The Crime of Man-Stealing
He showed clearly that the enslaved Africans were unjustly seized in their own native country, and against their will, conveyed to the sea-coast and sold in the slave shambles to the slave dealer, and from him to another who transports them to a foreign land, where they are again sold to the cultivators of the soil, and held with their children to perpetual servitude. Dr C. showed clearly that the original crime of man-stealing, instead of being mitigated by these several transfers of these unfortunate persons, is greatly increased, because those who were seized at first by cruelty and violence, by the unenlightened African chiefs, who, with force of arms captivated them, their Slavery has been perpetuated by those who are enlightened by the laws of morality and christianity. "A horse," said Dr. C., "which has been stolen, and sold to one who knows that it was stolen, and he sells it to another with the knowledge that it is a stolen horse, and keeps it for his own, is equally guilty with the original horse-thief, and it matters not in whose hands the horse is found, the original owner is morally and legally entitled to him without fee or reward." This will be admitted to be a clear case by every honest man. He therefore came to the conclusion that every slave-holder, knowing that the slave was originally stolen, and held with his posterity to unwilling servitude is guilty of the crime of man-stealing, for he participates in the crime after the fact of the original stealing, by holding the stolen man or his children. Now this is good logic and all men opposed to Slavery will admit it. Let us apply this logic to another subject, which is equally clear. It is admitted by a large number of christian ministers and people who profess to be guided by the Scriptures, that there is no authority found in the word of God for secularizing the day which God commanded to be kept holy; and for substituting the first day of the week, now styled the christian sabbath. It is pretty well understood by the readers of the New Testament, and early ecclesiastical history, that from neither of these sources of information can we find any transfer of the sacredness of the Sabbath to the first day of the week. The apostles and christians of their day appear to have regarded with due solemnity the Sabbath of God's appointment, thus imitating their Lord and Master. In the subsequent ages—say in the second and third centuries, and onward—a large number of the festivals were instituted by the voluntary action of christians. A festival was kept in memory of every eventful period of our Saviour's life—his birth, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension. His forty days of fasting is turned into lent. The passover, paska in the Greek New Testament, is in English called Easter, and kept as a feast by this name. And the apostles and saints had festivals or fasts appointed as their memorials. And it appears that at the close of the third century of the christian era, the christians had more festivals than the pagans, whom they were desirous to convert. Among these days of celebration, Friday was celebrated as the day of our Saviour's crucifixion, and Sunday as the day of his resurrection. At first, they may have been observed like other festivals, yearly, but at an early day they were observed weekly. At first these festivals of days of observation were voluntarily adopted by christians at the suggestion or recommendation of their ministers; but ultimately the church or churches required their people to observe them, and in the fourth century, the first christian emperor, Constantine, made them obligatory by laws which he enacted. The question has often been raised in our own day, How did the Sabbath become changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? The great mass of christians descending from the Roman and Greek churches seem to have entertained the opinion that the Sabbath was a Mosaic institution and that it was abrogated with circumcision and other Jewish ceremonies. They, of course, had no idea that the Sabbath had been changed, but abrogated, and that they were at liberty to have as many, or as few seasons or days of religious celebration as they might see fit, or if they thought proper, to have none at all. They took it for granted that this matter was left altogether with the church. This opinion, however, began to be abandoned during the reformation, that is, in the sixteenth century. Then there were Seventh-day Sabbatarians and First-day Sabbatarians. The former claiming that the Sabbath had never been changed, that God never authorized its being secularized, or made a day of labor, and that it was therefore still obligatory upon mankind, whether in the church or out of it. The latter insisted upon it that the Sabbatic institution remained, but that the day of its observance was changed to the first day. But neither they nor their successors have been able to find in the Scriptures either of the Old or the New Testament, anything to substantiate the opinion. King James' translators foisted into several places of the New Testament the words, the first day of the week, where in the original Scriptures there is no such reading. And commentators have gone as far as honesty would allow to show that certain passages in the Old Testament seem to look towards a change of the Sabbath; and some have been bold enough to assert roundly that God has made this change. But it requires much time and study to make this matter clear to an honest mind. There is so much complicated mental machinery necessary to make this matter look plausible that no longer than this machinery is in operation, does the subject look clear and satisfactory. And a great majority of christians at this day are in relation to this matter of the change of the Sabbath, much in the condition of multitudes of the Southern bondmen in regard to how they became slaves. They and their ancestors have been so long enslaved that multitudes of that oppressed race, are ready to believe the white man, when he tells them that God has so ordered it. This may satisfy some of them; but many of them do not know how to believe it, and endeavor to avert the curse or bondage by a flight for their liberty, and their lives. So it is in regard to the question, How did the Sabbath become changed from the seventh day, which is enjoined in the fourth commandment, to the first day, concerning which the commandment says not a word? The only true answer to this question is this: the Sabbath has been stolen, and enslaved. Whether they were good men or wicked men, who laid violent hands upon it is not a matter of any consequence. God made the Sabbath a day of freedom from toil, and secular business, just as he made the colored man free from bondage, and like him, the Sabbath has been stolen from its rightful owner and Lord, and like the poor bondman, transferred from father to son, and from one generation to another, and like him made to do the most servile labor of all the other days of the week, until it may seem to those who sequester this day from its rightful Lord, as the most proper day for the drudgery178of the whole week, just as men are wont to look upon the poor stolen bondmen. But we do fearlessly assert to our fellow christians, and to all who look upon stealing, whether of man or beast, as wrong and against the common law of morality, that those who voluntarily make the Sabbath which God has reserved for his special service, a day of servile labor, that they have, and use for their own profit a stolen day. It matters not who first stole it, it is stolen, and they hold it in their possession, and use it for their purposes. They are not ignorant of the rightful owner of the Sabbath, and according to the argument of Dr. Cheever on the Slavery question, they are bound by the law of morality and religion, to restore it to its lawful owner. God himself makes this demand upon them, "Remember the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it."