Chapter XII: Perfectionism

This is a theological term, and announces the doctrine, as we understand it, that it is possible for man to be perfect in this life, and perfect at once. It is a species of _immediatism_; indeed, it is the essence of it, its origin, and foundation; and out of this abstract, theological, and visionary scheme grew the practical and momentous doctrine of _immediate_ abolition. This is the application of _perfectionism_ to politics, which was originally a religious notion. At all points we see, therefore, that Abolitionism has to do with religion, and religion with it. Whether such an interference of religion with politics, will be agreeable to the people of this country, remains to be seen.

_Perfectionism_ is an old doctrine in the religious world, but has recently been revived in this country, and extensively adopted in the ranks of these violent reformers, whose impatience would not allow them to wait for the action and effect of the ordinary and generally approved means of improving society. With the abstract notion in their heads, that all sin ought to be left off _now_--from which, and so far, we have no inclination to dissent--they have jumped to the conclusion, that it can, must, and shall be; and accordingly have adopted a system of action which assumes, that all departments of society, social, moral, religious, and political, can be managed on this principle.

It will be seen, that the principles of the New England Nonresistance Society, which have been set forth in a former chapter, are the legitimate result of this doctrine. They have stepped at once on the ground of universal anarchy, by renouncing allegiance to all human government, because they say it is badly constituted, and ought to be broken up _instantly_. Nothing wrong in society, they being judges, is to be tolerated for a moment. The entire fabric of society, therefore, being wrong, requires to be dissolved at once. It is fortunate for the public, that in the case of the New England Nonresistance Society, we have a fair exemplification of these principles. _It is perfectionism carried out._ We need go no farther to see what this doctrine, reduced to practice, will lead to.

It may be seen, therefore, _whence_ the doctrine of _immediate_ Abolition has come, and how it proposes to sweep every thing before it that stands in its way. Like the members of the Nonresistance Society, the Abolitionists are fighting characters. The former declare, “We propose to assail iniquity in _high_ places and in low; to apply our principles to _all existing civil, political, legal, and ecclesiastical institutions_.” The Abolitionists differ from this scheme by taking one thing at a time; in that, they are doubtless more wise. But it is precisely the same principle applied in this particular direction.

It will be seen, therefore, that the peace of this country has been disturbed, and the integrity of our political fabric menaced, by a visionary, and we may add, fanatical religious notion. In violation of the Constitutional law of the land, so far as respects the nature of the Abolition organization, as shown in the second chapter and onward, and also in violation of a distinct, established, and well known principle of our Government, to wit, that religion shall not enter into the State, the Abolitionists, as a religious _sect_--for it cannot be denied that such is their character--have marched directly into the political field, with this anarchical principle in hand, and under a vast and powerful political machinery, have assailed the Government of the country, and directly interfered with the Constitutional prerogatives of foreign States. They have solemnly declared, in their highest and most authoritative State paper, the Annual Report of the Society, as before seen, that these Constitutional regulations, defining the prerogatives of the slave States, are null and void, and no longer binding. Of course, it is not to be supposed they will respect them. And will the people of this country allow a _religious_ faction to take possession of the Government, and dictate to Sovereign States, with which we are in solemn covenant to protect and defend them in these matters, what they shall do--to _enforce_ their principle of _perfectionism_ on the political structure of our society, to dissolve and overthrow it?

We do not mean to say, or to intimate, that Abolitionists are all _perfectionists_ in the religious sense of this term, and in regard to _all_ modes of improving society. That is not true. But we do mean to say, that Abolitionism emanates from this source, and that, like the gradual progress of all error, it is only a stage to the admission of the full sweep of the doctrine. It is a notable fact, however, that the religious perfectionists of the country, who are numerous, are almost to a man Abolitionists, and the most violent of the sect.

It is not necessary to suppose, that perfectionism in the community should have pervaded the entire mass before it can do mischief; or that it cannot have a surreptitious influence on individuals, in regard to particular subjects and in particular applications, while they disclaim the doctrine, and that very sincerely. In this way a man may be an Abolitionist, yet not a perfectionist in general.

The doctrine of perfectionism may be much safer as a theological than as a political notion, for individuals than for society; inasmuch as the religious perfectionist keeps two separate moral reckonings: one for his virtues, the other for his faults. When he happens to be guilty of a fault, he is in a state of _lapse_; at other times in a state of _perfectionism_. We hope his faults are rare; but when he happens to get into them unavoidably, society holds him up. But alas! when society _lapses_, who and what will hold that up? This single question brings the whole subject before the mind’s eye, in its political bearings, and suggests the folly and madness of that doctrine, which attempts to introduce perfectionism into the social system.

As the religionist professes respect for the Bible, and for Divine authority, it may be well to refer him to these examples on this particular point. We say, then, that, although God is an _immediatist_ in the authoritative force of his law over the conscience of individuals, he is not an immediatist as the Governor of the world. Clearly, it cannot be denied, that God could have made human society perfect _at once_; but for some good reason he has not done so. If it should be replied: “It is because men do not _obey_”--Very well. We speak of a _great fact_, under God’s administration of the world. Moreover, if the _Divine_ legation of Moses be allowed, we have the authority of the Saviour, that he enacted a certain law of divorcement “for the hardness of their hearts;” that is, as we suppose, on account of the bad state of society, and not because it was right: “for it was not so from the beginning.”[8] For the same reason, as _we_ hold, though we have not the same authority for saying it, Moses _legalized_ slavery. If it was _not_ for that reason, then the slave holders have the highest authority for the institution. It is impossible to get off from this dilemma by the plea of _different forms_, while the _principle_ stares us in the face. Forms of society are _accidental_, and never agree exactly, and often differ widely, under the same name, in different ages and countries.

[Footnote 8: Matth. 19: 8. Mark 10: 5.]

John the Baptist was a Divinely commissioned teacher. “And the _soldiers_ likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall _we_ do?” Though not a member of the New England Nonresistance Society, we are a little bit of a Quaker, and hold that the principles of Christianity are at _war_ with war. Consequently, if _immediatism_ is to be forced upon society, according to _our_ notions, John should have replied: “The first thing, my friends, is to lay down your arms.” But, “he said unto them, Do violence to no man; neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your _wages_.”

We believe it true to say, that no Divinely commissioned teacher ever attempted to introduce _immediatism_ as an element of the social fabric; or ever protested against the action of society for want of it, so long as we understand immediatism to be an attempt to sweep away, by one stroke, every fault, or defect, or imperfection of society. Such was not the example of _Christ_; and such was not the example of the Apostle Paul, in application to slavery itself, as will appear in his courteous treatment of Philemon, a slave-holder. So also in this Apostle’s doctrine, and in the doctrine of the Apostle Peter.[9] History proves, that the persons called “servants” in these passages, were slaves, or the property of their masters. Yet the Apostles never felt authorized, or saw fit, to disturb this state of society, bad as it was in this particular, and many others; but they availed themselves of the facilities afforded them by the existence of political society to apply _immediatism_ to the consciences of individuals, in regard to the state of their hearts, and to their personal conduct.

[Footnote 9: I Cor. 7: 20, 21. I Tim. 6: 1, 2. Eph. 6: 5, 9. Titus 2: 9, 10. Coloss. 3: 22, and 4: 1. I Pet. 2: 18, 20.]

If, indeed, the Abolitionists will produce a _Divine_ commission, sustained by miracles, entitling them to go _one step_ farther than any other Divinely commissioned teachers have ever gone, by investing them with authority to _remodel_ political society, we will respect their claim, and advise the public to do so. But till that time, we think it fair to say, that the _preaching_ of such doctrines as they choose to maintain, moral, social, religious, or political, _independent of any political organization_, such as they _now_ have, to sustain them, is all they are entitled to by the Constitution and laws of this land. By _preaching_, we mean, of course, to comprehend all the _prescribed_ Constitutional modes of political action, so long as they choose to meddle with politics. Preaching to _private_ conscience, is one thing; and that is the office of Christianity, within the range of its own precepts. But the political constitution and administration of society, is another thing; and this, in _our_ opinion, Christianity never presumes to meddle with.