The great question answered; or, Is slavery a sin in itself (per se?) answered according to the teaching of the Scriptures

Front matter

fjt 75 ^T t^t *.l

I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I itJit Jif ?;♦ ??• •?* iViVifCiV i^ ^ ■

):6

CHAP. IV.— The Origin of Color and Slavery 56 CHAP, v.- Do the Writers of the Old Testament

treat Slavery as a Sin in itself? 87

CHAP. VI. — Examination of Polygamy and Slavery in the Light of the Biljle — Are they treated ahke by the Bible? ll-i

CHAP. VII.— Does the New Testament Condemn

Slavery as a Sin in itself? 137

CHAP. VIII.— The Duties of Masters and Servants, 217

CHAP. IX.— The Fugitive Slave Law— The Duty of Citizens in relation to it — Is it Constitutional ? 249

COXCLUDIXG REMARKS 281

1 NTIIODUCTIOX.

'So n-iiK-li bns been lately written on the subject of Slavery, that it would appear to the disinterested observer that nothing new or additional can be added; still, after all that has been written and said, there are some points which have been to a great extent overlooked by those who have undertaken to discuss the subject. A few writers have attempted to wi'ite in the proper spirit ; to appeal to the pro})er authority ; but this class have taken it for granted that the relation is politically right, without examining carefully into the true or moral relation of Master and Slave. In consequence of this, many important (piestions have been left without any other consideration than a mere passing remai'k, thus leaving the real difficulty unreinoved from the mind of the candid in-

•8 IX TRO DUCT I ox.

quircr after truth. Another class of writers and cleclaimers, liave assumed that the relation is morally and politically wrong — sinful in itself; and from this view of the subject have •denounced, in the very worst terms, not only the system as a gigantic wrong, but that those who sustain the relation of a Master, are unmitigated tyrants, unworthy of respect among civdiized men, and beyond the covenanted mercies of God. With this class of writers and declaimers we have no controversy; their perceptions are all darkened ; they look at all things pertaining to the subject through a false medium. On the minds of such men, the clearest logical demonstration falls utterly powerless; tlie brightest light has the same eifect on their vision, as it has on that of a bat — that is, it only makes them blinder. If they should ever see the error of their way, the conviction must be produced by a higher power than that of man. We may, however, occasionally notice the position and arguments of res|)ectable writers on the •other side; but still, it is not our main object

INTRODUCTION. 9

in writing on this niucli mooted point. We wish to write a few })hiin things for the benefit of plain and common people, and especially to discuss the question, "Is Slavery sinful in itself?*' {jper se.) This is the point that one class of writers take for granted as being right; the other class assume that it is wrong; and hence, the honest inquirer is left in doubt after he has waded through works and speeches on both sides of the ({uestion. The stability of our republican institutions is threatened by the continual and angry discussions on this Slavery question ; and while there are many, both at the North and at the South, wlio would be glad to seize on any pretext to pull down the fair temple of liberty, we are fully satisfied that there is a large number, more particularly at the North, who would be more hearty in their cooperation in maintaining the Constitution of their country, if they were fully and conscientiously satisfied that it did not uphold and legalize a moral wrong. Many ways and means have been suggested and adopted to bring the

"10 INTRODUCTION.

ceaseless agitation of tliis question to an end, but without many bright prospects of success. The clouds still hover around the political horizon, and the mutterings of the distant thunder indicate and tell too plainly that the storm is only gathering new strength to burst with renewed fury. The real difficulty of maintaining quiet on this subject lies far deeper than most of men are willing to admit; it lies in the conscience of men ; it is not so much in head as in heart. The whole truth on the subject may be expressed in a few words. A large number of our brethren at the North are conscientiously opposed to Slavery ; their opposition arises from principle, but they are living under a social compact — the Constitution — which they believe sanctions a great wrong in sustaining it ; they believe they are doing wrong. It is natural, it is right for every man to free himself as soon as possible, and by proper means, from all unlawful contracts. Xow if we can succeed in convincing our Northern brethren that they are not doinir wroiiG: in maintainino; the Constitu-

INTRODUCTION. 11

tion — ill otlier words, tliat it does not })roteet a system, sinful in itself, then we will have attained our end. There may be a possibility tliat the system is right, and that those wlio earry their ^. opposition to sueh an extent as will result in much greater evils, may be wrong. This is the point to be examined. In pursuing our object, it will be necessary to have a standard to which we can appeal; some rule by which all questions of social and personal duty must be tried. This will lead to an examination of the Scriptures upon the question at issue ; an examination of the "higher law;" the relation of Church and State ; what we owe to God, and what is due to human authority; when it is right to obey God rather than men, and many other questions in which political theologians lead their admirers astray. These things must be examined into first. Then the foundation of all the relations of life, such as husband and wife, parent and child, ruler and ruled, citizen of the country and member of Christ's Church, Master and Slave. We will touch briefly on the origin

12 INTRODUCTION.

of servitude, the order tliat characterizes all of God's works, and that His ^\ord, or His commandments, laws or whatever we may call them,, are made to suit the varied relations which men sustain to them and to each other in their various relations and capacities. We may embrace some other topics in a general way, but our main design is to reach the question, "Is Slavery sinful in itself*?" That it may be conducted in "meekness of wisdom,'' produce peace, remove doubt from the minds of lovers of their God and country, and increase the happiness of both races, is our devout desire and humble prayer.

IS SLAVERY A SIN IN ITSELF?

CHAPTER I.

RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

Max is a dependent being. He did not create himself; his life is dependent on the will of another. He must go out of himself for complete happiness. Every human being comes into the world without knowledge. The senses gradually come into active operation ; that of hunger is probably the strongest that is felt for some time; the infant becomes a child, the child a boy, and the boy a man. Still, throuG^h all his years of growth, he is learning from the objects with which he is surrounded ; he gets a knowledge of natural things, that is, from those things which come wnthin the range of his senses; but his duty to God and men must be learned from another source. This can only be learned from the Bible. Men have never learned anything like correct views of their duty to God and to one another, in those countries where they are destitute of the light of divine revelation.

14 RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

Hence, it is only in Christian countries that men understand their relation to each other. And in Christian lands where men refuse to take the Bible for their guide, they are constantly going astray; advocating error; pro^^agating false systems of morals, and disturbing the peace of society by their wild speculative theories. Many, even in Christian lands, have adopted for the rule of their conduct, what is called utility or expediency ; but it is plain that this rule will be fluctuating ; there is very little certainty, when or where it should be applied; what one man would consider right, another would think a flagrant wrong; what one man would advocate as useful, another would oppose as highly injurious ; what one would consider exj^edient, another would disapprove as very unwise. One man's knowledge is much more extensive and thorough than another's. The minds of no two men are exactly alike in all respects ; nor do two men always agree in every particular. From the great variety of mental ability, from the diff'erent degrees of knowledge, and from many other circumstances, it must be plain to the reader that the law founded on expediency or utility, would have to be varied in every instance of its application, to suit the capacities

RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 15

and conditions of its subjects. The principle is self-destructive ; it would have to vary. But the idea of a law or standard, an authoritative rule of action, must be uniform^ or it becomes an exception^ and not a general rule. In plain terms, every man's will would have to be his law, which would set every man at full liberty to do as he pleased, independent of his Maker. All nations have some standard by which they are governed in civil matters. The courts of justice are influenced by the decisions of past times; by the opinion of some distinguished jurist. The legislative body enacts rules or laws, to govern and direct the conduct of the citizen in his civil relations. The executive is governed by the decisions of the court. Good usage establishes a certain manner of speaking, so that there is a rule or standard, that is final in all legislative, judicial, and linguistic controversies. There must also be a final arbiter to settle all disputes on moral and spiritual subjects, or it is not worth the time and labor to form an opinion, or a judgment on any question in morals. It is not necessary that we should pursue this subject any further, as all candid minds will see at once the importance of having something >vhich we all recognize as authority. The Bible,

1Q RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

then, is our standard ; to this we desire to bring all questions m morals ; by this we wish to try every relation in life ; by its teachings we are willing to abide, and by it to stand or fall. We appeal not to the prejudice, the passions or corrupt conscience of men ; for conscience cannot determine the moral quality of an action unless it have some rule by which to settle that point. The conscience of the heathen do not rebuke them for murdering their infant oflfspring, or their parents, disabled by age ; while the Bible expressly says, "Thou shalt not kill." Neither do we recognize the principle of sincerity as the rule of correct action in morals. A man may be sincere, and prove it by murdering me. That does not make the action right. The heathen is sincere, no doubt, when he bows dowm and worships the idol ; but so far from making idolatry right, it only proves that the devotee violates the first commandment of the moral law, " Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Sincerity will not, then, do forthe rule ; a man may be sincere and yet be doing wrong. The motive may be bad and the action turn out good; but then the actor loses the approval of a clear conscience. To make an action good, the motive from which such action springs

RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. H

must be in acnorflance with the revealed law of God, or it is of no value. We are, then, forced to the conclusion that the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the safe rule of action; and however we may attempt to conceal the fact, our practice is greatly iniluenced by our theoretical views of truth, and our religious opinons control our actions to a much irreater extent than we are willin*]: to admit. We then take the Bible — not a paitizan view of it, but as a harmonious whole — as our chart and compass; believing, if we do not throw it overboard, it will conduct us safely into the haven of truth. To its sacred pages let us then repair to learn what duty God requires of us; what He has done for our race. Let us examine with care, judge with coolness and impartiality, study with patience and perseverance; but above all, bow with implicit reverence to the authority of God ; for He can never err while "there is not a just man on earth that liveth and sinneth not." "The human heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.'*

B^

18 THE RELATION OF CHURCn AND STATE.

Chapter II. The Relation Of Cdurch And State

The Jewisli Dis;pciis;ition was a tlieocracy;

tliat is, Jehovah was llie lieacl of the State, as

well as the Lord of the conscience. From this

circumstance, idolatry was punished by the civil

maixistrate, because it involved treason against

the reigning sovereign. (See Deut. xiii: 6, 8, 9.)

*'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy

son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom,

or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice

%:-e, saying, Let ns go and serve other gods —

thou shalt not consent unto liim ; neither shall

thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare,

ncither'shalt thou conceal hi n ; but thou shalt

surely hill him; thy hand shall be first npon

liim to put him to death, and afterward all the

people." God often inilicted severe punishment

on the Jews for the sin of idolatry, by giving

them up to the power and dominion of t.he

lieathen, by whom they were surrounded.

Wlicn Christ came, he fulfilled all the prophecies, concerning the Messiah, contained in

THR RELATION OF CIIURCn AXD STATE. 19

the 0](1 TestniucMit. I[(^ i eiiiove'd ilie ceromonial ]>:irt of tlie i\l()s;iio l;i\v by liis cU'.-itli, and csiab- •lislRMl ])Iain, siiiipk', and sj>i!iiual ordiimnccs in tbeir place. Tlie theocracy of the Jewish disjjensation j).isscd away; and Clirist, as iJic great law-giver of tlie world, sejtaratcd between ihe civil ami ecclesiastical powers, ami pointed out, by his word, teaching, and cxani!)!e, the appropi'iate province of each. Tlui great princij)le 'of Christianity, as uni'oldcd and explained by Clirisr, is: Njii-lutcrfcrsnce in jyolltlcs on the part of the lalnhters of his f/ospel^ and ohcxUeace to the cioll autlioritles under lohlch his followers Uv^e. To liis teachings let us now aj^peal ; to his perfect example let us look, in Oi'd.'r that we niiy have clear and scriptural views of <»ar relations io God, as the moral^ind responsible beings ot his righteous govcMnment, and also, that we may learn clearly what duties we owe, as Cin-istians, to the civil authorities undei- which we live.

We will begin with civil duties, as the lionor, reverence, worship), and obedience which we owe to Goil, fall m:)re naturally and clearly under the teachings of theological and moi-al science. Wli at, then, are tiiC great }»rinfiples taught by Christ, toaching the relation of

20 THE RELATION OP CHURCH AND STATE.

Church and State? He recognized the principle that civil courts are to settle, between citizens, all disputes about property. We are informed by Luke (xii : 13, 14) that "one of the company said unto liim, Master, speak to my brother, that he may divide the inheritance with me." Here, then, the question of settling the riglits of property was faii-ly and plainly presented to Christ for his decision. A man, in a public company, requests that he may interpose his authority, as a teacher and prophet, to make his brother give him that part of the property to which he feels that he is justly entitled. Does the Saviour turn aside from his business to decide the matter between the disputants ? No ; but replies by asking the question, "Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?" Who made me a judge to decide civil causes? Who a})p!)ii)ted me an umpire to divide inheritances ? This is not the object of my mission into the woi Id. I did not come to take the civil magistrate's office out of his hands. " My kingdom is not of this world." ^John xviii : 3.'->-o6.) Tiit^ iiolc of Bt'Zi on this passage is so appi'opr.ale, that we gi\e it at length : " Ciirist woidd not, un- three causes, be a judge to divide inheritances. First, for that he would not cherish the carnal opinion which the Jews had of the Messiah. Secondly, for that he would distinguish the civil government from the ecclesiastical. Thirdly, to teach us to beware of them which abuse the show of the gospel, and also the name of ministers, to their own private advantage." Dr. Whitty makes the following remark on this passage — viz : " It is probable that Christ refused to take this office upon him, . . . chiefly because he had but little time remaining, which he could betttr spend in dividing to them the word of life, and promoting their eternal interest." Dr. Scott says of this comment of Dr. Whitty's : " Tliis reason is at least very forcible, in all similar cases, with ministers of the gospel, if they duly consider the shortness and uncertainty of life, the state of the world, the w^orth of souls, and the immense importance and arduousness of their work."

We have given these extracts to show that one interpretation of this important event in the life of Christ is not singular, but has been the view taken by the best Biblical scholars. Beza, however, gives the clearest view of the passage. " The carnal opinion which the Jews had of the Messiah," mentioned by him, was that the Messiah would appear as a great temporal prince, deliver them from the civil dominion of the Romans, establish his throne in Jerusalem, as the capital of his earthly kingdom, and raise them to a degree of splendor and power far beyond anything they had seen in the palmiest days of David and Solomon. It was evidently this belief of the nature of Christ's mission which prompted the mother of Zebedee's children to make the singular request of him, as narrated in Matthew xx: 20-29. The favor asked was that her two sons might sit, the one on his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom. The same opinion, the temporal kingdom of Christ, with places of honor and profit, was in the minds of the two disciples on the morning of his resurrection, as they were going to Emmaus ; they were sad, T)ut the cause of that sadness is clearly developed in the declaration of one of them to Jesus, " We trusted that it had been he w^hich should have redeemed Israel."

These passages show the expectations of the Jews about the temporal nature of his kingdom. That he did not encourage -this view, may be seen by the reader referring to Matthew xx: 20-27; and Luke xxiv: 13-31 ; and John xviii: -33-36.

Christ also clearly distinguished between the duties we owe to God and civil rulers. It cannot be plead in favor of State establishments, that such an amalgamation of religion and politics is countenanced by the example of Christ, from the fact that he paid the temple-tax when demanded by the proper person. The Jewish disj^ensation liad not then closed ; all the ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual were still in operation. It was one object of Christ's mission "to fulfill all righteousness;" that is, to conform to every part of the law. The theocracy had not come to an end : Jehovah was still the recognized head of the State, as well as the object of true worship. If we keep this last fact in view, we can see the beauty and force of the Saviour's argument that " the children are free ; " that is, exempt from supporting the government by pecuniary aid. "And when they were come to Cajjernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter and said. Doth not your master pay tribute ? He saith. Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, Bimon, of whom do the kino-s of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children or strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Then are

24 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE.

the children free." (Matt, xvii: 24-26.) His argument is this: Kings of the earth do not take tribute of their own children, but of their subjects. "I am the Son of God — the civil ruler of the Jews ; therefore, I am not bound to pay tribute." He argued that he was exempt from paying the temple-tax, not because he was the son of Csesar, but because he was the Son of God. Lest any should take exceptions to his refusal to pay, he waives this privilege of exemption ; but, having no money, he ordered Peter to go to the sea, which was close by, and cast in his hook, awd in the mouth of the first fish which he caught, he would find a shekel — enough to pay them both. " Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first coraeth up ; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take and give unto them for me and thee." (Matt, xvii : 21.) "By which example Christ teacheth us to avoid the scandal and sinister suspicions of men, though they be groundless, with some detriment to ourselves — especially when we have not means to convince them." * When, however, the question of pay-

* Whitty.

THE RELATION OF ClIURCn AND STATE. 25

iiio" tribute to the civil ruler of the country was presented to him, he gave a different answer. The Pharisees and Herodians asked him the question, and desired an answer : " Tell us,, therefore, what thinkest thou ? Is it lawful togive tribute unto Ca-sar or not ':' He per ceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . He said unto them, Render unto Ga'sar tlie things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt, xxii: 17-21.) To understand tlie question here propounded, we must look at the character of those who asked it. It is stated by the sacrod historian, (vs. 15, 10,) that the Pharisees "sent out unto him (Christ) their disciples with the Herodians." These two sects were of different opinions on the controverted point of paying tribute to the Roman emperor. The Pharisees inferred from the law of Moses, (Deut. xvii : 15,) — "Thou shalt in any wise set him (a king) over tliee whom the Lord thy God shall clioose ; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayst not set a sTEAXdER over thee which is not thy brother" — that it was unlawful to pay tribute to the Romans, though forcibly reduced to subjection under them. This view of the matter

26 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE.

suited the rebellious and refractory nature of the Jewish ptOjjle, and was the more popular doctrine. The Herodians took their name from the fact that they were strongly attached to the interests of Herod's family. They w^ere strongly tinctured with infidelity; made their profession of religion subservient to their political interests. Hence, they thought that it was right to pay the tribute to Cttsar. The design was toget Christ to settle the dispute between them, and thereby ensnare him. Had he given his opinion on the side of the Pharisees, then the Herodians w-ould have accused and delivered him to Pilate, the Roman governor, to be treated as a rebel or traitor. Had he ijiven his opinion simply to pay tribute to Caesar, then the Pharisees would have accused him, before the people, as being an enemy to their civil liberties, and teaching contrary to the law of ]Moses, and requiring passive obedience to the heathen magistrates. They evidently supposed that it was impossible for him to answer their question without encountering a serious difficulty. Christ gave them to understand that he was fully aw^are of their designs. " He perceived their wickedness;" yet he chose to answer their in- (piiry, as an important principle was to be en-

TUH KKLATIOX OF ClIURCII AND STATE. 2T

•g'rafted on his re}>ly. " HaA'ing, therefore, obtained the coin in whieli the tribute was paid, and drawn them to acknowledge that it was stamped with Caesar's image and name, he tacitly inferred that Ca'sar was the civil ruler to whom God had subjected them ; and, therefore, as they derived the protection and the benefits of the magistracy from him — of which fact the circulation and currency of his coinage was an evidence — they were not only allowed, but required, to render to him both tribute and civil honor and obedience. .Vt the same time, they must render to God that honor, love, worshij), and service, which his commandments claimed, and which were justly due to him ; and must not disobey him out of regard to any earthly sovereign. His answer condemned equalh' the refractory spirit of the Pharisees, who scrupled obedience to the Roman emperors, under pretence of religion, and the time-serving Plerodians, who made a compliment of their religion to their prince, and conformed to many heathen customs to please him ; and it is, moreover, of universal application and replete with practical instruction."" "^^ "Christians must obey their magistrates, although they be wicked and ex-

* Scott.

28 THE llELATIOX OF CnURCU AND STATE

tortioners, but so . . . that the authority of God may remain safe to him, and his honor be not diminished."! These extracts contain the proper principles on which Christians arc to act — viz: To honor, obey, and respect the civil authority under which their lot, in the providence of God, is cast. The other parts of the Bible are in harmony with the teachino;s of Christ.

First, civil government is a divine institution, that is, it is the will of God that it should exist. " Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God ; the powers that be are ordainerl of God." (Rom. xiii: 1.)

Secondly, while government is of God, the form of it is of men. The Scripture, no where enjoins it on men to have one and only o;zeform of civil government. The same kind of civil government will not suit every community; but the Bible does lay down certain principles which are applicable to rulers and subjects, under every form in which governments exist. That this position is the correct one, is plain from the varied teachings of the New Testament. Christ taught civil obedience to Caesar, the emperor of the Roman Empire ; Paul recognizes the various forrus of human government

THE RELATION OF CIIURCn AND STATE. 29

AN licii lie " exhorts tliat supplications, pi-ayers. and intercession . . . l)e made for all men ; for

KINGS, and ALL THAT AllE IN AUTHORITY." (I

Tim. ii: 1, 2.) Peter in his first epistle, 2d chapter, endorses the position when he says, verses 13, 14, 17, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake ; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governoks, as unto them that are sent by liim for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. "Honor the king." From the fact that the Jewish State was a theocracyj the civil magistrate had many rights in relation to religion under that dispensation, Avhich have been repealed by the great law giver, Jesus Christ. It was necessary under that form of the Church and State, that the civil magistrate sliould be a member of the Church ; but this is not an essential qualification now, since Church and State are cleaily separated ; still, it would be better if all, both rulers and ruled, were true Christians. Much information, and many and useful lessons might be learned by civil rulers of the present day, from a careful study of the lives of eminent men, whose lives and mictions are recorded in the Ijible.

Thirdly, it is the dutv of the civil authoritv c*

30 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AXD STATE.

to punish evil-doers, and protect the sober and quiet citizens in the enjoyment of all civil rights granted by the constitution of the country; not merely to tolerate^ but to give full religious liberty to all those who contribute to its support, obey its laws, and defend it against the attacks of hostile governments. From these principles naturally arise the inquiry, How far are Christians to obey civil authority '? Hence we will now examine into the nature and extent of that obedience which the Bible commands us to render to our rulers.

Fourthly, obedience to civil authority is limited, and there are cases in which disobedience is a duty. This position is clear, from the very nature of civil government; it being established for the benefit of those entering into the social compact. Rulers are "• sent by Him (God) for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." When, therefore, the civil authority fail to punish crimes against the community, when it fails to carry out the provisions of the compact, when it refuses to protect the good and obedient citizen in his constitutional rights, it perverts the end of its organization, and may be lawfully changed or modified so as to more eft'ectuallv secure the protection of the persons and property of those forming tlie compact. The ordinance of civil government being of divine appointment, whik' the/br;« is left to human wisdom, a community may change tlie form of their government from a monarchy to a representative, or an ohgarchy or limited monarchy, to any other form that they may deem best suited to their situation or circumstances. A monarchy may be best adapted to certain states of society ; a limited monarchy may suit another state, a o-overnment bv the nobilitv may suit a third, and a representative or republican form may be best adapted to a fourth, so that whatever form is adopted by the community in whicli we live, it certainly is the duty of every Christian to " obey the ^^owers that be," " to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,-' until that is changed or abolished by those who are governed. This obedience is limited by the written constitution of the country, or by known and established usage, or Avhen the civil authority clearly transcends its authority and requires obedience to laws clearly at war with the revealed will of God. In the United States there can be but little difficulty in ascertaining what is the law of the land. Tlie les^islative