6

66

the system as established by law in this country are condemned, is, indeed, very plain; but that slaveholding in itself is condemned, has not been, and cannot be proved."-p. 281. "It is admitted by these distinguished moralists [Dr. Channing and Dr. Wayland] that the Apostles did not preach a religion proclaiming freedom to slaves; that Paul did not assail slavery; that the Gospel did not proclaim the unlawfulness of slaveholding; it did not forbid it. This is going the whole length that we have gone in our statement of the conduct of Christ and his apostles."-p. 282. "The Apostles did not condemn slavery; they did not require emancipation; they recognised slaveholders as Christian brethren."-p. 285. Slavery was tolerated among the ancient people of God. Abraham had servants in his family who were bought with money.' The Mosaic institution recognised the lawfulness of slavery. Our argument, from this acknowledged fact, is, that if God allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be lawfully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is in vain to contend that slavery is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the Scrip tures."-p. 287. "Slavery is a question of circumstances, not a malum in se."-p. 292. "As it appears to us too clear to admit of either denial or doubt, that the Scriptures do sanction slaveholding; that under the old dispensation it was expressly permitted by divine command, and under the New Testament is nowhere forbidden or renounced, but, on the contrary, acknowledged to be consistent with the Christian character and profession, (that is, consistent with justice, mercy, holiness, love to God and love to man,) to declare it to be a heinous crime, is a direct impeachment of the word of God."-pp. 297, 298.

"Slavery," says the Hon. J. K. Paulding, (in his work entitled "Slavery in the United States," pp. 14, 15,) "is made the subject of express regulation in the social institutions of the Jews, and this without a single expression of disapprobation on the part of the divine Lawgiver." After quoting several passages from the books of Moses on the subject of slavery, he also adds, (pp. 19, 20,) "Here is a direct sanction of rights corresponding in all respects with those of the holders of slaves in the United States. They were originally of the heathen' when purchased; their posterity was begot in the land;' and they have descended 'as an inheritance to our children.' It is difficult to conceive how, with these authorities before them, the Abolitionists can

persist in maintaining that slavery is contrary to the law of God." "There is no authority derivable from the New Testament, which justifies the assertion that slavery is contrary to the law of God."-p. 24. "Slavery existed almost universally at, and ages before, the Christian dispensation, and it is not even discountenanced there, much less denounced as contrary to the law of God."-p. 26.

Dr. Fuller, in his letters to Dr. Wayland, says, "The Old Testament did sanction slavery. And in the Gospels and Epistles the institution is, to say the least, tolerated. You admit some sort of slavery to have been allowed in the Old Testament, and suffered by Jesus and his apostles. A man who denies this will deny any thing, and only proves how much stronger a passion is than the clearest truth. But if this point be yielded, how can it be maintained that slaveholding is itself a crime?"-pp. 3, 4. And again: "I undertake to show that the Bible does, most explicitly, both by precept and example, bear me out in my assertion, that slavery is not necessarily, and always, and amidst all circumstances, a sin. This is the position to be established, and the entire reasoning (reasoning which, if the premises be true, really seems to me to commend itself at once to every man's conscience) is this, WHAT GOD SANCTIONED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND PERMITTED IN THE NEW, CANNOT BE SIN.

To these extracts may be added, for an illustration of the prevailing manner in which the subject is regarded, the following views of Professor Stuart, than whom there is not one of higher or more deserved authority in this land, in all questions pertaining to the interpretation of the Scriptures. These views are copied, not because I would wish to convey the impression that Professor Stuart is or would be either the advocate of slavery, or the apologist for it, but to show the importance of a thorough inquiry into the actual teachings of the Scriptures on this subject. The following is Professor Stuart's letter to Dr. Fisk:

"ANDOVER, April 10, 1837. "REV. AND DEAR SIR:-Yours is before me. A sickness of three months' standing, (typhus fever,) in which I have

* Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, p. 170.

just escaped death, and which still confines me to my house, renders it impossible for me to answer your letter at large.

66

1. The precepts of the New Testament, respecting the demeanour of slaves and their masters, beyond all question, recognise the existence of slavery. The masters are, in part, 'believing masters;' so that a precept to them, how they are to behave, as masters, recognises that the relation may exist, salva fide, et salva ecclesia, [without violating the Christian faith or the church;] otherwise Paul had nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. He could not lawfully and properly temporize with malum in se, [that which is in itself sin.]

The

"If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and sending him back to be a servant for life. relation did exist-may exist. The abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. Not that the theory of slavery is right, in itself. No. Love thy neighbour as thyself''Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you,' decides against this. But the relation, once constituted and continued, is not such a malum in se as calls for immediate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not counsel.

66

“2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment that slaves, who are Christians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and because as Christians they are brethren, to forego the reverence due to them as masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is not, as a matter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, servants should, in such a case, à fortiori, do their duty cheerfully. This sentiment lies on the very face of the case. What the master's duty is in such a case, in respect to liberation, is another question, and one which the apostle does not here treat of.

"3. Every one knows, who is acquainted with Greek or Latin antiquities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more unqualified and at loose ends than among Christian nations. Slaves were property in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about their relation. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, for a long time, that of life and death. Horrible cruelties at length mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great as among us.

"After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, the

Paul's conduct and advice

good old Book remains the same.
are still safe guides. Paul knew well that Christianity would
ultimately destroy slavery, as it certainly will. He knew too
that it would destroy monarchy and aristocracy from the
earth, for it is fundamentally a doctrine of true liberty and
equality. Yet Paul did not expect slavery or aristocracy to
be ousted in a day, and gave precepts to Christians respecting
their demeanour, ad interim.

"With sincere and fraternal regard,
"Your friend and brother,

"M. STUART."

These extracts, with the considerations which have been suggested, will show, it is believed, the propriety of the course which I propose to pursue in this argument. By the results of such an investigation, the people of this land ultimately must and will abide. He that shall contribute any thing, however humble, to influence the public mind in coming to a right decision on so momentous a question, will not have lived in vain.

CHAPTER II.

What constitutes Slavery?

THE issue of the question about the lawfulness of slavery must depend materially on the answer which is given to the question, What constitutes slavery? Until this is determined, it is impossible to arrive at any settled views on the inquiry whether it is right or wrong.

The true inquiry here is, what are the essential features of the system? What distinguishes it from all other relations of life-from the relation of a child, a minor, an apprentice a day-labourer, a serf, a 'villein' under the feudal system Slavery has some features which resemble certain things in other relations, and the attention is sometimes fixed on these features of resemblance, forgetting what constitutes the peculiarity of the system, and then an argument is constructed to prove that slavery is recognised in the Scriptures just as those other relations are; that the duties in the one case are prescribed as they are in the other; and that this relation in society is designed to be as permanent, and is in itself as lawful, as the others. It is undeniable that in the relation of slavery there is something in common with the relation of apprenticeship, of a minor, of a subject under an arbitrary government, of those who are transferred from one government to another, as "by the treaty of Vienna, a large part of the inhabitants of central Europe changed masters, as Saxony was transferred to Prussia, Belgium was annexed to Holland, and as Louisiana was transferred from France to the United States,"* but still the question is, whether the peculiarity of slavery is found in all these relations and transfers? In the condition of a slave, also, there

* Bib. Repertory, 1836, p. 294.