and sold apart. The chastity of 
 the bondmaid was held sacred; if she was humbled by her 
 master, he was forbidden to send her away or to sell her. 
 Also, they were to be the inheritance of their children after 
 them, held an entailed property. It was not a promiscuous 
 and unrestrained traffic. 
 
 Slavery is the normal condition of no part of our race. " God 
 has made of one blood all nations that dwell upon the earth." 
 He is no respecter of persons. The evil passions of men have 
 produced all the evil results of oppression, fraud and violence, 
 which we behold scattered through the earth. 
 
 Freedom is the primitive condition of man, and towards this 
 all good causes tend. Ancient slavery, including Jewish, was 
 the fruit of war, and grew out of the subjugation of the people 
 of one nation to those of another. It was a barbarism. So is 
 war itself, which is contrary to the principles of righteousness, 
 underlying all the dispensations which together form the 
 redemption scheme of the world's salvation. 
 
 Slavery followed in the wake of war, as a natural result, and 
 in the case of the Jews, the abuse of the appropriation of the 
 spoils of victory, was prevented by the wise and beneficent 
 restriction, " Ye shall buy your bondmen and bondmaids of the 
 heathen that are round about you." Here is a positive act for- 
 bidding the exercise of the then universally acknowledged 
 right of the conqueror to his captives. This was *' bringing 
 good out of evil." A subsequent reversion of the condition of 
 
8 
 
 those captive nations was at once followed by a complete 
 change in theix" relations towards their masters. Success in 
 war was the jubilee of emancipation, and the captives returned 
 to their normal state of freedom. And no divine ordinance 
 was enacted covering the assumed right of the master to 
 recover his fugitive slave in such case. Self-emancipation by 
 such recognized means was the right of the slave. If he 
 could gain his liberty, "he was (as Paul teaches) to use it 
 rather." " Against such there was no law." And the Almighty 
 established the precedent by evading the provisions and 
 authority of the " unconstitutional" " fugitive slave law" of the 
 Egyptians, and bringing a whole nation out of bondage " with 
 a high hand," after commanding the slaves to " borrow" all the 
 jewels they could of their masters, and keep possession as part 
 payment of ai'rearages of four hundred years' wages of servi- 
 tude. As a further preventive to the undue exercise of the 
 master's authority, it was provided that the slave that had 
 escaped from his master was not to be returned, but permitted 
 to dwell in the land to which he had escaped wheresoever he 
 chose. 
 
 They were also to be instructed in the true religion, taught 
 to observe the commandments of the Lord, and in every respect, 
 physical, mental and moral, were to be trained into an improved 
 condition of civilization. Such was, in brief, the origin, nature, 
 characteristics, and practical workings of Jewish bondage. 
 
 And now I throw down the gauntlet, and challenge the proof 
 from this divine record, that the " Lord God, true and righteous," 
 ever established, sanctioned, anticipated, provided for, justi- 
 fied, or excused slaveholding of Southern kind, originating in 
 unlawful incursions into the territory of peaceable, inofiensive, 
 and weak nations, occupying no "promised land" given bj- 
 covenant of God to the invaders, guilty of no depredations upon 
 the property of their assailants, not having filled up the cup of 
 their iniquity, and been given over to a decree of extermina- 
 tion. Forcibly dragging the inhabitants, without respect of 
 sex or condition, from their native land ; crowding the manacled 
 
and helpless masses into the narrow " between-decks " of the 
 pirate slaver, there to endure all the written and unwritten 
 horrors of the purgatory of the " middle passage" on their voy- 
 age to Columbia's fair land of — liberty ! 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke asks, Where is "the prohibition of slavery in 
 the Bible"? Here it is, in both Old and New Testaments: 
 "Thou shalt not steal," "He that stealeth a man, and selleth 
 him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." 
 Paul classes " man-stealers with murderers of fathers, murder- 
 ers of mothers," with the most abominable of sinners. I pin 
 down all opposers to this. No quibbling, no evasion, meet the 
 question. Do not the whole Scriptures, old and new, in letter 
 and in spirit strike the death-blow of God's anathema at this, 
 the root and growth of American slavery ? 
 
 I use the language of Mr. Van Dyke, changing but a word 
 or two, to suit the better use of it : "When men tell me that 
 slaveholding is" not "sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the 
 Holy Scriptures, I point to this sacred record, and tell them, 
 in all candor, as my text does, that their teaching blasphemes 
 the name of God and his doctrine." Further, where is the act 
 sanctioning the means whereby this sj^stem is perpetuated? 
 The repudiation of the tender, sacred, heaven-instituted, Christ- 
 honored bonds of the marriage relation ? Of the refusal to 
 parents of their own offspring ? The right to tear the moaning 
 child from its robbed and shrieking mother, and selling it to 
 one, the father to another, and the mother to a third ? Where 
 is the divine act which says that "the slave has no rights which 
 the white master is bound to respect ? " The Scripture sanction 
 for holding as a slave, and selling as such, the illegitimate off- 
 spring of the white master ? For the establishment of slave 
 nurseries for the production and growth of human " chattels " 
 to supply the markets left empty by failures in the speedy 
 returns of foreign importation by pirate-slavers ? 
 
 Where is there a place in the Bible for the Southern auction 
 block, where the handsome, full developed form of the fair slave 
 girl, whose long wavy hair, adorning her brow and finely 
 
10 
 
 chiselled features, sculptured in the cream-colored flesh of un- 
 mistakable Anglo-Saxon pedigree, speaks her a blood-relation 
 of her inhuman owner, is put up to be sold to the highest bidder, 
 among the eagerly betting gentlemen of the crowd, for profit 
 and dishonor ? These are all parts of the system of American 
 slavery — integral parts. These are its origin, its nature, its 
 characteristics. 
 
 These are not excrescences which protrude upon a healthy 
 body ; they are the hone and flesh andheating heart of the system. 
 They are not the filthy rags covering a fair form, hiding for 
 the while its beauty, but which, when stripped and washed, 
 present to the eye the features of loveliness beneath. They 
 are the naked outlines of a body deformed in every part, a mass 
 of rottenness from head to foot, from bone to skin. 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke says : "It is often said that if the Bible does 
 sanction slavery, it does not sanction American slavery. I 
 ansAver, neither does it sanction the system of American mar- 
 riage, if by system is meant every thing connected with the 
 practical workings of the relation." 
 
 Now all this is sophistry, an evading of the point, the put- 
 ting one thing in the place of another thing, by a false defini- 
 tion and play upon a word. " If by the word .system is meant 
 every thing connected with the practical workings of the two 
 relations," says Mr. Van Dyke, the word " system" means no 
 such thing. "System" is the integral, the fundamental parts 
 of a whole plan or scheme, so connected as to make a chain of 
 mutual dependencies. Now what are the integral parts of 
 American marriage ? (This word " American" is a gloss ; mar- 
 riage among us is not American or English, 'tis Christian.) 
 
 1st. The recognition of the sacredness of the relation. 
 2d. The imposition of vows by which the contracting parties 
 covenant to live together " after God^s ordinance, in the holy 
 bands of matrimony." 3d. The performance of suitable cere- 
 monies involving the taking of the above solemn obligation by 
 the contracting parties, before a legally authorized minister of 
 the law, or of the Gospel. This system is not " full of evil and 
 
11 
 
 iniquity." Mr. Van Dyke says that these are parts of the 
 " system: " " husbands beat and poison their wives," "multi- 
 tudes of parents suffer their children to grow up in filth and 
 ig-norance," and " divorce cases are enough to poison the foun- 
 tains of virtue in every family where they are read." Now 
 Mr. Van Dyke never read " definitions," or he knows that all 
 these things are forbidden by the covenant of marriage, and 
 by the laws of every Christian state, and are no part of the 
 system whatever. But now what are the integral, essential 
 parts of the " system" of American slavery — fundamental 
 parts holding it together ? 
 
 Man-stealing is its base, its lowest stratum, its corner-stone. 
 This is the quarry from whence the whole material for the 
 superstructure was broken out. Without this "base" there is 
 no foundation to build upon ; without the material thus fur- 
 nished, there would have been no such " institution" raised. 
 Here then is one essential part. Another necessary link is 
 the utter disregard of the marriage ties, giving the right to 
 separate and sell apart parents and children. The acknowledg- 
 ment of the rights of that relation, as they are acknowledged 
 here amongst us, where Mr. Van Dyke says marriage is "full 
 of iniquity and evil," would ruin the whole fabric of slavery 
 in fifty years. Other essential parts are slave-nurseries and 
 the auction block. And to show that all these are parts of the 
 syMem, and not abuses of its practical workings, we say there 
 is no law nor healthy prevailing sentiment in the Southern States 
 against any of these things. 
 
 National law prohibits the slave-trade, it is true, but the 
 South has opened it with a vigor which shows it considers that 
 law no part of a Southern code or policy. 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke says, that he " believes slavery to be an 
 important and ?iecessa?'y process in their (the slaves') transition 
 from heathenism to Christianity." Remember, the reverend gen- 
 tleman means Southern slavery. I don't want to get the argu- 
 ment off that track. And, now, will a professed Christian man 
 lay all the burden of this " sum of villanies" upon the divine 
 
12 
 
 framing of the redemption scheme of mankind ? Say, that 
 "an important and necessary process in that scheme is the 
 stealing of men, women, and children? The piratical slave- 
 trade, adultery, fornication, and the dissolution of the marriage 
 ties ? 
 
 Will he dare to tell the frowning world that a " necessary 
 process " in God's purposes is the protection of this unparal- 
 leled institution of fraud, in the circumscribed locality and 
 narrow borders of a small Southern confederacy, against the 
 united protest of all the Christian nations, that unanimously 
 declare that the doctrine of God is blasphemed, by a threat- 
 ened spread of the evil ? 
 
 That this moral monstrosity, conceived in sin , shapen in 
 iniquity, and untimely born from the womb of hell, is a child of 
 God's providexce ? Does he intend to " slanderously report " 
 of God, "let us do evil that good may come," "whose dam- 
 nation is just " ? 
 
 That God can bring good out of evil, we believe ; but " evil" 
 is not by such results changed into " good ;" its bad nature 
 remains unaltered. God brings good out of evil by either 
 neutralizing or overcoming it— not by calling evil " good." 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke knows that there is not in the whole system, its 
 origin or nature, the slightest shading of philanthropy or Christi- 
 anity. The slave-trade was established and is carried on for sor- 
 did profit, filthy lucre — nothing- else. IIow many missionaries 
 have devoted themselves to the calling ? Who huys the slaves 
 in the markets ? Christian societies, to instruct them in the 
 rudiments of God's gospel ? No ; they are bought for work, 
 for profit — nothing more. Who ever knew of a slave in the 
 South educated for the purpose of raising him to the dignity 
 of his manhood ? Does not the law of the South forbid the 
 teaching of a slave to read ? Is he taught that he is a man 
 by creation and divine appointment, and should seek to rise to 
 the attainment of such estate ? 
 
 'Tis true that some masters do permit their slaves to hear a 
 part of the gospel preached from the lips of ministers who 
 
13 
 
 favor the system of slavery. But what an apology for a 
 christianizing mission ! They are not permitted to learn to read 
 the word of God for themselves, they are never sent back to 
 Ethiopia with the g-lad tidings of Christ. They remain in bond- 
 age, subject exclusively to the control of their masters, none 
 of whom has ever heard a "divine call" to send his slave, as a 
 missionary, to Africa, or elsewhere, nor acknowledged any 
 higher position for him than that of "chattel." 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke must know that this whole system, in origin, 
 nature, and in the bias of the laws of Southern States sustain- 
 ing it, together with the practical workings of it, are all op- 
 posed to the sjnrit and spread of Christiayiiti/, and the only way 
 in which he can prove satisfactorily that it is " an important 
 and necessary process, in their transition from heathenism to 
 Christianity," is to show by the word of God that it is the 
 Lord's will and decree that Africa shall empty all her inhabitants 
 into the Southern States through the missionary efforts of the slave- 
 traders. Until then, he is no authority for me nor you. 
 
 The reverend gentleman has ingeniously joined together in 
 his argument the Old and New Testament records, and by rais- 
 ing the former to the glory of the latter, he proposes that we 
 receive it as equal in authority with the New Testament — 
 indeed, as part of the Gospel. And this is the way he does it. 
 He finds slavery in the Old Testament among the Jews 
 (though he does not tell us its origin nor the circumstances 
 under which it existed), with a distinct enactment governing 
 it. In the New Testament he finds directions to "servants 
 under the yoke" (slaves), instructing them to count their 
 masters worthy of all honor, etc., and not a single sentence 
 nor word repealing or annulling the Jewish law on the sub- 
 ject. Some matters of Jewish law were noticed and annulled, 
 but this most important enactment was not. And all this (he 
 thinks) makes up a chain of proof, running through old and 
 new records, confirming his argument that slavery is a divine 
 institution, under both dispensations. Now I wish to state a 
 simple fact to break the links of this chain by a blow : Jew- 
 
14 
 
 ish slavery was extinct at the time of Christ's appearance, 
 and has never been renewed since. There was no need of 
 annulling the act. It was self-annulled, obsolete, dead. 
 
 " But why," we are asked," did not Christ rebuke the prevail- 
 ing practice (Roman slavery) as he did polygamy and unlawful 
 divorce r The personal mission of Christ was to the Jews only. 
 " I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 
 So exclusive were his ministrations in this respect, that even 
 after the day of Pentecost, it required a miracle to convince 
 Peter that the Gentiles were included in the redemption by 
 Christ. Unlawful divorce was practised by the Jews— slavery 
 was not; therefore Christ speaks of the one, and not of the 
 other. 
 
 Christianity succeeded Judaism— not heathenism— and the 
 teachings of Christ were to the end to show God's chosen peo- 
 ple-the Jews-the marks of difference and superiority be- 
 tween, m all respects, that imperfect, dark, and transient dis- 
 pensation, which was but the ^'shadoiv of good things to come " 
 and the full and perfect ministration which is the ^^very sub- 
 stance of the things." He did not intermeddle with Roman 
 state policy, and actually submitted to unlawful exaction, and 
 taught his disciples so to do rather than "offend them," or 
 awaken unnecessary opposition. In Matt. H : 24 etc ' we 
 read: "And when they were come to Capernaum, they 'that 
 received tribute came to Peter and said, Doth not your master 
 pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into 
 the house, Jesus prevented him, saying. What thinkest thou 
 Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or 
 tribute ? of their own children, or of strangers ? Peter saith 
 to him, Of strangers. Jesus saith, Then are the children 
 Jree; nevertheless, lest we should of end them, go thou to the 
 sea and cast a hook, and take the fish that first cometh up • 
 and when thou hast opened his moutli, thou shalt find a piece 
 of ntoney: that take, and give unto them for me and thee " 
 Was the paying of the tribute an acknowledgment of the 
 
15 
 
 lawfulness of their demand ?* By no means. Yet lie nowhere 
 speaks against the extortion of the government, nor does he 
 counsel the Jews to resist the payment of the unlawful tax to 
 which they were subjected by Roman law. 
 
 Now slavery was in the same relation with the law of tribute ; 
 it was an integral part of the policy of the Roman govern- 
 ment, and the reason why Christ did not protest against the 
 one, is the same that prevented him from preaching against 
 the other. He came not to reform or overthrow temporal gov- 
 ernments, destroy their policy, abrogate their laws, and 
 build his church upon the ruins of their civil institutions; His 
 " kingdom was not of this world." He came to set up a 7iew 
 kingdom — a !<plrltual, whose principles of universal charity, of 
 brotherly love, and of entire holiness, were to be sown in the 
 minds and hearts of men, individually and experimentally 
 receiving it, until through the prevalence of its spirit and pro- 
 fession it should become ' ' a power on the earth," and under- 
 mine, subvert, absorb, and destroy, by a natural and legiti- 
 mate process, the evils of political and social policy. It was 
 the " stone cut out of the mountain without hands," which was 
 to spread and fill the whole earth. The evident intention of 
 Mr. Van Dyke, in the use of his argument, is to incorporate 
 Judaism into Christianity, at least so far as its slavery insti- 
 tution and enactments go, and to force us to accept them as 
 essential parts of a great whole, as indeed being " Gospel" in 
 spirit and requirement. We beg leave to be excused from 
 swallowing so large and nauseous a pill. And then in his 
 procedure, he is very coaxing. For instance, from the Old 
 Testament he culls the texts sanctioning slavery of one kind, 
 then from the New he digs the fact that the Gospel says noth- 
 ing against another kind (Roman), and then brings us to his 
 own infallible conclusion, which we are to take down with our 
 eyes shut, that thereby the Bible establishes a third (South- 
 
 * Also, when Christ said to the woman taken in adultery, " Neither do I accuse thee," did 
 ho "sanction" the act? He simply refased to invest himself with authority belonging to 
 another tribunal. 
 
16 
 
 ern); all these diflfering widely and essentially (as we have 
 shown) from each other, in origin and characteristics. We 
 have seen that none of the enactments concerning Jewish sla- 
 very give any sanction to the iniquity of American slavery. 
 But it is contended that as God never could countenance any- 
 where what is wrong, it follows that^he having sanctioned slave- 
 holding under the Levitical law, sanctions it now; therefore, 
 says Mr. Van Dyke, ''slaveholding (now) is not sin." We must 
 demur again and dispute with the Doctor. The premises may 
 be in truth, but the conclusion is false. That bad word ''slave- 
 holding" donH mean the same thing in the dif event places, and Mr. 
 Van Dyke tvill persist in ignoring the difference between 
 Jewish slavery and Southern, as to their " systems." 
 
 To make a fair parallel, it would bp necessary for Mr. Van 
 Dyke, or anybody else that may prove ingenious enough, to 
 clearly establish that Southern slavery originated in righteous 
 wars, entered upon at the command of God against barbarous 
 nations, that had filled up the cup of their iniquity, and were 
 to be subjected and exterminated; who occupied territory 
 given by promise to another race, which in due time had come 
 to take possession, and whom they resisted; whom having 
 conquered, they then permitted to dwell among them, and, their 
 conquerers denied, by restrictive enactment, the exercise of 
 violence, in compelling servitude, they did " buy'' them; that 
 the South have not invaded a foreign territory and carried off 
 the unoffending inhabitants ; that the slavery of the South is 
 not the fruit and legitimate offspring of man-stealing. 
 
 This is a very hard task, I am aware, even for a devoted 
 minister of a slavery Gospel, whose heart is so gratefully 
 affected with the beauties of that "peculiar institution," that 
 he passionately exclaims in the gushing exuberance of his 
 overwhelming emotions, concerning those that buy and sell 
 men as chattels: "My heart is knit to such men with the 
 sympathy of Jonathan for David. The union between their 
 hearts and mine can never be dissolved. Though my lot be 
 cast in a colder clime, yet in the outgoings of that warm 
 
17 
 
 affection to which space is nothing, I will ever say, Entreat me 
 not to leave thee, for thy people shall be my people, and thy 
 God shall be my God." I trust that some Christian church down 
 South will heed the frantic prayer of this distressed and moan- 
 ing exile, and give him a " call" where he may live and enjoy 
 all the superabundant sweets of such paradisiacal relations. 
 
 But it does not follow that what God sanctioned under the 
 Mosaic dispensation, he sanctioned now, or that what was right 
 for a Jew is lawful for a Christian. And although Mr. Van 
 Dyke asserts that the authority of the Old Testament, in this 
 matter of slavery, is of equal weight with Gospel requirements, 
 it is mere assertion, and no proof. 
 
 The fact is, that many things were allowed under Moses, 
 and made the subjects of special enactments, that are for- 
 bidden by the Gospel, or considered by all Christians to be 
 wrong and sinful. It was right for a Jew to exact " eye for 
 eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand." It were sin for a Chris- 
 tian, and He who declared it right in the one case, declares it 
 wrong in the other. The kinsman of a murdered person was 
 constituted the avenger of blood, and could slay the murderer 
 upon sight, without process of law. In a Christian land this 
 is wholly unjustifiable, and annulled by the very spirit of the 
 Gospel. 
 
 By the law of Moses,''in certain cases criminals were stoned 
 to death or burned with fire. Under no circumstances would 
 such methods be adopted by a Christian people, nor looked 
 upon as less than a barbarism and a sin. Polygamy was also 
 extensively practised among the Jews, in both patriarchal and 
 Mosaic dispensations ; and at the very time of the giving of 
 the law, was to all intents and purposes as much an " institu- 
 tion " of the Jews, as single marriage is among us. Yet it 
 was not forbidden, nor disallowed by any restrictive enact- 
 ments, nor limited by any rule or regulation as to the number 
 of wives a man might have. I have marked the quibble by 
 which Mr. Van Dyke attempts to get rid of facing the ready 
 and accumulated proofs of the affirmative of the question. He 
 2 
 
18 
 
 says, " If it can be proved that the law of God, as jyromidgafed 
 by Mo.ses, did sanction polygamy, I am prepared at once to 
 say that polygamy is in itself no sin." (I earnestly hope that 
 when it is proved he will not hasten to make confession, for 
 he has said bad things enough from the pulpit about slavery, 
 without giving infidels further license to become Mormons by 
 commandment.) 
 
 Here is the quibble, " as promulgated by Moses." In the 
 letter of the law given at Sinai, polygamy is not found ; thei'C- 
 fore (saj's Mr. Van Dyke) it was not sanctioned. It is a 
 poor rule that will not work both ways. Let us apply this to 
 Mr. Van Dyke's New Testament slavery. He cannot find a 
 positive enactment in the Gospel incorporating it into the 
 Christian economy, as it was incorporated into the Mosaic by 
 Ex. 21 : 5, 6 : " By thine own words shalt thou be condemned." 
 
 But polygamy ivas supjjorted by the civil and ecclesiastical 
 authority of both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. 
 The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were specially 
 beloved of God, received commandments directly from Jehovah, 
 and were obedient to him. The Lord said unto Abraham, 
 " Walk before me and be thou perfect," and he was called the 
 "friend of God " for his obedience. And he who so cheerfullj' 
 offered up his only son a sacrifice to God, would doubtless as 
 readily have dispensed with a plurality of wives, had it been 
 offensive to Jehovah. He was never so commanded. All the 
 ways of the heathen around him were forsaken, this was not. 
 
 Another proof of Mr. Van Dyke's sophistry, and of the weak- 
 ness of his position, is, the manner in which he attempts to dis- 
 pose of this fact by saying: " It is true that some of the patri- 
 archs had more wives than one ; and this fact is recorded. And 
 so David committed murder and adultery ; and this fact is re- 
 corded." 
 
 There is a most important difference between the record of 
 (his fact and this. David's sins are mentioned with undisguised 
 abhorrence, and with the sentence of punishment attached; the 
 patriarchs, their wives and children, are mentioned only with 
 
19 
 
 honor. The patriarchs were the high priests of their religion, 
 God's ministers, and received his commands for themselves and 
 families, and their example in this matter contained the clear- 
 est evidence of Jehovah's approval. Again, the ivhole Jewish 
 nation icas born of polygamy, and the twelve pillars upon which 
 it was built, were the children of many wives, by their father 
 Jacob. And nearly all of these children were given in answer 
 to earnest prayers, and were accepted and acknowledged, in 
 their names and otherwise, as the favor of God. Read Gen. 29 
 and 30 chaps. The Lord approved and blessed this relation. 
 Gen. 35: 11, &c. "And God said unto Jacob (who was the 
 possessor of four wives), I am God Almighty; be fruitful and 
 multiply; a nation and a company of nations (the tribes) shall 
 be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." Is there 
 not here evidence enough to satisfy the most skeptical ? But, 
 further, it prevailed at the time of the giving of the law. It 
 was not discountenanced by that law, but on the other hand it 
 was recognized by an express command declaring that he who 
 had two wives should not disinherit the child or children of one 
 wife not beloved, in favor of those of another, beloved — Deut. 
 21: 15, &c. 
 
 The true intent and force of this passage Mr. Van Dyke at- 
 tempts to put aside by a subterfuge. He says: " The nearest 
 approach to such a precept (sanctioning polygamy) is found 
 in Deut. 21: 15, ' If a man have two wives,' he shall do thus and 
 so with the children." " If a man have two wives, is that the 
 same as to say, A man may have two wives ? AVhen the law 
 says, ' If a man smite his servant till he die,' is it the 
 same thing as to sanction the beating of a slave to death ?" 
 No, Mr. Van Dyke, it is not the same, but there is a very im- 
 portance difference between the cases. Where it is written, 
 " If a man smite his servant till he die," it goes right on to say, 
 that he shall be punished. While, where it is written " if a man 
 have two wives," it does not condemn nor intimate guilt. And 
 the text does say the same, in substance, as that a man may have 
 two wives, for it binds him to acknowledge the children of both 
 wives as his legitimate and lawful heirs. 
 
20 
 
 The punctuation of the passage is not where Mr. Van Dyke 
 puts it, " if a man have two wives," stopping here, but " if a 
 man have two wives, the one beloved and the other hated." 
 Another passage, Ex. 21: 10, jDrovides for a plurality of wives. 
 
 This is, in brief, the Scripture testimony on this subject. 
 Strong and unequivocal, with not a flaw in the evidence, made 
 by a single word of censure from God, lawgiver, nor prophet. 
 Honored with the blessings of God upon its participators and 
 its fruits and relations, the root and foundation of the Jewish 
 nationality, covered by Jehovah's benediction, and with the 
 authority civil and ecclesiastical of patriarchs and of the law. 
 It stands upon the record that polygamy was a part of the Jewish 
 system. 
 
 Polygamy was laivful in Patriarchs and Jews ; but shall it 
 be argued from this that it is right noiu ? Mr. Van Dyke may 
 argue thus, for he unfortunately is in that dilemma, but we 
 " have not so learned Christ." Polygamy has not been abrogated 
 nor condemned by express enactment of the Gospel — nor was 
 there need. The sjmnt of Christianity cries out against it as 
 a crime, and the enlightened conscience of all Christendom 
 unanimously proclaims it a crime against God and purity. But 
 it ivas not sinful in the Jews ! And slavery is in the same 
 category ; but it does not follow that because God regulated 
 and allowed Jewish bondage theri, he necessarily allows it 7Wic, 
 or would in anywise countenance the same, much less Southern 
 slavery. The idea of advancing Judaism, in respect of au- 
 thority, to the parallel of Christianity, is simply ridiculous, 
 and in a Christian minister is evidence of unpardonable ignor- 
 ance or misrepresentation. " How easy," says Mr. Van Dyke, 
 " it would have been for God, if he regarded slaveholding 
 (slavery) as sinful, in those days when his chosen people 
 trembled before Mount Sinai, to have put the stigma of his 
 disapprobation forever upon it." 
 
 He did not regard such slaveholding as sinful, in a Jew, 
 at such time. But now even that would not be indorsed by 
 the gospel. The fact is ignored by this writer that the two 
 
21 
 
 dispensations differ essentially, not only in mode, but in prin- 
 ciple. 
 
 The patriarchal and Mosaic were transition stages, leading- 
 to a more perfect and complete system of morals and religion. 
 They were dark and crude, not too proceed too far in advance 
 of the limited ability of an ignorant and partially enlightened 
 nation. 
 
 Judaism was the green and immature fruit passing through 
 the necessary changes to the ripe; and shall we " set our teeth 
 on edge " by eating sour crabs when we may pluck the ripe and 
 sweet fruit ? Nor do the changes and process of ripening 
 carried on through those dispensations, argue that God has 
 changed in nature or attributes, because he laid not upon his 
 first people, ignorant and debased as they were, children in 
 intelligence and moral capacity, in the infancy of their spirit- 
 ual development and social education, the highest command- 
 ments of purity and holiness, found in the New Testament. 
 There are heights of purity which angels perceive, which, 
 were our eyes opened to behold, and by commandment were 
 laid upon us to attain, would sink us in despair, at the thought 
 of the impossibility of obedience in our present condition. 
 Yet to such heights glorified " spirits of just men made per- 
 fect" soar with delight on easy wing, stripped of the leaden 
 incumbrances of this, our present mode of existence. And if 
 God withheld from the subjects of an opening and immature 
 dispensation the higher requirements of an inward and prac- 
 tical holiness, binding noio upon the subjects of a full and 
 " glorious ministration," did he dissemble or deceive ? The 
 measure of their obedience and required holiness was the com- 
 mand given to them. 
 
 But is no more required of a Christian than was required of 
 a Jew ? Is he to be governed by no higher code of morals ? 
 Is the body of Christianity to be deformed by the excrescences 
 of barbarisms which the Jewish nation brought with it out of 
 heathenism, and which, as tumors, were treated with the pre- 
 scriptions of divine enactments, to prevent their spread, stop 
 their growth, and finally absorb and destroy them ? 
 
22 
 
 That sucli was the tendency and design of those regulations 
 and restrictions concerning both slavery and polygamy, is 
 proved by the undeniable fact that those institutions declined, 
 and continued steadily to grow less and less, until the dis- 
 integration of the whole structure was followed bj^ the com- 
 plete ruin of the " institutions ;" and davery and j^olygamy 
 ceased to exist among the Jews. 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke ought to be content to let " Baal plead for 
 himself," without gratuitously offering his services to incor- 
 porate into a holier, purer system an obsolete regulation of 
 ancient Judaism, for which even a Jew will not thank him. 
 
 But let us permit the New Testament to give us its views of 
 the character and comparative importance of that transient 
 dispensation, and see whether the intense jealousy of Mr. Van 
 Dyke for their authority now is very laudable in a Christian 
 minister. Peter says. Acts: 15, 10, that Judaism put a " yoke 
 iipon the necks^' of its subjects which " neither they nor their 
 fathers were able to bear." But the jealous Doctor is not willing 
 to let Peter settle the question, but would force the " yoke" 
 upon our necks. 
 
 Paul calls Judaism (2 Cor., c. 3), the "ministration of the 
 letter, which killeth," the " ministration of condemnation and 
 of death ;" that it had "no glory, by reason of the glory (of 
 this dispensation) which excelleth," and declares that that 
 " ministration is done aivay." In the Epistle to the Galatians he 
 again compares the dispensations, which, for the benefit and 
 instruction of such Jewish Christians as are on their journey 
 back into the " wilderness" of " beggarly elements," and desire 
 to be informed what will be their state in that land, I will 
 quote. He says, " Abraham had two sons, one by a bond- 
 maid, and the other by a free woman ; these are the two cove- 
 nants, the one from Mount Sinai that tondeth to bondage ; the 
 other is Jerusalem (the Christian dispensation) which is 
 above, which is free, which is the mother of us all. So, breth- 
 ren, we are not the children of the bond woman (Jews), but 
 of the free" (Christians). " What saith the Scriptures, Cast 
 Old the bond woman and her son ?" 
 
23 
 
 So we will, Paul, by the grace of God. We reject Judaism. 
 It has finished its purpose, been discarded by its founder, has 
 passed away, and its institutions all are splintered into a 
 thousand fragments. 
 
 And thus we dispose of the vain and unrighteous attempt, 
 to drag the dead and buried laws of a repudiated constitution 
 into the service of Southern slavery. 
 
 The arguments which Mr. Van Dj^ke has drawn from the 
 New Testament in defense of slavery are very few and nega- 
 tive. They are, first, that slavery existed at the time of 
 Christ and his apostles, yet neither he nor they give one 
 distinct and explicit denunciation of it, nor one precept requir- 
 ing masters to emancipate their slaves. Second, that while 
 idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, and other crimes were de- 
 nounced, slavery was not. Third, that the apostles give direc- 
 tions to slaves to treat their masters with all honor, thus re- 
 cognizing the relations. We may well doubt, at the start, the 
 truth and substantiality of any question, or statement, resting 
 hopelessly for support, upon propositions so exclusively nega- 
 tive in their character ; not a natural, limb to stand upon. 
 
 They did not! did not! did not! But a "necessity was 
 upon him," for neither he nor any one else can find in all the 
 New Testament a single positive enactment, touching slavery 
 and indorsing it, as was done under the Jewish dispensation. 
 
 Let us conimwc to bear in mind what conclusion it is that 
 the reverend gentleman seeks to force upon our acceptance from 
 these negative premises. Thus, in the time of Christ and his 
 apostles (Roman) slavery existed. It was not denounced 
 by them ; therefore. Southern slavery is strictly in accordance 
 with the precepts of the Gospel, sanctioned by the New Tes- 
 tament, and opposition to this traffic, system, and relation, is 
 infidelity, and " blasphemes God and his doctrine !" 
 
 We briefly notice these points separately. First, slavery 
 existed at the time of Christ and his apostles, yet neither he 
 nor they give one distinct denunciation of it, nor one precept 
 requiring masters to emancipate their slaves. 
 
24 
 
 We have already given the reasons why Christ and his 
 apostles did not meddle with the subject of a heathen insti- 
 tution as slavery then was. His personal mission was exclu- 
 sively to the Jews, and was devoted to the setting up of his 
 new spiritual kingdom. 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke well remarks that "slavery was intimately 
 interwoven with the social and civil institutions of the 
 empire." 
 
 Slavery existed as the fruits of military conquest, and such 
 appropriation of captives by their conquerors was the law or 
 custom of all nations. It was part of national policy, of 
 established temporal governments, with the oi'dinances, laws, 
 and policy of which, neither Christ nor his apostles evei' med- 
 dled, nor resided, nor spoke against, but always submitted to, as 
 I have shown in the payment of the unjust tribute money, 
 and taught, in the churches, that all subjects of such govern- 
 ments (while subjects) were to pray for them, give thanks for 
 them, and submit themselves to every ordinance of theirs, " for 
 the Lord's sake." 
 
 But will any one assert that their example in the paying of 
 the tribute, and their positive injunctions to keep the ordinan- 
 ces, respect the laws, and to pray for their heathen rulers — 
 their not rebuking the many unjust, unholy, and cruel enact- 
 ments in the code of the nations, was a sanctioning of the in- 
 stitution contained in those laws ? 
 
 Yet it is just on such flimsy negative proof that we are 
 urged to swallow the monstrous proposition that Christ and 
 his apostles indorsed slavery. Alas, " if the light that is in 
 us become darkness, how great is that darkness." The intro- 
 duction of a new kingdom, an internal power, which was made 
 up of such elements as these, " Peace on eartli, good-will to 
 (all) men ;" "God hath made of one blood all nations that 
 dwell upon the earth ;" "As ye would that men should do to 
 you, do ye even so to tliem," was the means and method by 
 which God intended to sap the foundations of all cruelty, oppres- 
 sion and wrong, without putting his church and people in hostile 
 
25 
 
 array against civil governments, in the councils of which Chris- 
 tianity exerted no controlling or restraining influence. By the 
 spread of its doctrines, and spirit of peace and good-will to men, 
 it was to prevent aggressive wars, made for conquest and spoil, 
 and which was the 7'oot of the whole system of slavery exist- 
 ing at the time of Christ. And it has accomjolkhed this. 
 Wherever there is found a nation so generally imbued with 
 the faith of the Gospel that on its state papers are written 
 " in the year of grace," or " in the year of our Lord," there 
 the cause and root of slaveiy exists no more. Slavery has 
 ceased, and property in man, by any right, is denied. The 
 only remaining melancholy and last exception this world will 
 ever see, is in a section and minor part of this republic. 
 Human slavery is no part of the body or system of Chris- 
 tianity, is not provided for, nor supervised, nor dclined, nor 
 recognized by a single positive enactment in the Gospel. And 
 the man who seeks, by plundering the musty records of obso- 
 lete Judaism, and taking thence a decree, that died from a 
 total loss of vitality, was dead and buried two thousand 
 years ago, and attempts to incorporate its dry and lifeless 
 bones into the pure and healthy form of Christ's body, that he 
 may baptize sin, sin against God and against humanity, Avith 
 a Christian name, and take it into the fellowship of the church 
 of God, as a living member of Christ's body, and an institu- 
 tion of Christ's care, " as an important and necessary means 
 of the redemption of the heathen " — I leave that man to the 
 judgment of a holy and righteous Judge, who has said, " Woe 
 to him that putteth darkness for light." 
 
 But it is asked, "Why is there not one command to masters 
 to emancipate their slaves ?" 
 
 In the very next sentence (page 18) Mr. Van Dyke furnishes 
 me with the most satisfactory answer. " The Apostle knew 
 that for the present, emancipation would be no real benefit to 
 the slave." That is precisely the fact, and what was not a 
 " real benefit," in view of his embarrassing circumstances, he 
 was not required to perform. And this leads me to remark 
 
26 
 
 that it is not instant emancipation for which we contend, but 
 AGAINST SLAVERY AS SIN, in the CORE and in the root, that wo war. 
 Another ray of returning reason in Mr. Van Dyke is evidenced 
 on page 20, where he says, " I incline cordially to the current 
 opinion of the church that slavery is not (intended by God) as 
 the final destiny of the slave." Even so. 
 
 The second proposition in the New Testament argument for 
 slavery is, that while idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, and 
 other crimes were denounced, slavery was not. The answer 
 to this has been anticipated in the preceding argument, but we 
 -have a few words to add. Mr. Van Dyke says (page 16, &c.) : 
 " It is a matter of fact that idolatry and the vices connected 
 with it, were even more intimately interwoven with the social 
 and civil life of the Roman Empire than slavery was." "Did 
 the apostles abstain from preaching against idolatry?" No, 
 and the reason is very obvious. Idolatry was essentially a 
 matter of sjnrifiial nature, " interwoven with the social and civil 
 life " it is true, but interwoven as the spiritual element of that 
 life, and therefore properly within the legitimate province of 
 the mission of the Gospel. The doctrine of the " one only true 
 and living God" is the beating heart of Christianity, the spring 
 and source of its power. The reception of this belief was the 
 first necessary step to the experience of its power, to believe 
 that "He is." 
 
 Idolatry came in contact with this faith : two spiritual powers 
 met in opposition. The issue of the conflict was the future 
 and eternal destiny of the souls of men. The subject was 
 beyond the province and reach of civil legislation. It involved 
 the question of obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Ruler, 
 King of kings, and Lord of lords, not revoking the authority 
 he had given to earthly powers, of ruling in temporal things, 
 but proclaiming that " God is a spirit," and that all men must 
 "worship him in spirit and in truth." The Gospel is a sjiiritual 
 force, and wars "not against flesh and blood, but against (spi- 
 ritual) principalities and powers." Such was idolatry. At 
 cost of property and life, the apostles and first disciples con- 
 
27 
 
 tended for (this) "faith once delivered to the saints," and for 
 this faith they could burn. Slavery, a temporal institution, 
 stood in no such opposing relation to the progress of the Gospel. 
 Murder, adultery, theft, and such like crimes, were specially 
 and wholly matters of individual guilt, reprehension and con- 
 demnation, proceeding from "within the heart," and proper 
 matters of spiritual supervision. 
 
 They were not national or civil institutions, were not pro- 
 tected by civil enactments, but were against the peace of the 
 commonwealth, the safety and happiness of individuals, and 
 contrary even to the government among heathen. 
 
 We are further told that the apostles give directions to 
 slaves to "honor their masters," thereby acknowledging the 
 relation. This brings us to a consideration of the text of Mr. 
 Van Dyke's discourse, in the discussion of which this point is 
 
 involved. 
 
 The reverend gentleman's text is taken from 1 Tim. 6 : 1,5: 
 " Let as many servants," &c. He quotes no less than five 
 different commentators of as many denominations, to prove 
 that "servants under the yoke" means slaves. Admitted, 
 what use does he make of the fact ? Why, we are told that 
 by these directions to such, touching their conduct towards 
 their masters, Paul " intimates in the strongest form that he 
 expects the relation to continuer Wonderful sagacity, and 
 therefore slavery is right, according to the Gospel-a very 
 logical conclusion, very. Paul " intimates " no such thing and 
 to put such a wholly gratuitous interpretation upon the Apos- 
 tle's words, is " putting darkness for light." 
 
 The Apostle is giving simply plain directions to "servants 
 under the yoke" how to govern themselves ^^ xvMe in such 
 relation;" the application of his words extends no further. 
 He is not discussing nor noticing the contingencies of that rela- 
 tion This will not be denied, that noivhere does the Apostle 
 eulogize the relation, roam the slave xot to seek his liberty, con- 
 demn the attempt or desire to be free, but he P^^iti^^ly says 
 to these, " If thou mayest be made free, use it rather ^ R^n. 7, -1 . 
 
28 
 
 The text contains just such " wholesome words " as any 
 sound-minded and pious Abolitionist minister would preach 
 to a congregation of slaves, South, should the Christian popu- 
 lation of that section that are not " governed by the fickle and 
 corrupt tribunal of reason and humanity,'^ see it to be con- 
 sistent with their enlightened views on liberty of speech to 
 allow him to preach at all. If a chaplain of a prison should, 
 in a discourse to the prisoners, say, " Count your masters 
 worthy of all honor," would the language be considered as 
 containing an implied reference to the " continuance of the 
 relation" ? He is speaking of present duty growing out of 
 present circumstances, and his words would apply with as 
 much force to the man whose term of sentence was to expire 
 in one day as to him who was to continue a prisoner for years. 
 The fact that the warden was in a few hours no longer to be 
 his master, did not release him from the obligation to submit 
 in peaceful obedience to the requirement of his present sub- 
 jected condition. 
 
 When John the Baptist, upon being asked by the Eoman 
 soldiers (Luke 3 : 14), "And what shall we do?" answered, 
 " Be content with your wages," did he " intimate in the strongest 
 form" that their masters gave them what was "just and 
 right " ? They received about three half-pence a day, and were 
 disposed to murmur and rebel because of the insufficiency of 
 their pay. John, who had come as a "preacher of righteous- 
 ness," and not as a reformer of civil and military misrule, 
 simply gives advice best suited to their case under the circum- 
 stances, in view of their utter inability to effect any change 
 to advantage by revolt and commotion. Paul says that what 
 is " lawful is not (always) expedients 
 
 Peter writes, " Servants, be subject to your masters with all 
 fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 
 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience towards God 
 endure grief, suffering lorong fully,'" " for if when ye do well and 
 suffer for it, yc take it patiently, this is acceptable to God." 
 Now is^his indorsing tirong ? docs xorong become ri^/i^ because 
 
29 
 
 we are divinely instructed to " endure it," and " take it 
 patiently" for "conscience towards God"? Does cheerful, 
 patient submission to the exactions consequent upon occupy- 
 ing a subordinate and servile relation, imply an acknoioledg- 
 ment of the lawfulness of such relation ? Certainly not. And 
 neither do the Apostle's words " intimate " in any " form " that 
 " he expects the relation to continue," when he gives directions 
 to " servants under the yoke " how they are to conduct while 
 sustaining such relation. 
 
 Let me state a case. A man came to Jesus and requested, 
 "Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance 
 with me." Jesus answered, " Man, who made me a judge or a 
 ruler over you ?" Now did the Saviour, by such language, " in- 
 timate in the strongest form " that the man unlaufully claimed 
 a division of the property ? 
 
 According to the logic of Mr. Van Dyke, the refusing brother 
 should have afterwards grounded his further right of posses- 
 sion on the assumption that the Great Prophet and Law-giver, 
 " intimated in the strongest form " that he " exjyected " him " to 
 continue " in possession, inasmuch as he denied his brother's 
 claim to any part, by refusing to adjudge in the matter. AVere 
 he unlawfully seized of the estate (so Mr. Van Dyke's logic 
 would run) and detained from his brother that which in justice 
 belonged to him, the Saviour would certainly have embraced so 
 favorable an opportunity of denouncing the wrong-doer who 
 held his possessions by fraud. Whereas, the truth is, that the 
 answer of Christ bore only upon the matter of the unlawful- 
 ness of the man's contemplated mode of redress ; which was 
 the substitution in the place of the lawful civil jurisdiction of 
 a judgeship, which,'howevor righteous, and according to truth 
 should be its decisions, would have been a usurpation of au- 
 thority, and an unwarrantable interference (according to 
 Christ's precepts) with the prerogatives of a regularly consti- 
 tuted government, the lawfulness, or at least expediency of 
 which, was acknowledged by Him, who, by his inspired apos- 
 tles, wrote, " submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for 
 
30 
 
 the LorcTs sake^' (not because it was "just and right"), 
 " whether it be unto kings as supremo, or unto governors." 
 
 Mr. Van Dyke is ratlier unfortunate in quoting Dr. Adam 
 Clarke, who, in his comment on the reverend gentleman's text, 
 and which comment he quotes to sustain his forced interpretation 
 and bearing of this passage, takes the precise views we have 
 presented. "The word doidoi (servants) here means slaves 
 converted to the Christian faith; and by despotai (masters), 
 we are to understand the heathen masters of those Christian- 
 ized slaves. Even these in such circumdances and under such 
 domination, are commanded to treat their masters with all 
 honor and respect, that the name of God, by which they were 
 called, and the doctrine of God, Christianity, which they had 
 professed, might not be blasphemed, might not be evil spoken 
 of, in consequence of their improper conduct." " The civil state 
 in which a man was before his conversion is not altered by that 
 conversion, nor does the grace of God absolve him from any 
 claims which either the state or his neighbor may have on him. 
 All these outward things remain unaltered" (by such conver- 
 sion). This is, indeed, a "clear exposition," and contains 
 "good doctrine, wholesome words." It teaches that "two 
 wrongs do not make a right;" that the conversion of slaves 
 was not designed to inaugurate rebellion against civil author- 
 ity, and " make bad worse," by raising them against their 
 masters because they had become " baptized disciples." 
 
 This, certainly, would have been a blaspheming of that holy 
 name and doctrine which they professed, which taught humil- 
 ity, to " resist not evil," to " endure grief, suffering wrong- 
 fully," to be " patient under affliction." Whatever " claims^' a 
 state may have upon us, we are bound by the law of Christ to 
 fulfill, and we are to yield obedience to its law " ivhile under 
 such domination^' But does such requirement deprive us of the 
 use of all peaceable and righteous means to be released from 
 such "domination"? Does St. Paul or Dr. Clarke, in either 
 text or comment, or in any other of their writings, speak against 
 the exercise of such " inalienable right" f 'Tis Paul's advice 
 
31 
 
 to " servants under the yoke," " If thou mayest be free, use it 
 rather." The mode and time of release from unjust civil 
 requirements will be indicated by the favoring circumstances 
 of our position, and by prudently and wisely following the 
 intuitions of enlightened conscience. Suffering wrong does 
 not make lawful, much less expedient, all means we may find 
 at hand to effect a release ; "we are not to do evil that good 
 may come." The right to liberty, and the use of improjier 
 means to obtain it, are considerations vastly differing in many 
 respects. 
 
 The conscience of enlightened humanity in its infallible 
 intuitions, sits in stern judgment against human bondage, and 
 condemns it. And with the advancement of the light, doctrines, 
 and spirit of Christianity has been the quickening of its per- 
 ceptions and sensibility. Where civil domination has been too 
 strongly opposed to allow its expression, it has waited until 
 " in the course" and changes "of human events," it has made 
 its way into the halls of legislation, where it could speak out, 
 and had power and room to act, when it has by " constitutional 
 means" changed odious laws, and " proclaimed liberty to the 
 captive." And this it ever has and ever will do, wherever it 
 possesses the lawful authority, despite the clamor and protest 
 of the upholders of wickedness and "pleaders for Baal." 
 
 To-day an amazing spectacle is presented to the eyes of the 
 world. Every Christian nation of the earth, inspired by the 
 quickening influence of conscience, enlighted by the Word of 
 God, from which Mr. Van Dyke takes his text, and professes 
 to bring his proofs in support of uncompensated human chattel 
 slavery, are washing their hands from all its defilments, and 
 purging their possessions from the curse ; while in this land, 
 which has boasted to the world of its foundations of liberty, 
 of its establishment in the principles of " equal and exact justice 
 to all men ;" here, where that "great light of the world," the 
 Bible, has thrown out upon us all around its " healing rays," 
 " bringing men to a knowledge of the truth," concerning our 
 duty to aid in the lifting up of the degraded of our kind to the 
 
32 
 
 true level of redeemed humanity, professed Christians and 
 Christ's ministers are giving over the Bible and the religion of 
 our fathers to the ridicule of infidels, by earnest attempts to 
 prove that this sin, from which all Christian nations, except one 
 shameful exception, have washed their hands, is indorsed by 
 divine sanction, and should be sustained as an " institution " 
 of " humanity ^^ and Christian jjhilanfhj'ojn/ ! "Woe to them 
 that put bitter for sweet, that say of evil it is good." 
 
 I now wish to offer a few remarks upon an epistle of the New 
 Testament, frequently dragged into this discussion in support 
 of the doctrine that the apostles supported the system of 
 slavery, the Epistle to Philemon. And I offer this epistle as 
 the basis of a fugitive slave law, at this distracting time of 
 compromises. 
 
 This letter cannot be employed to favor the return of fugi- 
 tive slaves against their consent. Because it is, first, an excep- 
 tional case, founded on the peculiar circumstances arising out 
 of the Christian relations of the parties. Philemon was an 
 eminent and devoted Christian, the intimate friend of Paul, and 
 fully confided in by him to act in the matter according to the 
 Apostle's dictation. 
 
 Second, it was an act in which the fugitive concurred, a volun- 
 tary surrender on his part, evidenced satisfactorily by his 
 being the hearer of Paul's letter. Third, it was exclusively a 
 Christian transaction, done without an appeal to, or through the 
 intervention of the legal authorities — a church matter. (And 
 yet men tell us that the Church ought not to meddle with 
 slavery.) Fourth, if this exceptional case argues the sanction- 
 ing of slaycry by the Apostle, by the same rule and process 
 circumcision becomes a part of the Gospel dispensation, for 
 Paxil circumcised Timothy. And Jewish ceremonial purification 
 is also incorporated into the New Testament by his example. 
 Paul underwent the process in the temple during seven days, 
 the term prescribed by Moses. Yet, in one of his epistles, he 
 says to Christians, " If ye be circumcised, Christ availeth you 
 nothing." Fifth, Onesimus was not returned as a fugitive 
 
33 
 
 slave, nor was he sent back to his former master to continue in 
 the relation of " servant nnder the yoke." 
 
 Paul writes to Philemon, " I beseech thee for my son, thou 
 therefore receive him that is mine own bowels, whom I would 
 have retained (having the power), but without thy mind would 
 I do nothing ; that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now 
 as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved especially to 
 me, but how much more to thee, both in thefiesh and in the Lord. 
 If thou count ME a partner, receive him as myself." 
 
 We may safely trust to the provisions of a fugitive slave 
 law based on the principle andjjrad/ee of the above epistle. 
 
 I have a few words to say upon the opinion which Mr, Van 
 Dyke expresses concerning some ministers, of whose larger 
 congregations he seems to be jealous and whom he wishes 
 to get off to Harper's Ferry to dispose of summarily, and to 
 give them opportunity to show proper and full proof of 
 their courage. Abolitionists, doubtless, differ much in opinion 
 as to the manner in which slavery should be disposed of. 
 Agreement in principle is not always followed by concert of 
 action. But it does not follow that because one man " goes to 
 practice the preaching" (of abolitionism) at "Harper's Ferry," 
 in the face of the law's terrors, he is " more consistent" or " more 
 heroic" than he who, occupying his divinely-appointed place 
 in the sacred desk in the city of Brooklyn, preaches the same 
 doctrine (that slavery is sin), "in brave words, amid applaud- 
 ing multitudes." 
 
 'Tis mean to taunt a man with cowardice because he does 
 not step out of his law/id place, to take an unlawful, unchris- 
 tian position, or seek to do good in an unlawful manner. We 
 venture that if the Eev. Mr. Van Dyke will give a j^ledge on 
 behalf of the Christian slaveholders of the South, or any part 
 of it, that the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher shall be allowed to 
 preach his sentiments against slavery, as publicly and as un- 
 disturbed as he himself was allowed to utter his slavery dis- 
 course in the midst of a city of " infidels and rabid abolition- 
 ists," it will not be long before the opportunity will be em- 
 3 
 
34 
 
 braced by him and many others. Mr. Van Dyke walks the 
 streets of a city filled with " infidel, Bible-rejecting- abolition- 
 ists," and preaches among them his extreme pro-slavery doc- 
 trines, without a fear to raise a hair of his head. And he 
 knows that this right and privilege, granted to him here, and 
 for his protection in which, the whole civil and military force 
 of the country would, by law, be granted, Mr. Beecher, or any 
 ■other honest American citizen, would be denied and forbidden 
 to lisp a word upon the subject of anti-slavery sentiment 
 among the "Christian slaveholders" of the South, under the 
 penalty of being deprived of his liberty, tarred and feathered, 
 and put in danger of his life ! Alas for the Christian gentle- 
 ness of the spirit of the '^divine institution" — "by their fruits 
 ye shall know them." Is it the only satisfactory proof of 
 courage to put one's head in a hungry lion's mouth ? It was 
 the suggestion of divine wisdom to Moses "to take the serpent 
 by the tail" and it is neither cowardice nor "carnal wisdom" 
 that constrains good men to follow this wholesome suggestion, 
 and keep away from the venomous fangs of Southern slave- 
 power, for at last it " hiteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an 
 adde7\" 
 
r 
 
 '/ 
 
i 
 
 K: »«i$i U-*. ■*{r 
 
OF CONGRESS 
 
 Mi