Puritanism, Slavery, and Abortion

[earl40]

These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology doesn't emerge from their character but from the Scriptures.

Would it not be better to say? "These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology does emerge from their lack of character which arose from a wrong understanding of scripture concerning American slavery and its man-stealing."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.

I came across a very disturbing website that claims that early New England residents (wouldn't that mean Puritans?) did in fact perform abortions. I hope the website is wrong, but here it is...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Here's another similar website about abortion in the early days of our country...

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.

 

[OPC'n]

Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.

I came across a very disturbing website that claims that early New England residents (wouldn't that mean Puritans?) did in fact perform abortions. I hope the website is wrong, but here it is...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Here's another similar website about abortion in the early days of our country...

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.

Thank you, you said it better than I was trying to do. I'll have to apply this also to the whole idea of them stealing men, women, and children to enslave bc they hated black ppl

 

[Ed Walsh]

What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.

I thought everything on the Internet was true???

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology doesn't emerge from their character but from the Scriptures.

Would it not be better to say? "These are then sinful men who hold to a Biblical theology. The theology does emerge from their lack of character which arose from a wrong understanding of scripture concerning American slavery and its man-stealing."

I guess I'm thinking of the "base" theological system (Westminster Standards for example). One needs to deal with the Standards on an exegetical and theological basis. It stands or falls in relation to its fidelity to the Word. Since the 8th Commandment speaks to the issue of theft then one would need to demonstrate that there were Puritans who believed a form of slavery that amounted to man-stealing was not only permissible but also that there was some theological mistakes that permeated the system as a whole. The fact that men in history claimed to subscribe to a Confession does not make the Confession itself un-Scriptural based on the sins of specific men.

 

[VictorBravo]

Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.

I came across a very disturbing website that claims that early New England residents (wouldn't that mean Puritans?) did in fact perform abortions. I hope the website is wrong, but here it is...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Here's another similar website about abortion in the early days of our country...

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.

One other thing--they prove too much against their position.

For the purpose of argument, let's say what the website says is true: abortions were not uncommon or illegal "pre-quickening." This would mean that the understanding of the time was there was no life before the first kick.

If that is the only basis for it being tolerated, then additional information undermines the abortion argument because we now know that there is life before quickening, i.e. at conception.

So, again, granting what the website asserts, the Puritans were anti-abortion, it's just that they had the time of life wrong.

 

[earl40]

Of course the Puritans were not abortionists.

I came across a very disturbing website that claims that early New England residents (wouldn't that mean Puritans?) did in fact perform abortions. I hope the website is wrong, but here it is...

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

Here's another similar website about abortion in the early days of our country...

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2012/04/founding-fathers-and-abortion-in.html

What can one say to such an unbiased and scholarly source. I imagine they have great knowledge of the Puritans.

One other thing--they prove too much against their position.

For the purpose of argument, let's say what the website says is true: abortions were not uncommon or illegal "pre-quickening." This would mean that the understanding of the time was there was no life before the first kick.

If that is the only basis for it being tolerated, then additional information undermines the abortion argument because we now know that there is life before quickening, i.e. at conception.

So, again, granting what the website asserts, the Puritans were anti-abortion, it's just that they had the time of life wrong.

True though I would only grant the premise for the sake of argument because I doubt the Puritans had such a belief about the baby only being alive when it kicked. Back then, as now, children were miscarried and they saw what was produced even at a very early gestational age and sometimes the child would be moving when a miscarriage occurred.

 

[Edward]

man-stealers

That's a term that appears quite frequently on these slavery threads. What is the history of that terminology?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

man-stealers

That's a term that appears quite frequently on these slavery threads. What is the history of that terminology?

Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment

 

[MW]

So, again, granting what the website asserts, the Puritans were anti-abortion, it's just that they had the time of life wrong.

Good point, Vic. It was just the time in which they lived. Later generations are foolish in judging earlier generations on the basis of "facts" which were not evident.

Another point is that the legal code can only do so much, and it only acts on things that are known. The only way "criminal abortion" could be proved was by establishing criteria to prove deliberate action had been taken to abort the child.

Besides, morality and legality are not co-extensive. The fact the legal code was limited to what could be proven does not entail the morality of the people was proportionately restricted. The law is not made for a righteous man.

 

[Edward]

Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment

Thanks. I notice that the NET Bible translates it 'kidnappers' while ESV goes with 'enslavers' for the word. So I'm still not quite sure what is covered by the term.

 

[VictorBravo]

Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment

Thanks. I notice that the NET Bible translates it 'kidnappers' while ESV goes with 'enslavers' for the word. So I'm still not quite sure what is covered by the term.

1 Tim 1:9-10 seems to bring up a lot of Exodus 21:14-16 by way of shorthand. Exodus 21:16 talks of stealing and selling a man, e.g. slave traders.

The Greek word in 1 Tim:10, ανδραποδισταις, seems to imply bringing a man under foot. Thayer gives slave trader as one of the meanings, the other meaning is one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.

 

[OPC'n]

Since we have in the 10 Commandments that it was against God's law to steal a man, and yet he gave directions to his ppl how long they could own a slave, these two things have to be separate issues since God doesn't conflict with himself.

 

[SeanAnderson]

I find it hard to believe that the godly would subscribe to a popular idea of 'quickening'.

Even John Calvin as early as the 16th century, in his commentary on Exodus 21:22-25, said the following:

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

 

[ZackF]

Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment

Thanks. I notice that the NET Bible translates it 'kidnappers' while ESV goes with 'enslavers' for the word. So I'm still not quite sure what is covered by the term.

1 Tim 1:9-10 seems to bring up a lot of Exodus 21:14-16 by way of shorthand. Exodus 21:16 talks of stealing and selling a man, e.g. slave traders.

The Greek word in 1 Tim:10, ανδραποδισταις, seems to imply bringing a man under foot. Thayer gives slave trader as one of the meanings, the other meaning is one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.

I thought man-stealing could be stealing another man's slave.

 

[hammondjones]

I find it hard to believe that the godly would subscribe to a popular idea of 'quickening'.

Even John Calvin as early as the 16th century, in his commentary on Exodus 21:22-25, said the following:

The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being (homo), and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.

As early as the Didache

Do not commit murder; do not commit adultery; do not corrupt boys; do not have illicit sex; do not steal; do not practice magic; do not practice witchcraft; you shall not murder a child, whether it be born or unborn. Do not covet the things of your neighbor.

or, another translation:
thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide

 

[Philip]

It's also entirely possible for a christian or even a whole section of Christendom to be blind to evils, particularly ones that have to do with money and property. 17th century Boston was complicit in the development of the "triangular trade" which resulted in millions being forcibly deported across the Atlantic, not only from Africa but from Ireland as well. The wealth of old Boston was as much built on slavery as that of Virginia or the Carolinas, and it toook the church years to realize its oversight. Yet we should also remember that it was from the soil of New England Puritanism that the Great Awakening and the Modern Missionary movement were launched, both of which quickly became identified with abolitionism.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

particularly ones that have to do with money and property. 17th century Boston

I'd like to point out that specifically the Massachusetts Bay Colony was greatly affected by John Cotton and his "Abstract of the Laws of New England". Greg Bahnsen points out the following:

It is quite likely that Cotton was assisted in this work by Sir Henry Vane, the Massachusetts governor in 1636 whom Milton highly commended for properly seeing the bounds of civil and religious power. Vane was a great friend of Cotton’s and shared the same political and religious principles with him

(Bahnsen, Greg. "Introduction to John Cotton’s Abstract of the Laws of New England". Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Vol. 2. Winter 1975-76. Web.)

In the abstracts we see that Cotton wanted to follow property laws according to God's Law as seen in the case laws. John Cotton even gets specific about property in Chapters 4 and 6 of the Abstract Laws.

 

[JoannaV]

There was more of a grey area in the past in regards to abortion as far as knowledge and intent goes. "Promoting the Menses" would sometimes be a euphemism for ending a pregnancy and other times purely what it says. Women can have irregular menses for all kinds of reasons, some of which can be helped by herbs. Nowadays one is able to first do a home pregnancy test to confirm that one is definitely not pregnant before dabbling in herbs which may not be indicated for pregnancy.
Eric has made me think, too: there is a certain timeframe in which a miscarriage might result in some kind of tissue expulsion but not necessarily anything recognisable. Therefore it is possible that in some communities of women (pre-internet remember! smaller knowledge base!) such events were considered totally unconnected to pregnancy and therefore actions which resulted in tissue expulsion would not have been considered abortive.

 

[earl40]

There was more of a grey area in the past in regards to abortion as far as knowledge and intent goes. "Promoting the Menses" would sometimes be a euphemism for ending a pregnancy and other times purely what it says. Women can have irregular menses for all kinds of reasons, some of which can be helped by herbs. Nowadays one is able to first do a home pregnancy test to confirm that one is definitely not pregnant before dabbling in herbs which may not be indicated for pregnancy.
Eric has made me think, too: there is a certain timeframe in which a miscarriage might result in some kind of tissue expulsion but not necessarily anything recognisable. Therefore it is possible that in some communities of women (pre-internet remember! smaller knowledge base!) such events were considered totally unconnected to pregnancy and therefore actions which resulted in tissue expulsion would not have been considered abortive.

You bring up an excellent point in that the puritans, and all other people, had the opportunity to see was was produced in a miscarriage and it they saw it could contain a baby and they knew it was a baby way before any quickening. They also slaughtered animals and they knew if they had one that was pregnant when they dressed the carcass. They also knew that these fetuses were alive at a very early gestational age because I know they saw them move. Yes the mother did not feel it move when in the womb (quickening) but I am persuaded that our ancestors were a lot more intelligent on abortion that many of us think.

 

[Peairtach]

Q. 142 of the WLC uses "Man-Stealing" as a violation of the 8th Commandment

Thanks. I notice that the NET Bible translates it 'kidnappers' while ESV goes with 'enslavers' for the word. So I'm still not quite sure what is covered by the term.

1 Tim 1:9-10 seems to bring up a lot of Exodus 21:14-16 by way of shorthand. Exodus 21:16 talks of stealing and selling a man, e.g. slave traders.

The Greek word in 1 Tim:10, ανδραποδισταις, seems to imply bringing a man under foot. Thayer gives slave trader as one of the meanings, the other meaning is one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.

Man stealing was the grossest breach of the Eighth Commandment and could be punished by death. whereas lesser forms of theft could not.

 

[SRoper]

True though I would only grant the premise for the sake of argument because I doubt the Puritans had such a belief about the baby only being alive when it kicked. Back then, as now, children were miscarried and they saw what was produced even at a very early gestational age and sometimes the child would be moving when a miscarriage occurred.

But some did believe life began at quickening. There's a quote by Matthew Henry that shows he did. John Flavel in Mystery of Providence writes:

Before you saw this world, [Providence] preserved you, as well as formed you in the womb, else you had been as those embryos Job speaks of 'which never saw the light' (3. 16). Abortives go for nothing in the world, and there are multitudes of them. Some never had a reasonable soul breathed into them, but only the rudiments and rough draft of a body; these come not into the account of men, but perish as the beast does. Others die in, or shortly after they come out of the womb, and though their life was but a moment, yet that moment entails an eternity upon them.

Not that that excuses us from making the same mistake today.