•OR 
 
 
 
SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 IN THE LIGHT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE HOLY BIBLE, 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM HENRY BRISBANE. 
 
 " Prove all things : hold fast that which is good." 
 
 TUBLISIIED BY 
 
 THE AM. AND FOIL ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. 
 
 William Hanied, Agent, No. 22, Spruce st., N. Y. 
 
COMMENDATORY NOTICES. 
 
 Philadelphia, Sept. 23. 
 Doctor Brisbane's Bible argument is, to me, more reada- 
 ble and more satisfactory than any other that I have met 
 with. The subject is discussed with a candor, clearness 
 and force equally rare in this controversy. I did not think 
 that the discussion could be revived with so much pro- 
 mise of practical good as the perusal of the Doctor's book 
 now induces me to expect. Its spirit is manly, and style 
 easy, while its thought is mature and its criticism acute, 
 and its argument is conducted, throughout, in the assuring 
 tone ot a calm demonstration, without any of the tension 
 and struggle of a difficult and doubtful dispute. It is an 
 open, free, true book, written by an honest, capable man, 
 who has worked his own way through the practice and 
 prejudices of slavery, up into the liberty of his present 
 position and opinions, in all the earnestness of great suf- 
 fering and great sacrifice. He has lived through every 
 stage of his argument, and in a very successful piece of 
 authorship has produced a book, which is well calculated 
 to spread its truths and circulate itself wherever it is most 
 needed. WILLIAM ELDER. 
 
 Norristown, Pa., Aug. 8, 1847. 
 
 I have very recently examined, with attention, a manu- 
 script of Dr. William Henry Brisbane's, discussing every 
 passage in the Bible, that has heretofore been adduced in 
 support of slavery. Dr. B. defines Slavery as follows : 
 " Slavery is that condition in which one is in the power of 
 another whom he is compelled to serve without the means 
 of redress when wronged," and then rigorously compares 
 this definition with the Scriptures, and shows to a demon- 
 stration, as it appears to me, that the Bible not only with- 
 holds its sanction from such a relation, but imposes upon 
 it the most fearful condemnation. He proves also, that 
 there is no word in the sacred writings that is equivalent 
 to " slave" or "slavery." 
 
 I hope that Bro. Brisbane will print this little book, 
 which, for clear statement and conclusive argument, is 
 unsurpassed by any thing I ever read. It makes no dis- 
 play of learning, but shows a vast amount of thinking, 
 and will, I firmly believe, make many a thoughtful and 
 candid reader, whether learned or unlearned, feel surpris- 
 ed, if not ashamed, that conclusions so naturally flowing 
 from the text had not occurred to him before. 
 
 4*4Hii wmmEgmmmmmttB aaron. 
 
 IN BXOHANGK 
 
 Cornell Uuhr. 
 < FU9M 
 
Ill 
 
 Belleville, Aug. 18, 1847. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — The evening that you left us, I wrote 
 to Mr. L. Tappan, giving him our views of your Bible 
 argument as he requested, which was, substantially, — 1. 
 That its spirit is admirable. 2. That its brevity, simpli- 
 city, clearness, compact logic, freedom from ambitious 
 pretence of scholarship — its easy, natural flow of com- 
 mon sense, stampt throughout with independent thought 
 and crititical acumen, combined with its rare candor, 
 calmness and courtesy — entitle it to a wide dissemination, 
 and will secure for its words of truth and soberness large 
 audience and earnest pondering. 
 
 I have just read the above to my wife and to her sister, 
 Sarah M. Grimke — who are now detained by company — 
 and they beg me to say for them, that it is a true expres- 
 sion of their estimate of your Essay. They both join me 
 in affectionate salutations. 
 
 In haste and heartiness, your friend, 
 
 THEODORE D. WELD. 
 
 The following is from Miss Grimke, formerly of South 
 Carolina, whose opinion, and that of her sister, Mrs. 
 Weld, is valuable ; not only on account of their own litera- 
 ry reputation, but because, as Southern ladies, they are 
 particularly qualified to judge of the merits of a work on 
 the subject of Slavery. 
 
 Dear Bro. — I feel impelled to add a line, to say, that I 
 bless the Lord for the Essay you have prepared, in behalf 
 of the poor slave ; and my heart yearns that He, who has 
 filled thy heart with love to the poor, may give you more 
 and more of his spirit, until your whole being is absorbed 
 in God; that you may do yet greater things, to help for- 
 ward the great work of regenerating the world. I'o do 
 this, we must become embodiments of Divine Love ; and 
 God will raise up such, to live out his Gospel, and be re- 
 presentatives on earth, of love to God and good will to 
 man. 
 
 When you go over your manuscript, try it all again 
 by the spirit of Jesus. Look to Him and he will help 
 you. There was one expression, which I cannot recall, 
 in the same part of the work with the word " fool," which 
 seemed to savor more of earth, than heaven, if you de- 
 tect it, think of it. Eaithfullvr •* •»■■»* * 
 
 SARAH M. GRIMKE. 
 
VI 
 
 Pemberton, N. J., Sept. 20, 1847. 
 
 Dear Bro. — I have perused " Slaveholding Examined in 
 the Light of the Holy Bible" with unfeigned interest. 
 
 I consider its exposition of Scripture, faithful and true ; 
 its arguments candid and convincing; its reminiscences 
 of slavery startling, and its appeals to slaveholders pun- 
 gent and powerful — an excellent work, and well adapted 
 to convince the reader that the Bible affords no refuge for 
 oppression. Yours in the Gospel, &c, 
 
 D. S. PARMELEE. 
 
 Philadelphia, Sept. 25, 1847. 
 l'ev. Wm. H. Brisbane : 
 
 Dear Sir : — I have read, with as much attention as my 
 engagements would permit, your Biblical Examination 
 of Slaveholding; and while I could not pretend, on such 
 a cursory perusal, to endorse every idea or form of ex- 
 pression contained in it, yet I can say, without qualifica- 
 tion, that I think the views you have advanced, correct, 
 the principles ol interpretation you have followed, sound. 
 and the result to which you have arrived, to be, in almost 
 every passage, the one which a just criticism woulddemand. 
 May your effort contribute much to expose the unfounded 
 assumption that the Holy Scriptures, in any form, uphold 
 and sanction the abominable system of enslaving the bo- 
 dies and souls of men. Yours truly, 
 
 GEO. B. IDE. 
 
 Philadelphia, Sept. G, 1847. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — I have looked over the proof-sheets of 
 your forth-coming work, " Slavery Examined in the 
 Light of the Holy Bible," with very great pleasure. 
 
 The fact that you yourself were reared in the midst of 
 slavery, and were yourself a slaveholder, will give addi- 
 tional force to the work. When the time shall come, and 
 come it will, when posterity shall look back with wonder 
 and shame that in so plain a case in morals, there could be 
 found professing christians apologizing for such a heaven- 
 daring system of iniquity as American Slavery, your book 
 will doubtless be looked upon as one of the very many 
 instrumentalities in removing the thick film which now so 
 obscures the moral vision. 
 
 •YoHrs, Jruly, for truth and humanity, 
 
 'D CLEVELAND. 
 
 Bev W.m. H. Brisv.ane 
 
Sept. 17, 1847. 
 1 have examined a work entitled " Slaveholding- Ex- 
 amined in the Light of the Holy Bible," by Wra. H. Bris- 
 bane, and I do not hesitate lo say, that it is the most lucid 
 and convincing refutation of the assumption that slavery 
 is sanctioned by the Bible that I have ever seen, and in 
 my judgment, it is well adapted on account of its spirit 
 arrangement and style to enlighten and convince all classes 
 of mind that American Slavery is directly opposed to the 
 teachings of the Old and New Tes' anient. 
 
 HIRAM HUTCHINS, 
 Pastor of the Baptist Church, Norristown, Pa. 
 
 Extracts from Letters from Mr. Lewis Tappan, of N. Y. 
 
 " There is no doubt that your little work is an excellent 
 performance, and that it will do much good." * * * 
 
 " Most of the anecdotes refer to members of the Baptist 
 Church. All the readers will not know that you are a 
 member and minister of that denomination, and may there- 
 fore suppose the author was unfeelingly critical with the 
 Baptists." * * * * 
 
 ^erratZ 
 
 Page 22, line 20, for to, read unto. 
 
 " 23 " 14 " nations shall, read nations and great 
 kings shall. 
 : 4—14", read 9—14. 
 1 read 1, 2. 
 
 Abram, read Abraham, 
 natural, read national, 
 xxii, read xxxii. 
 cattle that, read cattle nor thy stranger 
 
 that, 
 a, read an. 
 born, read borne. 
 ; 10, read 10, 11, 
 6, read 2. 
 
 maid, read a maid, 
 temporally, read temporarily. 
 xx, read xxi. 
 to a, read to an. 
 or a, read or an. 
 39, read 39—43. 
 a, read an. 
 
 bondmaids, read and thy bondmaids 
 And if, read c< And if. 
 
 cc 
 
 " 15 
 
 29 
 
 " 21 
 
 31 
 
 » 22 
 
 32 
 
 " 23 
 
 34 
 
 " 21 
 
 38 
 
 " 14 
 
 39 
 
 " 8 
 
 << 
 
 " 14 
 
 42 
 
 " 13 
 
 43 
 
 " 18 
 
 50 
 
 " 1 
 
 (C 
 
 " 9 
 
 l£ 
 
 " 16 
 
 50 
 
 " 10 
 
 55 
 
 " 9 
 
 57 
 
 " 20 
 
 c< 
 
 " 24 
 
 58 
 
 " 23 
 
 65 
 
 « 26 
 
VI 
 
 Page 66 " 7 " or if, read or any that is nigh of kin 
 unto him of his family; or if. 
 
 71 " 1 " thy, read thine. 
 
 79 " 13 " master." read master. 
 
 " " 20 " able to, read able utterly to. 
 
 82 " 5 " or, read or a. 
 
 89 " 21 " Revelations, read Revelation. 
 
 92 " 4 " shouldst, read shouldest. 
 
 94 " 11 " , read . 
 
 95 " 18 " xii, readxiii. 
 102 " 1 " Aud, read And. 
 
 " " 11 " bring, read bid. 
 
 " " 21 " his, read the. 
 
 104 " 13 " the Lord, read his lord. 
 
 108 " 27 " which, read that. 
 
 " " " " from him, read away. 
 
 111 u 24 " 22, read 22— 26. 
 
 112 " 1 " his, read the. 
 » » 16 " afterwards, read afterward. 
 
 113 " 22 " and said, read saying. 
 
 114 " 8 " laidest, read layedest. 
 
 121 " 14 " thus, read then. 
 " " 21 " yourselves, read your members. 
 
 122 " 2 " ashamed? But, read ashamed ? for the 
 end of those things is death. But. 
 
 123 " 23 " 22, read 24. 
 
 124 " 26 " tempation, read temptation. 
 126 " 19 " Corinthians, read 1. Corinthians. 
 132 " 22 & 23 for blasphemed And, read blasphem- 
 ed. And. 
 
 135 " 1 for like, read as. 
 
 139 " 7 & 8 for reception 7, read reception. 7. 
 
 147 " 6 for your, read the. 
 (i u u u which, read who. 
 
 148 " 19 " it all, read it at all. 
 159 " 16 " And, read thou. 
 
 163 " 3 " xiv, read xlv. 
 
 164 " 25 fr 26 for shoes, read shoes; yea. 
 
 165 " 15 for xiv, 31, read xxii, 22, 23. 
 
 166 " 10 " ix, read iv. 
 174 " 13 " it shall, read shall it. 
 176 " 14 u master, read masters. 
 179 « 6 " 18, read 18, 19. 
 186 (1 16 " Timothy, read 1. Timothy. 
 196 " 19 " advantges, read advantages. 
 
 On pages 22 and 23, quotations from Deut., Jeremiah 
 
 and Joel have the points of separation omitted. 
 
Vll 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Genesis ix. 
 
 25-27 
 
 19 
 
 Leviticus xxv. 51-55 
 
 65 
 
 (< 
 
 xiii 
 
 . 1..2 
 
 29 
 
 Numbers xxxi. 9 
 
 76 
 
 ti 
 
 xvii. 12, 13 
 
 Deuteronomv v. 14, 21 
 
 38 
 
 ti 
 
 xxiii. 6 
 
 31 
 
 " xv. 12 18 
 
 70 
 
 a 
 
 xxiv. 18 
 
 31 
 
 « " 17 41 44 70 
 
 << 
 
 xxv. 23 
 
 32 
 
 " xx. 12-14 
 
 75 
 
 << 
 
 xxvi. 14 
 
 33 
 
 " xxiii. 3 
 
 65 
 
 (< 
 
 xxvii. 37 
 
 32 
 
 u t< 7 
 
 33 
 
 (( 
 
 a 
 
 40 
 
 33 
 
 " xxiv. 7 
 
 161 
 
 <( 
 
 xxix. 
 
 34 
 
 " "15 16, 57 63 150 
 
 (i 
 
 XXX 
 
 .43 
 
 34 
 
 " xxviu30 32 33 
 
 
 II 
 
 xxxii. 5 
 
 34 
 
 4168 
 
 22 
 
 Exodus 
 
 xii. 
 
 43, 44 45 35 
 
 Joshua ix 14 
 
 78 
 
 (< 
 
 XX. 
 
 10, 17 
 
 38 
 
 " » 23, 27 
 
 77 
 
 << 
 
 xxi 
 
 2-6 
 
 39 55 
 
 Judges ii. 14 
 
 '43 
 
 (< 
 
 i< 
 
 7-11 
 
 42 53 
 
 Ruth iv. 10 
 
 43 
 
 (< 
 
 it 
 
 16 61 
 
 . 160 187 
 
 I Samuel ix. 22 
 
 84 
 
 (i 
 
 a 
 
 20,21 
 
 45 
 
 II Samuel xii. 31 
 
 78 
 
 t< 
 
 ii 
 
 26, 27 
 
 62 
 
 I Kings ix. 9-12 
 
 184 
 
 ll 
 
 it 
 
 28-30 
 
 50 
 
 '« " 20-22 
 
 '79 
 
 II 
 
 ii 
 
 32 
 
 49 
 
 II Kings iv. 1 
 
 81 
 
 a 
 
 xxii 
 
 . 3 
 
 50 
 
 " vi. 22, 23 
 
 79 
 
 H 
 
 ii 
 
 21 64 76 159 
 
 " xvii. 17 
 
 43 
 
 u 
 
 xxiii. 9 
 
 159 
 
 " xx. 18 
 
 23 
 
 Leviticus xix. 20 
 
 51 62 
 
 I Chronicles ii. 34 35 
 
 85 
 
 u 
 
 ii 
 
 21, 22 
 
 62 
 
 II Chronicles viii. 7 8 9 
 
 80 
 
 (( 
 
 ll 
 
 34 
 
 64 
 
 " xviii. 8-15 
 
 40 
 
 l< 
 
 xxii 
 
 . 10-13 
 
 55 62 
 
 Nehemiah iv. 16 
 
 85 
 
 <« 
 
 xxiv. 22 
 
 63 
 
 " v. 5-12 40,161 
 
 {( 
 
 xxv 
 
 . 6 
 
 56 
 
 " xi. 3 
 
 85 
 
 u 
 
 II 
 
 10 
 
 63 
 
 Esther viii. 17 
 
 63 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 35 36 
 
 82 
 
 Job vii. 2-3 
 
 82 
 
 (< 
 
 II 
 
 39, 40 3 
 
 " xxxi. 13, 38, 39 
 
 84 
 
 
 
 
 67 
 
 " xii. 5 
 
 85 
 
 «( 
 
 II 
 
 41 
 
 67 
 
 Psalms lxxii. 4 
 
 200 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 42, 37 4( 
 
 Provurbs xxii. 16 
 
 199 
 
 
 
 
 58 67 82 
 
 " » 22,23 
 
 165 
 
 (c 
 
 (( 
 
 43 
 
 57 67 
 
 Isaiah liii. 3 
 
 43 
 
 (< 
 
 II 
 
 44 
 
 51 87 88 
 
 " lviii. 6 
 
 201 
 
 <( 
 
 II 
 
 45, 46, 
 
 57 87 88 
 
 Jeremiah ii. 14 
 
 83 
 
 <c 
 
 (' 
 
 47 
 
 61 65 71 
 
 " xvii. 4 
 
 22 
 
 (C 
 
 (1 
 
 48. 49 
 
 65 
 
 " xxi. 12 
 
 200 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 50' 
 
 37 51 65 
 
 " xxii. 13 
 
 165 
 
VJ11 
 
 inde: 
 
 £— 
 
 Continued. 
 
 
 Jeremiah xxv. 9-14 
 
 23 
 
 Luke xvi 13 
 
 91 
 
 xxx. 16, 18-20 
 
 23 
 
 " xvii 7-10 
 
 112 
 
 " xxxiv 17 
 
 162 
 
 « xix 12-27 
 
 113 
 
 Lamentations iii. 34-30 
 
 162 
 
 " xx. 9-12 
 
 99 
 
 Ezekiel xviii. 12, 13 
 
 162 
 
 " xxii. 25-27 
 
 173 
 
 " xxii. 29 
 
 162 
 
 John viii. 34-30 
 
 116 
 
 « xlv. 9 
 
 103 
 
 '• xviii 10 
 
 110 
 
 Hosea iii. 2 
 
 43 
 
 u u 18 
 
 111 
 
 Joel iii. 3-8 24 
 
 163 
 
 " " 20 
 
 111 
 
 Amos v. 12 
 
 164 
 
 Acts ii. 18 
 
 118 
 
 " viii. 4-8 
 
 165 
 
 " x. 7 
 
 119, 140 
 
 Habakkuk ii. 6 
 
 165 
 
 " xvi. 16-19 
 
 119 
 
 Matthew iv. 10 
 
 100 
 
 " xvii. 20 
 
 183 
 
 " vi. 24 
 
 91 
 
 Romans vi. 10-23 
 
 121 
 
 " vii. 12 
 
 108 
 
 " xiv. 4 
 
 123 
 
 " viii. 5-13 
 
 91 
 
 1 Corinthians v. 11 
 
 183 
 
 " x. 24, 25 
 
 94 
 
 " vi. 10 
 
 183 
 
 " xiii. 27, 28 
 
 95 
 
 " vii. 15 
 
 129 
 
 " xiv. 1, 2 
 
 95 
 
 " »« 20-24 
 
 123 
 
 " xviii. 23-34 
 
 90 
 
 " ix. 19 
 
 126 
 
 " xx. 1-15 
 
 110 
 
 2 Corinthians iv. 5 
 
 126 
 
 " " 25-28 
 
 173 
 
 " xi. 20 
 
 184 
 
 " xxi. 33-36 
 
 99 
 
 Galatians iv. 1-7 
 
 127 
 
 « xxii. 2-13 
 
 101 
 
 Ephesians vi 5-9 
 
 128 
 
 " xxiii. 10-12 
 
 170 
 
 Philippians ii. 7 
 
 130 
 
 11 xxiv. 45-51 
 
 104 
 
 Colossians iii. 11 
 
 185 
 
 " xxv. 14-30 
 
 107 
 
 " " 22-25 
 
 131 
 
 " xxvi. 51 
 
 110 
 
 " iv. 1 
 
 131 
 
 Mark x. 42-45 
 
 173 
 
 I Thessaloneans iv. 
 
 11 147 
 
 " xii. 2-5 
 
 99 
 
 I Timothy i, 10 
 
 186 
 
 " xiv. 47 
 
 110 
 
 " vi 1, 2 
 
 132 144 
 
 " " 65 
 
 111 
 
 Titus ii. 9, 10 
 
 136 
 
 Luke iv. 8 
 
 100 
 
 Philemon 10-19 
 
 137 
 
 " " 18-19 
 
 179 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 3 
 
 185 
 
 " vii. 2-10 
 
 91 
 
 James ii. 9 
 
 154 
 
 " xii. 37 
 
 182 
 
 " v. 4 
 
 147 
 
 « xii. 12-48 
 
 104 
 
 I Peter ii. 18-20 
 
 139 
 
 " xiv. 16—24 
 
 101 
 
 II Peter ii. 3 
 
 155 
 
 " xv. 23-26 
 
 111 
 
 Revelation xviii. 13 
 
 89 155 
 
SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 IN THE LIGHT 
 
 OP 
 
 THE HOLY BIBLE, 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM HENRY BRISBANE, 
 
 ▲ SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 " Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 1847. 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the 
 year 1847, 
 
 BY WILLIAM HENRY BRISBANE, 
 
 in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court 
 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Stereotyped by 
 
 S. DOUGLAS WYETH, No. 7 Pear St. 
 
 Philadelphia. 
 
 Printed at the 
 U. S. JOB PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 For several years I have been examining 
 the question of slavery with great care 
 and attention. Once a slaveholder my- 
 self, born, brought up, and educated in 
 the midst of slaveholders and slaves, I first 
 investigated this subject with all the zeal 
 and energy of the warmest supporters of 
 the so-called "peculiar institution." In 
 time I found myself perplexed with the 
 results of my own arguments. I discov- 
 ered my error : I became convinced that 
 slaveholding was unrighteous : I aban- 
 doned it ; and was conscientiously con- 
 strained to give freedom to upwards of 
 thirty slaves. I have had to sacrifice 
 a large portion of my patrimony, to exile 
 myself from my native state, and to be 
 cut off from the enjoyments of home, of 
 friendship, and of brotherhood. I feel, 
 therefore, that I have a claim to be heard. 
 
 iii 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 I know what are the struggles in a con- 
 scientious slaveholder's mind. I know his 
 difficulties in an investigation of the sub- 
 ject of slavery, and I know how it is he 
 mistakes the teachings of the Bible. I 
 trust the following pages will serve to open 
 the eyes of some to the sinfulness of slave- 
 holding, and be the means of emancipating 
 many slaves. 
 
 Although I do not write this book for the 
 scholar ; but for the plain English reader; 
 yet I have been careful not to violate the 
 rules of a just criticism ; and that I may 
 guard the reader against any mistake, I wish 
 here to make a few critical observations. 
 
 It is often insisted upon, and with much 
 pertinacity, that the Hebrew " ebedh" and 
 the Greek "doulos" mean generally 
 "slave," and that "servant" also, in the 
 New Testament and elsewhere, frequently 
 means slave. Without pretending to be 
 much of a linguist myself, I cannot but 
 express, nevertheless, great surprise, that 
 learned critics have suffered themselves to 
 fall into this error. I unhesitatingly say, 
 that neither ebedh, doulos, nor servant, 
 ever means slave. The word servant pre- 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 cisely expresses the meaning of the words 
 ebedh* and doulos ; and it is always im- 
 possible to judge from either word of 
 itself, independently of other circumstan- 
 ces, whether a slave be spoken of or not. 
 It does not mean a slave, a hireling, or a 
 bondman ; but it means one who serves. 
 Such a one may be a slave, a bondman, a 
 hireling, or neither. The word of itself 
 never determines the condition of the ser- 
 vant, or the relation he holds to the one 
 he serves. This must be determined by 
 the context or the occasion. 
 
 The ancients had no word in common 
 use to signify slave. This is a word 
 of comparatively modern origin. For- 
 merly that condition, now called slavery, 
 was signified by the connection in which 
 the word servant was employed, or by 
 some word that specified a particular peo- 
 ple, whose condition was well known ; as 
 the Helots of Sparta ; — so the condition of 
 involuntary or forced servitude is now ex- 
 pressed either by the connection and cir- 
 cumstances in which the word servant 
 
 * The Hebrew ebedh signifies laborer and thence 
 servant. 
 
 1* 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 is employed, or by the word slave, which 
 is a corruption of the word Sclavonian — 
 the name of a people whom the Venitians 
 conquered and sold, and of whom the 
 serfs of Russia are now the regular de- 
 scendants. 
 
 So of the word master in English, and 
 the Greek word despotes — they do not 
 necessarily mean the owner of slaves. 
 God is addressed as a despot by good old 
 Simeon, in Luke ii. 29; and by the wor- 
 shippers in Acts iv. 24 ; and in Jude 4, and 
 Rev. vi. 10. But God's government is 
 that of a father over his children. And 
 Jesus Christ is called a despot by Peter. 
 (2 Pet. ii. 1.) But Jesus Christ's yoke is 
 easy and his burden is light. His servants 
 serve him from choice ; they are not 
 slaves. The servants in our Northern 
 states are during their term of service 
 under despots; i. e. they are under the 
 entire management of the proprietor of 
 the premises, who employs them in his 
 service : they are voluntarily under his 
 absolute authority. But a despotic gov- 
 ernment is not necessarily an oppressive 
 one ; when, therefore, the government of 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 the master or despot becomes oppressive, 
 the contract is no longer binding. 
 
 In England, the servants call their em- 
 ployers master. But those servants have 
 their civil rights and their means of redress 
 when wronged. They are not slaves. 
 
 In the following pages I do not discuss 
 the relation of the despot or master to the 
 doulos, or servant. I only argue the ques- 
 tion of the relation of the despot or master 
 to the slave. And I hope the reader will 
 hear this in mind throughout. Whether 
 any despotic government is ever right in 
 itself, except that of the Almighty and the 
 Holy God over his creatures, or of the 
 father over his children in their early years, 
 I design neither to affirm nor to deny. It 
 is a question separate from the one dis- 
 cussed in this book, and so far as my argu- 
 ment goes it does not touch it. Whether 
 the Bible sanctions, justifies, tolerates, or 
 merely on account of the peculiar condi- 
 tion of the world suffers the relation of the 
 despot and subject, the master and ser- 
 vant, I am not disposed to meddle with in 
 these pages. But to the naked question 
 of the relation of master and slave, I wish 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 to limit the attention of the reader ; and I 
 hope every Christian who commences the 
 perusal of this little book, will go through 
 it determined to deal fairly with the writer, 
 and not by making other issues, wander 
 off from the direct question. 
 
 And may He who looks into all hearts, 
 dispose every one who examines this sub- 
 ject, to deal honestly with his own con- 
 science, and give him grace to follow out 
 his convictions of truth without the fear 
 of man, or the love of worldly ease. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface • 
 
 3 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 
 Slavery Defined - 
 
 11 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 
 Canaan's Curse - . - 
 
 19 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 
 Servants of the Patriarchs - 
 
 27 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 
 Mosaic Institutions 
 
 35 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 
 Historical Evidences 
 
 77 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Examination of the Gospels 89 
 
 9 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles - - 118 
 
 CHAPTER VHI. 
 The Epistles 121 
 
 CHAPTER EX. 
 
 The Incompatibility of Slavery with the Laws 
 
 and Principles of the Old Testament - 156 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The Incompatibility of Slavery with the Prin- 
 ciples and Precepts of the New Testa- 
 ment ----- 166 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Slavery as existing in the United States - 190 
 
 CHAPTER Xn. 
 Reminiscences of Slavery - 202 
 
SLAVEHOLDER EXAMINED 
 
 IN THE LIGHT OP 
 
 THE HOLY BIBLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 SLAVERY DEFINED. 
 
 What is slavery ? This question has fre- 
 quently been asked, and many writers have 
 attempted to reply to it, without giving 
 a clear and satisfactory definition. And 
 hence very much of the difficulty in mak- 
 ing a Southern slaveholder comprehend an 
 argument to prove that the Bible con- 
 demns slavery. Having myself experi- 
 enced this difficulty when I was the owner 
 of slaves in South Carolina, I have learn- 
 ed in the process of my investigations that 
 I was labouring under an erroneous defi- 
 nition of the term itself; nor was it until 
 I had observed what I had considered the 
 
 11 
 
12 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 abuses of slavery were the very essence 
 of the thing itself, that I was persuaded to 
 believe that slavery was condemned by the 
 Bible. The amount of it is just this — 
 nothing is slavery into which the idea of 
 oppression does not enter. One may have 
 a servant for life and that servant may fall 
 as a part of the inheritance to his heirs, 
 but if the bondman have the legal means 
 of redress and the capability of shielding 
 himself from imposition and wrong, he is 
 no slave. The mere fact of being a ser- 
 vant or even a bondman does not make 
 him a slave ; — an apprentice is not only a 
 servant, but in fact he is a bondman — he 
 is bound to a master, but his bondage is 
 for his own benefit. If it turn out that 
 he has no resource from imposition and 
 wrong inflicted by his master, then that 
 apprentice is not only a bondman but a 
 slave. 
 
 • Slavery, therefore, I define to be that 
 condition in which one is in the power 
 of another, whom he is compelled to 
 serve, without the means of redress when 
 wronged. 
 
 Will it be objected to this definition 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 13 
 
 that wives and children are oftentimes in 
 this condition ? I reply that if it be so, 
 then such wives and such children are in 
 a state of slavery. A wife who may be 
 wronged by her husband without any way 
 of deliverance from his power, or any 
 means of redress, is to all intents and pur- 
 poses a slave ; and the husband or father 
 that possesses such power is a slaveholder, 
 and he who voluntarily retains such autho- 
 rity is voluntarily an oppressor. But in 
 our country, among the white population, 
 wives, children, and apprentices have the 
 legal means of securing themselves against 
 the oppressive authority of husbands, pa- 
 rents and masters : they are therefore not 
 slaves. 
 
 I repeat : A slave is one who is in the 
 power of another, whom he is compelled 
 to serve, without the power of redress 
 when wronged. 
 
 That this definition is correct is evident 
 from the fact, that the term slave is every 
 where employed to represent an oppressed 
 condition. If a nation be forced to pay 
 an unjust tribute to another government, it 
 is spoken of as a nation of slaves. Orators 
 
 2 
 
14 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 invariably represent that people to be 
 slaves who are compelled to submit to op- 
 pressive laws. Demagogues, in their ad- 
 dresses to the populace, arouse their pas- 
 sions by appeals to them whether they are 
 willing to be slaves, as they endeavour to 
 enforce upon their minds the importance 
 of a change in the legislative or executive 
 offices of the State, because those in power 
 have been exercising that power oppres- 
 sively upon the people. In fact, if the 
 lowest, most degrading forms of oppres- 
 sion are intended to be represented by one 
 word, that word is " slavery." When a 
 man is so low as to be called a slave, there 
 is no one word that language can afford to 
 signify a more oppressive state into which 
 he might be placed than that very word 
 slave. There may be terms significant 
 of lower and more debased character, but 
 none that would represent a greater degree 
 of oppression. All nations employ the 
 word which in their language signifies 
 the condition of a slave, to express that 
 sort of degradation which is either the 
 occasion or the effect of oppression. But 
 the idea of an oppressed condition always 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 15 
 
 enters more or less into the signification 
 of the term whether it be used in a 
 literal or a figurative sense. If there 
 be, therefore, a synonym of the word 
 slavery, it must be the word oppression, 
 for in the common use of language these 
 two words are made to be almost convert- 
 ible terms. A people oppressed without 
 being able to throw off their oppressions 
 are an enslaved people — and no one speaks 
 of an enslaved people without feeling that 
 they are an oppressed people. 
 
 If slavery be, then, a condition of oppres- 
 sion, and that nothing is slavery which 
 does not involve the idea of oppression, it 
 would seem to be almost unnecessary to 
 attempt to prove that the Bible does not 
 justify nor even tolerate slavery. But 
 that it may be seen what the Bible does 
 teach on this subject, I shall take up the 
 examination of those passages in the Scrip- 
 tures which are generally supposed to 
 favour the institution of slavery, and I 
 think I shall prove to every candid mind, 
 that such a construction does injustice to 
 the God of the Bible, and is a perversion 
 
16 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 of the language employed by the inspired 
 writers. 
 
 There is a difficulty in the mind of every 
 slaveholder in the way of a correct inter- 
 pretation of the Scriptures, arising from 
 the use of the word servant. When he 
 reads any thing in the Bible about servants 
 he is very apt to have in his mind just 
 such servants as he is accustomed to have 
 about him ; and hence he readily arrives 
 at the conclusion that God sanctions slave- 
 ry. So also as to the words bondmen and 
 bondmaids, even a Northerner is liable to 
 be wrongly biased in his construction, in 
 consequence of his habit of thinking of the 
 Southern slaves as bondmen and bond- 
 maids. Were it not, however, for the 
 existence of slavery within the field of our 
 common observation, we would have other 
 classes than slaves to recognize as servants 
 and as bondmen. Neither servant nor 
 bondman necessarily implies slavery. A 
 slave is both a servant and a bondman, 
 because the master requires the slave to be 
 a servant, and because the law binds him 
 to obedience. But others than slaves may 
 be either servants or bondmen. If I serve 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 17 
 
 you, I am your servant. If I bind myself 
 to serve you for certain considerations I 
 am your bondman. In either case I may 
 have redress when you violate your obli- 
 gations, and therefore I am not a slave. 
 
 Now I beg the reader to bear in mind this 
 distinction, and remember that throughout, 
 I am not arguing against the relation of 
 master and servant, nor master and bond- 
 man ; but against the relation of master 
 and slave. He must not allow himself to 
 evade the true issue, by making that spe- 
 cific which is generic. The specific thing 
 is slavery, and this I have already clearly 
 defined. It is a condition of servitude in 
 which there is oppression without the 
 means of redress or deliverance. If it be 
 said such a condition is to be found else- 
 where than in so-called slave States, I admit 
 it, and candidly allow that slavery, if not 
 to the same extent of oppression as in our 
 Southern States, nevertheless to a very 
 guilty extent, whether under that name or 
 not, exists both in England and in the 
 Northern States of this Union. But this 
 fact does not extenuate or palliate a yet 
 greater degree of slavery, such as we wit- 
 2* ' 
 
18 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 ness among the blacks of the South. The 
 oppressive laws of the North, are no justi- 
 fication of greater oppressions at the South. 
 Nevertheless, what I am about to prove is 
 that slavery whether in the less cruel form 
 in which it exists in a free state, or in the 
 more cruel form in which it is to be found 
 in Georgia or Carolina, has no sanction, no 
 justification in the Bible. 
 
 And now what does the Bible say about 
 slaves ? Is the reader aware that the 
 word "slave " does not occur either in the 
 Old or New Testament from beginning to 
 end ? In King James' translation it is 
 introduced once in the Old Testament, but 
 it is in italics, which indicates that it is 
 merely supplied by the translators, but is 
 not in the original text. It also occurs in 
 the same translation only once in the New 
 Testament ; but in the original text it is 
 "bodies" and not "slaves." We have 
 therefore no word either in the Old or 
 New Testament which in the original He- 
 brew and Greek means slavery. If there- 
 fore such a condition be alluded to in the 
 Bible, it must be comprehended in some 
 other term or terms, of which the context 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 19 
 
 will be the exponent. Hence we must 
 inquire at every step of this Biblical ex- 
 amination, Does the sacred writer mean 
 slavery or not ? Wheresoever it is in- 
 tended, I shall candidly and honestly admit 
 it ; and I presume the reader will be as 
 candid when it cannot be proved that 
 slavery is not necessarily involved in the 
 text. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 canaan's curse. 
 
 I am now to examine those passages in 
 the Bible, which are supposed to favour 
 slavery. 
 
 The first passage coming before us is 
 one upon which great emphasis is laid by 
 those who argue in defence of slavery. 
 It is the curse upon Canaan. And now I 
 will, for the sake of the argument, assume 
 that Noah prophesied a condition of sla- 
 very, and I ask the reader to look at this 
 passage carefully, and say, Was it God or 
 was it man that uttered that curse ? Is 
 
20 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 there any thing about it that implies that 
 Noah spake as moved by the Spirit of 
 God ? Is it any thing more than an his- 
 torical fact in the life of Noah ? It will 
 perhaps be said, the fulfilment of the pro- 
 phecy is proof of Noah's inspiration. Now 
 let us look into this a little. 
 
 Remember that although Ham was the 
 offender, the curse was not upon all of 
 Ham's posterity, but only upon the de- 
 scendants of his fourth son, Canaan. The 
 very first man mentioned as a mighty one 
 in the earth was Nimrod, a descendant 
 from Ham. In the same lineal descent 
 from Ham was Asshur, who built Nineveh. 
 The posterity of Abraham who descended 
 from Shem were carried captive into As- 
 syria of which Nineveh was the capital. 
 They also were servants to the Babyloni- 
 ans. They were also slaves in Egypt to 
 Ham's posterity. On the other hand, the 
 Canaanites were servants to the sons of 
 Shem only to an inconsiderable extent, but 
 were for the most part extirpated by the 
 sword of the Israelites, and finally exter- 
 minated. Again ; the sons of Japheth have 
 been captives and servants to the sons of 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 21 
 
 Ham. Thus we see that if Noah had pro- 
 phesied respecting the personal servitude 
 of the posterity of either of his sons, the 
 prophecy would have been fulfilled, for 
 the plain reason that the posterity of each 
 of them have been in servitude. And so 
 far as it respected Canaan, upon whom the 
 curse was pronounced, the servitude pre- 
 dicted was as little applicable to his pos- 
 terity as it was to the sons of Shem or 
 Japheth. The fulfilment of the prophecy 
 therefore would be no proof that Noah 
 spake by the inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost. It would amount to a mere his- 
 torical fact that Noah thus conducted him- 
 self and thus spake. 
 
 But for the sake of meeting all points, 
 suppose I concede that either as a pro- 
 phecy or a curse, the language of Noah 
 was the language of God. Does it there- 
 fore follow that they who enforce the curse 
 are not themselves acting wickedly in so 
 doing ? Let us see how this works in 
 reference to another prophecy and curse 
 that were distinctly said to have been pro- 
 nounced by God himself. In 2 Samuel 
 xii. 11, the language is, — "Thus saith the 
 
22 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 Lord, Behold I will raise up evil against 
 thee out of thine own house, and I will 
 take thy wives before thine eyes, and give 
 them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie 
 with thy wives in the sight of the sun." 
 Again " Thou shalt betroth a wife, and an- 
 other man shall lie with her," Deut. xxviii. 
 30. What will be said to this ? If the 
 prophecy that Canaan shall be a servant 
 of servants to his brethren justifies slavery, 
 is it not an equally legitimate inference 
 that the prophecies just quoted justify 
 adultery ? 
 
 But we have something still more di- 
 rectly to the point. The Lord said to the 
 Jewish people, " Ye shall be sold unto 
 your enemies for bondmen and bondwo- 
 men, and no man shall buy you," (Deut. 
 xxviii. 68.) "Thy sons and thy daughters 
 shall be given to another people : thou 
 shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway : 
 thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but 
 thou shalt not enjoy them, for they shall 
 go into captivity," (Deut. xxviii. 32 — 43.) 
 " I will cause thee to serve thine enemies 
 in the land which thou knowest not," (Jer. 
 xvii. 4.) Of Hezekiah's sons it was said, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 23 
 
 " They shall be eunuchs in the palace of 
 the king of Babylon/' (2 Kings xx. 18.) 
 And of the families of the North, " Be- 
 hold, I will send and take all the families 
 of the North, saith the Lord, and Nebu- 
 chadrezzar, the king of Babylon, my ser- 
 vant, and will bring them against this land, 
 and against the inhabitants thereof: and 
 these nations shall serve the king of Ba- 
 bylon seventy years. And it shall come 
 to pass when seventy years are accom- 
 plished, that I will punish the king of 
 Babylon, and that nation, saith the Lord. 
 For many nations shall serve themselves 
 of them also/' (Jer. xxv. 4 — 14.) " Thus 
 saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring again 
 the captivity of Jacob's tents — And I will 
 punish all that oppress them," (Jer. xxx. 
 18 — 20.) " All thine adversaries, every 
 one of them, shall go into captivity : and 
 they that spoil thee shall be a spoil, and all 
 that prey upon thee will I give for a prey," 
 (Jer. xxx. 16.) "And they have cast lots 
 for my people, and have given a boy for 
 a harlot, and sold a girlifor wine, that they 
 might drink. The children also of Judah, 
 and the children of Jerusalem have ye 
 
24 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 sold unto the Grecians, that ye might re- 
 move them far from their border. Behold 
 I will raise them out of the place whither 
 ye have sold them, and will return your 
 recompense upon your own head : And I 
 will sell your sons and your daughters into 
 the hand of the children of Judah, and 
 they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a 
 people far off: for the Lord hath spoken 
 it," (Joel iii. 3—8.) 
 
 In these prophecies, we have it distinctly 
 set forth that the Jews were to be servants 
 in Babylon, that is, the sons of Shem were 
 to serve the sons of Ham, and they were 
 to be sold among the Grecians also. But 
 did these prophecies justify their masters ? 
 Nay ; for they too, for thus enslaving the 
 Jews, should themselves, as a punishment, 
 be enslaved. Thus in God's providence 
 the wicked are made to punish the wicked, 
 and successive generations produce revo- 
 lutions in character as there are changes 
 of condition. Thus it is evident that a 
 mere prophecy of what will be, is no justi- 
 fication of its fulfilment ; and it is not safe 
 to deduce moral conclusions and conse- 
 quent rules of action from mere prophetic 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 25 
 
 annunciations. If we do, we may educe 
 that falsehood, robbery and adultery are all 
 right ; and that it was perfectly right on 
 the part of the Jews to crucify Jesus Christ, 
 for such crucifixion was clearly foretold. 
 
 But still we have not come to the direct 
 point at issue. Did Noah prophesy any 
 thing at all respecting slavery ? Did he 
 utter one word about it ? Suppose I deny. 
 Will any one affirm ? Upon him rests the 
 weight of proof. Can he find any testi- 
 mony in the case to warrant the conclu- 
 sion that slavery was the thing intended ? 
 Remember what slavery is ; that it is 
 something specific; that it cannot be sla- 
 very unless it involves the idea of oppres- 
 sion, and consequently an oppressor. But 
 do we find this in the language of Noah ? 
 Certainly he does not employ the word 
 slave ; this is neither in the translation nor 
 in the original Hebrew. How then do any 
 get at slavery in the passage ? Canaan was 
 to be a servant, but it does not follow he 
 was to be a slave ; nay, the inference is 
 otherwise, for he was to be a servant of 
 servants. We can readily understand how 
 one may be the servant of a servant ; but 
 
 3 
 
26 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 how one can be the slave of a slave is not 
 so readily perceived ; for a slave according 
 to the statute of South Carolina, and ac- 
 cording to all judicial decision, is himself a 
 chattel, and can possess nothing but what 
 is his master's ; consequently he cannot 
 own a slave and cannot be a master. It 
 may therefore be inferred that Noah did 
 not have personal slavery in view, but 
 only national subjection. Canaan nation- 
 ally would be subject to Shem ; but Shem 
 himself would be nationally subject to Ja- 
 pheth; and thus would Canaan be the 
 servant of servants. The term servant is 
 very frequently employed in the Old Tes- 
 tament to signify both the officers and the 
 subjects of a national sovereignty. Give 
 it this signification in the prophecy of 
 Noah, and the whole is easily understood. 
 I have myself no doubt that Noah de- 
 signed a national and not an individual 
 appropriation of the curse, a national sub- 
 jection (which need not however imply an 
 oppressive government) and not domestic 
 slavery. 
 
 If this has been historically fulfilled, then 
 it may be some evidence that Noah spake 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 27 
 
 as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. But 
 I myself do not find in any history, either 
 that Canaan ever served Japheth or that 
 Shem and Japheth never served Canaan. 
 I should be glad to be informed on this 
 point. But I know no method of ascer- 
 taining it. 
 
 I think I have now clearly shown that 
 this passage is by no means evidence of 
 the rightfulness of slavery or of slave- 
 holding. And I cannot but think that 
 when the reader again hears this prophecy 
 adduced as a demonstration of God's ap- 
 proval or even toleration of slavery, he 
 will pronounce it, as the lawyers say, a 
 no7i sequitur. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SERVANTS OP THE PATRIARCHS. 
 
 The next argument in order generally 
 adduced by the advocate of slavery is that 
 Abraham possessed slaves, and that he 
 was not censured for it. And if he who 
 is called the father of the faithful could 
 
28 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 own slaves, it cannot be a sin in itself to 
 be a slaveholder. The inference, however, 
 in this case is not a legitimate one, even 
 supposing that Abraham was a slave- 
 holder. If it be good logic, then both 
 lying and adultery are also justifiable, for 
 Abraham was guilty of virtually denying 
 that Sarah was his wife, and also had 
 Hagar for his concubine, without in either 
 case having it recorded that God rebuked 
 him for it. 
 
 But were Abraham's servants and bond- 
 men and women slaves? To prove that 
 they were slaves, it must be shewn that 
 they were oppressed without the power of 
 redress. Was that their case ? I think 
 this cannot be inferred from the History. 
 In the case of Hagar who was a bond- 
 woman, her mistress to punish her and her 
 son, insisted that Abraham should cast 
 them out, i. e. set them free. In our 
 Southern states the mistress would have 
 her slave sold, not set free. The infer- 
 ence therefore is that Hagar was not a 
 slave, but was in that sort of bondage 
 which did not amount to a condition of 
 oppression. And so although it be said 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 29 
 
 that Abraham and Lot had "souls that 
 they had gotten in Haran ;" and " men 
 servants and maid servants" are named 
 as among the things Abraham had in 
 Egypt ; and again that Abimelech, king 
 of Gerar, gave him " men servants and 
 women servants ;" and finally, that Abra- 
 ham had servants that were " born in his 
 own house," and he had others that were 
 " bought with money of any stranger." 
 Yet, although all this be true, the inference 
 is that whether home-born, or purchased, 
 or a gift, these were not slaves. I say 
 the inference is that these servants were 
 not slaves. I infer it from incidental pas- 
 sages. Suppose I should say of some 
 Northern man residing at the South, he is 
 very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold, 
 would it not be asked, What ! has he no 
 slaves ? Now just so it is said of Abra- 
 ham (Gen. xiii. 1). "And Abram went 
 out of Egypt, he and his wife and all 
 that he had, and Lot with him into the 
 South. And Abram was very rich in cat- 
 tle, in silver and in gold." Now if the 
 hundred or thousand or more servants he 
 had about him were slaves, how does it 
 3* 
 
30 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 happen that these are not named as a part 
 of his riches ? But again, suppose I were 
 to say of some one residing at the North, 
 He is very rich in cattle, in silver and in 
 gold. Would any one infer that he had 
 no servants ? On the contrary, would not 
 the inference be that he must have many 
 servants ; and would it not be likely that 
 some of them would be indentured, or 
 bound (bond) servants ; and would it not 
 be further likely that some would be born 
 upon his estate, grow up thereon and be 
 his labourers or servants ? But if this can 
 be under such a government as ours, how 
 much more likely to be so under a Patri- 
 archal government ? 
 
 Again, I infer these servants were not 
 slaves; because they were armed, and 
 acted the part of soldiers. 
 
 Again, I see if Abraham had died child- 
 less, one of his servants would have been 
 his heir. Is this consistent with a state of 
 slavery ? 
 
 Indeed, it is plain that Abraham's ser- 
 vants, whether born in his house or bought 
 with money of any stranger, were treated 
 as his family. (Gen. xvii. 12,1 3). His head 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 31 
 
 servant was called by Abraham's own 
 niece, "My lord." (Gen. xxiv. 18.) 
 
 The term servant is so frequently em- 
 ployed throughout the Bible to signify the 
 subjects and officers of a king, it is an easy 
 inference that these servants were to 
 Abraham the Patriarch, what servants were 
 to David the king. When therefore it is 
 said, " One born in mine house is mine 
 heir," it means that one of his subjects 
 would succeed to the government; be- 
 ing born in his house, only signified that 
 they were of his own tribe. Those that 
 were bought with his money of strangers, 
 were such as united with his tribe or 
 household upon his paying a consideration 
 to some neighbouring King or Prince. 
 And so when it is said that Abimelech 
 gave him men servants and maid servants, 
 I presume nothing more is meant than 
 that the king of Gerar transferred to the 
 Patriarch Abram a portion of his subjects, 
 both male and female ; and let it be recol- 
 lected that Abraham was called a " mighty 
 prince" (Gen. xxiii. 6.) Then again, those 
 taken in war became the servants of the 
 conqueror, i. e. his subjects ; so it is pre* 
 
32 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 sumable that Abraham, extended his Pa- 
 triarchate by such acquisition also. 
 
 I do not assert that Abraham did not 
 hold men and women in a condition of 
 involuntary servitude ; but I do say that 
 there is nothing in the history to prove it ; 
 and until such proof can be reached, the 
 advocate of slavery has no right to quote 
 Abraham's example on his side of the 
 question ; and I repeat, even if it were 
 proved that he was a slaveholder, it would 
 be no more apology for slavery, than his 
 example affords an apology for lying and 
 adultery. 
 
 Gen, xxv. 23 — xxvii. 37. 
 
 "The elder shall serve the younger." 
 * I have made him thy lord, and all his 
 brethren have I given to him for servants." 
 
 This was prophesied concerning the de- 
 scendants of Esau and Jacob. But I pre- 
 sume no one would rest upon these passages 
 as a justification of chattel servitude. It ev- 
 idently implied nothing more than natural 
 subjection as the text shews. Neverthe- 
 less, should any one be disposed to draw 
 from it an inference in favour of slavery, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 33 
 
 I refer him to Deuteronomy xxiii. 7. — 
 " Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite : for 
 he is thy brother." The Edomites, al- 
 though as prophesied they became nation- 
 ally subject to Israel, were nevertheless to 
 be regarded as brethren, and provision was 
 made in the law of Moses ultimately to 
 incorporate them into the Jewish nation 
 on a perfect equality ; and Esau was final- 
 ly to break the yoke of Jacob from off his 
 neck. Gen. xxvii. 40. 
 
 Gen. xxvi. 14, 
 
 " He had possession of flocks, and pos- 
 session of herds, and great store of ser- 
 vants." 
 
 This is recorded of Isaac. Will it be as- 
 sumed therefrom that Isaac owned slaves? 
 But if the phraseology be closely ob- 
 served, it will lead to a different infer- 
 ence. Mark! he had possession of flocks- 
 and possession of herds. But it does not 
 say he had possession of servants. He 
 had great store of servants, and I infer 
 that these servants were his followers, of 
 whom he was prince or chief. Can this 
 inference be disproved ? I see nothing in 
 
34 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 the history of Isaac to sustain the idea 
 that his servants were slaves, or were in 
 any way an oppressed people, without 
 means of redress if wronged by their 
 master. 
 
 Gen. xxix. 24. 29. 
 
 " Laban gave unto his daughter Leah, 
 Zilpah his maid for a handmaid." 
 
 " And Laban gave to Rachel his daugh- 
 ter, Bilhah his handmaid to be her maid." 
 
 Do these passages imply that these 
 maids were slaves ? I think not. There 
 would be nothing implying a condition of 
 slavery, should I say to my daughter, * I 
 give you Biddy for your handmaid, al- 
 though Biddy is a free girl and can leave 
 my service when she pleases.' Besides, 
 you will observe that these handmaids 
 became the " wives" of Jacob, their mis- 
 tresses' husband. 
 
 Gen. xxx. 43 — xxii. 5. 
 
 "And the man increased exceedingly, 
 and had much cattle, and maid servants 
 and men servants, and camels and asses." 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 35 
 
 " I have oxen, and asses, flocks and men 
 servants and women servants." 
 
 Were these maid and men servants 
 slaves ? But where is the proof? If Ja- 
 cob had much cattle and camels and asses, 
 he must necessarily have servants to take 
 care of them. And I infer they were 
 Jacob's servants, as Jacob was himself the 
 servant of Laban — entitled to wages. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE MOSAIC INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 Exodus xii. 43, 44, 45. 
 
 " And the Lord said unto Moses and 
 Aaron, This is the ordinance of the pass- 
 over: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 
 But every man's servant that is bought for 
 money, when thou hast circumcised him, 
 then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and 
 a hired servant shall not eat thereof." 
 
 This was said to Moses and Aaron at 
 the time the passover was first instituted. 
 
 The advocate for slavery claims that the 
 
36 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 servant bought for money was a slave. 
 He argues on this subject as if the Jews 
 borrowed their phraseology and terms from 
 our usages ; whereas we have rather ap- 
 propriated the terms of the ancients to our 
 customs and institutions, without making 
 allowance for all the modifications of sig- 
 nification, which time and changes of cir- 
 cumstances would naturally effect. Hence 
 the slavery defender, in the case before us, 
 proceeds upon the assumption that only as 
 slaves are men the subjects of purchase 
 and sale. But if I can prove that the 
 phrase "bought with money," had refer- 
 ence in any case to some other condition 
 than that of slavery, or even of a bond- 
 servant, then the inference drawn from 
 that phrase by the advocate of slavery falls 
 to the ground. This I think can easily be 
 done. In Leviticus xxv. 39 and 40, it will 
 be seen that a Hebrew could not be made 
 a bondman. " If thy brother that dwell- 
 eth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold 
 unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to 
 serve as a bond-servant : but as an hired 
 servant, and as a sojourner he shall be 
 with thee, and shall serve thee unto the 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 37 
 
 year of jubilee." And in the 42d verse it 
 is expressly enjoined " they shall not be 
 sold as bondmen." How then were they 
 sold? for if not sold as bondmen they cer- 
 tainly could not be sold as slaves, for al- 
 though they might be bondmen without 
 being slaves, they could not be slaves with- 
 out being bondmen. So it appears they 
 were to be sold as hired servants ; of course 
 it follows that the being " bought with 
 money " is no evidence that they were 
 slaves. And in the passage immediately 
 under consideration, it appears that those 
 who were not suffered to be bondmen 
 were the very servants spoken of as being 
 bought with money. But how then were 
 they the subjects of sale ? Their services 
 for the time specified was paid for in ad- 
 vance, and hence when any one was to be 
 redeemed, the reckoning had to be made 
 "according to the time of an hired ser- 
 vant," Lev. xxv. 50., and the amount 
 paid back to his master. Such servants, 
 whether native Hebrews or circumcised 
 strangers, were not slaves, were not bond- 
 men, nor were they hired servants although 
 they rendered the service of yearly hired 
 
 4 
 
38 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 servants. What then were they ? They 
 were regarded as members of the house- 
 hold, entitled to the privileges of the 
 family, and hence they mingled in the con- 
 gregation and were partakers of the pass- 
 over, which their uncircumcised foreign 
 servants and occasional hired servants 
 could not do. 
 
 Exodus xx. 10, 17. 
 
 61 But the seventh day is the sabbath of 
 the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do 
 any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy 
 daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid 
 servant, nor thy cattle that is within thy 
 gates." (See also Deut. v. 14.) 
 
 " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 
 house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 
 wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid 
 servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any 
 thing that is thy neighbour's." (See also 
 Deut. v. 21.) 
 
 As both these commandments apply 
 with full force as regards servants that are 
 hired, as much as bondmen, or as they could 
 possibly do even in relation to slaves, so 
 in them the language affords no evidence 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 39 
 
 favourable to slavery. The language does 
 not imply any right to hold a man as a 
 chattel. But on the contrary in interdict- 
 ing covetousness it prohibits slavery so far 
 as it may originate in cupidity and be 
 maintained from the love of gain. 
 
 Exodus xxi. 2 — 6. 
 
 "If thou 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 him- 
 self; if he were married then his wife 
 shall go out with him. If his master have 
 given him a wife, and she have born him 
 sons or daughters ; the wife and her chil- 
 dren 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 he shall serve him for ever." 
 
 This passage is claimed as evidence that 
 the law of Moses sanctioned slavery. To 
 
40 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 " buy " a servant, it is supposed, is to buy 
 a slave. But as it is the " Hebrew ser- 
 vant " that is here spoken of, the fact of 
 his being a Hebrew cuts off at once the 
 idea that a slave was intended, for as the 
 law expressly prohibited the sale or pur- 
 chase of a Hebrew as a bondman, (Leviti- 
 cus xxv. 42 : " They shall not be sold as 
 bondmen." See also 2 Chron. xxviii. 8 — 
 15. Also, Neh. v. 5 — 12.) so the mere 
 fact of buying him did not imply the con- 
 dition of a bondman, and consequently 
 not of a slave. The proslavery argument 
 deduced from the purchase consequently 
 fails. 
 
 Another form of expression that occurs 
 in the paragraph, viz : " he shall serve 
 him for ever," is also claimed as indicative 
 of slavery. But mark, it is still a Hebretv 
 servant, and it was contrary to law for a 
 Hebrew even to be a bondman. Where, 
 then, rests the obligation ? Upon the mas- 
 ter or upon the servant ? Evidently upon 
 the master. He was bound by law to re- 
 tain the servant whose wife and children 
 he had any claim upon, when the servant 
 himself so desired it. That is, the master 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 41 
 
 was bound by law, but the servant was 
 bound by love. The master could not be 
 released for ever, i. e. so long as he re- 
 tained a claim upon the wife and children ; 
 and it was for the benefit of the servant, of 
 his wife, and of his children, that the law 
 was made. So far, therefore, from its 
 being oppressive to the servant, or an en- 
 slavement of him, it was the security of 
 his natural right to his wife and his chil- 
 dren, and made a separation a voluntary 
 act on his own part. 
 
 But perhaps the pro-slavery man asks, 
 Were not the wife and the children slaves, 
 since they were in circumstances that gave 
 to the master still a claim, though the hus- 
 and the father were released ? I answer, 
 no — they need not be slaves. Their term 
 of service might not have expired, as for 
 instance, a man might have come in to 
 serve six years ; in two years time the 
 master might get a claim upon a woman 
 to serve him, on her part, six years — for 
 remember that the woman had to be 
 treated in such cases as the man, (see 
 Deut. xv. 17,) she therefore would have 
 yet two years to serve after the release of 
 4 * 
 
42 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 the husband. Now then — if the husband 
 could not redeem the time of his wife and 
 her children, he may stay with them, and 
 he, drawn also by affection to the master, 
 may make that his home for ever, and the 
 ear being pierced with the awl would be 
 the evidence of his voluntary and affec- 
 tionate service. It will hereafter be seen 
 that provision was made by law for any 
 subsequent change of treatment on the 
 master's part, and which would release 
 the servant from all oppression. 
 
 Exodus xxi, 7, 8, 9, 10. 
 
 " 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 him- 
 self, then shall he let her be redeemed : to 
 sell her unto a strange nation he shall 
 have no power, seeing he hath dealt de- 
 ceitfully with her. And if he have be- 
 trothed her unto his son, he shall deal with 
 her after the manner of daughters. If he 
 take him another wife, her food, her rai- 
 ment, and her duty of marriage, shall he 
 not diminish. And if he do not these 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 43 
 
 three unto her, then shall she go out free 
 without money." 
 
 Is there slavery or any oppression in this 
 case ? Certainly not in the mere fact of 
 being a maid servant, for there always 
 may be maid servants who are neither 
 bond servants nor slaves, nor in any way 
 oppressed. Nor in the fact of its being 
 called a sale, for that was only a form of 
 speech of that day signifying that for 
 some value or supposed value received, a 
 price was paid, whether it were absolute 
 property, or temporary service, or a mar- 
 riage agreement, (" Ruth, the Moabitess, 
 the wife [widow] of Mahlon, have I pur- 
 chased to be my wife," Ruth, iv. 10. " So 
 I bought her to me for fifteen pieces," &c. 
 Hos. iii. 6.) or some other consideration ; 
 and sometimes even it was called a sale 
 where there was no price in money or any 
 thing else paid, as God is said to have sold 
 the Israelites to their enemies, and Israel 
 to have sold themselves to do evil in sight 
 of the Lord, and to have sold themselves 
 for nought. (Judges ii. 14. 2 Kings xvii. 
 17. Isaiah lii 3.) 
 
 In the case under consideration, let it be 
 
44 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 observed, it is the sale of a daughter by 
 her father. Such a case was to be an ex- 
 ception to the general law, which required 
 that the maid servant should be released 
 in the given time on the same conditions 
 as the man servant. (Deut. xv. 17.) But in 
 the case where a man had sold " his 
 daughter to be a maid servant," she was 
 not to go out as the men servants did. 
 And why so ? The inference is obvious. 
 She was purchased in the time of her mi- 
 nority, with the understanding that when 
 marriageable she was to be the wife of 
 her master or of his son. For it seems 
 that if he did not marry her, it was consi- 
 dered as dealing with her deceitfully. If 
 therefore, when she became marriageable, 
 he did not marry her, he was not allowed 
 to sell her except in the way of redemp- 
 tion. He could not sell her to a strange 
 nation, as he might wish to do after he 
 had dealt deceitfully with her. But he 
 must allow her to be redeemed, i. e. all he 
 could require was to have the money he 
 had paid for her for the unexpired term 
 of her service returned to him. If she 
 were betrothed to the son instead of the 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 45 
 
 father, she was to be treated just as a 
 daughter. But if the father or the son 
 should absolutely marry her, and after- 
 wards take another woman, the first was 
 still to be his wife, and her food, her rai- 
 ment, and even her duty of marriage must 
 he not diminish. Should he refuse to re- 
 cognize her any longer as a wife, he could 
 not retain her as a maid servant, but she 
 was to go out free without money, i. e. 
 without being redeemed. The whole ar- 
 rangement shews that the girl who on ac- 
 count of the poverty of her father had to 
 be transferred to another, who was not her 
 natural guardian, should have her natural 
 rights protected by law, and herself saved 
 from oppression and injury. I see nothing 
 in the whole paragraph to allow the least 
 apology for slavery, and I scarcely think 
 any candid man will, upon examination, 
 claim it as in any way favouring that con- 
 dition. 
 
 Exodus xxi. 20, 21. 
 
 " And if a man smite his servant or his 
 maid, with a rod, and he die under his 
 hand, he shall be surely punished. Not- 
 
46 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 withstanding, if he continue a day or two, 
 he shall not be punished; for he is his 
 money." 
 
 There are two inferences drawn from this 
 passage to favour the pro-slavery side of 
 the question. The one is from the expres- 
 sion, " he is his money," and the other, 
 from the reference to the smiting of the 
 servant by the masters. 
 
 I first notice the expression, " he is his 
 money," and readily meet the advocate of 
 slavery with the remark that the loss of 
 even a hired servant would oftentimes be 
 the loss of money to the employer, and 
 much more a loss, of course, if he had 
 already paid him in advance, as was done 
 when a man on account of his poverty, 
 sold himself until the year of release. The 
 loss, therefore, which the master would 
 sustain in the death of his servant who 
 died a day or two after being smitten, 
 would be taken in evidence that the mas- 
 ter did not intend to commit a homicide. 
 If he had intended to kill the servant, he 
 would probably have done it at once. The 
 master, therefore, if tried for murder in a 
 case where the servant lived a day or two, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 47 
 
 would be acquitted ; but if the servant 
 died under his hand,i. e. immediately after 
 his smiting him, then would the master be 
 punished as a murderer. In the former 
 case he would be acquitted. Why ? Be- 
 cause the servant " is his money," i. e. it 
 being to his interest not to kill him, it is 
 presumable he did not intend to kill him. 
 But this plea could not be put in when the 
 death occurred on the spot, because not- 
 withstanding the master's pecuniary inte- 
 rest in the servant, the immediate effect of 
 the blow would be evidence that in his 
 passion or malignity he was alike reckless 
 of his own pecuniary interest and of the 
 servant's life. 
 
 I admit that the evidence would be 
 strong against the idea of intentional mur- 
 der, in proportion to the amount of pecu- 
 niary interest the master had in the ser- 
 vant, and therefore that a slave would be 
 more of a man's money probably than 
 another sort of servant would be ; but ne- 
 vertheless this other servant is just as cer- 
 tainly money to the master as the slave is 
 money. 
 
 But in the next place the slaveholder or 
 
48 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 his advocate lays hold of the idea that 
 the smiting of the servant by the master, 
 was not a legal offence, and not punisha- 
 ble where there was no murder, and there- 
 fore he infers that the master had a right 
 to whip his servant, and consequently that 
 servant must have been a slave. I re- 
 mark that if the master could whip his 
 servant at his own option, under the Mo- 
 saic law, and the servant had no legal 
 means of redress, upon evidence of unjus- 
 tifiable treatment, then was that servant 
 a slave until the year of release. But the 
 law now under consideration does not im- 
 ply any such state of things. That law 
 had a specific object. That object was to 
 settle the evidence in a trial for murder, 
 under circumstances that did not apply in 
 other cases of homicide. As regards the 
 act of smiting the servant without death 
 being the supposed consequence, nothing 
 is said ; plainly because that was not the 
 thing for which that particular law was 
 enacted. But there were other laws which 
 also related to injuries that a servant 
 might sustain from being smitten by his 
 master, besides having the redress at law 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 49 
 
 that any other man, not a servant, had a 
 right to claim for his protection. That is 
 to say, if a servant from a blow of his 
 master lost his tooth, the master forfeited 
 his rights in the servant, and accordingly 
 he went free, whatever may have been 
 his previous obligations ; and the servant 
 had at the same time the same right for 
 any other damages that the law gave to 
 any other man in Israel. For it was ex- 
 pressly enjoined in the Mosaic law, that 
 there must be no respect of persons in 
 judgment. It was to be eye for eye, tooth 
 for tooth, &c., never mind who was the 
 injured person, whether servant or free- 
 man. The Israelites were all brethren, 
 and under all circumstances to consider 
 and treat one another as brethren — Israel- 
 ites either by birth or naturalization. The 
 employer and the employed, the master 
 and the servant, were as to legal rights on 
 a perfect equality ; each had his right to 
 appeal to the law if the other did not ful- 
 fill his part of the engagement. 
 
 Exodus xxi. 32. 
 
 " If the ox shall push a man servant or 
 5 
 
50 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 maid servant, he shall give unto their 
 master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox 
 shall be stoned." 
 
 This payment to the master is supposed 
 to favour the idea that slavery was the 
 condition of the servant. But I cannot so 
 view it. Why does the master in this case 
 get the money ? Plainly because the ser- 
 vant, although voluntarily or temporally 
 one, being dead, the master loses the ben- 
 efit of his services and ought therefore to 
 be paid for it. But this is no satisfaction 
 to the law of murder. It only satisfies a 
 private claim for damages. Nevertheless, 
 under another specific law, it maybe tried 
 as a case of murder, (Exodus xx. 28 — 30.) 
 and the owner of the ox was liable to pay 
 the penalty with his life. 
 
 Exodus xxii. 3. 
 
 " If he have nothing, then he shall be 
 sold for his theft." 
 
 This did not make the man a slave. He 
 had, after his sale, the same rights to pro- 
 tection and redress by law, as any other 
 man. But being too poor to make the 
 legal restitution, he must make it up by 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 51 
 
 labouring in the capacity of a servant, not 
 a slave, until the amount was made good; 
 that is, if he stole a sheep, his services to 
 the amount of four sheep must be sold, — 
 if an ox, then to the amount of five oxen, 
 &c. There is no oppression in this, no 
 slavery. 
 
 Leviticus xix. 20. 
 
 " And whosoever lieth carnally with a 
 woman that is a bondmaid, betrothed to a 
 husband, and not at all redeemed nor free- 
 dom given her ; she shall be scourged : 
 they shall not be put to death, because she 
 was not free." 
 
 Here we have the case of a bondmaid, 
 consequently not a Hebrew, but a heathen, 
 for the law expressly enjoined that no 
 Hebrew should be compelled to serve as a 
 bondservant, nor be sold as a bondman, 
 but it was said, " Both thy bondmen, and 
 thy bondmaids which thou shalt have 
 shall be of the heathen that are round 
 about you," (Leviticus xxv. 39, 42, 44.) 
 This therefore must be a case of a heathen 
 girl, whom an Israelite has obtained of a 
 stranger, her father, with the promise of 
 
52 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 marrying her, of course upon the compli- 
 ance, in proper time, with the requisitions 
 of the Jewish law. In the mean time she 
 surfers herself to be carnally lain with by 
 her master. Were she a free woman, 
 both she and the man would suffer death. 
 But she is yet a heathen legally, and be- 
 sides, her services are due to her master 
 until her term of service expires, or he 
 marries her. Under these circumstances 
 it would seem to be too great a punish- 
 ment for such a one, to suffer death. She 
 was therefore scourged. But that which 
 made her crime the less aggravated, also 
 diminished the criminality of him who 
 had lain with her, and he too, instead of 
 suffering death, should take a ram to the 
 priest, and offer it for a trespass offering, 
 and then the sin should be forgiven him. 
 But suppose he did not make this religious 
 atonement, what then ? Evidently, his 
 sin, not being forgiven him, he must take 
 such consequences as the law imposed. 
 
 But to the point of consideration. Was 
 this girl a slave ? Evidently not. If 
 scourged, it was not at the will of her 
 master, but by legal process. Nor was 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 53 
 
 her bondage permanent, for she was be- 
 trothed to her master, and was to be his 
 wife, or if not his wife, or not redeemed, 
 she was to go out free " without money." 
 All this is implied in the text, for it evi- 
 dently has reference to the law recorded in 
 Exodus xxi. 7 — 10. Where then was 
 there any oppression, any thing like slavery 
 in the condition of the woman ? Suppose 
 a law should be enacted in one of the 
 American slave states, making it penal for 
 a slave woman to have carnal communi- 
 cation with her master, and the penalty 
 should be that the woman be scourged, 
 and the man be fined the value of a ram, 
 and be required to go before an ecclesiasti- 
 cal tribunal, and make confession, would 
 it not be regarded as a severe blow against 
 slavery itself? Would it not be thought 
 that the state enacting such a law was 
 making a considerable advance towards 
 the emancipation of her slave population ? 
 At all events, it would scarcely be con- 
 sidered an oppressive act, thus to guard 
 the purity of a slave. It perhaps might 
 be objected by some, that the oppression 
 lies in the fact, that the woman, not being 
 5* 
 
54 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 free, but being forced by the master from 
 the fear of punishment, nevertheless suffers 
 the penalty of the law. But what would 
 she fear? Chastisement by her master. To 
 counteract this apprehension, she is made 
 to fear legal chastisement if she submits 
 to her master's wishes without crying out. 
 Such a law, therefore, enacted in a slave 
 state, would be humane, and entirely in- 
 consistent with the general slave code. 
 But it was perfectly consistent with the 
 Mosaic code, and is only confirmatory 
 evidence that the bondmaid was not a 
 slave. 
 
 I may have mistaken the character of 
 this law so far as to the inference or sup- 
 position that the woman was betrothed to 
 her master. It is possible that the same 
 law would have applied to cases in which 
 the bondmaid was betrothed to some other 
 than her master, and in which her master, 
 or any one else, may have been the part- 
 ner of her crime. My own presumption, 
 however, is otherwise, and that except in 
 the case as I have above stated it, the 
 penalty would have been death. But be 
 this as it may, these things are evident, — 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 55 
 
 this bondmaid was subject to redemption 
 or to freedom, if she were turned off from 
 being a wife ; and her purity was legally- 
 guarded. There is no evidence of an op- 
 pressed condition, nor any thing indicative 
 of slavery. 
 
 Leviticus xxii. 10 — 13. 
 
 " There shall no stranger eat of the holy 
 thing : a sojourner of the priest, or a hired 
 servant, shall not eat of the holy thing. 
 But if the priest buy any soul with his 
 money, he shall eat of it, and he that is 
 born in his house : they shall eat of his 
 meat." 
 
 The buying any soul with money, and 
 the being born in the house, are regarded 
 by the pro-slavery advocate as a provi- 
 sion of slavery. But both these expres- 
 sions were employed in those days in cases 
 where the idea of slavery is obviously ex- 
 cluded — as in Exodus xxi. 2 — 6, a Hebrew 
 servant is spoken of as being bought, 
 whereas a Hebrew could in no case be 
 made even a bondman, much less a slave. 
 " They shall not be sold as bondmen." 
 Lev. xxv. 42. And the same law that set 
 
56 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 a Hebrew man free on the seventh year, 
 applied equally to the Hebrew woman. 
 Such servants, of course, within the term 
 of their service, might have children born 
 in their master's house. There is there- 
 fore nothing in the passage under con- 
 sideration to warrant the idea that slavery 
 was a legal institution among the Jews. 
 
 Leviticus xxv. 6. 
 
 " And the sabbath of the land shall be 
 meat for you ; for thee, and for thy ser- 
 vant, and for thy maid, and for thy hired 
 servant, and for thy stranger that sojourn- 
 eth with thee." 
 
 This classification of servants is thought 
 by the slaveholder to indicate that some 
 were slaves and some were hired. But it 
 would be sufficient to deny this, and to re- 
 quire him to prove it. That there were 
 other than hired servants is true. But in- 
 stead of being slaves, they were servants 
 having such connection with the master 
 and his family as gave them privileges, 
 nay rights, above those of hired servants, 
 and they became free at the end of six 
 years, or sooner, or being bondmen (not 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 57 
 
 slaves) from among the heathen, they 
 went out free in the year of jubilee, if 
 they did not become free long before by 
 virtue of their conformity to the Jewish 
 religion. Although there were bondmen, 
 they had such rights in law as to secure 
 them from oppression, consequently they 
 were not slaves, for where there is no 
 oppression there is no slavery. The being 
 bound for a term of years indicates either 
 an implied or expressed contract, and a 
 breach of the contract on the part of the 
 master, released the other party from his 
 obligations, and hence he had only to 
 leave his master in such case, and go to 
 another place, and every Israelite was 
 bound to receive him and protect him 
 from recovery by his former master. (Deut. 
 xxiii. 15, 16.) 
 
 Leviticus xxv. 39. 
 
 "And if thy brother, that dwelleth by 
 thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; 
 thou shalt not compel him to serve as a 
 bond-servant : but as a hired servant, and 
 as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and 
 shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee : 
 
58 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED. 
 
 And then shall he depart from thee, both 
 he and his children with him, and shall re- 
 turn unto his own family, and unto the 
 possession of his fathers shall he return. 
 For they are my servants, which I brought 
 forth out of the land of Egypt : they shall 
 not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not 
 rule over him with rigour, but shalt fear 
 thy God." 
 
 The sale in this case is the only expres- 
 sion that would indicate any thing like 
 slavery in the condition of this servant. 
 But the 47th verse of the same chapter, 
 explains how a sale might have occurred. 
 The man reduced to poverty sells himself. 
 Of course then he made his own terms to 
 serve his employer or master. But he 
 could not be purchased as a bondman, as 
 the passage itself shows. This evidently 
 was no slavery, although there was a sale. 
 It is unnecessary to dwell upon it. 
 
 Leviticus xv. 44, 45, 46. 
 
 " Both thy bondmen and bondmaids 
 which thou shalt have shall be of the 
 heathen that are round about you : of 
 them shall ye buy bondmen and bond- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 59 
 
 maids. 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 posses- 
 sion. And ye shall take them as an in- 
 heritance for your children after you, to 
 inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
 be your bondmen forever ; but over your 
 brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall 
 not rule one over another with rigour." 
 
 I shall not avail myself here, of the ad- 
 vantages which more learned criticism 
 would give me, by reference to the origi- 
 nal Hebrew. It would not be adapted to 
 the generality of those for whose convic- 
 tion I make the examination. I take 
 therefore the translation as it is, and give 
 the slaveholder and his advocate the full 
 benefit of it. Let me admit, then, that 
 these servants, obtained from among the 
 heathen, were bondmen and bondmaids 
 as the translation has it, — that they were 
 purchased, — that they became a posses- 
 sion of the master, and an inheritance for 
 his children, and that forever. Admitting 
 all this, I now deny that they were slaves. 
 
60 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 Being bondmen did not make them slaves. 
 Slavery necessarily implies an oppressed 
 condition. A slave is one in the power 
 of another, whom he is compelled to 
 serve without the means of redress when 
 wronged. Others may choose to define 
 slavery to be something else, but this is 
 the condition against which I am arguing. 
 And I now deny that the bondmen and. 
 bondmaids of the Hebrews were legally in 
 that condition. The law, on the contrary, 
 secured their natural rights, and was their 
 safeguard against oppression. To it they 
 could appeal, and by it be redressed. 
 
 They were purchased ; but who sold, 
 them ? There is no authority given in 
 the law for any man to sell them. If there 
 were a theft committed, the civil magis- 
 trate might sell the thief for so long a time 
 as might have been necessary to make the 
 legal restitution, in case he could not make 
 the restitution otherwise. But this would 
 be a temporary arrangement, and the pe- 
 nalty of crime. It is therefore not ap- 
 plicable to the case under consideration. 
 Again I ask, ivho was authorized to sell 
 those bondmen and bondmaids ? A father 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 61 
 
 sometimes was said to sell his daughter 
 for a handmaid ; but it was, so far as we 
 learn, a mode of providing for her support 
 and her marriage to him who purchased 
 her, or to his son. This, of course, was not 
 slavery, nor does it apply entirely to the 
 law now under consideration. By whom 
 then was this sale of heathen men and 
 women to be made ? There was a distinct 
 law, " He that stealeth a man, and selleth 
 him, or if he be found in his hand, he 
 shall surely be put to death." Exodus 
 xxi. 16. Here was a law against all kid- 
 napping. One man therefore could not 
 have another in his possession to sell him, 
 by any means provided for by the Jewish 
 law. But a man might sell himself. (Lev. 
 xxv. 47.) In this way might the Jews 
 have obtained bondmen of the heathen. 
 They bought them when the poor heathen 
 men or women sold themselves. We 
 have no evidence that under the law of 
 Moses, any man had a right to purchase 
 even a heathen into bondage, except when 
 one sold himself. But if a man sold him- 
 self, it must have been for some considera- 
 tion. If so, then there was a contract be- 
 
 6 
 
62 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 tween himself and his purchaser. That 
 supposes legal power on the part of the 
 servant, as well as the master. He could 
 demand that the terms of the obligation 
 be complied with. So long as the master 
 fulfilled his engagement, by which he 
 bound himself and his children, so long 
 would the bondman be obliged to fulfil his 
 engagement. 
 
 But, however the master might have 
 come into possession of a bondman, the 
 law secured to the bondman a redress of 
 grievances. 
 
 1st. If a master maimed his servant, all 
 obligation on the part of the servant ceas- 
 ed, and he went free. (Exodus xxi. 26, 
 27.) 
 
 2d. The chastity of the female received 
 legal protection. (Leviticus xix. 20 — 22.) 
 
 3d. A bondman, if he so desired, could 
 eat of the holy thing, when circumcised, 
 and thus was placed upon an equality 
 with a native Hebrew, and when thus in- 
 corporated into the Hebrew church, he 
 would no longer serve as a bondman, and 
 could have his full freedom after serving 
 six years. (Lev. xxii. 10 — 13. Lev. xxiv. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 63 
 
 22.) It is recorded that the heathen on 
 one occasion did thus secure themselves 
 against injury. (Esther viii. 17.) 
 
 4th. He had the benefit of this law, 
 " Thou shalt not deliver up 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/' (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.) 
 
 5th. Whilst there were laws enacted for 
 the special benefit of servants, they like- 
 wise had the full protection which all 
 other laws afforded to those who were not 
 engaged in service. No distinctions are 
 made to favour the master at the expense 
 of the servant, for the law had no respect 
 of person's. If the servant suffered an in- 
 jury from his master or any one else, he 
 had recourse to the law as certainly as any 
 other man had. His testimony was as 
 good as his master's. His rights were 
 equally respected. His master and him- 
 self were equally bound by their express- 
 ed or implied respective obligations. The 
 Mosaic laws, as to *this question, were 
 
64 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 made with strict regard to the brother- 
 hood of man. 
 
 6 th. To make the bondman perfectly- 
 secure from slavery, there was an express 
 law providing against the oppression of 
 strangers. " The stranger that dwelleth 
 with you shall be unto you as one born 
 among you, and thou shalt love him as 
 thyself;" and to make the matter plain 
 that it had reference to their bondmen, it 
 is added : " for ye were strangers in the 
 land of Egypt," (Lev. xix. 34.) "Thou 
 shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress 
 him : for ye were strangers in the land of 
 Egypt." (Exodus xxii. 21.) And fre- 
 quent appeals were made to the Jews in 
 behalf of the strangers in their land whilst 
 reminding them that they were once bond- 
 men in the land of Egypt, thus guarding 
 their servants from all oppression. In 
 view of these arrangements, it is perfectly 
 clear to my own mind that in the Mosaic 
 law now under consideration, however 
 their bondmen may have been considered 
 an inheritance for them and their children, 
 they were not slaves. 
 
 I have in thus discussing the matter, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 65 
 
 made no appeal to the original Hebrew. 
 The learned scholar may ascertain for 
 himself that the terms " bondmen and 
 bondmaids," are in the Hebrew the words 
 elsewhere translated servants. He may 
 also satisfy himself that what in our trans- 
 lation reads, " They shall be your bond- 
 men forever," should have been translated 
 " Forever of tfrlbe shall ye serve your- 
 selves," the term "forever" referring rather 
 to the perpetuity of the regulation than to 
 the permanence of the inheritance in indi- 
 vidual slaves. (See Deut. xxiii. 3, for the 
 use of the word forever. — "An Am- 
 monite or Moabite shall not enter into the 
 congregation of the Lord : even to their 
 tenth generation shall they not enter into 
 the congregation of the Lord forever.") 
 
 But in addition to all this, I remark that 
 these servants could not be retained in ser- 
 vice longer than to the year of jubilee. 
 " Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year and pro- 
 claim liberty throughout all the land unto 
 all the inhabitants thereof." (Lev. xxv. 10.) 
 
 Leviticus xxv. 47 — 55. 
 
 And if a sojourner or a stranger wax 
 rich by thee, and thy brother that dwell- 
 6 * 
 
66 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 eth by him wax poor and sell himself 
 unto the stranger or sojourner by thee, or 
 to the stock of the stranger's family : after 
 that he is sold he may be redeemed again : 
 one of his brethren may redeem him : 
 either his uncle or his uncle's son may re- 
 deem him ; or if he be able he may re- 
 deem himself. And he shall reckon with 
 him that bought him, from the year that 
 he was sold to him, unto the year of jubi- 
 lee ; and the price of his sale shall be ac- 
 cording unto the number of years, accord- 
 ing to the time of an hired servant shall 
 it be with him. If there be yet many 
 years behind, according unto them he 
 shall give again the price of his redemp- 
 tion out of the money that he was bought 
 for. And if there remain but few years 
 unto the year of jubilee, then he shall 
 count with him, and according unto his 
 years shall he give him again the price of 
 his redemption. And as a yearly hired 
 servant shall he be with him : and the 
 other shall not rule with rigour over him 
 in thy sight. And if he be not redeemed 
 in these years, then he shall go out in 
 the year of jubilee, both he, and his 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 67 
 
 children with him. For unto me the chil- 
 dren of Israel are servants, they are my 
 servants whom I brought forth out of the 
 land of Egypt : I am the Lord your 
 God." 
 
 In this same chapter, from the 39 th to 
 the 43d verses, the case of the sale of a 
 Hebrew to a Hebrew is regarded and re- 
 gulated. Here we have the sale of a 
 Hebrew to one not a Hebrew. The regu- 
 lations appear to have been the same in 
 both cases. In the latter case, however, 
 the mode of sale and of the redemption is 
 more detailed ; and therefore it affords the 
 better opportunity to judge of the charac- 
 ter of the transaction. 
 
 First. The man sells himself, neverthe- 
 less the form of expression throughout is 
 precisely the same as if sold from one 
 master to another. 
 
 Secondly. The price of the servant was 
 regulated by his value yearly, as a yearly 
 hired servant, and this was paid the ser- 
 vant in advance. 
 
 Thirdly. The servant evidently had op- 
 portunity of acquiring property for him- 
 self after his sale, for this is implied in the 
 
68 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 expression, " If he be able he may redeem 
 himself." 
 
 Fourthly. He could be redeemed at any 
 time, either by some friend or by himself, 
 upon returning whatever he had received 
 in advance for the remaining years of the 
 term of service. 
 
 Fifthly. He was to serve, not as a slave, 
 nor as a bondman, nor as an occasional 
 hired servant, but " a yearly hired ser- 
 vant," and all rigorous rule was forbidden. 
 
 Sixthly. In the year of jubilee, if not 
 before, he was restored to full freedom, 
 "both he and his children with him." 
 
 These arrangements being a defence 
 against all oppression, and altogether so 
 unlike any thing in slavery, it would seem 
 to be straining a point vastly to make the 
 condition of the Hebrew servant subserve 
 the interest of the slaveholder. 
 
 In Leviticus the freedom of the servant 
 at the end of six years, seems to be over- 
 looked. I judge, therefore, that these ar- 
 rangements or regulations in Leviticus, 
 relate only to those, who after the end of 
 six years made arrangements to serve until 
 the year of jubilee, and if so it would es- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 69 
 
 tablish the fact that notwithstanding the 
 ceremony of boring the ear, the servant 
 was still at liberty to leave his master at 
 any time he might refund whatever may 
 have been paid him in advance. It was, 
 perhaps, so regulated that the servant 
 should have first a trial of his master for 
 six years before he could make any ar- 
 rangement for a longer term. I know not 
 well how else to harmonize the law as 
 given in Exodus with that in Leviticus. 
 I am aware that there are commentators 
 who say that the law in Exodus relates to 
 those who were sold for theft or for debt, 
 and in Leviticus to those who sold them- 
 selves. But there is nothing in the law 
 allowing a creditor to sell his debtor, and 
 for a theft one had to serve only so long 
 as was necessary to make the legal restitu- 
 tion which he could not pay otherwise. 
 
 It is unfortunate for the cause of liberty 
 and human rights, that the generality of 
 commentators have given this subject too 
 little investigation to be accurate, and have 
 most reprehensibly assisted thereby in 
 riveting the chains of the slave, and at the 
 same time have given occasion to many 
 
70 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 to question the authority of the Mosaic 
 law ; for no one who has his eyes opened 
 to the wrongs of slavery, can for a mo- 
 ment believe that God would sanction 
 such a condition, however in his provi- 
 dence he may for his own wise purposes 
 allow even the wicked to be tyrants and 
 to oppress their fellow men until the mea- 
 sure of their iniquity be filled. 
 
 Deuteronomy xv. 12 — 18. 
 
 "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, 
 or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, 
 and serve thee six years ; then in the 
 seventh year thou shalt let him go free 
 from thee. And when thou sendest him 
 out free from thee, thou shalt not let him 
 go away empty : Thou shalt furnish him 
 liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy 
 floor, and out of thy wine press : of that 
 wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed 
 thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou 
 shalt remember that thou wast a bond- 
 man in the land of Egypt, and the Lord 
 thy God redeemed thee : therefore I com- 
 mand thee this thing to day. And it shall 
 be if he say unto thee, I will not go away 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 71 
 
 from thee ; because he loveth thee and thy 
 house, because he is well with thee : then 
 thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it 
 through his ear unto the door, and he shall 
 be thy servant forever. And also unto 
 thy maid servant thou shalt do likewise. 
 It shall not seem hard unto thee, when 
 thou sendest him away free from thee : 
 for he hath been worth a double hired ser- 
 vant to thee in serving thee six years." 
 
 Suppose a law similar to this should be 
 enacted by the Legislature of South Car- 
 olina in relation to the coloured popula- 
 tion, would it not be regarded an act of 
 manumission ? Without doubt it would. 
 How then can the slaveholder claim this 
 Jewish law as evidence that slavery has 
 the sanction of Jehovah ? It is so utterly 
 at variance with the slave code, that it is 
 surprising it should ever be referred to by 
 the advocate of slavery. 
 
 1st. We have no evidence that the law 
 allowed any master to sell his servant. A 
 man may have sold himself (Leviticus 
 xxv. 47) ; or an officer of the law may 
 have sold a thief to serve long enough to 
 make legal restitution if he were not able 
 
72 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 to make the restitution otherwise. But in 
 this latter case, there was only a sale of 
 services for a limited time ; and that as a 
 penalty for crime ; and therefore not at all 
 applicable to the present discussion. In 
 the former case, that of a man selling him- 
 self, it was on his part a voluntary act, 
 and yet the terms employed are precisely 
 the same as though he were sold by a 
 master. Nothing, therefore, can be inferred 
 to favour the pro-slavery side of the ques- 
 tion from the mere fact of a sale. 
 
 2d. The service at first was limited to 
 six years, and at the end of that time he 
 was to receive from his master a liberal 
 proportion of what there was in the flock, 
 the barn, the wine press, and any thing 
 else that the master had been blessed with. 
 In the mean time he had all the benefit of 
 the Jewish laws, to guard him from im- 
 position and oppression. 
 
 3d. If at the end of the six years he pre- 
 ferred to remain with his master, because 
 he loved him, and loved his house, the 
 master could not turn him off, but was 
 bound to let him remain in his service. 
 But that the master might have, as it were, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 73 
 
 a certificate that he did not force him to 
 remain, and did not oppress him, but that 
 it was a voluntary and affectionate service, 
 the servant submitted to have his ears 
 bored. 
 
 If in all this arrangement there can be 
 found any thing like slavery I have not 
 the penetration to perceive it. Nor can I 
 believe that any candid mind, after a care- 
 ful examination can think that this Mosaic 
 law gives any countenance to any invol- 
 untary servitude, or was a regulation at 
 all oppressive in its character. 
 
 And let a fair and full examination of 
 all the laws of Moses be made, and it 
 seems to me that the candid mind will 
 have to admit that there is nothing therein 
 from beginning to end, that tolerates or 
 gives the slightest countenance to slavery. 
 If the Jews made slaves of their fellow 
 men or oppressed them in any way, it was 
 not because their law, given by Moses, 
 allowed such a state of things, but it was 
 without law, and directly contrary to both 
 the letter and the spirit of the law. The 
 nearest approach to it is to be found in the 
 directions about captives being taken in 
 7 
 
74 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 war. " When thou comest nigh unto a 
 city to fight against it, then proclaim peace 
 unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee 
 answer of peace, and open unto thee, then 
 shall it be, that all the people that is found 
 therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and 
 they shall serve thee." 
 
 This, at first sight, may have the appear- 
 ance of oppression, that a people agreeing 
 to peace should be nevertheless made sub- 
 ject to tribute. But whatever objections 
 may be made against war, it does not ne- 
 cessarily follow that because a people are 
 made tributaries to another nation, there 
 fore they are oppressed, and that personally 
 they are without the means of redress. 
 Let it be recollected that the people thus 
 to be brought in subjection, were such as 
 were enemies to the Jews, who, in conse- 
 quence of their hostile acts, might bring 
 the Jewish army against them. For their 
 own safety the Hebrews might bring this 
 hostile nation under their civil authority ; 
 this being attended with expense, taxes 
 must be levied. A tribute going no far- 
 ther than justice demanded would not be 
 oppression, and I take it that no more than 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 75 
 
 this was allowable under the sanction of 
 the Mosaic law. 
 
 But it seems, that in case their enemies 
 would not come to terms of peace, then 
 another law was to be enforced, " And if 
 if it will make no peace with thee, but will 
 make war against thee, then thou shalt be- 
 siege it : and when the Lord thy God hath 
 delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt 
 smite every male thereof with the edge of 
 the sword : but the women, and the little 
 ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the 
 city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou 
 take unto thyself." (Deut. xx. 12 — 14.) 
 This was the law in reference to the hos- 
 tile nations afar off. But of the nations 
 immediately about them, the Canaanites, 
 &c, another law was to prevail. Of these 
 it was ordered ; " Thou shalt save alive 
 nothing that breatheth." They could not 
 therefore make slaves or servants of the 
 aborigines of the country. Men, women, 
 children and all, must be utterly destroyed. 
 Of the distant nations with whom they 
 fought, they were to destroy all the men, 
 consequently they could not make slaves 
 of the men But the women and little 
 
\ 
 
 76 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 ones could be carried away as captives, 
 (see Num. xxxi. 9.) But why were these 
 to be carried off as captives ? Evidently 
 because the men being destroyed, the 
 women and children required protection. 
 But were they allowed to make slaves of 
 them, or to bring them into oppressive ser- 
 vice ? Not at all. These women and 
 little ones would have all the advantages 
 and protection of the Hebrew laws. If 
 they became conformists to the Jewish 
 religion, they were immediately entitled to 
 all its national, civil, and social advan- 
 tages. If they did not, but still remained 
 as strangers in the land, this law threw its 
 shield around them — "Thou shalt neither 
 vex a stranger, nor oppress him,'' (Exodus 
 xxii. 21.) They therefore could not possi- 
 bly be legally enslaved, because if there 
 were no oppression, there could be no 
 slavery, for a slave is one compelled to 
 serve another without the means of redress 
 when wronged. 
 
 I trust that in this examination of the 
 law of Moses, I have made the matter so 
 plain, that no one who has followed me 
 can be disposed to call in question the fair- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 77 
 
 ness of my deductions. I am sure I have 
 not sought by ingenuity to force the scrip- 
 tures to sustain my own views. It would 
 answer me no good purpose to delude my- 
 self with a fanciful interpretation, nor 
 could I hope to produce any permanent 
 conviction in the minds of others, if I did 
 not feel the assurance that I had candidly 
 and fairly sought out and ascertained the 
 truth. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. 
 Joshua ix. 23, 27. 
 
 " Now therefore ye are cursed, and 
 there shall none of you be freed from being 
 bondmen, and hewers of wood, and draw- 
 ers of water for the house of my God." 
 
 " And Joshua made them that day hew- 
 ers of wood and drawers of water for the 
 congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, 
 even unto this day, in the place which he 
 should choose." 
 
 Admitting that the Gibeonites, who 
 were thus treated, were thereby oppressed 
 7* 
 
78 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 and enslaved, (although it does not follow, 
 because they were hewers of wood and 
 drawers of water for the house of God, 
 that they were slaves ;) admitting it, I say, 
 still there is no divine sanction of slavery. 
 Look at the history of the transaction, and 
 it will be seen that the Jews in this case 
 acted without asking "counsel at the 
 mouth of the Lord." Joshua ix. 14. Ac- 
 cording to the history, God had directed 
 that of those people, including the Gibeon- 
 ites, every thing that breathed should be 
 killed. When therefore they spared their 
 lives and made bondmen of them, they 
 acted in direct violation of the command 
 that had been given them. It is therefore 
 in this discussion unimportant to inquire 
 into the nature or conditions of the bon- 
 dage or service imposed upon them. The 
 history affords no evidence that Joshua 
 and the rulers had any right to make the 
 regulation they did. It affords no divine 
 sanction of slavery. 
 
 2 Samuel xii. 31. 
 
 " And he brought forth the people that 
 were therein, and put them under saws, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 79 
 
 and under harrows of iron, and under 
 axes of iron, and made them pass through 
 the brick kiln : and thus did he unto all 
 the cities of the children of Ammon." 
 
 Whether David put these people to a 
 horrible death, or into a severe bondage, is 
 not a settled question. But whichever it 
 was, there is no reason to believe he had 
 the divine sanction for it. Elisha's direc- 
 tion to the king of Israel in relation to the 
 captives was in a very different spirit. 
 He directed them to be fed and sent back 
 to their king or master." 2 Kings vi. 22, 23. 
 
 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, 22. 
 
 "And all the people that were left of 
 the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, 
 and Jebusites, which were not of the chil- 
 dren of Israel, their children that were 
 left after them in the land, whom the chil- 
 dren of Israel also were not able to de- 
 stroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tri- 
 bute of bond-service unto this day. But 
 of the children of Israel did Solomon 
 make no bondmen : but they were men 
 of war, and his servants, and his princes, 
 and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, 
 
80 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 and his horsemen." (See also 2 Chron. 
 viii. 7, 8, 9.) 
 
 Whence did Solomon get his authority 
 for making bondmen of those whom the 
 Israelites had spared ? Certainly God had 
 never authorized it, for his command was 
 express respecting these people ; u Thou 
 shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." 
 This tribute of bond-service, therefore, 
 that was imposed upon them, was entirely 
 without the divine sanction. 
 
 There is, however, in this passage some- 
 thing worthy of notice. In the 21st verse 
 it is implied that some of these people 
 were " of the children of Israel," and 
 were consequently exempted from this 
 bond-service. How are we to understand 
 this, otherwise than that they had become 
 incorporated into the Hebrew nation ? If 
 so, then there is in this, confirmation that 
 those who, from among the heathen, be- 
 came Jews in their customs, were treated 
 as Jews, and consequently could not be in 
 any sort of bondage, legally. Every one, 
 therefore, had the opportunity to deliver 
 himself from bondage, by abandoning idol- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 81 
 
 atry, and conforming himself to the con- 
 fession and worship of the true God. 
 
 I take no advantage of the fact that 
 those of whom Solomon levied a bond-ser- 
 vice were not brought into a condition of 
 entire slavery, but were only engaged on 
 the public works. For although it was 
 only a tribute, and that tribute may have 
 been comparatively light, yet the principle 
 was the same, whether the oppression 
 were less or more : and whatsoever was 
 the amount of their toil, those people were 
 not thus made tributaries by the command 
 of God ; and from their condition, there- 
 fore, nothing can be argued in favour of 
 slavery. 
 
 2 Kings iv. 1. 
 
 " Now there cried a certain woman, of 
 the wives of the sons of the prophets, unto 
 Elisha, saying, Thy servant, my husband, 
 is dead ; and thou knowest that thy ser- 
 vant did fear the Lord : and the creditor is 
 come to take unto him my two sons to be 
 bondmen/' 
 
 But this creditor had not the least right 
 to take her sons for bondmen. For, in the 
 
82 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 first place, the law explicitly required him 
 to relieve them. " And if thy brother be 
 waxen poor, and fallen in decay with thee, 
 then thou shalt relieve him : yea, though 
 he be a stranger or sojourner ; that he 
 may live with thee. Take thou no usury 
 of him, or increase." (Lev. xxv. 35, 36.) 
 And in the next place it was equally ex- 
 plicit ; " They shall not be sold as bond- 
 men." (Lev. xxv. 42.) 
 
 Job vii. 2, 3. 
 
 "As a servant earnestly desireth the 
 shadow, and as an hireling looketh for the 
 reward of his work, so am I made to pos- 
 sess months of vanity." 
 
 The only point here upon which the ad- 
 vocate of slavery could make a question, 
 would be the distinction between a servant 
 and a hireling. But admitting, for the 
 mere sake of concession, that "slave" is 
 meant by "servant," the passage could 
 prove no more than that there were such 
 a class of men as slaves in the world, 
 which no one pretends to deny. But there 
 is nothing here expressed to justify such a 
 condition. I suppose, however, that other 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 83 
 
 servants than slaves earnestly desire the 
 shadow. It is not, however, worth our 
 attention to dwell upon this passage. It 
 can prove nothing either way. 
 
 Jeremiah ii. 14. 
 
 " Is Israel a servant ? is he a home-born 
 slave ? why is he spoiled ?" 
 
 The word slave here, is in our Bibles 
 printed in italics, which signifies that it is 
 not in the original Hebrew, but was intro- 
 duced by King James' translators. To 
 read the text without the italicised words, 
 it would be, " Israel a servant ? he a home- 
 born ? why is he spoiled ?" Whatever 
 may be the import here of the terms " ser- 
 vant," and "home-born," I do not see 
 that there is any thing that implies the 
 slightest sanction or toleration of slavery. 
 On the contrary, it seems to be expressive 
 of indignation at the very idea of Israel 
 being a servant at all, whether home-born 
 or otherwise. I presume the passage 
 would scarcely attract attention on the 
 question of slavery, but from the fact of 
 the word " slave " being introduced into 
 the text. It is the only place in all the 
 
84 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED. 
 
 Old Testament where the word occurs, 
 and I thank God it was not introduced by 
 the prophet himself, but by uninspired 
 translators. 
 
 The following are some of the inciden- 
 tal reasons for inferring that the servants 
 among the Jews were not slaves in the 
 full sense of this term. 
 
 1st. Saul and his servant when they 
 went to hunt the mules, sat together in 
 Samuel's parlour with thirty other per- 
 sons, and Saul and his servant had the 
 chiefest place among them. (1 Samuel ix. 
 22.) 
 
 2d. Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth, 
 had himself twenty servants ; and Ziba 
 and his fifteen sons, and his twenty ser- 
 vants, together tilled the land for Mephi- 
 bosheth. (2. Sam. ix. 9 — 12.) 
 
 3d. Job's servants contended with him 
 for their rights, and he admitted the jus- 
 tice of their claims. (Job xxxi. 13.) He 
 also paid his servants money for the fruits 
 of his land. (Job xxxi. 38, 39.) And to 
 his maidens he probably made presents 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 85 
 
 for their entertainment and pleasure. (Job 
 xli. 5.) 
 
 4th. When Gehazi the servant of Eli- 
 sha received from Naaman a large amount 
 of money, evidently to appropriate it to his 
 own use, his master chided him for seek- 
 ing wealth, and for desiring to have "men 
 servants and maid servants" at such a 
 time of calamity, implying that a servant 
 could have servants. 
 
 5th. Tobiah the servant is named fre- 
 quently in Nehemiah with circumstances 
 that are incompatible with the idea of sla- 
 very. 
 
 6th. Nehemiah's servants were armed. 
 (Nehemiah iv. 16.) 
 
 7th. Even the "Nethenims" and the 
 " children of Solomon's servants who were 
 made tributary in bond service, had for 
 themselves possessions. (Neh. xi. 3 ) 
 
 8th. Sheshan, a descendant of Judah, 
 gave his daughter for a wife to his ser- 
 vant Jarha, an Egyptian. (1 Chr. ii. 
 34, 35.) 
 
 9th. Add to these foregoing considera- 
 tions the fact that the Jews were strictly 
 forbidden in their law to be in any way 
 8 
 
86 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 oppressive, either to their brethren the 
 Jews or to any strangers in their land, and 
 that with frequent appeals to them to re- 
 member that they had been bondmen in 
 the land of Egypt, and how the Lord had 
 delivered them. 
 
 Having now examined every thing in 
 the Old Testament that the slaveholder or 
 his advocate could possibly suppose fa- 
 vourable to his views and his practice, I 
 cannot but flatter myself that every one 
 who has followed me carefully and can- 
 didly, must admit that there is not one 
 word or syllable that can be fairly inter- 
 preted to imply God's sanction of slavery. 
 Starting with a false and delusive definition 
 of what slavery is, some may deceive them- 
 selves with the idea that slavery existed, 
 and was tolerated and justified with the 
 divine approbation, among the Jews. But 
 when we fully understand what it is we 
 are seeking after, and have a sincere de- 
 sire for truth, and truth only, it is utterly 
 impossible to fix the mind upon a single 
 passage from the first of Genesis to the 
 
BY THE BIBLE. ' 87 
 
 last of Malachi, and feel secure in saying 
 here is slavery with the sanction of Je- 
 hovah. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the law 
 of Moses in reference to other subjects, as 
 for instance, war, capital punishment, po- 
 lygamy, &c, I do not well see how as to 
 the regulations about servants it could be 
 well improved. Even as regards the 
 strangers who became their servants, call 
 them bond servants if you please, I do not 
 think there could have been a more hu- 
 mane arrangement adopted. It is true 
 that if they continued to be idolaters, they 
 were permitted to extend their service to 
 the year of jubilee, but, this service was 
 not allowed to be an oppressive one, 
 neither does it appear to have been per- 
 mitted to be entered upon involuntarily. 
 \t was a service that afforded them protec- 
 tion, gave them support, shielded them 
 from imposition whilst they were aliens, 
 and gave them the best facilities for learn- 
 ing the principles of that religion which 
 the Mosaic law was designed to establish, 
 and the adoption of which would at once 
 
88 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 have opened to them all the benefits of the 
 Hebrew government and citizenship. 
 
 Suppose a law of this kind should pre- 
 vail in the United States. No native or 
 naturalized American shall be suffered to 
 remain an apprentice or be a servant 
 longer than six years, unless after the six 
 years he voluntarily renews his engage- 
 ment ; but a foreigner who refuses to give 
 his allegiance to the government, may 
 contract to remain in service so long as he 
 holds himself an alien, having however the 
 protection of law to which he may appeal 
 when he suffers wrong. Would this be a 
 bad law ? It strikes me that so far from 
 its being oppressive, it would be the dic- 
 tate of a sound policy as a protection to 
 the said alien. Such I conceive to have 
 been the character of the Mosaic law. If 
 the Jews disregarded its spirit, and trans- 
 gressed its letter, that was another matter. 
 It was their own wickedness ; and their 
 transgression of the law ought never to be 
 a justification for another people to violate 
 the rights of man and the laws of Deity. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 89 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 I now turn to the New Testament. After 
 the most careful examination, I am pre- 
 pared to affirm without the fear of candid 
 and successful contradiction, that there is 
 not a single instance in which the word 
 servant is used in the sense of slave. 
 
 In one place the expression, " servants 
 under the yoke" occurs, but the very 
 fact that the words " under the yoke" are 
 added to qualify the word " servant," 
 shows that without some such qualifica- 
 tion, the idea of their real condition would 
 not be conveyed. 
 
 In a single place also in the New Tes- 
 tament, the word " slaves" occurs, but in 
 a connection by no means favourable to 
 slavery, and where indeed the true signifi- 
 cation is bodies, and not slaves. It is in 
 Revelations xviii. 13, "slaves, and souls 
 of men," meaning < bodies and souls of 
 
 men.' It is alluding to the merchandise 
 
 8 # 
 
90 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 of the bodies and souls of men, by the 
 merchants of the mystic Babylon ; and of 
 course whether " bodies'' or "slaves/' be 
 a proper translation, the text, if it mean 
 any thing, means a condemnation of the 
 merchants of this Babylon, and cannot be 
 quoted in justification of slavery itself. 
 
 It does not appear that our Saviour ever 
 came in contact with slavery, except in 
 the extended sense of an oppressive gov- 
 ernment under Imperial Rome. But no 
 one will pretend that he ever gave the 
 slightest sanction to national slavery or to 
 any oppressive form of government. Whe- 
 ther he ever came in contact with indivi- 
 dual slaveholding, so that an expression 
 of his will on the subject would have been 
 called for, cannot be made to appear from 
 any thing in any of the four gospels. On 
 the contrary, in those allusions to servants 
 from which any safe inference may be 
 drawn as to the kind of servants meant, 
 it is sufficiently plain that they could not 
 have been slaves. Now let us take these 
 in their historical order. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 91 
 
 Matthew vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. 
 
 " No man can serve two masters, for 
 either he will hate the one and love the 
 other, or else he will hold to the one and 
 despise the other." 
 
 " No servant can serve two masters : 
 for either he will hate the one, and love 
 the other : or else he will hold to the one, 
 and despise the other. Ye cannot serve 
 God and mammon." 
 
 The allusion here is to masters, in the 
 sense of lords, as one acquainted with 
 Greek would readily understand, and not 
 in the sense of ordinary proprietors of es- 
 tates. It is the adhesion of a subject to a 
 king or nobleman. The text itself shews 
 that slaves cannot be intended, since the 
 man is represented as making his choice, 
 to which lord or master he should adhere. 
 
 Matthew viii. 5—13. Luke vii. 2—10. 
 
 " And when Jesus was entered into 
 Capernaum, there came unto him a cen- 
 turion beseeching him, and saying, Lord, 
 my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, 
 
92 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 grievously tormented. And Jesus saith 
 unto him, I will come and heal him. The 
 centurion answered and said, Lord, I am 
 not worthy that thou shouldst come under 
 my roof; but speak the word only, and 
 my servant shall be healed. For I am a 
 man under authority, having soldiers un- 
 der me : and I say to this man Go, and 
 he goeth ; and to another Come, and he 
 cometh ; and to my servant, Do this, and 
 he doeth it. When Jesus heard it he mar- 
 velled, and said to them that followed, 
 Verily I say unto you, I have not found 
 so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I 
 say unto you that many shall come from 
 the east and west, and shall sit down with 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the king- 
 dom of heaven : but the children of the 
 kingdom shall be cast out into outer dark- 
 ness : there shall be weeping and gnashing 
 of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centu- 
 rion, Go thy way ; and as thou hast be- 
 lieved, so be it done unto thee. And his 
 servant was healed in the self same hour." 
 " And a certain centurion's servant, who 
 was dear unto him, was sick, and ready 
 to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 93 
 
 sent unto him the elders of the Jews, be- 
 seeching him that he would come and heal 
 his servant. And when they came to Je- 
 sus, they besought him instantly, saying, 
 That he was worthy for whom he should 
 do this. For he loveth our nation, and he 
 hath built us a synagogue. Then Jesus 
 went with them. And when he was now 
 not far from the house, the centurion sent 
 friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, 
 trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy 
 that thou shouldest enter under my roof. 
 Wherefore neither thought I myself wor- 
 thy to come unto thee : but say in a word, 
 and my servant shall be healed. For I also 
 am a man set under authority, having un- 
 der me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, 
 and he goeth : and to another, Come, and 
 he cometh 5 and to my servant, Do this, 
 and he doeth it. When Jesus heard these 
 things, he marvelled at him, and turned 
 him about and said unto the people that 
 followed him, I say unto you, I have not 
 found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 
 And they that were sent, returning to the 
 house, found the servant whole that had 
 been sick." 
 
94 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 The servant who was sick was a child, 
 as a Greek scholar would readily admit. 
 " My little son," instead of " my servant," 
 would have been a more literal transla- 
 tion. Luke represents him as a servant 
 " who was dear unto him," and also as a 
 little son. But I cannot here undertake 
 to prove this ; because I am addressing 
 many who do not understand Greek. But 
 no candid scholar will deny it after con- 
 sulting his Greek Testament, 
 
 But the centurion had at least one ser- 
 vant — as is evident from the 9th verse. 
 But what sort of a servant was he ? Was 
 he a slave ? There is no proof of it — not 
 the slightest. The case of the centurion, 
 therefore, cannot be used in defence of 
 slavery. 
 
 Matthew x. 24, 25. 
 
 " The disciple is not above his master, 
 nor the servant above his lord. It is 
 enough for the disciple that he be as his 
 master, and the .servant as his lord; if 
 they have called the master of the house 
 Beelzebub, how much more shall they 
 call them of his household." 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 95 
 
 It cannot be claimed here that the term 
 servant means slave. On the contrary, a 
 certain degree of eqality seems to be ad- 
 mitted between the master and the ser- 
 vant. It is enough for the servant that 
 he be as his lord. This ranks him with 
 his lord. He ought not to expect more 
 than this ; but to this extent he may be 
 regarded. This shews to my own mind 
 that the idea of the servant being a slave 
 was not in the mind of Jesus when he 
 used the language of the text. He was 
 rather representing a great man with vo- 
 luntary adherents, who constituted his 
 household, just as the devils constitute the 
 household of Beelzebub, or as the disci- 
 ples constituted the household of Jesus. 
 
 Matthew xii. 27, 28. 
 
 " So the servants of the householder 
 came," 
 
 " The servants said unto him," &c. 
 
 No inference can be drawn from this 
 about the condition of servants. 
 
 Matthew xiv. 1, 2. 
 
 " At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard 
 
96 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 of the fame of Jesus, and said unto his 
 servants," &c. 
 
 The familiarity of Herod with his ser- 
 vants, implies that they were probably his 
 officers, attendants or suite. 
 
 Matthew xviii. 23—34. 
 
 "Therefore is the kingdom of heaven 
 likened unto a certain king which would 
 take account of his servants. And when 
 he had begun to reckon, one was brought 
 unto him which owed him ten thousand 
 talents. But forasmuch as he had not to 
 pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, 
 and his wife and children, and all that he 
 had, and payment to be made. The ser- 
 vant therefore fell down and worshipped 
 him, saying. Lord, have patience with me, 
 and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of 
 that servant was moved with compassion, 
 and loosed him and forgave him the debt. 
 But the same servant went out, and found 
 one of his fellow servants which owed 
 him an hundred pence : and he laid hands 
 on him and took him by the throat, say- 
 ing, Pay me that thou owest. And his 
 fellow servant fell down at his feet and 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 97 
 
 besought him, saying, Have patience with 
 me and I will pay thee all. And he would 
 not, but went and cast him into prison till 
 he should pay the debt. So when his fel- 
 low servants saw what was done, they 
 were very sorry, and came and told unto 
 their lord all that was done. Then his 
 lord, after that he had called him, said* 
 unto him, thou wicked servant, I for- 
 gave thee all that debt, because thou de- 
 siredst me : shouldest not thou also have 
 had compassion on thy fellow servant, 
 even as I had pity on thee ? And his lord 
 was wroth, and delivered him to the tor- 
 mentors, till he should pay all that was 
 due unto him." 
 
 In every instance in this parable, of the 
 occurrence of the word servant, it is per- 
 fectly evident that it does not there signify 
 slave. The idea is just this : One holding 
 an official station under the government 
 of a king, was found to be a defaulter to 
 the amount of ten thousand talents. This 
 man is called a servant. By his " fellow 
 servant," and " fellow servants," were 
 meant his fellow subjects of that kingdom. 
 In the use of the term " servant," there- 
 9 
 
98 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 fore, is not embraced the idea of slavery. 
 But this subject of the king was ordered 
 to be sold, together with his wife and chil- 
 dren. Yet it does not appear in the text, 
 what word would have been employed to 
 signify their condition after the sale, had 
 they been sold. The man was called a 
 'Servant while yet free. What would be 
 his condition, and that of his wife and 
 children after their sale, we might infer to 
 be slavery. But the word servant is not 
 employed in the parable to signify that 
 condition. The only opportunity, there- 
 fore, for the advocate of slavery to catch 
 the idea of that condition is found in the 
 order of a sale. But let it be observed 
 that in the case of the other debt, the debt 
 of one subject to another, the creditor does 
 not have the debtor sold, but only cast into 
 prison. The sale of the first, therefore, 
 must be regarded as an official act, under 
 the order of government, being the sale 
 of a defaulter, after due process of law, 
 for crime of which he was duly convicted. 
 He was pardoned subsequently by the 
 king. Still it will perhaps be said that 
 such a government is an oppressive one, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 99 
 
 where a king can order not only the guilty- 
 man, but his wife and children also, to 
 be sold, and that the subjects of such a 
 government are virtually slaves. But did 
 Jesus intend by the parable to sanction 
 such an absolute monarchy ? Certainly 
 not. The design of the parable was the 
 very reverse. It was that kings and all 
 else should, from their hearts, forgive 
 "every one his brother their trespasses.'* 
 He gives no intimation of approval, either 
 of such a form of government, or of the 
 king's conduct in ordering the sale of the 
 man or his family. His purpose was fully 
 answered, whether the king did right or 
 wrong, for he only designed to shew that 
 with what measure men meted, God would 
 measure to them again, and therefore they 
 ought to treat one another as brethren. 
 
 Matthew xxi. 33—36. Mark xii. 2 — 5. 
 Luke xx. 9—12. 
 
 "There was a certain householder, which 
 planted a vineyard, and hedged it round 
 about, and digged a wine-press in it, and 
 built a tower and let it out to husband- 
 men, and went into a far country : and 
 
100 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 when the time of the fruit drew near, he 
 sent his servants to the husbandmen, that 
 they might receive the fruits of it. And 
 the husbandmen took his servants, and 
 beat one, and killed another, and stoned 
 another. Again he sent other servants, 
 more than the first : and they did unto 
 them likewise." 
 
 " And at the season he sent to the hus- 
 bandmen a servant, that he might receive 
 from the husbandmen of the fruit of the 
 vineyard. And they caught him, and beat 
 him, and sent him away empty. And 
 again, he sent unto them another servant : 
 and at him they cast stones, and wounded 
 him in the head, and sent him away 
 shamefully handled. And again he sent 
 another, ; and him they killed, and many 
 others ; beating some, and killing some." 
 
 " Then began he to speak to the people 
 this parable. A certain man planted a 
 vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, 
 and went into a far country for a long 
 time. And at the season he sent a servant 
 to the husbandmen, that they should give 
 him of the fruit of the vineyard : but the 
 husbandmen beat him, and sent him away 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 101 
 
 empty. And again he sent another ser- 
 vant : and they beat him also, and en- 
 treated him shamefully, and sent him 
 away empty. And again he sent a third : 
 and they wounded him also, and cast him 
 out." 
 
 Whether mere collectors were called 
 servants in this case, or not, we cannot 
 determine ; but I infer these servants were 
 not slaves, from the very fact that they 
 were allowed, nay commissioned to collect 
 the proprietor's rents upon a large estate. 
 Mere servants could not have been thus 
 trusted. 
 
 Matthew xxii. 2—13. Luke xiv. 16 — 24. 
 
 " The kingdom of heaven is like unto a 
 certain king, which made a marriage for 
 his son, and sent forth his servants to call 
 them that were bidden to the wedding : 
 and they would not come. Again he sent 
 forth other servants, saying, Tell them 
 which are bidden, Behold I have prepared 
 my dinner : my oxen and my fatlings are 
 killed, and all things are ready : come unto 
 the marriage. But they made light of it, 
 and went their ways, one to his farm, an- 
 9* 
 
102 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 other to his merchandise. Aud the rem- 
 nant took his servants, and entreated them 
 Spitefully, and slew them. But when the 
 king heard thereof, he was wroth : and he 
 sent forth his armies, and destroyed those 
 murderers, and burned up their city. Then 
 saith he to his servants, The wedding is 
 ready, but they which were bidden were 
 not worthy. Go ye therefore into the 
 highways, and as many as ye shall find, 
 bring to the marriage. So those servants 
 went out into the highways and gathered 
 together all, as many as they found, both 
 bad and good : and the wedding was fur- 
 nished with guests. And when the king 
 came in to see the guests, he saw there a 
 man which had not on a wedding gar- 
 ment : and he saith unto him, Friend, how 
 earnest thou in hither, not having a wed- 
 ding garment ? And he was speechless. 
 Then said the king to his servants, Bind 
 him hand and foot and take him away, 
 and cast him into outer darkness : There 
 shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. " 
 " Then said he unto him, A certain man 
 made a great supper, and bade many: 
 And sent his servant at supper-time, to 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 103 
 
 say to them that were bidden, Come, for 
 all things are now ready. And they all 
 with one consent began to make excuse. 
 The first said unto him, I have bought a 
 piece of ground, and I must needs go and 
 see it : I pray thee have me excused. 
 And another said, I have bought five yoke 
 of oxen, and I go to prove them : I pray 
 thee have me excused. And another said, 
 I have married a wife : and therefore I 
 cannot come. So that servant came, and 
 shewed his lord these things. Then the 
 master of the house being angry, said to 
 his servant, Go out quickly into the streets 
 and lanes of the city, and bring in hither 
 the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, 
 and the blind. And the servant said, 
 Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, 
 and yet there is room. And the Lord said 
 unto the servant. Go out into the high- 
 ways and hedges, and compel them to 
 come in, that my house may be filled. For 
 I say unto you, That none of those men 
 which were bidden, shall taste of my sup- 
 per." 
 
 Were these servants of this king slaves? 
 There is no reason to suppose that they 
 
104 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 were. Kings would not be likely to em- 
 ploy slaves in such business. It would re- 
 quire persons of distinction and high rank. 
 But it is not important to dwell upon this 
 parable, as there is nothing in it which 
 could be tortured to signify an approval of, 
 or connivance at slavery, by Jesus Christ. 
 
 Matthew xxiv. 45 — 51. Luke xii. 42 — 48. 
 
 " Who then is a faithful and wise ser- 
 vant, whom his Lord hath made ruler 
 over his household, to give them meat 
 in due season ? Blessed 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. 
 But, and if that evil servant shall say in 
 his heart, My lord delayeth his coming : 
 and shall begin to smite his fellow ser- 
 vants, and to eat and drink with the 
 drunken : the lord of that servant shall 
 come in a day when he looketh not for 
 him, and in an hour that he is not aware 
 of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint 
 him his portion with the hypocrites : there 
 shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 
 
 " And the Lord said, Who then is that 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 105 
 
 faithful and wise steward, whom his lord 
 shall make ruler over his household, to give 
 them their portion of meat in due season. 
 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord 
 when he cometh shall find so doing. Of 
 a truth I say unto you, That he will make 
 him ruler over all that he hath. But and 
 if that servant say in his heart, My lord 
 delayeth his coming : and shall begin to 
 beat the men-servants, and maidens, and 
 to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The 
 lord of that servant will come in a day 
 when he looketh not for him, and at an 
 hour when he is not aware, and will cut 
 him in sunder, and will appoint him his 
 portion with the unbelievers. iV.nd that 
 servant which knew his lord's will, and 
 prepared not himself, neither did accord- 
 ing to his will, shall be beaten with many 
 stripes. But he that knew not, and did 
 commit things worthy of stripes, shall be 
 beaten with few stripes. For unto whom- 
 soever much is given, of him shall be 
 much required ; and to whom men have 
 committed much, of him they will ask the 
 more." 
 
 If it be considered that Jesus Christ is 
 
106 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 here speaking of himself and his appointed 
 ministers, it will at once be understood 
 that by the servants in this place were not 
 meant slaves. The expressions too, " cut 
 him asunder," and " appoint him his por- 
 tion with the hypocrites," and "unbe- 
 lievers," imply the separation of the ser- 
 vant from the household of the lord. He 
 could no longer be recognized as a ser- 
 vant, but must go off among those who 
 are unfaithful, there to weep and gnash 
 his teeth with remorse for having brought 
 himself into such a condition. 
 
 What is added in Luke about inflicting 
 " stripes," would probably, in the Ameri- 
 can Republic, give the inference that these 
 servants were slaves, but in other coun- 
 tries, and especially in ancient times, it was 
 not unusual for masters to use the rod, 
 even upon those who were hired servants ; 
 but whilst this was probably the case 
 among the Jews, it was under restrictions 
 that secured the servant against undeser- 
 ved and oppressive punishment. The ad- 
 ditional observations recorded by Luke 
 therefore, do not alter the inference that 
 these parabolic servants were not slaves. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 107 
 
 Matthew xxv. 14 — 30. 
 
 " For the kingdom of heaven is as a 
 man travelling into a far country, who 
 called his own servants and delivered unto 
 them his goods. And unto one he gave 
 five talents, to another two, and to another 
 one : to every man according to his several 
 ability ; and straightway took his journey. 
 Then he that had received the five talents, 
 went and traded with the same, and 
 made them other five talents. And like- 
 wise he that had received two, he also 
 gained other two. But he that had re- 
 ceived one, went and digged in the earth, 
 and hid his lord's money. After a long 
 time the lord of those servants cometh, 
 and reckoneth with them. And so he that 
 had received five talents, came and brought 
 other five talents, saying, Lord, thou de- 
 liveredst unto me five talents : behold I 
 have gained besides them, five talents 
 more. His lord said unto him, Well done, 
 thou good and faithful servant ; thou hast 
 been faithful over a few things, I will 
 make thee ruler over many things ; enter 
 thou into the joy of thy lord. He also 
 
108 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 that had received two talents, came and 
 said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two 
 talents ; behold I have gained two other 
 talents besides them. His lord said unto 
 him, Well done, good and faithful servant ; 
 thou hast been faithful over a few things, 
 I will make thee ruler over many things : 
 enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then 
 he which had received the one talent, came 
 and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art 
 an hard man, reaping where thou hast not 
 sown, and gathering where thou hast not 
 strewed : and I was afraid, and went and 
 hid thy talent in the earth : lo, there thou 
 hast that is thine. His lord answered and 
 said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful 
 servant, thou knewest that I reap where I 
 sowed not, and gather where I have not 
 strewed : thou oughtest therefore to have 
 put my money to the exchangers, and 
 then at my coming I should have received 
 mine own with usury. Take therefore 
 the talent from him, and give it unto 
 him which hath ten talents. For unto 
 every one that hath shall be given, and 
 he shall have abundance : but from him 
 which hath not, shall be taken from him 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 109 
 
 even that which he hath. And cast ye 
 the unprofitable servant into outer dark- 
 ness : there shall be weeping and gnash- 
 ing of teeth/' 
 
 Were these servants slaves ? I think 
 not, because the amount entrusted to their 
 care was too much to be placed into the 
 hands of slaves. A single talent could not 
 have been less than fifteen hundred dol- 
 lars if of silver, and if of gold, not less 
 than twenty-five thousand dollars. There 
 was therefore entrusted to one of these 
 servants which had five talents, not less 
 than seven or eight thousand dollars. 
 Would any master entrust that much mo- 
 ney in the hands of a slave, and go off 
 and leave him ? Again, these " servants" 
 were merchants, they were not therefore 
 likely to be slaves. And finally this un- 
 profitable servant was to be cast out " into 
 outer darkness," that is, no longer allowed 
 to be a servant, but left to weep and gnash 
 his teeth on account of his want and des- 
 titution, and from remorse. 
 
 The word servant evidently, to my 
 mind, was used in this case as it was fre- 
 quently used in ancient times to signify 
 10 
 
110 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 any one who did business for another. If 
 it were now used as in former days, it 
 would apply to a commission merchant, 
 factor, or other agent who might be em- 
 ployed to transact the business of another ; 
 and indeed it is not even now entirely in 
 disuse in this sense, and hence it is com- 
 mon for many to subscribe their names to 
 letters, as the servants of those to whom 
 they write. 
 
 Matthew xxvi. 51. Mark xiv. 47. 
 John xviii. 10. 
 
 " And behold, one of them which were 
 with Jesus, stretched out his hand and 
 drew his sword, and struck a servant of 
 the high priest, and smote off his ear." 
 
 " And one of them that stood by, drew 
 a sword, and smote a servant of the high 
 priest, and cut off his ear." 
 
 " Then Simon Peter, having a sword, 
 drew it, and smote the high priest's ser- 
 vant, and cut off his right ear. The ser- 
 vant's name was Malchus." 
 
 It does not appear that this servant was 
 a slave, but the probability is he was not, 
 first, because the high priest had no right 
 
BY THE BIBLE. Ill 
 
 under the law, to hold men in perpetual 
 bondage ; and secondly, because it is not 
 probable a mere slave would have been 
 thus prominent in the execution of an offi- 
 cial act. 
 
 Mark xiv. 65. John xviii. 18, 26. 
 
 " And the servants did strike him with 
 the palms of their hands." 
 
 " And the servants and officers stood 
 there, who had made a fire of coals ; (for 
 it was cold) and they warmed themselves ; 
 and Peter stood with them, and warmed 
 himself." 
 
 " One of the servants of the high priest 
 (being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut 
 off ) saith, Did not I see thee in the garden 
 with him?" 
 
 There is no reason to infer that these 
 servants were slaves. They were the 
 high priest's servants, and under the Jew- 
 ish law he had no right to hold men in 
 perpetual bondage, or to oppress them in 
 any way. 
 
 Luke. xv. 22. 
 
 " But the father said to his servants," 
 &c. 
 
112 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 " And he called one of his servants" 
 &c. 
 
 These were the servants of the prodi- 
 gal's father. We have no account that 
 he had any slaves ; but the prodigal him- 
 self spake of his father's "hired servants." 
 The inference is he had no slaves. 
 
 Luke xvii. 7 — 10. 
 
 " But which of you having a servant 
 ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say unto 
 him by and by, when he is come from the 
 field, Go and sit down to meat ? And will 
 not rather say unto him, make ready 
 wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, 
 and serve me, till I have eaten and drun- 
 ken, and afterwards thou shalt eat and 
 drink? Doth he thank that servant be- 
 cause he did the things that were com- 
 manded him ? I trow not. So likewise 
 ye, when ye shall have done all those 
 things which are commanded you, say, 
 We are unprofitable servants, we have 
 done that which was our duty to do." 
 
 A servant who receives wages for his 
 services, may with much more accuracy 
 charge himself with doing no more than 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 113 
 
 it was his duty to do, than a slave who is 
 conscious that all he does for his master is 
 that much gratuitous or rather forced la- 
 bour. I, therefore, feel more safe in the 
 inference that slaves were not at the time 
 in the mind of Jesus. 
 
 Luke xix. 12—27. 
 
 " A certain nobleman went into a far 
 country to receive for himself a kingdom, 
 and to return. And he called his ten ser- 
 vants and delivered them ten pounds, and 
 said unto them, Occupy till I come. But 
 his citizens hated him and sent a message 
 after him, saying, We will not have this 
 man to reign over us. And it came to 
 pass that when he was returned, having 
 received the kingdom, then he command- 
 ed these servants to be called unto him, 
 to whom he had given the money, that he 
 might know how much every man had 
 gained by trading. Then came the first 
 and said, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten 
 pounds. And he said unto him, Well, 
 thou good servant ; because thou hast 
 been faithful in a very little, have thou 
 authority over ten cities. And the second 
 10 * 
 
114 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained 
 five pounds. And he said likewise to him, 
 Be thou also over five cities. And another 
 came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy 
 pound, which I have kept laid up in a 
 napkin, for I feared thee because thou art 
 an austere man ; thou takest up that thou 
 laidest not down, and reapest that thou 
 didst not sow. And he saith unto him, 
 Out of thine own mouth will I judge 
 thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knew- 
 est that I was an austere man, taking up 
 that I laid not down, and reaping that I 
 did not sow : wherefore then gavest not 
 thou my money into the bank, that at my 
 coming, I might have required mine own 
 with usury ? And he said unto them that 
 stood by, Take from him the pound, and 
 give it to him that hath ten pounds. 
 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath 
 ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That 
 unto every one which hath shall be given ; 
 and from him that hath not, even that he 
 hath, shall be taken away from him. But 
 those mine enemies, which would not that 
 I should reign over them, bring hither and 
 slay them before me." 
 
 i 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 115 
 
 The amount placed into the hands of these 
 servants was about four hundred dollars 
 each. Is it likely that so much money- 
 would be distributed among slaves to trade 
 with ? Again, these servants were ap- 
 pointed governors of cities. Surely, it will 
 not be argued that our Saviour had slaves 
 in mind in uttering this parable. I infer 
 from the use of the term " servant" in 
 this place, that the word was employed to 
 signify any one appointed or employed as 
 the agent of another in trade or any thing 
 else, as a clerk, or factor, or commis- 
 sion merchant, supercargo, or any other 
 agency. 
 
 I have now gone through the four gos- 
 pels, and have not found a single instance 
 in which the word "servant" could be 
 fairly regarded as implying " slave" nor 
 can we find the slightest intimation of Je- 
 sus Christ's approval of or connivance at 
 slavery. There is no evidence whatever 
 that he came in contact with a slaveholder 
 at any time, nor that there was ever given 
 him an occasion to make the ownership 
 of slaves a subject of specific observation. 
 
116 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 There are expressions in the gospel from 
 which I cannot but infer that slavery did 
 not prevail in Judea, at all events, to such 
 an extent as to call for more notice than 
 many other things that are not alluded to 
 at all, and yet upon the criminality of 
 which there could be no doubt. 
 
 Jesus said (John viii. 34,35,36), " Who- 
 soever committeth sin, is the servant of 
 sin. And the servant abideth not in the 
 house forever, but the son abideth ever. 
 If the Son therefore shall make you free, 
 ye shall be free indeed." Now, if slaves 
 were called servants, how would it be 
 made to appear that " the servant abideth 
 not in the house forever?" It was the 
 temporary character of the service or bon- 
 dage, that gave force to his language. 
 Under the Mosaic law, even bondmen 
 were only temporarily such. The year of 
 jubilee set all free. And those that were 
 in bond service from other nations must 
 have been very few in number ; for Jesus 
 implies in his parable about the labourers 
 in the vineyard, that it was the custom to 
 hire labourers, (Matthew xx. 1 — 15.) and 
 in the parable of the prodigal son, he 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 117 
 
 names none others than " hired servants." 
 In his parable of the unjust steward, the 
 steward was evidently not a slave. It is 
 recorded that when Jesus dined with Mary 
 and Martha, the latter served alone — of 
 course they had no slaves. When Jesus 
 was accosted by the rich young man and 
 asked what he should do, he said " If 
 thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou 
 hast and give to the poor." How incon- 
 gruous would this advice be to a man, a 
 part of whose wealth consisted of slaves ! 
 But if slavery were the condition of ser- 
 vants, is it likely that this rich man would 
 have been without slaves ? Again Jesus 
 said, " And every one that hath forsaken 
 houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father or 
 mother, or wife or children, or lands for 
 my name's sake, shall receive an hundred 
 fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." 
 Why, if slavery existed among that peo- 
 ple as a legitimate institution, were not 
 slaves mentioned as well as houses and 
 lands ? If servants were property, surely 
 it must have been as great a sacrifice to 
 give them up for Christ's sake, as to give 
 up any other property. But such pro- 
 
118 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 perty was left out because it was not 
 usual among the Jews to claim servants 
 as property at that time, or Jesus himself 
 did not recognize servants as property. 
 
 Having proved that Jesus Christ taught 
 nothing favouring slavery, I might now 
 shew that he did teach doctrine directly re- 
 pugnant to and incongruous with it. But 
 my design at present is only to save from 
 the slaveholder's misconstruction those por- 
 tions of the scriptures which he might be 
 inclined to produce in apology for his prac- 
 tice. Afterwards, when I shall have ex- 
 amined the remainder of the New Testa- 
 ment, I shall produce the scriptural testi- 
 mony against slavery. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 Acts ii. 18. 
 
 " And on my servants, and on my hand- 
 maidens, I will pour out in those days of 
 my spirit ; and they shall prophesy." 
 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 119 
 
 If by these " servants," 'and " hand- 
 maidens," are to be understood slaves, 
 then the text only confirms what God else- 
 where teaches, that he is no respecter of 
 persons, and that slaves are as much enti- 
 tled to be ministers of the Gospel as any 
 other people. But the passage of course 
 cannot be quoted in vindication of slavery, 
 and it is unnecessary to dwell upon it. 
 
 Acts x. 7. 
 
 " And when the angel which spake unto 
 Cornelius was- departed, he called two of 
 his household servants, and a devout sol- 
 dier of them that waited on him continu- 
 ally." 
 
 There is nothing in the text or the con- 
 text to imply that the servants of Corne- 
 lius were slaves. On the contrary the 
 very mission with which they were in- 
 trusted, and their association with the de- 
 vout soldier, imply a familiarity and a con- 
 fidence not ordinarily attached to a condi- 
 tion of slavery. Peter too treated them 
 as his equals. 
 
 Acts xvi. 16 — 19. 
 
 "And it came to pass as we went to 
 
120 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a 
 spirit of divination, met us, which brought 
 her masters much gain by soothsaying : 
 the same followed Paul and us, and cried 
 saying, These men are the servants of the 
 Most High God, which shew unto us the 
 way of salvation. And this did she many 
 days. But Paul being grieved, turned and 
 said to the spirit, I command thee in the 
 name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. 
 And he came out the same hour. And 
 when her masters saw that the hope of 
 their gains was gone, they caught Paul 
 and Silas, and drew them into the market 
 place unto the rulers." 
 
 Perhaps this was a slave. But let it be 
 noticed she is not called a servant, although 
 she had masters, whilst she calls Paul and 
 Silas servants of the Most High God. I 
 do not know that I am correct in suppos- 
 ing she might have been a slave ; still I 
 would concede it if it were claimed that 
 she was. But if she was a slave, then 
 Paul did not much regard the property re- 
 lation of the masters, for he took the 
 liberty, without the " masters' consent," to 
 " destroy the hope of their gains," a liberty 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 121 
 
 that was no more tolerated in Pagan Phil- 
 lippi, than it would now be in Christian (!) 
 America. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE EPISTLES. 
 
 Romans vi. 16—23. 
 
 "Know ye not that to whom ye yield 
 yourselves servants to obey, his servants 
 ye are to whom ye obey : whether of sin 
 unto death, or of obedience unto righteous- 
 ness ? But God be thanked that ye were 
 the servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed 
 from the heart that form of doctrine which 
 was delivered you. Being thus made free 
 from sin, ye became the servants of right- 
 eousness. I speak after the manner of 
 men, because of the infirmity of your 
 flesh : for as ye have yielded your mem- 
 bers servants to uncleanness, and to ini- 
 quity unto iniquity, even so now yield 
 yourselves servants to righteousness unto 
 holiness. For when ye were the servants 
 of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 
 
 11 
 
122 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 What fruit had ye then in those things 
 whereof ye are now ashamed ? But now 
 being made free from sin, and become ser- 
 vants to God, ye have your fruit unto holi- 
 ness, and the end everlasting life. For the 
 wages of sin is death : but the gift of God 
 is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." 
 
 Here the apostle, by a figure drawn 
 from the condition of servants, elucidates 
 his subject. He speaks of servants be- 
 coming free. He was, too, addressing the 
 church at Rome, a city where slavery ex- 
 isted in all its enormity, and with all its 
 legal sanctions. Did he, in this figure 
 mean slaves, when he said servants ? He 
 did not. For although he speaks of being 
 " made free," yet he distinctly .shows that 
 he did not have slaves in his mind, inas- 
 much as he asks " What fruit had ye 
 then in those things whereof ye are now 
 ashamed ?" Thus having reference to the 
 pay the servant receives for his services ; 
 and yet more distinctly he says, "The 
 ivages of sin is death." Therefore, it was 
 not slaves he had in his mind, but servants, 
 who served for wages. And this is the 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 123 
 
 more to be noticed because, in the next 
 two chapters he changes the figure, and 
 making allusion to a condition of bondage, 
 and to being "sold under sin," and in 
 " captivity to the law of sin," and to being 
 " delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion," he nevertheless does not employ the 
 term " servant " to represent such a state 
 of "bondage" and "captivity." 
 
 Romans xiv. 4. 
 
 "Who art thou that judgest another 
 man's servant ? to his own master he 
 standeth or falleth : yea, he shall be holden 
 up : for God is able to make him stand." 
 
 Did the apostle intend to liken the peo- 
 ple of God to slaves ? Assuredly not. 
 But in this reference to a servant and a 
 master, he evidently meant a condition 
 corresponding with the relation subsisting 
 between Christians and Jesus Christ. And 
 he employs a word which Greek readers 
 know applies to house servants. 
 
 1 Corinthians vii. 20—22. 
 
 " Let every man abide in the same calling 
 wherein he was called. Art thou called, 
 
124 SLAVE HOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 being a servant ? Care not for it ; but if 
 thou mayest be made free use it rather. 
 For he that is called in the Lord, being a 
 servant, is the Lord's freeman : likewise 
 also he that is called being free, is Christ's 
 servant. Ye are bought with a price, be 
 not ye the servants of men. Brethren, let 
 every man wherein he is called, therein 
 abide with God." 
 
 The apostle here exhorts the Christian 
 to abide in his calling. This evidently 
 implies a power to change his calling if he 
 had a mind to. But if the servant were a 
 slave, he could have no choice in the mat- 
 ter. Besides slavery can hardly be said to 
 be a man's calling — " Art thou called, be- 
 ing a servant ? care not for it." Abide 
 in your calling. But if you are able to be 
 or to become free, then do not go into ser- 
 vice, for in that case freedom is to be 
 chosen. This I take to be the true mean- 
 ing of the apostle. He was addressing 
 different classes of Christians at Corinth. 
 He says to the unmarried, it is better that 
 you remain single, unless remaining single 
 would be a tempation to sin ; to the 
 wife or husband, do not leave your hus- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 125 
 
 band or wife ; but if your unbelieving 
 husband or wife depart, let him or her 
 depart, for a brother or sister is not un- 
 der bondage in such cases ; to the circum- 
 cised, he says, don't become uncircum- 
 cised ; and to the uncircumcised, don't 
 become circumcised ; to the freeman he 
 says, don't become a servant, and to the 
 servant he says, abide in your calling. 
 He was addressing classes who evidently 
 had a choice of action. And he reminds 
 them that they are all Christ's freemen, 
 although they are his servants, and as 
 Christ has bought them, (that is, with his 
 blood,) whatsoever might be their condi- 
 tion in life, they are not to be the servants 
 of men. They must all act in their vari- 
 ous callings and conditions with entire re- 
 gard to their free devotion to Christ's ser- 
 vice. All this advice is so distinctly inap- 
 plicable to slaves, that it is surprising the 
 passage should ever be referred to in justi- 
 fication of slavery. 
 
 How absurd it would be for a Southern 
 
 minister to say to John, a slave, when he 
 
 unites with the church, Now John, don't 
 
 quit being a slave, but abide in that " call- 
 
 11* 
 
126 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 ing !" Such advice would be ridiculous, 
 for in the first place, John never was called 
 into slavery, but was forced into it, and 
 in the next place, he can have no choice 
 whether to abide in service or not. He 
 continues a slave at the will of his master. 
 I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying 
 that slaves were not in the apostle's mind 
 in thus addressing the Christians at Cor- 
 inth. It is true, he says, " Ye are bought 
 with a price," but from whom did Christ 
 buy them ? Evidently from themselves, 
 for their allegiance to him was a perfectly 
 voluntary one, and he recognizes them as 
 freemen whilst he calls them servants. I 
 really do not know how this conclusion 
 can be avoided, viz : that the servants ad- 
 dressed were not slaves. 
 
 Corinthians ix. 19. 2 Corinthians iv. 5. 
 
 * For though I be free from all men, yet 
 have I made myself servant unto all, that 
 I might gain the more." 
 
 "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ 
 Jesus the Lord ; and ourselves your ser- 
 vants for Jesus' sake. 
 
 Paul certainly did not make himself a 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 127 
 
 slave. He indeed alludes to a reward for 
 his services, evidently having in his mind 
 a servant entitled to wages. 
 
 Galatians iv. 1 — 7. 
 
 " Now I say, that the heir, as long as 
 he is a child, differeth nothing from a ser- 
 vant, though he be lord of all ; but is un- 
 der tutors and governors until the time ap- 
 pointed of the father. Even so we, when 
 we were children, were in bondage under 
 the elements of the world : But when the 
 fulness of the time was come, God sent 
 forth his Son, made of a woman, made 
 under the law, to redeem them that were 
 under the law, that we might receive the 
 adoption of sons. And because ye are 
 sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
 Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 
 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but 
 a son : and if a son, then an heir of God 
 through Christ." 
 
 Assuredly a child differs very widely in 
 his condition and liabilities from a slave. 
 The apostle therefore did not mean a slave, 
 but a servant entitled to certain rights, 
 such as a son under age would be entitled 
 
128 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 to. Although in bondage, it is an allusion 
 to such a " bondage " as was admissible 
 under the Mosaic law, as is evident from 
 the apostle's reference to the custom of re- 
 deeming servants. 
 
 Ephesians vi. 5 — 9. 
 
 " Servants be obedient to them that are 
 your masters according to the flesh, with 
 fear and trembling, in singleness of your 
 heart, as unto Christ ; not with eye-service 
 as men-pleasers ; but as the servants of 
 Christ, doing the will of God from the 
 heart ; with good will doing service as to 
 the Lord and not to men ; knowing that 
 whatsoever good thing any man doeth, 
 the same shall he receive of the Lord 
 whether he be bond or free. And, ye 
 masters do the same things unto them, for- 
 bearing threatening ; knowing that your 
 master also is in heaven ; neither is there 
 respect of persons with him." 
 
 I do not apprehend that the persons 
 here addressed were slaves, because it im- 
 plies too much freedom of action to be 
 consistent with the idea of slavery. It is 
 true, the term " bond" is employed in the 
 
BY THB BIBLE. 129 
 
 eighth verse, but all servants are more or 
 less bound or in bonds. Even the wife 
 and the husband are represented by the 
 apostle as in bondage to one another, (see 
 1 Cor. vii. 15.) so that the use of the term 
 "bond" or "free," by no means indicates 
 the existence of slavery. 
 
 Paul evidently, in his exhortation to ser- 
 vants to be obedient to their masters, de- 
 signs that they should have regard to their 
 obligations to Christ. Why are they to 
 fear and tremble ? It was not on account 
 of disobedience to their masters, lest they 
 might be punished, but they were to fear 
 and tremble in the act of obedience itself, 
 lest they violate their obligations to Christ. 
 They were not to serve as men-pleasers, 
 but they were to do the will of God with 
 singleness of heart. But in doing thus 
 they might offend their masters ; therefore 
 Paul encourages them to expect, never- 
 theless, a reward from God for any good 
 thing they might do, for God would make 
 no distinction, whether they were servants 
 or masters. And then he immediately 
 says to their masters " Do the same things 
 unto them." What things ? Why, to act 
 
130 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 towards them with fear and trembling in 
 singleness of heart, as unto Christ, and as 
 themselves the servants of Christ, doing 
 the will of God from the heart. They 
 must also forbear threatening, remember- 
 ing there is no respect of persons with 
 God. 
 
 Now if all this does not place master 
 and servant on an equality, I cannot think 
 what language could do it better. It is 
 utterly incompatible with the idea of sla- 
 very, and to my mind it is a powerful text 
 against all slaveholding. 
 
 Phillippians ii. 7. 
 
 "But made himself of no reputation, and 
 took upon him the form of a servant," &c. 
 
 Did Christ take the form of a slave ? 
 Surely the idea must be abhorrent to every 
 Christian heart. The form of a slave is 
 that of a crouching servile. But Jesus 
 ever appeared manly, bold, and indepen- 
 dent. A servant he was, and he humbled 
 himself even to wash the feet of those 
 who acknowledged themselves his ser- 
 vants. But Jesus never bore the form of 
 a slave. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 131 
 
 Col. iii. 22—25. iv. 1. 
 
 " Servants obey in all things your mas- 
 ters according to the flesh; not with eye 
 service as men pleasers ; but in single- 
 ness of heart fearing God ; and whatsoever 
 ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and 
 not unto men ; knowing that of the Lord 
 ye shall receive the reward of the inheri- 
 tance ; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But 
 he that doeth wrong, shall receive for the 
 wrong which he hath done : and there is 
 no respect of persons. Masters, give unto 
 your servants that which is just and equal ; 
 knowing that ye also have a master in 
 heaven." 
 
 The servants addressed were not slaves ; 
 because the exhortation obliges them to 
 please God rather than man. They were 
 to obey their masters, but it was to be in 
 the fear of God, not man. And if in do- 
 ing this they should suffer loss on earth, 
 they would receive the reward of the in- 
 heritance hereafter, for they serve the 
 Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong, 
 either servant or master, shall receive 
 from God for the wrong that he hath 
 
132 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 done ; and there is no respect of persons. 
 The Apostle then addresses himself di- 
 rectly to the masters, and enjoins them to 
 give unto their servants that which is just 
 and equal. Does not this imply that they 
 were to receive wages ? It so seems to 
 me. Give them what they are justly en- 
 titled to for their services, and furthermore 
 give them equality. And to enforce this, 
 he reminds them that they also had a mas- 
 ter in heaven. As much as though he had 
 said, as Christ your master serves you, 
 putting you on an equality with himself, 
 insomuch that he even washed his disci- 
 ples' feet, so do you regard your servants 
 equal with you. What can be more op- 
 posite to slavery than this ? 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. 
 
 " Let as many servants as are under the 
 yoke count their own masters worthy of 
 all honour, that the name of God and his 
 doctrine be not blasphemed 
 
 And they that have believing masters, 
 let them not despise them, because they 
 are brethren ; but rather do them service, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 133 
 
 because they are faithful and beloved, 
 partakers of the benefit." 
 
 It is evident that the " servants under 
 the yoke," whatsoever this meant, did not 
 have Christian masters, for certainly there 
 could be no fear that Christian masters 
 would blaspheme the name of God and 
 his doctrine, because their servants might 
 not honour them. This consideration itself 
 ought to be enough to settle the ques- 
 tion whether these masters were Chris- 
 tians or infidels. Paul says, Let as many 
 servants as are under the yoke, that 
 is, Let all the servants in the church, 
 actually under the government of their 
 masters, count their own masters worthy 
 of all honour. And why ? Because, if 
 they do not, their masters will blaspheme 
 the name of God and his doctrine. But 
 Christians would not blaspheme ; conse- 
 quently the masters of the servants " un- 
 der the yoke," must have been unbeliev- 
 ers or" Pagans. The deduction is clear, 
 that Christians did not have servants un- 
 der the yoke. 
 
 But Paul then addresses Timothy con- 
 cerning another class of servants. What 
 12 
 
134 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 class was this ? Mark, Paul did not say- 
 in the first instance, Let as many servants 
 as have unbelieving masters, &c, but he 
 left it to be inferred that they were unbe- 
 lieving masters from the condition of the 
 servants themselves ; they were under the 
 yoke. What then was the other class of 
 servants ? Why, those that have believ- 
 ing masters. But were these under the 
 yoke also ? If so, why address them thus ? 
 Had he not already said that as many as 
 were under the yoke should count their 
 own masters worthy of all honour, and 
 did not this include the masters of all those 
 under the yoke ? If it did, then why after 
 telling them to honour their masters, add 
 that they must not despise them ? This 
 would be entirely superfluous. But the 
 plain simple inference is, that this other 
 class of servants were not under the yoke, 
 and this is left to be understood by the 
 mere consideration that they had believ- 
 ing masters. And they, says he, that have 
 believing masters, let them not despise 
 them, because they are brethren, that is, 
 because their masters are their brethren, 
 and consequently have not authority over 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 135 
 
 them like other masters have over their 
 servants ; but rather do them service, be- 
 cause they are faithful and beloved breth- 
 ren who are the partakers of the benefit 
 of that service, and not like masters who 
 have to be treated as though they were 
 worthy of all honour to prevent them from 
 blaspheming the name of God and his 
 doctrine. 
 
 But some have said that the Apostle de- 
 signed in the first verse to impress the 
 duty of those under the yoke of Pagan 
 masters to honour them from the conside- 
 ration that unbelievers might blaspheme 
 the name of God and his doctrine ; but 
 that the servants under the yoke of Chris- 
 tian masters ought to honour their mas- 
 ters from another consideration. The an- 
 swer to this is that if such had been the 
 intention of the Apostle, he would have 
 said, Let as many servants as are under 
 the yoke of unbelievers count, &c. But as 
 the text actually reads, it is clear to my 
 own mind that being the servants of " be- 
 lieving masters" is distinctly the antithesis 
 of being the servants " under the yoke." 
 
 I really do not know that the Apostle 
 
136 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 could have more plainly and more dis- 
 tinctly set it forth that no Christian held 
 his servants under the yoke ; unless he had 
 anticipated that at some subsequent period 
 it would be said slaveholders were mem- 
 bers in good fellowship in the primitive 
 churches. But really I presume it never 
 entered into the mind of the Apostle that 
 the day would come when men would be 
 quoting his letters to sustain slavery. 
 
 Titus ii. 9, 10. 
 
 " 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 fidel- 
 ity ; that they may adorn the doctrine of 
 God our Saviour in all things." 
 
 There is nothing in this to imply that 
 the servants to be exhorted were slaves. 
 Servants who are not slaves are certainly 
 more liable to " answering again" than 
 slaves are ; and they certainly ought to 
 guard against unfaithfulness and purloin- 
 ing, the more because they receive an 
 equivalent for their services. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 137 
 
 Philemon 10—19. 
 
 " I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, 
 whom I have begotten in my bonds ; 
 which in time past was to thee unprofita- 
 ble, but now profitable to thee and to me : 
 whom I have sent again : thou therefore 
 receive him, that is, mine own bowels ; 
 whom I would have retained with me, 
 that in thy stead he might have ministered 
 unto me in the bonds of the gospel : but 
 without thy mind would I 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 forever : not 
 now as a servant, but above a servant, a 
 brother beloved, especially to me, but how 
 much more unto thee, both in the flesh and 
 in the Lord ? If thou count me therefore 
 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 mine own hand, I will re- 
 pay it." 
 
 Let the following circumstances be kept 
 in view, and the idea that Onesimus was 
 a slave will at once disappear. 
 12* 
 
138 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 1. Onesimus instead of avoiding detec- 
 tion as a runaway slave, puts himself di- 
 rectly in the way of Paul, an acquaint- 
 ance and friend of Philemon, and was at- 
 tending Paul's meetings long enough to be 
 converted under his ministry. 
 
 2. Paul in writing to Philemon, clearly 
 signifies that Onesimus had been only tem- 
 porarily in the service of Philemon. He 
 says, " Perhaps he departed for a season, 
 that thou shouldest receive him forever." 
 The word " forever" implies that as mat- 
 ters stood before, he was not always to 
 have had Onesimus, but now he may ex- 
 pect to have him permanently, not indeed 
 as a servant, but as a " brother.' 
 
 3. Paul counts himself a partner of 
 Philemon, and urges him to receive Ones- 
 imus in the same capacity, just as he 
 would receive Paul himself. 
 
 4. Onesimus was in Philemon's debt, 
 and Paul offered to pay the amount for 
 him. And this probably was the true rea- 
 son of his leaving Philemon. 
 
 5. There is reason to suppose that Ones- 
 imus was a brother " in the flesh" to 
 Philemon (verse 16.) 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 139 
 
 6. The letter evidently implies a doubt 
 whether Philemon might not possibly re- 
 fuse to receive Onesimus again ; and Paul 
 relies exclusively upon Philemon's Chris- 
 tian spirit, not to secure Onesimus from 
 punishment, but to make sure of his re- 
 ception 
 
 7. Onesimus was subsequently a dele- 
 gate with Tychicus to the Colossian 
 church, bearing a letter from Paul. 
 
 8. Philemon had no legal right to de- 
 mand Onesimus, for Paul says he could 
 have kept him in his own service if he had 
 had a mind to do so. 
 
 These reasons are to my mind conclu- 
 sive that Onesimus was not a slave ; nor 
 is there a particle of evidence that he was 
 ever held in any such relation. 
 
 1 Peter ii. 18—20. 
 
 " Servants be subject to your masters 
 with all fear ; not only to the good and 
 gentle, but also to the froward. For this 
 is thankworthy, if a man for conscience 
 toward God endure grief, suffering wrong- 
 fully. For what glory is it, if when ye 
 be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take 
 
140 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 it patiently ? but if, when ye do well, and 
 suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is 
 acceptable with God." 
 
 Did it fall in with the plan of this work, 
 I would shew that the word translated 
 " take it patiently ," really signifies to re- 
 main under or wait. I would also shew 
 that the word translated " servants," has 
 reference to those about the house and 
 fa/nily, and could not properly apply to 
 the field slaves of the American planta- 
 tions. And that Peter had his mind upon 
 house servants without reference to their 
 being slaves is the conclusion which I 
 think justifiable both by the original lan- 
 guage and the analysis of the text. — 
 The original word is actually translated 
 "household servants," in Acts x. 7. 
 
 This exhortation is more suitable to a 
 class of servants who were responsible 
 moral agents, than to slaves under the en- 
 tire dictum of a master. I judge so, be- 
 cause reference is had directly to the fact 
 of suffering grief for conscience sake, that 
 is, for obeying God rather than man. The 
 advocate of slaveholding lays emphasis 
 upon the word " subject," and thus mis- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 141 
 
 takes the meaning of the passage; whereas 
 the emphatic words are " with all fear." 
 Fear of whom ? Not of the master, but of 
 God. The master indeed might call upon 
 them to do somethingcontrary to their Chris- 
 tian profession ; therefore they must be 
 subject to them with all fear of offending 
 God, in obedience as well as disobedience. 
 And as they would be more likely to act 
 righteously when subject to the good and 
 gentle, than when subject to the froward ; 
 for the gentle and good master would be 
 more apt to make proper allowances for 
 conscientious objection to any unchris- 
 tianly service, whilst a servant under the 
 fear of a froward master, would be under 
 temptation to neglect his Christian duties ; 
 therefore Peter exhorts servants to be sub- 
 ject to their masters " with all fear," that 
 is, the fear of God, and particularly if their 
 masters are froward, and likely to buffet 
 them when they have regard to their Chris- 
 tian obligations ; as if he said, Now don't 
 be impatient under such circumstances, for 
 you will receive your reward from God. 
 You do what is right ; you may suffer 
 through man's passions, but nevertheless 
 
142 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 your well-doing will be acceptable with 
 God. The encouragement to endure grief 
 implies that they could extricate them- 
 selves from subjection had they a mind to 
 do so. And he supposes some committing 
 faults, buffeted for it, and taking it patient- 
 ly, that is, remaining under their master ; 
 and he reminds them there is no glory in 
 patience in such a case, because they are 
 conscious of deserving punishment ; but 
 should they suffer for doing right, and then 
 take that suffering or buffeting patiently, 
 and continue in the service of their mas- 
 ters, they thereby become thank-worthy 
 with their masters, and this patience is ac- 
 ceptable with God. In the succeeding 
 verses the apostle enforces this, by re- 
 minding these servants that Jesus Christ, 
 " when he was reviled, reviled not again ; 
 when he suffered, he threatened not ;" but 
 this certainly would not apply very well 
 to a slave, because a slave would not dare 
 to revile or threaten. A servant of more 
 independent condition might retort, and 
 threaten to leave his master ; but the apos- 
 tle advises against this course, because it 
 would show more the spirit of the unre- 
 generate heart, than of the true Christian. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 143 
 
 It is no objection to this view of the 
 subject, that buffeting was the punishment 
 inflicted ; for that, except in the American 
 states, has been by no means confined to 
 slaves. Other servants have likewise been 
 liable to blows. And with all the liberty 
 had in our Northern states, I have known 
 the servant buffeted by the overbearing 
 employer. 
 
 But supposing Peter had slaves in his 
 mind when writing this exhortation, there 
 still would be nothing in the language to 
 imply the rightfulness of slavery, so that 
 the slaveholder would gain nothing by 
 such a signification of the word u ser- 
 vants." On the contrary, it would be an 
 encouragement to the slave to disregard 
 the will of his master, when violating the 
 law of God. And if slaves should once 
 be impressed with this obligation in its full 
 force, the authority of masters would not 
 be worth much very long. 
 
 I have thus gone through the New Tes- 
 tament, and have not found a single in- 
 stance of the use of the word servant 
 
144 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 clearly and certainly applicable to the con- 
 dition of slaves. In one place the idea 
 of obligatory service is implied, but then 
 in order to an understanding of it in that 
 sense, the apostle found it requisite to add 
 the qualifying terms "under the yoke." 
 But after all, although many have con- 
 ceded it, I am by no means certain that 
 even the expression "under the yoke," 
 indicates necessarily a condition of slavery. 
 It might mean servants bound for a limited 
 period, and by voluntary contract. The 
 learned Gill intimates this, although by 
 no means addicted, in his Commentary, 
 to favour an anti-slavery view of the 
 apostolic addresses to servants. That it 
 sometimes means a voluntary service is 
 evident from our Saviour's words, " Take 
 my yoke upon you and learn of me : for 
 I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye 
 shall find rest unto your souls. For my 
 yoke is easy, and my burden is light." 
 And indeed, there are some who think that 
 Paul, when he says " servants under the 
 yoke," means the yoke of Christ ; as 
 though he said, " Let as many servants as 
 are Christians," &c. I would not, how- 
 
 i 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 145 
 
 ever, contest this point, but only name it 
 to show upon what slight ground the ad- 
 vocate of slavery rests his argument. It 
 is sufficient for me that he cannot prove 
 that slaveholding is recognized in the text, 
 and as it is the only passage in all the 
 New Testament that seems to imply that 
 slaves were in the church, and that if they 
 were slaves thus addressed, it only goes to 
 make the argument stronger against sla- 
 very, inasmuch as the whole passage 
 clearly proves that slaveholders were not in 
 the church ; I feel perfectly safe in deny- 
 ing that either Christ or his disciples ever 
 gave their sanction to slaveholding, or 
 even tolerated it for one moment. 
 
 But it is generally supposed that mas- 
 ters and slaves were in the church, because 
 slavery was a very common condition in 
 the Roman empire. I do not, however, 
 admit this inference. I very much doubt, 
 whether, among the converts to Chris- 
 tianity in the apostolic day, there were 
 many slaveholders. That none were mem- 
 bers of the churches I feel assured, from 
 the argument I have already presented ; 
 so that if any slaveholders were converted 
 13 
 
146 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 to Christianity, they at once released their 
 authority over their slaves, as such. They 
 could not, indeed, legally emancipate them, 
 because to do this they had to go through 
 the forms of Pagan laws, that acknow- 
 ledged a plurality of Gods, which a Chris- 
 tian certainly could not do. But really I 
 do not suppose that enough slaveholders 
 could have been converted at that early 
 day to form much of a class, in the churches, 
 for the plain reason that the early con- 
 verts were not likely to be men of wealth, 
 and therefore were not owners of slaves. 
 Again I infer that those even who were 
 wealthy, necessarily became poor when 
 they became Christians, because persecu- 
 tion and the circumstances of the times 
 must have drawn largely upon the resour- 
 ces of the early converts. And I perceive 
 that the apostle, in calling upon Gentile 
 Christians to contribute for the relief of 
 the poor saints in Jerusalem, says that 
 every man must lay by him in store, on 
 the first day of the week, as God had 
 prospered him, thereby implying that they 
 had to earn what they made. And he ex- 
 pressly enjoined the members of the Thes- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 147 
 
 salonian church to work with their own 
 hands. (1 Thess. iv. 11.) 
 
 But I would particularly direct the at- 
 tention of the reader to the denunciation 
 of the rich by James, in his epistle v. 4 ; 
 " Behold the hire of your labourers which 
 have reaped down your fields ; which is 
 of you kept back by fraud." Were these 
 rich men slaveholders, and was it because 
 they employed slave labour that James 
 denounced them ? If so, then the whole 
 question is settled, and no man has a right 
 to employ slave labour, but it is the duty 
 of the master to pay those who work for 
 him. But if these defrauded labourers 
 were not slaves, then how happened it, 
 that these rich men had to hire labourers 
 to reap down their fields ? The inference 
 is obvious, that although slavery did exist 
 in the Roman empire, yet it did not follow 
 that there were many slaveholders. I 
 therefore insist it is not probable that any 
 considerable number of slaveholders were, 
 in the apostolic day, converted to Chris- 
 tianity. Even at this day, in the strongest 
 slave states, there are very few owners of 
 slaves, compared with the great mass of 
 
148 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 professed Christians. And many, very 
 many churches in the Southern states of 
 this Union have no slaveholders. There 
 are churches indeed, in the strongest slave 
 counties or districts, in which are neither 
 slaveholders nor slaves. In the state of 
 South Carolina there is a larger slave than 
 free population. Taking one of the most 
 populous denominations in that state, num- 
 bering about forty thousand members, it 
 is not probable there are more than two 
 thousand slaveholders among them. But 
 if in the nineteenth century, in a country 
 where Christianity is the prevailing reli- 
 gion, where it takes but little or no sacri- 
 fice to bear the Christian name, there are 
 so few slaveholders in the most popular 
 denomination, of the strongest slave state, 
 is it all probable that in Pagan Rome, in 
 the very commencement of the Christian 
 era, with only a church here and there, 
 and the members thereof suffering every 
 sort of persecution, there could have been 
 many slaveholders converted to the Chris- 
 tian faith ? It seems to me, it must take a 
 wide stretch of imagination to suppose 
 such a state of things. I am therefore 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 149 
 
 compelled to infer, both from the nature 
 of things, and the writings of the apostles 
 themselves, that slaveholders were not in 
 the churches. 
 
 But I also doubt whether there were 
 many slaves in the visible membership of 
 the churches, and for this reason : Pagan 
 masters were not likely to allow their 
 slaves to attend Christian places of wor- 
 ship. Servants under a limited bondage, 
 or " under the yoke/' by contract with 
 their employers, might have had enough 
 liberty to unite themselves with the 
 churches. But it seems to me not at all 
 likely that slaves, in the absolute sense of 
 chattelship, could have, without great se- 
 crecy, identified themselves with any or- 
 ganized Christian body. Therefore, taking 
 all things into consideration, the only sat- 
 isfaction I can arrive at is, that the servants 
 addressed by the apostles were not slaves ; 
 and if slaves can now find in the apostolic 
 writings any thing appropriate to their 
 condition, it is not because they are speci- 
 fically addressed, but because some of the 
 same principles are suitable for them, that 
 were adapted to the classes addressed. 
 13* 
 
150 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 But whether I am correct in this infer- 
 ence or not, it will not affect the validity 
 of the construction I have given to the 
 specific texts upon which I have com- 
 mented. I present this view only to meet 
 the contrary inference of the defender of 
 slavery. It is certainly, to my own mind, 
 a much greater probability that there were 
 few slaves in the churches, than that there 
 were many. If I felt at liberty to refer to 
 common history, I would show that at a 
 subsequent period, when slaves united 
 with the churches, they expected the 
 churches to purchase their freedom out of 
 the church funds. But as I have thus far 
 confined myself to the sacred writers them- 
 selves, I shall not now avail myself of any 
 aid from other writings. 
 
 It has been unfortunate for the cause of 
 liberty that the Bible was translated by 
 uninspired men ; and also that generally 
 those who have commented upon the 
 scriptures, have been in the midst of influ- 
 ences favourable to slavery. I have no 
 doubt that a more faithful translation could 
 be made, and which would take away 
 any seeming recognition of slaver} 7- as a 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 151 
 
 legitimate institution. But taking the 
 translation just as we have it, the slave- 
 holder is, even in that case, left without 
 ground to stand upon. He may deceive 
 himself by an interpretation dictated rather 
 by the customs of society, and the prac- 
 tice of his life, than by the strict principles 
 of truth ; but no unbiassed mind, after a 
 laborious, intelligent investigation of the 
 Bible, for the purpose of ascertaining just 
 the mind of God, can come to any satis- 
 factory conclusion that God sanctions 
 slaveholding. And when slavery is pro- 
 perly denned, as a condition in which one 
 is in the power of another whom he is com- 
 pelled to serve, without the means of re- 
 dress when wronged, it becomes easy to 
 see that no where does the Bible give coun- 
 tenance to such a condition. 
 
 It is not being a servant, it is not bond- 
 age, it is not even hereditary bondage, it 
 is not being " under the yoke," that con- 
 stitutes slavery, for these conditions may 
 exist without oppression ; but it is that 
 condition of servitude which is in itself 
 oppression. One may be said to be op- 
 pressed with poverty, or hunger, or pain, 
 
152 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 or some physical evil, or some mental 
 affliction, none of which would be slavery, 
 because he does not serve these things. 
 But if he be under the control of bad pas- 
 sions and wicked lusts, he is a slave to his 
 passions and lusts, because he serves them, 
 and because the service is itself an oppres- 
 sive one. So if one man is oppressed by 
 another, as by slander, or contemptuous 
 treatment, &c, he may, nevertheless, not 
 be a slave, because he is not compelled to 
 serve him or to obey his commands. But 
 if one in the service of another is obliged 
 to submit to wrong, then he is a slave. If 
 it be the case of an apprentice, or a son, 
 or a wife, or the subject of a king, it is 
 only different forms or modifications of the 
 same thing. It is slavery. But where 
 there is no oppression, there is no slavery ; 
 and if the Southern planter can show that 
 his labourers are not in an oppressed con- 
 dition then are they not slaves. It will 
 not do for him to admit that they are in 
 an oppressed condition, and then claim 
 that he is not their oppressor ; for they are 
 in his service, they are under his authority, 
 and whether he be benefitted by their ser- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 153 
 
 vices or not, so long as he retains them in 
 their oppressed condition he is their op- 
 pressor. His fellow citizens may, by their 
 legislation, oppress his servants, but that 
 doesn't make them slaves, for they are not 
 in the service of his fellow citizens, they 
 are in his service, and under his personal 
 authority, and it is his holding them under 
 that oppressive legislation that makes them 
 slaves. No law on earth can compel a 
 man to hold the relation of master. He 
 can declare them free from his authority. 
 He is bound by every moral obligation to 
 refuse to be the agent of oppressive laws. 
 Nor has he any right to excuse himself by 
 saying that if he should not be the agent 
 of holding his fellow men in an oppressed 
 condition, they would fall into the hands 
 of others who would perhaps make their 
 condition still more oppressive. He has 
 no right to do evil that good may come. 
 " Keep thyself pure," is the mandate of 
 the Most High. If it is in his power, it is 
 his high obligation to place these oppressed 
 ones beyond the reach of oppression, and 
 unredressive wrong. If it be not, then 
 let the responsibility of their enslavement 
 
154 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 rest upon those who may have the hardi- 
 hood to assume it. His righteous example 
 will be invaluable, and will do more in its 
 operation upon other minds to alleviate 
 the condition of their slaves, than the good 
 he could possibly effect by retaining the 
 legal relation of a master. 
 
 I would press upon slaveholders the 
 criminality of continuing the relation they 
 now sustain to those who reap down their 
 fields, and whose rightful hire is kept back 
 by fraud, "for the cries of them which 
 have reaped are entered into the ears of 
 the Lord of Sabaoth." " My brethren 
 have not the faith of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of 
 persons." In holding the poor labourer 
 in slavery, the charge is justly brought 
 against you, that « Ye have despised the 
 poor." " But if ye have respect to per- 
 sons, ye commit sin," James ii. 9. Are 
 you not then committing sin, in subjecting 
 men because they are poor, or because 
 they are black, or because their fathers 
 have been ever oppressed, to continued 
 and perpetual slavery ? But not only so, 
 will you continue to abuse the Holy Bible 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 155 
 
 by making it subserve such an oppressive 
 and soul-crushing system of human chat- 
 telism ? Peter prophesied about false 
 teachers, who " through covetousness," 
 " with feigned words./' would " make mer- 
 chandize" of the brethren. It is now 
 literally fulfilled in those who employ the 
 Bible to uphold the traffic in man. But 
 brethren the day will come when Babylon 
 shall fall, and they who have traded with 
 her in "the bodies and souls of men," 
 shall stand "afar off for the fear of her 
 torment, saying, Alas, alas ! that great city 
 Babylon, that mighty city ! for in one 
 hour is thy judgment come." Before you 
 fall in her doom, look again at that Bible 
 you are thus in your self-delusion dese- 
 crating, and see what it says against all 
 such wrong and oppression. 
 
156 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF SLAVERY WITH 
 THE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES OP THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 Slavery being denned to be a condition 
 in which one is compelled to serve another 
 without the means of redress when wrong- 
 ed, it would seem to be superfluous to at- 
 tempt to shew that the Bible condemns 
 slavery. Nevertheless it may be profita- 
 ble to see in what terms the inspired books 
 express God's mind in reference to it. 
 
 God, when he created man, enstamped 
 upon him his own image. He endowed 
 him with an intellectual and moral na- 
 ture, with a capacity for mental and moral 
 progress. To fetter man's mind as slavery 
 does, is therefore rebellion against God. It 
 is man's prerogative to have dominion, 
 because he has an intelligent and a moral 
 mind unlike the rest of God's visible cre- 
 ation. God gives him " dominion over 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 157 
 
 the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
 the air, and over every living thing that 
 rnoveth upon the earth." But slavery 
 takes this dominion from him, and in 
 making him a chattel deposes him from the 
 authority to which nature has entitled him. 
 He subdues the earth, but his master takes 
 the products ; he conquers the horse, but 
 he ploughs him for his master ; not an ox, 
 not a fowl, not a sparrow, not a reptile, 
 can he call his own but by sufferance of 
 his master. Has God justified this usur- 
 pation ? Never ! for God is no " respecter 
 of persons." If he has. endowed the white 
 skined Franklin with a capacity to catch 
 the lightning and enchain it, he has there- 
 by forbid his fellow man to fetter the mind 
 or the limbs of his genius. No less does 
 he command that the dark-skinned Ethio- 
 pian be left at liberty to compete with 
 Franklin or with Newton. If govern- 
 ments must be instituted among men, it is 
 for the protection of the individual's lib- 
 erty, and not for its restraint. It is to pre- 
 vent his abuse of it, to the injury of others, 
 but never to limit it. This is God's pre- 
 rogative, not man's. 
 14 
 
158 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 And what has God taught in his awful 
 judgment against the earth in the days ot 
 Noah, but that man must not violate the 
 rights of his fellow man ? Is it too much 
 to say, that slavery was the specific cause 
 of the deluge ? " The earth was filled 
 with violence." What does this mean, if 
 it be not man's struggles for dominion, the 
 one over the other ? This was the great 
 wickedness that brought the waters of 
 the flood to sweep away human life. 
 
 And what a lesson did God teach man 
 bv the four hundred years captivity ot 
 Judah and his brethren and their posterity, 
 in consequence of their laying violent 
 hands upon their brother and selling him 
 into slavery? With the measure they 
 meted, it was more than measured to them 
 again. They said themselves, « Therefore 
 is this distress come upon us." But nei- 
 ther had the Egyptians a right to ens ave 
 even those who had been guilty of enslav- 
 ing their brother. And mark how God 
 visited Pharaoh and his host with his 
 mig hty judgments, and how he over- 
 whelmed them in the sea. And when 
 Israel forgat that they were once in the 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 159 
 
 house of bondage, and in their forge tful- 
 ness of God used oppression, and exer- 
 cised robbery, and vexed the poor and 
 needy ; yea, " oppressed the stranger 
 wrongfully," then did God in his judg- 
 ment deliver them into captivity to the 
 wicked Babylonians, until the Babylo- 
 nians in their turn suffered themselves 
 what they had meted to the Jews. And 
 thus does all history prove how God will 
 deal with those who enslave their fellow 
 men. 
 
 But let us turn to the law as given by 
 Moses, and see there God's condemnation 
 of slavery. 
 
 " And shalt neither vex a stranger nor 
 oppress him ; for ye were strangers in 
 the land of Egypt." (Exodus xxii. 21.) 
 
 " Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for 
 ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing 
 ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." 
 (Exodus xxiii. 9.) 
 
 What is the meaning of this ? The Jews 
 were strangers in Egypt, and were there 
 enslaved ; let them remember this and 
 how God delivered them, and let them not 
 now make slaves of strangers. 
 
160 SLAVEHOLDING EXAxMINED 
 
 But there was a law in direct terms for- 
 bidding the enslavement of man, and all 
 slaveholding. 
 
 " He that stealeth a man and selleth 
 him, or if he be found in his hand, he 
 shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 
 xxi. 16.) 
 
 Again we find this law : 
 
 " Thou shalt not deliver unto 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." (Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.) 
 
 If a master should undertake to treat his 
 servant as a slave, he might leave him, and 
 go to another, and no man was allowed to 
 deliver him back to his master, whatever 
 may have been the conditions of the ser- 
 vice. The escape was itself evidence that 
 the servant felt himself oppressed, and 
 then every other house was to be his re- 
 fuge and his castle. 
 
 And further to guard the children of 
 Israel from being stolen and sold to a 
 strange nation, this law was also enacted : 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 161 
 
 " If a man be found stealing any of his 
 brethren of the children of Israel, and 
 maketh merchandise of him or selleth him, 
 then that thief shall die, and thou shalt put 
 evil away from among you." (Deutero- 
 nomy xxiv. 7.) 
 
 How could laws be framed more expli- 
 citly against slavery ? Nevertheless the 
 Jews, departing from the laws of Moses, 
 did oppress and enslave their brethren ; 
 and in the time of Nehemiah we find him 
 rebuking the nobles and the rulers in this 
 language : " We after our ability, have re- 
 deemed our brethren the Jews, which 
 were sold unto the heathen ; and will ye 
 even sell your brethren? or shall they be 
 sold unto us ?" " It is not good that ye 
 do : ought ye not to walk in the fear of 
 our God because of the reproach of the 
 heathen our enemies ?" 
 
 In the days of Jeremiah also, the Jews 
 were denounced by him for forcing their 
 servants to serve them after their legal 
 term of service had expired. " Therefore 
 thus saith the Lord : ye have not heark- 
 ened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every 
 one to his brother, and every man to his 
 14* 
 
162 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 neighbour : 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." (Jer. xxxiv. 17.) 
 
 Surely these things testify plainly God's 
 hatred of slavery. " To crush under his 
 feet all the prisoners of the earth, to turn 
 aside the right of a man before the face 
 of the Most High, to subvert a man in his 
 cause, the Lord approveth not." (Lamen- 
 tations iii. 34, 35, 36.) He that " hath op- 
 pressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled 
 by violence," " he shall surely die ; his 
 blood shall be upon him." (Ezekiel xviii. 
 12,13.) 
 
 And what is slavery but a system of 
 violence and oppression ? Yes, it must be 
 said of any slaveholding nation, as Eze- 
 kiel said of the Jews, " The people of the 
 land have used oppression, and exercised 
 robbery, and have vexed the poor and 
 needy; yea they have oppressed the 
 stranger wrongfully." (Ezek. xxii. 29.) 
 
 " Thus saith the Lord God : Let it suf- 
 fice you, princes of Israel, remove vio- 
 lence and spoil, and execute judgment 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 163 
 
 and justice, take away your exactions 
 from my people, saith the Lord God." 
 (Ezek. xiv. 9.) 
 
 I cannot look at the denunciations of the 
 Old Testament against those who oppress 
 the poor, without quaking for my country. 
 
 Is it not literally true that in this coun- 
 try the language applies that Joel em- 
 ployed against those who enslaved his peo- 
 ple, " They have cast lots for my people ; 
 and have given a boy for a harlot, and 
 sold a girl for wine, that they might drink?" 
 Here is the traffic in human flesh and bones 
 and life, and ever and anon for the sup- 
 port of their extravagance, the dissipated, 
 the gambler, and the debauchee, may and 
 do under our system of laws give a boy 
 for a harlot, and sell a girl for wine ; and 
 professing Christians uphold this system of 
 blood by themselves selling and buying 
 and holding slaves. But mark what the 
 Lord said by Joel, "Behold I will raise 
 them out of the place whither ye have 
 sold them, and will return your recom- 
 pense upon your own head ; and I will 
 sell your sons and your daughters." (Joel 
 iii. 3—8. 
 
164 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 Will it not be in exact accordance with 
 God's plan of retribution heretofore to 
 make the posterity of those who now are 
 slaves in this land the masters, and our 
 sons and daughters the slaves ? But I 
 trust in God my brethren will see their 
 wrong and their danger in time to repent 
 of the one and avert the other; and by 
 breaking every yoke, and letting the op- 
 pressed go free, as God has commanded 
 by Isaiah, make those who otherwise would 
 be their enemies, their friends and their 
 brothers. 
 
 It is your sin, fellow citizens, as it was 
 the sin of Israel, to " turn aside the poor 
 in the gate from their right." (Amos v. 
 12.) But " Hear this, ye that swallow 
 up the needy, even to make the poor of 
 the land to fail, saying, When will the 
 new moon be gone, that we may sell corn ; 
 and the Sabbath that we may set forth 
 wheat, making the ephah small and the 
 shekel great, and falsifying the balances 
 by deceit ? that we may buy the poor for 
 silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes 
 and sell the refuse of the wheat? The 
 Lord hath sworn by the excellency of 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 165 
 
 Jacob, Surely I will never forget any of 
 their works. Shall not the land tremble 
 for this, and every one mourn that dwel- 
 leth therein? (Amos viii. 4 — 8.) "Woe 
 to him that increaseth that which is not 
 his." (Habakkuk ii. 6.) " Woe unto him 
 that buildeth his house by unrighteous- 
 ness, and his chambers by wrong ; that 
 useth his neighbour's service without wages 
 and giveth him not for his work." (Jer. 
 xxii. 13. "Rob not the poor because he 
 is poor ; neither oppress the afflicted in the 
 gate ; for the Lord will plead their cause, 
 and spoil the soul of those that spoiled 
 them." (Prov. xiv. 31.) 
 
 I need not multiply these expressions 
 of God's wrath against those who crush 
 down the rights of the poor, and live upon 
 oppression. It is slavery that is thus de- 
 nounced, and the Old Testament abounds 
 in the strongest expressions of God's in- 
 dignation at any system, by which the bro- 
 therhood of man is disregarded, and the 
 poor are kept poor by the oppressions of 
 the wealthy and the powerful. 
 
166 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF SLAVERY WITH 
 THE PRINCIPLES AND PRECEPTS OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 We have seen how decidedly and strong- 
 ly the Old Testament writers denounce 
 slavery. Let us now look into the New 
 Testament and learn what that requires 
 of Christians in relation to it. 
 
 Matthew ix. 10. Luke iv. 8. 
 
 " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God 
 and him only shalt thou serve." 
 
 " And Jesus answered and said unto 
 him, Get thee behind me, Satan : for it is 
 written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
 God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
 
 The service of God must be without 
 rivalry. No authority is allowable be- 
 tween the authority of God and the obe- 
 dience of his creature. No man must 
 therefore be placed in a situation where 
 he would be required to obey man rather 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 167 
 
 than God. But this is the slave's condi- 
 tion, for in the first place to keep up the 
 authority of the master it is requisite that 
 the mind of the slave be restrained from 
 intellectual cultivation beyond a certain 
 point, he therefore cannot learn what God 
 requires of him and cannot improve the 
 capacity for serving God ; and in the next 
 place he cannot carry out the convictions 
 of his own conscience as to the service he 
 owes, unless those convictions accord with 
 his master's judgment, and his consent be 
 given to his slave to practice agreeably to 
 his convictions. The rights of conscience 
 and of private judgment are as indisputa- 
 bly appropriate to the servant as to the 
 master. No man, therefore, can properly 
 enter into any service of another man 
 which to perform may require a neglect of 
 any conscientious convictions of duty. But 
 if no man have a right to place himself in 
 such a condition, no other man has a right 
 to force him into it. No man therefore 
 can rightfully hold another man in the con- 
 dition of a slave, for if the latter be at lib- 
 erty to follow out the convictions of his 
 own conscience, he is not a slave, because 
 
168 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 this alone is true liberty. It is consequently 
 impossible both to be a slave, and to carry 
 out the injunction " Thou shalt worship 
 the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou 
 serve." 
 
 Matthew vii. 12. 
 
 " All things whatsoever ye would that 
 men should do to you, do ye even so to 
 them : for this is the law and the pro- 
 phets." 
 
 This text is so exceedingly pertinent to 
 the question at issue, that anti-slavery wri- 
 ters have for the most part been satisfied 
 to rest their argument upon the strength of 
 it alone. Yet pro-slavery men have with 
 great dexterity evaded its force, to their 
 own satisfaction, but not to the satisfac- 
 tion of those whose minds are not under 
 the influence of the " peculiar institution." 
 They interpret it thus, (and I will state it 
 as strongly for them as I can): — All things 
 whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 to you if you were in their circumstances, 
 do ye even so to them, yet without affect- 
 ing the subsisting relation between the 
 parties. They apply it thus : The master 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 169 
 
 is to treat his slave as he would wish to 
 be treated as a slave if he were one. But 
 let us test the correctness of this construc- 
 tion. I am taken prisoner by a Pirate. 
 He is about to take my life. But suddenly 
 it occurs to his mind that he ought to do 
 to me as he would have me to do to him 
 if our relative positions were changed. He 
 therefore spares my life and treats me very 
 kindly as a prisoner, but he retains me in 
 captivity. I say to him, The rule that go- 
 verns you in your treatment of me as 
 your prisoner, ought also to release me 
 from captivity. Not so, is his reply. It is 
 not intended to affect in the slightest de- 
 gree the relation subsisting between us. 
 Does not every one perceive at once the 
 absurdity of such a construction ? Had 
 the pirate been governed by the rule be- 
 fore he captured me, even according to his 
 own interpretation of it, I would not have 
 been his prisoner, for he could not cap- 
 ture me without thereby changing the re- 
 lation between us. And yet after having 
 violated his own rule in taking my liberty, 
 the same rule does not require him to re- 
 store it to me ! But our Saviour meant 
 15 
 
170 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 no such nonsense. He evidently gave the 
 precept for the purpose of securing to 
 every man his right to " life, liberty and 
 the pursuit of happiness." It was design- 
 ed to impress the doctrine of human equa- 
 lity. It is to be taken literally, just as our 
 Saviour has expressed it. 
 
 But says one in reply to this, A man 
 may desire another to do for him an un- 
 godly act, and is he in that case bound by 
 the Saviour's precept to do the same act 
 for another ? 
 
 But such is not a supposable case. For 
 he who desires another to do for him an 
 ungodly act, has already violated in his 
 heart the laws of God, and cannot be sup- 
 posed to be under their influence. The 
 golden precept is nothing to such a man, 
 because he has by his own violation of 
 righteous and just principles placed it out 
 of his power to fulfil the law of duty 
 either to his God or his neighbour. He 
 must first recal his ungodly desires, before 
 he can be prepared to make his desires the 
 standard of his duties to his fellow men. 
 
 I once wrote in reply to President Way- 
 land on this precept, when I was myself 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 171 
 
 in the blindness of a slaveholder, as fol- 
 lows : " Now doubtless the servant who 
 waits at Dr. Wayland's table, would like 
 to have half of the doctor's salary, rather 
 than to be compelled to work, and as the 
 Doctor himself, were he a servant, would 
 probably like to be elevated also, so upon 
 his interpretation of the golden rule, it 
 becomes his duty to share his salary with 
 his waiter." But when I used this argu- 
 ment, it did not occur to me that the ser- 
 vant was interdicted all covetousness, and 
 that the desire to have half President 
 Wayland's salary would itself be unlawful. 
 I also added, "But probably if Dr. 
 Wayland were a slave, he would be pleas- 
 ed to have the President of Brown Uni- 
 versity to purchase his freedom, and as it 
 is probable some of our slaves would also 
 be pleased to enjoy such liberty at the 
 hands of the Doctor, upon his principles it 
 is his duty to purchase them and set them 
 free." But this too was said without con- 
 sidering that such a desire on the part of 
 the slave would be itself an infraction of 
 the law which says " Thou shalt not co- 
 vet.' ' The desire of freedom on the part 
 
172 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 of the slave is a lawful desire, because 
 freedom being his right, it is not coveting 
 his master's property to desire his libera- 
 tion. He only seeks that which he is 
 strictly entitled to as a man. But when he 
 seeks his freedom through the loss of those 
 who place no restraint upon his liberty, he 
 then covets his neighbour's goods. And 
 no one has a right to make such violations 
 of the divine law the basis of his duties to 
 his fellow men. 
 
 I now see no difficulty in taking our 
 Saviour's words literally — "All things 
 whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 to you do ye even so to them ; for this is 
 the law and the prophets." And the mas- 
 ter should reason thus : If I were a slave, 
 it seems to me it would be reasonable and 
 just that, as I have never consented to 
 serve him who is called my master, and 
 have been guilty of no crime to sentence 
 me to such punishment, my master should 
 acknowledge my right to freedom, and not 
 make me suffer for his own imprudence, 
 if not sin, in buying what no one had a 
 moral right to sell. What then is my 
 duty as a master ? As I would have an- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 173 
 
 other do to me so must I do to my slave. 
 I therefore am bound by the law of Christ 
 to recognize his rights and set him free. 
 
 It is utterly impossible to hold a slave 
 without violating this precept. Some, in- 
 deed, say a slave may be legally held in 
 that condition for his own benefit, and 
 then his bondage would be justifiable by 
 the Golden Rule. 
 
 But those who say so are unconscious 
 of what the precept requires of them, and 
 how impossible it is to retain a man in 
 slavery for his own benefit. Let any 
 man try it with this precept of Jesus 
 Christ ever before his eyes, and with the 
 fixed purpose to regard his slave's inter- 
 ests as his own, and he will find that no- 
 thing short of an entire emancipation will 
 satisfy his anxious and sincere heart. 
 
 Matthew xx. 25—28. Mark x. 42—45. Luke 
 xxii. 25—27. 
 
 "But Jesus called them unto him, and 
 said, Ye know that the princes of the Gen- 
 tiles exercise dominion over them, and 
 they that are great exercise authority 
 upon them. But it shall not be so among 
 15 * 
 
174 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 you : but whosoever will be great among 
 you, let him be your minister ; and who- 
 soever will be chief among you, let him 
 be your servant ; even as the Son of Man 
 came not to be ministered unto, but to min- 
 ister, and to give his life a ransom for 
 many." 
 
 "But Jesus called them to him, and 
 saith unto them, Ye know that they which 
 are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, 
 exercise lordship over them ; and their 
 great ones exercise authority upon them. 
 But so it shall not be among you : but 
 whosoever will be great among you, 
 shall be your minister : And whosoever 
 of you will be the chiefest, shall be ser- 
 vant of all. For even the Son of man 
 came not to be ministered unto, but to 
 minister, and to give his life a ransom for 
 many." 
 
 " And he said unto them, The kings of 
 the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; 
 and they that exercise authority upon 
 them are called benefactors. But ye shall 
 not be so ; but he that is greatest among 
 you, let him be as the younger ; and he 
 that is chief as he that doth serve. For 
 
B7 THE BIBLE. 175 
 
 whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, 
 or he that serveth ? is not he that sitteth 
 at meat ? but I am among you as he that 
 serveth." 
 
 If this be not plainly, clearly, and dis- 
 tinctly a command to Christians not to ex- 
 ercise dominion and authority over men, I 
 do not know how it is possible to express 
 it more distinctly. It is a very common 
 sentiment that Jesus Christ did not directly 
 interfere with existing civil institutions. 
 How such a sentiment ever obtained credit 
 in the face of such language as this, I cannot 
 conceive. Jesus Christ was charged by 
 the Jews with teaching doctrines subver- 
 sive of Caesar's government. He never 
 denied it. And well may the Jews have 
 so charged him, when he uttered such a 
 precept to his followers as the above. 
 Here it is distinctly set forth, that " domin- 
 ion " over men was an example set by 
 the Gentiles not to be imitated. And if 
 any shall desire to be great, or to exercise 
 authority, he is to control that unhallowed 
 disposition ; and instead of ruling, he is to be 
 the waiter, and instead of exercising au- 
 thority he is to be the servant. It is not that 
 
176 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 no one is to wait, and no one is to serve, 
 but that the ministering and the service 
 should be voluntary, just as Christ volun- 
 teered to minister and to serve. He even 
 stooped to wash his disciples' feet, and 
 yet he willingly allowed a woman to wash 
 his feet with her tears, and wipe them 
 with the hair of her head. 0, how beau- 
 tiful this is ! How can one look at the 
 Saviour's precept, and his example, and 
 then exercise irresponsible authority, or 
 " lord it " over his fellow man ! 
 
 Matthew xxiii. 10—12. 
 
 u Neither be ye called master : for one 
 is your Master, even Christ. But he that 
 is greatest among you, shall be your ser- 
 vant, And whosoever shall exalt himself, 
 shall be abased ; and he that shall humble 
 himself, shall be exalted." 
 
 The master here meant, is a conductor, 
 leader, or guide. The one who follows 
 his directions, is an attendant, waiter, or 
 minister. He attends, waits, or ministers 
 under the direction of the conductor, leader, 
 or guide. The one is called the master, 
 the other, the servant. Now Christ for- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 177 
 
 bids this guidance of another man, this 
 leading, this control over him. Nay, if he 
 who would control be the greatest, he is 
 the very one to humble himself and wait 
 upon the other. If any man can hold a 
 slave, and carry out this precept in prac- 
 tice, it seems to me he can accomplish 
 more than a miracle. He can master im- 
 possibilities. 
 
 There is a very self-complacent way 
 some have, of circumventing such self-de- 
 nying precepts as the one under considera- 
 tion, by inferring that Jesus was giving 
 instructions how matters should be con- 
 ducted in the church. And they separate 
 the spiritual kingdom of Christ from all 
 secular concerns. But this is all man's 
 own invention. Christ lived in the world, 
 and taught how men should live in the 
 world. He never said that Christians must 
 act one way in the church, and another 
 way in the world. That they might be 
 great men and masters in secular affairs, 
 but they were to be humble men and ser- 
 vants in the church. But what he said 
 was that they were by love to serve one 
 another, and live as brethren. They must 
 
178 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 not be called masters, any further than 
 they might, as occasion offered, call those 
 who now serve them, masters. He ex- 
 pressly forbid the exercise of all lordship, 
 and the terms master and servant must 
 therefore go no farther than to signify the 
 brotherly employer and the employed, the 
 guide and the attendant, mutually serving 
 each other according to the necessities of 
 each. The teaching of Christ is not a 
 mere collection of abstract principles to 
 gradually and insidiously undermine an 
 existing state of things, but it is directly 
 to the point as nearly as the language he 
 spoke in could express it, and for saying 
 such things openly and without fear they 
 crucified him. " Be ye not called mas- 
 ters," said he. Surely this was plain. 
 " But he that is greatest among you shall 
 be your servant." Is not this plain ? 
 What do you want more explicit than this ? 
 If you have great talents, great advan- 
 tages, great wealth, great any thing, what 
 is required of you, but that on account of 
 these very things, you are to be the great- 
 est servant, and to minister more than any 
 other in the service of your less favoured 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 179 
 
 brethren ? Why ! the doctrine lays the axe 
 at the very root of all slaveholding, and 
 that in the broad face of day, so that the 
 very simplest mind ought to understand 
 it. Yea, it takes ingenuity to evade it. 
 
 Luke iv. 18. 
 
 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 
 because he hath annointed me to preach 
 the gospel to the poor : he hath sent me to 
 heal the broken hearted, to preach deliver- 
 ance to the captives, and recovering of 
 sight to the blind, to set at liberty them 
 that are bruised, to preach the accepta- 
 ble year cf the Lord." 
 
 This was Jesus Christ's emphatic text. 
 He had only to read it, and without com- 
 ment. And then he sat down and desig- 
 nated himself as the one in whom the scrip- 
 ture was fulfilled. They understood the 
 meaning of it. It was plain enough for 
 those who loved to exercise authority. It 
 filled them with wrath, and they rose up 
 and thrust him out of the city, and led him 
 unto the brow of the hill, to cast him down 
 headlong, which they certainly would have 
 done but for his escaping their hands. 
 
180 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 Jesus Christ thus expressed the full pur- 
 pose of his preaching. It was, among 
 other things," deliverance to the captives," 
 "to set at liberty them that are bruised ;" 
 and that there might be no mistake about 
 it, he adds, " To preach the acceptable 
 year of the Lord." Now, what was that 
 acceptable year of the Lord, but the year 
 of jubilee ? A year in which all the in- 
 habitants of Israel were to be proclaimed 
 free. But, says the pro-slavery advocate, 
 This was only figurative, — it is to be taken 
 spiritually, — it is the soul's captivity that 
 is meant, and deliverance from the bonds 
 of Satan. Indeed ! then it appears that 
 Jesus Christ spoke more plainly against 
 existing civil institutions than he meant ? 
 He does not then lay down a general prin- 
 ciple to undermine gradually the civil 
 polity, but if his words are to be taken in 
 their literal sense, it would break slavery 
 up, root and branch, at once ! But to my 
 mind, Jesus Christ meant just what he 
 said. He came " to preach the gospel to 
 the poor." Is that figurative ? Surely 
 there is no figure of speech there. " To 
 heal the broken hearted." Will you figure 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 181 
 
 that away too ? Recovering of sight to 
 the blind — did ? nt he do it literally ? When 
 he made the blind man to see, was it fig- 
 urative sight ? Why then, call the resi- 
 due of the text figurative ? Jesus Christ 
 tells us plainly, distinctly, and unequivo- 
 cally, that the object of his mission was 
 the deliverance of the captives, the liberty 
 of the bruised, the acceptable year of the 
 Lord. The Jewish rulers wished to take 
 his life for it, and modern pro-slavery men 
 say, 0, he did 'nt mean just as he said ; 
 Jesus gave his sanction to slaveholding. 
 Nay, says some learned professor, he 
 did 'nt sanction slaveholding, but he was 
 silent on the subject, lest he might excite 
 the prejudices of slaveholders against Chris- 
 tianity, although he meant gradually to 
 undermine the institution. Ah ! brethren, 
 take Jesus Christ's own words, and you 
 will find them plain enough to trouble 
 your conscience in keeping a slave under 
 your dominion a single hour. I believe 
 from my very soul, that Jesus Christ meant 
 it was a shame and a sin to keep a man in 
 slavery. And he meant it to be under- 
 stood that slaveholding was incompatible 
 16 
 
182 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 with Christianity. If therefore, emanci- 
 pation be a gradual work, it is gradual 
 only because it is difficult to work Chris- 
 tianity into the hearts and the practice of 
 mankind. No man fully imbued with 
 "the Spirit of the Lord," would own a 
 slave. How much a man may practice a 
 wrong and yet be a Christian, must be de- 
 cided by Him who looks into the hearts of 
 men ; I dare not say. But this I dare to 
 say, and I feel authorized to say it in the 
 name of Jesus Christ — that it is the duty 
 of the Christian to give deliverance to the 
 captives. He must confront Christ him- 
 self if he do not, and tell him he did not 
 think Christ meant exactly what he said. 
 Jesus Christ is full of compassion, and 
 may forgive the most grievous wrong ; but 
 I should not like to trust myself, in such 
 an important matter, to an interpretation 
 that turns from their direct signification 
 the words of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Luke xii. 37. 
 
 " Blessed are those servants, whom the 
 lord when he cometh shall find watching : 
 verily I say unto you, that he shall gird 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 183 
 
 himself, and make them sit down to meat, 
 and will come forth and serve them." 
 
 Here Jesus represents the master wait- 
 ing upon his servants, girded himself like 
 a servant, while they sit down to meat. 
 How much does this look like slavery ? 
 The same spirit which breathed through 
 all the Saviour's words the equality of the 
 human family is in this text most beauti- 
 fully portrayed. 
 
 Acts xvii. 26. 
 
 " And hath made of one blood all na- 
 tions of men for to dwell on all the face 
 of the earth." 
 
 This establishes a common brotherhood 
 in the whole human family ; and was 
 spoken by the Apostle in a connection to 
 indicate that all mankind were equally en- 
 titled to " life, and breath, and all things. ,, 
 
 1 Cor. v. 11. vi. 10. 
 
 " But now I have written unto you not 
 to keep company, if any man that is called 
 a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or 
 an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or 
 
184 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 an extortioner : with such a one no not to 
 eat." 
 
 " Nor extortioners, shall inherit the 
 kingdom of God." 
 
 To extort is to draw by force. It is to 
 take from another by violent means. This 
 is the distinct import, both of the origi- 
 nal Greek word and of our English trans- 
 lation. I leave it to the conscience to 
 decide whether the gains of slaveholding 
 be not the fruits of extortion. It is ob- 
 taining by force from another what that 
 other produces by his labour or his skill. 
 If then extortion be condemned by Paul, 
 slaveholding necessarily is condemned. 
 
 2 Cor. xi. 20. 
 
 " For ye suffer, if a man bring you into 
 bondage, if a man devour you, if a man 
 take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a 
 man smite you on the face." 
 
 Here is an exact picture of the slave- 
 holder and the man who is forced to be a 
 servant. His service is forced by his mas- 
 ter, his corn is devoured by his master, his 
 master takes from him what he produces, 
 his master exalts himself over him, his 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 185 
 
 master smites him. Paul says if any of 
 these things come upon you, " ye suffer." 
 Does he not thereby condemn slavery ? 
 
 Col. iii. 11. 
 
 " There is neither Greek nor Jew, cir- 
 cumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, 
 Scythian, bond nor free : but Christ is all 
 and in all." 
 
 In the " new man," in the Christian, are 
 none of these distinctions recognized. — 
 Christians are not to make distinctions be- 
 tween brethren of different nations, or of 
 different conditipns. Masters and servants 
 are to be on an equality. If one serve an- 
 other, it must not make him any less than 
 his master, and if one be a master it must 
 not make him any higher than the ser- 
 vant. They are all brethren •, and there- 
 fore, (the inference is obvious) none can 
 be slaves and none can be slaveholders 
 under Apostolic authority. 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 3. 
 
 " Remember them that are in bonds as 
 bound with them." 
 
 Whatever may have been the condition 
 16* 
 
186 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 of those to whom the writer in this case 
 had special reference, he lays down a gen- 
 eral law subject to no exceptions what- 
 soever. Christians are to remember all 
 whose liberty is taken from them, with a 
 sympathizing feeling, as though they them- 
 selves were in the same bonds. Conse- 
 quently they are to remember slaves as 
 though they were themselves slaves. Let 
 all Christians feel this, and there would 
 soon be no question about slaveholders in 
 the church. Every master converted to 
 Christianity would speedily snap the bonds 
 of his slaves, and they would serve him 
 only as free men may serve a master. 
 
 Timothy i. 10. 
 
 " Men stealers." 
 
 This is the translation of that word 
 which Paul employs to signify a class of 
 sinners against whom the divine law ap- 
 plies. Who are these men stealers ? None 
 will deny that those are included in this 
 term who kidnap men and use them as 
 slaves, or sell them as such. Were it not 
 on account of unlearned persons who may 
 be giving me their attention, I would prove 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 187 
 
 that the Greek word positively means 
 slaveholders, slave buyers, and slave sel- 
 lers, as well as kidnappers. But taking 
 the translation as it is, I think I can satisfy 
 any candid man that they are involved in 
 the crime of man stealing who have slaves 
 in their possession. 
 
 Paul was speaking of the law as having 
 been made for men stealers. Where is the 
 record of that law ? It is in Exodus xxi. 
 16 — and in these words: " He that steal- 
 eth a man, and selleth him, or if he be 
 found in his hand, he shall surely be put to 
 death/' 
 
 Here it will be perceived that it was a 
 crime to sell the man for which the seller 
 must suffer death. But it was no less a 
 crime to hold him as a slave, for this also 
 was punishable with death. It does not 
 appear that the act of stealing the man 
 was punishable with death, but the selling 
 him or the holding him was the punisha- 
 ble crime. A man may be kidnapped out 
 of slavery into freedom. There was no 
 law against that. And why ? Because 
 kidnapping a slave and placing him in a 
 condition of freedom, was only to restore 
 
188 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 him to his lost rights. But if the man who 
 takes him become a slaveholder or a slave 
 seller, then he is a criminal liable to the 
 penalty of death. 
 
 Perhaps some will say that this law was 
 only applicable to the first holder of the 
 slave, that is, the original kidnapper, but 
 not to his successor who might have pur- 
 chased or inherited him. But what is kid- 
 napping? Suppose I propose to a neigh- 
 bour to give him a certain sum of money 
 if he will steal a white child in Carolina 
 and deliver him to me. He steals him, I 
 pay him the money upon his delivering 
 the child to me. Is it not my act as fully 
 as his? Am I not also the thief? But 
 does it alter the case whether I agree be- 
 forehand or not to pay him for the child ? 
 He steals him and then sells him to me. 
 He is found by his parents in my hands. 
 Will it avail me to say I purchased him 
 and paid my money for him ? Will it not 
 be asked, Do you not know that a white 
 person is not merchantable ? And shall 
 I not have to pay the damage for detain- 
 ing that child in my service as a slave ? 
 Assuredly not only in the eye of the law, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 189 
 
 but in the judgment of the whole com- 
 munity I would be regarded a criminal. 
 So when one man steals another and of- 
 fers him for sale, no one in view of the 
 divine law can buy him, for the reason 
 that the divine law forbids that man shall 
 in the first place be made a merchantable 
 article. The inquiry must be, how did you 
 come by that man ? You may catch a 
 wild horse or steal away from its dam a 
 young wild colt, and appropriate it to 
 yourself or sell it. There is no law against 
 that ; but how do you get the man to sell ? 
 Now if I buy under such circumstances, I 
 buy in violation of the divine law, and it 
 will not do for me to plead that I bought 
 him. I have him in possession, and that 's 
 enough. God condemns me for it as a 
 man stealer. My having him in posses- 
 sion is evidence against me, and the Mo- 
 saic law says if he be found in my hands, 
 I must die. 
 
 Now then, when Paul said the law was 
 made for men stealers, was it not also 
 saying the law is made for slaveholders ? 
 I am not intending to apply this term in a 
 harsh spirit. But I am bound as I fear 
 
190 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 God, to speak what I am satisfied is the 
 true meaning of the Apostle. And I am 
 satisfied that the Apostle meant to include 
 all who were in any way accessary to sla- 
 very, either by kidnapping, buying, selling 
 or holding men forcibly in bondage. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Having as I believe fully proved in the 
 first place, that God never, either in the 
 Old or New Testament, tolerated slavery, 
 as I have defined it ; and secondly, that he 
 positively condemned it ; I shall now pro- 
 ceed to shew that those who are held in 
 bondage in the Southern States of Ame- 
 rica are the subjects of a cruel and oppres- 
 sive system. 
 
 Let me repeat my definition of slavery. 
 
 Slavery is a condition in which one is 
 in the power of another whom he is com- 
 pelled to serve, without the means of re- 
 dress when wronged. 
 
 Southern writers say that those circum- 
 stances that are adduced as oppressions 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 191 
 
 and cruelties in slavery are the " abuses of 
 slavery." But I contend that these things 
 are essential elements of slavery. If I 
 have a proper understanding of the use 
 of language, I should say that to abuse 
 any thing is to detract from its use, i. e. to 
 weaken it. If I abuse my liberty, and be- 
 come licentious, I am losing my liberty 
 and becoming a slave to my lusts. If I 
 abuse my purity I am becoming impure ; 
 to abuse my honesty is to become dishon- 
 est. So to abuse slavery is to destroy sla- 
 very. But is it not so that the more you 
 oppress a man the greater slave he is ? 
 This oppression therefore is not the abuse 
 of slavery, it is the abuse of liberty, it de- 
 tracts more and more from the man's 
 liberty, and involves him deeper and deep- 
 er in slavery. Now, how comes it to pass 
 that the more a man is oppressed the 
 greater slave he is, if oppression be not an 
 essential element of slavery ? Take away 
 all oppression, and what then ? The man 
 may not be out of bondage, but he is no 
 longer a slave. Freed from oppression, 
 he is freed from slavery. If he remain in 
 bondage, it is for his own benefit. He has 
 
192 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 his means of redress should he suffer 
 wrong, and his master is bound as well as 
 himself. He has all the liberty he wants, 
 and he remains in bondage because it is 
 for his own happiness. It would be folly 
 to call such a condition slavery. 
 
 The slaveholder holds his slave by a 
 legal tenure. He could not retain the 
 man in servitude if the civil law and its 
 administrators did not guard and defend 
 his claim. The laws of the country deter- 
 mine the extent of the master's claims, 
 and limit the extent of the servant's pow- 
 ers accordingly. To the laws, therefore, 
 must we resort to ascertain the real condi- 
 tion of the servant. If they give the ser- 
 vant power of prosecution and means of 
 redress, when imposed upon by the master 
 and others, there is no slavery in the case. 
 But if they do not, and the master have 
 the power to compel service in his own 
 way, just as he might an ox or a mule, the 
 man is oppressed by the very law that 
 places him in that condition. 
 
 What then, is the law of American sla- 
 very ? The law of South Carolina defines 
 slavery thus : — 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 193 
 
 " Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, 
 and reputed to be chattels, personal, in the 
 hands of their owners and possessors, their 
 executors, administrators or assigns, to all 
 intents, constructions, and purposes what- 
 soever." 
 
 Does not any one see at a glance that a 
 man or woman subjected to the operation 
 of such a law, must be in an oppressed 
 condition ? The man who is too blind to 
 see this is not fit to be reasoned with. 
 Here is the essential element of slavery ; 
 a condition in which one is in the com- 
 plete and entire possession and power of a 
 master, just like a horse or a cow. Yet 
 this is the law under which professed be- 
 lievers in the Bible are holding their fel- 
 low men in bondage. But why was this, 
 and similar laws in other states enacted ? 
 Evidently, because it was found essential 
 to slavery. Let the law now be repealed, 
 and another passed, in these words : — 
 " Slaves shall not hereafter be deemed, 
 sold, taken, and reputed to be chattels," 
 and what then becomes of the slavehold- 
 er's claims ? He has none. His servant 
 is no longer a slave. No longer a chattel, 
 17 
 
194 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 he is no longer a slave. He cannot be 
 sold. What then is he worth ? Nothing, 
 in the market. He cannot be transmitted 
 to heirs ; he is not a chattel— he is now a 
 man, with a will and a purpose of his 
 
 own. 
 
 Thus the very basis upon which slavery 
 is erected, is a law that places men in the 
 condition of cattle, " to all intents, con- 
 structions, and purposes whatsoever." Can 
 any one, in the face of this law, say sla- 
 very is not oppressive ? Gracious God, 
 have mercy upon the man whose heart is 
 so hard, that he cannot feel for a servant 
 in such a condition ! 
 
 But to make the bondman as powerless 
 as possible, he is not permitted to give tes- 
 timony, or to enter a suit in law or equity, 
 either for himself, or his wife, or children. 
 Why such laws, if they be not essential to 
 
 slavery ? 
 
 These two things, denning the slave to 
 be a chattel, and debarring him from en- 
 tering a suit in law or equity, to recover 
 damages from his master, or to secure his 
 wife and children from wrong and injury, 
 are all sufficient to prove the oppressive 
 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 195 
 
 character of slavery. And as such laws 
 are absolutely indispensable to the system, 
 it follows that oppression is its essential 
 element. 
 
 But let us draw up a catalogue of some 
 of those things, that some might be pleased 
 to call the " abuses of slavery." 
 
 1. Punishments, of kind and degree at 
 the option of the master. 
 
 2. Delegated powers to agents and over- 
 seers, who may be cruel and heartless 
 men. 
 
 3. No legal rights of property. 
 
 4. Liability to be sold at the option of 
 the master. 
 
 5. Liability to be sold for the master's 
 debts. 
 
 6. No right of redemption. 
 
 7. No choice of masters. 
 
 8. No recovery of damages if injured, 
 either by others, or by their masters. 
 
 9. No power of making contracts. 
 
 10. Subject to descend by inheritance 
 to persons of the most cruel and despotic 
 dispositions. 
 
 11. Kept in ignorance. 
 
 12. No legal marriages. 
 
196 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 13. No parental authority. 
 
 14. Wives and husbands, parents and 
 infants, liable to sudden and forcible sepa- 
 rations. 
 
 But I need not go on. All these are 
 oppressive ; and many, many more things 
 could be detailed. Can slavery exist, and 
 these be removed ? No ; they must ne- 
 cessarily continue while slavery continues. 
 Remove them bylaw, and slavery is abol- 
 ished : there is nothing of it. If you re- 
 move these oppressive items gradually, 
 you are gradually abolishing slavery. But 
 at the same time you run the risk by the 
 removal of any one of them, of rapidly 
 destroying the whole system. To keep 
 them strictly as chattels, is the only safety 
 for the system. Wheresoever slaves are 
 obtaining some partial advantges, they are 
 becoming less and less valuable, as slaves. 
 As for instance, in some of the states there 
 is no law to interdict their being taught to 
 read. In those states the slaves are more 
 enlightened than in others, and the conse- 
 quence is they are much less submissive. 
 You must, if you would perpetuate sla- 
 very, take care that your slaves be tho- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 197 
 
 roughly slaves. A half way between 
 slavery and freedom will not answer. A 
 little liberty gives an ambition for more, 
 and those are the most dangerous slaves 
 who approach nearest to the condition of 
 freemen. Hence we may lay it down as 
 a principle — there must be oppression, or 
 there cannot be slavery. 
 
 There may be, in different countries, 
 different modes of securing the power of 
 the master. But every where, to make 
 or keep a man a slave, there must be op- 
 pression. In our country there is, proba- 
 bly, the most systematic legalized oppres- 
 sion that is to be found in any slave code 
 in the world. Here, probably, the slave 
 is more powerless than any where else, 
 because the masters have the greatest 
 power. And I lay down this proposition, 
 that slavery in the United States is partic- 
 ularly abhorrent to God, not only because 
 it is a system of oppression, but because 
 it is at variance with the principles of the 
 American people, as published to the 
 world. The American people have them- 
 selves declared to the world what they 
 consider to be oppression. It is to be with- 
 17* 
 
198 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 out a free system of laws ; under an arbi- 
 trary government; without naturaliza- 
 tion ; without a free administration of 
 justice ; without trade ; being taxed with- 
 out consent ; deprived of the benefits of a 
 trial by jury, and under the power of an- 
 other people. Such is oppression — oppres- 
 sion so weighty, so galling, as to demand, 
 for deliverance, the solemn pledge of life 
 and fortune and sacred honour. This 
 definition of oppression they have hang- 
 ing up in their public houses, and in many 
 private dwellings, and in all their halls of 
 legislation. They teach it to their chil- 
 dren, and the people assemble together 
 on a particular day every year to hear it 
 read. 
 
 But what is the condition of the African 
 race in this country ? They are without 
 legislative or judicial power ; without 
 commercial privileges ; they are taxed 
 without their consent; they are not allow- 
 ed trial by jury ; they are subjected to the 
 most arbitrary and tyranical laws. And 
 is not all this found essential to slavery ? 
 But it was on account of these very things, 
 yet in a very small degree realized, that 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 199 
 
 the American people declared themselves 
 independent of Great Britain, and to this 
 day they justify with loud acclamation the 
 acts of their fathers, whose blood attested 
 to the sincerity of their professions. Out 
 of their own mouths, therefore, are the 
 people of this country condemned as op- 
 pressors of the coloured race. I do not 
 here point to cruel masters, and their 
 stocks, their irons, their manacles; these 
 are incidents that the so-called "kind mas- 
 ter " may condemn as well as myself. 
 But I point to those things that are appli- 
 cable to all, and are therefore the very 
 characteristics of slavery. And is not all 
 of it but one continued, interminable sys- 
 tem of wrong, outrage, and grievous op- 
 pression ? How can you, if you have any 
 conscience at all, come to any other con- 
 clusion ? And if it be so, is not the pro- 
 position demonstrated, that slavery in these 
 United States is abhorrent to God, because 
 it is a system of oppression, the masters 
 themselves being judges ? 
 
 What does God say ? " He that op- 
 presseth the poor to increase his riches 
 shall surely come to want." "He that 
 
200 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 despiseth the gain of oppression — he shall 
 dwell on high." "He shall break in 
 pieces the oppressor." "Execute judg- 
 ment in the morning, and deliver him that 
 is spoiled out of the hands of the oppres- 
 sor, lest my fury go out like fire, and burn 
 that none can quench it, because of the 
 evil of your doings." 
 
 Thus, in the most burning language, 
 does Jehovah express his holy indignation 
 and righteous anger against oppression. 
 And if those who serve their Southern 
 masters are not an oppressed people, in 
 the name of God I ask, what is, what can 
 be oppression ? It is impossible to oppress 
 the black man, if he is not already op- 
 pressed. Carry the system farther — try to 
 make it more oppressive, and you are 
 weakening the ability of the slave to ac- 
 complish his work, and destroying the in- 
 stitution by tightening its cords beyond 
 their capacity of tension. Be more op- 
 pressive, and your oppressions will soon 
 send your slaves " where the wicked cease 
 from troubling, and the weary are at rest ; 
 where the prisoners rest together, and 
 hear not the voice of the oppressor," and 
 
 I 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 201 
 
 " where the servant is free from his 
 master." 
 
 Now, ye men of conscience, (and it is 
 only to such I would address myself,) is 
 not the demonstration clear ? 
 
 The Bible condemns all oppression. 
 American slavery is systematically oppres- 
 sive, as essential to its existence. There- 
 fore the Bible condemns American slavery. 
 
 And now, what is left for an honest 
 Christian man to do ? Can he now, with 
 the Bible before him claim his fellow man 
 as his slave, and that too under a code of 
 laws revolting to humanity, and reeking 
 with blood ? No, no. — If any man have 
 a heart to feel, or a conscience to judge, he 
 will, he must, so far as his authority and 
 legal power extend, " break every yoke, 
 and let the oppressed go free." 
 
202 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 REMINISCENCES OF SLAVERY. 
 
 In order to show the practical effects of 
 the slave system, I shall here add a few 
 facts that have occurred within the circle 
 of my own acquaintances. I could give 
 the names, but withhold them for obvious 
 reasons. 
 
 CASE 1. 
 
 The slaves of a distinguished Min- 
 ister of the South, were seen by a gentle- 
 man, who named it to me, landing from 
 a boat on a Sabbath morning with their 
 little stores for market, which they had 
 produced in the intervals between their 
 regular labouring hours, or had saved out 
 of their weekly provision, and which for 
 want of other opportunity, they had to 
 dispose of on the Sabbath. My informant 
 also learned upon inquiry, that they had 
 brought from the plantation some articles 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 203 
 
 for their master, such as butter, eggs, veg- 
 etables, &c. ; and that it was not unusual 
 for them to come into town thus on the 
 Sabbath. I introduce this case as one of 
 not unfrequent occurrence among tr\e 
 planters of the South ; but more especially 
 because the master of these slaves has 
 borne a conspicuous part in defending the 
 institution of slavery, and has made di- 
 rect reference to the deep interest he has 
 himself taken in the spiritual welfare of 
 his slaves. 
 
 CASE 2. 
 
 A Deacon in a Baptist church was ex- 
 horting his brethren and sisters in the 
 church on one occasion, when he used this 
 language — " My brethren, man is bad, he 
 is worse than the devil, he is bad as a nig- 
 ger." This case goes to shew with what 
 contempt the slaves are regarded, when a 
 member of a church could use such lan- 
 guage without rebuke ; yet I can testify 
 that this same deacon was comparatively 
 very kind and indulgent to his slaves. 
 
204 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 CASE 3. 
 
 Isaac, a slave, on a Sabbath afternoon, 
 visited a near neighbour's farm. The pa- 
 trole found him there without a ticket 
 from his master. They took off his jacket 
 and gave him a severe flogging. Such 
 cases, however, are very common ; and 
 especially on the Sabbath. The patroles 
 are composed of church members as well 
 as others. 
 
 CASE 4. 
 
 An eminent Baptist minister of the 
 South sold a slave, and used the money 
 to defray his expenses to attend a meeting 
 of the Missionary Board at the North ! 
 
 CASE 5. 
 
 A prominent Southern minister when 
 invited to the pastoral charge of a leading 
 church in a Northern city, brought with 
 him a slave and retained her in his ser- 
 vice, after selling her children to a planter 
 in Georgia. 
 
 CASE 6. 
 
 Some slaves of a distinguished politi- 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 205 
 
 cian of South Carolina, were seen with 
 irons upon them working in the field. 
 Their master has publicly defended sla- 
 very as a Bible institution, and as a bless- 
 ing to the slave. He has referred to his 
 own slaves as very comfortably situated. 
 
 CASE 7. 
 
 A member of a Baptist church had large 
 irons welded on the ankles of his slaves, 
 which to be taken off, had to be struck 
 forcibly with a sledge hammer. Doubtless 
 many persons will appropriate this case to 
 themselves, and each will suppose I mean 
 him particularly. 
 
 CASE 8. 
 
 Riding in the field of Deacon one 
 
 day, where his slaves were picking cotton, 
 I heard him say to them, both men and 
 women, "Any one that does not have 
 seventy pounds picked to day, I shall give 
 seventy lashes." 
 
 CASE 9. 
 
 A very pious and amiable young lady 
 who felt deeply in view of the ignorance 
 18 
 
206 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 and degradation of the slaves, undertook 
 to teach those on her father's plantation 
 to read. Her father was a Deacon in a 
 Baptist church. Discouraged by her fa- 
 ther, and threatened by others, she had 
 finally to desist. 
 
 CASE 10. 
 
 Mr. Y a Baptist preacher, was be- 
 sought by his slave man to sell him to Mr. 
 
 C , that he might accompany his wife 
 
 to a distant region of country. Mr. Y 
 
 could be brought to no terms. His slave 
 however, accompanied his wife a few 
 miles when she started, intending to re- 
 turn. His master pursued him. Mr. C 
 
 offered to purchase him. Mr. Y re- 
 plied that he would "see them both in 
 hell first." He was tried by the church 
 for his profane language, but the church 
 did not attempt to rebuke him or even 
 question him about refusing to let the hus- 
 band go with his wife, or to accommodate 
 the matter to prevent a separation. I my- 
 self was the Moderator on the trial. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 207 
 
 CASE 11. 
 
 A slave woman was brought before the 
 church for trial on account of pregnancy. 
 But she escaped censure because she tes- 
 tified that her master met her in the field 
 and forced her. There was no law to pro- 
 tect her. 
 
 CASE 12. 
 
 The slave man of Mr. P , an infi- 
 del, came before the Baptist church to 
 unite therewith. The church was satis- 
 fied with his Christian experience and cha- 
 racter, and he would have been received 
 for baptism ; but he had no ticket from 
 his master. His master had threatened 
 him with two hundred lashes if he should 
 be baptized. He desired, however, the 
 baptism, with the design of keeping it con- 
 cealed from his master. But the church 
 would not thus receive him. 
 
 CASE 13. 
 
 Sam, a slave, in consequence of severe 
 treatment, ran away. When he was found 
 and brought home, his master stripped 
 him, cut off one of his ears, whipped him 
 
208 SLAVEHOLDINC EXAMINED 
 
 on the bare back until it was laid open in 
 deep gashes from the neck to the hip, and 
 then applied pepper and salt to the wounds. 
 For this there could be no redress by law. 
 His master was in respectable society. 
 
 CASE 14. 
 
 A Deacon of a Baptist church ordered 
 one of his slaves to submit himself to the 
 lash 5 the slave ran from him ; the Dea- 
 con shot at him and killed him. For this 
 homicide, the master suffered neither from 
 the laws of the State nor the discipline of 
 the church. He was always esteemed 
 one of the most respectable men in the 
 community. 
 
 CASE 15. 
 
 Will, a slave about twenty years of age, 
 was sold by a very prominent member of 
 
 an Episcopal church to Mr. R , as a 
 
 punishment, Mr. R being known to 
 
 be a severe man. Will, after being with 
 his new master a short time, and suffering 
 from harsh treatment, ran away. Mr. 
 
 R pursued and overtook him at a 
 
 ferry. The slave rather than be taken, 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 209 
 
 ran to the end of the ferry boat, sprang 
 off and drowned himself. 
 
 CASE 16. 
 
 A gentleman moving in the very first 
 society, and a valued member of an ortho- 
 dox church, having the character of a 
 very indulgent and kind master, on one 
 occasion missed a number of turkeys that 
 had been taken during the night from the 
 poultry house. Supposing some one of his 
 male slaves to be the robber, he ordered 
 every man on his plantation to be whip- 
 ped in order to extort a confession. After 
 several of them had undergone the trial, 
 it came to his coachman's turn. He trem- 
 bled, and his agitation excited the suspi- 
 cion of his master. He was whipped for 
 some time, but made no confession. His 
 master then had him placed in a sitting 
 posture on the dirt floor of a negro cabin 
 with his feet in the stocks. He was kept 
 in this position a week, living upon spare 
 diet. At last he confessed himself guilty 
 of the theft ; and was then released from 
 the stocks. He some time afterwards de- 
 clared to me most solemnly, that he had 
 18* 
 
210 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 nothing to do with the robbery, and made 
 the confession only to save himself from 
 further suffering. I learned upon inquiry 
 that the robbery was perpetrated by a 
 man who escaped punishment entirely. 
 
 CASE 17. 
 
 There is or was, in the city of Charles- 
 ton, a house for the imprisonment of slaves. 
 To this house masters and mistresses sent 
 their offending slaves either to work on 
 the tread-mill, or to be whipped. Passing 
 through this house one morning, I saw a 
 beautiful, light coloured female slave who 
 was sent there for the purpose, tied up by 
 the hands to a hook or ring in the ceiling, 
 whilst her toes only touched the floor. She 
 received upon her naked thighs many 
 lashes with a large whip, whilst she cried 
 for mercy with the most affecting appeals. 
 But in vain. The lashes had been order- 
 ed, and she had to take them. 
 
 CASE 18. 
 
 The slaves of Mr. J. M , a Metho- 
 dist, reported that their master had kept a 
 mouth lock on one of his female slaves 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 211 
 
 until her tongue had rotted off, and she 
 died of mortification. Some of the neigh- 
 bours examined the grave, and found the 
 marks of the corpse confirming the truth 
 of the report. A prosecution was attempt- 
 ed, but the testimony of negroes not be- 
 ing admissible, the guilty master could not 
 be reached. 
 
 CASE 19. 
 
 A slave named Will, about forty-five 
 years of age, was sold away from his wife 
 and children, about fifty miles, to a young 
 Baptist minister. Will soon after ran away 
 to go to see his family. He returned in a 
 few days. His master gave him fifty 
 lashes on the bare back, and the next day 
 preached to, and communed with the 
 church. He spoke openly to members of 
 the church of what he had done. No one 
 uttered a syllable of disapprobation. 
 
 CASE 20. 
 
 Mr. , a Baptist preacher, had a 
 
 slave woman named Grace, whom he pur- 
 chased from a distance, being separated 
 from her husband. She ran away, and 
 
212 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 tried to reach' the neighbourhood where 
 her family lived, but was taken up and 
 lodged in jail. She was delivered of a 
 
 child in the jail. Mr. sold her in 
 
 that situation to one of his neighbours. 
 No one regarded him as having in any 
 way acted amiss, either in purchasing or 
 selling the woman. 
 
 CASE 21. 
 
 Deacon , and Mr. G , both 
 
 members of the same church, could not 
 agree upon terms by which a member of 
 the same church belonging to the former, 
 could retain his wife and children belong- 
 ing to the latter, who was about to move 
 
 away. Mr. G took off the wife and 
 
 her children fifty or sixty miles. The man 
 was a remarkably tender and affectionate 
 husband and father, and grieved much 
 after the separation. He was encouraged 
 to take another wife, and his master suf- 
 fered him to do so. But he was not satis- 
 fied, and longed to see his wife and chil- 
 dren — he accordingly ran away to seek 
 them. On the way he was lodged in jail. 
 His master had him whipped in the jail ; 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 213 
 
 and when he was brought home, he was 
 tried and excommunicated from the church 
 for running away. The two masters re- 
 ceived no expression of disapprobation 
 from the church. 
 
 CASE 22. 
 
 Mrs. M. B kindly offered to the 
 
 slaves in her neighbourhood, to read the 
 Bible to them every Sabbath, and explain 
 it as well as she could to their understand- 
 ing. On one of these occasions, a slave 
 of Mr. P was present. When he re- 
 turned home, for attending the meeting, 
 his master, who was a member of the 
 Episcopal church, placed him in the stocks 
 with his face downwards, and beat him 
 with a paddle until he was too sore to sit. 
 
 CASE 23. 
 
 Mr. T used a paddle to chastise his 
 
 slaves, with small auger holes bored 
 through it. His plan was to keep the 
 paddle in water, and when about to use 
 it, it was first thrust into sand, and with 
 the grains of sand adhering to it, the pad- 
 dle was applied to the naked skin of the 
 
214 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 slave. Mr. T was one of the most 
 
 distinguished and respected men in his 
 state. He was also a communicant in the 
 Episcopal church. 
 
 CASE 24. 
 
 A highly respected member and deacon 
 of a Baptist church, having lost some poul- 
 try, satisfied himself by the foot-prints 
 that a certain slave was the robber; he 
 gave him two hundred lashes heavily laid 
 on with a large leather whip, on the naked 
 skin. I myself witnessed it, and counted 
 the strokes. No farther notice was taken 
 of the affair. I name this case particu- 
 larly, because the individual referred to 
 was a man whose generally benevolent 
 feelings and excellent spirit rendered him 
 as little liable to perpetrate a cruel act, as 
 either the reader or myself. It only shows 
 what even a good man may be tempted 
 to do when he has irresponsible power. 
 
 CASE 25. 
 
 A male slave, whom I shall designate 
 
 as D , formerly owned by a Baptist 
 
 member, became subsequently the slave 
 of a Methodist. Under his former master 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 215 
 
 he bore the character of a pious Metho- 
 dist, and a good servant. According to 
 
 D 's story, his new master's negroes 
 
 got into the habit of accusing him of things 
 done by themselves, and for which his 
 master chastised him so frequently that he 
 ran away. He was in the woods four 
 years. His place of concealment was at 
 length betrayed by a negro. A white 
 man accompanied by a negro, then went 
 to take him and another runaway. They 
 came upon the runaways in a hammock. 
 D was asleep, but woke up on hear- 
 ing the approach of the pursuers, and seiz- 
 ing a gun he had by him, prepared him- 
 self for resistance. The other runaway 
 also was armed. The white man fired 
 
 his gun at D , and shot him in the foot 
 
 or leg. D then fired, and shot the 
 
 white man on the back of his head, and 
 the negro who was with the white man, 
 in the face. The latter, however, had first 
 shot the other runaway, who died in eight 
 days of the wound he received. The 
 Avhite man and his negro aid were severely 
 
 hurt, but afterwards recovered. D 
 
 was captured, tried, and hanged for mur- 
 
216 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 der. I had this account from a deacon of 
 a Baptist church, who was himself one of 
 
 the freeholders who tried D . He said 
 
 he thought it a hard case, but he was 
 bound to give a verdict according to law. 
 The man was hanged on the margin of a 
 baptismal spot. I saw the gallows myself. 
 
 CASE 26. 
 
 Mr. , an excommunicant of a Bap- 
 tist church, whipped one of his slaves so 
 severely, that not feeling able to work, he 
 took to the woods, and after some time 
 was found a putrid corpse. 
 
 CASE 27. 
 
 The wife of the last mentioned slave 
 also ran away in consequence of severe 
 treatment, and I have recently learned that 
 she too died under the repeated severity 
 of her master. 
 
 CASE 28. 
 
 A female slave left her infant in the 
 shade of the fence whilst she was hoeing 
 cotton ground ; the cries of the infant in- 
 duced her to leave her work to nurse it. 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 217 
 
 For this the overseer beat her to the 
 ground, and whipped her so severely that 
 she was very ill for some days. The wo- 
 man was a Baptist, the overseer a Baptist, 
 and the owner of the plantation a Baptist 
 minister, all in the habit of sitting to the 
 Lord's Sapper in the same church. No 
 notice was taken of the matter by the 
 church, and there could be no redress 
 by law. 
 
 CASE 29. 
 
 Mrs. Mc killed several of her slaves 
 
 by cruel punishments. There was never 
 any legal investigation. 
 
 CASE 30. 
 
 Mr. C , after returning from church 
 
 on Sabbath afternoon, tied up one of his 
 slaves by the hands, the toes affording the 
 only support ; and the body being exposed 
 in a state of nudity to the musquitoes all 
 night, the slave was dead the next morn- 
 ing. There were no legal proceedings. 
 
 CASE 31. 
 
 Mr. had a slave of very light com- 
 
 19 
 
218 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 plexion, whom he took for his wife. She 
 lived in his house as his wife, and had 
 several children by him. The laws of the 
 state forbid emancipation ; she therefore 
 was still legally his slave, although not 
 treated as such. Her master, who in the 
 sight of God was her husband, became in- 
 volved in debt. His wife and children 
 were levied on and sold to satisfy a claim. 
 A physician, himself a prominent member 
 of a Baptist church, and the son of a Bap- 
 tist minister, purchased them, and the hus- 
 band and father was not allowed to visit 
 them on their master's plantation. The 
 master continued a respected member of 
 the church. 
 
 But I need not multiply this catalogue 
 of crime ; for it is not only revolting to 
 my own feelings to write these things, and 
 to the reader's to read them, but it matters 
 not to the argument whether they occur 
 frequently or not. Some of the cases I 
 have named are ordinary transactions ; 
 and if they do not all occur frequently, it 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 219 
 
 is not because there is any thing in the 
 laws to guard the slave from these wrongs; 
 but because there is in the consciences and 
 benevolence of masters that which re- 
 strains them from acts of violence and 
 cruelty. It is sufficient that such things as 
 I have related have been, and now can be 
 perpetrated under the slave system with- 
 out the penalties of law, nay, oftentimes 
 with its very sanction, to make it evident 
 that he who holds men as property by 
 such legal tenure, is himself sustaining an 
 oppressive government, and is therefore 
 himself an oppressor. But every slave- 
 holder who reads these pages, will be 
 ready to admit, in his own conscience, that 
 from the circle of his acquaintances also, 
 he can recall to memory cases quite as bad 
 as these I have here recorded, and many 
 of them a vast deal more. No slaveholder, 
 without doing violence to truth and his 
 own conscience, can say I have here ex- 
 aggerated any thing. I have referred only 
 to my own acquaintances, and have pur- 
 posely selected the cases of those who are 
 highly respected in the social circle, and 
 especially church members. If those I 
 
220 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED 
 
 have referred to particularly, and who will 
 recognize their own cases although their 
 names are suppressed, should be angry 
 with me for thus making a record of them, 
 their tempers will not be excited on ac- 
 count of any colouring I have given to the 
 reality, but because I have spoken the 
 plain, unvarnished truth. I hope none 
 will regard me as stating " aught in mal- 
 ice." I have purposely avoided all fig- 
 ures of rhetoric, and written in the most 
 simple and unadorned style, and have pre- 
 sented real facts, not to wound any one's 
 feelings, but to show that slavery is prac- 
 tically, as well as legally an oppressive 
 system. 
 
 Ye, who are called kind masters, and 
 who claim that you have an affectionate 
 regard for your slaves, to you I appeal. 
 Have I not spoken the truth ? You know 
 I have. From mere visiters, the practical 
 oppressions on your own plantations may 
 be concealed, and travellers among you 
 may infer that all is kind and pleasant be- 
 tween masters and slaves ; but I, who 
 have been one of you know better, and 
 you know better ; and you know too, that 
 
BY THE BIBLE. 221 
 
 your own hearts revolt oftentimes against 
 what you feel yourself forced to do, to 
 sustain your authority, and to keep your 
 slaves in subjection. 
 
 Will you then still appeal to the Bible, 
 that which you call God's Book, as your 
 authority for continuing such a system 
 of wrong and oppression ? My heart 
 throbs with anguish, my eyes are suffused 
 with tears as I am writing this with my 
 Bible before me. Did I too once desecrate 
 that precious volume to such unhallowed 
 use ? I did ; and I now confess it with bitter 
 mortification. And when I see my breth- 
 ren doing the same thing, I cannot be em- 
 bittered against them ; but I pity, I deplore 
 their delusion. I feel that the Bible is con- 
 verted into a bill of sale — the God of love 
 is made to affix his signature ; Jesus the 
 Redeemer of men seals it with his blood ; 
 and the noble band of apostles are smiths 
 to rivet the chains of the slave. But 
 brethren, you are doing your own souls a 
 grievous wrong, whilst thus you manacle 
 your brother, and mutilate your Bible. 
 The Holy Bible ivas designed for marts 
 redemption, not his enslavement. Pre- 
 19 * 
 
222 SLAVEHOLDING EXAMINED. 
 
 cious volume ! how many bruised hearts 
 hast thou bound up ! how many dungeons 
 hast thou illumined ! how many prison 
 doors hast thou opened ! and how many 
 captives hast thou restored to freedom and 
 to God ! And wheresoever thou art al- 
 lowed to enter the hut of the poor slave, 
 his heart beats high for liberty, and his 
 voice shouts aloud the song of deliver- 
 ance ! 
 
 THE END.