CHAPTER XIV.

SLAVERY IN POLEMICS.-LAW OF NATURE.

Ir 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.

Others totally dissent from these opinions. It is simply the determination to push this doctrine and illustrate this "fitness" by extending negro slavery far and wide, which is now deluging this nation in blood. The upshot of the whole matter, therefore, is, that it is ludicrously absurd,not to say criminal,-to pretend that all men now agree upon the "Law of Nature," as Dr. Seabury here defines it.

The Law of Nature,-so far as there is any such thing, whether we understand it or not,-is the Law of God. He speaks through both Nature and Revelation. His utterances from them are harmonious. They are but different volumes to unfold His will. Where men have not Reve lation, Nature is their guide. But what is the guide in such a case? We refer only to human opinions as we find them; what answer do they give? Is this guide the knowledge of God's will which men may gather from His works of creation and providence ?-or, within a narrower view, from the condition of human society ?-or, in a still narrower, from the voice of the individual soul, the reason, the conscience?-or, from the general judgment or consent of mankind?—or, is it from all these combined ?—or, is it from something different from them all? Here, again, the philosophers of the world are disagreed, and he who attempts to follow them will find himself befogged and in despair.

DISAGREEMENT IN APPLYING THE LAW OF NATURE.

To show the bearing of all this upon the case in hand, we need only observe that some writers declare, with an assurance which awes timidity into submission, that the Law of Nature justifies slavery; that it is founded in it and approved by it; and that hence all nations have recognized slavery as proper on such grounds. But other writers as directly declare that the Law of Nature con

MORAL PHASES INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION. 513

demns slavery; that wherever slavery has existed, though it may have prevailed ever so widely, it has always been in violation of this law, and an infringement upon the inherent rights of man. And thus the ablest men are in conflict on that which is vital to the whole question. They disagree upon matters of fact and of principle; upon what the law itself is; whether it approves or condemns; and differ upon its application.

When Christian men cannot agree about the meaning of a written Revelation concerning slavery, it is worse than idle to make an appeal to the Law of Nature, where the matters presented for its justification are vastly more indeterminate and inconclusive.

MORAL PHASES INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION.

It will often appear, both in the investigation of this branch of the subject and that concerning slavery being authorized by the Scriptures, that men's views as to matters of fact, principle, interpretation, and application, covering all that bears upon the justification of slavery, are more or less shaped and modified by the circumstances of their education, and also to a degree, no doubt imperceptibly to themselves, by their interests. It is an undoubted fact, that with the rarest exceptions, the men who have justified and defended slavery as a divine institution, as an "ordinance of God," have been those who were in some way interested in the system, directly or indirectly; sometimes through a pecuniary interest, and sometimes through their social or other relationships.

It is no impeachment of human nature, except as fallen and blind, and no unjust invasion of any proper principle within the province of morals, to say that arguments in favor of human bondage,-and especially that system of chattelism which so dehumanizes both the master and the

slave as to make a man formed "in the image of God," the marketable, vendibie commodity of another man, as 1 horse and an ox,-when universally presented by those who are interested in the system, should be scrutinized with some degree of suspicion. If any persons to whom this may apply do not feel themselves complimented, the fault is not ours; it is the fault of the case. Whatever else may be said of the Law of Nature, this is a true prin ciple, as gathered from the universal observations of mankind, meaning now, under this view of the law, simply the universal state of the human race, as fallen beings,that all men are more or less swayed in their judgments, reasonings, and feelings, by their interests, and often and to a degree without being aware of it. This is as truly settled in the convictions of mankind as any other fact or principle.

We see no reason why the principle should not be applied to judgments, reasonings, feelings, in favor of slavery; but, on the other hand, every reason why it should be so applied. If the justice and force of the application in any manner depend upon the degree of interest in the subject, then we have only to look at what men are now doing in this terrible rebellion, undertaken and prosecuted for the sake of slavery, to see how closely their opinions, urged in favor of the system, should be scanned.

ILLUSTRATIVE CONTRADICTIONS.

Let us, now, in order to come directly to the matter in hand, first give an example or two to show the contradiction of writers upon the point whether slavery is justified or condemned by the Law of Nature.

Dr. Seabury writes a book, published since the rebellion began, entitled, "American Slavery distinguished from the Slavery of English Theorists, and Justified by the Law of