The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1857-10-03

vii: p, 'if thou mayest be made free, use
it rather refer you to the "Chn. Doc
Slay, f" especially the remarks on PIP. 71-74
The question of emancipation, is ques-
ton concerning civil rights, and the rela-
tions Of capital and labor, and is therefore
essentially political and not religious
Guestion,-And the Bible treats it, just as
it treats all other questions of the same
kind-it makes no deliyerance on the SUBJ
iect-but leaves it to be determined by the
State, in view of her responsibility to God
for the well-being of the subject; the church
having no right to interfere.
So important does the observance of this
distinction between the proper province Of
the church and the State appear to me, es-
pecially at the present time, that | have
discussed the subject at some length in the
"Chn. Doc. Slav." Let me apply the prin-
, eiples there laid down to TIC two points in
which we differ. Christ requires the church
to teach that the relations which slavery es-
tablishes are not sinful relations; and to
teach the duties which grow out of those
relations, to masters and slaves alike, and
by her discipline to enforce the discharge of
those duties, in so far as her members are
concerned Here her duty ceases. Does
any member of the church believe, that
slavery is political evil? as teacher and
ruler in the church, have no difference with
him. Does he teach this his faith-but
teach it somewhere else than in the pulpit 7
have no difference with him. Does he,
ayailng himself of the rights which belong
to a citizen in republic, act and vote in
accordance with this his faithH-I have no
difference with him. And on the other
hand-Does another believe that slavery is
political good, and teach and act upon
this his faithl [ have no more difference
with him than | had with the former. So
with respect to emancipation, Does any
/ Christian citizen believe that he ought to
aim at the ultimate or even speedy emanci-
patton of the slaves in our Southern States
II have no difference with him on this ac-
count. Does he teach and labor to carry
into effect these his views, in any lawful
way7 have no difference with him. And
on the other hand-DOes another believe
that he ought to aim at the perpetuation OF
slavery, and teach and act upon this his
faith-provided he does it lawfully have
no difference with him therefor. These are
all questions which lie outside the province
of the church. Anti-slavery and Pro-slaye-
/ ry men, if the terms anti-slsvery and pro-
slavery be understood to refer to the ques-
ton Of expediency, or political good and
evil, may all be alike worthy members Of
the church. Differences on such points as
these should no more interfere with their
hearty cooperation in building up the king
dom of God in the world, than differences
respecting the tariff, or the distribution of
the public lands. But does any man, anti
slavery or pro-slayery, attempt to bring
these matters into the church, tnat>he may
oct from the church decision, or enlist the
church in the cause he has espoused,-I
meet him at the threshold with the Masters
command-"Rende unto Cesar the things
that are Cesar's, as well as ''unto God
the things that are Gods" Matt. xxit: 21. }
The commission Christ has given his
church, $50 We into all the lrorld, and preach
the Gospel to euery creature" requires her
to preach that gospel to the slave as well as
the master. The inevitable effect, an effect
which God designed, of this preaching when
faithfully done, must be the elevation of
those to whom it is preached. But this
truth no more necessarily implies the dis
appearance of slavery than it does the dis
appearance of poverty from among men.
/ If, in time, the well-being of the slave--well-
/ being in the highest and most cOmprehen-
siye sense of that phrase-requires his
emancipation, his emancipation will just as
certainly take place as that God rules:-
And Just as firmly as | believe this, do |
/ believe, that when it comes, if come it does,
as national independence came to our
country, it will come without any violation
of that order which God has established in
the world; and hence, through the agency
of the State and not that of the church.
You cannot be ignorant of the fact that
the question of emancipation is question
surrounded with many difRculties-and let
me add, difficulties which grow out of the
obligation to provide for the well-being Of
the slave, far more than the master--and is
question upon which good and wise men
honestly differ. Bishop Hopkins (Of YER
mont) for example, in his american Citi-
zen," work which does credit alike to his
head and his heart, contends for ultimate
emancipation. (Rey.) Thomas Mott (of Mass,
and l purposely take cases from among the
inhabitants of non-slaveholding States) of
whom YOU speak as ''a returned missionary,
one Of the earliest of the self-sacrifcing
band who went forth to the heathen,' and
who, hence, may fairly be presumed to be
godly man, and one practically acquainted
with man in degraded condition, on the
other hand, in his "Slavery and the Rene
dy," takes opposite ground; and all his
remedial suggestions are predicated upon
the perpetuation Of slavery in the Southern
States. These men, no doubt, honestly
differ; and they have right to differ here,
without the church calling either in question
for his opinion.
You will now see clearly the grounds upon
which object to your opinion. They are
1st 1t determines what tho Word of God
leaves undetermined. In this it is ertra-
scriptwaL.
2nd. 1t calls for uniformity cf opinion
where Christ allows liberty. In this it is
uasc7ptural.
Srd. 1t obtrudes the church into the pro-
vince which God has assigned to the State.
In this it is aati-scripturai.
You will see, too, why in the "Chn. Doc.
Slav," you could find no expression Of
opinion on the subject of emancipation
There was no expression of opinion there
th. t;nr, &c