# RL Dabney: "A Defense of Virginia and the South"



## Ben Zartman (Jan 1, 2018)

Recently, while a guest at a conference in the Deep South, I was astonished to find this book still in print and for sale at a bookstall on the premises.
Figuring that if anyone could shed light on the issue of slavery from the _pro _perspective intelligently it would be Dabney, I purchased it.
Having just got though it, my question is: does anyone have access to a refutation of Dabney's moral justification for slavery? He goes to great lengths to show from Scripture that it was approved and regulated in both the old and new Testaments, and therefore is morally acceptable even unto this day.
As for the rest of the book, his railing political invective is an eye-opener: after all, this was a well-respected Presbyterian minister! I learned some new words, and not nice ones...
Saddest of all is his assertion that though the "African Race" was originally of one blood with all others, it had somehow degenerated and become a different _genus, _incapable of morals or equal intellectual standing with the rest of the races. But that rubbish doesn't concern his argument from scripture about the morality of forced servitude.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 1, 2018)

I've heard similar statements about black people before, but not from Christians.


----------



## Jake (Jan 1, 2018)

It is not a direct refutation, but here is a sermon against slavery as it existed in the US by another Presbyterian minister ~70 years before Dabney wrote this defense. It refutes many of the points Dabney makes (see especially the objections section) and it shows that Dabney was not simply a product of his time, since there were other Reformed ministers arguing against the position much earlier. However, it's not as in-depth or long as Dabney's work, seeing as it is a sermon, but it's still quite comprehensive for its format.

http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/14/alexander-mcleods-sermon-on-negro-slavery-unjustifiable

See also this history of McLeod and slavery as regards the Reformed Presbyterians (Covenanter) in the US:

http://pcahistory.org/ebooks/mcleod/c4.pdf

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 1, 2018)

Ben, what conference? Wondering if it was one here in Birmingham.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 1, 2018)

One popular justification for black slavery was the so-called curse of Ham in Genesis 9. As it so happens, I was reading a section in Herman Witsius earlier today that indirectly refutes this notion:

It is added, that Canaan should also be the servant of Japheth. And history testifies, that those parts of Asia, which had been long possessed by the Canaanites, were conquered by the Greeks and Romans. ... For Canaan with his posterity, is on account of the sin of Cham [Ham], condemned to be slaves to the descendants of Shem and of Japheth.

Herman Witsius, _The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity_, trans. William Crookshank (1677; 2 vols, London, 1822), ii, p. 140, 4.2.19-20.

N.B. It is possible that Alexander McLeod (referenced above) was influenced by Witsius (allow me to check notes that I have on his MSS, and I will get back to you all later).​


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 1, 2018)

The best book I have read on the subject is, "
*The Civil War as a Theological Crisis*
by Mark A. Noll 

Linked here: https://www.amazon.com/Theological-...1&keywords=the+civil+war+a+theological+crisis

I highly recommend it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 1, 2018)

Just a few thoughts:



Ben Zartman said:


> Recently, while a guest at a conference in the Deep South, I was astonished to find this book still in print and for sale at a bookstall on the premises.
> Figuring that if anyone could shed light on the issue of slavery from the _pro _perspective intelligently it would be Dabney, I purchased it.


I hope you're able to appreciate Dabney's argument for the Southern states' secession, apart from his defense of slavery. Remember that the radical abolitionist movement, not slavery, was the main factor that led to the war.



> Having just got though it, my question is: does anyone have access to a refutation of Dabney's moral justification for slavery? He goes to great lengths to show from Scripture that it was approved and regulated in both the old and new Testaments, and therefore is morally acceptable even unto this day.


In my opinion, you'd have as much of a hard time proving that no type of slavery is morally acceptable, scritpurally, as someone would have attempting to prove that race-based slavery can be supported scripturally.



> As for the rest of the book, his railing political invective is an eye-opener: after all, this was a well-respected Presbyterian minister! I learned some new words, and not nice ones...


Ah! The days before political correctness! It's a breath of fresh air, isn't it?



> Saddest of all is his assertion that though the "African Race" was originally of one blood with all others, it had somehow degenerated and become a different _genus, _incapable of morals or equal intellectual standing with the rest of the races. But that rubbish doesn't concern his argument from scripture about the morality of forced servitude.


This is sad, indeed. Dabney was a great man, but he bought into some of the false notions of his times. I highly recommend reading _The Life and Letters of Robert Louis Dabney_ by Thomas Cary Johnson. It will give you a full-orbed view of Dabney in his context. It helped me to see the truly admirable qualities of the man, as well as his definite faults. While we should judge all things objectively by the absolute standard of God's word, we should also be charitable enough toward one another to try and see the relative advantages and disadvantages that our context affords us.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 1, 2018)

A few disclaimers:

1. I am not a Dabneyphile.
2. I am not interested in any "Lost Cause" mythology.
3. Lincoln was a white supremacist.
4. I'm glad slavery is over.

With that said, I think a lot of American Covenanters overshoot the mark. There are several questions that can't be answered by self-congratulatory posts on Facebook Covenanter groups:

1. Is the relation between master and slave sinful?
2. Why didn't Paul tell the church to forbid communion to slave-owners?
3. Roman slaves were often acquired through conquest and babies of raped conquered women. The "but they were manstealers" argument kind of breaks down at that point. The Romans were manstealers, too.
4. Should Athenagoras have been excommunicated?

Athenagoras, defending the church against the pagan charge of cannibalism said, “moreover, we have slaves: some of us more, some fewer. We cannot hide anything from them; yet not one of them has made up such tall stories against us.” (Early Church Fathers, ed. C.C. Richardson, p. 338).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 1, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> slavery is over


Don't forget--you'll have to file your income taxes soon.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 1, 2018)

Ben:

Dabney was an uncommonly brilliant man, even prophetic, in not a few ways. 

At the same time, he wasn't just a man of his time, but was an embittered, rancorous, leader of his time (not all were--think of Robert E. Lee, who stands in marked contrast after the War to the immovably bilious Dabney).

Sean Lucas's P&R biography of him is quite good (though it has its detractors); Noll's book that Trevor mentions is excellent. I'll forbear a bibliography,
though many relevant works are cited in my recent book on Hodge and spirituality where I deal with many of these issues (I'll say no more about that!)

His type of racial views have been widely refuted (Hodge did so in several pieces, including the 1859 BRPR "Unity of Mankind") and A. MacLeod's refutation is classic. 

It was a complex situation in the 19th century with many contributing factors: a discussion of such is hard to have in the public square in these times that don't seem to permit it. Some of what Jacob says recognizes these complexities (though I believe we might differ on points as well). 

Back to Dabney--brilliant man, insightful, yet particularly flawed (more than most of the other Presbyterian defenders of the "peculiar institution"). A cautionary tale to us all about being captive to some cultural current other than the Word. It's hard to see in one's own time, but this is not an excuse for Dabney. There is no excuse for his racial views. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

Jake said:


> It is not a direct refutation, but here is a sermon against slavery as it existed in the US by another Presbyterian minister ~70 years before Dabney wrote this defense. It refutes many of the points Dabney makes (see especially the objections section) and it shows that Dabney was not simply a product of his time, since there were other Reformed ministers arguing against the position much earlier. However, it's not as in-depth or long as Dabney's work, seeing as it is a sermon, but it's still quite comprehensive for its format.
> 
> http://www.covenanter.org/reformed/2015/8/14/alexander-mcleods-sermon-on-negro-slavery-unjustifiable
> 
> ...


Thanks, Jake! I'll look those up by and by.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ben, what conference? Wondering if it was one here in Birmingham.


Jeri, it was the NCFIC conference in Asheville. I have no affiliation with them, and wound up there almost by accident, being asked to do some translating. That whole group might merit a thread of it's own, if anyone's curious: bit of an oddball corner of the almost-reformed world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> The best book I have read on the subject is, "
> *The Civil War as a Theological Crisis*
> by Mark A. Noll
> 
> ...


Thanks Perg. Lots to read now in this super-cold season


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Just a few thoughts:
> 
> 
> I hope you're able to appreciate Dabney's argument for the Southern states' secession, apart from his defense of slavery. Remember that the radical abolitionist movement, not slavery, was the main factor that led to the war.
> ...


I'm perfectly all right with the South having the right to secede--if we can show that the American Revolution had any justification (which I disclaim). But politics is a sticky thing, and mankind has been doing wrong in this arena since Cain built his city.

The claim of Dabney that is most convincing is that slavery writ large is morally acceptable. He doesn't bring race into that one--he just shows that in God's providence slaves existed and slavery was regulated by the moral law.

As for political correctness, I wish he'd had a little. Though I would call it simply a meek and humble spirit. But the picture he paints of the Halcyon the South was, of the universal happiness of the slaves, of how everyone was at fault in this but his blessed Virginia is a little over the top. It ruins his credibility a little, to assert that any place where fallen man dwells was so much more Utopian than anyplace else that ever was. Any people as virtuous as he makes his Virginians to be would not have been so bitter at their defeat, knowing that God works all things together for good to those that love Him.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A few disclaimers:
> 
> 1. I am not a Dabneyphile.
> 2. I am not interested in any "Lost Cause" mythology.
> ...


Jacob,
Your questions are what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, since that was the heaviest thrust of Dabney's work.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 2, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Jacob,
> Your questions are what I'm trying to get to the bottom of, since that was the heaviest thrust of Dabney's work.



One should try to separate Dabney's racism from the objective questions.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 2, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> One should try to separate Dabney's racism from the objective questions.


I thought I did that in the first post with the question of whether there was a refutation of his assertion of the morality of slavery. But yes, having rejected all his other arguments, I'm trying to see about his arguments from Scripture. This is where, after all, the battle must be played out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 2, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> I thought I did that in the first post with the question of whether there was a refutation of his assertion of the morality of slavery. But yes, having rejected all his other arguments, I'm trying to see about his arguments from Scripture. This is where, after all, the battle must be played out.



Agreed, and Scripture no where says the relation between master and slave is sinful. It can be abused, sure. And it almost always reflects a flawed social order, but the relation qua relation is not sinful.

And while Roman slavery was not as crude in chattel form as the Old South (though the rapes were just as common), it was just as much (more so?) predicated on manstealing (so the Covenanter argument falls apart at this point).


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 3, 2018)

McLeod seems to be saying that the OT slavery practiced by God's people was judicial: made right in some cases by God's specific judgment on the Canaanites in the land at that time (played out by the Gibeonites who voluntarily traded their freedom for the privilege of not being killed, &c), and in others to punish an evildoer. This last, he says endures to this day, in the right of the magistrate to imprison delinquents and make them work for their keep and the improvement of society.
If that be so, then God is not condoning slavery wherever it occurs, but regulating His instrument of righteousness so that the minister thereof doesn't abuse it.
Processing....


----------



## earl40 (Jan 3, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There are several questions that can't be answered by self-congratulatory posts on Facebook Covenanter groups:



Oh how this applies to so many groups on the net. May the PB be immune from such, to which thank I thank our moderators for making such so. Jacob thank you for the chuckle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 3, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> McLeod seems to be saying that the OT slavery practiced by God's people was judicial: made right in some cases by God's specific judgment on the Canaanites in the land at that time (played out by the Gibeonites who voluntarily traded their freedom for the privilege of not being killed, &c), and in others to punish an evildoer. This last, he says endures to this day, in the right of the magistrate to imprison delinquents and make them work for their keep and the improvement of society.
> If that be so, then God is not condoning slavery wherever it occurs, but regulating His instrument of righteousness so that the minister thereof doesn't abuse it.
> Processing....



Sure, but we can leave the OT examples aside. In the NT Paul gives very specific instructions to slave owners and none of it sounds like modern abolitionist talk.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 3, 2018)

I agree with what MacLeod preached about God's purpose in OT slavery. 

And here's what I have had to say (elsewhere) about why Paul did not talk like an abolitionist:

While it is true that Christ and the apostles did not abolish slavery, it is also the case that the consequences of the gospel would tend to ameliorate if not eliminate such (seen in Paul’s letter to Philemon).[1]

Had Christ or Paul ordered the end of all slavery, it would have rendered the gospel revolutionary and made its central concern social, political and economic equity. If Paul, for instance, had simply commanded Philemon to free Onesimus and not suggested that he be emancipated as a consequence of the new relationship that they sustained in the gospel, Christians would have viewed such an apostolic command as binding, necessitating the abolition of slavery immediately everywhere. This would have obscured the true spiritual message of the gospel—salvation in Christ to all that believe on Him—and have rendered the Christian faith another competing, indeed radical political agenda, especially in the Greco-Roman world, with so much of the population in slavery. The New Testament contains no explicit commands to abolish slavery, leaving it to the outworking of the gospel to address such in the Greco-Roman world of its day.[2]


[1] As seen in the practices of Christians in the early church, in A. J. Harrill _The Manumission of Slaves in Early Christianity*.*_ (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr/Siebeck, 1995). Though opposition to slavery itself, as opposed merely to slavery’s abuses, was long in coming, as seen in Trevor Dennis, “Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery,” in _Heaven and Earth: Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics_, ed. Andrew Linzey and Peter J. Wexler (Worthing, West Sussex: Churchman Publishing Limited, 1986), it was Christianity, or Christendom, at least in part, that brought slavery to an effective end between the fourth and tenth centuries, with serfdom developing in seignorialism and feudalism subsequent to slavery’s diminution. 

[2] Though Kyle Harper, in _Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425_ (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), showed that slavery lasted deep into the Christian era, in his most recent book, _From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2013), he shows that Christianity’s strict moral code was particularly sympathetic to the sexual exploitation of the slave. So Christianity played an important role in reforming and ultimately ending ancient slavery.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 3, 2018)

I think we also need to be wary of setting up a straw-man about what abolitionists taught with regards to slaves still in bondage. Prior to the rise of John Brown, many abolitionists taught that the slaves should submit to their masters in the hope that their owners would emancipate them. Furthermore, many of them had no problem with them remaining as paid servants of their former slave-owners.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 3, 2018)

Quite right, Daniel. Abolitionism was neither static nor monolithic in antebellum America, though it was often then opposed by those who portrayed it only in its worst excesses. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 3, 2018)

I think the good abolitionists were embarrassed by John Brown. His insurrection (along with his murders of northerners) seemed to justify the worst stereotypes from the slave-owner's experiences.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2018)

I know I'm largely in the minority on this but the largest single human contribution to the end of slavery was and is wait for it................................................capitalism specifically capital accumulation from the increase in technology. Increasing capital reserves over the centuries rendered slavery 'non-competitive' in the labor market. It's been a centuries long march. If ever we are reduced to 5th century, 10th century or 19th century technology we will be reduced to the labor structures to match the period no matter how many laws are passed or protests made.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 4, 2018)

Thanks all for the replies and discussion. Perhaps the hardest thing, this far along, is to separate what was mean-spirited propaganda and what was downright untrue from what actually was the case. No doubt, as Dabney points out, there were benevolent slave owners who cared for their slaves' well-being and health. Perhaps there were even slaves who were content in their condition (another book in a neighboring stall at the conference purported to be a collection of essays written by happy slaves, to show that they were not all malcontents, I guess. I didn't buy it). But it's hard to look back on history with our limited knowledge and really understand both parties.
We can know that manstealing is always wrong, and stolen goods do not (as Dabney claims) become legitimate after several transactions. We certainly know that opposing sides of an issue are not always truthful in their propaganda, but will usually paint their actions and motives with the most virtuous brush. But these things cloud the issues for us down the road.
As for Roman slavery, I'm going to stick with Alan for now with the idea that God was regulating His people's behavior within a human institution that they had no power or agenda to change. As they were to be subject to the higher powers, even though those were the Roman emperors who were persecuting Christians, so Christian slaves were to submit to their masters, though that hold over them be morally unlawful, just as it was immoral to feed christians to lions.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> We can know that manstealing is always wrong, and stolen goods do not (as Dabney claims) become legitimate after several transactions.



My ancestor William the Conqueror stole England from the Saxons. When did it become legitimate land for the Normans?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jan 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My ancestor William the Conqueror stole England from the Saxons. When did it become legitimate land for the Normans?


Dunno, Jacob: perhaps you should give it back . After all, there's people who want to give back America to the descendants of the folk who were here when the Euros arrived.
But you've brought up a real dilemma: how is restitution to be made for wrongs committed generations ago? I haven't the wisdom to sort it out myself--the best I can do is apply the law of God to my life, now, and hope no one sues for the redress of grievances my fathers committed. I suppose it may be possible to show that all of us are sitting on goods stolen in some way from someone sometime.....it's quite a mess!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Dunno, Jacob: perhaps you should give it back . After all, there's people who want to give back America to the descendants of the folk who were here when the Euros arrived.
> But you've brought up a real dilemma: how is restitution to be made for wrongs committed generations ago? I haven't the wisdom to sort it out myself--the best I can do is apply the law of God to my life, now, and hope no one sues for the redress of grievances my fathers committed. I suppose it may be possible to show that all of us are sitting on goods stolen in some way from someone sometime.....it's quite a mess!



I think this is where Dabney's point has some force. I'm raising these hard questions because if we can face up to them honestly, we can blunt a lot of criticisms along the lines of "Well, the bible promotes slavery." In a sense, it does, but if we can bring to light a lot of the hard issues underlying these questions, then it won't be as much a problem.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Jan 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My ancestor William the Conqueror stole England from the Saxons. When did it become legitimate land for the Normans?



There is no way to launder one's way into a legitimate human trafficking enterprise.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2018)

ZackF said:


> There is no way to launder one's way into a legitimate human trafficking enterprise.



Agreed, but that wasn't the original question. The original question is [along the lines of] when does owning stolen goods become "okay." The problem is when you apply that same reasoning to other stolen items.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 4, 2018)

Still not quite apposite, Jacob.

A whole argument has to be made that persons are property that can properly be owned by others (even the "property in them" contention has theological problems, as do the outright "they are property" arguments). Persons and real estate are not the same (the OT orders life for life not for real estate). 

Further, it's easily enough resolved with respect to persons--if manstealing has occurred, at whatever point such is established, there is an obligation to emancipate all being held as a consequence of such. The justice is to be done to that party still held in bondage. 

One nation going to war against another (to take the 1066 example) is a different matter, particularly with respect to the justness of the war. Apart from that, long after the fact, it's no longer a matter of returning something taken to the one from whom it was taken. The sons of the Normans have not taken anything from the sons of the Saxons, though they might have received something by inheritance that their Norman fathers took from their Saxon fathers. There are complications here that do not obtain in the case of persons held in slavery.

That person ought to be freed who remains in slavery as a consequence of manstealing. Land or other valuables taken in war may or may not need later to be returned. There are a number of factors at play here that are not at play in the same way with respect to manstealing. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2018)

Alan D. Strange said:


> That person ought to be freed who remains in slavery as a consequence of manstealing.



What about slaves in Roman times? They were usually acquired via conquest.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 4, 2018)

To reiterate: I am not advocating slavery. I am persuaded that a theological anthropology sees the manumission of slaves. But I am equally concerned that we don't overshoot the target. The apostle Paul simply doesn't have our modern hangups about slavery. And the Roman Empire was just as much "manstealing" as the African tribesman.

And as Athenagoras points out, they had no problem with fellowshipping with Christian slaveowners.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 4, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What about slaves in Roman times? They were usually acquired via conquest.



In this case it is a point of regression as Dr. Strange has much more eloquently explained. Even putting the best spin on 'conquest', if the acquired people were stolen before hand then a transfer of ownership doesn't make them legitimately possessed.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 4, 2018)

Jacob:

Making slaves out of those against whom you've been fighting instead of killing them is not the same thing as what happened when the Christian West became involved in chattel slavery.

Never mind that, though. Put the worst spin on Roman slavery and assume that a lot of it was simply immoral. I've already addressed why I think Jesus and Paul did not command that 40-50% of the entire population be immediately manumitted: had they done so, the story we find in the Bible and the early church would not have been one of gospel spread but of utter revolutionary political and social ferment.

Instead, a book like Philemon clearly suggests that emancipation is a proper part of the _response_ to the gospel (rather than the gospel itself). Had Paul said to Philemon that he was to free Onesimus period, there would have been a frenzy and the NT would have been seen by all, and reduced to, a revolutionary tract, like the Communist Manifesto.

Rather, Paul made clear what he expected Philemon to do with regards to his now Christian brother (and still slave) Onesimus. It's hard to imagine that Philemon did anything other than what Paul counseled. But it was counsel, not a command, which would have subverted the message of the gospel.

Christians were then in no position to do anything other than live out the faith in their own lives (again the SOM). They had no political power or legislative influence. For instance, the Bible taught that one should not marry a non-Christian. But if one is in such a marriage, the Christian should remain. Some day, they would be able to make laws forbidding marriages between Christians and non-Christians. But not for now.

Similarly, Christians could not simply abolish slavery apart from calling for revolution. But they could in their own lives and worlds, or at least be as kind and considerate to those in such a position that they hadn't put there. And there is evidence that Christian influence paid no small part in the withering away of Roman slavery. 

But what about when Christians held all the levers? This is the sad situation that prevailed with the re-introduction of slavery in the West and why the 1818 GA adopted the statement that it did.

That 1818 GA refused to call for immediate universal abolition (fearing chaos if such was not properly planned for) but did call for emancipation, recognizing the incongruity of chattel slavery in a nation governed largely by professing Christians:

*We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ . . . it is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy the light of the present day, when the inconsistency of slavery, both with the dictates of humanity and religion, has been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to use their honest, earnest, and unwearied endeavours, to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete abolition of slavery throughout Christendom, and if possible throughout the world.*

This was adopted unanimously, not by the Covenanters, the Seceders, or even a church split into OS and NS, but by the united PCUSA with full Southern representation present.

No, the PCUSA GA would not bar slaveholders solely on that basis from communion, but condemned nonetheless the practice of slavery. This was not the Roman Empire in the 3rd c. AD, in which the church was still "under the cross" and had no public say. I believe, as did the 1818 statement, and as I believe that you do, Jacob, that the tenor of the gospel was opposed to such, especially as slavery in the 19th c. applied only to Africans (in our context) and was openly said to be unthinkable for whites.

Dabney's position was out of harmony not just with the Covenanters but with the tenor of broader American Presbyterianism.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

ZackF said:


> if the acquired people were stolen before hand then a transfer of ownership doesn't make them legitimately possessed.



I agree with everything Rev Strange said. If this is true, then the Apostle Paul failed to address this point. In which case, the slave owner should have been barred communion. But we know from Athenagoras's writings that the opposite was the case.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 5, 2018)

Jacob:

Your last post is not responsive to what I've said. 

It need not be if you so choose, but I've already dealt with why I believe that Paul's position on emancipation of one's fellow Christian in servitude was one of implication rather than direct command. 

Given that, Paul was not barring anyone from communion for a practice that he did not order ended but that stood contrary to the spirit of the gospel. 

I have nothing further to say if the discussion continues to fail to advance on the points already made. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

I understand what you are saying, but I am also drawing inferences based on American religious life. For example, did Alexander Macleod go beyond Scripture? Said another way: should he have barred someone like Jonathan Edwards from communion?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 5, 2018)

Jacob:

Why didn't you say so? 

Should the buying, selling, and keeping of slaves have made one liable for ecclesiastical censure?

Let me answer: I think that MacLeod's arguments are essentially sound. Had most of the church thought so, it's likely that involvement in slavery would have made one liable for such (beyond just the Covenanters and company). I think, for instance, that someone today involved in such would be liable to censure.

Since, however, many were not persuaded by MacLeod's arguments, especially in the mainline church (the PCUSA), slave-holding and the like were not censurable actions.

Had I lived back then, I likely would not have thought them censurable (I do come from Hattiesburg, MS, after all!). Had more been persuaded and thought them censurable, men like Hodge (who wished for emancipation but did not find slave-holding censurable) might have believed otherwise.

I do literally have a meeting to "run to" so I'll just leave it here for now. Good talking!

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 5, 2018)

I am afraid that I have not been well enough to participate at length in this discussion, but I will make a belated effort to post one half-decent contribution. I think part of the problem when discussing issues of church discipline is that, all too often, we tend to think of ecclesiastical censures in a penal manner that is contrary to the gospel. Such censures should only even be inflicted after patient remonstrance with a person and only when they show themselves impenitent. Paul does not start his discussions on master and bondservants with a threat to excommunicate the former, but he modifies the relationship in line with Christian principles.

For instance, he says, "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal" (Colossians 4:1), which significantly modified the type of relationship they were meant to have with one another. (Does anyone seriously think slaveholders in the British Empire-United States did so?) It would only become a matter of discipline if it became clear that the masters were stiff-neckedly refusing to obey this injunction. In a pagan context like the Roman Empire, this approach was evidently the most prudent way of dealing with the issue.

Another point worth considering is that in the context of the British Empire or the antebellum United States, being nations blessed with a wide and diffuse knowledge of the gospel, it does not necessarily follow that the church's approach should have been exactly the same as that of the apostles. In this case, the position of these countries was more analogous to Old Testament Israel (not exactly, of course), which may have warranted the church to initially take a firmer line on the issue. To use a modern example, many of us are aware that black slavery has been reinstituted in Libya. We also know that much human trafficking (a modern form of the slave trade) goes on across the US-Mexican border. If we knew of a church member who was making money from such iniquitous traffic, would that the church be within its rights to censure that person should they remain impenitent?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> If we knew of a church member who was making money from such iniquitous traffic, would that the church be within its rights to censure that person should they remain impenitent?



I get what you are saying. I don't think it is a 1:1 correspondence in all areas. I'll to explain.

1. With the exception of a few American allies in the Middle East, the practice is illegal in all UN countries. So the church member would be violating not only US law, but international law.

2. Many slaveowners inherited a system they did not always ask for. Freeing the slave often made life more difficult for the slave (as the slave was now at the mercy of a system in which he was not ready to participate--which is what happened anyway after 1865).

3. You imply that master didn't treat his slaves humanely. Some did. Some didn't. We have testimonies from slaves to both effects.

4. Human trafficking today almost always involves prostitution and drugs--like in the key US allies Albania and Kosovo.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

I will point out a self-directed irony. It appears that I am playing Devil's Advocate on this question. I'm really not. I am exploring the implications and entailments of different ethical positions.

I'm currently reading a monograph on Gregory of Nyssa where it talks about his anti-slavery views.
http://www.hansboersma.org/articles...the-heavenly-future-in-saint-gregory-of-nyssa

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1. With the exception of a few American allies in the Middle East, the practice is illegal in all UN countries. So the church member would be violating not only US law, but international law.



So, if US law or international law condoned it would there be any place for church censure?



BayouHuguenot said:


> 2. Many slaveowners inherited a system they did not always ask for. Freeing the slave often made life more difficult for the slave (as the slave was now at the mercy of a system in which he was not ready to participate--which is what happened anyway after 1865).



That is not really an argument, as no one said freedom was easy.



BayouHuguenot said:


> 3. You imply that master didn't treat his slaves humanely. Some did. Some didn't. We have testimonies from slaves to both effects.



As we learn from Solomon Northup's experience, not all slaveholders were equally bad. I am willing to grant that some may even have been slaveholders in name only. However, the real issue is the legal status of slaves in the antebellum United States and the iniquity that was supported by law.



BayouHuguenot said:


> 4. Human trafficking today almost always involves prostitution and drugs--like in the key US allies Albania and Kosovo.



American slavery often involved fornication, adultery, the break up of families, white supremacy, cruelty and so on.



BayouHuguenot said:


> I will point out a self-directed irony. It appears that I am playing Devil's Advocate on this question. I'm really not. I am exploring the implications and entailments of different ethical positions.



For my part, I am not justifying the modern virtue-signalling obsession with this subject or the endless cycle of white guilt to extract money for perverse reasons.



BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm currently reading a monograph on Gregory of Nyssa where it talks about his anti-slavery views.
> http://www.hansboersma.org/articles...the-heavenly-future-in-saint-gregory-of-nyssa



I have downloaded it, thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> American slavery often involved fornication, adultery, the break up of families, white supremacy, cruelty and so on.



True, but that is different from the essence of slavery. If a master did that, and if he were under the jurisdiction of a church, then discipline is involved.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 5, 2018)

In the US/British Empire context, I do not think the two can really be separated. The existence of the system was contingent on marriage and family break up, sexual immorality, and cruelty. It could not really have continued otherwise.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> In the US/British Empire context, I do not think the two can really be separated. The existence of the system was contingent on marriage and family break up, sexual immorality, and cruelty. It could not really have continued otherwise.



I can agree with that. And to make irony even worse, the most notorious Civil War general, Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slave owner, refused to ever break up families (and this was before he was converted). His reasoning was less than Christian, though: he didn't want a lot of demoralized workers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have downloaded it, thanks.



here is the tl;dr (too long; didn't read) version:

1. Man has moral free agency, which is counter-intuitive with slavery.
2. The imago dei means (among other things) that Man is Royal, which means he can't be a slave.

Here is Boersma's longer account in _Embodiment and Virtue_.

The image of God in human beings is visible in their rule over the animals. One can justify slavery only by first reducing rational human beings to the level of irrational animals. Hence Nyssen’s rhetorical questions, “Surely human beings have not been
produced from your cattle? Surely cows have not conceived human stock?” Defenders of slavery, Gregory charges, fail to take note of the radical distinction between humans and animals (155)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 2. The imago dei means (among other things) that Man is Royal, which means he can't be a slave.



Samuel Rutherford said much the same thing in relation to slavery:

A man being created according to God’s image, he is _res sacra_, a sacred thing, and can no more by nature’s law be sold and bought, then a religious and sacred thing dedicated to God.

Samuel Rutherford, _Lex, Rex: The Law and the Prince. A Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People_ (London: John Field, 1644), Q.13.2, p. 91.



BayouHuguenot said:


> The image of God in human beings is visible in their rule over the animals. One can justify slavery only by first reducing rational human beings to the level of irrational animals. Hence Nyssen’s rhetorical questions, “Surely human beings have not been
> produced from your cattle? Surely cows have not conceived human stock?” Defenders of slavery, Gregory charges, fail to take note of the radical distinction between humans and animals (155)



Frederick Douglass made a similar argument, especially with reference to evolutionary science ... which might scare liberals if they ever found out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

