Supreme Court-and shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution." (Art. 3, sec. 1 and 2.)

"The senators and representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution." (Art. 6.)

And in this Constitution, slavery is recognized and regarded as a standing institution, first, in Article 1, Section 2, where three fifths of the slaves are taken as the basis for the elective franchise; and secondly, in Article 4, Section 2, where fugitives, escaping from one State to another, are directed to be "delivered up on claim of the party to whom their service or labor is due." Such is the settled interpretation of the Supreme Court, and of Congress in their legislation on the subject. And it admits of no dispute. Twelve out of the thirteen States which adopted the Constitution were Slave States at the time. And although Massachusetts had abolished slavery, yet her delegation, along with that of the other Eastern States, insisted on continuing the slave-trade for twenty years more, against the wishes of Virginia.

Here, therefore, in this Constitution of the United States, is the supreme dominion on all those subjects for which it was designed. And to this, accordingly, the command of the Apostle applies. To this, every naturalized foreigner is obliged to swear allegiance. To this, every native citizen is bound, by his birth, to be loyal. You are bound by it. I am bound by it. Every citizen in the land is bound by it, from the President down to the humblest laborer on the soil. And therefore with us, the Constitution is the king, and the President is the prime minister.

Is there any power in these United States which can absolve me from this obligation? Suppose the President were to desire it-which I should be very sorry to impute to him-could he do so? Clearly not; for how can he absolve the citizen from a duty which he was obliged, by oath, to take upon himself, before he could enter upon his eminent office? If he is sworn to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, by what imaginable right can he authorize me to violate it?

Can Congress absolve me from this obligation? I answer, No; for the same reason. The power of Congress, like the power of the President, is exercised only by virtue of the Constitution. The mem

bers of the Senate and the House of Representatives are all bound by the same oath. And it would be an absurdity, surpassing all other absurdities, to suppose that a subordinate authority, created by the Constitution, should have a right to nullify the provisions of the very law on which it depends for its only power to legislate at all. But we have been told that there is a "higher law," above the Constitution. And this, to the Christian, is certainly true. The Almighty Law-giver, who is able to save and to destroy "— the glorious God, whose government rules the universe, whose throne is the heavens, and the earth his footstool-the all-wise and absolute Ruler, on whose decree the destiny of nations and of individuals is alike dependent-He has given us his unerring commands to be our guide, and in His Word we have the plainest directions on this very question. For there, as I have just shown, His inspired apostles require us to be "subject to the higher powers," and declare, moreover, that "whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they who resist, shall receive to themselves damnation."

66

Yet this, as all men acknowledge, refers only to those matters in which the laws of earth do not contradict the laws of heaven; for no one doubts that in case of a conflict between those laws, we must obey God rather than man." Happily, however, the only point on which the ultra-abolitionist desires to trample on the Constitution, namely, slavery, is specifically provided for in the Bible; and the same apostles who command us to be subject to the higher powers, command the slave to be obedient and faithful to his master, and the master to be kind to his slave, while one of them, St. Paul, adopts a fugitive slave-law for himself, and, of his own accord, sends Onesimus back again to his legal owner.

Thus Christianity itself enforces the dominion of the Constitution, and I am bound to be subject to it, "not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake," (Rom. 13: 5,) and hence loyalty to that Constitution becomes a dictate of my religion. How any man can consider it a part of his religion to oppose it--how any officer of the Government can suppose it consistent with conscience to swear that he will support the Constitution, and yet make it his business to break it down-how any minister of the Gospel can lend his influence to sustain such a course, and even to brand an honest effort to justify the Constitution, as "unworthy of any servant of Jesus Christ," and an act which "challenges indignant reprobation"- these are things

which you may think yourself able to explain. But for my own part, I regard them as the most astounding facts in the modern history of human delusion and perversity.

But now I return to Dr. Jortin, in order to take a brief survey of his remaining statements about slavery. He saith that it "still continues among those that know not the Gospel, and the more is the shame and the pity, it is to be found in some places where Christianity is professed."

Now as to the shame, why did he not extend it to the Apostles, whom he admits to have sanctioned its continuance? For he acknowledges that "St. Peter and St. Paul earnestly exhort servants or slaves to obey their masters, and to be industrious and honest, and dutifully to serve, not only the just and gentle, but the hard and froward." And he tells us that "the religion of Christ, when it first made its progress in the world, left the civil laws of nations in a great measure as it found them, lest by altering or repealing them, it should bring confusion and disturbance into human society." Is it not manifest that the same reason ought to have influenced the Christian ministers of our day to follow the Apostle's example? Was it possible for any man in his sober senses to believe that the dogmas of our ultra-abolitionists could prevail without "bringing confusion and disturbance into human society"? Alas! what a commentary do we behold on their opposition to the course which Dr. Jortin, and all others, confess to have been adopted by St. Peter and St. Paul; when not merely "confusion and disturbance," but the sacrifice of half a million of valuable lives, and the ravages of the most awful desolation, and a multitude of torn and bleeding hearts, and the kindling of bitter hatred and deadly animosity between those who were once friends and brethren, have marked the results of their insane determination! Why could they not have been content with the guidance of the inspired Apostles, confirmed by the voice of the whole primitive Church? Why must they denounce, as “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," the Constitution of their country? Why could they not be subject to that " supreme law of the land," which they were bound to support by every rule of religious and civil obligation, and suffer our noble Union to continue in harmony and peace?

With regard to the "pity" of Dr. Jortin, I shall only say that he ought to have known the condition of the negro slaves under the cruel

and heathen yoke of African slavery, as subjects to the king of Dahomey, before he pitied their state in the hands of their Christian masters. If he had duly reflected upon this, he would perhaps have discovered that, instead of being pitied for the change, it was rather a subject for devout thankfulness to the mercy of God, who, in His Providence, had saved so many of that barbarous and wretched race, and given them a lot so much more elevated and hopeful.

His subsequent statement, that slavery was abolished through the growing influence of the Gospel, is one of the popular fallacies which I shall consider by and by, and prove it to be entirely inconsistent with the facts of history. And I shall close this long chapter by expressing my surprise that the excellent Bishop Hobart, when he republished the Commentary of D'Oyly and Mant, should have retained an extract, which, however it might agree with the constitutional safety of England, was plainly unsuited to the harmony and welfare of these United States; besides being in utter discordance with the teaching of the Apostles, and the voice of the universal Church, for eighteen centuries together.

CHAPTER XXIV.

RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: As I consider freedom and equality to be the popular idols of the age, especially in our own country, I shall recur to them again, because the subject is by no means exhausted. But before I resume these topics, I must complete my extracts from the modern Protestant commentators, the next on the list being the learned and candid Presbyterian, Macknight, whose "New Translation, Paraphrase, and Notes on the Epistles" are held in just and universal estimation.

On the text in 1 Cor. 7:20, 24, 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, our author gives the following paraphrase:

"Since the Gospel makes no alteration in men's political state, let every Christian remain in the same political state in which he was called. Agreeably to this rule, wast thou called, being a bondman? Be not thou solicitous to be made free, fancying that a bondman is less the object of God's favor than a freeman. Yet, if thou canst even be made free by any lawful method, rather obtain thy freedom."

And on v. 24, Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God, he gives this interpretation: "Brethren, whether in a state of bondage or of freedom each one was called, in that let him remain, while he remains with God; that is, while he remains a Christian." And in the notes, he states that "this exhortation, which is three times given in the compass of the discourse, was intended to correct the disorders among the Christian slaves at Corinth, who, agreeably to the doctrine of the false teachers, claimed their liberty, on pretense that as brethren in Christ, they were on an equality with their Christian masters."

On Eph. 6:5, 9, Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, etc., Dr. Mac knight presents this statement, viz. :