An inquiry intro the scriptural views of slavery

Front matter

a

AN

INQUIRY

Contents

Page IntTRoDUCTION . : 5 A 5 . A ‘: é 5

Cuar. I. Reasons why the appeal on the pate of Slavery should be made to the Bible. 5 4 a 5 Ue) sl. The Bible is the acknowledged ear of morals in this nation . ° . . . . » al

2. The subject of Sens is one on which the Bible has legislated, and there is, therefore, a propriety that we should ascertain its decisions. ° . ° . - 22

Introduction

a

Tue subject of slavery is one in which all men have an interest, and which all have a right to discuss. It pertains to a great wrong done to our common nature, and affects great questions relating to the final triumph of the principles of justice and humanity. Wherever wrong is done to any human being, there is no improper interference if the conviction is expressed by any other one. Wherever principles are held which have a tendency to produce or perpetuate wrong, it is a right which all men have, to examine those principles freely. The race is one great brotherhood, and every man is under obligation, as far as he has the ability, to defend those principles which will permanently promote the welfare of the human family.

These obvious principles have a peculiar applicability to our own land. Our country is one. What promotes the honour of one portion of the nation, promotes the honour of the whole ; what is dishonourable, in like manner pertains to all.

Pre-eminently, the subject of slavery pertains to the republic, as such. There are no interests of our common liberty or religion which are not affected by it; there is nothing which our fathers valued, and which we have been taught to prize,— no principles of justice, or humanity, or equal rights, or industry, or morals, which are not more or less affected by this institution. If it be a good institution; if it be in accordance with the divine arrangements for the welfare of society, it is the duty of every man to defend it, and to seek its extension in the world. If it be contrary to the principles of the Bible, and if its tendency be evil, he is under no less obligation to lift up his voice on this subject, and to do whatever he can, that truth and justice may prevail. Every citizen at the North whose situation is such, or who has’ secured such a reputation that his arguments will receive respectful attention, owes a duty to his Southern brethren which he should not fail to discharge, and should not die without giving utterance, in the best way he can, to his convictions on the subject of American slavery. It may be little that the testimony of any one individual can accomplish, but by the accumulation of numerous testimonies, and the multiplication of appeals and arguments, the conviction may gain ground all over the nation that slavery is wrong, and the means may be devised for its entire removal. As one having a common interest in whatever affects the welfare of my country, in the prevalence of true religion, and in opposing whatever seems to me to militate against the gospel, I desire to discharge this portion of my duty to my generation, however humble my individual influence may be, and to record my convictions on a subject of so much concern to our whole land.

The work which is now submitted to the public, is limited to an examination of the Scripture argument on the subject of slavery. ‘This is done because this seems to me to be the most important department of the general argument respecting slavery, and because it better falls in with my whole studies and habits of investigation than any other question pertaining to it. There are questions in regard to the general subject—its relations to agriculture and commerce; its political bearings; its influence on the means of national defence and security, and kindred topics, which I do not feel competent to examine, and which can be much better pursued by those who are familiar with the science of political economy than by one whose studies have had a different direction. ‘To a man, however, who has spent more than twenty years in an almost exclusive study of the Bible, it may be permitted to examine the teachings of that boo on a subject so important as this is; and whatever may be the inference as to the strength of his argument, there are none who will charge him with a departure from the proper sphere of his duty.

I have been led to the discussion of the Scripture question in this manner, by the following considerations :— (a) Because the institution of slavery is defended by many individuals of respectable names, and by entire bodies of men, by an appeal to the Bible. (See ch. 1.) (0) Because, although there have been some professed investigations of the Scriptures on this subject, evincing considerable re-- search, submitted to the public, yet they did not any of them furnish so full and thorough an examination as seemed to me to be desirable. Believing that the spirit of the Bible -Is against slavery, and that all the arguments alleged in favour of it from the Bible are the result of a misunderstanding of its true spirit, and that the honour of religion demands that that argument should be placed fairly before the world, I was desirous of doing what I could to make the teachings of the Bible seen and appreciated by my fellow-men. (c) Because it did not appear to me to be proper to preach on it so fully as would be necessary if I had gone into a thorough examination of the subject in my pulpit instructions; and besides this, the critical nature of many of the investigations is little fitted to the pulpit. Nor if I had deemed it proper to make this a more prominent subject of my preaching, could I have reached one of the main objects which seemed to me to be desirable. The people to whom I minister will bear me witness that I have not concealed my views from them on the subject of slavery.

I have endeavoured to give it the place which it appeared to me it ought to occupy in my ministrations in the circumstances in which I am placed. But my lot is not cast in a slaveholding community. Ido not know that I have an advocate of slavery in my church, or that there is one who statedly attends on my ministry who would willingly be the owner of a slave. I confess also that it seems to me that any one topic, except the cross of Christ, however important in itself, may be introduced too frequently into the pulpit, and that undue prominence in preaching is given to this in many churches where slavery does not exist. I do not suppose that this occurs too frequently in those places where slavery does exist; but where the pen is free, and a man may make his voice heard beyond the bounds of his own congregation, however important it may be that he should make his views decidedly understood in reference to every form of national sin, and should exhibit the fair teachings of the Bible on every subject in the proper proportions, it is better to endeavour to influence the public mind in some other method than by making any one topic a very constant subject of discourse in the pulpit. Slavery, though a great evil, is not the only evil in the land. Its influence is indeed vast, and there is no part of the republic that is wholly free from it, but there are other bad influences in our country also. I will not undertake to say how prominent a minister should make this topic in communities where slavery exists, and where he is called constantly to ‘address those who sustain the relation of master and slave ; nor will I venture to say that J should be in any way likely to be more faithful in this respect if my lot were cast there, than I fear is the case with most of those who reside there, but I may be allowed to suggest that the prominent evils which we should assail in preaching are those which are near, and not those which are remote; those which directly pertain to our own people, rather than those which pertain primarily to a distant community ; and those in reference to which we may expect immediate action on the part of those who hear us, in forsaking their own sins, rather than such topics as will lead them to judge of others who are living in wickedness. (d)I have been led to adopt this course because it was in this way only that I could hope in any manner to influence those whom I desired to reach.

I have already said that I am not accustomed to preach to many such. But I would hope that there are not a few who may be willing to examine an argument on slavery, if proposed with candour, and if pursued with a manifest desire to know what is the teaching of the Bible. There are, I am persuaded, not a few such men in the slaveholding portions of our country. I have never indeed been at the South, but my situation has given me an opportunity of becoming acquainted with not a few Southern gentlemen, and that acquaintance has been such as to induce me to believe that there are large numbers there who would examine with candour an argument proposed on this subject. Indeed, I have been led to apprehend that there are many there who, in this respect, are much in advance of many at the North, and that among these are many who exhibit a. degree of candour which we do not always find in those portions of our country in which slavery does not exist. There is a hesitancy at the North in speaking of it as an evil; a desire to apologize for it, and even to defend it as a scripture institution, which by no means meets the convictions of the great body of men at the South, and for which they do not thank us. They regard slavery as an unmixed evil— as the direst calamity of their portion of the republic. They consider it to be contrary to the spirit of the Bible. They look upon it as a curse in the midst of which they were born ; as an evil entailed upon them without their consent, and which they desire above all things to get rid of.

They remember with little gratitude the laws and cupidity of the mother country by which it was imposed on them, and the Northern ships by which the inhabitants of Africa were conveyed to their shores; and they little thank the professors in Theological Seminaries, and the pastors of the churches, and the editors of papers, and the ecclesiastical bodies at the North, who labour to convince the world that it is not an evil, and that it is one of the designs and tendencies of Christianity to rivet the curse on them for ever. Such men ask for no defence of slavery from the North. They look for a more manly voice—for more decided tones in behalf of freedom, from those whom God has favoured with the entire blessings of liberty, and they ask of us that we will aid them to free themselves from a burden imposed on them by the joint wickedness and cupidity of our fatherland and the North; not that we will engage in the miserable business of attempting to convince the world that the South must always groan under this malediction, and that even the influence of Christianity will be only to make the evil there eternal. There have been more published defences of slavery from the Bible at the North, than there have been at the South. A Christian man can look with some respect on a defence of slavery at the South—for they who are there live in the midst of it, and it is natural for us to love and defend the institutions in the midst of which we were born; but what respect can we have for such a defence emanating from the North?

It is a subject of not unfrequent complaint, that, in the examination of this subject, the adversaries of the system endeavour to show that slavery as it exists in our own country is contrary to the Bible, instead of confining themselves to the naked question whether slavery in the abstract is right or wrong. They are willing to admit that there are many ‘abuses’ in the system as it now exists; that there is much that is oppressive and unjust in the laws; and while they regard slavery in itself as not inconsistent with the Bible, they admit that there is much in the system in our own country which they will not undertake to defend. They maintain that the controversy should be confined to the naked question whether slavery in any form is inconsistent with the Bible, and that it is unfair in this argument to make an appeal to slavery as it now exists, in determining the morality of the institution. Thus Dr. Fuller, in accordance with language often used by good men at the South, says :— “What I am writing about is slavery, but let no one suppose that I am defending all the slave laws.” “In reference to the laws of South Carolina I am not called to express myself in this discussion. Suffice it to say, that most of them are virtually repealed by universal practice. The law, for example, forbidding slaves to assemble without the presence of so many white persons, is a dead letter, whenever the meeting is for religious purposes.”” “It is not of the slave laws, but of slavery, I am speaking; and the character of this, according to the eternal principles of morality, is not affected by any human enactments.”* Thus also the conductors of the Princeton Biblical Repertory say :—“ We have little apprehension that any one can so far mistake our object, or the purport of our remarks, as to suppose either that we regard slavery as a desirable institution, or that we approve of the slave laws of the Southern states.

So far from this being the case, the extinction of slavery, and the amelioration of those laws, are as sincerely desired by us as by any of the abolitionists.” ‘It follows necessarily, from what has been said, that all those laws which are designed to restrict the master in the discharge of the duties which flow from his relation to his slaves; which forbid his teaching them to read, or which prohibit marriage among them, or which allow of the separation of those who are married, or which render insecure the possession of their earnings, or are otherwise in conflict with the word of God, are wicked laws; laws which do not find their justification in the admission of the right of ownership in the master, but are in direct contravention of the obligations which necessarily flow from that right. If the laws of the land forbade parents to instruct their children, or permitted them to sell them to the Turks, there would be a general outcry against the atrocity of such laws; but no man would be so absurd as to infer that having children was a great sin. Parents who complied with such laws would be great sinners, but not parents who did their duty to

* Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 158, 159, 211.

their children. In all other cases, men distinguish between the relation, whether of kings and subjects, of lords and tenants, of parents and children, and the laws just or unjust, which may be made respecting those relations. Jf they would make the same distinction between slaveholding and the slave laws, they would see that the condemnation of the latter does not necessarily involve the condemnation of the former as itself a crime.”

In reply to this, I would make the following remarks: (a) The very question—the only one that is of any practical importance to us—is, whether slavery as it exists in the United States is, or is not, in accordance with the principles and the spirit of Christianity. As an abstract matter, there might indeed be some interest attached to the inquiry whether slavery, as it existed in the Roman empire in the time of the Apostles, or in Europe in the middle ages, was in accordance with the spirit of the Christian religion; and it cannot be denied also that for us there may be some interest, and for others great interest, in the question whether slavery as it exists in India or in Brazil, is in accordance with the principles of the Bible, but neither of these are the questions which are fairly before the American people. When the inquiry respects any particular institution, it is proper to look at that institution as it exists, not as it might possibly exist: —for that is the only question which it is of much importance to examine. When an inquiry pertains to the temperance reformation, or to the morality of gambling, it is proper to look at these things as they actually are, for the object is to ascertain whether it is desirable to make any change in them. This is especially important if an evil is of long standing; if it is incorporated into the customs and habits of a people; if it is sustained by the laws; if it affects the welfare of millions of human beings. When Christianity first made war on idolatry, the immediate and most important question which came up to be examined, was not, whether some modified form of idolatry might not be consistent with

INTRODUCTION. i the new system of religion, or whether there might not be found in some community a form of idolatry which Christianity could consistently tolerate, but whether the idolatry with which Christianity then came in actual collision was consistent with its principles. In examining the morality of the stage, shall we not examine it as it ‘s, not as it possibly might be; shall we not look at its practical working to know whether it is a good ora bad thing? Is it not right to ask whether the principles of the Bible sanction the drama as it is?’ Is there any other question respecting it that is of immediate practical importance? (6)It is not improper to regard slavery as it exists in the United States as a fair illustration of the tendency of the system. It exists here in the best age of the world, and in the land most distinguished for intelligence, and for wisdom in making and administering laws. The laws pertaining to the system here may be regarded as those which long experience has shown to be necessary. It may be presumed that, amidst the prevalent intelligence of this land, the best measures have been adopted, or those which are regarded as the best, to make the system of slavery as perfect as possible. ‘The laws in the several slave states are those which experience has shown to be necessary that the system may be perpetuated; that this kind of * property” may be as secure as possible, and that the institution may be made to contribute as much as possible to the wealth and comfort of the community in which it prevails. In the free states it is proper to look to the laws existing there in regard to common schools, to real and personal property, to the administration of justice, to apprenticeship, as a fair expression of the nature of the institutions there—as showing what experience has demonstrated to be adapted to secure the best working of the system—as an exponent of the real value and character of the system at this advanced age of the world. What shall forbid us, in like manner, to regard the laws and customs which are found necessary at the South, as a fair illustration of the 5)

system—as an exponent of what slavery is in the best age of the world, and under the guidance of legislative wisdom and experience? That some of the laws may be so modified as better to secure the ends m view; that some that are harsh may be repealed consistently with the best working of the system, need not be denied—just as in the farther progress of society in free states some of the modes of punishment may be modified with advantage; but still, in the main, in the one case and the other, the. existing laws may be regarded as what the best wisdom of the world has been able to devise to make the system as perfect as possible. I have therefore, in this Inquiry, freely appealed to the existing laws in the Southern states, not for the purpose of casting reproach on those portions of our country where slavery exists, but for the sole design of ascertaining what the system is, and of examining the question whether a system which so develops itself is in accordance with the Bible. (c)If any system of slavery is sustained by the Bible, it may be presumed that that which exists in the United States, is. This is a Christian land—a land, to a degree elsewhere unknown, under the influence of the Christian religion. In what country could we hope that slavery would exist in a milder or better form than in the United States? Our institutions have grown up under the influence of Christianity. Not a few of the legislators of the land have been pious men. Not a few of the owners of slaves are pious men, and are gathered into Christian congregations under the instruction of men abundantly able to explain the doctrines of the Christian system.

It could hardly be hoped that a state of society could be found, in which slavery could be better developed, and where its developments would more accord with the principles of the Bible, than in our own land. Why then is it not fair to appeal to slavery as it is, and to inquire whether the system as it now exists is in accordance with the Bible? Is it not as impracticable to form an ideal system of slavery that shall be free from all objections, and that shall be in all the laws and customs by which it is sustained in entire conformity with the New Testament, as it is to perfect the drama so that it shall be wholly free from objection on the score of morals? (d) The advocates of slavery themselves appeal to the Bible to show the propriety of slavery as it exists in the United States. When the question is agitated whether slavery is right or wrong, they almost uniformly make their appeal to the Scriptures to sustain themselves in the practice of it. The appeal which they make to the Bible is not to prove that slavery as it existed in Palestine in the time of Moses was right; or that slavery in Greece and Rome was right; or that slavery in India, Cuba, or Brazil, is right; but to vindicate themselves in the practice—to show that slavery in our own land cannot be regarded as wrong, and especially to show that the position taken by many that slavery is a sin, is not sustained by the Bible. When we make an attack on slavery as it exists in the United States, and endeavour to show that it is an evil—that it is morally wrong—that it ought to be abandoned—they make their appeal at once to the Bible. Why is this, but to defend slavery as it exists in this country? If this is mot the drift of the argument, why do they not at once admit that slavery here, as it actually exists, is wrong, and enter on the foreign question whether some imaginary form of slavery could be vindicated? What can be the pertinency or propriety of such an appeal to the Bible as is almost uniformly made at the South, and frequently at the North, unless it is proper to bring American slavery as it is by the side of the Bible, and to inquire whether, with all its developments, it is or is not in accordance with the word of God? If the advocates of slavery would take this ground, and admit that the system of American slavery is in fact contrary to the Bible, the field of debate would be much narrowed. But as long as, in arguing this question, the appeal is made at the South to the Bible, it cannot be wrong to press the question with earnestness whether

American slavery as it is is sanctioned by the word of God. The main question is not about the ‘abuse’ of the system— for it might be a question whether there is any abuse of it possible, that is, any degree of oppression and wrgng which the principles of the system do not sanction—but about the thing as it is fairly developed in our country. For what is the ‘abuse’ of slavery? When you have taken away a man’s liberty ; when you have made him a piece of property, and refused him the right of citizenship, and the right in his wife, his children, and himself ; when he is to be wholly at the will of another, what precisely is to be understood by the ‘ abuse’ of the system? What law of the South can be referred to which can be distinctly shown to be an ‘abuse’ of the system, in the sense that the principles of the system do not lead to it, or that it is not necessary in order to sustain it? It may be fairly doubted whether there is a single Jaw or custom at the South which can be shown to be a violation of the fundamental principle of slavery ; and if this be so, then it is proper to make the appeal to the Bible to inquire whether this system of laws and customs is in accordance with the revealed will of God. So the advocates of the system make their appeal when it is attacked ; and so it is right for us.

I may be permitted to add another prefatory remark. I have endeavoured to conduct the argument with candour, and with a kind and Christian spirit. In noticing the arguments of the advocates of slavery, and of those who have in any manner used the language of apology for it, I have not designedly given any representation of their views which would diminish their force; nor have I been conscious of evading an argument because it seemed to present an unanswerable objection, or a material obstacle, to the views which [I entertain. J have not sought to gain any thing in the argument by the use of hard names; or by imputing bad motives; or by assuming that every thing connected with slavery is wrong; or by the supposition that the slaveholder is necessarily a bad man. I have aimed

INTRODUCTION. Li not needlessly to offend any one. To a candid examination of the views expressed by the advocates of slavery, no one can reasonably object ; and if I have been enabled to evince the spirit in this argument which I have desired to do, no one will have just occasion to be offended with the manner in which this discussion has been conducted. If I have betrayed any other than a kind spirit, and have used any other than kind words, it has been contrary to my design. I anticipate that in some of the views expressed in this work, I shall be found to differ from not a few of my friends ;—but it is one of the conditions of our friendship that each one is at liberty to express his opinions with entire freedom. I expect to be found to differ from not a few of the wise and good of the land ;—but it would be impossible to discuss any subject on morals in respect to which this would not be the case—and the truly wise and good are accustomed to expect that this may occur. All such will admit that the points discussed in this work are of great importance to the best interests of humanity: to me it would be a matter of high gratification if the discussion in these pages should be found to be such as to contribute something towards promoting uniformity of views and feelings on one of the most momentous questions which this age is called to investigate, and which enters more deeply into the permanent welfare of our country than any other.

AN INQUIRY

INTO THE

SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY.

Chapter I

Reasons why the appeal on this subject should be made to the Bible.

THERE are perhaps no questions of more importance to our country than those which pertain to the subject of slavery. The fact that after the existence of more than half a century of freedom in this land, there should be in the midst of us now a number nearly equal in the aggregate to the white population at the time of the Declaration of Independence, is of itself most remarkable in history ; and is so anomalous, and so at variance with all our principles, that posterity will inquire for the reasons of such an occurrence. This number, alteady so large, is increasing in certain parts of our country in a ratio fearfully alarming, and the effects of the system are felt, and must be felt, in every portion of the Republic. There is nothing connected with our national interests which is not affected more or less by slavery. It enters into the representation in our national legislature ; it is connected with great questions of industry, literature, agriculture, commerce, and ‘morals ; it is intimately allied with religion. The entire South is identified with it; and by the ramifications of business, of education, of commerce, and of manufactures, there is not a town, a school-district, or a parish in the North, which is not directly or remotely affected by it. Asa part of a great nation—one great confederated people—we of the North have the deepest interest. in all the questions that pertain to the weal or wo, the perils or the faults of any part of our country —for we share the common honour or the dishonour of the Republic. Belonging tothe same race with those who are held in bondage, we have a right, nay, we are bound to express the sympathies of brotherhood, and to “remember those who are in bonds, as bound with them.’ But there is a deeper interest still which we have in this subject; a more perfect right which we have to express our views in regard to it. The questions of morals and religion—of right and wrong, know no geographical limits; are bounded by no conventional lines ; are circumscribed by the windings of no river or stream, and are not designated by climate or by the course of the sun. They are questions which no existing compacts or constitutions forbid us to examine; and though there are rights which one part of a country has which are not to be invaded by others, yet there are no enclosures within which the questions of right and wrong may not be carried with the utmost freedom.