\,^^ :'^^^^ %/ :gM-' %<^ ' ■^ ' • • • \ * -<._> - -• .• ^ .0^ V.S^ ■^-^^0-^ ^.•-•i^-'V \-^-/ V-^'-'^ ■^<; ^-j SLAYEEY EXAMIIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE BIBLE. BY LTJTHER LEE. SYRACUSE, N. Y.: ■WESLEY AN' METUOniST COOK ROOM, 60 South Salina Street. 1855. P 11 E F A C E The subject discussed in the folhjwint^ pag-cs has occu- pied a lai-'i-c share of public attention for tiie last twenty years. 'I'his attentipn has been deepeninjii-, aud becoiiiiug more <;cueral, and is slill proq-ressing', am) the writer be- lieves it will advance until the eye of the nation will be fixed upon the greai subject of human rights. Slavery is so great and glaring a wrong, as to be able to live, only by diverting attention, or by perverting the Scrip- tures, conscience, and common sense. Let the eye of the Dation become lixed on the system of American Slavery, auJ let its merits be freely examined in the light of tho Scriptures, and let the sacred volume be disabused of the pro-slavery glasses which have blurred its pages, that its true light may be evolved, and Slavery will die for want of moral darkness, the only elenient in whith it can live. AVith all hunest believers in the Christian Religion, the Scriptures are the " higl»tr law," the only authorita- tive standard of right anti wrong, and with them a successful appeal tu the Bible is conclusive, the end of all controversy. Such an appeal is attempted in the follow- ing pages, with what succe.>^s the reader must judge. If the appeal is successful, two ends will be accom- plished. First, the absolute authority of the Scriptures will be brought to bear against Slavery, in the minds of all those who regard them iu the light of a Revelation uf the will of God. Secondly, the Scriptures will be vindicated against the charge of sanctioning the terrible system of American Slavery. It is a fact well under- stood that many are fast loosing their confidence in the Scriptures, upon the assuujption that they justify Sla- very. 'I'o vindif^ate the Bible from such a charge, and to stop the tide of infulelity arising from this source, is an object worthier of higher gifts than those displayed in the following ]»ag^^s, yet th(^ Author hopes his little vol- ume may be found among the intluences which shall has- ten the overthrow of human bondage. AVith these views and his earnest prayers for tiie triumph of truth, he submits his work to the judgment of the candid reader. THE AUTHOR. SLAVERY EXAMINED SECTION I SIN INHERENT IN SLAVERY. It is important to define the question to be discussed before opening the argument. It does not follow that slavery is right because one man may rightfully be another man's servant. Limited servitude or such as pertains to children in their m,inority, and persons under various limited contracts and obligations, is not meant in the following Treatise. It is admitted that one person may rightfully owe service to another person under various cir- cumstances. By slavery is meant, the system which re- duces man to a chattel, and buys and sells him, and subjects him to the liabilities of oth- er property, daiming the same right of prop- erty in the offspring by virtue of the right previously asserted to the parent. This is the system of American slavery, and against it and all other slavery involving the same principles, the following arguments are_^di- rected. Slavery consisting in the right of property in man, with the usual incidents of that right must be morally wrong and sin in itself, for the followino- reasons. SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOI>. ARGUMENT FIRST It is ixconsistent with man's relation to God, and the obligations growing out of that relation. "■ : Dr. Payne, in his " Elements of Moral Science," says : — " Yirtuc as it rco-ards man, is tlie confor- mity or harmony of his affections and actions with the various relations in wliich he has been placed — of which conformity the per- fect intellect of God, guided in its exercise by his infinitely holy nature, is the only infal- lible judge. '^ if this be a correct definition of virtue, and wc believe it is ; it follows, that man cannot ri^ahtfuUy sustain two relations at the same tiuKi, with both of which his affections an^ actions cannot harmonize ; which is the cq.ible deem it tlieir duty to obey God, would over- throw the system of slavery. Further, if it were admitted that slave owners grant their slaves the privilege of obeying God, it would not relieve the diffi- culty, ibr it would still follow that the sys- tem of property in man, takes away from the human chattel the right to obey God, and puts it into the hand of the owner, who has the power to close up before the chattelized traveller to eternity, the path of obedience and with authority direct his footsteps in the way of sin and dcatli. Man cannot sustain the relation of pro])erty to man, without an infraction of the relation that he sustains to God, and of the rights and powers essential to the conformity of his alTections and actions to this relation, hence, the 7'ight of i)roperty in man cannot exist. The assumption of the relation of a chat- tel holder to a subject of God's moral gov- ernment, is to step in between such subject and God, and disannul man's relation to his Maker, and absolve him from liis allegiance to Jehovah's throne. Can this be right? Does the Bible sanction such a principle, beaming as it does with the mind of Ilim who declares himself to be a jealousGod ; flashing with the lightnings of his dis- ])leasure, and speaking in the thunder tones SLAVERY : A SIN' AGAIXST GOD. T of his wrath against all who turn away from the claims of his law to acknowledge any other authority, to serve any other God or bow down to the likeness of any thing ia heaven, earth or hell ? It cannot be. ARGUMENT SECOND: bLAVERY CONFLICTS WITH VARIOUS SPECIFIC DUTIES WHICH THE Bible requires of all men. Dr. Paley, in his moral philosophy, lays down the following rule : " A state of happiness is not to be expect- ed by those who reserve to themselves the ha- bitual practice of any one sin, or the neglect of any one known duty." If then it can be shown that a state of slavery docs interfere with a single duty to God, or involves its subjects in the necessity of violating one single precept of the gospel it will follow that it is and must remain wrong under all circumstances and forever. It is the duty of all intelligent beings to use all the means within their reach to acquire a knowledge of God and his will. To remain ignorant of God and of his will concerning us through neglect of the means within our reach, is of itself a sin of the darkest shade. But from what source is the knowledge of God to be derived ? The answer is plain, 8 SLAVERY : A SIX A(7AIXST GOD. the Scriptures. "To the law and the testi- mony ; if tliey speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.'^ It is clear that if the Scriptures are an ex- pression of the mind of God, and have been inspired by his spirit, all must possess a com- mon right of direct access to this fountain of moral light. This none will deny but the Pope and his menials. With this accords the practice of all Protestants ; whenever they establish missions in any part of the world among the heathen, they put the Bible into their hands so soon as they can speak its language, or so soon as it can be transla- ted into their own language. The only ex- ception is found in the act of withholding the scriptures from the slaves of our own country, who might be taught to read them with far greater facility. But God has made it our duty to know him, and to know him through this medium. Luke xvi. 29. " They have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them." John v. 39. " Search the scriptcres, for in them ye think he have eternal life." Acts xvii. 11. " These were more no- ble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scri})tures daily, whether these things were so.'' W. M. Discipline — " It is expected of all who desire to continue in these societies, that they should continue to evidence their desire ot salvation by searching the scrip- tures. All this we know his spirit writes SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. t) on truly awakened hearts. All which we are taught of God to observe." The same principle is contained in the creed, written or unwritten, of every Protes- tant religious sect on earth ; and every Pro- testant sect condemn the Romanists for with- holding the scriptures from the people ; and if it be wrong to withhold the scriptures, slavery cannot be right. The right and duty of all men to possess themselves of the scriptures and to read and study the same being established, it only re- mains to show that slavery is of necessity and forever inimical to this right and duty ; taking aAvay the one, and nullifying the oth- er. The right of property in man cannot exist co-ordinate with the right and obliga- tion to ' search the scriptures.' 1. The right and obligation to search the scriptures necessarily includes the right of ac- quiring property, first in money or money's value with which to procure the scriptures to be read : and secondly, in the scriptures them- selves. But property cannot acquire prop- erty ; the very idea of the right of property in any thing, supposes an equal right of pro- perity in all productions and increase or in- come of such property; so that property can- not acquire property in its own right and for itself. If property increases or gathers oth- er property around it, such increase does not belong to the property that produces or acquires it, but to the owner of the property. If this be denied, it will fol- low that the productions of the slaves do not belong to the slave owner but the slave him- 11) S .AVKHY : A SIN AGAIN'.ST GOP. self, \^hich will overthrow the whole system of slavery. This view shows that the slave, as propertv, cannot possess, in his own right, a Bible or" the value of a Bible in any form, and therefore, the command of God to 'search the scriptui;es,' and the assumed right of i)ro- perty in man, are totally and irreconcilably opposed to each other, so that while God re- quires all men to search the scriptures, no man can rightfully he reduced to a chattel. With this agrees the law of slavery which says that a slave " can do nothing, possess no'thing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to their master." If a Bible should be given to a slave, so as to alienate the right of the giver in favor of the slave, the right to the Bible would not lodge with the slave, but pass over him and vest itself with the master, and this is not only by law but in the very philosophy of tlie right of proper- ty. " 2. The right and obligation to search the scriptures includes the right to devote sufli- cient time to the pursuit of religious know- ledge. But the right of ]n'operty in a man includes the right to monopolize and dispose of his whole time, so that he cannot })Ossesa the right of devoting his time or any part of it to the study of the scriptures, from which it follows again that the right of slavery is at war with the duties which God has com- manded. If tlie advocate of slavery will at- tempt to evade the force of this, by denying that the right of property in man includes the riglit to control the time of such proi)er- tv, he will ruin his own cause; for if the '.' ? slavery: a sin against god. 11 slaveholder has not a right to say how the slave shall improve his time, his right of property in him will not be worth contend- ing about. If the right of property in man includes the right of controling his time, it conflicts with duties which God requires and must be wrong ; and if it does not give the master the right to control the time of the slave, the whole practical system of slavery is a violation of right. In showing that slavery conflicts with cer- tain specified duties, it is proper to notice the duty of publicly worshipping God. On this point we will quote but one text. Heb. X. 25. '* Not forsaking the assem- bling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is." This text clearly teaches the duty of meeting together in Christian assem- blies for religious purposes, while slavery declares that the right of slaves so to assem- ble cannot be admitted with safety to the system. To conclude this argument, we say that to grant the slaves the simple right of obeying the Gospel, by attending to all its devotional and social duties as they are commanded and understood by Christians genercdly, would over- throw the entire system. To give them the Scriptures to be read according to the dic- tates of their own consciences, and to allow them the privilege of selecting their own min- isters froniAvhose lips they choose to hear the words of life, which is the inalienable right of all Christians, would come so near to the abolition of slavery as to leave but little to be done to complete it. The right of proper- 12 slavery: a j^in a(;ai\st god. ty in man cannot exist without taking away the right of doing the duties and enjoying the privileges of the Gospel, and therefore the right of property in man cannot exist as a right, but must be wrong, whenever assumed. ARGUMENT THIRD: Slavery conflicts vmu those social re- lations AND DUTIES WHICH NOT ONLY SPRING FROM OUR SOCIAL NATL'KE, BUT WHICH GoD HAS ALSO EN- JOINED BY POSITIVE ENACTMENT. Man is a social being, and has received a social nature from tlie hand which formed him; which seeks intercourse, sympathy, and reciprocal enjoyments from kindred spirits. The various relations into whicli we are thrown by the current of our social nature, have been provided for by God in his word, where he has prescribed tlie circumstances, conditions and obligations of our social and domestic relations, and has thrown around them the protection of his law. We will commence with the institution of marriage. This of course was ])rovided for by the iiand of God when he originally cre- ated man, and is the first institution in the chain of social relations ; first in the order of nature, and first in the order of the posi- tive institutions of the divine law. Matt. xix.4--G. SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 13 " Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh? what therefore God hath joined to- gether let no man put asunder." Heb. xiii. " Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge." On these texts it may be remarked, that God obviously designed marriage for all na- tions, races and classes of men. To say that God does not require marriage on the part of the African race, would be to say that he designs the extinction of the race, for all s-uch perpetuation of the race out of wedlock is condemned and denounced by God him- self. We are now prepared to show where- in slavery conflicts with the institution, and rights and obligations of marriage. 1. The right of property in man is incon- sistent with the rights of the parties who lawfully enter into the marriage relation. The husband has a monopoly of right in his wife. A wife belongs to her husband, in a sense which renders it impossible that she should be the property of another at the same time ; if she is the wife of one, she cannot be the property of another ; if she is the property of one she cannot be the wife of another. It is impossible from the nature of the two things that a woman should hold out the attributes of a wife to one man, and the attributes of property to another, at the 14 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST fiOD. same time. The luisband has an exclusive riij^ht in his wife, and the owner has an ex- clusive right in his property ; hence, a wo- man cannot sustain the relation of a wife to one man, and the relation of property to an- other. The husband has not only an exclu- sive claim to the affections of her heart, but also to her time and attention ; what power she possesses to promote the ha])piness of an- other belongs to liim, and she lias, as a wife, no right to seek the happiness of others be- yond what is consistent with his happiness ; her happiness should be his and'his should be hers ; they are partners in both joy and sor- row ; " they are no more twain but one flesh." The right of property includes the right of controlling, using, and disposing of such property for the promotion of the happiness of the owner ; hence, two persons cannot possess, the one the rights of a husband and the other tlie rights of i)ropcrty in the same woman at tlie same time. In the same man- ner the rights of the wife forever forbid the right of property in the husband. The man is not alone in securing rights to himself when he enters into the marriage relation ; corresponding to liis riglits are the rights of the wife ; if they are not in every res])ect the same, tliey are nevertheless equal in num- ber and importance. The husband is bound no less to devote liimself for the promotion of the happiness of the wife than she is to promote his happiness. This right of the wife to tlie love, the protection, the support, and entire devotecbiess of the husband to ])romote lier ha]>pinessmust forever prechide SLAVERY : A SIN AGAIXST GOD. 15 the right of property to such husband vest- ing itself in the hands of another. 2. The right of property in man is incon- sistent with the obligations resting upon the parties to the marriage relations. Rights and obligations are always reciprocal; hence, in treating of the rights of the parties, the corresponding obligations have been implied, but we wish to bring them out a little more distinctly. The rig-ht of the husband to thfi; due regard and proper submission of the wife, involves an obligation on her part to render these things ; the right of the wife to the love and protection of the husband, in- volves an obligation on his part to love and protect her. We will now present a few plain declarations of scripture on this sub- ject, and see how effectually they overthrow the assumed right of property in man. 1 Cor. vii. 2. " Nevertheless, to avoid for nication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own hus- band." The system of property in man, making them personal chattels, to be bought and sold in the market, cannot be reconciled with the above text. To let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own hus- band, in the apostle's sense, would overthrow the whole system of slavery. Eph. V. 21. " Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the Saviour of the body." Can wives, who are the personal chattels 16 SLAVKKY : A SIN' ACiAINST UOD. of men not their Imsbands, comply with the above text ? When the husband is sent to one market and the wife to another, can the wife obey the scriptures ? Can the wife who is in the power, the absolute power of a man who is not her husband, and who can enforce his will in all things Avithout let or hindrance by flattery, bribes, strength, prisons, whips and tortures ; can such a wife submit herself tp her husband as unto the Lord ? and can a husband, who is under the same absolute con- trol of another, be the head of such a wife, as Christ is the head of the church ? An- swer, common sense ! 1 Cor. vii. 10. " And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband V Is it consistent with this text for one man to sell another man's wife, or to buy another man's wife, and drive her off in chains, to see her husband no more ? It cannot l)e. If the wife has not a rirht to depart, then no other person can ha\ c a right to force her to depart. No person can have a right to com- pel another to do what such person has not a right to do without being compelled. A wife has no power to dei)art from her hus- band, and therefore no person can have a right to sell her, to buy and drive her away from her husband ; and hence the right of property in husbands and wives cannot ex- ist. Eph. V. 28. " So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 20. For no man ever vet hated liis own SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 17 flesh ; but nourishetli and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church ?" 1 Peter iii. 7. " Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weak- er vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life ; that your prayers be not hin- dered.'' How can a man, who may be sold and driv- en away at any moment, be under obligation to dwell with his wife ? We will not multi- ply quotations or remarks ; enough has been said to show that slavery and the marriage institution cannot exist together. Slavery takes away the power of the wife to preserve her own purity, and this is true of married and unmarried females. The fe.nale that is made an article of property, cannot call her purity her own ; it may be taken from her at the pleasure of her owner. He may violate her at pleasure, and she has neither the right or the power to resist. He may tie her up with cords ; he may confine her in any way he pleases ; he may apply the lash to her cringing back to any extent he pleases ; and all this he may do before the face of the man she may call her husband, and no one, bond or free, has any right to interfere ; and in so doing he violates no law but the law of God, with which slavery has nothing to do more than to set it at nought. All this follows of necessity, from the ad- mission of the right of property in human beings. Note, the argument is not that all slaveholders actually commit these wrongs on the marriage institution and on female 1 8 ?I,\VF.RY : A SIN AOAIXST COD. purity, V)ut the ari^umcnt is tliat tlie pystcm of slavery gives every slaveholder tlie power to do it at pleasure, and with ])erfect impu- nity ; and that this is inseparable from the system itself; and that the system which lays the heaven ordained institution of mar- riage, aid heaven-protected female virtue in the dust, helpless at the feet of the spoiler, for the riot and triumph of the baser pas- sions of human nature, cannot be right, but must be wrong now and forever. To settle the question, we say that matri- mony exists among slaves or it does not. — The one or the other of these positions must be true. Which is true, we care not, so far as this argument is concerned. 1. If matri- mony does exist in moral right among slaves, the parties are joined together ])y God, and Christ says, '' what God hath joined togeth- er, let not man put asunder.'' J>ut slavery does sunder them, and the right of property includes the right of sundering them. If therefore slaves are married in moral right, slavery is guilty of parting those whom God had joined together, and drags after it the crime of adultery. The slave system separ- ates the parties and joins them in other con- nections, so that witliin a few years the same man may have several wives, and the same woman several husbands, and all living at the «ame time. 2. If slaves are not married in moral right, as they are not and cannot be in tlie eyes of the civil law, slavery stands cliargcd with breaking u]) this heaven appointed institu- ion, and of involving the slave i)opulation SLAVERY : A SIN' AGAINST GOD. 19 in the crime of general whoredom. There is so far as we can see, no way to escape these conclusions ; if the advocate of slavery- allows that slaves are brought within the marriage institution, he assumes that the power to separate those whom God hath joined together can rightfully exist ; a thing, in our view, impossible. If he admits that slaves are not brought within the marriage institution, he assumes the rightfulness of general sexual intercourse without the bans of matrimony. Such is slavery, consisting in the assumed right of property in human beings, wherever it is found, in the church or out of the church. We speak as to wise men ; judge of what we say. 20 ShAVKKY : A SIN' AUAIN'ST «J<>I>. ARGUMENT FOURTH: Slavery further conflicts with those social relations and duties which not only spring from our social nature, but which god has also en- joined by positive enactment by subverting the rights and obligations which grow out of relations subsisting between parents and child- REN. That there are rights and obligations con- nected with this relation, around which God has thrown the protection of his law, armed with the arrows of his lightnings, and the voice of his thunders, cannot be denied ; and that slavery disregards them and tramples them under foot, if not admitted shall be proved. When God descended upon Mount Sinai and gave his law amid the dreadful light- nings that blazed and glared, and shot their fiery arrows ath\vart the smoke and gloom that mantled the Eternal upon the mount, and amid tlie thunders that bellowed terrors and poured the voice of condemnation intlie ear of sin ; He then wrote with his own linger upon a table of stone, as the lifth of the ten commandments, the following words : "Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be-long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The duty of the child to honor his father and mother, clearly im})lies the obligation of tlie i)arents so to teacli and so to l)ehave towards the child, as is calculated to inspire SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 21 the feelings and write upon the heart of the child what God wrote in the book of his law. This sentiment is clearly brought out in the comment of St. Paul. " Ephe. \i. 1—1. '' Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Honor thy father and mother which is the first com- mandment with promise, that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Here we have the obligation growing out of the relation that subsists between parents and children, as defined by the spirit of in- spiration ; and that slavery necessarily wars upon, and entirely subverts these obligations, is all that remains to be proved, and this is so plain and obvious that it is like proving what is self evident. 1. Can parents, who are subject to all the liabilities of property, and whose children are also property in the same full sense, bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? This cannot be pretended. Sons are torn away from the embrace of their father, and removed forever beyond the sight of his eye ; daughters are borne in chains Irom the throbbing, heaving bosom and bleeding hearts of their mothers. " Where no mothers ear can hear them, Where no mother's eye can see them." Slavery which assumes the right of property in man, in fathers and mothers, and mothers and children, takes from the parents all right of control over their children, and 22 SIJLVERY : A SIN' ACAIN'ST GOD. licnco, it violates the divine law, for that commands them to control them for good. Cod says to parents, "brino: up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord •/' but slavery says, no, you cannot have the right of bringing them up, or if you do, you must bring them up for the market, bring them up for me, that I may sacrifice your sons upon the altar of my avarice, and your daughters upon the altar of my lust. 2. ('an children who are " personal chattels to all intents and jnirposes and constructions whatsoever," honor their fathers and moth- ers? Can they '• obey their parents in the Lord ?'' Most certainly nor. The son looks not, cannot look to his father, if father he knows, for authority and direction during the years of his minority ; nor can he honor, comfort, and su})])ort that father in his declin- ing years, after the son has come to the riper years of manhood. The daughter cannot obey her own mother in childhood and youth, much less can she honor and cherish her in riper years ; she must see her mother, if she be allowed to see her at all, languish, faint and die under the clfects of toil, hunger and the lash, without dropping a word of conso- lation in her ear, or extending a daughter's hand to her relief— all this is true of the daughter, concernins^ her who in anguish gave her l)eing, and sheltered her in her bosom during the cloudy morning of her existence, and nourished her upon tiic milk of toil and weariness until she was strong enough to en- dure life's hoavitn* storms. Tlint nil thi^ is wicked, it would be an in- SLAVERV : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 23 suit to common sense to attempt to prove. It directly violates and sets aside as plain a command as there is in the book of God, and if this is not sin, the ten commandments may all be violated without sin. Should it be said in reply to this, that un- der the circumstances, the parents are re- leased from the obligation to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and children are released from the ob- ligation to obey their parents in the Lord, as God's law does not require impossibilities ; we respond, that God's law can never be annihilated or nullified in its claims. It is and must forever be, binding in some form • and if the above circumstances exempt parents and children from the obligation to obey God's law, or rather from the penalty of the law, for it is not obeyed, the guilt -rests upon those who are the authors of such circum- stances. If a man who is stronger than we put fetters upon us so that we cannot do what God has commanded us to do, God will not, it is true, hold us responsible ; but he will hold that man responsible who puts the fetters upon us for the non performance of all that duty, of which he has been the cause. When the slaveholder steps in between God and the slave, and between parents and chil- dren, to prevent the discharge of the duties which God commands them as parents and children to discharge towards each other, he takes the place of both parent and child, and assumes before God the responsibility of the non-performance of the duty of both, 'for which God will hold him responsible. This 24 SLAVERY ; A SIN AGAlN'ST GOD. argument might be greatly extended, and the terrible consequences to society, resulting from a dissolution of all social relations and ties, might be dwelt upon, but it is not neces- sary. The siuiple fact that it conflicts wiih the specific commands of God secures all that is to be gained by the argument. SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 25 ARGUMENT FIFTH. THE BIBLE CONDEMXS SLAVERY UNDER THE NAME OF MAX-STEALING. It would be a waste of time to attempt to prove that man-stealing is a crime. It is universally admitted that all stealing is wrong, and it follows that man-stealing is the most sinful of all theft. It cannot be" main- tained that to steal the horse under the rider would be a sin, while to steal the rider off the horse would be a justifiable act. That man-stealing is condemned in the Bi- ble will not be denied. Ex. xxi. 16. " He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.'^ St. Paul tells us, 2 Tim. i. 10, that the law of God " is made for men stealers." The only question about which there can be any dispute is this ; is American slavery, as it now exists, man-stealmg? I. American slavery had its origin in man- stealing. 1. The facts, as generally understood, are such as to stamp the whole business of the foreign slave trade with the odious name of man-stealing. No matter who was engaged in it, saint or devil, it was nevertheless man- stealing. The business commenced by steal- ing such persons as they could catch along the coast, and force away from country, ^6 SLAVERY : A S!>r AGAIXST fiOD, home and friends, to live, suffer and die in bondage among strangers. AVhen the in- creasing market could not be supplied in this "way, otlier means w(3rc resorted to. The kidnappers would land for purposes of trade, and while trading, would p')ur out to tlieir unsuspecting customers the intoxicating drink, who, not being acquainted with the power of ardent spirit, would soon become helpless, and then while drunk the pale-faced demons w^ould secure them. When they awoke irom their drunk'^nncss, they found themselves, not like Noah under the protection of affection- ate sous, buL in chains and in the hell of the slave ship. But at last, to sui)]dy the in- creasing demand, war was resorted to, which was no less man-stealing. The wars, it slunild be understood, were commenced for the exiu'css ])urpose of obtaining slaves, hence, it was stealing on a larger scale. If two men go and take' one, it is'stealing ; if ten go and lake five, it is stealing ; if one hundred go and take fifty, it is stealing ; and if one thou- sand go and take five hundred, it is no less man-stealing. 2. The law of our country deems it man- stoalinu-. It is pronounced piracy, and pun- ished i)y death l>y the laws of the United Htaten* • Jt is no 'more morally wrong now, than when it was toherated : hence, it was always wrong. II. The present race or generation ol slaves can be held by no ])etter title or au- thority than that by wliicli their stolen fath- ers and mothers weru held. They were oriirinally stolen, and, ol' course, there was SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 27 no valid title to them ; if, therefore, there is now a title to those bondmen and bond- women, it has been obtained or originated since their fathers and mothers were stolen. We demand at what period in the dark his- tory of slavery, this supposed title to these human beings began to exist. As there was no title at first, they being stolen, it follows that there can be no title now, that they are stolen persons still, unless it can be shown when, under what circumstances, and upon what principles the title originated, and began to exist. By the law of slavery, the condition of the offspring follows the condition of the mother. Let us then suppose what is the fact in the case, — some men-stealers, for whom the law of God was made, went to Africa, and stole a helpless female. Had he any right or title to her ? Certainly not. The next step in this infamous business was, the man-thief sold this stolen female to a Southern planter. Had the planter any title to her ? Certainly not ; for he could have none only what he bougl^t ; and he could buy none only what the thief had to sell ; and he had no title to sell, and therefore he could sell none ; and therefore the planter could buy none of him ; and therefore the planter could have no title. This is all just as certain as it is that one man cannot com- municate to another what he has not got. As the thief had no title to his stolen victim, he could communicate no title to the man to whom he sold. The third step in the progress of slavery 28 SI-AVHKY : A SIN AtlAlNiiT GOD. is, this enslaved female had ofifspring iu her bonds. Had the planter, who held her with- out title, a title to her child as his property ? Slavery itself does not pretend to any title to the children which is not founded upon a supposed title to the mother ; hence, as there was no title to the mother, there can be none to the child. As the mother ^yas a stolen person in his hands, so is the child a stolen person in hvo hands if he restrains it as his property. Slavery, therefore, is man- stealing, and 'must remain man-stealing so long as it shall be continued. It can make no difference in moral prin- ciple, from what particular place we steal a human being, whether from Africa or in America. Now, it appears, from the boast- ed chart of the nation's rights, that every child, born in this land, has an inalienable right to liberty, as much so as children now born in Africa or in any other country. Where, tlien, is the difference in moral prin- ciple, whether we go to Africa and take a child, and bring it here for a slave, or take one born here ? The child, born of the en- slaved mother iit South Carolina, has the same inalienable right to liberty, the gift of God, as the child born in Africa. Where is the justice ? Where is the consistency ? If the law of the nation, which declares that he wlio brings children from Africa to nn\ke slaves of them, shall l)c hanged as a pirate ujjon the high seas, be right, then he who takes cliildren born iu tliis land, and holds them as property and as slaves, ought to be hanged as a land pirate ; for the one has the SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 29 same inalienable right to liberty as the other. To invalidafe these arguments, we must deny the truth of the Declaration of Ameri- can Independence, we must disprove the unity of human nature, that " God has made of one blood all nations of men," equal in natural rights ; and we must falsify the uni- versal conviction of mankind, which each feels, that- he was born free, and has a right .to himself. We will close this argument by saying that American slavery is essentially man- stealing ; that the Bible condemns man-steal- ing, and therefore theBible condemns slavery. ARGUMENT SIXTH: The Bible further condemns slavery specifi- cally BY CONDEilNING THE TRAFFIC IN HUMAN BEINGS. Deut. xxiv. T. " li a- man be found steal- ing any of his brethren of the children of Isi'fiel, and maketh merchandise of him, or- selleth him ; then that thief shall die ; and thou shalt put evil away from among you." This text most clearly condemns, not only the act of stealing men, but the act of mak- ing merchandize of men. The principle of trafl&c in human beings is condemned. There is only one point on which the advocate of slavery can hang an objection and that is the 30 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST Gt)I). fact that it simply condemns makino: mer- chandise of the children of Israel. This is fully answered by the remark that Israel after the flesh, cannot be more sacred in the eye of God, than Israel after the Spirit. If it was wrong to make merchandise of a Jew, ])ecause he was a Jew, it must be wrong to make merchandise of a Christian, because he is a Christian. Chap xxi. 14. " And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will ; but thou shalt not sell her for money, thou shalt not make mer- chandise of her." This is spoken of a female captive taken in war, it fully condemns the idea of selling human beings. Amos ii. 6. " Thus saith the Lord ; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof ; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes." On this text it may be remarked. 1. The slaves are often righteous, so that it is true to the very letter, that the righteous are sold for silver. 2. The slaves are all poor and arc often Vtartered and gam])led away for a (considera- tion as snnill as a pair of shoes. Zech. xi.4, f). " Thus saith the Lord my God ; Feed the flock of the slaughter, whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty : and they that sell them say. Blessed he the Lord ; for I am rich : and their own shepherds pity them not." If there was ever a true picture, this is a SLAVERY : A 31N AGAINST GOD. 31 true picture of slavery : The members of the flock of Jesus Christ are sold, " and they that sell them say blessed be the Lord, for I am rich ; and their own shepherds pity them not." Joel iii, 3. ^ And they have cast lots for my people ; and have given a boy for a* har- lot, and sold a girl for'^Avine, that they might drink." That every crime here condemned is part and parcel of American slavery, cannot be denied. The right of property in man is the foundation of these crimes. How often are slaves exchanged one for aaother, so that it is literally true that a boy is given for a harlot. Again, how often is it the case in their gambling and drinking revels that slaveholders pawn their servants for their bills, or gamble them away, so that it is lit- erally true that a girl is sold for wine that they may drink- In concluding this argument, two things are to be noticed. 1. The Bible, as has been shown, clearly condemns the traffic in human beings. 2. American slavery assumes the right of buying and selling humjin beings as personal chatties. From the above propositions it follows that the Bible condemns slavery. o2 .SLAVKKY : A .SIX AGAINST «0I). A R G U M E NT SEVENTH: The Bible further condemns Slavery, specifi- tALLY BY condemning INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. That slavery is involuntary; servitude will not 1)6 denied : Indeed it is only involun- tary slavery that we labor to condemn in these numbers. The only question tliat needs to be settled in this argument, is tlie wrong of forcing one man to serve another against his will. AVe know of no scriptures, which, by any fair construction, can be made to jus- tify compulsory service. But we will quote a few texts which, in our own mind, condemn it. Deut. xxiii. 15, IG.— " Thou shalt not de- liver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee ; He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in tliat place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." This text most clearly condemns involun- tary service, for it most clearly justifies the servant in leaving his master and protects him in it against the ])ursuits of his master, and even forbids the i)eople among whom he may go to deliver him up. It appears from this text that there was such a thing as in- voluntary servitude, and in this text it is ef- fectually condemneil. It is clear that the Jews were forluddeii to comi)el service against tlie will of the servant. This will ap])ear still more plain from another text. This subject is treated at large ])y the pro- SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. OO pliet, and to save the reader the trouble of turning to his Bible, while reading this argu- ment, we quote the prophet at length. Jer. xxxiv. 6. " Then Jeremiah the pro- phot spake all these words unto Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem : 7. When the king of Babylon's array fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities of Judah that were left, against Lachish, and against Azekah ; for these defenced cities remained of the cities of Judah. 8. This is the word that came unto Jere- miah from the Lord, after that the king Zed- ekiah had made a covenant with all the peo- ple which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them ; 9. That every man should let his man ser- vant, and every man his maid servant, being a Hebrew or a Hebrewess, go free ; that none should serve himself of them ; and to wit, of a Jew his brother. 10. Now when all the princes and all the people, which had entered into the conven- ant, 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. 11. But afterwards they turned and caused the servants and the hand maids, whom they had let go free, to return, and brought tljem into subjection for servants and for hand maids. 12. Therefore the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, 13. Thus saith the Lord, the God of Is- 34 SLAVERY : A SIX AfJAINST GOD. rael ; 1 made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the house of bondmen, saying, 14. At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother a Hebrew, wliich hath been sold unto thee ; and wlicn he hath ser- ved thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee : ])ut your fatliers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. 15. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming lib- erty to every man to his neighbor ; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name : 16. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his hand maid, whom he had set at lib- erty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for ser- vants and for hand maids. 16. Therefore thus saith the Lord ; ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbor : behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the 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." The fourteenth verse speaks of being sold for seven years, but it is obvious the price for which a man was sold was his own, and went into his own pocket, for the bejieht of his family, or at most to pay his debts, the amount of which he had previously enjoyed and consumed. What is here called selling was obviouslv nothing: more than a conti'act SLAVERY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 60 for service with pay in advance ; and hence the law was like our statute of limitation. It forbade men to make a contract for ser- vice for more than seven years. The seven years' service was voluntary, because agreed upon by the parties, and paid for in advance ; but when they kept the servant beyond that time, it became involuntary, and God con- demned it, and punished them for it. Isa. Iviii. 6. " Is not this the fast that I have chosen ? to loose the bands of wicked- ness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free ?'' The expression, " let the oppressed gofree,'^ is a full condemnation of involuntary servi- tude. To compel any man to serve another against his will, who is out of his minority and uncondemned for crime, is to oppress him ; and the command to let the oppressed go free, condemns such forced service. American slavery is a system of force and violence, and cannot be maintained for a day, only by a constant war upon the very life of the slaves. For all this there is no warrant in the Bible, but much against it. Involun- tary service must be wrong, from the fact that the violence necessary to maintain it is wrong. Whips for the naked back, thumb screws, chains, prisons, and other modes of •torture, to subdue persons unconvicted of crime, have no warrant in the Gospel, and cannot be justified, only upon a principle which will justify every species of violence men may choose to practice one upon another. 36 'SLAVEKY : A SIN ACAINST t:<-)I». A R G U M E N T EIGHTH. Slavery is a work without wages, which is con- demned IN THE Bible. Dcut. xxiv. 14, 15. " Thou slialt not op- press a hired servant that is poor and needy, whetlicr he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that be in thy land within thy gates. At his day tliou slialt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it ; for he is poor, and sctteth his heart upon it ; lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto the." It may be said that this text does not meet the case, because it speaks of hired servant, but this cannot alter the principle involved. The text condemns the act of withholding what is a man's due for his labor, and this every slaveholder does. One man volunta- rily goes to work with the expectation of wages, while the employer seizes upon ano- ther and compels him to work, nokns vokns. "We ask is not the man who is compelled to work as much entitled to pay as he who works voluntarily ? Certainly he is. This is kept back, and in this the slave is oppres- sed. Jer. xxii. 13, 14. " Wo unto Idiu tliat l)uild- cth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong ; that useth his neigh- SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 57 bor's service without wages, and givetli him not for his work ; that saith, I will build me a wide house and a large chambers, and cut- teth him out windows ; and it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion." This most certainly meets the case exactly ; nothing is said about hiring men, but simply using their service without wages, which every slaveholder does. Men are here abso- lutely forbidden to use their neighbor's ser- vice without wages, and as slavery is a sys- tem of work without wages, it is here for- bidden. Hab. ii. 9, 10, 11, 12. " Wo to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil ! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many people, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the tim- ber shall answer it. Wo to him that build- eth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by iniquity. To establish a city by iniquity is to build up a city with the fruit of thie unpaid toil of slaves, and every city in the south is built in this way. Mai. iii. 5. " And I will come near to you to judgment : and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against abulterers, and against false swearers, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me saith the Lord of hosts." 38 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. James v. 4. " Behold, the hire of the la- borers which liavc reaped down your fields, which iri-of you kept back ])y fraud, crieth ; and the cries of thcni which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." The al)ove texts are sufficient to prove that the Bible forbids one class of men to use the labor of another clJiss, without paying them for their work, and in forbidding this, it for- bids slavery. Some may say that slaves are paid in food and raiment. These are bestow- ed only so far as they promote the master's interest, and they are not wages any more than the oats a man feeds his horse, or the grease he puts upon his carriage, or the ma- nure with which he dresses his field, are wages. Wages is the amount stipulated and paid for service, but there is no stipulation between the master and slave ; the slave has no voice in determining the amount he re- ceives ; this is unknown to him at the time labor is demanded and rendered, and is de- termined by the arbitrary will of the master. to constitute wages, the amount rendered for service must be a matter of mutual agreement between the parties. But as slavery is a sys- tem of absolute rule on the part of the mas- ter, and of coerced submission on the part of the slave, without the consent of his will to condition or stipulation, the very idea of wages is excluded. SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 39 ARGUMENT NINTH. The Bible condemns slavery under the NAME OF oppression. Two points are to be settled, >iz., that slavery is identical with oppression, and how the Bible treats oppression. What is oppresson ? According to Dr. Webster, oppression is " the imposition of unreasonable burdens, either in taxes or ser- vice." An oppressor, according to the sanie authority, is "one that imposes unjust bur- dens on others ; one that harasses others with unjust laws or unreasonable severity.'' This is a life like picture of slavery and slaveholders. It must be the extreme of op- pression. For one man, because he has the power so to do, to compel his neighbor to work for him twenty-five days in a year, without his consent, would be oppression, and will it not be oppression to compel him to work the whole year ? If slavery be not oppression, than may an evil be changed to a virtue by increasing it in magnitude. To compel a man to work without wages every tenth year of his life, would be oppression by univeral consent, but to compel him to work life-long, commencing his toils at the misty dawn of existence, and closing them amid the gathering shadows of its dark go- ing down, is no oppression ! According to this logic, to rob a man of a part of his la- 40 Sl-AVEKY : A ^^IN AGAINST GOU. l)or would be wrong, but to take tlie whole Avould make it right! To rob a man of a part of liis time, would be a crime, but to rob him of all his time, of himself, his head and heart, his body and limbs, his mind and will, and all he can do, possess and acquire, ren- ders it an act of righteousness ! But the J^ible will settle the question of oppression. Ex. iii. 9. "Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel i^ come unto me: and 1 have also seen the oppression where- with the Egyptians oppress them." What then did the Egyptians do to the Is- raelites ? They compelled them to work for the government. Here we have the history of the mstter, as follows :— Ex. i. 8-11. " Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Be- hold, the people of the children of Israel arc more and mightier than we : Come on, let us deal wisely with them ; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Therefore they did set over- them task-masters, to alllict them with their burdens. And they Ijuilt for Pharaoh trea- sure-cities, rithom and Raamses.'' This was oppression whicli awakened the sympathies of Jehovah, and brought out the thickest and heaviest of his thunders. Yet he bore it longer than American slavery has existed. But what was there in that more enormous than American slvcry ? Absolute- • SLAVEY : A SIX AGAINST GOD. 41 ly nothing. They placed task-masters over them, and so do they place task masters over the slaves. And if, as a last resort, the Egyptians ordered thp cliildren of the He- brews to be destroyed ; the slaveholders claim the children of the slaves as thcfir pro- perty, and sell them in the market for gain, which is worse than to be strangled at birth. It is clear that slavery is oppression of the worst degree. But how does God deal with oppression, and oppressors ? He condemns oppression and oppressors ; he commands his people to relieve the oppressed ; he threatens oppres- sors with terrible punishment, and has al- ready expended more of his thunders, and more of the phials of his wrath on the heads of oppressors than on all other sinners. Gen. XXV. 17. Ye shall not therefore op- press one another ; but thou shalt fear thy God : for I am the Lord thy God.'' Here oppression is not only forbidden, but it is done in a manner wh4h implies that it is inconsistent with the fear of God. Deut. xxxiii. 15, 16. Thou shalt not deliver itnto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee : He shall dwell wath thee, even among you, in that place w^hich he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best : thou shall not op- press him.'' This clearly forbids the oppres- sion of a self emancipated servant. Deut. xxiv. 14. Thou shalt not oppress a hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he he of thy brethern, or of thy strangers that are in thy land within thy gates :" 42 SLAVERY : A SIN AGAlXsif GOD, This text specially forbids the oppression of a servant' that is a Jew or a Gentile. Psal. X. 17, 18. "Lord, thou hast heard the desire of the humble, thou wilt prepare their heart, ihou wilt cause thine ear to hear. To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress." This appears to look forward to a day when oppression shall cease from the earth. Will there be any slavery there ? Psa. Lxxiii. 8, 9. " They are corrupt and speak wickedly concerning oppression : they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens : and their tongue walketh through the earth. A clearer description could not well be given of modern slave- holders, an-i their abetters ; they speak wickedly concerning oppression. They in- vade the rights and government of God ; they set their mouth against the heavens. Psa. xii. 5. "For the oppression of the poor, for the sigWng of the needy, now will I arise saith the jLord ; I will set him in safety yVo^Ti kim that pufteth at him." Psa. Lxxii. 4. "He shall judge the poor of the people, he sliall save the children of the needy, and sliall break in pieces the op- pressor." Isa. i. IT. Learn to do well : seek judg- ment, relieve the oppressed ; judge the fath- erless ; plead for the widow." Isa. Lviii. 9. " Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wicked- ness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and tliat ye break every yoke?" SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 43 This commands the release of all the op- pressed ; and the expression "let the op- pressed go free," clearly forbids involuntary- servitude, and commands the freedom of every slave in the land. Prov. iii. 31. "Envy thou not the oppres- sor, and choose none of his ways.'' This clearly forbids oppression in all its practical aspects. Prov. xiv. 31. He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his maker : but he that honoreth him hath mercy on the poor.'' All slaveholders oppress the poor, and of course reproach their maker. Prov. xxii. 22. "Rob not the poor because he is poor ; neither oppress the afflicted in the gate." The afflicted are oppressed in the gates of every slaveholding city in this nation. Jer. vii. 5 — 7. "For if ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings ; if ye thoroughly execute judgement between a a man and his neighbor ; If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt : then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever." Jer. xxi. 12. "0 house of David, thus saith the Lord ; execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, lest my fury go out like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings. Behold. I am against thee, 0, inhabitant of the val- 41 SLAVKRY : A SIN' AGAINST GOD ley, and rock of the plain saith the Lord ; which say, who shall come down against us ? or, who shall enter into our habitations ?" Eccle. iv. 1. " So I returned, and consid- ered all the oppressions that are done under the sun : and, behold, the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter ; and on the side of their oppressors there was power ; but they had no comforter." Had the inspired writer had his prophetic eye on the scenes of our own slaveholding- land, listening to, and beholding the groans and sighs and tears, and wrongs of the su- gar plantations, and the rice swamps,^he would not have drawn a truer picture of those sorrow burdened and blood stained fields. Eccle. vii. 7. "Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad." Ezek. xxii. 7. In thee have they set light by father and mother ; in the midst of thee have they dealt by Oj)pression with the stranger ; in thee have they vexed the father- less and the widow." Every word of this is true of slavery. Verse 29. "The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor atid needy ; yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully." Zeph. iii. 1. "Wo to her that is filthy and polluted, to the 0})pressing city ! This is applicable to any and every slave- holding city. Mai. iii. 5. "And I will come near to you to judgment ; and 1 will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adul SLAVERY : A SIN AGAINST GOD. 45 terers, 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 his rights and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts." If a man were to stand up in any of the slaveholding cities or towns in the southern states, and proclaim the above as a commu- .nication from himself, and as expressive of . his views of the manner in which God will deal with the people, he would be under- stood to speak of slavery, and he arrested for the same. How clear is it then that the text comprehends slavery and denounces it. Only a part of the texts have been quoted above which relate to the subject, but they are sufficient to prove that slavery is com- prehended in the sin of oppression, and that it is classed with the worst of crimes. Here the direct argument in proof of the sinful- ness of slavery closes, and if it is not a sin against God and man, it must be difficult to find sin developed in human society, for it embraces the essential elements of every pos- sible crime. It is known that some persons have claimed that the scriptures justify and support slavery, but a refutation ot tnis pos- ition, by a thorough examination of those texts which are attempted to be p' essed in to the service of slavery, must be left for a separate treatise. SECTION II. THE OLD TESTAMENT, NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. It lias been proved in a series of arguments that the Bible condemns slavery ; yet some may contend that other portions of the sa- cred volume justify ihe principle of slavery, and tolerate the practice of slaveholding.- This cannot be true ; if any portion of the Bible, really condemns slavery, no other por- tion can justify it, without an obvious self- impeachment of the record. No doubt, most persons, on a candid perusal of the argu- ments in support of the position that the Bi- ble condemns slavery, will judge them of sufficient strength in themselves to settle the question, and warrant the conclusion that no part of the Bible can justify slavery ; yet as some who profess to believe the scriptures, contend for slavery, /wro divino, and as others who may never be able to believe slavery right, may be confused and . perplexed by pro-slavery assumptions and glosses, is it deemed proper to attempt an examination of those portions of the Bible Avhich have been considered the strong hold of slavery, and see if the monster sin cannot be driven fro.n within the lids of the sacred volume. This undertaking is of more importance > Tin: LiiiiiA: NO la.tit.E tou slavery. lan may be supposed bv some, at first sight, or so long as ihcre is a lingering sus])icioii that slavery finds any shcller in the Bible, the piiidic conscience can never be roused ful- ly to feel its enormity. Notwithstanding, there may be much infidelity and scepticism in the land, it is a fact that tlie Bible is gen- erally felt to be the standard, by which the right or wrong of human conduct must be testeut the ])oint in this argument is, the race now in slavery, are not the descendants of Canaan, upon whom the curse of servitude was ])ronounced, and, of course, that curse is no justification of slavery ?s now existing. THE BIBLE XO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 00 2. The present slaveholding race are not the descendants of Shem, to whom was ap- propriated the service of Canaan. " Canaan shall be his servant ;" not the servant of some other race. If the text authorizes any thing, it authorizes the descendants of Shem to use the service of the descendants of Ca- naan ; it does not authorize any other race to enslave them ; nor does it authorize the Canaanites to enslave each other. Who then are the present race of slaveholders ? Are the Shemites ? It cannot be proved. The Jews and the Arabs or Ishmaelites, are the only people on the face of the earth who can, with any certainty claim to have descen- ded from Shem. The slaveholders of this country are more likely to be the descend- ants of poor Canaan who was cursed. The Canaanites Avere not all destroyed by the Israelites ; indeed they left many nations un- subdued, and were mingled with them and were corrupted by them. Repeated and bloody wars raged between them for many centuries. Where are the descendants of these nations now ? I answer as follows : — These people called Cannaanites in the Scriptures, are known in history by the name of Phoenicians, and it is said of them that they began to colonize in the time of the Hebrew Judges, and their first settlements were Cyprus and Rhodes ; thence they pushed into Greece, Sicily, Sardinia and Spain. See Taylor's History. It is then probable that the Anglo-Saxon race came originally from the Canaanites or Phoenici- ans of profane history, and these are the 5(1 THE BIBLK NO RrFUfJK FOR SLAVERY. people upon whom the cur?e was pronounced. This presents shivehoklers as takinp: ad- vantage of a curse pronounced upon them- selves, as a justification for enslaving another race. 3. Wave the facts set forth above, and admit that the curse imposes slavery, and that it involves the colored race, and still consequences will follow sufficient to over- throw the whole argument built upon it in support of American slavery. (1.) In such case it would justify enslaving the whole race. If the argument proves it right to enslave any part of the race, it proves it right to enslave tlie whole. It would be right, therefore, to enslave every free colored person in this land, and in every other land ; it must be right to plunder Af- rica of all her sons and daughters until the last descendant of Ham is chattelized. (2.) It must follow that this nation is figliting against God, and legislating against the fulfilment of divine prophecy. If the whole race were devoted to perpe- tual slavery by a judicial act of Jehovah, — and the whole were thus devoted if any were, — why does this nation find fault by declar- ing that it is piracy upon the high seas to fulfil that supposed judicial decree of Jeho- vah. She has done it in a law of Congress, which declares tlmt to bring a slave from Africa shall be judged piracy and iiunishcd by death. Has this nation consy/ircd with England to defeat the deci-ees of God, punishing with THE BIBLE NO REFUGE POP. SLAVERY. 57 death those who do what he has made it right for them to do ?. (3,) The argument, if allowed, would not justify American slavery, as it is not now confined to the colored race ; there are mixed and white slaves. The argument would jus- tify the enslavement of none but the descend- ants of Canaan, if they were the colored race, which is not the fact. But whose descendants are the mixed breed ? One third of all the slaves^ in this country have Anglo-Saxon blood in their veins, and many of them are as white as the fairest of the white. Others have descended from Indians. Are these the children of Canaan upon the assumptions of the argu- ments : And does the curse pronounced upon Canaan include their enslavement ? (4.) This view of the subject, if allowed, would subvert all the support for slavery, attempted to be derived from the New Tes- tament. The New Testament argument rests upon the assumed fact that plavery exis ed where Jesus Christ and his apostles preached and founded Christian churches, and that it was not condemned by them, but that per- sons were allowed to hold their slaves after being converted and received into the church. The reply to all this is, that if slavery exis- ted where those churches were planted, to -w^hom the epistles were addressed, it was not the slavery of the colored race. If then slavery was sanctioned by the apostles, it was not the slavery of the African race, for that did not then exist, and consequently, their sanction was not based upon the curse *3 58 THE BIBT.F. XO REFrCE FOR ??I.AVERY. pronounced upon Canaan. If slavery be right independently of the curse pronounced upon Canaan, as 'must be the case if the apostles sanctioned the slavery of their time and place, the right of it must depend upon something besides that curse, and to contend that slavery is right independently of the curse pronounced upon Canaan, is to aban- don that as a ground on which to justify hu- man bondage. 4. It was not American slavery nor yet any thing like it, that the posterity of Ca- naan was subjected to by the curse pronoun- ced upon a hapless fatlier. The curse was political subjection, political servitude, and not chattel slavery. It was shown under the first division of this argument, that the pre- diction was fulfilled in the overthrow of the Canaanites by the Israelites, who were the Shemites w^hen they came out ot Egypt, and none of these transactions were analagous to American slavery, nor can they be plead as a justification of the system. The Gibeo- nites were made hewers of wood and draw- ers of water, but this was not chattel slavery. It was a public service ; no Israelite owned one of them, nor had he any personal inter- terest in one of them, and they were still personally free, possessing their own lands, living in their own city, occupying their own houses, and possessing their own wives and husbands, and children. See the transaction as recorded Joshua ix. 3-27. They still ex- isted and flourislied in the days of David, as may be seen by reference to 2. Sam. xxxi. 1 -i;.' From this last reference, it is seen that THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 59 these Gibeonites were flourishing in posses- sion of political rights, with power to make their own treaty with the King of the Israel- ites. This proves that they were not the subjects of chattel slavery after the Amer- ican pattern, and it follows that the curse pronounced upon Canaan was not such sla- very. It has now been shown, first, that the vic- tims of American slavery are not the des- cendants of Canaan : secondly, that the present race of slaveholders are not the des- cendants of Shem, in whose favor the curse of servitude was pronounced upon Canaan ; thirdly, that consequences would follow, if the above points were yielded, which would be fatal to American slavery as it exists ; and, fourthly, that the curse pronounced upon Canaan, did not involve chattel slavery or any thing analagous to it. In the face of these points so clearly established, slavery must seek elsewhere for a sanction, or with- draw its claim from scriptural support. II. The example of Abraham, and other patriarchs, is the next resort of slaveholders to obtain a sanction of American slavery. ,In discussing this claim of the advocates of slavery, I shall confine myself principally to Abraham, as his case will prove decisive for or against slavery. As to the conduct of Laban, in selling his daughters to Jacob, and in giving them Zilpah and Bilhah to be their hand maids, no effort is necessary to prove that there was nothing analagous to Amer- ican slavery involved in the transactions. If it were clearly slavery itself, it would GO THE in CLE no refugc for slaveuy. not prove that, or any othor slavery to be morally right, since the transactions lack the endorsement of heaven. The transac- tions are recorded as facts transpiring in the life of Jacob, but tliere is no endorseniont of the character or conduct of La))an, and his conduct cannot bo plead as an example to bo followed, or as a justification of any system or ])racticc. The same is true of much of the liistorical part of ihe Bible. But in tlie case of Abraham, the subject wears a different aspect, as he is clearly pre- sented as a representative man, an example to be followed, and the friend of God. If it could be clearly proved tliat sucli a man was a slaveholder, it might have the appear- ance of an endorsement of slavery. Now what are the facts? They are as follows : — *'He had sheep and oxen, and he had asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she* asses, and camels." Ge?i. xii. IG, *' And when Abraham heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen.*' Gen. xiv. 14. " And ho that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in vour generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with thy money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy monoy must needs be circumcised.'' Gen. xvii., 12,-1 o. "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and women-servants, and ^ave them to Abraham." Gen. yx. 11. THE BIBLE KO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Gl We now have before us all the essential proof that Abraham was a slaveholder, for if the above texts do not prove it, it is not proved b}^ any other circumstance that may be mentioned in his history ; as the transac- tions in the case of Hagar, Gen, xvi. 1-9 ; and in his swearing of his servant, in rela- tion to procuring a wife for his son Isaac, Gen. xxiv. 1-4. The question is can there be found in any or all of these facts, the slightest justifica- tion of American slavery ? No ; must be the decisive answer. 1. If it were clear that xlbraham was a slaveholder, wliich is not admitted, it would be no justification of slavery any where, at any time, much less of American slavery at the zenith of the nineteenth century. The argument can be conclusive in support of the right of slaveholding, only upon the suppo- sition that every thing which Abraham did, was not only right for him at the time and in the circumstances, but also right to be fol- lowed as an example by all men, during all time, and in all circumstances. If what was right for Abraham, in his time and his cir- cumstances, is not necessarily right for all men now, in our circumstances, the fact that Abraham held slaves, does not prove it right for us to hold slaves now. Again, if all that Abraham did was not right, the fact that he held slaves, cannot prove slaveholding right, for if he did some things v\4iich were wrong, this act of slaveholding may have been one of those wrong things ; and if he held slaves wrongfully, it cannot prove it right for us to t)2 THE BIBI.K NO RF.FCGE FOR SLAVERY. hold slaves. It cannot he pretended that Abraham's slaveholding, allowin^^ it, has any special endorsement by heaven, and there- fore it cannot be inferred that it is right, only on the ground that every thing which he did was right. It takes both the above points to make the argument good, but both points cannot be sustained. It must be admitted that what was innocent in Abraham at his time and in his circumstances, is not innocent now in our circumstances ; or else that he did what was wrong then ; and if either of these points be admitted, allowing him to have been a slaveholder, it cannot prove that slaveholding is right now. The argument must stand thus : — All that Abraham did was riglit, and what was right in Abraham is right in us in this land and at this time. But Abraham held slaves ; and therefore it is right for us to hold e^laves now. Let this mode of reasoning be applied to other facts recorded in the history of the Patriarch. Twice did Abraham practice duplicity, if not falsehood, by saying that his wife was his sister. Gni. xii. 18, a??f/ xx. 2. Again, Abraham, at tlio request of his fruit- less wife, Sarah, took 11 agar a hand-maid, a servant girl, to his bosom and bed that he might have children by her. Was this right? and if so, would it be riglit for church-me.n- bers to practice the sanu! thing now ? If the fact that Abraham hold slaves, proves it right to hold slaves now, the fact that he took one of his wife's female slaves to his bed and bosom, and had a son by her, must prove it right lor slavchuklers to practice THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 68 the same economy now. I do not know that slaveholders will object to the conclusion, and no doubt many practice it, but the moral sense of all the other portions of the Chris- tian world is against it, and it cannot be al- lowed. But the above is not all, for we read that " Abraham gave all that he had to his son Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son^ while he yet lived, eastward unto the east coun- try." Gen. xoov. 5, 6. There is clear proof that Abraham had concubines, which is not allowable under the gospel, and which the Christian church has never allowed in any age. If then Abraham practiced what is clearly condemned by the Gospel, it is in vain that the slaveholders appeal to him as an example of slaveholding, in justification of American slavery. His example is seen in some things to be opposed to the Gospel, and cannot be admitted as conclusive evi- dence of what is right. 2. It is perfectly plain that there was nothing in the relation subsisting between Abraham and his servants,analagous to Amer- ican slavery. It has been shown that, if slavery had existed, it would be no justiiica- tion of American slavery, but it shall now be shown that there was no slavery in the case. Where is the proof that Abraham's servants were chattel slaves ? (1.) It is not found in the word servant, for this is applied to all classes of laborers and dependents. It is not necessary at this 64 TIIR niBLE .so REFUGE FOP. SLAVERY. point to resort to criticism, but only to show no \r the word is used generally in the lan- guage of those times. Abaham called liim- seU the servant of tlie three angels that vis- itL'd him. Gen. xviii. 3. He could not have designed to have expressed the idea of a slave. " Lot called himself the servant of the angels which led him out of the city. Gen. xix. 1-9. Jacob called himself the Ser- vant of Esau. Gen. xxx. 5. But the re- verse of tiiis would be true if the word ser- vant meant slave. " And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, behold,! have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants." Gen. xxvii. 37. The children of Esau were not given to the chil- dren of Jacob as slaves, and servant means only inferiority or political subjection. Pharoah is said to have made a feast to all his servants, Gen. xi, 20, but it will not be pretended that slaves are intended. Kings do not m'^dvc feasts to slaves upon their birth days. All subjects were the servants of their kings, and even the highest officers of the army, were, in the language of the times, the servants of the sovereigns ; it is plain therefore that the fact tliat Abraham had servants, does not prove that he was a slave- holder. (2) Tlie proof that Abraham was a slave- holder is not found in the fact that he had servants bought with his money. In tliose times all the people were the servants of their ])etty kings, and persons might be trans- ferred from one prince to another lor money, without supposing they were chattel slaves. THE BIBLE SO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 65 During tlie Revolutionary war, the English Government hired an army of Germans, for which they stipulated to pay a given price per head. They were as much bought with King George's money, as Abraham's servants were bought with his money, but they were not chattel slaves. Abraham possessed of such great wealth as he was, was compelled to have servants, and leading a wandering life, amid hostile nations, it was necessary that he should have servants that were truly attached to him and his interests. To secure such servants, he may have purchased cap- tives, to make them his free attendants, which would attach them to him. This is much more rational than to suppose he could buy them as chattel slaves, and hold them against their will, in his circumstances. (3) The proof that Abraham was a slave- holder is not found in the fact that he had servants born in his house. Abraham had no house, in our use of the word, but dwelt in a tent ar d led a wandering life. By being born in his house, is meant, born in his family or among his attendants. With attendants enough to take care of his flocks and herds, and to protect, as a guard, his person and great wealth, there must have been many servants born in his house ; that is, among his attendants and followers, but where is the proof that they were his personal pro- perty, his chattel slaves ? (4) The proof that Abraham was a slave- holder is not found in the fact that he had men servants and maid servants given to him by Abimelech, as above quoted. Abim- '^6 Tllli DIDI.li NO UEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. clech gave him sheep and oxen, and as Abra- ham probably had as many before, as he had servants to watch over, the attendants were transferred, and became Abraham's follow- ers by their own consent ; and as they were both kings, it was only a transfer of subjects from one government to another, and not a giftof chattel slaves. It is clear then that there is no proof that Abraham was a slave- holder. , but it shall now be shown that there is proof upon the face of the record that he was not a slaveholder, in anything like the sense of American slavery. (1) His three hundred and eighteen trained servants which were born in his house, could not have been slaves in the sense of Ameri- can slavery. Whatever they were, their ad- herence to Abraham must have been volun- tary. They constituted his army, and a brave army were they, under a brave leader, whea he led them to the rescue of Lot and the other captives, and slew the armies of four kings, and took the spoils. It is men- tioned in particular on this occasion, he armed the three hundred and eighteen train- ed servants '' that were born in his own housc.'^ He doubtless had other attendants at this time, liut these were taken as more reliable in tlie hour of danger in a foreign expedition, than those not born in his house, who had more recently joined him. The latter would most naturally be left as a home guard in the absence of the king and the principal army. Had any of them been chattel slaves, how easy could they have walked away? Would a slaveholder of the South ))resume THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 07 to arm three hundred slaves and lead them into Canada, to recapture prisoners and goods that had been taken away ? Abraham must have pursued those kings not less than a hundred and thirty miles, through a wild country. How easily could his slaves have escaped had they been slaves held against their Avills, as our American Slaves ; and how unsafe would an American slaveholder feel alone in the midst of three hundred armed slaves. Again how easily could those left at home have made their escape in the absence of their master. There were no patrols iken to pick them up, no blood- hounds to pursue and run them down, and no fugitive slave law to carry them back. 2. Abraham said to God, "To me thou hast given no seed : and lo, one born in my house is mine heir." Gen., xv. 3. This was before the birth of Ishmael. Those born in his house then, could not have been slaves or they would not have been his heirs. 3. Once more, Abraham's oldest servant ruled over all that he had, and was charged with the important business Of negociating with his distant kindred for a wife for his son Isaac. The business was committed to him under the solemnities of an oath. Gen. xxiv. 1 — 5. Was he a slave ? Have southern planters slaves that can be trusted, not only with the care of all their estates at home, but who can be sent on a foreign embassy with a train of ten horses, and with jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and other prec- 68 THK HIBLE NO RP:FL'GE KOK SLAVIIRV. ions thinnrs? Gen. xxiv. 10, i^d. It is per- fectly liuiicrouj^ to suppose, that persons who were trusted with such responsibilities, bore any analoiry to southern slaves. it is believed the record has now been purged from every vestige of Abrahaniic slavery, and it remains to look after that said to have been established by Moses, the great law giver under God. II. The Jewish ])olity as established by Moses, under (iod, is the linal resort of slave- holders to iind an endorsement of American Slavery within the lids of the Old Testament. That there is much legislation concerning masters and servants, and that servitude, of some sort is tolerated, modified and regula- ted, it would be vain to deny. But that American Slavery is found upon the record, or anytliing analagous to it, is denied. Be- fore entering upon the examination of those provisions which some suppose involve the princi})le of chat'tel slavery, it may be well to state a few^ leading general principles, Avhich it will be necessary to keep in view during the entire investigation, as having a bearing upon the whole subject, and uj)on the exposition of each text in ])jirticular. 1. The system introduced by .Moses, what- ever it was in fact, Avas a great improvement on all former times and organisms. If there are what may be deemed social evils in the light of the gospel, and which the gospel cor- rects, they were not introduced by Moses, but are the lelic of a more ])arbarous state of things, which his system did not entirely blot out in its ureat work of reformation, thoughit THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOK SLAVERY. (ii) curtailed and mitigated every evil. If any such supposed evil is found, it will be seen, not to have been introduced as a new thing, but to be there by way of a modification of some previously existing evil, the severity of which is averted by legislative restraints and protections. 2. The above remark is peculiarly true and forcible in relation to servitude, as tol- erated and limited and modified by the laws of Moses. The law of Moses no where in- troduces a system of servitude as a new thing, or new element in society, but treats of it as a thing already existing, as an evil to be re- strained, and modified. It is not possible for a reflecting mind to read the provisions touching masters and servants, without see- ing, lying back of those mild provisions, a more oppressive system, which it corrects, modifies and softens. Take it as it stands upon the record, and in view of the condition of the world, and even the rude state of the Israelites, at the time it was introduced, and it must be admitted to be a most benevolent system, and greatly beneficial to all servile classes. It appears to have been introduced for the exclusive protection and benefit of the servile classes, and not for the benefit of the masters. American Slavery will have to be greatly modified before even as much as this can be said in its favor. 3. When we examine more particularly in- to the several provisions concerning servi- tude, we find that every regulation concern- ing it, is for the protection and benefit of the servant, and not one for the benefit of the 70 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. master. Not one new right or privilege is bestowed upon the master ; he possessed every right, and enjoyed every privilege, be- fore the law was given which he can claim and exercise under it, but it throws around him many restraints, and many protections around the servant, and secures to bim many rights and privileges which he would not be likely to enjoy without the law. It is safe therefore to say that the whole system was designed for the benefit of the servile classes, which leaves not a single analogy between it and American Slavery, as the legislation which gives it existence, is altogether for the benefit of the master, conferring all legal rights on the master, and taking every legal right away from the slave, leaving the slave without a legal existence, and entirely un- known to the law, only as a personal chat- tel, only as a sheep or a horse or an ox has a legal existence and is known in law. These remarks, if true, and they most cer- tainly are, must of themselves settle the en- tire argument, and demonstrate, that no jus- tification can be found in Jewish servitude for American Slavery. I might with entire safety rest the argument on these points, but I propose not so to do, but only ask the rea- der to keep them in view, to carry them along through the investigation, for the sake of the light they will shed on the general subject, and the assistance they will render in coming at a right interpret-ation of the several texts to be examined. The way is now prepared for an examina- tion of those parts of the Mosaic code which THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOP. SLAVERY. H some suppose teach the principle, and justify the practice of American Slavery. The method to be pursued is, first, to ex- amine each text by itself, and then inquire into the general bearings of the whole system upon the subject of slavery. It will not be necessary to examine every text in which the word servant occurs, but only such of each class of texts as are regard- ed as the strongest proofs of the existence of slavery. The first allusion to servitude in the Jew- ish economy is as follows : '' And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordi- nance of the passover : There shall no stran- ger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof." Exo. xii. 43-45. This text was not designed to create or justify slavery, if slavery be implied in its language. The most that can be made of it, is that it takes for granted that there will be servants bought with money, and hired ser- vants, without instituting, providing for, or sanctioning either system of service. It does not refer to servitude as a thing to be established' by the new system, but as a thing already existing, without bestowing upon it either sanction or censure. It does not necessarily imp]y the existence of slavery. The only proof that slavery ex- isted, is found in the fact that servants were bought with money. It will not be pretend- ed that hired servants were slaves ; we have therefore only to settle the case of servants i)i THE BIBLK NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERr. bought with money. The assumption that servants bought with money were chattel slaves is founded upon the supposition that the language of the Jewish law is to be inter- preted by our usages. Their language was not borrowed from our usages, and cannot be safely explained by them. If it were first pi-oved that slavery existed, then it might be safe to infer that the expression, servants bought with money, refers to slaves. Such language in a statute of one of our slave- holding States, would doubtless be so con- strued. It being adrjdtted that such a class as chattel slaves existed, the language might be conclusive evidence that the legislature referred to them ; but the question is not to which of two admitted classes does the lan- guage refer ? but was there any such class as chattel slaves? and on this question tiie evi- dence is entirely insufficient. The assump- tion that there was such a class, is necessary to justify such a construction of the law, and this very construction of the law, is the only proof there was such a class. This is argu- ing in a circle ; it is assuming the main pro- position to be proved, and then ort'ering in proof of that proposition a conclusion drawn trom the assumption The language, "ser- vant bought with thy money,'' cannot prove that a chattel slave is meant, only upon the supposition that no person can be bought u ith money, without being a chattel slave, which is false upon the very face of the record. It is only necessary to show that things and persons were bought with money, without be- coming subject to the incidents of property THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY^ 73 or chattlc slavery, to settle the whole ques- tion so far as the meaning of buy and bought is concerned. The word buy, in scripture language, m^ans to g^t, gain, acquire, ob- tain, possess ; and when bought with money is the expression, it denotes merely the means by which the thing was obtained. A few quotations will settle this qestion, 1. The Jews bought and sold their lands for money, which lands were not, and could not be permanently alienated by such sale and purchase. They might be redeemed at any time, and if not redeemed, they must re- vert at the Jubilee. The price was to be according to the number of years before the jubilee when lands were sold and bought, as the following text shows : " And if thou sell aught unto thy neigh- bor, or buyest aught of thy neighbor's hand, ye shall not oppress one another : " According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbor, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee : " According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price thereof and accord- ing to tho fewness of j^ears thou shalt di- minish the price of it : for according to the number of the years of the fruits doth he sell unto thee." Levi, xxv, 14-16.. The land was sold and bought for money, and yet no title was given or obtained to it, but only a limited possession. That posses- sion might be for one, five, or ten years or more, as the sale was distant from the time of the jubilee. In scripture language it was 4 1 4 IHt iJihl.K .\»> i'.r.Kl'GE FOR slLAlEKV, buying and sclliiig, yet in our language, it was no oale, but a lease for a term of years. If then land could })e bought for money, without acquiring the right of property, but only the right of possession and increase for a time ; it follows that men could be bought for money without acquiring in them the right of property, but only a right to their labor. A man gave anotiier possession of his land, with the right of all the increase for a given number of years, when it must return to him, and this is c?lled selling and buying it, in scripture language. Irfo a man agrees to serve another for a valuable con- sideration, paid to him in advance, and in scripture language he is said to sell liimself, and the other is said to buy him. If land could be bought for money, without obtain- ing the right of property ki it, men could be bought for money without acquiring the right of property in them. If land could be bought for money without subjecting it to all the incidents and liabilities of land bought for money under the laws of the United States, then men could be bought for money, without subjecting them to all the incidents and liabilities of men bought for money under the laws of the slave states of this country. The conclusion is perfectly clear that the simj)le fact that servants are said to have been bought with money, does not prove that they were chattel slaves. 2. Hebrew servants v,ere bought with money and it is admitted on all hands, that they were not chattel slaves. *' If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. t5 shall he serve ; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing." Exo. xxi. 2. The man is clearly bought in the sense of Jewish law, and yet he clearly owns himself again on the seventh year and makes his own appropriation of himself thereafter. This buying men, instead of proving American slavery, would overthrow the whole system if incorporated into the slave code. If slaves are held by right of the Mosaic law they should have the privileges of that law. " If thy brother by thee be waxen poor and be sold unto thee, thou shall not compel him to serve as a bond servant. Levi, xxv. 39. (For the meaning of bond servant see hereafter on verses 44-46.) "If a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee and thy brother by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger and sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the strangers fam- ily." Verse 47. A man is here spoken of as selling himself, but that is not now the point. Also a dis- tinction is made between a jew thus sold, and a bond-servant, in the 39th verse, but that difference is not now the question, but shall be attended to in its place. The only point is that Jews were bought and sold un- der the Mosaic law, in the sense of buy and sell in the language of that law. This the texts above quoted clearly prove. But Jews could not be chattel slaves, for two reasons. First, the Jubilee set every one of them free. " Ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." Lev. xxv. 20. " He shall be with thee, and shall 7<> THE mni.R xo nEHT.r, for slavery. serve thee unto tlic year of Jubilee, and then shall he dc])art from thee, both he and his children ^vilh him." Verse 40-41. Second- ly, every Jew had a right in the soil, and must be returned to its jjossession and enjoy- ment at the Jubilee. " In the year of this Jubilee ye shall return every man to his pos- session." Verse 13. " Ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family." Verse 10. The point is then clear that no Jew could be a chattel slave, in the sense of American slavery, for the two reasons that all were free the seventh year, or at fatherest every fif- tieth year, and all at the same time were re- turned to a freehold estate. The argument then stands thus : — Jews were bought and sold for money ; but Jews could not be chat- tel slaves, after the pattern of American slavery ; and, therefore, the simple fact that servants were bought Avith money, does not and cannot prove the existence of chattel slavery. 3. Wives were bought for money, or in exchange for other connnodities, and yet it would not be regarded as sound to argue from thence that they were chattel slaves, or the absolute property of their husbands, in our sense of property. 1 will open this ar- gument with a remarkable statute on the su])ject. " 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 Phall he let her THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 77 be redeemed : to sell her unto a strange na- tion 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. " And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money." — Exo. xxi, 7-11. The comment of Dr. Adam Clarke on the text is so peculiar that I will introduce it. Of a man's selling his daughter the Dr. says, " This the Jews allowed no man to do but in extreme distress — when he had no goods, either movable or immovable left, even to the clothes on his back ; and he had this privil- ege only while she was unniarriageabie. It may appear strange that such a law should have been given ; but let it be remembered that this servitude could extend, at the ut- most, only to six years ; and that it was nearly the same as in some cases of appren- ticeship among us, where the parents bind the child for seven years, and have from the mas- ter so much per week during that period'" Where is the wonder that such a statute should have been given, if the code, of which it is a part, contained and enforced the sys- tem of chattle slavery, after the American model ? The law must authorize the con- stant sale of somebodies daughters, not for six years, but life long, to contain anything like American slavery, and it is no wonder • 8 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR KLIVERV. to me, that a man should be authorized to aeU his own daughters, rather than another man s daugtiters. I am not sure that the Dr. is right in saying that the sale was only for six years. He no doubt grounds this upon the second verse which concerns men serv- ants, but it is said of tlie daughter sold as above, she shall not go out as the men ser- vants do, which was at the end of the sixth year. As to what Dr. Clarke says of its being like an apprenticeship, if the remark was made of bought servants in general, I have no doubt it would be much nearer the truth, than to suppose it was like American slavery. But I believe he has entirely mistaken the design and spirit of the statute regulating the sale of daughters, as above, and will now state my own humble opinion of the text. I believe the sale of daughters named in the text, was exclusively for wives. It is true the language is, " If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, but she was no doubt at the same time sold as a prospective wife of the purchaser or his son. According to Dr. Clarke, the sale was allowed only while the daughter was unmarriageable, and only in case of extreme poverty. Of course such pales would take place only among the poor- est of the laboring classes ; and such pur- chases would be made, as a general rule, only by the laboring classes, as the rich would seek wives for ihcmselves and sons among the rich. As the daughter sold be- longed to the laboring class, and was sold to a purchaser of the laboring class, she must THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. i\) be expected to labor both before and after the sale, Slie is then sold asamaid-servaut, bat is sold at the same time as the prospec- tive wife of the man who buys her, or of his son. She is an apprenticed wife on trial, and hence the oppression, " if she please not her master who hath betrothed her." He buys her unmarriageable, aird she serves a few years and becomes a woman, and he finds she will not answer for a wife, and the de- sign of the law is to provide for just this case. He has not yet married her, or the case would fall under the law of divorce. There are two cases provided for as follows : (1.) "If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself," that is the purchaser, a provision is made to protect her. The manner in which this is introduced in connection with the sale, without explana- tion, proves that, in the eye of the law, to purchase, was to betroth. It is taken for granted that he who has purchased a female under that law, had betrothed her To be- troth is to contract, in order to a future mar- riage. If after he has thus purchased, thus betrothed, she please him not, if he find that she will not make him such a wife as he thinks he needs, he shall let her be redeemed; that is, her father may buy her back, or any of his friends that may desire her, may re- deem her by paying what he gave for her, after deducting a fair proportion for what she may have earned as a servant. He shall, have no right to sell her to a strange nation, Init only to take the price he paid for her as a redemption by her friends. bO THE RIBLE NO REFUGE FOK Sf-AVETrrr. (2.) In case slie had bccii betrothed to his aon, and the son did not like her, when she became marriageable, the law provides for her protection. The father is held respon- sible to treat her as a daughter, and the son to discharge to her all the duties of a husband, and if this is not attended to, she shaH go out free without money. That is, the purchaser shall not be entitled to receive back the money he paid for her, but she shall be free without being redeemed. Here then is provision for selling persons without making chattel slaves of tliem. They were bought witli money, without be- ing chattels personal, as are the slaves of this country, and therefore the fact of selling and buying under the Mosaic law, docs not ])rove that slavery existed under that law. But the ol)j«ict of quoting the above text has licen to prove that wives were bought, and this it proves beyond doul)t. That I have not mistaken the law, in supposing the sale was a ])etrothing of the female sold, is clear from the fact that in other cases female ser- vants went out at tlie end of the sixth year, as is seen from Exo. xv. 12-17. From these references it is clear that according to the general law, female servants were released at the end of the sixth year, but in the case under consideration, it is said they shall not go out as the men servants do; in the place of tins another provision is made, founded upon the ground that they arc betrtohcd. But there is other proof that wives were bought. Jacob bought both his wives of Laban their father. Gen. xxix. 18-27. THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 81 David purchased Michael, Saul's daughter ^^ be his wife. 1 Sam. xviii, 27. Shecheix son of Hamor the Hivite, wished to purchase Dinah, Jacob's daughter for a wife, and of- fered any price they should demand. Gen. xxxiv. 11-12. Hosea bought a wife an ., paid for her, part in silver and the balance in barley. Hosea, iii. 2. Boaz said, " Ruth the Moabites have I purchased to be my wife." Ruth, iv. 10. The word purchased^ is rendered bought in the margin. Enough has been said to show that it was a common thing to purchase wives, that they were bought v/ith money. The evidence that slavery existed is the fact that servants were bought with money, but wives were al- so bought with money from which it must follow either that the fact that servants were bought does not prove that they were slaves, or else the fact that wives were bought must prove thaf they were slaves. If servants were slaves because they were bought, then wives were slaves because they were bought. If wives were not chattel slaves, though bought with money, then servants were not necessarily chattel slaves because they were bought with money. If a wife could be bought with money with becoming a chattel slave, then buying with money does not con- stitute or prove the existence of chattel sla- very, and the argument in proof that slavery existed, founded upon the fact that servants were bought with money, must fall to the ground. It must be true that servants were not slaves because they were bought, or else that wives were slaves bemuse fhey^cere bous^ht, "'4 82 TMK BIBLE NO RKFUiiE FOR SLAVERY. If the ground be taken, as a last resort to support slavery, that such wives as were bought with money, were the absolute prop- erty of their husbands, and were so regarded and treated in that rude state of society, nothing will be gained. As the object is to prove that American slavery is right, the argument can be sound only upon the ground that what was practiced and tolerated then, must be right now. If all the facts alleged were admitted, viz., that chattel slavery did exist under the Mosaic code, it would not prove American slavery right, only upon the ground tliat what that code allowed is now right. But that code allowed parents to sell their daughters for wives and tlierefore such a practice must be right now. To make any argument good, we have got to take with it, all the consequences which necessarily fol- low from the premises. If servants were chattel slaves because they were bought, wives were slaves because they were bought. If it is right now to buy slaves because slaves were bought under the Mosaic law, it must be right to buy wives now because wives were bought under the Mosaic law. And if it be right now to hold persons in chattle slavery because it was done under the Mosaic law, it must be right, not only to buy wives, but also to hold them as chattel slaves, because it was practiced under the Mosaic law. Some of the lords of creation may be ready to admit all these consequen- ces, and be glad to have it so, yet the better half of humanity will be so unanimous in repudiating the doctrine, that the ariiumont, THR BIBLE XO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 83 carrying with it such consequences, cannot be sustained. If then it would now be re- garded as a violation of the principles of the Gospel for parents to sell their daughters for wives, and for men to buy wives for them- sefves and sons to be owned as personal chattels, there is no proof in the Mosaic law, that American slavery is not a violation of the principles of the Gospel. If the one was practiced under the law, the other was ; and if the one is now right, because it was practiced under the law, the ^other must be. It has been showed that Hebrew servants could be held only for the period of six years. To this rule there is one exception which should be noticed as of some importance. The whole provision reads thus : " If you buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve : and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. " If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself : if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. " If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself. " And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children ; I will not go out free : " Then his master shall bring him unto the judges : he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post : and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl ; and ho shall serve him for ever." Exo. xxi. 2-6. On this provision I remark, 84 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR PLAVERY. 1. It was clearly instituted for the benefit and protection of the servant, and not for the master's benefit. It confers no ri^ht, no discretionary power upon the master, save the right of retaining the wife and children in a given case, but it does bestow a discre- tionary power upon the servant. It is this, the servant sells himself for six years, and no more — " ^^ix years shall he serve, and in the seventli he shall go out free" — but the law gives the servant the power to extend the contract at the end of the sixth year, to, " for ever,'' as our translaters have rendered it, but which I suppose means unto the Jubi- lee. The master has no power to hold him another day, if he wishes to leave at the end of the sixth year ; he has no power to turn him away ; if the servantjwishes to stay, he is compelled to retain him. Thus is it seen that the law is all on the side of the servant, and this does notjplook much like American slavery. 2. The provision is clearly to protect the servant against being separated from his wife and children, in the case where the mas- ter has the riglit of retaining them. This is in case the master has given him a wife. This wife might be the master's daughter, for which the servant may be supposed not to have paid the customary dowcry. Or the Avife may be a Hebrew maid servant, having one, two, three or four of the six years yet to serve ])ofore she can go out Or, what is more ])roVni))le, the wife may bo a servant jVom tlie Gentiles, a proselyte, bound to servo until the jubilc'C. In either of these cases, THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 85 it would be doing violence to the marriage relation to send tlie servant away without his wife and chileren, and hence the law pro- vides that the servant may demand an exten- sion of the contract of his servitude " for ever," that is, as I understand it, to the jubi- lee. Let but this provision be introduced into American slavery, and let the separation of husbands and wives, parents and children be thus interdicted, and it will soon destroy the whole system. How strange it is that what would overthrow the whole system of slavery if introduced and enforced, should be relied upon for its support ! 3. Whatever may be thought of the law under consideration, in all other aspects, it is certain that the service is voluntarily en- tered into, on the part of the servant, after trying it six years, and this destroys all an- alogy to x\.merican slavery. The proceeding of boring the servants ear with an awl, is merely a prescribed form of recording the testimony in such cases, and has no bearing on the main point at issue. I will not crit- icise upon the words " for ever," which I sup- pose means until the jubilee, as this will come up for consideration hereafter in con- nection with another text. The next resort of slavery is to the fol- lowing provision of the law. " If\ man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surely be punished. Nothwithstand- ing, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be'punished " for he is his money." Exo, xxi. 20-21, 80 THE BIBLE No REFLT.E FOR SLAVERY. This law docs not institute or establish slavery, or any kind of servitude. It mere- ly refers to it, for the purpose of settling? a rule of jurisprudence, applicable in peculiar cases. It assumes the fact that there are masters and servants, but it does not estab- lish, legalize or justify the relation, l)ut it provides for the administration of justice between the parties in a given case. The only proof whicli the text can be supposed to furnish in support of slavery, must depend upon two circumstances. The fact that the master presumes to smite the servant with a rod, and the fact that the servant is declared to be the master's money. These two points need examination. Does the fact that the law presumes that a master may smite his servant with a rod that lie die, ])rove that the servant is a chat- tel slave ? Surely not. There is no proof that the smiting is in any sense authorized or justified by this or any other law. Smi- ting itself is not justified, even if it be not unto death. The laws of our slaveholding states authorize masters directly to punish their slaves, but no such li))erty is given in the Scriptures. AV'e challenge the produc- tion of the first text which authorizes a mas- ter to inflict corporal correction upon a ser- vant. Parents are required to correct their cliildren. This principle is contained in all the following texts. Deut. viii. 5 ; Prov. iii. 12 ; xiii. 2-i ; xix. 18 ; xxiii. 13-14 ; xxix, lo-17 ; Ilcb. xii. 7-l>. SVhile the scriptures are so full and explicit on the subject of tlio correction of ohildn'ii by parents, tlicre is THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 8t not one text which requires masters, or even authorizes them to punish their servants. Again, the law provides that parents, who have a son whom they cannot govern, may hand him over to the public authorities to be judged and punished, but there is no such provision for masters, who have disobedient servants. See Deut. xxi. 18-22. The pun- ishment of servants is without lawful author- ity and is always unlawful. If it be sup- posed that the fact that it is made punishable for a master to kill his serva^nt with a rod, renders it lawful to beat him with a rod, provided he does not kill him ; the reply is, that the same mode of reasoning will prove it^awful for men to fight, provided they do not kill or disable each other. The 18th and 19th verses provide for a case where two men strive together, and one smites the other with a stone or his fist. Will it be conten- ded that the striving is thereby rendered lawful ? Certainly not. No more is it ren- dered lawful for a master to beat his servant with a rod, because the law provides that he shall be punished if he kills him while doing so. The fact then that the scriptures take it for granted that a master is liable to get in a passion and smite his servant that he die, and provides for his punishment, does not give the least countenance ta slavery. But " he is his money./' This doubtless is regarded as the strong hold of slavery. All that is necessary for me to prove is that it does not necessarily involve chattel slavery, and this will be easily aqcomplised. 88 THE BIBLF, N'O RF.FT'GE TOR SLAVERY. 1. The statute is a general one, including all classes of servants, many of whom, it has been seen, were not and could not be chattel slaves. The 2Gth and 29th verses are of the same general character. If a man smote out the eye or the tooth of a servant, he was free. These laws protect all kinds of ser- vants, Hebrew servants as well as others. It has been sliown that Hebrew servants were bought with money, and of course, it was just as true of these that they were the money of their masters as of others. As the text affirms of a Hebrew servant as clear- ly as of any other, " he is his money," and as a Hebrew servant could not be a chattel slave, the text affirms that lie is money who cannot be a slave, and therefore it cannot prove those to be slaves of whom it affirms. 2. the language is most clearly figurative, and can be literally true only in a sense which divests it of all proof of chattleship. " He is his money." All money in those da3's was gold or silver. But the servant was neither gold or silver, and was not money. A literal translation would strength- en this view. The expression, " he is "his money" literally translated would read, " his silver is he." But a servant is not silver, is not money, but flesh and blood and bones, body and soul. What then is meant by the expression ? Simply this, he has cost the master money, the master has the value of money in liim, and loses money's value by his death. But this is true of all servants bought with money, or whoso wages are paid in advance, and therefore the expression THE BIBLE NU REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 89 cannot prove that the servant said to be money is a chattel slave. 3. The obvious intention of the whole statute, as well as of that particular clause, requires no such construction, but the end is reached just as clearly and forcibly without involving the chattel principle. The design of the general statute is to se- cure the condemnation of the master in case of wilful murder, and thereby furnish greater security to the servant ; as well as to secure the master against being put to death as a murderer, when no murder was intended. It is not to be inferred that the killing is to be punished as inferior crime, because the killed is a servant. The translation perverts the sense. The word, nakam translated punished, should be rendered avenged. It is not the master that is to be avenged, but the servants death, which, under the circumstan- ces necessarily means that the master shall be put to death as a murderer. This word, though it occurs repeatedly in the Old Testa- ment, is translated punished in no other text, but is generally translated avenged and in a very few instances, to take vengence or to revenge. The word is thus defined in Roy's Hebrew and English Dictionary : " JYakam, 1. He recompensed or paid ; 2. avenged, reveno-ed, cut off, as murderers ; 3. vindica- ted, advocated, as the cause of another." The object of the statute is to secure such execution in one ease, and to prevent it in another. If the master smite his servant with a rod, and he die under his hand, the death shall 90 THE BIHLK NO REFCdE FOR SLAVERY. surely be avenged. The instrument is a rod, not an axe. A man might kill with an axe, without intending it, but not with a rod. If the servant died under his hand, and a rod only was used, the proof is positive that he meant to kill him, and must have done it wilfully and by protracted torture. Though a man miglit be likely to take some more fa- tal instrument, if he meant to kill, yet the fact that he did kill with such an instrument, is proof positive that he meant to kill, and the avenger is authorized to smite him as. a murderer. Bui suppose the servant does not die un- der his hand, but continues a day or two, then his death shall not be avenged. And why ? Because the evidence is not clear that he meant to kill him. He did not kill him on the spot, as he would most likely have done had he designed to take his life. More- over it was only a rod with which he smote him, and this is presumptive evidence that he did not mean to kill him ; had he designed his death, he would have been likely to se- lect a more fatal instrument than a rod with which to smite. Finally, " he is his ^loney ;'' that is, he has a monied interest in him, and looses the worth of money by his death, and this is an additional proof that he did not mean to kill ])im. The design of this state- ment, "he is his money," is to show that the master's monied intci-est was againt liis kil- ling the servant, that he lost money by his death, and this is just as clear in the case of a Hebrew servant l)ought with money, who could not l>e a chattel slave. 'J'ho monied THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 91 argument is good in the case of any servant, whose wages is paid in advance, and as that kind of service was common, the idea of chattel slavery is not in the least involved. It is no part of the design of the text to create, legalize or justify the right of prop- erty in man, but merely to use the fact of a monied interest in a man, as collateral evi- dence that murder was not intended, and this object is secured as well without the assumption of chattel slavery as it is by re- sorting to that terrible position. It need only to be remarked that the law in question provides only for the case, as a public of- fence. There can be no question that the servant, in case of abuse or injury, might appear in the court against his master, and receive justice at the hands of the judges, in an action for private damages. I now approach the last resort of slavery within the lids of the Old Testament, to which it must be expected to cling as a man of blood to the horns of the altar, when the lifted arm of the avenger is seen near at hand. The law in question reads as follows : " Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall he 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 : and they shall be your possession. " And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after vou, to inherit them 92 THE BIRLE NO UEKL'(;E FOR SLAVEUY. for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen forever : but over your brethren, the child- ren of Israel, ye shall not rule one over ano- ther with rigor." Lev. xxv. 44—10. I might grapple with slavery upon the ground of the common translatior, as above, and beat it ; but I am not disposed so to do, until I shall have exposed its hand in cor- rupting the translation. I have already made one correction in the common transla- tion in tlie preceding text, and as I design to ground an argument upon a new translation of the present important text, I will explain the whole matter at this point. I admit there should be strong reasons for departing from the common English vertion of the Scriptures, a version generally approved and allowed to be correct. The translators were men of great learning, and executed their trust with great al)ility and fidelity, and have in general seized upon the very spirit and nerve of the original, so far as it can be rep- resented by English words ; yet believe they were deceived by the spirit of slavery into a false translation of the text under con- sideration, as perhaps in a few other texts. The slave tride Avas in the hight of its ])ro- gress at the time the translation took ])lace. It had previously attracted the attention of Church and State. At first it met with op- position from both. The first grant of the l)rivilege of bringing slaves to America, was by Charles V. in 1517. Tliis appears to have been principally secured by tlie repre- sentations of Las Casas a priest, and after- wards a bishop. Dut after this, Charles re- THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 93 pented of the countenance he gave the slave trade, and Pope Leo X., his cotemporary, de- nounced the system, and declared that not only the Christian religion, but nature itself cried out against a state of slavery." About the year 1556 Queen Elizabeth was deceived into a permit granted to Sir John Hawkins, to bring negros from Africa ; and she charg- ed him not to carry them to America without their consent. But these scruples were over- come by the false glosses put upon this and other texts by interested priests, and by the great profit of the traffic. Here the matter rested, and all took it for granted without further examination, that these pro-slavery expositions were right, and when King Jame's translators commenced their work in 1607, ihey very naturally adopted the false expositions designed to countenance the slave trade, and translated the text under consider- ation, as well as some others, in the light of those false glosses by which they avoided coming in contact with the slave trade, then in its greatest prosperity in England. I will now notice the translation itself. The principal errors are as follows : There is nothing in the original to justify the words " hond-men and bond-maids ;" it should be man-servant and woman-servant. Both are in the singular, and not plural, in the Hebrew text. The word translated bity is most pro- perly translated procure. The word trans- lated heathen, is properly rendered Gentiles, and might be rendered nations. The word translated /oret-er cannot bear that rendering in this case ; it cannot mean longer than 94 TUK niBLE X»^ UKFl'GE KoR SLAVERY. natural life, and that is never the sense of the EnG:lisli word forever. The word ren- dered ybrcwr, is k-O'lam, and its proper mcan- inj^ is endless, and is correctly rendered /or- ever, or to eternity, but here it cannot be un- derstood in its full sense. It is used to de- note a lonir period, less even than the whole of time. Many rites of the Jews were to bo observed /brn.Tr, which forever has past and ended. A single text will serve as an illus- tration of the use of the word in a limited sense. '' Bath-shbea said Let my lord king David live forever." 1 Kings i. 31. This can mean but a short indefinite period, for David was then old. It can mean no more than a long time, for a man in his cir- cumstances. But in the expression, " they shall be your bond-men forever," forever can mean no more than natural life, and yet it is never employed to ex])ress this indefinite period. Forever, therefore, does not express the sense of the text, and as the period of the jubilee was the longest time a person could be retained in service by one contract, which Avill hereafter be more fully shown, it is cer- tain that forever could not extend beyond the jubilee, and it is most natural to under- stand it as refering to that period, or to some period to be fixed upon in the contract, but not named in the law. I will now introduce a literal translation of the text, and as I have no reputation as a Jlebrew scholar to sustain one of my own, I have written to Dr. Roy, author of Roy's Hebrew and English Dic- tionary, for a literal translation of the text under consideration, and he has kindlv fur- THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. IJ;") uislied me with the following, which he war- rants to be correct and literal. 44. " And thy man servant, and thy woman servant, shall be to thee from among the Gentiles which are round about you. From them ye shall procure a man servant and a woman servant. 45. " And also of the children of Foreign- ers that reside with you, from them ye may procure of their families which are with them, that were born in your land ; they shall be to you for a possession, (service.) 46. " And ye shall choose them for your children after you, to preside over them as their portion, unto the end of the time (spec- ified).''— E03/. I think no Hebrew scholar will deny that this translation is correct in all essential par- ticulars, and if it be so, it follows, not only that the translation in the common version perverts the sense of the original text to sup- port slavery, but that nothing like American slavery is found in the law of Moses, when it is correctly understood. Take the text as it is now spread before the reader, and there is clearly no slavery in it ; no human chat- tels are presented to the mind, no fettered limbs are seen, and no chains clank in the ear of humanity. It is certain that the text asrendered above, does not and cannot prove the existence of chat-tcl slavery ; but still it means something, and what does it mean ? This is an important inquiry. Every law should be considered as designed to secure some important end, especially when God is the Legislator. This law cannot have been Oft inE BIBLE NO REFUfJE FOR SLAVERY. desi^Micd to establish a S3'stein of human bond- age like American slavery, and must have been designed to secure some other end, and not only a benevolent end, but one consonant with the general design of the whole system of which it is a part. It will give additional strength to the conclusion, that the establish- ment of slavery was not its object, if it can be clearly shown that it was designed and calculated to secure another benevolent and important end. This I will now attempt to show. I regard the law in question, in a civil point of light, as prescribing a plan of naturalization for foreigners ; and in a reli- gious point of light, as a system of prosely- tism, by Avhich heatlicn were to be reclaimed from their idolatry, to the faith and worship of the God of xibraham. To show this a number of plain facts need to be collected and looked at in connection with each other, and with reference to their joint bearing on this question. 1. God designed to make of the Jews a numerous, wealthy and powerful nation. To secure this they must occupy a productive country, which he gave them, described as '' a land flowing with milk and lionev.'' It was necessary also that they shoukl be kept from being mingled with other nations, either by emigration to other countries, or by a large influx of strangers, who should not be- come identilied with their religion and nationality. It was necessary to keep them a distinct people. Further to secure this end, their lands were secured forever, beyond their power to alienate them, so that every THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 97 Jew was 4). freeholder in fact, or in prospect, A foreigner could r.ot become permanently possessed of their lands, and could obtain a lasting interest in them only by becoming incorporated with some branch of the Jewish family, for which proivsion was made. This separating and signalizing the Jews had re- ference to the execution of God's plan of re- deeming mankind, for which it was a prepar- atory step. So far all is plain and will not be disputed. 2. The proposed position of the Jewish nation, with the means employed to secure it, the inalienability of their lands, tended to produce certain incidental evils, and a want of an element essential to the greatness and independence of any people, viz. a numerous and well sustained laboring class, beyond the actual proprietors of the soil. A free- hold interest, is the greatest interest, and the cultivation of the soil is and ever must be the basis of all other great interests, yet there are other great interests that must be sustained. The circumstances of the Jews tended to produce a want of such a laboring class. A few of the influences tending to produce this want shall be named. (1.) They were all land owners, and none need therefore engage in other pursuits than cultivating the soil, unless reduced by misfor- tune or bad economy. This would produce but very few mechanics, and laborers to be hired. (2.) Such was the richness of their country, so great the productiveness of the soil, that a large amount of labor could be expended 98 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVKUV, ■v\'ith profit to the land owner, Avhile the fact that every one was a land owner, tended ta render such labor difficnlt to obtain. In every prosperous community tliere is needed many more laborers than actual landowners, some must operate as mechanics, some as mer- chants, some must cultivate the lands of the unhealthy and widows, some must labor as ad- ditional helps to those who cultivate their own lands, and others will be needed as domestic help, commonly called servants. (3.) The religion of the Jews required them to devote a large portion of their time to its special duties and exercises, rendering more laborers necessary to accomplish the same amount of labor in a given season. Every seventh year was a Sabbath the whole year. This was one seventh of all the time, and if averaged among the seven years, would be to each year just equal to the Aveekly Sabbath. For proof of this seventh year rest, see Lev. XXV. 3-7. Next was the weekly Sabbath, every seventh day. Exo. xx. 8-11. This was another seventh of their whole time. Then there were three annual feasts ; the Passover, which lasted seven days ; the Pen- tecost or feast of weeks, which "^lasted seven days ; and the fe^st of Tabernacles, which lasted eight days. For proof of these feasts see Deut.xvi. 3, 10, IG ; Exo. xii. 3, G, 15 ; Lev. xxiii. 35, 3G, 39, 41, 42, See also Jose- phus. Book III. Ch. X. Their national feasts were held in one place, the jdacc which the Lord chose, which was Jerusalem, and thiiher the tribes went up to worship. Exo. xxiv. 23 ; Deut. xvi. THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 99 16 ; Luke ii. 41, 44. This required long journies'on the part of many, as Joseph and Marj went one whole day's journey home- ward, before they missed their remarkable son, so large was the company returning from the feast. More time must have been spent in the necessary preparations and journey, than in the feasts themselves. The feasts together occupied twenty-two days, which gives the following result. The seventh year rest is equal to one weekly Sabbath, or fifty- two days in a year. To this add the weekly Sabbath, fifty^wo days per year more, mak- ing one hundred and four days. To this add the three annual feasts, together occupying twenty -two days, making a total of one hun- dred and twenty-six, which is five days more than one entire third of the year occupied in religion. To this might be added the time con- sumed in going and returning, as above sup- posed, and other feasts that might be pointed out, as every new moon, and special occasions by which it would appear that one half or more of the time of the whole male popula- tion was occupied with religious matters, but it is not necessary to press these additional matters, as it would cumber my page with many references to establish the several points. I have shown positively that over one third part of their time was occupied by religious matters, and that is sufficient for my argument. This must have required an increased number of laborers. It should be remarked that all that class of servants which some suppose to have been slaves, were re- quired to observe all these feasts, and 100 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Sabbaths. It may be asked how it could be expected that they should become great and wealthy, with a religion laying so heavy a tax upon their time. The answer is plain, in the words of the Law^Giver himself. " And if ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year ? behold we shall not sow nor gather our increase : then 1 will command my bles- sing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years." Lev. xxv. 20, 21. While they obeyed God, the shadow of his wing protected and blessed their whole land, but when tliey sinned and lost the divine blessing, without an abatement of their religious taxes, they felt them to be a bur- den. The system was not adapted to the whole world, embracing all countries and climates ; and it was established by God only as a preparatory step, to last until the time of reformation, when they should pass away with what Paul calls ."a 3'oke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." But while the system lasted it had to be made consistent with itself, and if one part tended to produce incidental evils, they had to be overcome by the action of some other part. One evil wc have seen was a want of a suflB- cient numljcr of laborers. This would natu- rally and mainly result first, from the inalien- ability of their lands, making all the Jews land owners ; secondly, from the same fact tending to prevent other people from settling among them on account of their not being able to o])tain a frecliold estate ; thirdly, from their religion, wliich consumed so much of their time : and fourthly, from the danger THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 101 to their whole system, which would arise from allowing laborers from other nations in sufficient numbers to become resident among them, without being naturalized and brought under the controlling influence of their laws and religion,. To overcome this difficulty, the celebrated law was introduced, now un- der consideration, authorizing them to obtain servants from the Gentiles. " Thy man ser- vant and thy woman servant shall be to thee from among the Gentiles. From them ye shall procure a man servant and a woman servant." The law has two faces to it, and removes two evils at once. First, it renders the employment of Gen- tiles lawful, and thereby supplying the de- mand for laborers, and increases the popula- tion. Secondly, it removed a temptation to which they would otherwise have been ex- posed, to oppress and degrade one another. Some in every community will be unfortunate or prodigal, and fall into decay, and become dependent. This is contemplated in the law, verses 35, 36, 39, 42. Owing to the want of laborers and domestics, resulting as above, the wealthy might have been tempted to keep the poor down, for the sake of being able to obtain their services ; but this the law pre- vents in two waj^s. First, it forbids it in so many v^^ords, and secondly, it opens another door through which servants can be lawfully obtained. Such servants were, by the very operation of that law, naturalized and became iinally incorporated with the Jewish nation, and pessesscd in common with them all iheir civil and religious privileges and blessings. 102 inE BIBLE NO RKFUGE FOR SLAVERY. Thus (lid this law, wliich lias been soterrildy perverted and abused to make it justify Amer- ican Slavery, supply tlic laud with labor, and at the same time naturalize the labor to the nation, and proselyte him to the faith and worsliip of the true God. But how were these servants obtained. Our translation says they were bought. If it were so, it would be clear that they volun- tarily sold themselves, and used the price as they saw fit for their own bcnelit. Of whom else could they be boug-ht, by men whose law provided that "he that stcaleth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his liand shall surely be put to death." Exo. xxi. IG. There is no law in all the book of God, by any provision of which, one man can get ano- ther into his possession to sell him in the market, without stealing. The law of the Jews i)unishcd the stealing and selling of men witli death, and would he V)uy such sto- len men? The right to buy involves tlie right to sell, on ihe part of liim of whom tlie pur- chase is made. There being no way l)y which a man can obtain possession of a man to sell him but by stealing him, they could have been bought of none but themselves. It is true tliey might buy captives out of the hands of the lieathen, but captives are stolen if licld and sold as slaves. They could tliereforc rightfully buy captives, only to free them, for as the captor has no title to captives, so he can sell none, and the buyer can buy none. If we understand by buying, merely engag- ing the services of men for a spccilied time for a valual.>lc consideration agreed upon be- TFIE BIBLE NO r.EFTGE FOR SLYVERY. 103 tweeii tlic parties, tlie subject is all plain. Then might the Gentiles sell themselves to the Jews, or parents might sell their children to the Jews, by which they apprenticed them to the Jewish state as prospective citizens, jand to the Jewish religion. I know not how Gentile parents could have done better by their children. It presented a brighter pros- pect than the sale of ciiildren does now in the human markets. But we have seen that the word buy in our sense of the term, is not in the text, that it Is procure. AVell, how were they procured ? A Jew shall testify. Dr. Roy, in sending me the translation above given, accompanied it with the following : " There is no word in the Bible for slave ; n ved is the only word to be found there ; iind means a hired man, servant, laborer, sol- dier, minister, magistrate, messenger, angel, prophet, priest, king, and Christ himself. Isa. lii. 13; but it never means a slave for life. For the law of the Sanhedrim forbids slavery. " 1. The contract was to be mutual and voluntary. " 2. It was conditional that tlie servant should within one year become a Proselyte to the JeY>dsh religion ; if not, he was to be discharged. " 4. If he became such, he was to be gov- 43rned ly the same law, to eat at the same ta- ble, sup out of the same dish, and eat the same Passover with his master. " 5. Finally, the law allowed him to marry his master's (kughter. Prov. xxix. 21. Yan- hee in Sanhedrim.." 10-1 THF. nilU.E NO REILGK ful{ SLAVERV. This confirnis the view I have given that the law presented a system of naturalization and of proselytism. The circumstances of the case were such as to call for such a pro- vision. In addition to Avhat has l)een said of the necessity of some source whence la- borers might I)e ol)tained, if we look at the condition of the Gentiles, we shall see that their circumstances pointed them out as that source, under proper regulations and restric- tions. They were generally inferior to the Jews in point of intelligence and civilization, and on the subject of religion, they were in the darkest midnight, while the Jews enjoyed the liglit of heaven. They were divided into petty kingdoms, and were hut little more than the servants o-f their kings, who wielded an arbitrary if not an absolute scep- ter over them. But moral advantages are above all other advantages, iind these were ibund only in the land of Israel ; over that land the wing of the Almighty was spread ; there the Angel of the Covenant watched behind the veil, and the divine presence glowed upon the mercy seat above the ark, and from tlmt land alone, the way shown clearly that leads to heaven. If David who had danced before the unvailed ark, could exclaim, "I had rather be a door keeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness, to bring a Gentile from the dai-kness of idolatry to the tent service of an Israelite, where God's own institutions shown u])on him must liave been a transition over which angels rejoiced. A positian which woidd liavo boon monial to a uativo TIIR BIBLE NO REFHIE FOP SLAVERY. 105 Jew, was honor, exultation and even salva- tion to a Gentile, coming from the land of shadows and death. To this must be added what Ave must sup- pose was the case, that numbers of heathen were attracted by the Great fame of the Jews, tha^ the report of what God had done for them, and of all the w^onders he had wrought, and how he dwelled in that land, spread even among the surrounding nations, and that many resorted there, even to better their condition as servants. But it would not have been safe to have left these matters to regulate themselves, or to the will of each individual contracting party without the restraints of law, and hence all the laws reg- ulating the subject of servitude. The Jews were authorized to take the heathen that might come to them, on condition that they became proselytes to their religion and then when they were fully inducted, they became citizens with all the rights of native Jews, and their children born in the land were regarded as native Jews. There can be no doubt many became proselytes by this system, which rendered the truth and altars of God accessible to the Gentiles even under the mosaic system. And this proselyting the Gentiles was but the first fruits of their future grand gathering in Christ Jesus. And that Gentile blood was introduced into Jewish veins is evident ; for David the brightest lamp of the nation, descended on the side of his mother, from a ]\toabitess women, who became a proselyte to the Jewish reliirion. SECTION III THE NEW TE3TAMEMT NO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. It remains to be proved that slavery finds no sanction ia the New Testament, and the argument will be finished. It is a strange position which affirms that He who came to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison-doors to them that are bound, and who gave himself a ransom for all, made provision in his system of govern- ment for leaving one portion of his people the absolute property and slaves of others, from the dark hour of life's opening sorrows, until they find a refuge in the arms of death and in the darker sleep of the grave I But as strange as this position is,it is attempted to be maintained, and needs to be met and refu- ted. Let it be understood, the present argument is not to be based upon those scriptures which are supposed to condemn slavery ; those have been urged in direct arguments previously advanced. The only point that remains to be examined is, does the New Testament teach in any text or texts, in the use of any words or form of speech, that slavery is or can be right ? As slavery is a positive in- stitution, an arbitrary and unnatural condi- tion, sustained bv force on one hand, and in- 108 THK blUl.i: NO RF.FUGF, KOU S1,A\ FlU'. voluntary submission on the other, it is not a sufficient justification to say that Clirist or his apostles did not condemn it, were that true ; it must be proved that they authorized it. We may demand of tlie slave holder, who appropriates his feUow-beings to his own use as chattels, " by what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this author- ity ?'' In reply to this they point us to cer- tain texts, and words, and forms of speech -svhich were used by Christ and his apostles, and tell us that they justify slavery. We will now examine tliem. It is well known that tlic words slave, slaveholder, and slavery, are not found in our English translation of the New Testament ; and if the thing is found at all, it must be in the original Greek, and not in the translation. The word slave occurs once in tlie English translation. Rev. xviii. 13 : " Slaves and souls of men." Here the word rendered slaves, is soma which literally signifies bodies, and should have been translated *' bodies and souls of men." CONSIDERATION OF Tlir: SHVEIIAT. TERMS USED. In the Greek language, there are three words which may mean a slave, andrapodon, argurojictos, and doulos. The iirst of these, andrapodon is derived from ancer, a man, and pons, the foot, and signifies a slave and nothing but a slave. If this word had been used, it would have been decisive, for it has no other signification Init a slave ; ])ut this woi'd is found nowluM-c in thoNow Tosfnment. THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FoR SLAVERY. lO'J The second word, arguronetos, is derived from arguros, silver, aud oneomai to buy, and lience it signifies to buy with silver ; or a slave, doubtless, from the fact that slaves were bought with silver. This word is nowhere found in the New Testament. The third word, is doulos. This word oc- curs more than a hundred and twenty times in the New Testament, and may mean a slave, or a free person, who voluntaril}^ serves another, or a public officer, representing the public or civil authority. As the word oc- curs so frequently, it will be necessary to notice only a few instances in which it is used in its several senses. If the word prop- erly mean sbve, it would be true to the orig- inal to translate it slave, where it occurs. I will first give a few instances in which it cannot mean slave. " On my servants, [dou- los] and on my hand-maidens [doulee] I v^^ili pour out in those days, of my spirit." Acts, ii. 18. Here the Avord is used to denote christian men and women in general as the servants of God. It would read very strange to trans- late it slave ; upon my me^i slaves, and upon my female slaves will I pour out in those days of my spirit. " And now Lord, behold their threaten- ings : and grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy word." Acts iv. 29. Here the word is used to denote the apostles or preachers. It would be no improvement to translate it, grant unto thy slaves, . " Lord, [Dc. and signifies " a child, mail or female, and of any age from infancy to man- hood, a son or daughter, a boy, youth, girl, maiden." A few examples whill show this. ]\ratt. ii. IG. '-Herod sent forth and slew all the children.''^ Here the same word is translated children. Matt. xvii. 18. " And the child was cured from that very hour." Here the same word is rendered child. Matt. xxi. 15. " The children crying in the market." Here the same word is translated children. Luke ii. 43. " The child Jesus tarried behind." It will not be pretended that the words In- sous ho puis, " the child Jesus," denotes a slave, and yet the word here rendered child, is the same*^ that ^s rendered servant where the centnrian said " my servant lieth at home sick." It was probably the centurian's child that was sick ; at least it would have been just as faithful a translation to have so ren- dered it. " AVho then is a faithful nnd wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his house- hold, to give them meat in due season ? Ijlcssed is that servant whom the Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods. ]5ut, and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming : and shall begin to smite his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken : the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he lookcth not for him, and in THK BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 115 an hour that he is not awaro of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the lijpocritcs : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. xxiv. 45-51. This is as'strong a text in support of the idea of slavery as any thing found in the teachings of our Lord. I will then examine it as a decisive text by which the question may be settled. 1. Here the word rendered servant is doidos, which does not of itself p'-ove the ex- istence of slavery. This has already been proved. If then the text proves the exis- tence of slavery it must bo from some other circumstances. 2. If there is any slavery in the case, the ruling servant was a slave in common with the rest, for he is represented as smiting his fellow servants. This furnishes strong pre- sumptive proof that none were slaves. It is unknown to the history of slavery for a chat- tel slave to be left in sole charge of such an immense estate as is involved in this illustra- tion of our Lord. The management of a plantation or an estate of slaves is never left to one of the slaves, during the long and uncertain absence of the proprietor, as must have been the case if our Lord lx)rrowed his illustration from slavery. 3. The smiting his fellow servants is no proof that they were slaves. It was a wrong- ful smiting, a wicked smiting, and cannot prove that either party were slaves. A hired overseer would be just as likely to smite hired laborers, as a slave overseer would be to smite slave laborers, there being nothing llCi THE niRI.E NO RFKLfiE FOIi SI.AVF.RV. to justify the smiting. ^Moreover tlie sinitin<^ in this cat-e is associated Avitli druiikoiniess, and lieiicc, it is clearly just that kind of as- sault and battery which a drunken overseer Avould commit upon those who might be un- der his direction. 4. The punishment inflicted upon the un- faithful servant proves that he was not a slave. It is clear that he was executed, or cut off, which is in perfect harmony with the customs that prevailed among eastern petty tyrants. But as a general rule, men would not treat an unfaithful slave in such a man- ner, but would rather sell him upon some cotton or sugar plantation, or send him into the chained gang. 5. If it were admitted tjiat the lord was a slaveholder, and that the servants were slaves, it would be no justification of slavery. It is only an illustration, and does not prove the rightfulness of the facts and circumstan- ces from which it is borrowed. If the fact that our Lord used the conduct of masters and slaves to illustrate his truths, proves that slavery is riglit, much more mast the cited fact that tlie master cut his slave asun- der prove that it is right for slaveholders to cut tlown their slaves, when they disobey them, or when they do wrong. The two strong points in the parable are first, the ser- vant was unfaithful and violated his charge ; and secondly his Lord or master, severely punished him for it. Allow this to have transpired bctwe n a slave owner and a slave and if its use by our Lord, to illustrate the wicked conduct of sinners and the })uni>h- THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. lit ment whicli God will inflict, proves that slavery was right, it must prove with equal certainty that the punishment inflicted by the master was right. That was capital punish- ment ; he cut him asunder. The truth is, the use our Lord makes of the facts is^ no en- dorsement of the slavery or of the partic- ular conduct of the master, upon the suppo- sition that there is any slavery in the case. Christ often employed facts and translations to illustrate the truth, without endorsing such facts and illustrations. A few examples will show this. The parable of the vine- yard recorded Matt. xxi. 33-41, is of this class. It does not endorse the act of the proprietor in destroying the husband-men. The parable of the marriage supper record- ed, Matt. xxii. 1-14, is of the same class. It does not prove the rightfulness even of making such a feast, much less does it justify the conduct of the king in dealing so severe- ly with the man who had not on a wedding garment. That man was merely guilty of an impropriety, which could not justify such severe punishment ; but our Saviour could use the fact to illustrate a righteous adminis- tration without endorsing it. The case of the unjust steward, recorded Luke xvi. 1-9, is entirely conclusive on this point. It can- not be presumed that Christ intended to en- dorse the conduct of that stewsa:d as moral- ly right. Enough has been said, not only to show that the text with which I started contains no justification of slavery, but -also to show that no other like text found among our Sa- lis THE mBLE KG REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. viour's parables and illustrations can be tor- tured into a support of chattel bondage. We may tliercforc leave the gospels and turn to the epistles and see if slavery can be found ill ilicm. PAUL TO THE CORTNTIIIANS DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. "Let every man aljide in the same calling wherein ho 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, hcing 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 serv- ants of men. Brethren, let every man where- in he is calleil, therein abide with God." Cor. vii. 20-22. This text may refer to slavery, the persons here called servants, doulos, may have been slaves. It is not certain that they were slaves because4hey are called doulos, for this terra is often applied to free persons who are merely in the employ of another. The fact is admitted that slavery did exist in that country, and that the word doulos might be a])plicd to a slave, just as our word servant, is used to denote any one who serves, wheth- er voluntary or involuntary, free or bond. This is all the concession candor requires me to make, and in this lies all the proof there is that slavery is involved in the case. The text upon its face contains several things THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 119 which are unfavorable to the idea that the persons treated of were chattel slaves. I urge two grounds of defense against any conclusion drawn from the text, that slavery is or can be right. I. It is not clear that the persons were slaves, to whom the apostle wrote. This is a vital point and must be positively proved ; inference or mere probability will not do in such a case. Here is a great system of hu- man bondage, sought to be justified, and of course, no text can be admitted as proving it riglit, unless it be certain that it relates to the subject. Now, where is the proof that this text certainly speaks of slaves. 1. The use of the word, doulos^ does not prove it, for that is applied to Jesus Christ, Paul and Peter, to all christians, and to free persons who are in the employ of others, whether as public officers or mere laborers. 2. The general instruction given does not prove that the persons addressed were slaves. The general instruction is for all to abide in the same calling ihey were in when convert- ed. The same principle is applied specifical- ly to husbands and wives, as well as to serv- ants. The general instruction therefore does not prove that slaves are meant. 3. The specific application of this instruc- tion to servants by name, does not prove that they were slaves. It might be necessary to give such instruction to free or hired ser- vants. The gospel was making inroads upon a heathen community, and it may be presumed that the greatest portion of the converts 120 TIIH r.lBLE NO KEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. wore among tlic lower classes and servants. If these servants were all to forsake their positions and the employ of all unconverted employers, so soon as they were converted, it would not only produce confusion and much inconvenience, but bring Christianity into discredit and provoke persecution. It would not only deprive nmny families of the rcquisit number of laborers, but would tlirow an equal number of laljorers out of employ. 4. The exception which the apostle makesto the specific application of his general rule to servants, does not prove that they were slaves. The exce])tion is this, " But if thou mayest he made free, use it rather." This is doubt less the strongest point in support of slavery contained in the text, for those who mustiind slavery in it somehow, will at once say that it supposes that they might not be able to be free, in which case they must be slaves. This is plausible, but it is not a necessary conclusion, and therefore cannot be allowed as establishing the rightfulness of slavery. It may refer to contracts and relations vol- untarily entered into for a limited term of years, and for a price stipulated. Such 'ca- ses exist in every community, and where a considerable portion of an entirely heathen community, should suddenly embrace Chris- tianity, some of the converts would be found sustaining these relations, and involved in those obligations to heathen parties entirely unfriendly to the s])iritual interest of such converts. Now, thougli it would not be ]n*oper to violently rupture all such contracts on tlic conversion of one of the parties, THE BIBLE NO RBFUGR FOB SLAVIRY. 121 though it would be a good general rule for every man to abide in his calling or occupa- tion, yet where a release could be peaceably obtained in any such case, it would be best to improve it. This is all that the text ne- cessarily means, and this is rendered the more probable sense, from the fact that, if they were really slaves, and their state of slavery regarded as right in the light of the gospel, the probability of obtaining a release would hardly be great enough to constitute the bas- sis of a special apostolic rule. Indeed, the exposition is more consistent with the whole scope of the apostle's reasoning than any exposition that can be based upon the assump- tion that chattel slavery was the thing with which the apostle was dealing. II. Allowing that the text does treat of slaves, that the person named as " called be- ing a servant," was a personal chattel, it does not prove slavery to be right, or throw over it any sanction, not even by implication. — Th« former exposition is doubtless the right one, upon the supposition that the persons were not slaves, but upon the supposition that they were slaves, that exposition is set aside, and one entirely different must be resorted to. No such exposition can be adopted as will make tlie text approve of slavery. 1. The direction, " let every man abide in the same calling wherein he is called," does not teach the duty of a voluntary submission to slavery, upon the supposition that the di- rection was given to slaves ; and unless it teaches the duty of voluntary submission to slavery, it does not and cannot prove slavery 6 122 THE BIBLK NO HErUGK fOK SLAVERY. to be right. The words, " If thou mayest be free, use it rather," arc just as positive and binding as the words, " let every man abide in the same calling," and allowing the words to be addressed to slaves, they com- mand every christian convert, who is a* slave, to obtain his freedom if he can ; it leaves him no right to consent to be a slave, if he may be free ; if he has power to be free. The word here translated mayest is dunamai and is translated in this case by too soft a term to do justice to the original in this connec- tion. It is used to express a thing possible or impossible .in the most absolute sense. — It occurs in about two hundred and ten texts and is uniformly translated can and with a negative particle canwoi, able and not able, and in very few cases, not over five in all, it is rendered may ; once it is rendered might, and in only one case besides the text, is ren- dered mayest. That is Luke xvi. 2. " Thou mayest be no longer steward.'' Here a stron- ger word would do better justice to the sense. The word occurs in such texls as the follow- ing : " God is abk of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matt. iii. 9. " A city that is set on a l\ill cauvioi he hid." V. 14. Thovi canst not make one hair wliiteor black." m. " No man can serve two masters." vi. 24. " But are not able to kill the soul." x. 28. " From which ye cmdd not be justified by the law of Moses." Acts xiii. 39. " They that are in the flesh canwoi please God." Horn. viii. S. THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 123 " To liim that is of power to establish you." xvi. 25. The word is supposed to be derived fron deinos, powerful, and hence in the expression " If thou mayest be free, the sense is, if thou hast power to be free, if thou hast strength to be free, if thou art able to be free, if thou canst be free, " use it rather," There can be no doubt of this position, that the text leaves those concerned no choice between slavery and liberty ; if it refers to slaves, it requires them to take and use their liberty if they can get it, leaving no right to remain in^the condition of slaves any longer than up to the time they can be free. This is very important in two points of light. 1. It is a most clearly implied condemna- tion of slaverya s unfriendly to the develope- ment of Christianity in the heart and life. — This of itself proves that the text does not and cannot justify slavery. 2. This positive command requiring the slave to take and use his liberty, whenever he can get it, necessacrily-qualifies and limits what is said of abiding in the condition wherein they were called. '* Let every man abide in the same calling where he was called. Art thou called, being a servant ? Care not for it, but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." The sense must be that the slave was to abide in slavery as a Christian, until he could be made free, rather than to give up his Christianitv on the ground that a slave must first be made free before he could be a Christian. The obliga^on was to be a Christian while he was compelled to remain a slave, rather than to remain a slave one 124 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. hour after he could be free. To abide in the Fame calling wherein he was called, means that he should remain a christian in that con- dition, until he can get out of it rather than waiting until ho can get out of it before he undertakes to be a christian. The fact that the slave is commanded to use his freedom if he can be made free, forbids any other con- struction than that which 1 have put upon the words. The command to use his liberty if he can be made free, limits the command to abide as he was called, to the sense of submitting to slavery as an unavoidable evil, imtil he can get out of it in a manner con- sistent with the laws of Christianity. This is all the obligation that is imposed upon the slave, and this is not the slightest justi- fication of slavery, for there is not a christian anti-slavery man in the country, even the most ultra, who would not now give the same advice to all slaves in the land, could they speak in their ears. Advice or a command to submit to a wrong w^hich we have not pow- er to prevent, is no justification of that wrong. "But I say unto you that ye resist not evil," is no justification of evil. The fact that "charity beareih all things," and " endureth all things," does not ])rovc that all things thus borne and endured are right. So no command, were it ever so plain, to submit, ev- er so quietly to slavery, as a condition from which we have no ])ower to escape, could be a justification of slavery. it strikes me tliat we are compelled to tliis explanation of the text, to save the a])0stle from confusion and self contradiction, if we admit that he was really treating of chatHi THE BIBLE NO REFUGB FOR SLAVERY. 125 slavery. We cannot suppose that tlie apos- tle uses the same word in two or more differ- ent senses in the same most intimate connec- tion, without giving any intimation of the fact ; if therefore v,^e render the word doulos, slave, instead of servant, we must preserve this rendering through the whole connection. In that case the text will read thus : " Let every m.an abide in the same calling where he was called. Art thou called being a ^/aue care not for it : but if thou mayest be made free use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord being a slave is the Lord's freeman : likewise, he also that is called being free is Christ's slave. Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye the slaves of men." This makes the apostle assert that a con- verted slave is a slave of man, and God's free man at the same time. This is impossi- ble, for if the obligations of slavery are mor- ally binding on the slave, he cannot be free to serve God ; but if the slavery be an entire unmingled moral wrong, imposing no moral obligation on the slave, but only a physical restraint, then can the slave be God's free man, just as clearly as he whose feet and hands should be paralized, could still be God's free man, his head and heart being still sound. Again, the assumption that the apostle is treating of chattel slavery, as the text is above rendered, makes him assert that the converted slave is God's free man, and that the converted free man is God's slave. If by servitude a voluntary state is meant, in which case there is no chattel slavery ; or if chat- tel slavery be understood, as a human crime, 12G Tlib KIBLC NO RF.FLCJlu FOll fcLAVEKV. inflicted upon Ihcm by force, imposing no moral obliiration, then the wliolc is consist- ent. Finally, the idea that chattel slavery is in- volved, and {hat slaves are under moral ob- ligation to submit to it, as per (orresponding- moral right on the part of the slaveholder lo hold them as slaves, makes the apostle com- mand them to abide in slavery and not to a- bide in it ; to be s'aves and not to be at the same time. The sense must run thus, — "Let every man abide in the same calling \vherein he is called," that is, if a man is called being a slave, let him remain a slave ; but as " ye are bought with a price, be not ye the sicwcs of men." A more direct and palpable con- tradiction could not be perpetrated. But allow that there is no justitication of slavery, tliat slaves are only directed to submit to it and bear it as a jdiysical necessity which they have no power to escape, and the whole is plain and consistent, then may they be re- quired to abide in it and endure all its wrongs as Christians, until providence shall open a ■svay for them to escape from it. Ihave bestowed full attention to the above text, because it is believed to be one of the stroagest in sup})ort of slavery, and because it is the MrsL of the class with which 1 have undertaken to graj)ple. In disposing of it, 1 have settled some ])rinciples, which can be ap])lied in the consideration of other texts, without having to be again discussed l,at length. THE BIBLE ^'0 KLFUGE -FOR SLAVERY. 121 r AUL TO THE EFHESIANS HAS NOT SANCTIONED SLAVERY. "Serva,nts,be obedient to them that are your masters, according to th^ flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with .eye-service, as men-plea- ■sers.; but as the servaiits 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 tiny man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, je masters, 4o the same things unto them, forbearing thr^at<3ning : knowing that your Master also is in heaven ; neither is there re- spect of persons with him". Eph. vi. 5-9. This is another of the strongest texts urg- -ed by the advocates of slavery, in support of the terrible institution. On the examination of each of these texts, two principle questions, are necessarily raised, viz : first, does the 'text ti^eat ef slaves, slaveholders and slave- ry? and secondly, if so, does it sanction slavery as morally right ? Unless both these questions are clearly and undeniably answer- •ed in the affirmative, the argument for slave- ry must fall. We say then of this text : I. It is not certain that the persons hei^ 'Called servants, were chattel slaves ; and that the persons called masters, were slavehol- ders. 1. It does not follow that slaves and slave- l3oldei'S arc ircatcd of from the terms employ- 128 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. cd. The word here translated servants is douloi, the plural of doulos. That this word of itself does not prove that chattel slaves arc meant, has been already sufficiently shown. The word masters is kurio'i, the plural of kurios. It has been suflBciently shown that this word does not necessarily mean a slave- holder. I will however add two examples of its use. "The same Lord, (Kurios,) over all is rich unto all that call upon him." Rom. x. 12. Here the word is used to denote the Supreme Ruler of all men.*-^ "Sirs, {Kurioi, plural of Kurws) what must I do to be saved." Here the word is used as a mere title or sign of respect, and can mean no more than our English words. Sirs, Gen- tlemen, or Mister. The use of the word therefore, cannot prove that slaveholders arc intended. 2. The duties enjoined upon these servants, does not prove that they were slaves. J Not a word is said which will not apply as appro- priately to free hired laborers as to slaves. (1.) The command to obey them that were their masters, does not prove the existence of chattel slavery. This must follow from two considerations. First, their obedience was limited to what was morally right. This is clear from the fact that their obedience was to be rendered "as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." This limits obedience to the will of God, and makes the actor the judge of what that will is, which is inconsistent with chattel slavery. Secondly, with this limitation, obedience is . ' fHE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOK SLAVERY. 129 due to all employers, and all free persons who engage in the service of others, are bound to obey them, and carry cut all their orders, ac- cording to the usages of the community, with<^ in the limits of the will of God, or what is morally right. Such a direction, to a com- munity, newly converted from heathenism, and still intermingled with the unconverted heathen, must have been necessary, and itg observance essential to the reputation and fu- ture success of the gospel among them. It is clear then that the simple command that ser= vants obey does not prove that they were slaves. (2.) The qualifying words added to the word masters, "according to the flesh," do not prove the existence of the relation of owner and slave. TheGreek v^OTd,sarks, here render- ed flesh, literally signifies the human body in contradistinction from the spirit or mind. Matthew Henry construes it thus : "Who have the command of your bodies, but not of your souls : God above has dominion over these." Dr. A. Clark thus : "Your masters in secu- lar things ; for they have no authority over your religion nor over your souls." Rev. A. Barnes, thus : "This is designed, evidently to limit the obligation. The mean- ing is, that they had control over the body, the flesh. They had the power to command the service which the body could render ; but they were not lords of the spirit. The soul acknowledges God as its Lord, and to the Lord they were to submit in a higher sense than to their masters." Allow either of these expositions, and there can be no slavery madd out of the text. If there be a limit to tlic slave's obedience, and if the slave is judge of tliat limit, as Tic must be, for the language is addressed to him, to govern his conduct, then there is an end to slavery. But if we under- stand free men imdcr contract to serve others^ it is all plain. The limitation, "according to the flesh," must mean, obey them in secular matters only, and so far only as does not con- flict with the spiritual or moral claims of Christianity. It left them no right to serve or to agree to serve beyond what was consis- tent Avith tlieir obligations and duties as Christians. (3.) The manner[of rendering the obedience required does not prove the existence of chat- tel slavery. The manner was "with fear and trembling." The words, phobou kai trojnou, fear and trembling, are capable of a great latitude of meaning, from absolute terror to a religious veneration, or the respect due to any superi- or. The same expression occurs in two other texts. The first is 2 Cor. vii. 15, where Paul says of Titus, "with fear and trembling, phobou kaitromou, ye received him." The other text is Phih ii. 12. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, phobou kai ti'omou." In this text fear and trem- bling means deep solicitude or npprchcnsion. The Greek word phobou, which is the geni- tive singular oi^phohos, is defined tluis : "Fear, dread, terror, fright, apprehension, alarm, flight, rought.'' If it be understood in its mildest sense, us fear in the sense of anxiety, \tE BIBLE NO IlEFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 131 roverence or respect, or apprehension, in the sense of uneasiness of mind, lest by failing to obey, they should injure the reputation of the gospel, it is all pe-rfectly consistent with the position and duties offree hired servants. Ajid this is all that the word necessarily means. The same word is used to express the respect which wives are required to mani- fest towards their husbands. "Wivos be in subjection to your own husbands ; that if any obey not the w^ord, they also in ay with- out the word be won by the conversation of ^iie wives ; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with /ear." 1 Petet iii. 1, 2. Here the same word is used in the original translated fear. If the words, pho- hou kai traniou be understood in any higher sense, whi w^hat has been said.. PAUL TO TIMOTHY DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. " Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have be- lieving masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ; but rather do' them service, because they are faithful and beloved,partakersof the benefit. ''1 Tim.vi. 1,2, This text has been supf)0sed by some, the most difficult one in the New Testament, for an anti-slavery expositor to dispose of. Jf^ however, the reader will keep his mind on ihfr real issue, the text will furuish no very hard task. The question is, does the text prove American slavery to be righ't ? I am not bound, in this issue, to prove that slavery is wrong; the advocate of slavery is bound to- prove that this text justifies slavery, that it contains principles which are not only appli- cable to American slavery, but which, when applied, prove it to be right. 1 am bound, in a iair reply, to prove no more than that it con- tains no such justification ol slavery. That will not be a hard task. But I will be gener- ous and do more than the i.ssue demands of me. I. It is not suflicicntlv certain that the THE BIBLE Xo REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 157 text treats of slaves and slaveholders, so as to render it a conclusive argument in support of the rightful existence of slavery. The whole ground has been gone over in the exam- ination of other texts, with the exception of two additional points, which this text presents, viz. that some servants were under the yoke, and some had believing masters. If slavery is not found in one or the other of these points, it is not found in the text, all other points having been already examined. The first question then is, does, being un- der the.yoke, imply slavery. It certainly is not sufficiently clear that the yoke implies slavery to justify a reliance upon it to prove the fact that slavery existed. 1. The Greek word zugon, here rendered yoke, does not mean slavery. It literally means the yoke by which oxen, horses and mules are coupled together for draught. Hence it means anything, that joins tw^o things together. It may be used in a metaphorical sense. The use of a v/ord in a metaphorical sense, cannot determine what the thing is to which it is applied, since the known character of the thing to which it is applied, alone can determine in what metaphorical sense the word is used. If it were first proved that the servants were slaves, it would follow that yoke, as applied to them, means slavery, but that is so far from being the case, that the ap- plication of the word yoke to them, is relied upon to pro\e that they were slaves, and the whole argument must fall. It is reduced to a circle, thus : They were slaves because they were under the voke, which meanF^ slavery. 158 THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. '^ The term yoke means slavery, as applied to them, because tliey were slaves, Such argu- ments prove nothing. 2. There is no other instance in the New Testament, in which the word is used to de- note anything like slavery. It is used in only six instances. In one, Rev. vi., 5, it is used with strict reference to its literal sense. It is here translated a " pair of balances, " be- cause the two parts are fastened tot^ether by the beam. In every other case it is used met- aphorically. Christ uses it twice, iMatt. xi. 29, 30, '' Take my yoke upon you.» "My yoke is easy." Here it means the moral ( obligations of the gospel. As though he had , said, take the profession and duties of my re- •• ligion upon you. There is no slavery in this, though there are obligations which bind them i, to Christ. The same word is found Acts xv. V 10, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples." Here it means ; the obligations of the Mosaic law, not slavery. The other text is Gal. v., 1, "Stand last t therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled agai i with the yoke of bondage." Her^ the yoke of bondage is the obligations of the Mosaic law. Yoke means obligation, and bondage means service. U would be just as good a translation to render it, "be not entangled again with the obligation of service." k Apply these facts to the text under consi- deration, and there will be no slaveiy in it. "As many servants as are under the yoke," understand obligation, by yoke, for it means any thing that hinds or couples to- THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 159 gether, and it will be plain. " Let as many servants as are under obligation." But the Greek word, hosos, rendered " as many as"— for these three words in the Eng- lish text come from the one in Greek — is not translated in its only admissible sense. Dr. McKnight renders it whatever. " Whatever servants." It often has this sense, but this does not exhaust its meaning. The fol- lowing are the principal senses in which the word is used : Of size, 'as great as ;" of quan- tity, ''as much as ;" of space or distance, "as far as ;" of time, "as long as;" of number, "as manv as ;" of sound, "as loud as.'^ It is used of time in six texts in the New Testament, Matt. ix. 15: "Can the children of the bride- chamber mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them." Mark ii. 19. ''As long as they have the bridecrroom with them they cannot fast." Eom. vii. 1. "The law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth." 1 Cor. vii. 39. " The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth." Gal. iv. i."The heir, a^/o?i^a5 he is achild, differeth nothing from a servant." 2 Peter, i. 13. " I think it meet, as long as lam in this tabernacle, to stir you up." Give the word ihe same sense m the text under consideration, and it will read, "As long as servants are under obligation let them count their own masters worthy of all honor." There is certainly but little slavery in the text in this form, and it is perfectly clear that there would never have been any in it, had not the translators and readers first originated IGU THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FoR SLAVERY, slavery in their own minds, to make zugon mean the yoke, tliat is, the bondage of chattel slavery- If then there is no slavery in the yoke, or in being under the yoke was there any in the fact that some had believing masters? Sure- ly not, for if the unbelieving masters were not chattel slaveholders, it cannot be pretend- ed that the believing masters were. If the servants of the unbelieving blaspheming mas- ters were not slaves, it cannot be supposed that the servants of the believing masters were. II. If the above argument be all thrown aside, and it be admitted that the servants un- der the yoke were chattel slaves, it will not follow that slavery is right. There is no jus- tification of slavery in the text, upon the sup- position that slavery is the thing treated of. Let it be borne in mind that I must not now reason upon the principles of my exposition of the text given above, that is based upon the assumption that there was no slavery in the case. In admiftirg that slavery existed, and that Paul treated of it, for the sake of the argument, I must set that exposition aside and iall back upon the pro-slavery glass. Where then, I demand, is the proof that slav- ery is right, that Paul sanctioned it ? 1. It is not found in the fact that Paul com- manded the servants under the yoke to ''count their own masters worthy of all honor. '^ The only reason assigned for the command, is "that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." 'J'here is no intimation that the mnsters had a rightful claim upon THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 161 them, but they were wicked men, who, if their christian servants did not render to them obedience and respect, would blaspheme the nameof the Christian's God and oppose Chris- tianity. But why did not Paul command these v^ncked masters to emancipate their slaves, if he condemned, or did not mean to sanction slavery ? The answer is plain. (1.) He was not writing to them, but to Timothv concerning the church. (2.) He had no power or influence over these wicked heathen masters to command them. (3.) Such a command, concerning them, would have produced the very thing his di- rection concerning servants was designed to prevent. It would have been an occasion of their blaspheming the name of God and his doctrine. Such a command, issued by Paul to Timothy, concerning these wicked blas- pheming masters, might have led to the des- truction of the infant church in that place. It was better therefore not to meet the question by a specific rule, only so far as to instruct servants so to conduct themselves towards their masters, as to provoke their wrath and opposition as little as possible, and leave the matter lo the action of the gospel which would abolish slavery as fast as men were brought under its influence. 2. No sanction of slavery is found in the directions given to those servants who had believing nVasters. This verse comes far short of expressing the full sense of the original. The present form of the text appears to inti- mate that servants were in danger of despis- 102 TUR BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. ing tlieir masters because they were brelhi-en, whereas llie fact that ihey were brethren in no sense (ended to produce such a result, but is a good reason for not despising them, and is so designed by the apostle. Tiiis will be made plain by rendering the Greek word, hotiy for ; which is now rendered because. " Let them not despise i\\Q\w for they are brethren.'' It is so translated in more than two hundred and twenty-five texts. The word partakers, does not begin to ex- press the force of the Greek word, antilamba- 7iojnenoi, from which it is translated. This word is compounded of anti^ in turn, lambano, to take, or receive, and hence the compound word as used by the aposlle, means partakers in turn. Dr. Clarke renders it '"joint partak- ers," but his rendering is not as strictly in ac- cordance with the original as mine. The word translated benifit is euergesias, which literally means well doing, ^ood con- duct. It occurs in but one other text, Acts iv. y, where it is translated, "good deed done." Now let me read the verse according to these renderings. "And they that have believing masters let them not despise them, for they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers in turn of the well doing." This clearly makes the last clause lefer to the servants, as faiihful and beloved partakers in turn of the benefit of their own labor ; that is, they were paid for their service. This re- moves all tiie difiiculty that critics have met with in this part of the text. Dr. McKnight THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 163 affirms that benefit, cannot refertogospel ben- efit or salvation, and Dr. Clarke agrees with him, but intimates that it may refer to the benefits the servants receive from their mas- ters, but has failed to explain how. Rev. A. Barns denies that it can refer to the fact that the master receives the benefit of the servants labor, because that can be no special motive to the servant to serve faithfully, the force of which all must feel. He therefore construes it to mean the benefit which the gospel im- parts ; the very thing which Drs. McKnight and Clarke deny. The advantage of my translation is, it escapes both these difficul- ties, besides being more in accordance with the sense of the original, making the true sense to run thus : Let them not despise them, but rather let them do them service, because they, the servants, are faithful and beloved, partakers in turn of the well doing, by receiv- ing a fair compensation for their labor. I have no doubt this is what Paul meant, and surely it is entirely free from any direct or implied sanction of chattel slavery. I have now shown, first, that it is very far from being clear that there is real slavery in- volved in any part of the text ; and secondly, that if those servants who are said to be un- der the yoke, were slaves, that slavery exist- ed outside of the church, and those servants who served believing masters,were not slaves, but served voluntarily for wages received. 164 THE BIBLE SO RIFUGE FOR SLAVERY. PAUL TO PHILEMON DOES xN'OT JUSTIFYSLAYERY. This epistle of Paul to Philemon has been claimed as one of the strongest proofs of the existence of slavery in the primitive churches under apostolic sanction. As it is both brief and important I will first spread upon my page that portion which is supposed to relate to slavery, and then proceed to examine it. Paul was a prisoner in Rome, and Philemon is suppoeed to have been an inhabitant of Co- losse. Paul wrote him a letter by a person named Onesimus, in which the following w^ords occurred concerning the bearer: I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have uegotten in my bonds ; which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profit- able to thee and to me; whom I have sent again r'thou therefore receive him, that is my own bowels ; whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have min- istered unto me in the bonds of the gospel ; but without thy mind would 1 do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever ; not now as a servant, but above a ser- vant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much m(^re unio thee, both in the fiesh, and in the Lord ? If thou count me there- fore a partner, receive him as myself, If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account : I Paul have written it with my own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto mo THE B1BL£ NO REt^UGE FOR SLAVERY. 166 even thine own self besides. Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord : refresh my bowels in the Lord. Having confidence in thy obedience I wrote unto thee, knowing that thou wilt also do more than I say.'' It is assured from the above record that Philemon was a slaveholder, and that Onesi- mus was his slave, and that the slave, having run away from his master, St. Paul sent him back to the house of bondage from which h3 had escaped. It is certainly remarkable on what slight evidence such grave conclusions are made to rest. There is no certain proof that there w^as any chattel slavery in the case, but undeni- able and unanswerable proof that Onesimus was not a slave. L The evidence relied upon to prove the main facts in support of slavery is wholly in- sufficient. The points involved shall be no- ticed in order. 1. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon. That he was a servant is implied, not affirm- ed. It is said, "that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now as a servant {doulon) but above a servant, a brother beloved." It is freely admitted that these v/ords imply that Onesimus had been a servant, but this is no proof that he was or had ever been a slave. It has been proved in a preceeding argument that the word here used, doulos, does not ne- cessarily mean a slave but is used to denote free hired laborers, ministers and public offi- cers. The reader is referred to the inquiry into the meaning of this word on page 109. Onesimus may then have been a free man in 166 THE BIBLE NO KflFLGE FOK SLAVi^RV. the employ of Philemon, or he may have been bound to him, as a minor by his parents or guardians, or he may have bound himself to serve for a time, and have taken up his wages in advance, and then run away. Any of these suppositions are much more reasonable than to suppose he was a slave. The fact that he IS called a servant, doulos, does not and can- not prove that he was a slave, for Paul de- clares himself to be the servant of Christ, and also the servant of the church. 2. Onesimus run away from Philemon, or left his employ improperly and without his consent. This is not affirmed, but is too clearly implied to be denied. But this does not furnish the slightest proof that he was a slave, for slaves aie not the only persons that run away. It is not uncommon for indebted apprentices, and free persons laboring under contracts to depart indebted to the master or employer. Such most clearly appears to have been the case of Onesimus. That he went of in Philemon's debt is more than probable, from the expression of St. Paul, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, put that to mine account." The wrorging spoken of must have been of a property naturel, or it could not have been changed even to Paul. A crime or moral wrong could not be changed over to Paul. It is certain therefore that Onesimus must have bor- rowed money of Philemon, in which case he would have owed him , or he must have taken up his wages, or received his pay in advance on a contract for service whicli he left without Jhe bible no refuge for slavery. 167 performing, in which case he would have wronged him, besides owing him. The whole face of the epistle goes much further to prove such a departure from pecuniary obligations, than from chattel bondage. 3. Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, which is regarded by the advocates of slave- ry as proof positive, not only that he was a slave, but that it is right and a solemn duty to return all fugitive slaves to their masters. This is all an unfounded assumption. There is no proof that Paul sent him back, in the only sense in which a fugitive slave can be sent back to his master. One great fact set- tles this point, which is this, however clearly it may be seen that Paul sent him back, it is equally clear that Onesimus went voluntarily, of his own free will and accord. This clear- ly proves that there could have been no coer- cive servitude in the case. Though it must appear obvious upon the face of the facts, that Onesimus returned voluntarily, it may be well to glance at the proof. (1.) The expression, " whom I have sent again," is not conclusive proof of an authori- tative and coercive sending. 1 will save the labor of a criticism, by quoting from the Rev. A. Barns. That able writer says, ''It is com- monly assumed that his returning again was at the instigation of the apostle, and that this furnishes an instance of. his belief that run- away slaves should be sent back to their mas- ters. But, besides that their is no certain evidence that he ever was a slave, there is as little proof that he returned at the instigation of Paul, or that his return was not wholly vol- 68 THE BIBLE SO UfiFUGfi FOR SLAVfiRV. untaiy on his part. For the only expression which the' apostle uses on this subject (ver. 12), whom 1 have sent again — anapempa — does not necessarily imply that he even pro^ posp.d it to him, still less that \\q commanded it. It is a word of such general import, that it would be employed on the supposition that Onesimus desired to return, and that Paul, who had a strong wish to retain him, to aid him in the same way that Philemon himself would do if he were with him (com p. ver. 13,) had, on the whole, concluded to part with him, and to send hi m^ again, with a letter, to his friend Philemon. 'There is nothing in the statement which forbids us to suppose that Onesimus was ]i\m^Q\'i disposed to return to Philemon, and thatlPaul 'sent' him at his own request." (2.) The apostle had no means of sending him back against his own choice. There were no marshals to seize and chain fugitive slaves and carry them back to their masters. There was no provision for paying the expen- ses of a forcible return out the public treasury, including the chartering of vessels and the employment of companies of dragoons. Ptome was more than a thousand miles from Colossc, where Philemon resided, to whom Onesimus is supposed to have been sent, and when wc consider that there were then no'sieamboats, railroads, mail lines, and expresses by which boxed up negroes can now be sent, it must be perfectly certain that Paul could not have returned Onesimus against his will, without an armed governmental express, which Rome was never mean enough to provide for the re- THE BiDLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 169 turn of fugitives from boudage. Nor can it be supposed that Paul could have secured any such arrangement, had the thing been pos- sible in itself, for he was at the time a priso- ner in bonds. (8.) The fact that Onesimus was made the bearer of a letter setting forth Paul's wishes, and urging Philemon to receive him kindly, is irresistible proof that it was all a volun- tary operation on the part of Onesimus. Des- patched with a communication on a journey of more than a thousand Eaiies, he must often have had every opportunity to have escaped. He could have stopped any where short of his journey's end, or gone in any other direc- tion, with the most perfect safety to himself, for there could have been neither slave catcher, marshal or blood hound upon his track. (4.) To assume that necessity impelled him to return to a chattel bondage, on the ground that he could not provide for his own wants, without a master to do it for him, is too ab- surd to be made the basis of an argument. He was capable of making his escape, and of find- ing his way to Rome, which, at that age, was more than it would now be for a man to work his way around the world. Paul declares it desirable for him to retain Onesimus to ad- minister to him in his bonds. It must be clear therefore that in Rome he was capable of do- ing more than merely to provide for his own wants, he was capable of doing that, and as- sisting Paul in addition. (5.) The supposition that Onesimus return- ed to a state of rliattel bondage, as a moral duty required by the gospel, is the last antt hopeless resort of tlie advocates of slavery, it has been sliowu that no other power could have accompanied, to conduct him safely to his former home against his own will. He willed himself to return, or he never would have found his way back. Will it then be said that by being converted under the labors of St. Paul, he became so thoroughly con^- vinced that slavery was right, and that Phi- lemon had such a right of property in him, as to render it his moral and christian duty to return to the condition of a chattel bonds- man, as a means of glorifying God and saving his soul? Nothing else can be said, and to say this, is to abandon the argument, besides contradicting the universal consciousness oi' mankind. It abandons the argument, because it gives up the point that Paul sent him back as a fu- gitive slave, against his own will. The moment it is claimed thatOnesimus returned from a sense of moral obligation, the idea of coercive slavery vanishes, and the most es- sential element of American slavery is blot- ted from the recoid. In that case there was no slavery involved, except such as was sub- mitted to' by the slave from choice, since he had it in his power to have avoided it had he thought best so to do. If American slavery was made to rest upon the choice of the slaves, we certainly should feel much less dis- posed to oppose it than we now do. If the ("ongress of the United States will so modify the fugitive slave bill, as to secure the return ot fuf^itivcR onlv bv the use of the i-nme means lliK BIDl.F NO HEFrc^K FOR .SLAVERY. 171 as those by which Onesimus was returned, there will 136 no more forcible rescues. There are rot wanting enough Doctors of Divinity in the North, who claim that slavery is right. Now let Congress enact that it shall be law- ful for each Doctor of Divinity to advise each fugitive slave to return to his master, and on obtaining his consent, to write a letter to said master, advising and entreating him to receive his slave and to put the same into the hand of the same fugitive slave. Let Congress fur- ther enact, that each slave, having received such letter addressed to his master, shall have the right of returning, and that it shall not be lawful for any abolitionist, judge, sheriff, constable or other ofiicer, or any other per- son, to prevent, hinder, obstruct or delay his return. Such a law would excite little oppo- sition among anti-slavery men. But to suppose that Onesimus went back to chattel bondage from a sense of moral obli- gation, is to contradict the universal con- sciousness of mankind. No man ever did be- lieve, or can believe that it is right that he should be held as a chattel slave. Every man's consciousness within himself, tells him ihat he has a right to himself ; that his head and feet, and hands, and ears, and eyes, and tongue, and heart, and soul belong to him- self, and are not, and cannot be the property of another. If Onesimus was converted to a belief that he was the rightful property of an- other, then has the gospel lost its power, for no such conversions take place in these times. The most pious slaves in the south would es- cape from their mnsters, did they know how 172 THE BIBLE N^J REFrflE KOR Sf.AVERV. to effect it. The writer recently entertained a very pious slave, a member of the Methodist church in the south, who escaped. So deeply impressed was this man of devout prayer, that he was wrongfully held, and that it was right for him to escape, that he trusted in God to assist and protect him in his flight. He said he prayed all the way as he traveled, that God would guide him in the right way, and turn his pursuers from his track. And from his narrow escapes, I was inclined to believe that God heard his prayer. Witliiii the last three months the writer has seen sev- eral fugitive slaves converted at the altar at which he officiates, and on getting emanci- pated from the bondage of sin, a return to physical chattel bondage, is the last thought that enters their minds. They sliudder at the thought of the cruel and polluting touch of slavery more than before. It is clear then that there is no proof Onesimus was ever a chattel slave. II. There is much proof upon the face of the record that no slavery was involved in the relation that existed between Philemon and Onesimus. 1. The simple fact that Paul so earnestly exhorted Philemon to receive Onesimus, is proof positive that the latter was not return- ing as a chattel slave, for no class of men have to be so earnestly entreated to receive their lost property when it is returned to them. Here the apostle talks, "I beseech tliee for my son Onesimus, whom I have sent again ; thou therefore receive him, that is iiiino own bowoU." AVr-'o 10. 12. .\irnin, in THE n BLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY 173 verse IT, he says, ''If tlioii count me tlierelbrc a partner, receive him as myself." It is wor- thy of remark that Paul does not plead with Philemon to abate the punishment Onesimus deserved, he does not plead to have him count a less number of lashes upon his nacked back ; nor yet does he plead with him, not to sell his son Onesimus to the slave dealers. There is not a word of all this, but he simply pleads that he will receive him, the last thing in all the world he would need to have asked at his hand, had he been a chattel slave. That slaveholders do not need to be moved by the pleadings of an apostle to induce them to re- ceive returned fusjitives, we have sufficient proof in the enactment of the fugitive slave law of 1850, in these United States, and in the forcible attempts that have been made to ex- ecute it, which have rocked the nation to its centre. These facts show that Onesimus could not have been a chattel slave, but must have sustained some relation to, or held some positioner office in the family of Philemon, which was both respectable and advantage- ous to himself, the trust of which he had be- trayed, and from which he had wrongfully departed ; hence Paul entreated Philemon to receive him back. No argument could be necessary to pursuade a slaveholder to receive back a returned slave. 2. The offer of Paul to assume the pecuni- ary responsibilities of Onesimus to Philemon, proves that the former was not a chattel slave. His words arc, "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account. I. Paul, have written it with mine own hand. 171 THK iniUK NO KKKLGK 1 Mil SLAVLIIV. 1 will repay it." Verse 18, 19. The thing supposed liere, is utterly impossible in the case of a chattel slave. A slave cannot owe. The assumed right of property in a man, so swallows up every right, power and interest that can attach to the party thus held as pro- perty, that he must be incapable of owinc Power and obligation must be co-ordinate, and cotemporaneous, hence, the assumption of a debt or an obligation to pay, expressed by the term, owe, implies a power to act, to accumulate, to own, and to transter for one's self and own benefit, which cannot be true of a chattel slave, or he who is the property of an- other, fet. Paul, therefore, by assuming that Onesimus might owe Philemon, as clearly and positively assumed that he was not his chattel slave. This one consideration is of itself sufiicient to settle tliis controversy. There are other reasons which might be ren- dered in proof that Onesimus was not a slave, but I will not urge them, but pass to take an- other and final view of this epistle. 111. If it were admitted that Onesimus was a lawful chattel slave, when he ran away, it would be clear from the language of the epistle, that Paul did not send him back as a slave, but conniuinded his . freedom to be given him. To contend that he was a slave, must prove fatal to the right of slavery, since Paul clearly and unequivocally ordered his emancipation upon the supposition that he was a slave. The apostle speciHos to Philemon too plain- ly how he was to receive Onesimu.-. to i>r jJiisunder.^tood. and in .-uch tcrtii> a^ to loi THE BiKLE NO IJL'VUUK FuK SLAVERY. lT5 S3ver exclude chattel slaTcry trum the rela- tion. 1. He was to receive liiiii *■ not now as a s^ervant, but above a servant.'^ Suppose then that he was a slave, and thut tlie word hero used, doulos, means slave, and the whole clause will read thus : ''Perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest re- ceive him for ever ; not now as a slave hvit above a slaved' Is not tMs making an end of all slavery in the case. It certainly is, unless it can be proved that a man can ^be a slave, and above a slave at the same time, which strikes me as impossible, unless a man can get above himself. Paul cannot have sent Kim back as a slave, and Philemon cannot have received him as a slave, unless a man 'ean be received as a slave, and not be receiv- -ed as a slave at the same time ; for the words are, "that thou shouldst receive him, not now ;as a slave." Such is .the fatal consequence to slavery if it be admitted that Onesimus was a slave, and if we, accordingly, render the word doulos slave. 2. Paul instructed Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive him. His words are, "If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as my self.'' Verse 17. Here it ■is plain that Philemon was exhorted to re- ceive Onesimus as he would have received Paul himself. Then must he have received him as an equal, as a Christian brother, as a fellow laborer, and if so, he could not receive ■him or regard him as his slave. It is not possible that ho should receive him a? a fngi- Tjrp slav*-: rctnrnrrl. and at tlie .^amf linu" re- 17G THK Bini.K NO RKFLGf; FOR SI.AV£Rr. eeivc him as he would have received Paul, The expression, "if tliou count me a partner," places Onesimiis on a perfect Christian level Tvilh Philemon. Paul here places himself be- fore Philemon as his partner, and then re- quires him to receive Onesinuis as himself. The Greek word koinonoshare rendered part- ner, occurs ten times, in the Testament, and is translated as follows : It is translated partners three times, twice besides this text. James and John are said to have been partners with Peter in the fish- ing business. Luke v. 10. Paul declares tliat Titus is his, part7ier and fellow laborer. 2 Cor. viii. 23. It is rendered partaker five times. Matt. xxiii. 30 ; 1 Cor. x. 18 ; 2 Cor. i, 7 ^ 1 Peter V. 1 ; 2 Peter i. 4. It is translated fcllowslii}) once. 1 Cor. x. 20. Once it is rendered companions, Heb. x. 38. In every case in which the word is used, it implies equality in a sense which renders it impossible to conceive of a slaveholder and his chattel slave as partners, yet this is tho- relation wliich Paul marked out for Philemon and Oncsimus. 3. With the above agrees the few facts known of Oncsimus. The subscription to the epistle to the Colossians reads thus,. "Written from lloine to the Colossians, by Tycliicus and Onesimus." From this it ap- pears that the same person was one of tlio >)?arcrs of that important letter. Tliis is confirmed in Cliap. iv. 7-*^ Mere liolli are vsaid to i»o sent l>v Paul. Of Oncsimus it is ThlK BIBLE NU KKFLGE FOK iSLAVEKV. HT said, "With Oiiesimus a faithful and beloved brother who is one of you." The most ob- vious sense is that Onesimus was a member of the Church at Colosse. He could not have been so when sent with the letter to Phile- mon. He must then, after his reconciliation to Philemon through Paul's intervention, soon have returned to Rome, and been sent as a messenger to the Colossian Church. This proves clear enough that he was not a chattel slave, and here I rest my argument on this epistle. PAUL TO TITUS DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. ''Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things ; not answering again ; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity ; that they may adorn the "doctrine of God our Saviour in all things/' Titus ii. 9, 10. But little need be said on this text, after what hai'^ preceded, for nearly every point has been treated, and it appears only necessary to remark that not a word is said which is not applicable to more or less persons in every community, where slavery has no existence, and of course, it cannot prove the existence of slavery. It will be observed that in the ninth verse the translators have added four words not found in the original. They are, " exhort," "and," " them" and " things." Leaving these words out, the verse reads, " Servants to be obedient unto their own masters,to please well in all ; not answering again." This might all 178 TIIK Him.F. No HKFIGI:: Foil SLAVKKY, be said to hired laborers as has been sliown in remarks already made upon other texts. But the lani!,-uage of the tenth verse clearly implies a state of things very dillerent from slavery. "Not purloining." This is much more ap- plicable to a free agent with his own proper- ty interests, Avho has charge of another man's business and funds, than it is to a slave, who can have nothing which he can call his own, and whose crime w^ould be established, if aught was found in his possession. The Greek word occurs in but one other place, Acts V. 1, 2, where it is found twice in the same connection, and is rendered, " keep back," and "kept back.'' The sense is plain ; in the connection in which it is applied to servants, it forbids the appropriating of the property of their masters to their own use, which is a crime to Avhich free hired agents are more exposed than slaves. Tiie matter is made still more clear by the antithesis, "Not purloining, but showing all good iidelity." The word fidelity is not a true rendering of the original, it should be faith. Fidelity implies a simple discharge of obligations on the part of any accountable agent, but "good faith," as it ought to read, implies a mutual treaty, covenant or trust reposed. "Good faith" is kept l)et\vccn two parties, and implies mutually and voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust repos- ed. That the word here used should be ren- dered faith, is very clear from the fact that it occurs two hundred and lifty-nine times in the New Testament, and is rendered faith in THE BIBLt: NO RKFUGE FOR SLAVKK 179 every case except two. Acts xvii. 81, it is rendered ''assurance/' and in tins place, it is rendered "fidelity." In the other 257 cases at is translated faith. Calling it faith, the clause should read thus: "Not purloining, but showing all good faith." There is no proof of slavery in this, for "good faith implies voluntarily assumed obligations, and mutual trust in each other. It implies the very re- lation that subsists between the employer and employed, where both parties are free. PETER DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLAVERY. "Servants, be subject to your masters witli ?ill fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-wor- thy, if a man for conscience toward God en- dure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently ? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it pa- tiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps." 1 Peter ii. 18-21. We here meet with a new word rendered servant, not found in any of the preceding texts. It is oiketai, and its first and literal meaning is, "an inmate of one's house." It is derived from oikos, a house, and hence an in- mate of one's house, a household servant. The words of the apostle apply to such ser- vants as were employed as domestics, ser- vants, whose business was in the house= It 180 TllK IJIHI,}^ NO i:k;i-nA;K ion aLA'\hKi' does not prove tliat ihey "svorc slaves, but only that they served in the house, whether bond or free. ^lost of the terms have been explained in remarks made npon other texts. The ex- pression, "subject with fear," has been ex- plained sufficiently, in remarks ollcrcd upon Eph. vi. 5, where the expression "fear aiul trembling" occurs. An examination of what is peculiar to this text, will show that it does not prove the ex- istence of slavery, and that it docs not justify it upon the supposition that it did exist. No directions are given to masters, and hence it is fair to suppose the class of persons referred to, were not members of the Church. Some of them we know were not, for they are re- presented as "froward," and as infiictino- j^'rief upon their servants, "conscience toward God." Such persons were not Christians, and if they held slaves, it would not i)rove it to be right. But sc-mc arc represented a.-- "good and gentle," and were not they mem- hers of the Church and Christians ? There is no proof that they were. TIk) Greek word agathos, good, does not mean a Christian, nor goodness in a high mor?l sense. It is applied to all kinds of nouns, and means only that the noun is good in its kind, as "good gifts, good tree, good things, good treasure, good i'ruits, good works, good days, good ground.'^ Jn this text it (pialilles masters, understood,- and good masters are not necessarily Chris- tians, or mendjers of the church. I\ or does the word " gentle " imply that they were (,'hristiuns. I'he (Jrcek word cpiiikcis, inaxua THE BIBLK .NU UEl LGt: iOli ^LAVKUV. Ibl not only gentle, but mild, patient, moderate. It occurs live times in the New Testament. Once it is translated "moderation ;" (Phil, iv. 5 ;) once it is rendered "patient ;" (2 Tim. iii. 3 ;) and three times it is rendered gentle. These three cases are Titus iii. 2, and James iii. 17 and 1 Peter ii. 18. There is then no proof that the masters referred to were mem- bers of the Church, but evidence that they were not. If they were slaveholders, there- fore, it is no proof that slavery is right. If we look at the directions given to the ser- vants, they neither prove the existence of slavery, nor yet that it is right, if it did ex- ist. The only point involved in these instruc- tions, which has not been sufficiently met, is the fact implied that the servants were liable to be buffeted. This word, kokwhizo, buffet, more properly means to box the ears with the hand, but may denote beating of any kind. The fact that they were liable to be beaten does not prove that they were slaves, for the following reasons : 1. Beating was a common punishment in- flicted for minor offenses, upon free persons as well as upon slaves. That custom has come down to our own times, and though it is now nearly abolished, persons are still punished at the whipping post for minor of- fenses in some of these States. 2. Christians generally were liable to be buffeted at that time, and even the apostles themselves were baffeted. Paul says, "Even unto this present hour, we both hunger and thirst, and arc naked and arc buffeted. ' 182 THK niBLE \0 RKFrcK H)K Sl.AVKIlY. I Cor. iv. 2. At a time when all Cliristian?, and especially ministers were liable to be buffeted, the fact that servants were liable to be buffeted, cannot prove thai they were slaves. 3. The advice of the apostle has often been applicable, and called for, in our day, where no slavery existed. Children and appren- tices have often been buffeted in the free States of this free country, on account of their reli«2rion, not only by infidels, butl)y members of churches, because, their children persisted in attending the meetings of a different de- nomination from the one they preferred. I know a young lady who was most severely buffeted by her father for attending a meeting contrary to his orders, he being a member of another church. I am well aquainted with a minister of the gospel, who, when a youth, was buffeted and dragged out of the lioiise, by the hair of his head, by his own father, because he persisted in attending the meetings of a dif- ferent denomination from the one the father preferred. If such things can occur in a Christian community, it must be plain that the fact that servants were liable to be buffet- ed among heathen, cannot prove that they were slaves. But allowing that tliey were slaves, there is not the slightest proof that slavery is right. The apostle does not endorse the buffeting in any case, not even where it is inflicted for wrong doing. The buffeting referred to is of two kinds, that which is inflicted on ac- count of the wrong doincr of the servants, and THE BIBLE NO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 183 that which is inflicted on account of their well doing, or without their fault. Suppose than slaves do wrong, and are buffeted for it, still the buffeting may be as wrong as the conduct for which it is inflicted. A wrong act may be wrongfully punished. The directions of our Saviour, in relation to smiting and resisting evil, must settle the question that no Christian can be justified in smiting a fellow Christian , the buffeting therefore must be wrong though provoked by the wrong doing of the servant. The liability therefore of slaves to be buffeted, if slaves they were, or the fact that they were buffeted, cannot prove that slavery is right. The fact that Peter cautioned them against provoking the wrath of their wicked heathen masters, nor yet the fact that he gave them lo understand that there would be no special virtue in bearing the buffeting patiently, af- ter having provoked it by bad conduct, can- not be construed into a justification of slave- ry nor even of the buffeting. " But they were liable to be buffeted when they did. well, and this proves that it was wicked men and a wrong state of things of which the apostle was treating, and no justification for slavery, or anything else can be inferred from the conduct of such men. This further appears from tlie fact that Peter appeals to the suffering of Christ as an ex- ample, which was wrongfully inflicted. Al- lowing them to have been slaves, the fact that the apostle exhorts them not to provoke punishment, and to bear it patiently when they do well and yet are buffeted, appealing 184 Tiiii: iniiLK no liKtu.K luu .si-avki;y. to the sufleriiigri of Chris*, to enlorcc \us cx- 'lortation, no more proves that they were rightfully held as slaves, than the fact that Christ suflercd patiently, proves that his suf- ferings were rightfully iniiicted. 1 have now done, for though I have not examined every text that some may be dis- posed to urge in support of slavery, I have examined all the most important ones, so that, if those I have examined do not prove the rightful existence of slavery, it cannot be pre- tended that there arc .other texts that will prove the point without ihem. In the argu- ment 1 have kept two points in view, namely, the texts relied upon to support slavery, do not prove that it ever existed in the Church, and that. If it did exist, they do not prove it is right. Here I rest, and will close my ar- gument with the words with which a more brilliant writer commenced his. ''The spirit of slavery never seeks shelter in the Bible of its own accord. It grasps tlic horns of tlic altar only in desperation — rushing from the avenger's arm. Like other unclean spirits, it hateth the light, nei- ther Cometh to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved. Goaded to Phrenzy in its conflicts Avith conscience and common sense, denied all (piarter, and hunted from every covert, it vaults over the sacred en- closure, and courses up and down the Bible seeking rest and tinding none. The law of love, glowing on every i)age. Hashes around it an omnipresent anguish and de3})air. It shrinks from the hated light, and howls under the consuming touch, as demons (juailcd ])c- THE BIBLE SO REFUGE FOR SLAVERY. 185 fore the Son of God, and shrieked, 'Torment us not.' * * * Its asylum is its sepulchre ; its city of refuge the city of destruction. Tt flies from light into the sun ; from heat into devouring fire ; and from the voice of God into the Thickest of his thunders." HD-23S TABLE OF CONTENTS. SECTION I. Slavery a sia against God. Page 3. Proved from man's relation to God, ^• Proved from duties required of all men 7. Proved from the marriage relation, 12. Proved from the relation of parents and children, 20- Proved from its identity with man-stealing, 25 . Proved from its being traflic in human beings, 20. Proved from its being involuntary servitude, 32. Proved from its being labor without wages, 3fl. Proved from its identity with oppression, 39. SECTION II. The Old Testament, no rei'uge for Slavery ■!'«>• The curse of Canaan was not Slavery, 62. The Patriarchs were not Slaveholders, 59. The Jewish polity was not a sl.iveholding polity, 68. SECTION III. The New Testament, no refuge for Slavery, 107. The several terms employed examined, 108. Christ did not teach or justify Slavery 113. Paul to the Corinthians did not justify Slavery, 118. Paul to the Ephesians did not justify Slavery, 127. Paul to the Collossians did not justify Slavery, 146. Paul to Philemon— Onesimus not a Slave, ■. 164' Paul to Titus did not justify Slavery 177, Peter did not justify Slavery, 179. ^^ 'X ^ "o > « ^ " * " 7 .^'•'-^. .^^ ^\ . -\ .0 ^ . €r^"^ DOBBS BROS. ^