Let's Talk About Slavery

[Sam Jer]

Matthew Henry writes on Leviticus 25:

That they might purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that were round about them, or of those strangers that sojourned among them (except of those seven nations that were to be destroyed); and might claim a dominion over them, and entail them upon their families as an inheritance, for the year of jubilee should give no discharge to them, v. 44, 46. Thus in our English plantations the negroes only are used as slaves; how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say. Now, 1. This authority which they had over the bondmen whom they purchased from the neighbouring nations was in pursuance of the blessing of Jacob, Gen. 27:29, Let people serve thee. 2. It prefigured the bringing in of the Gentiles to the service of Christ and his church. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thy inheritance, Ps. 2:8. And it is promised (Isa. 61:5), Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your vine-dressers; see Rev. 2:26, 27. The upright shall have the dominion in the morning, Ps. 49:14. 3. It intimates that none shall have the benefit of the gospel jubilee but those only that are Israelites indeed, and the children of Abraham by faith: as for those that continue heathenish, they continue bondmen. See this turned upon the unbelieving Jews themselves, Gal. 4:25, where Jerusalem, when she had rejected Christ, is said to be in bondage with her children. Let me only add here that, though they are not forbidden to rule their bondmen with rigour, yet the Jewish doctors say, "It is the property of mercy, and way of wisdom, that a man should be compassionate, and not make his yoke heavy upon any servant that he has."

Bonar seems to be coming from a much stronger disposition toward slavery, but ends up saying much the same:

Once more: an Israelite may have slaves and bondmaids from the Heathen, and these he may retain as slaves forever. In this there lies a type. It is not that Moses, or the Lord speaking by Moses, sanctions slavery. He gives no right to one man over another's person, except where there is sin and crime to be punished, as in the case of criminals. But here, the Lord wished to punish the Canaanites and other Heathen nations, because of their Heathenism; and of course the Lord has a right so to do. His decree, therefore, is this: that Heathens shall be exposed to bondage, and Israel shall take them as their slaves. Slavery here is evidently altogether another thing from modern slavery; for—1. It proceeds on the Lord's permission and command. 2. It is the consequence of sin in the enslaved. And while it is a penalty paid by rebellious ones, who cleaved to idols, it exhibits in type the future exaltation of the sons of God in the time of the Jubilee of earth. It shows "the liberty of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:21), and their dominion. Israel, in those days, shall have "strangers to feed their flocks, and sons of the aliens to be their ploughmen and vine-dressers" (Isa. 61:5); and the risen, glorified saints shall "execute vengeance on the Heathen, and punishments upon the people" (Ps. 149:7); and all men shall know that the Lord has loved them, when "they have power over the nations." (Rev. 2:26.)

Is Henry right that the theoretical allowance for slavery was for all ages?
Is he right that the law against holding him as a bonservant (Leviticus 25:39 KJV), e.g not to lay on him "servile service" as Young's Literal Translation has it, was only about Israelites? It seems like a weird position to me.

Also, which one is right? Is Bonar right in limiting this strictly to slavery if there us a divine appointment? Is Henry right in applying it to his day? Or is a mediating position wheteby slavery was theoretically lawful but not in the form it often took in their day? Or is Bonar too harsh on slaveowners, is perpetual slavery always wrong, even in Leviticus 25? Or is Henry too mild somehow (I cannot fathom how)?

How come none of these two as much as mention race?


And now for the church-historical question: How common were these diffrent views between the beginning of "Negroe" slavery and abolition? Which great names held which views?

And how do we reckon with otherwise great people who may have held views we find unacceptably mild on slaveowners?



Leviticus 25:40-46 —
But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.
For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

 

[Joshua]

RE: Slavery, in general.

The apostle Paul has regulations for slaves and masters in his inspired instructions/regulations with regard to the household, along with husbands & wives, and parents & children. In my estimation, this acknowledges that slavery, as an institution in itself, is not forbidden, though abuses can never be justified, and ought to be punished/corrected. Also, man-stealing, kidnapping, etc. is clearly forbidden.

In our day, slavery has been institutionalized in other ways, economically, and turned on its head. For example, those who are able, yet refuse to work, are often rewarded with money/time/services off the backs and toil of those who do work, by force of the state. By this, they are made vile, instead of actually being helped (similar to giving a criminal lashes, or a definitive corrective punishment, then letting him pick up his life again, versus needless imprisonment). Most of the modern, and I believe well-meaning (but wrong), criticisms of “slavery” are too much tied to “race,” and so much helpful discourse gets lost in the distraction of decrying abuses (whether real or feigned) that accompanied some expressions of the institution. Regrettably, recent and most-grievous penchant for some even in Reformed circles to align with Kinist doctrine, or what’s been called “Race Realism” also distracts from profitable discussion on the matter, in my opinion.

LORD keep us straight.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Is Henry right that the theoretical allowance for slavery was for all ages?
Is he right that the law against holding him as a bonservant (Leviticus 25:39 KJV), e.g not to lay on him "servile service" as Young's Literal Translation has it, was only about Israelites? It seems like a weird position to me.

Also, which one is right? Is Bonar right in limiting this strictly to slavery if there us a divine appointment? Is Henry right in applying it to his day? Or is a mediating position wheteby slavery was theoretically lawful but not in the form it often took in their day? Or is Bonar too harsh on slaveowners, is perpetual slavery always wrong, even in Leviticus 25? Or is Henry too mild somehow (I cannot fathom how)?

How come none of these two as much as mention race?


And now for the church-historical question: How common were these diffrent views between the beginning of "Negroe" slavery and abolition? Which great names held which views?

And how do we reckon with otherwise great people who may have held views we find unacceptably mild on slaveowners?

Yes, I believe the state of slavery and relation of master-slave can be lawful.

Not sure what you mean by your question on Henry or Bonar not mentioning race.

Whether it ought to be perpetual over a particular people (I think) is highly dependent upon circumstances, as to what will do the most good. Here is an example from John Leighton Wilson (1809-1886), southern Presbyterian missionary to Western Africa:

. . . I hold that every human being, who is capable of self-government and would be happier in a state of freedom, ought to be free. I am not, however, a friend of immediate and universal emancipation, for the simple reason that all negroes are not ready for freedom, and would be worse off in that than in their present condition. My opinion is that you should colonize them, but it must depend on three things—their fitness, their willingness, and the place to which they are to go.

and

In this I enclose certificates of freedom for John and Jessie. I find that the Missionary Society will sustain serious injury unless I give them up. The Prudential Committee think I have done all my duty to them. If they prefer to remain on the plantation as heretofore, then let them do so, with the distinct understanding that they may leave at any time they desire.

and

In relation to the other two, who are in voluntary servitude, I would remark, that I have
used every means, short of coercion, to induce them to go where they could safely accept their freedom. Some time before I left the United States, I obtained the consent of the boy to accompany me to Africa, with the expectation of educating him for a teacher. And an application was made to the Prudential Committee that he be allowed to go, to which they consented. But before the time of embarkation arrived the boy showed a disposition to be vicious, and at the same time manifested a decided repugnance to going to Africa. He was advised to go to one of the free States, and the advantages of this course were distinctly set before his mind, but he refused. His sister was at that time too young to have any discretion and nothing was said to her.

. . .

from my sister I learned that the slaves were decidedly opposed to leaving the place of their nativity, and that the parents and others thought the proposition unkind.

. . .

I deputed my wife, who, I presume, is now in the United States, to prevail on these slaves to move to one of the free States.

. . .

I desire no profit in any form from their labors. Those who emigrated to Africa were brought here at private cost, involving an expense of several thousand dollars. The only object I have in alluding to this fact is to show that I am not a slaveholder for the sake of gain, and that, so far as I have funds to dispose of in the cause of humanity, they have been appropriated chiefly to promote the happiness and comfort of those who have been in bondage. I do not see it my duty to use force. They have the liberty of choosing for themselves, and I have endeavored to communicate such light and information as will enable them to choose wisely. This seems to me the best liberty that is in my power to confer. If I withdraw my protection from them and allow them to become public property, it seems to be very questionable whether I am in the line of duty.

 

[Theoretical]

The Scottish covenanters had unquestionably, even arch-conservative, theology and were resolutely and unanimously against slavery in the Americas. I think their witness is superb.

https://crownandcovenant.com/products/a-candle-against-the-dark. This is well worth the read and is a superb piece of primary source scholarship, with a massive bibliography of letters, hundred plus year old church records, narratives, newspaper articles, and the like in the back.

It's a master's thesis from the 1940s, updated by the original author's nephew almost 60 years later about the Covenanters' response to slavery in the colonies and then the American founding. It takes being an insider (or having a single degree of separation) inside of a tiny denomination to have access to the sorts of documentation Wilcox and Copeland had.

It also does not play the North=Good, South=Bad game.

There's extensive citations as well from one of the first Covenanter ministers, Alexander McLeod and his writings against slavery as it was established in 1802, when it was arguably in a slight period of decline and gradual abolition had some momentum in the South.

A

Thread 'Old RP View on Interracial Marriage'

Nov 25, 2024

Alexander Mcleod in his famous tract against slavery makes modern arguments, including against racial inferiority. He even argues that the institution as then practiced led to a severing of natural affection.

Having undermined the basis upon which interracial marriage might be opposed, I wonder what his views were on interracial marriage. Does anyone have any sources on what his or the old RP views were on that matter? I'm having difficulty finding sources. He does mention mulattos in his tract, but it is not clear if he views interracial marriage as evil, since he only speaks of the...

• Afterthought

Here's some resources from another post about the subject:
Negro Slavery Unjustifiable
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...ander,+Negro+Slavery+Unjustifiable+(1860).pdf

Alexander Mcleod also cites Samuel Miller when arguing against racial inferiority. Here is Miller's piece, in which he argues in much the same way as Mcleod.
A discourse, delivered April 12, 1797, at the request of and before the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been or May Be Liberated.
A discourse, delivered April 12, 1797, at the request of and before the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been or May Be Liberated. / By Samuel Miller, A.M. One of the Ministers of the Unite

----

We all have our personal blind spots, some of which can be spectacular. As just one example, my understanding is that abortion was heavily seen in the middle of last century as just a Catholic thing, even among very conservative American Protestant groups, until Schaeffer really lit a fire under people exposing it as more than something regrettable or excusable.

 

[Sam Jer]

The Scottish covenanters had unquestionably, even arch-conservative, theology and were resolutely and unanimously against slavery in the Americas. I think their witness is superb.

https://crownandcovenant.com/products/a-candle-against-the-dark. This is well worth the read and is a superb piece of primary source scholarship, with a massive bibliography of letters, hundred plus year old church records, narratives, newspaper articles, and the like in the back.

It's a master's thesis from the 1940s, updated by the original author's nephew almost 60 years later about the Covenanters' response to slavery in the colonies and then the American founding. It takes being an insider (or having a single degree of separation) inside of a tiny denomination to have access to the sorts of documentation Wilcox and Copeland had.

It also does not play the North=Good, South=Bad game.

There's extensive citations as well from one of the first Covenanter ministers, Alexander McLeod and his writings against slavery as it was established in 1802, when it was arguably in a slight period of decline and gradual abolition had some momentum in the South.

A

Thread 'Old RP View on Interracial Marriage'

Nov 25, 2024

Alexander Mcleod in his famous tract against slavery makes modern arguments, including against racial inferiority. He even argues that the institution as then practiced led to a severing of natural affection.

Having undermined the basis upon which interracial marriage might be opposed, I wonder what his views were on interracial marriage. Does anyone have any sources on what his or the old RP views were on that matter? I'm having difficulty finding sources. He does mention mulattos in his tract, but it is not clear if he views interracial marriage as evil, since he only speaks of the...

• Afterthought

Here's some resources from another post about the subject:
Negro Slavery Unjustifiable
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/65144c1adb924e2670f0b1a7/1695829020227/McLeod,+Alexander,+Negro+Slavery+Unjustifiable+(1860).pdf

Alexander Mcleod also cites Samuel Miller when arguing against racial inferiority. Here is Miller's piece, in which he argues in much the same way as Mcleod.
A discourse, delivered April 12, 1797, at the request of and before the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been or May Be Liberated.
A discourse, delivered April 12, 1797, at the request of and before the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been or May Be Liberated. / By Samuel Miller, A.M. One of the Ministers of the Unite

----

We all have our personal blind spots, some of which can be spectacular. As just one example, my understanding is that abortion was heavily seen in the middle of last century as just a Catholic thing, even among very conservative American Protestant groups, until Schaeffer really lit a fire under people exposing it as more than something regrettable or excusable.

I'll try to get to reading and skimming some of this later. Did the covenanters take a decidedly abolitionist stance or just opposition to slavery as it was practiced in their times?

 

[Northern Crofter]

I'll try to get to reading and skimming some of this later. Did the covenanters take a decidedly abolitionist stance or just opposition to slavery as it was practiced in their times?

Their view was universal yet specific - in general they agreed with McLeod's summary: "The practice of buying, holding, or selling our unoffending fellow creatures as slaves is immoral." They allowed for slavery - note the word "unoffending" (see similar wording in US 13th Amendment) - but it had to be Lawful.

 

[Sam Jer]

Their view was universal yet specific - in general they agreed with McLeod's summary: "The practice of buying, holding, or selling our unoffending fellow creatures as slaves is immoral." They allowed for slavery - note the word "unoffending" (see similar wording in US 13th Amendment) - but it had to be Lawful.

Is that reasoned the same way as Bonar's quote above? (That the OT-sanctioned long-term slavery was somehow a punishment for heathenism?)
Or was it more nuanced than that?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is that reasoned the same way as Bonar's quote above? (That the OT-sanctioned long-term slavery was somehow a punishment for heathenism?)
Or was it more nuanced than that?

I think it is more the idea of punishment for a civil offense, though that could include a financial offense (like failure to repay a loan). Like Joshua's stripes-vs-prison preference above, think indentured servitude instead of debtors' prison (you work off your debt for the person instead of rotting in a jail cell hoping your family can make some cash to redeem you). McLeod's discourse that Scott linked to is the one I am most familiar with - it's not a long read but worth it as it traces the 19th century Covenanter view pretty well. (Keep in mind many Covenanters were themselves imprisoned in previous centuries - many forcibly deported to colonies such as as Barbados, Jamaica, Virginia, and the Carolinas at the end of the 17th century, sometimes as indentured servants but also as full-blown slaves. Google the Crown of London Disaster for a taste of their experiences.)

This idea was included in the language of the US 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States" (my emphasis added). Whether this was included as a well-thought out Judeo-Christian practice or (as it was quickly used for) the re-enslavement of freedmen to provide cheap labor ("convict leasing" - convicted men, largely from the African-American population, were hired out by prisons to nearby farms and factories) is up for debate:

Many Southern states passed Black Codes and later Jim Crow laws that criminalized things like vagrancy, loitering, and breaking labor contracts, offenses frequently used to target African American men. Not picking on Alabama, but their records are the best known - by the 1890s, more than 90% of the prison population in Alabama was reportedly African American, despite them being a minority of the overall population. 100,000 African Americans were imprisoned and leased out between 1875 and 1900 in Alabama.

States and private companies both benefitted - states made money by leasing prisoners to corporations, plantations, and private contractors who in turn had cheap labor. In Georgia, convict leasing was so profitable that it provided nearly all the state’s revenue in some years during the 19th century. Convict leasing was often more deadly than slavery as there was no need to care for them as one would when seeing them as property which one had invested in.

While still technically constitutional, convict leasing/slavery/involuntary servitude has pretty much been abandoned in most places, though the similar idea of "chain gangs" had a bit of resurgence in the 1990s until the courts decided it constituted "cruel and unusual punishment."

The most recent treatment of this subject is a book titled Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II (Douglas Blackmon, 2008).

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

Here are some contributions for consideration:

1. This statement in M. Henry's statement above deserves special attention: "how much to the credit of Christianity I shall not say."
2. If it is conceded that these OT references are specifically relevant for practice after the theocracy and not in some way anachronistic equivocation of terms (this post is not making that concession) it would seem that the theocratic context should be kept in view along with a restrictive allowance not a positive command nor reflection of creation mandates along with what Jesus said about Deuteronomy 24 and Genesis 2 in Matthew 19.
3. This text should have weight: Ex. 21:16: And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
4. This text also should be kept in view: 1 Tim. 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
5. Also relevant for this confessional context are:
   1. WLC Q. 141. "What are the duties required in the eighth commandment?” A. “The duties required in the eighth commandment are, truth, faithfulness, and justice in contracts and commerce between man and man; rendering to every one his due; restitution of goods unlawfully detained from the right owners thereof; giving and lending freely, according to our abilities, and the necessities of others; moderation of our judgments, wills, and affections, concerning worldly goods; a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose of those things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition; a lawful calling, and diligence in it; frugality; avoiding unnecessary law-suits, and suretyship, or other like engagements; and an endeavor, by all just and lawful means, to procure, preserve, and further the wealth and outward estate of others, as well as our own.”
   2. WLC Q. 142. “What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment?” A. “The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving any thing that is stolen; fraudulent dealing; false weights and measures; removing landmarks; injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression; extortion; usury; bribery; vexatious lawsuits; unjust inclosures and depopulations; engrossing commodities to enhance the price, unlawful callings, and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves; covetousness; inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods; distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them; envying at the prosperity of others; as likewise idleness, prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all others ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate, and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.”
6. Lastly, our church has provided a list of bulleted resource links under the topic entitled, “The Institution of American Slavery,” to be found scrolling down toward the bottom of this page on our website: https://puritanchurch.com/about/doctrine-and-practice/practice-what-duty-god-requires-of-us/.

 

[Edward]

Also relevant for this confessional context are:

Your section 5 mounts a solid attack on emancipation and reconstruction.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

I anticipated this very comment. But it overlooks where things begin at the most basic level: one's own person as an Imago Dei and a right to himself, let alone his family members.