Dr. Wayland says:
P. 209. “The moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed to
slavery.”
P. 210. “The moral principles of the gospel are directly subversive of
the principles of slavery.” * * * “If the gospel be diametrically
opposed to the _principles_ of slavery, it must be opposed to the
_practice_ of slavery; and, therefore, were the principles of the gospel
fully adopted, slavery could not exist.”
Dr. Wayland having conceived himself to possess a distinct faculty,
which reveals to him, with unerring truthfulness, whatever is right and
all that is wrong, may be expected to consider himself fully able to
decide, in his own way, what instruction God intended to convey to us,
on the subject of slavery, through the books of Divine revelation; yet,
we cannot but imagine that St. Paul would be somewhat astonished, if
presented with the doctor’s decision for his approval, and that he would
cry out:
“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master, he
standeth, or falleth: yea, he will be holden up; for God is able to make
him stand.”
But although we cannot boast of possessing this unerring moral guide,
which, of late years, seems to be so common a possession among that
class who ardently desire us to believe that they have monopolized all
the knowledge of God’s will on the subject of slavery, yet we may
venture a remark on the logical accuracy of Dr. Wayland’s argument.
It seems to be a postulate in his mind that the gospel is diametrically
opposed to, and subversive of, the principles of slavery. We do not
complain of this syllogistic mode; but we do complain, as we have done
before, that his postulate is not an axiom, a self-evident truth, or
made equal thereto by the open and clear declarations of Christ or his
apostles. This defect cannot be remedied by ever so many suppositions,
nor by deductions therefrom. Nor will those of a different faith from
Dr. Wayland, on the subject of “conscience,” or “moral sense,” be
satisfied to receive the declarations of this his “distinct faculty” as
the fixed decrees of eternal truth. His assertions and arguments may be
very convincing to those who think they possess this distinct faculty,
especially if their education and prejudices tend to the same
conclusion.
But if what President Wayland says about slavery be true, then to hold
slaves is a most heinous sin; and he who does so, and never repents, can
never visit Paul in heaven. He necessarily is placed on a parallel with
the thief and robber; and Dr. Channing has been bold enough to say so.
But has Paul ever hinted to us any such thing as that the holding of
slaves is a sin? Yet he gives us instruction on the subject and
relations of slavery. What excuse had St. Paul for not telling us what
the Rev. Dr. Wayland now tells us, if what he has told us be true? And
if it be true, what are we to think of Paul’s verity, when he asserts
that he has “not shunned to declare all the counsel of God?”
Did Jesus Christ ever hint such an idea as Dr. Wayland’s? What are we to
understand, when he addresses God, the Father, and says, “I have given
unto them the words thou gavest me, and they have received them?” What
are we to deduce from his remark on a slaveholder, and who notified him
of that fact, when he says to his disciples, “Verily I say unto you, I
have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel?” What impression was
this remark calculated to produce on the minds of the disciples? Does
Dr. Wayland found his assertion on _Luke_ xvii. 7–10? or does he agree
with Paley that Christ privately condemned slavery to the apostles, and
that they kept such condemnation secret to themselves, to prevent
opposition to the introduction of Christianity, and left the most wicked
sin of slave-holding to be found out by a mere innuendo? Or does Dr.
Wayland claim, through the aid of his distinct moral faculty infallibly
teaching him the truth, to have received some new light on the subject
of slavery, which the FATHER deemed not prudent to be intrusted to the
SON, and, therefore, now more lucid and authoritative than what was
revealed to the apostles?
The Archbishop Secker has made a remark which appears to us conclusive,
and also exactly to fit the case. In his Fifth Lecture on the Catechism,
he says:—
“Supposing the Scripture a true revelation, so far as it goes; how shall
we know, if it be a full and complete one too, in all things necessary?
I answer: Since our Saviour had the Spirit without measure, and the
writers of Scripture had as large a measure of it as their commission to
instruct the world required, it is impossible that, in so many
discourses concerning the terms of salvation as the New Testament
contains, they should all have omitted any _one thing_ necessary to the
great end which they had in view. And what was not necessary when the
Scripture was completed, cannot have become so since. For the faith was,
once for all, ‘delivered to the saints,’ _Jude_ 3; and ‘other foundation
can no man lay,’ 1 _Cor._ iii. 11, than what was laid then. The sacred
penmen themselves could teach no other doctrine than Christ appointed
them; and he hath appointed no one since to make addition to it.”
But it may be proper to take some further notice how the author of these
“Elements” attempts to prove the truth of the proposition that “the
moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed to slavery.” He
says, “God can make known to us his will, either directly or
indirectly.”
He may, in express terms, command or forbid a thing; this will be
directly;—or he may command certain duties, or impose certain
obligations, with which some certain course of conduct is inconsistent;
in which case the inconsistent course of conduct will be indirectly
forbidden.
We have not followed Dr. Wayland’s exact words, because we found them
somewhat confused, and rather ambiguous. We prefer to have the case
clearly stated, and we then accept the terms, and repeat the question,
“Has God imposed obligations on man which are inconsistent with the
existence of domestic slavery?”
In proof that he has, Dr. Wayland presents the Christian duty “to preach
the gospel to all nations and men, without respect to circumstances or
condition.” We agree that such is our duty, so far as we may have the
power; and it appears to us strange how that duty can interfere with the
existence of slavery, because the practical fact is, slavery brings
hundreds of thousands of negroes into a condition whereby the duty may
be performed, and many thereby do come to some knowledge of the gospel,
who would, otherwise, have none.
Every Christian slaveholder feels it to be his duty. Is it denied that
this duty is ever performed?
But if it is incompatible with the institution of slavery for the slave
to be taught Christianity, then Christianity and slavery can never
co-exist in the same person. Therefore, Dr. Wayland must prove that no
slave can be a Christian, before this argument can have weight.
The man who owns a slave has a trust; he who has a child has one also.
In both cases the trustee may do as he did who “dug in the earth and hid
his lord’s money.” We cheerfully deliver them up to the lash of Dr.
Wayland.
The author of the “Elements of Moral Science” next presents the marriage
contract, and seems desirous to have us suppose that its obligations are
incompatible with slavery. His words are—
“He has taught us that the conjugal relation is established by himself;
that husband and wife are joined together by God; and that man may not
put them asunder. The marriage contract is a contract for life, and is
dissoluble only for one cause, that of conjugal infidelity. Any system
that interferes with this contract, and claims to make it any thing else
than what God has made it, is in violation of his law.”
This proposition is bad; it is too verbose to be either definite or
correct. There are many things that will interfere with the provisions
of this proposition, and yet not be in violation of the laws of God.
Suppose one of President Wayland’s pupils has married a wife, and yet
commits a crime. He is arrested, and the president is his judge. When
about to pronounce sentence of imprisonment for life, the pupil reads to
his judge the foregoing paragraph, and argues that he cannot receive
such sentence, because it will interfere with the marriage contract,
and, therefore, be in violation of the laws of God.
We trust some will deem this a sufficient refutation of the proposition.
But if we take the proposition as its author has left it, we have yet to
learn that any slaveholder will object to it; although it may be he will
differ with them on the subject of what constitutes Christian marriage,
among pagan negroes or their pagan descendants.
Will the reverend moralist determine that a promiscuous intercourse is
the conjugal relation established by God himself; that such is the
marriage contract which no man may put asunder? Will he decide that an
attempt to regulate the conduct of men, bond or free, who manifest such
a state of morals, is in violation of the laws of God? Who are his
pupils, when he shall say that an attempt to enforce the laws of God, in
practice among men, is a violation of them?
So far as our experience goes, masters universally manifest a desire to
have their negroes marry, and to live with their wives and children, in
conformity to Christian rules. And one reason, if no other, is very
obvious. The master wishes to secure the peace and tranquillity of his
household. And we take this occasion to inform Dr. Wayland and his
coadjutors, that a very large proportion of the punishments that are
awarded slaves are for violations of what, perhaps, he may call the
marriage contract, so anxious is the master to inculcate the obligations
of marriage among them.
It is true, some slaves of a higher order of physical and moral
improvement, influenced by the habits and customs of their masters,
habituate themselves to a cohabitation with one companion for life; and,
in all such cases, the master invariably gives countenance to their
wishes; indeed, in some instances, masters have deemed them worthy of
having their wishes sanctioned and solemnized by the ceremonies of the
church ritual. And in all such cases, superior consideration and
advantages are always bestowed, not only in reward of their merit, but
as an encouragement for others.
The African negro has no idea of marriage as a sacred ordinance of God.
Many of the tribes worship a_Fetish_, which is a personification of
their gross notions of procreation; but it inculcates no idea like that
of marriage; and we have known the posterity of that people, four or
five generations removed from the African native, as firmly attached to
those strange habits as if they had been constitutional. Negroes, who
have only arrived to such a state of mental and moral development, would
find it somewhat difficult to comprehend what the Christian church
implied by the marriage covenant! Therefore, where there was no reason
to believe that its duties were understood, or that their habits and
conduct would be influenced by it any longer than until they should take
some new notion, a ceremony of any high order has been thought to do
injury. A rule, often broken, ceases to be venerated. And we feel quite
sure that some Christians would deem it quite improper to permit those
to join in any sacred ceremony which neither their physical nor mental
development would permit them to comprehend or obey, whether freemen or
slaves.
In the articles drawn up at Ratisbon by Melancthon, we find, Article 16,
_De Sacram. Matrimo._:
“The sacrament of matrimony belongs only to Christians. It is a holy and
constant union of one single man with one single woman, confirmed by the
blessing and consecration of Jesus Christ.”
And St. Paul says, _Eph._ v. 32, of matrimony: “This is a great mystery:
but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”
We know not whether the author of the “Elements” believes, with
Melancthon, that matrimony is a Christian sacrament or not. We believe
the majority of modern Protestants do not so consider it, although
Luther says, _De Matrimonio_:
“Matrimony is called a sacrament, because it is the type of a very noble
and very holy thing. Hence the married ought to consider and respect the
dignity of this sacrament.”
Question:—Would Melancthon, or Luther, or the author of these
“Elements,” consent to perform the marriage ceremony, joining, in the
holy bonds of matrimony, two negroes, who neither understood the
Christian duties it imposed, and of whom it was well known that they
would not regard the contract as binding any longer than their fancy or
passions might dictate. A Christian sacrament is not only a sign of
Christian grace, but the seal of its insurance to us, and the instrument
of the Holy Ghost, whereby faith is conferred, as a Divine gift, upon
the soul. We feel it a Christian duty to “not give that which is holy to
dogs,” nor “cast pearls before swine.” Is Dr. Wayland of the same
opinion?
It may be well to advise our author of some facts in proof of what state
of connubial feelings exist among African negroes. We quote from Lander,
vol. i. p. 312:
“The manners of the Africans are hostile to the interests and
advancement of women.”
P. 328. “A man is at liberty to return his wife to her parents, at any
time, without adducing any reason for his dislike.” * * * “The children,
if any, the mother is by no means permitted to take along with her; but
they are left behind with the father, who delivers them over to the care
of other women.”
P. 158. “A man thinks as little of taking a wife as of cutting an ear of
corn; affection is altogether out of the question.”
Vol. ii. p. 208. “Africans, generally speaking, betray the most perfect
indifference on losing their liberty, or in being deprived of their
relations; while love of country is, seemingly, as great a stranger to
their breasts as social tenderness and domestic affection.”
We quote from the Christian Observer, vol. xix. p. 890: “Mr. Johnson was
appointed to the care of Regent’s Town, June, 1816. * * * Natives of
twenty-two different nations were there collected together: * * * none
of them had learned to live in a state of marriage.”
Proofs of this trait in the African character may be accumulated; and a
very determined disposition to live in a state of promiscuous
intercourse is often noticeable, in their descendants, for many
generations, notwithstanding the master endeavours to restrain it by
corporeal punishment. But yet, under this state of facts, our laws
forbid the separation of children from mothers, under ages stipulated by
law.
It is the interest of the master to have his slaves orderly—to possess
them of some interest which will have a tendency to that result. Their
quiet settlement in families has been thought to be among the most
probable and influential inducements to insure the desired effect, and
to produce a moral influence on them. Besides this interest of the
master, his education on the subject of marriage must be allowed to have
a strong influence on his mind to favour and foster in his slaves a
connection which his own judgment teaches him must be important to their
happiness and his own tranquillity, to say nothing of his duty as a
Christian. Indeed, we never heard of a master who did not feel a strong
desire, a pride, to see his slaves in good condition, contented and
happy; and we venture to assert, that no man, who entertained a proper
regard for his own character, would consent to sell a family of slaves,
separately, to different individuals, when the slaves themselves
manifested good conduct, and a habit, or desire, to live together in
conformity to the rules of civilized life. Even a casual cohabitation is
often caught at by the master, and sanctioned, as permanent, if he can
do so in accordance with the conduct and feelings of the negroes
themselves.
That the owners of slaves have sometimes abused the power they
possessed, and outraged the feelings of humanity in this behalf, is
doubtless a fact. Nor do we wish to excuse such conduct, by saying that
proud and wealthy parents sometimes outrage the feelings of common sense
and of their own children in a somewhat similar way. These are abuses
that can be, and should be corrected; and we are happy to inform Dr.
Wayland that we have lived to see many abuses corrected, and hope that
many more corrections may follow in their train. But we assure him that
the wholesale denunciations of men who, in fact, know but little about
the subjects of their distress, may produce great injury to the objects
of their sympathies, but no possible benefit. And let us now, with the
best feeling, inform Dr. Wayland, and his co-agitators, of one result of
his and their actions in this matter. We assert what we know.
Thirty years ago, we occasionally had schools for negro children; nor
was it uncommon for masters to send their favourite young slaves to
these schools; nor did such acts excite attention or alarm; and, at the
same time, any missionary had free access to that class of our
population. But when we found, with astonishment, that our country was
flooded with abolition prints, deeply laden with the most abusive
falsehoods, with the obvious design to excite rebellion among the
slaves, and to spread assassination and bloodshed through the land;—when
we found these transient missionaries, mentally too insignificant to
foresee the result of their conduct, or wholly careless of the
consequences, preaching the same doctrines;—these little schools and the
mouths of these missionaries were closed. And great was the cry. Dr.
Wayland knows whereabout lies the wickedness of these our acts! Let him
and his coadjutors well understand that these results, whether for the
benefit or injury of the slave, have been brought about by the work of
their hands.
If these transient missionaries were the only persons who had power to
teach the gospel to the slave, who has deprived the slaves of the
gospel?
If these suggestions are true, will not Dr. Wayland look back upon his
labours with dissatisfaction? Does he behold their effects with joy? Has
he thrown one ray of light into the mental darkness of benighted Africa?
Has he removed one pain from the moral disease of her benighted
children? If so perfectly adverse have been his toils, will he expect us
to countenance his school, sanction his morality, or venerate his
theology? A very small portion of poison makes the feast fatal!
Does he complain because some freemen lower themselves down to this
promiscuous intercourse with the negro? We are dumb; we deliver them up
to his lash! Or does he complain because we do not marry them ourselves?
We surely have yet to learn, because we decline such marriages, and a
deteriorated posterity, that, therefore, we interfere with the
institution of marriage, or make it something which God did not. We had
thought that the laws of God all looked towards a state of physical,
intellectual, and moral improvement and that such an amalgamation as
would necessarily leave a more deteriorated race in our stead, would be
sin, and would be punished, if in no other way, yet still by the very
fact of such degradation. Or does Dr. Wayland deny that the negro is an
inferior race of man to the white? If the slave and master were of the
same race, as they once were in all parts of Europe, intermarriage
between them would blot out the institution, as it has done there. In
such case, his argument might have some force.
Under the Spanish law, a master might marry his female slave, or he
might suffer any freeman to marry her; but the marriage, in either case,
was emancipation to her. The wife was no longer a slave; and so by the
Levitical law. See _Deut._ xxi. 14.
The laws of the Slave States of our Union forbid amalgamation with the
negro race; consequently such a marriage would be a nullity, and the
offspring take the condition of the mother.
The object of this law is to prevent the deterioration of the white
race.
Thus we have seen that all the practical facts relating to the influence
of the slavery of the Africans among us, touching the subject of
marriage, as to them, are in opposition to what Dr. Wayland seems to
suppose. In short, the slavery of the negroes in these States has a
constantly continued tendency to change—to enforce an improvement of the
morals of the African—to an approximation of the habits of Christian
life.
------------------