The Bible no Refuge for Slavery.
By Editor
[THE subject of slavery naturally enough is being agitated more or less throughout the country. Believers in present truth are often met by opponents with the assertion that slavery is upheld by the Bible; and requests have been sent in that something be given on the subject through the Review. In compliance with these requests, and because we think it will meet the minds of the readers of the Review generally, we herewith commence a series of extracts from the work of Luther Lee on this subject entitled, Slavery Examined in the Light of the Bible.] 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 minority, 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, claiming 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 following reasons. It is inconsistent with man's relation to God, and the obligations growing out of that relation. Dr. Payne, in his "Elements of Moral Science," says:— "Virtue as it regards man, is the conformity or harmony of his affections and actions with the various relations in which 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 we believe it is, it follows, that man cannot rightfully sustain two relations at the same time, with both of which his affections and actions cannot harmonize; which is the case with the relation that all men sustain to God, and the relation to property in man with its usual incidents. The relations we sustain to God are various. He is our Creator, our Preserver, our Benefactor—He is the framer of our bodies and the Father of our spirits and he is our Governor. The quotation from Dr. Payne asserts that God is the judge of the conformity of man's affections and actions to his relations, and this judgment God has expressed in the first 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 both right and power 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 men 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 right to obey God, and liberty of conscience, every one must know that such an assumption would be false, for the extension of the right to slaves, to obey God, as free men professing the religion of the Bible deem it their 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, for 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 traveler to eternity, the path of obedience and with authority direct his footsteps in the way of sin and death. Man cannot sustain the relation of property 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 affections and actions to this relation, hence, the right of property 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 his allegiance to Jehovah's throne. Can this be right? Does the Bible sanction such a principle, beaming as it does with the mind of Him who declares himself to be a jealous God; flashing with the lightnings of his displeasure, and speaking in the thunder tones 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 in heaven, earth or hell? It cannot be. Slavery 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 does 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, the Scriptures. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word74it 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 scriptures, for in them ye think ye 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 scriptures 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 of salvation by searching the scriptures. All this we know his Spirit writes 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 condemns 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 away 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 property 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 himself, which will overthrow the whole system of slavery. This view shows that the slave, as property, 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 scriptures,' and the assumed right of property 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 be reduced to a chattel. With this agrees the law of slavery which says that a slave 'can do nothing, possess nothing, 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 the right of property. 2. The right and obligation to search the scriptures includes the right to devote sufficient time to the pursuit of religious knowledge. But the right of property in a man includes the right to monopolize and dispose of his whole time, so that he cannot possess 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 the advocate of slavery will attempt to evade the force of this, by denying that the right of property in man includes the right to control the time of such property, 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 controlling 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 worshiping 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 generally, 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 from whose 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 property 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.