Plea fifth.-But God did in the Old Testament permit and regulate sin. He did permit and regulate polygamy and divorce, which are sinful, and so pronounced by the Saviour, in Matt. xix. 3, 9.

Answer. (1) Slavery is declared by you to be in itself, and essentially, a sin, a violation of the eternal and unchangeable principles of right and wrong, or what is called, "malum in se." Neither polygamy nor divorce is in this class of actions. Each is only what is termed "malum prohibitum.' They do not conflict with the immutable principles of right and wrong, but only with the relations designed at first by God between the sexes.* God might, then, without any impeachment of his character, permit them; and such subsequent permission would overrule the original prohibition, which cannot be done in case of an act which is "malum in se."

(2.) But, in truth, the whole force of this plea recoils fatally against the proposition asserted by you in this argument, since polygamy and divorce were condemned and abolished by the New Testament. Jesus and his apostles saw these and slavery existing together, and permitted by the Mosaic law. It will be conceded that, if your affirmation be correct, there was no comparison between the heinousness of the practices. Polygamy and divorce are at once and forever condemned and forbidden; but not a syllable is breathed against slavery. I confess this single view of the matter brings with it a conviction, which to me is overwhelming, that slavery is not, in itself, a sin. So

* "From the beginning it was not so." Matt. xix. 8.

great a hardship was it esteemed by the Jews not to be allowed the right of divorce, that, when Jesus restricted it to cases of adultery, the disciples said, "It were good then not to marry." Yet this privilege, so valued, and granted by Moses, is not spared for a moment; while slavery is not only not forbidden, but, as we shall see in the next letter, permitted still both by precept and example. Can any ingenuity evade, or any power of argument rebut, or any candid mind deny, the consequence which follows irresistibly from this fact in the history of Christ and his apostles?

Very affectionately, my dear brother,
Yours in the Lord,

R. FULLER.

LETTER V.

TO THE REV. FRANCIS WAYLAND, D. D

MY DEAR BROTHER

"If slavery be a sin at all," you say, "it is a sin of appalling magnitude." I have attempted to analyze slavery, and to show that your entire definition of it is incorrect, and involves doctrines revolting to all our Christian feelings, and injurious to God, if the Old Testament be received as a revelation. I have also considered your plea, which is, that God did not see fit to reveal the true character of slavery under the patriarchal and

Mosaic dispensations. We come now to the new dispensation, where, of course, if slavery be "a sin of appalling magnitude," we shall find it explicitly condemned; and the more explicitly, because the Holy One of Israel having, (according to your supposition,) both by his conduct to the patriarchs and his express precept to the Hebrews, 2 permitted this great wickedness, every attribute of his character required now a most distinct and unequivocal reprobation. This, at least, you will concede. And you will also admit that, in deciding on the import of apostolic precept and practice, we are to construe the actions and language of the apostles as they would naturally be construed by the persons who witnessed those actions, and to whom that language was addressed. Nothing can be more utterly sophistical than the idea that we have any light, as to matters of pure revelation, which the first Christians had not. That the world has made prodigious progress in all the arts and sciences, during the last three or four centuries, we know; and we know, too, that libraries on libraries have been written to elucidate the Scriptures. But what advantage do we derive from all this, in our inquiries respecting the teachings of the Bible? Here the book is just as the primitive disciples had it, and not an invention nor discovery has added to it a single letter. And then, as to the volumes of commentaries and expositions, why, they have served really to perplex the truth. The first believers found every precept plain and determined, while with us, the accumulation of learned rubbish has made it difficult to discover the simplest matters. Each year the

ॐ

press groans, and the pulpit resounds, with fresh controversies and disquisitions, all darkening God's counsel, casting doubt on the plainest things, causing that word whose " entrance giveth understanding" to be received through discoloring and distorting mediums, and enveloping in hopeless obseurity that gospel which to the meek-minded Christian is so full of light-such an unerring guide to his feet, and prompt casuist as to every duty. I recollect here the words of a Persian traveller writing from France to his friend at home :-"Father," said I to the librarian, "what are these huge volumes which fill the whole side of the library?" “These,” said he, “are the interpreters of the Scriptures." "There is a prodigious number of them," replied I; "the Scriptures must have been very dark formerly, and must be very clear at present. Do there remain still any doubts? Are there now any points contested ?" "Are there ?" answered he with surprise, are there? There are almost as many as there are lines." "You astonish me," said I; "what, then, have all these authors been doing?" "These authors," returned he, never searched the Scriptures for what ought to be believed, but for what they did believe themselves." But I have been carried away from the question before us: I return to it, and inquire whether under the new dispensation slavery was permitted.

66

66

Now in support of the affirmative of this question we have, I think, argument, inference, proof, and demonstration; all which I shall content myself with just indicating, as I can aim in these papers only at making myself fully comprehended.

And by

(1.) I say, then, we have argument. this I mean that, even if the New Testament had not alluded to slavery at all, I should be sustained in denying your proposition. In the days of the Saviour and the apostles, this institution existed everywhere. And among one people, and that the very people to whom the gospel was first addressed, it had been sanctioned by Jehovah himself. All the proudest and most hallowed associations of a Hebrew all his devout meditations upon the simple beauty of patriarchal piety—and all the soul-stirring memories of the august era, when Israel's God had been Israel's immediate lawgiver, and had marshalled her hosts for the battle, spreading over them that terrible banner of fire and cloud-all recognised this institution as most ancient, and resting upon authority most venerable and sacred. And what I say is this—that a clear and conclusive declaration of Jehovah's will would have been given, if slavery be an awful sin. Every conception of the character of God which nature and revelation inspire, at once proclaims this. Otherwise there is a suppressio veri, a suppression of the truth; and this, too, in a case where the very thought of such conduct must shock us. It was not by any impalpable "spirit" and concealed "principles" of revelation, that slavery had been countenanced, but by express precepts. And that God should allow slavery still to exist, and never breathe a hint as to the former permission having ratified what was criminal, this is what I dare not believe, and scarcely dare utter. It is to assert that Jehovah first, by his conduct and express enactment, con