There is a most important difference between the state laws,
or judicial statutes of the Hebrew nation, and the moral law as expressed in
the decalogue. Both these systems of legislation, emanated indeed from the same
Divine author, but they were given for different purposes. The state laws had
respect to the particular circumstances of that nation in distinction from all
others, and were evidently designed to be superseded, as they have been, by the
Christian dispensation, to which many of them were preparatory, and at whose
introduction the wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles was entirely
broken down. Whereas the moral law is founded on principles of immutable
rectitude, equally applicable to all men in all circumstances and ages; and was
designed to be neither abrogated nor modified by the introduction of
Christianity, but to be interpreted and confirmed by the Author of both. The
apostolic substitution of the first for the last day of the week for a sabbath
constitutes no exception, as the very letter and spirit of the original command
may and should be as fully regarded under the change, as before its occurrence.
It is still every seventh day which is to be hallowed. The state laws in view
of the established usages of those to whom they were given, the prejudices of
their minds and hardness of their hearts, suffered and regulated certain evils,
because by the enaction and enforcemcnt of judicial statutes they could not be
removed, without producing consequences still more deplorable. On this point we
have testimony which will not be contradicted. When the Pharisees captiously
inquired of our Lord, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
He, evidently designing to condemn polygamy, and divorces as commonly practised
together, reminded them that at the beginning, the Creator made but one man and
one woman and joined them together as one flesh. Others similarly united in
marriage, he said were no more twain but one flesh. And impressively added,
“What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” They said,
“Why did Moses then command to give her a writing of divorcement and send her
away?” His remarkable reply was, “Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, MOSES suffered
you to put away your wives: but in the beginning it was not so. And I say unto
you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her that is put away,
committeth adultery.” Even the disciples were startled at this decision of the
Lord and remarked, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good
to marry.” So greatly prejudiced were they in consequence of their Jewish
education, against the original purity and binding nature of this sacred
institution. Now if Moses suffered the Jews to put away their wives for every
cause, not because it was right for them to do so, but on account of the
hardness of their hearts and the evils which this obduracy might have
led them to inflict on their helpless companions with whom they were not
pleased; it is obvious that they might have been suffered, by the same
code of laws, to do other things which they had no right to perform. So it is
in regard to the laws of all nations. God, in the dispensations of his
providence, is continualy suffering men to do what they ought not. But
the Moral Law lays the axe at the root of all moral evil, it strictly,
without regard to persons or circumstances, forbids the least deviation from
the path of absolute rectitude, and binds transgressors to answer for their
conduct not to earthly tribunals but to the Supreme Lawgiver himself, in the
day of final judgment. The laws of the state not merely suffered the Hebrews to
do things, but in some cases, required them to do things, which without such
authority from God, they would have had no right to perform; and might not
without great criminality attempt. As instances of this sort we must reckon the
stoning of children to death for such immoralities as have been mentioned, and
a man for gathering sticks for his fire on the Sabbath day, and especially the
destruction of the Canaanites, who by their great sins had forfeited to divine
justice not only their earthly possessions, but their lives. God had a right to
cut off these transgressors by pestilence or earthquakes, or fire from heaven,
or the agency of his angelic hosts, or by the hands of their fellow men, as he
saw fit. The wonderful miracles which attended the march of the Hebrews from
Egypt to Canaan, while they were passing the Jordan, and besieging Jericho,
gave indubitable testimony that they were indeed divinely commissioned to cut
off the guilty nations, inhabiting the land which God had promised to give them
for their possession. But to plead that since it was right for the Jews to do
these things when expressly commanded, it must be so for others to do such
things when not commanded, seems as egregiously absurd as for every man
in this country to claim the right of acting as a public executioner at his own
discretion, because some men have been authorized by law to inflict sentence of
death on others, and were in justice bound to do it. On the contrary, the moral
law enjoins duties which are common to all. Our Savior has taught us, that the
substance and scope of it all is this, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself.” These are things right in
themselves, and which all men would have been bound to do, even if no express
law to this effect had been given.
Wide indeed, then, is the difference between the judicial
statutes of the Hebrew commonwealth and that moral law, contained in the
decalogue which binds all men to obedience, and with which the great principles
of christian morality laid down in the New Testament perfectly harmonize. The
former was given to an individual nation, in peculiar circumstances, for
special purposes; and are at present no further a rule of conduct than they in
particular instances, inculcate duties which are confirmed by the latter, as
expounded or enforced by Christ or his apostles. Without this sanction, you
have no more authority from the political laws of the Jews to practice
slaveholding; even in the sense and manner in which they practised it, than you
have to practise polygamy.— And we have seen that the system of servitude which
prevailed among them was so mild that it cannot according to the correct
meaning of the term in this country, be denominated slavery at all. It is as
plain then as the sun at noon day, that the laws of the Hebrew nation, do not,
and cannot afford your cherished institution any support or cover.
If slavery can be justified from the Bible a tall, it must
be on the ground of the great principles of universal benevolence and perfect
rectitude, which constitute the foundation of christian morality. We therefore
agree with you to refer the great question to Christ and his apostles for
ultimate decision.
_______________
Continued from: Reverend
Silas McKeen to Thomas C. Stuart, August 20, 1839
SOURCE: Cyrus P. Grosvenor, Slavery vs. The Bible: A
Correspondence Between the General Conference of Maine, and the Presbytery of
Tombecbee, Mississippi, p. 76-82
