E 449 
 .fl425 
 Copy 1 
 
 S 
 
' \Copy 1 J*"0- *S- 
 
 IS SLAA^ERY SANCTIONED 
 BY THE \\\]M,W\ 
 
 A PREMIUM TRACT. 
 
 BY" ISAAC ALLEN, 
 
 OBEBLIN. OHIO. r— 
 
 v^ 
 
 "I) 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
 
 28 CORN HILL. BOSTON. 
 
The following Tract received the premium of One Hundred Dollars, 
 offered by the " Church Anti-Slaver)' Society," for the best Tract on the 
 teachings of the Bible respecting Slavery. 
 
 Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 
 
 THE AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY. 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Distriit of Massachusetts. 
 
JlS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY 
 
 ^ THE BIBLE? 
 
 <^* 
 
 If there is one subject which, above all others, may 
 be regarded as of national interest at the present time, 
 it is the subject of Slavery. Wherever we go, north 
 or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the factory, the 
 rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the 
 national Congress, this " ghost that will not down " ob- 
 trudes itself. The strife has involved press, pulpit, and 
 forum alike, and spite of all compromises by political 
 parties, and the desperate attempts at non-committal by 
 religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper. 
 
 But the distinctive feature of this, as compared with 
 other questions of national import, is, that here both 
 parties di'aw their principal arguments from the Bible as a 
 common armory of weapons for attack and defense. On 
 the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in the 
 United States, is not a moral evil ; that it is an innocent 
 and lawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, 
 husband and wife, or any other in society ; that the right 
 to buy, sell, and hold men for purposes of gain, was given by 
 express permission of God, and sanctioned by Christ and 
 his apostles ; that this right is founded on the golden 
 rule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., "I 
 hardly know which is most unaccountable, the profound 
 ignorance of the Bible, or the sublimity of cool impu- 
 dence and infidelity manifested by those who profess to 
 be Christians, and yet dare affirm that the Book of God 
 gives no sanction to slavcholding." All these affirma- 
 tions are fairly summed up thus : "As slavery was 
 practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction and legal- 
 ity from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced 
 by Christ and his apostles, it must have been right. If 
 right then, it is so still ; therefore Southern slavery is 
 right." 
 
 On the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery 
 
 (1) 
 
2 IS :?LAYE11Y SANCTI02>^ED BY THi: BIBLE T 
 
 is nowhere warranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is 
 totally opposed both to its spirit and teachings. 
 
 It will be the object of the present discussion to deter- 
 mine which of these opinions is correct. 
 
 SLAVERY DEFINED. 
 
 What, then, is chattel slavery as understood in Amer- 
 ican law ? 
 
 1 . It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense 
 a man may be said to "possess" these ; but he can not 
 buy or sell them. These are natural relations ; and he 
 who violates them for the sake of gain is branded by all 
 as barbarous and criminal. 
 
 2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is tem- 
 porary, having for its primary object, not the good of the 
 master or guardian, but that of the apprentice or minor, his 
 education and preparation for acting his part as a free 
 and independent member of society ; but chattelism is 
 life bondage, for the sole good of the master. 
 
 3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a 
 bond or agreement is implied, and therefore reciprocal 
 rights, and the mutual power of dissolution on failure of 
 either in the terms of mutual agreement ; but chattelism 
 ignores and denies the ability of the slave to make a contract. 
 
 4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was 
 attached to the glebe or soil, and could not be severed 
 from it, deprived of his family, or sold to another as a 
 chattel ; being retained as part of the indivisible feudal 
 community. But the chattel slave is a " thing" incapa- 
 ble of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or 
 how the master pleases. 
 
 Chattelism is none of these relations ; its principle is 
 " property in man." Its definition is thus given in the 
 law of Louisiana, (Civil Code, art. 35 :) " A slave is one 
 who is in the power of his master, to whom he belongs. 
 The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his in- 
 dustry, his labor ; he can do nothing, possess nothing, 
 acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master." 
 
 South Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) " Slaves 
 shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in 
 law, to be chattels personal in the hands of their owners 
 and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE : 3 
 
 assigns, to all intents, purposes, and constructions Avhat- 
 soevcr." 
 
 Judge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court 
 of North Carolina, (case of State i\ Mann,) says a slave 
 is " one doomed in his own person and his posftrity to 
 live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make 
 any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap the 
 fruits." 
 
 We now come to the point at issuo : Does the Bible 
 sanction this system ? 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 1. Ilcbreic Terms. 
 
 The Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are 
 "i?3?. auvadh, "to serve;" the noun, "^^> evcdh, " servant" 
 or " bondman," one contracting service for a term of years ; 
 T^pr* saukir, a " hired servant " daily or weekly ; ""^i^' 
 aumau, and nH^r* shiphechau, " maid-servant " or "hand- 
 maid ; " but there is no term in Hebrew synonymous with 
 our word slave, for all the terms applied to servants are, 
 as we shall show, equally applicable and applied to free 
 persons. 
 
 The verb ^5^» auvadh, according to Gesenius, signifies 
 primarily, to labor ; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, 
 or compulsory labor as a captive or prisoner of war. 
 Gen. 2:5, 15 ; 3 : 23 ; 29 : 15. Ex. 20 : 9 ; 21 : 2. 
 Next, national servitude as tributary to others ; as Sodom 
 and the cities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; 
 Esau to Jacob, Gen. 25 : 23 ; the Israelites in Canaan 
 to surrounding nations, Moabitcs, Philistines, and others, 
 Judg. 3:8; Jcr. 27: 7, 9. Next, national and personal 
 servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly, 
 the service of God or idols, Judg. 3 : 7, &c. From these and 
 similar passages Ave see that neither the generic nor spe- 
 cific meaning of the term, taken in its connections, implies 
 chattel slavery, but labor, voluntary, hired, or compul- 
 sory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of war, whose 
 claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is 
 ever admitted and acted on ; showing that freedom is the 
 normal state of man, subjection and compulsory servitude 
 the abnormal and unnatural. 
 
^ IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 But it is objected that, though the proper meaning of 
 the verb " to serve" does not imply chattel slavery, it is 
 certain that the derived noun ";n;;» evedh, translated " ser- 
 vant " and " bondman " in our version, is frequently used 
 to designate involuntary servitude, the service of one 
 " bought with money," and therefore a chattel slave. 
 We reply. By far the most frequent use of this term, 
 as is well known, represents either the common defer- 
 ential mode of address of inferiors to superiors, or equals 
 to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the 
 political subordination of inferior to superior rank invari- 
 ably existing in Eastern governments. Otherwise we have 
 Jacob saying to Esau, " The children which God hath 
 graciously given thy" slave; and Joseph's brethren saying 
 to him, " Thou saidst to thy slaves, Bring him down to me." 
 " When we came up to thy slave my father." Saul's offi- 
 cers and soldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and 
 vice versa ; Abigail, David's wife, is his slave ; his people, 
 officers, and even embassadors are all his slaves ; all are slaves 
 to each other, and none are masters, unless it be the king. 
 How, then, can we properly define the meaning and 
 status of the term *' servant" in any particular passage ? 
 We answer, only by the context and the usage of the 
 particular time and place, so far as known. 
 
 2. The Curse of Canaan, 
 
 We first meet with the term " servant " in the oft-disputed 
 passage. Gen. 9 : 25-27 : " Cursed be Canaan ; a servant 
 of servants shall he be unto his brethren. . . . Blessed 
 be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his ser- 
 vant." . . . Now, as we have no state of servitude in the 
 context or the usage of the times with which to compare 
 this, and as only Canaan and his descendants are included 
 in the curse, we must look to their subsequent history for 
 the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of servitude 
 there implied. 
 
 We find the descendants of Canaan and their land de- 
 fined in Gen. 10 : 15-20. They were not tlie Africans, 
 as some ignorantly assert, but the Canaanites, who dwelt 
 in Canaan, and wore there destroyed by the Israelites, or 
 rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were 
 doomed to be "■ hewers of wood and drawers of water," 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 5 
 
 the serfs of the temple service. Josh. 9 : 23, 27. There 
 is not one word of buying and selling individuals — no 
 chattelism, or any sanction of it ; there is a performing of 
 the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never 
 slaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not 
 slave) of Shem ; and when afterward Israel was oppressed 
 and rendered tributary to other nations, the Canaanites 
 became thus not only " servants," but " servants of ser- 
 vants." 
 
 3. Patriarchal Senitude. 
 
 The next example of the word " servant" brings us to 
 that" epoch in relation to which the Harmony Presbytery 
 of South Carolina says, " Slavery has existed from the 
 days of those good old slaveholders Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to the 
 time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his 
 master Philemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal let- 
 ter to this slaveholder, which we find still stands in the 
 canon of the Scriptures." 
 
 The account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly 
 as follows : " That he had men-servants and maid-servants, 
 Gen. 12: 16; 14: 14; 17:2 7, (not slaves, for we have 
 shown above by numerous passages that to give such a 
 definition to the term " servant" is false and absurd, un- 
 less sustained by the context or the usage of the times ;) 
 that they numbered some two thousand persons, (reckon- 
 ing by the number of fighting men among them, generally 
 one in five of the population,) were trained and accus- 
 tomed to arms. Gen. 14 : 14; could inherit property, 
 Gen. 15: 3,4; in religious ordinances were perfectly 
 equal with the master, Gen. 17 : 10-14 ; had entire con- 
 trol not only over the property, but also the heirs of the 
 household, Gen. 24 : 2-10; lastly, they were invariably 
 considered as men, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24 : 
 30, 32. " And the man (servant of Abraham) came into 
 the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw 
 and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet 
 and the men's feet that were with him." 
 
 " But," it is objected, " some of these servants were 
 ' bought with money ; ' therefore they must have been 
 possessed as ' chattel slaves.' " This conclusion depends 
 1* 
 
6 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 
 
 partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb nff » kaunau, 
 " to buy ; " and asserts that whenever this term is ap- 
 plied to persons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. 
 The primary definition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, 
 to erect; then, 1. To found or create; 2. To get, gain, 
 obtain, acquire, possess ; 3. To get by purchase, to buy. 
 
 Let us see the meaning of this term, applied to per- 
 sons in other ^Dassages. In Gen. 31 : 15, Rachel and 
 Leah say of their father, " He hath sold us, and quite 
 devoured also our money," referring to Jacob's long 
 service for them; \vere they chattels? Gen. 47:23, 
 Joseph hQiight the Eg}TDtians ; were they chattels ? * Ex. 
 21 : 2, "If thou huy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he 
 serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for noth- 
 ing ; " was he a chattel? Ruth 4: 10, "Ruth the 
 Moabitess have I purchased this day to be my icife ; " 
 was she a chattel ? These passages clearly show that the 
 simple application of the term "bought with money" 
 docs not imply property and possession as a chattel. 
 
 The phrase " bought with money" relates, in the case 
 of wives, to the dowry usual in Eastern countries ; in the 
 case of servants, to the ransom paid for captives in war, 
 and paid by the individual on adoption into the tribe ; or 
 to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a lim- 
 ited period, either to parents for their children as appren- 
 tices, &c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. 
 Gen. 31 : 41, "Thus have I been twenty years in thy 
 house ; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, 
 and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast changed my 
 wages ten times." Thus Abraham could acquire a claim 
 on the service of a man during life by purchase from him- 
 self ; could acquire the allegiance of a man and his fam- 
 ily, and all born in it, by contract, not to be broken but by 
 mutual agreement ; and in a few years have a vast house- 
 hold under his authority, "born in his house," and 
 " bought with money," yet not one of them a slave. 
 
 Another general proof already alluded to is, that the 
 terms n;;2^'' "servant," and ^>;» naar, "young man," are 
 applied synonymously and equally to servants and free 
 persons. Gen. 14 : 24, Abraham calls his servants young 
 men, and again in Gen. 17 : 23, 27. So in Job 1 : 15-19, 
 the term ^J? is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 7 
 
 Also in Judg. 7: 10 ; 19 : 3, 11, 19 ; 1 Sam. 9 : 3, 5, 
 10, 22, and numerous other places, these terms are applied 
 indiscriminately to servants, showing that they were al- 
 ways regarded as men, never as chattels. 
 
 But we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status 
 or condition of Abraham's servants ; we will bring proofs 
 showing that it could not have been chattel slavery. 
 
 Two of the fundamental characteristics of cliattclism are, 
 The status of the mother decides that of the child, and The 
 slave, being property, can not inliorit or possess property. 
 Was this the condition of " servants" in patriarchal society? 
 If so, then these characteristics brand them as chattels ; 
 but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being 
 sold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted 
 for ;) if the children of these servants were reckoned free, 
 if they and their childi-en could inherit property, then 
 even American slave law and custom declare them free 
 persons, and not chattels personal. 
 
 Take the case of Hagar. We read. Gen. 16: 1, she 
 was an Egyptian " handmaid, maid-servant," perhaps one 
 of those referred to in Gen. 12 : 16, Abraham, at Sarah's 
 instigation, makes her his concubine. The usual bicker- 
 ing of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is 
 sent back by the angel, Ishmacl is born, and this son of 
 a slave (?) is regarded not only as free, but heir of the 
 house of Abraham. Years pass, and the wild, reckless 
 Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny brother and 
 coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat 
 again rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, 
 " Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for he shall not 
 be heir with my son, even Isaac ; " and Abraham, so far 
 from regarding them as chattels personal, and selling them 
 south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free Arab, 
 " whose hand will be against every man, and every man's 
 hand against his." 
 
 Take the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban 
 (Gen. 29 : 24, 29,) as handmaids (.r>^iiO to his daughters 
 Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30: 4-14. They become Ja- 
 cob's concubines, and bear him four sons — Dan, Xaph- 
 tali, Gad, and Ashcr. Here the case is plain ; the 
 mothers are " servants," they have children, and these, 
 instead of being (as in similar cases daily at the South) 
 
8 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 "reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal,'* 
 are recognized as free and equal with the other sons, 
 Reuben, Judah, &c., and become, like them, heads of 
 tribes in Israel. In these cases, — and they are all which 
 relate to the point at issue, — either the status of these 
 servants did or did not decide that of their children. If 
 it did, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being 
 free prove the mother (though servant) to be free ; if it 
 did not, then the mother was held only by feudal allegi- 
 ance, while the children were always free. In either case 
 the conditions of chattelism did not exist ; they were not 
 slaves, but free persons in the same condition as members 
 of wandering Arab and Tartar tribes to this day. 
 
 Did the second fundamental condition of chattelism 
 mentioned above exist ? The slave, being property, can 
 not possess or inherit property. In Gen. 15: 3 we find 
 Abraham complaining to the Lord, " Behold, to me thou 
 hast given no seed, and lo, one horn in my house is my 
 heir ! " The same term is used here as in speaking of 
 Abraham's other servants ; and yet this " servant" is de- 
 clared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here there is a 
 manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave. 
 They can not inherit property ; this man could ; therefore 
 he was not a slave. It fs an entii-ely gratuitous assump- 
 tion to assert that Abraham's dependents were slaves ; for 
 similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes, as formerly 
 they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child 
 capable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his 
 dependents some tried and trusty warrior, and adopts him 
 as lieutenant or henchman, to succeed him as heir or 
 chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eiglity years old, 
 despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe, 
 adopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the 
 battle of Hobah) as his heir, with the proviso of resigning 
 in favor of a son if any be born. But in the case of 
 Jacob's four sons the conclusion is self-evident — chil- 
 di-en of " servants " or " handmaids," yet recognized as 
 free like the other sons, sharing the property of the father 
 equally with them ; — the conditions of a state of chattel- 
 ism did not exist. 
 
 These things prove conclusively that the term *' ser- 
 vant " never meant slave in patriaixhal families ; that the 
 
IS slatehy sanctioned by the eible r 9 
 
 term " bought with money" referred only to feudal alle- 
 giance or service for a time agreed on by both parties. 
 These servants could possess and inherit property ; their 
 children were free ; they were trained to the use of arms ; 
 in religious matters master and servant were alike and 
 equal ; and they were always considered and called 77zcn, 
 never slaves or chattels, — all which are directly contrary 
 to the principles and express enactments of American 
 slave law, and are the charnctcristics of free persons even 
 at the South. Add to this the significant fact that not 
 one word is said in the patriarchal records of selling 
 any of these servants, (the only act mentioned of selling 
 a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so bit- 
 terly reprobated and repented of by them soon after,) 
 though frequently bought ; that no fugitive law existed, 
 in fact could not exist in a wandering tribe, — and the 
 natural conclusion is, that they were not slaves, but free 
 men and women ; and therefore the records of patriarchal 
 society conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves 
 or slavery as one of its institutions. 
 
 Years pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a 
 servile condition as the serfs of the Egyptians. God, in 
 his purposes, allowed them to remain thus for a time, and 
 then, instead of sanctioning even this modified form of 
 slavery, demanded their instant release ; and on refusal, 
 with terrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth 
 that army of fugitive slaves, and (h-owned their pursuers 
 in the Red Sea. 
 
 4. Mosaic Laics. 
 
 AVe come next to the sanction and authority of chattel 
 slavery claimed to exist in the laws and economy of these 
 people just escaped from bondage, and framed by him 
 Avho had shown his displeasure against slavery by nearly 
 destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catch- 
 ing slaves. The arguments for this claim are — 1 . That 
 the term "servant" or "bondman" used in the Mosaic 
 law means chattel slavery ; 2. That in certain cases the 
 Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever ; 
 3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and 
 hold them for ever. These positions, we admit, have some 
 plausibility, and have doubtless had great weight in pro- 
 ducing the opinion that chattelism is sanctioned by the 
 
10 IS SLATERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the 
 classes of servants referred to in their order. 
 
 1. Hebrew servants. These were of four kinds — ser- 
 vants under contract or indenture for six years, probably 
 from one sabbatic year to another : servants held till the 
 year of jubilee, or " for ever : " chikken born in the 
 house, or hired out by their parents : convicted thieves ; 
 and afterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors. 
 
 In respect to the first of these classes, the law is found 
 in Ex. 21: 2-6; Deut. 15: 12-18. "If thou buy a 
 Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the 
 seventh he shall go out free, for nothing." Here the 
 term "buy" can only be applied to the service, sold by the 
 servant for six years, (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh 
 year, as daily or weekly service ended with the Sabbath,) 
 for it is applied to a state which no ingenuity whatever 
 can construe as chattelism. 
 
 The second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned 
 Ex. 21 : 5, 6. "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 to the judges : he 
 shall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he 
 shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve 
 him for ever." Deut. 15 : 17, the same law adds, " And 
 also to thy maid-servant shalt thou do likewise." But 
 in Lev. 25 : 39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that one 
 who served "longer than six years was not to be treated 
 or considered as an 135, evedh, one contracting for a term 
 of years, but as a ^'^^^, saukir, a hired servant, to be well 
 treated and compensated for his services. " Thou shalt 
 not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as a hired 
 servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee." The 
 servant must plainly say, " I will not go out ; " it must be 
 voluntary service ; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, 
 and directly contrary to the case before us. " He shall 
 serve hi?n for ever," not his sons after him, not giving the 
 right of transfer or sale of service to a third person. 
 " He shall serve," not his wife or chihh-en, but himself, 
 till death, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, 
 then, was not chattelism, for it was voluntary, without 
 purchase or sale, ending with the life of the servant, the 
 mastery or the year of release — the jubilee. 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 11 
 
 The third class of servants — children — appear during 
 minority to have been, as now in all Eastern countries, 
 entirely at the service or control of their parents, and 
 might by them be hired out, Neh. 5 : 2-6, but, when 
 of age, M-ere of course independent of parental acts and 
 control. John 9: 21. That the oflPspring of servants in 
 j^atriarchal times were free we have already proved ; that 
 they were so among the Israelites is shown by the case 
 of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant, Judg. 9: 18, 
 yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel ; 
 also of Sheshan. 1 Chr. 2 : 34, 35. Xo service, indeed, 
 could be recognized or demanded, in Jewish law, of grown 
 persons, except as the result of contract or crime. 
 
 In respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the lan- 
 guage used that only sufficient service could be required 
 of them to cancel the obligation of restitution. Ex. 
 22 : 3. " He should make full restitution ; if he have 
 nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft ; " in case of 
 debt. Matt. 18: 34, "till he should pay all that was 
 due to him." 
 
 2. Servants ohtained from the heathen. These were, 
 first, captives. From the account of the first taking of 
 captives by the Israelites, Num. 31 : 7-47, we learn, 
 verse 7, that they marched into Midian, slew all the 
 males, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. 
 On their return ]Moses reprimanded them for disobeying 
 God's command by preserving the grown women ; and 
 thereupon they killed all but the virgins and children, 
 reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation. 
 In Deut. 20: 14 and 21: 10-14, we have these com- 
 mands and regulations given, with an express prohibition 
 of the enslavement of these captives, in case of repudia- 
 tion by the captors. " 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 at aU for money ; thou 
 shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast 
 humbled her." Now, all slaveholding tribes and nations, 
 M'hen they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as many 
 strong and vigorous men as possible ; must it not, there- 
 fore, fairly be inferred from this regulation that God, by 
 prohibiting instead of sanctioning the most productive 
 mode of slave-making, — the enslavement of prisoners 
 
12 IS SLAYEKY SAXCTIOXED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 of war, — did not intend, but positively prohibited, the 
 Israelites from becoming a slaveholding nation ? 
 
 Secondly, " bought with money." The law referring 
 to these is Lev. 25: 44, 46. " IBoth thy bondmen and 
 thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be of the 
 heathen round about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen 
 and bondmaids. . . . And ye shall take them as an inher- 
 itance for your children after you, to inherit them for a 
 possession ; they shall be your bondmen for ever." As 
 we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms 
 for "servant" — the generic term eredh, one under 
 contract for a term of years, and saukir, one hired by 
 the day, Aveek, or year. Now, the term here translated 
 " bondman " is the generic I^S", evedh, elsewhere trans- 
 lated " servant," and therefore should have been thus 
 translated here, unless a different rendering is required by 
 the context. The more literal reading of the Hebrew is, 
 " And thy men-servants and thy maid-servants which shall 
 be to thee from the nations around you, of them shall 
 ye procure the man-servant and maid-servant." "What, 
 then, was the difference between the Hebrew and heathen 
 evedh ? 
 
 This. The Hebrew could only be an evedh, a ser- 
 vant by contract, for six years, Ex. 21 : 2 — " Six years 
 shall he serve, but in the seventh he shall go out free ; " 
 (longer service could not be contracted for, but must he 
 voluntary, Ex. 21 : 5 ;) or as a hired servant or sojourner 
 till the jubilee, but never beyond. Lev. 25 : 10, 39-41. 
 But a heathen could bind himself as an evedh for 
 longer than six years ; and thus his service, unlike the 
 Hebrew, could be " bought " as " an inheritance for your 
 children after you," but, like the Hebrew voluntary " for 
 ever " servants, they were bondmen for the longest time 
 known by the law — till death or the jubilee. 
 
 Is it objected that the terms " buy," " possession," 
 " for ever," are used, and indicate chattclism ? Wc an- 
 swer, All admit the Hebrew was not a chattel ; for his 
 service expired at the seventh year, the death of himself 
 or his master. " //(? shall serve hiin for ever;" but, 
 if both lived on, this service, though voluntary, as has 
 been shown, expired with all such claims at the jubilee. 
 Since the same terms, and, as wc shall show directly, the 
 
IS SLAVERY SAKCTIOXED BY THE BIBLE ? 13 
 
 jubilee, applied equally to both, if it does not prove the 
 one a chattel, it does not the other ; therefore both are 
 equally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the 
 bodies, were bought ; and both were equally free at 
 the jubilee. 
 
 Two objects were accomplished by this law. 1st. To 
 permit the Hebrews to obtain that assistance in tillinpf the 
 land, which otherwise they would not have been allowed 
 to do. 2d. To increase the numbers of the common- 
 wealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic 
 covenant. Gen. 17: 10-14; p]x. 12: 44-49, were bound 
 to circumcise these indented servants " bought Math 
 money," thus making them part of the household during 
 their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of 
 the state, members of the congregation, partakers of all 
 the rites and privileges common to the mass of the people. 
 Ex. 12 : 44-9. Num. 15 : 15-30, " One ordinance shall 
 be both for you of the congregation, and also for the 
 stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever 
 in your generations ; as ye are, so shall the stranger be 
 before the Lord." Lev. 19: 34, "The stranger that 
 dwelleth among you shall be as one born among you, and 
 thou shah love him as thyself.'" In accordance with the 
 frequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, 
 they were invariably recognized as citizens, and alike with 
 Hebrew servants, were amenable to, and received protec- 
 tion from, the laws of the state. 
 
 In further proof of this, and in direct opposition to 
 chattelism, is the fact, that the laws regulating the rela- 
 tion of master and servant are each and all enacted for 
 the benefit and protection of the servant, and not one for 
 that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, 
 oxen, sheep, &c., the term owner is always used, master 
 never ; when servants and masters are spoken of, master 
 is always used, owner never. Ex. 21: 29, "The 
 ox shall be stoned, and his oivner also shall be put to 
 death." Ex. 21 : 34, If an ox or ass fall into a pit left 
 uncovered, " the owner of the pit shall make it good, and 
 give money to the owner of them." But, Dcut. 25 : 15, 
 " Thou shall not deliver to his master the servant which 
 is escaped from his master unto thee." 
 
 The inference from all this is plain. Xo such thing as 
 2 
 
14 IS SLAVEKY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 property in man is recognized in the Mosaic law ; but God, 
 finding polygamy and the law of serfdom existing among 
 the Israelites, did not see fit to abolish them at once, but 
 so hampered and hedged them about by restrictive statutes 
 as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether. 
 
 5. Restrictive Lazes. 
 
 But lest oppression should trample upon the rights of 
 the laboring classes, and aim at their enslavement, — which 
 actually happened afterward, and was one of the princi- 
 pal items of God's indictment (Jer. 22 : 3 ; 34 : 8-22) 
 against the Jews prior to their destruction by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, — tliree special enactments Avere made to prevent 
 such iniquity, and break up any attempt at chattel slavery 
 in the nation. 
 
 First. The law against kidnaping. — Ex. 21 : 16, 
 *' He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be 
 found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
 Thus the one great means of obtaining slaves is forbid- 
 den. He who (no matter where) seizes a human being, 
 (no matter whom,) and reduces him to involuntary servi- 
 tude, shall die ; for he seeks to take away the rights and 
 privileges of freedom, all that goes to make up life ; seeks 
 to make property of man, to extinguish the man in the 
 chattel. 
 
 " But," it is said, " this only refers to stealing slaves." 
 Mark the logic : a man could seize and enslave another 
 with impunity ; but if, afterward, the father, brother, or 
 friend of the enslaved should attempt to rescue him, he 
 must die ! Glorious argument for slaveholders and slave- 
 catchers ! It is also said this refers to Hebrews, not 
 strangers. Let God answer. Lev. 24 : 22, " Ye shall 
 have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for 
 one of your own country ; for I am the Lord your God." 
 This is his interpretation of the breadth of the law given 
 in the preceding verse, " He that killeth a man, he sliall 
 be put to death." The law, therefore, is unrestricted and 
 universal ; Hebrew or heathen, he tliat killeth a 7nan and 
 he that stealeth a man shall alike die ; thus putting slavery 
 and murder on the same footing, as equally criminal. Now, 
 if God sanctioned shivery, wliy did he make such an in- 
 consistent law as tliis forbidding it ? 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 1 o 
 
 Second. The law concei^ning fugitives . — Dcut. 23 : 1-5, 
 16, "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant 
 which is escaped from his master unto thee ; he shall 
 dwell with thee, even among you in that place which he 
 shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best ; 
 thou shalt not oppress him." 
 
 There is no equivocation here ; " thou shalt not deliver 
 unto his master." It is imperative ; they were to receive 
 him among them as a citizen, and, if need be, protect him 
 from his master; mark, not a "heathen" or " Hebrew," 
 servant, but the " servant," heathen or Hebrew, whoever 
 should fly from the ill treatment or injustice of a hard 
 master. Compare for a moment the Hebrew and Amer- 
 ican fugitive laws. The Hebrew says, " Thou shalt not 
 deliver to his master the servant that is escaped." The 
 American says, " Thou shalt deliver him up to his master, 
 or be fined one thousand dollars, and suffer six months' 
 imprisonment." The Hebrew says, " He shall dweU with. 
 thee . . . thou shalt not oppress him." The American 
 law says, " The commissioner who tries the case shall get 
 five dollars if he fails, and ten if he succeeds in ' deliver- 
 ing to his master ' the fugitive, on the simple affidavit of 
 the former that he is his slave." 
 
 ^Yhat are the deductions from this law of Moses ? The 
 return of stray property is expressly commanded in Deut. 
 22 : 1-3 ; the return of servants is expressly forbidden 
 here ; the servant could leave a hard master at any time, 
 and the state could not compel him to return : it did not 
 recognize the condition of forced, but only voluntary ser- 
 vitude, and thus rendered the existence of chattclism 
 impossible. 
 
 The third great protective laiv was that of the Jubilee. — 
 Lev. 25 : lO-oo, " And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, 
 and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto 
 all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you, 
 and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye 
 shall return every man to his family." . . . Here the ex- 
 pression is emphatic, no reservations are made, no restric- 
 tions allowed. As the sound of bsi'^' ini"^* Yoval, Yoval, 
 sounded through the land, and was echoed back from hill 
 and village, from hamlet and town, the cr}' was taken up, 
 and borne along by the laboring thousands of Israel, many 
 of whom had been toiling under conti-act for years, by the 
 
16 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 unfortunate debtor, and those whom poverty had compelled 
 to part with "the old house at home," all returned, all 
 were free. " Liberty, liberty ! " 
 
 It is vain to assume that the benefits of the Jubilee 
 were restricted to a particular class. To what class ? 
 Not the six years' servants ; they were freed in the sev- 
 enth. Not to debtors ; there was no law compelling them 
 to serve at all ; therefore they could only serve voluntarily 
 to pay their debts. Not to thieves ; they could only be 
 compelled to make restitution of the thing stolen, or its 
 value ; that paid, they were free. The only other classes 
 to whom the law could apply Avere " all the inhabitants of 
 the land" who served the longest time, the Hebrew " for- 
 ever " servants, and the heathen servants, thus preventing 
 the possibility of the rise and growth of a servile class, 
 the curse of any country. In this M-ay only can we ac- 
 count for the fact that Jewish history never mentions the 
 existence of a large servile class, or a servile insurrection 
 in Israel, so common and disastrous an occurrence in the 
 history of ancient slaveholding communities. 
 
 Some object here, that the term " inhabitants" implies 
 " all the Hebrews," and excludes the strangers, Canaan- 
 ites, &c. ; but by admitting that " all the Hebrews " were 
 freed at the Jubilee, they admit that those who, in Ex. 
 21:6, are servants " for ever," are also freed, and thus to 
 serve "forever" only implies till the Jubilee. If, then, 
 "for ever" means only till the Jubilee in one case, it 
 means no more in the other. And if we show that the 
 strangers and Canaanitcs ice7^e considered " inhabitants 
 of the land," then the Jubilee referred to Hebrew and 
 stranger alike, and both were free. In Ex. 34: 12, 15, 
 " Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with 
 the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest ; " and 
 Lev. 18: 25; Num. 33: 52-55, Moses calls the heathen 
 "the inhabitants of the land;" and as he was likely to 
 understand the meaning of the term pretty well, he eitlicr 
 refers in the Jubilee law to Hebrews, Canaanitcs, and all, 
 or he meant Canaanitcs and heathen alone, M'hich is still 
 more decisive. Again, in 2 Sam. 11 : 2-27 ; 23 : 39, we 
 find one of these strangers, Uriah the Hiltile, not only an 
 " inhabitant" of Jerusalem, but one of David's best offi- 
 cers, and his wife becoming queen of Israel and mother 
 of Solomon ; and in 2 Sam. 24 : 18-25, another, Araunah 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 17 
 
 the Jebusite is a householder, and more, is praise as 
 acting like a king toward king David, who bought prop- 
 erty of him whereon to build an altar ; and yet, forsooth, 
 they Avere not inhabitants ! 
 
 But, as if to prevent equivocation, Moses defines the 
 phrase " all the inhabitants ; " " Ye shall retm*n every 
 man to his possession, and ye shall return every man to 
 his family." Not every Hebrew, but every man^ the 
 same generic term as in the law against killing or stealing 
 "a man;" it is unqualified and universal. Thus with 
 one blow this noble law strikes down the two principal 
 sources of social oppression — monopoly of land and mo- 
 nopoly of labor. All who had by poverty been compelled 
 to part with the old farm and homestead received it back ; 
 all claims of service against any person, however mean 
 and humble, were canceled ; and the land and its inhab- 
 itants were again free as God had made them. 
 
 These accumulated arguments, each separately weighty 
 and forcible, but collectively insurmountable, we think 
 prove conclusively that the form of servitude among the 
 Israelites was not chattel slavery, and that there is no 
 sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws and reg- 
 ulations. 
 
 Thus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning 
 under Eg}'ptian bondage, and God's arm outstretched 
 to rescue them when fugitives, and punish their pursu- 
 ers — a warning to all such thereafter ; we see laws en- 
 acted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, 
 by restricting the master's power, and securing the ser- 
 vant's freedom at regular intervals, and the opposite doc- 
 trine of equality among men asserted ; we see the Israel- 
 ites disobeying these commands, and adopting, with the 
 idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God's 
 fiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 and Ezekiel, and fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the de- 
 struction and captivity of the state. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 Teachings of Christ. 
 
 Ages pass, the Jews are restored to their land, but the 
 Roman eagle overshadows it and all the civilized world. 
 Despotism is enthroned ; and the idea that the world and 
 2* 
 
18 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 
 
 its people arc the property of Rome and its citizens is 
 questioned only in murmuring whispers. All the relations 
 of Roman life partake of this idea of absolutism ; sla- 
 very is every where, liberty nowhere. Then the glad 
 tidings of Messiah's coming is announced to an expectant 
 world. Whom will he side with — the crushed and de- 
 spairing millions, or the aristocratic and haughty fcAV ? 
 Will he adopt and develop the idea of equality found in 
 Jewish law, or the principle now ascendant, — "Might 
 makes right," — the Roman slave law ? Let him answer. 
 
 Standing'in the synagogue at Nazareth, the home of his 
 boyhood, amid his expectant friends and relations, he 
 reads (Luke 4: 16-21) from Isaiah, "The spirit of the 
 Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach 
 the gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to heal the broken- 
 hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recov- 
 ering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that 
 are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 
 And he closed the book and sat down, . . . and began to 
 say to them. This day is this scripture fulfilled in your 
 ears." There is his commission and the constitution of 
 his kingdom. Can any thing be more explicit ? 
 
 Christ hhnself comes with glad tidings for the poor, to 
 destroy slavery and oppression, and establish liberty. Re- 
 joice, ye poor, taught hitherto that ye were made only for 
 the service of the rich ; there is glad tidings for you. 
 Rejoice, captives and slaves, " bruised" with the lash and 
 fetter ; God comes " to preach deliverance to the captives, 
 liberty to them that are bruised, and the acceptable year 
 (the Jubilee) of the Lord." 
 
 How did he fulfill this commission and pledge ? No 
 code of laws and dogmas, terse and dry, were issued by 
 him for the government of his kingdom ; but the great 
 principle was proclaimed of a common brotherhood as 
 children of God our Father, and of love to him as such. In 
 his sermon on the mount, the parables of the lost sheep 
 and silver piece, the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, 
 the Pliarisce and the publican ; in his private teachings to 
 his disciples ; and, above all, by his daily example he 
 tauglit and illustrated, as the leading characteristics of his 
 kingdom, love to God, the brothcrliood of man, the rights 
 of all, however poor, degraded, or despised. More, he 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE? 19 
 
 makes this idea of brotherhood and equality even with 
 himself, the great test in the judgment. Matt. 25 : 
 40, 45 : " And the king shall answer, and say unto them, 
 Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto 
 the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
 What will those who now boast of their large churches, 
 composed almost entirely of slaves. Christian ministers, 
 and church members, bought, sold, lashed, and treated like 
 cattle, answer the King in that great day ? 
 
 But to return : the result of such teachings was soon 
 evident. " The common people heard him gladly," hung 
 on his steps and words by thousands, and hailed him as 
 deliverer ; while Scribes and Pharisees, priests and rulers, 
 denounced him as " a friend of publicans and sinners," 
 only seeking popularity among the masses, to disturb the 
 public peace, and revolutionize the government. ]Mark, 
 it was not simply religious, but political interference and 
 teaching they charged him with, and on this charge they 
 finally compassed his death. 
 
 In his private teachings to his disciples he strongly in- 
 culcated this truth. Striving among themselves for the 
 supremacy, he charges them. Matt. 20 : 26-28, and many 
 other places, " It shall not be so among you; but whoso- 
 ever will be chief among you, let him be your servant ; 
 even as the Son of man came not to be ministered to, 
 but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." 
 The law thus explicitly laid down, and in John 13 en- 
 forced by his example, is the very opposite of chattelism. 
 In his church, none were to claim supremacy over others, 
 much less enslave them ; none to despise labor and the 
 laborer, much less condemn others to it while themselves 
 lived in idleness. 
 
 Thus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or prop- 
 erty in man in any shape or form, by precept and ex- 
 ample taught the opposite, the dignity of labor and the 
 laborer, the common brotherhood of man, and consequent 
 equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorse 
 this doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with 
 the all prevalent system of class legislation and slavery ? 
 
 Teachings of the Apostles. 
 
 The result of their teaching in Judea is given in Acts 
 4: 32-35 — "And the multitude of them that believed 
 
20 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BTELE ? 
 
 were of one heart and one soul ; neither said any of 
 them that aught of the things he possessed icas his own ; 
 but they had all things common. Neither was there any 
 among them that lacked ; for as many as were possessors 
 of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of 
 the things that were sold and laid them down at the 
 apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man 
 according as he had need." They not only believed in 
 " liberty, equality, and fraternity," but practised its ex- 
 treme — not only equality of rights, but equality of prop- 
 erty, among the brotherhood. 
 
 But this was comparatively easy in Judea, where the 
 principle of equality was already partly recognized, and 
 the existence of chattelism prevented by the action of the 
 Mosaic code. The apostles only fairly came in conflict 
 Avith the spirit of caste and slavery when, filled with love 
 and the Spirit, they entered heathen countries, " preach- 
 ing the glad tidings of the kingdom," and establishing 
 every where the glorious brotherhood of humanity, whose 
 primary law is, " A new commandment I give unto you, 
 That ye love one another as I have loved you. By this 
 shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love 
 one to another." John 13 : 34-5. And Paul expounds it 
 to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12 : 13 — " For by one Spirit are 
 we all baptized into one body, M'hether we be Jews or 
 Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all 
 made to drink into one Spirit." Gal. 3 : 26-28 : " Ye are 
 all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as 
 many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put 
 on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is 
 neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; 
 for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.'^ Again, Col. 3 : 11, 
 " There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncir- 
 cumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free ; but 
 Christ is all and in all." 
 
 Can language be more express and conclusive tlian 
 this ? The distinctions here dissolved by the waters of 
 baptism, and blended into " one in Christ Jesus," are not, 
 as our southern brethren assert, simply religious, but 
 NATIONAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL — slavcrv, and the 
 spirit of caste and clan which upholds it, alike forbidden, 
 and liberty, equality, and fraternity, social, political, and 
 religious, proclaimed as the rule of Christ's kingdom. 
 
IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 21 
 
 Principles like these came upon the world like the 
 morning sunlight, scattering the mists of superstitious 
 ignorance, melting the icy pride and selfishness of the 
 mighty, permeating all classes and relations of society 
 with their secret influence, and blending all into one 
 harmonious brotherhood of love and peace. Apparently 
 they were subject as others to the laws of the state, but 
 in secret were bound by stronger ties, and governed by 
 higher, nobler laws, than the Avorld outside dreamed of. 
 
 Instead of the Roman law of marriage, regarding the 
 wife as the husband's slave, he must love her as himself; 
 more, as Christ loved the church. Instead of the tyranny 
 on one side, and the retaliating disobedience on the other, 
 of the Roman parental relation, it became the image of 
 our heavenly Father's love, and our trusting obedience to 
 him. The relation of slave, " pro nullo, pro quadrupedo, 
 pro mortuo," (as a nobody, a quadi'uped, a dead man,) to 
 his master, became the relation of brethren, the one to 
 render true and faithful service, Eph. 6 : 5, the other 
 never to threaten, Eph. 6 : 9, much less punish ; not to 
 regard them as chattels, as under the Roman law, but to 
 give them just and equal compensation for their service, 
 Eph. 6:9; Col. 4: 1, "knowing that ye also have a 
 Master in heaven," " neither is there respect of persons 
 with him." The legal deed of manumission was unneces- 
 sary ; for as, when master and slave land in England, they 
 may remain connected as master and free servant, never 
 as master and slave, so, on admission into the brother- 
 hood of the church, the waters of baptism, as shown 
 above, dissolved the relation of slavery, and substituted 
 that of freemen and brethren. 
 
 Again, believers were members of Christ's body. He 
 dwelt in them ; and therefore every indignity and injury 
 done to them was done to him in their person. To en- 
 slave, buy, and sell them was to enslave, buy, and sell 
 Christ himself. " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the 
 least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
 "Who, then, would dare hold a brother Christian as a slave ? 
 What ! make merchandise of the person of Christ r Never ! 
 the cry of Judas would ring around them as they were 
 driven ignominiously from the church. 
 
 "Why," it is objected, "did not the apostles preach 
 
■22 IS SJ.ATERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 
 
 immediate emancipation, instead of indorsing slavery by- 
 defining its duties — ' Servants, obey your masters,' &c. ? 
 and Paul even sent back a slave." 1. The primary 
 object of the apostles was not simply " to preach liberty 
 to the captives ; " this was but a branch of the tree 
 planted " for the healing of the nations." Their object 
 was to sow the principles of faith, love, justice, and 
 equality, well knowing that, when these took root and 
 flourished, among the first fruit would be " liberty to all 
 the inhabitants of the land." 2. Had this been their 
 great object, they took the best and speediest plan for 
 its accomplishment. Attacking the system directly, the 
 appearance of the Christian missionary would have been 
 the signal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave 
 against the master, the poor against the rich ; and the 
 heathen rulers, eager for a pretext to crush them, would 
 have denounced them as lighting the torch of rebellion 
 and war ; and the further spread of the gospel would have 
 been drowned in the blood of its founders. But they 
 took the very course which God adopted among the 
 Israelites in regard to servitude, not directly prohibiting it, 
 but inculcating principles of social equality and progress, 
 restricting the master's power, and protecting the servant's 
 rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name of 
 slave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and 
 duties of master and servant are defined by the apostles ex- 
 actly as they might be to-day in England or the free states 
 — as those of men, never as owner and property ; on the 
 contrary, all ownership of man by other than God is 
 expressly denied. 1 Cor. 6: 19, 20, "What! know ye 
 not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost in 
 you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your oicn ) 
 For ye are bought with a price ; therefore glorify God in 
 your body and your spirit, which are GocVs." There 
 the ownership is clearly asserted ; how can man claim it ? 
 " Render to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to 
 God the things that are God's,'' lest you be found robbing 
 God himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7 : 21, 23, " Art thou called, 
 being a servant ? care not for it ; but, if thou mayst be 
 made free, (f!)j3faa«» yevsadut,^ canst become free,) use it 
 rather." What can be more explicit than this ? First, 
 ownership of man is denied even to himself, much more 
 to another. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they can 
 
IS SLAYERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE ? 23 
 
 not get free from this great ■s\Tong, to bear it as such, but, 
 if they can, " use it rather ; " and the reason given is 
 followed by a rule of action to be adopted wherever 
 possible. Verse 23, " Ye are bought with a price ; be 
 
 NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." If this be not CXprCSS 
 
 prohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free 
 themselves from it, then the language is totally contra- 
 dictory and unintelligible. 
 
 Contrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of 
 the southern states, forbidding even the master to free 
 his slaves, while states and Congress unite in hounding 
 back to whip and task the poor slave who dares obey 
 that command ; nay, offer large rewards for men, even 
 Christian ministers, when attempting to obey it. " But 
 Paul sent back Onesimus to his master, and therefore 
 sanctioned the sending back of fugitives." We answer, 
 there was no sending back at all. Paul, a prisoner, could 
 not send him back : a Jew, he was forbidden by his 
 religion to do so. Deut. 23: 15. It was simply a rec- 
 ommendatory letter sent with Onesimus, returning vol- 
 untarily to Colosse and his master. Let us look at the 
 letter. Verse 8 begins, " Wherefore, though I might be 
 much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is conven- 
 ient, yet, for love's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech 
 thee for my son Onesimus, . . . icMch in time past icas to 
 thee unprofitahie, but now profitable to thee and to me ; 
 whom I have sent again, . . . not now as a servant, but 
 above a servant, a brother beloved," &c. Here Onesimus 
 is described as having been, while heathen, an " unprofit- 
 able " trouble to his master, and had cither run away or 
 been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paul heard 
 his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doing 
 Philemon a favor, has to earnestly " beseech," almost 
 command, his reception as a favor to himself. Not one 
 word of propcrtij or i^ight in him, save the right of love 
 as one of the brotherhood. " Xot now as a servant, 
 but above a sere ant, a brother beloved, especially to ?ne, 
 but how much more to thee ! " Onesimus had left the 
 " slave " in his heathenism ; in Christ he became the 
 " brother " of Philemon and Paul. Instead of sanction- 
 ing chattelism, it positively denies it by aflii'ming volun- 
 tary service, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved 
 as Christ himself. 
 
24 IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE f 
 
 Thus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding 
 chattelism in their teachings, denounced the ownership of 
 man by any but God, and inculcated its opposite — love, 
 liberty, equality, and fraternity — by precept and example. 
 And subsequent history showed the result. 
 
 Christ said of the teachings of the Pharisees, "• By their 
 fruits ye shall know them." Apply this test to the teach- 
 ings of the apostles and the primitive churches in regard to 
 slavery. When they went forth, " darkness covered the 
 earth, and gross darkness the people ; " slavery sat en- 
 throned in might over Europe ; and the cries of tlie 
 oppressed millions had only had a hearing on the battle 
 or before the throne of God. 
 
 When the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in 
 Europe ; and the voice of the people was heard asserting 
 their rights, feebly, indeed, at first, but ever since grow- 
 ing stronger and stronger " as the voice of many waters." 
 What has caused this change ? 
 
 Historians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the 
 influence of the church, not by direct emancipatory de- 
 crees, but, following the example of God through ISIoscs, 
 by gi-adually restricting the master's power, and protecting 
 the slave ; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and 
 fell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much 
 field, of the fair fields of Europe and America. 
 
 No fact is more patent in history than the truth ex- 
 pressed by Paul to the Corinthians: "Where the Spirit 
 of the Lord is, there is libekty." The whole tendency 
 of tlie Bible and true Christianity, direct and indirect, is 
 to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and 
 degradation, of man ; and those who have attempted to 
 shield the monster curse of our country and age with the 
 garb of the gospel may find too late, when that awful 
 voice shall ring in their ears, " Inasmuch as ye have done 
 it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have 
 done it unto me," that Christ came not only " to preach 
 deliverance to the captives " and " to set at liberty them 
 that are bruised," but also " the day of vengeance of our 
 God." 
 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
 
 28 CoRNHiLLj^ Boston. 
 
 jl !»>ml~8>v\ Jl 
 
EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONORS ARGUMENT 
 
 Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the ^' Lemmon 
 Slave Case" 
 
 " I SUBMIT most respectfully that the only desire I have mani- 
 fested here or elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been 
 to draw the mind of the court and the intelligent mind of the 
 American people, to the true question which underlies the whole 
 conflict, and that is the question to which my friend (W. W. 
 Evarts, Esq.) has addressed the best, and, in my judgment, the 
 finest part of his very able argument. * * * ^jy ft-iend de- 
 nounces the institution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a 
 sin, as a violation of the law of God and of the law of man, 
 of natural law or natural justice; and in his argument in 
 another place, he called your attention to the enormity of the 
 result claimed in this case, that these eight persons — and not 
 only they, but then- posterity to the remotest time — were, by 
 your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shocking con- 
 dition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small 
 and minute was that presentation of the subject! My friend 
 must certainly have used the microscope or reversed the tele- 
 scope, when, in seeking to present this question in a striking 
 manner to your Honors" minds, he called your attention to 
 these feio persons and their posterity. Why, if your Honors 
 please, our territory embraces at the least estimate three mil- 
 lions of these human beings, who, by our laws and institu- 
 tions, as now existing is these states, * * * ^re not 
 only consigned to hopeless bondage throughout their whole 
 Hves, but to a like condition is their posterity consigned 
 to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of the 
 mightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' 
 attention to its magnitude is this : that you may contemplate it 
 in the connection in which my learned friend has presented it ; 
 that it is a SIN — a violation of natural justice and the law of 
 God ; that it is a monstrous scheme of iniquity for defrauding 
 the laborer of his wages — one of those sins that crieth aloud to 
 
heaven for vengeance ; that it is a course of unbridled rapine, m = 
 fraud, and pkmder, by which three miUions and their posterity (^^ 
 are to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin ? Is ^ ^ 
 this an outrage against divine law and natural justice ? If it he ^^ 
 such an outrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, gf j 
 of the most enormous and flagitious character that was ever M 
 presented to the human mind. The man who does not shrink ^ 
 from it with horror is utterly unworthy the name of a man. It ^ 
 is no trivial offence, that may be tolerated with limitations and 
 qualifications ; that we can excuse ourselves for supporting 
 because we have made some kind of a bargain to support it. 
 The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting its 
 enormity ; it is not in the power of the human heart to form 
 a just conception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I 
 ask, is the rational and necessary consequence, if we regard it 
 to be thus sinful, thus unjust, thus outrageous ? " 
 
 Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the 
 sinfulness of slavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy 
 in Bcthlem, Connecticut, and w^hile there pressed upon him the 
 duty of liberating his only slave. Dr. B., who was an acute 
 and ingenious reasoner, defended slaveholding by a variety of 
 arguments, to which Dr. H. as ably repHed. At length Dr. 
 Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to the 
 golden rule. " Will you give your slave his freedom if he 
 desires it ? " Dr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judi- 
 cious, trusted with every thing, and would not accept freedom 
 if offered. " Will you free him if lie desires it ? " repeated 
 Dr. H. *' Yes," answered Dr. Bellamy, " I will." '' Call him 
 then." The man appeared. " Have you a good, khul master ? " 
 asked Dr. Hopkins. " Oh ! yes, very, very good." " And are you 
 happy ? " " Yes, master, very happy." " Would you be more 
 happy if you were free ? " His face brightened. " Oh ! yes, 
 master, a great deal more happy." " From this moment,'' said 
 Dr. Bellamy, "yow are free." 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 932 616 3