G.o.d reveals to us that he created man in his image, _i.e._ a spirit endowed with attributes resembling his own,--to reason, to form rule of right, to manifest various emotions, to will, to act,--and that he gave him a body suited to such a spirit, (Gen. i. 26, 27, 28;) that he created MAN "_male and female_," (Gen. i. 27;) that he made the woman "_out of the man_," (Gen. ii. 23;) that he made "_the man the image and glory of G.o.d_, but the woman _the glory of the man_. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man _created for the woman_, but the woman _for the man_," (1 Cor. xi.;) that he made the woman to be the weaker vessel, (1 Pet. iii. 7.) Here, then, G.o.d created _the race_ to be in the beginning TWO,--a male and a female MAN; one of them _not equal_ to the other _in attributes of body and mind_, and, as we shall see presently, not equal in rights as to government. Observe, this inequality was fact as to the TWO, in the perfect state wherein they were _created_.

But these two fell from that perfect state, became depraved, and began to be degraded in body and mind. This statement of the original inequality in which man was created controls all that comes after, in G.o.d's providence and in the natural history of the race.

_Providence_, in its comprehensive teaching, "says that G.o.d, soon after the flood, subjected the races to all the influences of the different zones of the earth;"--"That he hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he be not far from every one of us." (Acts xvii. 26, 27.)

These "bounds of their habitation" have had much to do in the natural history of man; for "_all men_" have been "_created_," or, more correctly, _born_, (since the race was "created" once only at the first,) with attributes of body and mind derived from the TWO unequal parents, and these attributes, in every individual, the combined result of the parental natures. "_All men_," then, come into the world under influences upon the amalgamated and transmitted body and mind, from depravity and degradation, sent down during all the generations past; and, therefore, under causes of inequality, acting on each individual from climate, from scenery, from food, from health, from sickness, from love, from hatred, from government, inconceivable in variety and power. Under such causes, to produce infinite shades of inequality, physical and mental, in birth--if "all men" were created equal (_i.e._ born equal) in attributes of body and mind--such "creation" would be a violation of all the known a.n.a.logies in the world of life.

Do, then, the facts in man's natural history exhibit this departure from the laws of life and spirit? Do they prove that "all men are created equal"? Do they show that every man and every woman of Africa, Asia, Europe, America, and the islands of the seas, is created each one equal in body and mind to each other man or woman on the face of the earth, and that this has always been?

Need I extend these questions? Methinks, sir, I hear you say, what others have told me, that the "Declaration" is not to be understood as affirming what is so clearly false, but merely a.s.serts that all men are "created equal" in _natural rights._

I reply that _that_ is _not_ the meaning of the clause before us; for _that_ is the meaning of the next sentence,--the _second_ in the series we are considering.

There are, as I have said, four links to the chain of thought in this pa.s.sage:--1. That all men are created equal. 2. That they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights. 3. That government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. 4. That the people may alter and abolish it, &c.

These links are logical sequences. All men--man and woman--are created equal,--equal in _attributes of body and mind_; (for _that_ is the only sense in which they could be _created_ equal;) _therefore_ they are endowed with right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unalienable, except in their consent; _consequently_ such consent is essential to all rightful government; and, _finally_ and _irresistibly_, the people have supreme right to alter or abolish it, &c.

The meaning, then, I give to that first link, and to the chain following, _is_ the sense, because, if you deny that meaning to the _first link_, then the others have no logical truth whatever. Thus:--

If all men are _not_ created equal in attributes of body and mind, then the _inequality_ may be _so great_ that such men cannot be endowed with right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unalienable save in their _consent_; then government over such men cannot rightfully rest upon their _consent_; nor can they have right to alter or abolish government in their mere determination.

Yea, sir, you concede every thing if you admit that the "Declaration"

does _not_ mean to affirm that all men are "_created_" _equal in body and mind_.

I will suppose in the Alps a community of Cretins,--_i.e._ deformed and helpless idiots,--but among them many from the same parents, who, in body and mind, by birth are comparatively _Napoleons_. Now, this _inequality_, physical and mental, by birth, makes it impossible that the government over these Cretins can be in their "_consent_." _The Napoleons must rule_.

The Napoleons must absolutely control their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," for the good of the community. Do you reply that I have taken an extreme case? that everybody admits sensible people must govern natural fools? Ay, sir, there is the rub. _Natural fools_! Are some men, then, "_created_" natural fools? Very well. Then you also admit that some men are _created_ just a degree above natural fools!--and, consequently, that men are "_created_" in all degrees, gradually rising in the scale of intelligence. Are they not "_created_" just above the brute, with savage natures along with mental imbecility and physical degradation? Must the Napoleons govern the Cretins without their "consent"? Must they not also govern without their "consent" these types of mankind, whether one, two, three, thirty, or three hundred degrees above the Cretins, if they are still greatly inferior by nature? Suppose the Cretins removed from the imagined community, and a colony of Australian ant-catchers or California lizard-eaters be in their stead: must not the Napoleons govern these? And, if you admit inequality to be in birth, then that inequality is the very ground of the reason why the Napoleons must govern the ant-catchers and lizard-eaters. Remove these, and put in their place an importation of African negroes. Do you admit _their inferiority by_ "CREATION?" Then the same control over them must be the irresistible fact in common sense and Scripture of G.o.d. _The Napoleons must govern_. They must govern without asking "consent,"--if the inequality be such that "_consent_" would be evil, and not good, in the family--the state.

Yea, sir, if you deny that the "Declaration" a.s.serts "all men are created equal" in body and mind, then you admit the inequality may be such as to make it impossible that in such cases men have rights unalienable save in their "consent;" and you admit it to be impossible that government in such circ.u.mstances can exist in such "_consent_" But, if you affirm the "Declaration" _does_ mean that men are "_created_ equal" in attributes of body and mind, then you hold to an equality which G.o.d, in his word, and providence, and the natural history of man, denies to be truth.

I think I have fairly shown, from Scripture and facts, that the first averment is not the truth; and have reduced it to an absurdity. I will now regard the second, third, and fourth links of the chain.

I know they are already broken; for, the whole chain being but an electric current from a vicious imagination, I have destroyed the whole by breaking the first link. Or was it but a cl.u.s.ter from a poisonous vine, then I have killed the branches by cutting the vine. I will, however, expose the other three sequences by a distinct argument covering them all.

_Authority Delegated to Adam_.

G.o.d gave to Adam sovereignty over the human race, in his first decree:--"_He shall rule over thee_." _That_ was THE INSt.i.tUTION OF GOVERNMENT. It was not based on the "_consent_" of Eve, the governed. It was from G.o.d. He gave to Adam like authority to rule his children. It was not derived from their "_consent_". It was from G.o.d. He gave Noah the same sovereignty, with express power over life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It was not founded in "_consent_" of Shem, Ham, and j.a.pheth, and their wives. It was from G.o.d. He then determined the habitations of men on all the face of the earth, and _indicated_ to them, in every clime, the _form_ and _power_ of their governments. He gave, directly, government to Israel. He just as truly gave it to Idumea, to Egypt, and to Babylon, to the Arab, to the Esquimaux, the Caffre, the Hottentot, and the negro.

G.o.d, in the Bible, decides the matter. He says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of G.o.d: the powers that be are ordained of G.o.d. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of G.o.d: and they that resist shall receive to themselves d.a.m.nation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of G.o.d to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of G.o.d, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are G.o.d's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Render, therefore, to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." (Rom.

xiii. 1-7.)

Here G.o.d reveals to us that he has _delegated to government his own_ RIGHT _over life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_; and that that RIGHT is not, in any sense, from the "_consent_" of the governed, but is directly from him. Government over men, whether in the family or in the state, is, then, as directly from G.o.d as it would be if he, in visible person, ruled in the family or in the state. I speak not only of the RIGHT simply to govern, but the _mode_ of the government, and the _extent_ of the power.

Government _can do_ ALL which G.o.d _would do,--just_ THAT,--_no more, no less_. And it is _bound to do just_ THAT,--_no more, no less_. Government is responsible to G.o.d, if it fails to do _just_ THAT which He himself would do. It is under responsibility, then, to rule in righteousness. It must not oppress. It must _give_ to every individual "_life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_," in harmony with the _good_ of the family,--the state,--_as G.o.d himself would give it_,--_just_ THAT, _no more, no less_.

This pa.s.sage of Scripture settles the question, From whence has government RIGHT to rule, and what is the _extent_ of its power? The RIGHT is from G.o.d, and the EXTENT of the power is _just_ THAT to which G.o.d would exercise it if he were personally on the earth. G.o.d, in this pa.s.sage, and others, settles, with equal clearness, from whence is the OBLIGATION to _submit_ to government, and what is the _extent_ of the duty of obedience? The OBLIGATION to submit is not from individual RIGHT to consent or not to consent to government,--but the OBLIGATION _to submit_ is directly from G.o.d.

The EXTENT of the duty of obedience is equally revealed--in this wise: so long as the government rules in righteousness, the duty is perfect obedience. So soon, however, as government requires _that_ which G.o.d, in his word, _forbids the subject to do_, he must obey G.o.d, and not man. He must refuse to obey man. But, inasmuch as the obligation to submit to authority of government is so great, the subject must _know_ it is the will of G.o.d, that he shall refuse to obey, before he a.s.sumes the responsibility of resistance to the powers that be. His _conscience_ will not justify him before G.o.d, if he mistakes his duty. _He may be all the more to blame for having_ SUCH A CONSCIENCE. Let him, then, be CERTAIN he can say, like Peter and John, "Whether it be right, in the sight of G.o.d, to hearken unto you more than unto G.o.d, judge ye."

But, when government requires _that_ which G.o.d _does not forbid_ the subject to do, although _in that_ the government may have transcended the line of its righteous rule, the subject must, nevertheless, submit,--_until_ oppression has gone to _the point_ at which _G.o.d makes_ RESISTANCE _to be duty._ And _that point_ is when RESISTANCE will clearly be _less of evil, and more of good_, TO THE COMMUNITY, than further submission.

_That_ is the rule of _duty_ G.o.d gives to the _whole_ people, or to the _minority_, or to the _individual_, to guide them in resistance to the powers that be.

It is irresistibly _certain_ that _He who ordains_ government _has, alone, the right to alter or abolish it_,--that He who inst.i.tutes the powers that be has, alone, the right to say when and how the people, in whole or in part, may resist. So, then, the people, in whole, or in part, have no right to resist, to alter, or abolish government, simply because _they_ may deem it destructive of the end for which it was inst.i.tuted; but they may resist, alter, or abolish, _when it shall be seen that G.o.d so regards it_. This places the great fact where it must be placed,--_under the_ CONTROL _of the_ BIBLE _and_ PROVIDENCE.

_Ill.u.s.trations_.

I will conclude with one or two ill.u.s.trations. G.o.d, in his providence, ordains the Russian form of government,--_i.e._ He places the sovereignty in one man, because He sees that such government can secure, for a time, more good to that degraded people than any other form. Now, I ask, Has the emperor _right_, from G.o.d, to change at once, in his mere "_consent_," the _form_ of his government to _that_ of the United States? No. G.o.d forbids him. Why? Because he would thereby destroy the good, and bring immense evil in his empire. I ask again, Have the Russian serfs and n.o.bles,--yea, all,--"consenting," the right, from G.o.d, to make that change? No. For the government of the United States is not suited to them. And, in such an attempt, they would deprive themselves of the blessings they now have, and bring all the horrors of anarchy.

Do you ask if I then hold, that G.o.d ordains the Russian type of rule to be perpetual over that people? No. The emperor is bound to secure all of "_life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_," to each individual, consistent with the good of the nation. And he is to learn his obligation from the Bible, and faithfully apply it to the condition of his subjects.

_He will thus gradually elevate them_; while they, on their part, are bound to strive for this elevation, in all the ways in which G.o.d may show them the good, and the right, which, more and more, will belong to them in their upward progress. The result of such government and such obedience would be that of a father's faithful training, and children's corresponding obedience. The Russian people would thus have, gradually, that measure of liberty they could bear, under the one-man power,--and then, in other forms, as they might be qualified to realize them. This development would be without convulsion,--as the parent gives place, while the children are pa.s.sing from the lower to their higher life. It would be the exemplification of Carlyle's ill.u.s.tration of the snake. He says, A people should change their government only as a snake sheds his skin: the new skin is gradually formed under the old one,--and then the snake wriggles out, with just a drop of blood here and there, where the old jacket held on rather tightly.

G.o.d ordains the government of the United States. And _He places_ the _sovereignty_ in the _will_ of the majority, because He has trained the people, through many generations in modes of government, to such an elevation in moral and religious intelligence, that such sovereignty is best suited to confer on them the highest right, as yet, to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But G.o.d requires that _that will of the majority_ be in perfect submission to Him. Once more then I inquire,--Whether the people of this country, yea all of them consenting, have right from G.o.d, to abolish now, at this time, our free inst.i.tutions, and set up the sway of Russia? No. But why? There is one answer only. He tells us that our happiness is in this form of government, and in it, its developed results.

_The "Social Compact" not recognised in the Divine Inst.i.tute_.

Here I pause. So, then, G.o.d gives no sanction to the notion of a SOCIAL COMPACT. He never gave to man individual, isolated, natural rights, unalienably in his keeping. He never made him a Caspar Hauser, in the forest, without name or home,--a Melchisedek, in the wilderness, without father, without mother, without descent,--a Robinson Crusoe, on his island, in skins and barefooted, waiting, among goats and parrots, the coming of the canoes and the savages, to enable him to "_consent_" if he would, to the relations of social life.

And, therefore, those five sentences in that second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence are not the truth; so, then, it is not _self-evident_ truth that all men are created equal. So, then, it is not the truth, in fact, that they are created equal. So, then, it is not the truth that G.o.d has endowed all men with unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So, then, it is not the truth that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So, then, it is not the truth that the people have right to alter or abolish their government, and inst.i.tute a new form, whenever to them it shall seem likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The manner in which these unscriptural dogmas have been modified or developed in the United States, I will examine in another paper.

I merely add, that the opinions of revered ancestors, on these questions of right and their application to American slavery, must now, as never before, be brought to the test of the light of the Bible. F.A. Ross.

Huntsville, Ala., Jan. 1857.

Man-Stealing.

This argument on the abolition charge, against the slave-holder,--that he is a man-stealer,--covers the whole question of slavery, especially as it is seen in the Old Testament. The headings in the letter make the subject sufficiently clear.

No. III.