# Negro Slavery Unjustifiable (1802)



## N. Eshelman (Feb 10, 2010)

The RPCNA was the second denomination in the United States to condemn the 'perpetual slavery of men'. In 1802 a very powerful tract was written that moved the denomination to condemn the practice of perpetual slave owning. 

In celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Reformed Presbyterian Seminary, and in conjunction with Black History Month, this tract is once again being made available. See more at the RPTS website. 
RPTS: Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

[video=youtube;8qOZ3rWCZyg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qOZ3rWCZyg[/video]


----------



## Jon Peters (Feb 10, 2010)

Thanks for this. Kudos to the RPCNA! Just curious, what was the first denomination to do so?


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 10, 2010)

Jon Peters said:


> Just curious, what was the first denomination to do so?


 I think that it was the Quakers.


----------



## Montanablue (Feb 10, 2010)

I didn't now this - interesting!

On the advice of a friend, I've just started a biography of Wendell Phillips. Interesting stuff.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Feb 10, 2010)

Quakers founded the first anti-slavery organization in 1775. However, because Quakers only make pronouncements when they reach a consensus, they did not as a denomination officially condemn slavery until the late 1800's, after it was illegal.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 10, 2010)

Now, now, Nathan. You know that it wasn't the RPCNA that so acted against slavery in its midst. It was the Reformed Presbyterian Church, which later suffered a split in 1833, with the RPCNA created as one side of that split. Alexander McLeod died that same year of the split. His son John Niel went with the New Light side, which 149 years later merged in with the PCA by way of the RPCES.

But why spoil the Seminary's bicentennial fun over a little fact?  [archivists can be such a nuisance!]

There's a neat back story on the ramifications of the Synod's decision *here*, in chapter 4 of McLeod's _Memoir_. Also a cleaner copy of his treatise, _The Practice of Holding Men in Perpetual Slavery Condemned_, aka _Negro Slavery Unjustifiable_, is posted *here*.

The Papers of Alexander McLeod and his son, John Niel McLeod, are preserved in the archives at the University of Delaware. I am glad to see RPTS put this material up, as McLeod deserves more attention.

I still hope to interest someone in writing a dissertation on McLeod and his anti-slavery arguments:
1. How did his arguments flow from his Calvinism in general and his Reformed Presbyterian convictions in specific?
2. In what ways did his arguments differ from those of the dominant Arminian arguments coming from the likes of Beecher and others? How were McLeod's arguments superior, or were they?
3. How might history have developed differently had McLeod's arguments held center-stage in the antebellum years?
4. A lesser question: Did McLeod's arguments and the subsequent affirming action of the RP Synod contribute in any way to the RP split in 1833? [I don't think so, but you have to at least ask]


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 10, 2010)

Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins seem to disagree with the point that slavery was "completely" unjustifiable. I actually just read through their short work yesterday and was pretty surprised by the claims. One point made is that the treatment in many cases of black slaves was immoral, but such cases were the exception. Likewise, they claim that there is clear evidence in Scripture that there are models of slavery that are _not_ sinful. I'll check out the tract by the RPCNA since, well, this short work by Wilson and Wilkins was rather convincing to me. 


Here is a link to their piece: Southern Slavery: As it Was


----------



## TimV (Feb 10, 2010)

> In acknowledging this, however, we must remember
> that the Christian and Reformed influence on ante bellum Southern culture was far more
> extensive than anywhere else in the world.



More influential than in the South African Republic and the Orange Free State where 90 percent of the population were members of Reformed Churches? And where slavery had vanished a generation before it vanished in the US? I just love the way Federal Visionists make stupid, childish statements with the kind of authority that ignorant people suck up like mosquitoes sucking pond scum.


----------



## Wayne (Feb 10, 2010)

Andrew:



> The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him.


 - Proverbs 18:17 (NASB)

You could not be more mistaken in your estimation of that book. After you get around the rank plagiarism of one of the authors (Wilkins), there is history to deal with. You can PM me for further information, including a rebuttal by a PCA pastor, but this thread will not be open to a discussion of that book.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Feb 10, 2010)

Moderator

This thread will not become a pro - con discussion of slavery. There are plenty of past threads that cover that ground.

/Moderator


----------



## AThornquist (Feb 10, 2010)

Wayne said:


> Andrew:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sweet. That was what I was hoping for. I'll send you a PM.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 11, 2010)

Seems that at least one Presbyterian denomination split happened in the 1830s with one side taking the position that regardless of how reprehensible slavery might be, the Bible doesn't condemn it, therefore the church could not bind someone's conscience (I'm working off the memory of a lecture from a few years ago).


----------



## Wayne (Feb 11, 2010)

The PCUSA split in 1837 (four years later), but that split was not over the issue of slavery. That split created the Old School and New School factions of the PCUSA.
The reasons for the split were 1. the perceived need to end the Plan of Union scheme whereby Presbyterians worked in concert with Congregationalists (but the Congregationalists were increasingly influenced by the New Haven theology and that was finding its way into Presbyterian circles); 2. aberrant theology taught by men like Albert Barnes, who denied key doctrines like original sin.
It is true that the New School faction were largely abolitionist, and that many among the Old School faction found it difficult to say that slavery _per se_ was unbiblical, but that debate was not a primary reason for the split.

[I'm transcribing a document about the split right now, and will make that available when it's finished]


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 11, 2010)

Yes, the split was much larger than the slavery issue ... in a local historical library, I came across some of the session minutes from our town's oldest Presbyterian church. It included discussion regarding which side the church would support during the split and a meeting, in Philadelphia, I think ...


----------



## Montanablue (Feb 11, 2010)

For further reading, I'd recommend Mark Noll's book "Civil War as Theological Crisis." I just finished it and thought it was excellent. It might provide some perspective on the Wilson book you mention, Andrew.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 11, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Seems that at least one Presbyterian denomination split happened in the 1830s with one side taking the position that regardless of how reprehensible slavery might be, the Bible doesn't condemn it, therefore the church could not bind someone's conscience (I'm working off the memory of a lecture from a few years ago).


 
The two splits in the RPCNA (1833 and 1890) are/were not part of the splits in the mainline Presbyterian Church (the mother kirk of the OPC, PCA, BPC, EPC, etc). We were never part of the main Presbyterian body in the US. We were killed out of her... I mean kicked out of her... in Scotland in the 1600s.


----------



## Dewi Sant (Feb 13, 2010)

AThornquist said:


> Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins seem to disagree with the point that slavery was "completely" unjustifiable. I actually just read through their short work yesterday and was pretty surprised by the claims. One point made is that the treatment in many cases of black slaves was immoral, but such cases were the exception. Likewise, they claim that there is clear evidence in Scripture that there are models of slavery that are _not_ sinful. I'll check out the tract by the RPCNA since, well, this short work by Wilson and Wilkins was rather convincing to me.
> 
> Here is a link to their piece: Southern Slavery: As it Was


 
Dear Andrew,
If you get a chance, read this as well: 
Slavery and Christianity. Paul's Letter to Philemon. John W. Robbins. 2007.
The Trinity Foundation. P.O. Box 68, Unicoi, TN 37692
This Booklet may be purchased at their web site: Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.

It discusses this issue very well and smashes the Wilson/Wilkins doodlings to smithereens...

Yours in Christ,
Kris


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> jwithnell said:
> 
> 
> > Seems that at least one Presbyterian denomination split happened in the 1830s with one side taking the position that regardless of how reprehensible slavery might be, the Bible doesn't condemn it, therefore the church could not bind someone's conscience (I'm working off the memory of a lecture from a few years ago).
> ...


 
While people who left us (the Northern ARP Synod) later joined the mainlines us Southern ARP's were never part of the main branch either.


----------

