.40^ 
 
 r 
 
 
 rAQ^ 
 
 

 
 •^^^^^ 
 
 •^^\ 
 
 
 
 
 
 '»bv^ 
 
 5^ 
 
 
 
 
GOD OR OUR COUNTRY. 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 REV. DR. PUTNAM'S DISCOURSE, 
 
 DELIVERED ON FAST DAY, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 G0D AND OUR COUNTRY. 
 
 '7. •*-t/v^^ 
 
 " But true hearts a' — gae work awa' — 
 " We '11 make the world better yet ! " 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, BY I. R. BUTTS, 
 No. 2 School Street. 
 
 1847. 
 
v.. 
 
GOD OR OUR COUNTRY. 
 
 REVIEW 
 
 REV. DR. PUTNAM'S DISCOURSE, 
 
 DELIVERED ON FAST DAY, 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. 
 
 . 7v<^' i/iJUo^UA^t- ^yy^At/l&^^ ^J4^^<^^UtZ^ 
 
 " But true hearts a' — gae work awa' — 
 " We 'W make the world better yet ! " 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, BY T. R. BUTTS, 
 No. 2 School Street. 
 
 1847. 
 
 r 
 

 
REVIEW. 
 
 Neither the delivery of this Sermon by Dr. Putnam, 
 nor its publication at the request of his congregation, is 
 any matter of astonishment to Abohtionists. They are 
 , altogether too familiar with the many similar instances, 
 on the part of ministers, either of incapacity to see the 
 truth or faithlessness in its utterance, to be astonished 
 at the course followed by Dr. Putnam on this occa- 
 sion. They well remember that one eminent clergy- 
 man defends capital punishment from the command 
 " thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself " — and that 
 another — an eminent Bishop, from the command 
 "whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, 
 do ye even so unto them," supports the system of 
 slavery, and argues to the poor ignorant slaves that God 
 requires them to serve their masters faithfully and hon- 
 estly, and never to murmur at their condition ! 
 
 Though not astonished, we see many reasons for re- 
 gretting the position assumed by Dr. Putnam. Aside 
 from his influence upon the opinions of others, — for his 
 owniv eputation we regret that a man of his acknowl- 
 edged goodness of heart, should have been unable 
 
to see anything but rashness, thoughtlessness and 
 bad temper in the cry that is so common — "No 
 union with slaveholders," (p. 21.) We think an 
 examination of his Sermon will show that he himself 
 was guilty of rashness and thoughtlessness in making 
 the assertion. 
 
 The great question of the day is thus stated by him. 
 " May ive as Christians properly recognize and support 
 a form of government, or a national compact, when that 
 government or compact adopts courses, arid recognizes 
 and maintains institutions, which are in thernselves at va- 
 riance with the spirit and precepts of the Master, Christy 
 and the divine law of love and justice ?" (p. 4.) 
 
 The solution of a nobler question has never yet, in 
 the providence of God, been committed to any peo- 
 ple. The question is simply this ; may we as moral 
 beings support a national compact which sustains in- 
 stitutions clearly at variance with the moral law, — or 
 what is the same thing — can w^e as moral beings sup- 
 port immorality ? 
 
 There is, it is true, '* a widely active disposition in 
 our community, at the present time, to apply moral 
 tests to national measures and institutions, and to exam- 
 ine them in the light of the Christian religion." (p. 5.) 
 It is a source of profound joy that such is the fact. 
 
 " Of course, it is found, on applying the strict test 
 of the gospel to national proceedings and institutions, 
 that tiiey will not bear that test at all points. At many 
 points there will be shortcomings, and at some points 
 a flagrant violation of that perfect law. There is no 
 nation on earth, nor has there ever been one, that will 
 
bear that test. Our own will not bear it. And in 
 view of this lamentable fact, what shall we say and 
 do? What ground shall we take? There are two 
 ultra methods of settling this last question, — two forms 
 of ultraism upon the subject. One is that which ex- 
 cludes moral tests and Christian considerations entirely 
 from a man's view of public and national affairs." (pp. 
 5, 6.) 
 
 This method of course is rejected. 
 
 " The other and opposite kind of ultraism is that 
 which expresses itself in such language as this : — ' No 
 union with slaveholders ' ; ' We will not be parties to 
 a constitutional compact which recognizes and sustains 
 a great iniquity ' ; ' The country which wages an un- 
 necessary or unjust war (and many will say that all 
 wars are unjust and unnecessary), that is not om/' coun- 
 try. We are Christians, and will not own it. Let us 
 separate. Let us dissolve the Union. Let us form 
 a new and smaller one, or else live in righteousness 
 and peace without one.' " (p. 7.) 
 
 We will not ol)ject to these extracts, though they do 
 not present in any very clear light, the reasonings of 
 abolitionists. We will only say " we have no quarrel 
 with the constitution, because it is the basis of a con- 
 federated union of states ; but only because we see in 
 it an alliance offensive and defensive between those 
 states for the perpetuation of slavery, and consequent- 
 ly the greatest of obstacles to its abolition as long as its 
 obligations are in force. It is not the constitution, nor 
 the union, any more than it is the church that abolition- 
 ists desire to destroy; but only the national crime 
 which has made them its citadel and its sanctuary.''^* 
 
 * Report of the Managers of the Mass. Anti Slavery Society, Jan. 27, 
 1847.— (p. 85.) 
 
Proceeding to " examine candidly " this second kind 
 of iiltraism Dr. Putnam, continues : 
 
 "The doctrine here stated is revolutionary. By 
 many it is openly and honestly held as such, and is al- 
 ways obviously such in its tendency. Well, there is 
 such a thing, certainly, as a right of revolution. The 
 only question is. What circumstances w^ill justify the 
 exercise of that right ? There are very grave consid- 
 erations that should enter into the solution of this 
 question." 
 
 " In the first place it is to be considered that God or- 
 dains civil society. He puts men together, and has so 
 constituted them that they must live in societies. He 
 ordains nations. National compacts or societies are not 
 arbitrary and artificial. They grow up necessarily. 
 Their form and extent are determined in each case by 
 a great variety of circumstances, events, and affini- 
 ties, over which a high Providence presides," 
 
 ***** " And then such so- 
 cieties, nations, if they must exist, must have govern- 
 ments, — that is, such customs, laws, institutions, 
 and terms of union, as grow up out of the origin, cir- 
 cumstances, and character of the particular nation. 
 So that government itself, inasmuch as it is an essen- 
 tial element of national society, which is a divine in- 
 stitution, — government must itself be regarded as a 
 divine institution." 
 
 * * * * * u Then, further, a 
 
 society constituted as a nation necessarily is, must in- 
 clude all sorts of men, and of course many that are 
 deficient in sound knowledge and moral principle. 
 And, of necessity, the latter sort of persons will have 
 an influence, more or less, according to numbers and 
 other circumstances, in producing bad or imperfect cus- 
 toms, laws, and institutions, vitiating more or less the 
 
public acts and relations of the body politic. Then 
 the question arises, Are the moral, Christian members 
 of the society morally implicated in the evil thus pro- 
 duced and done ? No, certainly, provided they em- 
 ploy such action and influence as the institutions of the 
 country enable them to use, to prevent the evil. They 
 are not implicated." (pp. 8, 9.) 
 
 Here we differ. God as a good being cannot ordain 
 anything- bad. He implants in the human heart the 
 feeling; of brotherhood — he surrounds us with the ties 
 of home and kindred ; and these influences lead to the 
 formation of societies and nations. In a limited sense, 
 therefore, it is true that God ordains societies and na- 
 tions, but it sounds strangely to hear the minister of a 
 good being speak of his ordaining bad laws or institu- 
 tions. God is 7iot the author or ordainer of evil. The 
 Being who formed of one blood all the nations of the 
 earth, — whose chosen messenger taught us to love 
 one another, desires that all men should live together 
 as brethren, but does not ordain that one portion of 
 the race shall oppress another, or make slaves of them. 
 Hitherto he has permitted the existence of evil, but 
 he has never ordained its existence. 
 
 A man is morally implicated in the evil produced by 
 society so far as he voluntarily supports it. He may 
 submit to a great deal of evil, but he cannot volunta- 
 rily support it without being an evil-doer, and, conse- 
 quently, without being morally wrong. He is not, 
 in resisting a social evil, to rest satisfied with cm- 
 ploying only such amount of action and influence 
 as the institutions of the country permit him to use. 
 The institutions of a country are not the work of 
 
8 
 
 God, but of man. They are the outward embodi- 
 ments of the ideas and habits of the people. If these 
 ideas and habits are bad, the institutions will be bad 
 also. But God does not ordain the good and evil in the 
 ideas or habits of any man, otherwise there could be no 
 such thing as human responsibility. God does not 
 therefore ordain the good or evil in the ideas and hab- 
 its of any collection of men — of a nation or society. 
 Consequently he cannot be said to ordain the particu- 
 lar institutions or laws we find around us. These are 
 human productions — the embodiments of human pas- 
 sions and human thoughts. So far as these laws and 
 institutions are right and good, God may be said to 
 sanction them, but it cannot without irreverence be 
 said that he sanctions or ordains any idea, habit, law, 
 or institution which is bad. 
 
 It is morally wrong, therefore, for a man to rest sat- 
 isfied with employing in the prevention of evil, mere- 
 ly such amount of action and influence as the institu- 
 tions around him enable him to use, — because these in- 
 stitutions are merely the manifestation in part of the 
 vnij evil which he wishes to overthrow. He is to take 
 for his standard of action the law of God, not that of 
 man. He is not to adopt as his rule of right and action, 
 a standard necessarily imperfect, and most likely to be 
 wrong on the very point where action is needed. 
 
 "How am I implicated," asks Dr. Putnam, "sup- 
 posing that I am a thorough Christian, and have al- 
 ways advocated and voted for good measures, — how 
 am I implicated in the evil that exists or is done in the 
 nation as such ? I did not ordain the nation to be, 
 but God ordained it in his high providence. I did 
 
not have the forming of its ideas, usages, institutions, 
 character. I did not become a member of the nation 
 from my own choice. I was born into it, put into it, 
 by the Creator.* I cannot help, therefore, being as- 
 sociated with some bad men in the national society, 
 and so witnessing, perhaps suffering from, some bad 
 institutions and measures. I cannot escape from this 
 relationship. God holds me to it ; for no call of duty 
 requires me to expatriate myself ; and if 1 did, I must 
 adopt some other country, where I should find social 
 evil also, either in the same or a different shape. I am 
 not implicated. Society must exist, and my nature 
 and the laws of God require me to be a member of 
 society. There are bad members in it, and I cannot 
 help it. Social evils exist and will arise, and I cannot 
 help it. I can neither disown society, nor can I make 
 it perfect. I am not implicated in its unchristian acts 
 and institutions. 
 
 "We are responsible only for those which we ap- 
 prove individually, and vote to establish or perpetuate." 
 (p. 9, 10.) 
 
 True it is that " no call of duty requires me to 
 expatriate myself." God has placed me here, and 
 imposed upon me the duty of acting rightly here. I 
 am surrounded with institutions which call upon me 
 and others to act immorally. It is wrong for me to rest 
 satisfied merely with opposing such immoral acts just so 
 fiir as such institutions will permit. A law higher far 
 than any human law or institution must govern my 
 actions. If the law of God, written on each man's 
 heart dictates one course, and the law of man written 
 in the statute-book points out another, every man who 
 
 * This argument really leads to this result. I did not make myself a 
 being prone to sin. / did not surround myself with incitements to sin. 
 God did these things. God is then the author of and inciter to evil J 
 
10 
 
 desires to act rightly must obey the former. We are 
 implicated in and responsible for, not only those im- 
 moral acts and institutions which we approve in- 
 dividually, but also for those which by any voluntary 
 act on our part we tend to strengthen or support. The 
 plea, that God ordains society composed of bad and 
 good men, — and consequently institutions made up of 
 bad and good elements, will not avail as a defence for 
 any voluntary support of the evil contained in them — 
 because the plea is not true. God does not ordain 
 anything to exist which is not good. If he did ordain 
 the existence of evil. — he would be the author of evil. 
 All human responsibility would be at an end, and each 
 one of us in the anguish of his spirit, might say with 
 perfect propriety — 
 
 " All good to me is lost ; 
 Evil be thou my good ; — " 
 
 " In the second place, when anything like a revolution 
 is contemplated, — it ought to be considered whether 
 the moral evils which belong to or spring from the ex- 
 isting national organization are really intolerable or 
 enormous, relatively to the general condition of civilized 
 and nominally Christian nations ; and whether those 
 evils are greater than might be expected to result from 
 the moral imperfections of the people as individuals, 
 taking into view all the untoward circumstances in 
 which the present generation finds itself placed, and 
 the usages and ideas handed down from its predeces- 
 sors. It is also to be considered whether those evils 
 are likely to be removed, and for the future prevented, 
 by a subversion of the national organization, — and if 
 that is likely, then, whether there is good ground of 
 assurance that the fact and process of a political and 
 social disruption, in connection with the bad elements 
 
11 
 
 of character previously extant among the people, are 
 not likelj to produce other and equivalent or greater 
 evils ? When all these questions may be answered in 
 the affirmative, revolution is justifiable ; but never 
 otherwise. We have no moral right to do or say any- 
 thing to induce disunion and revolution, upon moral 
 and Christian grounds, until we are deliberately and 
 dispassionately convinced that the public sins and 
 social evils under the present organization are greater 
 than might be expected from the character of the 
 people, and that a better average state of society for the 
 whole country might and would be created out of the 
 same materials, the same men, the same ideas and 
 customs, the same amount of christian principle and 
 mental light. For we can have no materials more or 
 better than these out of which to form a new society, 
 and these, however bad, will all remain to be disposed 
 of as much after as before the dissolution. We have 
 no moral right, in a fit of spleen or disgust, mortification 
 or anger, or any unfounded and presumptuous idea of 
 responsibility, — we have no right, on such grounds and 
 in such a state of mind, to say a word or take a step 
 to shake the pillars of the time-hallowed fabric of soci- 
 ety which Providence has erected around us and placed 
 us in, and by which and in which he gives such an 
 unbounded sphere for outward welfare, for enjoyment, 
 and for personal duty and holiness. The plea of 
 humanity cannot sanctify a rash trifling with things so 
 sacred as the providential bonds that hold society 
 together, in such a degree of peace and amity as the 
 human lot admits of. 
 
 "There is such a thing as the right of revolution ; and 
 there are occasions in the progress of human affairs, in 
 which it may be righteously exercised ; but he who 
 lightly provokes or anticipates the occasion, neither 
 obeys Christ nor serves his race, — is false both to 
 Csesar and to God." (pp. 11, 12.) 
 
m 
 
 The revolution sought by the abolitionists is not one 
 of violence but of principle. — fVe expressly repudiate the 
 idea of using force to attain our purpose. We would 
 not accomplish our end to-morrow if we could do it 
 merely by shedding the blood of one man. On the 
 contrary, we rely on the exercise of moral power alone. 
 We seek to effect such a moral revolution as, in its 
 course, shall be powerful enough either to relieve the 
 constitution from all taint of slavery or to break it in 
 pieces. We seek to change the hearts of the people, 
 to make them really feel that all men are brethren. 
 When they feel thus, their acts will be in accordance. 
 We rely with perfect confidence upon the power of 
 truth alone, feeling sure that so long as God is just, 
 ultimate success is certain. But when the people are 
 ready for our revolution, we shall not, as Dr. Putnam 
 says, have the same men, the same ideas and customs, 
 and the same amount of christian principle to deal with 
 in forming a new nation. Regenerated men, more 
 elevated ideas, nobler customs, and a more exalted 
 christian principle will present themselves. 
 
 Before commencing this moral revolution, (even 
 though a dissolution of the existing national compact 
 must necessarily attend our success,) we are not to sit 
 down and decide whether our national sins " are really 
 intolerable or enormous, relatively " to the general 
 condition of civilized and nominally christian nations." 
 Because other nations are steeped to the lips in 
 iniquity is no reason why we should be, — is no excuse 
 for our remaining so. If all " moral evils" are not 
 " really intolerable" under all circumstances, we would 
 like to ask what " moral evils" are tolerable ? Is the 
 
13 
 
 Christian to refrain from denouncing as sinful our slave- 
 holding national compact, and calling all men to cease 
 yielding it support, simply because the sin of slavehold- 
 ing is not really enormous when compared with the 
 sins of other " iiominallif^ christian nations ? This 
 comparative Christianity is altogether too easy to be real 
 Christianity. 
 
 Dr.Putnam refers to " two circumstances which tend 
 at the present time to disaffect the minds of many 
 towards our national compact, and which give rise to 
 many feelings, many words, and some acts, which, as 
 far as they go, go to weaken the bonds of union, and 
 to hasten the time when they will be severed ; namely, 
 the existing war with Mexico, and the institution of 
 slavery." 
 
 The war considered by itself, simply as an unjust 
 and wicked act, and not as a direct result of the com- 
 promise, on the subject of slavery, contained in the 
 national constitution, has never, so far as we are aware, 
 been considered by abolitionists as constituting any 
 ground for calling for a dissolution of the national com- 
 pact. Many of us consider all wars to be wrong. 
 We cannot agree with any one in thinking that 
 even this war is *' not unjust towards Mexico" — or 
 that " she deserved chastisement and can " claim no 
 sympathy." Considering, as we do, that this war 
 originated in the desire to extend the curse of slavery, 
 we shall confine our remaining remarks to Dr. Putnam's 
 suggestions on the subject of slavery. 
 
 What ought a Christian to do and think about slavery ? 
 asks Dr. Putnam. The answer is, — 
 
14 
 
 " In the first place, let the Christian citizen not 
 overlook the bad moral character of the institution, or 
 become indifferent to its many evils, nor let him do 
 any thing, by action or neglect, to promote its exten- 
 sion or continuance." (p. 21 .) 
 
 It is then an uliraism, to suppose that the first duty 
 a christian is to be active 
 of " bad moral character !" 
 
 of a christian is to be active in removing an institution 
 
 " In the second place, let him preserve his reason, his 
 equanimity, his temper, and learn to look calmly upon 
 an institution which Providence has permitted to exist 
 almost ever since the first formation of civil society, and 
 which the same Providence seems likely to suffer to 
 exist for some time longer. That is no reason why we 
 should not use all fair rnd legitimate influence to short- 
 en its days ; but it is a reason why we should not 
 suffer ourselves to be excited and angry, or to hate 
 those portions of the country on which, by their fault 
 or their misfortune, this evil presses, or why we should 
 wish to be separated from them." (p. 21.) 
 
 We are glad to see that Dr. Putnam does not say 
 that Providence has ordained the existence of slavery. 
 And yet there is really little cause for joy. If his 
 position is true that " government, that is, such cus- 
 toms, laws, institutions and terms of union as grow 
 up out of the origin, circumstances and character of 
 the particular nation" " must be regarded as a di- 
 vine institution," has not Providence ordained the 
 institution o( slavery f — and, if so, does it not necessa- 
 rily follow that, in the opinion of Dr. Putnam, God is 
 the author of evil ? — For, if any custom, law or institu- 
 tion can be said to have grown up out of the circum- 
 
15 
 
 stances and character of a people, then has the 
 institution of slavery thus grown up. 
 
 In other respects we fully agree with the sentiments 
 expressed in this extract. We should be sorry to think 
 that abolitionists hated the Southerners for any reason. 
 We do not seek a separation, because slavery exists 
 at the South as a «S'/«^e institution simply. It is because 
 we are implicated in its support, so long as the present 
 bond of union remains, that we seek a separation. 
 
 Dr. Putnam continues : 
 
 " I cannot see anything but rashness, thoughtlessness, 
 and bad temper in the cry that is so common, — 'No 
 union with slaveholders ? Suppose we should separate 
 and break up our country ; will that abolish slavery ? 
 Why, they at the South talk quite as loudly about 
 dissolving the union for the purpose of perpetuating 
 slavery. No union with slave-holders ? And why 
 not? Because they are sinners, you must say; for we 
 are now considering only the position of those who 
 desire dissolution on moral grounds. No union with 
 sinners ! What shall we do ? We cannot, then, have 
 a Northern union of States, for there are sinners here 
 of all sorts ; and among other sorts of sin, there is a 
 great deal of sympathy with slaveholding, and a read- 
 iness to help the South in perpetuating and extending 
 it. There has never been a public measure adopted in 
 favor of slavery without the aid of Northern votes. 
 No union with sinners ? Why then we must dissolve 
 all compacts, — that of the commonwealth, the coun- 
 ty, the city ; we cannot trade with men, or do any 
 business with them, for many ot them are great sin- 
 ners, and all of them more or less. We must dissolve 
 our families, for there is sin there. The Christian 
 must break all bonds and stand literally alone ; nay, 
 according to that principle, — no union with sin, — al- 
 
16 
 
 most every man would have to tear soul and body apart, 
 for one or the other of them he will find stained with 
 some sin. (pp. 21,22.) 
 
 The reason why Dr. Putnam could see nothing 
 but rashness, thoughtlessness and bad temper in the 
 cry — No union with slaveholders — is a simple one — 
 he did not understand its meaning. No abolitionist 
 ever yet refused to co-operate with slaveholders, wdicn 
 he could do so without countenancing or supporting 
 slavery. Dr. Putnam should have examined the anti- 
 slavery productions a little more carefully, and conversed 
 with anti-slavery men a little more freely before being 
 guilty of the rashness and thoughtlessness of making 
 this charge. That such are really the sentiments of 
 abolitionists is well known to all who read their publi- 
 cations. For the benefit of those not thus acquainted, 
 we will present the following passages taken from a 
 pamphlet written by Wendell Phillips, entitled " Can 
 Abolitionists vote or take office under the United States 
 Constitution ?" The name of the author is sufficient 
 guaranty of the quality of the anti-slavery doc- 
 trine — whilst the design of the pamphlet was to ex- 
 plain and defend this very cry " No union with slave- 
 holders." 
 
 " Nobody disputes,^^ says Mr. Phillips, " that we may 
 rightly assist the ivorst government in doing good, pro- 
 vided we can do so ivithout at the same time aiding the 
 wrong it perpetrates, (p. 22.) 
 
 " If I have joined with others in doing wrong, is it 
 either presumptuous or unkind, when my eyes are 
 opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their 
 
17 
 
 career of guilt ? Does love to the thief require me to 
 help him in stealing ? Yet this is all we refuse to do. 
 We will extend to the slaveholder all the courtesy he 
 will allow. If he is hungry we will feed him ; if he 
 is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for his aid. 
 We will give him full credit for all the good that he 
 does, and our deep sympathy in all the temptations 
 under whose strength he falls. But to help him in his 
 sin, to remain partners ivith him in the slave-trade, is 
 more than he has a right to ask.^'' (p. 29.) 
 
 It is a tnistake, therefore, on the part of Dr. Putnam, 
 to suppose that abolitionists mean no union with slave- 
 holders, in anything, or for any purpose. All that we 
 mean by the expression is, that ive will have no union 
 in slaveholding — that w^e will yield no voluntary sup- 
 port or countenance to the institution, but on the 
 contrary that we will use all the moral influences within 
 our reach to destroy it. 
 
 What makes this mistake the more striking is the 
 fact that Dr. Putnam proceeds thus : 
 
 " The only sense in which we can say, without ab- 
 surdity, that we will have no union with slaveholders, 
 or with any other class of sinners at the North or the 
 South, is this, — that we will not take any part in their 
 sin, nor encourage, nor countenance it. And this the 
 Christian may and should alivays say.''"' (pp. 22, 23.) 
 
 We should think that the glaring absurdity of any 
 other meaning than this, would have led Dr. Putnam 
 to doubt the correctness of any other. A moment's 
 investigation would have sufficed to show to him what 
 
li 
 
 was our true meaning. But notwithstanding this, 
 although ample means for ascertaining the truth were 
 all around him, on a mistake caused by his own want 
 of thoroughness, he has asserted our idea to be " at 
 once foolish, selfish and unchristian" and that there is 
 neither " humanity nor religion in proposing it" ! Still 
 it is very gratifying to us to learn from his own lips, 
 that all christians should adopt the cry, " No union with 
 slaveholders," in such a truly abolition sense. We may 
 hope that at some day, not far distant, we may not 
 differ so entirely as to what acts amount to taking 
 part in the sin of slavery or encouraging or counten- 
 ancing it. 
 
 Thus far the course of the Christian, as marked out 
 by Dr. Putnam consists in not overlooking the bad 
 moral character of slavery, or becoming indifferent to 
 its evils, or doing anything to promote its extension or 
 continuance, and in keeping calm and preserving his 
 equanimity. One and only one specific course of 
 action is recommended, — namely — resistance to the 
 creation of new slave states. 
 
 " It is the right of the Free States, and I wish it were 
 more extensively felt to be their sacred duty, to oppose 
 by their votes, and all legitimate influences, the crea- 
 tion of any new Slave States, especially out of any ter- 
 ritory, Mexican or American, that is now free." (p. 25.) 
 
 Dr. Putnam concludes his sermon in the following 
 vein : 
 
 " Whatever be the course of events on this and 
 
19 
 
 kindred subjects, I see no occasion for passionate ex- 
 citement. Let us use our influence for the riojht, — use 
 it soberly, in good-nature, unprovoked, without threats 
 and without alarm ; and in the mean time, let God's 
 providence work on, and work out its great designs, as 
 it surely will, in its own good time. 
 
 " We cannot but deplore the moral evils of all sorts 
 that fester in the hearts of the people, and get embod- 
 ied in institutions, and sometimes break out into war. 
 We will deplore them, and do what we may in our 
 little spheres to cure them, or lessen their growth. 
 But still be calm. They are nothing new. They have 
 not arisen in a day, and will not be cured in a day. 
 They are not more or greater than they have always 
 been among men, but rather less. We must learn, not to 
 be idle, not to be indifferent, not to assist and counten- 
 ance wrong, but to be patient with it. God is patient. 
 He is long-suffering. He takes a great deal of time for 
 the removal of evil, and the accomplishment of his 
 plans. fVe cannot hurry him, ive cannot take the ivork 
 out of his hands. We can only co-operate with him, and 
 wait his time.'''' 
 
 * * * " Let us not childishly, petu- 
 
 lantly, grow anojry and impatient, and clamor for na- 
 tional dismemberment, when things go wrong, as they 
 often will in this world, — but have faith in God, and 
 brotherly kindness towards our fellow-men, and possess 
 our souls in patience. If the holy God can have pa- 
 tience with his froward children, how much more 
 should we, who share their imperfection and perverse- 
 ness, and are in our various ways, it is likely, as bad as 
 the rest I 
 
 " Who are we, sinners every one, who cannot live in 
 the nearest relations of life without sin, nor even plead 
 for righteousness and Christian love without losing 
 often the very spirit that we desire to spread, — who 
 are we, to say to any class of our fellow-citizens, or any 
 
20 
 
 portion of our country, ' Stand aside ; let there be no 
 fellowship between us, for we are holier than ye" ? (pp. 
 27, 28.) 
 
 The obvious tendency of remarks like these is to 
 render men indifferent to all reform. God, in his own 
 good time, it is said, will remove the evil of slavery. 
 Let us therefore possess our souls in patience, and in 
 the mean time, do what we may in our little spheres 
 to lessen its growth ! Still, however, do all that we may, 
 we cannot hurry God, we cannot take the work out of 
 his hand. Slavery will not be abolished, do what we 
 may, or neglect as much as ice please, one instant 
 sooner than he wills ! 
 
 Very true it is that God governs this world, — but in 
 removing evils he does not personally interfere. He 
 removes them solely through the agency of man ; and 
 man has the power to overcome evil, otherwise it would 
 not be his duty to act rightly. If I have not the power 
 to resist evil successfully, it is not my duty to resist it 
 at all. Doubtless this power of resistance is from 
 God, but still it is a power clearly possessed hy every 
 morally responsible being. God has entrusted to man 
 the work of removin"; sin from the world. He has 
 given to man the power to accomplish this work. 
 He calls upon us all, daily and hourly, to exercise this 
 power. He is continually urging us to resist evil to 
 the uttermost. We are not to rest contented with 
 anything short of continued warfare. We cannot hurry 
 him, it is true, but he urges us. We cannot take any 
 work out of his hand, but he has given us this work to 
 do. Unless we faithfully perform this work, as beings 
 
21 
 
 having the power to yerjonn it, we are false to the great 
 trust committed to us ; — we bury our talent in the earth. 
 
 As to the charge of a pharisaical spirit, contained 
 in the latter part of this extract, it is sufficient to 
 observe that it is no more pharisaical for us to say to 
 the slaveholder, we will have no fellowship with you in 
 slaveholding, than it is for the repentant thief to say 
 to his former comrade I will no longer unite with you 
 in thieving. 
 
 We hasten to bring these remarks to a close. Dr. 
 Putnam admits that no Christian can take any part 
 in the sin of slaveholding, or encourage or countenance 
 it. Does he come up to his own standard ? Does he 
 give this institution of " bad moral character" no sup- 
 port or countenance ? We aver that he is both willing 
 to support it himselt — and that he actually in this 
 sermon advises others to support it ! 
 
 The whole sermon is devoted to opposing the idea 
 of abolitionists, that the national constitution should 
 be dissolved. He is not only in favor of supporting it 
 himself, but he urges all others to support it also. 
 
 Now what is the Constitution of the United States ? 
 It is a compact which was devised to support the institu- 
 tion of slavery, and which for over ffty years has in 
 fact supported it ! 
 
 " By Art. 1 , § 2, w^e offer a boicnty upon slaveholding : 
 because it provides that the freemen in the Slave States, 
 solely because they are slaveholders, shall have greater 
 political power than the same number of freemen in 
 the Free States. fVe tempt them by the promise of 
 political power and honor to increase the number of their 
 
slaves by all means. We say to the slaveholders, ' Gen- 
 tlemen, true, we consider slaveholding to be an insti- 
 tution of " bad moral character," but nevertheless, go 
 on, increase and multiply your slaves ; and in the pro- 
 portion of three-fifths of your immorality we will give 
 you political strength, to wield in favor of slavery and 
 against the cause of freedom. To use the words of 
 John Quincy Adams, the effect of this clause has been 
 " to make the preservation, propagation, and per- 
 petuation OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING 
 SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT." 
 
 " By Art. 4, ^ 2, we declare that there is no spot in 
 all our country, this so much boasted land of freedom 
 where the runaway slave who has followed that blessed 
 light of God, the North star, may rest himself in safety 
 — no spot from which his master may not retake him — 
 no spot from ivhich we ivill not aid to tear him.' 
 
 " By Art. 1, § 8, and Art. 4, § 4, wefreemen, declare 
 
 that if the slaves rise, as our fathers did of yore, and 
 
 strike for freedom, we ivill do battle against them — that 
 
 we will present to the world the spectacle of freemen 
 
 fighting against freedom. 
 
 This is the compact which Dr. Putnam not only 
 countenances, but which he is solicitously anxious to 
 support! He argues through a whole sermon in de- 
 fence of its support ! Must we not say to him — 
 Physician, heal thyself! If as a Christian he cannot 
 even countenance the sin of slavery, how can he, as a 
 christian, support the Constitution which obliges him 
 to return a fugitive slave to his master ? 
 
 One other suggestion and we will close. Dr. Put- 
 nam proposes to elect such representatives to Congress 
 
23 
 
 as will use their influence to prevent the spread of 
 slavery over new territory. He advises this course. 
 He is eloquent in its praise. He has therefore no ob- 
 jection on moral grounds, so far as the question of slavery 
 is concerned, to becoming a Representative himself, 
 or sending another person as his Representative. 
 
 And what must be the first act which he does as 
 Representative ? He must call God to witness that he 
 " will support the Constitution of the United States " 
 — not that he will submit to its exactions — not that 
 he will support some of its parts — but that he will 
 support ALL of its provisions. He promises before God 
 to support the return of the panting fugitive to his 
 master — to support the suppression of slave insurrec- 
 tions by the national government — to support the offer 
 of a bounty upon slaveholding ! Are these acts con- 
 sistent with his duty as a Christian : Does not such 
 a Christian Representative " overlook the bad moral 
 character "' of the institution ? Does he not •' become 
 indifferent to its many evils *• if he is willing to swear 
 to support it r Does he do nothing to promote its 
 continuance ? 
 
 This "reasoning*' may seem to be " mistaken" — hut 
 it is not ! — This •' moralizing" may 566772 to be •• mor- 
 bid" — but it is not ! — It is neither •' a false nor a fool- 
 ish plea, that we must dissolve the union on Christian 
 grounds, to avoid the responsibility" of countenancing 
 slavery. We may be false to Ctesar, — but, according 
 to the moral light which we possess, we are not false 
 to God. Traitors we may be to our country — trai- 
 tors we are not to God. 
 
54 NT 
 
jr>° ^^ '^ V 
 
 c* ~^ • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' U 'i^ **^' 
 
 v^ *:Trr* ,G^ 
 
 
 ^^ o. 
 
 lO-?!, 
 
 
 ^OV 
 
 -V/Xb- 
 
 
 VV 
 
 
 
 <^ ♦'TV 
 
 °'X >°y>i!^-> /.-^i'X .°^.l^•.■^°o 
 
 
 c" ♦ 
 
 
 .O^r 
 
 
 VV 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 y ^i 
 
 *s * 
 
 
 .^ .,. 
 
 ^. • 
 
 
 '^ . --^^aK^,* .^^' ^^^^ %Y^|,>f/ ^^v -^^^ ^«^^/ j>^ \ \y^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 *p. 
 
 ? . 4:^ -^.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •^o^ 
 
 .-^^°- 
 
 
 ♦ o 
 
 
 UtRT 
 BOOKBINDl-vC