A BRIEF EXAMINATION
OP
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY
ON THE
INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY,
IN AN ESSAY,
FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE RELIGIOUS HERALD AND RE-
PUBLISHED BY REQUEST :
WITH
REMARKS ON A REVIEW OF THE ESSAY.
BY
Thornton String fellow*
RICHMOND:
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE RELIGIOUS HERALD.
1841.
EMORY UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
GIFT OF
Mrs. W. G. Griarm
TO THE READER.
The Examination of the various passages of the
Old and New Testament, referring to the institution of
Slavery, with a review of a reply to the Examination,
by Elder Elon Galusha, of New York, were first pub-
lished in the Herald. At the request of many friends,
who wished to see them embodied in a more perma-
nent shape, the author gave his consent to their publi-
cation in pamphlet form.
In his introductory remarks, the writer states
the reasons which induced him to examine the Scrip-
tures, and collect their testimony in relation to this
much agitated question.
Newspapers and pamphlets had been sent and cir-
culated in the South, in which the holding of slaves
was denounced not only as unjust, but as unscriptural.
It was insisted that the testimony as well as the spirit
of the Bible condemned slave-holding as sinful. If
such were the case, if the Scriptures did indeed de-
nounce the holding as property our fellow-men, then
the abolitionists would be justified in declaring non-
fellowship with slave-holders and their abetters. But if
the relation had been recognizd and sanctioned by God
himself, in the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations;
and if the relation existed at the time our Saviour
made his appearance on earth, throughout a large por-
tion of the globe, and if this relation wasmot condemn-
ed nor interfered with neither by himself nor his apos-
ties, and if slave-holders, together with their servants
were admitted into the Christian church, then we con-
ceive that the abolitionists are not warranted to pre-
scribe, as a term of fellowship to their brethren, the
abolition of Slavery, or requiring them to do what the
4
Saviour and the apostles did not enjoin on those stand-
ing in a similar position.
The writer has aimed to place this matter in its true
aspect. If the Bible condemns or interdicts slave-
holding, every true disciple ought at all hazards to re-
nounce the system and free his .slaves the moment he
joins the church. If it could be proved that there were
no slave-holders in the primitive church—-that in order
to become a member it was necessary that the candi-
date should free his slaves, it is our duty also to con-
form to this pattern. But this cannot be proved—for
it is undeniably true, both from scripture testimony and
cotemporaneous history, that slave-holders were ad-
mitted into the primitive church without any prescrib-
ed conditions or restraints. The various passages re-
ferring to the institution of Slavery, in the Old and
New Testament have been examined and commented
on, and whilst no passage can be found in which Slave-
ry is interdicted, many are adduced in which it ap-
pears to have received the approval of God, and those
who maintained this relation, and were the possessors
of servants, are spoken of in terms of approbation.—
They were pious and godly men, clearly proving the
practice was not inconsistent with a Christian pro-
fession in their day, and cannot be proved to be so in
ours, therefore, to make it a test of fellowship is an un-
warrantable assumption over the rights of conscience,
not authorized by Christ nor his successors.
The course pursued by our abolition brethren at the
north, whilst it can accomplish no good, is constantly
producing evil consequences. It has promoted aliena-
tion and discord among brethren, and threatens to di-
vide and rend asunder the church, to dissolve the joint
co-operation of northern and southern Baptists in mis-
sionary operations. Slavery is a political institution,
and ought to be discussed on political grounds alone.
Christ and his apostles did not stop to enter into a dis-
eusssion of its evils, IIow much better would it be if
all his professed disciples would be equally wise.
The Publisher.
A
BRIEF REVIEW
OF
SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY ON SLAVERY.
Locust Grove, Culpeper County, Va., 1841.
Brother Sands:
Circumstances exist among the inhabitants of these United States,
which make it proper that the Scriptures should be carefully exam-
ined by Christians in reference to the institution of Slavery, which
exists in several of the States, with the approbation of those who pro-
fess unlimited subjection to God's revealed will.
It is branded by one portion of people who take their rules of mo-
ral rectitude from the Scriptures, as a great sin. Nay, the greatest of
sins that exist in the nation. And they hold the obligation to exter-
minate it, to be paramount to all others.
If Slavery be thus sinful, it behoves all Christians, who are in-
volved in the sin to repent in dust and ashes, and wash their hands of
it, without consulting w ith flesh and blood. Sin in the sight of God
is something which God in his word makes known to be wrong,
either by preceptive prohibition—by principles of moral fitness, or
examples of inspired men, contained in the sacred volume. When
these furnish no law to condemn human conduct, there is no trans-
gression. Christians should produce a "thus saith the Lord," both
for what they condemn as sinful, and for what they approve as law-
ful, in the sight of heaven.
It is to be hoped, that on a question of such vital importance as
this, to the peace and safety of our common country, as well as to the
welfare of the church, we shall be seen cleaving to the Bible, and
taking all our decisions about this matter, from its inspired pages.—
With men from the north, I have observed for many years a palpa-
ble ignorance of the divine will, in reference to the institution of
Slavery. I have seen but a few, who made the Bible their study,
that had obtained a knowdedge of what it did reveal on this subject.
Of late, their denunciation of Slavery as a sin, is loud and long.
I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and if I
am not greatly mistaken, I shall be able to make it appear that the
institution of Slavery has received, in the first place,
1st. The sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age.
2nd. That it was incorporated into the only national constitution
which ever emanated from God.
3rd. That its legality ivas recognized, and its relative duties regu-
lated by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and
4thly. That it is full of mercy.
G
Before I proceed further, it is necessary that the terms used to de-
signate the thing, be defined. It is not a name, but a thing, that is
denounced as sinful; because it is supposed to be contrary to, and pro-
hibited by, the Scriptures.
Our translators have used the term servant to designate a state in
which persons were serving, leaving us to gather the relation be-
tween the party served and the party rendering the service, from
other terms. The term slave signifies with us, a definite state, condi-
tion, or relation, which state, condition, or relation, is precisely that
one which is denounced as sinful. This state, condition, or relation, is
that, in which on human being is held without his consent by another,
as property; to be bought, sold, and transferred, together with the in-
crease as property, forever. Now, this precise thing is denounced
by a portion of the people of these United States, as the greatest in-
dividual and national sin that is among us, and is thought to be so
hateful in the sight of God as to subject the nation to ruinous judg-
merits,, if it be not removed. Now, I propose to show from the
Scriptures, that this state, condition, or relation, did exist in the pa-
triarchal age, and that the persons most extensively involved in the
sin, if it be a sin, are the very persons who have been singled out
by the Almighty as the objects of his special regard—whose charac-
ter and conduct, he has caused to be held up as models for future gen-
erations. Before we conclude Slavery a thing hateful to God, and
a great sin in his sight, it is proper that we should search the records
he has given us with care, to see in what light he has looked upon
it, and find the warrant for concluding we shall honor him by efforts
to abolish it; which efforts in their consequences, may involve the in-
discriminate slaughter of the innocent and the guilty, the master and
the servant. We all believe him to be a being who is the same yes-
terday, to-day, and forever.
The first recorded language which was ever uttered in relation to
Slavery, is the inspired language of Noah. In God's stead, he says,
"cursed be Canaan," "a servant of servants shall he be to his bre-
thren." "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be
his servant." "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell
in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." Gen. ix.
25, 26, 27. Here language is used, showing the-favor which God
would exercise to the posterity of Shem and Japheth, while they
were holding the posterity of Ham in a state of abject bondage.—
May it not be said in truth, that God decreed this institution before it
existed; and has he not connected its existence with prophetic to-
kens of special favor to those who should be slave owners or masters?
He is the same God now that he was when he gave these views of
his moral charater to the world: and unless the posterity of Shem and
Japheth. from whom have sprung the Jews, and all the nations of Eu-
rope and America, and a great part of Asia, (the African race that is
in them excepted,)—I say, unless they are all dead, as well as the Ca-
naanites or Africans, who descended from Ham, then it is quite pos-
sible that his favor may now be found with one class of men, who
are holding another class in bondage. Be this as it may. God de-
7
creed Slavery—and shows in that decree tokens of good will to the
master. The sacred records occupy but a short space from this in-
spired ray on this subject, until they bring to our notice a man, that
is held up as a model in all that adorns human nature, and as one that
God delighted to honor. This man is Abraham, honored in the sa-
cred records with the appellation, "Father of the faithful." Abra-
ham was a native of Ur, of the Chaldees. From thence the Lord
called him to go to a country which he would show him, and he
obeyed, not knowing whither he went, lie stopped for a time at Ha-
ran, where his father died. From thence he "took Sarah his wife, and
Lot his brother's son, and all their substance, that they had gathered,
and the souls they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go
into the land of Canaan." Gen. xii. 15.
All the ancient Jewish writers of note, and Christian commenta-
tors agree, that by the "Souls they had gotten in Haran," as our
translators render it, are meant their slaves, or those persons they
had bought with their money in Haran. In a few years after their
arrival in Canaan, Lot with all he had was taken captive. So soon
as Abraham heard it, he armed 318 slaves that were born in his
house, and retook him. How great must have been the entire slave
family, to produce at this period of Abraham's life, such a number of
young slaves able to bear arms. Gen. xiv. 14. Abraham is constant-
ly held up in the sacred story as the subject of great distinction among
the princes and sovereigns of the countries in which he sojourned.—
This distinction was on account of his great wealth. When he pro-
posed to buy a burying. ground at Sarah's death of the children of
Heth, he stood up and spoke with great humility of himself as "a stran-
ger and sojourner among them," (Gen. xxii. 34:) desirous to obtain a
burying ground.
But in what light do they look upon him'? "Hear us, my Lord,
thou art a mighty prince among us." Gen. xxiii. 6. Such is the
light in which they viewed him. What gave a man such distinction
among such a people? Not moral qualities, but great wealth, and its
inseparable concomitant, power. When the famine drove Abraham
to Egypt, he received the highest honors of the reigning sovereign.
This honor at Pharoah's court was called forth by the visible tokens
of immense wealth. In Genesis xii. 15, 16, wc have the honor that
was shown to him, - mentioned, with a list of his property, which is
given in these words, in the 16th verse, "he had sheep, and oxen, and
he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and
camels." The amount of his flocks may be inferred from the ibum-
ber of slaves employed in tending them. They were those he
brought from Ur, of the Chaldees, of whom the 318 were born:
those gotten in Haran where he dwelt for a short time, and those which
he inherited from his father, who died in Haran. When Abraham
went up from Egypt it is stated in Genesis xiii. and 2, that he was
"very rich," not only in flocks and slaves, (which is often the case with
men who are brought in debt by them,) but in "siivcr and gold,11
also. After the destruction of Sodom, we see liini sojourning in the
kingdom of Gerar.
8
Here he received from the sovereign of the country, the honors of
equality,—and Abimelech, the king, (as Pharoah had done before
him,) seeks Sarah for a a vile, under the idea that she was Abraham's
sister.
When his mistake was discovered, he made Abraham a large pre-
sent. Reason will tell us, that in selecting the items of this present,
Abimelech was governed by the visible indications of Abraham's
preference in articles of wealth—and that above all, he would present
him with nothing which Abraham's sense of moral obligation would
not allow him to own. Abimelech's present is thus-described, in
Gen. xx. 14, 16: "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-
servants, and women-servants, and a thousand pieces of silver, and
gave them unto Abraham." This present discloses to us what con-
stituted the most highly prized items of wealth, among these eastern
sovereigns in Abraham's day.
God had promised Abraham's seed the land of Canaan, and that
in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. He reach-
ed the age of 85, and his wife the age of 75, while as yet they had
no child. At this period Sarah's anxiety for the promised seed, in
connection with her age, induced her to propose a female slave
of the Egyptian stock, as a secondary wife, (which was a prac-
tice God winked at among good men,) from which to obtain the pro-
mised seed. This alliance soon puffed the slave with pride, and she
became insolent to her mistress—the mistress complained to Abra-
ham, the master. Abraham ordered Sarah to exercise her authority.
Sarah did so, and pushed it to severity, and the slave absconded. The
divine oracles inform us, that .Lire angel of God found this runaway
bond-woman in the wilderness; and if God had commissioned this an-
gel to improve this opportunity of teaching the world how much he
abhorred Slavery, he took a bad plan to accomplish it. For, instead
of repeating a homily upon doing to others as we "would they should
do unto us," and heaping reproach upon Sarah, as a hypocrite, and
Abraham as a tyrant, and giving Hagar direction how she might get
into Egypt, and from whence (according to abolitionism,) she had
been unrighteously sold into bondage, the angel addressed her as
"Hagar, Sarah's maid," Gen. xvi. 1-9; (thereby recognizing the re-
lation of master and slave,) and asks her, "whither wilt thou go;"
and she said "I flee from the face of my mistress." Quite a wonder
she honored Sarah so much as to call her mistress; but she knew no-
thing of abolition, and God by his angel did. not become her teach-
er. We have now arrived at what may be called an abuse of the
institution, in which one person is the property of another, and under
their control, and subject to their authority without their consent,
and if the Bible be the book, which proposes to furnish the case which
leaves it without doubt that God abhors the institution, here we are to
look for it. What, therefore, is the doctrine i n relation'to Slavery,
in a case in which a rigid exercise of its arbitrary authority is called
forth upon a helpless female; who might use a strong plea for protec-
tion, upon the ground of being the master's wife.
In the free of this case, which is hedged around with aggravations
9
as if God designed by it to awaken all the sympathy and all the ab-
horrence of that portion of mankind, who claim® to have more
mercy than God himself. Bat, I say, in view of this strong case,
what is the doctrine taught? Is it that God abhors the institution of
Slavery; that it is a reproach to good men? That the evils of the in-
stitution can no longer be winked at among saints—that Abraham's
character must not be transmitted to posterity, with this stain upon it,—
that Sarah must no longer be allowed to live a stranger to the abhor-
rence God has for such conduct as she has been guilty of, to this poor
helpless female? I say, what is the doctrine taught? Is it so plain
that it can be easily understood: and does God teach that she is a
bond-wo man or slave, and that she is to recognize Sarah as her mis-
tress, and not her equal, that she must return and submit herself un-
reservedly to Sarah's authority? Judge for yourself reader, by the an-
gel's answer. "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, return unto
thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Gen. xvi. 9.
But, says the spirit of abolition, with which the Bible has to con-
tend, you are building your house upon the sand, for these were no-
thing but hired servants, and their servitude designates no such state,
condition, or relation, as that, in which one person is made the property
of another, to be bought, sold, or transferred forever. To this, we have
two answers in reference to the subject, before giving the law. In
the first place, the term, servant, in the schedules of property among
the patriarchs does designate the state, condition, or relation in which
one person is the legal property of another, as in Gen. xxiv. 35, 36.
Here Abraham's servant, who had been sent by his master to
get a wife for his son Isaac, in order to prevail with the woman and
her family, states, that the man for whom he sought a bride, was the
son of a man whom God had greatly blessed with riches; which he
goes on to enumerate thus in 35th verse: "He hath given him flocks
and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and maid-servants,
and camels, andasses," then inverse 36th, he states the disposition his
master had made of this estate: "My master's wife bare a son to my mas-
ter when she was old, and unto him hath he given, all that-.be hath."
Here, servants are enumerated with silver and gold as part of the pa-
trimony. And, reader, bear it in mind, as if to rebuke the doctrine of
abolition, servants are not only inventoried as property, but as pro-
perty which God had given to Abraham. After the death of Abra-
ham, we have a view of Isaac at Gerar, when he had como into the
possession of this estate, and this is the description given of him: "and
the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became
very great, for he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and
great store of servants." Gen. xxvi. 13. 14. This estate in which scr-
vants are made chattels, he received as an inheritance from his fa-
thcr, and passed to his son Jacob. Again, in Gen. 17th, we are in-
formed of a covenant God entered into with Abraham; in which he
stipulates, to be a God to him and his seed, (not his servants) and to
give to his seed the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. He
expressly stipulates, that Abraham shall put the token of this cove-
Jiant upon every servant bom in his house, and upon every servant
10
bought with his money of any stranger. Gen. xvii. 12, 13. Here
again servants axe property. Again, more than 400 years afterwards,
we find the seed©!' Abraham, on leaving Egypt, directed to celebrate
the rite that was ordained as a memorial of their deliverance, viz:
the passover, at which time the same institution makes property of men
and xoomen, is recognized, and the servant bought with money, is
given the privilege of partaking, upon the ground of his being cir-
cumcised by his master, while the hired servant over whom the
master had no such control, is excluded until he voluntarily submits
to circumcision;—showing clearly that the institution of involuntary
slavery then carried with it a right, on the part of the master to choose
a religion for the servant who was his money, as Abraham did, by
God's direction, when he imposed circumcision on those he had
bought with his money,—when he was circumcised himself, with
Ishmael his son, who was the only individual, beside himself, on
whom he had a right to impose it, except the bond-servants bought
of the stranger with his money, and their children born in his house.
The next notice we have of servants as property, is from God him-
self, when clothed with all the visible tokens of his presence and glo-
ry on the top of Sinai, when he proclaimed his law to the millions
that surrounded its base: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,
nor his wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox,
nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." Ex. xx. 17. There
is a patriarchal catalogue of property, having God for its author, the
wife among the rest, who was then purchased, as Jacob purchased
his two, by 14 years' service. There, the term servant, as used by
the Almighty under the circumstances of the case, could not be un-
derstood by these millions, as meaning any thing but property, be-
cause the night they left Egypt, a few weeks before, Moses by di-
vine authority recognized their servants as property which they had
bought with their money.
2nd. In addition to the evidence from the context of these and va-
rious other places, to prove the term servant to be identical in the
import of its essential particulars with the term slave among us,
there is ^^unquestionable evidence, that, in the patriarchal age, there
are two distinct states of servitude alluded to, and which are indicat-
ed by two distinct terms, or by the same term, and an adjective to ex-
plain.
These two terms, are first, servant or bond-servant, second, hire-
ling or hired servant; the first, indicating involuntary servitude, the se-
cond, voluntary servitude for stipulated wages and a specified time.—■
Although this admits of the clearest proof under the law, yet it ad-
mits of proof before the law was given. On the night on which the
Israelites left Egypt, which was before the law was given, Moses, in
designating the qualifications necessary for the passover, uses this
language, Exod, xii. 44, 45: "Every man's servant that is bought for
money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof." This lan-
guage carries to the human mind, with irresistible force, the idea of
two distinct states, one a state of freedom, the other a state of ban-
11
dage. In one of which, a person is serving with his consent for
wages. In the other of which a person is serving without his consent>
because he has been sold as a slave, to serve according to his mas-
ter's pleasure, for the compensation which that master may gra-
ciously be pleased to give.
Again, in Job iii: Job expresses the strong desire he had been made
by his afflictions to feel, that he had died in his infancy. "For now," says
he, "I should have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept. Then
had I been at rest: there, (meaning the grave) the wicked cease from
troubling, there the weary be at rest, there the prisoners rest together,
they hear not the voice of the oppressor, the small and the great are
there, and the servant is free from his master." Job iii. 11, 13, 17, 18,
19. Now, I ask any common sense man to account for the expres-
sion in this connection, "there the servant is free from his master." Af-
flictions are referred to arising out of states or conditions, from which.
ordinarily nothing but death brings relief. Death puts an end to
afflictions of body that are incurable, as he took his own to be, and
therefore he desired it.
The troubles brought on good men by a wicked persecuting world,
last for life, but in death the wicked cease from troubling;—death
ends that relation or state out of which such troubles grow. Thepri-
soners of the oppressors, in that age stood in a relation to their op*
pressor which led the oppressed to expect they would hear the voice
of the oppressor until death. But death broke the relation, and was
desired, because in the grave they would hear his voice no more.
All the distresses growing out of inequalities in human condition;
as wealth and power on one side, and poverty and weakness, on the
other, were terminated by death, the grave brought both to a level, the
small and the great are there, and there, (that is in the grave) he adds,
the servant is free from his master; made so, evidently by death. The
relation or state out of which his oppression had arisen, being de-
stroyed by death, he would be freed from them, because he would
by d eath be freed from his master who inflicted them. This view of
the case, and this only will account for the use of such language,—-
But upon a supposition that a state or relation among men is refer-
red to, that is voluntary, such as that between a hired servant and
his employer, that can be dissolved at the pleasure of the servant,
the language is without meaning and perfectly unwarranted; while
such a relation as that of involuntary and hereditary servitude, where
the master had unlimited power over his servant, and in an age when
cruelty was common, there is the greatest propriety in making the ser-
vant or slave a companion with himself in affliction, as well as
the oppressed and afflicted in every class, where death alone dis-
solved the state or condition out of which their afflictions grew. Be-
yond all doubt, this language refers to a state of hereditary bondage
from the afflictions, of which ordinarily, nothing in that day brought
relief but death.
Again, in chapter 7th, he goes on to defend himself in his eager
desire for death, in an address to God. He says, it is natural for a
servant to desire the shadow, and a hireling his wrages: "As the ser-
12
vant earnestly desireth the shadow, and as the hireling looketh for
the reward of his work," so it is with mc, should be supplied. Job vii.
2. Now, with the previous light shed upon the use and meaning of
these terms in patriarchal Scriptures, can any man of candor bring
himself to believe that two states or conditions are not here referred
to, in one of which the highest reward after toil is mere rest, in the
other of which the reward was wages. And how appropriate is the
language in reference to these two states.
The slave is represented as earnestly desiring the shadow, because
his condition allowed him no prospect of anything more desirable,
but the hireling as looking for the reward of his work, because that
will be an equivalent for his fatigue.
So Job looked at death as being to his body as the servant's shade,
therefore he desired it, and like the hireling*s wages, because beyond
the grave he hoped to reap the fruit of his doings. Again, Job xxxi,
finding himself the subject of suspicion,(see from verse 1 to 30,) as
to the rectitude of his past life he clears himself of various sins, in
the most solemn manner, as unchastity, injustice in his dealings,
adultery, contempt of his servants, unkindness to the poor, covetousness,
the pride of wealth, &c. And in the 13th 14th and 15th verses, he thus
expresses himself, "If I did despise the cause of my man servant or
my maid servant when they contended with me, what then shall I do
when God rises up? and when he visiteth what shall I answer him?
Did not he that made me in the womb, make him? And did not one fa-
shion us in the womb?" Taking this language in connexion with the
language employed by Moses, in reference to the institution of invo-
luntary servitude in that age, and especially in connexion with the
language which Moses employs after the law was given, and what
else can be understood than a reference to a class of duties that slave
owners felt themselves above stooping to notice or perform, but which
nevertheless, it was the duty of the righteous man to discharge, for,
whatever proud and wicked men might think of a poor servant that
stood in his estate, on an equality with brutes, yet says Job, he that
made me made them, and if I despise their reasonable causes of com-
plaint, for injuries which they are made to suffer, and for the redress
of which I only can be appealed to, then what shall I do, and how
shall I fare, when I carry my causes of complaint to him who is my
master, and to whom only I can go for relief? When he visiteth me
for despising their cause, what shall I answer him for despising mine.
He means that he would feci self-condemned, and would be forced
to admit the justice of the retaliation. But on the supposition that
allusion is had to hired servants who were voluntarily working for
wages agreed upon, and who were the subjects of rights for the pro-
tection of which their appeal would be to "the judges in the gate," as
much as any other class of men, then there is no point in the statement.
For doing that which can be demanded as a legal right, gives us
no claim to the character of mercifol benefactors. Job himself was a
great slave holder, and like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, won no
small portion of his claims to character with God and men from the
manner in which he discharged his duty to his slaves. Once more,
13
the conduct of Joseph in Egypt, as Pharoah's counsellor, under all
the circumstances, proves him a friend to absolute slavery, as a form
of government better adapted to the state of the world at that time,
than the one which existed in Egypt, for certain it is, that he peacea-
bly effected a change in the fundamental law, by which a state, con-
d'ition, or relation between Pharoah and the Egyptians was establish-
ed, which answers to the one now denounced as sinful in the sight of
God. Being warned of God, he gathered up all the surplus grain
in the years of plenty, and sold it out in the years of famine, until
he gathered up all the money, and when money failed, the Egyptians
came and said, "give us bread," and Joseph said, "give your cattle,
and I will give for your cattle, if money fail." When that year was
ended, they came unto him the second year, and said, "there is nought
left in the sight of my Lord, but our bodies and our lands. Buy us
and our lands for bread. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for
Pharoah."
So the land became Pharoah's, and as for the people, he removed
them to cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even to the other
end thereof. Then Joseph said unto the people, "Behold! I have
bought you this day, and your land for Pharoah," and they said, "we
will be Pharoah's servants." See Gen. xlvii. 14, 16, 19, 20, 21,
23, 25. Having thus changed the fundamental law, and created
a state of entire dependance and hereditary bondage, he enacted in
his sovereign pleasure, that they should give Pharoah one part, and
take the other four parts of the productions of the earth to them-
selves. How far the hand of God was in this overthrow of liberty,
I will not decide,—but from the fact that he has singled out the
greatest slave-holders of that age, as the objects of his special favor,
it would seem that the institution was one furnishing great opportu-
nities to exercise grace and glorify God, as it still does, where its du-
ties are faithfully discharged.
I have been tedious on this first proposition, but I hope the impor-
tance of the subject to Christians as well as to Statesmen, will be my
apology. I have written it, not for victory over an adversary, or to
support error or falsehood, but to gather up God's will in reference
to holding men and women in bondage, in the patriarchal age.—
And it is clear in the first place, that God decreed this state before it
existed. Second. It is clear that the highest manifestations of good
will which he ever gave to mortal man, was given to Abraham, in
that covenant in which he required him to circumcise all his male
servants, which he had bought with his money, and that were bom
of them in his house. Third. It is certain he gave these servants as
property to Isaac. Fourth. It is certain, that as the owner of these
slaves, Isaac received similar tokens of God's favor. Fifth. It is
certain that Jacob who inherited from Isaac his father, received like
tokens of divine favor. Sixth. It is certain, from a fair construction of
language, that Job, who is held up by God himself as a model of human
perfection, was a great slave-holder. Seventh. It is certain, when God
showed honor, and came down to bless Jacob's posterity, in taking
them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, they were the owners
14
of slaves that ivere bought with money, anil treated as property,
which slaves were allowed of God. to unite in celebrating the divine
goodness to their masters, while hired servants were excluded.—-
Eighth. It is certain that God interposed to give Joseph the power
in Egypt, which he used, to create a state or condition among the
Egyptians, which substantially agrees with patriarchal and modern
Slavery. Ninth. It is certain that in reference, to this institution in
Abraham's family, and the surrounding nations, for 500 years, it is
never censured in any communication made from God to men: Tenth.
It is certain when God put a period to that dispensation, he recog-
nized slaves as property on Mount Sinai. If, therefore, it has be-
come sinful since, it eannot be from the nature of the thing, but from
the sovereign pleasure of God in its prohibition. We will there-
fore proceed to our second proposition, which is,
Second. That it was incorporated in the only national constitution
emanating from the Almighty. By common consent, that portion
of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's
posterity, at Mount Sinai, is called the patriarchal age, this is the
period we have revietoedm relation to this subject. From the giving of
the law until the coming of Christ, is called the Mosaic or legal dispen-
sation. From the coming of Christ to the end of time, is called the gos-
pel dispensation. The legal dispensation is theperiod of time we propose
now to examine in reference to the institution of involuntary and he-
reditary Slavery, in order to ascertain, whether, during this period it
existed at all, and if it did exist, whether with the divine sanction,
or in violation of the divine will. This dispensation is called the le-
gal dispensation, because it was the pleasure of God to take Abra-
ham's posterity by miraculous power, then numbering near three
millions of souls, and give ihem a written constitution of government,
a country to dwell in, and a covenant of special proteection and favor,
for their obedience to his law until the coming of Christ. The laws
which he gave them emanated from his sovereign pleasure, and were
designed in the first place to make himself known in his essential per-
fections; second, in his moral character; third, in his relation to man;
and fourth, to make known those principles of action by the exercise
of which man attains his highest moral elevation, viz: supreme love
to God, and love to others as to ourselves.
All the law is nothing but a preceptive exemplification of these
two principles, consequently the existence of a precept in the law ut-
terly irreconcilable with these principles, would destroy all claims
upon us for an acknowledgement of its divine original. Jesus Christ
himself has put his finger upon these two principles of human con-
duct, (Deut. vi. 5.—Levit. xix. 18.) revealed in the law of Moses, and
decided, that on them hang all the law and the prophets.
The Apostle Paul decides in reference to the relative duties of.
men, that whether written out in preceptive form in the law or not,
they are all comprehended in this saying, viz: "thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." With these views to guide us, as to the ac-
knowledged design of the law, viz: that of revealing the eternal prin-
eiples of moral rectitude, by which human conduct is to be measured,
15
so that sin may abound, or be made apparent, and righteousness be
ascertained or known, we may safely conclude, that the institution of
Slavery, wdiich legalizes the holding one person in bondage as pro-
perty forever by another, if it be morally wrong, or at war with the
principle which requires us to love God supremely, and our neighbor
as ourself, will, if noticed at all in the law, be noticed, for the pur-
pose of being condemned as sinful. And if the modern views of
abolitionists be correct, we may expect to find the institution marked
with such tokens of divine displeasure, as will throw all other sins into
the shade, as comparatively small, when laid by the side of this monster.
What then is true? has God engrafted hereditary Slavery upon the
constitution of the government he condescended to give to his chosen
people; that people among whom he promised to dwell, and that he
required to be holy. I answer, he has. It is clear and explicit. He
enacts, first-, that his chosen people may take their money, go into
the slave markets of the surrounding nations, (the seven devoted na-
tions excepted) and purchase men servants and women servants, and
give them and their increase to their children, and their chil-
dren's children forever,—and worse still for the refined humanity of
our age; he guarantees to the foreign slave-holder perfect protection,
while he comes in among the Israelites, for the purpose of dwelling,
and raising and selling slaves, who should be acclimated and accus-
tomed to the habits and institutions of the country. And worse still
for the sublimated humanity of the present age, God passes with the
right to buy and possess, the right to govern, by a severity which
knows no bounds but the master's discretion. And if worse can be
for the morbid humanity we censure, he enacts that his own people
may sell themselves, and their families for limited periods, with the
privilege of extending the time at the end of the 6th year to the 50th
year or jubilee, if they prefer bondage to freedom. Such is the pre
cise character of two institutions found in the constitution of the Jew-
ish commonwealth emanating directly from Almighty God. For
the 1500 years, during which, these laws were in force, God raised
up a succession of prophets to reprove that people for the various sins
into which they fell; yet there is not a reproof remembered to have
been uttered against the institution of involuntary Slavery, for any
species of abuse that ever grew out of it. A severe judgment is pro-
nounced by Jeremiah, chapter xxxiv. see from the 8th to the 22nd
verse, for an abuse or violation of the law, concerning the voluntary
servitude of Hebrews,—but the prophet pens it with caution, as if to
show that it had no reference to any abuse, that had taken place un-
der the system of involuntary Slavery, which existed by law among
that people, the sin consisted in making hereditary bond men and
bond women of Hebrews, which was positively forbidden by the law,
and not for buying and holding one of another nation in hereditary
bondage, which was as positively allowed by the law. And really in
view of what is passing in our country and elsewhere, among men
who profess to reverence the Bible, it would seem that these must be
dreams of a distempered brain, and not the solemn truths of that sa-
ered book.
16
Well, I will now proceed to make them good to the letter, see Lev.
xxv. 44, 45, 46: "Thy bond men and thy bond maid which thou
shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them
shall ye buy bond men and bond maids: moreover, of the children of
the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and
of their lamilies that are with you, which they begat in your land.
And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an
inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a posses-
sion, they shall be your bond men forever." I ask any candid
man, if the words of this institution could be more explicit.—
It is from God himself, it authorizes that people to whom he had be-
come king and law-giver to purchase men and women as property,
to hold them and their posterity in bondage, and to will them to their
children as a possession forever, and more, it allows foreign slave-
holders to settle and live among them, to breed slaves and sell them,
Now, it is important to a correct understanding of this subject, to con-
nect with the right to buy and possess as property, the amount of au-
thority to govern which is granted by the late-giver,—this amount of
authority is implied in the first place, in the law which prohibits the
exercise of rigid authority upon the Hebrews, who are allowed to
sell themselves for limited times. "If thy brother be waxen poor,
and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond
servant, but as a hired servant, and as a sojourner he shall be with
thee, and shall serve thee until the year of Jubilee—they shall not be
sold as bond men, thou shalt not rule over them with rigor." Levit.
xxv. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. It will be evident to all, that here are two
states of servitude; in reference to one of which, rigid or compulsory
authority is prohibited, and that its exercise is authorized in the
other.
Second. In the criminal code, that conduct is punished with death,
when done to a freeman, which is not punishable at all, when done
by a master to a slave, for the express reason that the slave is the
master's money. "He that smiteth a man so that he die shall surely
be put to death." Exod. xxi. 11. 12. If a man smite his servant or his
maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely pun-
ished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished, for he is his money." Exod. xxi. 20. Here is precisely
the same crime: smitinga man so that he die; if it be a freeman he shall
surely be put to death, whether the man die under his hand or live a
day or two after, but if it be a servant and the master continued the
rod (mind that) until the servant died under his hand, then it must be
evident that such a chastisement could not be necessary for any pur-
pose of wholesome or reasonable authority, and therefore he may be
punished, but not with death. But if the death did not take place for a
day or two, then it is to be presumed, that the master only aimed to
use the rod so far as was necessary to produce subordination, and
for this, the law which alloAved him to lay out his money in the slave
would protect him against all punishment. This is the common
sense principle which has been adopted substantially in civilized
countries, where involuntary Slavery has been instituted from that
17
day until this. Now, here are laws that authorize the holding of
men and women in bondage, and chastising them with the rod, with
a severity that terminates in death. And he who believes the Bible
to be of divine authority, believes these laws were given by the Ho-
ly Ghost to Moses. I understand modern abolition sentiments to be
sentiments of marked hatred against such laws; to be sentiments
which would hold God himself in abhorrence, if he were to give
such laws his sanction,—but he has given them his sanction: there-
fore, they must be in harmony with his moral character. Again,
the divine language in guarding the property right in slaves among
his chosen people, sanctions principles which may work the separa-
ration of man and wife, father and children. Surely, my reader will
conclude, if I make this good, I shall force a part of the saints of the
present day to blaspheme the God of Israel. All 1 can say is, truth
is mighty, and I hope it will bring us all to say, let God be true, in
settling the true principles of humanity, and every man a liar who
says Slavery was inconsistent with it, in the days of the Mosaic law.
Now for the proof: "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall
he serve thee, and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing: if
he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he
were married, then his wife shall go out with him: if his mas-
tcr have given him a wife (one of his bond maids) and she have
borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall
be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." Exodus,
xxi. 2, 3. 4. Now, the God of Israel gives this man the option of
being separated by the master, from his wife and children, or becom-
ing himself a servant forever, with a mark of the fact, like our
cattle, in the ear, that can be seen wherever he goes; for it is enacted,
"if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my
children, I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him unto the
judges, (in open court,) he shall also bring him unto the door, or un-
to the door post, (so that all in the court-house, and those in the yard
may be witnesses) and his master shall bore his ear through with an
awl; and he shall serve him forever." It is useless to spend more
time in gathering up what is written in the Scriptures on this subject,
from the givingof the law until the coming of Christ.
Here is the authority from God himself to hold men and women
and their increase in Slavery and to transmit them as property forever;
here is plenary power to govern them, whatever measure of severity
it may require, provided only, that to govern be the object in exer-
cising it. Here is power given to the master to separate man and wife
parent and child, by denying ingress to his premises sooner than com-
pel him to free or sell the mother, that the marriage relation might
be honored. The preference is given of God to enslaving the fa-
ther, rather than freeing the mother and children.
Under every view we are allowed to take of the subject, the con-
viction is forced upon the mind that from Abraham's day, until the
coming of Christ (a period of two thousand years,) this institution
found favor with God. No marks of his displeasure are found resting
upon it. It must, therefore, in its moral nature, be in harmony with
3 '
18
those moral principles, which he requires to be exercised by the law
of Moses, and which are the principles that secure harmony and hap-
piness to the universe, viz: supreme love to God and the love of our
neighbor as ourself. Deut.vi. 6.—Levit. xix. 18. To suppose that God
has laid down these fundamental principles of moral rectitude in his
law, as the soul that must inhabit every preceptive requirement of
that law, and yet to suppose he created relations among the Israelites,
and prescribed relative duties growing out of these relations, that are
hostile to the spirit of the law, is to suppose what will never bring
great honor or glory to our Maker. But if I understand that spirit
which is now warring against Slavery, this is the position Avhich the
spirit of God forces it to occupy, viz: that God has ordained Slavery,
and yet Slavery is the greatest of sins. Such was the state when Je-
sus Christ made his appearance. We propose,
Third. To show that Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one
that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties.
Having shown from the Scriptures that Slavery existed with
Abraham and the patriarchs with divine approbation, and having
shown from the same source, that the Almighty incorporated it in the
law as an institution among Abraham's seed, until the coming of
Christ, our precise object now is to ascertain Ayhether Jesus Christ
has abolished it or recognized it as a lawful relation, existing among
men, and prescribed duties which belong to it, as he has other rela-
five duties; such as those between husband and Avife, parent and child,
magistrate and subject.
And first, I may take it for granted, without proof, that he has not
abolished it by commandment, for none pretend to this. This, by the
way, is a singular circumstance, that Jesus Christ should put a sys-
tern of measures into operation Avhich have for their object the sub-
jugation of all men to him as a law-giver—kings, legislators,
and private citizens in all nations; at a time too Avhen hereditary
Slavery existed in all; and after it had been incorporated for fifteen
hundred years into the Jewish constitution, immediately given hy
God himself. I say, it is passing strange, that under such circum-
stances Jesus should fail to prohibit its further existence, if it was his
intention to abolish it. Such an omission or oversight cannot be
charged upon any other legislator the Avorld has ever seen. But,
says the Abolitionist, he has introduced new moral principles Avhich
will extinguish it as an unavoidable consequence, without a direct pro-
hibitory command. What are they? "Do to others as you would they
should to you." Taking these words of Christ to be a body inclos-
ing a moral soul in them, what soul, I ask, is it?
The same embodied in these words of Moses, Levit. xix. 18:—•
"thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" or is it another? It cannot
be another, but it must be the very same, because Jesus says, there
are but two principles in being, in God's moral government, one in-
eluding all that is due to God, the other all that is due to men.
If, therefore, doing to others as Ave Avould they should do to us,
means precisely what loving our neighbor as ourself means, then Je:
sus has added no new moral principle above those in the law of
19
Moses, to prohibit Slavery, for in his law is found this principle, and
Slavery also.
The very God that said to them, they should love him supremely, and
their neighbors as themselves, said to them also, "of the heathen that are
round about you, thou shalt buy bond men and bond women, and they
shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as an inheritance
for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession: they shall
be your bond men forever." Now, to suppose that Jesus Christ left
his disciples to find out, without a revelation, that Slavery must be abol-
ished, as a natural consequence from the fact, that when God establish-
ed the relation of master and servant under the law, he said to the
master and servant, each of you must love the other as yourself, is,
to say the least, making Jesus to presume largely upon the intensity
of their intellect, that they would be able to Spy out a discrepancy in
the law of Moses, which God himself never saw. Again: if "do to
others as ye would they should do to you" is to abolish Slavery,
it will for the same reason level all inequalities in human condi-
tion. It is not to be admitted then, that Jesus Christ introduced any
new moral principle that must, of necessity, abolish Slavery. The
principle relied on to prove it stands boldly out to view in the code
of Moses as the soul that must regulate and control the relation of
master and servant, and therefore cannot abolish it.
Why a master cannot do to a servant, or a servant to a master, as he
would have them do to him, as soon a wife to a husband or a husband
to a wife, I am utterly at a loss to know. The wife is "subject to'
her husband in all things" by divine precept. He is her "head," and
God "suffers her not to usurp authority over him." Now, why in
such a relation as' this, we can do to others as we would they should
do to us, any soorier than in a relation securing to us what is just and
equal as servants, and due respect and faithful service rendered with
good will to us as masters, I am at a loss to conceive. I affirm then,
first, (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished Slavery
by a prohibitory command: and second, I affirm, he has introduced
no new moral principle which can work its destruction, under the
gospel dispensation, and that the principle relied on for this purpose,
is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law, under which, Slavery
was instituted by JehoVah himself:—-and third, with this absence of
positive prohibition, and this absence of principle to work its ruin,
I affirm that in all the Roman provinces, where churches were
planted by the Apostles, hereditary Slavery existed as it did among
the Jews, and as it does now among us, (which admits of proof from
history that no man will dispute who knows anything of the matter,)
and that in instructing such churches, the Holy Ghost by the Apostles,
has recognized the institution as one legally existing among them,
to be perpetuated in the church, and that its duties are prescribed.
Now for the proof: to the churches planted at Ephesus, the capital
of the lesser Asia, Paul ordains to them by letters, subordination in
the fear of God,—first between wife and husband; second, child and
parent; third, servant and master, all as states or conditions existing
among the members.
20
The relative duties of each state are pointed out, those between the
servant and master in these words: "Servants be obedient to them who
are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in
singleness of your heart as unto Christ; not with eye service as men
pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the
heart, with good will, doing service, as to the Lord and not to men,
knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall
he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye mas-
ters do the same things to them, forbearing threatening, knowing that
your master is also in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with
him." Here, by the Roman law, the servant was property, and the
control of the master unlimited as we shall presently prove.
To the church at Colosse, a city of Phrygia in the lesser Asia,—
Paul in his letter to them recognizes the three relations of waves and
husbands, parents and children, servants and masters, as relations ex-
isting among the members; (here the Roman law was the same,) and
to the servants and masters he thus writes: "Servants obey in all
things your masters, according to the flesh: not with eye service, as
men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever
ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto men: knowing that
of the Lord ye shall receive the rewrard of the inheritance, for ye
serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the
wrong he has done, and there is no respect of persons with God-—
Masters give unto your servants that wrhich is just and equal, know-
ing that you also have a master in heaven."
The same Apostle writes a letter to the church at Corinth;—a very
important city, formerly called the eye of Greece, either from its lo-
cation, or intelligence, or both, and consequently an important point
for radiating light in all directions, in reference to subjects connected
with the cause of Jesus Christ, and particularly in the bearing of its
practical precepts on civil society, and the political structure of nations.
Under the direction of the Holy Ghost, he instructs the church,
that, on this particular subject, one general principle rvas ordained of
God, applicable alike in all countries and at all stages of the
church's future history, and that it was this: "as the Lord has called
every one, so let him walk." '"Let every man abide in the same call-
ing wherein he is called." "Let every man wherein he is called,
therein abide with God." 1 Cor. vii. 17,20,24. "And so ordain
I in all churches." vii. 17. The Apostle thus explains his meaning:
"Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircum-
cised.
Is any called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.
Art thou being called a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayst
be made free, use it rather." vii. 18, 21. Here, by the Roman law,
slaves were property,—yet Paul ordains in this and all other church--
es, that Christianity gave them no title to freedom, but on the contra-
ry, required them not to eare for being slaves, or in other words, to be
contented -with their state or relation, unless they could be made free,
in a lawful way.
Again, we have a letter by Peter, who is the Apostle of the cir-
21
cumcision,—addressed especially to the Jews, who were scattered
through various provinces of the Roman empire, comprising those
provinces especially which were the theatre of their dispersion, un-
der the Assyrians and Babylonians. Here, for the space of 750
years, they had resided, during which time those revolutions were in
progress which terminated the Babylonian, Mcdo-Persian, and Mace-
donian empires, and transferred imperial power to Rome. These re-
volutionary scenes of violence left one half the human race (within
the range of their influence,) in abject bondage to the ether half.—
This was the state of things in these provinces addressed by Peter,
when he wrote. The chances of Avar, Ave may reasonably conclude,
had assigned a full share of bondage to this people, Avho were de-
spised of all nations. In view of their enslaved condition to the Gen-
tiles, knowing as Peter did, their seditious character, foreseeing from
the prediction of the Saviour, the destined bondage of those who
Avere then free in Israel, Avhich was soon to take place, as it did, in
the fall of Jerusalem, when all the males over seventeen were sent to
work in the mines of Egypt, as sla\res to the State, and all the males
under, amounting to upAvards of ninety-seven thousand, Avere sold
into domestic bondage. I say, in view of these things, Peter was
moved by the Holy Ghost to write to them, and his solicitude for
such of them as were in slavery, is very conspicuous in his letter;
(read carefully from 1st Peter, 2nd chapter, from the 13th verse to the
end,) but it is not the solicitude of an abolitionist—he thus addresses
them: "Dearly beloved, I beseech you." He thus instructs them: "sub-
mit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake."-—
"For so is the will of God." "Servants, be subject to your masters
with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froAvard."
1st Peter ii. 11, 13, 15, 18. What an important document is this!—
enjoining political subjection to governments of every form, and Chris-
tian subjection on the part of servants to their masters, Avhether good
or bad; for the purpose of showing forth to advantage, the glory of
the gospel, and putting to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who
might think it seditious.
By "every ordinance of man" as the context will show, is meant
governmental regulations or laAvs, as was that of the Roman Senate;
for enslaving their prisoners taken in war, instead of destroying their
lives.
When such enslaved persons came into the church of Christ, let
them, (says Peter.) "be subject to their masters with all fear;" whe-
|>ther such masters be good or bad. It is worthy of remark, that he
say# muclrto secure civil subordination to the State, and hearty and
cheerful obedience to the masters on the part of servants, yet he says
nothing to masters in the whole letter. It would seem from this, that
danger to the cause of Christ was on the side of insubordination
among the servants, and a want of humility with inferiors, rather
than haughtiness among superiors in the church.
Gibbon in his Rome", vol. 1, pages 25, 26, 27, shows from stan-
dard authorities, that Rome at this time swayed its sceptre over 120
millions of souls, that in every province and in every famil-r - *
22'
slav&ry existed, that it was at least fifty years later than the date of
these letters before the absolute power of life and death over the slave
was taken from the master and committed to the magistrate, that
about 60 millions of souls were held as property in this abject con-
dition, that the price of a slave was four times that of an ox, that their
punishments were very sanguinary, that in the second century, when
their condition began to improve a little, emancipation was prohibit-
ed except for great personal merit, or some public service rendered to
the State, and that it was not until the third or fourth generation after
freedom was obtained, that the descendants of a slave could share in
the honors of the State. This is the slate, condition, or relation
among the members of all the apostolic churches, whether among
Gentiles or Jews; which the Holy Ghost by Paul for the Gentiles,
and Peter for the Jews, recognizes as lawful; the mutual duties of
which he prescribes m the language above. Now, I ask, can any
man in his proper senses, from these premises, bring himself to con-
elude that Slavery is abolished by Jesus Christ, or that obligations
are imposed by him upon his disciples that are subversive of the in-
stitution. Knowing as we do from cotemporary historians, that the
institution of Slavery existed at the time and to the extent stated by
Gibbon;—what sort of a soul must a man have, who, with these
facts before him, will conceal the truth on this subject, and hold Je-
sus Christ responsible for a scheme of treason that would, if carried
out, have brought the life of every human being on earth at the time,
into the most imminent peril, and that must have worked the destruc-
tion of half the human race.
At Rome, the authoritative centre of that vast theatre upon which
the glories of the cross were to be won, a church Avas planted. Paul
wrote a long letter to them. On this subject it is full of instruc-
tion.
Abolition sentiments had hot dared to show themselves so near the
imperial SWordv To warn the church against their treasonable ten-
dency, Avas therefore unnecessary. Instead, therefore, of special pre-
cepts upon the subject of relative duties, between master and servant,
he lays dowm a system of practical morality, in the 12th chapter of
his letter, which must commend itself equally to the king on his
throne, and the slave in his hovel; for while its practical operation
leaves the subject of earthly government to the discretion of man, it
secures the exercise of sentiments and feelings that must exterminate
every thing inconsistent with doing to others as we would they
should do unto us. A system of principles that will givet^ moraLgo-1
vernment^peace, security, and good will to individuals, and glory to
God in the highest. And in the 13th chapter, from the 1st to the
end of the 7th verse, he recognizes human government as an ordi-
nance of God, which the followers of Christ are to obey, honor, and
support, not only from dread of punishment, but for conscience' sake,
which I believe abolitionism refuses most positively to do to such
governments, as from the force of circumstances even permit Slavery.
Again. But we are furnished with additional light, and if we are
not greatly mistaken, Avith light which arose out of circumstances
analogous to those which are threatening at the present moment,
to overthrow the peace of society, and deluge this nation with blood.
To Titus whom Paul left in Crete to set in order the things that were
wanting, he writes a letter in which he warns him of false teachers,
that were to be dreaded on account of their doctrine. While they
professed "to know God," that is, to know his will under the gospel
dispensation, "in works they denied him-" that is, they did, and re-
quired others to do what was contrary to his will under the gospel
dispensation. "They were abominable," that is, to the church and
State, "apd disobedient," that is, to the authority of the apostles,
and the civil authority of the land. Titus, he then exhorts, "to speak
the things that become sound doctrine:" that is, that the members of
the church, observe the law of the land, and obey the civil magistrate,
that "servants be obedient to their own masters, and please them well
in all things," not "answering again, not purloining, but showing all
good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour
in all things," in that which subjects the ecclesiastical to the civil
authority in particular. "These things speak, and exhort and re-
buke with all authority; let no man despise thee. Put them in mind
to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." Titus
i: 16, and ii. from 1 to 10 and iii. 1. The context shows that a doctrine
was taught by these wicked men, which tended in its influence on
servants, to bring the gospel of Christ into contempt, in church and
state, because of its seditious and insubordinate character.
But at Ephesus the capital of the lesser Asia, where Paul had la-
bored with great success for three years—a point of great impor-
tance to the gospel cause, the apostle left Timothy for the purpose of
watching against the false teachers, and particularly against the aboli-
tionists. In addition to a letter which he had addressed to this church
previously, in which the mutual duty of master and servant is taught,
and which has been referred to, he further instructs Timothy by let-
ter on the same subject. "Let as many servants as are under the
yoke, count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God
and his doctrine be not blasphemed." 1 Tim. vi. 1. These were un-
believing masters, as the next verse will show. In this church at
Ephesus, the circumstances existed which are brought to light by
Paul's letter to Timothy, that must silence every cavil, which men,
who do not know God's will on this subject, may start until time ends.
In an age filled with literary men, who were employed in transmit-
ting historically, to future generations, the structure of society in the
Roman empire; that would put it in our power at this distant day, to
know the state or condition of a slave in the Roman empire, as well
as if we had lived at the time, and to know beyond question, that his
condition was precisely that one which is now denounced as sinful.
In such an age and in such circumstances Jesus Christ causes his will
to be published to the world, and it is this, that if a Christian slave
have an unbelieving master, who acknowledges no allegiance to
Christ, this believing slave must count his master worthy of all honor,
according to what the apostle teaches the Romans, "Render, therefore,
to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom cu§-
24
torn is due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." Rom xiii. 7.
Now, honor is enjoined of God in the Scriptures, from children to
parents—from husbands to wives—from subjects to magistrates and
rulers, and here by Jesus Christ, from Christian slaves to unbeliev-
ing masters, who held them as property by law, with power over,
their very lives. And the command is remarkable. While we are
commanded to honor father and mother, without adding to the precept
"all honor," here a Christian servant is bound to render to his unbe-
lieving master, "all honor." Why is this? Because in the one case
nature moves in the direction of the command, but in the other,
against it. Nature being subjected to the law of grace,-might be dis-
posed to obey reluctantly, hence the amplitude of the command.—.
But what purpose was to be answered by this devotion of the slave?
The apostle answers, "that the name of God and his doctrine (of sub-
ordination to the law making power) be not blasphemed," as they
certainly would by a contrary course on the part of the servant, for
the most obvious reason in the world: while the sword would have
been drawn against the gospel, and a war of extermination waged
against its propagators, in every province of the Roman empire, for
there was Slavery in all, and so it would be now.
But, says the caviller, these directions are given to Christian slaves
whose masters did not acknowledge the authority of Christ to gov-
em them; and are therefore defective as proof, that he approves of
one Christian man holding another in bondage. Very well,
we will see. In the next verse, 1 Timothy vi. 2, he says, "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." Here is a great change, in-
stead of a command to a believing slave to render to a believing mas-
ter all honor, and thereby making that believing master in honor
equal to an unbelieving master, here is rather an exhortation to the
slave not to despise him, because he is a believer. Now, I ask. why
the circumstance of a master becoming a believer in Christ, should
become the cause of his believing slave despising him; while that
slave was supposed to acquiesce in the duty of rendering all honor
to that master before he became a believer? I answer, precisely, and
only because there were abolition teachers among them who taught
otherwise and consented not to wholesome words, even the words of
pur Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy vi. 3: and "to the doctrine which
is according to godliness," taught in the 8th verse, viz: having food
and raiment, servants should therewith be content, for the pronoun
us in the 8th verse of this connexion, means especially the servants
he was instructing, as well as Christians in general. These men
taught that godliness abolished Slavery, that it gave the title of free-
dom to the slave, and that so soon as a man professed to be subject to
Christ, and refused to liberate his slaves, he was a hypocrite, and de-
served not the countenance of any who bore the Christian name.—■
Such men, the apostle says, are "proud (just as they are now,) know-
ing nothing," (that is, on this subject,) but "doating about questions,
and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil sur-
25
mising. perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute
of the truth; supposing that gain is godliness, from such withdraw
thyself." 1 Tim. vi. 4, 5.
Such were the bitter fruits which abolition sentiments produced in
the apostolic day, and such precisely are the fruits they produce now.
Now, I say, here is the case made out, which certainly would
call forth the command from Christ, to abolish Slavery, if he ever
intended to abolish it. Both the servant and the master were one in
Christ Jesus. Both were members in the same church, both were
under unlimited and voluntary obedience to the same divine law-
giver.
No political objection existed against their obedience to him on the
subject of Slavery, and what is the will, not of Paul, but of the Lord
Jesus Christ, immediately in person, upon the case thus made out? Does
he say to the master, having put yourself under my government you
must no longer hold your brother in bondage. Does he say to the
slave, if your master does not release you, you must go and talk to
him privately, about this trespass upon your rights, under the law
of my kingdom; and if he does not hear you, you must take two or
three with you; and if he does not hear them, then youmusttell it to
the c hurch, and have him expelled from my flock, as a wolf in sheep's
clothing? I say, what does the Lord Jesus say to this poor believing
slave, concerning a master who held unlimited power over his person
and life under the Roman law—he tells him that the very circum-
stance of his master's being a brother, constitutes the reason why he
should be more ready to do him service; for, in addition to the cir-
cumstance of his being a brother who would be benefitted by his ser-
vice, he would as a brother give him what was just and equal in re-
turn, and "forbear threatening," much less abusing his authority over
him, for that he the master also had a master in heaven, who was no
respecter of persons. It is taken for granted, on all hands pretty ge-
nerally, that Jesus Christ has at least been silent, or that he has not
personally spoken on the subject of Slavery. Once for all, I deny it.
Paul, after stating that a slave was to honor an unbelieving master,
in the 1st verse of the 6th chapter, says, in the 2nd verse, that to a
believing master, he is the rather to do service, because he who par-
takes of the benefit is his brother. He then says, if any man teach
otherwise, (as all abolitionists then did, and now do,) and consent not
to wholesome words, "even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ."—
Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ utterred such words, how dare we say
has he been silent? If he has been silent, how dare the apostle say these
are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, if the Lord Jesus Christ ne-
ver spoke them. Where or when, or on what occasion he spoke
them, we are not informed, but certain it is, that Paul has borne false
witness, or that Jesus Christ has uttered the words that impose an ob-
ligation on servants, who are abject slaves, to render service with good
will from the heart, to believing masters, and to account their unbe-
lieving masters as worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed. Jesus Christ revealed to Paul the doc-
trine which Paul has settled throughout the Gentile world, (and by
4
26
consequence, the Jewish world also) on the subject of Slavery, so far
as it affects his kingdom. As we have seen, it is clear and full.
From the great importance of the subject, involving the personal li-
berty of half the human race at that time, and a large portion of them
at all times since, it is not to be wondered at, that Paul would carry
the question to the Saviour, and plead for a decisive expression of his
will, that would forever do away the necessity of inferring any thingby
reasoning from the premises laid down in the former dispensation; or in
the patriarchal age; and at Ephesus, if not at Crete, the issue is fairly
made between Paul on the one side, and certain abolition teachers on
the other, when in addition to the official intelligence ordinarily giv-
en to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost, to guide them into all truth,
he affirms that the doctrine of perfect civil subordination, on the part
of hereditary slaves to their masters, rvhether believers or unbeliev-
ers, was one which he, Paul, taught in the words of the Lord Jesus
Christ himself. The Scriptures we have adduced from the New
Testament to prove the recognition of hereditary Slavery by the Sa-
viour, as a lawful relation in the sight of God, lose much of their
force from the use of a word by the translators, which by time,
has lost much of its original meaning; that is, the word servant.
Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary says, "Servant is one of the few
words, which by time has acquired a softer signification than its ori-
ginal, knave; degenerated into cheat. While servant, which signified
originally, a person preserved from death by the conqueror, and re-
served for Slavery, signifies .only an obedient attendant." Now,
all history will prove that the servants of the New Testament ad-
dressed by the Apostles, in their letters to the several churches
throughout the Roman empire, were such as were preserved from
death by the conqueror, and taken into Slavery. This was their
condition, and it is a fact well known to all men acquainted
with history. Had the word which designates their condition, in our
translation, lost none of its original meaning, a common man could
not have fallen into a mistake as to the condition indicated. But to
waive this fact, we are furnished with all the evidence that can be de-
sired. The Saviour appeared in an .age of learning,—the enslaved
condition of half the Roman empire, at the time, is a fact embodied
with all the historical records—the constitution God gave the .Tews,
was in harmony with the Roman regulation on the subject of Slave-
ry. In this state of things, Jesus ordered his gospel to be preached
in all the world, and to every creature.
It was done as he directed; and masters and servants, and persons
in all conditions, were brought by the gospel to obey the Saviour.—
Churches were constituted. "We have examined the letters written
to the churches, composed of these materials.
The result is, that each member is furnished with a law to regu-
late the duties of his civil station—from the highest to the lowest.
We will remark in closing under this head, that we have shown
from the text of the sacred volume, that when God entered into cove-
nant with Abraham, it was with him as a slave-holder, that when he
took his posterity by the hand in Egypt, 500 years afterwards to cop-
2?
jfirm the promise made to Abraham, it was done with them as slave-
holders, that when he gave them a constitution of government, he
gave them the right to perpetuate hereditary Slavery, and that he did
not for the 1500 years of their national existence, express disapproba-
tion towards the institution.
We have also shown from authentic history, that the institution of
Slavery existed in every family, and in every province of the Roman
empire, at the time the gospel was published to them.
We have also shown from the New Testament, that all the churches
are recognized as composed of masters and servants, and that they
are instructed by Christ how to discharge their relative duties; andfi-
nally, that in reference to the question which was then started, whe-
ther Christianity did not abolish the institution, or the right of one
Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we have shown that
"the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" are, that so far from this being
the case, it adds to the obligation of the servant to render service with
good will to his master, and that gospel fellowship is not to be enter-
tained with persons who will not consent to it!
I propose, in the fourth place, to show that the institution of Slave-
ry is full of mercy. I shall say but a few words on this subject.—
Authentic history warrants this conclusion, that for a long period of
time, it was this institution alone, which furnished a motive for spar-
ing the prisoner's life. The chances of war when the earth was
filled with small tribes of men, who had a passion for it, brought to
decision, almost daily, conflicts, where nothing but this institution in-
terposed an inducement to save the vanquished. The same was true
in the enlarged schemes of conquest, which brought the four great
universal empires of the Scriptures, to the zenith of their power.
The same is true in the history of Africa, as far back as we can
trace it. It is only sober truth to say, that the institution of Slavery
has saved from the sword, more lives including their increase, than
all the souls who now inhabit this globe.
The souls thus conquered and subjected to masters, who feared not
God nor regarded men, in the days of Abraham, Job, and the pa-
triarchs, were surely brought under great obligations to the mercy of
God, in allowing such men as these to purchase them and keep them
in their families.
The institution when engrafted on the Jewish constitution, was de-
signed principally not to enlarge the number, but to ameliorate the
condition of the slaves in the neighboring nations.
Under the gospel it has brought within the range of gospel
influence, millions of Ham's descendants among ourselves, who, but
for this institution would have sunk down to eternal ruin, knowing
not God and strangers to the gospel. In their bondage here on earth,
they have been much better provided for, and great multitudes of then!
have been made the freemen of the Lord Jesus Christ, and left this
world rejoiping in hope of the glory of God. The elements of an em-
pil e, which I hope will lead Ethiopia very soon to stretch out her hands
to God, is the fruit of the institution here. An officious meddling
with the institution, from feelings and sentiments unknown to the Bi-
28
ble, may lead to the extermination of the slave race among us, who,
taken as a whole, are utterly unprepared for a higher civil state;
but benefit them, it cannot. Their condition, as a class, is now bet-
ter than that of any other equal number of laborers on earth, and is
daily improving.
If the Bible is allowed to awaken the spirit, and control the phi-
lanthropy which works their good, the day is not far distant when
the highest wishes of saints will be gratified, in having conferred on
them all that the spirit of good-will can bestow. The spirit which
was kindling into life, has received a great check among us of late, by
that trait which the apostle Peter reproves and shames in his officious
countrymen, when he says, "But let none of you suffer as a murde-
rer, or as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy body in other men's
matters." Our citizens have been murdered—our property has been
stolen, (if the receiver is as bad as the thief,)—our lives have been
put in jeopardy—our characters traduced—and attempts made to force
political Slavery upon us in the place of domestic, by strangers who
have no right to meddle with our matters. Instead of meditating gen-
erous things to our slaves, as a return for gospel subordination, we
have to put on our armor to suppress a rebellious spirit, engendered
by "false doctrine," propagated by men "of corrupt minds, and desti-
tute of the truth," who teach them that the gain of freedom to the
slave, is the only proof of godliness in the master. From such Paul
says, we must withdraw ourselves, and if we fail to do it, and to re-
buke them with all authority, which "the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ" confer, we shall be wanting in duty to him, to ourselves, and
to the world.
THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.
AN EXAMINATION
of
Elder Galuslia's Reply to the preceding Essay.
ctjlpeper, Va., 1841.
Brother Sands:
After my essay on Slavery was published by you in the Herald, I
sent a copy of it to a prominent Abolition gentleman in New York,
accompanied by a friendly letter.
This gentleman I selected as a correspondent, because of his high
standing—intellectual attainments—and unquestioned piety. I frankly
avowed to him my readiness to abandon Slavery, so soon as I was
convinced by the Bible that it was sinful, and requested him, "if the
Bible contained precepts, and settled principles of conduct, in direct
opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as furnishing
the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of Slavery, that he would
20
famish me with the knowledge of the fact." To tins letter I received
a friendly reply—accompanied by a printed communication, contain*
ing the result of a prayerful effort which he had previously made,
for the purpose of furnishing the very information to a friend at the
South, which I sought to obtain at his hands.
It may be owing to my prejudices, or a want of intellect, that I fail
to be convinced, by those portions of the Bible to which he refers me,
to prove that Slavery is sinful. But as the support of truth is my
object, and as I wish to have the answer of a good conscience to-
wards God in this matter, I herewith publish, for the information of
all into whose hands my first essay may have fallen, every passage
in the Bible to which this distinguished brother refers me for "pre-
cepts and settled principles of conduct, in direct opposition to those
portions of it upon which I relied as furnishing the mind of the Al-
mighty upon the subject of Slavery."
1st. His first reference to the sacred volume is this, "God hath
made of one blood all nations of men." This is a Scripture truth
which I believe; yet God decreed that Canaan should be a servant of
servants to his brethren—that is, an abject slave in his posterity.—
This God effected 800 years afterwards in the days of Joshua, when
the Gibeonites were subjected to perpetual bondage, and made hew-
ers of wood and drawers of water. Joshua ix. 23.
Again, God crrdained, as law-giver to Israel, that their captives
taken in war should be enslaved. Deut. xx. 10 to 15.
Again, God enacted that the Israelites should buy slaves of the
heathen nations around them, and will them and their increase as pro-
perty to their children forever. Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46. All these nations
were made of one blood. Yet God ordained that some should be "chat-
tel" slaves to others, and gave his special aid to effect it. In view of
this incontrovertible fact, how can I believe this passage disproves the
lawfulness of Slavery in the sight of God? How can any sane man
believe it, who believes the Bible?
2d. His second Scripture reference to disprove the lawfulness of
Slavery in the sight of God, is this, "God has said a man is better
than a sheep." This is a Scripture truth which I fully believe—and
I have no doubt if we could ascertain what the Israelites had to pay
for those slaves they bought with their money according to God's
law, in Levit. xxv. 44, that we should find they had to pay more for
them than they paid for sheep, for the reason assigned by the Saviour;
that is, that a servant man is better than a sheep, for when he is done
ploughing, or feeding cattle, and comes in from the field, he will, at
his master's bidding, prepare him his meal, and wait upon him till he
eats it, while the master feels under no obligation even to thank him
for it, because he has done no more than his duty. Luke xvii. 7, 8, 9.
This, and other important duties, which the people of God bought
their Slaves to perform for them, by the permission of their Maker,
were duties which sheep could not perform. But I cannot see w hat
there is in it to blotout from the Bible a relation which God created) in
which he made one man to be a slave to another.
3d. His third Scripture reference to prove the unlawfulness of
30
Slavery in tire eight of God, is this, "God commands children to obey
their parents, and wives to obey their husbands." This, I believe to
be the will of Christ to Christian children and Christian wives—whe-
ther they are bond or free. But it is equally true that Christ ordains
that Christianity shall not abolish Slavery. 1 Cor. vii. 17-21, and that
he commands servants to obey their masters and to count them worthy
of all honor. 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. It is also true, that God allowed Jew-
ish masters to use the rod to make them do it—and to use it with the
severity requisite to accomplish theobject. Ex. xxi. 20,21. It is equally
true, that Jesus Christ ordains that a Christian servant shall receive
for the wrong he hath done. Col. iii. 25, My correspondent admits
without qualification that if they are property, it is right. But the
Bible sa)*s, they were property. Levit. xxv. 44, 45, 46.
The above reference, reader, enjoins the duty of two relations
which God ordained, but docs not abolish a third relation which
God has ordained, as the Scripture will prove to which I have re-
ferred you under the first reference of my correspondent.
4th. His fourth Scripture reference is, to the intention of Abra-
ham to give his estate to a servant, in order to prove that servant was
not a slave. ""What," he says, "property inherit property?" Ian-
swer, yes. Two years ago, in my county, William Hansbrough
gave to his slaves his estate, worth forty or fifty thousand dollars. In
the last five or six years, over two hundred slaves, within a few miles
of me, belonging to various masters, have inherited portions of their
masters' estates.
To render slaves valuable, the Romans qualified them for the
learned professions, and all the various arts. They were teachers,
doctors, authors, mechanics, &c. So with us, tradesmen, of every
kind are to be found among our slaves. Some of them are under-
takers—some farmers—some overseers, or stewards—some house-
keepers—some merchants—some teamsters, and some money-lenders;
who give their masters a portion of their income, and keep the bal-
ance. Nearly all of them have an income of their own—and was
it not for the seditious spirit of the north, we would educate our slaves
generally, and so fit them earlier for a more improved condition, and
higher moral elevation.
I3ut will all this, when duly certified, prove they are not slaves?
No. Neither will Abraham's intention to give one of his servants
his estate, prove that he was not a slave. Who had higher claims upon
Abraham, before he had a child, than this faithful slave, born in his
house, reared by his hand, devoted to his interest, and faithful in eve-
ry trust.
5th. His fifth reference, my correspondent says, "forever sets the
question at rest." It is this, "Thou shalt not deliver unto his mas-
ter, the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee—he shall
dwell with thee, even in that place which he shall choose, in one of
thy gates, where it liketh him best, thou shalt not oppress him."
This, my distinguished correspondent says, "forever puts the ques-
tion at rest." My reader, I hope, will ask himself what question k
puts to rest. He will please to remember, that it is brought to put
31
this question to rest, "Is Slavery sinful in the sight of God?" the Bi
ble being judge—or "did God ever allow one man to hold property
in another?"
My correspondent admits this to be the question at issue. He asks,
"What is Slavery?" And thus answers, "It is the principle involv-
ed in holding man as property." "This," he says, "is the point at
issue." He says, "if it be right to hold man as property, it is right
to treat him as property," &c. Now, conceding all in the argument,
that can be demanded for this law about runaway slaves, yet it does
not prove that Slavery or holding property in man is sinful—because
it is a part and parcel of the Mosaic law, given to Israel in the wil-
derness by the same God, who in the same wilderness enacted "that
of the heathen that were round about them, they should buy bond
men and bond women—also of the strangers that dwelt among them
should they buy, and they should pass as an inheritance to their chil-
dren after them, to possess them as bond men forever." Levit. xxv.
44.
How can I admit that a prohibition to deliver up a runaway slave,
under the law of Moses, is proof that there was no Slavery allowed
under that law? Here is the law from God himself, authorizing the
Israelites to buy slaves and transmit them and their increase as a pos-
session to their posterity forever—and to make slaves of their captives
taken in war, Deut. xx. 10-15. Suppose for argument sake, I ad-
mit that God prohibited the delivery back of one of these slaves when
he fled from his master—would that prove that he was not a slave before
he fled?—would that prove that he did not remain legally a slave in
the sight of God, according to his own law, until he fled? The pas-
sage proves the very reverse of that which it is brought to prove.—
It proves that the slave is recognized by God himself as a slave, un-
til he fled to the Israelites. My correspondent's exposition of this
law seems based upon the idea that God who had held fellowship
with Slavery among his people for 500 years, and who had just giv-
en them a formal statute to legalize the purchase of slaves from the
heathen, and to enslave their captives taken in Avar, was, nevertheless,
desirous to abolish the institution. But, as if afraid to march directly up
to his object, he was disposed to undermine what he was unwilling to
attempt to overthrow.
Upon the principle that man is prone to think God is altogether
such an one as himself, we may account for such an interpretation at
the present time, by men north of Mason & Dixon's line. Our bre-
thren there have held fellowship with this institution, by the consti-
tutional oath they have taken to protect us in this property. Una-
ble, constitutionally, to overthrow the institution, they see, or think
they see, a sanction in the law of God to undermine it, by opening
their gates and lettingour runaway slaves "dwell among them where
it liketh them best." If I could be astonished at any thing in this
controversy, it would be to see sensible men engaged in the study of
that part of the Bible which relates to the rights of property, as esta-
blished by the Almighty himself, giving in to the idea that the judge
of the world, acting in the character of a national law-giver, would
legalize a property right in slaves, as he did—give full power to the
master to govern—secure the increase as an inheritance to posterity
lor all time to come—and then add a clause to legalize a fraud upon
the unsuspecting purchaser. For what better is it, under this inter-
pretation.
With respect to slaves purchased of the heathen, the law pass-
ed a clear title to them and their increase forever. With respect to
the hired servants of the Hebrews, the law secured to the master a right
to their service until the Sabbatic year or Jubilee—unless they were
bought back by a near kinsman at a stated price in money when
owned by a heathen master. But these legal rights, under these
laws of heaven's King, by this interpretation, are all cancelled—for
the pecuniary loss, there is no redress—and for the insult no reme-
dy, whenever a "liketh him best" man can induce the slave to run
away. And worse still, the community of masters thus insulted and
swindled,^according to this interpretation, are bound to show respect
and afford protection to the villians who practise it. Who can be-
lieve all this? I judge our northern brethren will say, the Lord de-
liver us from such legislation as this. So say we. What, then, does this
rnnaway law mean? It means that the God of Israel ordained his
people to be an asylum for the slave who fled from heathen cruelty
to them for protection. See, says God, ye oppress not the stranger.
Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him. Ex. xxii. 21.
His 6th reference to the Bible is this, "Do to others as ye would
they should do to you." I have shown in the essay that these words of
our Saviour embody the same moral principle which is embodied by
Moses in Levit. xix. 18, in these words, "Love thy neighbor as thy-
self." In this we cannot be mistaken, because Jesus says there are but
two such principles in God's moral government—one of supreme
love to God—another of love to our neighbor as ourself. To the
everlasting confusion of the argument from moral precepts to over-
throw the positive institution of Slavery, this moral precept was giv-
en to regulate the mutual duties of this very relation, which God by
law ordained for the Jewish commonwealth.
How can that which regulates the duty, overthrow the relation
itself?
His Tth reference is, "They which are accounted to rule over the
Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise'
authority upon them, but so it shall not be among you."
Turn to the passage, reader, in Mark x. 42; and try your ingenuity
at expounding, and see if you can destroy one relation that has been
created among men, because the authority given in another relation was
abused. The Saviour refers to the abuse of State authority, as a
warning to those who should be clothed with authority in his king-
dom not to abuse it, but to connect the use of it with humility. But
how official humility in the kingdom of Christ, is to rob States of the
right to make their own laws; dissolve the relation of Slavery re-
cognized by the Saviour as a lawful relation, and overthrow the
right of property in slaves as settled by God himself, I know not. Paul,
in drawing the character of those who oppose Slavery, in his letter
83
to Timothy, says, vi. 4, they are "proud, knowing nothing;" he
means, that they were puffed with a conceit of their superior sancti-
ty, while they were deplorably ignorant of the will of Christ on this
subject. Is it not great pride that leads a man to think he is better
than the Saviour? Jesus held fellowship with, and enjoined subjec-
tion to governments which sanctioned Slavery in its worst form—but
abolitionists refuse fellowship for governments which have mitigated
all its rigors.
God established the relation by law, and bestowed the highest
manifestations of his favor upon slave-holders; and has caused it to be
written as with a sun beam in the Scriptures. Yet such saints would
be refused the ordinary tokens of Christian fellowship among aboli-
tionists. If Abraham were on earth, they could not let him consis-
tently occupy their pulpits, to tell of the things God has prepared for
them that love him. Job himself would be unfit for their communion.
Joseph would be placed on a level with pirates. Not a single church
planted by the Apostles would make a fit home for our abolition bre-
thren, (for they all had masters and Slavery.) The Apostles and
their ministerial associates could not occupy their pulpits, for they
had fraternized with Slavery and upheld State authority upon the
subject. Now, I ask, with due respect for all parties, can sentiments
which lead to such results as these, be held by any man in the ah-
sence of pride, of no ordinary character, whether he be sensible of it
or not?
Again, whatever of intellect we may have—can that something
which prompts to results like these be Bible knowledge?
Reference the 8th is favorable in sound, if not in sense. It is in
these words, "Neither be ye called masters, for one is your master even
Christ." I am free to confess, it is difficult to repress the spirit which
the prophet felt when he witnessed the £SfSkof his deluded country-
men, at Mount Carmel. I think a sensibihman ought to know bet-
ter than to refer me to such a passage to prove Slavery unlawful,
yet my correspondent is a sensible man. However, I will balance it
by an equal authority for dissolving another relation. "Call no man
father upon earth, for one is your father in heaven."
When the last abolishes the relation betwen parent and child, the
first will abolish the relation between master and servant.
The 9th reference to prove Slavery is unlawful in the sight of God
is this: He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in
his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Wonderful!
I suppose that no State has ever established domestic Slavery,
which did not find such a law necessary. It is the institution which
makes such a law needful. Unless Slavery exists, there would be no
motive no steal a man. And, the danger is greater in a slave State,
than a free one. Virginia has such a law, and so have all the States
of North America.
Will these laws prove four thousand years hence that Slavery did
not exist in the United States? No—but why not? Because the sta-
tute will still exist, which authorizes us to buy bond men and bond
women with our money, and give them and their increase, as an inhe-
5
34
ritance to our children, forever. So the Mosaic statute still exists,
which authorized the Jews to do the same thine:, and God is its au-
thor.
Referencethc 10th is: "Rob not the poor because he is poor; Let the
oppressed go free, break every yoke, deliver him that is spoiled out of
the hand of the oppressor, what doth the Lord require of thee but to
do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God, he that oppress-
eth the poor reproacheth his Maker." This sounds very well, rea-
der, yet I propose to make every man who reads me, confess, that
these Scriptures will not condemn Slavery. Answer me this ques-
tion: Are these and such like passages in the Old Testament, from
whence they are all taken, intended to reprove and condemn that peo-
pie for doing what God, in his law gave them a right to do? I know
you must answer they were not; consequently, you confess they do
not condemn Slavery, because God gave them the right, by law, to
purchase slaves of the heathen. Levit. xxv. 44. And to make
slaves of their captives taken in war. Deut. xx. 14. The moral pre-
cepts of the Old or New Testament cannot make that wrong, which
God ordained to be his will, as he has Slavery.
The 11th reference of my distinguished correspondent to the sa-
cred volume, to prove that Slavery is contrary to the will of Jesus
Christ and sinful, is in these words, "Masters give unto your ser-
vants that which is just and equal." The argument of my corres-
pondent is this, that Slavery is a relation, in which rights based
upon justice cannot exist.
I answer, God ordained, after man sinned that he "should cat bread,
(that is, have food and raiment,) in the sweat of his face."
He has since ordained, that some should bo slaves to others, (as we
have proved under the fxrst reference). Therefore, when food and
raiment are withheld fite&hhn- in Slavery, it is unjust.
God has. ordained fooaand raiment, as wages for the sweat of the
face. Christ has ordained that with these, whether in Slavery or free-
dom, his disciples shall be content.
The relation of master and slave, says Gibbon, existed in every
province and in every family of the Roman empire. Jesus ordains
in the 13th chapter of Romans, ^from the 1st to the end of the 7th
verse, and in 1 Peter, 2nd chapter, and 13th, 14th and 15th verses, that
the legislative authority, which created the relation, should be obey-
ed and honored by his disciples. But while he thus legalises the
relation of master and slave as established by the civil law, he pro-
ceeds to prescribe the mutual duties which the parties, when they
come into his kingdom, must perform to each other.
The reference of my correspondent to disprove the relation, is a
part of what Jesus has prescribed on this subject to regulateAhe du-
ties of the relation, and is itself proof that the relation existed—
that its legality was recognized—and its duties prescribed by the Son
of God through the Holy Ghost given to the Apostles.
The 12th reference is, "Let as many servants as are under the yoke,
count their masters worthy of all honor. And they that have be-
lieving masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren ,
35
but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved,
partakers of the benefit." If my reader will turn to my remarks,
in my first essay upon this Scripture, he will cease to wonder that it
fails to convince me that Slavery is sinful. I should think the won-
der would be, that any man ever quoted it for such a purpose.
And lastly. My corespondent informs me that the Greek word
"doulos," translated servant, means hired servant and not slave.
I reply, that the primary meaning- of this Greek word, is in a singu-
lar state of preservation. God, as if foreseeing and providing for
this controversy, has caused, in his providence, that its meaning in
Greek dictionaries shall be thus given, "the opposite of free." Now,
readers, what is the opposite of free? Is it a state somewhere be-
tween freedom and Slavery. If freedom, as a condition, has an
opposite, that opposite state is indicated by this very word "doulos."
So says every Greek lexicographer. I ask if this is not wonderful
that the Holy Ghost has used a term, so incapable of deceiving, and
yet that that term should be brought forward for the purpose of decep-
tion. Another remarkable fact is this, the English word servant
originally meant precisely the same thing as the Greek word "dou-
los;" that is, says Dr. Johnson in his dictionary, it meant formerly
a captive taken in war, and reserved for Slavery. These are two re-
markable facts in the providence of God. But, reader, I will give you
a Bible key, by which to decide for yourself, without foreign aid, whe-
ther servant, when it denotes a relation in society, where the other side
of that relation is master, means hired servant. "Every man's servant
that is bought for money, shall eat thereof; but a hired servant shall
not eat thereof." Exod. xii. 44, 45. Here are two classes of servants
alluded to—one was allowed to eat the passover, the night Israel left
Egypt; the other, not. What was the difference in these two classes?
Were they both hired servants? If so, it should read, "Every hired
servant that is bought for money shall eat thereof; but a hired servant
that is bought for money, shall not eat thereof." My reader, why has
the Holy Ghost, in presiding over the inspired pen, been thus particu-
lar. Is it too much to say, it was to provide against the delusion of the
19th century, which learned men would be practising upon unlearn-
ed men, as well as themselves, on the subject of Slavery? Who,
with the Bible and their learning, would not be able to discover, that
a servant bought with money was a slave; and that a hired servant
was a free man? Again, Levit. xxv. 44, 45, and 46: "Thy bond ser-
vants shall be of the heathen that are round about you, and of the
children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall
ye buy. And they shall be your possession, and ye shall take them
as an inheritance, for your children after you, to. inherit them for a
possession, they shall be your bond men forever."
Reader, were these hired servants? If so, they hired themselves
for a long time. And what is very singular, they hired their poste-
rity for all time to come. And what is still more singular, the wages
were paid, not to the servant, but to a former owner or master. And
what is still stranger, they hired themselves and their posterity, to be
an inheritance to their master and his posterity forever! Yet, reader,
I ana told by my distinguished correspondent, that servant in the
Scriptures, when used to designate a relation, means only hired ser-
vant. Again, I ask, were the enslaved captives in Dcut. xx. 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, hired servants?
One of the greatest and best of men ever raised at the north, (I
mean Luther Rice,) once told me when I quoted the law of God for
the purchase of slaves from the heathen, (in order to silence his argu-
ment about "doulos," and hired servant,) I say he told mo positively,
there was no such law. When I opened the Bible and showed it to
him; his shame was very visible. (And I hope he is not the only
great and good man, that God will put to shame for being ignorant
of his word.) But he never opened his mouth to me about Slavery
again while he lived,
If my reader does no better than he did, at least let him not fight
against God for establishing the institution of "chattel" Slavery in his
kingdom, nor against me for believing he did do it. But, reader, if
you have the hardihood to insist that these were hired servants, and
not slaves after all, then, I answer, that ours are hired servants too,
and not slaves; and so the dispute ends favorably to the south, and it
is lawful for us according to abolition admissions, to hold them to
servitude. For ours, we paid money to a former owner, so did the
Jews for theirs. The increase of ours passes as an inheritance to
our children, so did the increase of the Jewish servants pass as an
inheritance to their children, to be an inheritance for ever. And all
this took place by the direction of God to his chosen people.
My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with Slavery; and that all men are
born free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as
Mr. Jefferson did his, and then they will be fit companions. Butne-
ver disgrace the Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor
Mr. Jefferson by deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did
not bow to the authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not
bow to him. How can any man, who believes the Bible, admit for
a moment that God intended to teach mankind by the Bible, that all
are born free and equal?
Men who engage in this controversy ought to look into the Bible,
and see what is in it about Sjavcry. I do not know how to account
for such men saying, as my correspondent does, that the slave of the
Mosaic law, purchased of the heathen, was a hired servant—and that
both he and the Hebrew hired servant of the same law, had a pass-
port from God to run away from their masters with impunity, to
prove which is the object of one of his quotations. Again, New
Testament servants and masters are not the servants and masters of
the Mosaic law, but the servants and masters of the Roman empire.
To go to the law of Moses to find out the statutes of the Roman em-
pire, is folly. Yet on this subject the difference is not great, and. so
far as humanity (in the abolition sense of it,) is concerned, it is in fa-
vor of the Roman law.
The laws of each made slaves to be property, and allowed them to
be bought and sold. See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i. pp. 25, 2G, and Lev
o/
xxv. 44, 45, 4G. The laws of each allowed prisoners taken in war
to be enslaved. Sec Gibbon as above, and Dent. xx. 10-15. The dif-
ference was this: the Roman law allowed men taken inbattleto been-
slaved—the Jewish law required the men taken in battle to be put to
death, and to enslave their wives and children. In the case of the Mi-
dianites, the mercy of enslaving some of the women was denied them
because they had enticed the Israelites into sin, and subjected them to
a heavy judgment under Balaam's counsel; and for a reason not as-
signed, the mercy of Slavery was denied to the male children in this
special case. See Numbers xxxi. 15, 16, 17.
The first letter to Timothy, while at Ephesus, if rightly under-
stood, would do much to stay the hands of men, who have more zeal
than knowledge on this subject. See again what I have written in
my first essay on this letter. In addition to what I have there
said, I would state, that the '■'■other doctrine" 1 Tim. i. 2, which Paul
says, must not be taught, I take to be a principle tantamount to this,
that Jesus Christ proposed to subordinate the civil to ecclesiastical au-
thority.
The doctrine which was '■'■according to godliness," 1 Tim. vi. 3,
I take to be a principle which subordinated the church; or Christ in
his members to civil governments, or "the powers that be." One
principle was seditious and when consummated must end in the man
of sin. The other principle was practically a quiet submission to
government, as an ordinance of Cod in the hands of men.
The Abolitionists, at Ephesus, in attempting to interfere with the
relations of Slavery, and to unsettle the rights of property, acted
upon a principle, which Statesmen must see, would, in the end, sub-
ject the whole frame-work of government to the supervision of the
church, and terminate in the man of sin, or a pretended successor of
Christ, sitting in the temple of God, and claiming a right to reign
overhand control the civil governments of the world. The Apostle,
therefore, chapter ii. 1, to render the doctrine of subordination to the
state a very prominent doctrine, and to cause the knowledge of it to
spread among all who attended their worship, orders that the very
first thing done by the church should be, that of making supplication,
prayers and intercessions, and giving God thanks for all men that
were placed in authority, by the state, for the administration of civil
government. He assigns the reason for this injunction, "that we may.
lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."
My correspondent complains, that Abolitionists at the north are not
safe when they come among us. They are much safer than the saints
of Ephesus would have been in the apostolic day, if Paul would have
allowed the seditious doctrine to be propagated rvhich our northern bre-
thren think it such a merit to preach, when it subjects them to no
risk. How can they expect, in the nature of things, to lead a quiet
and peaceable life when they come among- us? They are organized
to overthrow our sovereignty—to put our lives in peril, and to tram-
pie upon Bible principles, by which the rights of property are to be
settled.
Questions and strifes of words characterized the disputes of the
38
Abolitionists at Ephcsus about Slavery. It is amusing and painful
to see the questions and strifes of words in the piece of my corres-
pondent. Many of these questions are about our property right in
slaves. The substance of them, is this: that the present title is not
good, because the original title grew out of violence and injustice.—
But, reader, our original title was obtained in the same way which
God in his law authorized his people to obtain theirs. They obtain-
ed their slaves by purchase of those who made them captives in the
hazards of war, or by conquest with their own sword. My corres-
pondent speaks at one time as if ours were stolen in the first instance;
but, as if forgetting that, in another place he says, that so great is the
hazard attending the wars of Africa, that one life is lost for every two
that are taken captive and sold into Slavery. If this is stealing, it
has at least the merit of being more manly than some that is practis-
ed among us.
A case seems to have been preserved by the Holy Ghost as if to
rebuke this abolition doctrine about property rights. It is the case
of the king of Ammon, a heathen, on the one side, and Jeptha, who
"obtained a good report by faith," on the other. It is consoling to us
that we occupy the ground that Jeptha did—and we may well sus-
pect the correctness of the other side, because it is the ground occu-
pied by Ammon. The case is this: A heathen is seen menacing Is-
rael. Jeptha is selected by his countrymen to conduct the controver-
sy. He sends a message to his menacing neighbor, to know why he
had come out against him. He returned for answer, that it wasbecause
Israel held property to which they had no right. 1 Jeptha answered,
they had had it in possession for 300 years. Ammon replied, they
had no right to it, because it was obtained in the first instance by vio-
lence. Jeptha replied, that it was held by the same sort of a title as
that by which Ammon held his possessions—that is to say, whatever
Ammon's god Chemosh enabled him to take in war, he considered
to be his of right; and that Israel's God had assisted them to take this
property, and they considered the title to be such an one as Ammon
was bound to acknowledge.
Ammon stickled for the eternal principle of righteousness, and
contended that it had been violated in the first instance. But, reader,
in the appeal made to the sword, God vindicated Israel's title.—
Judges xi. 12-32.
And if at the present time, we take ground with Ammon about the
righto of property, I will not say how much work Ave may have to
do, nor Avho will prove the rightful owner of my correspondent's
domicil—but certain I am, that by his Ammonitish principle of set-
tling the rights of property, he will be ousted.
Reader, in looking over the printed reply of my correspondent to
his southern friend, which occupies ten columns of a large newspa-
per, to see if I had overlooked any Scripture, I find I have omitted to
notice one reference to the sacred volume, rvhich was made by him,
for the general purpose of showing that the Scriptures abound with
moral principles, and call into exercise moral feelings inconsistent
Avith Slavery. It is this—"inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the
39
least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me." The design
of the Saviour in the parable from which these words are taken in
Matt. 25th, is, to impress strongly upon the human mind, that charac-
ter, deficient in correct moral feeling, will pro ve fatal to human hopes
in a coming day.
But, reader, will you stop and ask yourself, "What is correct mo-
ral feeling?" Is it abhorence and hatred to the will and pleasure of
God? Certainly not. Then it is not abhorence and hatred of slave-
ry, which seems to be a cardinal virtue at the north. It has been the
will and pleasure of God to institute Slavery by a law of his own, in
that kingdom over which he immediately presided; and to give it his
sanction when instituted by the laws of men. The most elevated
morality is enjoined under both Testaments, upon the parties in this
relation. There is nothing in the relation inconsistent with its exer-
cise.
My reader will remember that the subject in dispute is, whether in-
voluntary and hereditary Slavery was ever lawful in the sight of
God, the Bible being judge.
1. I have shown by the Bible, that God decreed this relation he-
tween the posterity of Canaan, and the posterity of Shem and Ja-
pheth.
2. I have shown that God executed this decree by aiding the pos-
terity of Shem, (at a time when "they were holiness to the Lord,")
to enslave the posterity of Canaan in the days of Joshua.
3. I have shown that when God ratified the covenant of promise
with Abraham, he recognized Abraham as the owner of slaves he
had bought with his money of a stranger, and recorded his approba-
tion of the relation, by commanding Abraham to circumcise them.
4. I have shown that when he took Abraham's posterity by the
hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterwards, he publicly approbat-
ed the same relation, by permitting every slave they had bought with
their money to eat the passover, while he refused the same privi-
lege to their hired servants.
5. I have shown that God, as their national law-giver, ordained by
express statute, that they should buy slaves of the nations around
them, (the seven devoted nations excepted.) and that these slaves and
their increase should be a perpetual inheritance to their children.
6. I have shown that God ordained Slavery by law for their cap-
tives taken in war, while he guaranteed a successful issue to their
wars, so long as they obeyed him.
7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered his gospel to be publish-
ed through the world, the relation of master and slave existed by
law in every province and family of the Roman empire, as it had
done in the Jewish commomvealth for fifteen hundred years.
8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, that the legislative authority
which created this relation in that empire, should be obeyed and hon-
ored as an ordinance of God, as all government is declared to be.
9. I have shown that Jesus has prescribed the mutual duties of
this relation in his kingdom.
10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an attempt by his professed
40
followers to disturb this relation in the apostolic churches, Jesus or-
ders that fellowship shall be disclaimed with ail such disciples, as so-
ditious persons—whose conduct was not only dangerous to the state,
but destructive to the true character of the gospel dispensation.
This being the case, as will appear by the recorded language of
the Bible, to which we have referred you, reader, of what use is it
to argue against it from moral requirements?
They regulate the duties of this and all other lawful relations
among men—but they cannot abolish any relation, ordained or sane-
tioned of God, as is Slavery.
I would be understood as referring for proof of this summary, to
my first as well as my present essay.
When I first wrote, I did suppose the Scriptures had been exam-
inedby leading men in the opposition, and that prejudice had blinded
their eyes I am now of a different opinion. What will be fh.e ef-
feet of this discussion, I will not venture to predict, knowing-human
nature as well as I do. But men who are capable of exercising can-
dor must see, that it is not against an institution unknown to the Bi-
ble, or declared by its author to be sinful, that the north is waging
war.
Their hostility must be transferred from us to God, who establish-
ed Slavery by law in that kingdom over which he condescended to
preside; and to Jesus, who recognized it as a relation established in Is-
rael by his Father, and in the Roman government, by men, which he
bound his followers to obey and honor.
In defending the institution as one which has the sanction of our
Maker, I have done what I considered, under the peculiar circum-
stances of our common country, to be a Christian duty. I have set
down nought in malice. I have used no sophistry. I have brought to
the investigation of the subject, common sense. I have not relied on
powers of argument, learning, or ingenuity. These would neither '
put the subject into the Bible nor take it out. It is a Bible question.
I have met it fairly, and fully, according to the acknowledged princi-
pics of the Abolitionists. I have placed before my reader what is in
the Bible, to prove that Slavery has the sanction of God, and is not
sinful. I have placed before him what I suppose to be the quintes-
sence of all that can be gleaned from the Bible to disprove it.
I have made a few plain, reflections to aid the understanding of my
reader. What I have written was designed for those who reverence'
the Bible as their counsellor—who take it for rules of conduct, and
devotional sentiments.
I now commit it to God for his blessing, with a fervent desire, that ^
if I have mistaken his will in anything, he will not suffer my error to '
mislead another.
THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.