Principles of Conduct Aspects of Biblical Ethics By

Principles of Conduct
Aspects of Biblical Ethics
By: John Murray
THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE U.S.A. AND SLAVERY

An interesting chapter in the history of the debate provided by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. In 1818 a report of a committee directed to prepare a report was adopted unanimously by the Assembly.
This report declared:

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 neighbors 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? (Minutes of the General Assembly, 1818, p. 692). This report did not advocate precipitate measures for the emancipation of the unhappy Africans. That would be to ?add a second injury to the first, by emancipating them in such a manner as that they will be likely to destroy themselves or others? (ibid.., p. 693). But the report does insist that it is a ?duty indispensably incumbent on
all Christians to labour for its complete extinction? (idem), that is, of slavery.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to harmonize the position taken in this report, unanimously adopted by the Assembly, with the action of the Old School General Assembly of 1845 which resolved by a vote of 168 to 13 that the existence of domestic slavery, under the circumstances in which it is found in the southern portion of the country is no bar to Christian communion and that the petitions that ask the Assembly to make the holding of slaves in itself a matter of discipline, do virtually require this judicatory to dissolve itself (Minutes, 1845, p.18). These resolutions carried with them the endorsements of principals and facts? which were stated in the earlier part of the committee’s report where we read: ?The question, therefore, which this Assembly is called upon to decide, is this: Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, without regard to the circumstances, is a sin, the renunciation of which should be made a condition of membership in the church of Christ? It is impossible to answer this question in the affirmative without contradicting some of the plainest declarations of the Word of God. That slavery existed in the days of Christ and his Apostles is an admitted fact. That they did not denounce the relation as sinful, as inconsistent with Christianity; that slaveholders were
admitted to membership in the churches organized by the Apostles; that whilst they were required to treat their slaves with kindness, and as rational, accountable, and immortal beings, and if Christians, as brethren in the Lord, they were not commanded to emancipate them; that slaves were required to be obedient to their masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with singleness of heart as unto Christ, are facts which meet the eye of every reader of the New Testament. This Assembly cannot, therefore, denounce the holding of slaves as necessarily a heinous and scandalous sin, calculated to
bring upon the Church the curse of God, without charging the Apostles of Christ with conniving as such sin, introducing into the Church such sinners, and thus bringing upon them the curse of the Almighty. In so saying, however, the Assembly are not to be understood as denying that there is evil connected with slavery. Much less do they approve those defective and oppressive laws by which, in some of the States, it is regulated ? Nor is this Assembly to be understood as countenancing the idea that masters may regard their servants as mere property, and not as human beings, rational, accountable, immortal The Assembly intend simply to say, that since Christ and his inspired Apostles did not make the holding of slaves a bar to communion, we, as a court of Christ,
have no authority to do so? (ibid., pp. 16f.).
In the following year, 1846, the General Assembly (Old School), in answer to memorials and petitions on the subject of slavery, adopted the following minute by a vote of 119 to 33: ?Our church has, from time to time, during a period of nearly sixty years, expressed its views on the subject of Slavery. During all this period, it has held and uttered substantially the same sentiments. Believing that this uniform testimony is true, and capable of vindication from the word of God, the Assembly is, at the same time, clearly of the opinion that it has already deliberately and solemnly spoken on the subject with sufficient fullness and clearness. Therefore, resolved, that no further action upon this subject is, at present, needed? (Minutes, 1846, p. 206).. On
the same day a resolution offered by R.M. White was adopted. It reads as follows: ?Resolved, that in the judgment of this house, the action of the General Assembly of 1845 was not intended to deny or rescind the testimony often uttered by the General Assemblies previous to that date? (ibid., p. 207).
In 1863 the General Assembly (Old School) adopted the following report:
This Assembly has, from the first, uttered its sentiments on the subject of slavery in substantially the same language. The action of 1818 was taken with more care, made more clear, full, and explicit, and was adopted unanimously.. It has since remained the true and scriptural deliverance on this subject, by which our church determined to abide. It has never been repealed, amended, or modified, but has frequently been referred to, and reiterated in subsequent Assemblies. And when some persons fancied that the action of 1845 in some way interfered with it, the Assembly of 1846 declared, with much unanimity, that the
action of 1845 was not intended to deny or rescind the testimony on the subject, previously uttered by General Assemblies; and by these deliverances we still abide? (Minutes, 1863, p. 55). If there is a way of resolving the discrepancies between positions taken in 1818 and those of 1845, the present writer is not able to find it. That the climate has changed between 1818 and 1845 is apparent. In 1831 the abolitionist furore had become intense. That was the year in which William Lloyd Garrison launched The Liberator. The excesses of the abolitionist movement aroused the opposition even of those who believed
slave-holding to be intrinsically wrong as well as of those who did not hold that position but believed in ultimate emancipation. To say the least, the situation in 1845 required that those who did not believe in the wrong of slavery per se should say so explicitly. Other factors could be adduced to explain the change of temper in the General Assembly. Cf. On the discrepancy between 1818 and 1845 Lewis G. Vander Velde: The Presbyterian Churches and the Federal Union 1861-1869 (Cambridge and London, 1932), pp.26f., and on the history of the period John R. Bodo: The Protestant Clergy and the Public Issues 1812-1848 (Princeton, 1954), pp. 112-149; Alice Felt Tyler: Freedom?s Ferment:
Phases of American Social History to 1860 (Minneapolis, 1944), pp.463-547.
The General Assembly of 1846 adopted with almost entire unanimity a
pronouncement on the question of slavery which endorsed the declaration of 1818, quoting from it at length, approved the emancipation proclamations of the highest executive authorities?, and recommended to all in its communion to labour honestly, earnestly, and unweariedly in the respective spheres for this glorious consummation (the extirpation of slavery), to which human justice, Christian love, national peace and prosperity, every earthly and religious, combined to pledge them? (Minutes, 1864, pp. 296-299). For discussion of the actions of the General Assembly in 1863 and 1864 cf. Lewis G. Vander Velde : op.
cit., pp. 123-128.
Samuel J. Barid?s digest of 1856 called A Collection of the Acts,
Deliverances and Testimonies of the Supreme Judicatory of the Presbyterian Church (Philadelphia, 1856) gives a satisfactory account of the actions of the General Assembly until 1856 (see the same, pp. 808-814). William E. Moore?s Digest of 1873 (pp. 481-483), of 1886 (pp. 593-595), the Digest dated 1923 (Vol. I, p. 467), the Digest dated 1938 (Vol. I, p. 668) are distinctly misleading- they refer expressly to the deliverance of 1818 but not to that of 1845.
For actions of the New School Assembly cf. Minutes, 1862, p. 24; Minutes, 1863, p. 244. These actions are more in accord with the deliverance of the undivided Assembly of 1818.