E 450 
 
 . T37 
 
 Copy 1 A 
 
 SERMON 
 
 MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 
 
 PREACHED AT ASHLAND, MASS. 
 
 5Cooemb*r 3, 1850. 
 
 B V 
 
 WILLIAM M. THAYER. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST, 
 
 BOSTON: ' 
 PRINTED BY CHARLES C. P. MOODY, 
 
 Old Dickinson Office 52 Washinston Street. 
 
 1850. 
 
Class^iT l+±_Q_ 
 
 Book 
 
 T3 
 
w 
 
A 
 
 SERMON 
 
 MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILE, 
 
 PREACHED AT ASHLAND, MASS. 
 November 3, 1850. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM M. THAYER. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE ORTHODOX CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST 
 
 BOSTON: 
 PRINTED BY CHARLES C. P. MOODY, 
 
 Old Dickinson Office 52 Washington Street. 
 
 1850. 
 

 7 F f 6 6 
 
<• 
 
 ? 
 
 *~. 
 
 SERMON. 
 
 " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his 
 master unto thee." — Dedteronomt 23: 15. 
 
 The present is a crisis of thrilling interest. This 
 the recent development of feeling in our social and 
 national relations conspires to show. The land rings 
 with excitement. From Maine to Louisiana, from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific, a tide of feeling swells like the 
 waves of the troubled sea. All classes and conditions 
 of men participate in it. The high and low, the rich 
 and poor, the learned and unlearned, the bond and 
 free — all feel the movings of unwonted sympathy. 
 The laborer is appealed to by the sacredness of his 
 rights, the statesman by the responsibilities of his high 
 commission, the minister of justice by " the purity of 
 his ermine," and the minister of religion by the sanctity 
 of his calling, to feel, speak, act. Thousands aver that 
 silence is unpardonable, and indifference is sin. And 
 why this excitement ? How came we to such a crisis ? 
 Politicians are out against Moses and the legislation of 
 his God. Their decree has gone forth, that men shall 
 deliver " unto his master the servant which is escaped 
 from his master unto thee." This is the tidings that 
 are borne on the wings of the wind to cause excitement 
 from sea to sea. Sufficient cause for excitement this ! 
 Our fathers, to settle a question that involved a similar 
 principle, resorted to the musket and cannon. And yet 
 our fathers' cause resulted from a wrong; less asroravat- 
 ing than that which sends back the guiltless fugitive to 
 his chains and tears. Theirs was simply to decide 
 whether to submit to a paltry tax, — not whether they 
 
should be bought and sold as the cattle in their stalls. 
 But the cause of the fleeing fugitive, whose only crime 
 
 is being 
 
 " guilty of a skin 
 
 Not colored like our own," 
 
 his cause is, whether he shall be robbed of his inaliena- 
 ble rights, and submit to be treated, with his wife and 
 children, as articles of merchandise ; — ■ whether he shall 
 ever breathe the air of freedom, or wear the chains of 
 perpetual servitude. If our fathers had a claim upon 
 the sympathies of the world (and we think they had,) 
 then the fugitive from a bondage, " one hour of which 
 is fraught with more misery than ages of that which 
 your fathers rose to rebellion to oppose," has a vastly 
 better claim upon the hearts of all mankind. 
 
 But, amid the general excitement, we witness two 
 extremes in the expression of feeling. One class of 
 persons would rise and show a forcible resistance to the 
 law that sends back the slave, so fortunate as to escape 
 from his master, to the clime of his sorrows. They 
 would employ the bristling steel against the heartless 
 slave-hunter, abroad upon an errand too base to be 
 described. The other class would bow to the supremacy 
 of law, right or wrong. They would aid " the hunter of 
 human kind " in securing his prey. They would send 
 back the man for whom the Saviour died as truly as 
 for themselves, to the land where the story of a 
 Saviour's love may not be told him. 
 
 Regarding such conflicting views, the conscientious 
 Christian inquires, what shall I do ? Which of the 
 above named policies are right ? I answer, neither. 
 Both are wrong ! And it becomes a subject of vast 
 importance to decide upon the right principle of 
 Christian action. For the question involves a principle 
 eminently practical ; one which will frequently be 
 tested, perhaps, generally in less important matters, in 
 our future history. Remember, that it is not with the 
 politician that we have to do, but with the Christian ; 
 the man who has a high regard for the Constitution of 
 
his land, but a higher regard still for the moral Constitu- 
 tion of God. We are not to brand our National Gov- 
 ernment for enacting laws with as little moral sense as 
 if no God were on the throne, as did infidel France. 
 We are not to impugn any man's motive, nor reflect 
 upon any party. Ours is a higher object — the relation 
 of this subject to Christianity ; — whether he, who pro- 
 fesses to be guided by the principles and precepts of 
 the Gospel, can obey the law in question, and aid in 
 sending back the fugitive to his bonds, and be innocent 
 in the sight of God ? As the basis of my remarks, I 
 have selected 
 
 MOSES' FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, 
 
 contained in the words of the text. And if it be in- 
 quired, whether it is just to bring forth this obsolete 
 statute from the archives of the Mosaic dispensation, it 
 may be replied, that, although designed for the Hebrews 
 alone, it is founded upon principles of justice, humanity, 
 and truth, which are the same to-day as then. There are 
 certain laws of right, affected by no time or circumstances 
 — the same from eternity to eternity — changeless as 
 their author — God. Such is justice, humanity, and truth. 
 There is that which is just, and no power can make it 
 unjust. There is that which is humane, and no power 
 can make it inhuman. There is that which is truth, and 
 no power can make it untruth. In other words, there is 
 a something which God ordained to be the same 
 in all ages, and we call it justice, humanity, truth. 
 Of course, these principles were the same in the days of 
 Moses as now, and the same now as then. It is in 
 accordance with these just, humane, and righteous prin- 
 ciples, that Moses commanded that the fugitive slave 
 should not be returned to his bonds. So clear and 
 decisive is honest conviction on this point, that, ho man 
 can make himself believe that the great Jewish legis- 
 lator acted upon any other principles. Even the slave- 
 holder cannot believe that Moses acted otherwise than 
 from regard to these immutable laws — justice, human- 
 1* 
 
ity, truth. Hence, the reason of the law of Moses, in the 
 text, is a reason existing still. The very fact, that, at 
 this late day, we cannot read the text without associat- 
 ing the notions of justice and humanity with it, shows 
 that these principles are a part of our moral being — 
 unchangeable. So that if the law of Moses had been 
 published yesterday, and designed for all nations, the 
 principles of moral right upon which it was based, could 
 have been no different. It was morally right to pro- 
 claim such a law then. It is so now. And if such a 
 law is based upon an immutable moral right, then its 
 opposite — the prcserd fugitive slave law — cannot be. 
 Also, the text then implied three truths, sufficient for 
 our purpose. (1.) It implied a wrong in slavery itself. 
 Admit, as we are told, that the law protected only the 
 fugitives from the heathen, it is still true, that it implied 
 a wrong in slavery. If our National Legislature should 
 enact such a law, proclaiming this land to be an asylum 
 to all the fugitives from other lands, it would imply 
 that they were escaping from a wrong. So did it three 
 thousand years ago. Had Moses regarded the condition 
 from which they were fleeing as just, and desirable, and 
 good, would he not, as a righteous man, have directed 
 them to return to their masters? Independent of the 
 question whether slavery existed among the Hebrews, 
 and why it existed, this single piece of Mosaic legisla- 
 tion branded human bondage as a wrong. (2.) It im- 
 plied that the slave had a right to his freedom. By this 
 law, Moses presented inducements to slaves to escape 
 from bondage. He really invited them to tiee to Pal- 
 estine as a refuge from the oppressed, assuring them 
 that there their shackles should never more bo riveted. 
 Now, we cannot suppose, for a moment, that Moses, so 
 regardful of truth, would have encouraged the slave to 
 secure what he had no moral right to possess. This 
 would have been to induce him to sin. (o.) It implied 
 that the master had no moral right to withhold freedom 
 from the slave — that he retained him in bondage un- 
 justly. If the master had a right to the slave as his 
 
property, it would have been no ordinary offence for 
 Moses to protect him, and thus deprive the master of 
 his right. No righteous man could do this. Whatever 
 slave-holders may think of Moses, in this particular, we 
 have more' respect for the man than to believe he 
 would be thus recreant to justice and truth. If slavery 
 were wrong, then, and if the slave had a right to his 
 freedom, and the master no right to withhold it, then, 
 who can show, that the same is not true notv ? We grant 
 that Moses lived many years ago, but his example is as 
 bright as ever, and his words and acts as 'full of truth. 
 God's ancient, chosen people could trust him, and so 
 can we. 
 
 Here, then, are reasons sufficient to render Moses' 
 Fugitive Slave Law as good for our present purpose as 
 if fresh from the Hebrew council-halls. Moses would 
 not send back the fugitive, whom he greatly pitied, to 
 the wrongs and cruelty of slavery. Not he. His heart 
 was too full of love to God and man to be guilty of so 
 base a deed. With Moses for our example, and his mo- 
 del legislation for our guide, we proceed to give some 
 reasons, why it is not consistent with Christianity to aid 
 in delivering up the fugitive slave to his master. In 
 order, however, to divest the mind of certain objections, 
 and prepare it to consider, unprejudiced, the reasons we 
 give, it may be necessary to state, briefly, the following 
 five propositions: 
 
 1. All admit, that instances may occur, in which civil 
 law ought not to be obeyed. It so clearly conflicts with 
 men's sense of justice and right, that they feel bound to 
 disregard it. Such are laws that infringe upon the 
 rights of conscience. Not a few of the revolutions, that 
 have shattered in pieces despotic governments, have 
 been the result of popular resistance to unrighteous 
 laws restricting religious liberty. The church of Christ 
 to-day is achieving the moral conquest of the world in 
 opposition to numerous laws of the nations where her 
 missions are sustained. And our fathers, to whom allu- 
 sion has already been made, resisted unto blood a law 
 
8 
 
 of the mother country, and we are accustomed to ap- 
 plaud them for it. Hence there is a limit beyond which 
 we may not go, and ought not to go, in our obedience 
 to civil law. And where is that line of separation ? Just 
 where the Apostles placed it, when, opposing a law of 
 the land, they said, u we ought to obey God rather than men." 
 This plainly teaches that, sometimes, obedience to civil 
 law may be refused. This leads me to remark, 
 
 2. There is a " Higher Law " than the civil code, to 
 be first regarded. The Gospel recognizes two grounds 
 of moral obligation. The first arises from " our duty to 
 man as man, that is, on the ground of the relation 
 which men sustain to each other ; the second is, our 
 duty to man as a creature of God, that is, on the ground 
 of the relation which we all sustain to God. On the 
 latter ground, many things become our duty that would 
 not be on the former." * Hence, when the fugitive 
 from bondage presents himself at our gate for assistance, 
 if we could exclude from the mind the latter ground of 
 moral obligation, and look upon him only in his relation 
 to man, as a fugitive from justice, we might refuse our 
 sympathy, and assume hardihood enough to send him 
 back to his chains. But when we regard our relation 
 to him as a " creature of God," having the Divine image 
 stamped upon his soul, — a subject of Divine law, — we 
 are bound to treat him as a brother, to sympathize with 
 him in his wrongs, to show him compassion, and in love 
 to render him needful aid. But whether this reasoning 
 be correct, or not, it is true, in general, that the laws of 
 Christianity have jurisdiction over all other laws. We 
 all feel, that, in whatever community our lot is cast, we 
 are responsible to God first, to man last, — primarily to 
 the Divine, and secondarily to human government. "We 
 might quote many passages of scripture upon this point ; 
 but the one already quoted is as good as a thousand, — 
 " we ought to obey God rather than men." It is an explicit 
 recognition of a " Higher Law," to be first obeyed. 
 
 * Wayland's Moral Science, p. 215. 
 
Each man is to be his own judge. Whenever he con- 
 scientiously believes a civil law conflicts with the Divine, 
 he must obey the latter. He can obey but one. It is 
 proper and christian, that he obey God rather than men. 
 
 3. The slave is a man ! I mean, that, in the light of 
 Christianity he is a man. It is true, that human law 
 says, " Slaves shall be claimed, held, taken, reputed, and 
 adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in the hands of 
 their owners and possessors, and their executors, admin- 
 istrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and 
 purposes whatsoever."^ But recollect, there is a 
 " Higher Law," and that says no such thing. The Gos- 
 pel excludes no one from the claim to humanity because 
 of color. It recognizes the being who possesses a mind 
 and a soul as an intelligent, responsible, immortal man ! 
 This leads me to remark, 
 
 4. Man has no moral right to claim property in 
 his fellow-man. Some have the impression, that the 
 master has a moral title to the slave, because he 
 has paid for, or inherited him, and therefore we are 
 obligated to restore him. But the same persons con- 
 tend that it would be shamefully wrong to make a 
 slave of a free colored man. What is this but denying 
 the original right to possess property in man ? And if 
 ever wrong it is wrong still. It seems almost trifling to 
 argue a point so evident as this. But admit, for a mo- 
 ment, that the slaveholder has a moral right to make 
 merchandise of a man. If he has a moral rio;ht to such 
 property, then you have, and all mankind have. Our 
 moral rights are the same, whether we are Americans, 
 Europeans, Asiatics, or Africans. Hence the slave can 
 morally possess property in his master as rightfully as 
 his master can in him. Whether the act of paying 
 money for him can destroy that original right, you can 
 very easily determine. Remember, when we look upon 
 a slave in the light of Christianity we are to regard his 
 moral rights, — himself the responsible owner of his own 
 
 * Law of South Carolina. 
 
10 
 
 body and soul. But it is inquired still, do we not de- 
 prive the slaveholder of that which he purchased, if we 
 refuse to send back his slave ? What then shall we do ? 
 Do ? Do as reason bids us in a thousand other instances- 
 If a thief disposes of stolen goods to one person, and 
 he disposes of the same to the second, and the second to 
 a third, and so on, until the property is purchased by 
 yourself, innocently, we are not to inquire how you are 
 to be re-paid when the original owner presents his claim 
 for the goods. Your claim is upon the person of whom 
 you purchased, and not upon the propert} 7- . And the 
 person of whom you purchased has claim only upon the 
 person of w'hom he purchased. And thus we trace it 
 back to the original claimant, no one having a title to 
 the property save him. And thus it is with the slave- 
 holder. His claim is not upon the slave, but upon the 
 person of whom he bought him, and the claim of the 
 latter upon the person of whom he purchased him ; 
 and thus on, back to the time when the first sto- 
 len property in a slave was assumed, (for the first 
 slaves in our land were stolen from their native soil.) 
 No person has a just claim upon him, save the original 
 claimant — himself. So that when the fugitive slave 
 presents himself at our doors, we are not obligated to 
 ask how his master shall be re-paid. 
 
 It may be added, also, that the natural aversion of 
 the human heart to this idea of property, in man, is 
 so great, that such a law as I have quoted, is necessary 
 to make them property in the eye of popular senti- 
 ment. That law declares that slaves shall be regarded 
 "chattels personal," to all "intents, constructions and pur- 
 jjoses, whatsoever." It implies, that, by general consent, 
 they are not property, but for certain reasons they shall 
 be so regarded, whatever be the "construction" of men. 
 And the present Fugitive Slave Law. implies the same 
 thing. It is not necessary that Congress should enact 
 such a law with reference to cattle and swine, because 
 the right to property in them is universally acknowl- 
 edged. Wherever they stray, the owner can claim 
 
11 
 
 them. So that the present law implies that fugitive 
 slaves are not rightful property, and cannot be claimed 
 as such without a law enacted to this end. If there 
 were in the hearts of men an inherent recognition of 
 the title to property in negroes, as in cattle, there would 
 be no more need of legislating for " runaway slaves " 
 than for runaway oxen. And yet more, (and I dwell 
 upon this point because so many feel that slaveholders 
 have a moral title to property in man) when slaves are 
 inherited it does not alter the case When I see a man 
 having inherited property upon which his ancestors had 
 no just claim, I certainly shall not conclude that ^6 has a 
 rightful claim upon it. A false claim in them, cannot 
 become right in passing over to him. The same is true 
 of inherited slaves. And shall the slaveholder, when 
 his eyes are opened to see that his title is not good and 
 righteous, be held guiltless before God, if he persists in 
 retaining his possession of human beings ? Surely not. 
 A prevailing idea seems to be that the longer the mas- 
 ter retains a slave the better is his title. But the 
 Christian is guilty if he reasons thus. In the light 
 of the gospel, the longer a man deprives his fel- 
 low of his rights and immunities, the greater is his obli- 
 gation to compassionate and bless him. The longer he 
 has wronged him, the more zealously should he hasten 
 to atone for the past. 
 
 5. A statement of the fugitive's case as we are to con- 
 sider it. Mens' minds are frequently prejudiced by the 
 association of words and phrases. So here they have 
 been accustomed to associate with the terms " runaway" 
 and "fugitive " some dark deed of shame. When the 
 terms fall upon the ear, they think of a fugitive from 
 justice — a guilty man escaping from the penalty of vi- 
 olated law, eluding the grasp of commissioned officers — 
 a free man when he ought to be in irons. But not so 
 with the slave. The mind should be divested of all 
 such associations while contemplating this subject. A 
 runaway slave ! a fdgitive slave ! ! He is not a man of 
 crime. He is not a runaway because he is guilty of 
 
12 
 
 unhallowed deeds. He is fleeing from the land of op- 
 pression, where the very air is vocal with the cries of 
 suffering liberty. He is escaping from a land of horrid 
 sights and fearful sounds — the sight of his wife, torn 
 forever from his humble household, and his daughter, 
 the unwilling victim of her master's brutal lusts; and 
 the sound of clanking chains, and ringing whips, and 
 wailing hearts. Yes ! he is running from the sight 
 of tears and blood, accursed shackles, and partings in- 
 describable. He is absconding from a master who has no 
 moral right 
 
 " To buy and sell, to barter, whip, and hold 
 In chains, a being of celestial make." 
 
 And he comes to us — an unoffending man — and asks 
 to be delivered from injustice, inhumanity, and w r oe. 
 He asks for life, for liberty, for love. He implores us 
 by the truth, that he is a " creature of God," pointing 
 us to the seal of immortality upon his soul, to treat him 
 as a crushed and injured brother, with whom we shall 
 <tand to give account at the judgment-seat of Christ. 
 Shall our sympathies be moved ? Humanity answers, 
 yes ! Divinity from the "great white throne," answers 
 yes! ! Shall we lift a finger to aid in riveting again his 
 chains? Conscience answers, xn ! Religion, from her 
 seat of purity, answers, No ! ! God, in the eternal prin- 
 ciples of truth revealed, answers, no!! And this we 
 proceed to establish. 
 
 I. By aiding to restore a slave to bondage, according 
 to there quirement of the present law, we shock our sense 
 if Christian propriety and duty. All of us have some- 
 thing within — an inherent moral sense, we may call 
 it — that suggests what belongs to Christian propriety 
 and duty. This arises from the possession of certain 
 intellectual gifts in their connection with conscience. 
 And for this reason we suppose, that God designed it 
 should be consulted — should not be violated. — 
 That this moral sense of the community is dreadfully 
 shocked by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Bill is too 
 
13 
 
 evident to need proof Few persons are found who 
 attempt to defend it. The holiest men and women 
 are shocked the most. Nations, that long since broke 
 the fetters of the bondman, — even the semi- civilized — 
 are hissing. And the fugitive from bonds knows it. 
 He knows that the sympathies of the mass, and espec- 
 ially of Christian people, are with him ; and therefore 
 he is bold to make a manly resistance. Did he feel 
 that the moral sense of the community was against 
 him, he would not dare resist his pursuer. Thus clear 
 is it, that the swelling tide of Christian sympathy in 
 the land is for the slave. There is, also, another devel- 
 opment that tests the character of this moral sense. 
 It is this. We read of a fugitive's "hair-breadth 
 escapes," in his journey toward the north star ; and 
 when safe, as he thinks, on the soil of free New, Eng- 
 land, the slave-hunter meets him by the way. At once 
 the slave puts himself in the atitude of self defence, 
 and by violent exertion escapes for his life. Now when 
 the true-hearted Christian reads a tale like this, he can- 
 not help rejoicing, and bidding that fugitive success. 
 He cannot force himself to believe that the slave has 
 done a wrong. His heart is with him. His religion is 
 with him. 
 
 But put the case as it may occur in our own midst. 
 You meet a colored stranger in the highway, hungry, 
 weary, and hunted. He opens to you his heart. He 
 tells you that he is a fugitive from slavery — from 
 wrongs 
 
 " That Mercy, with a bleeding heart, 
 Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast" 
 
 Long since he made his escape — ten, perhaps twenty 
 years ago. He tells you, that, in yonder city, he has a 
 family — a faithful wife, and beloved children — dear 
 to him as your own are to you, and perhaps dearer 
 still, since in his isolated condition, he has fewer friends. 
 But now he is hunted, " like the patridge on the moun- 
 tain ; " for the slave-catcher is after him. Affrighted, he 
 2 
 
14 
 
 has left his home, and his " heart's fondest treasure," 
 not knowing whether a sight of the loved ones will 
 again gladden his heart. He implores your aid. He 
 would make you his friend. But here the Fugitive 
 Slave Law meets you, and, if necessity demand, 
 compels you to aid in delivering the suppliant to 
 his master — to tear him from his family and put 
 him in bonds. It compels you to refuse the exercise 
 of brotherly love, to withhold your sympathies, to be 
 steeled against compassion, and, in all your conduct 
 towards him become as much unlike the Saviour as you 
 can. For how unlike the kindness, and sympathy, and 
 love, that glowed in His heart toward injured and suffer- 
 ing innocence. I need not say, that, the demand to 
 obey such a law, shocks our sense of Christian pro- 
 prity and duty. 
 
 II. By sending the fugitive back to his wrongs, 
 we do with him ivhat we have no moral right to do with 
 ourselves. The true, Christian idea of our talents, influ- 
 ence, time, wealth, all we have and are — is, that they 
 belong to God. God requires that all our powers and 
 possessions be devoted to Him ; and we cannot inno- 
 cently place ourselves in a relation where this may not 
 be the result. But certainly, if we cannot do this with 
 ourselves, we cannot do it with our fellow-man ; — we 
 cannot assist to put the slave where he will not be per- 
 mitted to devote the fruits of his physical, intellectual, 
 or moral powers to God. The slave himself incurs 
 guilt if he voluntarily enters such a relation. No mat- 
 ter if he loves slavery. As a moral agent he has no 
 right to put himself into a relation, where God will be 
 robbed of the fruits of his toil — where the eternal sal- 
 vation of himself and family will be put in jeopardy. 
 This, alone, is a sufficient reason for the Christian to 
 refuse assistance in capturing, and delivering up the 
 bondman, who has been so fortunate as to escape from 
 servitude. 
 
 III. We subject him to evils which he does not deserve. 
 Both civil and divine law approve the sentiment, that 
 
15 
 
 " man is to be regarded innocent, until he is proved 
 guilty ; " and thence originates the view, that, as is his 
 guilt, so should be the misery to which he is subjected. 
 Crime and punishment, sin and misery, are consociated 
 ideas. We never think of innocence and evil in con- 
 junction. Hence, when we behold a stranger subjected 
 to suffering, our first enquiry is, " What evil hath he 
 done?" And if we had never heard of slavery, and 
 should witness the slave-hunter, when he captures the 
 unfortunate negro, we should inquire earnestly, of what 
 is he guilty? We do not expect that man will be 
 subjected to sufferings, unless he deserves it. But who 
 assumes that the fugitive slave deserves the wrongs 
 of Southern bondage? And unless the Christian does 
 feel that the slave deserves to be continued a slave, he 
 violates his own convictions of justice, his obligations 
 to the man, and his higher obligations to God, if he be- 
 comes in the least degree, accessory to the renewal of 
 his bonds. 
 
 IV. If we send back the slave, we are required to do 
 it really because he is black. Other reasons may be 
 offered, but it can be made to appear that this is abso- 
 lutely the only reason. In other nations, slavery has 
 never made the distinction of color a reason for reduc- 
 ing men to bondage. " There was no one who the 
 chances of fortune or war might not one day or other, 
 reduce to bondage. But with us, complexion has been 
 made the criterion for determining the capacity of a 
 human being for freedom."* This cannot be denied. 
 The slaves in our land were made so, and are continued 
 so, wholly because their skin is darker than our own. 
 If two strangers, the one black and the other white, 
 were arrested in our streets as fugitives, our first im- 
 pression would be, that the negro might be a slave, but 
 the claim upon the white man is false. The truth is, 
 it is color, and color only, that first oppressed and now 
 
 * See Report of Committee on Slavery to the Convention of Congregational 
 Ministers of Massachusetts, p. 1 2. 
 
1G 
 
 keeps in chains the three millions in our land. And 
 out of the horrid system to which color has reduced 
 them, sprung the Fugitive Slave Bill ! Color had as 
 much to do in passing that, as in enacting the law that 
 regards them as " chattels personal." But can the 
 Christian man, for a moment, think of sustaining a law 
 that is based upon such injustice. Never will lie, who 
 obeys the Gospel, send back his brother-man to hopeless 
 servitude, for such a reason, until he can find in 
 the Scriptures a distinction of inalienable rights 
 among men based upon distinction of color. If he 
 does, he acts in the face of that truth, " And hath made 
 of one blood, all the nations of men for to dwell on all the 
 face of the earth." 
 
 V. That the Christian cannot aid, innocently, in de- 
 livering up the slave to his master, is evident from the 
 fact, that he could not conscientiously ask the blessing 
 of God to rest upon his effort. In other words, he would 
 shrink from making it a subject of prayer. Whatever 
 is good and true meets with the approval of God. He 
 invites us to bring every innocent subject to the throne 
 of grace. For all that is not sinful, God can bless. There 
 are certain things we should not dare to present at the 
 mercy-seat. We should not presume to ask God to 
 bless us in going to the theatre, or to the gaming board. 
 The sabbath-breaker would not dare to ask God to 
 smile upon his unhallowed deeds. The vender of 
 strong drinks would expect his tongue to palsy, if he 
 should present his cause to the Hearer of prayer. And 
 we think that the system of slavery, and the slave- 
 holder's claim upon the hunted fugitive, does not 
 enter into his requests at the morning and evening 
 sacrifice. No! AVe do not believe that the Christian 
 slaveholder could conscientiously ask God's blessing 
 to rest upon the slave-catcher, that he might bring 
 back the fugitive, thirsting for liberty, to his bondage. 
 Think what a prayer that would be! "Lord, without 
 Thee we can do nothing. It is in vain to hunt for the 
 slave, who has fled from his chains and unrewarded 
 
17 
 
 toil, to a land of freedom, without Thine aid. Bestow 
 Thy blessing and guidance upon him who hath gone to 
 search for the wanderer in the north. Give him shrewd- 
 ness to plan, artfulness in executing, and direct him to 
 the hiding-place of his victim, panting to go free. 
 Crown all his efforts with success, and speedily may 
 he return the captive to the doom of his shackles and 
 the rule of the whip. We ask it in the name of Him 
 who died to save us all. Amen." That must be the 
 import of his prayer before God. But whether the 
 slave-holder could make this a subject of prayer or not, 
 I know, brethren, if I should pray in this desk, that the 
 fugitive might be captured and sent back to a hope- 
 less bondage, that your feelings would be inexpressibly 
 shocked. But if we cannot pray for the capture of the 
 slave, we cannot innocently aid in delivering him to 
 the slave-hunter. 
 
 VI. By assisting to capture the fugitive we become 
 accessory to the violation of divine commands and pre- 
 cepts. Time would fail me to enumerate the many 
 commands and precepts bearing upon this subject. A 
 few only can be named. (1.) We are commanded 
 "to preach the Gospel to every ercature." In obedi- 
 ence to this, our missionaries are abroad in the earth, 
 proclaiming the glad news of salvation in almost every 
 clime. But if it is our duty to " preach the Gospel to 
 every creature," it must be our duty to provide them 
 with the facilities for acquiring a knowledge of it ; or, 
 at least, it is our duty not to place any obstacle in the 
 way of their attaining that knowledge. But when we 
 send a slave back to Southern bondage, we are placing 
 him in a condition where it is more difficult to reach 
 with the Gospel, than it is to reach the benighted 
 Hindoo. The gates of heathen nations were never 
 closed with stronger bolts than is the South to the 
 movements of a successful mission to the slaves. 
 Hence, every tithe of influence or aid to send them 
 back to slavery, is throwing obstacles in their way to 
 learn the truths of life ; and thus we become accessory 
 2* 
 
IS 
 
 to the violation of the command of God. (2.) The 
 marriage relation is to be regarded sacred, and man is 
 warned in the most solemn manner, not to put asunder 
 what God hath joined together. But we know that 
 slavery rends these sacred bonds — that it hesitates to 
 break these ties no more than we to snap a spider's 
 web. The husband has no security that his wife shall 
 be his a single year. And he absolutely knows, that at 
 any moment, she may become the victim of his mas- 
 ter's passions, set on fire of hell. And when we lend 
 a particle of influence to return the slave to his bonds, 
 we do it in the face of this startling knowledge. We 
 deliberately aid in supporting a system that sets at 
 naught the divine law of marriage. We become 
 accessory to the violation of that sacred contract. 
 (3.) The same is true of the parental and filial rela- 
 tions. The child is morally obligated to obey the 
 parent and the parent to support and train the child — 
 to rear him in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 But in Southern slavery the child cannot obey the 
 parent. His first obligation is to the master. Neither 
 can the parent train the child. His government over 
 him is exceedingly limited, if, indeed, it can be called 
 government. He can neither clothe, nor feed, nor own 
 his dearest child. Not even can he buy his coffin, nor 
 select the spot for his grave. And beside, at any 
 moment, the relation may be sundered. His children 
 may be parted and scattered over the "land of tears.'* 
 When we send a child and parent back to slavery, we 
 put them where it is impossible that they discharge 
 their duties to each other. We cannot do it without 
 incurring guilt. (4.) The slave, as we, has a right to 
 worship God. We need not quote Scripture to estab- 
 lish the " Rights of Conscience." The sentiment is 
 deeply engraven upon our hearts. Religious freedom 
 men will have. For this, revolution treads upon the 
 heel of revolution. For this, men suffer, bleed, and 
 die. The story of the Pilgrims has touched the heart- 
 strings of the world. The Christian fortitude of the 
 
19 
 
 exiles from Madeira, forsaking all to be free in Christ 
 upon our shores, has stirred deep sympathy in every 
 breast. We know and feel that all men, black or 
 white, should have 
 
 " Freedom to worship God." 
 
 But the slave does not enjoy it, unrestricted. He can- 
 not worship as he desires. He cannot assume all the 
 responsibilities of an immortal soul. He is not privi- 
 leged to refuse to do wrong and choose to do right. 
 He is not permitted to regard the peculiar obligations 
 of religion. We send him back, if we send him back 
 at all, with all these facts before us. We become acces- 
 sory to his deprivation of the " Eights of Conscience." 
 VII. By delivering up the fugitive, we directly 
 violate two very familiar commands. (1.) il Love thy 
 neighbor as thyself" Our neighbor is any person whom 
 we may benefit, no matter where he lives, nor what 
 his condition. The precept relates to all men ; and 
 teaches that we should cherish as tender regard for the 
 right that the humblest individual possesses over the 
 means of happiness which God has bestowed upon 
 him, as we do for our own. Now, every person can 
 see at once, that if the spirit of this command were 
 universally practiced, slavery could not exist another 
 day. There would be no such thing as a Fugitive 
 Slave Bill. And can we doubt for a moment, that if 
 we really cherished the spirit of this precept, and prac- 
 ticed upon it, that we should be compelled to refuse 
 aid in capturing a runaway slave? For one, I know 
 that I love myself too well for bonds and cruelty. And 
 the precept bids me love the slave as well. (2.) " What- 
 soever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
 them" The meaning of this passage is too obvious to 
 need comment. Doubtless God designed that each 
 person should decide for himself its application in any 
 particular case. So that when the Christian is called 
 upon to aid in capturing the fugitive, he has only to 
 determine, whether he would wish the same to be 
 
20 
 
 done to himself, were he escaping from unrighteous 
 bondage. A conscientious decision, according to this 
 instruction, is as good for him, before God, as a direct 
 revelation. We may not apply the precept for each 
 other. But for myself were I a fugitive, and my skin 
 as black as ebony, I should not want a brother man to 
 aid in forging chains for me. The precept bids me act 
 accordingly toward the injured negro. What though, 
 in some respects, he is inferior to ourselves? Shall we 
 take advantage of him because of this ? God forbid. 
 Christianity rather bids us love him more, and lift him 
 from his degradation. 
 
 We have thus presented some of the reasons why 
 the Christian should not lend his influence to apply the 
 Fugitive Slave Law; and they show the opposition 
 of the law to the Divine requirements. Says Rev. Al- 
 bert Barnes : " The law of God ordains that every man 
 who can secure his freedom, by escape from bondage, 
 has a right to it, and should be protected in that right ; 
 the Constitution and laws of the United States suppose, 
 that he has no such right, and that all the authority of 
 the civil arm is to be employed in riveting upon him 
 again the fetters of bondage. It would be impossible 
 to conceive of laws, more directly repugnant to each 
 other, than, in this case, are the law of God, and the 
 law of this Christian land." 
 
 VIIT. The question returns, what then shall be 
 done ? Shall we rise, en masse, and resist forcibly the 
 application of this law? This would not be christian. 
 It is better to suffer wrong, than to do wrong. Vio- 
 lence would involve the nation in a scene of carnage 
 unparalleled. " Leave, I beseech you," says Judge Jay, 
 "the pistol and the bowie-knife to Southern ruffians 
 and their Northern mercenaries. That this law will 
 lead to bloodshed, I take it for granted ; but let it be the 
 blood of the innocent, not of the guilty. If any thing 
 can rouse the torpid conscience of the North, it will be 
 our streets stained with human blood, shed by the 
 slave-catchers." This is Christian counsel. Christian 
 
21 
 
 magistrates and other officers, and private Christians, 
 too, can refuse to aid the slave-hunter, when bidden, 
 and abide the consequences .* And this is their bound- 
 en duty, be the penalty what it may. They should 
 " obey God rather than men," though it cost them in- 
 carceration, and even death. They can also employ 
 every lawful means to hasten the day, when, without 
 shedding of blood, the law may be repealed. Without 
 distinction of party, they can unite, heart and hand, in 
 a great moral movement, to erase from the statute- 
 book of the nation this disgraceful record. This would 
 be christian. This is duty. 
 
 But the objector inquires, Does not your doctrine 
 tend to the subversion of all law ? I answer, it tends 
 to subvert only unrighteous law. The idea, that refus- 
 ing to obey a law which conflicts with our relations to 
 God is wrongful, belongs to a darker age than this. 
 There is an important distinction to be made in this 
 respect. As we have seen, our first responsibilities are 
 to God. We have no moral right to yield obedience 
 to individual or nation, when such obedience interferes 
 with the claims of God. All laws, that would thus 
 compel us to disregard God, ought to be nullified. 
 This grand and righteous distinction ought to be pro- 
 claimed to the race, and practiced by them. The sen- 
 timent ought to be the alpha and omega, the beginning 
 and the end, of all human legislation. 
 
 But, it is inquired again, would not this policy, in 
 such excitement, tend to the dissolution of the Union? 
 This is a secondary inquiry. What is Christian obliga- 
 tion in the matter ? is the first question to be settled. 
 " Duty is ours, the consequences belong to God ! " — 
 Not that we should be heedless, and pay no regard at 
 all to consequences ; but that, when duty is clear, we 
 should fearlessly meet it, leaving the issue with God. 
 And, beside, if the Union cannot stand upon the prin- 
 ciples of justice, humanity, and truth, it had better be 
 
 * Or, civil officers can resign their trusts rather than execute the law. 
 
22 
 
 rent asunder and scattered to the winds. One thing is 
 certain, that, if righteousness is not its basis, it will 
 share the fate of the Republics of Greece and Rome, 
 and sink to ruin. For God has given us line upon 
 line in his Word, to teach that righteousness alone can 
 be the stability of a nation. And he has recorded ex- 
 ample upon example, to illustrate the inevitable doom 
 of governments, that persist to legislate in oppostion to 
 Divine laws. 
 
 IX. Since the case of Onesimus, who was sent 
 back by Paul to Philemon, may be revolved by some 
 minds as an objection to what has been said, I would 
 remark upon that, (].#) there is no evidence that 
 Onesimus was not a hired servant instead of a slave. 
 (2.) Admitting that he was a slave, Paul used no com- 
 pulsion to send him back. He was at liberty to go or 
 stay, as he pleased. So that, as Barnes remarks, " this 
 passage should not be referred to, to prove that we 
 ought to send back runaway slaves to their former mas- 
 ters, against their own consent." (3.) But there is very 
 good evidence that he was not a slave, or if he had been, 
 that Paul designed he should be one no longer. For he 
 not only permitted him to act his pleasure in returning, 
 but he gave him a " letter," pleading for his kind recep- 
 tion. He exhorted Philemon to receive him, " not now 
 as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, espe- 
 cially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in 
 the flesh and in the Lord." Now admitting that he 
 was a slave before, this language plainly teaches, that 
 he ought not longer to be so regarded, but as " a brother 
 beloved" — i% not as a servant" or slave. Philemon cer- 
 tainly could not treat him as a Christian brother and 
 make him a slave. So that if the principles of Paul's 
 Fugitive Slave Bill (and it does not diner materi- 
 ally from that of Moses\) were applied to the relation 
 of master and slave, it would lead to the speedy and 
 utter extinction of slavery. Only let the masters treat 
 
 * See Barnes' Commentary on Philemon. 
 
23 
 
 them " not as slaves" but as " brothers beloved" and 
 they would not be troubled with Northern "anarchists" 
 u abolitionists" and "fanatics." For the slave would 
 then be equal to his master in the enjoyment of his in- 
 alienable rights — " life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
 piness ;" and Congressmen, at their next assembling, 
 would participate in a thanksgiving festivity in view of 
 the speedy repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, as they 
 did after its deplorable enactment. 
 
 1. We learn who are " anarchists " in any nation. If 
 it be true, that the principles of justice, humanity, and 
 truth must be constituent elements in civil government 
 in order to render it enduring, then they who would 
 exclude these fundamental principles, are the " anar- 
 chists" For they are directly sapping the foundation of 
 successful legislation. They are sowing the seeds of 
 ruin. While they, who resist the enactment of laws 
 that conflict with righteousness and truth, are averting 
 from the nation impending doom. They are pursuing 
 the only method to transmit the blessings of a pure and 
 lasting government to their posterity. Then it is readi- 
 ly seen, where the charge of " anarchists" with refer- 
 ence to the Fugitive Slave Bill, belongs. 
 
 2. To be a skive-catcher is exceedingly wicked. If the 
 law itself is a gross violation of the law of God, then he 
 who volunteers to execute it is sinning with a high 
 hand. To be a slaveholder is sin enough. 
 
 " I would not have a slave to till my ground, 
 To carry me, to fan me while I sleep, 
 And tremble when I wake, for all the wealth 
 That sinews bought and sold have ever earned. 
 No ! dear as freedom is, and in my heart's 
 Just estimation prized above all price, 
 I had much rather be myself the slave, 
 And wear the bonds, than fasten them on him." 
 
 But, black as is the curse that rests upon the " trade 
 in men," blacker yet is that which rests on him who 
 can hunt a slave, just settled, with his thriving family, 
 upon a spot of freedom's birthright, earned by his own 
 hard toil, — to tear him from his home, when his soul is 
 
24 
 
 so full of joy to be free, and bear him back, steeled 
 agaisnt his cries of agony, to the miseries of accursed 
 thraldom. 
 
 Finally, amid such thrilling excitement — the tri- 
 umphs of the evil, and the disappointments of the good 
 — we may take courage from the recollection of the 
 past. For it is no new event that "frameth mischief 
 by a law'' And time has clearly illustrated, that all 
 such enactments are opposed to the rapid march of 
 Providence, and are therefore comparatively vain. The 
 law, so recently enacted, is opposing that spirit of pro- 
 gress and that growing love of liberty, that has already 
 driven slavery from almost every nation of the earth. 
 It is more than half a century behind the career of free- 
 dom as now advancing through the world. Divine 
 Providence is thus far in advance of Southern views of 
 progress, justice, and brotherhood. And we may rest 
 assured that its wheels, in their ceaseless roll, will never 
 be retarded by a policy that already lingers behind in 
 the distance of fifty or a hundred years. 
 
I 
 
 9 *9Zl£8 noo 
 
 J S i^ NO0dOAa V Hfln 
 
 Mi 
 
 <