Slavery. By William E. Channing [pp. 268-306]

Slavery.
any notice is taken of the practice in the New Testament.
Wherever marriage is spoken of, it seems to be taken for
granted, as a well understood fact, that it was a contract for
life between one man and one woman; compare Rom. vii. 2,
3. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 2, 39. It is further to be remarked on this
subject, that marriage is a positive institution. If God had
ordained that every man should have two or more wives,
instead of one, polygamy would have been lawful. But
slaveholding is denounced as a mralum in se; as essentially
unjust and wicked. This being the case, it could at no period of the world receive the divine sanction, much less could
it have continued in the Christian church under the direction
of inspired men, when there was nothing to prevent its immediate abolition. The answer then of Dr. Channing is unsatisfactory, first, because polygamy does not belong to the
same category in morals as that to which slaveholding is
affirmed to belong; and secondly, because it was so plainly
prohibited by Christ and his apostles as to secure the assent
of all Christians in all ages of the church.]
It is, however, argued that slavery must be sinful because
it interferes with the inalienable rights of men. We have
already remarked, that slavery, in itself considered, is a state
of bondage, and nothing more. It is the condition of an individual who is deprived of his personal liberty, and is
obliged to labour for another, who has the right to transfer
this claim of service, at pleasure. That this condition involves the loss of many of the rights which are commonly
and properly called natural, because belonging to men, as
men, is readily admitted. It is, however, incumbent on
those who maintain that slavery is, on this account, necessarily sinful, to show that it is criminal, under all circumstances,
to deprive any set of men of a portion of their natural rights.
That this broad proposition cannot be maintained is evident.
The very constitution of society supposes the forfeiture of a
greater or less amount of these rights, according to its peculiar organization. That it is not only the privilege, but the
duty of men to live together in a regularly organized society,
is evident from the nature which God has given us; from the
impossibility of every man living by and for himself, and
from the express declarations of the word of God. The object of the formation of society is the promotion of human
virtue and happiness; and the form in which it should be
organized, is that which will best secure the attainment'of
this object. As, however, the condition of men is so very
:1836.]
289