Chapter 9

Jamaica, sir, to say nothing of St. Domingo, is illustration of your theory of the Golden Rule, in negro emancipation. You tell the Southern master that all he would _expect_ or _desire_, if he were a slave, he must do unto his bondman; that he must not pause to ask whether the relation of master and slave be ordained of God or not. No. You tell him, _if_ he would _expect_ or _desire_ liberty were he a slave, _that_ settles the question as to what he is to do! He must let his bondman go free. Yea, _that_ is what you teach: because the moment you put in the word OUGHT, and say, all that you OUGHT to _expect_ or _desire_,--_i.e._ all that you _know_ God commands you to _expect _ or _desire_ in your relations to men, _as established by him,_--THAT _do to them_. Sir, when you thus explain the Golden Rule, then your argument against slave-holding, so far as founded on this rule, is at once arrested; it is stopped short, in full career; it has to wait for reinforcement of FACT, which may never come up. For, suppose the FACT to be, that the relation of master and slave is one mode of the government ordained of God. Then, sir, the master, _knowing that_ FACT, and _knowing_ what the slave, _as a slave_, OUGHT to _expect_ or _desire_, he, the master, then FULFILS THE GOLDEN RULE when he does that unto his slave which, in similar circumstances, he OUGHT to expect _to be done unto himself_. Now comes the question, OUGHT he then to _expect_ or _desire_ liberty and equality? THAT is the question of questions on this subject. And without hesitation I reply, The Golden Rule DECIDES _that question_ YEA or NAY, _absolutely_ and _perfectly_, as God's word or providence shows that the GOOD _of the family, the community, the state_, REQUIRES that the slave IS or IS NOT _to be set free and made equal_. THAT GOOD, _as God reveals it_, SETTLES THE QUESTION.

Let the master then see to it, how he hears God's word as to THAT GOOD. Let him see to it, how he understands God's providence as to THAT GOOD. Let him see to it, that he makes no mistake as to THAT GOOD. For God will not hold him guiltless, if he will not hear what he tells him as to THAT GOOD. God will not justify him, if he has a bad conscience or blunders in his philosophy. God will punish him, if he fails to bless his land by letting the bond go free when, he OUGHT to emancipate. And God will punish him, if he brings a curse upon his country by freeing his slave when he OUGHT NOT to give him liberty.

So, then, _the Golden Rule does not_, OF ITSELF, _reveal to man at all what are his_ RELATIONS _to his fellow-men; but it tells him what he is to_ DO, _when he_ ALREADY KNOWS THEM.

So, then, you, sir, cannot be permitted to tell the world that this rule must emancipate all the negro slaves in the United States,--no matter how unprepared they may be,--no matter how degraded,--no matter how unlike and unequal to the white man by creation,--no matter if it be a natural and moral impossibility,--no matter: the Golden Rule must emancipate by authority of the first sentiments of the Declaration of Independence, and by obligation of the great law of liberty,--the intuitional consciousness of the eternal right!

No. The Rule, as said, _presupposes_ that he who is required to obey it does already _know_ the relations in which God has placed him, and the respective duties in those conditions. Has God, then, established the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, master and slave? Yes. Then the command comes. It says to the husband, To aid you in your known obligations to your wife,--to give you a lively sense of it,--suppose yourself to be the wife: whatsoever, therefore, you OUGHT, in that condition, to _expect_ or _desire_, that, as husband, do unto your wife. It says to the parent, Imagine yourself the child; and whatsoever, as such, you OUGHT to _expect_ or _desire, that_, as parent, do unto your child. It says to the master, Put yourself in the place of your slave; and whatsoever you OUGHT, in that condition, to _expect_ or _desire, that_, as master, do unto your slave. Let husband, parent, master, _know_ his obligations from God, and obey the Rule.

_Fugitive Slave--Obeying the Golden Rule under your version_.

Honorable Joshua R. Giddings and the Angel of the Lord--Hon. Gentleman at table--Nine runaway negroes dining with him--The Angel, uninvited, comes in and disturbs the feast.

Giddings has boasted in Congress of having had nine fugitive slaves to break bread with him at one time. I choose, then, to imagine that, during the dinner, the angel who found Hagar by the fountain stands suddenly in the midst, and says to the negroes, "Ye slaves, whence came ye, and whither will ye go?" And they answer and say, "We flee from the face of our masters. This abolitionist told us to kill, and steal, and run away from bondage; and we have murdered and stolen and escaped. He, thou seest, welcomes us to liberty and equality. We _expect_ and _desire_ to be members of Congress, Governors of States, to marry among the great, and one of us to be President. Giddings, and all abolitionists, tell us that these honors belong to us equally as to white people, and will be given under the Golden Rule." And the angel of the Lord says to them, "Ye slaves, return unto your masters, and submit yourselves under their hands. I sent your fathers, and I send you, into bondage. I mean it unto good, and I will bring it to pass to save much people alive." Then, turning to the tempter, he says, "Thou, a statesman! thou, a reader of my word and providence! why hast thou not understood my speech to Hagar? I gave her, a slave, to Sarah. She fled from her mistress. I sent her back. Why hast thou not understood my word four thousand years ago,--that _the slave shall not flee from his master?_ Why hast thou also perverted my law in Deuteronomy, (xxiii. 15, 16?) I say therein, 'Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.' Why hast thou not known that I meant the _heathen slave_ who escaped from his _heathen master?_ I commanded, Israel, in such case, not to hold _him_ in bondage. I made this specific law for this specific fact. Why hast thou taught that, in this commandment, I gave license to all men-servants and maid-servants in the whole land of Israel to run away from their masters? Why hast thou thus made me, in one saying, contradict and make void all my laws wherein I ordained that the Hebrews should be slave-owners over their brethren during years, and over the heathen forever? Why hast thou in all this changed my Golden Rule? I, in that rule, _assume_ that men _know_ from revelation and providence the relations in which I have placed them, and their duties therein. I then command them to do unto others what they thus _know_ they _ought_ to do unto them in these relations; and I make the obligation quick and powerful, by telling every man to imagine himself in such conditions, and then he will _the better_ KNOW '_whatsoever_' he should do unto his neighbor. Why hast thou made void my law, by making me say, 'All that thou _expectest_ or _desirest_ of others, in similar circumstances, do to them'? I never imagined to give such license to folly and sin. Why hast thou imagined such license to iniquity? Verily, thou tempter, thou hast in thy Golden Rule made these slaves thieves and murderers, and art now eating with them the bread of sin and death.

"Why hast thou tortured my speech wherein I say that I have made of _one blood_ all nations of men, to mean that I have created all men equal and endowed them with rights unalienable save in their consent? I never said that thing! I said that I made all men to descend from _one parentage!_ That is what I say in that place! Why hast thou tortured that plain truth? Thou mightest as well teach that all 'the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that fly above the earth, in the open firmament of heaven,' are _created equal_, because I said I brought them forth _of the water_. Thou mightest as well say that 'all cattle, and creeping thing and beast of the earth, _are created equal_, because I said I brought them forth _of the earth_, as to affirm the _equality of men_ because I say they are _of one blood_. Nay, I have made men unequal as the leaves of the trees, the sands of the sea, the stars of heaven. I have made them so, in harmony with the infinite variety and inequality in every thing in my creation. And I have made them unequal in my _mercy_. Had I made all men equal in attributes of body and mind, then _unfallen man_ would never have realized the varied glories of his destiny. And had I given _fallen man_ equality of nature and unalienable rights, then I had made the earth an Aceldama and Valley of Gehenna. For what would be the _strife_ in all the earth among men equal in body and mind, equal in power, equal in depravity, equal in will, each one maintaining rights unalienable? When would the war end? Who would be the victors where all are giants? Who would sue for peace where none will submit? What would be _human social life?_ Who would be the weak, the loving? Who would seek or need forbearance, compassion, self-denying benevolence? Who would be the grateful? Who would be the humble, the meek? What would be _human_ virtue, what _human_ vice, what _human_ joy or sorrow? Nay, I have made men _unequal_ and given them _alienable rights_, that I might INSTITUTE HUMAN GOVERNMENT and reveal HUMAN CHARACTER.

"Why hast thou been willingly ignorant of these first principles of the oracles of God, which would have made thee truly a Christian philosopher and statesman?"

_Fugitive Slave--Obeying the Golden Rule as Christ gave it_

Rev. A. Barnes and the Apostle Paul--Minister of the gospel in his study--Fugitive slave, converted under his preaching, inquiring whether it is not his duty to return to his master--Paul appears and rebukes the minister for wresting his Gospel.

With all respect and affection for you, sir, I imagine a slave, having run away from his master and become a Christian under your preaching, might, with the Bible in his hands and the Holy Spirit in his heart, have, despite your training, question of conscience, whether he did right to leave his master, and ought not to go back. And I think how Paul would listen, and what he would say, to your interpretation of his Epistle to Philemon. I think he would say,--

"I withstand thee to thy face, because thou art to be blamed. Why hast thou written, in thy '_Notes_,' that the word I apply to Onesimus may mean, not _slave_, but _hired servant?_ Why hast thou said this in unsupported assertion? Why hast thou given no respect to Robinson, and all thy wise men, who agree that the word wherein I express Onesimus's relation to Philemon never means a hired servant, but a _slave_,--the property of his master,--a living possession?

"Why hast thou called in question the fact that Philemon was a slave-holder? Why hast thou taught that, if he was a slave-holder when he became a Christian, he could not _continue, consistently_, to be a slave-owner and a Christian,--that if he did so _continue_, he would not be in _good standing_, but an _offender_ in the church? (See Notes.)

"I say Philemon was the master of Onesimus, in the real sense of a slave-owner, under Roman law, in which he had the right of life and death over him,--being thereby a master in possession of power unknown in the United States. And yet I call Philemon 'our dearly beloved and fellow-laborer,' I tell him that I send to him again Onesimus, who had been unprofitable to him in time past; but now, being a Christian, he would be profitable. I tell him, I send him again, not a slave, (only,) but above a slave, a Christian brother, beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto him, both _in the flesh_ and in the Lord. Dost thou know, Albert Barnes, what I mean by that word, _in the flesh?_ Verily, I knew the things wherein the master and the slave are beloved, the one of the other, in the best affections of human nature, and in the Lord! therefore I say to Philemon that he, _as master_, could receive Onesimus _as his slave_, and yet as a _brother_, MORE _beloved, by reason of his relation to him as master_, than I could regard him! Yea, verily,--and I say to thee, Albert Barnes, thou hast never been in the South, and thou dost not understand, and canst not understand, the force, or even the meaning, of my words _in the flesh_; i.e. _in the love of the master and the slave to one another_. But Philemon I knew would feel its power, and so I made that appeal to him.

"Why hast thou said, that I did not send Onesimus back _by authority?_ I did send him back by authority,--yea, by authority of the Lord Jesus Christ? For it was my duty to send him again to Philemon, whether he had been willing to go or not; and it was his duty to go. But he was willing. So we both felt our obligations; and, when I commanded, he cheerfully obeyed. What else was my duty and his? Had I not said, in line upon line and in precept upon precept, 'Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, pleasing God'? (Coloss. iii. 22.) Had not Peter written, 'Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward'? (1 Pet. ii. 18.) Onesimus had broken these commandments when he fled from his master. Was it not then of my responsibility to send him again to Philemon? And was it not Christ's law to him to return and submit himself under his master's hand?

"Why, then, hast thou not understood my speech? Has it been even because thou couldst not _hear_ my word? What else has hindered? What more could I have said, than (in 1 Tim. vi. 1-5) I do say, to rebuke all abolitionists? Yea, I describe them--I show their principles--as fully as if I had called them by name in Boston, in New York, in Philadelphia, and said they would live in 1857.

"And yet thou hast, in thy commentary on my letter to Timothy, utterly distorted, maimed, and falsified my meaning. Thou hast mingled truth and untruth so together as to make me say what was not and is not in my mind. For thou teachest the slave, while professing not so to teach him, that I tell him that he is _not_ to count his master worthy of all honor; that he _is_ to _despise_ him; that he is _not_ to do him service as to a Christian faithful and beloved. _No_. But thou teachest the slave, in my name, to regard his Christian master an _offender_ in the sight of Christ, if he _continues_ a slave-owner.

"Thou tellest him to obey _only_ in the sense in which he is to submit to injustice, oppression, and cruelty; and that he is ever to seek to throw off the yoke in his created equality and unalienable right to liberty. (See Notes.)

"This is what thou hast taught as my gospel. But I commanded thee to teach and exhort _just the contrary_. I commanded thee to say after this way:--'Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.'

"Thou, in thy 'Notes,' art compelled, though most unwillingly, to confess that I do mean _slaves_ in this place, in the full and proper sense; yea, slaves under the Roman law. Good. Then do I here tell slaves to count their masters, even when not Christians, worthy of all honor; and, when Christians, to regard them as faithful and beloved, and not to despise them, and to do them service? Yet, after all this, do I say to these same slaves that they have a created equality and unalienable right to liberty, under which, whenever they think fit, I command them to dishonor their masters, despise them, and run away! Sir, I did never so instruct slaves; nay, I did never command thee so to teach them. But I did and do exhort thee not so to train them; for I said then and say now to thee, 'If any man teach [slaves] otherwise, [than to honor their masters as faithful and beloved, and to do them service,] and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and DESTITUTE OF THE TRUTH, supposing that gain is godliness; from such withdraw thyself,'

"What more could I have said to the abolitionists of my day? What more can I say to them in this day? _That_ which was true of them two thousand years ago, is true now. I rebuked abolitionists then, and I rebuke them now. I tell them the things in their hearts,--the things on their tongues,--the things in their hands,--are contrary to wholesome words, even the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Canst thou _hear_ my words in this place without feeling how faithfully I have given the head, and the heart, and the words, and the doings of the men, from whom thou hast not withdrawn thyself?

"Verily, thou canst not _hear_ my speech, and therefore thou canst not interpret my gospel. Thou believest it is impossible that I sanction slavery! Hence it is impossible for thee to understand my words: for I do sanction slavery. How? Thus:--

"I found slavery in Asia, in Greece, in Rome. I saw it to be one mode of the government ordained of God. I regarded it, in most conditions of fallen mankind, necessarily and irresistibly part of such government, and therefore as natural, as wise, as good, in such conditions, as the other ways men are ruled in the state or the family.

"I took up slavery, then, as such ordained government,--wise, good, yea best, in certain circumstances, until, in the elevating spirit and power of my gospel, the slave is made fit for the liberty and equality of his master, if he can be so lifted up. Hence I make the RULE of magistrate, subject, master and servant, parent and child, husband and wife, THE SAME RULE; _i.e._ I make it THE SAME RIGHT in the _superior_ to control the _obedience_ and the _service_ of the _inferior_, bound to obey, whatever the difference in the relations and service to be rendered. Yea, I give _exactly the same command_ to all in these relations; and thus, in all my words, I make it plainly to be understood that I regard slavery to be as righteous a mode of government as that of magistrate and subject, parent and child, husband and wife, during the circumstances and times in which God is pleased to have it continue. I saw all the injustice, the oppression, the cruelty, masters might be guilty of, and were and are now guilty of; but I saw no more injustice, oppression, and cruelty, in the relation of master and slave, than I saw in all other forms of rule,--even in that of husband and wife, parent and child. In my gospel I condemn wrong in all these states of life, while I fully sanction and sustain the relations themselves. I tell the magistrate, husband, father, master, how to rule; I tell the subject, wife, child, servant, how to submit. Hence, I command the slave not to flee from bondage, just as I require the subject, the wife, the child, not to resist or flee from obedience. I warn the slave, if he leaves his master he has sinned, and must return; and I make it the duty of all men to see to it, that _he shall go back_. Hence, I myself did what I command others to do: I sent Onesimus back to his master.

"Thus I sanction slavery everywhere in the New Testament. But it is impossible for thee, with thy principles,--thy law of reason,--thy law of created equality and unalienable right,--thy elevation of the Declaration of Independence above the ordinance of God,--to sustain slavery. Nay, it is impossible for thee, with thy interpretation of Christ's Golden Rule, to recognise the system of servile labor; nay, it is impossible for thee to tell _this_ slave to return to his master as I sent Onesimus back; nay, thou art guarded by thy Golden Rule. Thou tellest him that, if thou hadst been in his place, thou wouldst have _expected, desired_ freedom, that thou wouldst have run away, and that thou wouldst not now return; that thou wouldst have regarded thy created equality and unalienable right as thy supreme law, and have disregarded and scorned all other obligations as _pretended revelation from God_. Therefore thou now doest unto him '_whatsoever_' thou wouldst _expect_ or _desire_ him to do unto thee in similar circumstances; _i.e._ thou tellest him he did right to run away, and will do right not to return! This is thy Golden Rule. But I did not instruct thee so to learn Christ. Nay, this slave knows thou hast not not given him the mind of Christ; nay, he knows that Christ commands thee to send him to his master again. And thus do what thou OUGHTEST to _expect_ or _desire_ in similar circumstances; yea, _do_ now _thy duty_, and this slave, like Onesimus, will bless thee for giving him a good conscience whenever he will return to his obedience. Thus Paul, the aged, speaks to thee."

So, then, the Golden Rule is the whole Bible; yea, Christ says it is-"the law and the prophets;" yea, it is the Old Testament and the New condensed; and with ever-increasing glory of Providence in one sublime aphorism, which can be understood and obeyed only by those who _know_ what the Bible, or Providence, reveals as to man's varied conditions and his obligations therein.

I think, sir, I have refuted your interpretation of the Golden Rule, and have given its true meaning.

The slave-holder, then, may have a good conscience under this commandment. Let him so exercise himself as to have a conscience void of offence towards God and towards men.

Yours, &c. F.A. Ross.

Conclusion.

I intended to, and may yet, in a subsequent edition, write two more letters to A. Barnes. The _one_, to show how infidelity has been passing off from the South to the North,--especially since the _Christian death_ of Jackson; the other, to meet Mr. Barnes's argument founded on the spirit of the age.

The End.

End of Project Gutenberg's Slavery Ordained of God, by Rev. Fred A. Ross, D.D.