A German translation of both the Lutheran and Missionary introduction and Bachman’s original letter appear in Lehre und Wehre, Volume 11 (1865), pp. 360-375. Here I publish the original English with the only portions I have translated from German in italics.
Dr. Bachman’s Vindication for an accusation published against him in the “Lutheran and Missionary”
This interesting document, which we believe we must not withhold from our readers, is introduced in the “Lutheran and Missionary” of October 26th with the following words:
“The letter of Dr. Bachman, which we give this week, will be read, doubtless, by many with deep and painful interest. We have given it entire, though there is much in it, which we heartily wish had not been written. But the venerable age and the commanding position of Dr. Bachman, not alone in our Church, but as one whose scientific renown is as wide as Christendom, entitle him to a hearing in just such form, as he may deem best. We think that Dr. Bachman has utterly erred in one inference which he draws and presses,–that is that there is a widespread spirit of personal hostility towards the South in our church in the North. The very opposite is the prevalent feeling. Men reach conclusions on such points too readily upon their judgment on individual cases. We must not, on mere presumptions, throw away any thing which tends to our Church unity, but must labor for the peace of Zion, till God either blesses her with it, or shows that our working is hopeless. At the time the charges against Dr. B. were repeated by our correspondent (they had not only been made before, but, we believe, had been in print,) we expressed our conviction that they were groundless, and pointed out their internal improbability. We are assured by Mr. Hutter, that his reasons for making the statements are such as would justify him before his friends and the world. There is one large part of Dr. B.’s letter in which we are sure all will rejoice. It is that in which he so utterly repudiates the conduct and feelings imputed to him. And even the portions of his letter which speak of excesses and evils connected with our military operations are well worth pondering, as they show how awful are the evils connected with the most necessary war, and intensify our sense of the criminality of those who causelessly forced our nation into it.”
Dr. Bachman’s Vindication.
Rev. E. W. Hutter:–Rev. Sir:–In the “Lutheran and Missionary” of the 27th of july, 1865, I perceive an article headed “Southern Lutheran Church,” under your signature, dated Philadelphia, July 20th, 1865, one paragraph of which demands some notice from me. The bad taste betrayed in the whole article, drawing its illustrations from the “barn-yard,” the “kitchen,” and “finny prize floundering in the net” is not the greatest objection, neither am I disposed to consume theme by criticizing your prejudiced comparison between your northern and our southern Synods. It is the spirit and manner of the whole article.,–the narrow, one-sided views, the censorious, illiberal remarks, and the bitter personalities betrayed, that characterize the temper of the writer.
I would here just remark, that your discussions whether the Northern General Synod will, or will not, receive the Southern Churches into their body, are premature, inasmuch as it appears to me it would be wiser policy first to ascertain whether they have evinced any disposition to be reunited. As far as I am acquainted with the sentiments of the Southern Lutheran clergy and the people, there is not one in a thousand who would for a moment entertain the slightest idea of a reunion with the northern General Synod, more especially as long as it retains such a mouth-piece as the Rev. E. W. Hutter. All, with unexampled unanimity, are in favor of retaining our present organization, and as early as possible, continuing the publication of our Book of Worship, and highly valuable Southern Lutheran.
I am quite sure that I would not have noticed this offensive article if you had stopped here. The following paragraph, however, as it refers to me, personally, calls upon me for something more than a passing notice.
“By one of the most eminent citizens of Charleston, a native and life-long resident of that city, we recently were favored with an item of intelligence concerning Dr. Bachman, the first received by us since the fall of 1860, when he so profanely invoked the divine blessing on the South Carolina ordinance of secession. To show what a melancholy change has been wrought in the doctor’s spirit, only about two months ago, although besought by prayers and tears, he refused to administer the holy supper to a dying Union Lutheran soldier. Rather than not receive it at all, the expiring hero accepted it from a Roman Catholic priest! We have the same authority too, for stating that, than this same Dr. Bachman, so man in Charleston gloated so openly over the barbarities inflicted on our prisoners.”
Here we have a charge penned by yourself and printed by the editors of the LUTHERAN AND MISSIONARY reflecting on my character as a clergyman, which, if true, would destroy my usefulness and render me the scorn and contempt of all Christian men. I am accused, 1st, of withholding the communion from a dying man on political grounds. 2dly, “Of openly gloating over the barbarities inflicted on our prisoners.”
Now, Rev. Sir, I pronounce these charges, made and published by yourself, vindictive, malicious, and unmitigated falsehoods. I never was besought “by prayers and tears to administer the holy communion to a dying Union soldier.” I never heard of “the expiring hero,” or of “the Roman Catholic priest” to whom this pious office was assigned. The paper in which these vindictive charges were made, and which you ought in justice to have sent to me, reached me through the mail, having been sent by a friend. You might have easily satisfied yourself, and saved yourself much trouble, by writing a line to me. You would then have had both statements before you. You say this occurred only two months ago. Your article was dated July 20th; consequently, it must have been some time in May when you state that I refused the communion to this imaginary “dying hero,” and when to render the episode more impressive, according to your pathetic statement, a Catholic priest was sent for, to lighten the load of his sins on his passage to eternity. My church had long been in the “shelling district,” my people were scattered throughout the country, and I followed them on the 13th February, and did not return until the middle of May.
Since then, I have had one public communion in my church. It was largely attended by all denominations. The community had heard of the barbarities inflicted on me by the officers in General Sherman’s army, and had for several weeks yielded to the current report that I had died of my wounds. They now crowded around their blessed Master’s table, with feelings of love to the aged man who had been spared to minister at the altar, and of gratitude to God for His mercies. Among the congregation were several United States officers. From that day to this, I frequently administered the communion in private to the sick, and saw no reason to deny the ordinance to those who desired to partake of it. My rule in my whole ministerial life has been, never to administer the communion to the sick without an examination into their state of preparation to receive it. They must have penitence, faith in the Saviour, and resolve to live Christian lives. Hence, I have always regarded the old German practice of depending on communion on a death-bed as savoring of superstition–looking on it as a salvo for sin.
St. John’s Lutheran Church in Charleston where Dr. Bachman served as minister 1815 -1874
During the war, I administered the communion to several hundred sick soldiers of both armies. I naturally saw more of those who belonged to the confederate than the United States army. In no cases were their political opinions allowed to sway my judgment; but in every case, the requisites to the worthy communicant were carefully examined. Whilst during the long period of four years I either postponed or rejected a few applicants for the communion among the sick in the confederate army, I postponed but one among the United States soldiers.
The day after the battle on Morris Island, in my usual rounds of visits to the hospitals, I was asked by a German to administer the communion to him. On inquiring into his life and conduct, he informed me that he had been engaged in breaking the locks and rifling the drawers of rebel ladies on the islands, had taken a considerable quantity of children’s clothes and silver spoons, and that he had stolen some from his fellow-soldiers, and that his Colonel had sent all to New York, whence they would go to his wife and children in New Hampshire. He thought he had sent enough to last for several years. I asked him whether he was willing to make restitution for his robberies, particularly the articles stolen from his fellow-soldiers. He said, ‘no’; his Colonel had told him that he had a right to take any thing from the rebel ladies, and that he had grabbed from them as much as he could get, and that the soldiers all stole from one another. He said he had, in common with the officers and soldiers, up to the time of the battle, lived in criminal intercourse with the negro women in the camp; and he was, moreover, a terrific swearer, even on what he feared was his dying bed. I perceived, and was so informed by the surgeon, that his wound was not mortal; and I allowed him to consider himself in danger of death and of hell, hoping that his very terrors might lead him to repentance and amendment.
When I arrived on the next day, he had been sent away as a convalescent, and I did not see him again. If this was the dying Union Lutheran soldier, the expiring hero, whom you refer to, you may still have an opportunity of administering to him the “holy supper” in your own way. The army is now disbanded, and you may find him at home in New Hampshire. Please ask him whether he did not say to me, before I left him, that “he felt that he was not fit for the communion then, but would try to be a better man and be better prepared for it.”
The only other case where the communion was referred to, was that of a German who had been shot through the lungs; and believing his wound to be mortal, I in my daily visits to the hospital apprised him of his danger, and the almost certainty of his death. He said that he had not been inside of a church for seven years, and if he was to die, then, “by Gott,” he must have the sacrament; but if he was not to die, he swore he would not take it from any “Pfaff” in the land. He did not ask me to administer it. His comrades informed me that five of the seven years in which he had been in this country had been spent in a Western Penitentiary, where he had been enlisted for the war. His companions-in-arms represented him as the most quarrelsome, profane, and thieving villain they had ever known. I asked him if he wished to be prayed for. He said he did not understand English well enough. “Will you have a German prayer?” He shook his head.
The next morning, I visited the hospital again, when a most revolting spectacle was presented. A wounded Lieutenant, who had been in command of a black company, (his Captain having been killed,) was lying in a cot opposite to that of the German. They had just had a quarrel and a fight, the German insisting that he had been fighting for the Union, whilst his opponent had been fighting for the negro. The Lieutenant was unable to rise; but the German had crawled out of his bed and beaten the officer unmercifully, and the German had been forced back to his bed, growling, and cursing horribly. It was at this moment I entered the ward. I was told that in his rage the German had enlarged the rupture in the wounded blood-vessel. He was in too great a passion to speak with me, and I left him cursing. On the subsequent morning the Lieutenant was dead, and I performed his funeral service. On the same afternoon, the German died and was buried. If this “jail-bird” is the “expiring hero” you refer to, you may canonise him in the overflowing of your patriotism and the bitterness of your fanatical fury; but be assured that he called for neither Protestant nor Catholic priest, and died without a sign.
Up to this day, I have never refused to visit any United States soldiers, etc., and am still engaged in administering the instructions and comforts of religion to all who send for me. ‘Tis true, I cannot discharge these duties as quickly and with as much comfort to myself as I once did. I am compelled to travel miles on foot to visit the hospitals: all my means of conveyance have been taken from me. In my large congregation, all the carriages and horses, including those of the aged, widow, and non-combatant, were seized by the Government: there is but one left, which was saved by being claimed as British property: it has no horses, and therefore is of no service.
President Lincoln, by his Proclamation, tendered free pardon, with restoration of the right of property, except that of slaves, to all who should take the oath to support the United States Government. That oath has been taken by all of us. But what has been the result? We were told to identify our property. My carriage, buggy, and the barouche of a benevolent widow, were by an order from General Hatch, taken from my premises, which were occupied by an English family with the protection of the Consul, and were not, in any sense of the word, what could be construed as abandoned property. When I inquired about the buggy, which I needed most, I was sent from one office to another–from post to pillar–for a few days, until time was afforded to send them to Hilton Head. I wrote to Hilton Head, but was informed that it was shipped to New York. My carriage I found in a depot in the city; but when the men placed as guard ascertained that it was mine, they ordered me away and locked the door. That night they removed the pole, the cushions, and wheels; and by these manoeuvres, I am left without any conveyance.
Pictures, bedding, a clock, etc., were taken from my house by Rev. Mr. French, who had speculated largely and profitably among the poor negroes, in urging them to be married over again, at only a dollar and two candles a pair. Many had no objection to the change, and in the state of utter demoralization of the negro, have been married several times since, enjoying their freedom ad libitum. I was sent from one office to another. Whilst thus amused, my articles, which I had detected in my neighborhood in the house of the United States officers, were removed to the Pavilion Hotel. I followed them there, and was told to write to the Treasury Department, and my goods would be restored. I wrote accordingly, but received no answer until a month had elapsed. I then went for the articles, but was refused even to enter the room where they were stored. The women of the officers had selected what they wanted: the remainder, which was of but little value, was sold at auction. What became of the proceeds, let the heads of the Government inquire.
The Mills House Hotel and nearby ruined buildings in Charleston, with a shell-damaged carriage and the remains of a brick chimney in the foreground (1865)
Certain it is, that of the ten thousands of persons deprived of their property in Charleston, not a thousandth part has been recovered. We are in the situation of a certain man in the Gospel, who fell into strange company. (Luke ii. 30.) When these officials, and the ladies under their protection, return to their homes in the North, (God speed them on their way!) they will be much richer than when they came here, and, alas! the poor will be poorer still. Watches, ladies’ ornaments, silver spoons, and all manner of household furniture, etc., must by this time be at a discount in the North. The Rev. Mr. French, who made a clean sweep from the houses in my neighborhood, must by this time be a man of wealth, and General Hatch and another officer cannot be far behind. The elegant carriage of Miss Annaly could not be retained here, but was sent to the North to accommodate Mrs. Martel. Our carriages have not all disappeared from Charleston, since, although the owners cannot get them, they can see them perambulating the streets, not only with the officers, but carrying negro soldiers, and women of all colors. Many of our horses are still here, as they may be seen any afternoon tearing through the streets on their way to the race-course, their riders making the welkin ring with screams and blasphemies. When these horses are worn down in flesh, they are sent to the auction, and sold to the highest bidder. Who pockets the cash?
We were invited by a proclamation, to pay our enormous taxes by a certain day; the parties knew that they had destroyed the railroads and bridges, and captured all the carriages and horses. They refused to have these taxes paid by agents. Before we could arrive here, they closed the offices, having no one to attend to the business. Thus we have to pay additional taxes –to hire our own houses from the government officers. Thus the last dollar is taken, and the citizens reduced to beggary. We now and then see pictures in Harper’s, etc., representing the North feeding the hungry South. The representation would have been more true to nature if the cause had been stated; viz.: the previous plunder. Our situation, however, is not altogether peculiar. There is a parallel case of the Israelites under Pharoah’s iron rule. Exodus v. 7.
As an evidence of the different feelings towards me, which exist in your mind and those of the other abolitionists in the North, compared with those in this community, your own soldiers included, I would just remark that a number of officers and soldiers of the United States Army have asked the privilege of uniting with me on the solemn occasion of our communion, if they remained here, and that some from Pennsylvania and Ohio have offered themselves for confirmation. I would just add that the slanders which you have so extensively circulated, are sooner believed any where else than in Charleston.
Another view of Charleston during the war
I now proceed to your 2d charge. “We have the same authority too, for stating that than this same Dr. Bachman, no man in Charleston gloated so openly over the barbarities inflicted on our prisoners.” Here I am compelled to pause and gaze at the picture presented by the fanatic. He is narrow-minded, stern, insensible, vindictive and cruel. He appears never to have read the chapter on charity, taught us by St. Paul. He knows nothing of the law of human kindness, and the sweet charities of life. The angel of mercy seems never to have visited his cold, pulseless heart, and he becomes the slanderer of his neighbor, believing that he may thereby promote the cause which prejudice and malignity have induced him to espouse.
I have been the pastor of the same church and people for nearly fifty-one years. During that long period, when five generations have been under my ministry–the harmony that existed among us has been disturbed by no discordant sounds. When the handful of persons with which I began, had increased into three large congregations, I was under the hope that I had not been a useless laborer in advancing the interests of the Church in the South, and strove to unite discordant material which composed the old General Synod in the Northern and Middle States. I certainly did not expect that the voice of slander would reach me in the advanced period of my life, being in the 76th year of my age. Here I have lived and labored, and here I expect my remains to rest with those that loved and cherished, and clung around me from youth to age.
I defy you or your contemptible informer to produce a single case of my inhumanity–and when you publish to the world that “no man in Charleston gloated so openly over the barbarities inflicted on our prisoners, as this same Dr. Bachman,” you certainly do not place yourself in the position of a meek and lowly servant of Christ. You do not regard the command which enjoins us not to bear false witness; you drop the lamb, and assume the attitude, the growl, and the malignity of the tiger. I appeal to every virtuous citizen of Charleston, if I have not devoted my life to mitigate the evils of yellow fever, cholera and civil war. I was in Charleston during all the seasons of yellow fever, but one (when I was in Europe on account of my health.) I will venture to affirm that I have seen more cases of that disease than any man in America–having on one occasion buried forty-one victims in one day. Hundreds of times I could not find time for an hour’s repose during many long and weary nights. My own congregation, as natives, were exempt from this fever, and therefore my services were not required by them. The sufferers were in most cases the people of the North, to whom I sacrificed my days and nights–the very people over whose inflicted barbarities I am accused of gloating. During the war, I will venture to say I have visited, succored, and attended at the bed-sides of more United States prisoners, than you have done to the sick and the wounded, including both armies. Allow me here to give you a few specimens of my “gloating over the barbarities inflicted on your prisoners.” You will be able to judge what were the causes of my resentment, and how I sought revenge when it was in my power.
Charleston, S.C. View of ruined buildings through porch of the Circular Church (150 Meeting Street)
When Sherman’s Army came sweeping through Carolina, leaving a broad track of desolation for hundreds of miles, whose steps were accompanied with fire, and sword, and blood, reminding us of the tender mercies of the Duke of Alva, I happened to be at Cash’s Depot, six miles from Cheraw. The owner was a widow, Mrs. Ellerbe, 71 years of age. Her son, Col. Cash, was absent. I witnessed the barbarities inflicted on the aged, the widow and young and delicate females. Officers, high in command, were engaged tearing from the ladies their watches, their ear and wedding rings, the daguerrotypes of those they loved and cherished. A lady of delicacy and refinement, a personal friend, was compelled to strip before them, that they might find concealed watches and other valuables under her dress.
A system of torture was practised towards the weak, unarmed and defenceless, which, as far as I know and believe, was universal throughout the whole course of that invading army. Before they arrived at a plantation, they inquired the names of the most faithful and trust-worthy family servants; these were immediately seized, pistols were presented at their heads: with the most terrific curses, they were threatened to be shot, if they did not assist them in finding buried treasures. If this did not succeed, they were tied up and cruelly beaten. Several poor creatures died under the infliction. The last resort was that of hanging, and the officers and men of the triumphant army of Gen. Sherman, were engaged in erecting gallows, and hanging up these faithful and devoted servants. They were strung up until life was nearly extinct, when they were let down, suffered to rest awhile, then threatened and hung up again. It is not surprising that some should have been left hanging so long that they were taken down dead. Coolly and deliberately these hardened men proceeded on their way, as if they had perpetrated no crime, and as if the God of Heaven would not pursue them with his vengeance.
But it was not alone the poor blacks (to whom they professed to come as liberators) that were thus subjected to torture and death. Gentlemen of high character, pure and honorable and gray-headed, unconnected with the military, were dragged from their fields, or their beds, and subjected to this process of threats, beating and hanging. Along the whole track of Sherman’s army, traces remain of the cruelty and inhumanity practiced on the aged and the defenceless. Some of those who were hung up, died under the rope, while their cruel murderers, have not only been left unreproached and unhung, but have been hailed as heroes and patriots. The list of those martyrs whom the cupidity of the officers and men of Sherman’s army sacrificed to their thirst for gold and silver, is large and most revolting. If the editors of this paper will give their consent to publish it, I will give it in full, attested by the names of the purest and best men and women of our Southern land.
I, who have been a witness to these acts of barbarity that are revolting to every feeling of humanity and mercy, was doomed to feel in my own person, the effects of the avarice, cruelty, and despotism which characterized the men of that army. I was the only male guardian of the refined and delicate females who had fled there for shelter and protection. I soon ascertained the plan that was adopted in this wholesale system of plunder, insult, blasphemy and bestiality. The first party that came, was headed by officers, from a colonel to a lieutenant, who acted with seeming politeness, and told me that they only came to secure our fire-arms, and when these were delivered up, nothing in the house should be touched. Out of the house, they said they were authorized to press forage for their large army. I told them that along the whole line of the march of Sherman’s army, from Columbia to Cheraw, it had been ascertained that ladies had been robbed and personally insulted. I asked for a guard to protect the females. They said that there was no necessity for this, as the men dared not act contrary to orders. If any did not treat the ladies with proper respect, I might blow their brains out. “But,” said I, “you have taken away our arms, and we are defenceless.” They did not blush much, and made no reply.
Shortly after this, came the second party, before the first had left. They demanded the keys of the ladies’ drawers–took away such articles as they wanted, then locked the drawers and put the keys in their pockets. In the mean time, they gathered up the spoons, knives, forks, towels, table-cloths, etc. As they were carrying them off, I appealed to the officers of the first party–they ordered the men to put back the things; the officer of the second party said he would see them d—-d first, and without further ado, packed them up, and they glanced at each other and smiled. The elegant carriage and all the vehicles on the premises, were seized and filled with bacon and other plunder. The smokehouses were emptied of their contents, and carried off. Every head of poultry was seized and flung over their mules, and they presented the hideous picture in some of the scenes in the forty thieves. Every article of harness they did not wish for their own use, was cut in pieces. By this time, the first and second parties had left, and a third appeared on the field; they demanded the keys of the drawers, and on being informed that they had been carried off, coolly and deliberately proceeded to break open the locks–took what they wanted, and when we uttered a word of complaint were cursed. Every horse, mule, and carriage, even to the carts, were taken away, and for hundreds of miles, the last animal that cultivated the widow’s corn-field, and the vehicles that once bore them to the house of worship, were carried off or broken in pieces and burned.
The first party that came promised to leave ten days’ provisions, the rest they carried off. An hour afterwards, other hordes of marauders from the same army came and demanded the last pound of bacon and the last quart of meal. On Sunday, the negroes were dressed in their best suits, they were kicked, and knocked down and robbed of all their clothing, and they came to us in their shirt-sleeves, having lost their hats, clothes and shoes. Most of our own clothes had been hid in the woods; the negroes who had assisted in removing them, were beaten and threatened with death, and compelled to show them where they were concealed. They cut open the trunks, threw my manuscripts and devotional books into a mud-hole, stole the ladies’ jewelry, hair ornaments, etc.; tore many of the garments into tatters, gave the rest to the negro women to bribe them into criminal intercourse. These women afterwards returned to us those articles, that after the mutilations, were scarcely worth preserving. The plantation, of 160 negroes, was some distance from the house, and to this place successive parties of fifty at a time resorted for three long days and nights, the husbands and fathers being fired at and compelled to fly to the woods.
Columbia, SC as seen from state house after Sherman’s Army’s destruction
Now commenced scenes of licentiousness, brutality, and ravishment, that have scarcely had an equal in the ages of heathen barbarity. I conversed with aged men and women, who were witnesses of these infamous acts of Sherman’s unbridled soldiery, and several of them, from the cruel treatment they had received, were confined to their beds for weeks afterwards. The time will come, when the judgment of Heaven will await these libidinous, beastly barbarians. During this time, the fourth party, who, I was informed by others, we had the most reason to dread, had made their appearance. They came, as they said, in the name of the great General Sherman, who was next to God Almighty. They came to burn and lay in ashes all that was left: they had burned bridges and depots, cotton-gins, mills, barns and stables. They swore they would make the d—-d rebel women pound their corn with rocks, and eat their raw meal without cooking; and they succeeded in thousands of instances. I walked out at night, and the innumerable fires that were burning as far as the eye could reach, in hundreds of places, illuminated the whole heavens, and testified to the vindictive barbarity of the for. I presume they had orders not to burn occupied houses, but they strove all in their power to compel families to fly from their houses, that they might afterwards burn them. The neighborhood was filled with refugees, who had been compelled to fly from their plantations on the sea-board. As soon as they had fled, the torch was applied, and for hundreds of miles those elegant mansions, once the ornament and pride of our Island country, were burnt to the ground.
All manner of expedients were now adopted to make the residents leave their homes for the second time. I heard them saying, “This is too large a house to be left standing, we must contrive to burn it.” Canisters of powder were placed all around the house, and an expedient resorted to that promised almost certain success. The house was to be burned down by firing the out-buildings. These were so near each other that the firing of the one would lead to the destruction of all. I had already succeeded in having a few bales of cotton rolled out of the building, and hoped, if they had to be burned, the rest would also be rolled out, which could have been done in ten minutes, by several hundred men who were looking on, gloating over the prospect of another elegant mansion in South Carolina being laid in ashes. The torch was applied, and soon the large store-house was on fire; this communicated to several other buildings, in the vicinity, which one by one were burned to the ground. At length the fire reached the smoke-house, where they had already carried off the bacon of 250 hogs; this was burnt, and the fire was now rapidly approaching the kitchen, which was so near the dwelling-house, that should the former burn, the destruction of the large and noble edifice would be inevitable.
A captain in the United States service,–a native of England,–whose name I would like to mention here, if I did not fear to bring down upon him the censure of the abolitionists, as a friend to the rebels,–mounted the roof, and the wet blankets we sent up to him, prevented the now smoking roof from bursting into flames. I called for help to assist us in procuring water from a deep well; a young lieutenant stepped up, condemned the infamous conduct of the burners, and called on his company for aid; a portion of them came cheerfully to our assistance; the wind seemed almost by a miracle to subside; the house was saved, and the trembling females thanked God for their deliverance. All this time, about 100 mounted men were looking on, refusing to raise a hand to help us; laughing at the idea that no efforts of ours could save the house from the flames.
Mr. Hutter, allow me to ask you who are the most criminal? the men who were rejoicing that a house was to be burned, and women and children be deprived of a shelter and a home, and driven into the woods, or he who slanders an aged clergyman of his own church, and would bring down upon him the odium of all good men, when he had it fully in his power to ascertain that the whole invention was an infamous slander, concocted by the mean, the worthless, and the malicious, for the purpose of getting offices and money?
My trials, however, were not yet over. I had already suffered much in a pecuniary point of view. I had been collecting a library on Natural History during a long life. The most valuable of these books had been presented by various Societies in England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., who had honored me with membership, and they or the authors presented me with these works, which had never been for sale, and could not be purchased. My herbarium, the labor of myself and the ladies of my house for many years was also among these books. I had left them as a legacy to the library of the Newberry College and concluded to send them at once. They were detained in Columbia and there the torch was applied, and all were burned. The stealing and burning of books appear to be one of the programmes on which the army acted. I had assisted in laying the foundation and dedicating the Lutheran church at Columbia, and there, near its walls, had recently been laid the remains of one who was dearer to me than life itself. To set that brick church on fire from below was impossible. The building stood by itself, on a square but little built up. One of Sherman’s burnerss was sent up to the roof. He was seen applying the torch to the cupola. The church was burned to the ground, and the grave of my loved one desecrated. The story circulated that the citizens had set their own city on fire, is utterly untrue, and only reflects dishonor on those who vilely perpetrated it. Gen. Sherman had his army under control. The burning was by his orders, and ceased when he gave the command.
I was now doomed to experience in person the effects of avarice and barbarous cruelty. These robbers had been informed in the neighborhood that the family which I was protecting had buried $100,000 in gold and silver. They first demanded my watch, which I had effectually secured from their grasp. They then asked me where the money had been hid. I told them I knew nothing about it, and did not believe that there was a thousand dollars’ worth in all–and what there was had been carried off by the owner, Colonel Cash. All this was literally true. They then concluded to try an experiment on me which had proved so successful in hundreds of other instances. Coolly and deliberately they prepared to inflict torture on a defenceless, gray-headed old man.
They carried me behind a stable, and once again demanded where the money was buried, ot “I should be sent to hell in five minutes.” They cocked their pistols and held them to my head. I told them to fire away. One of them, a square-built, broad-faced, large-mouthed clumsy Lieutenant, who had the face of a demon, and who did not utter five words without an awful blasphemy, now kicked me in the stomach, until I fell breathless and prostrate. As soon as I was able, I rose again. He once more asked me where the silver was. I answered, as before, “I do not know.” With his heavy elephant foot he now kicked me on my back until I fell again. Once more I arose, and he put the same question to me. I was nearly breathless, but answered as before. Thus was I either kicked or knocked down seven or eight times. I then told him it was perfectly useless for him to continue his threats or his blows. He might shoot me if he chose. I was ready, and would not budge an inch–but requested him not to bruise and batter an unarmed, defenceless, old man.
“Now,” said he, “I will try a new plan. How would you like to have both arms cut off?” He did not wait for an answer, but, with his heavy sheathed sword, struck me on my left arm, near the shoulder. I heard it crack; it hung powerless by my side, and I supposed it was broken. He then repeated the blow on the other arm. The pain was excruciating, and it was several days before I could carve my food or take my arm out of a sling,–and it was black and blue for weeks. (I refer to Dr. Kollock, of Cheraw.) At that moment, the ladies, headed by my daughter who had only then been made aware of the brutality being practised upon me, rushed from the house, and came flying to my rescue. “You dare not murder my father,” said my child. “He has been a minister in the same church for fifty years, and God has always protected and will protect him.” “Do you believe in a God, Miss?” asked one of the brutal wretches “I don’t be- lieve in a God, a heaven, nor a hell.” “Carry me” said I, “to your General.” I did not intend to go to General Sherman, who was at Cheraw, from whom, I was informed, no redress would be obtained, but to a General in the neighborhood, said to be a religious man. Our horses and carriages had all been taken away, and I was too much bruised to be able to walk. The other young officers came crowding around me, very officiously, telling me that they would represent my case to the General, and that they would have him shot by ten o’clock the next morning. I saw the winks and glances that were interchanged between them. Every one gave a different name to the officers. The brute remained unpunished, and I saw him on the following morning, as insolent and as profane as he had been on the preceding day.
As yet no punishment had fallen on the brutal hyena, and I strove to nurse my bruised body and heal my wounds, and forget the insults and injuries of the past. A few weeks after this I was sent for to perform a parochial duty, at Mars Bluff, some twenty miles distant. Arriving at Florence, in the vicinity, I was met by a crowd of young men connected with the militia. They were excited to the highest pitch of rage, and thirsted for revenge. They believed that among the prisoners that had just arrived on the railroad car on their way to Sumter, were the very men who had committed such horrible outrages in the neighborhood. Many of their houses had been laid in ashes. They had been robbed of every means of support. Their horses had been seized; their cattle and hogs bayoneted; their mothers and sisters had been insulted, and robbed of their watches, ear and wedding rings. Some of their parents had been murdered in cold blood. The aged pastor, to whose voice they had so often listened, had been kicked and knocked down by repeated blows, and his hoary head had been dragged about in the sand.
They entreated me examine the prisoners and see whether I could identify the men that had inflicted such barbarities on me. I told them I would do so, provided they would remain where they were and not follow me. The prisoners saw me at a distance–held down their guilty heads, and trembled like aspen leaves. All cruel men are cowards. One of my arms was still in a sling. With the other I raised some of their hats. They all begged for mercy. I said to them, “The other day you were tigers–you are sheep now.” But a hideous object soon arrested my attention. There sat my brutal enemy–the vulgar, swaggering Lieutenant, who had rode up the steps of the house, insulted the ladies, and beaten me most unmercifully.
I approached him slowly, and, in a whisper, asked him, “Do you know me, sir–the old man whose pockets you first searched, to see whether he might not have a penknife to defend himself, and then kicked and knocked him down with your fist and heavy scabbard?” He presented the picture of an arrant coward, and, in a trembling voice, implored me to have mercy:–Don’t let me be shot; have pity! Old man, beg for me! I won’t do it again! For God’s sake, save me! Oh, God, help me!” “Did you not tell my daughter there was no God? Why cry to him now?” “Oh, I have changed my mind; I believe in a God now.” I turned and saw the impatient, flushed and indignant crowd approaching. “What are they going to do with me?” said he. “Do you hear that sound, click, click?” “Yes,” said he, “they are cocking their pistols.” “True,” said I; “and if I raise a finger, you will have a dozen bullets through your brain.” “Then I will go to hell; don’t let them kill me. Oh, Lord, have mercy!” “Speak low,” said I, “and don’t open your lips.” The men advanced. Already one had pulled me by the coat “Show us the men.” I gave no clew by which the guilty could be identified. I walked slowly through the car, sprang into the waiting carriage and drove off.
Rev. E. W. Hutter, this is the way in which I have “gloated over the barbarities inflicted on the prisoners.” This is the man whom you have wantonly and cruelly traduced. I defy you or any one else to produce a single instance to the contrary in my whole conduct, from the beginning to the close of the war.
I claim, as an act of justice, that you send me the name of your author, whom you call one of the most eminent citizens in Charleston–a native and life-long resident of that city, whom you have given us as authority for the slanders which you have perpetrated against me. I defy you to produce the name of a single “eminent citizen” who will dare, in the face of this community, to make the assertion which you have in such a cowardly and unchristian manner published to the world. When that name shall be ferreted out, I will venture to predict that this “eminent citizen of Charleston–a native and life-long resident,” will be proved to be an unprincipled, time-serving demagogue–a spy, a political turncoat, a defamer of the reputation of others, to obtain notoriety, power and money–not many degrees removed from a drunkard–a man without credit or character, and who never had either.
It is scarcely necessary to add, that I have not sought this controversy, and only defend myself when grossly and unprovokedly traduced. It should be remembered that we are here writing under surveillance, and are at the tender mercies of a Provost Marshal. The time may come when men can speak freely. Under present circumstances, it is but a contemptible, cowardly act to drag men into a discussion where the freedom of the pen is restricted to one party, and given with unbridled license to another.
Yours, &c., John Bachman. Charleston, September 14th, 1865.
For further reading on the Union Army’s treatment of civilians during the war, I recommend War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.
The following appears in Concordia Publishing House’s Magazin für ev.-luth. Homiletik und Pastoraltheologie [Magazine for Evangelical Lutheran Homiletics and Pastoral Theology], Volume 43 (1919) pages 91-96.
Mission Lectures.
Preliminary Remark. This year the “Magazine” will bring a series of mission lectures. These lectures will deal with missions in general and especially with the missions of our Synod. We expect the participation of one member from each of the mission authorities concerned. These lectures are intended not only for mission festivals, but also for a monthly or bimonthly mission service, which has been successfully introduced in some places, as well as for association meetings, where a lecture can be read. May these lectures serve to increase the missionary spirit in our congregations!
1.
Mission lecture on Africa.
Ethiopia [Mohrenland][1] shall soon stretch out her hands unto God. Ps. 68:31.
Moorland is the land where the Moors live. By the Moors we mean the black inhabitants of Africa, the Negroes. They will stretch out their hands to God, says David Ps. 68:31, that is, they will call upon the true God. This occurs through mission work. For “How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?” Rom. 10:14-15. Now we shall hear a lecture about the mission work in Africa.
Africa is the second largest continent. It has an area of nearly 12 million square miles. Its greatest width is about 4500 miles and its greatest length is about 5000 miles. The black population is estimated at 140 million. This numerous people is divided into three large groups: the Negroes proper (Negritians[2]), the Bantu Negroes[3], who are considered to be mongrels of Negritians and other peoples, and the Hamites. These three great groups divide again into peoples and tribes, which are almost innumerable, and have just such differences as the various peoples of the Caucasian race. They have different political, social, and commercial institutions. The languages are also different. In the whole of Africa more than 800 different languages and dialects are spoken. But despite the many differences, fundamental similarities are found. For example, among all the Negro peoples of Africa, polygamy, slavery, sorcery, and the evils associated with them are found.
Africa is usually called the dark continent. This continent was practically unknown to the Europeans. Only the northeastern part and the thin strips along the coasts were known to them. It was only in the last century that Livingstone, Stanley and other bold travelers explored the interior of the dark continent.
Africa is also dark with regards to the culture of its dark inhabitants. The blacks are culture-poor savages who live in small huts, roam almost naked over the lonely steppe or through the dense jungle and can neither read nor write.
Africa is also dark with regard to the morals of its black inhabitants. There are people who chatter about the paradisaical innocence and childlike bliss in which such uncultured, missionless peoples supposedly live. Such chatterers should simply travel to the savages in Africa and live among them for a while. There a gruesome nightmare would reveal itself to their eyes. Everywhere they would see, for example, cruelty. The Negroes are cruel by nature. Human sacrifice, murder of twins with their mother, and other inhuman abominations flourish among them. Twins and children afflicted with abnormalities are regarded as omens of misfortune. Among these are reckoned, for example, also the poor creatures in whom instead of the lower incisors the upper incisors appear first. Out of superstitious fear, these children are either killed immediately after birth, or they are abandoned in the bush and eaten there by hyenas or other animals. The Negro child never experiences motherly love as we know it. Missionary G. A. Schmidt, who works among the Negroes in the Black Belt of Alabama, recently wrote that the parents of our school children at Rosebud, Ala. were invited to visit the school on a certain day, and there, among other things, he said in his speech that the children should show their parents with words and deeds that they love and value them. On his way out of the school he heard one of the negro mothers say, “Dat chile better not come messin’ ‘round me!” That is, her child should not kiss and caress her. That is the Negro way. A Frenchman in Africa writes: “We lived among them for several years and never saw a mother embrace her child.”
The Negro is by nature careless, sluggish, and lazy. And here, too, the saying applies, “Idleness is the beginning of all vice.” Fornication, thievery, lying are thus the chief vices of the black. His passions are strong and he lacks self-control. He is a descendant of Ham. Polygamy is the rule. It is well known that the Negroes in our country are extremely thieving and lying. This is an evil inheritance from African paganism. Paganism makes people thieves and liars. Again and again one hears the complaint of the missionaries about the unspeakable dishonesty of the Africans. They do not consider lying as something dishonorable, but treasure it as a skill. The consequence of this is mutual distrust of all towards each other.
Africa is also dark with regard to the religion of the natives. Here the word of the prophet is quite true: “Behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people!” [Isaiah 60:2] The Negro is undeniably strongly disposed toward religion; but his religion is blind, crass, dark paganism. It is true that he still has an inkling and conception of a supreme being; but this is indefinite. He has no fear, love or trust in the supreme being. Instead of worship [Gottesdienst], the Africans serve spirits [Geisterdienst]. Animism is their religion. Animism means belief in spirits, worship of spirits. The Negroes believe in the survival of the soul after death. In their opinion, the spirits of the deceased are powerful, greedy, harsh and tyrannical. They demand homage and care from the living and take revenge for any neglect by bringing misfortune, illness and death. Therefore, one seeks to make them favorable through praise, invocation, and especially sacrifice. Thus, the belief in ghosts brings about fear and anxiety. The superstitious black also seeks, outside of sacrifices, other means of protection against the wrath of the spirits. He acquires these means from a shaman or witch doctor.
Besides the ideas about the soul after death, their ideas about life forces play an important role. In the opinion of the Negro, life forces reside in the blood, but also in other parts of the body, in the hair, the nails, and the saliva of people. The heathen is now anxious not only to preserve his life forces for himself, but also to increase them by stealing them from others. This is actually the basis of cannibalism, the man-eating, which is still not extinct. Especially in earlier times, one would drink the blood of slain enemies and ate their flesh. This is not done for the sake of enjoyment, but it is a matter of the life forces of the slain, which one wants to appropriate; for he who eats another’s flesh makes his life forces his own. Also with the saliva, the cut hair and nails life forces go out of the body. Therefore, the black man is extremely careful with these things–he hides the cut nails and hairs, because if someone else were to find them and appropriate them, he would take from his life forces and gain control over him.
This animism is the mother of fetishism. The word fetish comes from the Portuguese language and signifies a magical object. The fetish is used in approximately the following manner: The Negro looks for a means of defense against the misfortune which the bad ghosts or also bad people–witch masters–always want to do to him. Such means of protection are provided by the fetish priest, who is paid handsomely for it. The Negro believes that the magic doctor can banish spirits into any object–tree, stone, bone, feathers, rags–and that such magic objects or fetishes serve to make the buyer or owner invulnerable, to protect him from illness or to cure him of it. He puts his trust in these fetishes; from them he expects protection, help, and assistance against the evil spirits and evil people; they are his gods. What sinister superstition! What poor, blind heathens! They are in fear all their lives. They sink into the grave without ever having a ray of true joy and Christian hope illuminate their dark lives. Must you not sing and say:
The poor heathen have my sympathy; How deep their woe and sin! O God, behold their misery! Their soul is dead within.
They worship idols deaf and blind, They bow to wood and stone, Not knowing in their darkened mind That Thou art God alone.
Nor do they know the Lamb that bore Our burden lest we die; Their heart is wretched to the core, Beneath a curse they lie.[4]
The plight of the poor African pagans touched the hearts of Christians in Europe and America, and they sent missionaries to them. The first messengers of the Gospel arrived in 1736, but they were few in number. Around the year 1875 the real missionary period for the dark continent first began. Today, about 118 different missionary associations and church communities are carrying out the work of salvation among the blacks. Our dear synod, however, is not represented among them.
Despite the mentioned number of missionary associations and church communities with missions in Africa, the number of workers is still much, much too small. In the Belgian Congo, there are 60 zones of 10,000 square miles each without a Christian missionary. In Sudan, there are 200 zones of 10,000 square miles each that do not yet have a missionary station. In all of Africa, there are 500 zones of 10,000 square miles that are still waiting for the messengers of the gospel of Christ. One can travel 300, 500, even 1000 miles in places without meeting a Christian missionary.
The Lord has blessed and continues to bless the holy saving work of the mission in Africa. At present there are about 1,750,000 Negro Christians in Africa who have been brought to Christ their Savior by Protestant missionaries; of this number about 155,000 are Lutheran Negro Christians.
Admittedly, the life of the Negro Christians in general still leaves much to be desired. It must be remembered that their people have been imprisoned by the powers of darkness for thousands of years. And yet, even here the gospel of Christ shows its sanctifying power. Here is an example. At a mission station in Namaland[5], the Holy Communion was to be celebrated. All those who wanted to participate had to register personally with the missionary. On the day of registration, a Nama youth entered the study room and declared that he would like to come to the table of the Lord, but that he did not have the right peace of mind. Asked to explain himself, he said: “A few weeks ago, my father refused me shooting supplies while he gave them to my brother; I did not quarrel with my father, but I angrily left him. Now I would gladly go to Holy Communion, but since my father lives fourteen hours from here, I cannot ask his forgiveness beforehand.” The father was still a pagan; for this very reason the missionary decided that the youth should not go now [to communion], but only the next time, after he had been completely reconciled with his father. Without a word to the contrary, the youth left the mission house. Not twice twenty-four hours had passed–the missionary was just about to ring the bell for the beginning of the Holy Communion–when the youth, still quite out of breath, came before him with his sister and reported, “I have been to see my father, have reconciled with him, and bring with me as a witness my sister, who also wants to partake of Holy Communion.” From Friday to Sunday, the Nama youth had made a way of twice fourteen hours in the desolate country–is not this obedience to Jesus’ word and desire for His table?
And now an example that shows how Negro Christians patiently suffer and die blessedly. Martha Gotywa was the daughter of the pious helper Jakob Gotywa from Wartburg Station in Kaffir Land[6]. As she grew up, she developed with a chest ailment. She was to be confirmed. She had just attended confirmation classes for a few months when she lay down on the sick bed. Her sickbed lasted for twelve months, during which time she learned patience and faith in the midst of much pain. At first it was very difficult for her to penetrate to a joyful faith. She often told the visiting missionary Hoppe that she loved the Savior, but she was uncertain where her soul would go, whether to heaven or hell. Finally, on the morning of the day of her death, she asked along with the request to visit her to tell her pastor that the Lord had given her light. The missionary ordered his servant to bring him his horse; since the horse could not be found, he set out on foot. He found the sick woman still conscious. But she felt that her end was approaching, and after the conversation she asked the missionary to give her Holy Communion. Hoppe hurried home again to fetch the sacred implements. In the meantime the horse had been found, so that Hoppe could now quickly get back to the sick woman. In the meantime, many Christians had gathered for the holy celebration. Martha was now confirmed and received Holy Communion. The celebration had just ended, the missionary had taken leave of Martha and mounted the horse, when the little girl passed away with the words: “It is finished!” What a blessed death!
Dear friends of the mission! Let us pray diligently to the Lord of the harvest to send more messengers of peace to the dark heathen land of Africa, so that more and more poor blacks may come to know our God and Savior, stretch out their hands to him in life and in death, and be blessed here temporally and there eternally. For whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be blessed.
C. F. Drewes.
[1] The German word Mohr ‘Moor’ was used more generally in German to refer to all Africans or Negroes, unlike in English where the term refers more specifically to the Mohammedan Africans of the Mediterranean region.
I wrote this in February, put it in a barrel, and aged it. It might not have improved. I am posting it now with minimal edits just to get it off the desktop, because I can’t do anything with a barrel on my desk.
With this post I especially mean to skewer Dr. Jeff Gibbs’s “myth of righteous anger” teaching as the complete hokum that it is. This is the buried lede. The Luther quotation at the bottom is the heart of the whole post: “I must hate them, or I must hate God, who commands and wills that men should cling to His Word alone. So it is a blessed hatred and hostility, one which proceeds from love.”
So, to all of my righteously angry brothers out there:
Keep the faith, and stay Joy:Fully angry. Hate the enemies of God with perfect hatred. Love them by hating them. God grant that the buckets of burning coals you heap upon their unrighteous heads would be for the destruction of their flesh, that they would be saved on the Day of the Lord. But in the meantime, keep hating them. It is not your job to guarantee the end result. God will sort it out and direct it to His good purposes. This post is dedicated to you. – Ed.
“Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.”
— John Calvin
Elon Musk looks on as the first ever LCMS attempt at a papal encyclical blows up on the launchpad, critically maiming dozens of golden retrievers that were sent to provide “comfort” to the bystanders at the historic event.
A close reading and response to President Matthew Harrison’s letter of February 21, 2023
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, its president, vice-presidents and all 35 district presidents, along with its ministerium and congregations, categorically reject the horrible and racist teachings of the so-called “alt-right” in toto (including white supremacy, Nazism, pro-slavery, anti-interracial marriage, women as property, fascism, death for homosexuals, even genocide).
Right off the bat, the use of the term “alt-right” demonstrates a lack of cognizance of current political discourse. It would be like inveighing against the incursion of the teachings of “the emergent church” in the LCMS in the current year. Finger not quite on the pulse there.
Secondly, we should note that this letter reads like a rough draft. Perhaps it’s specious and Harrison didn’t write it.* [*This best construction was valid for about twenty-four hours, after which it collapsed stupendously. – Ed.] In any event, the grammar is awkward. The “racist teachings” of the “so-called ‘alt-right’” are said to include “white supremacy, Nazism, pro-slavery, anti-interracial marriage, women as property, fascism, death for homosexuals, even genocide.”
Well, what about these things? Filling in “I teach [predicate]” with terms from the list doesn’t yield many statements that make sense:
“I teach white supremacy.”
“I teach pro-slavery.”
“I teach women as property, even genocide.”
Run the rest on your own; you get the point.
The letter continues:
The Synodical explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism teaches that the Fifth Commandment, “You shall not murder,” includes the prohibition of “hating, despising, or slandering other groups of people (prejudice, racism, and so forth).” The Scriptures agree: “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 John 3:15). Every human being is precious to God and as valuable as the very blood of Jesus Christ shed for all, “for God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son” (John 3:16).
“The Synodical explanation of Luther’s Small Catechism” is not part of the Lutheran Confessions and binds the conscience of exactly zero Lutherans. Period. It merits—requires, in fact—a quatenus subscription only (as does the Koran, as the great 17th century Lutheran dogmatician Dannhauer once noted wryly).
So let us examine this excerpt from the Synodical Catechism in the light of Scripture.
Claim: “You shall not murder,” includes the prohibition of “hating, despising, or slandering other groups of people (prejudice, racism, and so forth).”
By way of a refresher, Luther’s explanation of the Fifth Commandment is “We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need [in every need and danger of life and body].” His explanation of the Eighth Commandment is “We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him, [think and] speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.”
While it is true that all of the commandments are related, it is, as the gentle say, “unhelpful” to conflate the meanings of these two words of law. It should surprise no one that the official CPH Catechism Formerly Known as Small, a very strange book, sows confusion here.
The parenthetical appositive is almost humorous: “prejudice” is supposed to go with…what, exactly? Hating, despising, slandering? This is a very 90’s word. Unless, of course, you are using it in a positive sense, which is what Hillsdale College (the alma mater of one of Harrison’s sons) will teach you to do, especially if you have the pleasure of digesting some of the works of Russell Kirk while you’re there.
“It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality,” writes Kirk. He goes on:
“The individual is foolish, but the species is wise,” Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.
Basically, the fact that “Not All X Are Like That” doesn’t mean squat when, in reality-land, most X are like that (X referring to people, dogs, Applebees, thunderstorms, whatever you want). So you use prejudice, derived from your own experience or that of others whom you trust, as the basis for some of your decisions. In this sense, “prejudice” is the thing that makes you keep driving and reroute when Google directs you to take the exit for “Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.” Thanks to your prejudice and that of many others, State Farm is able to keep your car insurance rates relatively low.
“Prejudice” is the virtue described anecdotally by Jesse Jackson when he says, “There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps… then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” It may be painful, but it isn’t as painful as getting mugged—something which even Jordan Cooper can’t deny is about 6 million times more likely to be perpetrated against a black guy by a black guy than by a white guy. If you don’t like it, take it up with Jesse and Jordan. Take it up with St. Paul, who was always relieved when he heard footsteps behind him, turned around and saw someone who was not a Cretan.
The goodness of prejudice aside, the biggest issue with President Harrison’s letter so far is his unqualified contention that “hating…groups of people” constitutes a violation of the Fifth Commandment. It simply does not. This is easily proven from Scripture:
“I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.” Psalm 26:5. What is that if not godly hatred of a group of people, namely evildoers?
“I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the Lord.” Psalm 31:6. Same as above.
“Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.” Psalm 139:21-22.
“Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion: the same is the city of David. And David said on that day, ‘Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David’s soul, he shall be chief and captain.’ Wherefore they said, ‘The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.’” 2 Samuel 5:8.
Blog favorite P. E. Kretzmann writes:
The difficult passage is best rendered: “Every one who conquers the Jebusites, let him cast into the waterfall both the lame and the blind, hated of David’s soul.” The expression “blind and lame” applied to all the Jebusites, and the order to throw the slain down the declivity was given in order to gain space for the hand-to-hand encounter in the fortress. “Wherefore they said”—it became a proverbial saying—”The blind and the lame”—undesirable people like the Jebusites—”shall not come into the house.”
David hated the Jebusites, because he hated the congregation of evildoers, he hated those who regarded lying vanities, and he hated those who hated God. And the Jebusites were all of those things. So he hated them with perfect hatred. But he did not hate his brother in this, per 1 John 3:15. (When King David did hate his brother in another instance, it was indeed sinful and wicked: Nathan the prophet rebuked him for hating his brother Uriah the Hittite, and David repented and was forgiven for the sake of Him who was both his son and his Lord. For the rest of his earthly days the death of his own child reminded him of the price that his Lord would pay—and had in fact paid already, before the foundation of the world—to ransom his soul from the Evil One.)
The OT passages cited above are not sub-evangelical. They do not describe states of mind and heart that are unbecoming of or improper for Christians. They are not opposed to Christ’s command to love one’s enemies. Rightly understood, they describe “a blessed hatred…which proceeds from love,” as Luther puts it. Martin Luther had the right understanding here. These are his comments on Psalm 26:
5. I hate the company of the evildoers, and I do not sit with the wicked.
I am hostile to them, and I want nothing to do with the evildoers. From my heart I mean what my mouth is saying. I turn away from them with my heart, for one should have nothing to do with the evil- doers and the wicked, as the psalm says (Ps. 139:22): “I hate them with perfect hatred.” And the First Psalm also calls the Christians blessed who avoid and separate themselves from the wicked, as David says (Ps. 1:1): “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” If one has a lot to do with them otherwise, eventually he makes himself a party to their false teaching, lies, and error. Who- ever handles pitch will soil himself with it. Thus Psalm 18:25, 26 also says, “With the holy Thou art holy; with the faithful Thou art faithful.” Again, “With the pure Thou art pure; and with the crooked Thou art crooked.”
Now a question arises: Does not the Lord Christ command (Matt. 5:44) that we should also love our enemies? Why, then, does David boast here that he hates the company of the evildoers and does not sit with the wicked? Shouldn’t one do good to them and thus heap coals of fire on the head of the enemy (Prov. 25:22)? Yes, I should hate them, but on no other account than on account of doctrine. Otherwise I should be at their service, in case I might convert some of them. As far as their person is concerned, I should love them, but on account of their doctrine I should hate them. Thus I must hate them, or I must hate God, who commands and wills that men should cling to His Word alone. So it is a blessed hatred and hostility, one which proceeds from love. Love is subject to faith, and faith is a master in love. A Christian says: “I will not forsake God for the sake of men. Whatever I cannot love with God, that I should hate. If they preach anything that is against God, all love and friendship go by the board. Then I hate you and do nothing good for you.” Faith must be in charge. Where the Word of God is involved, there hate comes in, and love is out. But where my person, my property, my reputation, or my body is involved, there I should render him complete honor and service. These are God’s property, given by God to help the neighbor. They are not God’s Word, and these one may risk and put on the line. Do not risk God’s Word, for that belongs to the Lord, our God. There say: “I shall gladly forsake whatever God has given to me for your sake. But what God Himself is, what belongs to the Lord our God, that I will not lose or release. If I give you my temporal property, God can give me more. But I will keep God for myself.” We can easily give away the temporal gifts and property that we have received from God. In this way faith is the the rule, measure, and master over love, so long as the Word of God remains pure and faith stays in motion.
So David wants to say: “I hate them, not because they have done evil or wrong to me, nor because they have led a wicked and sinful life, but because they despise God’s Word, defame and blaspheme it, adulterate and persecute it.”
So you see how we should endure, and also how we should behave in relation to the false teachers and schismatics.
There is no contradiction here: the Jebusites were not David’s brothers. (They were, among other things, typological for the remnants of sin that remains in the regenerate after baptism and wars against the Spirit.) If someone is a brother, he is not an enemy, and vice versa. It follows that the love which is owed to brothers and to enemies is not identical. (This is a large topic; we cannot explicate it fully here. It suffices to say that not everyone is your brother, just as not every group is a family and not every woman is your wife.)
The letter continues:
We were shocked to learn recently that a few members of LCMS congregations have been propagating radical and unchristian “alt-right” views via Twitter and other social media. They are causing local disruption and consternation for their pastors, congregations and district presidents. They have publicly stated that they seek the destruction of the LCMS leadership. They have made serious online threats to individuals and scandalously attacked several faithful LCMS members. Through these social media posts, even our wonderful deaconesses have been threatened and attacked.
This is evil. We condemn it in the name of Christ.
These “alt-right” individuals were at the genesis of a recent controversy surrounding essays accompanying a new publication of Luther’s Large Catechism. This group used that opportunity to produce not only scandalous attacks and widespread falsehoods, but also to promote their own absolutist ideologies.
Here we read the real gravamen of the letter. The scaremongering outline of the “alt-right” in general having been quickly pencilled, Harrison moves on to drop the news that there are “alt-right” Lutherans in the LCMS, and that they are propagating their radical and “unchristian” views on the internet. How do we know that their views are unchristian? Because they are “alt-right.”
Where can one see proof of the unchristian nature of the views espoused by these people?
What does “publicly stated that they seek the destruction of the LCMS leadership” mean?
This is mealy-mouthed, and for a reason: it is a worst construction, and it is misleading. If you find a tweet wherein a random person says, more or less, “the IC needs to be taken down,” and you immediately think that this rather anodyne statement constitutes a death-threat, you are the delusional one. Period. The IC does need to be taken down. For one, it is a hideous building. It looks like Gattaca. It needs to be taken down with a wrecking ball—preferably the same wrecking ball that the South Minnesota DP had swung through David Kind’s office in the old University Lutheran Chapel (the opening swing, in case you’re wondering).
“They seek the destruction of the LCMS leadership” makes it sound more exciting than it is. It is true that some people express in very bald terms their desire to see the current leadership of the LCMS lose their jobs. That’s about it. Maybe there are some who think that if we had a godly magistrate, he would punish heterodox pastors. You can have a debate over whether these men are heterodox; you can’t really have a debate over whether desiring this kind of action from a Christian ruler is Lutheran. It’s about the most confessionally Lutheran sentiment imaginable.
The “wonderful deaconesses” comment is amusing, though I’m sure this is not the intent. “Threaten” and “attack” seem to be rather capacious in their meaning these days. How were these gals threatened and attacked? Did someone make them feel bad? Did someone point out that there’s no office of deaconess in Holy Scripture and that they give the lie to the Word of God with their mere presence in seminary classrooms? Again, no evidence. (In the event that this post is getting any attention, here is a great piece by Cheryl Naumann on the strange history of the deaconess program at CTS.)
The letter continues:
Anyone trying to sully the reputation of the LCMS based on comments from a small number of online provocateurs does not know the loving, faithful, generous, kind and welcoming Synod that I have met all across the nation. Our people are delighted to gather with sinners of every stripe to receive full and free forgiveness from our crucified Savior and are not represented by these few men with their sinful agenda.
Here the worst fear of LCMS Corp. is revealed: that people might think we are not decent, respectable, mainstream folks like they are; indeed, that they might think we are racists! DR3!! DR3!! Liturgical Republicans no son racistas! Leave us alone—we espouse Respectable Opinion!
This has been a thing ever since the Great War. This is why Old Glory and the Methodist Sunday School flag are in your church’s chancel.
The letter continues.
I am not speaking about the individuals who may have expressed theological concerns about the essays published alongside the Catechism. I’m talking about a small number of men who based their opposition upon racist and supremacist ideologies. The former we welcome. The latter we condemn.
This is a classic example of what is known in informal logic as “poisoning the well.” It isn’t going to work, though, because too many people already know that the concerns of the supposedly “alt-right” detractors were (and are) entirely theological. The questions they are asking—and in some cases answering—are biblical ones. You don’t have to like their tone. You don’t have to like their memes. But you can’t just call them “racist” and “alt-right” in order to avoid having hard conversations. These few unnamed men (unnamed here; they are named elsewhere) are being scapegoated for the controversy over La Caca, which was highly embarrassing for the cloud people of the LCMS, who were planning their vacations when it all went down.
The letter continues:
The LCMS is a robust Christian community under the absolute authority of the inerrant Scriptures as the very Word of God and bound together in subscription to our Lutheran Confessions. Theological dialogue is good. We have clear processes for registering concerns over published materials, and we encourage such theological critique. The biblical confession of the LCMS on doctrine and life is true and unchangeable.
What does the Bible say about the list of hot topics given at the beginning of the letter? It would probably be good if we all swallowed hard and studied what the Bible and the Confessions have to say on the topics of slavery, interracial marriage, and women as property. The kids are actually quite keen on learning the real definitions of things like fascism, national socialism, autocracy, monarchy, etc., and what the Bible might be able to teach us about these things. We should study the death penalty and learn why it was divinely prescribed for more than just murder in Ancient Israel (adultery, sodomy, witchcraft, etc.) and why what God prescribed in the Israelite civil code is perfectly just. We should talk about “genocide” (do you remember the Jebusites? the Amalekites? the Assyrians?) although we need not insist on using this neologism as we do so.
The LCMS is a 501(c)3. It is not a community in any meaningful sense of that term. It is not really a Gemeinde or communion. The Evangelical-Lutheran Church is. Your congregation is. The Una Sancta is. What is the LCMS? This is increasingly unclear. It is fitting that President Harrison is called a President and not Synod Bishop. He is only a bishop at Village Lutheran Church.
Yes, we are bound by the Scriptures and the Confessions, which are truly and perfectly normed by them. That is the point these “alt-right” men have been making. Yes, theological dialogue is good, and it’s what these men are doing.
Quite the sleight of hand here, though: “We have clear processes for registering concerns over published materials, and we encourage such theological critique.” We encourage such theological critique. This kind, not that kind. If it goes through the “clear process” for registering concerns over published materials, then it is the good kind. We have declared it to be so, by the authority vested in us by ourselves.
“The biblical confession of the LCMS on doctrine and life is true and unchangeable.” This is very interesting. What constitutes the biblical confession of the LCMS on doctrine and life? Scripture, the norming norm, is true and unchangeable, and in a different way, so, too, the Confessions, the norm that is normed, are true and unchangeable. Is there something else? Synod resolutions, perhaps? Encyclicals posted on The Reporter?
The letter continues.
LCMS congregations agree to uphold our biblical standards. We are not a top-down institution. That said, I will work together with our pastors and district presidents to address this matter wherever it arises among us and reject it. We issue the cry of Jesus: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). We are confident that the same Law and Gospel that broke the hard heart of St. Paul, himself a murderer and blasphemer, can and will do the same today. We are all called to repentance daily. “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Where that call to repentance is not heeded, there must be excommunication.
Of all the things I’ve seen as LCMS president, this is the most bizarre. I am informed that other conservative denominations are experiencing similar challenges. This horrid attack of the devil drives us to be firm in our confession. Our message of Christ the Savior for all, our local and global mission that serves the entire human race with forgiveness and joy stands firmly opposed to Satan and all evil. Our steadfast message of love and biblical fidelity on the cultural issues of marriage, sexuality, race, and life is an assault on the devil and his minions to no end. Our steadfast witness and assistance to our global Lutheran friends has the devil fuming.
Of all the things that I’ve seen as a cradle Lutheran who once thought that President Harrison was going to do some good, this is the most bizarre: the President of the LCMS calling for the excommunication of some laymen who ticked him off by having the audacity to throw a little sand in the gears of the Machine, thereby showing that doing so can have an effect that is outside of the control of its operators. Spare us the sanctimonious claptrap about 1 Corinthians 14:33—yes, godly order is good, but the Synod is anything but the conservator of it. Forgive me for quoting Calvin: “Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ.” Amen!
One final note:
The phrase “to no end” implies frustration of purpose, failure to achieve a goal, futility, etc. It does not imply persistence, doggedness, or perpetuity. To say “Our steadfast message of love and biblical fidelity on the cultural issues of marriage, sexuality, race, and life is an assault on the devil and his minions to no end” is to say “Our steadfast message of [insert question-begging and preening self-congratulation] is an assault on the devil and his minions that is having zero effect whatsoever.”
This might be the best Freudian slip in a letter which could itself be deemed a giant Freudian slip. One small slip for President Harrison; one giant slip for the LCMS.
But it is in fact the sad truth: the messaging of LCMS Corp.—not, mind you, the confession and preaching of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, which is by no means the same thing—is now to the point where it is totally ineffectual against the devil and his minions. It is salt that has lost its savor. The Synod has become the very bushel smothering the bright candle that is the Evangelical-Lutheran Church. For the weapons of the Synod’s warfare are carnal. They are not mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds. The Synod does not cast down imaginations and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God. The Synod does not bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.
The Synod protects itself, and that is all it does. It wasn’t always that way, but it is that way now.
“It’s Time” for faithful pastors and congregations to leave this Babylonian captivity.
It seems to me a matter of utmost importance that we make it quite clear to ourselves how we should prove ourselves as Christians and God’s servants in this time of political confusion and agitation of minds, partly so that we ourselves do not sin grievously, and partly so that we do not give cause for the Lutheran congregations to be disrupted and torn apart by discord.
I therefore submit for your consideration and examination the chief principles which, in my opinion, must guide Christians at this time.
(1) Now, as at all times, above all the distinction between spiritual and temporal government, between the things that are of a spiritual nature and belong to the kingdom of heaven and those that are of a temporal nature and belong to civil affairs, must be strictly maintained, and it must be guarded that one is not mixed with the other.
Accordingly, all political questions, insofar as they are of a purely political nature, are to be strictly excluded from the pulpit and congregational meetings.
(2) However much difference of opinion in political matters may be deplorable, and is a striking proof of the great darkening of human reason, which cannot find the truth with undoubted certainty even in the things subject to it, and however perniciously this difference may affect the general welfare of a state, we must neither expect nor demand a complete unanimity of Christians in this matter, simply because it is not promised to us.
To demand unity in matters concerning eternal life is not an excessive demand, partly because God has given us the source and rule of truth, his Word, and partly because He has promised us the Spirit of Truth, who is to guide us into all truth; but in matters which God has subjected to the judgment of human reason, without revealing His will to us in the Holy Scriptures, to demand complete unity would be presumptuous and would lead to intolerable tyranny.
3. Differences of political opinion, if they do not otherwise arise from false doctrine or are connected with it, e.g. false doctrine of Government, slavery, blending of civil and Christian liberty, may exist without damage to unity of spirit and faith, just as well as differences of opinion on matters of art, civil commerce, the best way to farm, etc.
(4) But in order that, as a result of these differences, the unity of spirit and faith may not be disturbed, brotherly love must be the queen of our mutual conduct toward one another.
Love, however, does not judge the other for dissenting opinions, does not despise him, does not undertake to impose its personal convictions on others with impropriety, still less does it want to exercise dominion over him or have everything ordered only according to its head. Love suspects nothing evil, suspects no one of being unchristian on account of deviating political views; it gladly believes the best of him, even if it believes him to be caught in a great and harmful political error.
One of God’s holy purposes for letting us experience this present time is undoubtedly also so that in this school we learn to practice brotherly love to a greater extent and with more self-denial than was possible in quiet times. Blessed is he who recognizes this time as such a school and that self-denying love as his present task in life.
It must not be forbidden among Christians to express their political views in social circles, to defend them with all reasons, to contradict the opponent and to try to refute him; but all this must be done among Christians with modesty, with gentleness, without passionate excitement, with careful consideration, not with weapons of mockery and scorn, which does not produce conviction, but only bitterness. It is precisely by such conduct, guided by Christian love, that Christians must distinguish themselves from children of the world.
(6) Just as it behooves a Christian to think of himself moderately, so modesty and humility in the assertion of his political opinions befit especially those who cannot boast of being experts and masters in statecraft. When famous men who have grown gray in government service, and whose ability and honesty cannot be denied, hold different views on important political questions, it is indeed intolerably presumptuous to boast, speak, and act as if one were an expert, while one has neither gifts, nor knowledge, nor profession, nor sources of help for acquiring a well-founded, matured opinion, and has drawn one’s political views only from the dishonest source of a political party paper.
This modesty and this legitimate distrust of one’s own wisdom is especially urged upon young people, but then also to all those who are more or less not political experts.
Luther, when approached for an opinion on the opposition of the Protestant princes to the Emperor, simply limited himself to a theological answer; but as far as the difficult questions about the constitutional relationship of the Emperor to the German princes were concerned, he did not consider himself competent to pronounce a definite judgment, but referred them to the experts, the jurists. Accordingly, a Christian, however bright a mind he may have or think he has, should not be ashamed to confess his greater or lesser incompetence in judging difficult political questions.
As long as a Christian is to some extent unclear, uncertain, and doubtful about an important political question, it behooves him to remain neutral. It is irresponsible recklessness and presumption to promote by one’s vote certain measures on which the weal or woe of a whole nation, the life or death of countless people, depends, while there is still some uncertainty of conviction or possibility of error.
8. If the conscience needs counseling from God’s Word, turn privately to one’s pastor or to an experienced Christian; if one needs information and guidance about political questions, about the correct interpretation of a law, etc., seek advice from experts.
(9) It is not sufficient to warn everyone against political gossip or chatter as a pastime, and such loose talk which wastes precious time and alienates the soul from godliness. When one speaks about politics, let it be done with godliness and seriousness, with the conscientious intention of either learning or instructing.
(10) In all the interest which a Christian, as a citizen, takes and is obliged to take in the political questions and events of the time, let him not forget, for God’s sake, that his walk is in heaven and that he is called to be a stranger and pilgrim on earth. He should watch and pray that his heart does not fall into an earthly mind in the turmoil and confusion of the world, expressing itself in unbelieving fear or as political zealotry, in which trust in the living God, the love of his Savior, the daily penitent recognition of his own guilt of sin, the striving for that which is above, no longer finds room in his heart.
Rev. Dr. Wilhelm Sihler, (1801-1885). Third Pastor of St. Paul’s Lutheran, Fort Wayne, Founder of the Fort Wayne Seminary, Founding Vice-President of the Missouri Synod, and President of the Ohio and Indiana District.
This article was published by C. F. W. Walther in Der Lutheraner Volume 19.
Slavery Considered in the Light of Holy Scripture.[1][2]
(Submitted by Prof. Dr. Sihler.)
[Volume 19, St. Louis, Mon. February 1, 1863, No. 12.]
A Christian is a person whose heart and conscience are bound solely and exclusively by what God’s Word, or Holy Scripture, says. Whatever is contrary to the holy ten commandments, with which the natural or moral law written by God in the heart of all people also agrees, that is sinful, criminal and condemnable to him. And it is all the same to him, how the mass of the unbelievers regards it and perhaps lifts up to heaven what he, according to God’s word, must reject and cast down to hell.
Again, what God does not forbid in his law, but puts into the use of his Christian freedom, that is no sin to him, even if a large number of selfish, unbelieving idolaters of the human spirit, even under the pretense of love, reject and repudiate it with hatred and disgust. We now want to apply this principle, which is an undeniably correct principle for all those who want to be Christians, to slavery, and investigate from God’s Word how it applies and especially whether it is a sin to keep slaves; for it could easily be the case that some newer readers of this publication do not have a conscience sufficiently informed by God’s word; and therefore they are in danger of being misled and confused by the clamor of abolitionist fanatics, who try to spread their delusion as far as possible and to persuade others as if slavery were against Christianity or even contrary to a sound legal state of the civil community. If only this were abolished and, where possible, all slaves were immediately set free — thus they proceed in their ravings — then it could not fail that the citizens of the United States would be blissful people as heroes of humanity and benefactors of mankind, and would bring back the golden age and restore the lost paradise.
From which spirit such delusion originates, we will see later, after we have recognized the truth from God’s word. It is obvious from Holy Scripture that through the deception and seduction of the devil our first parents in paradise and all of us in them have fallen from faith and obedience to God into unbelief and disobedience to God and thus have become servants and slaves of the devil. That is why Christ calls him the strong and armed one,[3] even the prince of this world[4], i.e. of the children of unbelief; and this is the real actual bondage and slavery in which all men as sinners from their mother’s womb (Ps. 51[5]) are imprisoned, be they, according to their outward nature and worldly position, superiors or inferiors, free or slaves. We are all, in our inherited sin and its constant manifestations in real sins, from the inward conscious impulse to the grossest outbreak in deed, miserable, will-less slaves of the devil, whom this tyrant leads captive either by the bonds of mammon-service, ambition, worldly lusts, or by the subtle sins of conceitedness, self-righteousness, and sanctimoniousness; and according to his will, are on the broad path that leads to damnation.
And if the strongest had not overcome the strong, if the seed of the woman had not crushed the serpent’s head, if the Son of God had not destroyed the works of the devil by paying our debt on the cursed wood of the cross as the Son of God and Mary and suffering our punishment of death, and by virtue of his resurrection had set free the children of death and freed the slaves of the devil: we, the children of Adam, would all have remained in this miserable and terrible captivity and bondage, and would have nothing to await after temporal death, the wages of sin, but the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
It is therefore without any contradiction that we all, according to God’s Word, in Adam, as children of wrath by nature, are all also slaves of the devil, but in Christ we are all saved from the wrath of God and redeemed from the terrible spiritual bondage under the tyranny of the devil.
But if both are equally true according to the nature of sin and grace, it is a small thing that God, within this standing contrast, according to his holy punitive justice, has also from time immemorial, just as He has imposed poverty, famine, sword, and pestilence, also imposed temporal bondage and slavery on certain people, although the particular sins that caused God to impose this special punishment are not known to us everywhere. Indeed, according to God’s wonderful ways with mankind, He often lets those bear the consequences of sin whose personal sin is not punished by it. (Joh. 9:1-3[6]) For even the hardest servitude, in which a person is subjected with his body to the will of the master who owns him as property, cannot be compared to the fact that he has stolen himself from his rightful owner, God, and sold himself to sin and the devil, Rom. 7:14[7]; but then God, by virtue of the redemption in Christ, has no other purpose in these temporal punishments than to lead the bonded prisoner to repentance and to reveal to him his dear Son as his Savior, so that he may be redeemed from the power of sin and the devil through the true faith of the Gospel and become truly free and a dear child of God, even if he also has to remain in the state of servanthood, since he is not allowed to dispose of his person according to his will, and is even a saleable commodity. Again, what special advantage have the freemen, if they conduct their rule over their servants and slaves whether in a more patriarchal[8] or in a more despotic way, if they remain unbelievers and after this short temporal rule the saying of the Lord of all lords resounds against them: “Bind their hands and feet and throw them out into the outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth”? [Matthew 22:13[9]]
After these introductory and fundamental truths, we will now proceed to the matter itself, and first deal with the cause of bodily slavery, which alone is sin. First of all we find the important passage Gen. 9:25-27[10], in which the holy patriarch Noah, after he had found out about his mockery by his son Ham, pronounced, by the stimulus of God, the following curse against Ham’s son Canaan (who had undoubtedly participated in the gross sin of his father against Noah) and his descendants: “Cursed be Canaan and a servant of all servants among his brothers. And said further, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant. God spread out Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.”
From the first verse of this passage and from the concluding words of the two following verses, it now becomes irrefutably clear that God, after His righteous judgment through Noah’s mouth, visited the sin of Ham and Canaan on their Descendants by continuous, servile bondage or slavery under the descendants of Shem and Japheth. But that this curse did not break out of a carnal anger of Noah and did not fade away without a trace in the air, is clear from the history of the later time. For those Canaanites, who (contrary to God’s commandment, Deut. 20:17[11]) were not exterminated by Israel (Shem’s descendants) with the edge of the sword, but were spared out of selfishness, and were consigned by the victors and conquerors of the land, as we see from Jos. 16:10 and 17:13[12], to perpetual serfdom and servitude. But the Canaanites, who lived in Gibeon and were known to have deceived Israel through a fraudulent covenant, received the following harsh sentence from Joshua’s mouth, Jos. 9:23: “Therefore you shall be cursed, so that there shall not cease from among you servants who cut wood and carry water to the house of my God.”[13]
But as God remembers mercy in the midst of wrath, these Gibeonites who had been made slaves and those other Cananites had access to his word opened to them through their dwelling among Israel, so that after they had repentantly recognized their sins in the Law of Moses, they could become righteous before God through the gospel and through faith in the promised seed of Abraham, our Lord Christ, and thus truly free from the dominion of sin.
Another passage, which also proves that within the general, spiritual slavery of all natural men under the dominion of sin and the devil, bodily slavery is a temporal judgment of God against sin, similar to famine, sword, and pestilence and other plagues, is Deut. 28:68[14], which reads thus: “And the LORD shall bring you again into Egypt with ships full, by the way of which I said, thou shalt see it no more (cf. 17:16[15]). And there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondmaids, and there shall be no buyer.”
This threatening word of the Lord by Moses’ mouth is one of many others, which he directs in this chapter (verses 15-69[16]) against his own covenant people, if they would not obey his voice and would not keep his commandments and laws. And also this threat of God has been fulfilled in later times; because in the ships of the Sydonians and Tyrians after the destruction of Jerusalem Jewish slaves bought by the Babylonians were brought to Egypt for sale.
A third passage of a similar nature is found in the prophet Jeremiah, 5:19 and 17:4[17], where it reads: “As you have forsaken me and served foreign gods in your own land, so you shall serve strangers in a land that is not yours; and you (Israel) shall be cast out of your inheritance which I have given you, and will make you servants of your enemies in a land which you do not know; for you have kindled a fire of my wrath which will burn forever.”
From this it is obvious that especially because of the apostasy and idolatry, which naturally resulted in a multitude of gross transgressions of the second table, the children of Israel in the kingdom of Judah were led into captivity and slavery in Babylon before and after the destruction of Jerusalem. But since among these there were also those who sat by the waters of Babylon and wept when they remembered Zion (Ps. 137:1[18]), the gracious and merciful God comforted these shattered hearts and terrified consciences through the prophet Ezekiel with the promise of the Messiah; and as from God’s own mouth, the prophet was to say to them (33:11[19]): “As surely as I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his ways and live.”
But it was quite different and much worse for the people of Israel about 600 years later, after they had not only crucified the Lord of glory and killed the Prince of life, but also for the most part rejected the gracious gospel for about 40 years in malicious unbelief. For after the second destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., many thousands of Jews, prisoners of war, were sold into slavery at a ridiculous price and scattered among all nations without prophets, without consolation, and under the judgment of blindness and hardening,[20] as it still stands today; for only a few individuals, “the elect of grace,” have been saved through the centuries by the gospel in the Christian church.
Thus we should have seen from God’s word that slavery, i.e. the state in which a man is another’s according to body and possessions, and thus is deprived of his personal freedom with regard to the disposal of his person and the choice of his employment, is indeed a consequence of sin and a peculiar manifestation of God’s punitive justice. But there is no essential difference between it and other punishments of God, as, for example, deformity, poverty, famine, and other plagues; yes, compared, for example, with epidemics, wars, volcanic eruptions, strong earthquakes, where many people are often dragged into eternal damnation by a quick evil death, slavery appears as a milder punishment of God. And this is especially the case where the slaves are within the Christian church and under the sound of the gospel, and truly even the Negro slaves brought here are much better off than if they had fallen at home in the bloody feuds of their tribes or had been sacrificed as prisoners of war to the gods of the victors or had become more and more spiritually rotten in their own idolatry as slaves of the devil.
We now proceed to prove from God’s Word, namely the Holy Scriptures, that nowhere, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament, does it forbid or even disapprove slavery or, more precisely, the owning and keeping of slaves or bonded servants.
Thus we read that the Lord God speaks to the children of Israel through Moses (Lev. 25:44-46[21]): “If you want to have bonded servants and maids, then you shall buy them from the heathen who are around you, from the sojourners who are strangers among you and from their descendants whom they beget in your land; these you shall have for your own and you shall possess them, and your children after you for property for ever, they shall be your bonded servants.” Over these the masters were also granted a stricter regiment than over impoverished tribesmen and fellow believers who had sold themselves as servants to their debtors.
For when God says in regard to these, “But over your brethren the children of Israel none shall rule with severity,” it is evident from this that this was permitted to the lords over their bond servants to a greater extent, whether they had come into their power by purchase or captivity in war, or had been born in their houses. For most of them, namely those of Canaan’s lineage, who remained later among Israel, as e.g. the Gebeonites, were actually to be “banished,” that is, cursed with eradication and completely exterminated, as wicked idolaters and perpetrators of shameful immoral abominations (Lev. 18[22]) according to God’s strict judgment during the conquering of the land of the Lord. If, however, some of them remained among Israel, because Israel was too negligent and not zealous enough to execute God’s judgments on them, it was only in accordance with God’s justice that their lot as slaves was harsher than that of the Israelite servants; for these [latter], whom the debtor was not allowed to treat as serfs, nor to sell, were to rejoin their family and their fathers’ possessions in the seventh year, Lev. 25:39-43[23]; Ex. 21:2[24].
Furthermore, when the Lord forbids, Exodus 20:17[25], “Do not lust after your neighbor’s manservant or maidservant,” He confirms the rightful ownership of them. But God could not possibly have done this if the possession of sold, bonded servants and maids were sinful in itself. Likewise, Holy Scripture describes the ownership of servants and maids, that is, of slaves in bondage, as a blessing from the Lord. For thus Eliezer, the suitor for Isaac, speaks to Rebekah’s parents and her brother Laban, Genesis 24:35[26]: “And the Lord hath blessed my lord abundantly, and waxed great, and hath given him sheep, and oxen, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses.” And the same is reported of Jacob, (Gen. 30:43[27]) and of Job (1:3[28]).
Among other earthly goods, the godly patriarchs also possessed servants and maids as a blessing from the Lord and as part of their earthly blessings. But none of them is said to have had a bad conscience about the legitimacy of this possession and property and to have freed his servants and maids. Rather, we learn that these faithful fathers, who certainly had the Holy Spirit in them, also considered the children of these servants and maids as their rightful property; for it is expressly reported about Abraham in Genesis 14:14[29] that he had 318 servants who were born in his house. And these he armed, when he pursued with this small group in bold courage of faith Kedor Laomor, the king of Elam, and his three allied kings from the Orient, in order to rescue Lot and his children from him, which he also succeeded in doing.
But someone might raise the objection: in the household governance of the old covenant, legal discipline prevailed, and there, however, the fathers, as later their descendants, the people of Israel, found slavery as an existing thing and used it without hesitation. Also, in antiquity, as an existing institution, there had been no free day laborers and hirelings, who, after free self-determination and disposal of their person, served sometimes this, sometimes that master according to the pleasure of their will. But in the household of the new covenant, in the Christian church, things are different; there the gospel and Christian love rule; and it is strictly contrary to this that one man is the slave, the saleable bondservant of another, and that the latter has the power and strength to use the bodily strength of his slave for his own advantage for any unsinful service he desires. God is said to have created all men; before Him all are equal, also Christ redeemed all men and acquired the same freedom for all.
We intend also to answer especially this objection later. For now it suffices to prove that in the New Testament itself, Christians are by no means forbidden to keep slaves and to make use of this institution and civil order handed down from paganism and Judaism, according to Christian freedom; For since it is not sinful in and of itself and is not contrary to God’s commandment, neither Christ’s nor his apostles’ mouths censure or disapprove of it, however, the Lord punishes usury and overcharging as sins against love, which not a few abolitionist Sabbatarians practice with the greatest zeal; These holy people even help to equip and dispatch slave ships in order to smuggle slaves from the African coast to America, against the civil law of their own country, while at the same time they agitate for the quickest possible release of the existing slaves. No! Not slavery as a human institution, but only the sinful abuse, which is attached to it in many ways and of course always in conflict with love, receives due censure, especially in the New Testament.
The following are the testimonies in which the Holy Spirit not only does not disapprove of the existence of slavery (let alone urges its immediate abolition), but recognizes and accepts the slave’s calling to service as unsinful: in 1 Tim. 6:1[30], St. Paul writes to Timothy: “The servants who are under the yoke should hold their masters in high esteem, so that the name of God and the doctrine be not blasphemed.”
If slavery were against the gospel and bodily bondage against the spiritual freedom of a Christian, the apostle could not have written these words. Rather, he would have had to make it a matter of conscience for the converted slaves to break the yoke, even by violent self-help and rebellion, if secret escape were impossible. Therefore, in 1525, the Anabaptist rebel, Thomas Münzer, acted thus who incited the Thuringian serf-peasants to revolt against their bodily masters, having previously confused their minds with false unevangelical teaching. For he taught them to despise spiritual freedom, whereby Christ had freed them from the yoke of the law in order to become righteous before God by His works, as well as from all human statutes and commandments, and exchange this for bodily freedom; and so it happened that, against love, they gave place to the flesh, revolted against their bodily masters, burned their castles, plundered their possessions, and murdered the defenseless; And by this they proved that they were indeed servants of corruption and slaves of the devil, but not such people who, through true faith in Christ, were truly freed from that yoke and from the dominion of sin and the devil, and enjoyed freedom of the children of God in the midst of the servitude of the saints. Luther also writes about this in his “Refutation of the 12th Articles of the Peasants,” regarding the 3rd Article:
“There is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this? This would be to make Christian liberty into liberty of the flesh. Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the Gospel and it is rapacious, for everyone who is a bondman to remove himself from his master. A bondman can very well be a Christian and have Christian freedom, just as a prisoner or sick person can be a Christian, but yet is not free. This article proposes to make all men equal, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly one, which is impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot exist where there is no class distinction, where some are free, some are prisoners, some are masters, and some are vassals, etc.” (Luther’s Works by Walch, Vol. 16, pp. 85 ff.) Thus St. Paul and Thomas Münzer, together with his kindred abolitionist spirits of more recent times, of English and German tongue, have nothing to do with each other. These speak out of the enthusiastic spirit, in which the murderer and liar has played his part from the beginning, even if he disguises himself here as an angel of light. St. Paul, however, speaks from the Holy Spirit, which, as we know, is the spirit of true Christian love, peace, and wholesome order. Out of this Spirit, in 1 Tim. 6:1 he admonishes the believing slaves that they should “hold worthy of all esteem” even their unbelieving and heathen masters — for only in the following verse does he speak of their behavior toward their believing masters — and indeed for the sake of the fourth commandment and godly order, according to which it pleases the Lord to make them slaves and to make those unbelievers their bodily masters; For it was precisely in such a relationship of service that they had the best opportunity to exercise faith through love and, through their willing and joyful obedience, meekness, humility and patience, to let the glory of the gospel of Christ, which so miraculously transforms and renews the heart and will through faith, shine powerfully, as it were, as a silent sermon and a speaking testimony to their unbelieving masters. And there is no doubt that many of these masters, when they saw the godly conduct of their slaves after their conversion, while they had been lazy, thieving, unfaithful, etc. before, were won to the gospel.
Similarly, St. Peter writes about believing wives who had unbelieving husbands that they should be subject to them, so that those who did not believe in the word would be won over by the wives’ conduct without the word, when they saw their chaste conduct in fear. 1 Peter 3:1-2[31].
So St. Paul admonishes the believing slaves therefore also to hold their unbelieving masters in honor, “lest the name of God and the doctrine be blasphemed.” This would undeniably have been done by the pagan masters if their Christian slaves had acted against them according to the flesh, had demanded their bodily freedom from them and, in case of refusal, had run away or, under the pretense of Christian freedom, had withdrawn from them the obedience owed or had even revolted against them with an armed hand and open violence in order to gain their bodily freedom. Of course, the pagan masters, who were uninformed about the nature of the Gospel, would have blamed the Christian doctrine for such an impudent undertaking and sacrilegious start of their slaves, and would have blasphemed it as a source of all disorder and disobedience, even of rebellion and outrage, and would have profaned the name of Christ as the head of the rebels; for before their slaves had heard this new doctrine, their malice would never have broken out so defiantly as to demand their liberty as a right now due to them.
In a similar way — for it is the same Holy Spirit who speaks through all the apostles — St. Peter also writes, 1 Peter 2:18-21[32]: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called.”
This exhortation also contains the exact opposite of what the old Anabaptists incited the serf-peasants to do and what the newer abolitionists incite the slaves to do. Yes St. Peter intensifies the already stated admonition of his fellow apostle; for he admonishes the believing slaves that they should be submissive and obedient to their heathen masters not only out of grateful love for their goodness and leniency, but that they should show the same submissiveness “with all fear” and reverence also to the “strange,” that is, the bad and perverse masters, for whom they could do nothing right and who ruled over them with severity; For this is grace and pleasing to God, and also entails the reward of grace, if they, in order not to sin through impatience and disobedience against God and against the conscience enlightened and sharpened by the gospel and faith, bear the evil, that is harsh words and blows, and suffer the injustice; for to suffer for iniquity, as rightly befalls the disobedient and insubordinate slaves, is a punishment justly inflicted and truly no glory.
If, however, they endured all sorts of things from their “strange” masters while being faithful to their service, this is grace from God, for this is what they were called to do; and Peter goes on to paint their Lord and Savior before the faithful slaves as a model of sanctification, that they not only confess him with their mouths, but also follow him in deeds and suffering. Furthermore every Christian, and therefore also every believing slave, is called not only to do good, but also to suffer evil from the one who benefits from his good deeds, namely his physical master.
Similarly, St. Paul (Titus 2:9-10[33]) admonishes the believing slaves “to be submissive to their own masters, to please them will in all things, not answering again; not to purloin, but to show all good fidelity;” and as above he had admonished them (in 1 Timothy 6:1) against dishonorable behavior toward their heathen masters, “that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed,” likewise here he exhorts them to the same Christian virtues, “that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things.” But in Col. 3:22-24[34] his words to the believing slaves read thus: “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh (be they heathens or Christians); not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he had done: and there is no respect of persons.”
Precisely these two last verses are very important in this admonition of the Apostle. For, after they had been redeemed from the slavery of sin and the devil through faith in Jesus Christ and had attained to the blessed freedom of the children of God, he is far from declaring their continuing slavery to heathen masters as something shameful and unworthy of their present spiritual nobility. Rather, he calls their present slave service, which is sanctified by faith in Jesus Christ and performed in Christian love for their masters, even if they are pagans, a service to God [Gottesdienst]. Likewise, it does not occur to St. Paul to hold out to or place in view of the believing slaves the prospect of the quickest possible liberation from bodily bondage as a necessary or urgently desirable good for those who have become spiritually free. Rather, he opens the prospect of heaven for them and testifies, as from the mouth of the Lord, that after their faithful service on earth they would receive a glorious reward and recompense in heaven, and even inherit the Kingdom of Glory. On the other hand, he also threatens them with the judgment of God if they do “wrong” against faith and conscience, including trying to attain their bodily freedom by sinful means.
In all these passages, interpreted according to the word, there is not even the slightest hint that even the slavery of Christians under pagan masters is something contrary to the gospel and spiritual freedom. Rather, St. Paul writes, 1 Cor. 7:22[35]: “He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman.” But the apostle is just as far from making it a matter of conscience for Christian slaves to remain in the state of slavery. Indeed, he says in vv. 20-21 in general: “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? care not for it,” that is, do not be troubled with thoughts as if you could not be a righteous Christian, serve God, and please the Lord even as a slave. But then he adds: “But if you can become free (that is, by honest and sincere means, that someone buys you out or that your master releases you out of favor), then much rather do that,” do not let the permitted opportunity pass by unused.
But now, another point is to be considered according to God’s word, namely, what the relationship of converted slaves to their believing masters was to be and whether they could claim their bodily release from them as an act of their brotherly love. There is no trace of this in the New Testament either. Rather, St. Paul writes about the behavior of believing slaves towards their Christian masters, (1 Tim. 6:2[36]) thus: “And they that have believing masters, should not despise them with the pretense that they, [namely the servants] are the [spiritual] brothers of their masters,” so that through the same faith in Christ and the same sonship of God they are equal to them before God; “but rather do them service, (that is, perform their service all the more faithfully and willingly), because they (the servants) are faithful and beloved (by God, and by their physical Christian masters) and are partakers of the benefit (of salvation and spiritual deliverance from the dominion of sin through the gospel).”
Therefore in all these admonitions, especially those of the apostle Paul, about how the believing slaves should behave towards their pagan or Christian masters, there is not the slightest hint that their spiritual redemption by Christ from the slavery of sin and the devil brings immediate physical liberation with it. Rather, St. Paul always keeps bodily and spiritual freedom sharply apart as two completely different areas, while the enthusiasts of older and newer times confuse the two. According to his view, that is, according to the truth of God, the matter always stands thus: “He that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.” 1 Cor. 7:22[37].
The apostle Paul confirms his teaching and admonition by his own actions. There was an unbelieving slave named Onesimus who had come to Rome after he had escaped from a believing slave owner named Philemon in Colossae, who had been converted by Paul earlier. There he was converted to faith in the Lord Christ through the preaching of St. Paul, “[who] dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him” (Acts 28:30[38]) to hear the word of God, and thus became spiritually free. What does the apostle do? If he had been a righteous Anabaptist or abolitionist preacher, he would have declared Onesimus bodily free right away, or made it a matter of conscience for Philemon to leave Onesimus bodily free; then he would have considered it contrary to the gospel, shameful and unworthy for one believer to be the slave of another; after all, they had both put on Christ and were both God’s children; and there would be “neither bond nor free.” (Gal. 3:25[39]) St. Paul did not do so, but even though the converted Onesimus, did and could do all kinds of services of love for him, and even though his master, Philemon, was freed by the apostle from the slavery of sin and the devil, and was bound to grateful love in return, he still sent Onesimus back to his master with a letter imbued with the sweetness of the evangelical spirit and Christian love. And also in this his own handwritten letter, in which he commends this “my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds, my own heart,” to Philemon’s heart for loving acceptance and forgiveness for his escape — also in this letter there is not contained the slightest hint to set this slave free bodily, who was indeed now at the same time “above a servant, a beloved brother” (namely his, Philemon’s). And surely Onesimus, as a Christian, as one anointed by the Holy Spirit and enlightened by God’s Word, would have known how to use his physical freedom for the glory of God and the benefit of mankind; and it would have been much different than if now, for example, a southern planter, seduced by abolitionist heresy in pamphlets and sentimental novels, had set free unconverted slaves, who until then could only be kept in outward obedience by coercion and fear of punishment. And is it not so that the runaway slaves to Canada, who unfortunately, contrary to the law, have been encouraged in all sorts of ways in the northern states, are by their laziness and immorality a great plague to that country?
On the other hand, in his letter Paul only expresses his joy that Onesimus (which means “useful”) now lives up to his name, because he “was useless to you (Philemon), but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.” (v. 11[40]).
[Volume 19, St. Louis, Monday, February 15, 1863, No. 13.]
The summary result of all these quotations from Holy Scripture, interpreted and applied according to the text and the faith, is therefore this: First: The gospel and the faith in Christ that it brings about, through which man, and thus also the physical slave, is made a partaker of spiritual deliverance from the slavery of sin and the devil in the forgiveness of sin and the reception of the Holy Spirit, has in and of itself nothing to do with the state of his physical slavery; for the gospel has to do only with the soul of the bodily slave, and primarily in its relationship to God, in order to redeem it from his wrath and severe judgment and to transform it into the blessed freedom of the children of God. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with the external nature and the bodily servitude of the slave to his master, in so far as it would give the slave a means of raising and asserting a legal claim to his bodily release from slavery against his master. And just as little does the gospel make it a matter of faith and love for the believing slave owner, that is, a matter of conscience, to set his slaves free in the flesh, even if they are his brothers in Christ.
Secondly: Just as it is the nature and character of the gospel through faith in Christ to sanctify, permeate, and spiritually enliven all other worldly orders and civil institutions, social relationships, customs, habits, and rights (provided they are not in themselves contrary to the commandments of God, and therefore sinful), so also is this done with slavery. And even if, due to human sin, all kinds of evil and pernicious abuse had been attached to this and that inherently unsinful institution and state or condition, such as the merchant profession (cf. Sir. 26:29, 27:1-2)[41], or unlimited monarchy (cf. 1 Sam. 8:9-17)[42], or to a particularly high degree to slavery, it is nevertheless contrary to the nature of the gospel and to the love of Christ, which is gradually improving from within, to insist in a stormy and violent manner even on the elimination of the abuses that cling to it, let alone to immediately remove the thing itself, to which the trouble adheres. For such unevangelical behavior is only the activity of arrogant legislators and workers, who everywhere in their revolutionary method of healing tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the old and new abolitionists also do.
The gospel, however, by entering into the institution of slavery, which it found everywhere historically, works the following salutary fruit through faith in Christ and the change of mind of the slaves and slaveholders brought about by it, while leaving it in existence for the time being.
First of all, through faith, the heart, mind, spirit and will of the converted slaves are salutarily transformed respecting their physical masters. Before their conversion and spiritual deliverance from the slavery of sin and the devil, they were — by virtue of unbelief — lazy, stubborn, thieving, unfaithful, unwilling, spiteful, wrathful, groveling, false, whoring, lying, and eye-pleasing people, and where they obeyed outwardly, it was only out of fear of punishment or out of a desire for reward and praise; but inwardly there was no willing obedience and outwardly no service of true love; out of compulsion and with unwillingness they did the work commanded them and avoided the grosser outbreaks of evil. Hence Scripture so often speaks of servile fear, servile spirit and obedience in a derogatory way. And even where patriarchal house governance existed, where they had kind and gentle masters and received just treatment, they still remained, according to heart, mind, and will, unchanged and unregenerated in their inherited unbelief and disobedience, blindness and malice, aversion and spitefulness; for even the law of the holy ten commandments in correct spiritual interpretation is not able, in spite of all attached enticements and promises, as well as threats and curses, to substantially transform the heart and the will of the natural man, if he is a slave or not bodily free, and to place him in right obedience to God and man. Rather, the law, without the accompaniment of the gospel, works the exact opposite of what it demands, out of the guilt of the corrupted nature and in order to bring its extreme wickedness and corruption to light. For the more sharply the law presses upon man and demands perfect holiness of his nature and perfect obedience and love toward God in all his doings, the more vehemently it arouses man’s anger, hatred and aversion towards God and His holy will expressed in the law; and the more vehemently the desire to transgress flares up and the greater the mass of sins of commission and omission becomes. But since the law at the same time continues to pronounce the wrath of God against the children of unbelief, without giving man the desire and power to keep it, it proves itself in every man, as he is by nature (so also in every unconverted slave) to be the letter that kills, the office that preaches damnation.
But when the law thus testifies to the conscience of these bonded servants, they certainly recognize from it their sinful misery and ruin, shame and remorse, fear and terror before God’s wrath and judgment. And at the same time they realize that they have a much stricter spiritual master in the law than their physical master can ever be, for in the worst case he can punish them severely in body or have them killed. The law, however, to which their conscience assents, keeps them locked up in soul and body as evil and bankrupt debtors under its compulsion and curse, as in an unbreakable debtor’s tower and iron net, threatens them incessantly with the eternal torment and agony of hell, and lets them feel and experience the foretaste of it abundantly in the gnawing and biting of the evil conscience.
But also to them, as to all poor sinners, the law, according to God’s good gracious will, should become a disciplinarian for Christ. As soon as the gospel comes to them by some means and they do not resist the Holy Spirit, thereby kindling faith in Christ in their hearts, they receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit, are spiritually reborn and seated in the heavenly places in Christ.[43] Then they are also redeemed from the slavery of sin and the devil and made truly free through the Son, so that they are no longer slaves to sin, but live for Him who died for them and rose again. As Christ gave himself to them with his nature and work, so now, as far as the new man lives in them, they give themselves to their neighbor in love with their nature and work. Then their heart’s attitude towards their physical masters becomes essentially different from what it was before. Then their most noble thoughts and aspirations are not to become physically free as soon as possible; they close their ears to abolitionist sneaks and corner preachers and consider it theft to steal away from their master by secretly escaping.
On the contrary, they now begin to truly serve him in the fear and love of God. For by the power of faith in Christ and by the impulse of the Holy Spirit who dwells in them and enlightens and governs them through God’s Word, they apply all honest diligence and zeal to be faithful in the fulfillment of the duties of their calling and to comply with those exhortations of the apostles. Instead of the evil qualities, the habitual sins and vices with which they were afflicted before their conversion, they are now seen to have good works and virtues, wrought and sanctified by faith in Christ. As children of God, as saints and beloved, as a voluntary people in the love of Christ, they are now, predominantly, obedient, diligent, faithful, sober, chaste, disciplined, humble, meek, patient, true, sincere, and adorn the doctrine of God their Savior throughout by godly conduct and walk worthy of the Gospel.
If they have faithful, kind, and gentle masters, they recognize this as an undeserved benefit of God and make all the more effort to prove their grateful love for them through faithful service, but they are far from putting themselves on an equal footing with them in a carnal way or even claiming their bodily release as a right to which they are entitled. If, on the other hand, they have unconverted, strict, and whimsical masters, they regard this as a salvific cross, have heartfelt mercy on their devil-mastered lords and never tire of following their Lord Christ in action and suffering, taking up their cross and also showing such masters all willing obedience and good faith, bearing unjust and tyrannical treatment with patience and gentleness and praying diligently for their masters that God will grant them grace to repent.
Thus we have now demonstrated what a salutary transformation the gospel, by kindling faith in Christ in the hearts of the slaves, also brings about in their behavior toward their physical masters. But before we give the proof for how the same gospel and the same faith also bring about a salutary change in the hearts of slaveholders in their behavior toward their slaves, let us first make a helpful and appropriate observation.
We have learned above that slavery is a punishment of sin from God, although not so terrible as the evil and quick death of the guilty criminal. Nevertheless, we find already in the Old Testament, how God shows his mercy against the slaves by special decrees, and resists the mercilessness of the slave owners. Thus, God decreed (Gen. 17:12[44]) that Abraham should circumcise not only the slaves born to him at home, but also the slaves bought from all sorts of strangers.
Thereby they also entered into the covenant of grace that God established with Abraham and his seed; and although, according to their bodily descent, they were guests and strangers, they were admitted through this sacrament into the spiritual citizenship of Israel. And through this they also took part in the adoption and the glory, in the covenant and the law, in the [temple] service[45] and the promise — for this practice was to be kept among Abraham’s descendants from then on. (Rom. 9:4[46]) Likewise, God commanded Moses (Ex. 12:43-44[47]) that no stranger should eat of the Passover lamb, but whoever was a purchased servant should be circumcised first and then eat of it. Also, according to the third commandment, the slaves were to have rest from their work on the Sabbath day (Ex 20:10[48]), could participate in the services, hear the word of God, and were also to be brought to the sacrificial meals and feasts. (Deut. 12:12, 18; 16:11[49]) Furthermore, the Lord Himself protects the bonded servants bought from the Gentiles or who came under the power of Israelite masters through captivity against the tyrannical treatment of their masters. For “if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.” (Ex. 21:20[50]) Furthermore, if the masters knocked out the teeth of their servants or maidservants or spoil an eye by striking them with their fists, they should be released on account of this. (Ex 21:26-27[51]) But the most precious thing was that the slaves also should be made partakers of the New Testament promises of grace. For thus says the Lord through the prophet Joel (2:29[52]): “And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.”
Thus, in view of these bodily and especially spiritual benefits, the slaves of the Jews were much better off than if they, among the heathens of their kindred race, had perhaps been given bodily freedom, but nevertheless, as being outside the realm of the divine word, without God and without hope in this world, remained spiritually dead in transgressions and sins and were not freed from the spiritual slavery of sin and the devil. And similarly, as already mentioned, the Negroes brought over from Africa are much better off by coming into the realm of the gospel, even though so many sins against the fear of God and the love of one’s neighbor are connected with their coming over. God provided even more kindly and lovingly for the Israelite slaves, when free Hebrews (Neh. 5:5[53]) were sold by the court to a lord because of damages they could not compensate (Ex. 22:3[54]), or by debtors they could not repay (2 Kings 4:1[55], Is. 50:1[56]), or sold themselves because of impoverishment (Lev. 25:39[57]). They were not to serve as serfs [Leibeigene], nor were they to be sold like them and treated with the same severity. (vv. 40-42[58]) Rather, according to the law, they received their freedom in the Sabbath or Jubilee year after six years of service (Ex. 21:2[59], Deut. 15:12[60], Lev. 25:40[61]), and had to be provided with sheep, grain, oil, and wine by their former masters. (Deut. 15:13[62])
How little God was against the lifelong bondage of one Israelite to another, however, is clear from Ex 21:6[63] and Deut 15:17[64]. For if the servant, after his six years of service, did not want to make use of the legal freedom, but out of love for his master (also for his wife and his children, who might have been given to him by the master, and who otherwise both remained with the master upon his release (Ex. 21:4-5[65]), preferred to remain with his master as a servant for life, then this could happen; only his ear was to be pierced with an awl before the elders — a sign of servitude that was also in use among other peoples of antiquity.
If we now turn to the New Testament, we also find the appropriate evangelical admonitions for the believing masters with regard to their behavior toward their slaves. Thus we read (Col. 4:1[66]), “Masters, give unto your servants what is right and equal,” that is, fair, do not put them to excessive work, give them the necessary rest and refreshment, and provide for them according to need, as also belonging to your “household”, (1 Tim. 5:8[67]), “knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven” that is, do not forget that one day you will have to give an account to the Lord of all lords of how you have behaved toward your slaves. St. Paul admonishes the masters in a similar way, Eph. 6:9[68]: “And ye masters, do the same (what is right and just in the fear of God) unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven (and over you as his slaves); neither is there respect of persons with him.” (he rewards and punishes with righteous judgment according to his word, whether someone is master or slave).
Now as many of the physical masters who received forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ by means of the voice of the gospel, and took these admonitions of St. Paul to heart; their hearts, minds, and wills were also salutarily transformed toward their physical slaves. If the latter were also converted to Christ out of heathendom, they recognized them as their dear brothers in Christ and did not consider themselves higher than them before the Lord (Gal. 3:28[69]). They also let Christ’s kindness and benevolence shine out in all their dealings with them, regarded them as their housemates and members of their family, cared for their needs in a fatherly way, did not impose undue work on them, granted them the necessary rest and refreshment, and took due care that they remained in the teaching and discipline of the divine word. Nevertheless, they did not cease to regard themselves as their masters, according to the salutary order of God in this world, clothed with the majesty of the Father’s name and the fourth commandment, to maintain punctual obedience and, where necessary, by the discipline of the law, to sharply punish the flesh of their Christian slaves, although in fatherly love. Nor were they bound, as God’s Word did not make them conscience-stricken, to give their slaves bodily freedom on account of being their brothers in Christ, although circumstances did arise from time to time that this happened. If their slaves were still heathen, they could of course not recognize them before God as their brothers in Christ, but they took all the more care that they, as those who had also been freed, by God’s grace and through Christian teaching, came to repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Christ, and thus were saved from the dominion of darkness and brought to the blessed freedom of the children of God.
Moreover, their behavior towards these pagan slaves was not essentially different from their behavior towards Christian slaves. Also towards them, under the governance of Christian fatherly love, the seriousness of the law and the gentleness of the gospel were wholesomely connected with each other in their discipline and regiment. And where, at the present time, there are any Christian-minded slave owners, the same thing happens essentially towards their Christian and heathen slaves; for the gospel and the faith in Christ kindled by it have everywhere in slaves and masters the same salutary effects as just described.
If, on the other hand, we consider the conduct and procedure of the older and newer abolitionists towards slaveholders and slaves, we find that it is utterly contrary to the gospel and faith in Christ and stems from a completely different spirit from the Holy Spirit and love of Christ. For it is the spirit of unbelief and enmity against Christ, the spirit of disobedience against God’s command and the spirit of insurrection and rebellion against his wholesome discipline and punishment against the children of Adam, sinners; It is the spirit of carnal reason emancipating itself from obedience to God’s word, in short, the spirit of man opposing God in arrogant self-idolatry by deception of the devil, which, where possible, overthrew the Triune God from His throne in order to sit on it and rule the world.
From this God-denying, antichristian and scripture-denying spirit have flowed for about 100 years the shameful and harmful writings of the English, French, and German deists, naturalists, rationalists, communists, and Friends of Light, in which the triune God of the Bible is dismissed as contrary to reason and instead the bastard (produced by the liar from the very beginning and the carnal reason of the apostate man) who is called “god, virtue and immortality,” is raised to the throne of the divine majesty. From this spirit came the children of the devil (the murderer from the beginning) the bloodthirsty regicides and blood-spilling monsters of the French Revolution. There, as is well known, our Lord God was deposed by popular decree on the impetus of the same, and in his place, a prostitute was worshiped as the goddess of reason by the educated madmen and uneducated rabble.[70] And what wonder if then, under the deceptive pretense of brotherhood, freedom, and equality, one party overthrew the other and delivered thousands to the guillotine and flooded France with blood. And while the guillotine continuously threw so many children of unbelief into hell every day and gave the devil a true feast, nothing but mutual suspicion, distrust, partisan hatred, rancor, malice, boasting, vengefulness, and the like prevailed between the still-living, free, and equal brothers who had been redeemed from the yoke of the allegedly unbearable royal power, so that under this regiment of freedom, brotherhood, and equality hell on earth was already to be found.[71]
The abolitionist fanatics and vocal leaders of our day and in this land come from the same spirit, who, deceived by the devil, and as deceivers of the ignorant and uncertain[72] are a devouring cancer and a malignant worm in the marrow of the people. It is true that they also adorn themselves with beautiful-sounding names, just as the devil does not like to be black, but white, even an angel of light. It is humanity and philanthropy (friendliness and love of man) that they carry before them as a figurehead. Behind it, however, they are the men of overthrow and destruction, who care little that the Constitution and the Union would perish if they could only carry through their insane enthusiasm, their singular goal; for that is their purpose, wherever possible, to emancipate all Negro slaves with one blow and to bless their own or foreign countries with these poor people, who are almost entirely uneducated for Christian, civil, and moral use of physical freedom.
In this regard, they have for years been pushing and dragging the slavery issue around in the Congress in a most excited manner, even without any motive, and have no hesitation in stirring up and embittering their Southern brethren. For this purpose they also give their speeches outside of congress in all kinds of larger and smaller gatherings, as heroes of freedom and happiness of mankind, with more or less luck and skill, in order to increase their following; and even preachers of the gospel are not ashamed, as abolitionist speechmakers, to fanaticize one part of their audience for themselves under a deceptive appeal of God’s word and against the simple understanding of Scripture and Christian doctrine, and to instill disgust and repugnance in the other, but to deceive both of them regarding the right foundation and edification in and on God’s word. To the same end, preachers and non-preachers let their pernicious foolishness go out through the press in all kinds of pamphlets, in order to spread it even further, even under Christian pretenses; and in them they have no hesitation in presenting unverified facts about the treatment of Negro slaves in the South as true and certain, and in immediately drawing conclusions about all slaveholders from individual cases of tyrannical treatment. Over this they pour the broth of their sentimental effusions of the heart in order to move other softly constituted souls to a holy indignation, if not to a crusade for the liberation of the Negroes, at least in feelings and thoughts. Indeed, their holy zeal for the emancipation of the Negro slaves goes so far that they not only, as already mentioned above, help runaway slaves across the border to Canada, with plans and action in violation of the Fugitive Slave Law, but they also dispatch spies to the South, disguised for example as peddlers, in order to, where possible, stir up trouble here and there among the blacks, to encourage them to run away, and to bring them into a hostile position against their masters by instilling their poison abolitionist potion. In summary, even if the reasons for the civil war which has now broken out and is continuing, and the manifold miseries of the country which flow from it, lie deeper, it cannot be denied that the enthusiast madness of abolitionism is one of the nearest and foremost causes of this ruin. This rage for emancipation, however, is again partly the natural consequence of the self-emancipation of arrogant carnal reason from obedience to the divine word and from true faith in Christ, and partly an inner judgment of God, who is wont to punish sin by sin.
But the outbreak of party fury into civil war and its horrors is then the external judgment of God for the same apostasy and contempt of the divine word.
It is not our intention to go into this in more detail this time. Only this much is certain, that the present abolitionism, far from helping the slaves in a salutary way, works just the opposite. In part, it drives individual slaveholders, who are more despotic than patriarchal-minded, to harsher measures, and perhaps even entire slave states to harsher laws against their slaves, and furthermore, it hinders the power of the Gospel, which, though slow and gradual, is all the more thoroughly and lastingly transforming from within.
The history of our German people, for example, shows this healing power. During the many and often very bloody wars of the individual tribes [Stämme] against each other, the victors also made their prisoners of war into slaves; and their lot was in part much harder than that of the Negroes here in the southern slave states. Then it happened by God’s gracious guidance that through the fervent zeal for love of those godly monks in English and Irish monasteries, Columbanus, Gall, Kilian, Willibrord and especially Boniface and his companions,[73] the preaching of the Gospel penetrated to our fathers in the 7th and 8th century and the Christian church also began to draw from among them.
Wherever, here and there through God’s word, individual slave masters and bonded servants became true believers in Christ and were converted, their mutual behavior naturally became different and better than before, as already explained above; the old things passed away, and through the rejuvenating and renewing power of the gospel and through faith in Christ everything became new in this respect as well. The same outward physical relationship of masters and slaves to each other, in which previously only compulsion and fear, mutual hatred and distrust prevailed, now became for both a training school of love, humility, gentleness, patience, and mutual trust in the prevailing attitude of the believing Christian-minded heart.
In the course of the centuries, however, it happened that the Christian church, even among our ancestors, grew from a mustard seed into a mighty tree, under whose branches the birds of the heavens dwelt; it happened at the same time that the Christian doctrine, the sweet and gracious gospel, proved to be a spiritual leaven; the longer that hearts were won for the faith in Christ and penetrated with it, the more there were. Slowly but surely the customs became milder and conformed to a Christian mind; even in the laws of the various countries, Christian doctrine and the educational power of the church exerted a wholesome influence, so that love and justice came more and more into their own.
This influence then also extended to slavery. Gradually, the harshest form of slavery ceased to exist, in which the slaves, who until then had been a commodity for sale, were absolutely at the mercy of the will (even the whims) of their owners, who could even impose the death penalty on them without further accountability and responsibility.
With the emergence and spread of the feudal order, since many formerly free and small landowners came under the protection of the great and powerful and entered into a certain dependent relationship with them — then in connection with that, this harsh form of serfdom ceased. The serfs now became glebae adscripti, that is, such people who, with their children and descendants, were attached to a certain property belonging to their lords. As little as they were entitled to free self-determination and disposal over their person and the choice of their work; just as little did their lords have unlimited power over them; and depending on the extent of their maintenance by their lords, the circle of their servitude and their work was also circumscribed, according to custom and law, and their persons enjoyed the legal protection of the laws against any encroachments of tyrannical lords. In this relationship, they were usually given time and opportunity to acquire property.[74]
From this transitional form and intermediate stage between complete serfdom and complete freedom, from this state of “bondage,” an even greater degree of freedom developed as “the bonded” grew in intellect, education, and civic morality. They were released from their bondage to the soil; and although they were not yet free and independent landowners on a larger scale, they became tenants of a larger landlord whom they could choose at will, and to whom, depending on the contract and agreement, as is now the case, for example, with the peasants in the Russian Baltic provinces, they must annually render a certain amount of manual labor or wages, or both, for the use of their leased land.
This wholesome educating power of the Gospel in the transformation of slavery, which works gradually, quietly, and wisely from within and yet so powerfully and lastingly, has unfortunately been most violently interrupted here in this country by the urging and raging of the fanatical abolitionists; and the most distressing and regrettable thing about this interruption is especially the fact that it has been caused to a great, if not to the greatest part, by those who, according to their actual profession, should especially be fighting it, namely by the preachers, especially those of the Methodists; for it is said that almost all of them do more harm than professional political abolitionist partisans, both in their speeches on their religious stages, where they feed their poor people with poisonous abolitionist weeds instead of God’s Word, and in their journals and pamphlets. And also by this they prove anew that they are no sons of the gospel, no true confessors of Christ and no righteous followers of the Apostles in doctrine and conduct, but legalist, hypocritical busybodies and erroneous and flattering enthusiast spirits, who, in a disgraceful and harmful way, incurably mix up spiritual and bodily freedom.
Instead of acting verbally and in writing as Christian preachers in an evangelical way against the evils and abuses of slavery, it is precisely these unfortunate and blinded people who are always urging the rapid abolition of slavery in a stormy and violent way: and it is precisely they who really have helped to bring this pernicious civil war, which they love to call a “holy” one, upon the country and to make the rupture between the North and the South, where possible, incurable. Now it could still be possible that, in spite of the raving and shouting of these senseless people, that the shouting, pleading and sighing of the true believers and children of God would obtain from their heavenly Father to heal the existing rupture once more, to give the whole people a grace period for repentance and to turn the fury of His wrath away from them, so that the quarreling factions would not yet wear each other down to complete exhaustion and crumbling. But it could also be that if the greater arrogance and reliance on flesh were with the North, the South would be able to assert its political independence and also gain external recognition. In both cases, the question would arise: What does the gospel, or more precisely, what should truly evangelical-minded people do in the first place, be they preachers or statesmen or landowners, etc., inside and outside the slave states in order to have a salutary effect on the here and there corrupted condition of slavery?
[Volume 19, St. Louis, Monday, March 1, 1863, No. 14.]
To the question that was raised in closing: What does the gospel, or more precisely, what should truly evangelical-minded people do in the first place, be they preachers or statesmen or landowners, etc., inside and outside the slave states in order to have a salutary effect on the occasionally corrupt condition of slavery? we answer as follows:
First of all, this would be the most important thing, to bring the pure Christian — that is, Lutheran — doctrine orally and in writing, which they would be able to do, more and more into the slave states and to bring slaveholders as well as slaves as far as possible into their sphere. It is true that there are Lutheran congregations in the southern states, but they are usually only called that, and are not; for they nearly all belong to the so-called Lutheran General Synod, which fundamentally denies the ninth and tenth articles of the Augsburg Confession, is reformed in its doctrine, Methodist in its practice, and unionist in its attitude.
How unclear and confused, how enthusiastic and partisan this synod is in itself, however, is irrefutably proven by the recent political discord in the country and the civil war that has broken out; for it too, like almost all other churches and their synods, is now divided, according to its political partisanship, into two hostile camps, a northern and a southern one.
How should such an impotent synod, in these stormy times, which is not held together by the unity and power of the church confession, on the basis of the divine word, which does not know how to separate and distinguish between law and gospel, or bodily and spiritual freedom — how should such a synod, as an ecclesiastical body, be in a position to have a salutary effect on the formation of healthy evangelical knowledge and attitudes, especially on the slaveholders of the South?
On the other hand, it would be highly necessary to bring the slave owners in the southern states — for in the border states, as is well known, the slaves are treated mildly on average — on the basis of evangelical knowledge and by way of inner conviction, to first abolish the grosser evils and abuses, even corruptions in the slavery system.
These include, for example, the separation of spouses or of parents and younger children by the sale of one or the other, which is said to occur from time to time in the most southern[75] states; furthermore, the perhaps excessive burden of work and the arbitrariness and harshness of the slave overseers in the infliction of corporal punishment; and therefore, the fundamental keeping down of the slaves in a state of crudeness and ignorance, in that they are regarded and treated only as living machines of service and like working domestic animals, and even the more capable are deprived of the means of attaining a certain level of knowledge and morality, which was possible even among the slaves of the pagan Romans. And, furthermore, the fact that in some states the learning of reading by slaves is forbidden by law, may also be to a large extent the fault of the revolutionary fliers and pamphlets of the abolitionists, as the dizzying and delirious spirit of these heroes of freedom and human happiness could only have had a corrupting effect on the poor slaves.
Thirdly, it would be urgently desirable that those evangelically minded men, gifted with love and wisdom, would gain a salutary influence on the legislation in individual slave states by oral and written means, insofar as these sanction those and other grosser evils by existing laws and encourage the personal harshness and severity of individual slaveholders, or at least do not oppose them.
If these truly philanthropic efforts of Christian love and wisdom were gradually heard and received in the slave states, the way would be paved at the same time to train the slaves inwardly, where possible, to the right use of bodily freedom, primarily through the teaching and discipline of the divine word and human means of education.
It would then also become clear through experience whether the children of Ham, considered as slaves, have the ability to attain civic independence and self-government as bodily freemen, or whether political dependence and servitude under the children of Japheth would be their permanent fate.
For the abortive experiments with Haiti, where the freed Negroes are revealed as lazy, ragged, loitering sluggards, do not yet furnish convincing proof of the innate incapacity of the Negro race for civic moral self-reliance and self-government.
Just as little, however, do the freed individual Negroes scattered here and there in the northern states, who present themselves as Christian-minded, intelligent, industrious people, prove the opposite. On average, the freed Negroes also seem to have a certain aversion to work in cultivating the land, since the poorer ones almost never hire themselves out as farmhands, but prefer to become barbers, cooks, and servants in inns; the well-off, however, very seldom buy land to work it themselves, but prefer to invest their money in such a way that they make as much money as possible with as little work as possible, following the example of the free white Americans.
This aversion to work in contrast to the industrious cultivation of the land, following the example of our industrious German countrymen, is, however, a bad omen and speaks more against than in favor of their future total physical emancipation; for it is difficult to deduce what the mass of the later freedmen, who, for example, would find sufficient room for profitable work as tenants in the South, should do other than cultivate land. Otherwise, they would be best used here, in my humble opinion, partly for their own advancement, partly for the support of the large plantation owners there; for experience shows that white workers are on average not able to perform the same work in the hotter regions as the muscular Negroes originating from the tropical zone, who feel all the better physically the more the burning sun drives the oily sweat on their skin. Thus they are less susceptible to climatic diseases than the whites. But to transfer them all to Liberia, or to this or that of the Central American Free States, if these would allow it, would be, especially at the present time, neither for themselves, nor for the regions and their inhabitants, to which they were sent, in any way salutary and profitable, since they are not at all trained and educated for the productive use of their physical freedom. Everything depends on whether and how such education and training is put into practice. If, to this end, where possible, the pure and truthful teaching of the divine word and suitable human means of education worked together in harmony during their present state of slavery, it would become increasingly clear during the course of this labor of love whether and to what extent the Negro race was capable of and suitable for the use of bodily freedom which would be beneficial to them and to others.
On the one hand, of course, it cannot be denied, and history has confirmed it many times, that through the gradual evangelization and Christianization of whole tribes and peoples, many gifts and powers that had hitherto been suppressed or had degenerated into sinful abuse and destructive selfishness were freed and at the same time brought into the service of love and moral, lawful order for wholesome use and common benefit. For example, this has happened in recent times in some island groups of the fifth continent, on the Sandwich, Friendship, and Society Islands, and is still happening on other islands of the South Seas, especially on New Zealand.
On the other hand, it is always questionable whether individual tribes, even though Christianity has found its way into them, are capable of the wholesome use of full bodily freedom, of civic and moral independence, and of the establishment and maintenance of a political community, especially a republican one. There are, after all, enough people in the Christian states — indeed, the greatest number of them — who, irrespective of their Christian and moral worth, in their state of dependence, even of servitude, yet for lack of higher intellectual talent, would never be able to build up a civic community on their own and to maintain it in a prosperous course, for they lack the managing ability; they are indeed the supporting feet, the running legs, the working hands of a body politic, but they need the eye that guides them, the mouth that speaks for them.
It is perhaps similar with whole tribes [Stämmen] and ethnicities [Völkerschaften] who, in spite of their conversion to Christianity, would hardly be able to escape the state of childhood and immaturity and work their way up to civil and moral independence and self-government without mixing with more talented tribes [Stämmen].
[Volume 19, St. Louis, Mon. March 15, 1863, No. 15.]
As far as the already Christianized Negroes are concerned, I have the report of a German naval officer who visited the Negro Republic of Liberia on the west coast of Africa in 1854 in a squadron. Its territory covers 450 German square miles and was then populated by 215,000 inhabitants. Of these, 200,000 are uncivilized natives who have recognized and submitted to the rule of the Republic, and 15,000 are Christian and civilized colored immigrants from the states of the Union here. As is known, the first colony of the present Republic of Liberia was founded on the coast of Upper Guinea by the North American Colonization Society in 1823. This company set itself the task of buying the freedom of as many blacks as possible and establishing an asylum for them in their homeland. Through purchases from neighboring Negro lords, it later expanded to the size indicated above, and in a period of 23 years the society sent 10,000 colored people there.
With regard to the above-mentioned reporter, it must be noted from the outset, in accordance with the truth, that he possesses a healthy, sober view and a fine power of observation and comprehension directed to the actual conditions, which does not appear to be influenced and clouded by a passionate partisan interest, either for or against slavery, to the detriment of the truth.
This eyewitness reports with regard to agriculture, to which the Republic is primarily directed, that it is practiced very casually by the free Negroes, although the excellently lush and fertile soil is unparalleled in the world and rewards even the slightest effort and work many times over, “The free colonist who emerges from the Negro race” — so it says — “only brings himself to cultivate just as much land as bare self-preservation requires. In the vicinity of Monrovia — that is the name of the capital and seat of the government in honor of the former President Monroe — one sees several thousand fields with coffee and sugar plantations, which are flourishing splendidly. However, these belong to only 5 to 6 more intelligent industrious mixlings [Mischlinge]. Further inland, one finds no trace of such plantations, although their rich yield is obvious. The ordinary black does not have the drive to do more than to gain a carefree livelihood, which comes to him with little effort in a country so favored by nature. The sluggishness which is inseparable from the character of the Negro, will therefore be the downfall of Liberia’s future.[76] The Negro wants only sufficient food and necessary clothing for himself and his family, and works merely to avoid the greatest material hardship. Farming is too arduous for him; he does not even raise cattle. Even most of the meat consumed in Liberia is imported from abroad. Only small-scale trade is still a business for him. As a craftsman, he produces such rough work that only he is satisfied by it. Any industrial object in the cities (of which there are 4) that has any claim to value comes from outside. The republic has existed with its present borders for almost 30 years, yet possesses only one road, 4 (German?) miles long, on which a wagon can travel. This road was built under the presidency of the American agent and with American money; it leads from Monrovia toward the interior. Since Liberia has become self-governing, nothing else has been done to facilitate communication.
The nearby virgin forests are the abode of countless ravenous animals that incessantly harass the colonists; these forests are also the source of the deadly miasmas (noxious vapors)[77] that kill almost half of the immigrants. It is in the interest of the state as well as of the individual to cut down the forests and to use the valuable timber as an article of commerce or even just to burn them. One would at least improve the climate, and at the same time gain millions of acres of the most beautiful virgin soil. But one is content with extracting from the forest only what is most necessary, the wood for building a house, the spot for the production of a small field, and still allows oneself to be attacked by wild animals, still breathes in death and infirmity with the poisonous vapors.”
From this description of how the freed or ransomed Negroes behave toward the cultivation of the land, it seems clear that they are just as reluctant and disgruntled by nature as they were in their former state of slavery. Just as here they are moved to work only by iron necessity and the fear of punishment, so in Liberia it is by fear of hunger and starvation, since there they have no master to provide for the satisfaction of their bodily needs. And it is difficult to foresee how they, without mixing with the white race, which, however, is utterly unthinkable, could escape from their natural life, cease to be slaves of their immediate natural needs, how they could become diligent and knowledgeable cultivators of larger stretches of land and become masters of the soil, and how they could rise in this way to a higher level of education and civilization.
How the above-mentioned intermixture has a lifting effect on the individual in the Negro race is also evident from the above description; for from it we have seen right at the beginning how the mulattoes [Mulatten], these mixlings [Mischlinge] of whites [Weißen] and Negresses [Negerinnen], possess a higher degree of understanding and prosperity. However, according to the testimony of the same reporter, the evil has been revealed in Liberia that it is these very mulattoes who form a kind of aristocratic caste and “would have long since seized all power if they were not still supervised and kept in check by the colonization society. As soon as this restraint ceases, rule must fall to them, because property and intelligence will always dominate poverty and stupidity. The Republic hereby comes to an end, while the mixlings make themselves masters of the land and turn into despots and slave owners. Actually, this is already the case, and it is the gentle, industrious Kroomen (an oppressed native Negro tribe), who look upon themselves as born beasts of burden, who willingly submit to the yoke of slavery. On the aforementioned sugar and coffee plantations, in the houses of the wealthy mixlings and Christian Negroes, the whip is already swung just as mercilessly over the Kroomen, who are used as servants, as it was formerly swung in America and the West Indies over the naked backs of their present masters. There are no worse masters than mixlings. Although born of the blood of the white and black races, they hate both irreconcilably, and they make them suffer for this hatred where they can. Moreover, the mixlings are possessed of an indomitable greed for money, and their flabby morals allow them to find every means of acquisition justified. Now they seek wealth in the cultivation of their plantations; but they will certainly prefer to engage in the more profitable slave trade as soon as the opportunity presents itself.—This cannot be said of the Christian Negroes, but they would do nothing to prevent it. The mass of Negro Christians are far too indolent and indifferent; and as long as they suffer no material hardship, it would be irrelevant to them whether Liberia were a republic, a monarchy, or a slave state, if only they themselves need not work.”
However, the Christian preachers there of all sorts and colors do not seem to contend unanimously and vigorously with the word of God and especially with the gospel against these moral corruptions that contradict the word of God. They — most of them are Methodists and Baptists — are content, after their own fashion, to give the blacks the stamp of their puritanical legal formal righteousness; for neither there nor here do they consistently recognize, by virtue of their heresies, the true nature and way of the gospel unmixed with the law and its works, which, after and with the operation of the law, as the revealer of sin and taskmaster of Christ, righteously converts, regenerates and renews the repentant sinner alone through true faith in Christ, and works the love of God and neighbor in him, and in this way also helps him to a truly moral and living activity in his civil community. In contrast, the gospel spares everything that is not intrinsically sinful but natural, as, for example, temperament, manners, habits, customs, and so on. In the manner of Christ’s love, it enters into all these natural things in order to heal them where they are diseased and where they exist among the people in a healthy way, to sanctify them and to gradually transform them into a nobler form more in keeping with the Christian sense and spirit. On the other hand, it avoids and flees coercion, the false displays of virtue, and the excessive heat of the law, which does not produce vigorous and healthy fruit, nor plants that the heavenly Father has planted and watered through the gospel.
Our author now also provides a full report of this legalist compulsion and work of the preachers there. He writes: “The blacks on the streets walk silently and with deliberate steps, the aristocrats with high white neckbands, like Puritan preachers, the lowly, though not so evenly, yet with the same solemnly composed faces. They greet each other in a formal, measured manner. If a few passers-by happen to speak together, they do so in unctuous speech and in a low voice, as if they were in a church and feared to disturb the devotion.
Whoever knows the indestructible cheerfulness of the blacks, which needs only the slightest impulse to gush forth in the most unrestrained manner, their delight in chatting and their great joy in singing — qualities which even the harshest treatment cannot suppress — must be astonished at the enormous contrast which in this respect manifests itself among the inhabitants of Monrovia.
This is the result of religious coercion exercised by the missionaries upon the inhabitants; in misconstrued zeal they have so forcibly and unnaturally changed the harmless character of the people. The clergy, both those sent by the American Missionary Societies and the native ones, exercise a great dominion over the minds of the blacks. But it seems that it is not based on love, but on fear.
If the founders of the Free State, who consisted strictly of churchmen, wanted Liberia to be regarded as a bulwark of Christianity and, to this end, sought to spread and strengthen their own principles with the help of the missionaries, there is certainly no objection to this. The small number of crimes that are punished in Liberia also proves that it has indeed succeeded in eradicating the evil passions in the minds of the blacks.” (The author means, of course, to repressing of the grosser outbreaks of the same through fear of punishment).
“But this was only done violently at the expense of the character of the Negroes, in that their childlike nature was likewise suppressed and deprived of all vigor or led to hypocrisy by means of the punishment of even the most innocent pleasures. For example, young girls are strictly forbidden to dance; only church songs are permitted. Any cheerful get-together is thus inhibited and actual sociability is lacking. In addition, friendly interaction is also disturbed by sectarianism, which is just as prevalent here as in the United States. The intolerance of the clergy has led to a situation in which the individual confessions and sects face each other harshly and in isolation, and everyone shuns contact with those who believe or think differently. That this also hinders the flourishing of the political community is obvious.”
From this description of the law-mongering and works-focused preachers there, it is clear enough that they, directly against the essence and working of the gospel, begin the process in reverse, as it were. That which is a voluntary fruit of the gospel, they try to force out by the law. Not dancing and not singing frivolous, worldly songs, for example, certainly does not make one a Christian; but he who is a believing Christian has nothing to do with dancing and such singing, because he knows and enjoys a better pleasure and a nobler joy, against which all the lusts and pleasures of this world seem to him to be gussied up corpses and apples of Sodom. In this area, too, dealing with the law can for the most part produce nothing but proud, self-righteous, works-righteous Pharisees who think they will find their righteousness before God in such outward doings, but not in Christ through faith. Another part, however, consists of secret Epicureans, who avoid what is forbidden only out of compulsion and fear of punishment, while the desire and lust for it inwardly burns all the more fiercely and occasionally gives vent to itself all the more unrestrainedly and satisfies itself all the more intemperately, the tighter and tighter the straitjacket is that is put on them.
How little hope the author has for the prosperous future of this Negro republic, in view of the ecclesiastical, political and social conditions of Liberia, is evident from his concluding words, which read thus:
“The colony, founded and cultivated under great expectations of civilization, is heading in the exact opposite direction, even if it will not arrive at this state of things for another half century. The blame for this lies in the nature of things; for the Negroes are and remain incapable of developing a civilized community of their own accord, whatever name it may have. They can be made to imitate and become accustomed to the outside world through compulsion, but as soon as this coercion disappears, they fall back into their natural barbarism without pause. The dark skin prepares the way for the whites; it will leave the stage after its work is done. As the Indians have disappeared from America, so the Negro will disappear from Africa with the incursion of the civilized peoples, even if thousands of years must pass.”
One cannot deny, of course, that this judgment of the author (who got to know the Negroes in Brazil, the East Indies and Africa) about their ability for civic-moral independence, for self-directed engagement with and independent influence on other peoples and states, i.e. for world-historical significance, has a lot going for it.
I, on the other hand, although I am more inclined to his view than not, given the way in which the Negroes have been converted to Christianity up to now, ultimately refrain from passing an unconditional judgment on the absolute inability of the Negro race to become a cultured people and to form independent states, but rather commend to God, the almighty, wise and benevolent builder and governor of all peoples, this matter as well. In my entire treatment, it has only been in my heart to prove the following points:
First, that according to God’s word, slavery is a consequence and punishment of sin, but not sinful in itself, that is, contrary to God’s commandments, even though at the same time much evil, even corruption, clings to it. Therefore, it cannot be a sin as such for any man to keep slaves.
Secondly, that everything depends on slave owners and slaves believing in Christ through the gospel and being converted to God, and thus both being freed from the slavery of sin and the devil.
Thirdly, that thereby their mutual behavior be wholesomely transformed and placed in the service of Christian love, without thereby making a bodily release of the slaves immediately necessary.
Fourth, that nevertheless, according to the evidence of history, the gospel, in the course of time, tended to alleviate and gradually abolish slavery in its harsh forms.
Fifth, that the older and newer abolitionism, as stemming from a completely different spirit, is utterly contrary to this salutary influence of the gospel and, even if it is dressed up with the figurehead of Christianity, is aggressively opposed to it and only worsens the lot of the slaves.
Sixthly, that here in this country, after the raging and storming of the emancipation mania has been eliminated and overcome (if God gives grace to that end), the gospel and the true faith in Christ thereby wrought must take up and continue its labor of love again, in order first to free unconverted slaveholders and slaves from the slavery of sin and the devil, and gradually to educate and train the latter to the Christian and moral use of bodily freedom.
Seventh, that the present method of conversion, which is customary in the country, and the associated ransom or release of the Negro slaves, will hardly enable them, by their own efforts and without mixing with the white race, to work their way out of a condition dominated only by the satisfaction of natural needs — and up into a higher condition, in which the moral and civil law, and the cultivation of natural materials and forces ordered by both, hold sway.
In conclusion, it should be expressly noted that this entire treatment, as proceeding from the word of God and supervised and guided by the same, has nothing to do with the question of slavery from the political point of view. Nor is it at all in the intention of this essay to become involved in any way in such steps and measures, which this or that slave state would like to do or take in recent times by legal means, to abolish slavery as quickly as possible in their respective areas. Whatever is wise or unwise, salutary or harmful in this procedure may be discussed and negotiated in more detail in political journals.
[1] This article was published in 1863 in four installments in Der Lutheraner, the Missouri Synod’s then flagship periodical. The source issue of each section is indicated at its head. Wilhelm Löhe also published the concluding summary statements from this essay in July 1863 in his periodical Kirchliche Mittheilungen aus und über Nord-Amerika. Another printing appeared in Baltimore in April 1863 by A. Schlitt, who appended the essay with the following remarks: Upon careful perusal of the above treatise, I found particular comfort in the soundness of the biblical proofs and other propositions cited therein; for which reason I desired to be allowed to reproduce the same by further printing. I therefore turned to the author, who also graciously granted me this wish.
[2] [Original footnote] It is therefore self-evident that the following treatment has nothing to do with the question of slavery from the political point of view, and thus does not interfere with the question of what measures a slave state might take in this present political crisis with regard to the present or later abolition of slavery from the point of view of its particular budget.
—The Author.
[3]Luke 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
[5]Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
[6]Joh. 9:1-3 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
[7]Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
[8] Throughout, Sihler contrasts patriarchal (i.e. fatherly and caring, yet firm) masters with despotic or brutal ones.
[11]Deut. 20:17 but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
[12]Jos. 16:10 and 17:13 And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute.
Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not utterly drive them out.
[20] [Original footnote] It is also part of this that the Lord has sold them under the great god Mammon and the spirit of the swindler, because they did not want to recognize Christ, the treasure of all treasures. And it is also part of God’s judgment on the apostate Christians of the present time that the pseudo-intellectual Jews belong to their choir leaders, as well as that the rich Jews are the financiers and creditors of the Christian princes.
[21]Lev. 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
[23]Lev. 25:39-43 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile: and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.
[24]Ex. 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
[27]Gen. 30:43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.
[28]Job 1:3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.
[29]Genesis 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
[41]Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 26:29; 27:1-2 A merchant shall hardly keep himself from doing wrong; and an huckster shall not be freed from sin. Many have sinned for a small matter; and he that seeketh for abundance will turn his eyes away. As a nail sticketh fast between the joinings of the stones; so doth sin stick close between buying and selling.
[42]1 Sam. 8:9-17 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
[44]Gen. 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
[46]Rom. 9:4 who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[47]Ex. 12:43-44 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
[48]Ex. 20:10 but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
[50]Ex 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
[51]Ex 21:26-27 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.
[52]Joel 2:29 and also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.
[53]Neh. 5:5 Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards.
[54]Ex. 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
[55]2 Kings 4:1 Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.
[56]Is. 50:1 Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
[57]Lev. 25:39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:
[59]Ex. 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
[60]Deut. 15:12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.
[61]Lev. 25:40but as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile:
[62]Deut. 15:13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:
[63]Ex 21:6 then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
[64]Deut 15:17 then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.
[65]Ex. 21:4-5 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
[66]Col. 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
[67]1 Tim. 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
[68]Eph. 6:9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
[69]Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[71] [This note does not appear in the original publication in Der Lutheraner, but does appear in the edition published by A. Schlitt in Baltimore with the designation “Anm. des Verfassers” (Note of the author.)] Nevertheless, it should not be denied that under Louis XIV and XV the most shameful profligacy of the court, the unjust one-sided tax burden on the citizens and peasants, the cruelty of criminal justice and the arbitrariness of the police had increased in a terrible way and the despotism of the royal power was quite as complete as in any Asiatic world empire of the pagan past. This long and hard pressure inevitably resulted in a powerful counter-pressure, a strong reaction. But the fact that this reaction took the horrible form of unlawful and violent self-help and, according to the just judgment of God, turned into the many-headed tyranny of the partisan rage of arrogant and domineering demagogues, made the French Revolution, even according to the judgment of pagan morality, let alone before the judgment seat of the divine word, one of the most criminal and damnable deeds in world history. —The author’s note.
[72] [Original footnote] It self-evident that they are far different from their seducers. For lack of sharpness of mind and judgment, and stupefied and confused by the clamor and fallacies of their seducers, they are unable to distinguish clearly and sharply the abuses and depraved conditions of slavery from the slavery itself, but confuse the two. D. E.
[74] [Original footnote] In a similar way, for example, some serfs of the large Russian landowners are allowed to trade in the country with the permission of their lords in exchange for an annual fee, the obrok, and there are very rich merchants among them. However, legally they and their children remain attached to the landed property of their lords, whose wealth is estimated according to the number of “souls” belonging to their estates.
[75]südlichsten ‘most southern’ in original; südlichen ‘southern’ in Schlitt edition.
[76] “The cliff upon which something fails” is a German idiom. Friedrich Hölderlin writes, “Ich glaube, daß die Ungeduld, mit der man seinem Ziele zueilt, die Klippe ist, an der gerade oft die besten Menschen scheitern.” I believe that the impatience with which one rushes toward one’s goal is the cliff that often causes the best people to fail.
[This translation from the German by Christopher S. Doerr originally appeared in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 1 (Winter 2012) Walther’s original appeared in Lehre und Wehre V. 10 pp. 193-195]
XXIV. About the Household Ranks (Children and Servants)
86. The mutual relationship, by dint of which the parents as such look upon the children as children, and these in return look upon them as their parents and are connected to one another by mutual obligations, remains as long as the parents and children live. (Baier)
87. Secular rule cannot stand, where there is no dissimilarity between persons, so that some are free, some captive, some masters, and some subjects. (Luther)[1]
88. Right there when the Lord teaches that you should sell everything and leave it all behind, he has permitted, or rather commanded, that it be legitimate to seek and own things; for you cannot sell or leave anything behind, unless you first legitimately obtained and possessed it. (Luther)
89. The division of goods, the master’s use of force, and having personal property are civic ordinances that are confirmed by God’s word in the commandment, You shall not steal. (Luther)
90. The equality insisted upon (in God’s word) is to be understood not according to arithmetical but geometrical proportions. (Aegidius Hunnius)[2]
91. Servitude did not exist until after the fall. (Baier)
92. The ruling class has God as its efficient cause. (Baier)
93. The impelling cause, on the part of men, for the ruling class, is the poverty of this life. (Baier)
94. The causality of the efficient cause (for the ruling class), on the part of men, consists in this: the slave is either taken captive in a just war or bought or freely entered into a contract. (Baier)
95. The duty of masters consists in fair imposition of labor, providing the necessities of this life, or, according to the different forms of this relationship, remitting the promised wages, and finally in guidance and judicious and moderate punishment. (Baier)
96. The duty of servants consists in the honor, docility, faithfulness, and patience that is to be shown the master. (Baier)
97. “There should be no slaveowners, since Christ has set all people free.” What is that? That is called making Christian freedom into something altogether fleshly. (Luther)
98. Slaveowning is not contrary to the Christian way. Whoever says it is, lies. People don’t see that Christian freedom redeems souls and Christ has instituted that same spiritual freedom. (Luther)
99. Just as the gospel confirms other political matters, so it also sanctions the freedom to be a master and have servants. (Cruciger)
100. The voice that says, “Honor father and mother,” places all people in servitude. But since also this truth stands written in the nature (of a man), you should consider it beyond all doubt that the causes of servitude are also part of nature. (Melanchthon)
101. The gospel does not abolish the commandment, “Honor father and mother.” Neither does it disapprove of either lordship or servitude, but gives testimony confirming these things, and teaches that there must be lordship and servitude for the taming of the godless and fleshly. The saints make use of these things just like the other good things God created. (Melanchthon)
102. Indeed in Christ’s kingdom and in relation to the common possession of spiritual goods, masters and servants are equal. But in this the gospel does not abolish political order, nor does it do away with the distinction between ranks in civic life. (Gerhard)
103. When Paul says, “treat your slaves the same way,” he does not intend that slaves be made equal to their masters; rather he intends that the equality be observed in geometric proportion. (Melanchthon)
104. Our Lord does not desire that I use my goods to make myself into a beggar and the beggar into a lord; rather I should look upon his need and help him as I am able, in such a way that the poor eat with me and I do not eat with the poor. (Luther)
105. The servants and the free are united by God-given and natural bonds. (Melanchthon)
[1] [Original footnote] In the following we have purposely given a somewhat greater number of theological aphorisms concerning this subpoint about the ranks of master and servant. For although the time draws near with quick strides when slavery will be completely abolished (which we certainly mourn least of all, yes, which we would vote for if need be, for political reasons), the biblical doctrine concerning servitude or slavery remains steadfast just as well after as before the abolition of the latter. In the same way, the doctrine concerning kingship remains steadfast and must be held to firmly by all Christians in a free republic the same as in an absolute monarchy. Yes, because the spirit of these last days works for slavery to be abolished, not for purely political reasons, but in an antichristian spirit that repudiates all God-ordained dominion and submission in the world, after the emancipation of the slaves has been accomplished, the Lutheran theologian has a twofold duty to watch lest with that, false principles, which subvert the order God has set up, slip into the church, as they do in the sects, which do not heed God’s word. The church should not be a weathervane turning with the spirit of the times. The Christian theologian should not be a messenger who courts the godless world’s applause and serves as its whore, while in return the world feigns love but in its actions is all humanism, grounded on pure egoism and enmity toward God’s dominion over it. Rather he should stand in the way of the deluge of a false enlightenment and the false mask of an alleged philanthropy, in the name of the Lord, with the weapons of the clear words of scripture, in defiance of all saintly-looking corrupters of scripture and coarse scoffers against scripture, in defiance of the pious world, this decked out bride of the devil, in defiance of the devil himself and all the gates of hell.—D. R. (der Redakteur? = the editor . . . this was published in July, 1864)
[2] The translator notes: “I think this means fairness in distribution of wealth does not mean everyone has exactly the same amount.”
This passage from Around the World Tour by Wm. F. Bainbridge, D. D. was excerpted in the first issue of the first volume of The Lutheran Witness, May 21, 1882. p. 8
The People of Africa.
By Wm. F. Bainbridge. D. D.
The best authorities now classify Africa’s population under the six following groups:
I. Aramæans or Syro-Arabians, which include the Arab immigrations and the Amharic tribes of Abyssinia.
II. Hamites, a general term, including the Coptic descendants of the ancient Egyptians, the Gallas and other Nilotic races, and the Berbers or Amazirg or Imoshagh of the Sahara desert and the Atlas mountains.
III. Kaffirs or Bantus, which include the famous Zulus and other subdivisions upon the Southeast.
IV. Hottentots, including the Bushmen and other kindred tribes of the South.
V. Fulahs, of West Central Africa.
And VI. Negroes, of Eastern, Western, and the great Central Africa.
There are also several hundred thousand Europeans, Turks, and other Asiatics.
The Aramæans form the leading group of the indigenous populations. They have for many ages been the most influential element, carrying on extensive commerce in the second century with India, according to Arrian in his “Periplus,” and in the seventh century under the banner of Mahomet, as is well known, overrunning most of the continent. They have also been the most enterprising for centuries in the supply of the slave markets of the world. They are to Africa what the Jews are to Europe, the capitalists and the bankers and the pawn-brokers. They contribute largely to the crowded Moslem University of Cairo, whose ten thousand students, however, are chiefly due to eagerness all over the Moslem world to escape army conscription.
The Kaffir Zulus are naturally a much Superior race to the Negro, with whom Americans have become so familiar. Their climate and soil are the best in Africa for the development of physical and moral character. Of their courage upon the battlefield the British and the world lately had full proof at Sandhlwana.[1] The latest authority gives the number of whole Kaffir stock as 21,000,000 inhabiting 2,500,000 square miles, an extent of territory equal to nearly twice the size of India.
From Cape Colony to lake Bangweolo all these natives speak dialects of a common language, and are cultivators of the soil, not merely herdsmen and hunters, like the Hottentots and Bushmen. Although they are polygamists, buying their wives, and treating them as slaves to till the ground, and although they are gross fetishists, cruel and bloodthirsty, they are evidently an increasing race, and furnish the most inviting field in all Africa to Christian Missions.
The Fulahs are very numerous, are chiefly Moslems, and have shown in war and the propagation of Islam a great deal of vigor and energy. It is probable that they as well as the Joloffs, were formerly settled upon the Southern shore of the Mediterranean, and were driven before the Saracen invasion of the seventh century.
The negro is the most degraded of the African races, and yet evidently the cause is not so much in his nature as in his circumstances. As in America, his has been the most downtrodden race upon the continent. Even with the well-known record of slavery in the Southern States and in the West Indies, it is very difficult to form an adequate conception of the wretchedness of the prevailing negro life between the tropics in Africa. Scores of millions of people are as near the condition of animals as is possible for human beings. Cannibalism was frightfully prevalent among them, until the slave trade made the other crime more profitable. Polygamy is universal, and of the most utterly abandoned character. Among many tribes modesty is unknown.
In many districts the slaves are from three to ten times as numerous as their masters, and throughout Negroland every other person, on an average, is in bondage. The master of to-day may be the slave to-morrow, kidnapped or made a prisoner of war by some other tribe. Says Dr Barth, who spent five years exploring in the Soudan: “If these domestic slaves do not of themselves maintain their numbers, then the deficiency arising from ordinary mortality must constantly be kept up by a new supply, which can only be obtained by kidnapping, or more generally by predatory incursions.”
The Austrian explorer, Dr Emil Holub, relates, among his experiences upon the Zanbezi, such customs as drowning the infirm and destitute, poisoning and burning on mere suspicion, and amputating children’s fingers and toes as charms against disease. He speaks of their “dishonesty being thoroughly ingrained,” and that, “In addition to their other disgusting qualities, all the Makalakes south of the Zambezi, especially those under Matabele rule, are indescribably dirty. With the exception of those who have been in service under white men, I believe the majority of them have not washed for years, and I saw women wearing strings upon strings of beads, several pounds in weight, of which the undermost layers were literally sticking to their skins.” If these are glimpses under more favored Kaffir influence, woeful, indeed, must be the general condition in the still farther interior. No material object is too low and contemptible to be made the negro’s god. His hoe, a stick, a stone, a pile of offal, anything will answer for his worship.
John Henry Hopkins, First Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont
This book review appears in Lehre und Wehre Volume 11 (1865), Number 4 (April), pages 102-113.
“A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery,
From the days of the Patriarch Abraham, to the nineteenth century. Addressed to the Right Rev. Alonzo Potter, D. D., Bishop of the Prot. Episcopal Church, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. By John Henry Hopkins, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. New York: W. J. Pooley &. Co, Harpers Building, Franklin Square, pp. VII, & 376 8vo.”[1], [2]
That the devil has succeeded splendidly in driving Christianity out of a large part of the present generation by making humanists out of Christians,—that also the present so-called Christian theology itself is infected, poisoned and corrupted by humanism, no sober Christian will or can deny. At every turn he is haunted by the ill-fated cry: “Liberty and equality!”—On every line of the prevailing daily literature someone is trying to prove to him that our treasure and salvation is not above, where Christ is, but that the truly reasonable, educated, and noble man must find his salvation in himself, and that therefore his endeavors for himself and others are only to be directed to breaking down all so-called restricting barriers, in order to procure for himself free access to all earthly treasures and free space for a full enjoyment of them. And only then, but also certainly then, will there be heaven on earth!
Even if upon a mere reasonable examination of these and similar manifestations of the “human spirit that has come to the right self-awareness,” nonsense and endless confusion of all concepts and conditions arise as a pitiable result; nevertheless even “theologians” of earlier and more recent times, but especially of the most recent time, have allowed themselves to be blinded by the devil to such an extent that they have paid homage to humanism—if initially only to this or that part of its aspirations—as being in harmony with divine revelation, and have become humanists. Even if they are not clearly aware of the spirit that drives them, if they only want to be righteous servants of Christ (which regarding some of them certainly cannot be denied), their speeches and writings prove, nevertheless, that, in certain matters at least, they mix Christ’s kingdom and the world’s kingdom together and portray all kinds of worldly, civil orders, which the gospel allows to remain, not only as hindering barriers, but even as sinful conditions that are to be abolished. This has happened especially with regard to slavery. Theologians of all stripes have declared that slavery, especially the relationship of the master to his slaves, is in itself, that is, in its essence, sin. One, in order to cut off from the outset all objections to such an assertion contrary to Scripture, pointed to Golgotha and asked: “Did not Christ by his death and shedding of blood make all men free?” Isn’t that appalling? Is that not enthusiast madness? Is the spirit that drives one to such assertions and proofs any better than that which fills the manifest children of unbelief? Does that spirit really become a righteous one by taking God’s word in its mouth? Isn’t the devil most dangerous when he uses God’s word?
It is truly refreshing in this time of progress (called “progress” because everything is to be turned upside down) to be able to read through a work like the “View of Slavery” which lies before us. This book combats with all seriousness, with worthy weapons, and with the most brilliant success the manifestations of humanism in the slavery question. And if here the honored reader of “Lehre und Wehre” is shown a selection of this work, it is mainly done in order to draw attention to its precious content and to encourage him to purchase it.
The author, Dr. J. H. Hopkins, is a bishop of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Vermont. He is, as he expressly remarks (pp. 51, 52), “no lover of slavery, and no advocate for its perpetuity any longer than circumstances may seem to require.” He says: “All my habits, sympathies, and associations are opposed to slavery and in favor of abolition.” “I am, and always shall be, in favor of a gradual, just, and kindly abolition of slavery, whenever it may please Divine Providence to incline the minds of Southern statesmen to adopt it.” Therefore, in 1857, the author published a work, “The American Citizen,”[3] in which he presented, among other things, a plan for a “gradual and thorough” abolition of slavery, a plan which said essentially the same thing as that presented by the President of the United States in his address to Congress in 1862[4]. But the “ultra-abolitionism” (as the author calls it), which teaches that it is sinful to hold a man as a slave under any circumstances, and teaches that the relation of masters and slaves makes a mockery of the principles of Christianity; that the Constitution of the United States, because it protects the rights of the slaveholder, is “a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell,” and that slavery is the root of all evil and slaveholding among Christians is such a crime for which even hell has no sufficient punishment,—the author combats this ultra-abolitionism, whose teachings he condemns. His whole book is the testimony of a “man in Christ” against this hypocritical abolitionism, which is really nothing but a child of unbelief and one of the many arms of humanism, whereby it draws its “millions” into its happy community, with the result, of course, of choking the inner life.
The history of the present work (which should always be kept in mind for a better understanding of it) is briefly as follows: The author was asked in 1860 from New York “to state in writing [his] opinion of the Biblical argument on the subject of negro slavery in the Southern States.”[5] This he did in a pamphlet entitled: “Bible View of Slavery,” (pp. 5-41. of the present book). Against this appeared a “Protest” from the Bishop and clergy of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, signed by Alonzo Potter, Bishop, and a multitude of Episcopal preachers in Pennsylvania. To this our author replied (pp. 44-50), promising an accurate exposition “of the truth in wherein [he] stand[s],” joined with the testimony of ecclesiastical authorities and history from the apostles’ time to the present day. We find this exposition in our book in pages 51-376.
Let us now turn our attention to the actual content of the present work. In his “Bible View of Slavery” the author defines slavery as servitude for life, passing also to the descendants. And “this kind of bondage appears to have existed as an established institution in all the ages of our world, by the universal evidence of history, whether sacred or profane.”[6] Now he does not want to deny that slavery may be an evil; but then it is only a physical, not a moral one, and therefore no sin, because sin is transgression of the law. If it is now asked: What does the Bible say about slavery?—One must not answer according to one’s own ideas, desires, habits, and personal relationships. For a Christian can only be sure of his judgment if it agrees with God’s Word. Convinced by the word for a long time, the author also only lets the word give answer to the above question. The curse of Noah over Canaan, Abraham’s household, the (9th and) 10th commandment, as well as other regulations and ordinances of the Mosaic law concerning slavery, are first brought forward as proof that the relationship of the master to his slaves was by no means regarded as a sinful one by God, but rather regulated and confirmed by him. The fact that the Lord Christ does not utter a word against slavery, although in his time it was widespread throughout Judea, and the Roman Empire counted sixty million slaves, as well as the well-known sayings of the apostles concerning “servants and masters,” he cites as evidence for the legality of slavery from the New Testament.
The author then proceeds to the refutation of various objections against slavery, on which occasion the well-known propositions from the Declaration of Independence: that all men are born equal, etc., are thoroughly and all-round illuminated and dispatched. One will not read this section without rich profit, even if one could not agree with the author’s reasoning everywhere. Throughout this section also, we see a man who is not dominated by the spirit of the times, who does not sacrifice the Word of God to his favorite opinions, but who lets the Word be his lamp and a light unto his path. What he says against the objections regarding: “Barbaric treatment of slaves;” “Immorality as a necessary consequence of the possession of slaves;” “Ownership of men;” “Would you like to be a slave?” “Separation of spouses, or of parents from children;” “polygamy and slavery were permitted in the Old Testament;”—is as true as it is thorough. He also knows very well how little these principles of his appeal to the taste of his fellow citizens and neighbors. But he does not want to suppress the truth out of cowardice in order to make himself agreeable. “It can not be long” (he says), “before I shall stand at the tribunal of that Almighty and unerring Judge, who has given us the inspired Scriptures to be our supreme directory in every moral and religious duty. My gray hairs admonish me that I may soon be called to give an account of my stewardship. And I have no fear of the sentence which He will pronounce upon an honest though humble effort to sustain the authority of His Word, in just alliance with the Constitution, the peace, and the public welfare of my country.”[7] —So far “The Bible View.”
In the following chapters of the present work, written as a defense, substantiation, and closer analysis of the “Bible View”, the author shows a thorough knowledge as well as a skillful treatment of the accumulated material. In a mass of excerpts from the writings of older and newer philosophers, jurists and theologians, from the resolutions of councils, etc., we do not have chaos in our book, but we find everything well ordered and appropriately strung together, so that one may follow the author at every turn not only without fatigue, but with ever curious interest. We find a “cloud of witnesses,” who all, although coming from the most different times, countries, and relations, directly or indirectly represent the author’s object. To the Justinian institutions we are first referred, and afterwards led to the “fathers, councils, historians, lawyers, divines and commentators.”[8] They all proved “that Christianity never undertook to abolish slavery, even when it extended over all races and all varieties of men—that religion operated to ameliorate, but not to do it away—that its extinction in Europe was not the result of any direct assault, but a gradual dying out through the changes of society—that the first positive attack upon it was not from the Church, nor from Christians, but from the Atheists of the French Revolution; and that it was never supposed to be a sin to hold a slave, where the laws of the country authorized it, until our own age assumed the novel work of ultra-abolitionism.”[9]
It would perhaps not be without interest for the reader to have some of the otherwise probably less known excerpts shared here. From the institutions of Justinian it is shown that the laws of the Roman Empire recognized and regulated slavery during the reign of the Christian Emperor Justinian; that slavery existed according to the law of nations, that its origin was attributed to war (for those captured in battle were subject to death, from which slavery saved them, and therefore the Romans called them servi, “saved ones”). It is further shown that the slavery of those times was by no means limited to Ham’s descendants, but included all nations with which the Romans had ever waged war; and although therefore many slaves were equal to their masters in descent, knowledge, skill, and mental energy, yet power over the life and death of their slaves was conferred upon the masters, and even the church in the fourth century could not emancipate a slave, even if he had been ordained a bishop, without the knowledge and consent of his master.
After our author, as it were in passing, enlists Aristotle and Philo of Alexandria as witnesses for himself, the writings of the “Fathers” are presented. There we first hear Tertullian regarding the attempt to draw away a slave from the service of his master. “What can be more unjust, what more iniquitous, what more shameful than an attempt to benefit the slave in such a way that he shall be snatched from his master, that he shall be delivered to another, that he shall be suborned against the life of his master, while he is yet in his house, living on his granary and trembling under his correction? Such a rescuer would be condemned in the world no less than a man-stealer.”[10] Then we hear Jerome on 1 Tim. 6:1, 1 Cor. 7:21. and Eph. 6:5-9.
From Augustine the following passage, among others, is shared: “The first and daily power of man over man, is that of the master over the slave. Almost every house has this sort of power. There are masters, there are also slaves—those names are different, but men and men are equal names. And what saith the Apostle, teaching slaves to be subject to their masters? ‘Ye bondservants, be obedient to your masters according to the flesh, because there is a Master according to the Spirit.’ He is the true Master and Eternal, but these are temporal, according to the time. While thou art walking in the way, while thou art living in this world, Christ is not willing to make thee proud. This happens to thee that thou mayest be made a Christian, and having a man for thy master, thou art not made a Christian that thou shouldst disdain to serve. Yet since thou servest man, by the order of Christ, thou dost not serve the man, but Him who has so ordered thee. And therefore he (the Apostle) saith: ‘Obey your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in simplicity of heart, not as eye-servants, or as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the mind, with good will’[11] Behold, therefore, he does not make free men of servants, but he makes good servants of bad servants. How much do the wealthy owe to Christ, who thus regulates their home.”[12]
St. Basil the Great, in his rules for the monastic orders, says: “Moreover, let slaves detained under the yoke, if they fly to the convent of the brethren, be first admonished and made better, and then be returned to their masters; in which the blessed Paul is to be imitated, who, when he had brought forth Onesimus, through the Gospel, sent him back to Philemon.”[13] Space does not allow to share testimonies also from Chrysostom, Prosper, and Gregory the Great. Also out of quite a number of conciliar decisions only one shall be shared here. At the Council of Gangra A. D. 341 it was decided: “If anyone, under pretext of religion, shall teach a slave to despise his own master, that he should depart from his service and no longer submit to him with benevolence and honor, let him be accursed.”[14]
After some excerpts from Fleury’s Church History and from Bingham’s “Antiquities of the Christian Church,” we find Melanchthon and Calvin (Luther is missing, which is very regrettable!) presented as witnesses from the Reformation era, and then comes a long series of exegetes from the Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, and Episcopalians. It will be to the author’s credit that he always lets these witnesses speak to us to such an extent that we can form our own judgment about their actual views on the question at hand. That there are also such statements which are contrary to the biblical doctrine of slavery, will surprise no one, if one considers that many of the witnesses are people who are not always ready to give up cherished views to the service of truth in matters “where reason fights against faith.” But those very anti-biblical statements about slavery are only occasional,—and even if a testimony cannot serve to make the waverers firm and certain because of such internal contradictions, it is always the case with our compiler, that even these witnesses do not declare slavery to be sin per se, so far as and as long as they interpret a relevant passage of Scripture,—and that is sufficient for his purpose. On the whole, many of the cited testimonies give the impression that their writers, initially subdued by the power of the word, simply let themselves be guided by the word, until suddenly the abolitionist spirit gains the upper hand, and then not only the spirit [of the word] but also common sense seems to have departed from the writers. Hereafter follow some passages from the commentaries of more recent times; the above will be confirmed by them.
The Rev. Thomas Scott, whose Commentary, republished in Philadelphia in 1862 from the London edition of 1822, writes under the unmistakable influence of his time, soon after the great movement for the abolition of slavery under Wilberforce, in his notes on Exodus 21: “Slavery was almost universal in the world, and though, like war, it always proceeded of evil, and was generally evil in itself, yet the wisdom of God deemed it better to regulate, than to prohibit it. We should not, however, judge of the practice itself by these judicial regulations, but by the law of love. Slavery, like war, may in some cases in the present state of things be lawful; for the crime which forfeits life no doubt forfeits liberty; and it is not inconsistent even with the moral law for a criminal to be sold and treated as a slave, during a term of time proportioned to his offense. In most other cases, if not in all, it must be inconsistent with the law of love.”[15][16] Concerning Eph. 6:5: “Servants, be obedient to your masters,” etc., Scott says: “The Apostle next exhorts servants who had embraced Christianity to be obedient to their masters, according to the flesh, that is, to whom they were subjected in temporal matters. In general, the servants at that time were slaves, the property of their masters, and were often treated with great severity, though seldom with that systematic cruelty which commonly attends slavery in these days.”[17] (“Where,” asks our author, “did Dr. Scott find his authority for this statement? The testimony of history is altogether against him.”) “But the apostles were ministers of religion,” continues Dr. Scott, “not politicians; they had not that influence among rulers and legislators which would have been necessary for the abolition of slavery. Indeed, in that state of society as to other things, this [Lehre und Wehre interjects: “the influence on the legislators for the abolition of slavery”] would not have been expedient: God did not please miraculously to interpose in the case, and they were not required to exasperate their persecutors by expressly contending against the lawfulness of slavery. Yet both the law of love and the Gospel of grace tend to its abolition as far as they are known and regarded; and the universal prevalence of Christianity must annihilate slavery, with many other evils, which, in the present state of things, can not wholly be avoided. In the wisdom of God the apostles were left to take such matters as they found them, and to teach servants and masters their respective duties, in the performance of which the evil would be mitigated, till in due time it should be extirpated by Christian legislators.”[18]
But even more clearly than Dr. Scott in the shared excerpts, Dr. Adam Clarke, a Methodist, shows us the conflict between the spirit of God and the spirit of abolitionism. For instance: “1 Tim. 6:1: Let as many servants as are under the yoke, etc. “The word δουλος here,” saith Dr. Clarke, “means slaves converted to the Christian faith, and the ζυγον or yoke, is the state of slavery. Even these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are commanded to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the name of God, by which they were called, and the doctrine of God, Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed, might not be evil spoken of, in consequence of their improper conduct. Civil rights are never abolished by any communications from God’s Spirit. The civil state in which man was before his conversion is not altered by that conversion, nor does the grace of God absolve him from any claims which either the state or his neighbor may have upon him. All these outward things continue unaltered.”[19] This is, of course, quite healthy fare that Dr. Clarke is presenting to his readers here. The same Dr. Clarke, however, who lets the Holy Spirit speak to his readers from 1 Tim. 6:1, allows another spirit to speak concerning Eph. 6:5, and says: “Although in heathen countries slavery was in some sort excusable, yet among Christians it is an enormity and a crime, for which perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment.”[20] Thus he (or the spirit of ultra-abolitionism) speaks of Eph. 6:5. But the words “with good will” in the 7th verse of the same chapter he explains, “Do not take up your service as a cross, or bear it as a burden, but take it as coming in the order of God’s Providence, and a thing that is pleasing to him!”[21]
From a commentary which has found the widest circulation among the “Orthodox Congregationalists,” a note by Dr. Jenks, on 1 Cor. 7:21, “Art thou called being a servant, etc.,” is transcribed, which thus reads: “The sense is not clear. Chrysostom and all the old commentators understand, ‘You need care so little, that even if you can gain your freedom, prefer your servitude as a greater trial of Christian patience!’ (So a religion of despotism counsels, contrary to the precept, ‘Do not evil that good may come,’ and to the prayer, ‘Lead us not into temptation.’ By what right can any man imbrute God’s image, which Christ atoned for, to a mindless, will-less, soulless, rightless chattel! Yet) so Camer, Schmidt, Sparck, Estius, De Dieu, and the Syr. And this sense, they think, is confirmed by the following consolatory words, ‘For he,’ etc. It is also ably defended by De Dieu and Wolf. But there is a certain harshness about it to which necessity alone would reconcile me. What is detrimental to human happiness can not be promotive of virtue. The true intent seems that of Beza, Grot., Ham., and most recent commentators. ‘Do not feel a too great trouble on that account, as if it could materially affect your acceptance with God, and as if that were a condition unworthy of a Christian.’ ‘Grace knows no distinctions of freedom or servitude, therefore bear it patiently.’ Grotius adds: ‘And above all, let it not drive you to seek your freedom by unjustifiable means.’ And he remarks that a misunderstanding of the nature of Christian liberty had made many Christian slaves not only murmur at their situation, but seek to throw off all bondage. O just yet merciful God! enlighten the slave and his master in these United States, at once and always to do Thy will!”[22]
Our author calls the excerpt just given a “fair specimen of the rhetoric that has been so common, of late years, on the subject of slavery,” and he continues, “taking it for granted that the slave must be made a brute, without mind, soul, will or right, a mere chattel; although these gentlemen must know that among the ancients the slaves were often highly educated to be instructors of youth, that Esop was a slave, and Terence was a slave, and Epictetus was a slave, while amongst the slave population of the South, enough of their negroes have been taught and emancipated to plant the new State of Liberia, and of those who still remain with their masters, nearly five hundred thousand are reported as members of Christian societies, in good standing. These facts being perfectly notorious, one can hardly read such a display of our commentator’s anti-slavery prejudice without desiring that he might study the Ninth [Eighth] Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,’ with a wholesome regard to personal application.”[23]
The reader should not tire if a few more excerpts are given from two chapters of our book. Headings of the further chapters are: Man-Stealing; The Golden Rule; Personal Fitness; St. Domingo; Wilberforce; Results of Emancipation; Gradual Cessation of Slavery; Gibbon; Robertson; Motley; Margrave; Public Opinion; The English Poor; Treatment of Slaves; Mrs. Kemble; Theodore Parker; Emerson. Let us take the chapter on “Man-Stealing” first. On this topic a pamphlet directed against the author says: “In the year 1562, Sir John Hawkins set fire to a city in Africa and carried off two hundred and fifty slaves. And the king of Dahomey captured, quite lately, a town in which he slew one third of the population and took the remainder into captivity.”[24] To which our author replies:[25], [26] “This is assumed to be the mode in which all the slaves at the South were originally reduced to bondage; and as their masters can have no better title than those who sold them, therefore they are all involved in the sin of man-stealing!” “Now, really, this sort of absurdity strikes me as a most extraordinary example of sophistical perverseness. If these facts were brought forward against the slave-trade, they might be deemed appropriate.” [….] “But what has that to do with their domestic slavery? Have they attacked the African towns, and slaughtered the inhabitants, and taken away the captives?” In former times, Old England and New England carried on the trade, but the southerners brought the Africans into their possession through proper purchase. Now, of course, ‘the receiver is as bad as the thief,’ but only if the receiver knows that the property is stolen. Now, with respect to the original stock of Africans, from which the southern Negroes have descended, can it be proved 1. that they were stolen, and 2. that the buyers knew about this crime? Not at all. “We are told, by Malte Brun, that in Africa two thirds of the population are slaves, which, as the whole is estimated at ninety millions, would give sixty millions for the present number of the native slaves.” Now, “No one can be farther than I from justifying the barbarity of the African slave-trade.” But if the slave traders received their sad cargo of human beings from the King of Dahomey out of the number of Negroes who were already slaves, can they therefore be called man-stealers? The Negroes were sold at certain prices, and if the slave traders had inquired into the origin of their sad cargo of human beings, the barbarian despot would simply have replied: That’s none of your business! So even the traders themselves cannot be convicted that they have stolen the slaves. Now, how could the southern planters have known that the slaves were stolen in the time when the slave trade was still permitted? And if they did not know, since they could not have known, how could they be accused of participating in man-stealing? But even if those planters had learned that the first slaves were really stolen, it would be neither right nor reasonable to call their heirs and descendants, who came into the possession of the slaves in a right and legal way, accomplices of men-stealers. For consider by what right you or anyone here is in possession of land and house! The land belonged to the Indians; England based its legal claim to it on the discovery of it. But can the discovery of the property of another make it my property? But according to the old European maxim, ‘All land inhabited by savage, heathen tribes belongs to us,’ this land was taken, just as the natives were taken and made slaves of them. Thus: “the ultra-abolitionist holds his property by the same title precisely, that the Southern planter claims in his slaves.” By force or fraud the land has been taken away from the real owners, the Indians. “When our ultra-abolitionist talks of the negro, he tells us that all men are brothers, and is pathetically eloquent upon the Christian rule of doing to others as we would that they should unto us. But when his subject is the Indian, he has no idea that the rule is applicable.”[27]
The author then makes a comparison between the Indians of today and the slaves of the South, which is entirely to the advantage of the latter, and says in conclusion: “Can a Christian believer in the providence of God fail to see that a blessing to the African has followed in the train of Southern slavery, while a blight has rested on the system adopted for the Indian? Is it possible to doubt that if the Indians could have been successfully subjected to the white man, it would have been infinitely better for them at the present day?”[28]
The author introduces the 42nd chapter, “The English Poor,” by speaking of the treatment of the slaves, and making a comparison between the evils which the slaves have to endure at the hands of their masters, and those to which the laboring free classes are subjected. He already remarked that he is truly hostile to all cruel treatment and oppression of the Negroes, and that he rejects it everywhere; but this kind of treatment is so little the general one in the South that in the majority of cases there is evidence of such a pleasant relationship as can only exist between slaves and masters. If, on the other hand, one looks at the misery in which, for example, a large part of the poor in England find themselves, then it can be rightly asserted that the slaves are generally much better off than those unfortunates. For proof of this he quotes a recent work by Joseph Kay, Esq. on the social condition of the people of England.[29] There we read, among other things: “In the civilized world there are few sadder spectacles than the present contrast in Great Britain of unbounded wealth and luxury, with the starvation of thousands and tens of thousands, crowded into cellars and dens, without ventilation or light, compared with which the wigwam of the Indian is a palace. Misery, famine, brutal degradation, in the neighborhood of stately mansions which ring with gayety and dazzle with pomp and unbounded profusion, shock us as no other wretchedness does.”[30]—Thus is the situation in England.
The misery of thousands of children in London and other cities of England is truly terrible. They grow up in the greatest filth of body and soul without instruction, discipline and care. “It has been calculated that there are at the present day in England and Wales nearly eight millions of persons who can not read and write…. Of all the children in England and Wales, between the ages of five and fourteen, more than the half are not attending any school.”[31] Thousands upon thousands of vagrants of both sexes, who roam the highways and byways by day, congregate by night in the most miserable dens, called “vagrant lodging houses”; men old and young, women old and young, and children of all ages pass the nights there in ghastly confusion. “The scenes which take place are horrible.” Abominations of all kinds take place.[32]
Among the poor of England, the use they make of ‘burial clubs’ is also terrible. In order to get the money for the burial of their children (a sum that of course exceeds the real costs), they not infrequently cause the death of their children by starvation, other bad treatment, or poison.[33] Sins against the 6th commandment are the norm among these poor in the most horrible way, and that in the rural districts not less than in the big cities. In certain districts it is reported not only that the women are not ashamed of fornication, but also that this sin garners no attention among the other inhabitants.[34] Even incest is no longer rare.[35] The pen refuses to copy verbatim even the mildest reports about this vice. Read this chapter in the book itself, and compare the conditions described therein with the worst that has been said of slave life, and you will be able to call it a good life compared to the misery among the poor of England, which mocks all description.
At the end of our book we find a serious and dignified admonition to the bishop Potter mentioned at the beginning. In an appendix we also have the Latin text of many of the excerpts given. The whole work is, as said, worthy of the most detailed study; one will have rich profit from it. And even if it is very regrettable that the Venerable Bishop Hopkins (now the oldest bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States) does not stand in the one true position from which one may argue with earnestness and strength against chiliasm, which is merely “ultra-abolitionism” in the spiritual sphere, as he has against the abolitionism of the humanists, we do not want to let ourselves be hindered by this from heartily thanking him for the mass of good and instructive things presented in his book, and urgently recommending the work to all readers. W. St.
[1] Even now, when the end of slavery in our new fatherland is obviously approaching, we gladly accept the present submission, not, of course, for the purpose of stopping that end, for we, as native Germans, have never been able to acquire a taste for this peculiarly republican institution of the “glorious Union” and are therefore far from weeping a tear for this dying institution. The reason for our joy is much rather this, that thereby a testimony is given that, even if everything else becomes prey to transitoriness, nevertheless the truth concerning it remains unchanged, namely in our case, the doctrine of the Scriptures on slavery, whether the thing itself continues to exist or perishes. In the same way, the doctrine of the obedience of subjects remains true for absolute monarchies also, even if all kingdoms should one day become free republics. In addition to this, every doctrine of Scripture is of the highest importance not only with regard to its primary subject, but also in a thousand other respects, and spreads the clearest light over other areas as well. We are also happy about it, when again and again that glittering spirit of fraud, which wants to make the world happy, is opposed, which wants to put the humanistic lie in place of the biblical truth by temperance agitations, by women’s emancipation agitations, by slavery agitations, and by who knows what other agitations. Also, it will certainly please the readers of “Lehre und Wehre” to see that there are still some among the American theologians who have the courage not to give Christianity away to the fashionable American sentimentality which passes for religion. B. [Original footnote]
“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”
— St. Paul of Tarsus, First Epistle to St. Timothy, Cap. VI, 1
I have loved the readings for Easter Monday and Easter Tuesday ever since I was an undergrad. My first real Lutheran pastor pointed out to me how prominently the Old Testament features in our resurrected Lord’s catechesis of his disciples in Luke 24. First, Jesus unfolds the Scriptures to the Emmaus disciples:
Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Then he does the same for the ten who are gathered in the locked upper room:
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
It may have been a prosaic point, but it has stuck with me ever since. Let it be made again: the Old Testament is a book about Jesus Christ. Father Abraham rejoiced to the see the day of the Lord (John 8), and even Moses the Lawgiver preached the Gospel of peace, as Jesus testifies to the Jews in John 5:
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. … Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
Abraham and Moses were Christians. These men believed in the promises of God, as did their father Eber[1] and his father Shem and his father Noah and his father Seth and his father Adam. They heard Christ’s declaration of victory and absolution with their own ears when he descended into Hades between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. They’re in heaven now. So they not only were Christians; they are Christians.[2]
The Old Testament preaches Christ, because it is the Word of God. God forbid that we engage in hermeneutical Docetism (“Gospel reductionism”) whereby we select from the Old Testament (or the New, for that matter) “those things that preach Christ”—as though we can extra-textually decide what does and does not do so—and then use this manmade canon to measure the rest. All of Scripture has something to teach us about the mystery into which the angels longed to look. “What still sublimer thing can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals have been broken, and the supreme mystery brought to light, namely, that Christ the Son of God has been made man, that God is three and one, that Christ has suffered for us and is to reign eternally?” Luther asks rhetorically in the Bondage of the Will, mocking Erasmus for his claim that Scripture is obscure. “Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find left in them?”[3] This is again rhetorical: you can’t take Christ out of the Scriptures; it is impossible. That is the point Luther is making.[4]
You would think, then, that Lutherans would be particularly solicitous to expound the full counsel of God’s Word on every topic, since the mystery of Christ leavens the whole lump of it. And we do claim to be. For what darkness cannot be illuminated from the light of the sacred page? What vexing topic cannot be elucidated by the words of the Holy Spirit? Is there anything in heaven and on earth that is undreamt of in God’s philosophy? Simple, honest Christians know the answers to these rhetorical questions.[5]
But how does the Lutheran claim hold up? Pretty well, in general. Very well, if we include the Voters Assembly of the Dead.
But do we? If you’ve been following this blog so far, you may have noticed that it is concerned with some Biblical topics that North American Lutheranism seems to have forgotten. It isn’t so much that the topics themselves have been forgotten; rather, it’s that Lutherans—even conservative Lutherans—no longer know how to proceed Biblically when thinking about them and have become conformed to the pattern of this present and evil world. They, we, have become “politically correct” according to the Polis Anthropou.
This is the result of weak, timid, lukewarm, and sometimes outright false teaching. While all Christians, teachers and hearers alike, are accountable to God for adulterating his saving Word and making a false confession, teachers are subject to stricter judgment (see James 3:1). There is, in fact, an answer to this chicken/egg question: false teachers came first. The first false teacher was Satan, the fallen angel who preached a false Gospel.[6] So strict is the judgment against him that there is no salvation for him; indeed, we are saved from him, all of his works, and all of his ways. The itching ears of undiscerning hearers are the necessary condition for the perpetuity of false doctrine, for every false teacher was once (and remains) an undiscerning hearer, but they are not its cause. False teaching is the cause.
And false teaching is often a sin of omission. Which brings us, at long last, to the point.
Old Lutherans originated with an observation. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that a single recent observation was the straw that broke the camel’s back, or the flint that set alight the heap of faggots:
Right after Moses delivered the Ten Commandments to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai, he delivered to them first of all—being of first importance, as it were, after the Decalog itself—that which he also received from God: laws about altars (Exodus 20:23-26), and laws about slaves (Exodus 21).
Yet Exodus 21 is conspicuously absent from basically all LCMS lectionaries. You will not find it in the popular Treasury of Daily Prayer, which follows the Daily Lectionary of the Lutheran Service Book (see page 300). Not only is Exodus 21 omitted, but it also is not featured in italics as a suggested extended reading, as is often done with other pericopes.
Nor will the careful reader be able to locate Exodus 21 in the daily lectionary of the venerable Lutheran Hymnal of 1941:
Search all 1024 pages of the LSB Altar Book for “Exodus,” and you will see that a pericope from Exodus 21 is not to be found as an optional Old Testament reading—not for the One-Year lectionary, and not for the Three-Year lectionary.
Scour the 2017 Synodical Catechism Formerly Known as Small for references to Exodus 21, and you will come up dry. In readily accessible first and second-tier lay devotional resources, a lone reference to “killing through carelessness” (Exodus 21:29) appears in the 1943 Synodical Catechism’s gloss on the Fifth Commandment (loc. cit., page 67).
If your church circulates a parochial “Congregation at Prayer,” take a look at the schedule of readings. In my experience, and in that of the friends I polled, Exodus 21 always gets the axe, even when the reading schedule is fairly gap-free.
A typical example.
Did the words of Exodus 21 fall inconsiderately from the Holy Ghost? Its absence from LCMS lectionaries is especially conspicuous in the current year, when “alt-right”[7] Lutheran Twitter users are subject to Jeremiads from the highest levels of the Synod for being, among other things, “pro-slavery.”[8] This certainly gives the impression to the uninitiated and biblically illiterate that such deplorables have taken up a position (or a variety of positions) at odds with the Bible.
But they haven’t. The Bible actually says that slavery is a godly institution. Scripture would have us believe that slavery is at times a mercy to the enslaved and at other times a punishment or chastisement—of the slave, the master, or both. That slavery as we know it would not have existed before the fall is no argument against it, just as it is no argument against the rectitude of the medical profession, law enforcement, the military, capital punishment, or Ruth’s Chris Steak House that none of them would have existed before the fall, either.
It also bears mentioning that “chattel slavery” is a term worthy of the Department of Redundancy Department. The word “chattel” makes people think of chains and Kunta Kinte, but in reality it just means “property.” The Ninth Commandment is about your neighbor’s property in general; the Tenth Commandment is a representative itemization of his property: wife, servants (slaves, since hired servants weren’t property—they also had a lower status than slaves), cattle (cf. chattel, capital; let’s hear it for the 1943 Catechism![9]), anything that is thy neighbor’s (lit. “et cetera”). Yes, wives belong to their husbands, like Christians belong to Christ—or is it not your hope and prayer that you would be his own and serve him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness?
Abusus non tollit sed confirmat substantiam; “Abuse [of a thing] does not destroy [the thing] but confirms the substance [of the thing].”[10] The truth of this axiom extends to more than just the sacraments. Godly hierarchy, which is to say patriarchy, most certainly did exist before the fall, and you’d better thank your heavenly Father that it will exist in Paradise. The only place where you’ll find pure liberté, egalité, and fraternité free from any taint of patriarcat is Hell.
We’re not laying down an argument in this post; we are merely pointing out the basic Scriptural data. This is just a pilot for a whole batch of content here at Old Lutherans, and frankly it is all going to be redundant. This blog is a dwarf on the shoulders of giants. Luther, Melanchthon, Brenz, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Balduin, Hengstenberg, Keil, von Harless, Walther, Sihler, Pieper, Kretzmann. These men knew the testimony of God’s Word on the topic of slavery—and on many other topics, hot in their day and ours—and they were not ashamed to believe it, teach it, and confess it. Start at Luther and go backward rather than forward in time, and the result is the same. They did not want, nor did they receive, the approval of the arbiters of Respectable Opinion in their day. They did not want, nor did they receive, the praise of men. They did not start with, nor did they end with, “What am I allowed to believe alongside the American Creed?” Great is their reward in heaven.
Old Lutherans invites you to face the doctrine of your fathers in the faith. Test it against Scripture and plain reason. If you find it to be in accord with the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions, submit to them as to Christ. If you cannot silence them from Scripture and yet would still demur from their instruction, you simply are not a Lutheran. God alone knows your heart. It’s not our place to say that you’re an unbeliever. But at that point, the honest thing to do would be to find a different confession in which to work out your salvation, because the Evangelical-Lutheran Church is simply not your turf. There is no magic dirt on the floor of the True Visible Church on Earth. Take off your shoes and get your feet washed, or get out. We do not show our temple furnishings to Assyrians, and we do not give that which is holy unto dogs.
Hopefully, though, it will not come to that. Our true goal here is to gain you, brother. We want you at our altar, and we want you in our church. For the Lutheran Church is Christ’s Church, and her liturgy is a beacon for his elect.[11] Come in from the stormy sea which rages with every wind of this world’s doctrine. Board the Ark of Christ’s body, ye clean lost sheep of Israel. Only see to it that you enter through the strait gate, the door of his wounded side, which is sealed with his sacred shed blood.
More to come. Thank you for reading Old Lutherans.
Footnotes
[1] “The 13th-century Muslim historian Abu al-Fida relates a story noting that the patriarch Eber (great-grandson of Shem) refused to help with the building of the Tower of Babel so that his language was not confused when it was abandoned. He and his family alone retained the original human language (a concept referred to as lingua humana in Latin), Hebrew, a language named after Eber” (“Eber”; Wikipedia). I don’t think Hebrew was the Ur-language, but I do like to think that Eber was among the faithful Shemites. There is more reason to give Eber the benefit of the doubt on this score than Ben Shapiro, a midwit blasphemer whom certain LCMS pastors fawn over, take selfies with, and invite to speak to their congregations during Bible class.
[2] As an aside: neither of these men was a Jew. I’m not being edgy, friends. They literally were not Jews in any sense of the word. The Jews were descendants of Judah. Abraham was Judah’s great grandfather, and Moses was a descendant of Judah’s brother Levi.
[4] See J. T. Mueller, Luther’s “Cradle of Christ,”Christianity Today, October 24, 1960: “Every now and then, in reading publication that deny the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture, we find Luther’s evaluation of the Bible quoted as the manger or cradle of Christ in the sense that Luther, highly esteeming the Christ of Scripture, regarded less highly the Scriptures setting forth Christ. They may also add that according to Luther the words and stories of the Bible are unpretentious swaddling clothes, while only Christ, who is the treasure that lies within, is precious. This interpretation of Luther’s statement calls for examination.”
[5] (1) No darkness; (2) no vexing topic; (3) no. Spare me the Big Brain derp about the Bible “not being a science textbook” or the Holy Spirit “not attempting to give precise history.” You people and your studious insistence on missing the point are going to be the death of the Lutheran Church.
[6] The first evil bishop, who ordained a woman to preach a false Gospel, to be precise. Pastor Rolf Preus contends that it was in fact Adam who ordained Eve: “The chronological order of Creation establishes the order for the right relationship between man and woman from the beginning to the end of time. God speaks to the woman through the man. The man spoke for God. God chose to speak to the woman through the man. When the man disobeyed God it was because he listened to the voice of his wife. God had not given to Eve the authority to speak on his behalf to the man. By listening to her voice and obeying her Adam acquiesced to her assuming the pastoral office. He made her his pastor. He ordained her. The ordination of a woman was the original sin” (Rolf D. Preus, “The Service of Women in and for the Church,” Christ For Us, June 2008). In that case, Satan was the first District President who sent the first voters assembly (consisting of Adam) an ineligible candidate. Now we know the origin of that most auspicious LCMS tradition.
[7] No amount of disambiguation can save this term. “But then, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility that this ambiguity is precisely the point,” Lutheran blogger Matthew Cochran notes. He goes on: “Inasmuch as we ask ourselves now whether we are targets for excommunication, we will be asking the same question before we speak out next time Synod publicly embraces false teaching. If a pastor acts like Luther did and publicly stands against the official errors of his day, will Synod come for his pulpit? If a layperson talks about public teaching on social media, will he be getting a call from his elders if he gets too many views? Whatever the letter says about welcoming theological concerns, the clear and objective effect is to place a Sword of Damocles over the necks of any would-be critics” (Matthew Cochran, “Excommunicating the Alt-Right,”The 96th Thesis, February 2023).
[8] Yet the same Jeremiahs evidently can Not See any of the incursions of the truly godless far left (I prefer the term “teleological left”) in the LCMS. See upcoming post “The Window and the Wall” for the proper distinction between the left, which is godless, and the right, which is not.
[9] Also superior on the form and meaning of the Fourth Commandment: “The Fourth Commandment. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long on the earth. What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not despise our parents and masters, nor provoke them to anger, but give them honor, serve and obey them, and hold them in love and esteem” (Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation, §. The Fourth Commandment, St. Louis, 1943, p. 6; emphases mine). The 1921 Triglotta English translation is very close and is also superior to the 1986. “American workers adopted the word ‘boss’ in the nineteenth century, when the old title of ‘master’ began to chafe their republican pride. A slave had a ‘master’ but a free man had a ‘boss.’ The common point of master and boss is that both had hold of ‘the whip hand’” (J. M. Smith, “Living on Sufferance,”The Orthosphere, January 2018).
[10] A favorite legal maxim of Martin Luther’s, cited in the Large Catechism (Part IV, Holy Baptism, 59) and in “Concerning Rebaptism” (LW 40:246, 248).
[11] “We do not sell Jesus. We proclaim Him to be risen from the dead and are too busy being excited about that to give a particular damn what some heathen thinks about it: as many as are appointed to eternal life will believe, the elect of every nation will be gathered, nothing can stop God’s plan and purpose and nothing can direct or control it. It is Christ’s to weep over unbelieving Jerusalem, and surely as little Christ’s [sic] we will learn to do the same: but ours is not to understand the mystery of unbelief, let alone think that we can solve it by our machinations when Christ himself could not. Instead, the Church just turns on the beacon of God’s Word in the liturgy so that the elect know where they are supposed to gather.” (Heath R. Curtis, “Freed from the Shopkeeper’s Prison: Election, Evangelism, and Functional Arminianism,” May 9, 2011).
On the eastern and southern rim of Europe, Islam remained a threat until the end of the seventeenth century. Even when the activities of the Ottoman fleet were curbed after the battle of Lepanto in 1571 (chapter 7, p. 331), north African corsairs systematically raided the Mediterranean coasts of Europe to acquire slave labour; in fact they ranged as far as Ireland and even Iceland, kidnapping men, women and children. Modern historians examining contemporary comment produce reliable estimates that Islamic raiders enslaved around a million western Christian Europeans between 1530 and 1640; this dwarfs the contemporary slave traffic in the other direction, and is about equivalent to the numbers of west Africans taken by Christian Europeans across the Atlantic at the same time. Two religious Orders, the Trinitarians and the Mercedarians, specialized in ransoming Christian slaves, and over centuries honed diplomatic expertise and varied local knowledge to maximize the effectiveness of this specialized work. Large areas of Mediterranean coastline were abandoned for safer inland regions, or their people lived in perpetual dread of what might appear on the horizon; this may well explain, for instance, why Italians lost their medieval zest for adventurous trade overseas. The fear which this Islamic aggression engendered in Europe was an essential background to the Reformation, convincing many on both sides that God’s anger was poised to strike down the Christian world, and so making it all the more essential to please God by affirming the right form of Christian belief against other Christians. It is impossible to understand the mood of sixteenth-century Europe without bearing in mind the deep anxiety inspired by the Ottoman Empire (for further discussion of the consequences, see chapter 13, pp. 550-55).
Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation, Penguin Books, London, 2003, p. 57
In Lehre und Wehre V. 8 pp. 105-110 (April 1862) a short article appeared by Craemer entitled “Dr. Hengstenberg über die Sclavenfrage.” This reproduced what Dr. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg had written earlier in the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung [Evangelical Church Paper], the conservative German church paper.
In the foreword to this year’s volume of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung, Dr. Hengstenberg also discusses our sad situation here and thus, naturally, also the slavery issue that is causing it. We are pleased to see from this that this theologian, who, although in the midst of the union church, possesses in many respects more light and a more correct judgment than hundreds of so-called Lutheran theologians, and also agrees with our highly enlightened, sober, pious fathers in the matter of slavery, and has the courage to express his conviction freely and unambiguously, in spite of all the scornful looks of the spirit of the age. He also sees where this agitation actually leads, and to which anti-Christian current of the time it belongs, which unfortunately so many here, even those who bear the Lutheran name, do not recognize. For their shame and instruction, but for the sake of the truth, we cannot do otherwise here than to allow Hengstenberg’s sound pronunciation to be produced verbatim, as it is found in the third number of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung:
In the United States of America, the division between the slave-holding South and the slave-free North has progressed to formal and bitter civil war. Christian conviction has often taken it for granted that it must necessarily take sides with the North. At the Geneva meeting of the Evangelical Alliance, Dr. Kerr from America said that among the people of the great West the conviction had spread that it was a religious duty to take part in the present war, and expressed the hope that God would not permit the perpetuation of slavery. His view of the situation was adopted by a resolution of the assembly. The well-known American theologian Beecher, the brother of the woman who authored Uncle Tom’s Cabin, declared the present war to be a crusade, a holy war, that the trumpet of war should not rest until the last slave had been freed, that it was sad to shed brotherly blood, but that the continuance of slavery was even more atrocious. We cannot agree with this view of the situation, but are rather convinced that in the slavery question, no less than in Romans 13, a significant and alarming alteration of Christian views has taken place among Christians of English-speaking tongue, a transposition of these views with principles that sprang from a completely different soil, and that the American War is a sad consequence of this transposition and a judgment on the same.
Restless agitation against slavery, incitement of the slaves to disobedience, promotion of their escape, violent measures for their liberation, blowing the trumpet of a holy war to bring it about, a war in which a Methodist preacher has gained the fame of being able to cut off heads with one blow better than all the others, all this has Holy Scripture and also history, the practice of the entire older Christian church, against it. It has its ultimate purpose in a view that has sprung from completely un-Christian circles, which dreams of a common human dignity, because it ignores the Fall and the ghastly devastation caused by it in its manifold gradations down to animal dullness and stupidity; which ignores the mysterious counsel of God after on the Fall, whereby, as Agobard says, “He exalts some by all kinds of distinctions, and subjects others to the yoke of slavery;” which, in the psychological superficiality peculiar to the natural man, lumps all men together and fails to recognize that the relationship of rulers and servants has its basis in the peculiarities of peoples; which overestimates the importance of external freedom, because it has not itself become partaker of the great good of internal freedom and does not know how to appreciate it, and falls under the judgment of the apostle: “they promise them liberty, while they themselves are servants of destruction;” which, finally, does not know the eternal possessions and the existence hereafter, and therefore attaches an excessive importance to the goods of this world, and has lost all sense of the understanding of the apostle’s word: “Art thou called being a servant? care not for it.” [1 Cor. 7:21]
Already by an event in the earliest days, Gen. 9:25-27, we are instructed to raise our eyes above human arbitrariness and injustice in the matter of slavery and to direct them to divine fate, to God’s well-deserved judgments, which, if one does not violently evade them, but humbly submits to them and uses them for the purpose for which they are sent, are always at the same time means of salvation. We must enter the kingdom of God through many tribulations. Slavery, too, is a gateway to the same, and all that matters is to open this gateway, and grace will break out from behind the judgment.
In the New Testament, slavery is placed under the fourth commandment, no less than the relationship of wives to husbands and children to parents, Eph. 5, 21-23, 6, 1-4, 5 ff. Col. 3. The relationship can therefore not be an immoral one in itself, as is now preached. Otherwise Holy Scripture would not have recognized it as a divine order. Slaves are instructed to see behind the earthly lords another Lord who has imposed such a status on them and to serve this Lord willingly and joyfully in the earthly lords, however much the earthly lords may make it difficult for them to see in their rule a manifestation of His. As Paul says in Col. 3:22-25, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.” And as proof that even within the church the relationship of master and slave is not a purely inadmissible one, the same apostle says in 1 Tim. 6:2: “And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.” Peter exhorts: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.” (1 Peter 2:18-19)
How far one has departed from the foundation of the Holy Scriptures in America is particularly clear if one compares the practice common there with the procedure of the apostle Paul in this question. The slave Onesimus ran away from his master and found the gospel as a freedman. Paul, who brought it to him, does not leave him in the state of freedom in which he found him, which he could have taken for granted, but sends him back to his master Philemon, inwardly reborn, and only asks that he lovingly accept him again and treat him as a brother in Christ. If Philemon wants to do more than the apostle says, then he should follow the course of his heart, but the general Christian duty is only what the apostle expressly demands of him.
Holy Scripture knows no other way to remove the ungodly nature of slavery than the inward one, that of teaching the masters that they have a Lord in heaven and filling their hearts with humility and love. And this way has proved more effective than any other. “In the Christian Church,” says Chrysostom, “there is no slavery in the old sense of the word; it is only in name among the Lord’s disciples; the thing has ceased.” Where this path does not lead to the goal, Scripture leaves the relationship in place, because any forcible change in it can only make matters worse.
“Before the slaves were on a higher level of moral education,” says Möhler,1 “any external liberation could only have a corrupting effect, and certainly if Christianity had preached the liberation of the slaves as such, and had succeeded in enforcing it without first loosening the inner bonds, it would have brought about a desolation similar to that which would have resulted if hell itself had sent forth all its inhabitants at once and given them a free hand on earth; in the general destruction caused by Christianity it would itself have found its downfall.” Whoever wants to see vividly what will become of the hastily emancipated slaves, especially the lowest of all, the Negro slaves, who can hardly be compared with the slaves of the old world, should read the descriptions which Count Goertz has sketched in his fascinating and instructive Journey Around the World2 on the basis of his own observations in Haiti.
If we turn from Holy Scripture to history, we will also find there a striking contrast to the restless activity of the abolitionists in North America, which has finally made the saying true: whoever strikes the nose hard, forces blood out. The Council of Gangra pronounces a ban on anyone who, under religious pretext, teaches slaves to despise their masters, to leave their service, and not to serve with benevolence and all reverence. The Council of Chalcedon forbids the monasteries to accept slaves who have not received permission from their masters, and threatens them with excommunication, lest the name of God be dishonored, i.e., lest Christianity be accused of causing disobedience. With reference to the Middle Ages, Möhler says: “The Christian spirit created for itself the form that corresponded to it, and threw off the foreign one without revolution, indeed without any external and compelling law; for such a law was only applied here and there against the last remnants of slavery.”
Shall the great work, which was begun in the Christian Church in spirit and carried on for many centuries, be completed in the flesh? Do we want to ignore the word: the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds? (2 Cor. 10:4) We do not fail to recognize that in the southern slave states there is damage which must deeply grieve the heart of the Christian philanthropist. But one should not have been driven by such distress to ranting and raving, which can only bring about greater evils, but to redoubled zeal in the preaching of the Gospel in general, and especially of the truths which it preaches in view of slavery, that all men, masters and slaves, have one Lord, Creator and Redeemer, with whom no respect of person is valid, who does not know the rich more than the lowly, because they are all the work of his hands, who is a judge of all harshness and injustice of the rulers against the servants, who loves all with equal love, before whom there is no slave and no free, Gal. 3, 28. Philm. 16, who has wrapped the holy bond of love around all. The preaching of the gospel is the only means by which the serious wounds of these conditions can be healed. Where this remedy does not work, one must, even if with a bleeding heart, leave the matter to God for the time being and wait until His hour comes, and in the meantime work all the more earnestly for the removal of the intolerable conditions in one’s own heart, one’s own home and one’s immediate surroundings, which, of course, is more difficult than to get worked up over the removal of slavery in the Southern States and to agitate for it in the Northern States.
As Dr. von Harleß aptly says, “The gospel does not abrogate the outward consequences and punishments for sin, so that it only then looks to see whether anything good can still be made out of the now unfettered perverse heart; yes, even to the Christian who is a slave it does not say: break your chains, but it breaks the chains by taking away the hardness of the masters in the fear of a higher Lord, by erasing the reluctance of the servant in the willing obedience to Him who is Master of masters and of slaves.”3 We have good reason to wait and hope that the gospel will accomplish its work, albeit slowly, if only it is preached faithfully and diligently and not–to the gravest accountability before God for the agitators–made ineffective for the poor slaves and for their masters by a false admixture, a bad leaven of ranting and raving. It has worked wonders in this very area and has shown itself to be a force from on high. Wherever Christianity has penetrated, slavery has not been able to assert itself; it has been abolished in substance and gradually also in form, to the same extent that the slaves have proved themselves capable and worthy of freedom.
As we read in a report on the Geneva meeting of the Evangelical Confederation; The brethren from North America were deeply bowed by the grave misfortune affecting their fatherland, and more deeply still by the vivid and undoubted consciousness that this misfortune was only too much their own fault and nothing other than a judgment of God upon their people’s arrogance, greed for gold, and materialism. Such an approach, which led to the observation of a Day of Repentance and Prayer in North America on September 26th of last year, is certainly a very heartening one, an encouragement for us to the same humility. We should be mindful of the earnest word in Luke 13, 3. But besides the more distant causes, we should not have forgotten the proximate ones. It seems, however, that the “earnest insistence on the release of the Negroes in the slave states” was only counted as a merit and that there was no realization that there could be fault here as well.
“Slavery, Humanism, and the Bible”: Selections from Lehre und Wehre
By C. F. W. Walther, 1863 Translated by Erika Bullmann Flores, 2000 Revised by Old Lutherans, 2023
The following selections were from several issues of Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), published in St. Louis in 1863; all of the articles translated in this paper are from Volume (Jahrgang) 9. They have been pieced together for ease of reading. The first two articles were published in several issues of Lehre und Wehre and are joined together here for clarity. Where the articles spanned issues is indicated by a horizontal line. Bible quotations are from The New English Bible, Oxford University Press, 1971.
It is an irrefutable fact that humanism has not only supplanted Christianity among a large part of the current population, it has also infected Christian theology in its very inner core, has poisoned and weakened it. We define humanism as the belief in a human ideal, the belief that man within himself has the ability to develop into a state of completeness and achieve happiness. Therefore, in order to reach this ideal state nothing else is needed than to grant each person as much room as possible to develop freely and without restraint. Freedom and equality, equal rights, equal possessions, equal enjoyment and pleasure, are thus the goal of man’s striving, the attainment of which will eradicate poverty and suffering from this earth. Happiness will have found its domicile on earth; there will be heaven on earth.
This humanism is as old as the fallen world itself. As soon as man had fallen away from God, he became aware of the bitter consequences of his sin, of the curse under which God had placed this earth because of him. Despite all that still had remained for man, he felt dissatisfied, unhappy, and wretched. However, instead of recognizing his sin as the cause of his wretchedness, seeking to return to God and His help, he saw the consequences themselves as the cause, and deemed that he could achieve happiness by gaining what this world has to offer.
Therefore, the church’s antithesis of this humanism in the world of unbelievers is as old as the church itself. Already during the first world Cain’s unbelieving race sought their salvation in exploitation of the earth (Gen. 4:16-22), while the believing race of Seth (though already diminishing in numbers) renounced worldly happiness and possessions. They sought their salvation in the proclamation of the name of the Lord, that is, the promise of the one who would smash the head of the serpent and all evil, in the promise of the coming redemption from sin, death and hell, upon which they based their hope for eternal life, happiness and salvation (Gen. 4:25-26). We find the same conflict in the race after the flood. Paganism evolved which made creatures and things of this world the object of its utmost desire, to the point where it elevated creation, i.e. the creature, itself as its god and its final refuge. Meanwhile, the church— through Abraham— considered itself to be an earthly pilgrim, was waiting for a city whose builder was God and continued to seek its promised heavenly home. When finally the one whom all the prophets referred to as “the comforter of all heathens” appeared, the Jews, lost in their earthly anticipations, expected to hear from the mouth of the promised one nothing other than the pronouncement of the start of a complete, happy age. When he, the hope of all people, opened his mouth, they heard: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” They had expected to hear: “Blessed are you, for now you shall become rich.” Instead they heard the opposite: blessed are they, regardless of their worldly riches, whose spirit and heart is poor, those who are rich as if they were not, and those who are poor consider themselves rich (Matt. 5:3, cf. Luke 6:20, I Cor. 7:29, II Cor. 6:10).
Though Christianity is directly opposed to humanism, we find this concept accepted and practiced by name-only-Christians throughout the centuries. In the history of our Christian church we are confronted with numerous pages where the most consequent humanism is theoretically presented as the only right belief and openly and freely confessed. The grossest depiction of it appears during the 14th century among certain groups of The Brothers and Sisters of Free Spirit, especially the Turlupines, the Adamites and the Luciferians, who express their common theory thus:
Everything which is done in love is pure, because the spirit which is God dwelling in us cannot sin; neither can worldly desire damage the spirit. On the contrary, it redeems by disintegrating marriage and property and the feeling of uncleanliness resulting from unnatural fissure.[2]
It was this spirit which was apparent during the time of the reformation among the farmers of Swabia and Thuringia— under the leadership of Thomas Münzer; among the Anabaptists under Jan von Leide, and the Libertines of Switzerland. It was no other spirit but the spirit of humanism which promised Adam heaven on earth, promised to relieve him from his earthly burdens, thereby making all men into abolitionists and communists, with equal rights and possessions, making all superiority in these things a punishable transgression. Though the first two of these groups base their humanism on doctrine and promises of Christian revelation, and the latter on a pantheistic system, the underlying spirit is the same. For instance, the farmers stated in their “Twelve Articles”:
3) It has been the custom that we were considered property, which is abominable, in view of the fact that Christ has redeemed and saved us with his precious blood, the lowly shepherd as well as the highest placed, none excluded. Therefore Scripture tells us that we are to be free. 4) It has been the custom that no poor man has the right to game, birds, or fish in the water, which seems to us to be entirely unseemly and unbrotherly, selfish and not at all in accord with the word of God… When God, the Lord, created man He gave him dominion over all creatures, over the birds in the air and fish in the waters, Gen. 1:28, 30. God the Lord created animals for man’s free use. (Luther’s Works, Walch, XVI, 26, 27)
Münzer expressed what these articles demanded with the words “Omnia simul communia” which means all things should be communal and distributed according to need and ability. It is understood, of course, that with this new “order” there was no mention of rulers and lords. Ranke explained:
The concept was that since all are the children of one God, and all have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, it followed that there should be no more inequality in possessions or rank. Münzer preached everywhere about the liberation of Israel and the establishment of a heavenly kingdom on earth.[3]
At that time, what was the position of the church? It certainly did recognize the misuse of power by the privileged classes which had driven the oppressed into desperation and delusion. The church declared the farmer’s rebellion to be a well-deserved, divine punishment, and demanded that oppression of the poor and the tyranny against subordinates cease. It called for improvement of the shamefully flagrant, social and civil conditions of the underclass. However, the church did not succumb to the temptation to perceive the distinction between master and servant, sovereign and vassal, rich and poor, as incompatible with the Gospel. The church, together with its attempt to change these conditions, denounced with a loud voice the wrongful application and explanation of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom.
Pertaining to the first point, Luther wrote in his Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwölf Artikel der Bauernschaft in Schwaben, (Admonishment to Peace on the Twelve Articles of the Swabian Farmers), written in 1525:
First, we can’t blame anyone here on earth for this rebellion other than you lords and sovereigns, especially you blind bishops, mad monks and clergymen. To this day you are determined and do not cease your efforts against the Holy Gospel, even though you know that it is the truth and you cannot contradict it. In addition, in your worldly administrations you do no more than abuse and lay on taxes so as to increase your own glory and arrogance, until the common man can no longer endure. Know this, dear lords, God is making it so that your fury cannot nor will it be tolerated any longer. You must change your ways and accept God’s word. If you don’t do this willingly, others will do it for you in a destructive manner. If the farmers don’t do it, someone else will. Even though you may slay them all, they are undefeated, God will call forth others. For he wants to slay you and He will slay you. It is not the farmers, dear lords, who are opposing you, it is God Himself who seeks to destroy you and your madness.
However, after Luther spoke in this and similar manner to the lords and preached to them the Word of God, he turned to the subordinates, the farmers, and chastised their rebellion. Among other things he said:
What, there is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this? This means that Christian liberty is turned into liberty of the flesh. Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the Gospel and it is rapacious, for everyone who is a bondman to remove himself from his master. A bondman can very well be a Christian and have Christian freedom, just as a prisoner or sick person can be a Christian, but yet is not free. This article proposes to make all men equal (This is literally what Luther says in the original—“alle Menschen gleich machen.” I wonder why the American edition would alter the sense.) , and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly one, which is impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot exist where there is no class distinction, where some are free, some are prisoners, some are masters, and some are vassals, etc. As St. Paul says in Gal. 3:28, that in Christ both master and vassal are one. (See also XVI, 60, 61, 85, 86.)
Luther’s coworkers were in agreement with him. Amongst other things, Melanchthon writes in his Schrift wider die Artikel der Bauernschaft (“Statement Against the Farmers’ Articles”):
It is wanton and violent that they do not want to be bondmen. They are citing Scripture, that Christ has freed them. This pertains to spiritual freedom: that we are assured that through Him our sins have been forgiven without our own doing, and that henceforth we may look to God’s blessings, that we may beseech Him and be hopeful; that Christ poured out the Holy Spirit on those who believe in Him so that they may oppose Satan and not fall under his power like the godless whose hearts he has in his power. He forces them to commit murder, adultery, etc. Therefore, Christian freedom is of the heart, it cannot be seen with the eye. Outwardly a Christian submits joyfully and patiently to all worldly and social order and makes personal use of it. He can be a bondman or a subject, he can avail himself of the Saxon or Roman law regarding the division of goods. These things do not, however, influence the faith, indeed, the Gospel demands that such worldly order be maintained for the sake of peace. Paulus writes in his letter to the Ephesians 6:5-7: “You slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, with a willing heart, as serving Christ, not merely with outward show of service to curry favor with men, but as slaves of Christ, do wholeheartedly the will of God.” And in Colossians 3:22, he writes: “Slaves, give entire obedience to your earthly masters… Whoever does wrong, will receive what he has done wrong.” Joseph too was a slave in Egypt for a long time, as well as many other saints. Therefore, the farmer’s demands have no basis, indeed, it seems necessary that these wild, insolent people as the Germans are, should have less freedom than they have now. (See also 48, 49)
So writes Melanchthon, the one so finely educated by humaniora, the humanist in the best meaning of the word. He was at the same time, however, an obedient and humble Christian, and a theologian who saw through the false wisdom of the blind world which concerns itself only with matters of the flesh.
This battle by the Church was not in vain. The terrible flames which would consume the entire social and governmental order of Germany, threatening to leave behind nothing but the terror of destruction, soon died down and after some time extinguished completely. However, humanism, which wants to be independent of God and men, wants man to renounce the happiness and life to come as something which is dubious. It wants man to find within himself such happiness as will surely change the earth into heaven and promise equal happiness to all. This humanism is the chiliasm of the secular world; it is its religion. It always appears with force wherever Christianity waivers. When at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century Deism raised its head in England, moved on to France and finally was exported to Germany, there were many heralds of humanism. Rousseau stands out as a proponent of humanism. It was he who first expressed the idea that man by nature is pure and good, and that in order to achieve happiness, he needs to leave all that is unnatural and return to nature, to himself, to become human again. He spoke in a truly magical manner which, like a sweet poison, saturated the hearts of millions.[4] This idea developed into the evermore common theories of undeniable, inherent human rights, of inherent freedom and equality, that only the democratic-republican constitution as well as the socialist and communist theories of the “new times” were acceptable. These theories came to fruition in the world-shaking catastrophe of the first French revolution whose well-known slogan was “freedom, equality, and brotherhood.” They incorporated these tenets in their constitution of 1791 as the basis for their model state, and proclaimed that “human rights” was the most important principle of all state laws. It is known what pinnacle of human and national happiness this grand humanistic experiment did achieve. It was a happiness in which all of hell’s murderous spirits triumphed over the world with their demonic laughter against humanity itself, which caused terror even among humanists abroad.
Nevertheless, these first seeds of humanistic theories germinated, grew and were nourished, first through the German rationalismus vulgaris and then the German pantheistic and materialistic, philosophical systems. Communism or some other form of ochlocratic state, abrogation of all monarchies and the church, extermination of all nobility and proclaimers of Christianity and all religions (whom they refer to as Paffen[5]), that is what these public speakers of the race are presenting as the ultimate national happiness. They refer to it as the beginning of the golden age, as predicted down through the centuries by all prophets of the human spirit. The masses who have fallen away from God and who are renouncing their hope for eternal life, the masses who have been charmed and deluded, upon them they are trying to inflict brutality and bestiality as humanity.
In this respect, how is our America doing? The founding of our union occurs exactly at the time when humanism was in its youth and had the attraction of something new. In addition, it seemed to furnish the only basis for a new republican state, which obviously could not become a reality without absolute freedom of religion. Thus humanists like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and others gained immense influence, not only in the formulation of our government, but also in the ideas, concepts, and views of the people. These elements of destruction and dissolution were greatly strengthened during the last decades by whole hordes of men with revolutionary tendencies. None of them acknowledge God and eternal life, for them earthly life is the only goal of human existence. They see the beginning of common human happiness in the realization of their tenets of common freedom and equality.
Especially during recent years, Christian communities have had to face trial by fire. But, to put it bluntly, they have not passed this trial. Not that the American theology— if we want to mention it— has only just now succumbed! It has been quite obvious for some time, that in addition to the various sects with their false teachings, many humanistic ideas and efforts of the modern world have found their way into Christianity. Wherever in the old world there was a revolutionary movement against a monarchy, the religious press here has announced their support of the rebels. Wherever atheistic journalists and their correspondents reported wrong-doing by a European sovereign, they have busily claimed that this was further evidence that only under a republican constitution the masses could achieve happiness; that the model republic for the entire world was the American one, and that the world was yet to enjoy freedom and happiness under such an ideal constitution. Participation in temperance agitations has almost become a test of godliness among the believers. Reverends of all so-called denominations are members of all lodges. They not only assert their freemasonic, deistic philanthropism in the hidey-holes of their meetings, but also from their pulpits, their publications and their administrations. Not one important discovery or invention is made which is not shown by the local theologians as new proof of the grandeur, the fruitfulness, the creative and all-overcoming power of the human intellect, and as actual evidence that finally the age of progress and enlightenment has come. Earlier centuries are denounced, with great pride and self-complacency, as times of darkness, superstition, barbarism, and subordination. The local theology is carried along by this stream of fashionable, current opinions. They do not even shy away from serving movements who are obviously nothing other than affirmation of the spirit of these days; movements which are quite easily such that one can perceive them as the beginning of the world’s terrible, final drama of the battle of the anti-Christian powers against the estates of state, church, and home.
The question about slavery has been foremost in the hearts and minds of many. In following issues, we intend to deal with this question. Of course, not as it relates to political issues, for we have nothing to do with that, but as it relates to Christian-religious morals.
Before we discuss the agitating question of slavery, we wish to reiterate that we are not concerned with emancipation, which for political reasons is being considered by the government, for this is not a theological issue. For us Christians here too the word of God applies: “Be subject to those who are in authority over you.” What we are dealing with here is the question whether slavery itself, that is, the relationship between slave and master, is a sin; or does sin adhere to this relationship merely in concreto, as all relationships between sinful men, for instance between poor and rich, seller and buyer. Is therefore slavery a sin which must be unconditionally opposed, or should Christians concentrate on doing away with the connected sinfulness, so that the relationship between slave and master is according to God’s will and order, according to the laws of justice, fairness, and love.[6] We therefore hold that abolitionism, which deems slavery a sin and therefore considers every slave holder a criminal and strives for its eradication, is the result of unbelief in its development of rationalism, deistic philanthropy, pantheism, materialism, and atheism. It is a brother of modern socialism, Jacobinism and communism. Together with the emancipation of women it is the rehabilitation of the flesh. As proof of this blood-relationship it suffices to point not only to its history, but also to the close union between abolition-minded representatives of Christianity and the abolitionist tendencies of anti-Christians and radical revolutionaries in church, state, and home. The more their non-religiosity increases and reaches the pinnacles of theoretical atheism and indifferentism, the more fanatically they fight for the principle of slave emancipation. Often they have no economic interests and even oppose those who do. Therefore, a Christian abolitionist, who finds himself in the company of such as these, should become aware of the wrong path he has chosen. How could it be possible that these enemies of Christianity and religion per se, all those who are intent on doing away with the existing religious, political, and economical order of things to realize their humanistic utopia, that especially they would be so enthusiastic for something good and holy, for “the final reason of Christianity” and so greatly exert themselves? Can a Christian accept that now, in the 19th century, Christ’s word has come to naught through progress, enlightenment, and civilization? “Can grapes be harvested from thorns, or figs from the thistle tree? A rotten tree does not bear fruit.” We can only pity those Christians who have forgotten all this and with best intentions, in the desire to work for a Christian-humane purpose, have allied themselves with the enemies of Christendom, and have come under the banner of anti-Christian humanism and philanthropy, thus having lent themselves as mediums of the spirit of the age.
However, we do not demand that these our erring fellow-Christians be satisfied with these á priori reasons. Regarding questions of morals or religion, Christians do not acquiesce until they have the answer to the question: “What is written?” They are ever mindful of the words of the prophet: “Yes, according to the law and witness. If they do not say this, they will not see the sun rise” (Is. 8:20). The Christian’s thoughts are as Solomon’s: “A man may think that he is always right, but the Lord fixes a standard for the heart” (Prov. 21:2). Therefore, he “gladly compels every human thought to surrender in obedience to Christ” (2 Cor. 10:6). When man has found the clear witness of Scripture, even though it may go totally against the grain of his own intellect, heart, and his entire view of the world, he will say together with Christ: “Scripture cannot be set aside” (John 10:36). For such Christians then, who are Christians according to John 14:23, 8:31, 32, 47, we will consult Scripture which alone is “the true fount of Israel,” which alone is the true guide upon which all doctrine and teachers are to be fixed and judged.[7]
In order not to commit any blunders, it is necessary that we agree with our opponents on the definition “slavery.” However, we do not know a better definition than the one rendered by the magister Germaniae, Melanchthon. It is found in the appendix to his examination of those who are to be publicly ordained and given the office of the ministry (1556). There he says:
Civil slavery, which is approved by God (as Joseph and Onesimus were slaves), is the lawful removal of the ability of ownership, the freedom to chose one’s vocation or employment, and to move from one place to another. (Corpus reformatorum, Vol. XXI, p. 1096)[8]
There is no doubt that Holy Scripture, Old and New Testament, deal with slavery in this sense. Though the word “slave” is not contained in our German Bible, the words “man-servant” (Hebrew Aebed, Greek Doulos) and “maid-servant” (Hebrew Amah or Schiphchah, Greek Doule) have the same basic meaning.[9] They are often used in reference to those without civil freedom, or to vassals, those whom we now refer to as “slaves.” That is why Melanchthon, in a citation from the New Testament quoted in the previous issue, translates the word Douloi with Leibeigene[10] and Luther himself often translated the Hebrew words Aebed and Amah with “man or maid-servant owned by another,” i.e. a slave (Gen. 47:19, 15; Lev. 25:39, 42, 44), and the Hebrew word Schiphchah with “maid-servant owned by another.” It is clear that this translation is correct, that the meaning of the words Aebed, Amah, Schiphchah, Doulos, and Doule mean nothing other than maid- or man-servants owned by another person, as is apparent by usage and context. Thus the servants of Abraham “men born in his household and those purchased from foreigners” (Gen. 14:14, 17:12) and the maid and man-servants are juxtapositioned with the “free” (Eph. 6:8; Gal. 4:30-31; 3:28; 1 Cor. 7:22). It is deceptive when the laity are told that whenever Scripture (especially the New Testament) speaks of maid- or man-servants it speaks of hired workers, which these days are called “maid or man servants.” The Hebrew and Greek languages have specific words for these, in Hebrew Sachir (from the root word Sachar = to hire out for wages). Compare Job 7:2; Lev. 19:13 (“a laborer”), Ex. 12:45 (“a hireling”), and the Greek Ergates in Matt. 10:10; 20:1 (“a worker”), or Misthotes in John 10:12 (“a hireling”).
What then do we read in Holy Scripture about slavery? Certainly it is not our intent to deal completely with every mention of slavery in Scripture. One can find relative instructions in every good, complete biblical archeology. It should suffice to highlight that which expresses God’s view of the morality and immorality of these political and economical issues.
The first mention of slavery we read in Scripture is the prophetic oath Noah utters over his godless son Ham, when he tells him that as a godly punishment his descendants shall be the slaves of slaves to his brothers (Gen. 9:20-27).
In the following we learn that almost all wealthy saints of the old covenant owned such slaves. According to Gen. 12:16, Abraham, the father of all believers, already acquired such servants in Egypt, and later we learn that he had 318 of these, able to bear arms, who were born in his house (Gen. 14:14). In the report about the institution of circumcision (Gen 17:12) slaves are mentioned which “were purchased from foreigners, not of your own seed.” Following that we read that Isaac (Gen. 26:12-14), Jacob (Gen. 32:6), Job (Job 1:3, 31:53), Solomon (Eccl. 2:7), and others, all had slaves, some of them in great number.
Further we read in the Holy Ten Commandments that slaves are to be considered as family members, whom the master bids obey just as he bids his children obey. The third commandment: “You shall do no work, neither your son, your daughter, your maid- or man-servant…,” and in the tenth commandment God Himself solemnly declares again blessing for all who will keep this commandment, and a curse for those who will not: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.” In the words of Ex. 20:17: “Do not lust after your neighbor’s wife, his man-servant, his maid-servant, nor his oxen, his ass, or anything which is your neighbor’s.”[11]
We also read that Moses, as commanded by God, established the law that convicted thieves, who were unable to make restitution for the goods they had stolen, could be sold into slavery (Ex. 22:3). In addition, the Israelites were allowed to purchase slaves, but with one condition: an Israelite sold into slavery to another Israelite for non-payment of debt had to be freed in the seventh year of his slavery. The Jewish people were to demonstrate also with their civil laws that they were free people of God, and because of the promised Messiah they were to retain their division into tribes until the coming of the Promised One. Thus the “slave” was to return to his father’s house, unless he chose not to be freed, in which case he had to remain as a slave “forever.” In regard to Hebrew slaves, it was also the law that if the freed slave had come into bondage without wife and children, he was discharged without wife and children. In these cases, they remained the property of the master (Ex. 21:1-6; Lev. 25:39-43).
For slaves purchased from heathens there were different rules. “Should you desire to own slaves, you shall purchase them from the nations round about you, from your guests and the foreigners among you, and from their descendants which they sired in your land. Those you may have to own, and your children after you, as your property for ever and ever, and shall have them as your slaves” (Lev. 25:44-46).
In this manner God defines the relationship between master and slave as a civil, physical, and temporal order. He reiterates this order by defining all manner of duties of the master to the slave, and the slave to the master. The master is to consider his slaves as family members and is therefore responsible for their spirituality (Gen. 17:12; 18:19; Ex. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Ex. 12:44), not regarding them as free persons, but as slaves (Prov. 29:21), treating them with justice, fairness, and love (Job 31:13). Exodus 21:26-27 decreed that if a slave was brutally treated, where his master struck him and the slave lost an eye, the master was bound to set the slave free as a recompense for the lost eye. Servants and slaves were so tightly bound to the family that for instance, if the family was that of a priest, the servants enjoyed priestly privileges, even though a married daughter was no longer entitled to these privileges. We read in Lev. 22:10-12: “No one shall eat of the holy gift, nor may a stranger lodging with him nor his hired man. A slave bought by the priest with his own money may do so, and slaves born in his horse may eat of it. When a priest’s daughter marries an unqualified person, she shall not eat of the holy gift.”
The slaves themselves are under the obligation of honor, which includes love, loyalty and obedience towards their master. So says the Lord in Malachi 1:6: “A son shall honor his father, and a slave his master.” When the Egyptian slave girl Hagar ran away from her mistress after she had been chastised, the angel of the Lord, that is the Lord Himself, appeared to her and asked her: “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She answered: “I am running away from Sarai, my mistress.” And the angel of the Lord said to her: “Go back to your mistress, and submit to her ill treatment.” In this manner God Himself decided when a slave girl tried to emancipate herself.
From all this we can conclude that according to Holy Scripture (here the Old Testament) God did not initially institute slavery or servitude as he did the state of matrimony or civil authority. Neither did He institute absolute monarchy, the class of the poor or any other social burden in life. Rather He deemed them punishment for sin itself and considered them as a “duty-relationship” based on the fourth commandment. Furthermore, he declared slaves to be the indisputable property of their master in the tenth commandment, in societies where such a relationship is lawful, just as He confirmed all other worldly and civil freedoms, burdens, rights, duties, ownership, etc.
We willingly agree, however, that if the Old Testament alone spoke of such slavery, there would still be room for the idea that the morality of such a relationship has not been proven beyond all doubts. The people of Israel received from God, through Moses, their civil laws. These civil laws, though, could not punish all that which is punished by “moral law,” the law of the eternal will of God Himself. Therefore, because of the wickedness of man a lot could not be held to be moral, but things were allowed which were directly in opposition to the “moral law” in order to maintain civil peace, based on the old axiom: aliud jus poli, aliud jus soli, “a different law for heaven, a different law for the earth.” One might think that this relationship between master and slave could fall into this latter category.
For instance, divorce was allowed, according to Deut. 24:1, with a letter of divorce “if the wife does not win her husband’s favor.” And yet, when the Pharisees referred to this passage, our Lord directed them to God’s institution of matrimony as the eternal valid order and added: “Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. It was not like this in the beginning. I say to you: If a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and he marries another, he commits adultery. And whoever marries the divorced woman, is also committing adultery” (Matt. 19:3-9).
Does the question of master-slave therefore also belong to the category which during Old Testament times were permitted, according to worldly law, but according to moral law and conscience were sinful and therefore punishable by God? Does it belong to those liberties which were only granted on behalf of the stiffnecked people but was not used by those who wanted not only to keep worldly law but also wanted to remain faultless in the face of God? Does this belong to the New Testament where only moral law is valid, and Old Testament dispensations have been canceled? The manner in which not only Moses, but other prophets of the Old Testament deal with this issue makes it quite clear that it does not belong into the latter category, but concurs with moral law. In order to achieve certainty, let us therefore search the New Testament.
Even though during the times of the apostles, under the Roman Empire, slavery was closely tied to the injustice of raiding by the envious and everlasting thirst for conquest of the Romans (often with the worst types of tyranny, where the masters had the right over life or death of the slaves, a right which was not withdrawn until Antonin), we never read that the apostles themselves denounced slavery as a sin against the law of “love thy neighbor.” Neither did they denounce the authority of Nero, despite this monster’s horrible abuse of his power. They do, however, emphasize the masters’ responsibilities. Thus writes the holy apostle Paul in his letter to the Christians in Ephesians: “You masters also must do the same by them (the slaves), give up the use of threats, remember you have the same master in heaven, and He has no favorites.” In a similar manner he writes to the Christians in Colossae: “Master, be just and fair to your slaves, knowing that you too have a master in heaven” (Col. 4:1). At the time, however, the same apostle admonishes the slaves to obey their masters. In his letter to the Ephesians, after having addressed children and parents regarding their duties to one another: “Slaves, obey your masters with fear and trembling, single mindedly as serving Christ. Do not offer merely the outward show of service, to curry favor with men, but, as slaves of Christ, do wholeheartedly the will of God. Give the cheerful service of those who serve the Lord, not men. For you know that whatever good each man may do, slave or free, will be repaid him by the Lord” (Eph. 6:5-8).
He uses almost the same words as he counsels the slaves in his letter to the Colossians in Col. 3:22-25. Paul also asks the bishop of Titus in Crete to remind the slaves: “Tell the slaves to respect their masters’ authority in everything, and to comply with their demands without answering back; not to pilfer, but to show themselves strictly honest and trustworthy; for in all such ways they will add luster to the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9-10). He gives the same pastoral advice to Timothy when he writes to him: “All who wear the yoke of slavery must count their own masters worthy of all respect, so that the name of God and the Christian teaching are not brought into disrepute” (1 Tim. 6:1). Unanimous with Paul, because he is inspired and driven by the same Spirit, Peter writes, after having explained his basic principle: “Servants, accept the authority of your masters with all due submission, not only when they are kind and considerate, but even when they are perverse. For it is a fine thing if a man endure the pain of undeserved suffering because God is in his thought” (1 Peter 2:18-19). Thus Peter equals obedience and disobedience of a slave to his master to obedience and disobedience to authority per se, and declares the disobedient slave and the one who has incited him to be a rebel.
Who then can read all of this, in his heart accepting Holy Scripture as the word of God, and still consider the relationship of master and slave to be a sinful one, offensive to God’s will and order and to the spirit of the Gospel which therefore must be abolished? Is every slave owner a thief, a robber, and a denier of the truth and therefore guilty; and if he wants to be just before the eyes of God must he release his slaves? How could than the apostle give instructions to the masters, as he does, and how could the apostle demand from the slaves that they obey their masters “as Christ” and to “give them all honor,” even those masters who mistreat them, to submit to them for “the sake of their conscience”? Can one give rules and instructions to a thief and robber to treat that which he has stolen in a decent and righteous manner? Does one consider a thief and robber who has unlawfully set himself over us “with all honors” and submit even to those who mistreat us “for the sake of conscience”? Or does one want to believe that the holy apostles thought up such teachings only for political reasons, and for political reasons explained the duties of master and slave, based on the fourth commandment; that the Gospel actually condemns slavery and demands emancipation? Did they avoid this issue because they feared the power and rage of those in authority and did not want general unrest and change?
What Christian could speak in such a blasphemous manner of God’s chosen saints and His word? No, those who say of themselves: “We cannot agree with falsehood, neither do we pervert God’s word, rather we confess the truth and stand fast before God against the conscience of others” (2 Cor. 4:2); they cannot turn light into dark and evil into good for political reasons or fear of their fellow man. Had the Holy Spirit enlightened them that slavery is an immoral practice which is irreconcilable with the spirit of the Gospel, they would have boldly spoken out against it. They would have demanded its abolishment from all those wanting to be saved, without compromise, just as they have fought any other ungodly ways of the pagan and Jewish world. They would have demanded that they desist, or else lose salvation. They were under the command: “What I say to you in the dark, you must repeat in broad daylight; what you hear whispered, you must shout from the housetops” (Matt. 10:27). They had the promise: “However, when He comes who is the spirit of truth, He will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:13). And they knew that Christ “had not come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), and to “light a fire on earth” (Luke 12:49) which would burn them too. And note, not fearing this sword and fire, they fearlessly “disclosed to them the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27). Therefore, far be it from every true Christian to suspect that these “chosen instruments” (Acts 9:15) who did not shrink from the fight with the whole word, namely the rich, would have agreed with the worldly view concerning slavery.
Had the apostles only admonished the slaves and bade them to be obedient and loyal to their masters, one might think that slavery was a cross to be borne patiently. To be a slave owner, however, would be incompatible with Christianity, such as a Christian is required to patiently endure the tyranny of a despot, but may himself not be a tyrant. However, as we have already learned, the apostles of the Lord did not only admonish the slaves, they also admonished their masters and instructed the latter not how to set their slaves free, but how to treat them properly. Even escaped slaves whom they converted, were sent back to their masters from whom nothing else was demanded but to accept them as their spiritual brothers (Philem. 10-19). It is quite clear that the apostles did not only address pagans and Jews, but Christians as well, as can be ascertained from a letter Paul wrote to Timothy, in which there is explicit mention of “believing” slave owners. It states: “If the masters are believers, the slaves must not respect them any less for being their Christian brothers. Quite contrary, they must be all the better servants because those who receive the benefit of their service are one with them in faith and love” (1 Tim. 6:2). It is not the intention of the Holy Spirit that the slaves of believers should get the idea: “My master is my brother in Christ, therefore I am his equal. Consequently he should free me, and I need no longer serve him.” To the contrary, they should think: “My master is my brother in Christ, before God I am his equal, he has no greater father in heaven, no greater savior nor spirit, no better mercy and justice, no greater hope, than I. So I will not concern myself with the physical inequality in which I find myself here on earth, but I will serve him all the better as a dear brother in faith.” In another letter the apostle writes: “For the man who as a slave received the call to be a Christian is the Lord’s freedman, and equally, the free man who received the call is a slave in the service of Christ” (1 Cor. 7:22).
It is noteworthy at 1 Tim. 6:1-2 that the apostle, after first having defined the duties of slaves—both those belonging to believers and non-believers—addresses Timothy himself with these words: “This is what you are to teach and preach. If anyone is teaching otherwise, and will not give his mind to wholesome precepts—I mean those of our Lord Jesus Christ—and to good religious teaching, I call him a pompous ignoramus. He is morbidly keen on mere verbal questions and quibbles, which give rise to jealousy, quarreling slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles: all typical of men who have let their reasoning powers become atrophied and have lost grip of the truth. They think religion should yield dividends” (1 Tim. 6:2-5).
Truly, we cannot understand how a believing Christian can read this and still agree with the humanists of our times that slavery and serfdom are unjust. We assert that anyone who still has regard for God’s Word will be pierced by these words into his very heart. Anyone dreaming this modern world’s dream of abolition should perceive these words as God’s slaps, waking him from his dream. For here the apostle, in the Holy Spirit, explains in plain words that all he had said before, concerning the slave’s conduct towards his master, should be taught by every preacher of the Gospel; and that he who teaches otherwise is in the dark and knows nothing, no matter how brilliant he considers himself. Such a man, therefore, is to be avoided by the believing Christian! This must, therefore, be a matter of consequence and great importance, on which hinges God’s honor and man’s salvation. And so it is! For the Christian this is not merely a neutral, political issue. The question is not: Is it advantageous for a state, a country, a people, to lawfully abolish slavery? The question is: Does the law of love and justice demand that all people enjoy equal civil liberties and rights; is it right or wrong to use the existing civil law which enables one to exercise rights over another person; is it right or wrong to acknowledge and accept such a law? The question is whether the old canon—Evangelium non abolet politias—the Gospel does not remove political law—is a lie, and whether the Gospel demands civil equality. The question is whether Christian freedom, that is the freedom we received from Christ, is a physical, civil one; whether Christ was the kind of Messiah expected by the Jews, who would free his people from earthly oppression; whether the Gospel contains elements of rebellion which seek to do away with worldly law. The issue is whether the apostle’s words are the truth applied to all conditions: “Where there is authority, it is ordained by God.” According to the old logical principle Non variant speciem plusve minusve suam, (“more or less does not change the essence of a thing”), every other involuntary relationship of subservience especially in a monarchy where voters do not elect their leaders, would also be against the law of human rights. Furthermore, it is a question whether it is a sin to be rich while the neighbor is poor, and whether love and “inherent equal human rights” demands that the rich use his possessions to prevent the poor from falling into slavery and thus effect emancipation via sharing of goods.[12] It is a question whether he is a thief, who, though he lawfully acquired his possessions, cannot prove whether those from whom he acquired them legitimately owned them; whether all owners, based on the origin of their property, are thieves and should be treated as such. And finally it is a question whether the large number of saints mentioned in Holy Scripture in the Old Testament who owned slaves, were in reality tyrannical thieves of men, and whether Holy Scripture is the holy, eternal, unchanging word of God, or man’s composition to effect a quasi-godly approval of oppression and a product of papal lies and deceit (as claimed by atheists).
“What then,” comes the cry, “does the Gospel not demand compassion for the often terrible conditions of slavery? Does the Gospel demand that one remain unsympathetic to the tears and sighs forced from these slaves by inhumane masters? Does the Gospel not demand that at least one works on removing these horrible atrocities so often connected with slavery? Or does the Gospel cover all these obscenities, this total spiritual neglect, injustice, destruction of marriages, cruelty, etc., with a halo?” We answer: “Far from it!” We have already pointed to Gen. 18:19, 17:12; Exod. 20:10; Deut. 5:14; Ex. 12:44, 21:26-27; Job 31:13; Eph. 6:8-9; Col. 4:1, where it is shown how slaves are to be treated by their masters. We also remind of scripture which deals with abduction or selling of men into slavery and the punishment thereof (1 Tim. 1:10; Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7). To see to it that these godly rules are observed, especially by authority, this we consider to be the true task of each Christian who lives in a land where slavery is lawful. Such efforts, where slavery itself remains (in principle: Abusus non tollit usum, sed confirmat substantiam, “misuse does not abolish proper use but rather confirms the essence of a thing”), which would result in a Christian, just, loving, formulation of this political and economical condition which would honor God and serve man. Such efforts are worthy of the diligent efforts of the true Christian.
May this suffice as proof that slavery is not against Christian morals. In the following issues we intend to let our true theologians of old speak to this matter. Their comments will make clear that we have no hidden agenda underlying our protest against acceptance of the humanistic, revolutionary leaven into our Lutheran theology. We are merely concerned with the preservation of purity of our Lutheran, biblical theology. We have long since given witness privately, and in publications, of our opposition to the current political confusion and the dangerous abolitionist movements which are anti-Gospel and anti-Christ.
We come to the close of this year’s foreword by declaring our serious fight against the spread of humanism, which has already infiltrated our church with its deistic and atheistic concepts of philanthropy, as the most important issue for this year.
True to our promise, we are now citing some of our old scholars on the question of slavery. Quite properly, we start with Luther. He mentions slavery often, especially in his exegetical writings. In his explanation of Chapter 7 of 1 Corinthians, Paul’s words give him the necessary impetus. We quote:
1 Cor. 7:20-21: “Everyone should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not let that trouble you, but if a chance for liberty should come, take it.”
At another time Paul reiterates this counsel. At that time there were still many who were slaves, as still are to this day. Just as a spouse is to relate to the other spouse, which is also a form of slavery, so shall a slave relate to his master, if his master owns him. That is, his slavery is no hindrance to his Christian belief. Therefore, he should not run away from his master, but remain with him, whether his master is a believer or not, whether he is good or evil; except in cases where the master keeps or forces the slave from his belief, then it is time to escape and run. However, as mentioned above concerning a Christian spouse, that applies also to a Christian slave of a non-Christian master. “…But if a chance for liberty should come, take it.” Not that you rob your master of yourself, and run away without his will and knowledge. This does not mean that you should remain in bondage though you want to be free and your master is willing to set you free. Paul merely wants to inform your conscience so that you know how both these states are free in the sight of God— whether you are a slave or not. He does not want to deny you the right to become free, with your master’s agreement, rather to assure your conscience that you are equal in the sight of God, free to honor God. For Christian doctrine does not teach to steal another’s property, but rather to honor all commitments one has towards another.
Verse 22: “For the man who as a slave received the call to be a Christian is the Lord’s freedman, and, equally, the free man who received the call is a slave in the service of Christ.”
This means: It is all the same to God whether you are free or a slave; just as circumcision does not matter: none of these are a hindrance to faith and salvation. In this respect I might say: in matters of faith it is of no consequence whether you are rich or poor, young or old, handsome or unattractive, educated or uneducated, a lay-person or a cleric. Whosoever was poor when called into the faith is rich in the sight of God. Whosoever was rich when called into the faith is poor in the sight of God; whoever was young when called is old in the sight of God; whoever was unattractive when called is handsome in the sight of God. And vice-versa: The uneducated one is educated before God; the layperson is a cleric before God. All this is to show that our faith makes us equal in the sight of God, and that before God there is no difference between persons or class. Therefore here too: Whoever was a slave when called to faith is a freedman of God, that is, God values him the same as if he were free. And again: Whoever was a freedman when called to faith is a slave of Christ, that is, he is no better than the slave. It is as Paul said in Gal. 3:28: “There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and freedman, male and female; for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.” For there is equal faith, equal property, equal inheritance and all is equal. So you might also say: “If a male has been called, he is female before God, and where a female has been called, she is male.” Therefore, the words “slave of Christ” do not refer to the service for Christ, but mean that he is a slave among men on earth, because he belongs to Christ and is subject to Him. Thus, he is equal to the freedman, and the freedman is equal to the slave, and yet he belongs to Christ because he is His slave.
Verse 23: “You were bought at a price, do not become slaves of men.”
What has been said here? Just now he taught that to remain a slave for slavery is no hindrance to the faith, and then he admonishes not to become a slave? Without doubt this is a statement against men’s teaching, which wants to negate such freedom and equality in faith and burden the conscience. It becomes clear that this is what he means when he says: “You have been bought at a price…” He is referring to Christ here, who has redeemed us from all our sins and laws with his own blood (Gal. 5:1) This redemption does not occur in a worldly manner, and it disregards all relationships men have with one another, such as between slave and master, husband and wife. These relationships all come to naught, for here something spiritual is happening, in the knowledge that before God we are no longer bound by the law, but we are all free of it. Before we were prisoners of sin, but now we are without sin. Whatever worldly obligations or freedom remain, however, are neither sin nor virtue, they are merely external comfort or discomfort, sorrow or joy, just as other worldly possessions or unpleasantries. With either of them we can live freely and without sin.
Verse 24: “Thus each one, my brothers, is to remain before God in the condition in which he received his call.”
Here he reiterates for the third time the concept of Christian freedom, that all external things are free before God. A Christian may therefore use them as he likes; he may take advantage of them or leave them. Then he adds: “before God,” which means it is between you and God. For you are not performing a service to God when you marry or remain unmarried, are a slave or free, or become this and that, eat certain things only. Neither are you offending God if you do the one or the other. Finally, all you owe God is to believe and confess. Concerning all other matters He gives you the freedom to do as you want, without risk to your conscience. Neither does He care whether you release a woman, run away from your master or keep a promise. What does He care if you do these things or omit them? But since you are obligated to your neighbor by becoming his slave, God does not want to deprive anyone of his property by demanding freedom for another. He wants you to honor your commitment to your neighbor. For even though God does not care for His own sake, He does care for your neighbor’s sake. This is what He means when He says: “Among men or your neighbor I will not free you, for I do not want to take what is his, until he himself sets you free. But for me you are free and cannot come to ruin, whether you hold on to or let go of things external.” Therefore, note and understand this freedom properly, that the relationship between you and God is not like the one between you and your neighbor; in the former there is freedom, in the latter there is not. The reason for this is that God gives you this freedom only in what is yours, not what is your neighbor’s. Differentiate, therefore, between what is yours and what is your neighbor’s. For this reason a man cannot leave his wife, his body is not his, it belongs to his wife. And again. The physical body of the slave is not his own, but it belongs to the master. Before God it is nothing whether a man leaves his wife; for the physical body is nothing to God but has been freely given by God for external use. Only the inner faith belongs to God, but men must honor their commitment to each other. Sum total therefore: We owe no one anything except to love them and serve our neighbor with our love. Where there is love there is no danger of conscience or sin before God with eating, drinking, clothing, living this way or that— where it is not offensive to one’s neighbor. We cannot sin against God in this manner, only against our neighbor.
Now it must be noted that the word “call” here does not refer to position (status) into which one is called, as one says: matrimony is a position, the priesthood is a position, and so on, each has such a call from God. St. Paul is not referring to such a “call” here, rather he is speaking about the evangelical call which means: Remain in the call to which you have been called, that is, as the Gospel calls and finds you, there remain. If you are married when receiving the call, remain in that position; if it calls you while in slavery, remain in slavery into which you have been called. What then? If it is calling me while in a sinful position, must I remain therein? Answer: If you are in the faith and love, that is, you have received the Gospel’s call, do whatever you will, go on sinning; but how can you sin if you have faith and love, since by faith things are done for God and by love for your neighbor. Therefore it is impossible that you would be called while in a sinful position, remaining in it. However, if you so remain, you either have not been called or you have not perceived the call. For this call causes you to change from the sinful position to the devout one so that you cannot sin as long as you remain within the call. You are free before God by faith; but for man you are everyone’s servant through love. From this you can determine that monasticism and spirit-mongering are wrong for our times, for they join forces before God with external things, though God readily releases them they strive against faith’s freedom and God’s order. Again, they ought to be committed to man in that they lovingly serve everyone, yet they obtain their freedom and are of no use or service to anyone but themselves, striving against love. Thus it is a foolish people, reversing all of God’s rights, wanting to be free though they are committed, and committed where they are free, and yet aiming to obtain higher seats in heaven than the ordinary Christian. Indeed, they will be seated in the abyss of hell, they who perverted heavenly freedom into hellish constraints and made loving servitude into hostile freedom. (Walch Tom., IIXX, 1123-1130)
Melanchthon writes further:
Aristotle rightfully denounces those who, based on their unlawful and excessive desire for freedom, indict the type of slavery accepted by international law. However, we would be greatly more justified to indict the Schwärmerei of our times, who under the guise of the Gospel are calling people to freedom, insisting that slavery is against the Gospel. Since we have already discussed this matter quite often, let it suffice for now to remind the reader that just as the Gospel does not negate the command: “Honor your father and mother,” neither does it disapprove of masters or slavery, but rather confirms them by its witness and teaches that for the taming of the godless, human masters and slaves are necessary. And these things are being made use of by the saints, as well as other good creatures of God… The concept that according to natural law all is common is being explained in that it applies to man’s nature as it was before the occurrence of original sin. Speaking of the current condition, after the fall, we rightfully ascertain that the apportionment of things is a matter of natural law. And I do not agree with the assertion of the old lawyers that based on natural law all is common; for they are speaking of the current natural condition which indicates that apportionment of things is necessary. Thus they say: “According to natural reasoning that which previously belonged to no one will be apportioned to the one who takes possession.” This assertion teaches that based on natural reasoning one gains a thing by simply taking possession. Natural reasoning here means natural law. I am saying this in order to warn the reader not to be fooled by those declarations which praise those platonic communes which because of their newness tempt the uninitiated, giving opportunity for vast, destructive, errors. No other virtue adorns Christian cognizance more fully than when one conscientiously honors the state’s laws and its heads. Therefore statements which speak against public peace must be far removed from the Gospel. If someone says that community of goods is a godly law, let your reply be: “Thou shalt not steal.” For that command demands that everyone keeps that which is his. If someone insists that community of property is an evangelical prerogative, answer with St. Paul’s statement which refers to lawful orders of government as God’s order, Rom. 13:1. If someone argues that community of property is based on natural law, reply with the judgment of reason, proving that based on the sinful nature of man it is impossible to have property in common. For the slothful would want to be sustained by the labor of others, against natural law, which is validated by the words of Gen. 3:19: “You shall gain your bread by the sweat of your brow…” (Corpus Reformator, XVI, 426, 427, 432, 433)[14]
Luther writes about Johannes Brenz, whom he respected highly:
Among the Israelites, there were two systems of slavery. One concerned Israelites who were sold to other Israelites or to foreigners living among them. About these the law says: “When your brother is reduced to poverty and sells himself to you, you shall not use him to work for you as a slave. His status shall be that of a hired man or a stranger lodging with you; he shall work for you until the year of jubilee. He shall then leave your service…” (Lev. 25:39-41). Concerning those who sell themselves to foreigners, it says: “One of his brothers shall redeem him…” (v. 49). Shortly thereafter it says: “…you shall not let him be driven with ruthless severity by his owner. If the man is not redeemed in the intervening years, he and his children shall be released in the year of jubilee…” (v. 53-54). The other dealt with conditions for slaves which the Israelites purchased from foreigners or had taken as prisoners of war. There conditions were much more severe. Here the law says that “These may become your property and you may leave them to your sons after you; you may use them as slaves permanently” (v. 46). These never gained freedom, not even during the year of jubilee, except when their master released them or they were redeemed with money, or in cases of disability (see Ex. 31). One can thus see that the conditions for slaves were sometimes severe, sometimes more easily bearable. Though the experts of the law contend that slavery is against natural law, for according to natural law all men are at first born free. However, because of sin, slavery is one of the bonds with which those who are mentally weak are held to their duties; and those who are reckless and irresponsible are controlled.
Therefore, God does not condemn civil law where slavery is legal, as long as it is bearable and not in conflict with Love with which we are to treat our neighbors; where the master does not have the right to mistreat or kill the slave according to his own desires, treating them like beasts of burden, but must provide sustenance and discipline for the slave, as discussed by Syrach. The Holy Spirit Himself expressed that God does not abhor slavery among men, and that the wicked and wild must be held in check and punished with the yoke of slavery when He cursed Canaan: “Cursed be Canaan, slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Ex. 9:25), and to Esau He said: “…the older shall be servant to the younger” (Gen. 25:23). And St. Paul says: “Every man should remain in the condition in which he was called for the man who as a slave received the call to be a Christian…” (1 Cor. 7:20-21). Elsewhere he admonishes the masters, not that they should set their slaves free if they want to be Christians— though this is allowed and would be a great mercy— but that they demonstrate justice to their slaves and to remember that they too have a master who is in heaven. (About Leviticus, Chap. I, p. 902, 903)
Brenz, the old, enlightened theologian, is very certain that the duty of the slave against his master is part of the fourth commandment. Instead of proving this, he uses it as proof. About Gen. 16:9 he writes:
Let us analyze what the angel is saying to Hagar, the slave woman. First he orders her to return home and obey her mistress according to the law. We can see from this that we are dealing with a good angel, for Satan’s angel does not teach lawful obedience, but unlawful rebellion and riots. (ibid)
Luther says about Caspar Cruciger, his co-worker on Bible translation: “His books are ample proof of the spirit in which he teaches and advances God’s word.”[15] Cruciger writes the following, among others, about 1 Tim. 6:
To instruct people of various social positions, St. Paul also instructs the slaves of their duties. Here we have to accept that the Gospel does not abolish civil slavery or the difference between freedmen and slaves. Indeed, as the Gospel confirms other political issues, so it also confirms freedom, dominion and slavery. Other testimony by St. Paul regarding masters and slaves must be viewed in the same manner, in opposition to that of the Schwärmgeister (those filled with the spirit of religious visions)[16] who strive to abolish dominion, property rights, slavery, and similar political orders. Without doubt, at the time of our church’s beginning there were some, wrongly informed, who had similar views, as if man ought not be burdened with slavery. These views caused dissension among the slaves. For these reasons St. Paul often repeats the relevant commandment, adding that they should not desecrate the Gospel. For men, upon hearing that the Gospel negates political relationships, become fearful of the Gospel and insult it. Even believers must diligently beware of such vexations. (In epist. Pauli ad Tim. Argentor, 1540, pp. 257-258.)
Martin Chemnitz, the well-known, incomparable, “Second Martin” (“Alter Martinus”) of our church, citing Scripture in his Loci dealing with the slave owner’s duties, continues:
However, the slaves’ duties are more carefully defined because their conditions are harsh, and seem unworthy of the Christian confession, in that those who have been freed with the blood of Christ should be under men’s yoke of slavery. St. Paul describes the obedience of slaves by first explaining that they are not in slavery as the result of chance or human oppression, but that God Himself has established these differences of occupation. Therefore they are to be obedient to their masters for thus they are doing God’s will, for God has in this manner given their (the slaves’) labors to their masters. Consequently they need not doubt that God regards these labors as if having been done for Him. (Loc. Th. II, 64.)
Friedrich Balduin, professor in Wittenberg (d. 1627), writes concerning 1 Tim. 6:1-2:
The apostle begins with the slaves, as his letters often do, especially those letters to Asian congregations, such as the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Timothy. He was compelled by five reasons.
There were many slaves in Asia who were well reputed, as Agesilaus, king of the Lacedaemonians, used to say that the freedman among the residents of Asia were wicked while the slaves were good. If these slaves were to be converted to Christianity, they needed to be instructed that though their worldly position was disdainful, it was nevertheless pleasing to God as long as they would diligently perform their duties according to their positions.
Hebrew slaves obtained their freedom after six years (Ex. 21:2). To prevent Christian slaves from demanding the same of their masters, they are commanded by St. Paul’s apostolic authority to be subject to their masters, as explained by Augustinus in his 77th question about Exodus.
Already at that time there were people who misunderstood the apostolic doctrine of Christian freedom, which frees from sin, death, hell, and other spiritual enemies. These people understood this to mean political freedom as if Christians are not subject to authority and sovereignty. This instruction was therefore necessary because the Gospel does not negate political law. This issue is treated by Chrysostomus in his 16th Homily, a commentary on this text.
Disgust expressed by the heathen had to be dealt with lest they become more repulsed by the Christian religion when they observed immorality even among the slaves. For the heathen did not base their judgment on words, but on works and conduct, says Chrysostomus in his fourth homily on the letter to Titus.
The lifestyles of the slaves themselves demanded repeated instruction of this kind, Chrysostomus continues. It was accepted as fact among all peoples that slaves were usually impudent, intolerant, spiteful, sly, and scarcely able to accept the doctrine of virtue; not because of their very nature, but because of their consociates and negligent lifestyle. Concerning morality they seem to have been totally neglected by their masters. For these reasons then the apostle often reminds the slaves of their duties.
In our text he gives them two rules: One pertains to those slaves whose masters are unbelievers; the other to those whose masters are believers. The first one: “Slaves are to honor their masters, so as not to revile the name of God and His doctrine.” Slaves are different from laborers, though. Laborers serve many. They are also called banausi and also thetes. The Athenisians called them thessae because they were low-class women serving for hire. Among these same Athenisians the “thetic” class was the fourth after the census which included tradesmen and day laborers which were excluded from holding public office and were exempt from tax.
Slaves, however, are those whose service has become the property of another. Of these it is said that they have either been born into this class or have been made slaves. Born into it because they were born by women slaves; made into slaves by political power, e.g., by being a prisoner of war or, as a freedman over twenty years old, who sold himself into slavery. The apostle is not talking about hired laborers here, because they are not owned by any one master, and are under the rule of 1 Thess. 4:6. “No man must do his brother wrong in this matter or invade his rights…” He is speaking of slaves, of whom he says are “under the yoke,” for they are not their own masters but tied to a master.
Slavery is indeed a yoke under which one suffers. It is a lowly and terrible state, for nothing is lower and more terrible than to be given to another as his own, and if one obtains something, it is obtained for the other. “Yoke” (zygos or zygon) is a pair of oxen, tied together. As a metaphor it relates to slavery. Plato speaks of the yoke of slavery, describing the hardship and misery of slavery. Those who are under the yoke of slavery are called by the apostle to “honor their masters.” He defines as “their masters” those who have authority over them, regardless of their social position or their religion, as long as they are masters of slaves. He wants these not only to be honored— something which is often against the slave’s will— he also wants them deemed to be worthy of honor, because God Himself has found them worthy of this honor, He defined the difference between slave and master. This is made clear in the fourth commandment which says to honor father and mother, names which also apply to our masters and all those who have been set over us. He refers to “all honor” which slaves owe their masters, for there is also an honor which is due only to God and which we exclude here, of course. This honor to which masters are entitled, is not only reverence, but all acts of kindness[17], and everything else which is not against God. The basis for this rule is: “So as not to revile the name of God,” namely among the heathens. For, as we said above, the heathens do not judge our belief by words, but by the actions and lives of men.
Homer writes about slaves in his Odyssey that they have lost half of all virtues, that slaves usually are evil and sly and are perceived as such. For these reasons, terrible punishments were devised by governments in order to curb this evil and increasing audacity. Therefore, says Chrysostomus in his fourth homily on the Epistle to Titus, once the heathens notice that such an impudent, insolent type of people are influenced by our religion and become controllable, honorable and humble, their masters will respect the tenets of our religion, though they (the heathens) may be ignorant and unreasonable. Obedient slaves can be of great service to our church. As Chrysostomus himself adds, the more wicked they once were, the more the power of the Gospel becomes apparent through them once they have become believers.
This is the other rule for slaves: “Those whose masters are believers ought not despise them because they are brothers, but rather be all the more of service to them because they are one with them in faith and love.” Converted slaves could have objected that all Christians are united by Christ, and therefore it is iniquitous that one assume authority over the other, or that one should become subservient to another. The apostle answers that Christians should not scorn their masters. The relation through Christ refers to the soul, the faith, word and sacrament, and salvation itself, where there is no difference between slave and freedman (Gal.3:28). However, concerning their vocation and social position, they are different. Therefore, they ought to be even more willing to serve those masters whom they know to be believers. These faithful he calls “brothers” of the church.
It must be noted here what Hieronymus said to contradict Helvidius towards the end. Holy Scripture uses the term “brothers” with four different meanings: based on nature, based on race, based on kinship, and based on affection. Based on nature, brothers are those with the same parents like Esau and Jacob; based on race such as all Jews (Deut. 15:12); based on kinship as Lot is referred to as Abraham’s brother. Brothers based on affection are divided into two categories— spiritual and general. In the spiritual sense all Christians are brothers, according to Psalm 133:1 “How good it is and how pleasant for brothers to live together.” In this sense then slaves become the brothers of their masters who are believers, because all people are of one father and therefore in brotherhood with one another. 1 Cor. 5:11 states: “I now write that you must have nothing to do with any so-called Christian who leads a loose life…” However, the apostle adds three reasons why slaves should obey their masters who are believers.
“Because they are believers.” Common faith works toward greater love, and the apostle advises elsewhere to do good works but first of all to those who are fellow believers (Gal. 6:10).
Because they are “loved.” The Greek word agapetos usually means a loved one or one who already is being loved by another. Hieronymus comments on the epistle to Philemon that it means the same as being worthy of love, because the run-away slave Onesimus is referred to as a beloved (agapetos) brother (v. 16), which means that he is worthy of love. Christian masters are loved by God, therefore worthy of the love of men. Others use the words “gentle, kind, not testy but affable.” All this is the result of the Christian religion, for the sake of which slaves are to honor these masters even more.
Because “they are the recipients of good deeds.” Chrysostomus relates these words to the slaves as if they receive more good from their masters than the masters receive from the slaves. However, because this is the same for slaves of believers and non-believers, this explanation does not fit. We tend to agree instead with Ambrosius who speaks of “God’s good deeds,” which is otherwise referred to as God’s mercy which He grants, through Jesus, to the slaves as well as to their believing masters. That is why some have added the word “God”: “They are recipients of God’s good deeds,” which is not found in the Greek text. Because all believers receive God’s mercy in Christ, no one is to scorn the other, nor should the believing slave deny his service to his master.
These are the rules for slaves. According to the apostle’s admonishment they should not only be taught, but also be impressed upon the slaves. It is in their nature to defy those masters whom they know to be their equal concerning spiritual blessings, against whom they easily rebel unless they are regularly reminded of their duties. He goes on to discuss false teachers, who either scorn certain doctrines concerning domestic life and therefore claim to possess superior wisdom and concoct new, but useless ideas, or are otherwise not sound in their faith. (Commentar. in Epp. Pauli Francof, 1664, pp. 1367-1369)
Michael Reichard, during a Latin disputation held in 1617 in Wittenberg, answered the question “Does slavery disagree with Christian freedom?” thus:
Erasmus of Rotterdam writes about Eph. 6:5: “Among the Christians the words master and slave seem to be scorned; for as baptism makes us all brothers, how then is it fitting for a brother to call the other ‘slave’”? However, it is quite wrong to mistake Christian freedom for civil freedom. We need to realize that man must be regarded in two vocations and social positions. First as a Christian and in fellowship with God, all of which relates to spiritual matters. Here of course is the highest measure of equality between masters and slaves, for in Christ we are neither man nor woman, neither slave nor freedman (Gal. 5:13); in love we serve one another. Such services were probably performed by men while in the state of innocence; as it is fitting that the younger obey the older and the inexperienced obey the experienced. Secondly, man is also viewed as a citizen, which pertains to matters of physical and external nature. Here there is a difference between freedmen and slaves, but neither does being a master increase Christian freedom nor does slavery decrease it. Christian freedom is not of external relations, nor is it part of civil law; but it belongs to Christ’s kingdom which is spiritual. Therefore, slavery can coexist with Christianity and Christian freedom as well as submission of children to their parents.
Politicians and theologians view the origin of slavery differently. The former are of the opinion (according to Plinius in the Seventh Book of Natural History, ch. 56) that the Lacedaemonians were the first Greek people (among which slavery was unknown for a long time, according to Herodotus’s witness in the Seventh Book) to espouse the concept of slavery; as it spread, the victor would not slay those whom he had actually captured (manu cepissent), keep them for himself (servarent) whereby they became servants (servi) and were consequently called slaves (mancipia). Horace refers to this in his Epistles, Book 1, Ep. 16 when he says: “If you can sell the prisoner, do not slay him” (“vendere cum possis captivum, occidere noli”).
The apostle Peter writes in 2 Peter 2:19 “…for a man is the slave of whatever has mastered him.” However, the origin of slavery accepted by theologians is much older. They refer to slavery as a consequence of sin, and rightly so. Man was made in the image of God, but it is God’s nature to rule, not to obey. Therefore it follows that it is not in man’s nature to be a slave. For this reason then, while in the state of innocence, men were not masters over men, for they willingly did everything in order to do the will of the Creator. However, after the fall all this changed, and soon dominion of men over men and the difference between master and slave developed as punishment for sin on both parties. For the master is subject to much toil and endless dangers. The slave must submit to another’s will, and neither of them lives his life without severe hardships. They are both suffering the just punishment from a just God. That is why Scripture mentions the first slave after the flood, Gen. 9:25 where Noah says: “Cursed be Canaan, slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” Ambrosius refers to this section of scripture in his Book of Elisha and Fasting, Chapter 5: “If there had been no dipsomania, there would be no slavery today.” That is why God Himself later on gave the law, defining the duties of slaves in the Hebrew republic (Ex. 21ff.). Based on these, the condition of our slaves is much more bearable.
All of this leads us to believe that slavery is a God-pleasing condition, ordered by Him; a condition under which everyone can live as best as possible and do God-pleasing works, even though there are enough tribulations. Some of these are because by nature we are not suitable for slavery, some of them are because we were born to pride and arrogance. It is much easier, though, to serve than to rule, especially if one deals with wicked, stupid, people. For these reasons we repeatedly read apostolic admonishments concerning slavery, such as Eph. 6:5; Co. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:6; 1 Peter 2:18, and so on. (Quaestiones Illustres Ex Epp. Ad. Phil. et Col. Erutae Aut, F. Balduino, Disp. 8, Mich. Reichard. pp. 5-7)
III. A Later Lutheran Theologian About Slavery.[18]
We could refer to many more testimonials by old Lutheran teachers. The above, however, suffice to show to what conclusions they have come, concerning Christian doctrine and slavery. After having cited a number of these testimonials, we now turn to a newer theologian.
Dr. G. C. A. von Harless writes in his Ethics:
It is the relationship of Christian brotherhood under whose guise the slaves attempted to change the God-ordered difference between master and slave into a false equality; or, in the name of Christian freedom tried to replace Christian obedience with disobedience and rebellion. (Compare admonishments to the slaves by St. Paul and Peter: “If the masters are believers, the slaves must not respect them any less for being their Christian brothers. Quite the contrary, they must be all the better servants because those who receive the benefit of their service are one with them in faith and love” (1 Tim.6:2). “Servants, accept the authority of your masters with all due submission, not only when they are kind and considerate, but even when they are perverse. For it is a fine thing if a man endure the pain of undeserved suffering because God is in his thoughts” (1 Peter 2:18, ff.). The perverse attitude of the slaves is often met with the equally perverse attitude of the masters. They either think that they must yield their right over the slaves in order to demonstrate to them the concept of Christian brotherhood, or, under the pretense of their Christian rights, they harbor selfish and cruel harshness.
The spirit of Christ reacts against this self-delusion or deceit of all sorts. By His power we transfer to relationships within the family those principles with which we are already familiar, we realize that within the family too there is godly order and structure. These are not to be torn down but to be fulfilled, filled with the power of the spirit of Christ, which is a spirit of righteousness as well as of self-denying, merciful love. According to the apostle, in this manner then the slaves obey their masters “as serving Christ” (Eph. 6:5), and the masters forget the state of slavery in their treatment of slaves “as their brothers.” (See also Philem. 15)
Therefore, the form is not changed (1 Cor. 7:21), but everything is new through the spirit of Christ’s freedom, which gives the proper content to all earthly form, excluding all selfish misuse which is perversion of earthly form. (See also 1 Cor.7:22). (Christian Ethics, 5 ed., Stuttgart 1853, pp. 287, 288.)
Concerning Eph. 6:1 and following, he writes:
The apostle discusses the issue of slaves also in Col. 3:22ff; compare Tit. 2:9ff.; 1 Tim. 6:1 ff.; 1 Cor. 7:21 (where I accept the explanation of the Greek elders “if you can obtain freedom remain a slave,” as the right one, based on language and content), also on 1 Pet.2:18. The apostle shows that even under these conditions the power of the Gospel can be manifest in the individual, not by repulsion of slavery, but in that the curse of slavery turns into a blessing through ready obedience.
The Gospel does not abrogate external consequences and punishment for sin. First it waits to see if the contrite, unfettered heart can be turned around. Neither does it say to the Christian slave: “break your fetters.” It breaks the fetters for him in that it removes the master’s cruelty in his fear of a higher master. The repulsion of the slave turns into willing obedience towards him who is the lord of both slave and master. External slavery is neither a product nor a hindrance of the power of the Gospel’s truth. Once the truth takes over, whatever external issue does not agree with it will disappear on its own. It penetrates the roots of the dead tree and with renewed life-power it casts off the dead leaves. Human wisdom cleans the hard trunk of the dead leaves, making it more visible in its ugliness.
I cannot understand, however, how one can consider the concept “general(?) human dignity and human rights”[19] as the doctrine by which the Gospel abolishes slavery— defining it as a doctrine based on Gospel. Heathen antiquity already had this realization. “They are slaves? No, human beings. They are slaves? No, companions. They are slaves? No, fellow servants (conservi)” said Seneca. Antiquity does not lack good principles, suggestions for proper authority and proper service (“serve freely and you will not be a slave,” says Menander).
However, none of these realizations led to abolishment of slavery. Heathendom was not able to get beyond the following: “Every freedman is under a law, but the slave is under two, the law and his master.” That which caused slavery to remain slavery was done away with by Christianity, in that it gave one redeemer to both master and slave, where there is only brotherly love, no slave and no freedman (Gal. 3:28; Philem. 16), but all are one in Christ.
Faced with such a freedom, could the apostle advise to remain in earthly slavery? Or should he at least advise it (1 Cor.7:21) where the concept of Christian freedom was in danger of being misused for the flesh? It is evident that the ancient church did not use this section as perverted ascetics (compare Ignatius im Briefe an Polykarp, chapter 4), as also taught by Thedoret’s comments to 1 Cor. 7:21: “He did not mean this hyperbole to be a generalization, but saw its use in preventing escape from slavery under the guise of religion.” And the master remained master, and the slave remained slave, even though they had become brothers in Christ.
Notes:
Forward. “Vorwort,” No. 1, January 1863, pp. 1-8 and No. 2, February 1863, pp. 33-46. ↑
It seems that these brothers and sisters of the free spirit, with their ways of the flesh, free love, and communism, have already robbed our “young Germany” of the glory to have introduced something new, and impress on our era the stamp of emancipation. ↑
Cf. Ranke’s Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation, 3rd. Ed., Ch. II, pp. 144-183 (German History During the Reformation). ↑
It is the same Rousseau who turned over his five illegitimate children to an orphanage, and on his deathbed declared that he was returning his soul to nature in as pure a condition as he had received it. ↑
Paffe = a cleric, referred to in a contemptuous sense. ↑
We are quite aware of what kind of antagonism we are inviting in that we are discussing the issue based on God’s word. We are quite aware of what terrible weapon against us we are placing into the hands of those who oppose slavery. However, the word and honor of God is higher than all else. What God has made known to us in His word, we will confess, for as long as God allows us to live, no matter how the world and its charmers rage against us or laugh at us. We are not conformists, rather we stand on God’s word. We know that ultimately God’s word and the truth will be victorious, and all who have fought against this word will see that they have fought against God himself, in vain. We see quite well that the wild waters of the new spirit will not be dammed. Unobstructed they flow their way, washing away all that now exists. We, however, do not want to throw ourselves into this stream and perish in it. We will raise our voices, though weak, and give witness against it, hoping for the day when it will be apparent that “God’s foolishness is wiser than man’s wisdom.” That day will grant, without doubt, that for which Christendom has prayed for nearly two thousand years. Amen! ↑
We are therefore inconsiderate of those who have themselves confessed that they will no longer accept the Bible as the word of God if it justifies slavery, but rather condemn it as a work of tyranny. It is clear that these have never truly regarded Holy Scripture as God’s word. Should this article prompt rebuttals, we will only deal with those who seriously consider our biblical explanations. Others, merely expressions of power under the influence of Zeitgeist, empty humanistic declamations or even malicious insinuations with political motives, will be disregarded, no matter how long or seemingly thorough they might be. According to Hamann “those with the emptiest heads have the loosest tongues and most prolific pens” (See Hamann’s Schriften III, 10). ↑
Immediately before that, Melanchthon defines civil liberty thus: “It is the physical ability, as decreed by law, to move one’s body in an honorable manner, from locality to locality, to freely elect an honorable vocation, to own property and to dispose of it at will, as well as enjoying lawful protection of person and property; while Joseph could not move his person from locality to locality neither could he take it away from his master. However, the emphasis is on ‘as decreed by law’ because freedom is not uncontrolled licentiousness. . .” (see also p. 1095). ↑
It is a given that these words also have other, related meanings, just like other words; and it is not important here. ↑
Translator’s note: Leibeigene means literally the proprietary right over the person of another, i.e. a vassal, bondman, or slave. ↑
Therefore Luther says about the ninth and tenth commandments in his Large Catechism, as can be found in our Book of Concord: “God has added these two, that it should be considered a sin; he forbade that one covet his neighbor’s wife or property, especially because under Jewish rule servants were not free to serve for hire, as they do now, but rather they were owned by their masters together with all they might have.” ↑
These latter consequences are readily understood by our radical men of rebellion. The same spirit which in Europe declared the rank of princes to be an outrage in this century, who strove to depose them and replace them with democracy as the only rightful order; this same spirit compels them here to denounce slavery as a degradation of free-born man. It drives them to communism, demanding women’s emancipation (though they quite clearly agree that the female, according to God’s order, is in a certain kind of slavery). Every Christian who aids these agitators concerning slavery, is in the service of this radical-revolutionary spirit. Horrified, they will find out that these contemporary revolutionaries will not be satisfied, that after having achieved once, they will determinedly go on. By then regret over the coalition with these men of radical advancement will be too late. ↑
“The Old Lutheran Scholars About Slavery.” “Die alten lutherischen Lehrer über Sclaverei,” No. 3, March 1863, pp. 79-84, No. 4, April 1863, pp. 118-120, and No. 5, May 1863, pp. 142-147. ↑
Even Calvin could not avoid recognizing that this teaching about servanthood was Biblical. He writes about Ephesians 6:5-9: “The apostle is not speaking about servants who are working for a salary, as is the case today, but about that of those whose servanthood was permanent, unless they were set free out of the goodness of their masters. Their masters had bought them with money for the purpose of misusing them for the dirtiest of services, and by law they had the power of life and death over them. To those servants, he commanded that they should obey their masters, so that they should not dream, but that they might obtain a freedom of the flesh through the gospel…He testifies, however, that they are obedient to God when they serve their earthly masters faithfully; as if he wished to say: do not be sorrowful that you have been brought into servanthood through human arbitrariness. It is God who has placed this burden upon you, who has lent your services to your masters. So the one who does the duties which he owes his earthly master with a clear conscience, not only fulfills his obligations to a person, but to God.” (John Calvin in N.T. Commentary. Ed. A. Tholuck. II, 68.) About Philemon, said Calvin in his commentary about the epistle to the same: “Philemon was not one of the common people, but a coworker with Paul in Christ’s vineyard, and yet his lordship over his servant, which was his through the law, was not taken from him, but he was only instructed to grant forgiveness to the same, and to reinstate him, yes, Paul pleaded on his behalf, that he should receive his former position.” (U. a. D. G. 371.) ↑
See Luther’s introduction to his explanation of Genesis. ↑
Translator’s note: There is no satisfactory one-word translation of the German word Schwärmer; he is a person whose views are not based on fact, but rather on his own visions and imaging. The word Schwärmer can be used with negative as well as positive connotations. ↑
Translator’s note: The German word used is Liebesdienste, i.e. services as an expression of love. ↑
“A Later Lutheran Theologian About Slavery.” “Ein neuerer lutherischer Theolog über Sclaverei”, No. 6, June 1863, pp. 186-187. ↑
The following appears in Concordia Publishing House’s Magazin für ev.-luth. Homiletik und Pastoraltheologie [Magazine for Evangelical Lutheran Homiletics and Pastoral Theology], Volume 43 (1919) pages 91-96.
