THE SERVILE RELATION AS AN "ORDINANCE."

507

nance of God" that the marriage tie by which John and Mary are husband and wife, is an "ordinance of God ?" What is there in Scripture, as regards this "ordinance," to show that Peter might not just as well have been the master, and John the slave? We put aside mere abstractions at present, and we wish the doctrine applied to this concrete case. If it cannot explain the relation existing between John and Peter, and how it was originally formed as an "ordinance of God," the doctrine cannot apply to any case. It must first establish the relation between John, the master, and Peter, the slave, and then vindicate it as God's ordinance. What is the process for doing this, pointed out in Scripture?

We have no difficulty in putting Peter into the family of John Smith as his slave, under the statute law by which he is held. We can kidnap him from Africa, by Col. Lamar and the slave ship Wanderer; or we can transmit him by inheritance from the honorable family of Smith, in the line of John's ancestors; or we can buy him of Wade Hampton with John's money; or we can give John a "clean bill of sale" from a friend as a gift, with "one dollar" as a consideration. We can exhaust all the possible modes by which he could have been made and held a slave, and brought into this relation to John Smith, any one of which would stand the test of South Carolina law; and yet, we fail to find any one of them, or all of them together, anywhere set forth as the modes by which this relation may be constituted, so as, without question, to make it an "ordinance of God," as the matrimonial and parental relations are acknowledged to be; while, how to exalt Peter into "an ordinance" in a Scriptural manner is the vital question at issue.

Now, can it be possible, that a relation where such momentous interests are involved, can be elevated to the

dignity of a divine "ordinance," founded on revelation, and put on a par with the matrimonial and parental relations, a relation, as in negro slavery in the South, involving life, liberty, the grossest ignorance, ignoring marriage, breaking up families,-and yet, the Scriptures be utterly silent on the manner of its formation, and the persons who may enter it, on the one side and the other, while they are so full on these points touching every other relation where an "ordinance of God" is concerned? Judæus Apella.

Credat

THE ONLY LOOPHOLE, AND THAT CLOSED.

There is but one possible resort by which any advocate of this doctrine can attempt to relieve the case of Peter; and that we have already met, and it will avail him nothing. The New Testament can throw no light upon it.

The only thing left is to go back to the time of Abraham and Moses, to the Jewish law, which would allow Peter to be "bought with (John's) money," as "bondmen❞ were then bought of the "heathen." But that resort presents sundry difficulties which we have already noticed.

As we are now confined to a specific case, we say as before, that until you show as unequivocal commands as Abraham and Moses had, commands as directly addressed to the present race of masters as those ancient commands were addressed to the Jews as a distinct people, you can gain nothing by that resort; and if John Smith claims that he has a right to Peter, under those ancient commands, he must show, that he, John Smith, infallibly belongs to the present class to whom like commands are addressed, or that a similar command has been addressed to him in person. All this must be as certain antecedently as the claim which any Jew could make, and then John

THE ONLY LOOPHOLE, AND THAT CLOSED.

509

Smith can proceed, but not before, to possess himself of Peter.

If these positions are not tenable, then we say as before, that any person or any number of persons, without any authority whatever from God, may at any time, and in any country, get up a system of slavery "to order," and immediately place it under the ancient Jewish law, with the same good reason that the Southern system can be placed there.

We here drop the discussion upon the Scriptural claim of Southern slavery to a recognition by both the Old and New Testament. There are other arguments which are often advanced for the claim which it is unnecessary to notice. If those which we have considered cannot be maintained, the claim must fall. On which side lies the truth, we leave the reader to judge.

CHAPTER XIV.

SLAVERY IN POLEMICS.-LAW OF NATURE.

It is of comparatively little consequence to Christian men, what the "Law of Nature" may teach about slavery. When we have a written Revelation from God, and are told that slavery is "sanctioned," "ordained," "established," "regulated," and "sanctified," by express commands," "covenants," "statutes," and "ordinances" of His word, we are satisfied with simply examining this Revelation. If the negro slavery of the South can be justified by the Scriptures, and in all the modes claimed, that is quite enough; the Law of Nature cannot add any thing to this testimony. So, on the other hand, after being so confidently referred to the Scriptures for full proof for negro slavery, if we find the evidence fail, we need not be sent to Nature to have the case mended. That cannot supply our need, while we have Revelation as "an infallible rule of faith and practice."

But we are not afraid of Nature, her Law, or her teachings. In examining the subject, however, so as to derive any practical benefit, and especially so as to settle the question before us, we are met at the outset with difficulties.

DISAGREEMENT ON WHAT IS THE LAW OF NATURE.

Men are not agreed upon the meaning of the phrase, "Law of Nature;" upon what Nature herself is, as a moral teacher; upon the extent, character, and authority of her teachings; whether she is an independent and authoritative

THE LAW OF NATURE.

511

teacher, or to be limited by Revelation; or how her teachings are to be interpreted, and by whom. These and a thousand other things come up for settlement before we can make even a beginning in our investigations. We are then completely at sea touching this whole matter; and it is the merest folly for those who have a perfect guide in a written Revelation, in all questions of morals, to leave that to follow an ignis-fatuus.

Dr. Seabury, in defending slavery as resting on the "Law of Nature," defines the phrase as follows: "By the Law of Nature, according to the best usage among the ancients, and universally among the moderns, is meant, as we have said, that rule of fitness which the Deity has established for the government of men, considered as reasonable creatures, and intended for mutual society." Upon this definition, three things may be observed. (1.) Here is an admission that this law is not understood alike; for he speaks of the "best usage among the ancients." They then differed among themselves, as all men know. (2.) Men also now differ as to which was the "best usage" among differing opinions in former times. Dr. Seabury is a case in point. As we shall see hereafter, he dissents from the opinion of one of the highest authorities "among the ancients." (3.) Nor is this law understood alike, "universally among the moderns;" for nothing is more certain than that men now, as they have always done, on ten thousand questions,-and this very question of slavery, in all its bearings, is a striking example of the fact,-widely differ as to what "that rule of fitness" is, of which he speaks. Modern apologists for negro slavery, -and he among them,-deem the system of the South pre-eminent in its fitness" for both master and slave; the very best condition of things, "intended for mutual society," as taught by both Nature and Revelation.

6.