Domestic slavery considered as a Scriptural institution

Front matter

vV

.0-

A

Introduction

In compliance with the wish of my friend and brother, the Rev. Dr. Fuller, the joint author with me of the following pages, I offer a few words by way of introduction.

The origin and progress of this correspondence may be thus briefly stated .

In the month of November last, at the request of the editor of the Christian Reflector, Dr. Fuller addressed a letter to that paper, presenting in brief his reasons for believing that Domestic Slavery is sanctioned by the Scriptures, and is therefore not always a sin. In this letter several allusions were made to the publications on this subject both of the late lamented Dr. Channing and myself. Had this eminent man been spared to us, the duty of defending what we both believed would have fallen into abler hands. It having pleased God to call him to his rest, this duty seemed to devolve upon me. I immediately communicated my intention to Dr. Fuller, and was gratified to learn that it met with his hearty concurrence.

I accordingly commenced a series of letters, in which I attempted to examine the various topics

IV INTRODUCTION.

suggested in the letter above alluded to. These were immediately answered in a series of letters by Dr. Fuller. When at the request of several of our friends it was determined to publish the correspondence in a more permanent form, we preferred to print the whole in the same volume, in order that both of the views taken of this subject might be presented together both at the North and the South. At the suggestion of Dr. Fuller, I have added the closing letter. The design of this letter is not to prolong the correspondence by the addition of new matter, but rather to ofier some explanations which seemed to be necessary, and also to present more clearly the bearing of the one argument upon the other, so that the points of agreement and difference micrht be rendered more manifest. I should have sent this letter to Dr. F. for his revisal, but the ink on the last page was not dry when the printer demanded the " copy."

Our different views are now laid before the public. I think that the letters of Dr. Fuller must in many cases modify the views, and in still mort; the feelings, of Christians at the North. Whether mine will have the same effect at the South, I am unable to determine. If, in any manner, the cause of truth shall be advanced ; and, especially, if the disciples of Christ, by more clearly perceiving the sentiments of each other, shall faid that the ground

[NTRODTJCTION. V

for the exercise of Christian charity is both wider and firmer than they had apprehended, some good at least will have arisen from this discussion.

In behalf of my brother and myself, I commend this correspondence to the disciples of Christ, both at the North and the South, in the humble hope that it may be the means of directing a calm yet earnest attention to this important subject. F. W.

Providbncb, March 18, 1845,

22*

Contents

Pags

The Letter from Dr. Fuller to the Editor of the

DR. WAYLAND's letters TO DR. FULLER.

Letter I. — Errors on both sides, ...... 13

Letter II. — Definition of Slavery — Two meanings of the terms Moral Evil — Slavery a violation of Human Right, .21

Letter III. — The holding of Slaves does not necessarily involve guilt — Principles by which the innocence or guilt is to be determined, ... 34

Letter IV. — Examination of the Argument in favor

of Slavery from the Old Testament, ... 48

Letter V. — The Doctrine of Expediency, ... 63

Letter VI. — The Argument in favor of Slavery

from the New Testament, 76

Letter VII. — The method of prohibiting Slavery •■ in the New Testament — Principle and permission, 94

Letter VIII. — ^The duties devolving on Christian

Slaveholders, 109

VUl CONTENTS.

DR. fuller's letters TO DR. WAYLAND.

Letter I. — The Southern States not answerable for

the existence of Domestic Slavery, .... 127

Letter 11. — Slavery is not to be confounded with

the abuses of Slavery, 138

Letter III. — Slavery proper, no violation of right — Analogy with civil government — Despotism — Comparison of the condition of Slaves with that of laborers in other countries, . . . .148

Letter IV. — The Argument from the Old Testament, 166

Letter V. — The Argument from the New Testament — Argument, Inference, Proof, Demonstration, 184

Letter VI. — The mode of teaching by principle in this case at variance with the character of God — The practice of the primitive Church, . . 203 Dr. Wayland's closing letter, 236

CORRESPONDENCE.

Letter froTii the Rev. Richard Fuller to the Editor of the Christian Rejiector,

Mr. Editor —

I comply at once, and in as few words as possi-- ble, with your request, and state why I do deny that slavery is a moral evil ; and let me request you, once for all, to bear in mind that this is the thing affirmed and denied. You say slavery is itself a sin ; it is therefore always a sin ; a sin amid any circumstances ; a crime which must involve the criminal in perdition unless he repents : and should be abandoned at once, and without reference to consequences. This is the abolition doctrine ; and at Philadelphia it was reiterated in every variety of phrase ; and when even moderate men, and men seemingly very kind and calm in private, mounted the rostrum and felt the oratorical afflatus, we invariably heard, not arguments, but denunciations of this sort ; we were sure to have eternal changes rung on the moral evil of slavery, the sin of slavery, the abominable guilt of slavery, — to be told that the inefiablG horrors of slavery a LETTER TO THE

did not admit of discussion, and to be seriously asked what article of the decalogue slavery does not violate. And because the South listened to all this, unchafed and patiently, one or two papers at the north (and I believe the Reflector among them) forgot themselves, and, when the meetings were over, indulged in paeans and flourishes which showed they did not comprehend us. Now what I do entreat is, that you will cherish no delusion on this point. Even Dr. Channing censures this conduct of the abolitionists, and says, " They have done wrong, I believe ; nor is their wrong to be winked at because done fanatically, or with good intentions; for how much mischief may be wroughl with good designs ! They have fallen into the common error of enthusiasts, that of exaggerating their ohject, of feeling as if no evil existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could he compared with that of countenancing and upholding it. The tone of their newspapers, as far as I have seen them, has often been fierce, bitter, and abusive." We are willing to weigh reasons, but assertion, and abuse, and blustering, will be heard in silence, because this subject is not to be treated in that^ style. A correspondent in your last number holds up to me, as a model, the magnanimity of the Northern States in emancipating a few slaves who had become a burden to^their owners. We understand this perfectly, and when in a similar situation will abolish, too. This writer is, however, utterly blind, if he supposes that the question with us now is about the value of so much slave property only. It regards all kinds of property, al' civilization, and life itself; and in such a case to employ vituperation is at once a sin and a mistake. My chief hope for the Union is in the conservative power of religion, and the day is not far when that power will be required in all its stringency. Look at the distracted condition of this land ; reflect on the appalling character of a civil war ; and if you love the country, or the slave, do not ' sever the bands which unite the Baptist churches. Compared with slavery, all other topics which now shake and inflame men's passions in these United States, are really trifling. They are only bonfires ; but Ucalegon burns next, and in that quarter God forbid that Christians should throw the first torches.

If, however, slavery be a sin, surely it is the immediate duty of masters to abolish it, whatever be the result — this you urge, and this I grant ; and this brings me to the single matter in hand, on which I submit to you the following observations.

1st. In affirming what you do, ought it not to give a pious mind pause, that you are brought into direet conflict with the Bible ? The Old Testament did sanction slavery. God said, " Both thyU^ bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land : and they shall be in your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever." And in the Gospels and Epistles, the insti-

4 LETTER TO THE

tution is, to say the least, tolerated. I do not now inquire as to the character of this slavery, nor is it important, for you pronounce slaveholding itself a sin ; a sin, therefore, semper et uhique, always, and everywhere, and in all shapes. I, for my part, have no difficulty, and am in no sort of dilemma here, for I find my Bible condemning the abuses of slavery, but permitting the system itself, in cases where its abrogation would be a greater calamity than its existence. But you — how do you escape the charge of impiety ?

2d. In the remark just made, I supposed, of course, that 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. Both Dr. Channing and Dr. Wayland, with all respectable commentators, yield this point ; but if this point be yielded, how can it be maintained that slaveholding is itself a crime ? No one can regard the noble president of Brown University with more esteem and affection than I do ; from his arguments, however, I am constrained to dissent. His position is this :* the moral precepts of the gospel condemn slavery; it is therefore criminal. Yet he admits that neither the Saviour nor his apostles commanded masters to emancipate their slaves ; nay, they " go further," he adds, " and prescribe the duties suited to both parties in their present condition ;" among which duties, be

* I need hardly say that the argument is the same as Paley, book 3, chapter 3.

it remembered, there is not an intimation of manumission, but the whole code contemplates the continuance of the relation. Here, then, we have the Author of the gospel, and the inspired propagators of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit inditing the gospel, all conniving at a practice which was a violation of the entire moral principle of the gospel ! And the reason assigned by Dr. Wayland for this abstinency by God from censuring a wide-spread infraction of his law, is really nothing more nor less than expediency — the apprehension of consequences. The Lord Jesus and the apostles teaching expediency ! They who proclaimed and prosecuted a war of extermination against all the most cherished passions of this guilty earth, and attacked with dauntless intrepidity all the multiform idolatry around them — they quailed, they shrank from breathing even a whisper against slavery, through fear of consequences ! ! And, through fear of consequences, the Holy Spirit has given us a canon of Scriptures, containing minute directions as to the duties of master and slave, without a word as to emancipation ! ! ! Suppose our missionaries should be detected thus winking at idolatry, and tampering with crime in heathen lands.

Dr. Channing also says, — Paul satisfied himself with disseminating principles which would slowly subvert slavery. "Satisfied himself!" but was he so easily satisfied in reference to any act which he regarded as a dereliction from duty ? Hear how he speaks : " If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat.'" " Be not deceived ;

1*

6 LETTER TO THE

neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." " Whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge." " In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destructioii of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." Such was Paul's language ; nothing but this unyielding, uncompromising condemnation of every sin could content him ; yet, as to " the unutterable abomination of slavery," he is a temporizing palterer ! As to slavery, v/hich '• violates every article in the decalogue," although the apostle saw it all around him, and members of the Church guilty of it, he declined uttering a word — he is cowed into a timeserver, a worker by concealed and tardy indirections ! He " satisfies himself," while millions on all sides are sinking into hell through this crime — he "satisfies himself" with spreading principles which would slowly work a cure ! Craven and faithless herald ! and after this, with what face could he say, "I have kept back nothing" — "I have not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God ?" Arguments like these refute themselves ; they are the signal failures of minds masterful for the truth, but impotent against it ; and will convince every sincere inquirer that to denounce slaveholding as necessarily a sin, is to deal in loose assertion, and practically to range one's self with the infidel and scoffer.

CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR. T

3d. But will it not be laboring in the vocation of the infidel, to assert that the Bible does not condemn slavery, especially when we know that in the times of the Apostles, masters were allowed to torture their slaves, and starve them, and kill them as food for their fish ? Is it not an insult to heaven, for one to defend such a system out of the Scriptures ? This question is very plausible ; but the answer is soon given, and it is the same which has been repeated over and over, viz., that the enormities often resulting from slavery, and which excite our abhorrence, are not inseparable from it — they are not elements in the system, but abuses of it. What, indeed, is slavery ? "J define slavery,'^ says Paley, " to 'he an ohllgation to Iciborfor the benefit of the master, loithout the contract or consent of the slave.^' This is all that enters into the definition of slavery, and now what ingredient here is sinful ? Suppose a master to " render unto his servant the things that are just and equal ;" suppose the servant well clothed and religiously instructed, and to receive a fair reward for labor in modes of compensation best suited to his condition ; might not the Bible permit the relation to continue, and might it not be best for the slave himself? Recollect that when you tell us of certain laws, and customs, and moral evils, and gross crimes, which are often incidents of slavery in this country, we agree with you, and are most anxious for their removal, and deprecate the incendiary movements of abolitionists as tending only to retard and even arrest our success. On these topics Christians throughout the land ought to communicate in the spirit of love, and combine their prayers and co-operations. The

8 LETTER TO THE

abolitionists, however, arc not among those with whom we can thus associate. They occupy a position hostile alike to us, and to the word of God, and to every principle of charity. They do not attack the accidents of slavery, and attempt to show that they are essentials, but slavery itself they stigmatize as an unutterable crime, and slaveholders as on a footing with thieves and pirates.

Is it to be expected that such libels will convince persons here, or that hard words will commend anybody as wiser and more courageous and better than the Saviour and his apostles ? Examine all the anti-slavery publications, and what do they contain ? Denude them of bold assertion and unmeasured invective aijainst the accessories of slavery, and what is left ? The simple question is, whether it is necessarily, and amidst all circumstances, a crime to hold men in a conditionwhere they labor for another without their consent or contract ? and in settling this matter all impertinences must be retrenched. But, if impertinences be removed, what remains in the abolition treatises ? For example, slavery in these States may or may not be different from that mentioned in the Bible, and this may be a very important inquiry ; but it is not the inquiry before us. So, with regard to the cruelty too often practised by unprincipled men : here is guilt, guilt punishable by our laws, and which should exclude such persons from Christian fellowship ; the crime, however, is not slaveholding, but cruelty. The popular argument, that a human being should not be treated as a chattel, is in the same category of impertinences. The proposition is self-evident, but wholly irrelevant, since it is by no means an attribute of slavery that a master may treat his slave as a chattel ; the Bible forbids this, and every feeling of our nature rises up and must forever and effectually prevent it. Slavery is bondage, and nothing more.^ The slave has his rights, many of which are protected ^ by our laws, and all by the Bible. The power of the master to transfer his authority, surely does not alter the character of that authority ; and to confound this with his right in things which he may destroy at pleasure, is to overlook the plainest distinctions. It seems monstrous to you that a man should be the property of another man ; but why is it so monstrous ? Simply because you suppose that the word '^properly'' involves a degradation to the state of a chattel. This, however, is plainly*, fallacious. Property in my furniture is one thing ; ^ property in my horse is a very different thing ; and property in a slave entirely distinct still. To treat the brute as I might a chair, would be barbarous ; and to use the slave as I might the brute, would justly make me infamous in any society, and draw down the vengeance of laws, human and divine. Property in a slave is only a right to his^ service without his co?isent or contract ; and if this be necessarily criminal, then the authority of a father over his child, and of a government over its citizens, must be criminal too.

I might easily protract these remarks, but it is unnecessary. Let it be recollected that the only proposition is this abstract assertion : slavery is itself a sin — always and hy necessity a sin ; and it appears to me you must either abandon the Bible, or make it teach an expediency and " keeping

10 LETTER TO THE

back" of truth, which it abhors, or modify your views. The matter stands thus : the Bible did authorize some sort of slavery ; if now the abuses admitted and deplored by me be essentials of all slavery, then the Bible did allow those abuses ; if it be impossible that revelation should permit such evils, then 3''ou must either reject the Scriptures, as some abolitionists are doing, or concede that these sins are only accidents of slavery, which may, and perhaps, in cases of many Christians, do exist without them. Before I dismiss this subject, I would glance at two arguments which are sometimes urged, and require a passing notice.

The first is thus summed up by Dr. Wayland : " The manner in which the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, therefore, atibrds no ground for the assertion, that the gospel authorizes one man to hold another in bondage, any more than the command to honor the king, when that king was Nero, authorized the tyranny of the emperor, or that the command to turn the other cheek when one is smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by an injurious man." To this the reply is easy. The gospel does not recognise either Nero or the injurious man as a Christian brother, but it does so recognise those who hold slaves.

The second argument is thus put by Dr. Channing. " Polygamy was allowed to the Israelites, was the practice of the holiest men, and was common and licensed in the age of the apostles. But the apostles nowhere condemn it, nor was the renunciation of it made an essential condition of admission into the Christian Church." And of this the sophistry is hardly specious. What if all that is affirmed be granted ? it would only prove that polygamy is not sinful, and how is this connected with the matter at issue ? But the gospel does forbid, and did at once abolish polygamy.

That those who hold slaves are unfit members for a Christian church, is a novel doctrine, a new light, which would have been scouted from our churches fifty years ago. But no polygamist has ever been admitted or tolerated as a Christian since the establishment of Christianity. The Saviour expressly gave a new law as to divorce ; and the very letter of that precept, and every word in the epistles as to marriage, recognise and require only one wife. Jesus says, " Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. ^^ Now what constitutes the adultery 1 Not ^'■•putting away his wife,''^ but " marrying another ;" therefore he who marrieth another without putting away is guilty. Paul says, '-' For the woman which hath a husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband ; so then if while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." '■ To avoid fornication, let every man have his own vv'ife, and let every woman have her own husband." Is not this express enough ? Besides, it is a mistake in Dr. Channing and others to suppose that polygamy was common in the days of the Saviour and his apostles. The Roman and Grecian laws did not permit it ; and such are the inconveniences and evils of the custom, that it had nearly ceased in Judea : hence, in the whole New Testament not a single instance is even alluded to.

12 LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN REFLECTOR.

No further notice was therefore required than the lansuase of Christ and the directions in the Episties. But slavery was everywhere a part of the social organization of the earth ; and slaves and their masters were members together of the churches ; and minute instructions are given to each as to their duties, without even an insinuation that it was the duty of masters to emancipate. Now I ask, could this possibly be so, if slavery were "a heinous sin ?" No! every candid man will answer, no ! What, then, are we to think of those who revile us as pirates and thieves, and fulminate anathemas and excommunications against every Christian at the South, no matter what his conduct or character, simply because he will not submit to the arrogant behests of mortals who at best are, like himself, loaded with imperfections ; and because he esteems the Bible a safer directory than the dogmas of men. most of whom are every day proving themselves destitute of the sound mind and -charity of the gospel — ^of people who are essentially monomaniacs — who cannot live without running into some insanity — who, if slavery were abolished, would be just as mad upon amalgamation, or masonry, or Millerism, or some other matter — and with whom, in fine, whatever your course may be as to us, neither you, nor anybody at the North who loves Christ and the gospel better than self, and strife, and fanatical intolerance, will long be able to harmonize ?

In the charity of the gospel, and with all respect, I am, &c., R. FULLER.

Beaufort, S. C.

DR. WAYLAND'S LETTERS.

LETTER I.

TO THE REV. RICHARD FULLER, D. D.

I have read with great interest your letter on Domestic Slavery in the Christian Reflector of the present week. Although it is addressed to the editor, yet as you have specially referred to sentiments which I have elsewhere advocated, I presume you will not consider it obtrusive, if I ask the privilege of offering a few remarks in illustration of the doctrines from which you dissent. I fully believe that you, equally with myself, desire to arrive at the truth on this question. If by the kind and fraternal exhibition of our views we can throw any light upon this difficult subject, we shall, I am sure, perform an acceptable service, both to the Church of Christ, and to our beloved country.

With many of the sentiments in your letter I heartily coincide. I unite with you and the late lamented Dr. Channing, in the opinion that the tone of the abolitionists at the north has been frequently, I fear I must say generally, " fierce, bitter, and abusive." The abolition press has, I believe, from the beginning, too commonly indulged in exaggerated statement, in violent denunciation, and in coarse and lacerating invective. At our late Missionary Convention in Philadelphia, I heard many things from men who claim to be the exclusive friends of the slave, which pained me more than I

14 DR. avayland's letters.

can express. It seemed to me that the spirit which many of them manifested was very different from the spirit of Christ. I also cheerfully bear testimony to the general courtesy, the Christian urbanity, and the calmness under ])rovocation, which, in a remarkable degree, characterized the conduct of the members from the South.

While, however, I say this, justice requires mc to add that I seem to have perceived grave errors in the manner in which this subject has been treated in the slaveholding States. If, at the north, the ri^ht of free discussion has been abused, I think that frequently, at the south, this right has been denied to American citizens. I have seen legislative messages which have, in substance, asserted that the people of this country have no right to discuss the subject of slavery at all. I am sure that you will agree with me in condemning every assumption of this kind. There is no subject whatever which I have not a perfect right to discuss, in the freest and fullest manner, in public or in private, provided I act with an honest intention to set before men what I consider to be important truth, and address myself to their understanding and conscience. I claim this right as a citizen of the United States; or rather, I claim it by a far higher title, as an intelligent creature of God. I can only surrender it with my life. I must always treat the threat of abridging it as an insult to the nature which has been given me by my Creator. If I abuse this right, I may be justly punished, and I grant that the punishment, both civil and social, should be exemplary. The right, however, as I have stated it, still remains interwoven with the essential elements of my intellectual and moral nature.

I rejoice that the question is assuming a new aspect. I rejoice that a brother from the south has invited this discussion, and that there is now an opportunity afforded for freely exchanging our sentiments with each other. Should I abuse this right, should I utter a word that would tend needlessly to wound the feelings of my Southern brethren, there is not one of them tliat will bo as deeply pained as myself. I have never yet visited the Southern States. There may be cases in which, from ignorance of the modes of thinking and forms of expression which prevail among my Southern fellow-citizens, I may, inadvertently, seem not sufficiently to regard their feelings. I do not anticipate that such a case will occur. But should it occur, I have only to ask that I may be considered as an honest and kind man, desiring to hold forth what he believes to be truth ; and that if I may seem in this respect to err, it may be imputed, not to an intention to give pain, but merely to my ignorance of the modes of thought peculiar to a state of society with which I am not familiar.