Part 1

The year of jubilee; but not to Africans: a discourse, delivered July 4th, 1825, being the 49th anniversary of American independence

THE

YEAR OF JUBILEE;

BUT NOT TO AFRICANS:

A Discourse,

DELIVERED JULY 4TH, 1825,

BEING THE 49TH ANNIVERSARY OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE.

──❧──

BY NATHANIEL S. PRIME,

Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, in Cambridge, N. Y.

──❧──

SALEM, N. Y.

PRINTED BY DODD AND STEVENSON.

1825.

TO THE READER.

Though no apology for the present publication, or for the form in which it appears, will be attempted, yet it may not be improper or uninteresting to state a few facts relating to its origin.

The author has been in the habit, for a number of years past, of celebrating the anniversary of our Independence with public worship in his own congregation. Previous to the last 4th of July, notice to that effect was given, and at the same time it was stated that the subject of discourse would be—not American _Liberty_, but—American _Slavery_: in connexion with which, the object and operations of “_The American Colonization Society_” would be brought into view, and its claims upon publick patronage defended and urged. A similar notice was sent to the other congregations in this place with an invitation to attend.

To a very respectable audience, thus convened, the following discourse was delivered, and a contribution taken up in aid of the Colonization Society.

At the close of the service, a meeting was organized, of which the following are the minutes:

“_The Hon._ John M’Lean _was chosen Chairman, and_ Gerrit Wendell, _Secretary_.

“_The following resolutions were then unanimously adopted._

“Resolved, _That it is expedient and proper, in the view of this meeting, hereafter to celebrate the anniversary of our National Independence with religious exercises._

“Resolved, _That Messrs._ John Ashton, Sidney Wells _and Dr._ Matthew Stevenson _be a committee to make arrangements for the next anniversary, by designating the place of meeting, and procuring a speaker for the occasion_.”

“_On motion of Mr._ Ashton, _seconded by_ Sidney Wells,—Resolved _that the Rev. Mr._ Prime _be requested to furnish for the press, a copy of the Address delivered by him this day, and that the above mentioned committee be authorized to adopt the necessary measures to procure its publication_.”

Although the proposal of the last resolution was totally unexpected to the author, yet he is willing frankly to acknowledge that its adoption was extremely grateful to his feelings; not only as an explicit approval of the sentiments which had been delivered, expressed by many of his own congregation and others, whose judgment he highly reveres; but also as affording the sanction of their authority in proclaiming them to the world. And, that it might have the full influence of that authority, the address is printed, with the exception of a few verbal corrections, and the addition of two notes, precisely as it was delivered.

The author cannot say that the views exhibited are the result of any new convictions in his own mind. Though he was familiar with slavery from his birth, yet from his earliest recollection, it was revolting to his feelings; and the first emotion of humanity that left an indelible impression on his memory, was that of commisseration for the degraded condition of a negro child about two years younger than himself; and from that moment, he never felt at rest on the subject, till the last vestige of the evil was removed from his parental dwelling. The same sentiments with respect to the universal guilt, and consequent danger of the American people, he has entertained ever since he became acquainted with the institutions of his country, and has occasionally exhibited them; but he acknowledges himself highly censurable in not having more frequently and pointedly urged them. He therefore presents this address to the publick, not only in compliance with the wishes of those whom he cannot refuse, but as a small atonement for having so often neglected to employ his pen, and raise his voice against an evil so extensive in its operation, and so alarming in its consequences.

_Cambridge_, July 5th, 1825.

A DISCOURSE, &c.

THE words from which I propose to address you, on this occasion, you will find recorded in “The DECLARATION of the INDEPENDENCE of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA;”—the first clause after the preamble.

The words are these:

“_We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness._”

Man, considered as a rational and social being, occupies a variety of important relations in the universe of God. In the first place he stands related to that great and glorious Being who gave him existence, and he is under the most solemn and indissoluble obligations, to the exercise of eternal reverence, love and gratitude. However indifferent he may feel, in his present fallen state, to the demands of heaven, and however negligent he may be of the duties which result from those demands, it is an incontrovertible truth, that the service of God has the first and highest claim. Hence, the first and greatest commandment of the law is declared, by the divine Saviour to be this; “_Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength._” Mark xii. 30. An immediate and constant compliance with this precept should be the first object of every human being.

But although this is the first, it is not the only duty of man. He occupies other relations, and, of course, is subjected to the authority of other duties. Passing over all the other subordinate connexions of man, as foreign from our present purpose, I shall here notice only his relation to his own species, and the obligations which result from that relation. All men are formed by the same hand, born into the same world, under the same circumstances, and are bound by considerations both of duty and interest to respect each other’s rights, and to promote each other’s happiness. These duties are next in importance to those which relate to God. Therefore, our blessed Lord, after declaring the precept already quoted to be the first commandment of the law, adds, “And the second is like” to it, “_Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself_.” He then declares, with respect to both, “There is no commandment greater than these.” Here then we have a concise, but complete exposition of man’s duty in relation to his own species. It is applicable to all the possible circumstances of life; and at the same time, so plain, that the smallest share of intellect is sufficient to understand and apply it. It accords precisely with that golden rule which the Saviour delivered, in his sermon on the mount; “_All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets._” Matthew vii. 12. That is, all the duties which God has ever required of man in relation to his own species, either in the law or the prophets, are comprehended in this single precept, _Do to others just as you would wish them to do to you_. Did this principle regulate the conduct of all men, the earth would instantly resume the first bloom of Eden. Not only would war, and murder and rapine cease to desolate the earth, but animosities and contention and oppression of every kind and degree would instantly disappear. Adventitious circumstances might still produce distinctions in the relative situations of men; but pride, that fiend of hell and enemy of happiness, would be banished from the human breast; and one more prospered of heaven than his fellows, would look down upon them, not to despise their poverty, nor to rejoice in their misery, nor to deprive them of their _liberty_; (the last earthly blessing that man can lose;) but to compassionate their necessities, to console them under adversity, and to administer to their relief. The whole human family would be bound together by the sense of a common nature, and the bonds of sincere affection: in a word, they would feel that they were _bone of each other’s bone; and flesh of each other’s flesh_; and in all cases, and under all circumstances, they would act like _brethren_.

From these remarks, you will perceive that the words of my text, although they are not a part of the inspired volume, contain sentiments in perfect accordance with the divine declarations. This consideration therefore is sufficient to entitle them to the highest respect. But, in this favoured land, they do not need this argument to give them authority. They are the words of our _fathers_; not spoken by the fireside, or in the closet, while they rested quietly in the midst of their domestick circles, without a witness of their declarations; but proclaimed and published to the whole world, while they stood in jeopardy of their lives and all that they held dear on earth; and with a solemn appeal _to the_ SUPREME JUDGE _of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions_. Nay, more; some of them sealed this declaration with their own blood, and voluntarily laid down their lives, to deliver their posterity from tyranny and oppression, and to procure for them the blessings of _liberty_ and self-government. Confining ourselves to this view of the subject, we should pronounce that native American unworthy of his parentage and the name which he bears, who would not revere the words of his father, uttered under such circumstances. Nay, that man, let him be who he will, and let his circumstances be what they may, is unworthy to tread American soil and breathe American air, who does not cheerfully and sincerely adopt the words of my text, as containing the sentiments of his heart, “_All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness._”

When this declaration, particularly this clause of it, was reported in heaven, (and I presume to believe that the sun had not set on the fourth of July, 1776, before the transactions of the American Congress were published to the celestial hosts,) what think you were the expectations of angels and the spirits of just men made perfect, with respect to the state of things which would succeed in this nation? Doubtless, the former, in whose respective ranks _liberty_ and _equality_ are not only _professed_ but _practised_, expected, upon their first mission to this lower world, to see the American people, without distinction of complexion or circumstances, enjoying the blessings of freedom. And with equal probability may we imagine, that those happy souls who had been redeemed from the earth, and who had here witnessed, with their own eyes, the oppressions of man exercised upon his own species; some of whom had, perhaps, themselves been personally guilty in this matter, and had found, from their own experience, that the last pollution, from which a Saviour’s blood can wash the human soul, is the sweat or blood of a black man’s body; I say, we may safely imagine, that, among these, there was one universal shout of joy. They rejoiced to hear, that, in one nation at least of this fallen world, after the lapse of almost 6000 years, THE RIGHTS OF MAN were at last understood, and a solemn resolution to respect them had been unanimously adopted: that universal emancipation had been proclaimed to three millions of the human family.

In view of these considerations, could angels and redeemed souls have reasonably expected or believed, _if there is any sincerity in man_, that from the benefits of this solemn declaration, adopted under all the solemn circumstances just mentioned, and with the most solemn appeal to heaven, _every sixth man_ was excluded, and _doomed to perpetual slavery_; and _that_, for no other reason, than because the God of nature had caused them to be born in a torrid clime, where the sun had burnt their skin and crisped their hair, and they had been transported against their will, to a land inhabited by white men?

And if the celestial hosts were then restrained from an universal clamour of disapprobation, by the consideration that such an exception was rendered necessary by the existing circumstances of the country, and the impossibility of emancipating 500,000 slaves while our shores were invaded by a foreign foe; could they have been persuaded to believe, that, after heaven had espoused the cause of America, and God himself had fought her battles, and victory had crowned her arms, the American people would permit almost half a century to roll away in the enjoyment of unexampled liberty, prosperity and happiness, while slavery would be permitted to increase with the increase of their wealth and population? Could they expect that this solemn declaration of Independence would be annually read the 50th time, accompanied with the roar of cannon, the display of banners, and shouts of joy, and that thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars would be expended on every return of this anniversary in feasting and dissipation and tumult, and yet _no year of Jubilee_ be proclaimed to the oppressed sons of Africa?

But such is the fact. This day commences the 50th year of freedom to American white men, and yet a million and a half of our fellow men, within our own dwellings, are this moment groaning under the chains of bondage. Tell me not, as it is often told by the advocates of slavery, that they are incapable of providing for themselves; and are therefore happier in their present dependent condition, than if they were immediately emancipated. I cheerfully admit that the little feathered songster that was hatched in a cage or incarcerated before his wings were fledged, may be ignorant of most of the sweets of liberty; and after being long accustomed to have his food provided by his owner’s hand, might be incapable of finding it, in equal profusion, in the fields and forests; but does this prove that he has not a nature adapted to the enjoyment of liberty, and equally entitled to the privilege with other birds?

But on this point reasoning is needless. I appeal to my text. “ALL _men are created equal_,” said our forefathers, “_and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life_, LIBERTY _and the pursuit of happiness_.” For the space of fifty years we have been reiterating the same maxim and at the same time declaring that it is “a self-evident truth.” Now, I say, let us aim at consistency of character. Let us reduce the principle to practice, and prove to the world that we believe what we say, or blot it out from the declaration of our rights and privileges. We may abhor the tyranny of kings and emperors, and commiserate the degraded state of their oppressed subjects, but a greater incongruity cannot be found in any nation than that which exists in our own. In one hand we hold the protestation that all men are equal, and entitled to the enjoyment of life and liberty; and in the other, we firmly grasp the chains of slavery and wield the goads of correction. We proclaim to the world that we are the only nation of freemen on earth, and yet daily practise the most absolute despotism. It is frequently the case that the same publick newspaper which unblushingly asserts the equality of our rights, and the justice of our institutions, advertises a whole village of _human beings for sale_. Again I say, let us aim at CONSISTENCY: either acknowledge to the world that we are tyrants and despots, or act according to our professions.

That my text contains a correct assertion, I am not disposed for a moment to question: and I should surely be employed to no purpose in attempting to prove to others, what they have asserted for half a century, to be “a self-evident truth.” If then, all men are, by their birth, entitled to the same natural rights and privileges, they can be divested of them only by the authority of Him who has the power of life and death in his hands. The God of nature has a perfect right to authorize one nation to subjugate another, as he delivered the Canaanites into the hands of Israel. But surely this is no argument in favour of American slavery. When we have found a “_Thus saith the Lord_” for the subjugation of Africans, then, and not till then, shall we have a right to make them our slaves.

A man may also forfeit his liberty, and even his life, by the commission of crimes against the interests of society. And in all such cases, every nation on the globe has a charter from the King of heaven to inflict merited punishment. But surely no man of common sense will pretend that this authorizes any individual or commonwealth to reduce to perpetual bondage, and entail the same on their posterity, those who have never violated a single law of the land.

The time has been when the event of war has been supposed to confer on the victorious party the right of enslaving the vanquished. But this is now universally acknowledged to be a principle of barbarism, and is abandoned by the civilized world. Where then is our charter for the oppression of our fellow men?

Perhaps the most plausible argument in support of American slavery, (and it is one that has been newly discovered, for it was first introduced into Congress on the Missouri question,) is, that the New Testament distinctly recognises without any mark of disapprobation, the relation of masters and servants, and St. Paul in his Epistles explicitly enjoins on the latter the duty of respect, obedience and fidelity. This argument has been triumphantly urged as presenting Divine authority for slavery. But pray tell me, are there no servants but slaves? Is there no such thing as the relation of master and servant unless where slavery exists? If so, tell Great Britain to blot the word from her vocabulary, that it has no meaning in the English language, and is exclusively of American origin and use.

“But,” says the advocate of slavery, “this argument is not to be got rid of in this way. This is mere quibbling. St. Paul speaks not only of servants, but of _bond-men_; and he actually enjoins it on every man to abide in the same calling, or condition, wherein he is called. And he specifies particularly that if any one is called being a _servant_, he is to rest contented with the assurance that he is the Lord’s _free man_. 1 Cor. vii. 20-22. Nay, in his Epistle to Philemon, he had a fair opportunity to put this question at rest for ever; but instead of rebuking the master for holding slaves, he returned the _runaway_ to his service.”[1] On this ground, it has been asserted, that those who hold slaves are more obedient to the Scriptures than those who do not.

Footnote 1:

This whole argument, in all its parts, was once urged with amazing zeal, on the floor of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church.

If I am not greatly mistaken in regard to the nature of this argument, I could prove, in the same way, that tyranny and despotism are approved of God; and that those who submit to such a kind of government, live in greater conformity to the Scriptures than the citizens of a republick.

The manner in which I would argue is this. St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, says, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God, the powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”—Rom. xiii. 1, 2. Now this solemn injunction, under this awful sanction, was imposed by inspiration upon the Christians of Rome, at the time that the crown of that empire was worn by Nero, one of the most cruel and blood-thirsty tyrants that ever disgraced a throne. By his own direction the city was set on fire, which raged for nine successive days, spreading desolation and ruin; and then to furnish himself a pretext for persecuting the Christians, he laid the crime to their charge, and fiercely commenced the bloody work. “Some were wrapped in the skins of wild beasts, and torn in pieces by dogs; some were crucified, and others, clothed in garments covered with pitch, were set on fire; while the cruel monster calmly sat in the window of his palace and enjoyed the scene of his own barbarities.” And yet this is the man, whom the apostle commands the Christians to revere as “the minister of God;” the resistance of whom is threatened with damnation. Was not Paul then the advocate of tyranny and oppression? Just as clearly as he was the advocate of slavery.

In the same manner I think it can be shown that polygamy is approved by St. Paul, at least among the Gentiles. He expressly ordained that “a bishop or deacon must be the husband of one wife.” 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Now the inference is fair, that all other men might have more than one. Private members of the church are not restricted in their inclinations in this respect, only the officers of the church are not indulged. I see no way to avoid this conclusion. How then shall we reconcile these apparent inconsistencies?

In my view, the solution is plain and easy. Upon the first introduction of the gospel into any pagan land, there always will be many evils existing, which are so completely wrought into the customs, interests and institutions of society, that it is impossible to correct them at once. Nay, if it were possible, the sudden revolution would instantly produce unspeakable misery. Take, for instance, the last mentioned case: Suppose, in a nation where polygamy is extensively practised, every man could be induced to repudiate all his wives but one; how many thousands of helpless women and children would be turned on the wide world, without the means of support, exposed to inevitable wretchedness and want! The sudden adoption of the true Christian principle, under these circumstances, would be productive of vastly greater misery than is now experienced from this horrid pagan practice; and the Christian religion would be execrated as a system of cruelty.

What then is to be done? Must Christianity sacrifice its holy principles at the shrine of pagan impurity? Must we be satisfied to have men embrace _the faith of the gospel_, while they retain their own _ungodly practices_? No! But wisdom is profitable to direct.—Some method must be adopted by which these deeply-rooted evils may be branded with disgrace, and thus gradually but effectually eradicated. For this purpose St. Paul, or rather the Holy Spirit, ordained in those countries where polygamy was common, that “a bishop or deacon must be the husband of one wife.” A man that sincerely embraced the gospel, might be admitted to the privileges of the church without first turning half a dozen women out of doors; but he never could arise to any dignity, or be capable of holding any office in the church. Now you plainly perceive that the necessary operation of this simple regulation, was to abolish gradually, but effectually, this vile practice; not however, by sovereign authority or absolute force, but by the voluntary consent of the party concerned.

Thus it appears to be the genius of the gospel to tolerate an evil for a while, where the immediate and total abolition would be productive of greater miseries and crimes; while, at the same time, it requires the use of all prudent and effectual measures for its ultimate extirpation.