Slavery examined in the light of the Bible

Front matter

.0^

V.S^

■^-^^0-^

Section I Sin Inherent In Slavery

It is important to define the question to be discussed before opening the argument. It does not follow that slavery is right because one man may rightfully be another man's servant.

Limited servitude or such as pertains to children in their m,inority, and persons under various limited contracts and obligations, is not meant in the following Treatise. It is admitted that one person may rightfully owe service to another person under various circumstances.

By slavery is meant, the system which reduces man to a chattel, and buys and sells him, and subjects him to the liabilities of other property, daiming the same right of property in the offspring by virtue of the right previously asserted to the parent. This is the system of American slavery, and against it and all other slavery involving the same principles, the following arguments are_^directed.

Slavery consisting in the right of property in man, with the usual incidents of that right must be morally wrong and sin in itself, for the followino- reasons.

SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOI>.

ARGUMENT FIRST

It is ixconsistent with man's relation to God, and the obligations growing out of that relation.

"■ : Dr. Payne, in his " Elements of Moral Science," says : —

" Yirtuc as it rco-ards man, is tlie conformity or harmony of his affections and actions with the various relations in wliich he has been placed — of which conformity the perfect intellect of God, guided in its exercise by his infinitely holy nature, is the only infallible judge. '^

if this be a correct definition of virtue, and wc believe it is ; it follows, that man cannot ri^ahtfuUy sustain two relations at the same tiuKi, with both of which his affections an^ actions cannot harmonize ; which is the cq.<e with the relation that all men sustain to God, and the relation to property, to man with its usual inciiients. Tiie relations wc sustain to God are various. He is our Creator, our Preserver, our Benefactor — lie is the framer of our bodies and the Father of our spirit:*, and he js our Governor.

Th'j (piotatiou from Dr. Payne asserts that God is the judge of the conformity of nnin's affections ancl actions to his relations, and thisjudginent God has expressed in the tirst great commandment, which reads as follows : —

" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." This commandment clearly lays such a claim to the affections of the heart, and demands such an entire devotion of the soul {Psukee Life) as gives tone to, and controls the actions ; it therefore contains the foundation of absolute obedience to God. This is seen in the expression, " with all thy strength." This requires a consecration of the physical powers in obedience to God, under the control of the affections of the heart. ►

There is but one question more to settle, which is, can these affections and actions exist in the same heart and life, at the same time with those affections and actions which are consonant with the relation of a piece of property to its owner, a personal chattel to a chattel holder ? Slavery may say what it pleases ; common sense says no.

To be under obligation to obey God, there must exist the right and power of devoting our lives to God, for there can be no obligation where there is not hothright smd poioer to respond to that obligation. But the slave, who is the property of man, has not and cannot have the power of devoting his life to God, because his life is not at his own disposal, according to the dictates of his own understanding of right ; he cannot do what God requires, but must do what nie?i require, and wicked men too, who fear not God and regard not his law. Should it be said that

slave owners do not interfere with the slave's rij^ht to ©bey God, and liberty of conscience, every one must know that such an assumption would be false, for the extension of the riirht to slaves, to obey God, as free men profcssin": the reli<rion of the ]>ible deem it tlieir duty to obey God, would overthrow the system of slavery.

Further, if it were admitted that slave owners grant their slaves the privilege of obeying God, it would not relieve the difficulty, ibr it would still follow that the system of property in man, takes away from the human chattel the right to obey God, and puts it into the hand of the owner, who has the power to close up before the chattelized traveller to eternity, the path of obedience and with authority direct his footsteps in the way of sin and dcatli. Man cannot sustain the relation of pro])erty to man, without an infraction of the relation that he sustains to God, and of the rights and powers essential to the conformity of his alTections and actions to this relation, hence, the 7'ight of i)roperty in man cannot exist.

The assumption of the relation of a chattel holder to a subject of God's moral government, is to step in between such subject and God, and disannul man's relation to his Maker, and absolve him from liis allegiance to Jehovah's throne. Can this be right? Does the Bible sanction such a principle, beaming as it does with the mind of Ilim who declares himself to be a jealousGod ; flashing with the lightnings of his dis- ])leasure, and speaking in the thunder tones

SLAVERY : A SIN' AGAIXST GOD. T

of his wrath against all who turn away from the claims of his law to acknowledge any other authority, to serve any other God or bow down to the likeness of any thing ia heaven, earth or hell ? It cannot be.

ARGUMENT SECOND:

bLAVERY CONFLICTS WITH VARIOUS SPECIFIC DUTIES

WHICH THE Bible requires of all men.

Dr. Paley, in his moral philosophy, lays down the following rule :

" A state of happiness is not to be expected by those who reserve to themselves the habitual practice of any one sin, or the neglect of any one known duty."

If then it can be shown that a state of slavery docs interfere with a single duty to God, or involves its subjects in the necessity of violating one single precept of the gospel it will follow that it is and must remain wrong under all circumstances and forever.

It is the duty of all intelligent beings to use all the means within their reach to acquire a knowledge of God and his will. To remain ignorant of God and of his will concerning us through neglect of the means within our reach, is of itself a sin of the darkest shade. But from what source is the knowledge of God to be derived ? The answer is plain,

8 SLAVERY : A SIX A(7AIXST GOD.

the Scriptures. "To the law and the testimony ; if tliey speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.'^

It is clear that if the Scriptures are an expression of the mind of God, and have been inspired by his spirit, all must possess a common right of direct access to this fountain of moral light. This none will deny but the Pope and his menials. With this accords the practice of all Protestants ; whenever they establish missions in any part of the world among the heathen, they put the Bible into their hands so soon as they can speak its language, or so soon as it can be translated into their own language. The only exception is found in the act of withholding the scriptures from the slaves of our own country, who might be taught to read them with far greater facility.

But God has made it our duty to know him, and to know him through this medium.

Luke xvi. 29. " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them."

John v. 39. " Search the scriptcres, for in them ye think he have eternal life."

Acts xvii. 11. " These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scri})tures daily, whether these things were so.''

W. M. Discipline — " It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies, that they should continue to evidence their desire ot salvation by searching the scriptures. All this we know his spirit writes

SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. t)

on truly awakened hearts. All which we are taught of God to observe."

The same principle is contained in the creed, written or unwritten, of every Protestant religious sect on earth ; and every Protestant sect condemn the Romanists for withholding the scriptures from the people ; and if it be wrong to withhold the scriptures, slavery cannot be right.

The right and duty of all men to possess themselves of the scriptures and to read and study the same being established, it only remains to show that slavery is of necessity and forever inimical to this right and duty ; taking aAvay the one, and nullifying the other. The right of property in man cannot exist co-ordinate with the right and obligation to ' search the scriptures.'

1. The right and obligation to search the scriptures necessarily includes the right of acquiring property, first in money or money's value with which to procure the scriptures to be read : and secondly, in the scriptures themselves. But property cannot acquire property ; the very idea of the right of property in any thing, supposes an equal right of properity in all productions and increase or income of such property; so that property cannot acquire property in its own right and for itself. If property increases or gathers other property around it, such increase does not belong to the property that produces or acquires it, but to the owner of the property. If this be denied, it will follow that the productions of the slaves do not belong to the slave owner but the slave him-

11) S .AVKHY : A SIN AGAIN'.ST GOP.

self, \^hich will overthrow the whole system of slavery. This view shows that the slave, as propertv, cannot possess, in his own right, a Bible or" the value of a Bible in any form, and therefore, the command of God to 'search the scriptui;es,' and the assumed right of i)roperty in man, are totally and irreconcilably opposed to each other, so that while God requires all men to search the scriptures, no man can rightfully he reduced to a chattel. With this agrees the law of slavery which says that a slave " can do nothing, possess no'thing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to their master." If a Bible should be given to a slave, so as to alienate the right of the giver in favor of the slave, the right to the Bible would not lodge with the slave, but pass over him and vest itself with the master, and this is not only by law but in the very philosophy of tlie right of property.

" 2. The right and obligation to search the scriptures includes the right to devote suflicient time to the pursuit of religious knowledge. But the right of ]n'operty in a man includes the right to monopolize and dispose of his whole time, so that he cannot })Ossesa the right of devoting his time or any part of it to the study of the scriptures, from which it follows again that the right of slavery is at war with the duties which God has commanded. If tlie advocate of slavery will attempt to evade the force of this, by denying that the right of property in man includes the riglit to control the time of such proi)ertv, he will ruin his own cause; for if the slaveholder has not a right to say how the slave shall improve his time, his right of property in him will not be worth contending about. If the right of property in man includes the right of controling his time, it conflicts with duties which God requires and must be wrong ; and if it does not give the master the right to control the time of the slave, the whole practical system of slavery is a violation of right.

In showing that slavery conflicts with certain specified duties, it is proper to notice the duty of publicly worshipping God. On this point we will quote but one text.

Heb. X. 25. '* Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is." This text clearly teaches the duty of meeting together in Christian assemblies for religious purposes, while slavery declares that the right of slaves so to assemble cannot be admitted with safety to the system.

To conclude this argument, we say that to grant the slaves the simple right of obeying the Gospel, by attending to all its devotional and social duties as they are commanded and understood by Christians genercdly, would overthrow the entire system. To give them the Scriptures to be read according to the dictates of their own consciences, and to allow them the privilege of selecting their own ministers froniAvhose lips they choose to hear the words of life, which is the inalienable right of all Christians, would come so near to the abolition of slavery as to leave but little to be done to complete it. The right of proper-

12 slavery: a j^in a(;ai\st god.

ty in man cannot exist without taking away the right of doing the duties and enjoying the privileges of the Gospel, and therefore the right of property in man cannot exist as a right, but must be wrong, whenever assumed.

ARGUMENT THIRD:

Slavery conflicts vmu those social relations AND DUTIES WHICH NOT ONLY SPRING FROM OUR SOCIAL NATL'KE, BUT WHICH GoD HAS ALSO EN- JOINED BY POSITIVE ENACTMENT.

Man is a social being, and has received a social nature from tlie hand which formed him; which seeks intercourse, sympathy, and reciprocal enjoyments from kindred spirits. The various relations into whicli we are thrown by the current of our social nature, have been provided for by God in his word, where he has prescribed tlie circumstances, conditions and obligations of our social and domestic relations, and has thrown around them the protection of his law.

We will commence with the institution of marriage. This of course was ])rovided for by the iiand of God when he originally created man, and is the first institution in the chain of social relations ; first in the order of nature, and first in the order of the positive institutions of the divine law. Matt. xix.4--G.

" Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh? what therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder."

Heb. xiii. " Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

On these texts it may be remarked, that God obviously designed marriage for all nations, races and classes of men. To say that God does not require marriage on the part of the African race, would be to say that he designs the extinction of the race, for all s-uch perpetuation of the race out of wedlock is condemned and denounced by God himself. We are now prepared to show wherein slavery conflicts with the institution, and rights and obligations of marriage.

1. The right of property in man is inconsistent with the rights of the parties who lawfully enter into the marriage relation.

The husband has a monopoly of right in his wife. A wife belongs to her husband, in a sense which renders it impossible that she should be the property of another at the same time ; if she is the wife of one, she cannot be the property of another ; if she is the property of one she cannot be the wife of another. It is impossible from the nature of the two things that a woman should hold out the attributes of a wife to one man, and the attributes of property to another, at the

14 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST fiOD.

same time. The luisband has an exclusive riij^ht in his wife, and the owner has an exclusive right in his property ; hence, a woman cannot sustain the relation of a wife to one man, and the relation of property to another. The husband has not only an exclusive claim to the affections of her heart, but also to her time and attention ; what power she possesses to promote the ha])piness of another belongs to liim, and she lias, as a wife, no right to seek the happiness of others beyond what is consistent with his happiness ; her happiness should be his and'his should be hers ; they are partners in both joy and sorrow ; " they are no more twain but one flesh." The right of property includes the right of controlling, using, and disposing of such property for the promotion of the happiness of the owner ; hence, two persons cannot possess, the one the rights of a husband and the other tlie rights of i)ropcrty in the same woman at tlie same time. In the same manner the rights of the wife forever forbid the right of property in the husband. The man is not alone in securing rights to himself when he enters into the marriage relation ; corresponding to liis riglits are the rights of the wife ; if they are not in every res])ect the same, tliey are nevertheless equal in number and importance. The husband is bound no less to devote liimself for the promotion of the happiness of the wife than she is to promote his happiness. This right of the wife to tlie love, the protection, the support, and entire devotecbiess of the husband to ])romote lier ha]>pinessmust forever prechide

SLAVERY : A SIN AGAIXST GOD. 15

the right of property to such husband vesting itself in the hands of another.

2. The right of property in man is inconsistent with the obligations resting upon the parties to the marriage relations. Rights and obligations are always reciprocal; hence, in treating of the rights of the parties, the corresponding obligations have been implied, but we wish to bring them out a little more distinctly. The rig-ht of the husband to thfi; due regard and proper submission of the wife, involves an obligation on her part to render these things ; the right of the wife to the love and protection of the husband, involves an obligation on his part to love and protect her. We will now present a few plain declarations of scripture on this subject, and see how effectually they overthrow the assumed right of property in man.

1 Cor. vii. 2. " Nevertheless, to avoid for nication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

The system of property in man, making them personal chattels, to be bought and sold in the market, cannot be reconciled with the above text. To let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband, in the apostle's sense, would overthrow the whole system of slavery.

Eph. V. 21. " Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body."

Can wives, who are the personal chattels

16 SLAVKKY : A SIN' ACiAINST UOD.

of men not their Imsbands, comply with the above text ? When the husband is sent to one market and the wife to another, can the wife obey the scriptures ? Can the wife who is in the power, the absolute power of a man who is not her husband, and who can enforce his will in all things Avithout let or hindrance by flattery, bribes, strength, prisons, whips and tortures ; can such a wife submit herself tp her husband as unto the Lord ? and can a husband, who is under the same absolute control of another, be the head of such a wife, as Christ is the head of the church ? Answer, common sense !

1 Cor. vii. 10. " And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband V

Is it consistent with this text for one man to sell another man's wife, or to buy another man's wife, and drive her off in chains, to see her husband no more ? It cannot l)e. If the wife has not a rirht to depart, then no other person can ha\ c a right to force her to depart. No person can have a right to compel another to do what such person has not a right to do without being compelled. A wife has no power to dei)art from her husband, and therefore no person can have a right to sell her, to buy and drive her away from her husband ; and hence the right of property in husbands and wives cannot exist.

Eph. V. 28. " So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

20. For no man ever vet hated liis own

SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 17

flesh ; but nourishetli and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church ?"

1 Peter iii. 7. " Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life ; that your prayers be not hindered.''

How can a man, who may be sold and driven away at any moment, be under obligation to dwell with his wife ? We will not multiply quotations or remarks ; enough has been said to show that slavery and the marriage institution cannot exist together. Slavery takes away the power of the wife to preserve her own purity, and this is true of married and unmarried females. The fe.nale that is made an article of property, cannot call her purity her own ; it may be taken from her at the pleasure of her owner. He may violate her at pleasure, and she has neither the right or the power to resist. He may tie her up with cords ; he may confine her in any way he pleases ; he may apply the lash to her cringing back to any extent he pleases ; and all this he may do before the face of the man she may call her husband, and no one, bond or free, has any right to interfere ; and in so doing he violates no law but the law of God, with which slavery has nothing to do more than to set it at nought.

All this follows of necessity, from the admission of the right of property in human beings. Note, the argument is not that all slaveholders actually commit these wrongs on the marriage institution and on female

1 8 ?I,\VF.RY : A SIN AOAIXST COD.

purity, V)ut the ari^umcnt is tliat tlie pystcm of slavery gives every slaveholder tlie power to do it at pleasure, and with ])erfect impunity ; and that this is inseparable from the system itself; and that the system which lays the heaven ordained institution of marriage, aid heaven-protected female virtue in the dust, helpless at the feet of the spoiler, for the riot and triumph of the baser passions of human nature, cannot be right, but must be wrong now and forever.

To settle the question, we say that matrimony exists among slaves or it does not. — The one or the other of these positions must be true. Which is true, we care not, so far as this argument is concerned. 1. If matrimony does exist in moral right among slaves, the parties are joined together ])y God, and Christ says, '' what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'' J>ut slavery does sunder them, and the right of property includes the right of sundering them. If therefore slaves are married in moral right, slavery is guilty of parting those whom God had joined together, and drags after it the crime of adultery. The slave system separates the parties and joins them in other connections, so that witliin a few years the same man may have several wives, and the same woman several husbands, and all living at the «ame time.

2. If slaves are not married in moral right, as they are not and cannot be in tlie eyes of the civil law, slavery stands cliargcd with breaking u]) this heaven appointed instituion, and of involving the slave i)opulation in the crime of general whoredom. There is so far as we can see, no way to escape these conclusions ; if the advocate of slaveryallows that slaves are brought within the marriage institution, he assumes that the power to separate those whom God hath joined together can rightfully exist ; a thing, in our view, impossible. If he admits that slaves are not brought within the marriage institution, he assumes the rightfulness of general sexual intercourse without the bans of matrimony. Such is slavery, consisting in the assumed right of property in human beings, wherever it is found, in the church or out of the church. We speak as to wise men ; judge of what we say.

20 ShAVKKY : A SIN' AUAIN'ST «J<>I>.

ARGUMENT FOURTH:

Slavery further conflicts with those social relations and duties which not only spring from our social nature, but which god has also enjoined by positive enactment by subverting the rights and obligations which grow out of relations subsisting between parents and child- REN.

That there are rights and obligations connected with this relation, around which God has thrown the protection of his law, armed with the arrows of his lightnings, and the voice of his thunders, cannot be denied ; and that slavery disregards them and tramples them under foot, if not admitted shall be proved.

When God descended upon Mount Sinai and gave his law amid the dreadful lightnings that blazed and glared, and shot their fiery arrows ath\vart the smoke and gloom that mantled the Eternal upon the mount, and amid tlie thunders that bellowed terrors and poured the voice of condemnation intlie ear of sin ; He then wrote with his own linger upon a table of stone, as the lifth of the ten commandments, the following words : "Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be-long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

The duty of the child to honor his father and mother, clearly im})lies the obligation of tlie i)arents so to teacli and so to l)ehave towards the child, as is calculated to inspire the feelings and write upon the heart of the child what God wrote in the book of his law. This sentiment is clearly brought out in the comment of St. Paul.

" Ephe. \i. 1—1. '' Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Honor thy father and mother which is the first commandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Here we have the obligation growing out of the relation that subsists between parents and children, as defined by the spirit of inspiration ; and that slavery necessarily wars upon, and entirely subverts these obligations, is all that remains to be proved, and this is so plain and obvious that it is like proving what is self evident.

1. Can parents, who are subject to all the liabilities of property, and whose children are also property in the same full sense, bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? This cannot be pretended. Sons are torn away from the embrace of their father, and removed forever beyond the sight of his eye ; daughters are borne in chains Irom the throbbing, heaving bosom and bleeding hearts of their mothers.

" Where no mothers ear can hear them, Where no mother's eye can see them."

Slavery which assumes the right of property in man, in fathers and mothers, and mothers and children, takes from the parents all right of control over their children, and

22 SIJLVERY : A SIN' ACAIN'ST GOD.

licnco, it violates the divine law, for that commands them to control them for good. Cod says to parents, "brino: up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord •/' but slavery says, no, you cannot have the right of bringing them up, or if you do, you must bring them up for the market, bring them up for me, that I may sacrifice your sons upon the altar of my avarice, and your daughters upon the altar of my lust.

2. ('an children who are " personal chattels to all intents and jnirposes and constructions whatsoever," honor their fathers and mothers? Can they '• obey their parents in the Lord ?'' Most certainly nor. The son looks not, cannot look to his father, if father he knows, for authority and direction during the years of his minority ; nor can he honor, comfort, and su})])ort that father in his declining years, after the son has come to the riper years of manhood. The daughter cannot obey her own mother in childhood and youth, much less can she honor and cherish her in riper years ; she must see her mother, if she be allowed to see her at all, languish, faint and die under the clfects of toil, hunger and the lash, without dropping a word of consolation in her ear, or extending a daughter's hand to her relief— all this is true of the daughter, concernins^ her who in anguish gave her l)eing, and sheltered her in her bosom during the cloudy morning of her existence, and nourished her upon tiic milk of toil and weariness until she was strong enough to endure life's hoavitn* storms.