“Slavery, in the age of the apostle, had so penetrated society, was so
intimately interwoven with it, and the materials of servile war were so
abundant, that a religion preaching freedom to the slave would have
shaken the social fabric to its foundation, and would have armed against
itself the whole power of the state. Paul did not then assail the
institution. He satisfied himself with spreading principles, which,
however slowly, could not but work its dissolution.”
This author, thus having satisfied himself with a display which the
greater portion of his readers deem original, commences, p. 103, and
quotes from “The Elements of Moral Science,” p. 212:
“This very course, which the gospel takes on this subject, seems to have
been the only one that could have been taken in order to effect the
universal abolition of slavery. The gospel was designed, not for one
race or for one time, but for all races and for all times. It looked,
not at the abolition of this form of evil for that age alone, but for
its universal abolition. Hence, the important object of its author was
to gain it a lodgment in every part of the known world:” and concludes
with our quotation from the author.
Dr. Barnes “fights more shy;” he sees “the trap.” The Biblical Repertory
has unveiled to his view the awful abyss to which this doctrine
necessarily leaps. Yet the abyss must be passed; the facts, the doctrine
of Paley, and the gulf, must be got over, in some way, or abolition
doctrines must be given up. For thirty pages, like a candle-fly, he
coquets around the light of this doctrine, until he gathers courage, and
finally falls into it under the plea of “expediency.” He quotes
Wayland’s Letters to Fuller, p. 73, which says—
“This form of expediency—the inculcating of a fundamental truth, rather
than of the duty which springs immediately out of it, seems to me
_innocent_. I go further: in some cases, it may be really demanded,” &c.
“And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to
inherit eternal life.” _Luke_ xviii. 18.
This man was rich—probably had slaves. Was it _inexpedient_ for the Son
of God to have plainly told him of its wickedness? Was not the occasion
quite appropriate, if such had been the Saviour’s view?
When the keeper of the prison said to Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what shall
I do to be saved?” was it _inexpedient_ in them to have mentioned _this
sin_?
When the subject of slavery was mentioned in Corinthians, Ephesians,
Colossians, in Timothy, Titus, and Peter, was it still _inexpedient_?
And in the case of Philemon, “the dearly beloved and fellow-labourer,”
when Paul was pleading for the runaway slave, in what did the
_inexpediency_ consist? When the centurion applied to the Son of God,
and _boasted that he owned slaves_, can we bring forward this paltry
excuse?
This doctrine of Paley has been so commonly quoted, let us be excused
for presenting a remark from the “Essays,” reprinted from the Princeton
Review, second series, p. 283:
“It is not by argument that the abolitionists have produced the present
unhappy excitement. Argument has not been the character of their
publications. Denunciations of slave-holding as man-stealing, robbery,
piracy, and worse than murder; consequently vituperation of slaveholders
as knowingly guilty of the worst of crimes; passionate appeals to the
feelings of the inhabitants of the Northern States; gross exaggerations
of the moral and physical condition of the slaves, have formed the
staple of their addresses to the public.”
P. 286. “Unmixed good or evil, however, in such a world as ours, is a
rare thing. Though the course pursued by the abolitionists has produced
a great preponderance of mischief, it may incidentally occasion no
little good. It has rendered it incumbent on every man to endeavour to
obtain, and, as far as he can, to communicate, definite opinions and
correct principles on the whole subject. * * * The subject of slavery is
no longer one on which men are allowed to be of no mind at all. * * *
The public mind is effectually aroused from a state of indifference and
it is the duty of all to seek the truth, _and to speak in kindness, but
with decision_. * * * We recognise no authoritative rule of truth and
duty but the word of God. * * * Men are too nearly upon a par as to
their powers of reasoning, and ability to discover truth, to make the
conclusions of one mind an authoritative rule for others.” * * *
The subject for consideration is: If the abolitionists are right in
insisting that slave-holding is one of the greatest of all sins,—that it
should be immediately and universally abandoned, as a condition of
church communion, or of admission into heaven,—how comes it that Christ
and his apostles did not pursue this sin _in plain and determined
opposition_? How comes it that the teachings of the abolitionists, on
the subject of slavery, are so extremely different from those of Jesus
Christ and his apostles? The mind is forced to the conclusion that, if
the abolitionists are right, Jesus Christ and his apostles are wrong! We
agree that, if slave-holding is a sin, it should at once be abandoned.
The whole subject is resolved to one single question: _Is slave-holding,
in itself, a crime before God?_
The abolitionists say that it is; we assert that it is not; and we look
to the conduct of Christ and his apostles to justify our position. Did
they shut their eyes to the enormities of a great offence against God
and man? Did they temporize with a heinous evil, because it was common
and popular? Did they abstain from even exhorting masters to emancipate
their slaves, though an imperative duty, from fear of consequences? Was
slavery more deeply rooted than idolatry? or more deeply interwoven with
the civil institutions? more thoroughly penetrated through every thing
human—their prejudices, literature, hopes, and happiness? Was its
denunciation, if a sin, attended with consequences more to be dreaded
than death by torture, wild beasts, the crucifix, the fagot, and the
flame? Did the apostles admit drunkards, liars, fornicators, adulterers,
thieves, robbers, murderers, and idolaters to the Christian communion,
and call them “dearly beloved and fellow-labourers?” Did the Son of God
ever intimate of any such unrepentant man, that he had “not found so
great faith, no, not in Israel?”
What are we then to think of the intellect of that man who shall affirm
that Jesus Christ and his apostles classed the slave-holder with the
worst of these characters? Yea, what can such a man think of himself?
Did the apostles counsel thieves and robbers how they should advisedly
conduct themselves in the practice of these crimes? Were those who had
been _robbed_ carefully gathered up and sent back to some known
_robber_, to be _robbed_ again? And, on such occasion, did any of the
apostles address such _robber_ in the language of affection, saying, “I
thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, hearing of
thy love and faith, which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus and toward
all saints?”
No one in his senses will deny that the Scriptures condemn injustice,
cruelty, oppression, and violence, whether exhibited in the conduct of
the master towards his slave or any other person:—crime being the same,
whether committed in the relation of master and slave, husband and wife,
or the monarch and his subjects. It may so happen that great crimes are
committed by persons in these relations. But what is the argument worth
which asserts _it is very wicked to be a schoolmaster_, because some
schoolmaster whipped his pupil too much, or another not enough, or a
third, in an angry, wicked state of mind, has put one to death?
Who has ever asserted that marriage was not a Divine institution,
because some in that state live very unhappily together, and others have
conspired against the happiness or life of those whom the institution
made it their duty to protect?
Dr. Wayland’s proposition, when analyzed and freed from verbiage, is
this: the teaching of moral principles, subversive of the abuse of a
thing, is proof that the teacher is opposed to the thing itself! and, if
true, we say, is as applicable to every other institution among men, as
to slavery.
------------------