LITERATURE AND THE NEGRO.

181

side of power and patronage, in 1302, when Dante was banished the advocate of the people and the foe of tyranny; and now, after the lapse of six centuries of illustrious fame, the delegates of every refined capital in Europe have assembled in his native city to raise a monument to the memory of him, whose persecutors are best known by the record he has made of them in his own immortal verse. But, however permanent in its character most American literature may prove, it is certain that the portion of it devoted to the dis semination of antislavery sentiments could enjoy only a very temporary vitality. This consequence must result partly from the nature of the subject, and partly from the fact that the treatment bestowed upon it was not often in correspondence with either truth or good taste.

At the period under consideration, the negro had become a very general theme for magazine writers, contributors to the daily press, and lecturers on various occasions. Directly or indirectly, he was a prominent and staple topic of verse and prose. It was so easy to fall in with the sentimental view of the subject, so difficult to summon up the dictates of reason, so troublesome to feel one's impulsive liberty of thought and feeling checked by constitutional scruples or obligations, that multitudes, of both sexes, gave way to the infatuation of the hour. The rights and wrongs of the negro did not, of themselves, afford a very wide field of discussion or illustration, and the source of inspiration was not of absolutely Castalian depth and clearness. The range of specula tion was widened, therefore, by introducing disquisitions upon Southern society, in a variety of aspects, either actual or imaginary.

This society, except in its relations to slavery, differed in no very essential degree from that of the North, either in intellectual or moral characteristics. Making due allowance for the effect of climate upon temperament, a lady or gentleman from the extreme South, though they might exhibit a somewhat more ardent disposition, resembled very much those of the same order in the extreme North. There was a

certain diversity of thought and of manner; but, between the two extremes, there was ample room for every shade of difference, resulting from physical or mental organization, to melt into and blend with each other. The distinction was in no respect so marked as that between Scotchmen and Englishmen, or between Irishmen and Englishmen. In both parts of the country, there were the rich, those striving for riches in the several pursuits of business, the laboring classes, and the poor.

The picture drawn of the people of the South by the antislavery agitators represented them as consisting only of the "oligarchs," or "lords of the lash," the slaves, and the 66 mean whites." It may be safely asserted that very few of those who thus drew upon their imaginations for their descriptions and illustrations had ever stepped an inch over Mason and Dixon's line. Mr. Garrison had scarcely enjoyed a brief, and probably not very extensive, opportunity of observation in a border State. Probably, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Phillips, and most or all of the more conspicuous haranguers on topics connected with slavery, had never seen a plantation, or possessed any advantages of social intercourse with the people of the South. When they discoursed upon this subject they dilated upon what might have been, in other nations and other times, as if it were applicable to our own citizens and our own day. Some of them ransacked all history for instances of "man's inhumanity to man ;" and undertook to deduce from the fact of the existence of slavery in the United States modern parallels for every example of ancient barbarity. To audiences certainly no better informed than themselves, they related "such stuff as dreams are made of," and inflicted upon them nightmares of troubled vision, which disturbed their nervous systems and haunted their waking hours. The sentiments which they sought to inculcate spread themselves through many of the ramifications of social life, and often embittered the gentlest bosoms, and alienated many accustomed friends.

Under the more skilful guidance of the antislavery poli

THE CHURCH BECOMING POLITICAL.

183

ticians, they sought to systematize their sphere of operations, and, without developing their object, to introduce some agent of their opinions into every position of influence, whether connected with literature, politics, business, or religion. On the same grounds, their coöperation was always ready to exclude from every such position all persons whose opinions in regard to slavery did not coincide with their own. At their solicitation oftentimes it was seen, that legislative bodies passed resolutions to pacify their urgency, which afterwards placed the legislators in very awkward dilemmas. Thus it occurred, that, in anticipation of the compromise measures of 1850, Mr. Wilson, of Natick, a member of the Massachusetts Legislature of that year, and afterwards Senator of the United States, brought in resolutions for the instruction of the Senators and Representatives of the State in Congress, on that subject. To this proposition it was well replied, that the people were anxiously looking for instruction from men like Mr. Webster and Mr. Davis, then the eminent Senators from Massachusetts; and that it might well seem like assumption, for the State Assembly to undertake to teach such persons their duty, or to limit the course of their deliberate action.

It was impossible that the Church should not be seriously affected by this condition of sentiment, which, if it did not fairly represent the public mind, was, at least, a vigorous demonstration, on the part of very active and sometimes accomplished members of the body politic. The question arrogated to itself high grounds of moral obligation, and there might seem danger that the Church itself would be left behind in the march of social progress and improvement. The mission of the Church was clear; and its duty obviously was, whether temporarily behind or in advance of the age, to keep its garments and its ministrations pure. It was to follow the teaching and example of its Divine Founder, by striking at the root of all evil in the unconverted heart of man, instead of wasting its energies, like the Inquisition, for instance, and in some measure the Puritan Fathers, upon

special evils and causes of offence; particularly those connected with the administration of the civil government. In the latter case, it was inevitable that religion would degenerate into politics. The shrewder and wiser saw, that it was possible for fanaticism, by assuming the garb of religion, to intrude into the sanctuary, to oust the rightful possessor, and with a soul inflamed by zeal for some one sublunary object, which, if related at all to religion, was only subsidiary to it, and not of its essential essence, to degrade the high service of God into the worship of an earthly idol. Yet, for a long time, many of the more staid and sober-minded of the Northern clergy, scarcely interpreting correctly, it may be thought, the injunction of the apostle, to "remember those that are in bonds as bound with them," seldom thought their public supplications to the Almighty complete, without an intercession, directly or indirectly, for the slave to be freed with them; and this, too, when the country was agitated by the question of slavery, in its bearings of political significance and importance.'

1 It may seem almost presumptuous to attempt the exposition of a passage of Scripture, which has left the learned in much doubt, after a great deal of inquiry into the subject. It is in 1 Cor. vii. 20-24; as follows:

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman; likewise, also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God."

The Greek passage in dispute is as follows: αλλ' ἐι καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. The accusative case, which is wanting after the last word, is supplied in our translation by the word "it." The point, as to the word which it represents, is discussed, with his usual ability, by that admirable scholar and divine, the late learned Professor Stuart, of Andover, in an elaborate pamphlet, written in commendation of Mr. Webster's 7th of March speech. Professor Stuart states, that every one of the early Greek commentators, and many expositors in modern times, among whom he cites the celebrated De Wette, agree that the word to be supplied should be dovλɛíav, slavery, bondage. The professor, however, admitting the force of their reasoning, which amounts to this-that such is the only construction which can support the

DIVISIONS OF THE CHURCH.

185

As early as the year 1843, the Wesleyan Methodist Communion had established a rule, excluding from "membership and Christian fellowship all who buy men, women, and chil dren, with intent to enslave or hold them as slaves, or who claim that it is right to do so." Two years later, the Methodist Episcopal Church, North and South-an organization widely extending through all sections of the country-came to an absolute separation, in consequence of an attempt to depose one of their bishops in Georgia, for entering into the holy state of matrimony with a lady who owned slaves. The result was, a conference at Louisville, and a division of the property of the Communion between the two, which was afterwards enforced at law; the Northern body proving reluctant to relinquish its possession of the Southern portion of the funds. At a subsequent period, many disastrous consequences followed, among churches of every denomination, except the Episcopal and the Roman Catholic, both of which remained mostly free from divisions on a subject which could not be legitimately introduced into their form of worship. The Episcopal Church, North and South, has never been.

proposition which the apostle is aiming to establish, viz.: "Let every man abide in the same calling" (or condition) "wherein he was called,”—yet inclines to the opinion of Calvin, "the first commentator of any note" who supplied voɛpíav, freedom, instead of dovλeíav, bondage. It may, perhaps, be diffidently suggested, that the difficulty may be obviated by the appropriate translation of a word, to which our common version does not give any translation at all. This is the conjunction kaì. Mr. Stuart and others render it by the English word even; a meaning which, in fact, creates the discrepancy, which would be reconciled by translating it also. It would then refer to the call, not to the service; e. g. If thou art called while a servant, care not for that; but if also (if in addition to the call) thou mayest become a freeman, use it rather. The apostle meant to enjoin upon all the insignificance of our condition, in a temporal state, relatively to the spiritual state, to last forever. But it can hardly be presumed that one who, on a memorable occasion, had already vindicated his own freedom as a Roman citizen, intended to convey the idea that a state of civil bondage was in itself to be preferred to a state of civil liberty. Besides, it must be remembered that the bondsmen in re gard to whom the apostle instructs his fellow-citizens, were white men.