x^ ^ *< A, # ,v % \o^ -*~ «7>. V «. ^ * o , *U- x N v ♦ % "/ \/ * \$ °C *' o N A^ X % I ■ ' 0*V . ^ 0>\ \o^ ^ o x /% ^ „ * % V «£ s ^ W f| . ^ : ^c* ^o N ^9* it. 4- °^ * o> ^^ V r # "v- r # ■% \ # ^ 0° % *,# ^ \ ,# ^ *> F*^ s % ^ . '/ ,(7 (\ /f / D L< ^ AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. BY ALBERT BARNES Tip ItevScplap 1X01/1171; & dvTi wv fooi iravrav ko.1 aXXwv mX\cm\atriav m Xenoph. Anab. lib. i. c. vii. 3. PHILADELPHIA: PARRY & M C MILLA:N", SUCCESSORS TO A. HAUT, im CAREY & HART. 18 51 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by ALBERT BARNES, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Printed by T. K. &o P. G. Collins. BTEREOTTPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO., PHILADELPHIA. / z*° CONTENTS. 2i- Page Introduction 5 Chap. I. Reasons why the appeal on the subject of Slavery should be made to the Bible 19 1. The Bible is the acknowledged standard of morals in this nation 21 2. The subject of slavery is one on which the Bible has legis- lated, and there is, therefore, a propriety that we should ascertain its decisions ....... 22 3 The question whether slavery is right or wrong can only be settled by an appeal to the Scriptures . . . .23 4, Great reforms, on moral subjects, do not occur except under the influence of religious principle . . . . .25 5. Because it is by such an appeal that the advocates of slavery endeavour to defend the system 28 Chap. II. What constitutes Slavery ? 38 (1.) Not a mere condition of apprenticeship . . . .40 (2.) Not to be confounded with the condition of a minor . .41 (3.) Not merely a governmental affair . . . . .42 (4.) Not a mere relation in which legislative bodies alone are concerned 43 (5.) Does not pertain wholly to a legislature to regulate . . 43 (6.) Not a condition like that of the serfs of Russia, &c. . 44 (7.) Not the kind of property which a man has in his wife or child 46 1. Is wholly involuntary on the part of the slave . . .50 2. Is property claimed in that which belongs to him, but which he is not at liberty to resume to himself . . . .50 3. Is a right of property in all that pertains to the slave . .51 4. Is a right of property in his services without equivalent or compensation ....... 52 5. Involves the right to sell him as the master pleases . . 54 The true question stated 56 3 4 CONTENTS. Page Chap. III. Slavery in the time of the Patriarchs . . .58 Meaning of the words denoting servitude in the Scriptures . 64 Chap. IV. Slavery in Egypt 81 I. The resemblance between the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt and slavery now 83 II. Whether the interposition of God, in that case, was such as to make it proper for us to derive any conclusions as to his will in regard to slavery 96 Chap. V. The Mosaic Institutions in relation to Servitude . . 105 § 1. What the argument which is relied on is . . . .107 § 2. What the Mosaic institutions in regard to servitude were . 112 § 3. Comparison of the Mosaic institutions in relation to slavery with those existing in the United States . . . .160 Chap. VI. Hebrew Servitude in the time of the Prophets • . 203 1. The inquiry in regard to the condition of the native in- habitants of the land of Palestine 206 2. There was no foreign traffic in slaves . . . .210 3. The prophets felt themselves at liberty to animadvert upon the injustice of slavery, &c. &c. . . . . .213 Chap. VII. The relation of Christianity to Slavery • . • 229 I. There is no evidence that Christ himself ever came in con- tact with slavery 242 II. The manner in which the apostles treated the subject of slavery 249 § 1. They found it in existence when they organized churches out of the limits of Judca 249 § 2. The apostles did not openly denounce slavery as an evil, or require that those who were held in bondage should be at once emancipated .... 260 § 3. The question whether the general conduct of the apos- tles is consistent with the belief that they approved of slavery and desired its perpetuity .... 304 The case of Oncsimus, the servant of Philemon . .318 § 4. The principles laid down by the Saviour and his apos- tles, are such as are opposed to slavery, and if carried out would secure its universal abolition . . . 340 Conclusion .... ...... 376 INTRODUCTION. The subject of slavery is one in which all men have an interest, and which all have a right to discuss. It pertains to a great wrong done to our common nature, and affects great questions relating to the final triumph of the principles of justice and humanity. Wherever wrong is done to any human being, there is no improper interference if the con- viction is expressed by any other one. Wherever principles are held which have a tendency to produce or perpetuate wrong, it is a right which all men have, to examine those principles freely. The race is one great brotherhood, and every man is under obligation, as far as he has the ability, to defend those principles which will permanently promote the welfare of the human family. These obvious principles have a peculiar applicability to our own land. Our country is one. What promotes the honour of one portion of the nation, promotes the honour of the whole ; what is dishonourable, in like manner pertains to all. Pre-eminently, the subject of slavery pertains to the repub- lic, as such. There are no interests of our common liberty or religion which are not affected by it ; there is nothing which our fathers valued, and which we have been taught to prize, — no principles of justice, or humanity, or equal rights, or in- dustry, or morals, which are not more or less affected by this institution. If it be a good institution ; if it be in accordance with the divine arrangements for the welfare of society, it is the duty of every man to defend it, and to seek its extension in the world. If it be contrary to the principles of the Bible, and if its tendency be evil, he is under no less obligation to 5 6 INTRODUCTION. lift up his voice on this subject, and to do whatever he can, that truth and justice may prevail. Every citizen at the North whose situation is such, or who has secured such a reputation that his arguments will receive respectful attention, owes a duty to his Southern brethren which he should not fail to discharge, and should not die without giving utterance, in the best way he can, to his convictions on the subject of American slavery. It may be little that the testimony of any one individual can accomplish, but by the accumula- tion of numerous testimonies, and the multiplication of ap- peals and arguments, the conviction may gain ground all over the nation that slavery is wrong, and the means may be devised for its entire removal. As one having a common interest in whatever affects the welfare of my country, in the prevalence of true religion, and in opposing whatever seems to me to militate against the gospel, I desire to discharge this portion of my duty to my generation, how- ever humble my individual influence may be, and to record my convictions on a subject of so much concern to our whole land. The work which is now submitted to the public, is limited to an examination of the Scripture argument on the subject of slavery. This is done because this seems to me to be the most important department of the general argument respecting slavery, and because it better falls in with my whole studies and habits of investigation than any other question pertaining to it. There are questions in regard to the general subject — its relations to agriculture and com- merce ; its political bearings ; its influence on the means of national defence and security, and kindred topics, which I do not feel competent to examine, and which can be much better pursued by those who are familiar with the science of political economy than by one whose studies have had a different direction. To a man, however, who has spent more than twenty years in an almost exclusive study of the Bible, it may be permitted to examine the teachings of that booV INTRODUCTION. 7 on a subject so important as this is ; and whatever may be the inference as to the strength of his argument, there are none who will charge him with a departure from the proper sphere of his duty. I have been led to the discussion of the Scripture ques- tion in this manner, by the following considerations : — («) Because the institution of slavery is defended by many individuals of respectable names, and by entire bodies of men, by an appeal to the Bible. (See ch. 1.) (b) Because, although there have been some professed investigations of the Scriptures on this subject, evincing considerable re- search, submitted to the public, yet they did not any of them furnish so full and thorough an examination as seemed to me to be desirable. Believing that the spirit of the Bible is against slavery, and that all the arguments alleged in fa- vour of it from the Bible are the result of a misunderstanding of its true spirit, and that the honour of religion demands that that argument should be placed fairly before the world, I was desirous of doing what I could to make the teachings of the Bible seen and appreciated by my fellow-men. (c) Be- cause it did not appear to me to be proper to preach on it so fully as would be necessary if I had gone into a thorough examination of the subject in my pulpit instructions ; and besides this, the critical nature of many of the investigations is little fitted to the pulpit. Nor if I had deemed it proper to make this a more prominent subject of my preaching, could I have reached one of the main objects which seemed to me to be desirable. The people to whom I minister will bear me witness that I have not concealed my views from them on the subject of slavery. I have endeavoured to give it the place which it appeared to me it ought to occupy in my ministrations in the circumstances in which I am placed. But my lot is not cast in a slaveholding commu- nity. I do not know that I have an advocate of slavery in my church, or that there is one who statedly attends on my ministry who would willingly be the owner of a slave. I 8 INTRODUCTION'. confess also that it seems to me that any one topic, except the cross of Christ, however important in itself, may be intro- duced too frequently into the pulpit, and that undue pro- minence in preaching is given to this in many churches where slavery does not exist. I do not suppose that this occurs too frequently in those places where slavery does exist ; but where the pen is free, and a man may make his voice heard beyond the bounds of his own congregation, however important it may be that he should make his views decidedly understood in reference to every form of national sin, and should exhibit the fair teachings of the Bible on every subject in the proper proportions, it is better to endeavour to influence the public mind in some other method than by making any one topic a very con- stant subject of discourse in the pulpit. Slavery, though a great evil, is not the only evil in the land. Its influ- ence is indeed vast, and there is no part of the republic that is wholly free from it, but there are other bad in- fluences in our country also. I will not undertake to say how prominent a minister should make this topic in com- munities w r here slavery exists, and where he is called con- stantly to address those who sustain the relation of master and slave ; nor will I venture to say that / should be in any way likely to be more faithful in this respect if my lot were cast there, than I fear is the case with most of those who reside there, but I may be allowed to suggest that the pro- minent evils which we should assail in preaching are those which are near, and not those which are remote ; those which directly pertain to our own people, rather than those which pertain primarily to a distant community ; and those in reference to which we may expect immediate action on the part of those who hear us, in forsaking their own sins, rather than such topics as w r ill lead them to judge of others who are living in wickedness. (<7) I have been led to adopt this course because it was in this way only that I could hope in any manner to influence those whom I desired to reach. I INTRODUCTION. 9 have already said that I am not accustomed to preach to many such. But I would hope that there are not a few who may be willing to examine an argument on slavery, if proposed with candour, and if pursued with a manifest desire to know what is the teaching of the Bible. There are, I am persuaded, not a few such men in the slaveholding portions of our country. I have never indeed been at the South, but my situation has given me an opportunity of becoming acquainted with not a few Southern gentlemen, and that acquaintance has been such as to induce me to believe that there are large numbers there who would ex- amine with candour an argument proposed on this subject. Indeed, I have been led to apprehend that there are many there who, in this respect, are much in advance of many at the North, and that among these are many who exhibit a degree of candour which we do not always find in those portions of our country in which slavery does not exist. There is a hesitancy at the North in speaking of it as an evil ; a desire to apologize for it, and even to defend it as a scrip- ture institution, which by no means meets the convictions of the great body of men at the South, and for which they do not thank us. They regard slavery as an unmixed evil — as the direst calamity of their portion of the republic. They consider it to be contrary to the spirit of the Bible. They look upon it as a curse in the midst of which they were born ; as an evil entailed upon them without their consent, and which they desire above all things to get rid of. They remember with little gratitude the laws and cupidity of the mother country by which it was imposed on them, and the Northern ships by which the inhabitants of Africa were con- veyed to their shores; and they little thank the professors in Theological Seminaries, and the pastors of the churches, and the editors of papers, and tfre ecclesiastical bodies at the North, who labour to convince the world that it is not an evil, and that it is one of the designs and tendencies of Christianity to rivet the curse on them for ever. Such 10 INTRODUCTION. men ask for no defence of slavery from the North. They look for a more manly voice — for more decided tones in behalf of freedom, from those whom God has favoured with the entire blessings of liberty, and they ask of us that we will aid them to free themselves from a burden imposed on them by the joint wickedness and cupidity of our father- land and the North ; not that we will engage in the miserable business of attempting to convince the world that the South must always groan under this malediction, and that even the influence of Christianity will be only to make the evil there eternal. There have been more published defences of slavery from the Bible at the North, than there have been at the South. A Christian man can look with some respect on a defence of slavery at the South — for they who are there live in the midst of it, and it is natural for us to love and defend the institutions in the midst of which we were born; but what respect can we have for such a defence emanating from the North ? It is a subject of not unfrequent complaint, that, in the examination of this subject, the adversaries of the system endeavour to show that slavery as it exists in our own country is contrary to the Bible, instead of confining them- selves to the naked question whether slavery in the abstract is right or wrong. They are willing to admit that there are many 'abuses' in the system as it now exists; that there is much that is oppressive and unjust in the laws ; and while they regard slavery in itself as not inconsistent with the Bible, they admit that there is much in the system in our own country which they will not undertake to defend. They maintain that the controversy should be confined to the naked question whether slavery in any form is inconsistent with the Bible, and that it is unfair in this argument to make an appeal to slavery as it now exists, in determining the morality of the institution. Thus Dr. Fuller, in accordance with language often used by good men at the South, says : — " What I am writing about is slavery, but let no one suppose INTRODUCTION. 11 that I am defending all the slave laws." "In reference to the laws of South Carolina I am not called to express myself in this discussion. Suffice it to say, that most of them are virtually repealed by universal practice. The law, for ex- ample, forbidding slaves to assemble without the presence of so many white persons, is a dead letter, whenever the meet- ing is for religious purposes." "It is not of the slave laws, but of slavery, I am speaking; and the character of this, according to the eternal principles of morality, is not affected by any human enactments."* Thus also the conductors of the Princeton Biblical Repertory say: — "We have little apprehension that any one can so far mistake our object, or the purport of our remarks, as to suppose either that we regard slavery as a desirable institution, or that we approve of the slave laws of the Southern states. So far from this being the case, the extinction of slavery, and the amelioration of those laws, are as sincerely desired by us as by any of the abolitionists." "It follows necessarily, from what has been said, that all those laws which are designed to restrict the master in the discharge of the duties which flow from his relation to his slaves; which forbid his teaching them to read, or which prohibit marriage among them, or which allow of the separation of those who are married, or which render insecure the possession of their earnings, or are other- wise in conflict with the word of God, are wicked laws ; laws which do not find their justification in the admission of the right of ownership in the master, but are in direct contraven- tion of the obligations which necessarily flow from that right. If the laws of the land forbade parents to instruct their chil- dren, or permitted them to sell them to the Turks, there would be a general outcry against the atrocity of such laws ; but no man would be so absurd as to infer that having chil- dren was a great sin. Parents who complied with such laws would be great sinners, but not parents who did their duty to * Letters to Dr. WayLand, pp. 158, 159, 211. 12 INTRODUCTION. their children. In all other cases, men distinguish between the relation, whether of kings and subjects, of lords and tenants, of parents and children, and the laws just or unjust, which may be made respecting those relations. If they would make the same distinction between slaveholding and the slave laws, they would see that the condemnation of the latter does not necessarily involve the condemnation of the former as itself a crime." In reply to this, I would make the following remarks: (a) The very question — the only one that is of any practical importance to us — is, whether slavery as it exists in the United States is, or is not, in accordance with the principles and the spirit of Christianity. As an abstract matter, there might indeed be some interest attached to the inquiry whe- ther slavery, as it existed in the Roman empire in the time of the Apostles, or in Europe in the middle ages, was in accordance with the spirit of the Christian religion ; and it cannot be denied also that for us there may be some interest, and for others great interest, in the question whether slavery as it exists in India or in Brazil, is in accordance with the principles of the Bible, but neither of these are the questions which are fairly before the American people. When the inquiry respects any particular institution, it is proper to look at that institution as it exists, not as it might possibly exist:' — for that is the only question which it is of much import- ance to examine. When an inquiry pertains to the tempe- rance reformation, or to the morality of gambling, it is proper to look at these things as they actually are, for the object is to ascertain whether it is desirable to make any change in them. This is especially important if an evil is of long standing; if it is incorporated into the customs and habits of a people; if it is sustained by the laws; if it affects the wel- fare of millions of human beings. When Christianity first made war on idolatry, the immediate and most important question which came up to be examined, was not, whether gome modified form of idolatry might not be consistent with INTRODUCTION. 13 the new system of religion, or whether there might not be found in some community a form of idolatry which Chris- tianity could consistently tolerate, but whether the idolatry with which Christianity then came in actual collision was consistent with its principles. In examining the morality of the stage, shall we not examine it as it is, not as it possibly might be; shall we not look at its practical working to know whether it is a good or a bad thing? Is it not right to ask whether the principles of the Bible sanction the drama as it is ? Is there any other question respecting it that is of im- mediate practical importance ? (b) It is not improper to regard slavery as it exists in the United States as a fair illustration of the tendency of the system. It exists here in the best age of the world, and in the land most distinguished for intelligence, and for wisdom in making and administering laws. The laws pertaining to the system here may be regarded as those which long experience has shown to be necessary. It may be presumed that, amidst the prevalent intelligence of this land, the best measures have been adopted, or those which are regarded as the best, to make the system of slavery as perfect as possible. The laws in the several slave states are those which experience has shown to be necessary that the system may be perpetuated; that this kind of "property" may be as secure as possible, and that the institution may be made to contribute as much as possible to the wealth and comfort of the community in which it pre- vails. In the free states it is proper to look to the laws existing there in regard to common schools, to real and personal property, to the administration of justice, to appren- ticeship, as a fair expression of the nature of the institutions there — as showing what experience has demonstrated to be adapted to secure the best working of the system — as an exponent of the real value and character of the system at this advanced age of the world. What shall forbid us, in like manner, to regard the laws and customs which are found necessary at the South, as a fair illustration of the 2 14 INTRODUCTION. system — as an exponent of what slavery is in the best age of the world, and under the guidance of legislative wisdom and experience ? That some of the laws may be so modified as better to secure the ends in view; that some that are harsh may be repealed consistently with the best working of the system, need not be denied — just as in the farther progress of society in free states some of the modes of punish- ment may be modified with advantage ; but still, in the main, in the one case and the other, the existing laws may be regarded as what the best wisdom of the world has been able to devise to make the system as perfect as possible. I have therefore, in this Inquiry, freely appealed to the existing laws in the Southern states, not for the purpose of casting reproach on those portions of our country where slavery exists, but for the sole design of ascertaining what the system is, and of examining the question whether a system which so develops itself is in accordance with the Bible, (c) If any system of slavery is sustained by the Bible, it may be pre- sumed that that which exists in the United States, is. This is a Christian land — a land, to a degree elsewhere unknown, under the influence of the Christian religion. In what country could we hope that slavery would exist in a milder or better form than in the United States? Our institutions have grown up under the influence of Christianity. Not a few of the legislators of the land have been pious men. Not a few of the owners of slaves are pious men, and are gathered into Christian congregations under the instruction of men abundantly able to explain the doctrines of the Christian system. It could hardly be hoped that a state of society could be found, in which slavery could be better developed, and where its developments would more accord with the principles of the Bible, than in our own land. Why then is it not fair to appeal to slavery as it is, and to inquire whether the system as it now exists is in accordance with the Bible? Is it not as imprac- ticable to form an ideal system of slavery that shall be free INTRODUCTION. 15 from all objections, and that shall be in all the laws and customs by which it is sustained in entire conformity with the New Testament, as it is to perfect the drama so that it shall be wholly free from objection on the score of morals ? (d) The advocates of slavery themselves appeal to the Bible to show the propriety of slavery as it exists in the United States. When the question is agitated whether slavery is right or wrong, they almost uniformly make their appeal to the Scriptures to sustain themselves in the practice of it. The appeal which they make to the Bible is not to prove that slavery as it existed in Palestine in the time of Moses was right ; or that slavery in Greece and Rome was right ; or that slavery in India, Cuba, or Brazil, is right; but to vindicate themselves in the practice — to show that slavery in our own land cannot be regarded as wrong, and especially to show that the position taken by many that slavery is a sin, is not sustained by the Bible. When we make an attack on slavery as it exists in the United States, and endeavour to show that it is an evil — that it is morally wrong — that it ought to be abandoned — they make their appeal at once to the Bible. Why is this, but to defend slavery as it exists in this country ? If this is not the drift of the argument, why do they not at once admit that slavery here, as it actually exists, is wrong, and enter on the foreign question whether some imaginary form of slavery could be vindicated ? What can be the pertinency or propriety of such an appeal to the Bible as is almost uniformly made at the South, and fre- quently at the North, unless it is proper to bring American slavery as it is by the side of the Bible, and to inquire whe- ther, with all its developments, it is or is not in accordance with the word of God ? If the advocates of slavery would take this ground, and admit that the system of American slavery is in fact contrary to the Bible, the field of debate would be much narrowed. But as long as, in arguing this question, the appeal is made at the South to the Bible, it can- not be wrong to press the question with earnestness whether 16 INTRODUCTION. American slavery as it is is sanctioned by the word of God. The main question is not about the « abuse' of the system — for it might be a question whether there is any abuse of it pos- sible, that is, any degree of oppression and wrong which the principles of the system do not sanction — but about the thing as it is fairly developed in our country. For what is the 1 abuse' of slavery ? When you have taken away a man's liberty ; when you have made him a piece of property, and refused him the right of citizenship, and the right in his wife, his children, and himself; when he is to be wholly at the will of another, what precisely is to be understood by the ' abuse' of the system ? What law of the South can be referred to which can be distinctly shown to be an « abuse 1 of the system, in the sense that the principles of the system do not lead to it, or that it is not necessary in order to sustain it ? It may be fairly doubted whether there is a single law or custom at the South which can be shown to be a violation of the fun- damental principle of slavery ; and if this be so, then it is proper to make the appeal to the Bible to inquire whether this system of laws and customs is in accordance with the revealed will of God. So the advocates of the system make their appeal when it is attacked ; and so it is right for us. I may be permitted to add another prefatory remark. I have endeavoured to conduct the argument with candour, and with a kind and Christian spirit. In noticing the argu- ments of the advocates of slavery, and of those who have in any manner used the language of apology for it, I have not designedly given any representation of their views which would diminish their force ; nor have I been conscious of evading an argument because it seemed to present an un- answerable objection, or a material obstacle, to the views which I entertain. I have not sought to gain any thing in the argument by the use of hard names ; or by im- puting bad motives ; or by assuming that every thing con- nected with slavery is wrong ; or by the supposition that tne slaveholder is necessarily a bad man. I have aimed INTRODUCTION. 17 not needlessly to offend any one. To a candid examination of the views expressed by the advocates of slavery, no one can reasonably object ; and if I have been enabled to evince the spirit in this argument which I have desired to do, no one will have just occasion to be offended with the manner in which this discussion has been conducted. If I have betrayed any other than a kind spirit, and have used any other than kind words, it has been contrary to my design. I anticipate that in some of the views expressed in this work, I shall be found to differ from not a few of my friends ; — but it is one of the conditions of our friendship that each one is at liberty to express his opinions with en- tire freedom. I expect to be found to differ from not a few of the wise and good of the land ; — but it would be impos- sible to discuss any subject on morals in respect to which this would not be the case — and the truly wise and good are accustomed to expect that this may occur. All such will admit that the points discussed in this work are of great importance to the best interests of humanity : to me it would be a matter of high gratification if the discussion in these pages should be found to be such as to contribute something towards promoting uniformity of views and feel- ings on one of the most momentous questions which this age is called to investigate, and which enters more deeply into the permanent welfare of our country than any other. 2* AN INQUIRY INTO THE SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. CHAPTER I. Reasons why the appeal on this subject should be made to the Bible. There are perhaps no questions of more importance to our country than those which pertain to the subject of slavery. The fact that after the existence of more than half a century of freedom in this land, there should be in the midst of us now a number nearly equal in the aggregate to the white popula- tion at the time of the Declaration of Independence, is of itself most remarkable in history ; and is so anomalous, and so at variance with all our principles, that posterity will inquire for the reasons of such an occurrence. This number, already so large, is increasing in certain parts of our country in a ratio fearfully alarming, and the effects of the system are felt, and must be felt, in every portion of the Republic. There is no- thing connected with our national interests which is not affected more or less by slavery. It enters into the represen- tation in our national legislature ; it is connected with great questions of industry, literature, agriculture, commerce, and morals ; it is intimately allied with religion. The entire South is identified with it ; and by the ramifications of business, of education, of commerce, and of manufactures, there is not a town, a school-district, or a parish in the North, which is not 19 20 AN INQUIRY INTO THE directly or remotely affected by it. As a part of a great na- tion — one great confederated people — we of the North have the deepest interest in all the questions that pertain to the weal or wo, the perils or the faults of any part of our country — for we share the common honour or the dishonour of the Republic. Belonging to the same race with those who are held in bondage, we have a right, nay, we are bound to express the sympathies of brotherhood, and to " remember those who are in bonds, as bound with them." But there is a deeper inte- rest still which we have in this subject ; a more perfect right which we have to express our views in regard to it. The questions of morals and religion — of right and wrong, know no geographical limits; are bounded by no conventional lines ; are circumscribed by the windings of no river or stream, and are not designated by climate or by the course of the sun. They are questions which no existing compacts or constitutions for- bid us to examine ; and though there are rights which one part of a country has which are not to be invaded by others, yet there are no enclosures within which the questions of right and wrong may not be carried with the utmost freedom. At the same time, this subject should be approached with calmness and candour. There is no one thing pertaining to the welfare of our common country, which is beset with so many difficulties, and which is so much fitted to make men of all classes feel their need of the " wisdom which is from above." Hitherto, all " the wisdom of the wise" has been confounded in regard to it, and if there is any question that is fitted to bring the whole intellect of this nation — including that of judges, senators, counsellors, and the ministers of reli- gion, at the feet of Infinite wisdom, it is the question respect- ing African slavery. How is the evil to be arrested ? How is that unhappy people among us to be restored to freedom, and elevated to the dignity and the privileges of men ? How is a foreign race with so different a complexion, and in refer- ence to which so deep-seated prejudices and aversions exist in every part of the land, to be disposed of if they become SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 21 free ? These, and kindred inquiries, have hitherto baffled all our wisdom. It may do something towards answering them, if we can settle the grand preliminary question whether sla- very is right or wrong ; an evil per se, or only an evil inci- dental^ and by abuse ; a good institution which God designs to be perpetuated, or an institution which he regards as evil, and which he designs that the principles of his religion and his own Providential dealings shall ultimately destroy. In the examination of this subject, on which I propose now to enter, the appeal will be made wholly to the Bible, for the following reasons : 1. The Bible is the acknowledged standard of morals in this nation. To an extent wholly unknown in other lands, it is allowed here to settle all questions of right and wrong, and its decisions, when clearly ascertained, are conceded to be final. It is not indeed directly made the basis of legislation, and it cannot be denied that there are departures from its principles in many practical views which prevail, yet still it maintains an ascendency on all questions of morals which no other book can acquire, and which, by the mass of this nation, will be conceded to no other authority whatever. There are few writers on morals, and probably none of reputation, who would undertake to defend a position that was plainly against the teachings of the Bible. It may be safely affirmed that there is not a legislative body that would take the ground of openly legislating against the Bible ; there is not a judge on any bench who would pronounce a decision that would be clearly contrary to a principle laid down in the Sacred Scrip- tures ; there is not a department of government that would not admit that if the Bible has settled a question, it is final. It is to be regarded as an elementary principle in the ques- tions which come before the public mind in this nation, that on subjects in relation to which there are clear principles in that book, the intellect, and the heart, and the laws of this great people will bow reverently before that high authority. It is proper therefore to bring this question before this admit- 22 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ted standard in morals, and I shall regard ft as a safe position, that if the people of this nation were convinced that slavery is contrary to the Bible, they would at once institute a train of measures which would effectually remove the evil. We may carry a clear decision of the Bible to any class of our citizens, expecting that the authority will be respected, and that the obligation to obey it will be conceded. This sentiment is recognised at the South as well as at the North ; and by candid men there as well as elsewhere it is admitted that, if slavery is contrary to the Bible, it must be abandoned. Thus it is said in the Southern Quarterly Review, for October, 1845, p. 334, "Greatly the most important view of the subject [slavery] is the religious one. For assuredly if slavery be adjudged a sin, if it be condemned by the revealed will of God, then in Christendom it cannot continue to exist. It is the duty of every man, making the laws of God the rule of his conduct, to use all practicable efforts to abolish whatever violates them." 2. The subject of slavery is one on which the Bible has legislated, and there is, therefore, a propriety that we should ascertain its decisions. An institution of servitude of some kind early existed in the world. The most ancient and venerable men whose names the Sacred History has trans- mitted to us, were in some way connected with it. There are numerous statutes on the subject in the Mosaic code of laws. The Prophets often refer to it. Servitude had an existence in the time of the Apostles, and they often came in contact with it in their attempts to spread the Gospel. They have repeatedly alluded to it in their writings, and have laid down principles in regard to it which they evidently designed should be understood to be the settled laws of the Christian religion. In fact there is scarcely any one subject to which there is more frequent allusion in the Scriptures, in some way or other, than to slavery ; and it cannot be that a subject should so early attract the attention of the Great Legislator whose laws are there recorded, and be so often referred to, SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 23 without ever laying down any principles which may be regarded as decisive in regard to his views. It is to be pre- sumed that it is possible to ascertain whether God regards it as a good institution or an evil one ; an arrangement in society which he meant his religion should contribute to sustain and perpetuate for the good of the race, or an institution which he intended it should ultimately abolish. — There is, therefore, perfect propriety in carrying the appeal to the Bible ; and there can be few things more important than to ascertain what are the teachings of the Bible on the subject. If slavery be in accordance with the principles of the Bible, and be the best thing for society, there is then an increasingly large part of the world that is neglecting to avail itself of the advantages which might be derived from the institution, and that is fall- ing into dangerous error on a great question of morals — for there can be no doubt that there is a growing conviction in the world that the institution is not one which it is desirable to perpetuate for promoting the welfare of mankind. 3. There is little approximation to a settlement of the ques- tion whether slavery is right or wrong on other grounds than an appeal to the Scriptures. Apart from the influence of the Bible, it may be doubted whether any advance is made towards a settled and uniform judgment on this subject. Considerations of humanity or polic}^ have done something indeed to change the views of men in regard to the slave trade, and by common consent this has come to be regarded as piracy ; but it may be doubted whether these considera- tions have done any thing to affect the question about slavery itself in slaveholding communities. No progress was made towards its abolition in the Roman empire by the influence of these considerations. Slavery flourished in its extremest rigour under the highest advances made in Roman policy, and in the brightest days of Roman jurisprudence, and it was only by the application of religious principle that it was ever permanently affected in the empire. In England, it was by the power of religious principle in Clarkson, Wilberforce, and 24 AN INQUIRY INTO THE their fellow-labourers, that slavery was abolished, and not by considerations of policy or mere humanity. In our own country, it may be doubted whether any considerable pro- gress has been made in determining whether slavery is to continue or not, by mere political considerations. The convic- tions of the great mass of our fellow-citizens in the slaveholding part of our country in regard to the evils of slavery, are not more decided than were those of Jefferson, and though since his views were so firmly expressed there has been an oppor- tunity of observing the effects of the system for half a century, yet slavery has a hold on the country at large not less tena- cious than it had then. It is indeed not difficult to show the impolicy of the system. It is easy to show the superior prosperity of those portions of our country where it does not exist. It is easy to point to the exhausted soil ; the wasted fields ; the diminished population and wealth ; the compara- tive destitution of schools, colleges, and churches ; the igno- rance, degradation and corruption of morals which slavery engenders ; and it is easy to fortify all this by the splendid declamation of Southern statesmen themselves about the impoverished condition of their country,* but still almost no * The following eloquent remarks by two Southern gentlemen in Con- gress, furnish at the same time a mournful description of the effects of slavery on the condition of a country ; show the comparative influence of freedom and slavery ; and illustrate the argument which might be derived from the tendency of slavery, to show that God does not approve of the system. The first extract is from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Clowney, of South Carolina. He says : — « Look at South Carolina now, with her houses deserted and falling to decay, her once fruitful fields worn out and abandoned for want of timely improvement or skilful cultivation ; and her thousands of acres of inex- haustible lands still promising an abundant harvest to the industrious hus- bandman, lying idle and neglected. In the interior of the state where I was born, and where 1 now live, although a country possessing all the advantages of soil, climate and health, abounding in arable land, unre- claimed from the first rude state of nature, there can now be found many SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 25 advance is made towards admitting that the system is evil. Almost no efforts are put forth to remove it. No conclusions against it are derived from the disapprobation which the God of Providence is placing upon it by these results of the system, and if the inquiry is ever settled it must be by bringing it to a standard which all will admit to have autho- rity to determine great questions of morals. 4. Great reforms on moral subjects do not occur except under the influence of religious principle. Political revolu- tions, and changes of policy and of administration, do indeed occur from other causes, and secure the ends which are desired. But on subjects pertaining to right and wrong ; on those questions where the rights of an inferior and down- trodden class are concerned, we can look for little advance except from the operation of religious principle. Unless the inferior classes have power to assert their rights by arms, those rights will be conceded only by the operations of con- science, and by the principles of religion. There is no great wrong in any community which we can hope to rectify by neighbourhoods where the population is too sparse to support a common elementary school for children. Such is the deplorable condition of one of the oldest members of this Union, that dates back its settlement more than a century and a half, while other states, born as it were but yester- day, already surpass what Carolina was or ever has been in the happiest and proudest day of her prosperity." The other extract is from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Preston, of South Carolina. " No Southern man can journey (as he had lately done) through the Northern States, and witness the prosperity, the industry, the public spirit which they exhibit — the sedulous cultivation of all those arts by which life is rendered comfortable and respectable, without feelings of deep sadness and shame as he remembers his own neglected and desolate home. There, no dwelling is to be seen abandoned — not a farm unculti- vated. Every person and every thing performs a part toward the grand result ; and the whole land is covered with fertile fields, with manufac- tories, and canals, and railroads, and edifices, and towns, and cities. We of the South are mistaken in the character of these people when we think 3 26 AN INQUIRY INTO THE new considerations of policy, or by a mere revolution. The relations of slavery are not reached by political revolutions, or by changes of policy or administration. Political revolu- tions occur in a higher region, and the condition of the slave is no more affected by a mere change in the government than that of the vapours in a low, marshy vale is affected by the tempest and storm in the higher regions of the air. The storm sweeps along the Apennines, the lightnings play and the thunders utter their voice, but still the malaria of the Campagna is unaffected, and the pestilence breathes desola- tion there still. So it is with slavery. Political revolutions occur in high places, but the malaria of slavery remains settled down on the low plains of life, and not even the sur- face of the pestilential vapour is agitated by all the storms and tempests of political changes. It remains the same deadly, pervading pestilence still. Under all the forms of despotism ; in the government of an aristocracy or an oli- garchy ; under the administration of a pure democracy or the forms of a republican government, and in all the changes from one to the other, slavery remains still the same. Whe- of them only as pedlars in horn flints and bark nutmegs. Their energy and enterprise are directed to all objects, great and small, within their reach. The number of railroads and other modes of expeditious inter- communication knit the whole country into a closely compacted mass, through which the productions of commerce and of the press, the comforts of life and the means of knowledge, are universally diffused ; while the close intercourse of travel and of business makes all neighbours, and pro- motes a common interest and a common sympathy. How different the condition of these things in the South ! Here the face of the country wears the aspect of premature old age and decay. No improvement is seen going on, nothing is done for posterity. No man thinks of any thing beyond the present moment." It is true that these gentlemen attribute these effects to the tariff, but the facts in the case are the things of chief importance here. Other per- sons see different causes at work than the tariff, and the period will arrive when the true cause will be seen by all the inhabitants of the slavehold- ing states. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 27 ther the master is hurled from the throne, or rides into power on the tempest of revolution, the down-trodden slave is the same still, and it makes no difference to him whether the master wears a crown or appears in a plain republican garb ; whether Cassar is on the throne or is slain in the Senate house. Slavery, among the Romans, remained substantially the same under the Tarquins, the Consuls, and the Caesars ; when the tribunes gained the ascendency, and when the patricians crushed them to the earth. It lived in Europe when the Northern hordes poured down on the Roman empire, and when the Caliphs set up the standard of Islam in the Peninsula. It lived in all the revolutions of the middle ages — alike' when spiritual despotism swayed its sceptre over the nations, and when they began to emerge into freedom. In the British realms it has lived in the time of the Stuarts, under the Protectorate, and for a long time under the administration of the house of Hanover. With some temporary interruptions, it lived in the provinces of France, through the Revolution. It lived through our own glorious Revolution ; and the struggles which gave liberty to millions of the Anglo-Saxon race did not loosen one rivet from, the fetter of an African, nor was there a slave who was any nearer to the enjoyment of freedom after the surrender at Yorktown, than when Patrick Henry taught the notes of liberty to echo along the hills and vales of Virginia. So in all the changes of political administration in our own land, the condition of the slave remains unaffected. Alike whether Federalists or Republicans have the rule ; whether the star of the Whig or the Democrat is in the ascendant, the condition of the slave is the same. The paeans of victory when the hero of New Orleans was raised to the presidential chair, or when the hero of Tippecanoe was inaugurated, conveyed no note of joy, no intimation of a change, to the slave ; nor had he any more hope, nor was his condition any more affected when the one gave place to his successor, or the other was borne to the grave. And so it is now. In the fierce con- 28 AN INQUIRY INTO THE tests for rule in the land ; in the questions about changes of administration, there are nearly three millions of our fellow- beings who have no interest in these contests and questions, and whose condition will be affected no more, whatever the result may be, than the vapour that lies in the valley is by the changes from sunshine to storm on the summits of the Alps or the Andes. The reason of this is, that these questions of revolution do not go into these humble vales of life. It is only religion that finds its way down and effects changes there ; and the only hope, therefore, of producing revolutions on this great subject is, by bringing the principles of the Bible to bear upon it. The suggestions, therefore, in -the argument which I propose to conduct, will not refer to the political bearings of slavery, but to the naked question whether the institution is in accordance with the Bible. I should feel myself in- competent to go into a proper examination of the former ques- tion ; I may accomplish some good if I can do any thing to determine what is truth in regard to the latter. 5. The appeal will be made solely to the Bible, because it is by such an appeal that the advocates of slavery endea- vour to defend the system. In popular speeches ; in ser- mons ; in the solemn acts of Presbyteries, synods, conven- tions, conferences, and assemblies ; in formal treatises in defence of slavery, in pamphlets and reviews, the appeal is constantly made to the Sacred Scriptures. In popular illustrations of Scripture, in newspaper articles, in learned commentaries, and in the formal opinions of erudite profes- sors at the North and the South, such a melancholy general expression of opinion that the Bible lends its sanction to slavery prevails, that it has come almost to be regarded as a settled matter. A few selections from those opinions will illustrate the propriety of an appeal to the Bible, and will show that the prevailing method of interpreting the Bible on this subject is such as to call for an examination of the meaning of the Scriptures, involving whatever talent may SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 29 be found adapted to such an inquiry, and whatever patient labour such an investigation may demand. The extracts will be mere brief selections designed to exhibit the pre- vailing mode of speaking and writing on the subject among intelligent religious men. The following is the declared opinion of Rev. E. D. Sims, Professor in Randolph Macon College, a Methodist institu- tion : — "These extracts from holy writ unequivocally assert the right of property in slaves, together with the usual incidents of that right, such as the power of acquisition and disposition in various ways, according to municipal regulations. The right to buy and sell, and to transmit to children by way of inheritance, is clearly stated. The only restriction on the subject, is in reference to the market, in which slaves or bondmen were to be purchased. " Upon the whole, then, whether we consult the Jewish polity, instituted by God himself; or the uniform opinion and practice of mankind in all ages of the world ; or the injunc- tions of the New Testament and the moral law ; we are brought to the conclusion, that slavery is not immoral. " Having established the point, that the first African slaves were legally brought into bondage, the right to detain their children in bondage follows as an indispensable consequence. " Thus we see, that the slavery which exists in America was founded in right." The following sentiment was expressed by the late Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D., President of the Wesleyan University in Connecticut, a name standing deservedly high in the church. "The relation of master and slave may, and does, in many cases, exist under such circumstances, as free the master from the just charge and guilt of immorality. " 1 Cor. vii. 20 — 23. — This text seems mainly to enjoin and sanction the fitting continuance of their present social rela- tions ; the freeman was to remain free, and the slave, unless emancipation should offer, was to remain a slave. " The general rule of Christianity not only permits, but, in supposable circumstances, enjoins a continuance of the mas- ter's authority. 3« 30 AN INQUIRY INTO THE " The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation due to a present rightful authority." The following resolutions of different religious bodies of the South may be regarded, without impropriety, as express- ing the prevailing sentiment at the South in regard to the sanction which the Bible gives to slavery. HOPEWELL PRESBYTERY, SOUTH CAROLINA. 1. " Slavery has existed in the church of God from the time of Abraham to this day. Members of the church of God have held slaves, bought with their money, and had them born in their houses ; and this relation is not only recognised, but its duties are denned clearly, both in the Old and New Testaments. 2. " Emancipation is not mentioned among the duties of the master to his slave, while obedience 'even to the froward' master is enjoined upon the slave. 3. "No instance can be produced of an otherwise orderly Christian being reproved, much less excommunicated from the church, for the single act of holding domestic slaves, from the days of Abraham down to the date of the modern aboli- tionist." HARMONY PRESBYTERY, SOUTH CAROLINA. " Whereas, sundry persons in Scotland and England, and others in the north, east, and west of our country, have de- nounced slavery as obnoxious to the laws of God, some of whom have presented before the General Assembly of our church, and the Congress of the nation, memorials and petitions, with the avowed object of bringing into disgrace slaveholders, and abolishing the relation of master and slave: And whereas, from the said proceedings, and the statements, reasonings, and circumstances connected therewith, it is most manifest that those persons ' know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm ;' and with this ignorance discover a spirit of self-righteousness and exclusive sanctity, &c. ; there- fore, Resolved, 1. " That as the kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, his church, as such, has no right to abolish, alter, or affect any institution or ordinance of men, political or civil, &c. 2. "That slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to the time when the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 31 apostle Paul sent a runaway slave home to his master, Phile- mon, and wrote a Christian and paternal letter to this slave- holder, which we find still stands in the canon of the Scrip- tures — and that slavery has existed ever since the days of the apostle, and does now exist. 3. " That as the relative duties of master and slave are taught in the Scriptures, in the same manner as those of pa- rent and child, and husband and wife, the existence of slavery itself is not opposed to the will of God ; and whosoever has a conscience too tender to recognise this relation as lawful, is 'righteous overmuch,' is 'wise above what is written,' and has submitted his neck to the yoke of men, sacrificed his Christian liberty of conscience, and leaves the infallible word of God for the fancies and doctrines of men." CHARLESTON UNION PRESBYTERY. " It is a principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery, as it exists among us, is a political institution, with which ecclesiastical judicatories have not the smallest right to interfere ; and in relation to which, any such interference, especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally wrong, and fraught with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences. The sentiments which we maintain, in com- mon with Christians at the South of every denomination, are sentiments which so fully approve themselves to our con- sciences, are so identified with our solemn convictions of duty, that we should maintain them under any circumstances. "Resolved, That in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word — that it is in accord- ance with the example, or consistent with the precepts of pa- triarchs, apostles, and prophets, and that it is compatible with the most fraternal regard to the best good of those servants whom God may have committed to our charge ; and that, therefore, they who assume the contrary position, and lay it down as a fundamental principle in morals and religion, that all slaveholding is wrong, proceed upon false principles." SYNOD OF VIRGINIA. " The committee to whom were referred the resolutions, &c, have, according to order, had the same under consideration — and respectfully report, that in their judgment, the following resolutions are necessary and proper to be adopted by the Synod at the present time : 32 AN INQUIRY INTO THE "Whereas, the publications and proceedings of certain or ganized associations, commonly called anti-slavery, or abolition societies which have arisen in some parts of our land, have greatly disturbed and are still greatly disturbing the peace of the church, and of the country; and the Synod of Virginia deem it a solemn duty which they owe to themselves and to the community to declare their sentiments upon the subject; therefore, Resolved, unanimously, "That we consider the dogma fiercely promulgated by said issociations — that slavery, as it exists in our slaveholding states, is necessarily sinful, and ought to be immediately ibolished — and the conclusions which naturally follow from that dogma, as directly and palpably contrary to the plainest Principles of common sense and common humanity, and to he clearest authority of the word of God.'''' The following is from the church in Petersburg, Virginia, 16th November, 1838 : — " Whereas, the General Assembly did, in 1818, pass a law, .vhich contains provisions for slaves, irreconcilable with our civil institutions, and solemnly declaring slavery to be a sin against God — a law at once offensive and insulting to the whole Southern community ; Resolved, 1. "That, as slaveholders, we cannot consent longer to remain in connection with any church where there exists a statute conferring a right upon slaves to arraign their masters before the judicatory of the church — and that, too, for the act of selling them without their consent first had and obtained. 2. " That as the Great Head of the church has recognised the relation of master and slave, we conscientiously believe that slavery is not a sin against God, as declared by the General Assembly. 3. "That there is no tyranny more oppressive than that which is sometimes sanctioned by the operation of ecclesias- tical law." Thus also the Presbytery of Tombecbee, in a formal letter to the General Conference in Maine, expresses the following sentiments : — " In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognised, but the condition of the slave, like that of all society, is left to be regulated by the civil policy of the state, or country in which it exists. Abram, the friend of God, had SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 3.) Slavery is not a condition like that of the serfs of Russia, or like the ' villeins' of the feudal system. It has something in common with those relations, and in some SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 45 aspects may not be more oppressive or degrading, but still it is to be accurately distinguished from them. In the relation of the ' villein' of the feudal system there was an obligation of service to the lord ; the time, and talent, and skill of the vassal were his ; the villein had none of the rights of a free- man, implied in the power of making laws, eligibility to office, or the administration of justice ; and there was the possibility of being transferred 'with the soil from one master to another. The same is substantially true of the condition of the serf. But the « villein' was attached to the glebe, as the serf now is. He was a. fixture on the estate, and he could not be removed. There was no power of alienating him without alienating the land, his family, his neighbours, and whatever comforts he had been used to. There was no power of separating hus- band and wife, and parents and children. He was not bought and sold as an individual, and he was not regarded in the light of property. He was, in some respects, recognised as a man, and even in his lowest condition had the germs of certain rights, which have grown into the condition of the now middle and respectable classes in Europe. " The villein has become the independent farmer." " The feudal system has in a great measure been outgrown in all the European states. The third estate, formerly hardly recognised as hav- ing an existence, is become the controlling power in most of those ancient communities."* But there is no such germ of freedom and of elevation in slavery. There is nothing which, being cultivated and expanded, will grow into free- dom. There was nothing in slavery, as understood by the Romans, and there is nothing in it as it exists in this country, which has such a principle of liberty, advancement, and eleva- tion, that the slave, by any natural progress, can ever emerge into liberty, or ever take such a place that there shall be recognised in him the rights of a man; and though there is in the system, in many respects, a strong resemblance to the * See Biblical Repertory, 1836, pp. 291, 300. 48 AN INQUIRY INTO THE condition of a feudal 'villein,' or a Russian serf, yet these conditions are never confounded. All men know that slavery is a different thing. Its peculiarity is not described by a reference to the condition of society in the dark ages, or under the dominion of the Autocrat of the North. (7.) Slavery is not the kind of property which a man has in his wife or child.* There may be something in com- mon in these relations, but, except in arguments in defence of slavery, they are never confounded. In the condition of a wife and child there is indeed a want of a right of suffrage and of eligibility to office ; and, in the case of the child, of a right to the avails of his labour, as in that of a slave. But (l.)the relation of parent and child is a natural relation, that of master and slave is not ; (2.) the relation of husband and wife is voluntary, that of master and slave is not ; (3.) in these relations wives and children are treated in all respects as human beings, slaves are not ; (4.) in these relations there is no right of property in any such sense as that in which the word property is commonly used : — there is no right of sale ; there is no right to sunder the relation for the mere sake of gain. It is true that some of these things have oc- curred in certain times and places, and that the power of purchase or sale has been understood to be connected with the relation of husband and wife, and that even parents have claimed this power over their children. But this has always been understood as an abuse of power, and as not fairly implied in the relation. The common sense of man- kind has revolted at it ; and whatever usurped power there may have been at any time, the instinctive feeling of man- kind is that the 'property' which a man has in his wife or child is essentially different from that which the master has in his slave. If none of these things constitute slavery, the question * Comp. Bib. Repertory, 1836, p. 293. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 47 then arises, what is it ? What is the essential element of the system ? What distinguishes this from all other relations ? These questions can now be answered by the single reply, that it is property in a human being. The master owns the slave. He has bought him, and he has a right to use him, or to sell him. He can command his services against his own will ; he can avail himself of the fruit of his toil and skill ; he can sell him or other- wise alienate him as he pleases. He regards him as his own property in the same sense as he regards any thing else as his property. He is not an apprentice, a companion, an equal, or a voluntary servant ; he is a part of his estate, and subject substantially to the same laws as those which regulate property in any thing else. He is his property in the sense that either by himself, or by one from whom he has inherited him, the slave has been taken by force and appropriated to the use of another man — substantially in the same way in which property was first acquired by cultivating a piece of land selected from the great common of the world, or fruit gathered from that which was before common ; or he has become his pro- perty in the sense that an equivalent has been paid for him, or from the fact that the children of slaves become property in the same way as the offspring of cattle do. He is his property in the sense that the slave himself has no right to the employment of his time and limbs and skill for his own advantage, and no right to the avails of his own labour. He is his property in the sense that the master claims the right to himself of all that the slave can produce by his physical strength, or by any tact or skill which he may have in any department of labour. He is his property in the sense that he may part with his services to any one on such terms as he, and not the slave, shall choose ; that he may sell him for any price in money, or barter him for any commodity, to any person that he chooses ; and that he may make a testa- 48 AN INQUIRY INTO THE mentary disposition of him as he may of his house, his land, his books, his cane, or his horse. This was the doctrine of the Roman law. "The master had the entire right of property in the slave, and could do just as he pleased with his person and life, his powers and his earnings." Digesta I. 19, 32. Quod attinet ad jus civile, servi pro nullis habentur ; non tamen et jure naturali, quia, quod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines aequales sunt. IV. 5, 3. Quia servile caput (civil condition of a slave) nullum jus habet, ideo nee minui potest.* The same was true in Greece. " In Greece the slave was con- sidered Ifi-^vxov opyavov or a xtijua, a mere instrument en- dowed with life, a possession. 1 ^ It is true that this kind of property differs in some respects from other kinds — as property in a horse' differs in some respects from property in a tree or a mine. Property is to be regarded, in some aspects, according to the nature of the thing which is held, and will be treated in some respects according to its nature. The ownership which a man has in a marble quarry, or in a silver mine, or in a field or forest, is different in some respects from that which he has in a horse or a dog ; that which he has in the latter is in some respects different from that which he can have in a man. It will secure a different kind of treatment, and there are still common laws, though these are held as property, which a man is not at liberty to disregard. It is observed, correctly in the main, by the author of the article in the Biblical Repertory already referred to (p. 203), that a man "has no more right to use a brute as a log of wood, in virtue of the right of property, than he has to use a man as a brute. There are general principles of rectitude obligatory on all men, which require them to treat all the creatures of God, ac- * See Prof. W. A. Becker, in Bibliotheca Sacra, ii. p. 571. f Ibid. p. 572. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 49 cording to the nature which he has given them. The man who should burn his horse because he was his pro- perty, would find no justification in that plea either be- fore God or man. When therefore it is said that one man is the property of another, it can only mean that the one has the right to use the other as a man, but not as a brute or a thing. He has no right to treat him as he may lawfully treat his ox or a tree." — Still, the essential thing — the right of property is the same. It is ownership of the quarry, the mine, the forest, the field, the ox, the man ; — and though the treatment must in pro- per respects correspond to their nature, and though the community may feel that if a man should 'burn' his horse he would violate great laws of nature, still this does not affect the question whether he owns the horse and has a right to regard him as property. The same is true of the ownership in man. There are certain things which it is admitted the owner has no right to do, which he might do to some other species of property. He may no more ' burn' his slave than he may his ' horse ;' he might not treat a slave in all respects as he might his horse, any more than he might treat his horse as he would an inanimate object, and still the property claimed in the one may be as distinct and exclusive as in the other. — He may employ him as he pleases ; he may make use of all that he can produce by his labour ; he may sell him, or may dispose of him, as he chooses, in his will. The slave is never regarded as a human being, with the rights of a human being, but he is re- garded as property made more valuable because he is a human being — just as the horse is regarded as property made valuable because he is a horse. As such the slave is to be treated as a man, not with respect to any duties or relations which he owes as a citizen, a father, a son, an heir of salvation, but only with reference to the ques- tion, how he can be rendered more valuable as a slave. 5 50 AN INQUIRY INTO THE His nature is consulted in his treatment, in distinction from that of the horse, only as that of the horse is consulted in distinction from the inanimate objects of property. This claim of property in the slave always involves the following things : — 1. It is wholly involuntary on the part of the slave. He has never conceded any such right over himself to others, and no one has done it who had any authority to do it. He has not made a voluntary surrender of him- self to his master to be regarded as his ; to be owned by him, and to yield to him the avails of his labour, and be sold by him when and where he pleases. And no one has done this who had a right to do it. The power ori- ginally asserted over him or his ancestors, was a power of usurpation or robbery ; was against his consent or theirs ; and was successfully asserted only because he had not the means of resistance. It was that which no parent had the prerogative of yielding, and which in most instances no parent pretended to yield. The whole system is involun- tary on his part, and the property which is claimed in his person, his services, his wife, his children, was never the result of compact or voluntary agreement. 2. It is property claimed in that which naturally belongs to him, but which he is not at liberty to resume to him- self. He is not at liberty to claim a property in his own time, person, family, bodily vigour, talent, or skill. There may be instances — as we are often told there are in slave- holding communities, and as we have no reason to doubt there are — in which, from kind treatment or other causes, the slave would prefer to remain with his master than to take the chances of freedom. He may see great and certain evils which would result if he were thrown upon his own re- sources, if, in the existing state of society, he should un- dertake to provide for himself and his family. Or, slavery may have so effectually accomplished its work, by destroying all that is noble in his nature, that he prefers to be a slave SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 51 to being a freeman. But while this may be true, he is not at liberty to do otherwise if he should choose, without the consent of his master. He has no independent volition in the case. A horse, if he had a choice, might prefer to remain the property of his owner by whom he was well taken care of, but he would not be at liberty to do otherwise if he chose. 3. There is a right of property in all that pertains to the slave. It is a right extending, (1.) to his time. The slave can claim none as his own. The hours when he shall begin his work, and when he shall close it, his master claims the right of determining, and he has no choice in the case. (2.) To his service. "When this idea of property comes to be analyzed, it is found to be nothing more than a claim of service either for life or for a term of years. This claim is transferable, and is of the nature of property, and is con- sequently liable for the debts of the owner, and subject to his disposal by will or otherwise."* There is "something more" than this in the claim of property claimed in the slave, but this concession shows, what indeed no one would deny, that the master has a claim of * service' in the slave, which is of the nature of transferable -property. (3.) To his bodily strength and power of labour. The master asserts a claim over these, and the price of the slave, that is, the value of the property in him, is estimated in accordance with these things. Whatever the slave has of youth, physical power, vigour of constitution, capacity for enduring labour, enters into the notion of the property in him — just as much as the metal, speed, bottom, and pedigree of the horse does of his value. (4.) To his talent or skill. If he has a tact for labour ; if he has skill in any of the mechanic arts ; if he has genius so that he can facilitate or abridge toil by useful inventions, it is all the property of the master. He is the more valuable on that account, and his superior worth is often published, when he is exposed to sale, if he * Bib. Repertory, pp. 293, 294. 52 AN INQUIRY INTO THE is a skilful and accomplished house-servant, or if he is en- dowed with mechanical talent. He has no right to avail himself of any skill which he may have in making a shoe, a carriage, or a machine. He would have no right to take out a patent for the most useful invention ; he would have no right to enter a copyright for a book. Such a thing is never contemplated in the laws regulating slavery, and if a slave had any such endowment it would be wholly at the disposal of the master. 4. The master claims this right of property in his services without equivalent or compensation. He does not pretend to have given him any valuable consideration for the surrender of his freedom, and he furnishes him no equivalent for his labour. It is in vain to say that the food, the raiment, and the cottage of the slave are any equivalent for his services, or that the deficiency of these is made up by the implied pledge of the master that he will furnish him with medicine when he is sick, and that he will take care of him when he is old. None of these things are such an equivalent for his services that a freeman would be willing to contract for them by selling himself into slavery ; they are not what a freeman can secure by voluntary labour. Besides, slavery is of neces- sity a system of unrequited toil. The master expects to make something by the slave ; that is, he expects to secure more from the labour of the slave than he returns to him. The whole arrangement of the system contemplates such a profit in slave labour, or such an increase of property from it over and above what the slave himself receives, as to meet the following expenses : — First, the interest on the capital paid for the slave — paid, not to him, but to the one from whom he is purchased. Secondly, all the diminution of the worth of the property from advancing age, from the proba- bilities of sickness, and the risk of death. This is no incon- siderable sum. If a man at twenty-five years of age costs five hundred dollars, his value is constantly diminishing by advancing age, and there is a constant risk of a total loss of SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 53 the property; and to make a return to the master for this diminution and the risk of the total loss, there must be in the system a calculation to receive from the labour rendered so much over and above what the slave himself receives, as to meet the chances of this loss and this regular decrease in his value. Thirdly, there must be, according to the sys- tem, enough received from the labour of slaves over and above what they receive, to support the master and his family, so far as any advantage is derived from slave labour, in idleness, and usually in luxury — for the system always has been, and essentially is, one of luxury. It is not designed in the system that the master shall labour. He buys his slaves in order that he and his family may not be under the necessity of earning any thing. The consequence is, that there is contemplated in the system the receipt from the labour of the slave, over and above what he himself receives, enough to maintain the master himself and his family in indolence. It follows from this, that the amount of the unrequited labour of the slave on the whole is that which is necessary to meet the interest on the capital invested in him ; that which is necessary to meet the regular diminution of his own value from advancing age and the risk of death ; and that part of his individual labour which will be necessary to support his master.* Of course, the amount involved in this latter item will be regulated somewhat by the number of slaves. Each slave is to do his part. The system is to support all the masters and their families in indolence, or, at least so far as the system avails, it is to release him and them from the necessity of as much labour as is gained from the unrequited labour of the slave This differs wholly from a free system, where the labourer receives what to him is a full compensation for his work. His employer has invested no capital in the person of the labourer ; makes no calculation about the diminution of his value or risk from sickness ; and does not contemplate being supported in indolence on unrequited labour. He gives 5* 54 AN INQUIRY INTO THE what the labourer considers a full equivalent for his work ; he receives what is to him of equal value with the wages. (5.) This possession of property in the slave involves the right to sell him as the master pleases. It is not a right merely to dispose of his service for a term of years or for life ; it is a right to sell the slave himself. He sets the slave up at auction — not his services ; he disposes of the slave, in his will, by name — not of his unexpired term of service. He disposes of his person, his skill, his physical strength — all that he has that can be of value to himself or to another. He retains nothing to himself; he reserves no rights for the slave. This disposal of property is in all respects as absolute and entire as it is where a man sells a farm, a mill, or a horse. He may, moreover, sell or alienate him in any way he pleases, whether by a private bargain, by auction, or by a testamentary disposition — as is the case in any other property. He may sell him by sundering any ties which bind him to others ; regardless of any remonstrances of father or mother ; and irrespective of any obligations which the slave may feel himself under to a wife, a sister, or a child. " This claim," says the Biblical Repertory, "is transferable, and is conse- quently liable for the debts of the owner, and subject to his disposal by will or otherwise." This is the common view of slavery the world over, and on the subject of selling him the master feels himself under no more restrictions than he does in selling his dromedary or ox. That these are correct views of the nature of slavery, will be apparent from a brief reference to some of the existing laws on the subject, showing in what light slaves are regarded in the statutes of the slaveholding states in our country. Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws respecting Slavery," says, " The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among things — obtains as undoubted law in all these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina says, " Slaves shall be claimed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law, to be chattels SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 55 personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever."* The Louisi- ana code says, " A slave is one who is in the power of the master to whom he belongs ; the master may sell him, dis- pose of his person, his industry, and his labour ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master."! So the Hon. J. K. Paulding, in his work on slavery, says, " Being property, slaves may be bought and sold by persons capable of buying and selling other property. They are held to be personal estate,;}; and as such may be levied upon and sold for the debts of the owner."§ This claim of property is not only asserted in all the books that treat of slavery, and in all the laws that regulate the system, but enters into the every-day view of the subject, and the practical working of the system. As a matter of fact slaves are regarded and treated as property, or as "chattels." They are bought or are inherited as such. They are advertised for sale by auction, or otherwise, as such. They are disposed of by will as such ; they may be seized as such, by a sheriff and sold for the payment of debts. And when a slave is so disposed of, it is in the same way as any other property. There are no reserved rights to him as a man. There is no specification in the advertise- ment or the instrument of sale, that he differs from any other property ; there is no recognition of the fact that in any respect he is a human being, or is to be treated as such. There is no condition in the sale that any of his rights as a man, as a father, a brother, or a citizen, shall be regarded. It is not specified or implied that he shall exercise any of the privileges of a freeman ; that he may himself ever hold pro- perty ; that he shall be taught to read ; that the cultivation * Brev. Dig. 229. f Civ. Code, art. 35. * Rev. Code, vol. i, p. 431, s. 47. § P. 141. See also, p. 145. 56 AN INQUIRY INTO THE of his intellect shall be regarded ; that he shall have the liberty of worshipping God. None of his rights or feelings as a son, a husband, or a father are consulted in the conditions of the sale, but his new master, like his old one, may sunder any one of these relations as soon as he pleases, and for any cause that he chooses. THE TRUE QUESTION STATED. The true question now is, whether this is a good insti- tution, and one which God designed to commend and per- petuate. Is it an institution for the maintenance of which He has made arrangements in his word, and which has his sanction ? Is it a system in accordance with the spirit of the religion which he has revealed, and which that religion is intended to keep up in the world ? Is it such an arrange- ment in society that the fair influence of that religion will tend to perpetuate it, as it will the relations of husband and wife, and of parent and child ? Or is it an institution which God regards as undesirable and evil in its nature and ten- dency, and which he intends to have removed from the world ? Would the fair application of the principles of his religion perpetuate it on the earth, or remove it as an evil thing ? This is the fair question now before us. According to the references made to the Scriptures, by most of the writers already alluded to, they would regard the former of these opinions as the true one — that slavery has the sanc- tion of God ; that he has from the beginning fostered and patronised the institution ; that he legislates for its continu- ance, as he does for the relation of parent and child ; and that the principles of his religion do not conflict with its perpetuity on the earth. Is this the true position to be taken on the subject ? In this view of the real question, it is not necessary to agitate the inquiry whether slavery is a malum in se. That question is one that has usually given rise only to perplexing logomachies, and that has contributed little to determine the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 57 true issue in the inquiry. If it shall appear, in the course of this discussion, that slavery is an institution which God has never originated by positive enactment ; that his legislation has tended from the beginning to mitigate its evils ; that he has by his Providential dealings frowned upon it ; that he has asserted great principles in his word, which cannot be carried out without destroying the system ; that he has enjoined on man, in the various relations of life, certain duties, of which slavery prevents the performance ; that slavery engenders inevitably certain bad passions, which are wholly contrary to religion ; and that it is the tendency and the design of the Christian religion, when fairly applied, to abolish the system, it will be apparent that slavery is a moral wrong. God does not legislate against any thing that is good. His own Providential dealings are not against that which is desirable in society. His Gospel is not designed to abolish any good institution ; and if it shall appear tnat Christianity has such provisions as are designed to remove slavery, the divine view in relation to it will be clear. To show what is that view, is the sole design of this discussion. 58 AN INQUIRY INTO THE CHAPTER III. Slavery in the time of the Patriarchs. In entering directly upon the question whether slavery, as before defined, is in accordance with the will of God, and is an institution which he designs should be perpetuated for the good of society, like the other relations of life contributing to the perfection of a community, it is natural to inquire whether any thing can be determined on this question from the practice of the patriarchs. The true inquiry here is, whether the patriarchs were holders of slaves in such a sense that it can be properly inferred that God regards slavery as a good and desirable institution. The support which the advocates of slavery derive from ♦he conduct of the patriarchs, has already been referred to. The reader will recall the quotations from the Presbyteries of Hopewell, Harmony, Charleston Union, and Tombecbee ; from the Biblical Repertory, and Paulding's work on slavery. The example of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is adduced as decisive on the point. Thus, as an instance, the Presbytery of Tombecbee, in their correspondence with the General Conference of Maine,* say, " On the subject of slavery we are willing to be guided by the Bible, the unerr- ing word of truth." "In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognised — Abraham, the friend of God, had slaves born in his house, and bought with his money. Isaac pos- sessed slaves, as is evident from Gen. xxvi. 14. Jacob held slaves, without the least remorse of conscience." So also Dr. Fullert appeals with the utmost confidence to the fact that God indulged Abraham in the practice of slavery, in proof that * Pp. 12, 13. f Letters to Dr. Way land, pp. 175, 176. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 59 it is not wrong. " He was ' the friend of God,' and walked with God in the closest and most endearing intercourse ; nor can any thing- be more exquisitely touching than those words, 1 Shall I. hide from Abraham that thing which I do V It is the language of a friend, who feels that concealment would wrong the confidential intimacy existing. The love of this venerable servant of God, in his promptness to immolate his son, has been the theme of apostles and preachers for ages ; and such was his faith, that all who believe are called 'the children of faithful Abraham.' This Abraham, you admit, held slaves. Who is surprised that Whitefield, with this single fact before him, could not believe slavery to be a sin ? Yet, if your definition of slavery be correct, holy Abraham lived all his life in the commission of one of the most aggra- vated crimes against God and man which can be conceived. His life was spent in outraging the rights of hundreds of human beings, as moral, intellectual, immortal, fallen crea- tures ; and in violating their relations as parents and children, and husbands and wives. And God not only connived at this appalling iniquity, but, in the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, expressly mentions it, and confirms the patriarch in it ; speaking of those ' bought with his money,' and requiring him to circumcise them. Why, at the very first blush, every Christian will cry out against this state- ment. To this, however, you must come, or yield your position ; and this is only the first utterly incredible and monstrous corollary involved in the assertion that slavery is essentially and always « a sin of appalling magnitude.' " The question now is, whether the facts stated in the Bible, in reference to the conduct of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, furnish an evidence that God means to sanction slavery, and regards it as an institution which he intends should be per- petuated. It is whether one who is a slaveholder in the United States, in the manner in which slavery exists here, is justified in it by the example of the patriarchs. Now those who make their appeal to the patriarchs, have 60 AN INQUIRY INTO THE not informed us in what the strength of the argument lies, and what are precisely the considerations on which they rest such an appeal. It is possible, therefore, that injustice may be done them in an attempt to state what they would consider the true force of the argument. So far as I can see, however, the only bearing which the example of the patriarchs can have on the question, must consist in the following consider- ations : 1. That, in the cases referred to, it was truly and properly slavery which was sanctioned by their example. Whatever is essential to slavery ; whatever constitutes its peculiarity, and distinguishes it from every other species of servitude, it must be assumed in the argument, existed under the patri- archs. In an attempt to prove that slavery is sanctioned by their example, it is indispensable to show that the slavery which existed then was essentially the same as that which it is proposed to vindicate by it. It is indispensable to make out that whatever is proposed to be vindicated by the example, should be found in the example. If, therefore, the essential thing in slavery, as has been already shown, be the right of property, and it be proposed to vindicate or justify this, it is essential to show that this idea existed in the kind of servi- tude recognised among the patriarchs. It would not throw any light on the question, if the condition referred to was one of voluntary servitude ; or if it were that of a serf or 'villein/ like the relation in Russia or under the feudal system ; it must involve the essential thing in slavery as it exists now. It is necessarily supposed, therefore, in this appeal to the patriarchs, that the idea of property in a human being existed in those cases, or the argument has no force or pertinency. And that this is supposed, is apparent from the argument relied on by the Presbytery of Tombecbee: "Abram, the friend of God, had slaves bought with money." 2. That the patriarchs were good men, ' the friends of God,' and that we are safe and right in following the exam- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 61 pie of such men. The example of a patriarch, it is implied in the argument, must be decisive. Whatever he did, cannot be regarded as morally wrong, or a malum in se, and cannot be improper to be imitated in any relation of society, and at any period of the world. Unless this is implied in the appeal to the patriarchs, the argument has no force. For if it be admitted that they did things which would not be proper now ; that they indulged in any thing which is to be regard- ed as a malum in se, or that they entertained views which are not adapted to promote the best interests of society, and which God does not design to have perpetuated, it is possible that their conduct in regard to servitude may belong to this class. The argument, therefore, supposes that what they habitually did, is not to be regarded as a malum in se, or should not be called in question as morally wrong. 3. The argument must involve this idea also, that as God permitted it, and as he caused their conduct to be recorded without any expression of disapprobation, it must have been therefore right. It is not pretended that he commanded the purchase of slaves in the time of the patriarchs, or that he commended them for what they did. The argument is based on his silence as to any expression of disapprobation, and on his causing the record to be made. The strength of this argument, then, must be, that whatever God permits among good men at any time, without a decided expression of disapprobation ; whatever he causes to be recorded as a matter of historical fact, must be regarded as authorizing the same thing in others, and as a proof that he considers it to be adapted to secure the best interests of society. I can conceive of no other grounds than these on which an argument in favour of slavery can be derived from the exam- ple of the patriarchs. It is proposed now to inquire whether this argument is valid. Does it demonstrate what it is adduced to prove, that slavery is a good and desirable insti- tution ; that it meets with the approbation of God, and is an institution which he designs should be perpetuated ; and that 6 62 AN INQUIRY INTO THE men are justified in holding human beings as property now? In reply to these questions, I shall consider what were the facts in the case ; and then what is the real value of the argument. (1.) The kind of servitude referred to in the cases of the patriarchs was doubtless common at that time. We have, indeed, no historical documents to prove this, for we have no other records which go back to so remote ages. But there are some circumstances, which, in the absence of historical documents, render this probable. One is, that in the age of Job, who probably lived in the time of the patriarchs, the same kind of servitude is mentioned which appears to have prevailed in the days of Abraham. Thus in chap. i. 3, it is said of Job, that " he had a very great household" ("T^Jf, abuddd,) where the very word is used which, in various forms, is uniformly employed to denote servitude.* This does not determine, indeed, that those referred to were slaves; but it shows that the kind of servitude mentioned in the account of the patriarchs, prevailed in the land of Uz, that is, probably, in Arabia Deserta, and in the country adjacent to Chaldea. (2.) A second circumstance is, that we have mention of an historical fact pertaining to those times, which shows that the buying and selling of men was common. Thus when it was proposed by the brethren of Joseph to sell him to the travel- ing Ishmaelites who were engaged in commerce, they made no more scruple about buying him, than they would have done any thing that had been offfred for sale ; and the same thing occurred when he was exposed for sale by them in the Egyptian market. He was readily bought by Potiphar, Gen. xxxvii. 27, 2S; xxxix. 1. This whole transaction looks as if the buying and selling of men was then a common thing, and was as allowable as any other species of traffic. (3.) A third circumstance is, that servants appear to have been in the market, or to have been held by those who dwelt *Gen. xxvi. 14; xxx.26; xii. 16; xvii. 23; xxxix. 17, et ah SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 63 in the vicinity of Abraham, for it is said that he had "ser- vants bought with money," Gen. xvii. 12. This would seem to show that they were held for sale by others, that is, that servitude of this kind prevailed there. (4.) The fourth circumstance is, that as far back as we can trace the history of nations, we find the existence of slavery in some form. We find it represented in the historical paint- ings of Egypt, where nothing is more common than drawings of slaves or captives. We find it in the earliest stages of the history of Greece and Rome. We find it in the practice of conquerors, who were accustomed to regard the captives taken in war as the property of the captors, and who were supposed to have a right to kill them, to sell them, or to retain them as slaves at their pleasure. We find it in the earliest laws, and in the claims set up under those laws to certain persons held to servitude. Those laws are but the expressions of the early opinions on the subject, and an exponent of the prevailing practice. Thus these causes are assigned by Justinian as laying a foundation for slavery, or as making the enslaving of others proper. Servi aut fiunt, aut nascunfur: Jiunt jure gentium, aut jure civili: nas- cuntur ex ancillis nostris.* According to this, slaves are said to become such in three ways : by birth, where the mo- ther was a slave ; by captivity in war ; and by the voluntary sale of himself as a slave by a freeman of the age of twenty. Blackstone examines these causes of slavery, and shows them all to rest on uncertain foundations; and he insists that a state of slavery is repugnant to reason, and contrary to natural law.t The foundation of this claim was undoubtedly wrong; but the fact that it was made, shows the state of feeling in the earliest times, and may be regarded as proof that slavery prevailed in the remotest periods of the world. Whatever may be said, therefore, about the state of servitude in the * Just. 1, 3, 4. j- Comm. i. 423, 424. Comp. Kent's Commentaries on American Law, i. 427, seq. 64 AN INQUIRY INTO THE time of the patriarchs, and whatever conclusions may be drawn from the fact that they held slaves, it cannot be held that they originated the system. It was a system which they doubtless found in existence, and they acted only in accordance with the customs of all the surrounding nations. In order now adequately to understand what was the real character of the servitude which existed among the patri- archs, on which so much reliance is placed by those who attempt to sustain the system by an appeal to the Bible, it is of the utmost importance to understand what is the exact sense of the word used to designate this relation in the Scriptures. If the word rendered servant in the Old Testa- ment necessarily means slaves in the modern sense of the term, it will do something to settle the question whether slavery as it now exists is in accordance with the will of God. It must be assumed by those who bring the example of the patriarchs in support of slavery, that the word had the same signification then which it has now ; for if the word, as used in their times, meant an essentially different thing from what it does now, it is obvious that its use furnishes no argument in support of slavery. The Greeks, accustomed to exact distinction^, and favoured with a language so refined as to distinguish the nicest shades of thought, discriminated accurately between various kinds of servitude, and designated those relations in a way which is not common in other languages. To serve in general, without reference to the manner in which the obligation to service originated, whether by purchase, by contract, by being made a captive in war, as a subject, a dependent, they ex- pressed by the word Sov^rw — douleuo ; to serve as a soldier for reward, or to serve the gods, they expressed by the word xarpfvw — latreuo, (Passow); to serve as a domestic or house- hold servant, under whatever manner the obligation arose, they expressed by the word oLxtttvu — oiketeuo ; to serve in the capacity of a hired man, or for pay in any capacity, they ex- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 65 pressed by the word fus^oa — misthoo ; to serve in the capa- city of an attendant or waiter, especially at a door, they expressed by the word v7taxovu — hypakoud, (Passow). The proper word to denote a slave, with reference to the master's right of property in him, and without regard to the relations and offices in which he was employed, was not 8oi%o$ — dou- los, but avSpdrtodov — andrapodon, defined by Passow, Sklav, .Knecht, bes. der durch Kriegsgefangenschaft in Leibeigen- schaft Gerathne — 'a slave, servant, especially one who as a prisoner of war is reduced to bondage.'* Hence the Greeks used the term dov%o$ — doulos, to express servitude in the most general form, whatever might be the method by which the obligation to service originated. They used the term avhpdTtohov — andrapodon, to denote a slave regarded as pro- perty ; the term 6>^s — dmos, also, to denote a slave as one conquered, or as primarily made by capture in war ; t the terms oixsvs — oikeus, X oixitr^ — oiketes, to denote a household servant ; the term vn-^xoos — hypekoos, to denote an attendant, a waiter ; the term /aU^ios — misthios, to denote a hired man, or a labourer in the employ of another ; and the word TuWpts — latris, to denote one who served for pay, as a soldier. That Sofaos — doulos might be a slave, and that the word is most commonly applied to slaves in the classic writers, and frequently in the New Testament, no one can doubt ; but its mere use in any case does not of necessity denote the relation sustained, or make it proper to infer that he to whom it is applied was bought with money, or held as property, or even in any way regarded as a slave. It might be true also that the various terms doulos, dmos, andrapodon, oiketes, and possibly hypekoos, might all be applied to persons who had been obtained in the same way — either by purchase, or by being made prisoners in war ; but these terms, except those of * Comp. Prof. W. A. Becker, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ii. p. 569. j-Od. i. 398; lb. xix. 9, 333, (Crushes, Lex.) 4 Od. xiv. 4, iv. 245. 6* 66 AN INQUIRY INTO THE andrapodon and dmos, would not designate the origin of the relation, or the nature of the tenure by which the servant was bound. The words used in our language — servant, slave, waiter, hired man, though not marking the relations with quite as much accuracy as the Greek words, will indicate somewhat the nature of the distinctions. It may be proper to add, that the word doulos, as remarked above, is frequently used in the New Testament, being found one hundred and twenty-two times ;* the word oixktr^ — oiketes, occurs four times, in three places rendered servant — and in one house- hold servant: Luke xvi. 13, "No servant can serve two masters ;" Acts x. 7, " He called two of his household ser- vants;" Rom. xiv. 4, " That judgest another man's servant;" and 1 Pet. ii. 18, " Servants, be subject to your masters ;" the word nio&os — misthios, occurs in Luke xv. 17, 19, in both places rendered hired servants, — " How many hired servants of my father's," — " Make me as one of thy hired servants ;" the word vrttxao^ — hypekoos, occurs in Acts vii. 39, 2 Cor. ii. 9, Phil. ii. 8, in each case rendered obedient ; the word katpis — latris, does not occur, though the word karpt-ta — latreia, service, and xarpsvw — latreuo, to serve, fre- quently occur, applied in all cases to religious service ; and * "According to Greenfield's Schmidius, the word doulos occurs 122 times in the New Testament. Of these, 19 are parallel ; and the remain- ing 103 may be classed as follows: 1 . Applied to servants of men ; [1] Of Jewish masters, 47 times. [2] Of masters generally without distinction, 18 " [3] Of a Gentile master, [Mat. viii. 9,] 1 " [4] To Christians as servants of each other, [Mat. xx.27, 2 Cor. iv. 5,] 2 « 2. To the servants of God and Christ, 28 " 3. To Christ as the servant of God, [Phil. ii. 7,] 1 « 4. To the servants of sin and Satan, 4 " 5. Used indefinitely, [Rom. vi. 16,] 1 « 6. To those 'under the elements of the world.' [Gal. iv.,] 1 " 103" SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 67 the word avSpdrtoSov — andrapodon, which peculiarly denotes slavery, does not occur at all, though the correlative word dyfipcwtoSNjTJjs — andrapodistes, occurs once (1 Tim. i. 10) with the most marked disapprobation of the thing denoted by it : — " The law is made for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for men-stealers^ for liars," &c. The Hebrews made no such minute distinctions as the Greeks did. Their language was less cultivated, and much less adapted to express nice discriminations of thought. They used but one word, TO ebedh, to express all the relations of servitude — somewhat as the word servant is used in the slaveholding states of our own country. Among the He- brews, however, the word was used as expressing, with pro- priety, the relations sustained ; in a slaveholding community it is adopted as a mild term to avoid the use of the odious and offensive term slave. The Hebrew words TO ebedh, miqg abodhd, and HTO abiidda, rendered commonly servant, service, and servants, (Job i. 3,) are derived from 12V abddh, meaning to labour, to work, to do work. It occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures some hundreds of times in various forms of the word, and is never rendered slaves, but commonly servants, and serve. Occa- sionally the words derived from the verb are rendered bond- man, or bond-servant, Lev. xxv. 39, 42, 44 ; Josh. ix. 23 ; 1 Kings ix. 22. The verb and the nouns derived from it are applied to any and every kind of service or servitude which one can render to another. The ideas of working for an- other, ministering to another, being bound to another, being tributary to another, offering homage to another, will all be found embraced in this word. The essential significations in the use of the word are (l.)to labour or work, without respect to the question who it is for, and (2.) to render service to another ; that is, to be subject to him, and to act with reference to his will. In accordance with this, the word, in various forms, is used to denote the following kinds of service: 68 AN INQUIRY INTO THE CI.) To work for another, Gen. xxix. 20, xxvii. 40, xxix. 15, xxx. 20, 1 Sam. iv. 9. (2.) To serve or be servants of a king, 2 Sam. xvi. 19, Gen. xl. 20, xli. 10, 37, 38, 1. 7, Ex. v. 21, vii. 10, x. 7. (3) To serve as a soldier, 2 Sam. ii. 12, 13, 15, 30, 31, iii. 22, viii. 7, et sarpc. (4.) To serve as an ambassador, 2 Sam. x. 2 — 4. (5.) To serve as a people ; that is, when one people were subject to another, or tributary to another, Gen. xiv. 4, xv. 14, xxv. 23, Isa. xix. 23, Gen. xv. 13, ix. 26, 27, xxvii. 37. (6.) To serve God, or idols, Ex. iii. 12, ix. 1, 13, Deut. iv. 19, viii. 19. Under this head the word is often used in the sense of 'the servant of Je- hovah,' applied (a) to a worshipper of the true God, Neh. i. 10, Ezra v. 11, Dan. vi. 21, et saepe ; (b) a minister, or ambassador of God, Isa. xlix. 6, Jer. xxv. 9, xxvii. 0, xliii. 10, Deut. xxxiv. 5, Josh. i. 1, Ps. cv. 26, Isa. xx. 3. (7) The word is often employed to denote a servant, whether hired, bought, or inherited, — one who was involuntarily held to service to another. In this sense it is frequently used in the laws of Moses ; for all the kinds of servitude which are referred to there, are designated by this term. As already observed, the Hebrews did not make distinctions between the various kinds of service with the accuracy of the Greeks. So far as I have been able to ascertain, they made no distinc- tions of that kind, except that in later times they made use of one other term besides "D# ebedh, which was *V3tf> sdkir, one hired ; a hired labourer; one to whom wages was paid, Ex. xii. 45, xxii. 14, Lev. xix. 13, Isa. xvi. 14, Job vii. 1. In one passage in Job (vii. 2, 3) the two words occur in the same verse, where the distinction is marked, and yet so as, by the parallelism, to show that the persons referred to were regarded as in some respects on a level. "As a servant — "MV ebedh — earnestly desireth the shadow, "And as an hireling — T3# sdkir — looketh for the reward of his work, " So am I made to possess vanity, " And wearisome nights are appointed to me.' SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 69 There were, indeed, in the Hebrew language, two words which denoted exclusively female domestics or servants, which may be regarded as a refinement peculiar to them. I do not know that it occurs often in other languages. Neither of these words, however, were designed, so far as I can per- ceive, to denote the kind of service which was to be rendered, but only to mark the distinction of sex. The female servant thus designated might either be hired, or bought, or inherited, or be a captive taken in war. Their condition seems to have partaken of the general nature of servitude, though for what reason a distinctive name was given to them is not certainly known. One of the names used was H3X, dmd, rendered T T 7 7 maid-servant, Ex. xx. 10, xxi. 7, 32, Job xxxi. 13, Deut. xv. 17; bond-maid, Lev. xxv. 44; bond-woman, Gen. xxi. 10, 12, 13 ; maid, Gen. xxx. 3, Lev. xxv. 6, Ex. ii. 5, Job xix. 15, Nah. ii. 7 ; hand-maid, Ex. xxiii. 12, Ruth hi. 9, 1 Sam. i. 11, xxv. 24, and often ; — and the other name was nnp^, Shtphhha, rendered hand-maid, Gen. xvi. 1, xxix. 24, Prov. xxx. 23, Gen. xxv. 12, xxxv. 25, 26 ; bond-maid, Lev. xix. 20 ; maiden, Ps. cxxiii. 2 ; women-servants, Gen. xxxii. 5, 6; maid-servant, Ex. xi. 5, 1 Sam. viii. 16, Gen. xii. 16, xxiv. 35, xxx. 43 ; wench, 2 Sam. xvii. 17 ; and servant, 1 Sam. xxv. 41. The distinction between these two words applied to female servants, it is probably impossible now to mark. From this examination of the terms used to denote servi- tude among the Hebrews, it follows that nothing can be in- ferred from the mere use of the vjord in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the days of the patriarchs. The conclusions which would be fair from the use of the word, would be these, (l.)That any service, whether hired labour, or that rendered by one who was bought ; whether that of a freeman or a slave ; whether in the house or the field, would be properly expressed by the use of the Hebrew word. (2.) That at any period of their history the word denoted servitude as it then existed, and its meaning in any 70 AN INQUIRY INTO THE particular age is to be sought from a knowledge of the kind of servitude which then actually prevailed. We can ascer- tain the meaning of the word from the facts in the case ; not the nature of the facts from the use of the word. If the Kind of servitude existed which does now in England, and to which the word servant is applied, it would accurately express that ; if the kind which existed under the feudal system, it would express that ; if the kind which exists in Russia, it would express that ; and if such a kind as exists in the Southern states of this Union, it would express that. (3.) The word might, therefore, denote slavery, if slavery at any time existed. The Hebrews would not have been under a neces- sity of forming a new word to denote that relation, but the term in actual use would have covered the whole ground, and would easily adapt itself to the actual state of things. But (4.) it did not necessarily denote that, and that signifi- cation is not to be given to it in any case unless it is dear, from other sources than from the use of the word, that slavery was intended. It might mean many other things, and it is not a correct method of interpretation to infer that because this word is used, that therefore slavery existed. It follows from this, that the mere use of the word in the time of the patriarchs, determines nothing in the issue before us. It does not prove either that slavery existed then, or that it is lawful. For any thing that can be learned from the mere use of the word, the kind of servitude then existing may have had none of the essential elements of slavery. This inquiry into the meaning of the ivord will be of use through the whole discussion, for it is important to bear in remembrance that this use of the term nowhere in the Scrip- tures of necessity implies slavery. (3.) Some of the servants held by the patriarchs were i honght with money.'' Much reliance is laid on this by the advocates of slavery, in justifying the purchase, and conse- quently, as they seem to reason, the sale of slaves now ; and it is, therefore, of importance to inquire how far the fact SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 71 stated is a justification of slavery as it exists at present. But one instance occurs in the case of the patriarchs, where it is said that servants were * bought with money.' This is the case of Abraham, Gen. xvii. 12, 13 : " And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man- child in your generations ; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed ; he that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised." Comp. vs. 23, 27. This is the only instance in which there is mention of the fact that any one of the patriarchs had persons in their employment who were bought with money. The only other case which occurs at that period of the world is that of the sale of Joseph, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to the Egyptians — a case which, it is believed, has too close a resemblance to slavery as it exists in our own country, ever to be referred to with much satisfaction by the advocates of the system. In the case, moreover, of Abraham, it should be remembered that it is the record of a mere fact. There is no command to buy servants or to sell them, or to hold them as property — any more than there was a command to the brethren of Joseph to enter into a negotiation for the sale of their brother. Nor is there any approbation expressed of the fact that they were bought ; unless the command given to Abraham to affix to them the seal of the covenant, and to recognise them as brethren in the faith which he held, should be construed as such evidence of approval. The inquiry then presents itself, whether the fact that they were bought determines any thing with certainty in regard to the nature of the servitude, or to the propriety of slavery as practised now. The Hebrew in the passages referred to in Genesis is, ' the born in thy house, and the purchase of silver,'' ^D3 _ rupp — miknath keseph — not incorrectly ren- dered, 'those bought with money.' The verb HJ£ kdnd, from which the noun here is derived, and which is com- monly used in the Scriptures when the purchase of slaves 72 AN INQUIRY INTO THE is referred to, means to set upright, or erect, to found or create, Gen. xiv. 19, 22, Deut. xxxii. 6; to get for oneself, to gain or acquire, Prov. iv. 7, xv. 32; to obtain, Gen. iv. 1 ; and to buy or purchase, Gen. xxv. 10, xlvii. 22. In this latter sense it is often used, and with the same latitude of signification as the word buy or purchase is with us. It is most commonly rendered by the words buy and purchase in the Scriptures. See Gen. xxv. 10, xlvii. 22; xlix. 30, 1. 13 ; Josh. xxiv. 32 ; 2 Sam. xii. 3 ; Ps. Lxxviii. 54 ; Deut. xxxii. 6 ; Lev. xxvii. 24, and very often else- where. It is applied to the purchase of fields ; of cattle ; of men ; and of every thing which was or could be regarded as property. As there is express mention of silver or money in the passage before us respecting the servants of Abraham, there is no doubt that the expression means that he paid a price for a part of his servants. A part of them were "born in his house ;" a part had been " bought with money" from ' strangers,' or were foreigners. But still, this use of the word in itself determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which they were held, or the nature of the servitude to which they were subjected. It does not prove that they were regarded as property in the sense in which the slave is now regarded as a chattel; nor does it demonstrate that the one who was bought ceased to be regarded altogether as a man ; or that it was regarded as right to sell him again. The fact that he was to be circumcised as one of the family of Abraham, certainly does not look as if he ceased to be regarded as a man. The word rendered buy or purchase in the Scriptures, is applied to so many kinds of purchases, that no safe argument can be founded on its use in regard to the kind of servitude which existed in the time of Abraham. A reference to a few cases where this word is used, will show that nothing is determined by it respecting the tenure by which the thing purchased was held. (1.) It is used SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 73 in the common sense of the word purchase as applied to inanimate things, where the property would be absolute. Gen. xlii. 2, 7, xliii. 20, xlvii. 19, xxx. 19. (2.) It is applied to the purchase of cattle, where the property may be supposed to be as absolute. See Gen. xlvi. 22, 24, iv. 20; Job xxxvi. 33; Deut. iii. 19; and often. (3.) God is represented as having bought his people ; that is, as having ransomed them with a price, or purchased them to himself. Deut. xxxii. 6, "Is not he thy Father that hath bought thee?" — ^"3 — kdnekhd- — thy purchaser. Ex. xv. 16, "By the greatness of thine arm they shall be still as a stone, till thy people pass over; till the people pass over which thou hast purchased." — JVJj3, kdnithd. See Psalm lxxiv. 2. Comp. Isa. xliii. 3, "I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee." But though the word purchase is used in relation to the redemption of the people of God — the very word which is used respecting the servants of Abraham — no one will maintain that they were held as slaves, or regarded as property. Who can tell but what Abraham purchased his servants in some such way, by redeeming them from galling captivity ? May they not have been prisoners in war, to whom he did an inestimable service in rescuing them from a condition of grievous and hopeless bondage ? May they not have been slaves in the strict and proper sense, and may not his act of purchasing them have been, in fact, a species of emancipation in a way similar to that in which God emancipates his people from the galling servitude of sin ? The mere act of paying a price for them no more implies that he continued to hold them as slaves, than it does now when a man purchases his wife or child who have been held as slaves, or than the fact that God has redeemed his people by a price implies that he regards them as slaves. (4.) Among the Hebrews a man might sell himself, and this transaction on the part of him to whom he sold himself would be represented by the word bought. Thus 7 74 AN INQUIRY INTO THE in Lev. xxv. 47, 48, "And if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family, after that he is sold, he may be redeemed again." This transaction is repre- sented as a purchase. Ver. 50, "And he shall reckon with him that bought him, (Heb. his purchaser, TMp konaihu,) from the year that he was sold unto the year of jubilee," &c. This was a mere purchase of time or service. It gave no right to sell the man again, or to retain him in any event beyond a certain period, or to retain him at all, if his friends chose to interpose and redeem him. It gave no right of property in the man, any more than the purchase of the unexpired time of an apprentice, or the ' purchase' of the poor in the state of Connecticut does. In no proper sense of the word could this be called slavery. (5.) The word buy or purchase was sometimes applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. Thus Boaz is represented as saying that he had bought Ruth. "More- over, Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased ("JVJj* — kdnithi) to be my wife." Here the word which is applied to the manner in which Abraham became possessed of his servants, is applied to the manner in which a wife was procured. So Hosea says, (ch. iii. 2,) " So I bought her to me (another word however being used in the Hebrew, H^3 kara) for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Jacob purchased his wives, Leah and Rachel, not indeed by the payment of money, but by labour. Gen. xxix. 15 — 23. That the practice of purchasing a wife, or paying a ' dowry' for her was common, is apparent from Ex. xxii. 17 ; 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Comp. Judges i. 12, 13. Yet it will not be maintained that the wife, among the Hebrews, was in any proper sense a slave, or that she was regarded as subject to the laws which regulate property, or that the husband had a right to sell her again. In a large sense, indeed, SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 75 she was regarded, as the conductors of the Princeton Repertory (1836, p. 293) allege, as the wife is now, as the property of her husband; that is, she was his to the exclusion of the claim of any other man, but she was his as his wife, not as his slave. (6.) The word 'bough? occurs in a transaction between Joseph and the people of Egypt in such a way as farther to explain its meaning. When, during the famine, the money of the Egyptians had failed, and Joseph had purchased all the land, the people proposed to become his servants. When the con- tract was closed, Joseph said to them, "Behold I have bought you — WJp kanithi — this day, and your land for Pharaoh," Gen. xlvii. 23. The nature of this contract is immediately specified. They were to be regarded as labouring for Pharaoh. The land belonged to him, and Joseph furnished the people seed, or 'stocked the land,' and they were to cultivate it on shares for Pharaoh. The fifth part was to be his, and the other four parts were to be theirs. There was a claim on them for labour, but it does not appear that the claim extended farther. No farmers now who work land on shares, would be willing to have their condition described as one of slavery. The conclusion which we reach from this examination of the words buy and bought as applied to the case of Abraham is, that the use of the word determines nothing in regard to the tenure by which his servants were held. They may have been purchased from those who had taken them as captives in war, and the purchase may have been regarded by themselves as a species of redemption, or a most desirable rescue from the fate which usually attends such captives — perchance from death. The property which ,t was understood that he had in them may have been merely property in their time, and not in their persons. Or the purchase may have in fact amounted to every thing that is desirable in emancipation, and, from any thing implied in the word, their subsequent service in the family of Abra 76 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ham may have been entirely voluntary. It is a very material circumstance also that there is not the slightest evidence that either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob ever sold a slave, or offered one for sale, or regarded them as liable to be sold. There is no evidence that their servants even descended as a part of an inheritance from father to son. So far, indeed, as the accounts in the Scriptures go, it would be impossible to prove that they would not have been at liberty at any time to leave their masters, if they had chosen to do so. The passage, therefore, which says that Abraham had 'servants bought with money,' cannot be adduced to justify slavery as it exists now — even if this were all that we know about it. But (4.) Servitude in the days of Abraham must have existed in a very mild form, and have had features which slavery by no means has now. Almost the only transaction which is mentioned in regard to the servants of Abraham, is one which could never occur in the slaveholding parts of our country. A marauding expedition of petty kings came from the North and East, and laid waste the country around the vale of Siddim, near to which Abraham lived, and among other spoils of battle they carried away Lot and his posses- sions. Abraham, it is said, then ' armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pur- sued them unto Dan,' and rescued the family of Lot and his goods. Gen. xiv. This narrative is one that must for ever show that servitude, as it existed in the family of Abra- ham, was a very different thing from what it is in the United States. The number was large, and it does not appear that any persons but his servants accompanied Abraham. They were all armed. They were led off on a distant expedition, where there could have been no power in Abraham to pre- serve his life, if they had chosen to rise up against him, and no power to recover them, if they had chosen to set them- selves free. Yet he felt himself entirely safe, when accompa- nied with this band of armed men, and when far away from SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 77 his family and his home. What must have been the nature of servitude, where the master was willing to arm such a company ; to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land ? Compare with this the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master, that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. "A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon."* " He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other per- son with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer."! "For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or shot, or club, or other weapon whatsoever, offensive or de- fensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace ;"J and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, without a conviction by the justice. § Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their mas- ters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, dare to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression respect- ing the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham, and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing * Rev. Code Virg. vol. i. p. 453, § 83, 84. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 422, § 6. See Paulding on Slavery, p. 146. * 2 Litt. and Swi. 1 150 ; 2 Missouri Laws, 741, § 4. § Hay wood's Manual, 521; Stroud on the Laws relating to Slavery, p. 102. 7* 78 AN INQUIRY INTO THE here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is 'a good patriarchal system.' Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But (5.) What real support would it furnish to the system, even if it were true that the cases were wholly parallel? How far would it go to demonstrate that God regards it as s good system, and one that is to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach its highest possible elevation ? Who would undertake to vindicate all the conduct of the patri- archs, or to maintain that all which they practised was in accordance with the will of God ? They practised concu- binage and polygamy. Is it therefore certain that this was the highest and purest state of society, and that it was a state which God designed should be perpetuated ? Abraham and Isaac were guilty of falsehood and deception, (Gen. xx. 2, seq. ; xxvi. 7 ;) Jacob secured the birthright, by a collusive fraud between him and his mother, (Gen. xxvii,) and obtained no small part of his property by cunning, (Gen. xxx. 36-43 ;) and Noah was drunk with wine, (Gen. ix. 21 ;) and these things are recorded merely as facts, without any decided ex- pression of disapprobation ; but is it therefore to be inferred that they had the approbation of God, and that they are to be practised still, in order to secure the highest condition of society ? Take the single case of polygamy. Admitting that the patriarchs held slaves, the argument in favour of polygamy, from their conduct, would be, in all its main features, the same as that which I suggested, in the commencement of this chapter, as employed in favour of slavery. The argument would be this : — that they were good men, the ■ friends of God,' and that what such men practised freely cannot be wrong ; that God permitted this ; that he nowhere forbade it ; that he did not record his disapprobation of the practice ; and that whatever God permitted in such circumstances, without expressing his disapprobation, must be regarded as SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 79 in itself a good thing, and as desirable to be perpetuated, in order that society may reach the highest point of elevation. It is perfectly clear that, so far as the conduct of the patri- archs goes, it would be just as easy to construct an argument in favour of polygamy as in favour of slavery — even on the supposition that slavery existed then essentially as it does now. But it is not probable that polygamy would be defend- ed now, as a good institution, and as one that has the appro- bation of God, even by those who defend the 'domestic institutions of the South.' The truth is, that the patriarchs were good men in their generation, and, considering their cir- cumstances, were men eminent for piety. But they were imperfect men ; they lived in the infancy of the world ; they had comparatively little light on the subjects of morals and religion ; and it is a very feeble argument which maintains that a thing is right, because any one or all of the patri- archs practised it. But after all, what real sanction did God ever give either to polygamy or to servitude, as it was practised in the time of the patriarchs ? Did he command either ? Did he ever express approbation of either ? Is there an instance in which either is mentioned with, a sentiment of approval? The mere record of actual occurrences, even if there is no declared disapprobation of them, proves nothing as to the divine esti- mate of what is recorded. There is a record of the ' sale' of Joseph into servitude, first to the Ishmaelites, and then to Potiphar. There is no expression of disapprobation. There is no exclamation of surprise or astonishment, as if a deed of enormous wickedness were done, when brothers sold their own brother into hopeless captivity. This was done also by those who were subsequently reckoned among the 'patri- archs,' and some of whom at the time were probably pious men. "Will it be inferred that God approved this transac- tion ; that he meant to smile on the act, when brothers sell their own brothers into hopeless bondage ? Will this record be adduced to justify kidnapping, or the acts of parents in 80 AX INQUIRY INTO THE barbarous lands, who, forgetful of all the laws of their nature, sell their own children ? Will the record that the Ishmaelites took the youthful Joseph into a distant land, and sold him there as a slave, be referred to as furnishing evidence that God approves the conduct of those who kidnap the unof- fending inhabitants of Africa, or buy them there, and carry them across the deep, to be sold into hopeless bondage ? Why then should the fact that there is a record that the patriarchs held servants, or bought them, without any ex- pressed disapprobation of the deed, be adduced as evidence that God regards slavery as a good institution, and intends that it shall be perpetuated under the influence of his religion, as conducing to the highest good of society ? The truth is, that the mere record of a fact, even without any sentiment of approbation or disapprobation, is no evidence of the views of him who makes it. Are we to infer that Herodotus approved of all that he saw or heard of in his travels, and of which he made a record ? Are we to suppose that Tacitus and Livy approved of all the deeds the memory of which they have transmitted for the instruction of future ages ? Are we tc maintain that Gibbon and Hume believed that all which they have recorded was adapted to promote the good of man- kind ? Shall the biographer of Nero, and Caligula, and Richard III., and Alexander VI., and Csesar Borgia, be held responsible for approving of all that these men did, or of com- mending their example to the imitation of mankind ? Sad would be the office of an historian were he to be thus judged. Why then shall we infer that God approved of all that the patriarchs did, even when there is no formal disapprobation expressed ; or infer, because such transactions have been recorded, that therefore they are right in his sight ? SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 81 CHAPTER IV. Slavery in Egypt. The will of God may often be learned from the events of his providence. From his dealings with an individual, a class of men, or a nation, we may ascertain whether the course which has been pursued was agreeable to his will. It is not, indeed, always safe to argue, that because calamities come upon an individual, they are sent as a punishment on account of any peculiarly aggravated sin, or that these cala- mities prove that he is a greater sinner than others, (Luke xiii. 1 — 5,) but when a certain course of conduct always tends to certain results ; when there are laws in operation in the moral world as fixed as in the natural world ; and when there are uniformly either direct or indirect interpositions of Providence in regard to any existing institutions, it is not unsafe to infer from these what is the divine will. It is not unsafe, for illus- tration, to argue from the uniform effects of intemperance in regard to the will of God. Those effects occur in every age of the world, and in reference to every class of men. There are no exceptions in favour of kings or philosophers ; of the inhabitants of any particular climate or region of country ; of either sex, or of any age. The poverty, and babbling, and redness of eyes, and disease engendered by intemperance, may be regarded without danger of error as expressive of the will of God in reference to that habit. They show that there has been a violation of a great law of our nature or- dained for our good, and that such a violation must always incur the frown of the great Governor of the world. The revelation of the mind of God in such a case is not less clear than were the enunciations of his will on Sinai. The same is true in regard to cities and nations. We 62 AN INQUIRY INTO THE need be in as little danger, in general, in arguing from what occurs to them, as in the case of an individual. There is now no doubt among men why the old world was destroyed by a flood ; why Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed ; why Tyre, Nineveh, Babylon, and Jerusalem were overthrown ; and there can be as little doubt, since the excavations have been made at Herculaneum and Pompeii, why those cities were buried under the ashes and lava of Vesuvius. If a cer- tain course of conduct long pursued, and in a great variety of circumstances, leads uniformly to health, happiness, and property, we are in little danger of inferring that it is in accordance with the will of God. If it lead to poverty and tears, we are in as little danger of error in inferring that it is a violation of some great law which God has ordained for the good of man. If an institution among men is always followed by certain results ; if there is no modification of it by which it can be made to avoid those results ; if we find them in all climes, and under all forms of government, and in every stage of society, it is not unsafe to draw an infer- ence from these facts on the question whether God regards the institution as a good one, and one which he designs shall be perpetuated for the good of society. It would be easy to make an application of these unde- niable principles to the subject of slavery. The inquiry would be, whether in certain results always found to accom- pany slavery, and now developing themselves in our own country, there are no clear indications of what is the will of God. The inquiry would be pursued with reference to the bearing of the ' institution' on morals and religion ; on the industry and population of a state ; on agriculture, commerce, literature, and the arts. I propose, however, only to consider the application of the principle to one important transaction in history — the rescue of an enslaved people from Egyptian bondage.. The object is to inquire what light that transaction throws on the ques- tion, Hliether God regards slavery as a good institution, SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 83 and one which he desires should be perpetuated. The prin- ciple on which this inquiry will be conducted is, that if we can find a case in history concerning which God has de- clared his sentiments, we may draw a safe conclusion in regard to the estimate which he forms of a similar institu- tion now. The case referred to is that of Hebrew servitude in Egypt. The obvious inquiries are, I. Whether there was any thing in that servitude so similar to slavery now as to make it safe and proper to argue from the one to the other; and, II. Whether the act of God in delivering the Israelites from bondage makes it proper to draw any conclusion as to his general sentiments about slavery. I. The resemblance between the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt and slavery now ; or the inquiry whether they are so similar as to make it proper to argue from the one to the other respecting the divine will. It is not to be denied that there were some important points in which the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt differed from slavery now, but most if not all of those points were of such a nature as not particularly to affect the in- quiry before us. (a) The Hebrews were not essentially distinguished from the Egyptians, as the Africans are from their masters in this land, by colour. There could be no argument drawn from the fact that they were of different complexion, or were of an inferior caste of men, in favour of holding them in bondage. (b) They do not appear to have been claimed by individuals, or distributed on plantations or farms as the property of in- dividuals. It was the enslaving or oppressing of them as a people, or nation, rather than subjecting them, as is done in our country, as individuals, to the service of others. They were in the service of the government, and held by the government, without particular reference to the will of in- dividuals. (c) On many accounts, also, the servitude in Egypt was 84 AN INQUIRY INTO THE much more mild than it is in this country. Though cha- racterized as « hard,'' '•oppressive,'' * grievous, and a 'fur- nace $' and though it was such as to lead to most decided and marked interpositions of God to rescue a down-trodden people from it, yet there were features in it which greatly softened it as compared with the system in our own land. This circumstance will increase, as will be seen in the sequel, the force of the argument which I deduce from the inter- position of God in the case ; for if the oppression there was so grievous as to call forth the strong expressions of God in regard to it recorded in the Bible, and to lead to the heavy judgments which fell on Egypt in order to testify his disap- probation of the system, what are we to infer in reference to the divine views of the still more grievous oppressions in our own land ? In order to see this difference, and to ap- preciate the force of this consideration, it is of importance to have a just conception of the nature of servitude in Egypt. The following summary, made in part by another hand, (" The Bible vs. Slavery, pp. 55, 56, 57,") will present this with sufficient distinctness. (I.) The Israelites "ivere not dispersed among the families of Egypt, but formed a separate community. Gen. xlvi. 34 ; Ex. viii. 22, 24 ; ix. 26; x. 23; xi. 7; iv. 29; ii. 9; xvi. 22; xvii. 5; vi. 14. (2.) They had the exclusive possession of the land of Go- shen, the best part of the land of Egypt. Gen. xlv. 18 ; xJvii. 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii. 22; ix. 26 ; xii. 4. Goshen must have been at a considerable distance from those parts of Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians ; so far at least as to prevent their contact with the Israelites, since the reason assigned for locating them in Goshen was, that shepherds were ' an abomination to the Egyptians ;' besides, their em- ployments would naturally lead them out of the settled parts of Egypt to find a free range of pasturage for their immense flocks and herds. (3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were houses, not tents. In Ex. xii. 7, 22, the two side posts, and the upper door posts, and the lintel of the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 85 houses, are mentioned. Each family seems to have occupied a house by itself. Acts vii. 20. (4.) They owned '•flocks and herds,' and « very much cattle.'' Ex. xii. 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the fact that « every mart was commanded to kill either a lamb or a kid, one year old, for the passover, before the people left Egypt, we infer that even the poorest of the Israelites owned a flock either of sheep or goats. Further, the immense multitude of their flocks and herds may be judged of from the expostulation of Moses with Jehovah. Num. xi. 21, 22. 'The people, among whom I am, are six hundred thousand footmen ; and thou hast said, I wall give them flesh, that they may eat a whole month ; shall the flocks and the herds be slain for them, to suffice them V As these six hundred thousand were only the men 'from twenty years old and upward, that were able to go forth to war,' Num. i. 45, 46 ; the whole number of the Israelites could not have been less than three millions. Flocks and herds to 'suffice' all these for food, might surely be called 'very much cattle.' (5.)Thcy had their own form of government, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, and their internal organization through- out, though still a province of Egypt and tributary to it. Ex. ii. 1; xii. 19,21; vi. 14, 25; v. 19; iii. 16,18. (6.) They had, in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time. Ex. iii. 16, 18 ; xii. 6 ; ii. 9 ; and iv. 27, 29—31. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii. 27. (8.) All the females seem to have known something of domestic re- finements. They were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics, Ex. xv. 20 ; xxxv. 25, 26 ; and both males and female were able to read and write. Deut. xi. 18— 20 ; xvii. 19 ; xxvii. 3. (9.) Ser- vice seems to have been exacted from none but adult males. Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be inferred ; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29. (10.) Their food was abundant and of greed variety. So far from being fed 6 Ob AN INQUIRY INTO THE upon a fixed allowance of a single article, and hastily pre- pared, * they sat by the flesh-pots,' and ' did eat bread to the full.' Ex. xii. 15,39. They ate 'the fish freely, the cu- cumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic' Num. xi. 4, 5 ; xx. 5." (11.) It does not appear that they were liable to be sold for debt, or that they could be disposed of by testamentary disposition. And, (12.) they were not held strictly as chattels. They were oppressed men, and were regarded as such. They were men held to service ; not men reduced to all the conditions of property. But still there were so many strong points of resemblance between the servitude of the Hebrews in Egypt and slavery in this land, as to make it right to argue from the one to the other. Indeed, the resemblances are so remarkable that they cannot fail to strike every one who reads the account in Exodus, and the references to the servitude in Egypt which abound elsewhere in the Scriptures. (l.)They were a foreign race, as the African race is with us. They were not Egyptians, any more than the natives of Congo are Americans. They were not of the children of Ham.* They * It is not admitted here that if they had been of the children of Ham, it would have been right to reduce them to servitude ; for apart from any other consideration, the Egyptians were themselves the proper descendants of Ham. An argument is sometimes attempted in favour of African slavery from the curse pronounced by Noah : — (Gen. ix. 25,) « Cursed be Ca- naan ; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." See the " Brief Examination of the Scripture Testimony on the Institution of Slavery," by Enoch Lewis. I have not thought it necessary to notice this weak argument, for two reasons: One is, that a mere prediction of what would be, is no justification of wickedness — for the prediction of the Saviour that he would be betrayed by Judas, and even the command to him to do i$ xatoixovaiv avtrjv. To one who should read this law, if there were no other to conflict with it, or that made it necessary to seek a different interpretation, the plain meaning of the statute would appear to be, that all who resided in the land from whatever motive, or whatever were their relations or employments, were from that moment to be regarded as freemen. So it would be now understood, if a proclamation were made in these very words throughout the United States. So also if a clause had been introduced into the federal constitution, declaring, that at the termination of fifty years from that time, ' Liberty should be proclaimed throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof,'' there could have been no difference of opinion in regard to its SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 147 meaning. The courts of the land would have been unani- mous in its interpretation. After the publication of such a law, it is clear that slavery of any kind would have been unlawful. The following brief summary of remarks contains the prin- ciples on which such an interpretation is given to this word as to make it embrace all the dwellers in the land, of all classes and conditions. (1.) The word here rendered inhabit- ants is the one which, if that idea had been intended to be conveyed, would have been employed. There is no other word of more general character in the Hebrew language ; none which would have better conveyed the idea ; none which a Hebrew would have been so likely to employ. (2.) It is, as remarked above, the natural, and obvious inter- pretation ; that which would occur to the great mass of readers ; that about which there would be no doubt, if no difficulty should arise out of the passage itself. So it would be understood now ; so it would have been understood in any country or age. (3.) It is an accordance with the usage of the word elsewhere. There is almost no word of more frequent occurrence in the Scriptures, than the Hebrew word ( 3 ?3 here employed. It occurs, in various forms, more than eleven hundred times in the Bible,* and is employed in the most general manner conceivable. Any dweller, any in- habitant, any one who resides in a place, any one who so- journs, any one who remains only for a short time, or any one who has a permanent residence, would be embraced by this word. It is repeatedly applied to all that came out of Egypt ; to all that abode in the wilderness ; to all the inha- bitants of Canaan, of Edom, of Moab, of Tyre, of Kedar, of Philistia, of the world ; and there is no word which would more naturally embrace all that abode in a country, from any cause whatever. (4.) There is nothing, as we shall see on fur- ther examination, which necessarily limits its meaning here. * See the Hebrew Concordance. 148 AN INQUIRY INTO THE For such reasons as these, it seems clear to me, that the word -was intended to embrace all that dwelt in the land, whatever were their relations or employments. At certain periods of the Jewish history all were to be free. The correct interpretation of this passage (Lev. xxv. 10) is of so great importance in understanding the true nature of the Hebrew institutions, that it may be proper here to submit some of the views of distinguished expositors. Yatablus ex- plains it, " And thou shalt proclaim that all the inhabitants of the land are free, who were before held as slaves." This interpretation is adopted by Rosenmiiller. Rabbi Solomon says, " Thou shalt proclaim liberty to the servants, whether the ear had been perforated with an awl or not, or whether the six years had not been completed from the time when they were purchased." The general opinion of Jewish wri- ters has been, that at the year of jubilee all Hebrew servants at least, though they had been unwilling to be released at the close of the six years' service, (Ex. xxi.,) should then be free.* "The year of jubilee made all servants free without exception." This is the opinion of the most distinguished Jewish Rabbins, t Thus Abenezra says, in explaining the law in Lev. xxv. 41, " And he shall go out from thee, that is, he who sold himself to thee of his own accord, as well as he who was convicted of theft, and who was sold to thee on account of theft." Maimonides says, that all those whose ears had been bored, (Ex. xxi.,) and who had thus become voluntary servants beyond the period of six years, were then set at liberty. " The servant who was sold, and who had served six years, and who was then unwilling to leave his master, his ear was bored, and he was to serve until the year of jubilee." % Servants who had been sick through their whole time of service, or who were then confined to their * See Joh. Casp. Miegius, Constitutiones Servi Hebraei, § 3, lxxxvi. | See the instances referred to in Ugolin's Thes. Ant. Sacra, torn, xxvi. p. 793. i Avod. c. iii. § 6. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 149 couch, were also made free at the year of jubilee.* " The servant who is sick as the year of jubilee comes in, becomes free." They who had endeavoured before to escape, but who had been prevented, were set free at the year of jubilee. " When a servant who sold himself, or who was sold by the court, made an attempt to escape, he was held to make up for these years, but he was set at liberty at the year of jubilee."! The wives and children of slaves were restored to liberty on the year of jubilee. J Josephus expressly states, that all the Hebrew servants whose ' ears had been bored,' and who had served their masters voluntarily more than six years, were set at liberty in the year of jubilee. § It would also appear from Josephus, || that on the year of jubilee, all slaves were set at liberty. " The fiftieth year is called by the Hebrews the jubi- lee, wherein debtors are freed from their debts, and slaves are set at liberty;" and though in this connection he mentions only Hebrew slaves, yet as he elsewhere mentions no other, it would seem that he regarded the law as general, that all who were then slaves should be on that year restored to freedom. The law under consideration, (Lev. xxv. 10) is so positive and explicit in its terms, that there could have been no differ- ence of opinion in regard to it, if there were not a permission given, which seems to conflict with it, and which has led many respectable expositors to maintain that the law of eman- cipation at the jubilee related only to the Hebrews who were held as slaves, and that those who were foreigners were re- tained for life, notwithstanding this proclamation, and that in fact, therefore, slavery among the Hebrews was a perpetual institution. It is of essential importance, therefore, to inquire whether the statute referred to demands this interpretation. It is found in Lev. xxv. 44 — 47 : " Both thy bondmen and * Maimonides, Avod. c. ii. § 5 ; c. iii. § 15. \ Maimonides, c. ill. § 15. i See the authorities for this quoted in Ugolin, as above. § Ant. b. iv. ch. viii. § 28. || Ant. b. ii. ch. xii. § 3. 13* 150 AN INQUIRY INTO THE thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land ; they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." There can be no differ- ence of opinion on the question whether this authorized the Hebrews to purchase those of the surrounding nations for slaves. The only question is, whether the slavery into which they were brought by this purchase was perpetual and hereditary, or whether those who were thus bought of the heathen came under the general operation of the law that * liberty was to be proclaimed to all the inhabitants of the land' on the year of jubilee. The objection to this interpre- tation is found in the expression, " And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever." The question is, how, in connection with the proclamation of the year of jubilee, this is to be interpreted. It is not to be denied that many respectable names may be adduced to prove that this law contemplates that slavery should be a perpetual institution among the Hebrews, and that, while all who were Hebrews by birth were to be manu- mitted in the year of jubilee, this arrangement did not extend to foreign slaves. This opinion is expressed decidedly by Judge Stroud,* though he endeavours to show that " the term perpetual, in its proper and absolute sense, was not applica- ble to the slavery of the Israelites, even of the heathen na- tions, and that the heathen slaves might become proselytes, and thus soon obtain their freedom. It is also the opinion of * Laws of Slavery, p. 63. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 151 Thomas Goodwin,* and is the opinion of Miegius,f quoted above. Probably this would be found also to be the opinion of all in our own country who endeavour to defend slavery from the Bible. Thus the conductors of the Princeton Repertory become absolutely confident on this point, and consider it as so clear that it excludes even the possibility of reasoning on the subject. They say, " We do not know how this passage can be rendered plainer than it is, nor can we hope that any man, who is in such a state of mind as to prevent his seeing and admitting that it authorized the Hebrews to hold slaves, could be convinced even if one rose from the dead. It is here taught, 1. That if a Hebrew through poverty sold himself, he should not be re- duced to the abject state of a slave. 2. That he should be treated as a hired servant. 3. And be allowed to go free at the year of jubilee. This is the precise condition which abolitionists assign to the heathen servants among the He- brews, whereas it is here declared to be peculiar to servants who were children of Israel ; who could not be sold as bond- men, vendilione mancipii, as the elder Michaelis translates it. Of the other class it is taught, 1. That they might be bought for bondmen. 2. That they might be held as a possession or property. 3. They might be bequeathed by their masters to the children as a possession ; hereditario jure possidebitis, as Michaelis renders the phrase ; or as De Wette translates it to the letter : Ihr moget sie vererben auf eure Stihne nach euch als Eigenthum. You may bequeath them to your children after you for a possession. 4. This bondage was perpetual. They shall be your bondmen for ever. One of the points of distinction between the two classes was, that the former could not be sold in perpetuity, the latter might. As the land of a Hebrew could not be alienated, so his person could not be re- * Moses and Aaron, c. x., note 3, in Ugolin's Thes. Ant. Sacrar. torn. Hi. p. 296. | See his work, in Ugolin. Thesaur. Ant. Sac. xxvi. p. 738. 152 AN INQUIRY INT3 THE duccd to perpetual bondage. At the year of jubilee he was to go free, and his inheritance reverted to him. In contrast with this, Moses allows the heathen to be reduced to perpetual bondage. Hebrews shall not be sold with the sale of a slave, venditione mancipii, v. 42 ; the heathen may be thus sold, is the very point of contrast, v. 40. If the former passage for- bade reducing Israelites to the condition of slaves, the latter allowed the heathen to be so reduced. Again, both the He- brew words and the construction in v. 39, are the same as v. 40. An Israelite ' thou shalt not compel to serve as a bond- servant ;' the heathen 'shall be your bondmen.' What is forbidden in the one case, was allowed in the other." So plain is this passage in their eyes, that it is probable that a man who should even doubt whether all this is so would be regarded by them as of the same intellectual capacity and attainments as he, to use their own expression, who should gravely maintain that when it is said that "John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, it means that he drank no water, but only milk ;" or as he who should assert that all the slaves were " ten feet high." Thus they say : — "The attempts made to evade this plain teaching of the Scriptures are precisely similar to those which are made to prove that the Bible condemns as sinful all use of wine as a beverage, and that it pronounces even defensive war to be sinful. It is impossible to answer mere assertions. And the more extravagant the assertion, the more impossible the an- swer. How can a man be refuted who should say, as we know an ultra advocate of temperance did say, that the passage which speaks of John the Baptist coming neither eating nor drinking, means that he drank no water, but only milk ; where- as Christ came drinking water; though he was called a glut- tonous man and a wine-bibber. So when abolitionists say in reference to all the passages above referred to, that the bond- men of the Hebrews, even from among the heathen, were voluntary servants, who received themselves the purchase monpy paid for them, that they were in fact hired servants, SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 153 receiving wages, hiring themselves for a term of years instead of for a single year, or for a day, or week, or month, who could neither be sold nor bequeathed ; we know not how they are to be answered, any more than if they were to assert, they were all ten feet high." To the interpretation, however, which supposes that this passage means that slavery was to be perpetual, and that so far as it pertained to foreign slaves, their condition was not to be affected by the proclamation on the year of jubilee, there stand opposed the following objections — objections of so much force as to seem to make it necessary to seek some other inter- pretation. (1.) The positive nature of the command respect- ing the year of jubilee, " And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." This law is explicit ; the terms, as we have seen, are such as refer to freedom from servitude, and the arrangement is one which accords with the general spirit of the Hebrew institutions. (2.) The liberty of the Hebrew slave was secured, by other enactments, at the termination of his six years of servitude, unless he chose to remain as a servant for a longer period, and submitted to a degrading cere- mony, as a proof that he was willing to continue in that con- dition. Ex. xxi. The year of jubilee, therefore, could secure no real benefit to the Hebrew servants, unless it was to the comparatively small number who should have shown themselves willing to remain in this humiliating condition. The restora- tion to freedom of that comparative small number would have been an event by no means commensurate with the import- ance attached to the year of jubilee, as a year of universal emancipation. It was evidently the intention of this humane and remarkable law, that on the return of every fifty years things should go back where they were half a century before ; that whatever wrongs had accumulated in society during that period should be at once rectified ; that if there were any cases of oppression and cruelty which the usual operation of the law failed to reach, they should now at once be arrested 154 AN INQUIRY INTO THE and corrected ; and that if any cases of poverty had arisen by a reverse of circumstances, instead of becoming fixed, and leading to the permanent debasement of the family, the evil might be checked then, and the family have an opportunity of beginning life again. The idea of the great Hebrew legis- lator seems to have been, that in order to the perfection of a commonwealth, there should be no permanent causes of de- gradation ; that no individuals or classes in society should be placed in such circumstances of permanent disadvantage that they could not rise ; and that in order to secure the highest state of society it was proper that all should have the oppor- tunity periodically of starting on life again under equal ad- vantages. There was to be no institution, no law, no custom, no relation, no habit among the people, that was to become stereotyped, and that would send a malign influence onward inevitably to coming generations. It was felt that evils might accumulate which no ordinary operation of law would reach; that there might be cases of oppression and wrong which the usual course of jurisprudence could not affect ; and that in- stead of allowing them to accumulate, there should be a time when, by a general enactment, all these evils should cease. It was like clearing out the channel of a river which is m danger of being obstructed with drift-wood, that it may run clear again ; or like a law respecting a "general jail delivery," or the action of the court of oyer and terminer, where all un- tried cases must be tried — lest otherwise some who are accused of crime should be overlooked in the ordinary process of juris- prudence, and thus permanent injustice be done, and evils accumulate in a community. It is essential to society that there should be some such enactments. We apply them to judicial proceedings by the writ of habeas corpus, and by other enactments. Moses meant that by one general arrange- ment all these evils should be reached at once. He knew nothing, indeed, of the writ of habeas corpus, or of a court of oyer and terminer, but perhaps it would be found e^en now that his one appointment of the year of jubilee would accom- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 155 plish as much for the good of a community as all the devices in jurisprudence in modern times. But it is clear that this arrangement could not be carried into effect unless there was a provision for universal emancipation. If the law had not extended to foreign slaves, there would have been a perma- nent evil, diametrically opposed to the whole tenor of the Mosaic institutions, stretching on from age to age. (3.) The language which is employed in Lev. xxv. 46, " they shall be your bondmen for ever," does not of necessity imply that this refers to the perpetual bondage of the individual slave. It could not, at all events, be literally true, nor is it necessarily meant even that the individual was to be a slave till his death. The same language precisely is used of the Hebrew slave, who chose to remain with his master rather than to be made free at the end of six years, and who had his ear bored as a token of his voluntary servitude. Ex. xxi. 6 : " His master shall bore his ear through with an awl ; and he shall serve him for ever." Yet it is admitted, on all hands, that this "for ever" extended, in the case of the Hebrew servant, only to the year of jubilee. How is it then inferred that the same phrase should mean that the foreign individual should serve for life, or should be perpetually a slave ? (4.) All that is fairly implied in the law of Moses (Lev. xxv. 44 — 46), " thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, and ye shall take them for an inheritance for your children after you, they shall be your bondmen for ever" is, that the permanent provision for servants was not that they were to enslave or employ their brethren, the Hebrews, but that they were to employ foreigners. Those who were already slaves in other nations — for all kid- napping, or all making of slaves by the Hebrews themselves was forbidden — might be introduced into the Jewish common- wealth, under the far superior advantages which they would enjoy there, and the greatly modified conditions of servitude there, and it would be a permanent arrangement that they might be purchased and introduced among the Hebrews, where 156 AN INQUIRY INTO THE they would enjoy the privileges of the true religion, and where they would be secure of their freedom at the return of the jubilee. The native Hebrew was never to be regarded properly as a slave. He was to be considered, even when sold for debt, poverty, or theft, as " an hired servant, and a sojourner," Lev. xxv. 40 ; he was not " to be made to serve with rigour," (Lev. xxv. 43, 46,) and he was not, it would seem, to descend " as an inheritance," but the foreigner who was purchased might be regarded as the " money" of him who had bought him, and might be inherited as other property, until he was released by the operation of the gene- ral law when all became free. The law was a humane one, for the condition of servitude among the Hebrews, according to the Mosaic statutes, was in all respects more eligible than in the surrounding nations, and for the Hebrew to purchase a slave was in fact to secure him his freedom if he survived to the year of jubilee. If, however, it should be conceded that this passage means that the heathen might be subjected to perpetual bondage, and that the intention was not that they should be released in the year of jubilee, still it will not follow that this is a justification of perpetual slavery as it exists in the United States. For (1.) Even on that supposition the concession was one made to them, not to any other people. (2.) There were particular reasons operating for subjecting the nations around Palestine to servitude, which do not exist now — they were doomed to servitude for sins, not for their complexion. (3.) No one can maintain that it would be proper to transfer all the Hebrew institutions to our own country, and yet the fact that any insti- tution was found in the Mosaic code, would be just as strong in that case as in this : and, (4.) Even if we admit that it was right then, it would not follow that it would be right now. There is more light now than there was then. There has been an advance in the knowledge of moral truths and rela- tions, and it would not be a safe method of reasoning to infer SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 157 that what was tolerated in the period of the world when Moses lived, would meet with the divine approbation now. The importance of this part of the subject has led me to go at considerable length into the nature of Hebrew servitude. I have done this the rather because the Mosaic institutions are constantly appealed to in defence of slavery in this country, and it seems to be inferred at once that the mere fact that Moses tolerated a system of servitude, may be regarded as a full vindication of that very different system which exists in this nation. In view of the examination which we have gone over, it is natural to ask, what would be the operation of the Mosaic laws on slavery? What would be the effect of these laws in perpetuating the system in Palestine ? What would be their operation if they were applied to the system as it exists in this land ? The following would be the inevi- table results of such a system, and were doubtless such as were foreseen and intended by the sagacious Hebrew statesman. (1.) There could be no permanent arrangements for the system. At certain periods, not remote from each other, all the existing forms of servitude would come to an end, and the land would be a land of liberty. (2.) The effect of such a periodical emancipation would be to introduce a considerable number of freemen to the enjoy- ment of all the civil and religious privileges of the Hebrew commonwealth. The number of freemen would be aug- mented, and the real wealth of the state would be increased by all the difference in value which there is between a free- man and a slave. And this was much. Long ago it was said, by Homer, " Jove fixed it certain that whatever day Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away." A slave, or a subject of oppression of any kind, is never worth half as much as a freeman. A man under the Turkish government, or in Russia or Persia, is not worth half as much 14 15S AX INQUIRY INTO THE as a mere means of increasing national wealth, as in a free country. A slave has nothing like half the value of a free- man as a means of increasing the property of a nation, or considered as a part of national wealth. In our country he is 'one-third of a freeman' in representation, but not in actual worth. The way to make a man valuable is plain. It is to impress him with the conviction that he is a freeman ; to allow him to feel that his limbs, his time, his ingenuity, his sinews, are his own ; to permit him to pursue his own plans in his own way, subject only to those mild restraints which a regard to the welfare of others demands ; to teach him that he is responsible to his Maker alone for the manner in which he spends his time and employs his talents ; to assure him, by all the safeguards which the law can throw around him, that the avails of his labour shall be his own ; to give him a pledge that the whole community will come forth, if necessary, to defend him if he has been injured or wronged, and that every court of justice will vindicate his rights to a farthing. It is to allow him to own a piece of land on which he can tread as a freeman, and say, ' It is mine. I may keep it or sell it ; I may plow it and sow it as I please. I may sit down here under the vine and the fig-tree planted by my own hands. Here, if I choose, I may build me a house where to live ; and here I may dig a grave for myself and my children, which no mortal can have a right to disturb ; and here I may lay me down when I die, and sleep in the hope of a glorious immortality.' An arrangement, therefore, which should have the effect to elevate periodically all to the rank of freemen, who from any cause had been depressed to the condition of bondage, would be most auspicious on a commonwealth, and there can be no doubt that Moses contemplated this in his arrangements for the regulation of affairs in the Hebrew community. {:].) The operation of these laws would soon abolish slavery altogether, or at least would so diminish the evils of the system, as to make it practically little oppr< ssive. After the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 159 universal emancipation at the jubilee, it would not be easy to begin the system again. It is not probable that they who were released would sell themselves again into servitude; and as all who were slaves were to be the result of purchase, and not of conquest or kidnapping, it is clear that the places of those who had been emancipated could not be soon supplied. If in this country there were an article of the constitution that there should be a jubilee once in fifty years, in which all who were held in slavery should be restored to freedom, even if it were permitted to procure slaves again by purchasing them from foreigners, it is clear that slavery would soon cease. The slave would at once lose a considerable part of his value, for he and his children would soon be free. It would be impossible at once to supply the places of those who were emancipated at the jubilee, for the most active traffic, and the most numerous importations practicable, would not meet the demand. The plantations, in the mean time, must lie waste, and all the operations usually carried on by slave labour would be suspended, unless there could be found some substitute for that labour. But here would be all those who had been set at liberty, now dignified as free- men ; stimulated to make an effort for themselves and their families, because they were free ; acquainted with the busi- ness to be done on a plantation ; many of them attached to their old masters, and ready to engage in their service for a reasonable compensation. The consequence would be, that in by far the greater number of instances, there would be no desire to purchase slaves again. Those who had been slaves, and who were emancipated by law, would be at once engaged, not as ' bondmen,' but as ' hired labourers,' and the same work which they performed before under the lash, they would now perform, in a better manner, under the higher incentives applicable to freemen. It may be safely said that slavery, as a system, would not survive the operation of hoo such jubilees in this land ; and the conclusion is inevitable, that Moses was not a friend of the system, and did not design its perpetuity. 160 AN INQUIRY INTO THE I have thus examined, at length, the nature and the prac- tical operation of the Mosaic institutions in regard to servi- tude. But one point remains, to settle the inquiry whether we can derive an argument from the Mosaic institutions in defence of slavery as it exists in our land, or to determine whether it is proper to infer, as is often done, that because the Hebrew institutions tolerated slavery, that, therefore, the system is right as it exists in the United States. This will make it necessary to compare the Mosaic arrangements already described, with those existing in this country. § 3. Comparison of the Mosaic institutions in relation to Slavery with those existing in the United States. The Mosaic institutions are, as has been before remarked, often appealed to in support of slavery as it exists at the present time. It is inferred, that because Moses permitted it, under the sanction of God, that therefore it is lawful now. This argument supposes that slavery, as Moses tolerated it, had substantially the same features which it has now, and that consequently it is right to argue from one to the other. It is important, therefore, to bring into comparison the fea- tures of slavery as it exists now, with those which were tolerated under the Mosaic laws; for nothing can be clearer than that if an argument can be constructed at all in favour of slavery from the fact that it was tolerated by Moses, that argument can be adduced only in favour of those features of servitude which he himself imbodied in his civil code. Before proceeding, however, to notice the things in which slavery in this country differs essentially from that tolerated under the Mosaic laws, there is one remark which it is important to make, in order to obtain a clear view of the argument. It is, that it is no certain evidence that a thing is approved, or is regarded as best, because it is tolerated. The circumstances may be such that the evil could not at once be prevented without tearing up the very foundations SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 161 of society, and, therefore, it may be necessary to connive at it. The ultimate good may on the whole be more promoted, if it is permitted, with arrangements to modify it, and ulti- mately to remove it, than it would be if there were a violent effort to remove it at once. We have certain evidence that there were some things allowed by Moses, and for which he legislated, which were not regarded as arrangements most conducive to the happiness of society, and which it was never intended should always exist. Among these things we may mention (a) polygamy. Nothing can be clearer from the New Testament than that polygamy was not originally designed when man was made, (Matt. xix. 4,) and that it was not re- garded as the best institution for society, or to be perpetuated for the good of mankind, (1 Tim. iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. vii. 2 ;) and yet this was practised by nearly all the patriarchs, and was tole- rated by the Mosaic laws. I am aware that it is denied by the advocates of slavery,* and by some most decided aboli- tionists t — extremes meeting here — that Moses tolerated poly- gamy, or that he ever legislated for it, and that even Dr. Dwight denies it. J The argument on which Dr. Dwight rests, and the only one, is the marginal reading in the English version of Lev. xviii. 18, " Thou shalt not take one wife to another." The reading in the text is, "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, besides the other, in her lifetime." But, that the reading in the text is the correct one, is apparent, (1.) because the main discussion in the chapter is not about polygamy, but about marrying near relations. Having stated the general principles on that sub- ject, nothing was more natural than for the lawgiver to add, that though, in itself, it was not unlawful to marry the sister of a wife, and he did not mean to prohibit that — a question * See the Southern Literary Messenger, for September, 1845, p. 521. •f- See the Letters of the Eev. A. A. Phelps, to Professor Stowe. * Theology, vol. iii. pp. 419, 420, 14* 162 AN INQUIRY INTO THE which could not but occur — yet that it was not proper to do it ■ in her lifetime.' There were obvious evils and impro- prieties accompanying such a step, which would render it undesirable that it should be done. (2.) This is the fair construction of the Hebrew — »Vfl"W «• n *f *?] — ' a wife to her sister? and it will not properly bear any other. So the Vul- gate explicitly — Sororem uxoris tuae in pellicatum illius non accipies — adhuc ilia vivente. ' So the LXX, Twalxa lit absx^YJ avtr t s, x.t.%. So the Targum of Onkelos, the Samaritan, the Syriac, and the Arabic. So Coverdale renders it. Indeed, there is no interpretation of a passage better settled than this. That polygamy was tolerated by Moses, will further appear from the following remarks : (1.) The act of legislation in Ex. xxi. 7 — 10, has reference to polygamy, and authorized it. " And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed : to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." The case supposed is that of an Israelite who should sell his daughter to be a 'maid-servant,' and that the daughter thus ' sold' might be ' betrothed' to him or to his son. If, after being thus betrothed to her master, she did not please him, the law was that she should be allowed to be redeemed. In no case should she be sold to a strange people. In case she was 'betrothed' to his son, and he chose to take to himself another wife, there were certain things which were not to be withheld from her. She was not to be discarded, or deprived of support, or treated in any other way than she would have been if the ' other wife' had not been taken. " Her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish." The argument in this passage turns on the meaning of two SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 163 words ; that rendered * betrothed,' and that rendered « duty of marriage. 5 About the former, there can be little difference of opinion. The Hebrew word TJ£ means properly, to point out, to appoint, to fix. The idea of designating, appointing, fixing — as of a time or place for worship, for a meeting, for trial, &c, is the essential idea in the word. Job ii. 11, ix. 19 ; Neh. vi. 2, 10; Amos iii. 3; Jer. xlix. 19, 1. 44. It is ren- dered in this place, by Gesenius, " to fix upon as a wife or concubine, to betroth ;" and there can be no doubt that the thing contemplated was such a designation as a wife or as a concubine, since she had already been ' purchased' as a maid- servant. The case seems to have been such as would not unfrequently occur, in which after one had been procured as a ' maid-servant' by the promise or payment of wages, or of a ' price' to her father — with the security that she could never be • sold' — he who had thus secured her for his emplo}^, or his son, might be disposed to sustain to her the nearer relation of a husband. The law was designed to guard that point, so that no advantage should be taken of her condition as a ser- vant, to oppress her, or to do her wrong. If the father who had secured her services was not pleased with her, after having designed to enter into this new relation, he should not take advantage of the fact that he was the purchaser, and sell ner, but should allow her to be honourably redeemed, or restored again to freedom ; if the son, who had no claim of purchase, he should be bound to treat her as a wife, even if he chose to marry another. The law, therefore, was every way humane, and was designed to prevent the worst kind of oppression — that of an unprotected female in humble life. The other word on which the interpretation of the passage depends, rendered 'duty of marriage,' HJty, is derived from a verb (}W) which means to rest, to dwell ; and the noun means a living together, cohabitation, says Gesenius, "in the conjugal sense." So the Talmud understands it in this place. The Hebrew noun occurs nowhere else except in Hos. x. 10, where it is rendered furrows, though the reading 164 AN INQUIRY INTO THE there is doubtful, and by a different pointing the word would mean, more appropriately, sins. In the passage before us, the versions all sustain the interpretation which supposes that the reference is to cohabitation as man and wife. Thus the Vulgate renders it, et pretium pudicitias non negabit. The Septuagint, tr t v i^ckiav ovx artou-r^p^Ei — ' he shail not de- prive her of her marriage rites.' * The Chaldee Paraphrase has the same word as the Hebrew, and the Arabic renders it, ' her times.'' The Syraic renders it by a word still more expressive, about which there can be no doubt, meaning decubitus; lying with, cohabitation. There can be no well- founded doubt, therefore, about the meaning of this passage, (ver. 10,) and if the interpretation given be correct, it proves that Moses contemplated, that in the case referred to, while the son had another wife, he should in all respects, in her food, her raiment, and in respect to the marriage rights, regard and treat her as his wife. He was not at liberty to treat her otherwise because he had taken another. The fair meaning of the word here, it seems to me, will not bear the interpreta- tion proposed by Mr. Phelps,t of habitation, meaning that he should furnish her a residence. If it will not, then polygamy in one form was tolerated by Moses, and legislated for. (2.) The act of legislation in Deut. xxi. 15, 16, proves that polygamy was tolerated by Moses. "If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated ; and if the firstborn son be her's that was hated : then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn." In this case it is supposed that a man might have 'two wives,' and the design of the ordinance is to prevent a kind of injustice which would not be unlikely to occur, when a man, in disposing of his property by will, might be induced to depart from the * Thompson. j Letter to Prof. Stowe. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 165 usual custom, and from what was right towards the lawful heir, by favouritism towards one of his wives. The only- question that can be raised on this point is, whether the pas- sage means that he had had two wives, either one succeed- ing the other, and both dead, or one still living ; or whether it means that in the case supposed he had tw T o living at the time here referred to. The literal meaning of the Hebrew, £Ttn \3 is, ' Avhen there shall be to a man two wives ;' or when a man shall have two wives ; most naturally and obviously meaning, at the same time. The Septuagint expresses it in the same sense, 'Eav 8s ysvav-tai ai>6pu7tc> 5vo ywaixas. It may be added here, that this interpretation is so natural, and would be so likely to be put upon the passage, that if Moses had meant to prohibit polygamy, he could not have used this language. He would not have left it open to so obvious and so dangerous an interpretation. It was clearly supposed that this would occur, as it had done in the time of the patriarchs ; and one can hardly help believing that he had an actual case in his eye like that of Jacob. Gen. xxix. 30. (3.) It may be added in proof that Moses tolerated poly- gamy, that in certain circumstances, he made it a subject of express command, in a form w T hich no one would pretend to vindicate as proper now. Deut. xxv. 5 — 10. This instance at least shows, that though a man had a wife of his own, there were circumstances in which it w T as proper for him to cohabit with one who had been the wife of another. The point of the remark made here is, that this ordinance would not have existed in a community where polygamy was in no case to be tolerated. It is true that he interdicted many wives to the kings w T ho might rule over the people, (Deut. xvii. 17 5 "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself," fVnar in 1 he shall not have a multitude of wives ;') but this very pro- hibition supposes that polygamy, to some extent, would be practised by a king. That polygamy prevailed in the time of Moses, see Jahn's Archaeology, § 151. The arrangements 166 AN INQUIRY INTO THE of Moses have, indeed, been shown (see Jahn) to be such that a man could not well have more than four wives, but there was nothing in his statutes which prevented an Israelite having that number, and it would seem probable that he contemplated it.* The doctrine of the Talmud and the Rabbins is, that an Israelite might have not more than four wives. The reasons for supposing that the number of wives tolerated by Moses would not exceed four, may be seen in Michaelis. They are not such as can be dwelt on here. Mohammed also limited the number of wives to four, whether for the same reason is unknown. In Deut. xxi. 15 — 17, it is supposed that it would not be uncommon for a man to have two wives, and the fact that this would occur is mentioned without any disapprobation ; nay, it becomes just as much the subject of legislation as slavery is in the Mosaic institutes. " If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated," &c. It is quite clear, however, from the Mosaic statutes, that the Hebrew legislator was no favourer of polygamy, but that he meant gradually to mitigate its evils, and to make such arrangements that it should finally cease to be practised in the Hebrew commonwealth. He allowed an institution which he found already in existence, to be continued, 'on account of the hardness of the hearts' of the people.t The same was manifestly true in regard to slavery. (/>) Another of the things which were tolerated by Moses, and for which arrangement was made in his laws, was arbi- trary divorce. On this subject the law was positive, but we know that it was not regarded as the best arrangement for society, or one which God approved per se ; and yet the whole strength of the argument from the Mosaic institutions in favour of slavery could be urged in favour of the practice of divorce now. The Mosaic arrangement tolerated divorce, * See, on this subject, Michaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, art. xcviii., and Selden de Uxore Hebraica, ■\ See Michaelis' Com., art. xcv. xcvi. xcvii. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 167 it would seem, to any extent, and made the continuance of the marriage relation depend wholly on the pleasure of the husband. Deut. xxiv. 1, seq. It demanded only that the act of divorce should be deliberate, and should be accompa- nied with a ' bill,' or with proper testimonials given to the wife that she was at liberty to marry another. This requisi- tion would prevent hasty acts, and would tend much to dimi- nish the evil. It is evident that Moses found the practice already in existence,* and it is also quite clear that he did not approve of it, or regard it as an institution tending to the best interests of society. The Saviour expresses a distinct disapprobation of the practice ; says that " it was tolerated only ' on account of the hardness of the hearts' of the people, but that in the beginning it was not so." Matth. xix. 8 ; Mark x. 5. The truth was, that Moses found this in existence as a prevailing practice ; that it had become incorporated with the habits of the people ; that they regarded the right of divorce as essential to the proper authority and liberty of the husband ; and that it would have been in vain for him to have attempted to prohibit it entirely. All that could be done, therefore, in the case, was to determine by statute in what circumstances, and for what causes, it might take place ; to prevent, as far as possible, all hasty and arbitrary acts of the husband ; to prohibit a reunion with the former husband, if the wife should marry again, thus securing further deliberation ; and so to arrange every thing in regard to it, that it should be manifest that the spirit of his institutions was against it, even while it Avas tolerated. But assuredly it would be an illegiti- mate method of reasoning to conclude that because Moses tolerated polygamy and divorce ; because he legislated for them, and made arrangements that they might be continued, therefore he approved of them as necessary to the best state of society, and meant that it should be inferred that the spirit of his institutions was favourable to them. Still less could * See Miehaelis' Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, art. cxix. 16S AN INQUIRY INTO THE it be inferred that they were to be perpetuated in all states of society, and at all periods of the world, as desirable arrange- ments for the promotion of human happiness. And yet the whole of the argument in favour of slavery, from the fact that it was tolerated in the Mosaic institutions, could be applied to polygamy and divorce. Moses sanctioned the one no more than he did the other. He made no more permanent arrange- ments for the one than he did for the other. He expressed no more approbation of the one than he did of the other. He wove the one no more into his system than he did the other. He 'legislated' no more for the one than he did for the other. Nay, it is manifest that he looked with a less favourable eye on slavery than he did on polygamy and divorce. He made arrangements by which slavery was periodically to cease in his commonwealth, but he made no such arrangements for divorce and polygamy. Yet who now will undertake to maintain that because these were tolerated, and legislated for, in the Mosaic statutes, therefore they are right now, and should continue to prevail for the best interests of society ? The argument on this point from the Mosaic toleration of polygamy and divorce, has been placed in so strong a light by Dr. Wayland, that I will copy it : — " Can the proposition, ' whatever was sanctioned to the He- brews is sanctioned to all men at all times,' be proved from revelation ? It seems to me that precisely the reverse is the fact. To arrive at the truth in this case it is only necessary to inquire whether there were any acts sanctioned to the He- brews by Moses which are not sanctioned to all men. " Take, for instance, the whole Mosaic code of civil law, its severe enactments, its very frequent capital punishments, its cities of refuge, its tenure of real estate. Could any legisla- tor at the present day enact similar laws, and justly plead as a sufficient reason that God had sanctioned, nay enacted, such laws for the Jews ? Would this be a sufficient reason for abolishing the trial by jury in a case of accidental homicide, (as for instance when the head of an axe slipped from the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 169 helve and wounded a man to death,) and enacting that the next akin might slay an innocent person if he overtook him before he arrived at a city of refuge ? I think every one must immediately perceive that this law was a humane limita- tion to the spirit of Oriental vindictiveness, but that it would be very wrong to put it in practice at the present day. "But we are not left to our own reasonings on this subject. We know full well that polygamy and divorce are wrong, that they violate the obligations established by God between the sexes, and are transgressions of his positive law. On this subject I presume we can have no difference of opinion. Yet these sins were not forbidden by Moses. Nay more, laws were enacted by the Hebrew legislator in respect to both of these practices. When a man was already united to one wife, and chose to take another, the manner in which the first wife was to be put away was prescribed. The right of the first-born was also in such a case defined. When, again, a Hebrew wished to divorce a wife, the manner in which this should be done was a matter of positive enactment. The discussion of our Saviour with the Jews on this subject is given us in Matt. xix. 3 — 9. I will quote the whole passage. * The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and say- ing unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that at the beginning, when the Creator made man, he formed a male and a female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and adhere to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath con- joined, let not man separate. They replied, Why then did Moses command to give her a writing of divorcement and dismiss her? He answered, Moses indeed, because of your untr actable disposition, permitted you to divorce your wives, but it was not so from the beginning. Therefore I say unto you, whosoever divorceth his wife except for whoredom, and marrieth another, committeth adultery,' &c. You perceive 15 170 AN INQUIRY INTO THE I have used the translation of Dr. Campbell, who seems to have understood the scope of the argument better than the authors of our version. " Now concerning this decision of our Lord, several things are to be remarked : "1. Our Lord authoritatively lays down the law of mar- riage, defining it to be an exclusive engagement between two parties for life. " 2. He not only does this, but he declares that this doc- trine was taught from the creation, quoting Genesis ii. 24, in confirmation of his assertion. "3. Notwithstanding this, Moses had sanctioned divorce ; tnat is, he had not forbidden it, and had enacted laws for the regulation of it. M 4. And moreover, the reason of this is given ; it was be- cause of the hardness of their hearts, or their untractable dis- position. " Here then is an institution sanctioned ; that is, permitted and made a subject of legislation, which is wrong in itself, and therefore forbidden by our Saviour to them and to all men. Nay, it had been thus sanctioned, although a prior revelation had discountenanced it. It is therefore clear, that a practice may have been sanctioned to the Hebrews, which is not sanctioned to all men at all times ; nay, which before and after a particular period was not sanctioned even to the Hebrews themselves. I think, therefore, that the teaching of the Scriptures is diametrically at variance with the propo- sition on which the whole argument from the Old Testament is founded."* Keeping the Mosaic institutions on the subject of slavery in view, I shall proceed now to compare them with those ex- isting in our own country. It will be convenient to arrange the various topics substantially in the order in which we have contemplated them; and the object will be to show that in all * Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, pp. 54 — 57. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 171 essential features, the Mosaic arrangements in regard to sla- ver)'' differed entirely from those existing in this land. The inference which will be derived from such a comparison will be, that the Mosaic institutions cannot be referred to, to sanction slavery as it exists at present. The points to which I refer are the following : — (1.) The arrangements in the two systems respecting hard and oppressive usage. We have seen that under the Mosaic institutions, the rights of the slave were carefully guarded on this subject, and that if he were subjected to such usage he had a redress by claiming his freedom. We have seen that there were express statutes requiring that slaves should be treated with humanity and kindness ; that if they were maimed by their masters they had a right to liberty ; and that there were many solemn injunctions to treat the stranger with kindness, no matter what relation he might sustain. The question now is, whether there are any such provisions in the laws in this land, or whether there is any security that the slave will be preserved from hard and oppressive usage ? The question is not, whether there may not be masters who treat their slaves with kindness, but whether the laws furnish any security for the slave on this point? It is not whether a master may not abuse his power, but it is whether the law does not give him such power that the slave has no redress, as he had under the Hebrew commonwealth ? If it be so, certainly the Mosaic enactments cannot, so far as this point is concerned, be adduced in defence of slavery in the United States. The following laws of the slave states of this Union will show what is the spirit of servitude here, and will illus- trate the striking contrast between slavery here and in the Hebrew commonwealth.* * For the laws of the slave states on this subject, I am indebted mainly to "A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the several States of the United States of America. By George M. Stroud." This work was 172 AN INQUIRY INTO THE " The master may, at his discretion, inflict any species of punishment upon the person of his slave."* In particular, (a) The murder of a slave has in general subjected the murderer to a pecuniary fine only. " There was a time in many, if not in all the slave-holding districts of our coun- try, when the murder of a slave was followed by a pecuniary fine only. In one state, a change of the law in this respect has been very recent. At the present date, the wilful, ma- licious, deliberate murder of a slave, by whomsoever perpe- trated, is declared to be punishable with death in every state. v t It should be remembered, however, that there must be great difficulty of convicting a white man, and especially a master, of such an offence. No slave is allowed to give testimony against a white man ;\ and of course, in most cases it would be impossible to bring a white murderer of a slave to justice. There might be many witnesses of the deed, and yet not one of them be allowed to testify to what he had himself seen. It cannot be doubted that not a few slaves have been murdered by their masters in this land. Has there ever been a convic- tion for such an offence ? Has a master ever been punished capitally for such a crime ? Is he commonly punished at all ? Is it a common occurrence to convict any white man for a wrong done to a slave, except so far as the slave is regarded as the property of another man ? On the practical operation of the law of the slave states respecting testimony, and the published in Philadelphia in 1827. It is now out of print. Of the quali- fications of Judge Stroud for such a work, no one can doubt; and the accuracy of the work has never been called in question. The slave laws since the time of the publication of that work have undergone too un- important changes to make the quotations now irrelevant to show the general spirit of slavery. * Stroud, p. 35. The capitals are his. \ Stroud, p. 36. t 1 Rev. C. Virg. 422 ; 2 Miss. Laws, 600 ; Mississippi Rev. Code, 372 ; 2 Litt. and Svvi. 1150; Maryland Laws, act of 1817, and North Carolina and Tennessee Laws, 1777. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 173 difficulty of convicting a white man, and the fact that those laws place a slave completely at the disposal of his master, Judge Stroud well remarks, " It [the law that no slave can be a witness against a white person] places the slave, who is seldom within the view of more than one white person at a time, entirely at the mercy of this individual, without regard to his fitness for the exercise of power — whether his temper be mild and merciful, or fierce and vindictive. A white man may, if no other individual be present, torture, maim, and even murder his slave, in the midst of any number of negroes and mulattoes. Having absolute dominion over his slave, the master, or his delegate, if disposed to commit illegal violence upon him, may easily remove him to a spot safe from the observation of a competent witness." — p. 60. (b) The laws of some of the slave states expressly acquit the master for killing his slave, if it be done when inflicting moderate correction. The law of North Carolina, sect. 3, of the act of 1798, on this subject, is in the following words : — " Where- as by another act of Assembly, passed in the year 1774, the killing of a slave, however wanton, cool, and deliberate, is only punished in the first instance by imprisonment and pay- ing the value thereof to the owner, which distinction of cri- minality between the murder of a white person and one who is equally a human creature, but merely of a different com- plexion, is disgraceful to humanity, and' degrading in the highest degree to the laws and principles of a free, Christian, and enlightened country : Be it enacted, &c, That if any person shall hereafter be guilty of wilfully or maliciously killing a slave, such offender shall, upon the first conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed a free man : Provided always, this act shall not extend to the person killing a slave outlawed by virtue of any act of Assembly of this state, or to any slave in the act of resistance to his lawful owner or master, or to any slave dying under moderate cor- 15* 174 AN INQUIRY INTO THE rection."* The language of the constitution of Georgia is nearly the same. " Any person who shall maliciously dis- member or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punish- ment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, ex- cept in case of insurrection of such slave, and unless such DEATH SHOULD HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT IN GIVING SUCH SLAVE moderate CORRECTION."! (c) If the life of a slave is so feebly protected by law, it is not to be supposed that he would be defended from wrongs done in other respects against his per- son. Accordingly we find, that the slave is, not only neces- sarily, from the nature of the case, but by the laws, almost entirely at the disposal of the master. Wrongs done by the master to the slave are regarded as comparatively trivial offences, and even on the supposition that he could be con- victed, the punishment is trifling. The act of South Carolina for 1740, says, " In case any person shall wilfully cut out the tongue, put out the eye, * * * * * *, or cruelly scald, burn, or deprive any slave of his limb, or member, or shall inflict any other cruel punishment, other than by whipping or beating with a horsewhip or cowskin, switch or small stick, or by putting irons on, or confining or imprisoning such slave, every such person shall, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, current money. "t Here we may make the following obvious remarks : (1.) The strong contrast between this and the Mosaic law : " If any man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake." (2.) The trifling penalty which the law imposes — of " one hundred pounds" — for wrongs which would render a human being wretched for * Haywood's Manual, 530. See also the Laws of Tennessee, act of October 23, 1799, with a like proviso. f Prince's Digest, 559. } 2 Brevard's Digest, 241. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 175 life. (3.) The permission given to inflict certain classes of wrongs at the pleasure of the master. Thus the law ex- pressly allows the following things : (a) scalding and burn,' ing, provided they be not " cruel;" (b) whipping or beating with a horsewhip, cowskin, switch, or small stick; (^put- ting on irons, and (d) imprisonment, apparently at pleasure. A similar provision is found in the new Civil Code of Louisiana : " The slave is entirely subject to the will of his master, who may correct and chastise him, though not with unusual rigor, nor so as to maim or mutilate him, or to expose him to the danger of loss of life, or to cause his death."* Here, then, are two limitations only of the power of the master over the slave. The first is, that he shall not be at liberty to cause the death of the slave ; and the second is, that he shall not punish him with " unusual rigor." Respecting this, it would seem that the common methods of punishing slaves on neighbouring plantations were to be the standard, and that the master was to be the sole judge whether he exceeded that. So in Mis- sissippi, while the laws require the "owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, and to abstain from all injuries to them extending to life and limbs," they also ordain that "no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted on any slave within this state. And any master or other person, entitled to the service of any slave, who shall inflict such cruel or unusual punishment, or shall authorize or permit the same to be in- flicted, shall, on conviction, be fined according to the magni- tude of the offence, in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars."! Here we may remark (1.) that it is, from the nature of the case, exceedingly difficult to convict a master of wrong done to a slave, from the fact above referred to, that no slave can be a witness ; and (2.) that the law authorizes the infliction of any punishment provided it be not " cruel" or " unusual." But what horrid crimes and wrongs may be done by a master before he shall reach the point in punish- Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 1 73. -j- Rev. Code, 379. 176 AN INQUIRY INTO THE ment that he will himself regard as " cruel," or beyond that which is "unusual" in slaveholding communities! So in Missouri, the law gives the master the power of confining a slave in prison during his own pleasure, evidently for life if he pleases, and that without judge or jury, with none of the privileges of habeas corpus ; with no power of escaping. " If any slave resist his or her master, mistress, overseer, or employer, or refuse to obey his or her lawful commands, it shall be lawful for such master, &c, to commit such slave to the common jail of the county, there to remain at the plea- sure of the master, &c. ; and the sheriff shall receive such slave, and keep him, &c, in confinement at the expense of the person committing him or her."* Here the only security for the slave, so far as the law goes, is the expense which the master must incur for his maintenance. It may be probable that, from the fact that the master, if cruel and vindictive, may gratify his disposition in a manner less expensive, this law will not be likely to be abused ; yet it is clear that the slave is, in this respect, wholly at his disposal. He is to judge when the offence demands imprisonment, and if so, how long; and the officer of justice, appointed in a "land of freedom" for the execution of the laws, is to receive the slave at his hands, and be the executioner of his will, even if the imprisonment should continue for life. On these laws of the slave states, Judge Stroud well remarks, " Upon a fair review, the result is found to be : That the master's power to inflict corporeal punishment, to any extent short of life and limb, is fully sanctioned by law, in all the slave-holding states ; that the master, in at least two states, is expressly protected in using the horsewhip and cowshin, as instruments of beating his slave ; that he may, with entire impunity, in the same states, load his slave with irons, or subject him to perpetual imprisonment whenever he may so choose ; that for cruelly scalding, wilfully cutting out the tongue, putting out an eye, * 1 Missouri Laws, 309. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 177 &c, and for any other dismemberment, if proved, a fine of one hundred pounds currency only is incurred in South Carolina , that though in all the states the wilful, deliberate, and mali- cious murder of the slave is now directed to be punished with death, yet as in the case of a white offender, none except whites can give evidence, a conviction can seldom, if ever, take place." — pp. 43 — 44. Let these laws be compared with those of Moses already referred to in regard to the treatment of slaves, and it will not be difficult to determine whether the Hebrew institutions furnish a sanction for slavery as it exists in this land. (2.) In illustration of the same point we may refer to the difference of the systems respecting the time allowed to the slave for his own use. In the examination of the Mosaic system, we found that Moses secured for the slave by law an important portion of his time, either for the acquisition of pro- perty, or for intellectual, moral, or religious improvement. The slave had every seventh day ; every seventh year ; the whole of the days devoted to the national festivals, and the privilege of attending on all the family festivals. According to the estimate then made, it was supposed that the Hebrew servant would have for his own purposes something like twenty-three years out of the fifty, if he served from one ju- bilee to another. It is scarcely necessary, however, to remark, that in our own country no such arrangements exist, and that the laivs do not contemplate that any of the time of the slave shall be his own. His entire time, as well as his bodily vigor and skill, is the property of his master. There is none in which he may not, according to the law, be employed in the service of his master. So far as the law is concerned, there is no day or hour in which he may cultivate a piece of ground for himself; there is none which he might take to read — if he can read — or to pray. The master may call him from his little patch of ground, from his family, and from his " closet" at any hour to labour in his service. The Sabbath may be given, and I presume usually is given, to the slave ; 178 AN INQUIRY INTO THE but it is not secured expressly for him by law, except in Louisiana and Mississippi, as it was among the Hebrews. A half day or more in the week may be given, and we know that it is often given, but it is not an arrangement of law ; it is wholly at the discretion of the master. It may be a fact also that at certain seasons of the year, and on certain plan- tations, the tasks may be of such a character that they can be accomplished, so that a considerable part of the day may be secured by the slave for himself, but this is not an arrange- ment made by law. It is wholly at the pleasure of the mas- ter, and it may be confidently affirmed that there are no laws in the slaveholding states of this Union, except in Louisiana and Mississippi, which secure to the slave any time whatever for his own service. (3.) In like manner, and as a consequence of this, the slave is not regarded as one who can have any right to property.* He cannot be the legal owner of a piece of land, of a house, of a horse, of a cow, or of an article of husbandry. He could not be the proprietor of a patent for a valuable invention or improvement in machinery or agriculture, though the inven- tion were his own. He could not be the legal holder of the copyright of a book, if he could write a book. He could have no legal right of property in the most valuable mine of silver or gold that he might discover. It would all be legally the property of his master.t The Roman law said : Servile caput nullum jus habet, ideo nee minui potest.! " In Rome, indeed, the slave could, by great diligence and economy, ac- quire a scanty property (peculium); but, strictly considered, all this, together with the slave himself, belonged to the master, and might be retained by him at the period of manumission. "§ In this country, it is a settled principle that a slave can own no property. In examining the Mosaic institution, we found * Comp. Ch. I. j- Comp. W. A. Becker, on Roman Slavery, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. ii. pp. 572, 573. i Digesta, iv. 5, 3 § Becker. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 179 that the servant might become possessed of a considerable amount of property which he could regard as his own. We found that it was contemplated that he might be able to pur- chase his own freedom by the avails of his own labour, and that if he could do this at a fair valuation, he had the right to do it. We found, also, that when he was released by the expiration of the term of service as fixed by law, provision was made that he should be made comfortable. We found, also, that he might become the heir to his master, and might hope to share his property if he was faithful in his service. Far different from the Hebrew laws are the legal arrange- ments in the United States. Here the slave himself is re- garded as property in the most absolute sense, and of course all that he can earn becomes the property of his master, as much as that earned by the horse does. It is not even con- ceded that the slave may in any circumstances ever own pro- perty. It is expressly prohibited ; and a claim of property on his part becomes a crime, and there are express and solemn acts of legislation to deprive him of any little articles of property which he may have acquired. The following enactments will put this beyond dispute. Thus, in South Carolina : " It shall not be lawful for any slave to buy, sell, trade, &c, for any goods, &c, without a license from the owner, &c, nor shall any slave be permitted to keep any boat, periauger, or canoe, or raise and breed for the benefit of such slave, any horses, mares, cattle, sheep, or hogs, under pain of forfeiting all the goods, &c, and all the boats, periaugers or canoes, horses, mares, cattle, sheep, or hogs. And it shall be lawful for any person what- ever, to seize and take away from any such slave, all such goods, &c, boats, &c, &c, and to deliver the same into the hands of any justice of the peace, nearest to the place where the seizure shall be made, and such justice shall take the oath of the person making such seizure, concerning the manner thereof; and if the said justice shall be satisfied that such seizure has been made according to law, he shall pronounce and declare the goods so seized to be forfeited, and order the 180 AN INQUIRY INTO THE same to be sold at public outcry, one half of the moneys arising from such sale to go to the state, and the other half to him or them that sue for the same."* The act of the legis- lature of Georgia is in nearly the same words. t And lest perchance the benevolence of the master should sometimes permit the slave to hire himself to another for his own benefit, Georgia has imposed a penalty of thirty dollars " for every weekly offence on the part of the master, unless the labour be done on his own premises.''^ So in Kentucky, with a slight modification^ In Virginia, if the master shall permit the slave to hire himself out, it is made lawful for any person, and the duty of the sheriff, to apprehend such slave, and the master shall be fined not less than ten dollars, and not more than twenty.!! So in Missouri.^ In the year 1779, North Carolina enacted as follows : " All horses, cattle, hogs, or sheep, that one month after passing this act shall belong to any slave, or be of any slave's mark, in this state, shall be seized and sold by the county wardens, and by them applied, the one half to the support of the poor of the county, and the other half to the informer."** So also substantially in Mary- land, tt and Mississippi .\\ In the Civil Code of Louisiana it is ordained, " Jill that a slave possesses belongs to his master ; he possesses nothing of his own, except his peculium, that is to say, the sum of money or movable estate which his master chooses he should possess."§§ So slaves are declared uniformly incapable of inheriting property. Thus in Louisi- ana, "Slaves are incapable of inheriting or transmitting pro- perty." mi Slaves cannot dispose of or receive by donation inter vivos or mortis causa, unless they have been previously * James' Digest, 385 b; Act of 1740. f Prince's Digest, 453. t Prince's Digest, 457. § 2 Litt. and Swi. Digest, 1159, 11 GO. See Mississippi Rev. Code, 375; Laws of Tennessee, Oct. 23, 1813, ch. 135; Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 47. || 1 Rev. Code, 374, 375. r 3 Missouri Laws, 743. ** Haywood's Manual, 526. ff April Sessions, 1787, ch. 33. ft Rev. Code, 374. §* Art. 175. |||! Civil Code, art. 945. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 181 and expressly enfranchised conformably to law, or unless they are expressly enfranchised by the act by which the donation is made to them.* "The earnings of slaves, and the price of their service, belong to their owners, who have their action to recover the amount from those who have employed them."t So in the decisions of the court of South Carolina, " Slaves cannot take property by descent or purchase ;"j and in North Carolina, ' ; Slaves cannot take by sale, or devise, or descent. "§ These statutes and judicial decisions settle the question in regard to the legal right of the slave to hold any property whatever. Al! belongs to his master. If he earns any thing, it belongs to the master. If he is ever hind out, the wages belong to his master. If he should make a valuable improve- ment in the arts, the avails of it would be his master's. If he should write a book, the copyright would be his master's. If he should find a mine of gold, or a purse, or if property should be given to him, it belongs to his master. Of course, the question about purchasing his own freedom is in every respect at the disposal of his master. He never could, in any way, by gift or earning, become the owner of so much property as to be able to purchase his freedom without his consent, and if he could, the question whether he could obtain it is still lodged solely with his master. As a matter of fact, the slave has not the means of purchasing his freedom. If he has a little piece of ground for his own cultivation, and if he is allowed to till it at night or on the Sabbath ; or if, as may be sometimes the case, the master may allow him half a day in the week to till it for himself, the utmost that he can usually earn is from twelve to twenty dollars a year ! and what hope has a man of being able to purchase his freedom by so small gains as these ? The sum of the matter is this : * Art. 1462. -j- Louisiana Code of Practice, art. 103. t 4 Dessaussure's Chancery Reports, 266. § 1 Cameron and Norwood's Reports, 353. 16 182 AN INQUIRY INTO THE the slave himself is held as the property of his master, as much as his horse is, and to all that he earns his master has a legal title, as much as he has to the earnings of his horse. How different this from the mild Mosaic statutes ! Can it be believed that God ever meant to sanction this enormous system of wrong ? (4.) There is a very material contrast between the Mosaic institutions and those in our country in regard to the religious privileges allowed by law to slaves. In examining the Mosaic institutions in regard to servants, we found («) that they were received into covenant with God, and as members of the family were recognised as in that covenant by the customary rites of religion. (6) They were guests at the national and family festivals, (c) They were statedly instructed in the duties of morality and religion. (d) They might become proselytes and be admitted to the full privileges of religion, (e) In securing to them the Sabbath, and the Sabbatical year, and the time for attending on the great festivals, there was ample time secured to them by law for the performance of all their religious duties. Between these arrangements and those existing in our own country, we shall now see there is the strongest possible contrast. In illustration of this we may remark, (1.) that the benefits of education are withheld from the slave. This is so well known that it is scarcely necessary to prove the existence of the fact. It is proper, however, to show that it is not the result of custom, or neglect on the part of the master, but that it is an essential part of the system, and is ordained by law. This is shown in a law of South Carolina, passed in the year 1719, and before quoted, (pp. 92, 93,) and in the law of Georgia, there referred to. In Virginia it is ordained, "That all meetings or assem- blages of slaves, or free negroes or mulattoes mixing or associating with such slaves at any meeting-house, or any other place, &c., in the night, or at any school or schools for teaching them reading or writing, either in the day or night, under whatevet pretext, shall be deemed and con- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 183 sidered an unlawful assembly.'"* So in South Carolina, in addition to the law of 1740, and in order to make the pro- hibition more effectual, the law was re-enacted in 1800, with power given to any officer, at pleasure, to disperse any such assemblage. The magistrates are "required" to enter into such places where any " slaves, free negroes, mulattoes, and mestizoes are met together for the purpose of mental instruc- tion,'''' and to " break the doors if resisted, and to disperse such slaves," &c. ; and " the officers dispersing such unlawful assemblage may inflict such corporeal punishment, not exceeding twenty lashes, on such slaves, free negroes, fyc, AS THEY MAY JUDGE NECESSARY FOR DETERRING FROM THE LIKE UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLAGE IN FUTURE. "t Besides these enactments of law, it should also be said, that the condition of the slave is such that he could find little or no time to learn to read and write, even if the prohibition were not positive. He is doomed to toil. " Hard-worked and scantily fed, his bodily energies are exhausted ; without an instructor and without books, he must of necessity remain for ever ignorant of the benefits of an education. "J (2.) The means for moral and religious instruction are not granted to the slave, but, on the contrary, the efforts of the charitable and humane to supply these wants are discountenanced by law. There is no arrange- ment made by law by which the slave shall be admitted to the privileges of public worship, though in some of the states it is enacted that he may receive and profess the Christian religion, and may be baptized, and the whole matter of public worship is left at the discretion of the master. The slave has no means of erecting a place of worship, nor could he be the owner of the house erected, or of the land on which it stood, or even of the most simple communion-service, or of the Bible or hymn-book which might be used. He has no means of supporting the gospel ; he has no Bible from which to give * 1 Eev. Code, 424, 425. f 2 Brevard's Digest, 254, 255. i Stroud, p. 90. 184 AN INQUIRY INTO THE instruction to his children, if he had the ability. Nay, it is well known that within a few years there have been positive prohibitions in many of the slave states against teaching the slave to read the Bible at all, and that this has been made a penal offence. If slaves have any religious privileges, they are not, in most of the states, secured by law, but are at the discretion of their masters, and in many of the states the dearest and most valuable of all the rights and privileges con- nected with religion are expressly prohibited to them. A reference to a very few of the enactments of the slave states on the subject, will show the condition of the servant in the United States, in regard to the most valuable privilege of man — that of the free worship of God. The laws of Mississippi indeed ordain, that " the master or overseer may, in writing, grant the slave permission to attend a place of religious wor- ship at which the minister may be white and regularly or- dained or licensed, or at least two discreet and respectable white persons, appointed by some regular church or society, shall attend.""' In Maryland, permission is given by law that the slave may be baptized, with this proviso, that such permission shall not be so construed that the slave, in virtue of his baptism, should be regarded as free. " No- negro or negroes, by receiving the holy sacrament of baptism, is there- by manumitted or set free, nor hath any right or title to freedom or manumission, more than he or they had before, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."! In North Carolina, also, it is expressly enacted that a slave may be baptized. "Be it enacted, that it shall be, and it is hereby declared lawful, for any negro, or Indian slave, or any other slave or slaves whatever, to receive and profess the Christian religion, and be thereunto baptized." The same proviso is added here as in Maryland, that this shall not be construed as implying that the slave is thereby free4 In * Rev Code, 390. \ Act of 1715, ch. 44, § 23. \ 2 Brevard's Digest, 329. \ SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 185 Louisiana, the law enacts that, "It shall be the duty of every owner to procure for his sick slaves all kinds of temporal and spiritual assistance, which their situation may require."* In Louisiana and Mississippi, the law makes provision that the slave shall not be required to labour on Sunday. The law in Louisiana is, " If any person shall, on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, employ any slave in any work or labour, (work of absolute necessity, and the ordinary occasions of the family excepted,) every person so offending shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten shillings for every slave he, she, or they shall so cause to work or labour."! So in Mississippi, under a penalty of two dollars. J These are all the arrange- ments, it is believed, in the slave states, for the religious in- struction and privileges of the slaves, made by law. That in many, or most of the states, the slaves are permitted to attend on public worship, occasionally at least, there can be no doubt; and that not a few among them become Christians, it would be as improper to doubt. Nor can it be denied that there are not a few kind and pious masters, who sincerely desire the salvation of their slaves, and who are willing to grant to them all the facilities which the circumstances of the case may permit, to secure their salvation. But I speak of the enact- ments of the laws ; of the arrangements made by statute, and of the fair operation of the laws if they were executed ac- cording to the spirit of the enactments. In considering those laws, and in estimating the actual privileges of slaves in re- gard to religion, we are to bear in remembrance the following things: (1.) That in case the provisions of the few laws in favour of the slave are not complied with, the slave has almost no means of redress ; he can never prosecute a white man, or even bear witness against him. (2.) That power is given to magistrates and others to break in upon suspicious assem- blages of coloured persons, and in such a way that the slave * 1 Martin's Digest, 610. f Prince's Digest, 455. t Rev. Code, 317. 16* 186 AN INQUIRY INTO THE would have no power of redress if wrong were done to him. (3.) That all night-meetings are prohibited. (4.) That the law ordains that the slave shall not be taught to read, and of course the oral instruction which he can receive will be of compara- tively little benefit to him. (3.) That slaves can never have a church of their own, or a pastor of their own, and can never feel that they are in any way a free congregation. (G.) That they are a mere appendage, in most circumstances, to a white congregation, with less advantageous seats and privi- leges. (7.) That in most states it is made a penal offence to teach them to read the Bible ; and (8.) that in regard to a preacher, they are altogether dependent on the will of their masters, who have the power of '■presentation,'' and 'the right of patronage,'' in the most absolute and odious form in which it has ever existed on earth. Let all these things be contrasted with the mild and equal laws of Moses in regard to the religious privileges of servants, and it is not difficult to answer the question whether his institutions can be appealed to in support of slavery in the United States. (5.) Under the Mosaic statutes we found that there was no provision by which a slave could be sold, or transferred from one master to another. The effect of this, in modifying the system of slavery, was also fully considered. It is hardly necessary to attempt to prove that in this country directly the reverse is true. The slave is regarded as property, so far as the right of selling him is concerned, in the same sense that a horse or a mule is property. lie may be sold, transmitted by will, or alienated in any way. He may be sold by private bargain, or at " public outcry ;" by auction at the pleasure of the master, or by the sheriff when seized for debt in connec- tion with horses, sheep, or oxen. He may be sold irrespective of the question to what place he is to be driven, or what kind of labour he is to be employed in, or what may be the cha- racter of his new master. He may be sold irrespective of any question whether he is a husband, or father, or brother ; or any wishes which he may have to remain with those who SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 187 are dear to his heart. He may be sold regardless of his tears and sobs, as he is about to be separated from his wife and children for ever. Indeed, in some of the slave states, no small part of the anticipated profits of the system result from the fact that the slave may be sold. The only restrictions made by law on the fact that slaves may be sold at pleasure, are, (1.) the ordinances of certain states, as Delaware, Mary- land, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and Louisiana, (and now of Mississippi,) prohibiting, in a great degree, the farther introduction of slaves ;* and a law in Louisiana, by which slaves are declared to be real estate there, and therefore ranked among immovable property. It is also ordained in Louisiana, that " If at a public sale of slaves, there happen to be some who are disabled through old age or otherwise, and who have children, such slaves shall not be sold but with his or her children whom he or she may think proper to go with;" and also, "Every person is ex- pressly prohibited from selling separately from their mothers, children who shall not have attained the full age of ten years." Of course, it follows from this, that when children have at tained the age of ten years they may be separated from their mothers at the pleasure of their masters. With these excep- tions, which do not materially affect the system of slavery, slaves may be sold like any other property. In fact, it is well known that nothing is more common, and that the buying and selling of slaves constitutes a regular species of merchandise at the South as much as the buying and selling of woollens, cottons, and silks ; of horses, sheep, and mules, in any part of the North. One can scarcely take up a paper printed even at the seat of the federal government, without finding nume- rous advertisements for the purchase of slaves ; and Wash- ington and Alexandria have long been known to be places where this inhuman traffic is carried on in as regular a busi- ness manner as any mercantile transaction is conducted in any * Stroud, p. 54. 1SS AN INQUIRY INTO THE part of the land. Such a traffic could never have existed in the Hebrew commonwealth. The whole spirit of its laws and institutions would have revolted at it, and a mart for the purchase and sale of slaves could not have been tolerated in any part of Palestine for a single hour. (6.) Under the Mosaic institutions we found an important arrangement for the redemption of the servant, if he or his friends had the means of doing it, which the master was not at liberty to refuse. The law provided a way by which it could be done. If the servant could himself earn enough to pay for his freedom, or if certain of his friends chose to inter- pose and purchase his liberty, the law made it obligatory on his master to release him. Lest, also, this provision should be rendered a nullity by an exorbitant price fixed by the master, the law made an express arrangement that the price should be equitable. A just valuation was to be made of the servant in proportion to the proximity of the year of jubilee, and the master was bound to accept that as the price of his release. Nothing like this, however, enters into American laws respecting slavery. There is no law compelling or requiring a master to sell a slave to himself or to a friend, any more than there is requiring him to sell his horse, his ox, or his hound. When a husband and father is from any cause made free, there is no law by which he can compel his former master to release his own wife and children at any price, or for any consideration whatever. If he proposes to buy them, and the master is disposed to sell them to their own husband and father, the price is entirely at the discretion of the master. No matter, also, how cruel may be the treatment of the slave, and however much he may desire a different place of resi- dence, he has no power to obtain a change of masters. In Egypt and Arabia, if a slave is maltreated, he may appeal to the magistrate, and compel his master to sell him.* But * Burckhardt's Travels in Nubia, pp. 306, 307. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 189 nothing- of this nature exists in the United States. In Judea, under the Mosaic laws, as we have seen, if a master in any way mutilated a slave ; if he merely deprived him of one of his teeth, he had a right to liberty. In this country, how- ever, neither by wrongs done to him or his family, nor by purchase by himself or his friends, can the slave claim his freedom. There exists no provision by which, under any circumstances, he can claim it as a right guarantied by law that his master shall set him up to be sold at ' public out- cry,' or in any other way. Should he find a man who would be willing to purchase him at any price, however exorbitant, there would be no power to compel his master to dispose of him. In all the slaveholding states, it is believed, there is but a single law in which it is ever made obligatory on a master to part with his slave, and that law is of such a nature as to be practically void. It is found in the new Civil Code of the state of Louisiana. The law is in these words : " No master shall be compelled to sell his slave, but in one of two cases, to wit : first, where, being only co-proprietor of the slave, his co-proprietor demands the sale, in order to make partition of the property ; second, where the master shall be convicted of cruel treatment of the slave, and the judge shall deem it proper to pronounce, besides the penalty established for such cases, that the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which the master has abused." — Art. 192. This law, however, must be in almost all cases a practical nul- lity, for (1.) it is to be remembered that by a fundamental law of slavery, no slave or coloured free person can bear witness against a white man ; (2.) it is necessary that the master be 1 convicted' of cruelty — a thing so difficult " that it can hardly be ranked among possibilities ;" (3.) it is, after all, optional with the judge whether he shall or shall not make the decree in favour of the slave. But if in any cases it should be carried into effect, it furnishes no relief to the system of oppression, for (1.) the slave is not to be made free as the servant under the 190 AX INQUIRY INTO THE Jewish system was, when oppressed ; (2.) there is in this case the same view of degradation and debasement which prevails everywhere in the notion of slavery — that the slave may be sold — sold " at auction" — sold as property — sold as cattle are ; and (3.) there is a possibility at least that the condition of the slave would be in nowise benefited by such a sale. He would have no security whatever that he might not pass into the hands of a master quite as cruel as his former owner was. (7.) Slaves in the United States are to be restored to their masters, \{ they endeavour to escape. We found, among the fundamental principles of the Mosaic law, a provision that the slave was never to be restored if he attempted to do this. He was to find in the land of Judea an asylum. The whole power and authority of the commonwealth were pledged for his protection. It would never be lawful, even by treaty, to make an arrangement by which he could be restored. No judge had the right to return him, and if an attempt was made by his former master to rescue him, it was contemplated that the whole power of the Hebrew magistracy would be asserted to secure his freedom. A practical invitation, there- fore, was given to the oppressed of all lands, to seek the enjoyment of freedom within the limits of the Hebrew com- monwealth. In examining the Mosaic institutions, I showed what must have been the practical bearing of this funda- mental law in regard to slavery there, and what would be its practical operation in our own land. The law in our country on this subject is positive, and is one of the very few provisions for the perpetuity of slavery which it was thought important to incorporate into the Con- stitution of the United States. It is probably the only thing in the federal Constitution which comes in direct and open conflict with any law of the Bible, or where a conscientious man holding office would have any doubt about his duty in obeying the Constitution of his country. Here, however, the provision is directly at variance with the law of God, and is designed to prevent the very thing which was sought as a SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 191 good by the Mosaic legislation — to furnish an inducement to the oppressed to secure their freedom. The provision of the Constitution of the United States on this subject is in the fol- lowing words : " No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." — Art. iv. sect. ii. 3. That slaves are here included, there can be no reasonable doubt, and so the article has always been understood ; but two things are quite remarkable on the face of the article. One is, that the framers of the Constitu- tion carefully, here as elsewhere, avoided the use of the word slave; and the other is, that they as carefully avoided the recognition of property in the slave. They speak of the indi- vidual referred to as a ' person,' not as being a chattel or thing; ■ held to service or labour,' not as property. And they say that the ' person' so held < shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due,' not that the person so held shall be delivered up to him who * owns 1 him, or who claims him as 'property? Upon the authority, however, of this provision of the Con- stitution, an act of Congress has been passed, dated February 12, 1793, which is the source of bitter anguish to its victims, and which, in all its details, is directly in conflict with the divine law. The law is in these words : " When a person held to labour in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the north-west or the south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territories, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or before any magistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made ; and upon proof to the 192 AN INQUIRY INTO THE satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testi- mony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour to the state or terri- tory from which he or she fled."* Under this provision of the Constitution, and this law of Congress, escape from slavery within the limits of the United States, or any of the territories of the United States, is hopeless. The arrangement is de- signed to secure this species of 'property,' and to render freedom for the slave impossible. It is contemplated that every magistrate in the land shall be ready to lend his support to the institution ; shall be an ally of the slaveholder of the South in perpetuating the system, and shall give the sanc- tion of his name and authority to the enforcement of a law which is directly at variance with the law of God. The law of God ordains that every man who can secure his freedom by escape from bondage, has a right to it, and should be pro- tected in that right ; the Constitution and laws of the United States suppose that he has no such right, and that all the authority of the civil arm is to be employed in ri vetting upon him again the fetters of bondage. It would be impossible to conceive of laws more directly repugnant to each other, than, in this case, are the law of God and the law of this Christian land. (8.) There is no provision made in this land for gene- ral emancipation. We found, in the examination of the Jewish law, that it was a fundamental provision there that every Hebrew servant was to be set at liberty at the close of the sixth year, and that there was to be a general proclama- * Ingersoll's Abridgment, 310. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 193 tion of freedom throughout the land in the year of jubilee. The practical operation of this, it was shown, would be to abolish slavery altogether, for it was seen that the system could not be perpetuated under such an arrangement. It is not necessary to attempt to show that there is no such general arrangement in this country for freedom. It has never been contemplated, for it must be seen at once that it would be the destruction of the system. Let the Mosaic laws be applied to slavery in this land, just as they are found in the Pentateuch, and in half a century slavery in the United States would be at an end. In order, however, to see more clearly that the Mosaic statutes cannot be adduced in support of slavery in the United States, it may not be improper to refer to a few of the laws directly opposed to those sta- tutes, or which are designed to perpetuate slavery, and to prevent the possibility of emancipation. In Georgia, the attempt to free a slave, by any other mode than by an applica- tion to the legislature, is visited with severe penalties, as will appear by the following act : " If any person or persons shall, after the passing of this act, (1801,) set free any slave or slaves, in any other manner and form than the one prescribed herein," (i. e. by special legislative act,) "he shall forfeit for every such offence two hundred dollars, to be recovered by action of debt or indictment, the one half to be applied to the use of the county in which the offence may have been com- mitted, the other half to the use of the informer, and the said slave or slaves so manumitted and set free, shall be still to all intents and purposes as much in a slate of slavery as before they were manumitted and set free by the party or parties so offending."* Yet, as if this enactment were not sufficiently strong to perpetuate slavery, and to prevent the possibility of freedom to the slave, Georgia, by an act of the year 1818, added the following statute to her code : "All and every will and testament, deed, whether by way of trust or otherwise, * Prince's Digest, 457. 17 194 AN INQUIRY INTO THE contract, or agreement, or stipulation, or other instrument in writing or by parol, made and executed for the purpose of effecting, or endeavouring to effect, the manumission of any- slave or slaves, either directly, by conferring or attempting to confer freedom on such slave or slaves, or indirectly or virtually, by allowing and securing, or attempting to allow and secure to such slave or slaves the right or privilege of working for his, her, or themselves, free from the control of the master or owner of such slave or slaves, or of enjoying the profits of his, her, or their labour and skill, shall be, and the same are hereby declared utterly null and void, and the person or persons so making, &c, any such deed, &c, and all and every person or persons concerned in giving or attempting to give effect thereto, whether by accepting the trust thereby created, or attempted to be created, or in any other way or manner whatsoever, shall be severally liable to a penalty, not exceeding one thousand dollars, to be recovered, &c, and each and every slave or slaves in whose behalf such will or testament, 4'C, shall have been made, shall be liable to be arrested by warrant under the hand and seal of any magistrate of this state, and being thereof convicted, shall be liable to be sold as a slave or slaves by public outcry."* A similar law exists in North Carolina. By an act of the General Assembly of that state, passed in 1777, it is ordained, " That no negro or mulatto slave shall hereafter be set free except for meritorious services, to be adjudged of and allowed by the county court, and license first had and obtained there- upon ; and when any slave is or shall be set free by his or her master or owner otherwise than is herein directed, it shall and may be lawful for any freeholder in this state to appre- hend and take up such slave, and deliver him or her to the sheriff of the county, who, upon receiving such slave, shall give such freeholder a receipt for the same, and the sheriff shall commit all such slaves to the jail of the county, there to * Prince's Digest, 466. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 195 remain until the next court to be held for that county, and the court of the county shall order such confined slaves to be sold, during the term, to the highest bidder."* In Mississippi, it is enacted that the emancipation of a slave must be by an in- strument of writing, a last will or deed, under a seal attested by at least two credible witnesses, or acknowledged in the court of the county or corporation where the emancipator re- sides ; proof satisfactory to the General Assembly must be adduced that the slave has done some meritorious act for the benefit of his master, or rendered some distinguished service to the state, all which circumstances are but prerequisites, and are of no efficacy until a special act of the Assembly sanc- tions the emancipation. t It cannot be denied that there are greater facilities for emancipation in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, and perhaps in some of the other slaveholding states, but it is not necessary to specify the provisions parti- cularly. In Kentucky, it may be done by a proper record in the county court of the will of the master or owner to emanci- pate his slaves, " saving, however, the rights of cr editor s."% In reference, however, to the subject of emancipation in the United States, as contrasted with the Mosaic provisions, it may be remarked in general, (1.) That there is no provision or law for a general emancipation of all slaves as there was among the Hebrews. (2.) That in some of the states it is entirely prohibited to the owner to emancipate his own slaves, and it can take place only by a special act of the legislature. (3.) That in some of the states it can never occur unless the emancipated slave shall be removed from the limits of the state. (4.) That in all cases where it may be done, it depends on the will of the master, and there is no provision of law to compel him to do it ; and (5.) That all the considerations of interest, and custom, and law, and all the circumstantial pro- * Haywood's Manual, 525. f Mississippi Rev. Code, 385, 386. i 2 Litt. &Swi. 1155. 196 AN INQUIRY INTO THE cesses of law in order to secure emancipation in any case — the necessity of witnesses, and in many cases of legislative enactments — go to prevent emancipation at all. To this may be added all the severe enactments in the slave states against foreign interference to persuade the masters to emancipate their slaves ; all the obstructions thrown in the way of making an appeal to the masters through the mails ; all the excite- ments against those who are suspected of being abolitionists ; all the operations of Lynch law ; all the public denunciations against foreign interference in the case ; all the appointments of committees of vigilance, and all the precautions against the possible escape of those held as slaves. All the arrangements of law which are made in the slave states, are designed to per- petuate slavery, not to bring it to an end ; all those in the Mosaic statutes were intended to modify the system, and ulti- mately to abolish it. Under the Mosaic system, slavery could be, and would be, by the regular operation of the laws, abolished. Here, there is no tendency in the laws to its abolition, but under any existing or prospective arrange- ment, it would continue for ever. I have thus gone over, at considerable length, the laws of Moses in regard to servitude, and have placed those laws in contrast with those which exist in our own land. On this part of my subject, therefore, it only remains to ask, what sanction the Mosaic laws give to servitude as it exists in the United States ? Scarcely any two s} T stems could possibly be more directly in contrast, and how can it then be inferred that the Mosaic en- actments are either proofs that Moses regarded slavery as desirable in order to promote the best interests of society, or that his institutions give a sanction to it as it exists in the United States ? The sanction of Moses could be adduced only in favour of the system which he established, and not in favour of one which has scarcely a feature in common with his. The operation of his laws was to modify a system which he found in existence, and which could not at once be extir- pated ; to soften all its hard features ; to bring it as far as SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 197 possible into conformity with the privileges of freedom, and as soon as practicable to abolish it altogether. The ope- ration of the system here is to rivet the fetters of the slave ; to deny to him all the privileges and rights of an intellectual and a moral being, and to perpetuate the system for ever. The application of the laws of Moses to this country would make servitude at once a mild and gentle institution, and would abolish it wholly in half a century ; the regular operation of the laws now existing here would perpetuate it for ever. Here are no laws designed to modify and meliorate the sys- tem; there are none which contemplate emancipation. Of all the abuses ever applied to the Scriptures, the most intol- erable and monstrous are those which pervert them to the support of American slavery. Sad is it, that the mild and benignant enactments of the Hebrew legislator should ever be appealed to, to sanction the wrongs and outrages of the poor African in "this land of freedom;" sad, that the ministers of religion should ever prostitute their high office to give countenance to such a system, by maintaining or even con- ceding for a moment that the Mosaic laws sanction the op- pressions and wrongs existing in the United States. " 1 tremble" said Jefferson, " when I remember that God is just, for God has no attributes which can take part with us in relation to this matter." In regard to the laws existing in the United States respect- ing slavery, as contrasted with those of the Mosaic institutions, there are a few additional remarks which it seems proper to make in this place. (1.) I have not copied them with any intention of exciting odium against slaveholders, or of holding the framers of those laws up to reproach. It would have been desirable to have avoided all reference to them if possible, and to have suffered them to remain scattered as they are through the law books of many states, and intermingled with other laws, so that they should not be presented under the disadvantage of being placed side by side. But it seemed indispensable that in 17* 198 AN INQUIRY INTO THE comparing the system of servitude under the Mosaic insti- tutions with that in the United States, with reference to the question whether the one sanctions the other, to compare the laws in the two institutions. I have endeavoured to do justice to the Mosaic institutions in this respect by bringing together all the laws which he enacted, and, though I have not copied all the laws of the slaveholding states on the subject, yet it seemed to be but a mere act of justice that the principal enactments should be referred to. (2.) It may be admitted that these laws in the Southern states are not always enforced, and that in some respects many of them become in fact a dead Litter. I am happy in the belief that it is so ; and I admit that it is not a fair way of judging of the system to suppose that these laws are always rigidly enforced. There is no doubt that in many places almost none of them are.* Uniform testimony goes to show that in not a few places slaves appear to be contented, cheerful, and happy ; that many masters are kind and truly pious ; that on many plantations great pains are taken to teach the slave to read the Bible, and to instruct him in the princi- ples of religion ; that not a few slaves give evidence that they are true Christians ; and that multitudes of them, in such circumstances, may pass their whole lives and never feel the weight of the terrific enactments which hang over them, or even know of their actual existence. It is not always fair, I admit, to judge of the actual condition of a people by what we find in a statute book. Laws become obsolete. Customs and habits change. The severe enactment dies away without a formal repeal. There is no necessity, under the advancing state of society, to put it in execution, and it is forgotten. There can be no doubt that it would be possible to make quite a formi- dable representation of the state of things in England by merely copying the unrepealed laws in the statute book, and that by * Compare on this point Dr. Fuller on Slavery, Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 159, 160. / SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 199 such a process an idea might be conveyed of the state of society there to which there is nothing corresponding in fact. The laws have become obsolete, though they are not repealed ; and a true judgment of the state of society there is to be formed, not by an abstract study of the law books in a distant land, but by a close observation of the actual workings of society. I have no doubt that injustice is often done to the southern states of this Union by just this process — as beyond all question injustice is done by collecting all the advertise- ments of runaway slaves ; and all the notices of their marks and brands ; and all the accounts of isolated acts of cruelty and severity ; and all the instances of the whipping, the imprison- ment, and the shooting down of slaves, and by publishing them as if that were a fair representation of the ordinary operations of "slavery as it is." Every one of those indivi- dual instances may have occurred — perhaps hundreds of miles apart — but to collect them in a volume does no more justice to society there than would be done by collecting all the cases of rape, and riot, and burglary, and murder, and arson from the records of the courts at the North, and publishing them in a volume in order to give to a stranger a just representation of society here. I should be sorry, therefore, if by copying the laws of the Southern states as contrasted with those of Moses, I should do any thing to extend or perpetuate this injustice, or lead any to suppose that these laws are always executed, or that the state of society is to be inferred from the supposition that they are always executed, and that there is in fact nothing at the South of which these laws may not be regarded as the fair exponent. (3.) It should be said, however, that while those laws exist unrepealed, they may be put into execution, and that the slave under them is liable to suffer all the oppression and wrong which they appear to justify. It is no uncommon thing for a ma a to be made to suffer under the operation of an obsolete staiute of which he had no knowledge, and the remembrance ci which is revived for the very purpose of doing him in 200 AN INQUIRY INTO THE justice. Whether these laws at the South shall or shall not be executed in their severity, depends on the state of the pub- lic mind, on the passions that may prevail in any community, and on the will and caprice of particular masters. This is a point over which the slave has no control, and in which the benevolent who might wish a better state of things, and might shudder at the wrong done, have no power. Any or all of these grievous wrongs may be perpetrated by a cruel master, and he will be sustained by the sanction of the laws ; and in order to a fair judgment respecting a community, we are to take into the account not only what is done, but what may be done under the sanction of law. (4.) These laws are a fair expression of the nature of the system of slavery in its essential character. They are what the system has produced. They have grown out of it, as being supposed to be necessary to the best working of the system, and to its perpetuity. They are the result of long and careful legislation, in a country that boasts of being the most enlightened in the world. They are in most instances the result of experience, and are what has been found by experience to be necessary to the perfection of the system. They are what the lawgivers at the South have supposed to be requisite in order that the institution may be perpetuated in this country, and are an exponent of what the master deems to be necessary in order that his right to this species of ■ pro- perty' may be best secured. For illustration, it would be fair to refer to the laws of Pennsylvania respecting the right of the owners of various kinds of property, and the ways by which they may secure themselves from wrong, as a proof of what has been found necessary in that commonwealth to promote in the best manner the security of society. Those laws are the results of long experience in the case, just as the laws of the South are the results of long experience of the best methods of perpetuating slavery. They may be refeih'ed to, therefore, as the fair exponent of the nature of the system. (5.) Those laws are necessary to the system. They aiS SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 201 the shield which protects it. They could not be repealed with safety. The system of slave laws as such could not be safely modified. The repeal of any of those enactments, harsh and severe as they seem to be, would be doing so much to endanger the system. To abolish them, and to introduce the great features of the Mosaic code, would be to peril the system at once. No essential modification of those laws for the better has been made in all the legislation on the subject, and the question is never agitated at the South whether the "negro code" could be meliorated consistently with the perpetuity of slavery. No proposition could be entertained suggesting that the laws should be so modified that the slave should be taught to read ; that he should be allowed entire freedom to worship God ; that he should be permitted to testify against a white man ; that he should be considered as the owner of property ; that the marriage contract should be inviolate ; that he should be allowed to control his children, or that, if he escaped, he should not be returned by force to his master. Any relaxation of the system at all, bordering on such modifications, would be repelled as tending to abolition, and the nearer such modifications should come to the Mosaic statutes, the more would that danger be felt. It is not unfair, therefore, to refer to these laws as illus- trating the working of the system of American slavery, or as showing what it is. (6.) If the system of slavery, as it exists in this country, is right, or if slavery itself is right in any proper sense of the term, then these laws growing out of the system, and neces- sary to its continuance, are also right. If the master possess the right which is claimed over a slave — a right to oblige him to labour for his benefit without his consent ; a right to his time and to the avails of his labour and skill ; a right to dis- pose of that time and skill, and to sell the slave himself, then he " enjoys also a right to use all the means necessary both to enforce it and to render it permanent. He has a right to protect himself against everything that would interfere with the 202 AN INQUIRY INTO THE exercise of this right. If the intellectual and moral cultiva- tion of the slave would interfere with the master's power to enforce this right, he has the right to arrest this cultivation at any point he chooses, or to abolish it altogether. If the right exist, therefore, no exception can be taken to the sternest laws which have ever been enacted in any of the Southern states, even though they prohibit, under the severest penal- ties, the education of negroes, and forbid them to assemble for the worship of God, except under the strictest surveillance."* To these views of Dr. Wayland, no exception, it seems to me, can be taken, and if they are correct, then it is clear that it is proper to place the existing laws in the slave states in contrast with those of Moses, as illustrating the question whether American slavery has the sanction of the Bible. * Dr. Wayland's Letters to Dr. Fuller, p. 23. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 203 CHAPTER VI. Hebrew Servitude in the time of the Prophets. In the previous chapters, I have gone into an extended examination of the subject of slavery or servitude as it ex- isted among the Hebrew patriarchs, and under the Mosaic arrangements. The general conclusion which has been reached in this investigation is, that while slavery existed in the patriarchal times, and while the laws of Moses contem- plated the possibility of its existence, just as they did of polygamy and divorce, yet that, so far as the Mosaic code tolerated it, it was comparatively a mild system, and one which it was the tendency of his institutions ultimately to abolish. He found it in existence, and could abolish it only by mild, but determined legislation. He made servi- tude under his code a different thing from what it was in surrounding nations. He made it a desirable thing for a slave elsewhere to place himself under his laws. He pro- tected him there, and made it certain that, when once under the jurisdiction of his laws, he could never be returned again to his former master. He elevated the slave to many of the rights of a man ; regarded him as a man, a moral agent, a religious being; gave him an opportunity of acquiring the knowledge of the true religion ; allowed him time for the improvement of his mind, and for the acqui- sition of property ; fitted him to be a freeman, and made arrangements which were incorporated in the very constitu- tion of the commonwealth, that at certain periods, not far dis- tant from each other, the whole land should be free from every vestige of slavery. The Mosaic institutions were thus evidently opposed to the system, and contemplated its ultimate 204 AN INQUIRY INTO THE entire abolition, in strong contrast, as we have seen, with the institutions of our own country, which contemplate its un- mitigated perpetuity. A very important question presents itself in regard to the working of the Mosaic system, and on this inquiry I now enter. The inquiry extends from the period of the close of the Mosaic code, or the death of Moses, to the winding up of the Hebrew institutions — the coming of the Messiah. So far as this subject is concerned, this may be regarded as one period — whether under the judges or the kings ; whether the nation was itself free, or whether it was in bondage. The inquiry is, what was the operation of the Mosaic laws respect- ing servitude ? Was it regarded as consistent with the spirit of those laws ? Was the Hebrew nation a nation of slaveholders ? If slavery existed at any time, what was its character? Did the prophets approve and commend it? And was it a fact that under the operation of that system, the Saviour found slavery prevalent at the time of his ap- pearing ? There is some difficulty in arriving at exact views on this point, arising from the indefinite meaning of the word servant, and the words relating to servitude, in the Scriptures. That there were servants in the times of the prophets, and through the entire period now under consideration, no one can doubt. Any one by opening a Hebrew, a Greek, or an English Con- cordance, will find that the words "tt? ebedh — Soiaoj doulos — and servant, occur almost numberless times, though they are used in a great variety of senses. It is necessary, there- fore, to bear in mind that the use of these words does not demonstrate that slavery existed in any proper form. The inquiry is not into the use of the word, but into the thing, and in order to this it is necessary to keep in constant re- membrance what slavery is. The meaning of the word ren- dered servant in the Old Testament has been the subject of previous examination, (Chapter III.) and the results of this examination should be borne in mind in the inquiry on which SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 205 we now enter. The result of the examination, in substance, was, that the words used to denote servitude in the Scriptures, do not necessarily denote slavery in the proper sense of the term, or in the sense now under inquiry, and that the mere use of those terms determines nothing in the issue before us. It neither proves that slavery existed then, nor that it is lawful, any more than the word servant in England, or in the states north of Mason's and Dixon's line, proves that slavery exists there, or is regarded as right. We are to remember what constitutes the thing, (See Chap. II.) and to inquire whether there is evidence that that existed, and how it was regarded in the period under consideration. If the view which has been taken of the Mosaic law be correct, we shall expect to find in the Hebrew commonwealth, that, if slavery existed at all, it was in a mild form. We shall expect to find that the Hebrews did not engage in the slave-trade or traffic. We shall expect to find that all cruelty was rebuked, and that the slave gradually rose in the public estimation, and was elevated nearer to the condition of a free- man. We shall expect to find that the institution gradually disappeared ; that it was regarded as so contrary to the whole spirit of the Mosaic laws, that it finally ceased to be known in the nation. These are the fair and reasonable expectations which we should form from the examination of the subject which we have gone over ; and if this should be found not to be the result, it would do much to make us doubt the cor- rectness of the conclusions to which we have come respecting the nature of the Mosaic arrangements. The inquiry now is, what were the facts in the case as developed in their history ? This inquiry will embrace the following points : — The treat- ment of the native inhabitants of the land of Canaan ; the foreign traffic of the nation, and the question whether dealing in slaves constituted a part of that traffic ; how it was re- garded and treated by the prophets ; and whether slavery continued to exist among the Hebrew people, or was finally abolished. 18 206 AX INQUIRY INTO THE I. The inquiry in regard to the condition of the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine. I begin with this, because there is allusion to them in the sacred writings in such a way as to illustrate this subject ; and because, if the Mosaic institutions had contemplated slavery as a desirable thing, and as a permanent arrangement, nothing would have been more natural than that whole people should have been reduced to permanent servitude. To such a course there were strong inducements. They might be regarded as captives taken in war, and it was the ancient law that such captives were regarded as slaves. They were an abandoned race — a race devoted to destruc- tion. None of them were regarded as the proper objects of mercy ; none were to be considered as entitled to any privi- leges of citizenship, nor were they to become citizens of the Hebrew republic. Ex. xxxiv. 11 — 13; Numb, xxxiii. 51 — 56 ; Deut. vii. 1 — 5. Yet, if their institutions contemplated slavery, and it was designed that slavery should enter into the permanent arrangements of the commonwealth, what would have been more natural than to have doomed that race to servitude ? Where could any class of men have been found more fitted for it, or against whose subjugation to hope- less bondage fewer objections could have been raised ? In the view of the law of God, as promulgated by Moses, they had forfeited all claim to life or mercy. They might justly be driven from their land, or devoted to destruction. Yet it would seem to be a milder and more compassionate treat- ment to make them slaves ; to permit them to live, and to give them the opportunity of becoming ultimately incorpo- rated among the Hebrew people. This thought would cer- tainly occur to the Hebrews themselves, if they had sup- posed that slavery was to be a part of their political arrange- ments ; and if God had designed that it should enter into that system permanently, it is inconceivable why he did not at once point them to that people as a race that would supply them with all the slaves that they needed. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 207 Nothing-, moreover, would have been more natural than this course, if they had recalled one of the ancient predictions respecting a portion of this people — the malediction of Noah. Gen. ix. 25. "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." This passage, hy a singular perverseness 'of interpretation, and a singular perseverance in that perverseness notwithstanding the plainest rules of exegesis, is often employed to justify the reduction of the African to slavery, because Ham, the father of Canaan, peopled Africa. Nothing can be clearer, however, than that if a Hebrew had ever thought of employing this passage to justify slavery, it would not have been applied by him to the African, but to the Canaanite. It was Canaan and not Ham that was specified ; and whatever there was in the passage, whether of prophecy or malediction, that could be interpreted in favour of the right of subjecting any one to servitude, a Hebrew would have applied it only to the Canaanite. The plea would have been plausible, that by an ancient prediction it was foretold that the Canaanite should be a slave ; that the curse of the patriarch Noah, specifying Canaan by name, would make such subjection proper; and that it was in accordance with this ancient prediction that arrangements were now made by which he should be reduced to bondage. A far more plausible argument could have been derived from this application of the passage in favour of fastening the chains of servitude on the Canaanite, than has ever been urged in modern times from it in favour of the subjection of the African to bondage. Yet this application of the prophecy, so far as we know, was never made, nor did these plausible considerations in favour of subjecting the inhabitants of Palestine to slavery, ever occur to the mind of the Hebrew conquerors. No arrangements were made to kidnap them ; no permission was given by Moses or Joshua to the victors to hold those taken in arms as slaves ; nor was a slave-mart opened in which the captives were exposed to sale. There is not the slightest 208 AN INQUIRY INTO THE evidence that one of them was held as a slave, or was ever sold or offered for sale as a slave. They were not even attached as serfs or villeins to the soil, nor were they exported to be sold in a foreign market. There are two occurrences referred to in their history which are decisive on this point, and which prove that not even the survivors of those tribes were regarded as slaves. The first is, the fact that a few of the inhabitants of Canaan, from the fear of death, became, by art and duplicity, voluntary servants to the Hebrews. I refer to the case of the Gibeonites. Josh. ix. They came to Joshua with the representation that they had travelled a great distance, and in such raiment as to appear as if they had come from afar. They stated to him and the elders, that they had heard of all that had been done by the Hebrews in their conquests, and they came to enter into a league of peace. The artifice succeeded, and the request was granted, and a solemn compact was entered into between them and the leaders of the Jewish host. Soon the deception was found out, (ver. 16,) and it became a serious question what course was to be pursued in regard to them. The command to destroy all the inhabitants of the land was positive ; the fact of fraud in this case was undoubted ; and yet a solemn league had been made with them, and the faith of the nation pledged that they should be spared. The matter was compromised, and the honour of the nation secured ; since by the compact they were regarded as ' bondmen ;' (literally ' servitude 13$ shall not be cut off from you;' see the margin ;) and they were made " hewers of wood and drawers of water" ■ for the house of God.' They were em- ployed in the service of the " congregation and of the altar," (ver. 27,) and were continued in this menial occupation. Yet there is no evidence that they were reduced to slavery, pioperly so called. They were not held as property. They were not bought and sold, nor does it appear that the obliga- tion to servitude descended to their children. They were held in subjection, and were employed to perform the more SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 209 laborious duties connected with the public services of the sanctuary. Undoubtedly they were regarded as menials, and were probably subjected to much indignity and contempt, but the essential features of slavery were wanting in their case. They had voluntarily put themselves in this position. They obtained what they asked, and though it was a laborious and debased condition, yet they preferred it to death. No argu- ment can be derived from this in favour of the supposition that the Hebrews designed to perpetuate the institution of Slavery. The other occurrence referred to in their history, which may illustrate the subject, is one that took place in the time of Solomon. Upon the remnant of that people in the land, who it would seem up to this time had been free, Solomon is said to have 'levied a tribute of bond-service' in building the temple. "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon these did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service (13JH3») unto this day." 1 Kings ix. 20, 21. An express distinction was made between them and the chil- dren of Israel. "But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen, ("*-?#,) but they were men of war, and his servants," (that is, in a higher sense than the others,) "and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." — Ver. 22. Yet there is no evidence that the descendants of the Amorites, &c, were regarded as slaves. They were pressed into a temporary service for the purpose of procuring the materials of building the temple, and were doubtless dismissed as soon as the temple was completed. There is no evidence that they were held as property, or that they were in any case sold, or that they were held in perpetual servitude of any kind. The phrase " unto this day," ver 21, proves only that they were held until that part of the book of Kings was composed. 18* 210 AN INQUIRY INTO THE Two remarks, however, may be made in view of this trans- action. First, that until this time they were not regarded as slaves, or as servants of any kind. The ■ bond-service' was then laid upon them. They were before freemen, and were now pressed into the service for a temporary purpose. Second, slavery was not common at that time, or at least Solomon had not slaves of his own. If that had been the case, we should have heard something of it on an occasion like this, and his slaves would have been required to perform this laborious service. The fact that Solomon was obliged to lay this burden on a people heretofore free, demonstrates that there was no large body of slaves under his control, to whom the work could be intrusted. II. There was no foreign traffic in slaves. The proof of this is as complete as it can be where there is no express de- claration, and the fact is of great importance, for if there were provisions made for the periodical emancipation of all who were held in servitude, then it is clear that the system could be perpetuated only by an active foreign traffic. It is needless to say that, though chiefly an agricultural people,* the Hebrews, especially in the time of Solomon, had considerable foreign trade. Palestine was favourably situated for commerce, and particularly for a commerce in slaves. It was adjacent to the Mediterranean, and the rich productions of India, in all ages the most desirable objects of commerce, almost of neces- sity passed through some part of it. It was undoubtedly to facilitate or secure this trade, that Solomon built Tadmor or Palmyra, and it was this which, in subsequent times, made Tyre, and Petra, and Alexandria, and Venice what they were. Solomon also had the advantage of a port at Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, and secured also from that direction the rich productions of India and Africa. The vicinity of Egypt to Palestine, and the intercourse which Solomon had with that * Sec Michaclis' Com. on the Laws of Moses, art. xxxix. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 211 country, made it easy, if he had chosen to do it, to import slaves from northern Africa. An active commerce in slaves has, in nearly all ages, been carried on through Egypt ; and the different parts of Turkey, at the present day, are supplied with those which are procured in the interior of Africa, and conveyed through Nubia and Egypt. An extensive slave- mart is established at Shendy, in Nubia, and the slave traffic is among the most profitable that now passes through Egypt. The number of slaves sold annually in the slave market at Shendy is about five thousand, a large part of whom go to Egypt, and thence to various parts of Turkey.* It may be added here, that slavery has always prevailed in Egypt, and in the adjacent countries. " According to the most moderate calculation," says Burckhardt, " the number of slaves actually in Egypt is forty thousand. There is hardly a village in which several of them are not found, and every person of pro- perty keeps at least one. All the Bedouin tribes also, who surround these countries, are well stocked with slaves." — p. 307. It would not be possible to refer to a period in the history of Egypt in which slavery did not exist, and in which the traffic in slaves did not constitute an important part of the commerce with other countries. There was every temptation, therefore, if the Hebrews engaged in commerce at all, to make this a part of the traffic, and there is a moral certainty, if slavery was regarded as in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, that this species of trade would have ex- tensively prevailed. Yet, in every allusion to the commerce which was carried on with other nations, there is not a single instance where the traffic in slaves is mentioned. There happens to be quite an extended specification of the articles of trade — a specification which would be sufficient for a custom-house officer in ascer- taining the amount and value of imports — and yet there is no case in which a slave constituted an item in the imports. * See this traffic fully described in Burckhardt's Travels in Nubia, pp. 290—308. 212 AN INQUIRY INTO THE Thus we have an enumeration in 1 Kings x. 22, of the articles which were imported in the "navy of Tharshish." "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram ; once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." Comp. 2Chron. ix. 21. So also Solomon had a seaport at Ezion-Geber, " on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom," (1 Kings ix. 26,) from whence the traffic with Ophir was carried on, but there is no intimation that any of those vessels were employed in the slave trade. If the traffic in slaves constituted any part of this commerce, it is incredible that "apes and peacocks" should have been specified, and no allusion to what must have been a much more important branch of commerce. The considerations here suggested receive confirmation, if we advert to two circumstances mentioned in regard to the commerce of Tyre. The one is, that a part of the commer- cial operations of the Tyrians consisted in slaves. Thus it is said, (Ezek. xxvii. 13,) " Javan, Tubal, and Mesech, they were thy merchants; they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market." Comp. Rev. xviii. 13. The other circumstance is, that in the mention of the trade which the Hebrews carried on with Tyre, there is no allusion to any such traffic, and the enumeration of other things as the arti- cles in which they traded, precludes the supposition that they dealt in either the purchase or sale of slaves. " Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants : they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm." — ver. 17. These circumstances make it mo- rally certain that in the transactions with Tyre, and in the foreign commerce carried on from Ezion-Geber, no part of the merchandise consisted of slaves. I do not find in the whole history of the Hebrew people under the Mosaic institutions, a hint that they were ever engaged in this species of com- merce. There is no enumeration of slaves among the articles of importation ; there is no allusion to them in the account SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 213 of the arrival of caravans or of foreigners who came to Pa- lestine ; there is no recorded instance of any public sale of slaves ; there was no public mart where they were sold ; there are no merchants mentioned who devoted their lives tc the business. Now if slavery existed in Palestine to any considerable degree, it must have been kept up by the foreign traffic, and i/'that had existed, it is incredible that in the long time in which they existed as a separate people, no allusion is ever made to it. It would be impossible to give a correct history of the United States, without some allusion to the slave trade; and the records in regard to the importation of slaves are so deeply engraven in all our annals, that no lapse of time can ever obliterate them. If the traffic existed in Palestine in any manner at all corresponding to what exists in our own country, how can it be accounted for that in all their history there was not the slightest allusion to it 1 III. The prophets felt themselves at liberty to animadvert upon the injustice of slavery, and to denounce it as entirely inconsistent with the Mosaic institutions. If this was the case, it will follow that, though slavery may have prevailed to some extent, yet it was understood that the spirit of the Mo- saic institutions was opposed to it, and that they were in- tended to abolish it. For the prophets surely would not have denounced, as wrong, a system which the constitution of their own country was designed to perpetuate, and which the law of their God intended to sanction. In regard to the fact that the prophets felt at liberty to de- nounce all slavery as wholly inconsistent with the Mosaic institutions, I will refer to two classes of passages of Scripture, which will make the matter entirely clear. Before I do this, it may be observed, however, that the allusions in the writings of the prophets are so infrequent as to lead us to suppose that slavery in Palestine did not extensively prevail ; but that when they do allude to it, it is in such a way as to leave 214 AN INQUIRY INTO THE no doubt as to the views which they entertained on the subject. (A) The first class of passages of Scripture relates to the views which were entertained about the propriety of subject- ing their own countrymen to slavery ; or the question whether it was proper for the Hebrews to make slaves of their brethren. Two events which happened in their history gave occasion to the prophets to express their views on this point, and they did not hesitate to avail themselves of the opportunity. The first occurred during the reign of Ahaz, and is so important on the point that I will copy the account at length. 2 Chron. xxviii. 8 — 15: "And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria. But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was Oded ; and he went out before the host that came to Samaria, and said unto them, Behold, be- cause the Lord God of your fathers was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage that reacheth up unto heaven. And now ye purpose to keep under the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you ; but are there not with you, even with you, sins against the Lord your God ? Now hear me, therefore, and deliver the captives again, which ye have taken captive of your brethren ; for the fierce wrath of God is upon you. Then certain of the heads of the chil- dren of Ephraim, Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth, and Jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa the son of Hadlai, stood up against them that came from the war, and said unto them, ye shall not bring in the captives hither ; for whereas we have offended against the Lord already, ye intend to add more to our sins, and to our trespass ; for our trespass is great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel. So the armed men left the captives and the spoil before the princes and all the congregation. And the men which were expressed by name rose up, and took the captives, and with SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 215 the spoil clothed all that were naked among them, and ar- rayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm trees, to their brethren : then they returned to Samaria." This was a case which settled one important question in regard to ser- vitude. It was, that it was not in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, that any portion of the Hebrew people should make slaves of their brethren who might be taken in war. The general law in ancient times was, that captives taken in war were the slaves of the victor, and might be disposed of in any way to their advantage. This principle prevailed all over the heathen world, and was re- garded as an indisputable maxim.* Nothing was more natu- ral than that it should be applied among the Hebrews, when they were separated into different kingdoms, and made war on each other ; and, in the instance before us, the attempt was made to carry out the principle in regard to their captive brethren. The decisive rebuke of a prophet; the ready acquiescence of the leaders in his views, and their care in restoring the captives, all show how obviously this was a violation of the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, and have settled what was the spirit of those institutions, against slavery. One such instance would for ever determine the question whether it was proper to enslave their brethren who were taken captive in war, and we do not hear that the attempt was ever repeated. A case of a similar kind, so far as the servitude of Hebrews to other Hebrews was concerned, though not similar as to the question whether it could be done by reducing captives taken in war to slavery — that question being regarded as settled— but which equally went to establish the point that it was regarded as inconsistent with the spirit of the Mosaic insti- tutions for the Hebrews to subject their brethren to servitude, * See Grotius de Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. iii. cap. vii. 216 AN INQUIRY INTO THE occurred in the time of Jeremiah. This remarkable transac- tion is recorded in Jer. xxxiv. 8 — 20. Its importance in refer- ence to the point before us, will make it proper to dwell upon it. " This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them ; that every man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid -servant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free ; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now when all the princes, and all the people, which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant, and every one his maid-servant, go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then they obeyed, and let them go. But afterward they turned, and caused the servants and the handmaids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought them into subjec- tion for servants and for handmaids. " Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel ; I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond- men, saying, At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which hath been sold unto thee ; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee : but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour ; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name : but ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unio you for servants and for handmaids. Therefore thus saith the Lord : Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaim- ing liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour : behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 217 Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine ; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the cove- nant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof, the princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; I wiJl even give them into the hand of of their enemies, and into the hand of them that Seek their life ; and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth." In regard to this transaction, the following points are clear from the narrative. (1.) That at that time there were many of the Hebrews who had, for some cause, been reduced to servitude by their brethren. The reasons why this had been done are unknown, but it is probable that it had been in the manner contemplated in the laws of Moses when literally understood. It may be presumed that poverty was the principal cause, and in the transaction there is no intimation that it had occurred from any other. It may have been pos- sible that there was then an unusual degree of oppression of this kind, but it does not appear that it was for any causes different from those which the literal interpretation of the Mosaic laws seemed to contemplate. The number of those who were thus subjected to servitude is not men- tioned, but it would seem that it was so great as to demand the interposition of the prophet. (2.) A reformation from this evil was, from some cause now unknown, effected. Whether it was originated by the reigning king Zedekiah, as a civil arrangement, or by the influence of Jeremiah, as a religious movement, it is impossible to determine ; but it is certain that a universal emancipation of all the He- brews who were held in servitude was agreed upon, and was actually carried into effect. It was evidently under the patronage of the king, and he gave his sanction to it 19 218 AN INQUIBY INTO THE though it may have had its origin among the religious part of the nation, or ha^e been urged by the prophets. " This is the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that the king Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them ; that every man should let his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free ; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother. Now when all the princes, and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that every one should let his man-servant, and every one his maid-servant go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then they obeyed, and let them go." — ver. 8 — 10. It may be presumed that such an emancipation was not effected without difficulty, and without reluctance on the part of those who claimed their brethren as bound to servi- tude. We know that men are not usually disposed to emanci- pate those who are held in bondage, and the subsequent transactions in regard to those here referred to, show that they had not been restored to freedom without an effort. Still, it was remarkable, as an instance of voluntary emanci- pation — for it was not the result of an absolute command on the part of the sovereign, but of a covenant or compact — " Zedekiah made a covenant with all the people." It is one of the earliest instances on record of the voluntary emanci- pation of large numbers held in bondage, and shows that it may be possible to induce a people to act from such a sense of justice as to release those whom they hold as slaves. For any thing that appears, it would have been as difficult to bring about such an emancipation among the Hebrews by their own consent, as it would now be in Maryland or Vir- ginia. (3.) After they had been emancipated, an attempt was made to reduce them again to bondage, in spite of the solemn covenant by which they had been set at liberty. " But after- wards they turned, and caused the servants and the hand- maidens whom they had let go free, to return, and brought SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 219 them into subjection for servants and for handmaids." — ver. 11. This is a manifestation of the genuine spirit of slavery, and shows how strong is the tendency in human nature to relapse into it again, even when convinced that it is wrong. So powerful is the spirit of avarice in men ; so com- mon the indisposition to labour ; so constantly operating the desire to live by the avails of the labour of others ; and so much of ease, and comfort, and luxury, is supposed to be con- nected with slavery, that there is scarcely any form of wrong which men are more reluctant to relinquish, or to which they more readily return. (4.) In this state of things, the prophet in a most severe manner rebuked those who attempted to subject their brethren again to servitude, and denounced on them the severest judgments of heaven. He reminded them of the solemn covenant into which God entered with their fathers, when he released them from Egyptian bondage ; of the absolute command that no Hebrew should on any consi- deration be made to serve more than six years ; and says that for the crime of subjecting their brethren again to servitude after they had been released from bondage, God would sub- ject them "to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine," and would cause them to be removed " into all the kingdoms of the earth." — ver. 17. Nothing could have shown more decidedly the abhorrence with which the whole transaction was viewed, or the fact that subjecting their brethren to servi- tude was entirely incompatible with the whole spirit of the Hebrew institutions. If the permanent existence of slavery had been contemplated as in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, no effort would have been made to secure their release, nor would the conduct of those who endea- voured to fasten the bonds on their brethren after they had been once broken off, have been met with so fearful a rebuke. The two cases now referred to, show, that though accord- ing to the exact letter of the Mosaic statutes it was lawful, in certain cases, to hold their brethren in servitude, yet that it 220 AN INQUIRY INTO THE was contrary to the spirit of those institutions that it should be perpetuated ; that their brethren were not to be made slaves in the way which was then invariably regarded as proper; and that any attempt to forge the chains of slavery on them permanently must meet with the decided rebuke of Heaven. They show that the entire subject was observed with an eye of vigilance by the prophets whom God raised up, and that the whole spirit of the Mosaic institutions tended to introduce a period when no Hebrew should be the servant of his brother. (B) A second class of texts of Scripture will show us that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to utter the language of rebuke so decisively on the whole subject of slavery, as to prove that in any and every form it was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic laws, and was never designed to be a perma- nent institution. If we find a prophet of God, in a single instance, condemning the existence of slavery ; demanding that those held in bondage should be emancipated as an acceptable service to God ; and denouncing the whole system as oppres- sive, we may make use of this fact to prove that the Mosaic laws were not favourable to it, and never intended that it should be permanent. We find, in fact, just such an in- stance in the book of Isaiah, ch. lviii. : "Is not this the /fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke ?" The question now is, to whom would this be understood as referring ? Who w r ould come under the description of the oppressed? Who would have obtained release by ' breaking ever)'- yoke V Would a compliance with the demand of the prophet have been consistent with the continuance of slavery ? If the command of the prophet had been obeyed in its true spirit, would there still have remained large bodies of men in the land held as property, and subjected to the evils of servitude ? Those who suppose that slavery was contemplated by Moses as a permanent institution, and that it was regarded by the prophets as an SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 221 institution with which they were not to intermeddle because it was established by law, must necessarily believe that all that the prophet contemplated here could have been complied with, even if the Hebrews should have continued to be owners of slaves to any extent. It becomes important, then, to ascertain the real idea which was in the mind of the prophet. (I.) It is clear that the evil which he desired should be removed, he considered to be a moral evil, or sin. The appropriate fast was to "loose the bands of wickedness ;" to cease to do wrong. The eye was fixed on some prevailing form of iniquity which made it proper that there should be fasting on account of it, and which should be removed in order that the act of fasting might be acceptable to God. (2.) The things which they were to do in relation to the various forms of evil, in order that their fasting might be ac- ceptable, are distinctly specified, and are such as to lead to the belief that slavery was referred to, and such that it would be understood that the prophet meant that it should at once cease. That the expressions used by the prophet would include slavery, if it existed then, will be apparent by a brief exami- nation of the language employed by him. («) The first thing specified is, that they should " loose the bands of wickedness." The idea clearly is, that they were to dissolve every tie which unjustly bound their fellow-men. If they were exercising any cruel authority over others ; if they had bound them in any way to any service or obligation contrary to the law of God, and the demands of justice, they were to release them. This might refer to their holding others to contracts fraudulently made ; or to their holding others to strict payment who were unable to meet their obli- gations ; or to their subjecting others to more rigid servitude than was allowed by the laws of Moses ; but it would not require a very ardent imagination for any one to see that if he held others as slaves at all, this came fairly under the description of the prophet. A man with a tender conscience, 19* 222 AN INQUIRY INTO THE who held slaves, would at least have suspected that this part of the description might have been intended to include himself. (b) The second thing specified is, that they should " undo the heavy burdens" — literally, 'to shake off the bands of the yoke ;' that is, the yoke of captives, of the oppressed, &c. The same word is used to denote burden (nsia) which in the subsequent member is rendered yoke ; and the verb which is rendered " undo" inn, from "ma, is elsewhere employed to de- note emancipation from servitude. See Psalm cv. 20. The idea here is, that the yoke was attached to the necks of animals by cords or bands,* and that those cords or bands were to be so loosened that the one which bore the yoke should be free. The yoke in the Scriptures is commonly employed as the emblem of oppression, or of compulsory toil or servitude, and is undoubtedly so used here. The whole phrase here used denotes the release of captives or slaves, and would, to one accustomed to Scripture language, be so understood here. Thus in Psalm cv. 17—20 : He sent a man before them even Joseph, Who was sold for a servant; Whose feet they hurt with fetters : He was laid in iron ; Until the time that his word came, The word of the Lord tried him. The king sent and loosed him — BTVflM, Even the ruler of the people, and let him go free. So in Psalm cxlvi. 7: "The Lord looseth the prisoners," where the same Hebrew word occurs. (c) The third thing specified is, that they were to " let the oppressed go free." This language is still more emphatic and unambiguous than that before employed. The word rendered "oppressed" (marg. broken), is from }'in rdtzdtz to break, to * See Fragments to Taylor's Calmet, No. xxviii. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 223 break down ; to treat with violence, to oppress. It may ap- ply to those who are treated with violence in any way, or who are broken down with hard usage. It may refer, therefore, to slaves, who are crushed with bondage or toil ; to inferiors, who are crushed by the exactions of those above them ; or to the subjects of a tyrant, groaning under his yoke. If slavery existed at the time when this word was used in the form in which it is usually found, it would be understood as including that; at least it would be so understood by the slaves themselves ; for if any system properly deserves to be called oppression, it is slavery. This interpretation is confirmed by the use of the word rendered free. This word 'tfSTl hhophshi, evident- ly refers to the act of freeing a slave. The person who had been once a slave, and who had obtained his freedom, was denominated 'tysn hhophshi.* The word occurs, and is so used, in the following places : Ex. xxi. 2, " And the seventh [year] he shall go out free ;" ver. 5, " I will not go out free ;" xxvi. 27, "He shall let him go free;" Deut. xv. 12, "Thou shalt let him go free;" ver. 13, " When thou sendest him out free;" ver. 18, "When thou sendest him away free;" Job iii. 19, "The servant is free from his master;" that is, in the grave, where there is universal emancipation. So in the places above referred to, respecting the freedom of the Hebrews who had been held as slaves, (Jer. xxxiv. 9, 10, 11, 14, 16,) the same Hebrew word is used. It occurs in no other places ex- cept the following: 1 Sam. xvii. 25, "And make his father's house free in Israel," referring to the favour that was pro- mised to one that should slay Goliath of Gath. Job xxxix. 5, "Who hath sent out the wild ass free?" Ps. lxxxviii. 5. (6.) "Free among the dead." The word is one that would be naturally understood by a Hebrew as referring to freedom from servitude, and unless there was something in the connec- tion that made it necessary to adopt a different signification, it would be so regarded of course. In the case before us, * See Jahn's Archaeology, § 171. 224 AN INQUIRY INTO THE such an interpretation would be obvious, and if slavery at that time existed in Palestine, a Jew would understand the prophet as saying that the slave was to be released in order that an '-acceptable fast" might be observed. (d) The fourth thing specified is, that they were " to break every yoke." This also would be naturally understood of slavery, if it existed at that time. A 'yoke,' in the Scrip- tures, is a symbol of servitude or of oppression, and the pro- phet demanded, in order that an acceptable fast should be observed, that every thing which could be properly regarded as a yoke should be broken. This requisition, if complied with, would restore all to their equal rights. If now this proclamation were made in the United States, and were fairly complied with, no one can doubt that it would lead to the emancipation of the slave. The language is such that it cannot well be misunderstood. The prophet demands a cessation of that which would include slavery, and specifies, in order to an acceptable fast, that that should be abandoned which has always entered into it. These are all the cases which I have been able to find in which the prophets allude to the subject of slavery. They are not numerous, and the fact that they are no more nume- rous suggests the conclusion unavoidably that slavery was not a common thing in Palestine, or that if it prevailed it was a very mild system. But from the references which we have found to it, and the manner in which it is noticed by the pro- phets, we are led to the following conclusions : — (1.) That the prophets felt themselves at entire liberty to animadvert upon it, and to state their views clearly in regard to it. They did not consider themselves restrained from doing it by the fact that it was sustained by law ; or by the plea that it was a civil institution, or that the ministers of reli- gion had nothing to do with it. The men who were sent from God as his ambassadors to the people, did not suppose that, in lifting up their voice in opposition to it, they were doing any thing contrary to what fairly came within their notice as SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 225 religious teachers, nor did they regard it as a political institu- tion in such a sense that they were not to advert to it. It is often said in our country that slavery is a civil institu- tion ; that it pertains solely to the states where it exists ; that it is sustained and sanctioned by law ; that the Constitution of the Union makes provision for its perpetuity, and that it is not appropriate for the ministers of religion, and for ecclesias- tical bodies, to intermeddle with it. This plea, however, might have been used with much more propriety among the Hebrews. Their Constitution was, what ours is not, of divine origin, and it would have been easy for a friend of slavery to have said to the prophets that the institution was sanctioned by the laws which all acknowledged to be of divine appoint- ment, and that arrangements were made for its perpetuity in the constitution of the commonwealth. Why would not such an argument have as much weight then as it should be allowed to have now? Yet (2.) The prophets felt themselves at entire liberty to exhort the people to restore their slaves to freedom. They considered that slavery was as proper a subject for them to discuss as any other. They treated it as if it were entirely within their province, and never appear to have hesitated about expressing their views of it. (3.) They never speak of it as an institution which it was desirable to perpetuate, as contributing to the welfare of the community. In the few notices which we have of it, there is a uniform representation of its nature. It is, in their view, a hard and oppressive system ; a system which should be aban- doned if there were acceptable service rendered to God. There is no apology made for it ; no pleading for it as a desi- rable system, and no attempt to show that it was in accord- ance with the laws of the land. In their writings there is no such effort to defend it or apologize for it, as, I am grieved to say, may often be found in the preaching and the writings of ministers of the gospel in the United States. It would not be difficult to imagine what would have been the emotions 226 AN INQUIRY INTO THE of Isaiah, after he had written the fifty-eighth chapter of his prophecies, were he to read some of the apologies for slavery- issued by ministers of the gospel, and by professors in theo- logical seminaries at the present day ; or should he hear the sentiments uttered in debate in ecclesiastical synods, assem- blies, conferences and conventions. (4.) From the whole view, also, it may be inferred that the prophets did not suppose that the institution of slavery was in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, or was designed to be perpetuated. Their treatment of it is just such as would be natural on the supposition that they considered those institutions to have been so arranged that, while it was for a while tolerated, the tendency and design was ulti- mately to remove the evil entirely, and to make the Hebrews throughout a free people. As one of the results of this inquiry, it is apparent that the Hebrews were not a nation of slaveholders. There is no evi- dence that they engaged in the foreign slave-trade ; there is none that the domestic slave-trade prevailed; there is none that there were any marts for the purchase or sale of slaves ; there is none that they purchased or sold slaves at all. There is no evidence that they even purchased of others the captives made in war ; and there is none that, as was usual among other people, a Hebrew ever sold a captive made in war to a Hebrew brother or to a stranger. The fair inference from all this is, that the Mosaic institutions were not fitted to foster the spirit of slavery, and that while it prevailed among other people, there was some process going on in Judea adapted to separate its inhabitants from all connection with the system. As another result of this inquiry, it may be inferred that slavery altogether ceased in the land of Palestine. On what evidence would a man rely to prove that slavery existed at all in that land in the time of the later prophets, of the Maccabees, or when the Saviour appeared ? There are abun- dant proofs, as we shall see, that it existed in Greece and Rome; but what is the evidence that it existed in Judea? SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 22** So far as I have been able to ascertain, there are no declara- tions that it did, to be found in the canonical books of the Old Testament, or in Josephus. There are no allusions to laws and customs which imply that it was prevalent. There are no coins or medals which suppose it. There are no facts which do not admit of an easy explanation on the supposition that slavery had ceased, and that the Hebrew people, though themselves often sold into captivity as slaves, had long since ceased all connection with it themselves. The only intima- tions of the existence of servitude at all between the time of the closing of the canon of the Old Testament and the advent of the Saviour, consist of a very few notices in the books of the Apocrypha. Thus in the book of Judith, ch. xiv. 13, it is said, " So they came to Holofernes' tent, and said to him that had charge of all his things, Waken now our lord ; for the slaves" or servants, (ol fioL^ot,) "have been bold to come down against us to battle." This proves that the Hebrews were regarded as servants to the Assyrians, for in fact many of them, under Holofernes, had been reduced to bond- age. So in 1 Mace. iii. 41: "And the merchants of the country, hearing of the fame of them, took gold and silver very much, with servants, and came into the camp to buy the children of Israel for slaves." This proves that it was not uncommon for surrounding nations to purchase slaves, about which, indeed, there can be no dispute ; but it does not demon- strate that this was practised in Judea, or by the Jews them- selves. The following passages also in the Apocrypha show that there was servitude existing of some kind among the Hebrews, but do not, unless in a single instance, determine its nature. Wisdom, xviii. 11 ; Ecclesias. iv. 30, vi. 11, vii. 20, 21, xix. 21, xxiii. 10, xxxiii. 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, xxxvii. 11, xlii. 5; 2 Mace. viii. 35; Tobit x. 10; Judith, x. 23; Esth. xv. 16; Susan. 27; 1 Mace. i. 6, 8 ; 2 Mace. vii. 6. 33. One of these passages only alludes to the fact that ser- vants were bought with money. Ecclesias. xxxiii. 30 : " If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because 228 AN INQUIRY INTO THE thou hast bought him with a price." Marg. as in Gr. in blood, (iv aif*art,.) The meaning probably is, that he was a captive taken in war. In what way the others who are men- tioned were obtained, or what was the nature of their servi- tude, is in no case stated. It is only intimated that they would escape if they could. Ecclesias. xxxiii. 25, 31. Comp. 2 Mace. viii. 35. If, therefore, it be true that slavery did not prevail in Judea ; that there is no evidence that, the Hebrews engaged in the traffic, and that the prophets felt themselves at liberty to denounce the system as contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic institutions, these facts will furnish an important explanation of some things in regard to the subject in the New Testament, and will prepare us to enter on the inquiry how it was regarded by the Saviour. For if slavery did not exist in Palestine in his time ; if he never came in contact with it, it will not be fair to infer that he was not opposed to it, because he did not often refer to it, and expressly denounce it. He was not accustomed to go out of his way to denounce sins with which he did not come in contact. The inquiry whether there were slaves in Judea in his time, will be appro- priately considered in the next chapter. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 229 CHAPTER VII. The relation of Christianity to Slavery. In the previous chapters, I have examined at length all that seems to refer to the subject of slavery in the Old Testament. If the train of reasoning which has been pursued is correct, we have reached the conclusion that, so far from its being true that the Mosaic system was designed to uphold and perpetuate the institution, the fact was, that under the fair operation of that system, slavery would at no distant period come entirely to an end. The fair and honest application of the Mosaic laws to slavery in the United States would speedily remove the evil from our country. In approaching the New Testament with reference to this subject, the true points of inquiry may be stated in few words: — Did Christ and his apostles look benignly on the institution ? Did they regard it as a good institution, or as one adapted to promote permanent good ? Did they consider it to be desirable for the highest comfort of social life ? Did they consider that they who held slaves could illustrate the power and excellence of the Christian religion in the best manner, while continuing in that relation ? Did they suppose that they who were held in slavery were occupying the most desirable condition in life, and that they should consider that the Christian religion contemplated the continuance of that relation ? Was it the design of the Saviour, that the fair ap- plication of the gospel to this system should perpetuate it in his church ? The affirmative of these questions it is necessary for the advocates of slavery to make out, in order to show that the 20 230 AN INQUIRY INTO THE New Testament sustains the system. If tht aifirmative can be made out, and if it can be shown that slavery has flourished, and must continue to flourish, under the fair application of the principles which Christ and his apostles laid down, it may be inferred that Christianity is favourable to the institution ; if otherwise, not. The points which the advocates of slavery refer to as show- ing that Christianity is not unfavourable to the system, or that the system is not contrary to the New Testament, are the following : — (1.) That slavery existed in the time of Christ, and that though he must often have come in contact with it, he did not condemn or denounce it. Thus it is said by the Presbytery of Tombecbee, pp. 15, 18, " That slavery is not a moral evil, is evident from the fact, that it is nowhere condemned by the Redeemer, or his apos- tles in the New Testament. All principles, and all practices, which would exclude from the favour of God, and the king- dom of heaven, are recorded with great plainness without respect of persons. Witness the manner in which the scribes and Pharisees were addressed : ' For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter* into the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. v. 20. In a long catalogue of denunciations against various sins by the Redeemer himself, contained in the 23d chapter of Matthew, and from the 13th to the 33d verses inclusive, not a word is said against the sin of slavery. " How does all this come to pass, if it be so 'great an evil* as our brethren seem to think ? In the sermon on the Mount not a word is uttered against the sin of slavery. A centurion came to Jesus in Capernaum, beseeching him, and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but speak the word SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 231 only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man un- der authority, having soldiers under me, and I say unto this man, go, and he goeth ; and to another, come, and he cometh ; and to my servant, do this, and he doeth it. The Lord said, 1 1 have not found so great faith, no not in Israel.' Matt. viii. 5 — 10. The centurion was a slaveholder, and instead of being reproved by the Saviour, he received the highest com- mendation." So also the Princeton Repertory, (April 1836, p. 275,) " It is on all hands acknowledged that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its worst forms prevailed over the whole world. The Saviour found it around him in Judea, &c. The subject is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his personal instructions.'''' So in the Princeton Repertory for October, 1844, it is said, " Neither Christ nor his apostles ever denounced slaveholding as a crime." (2.) That slavery existed throughout the Roman world, wherever the apostles went, and yet that they did not denounce it as an evil, or proclaim the necessity of immediate emancipa- tion. So the Princeton Repertory for 1836, p. 275, "The apostles met with it in Asia, Greece, Italy. How did they treat it ? Not by the denunciation of slavery as necessarily and universally sinful. The apostles refer to it, not to pro- nounce upon it as a question of morals, but to prescribe the relative duties of masters and slaves.'''' So in the number for October, 1844, it is said by the Princeton Reviewer, " At the time of the introduction of Christianity, slavery in its worst form prevailed extensively over the world. The slaves are estimated as amounting to one half or two-thirds of the popu- lation of the Roman empire ; and the severity with which they were treated was extreme." But "neither Christ nor his apostles ever denounced slaveholding as a crime." So the Presbytery of Tombecbee : " In the whole catalogue of prohibitions which disqualify for the kingdom of heaven, sla- very is not once named. Did the apostles say any thing on the subject that justifies its existence among a Christian people ? 232 AN INQUIRY INTO THE This Presbytery believes they did. Let every man abide in the same calling in which he was called. Art thou called being a servant ? Care not for it ; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman. Likewise also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. 1 Cor. vii. 20 — 24. The Bible makes slavery a part of the domestic circle ; it is associated with husband and wife, parents and children. " Slaves are directed in what manner they are to demean themselves as members of the civil and social compact. Ser- vants, be obedient to them that 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 bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with him. Eph. vi. 5 — 9. Society is a whole, formed by infinite wisdom, with all its functions and functionaries. No honest calling is degraded, or degrading. Each member of the social compact is to be honoured and esteemed, while he continues to move cheerfully and usefully in his proper sphere." And so the advocates of slavery passim. (3.) That the inspired teachers of the Christian religion admitted slaveholders into the Christian church, in the same manner as others, and regarded them, while holding slaves, as in every respect in good standing.* This is insisted on everywhere by the advocates of slavery, as showing that the apostles did not regard slavehoklingas a sin, or as in any way * See the Princeton Repertory, 1836, p. 277. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 233 inconsistent with the existence of true piety, and with pos- sessing all the proper qualifications of church membership. Thus the Princeton Reviewer says, " Did they [Christ and the apostles] shut their eyes to the enormity of a great offence between God and man ? Did they temporize with a heinous evil, because it was common and popular? Did they admit the perpetrators of the greatest crimes to the Christian com- munion? Who will undertake to charge the blessed Re- deemer and his inspired followers with such connivance at sin, and such fellowship with iniquity ?" This argument is stated with much force by Dr. Fuller : — " The demonstration furnished on this question, I need only mention ; it is the baptism by the apostles of slaveholders, and the admission of them into the churches. Before baptism they required men to repent, that is, to abandon all their sins; yet they baptized masters holding slaves. They fenced the Lord's table with the most solemn warnings that men should examine themselves, and that to eat and drink unworthily was to eat and drink condemnation ; yet they admitted to the sup- per masters holding slaves. They declared that 'without holiness no man could see the Lord,' and at once condemned all the darling sins of the day. Idolatry w r as interwoven with the very elements of society, yet they spared it not, but at the sight of 'a city given to idolatry' their 'spirits were stirred,' and they told the people plainly that they worshipped devils. They abhorred the thought that ' the temple of God could have any agreement with idols ;' and stigmatized idola- try as one of the ' works of the flesh,' ' as to which,' said they, ' we tell you before, as we have told you in times past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.' Voluptuousness reigned in city and country, and even philosophers considered it innocent ; but the heralds of Christ assailed it everywhere. In a word, going in the strength of the Lord God, they, with lion-hearted dauntless- ness, struck at and Avarred with the superstitions of the Gen- tiles and the prejudices of the Jews. They attacked the 20* 234 AN INQUIRY INTO THE passions of the vulgar and the pride of the noble. They defied the priests, and confronted the Sanhedrim, and thun- dered before unjust and licentious princes, ' of righteousness, and temperance, and judgment to come.' Yet as to slavery, they not only never forbade it, but received believing masters into the churches, and declared them 'faithful and beloved,' brethren in Christ Jesus."* (4.) It is said by those who maintain that slavery is not inconsistent with the spirit of the New Testament, that the apostles " legislated" for it in the same way as they did for the other allowed relations of life. They recognised the rela- tion of master and slave in the same manner as they did that of husband and wife, and parent and child, and monarch and subject, and in language that implied no more disapprobation in the one case than in the other. They prescribed the duties of both, as if the relation was not improper. It is argued further, that they never " legislated" for a sinful relation ; that they never made similar laws in reference to polygamy or concubinage ; and that the fact that they thus made laws con- templating this relation, showed that they could not have designed to express disapprobation of the system. This ar- gument is much urged by the advocates of the system, and is deemed by them conclusive on the point. In support of it, they refer to such passages of the New Testament as Eph. v. 22, 33; vi. 1—9; Col. iii. 18—25; iv. 1 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1— 5. (5.) It is urged that to suppose slavery to be a sin, and yet to suppose that Christ and the apostles failed to denounce it as such, is a gross reflection on their character, and entirely inconsistent with their moral honesty. This argument is urged with great zeal by the Princeton Reviewer, as being decisive in the case. Thus the author of the article in the Repertory for 1836 says on this point : " It requires no argument to show that sin ought to be at once abandoned. Every thing, therefore, is conceded which the abolitionists * Dr. Fuller's Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 196, 197. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 235 need require, when it is granted that slaveholding is in it self a crime. But how can this assumption be reconciled with the conduct of Christ and the apostles ? Did they shut their eyes to the enormities of a great offence against God and man ? Did they temporize with a heinous evil, because it was common and popular ? Did they abstain from even exhorting masters to emancipate their slaves, though an im- perative duty, from fear of consequences ? Did they admit the perpetrators of the greatest crimes to the Christian com- munion ? Who will undertake to charge the blessed Re- deemer and his inspired followers with such connivance at sin, and such fellowship with iniquity? Were drunkards, murderers, liars, and adulterers thus treated? Were they passed over without even an exhortation to forsake their sins? Were they recognised as Christians ? It cannot be that slaveholding belongs to the same category with these crimes ; and to assert the contrary, is to assert that Christ is the minis- ter of sin." And again, on pages 283, 284, he urges the argument with renewed energy : " Let us, however, consider the force of the argument as stated above. It amounts to this. Christ and his apostles thought slaveholding a great crime, but they abstained from saying so for fear of the conse- quences. The very statement of the argument, in its naked form, is its refutation. These holy men did not refrain from condemning sin from a regard to consequences. They did not hesitate to array against the religion which they taught, the strongest passions of men. Nor did they content them- selves with denouncing the general principles of evil ; they condemned its special manifestations. They did not simply forbid intemperate sensual indulgence, and leave it to their hearers to decide what did or what did not come under that name. They declared that no fornicator, no adulterer, no drunkard could be admitted into the kingdom of heaven. They did not hesitate, even when a little band, a hundred and twenty souls, to place themselves in direct and irrecon- cilable opposition to the whole polity, civil and religious, of 236 AN ENQUIRY INTO THE the Jewish state. It will hardly be maintained that slavery was, at that time, more intimately interwoven with the insti- tutions of society than idolatry was. It entered into the arrangements of every family ; of every city and province, and of the whole Roman empire. The emperor was the Pontifex Maximus ; every department of the state, civil and military, was pervaded by it. It was so united with the fabric of the government that it could not be removed with- out effecting a revolution in all its parts. The apostles knew this. They knew that to denounce polytheism was to array against them the whole power of the state. Their divine Master had distinctly apprised them of the result. He told them that it would set the father against the son, and the son against the father ; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother ; and that a man's ene- mies should be those of his own household. He said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword, and that such would be the opposition to his followers, that whosoever killed them, would think he did God service. Yet in view of these cer- tain consequences the apostles did denounce idolatry, not merely in principle, but by name. The result was precisely what Christ had foretold. The Romans, tolerant of every other religion, bent the whole force of their wisdom and arms to extirpate Christianity. The scenes of bloodshed which, century after century, followed the introduction of the gospel, did not induce the followers of Christ to keep back or modify the truth. They adhered to their declaration that idolatry was a heinous crime. And they were right. We expect similar conduct of our missionaries. We do not expect them to refrain from denouncing the institutions of the heathen, as sinful, because they are popular, or intimately interwoven with society. The Jesuits, who adopted this plan, forfeited the confidence of Christendom, without making converts of the heathen. It is, therefore, perfectly evident that the authors of our religion were not withheld, by these consider- ations, from declaring slavery to be unlawful. If they did SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 237 abstain from this declaration, as is admitted, it must have been because they did not consider it as in itself a crime. No other solution of their conduct is consistent with their truth or fidelity." This argument seems to have had a peculiar value in the eyes of the conductors of that periodical. After having slum- bered unnoticed and unappreciated for some eight years on its pages, it was deemed important that so valuable a speci- men of reasoning should not be lost to the generation that was about to come on the stage, and that the world should at least be reminded that there was such a cogent argument which might be urged in favour of the system ; and accord- ingly it is reproduced, somewhat enlarged, though with no additional strength, in the same work for October, 1844.* In that article the reviewer urges the point before us with aug- mented zeal. He says, "They [that is the abolitionists] say, in substance, that the apostles concealed the truth, that they were afraid of consequences, that they acted from policy, or motives of expediency. Our answer to this is, 1. That such conduct would be immoral. For men professing to be inspired teachers of truth and duty, to appear among men living in the daily commission of ' a heinous crime in the * Why, after the lapse of so many years, it was deemed necessary to republish it substantially in the same periodical, is not stated. The cha- racter of the article, being the undisguised production of a northern man, was such as not soon to be forgotten at the North ; and having been re- published in a pamphlet form at Pittsburgh by southern gentlemen, it seemed scarcely necessary to refresh the memory of those who reside at the South with the fact of its existence. It is one of the characteristics of the theology at Princeton, that it never changes ; and perhaps the ob- ject of the republication was to certify to the world that its views of slavery are as changeless as its divinity. Whatever may have been the motive, however, its republication without material change, and with no additional strength, may be regarded as a sign that in the apprehension of the con- ductors of the Princeton Repertory, the argument which palliates slavery is exhausted. 238 AN INQUIRY INTO THE sight of God,' and never once telJ them it was a crime ; to allow them to go on in this coarse of iniquity, to the ruin of their souls, is a supposition which shocks the moral sense. No- thing but the explicit declaration that slaveholding was a crime, and immediate emancipation a duty, could satisfy the demands of conscience, in such a case. Men were constantly coming to the apostle to ask, what they must do to be saved, what God would have them to do ; and if they did not answer those questions openly and honestly, according to their real convictions, they were bad men. Such conduct in any other case would by all men be pronounced immoral. Suppose our missionaries among the heathen, in teaching the gospel, should, from motives of policy, abstain from telling them the truth, should fail intentionally to inform them that idolatry, adultery, child-murder, or any like crime, was a grievous sin in the sight of God, would not all the world pronounce them unfaithful ? Do not abolitionists condemn southern ministers for not explicitly stating that slaveholding is a crime, and im- mediate emancipation a duty ? Would they not view with abhorrence the minister who really coincided with them in his views, and yet through fear of consequences, held his peace, and allow his hearers to sin on in security ? Would not, on the contrary, the world ring with their shouts in praise of the man who, in fidelity to God, and in love to man, should openly preach the truth on these points to a congrega- tion of slaveholders, even though it brought sudden destruc- tion on his own head ? We fear, however, we are only obscuring the clearness of a self-evident truth, by multiplying illustrations. The conduct of the apostles is absolutely irre- concilable with moral honesty, if they believed slaveholding to be a heinous crime in the sight of God. They were either bad men, or they were not abolitionists, in the American sense of that word. 2. But again, the course ascribed to the apostles in reference to slavery, is not only base in itself, but it is contrary to their conduct in all analogous cases. Slaveholding is the only sin familiar to those to whom they SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 239 preached, and about which they wrote, that they failed to denounce. Idolatry was a crime which was more prevalent than slaveholding ; more implicated in all the institutions of life, in support of which stronger passions were engaged, and in attacking which they could not look for the support of one-half or two-thirds of the community. Yet idolatry they everywhere proclaimed to be a crime, inconsistent with Christianity and a bar to salvation. The consequence was, the apostles were persecuted even to death. It is not true that they kept back the truth for fear of suffering. They called God to witness that they declared the whole counsel of God, and were clear of every man's blood. It is said that the cases of idolatry and slavery are not parallel, because it was more dangerous to denounce the latter than the former. Ad- mitting the fact, is the degree of danger attending the dis- charge of a duty the measure of its obligation ? Must a religious teacher, in explaining the way of salvation, keep back the truth — one of the most effectual methods of teaching falsehood — because he may incur danger by inculcating it ? We do not, however, believe the fact. We believe that the apostles might have taught that slaveholding is a sin, with far less danger than that which they incurred by teaching that what the heathen sacrificed they sacrificed to devils. We need not conceive of their adopting the system of agitation, and the whole 'moral machinery' of modern times. They adopted no such course with regard to idolatry. But they might doubtless, with comparative safety, have told slave- holders that it was their duty to emancipate their slaves. They could as well have enjoined- them to set their servants free, as to command them to render to them what is just and equal. Many men, without any great exhibition of courage, have taught and do still teach the moral evil of slaveholding in the midst of slaveholders. And even now, any man who, in a meek, sincere, and benevolent spirit, should say to south- ern planters, that the relation they sustain to their slaves is contrary to the will of God, and incompatible with their own 240 AN INQUIRY INTO THE salvation, would meet with no greater disturbance than the Quakers have experienced in making their annual testimony against slavery. " The course ascribed to the apostles is not only incon- sistent with fidelity, and contrary to their uniform practice, but it is moreover opposed to the conduct of the messengers of God in all ages. The ancient prophets never failed to reprove the people for their sins, and to exhort them to repent- ance, no matter how strong the attachment of their hearers to their iniquity, or bow powerful the interests leagued in its support. Elijah did not fail to denounce the worship of Baal, though Ahab and Jezebel were determined to kill the pro- phets of God ; nor did John the Baptist fail to tell Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife." (5.) Another consideration relied on is, that the apostles nowhere exhort masters to liberate their slaves ; they speak of the relation as one of comparatively little account, and as one attended with few disadvantages. Thus the Princeton Reviewer says, " The subject is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his personal instructions. The apostles refer to it, not to pronounce upon it as a question of morals, but to prescribe the relative duties of masters and slaves. They caution those slaves who have believing or Christian masters, not to despise them be- cause they were on a perfect religious equality with them, but to consider the fact that their masters were their brethren, as an additional reason for obedience. It is remarkable that there is not even an exhortation to masters to liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and immediate duty. They are commanded to be kind, merciful, and just ; and to remember that they have a Master in heaven. Paul repre- sents this relation as of comparatively little account. ' Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant, (or slave,) care not for it ; though, should the opportunity of freedom be presented, em- brace it. These external relations, however, are of little SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 241 importance, for every Christian is a freeman in the highest and best sense of the word, and at the same time is under the strongest bonds to Christ.' 1 Cor. vii. 20—22." If the relation is a mild one, and on the whole not very un- desirable, and if masters are never exhorted to disturb it by any act of voluntary emancipation, it seems to be inferred that the New Testament is not inimical to it, and that it is an insti- tution which it is desirable to perpetuate for the best interests of society. (6.) As a final argument to show that the apostles were not hostile to slavery, and that the institution is not opposed by Christianity, an appeal is made to the case of Onesimus, referred to in the epistle to Philemon. The argument relied on is, that Onesimus was a slave ; that he had escaped from his master, and was a runaway ; that he was converted under Paul ; that he sent him back without any wish or concurrence on the part of Onesimus, and with a view that he might re- main as a slave with Philemon. It is inferred from these supposed facts, (1.) That Paul regarded the relation as proper and desirable. (2.) That it is wrong for a slave to leave his master without his consent. (3.) That the effect of con- version should be to make a runaway slave willing to return to a state of bondage. (4.) That it is a duty to send back a runaway slave to his master; and, (5.) That the act of Paul in restoring Onesimus to his master, fairly proves that he supposed the relation was to be perpetual.* It is on such arguments as these that those who maintain that slavery is not inconsistent with Christianity, rely. It is of importance, therefore, to examine the force of this reason- ing, and to inquire whether the Saviour and his apostles meant to represent slavery as a desirable system for the best interests of society ; as a system which is congenial with the gospel which they sought to propagate ; as one which the gospel would serve to extend, and as so destitute * Compare Dr. Fuller's Letters to Dr. Wayland, p. 195. 21 242 AN INQUIRY INTO THE of the elements of evil, that they would desire to see it per- petuated in connection with the Christian religion. I shall, therefore, examine these points at some length, with a view to ascertain the exact relation of Christianity to slavery, and particularly to the system as it exists in our own country. If Christianity would sustain and perpetuate that system, it may be assumed that the institution is not evil ; if it would not, it is not a very forced conclusion that it is to be regarded as sin- ful and wrong. I. There is no evidence that Christ himself ever came IN CONTACT WITH Sl AVERY. The first inquiry which meets us here is, whether there is evidence that Christ himself ever came in contact with slavery. If he did, and regarded it as wrong, in the same sense as hy- pocrisy and sensuality are wrong, it is to be presumed that he would have denounced it in the same way as he did those things ; and if he did not express his disapprobation of it, it seems to be a fair inference that he did not regard it as wrong. If, however, he never came in contact with it, nothing can be safely argued in favour of it from his silence, any more than it can be inferred that he was favourable to the sports of the amphitheatre at Rome, or to the orgies which were celebrated in honour of Bacchus, or to the claims to inspiration of the oracles of Dodona or Delphi. We can only argue in respect to his sentiments on such points, from the principles which he laid down of a general character, or from the incidental remarks which he made when discoursing on other topics. In endeavouring, then, to ascertain the views of the Saviour on this subject, I would make the following remarks : — (I.) There is no conclusive evidence that he ever came in contact with slavery at all. If the train of argument which has been pursued in regard to the tendency of the Mosaic in- stitutions is well-founded, there is every probability that slavery had ceased in the Hebrew commonwealth long before the advent of the Saviour. There is no proof which I have SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 243 seen referred to from any contemporary writer, that it existed in Judea in his time at all ; and there is no evidence from the New Testament that he ever came in contact with it. The only instance that is ever referred to of the kind, and the only one that can be, is the case of the Roman centurion who had a servant sick at Capernaum. Matt. viii. 5, seq. But this case does not prove the point for which it is adduced ; for (a) the terms which are used as descriptive of the case, do not prove it. The centurion himself applies to the sick servant at home the term o rcais — pais, (Matt. viii. 5,) which is a word much too general to demonstrate that he was a slave. It was rarely applied to a slave at all, and when it was, it was only as the term boy now is in the slaveholding states of this Union. The term which the centurion uses in ver. 9, implying that he had servants under him, also, does not demonstrate that they were slaves : " And I say to my servant — *$ SovXcp — do this, and he doeth it." This word, as has been shown, (Ch. III.) is also too general to make it certain that he refers to slaves. If it should be said that it is probable that this sick man was a slave, still it is obvious to reply, that what is neces- sary to the argument derived from the fact that the Saviour did not express disapprobation of the system, is, that he actually came in contact with a case, and did not condemn it. Even then it might be questioned whether his not expressing a sentence of condemnation on the system could be construed as an argument that he did not disapprove of it ; but in order that the argument should have any force, it is necessary to know that he actually encountered slavery, (b) It may be urged further, that it is by no means certain that a Roman officer, such as the centurion was, would have a slave to ac- company him. That he would have a servant of some kind is not improbable, for it is still common in the East for officers in an army, and even for the ordinary cavalry, to have ser- vants to attend them, to wait upon them, and to take care of their horses. But these are not commonly slaves. They are persons in the employ of the government, assigning such 244 AN INQUIRY INTO THE persons to the use of the army, to be paid by the government, (c) Considering the facilities for escaping in passing through foreign countries on a march, it is hardly probable that the attendants on Roman officers would be slaves. At all events, there is not the slightest proof that this man was. a slave, and if not, then there is not the slightest proof that the Saviour ever came in contact with slavery at all, either in public or in private life. The only evidence which I have seen that there were any slaves in Palestine about the time of the Saviour, is the statement of Josephus, (Hist. 19,) that "King Agrippa exhibited at one time in Judea seven hundred pair of gladiators." But (1.) There is no evidence that the Saviour ever witnessed any such scene, nor is it probable that he did. (2.) If his silence in such a case may be construed as a proof that he did not disapprove of slavery, it may for the same reason be construed as a proof that he did not disapprove of gladiatorial exhibitions. (2.) Nothing then can be inferred from the silence of the Saviour on this subject. It was by no means his method to go out of his way to denounce sins which prevailed in other parts of the earth, however great they might be, or however much it may be inferred that he disapproved of them. He con- demned the sins of his own age and country as he encountered them, and laid down great principles of truth which would be of easy application to all others as his gospel should spread. But to infer that he approved of every thing on which he maintained silence, or which he did not expressly condemn, would be a violation of all the principles by which we judge of a religious teacher or philosopher, and would be doing him manifest injustice. Are we to infer that he approved of the sports in the amphitheatre at Rome ; of the conflicts of gladiators, and the bloody struggles between captives in war and wild beasts 1 Are we to infer that he approved of the scenes of the Roman Saturnalia, or the modes of worship on the Acropolis at Corinth, because he was silent in regard to them? To hold him to this, would be a violation of every SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 245 rule of right ; yet they in fact do no less, who infer that, be- cause he did not denounce slavery, therefore he was not unfa- vourable to the system. (3.) He never uttered a word which can be construed in favour of slavery. It is remarkable that the advocates of the system never appeal to any thing that fell from his lips in his instructions ; to any principle or doctrine that he laid down in his religion, in defence of the institution. If there were nothing else in the world than the discourses of Jesus Christ to form the opinions and direct the conduct of men, no one would ever dream that such a system was desirable or proper. In his discourses, there is not a sentiment which can be tortured by any ingenuity of exegesis into an ap- proval of the system. No one, under the fair influence of the doctrines which he laid down, ever yet made a man a slave ; no one ever supposed that he could justify such an act by any thing that the Saviour ever did or taught. Not even a hint can be found in all that he said, on which a man who was about to embark in the slave trade, or who designed to raise slaves for sale, or who meant to purchase a slave, or who meant to keep one already in his possession, could rely to sanction his course. Never were any discourses or writings in the world more entirely free from any thing w T hich would lend such a sanction, than the recorded dis- courses of the Redeemer. (4.) While this was true — true that he in no way inter- meddled with the system any more than he did with the regulations of the Roman Coliseum, or the laws respecting the harem in a Persian court, it is also true that he laid down principles which are entirely inconsistent with slavery, and which would tend to its rapid abolition. In another part of this argument from the New Testament, I shall have occasion to inquire into the effect of Christianity on the abolition of sla- very. At present, all that it is necessary to observe is, that there are fundamental principles laid down by the Saviour which are opposed to the whole system of slavery, and which 21* 246 AN INQUIRY INTO THE it is necessary constantly to violate in order to its perpetuity. Among those principles are the following : — (a) The doctrine that all the race are on a level before God ; that all are redeemed by the same blood ; that all are equally the heirs of life ; that all are moral and responsible beings ; that all are descended from the same parent. The instruc- tions of the Saviour do not go against all distinctions in life. They recognise the relations of father and son ; of ruler and subject ; of the rich and poor, as those which are not incon- sistent with his grand fundamental position — that in the matter of redemption all men are on a level. In these relations all are to be recognised as men ; as capable of redemption ; as free moral agents ; and no one by nature is supposed to have any priority or superiority over the other. But slavery always supposes that there is a distinction among men in these respects — a distinction different from that which arises from regarding them as sustaining the relation of parent and child ; as qualified to govern or not, and as fitted for different occu- pations of life where all may be free. It is supposed to be such a distinction in nature as to make it proper that one should be a master and the other a slave ; that one should be regarded as a freeman, and the other ' a chattel and a thing ;' that one should have a right to buy and sell, and that the other should be bought and sold. It is impossible, in the nature of things, that the advocate of slavery should regard all men as, in every respect, on a level in regard to re- demption. There is inevitably, in his apprehension, some reason, in the nature of the case, just in proportion as there is any reason for the existence of slavery at all — why the present master should be the master, and the present slave should be the slave; — why the while man should be the master, and why the man of colour should be the slave. Yet it is clear that this view of the matter is entirely at variance with the fundamental doctrine in the plan of redemption. (b) Under the gospel, and in accordance with its principles, no relation was to exist, which would be inconsistent with the SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 247 honest recognition of all who bore the Christian name and image as brethren. They were to be regarded as Chris- tian brethren in all respects, and there was to be nothing in their condition which would make the application of the term to any and to all improper. Matth. xxiii. 8. " One is your master — sa^y^s : and all ye are brethren — ndvTss 8e vfiui aSs-kfyoi left's.* 'Ye all: 1 — that is, 'all who pro- fess to be my followers — all who compose the true church, no matter what their rank, colour, condition, age. There is to be nothing in your condition or relations which shall be incon- sistent with the fair and honest application of the word bre- thren — a&sxpoi. Any thing which would not allow that, would be a violation of the principles of my religion.' This is the uniform language of the New Testament. Now, the employ- ment of this term is entirely appropriate in all those relations where freedom is enjoyed. There is nothing to hinder its fair use when the rich address the poor, or princes their subjects, or preachers their people, or men of years and ex- perience those who are just entering on life. But there is much to prevent its fair use when applied by masters to their slaves, or still more by slaves to their masters. It cannot be used except it be constructively and metaphorically, by those who regard their slaves as chattels and as property, and who have the constant feeling that they are at liberty to sell them at any moment, as they do their cattle. To apply the term brethren to those who are slaves, is a departure from all just use of language, and is a mockery of the feel- ings which it is condescendingly designed to soothe. Does it ever occur that slaves address their masters in this manner ; and would they be allowed to do so ? * It is remarkable that even here the Saviour is careful not to employ a term which would even suggest the relation of master and slave. He uses the term xa^Tjyyjt^ — a leader, conductor (Anfiihrer, Anleiter, Pas- sow ;) a leader, guide, teacher, master, (Robinson, Lex.}, and not the term expressive of the relation of master, in contradistinction from a servant or slave — SeaHo-tr^. — 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2; Titus ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 18. 24S AN INQUIRY INTO THE (c) One of the great and leading principles of the religion of the Saviour is expressed in the golden rule: "Whatso- ever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. vii. 12. This rule he evidently designed should be incorporated into his religion as essential to the system, and it is manifest that nothing inconsistent Avith the fair application of it can be in accordance with the spirit of Christianity. Yet its bearing on slavery is obvious. Its influence in securing the eman- cipation of all those now held in bondage, if fairly applied, would be certain and inevitable. (1) No one, under the in- fluence of this rule, ever made a man a slave. No one ever felt that in tearing him away from his home, in separating him from country and friends, in exposing him to sale, and in dooming him to perpetual bondage for no other crime than that of being " Guilty of a skin not coloured like his own," he was doing that which he would wish another man to do to him. (2.) No one in exacting from another unrequited toil, or feeding him on coarse fare, or clothing him with coarse raiment, far inferior to what he himself possesses, or in de- priving him of the privileges of reading the Bible, or of rising in political life, or of being eligible to office, ever did that which he would w r ish others to do to him. (3.) No one ever subjected a fellow-being to the operation of the laws of ser- vitude, as they exist in this country, by the fair operation of this rule. He would not wish any one to subject him or his children to the operation of these laws. (4.) It may be added, that few or none, under the fair operation of this rule, would ever continue to hold another in slavery. Those cases must be exceedingly rare on the earth, where a man would desire that he himself should be in the condition of his slave, or that, if he were already a slave, the bonds of servitude should be riveted perpetually on him. Freedom is sweet to man ; and it cannot be doubted that if a man were in all circumstances SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 249 to act towards those under him, as he would desire to be treated if in their places, the bonds of servitude would soon be loosed. If these principles are correct, then it is clear that neither the example nor the silence of the Saviour can never be referred to as sanctioning slavery. It is one of the plainest of all propositions, that if we had had only his instructions and his example to guide us in this matter, slavery would never have been originated ; and that where it had before existed, it would soon cease. The application of these principles to the system in this country, as we shall see in another part of the argument, would inevitably abolish the system. II. The manner in which the Apostles treated the subject of Slavery. § 1. They found it in existence when they organized churches out of the limits of Judea. We have seen above, that there is no evidence that when the Saviour appeared, slavery in any form existed in Judea, and consequently there is no proof that he ever encountered it. We have also seen that his silence on the subject cannot be construed as any evidence that he did not disapprove of the system, and did not design that the principles of his religion should abolish it, wherever it might be found. It is of great importance, therefore, to inquire how his apostles treated the system when they encountered it, and whether the manner in which they met it can be construed as an evidence that they regarded it as a good institution, and as one which it was desirable to perpetuate in the world. There can be no doubt that slavery existed in the countries to which they went to preach the gospel, and that they often encountered it, and were called to act in view of it in organ- izing churches. There are evidences of this, as we shall see, in their epistles ; and from what is known of the condition of the Roman empire at that period, it cannot be doubted :hat 250 AN INQUIRY INTO THE they came in contact with it, and that in preaching the gospel they would be called to address those who sustained the rela- tion of master and slave. It is unnecessary to enter into a proof that slavery abounded in the Roman empire, or that the conditions of servitude were very severe and oppressive. This is conceded on ail hands. If any one desires to see it demonstrated beyond the possibi- lity of a doubt, he may consult an article by Professor B. B. Edwards, in the American Biblical Repository for October, 1835, pp. 41 1 — 436. The purpose of my argument does not require me to go into an examination of this point, in detail. All that the argument does require, whatever conclusion we may reach as to the manner in which the apostles treated the subject, is, the admission of the fact that slavery every- where abounded; that it existed in forms of great severity and cruelty ; that it involved all the essential claims which are now made by masters to the services or persons of slaves ; that it was protected by civil laws ; that the master had the right of transferring his slaves by sale, donation, or testa- ment ; that in general he had every right which was supposed to be necessary to perpetuate the system ; and that it was impossible that the early preachers of Christianity should not encounter this system, and be constrained to adopt some prin- ciples in regard to the proper treatment of it. In order to allow to those who suppose that slavery is sanc- tioned by the New Testament, and that the conduct of the apostles may be appealed to in justification of the system as it exists in this country, all the advantage in the argument which can be derived from the actual state of slavery as they found it, it seems necessary, however, to advert to the form in which slavery was found when they preached the gospel. It is proper to concede that the state of things was such that they must have encountered it, and that it then had all the features of cruelty, oppression, and wrong which can ever exist to make it repellant to any of the feelings of humanity, or revolting to the principles of a Christian. It is fair that SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 251 the advocate of the system should have all the advantage which can be derived from the fact that the apostles found it in its most odious forms, and in such circumstances as to make it proper that they should regard and treat it as an evil, if Christianity regards it as such at all. It is proper that it should be seen that their method of treating it was not prompted by the fact that it was of so mild a type as to be scarcely worthy of their attention. It is to be admitted that if there can be wrongs in slavery anywhere which should rouse the spirit of a Christian man, they existed to as great an extent in the countries where the apostles propagated the gospel ; that if the system as it exists in our own land is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, the system as they found it was no less con- trary to it ; that if now, in any of its forms and influences, and in any of the means adopted to perpetuate it, it is opposed to the gospel, it was no less so then ; that if it can be regarded now as desirable that the system should come to an end, it was no less desirable then ; and that if Christians now should labour to bring it to a termination, it was no less desirable and proper that they should do it then. This, it seems to me, is all that the advocate of slavery can ask to have conceded on this point. The features of slavery in the Roman empire, so far as it is necessary to refer to them to illustrate this point, were summarily these : — 1. Slavery existed generally throughout the Roman empire, and the number of slaves was very great. " Some rich indi- viduals possessed ten thousand, and some as many as twenty thousand of their fellow-creatures," who were held as slaves.* In Italy, it was computed that there were three slaves to one freeman, and that in this part of the empire alone their num- ber amounted to more than twenty millions. The number, therefore, throughout the Roman empire must have been im- mensely great ; and if so, it is impossible that the apostles * Professor B. B. Edwards. 252 AN INQUIRY INTO THE should not have encountered it. Gibbon* says "that the slaves were at least equal in number to the free inhabitants of the Roman world. The total amount of this imperfect calcu- lation [of the inhabitants of the Roman empire] would rise to about one hundred and twenty millions." Of course, accord- ing to this, the number of slaves could not have been less than sixty millions in the Roman empire, at about the time when the apostles went forth to preach the gospel. Respecting the number held by individuals, Gibbon remarks, (p. 26,) that "it was discovered on a very melancholy occasion, that four hun- dred slaves were maintained, in a single palace of Rome. The same number of four hundred belonged to an estate, which an African widow, of very private condition, resigned to her son, while she reserved to herself a much larger share of her property. A freed man, under the reign of Augustus, though his fortune had suffered great losses in the civil wars, left be- hind him three thousand six hundred yoke of oxen, two hun- dred and fifty thousand head of smaller cattle, and, what was almost included in the description of cattle, four thousand one hundred and sixteen slaves." " Scaurus possessed above four thousand domestic, and as many rural slaves. In the reign of Augustus, a freedman, who had sustained great losses during the civil wars, left four thousand one hundred and sixteen slaves, besides other property." " Slaves always composed a great part of the movable property of individuals, and formed a chief article of ladies' dowries." "It was fashionable to go abroad attended by a large number of slaves. Horace! says, " habebat saepe ducentos, saepe decern servos." Besides the domestic and agricultural slaves, there were the gladiators, who were chiefly slaves, and who were extremely numerous at different periods. Julius Caesar exhibited at one time three hundred and twenty pairs. Trajan exhibited them for one hundred and twenty-three days, in the course * Dec. and Fall, vol. i. p. 27, ed. New York, 1829. j- Lib. 1, Sat. iii. v. 11. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 253 of which ten thousand gladiators fought. Chrysostom says, that under Theodosius the Great, and Arcadius, some persons had two or three thousand slaves. From the time of Au- gustus, we may allow three slaves to one freeman ; we shall thus have a free population in Italy of 6,944,000, and of slaves 20,832,000; total, 27,776,000.* (2.) The methods in which men became slaves, in the Ro- man empire, were the following : — (a) By war. This was almost a universal custom. In general, prisoners of war were sold as soon as possible after their captivity. *» On the descent of the Romans upon Africa in the first Punic war, twenty thousand prisoners were taken. On the great victory of Marius and Catullus over the Cimbri, sixty thousand were captured. When Pindenissas was taken by Cicero, the inhabitants were sold for more than .£100,000. Augustus, having overcome the Salassi,sold as slaves thirty-four thousand, of whom eight thousand were capable of bearing arms. Caesar, in his Gallic wars, according to the moderate estimate of Velleius Paterculus, took more than four hundred thousand prisoners." (b) Slaves were acquired by commerce. " The slave-trade in Africa is as old as history reaches back. Among the ruling nations of the North coast, — the Egyptians, Cyrenians, and Carthagenians, — slavery was not only established, but they imported whole armies of slaves, partly for home use, and partly, at least by the Carthagenians, to be shipped for foreign markets. They were chiefly drawn from the interior, where kidnapping was just as much carried on then as now. Black male and female slaves were even an article of luxury, not only among the above-named nations, but in Greece and Italy. For the building of the public works at Rome, vast numbers of slaves were procured. In raising such a structure as the Mausoleum of Adrian, thousands of wretched men, torn from their own firesides, were toiled unto death. For a long period, * Bibl. Repos. as above, pp. 413,414. 22 254 AN INQUIRY INTO THE great numbers of slaves were drawn from Asia Minor, parti- cularly from Phrygia and Cappadocia. Slave and Phrygian became almost convertible terms. So great a multitude were carried into slavery, that but few towns were planted ; the country was rather a pasturage for flocks. In most countries it was common for parents to sell their children into slavery. Man-stealing was, at all times, a very common crime among the ancients." The following places are mentioned either as emporia for slaves, or countries from which they were pro- cured : — Delos, Phrygia, and Cappadocia; Panticapaeum, Dioscurias, and Phanagoria on the Euxine or Black Sea ; Alexandria and Cadiz ; Corsica, Sardinia, and Britain ; Africa and Thrace ; and, indeed, almost every part of the world fur- nished slaves for the Roman people.* (c) Freeborn Romans might be reduced to slavery by law. Criminals doomed to certain ignominious punishments, were, by the effect of their sentence, deprived of citizenship, and reduced to servitude. Those who did not give in their names for enrolment in the militia, were beaten, and sold into slavery beyond the Tiber. Those who did not make proper returns to the Censor, were liable to be visited with the same punish- ment. An indigent thief was adjudged as a slave to the injured party. Children that were exposed by their parents, and left to perish, became, by law, the slaves of any person who chose to take them up and support them. Freedmen, if guilty of ingratitude towards their former masters, might be again re- duced to slavery. (- ncss." This was also the doctrine of the Roman civil law . Cluod ad jus naturale attinet, omnes homines sequales sunt. Digesta, i. 19, 32. If this right is ever disturbed, so as to deprive a human being of the liberty with which he was created, it must be by some power coming in between his creation, contemplated as the work of God, and his future condition in fact; practically 356 AN INQUIRY INTO THE and really ' converting the freeman to a slave/ and constituting the very offence forbidden in the passage before us. He was made a freeman ; he is held a slave. The one is the act of God ; the other is the act of man. Now this process of con- verting a freeman to a slave may be either by the conquests of war, or by kidnapping, or by the laws of a land. It may be either the act of an individual or of a community ; an act of direct and immediate wrong by an individual, or an effect of the legalized workings of a system. It is clear, however, that neither one method nor the other can make it right, or reconcile it with the statement of Paul in 1 Tim. i. 9, 10. The mere act of a legislature in legalizing the conversion, or sanctioning the original robbery, does not make the prohibitions here inapplicable to it, or make it cease to be a violation of the law of God ; nor is the case changed by the fact that the original perpetrator of the wrong is dead, and that it is now a part of an organized system. Somewhere, the wrong is done to the man whom God made free; to each individual who is made a slave : and in every instance, either some individual, or the society which sanctions and legalizes the wrong, is responsible. If the inhabitants of Georgia, liv- ing on the borders of the Cherokee country, had been long in the habit of committing depredations on the farms of the Chero- kees, and carrying off their horses, it is clear that there would be a wrong done in the case of every horse that was stolen. The wrong would not be removed, if the legislature of Georgia at the time had authorized the outrage, or should legalize it afterward ; nor would any lapse of time, or any number of legal enactments, make the act of depredation right. Somewhere, either in the individual or in the society, the guilt of the wrong would remain, nor could it ever be removed by any legal en- actments. The case might be made still stronger, though on the same principle, by a reference to property of a different kind. When Napoleon invaded Italy, a large portion of the celebrated paintings and statues of that land were plundered and removed to Paris. On the supposition that the invader SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 357 had no right himself to rob churches and palaces ; that he violated every principle of common justice, and every senti- ment of what the Earl of Chatham calls 'honourable war,' it is clear that no lapse of time, no amount of legal enactments, and no number of transfers of the property by sale or by be- quest, could ever convey a moral right to those works of art. The claim of one robber might be legally good against another, or the claim of one French proprietor might be legally good against another inhabitant of France, or an inhabitant of Rus- sia or England, but it could never be morally good against the Italian church or convent that had been plundered. Some- where, in spite of all the forms of law, the wrong is perpe- tuated and extended, nor can it ever be obliterated but by a restoration. It may be that one who inherited one of these paintings may-have been guilty of no wrong in becoming the recognised legal owner — for he had no agency in it ; it may be that he could hold it against another claimant — a pretended heir at law of the estate ; it may be that a restoration to the original owner might be for a time impracticable ; but none of these things sanction the original wrong, or abolish the moral claim of the original owner. These principles are still more clear, in the case of stealing a man — a human being — a fellow-traveller to eternity. The injury is greater to him, and to everyone descended from him, who, in virtue of an unhappy connection with him, shall be involved in the wrong, than can possibly be in the case of a horse or a work of art. The guilt of converting the freeman to a slave exists somewhere ; and if in any case it does not rest on the individual who becomes an involuntary inheritor of the wrong, it rests on the community which pro- vides for this by its laws. The thing is forbidden. It is con- trary to the whole spirit of the New Testament. (b) Oppression is forbidden ; and just the kind of oppres- sion which always enters into the idea of slavery. " For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord ; I will set him in safety from him 358 AN INQUIRY INTO THE that pufTeth at him." Ps. xii. 5. "He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth ; the poor also, and him that hath no helper.'' Ps. lxxii. 4, 12. " I know that the Lord will main- tain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor." Ps. cxl. 12. " What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor ? saith the Lord of hosts." Isa. iii. 15. " Wo unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed ; to turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless. And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far ? To whom will ye flee for help ? And where will ye leave your glory ?" Isa. x. 1 — 3. Comp. also Amos viii. 4—7; Ex. iii. 7—9; Eccl. v. 8; Isa. lxi. 8; Jer. v. 26; Ezek. xxii. 12 ; James ii. 13, v. 4 ; Job xxvii. 13 ; Jer. xxii. 13, xxxiv. 17. There is almost nothing which is more frequently adverted to in the Bible, than oppression. And yet, the idea of oppres- sion enters into the very conception of slavery, and is im- bodied in all the laws that pertain to it. Indeed, if it were the design to originate a system of laws for the very purpose of oppression ; if a legislature should wish to frame a series of enactments which should accomplish that in the most effectual manner, the slave laws of this country would be the very ones which would be needed for such a purpose. Scarcely any modification would be necessary to accomplish such an end; scarcely a new element of cruelty and wrong could be intro- duced into these laws. Let anyone read over the laws of the slave states as I have quoted them in a former part of this volume, and this will be apparent at a glance. It is clear, also, that if all that properly comes under the name of oppression were removed from those laws, slavery, as a system, would soon come to an end. There might, in- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 359 deed, be found a few now held as slaves who are *n such cir- cumstances that they do not regard their condition as oppres- sive, and who would prefer to remain with their masters rather than at once to be set at liberty. But their condition would not invalidate the truth of the general remark. Slavery, as a system, could not live a day, if there were not in it the elemen- tary idea of oppression ; and if so, it is clear, that a fair appli- cation of the principles of the Bible would soon bring it to an end ; that is, that it is contrary to the principles of the Bible, and therefore wrong. (c) Depriving one of his lawful wages, is forbidden in the New Testament. — Such a withholding of the proper wages due to the labourer is involved in the very idea of slavery, and in order to show that the Christian system is opposed to it> and would abolish it, it is necessary to show that tLe applica- tion of the principles laid down on that subject m the New Testament would bring the system to an end. This point has already been partially illustrated under a previous specification, in showing that the system of slavery interferes with the essential rights of property. It is proper, however, to add a few words in regard to this specific form of the evil, in order to show, not only that it violates the essential rights of the labourer, by denying that the slave can be the owner of any property whatever, but that it furnishes no such compensation for labour as the principles of the New Testament give a man a right to receive. The principles of the Bible on the subject are stated in the following language : " Behold the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth ; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." James v. 4. " And I will come near you to judgment ; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from the right, and fear not me, 360 AN INQUIRY INTO THE saith the Lord of hosts." Mat. iii. 5. "Wo unto him tha. buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." Jer. xxii. 13. " The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Tim. v. 18. " The labourer is worthy of his hire." Luke x. 7. In all these passages the same principles essentially are laid down. They are these : (a) that where labour is per- formed, or service rendered, a fair equivalent is due to the labourer ; (b) that he to whom the service is rendered is not to withhold that fair equivalent; (c) that we are not to avail ourselves of the forced or unrequited labour of others. He who renders the service is to receive a fair equivalent ; that is, he is to receive what is worth as much to him as the labour is ; and he in whose behalf the service is rendered is to bestow on the labourer as much as the service rendered is worth to him. Now, it is not true, in the system of slavery anywhere, that it is contemplated that a fair equivalent shall be ren- dered to the slave for the service which he performs. It is presumed, in the very nature of the system, that the master shall receive from the toil of the individual slave, or from his slaves collectively, so much more than he gives to them for their work, as to be sufficient to free him from the necessity of toil, and to enable him, so far as that is concerned, to live in indolence. It is not true that an equivalent is paid to the slave. What he receives is not what he would be willing to contract to do the work for. It is not what freemen receive for the same amount of work. No one can pretend that the coarse raiment, and the hard fare, and the rude cottages, and the scanty furniture, and the implied pledge of medical attend- ance in sickness, and of support in old age, can be any proper equivalent for the service which a slave renders. It is not what any freeman would contract to do the work for. If it were an equivalent, the whole system would be unprofitable, and must soon come to an end. As long, theretore, as slavery exists in any community, it SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 361 is a standing- violation of these precepts of the New Testa- ment, and an honest application of these precepts would at once bring the system to an end. Let all slaveholders adopt the principle which prevails where there is free labour, of giving to those employed a fair compensation for their toil ; an honest equivalent for their work, and the system must at once cease. It follows, therefore, if these principles are cor- rect, that all that is received by the master above such an equivalent, is to be set down to the fact that the master has power, and 'can enforce the wrong ;' and is as unjustly appro- priated to himself as if it were taken by robbery in any other form, from the earnings of another. Why is it more justifia- ble than any other mode of availing ourselves of the labour of others without their consent, and without rendering to them a fair equivalent ? There is not on earth any other condition of things to which the passage in James v. 4 is so applicable as that of slavery ; and if the rebuke in this one passage of the word of God were regarded, slavery would at once come to an end. Let it be imagined to be addressed to slaveholders, and how distinctly does it seem to refer to every feature of injustice and wrong in the system. " The hire of the labourers ivhich have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth ; and the cries of them which have reaped, are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth" (d) Tlie withholding of instruction is forbidden in the New Testament. Nothing is more definite in the Bible, or more in accordance with all our views of what is proper and right, than the declarations that all men have a clear right to know the truth ; to receive instruction, to have free access to the oracles of God. Luke xi. 52: " Wo unto you, lawyers ! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in, ye hindered.'' John v. 39 : " Search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." Prov. xix. 2: "That the soul be without knowledge, it is not good." 31 362 AN INQUIRY INTO THE The precepts in the Bible which speak of the value of knowledge, and of the obligation to search for the truth, apply- to all men. It is everywhere supposed that all have a right to the privilege of obtaining the knowledge of God ; and, in the laws of the Mosaic economy, we have seen the solicitude which was manifested that all persons in the Hebrew com- monwealth should have the benefits of religious instruction. Yet the laws of the slave states in this Union are a direct violation of all these precepts, so far as slaves are concerned. It is not contemplated that they shall have sufficient knowledge even to read the Bible. There are numerous laws which are enacted with the express design that they shall not have that knowledge. Those laws have been enacted on the principle that they are necessary to perpetuate the system ; that there is no other way of preserving the slaves in subordination ; that were they to allow them to be acquainted with the Bible, it would make them restless and dissatisfied, and would tend to the ultimate subversion of the whole system. It is understood everywhere in the slaveholding states that nothing would be more fatal to the existence of slavery there, than to establish a system of common-school instruction ; and that the whole insti- tution would be perilled if all the slaves were taught to read the Bible. It would be impossible to press through a single legislature of the slaveholding states an act authorizing the free instruction of all the slaves to such an extent that they might be able to read the word of God ; much less to institute a system of common-school instruction that should embrace all the slaves. Even the efforts which are made by not a few worthy philanthropists, of a recent date, in the South, to benefit the slaves by giving them instruction, contemplate only oral instruction ;* and the experiment has been under- taken — an experiment which cannot but be destined to certain failure m the end, benevolent and well-meant though it be — to see whether this mode of instruction can be made to answer * See the Reports of the Rev. Mr. Jones. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 363 the purpose of the plan which God has adopted, and which he has revealed as the right of every human being, in the sense that no one can deprive him of it, and as the only thing adapted to meet the wants of the human soul — the ability to read the Bible, and the unrestricted right to do it. The laws prohibiting the instruction of the slaves are essential to slavery. Slaveholding legislators believe, that if those laws should be repealed, the system could not be perpetuated. In this opinion every intelligent person must unite with them. Nothing can be clearer than this ; there is no point on which less doubt can be entertained. But if this be so, then two things follow also, with entire clearness. (a.) One is, that the essential laws in the slave- states are opposed to the Bible on this point ; or in other words, the Bible is essentially opposed to slavery. That is, laws are necessary to support the system, which are a direct violation of the principles of the word of God. (b.) The second thing is, that the framers of those laws, and the advocates of slavery, have no real belief that the system of slavery is sanctioned by the word of God. If they had, the very best thing which they could do, would be forthwith to teach all their slaves to read the Bible. If this system is in accordance with the Scriptures ; if it is clear that it is meant that it shall be perpetuated ; if the relation of master and slave is one that is recognised as a desirable one, and one that is to be continued, then the Bible is the very book to put into the hands of the slaves, and then the master is doing both himself and the slave a great wrong that he does not do it. For the slave often feels that his condition is a hard one. He often feels that, being a human being, he has a right to freedom. He is chafed, and discontented, and dissatisfied with his con- dition. He often feels — he cannot help it, with the measure of light which he has — that God made him for higher ends ; for the privileges and immunities of freedom. His spirit is restless and disturbed, and he is in constant danger of being tempted to take measures to burst his chains, and to enjoy the 364 AN INQUIRY INTO THE sweets of liberty. Now, if the Bible is friendly to slavery ; if it is wholly opposed to all efforts to produce universal emancipation ; if it never speaks of slavery as sinful, then the best thing that can be done to calm down the restless feelings of the slave, is, to put this book into his hands, and let him see what is the will of God in the case ; to bring the sanctions of religion on the side of the master, and to let the slave see that he is only obeying the injunctions of his Maker. One of the best methods of calming down the rebellious feelings of those who are afflicted by the loss of health, property, or friends, is to put the Bible in their hands, and let them see that it is the will of God that his people should be tried. Nothing does so much to still the murmurs of a troubled soul, and to produce peace, as to know that God has appointed these trials, and that in obedience to his will they should be patiently borne. So, if slavery be countenanced in the Bible, and it is there regarded as an institution having the divine approbation, nothing would do so much to soothe every mur- muring feeling ; to produce universal contentment; to silence every complaint against the master, and to make the slave happy, as to instruct him so that he could read the Bible, and see all this with his own eyes. Masters of slaves are doing themselves great wrong, by leaving the suspicion on their minds, that something would be found in the Bible which would lead them to doubt whether God designed that they should be held in that condition. The 'schoolmaster' would thus do a good service if he were 'abroad' all over the South. The Bible Society should be heartily countenanced by the masters and legislators there, and would deserve their warmest thanks if it should follow in the steps of the schoolmaster, and put a Bible into the hands of every murmuring and dissatisfied slave, and into the hands of all the children there born to be slaves. Nothing could do so much to prevent trouble — and especially to prevent the propensity now so prevalent with them to escape to the North. (4.) It is conceded that the gospel, if fairly applied, would SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 365 remove slavery from the world : it is therefore wrong. This is admitted in the Princeton Biblical Repertory. "It is also evident, that acting in accordance with these principles would so soon improve the condition of the slaves, would make them intelligent, moral, and religious, and thus work out to the benefit of all concerned, and the removal of the institution. For slavery, like despotism, supposes the actual inferiority and consequent dependence of those held in sub- jection. Neither can be permanent. Both may be prolonged by keeping the subject class degraded, that is, by committing sin on a large scale, which is only to treasure up wrath for the day of wrath. It is only the antagonist fanaticism of a fragment of the South, which maintains the doctrine that slavery is in itself a good thing, and ought to be perpetuated. It cannot by possibility be perpetuated." The same sentiments are expressed in the Princeton Re- pertory for 1836, pp. 302, 304. This same concession would be made by most of those who suppose that slavery was tolerated in the church by the apostles, and who are most offended at its ever being denominated a sin. Even Dr. Fuller, the ablest defender of the institution of slavery of modern times, candidly makes the following concession: "If you had as- serted," says he, addressing Dr. Wayland, "the great danger of confiding such irresponsible power in the hands of any man, I should at once have assented. There is quite enough abuse of this authority to make me regret its general existence" Again he says, "You must already have perceived, that, speaking abstractly of slavery, I do not consider its perpetu- ation proper, even if it were possible. Nor let any one ask, why not perpetuate it if it be not a sin ? The Bible informs us what man is, and, among such beings, irresponsible power is a trust too easily and too frequently abused."* It is evident from these passages, that even this distinguished defender of slavery, as a scriptural institution, would not regard it as de- * Fuller and Wayland on Slavery, p. 157. 31* 366 AS INQUIRY INTO THE sirable or ' proper' that it should be perpetuated ; that he 'regrets' the general existence of the institution ; and that he regards its perpetuation as 'impossible.' Even Dr. Fuller, therefore, must suppose, that a fair application of the princi- ples of the Bible would remove the system ultimately from the world, since he would rely on nothing to correct what is evil in man, or permanently to modify society, but the in- fluence of religion. I have myself repeatedly conversed with intelligent gentle- men of the slaveholding states on the subject, and I have never seen one who did not admit that the gospel would ultimately remove slavery entirely. They have, indeed, been opposed to violent measures — to denunciation, to harsh words, to a disorganizing spirit, and to making the mere fact of sustaining the relation of a master a test of admission to the church or a ground of excommunication from it — as in fact most of the opponents of slavery at the North are ; they have in general maintained that the North had no right to intermeddle with it, and that it pertained wholly to the states where the institution exists ; they have insisted that it is not proper for ecclesias- tical bodies to interfere with the subject, even by bearing testimony against it; but they have conceded that the gospel, by its mild and gentle influence, would ultimately abolish the system. It may be set down as the undoubted belief of the great mass of private Christians, and Christian ministers at the South, that the fair effect of the gospel, if applied in a proper manner, would be first to meliorate the condition of the slave, and ultimately to effect his entire emancipation. The concession would be made, in accordance with the views in the Princeton Repertory, that " the consequence of acting on the principles of the gospel, of following the example and obeying the precepts of Christ, would be the gradual eleva- tion of the slaves in intelligence, virtue, and wealth ; the peaceable and speedy extinction of slavery ; the improvement in general prosperity of all classes of society, and the con- sequent increase in the sum of human happiness and vir- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 367 tue."* Most persons also would accord with the opinion so em- phatically expressed in the same work, that, " The South has to choose between emancipation by the silent and holy influence of the gospel, securing the elevation of the slaves to the stature and character of freemen, or to abide the issue of a long con- tinued conflict with the laws of God." — p. 304. These views, of what the tendency of the gospel would do if fairly applied, though they seem to be entirely contradictory to the opinion, so commonly defended at the South, that it is an in- stitution sanctioned by the Bible, would be strengthened by a reference to the effect which the gospel, when first promulgated, had on the system of Roman slavery. It has been commonly admitted, even by the advocates of the opinion that slave- holding is not necessarily sinful, that the effect of Christianity was to abolish slavery throughout the Roman empire, and the manner in which the apostles treated it has been supposed to have contributed essentially to this result. This opinion, so greatly conceded to be true, has, however, been recently called in question, by Dr. Fuller. The bearing of the concession that the gospel ever did abolish slavery, could not but be seen by a mind as clear as his. He there- fore expresses himself in the following decisive language : " ' Slavery was at last abolished throughout the whole Roman empire ; and, by the admission of all, this was purely the result of the gospel.' Answer. Even if this statement were correct, it would not affect our discussion. But I sub- mit to you that it is inaccurate. At first, myriads of slaves were procured by war ; and then the law of self-preservation occasioned the greatest severities. When all nations had be- come consolidated into one empire, this source of supply al- most ceased, and, masters depending on the natural increase, slaves became more valuable, and their treatment more kind. Through this cause the laws were mitigated, and, in the reign of the Antonines, edicts were published protecting slaves. * Vol. viii. pp. 303, 304. 368 AN INQUIRY INTO THE This was in the second century, nor can this change be at all ascribed to the gospel. In process of time Christianity se- conded the humane working of this system, and infused its mild and benevolent spirit into the institution, making it quite a different thing. But slavery never was abolished through- out the Roman empire. In its latest days there were millions of slaves in the empire, and a living writer thinks, that their number was one of the causes which conspired in producing that most astonishing catastrophe, the subjugation of Rome by the Northern barbarians."* It becomes, then, an important inquiry just here, what was the effect of the Christian religion on the system of slavery as it existed in the Roman empire ? Did it in any way modify it, or tend to remove it ? Was it understood to lend its sanction to it, so that it was regarded as a good and desirable institution ? Was it understood that it was improper for Christian ministers to preach on the subject, or synods and councils to bear their testimony against it ? Are there any facts to show that its tendency was to promote universal emanci- pation, or was it a common belief in the Christian church, that it was to be perpetual ? If all Christian ministers and churches should act now on what was understood by the early Christians to be the proper way to act, would the system be vindicated and perpetuated ? In reply to these questions, I would observe that the facts in the case, so far as I have had the means of ascertaining them, were these : {a) The attention of Christians was early turned to the subject of slavery, and to the evils of the system. In the second epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to Polycarp of Smyrna, are the following words : " Overlook not the men and maid- servants ; neither let them be puffed up ; but rather let them be the more subject to the glory of God, that they may ob- tain from him a better liberty. Let them not desire to be set * Fuller and Way land on Slavery, pp. 220,221. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 369 free at public cost, that they be not slaves to their own lusts." In the general epistle of Barnabas, ch. 14, v. 15, he says, " Thou shalt not be bitter in thy commands towards any of thy servants that trust in God ; lest thou chance not to fear him who is over both ; because he came not to call any with respect of persons, but whomsoever the spirit prepared."* (6) Freedom, under the influence of Christianity, was re- garded as a great blessing, and the desire to promote it led to great sacrifices on the part of the early Christians. The prevailing views of the early Christians may be regarded as expressed in the following passage of Clemens, in his epistle to the Corinthians : " We have known many among ourselves, who have delivered themselves into bonds and slavery, that they might restore others to their liberty ; many who have hired out themselves servants unto others, that by their wages they might feed and sustain them that wanted." The following facts also will show with what feelings the early Christians regarded slavery. " Paulinus, bishop of Nola, ex- pended his whole estate, and then sold himself, in order to accomplish the same object. Serapion sold himself to a stage- player, and was the means of converting him and his family. Cyprian sent to the bishop of Numidia, in order to redeem some captives, 2500 crowns. Socrates, the historian, says, that after the Romans had taken 7000 Persian captives, Aca- cius, bishop of Amida, melted the gold and silver plate of his church, with which he redeemed the captives. Ambrose of Milan did the same in respect to the furniture of his church. It was the only case in which the imperial constitutions allowed plate to be sold."t (c) Emancipation became a very common thing in the early Christian church, and was attended with such ceremonies as to show that it was regarded as a matter of great importance, and thatan invaluable privilege was thus conferred on the slave. * Bib. Repos. for 1835, pp. 432, 433. f Bib. Repos. Oct. 1835, p. 433. 370 AN INQUIRY INTO THE Thus, when a slave became, with the consent of his master, a minister of the gospel, he was, by the very act, regarded as emancipated.* Emancipation came to be performed in the church, attended with the impressive rites of religion,! and every thing relating to it was such as to make a deep impres- sion of the desirableness of restoration to freedom. (d) Under the influence of Christianity, the laws were greatly modified, and many of the former oppressive and harsh treatments came to an end. " After the establishment of Christianity, under Constantine, slaves partook of all the ordinances of religion, and their birth was no impediment to their rising to the highest distinctions of the priesthood. At first, indeed, it was required that a slave should be enfran- chised before ordination ; but Justinian declared the simple con- sent of the master to be sufficient. Slaves were fully protected in the exercise of worship, and to a certain extent in the ob- servance of religious festivals. If a Christian slave fell into the hands of a heathen master, the latter was prohibited from interfering with his spiritual concerns. "J (e) It is admitted that the tendency of things under the Roman empire, in the early ages of Christianity, was to bring slavery to an end ; and that, in fact, it brought it almost to a termination. Indeed, such were the facilities for manumission in the Roman state, and such numbers were actually emanci- pated before Christianity exerted any influence, that it came to be necessary, as it was supposed, to restrict the right of emanci- pation, in order to limit the dangerous number of freedmen. Cicero induces us to believe, that good slaves usually at- tained their liberty after six years' service. § It was usual for a wealthy master to give freedom to a number of slaves upon joyful occasions.|| The posthumous vanity of masters was * Blair's Slavery amongst the Romans, p. 168. ■f- Pliny vii. cpist. 1 6. i Bib. Repos. ut supra, p. 434. § Philip, viii. II. U Ammi. Marcell. xxii.; Libianus Paneg. Jul. i. 21; Cassiod.Varior. vi.ep. 1. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 371 gratified in their funeral procession being swelled by a crowd of skives, to whom they left their freedom by testament, and hundreds were sometimes thus emancipated at once.* The number of freedmen found in Rome, at the close of the civil wars, was so large that Augustus, desirous to re-establish the relative importance of the pure civic classes, imposed various restric- tions on their manumission, and several of his successors acted on similar views. The Fusian law, passed probably under Augustus, limited the proportion of slaves that a proprietor might emancipate by will, and fixed one hundred as the maxi- mum, not to be exceeded by any single owner. t The exact provision of this law was, that for one or two slaves, there was no limitation ; but between the numbers three and ten, one half could be emancipated ; of any number under thirty, a third ; under a hundred, a quarter ; under five hundred, a fifth part, and in no case whatever more than a hundred.! This tendency to emancipation was much increased by the influence of Christianity. The feelings of the early Chris- tians, as we have seen, prompted them to it ; and the obstacles to emancipation were finally removed, to a great degree, by Justinian. § So strong was the tendency to emancipation, so decisive was the influence of Christianity, that, if slavery was never entirely brought to an end in the Roman empire, it was nearly so; and if the progress of things had not been inter- rupted by the invasion of the Northern hordes, there is every reason to think that it would have wholly ceased within the limits of the Roman power. Thus, Gibbon expressly says, that it " had almost ceased under the peaceful reign of the Roman emperors." (See Fuller on Slavery, p. 221.) Thus Dr. Fuller himself says : " In process of time Christianity seconded the humane working of this system, and infused its mild and benevolent spirit into the institution, making it * Blair, ut supra, p. 173. f Ibid. p. 174. * Becker on Roman Slavery, in the Bibliotheca Sacra, Aug. 1845, p. 579. § Blair, ut. sup. p. 174. 372 AN INQUIRY INTO THE quite a different thing."— p. 220. Thus also, Prof. B. B. Edwards* says : " The spirit of the Christian religion effected a glorious triumph in almost every part of the imperial domi- nions. There was no instantaneous abandonment of the sys- tem of servitude. But its contrariety to the precepts of the New Testament was gradually seen. Clergymen vindicated the rights of the oppressed. The codes of slave-law were gradually ameliorated, till finally the rescripts of Justinian nearly accomplished the salutary reform." On the influence of the invasions of the Goths and Vandals in checking the progress of emancipation, and perpetuating slavery, the whole of the article just referred to may be consulted with great ad- vantage. It is evident, that whatever influence those inva- sions had in perpetuating slavery should be regarded as coun- teracting the tendency of the Christian religion. From the above statements in regard to slavery in the Roman empire after the gospel was preached, it is manifest that slavery was considered to be adverse to the spirit of the gospel ; that the early Christians were willing to make great sacrifices to impart freedom to those who were enslaved; that emancipation was regarded as a most important and desirable thing ; that the tendency of Christianity was to meliorate the laws pertaining to slavery, and to ' make it quite a different thing ;' that under the influence of Christianity slavery ■ had almost ceased' in the Roman empire ; and that there is every reason to suppose that it would have ceased entirely, if the progress of things so auspiciously commenced had not been arrested by the incursions of the Northern barbarians. The result of this investigation in regard to Roman slavery is, therefore, in entire accordance with the statement in the Princeton Repertory, that the fair application of the Christian religion would ultimately bring the institution to an end. But, if this be so, it is a legitimate conclusion that slavery is sinful, and that the gospel does not contemplate that it shall * Bibl. Repos. Jan. 1836, p. 441. SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 373 be perpetuated for the best interests of society. It is clear, that the most rigid application of the principles of the gospel will destroy nothing that is good, and that it will interfere with no desirable relation in society. It makes war only on evil ; its tendency is to remove only that which is sinful. Regard- ing the gospel as a system of truth revealed from heaven, all that is necessary to prove that any thing is wrong, is to show that the fair application of the gospel would abolish it. It makes no difference as to this point, whether it be by a gradual process, or whether it would do it immediately ; whether it would be by effecting a change in the laws, or by acting directly on the individual consciences of those who are guilty of the wrong; the fact that the gospel would abolish its existence, proves that it is wrong. The Christian religion disturbs nothing that is good ; it destroys no relation which it is desirable should be perpetuated for the best interests of man. All the arguments, therefore, in the Princeton Repertory, and elsewhere, in favour of slavery, when the admission is made that the gospel w r ould abolish it, are grossly inconsistent. At one moment it is maintained that it is not condemned in the Bible ; that slavery has been countenanced in all ages ; that it is not to be regarded as per se an evil ; that it is wrong for ecclesiastical bodies to legislate on it ; that slaves may be held with propriety by Christian ministers and by other Christians ; that the war which Christianity makes on it is not on the system, but the ■ abuses of the system' — the unjust and oppres- sive laws on the subject;* and at another, it is admitted, in the clearest manner, that the fair application of the Christian religion would bring the system ■ speedily' to an end, — as if the gospel would abolish any thing that is good and right. If Christianity would bring it to an end, there must be some reason why it would ; and the only reason that can be assigned as drawn from the nature of Christianity is, that * Princeton Repertory, April, 1836, pp. 302,303. 32 374 AN INQUIRY INTO THE it is contrary to the will of God, and a thing that is morally wrong. It is a fair conclusion, therefore, that if Christianity would abolish it, slavery is sinful. It demonstrates the point before us, that it is contrary to the Bible, and cannot be defended from the word of God. To show that it is not contrary to the Bible, it should be maintained that, under the fair operation of Christianity, the system would be extended and perpetuated ; and that the best way to keep it up on the earth would be to promulgate the principles of the Christian religion as plainly and as extensively as possible. There are few men, it is to be presumed, who would be disposed to take that ground. The force of the argument here referred to may be seen by applying it to two classes of objects. (a) There are things, indubitably, which the application of Christianity would bring to an end, and which, wherever it has prevailed, have been abolished. Such, for example, are polygamy, gladiatorial shows, intemperance, concubinage, profaneness, piracy, highway robbery, duelling, fraud, licen- tiousness of manners. Christianity will bring them to an end, because they are wrong; and the fact that it will do so, proves that they are wrong. If it would also abolish slavery, would it not prove that it is to be classed with the same evils as those just referred to 1 Is it the tendency of the system to abolish alike the evil and the good ? Is it ' a fountain which at the same place sends forth sweet water and bitter?' — James iii. 11. (b) There are things which it would not abolish ; which it lias no tendency to abolish, but which it only confirms in their influence. Such are the relations of the marriage covenant; of parent and child ; of brothers and sisters ; of neighbours and friends. The most rigid application of the principles of Christi- anity would do nothing to abolish the relations of husband and wife in a community, or those of parent and child. The Christian system would only perpetuate and do honour to those relations ; nor is it possible to conceive that the time will SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 375 ever come, under the application of Christianity, when they will cease in the world. Does not this prove that they have the sanction of God, and are designed to be perpetuated for the good of man ? And if the relation of master and slave had equally the sanction of God, would not the fair application of Christianity be to extend and perpetuate it also ? Why should it perpetuate the one and abolish the other ? These considerations seem to me to be conclusive proof that Christianity was not designed to extend and perpetuate slavery, but that the spirit of the Christian religion is against it ; and that the fair application of the Christian religion would re- move it from the world, because it is an evil, and is displeasing to God. 376 AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONCLUSION. I have thus gone through with the subject which I pro- posed to examine — the scriptural argument on the subject of slavery. There is another line of argument on the sub- ject which might be pursued, in order to confirm the views which have been taken, derived from the working of the sys- tem. This would consist of an examination of the bearing of the system on the various questions pertaining to agriculture, commerce, arts, manufactures, education, morals, and political prosperity. It would be easy, on these points, to show that there is not a valuable interest of society which does not suf- fer from the influence of slavery, and that our own country, in the comparative increase and prosperity of the free and slave states, furnishes abundant illustration of this truth. This course of argument would be proper, in accordance with the object which I proposed, only as it would be a confirmation of the views taken in interpreting the Bible. If the teachings of the Bible are against the system ; if in the word of God it is not regarded as a good and desirable institution ; if it appears from the Scriptures that it was not his intention that it should be perpetuated ; and if the fair application of the Christian principles would be to abolish it, it may be pre- sumed that these views would find confirmation in the events of his Providence ; and that in respect to those things on which the best interests of society depend, and which will enter into its highest condition, those portions of the world where slavery prevails will be found to be falling behind those which are free from it. This argument might be pursued at length, SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 377 and with the clearest demonstration. With certain classes of minds it would have more force than any thing which I have advanced. But it does not fall directly within my design in ascertaining the true sense of the Bible on the subject. I have not thought it necessary for me, in this argument, to go into any examination of the question in what way our country can be delivered from this great evil, or what is the duty of those who now hold slaves who would be desirous of dissolving all connection with the system, or what is their duty in seeking the modification of the laws on the subject. There is one great preliminary matter first to be settled, and that is, to secure the conviction everywhere, in the church and out of it, that slavery is evil, and only evil ; that it is con- trary to the spirit of the Bible ; that the fair influence of the Christian religion would be to bring it to an end ; and that it is a system which cannot be defended by any fair and honest interpretation of the word of God. The examination which I have pursued has conducted us, if I mistake not, to the con- clusion that slavery cannot rest for its support on the teach- ings of the Bible. The fair influence of the Bible ; the application of the principles of the Christian religion, would bring the system to a 'speedy' end. This is felt everywhere at the North ; and is probably felt in the consciences of the great majority of persons at the South. Few men, even there, would have the boldness to undertake to maintain that the Bible sanctions the system of American slavery, as it is. The great mass of the friends of religion there would admit that the mild and gentle influence of Christianity would bring it to an end. Thousands of Christians there, I doubt not, are looking forward to the time when this shall be accomplished, and are praying most sincerely that the gospel may be so applied to all classes there — to the master and the servant ; to the legislators and the people ; to the churches and the com- munity at large — that the evils of this system may be ultimately 32* 378 AN INQUIRY INTO THE banished, and that all the South may be truly a land of free- dom. They sigh over wrongs and woes which they yet see no method of removing. That the South, moreover, is sensible that the fair influence of the Bible is against the system, and would bring it to an end, is manifest from all the laws which exist there to prevent the truths of the Bible from coming in contact with the minds of the slaves themselves. If the Bible is favourable to the system, and would sustain it, the most obvious course to con- tinue it, as has been before observed, would be to cause every slave to be taught to read, and to place the Bible in every negro cottage in the plantations of the South. But this can- not be done. The laws are against it ; the public sentiment is against it, and against it only because it is known that the slave, if allowed to be his own interpreter of the word of God, would not draw the conclusion that the master often does, that the Bible is in favour of slavery. Well is it known that the Bible would teach him that he is a man ; that he is a redeemed heir of life ; that he was born as free as others ; that he has a right to his own time, and to the fruits of his own toil ; and that if he had all the rights which he ought to have, he would be as free as his master. Well is it known that the influence of the Bible, while it would make him patient under his trials and wrongs, would aAvaken in his bosom an inextinguishable love of liberty. It would be impos- sible to repress in the soul the aspirings after freedom ; and with the Bible everywhere in his hands, it would be impossi- ble to keep down the feeling that the master was guilty of oppression and wrong. Now this conviction that slavery is contrary to the spirit of the Christian religion, and that that religion will ultimately bring it to an end, is destined most certainly to increase and prevail. Nothing is more sure than that, on this subject, the human mind will become strengthened in this conviction until it becomes universal. There is but one result every- SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 379 where to be anticipated in the progress of knowledge, and in the careful investigations of the Scriptures on this subject, and that is the result which was reached by the minds of Penn, and the younger Edwards, and by Wilberforce and Clarkson, that the system of slavery is contrary to the spirit of the Bible. The progress towards this result may be temporarily checked. Many minds may for a while hesitate ; many, swayed by interest, may doubt it ; but the world will come to it, and will yet admit that the system which proclaims that man may be held as a chattel, cannot be sustained by the word of God. With reference to so certain a result, we may apply to this anticipated triumph of truth, the eloquent lan- guage with which Dr. Fuller closes his letters to Dr. Way- land, on slavery. " The knowledge of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, we are assured, shall fill this guilty and polluted earth, as the waters cover the face of the deep. And it is with that knowledge, too, as with those waters, when the sea is rolling in. Wave after wave breaks, and is driven back ; but the ocean is advancing ; and before its majesty and strength, im- potent must every barrier prove ; — vainly shall nations rage, and rulers take counsel together, and all the kings of the earth set themselves, saying, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy proud billows be stayed." It is deeply affecting to see such a mind as that of Dr. Fuller — large, generous, highly cultivated, and well-disci- plined — labouring to defend the system of slavery, yet deeply impressed with its undeniable evils; with the fact that the current of public feeling is setting against it ; and that he can find little sympathy in the spirit of the age while maintaining such an argument, pouring itself forth in the following pen- sive and disconsolate words : — " I have done ; and mine has been an irksome and cheerless task. You have had the popular side of the question, and the Reflector has accompanied your letters with accounts of tht? 380 AN INQUIRY INTO THE enthusiasm produced by them at the North. May you ever be animated in your pious labours by multitudes who love and admire you, — among whom I shall always be found, when conscience permits it. For me, I have long been schooled to say, « My soul, ivait thou only upon God; for my expec- tation is from Him.'' I expect no enthusiasm from the North, and little even from the South. I ask only the calm and honest reflection of wise and good men for truth, which may not be welcome, but is truth for all that. Easily could I have composed papers which would have been copied and applauded here, but truth forbade it. Nor can I approve of the fanaticism of the South, any more than that of the North, on the subject which has been before us. I only wish, in fact, that, instead of employing my humble efforts in refuting an untenable, and mischievous, and monstrous dogma, I had been occupied in the more congenial work of attempting to excite masters to a sense of their fearful responsibility, and to the discharge of their solemn duties." How much more in accordance with such a mind would it be, to engage in showing how the system debases all that is noble in man, and how contrary it is to the spirit of the Lord Jesus, and to all the principles of that religion which he came to establish in the world. For such a mind must perceive that there is a current setting against slavery, which nothing can resist. There are great and well-established principles in society, which are constantly pressing harder and harder on the system. The progress towards universal freedom is onward. The spirit of the age ; the settled principles of liberty ; the advances in intelligence and in benevolent feel- ing, all are against the system, and it cannot survive the shock when all these are fully arrayed against it. The defence of slavery from the Bible is to be, and will soon be abandoned, and men will wonder that any de- fence of such a system could have been attempted from the word of God. If the authors of these defences could live a SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 381 little longer than the ordinary term of years allotted to man, they would themselves wonder that they could ever have set up such a defence. Future generations will look upon the defences of slavery drawn from the Bible, as among the most remarkable instances of mistaken interpretation and unfounded reasoning furnished by the perversities of the human mind. One thing further is settled. If the Bible could be shown to defend and countenance slavery as a good institution, it would make thousands of infidels — for there are multitudes of minds that will see more clearly that slavery is against all the laws which God has written on the human soul, than they would see that a book sanctioning such a system had evidence of divine origin. If slavery is to be defended, it is not to be by arguments drawn from the Bible, but by arguments drawn from its happy influences on agriculture, commerce, and the arts ; on the increase of population and national prosperity ; on morals and social intercourse ; on the military strength which it gives a people ; on the smiling villages, the neat dwellings, the school-houses and churches, which it rears and adorns ; on its influence in promoting chastity and purity of life ; on its elevating the black man, and making him more intelligent and happy than he would be in his own land ; on its whole benevolent bearing on the welfare of the slave, in this world and the world to come. Whether these considera- tions in its favour are sufficient to defend the institution, may be safely left to the results of an examination by those who are disposed to engage in it. From the whole train of reasoning which I have pursued, I trust it will not be considered as improper to regard it as a position clearly demonstrated, that the fair influence of the Christian religion would everywhere abolish slavery. Let its principles be acted out ; let its maxims prevail and rule in the hearts of all men, and the system, in the language of tne Princeton Repertory, 'would speedily come to an end.' In what way this is to be brought about, and in what manner the 382 AN INQUIRY INTO THE influence of the church may be made to bear upon it, are points on which there may be differences of opinion. But there is one method which is obvious, and which, if every- where practised, would certainly lead to this result. It is, for the Christian church to cease all connection ivith slavery. Happily we have, on this subject, one most beautiful and in- structive example of what might be done by all Christian churches — the example of the Society of Friends. Humbly commending that example to the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ in this land, as one eminently prudent, Christian, and wise, I would submit this whole argument to the candid judgment of the Christian public, to all who love liberty and value the rights of man. The history of emancipation among the Quakers is an ex- ceedingly interesting and instructive portion of the history of our country ; and in the calm, and prudent, and persevering measures which they have adopted, is probably to be found the true way in which our country can be, and is to be, freed from this great evil. They have aimed at two things — and two only — both of them legitimate, both of them prudent and wise : — -first to remove slavery from their own body; and then to bear their solemn testimony, in regard to the evil, to the world. The first object was pursued year after year by patient and manly discussion, and by faithful and affectionate dealing with their brethren ; — and the period at last arrived — a most triumphant period in the history of their body — when they could announce to the world that the evil of slavery was not attached to any portion of their denomination ; when there was not a " Friend" who claimed a right of property in his fellow-man. The other object they have as steadily pursued. They have borne, without ambiguity, and without hesitancy, and with nothing of a spirit of denunciation, their 'testimony' in regard to the evil of the system before the world. They offer no forced interference. They use no harsh words. They impugn no man's motives. They interfere with no SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. 383 rights protected by law. But they are a plain-spoken people. They use intelligent language. They do not attempt to blink the subject, or to cover up the evil. They make no apology for slavery ; they never speak of it as right ; they nevei speak of it as sanctioned by the Bible ; they never even speak of the difficulty of emancipation ; they use no metaphysical distinctions on the question whether it is a moral, or a political, or a social wrong, or on the question whether it is in all cases a sin. They leave the impression that they regard it as a wrong in every sense of the word, and that they themselves deemed it so great a wrong that they were willing to make great sacrifices, that their own denomination might be freed from it totally and for ever ; and they leave this solemn testi- mony to go forth to the world for what it is worth. Now here, I am persuaded, is a wise model for all other denominations of Christian men, and the true idea of all suc- cessful efforts for the removal of this great evil from the land. Let all the evangelical denominations but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end. There is not vital energy enough ; there is not power of numbers and influence enough out of the church, to sustain it. Let every religious denomination in the land detach itself from all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others ; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be announced that the evil has ceased with them for ever ; and let the voice from each denomination be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn testimony against the system — with no ' mealy' words ; with no attempt at apology ; with no wish to blink it ; with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil — and the work is done. There is no public sentiment in this land — there could be none created, that would resist the power of such testimony. There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour if it were not sustained in it. Not a blow need be struck. Not 384 SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF SLAVERY. an unkind word need be uttered. No man's motive need be impugned; no man's proper rights invaded. All that is needful is, for each Christian man, and for every Christian church, to stand up in the sacred majesty of such a solemn testimony ; to free themselves from all connection with the evil, and utter a calm and deliberate voice to the world, and THE WORK WILL BE DONE. THE END. MY 2 719401 <^ /■ ^ o5 Q, ^ <*. V - %■<£' .% '+<* v ^ ^ & V> ^ - ' # % ** ^0^ ^ ^ *% V : %n •; ^ r> ;*:•• N OP * V' l 4 : *W 5% .,% r "o v * " ' "T^ N J? W 5- /, A^ % v\ ^ v> v> , .^^ w %/' > ^ •/<£ ^ ;%^> *9* o%% ^ / ., i * * ^ J*> S f?^ %^ ' , r(£ *<*•* <&'