rEjhfc 
 
 
 
 ."'MP 
 
 
 ^^m*z& 
 
 M. 1 ■ 
 
 
i LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 
 
 t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 4 
 
 f. # 
 
SLAVEHOLDING- NOT SINFUL 
 
 AN ANSWEK 
 
 BY HENEY K. HOW, 
 
 TO 
 
 JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ.'S REPLY 
 
 TO THE ARGUMENT OP 
 
 REV. DE. I-IOW. 
 
 NEW-BRUNSWICK, N. J. : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE FREDONIAN AND DAHY NEW-BRUNBWICKER OFFICII. 
 
 1856. 
 

New-Brunswick, March 8, 1856. 
 
 TO HON. JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 
 
 Dear Sir : 
 
 I have just finished reading your reply to ray father's argument 
 
 before General Syuoi, entitled, " Slaveholding not Sinful." It was 
 brought to me this morning, and as it requires little thought and less 
 reflection to rebut your arguments, I shall at once proceed to the task. 
 I take the liberty to reply, because you refer to the "copyright 
 secured," and as that was done in my name and for my benefit, I am 
 of course an interested party, and can with propriety reply to your 
 attack. 
 
 Your first assertion worthy of notice is, that Dr. How has pub- 
 lished an argument " apologizing for, supporting, sustaining, giving aid 
 and comfort, in all its length and breadth, to the shocking and loath- 
 some system of human bondage as it exists in the United States." 
 Now, Sir, I reply that no candid, intelligent reader of the argument 
 could have come to such a conclusion, indeed, you, yourself, on the 
 very same page, contradict this assertion of yours, and your contra- 
 diction is contained in the following words. Addressing Dr. How, you 
 say : " I am quite aware that in terms you say but little of American 
 Slavery as such ;" and on your fourth page another contradiction of your 
 first charge, in these words : " Yet, so adroitly have you presented your 
 case, that if it had not been for certain modern expressions which you 
 made use of, found only in the present pro slavery vocabulary, we 
 might in fact have been led into the impression that it was, after all,, 
 only the ancient slavery that you was justifying." So you perceive,. 
 Sir, that by your last two you have contradicted yom first assertion) 
 and charge against Dr. How of " apologizing for, ^'.staining, supporting 
 and giving aid and comfort, in all its length and breadth, i@, the loath- 
 some system of human bondage as it exists in the United States."' 
 But, Sir, aside from your contradiction, your assei tior*! 1* not' true, and 
 exhibits either a misapprehension of the scope and spirit of Dr. How's 
 argument, or a wilful perversion of it. As I have quoted your 
 
4 SLAVEHOLDINQ NOT SINFUL! 
 
 charge, now I shall give Dr. How's words as used at the commence- 
 ment of his argument. When speaking of slavery, he says: " We 
 admit that it is an evil much to be lamented, but we deny that it is a 
 sin against God or a crime against man." 
 
 Docs this look like "'apologizing for, supporting, sustaining, in all 
 its length and breadth" &c. Again, Sir, your charge is proved to be 
 unfounded by a quotation I shall now make from the 25th page of Dr. 
 How's argument, where he says, (speaking of the law forbiding to 
 teach the slaves to read,) "Permit me to remark that our Southern 
 Christian brethren are fully impressed with their duty to communicate 
 the Gospel to their slaves." 
 
 Then he quotes and endorses the following sentiment, published in 
 the Southern Presbyterian Review, at Columbia, S.C., where the writer 
 says, "It is, then, as plain as daylight that Christianity condemns all 
 laws of the State, and all ideas and practices of individuals which put 
 aside the immortality of the slave, or regard him in any other light 
 than that of a moral and responsible fellow creature of our own. Wo 
 have no hesitation in declaring that we accord with Judge O'Neall in 
 earnestly desiring the repeal, for example, of the law against teaching 
 the slave to read." Now, Sir, I could rest this point here with all 
 safety, but I will proceed to challenge you to quote one passage in the 
 whole of Dr. How's argument "apologizing for, supporting or sus- 
 taining " any act of injustice ever perpetrated by a slaveholder upon a 
 slave. To this, I know, Sir, you may reply that he has " apologized for, 
 supported and sustained " the holding of a slave, and that the holding of 
 a slave is unjust and a sin. But how pitiable would be such a reply. 
 It would be a begging of the question. Whether it is a sin to hold a 
 slave, is the question in dispute. You contend that it is a sin ; 
 Dr. How contends that it is not a sin. And you are an advocate and 
 a counsellor at-law, and have been as a Member of Congress a law-maker, 
 and have prosecuted and defended prominent criminal cases in the courts 
 of New-Jersey, and you know that a man is not to be pronounced 
 guilty until his guilt is proved, and without proof a matter at issue is 
 not to be decided. 
 
 Therefore, I call upon you to prove that slavcholding is a sin be- 
 fore you proceed to argue as though it were a sin ; or to draw 
 conclusions from arguments based upon the assumption that to hold a 
 slave is a sin. 
 
 Sir, you have, by misrepresentation, endeavored to place Dr. How 
 in a false position before the public, and to make him say things that 
 he did not say, and advocate points that he did not advocate. And 
 you, Sir, draw conclusions from his arguments when those arguments 
 do not tend to such conclusions. This I shall prove. First, you try 
 to make him apologize for the injustice and abuse of power that slave- 
 holders may inflict upon their slaves, and from the abuse of the 
 power and light to hold a slave, you argue that it is sin to hold a slave. 
 You do not discriminate between the just and proper use of a thing and 
 its unjust sinful abuse. And you, Sir, endeavor to make Dr. How ap- 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 5 
 
 pear as " apologizing for, supporting and sustaining, in all its length and 
 breadth," the unjust, sinful abuse of slaves. Whereas, he is only defend- 
 ing the just and proper use. If this principle were a correct one, that 
 it is right and proper to pronounce and treat as sinful everything or 
 anything because it has been abused, the enforcing of such a principle 
 would undermine the foundation upon which society rests, and destroy 
 the peace and harmony of every human relation that God has ex- 
 pressly ordained and instituted. lias not the relation of law-giver 
 and judge been abused ? Has not the marriage relation been abused ? 
 Has not the parental relation been abused ? And did not the devil 
 abuse, misapply, and pervert the Sacred Scriptures, when he tempted 
 Christ with a perverted passage of the Bible, to cast himself from the 
 pinnacle of the temple. ? And did you not, my dear Sir, abuse this 
 passage of the Sacred Scriptures, when you endeavored falsely to make 
 my father say that slavery is without " spot or wrinkle, or any such 
 thing?" Nothing would delight Satan more than to have the princi- 
 ple established that because a thing has been abused, therefore it is a sin 
 to use it. The Bible has been abused ; therefore it is a sin to use the 
 Bible. Such is I know the doctrine of those who would exclude the 
 Bible from popular use, and have it remain a sealed book. But the 
 mass of our people do not believe such doctrine, but consider that those 
 who preach thus are the devil's aid-de-camps, and do his dirty work. 
 Would you then pronounce as sinful the marriage, parental, and judi- 
 cial relations, and treat them as sinful. You would not, and ought 
 not ; therefore, you should not, on the ground of its abuse, pronounce 
 and treat as sinful, the relation and position of a slave bolder, only 
 because that relation and position has been abused. You only have a 
 right to pronounce sinful that which God has declared to be sinful ; 
 and until you have shown and proved conclusively, that slaveliolding 
 is a sin, you certainly have no right to argue upon the asumption 
 that it is a sin. Now, Sir, living in the daily practice of sin excludes 
 men from the communion of the Church, and exposes them to eternal 
 death, and often renders them obnoxious to the penalty of human law. 
 And you know, Sir, to expose men to the penalty of the law requires 
 more than the assumption that there is a law forbidding the act they have 
 committed; and requires strong proof also thai they have violated the 
 law, if there happens to be a" law forbidding the commission of the 
 act. How much more, Sir, does it require strong and conclusive 
 evidence of the violation of law, before you proceed to pronounce 
 as sinful, and place beyond the pale of the Church a large portion of 
 our Christian fellow citizens, and to blacken the memory of our ances- 
 tors ? and yet, Sir, you do not and cannot produce one express com- 
 mand or prohibition of the just and all-wise God against the holding of 
 a slave. The slaveholder has rights as well as the slave, and those 
 rights should be respected, and you should be very sure you do not 
 trample on his right to demand that you should produce God's law and 
 God's testimony before you pronounce him outside the pale of the 
 
SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 
 
 Churcli, or living in sin. Yes, " God's law and God's testimony, for if 
 they speak not according to these, "they are all dumb dogs." 
 
 But to return to your Reply. On the fourth page, you address Dr. How 
 thus : " You must have known that it was the slavery of this country, 
 over the disgusting exhibition of which the stars and stripes of free- 
 dom float in mockery — the slavery that exists in North Carolina, and 
 within the limits of the Classis seeking admission into the Dutch Church 
 — which that body shrunk from participating in. This, and this only, 
 was the slavery that you defended so valiantly, for this was the only 
 slavery in question, — none other needed defence. It is true, that in 
 making your onset upon the friends of freedom, you found it much 
 easier to raise a false issue than to defend the true one. The only 
 question was in regard to American Slavery, but to defend this, I pre- 
 sume, seemed too Herculean an undertaking to attempt directly, and so 
 you threw over it the flimsy mantles of Abraham and Paul, and coolly 
 transferred the scene of the conflict from the cotton fields and rice 
 swamps, the slave pens, the auction blocks and whipping posts of the 
 South, where it properly belonged, to the land of the olive and the 
 vine, where the Great Ruler of the Universe, for reasons of his own, 
 granted privileges to, and tolerated practices among, his peculiar peo- 
 ple, not sanctioned anywhere else before or since."" To this I answer 
 that Dr. How was well aware that it was the Classis of North Carolina 
 that the abolitionists and free churchmen were trying to keep out. 
 But he was also well aware that if the principle was proved and estab- 
 lished that to hold a slave was a sin, a malum per se, (a sin in and of itself,) 
 that it would be a sin to hold a slave all over the world, even in those 
 countries where it was not prohibited by law, and there made a malum 
 prohibitum., (that is, a sin only because the laws of the land forbid it.) 
 Accordingly he made, to quote his own words, his appeal " to the Scrip- 
 tures of truth, heartily assenting to the teachings of the confession of faith 
 of our Churcli, which says, ' AVe believe in the sufficiency of the Holy 
 Scriptures to be the rule of faith. "We believe that the Holy Scriptures 
 fully contains the words of God, and that whatsoever man ought to be- 
 lieve unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. Therefore we reject 
 with all our heart whatsoever doth not agree with the infallible rules 
 which the Apostles have taught us, saying, 'Try the spirits, whether 
 they are of God; likewise, if there come any one to you and being not 
 of this doctrine, receive him not unto your house.'" And he knew 
 that when there was no law of God there could be no transgression, and 
 consequently no sin. Accordingly he affirmed that there was no law 
 of God forbidding the holding of a slave, and challenged them, and 
 now challenges the abolitionists to produce any ; and he proved in an ar- 
 gument that you have not answered that God bad authorized it in va- 
 rious parts of the world that he had sanctioned it. He had incorpo 
 rated master and slave by express terms within his covenant; that the 
 sign of the covenant was administered to both ; that the laws that God 
 gave through Moses recognized the light of a master to own slaves, 
 and to their services also; that Christ and his Apostles enforced these 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 7 
 
 laws ; and that, under the gospel dispensation, slaveholders and their 
 slaves were admitted to church membership ; that special commands 
 were given to regulate the intercourse between master and slave ; " and 
 that the Apostle* Paul and the angel Jehovah himself sent back to their 
 masters slaves who had runaway from them." He also showed that 
 Christ had said of a Roman Centurion who confessed that he held 
 slaves, " I have not seen so great faith, no, not in Israel." The Cen- 
 turion, mark it, was a Roman Centurion, not a Jew, and held slaves 
 under the Roman law that admitted of enormities and excesses, before 
 which the worst features of American Slavery appear _ as tender mer- 
 cies when compared with their diabolical cruelty. Still Christ, by this 
 act, although he condemned injustice and cruelty, acknowledged and 
 established" the fact that a man could be a Christian and yet hold slaves, 
 even under the tenor of the law that admitted of so great enormities. 
 Should not, therefore, every candid and unbiased mind come to the con- 
 clusion that we, who are no better than Christ and his Apostles, ought 
 not attempt to exclude Christian North Carolinians, who_ live under 
 and hold slaves under a far more humane law from Christian Church 
 connection, or pronounce that their holding of slaves is a sin. This 
 and other proofs derived from the practices of the early Christians were 
 adduced by Dr. How to prove that the principle or doctrine was not a 
 correct or true one ; that the buying of a slave, the using of a slave, 
 and the holding of a slave was a sinful practice, and that, therefore, the 
 holding of slaves by the people of the North Carolina Chassis was not 
 a sin, and because it was not a sin they should not be excluded on the 
 mere unproved pretext of its being sinful. Hoes not this bring the ar- 
 gument home to the North Carolina Classis. Can you understand this 
 position? If you can, do not again assert that Dr. How stood upon 
 any other ground, or maintained any other doctrine. _ So much for 
 Dr. How's position, and your misapprehension or misrepresentation 
 of it. . 
 
 One expression of yours in this connection is worthy of notice, in 
 order to invalidate the strength of Dr. How's argument you proceed to 
 cast discredit upon some of his principal witnesses. Christ you dare 
 not attempt to discredit. His testimony and practice was far above 
 your impeachment. But the head of the visible Church, under the 
 old dispensation, and the Apostle to the Gentiles, come in for a share 
 of sneering abuse. "The flimsy mantles of Abraham and Paul,'" 
 " Flimsy," aye ! " a reed shaken by the wind." The conduct and prac- 
 tice of Abraham and Paul was flimsy, was it ? The practices of Abra- 
 ham and the teaching and conduct of Paul, were indeed two of the 
 mantles that Dr. How threw over American Slavery, and safe and hap- 
 py are they who come under the mantle of their protection. Abraham 
 and Paul need no eulogium from me. Neither of them were sinless, 
 but then the one lived in the possession of slaves, sanctioned by God 
 in the express word of His Covenant, and the other spoke as he was 
 moved by the Holy Ghost. Their conduct in such cases was neither 
 flimsy or impeachable. I have tried to, but cannot escape from draw- 
 
• 8LAVEH0LDINO NOT SINFUL : 
 
 ing tins meaning from your expression. If you intend to say that 
 the example of Abraham and of Paul was inapplicable to the point in 
 dispute, you should have said that " American Slavery was flimsily 
 covered by the mantles of Abraham and Paul." And if you intended 
 to say that Dr. How had applied the example and teaching of Abraham 
 and Paul in an imperfect and clumsy manner, you should have said "cov- 
 ered in a flimsy manner by the mantles of Abraham and Paul." So, 
 Sir, I cannot relieve my mind from the conviction that you have given 
 utterance to an infidel sentiment. 
 
 Proceeding a little further with the quotation I have made from your 
 argument, I find that you say God "granted privileges to, and tolera- 
 ted practices among, his peculiar and chosen people, not sanctioned any 
 where else, before or since." From your words, " not sanctioned any 
 where else, before or since," it is very proper for us to conclude that 
 these privileges were sanctioned then and there, ; and that the then you 
 speak of, was under Abraham and was under Christ and his apos- 
 tles, and that the there was the land of the olive and the vine, or in 
 other words, Canaan and Judea. Accordingly it is proper for us to 
 conclude that you say that God sanctioned practices in Canaan and 
 Judea under the old dispensation or Abrahamic Covenant, and in Judea 
 under his apostles, and the early Christians, that he does not sanction 
 now. It is slavery that you are writing about in this connection. There- 
 fore you have admitted that God sanctioned slavery then and there. 
 This is just what Dr. How asserted, and by this admission you 
 have lost your whole case, for God never sanctioned sin. 
 If, therefore, God never anywhere or at any time sanctioned sin, but 
 has sanctioned slaveholding, I am sure it cannot be a sin now and 
 here. Can the same facts that are adduced in favor of slaveholding 
 be adduced in favor of those practices that you refer to as permitted 
 then but now forbidden by God. Can it be said of polygamy that 
 it was sanctioned and never forbidden ? Can it be said of concubinage 
 that it was sanctioned and never forbidden ) No; nothing of the kind 
 can be said with truth; but it can be said of slaveholding that it was 
 sanctioned and never forbidden ; and besides, I would have you to re- 
 member that there is a vast difference between a permission and a sanc- 
 tion. A man may permit his child to spend his dollar for sjme foolish 
 toy, and yet never approve or sanction the foolish expenditure. I 
 have noticed already the contradiction that you are guilty of on this. 
 fourth page, wherein you assert differently and contrary to what you as- 
 serted on the first page of your argument relating to apologizing, &c. r 
 &c. I will now proceed to notice a term, at the use of which you ap- 
 pear to take great umbrage, to wit : the term " abolitionist;" a word that, 
 with the help of Cruden's Concordance, you could not find in the Scrip- 
 tures. As you say you could not find it, I will not dispute it ; neither 
 can you find their doctrine, or their precepts taught or sanctioned in the 
 Sacred Scriptures; but, Sir, if you will look at 1 Tim. vi. chap., 1 to 5, 
 jou will find their precepts and practices condemned in the following 
 words : — 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DTKE, ESQ. 5> 
 
 "1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own 
 masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be 
 not blasphemed. 
 
 " 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. 
 
 "3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, 
 even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is 
 according to godliness; 
 
 " 4. He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and 
 strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 
 
 " 5. Perverse disputing^ of men of corrupt minds, ami destitute of the 
 truth, supposing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw thyself." 
 
 Your indignation at the term abolitionist has lead you into the use 
 of hard names, and you have been pleased to apply the elegant and 
 classical term "doughface" to such men of the North as are willing 
 to accord to their Southern fellow-citizens all rights that are not con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the United States. Certainly, Sir, if you 
 like to roll the word "doughface" like a sweet morsel under your 
 tongue, I am willing, and I shall use the term " abolitionist " where- 
 ever it is deserved and applicable; and that it was applicable, pointedly, 
 intensely applicable to certain members of the Dutch Synod, can bo 
 proved by the language of some of them as reported in the New- York 
 Tribune of June 16, 1855, when it stated that Dr. Wyckoff of Al- 
 bany, and Dr. Bethune of Brooklyn, opposed the introduction of the 
 Classis on the ground that it would make disturbance in the Church. 
 And now I quote: "the other objection was, that slavcholding was a 
 sin, and that we ought not to hold communion with slaveholders." 
 This opposition was raised by the Rev. Isaac Duryea of Schenectady, 
 who said "I can say that my inmost soul shrinks from the idea of our 
 extending the fellowship of our church to slavcholding churches, as I 
 shrink from the touch of the torpedo." 
 
 And that the term abolitionist is applicable to all who make the non- 
 holding of slaves a test and condition of Church Communion, 1 can 
 easily prove. The spirit and language of the abolitionist in the 
 Church is this — Do away with slavery among you and we will admit 
 you ; hold slaves and we will not admit you. Thus they make the hold- 
 ing or not holding of slaves a test and condition of church member- 
 ship, and require the abolition of slavery before admitting them to 
 organized union. One word more: you charge Dr. TTow with making 
 an onset upon the friends of freedom. The charge is unqualifiedly 
 false. The false friends of freedom made the onset upon him. Thej 
 attacked his report which was in favor of admitting the Classis into the 
 Church. He knew it was not a sin to hold a slave, and it had never 
 in the Dutch denomination been made a test of church union and 
 membership, and he did not suppose that there was any man in the 
 Dutch Church so fanatical as to 'say that it was. The onset was made 
 upon Dr. How. He did not commence the controversy, but it has 
 
10 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 
 
 always been the habit of those who make a disturbance without a 
 cause to charge the disturbance or trouble to those who are most inno- 
 cent of it. 
 
 This conduct of yours is like the conduct of the Frenchman with 
 the red-hot poker, who rushed into the street and demanded of the 
 first man lie met that he would let him run the poker into his body 
 just six inches. This the man very decidedly declined. "Let me run 
 it in four inches?" said the Frenchman. " No!" said the man. "Let 
 me run it in two, then ?" " No !" said the man. "Let me run it in 
 one?" "No!" replied the man earnestly, "you shall not run it in at 
 all !" " Vel den," said the Frenchman, " Pay me for heating the 
 poker !" Now you have charged Dr. How with making the onset. Next 
 you will sav that the Classis of North Carolina made all the disturbance by 
 paying the Dutch Church so great a compliment as to ask to be united. 
 But to another point found upon your fourth page at the bottom, you say 
 " It was American Slavery then, and not Jewish Slavery that you 
 were endeavoring to introduce into the Dutch Church." Introduce in- 
 to the Dutch Church, indeed, as though it had not been introduced 
 there already, and long, long ago; and besides it was a Dutch ship in 
 1620 that first introduced negro slaves into this country.* Is it not 
 a fact well known to every well informed man, that ministers, elders, 
 deacons, and church members, belonging to the Dutch Church, both 
 in New-Jersey and the State of New-York, held slaves? And it is also a 
 fact that slaves are now held by communicants belonging to the Dutch 
 Church. But, Sir, it is not true that Dr. How was trying to introduce 
 slavery into the Dutch Church, any more than he was trying to intro- 
 duce Christianity into the Dutch Church. Christianity existed in the 
 Dutch Church, and would remain there whether the North Carolina 
 Classis came in or not. Slavery existed in the Dutch Church and 
 would remain there whether the North Carolina Classis and their slaves 
 came in or not. It is true that slavery is likely to die out in the Dutch 
 Church. And so too is pure Christianity likely to die out, should the rulers 
 of the Church with the consent of the people, prescribe laws that Christ 
 never prescribed. I have already noticed your contradiction and also 
 your abuse of Scripture, on the top of your fifth page, where you en- 
 deavor to make Dr. How say that American Slavery is without " spot 
 or wrinkle, or any such thing." So I will proceed to notice an ad- 
 mission of yours that completely takes the foundation from under your 
 castle of error, and tumbles it to the ground. You admit that the rela- 
 tion of master and slave "may exist without sin and without wrong," 
 "when the old and worn-out slaves are cast by the law of the land 
 upon the master or his estate for maintenance and support. Here the 
 owner could not sever the relationship if he would, and if in that condition 
 he cares for them properly, such relationship cannot be considered sinful. 
 But such cases prove nothing, except that a slaveholder meti/he humane, 
 and that the laws of the land may impose some obligations on him 
 which he would be very glad to be free from." You admit that it is 
 * See Frost's Hist. U. S. 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 11 
 
 not sinful to hold the old and the worn-out slaves, and maintain them 
 in New-Jersey, provided they are treated properly. This principle 
 then ought to apply to North Carolina, and to the slaveholding States 
 of the Union, and to all countries where slavery exists ; unless New- 
 Jersey is out of the world as well as the United States, as some would 
 have us believe. 
 
 This admission acknowledges that old and infirm and decrepid 
 persons in bondage, unfit for freedom, should the law of the land forbid 
 their being set free, may be held as slaves. Therefore all of 
 this class may be held in North Carolina without sin. And it also 
 proves something more than that a slaveholder may be humane, for 
 there are laws of just this kind in NorthCarolina ; therefore it proves 
 that slaveholders in North Carolina may be humane, and especially 
 Christian masters in North Carolina may be humane. And your as- 
 sertion that the laws of the land may impose some obligations on a 
 slaveholder which he would be very glad to be free from, should be 
 applied to the Christians and others in North Carolina, who are for- 
 biden by the laws of the State to emancipate their slaves within the 
 bounds of the State, and to all Christians where such laws exist under 
 similar circumstances. And the admission of this principle, to wit : 
 that the State may make laws compelling slaveholders not to emanci- 
 pate their slaves in the State, will relieve of sin such Christians and 
 others at the South, who do not teach their slaves to read, because it 
 is forbidden by the laws of the State. No, Sir, they are no more 
 living in sin because they live under such laws, than you and I are 
 living in sin, because we live under the Fugitive Slave Law. And as 
 well might the General Assembly of Scotland decide that we of the 
 Free States are living in sin and iniquity, because we live under such 
 a law, and that they will not have ecclesiastical connection with us on 
 that account, even though you and many at the North would repeal 
 the law at any time you had the power to do so. And so would many 
 of the Christians of the South repeal the law forbidding to teach slaves 
 to read. Thus, Sir, it has clearly followed from your admission, that 
 slaves may be held without sin and without wrong, when it would be 
 contrary to the laws of the land that arise from considerations of safety 
 to the State and justice to the slave to set them free. And, Sir, I 
 think that you will be forced to admit that those Christians of the 
 South who live under laws that bear unjustly upon the slave, but de- 
 sire the repeal of those laws on the ground of their being unjust, are 
 no more living in sin than you and the opposers of the Fugitive Slave 
 Law are living in sin because you are living in a land where it is en- 
 forced and you have not the power to repeal it. 
 
 I am willing to look with you at "slavery in this country, as it is, 
 not as it might be male — at its origin, its practices, its incidents, 
 its consecpuences and traffic — the laws by which it is sanctioned — not 
 only what slaveholders may do contrary to law, but what they may do 
 according to law, in all the States of the Union where it is tolerated." 
 I will adopt the order in which you say we must look, and will not 
 
12 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL! 
 
 diverge to answer your extravagant assertion that Dr. How has 
 described slavery, with all its abuses, as a pure and immaculate thing, 
 and that he voluntarily commenced tbe controversy. Neither will I 
 linger long near " the green shores of Jordan." It will be sufficient 
 for me to cast behind one "last, long, lingering look," until I behold 
 Truth, triumphant in the struggle, consign your mangled mass of error 
 to the black and slimy pools that fume and fester in the sun near the 
 Dead Sea's mouth on the " other side of Jordan." 
 
 You say that slaveholding had its origin in man-stealing, and that 
 "every one knows that our ancestors, both of Europe and America, went 
 to Africa and stole them ;" or, if they did not steal them, for a trifle 
 they bought them of those who did, knowing them to have been stolen. 
 "The receiver is as bad as the thief." "No matter how many degrees 
 removed, our title is simply one of larceny." "It is a certain and un- 
 deniable conclusion, that the title of every slaveholder in the land to 
 his human chattels is a title w hose foundation rests in the blackest 
 crime." This, sir, you assert, but do not prove ; and it is incumbent 
 upon you, and upon every one who makes this assertion, to bring the 
 proof of so sweeping a charge. But, without insisting upon the proof 
 just now, let us examine whether the charge is true. You say that 
 "our ancestors stole them," "or if they did not steal them themselves, 
 for a trifle they bought them of those who did, knowing them to have 
 been stolen." * How do you know this ? Is the fact of holding a slave 
 prima facie evidence of the slave having been stolen by somebody ? 
 Perhaps v<>u may say that it is, then I will proceed to show that slaves 
 can be held to service, that is to give their time and labor for the benefit 
 of another, (even though it is involuntary,) without being stolen. This 
 will lead us into the consideration of how men involuntarily become 
 slaves. And first, sir, we will start with the position that men forfeit 
 rights by crime. This needs no proof. Slate prisons and jails are 
 ever before our eyes. But there are some countries where there arc 
 no state prisons or jails, for the habits of the people are different from 
 our own; they live by watching and attending flocks and herds; they 
 frequently shift their position ; or if they do remain stationary, they 
 have not the wealth to construct and maintain prisons and to beep 
 criminals in confinement; accordingly their modes of punishment are 
 different from ours. For small crimes the offender is beaten, and for 
 large ones he is sold as a slave or is put to death. Such, sir, is the 
 condition and the practice of Africans in Africa now. Such was the 
 condition and practice of Africans in Africa before the slave trade was 
 abolished in 1807 by act of Congress, which act took eflecl January 1st, 
 1808. Although Africans have no prisons, still they are not exempt 
 from crime. Urged by their evil passions and propensities, a predatory 
 band of Africans made or make an inroad upon the possessions of a 
 neighboring tribe, who are peaceably pursuing the lawful occupations 
 of life, kill men, women and children, and violently carry off their 
 flocks and their herds. This is repeated again and again. The injured 
 tribe arouse and seek redress. They pursue, surprise and capture tho 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 13 
 
 marauding band. What now shall they do with their captives? They 
 have plundered, and ravaged, and destroyed the property of their un- 
 offending neighbors, and justice demands that they should make resti- 
 tution, for it is just to give to every one his due, and it is due to the 
 persons they have plundered that they should restore to them their 
 property. But they have used, lost, or destroyed the plunder they 
 unjustly took, and they own neither money, or flocks, or herds, and the 
 lands that they own are wild and uncultivated, and the tribe that they 
 robbed have more land than they want. What shall the captors do to 
 obtain restitution and satisfaction ? Shall they kill the captives? Oh, 
 no! that would be too cruel and severe, and no remuneration. Shall 
 they beat them and let them go? That would afford no restitution. 
 What shall tliey do ? Why, sir, they shall take, control, and employ 
 that which the captives have got to give, and that is labor. Yes, sir, 
 they make them labor, willing or unwilling. They become their slaves, 
 and' thus they obtain restitution. And justly, too. And their being 
 made slaves is subservient to the ends of justice, for other marauding 
 bands hear of their punishment and are deterred from acts of violence 
 and robbery. They are now the public property of the tribe. 
 Private possession of them is obtained by distribution or 
 purchase, under the direction of the Chief, the recognized head of 
 the tribe. The men who have lost property, to whom a part of the 
 captives are distributed, may already have more slaves than they want, 
 or have no use for any at all, and therefore they sell them, and the 
 money they receive is their remuneration for their loss. Those Avho 
 purchased them have a right to sell them, for they are their property, 
 — they paid their money for them. And this same mode of admin- 
 istering justice and obtaining restitution is pursued by the Chief or 
 acknowledged authority of different tribes toward their own people or 
 subjects, when they have committed crimes for which restitution cannot 
 be obtained in any other way than by controlling and compelling their 
 involuntary service. When men for such causes and under such cir- 
 cumstances are enslaved they are enslaved justly. Such was and such 
 has been the practice in Africa for ages. Such was the practice when 
 the slave trade was not forbidden in this country, and such is the prac- 
 tice at the present day in Africa. But upon the supposition that all 
 of them were stolen, does it follow that those "who now hold them hold 
 them by a sinful title ? There is not, I venture to say, any inhabited 
 land upon the face of the globe that was not once acquired by fraud or 
 violence; and yet your principle would make every man who holds 
 land, "no matter how many degrees removed," hold it by a sinful title ; 
 and every man who holds goods purchased from fraudulent debtors or 
 persons guilty of breach of trust, " no matter, how many degrees 
 removed," or what time has elapsed, guilty of bidding by SLsinfiU title! 
 Try this principle, bring it home to our merchants and our fire- 
 sides. One of our grocers sends to New-York, and buys sugar and 
 coffee, and molasses, and rice ; and another of our merchants goes and 
 buys calico, and domestic and cotton goods — all the product of slave 
 
14 SLAVEIIOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 
 
 labor or manufactured from it ; and the master of the slaves was paid and 
 employed for his own use the money that was obtained from sinful labor. 
 You go to the grocer or dry goods merchant and purchase his goods, jnst 
 two or three removes from the M slave pens and cotton gins, and cotton 
 fields and rice swamps of the South," the product, as you would say, of 
 unjust aud unholy labor ; and the owner and proprietor of this unholy 
 labor reaps the profits ; and unless you and thousands of others pur- 
 chased the products of what you call unholy labor, his slaves would be 
 worthless and he would soon get rid of them. But, Sir, you and thou- 
 sands of others who purchase the product of slave labor, contribute to 
 support the masters of these slaves who hold them by a " title of 
 larceny, no matter how many degrees removed," as you say. And, 
 Sir, I see but little difference between buying, selling, and using that which 
 slaves have spent all their lives in producing, and the act of controlling 
 the time aud labor of slaves. Therefore allow me to approach you with 
 modesty, and pour into your ear a little moral suasion. My dear Sir, 
 you must have conscientious scruples against holding a slave because you 
 consider it a sin. Why not against using that which he has spent his time 
 and labor in producing, for you say the slaves were acquired by wrong, 
 and if they were acquired by wrong, then the product of their invol- 
 untary labor and toil is acquired by wrong, by injustice, and sin. But 
 we purchase the products that are acquired by wrong, injustice, and 
 sin, and you say the receiver is as bad as the thief. No matter how 
 many degrees removed the title is that of larceny. If the title to the slave 
 is larceny, then, no matter how many degrees removed, why is not 
 the title to the product of the labor that of larceny ; and those products, 
 with the title of larceny, as follows from your assertion, we purchase 
 and use. Are we not then, according to your assertion, as bad as those 
 who control and compel the labor of slaves when we purchase and use 
 that which the slaves spend all of their time in producing. And when 
 you are invited out to tea, and the lady who presides over the destinies 
 of the table inquires, " Do you take cream and sugar, Sir ?" then let con- 
 science do its perfect work, and reply, in the spirit of true self-denying 
 heroism, " a little cream, but no sugar, if you please, Madam." Those- 
 who believe this and want to be free from guilt, should abstain from the 
 production of slave labor, and confine themselves to penny-royal tea, 
 sweetened with maple sugar ; smoke Pennsylvania sixes and oak-leaf 
 segars, and dress in winter and summer in flannel shirts and linsey- 
 woolsey garments. What would become of commerce and trade 2 — 
 What would become of banks and store houses and ships if men be- 
 lieve that things once acquired by wrong, no matter how many degrees 
 removed, are held by wrong. 
 
 But you also say that our ancestors for a trifle bought them of those 
 who stole them, knowing- them to have been stolen. If you know 
 that your ancestors did this I am perfectly willing that you should 
 assert it of them; but I am not willing that you should assert it of 
 icpstors who held slaves in North Carolina and in New-Jersey, 
 a. i ; ■ :' ' i - ■• - •' . '• i» "iliev." v.'<' hold laws, ri the 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 15 
 
 South, without you have ample proof for so grave a charge ; it will 
 not do to prove that some people knew it if others did not, for this is 
 your language, it has a universality : — " The title of every slaveholder 
 in the land to his human chattels is a title whose foundation rests on 
 the blackest crime ;" and that blackest crime is, that they either stole 
 them themselves or bought them knowing them to have been stolen. 
 Now, Sir, you did not prove that they stole them, and I have shown 
 that the mere fact of holding a man as a slave is not prima facie evi- 
 dence that the man was stolen because he could be made a slave by 
 other means than that of theft. 
 
 And our ancestors knew all this as well as we do to-day, and prob- 
 ably much better than we do, for we are not now employed in that 
 foreign traffic, but they were employed in it when there was no law of 
 the land against it ; when it was not a contraband trade ; and when it 
 was conducted openly, and in the face of the world. Our ancestors 
 well knew that ships sailed from the New England ports, and New- 
 port in Rhode Island, particularly, and from Southern ports also, laden 
 with gunpowder, with guns, with trinkets, with beads, with lookino-- 
 glasses, with tobacco and segars, with New England rum, and with 
 " Jersey lightning," perfectly legitimate articles of commerce, and that 
 with these they bought Africans already slaves in their own country, 
 where they could be tortured, and burnt, and sacrificed.* And 
 they also knew that many of them were prisoners taken in war, 
 such as I have described, and they knew that many of them were slaves 
 as a punishment for crimes. And therefore, Sir, I say they did not 
 know that they were stolen, and they purchased them justly. 
 
 Our ancesters well knew the situation of the Africans. They beheld 
 them as they were landed on our coast, naked barbarians, degraded 
 and debased. And what did our ancestors do ? They put them to 
 useful occupations ; they made them carpenters, masons, tailors and 
 barbers ; and some are clergymen, and preach the words of Salvation to 
 their fellow-slaves, and by the Gospel truth many have been brought 
 out of darkness into marvellous light. And now compare them with 
 the barbarians in Africa, and our slaves are far in advance in happiness, 
 comfort and civilization. Do not, then, blacken the memory of our 
 ancestors in order to sympathize with criminals, degraded, debased, 
 enslaved and sold in their own country by the recognized authorities 
 of the land. 
 
 How, then, it may be asked, came our ancestors to pronounce, in 
 1807, the slave trade man-stealing and piracy, and those engaged in 
 it punishable with death ? This question is very easily answered. 
 Our ancestors, both of Europe and America, discovered that the cupid- 
 ity of the African Princes, and of the slave factors on the African coast, 
 and of the owners and masters of vessels engaged in the slave trade, 
 incited them to resort to unlawful means to obtain slaves. Accordingly 
 f ■■ ' '■■' •■ '' " ■ . f ■ ''-•" f. 1 ■(> <V"vnvl «Toat i\vt(\ the supplv of slaves 
 . .. . , ..,,■■■■■,, ■ . •,,..;.,.,! 
 
16 6LAVEII0LDING NOT SINFUL '. 
 
 their subjects to bondage, or resorted to unjust wars to enslave men. I , 
 
 As soon as our ancestors discovered this, and found that the title to 
 
 the slaves was the robber's title, and that the Africans had been stolen, 
 
 they pronounced the act piracy, punishable with death, and the act of 
 
 Congress was passed in 1807 and took effect January 1st, 1808. And 
 
 some twenty years previously, whilst the Constitution of our country 
 
 was being- formed, a Committee, a majority of which was from Slave 
 
 States, reported a section authorizing Congress to abolish the trade 
 
 after the year 1800 ; but this period was extended until the year 1808 ; 
 
 thus giving eight additional years to the traffic by the votes of ISew- 
 
 Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut, whilst the vote of Virginia 
 
 was against such extension. Thus the trade was continued by the votes 
 
 of men from the New-England States, who there guarded the commercial >^ 
 
 interest of their constituents and prolonged the traffic. This is a , 
 
 matter of record. Had you said that some were stolen and were pu 
 chased by those who knew they were stolen, I would readily admit 
 that fact. J >nt how are we to point out who does and who does not 
 hold his slave by a title of larceny derived from his father ? And if 
 you can find any whose forefathers stole them before the passage of the 
 law prohibiting the slave trade, I can show you that his title is not 
 only secure, but founded upon the principles of eternal justice, and 
 therefore just, and consequently not sinful. You have admitted that 
 it is secure. But the law-breakers who entice slaves away and resist 
 their recovery have rendered it insecure. 
 
 But as you have admitted that the State ran if they have the power 
 to enforce the law, render the title perfectly secure, I shall then proceed 
 to show that thev can justly and of right render it secure. It is upon 
 this principle : It is the design of all law to preserve society in a state 
 of peace and quietness and harmony. Hence it has been said of law, 
 by the excellent and learned Hooker, "Her seat is the bosom of God, 
 her voice is the harmony of the world." And to preserve the harmony 
 of society and to prevent property being held by an uncertain tenure, 
 laws have been passed which make such property secure to the pos- 
 sessor. Such laws being founded upon a just principle, cannot be unjust. 
 And those who hold under them hold justly and without sin. And in 
 the case of an African stolen, it may be that the person who stole him 
 can never upon any consideration acquire a just title in him, resting 
 solely upon possession, for it is a rule of law that no man has a right 
 to take advantage of his own wrong. Yet should the man so stolen 
 have offspring by a woman obtained justly, by purchase or otherwise, 
 such offspring would of right be the property even of the man who had 
 stolen the father of the child. For it is clearly shown in Pufendorf, 
 book VI., chapter II., under the head of Parental Power, that the 
 mother has the original right in the child, for it is nursed by her body, 
 and after birth sustained by her care and nourishment, and because no 
 one knows who is the father of the child but the mother, and when the 
 marriage tie does not exist, she has the right to father it upon whom 
 she pleases, and hence the Roman Law " Partus scquiter ventrem" the 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. {ft 
 
 birth goes along with the bearer. This rule holds good in regard to 
 •"domestic ananas and is founded upon the principle that the owner 
 of the soil has a right to things planted in and grown upon it H e 
 has also a right because he was deprived of the services of Z Lti 
 during the period of gestation. The offspring t ^i us become 1th o ron' 
 
 *K£& the maa wh0 st0,e the fatber! bui ^ ow-d^C; 
 
 Let us come nearer home to exemplify our position Sur, 
 pose that a person thinks that the Africans who were, Xsed Z 
 him were purchased justly because he thought that they fad been 
 enslaved tor crime, and that he holds some'of the survSoi s at the 
 
 Km &c 7 in V'f t!m ? theyW ° U,d L — ived at that V Id 
 inhrra, &c, in which condition you have admitted that it wou d be 
 
 i SJp " WF'f *f aS jUSt ' t0 h ° ld them " s «'aves. And when a 
 
 S 1S Pte !W * thG reqUeSt ° f the slave himseI «; A« 1 els held 
 justly even though the man purchasing him knew he was s nl™ W 
 
 his title not secure. But slaves are he?d in the South Ty Jul eh a 
 tenure, and justly, too. Now hear what Dr. Wayland sa/s one 1 f ,! 
 great guns of New-England, who has fired somellil inteG f Ui 
 2 S'ec I' [ y p m 2 e 5i ^ f, '°T lliS ElG, ? ientS ° f M ° ral ^ience, Chap 
 ^"crabirpo'ssefsL ? 2»& ^^ce°ihT ^TV'!^ 
 it will boll that while mere,y\h°e P la *s of ^ ^M^ 
 any moral right to property, yet when these laws have once ass^neS 
 ^ to him this simple fact imposes a moral obligation upon aTotoer 
 men to leave him in the undisturbed possession of it." Let tl e 
 
 Relating to the internal traffic you say, " There is not a member of 
 
 he clergy of North Carolina that dare to stand in his own pulpit to 
 
 raise his voice against it." No, indeed, they do not dare to prench a 
 
 OHSLR? S n * 8 'i tS ° f P ro P er ^thV follow the exa P , ;i e h of 
 Chi ist an his apostles, who, you say on page eleven of your pamphlet 
 
 counD Z 1 I7 terfere Whh any ° f the ^ -stitutiJns o'f he 
 country They hold no commission to do any such thing. As it re- 
 gards the separation of husband and wife, this is dail/praclLd at 
 the North f 0r cn and it . ldom done » o s]aves ^ygS » 
 
 ment. There are laws restricting the separation of mother and c il 
 
 Sltsi H r nte ;i' has lately bcen fined ^ oo ° - SMS 
 
 slaves sinfuP'nVf^ t ° U 3Sk are f lu,tei 7 and forai ^ion among 
 s aves total or not ? I answer yes ; but there is Jess of it amon^ 
 slave , f b]aek the Nortli _ Look ^ t i among 
 
 ?W T S ' ChaptGr V "' table LXXI - Therc you will find In 
 
 SaesTr 01 'f/ ree , mU,att0eS t]ia ^here are free blacks in the F ree 
 States, and as the white people of the North do not marry blacks these 
 
18 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 
 
 mulattoes must have been born out of wedlock. In the South, on the 
 contrary, there is only one mulatto to twelve slaves. Look at New-York, 
 also with its tens of thousands of public prostitutes, besides the private 
 ones, and compare this with the proverbial virtue of the white women of 
 our Southern States. The white men of the North have had something to 
 do with all this ; let them cleanse their skirts first. " Let them cast out 
 the beam that is in their own eye, and then they may see clearly to cast 
 out the mote that is in their Southern brother's eye." Compare the 
 Northern brothels with the harems of the South, with which you seem 
 to be so familiar, and to which you on your fifth page ask Dr. How to 
 accompany you. For shame, Mr. Van Dyke, to ask honest men to go 
 with you to such places. Compare them, I say, and if the Magdalen re- 
 ports are to be believed, the brothels of New York City equal in number 
 all the harems of the cities of the South. Certainly these crimes are a sin, 
 but, because these sins are encouraged, it is no reason to prove the owner 
 holds his slave by a sinful title ; much less does it prove that those who do 
 not encourage such practices, hold their slaves by a sinful title. Dr. How 
 condemns the law forbidding to teach a slave to read. This law was 
 passed out of motives of safety to the State, as abolitionists circulated 
 incendiary pamphlets, calculated to excite the slaves to discontent and 
 revolt. Yet they had better be repealed, for with all the efforts of 
 abolitionists to assist and entice them, only one thousand and eleven 
 ran away from their masters in the year 1850. [Census returns, table 
 XLIV.) You next speak of the law rendering a slave incapable of tes- 
 tifying in a court of justice against his master in a case of murder. 
 Neither is a deserter permitted in the army to give evidence ; neither 
 is a state prisoner who has served out his time ; neither should the 
 Africans who were sold into slavery on account of crime — and our fore- 
 fathers knew that many were enslaved for crime, and those that were 
 not, they could not point out. Therefore it was safe and expedient 
 for them to pass laws making them incapable of testifying in a court 
 of justice. And for this reason also, the. Africans were ignorant idol- 
 worshippers, who had no idea of a future state of punishment, or of the 
 criminality of a lie ; neither do their children have any regard for 
 truth. Besides this, a master might exhibit an unlawful influence over 
 his slave, and thus force him to pervert the truth. Besides it is a 
 rare occurrence for a master to kill or to suffer his slave to be killed ; 
 they are not such fools as to destroy their own property worth $1,000 
 or $1200 each ; and if they do, there is circumstantial evidence to convict, 
 and lawyers say that men will lie, but circumstances do not. 
 
 You say that the abuses of power are a part and parcel of the system 
 of slavery, and inseparable from it. This you assert but have not 
 proved. I deny the truth of the assertion. Tower is not always 
 abused. All masters do not abuse their slaves, and therefore abuse is 
 separable from the system of slavery. Bad men abuse ; good men do 
 not. The abuse arises from the character and disposition of the mas- 
 ter, not from the system, for in the systems of American slavery are 
 embodied laws forbidding and punishing cruelty to slaves. But you 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DTKE, ESQ. jg 
 
 say that the crimes "are done in accordance with law." Please produr* 
 the laws that command and enforce them. 
 
 _ The whole of your eighth and part of your ninth pao-es are filled 
 with arguments to prove by the Golden Rule of our Saviour that it is 
 asm to hold men in bondage if held unjustly. Dr. How does not 
 deny this in his argument. But I am sure that he never would admit 
 the truth of this assertion of yours, to wit, "that we should do no 
 injury to or impose any burden on our brother man that we would be 
 unwilling to receive from him." Here you make the will of the man 
 who receives injury or has a burden imposed on him, the test of rio-ht 
 and wrong. Accordingly, a father says to his son " Go to the Bank of 
 New-Jersey and bring me one of Mr. Van Dyke's famous pamphlets." 
 
 It t 7 *2* } W T fc ; I T Hnt t0 Sp | n ^ t0 P-" And because he does not 
 want to, therefore he ought not. Is that your reasoning ? A citizen 
 has a just and lawful tax imposed upon him, but says I will not pay it 
 is that a good reason that he ought not to pay it ? No. He must 
 show to the appellate court that the tax is unjust, and not make his will 
 the rule in the matter. And, on the other hand, ought I to do nothing 
 to another that I would not have another to do to me? Ouo-ht our 
 soldiers upon the field of battle refuse to shoot down the opposing 
 ranks of the enemy because they do not want the enemy to shoot them 
 down ? Such a manner of action would be ridiculous ; and yet vou 
 record it in your code of morals. Ought a master let his slave o-o free 
 because he does not want to be a slave himself? 
 
 At the middle of your ninth page, you write thus :— " I think that I 
 neither mistake or misrepresent your position when I say that your 
 justification of slaveholding in this country, is based entirely and exclu- 
 sively on the fact that slaveholding as it was practised amono- the 
 Hebrews, was never directly condemned by God himself nor by any 
 one who it is conceded spoke by his authority ; on the contrary as 
 you contend, it received their sanction." Dr. How's argument was 
 based upon the fact that God not only sanctioned slavery amono- the 
 Hebrews, but also that he sanctioned the master's rio-ht to his slave 
 the whole earth over where the holding of a slave is n°ot forbidden by 
 law ; by God s enumeration of man-servants and maid-servants as prop 
 erty— in the catalogue of property that he gives in the tenth command- 
 ment, winch command is of universal binding force, and not confined 
 to the Hebrews alone ; and also upon the fact that Christ said of the 
 slaveholding Roman Centurion— "I have not seen so great faith— no 
 not in Israel," and also upon the fact that the apostles sanctioned slave- 
 holding under the Roman Law ; and that God had commanded the 
 Israelites the first year upon their journey to the promised land then 
 poor and having no slaves to purchase slaves of the heathen nations 
 that were around them, when they had settled in the promised land 
 And it these heathen nations (as you say we do) held these slaves by a 
 title of larceny, God must have sustained this title of larceny and con- - 
 maiided his people to purchase of men-stealers. But God never did any 
 such thing ; he recognized the right to hold slaves among the Hebrews 
 
 B2 
 
2Q SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL*. 
 
 amoi.o- the heathen nations, among the Romans, and all over the earth, 
 when not contrary to the laws of the land, as shown by his tenth com- 
 mand wlierein he enumerates men-servants and maid-servants as prop- 
 erty ' There is a strong analogy between Hebrew slavery and Ameri- 
 can slavery. Both negro slaves, and slaves held by Hebrews, were ac- 
 quired by purchases and as captives enslaved for punishment of crimes, 
 and even a Hebrew bv birth could be held in perpetual bondage, con- 
 trary to vour assertion that he could not. (See Ex^ xxi. ; 2—6.) And 
 your assertion that the practice of condemning to slavery prisoners of 
 war has long since been abandoned, is not true, for it is not abandoned 
 by uncivilized nations, particularly African nations, yet I do not 
 attempt to iustify enslaving prisoners of war, unless the prisoners 
 had previously committed, or aided and abetted in committing, 
 a deed " worthy of death," or an act for which restitution could be ob- 
 tained in no other way. (VattelVs Law of Nations-bock 3rd, chapter 
 8th sec. 153.) And that the Israelites (who you call Hebrews) 'had 
 no 'nation or race of men about them doomed to slavery as a matter ot 
 course, on account of their nation or race," is flatly contradicted in 
 Joshua ix - 23—21 ; where, speaking of the Gibeonites, the text reads 
 as follows :— " Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers 
 of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, even unto 
 this day "—condemned quite as much to slavery " as a matter of course 
 rt s Africans have been condemned to slavery " as a matter of course. 
 
 On vour tenth page you say, but "suppose we admit ior the sake 
 of argument that the Almighty, for reasons of his own, permitted 
 Slavery among his chosen people without reproof, does it follow as a 
 matter of course that we can without sin practice the same? by no 
 mean* Sir ! Bttt it does follow that when God has sanctioned any aet, 
 has prescribed rules acknowledging the legality of that act, never con- 
 demned that act, or restricted us to any other kind of act or conduct, 
 that then we can without sin, and justly too, perform that act. _ 
 
 God has sanctioned slavery ; he has prescribed rules acknowledging 
 the legality of the master's title ; he never condemned the holding ot 
 a slave! neither has he restricted us to free or voluntary labor. Does 
 this hold true of the other acts that you speak of. God has permitted 
 polygamy but never sanctioned it ; he has forbidden multiplying j 
 wives and has restricted us to one wife at a time. He has permitted I 
 Lying, but never sanctioned it ; but he has said that "all liars sha II have 
 their portion in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. He also 
 si ruck Annanias and Sapphira dead for telling a lie, and has restricted 
 us to the truth in our conversation and practice. 
 
 And Sir, I would have rested with showing the distinction between 
 a permission; and a sanction, had it not been that you had presented 
 Abraham in tl e light of performing acts that are now reprobated ant 
 Oond< mned. That be had wives and concubines is all very true ; and 
 •j-n 1 ose it was a sin for him to have them, does it follow that leeauso 
 God 1 emitted him to have them that he sanctioned it, and that there- 
 fore we should have them now. Even if God did sanction it then, 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. £1 
 
 he has forbidden it now. Or suppose it was a great sin, it only shows 
 that Abraham was a fallen man as well as ourselves. All of us com- 
 mit crimes, and because we are not immediately punished-, or never 
 punished because we repent, does that show that God sanctions our 
 ■crimes, and that those who see us do it with impunity, can, without sin, 
 be guilty of the same acts. By no means. Of the sin of lying, in its 
 broad sense, Abraham was not guilty, although lie was guilty of decep- 
 tion, and his deceit brought with it his punishment, for the trouble 1:0 
 was trying to avoid befell him through his deception. Who Sarah's 
 natural father was is a matter of doubt. The first place where she is 
 spoken of having any other relation than a husband, {Ex. xi. : 29} 
 'Terah, Abraham's father, is said to be her father-in-law, (Ex. xi. : 31) 
 consequently, she could, with truth, call Terah father, and Terah calj 
 her daughter, and Abraham therefore call her sister as well as wife ; al- 
 though she was not his natural sister, this would, in one sense, be true. 
 Others suppose that she was Abraham's niece, that Sarah was the 
 daughter of Abraham's brother, consequently she was the grand- 
 daughter of Abraham's father. Abraham's brother is known to have 
 died, and Sarah went into the family of her grandfather, who supported 
 her, and hence was called her father, and Abraham's sister, although 
 his wife and niece. Men differ in opinions. Let us have Abraham's ac- 
 count of the matter {Gen. xx. : 12 — " Yet indeed she is my sister, she is 
 the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and 
 she became my wife." According to this she was Abraham's half-sister. 
 Now let us see what becomes of your charge that if he did not lie he 
 was guilty of incest, and that the Messiah came from an incestuous 
 origin. What is now called incest, and considered a crime, was not 
 forbidden as yet by God's law. The command against marry- 
 ing near relations was first promulgated after the Exodus of the Israel- 
 ites, (Lev. xviii. : 1 — 18.) It is also held by the best writer on natural 
 law, that to marry a sister is not contrary to the laws of nature, but 
 that it is unlawful because contrary to civil enactment founded upon 
 God's levitical command, for which there are very good reasons. All 
 of Adam's children who married, married their sisters. God com- 
 manded them to increase and multiply. How could they obey this com- 
 mand unless they married their sisters? and do you think God would 
 command them to do a thing contrary to nature? No, Sir, by no 
 means. 
 
 But it may be said that it is a physiological fact that the offspring 
 of such unions are diseased or idiotic. I deny that such is a physio- 
 logical fact, unless the parties are diseased, and thus the disease contin- 
 ued and aggravated in the offspring by such a union. A like result 
 occurs when persons who have no blood relation whatever to each 
 other marry. But those who assert that idiocy and disease result of 
 necessity from a law of nature to the children because they are the 
 offspring of the union of brother and sister or near relations, whether 
 diseased or not, will please to prove the assertion, and they have these 
 facts to stare them in the face. Cain must have married his own sis- 
 
22 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 
 
 ter ; his son Enoch builded a city and never saw death, for God took 
 him. Methuselah, Enoch's son, lived 969 years, the oldest man on 
 record. Isaac, the result of the union of Sarah and Abraham, was no 
 fool or imbecile, although he was bom when Sarah and Abraham were 
 old and well stricken in years ; and Isaac begat Jacob the father of the 
 Patriarchs, and he wrestled with an angel and the angel prevailed 
 not. But it may be objected there is scrofula or "kings' 
 evil" that befel the offspring of a royal family who married with rela- 
 tions. Please to prove that it originated from the marrying of rela- 
 tions. That it was continued and aggravated by the marriages is very 
 probable. God has prohibited such marriages, and there are manv 
 other good reasons why they should be prohibited. 
 
 At the time Abraham married his half-sister or niece, there was no 
 command of God against it. There was no command then, so far as 
 we know, and there is no command now against marrying a niece. And 
 to make the worst of it he only married his half sister, which it is true 
 is forbidden by the levitical law. [Lev. xviii. : 9.) But there was 
 no law then forbidding it. And because there is a law of God forbid- 
 ding it now, therefore we cannot plead the example of Abraham to justify 
 incest. But there is no law of God now, or ever has been, forbidding 
 the holding of a slave, and therefore to hold a slave is not a sin, for 
 "when there is no law, there is no transgression." As to Abraham's 
 having an illegitimate child by Hagar in the " lifetime of his wife," how 
 do you know the child was illegitimate ? Were there any laws of the 
 land pronouncing such children illegitimate ? On the contrary, the 
 laws and customs of the land permitted concubinage and polygamy. And 
 how do you know that children born out of wedlock, were pronounced 
 by the law illegitimate ? I hold you to the strict legal sense of the 
 term illegitimate. You in your indictment present Abraham before 
 the jury of the people, wherever your pamphlet has circulated, charged 
 in manner and form with lying, or with incest, and with having an ille- 
 gitimate child. 
 
 I have shown that he did not tell a palpable lie, but admit that he 
 was guilty of deception, for which he was punished. That he was not 
 guilty of incest is clear, as there was no law against marrying a half- 
 sister — and it was not contrary to the law of nature. Neither was 
 there any law that pronounced a child born out of wedlock illegitimate. 
 Therefore by the law of the land the child was not illegitimate I 
 I will leave it to the public to give their verdict if you have proved 
 Abraham guilty of the crimes in the manner and form charged. 
 Thus, Sir, I think 1 have removed the flimsy mantle you have cast over 
 the character of Abraham ; soon I will come to Paul. 
 
 Again Sir, you say "It seems that the Israelites after their delive- 
 rance from Egypt, were permitted and required to kill, to destroy, and 
 to drive out the nations and tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan, &c." 
 
 You say God required them to do so. If God requires us to da 
 this to other nations, it will be just and right, "for he ruleth over the 
 armies of heaven and the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 23 
 
 his hand, or say unto him what doeth Thou?" But we mu3t be 
 very sure he commands it ; nothing short of miracles should convince 
 us. Another assertion of yours is "that although God permitted 
 the Israelites to hold slaves, such was not the Divine pleasure when 
 the Israelites were enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians." These 
 are the reasons why God punished the Egyptians ; it was because after the 
 land of Goshen had been given to the Israelites and Joseph was dead, 
 Pharoah who knew not Joseph, made slaves of the free Israelites with- 
 out provocation or cause, and out of jealousy slew the first-born. Then 
 it was after a lapse of time that God sent Moses who showed Pharoah 
 miracles to establish his authority from God to demand of him that 
 he should let the Israelites go. Had Pharoah obeyed the command he 
 would not have been punished, but he made a direct issue with God, 
 4fcl said, (Ex. v. : 2.)—" Who is the Lord that I should obey his 
 voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel 
 go!" The Israelites were not of right the slaves; and Pharoah 
 denied God's authority : for this they Avere plagued, and God brought 
 them out with a strong hand. Here Sir, you have brought to a close 
 all that you have to say in regard to proofs from the Old Testament. 
 And now, Sir, the Gospel and Epistles are to afford a fair field for 
 you to display your skill in hermaneutics. Why do you not try your acu- 
 men upon 1 "Timothy, vi. : 1 — 5. Is that too strong meat to digest, or 
 is the rebuke it conveys to them who teach otherwise, too harsh music 
 for your ears. 
 
 1. 1 Tim. vi. : 1 — 5 : " Let as many servants as are under the yoke 
 count their own masters worthy of all honor,- that the name of God 
 and his doctrine be not blasphemed. 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. If any man teach 
 otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness ; 
 he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of 
 words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil sur mi sings, perverse 
 disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, sup- 
 posing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw thyself." 
 
 This you will have nothing to do with, but you proceed to address 
 Dr. How thus : " All you have proved or can prove from the New- 
 Testament, are the facts that servitude was found to exist in those 
 times, that neither Christ or any of his apostles in direct terms con- 
 demned the institution, but on the contrary admonished those connect- 
 ed therewith, either as master or servant, to perform with faithfulness 
 the duties which the laws of the institution required. It is not pre- 
 tended that they approved of it in any other way than this." 
 
 It is pretended and proved, also, that Christ sanctioned the 
 holding of slaves, and recognized men servants and maid servants in 
 the Tenth Commandment. But let us quote from Dr. How's argu- 
 ment. 
 
24 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 
 
 " 1. Our first remark is, tliat Christ and his Apostles in the strongest 
 manner assert the divine inspiration and binding authority of Moses 
 and the Prophets, that is, of the Old Testament Scriptures. On this 
 point there was no dispute between them and the Jews. It was Jesus 
 Christ the Son of God who gave to the Israelites their laws in the 
 wilderness, and who spake by his spirit in the prophets,* who was 
 again visibly present among the Jews in the humble form of the Man 
 of Nazareth, explaining and enforcing the laws which he had before 
 given to them. The Law of Ten Commandments is referred to and 
 argued from by both Christ and his Apostles, as the Law of God of 
 universal and perpetual obligation, and consequently the tenth com- 
 mand is in as full force at the present day as when it was first given, 
 and the right of the master to his man-servant and maid-servant re- 
 mains as strong as at the first. Moreover, all true believers in Chrifc 
 are children of Abraham, and so under and interested in the Covenant 
 which God made with him. ' Know ye, therefore,' says the Apostle, 
 ' that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham. 
 . . . . So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful 
 Abraham. . . . If ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and 
 heirs according to the promise. (Gal. iii.: 7, 9, 29.) It is under that 
 covenant which God made with Abraham to be a God to him and to 
 his seed after him, and of which circumcision, before the death of 
 Christ, was the sign, and baptism now is and lias been since his death, 
 that the visible Church is now placed, and believing masters with their 
 believing slaves are now as they ever have been entitled to the sign 
 and privileges of the covenant.' " 
 
 You instance the fact that "Christ and his Apostles never inter- 
 fered with the legal institutions of the land," but permitted them to 
 exist. Their language was: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of 
 man, the powers that be are ordained of God." But it would be very 
 wrong to infer from this that God sanctioned injustice, although he 
 sanctioned the necessity and propriety of just government and ordained 
 power in the hand of the civil magistrate. God has granted power 
 and ordained relative duties. His commands are : " Wives be obedi- 
 ent to your husbands: husbands love your wives; children obey your 
 parents ; parents provoke not your children to anger ; servants be 
 obedient to your masters ; masters render to your servants things just 
 and equal." 
 
 You represent Christianity with its benign influence as having 
 abolished the relation of master and slave in many parts of Christen- 
 dom. Is this a fixed fact, or is it only an assertion ? Is not Christian- 
 ity as pure in these states as it is in Europe or in Great Britain ? If 
 Christianity has abolished negro slavery in those countries, why did it 
 not abolish the abject oppression of the down-trodden European 
 nations ? or is there something peculiar in the African race for which 
 they should have special privileges ? Christianity does not abolish the 
 relation of master and slave. It prevents men from becoming slaves 
 to their passions and appetites, and thus prevents them becoming slaves 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 
 
 25 
 
 to men. It elevates them in the condition of master and slave, and 
 makes the master more kind and the slave more faithful. Christianity 
 does not abolish the just right of the master to his slave. Show me 
 the command if it does ? Read what Dr. How says on the 28th page 
 of his argument of the beneficial effects of Christianity on the master 
 and slave. Please also to prove that it was Christianity that abolished 
 negro slavery in Europe and Great Britain. 
 
 Your assertion that Dr. How based a portion of his argument 
 "that to hold a slave is not a sin," upon the ground "That inasmuch 
 as they knew of it, and spoke of it, and did not condemn it, therefore 
 they must have approved of it," cannot in truth be founded on Dr. 
 How's words. Dr. How proves that they did not condemn it. This I 
 have shown several times ; but to repeat only once : He adduced the 
 enumeration of slaves as property in the command as a sanction, and 
 proved that Clirist enforced the binding authority of the Tenth 
 Commandment ; also by doing this Christ sanctioned the holding of 
 slaves as property, but Christ never sanctioned injustice, although 
 he may have permitted the Roman Tribunals to act unjustly, yet Christ 
 condemned the unjust judge and injustice of all kinds. 
 
 And now we come to a false, ridiculous and wonderful statement 
 and comparison, and it is difficult to tell whether it is more ridiculous 
 than it is untrue. Dr. How brought up the tenth command, which is 
 of universal application at all times and in all countries where God's 
 word is read and preached, to show that in that command God recog- 
 nized man-servants and maid-servants as property, and that thus he 
 sanctioned the right to hold slaves. You say, addressing Dr. How, 
 "But you seem to have made one other discovery, new, if not useful, 
 more strange if* possible than the others, and that is, that the ' aboli- 
 tionists ' of the General Synod are utterly crushed and confounded by 
 the command 'Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's man-servant, nor 
 his maid-servant, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's,' which you ac- 
 company with a dissertation on the rights of property ; but what this 
 has to do with the case is more than I can tell." Now, my dear sir, 
 you yourself seem, if not crushed, at least to be confounded ; or, to use 
 an appropriate but inelegant word, "dumbfounded." Is it possible 
 that the eyes of your mind were so obscured as not to be able to per- 
 ceive and to understand that Dr. How used this command to show that 
 when God enumerated house and wife, man-servant and maid-servant, 
 ox or ass, or any thing belonging to our neighbors, that he recognized 
 man-servant and maid-servant as belonging to our neighbor — his prop- 
 erty, to which he has a right. Dr. How did not charge that the abo- 
 litionists coveted the slaves of the North Carolina brethren ; but that 
 if they said that man-servants and maid-servants were not rightful, 
 God-recognized property, then they go right contrary to God's revealed 
 word. For some reason you did not see this : perhaps you did not 
 want to. But it is not too late to see it now. 
 
 After this oversight you relate an incident that occurred sbme 
 years ago, in which I happened to be an actor. I refer to the robbery 
 
26 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL! 
 
 at my father's, for I believe it is Dr. How's house that you refer to ; 
 there being no robbery of any other gentleman's house "not far 
 from our City, in which act the burglars were arrested, and carried to 
 prison," as far as my memory recalls. And I infer that it is that in- 
 cident from the fact that I have heard you tell the same story before, 
 and because it is generally believed that you refer to that occasion. 
 But details of the occurrence are so devoid of fact, that were it not for 
 the nearness to our City, and the fact of the thieves being caught, it 
 would be impossible to know what burglary, or what parties you refer 
 to. You ask if Dr. How coveted the pistols when he took them away ! 
 They had but one pistol, although they had knives, and the pistol and 
 knives the Sheriff took before Dr. How had seen the burglars; neither 
 did he buy a pair of pistols. So you see that he neither coveted the 
 pistols, nor took away their pistols, or had they a pair loaded to the 
 muzzles to take away, nor did Dr. How buy a pair of pistols. Now 
 did you invent this or was it told you ? If it was told you, you should 
 have recollected what every tyro at the bar knows that it is dangerous 
 to rely upon '• hearsay evidence." What was your object ? Was it to 
 ridicule Dr. How? If so, your ridicule has recoiled upon yourself, for 
 in relating this incident, you have exhibited a most laughable misun- 
 derstanding of Dr. How's application of the tenth command. 
 
 You say that you cannot see how the fact that because the Israelites 
 (or Hebrews as you call them) treated their slaves better than 
 the heathen and other nations strengthens the argument in favor 
 of the American "evil!" Dr. How is speaking of the reasons for 
 God permitting slavery ; and it is easy to be seen that to purchase 
 a slave from a heathen master who treated him cruelly was a 
 great blessing, besides he became an heir to God f s. covenant by 
 circumcision. Thus, when slaves were brought from barbarous, idola- 
 trous Africa, where they were already in bondage, it is evident that the 
 condition of being slaves in the United States was better than to be 
 slaves in Africa; for respect for God's word, and the observance of the 
 Sabbath, had a tendency to soften the rigor of the master and to civil- 
 ize the slave, and that therefore if we really sympathize with slaves in 
 North Carolina or in the South, we should extend the right hand of 
 fellowship to their masters; and that by "supporting, sustaining, and 
 giving aid and comfort" to Christianity at the South, we supported, 
 sustained, and gave aid and comfort, "in all its length and breadth," 
 to the sublime and humanizing system of pure Christianity ; which by 
 subduing the evil passions of their nature caused masters to give to 
 their slaves "that which is just and equal," and the slaves to render 
 cheerfully to their masters that which was due; instead of turning their 
 backs on their Southern Christian brethren, and turning up their eyes 
 to heaven, with sanctimonious fervor, exclaiming "Lord, I thank thee 
 that I am not as other men are," slaveholders, " unjust, adulterers," or 
 even as these North Carolinians. 
 
 You assert that Dr. How gives no reason for the permission by God 
 of slaveholding, but only some good rules for its regulation; "but, 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 27 
 
 sad to say, the poor, powerless, friendless slave of this ' glorious Union,' 
 has no such protection from the law. The master or his minions may 
 smite out one of his eyes or both of them," or treat him with whatever 
 cruelty he chooses, and yet "the victim is h's slave forever." This you 
 state for fact. Let us see if Dr. How did not give reasons for the per- 
 mission of slaveholding. 
 
 His first reason was, that slavery is one of the bitter effects of the 
 fall. There are several bitter effects of the fall. One bitter effect of 
 the fall is, that men must be punished when they wrong their neighbor 
 in order to assert the majesty of the law, to obtain from them satisfac- 
 tion or restitution, to deter them from breaking law again, and to deter 
 others from the commission of like acts. This is the effect that Dr. 
 How spoke of. It is a penal effect of the fall. God sentenced men to 
 slavery to punish crime. He cursed Canaan for crime to slavery, 
 and the curse was carried out when the Israelites held Canaanites in 
 bondage. Few will deny that it is right to deprive men of their liberty 
 and confine them in jails and prisons because they have forfeited a 
 right to liberty by crime. Why dispute then that it is right to enslave 
 men and make them labor for the benefit of others, when there is no 
 other suitable mode of punishment, as I have shown some pages back. 
 It was a bitter penal effect of the fall. This was Dr. How's first reason. 
 
 His second reason why God permitted his people to hold slaves 
 was, because they had more privileges under His law than they had 
 when slaves to idolaters. This was for the advantage of the slave who 
 would have been a slave among the heathen, if he had not had one of 
 God's covenant people for a master. 
 
 His third reason was, that God permitted it because he did not 
 consider it a sin to hold a slave, and no where made it a test of 
 church-membership. 
 
 All of these reasons will apply for the permission of holding slaves 
 in the United States to-day. And now as to your charge that the 
 reasons exist in this country to regulate the "evil, but the regulations 
 are nowhere to be found." That a master can treat a slave with 
 whatsoever cruelty he pleases, " yet he shall be a slave forever ;" I ask, 
 do you state this for fact? There are a number of laws protecting the 
 slave in this country. As I have not the Southern State Statutes, I 
 cannot quote many, but here are two that contradict your charge. The 
 first is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary, under the head of Cruelty to 
 Slaves. I quote from that book: "By the Civil Code of Louisiana, 
 Act 192, it is enacted that when a master shall be convicted of cruel 
 treatment to his slave, the judge may pronounce, beside the penalty 
 established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction. 
 in order to place him out of the reach of the power of his master who 
 has abused him." And I quote from the New- York Herald a state- 
 ment that I have seen in several papers, which you can now read : — 
 
 " Louisiana Slave Laws — A man named Hunter has been fined $1,000, and forfeited 
 six slaves at New-Orleans, for selling them in such a manner as to separate mother and 
 child, contrary to the laws of Louisiana," 
 
28 SLAVEIIOLDINO NOT SINFUL : 
 
 Thus it appears & master cannot abuse his slave and "humanity 
 shu 1 ler only, yet he is his slave forever," and that there are laws to 
 punish cruelty, and that they are enforce.!. I am not a lawyer, there- 
 fore I am not to be expected to quote "line upon line, and precept upon 
 precept, here a little and there a little/' but I am sure that a lawyer 
 ouodit to know something of the Statute Laws of the country in which 
 he lives ; especially when he has been to Congress. 
 
 On page fourteen, you say it is fair to presume that one of the 
 regulations of Jewish servitude was the right of the servant to leave 
 the service of his master when cruely treated. Compare this pre- 
 sumption with (1. Peter, ii. : 18-21.) And if there were any such 
 regulations, the Apostle does not tell slaves to take advantage of them, 
 but to " take it patiently." 
 
 As to the Fugitive Slave Law, we are not discussing that, neither 
 are we discussing the right of a father to pursue his fugitive son and 
 to prosecute those who harbor him. All that Dr. How attempted to 
 prove was that to hold a slave was not a sin, and this assertion of his 
 you have yourself admitted to be true in two places in your reply : 
 First, when you speak of the " old and worn out slaves," and next 
 when you say that God sanctioned slaveholding by Abraham. 
 
 And now we come to the •' flimsy mantle" of Paul, as we have al- 
 ready disposed of that of Abraham. You assert that Dr. How did 
 not find in Paul's epistle to Philemon that Onesimus " ran away from 
 his master." Whether he ran away, or walked away, is not material, 
 — certain it is that "he departed for a season," [Phil. : 1-5,) and Paul 
 seemed to be in doubt as to the manner in which Philemon would 
 treat Onesimus when he was sent back. He knew that the master 
 had power to punish fugitive slaves, not only with scourges, but with 
 death, (.Ja,vsn%l vi : 219.) accordingly he used this language. [Phil.: 
 8-9.) "Wherefore, though I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin 
 thee that which is convenient, yet for love's sake, I rather beseech thee" 
 (15,) "for perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou 
 shouldst receive him forever" (that is as long as he lived). But you 
 say that he was now the "converted Christian, and was to be thence- 
 forth not the servant or slave of any man." According to this then, you 
 hold that when a slave becomes a Christian, he was to cease to be a 
 slave. How does this agree with what you say on page eleven ? I quote 
 your words : " Christ and his Apostles never attempted to interfere with 
 any of the legal enactments of the country." But here we find that 
 you make Paul interfere Avith the legal enactments of the country, and 
 set Onesimus free. Now which assertion is true? Did St Paul who 
 was an Apostle set Onesimus free, because he had become a converted 
 Christian, and thus interfere with the legal enactments of the country ? 
 Or did Christ and his Apostles never interfere with the legal enact- 
 ments of the country ? Which assertion do you take ? What do you 
 say? This uncertainty in your statement forcibly reminds me of the 
 story of the old woman who was going to tell one of her friends how 
 to judge of good indigo, or " blueing " as shecalled it. Now, said she, 
 
29 
 AN ANSWER TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 
 
 « 5 1 von want to mtee of good blueing, you must take the « blueing " jjri 
 "I y M Si t itb t e asVevtion that " Christ and his Apostles never at- 
 
 thev are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. But *«PP™° 
 t5 y i in ,, l.im free because he was a converted Christian, onl> con 
 
 tne iaiuei ■ ui s accomplish m Aii.ca 
 
 £f1 Smk t at s jvScation enough, unless Americans are ,o have 
 t 's rlnts *id [fewer privileges than Hebrews, Israelites an d Jews 
 
 Do yo despise America f Do you hate and spit upon the "Umon I 
 WhospTead blight and mildew in Africa, if it does exist there? ■ » 
 „U?X«?ttm«fe« / The country is luxunously r.ch, but the 
 
30 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL '. 
 
 people are depraved. From before the building of the Pyramids 
 African has enslaved African, and Africans now enslave Africans. 
 White men bought them already enslaved at home and brought them 
 here as slaves. You also say, "Threatening disunion, violence and 
 civil war among the States." Let the Southerners live in the enjoyment 
 of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and you will never hear 
 of disunion, violence and civil war among the States. The cause of 
 all of these evils, whether existing, threatened, or imagined, you 
 charge upon the slaveholders and our glorious nation, and finish your 
 tirade with asserting that we are "a bye-word and a reproach in the 
 face of the civilized world." Your sympathies are always against the 
 land of your birth. Is this the patriotism you boast? Is this the 
 precept and the practice you pursue ? You would withdraw our army 
 when they had gained the Aztec Capital. They had done nobly, and 
 had borne our country's flag aloft 'mid toil, disease and death : 
 
 "At Cerro Gordo, through the storm of bullets they had trod, 
 At Cherubusco's flaming fight they bathed the field with blood, 
 And they had conquered everywhere where they had 6truck a blow, 
 And victors stood within the walls of haughty Mexico. 1 ' 
 
 Mothers and wives, sweethearts and sisters' bosoms glowed with 
 pride for them. But there was danger yet; they were but tens, the 
 foemen thousands ; their ships were far away upon the Gulf, the haughty 
 foe unhumbled — scarce deigned to sue for peace. Then you stood up 
 in Congress, in your place, and there betrayed the trust that Jerseymeri 
 reposed in you, and sympathized with Mexicans whose tender mercies 
 had been shown at Goliad, the Alamo and Santa Fe. They had com- 
 menced the war : 
 
 " Upon our soil they murdered the gallant Colonel Cross, 
 And Thornton's small command sustained a heavy loss," 
 
 and now they offered no indemnity ; you would withdraw our army then. 
 And now you stand and charge the crimes of Africa upon our land, and 
 sympathize with nations foreign to our soil — with proud, imperious Eng- 
 land, whose crowned head drew revenue from that same trade they scoff 
 atnow ; who paid no heed to Georgiaand Virginia when they prayed to 
 have the traffic stopped. But you must join with Britons and the 
 foreign crowd who grind and trample white men in the dust.* Is this 
 your love of country ? Away with such ! Here are your resolutions, 
 let us see what was thought of them : — 
 
 The following are the resolutions of Mr. Van Dyke — his "unmag- 
 nanimous resolutions" — from the New-Brunswick Times, Dec. 29, 1847 : 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the order of the Government that Gen. 
 Taylor, witli his army, should take position on the hank of the Rio Grande, which result- 
 ed in the blockade of that river and the pointing of the guns of the United States upon 
 a Mexican town on the other side, was unnecessary and unwise— was an act of aggression 
 within itself, and the immediate cause of conflict between the two nations. 
 
 * Sec the White Slaves of England, by Cobdcn, 
 
AN ANSWER TO JOHN TAN DYKE, ESQ. 31 
 
 Resolved, That the invasion of Mexican Territories south and west of the Rio Grande, 
 either by sea or by land, and the storming or capturing of her towns, and the slaying of 
 the people within such territories, are acts of injustice, cruelty and wrong ; and tuat the 
 requiring of Mexico, at the peril of her national existence to enter into treaty or stipula- 
 tion with us while her country is surrounded by our navy, her capital and chief towns in 
 our possession, her country subjugated, and her people crushed and prostrated beneath 
 our power, and with our resistless cannon frowning upon her, and our conquering sword 
 gleaming above her, is unreasonable and unfair towards Mexico as one of the contracting 
 powers, and unmagnanimous and unchristian in us. 
 
 Resolved, That the present war w ith Mexico should not be prosecuted any further for 
 any purpose whatever,— that the whole of our forces in the Mexican country should be 
 withdrawn as quickly as possible, and placed on territory which belongs to this country, 
 and that the administration be furnished with all the men and money necessary to protect 
 our troops now in Mexico, and to accomplish such withdrawal in the most practical way, 
 and without harm or danger. 
 
 Resolved, That after the withdrawal of our troops aforesaid, east of the Rio Grande, 
 the President of the United States be requested to send a commissioner or commissioners, 
 to Mexico to settle the question of boundary, with such other questions as may probably 
 come before them as a committee. 
 
 I will insert the notice made at that time in the Trenton Daily 
 News, entitled 
 
 " A VOICE FROM MEXICO." 
 " We mean no disrespect to the Hon. John Van Dyke, of the third district, when we 
 allege that the resolutions which he had the temerity to submit to Congress, and which 
 we give below, may be regarded both in letter and spirit the general voice of Mexico. — 
 They contain the same violent crimination of the United States, and the same warm 
 sympathies for the nation of Guerillos which pervade the pronunciamentos of the Mexican 
 leaders from Santa Anna to Paredes. They advocate the most favorable mode of 
 concluding the war that has been broached by any of the enemy's statesmen ; and if it 
 were possible for the American nation to carry them into practice, the Mexicans, and not 
 we, would be the gainers by a war brought on by their outrages, and in which our armies 
 have been so eminently victorious. We congratulate the Mexican nation then in having 
 at least one representative upon the floor of Congress in the person of Mr. Van Dyke, and 
 only regret that so patriotic a State as New-Jersey should have to bear the reproach 
 of furnishing the traitor of his country's fame, honor and interest." 
 
 The Jersey Blues did and do repudiate these sentiments. The 
 resolutions passed at public meetings in our State were read and are 
 known of all men. I will give but one more extract showing the feel- 
 ing the resolutions produced in a neighboring State. The Pennsylva- 
 nian in noticing the " unmagnanimous resolutions " said : — 
 
 " Well done, Mr. Van Dyke. The State you represent in part will thank you for the 
 compliment that you pay to your country. The gallant dead that repose beneath her sa- 
 cred soil are honored by your patriotic courage ; Princeton and Yorktown will ring your 
 praise, and your name will live as long as the Delaware hurries its waters to the ocean, or 
 while history tells of Washington and his victories. A statesman so wise — a patriot so 
 fearless — is worthy of being cherished and sustained. Mr. Van Dyke should be sent 
 forthwith to Mexico to consummate a peace. He would be so true to his country, and so 
 lair to Mexico. Before his mighty voice our armies would return to the bank of the 
 Neuces. SCOTT would kneel at his feet. TAYLOR would kiss the hem of his diplo- 
 matic robes. He would be waited upon by great captains, and followed by crowds of 
 grateful Mexicans. We fear the air of his country will spoil him, and it would be a 
 nation's loss to lose VAN DYKE ! !" 
 
 But, to proceed with your argument, you say "It is useless to tell 
 me that masters are kind, and that the slaves are happy and contented. 
 Their contentment is shown by the thousands who every year brave 
 every hardship and every danger in making their escape from bondage." 
 •" Thousands every year? That is an assertion. Now look at a fact. 
 
32 SLAVEHOLDING NOT SINFUL : 
 
 See Compendium U. S. Census, Table XLIV. : — Manumitted and Fugi- 
 tive Slaves in 1850. Manumitted, 1,467 ; Fugitive, 1,011. Thus we see 
 in 1850 456 more slaves were liberated by masteis kind enough to 
 free them, than there were who ran away from masters, some no doubt 
 kind, although most may not have been. "Where are the thousands 
 you speak of! There are more children who run away from their 
 parents, and soldiers and sailors who desert from the army and their 
 ships, I venture the assertion, than 1,011 twice told. But that is no 
 argument to prove that the relation of parent and child, officer and 
 soldier and sailor, is a sinful relation; or that master and slave is a 
 sinful relation. Neither does it follow that it is a sin to have children 
 and an army and navy because children run away and soldiers and 
 sailors desert. 
 
 You ask "what becomes of kindness and humanity when passion 
 and power are united together." "Why Sir, when passion and power 
 are united together and are exhibited at one time, abuses of power 
 arise; but because power is abused by some, is no reason that it is a sin 
 to have power. The sin lies in the abuse of the power. In order to 
 fasten the exhibition of passion upon the possession of power, you have 
 got to show that passion comes of necessity, from the possession of power, 
 and is inseparable from it and partakes of its nature. Is it a general 
 rule that powerful men are passionate, and that they abuse the power? 
 Surely you cannot prove this; then why argue against power as sinful be- 
 cause passionate men abuse their power. "Why say it is a sin to hold 
 slaves, because passionate masters abuse their slaves, and not say it 
 is a sin to have and hold a son until 21 years of age, because pas- 
 sionate fathers abuse their sons. Undoubtedly it is a sin to abuse any 
 one, 3 T et it is no sin to have power. The sin lies in the abuse of the 
 power. Another assertion of yours is, that Dr. How was a clergyman, 
 therefore in the South as at the North, they " laid aside their vices and 
 crimes" and put on their best behavior in the presence of the "do- 
 minie." So inthe South, "no man ever carried his slave into your pres- 
 ence to be lashed, &c." This is in a measure true, and is a good exam- 
 ple to prove the truth of what Dr. How asserts, and what you do not 
 deny, that Christianity softens the rigor of the master by curbing his 
 passions, and lightens the burdens of the slave. Therefore philanthro- 
 pists ought not to throw obstacles in the way of Christians, and refuse 
 to hold connection with them, and thus discourage Christ's ministers, 
 and destroy their influence for good upon master and slave. 
 
 You also assert that you have seen slaves sold at the South to the 
 highest bidder, no matter whom it might be, to be carried by him 
 whithersoever he might think proper, and be subjected without restraint 
 to whatever hardship and cruelty his whim and malice might suggest 
 or invent. Can you in the presence of the searcher of hearts, the 
 God of truth, make such an assertion. You must know on reflection, 
 that they cannot take them wheresoever they please, and that some of 
 their laws forbid cruelty, T have just shown. 
 
 You do not deny that Christianity ameliorates the condition of tho 
 
Atf ANSWER. TO JOHN VAN DYKE, ESQ. 33 
 
 slave ; and you assert that "if slavery be so great an ' evil' with all the 
 mitigating influence of Christianity upon it, God only can tell what it 
 would be without it ; but this is nothing in favor of a system scarcely 
 endurable with such an influence." What it would be without the gos- 
 pel, man can tell also . Look at Africa, see its abuses there, and we can 
 say that the gospel has rendered negro slavery easier in the United 
 States than in Africa. Thus much can be said in favor of American 
 negro slavery. And it can well be said that it is better to preach Christ 
 and him crucified, than to preach abolitionism and such abstract hu- 
 man rights as have no foundation in fact, when the preaching of the 
 first has mitigated the abuses of slavery, and the preaching of the last 
 has only tightened his bonds. Anil now for the conclusion. Addres- 
 sing Dr. llow, you say, " As you have delivered your argument twice, 
 and written it out once, you will not care probably to travel over the 
 ground again, but if at the next General Synod you shall think proper 
 to discuss the other features of the peculiar and patriarchal institution, 
 I may find it expedient to continue the subject." Dr. How has not 
 delivered his argument twice, but you have printed your reply twice, 
 once in a pamphlet, and once in the Frcdonian, and there will bo 
 no necessity for him to travel over his argument again, for you havo 
 placed no obstacle to be cleared away; neither will Dr. llow be a del- 
 egate to the next Synod, it not being his turn to go. Therefore, you 
 m ly not, as far as he is concerned, find it expedient to continue the sub- 
 ject; but if you should see fit to notice my answer to your reply, you 
 will always find me ready to confute any arguments you may bring to 
 prove that slaveholding is a sin. 
 
 Let us now see what the whole of your reply amounts to, and 
 what it is good for ! You have asserted that to hold a slave is a sin/but 
 never proved it. You have argued against the just and lawful use of 
 slave lab^r, because some slaves have been abused. You have not dis- 
 tinguished between a sanction and a permission. You have entirely 
 overlooked and mistaken the universal binding force of the tenth com- 
 mand, wherein man-servant and maid-servant are enumerated as prop- 
 erty ; the Hebrew word for man-servant means a slave, and if God had 
 not intended to mention slaves as property, He could, and doubtless 
 would have used the Hebrew word that was applied to hired servants, 
 and not have used the word by which the Israelites called their slaves, 
 and understood as applied to bond-men and women, bought with 
 money, as much their property as the slave at the South is the prop- 
 erty of his master. You have proposed nothing to mitigate the con- 
 dition of the slave you sympathize with so much, for you say with dis- 
 dain that you are not an abolitionist. All you have done is this : you 
 have, abused your Southern fellow-citizens, and have tried to cast dis- 
 credit upon, as you say the " land of the free and the home of tho 
 slave." The way in which you make assertions without proof is appal- 
 ling ; the manner in which you misconstrue Dr. llow, and the illogical 
 conclusions you draw, and your modest assurance have afforded mo 
 much amusement and laughter. Indeed, all the good that can be de- 
 
34 AN ANSWER TO JOnN VAN" DYKE, ESQ. 
 
 rived from your pamphlet is to enjoy a laugh over nnd at it; and that 
 it is useful to have something to laugh at was acknowledged as far 
 back as the time of (he flood or universal deluge, for it is said that 
 Noah was about to exclude the peacock from the ark hecause he would 
 take up too much room on account of his great strutting and tail- 
 spreading propensities, hut his scruples were at lenglh overcome, and 
 the Peacock admitted at the solicitation of the Owl, who said if the 
 Peacock was good for nothing else he would do for a laughingstock 
 for the rest of the animals. 
 
 If you should write again please to show one command of God 
 forbidding the holding of a slave, and pronouncing it a sin. Where 
 there is no law (here is no transgression ; for sin is a transgression of the 
 law, and as there is no law forbidding slavehohling, hut God has sanc- 
 tioned it, I conclude with the assertion and (he fact that 
 
 SLAYEIIOLDING IS NOT SINFUL. 
 
 Yours respectfully, 
 
 HENRY K. HOW. 
 
 P. S. — Writing at my place of business, interrupted at least one 
 hundred times, at the expiration of one week from its commencement, 
 I concluded (his answer, and hoped in a few days to have had the 
 pleasure to furnish you with a copy, but unavoidable hindrances be- 
 yond my control and the control of (he printer of (he pamphlet, has 
 delayed its appearance until now, the eleventh of April. During this 
 delay, one fact has come under ray notice, it is (his : although four 
 weeks have elapsed since your "Reply" was ushered into the world, 
 addressed to Dr. How hy name, and written to him personally, still you 
 have not as yet had the politeness to send him a copy. I have endea- 
 vored not to he guilty ot'th's breach of etiquette, and have therefore 
 deposited in the post office, directed to your address, the tirst completed 
 copy of my answer, which I hope you will receive. Yours, <fcc, 
 
 H. K. H.