66

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

But

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

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

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

* Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, p. 170.

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

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

66

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

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

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

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

Paul's conduct and advice

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

"With sincere and fraternal regard,

"Your friend and brother,

"M. STUART."

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

38

AN INQUIRY INTO THE

CHAPTER II.

What constitutes Slavery?

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

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

66

* Bib. Repertory, 1836, p. 294.

is some resemblance to that of the serf of Russia, and the 'villein' under the feudal system; but still the world is accustomed accurately to distinguish their condition from that of slave, and it does not define slavery to say that it is the condition of a serf or a villein.' There is still something essential to it which is not reached by these terms.

The importance of ascertaining accurately what slavery is, may be seen by referring to some of the definitions which have been given of it. From these it will be seen that, according to some of the different views which are held of its nature, it is easy to construct an argument in its defence. Paley's definition is this: "I define slavery," says he, "to be an obligation to labour for the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the servant."* Substantially the same is the idea of the author of the article before referred to in the Biblical Repertory, and as this may be regarded, without impropriety, as expressing the sentiments of those who apologize for slavery, or who regard it as consistent with Christianity, it is important to quote the words of the writer at length. He says, "Neither inadequate remuneration, physical discomfort, intellectual ignorance, moral degradation, is essential to the condition of a slave. Yet if all these ideas are removed from the commonly received notion of slavery, how little will remain. All the ideas which essentially enter into the definition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of service at the discretion of another, and the transferable character of the authority and claim of the master. The manner in which men are brought into this condition; its continuance, and the means adopted for securing the authority and claim of masters, are all incidental and variable. They may be reasonable or unreasonable, just or unjust, at different times and places."— p. 279. Slavery, in itself considered, is a state of bondage, and nothing more. It is the condition of an indi

66

* Moral Philosophy, book iii. ch. 3.