life? If they can do this, I shall have reason to be silent. But if, on the contrary, it should evidently appear that a very different behavior is required of Christian masters, "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed," (1 Tim. vi. 1,) they must be obliged to allow
all bounds of comparison: "Greater love," said he "hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.—Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." "Henceforth I call you not servants." Here is an express enfranchisement of his servants for our example! The universal Lord and Master of all men delights in promoting the dignity of human nature; which cannot be said of the temporal slaveholder, who enforces an imaginary "right of dominion" by exacting an involuntary service, and that for no other purpose than for the sake of a little pecuniary gain, by depriving the laborer of his hire; which savors of no other love but self-love; whereas, our disinterested Lord and Master hath even laid down his life through love and compassion to his servants, and hath declared us free, as before recited. "Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant," said he, "knoweth not what his Lord doeth; but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." John xv. 12—15. And, in the 17th verse he again enforces his doctrine of love. "These things, I command you," said he "that ye love one another." The measure of this indispensable love is expressly declared in the Scriptures, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. xiii. 9 and 10.
Such love, therefore, is clearly incompatible with the arbitrary claims of the slaveholder, who can neither be said to love his neighbor as himself, nor to cherish that love which worketh no ill to his neighbor, whilst he strenuously contends for such "a right of dominion" as may enable him to exact not only the involuntary service of his neighbors and brethren, contrary to the law of nature, but also to rob them of the fruits of their own labors, "Giving them not for their work;" against which practices a severe denunciation of woe is expressly declared in the Scriptures; as I have fully demonstrated in my tract on "the Law of Retribution" as well as in the preceding tract: and, therefore, as it is necessary to construe difficult or dubious passages of Scripture consistently with the general tenor of Scripture evidence, it would be highly improper to admit this opposite doctrine of a supposed "right of dominion," especially as the same is not expressed in the text which my learned friend has cited for it, but is merely drawn forth by an imaginary implication!
