Covenanters and Slavery - Part Three: 'To hold any of our fellow men in perpetual slavery is sinful.'

By Angela Wittman

In the pamphlet Negro Slavery Unjustifiable Pastor McLeod went on to write of the "natural rights of man" and what this means from a Biblical viewpoint, which is very different from the antinomian view of Libertarians [emphasis in bold text is mine - AW]:

I. To hold any of our fellow men in perpetual slavery is sinful.

1. This appears from the inconsistency of the practice of holding slaves with the natural rights of man, This is a term which has been much abused. It is proper that accurate ideas should be annexed to it, otherwise its force, in the present argument, will not be perceptible. If man were a being, owing his existence to accident, and not a creature of God, his rights would indeed be negative. If he stood in a state of independency of his Maker, and not a subject of law, his rights could be determined only by the will of society. But he is neither the son of chance nor the possessor of independency. His life and his faculties are the gift of God. From heaven he derives positive rights, defined by positive precepts.[1] Considering man as a free agent, by the constitution of nature he has a right to the exercise of freedom, in conformity to the precepts of that law by which the author of nature has ordered him to regulate his actions. A delegated power he has from God, and no creature has a right to restrict him in its rightful exercise. To oppose the force of an individual, or of a society, to this, is to wage war against the Supreme Ruler: It is an attempt to reduce a moral agent to a mere machine, whose motions are to be regulated by external force; and, consequently, a denial of his right to the person enslaved, and an arrogant assumption of lawless authority by the usurper. Is it necessary to pursue this argument before an American audience? It is generally, if not universally admitted. The principle is stated and maintained in that instrument which lies at the foundation of your national existence. In defence of it you have fought—you have appealed to the Lord of Hosts; and in its support he has led on your armies to victory.

2. If an opposite principle of action were universally admitted, it would lead to absolute absurdity. A demonstration of this will confirm the proposition.

If one man have a right to the services of another, without an equivalent, right stands opposite and contrary to right. This confounds the distinction between right and wrong. It destroys morality, and justice between man and man, between nation and nation. I have a right to enslave and sell you. You have an equal right to enslave and sell me. The British have a right to enslave the French, and the French the British—the Americans the Africans, and the Africans the Americans. This would be to expel right from the human family—to resolve law into force, and justice into cunning. In the struggle of contending rights, violence would be the only arbiter. The decisions of reason would be perverted, and the seine of morality extirpated from the breast.

Such absurdity will meet with few advocates to plead its cause in theory. Is it not, therefore, lamentable, that any should indulge a principle, or countenance a practice, the justification of which would necessarily lead to it? But,

3. The practice of enslaving our fellow men stands equally opposed to the general tenor of the sacred scriptures.

The Bible is the criterion of doctrine and conduct. It represents the European and the Asiatic, the African and the American, as different members of the same great family—the different children of the same benign and universal parent. God has made of one blood all the nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the bounds of their habitation. Acts 17:26. In relation to one another, they are equally bound to the exercise of benevolence, and are respected as naturally having no inequality of rights. Every man is bound to respect his fellow man as his neighbour, and is commanded to love him as himself.[2] Our reciprocal duties the divine Jesus summarily comprehends in that direction commonly called the golden rule: Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.[3] This is the sum of the duties inculcated in the law of Moses, and in the writings of the inspired prophets. How opposite the spirit of these precepts and doctrines to the practice of the slave-holder! If he is consistent with himself he will reason thus: "These slaves are not of one blood with me. They are not entitled to the love I give to my neighbour. The conduct which I should pursue, were I enslaved by another, I would not recommend to them. I shall feed and clothe them from the same principle that I feed and stable my cattle. They are my property as much as these; and when they do not serve my purpose agreeably to my wishes, I shall dispose of them for money to another trafficker in human flesh. I acknowledge, if any person was to enslave me, I should endeavour to embrace the first opportunity of making my escape. But if my Negro offers to run away, I shall pursue, and severely chastise him. He has no right to leave his master; the rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also so to them, notwithstanding."—I need not add, brethren, that such sentiments are opposite to the principles of the Christian Religion.

Notes:

[1] The author of "Political Justice" maintains that the rights of man are all negative—that man had no rights. His reasoning is ingenious, and is certainly less absurd than that which would introduce blasphemy and vice among the rights of man. Both sentiments are, however, absurd, and the absurdity proceeds from the same source. Man is considered in relation to man only. The interest of truth requires this error to be detected and exposed. Before man is considered in relation to man, his relation to God must be understood. This is the primary one. It is that by which all others must be regulated. Consider man as a creature of God, and depending upon his bounty, and you see him receiving certain privileges from that Lord who has a necessary and absolute property in all things. These are the rights of man. They are not inherent, but derived. Consider man as a creature, and you see him under a law to God. His possessions are completely circumscribed. Beyond this he has no right. All the rights of man are derived from God, and agreeable to his law.

By punctual attention to this principle, the friends of truth may consistently and successfully combat those who would rob man of his rights, or would unduly extend them. From this double battery, by maintaining a well-directed fire, they may defeat the supporters of civil and religious usurpation on the one side, and the propagators of licentiousness in politics and religion on the other.

[2] Mark 12:31.

[3] Matthew 7:12.

To be continued.

Comments

The Testimony of Thomas Stoddart Executed in Edinburgh’s Grassmarket on 12 August, 1685

Posted at Jardine's Book of Martyrs : Thomas Stoddart was executed in the Grassmarket on 12 August, 1685. Matthew Bryce , David Law and Gavin Russell were hanged alongside him. ‘Men, Brethren, And Fathers, Hearken,—I being to take my farewell of the world, I leave this my dying testimony, according to the form of the Christians of old; I having like the same ground for it that he had who used that word; that was Stephen; who was condemned, because he spoke blasphemous words against the law and the temple. So, because I will not adhere to, nor approve of their laws, which now have power in their hands, they condemned me to die, though they could not witness so much against me for speaking against them, and they never essayed to prove the sentence upon me, which now I shall study in a word to give you an account of. And first, I received my sentence of banishment, and then notwithstanding of that I was committed to the justices to abide the assize, and they passed upon me th

Scottish Covenanters Index

Editor's Note: I am pleasantly surprised to discover this index page for "Scottish Covenanters" at ancestry.com . I hope you will find it helpful. For Christ's Crown & Covenant, Angela Somers-Wittman Posted at ancestry: About Scottish Covenanters Index In the 17th century conflict arose between Church and State in Scotland. Those who remained steadfast in their Presbyterian beliefs and refused to take an oath to the king saying that he was the head of the church became known as Covenanters. They believed that Christ was the head of the church and were punished for this belief. Many were forced to pay the ultimate price for this by laying down their lives. The Royalists and Dragoons, who were seeking their lives, chased the Covenanters from glen to glen, especially in the Lowlands. If anyone was found hiding them, they suffered imprisonment and/or death as well. This punishment was not just reserved for the strong and healthy -- children and the eld

Scottish Covenanters: 'THE PRINCIPLES FOR WHICH THEY CONTENDED'

Posted at Log College Press: Reformed Presbyterian minister David McAllister’s Poets and Poetry of the Covenant is a worthy homage to the heroic faith of the Scottish Covenanters in verse, which we have highlighted on this blog previously, but its prose introduction should not be overlooked. It is a helpful overview of what the Covenanters stood for, and what inspired so many powerful poetic tributes. Let us briefly sketch the leading principles for which the heroes and martyrs of these songs of the Covenant contended: I. The supreme authority of God's Word in all the relations of human life. In the church, as one of their own number said, "they took their pattern, not from Rome, not even from Geneva, but from the blessed Word of God." They held that the state was bound to regulate all its affairs by the same law of ultimate authority. The Bible was to them a national as well as an ecclesiastical law-book. Kings and noblemen and lowlier citizens were all under its

Covenanters and Slavery - Part One: RPCNA - Abolitionists

By Angela Wittman While researching the history of the (RPCNA) Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and abolition of slavery, I found these excerpts from on-line resources which report the RPCNA's history of the abolition of slavery officially began in the year 1800: Perhaps the most enduring change during the 19th century involved participation in social reform movements. One cause favored by the denomination was the abolition of slavery , beginning officially in 1800, when members were prohibited from slave owning and from the slave trade. Enthusiastically supported by most members, the denomination took a strong stance against the Confederacy and faithfully supported the North in the Civil War , as Reformed Presbyterians enlisted to fight against the "slaveholders' rebellion." Abolition was a major factor in the decline of the denomination's South Carolina and Tennessee congregations: most members there, finding it hard to be abolitionists in

Lilias Dunbar: Testimony of a Scottish Lass

By Rev. David T. Myers - Posted at This Day in Presbyterian History : Lilias Dunbar was born in 1657 to parents of high society in Scotland. Yet such extraordinary circumstances did not guarantee a long life. Early in her young life, both parents died, leaving her an orphan. Reared by a cousin, she eventually was taken into the family of a pious woman by the name of Lady Duffus, who reared this adopted daughter not just in manners, but also in the things of the Lord. When Lilias was seventeen years of age, a bout with small pox brought her dangerously ill. The sickness led her to promise God that if He healed her, she would strive to be His servant. Made well, she responded to her promise to be the Lord’s servant by seeking to establish her self-righteousness. It was only when her adopted mother passed away in 1677, that she became a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus. Listen to her profession of faith as found in her diary for May 1, 1677. She writes: “The Lord, who is the

Cleave unto the Covenant and the Work of Reformation

"There is yet a holy seed, a root whom God will preserve, and bring forth; but how long and dark our night may be, I do not know; The Lord shorten it for the sake of his Chosen. In the meantime be you patient and immoveable, abounding in the work of the Lord, and in love one to another; beware of snares, which are strewed thick. Cleave unto the Covenant, and Work of Reformation; do not decline the Cross of Christ; Choose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasure of sin for a season; and account the reproaches of the Lord greater riches than all the Treasures of Egypt" – James Guthrie (1612-1661) Link: https://youtu.be/L_bhi27Gb40

The Battle of Rullion Green

Image by Billy McCrorie - Wikipedia Posted at This Day in Presbyterian History: The Time Was Not Ripe This mysterious phrase is found on a stone memorial on the grounds of the Battle of Rullion Green which is located eight miles south of Edinburgh, Scotland. It tells the tragic story of defeat in the first battle of the Scot Covenanters—Presbyterians all—against the English government of Charles II. This battle was part of the Killing Times era of Scottish Covenanters. In essence, the Anglican government had declared war against the Presbyterians of Scotland, asking for unconditional surrender on their part. Their pastors—some 400 of them—had been ejected from their pulpits, their manses, and their parishes. When some of them began to preach to their people in the fields and moors, that whole scene became a dangerous practice, with fines leveled against the attenders, and imprisonment and death as well. All that was needed was a spark to ignite the smoldering indignation of the Scottis

Jenny Geddes - The Day of Small Beginnings

Posted at This Day in Presbyterian History: Drawing from three separate quotations, we have in short compass the story of Jenny Geddes and her little wooden stool, which God used to bring about a revolution and a return to biblical truth. Two years ago, while walking about in Old St. Giles’ church in Edinburgh, with Dr. W. G. Blaikie, whose fame as author, scholar, and preacher, is known throughout the Presbyterian Church, he said, ― this is the first time I have been here in seventeen years. And yet this is the church in which Knox preached and Jennie Geddes worshipped. Here she threw the famous stool at the head of the Dean who was reading the liturgy, under orders from King Charles. The outburst of popular indignation, occasioned by this act, was the beginning of the great struggle for religious liberty in Scotland. Read more here... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Wikipedia: Since the early years of the 17th century, the Scottish Church had been established on the same E

Covenanter Slaves

Posted at This Day in Presbyterian History : Twenty-eight Presbyterians signed a final covenant on the eve of their departure from Leith, Scotland in early September, 1685. It said in part, “That, now to leave their own native and Covenanted land by an unjust sentence of banishment for owning truth and standing by duty, studying to keep their Covenantal engagements and baptismal vows, whereby they stand obliged to resist and testify against all that is contrary to the Word of God and their Covenants; and that their sentence of banishment ran chiefly because they refused the oath of allegiance which in conscience they could not take, because in so doing they thought utterly declined the Lord Jesus Christ from having any power in His own house, and practically would by taking it, say, ‘He is not King and Head of His Church and over their consciences.’ And, on the contrary, this was to take and put in His room a man whose breadth was in his nostrils; yea, a man who is a sworn enem

For Christ's Crown & Covenant!

Search This Blog