iiii iiiliiiiiil llgiiiiiiiliilil E440 Ao. \* . t • .^" .«■'•• '#'^ .0* • «/;;%>,• THE PEPJL OF OLTv SHIP OF STATE : A Sermon on the Day of Fasting and Prayer, January 4th, 1861. (by request^ (The folljj of out: .f jrcculationsi: A New-Year'3 Sermon, January 6, ISOl. (by request.) STPvICTURES OX A RECENT SERMON BY KEV. H. J. VAN DYKE. BY KEV. AV. P.. GORDON, D.D., P.VSTOU OF THE REFOUMED DUTCH CUURCO OP SCQRAALENBERGH, N. J. .^^' llclu-norh JOHN A. GRAY, PRINTER, STEREOTYPER, AND BINDER, CORNER OF FRANKFORT AND JACOB STREETS, . rlRK-PBOOr BUILDINGS. ISGI. .5" THE PERIL OF OUR SHIP OF STATE. " And fallicg into a place where two seas met, they ran tbe ehip aground." —Acts 27 :41. This chapter contains an account of Paul's shipwreck on his voyage to Rome. In consequence of his want of confidence in the integrity of Festus, the Koman governor, before whom he was brought, at Cai'sarea, a prisoner, by the accusations of the Jews, he availed himself of the privilege of a Roman citizen, to appeal unto Ca?sar. This appeal at once removed his cause from Festus' jurisdiction, where he had no prospect of a fair trial, to the imperial city itself, far away from the influence of the prejudice and bribery of his sworn enemies. It was incumbent on the civil authorities to send Paul thither at their own expense, and as he had long desired to see Rome, but had no means of getting there, he rejoiced in the privilege of a free passage, though be went in the ignominious character of a state prisoner. The company embarked from Ca3- sarea, and arrived safe in Myra, where an Egyptian vessel from Alexandria was ready to start for Italy. On board this ship which, from circumstances detailed, might have been one thou- sand tons burden, Paul and his fellow-prisoners were placed ; and, as it was an unfavorable season of the year for sailing, they experienced heavy sufferings through a violent and con- tinuous storm. " Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, Paul admonished them, and said unto them. Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. 4 THE PERIL OF OUR SHIP OF STATE. JSTevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken of Paul." Here is an example of the consequence of listening to rash and precipitate counsel, and imprudently running into the midst of evident danger. When by sad experience, they found it was too late to correct their miserable mistake, " all hope that they should be saved was taken away. But after long absti- nence Paul stood forth in the midst of them and said : Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss." Now there was no use of upbraiding them for their willful folly, since this would only tend to exasperate, without accomplishing any ffood. He therefore comforted them with the doctrine of God's providence, and the fact of God's promise, and urged an implicit reliance upon Ilim who holds the winds and the waves in his fist. Soon the practiced ear of the sailor discovered the peculiar noise of breakers between the bowlings of the storm. They feared lest they should fall upon rocks in the night, and casting out four anchors from the stern, they waited anxiously for the dawn. Perceiving the imminent danger into which they had now run the ship, and feeling their own inability to manage her, the captain and crew, in a treacherous and cowardly man- ner, collected together apparently to cast out anchors from the bow, with the intent to make the passengers believe they were doing the best they could to steady her. This would appear all right ; but then their secret purpose was, to get into the boat, cut loose, and let ship, passengers, and all go to the bot- tom. Paul was no doubt led, by an impulse from God, to de- tect their wickedness. The history states it thus: "And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under color as though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers. Except these abide in the ship, ye can not be saved. Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off." When daylight revealed to them the coast, upon which they had drifted, they knew it not ; but it was evidently a dangerous one. There was, however, an inlet, which they thought if they could gain, they might THE PERIL OF OUR SHIP OF STATE. 6 yet be safe. Carefully did they manage to make this point, but suddenly, because of their ignorance of the dangers through which they were passing, they " fell into a place where two seas met, and rao the ship aground ;" and there she went to pieces. This scrap of sacred history is aptly illustrative of the sad position into which our ship of state has recently been driven. She is a, noble vessel, in all her appointments. Her name, United States; her code of laws, the Constitution. For the period of some eighty years, she has sailed the stormy main of public opinion, and has grown popular in the admira- tion of mankind. Iler flag is respected all over the world, and she has at length become the pride of the ocean. But alas I after she has done much good, seen much service, weathered many a gale, outridden many a storm, a mutiny has arisen on board : and that simply about the policy of her management. The consequence has been, that by the desper- ate struggle for the mastery, she has already fallen into a place where two seas of conflicting opinion meet, lashed up into a rage; and the apprehended danger is, that they will run the ship aground where she must go to pieces. The Southern, is a shaUoiv sea, a boisterous, roaring, clamor for the extension of Slavery ; the Northern one, a rolling tide, high and deep, for the extension of Freedom. Whatever other political differ- ences may exist, they are all now nearly drowned in the angry surge. By a sad misfortune, our ship of state has fallen into the place where these two seas meet, and their conflicting waves now break over her midships ; some of the captain's officers have fled their posts, and he is shivering in great per- plexity. Recognizing the power of God, as the last resource, he has called all the ship's company to fasting and prayer, lest the ship be shattered ; and our political prosperity perish for- ever, right in the place where these two seas meet. Such is the state of things in which we find ourselves at this hour. But there is a Paul on board — that is, the holy religion, of which he is a fitting representative in his epistolary exposi- tion of Christianity, has been all along through our voyage from the beginning, a comforting companion. If the principles which he has inculcated had been heeded by the political crew, 6 THE PERIL OF OUR SHIP OF STATE. the ship never would have been in danger of swamping between these two seas, nor of being run aground amid the perils of disunion. This is very evident, from Paul's exhortations upon our political duties. What has he said ? " Let every soul be sub- ject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be are ordained of God, Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth lirit of the Gospel is adverse to slavery. Indeed, in propor- 30 STRICTURES O A RECENT SERMON. tion as its injunctions are obeyed, it tends to root out a prac- tice in wliicli folly and injustice are alike conspicuous." His ex- position of the meaning of the whole passage is in conformity with that above mentioned. The same is true of Whitby, who says: "It is evident from Justin Martyr and TertuUian, that the com- mon stock of Christians was employed to buy their brethren out of bonds and servitude." Scott says of this passage : " It shows that Christian masters were not required to set their slaves at liberty, though they were instructed to behave toward them in such a manner as would greatly lessen and nearly annihilate slavery. It would have excited much confusion, awakened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly retarded the progress of Christianity, had the liberation of slaves by their converts been ex- pressly rG(\mre(\. by the apostles; though the principles of both the law and the Gospel, when carried to their consequences, will infallibly abolish slavery." So much for our author's fairness. Now when we get the real explanation of the Apostle by the " concurrent testimony of the commentators," we see this passage does not serve Mr. Van Dyck at all. His object is to prove that this text impliedly gives the divine sanction to slavery ; and that its rebukes are " prophetically written for these days, and wonder- fully applicable to our present circumstances." But the commen- tators show directly the reverse. They show that its admonitions are given to slaves, not to commend to them their condition as divinely constituted, but to regulate their conduct in that condition ; that the name of God and his doctrines should not be blasphemed by their masters and others. Therefore, neither in letter nor spirit, by any possibility of fair construction, is it capable of being tor- tured into a " prophecy," or of being shown " wonderfully ai^pli-. cable to our present circumstances." To assert that " it gives a life-like picture of Abolitionism in its principles, its spirit, and its practice," is the grossest blunder that could well be made ; and it is marvelous how any man, claiming scholarship, and starting with an implied assurance that he would not handle the word of God deceitfully, can risk his reputation in this way. Mr. Van Dyke thus defines an Abolitionist : " He is one who believes slavery is sin, and ought to be abolished." This is not correct. An Abolitionist is one who believes that slavery, under all circumstances, is sin, and ought to be immediately abolished. There is a great diiFerence between these two propositions. The latter accurately describes an Abolitionist, and at once explains to STRICTUEES OX A RECENT SERMON. 81 US how two extremes meet, when he and the Southern pro- slavery man can stand upon the same platform of disunion, each a cornucoina of fanaticism and treason. Between their creeds is a vast body of conservative men, who believe that our slavery is sin, and ought to be abolished, when it can be done without pro- ducing greater and more deplorable evils. The plain inference from this sermon is, that there are upon this moral question but two parties : they who hold slavery to be right, and they who regard it as sin. That all who hold it to be moralhj icrong are Abolitionists in the popular sense of that word, under all the odium, and are guilty of " Abolitionism in all its ramified and various forms." Now this is utterly at variance with facts, and shows that the author has either unwittingly or wickedly broken the ninth commandment. lie tells us that some " content themselves with voting in such a Avay as in their judgment will best promote the ultimate triumph of their views." " Others stand off at what they suppose a safe distance, as Shimei did when he stood on an opposite hill to curse King David." " Others, more practical, if not more prudent, go into the very midst of the alleged wickedness, and teach ' servants under the yoke ' that they ought not to count their own masters worthy of all honor." He then insinuates that llev. Mr. Beecher and John Brown, Aboli- tionists in the whole, and the Heroes of Harper's Ferry, are chips of the same block. Such a dishonorable use of the pulpit for party pui'poses in these times is perfectly execrable, whether it be by an Abolitionist or by Mr. Van Dyke. But the publication of such perversions of the Scripture, of such injurious and inflammable matter at the present, as we find in his performance, deserves the indignant frown of every lover of his country. This author's first tJtesis is, that " Abolitionism has no founda- tion in the Scriptures." He includes in this term all anti-slavery sentiments held on the morality of this question. There is not a single word to the contrary. Now, such a thesis, is a mere hypo- thesis. We plant right down here, Isaiah 58 : 5 : "7s oiot this the fast that I have chosen ? to loose the bands of loiclcedness^ to undo the heavy burdens^ and to let the oppressed go free^ and that ye break every yoke?'''' "We should like to have our author's extracts from commentators on this passage fairly'given. It looks, alarmingly very much, as though God himself was chargeable with Abolitionism. 32 STRICTURES ON A RECENT SERMON. Under this thesis^ the author goes into the merits of Hebrew bondage^ to prove the Sciptural warrant for American slavery. Or, in the words of his admired commentator, " distempered about these questions relative to the Mosaic law," he treats his ad- versaries as though they must be confounded at once by its doc- trines against Abolitionism. A grosser fallacy never was imposed upon his hearers or readers. If a likeness existed between Mo- saic bondage and American slavery, his argument would not only be legitimate but unanswerable. But the truth is, there is no likeness at all. We now proceed to prove it. Hebrew slavery was (1) the voluntary bondage of men, other than negroes. There is no evidence that a Hebrew was allowed to buy a man, not a criminal, from a third j)arty ; but he might buy his time for a short or long period while the bondman retained bis natural rights as a man. So in the case of involuntary bondage. The^yropertg of the master was in the service, and not in the ser- vant ; hence, under no circumstances, could a Hebrew hold a man as a chattel. There was no such thing as turning personality into property by the laws of Moses, because that would have been an act introducing moral disturbances into the law of God, and le- galizing violence to the nature of man. (2.) Involuntary bondage was inflicted upon captives taken in Avar, insolvent debtors, and criminals, and persons judicially de- voted by God to this degradation ; but in no other case was it permitted. Hence the stringent law of Moses, Exodus 21 : 16 : " He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death.'''' Now it is a principle which all men receive, except the implicated, that the receiver is as bad as the thief. What, then, under the operation of this law, would have been the fate of our Southern brethren, when it is conceded on all hands that their slaves are all the issue of stolen men, and at this hour many of them are clamorous for the reopen- ing of the African slave-trade ? Again. All the servants of the Israelites were protected from cruelty by laws that required their manumission as a compensation for being maimed by their masters. And above all privileges, they enjoyed the benefit of a fugitive slave law made in their oion be- half. Deut. 23 : 15, 16: " Thou shalt not deliver unto his m,aster the servant that is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liheth him best : thou shalt not oppress him.'''' STRICTURES ON A RECENT SERMON, 33 The foregoing facts are too numerous to allow of my proof of them being spread out in a brief paper ; and I can well afford to be content with the bare enumeration, because they will, I fancy, be denied by none whose denial is predicated on sound reason and fact. In order to show the utter fallacy of Mr, Van Dyke's argument from the Mosaic system, we have only to say, that the substitution of the one for the other, would destroy it in a short time ; and, that American slavery is nearly the same as the Roman slavery of our Saviour's day. It is a reproduction in its details of the " hea- then institution." According to Roman law, slaves were esteemed pro nullis^ pro mortuis^ ^^ro quadrupedibus / that is, they were not considered as in the condition of rnen^ but in that of the dead, in that of beasts. They had no name, and no human right in law, but were regarded and treated as chattel-property. Of course, a master could do any thing he pleased with his slave, even to the taking of his life. How is it with the " peculiar institution " of our country ? The slaves of the South, are all the issue of stolen men. They are en- tirely under despotic rule. The details of our slave code are horrid to any sensitive heart. But this is all proper, according to the law of our Supreme Court, " That black men have no rights that white men are boimd to respects That is the law : and under this law, there can be no abuses, beyond those which dumb brutes are subject to. It is a perfectly fair business to go to Africa, and catch negroes, and enslave them, and sell them like monkeys and tigers. You may embrutc them, prostitute them, separate their families at the auction-block, and do almost any thing with them which might be done under the Roman yoke. And this is the system which Mr. Van Dyke aims to justify by the argument of Mosaic slavery ! It is in vain to say, these are abuses, and that it is unfair to argue against the use from the abicscpof a system. Common consent is the parent of law; and no system can exist, without its permeation by law, hence as is the law, so is the system. We therefore say, that according to the aforesaid law, if it be esteemed correct, the system must be regarded as susceptible of no abuse, beyond that of brutes ; and if the law is not correct, the icse is the abuse. In either case it is condemned by the Mosaic Law, and also by the principles of the Gospel. 3 34 STRICTURES ON A RECENT SERMON. Oar author goes farther, and argues for Roman slavery ; and his argument amounts to this ; that upon the part of Christ, silence gives consent. He asks : " How did Jesus and his Apostles act ? Masters and slaves met tliem at every step in their missionary work, and w^ere present in every audience to which they preached. The Roman law, which gave the full power of life and death into the master's hand, was iamiliar to them ; and all the evils connected with the system surrounded them every day, as obviously as the light of heaven. And yet, it is a remarkable fact, Avhich the Abolitionist does not, because he can not deny, that the New Testament is utterly silent in regard to the alleged sinfulness of slaveholding. In all the instructions of the Saviour ; in all the reported sermons of the inspired Apostles ; in all the epistles they were moved^ by the Holy Spirit to write, for the instruction of coming generations — there is not one distinct and explicit denunciation of slavehold- ing, nor one precept requiring the master to emancipate his slaves. Every acknowledged sin is openly and repeatedly condemned, and in unmeasured terms. Drunkenness and adultery, theft and mur- der — all the moral wrongs which ever have been known to afflict society, are forbidden by name ; and yet, according to the teach- ing of Abolitionism, this greatest of all sins — this sum of all villa- nies — is never spoken of except in respectful terms. How can this be accounted for ? " (Page 15.) This is a strange statement. The Apostles enunciated princi- ples utterly at war with slavery, whose practical operation would tend to abolish it, while in all their directions given to those living in this relation, they were careful never to concede or recognize the right of the master. They never speak of slavery in respectful terms, any where in any of their writings. On the contrary there is something which bears hard on it, in 1 Tim 1:10. If, because the New Testament is utterly silent in regard to the alleged sinful- ness of slavery, we must argue that it approves it, then it must also, by the same argument, approve the master's irresponsible power of life and death over the slave ; it must approve the denial of mar- riage to the slave, and it must approve the condition in which he was held, legally thus expressed, " pro nullis, pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus ; " for there is no " explicit denunciation " of this barbarous law, out of which " all the evils connected with the system " grew. Can we find any precept or direction in the New Testament teaching how to distinguish the abuse from the use of slavery ? No. Therefore according to our author, it was all STRICTURES ON A RECENT SERMON. 85 good under the Roman law! This is fine doctrine, be sure, to be proclaimed from a Christian pulpit in behalf of a heathen institution ! But Mr. Van Dyke proceed to answer an objection, thus : " It is often said that if the Bible does sanction slaveholding, it does not sanction Amerieaa slavery y that it is not against slave- holding abstractly that the Abolitionist protests, but against the system of American slavery takeyi as a lohole. To this I answer, the Bible does not sanction American mar- riage.'''' This is admirable. lie might just as well have said, for all the purposes of a pertinent reply, that the Bible does not sanction Barnum's " Happy Family." God instituted marriage, but he did . not institute slavery. He gave express sanction to the former as a laio for the race, but ho never did so legislate as to the latter. The fallacy is apparent, and the booming periods that expand this harlequin argument are funny. But, a little farther on, we find a worse blunder. lie says : "The Gospel does not sanction either the sysfewi of American marriage, or the system of American slavery, (if by system be meant every thing connected with the ]>ractical workings of the two relations ;) but then it did sanction both mai-riago and slave- holding under a system of laws, and in a condition of public morals, worse than now exist in either Xew-York or Charleston." Here we are tokl, that the Gospel does not sanction the system of American slavery, but that it did sanction slaveholding under a worse system than the American system ! This is admirable again. And still farther on, he says : "I cordially incline to the current opinion of our Church, that slavery is permitted and regulated by the Divine law, under both the Jewish and Christian dispensa- tions." Here wo are further informed, that the Gospel, does not sanction, yet both jyermits and regidates American slavery, for no other exists under the Christian dispensation ! Such miserable stuff", the author has the folly to suppose, sensible people wilt ac- cept as argument, proof, demonstration ! Mr. Van Dyke is not only unjust towards the vast body of anti- slavery men, but his sermon looks very much like a political torch with some seditioii in the flame. Speaking of Southern ministers who advocate secession, he says, " They hope that under some other government they may have that peace for the prosecution of their Master's work, which the Constitution of the United 36 STRICTURES OX A RECENT SERMON. States has hitlierto failed to secure for them ; " and adds : " In my heart I do not blame them." " We have no fears that if the new Administration could be quietly inaugurated, it would or could abolitionize the government." Innuendoes like these — and there are enough of them — put forth at the present time, go far to implicate the author in the same sin for which he rebukes Mr. Beecher. " Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ? " Our author knows, or ought to know, that anti-slavery men, in distinction from the political Abolitionists, hold that every South- ern State has a constitutional right to keep slavery as it is, where it is ; and that in spite of any power on earth ; they do not wish to encourage, much less attempt interference with the "peculiar institution " where it exists by local law, and under the protection of the Constitution. His talk therefore about " abolitionizing the government " is intensely absurd. There is a host of anti-slavery men at the North, who will go for our Union, in opposition, alike to Abolitionists and pro-slavery fanatics. Whilst we denounce the impious rashness of the technical Abolitionist, we no less despise the detestable apology that seeks to shield an abominable Heathen Institution under the sanction of the pure Gospel of Christ. Our pro-slavery advocate informs us that " an article published twenty years ago in the .Princeton Hevieio contains this remarkable language : " ' The opinion that slaveholding is itself a crime must operate to produce the disunion of the States and the division of all ecclesias- tical societies in this country. Just so far as this opinion operates, it will lead those who entertain it to submit to any sacrifices to carry it out and give it efiect. We shall become two nations in feeling, which must soon render us two nations in flxct.' " These words," says he, " are wonderfully prophetic, and they who read the signs of the times must see that the period of their fulfillment draws near." This reference turns out to be a little unfortunate. The article specified was published in the first volume of selections from the Princeton Itevieio in 1847, and lately has been reproduced in a volume of " Essays and Reviews, by Dr. Hodge." Now we are sorry to say, onx Author^ s work, bating the commentaries, is sim- ply Dr. Hodge's well-woven web of sophistry, ravelled out, picked, and made over his own block into a felt hat for the bald pate of slavery : that is all. By the help of the dead, and the living, he STRICTURES ON A RECENT SERMON. 37 has manufactured this hat, and stuck a white feather in the band, borrowed from Dr. Palmer. Well done. Genius ! But we think the following reO. plume ought to have been added. Dr. Palmer says of his own argument : " It establishes the nature and solem- nity of our pr