m ■\ ■.al ft M n ■ % <& -> ry ^6 o OCT %=» 3<» 8i'£RJBOTTPJS FOCXDRT. PREFACE, The following pages contain the result of the author's investigations of what the Holy Scriptures teach on the subject of Chattel Slavery, for the last twelve years, as con- cisely stated as possible. He has read much in defense of the Holy Scriptures against the charge of supporting slavery, but nothing that has, in .his judgment, set their teachings in the true light. He is well aware that he has taken much higher ground than has been taken by anti-slavery men, and asks a candid examination of the proof brought to sus- tain it, and the reasonings on £hat proof. He has been convinced for several years, that there never was a slave- holder in the church of God, either under the patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian dispensations, until after the days of the Apostles; and that the Great Head of the same never allowed one to be in it. .The following pages exhibit the proof on which that faith rests. Slavery was prohibited by positive law in all nations, from the time of Noah until after the days of Moses, and had not found its way into Asia Minor at the time christian churches were planted there, and the epistles were written to those churches. Satisfactory proof of all this will be found in the following pages. This is all new ground — outside of all that has been attempted on this subject, and if fully established, forever settles the question against the slaveholder's right to membership in the church of the living God. IV PREFACE. The remedy provided by the Great Creator for this monstrous evil is also presented, and the duty of every christian and American citizen, relative to the same, clearly shown ; and also the awful consequences of neglecting that duty. These pages were first published in the Wesleyan Expos- itor, a small monthly, edited by the author, and the readers of that periodical urged the publication of the numbers on slavery in book form. This led to the publication at this time. The author has been partially engaged for several years preparing a work on Slavery, for the press, which con- tains the whole of the following pages, with much other information on other branches of the subject. The rise, progress and development of Chattel Slavery, among the nations of the earth, is exhibited, with the proofs ; and the wrongs of different states of chattleism compared, and American shown to be " the vilest that ever saw the sun f* but has not had time, means or health to complete it, and bring it through the press ; and consents to give to the pub- lic this extract from it, hoping it may aid in the great bat- tle now being fought for the rights of humanity and the purification of the church of God, from " the sum of all villanies." That it may do good, and aid in the great strug- gle for the right, is the fervent prayer of the AUTHOB. Mansfield, 0., June 27, 1852. CHAPTER I. BIBLE SERVITUDE, Ax Address delivered ix the Sixth Presbtteriax Church, Cincinnati, 0., March 19th, 1843. Revised and Enlarged. (i Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." — Romans xiii. 10. Much has been said, and much written, of man's accountability ; but when all is said that can be, for or against, it amounts to this : the Creator has im- planted in the heart of every human being a con- sciousness of his accountability. There is in the mind of every man a living conviction that he is an accountable creature, and must answer for his conduct to some superior being. This is the fact with all sav- age as well as civilized men. This conviction fans the flame of all idolatrous altar fires — inflames the zeal of all the worshipers of strange gods. The Scriptures reveal the nature of this accountability, — the great objects to be secured; and also the nature and design of the moral government of God. 1* 6 I have selected this text, 1st, to call attention to one great object of the divine government, — the great object ; and to show that slavery is wholly irreconcil- able to this object — to that government. And 2nd, to examine those passages of the Holy Scriptures which are thought by some persons to favor slavery. • All intelligent beings act from motives ; they have design in all they do. The great Jehovah is the per- fection of all intelligence, and exhibits perfect design in all his works. He had design in his divine legis- lation, and we now inquire what that design was — ■ what was the great object of establishing the moral government of the Universe. Some contend it was to secure the honor or dignity of the throne of God — the rights of divine sovereignty. This is hard to maintain, because Jehovah is immutable ; he cannot change ; his rights cannot be invaded. What he now is, he always was and ever will be. The whole uni- verse could not put forth an arm long enough to reach even the foundations of his throne. He liveth forever deeply interested in the happiness of all his creatures, yet perfectly independent of them. While "he can. not be tempted," he tempteth no man. He dwells beyond temptation's reach. Not so with his crea- tures. They are placed in such a variety of circum- stances, and their relations to each other are such, that the moral government of God is necessary to make the possession of the powers with which intelli- gent beings are endowed safe to those with whom they are connected. The great design of the divine law is to make moral agents act right or felicitously to- ward each other, and all creatures with whom they are connected. Religion does not consist so much in what some call devotion to God, as in righteousness to man. True devotion is humble obedience. While we are to love God with all our hearts, we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. The measure of love we are to have to our fellows is the love we have to our- selves. Self-love renders us incapable of consenting for a moment to our own pain or injury. We can consent to suffer pain for the sake of gain, but never for its own sake. We are wholly incapable of choos- ing misery for misery's sake. This is a fixed law of mind. And this measure of love the divine law re- quires us to have to our neighbor, and we can no more consent to his injury than to our own, while governed by it. But obedience to the divine law does more than this. It brings our powers under contri- bution to each other's good — makes them act well on our neighbor. Actions have tendencies irrespective of any moral character which may be given them by law. Were I to strike another with my might, that act would in- flict pain, had no prohibition been given. Our pow- ers may be employed in producing happiness or mis- ery; and the great design of the divine law is to make them productive of delight. This is the great principle established in the text: "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor," and therefore fulfils the law. What the law requires, love does. Love fills the 8 measure of the law which God has given man for the government of his whole life; and to work ill to no neighbor is at once the obiect and fulfilment of this law. The objects of the divine law are to prevent misery and to produce happiness. A heart that can consent to inflict misery on a fly, is at war with the principles of the law of Jehovah, and is unlike the Holy One. Now as love fulfils the law because it worketh no ill to any neighbor — to any person — its great object must be, to make the possession of the powers bestowed on man safe to those with whom he is associated. Permit me to illustrate this position : suppose large pipes were placed just over each pew in this house, within reach of the people in them, — one fdled with scalding water, impregnated with the most corroding and caustic substances ; the other with the most fragrant odors, as exhilarating as the air of heaven, — and stop-cocks in these pipes over each person in the house, so that every one might turn a key and let in a stream of odor or of scalding coro- sive, as he might choose. The hand that turned a water key might be the first injured, but not the only sufferer. Would it be unreasonable or unjust to pro- hibit the actor from injuring himself and those around him ? Surely not. But suppose these hands cannot be still, that they must turn some of these keys, would it not be indis- pensable to securo the happiness of those occupying trUe house, for him who might be the author of thii 9 state of things, to require each hand to turn an odor key, to prevent it from turning a hot water one, and thus make every hand contribute to its own happiness, and the happiness of those with whom it is associated, instead of letting in a stream of misery or death. Let every odor key be turned, and at once the place is filled with the sweetness of heaven. These pipes and keys may serve to illustrate the moral govern- ment of God. Actions have tendencies ; some produce felicity, others infelicity. The immortality within us is a liv- ing principle of ceaseless activity — a perennial fire that never goes out. Throw the soul into a state of quietus, and you might as well annihilate it. Action is to the mind what breathing is to the body, — its life. The great design of the government of Jehovah is to make beings thus constituted instruments of each other's happiness, both in time and in eternity, and by employing them constantly in producing delight, prevent them from producing misery. The law of God prohibits all those actions or things which would directly or indirectly give the slightest pain, or sad- den for a moment a single heart ; and requires the employment of the unceasingly active powers of the mind in doing what will increase the general joy, widen the openings of the fountains of life, and cause the streams thereof to flow deeper and wider in waves of increasing delight — to bear creation for- ward toward the throne of God, from whence pours forth all the bliss that the Infinite can impart to fi- 10 nites. And all this is done in a way which will strengthen the bonds which unite social beings. It makes them instruments of each other's happiness — increases their obligations to each other forever. What wisdom, what love in this arrangement ! How near will the operation of this law bring together, through an eternal heaven, the inhabitants of the worlds of joy ! With what delight will this arrange- ment be contemplated through eternity ! Let none suppose, for one moment, that the moral government of God will not require obedience to his law in heaven ; for the perfection of earthly obedience is to do the will of God on earth as it is done in heaven ; to obey his law here as it is obeyed there. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbor." But who is my neighbor ? Some may be ready to answer, the man in the next door, across the street, or on the next farm. The neighborhood of some is very small. They are not willing to acknowledge that the slave in the South is their neighbor ; they are unwilling to know that he is. Let us examine into who is our neighbor. The word in the original is rhe, a verbal noun : it comes from the verb ra ah, to see, — or he saiv, viewed, beheld, perceived, knew, discerned, — and means the person seen, perceived, or discerned ; hence I am neighbor to any person I have any knowledge or conception of. This comports with our Lord's definition in the case of the man who fell among thieves. He was a Jew. The priest lived near him, and so did the Levite. The priest went down on ono 11 side, the Levite on the other ; but neither gave him the needed aid. How his heart must have leaped for joy, when he saw his brother Jew approaching him,-^- more, when he saw his priest ! But what a change of feeling when his priest passed by and paid no at- tention to him ! But his hope revived when hearing the footsteps of a man approaching him, he looked and saw his Levite ; but soon died, as he saw him pass by on the other side. He must have given himself up to die, when the men of his own sanctuary, whose only business was to serve the people at the altar of the living Jehovah, had no hearts to feel for him, or hands to give relief. But the sound of footsteps fall again upon his ear, and behold a Samaritan ap- proaches ! A man of another nation, an enemy of the Jews — his enemy — a sad reflection ; but this stran- ger spoke kindly to him, took him to an inn, and re- lieved all his wants. How unexpected must all this have been ! Our Lord asked who was neighbor to him who fell among thieves ? The Jews answered, "he who showed him kindness;" and the Savior ac- cepts the answer. This settles the meaning. Ac- cording to the literal meaning of the word, any per- son that I can see, perceive, or have any knowledge of, is my neighbor ; and according to our Lord, any person to whom I can show kindness. We can do some act af kindness to all, even the slaves over the river, yea, in the far south. We cannot go there and unloose their chains, but we can send up fervent prayer to the Grod of heaven for them, and he can 12 and will do it. If we are not good men and women we ought to be, and what we ought to be we may be, and the effectual fervent prayer of the righteous availeth much. And as we can pray for all men, we can show kindness to all, — be neighbor to all ; every human being is our neighbor. The entirety of hu- manity is the neighborhood of Christianity. The human being does not live for whom we can- not pray — to whom we cannot show kindness. Away with the mistaken notion, — I will use scriptural lan- guage, and say — damnable heresy, which confines our sympathies — our christian affection to the narrow limits of the smoke of our fires. Blessed be the name of the Most High, I can be neighbor to every human being ; my neighborhood is as big as the world — the world is the neighborhood of the christian — yes, and if there were beings in the moon for whom Christ died, to save from sin, they would be in my neighborhood too ; and I could act the part of a neighbor to them — sympathize with them through Jesus, our living head, as the members of the body sympathize with each other through their common head. Does slavery work ill ? If it does, it conflicts with the law of love, which fulfills the law of God, — is the law of God. I think none who heard me last night, can doubt for a moment that it works ill, and if so, it falls under the condemnation of scripture. Some say, "show me, thus saith the Lord, and I will be- lieve." I think I can do it. I will try presently . But slavery assumes such a variety of shapes, phases, 13 and forms, that to condemn it In one form would not cover the whole ground, or even in many forms would leave some modification of it uncondemned. The scriptures condemn every element that enters into the composition of slavery, just as the Pope curses her- etics, beginning at the "topmost hair," and curses every muscle, sinew, tendon, and fibre, from the head to the toes, and then curses the whole man. This is a very effectual way to curse, and in this effectual way the scriptures condemn slavery ; condemn all the ele- ments which enter into its composition, and then con- demn it by name — the name the God of heaven has given it in his word ; from this condemnation there is no escape. I have heard some professed christians say, that they were "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," but they believed the Bible sanctioned it. This is an extremely awkward position. These persons' morality is purer than the Bible. They condemn as wicked what the Bible sanctions as righteous. I could not bring myself to proclaim, that my principles were purer than my admitted rule of faith and practice, which is a revelation from an infinitely pure and holy God. But some go even thus far, to apologize for slavery. It is not to be wondered at ; the mainten- ance of error is always inconsistent. I will call your attention to some of those passages of the Holy Scriptures which have been claimed as giving support to slavery. Leviticus xxv. 44, 45, and 46, are mainly relied on for its support, — are claimed 2 14 as the great foundation of the system, and are on this account entitled to a careful examination. I Here I will say, I am a southerner ; have lived thirty-two years in the slave States ; have preached to slaves and slaveholders hundreds of times. I then believed, as I now do, that any person living and dy- ing in the spirit and practice of slavery, would be in- evitably lost ; and this doctrine I have preached to slaveholders repeatedly. From my earliest recollec- tion, all persons of whom I had any knowledge, ad- mitted that slavery was wrong. The religion of the entire South condemned it as wrong, up to 1834. At that time an old J), D,, who had formerly been Presi- dent of a College in the county and State in which I was born and raised, made the important discovery, jthat the sin was in the abuse, not in the use ; that the relation was sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures, while the abuse was condemned by them. He was at that time a Professor in a theological seminary. This im- portant discovery was first made known in an ecclesi- astical association in Virginia, my native State. The subject of modern abolitionism was then be- ginning to excite the South. One member of the as- sociation said, in an inflammatory speech, that, "if the abolitionists would set the country on fire, it would be right to give them the first warming.*' The learned D. D. said, " I think we are in error ; we have ad- mitted that slavery was sinful. This we have always acknowledged, and if our premises be correct, the conclusions of the abolitionists are undeniable. If 15 slavery be a sin, it must be immediately repented of, to secure the divine favor, as immediate repentance is required of all sinners ; but I think, brethren, Tire have conceded too much. If we examine the subject carefully, we shall find that slavery is a relation sanc- tioned by the scriptures ; that this relation is not sin- ful ; and the sin is not in the relation, but in the abuse of it, and that we have confounded the abuse of slave- ry with its use. The abolitionists have taken advan- tage of this admission, and have assailed slavery, which is right, with the weapons which the scriptures furnish to correct its sinful abuses, not its proper uses." This was the first intimation that slavery was not sinful ; and as soon as it was brought forth by this D. D., it ran like fire in dry stubble all over the South, and over a great part of the North too. I spent several days, in this State, in public debate with two presbyterian ministers, who undertook to prove, from the book of God, that slavery was not only sanc- tioned by that book, but it was of divine appointment. This Reverend Doctor made another discovery, which was as little creditable to him as this : that it Was a sin for a slave to pray to the Almighty on the sabbath-day, if the master was administering chastise- ment. This discovery was made in this wise : he was a slaveholder, and a severe one too, and often with his own hands applied the cowhide to the naked backs of his slaves. On one occasion a woman, who served in the house, committed on Sunday an offense of too great a magnitude to go unpunished until Monday. 16 In towns and cities slaves are generally whipped in cellars, to prevent their cries from being heard as far as they would he in other situations. This is not the case on the plantations. The Doctor lived in a town, and on this occasion took his woman into the cellar, and as is usual in such cases, stripped her from her waist up, and then applied the lash. The poor woman writhed and winced under each stroke, and cried, Oh! master, have mercy! Oh! master, do have mercy ! but without effect. She then cried, Oh, Lord ! Oh Lord ! ! Oh LORD ! ! ! The Rever- end Doctor then stopped, and his hand fell to his side as .though it had been stricken with the palsy, gazed on the woman with astonishment, and thus addressed her (the congregation will pardon me for repeating his words) : " hush, you b — h, will you take the name of the Lord in vain on the sabbath-day ? " And when he had stopped the woman from the gross pro- fanity of crying to God in her distress on the sabbath- day, finished whipping her, and then went to his pul- pit and essayed to preach that gospel which proclaims liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison- doors to them who are bound. This was the man who made the important discovery that slavery is not sin- ful ; and surely he was just the man for such a work. Rut he is now where the servant is freed from his master — he has gone to his reward. Let us go to the South, and take up the resolutions of southern Presbyterian Synods, and Methodist Con- ferences. These have taken the ground that slavery IT is not sinful — is not a moral evil. And in the addres of our Methodist Bishops,* at the General Conferenc of 1840, the same ground is substantially taken. The t would not have slavery preached against as a sin, bu the master and slave both converted and brought int the church, and in the relation of master and slave live and die, and get to heaven. This is the doctrine of the bishops of the M. E. Church, and of the church too. The church never has required her slaveholding members to free their slaves, as a condition of salvation or membership — does not now do it ; has always taught that entire sanctification was an indispensable condi- tion of salvation in heaven, and that Providence de- signed by Methodism to " spread scriptural holiness through these lands," — and yet have from the first admitted that slaveholders might be saved — now take that ground ; consequently, that slaveholding is not inconsistent with entire sanctification ; for the argu- ment when stated stands thus : None but entirely sanctified persons can be saved, — slaveholders can be saved, — therefore, slaveholders can be entirely sanc- tified. I admit this church has always said that slavery was "a great evil," but never considered it an evil of sufficient magnitude to exclude slaveholders either from the church or heaven ; and that which does neither of these, is no great evil after all. According to this doctrine, "master use-well" is as good a christian as grace can make, all things else being right. And "master use-ivelV is a very eom- * The author was at that time an Episcopal Meths«&st. 2* 18 mon character at the South ; you may find him or. every plantation. All slaveholders claim to use their slaves well ; and each is left to determine this question for himself, as the church has not even attempted any standard, except to allow slaves to go to meeting and to receive some religious instruction, but nothing further ; and, according to their showing, none of them are in danger of being lost on account of slavery. It may be asked, how did this opinion obtain such general acceptance ? This passage in Leviticus, and some texts in the New Testament which speak of master and servant, were glossed over so as to appear to favor slavery ; and thus the conclusion was reached that it was not a moral evil, for a pure and holy God could not in any circumstances sanction sin. The introduction of this argument was as follows : After the Spaniards had discovered South America, and commenced working the gold mines of that continent, they employed the Indians in them. The amount of gold required by the Spaniards was more than the In- dians could procure ; and they were worked so hard that many of them died. The priests (for the Jesuits had large possessions* and influence in South Ameri- ca at this time), out of compassion for those oppressed beings, proposed to introduce slaves to divide the la- bor with them. The Portuguese had commenced the slave-trade at that time ; and applications were made by the priests and Jesuits to Charles V., and the Pope of Rome, for permission to buy slaves of the Portu- * See Robertson's Charles V, 19 guese, but they both refused. Las Casas, a priest, and afterward a bishop, glossed over the 25th of Le- viticus, and some parts of the New Testament, so as to adapt, or rather pervert, them to their purpose. He argued that the Jews were authorized, or required, to buy heathen servants — " servants of the heathen," and teach them the worship of the true God — to ju- daize them, and so far from it being a sin to enslave heathen to make them Christians, it was a duty ; for the Jew had been required to enslave them to make them Jews, a less blessed state. This plea was suc- cessful, and the emperor granted permission to buy four or five thousand annually, to be employed in the gold-mines, notwithstanding his former decision. The Jesuitical priest proposed to take the heathen from a state of barbarism — from a land of idolatry, from the altars of their pagan gods, and bring them to a land of gospel-light — to the temples of the true God. In a word, to bless them with Christianity— to bless them with faith and hope in God, and to send them through the gold-mines to the city whose streets are paved with gold. And thus avarice, in the disguise of Christ- ianity, succeeded in reconciling one of the greatest sins with the christian profession, in the judgment of many ; and did more to make sensible men infidels than was ever done at any other one time, or by any other set of men the world ever saw. The emperor resigned his throne to his son Phil- lip, and retired to a monastery ; but previous to his abdication he repealed this act of privilege ; but tho 20 interest of the trade had become so lucrative, that his successor paid no attention to the repeal, and the trade went on. This was the commencement of the slave- trade and American slavery. These glosses of Las Casas were improved by the Jesuits. Then came Cal- met, the great biblical lexicographer, and adopted these glosses. Then followed Scott, Henry, Dodd, Gill, Coke, Benson, and Clarke, and with one accord and without examination adopted Calmet. Thus the pro-slavery glosses of Las Casas and the -Jesuits have obtained among biblical critics, both Calvinistic and A r mini an i These glosses run through all our com- mentaries ; but a careful examination of the subject will prove that they are in error on this most import- ant point. Our commentators were good men, wise men, and learned men ; — but the mind of the church was occupied with the jive points, tvatev laptism, and Catholicism. Slavery was not a subject of investiga- tion, much less the subject, and no candid or careful examination of it was made in their day. This is proven by the fact that all adopt Calmet, without questioning any of his positions, or taking any new ones. But I think you will presently be convinced that slavery finds no support in the 25th chapter of Leviticus. All parts of the Divine Government harmonize. Infinite wisdom has so arranged its proportions that the whole operates without a jar. The Jewish The- ocracy was of divine appointment, — the arrangement of infinite wisdom ; hence the operation of the whole 21 must have been harmonious ;. no conflict could ever take place in its action as is sometimes the case with our general and State governments, and all human contrived institutions. There are three things brought to view in this chapter: 1st. the Great Atonement ; 2nd. the Jubilee ; and 3rd. the bringing in of the heathen to the enjoyment of the religious privileges of the Jewish Theocracy. All these are set forth in this chapter. The institution of the atonement is in the 16th chapter, from 29th verse to the end of the chapter, and is again repeated in 23rd chapter, from 26th to the 33rd. This institution was typical of the great atonement made by God's Eternal Son for sin, and was designed to keep the eye of the Jew's faith stead- ily fixed on him who was to come. This was one of the most important institutions of the Jewish Theocra- cy, if not the most important, and was to be observed yearly, with the strictest religious devotion. The 25th chapter contains the institution of the Jubilee, which was typical of the liberty from sin which the atonement of Christ was designed to secure. On this point all commentators, as far as my know- ledge of them goes, are agreed. This institution was associated with the atonement^ was to take place on the day of atonement, which the Apostle, in the 10th chapter of Hebrews, connects with the great atone- ment of Christ, and shows clearly was not designed to cleanse the Jews from sin, but to fix their eves on him by whose stripes they were to be healed. The 22 blowing of the trumpets on the day of atonement was typical of the gospel-trumpet of salvation — the pro- clamation of freedom from sin, which was to follow the tragedy of Calvary. And the bringing in of the heathen from the surrounding nations was typical of the gathering of the gentiles into the gospel-kingdom by the preaching of the truth, which makes free the slaves of sin — the gospel-jubilee of freedom from the bondage of corruption and sin, into the liberty of the sons of God. But according to the pro-slavery expo- sition, slavery is a type of the liberty of the truth — of salvation from the bondage of sin. A queer type of the liberty of the sons of God. I propose to show that this chapter contains tlio constitution of Heaven's first Missionary Society, and that the arrangement for the purchase of servants was a provision of Divine compassion, by which a door of mercy and salvation was opened to the hea- then, through which they could find access to the altar of sacrifice ordained of God, find mercy and live ; and furthermore, to prove that the whole arrangement looked to the benefits of the servants, and not those of the masters. To understand the Jewish economy, we must look at all its peculiarities. The harmonized action of the various parts exhibits the design of that economy. The first particular we shall notice, is the land could never be sold. It was divided among the tribes, fam- ilies, households and persons, Lev. 25. 23, Josh, from U to 20 ch f , and 7 and 15, 17, and 18, The Lord 23 claimed the lands as his. It might change hands for a season by a limited sale, or rather what we would "call a lease, but it might be redeemed at any time, and if not redeemed before the Jubilee, went back to its original owner without redemption. The only ex- ception to this statute was a house in a walled town, which might be redeemed in one year, but if not re- deemed in that time, did not go out free in the Jubilee. Lev. xxv. 29, 30. In this chapter we have in a very small compass the very best system of democracy the world was ever blessed with. Here was a plan to maintain equality. None could be poor long, and none could out-strip their brethren in wealth for any length of time, for if a reverse of circumstances obliged any to sell their lands, they might redeem them, should a favorable change take place, or any of their family or near kin might do it for them ; but if neither hap- pened, the lands reverted to their original possessors in the Jubilee, and thus all things found their level every fifty years. Well would it be for our world, if statesmen, instead of wading through so many trashy volumes of political economy, would take their prin- ciples from the word of God. See Lev. 25, 26, and 27. Now, from this peculiarity, what was the situation of strangers in Judea ? They could purchase no land, for there was none for sale, and they could not ob- tain any permanent possession, except in a walled town. They could have no permanent residence, ex- cept in the character of servants or dependents, ex- cept in a walled city ; not one foot of land could be obtained by one of the strangers outside of walls, from Dan to Beer Sheba. And it must be noticed that tributaries, such as the Gibeonites, who maintained their nationality, were not permitted to enjoy the privileges of the Jewish churchy to enjoy these priv- ileges they had to loose their nationality, become fam- ily servants, or live in a walled town. This was the only door — mark this ! A second peculiarity of great importance to the proper understanding of this subject, is the place the true God was then worshiped. First the Tabernacle, and then the Temple, was the house of prayer for all nations and people. Isa. Lvi. 7, and Math. xxi. 13. There was the true altar ; the divinely appointed sacrifices were to be offered there, and no where else but there ; there the symbols of the Divine presence hung over the mercy-seat ; there was the Ark of the Covenant ; there, and only there, God met, in mercy, his people. And this was the case until the veil of the Temple was rent at the time of the crucifixion. Up to that time all men had to worship the Father at Jerusalem ; but when the Atonement was made, the Divine presence was no longer confined to the Jewish mercy-seat, but wher- ever two or three were gathered together in the name of Him who our transgressions bore, there His presence should be in the midst of them — there was a mercy-seat. But how were persons not of the fam- ily of Jacob to worship the true God, while the Di- vine presence was confined to the Jewish mercy-seat 'i 25 How were those who were disposed to leave their idols and heathen customs to approach the true God, and Worship him in his Temple, — to become worshipers of Israel's God? They must go to Jerusalem — they must become Jews ; for the uncircumcised were not permitted to partake of his ordinances, or approach his sanctuary; Ex. xii. 48, and Gen. xvii. 14, — and the only way th. could do this was to become incor- porated into a J< wish family, or to live in a walled town. And the door opened in this chapter is the only door that ever was opened, through which pious Gentiles could approach to God, in his ordinances, previous to the crucifixion ; and the provision relative to the houses in walled towns, and family servitude, was that door, all that door and nothing but that door. This will appear from the following consider- ations. The law of circumcision required all males to be circumcised, whether born in the house or bought with money. Gen. xvii. from 10 to 15. This covenant, made with Abraham, was imposed on all the Jews at the institution of the Passover, Ex. xii. 48. And Joshua imposed circumcision on all the Jews before they were permitted to enter the promised land, Josh, v. from 2 to 10. The law of circumcision was imposed on the Jews as one of their institutions. All males were required to appear three times a year before the Lord, to offer sacrifices to God — to worship the Most High, Ex. xxiii. from 15 to 20. The servants bought with money — bought servants were required to keep 3 26 the passover, both male and female, but all the male* ■were required to be circumcised before they kept it — Ex. xii.. from 43 to the end of the chapter. These servants were required to keep the Sabbath holy — Ex. xx. 10. The whole Jewish nation, both male and fe- male, were required to keep the feast of the passover, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles every vear. Their man-servants and their maid-servants, their widows and fatherless, and the strangers which were among them. The whole nation — Deut. xvi. from 10 to 18. These three feasts were to be kept by all ; but in keeping, all the males were required to appear before the Lord in the place he might choose ; and he chose Jerusalem as that place — Deut. xvi. 16, Ex. xxiii. 17, and xxxiv. 23, 26. The women were to keep them at home, they were not required to ap- pear before the Lord in the place which he might choose. And these duties were all required of the kind of servants spoken of in the 25th of Leviticus — "bought servants." These servants were required to do all the religious duties imposed on the Jews — to be just as strict in their attention to the worship of the great "I am," as the children of Jacob were. There was one law for both in relation to those duties — Ex. xii. 49. And these duties were conditions of a name and a place in the congregation of Israel, and a right to the privileges of the house of God. He that was circumcised was debtor to keep the whole law ; and he that was not circumcised was to be cut off from God's people, Gal. v. 3, and Gen. xvii. 14. 27 None could belong to the people of God who did not attend to those duties. The Jewish servants were hired servants, and as such could not keep the pass- over in the family in which they were hired. Lev. xxv. 89, 40. Ex. xii. 45. The Jewish or hired ser- vants belonged to some Jewish family, and they were required to keep it in their own families, Ex. xiii. 3, 4. Now let one of those heathen servants refuse to be circumcised, or refuse to discharge any of these duties (see Gen. xvii. 14, Ex. xii. 15 and 19, Lev. xvii. 12 to 14, Num. xv. 30, 31), and he would be cut off from the congregation of Israel ; expatriated from the na- tion would no longer have a name or place in Israel. Every heathen had to become religious, to submit to all these rites and observances, in order to become a servant, and to continue them if he would remain one. From this fact it is not only plain but undeniable, that the end of this servitude was the salvation of those servants. The Jews were commanded to have the same law for the stranger they had for him who was home-born, Ex. xii. 49, Lev. xxiv. 16 and 22 ; and they were positively forbidden to vex or oppress the stranger, Ex. xxii. 21. Why was this special precept in favor of strangers given, seeing they had all the religious privileges of the Jews ; all the privileges of every kind — why this over and above ? Plainly because they came among the Jews for a knowledge of the true God. And the Jews were prohibited from throwing a stumbling-block in their way, or producing disgust 28 in their mind, or in any way discouraging them in the worship of the true God, or tempting them to return to their former idols. The whole was for the servant's benefit, — looked to his ultimate salvation in Heaven, as we shall see more clearly presently. Another important fact will throw light on this servitude. The law of God nowhere authorized the selling of men. The Jews might sell women, hut not men. They might sell their own daughters for wives, but not for eond-maids. The Jew bought his wife — paid a dower for her, and if he did not like her, after- wards, he had to perform the duty of marriage to her ; or if he bought a wife for his son, he was to deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he did not like her, she might be redeemed, but not sold to a stranger, and if she was not redeemed, and he took to him another wife, she went out free, if her food, raiment, and duty of marriage was not to be withheld : Ex. xxi. 7 to 11. Jacob, because he was poor, had to serve seven years for his beloved Rachel, and was then cheated by Laban, and had to serve seven other years to obtain the object of his love. He obtained a wife for his first seven years* service, but not his Rachel. The sale of daughters for wives is the only case in which any person was authorized to sell an- other — where a third person was sold. Another in- stance can not be produced. The law of Cod punished with death the stealing of a man, the selling of a man, or the retaining in hands the stolen man, and the term man, in this precept, includes the race ; is gener- 29 icaliy used. The stealing of a human being is what the law forbids. If we compare Ex. xxi. 16, with Deut. xxiv. 7, we will see that selling is a separate and distinct crime from stealing, though our transla- tion couples them by and in Ex., but the particle in the Hebrew is the same that is rendered OR in the same verse, "or if he be found in his hand" — or, here, is the same particle that is rendered and in "He that stealeth a man and selleth him," and ought to' be or. In Deut. xxiv. 7, selling is made a distinct crime, to be punished with death. If the opposite view be urged, man-stealing alone would not be a crime — any more than man-selling, for they are coup- led by and ; this is not claimed, and if this be given up, the other must be granted, for if man-stealing by itself be a crime, man-selling by itself is something, and that something is a crime, punishable with death. In the chapter under consideration, it is all buy and no sell. Permission is given to buy servants, but none to sell them. Some have contended that the term bond-ser- vants in this chapter was indicative of slaves ; but the Hebrew malces no distinction between servants ; there is nothing in the original to authorize the prefix " bond." The word is oved, plural ovedim, and comes from the verb a-vad (I follow the pronunciation of Roy). 1. He sowed, labored, cultivated, tilled, as the ground. 2. Submitted, obeyed, worshiped. 3. Min- istered or served, as in the sanctuary. 4. Was sus- tained or supported, as by the produce of the field. 3* 30 5. He ploughed, wrought, as with a heifer. 6. Pre- pared, made ready. 7. Was subdued, enslaved. 8. Caused to contend, warred, served, as a soldier. — - Roy's dictionary. To subdue or inslave is but a re- mote meaning of the word ; there is as much or more authority for translating the word ploughman or ox driver as slave.* The servants obtained from the heathen, " bought servants," were members of tho congregation of Israel, held to the same duties the native Jews \|ere — were in fact Jews, by adoption or proselytism ; and placed under the protection of the same laws. This we have seen. Heathen might be- come members of the congregation of Israel — Jews, by proselytism. The Ammonites and Moabites might not enter in— they were excluded. We have some il- lustrious examples of persons becoming Jews,, and eveji Ruth, the great grandmother of David, was a Moabitess. Now let us see how such a system of slavery aa ours would work, in connection with the Jewish provi- sions just noticed. I will illustrate it thus : my friend, * Dr. Rice, in Lis debate with Mr. Blanchard, claimed that the word oved meant slave, though the word slave occurs but once it the bible; this word being by our translators rendered servant everywhere in the bible. Dr. Rice,, wben pressed with this fact by his opponent, asked what Hebrew word meant slave if this did not ! Mt. Blanchard replied that the Hebrews expressed slave by cir- cumlocution. But the truth is, they did not express it all, for slavery had no existence in the time of Abraham or Moses. Th* chattel principle was then unknown : the idea had no being, and oould have no sign. 31 Mr. Blan chard, goes to Pittsburgh and buys me — he brings me to Cincinnati; and the first thing he says to me is, " Come, my man, you must' be circumcised." This being a voluntary act on my part, as every act of Divine worship must be, I have the power to com- ply or refuse compliance, as I may choose, and I say, " No, sir, I will not be circumcised." He adds, " You cannot keep the passover unless you are." I reply, "I do not want to keep the passover." He adds again, " You cannot go up to Jerusalem to keep the feasts or offer sacrifice unless you are circum- cised." I reply, "I do not want to worship your Cincinnati god ; I have a better god in Pittsburgh than yours, and I prefer to worship him." He then says, " You cannot dwell in this land unless you con- form to our usage, and worship our God." I reply, " I do not want to dwell in your land — I will not wor- ship your God ; and you dare not sell me. If you do, your own laws will put you to death ; you cannot keep me unless I am circumcised, and this I never will be ; and though you have bought me, you are a Jew and dare not sell me ; and as you can neither keep me nor sell me, I am out of your power, and will go back to my wife and children in Pittsburgh." And thus I politely bid master Blanchard "good day," Here ends my enslavement. And this was precisely the case with those bondmen; they could not be held as bought servants unless they were cir- cumcised, and they could not be sold. So, if they refused to be circumcised, their bondage was at aa 32 end ; for a slave that can be neither kept nor sold is free. Here is an end of this pretended slavery ; this all buying and no selling business. Slavery cannot be got in here ; it would be harder than to get a camel through the eye of a needle. I could as soon undertake to get an elephant through, as to find sup- port for the bloody abomination in this chapter. That those who became servants did it voluntarily, is posi- tively proven by the fact, that they were met at their entrance into that servitude, with a voluntary religi- ous duty, through which they had to pass, as the door into it ; and it was with them, and not their buyers, to say whether they would go into that door or not. This is a fact, than which nothing can be plainer. Oh how blinded, or rather ignorant, must D. D.'s be, who can find American slavery in this chapter ! But it may be asked, how were they bought? Suppose the heathen servants were kidnapped, as our slaves were at first, they must have been sold by their kidnappers to some one ; and what Jew would buy one of those stolen men either directly from the kid- napper, or at second hand, seeing his own law would put him to death for having a stolen man in his hands. Permit me to continue my illustration : I am stolen and sold to Mr. Blanchard. I am a stolen man, and found in the hands of my friend. Your law would put him to death for having in his hands a stolen man ; and as neither he, nor any other person in your government dare sell me, I would be free, unless I agreed to be circumcised, and he would be hung. 33 And this was precisely the case with those olden time servants. Should the high priest have bought one, he would have been put to death for having a stolen man in his possession, and the man would have been free. Of whom, then, were these heathen servants bought? Of themselves, they might sell themselves, but no Jew dare sell one of them ; their sale was their own act and deed, they entered into this service volunta- rily, and for their own benefit. And as at their en- trance, and during their continuance in it, they were required to worship the living and true God, accord- ing to his law, they must have entered this service for pious purposes. This service was a holy service, and entering it was joining the Jewish church — God's only church on earth at that time. This is undeni- able. Every year these servants were required to keep the passover, as a condition of their remaining mem- bers of the congregation of God's people, or having a place as a bought servant in any Jewish family. See Ex. xii. 15 and 19. Now suppose a Jew should obtain the consent of a heathen to become circum- cised, or of a woman to become a bond-maid, and should afterwards attempt to rule over him or her with rigor, how would his attempt be met? Once in each year these servants had to keep the passover. All this man or woman would have to do to secure their freedom, would be to eat a piece, no matter how small, of leavened bread, in the time of keeping the passover, and they would be free ; for if they did 84 this they could not remain in Israel ; and they could not — dare not — be sold by a Jew. And thus they could secure their freedom once a year as easily as a hungry man could eat a piece of bread. From this fact it is plain that they continued in this service from choice. How long would American slavery last if there were seven days in each year, in which the slaves could secure their freedom by eating a small piece of bread? The law required the Jews to love these strangers as they loved themselves, and not to rule over them with rigor. Lev. xix. 34 ; Ex. xxii. 21, and xxiii. 9 ; Deut. xii. 18, 19, and xxiv. 14 to 16. Why were these special commands given ? Because these ser- vants and strangers were Jewish proselytes, and the Jews were not allowed to throw stumbling-blocks in their way, by which they might become discouraged, or turned back to their former idolatry, which they were free to do, as we have seen. As a farther proof that the discharge of the religious duties before men- tioned was a condition of those servants or strangers remaining in the land of Israel, see Leviticus, chap. vii. But it may be inquired, what is man-stealing, which was punishable with death by the Jewish law ? Joseph said, Gen. xl. 15, " for indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." Here we have the authority of the Holy Ghost, that what was done to Joseph constituted man-stealing. And the history of that doing is most explicit. He was sold by a third person or third persons without his con- 35 sent — money was paid for him to his sellers, and he was made to serve without his consent. Here is the whole history of that transaction. And this, on the authority of God's Holy Word, is man-stealing. But who were the thieves in this case — the sellers or the buyers t Or were both implicated ? The man that takes the thing stolen is the thief — that possesses himself of it. Those who took Joseph — that pos- sessed themselves of him — were the thieves. To take possession of Joseph, without his consent, was to steal him ; and to maintain that possession was to continue the theft — than which nothing can be plainer. And here we see why man-selling was coupled by Jehovah with man-stealing in the death-penalty ; they are in very deed the same thing. And this is also true of him who holds the stolen man in his hands ; he continues the theft, and is therefore a thief too, and united with the others in the death-penalty. Their crimes are substantially the same, and God metes out to them the same punishment. The sellers of Joseph were by no means guiltless. They might be called kidnappers, the name of them who first seize on hu- man beings and rob them of their liberty — who first take possession of them without their consent ; but all who take human beings without their consent, first or last, are man-stealers. The principle is the very same throughout.* * But it may be said that Joseph was a minor. This does not alter the case. His father had a right of service in him, and not his brethren. This the Ishmaelites knew, and when they The law of God makes no distinction between theft and robbery ; they are one in the eye of his law. But in our law, to take that which belongs to another, — -his money or his property, or anything that is his, without his knowledge, — is stealing ; and to take it without his knowledge, and without his con- sent, is robbery ; but not so in the eye of the divine law. Robbery, according to human law, is theft ac- cording to the divine code. " Thou shalt not steal," includes all taking of that which belongs to another, without his consent. If I take your horse from you, without your consent, I steal it. If I take your money, without your consent, I steal it ; and so long as I keep them from your possession, and conse- quently from your use, I continue the theft. If I take you into my possession, without your consent, I take you out of your own, and steal you ; I do the same, the very same, to you I did to your horse and money — possess myself of what belongs to you, with- out your consent. You are the rightful owner of yourself, and I possess myself of you without your consent. This is man-stealing to all intents and pur- poses. If it be not, the crime never was, nor never bought him of his brethren they knew his brethren had no right to sell him, and they were thieves, for he was stolen from the land of the Hebrews, and they took him from that land by theft They possessed themselves of what belonged to another person, without the consent of that other person ; and they stole. Jacob had a right to Joseph's services. Joseph had a right to his per- son, and neither were consenting to the transaction. 37 can be, committed. And this was what was done to Joseph. Liberty is the birthright of every human being, and our declaration of independence declares it is inalienable, and that ought to be American or- thodoxy. It is, at any rate, Heavenly orthodoxy ; hence, whenever I see a man, I see his rightful owner, his claim to himself stands good, in the sight of the Judge of all the earth, against the claim of any, and all other persons ; and when I take possession of that man, without his consent, I know I take that which rightfully belongs to another person, and I steal ; and as long as I retain possession of him, I know that I retain possession of that which rightfully belongs to another person, and I steal. So that the buyer and holder are equal thieves with the first depriver of lib- erty, and God's law punishes them accordingly. The buyer knows that the seller has no right to the man, but that the man has a right to himself — that he can obtain no just right to the man, but that the man has a right to himself — that he can obtain no just right to the man from the seller ; for he has none, can have none. He does not buy the right to the man, for this is inalienable, and cannot be bought ; for it can- not be sold. He only buys the privilege of stealing the man. This is all. And when he exercises that privilege, becomes a thief; and, so long as he exer- cises it, remains a thief. Hence the buyer and the holder, in the sight of God's law, are equally guilty with the first depriver of liberty. But look at the Jewish commentators on this point, and the case 4 38 will appear, if possible, clearer and stronger. We have the comments of the most learned of their Kabbies. He says, " to use a man's arm in walking, against his consent, is a violation of the law against man-stealing." It is clear and undeniable, that to compel service, except for crime, of men who have the same natural rights the compeller has, is man- stealing, according to the inspired definition of the term. And if the servitude of those servants was not voluntary, but forced, then their masters were guilty of man-stealing, and liable to be put to death by the laws that governed them — dead men in the sight of their own laws. It is impossible to resist this con- clusion. We see the reason and truth of Mr. Wesley's de- claration, that "all slaveholders are man-stcalers" They do in all cases what was done to Joseph, pos- sess themselves of human beings without their consent, and exact from them involuntary or forced service ; and in the sight of God's law, they are all dead men. Slavery in all its modifications is man-stealing, and nothing but man-stealing, and coupled in the eye of the divine law with murder, in the death-penalty ; and in this connection it will be found standing in the Judgment of the Great Day. But many of these servants were rich, and owned servants. Ziba, the servant of Mephiboscth, had twenty servants. 2nd Samuel ix. 10. How very strange would it seem to us for any of the slaves of the South to own slaves — to be slave-owners. This cannot be ; 39 they can own nothing ; they cannot possess anything. All they are, can be, or have, must belong to their masters. So says the law of slavery. No man is so poor as the slave. Heaven's sun never shone upon a, human being so poor as he, so completely robbed of all ! And that Ziba and other wealthy servants were not Jewish, or hired servants, is proven from the fact that they had wealth, and Hebrew servants were poor, were sold for their poverty, and could be servants but for six years, in which time they could not accumulate wealth as hired servants. See Ex. xxi. 2 ; Lev. xxv. 39 ; Beut. xv. 12 ; and Jer. xxxiv. 13, 14, The true nature of Jewish servitude will be further illustrated by another peculiarity in the economy of that people, viz : the elder brother ship. In the patri- archal age, the elder brother was God's priest, and offered sacrifices to the Most High, see Gen. xii. T, 8, xiii. 18, xxvi. 25, xxxi. 54, xxxv. 7, and Job. i. 5. He also was civil ruler or king of his family — had the right to rule — Gen. xlix. 3, and 2nd Cliron. xxi. 3. He was to rule over the family according to the will of the Lord, and offer sacrifices for their sins. In the Jewish theocracy the priesthood of Aaron took the place of the priesthood of the first-born, which the Lord claimed as his — Ex. xxii. 29, and in the estab- lishing of the Aaronic priesthood the first-born was to be redeemed from the claim of the patriarchal priesthood. Numb, xviii. 15, 17. But the civil dig- nity continued among the Jews, and to maintain that dignity a double portion of the inheritance was given 40 hiin. Deut. xxi. 15 to 17. But it did not always oc- cur that the first-born possessed this dignity. The father could bestow it on a younger son, as did Abra- ham on Isaac*who was Ishmael's junior, and Isaac on Jacob, Esau's junior. This was in part prohibited in Deut. xviii. 15, 16, by debarring the father who had two wives from cutting out the first-born, on account of any dislike he might have to his mother. Servants might become sons, if they had been raised by their masters from children, and as sons inherit the birth- right or elder brothership ; this provision was. pecu- liarly applicable to those who had daughters only. Prow xxix. 21. These were not hired or Jewish ser- vants, for they did not go into servitude in infancy, nor could they be servants for more than six years, as we have seen. These were heathen or perpetual ser- vants. And these servants, if wise, could have rule over sons that were not wise or suitable to rule the family, and have part of the inheritance among the brethren. The rule might be given them, and they placed at the head of the family. Prov. xvii. 2. This made the son servant of the father's servant. These servants became parts of the Jewish families into which they were bought, or sold themselves, and were to be governed, as we have seen, by the same laws, perform the same duties, and enjoy the same holy privileges of worshiping God. They were to all in- tents and purposes Jews by adoption or proselytism, and as such were a part of God's people. There was, in fact, no difference between tho servant and the 41 child in any respect ; in proof of which we have the declaration of God by the mouth of the a*postle : " Now I say that the heir (elder brother), as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all." Gal. iv. 1. We have seen that there were two situations in which strangers could obtain a permanent residence in the land of the Jews, and worship the God of Is- rael according to their law. 1. By becoming servants in Jewish families. 2. By purchasing a house in a walled town. In either of these situations they could become permanent residents of Judea, and members of the congregation of Israel. I now call your atten- tion to the fact, that these servants were given choice of these situations. " Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped unto thee. Ho shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place he shall choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16. Within gates, was in walled towns, where strangers might obtain a permanent home, and these servants might leave their masters, and establish their families in those homes^ without let or hindrance. These dwellers or strangers might keep the Lord's passover if they were circumcised — as one born in the land — in a word, a Jew. Ex. xii. 48. Apply this provision of Jewish servitude to any system of slavery, ancient or modern, and it destroys it instantly ; no- thing but voluntary servitude can exist a single day under this divine statute* Now does it not appear, 4* 42 from all these considerations, as clear as anything can appear, that the servitude instituted in the 25th chap- ter of Leviticus was for the benefit of the servant — his religious benefit — and not for the benefit of the master? And that these servants could free them- selves at any time, and go back to the idolatry of their native land ; and when occasion offered to find a home in a walled town, to leave their servitude and live their, and still enjoy the privileges of the house of God. And that this servitude was a door through which the heathen could find a way to the true, the only altar of the living God, and those sacrifices which would secure his favor. In a word, that this chapter contains the constitution of the Jewish mis- sionary society, by which the perishing heathen might be gathered into the fold of God and live forever. But, strange to tell, learned divines have perverted this merciful arrangement of divine compassion, to justify, sustain, and even to make it a christian duty to practise the most heaven-daring wickedness ever practised by human beings in any age of the world. Heaven is not farther from hell, than the 25th chap- ter of Leviticus is from giving the most remote sup- port to slavery. ; There are some other passages of the Old Testa- ment which have been used in support of slavery ; they have been used as secondary evidence, and re- quire but a passing notice ; as Ex. xxi. 20 and 21. In this passage the servant is said to be the money of the master, and this is given as a reason why t&9 43 master should not be punished. But this chapter treats of the case of Hebrew servants, which none claim to be slaves. It is barely possible that the text applies to servants in general — all servants ; but there is no positive evidence of it. The marginal reading is not punished, but avenged — put to death by the avenger of blood, the kinsman of the servant, hence the servant must have been a Jew ; a heathen servant would likely have had no kinsman to avenge his death. If the servant was smitten with a " rod," not a deadly weapon, not one calculated to produce death, and live a day or two, it should be taken as evidence that the master did not intend to kill him, and the avenger of blood should not, in that case, fall on him and slay him ; and the fact that the master had an interest in the life of his servant, for whom he had paid a price, or money, was to be taken as evidence that he did not intend to kill him ; but it gave the master no right to kill him. For in the 12th verse of the same chapter, death is awarded as the punishment of " smiting a man, so that he die." The service of Hebrew ser- vants was paid for in advance, for their sale was to relieve them from poverty, or debt, and this could not be done unless the sale money was in advance. Ex. xxi. 2 ; Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 41, and Deut. xv. 12. But if he should not be punished or avenged, because the servant was his money, then if the servant died under the "rod," the master should not have been punished, for the same reason ; for the servant was as much his money in the one case as in the other. The weapon, 44 a rod, the time the servant lived after the punishment, and the interest the master had in preserving his life, are associated as evidence that the master did not in- tend to kill, and therefore should not fall into the hands of the avenger of blood ; but the congregation might judge the case. Numb. xxxv. 24, 25. This passage does not contain a shadow of evidence in favor of slavery. The case of Abraham's servants has been adduced in favor of slavery, but not mainly relied on. Abra- ham was a king in his day, and his subjects were his servants ; and a king, too, of power and prowess suf- ficient to defeat five kings of his times. Gen. xiv. He was in confederacy with the king of the Amorites, and with his brothers Eschol and Aner, verse 13. Kingdoms were small in those early times, about four hundred years after the flood, and Abraham was a great king in his day, for he armed at one time three hundred servants which had been born in his house. It required a large establishment to produce three hundred men for battle ; and with this number he overcame five kings of his times. It is something remarkable that Abraham, a stranger, should, in a strange land,, become rich so soon, on the supposition of all these persons being slaves ; but it is not sur- prising that he should become a king. The family of man had become too numerous in his days to live by hunting, and grazing and agriculture began to be practised. There was but very little agricultural ex- perience, and instruments for that purpose must have/ 45 been very imperfect ; and flocks and herds were then grazed in the woods, and guarded by herdsmen and shepherds from wild beasts and banditties of robbers ; and this state of things drove men together into small bands, for mutual support and protection. The most wise and energetic of these bands were chosen for their captain. These captains became kings, and these bands kingdoms ; and there were many of them in these early days. Nine kings met in pitched bat- tle when Lot was taken prisoner ; and the five victori- ous kings were afterward defeated by Abraham. Those little bands formed the first kingdoms after the flood, and became the seeds of the great monarchies which followed. See Shuckford, Vol. II, pp. 85, 86, 87, 88. The servants of those early days were sub- jects of petty kings. Some twenty years after the defeat of the five kings we find Abraham in Gerar, the kingdom of Abimelech, fearing before the king, and receiving presents and servants from him — a great change in his circumstances. And at his death no account is given of his heirs possessing his ser- vants, nor is there in the case of any of the patri- archs giving servants to heirs. That Abraham's ser- vants were voluntary servants, or rather subjects of a kingdom., in which they had with him a joint interest, is found in the fact that they were armed and trusted in battle ; and about twenty years after we find him in Grerar, without protection. i Some contend that the bond-men and bond-maids which were to be from the surrounding heathen, and 46 the children of strangers spoken of in Lev. xxv. 44, 45, and 46, which the Jews were to have for a " pos- session," and were to take for an inheritance for their children after them, to inherit for a possession, to be their "bonds-men forever," proves slavery to be of divine authority, for these persons were slaves. The expression in the 46th verse, " they shall be your bond-men forever," is translated in the margin, "ye shall serve yourselves of them," &c. The translation of the 46th verse is very defective indeed, as every Hebrew scholar must admit. The verb na-chal: 1. he " possessed" enjoyed, occupied; 2. inherited, owned; 3. divided, distributed, polluted, prrofancd" is translated "to take;" not to take possession of them — but to take them for their children after them as an inheritance is taken, which is no one of its meanings. The principal words, which are translated take, are a-chaz. " He seized, caught, took posses- sion of." La-chad; " lie caught, seized, laid hold of." La-hach; "He took off." Ka-val; " He took." Ka-matz ; "He took." Ta-pJuw : "He united." .Na-chal is in the hithpael conjugation. Ve-hith na- chal-tim ; the verb is second person plural, masculine, past tense, given a future signification by the use of vov. The hithpael conjugation is reflective, and shows what the agent of the verb does to himself, and not what another does to him. They were not to take the heathen, and the children of those who sojourned in their land; but to possess or enjoy themselves of them. The meaning is : the Jews and their children 4T after them should possess themselves of "bought ser- vants" from the heathen and the children of those strangers, forever ; and this agrees with the margin, i. e. they should always get this class of servants from these sources. The term "forever" has no re- ference to the time the servants were to serve ; but to the time the Israelites should obtain tins class of ser- vants from those two sources. And the original gives no support to the idea, that these servants were to be a perpetual inheritance for the Jews and their chil- dren after them. He who gives it this meaning is ignorant of the original, or intentionally dishonest. Th^ Jews, and their children after them, were forever to obtain, or possess themselves of, this class of ser- vants from the heathen, and the children of the so- journing strangers. This is the meaning of the orig- inal. Indeed, we are shut up to this meaning — it will bear no other. Some have made a distinction between servants and bond-se?*va?its ; but the original makes no distinc- tion. In the 49 th verse, where our translation has "bond-servant," the original is lo-teth a-vad vo a-bo- dath a-ved ; literally, thou shalt not rule over him with rigor. Nothing is found in the original for the distinction "bond," and this is also the case in the 44th verse. The original is, ve-aved-ka, ve-a-math-ha, a-sher ye-he-yu-laclc, and thy servants and maid-ser- vants who shall be to you, or whom you shall have. The distinctions are " servants and hired servants, or hirelings ; service, and rigorous service. 48 There is no other. I am at a loss to conjecture •what the prefix " bond," of our translation, could have originated from — except the blending influence of slavery, which prevailed at the time it was made. THE JUBILEE. Shuckford informs us, on the authority of Diodorus Circulus, that the early nations " had a law against slavery : for no person among them could abso- lutely loose his freedom and become a bond-nkan." Diodorus spent thirty years in writing his histories. He visited the different nations of the east,- to learn their history ; most of these years were spent in this. He had the best opportunities of learning the facts as they existed, in and before his time. He wrote the history of Egypt, Persia, Syria, Media, Greece, Rome, and Carthage, and it is said that he visited also the places mentioned in his forty books, of which but fifteen are now extant. See Lempriere's Dic- tionary — Diodorus. This writer flourished about 44 before Christ, and knew what had been the state of the world up to his time. Shuckford adds, " Many heathen writers thought this prohibition of slavery was an original institution in the first laws of man- kind. Lucian says, that there was such an appoint- ment in the day of Saturn, i. e. in the first ages ; and Athenrcus (a Greek historian of merit who died A. D. 49 194), observes : the Babylonians, Persians, as well as the Greeks, and divers other nations, celebrated an- nually a sort of Saturnalia, or feast, instituted most probably in commemoration of the original state of freedom in which man lived before servitude was in- troduced ; and as Moses revived several of Noah's in- stitutions, so these are appointed in the law to pre- serve the freedom of the Israelites." Shuckford, Vol. II, p. 80. And this refers to the jubilee as one of the Noatic institutions which Moses revived. See Shuckford, as above. We have still further proof of the design and gen- eral use of the jubilee, in the usages of the Romans, They kept the feast of Saturn ; the Saturnalia or ju- bilee here mentioned, in the days of their worst slave- ry ; and their slaves were all free during that feast. It lasted, at first, one day, but was afterwards ex- tended to three, four, five, and then to seven. The slaves took liberties, were permitted to ridicule their masters, and to speak with liberty on all subjects, and their masters waited on them at table or meals. See Lempriere's Dictionary, word Saturnalia, and Adams' Roman Antiquities, p. 26. This feast cherished in the slave's mind a remembrance of what all men had once been, and a sense of what he ought to be. From these ancient and highly respectable author- ities we learn that the jubilee was revived by Moses, to prevent slavery among the Jews ; that it was an institution of Noah, to prevent the enslavement of any of his posterity; and that it obtained among jill 5 50 the early nations, and that these nations kept an an- nual feast in memory of it, which continued among the Greeks and Romans long after the introduction of slavery among them. Can any doubt, after all these proofs, that the jubilee secured freedom to all the inhabitants of the land, both Jews and Gentiles. It had been the day of freedom from the time of Noah up to that time, and continued so to be, until slavery banished it from the earth, except in name. What a world of light these facts throw upon the first sermon the Savior ever preached. " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor : he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and the recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. To preach tlie acceptable year of the lord." Luke iv. 18, 19. Here we have from the Savior's own mouth the design of his own mission ; to deliver the captives — give lib- erty to the bruised — enslaved — to preach the ac- ceptable year of the Lord. The year that ereed the BRUISED ; THAT LIBERATED the CAPTIVE THE YEAR OF JUBILEE. In the light of these facts, which are proven by the testimony of early historians of the highest credit, and is uncontroverted by a single early writer, — what becomes of patriarchal slavery — Abraham's slavery ? He lived in the time of the early nations, about four hundred years after the flood — a time, when the ju- bilee obtained among all nations ; before slavery be- 51 fp gan to be. And this was also the case, to a great degree, in the time of Moses, four hundred years after. And the assertion so often made, that the nations surrounding the Jews were slaveholding nations, is not only 'without proof, but against evidence, clear, and pointed. CHAPTER II. NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. The Jubilee secured freedom to all the " inhabi- tants of the land;" in it the ear-bored servants, and bought servants, were free from their masters. This is admitted bj all the commentators I have seen, ex- cept Matthew Henry. At the Jubilee, these bought servants could leave the family in which they had lived, and live independent in a walled town, or renew their servitude in some other Jewish families, or in the same ones ; or if they had become connected with Jews by marriage, be one in th© Jewish families into- which they had married. The case of the ear-bored servants gave the Jews or Jewesses the privilege to remain with their hus- bands or wives until the Jubilee, when they could take them with them into their own families. The Jewish servants were free in the Sabbattical or seventh year; but the heathen servants were not free until the Ju- bilee. If the master gave his servant a wife, she did not go out in the seventh year, nor did her children ■; but the servant might remain with his wife and chil- 53 dren by Having his ears bored; and the maid-servant might remain by having her ears bored. See Ex. xxi. 5, 6 ; and Deut. xv. 16 and 17. The wife, in this case, was a heathen servant ; for if she had been a Jewess, she would have been free in the seventh year, and could not have remained longer, unless she had her ears bored ; Deut. xv. 17. But the husband might remain in the same family with his "bought servant" wife until the Jubilee; then she and her children would be free to go with him into his own family, and the last dark speck of heathenism on that woman and her family would melt away into the light of Judaism, to be seen no more forever. And though nothing is said about the maid-servant's husband, it is fair to infer the same reasons actuated her, and the same consequences would follow. This statute, made to preserve sacred the holiness of matrimony, has been construed to favor slavery. But the spirit of slavery turns to blackness everything it touches. The passages of the New Testament which have been claimed to support slavery, I propose to examine in this chapter. The first I shall notice is the case of Onesimus, in the epistle to Philemon. It is claim- ed that Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, and that the apostle Paul sent him back to his master. Philemon lived in Colosse, a city in Asia Minor, about two hundred miles east of the Hellespont ; about four hundred miles from the eastern border of the Black Sea, the land of the wild Scythians, and at least nine hundred miles from Rome. The way to 5* 54 Rome was through the States of Greece, or by water from Ephesus, which was about one hundred and fifty miles west of Colosse. And from this place Onesimus ran away, on the assumption that he was a slave. By running about four hundred miles north-east, through a country free from large streams, he would have been out of the Roman empire, among the wild Scyth- ians, where he would have been safe from capture by his master, or any one for his master ; but he ran nine hundred miles, through a country of almost every kind of obstructions, where he was exposed to danger at every step, into Rome, the great heart of the sys- tem of Roman slavery; by whose action the life's blood was sent through every part — to the extremi- ties of the whole system. If he was a slave, slaves had not learned to run away in his day ; they would not perpetrate such folly now. If he was a slave, he was the greatest fool that ever did run away. He acted like a man who was too hot by the fire, who to obtain relief would leave his chair and seat himself on the grate ; run from the feeble extremities of slave- ry into its strong heart, to escape from it. But this is not all. He went to hear the apostle preach. Paul had been the means of the conversion of Philemon ; this is conceded by all ; and doubtless Onesimus had seen Paul at the house of Philemon ; and yet he goes to hear him preach, knowing that Paul might recog- nize him, and either seize him as a fugitive slave, or report him to those who would. The conduct of On- esimus was most extraordinary, on the assumption he 55 was a slave. No slave of common sense would have acted as lie did in the same circumstances. The apostle tells Philemon, in verse 16, that On- esimus is his brother both in the flesh, and in the Lord. To be a brother in the flesh was to have the same parents, or to be a near kinsman. Onesimus was either a younger brother of Philemon, or a near relation, and in either case could not be a slave. Dr. A. Clarke supposes the term " brother in the flesh" to mean one of the same nation. On this assumption there is not more than one chance out of one thousand that Onesimus was a slave. Roman slavery was the slavery of captivity ; this was also the case with Gre- cian slavery. The prisoners taken in foreign battle- fields were sold by their captors ; and these sales were made for the most part in Home, and Italy contained the greater part of the slaves of Rome. War was the principal fountain that fed Roman slavery ; some were born slaves — some were slaves for crime, and some were sold for debt, but war was the principal source. The facilities for Roman slaves obtaining their free- dom were very great. " Cicero says, that sober and industrious slaves, at least such as become slaves from being captives in war, seldom remained in servitude above six years." Adams' Roman Antiquities, p. 26. But persons once sold into slavery could not be sold a second time — a slave sold once became free, i. e. sold once after he became a slave. — Adams' Roman Antiquities, p. 35; There was no slave-trade in Ro- man slavery; a slave once sold into slavery remained 56 with his purchaser until death or freedom ; or, if born into slavery, remained with his owner. This made Roman slavery a blessed state compared with ours. If Onesimus was a slave, he was a captive taken in war, the son of a slave-mother, had been sold for debt, or sold for crime ; or he might have been sold by his father. There was no other way of becoming a slave in the Roman empire. But ten times as many were enslaved by war as by all the other ways ; and there was not one chance in one hundred that he was born of a slave-mother. If a captive, he could not be of the same country with Philemon, for captives were not sold where they were captured. It is not likely there were any slave-mothers in Colosse, as we shall see presently, or that he was sold into slavery in any of the other ways. Calmet informs us, on the authority of Roman chronology, that Onesimus was ordained JBishop of a church in Macedonia, after his return to Philemon, and that he succeeded Timothy in the Episcopate of Ephesus. The church of that city had been planted by the apostle Paul. He spent three years and six months labor with it, Acts xx. ; and Timothy, who stood next to the apostles among the early ministers of Christ, was the successor of the apostle ; and then comes a fugitive slave, who in all probability was an ignorant barbarian — a stranger to letters and the christian religion ;— and if not a barbarian captive, either the son of a slave-mother, who was most proba- bly a barbarian captive, and born out of marriage, as 57 all Roman slaves were ; or he had been sold hj a& unfeeling father, or for debt or crime. Could such an end as he obtained be reached from any of thes« beginnings ? Credulity itself staggers traveling to such a conclusion ! The thing is scarcely possible !. We have the testimony also of Ignatius, that Onesi- mus was Bishop of Ephesus ; he " blesses God that they had so good a bishop." Onesimus must have been not only a man of considerable education, but of great parts, to stand second to St. Paul, in ths episcopate of the metropolitan church of all Asia Mi- nor, and it is next to impossible that he could hava possessed either, if he had been a fugitive slave. The apostle declares that Ones5mus was dearer to Philemon than he was to him, and fixes on the fact that he was his brother in the flesh, as the reason. He was Paul's son in the gospel, begotten in his bonds — the son of his bonds — more, of his old age. He was then a prisoner, awaiting his martyrdom, which took place about three years after that time. As in nature, so in grace, the children of old age lie nearest the father's heart. Onesimus must have been very dear to Paul ; but he was dearer to Philemon. Onesimus was a young man of great promise and parts. He was intrusted by Paul with the epistle to Philemon, and, jointly with Tychicus, with the epistle to the Collossians, which was written at the same time. Onesimus must have been much more than a citizen of the same country with Philemon, to have been dearer to him than he was to his father in the K 8 gospel, in the peculiarly endearing circumstances of his conversion. Dr. Clark's explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. Nothing but the reason given by the apostle, "a brother in the flesh," can justify the de- claration. To have sprung from the loins of the same father, and been nourished in the bosom of the same mother — their young lives fed from the same foun- tain, and cared for by the same hearts — would justify the declaration. But what else could ? It is barely possible near relationship might ; but the other would. The reason given compels us to understand the de- claration literally, in its eastern acceptation, a natural brother, or near kinsman. In either of these relations he could have been the servant of Philemon, not the slave. In the east- ern countries the elder brother was the head of the family, at the death of the father, as we showed in onr first part ; and the younger members of the fam- ily were called servants. Indeed, all persons occu- pying a lower or less honorable position were called servants. Jacob called Esau his lord, and himself Esau's servant; Gen. xxxiii. 14., and all persons in the employ of another as hirelings, arc called ser- vants. The Bible is full of such examples. And this is the case in all the countries of Europe, and the East, to the present day, where slavery has no existence. Slavery has made the term servant de- grading, and it is applied to slaves principally in slave countries. It is applied to all hirelings out of such Countries ; and it is common for persons of considera- 59 tion to sign their letters with "your humble servant," except in slave countries. As a younger brother, one in a less honorable station, or one in Philemon's em- ploy, the term would apply — be justified by the cus- tom of that age and place. The term servant, as here used, makes nothing for slavery. But whatever relation the term signified, Paul did not send Onesimus back to it ; he sent him back, " not as a servant, but above a servant," into a higher con- dition than he formerly occupied. See verse 16. And Paul required Philemon to transfer any claim he might have on Onesimus to his account. So that Philemon's claim on Onesimus, let it have been what it might, was assumed by St. Paul ; and Onesimus was freed from it. See verse 18. Behold how the apostle sent back fugitive slaves — assumed their obli- gations, and sent them back free ! This is the plain fact in this case. And we see in the after exaltation of Onesimus, that he did not return to his former con- dition. He returned a messenger to the church at Colosse, and the bearer of his own deliverance from the power of Philemon; and, after his return, was made not only bishop, but rose to the highest place in the Asiatic churches. Slaveholders are welcome to all they can get out of this case. Commentators admit that there is testimony that Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus, but pass oif the subject with "it is hardly, or not probable," without attempting to disprove these authorities. But the whole want of probability grows out of their assump- 60 tion, not only without, but against proof, that he wa-s a Roman slave. But it is farther evident he was not a slave. Slaves were chattels — they were property then as they now are ; they could contract no debts, because they were themselves property, and property can neither owe nor own. The apostle could not assume the obligations of a slave, without himself becoming a slave ; and this he did not do. If it be contended that slaves owe their masters, — what is it they owe ? They owe them their persons, their souls. and their bodies ; outside of the slave the master has no claim ; his claim is in the slave. The slave's indebtedness cannot be assumed without becoming a slave — going into the slave, -and this Paul did not do. But he did assume the indebtedness of Onesimus to Philemon; therefore Philemon could not have been a slave- holder. But if Onesimus was a younger brother, a kins- man, or even a hired servant, he could have owed Philemon a debt that the apostle could have assumed ; and the term servant would have applied to any or all of these relations, as we have just seen. It is not possible to reconcile what is said of Onesimus, in this epistle, with the assumption that he was a slave ; and his history outside of it demonstrates beyond a doubt that he was not a slave ; and if he was not a slave, we have no proof that Philemon was a slaveholder, nor Paul a slave-catcher. The assumption that St. Paul was a slave-catcher is only equaled by that of 61 the angel of God turning blood-hound, in the case of Hagar. Paul never returned a slave, nor even a ser- vant ; he assumed Onesimus' obligation, and sent him back free. This fact is set forth in the epistle as clearly as anything can be. The New Testament argument for slavery is this : The epistles were addressed to the churches, and the duties of the members of those churches pointed out in the different relations they sustained to society and to each other. These relations are clearly recognized and their duties distinctly pointed out. And that masters and serva?its are among those parties to rela- tions, and the duties of masters and servants divinely imposed ; hence masters and servants were members of the churches to which these epistles were written. This is the argument for slaveholders having been members of the primitive church, and for their right to membership in the church of Christ, in all after- time. This argument takes for granted that the term master means slaveholder, and the term servant means slave. If this can be proved, the argument is conclu- sive ; but if it can not, it is wholly worthless. The proof adduced to sustain these assumptions is the meaning of certain Greek words, such as doulos, kurios, despotes, &c. It is argued that doulos means slave, and it is generally rendered servant in the New Testament, — that servant, in the epistles, is equivalent to slave. The word doulos is nowhere translated slave. The word slave is found but once in the New Testament, in Revelation xviii. 13, where the Greek 6 62 is 8omato?i, and not doulos. If we substitute the word slave for servant, throughout the New Testament, as we have a right to do, according to the plea set up, that servant is equivalent to slave, we would have some singular reading : " Well done, thou good and faithful slave;" Matthew xxv. 21. "Lord, now lettest thou thy slave depart in peace, according to thy word;" Luke ii. 29. "If any man serve me, let him follow me, and where I am there shall my slave be;" John xii. 26. "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your slave;" Matthew xx. 27. "Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ;" Rom. i. 1. "I commend un- to you Phebe, our sister, who is a slave of the church which is at Cenchrea;" Rom. xvi. 1. "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself a slave unto all, that I might gain the more;" 1 Cor. ix. 10. " For do I now persuade men or God, or do I seek to please men ? for if I yet please men, I should not be the slave of God ;" Gal. i. 10. " Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differcth nothing from a slave though he be lord of all;" Gal. iv. 1. "And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a slave;" Hebrews iii. 5. " Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ;" 2 Peter i. 1. "Jude, a slave of Je- sus Christ ;" Jude 1. "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his slaves things which must shortly come to pass, and he sent and signified it, by his angel unto his slave John;" Rev. i. 1. " And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, see thou do it not, I am thy 63 fellow slave;" Rev. xix. 10. (This would prove slave- ry in heaven). " Henceforth I call you not slaves, for the slave knoweth not what his lord doeth ; but I have called you friends ; for all things that I have heard of my father I have made known unto you ;" John xv. 15. " These men are the slaves of the Most High God, which do shew unto us the way of salva- tion;" Acts xvi. 17. "Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the slaves of men ;" 1 Cor. vii. 23. "Eor we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord ; and ourselves your slaves, for Jesus' sake;" 2 Cor. iv. 5. " Paul and Timotheus, the slaves of Jesus Christ;" Phil. i. 1. "Saying, hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till I have sealed the slaves of God in their foreheads;" Rev. vii. 3. "And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his slaves, and ye that fear him, small and great;" Rev. xix. 5. "And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God, and of the Lamb shall be in it and his slaves shall serve him ;" Rev. xxii. 3. Many other passages might be adduced to show the extreme absurdity of this application of the term. But if making God and Christ slaveholders, and ex- tending the territory of slavery into heaven, and making the glorified spirits there slaves, will not turn the minds of the advocates of slavery from this per- version of the Holy Scriptures, they are redemption- less. The word kurios, translated master, is nowhere translated slaveholder, in the New Testament; the 64 ■word slaveholder nowhere occurs In that sacred book. It is truly very strange, that if doulos mean3 slave, and kurios slaveholder, that neither of them should have been translated right in the whole of the New Testament. This word is sometimes applied to Christ ; if it means slaveholder, then he who came to preach liberty to the ,bruised, and establish the acceptable year of the Lord, was himself an oppressor and slave- holder. The word despotes, translated master, is sometimes applied to God himself; hence the Most High is a slaveholder, and slavery the great central relation of the Universe, if this pro-slavery explanation be ad- mitted. The friends of slavery rant either give up their definition of the meaning of these words, or take these consequences. If they will have the first, they must have the second. These words are variously used ; doulos is applied to all kinds of servants ; ku- rios and despotes to all kinds of masters — or all kinds of persons to whom service is due ; and the exact meaning of either of them must be ascertained by the application of it, where used ; it never can be done by bandying definitions. We may find the word dou- los applied to every condition of servitude ; and the others to all kinds of claimants for service. The Athenians used the word oiketai, to denote slaves, and doulos to denote persons who had been freed from slavery, or freed persons.* But these words do not * " Slaves in Athens who were held as the entire property of their masters, were called oiketai ; but if their freedom was grant- 65 Bettle the question, because the words are general, and not specific in their application or use. All I claim is that these words do not prove that servants means slaves, and masters— slaveholders, in the New Testament, and this I have certainly made appear. There are two kinds of servitude, involuntary and voluntary. The first includes the slaves, children who are minors, apprentices bound without their consent, which is seldom clone, and persons sentenced to labor for crime. The second, hired servants or hirelings, apprentices bound with their consent, and all who serve from choice, either for reward or affection. These two classes of servants have existed from the introduction of slavery to the present time, and will continue to the end of slavery. Voluntary servitude has existed from the commencement of human society, and will continue to the end of time. It is one of the most extensive relations in society, — one that can not be dispensed with. The wants of society compel its existence. This relation differs from that of slavery as far as the poles are apart. Voluntary servitude involves reciprocal duties of man to man— both mem- ed them they were called doulos, not being, like the former, a part of the master's estate, but only regarded as rendering some small service, such as was required of metoikai, resident strangers, or aliens, to whom, in some respects, they were inferior." This the reader will learn by consulting Dr. W. Robinson's Antiquities of Greece, page 30, and Potter's Grecian Antiquities, Vol. I. page 13 ; and see also an article in the Biblical Repository, for Jan. 1835, en "Slavery in Ancient Greece," "Testimony of God against g^very," page 86. 6* 66 bers of the relation are human beings, having separate and independent rights, and free to maintain those rights. They are equal in freedom, and in the pro- tection of the law — they stand up man to man, on the common platform of human rights. Not so with the relation of slavery, if it may be called a relation ; for it is rather a condition than a relation. One part of this relation is wholly passive in the hands of the other — is absolutely in the power of the other, to be controlled in everything, — has no rights — no protec- tion, is unknown in law, as having any claim on the other for anything. The Roman master could dispose of his slave at will, he could even take his life ; the blave had not even the right to live. The slave was property to all intents and purposes, and sustained the same relation to his master, the horse did to his owner. They were both the property of the master, and equally subject to his control. It would be diffi- cult for the Scriptures to regulate the relation of own- er and horse farther than " the merciful man is mer- ciful to his beast." Thus much might be said to the owner of a slave, and the slave might be required to regard the will of the master as the rule of his life, but this he has to do. Different relations involve different duties, and as the relations of hireling and employer, and owner and slave, are different, fundamentally and practically, they must involve duties of equal differences ; duties arise from the nature of the relations, and must vary as much as the relations differ. And if the duties of 67 masters and servants, in the New Testament, apply to owners and slaves, then the relation of hireling and employer, one of the most extensive relations among human beings, one extending to all lands and all times, is not regulated in the Scriptures, and we have no knowledge of the mind of God on the duties of these very numerous parties ; for no difference is made in the duties of masters or servants in the New Testa- ment, where the duties of these relations are specified ; and if the duties there specified do not apply to hired servants and their employers, the duties of these par- ties are nowhere stated. And it can not he that the same duties can apply to this relation, and that of slavery too. This is impossible, from the fundamental differences of these relations. It was certainly a great oversight in the divine lawgiver, to leave undefined the duties of one of the most extensive relations of his accountable creatures. But it may be contended that if the duties under notice apply to hired servants, and not to slaves, that the duties of masters and slaves are nowhere found in the New Testament. Be it even so ! The duties of whoremongers and adulterers are nowhere pointed out in the word of God, and yet this is no defect. Rela- tions which God prohibits, he does not regulate ; hence he does not point out the duties of adulterers and for- nicators — -of murderers and thieves, because he never intended these practices to have any place in society ; and this is also the case with slavery, I now proceed to show that the duties of masters 68 and servants in the New Testament apply to hirelings and their employers, and not to masters and slaves. For the use of the terms master and servant, the reader ia referred to what is said on the case of Onesimus, The duties of servants are specified in five places. In St. Paul's epistles, Eph. vi. 5 to 8 ; Col. iii. 22 to 25 ; 1 Tim. vi. 1 ; 1 Tit. ii. 9, 10 ; and 1 Peter, ii. 18, 19 ; and the duties of masters in but two. Mark this ! Eph. vi. 9, and Col. iv. 1. The duties of mas- ters are given in these places in connection with the duties of servants; the duties of the masters in the other three are not specified ; and as these epistles were not given to the same persons or churches, it would seem in the latter cases that the masters were not members of the churches, or their duties would have been specified. We will notice first those places where the duties of servants and masters are jointly given. '- Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and tremb- ling, in singleness of heart, as unto Christ ; not with eye service, as men pleascrs ; 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 unto men." — Ephesians vi. 5 to 7. " Servants, obey in all things your masters, ac- cording to the flesh ; not with eye service, as men plcasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God ; and whatsoever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men." — Colossians iii. 22, 23. 69 The term, "masters according to the flesh ," used in both these places, limits obedience to secular things. God was their master in spiritual things. The term flesh is used in contradistinction from the term spirit, and shows here to what the claims of the masters ex- tended — shows the extent of their claims — and where the servant's obedience ended. All belong to secular affairs. And the masters were to be obeyed in all tilings within this prescribed limit. The servant was to serve with fear and trembling. But whom was he to fear ? his master or his God ? The advocates of slavery say, his master ; for Roman slaveholders could not only punish their slaves with great severity, but put them to death. But the masters in these places were to use no violence to their servants. They were to forbear even to threaten them ; for though this prohibition is not found in Colossians, the duties of both parties are substantially identical, and point to the same masters ; this will not be questioned. Mas- ters who were not permitted to use the force of a threat, could not be the objects of fear unto tremb- ling. They were required to render their service as to God, and not to man ; not to do it as men pleasers, but to please God, to whom they would have to give an account, and from whom they were to have a re- ward of eternal approbation or displeasure. God, who could destroy both soul and body in hell, and who would do it if they were unfaithful, was the ob- ject of the fear here required ; and not the master, who dare not even threaten punishment, much less 70 inflict it. The eyes of the servants in both these places are turned from the master on earth to the master in heaven — from man to God. God's require- ments are to govern, and God's fear to influence. They are required to obey their masters in all things, not with an eye to please men (masters), but to please God, to whom both master and servant would have ti give an account. The obedience of the hired servant is limited by his contract, and the master's authority is limited by the same. The servant agrees to do certain things for a certain reward, or to spend a certain amount of his time in the master's employ, at such work as his master may have to do, and to do it as the master wishes to have it done. The parties are mutually bound — their obligations are mutual. The master's authority to command extends to all things involved in the contract, and the hired servant is bound to obey in all things to this extent, but in nothing be- yond the agreement entered into ; so that just as far as the master has any right to command, the servant is bound to obey — bound by the contract entered into. Not so with the slaveholder. His right to command, has no limit — had none in Rome — has none in Amer- ica. The right of the Roman master extended to life itself; and what he might do himself, he might do by his agent — his slave ; had a right to command his slave to take the life of a fellow slave — to commit murder, — the highest crime known to the Divine law. And if the slave (servant) was to obey the slaveholder 71 in all things, " not only the good and gentle, but also to the froward," then were christian slaves under ob- ligations to God to commit murder, if their masters might happen to command them so to do. And there was constant danger of their doing it. Roman mas- ters frequently killed their slaves. They did it, not with their own hands, as a general thing, but with the hands of their domestics — their slaves: Adams' Roman Antiquities, p. 25. If the obedience required of servants, in the passages under notice, is to Roman slaveholders, then is the servant bound to commit sin ; for many of these masters were wicked idolators, and would require their slaves to do wrong ; and if the slaves were bound to obey in all things, which the master had a right or power to command, then indeed were they bound to commit sin, for the master's authority is nowhere abridged. But the very nature of voluntary servitude limits the master's power defi- nitely, and needs no specific guards ; the servant in this case is bound to do what he voluntarily agrees to do, and the master has a right to command him to the same extent, but no farther. No need of limita- tions of the master's power here. Its limits were fixed before the servant came under it. Not so with the slaveholder's power ; it has no limit, either in the law of slavery, or in the law of the apostle ; obedi- ence in all things is required by both. The slavery interpretation of these texts must be given up ; or the apostle required the commission of sin. This conclu- sion can not be resisted. 72 We will now look at the duties of the masters of these servants : " And ye, masters, do the same things unto them (servants), forbearing threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with him." — Epliesians vi. 9. " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." — Colossians iv. 1. If the duties of servants connected with these masters could not be reconciled with a state of slavery, as we have just seen, much less can the duties here specified. The masters are positively required not to use threatening to their slaves ; and as the prohibition of the les3 includes the greater, they were forbidden the use of all force, and then required to give unto their servants a just and equal compensation for the services rendered. The services of the servants were to be obtained without the force of even a threat ; the servant was not to be put in fear of the master, in any degree; and the service thus obtained to be re- warded with & just and equal compensation. This is the servitude the apostle regulates ; and those regu- lations are attempted to be applied, first, to Roman slavery, a system of legalized human butchery ; and second, to " American slavery, the vilest thai ever saw the sun." Voluntary servitude can live in .the fear of God — live well, and live long, under these regulations, as we have seen ; but Roman or Ameri- can slavery could not live one hour; the very first breath they would draw of this apostolic regulation would collapse their infernal lungs, and they would instantly die. Remove all force, even the force of threats, from slavery, and give to slaves a just and equal equivalent for all they do, and the last thread of the system is annihilated. Apply these regula- tions to slavery, and I want no more. It will not live a day, no, not an hour 1 These two passages are the only places where the duties of slaveholders are mentioned, if the term master means slaveholder ; and if it do not, then slaveholders had no place in the apostolic church. The duties of masters are nowhere else noticed. And the duties imposed on masters, and the only duties, and all the duties, if carried into effect, would imme- diately, totally, and forever abolish slavery. No more need be adduced to prove that these texts apply to voluntary servitude, and not to slavery. And here I might rest the argument; for the other texts are addressed to servants, and not to masters and servants, if slaves might have been members of the church and their master not. But if it be claimed that the term, " master ac- cording to the flesh,'''' limits the authority of the mas- ters, I reply that the power of the Roman or Ameri- can slaveholders is an authority every way unbounded, extending to every act of the slave's life ; the slave is bound to conform his whole life to the will of his master — who is at once master of flesh and spirit — and can command obedience by any inflictions he may 7 74 choose to impose, short of taking limb or life, in America ; and even these could be taken in Rome. New Testament masters were secular masters, with limited authority : slaveholders are sovereign masters, no power can step between them and their slaves. " Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but rather do them service, because they are faithful and be- loved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." 1 Timothy vi. 1, 2. It is contended that hupo zugan, which is here translated "under the yoke," designates the con- dition of slaves ; that the yoke is the badge of the most cruel bondage. The yoke signifies a state of subjection; any kind of subjection. It is used for representing the ceremonial duties of the law. Act3 xv. 10 ; Gal. v. 1 ; for the duties of the religion of Christ, Matt. x. 29, 30. It is used in Gen. xxvii. 40, to represent the dominion of Jacob over Esau, in the matter of his father's blessing; in Jer. xxx. 8, it is used to represent the captivity of the Jews. In Lev. xxvi. 13, it represents the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt. In Ezck. xxxiv. 27, it represents the cap- tivity of the Jews. It is used in Deut. xxviii. 48, to denote national subjection. In 1 Kings xii. 4, it re- presents the rule of David over the people of Israel. It is used to represent the national subjection of the 75 nations to Nebuchadnezzar, Jer. xxviii. 14. The rule of the Assyrian monarch is called a yoke, Isa. xiv. 25. And in xlvii. 6, it is used for the rule of the Chaldeans over Israel. In Jer. xxviii. 2, 4, 11, it re- presents the dominion of the king of Babylon. It represents the burden of transgressions, Lam. i. 14, and the duties we owe to God, Lam. iii. 27. I have failed to find a single place in the Holy Scriptures where it represents the state or condition of a slave. Instead of yoke denoting the absolute subjection of a Blave, as its primary meaning, as is claimed by the advo- cates of slavery, I can find no place where it is thus used. These servants under the yoke were to count their masters worthy of all honor, but they were not re- quired to obey them in all things. Nothing of this kind appears. But if the masters here mean Roman slaveholders — another name for human butchers — it would be exceedingly hard to count them worthy of all honor or respect. But the believing masters in the 2nd verse, as distinguished from these masters of the yoke, show that they were not members of the church. The caution not to despise their believing masters shows that these servants could not have been slaves — for what Roman slave dare despise his master, in whose hands was his very life. The ser- vants are required to do service to these believing masters rather than to others, because they are par- takers of the benefit. If they were slaves, they could have no preference whom they served ; no choice of masters ; their masters choose them. But 76 these persons are required) to prefer the service of their believing masters — a dkeet acknowledgment of their voluntary servitude. The reason given for servants under the yoke r counting their masters worthy of all honor, is that the name of God, and his doctrine, be not blasphemed. Did the character of God and the purity of his doc- trine require that human butchers should receive hon- or from his worshipers I For this Roman slaveholders were. Some of them murdered their slaves, and made food of their flesh to feed their fish. Must such men be honored to maintain! the character of God aad his doctrine ? But it may be said that the masters to be esteemed were not of this class. There was but one class of slaveholders in Rome ; some were doubtless more cruel than others \ but the difference was in the temper of the master, not in his power or authority ; what the worst did, all might do. Roman slavery was one system ; and Roman slaveholders were one in power, and equal claimants of authority from that system. And these masters were unbelievers, and distinguished from the believing masters in the next verse, and were just as likely to be the worst as the best pagan masters. That christians should be re- quired to honor such monsters is incredible \ but that they should clo it to keep the people from blaspheming a pure and holy God, and his doctrine of justice and universal love, is positively past belief But admitting these masters to be employers, and these servants to be hirelings, all is easy. The ser- 77 vants were just as much bound to fulfill their engage- ments with unbelievers as with believers ; and to do it respectfully and kindly ; and thus secure honor to God and his doctrine. This is all easy and plain ; but the other application is hard, obscure, and forced ; yea, forced to death. This place recognizes believing masters, masters who were members of the church ; but their duties are not specified. It is claimed that they were slavehold- ers, and the servants who were required to rather serve them, than unbelievers, were slaves. But this conclusion is forced. The servants are required not to despise them, but to serve them cheerfully. These directions have no application to slaves, who were the property of their masters, and subject to their will, even to life itself. But they apply to hirelings. These might with impunity lightly esteem even believing employers ; yea, despise them, and give them no pre- ference over others ; these things would be wrong in this class of servants, and there was danger of their commission ; hence the necessity of the caution. But they could not exist in the case of slaves ; and the caution in their case would have been wholly unneces- sary. This verse gives no proof of slaveholders being members of the church of the New Testament. It points with great clearness to hired servants and their masters ; but slaves and slaveholders can not be seen in it, or through it. And this, and the places in Ephesians and Colossians which have been examined, are all the places in the New Testament, which ever 7* 78 hate been, or ever can be, claimed in support of slave- holders being members of the New Testament Church. " Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things ; not answering again ; not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity ; that they may adorn the gospel of God our Savior in all things." — Titus ii. 9, 10. The directions given here apply to hired servants in every particular. They were bound to obey by their contract of service, and to do their work as the master desired to have it done, and to do it pleasant- ly, not disputing about how it should be done ; they were bound not to purloin ; for they were to receive an equivalent for all they did; and therefore they were morally bound to fulfill their engagements in good faith — " in all good fidelity," and by so acting, the gospel they professed could not be blamed. The character of the religion they professed, and the mo- ral obligations it imposed on them, required this course. They could neither honor the Savior, nor please him, without complying with these requisitions. Not so with slavec ; God, who is no respecter of persons, does not require a being that must please him in every- thing, to be subject to the will of an absolute despot, to obey those who can not be obeyed without disobey- ing him; to please "in all things." those absolute ty- rants, whose authority to command extends to limb and life ; who can command against the command- ments of God, and very frequently do so. To obey •uch persons, and to please them in all things, is not 79 a christian duty ; nor does a just God require any man to serve another in all good fidelity, and be sub- ject to his arbitrary will, from childhood to the grave, for no compensation or remuneration. Indeed, no man can be bound to obey and please in all things an arbitrary master, for any amount of compensation ; because he is bound to obey and please God, in all things, and can not serve two masters : than which nothing can be plainer. Nor is it contrary to the principle of justice, for a man to enjoy the fruit of his own labor ; for the slave to take some of his products for the comfort of his own body, when hungry or naked. The doctrine of God, our Savior, would not be adorned by the slave's compliance with these re- quisitions ; but the human butcher would be exalted into the place of God. Not so in the case of hired servants. They may even obey in all things, and they may please in all things their master, without displeasing or dishonoring God ; for the extent of their obedience and man-pleas- ing was settled before their service began ; and if they feared God, they would not bind themselves to do anything that would displease him ; but except all euch things out of their obligations. Their obedience and man-pleasing was the result of their own choice ; and there need be no wrong in them. But the slave had no choice what should be in or out of his obliga- tions to obey and please. They were just what an absolute despot chose to have them, and no being ac- countable to God can be morally bound by any such 80 obligations. Here I set my foot, and challenge the advocates of slavery to meet me here, hand to hand. I say, in the language of Jabez Bunting, of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of England, that "Slavery is always wrong, — essentially, eternally, and incurably wrong," and can impose no moral obli- gation. The slave is under no moral obligation to his master, as his master. There is not a single re- quirement of chattle slavery that is binding. No, not one ! Slavery is not a subject of moral regulation any more than theft or murder ; and there is not a passage in all the Word of God, that points out the duty of a slave, AS A slave. JVo, not one. He is under moral obligation as a man, but not as a slave. There is not a single moral obligation resting on a slave, but rests on free men ; or that did not rest on him before he was a slave, if he ever was a free man, Slavery creates no new moral obligations. Some good anti-slavery men have admitted that some of the di- rections given to servants were given to slaves. But this is not correct. Slavery, no more than murder, can be a subject of moral regulation. That which is essentially and eternally wrong has nothing in it on which the claim of morality can rest. Morality re- quires its destruction, not its regulation. G-ooVs law lias no claim on the slave, as a slave — can not have; for he is out of the order of God's moral government, as a slave ; but as a man he is in it — -bound by it — accountable to its great author. But so obscured has been the light of truth, by the mist of tears and blood 81 of slaves which the earth has sent up to heaven, that men who saw the monstrous iniquity of slavery did not see that it could not be a subject of moral regu- lation. Relations instituted by the Creator are of moral obligation, and apply to all the situations in which man can be placed. We owe duties to each other, and we owe duties to our Creator ; and we can be placed in no situation where we are free from duty. The relation of husband and wife, parent and child, ruler and subject, employer and employed, are of di- vine appointment or sanction ; and the duties of these relations are of moral obligation. These relations are right, and moral obligations grow out of them ; and the relation of Creator and creature applies to every human being, so that we are never free from moral obligation. The slave is under moral obligation to God, and God tells him how to act while wronged by his fellow man ; to do good for evil, return blessing for cursing ; if smitten on the one cheek to turn the other also. Not because any man has a right to in- flict evil on another, or curse another, or smite an- other, but because God's plan is to overcome evil with good, and we are to be co-workers with him. The slave may learn his duty to God in his oppressed sit- uation ; — but this is a very different thing from his duty to his master. If I am smitten on the one cheek by a wicked man, I am under no obligation to him to turn the other — or if he do me evil or curse me, I do not owe good or blessing to him for so doing ; but I 82 owe it to God so to act in these circumstances, and this requirement growing out of my relation to God, and not my relation to him, is no authority for, or sanction of, his wrong-doing. And though the slave is under no moral obligation to his master to suffer wrongfully at his hand, he is under obligation to his Creator, so to do, when wronged by any man. If slavery be wrong, the slaveholder forces himself into a wicked relation to his slave ; takes a position God never designed him to occupy : and to admit that the slave is under moral obligation to his master, is to give sanction to his master's claim, which would be giving sanction to wrong. This can not be. And while I maintain that the slave is under no moral ob- ligation to his master as a slave, I must be understood that as a fellow man he is under obligations to render him good for evil, in consequence of his relation to his Creator ; but even this is not because the one is master and the other slave, but because both are men, subjects of a common Creator. " Servants, be subjects to your masters with all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the frowarcl, — for this is thankworthy, if a man for con- science toward God, endure grief, suffering wrongful- ly."—! Peter ii. 18, 19. No sanction is given to this servitude, for it is more than intimated that the servants suffered it wrongfully. And no intimation is given that the masters were believers or members of the church. And it is highly probable that some slaves were con- 83 Yerted to the faith in the apostles' day. The servants are exhorted to suffer wrong for conscience toward God. Christians are not allowed to free themselves from grief or wrong by doing wrong ; and when they cannot free themselves without doing wrong, they must imitate the Savior, suffer wrong, rather than do it. But to suffer wrong for conscience sake gives no sanc- tion to it. The word rendered servants here is oiketai, and not douloS) which Robinson and Potter think was used by the Athenians to signify slaves, while doulos sig- nified freed men — persons freed from slavery. (See note on p. 64). But oiketas does not always mean slave, but rather distinguishes house-servants from other servants. It comes from oikos, a house. M'Knight thinks that house-slaves were used much worse than field-slaves, and needed this special instruction. But the very reverse is true. But domestic hirelings are exposed to more unreasonableness than any other hired servants. And they might be bound in con- science to fill their engagements, though their em- ployers were not treating them as they should be treat- ed. This might be the case, and their obligations be still binding, and the reward for their labor still sure. But it is difficult to see how a slave could be bound by an enlightened conscience to endure all the grief and wrong of Roman slavery patiently. The commands of God are all addressed to free agents, and implies a power to comply, or refuse com- pliance ; and it would seem that these servants might, 84 or might not, be subject to their masters ; they might, or might not, endure grief, or suffer wrongfully. This would all be true of voluntary servants, but all untrue of slaves. But these masters, whether slaveholders, or employers of hirelings, were wrong-doers, and not christians, or members of the christian church, and this passage makes nothing for the position I am op- posing. The reader will see, I think he can not help but see, that these passages contain no evidence that slaveholders were members of the New Testament church — that hirelings, or voluntary servants, and their employers, or masters, are the parties whose du- ties are marked out in these scriptures. It is pleaded that the New Testament nowhere condemned Roman slavery, and anti-slavery men have admitted that, though it was not condemned by name, all its elements were condemned, and this was all that was needed. This ground is perfectly tenable ; but while it is good and true, the argument is spread through the Scriptures, and not easily seen, nor seen at once. I contend that slavery, by all the names it is known in the Word of God, is condemned clearly, positively, and heavily in the New Testament. The Hebrews had no word for slavery but man-stealing. The stolen man was all the slave known to that people. The term slave occurs but once in the Old Testament, Jer. ii. 14, and but once in the New, Rev. xviii. 14. In the first, there is nothing in the original for the word slave, and the translators put it in italics to show that fact. The literal translation would be, "J* Is- 85 yael a servant, is he born in the house?" and in tbt isecond the word is somaton, bodies. " Traded in bo- dies and souls of men." To force a man to serve an- other was to steal him ; hence all slaves are stolen men, and all slaveholders men-stealers. I refer the y reader to what is said on man-stealing in our first chapter. That all slaveholders are man-'stealers, is bo plain that those who contend for slaveholders, hav- ing been members of the New Testament church, ad- mit that slavery is man-stealing, and slaveholders man-thieves. This position was taken by the Presby- terians of this country, from 1794 to 1816, twenty- two years. Jonathan Edwards held the same doctrine, " To hold a slave, who has a right to his liberty, ig not only a real crime, but a very great one. Does this conclusion seem too strong to any of you ? You will not deny that liberty is more valuable than pro- perty ; and that it is a greater sin to deprive a man of his whole liberty, during life, than to deprive him of his whole property, or that man-stealing is a greater crime than robbery. Nor will you deny that to hold in slavery a man who was stolen, is substantially the game crime as tQ steal him." — Edwards. Mr. Wesley eays, " il/^-buyers are exactly on a level with men- stealers." Dr. A. Clark says: "I here record my testimony against the unprincipled, inhuman, anti- christian, and diabolical slave-trade, with all its au- thors, promoters, abettors, and sacrilegious gains, ag well as against the great devil, the father of it and them." — Notes on 1 Corinthians, 7th chapter. Rich- 8 86 ard Watson says : " Slavery was man-stealing in its origin, and with this vicious origin it remains tainted tintil this day." — Life of Watson, p. 380. Doctor M'Knight says, " They who make war for the inhuman purpose of selling the vanquished as slaves, as is the practice of the African princes, are really men-steal- ers. And they who, like the African traders, en- courage that unchristian traffic by purchasing the slaves, whom they know to be thus unjustly acquired, are partakers of their crime." — Note on 1 Tim. i. 10. Dr. Clark says : " Slavedealers, whether those who carry on the traffic in human flesh and blood, or those who steal a person in order to sell him into bondage ; or those who buy such stolen men and women, no mat- ter of what color, or what country, are men-stealers, and God classes them with the most flagitious of mor- tals."— Note on 1 Tim. i. 10. Drs. M'Knight and Clark both contend for slave- holders having been members of the New Testament church. I might adduce more similar testimony, but this would not prove the point that slaveholding is man-stealing ; it would however be presumptive evi- dence. Man-stealing is a crime known to the law of God, and I showed in my first chapter that slavehold- ing is that crime. See pp. 34 — 38. Does the New Testament condemn men-stealers f If it does, it con- demns slaveholders ; for that is the only name they are known by in the Word of God. St. Paul classes them with the lawless, for whom the law was made, with murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, 87 with man-slayers, fyc. — with the greatest monsters in crime the world ever saw ; with the wretch who stands smoking with the blood of her in whose bosom his young life was nourished ; the euphony of whose name thrills the soul as no other sound can. What sound wakes in the heart such sensations as the word, MY mother ! The heart that is unmoved to kindness by a mother's look, a mother's word, a mother's touch, is far gone in crime ; but the man that can shed the heart's blood of a mother is a monster of unequaled depravity. And to be classed with such a wretch is the highest condemnation ; and here the New Testa- ment places slaveholders. In the Old Testament they are classed with the red-handed murderer, in the death- penalty, and in the New with murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers. This is where the God of the Bible classes them ; and here they must stand, whether in the church, or out of it. Is not such a classification a condemnation of slavery ? If it is not, nothing can be. I am aware that in the views here taken, I oppose a host of wise, learned, and good men — nearly all the commentators of the church — men greatly my supe- riors ; but it must be specially noticed that the slavery question was not the question of their day and times. These men were capable of understanding this subject, but it had not become a question for examination. No one thought it wrong when they wrote. Mr. Henry wrote his commentary within a few miles of Liverpool, when the bay of that city was white with 88 the sails of slave-ships, and the "whole christian world either engaged in the slave-trade, or consenting to it. The best eye must look at objects to see them, and the feeblest can see, by looking, what the best can not, without looking. This is just the case with thos* great, good, and learned men. They did not examine this subject ; and if I see, by looking, what they did not see, without looking, it is no reflection on their discernment, nor any assumption of superior wisdom in me. Let us look at the character of the New Testa- ment church. i "Who 'gave himself for us, that he might redeenv m from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a pecu- liar people, zealous of good works." — Titus ii. 14. " If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." — 1 Cor. iii. 17. " Who hath saved us and called us with a holj oalling."— 2 Tim. i. 9. " For God hath not called us lo uncleanness, but to holiness." — 1 Thess. iv. 7. " For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before or- dained that we should walk in them. — Eph. ii. 10. " But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- hood, an holy nation, a peculiar people ; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." — 1 Pet. ii. 9. 89 t The gospel-church was to be the model-church of the world, in all after-ages — of the mountain of the Lord's house, into which all nations were to flow, Isa. ii. 2 ; and in which no hurt or destruction was to be, Isa. xi. 9. It was to be the remedy for all the evils of the world. Into it no evil was to come ; and into it all nations were to come, by leaving off their sins ; and thus the whole earth was to be blessed with the reign of righteousness. But all these commentators admit that slavery is not only an evil, but a very great evil ; one which the gospel is intended to remove from the world, and will ultimately remove it. This is their position. But then they take into the gospel-church that which the gospel is to remove from the world by its church ; for the church is the means by or through which the gospel operates. Remove the gospel-ehurch from the earth, and the gospel goes with it, and just as the church gives up gospel principles, the world loses them. How can the church remove an evil from the world while it gives that evil a home in its heart ? Echo answers, how? No such position could have been taken if the subject had been examined. But to leave general principles, and come to par- ticulars. Dr. Clark says, "In heathen countries, slavery was in some sort excusable i among christians it is an enormity and a crime, for which perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment.''— Note on 5ph. vi. 5. Yet he agrees with other commentators that slaveholders were members of the gospel-church. JlUS CHOSEN GENERATE, THI& R$YAL PRIESTHOOD, 8,* 90 THIS HOLY NATION, THIS PECULIAR PEOPLE, was Com- posed in part of criminals almost too bad for hell, tho abode of devils damned. Could any man of Dr. Clark's capacity fall into such a monstrous absurdity — such a gross and glaring inconsistency, who had given the subject anything like an examination ? It could not be ! And what is true of him, is true of the rest ; and the weight of great names ought not to weigh against plain truth, or the position of small names, when it is demonstrable that they have given opinions without examination. CHAPTER III. ANCIENT SERVITUDE. It has been taken for granted that because slavery was in the Roman Empire, it was in all parts of it ; but this is a great mistake. Roman slavery was never in England, though that island once belonged to Rome ; and this is true of many other countries over which the conquests of that empire extended. The slavery of Rome was the slavery of war ; most of her slaves were taken captives in foreign battle- fields. These were brought by their captors to Rome, and sold ; and were, for the. most part, bought by per* sons living near the Imperial City. This resulted in tilling Italy with vast numbers of slaves. Some are said to have had twenty thousand. See Roman An- tiquities, p. 28, and Gibbon s Rome, Vol. I. p 25 ; for the number, and for the fact that Rome was the great slave market, see Roman Antiquities, pp. 25 and 26. In the time of Claudius, A. D. 50, the in- habitants of the Empire were estimated at one Jiun- 4re4 and twenty millions. The slaves were supposed 92 to be equal to the citizens, and the provincials twice the number of citizens, which would make the num- ber of slaves about thirty millions. But I think it doubtful if the number was ever more than twenty millions, if that many. Slavery was extensive in Greece, but nothing like so extensive as in Rome. The principal States of Greece engaged in slavery were Sparta and Athens. The slavery of the first was rigorous, that of the second, mild. The States of Greece were not all slave States. In the Peloponnessian war, in which the States of Greece struggled with each other twen- ty-seven years, we have in Rollin the names of the following States : The States of Peloponnesus, Lacedaemon, Achaea, Pellene, Megara, Locris, Bceotia, Phocis, Ambracia, Leucadia, Anactorium, Chios, Les- bos, Platsea, Messenia, Naupactus, Arcania, Corcyra, Cephalencia, and Zacynthia, no less than twenty States separately named, and quite a number are in- cluded in Peloponnesus, and Lacedsemon. Far the larger portion of the Greek States never owned slaves. Mark this. See Rollin, Vol. II. p. 144, chapter III. The War of Peloponnesus. The slaves of Athens were either taken prisoners in war, or bought of others who traded in slaves, and were kindly used, as a general thing. When the slaves were treated with too much rigor and inhu- manity, they had their action against their masters, who were obliged to sell them to others, if the facts were sufficiently proved. They could ransom them- 93 selves, even against their master's consent, when they had laid up money enough for that purpose. For out of what they got by their labor, after having paid a certain proportion to their masters, they kept the remainder for themselves, and made a stock of it at their own disposal. Private persons, when they were satisfied with their services, often gave these slaves their liberty, when the necessity of the times obliged the State to arm and enlist them for war among the citizens. " The humane and equitable usage with which the Athenians treated their servants and slaves was an effect of the good temper natural to that people, and very remote from the austere and cruel severity of the Lacedaemonians, in regard to their Helots, which often brought their republic^) the very brink of de- struction." — RolUn, Vol. II. p 344. Lacedsemon and Athens were the principal States of Greece ; these held slaves, but we have no well authenticated account of any of the other States be- ing involved in slavery. From these States and Rome sprang the slavery which stands connected with the New Testament church. I shall first prove that there was a time when there was no slavery in the world, and that the spirit and institutions of that age reached into nations now claimed by many as slaveholding nations. Shuckford, giving the history of the nations planted by Noah, and his descendants, says : — They had a law against slavery ; for no person among them could absolutely 94 lose his freedom, and become a bondsman." Shujh* ford's Connections, Vol. II. p. 80. Many heathen writers corroborate this testimony of Shuckford with precision and clearness. Luci- anus, or Lucian, a celebrated writer of Samosata, who was appointed by the emperor M. Aurelius, on account of his great learning and merit, Register to the Roman Governor of Egypt, says that " there was such an appointment (or law) in the days of Sat- urn, i. e. the first ages." He died A. D. 180, in the 90th year of his age. Lucian in Saturnal, by Shuck- ford, Vol. II. p. 80. The time of Saturn, mentioned by Lucian, was about eight hundred years after the flood, in the time of Moses, 1500 B. C. Saturn was the son of Ccelus, and the father of JupIRr, and grandfather of Her- cules, who was a young man at the time of the Arga- nautic expedition, 1262 B. C, according to Gillies' Greece, p. 15. Allowing seventy years for a gen- eration, which is quite long enough, will place Saturn about the time of Moses, 820 years after the flood,, and 400 years after the time of Abraham. Saturn was dethroned by his son Jupiter, and fled to Italy,, called Latium, from lateo, to conceal. He was re- ceived with marks of kindness by Janus then king of Italy, who made Saturn his partner on the throne ; and the time he reigned jointly with Janus was af- terward known as the golden age of the world. See ILemprieres Dictionary, names Saturn, Jupiter, Her* eules, and Janus. 95 - Shuckford makes the statement that the early na«- lions had a law against slavery, so that no person could lose his freedom and become a bondsman, on the authority of Diodorus, Book II. § 39, p. 88, ed. Rhod. Diodorus was a native of Sicily, from which he was called Diodorus jSiculus. He wrote forty books of history. This valuable composition, which is said to be a judicious compilation from Berosus, Timaeus, Theopompus, Callisthenes and others, by some, was the work of an accurate inquirer, and it is said that he visited every place mentioned in his his- tory. He spent thirty years, in this great work, and it contains the history of Egypt, Persia, Syria, Media, Greece, Rome, and Carthage. He flourished about fifty years before Christ. He may be ranked as the father of profane history ; and had much better op- portunities of knowing the condition of the early na- tions than any other writer whose works have reached us. His declaration as given above is unequivocal and without a single exception : " They had a law against slavery ; for no person among them could ab- solutely lose his freedom and become a bondsman." See Lemprieres Dictionary, name Diodorus. Athenaeus, a Greek historian of great merit, who wrote fifteen books of remarks and anecdotes of the ancients, and a history of Syria, and a miscellaneous work called Deipnosophisloe, and some other works now lost, observes, " that the Babylonians, Persians, as well as the Greeks, and divers other nations, cel- ebrated annually a sort of Saturnalia, or feast, insti- 96 tuted most probably in commemoration of the origin- al state of freedom in "which men lived before servi- tude was introduced ; and as Moses revived several of Noah's institutions, so there are appointments in the law to preserve the freedom of the Israelites ;" and refers to Lev. xxv. for these appointments. — Athense- us, book 14, p. 639, as given by Shuckford, Vol. II p. 80. Here is a positive declaration that there was a time when there was no slavery among the nations, and that the Saturnalia was most probably instituted to commemorate this golden period. The probability applies to the reason of the institution of the Satur- nalia, and not to the early institutions of freedom ; and the declaration is also positive that these institu- tions of freedom, which are attributed to Noah, were appointed in the law to preserve the freedom of the Israelites. Here we have three of the most reputable early historians, Diodorus, JLucian, and Athcnieas, bearing a united testimony to the fact that the early nations had institutions which prevented any person from becoming a bondsman or slave. And the testi- mony of Lucian brings this period up to the time of Moses. Plutarch in his comparison of Numa and Lycur- gu3 says : " If we be obliged to admit the sanguinary and unjust treatment of the Helots, as a part of the politics of Lycurgus, we must allow Numa to have been a far more humane and equitable lawgiver, who permitted absolute slaves to taste of the honors of 97 Freemen, and in the Saturnalia to be entertained along with their masters ; * for this also, they tell us, was one of Numa's institutions, that persons in a state of servitude should be admitted, at least once a year, to the liberal enjoyment of those fruits which they had helped to raise. Some, however, pretended to find in thi3 custom the vestige of the equality which subsisted in the times of Saturn, when there was nei- ther servants nor master, but when all were upon the same footing, and, as it were, of one family." — Plu- tarch's Lives, Vol. I. p. 162. We find the following note appended : * The Saturnalia was a feast celebrated on the 14th of the kalends of January. Besides the sacrifices in honor of Saturn, who, upon his retiring into Italy, introduced there the happiness of the golden age. Servants were at this time indulged in mirth and free- dom, in memory of the equality which prevailed in that age ; presents were sent from one friend to an- other ; and no war was to be proclaimed, nor offend- ers executed. It is uncertain when this feast was in- stituted. Macrobius says it was celebrated in Italy long before the building of Rome ; and probably he is right, for the Greeks kept the same feast under the name of Chronia. Maerob. Saturn. I. i. c. 7. Plutarch flourished in the time of Trajan, who died A. D. 117. He was honored by that emperor, and is admitted to be the best early writer whose work has come down to our time. He is positive in the de- claration that, in the time of Saturn there was no 9 98 slavery. He says that some were of opinion that tha feast of Saturnalia was a vestige of the equality which existed in the " times" of Saturn. Of this he does not speak so confidently, but he doe3 speak confident- ly on the state of society in the " times" of that ruler. " There was neither servant nor master, but all were upon the same footing, and, as it were, of one family." Here we have a fourth witness of high authority and undoubted credit, that there was no slavery in the " times" of Saturn, who reigned jointly with Janus in Italy, in the times of Moses. The note based on the authority of Macrobius was added by a later hand, most probably the translator's ; but it states distinctly the same fact, that there was an equality in the days of Saturn, and that the Satur- nalia of the Romans, and the Clironia of the Greeks. were instituted and annually kept to commemorate that state of society. Macrobius flourished about A. D. 400. He died A. D. 415. Ho wrote a work on the Saturnalia of great merit and learning, and also a commentary on Cicero's Somnium Scipi07ii3. Thi* historian also testifies that there was no slavery in the times of Saturn. Numa died B. C. 672, something over 800 years after the reign of Janus and Saturn. Some time in this period of 800 years, slavery found its way into Home, or Italy, and the Saturnalia was instituted to commemorate the golden age of the world. Macro- bius says it was before the building of Rome, which would place it before the times of Numa, who s-uo- 99 eeeded Romulus on the throne ; it was celebrated in the times of Numa, but how long before we do not know. Macrobius makes the fifth early historian who bears positive testimony that there was no slavery in the early nations ; and three of them, Lucian, Plu- tarch, and Macrobius, bring this state of things up to the times of Saturn, who was cotemporaneous with Moses. Diodorus says it was the case with all the early nations, without saying anything about when it began, or when it ended ; and Athenaeus attributes this institution of freedom to Noah. Put these testi- monies together, and we have clear and positive his- torical proof that freedom reigned in all nations from Noah to Moses ; and this is all the proof the subject admits of. And this testimony is uncontradicted by a single early writer, either of credit, or of no credit. In the light of these facts, what becomes of the de- claration so often made by D. D.'s, and others, that the nations around the Israelites, in the time of Moses, had slaves, of whom the Jews bought their slaves, or bond-servants — that slavery existed in the patriarchal age, and that Abraham was a large slaveholder? Wnat ? It stands forth a baseless assumption, made for the basest purposes, to prop up one of the greatest sins that ever dishonored God, or cursed man. These testimonies are a full and complete confirmation of the doctrine of our first chapter, that the bond-ser- vants provided for in Lev. xxv. were not slaves, but voluntary servants, and that Abraham was not a slave- LofC. 100 holder, because there was no slavery in the world in those times. The ease of Joseph may be brought to sustain the assumption that slavery existed before the time of Moses, but we shall show, when we come to take up objections, that his case is in harmony with these testimonies. We can clo it, and will do it. We learn from Gen. vi. that the violence of the old world was great — that men were giants, and made a violent use of their strength — abusing the weak. The fair presumption is, that slavery was the great sin of the old world ; great strength violently used would produce slavery as a consequence. And if slave- ry was the sin and ruin of the old world, as we have a right to infer it was, we see the reason and fitness of the institutions established by Noah. We have no evidence that civil government was instituted before the flood ; all that is said of that age is favorable to the idea, that family-government was all the govern- ment which then was ; and parental authority, the only authority of that age of the world. This would give ample opportunities for the introduction of slave- ry, and the exercise of the most cruel, yea, shocking violence, which really was the case. The institution of civil government after the flood, which we find in Gen. ix. 5 and 6, where God requires the community to protect the individual. This is the first intimation we have of the community having authority to call individuals to an account. The institution of civi} government, and the institutions of Noah for the security of "freedom, were the protections for the 101 weak, under which the re-peopling of the earth com- menced. " Diodorus Sieulus," says Shuckford, Vol. II. p. 89, " has given a full and true account of the ancient Egyptian constitution, where, he says., the land was divided into three parts : — 1. One part was the priests', with which they provided all sacrifices, and maintained all the ministers of religion.. 2. A second part was the king's, to support his court and family, and supply expenses for wars, if they should happen ; and he remarks that the king having so ample an es- tate, raised no taxes upon his subjects. 3. The re- mainder of the land was divided among the subjects, whom Diodorus calls soldiers, not making a distinc- tion, because subjects and soldiers in most nations were the same, and it was the ancient practice for all that held lands in a kingdom to go to war when occa- sion required. He says, likewise, that there were three other orders of men in the kingdom, husband- men, shepherds, and artificers ; but these were not, strictly speaking, citizens of the kingdom, but ser- vants or tenants, or workmen to those who were the owners of the land and cattle." — Diodor. Sic. liber 1, §§72, 73, p. 06." Shuckford, in the same volume, and on the same page, gives the following from Herodotus : " The Egyptians were divided into several orders of men ; but he takes in the tillers of the ground or husband- men, the artificers and shepherds, who were at first .only servants employed by the masters of the families 9* 102 to whom they belonged, and not free subjects of the kingdom, and adds an order of seamen, which must be of a later date. Herodotus's account might per- haps be true respecting their constitution in times much later than those of which I am treating. There is one thing very remarkable in the first polity of kingdoms ; namely, that the legislators paid a surpris- ing deference to the parental authority or jurisdiction which fathers were thought to have over their chil- dren, and were extremely cautious how they made any State laws which might affect it." No mention is made of slaves in any of these di- visions, and Shuckford says Diodorus " has given a full and true account of the ancient Egyptian consti- tution ;" and Herodotus, who speaks of a later period, says nothing of slavery. One thing is plain, there was no slavery in Egypt when they wrote. But we have other evidence on this point. Rollin corrobo- rates the statement of Shuckford, relative to the lower orders in Egypt, the shepherds, husbandmen, and artificers ; and so far from any of them being slaves, he says, " Husbandmen, shepherds, and arti- ficers, formed the three lower classes of lower life in Egypt, but were nevertheless had in very great esteem, particularly husbandmen and shepherds." He says further, " all professions, to the meanest, had their share in the public esteem, because the despising of any man, whose labors, however mean, were useful to the State, was thought a crime." — Vol. I. p. 122. Here we have nothing like slavery, and this is not all, 103 Rollin says, in Vol. I. p. 113, " Whatever was the condition of the woman, whether she was free or a slave, her children were deemed free and legitimate;" and gives Diodorus, liber 1, p. 72, for authority. Polygamy was allowed, but the children of any one of a man's wives were legitimate. Here was an up- rooting of hereditary slavery. No system of slavery could exist by any chance in Egypt. "The most excellent circumstance in the laws of Egypt was, that every individual, from his infancy, was nurtured in the strictest observance ot .hem. A new custom in Egypt was a kind of rail aele. All things there ran in the old channel ; i se exact- ness with which little matters were adhered to, pre- served those of more importance; coi. itly, no nation ever preserved their laws and cu ma longer than the Egyptians." — Rollin, Vol. I. . !>:. These facts, in the history of the I :ns, con- firm still further the position that the y nations were free from the curse of slavery. But, it may be inquired, if there w>: • .slaves in Egypt, how could there be any slave mothers, which Rollin mentions ? We answer, the pare . ! authority was regarded as paramount by the legi : .tors of all the early nations; and, as Shuckford says, great def- erence was paid to it in State laws. " When Romu- lus had framed the Roman constitution he did not attempt to limit the powers which parents were thought to have over their children ; so that, as Dio- nvsius of Halicarnassus observes, a father had foil 104 « power either to imprison or enslave, or to sell, or to inflict the severest corporeal punishment upon, or to kill his son, even though the son, at that very time, was in the highest employment of the State, and bore his office with the greatest public applause. And when Nurna attempted to limit this extravagant power, he carried his limitation no farther than to appoint, that a son, if married with his father's consent, should, in some measure, be freed from so unlimited a subjec- tion." — Shuckfoixl, Vol. II. p. 90. We have a proof of the authority the laws cf the early nations allowed parents to exercise over their children in the case of Jepthah and his daughter, in Judges xi. Parents might sell their children, but this slavery could not last in Egypt but for the life-time of the person sold, if so long ; for the institution of Noah, which Athemeus says Moses appointed in the 3 aw, in Leviticus xxv., set all free every fifty years, and broke up ail the slavery of one life that could exist in Egypt, and all the slavery which might arise from the sale of children in any other place, even al- lowing parents cvei^where to have the same power over their children that Romulus permitted them to have in Rome, which is very doubtful. Diodorus ob- serves, " that no person could absolutely lose his free- dom and become a bondsmann" or slave; but they might suffer a temporary loss, and the victims of this temporary loss might for a time be bond-men, or bond-women, and bond-women might be mothers ; and the special law of Egypt secured freedom to their 105 children, so that a slave could not be born there ; and those temporary slaves were all free in the year of release, which was called by Moses the year of Jubi- lee, which year of release, Athen^eus says, was insti- tuted by Noah, to prevent the enslavement of his pos- terity ; and which, according to Diodorus, existed in all the early nations, and consequently in Egypt. A slave could not be born in Egypt, and the year of re- lease freed all who might be sold into bondage by their parents. There was doubtless a few of this class there, but not enough to entitle them to a classification in the divisions of Egypt. The presumption is, that their number was very few. Confine slavery to the sale of children by their parents, and then have a year of Jubilee every fifty years, and no system of slavery can exist ; a few cases may be found, and but a few, and these few will be so identified, by consanguinity, with the other portions of the State, as never to form a class with any separate interest. This is, we think, the true state of the case ; and this was all the slave- ry found in any nation on earth, until after the days of Moses. War was not a source of slavery, so far as wc have been able to discover, until the enslavement of the Helots by the Spartans, B. C. 1058 years, and about 500 years after the times of Saturn, when there was no slavery, nor could be any, as we have seen t from the testimony of early historians, of the highest credit, except in the case of parents sometimes selling 106 their children, as we have noticed above. The fair presumption is that the state of things which existed ia the days of Saturn and Moses, continued to the time of Agis of Lacediemon, B. C. 1058, when slave- ry proper began. From this root, conquest slavery might spread into Italy before the building of Rome, which was more than 300 years after, and gave full time for the institution of the Saturnalia we men- tioned in connection with the reign of Numa, the second king of Rome. From Saturn to Numa was over eight hundred years, sufficient time to produce a great change in Italy. From the same root, conquest slavery might have* spread into Scythia, as the Greeks, had colonies and commerce at that time on the shores of the Black Sea. This slavery recognized the right of the con- queror to enslave captives taken in war, which wo- und to be the case among the Franks as late as the time of Clovis, A. D. 507. The slavery of Greece, Rome, Scythia and the Franks, made slaves of cap- tives, which is strong evidence of a common origin^ all being the same in this great principle. We have no account of slavery among the Per- sians. Their government was a perfect despotism, and made political slaves of the whole nation ; but there were no class of persons slaves to any other class of persons. We have no account of any change of the state of things, spoken of by Diodorus, in this nation. We have shown, from the very best authori- ties, that slavery was prohibited in that nation^ as 107 late as the days of Moses, and it is for those who differ with us to show when it was introduced, if slavery ever existed there. And this is the case with Syria, and other eastern nations ; and this they have not done, nor can they do it. If there was slavery in Asia Minor at the time the epistles were written to the churches in that part of the world, it was either Greek or Roman slavery; •for there was no other, except Scythian, as wo have seen, to be there. And if Grecian slavery was there, it was taken there either through the early Greek settlements, or by the conquest of Alexander. We will examine both these grounds of claim for its in- troduction. And if Roman slavery was there, it was taken there after the conquest of that country by the Romans. This we will also examine. The Greeks had considerable settlements in Asia Minor. They possessed for a long time some of the best portions of that delightful country. These set- tlements commenced immediately after the Heraclidae recovered Peloponesus, which is set down by chro- nologers 80 years after the taking cf Troy, 1104 years before the christian era, and bQ years before the conquest of the Helots, which was the beginning of slavery proper in the world. See Rollin, Vol. I. p. 414, and Lemprierc's Dictionary, Heraclida?. Slavery was not an element in these settlements, at their commencement, for it had no existence in Greece at that timo ; and we have no account of ita existence there at any future period. These settle- 108 ments commenced about four hundred years after the times of Saturn, in which there was no slavery in the world, as we have seen. In all the wars of these colonies with the Lydians, as given by Gillies and other historians, no mention is made of slavery, so far as those histories have met our eye. The great mistake on this subject is looking at the early and eastern nations through the eyes of Greeks and Romans. The literature of the early ages, the young world after the flood, was principally destroyed in the burning of the Alexandrian library, in the reigns of Aurelian and Theodosius, which amounted in all to 700,000 volumes ; 400,000 were destroyed in the reign of the first, and 300,000 in that of the second. We have to depend on Greek and Roman history for an account of the early ages. These writers were under the influence of the institutions and sentiments of their own nations and times, which were slaveholding nations. They looked back on the past ages, through the medium of their own times, and saw them in the color of that medium. Slavery was their name for servitude, and they called servi- tude by that name, and servants slaves. But when we come to gather up the few scraps of early history which remain, we find that the slaves spoken of by these writers were not slaves, but hirelings, or tributa- ries. They have the world teeming with slaves, more than one thousand years before there was any slavery proper on earth. We see the influence here spoken of on the minds of those who live in our day ; they 109 can see slavery in the institutions of Moses, and in the practice of the patriarchs. Thej honestly think they see it where it never was, and so declare. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans. We must look to the constitutions and laws of the early nations to know the truth touching this matter, and not to what Greek and Roman slaveholding or pro-slavery historians or poets say, apart from those constitutions and laws. The Spartan Greeks enslaved those they conquer- ed or took prisoners in war ; all the Greeks did not do this. The Romans did the same ; and they would look on prisoners of war as such, and call them by that name, notwithstanding this practice originated with the Spartans, after some of the great nations of the east had reached their zenith, an (j, were tottering to their fall. These nations had pushed their victo- ries and built their empires before the idea existed of making slaves of prisoners, — some of them long be- fore. But by those writers, those prisoners are called slaves, though nothing could be farther from the truth. That prisoners taken in war were oppressed and cru- elly treated, we do not dispute ; but this oppression and cruelty was governmental, not individual. They were not sold to individuals as slaves, and thus op- pressed and cruelly treated, placing over them one, or ten thousand tyrants, that their oppression might be the more complete. This was a refinement of cruelty which was not reached at once. The slaves ©f the Spartans were national slaves ; indeed, every- 10 110 thing was national, after the laws of Lycurgus were adopted by the Spartans, which was 174 years after the taking of Helos. The slavery of Rome was indi- vidual, not national, and so was that of the feudal age. But the prisoners of the ancients were not slaves, but victims of governmental oppression. European writers have been in the same situation. Feudal slavery existed in Europe until near the time of African slavery in most of the nations, and in some of them until after the introduction of that worst of systems. The influence of slavery warped their minds, and made them see things through, the blood-stained medium of their own times. We must take what these ■writers, as well as the writers of Greece and Rome, ^ay on the subject of slavery, with many degrees of allowance for the influence of the state of society ■svith wbich they were connected, and look beyond their simple declarations to the constitutions and laws of the nations of whom they speak. This is the only way we can reach the truth on this subject. AVe have seea the effect of this course relative to the slavery of the early ages. The Grecian conquests under Alexander the Great are claimed by some as a means of extending slavery into the countries of Asia Minor. Rut it must be kept in mind that Alexander was not a slaveholder, or of a slaveholding nation. He was a Macedonian. Greece had been subdued by his father Philip, and though the Greeks and Macedonians were from the same common stock, they had been separated in na- Ill tional existence for about 470 years before the time of Alexander the Great, and about 450 years before the conquest of Greece by Philip. We have no evi- dence that slavery was an element in the kingdom of Macedon ; and this is also true of a large majority of the States of Greece. It was the kingdom of Macedon, and not of Sparta, or the republic of Athens, that Alexander extended into an empire, and its principles, and not theirs, were the principles on which that em- pire was based. The princes of Macedonia claimed to be the descendants of Hercules, and in the pride of their ancestry claimed superiority over the rulers of neighboring States, and finally made good that claim. It is not probable that Alexander would give up the principles of his own kingdom, that had been governed for near five hundred years by the descend- ants of one of Greece's mightiest gods, for those of any of the States of conquered Greece ; and this he must have done, or his conquests could do nothing for the extension of slavery. In the history of his con- quests, which is detailed at length, we have not been able to find a particle of evidence that slavery was either increased or extended by him out of Greece. Before he left Greece he sold 30,000 Thebans for slaves, but after he crossed into Asia we hear no more of selling prisoners. See Life of Alexander by Plu- tarch, Vol. III. p. 251. It seems that some of Alexander's officers took with them slaves from Greece, and that some of theso slaves made their escape from their masters in Asia 112 Minor. Seleucus lost a slave, Alexander ordered strict search to be made &>r him ; he ordered that Peucerus be commended for having seized a runaway slave of .Cr&terus ; and directed Megabyzus, if pos- sible, to draw another slave from his asylum, and take him, "but not to touch him while he remained in the temple." Plutarch's Life of Alexander, Vol. III. p. 284. If Alexander was so careful and minute in his letters of business as to notice three fugitive slaves, he surely would have given some account of making slaves of his prisoners,, had this been the case. But those three runaways is all the notice we can find of slavery out of Greece in his life, or the history of his times. If others have, they have been more unfor- tunate than we ; for we regard it as a misfortune to find anything, anywhere, in favor of oppression*. But if Alexander introduced slavery into Asia Minor, by his conquest, why not into Asia Major ? It is not pretended that he carried Grecian slavery as far as the Ganges, or even across the Euphrates. And there is just as much evidence that he established slavery in Indus by the battle of Hydaspes, as that he did so in Asia Minor by the battle of the Granicus. There is not a particle of proof for either. It is worthy of special notice that a Grecian slave was safe in the temple of the gods in Asia Minor. Megabyzus was positively forbidden to touch the slave while in the temple. Slavery could not be maintained whore the gods were against it, and their temples were asylums for runaway slaves, and this seems to 113 have been the case in Cilicia in Asia Minor, and to be so well established that Alexander would not allow it to be disregarded on any acconut. Previous to the conquests of Alexander all Asia Minor belonged to the great Persian empire. This empire was free from slavery from the beginning to the end. History gives no account of slaveholders in any part of it. The government of that empire was an absolute despotism, giving the power of life and death over all its subjects to the emperor ; the sub- jects were all the most abject political slaves ; and were reduced below the power required to hold slaves. This is the true state of the case. The emperors were regarded as a kind of deities. See Rollin, Vol. IV. 2^p. 400, 403, and the Book of Esther and the Pro- 2?7iecies of Daniel. These countries were conquered by Cyrus, and brought under the Persian yoke about 555 years before Christ, and about 1,000 after the times of Saturn and Moses ; and only about 500 after the enslavement of the Helots. From the time of Cyrus' conquest to the time of Alexander, all Asia Minor was under the Persian yoke, and free from slavery, in any proper sense of the term, which was about 230 }^ears. As we have no evidence that slavery existed pre- vious to the time of Alexander the Great, 330 3. C, or that it was introduced by him, we are brought down with our inquiry to the overthrow of the Grecian power by Pompey the Great, 64 B. C. He conquered all the countries of Asia Minor, and brought them 10*. 114 under the authority of the Roman people. If slavery was in Asia Minor at the time of the apostles, it was taken there by the Roman conquest, about 60 years before the christian era. Pompey conquered fifteen nations, among whom were Media, Armenia, Arabia, Judea, Albania, and Iberia, none of which were, or are, claimed to have been cursed with Roman slavery. If none of these nations were made slaveholding by the Roman power, what evidence have we that any were ? that slavery was introduced into any of them ? None at all. It is not likely that a policy would be pursued relative to one nation, different from that pursued to others. And this must have been the case, if Roman slavery was taken into Asia Minor by the Roman conquests. See Plutarch, Vol. III. p. 201. About the time Pompey conquered the nations of the East, Caesar was prosecuting a war in Europe, in which he is said to have conquered three hundred na- tions, — Plutarch, Vol. III. p. 22S. These nations were Germans, Franks, Gauls, Britons, &c. We have full histories of these nations, and know that Roman slavery never existed in any of them, feudal and Ger- man is all the slavery that ever had any existence in any of the countries conquered by Caesar, on this side of the Alps. Nov/ we enquire, what becomes of the assertion, that Roman slavery was co-extensive with the nations subjected to the Roman yoke, when not only scores but hundreds of these nations never ha4 any Romaia slavery in them? What, we enquire, be- comes of this assumption, in view of this fact ? It • 115 must forever perish, in the eyes of all lovers of truth. The policy pursued by the Romans toward the nations they subdued, was to leave them in possession of their religion and laws, and make them tributaries to Rome. This made the Roman yoke easy while they felt they had the great strength of that power as an armor of defense. This made them reconciled to their new condition. In the case of Maxredoftia it was not only stipulated that they should enjoy their religion and laws, but that taxes should be only half what they had been before the capitulation. R,ome tolerated all religions but the true — the religion of Christ ; and her generals were ready to sacrifice to any god, but the living God. See Lempriere § Diet.. Macedonia. Pontus, which may be said to have included Cap- padocia and Galatia, was the "great country of Asia Minor. Mithridates, the great kin -r of Pontus, met the Romans with an army of 250,000 foot, 40,000 horse, and 100 chariots. After this power was brought un- der the Roman yoke, they were so far permitted to have their own laws, as to have a king. Lemprieres Diet., Pontus. And Mesopotamia, another of these conquered nations, was not reduced to even a Roman province until the time of Trajan, A. D. 110, or with- in a year or two of that time, Lempriere s Diet., Mesopotamia. What proof do these facts give that Roman slavery was introduced into Asia Minor hj the Roman conquest ? None at all ; and if it "was not 116 introduced by the Romans, it could not be there. And we have seen that Grecian slavery was not taken there by Alexander ; and that all the countries of Asia were free from slavery up to his time. Had the slavery of the Spartans been taken there, it would not have made one man master and another slave ; for Spartan slavery was not individual, but national ; the slaves belonged to the State ; and that kind of slavery did not constitute masters and slaves, but master and slaves ; all slaves having the same master, the State. The duty of servants is pointed out in Eph., Col., Tim., Titus, and 1 Peter. The duty of masters, in Eph. and Col. These two are the only places which speak of the duty of masters. In Timothy, believing masters are mentioned. But Timothy was bishop of Ephesus, so that the same people are instructed through the epistle to Timothy, which were by the epistle to the Ephesians. The epistle to Philemon, and that to the Colossians, were addressed to the same place. Philemon was a citizen of Colosse, so that we have but two places where masters are recognized as mem- bers of Apostolic churches. Ephesus was a city of Ionia. This country was settled by Greeks, princi- pally from Attica, and first became tributary to Ly- dia, then to Persia, then to the Macedonians under Alexander, and lastly to the Romans ; but history gives no account of slaves in Ionia. Colosse was a city of Phrygia. The Phrygians were of Thracian origin, and one of the oldest nations of Asia Minor. 117 We have no account of them ever owning slaves. The whole dispute is narrowed down to these two places ; and if there was no slavery in Ionia or Phrygia, then there was no slavery in the countries in which the churches were located, in which masters were re- cognized as members of the Apostolic church by the exhibition of their duties. j The epistle of Peter is addressed to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia r and Bythinia. Who those strangers were we are not specifically informed, but the most probable conjec- ture is, that they were Jews which the persecution at Jerusalem under Herod had dispersed, recorded in the twelfth of Acts, and if so, they were not slave- holding, for there were no slaves in Judea. This docs not affect the question of the existence of slavery in Asia Minor ; but in the New Testament church * and it is plain that these strangers scattered throughout these countries were not citizens of them.. And as Peter was the apostle of the circumcision,, the infer- ence is fair, if not undeniable, that the persons ad- dressed were Jewish christians who had sought pro- tection and employment in these nations, and were hirelings or servants, and not masters of any kind. This appears to be the only conclusion we can fairly come to. 1 In the epistle to Titus, the last place to be no- ticed, servants only are addressed. Titus was bishop of Crete, one of the largest islands in the Mediter- ranean Sea. This island was inhabited at a very 118 early day. Minos, a very wise legislator, framed a code of laws for it, 1400 years before the christian era. He wa3 a grandson of Saturn, and lived before slavery began to be. This king died thirty-five years before the Trojan war. These laws were long pre- served as a specimen of wisdom. We have no account of slavery in Crete, first or last. But if slavery was there, it would prove nothing in favor of slaveholders having been members of the New Testament church ; for the duties of masters, of any kind, make no part of the epistle, and the epistles of Ephesians and Co- lossians are the only parts of the New Testament which can be forced into this service. And we have seen that there is no evidence of the existence of slavery in either of those cities, or the countries of which they were a part, but much, very much, that slavery never had any existence in either of them ; and if it were not there, it could not be in these churches. But we have proof that slavery existed in Rome to a fearful extent, and that it also existed in Greece. Yet in the epistle to the Romans, the largest of all St. Paul's epistles, not one word is said on the sub- ject of the duties of servants and masters. The epistles to the Corinthians, which are longer than any of the epistles, except the epistle to the Romans, but not one word is said on the duties of masters and servants in them. If slavery was then, or is now, a subject of gospel regulation, why was it not regulated where it was ? For if slavery was in the church any- 119 where, it was in the church of Borne or Corinth. This cannot be denied ; and if it needed regulating anywhere, it needed it there ; and yet not one word is said on the subject of the duties of masters or servants. This is very strange, yea, surprising, if slaveholders and slaves were members of the New Testament church. But in Ephesus and Colosse, where we have not a particle of evidence that slavery existed, or ever had existed, and the best evidence that such a subject will admit of, that it had no exist- ence, we have the duties of servants and masters. We say the best evidence such a subject will admit of, that slavery had no existence there. It may be contended that hired servants lived in Rome and Corinth, and it w T as necessary to teach them and their employers their duty in those cities, as it was in Ephesus, or Colosse, or in any other place. This is certainly true, and yet it was not done. It is not for us to pretend to comprehend the ways of God so as to give the reason ; but in the fact that slavery was in those cities, and abounded, we have a sufficient reason. Had the duties of servants and masters been enjoined where slavery certainly was, it might have been contended, w T ith a great appearance of probabil- ity, that these servants were slaves, and the masters slaveholders ; and slaveholders and their advocates might have — nay, more, would have — perverted these impositions of the duties of innocent relations to the support of a crime which the legislation of Jehovah in the Old Testament classed with murder, and in the 120 teachings of the New classes with the most flagitious offences. But it was safe to point out the duties of these relations where slavery was not, but it was not safe to do so where it was. We see the use that has been made of the designation of those duties as it is ; and all must see that if they had been found in the epistles to the Romans and Corinthians that slave- holders and their advocates would have had means to sustain slavery they have not now. In addition to what has been adduced, we have the testimony of Gibbon, that slavery existed in the free States of the Roman Empire, He says: "But there still remained in the centre of every province,, and in every family, an unhappy condition of men who endured the weight without sharing the benefits of society. In the free States of antiquity, the do- mestic slaves were exposed to the wanton rigor of despotism. The perfect settlement of the Roman Empire was preceded by ages of violence and rapine. The slaves consisted, for the most part, of barbarian captives, taken in thousands by the chance of war, purchased at a vile price." — Vol. I. p. 27. The persons here mentioned who bore the weight, without enjoying any of the benefits of society, were the oppressed of the provinces ; they were not slaves ; for they were not only to be found in every province, but in every family ; and slavery had no existence in many of the provinces, if it had a being in any of them ; and if it did exist in them all, every family in every province of that vast empire was not rich 121 enough to own slaves, or even a slave ; so we see clearly that the oppressed of the provinces were not slaves. The oppressed of the free States of antiquity Were domestic slaves, which were principally captives taken in war, and brought by their captors, and sold at a vile price. The persons who conducted the wars of Rome were at first citizens. This was the case in the purer days of the Republic ; and these citizens were once all Romans. In the time of Servius Tullius I. the sixth king of Rome, B. C. 534, there were but 83,000 citizens ; at the commencement of the social war, there were 463,000. Afterward, all the Italian States, except the Samnites and Lucanians, were taken into the bosom of Rome, and made citizens. u From the foot of the Alps to the extremity of Ca- labria, all the natives were born citizens ; and in the time of these emperors there were about six millions of citizens in the empire." — Gibbon, Vol. I. chap. ii. pp. 21, 22. The conquered provinces, in after times, furnished soldiers, who were officered by citizens. These soldiers received pay in various ways, one of which was in land ; and the officers, who were Roman citizens, claimed the prisoners of war, and brought them to the free States of antiquity — Italy, and there enslaved them. The inhabitants of conquered provinces did not, except in rare instances, obtain citizenship, until after the time under consideration. See Gribbon, chap. i. and ii. And the countries of Asia Minor and Egypt, were the last of the kingdoms 11 122 conquered by Rome, who were admitted to these favors. It was over 230 years before any Egyptian was permitted to have a place in the Senate of Rome. The free States of antiquity, of which Gibbon speaks, were not in Asia Minor, and in these States were the domestic slaves. He might have had his eye on the States of Greece, which were free in the palmy days of that country ; but this is not clear ; for the slavery of Sparta was not domestic slavery. It was governmental slavery. That of Athens might be so considered, but Roman Slavery was domestic to all intents and purposes. And this slavery existed in the free States of Italy, and not in the provinces. The inhabitants of these provinces had to bear the burdens imposed on them by Rome, while they could not enjoy the rights and privileges of Roman citizens; and in every house in the provinces such persons were found ; but the slaves were the property of the Roman citizens, and found where these citizens lived, in the free States of Italy. The countries of Asia Minor were not the "free States of Antiquity '," but among the last of the Roman conquests, and the last who were permitted to enjoy the proud distinction of Roman citizens (see Gibbon, Vol. I. p. 24), and prov- inces, where oppression was found in every family, but domestic slavery in none. What have we to oppose to this flood of evidence that there was no slavery in the provinces of Asia Minor? Some scattered declarations of Greek and Roman writers, who did not pretend to give the 123 histories of these countries with historical exactness, but their statements were incidental allusions. In this way some of these writers mentioned that the citizens of Tyre, at the time of Alexander the Great, were descendants of slaves, who had, some ages before, risen upon their masters and killed them, and from the time of that insurrection and massacre had re- mained masters of that city ; and that the severity of Alexander to the Tyrians was to punish them for the sins of their fathers. Thus proving that slavery existed in Asia before the time of Alexander. But this would not prove that there was slavery there four or five hundred years after, in the time of the Apostle. By no chance would it prove this. But there is no historical proof of this. Prideaux, Vol. II. p. 301, notices it, and calls it an old story, but does not inform us who was the story-teller. Plu- tarch makes no mention of it ; nor is any mention made of it in Rollin, or any historian we have seen, except this allusion of Prideaux, and he calls it an old story. The Tyrians were an ancient people, and built the first Tyre before slavery had any existence in the world. » 3 It has been argued that, because great numbers of Roman slaves were obtained from Phrygia and Cappadocia, that these countries must have been slaveholding countries. And the Rev. Albert Barnes, in his work on slavery, says, " The very fact that Phrygia and Cappadocia were understood to be places from which slaves could be obtained for the capital, 124 would make it necessary to keep them for market/' p. 259. But what are the facts ? Julius Cse&ar took one million of prisoners from the three hundred na- tions he conquered, and the one thousand cities he took : these persons were slaves, because captives taken in wax were the principal source of Eoman slavery. Were the countries who furnished Rome this million of slaves,, slaveholding countries? By no means. And when we recollect that Phrygia and Cappadocia were engaged against the Romans in the Mithriadatic war, which I&sted forty years, — the longest war in which Rome was ever engaged, — and that Rome made slaves of captives taken in war, we have the true reason why the name of Cappadocia was almost synonymous with slavery. This country w T as almost depopulated by that war — a very large portion of her people were made captives, and taken to Rome for slaves. And this is not all. When they were offered their freedom by the Romans who overrun their country in this war, they refused independence, and preferred to have a king. This preference to be ruled, over-ruling themselves, well entitled them to the name of slaves, by Republican Rome; for this took place in the days of the repub- lic. Lempriere s Dictionary, Cappadocia. This fact satisfactorily accounts for the application of the term slave to the Cappaclocians; and also for the number of slaves that was brought from Phrygia and Cappa- docia. But the conclusions of Mr. Barnes are not authorized from the premises. His work, though 125 containing many excellent things, is defective — false to the cause of the slave and pure Christianity, in that he admit* that slaveholders were members of the New Testament church. He gives evidence of a want of examination of the subject. It is farther contended that slavery was common in all the nations of the earth, at the time of the Apostles ; but this is mere assumption. There is not a particle of proof to sustain any such a conclusion. The historical evidence we have adduced proves the very reverse. The case of Joseph in Egypt is cited in proof of the commonness of slavery at his time. But we have shown from the best authorities that slavery did not exist at all at that time, except in case of parents selling their children, who could not be held longer than the year of release, which was the fiftieth year. This fact refutes the argument, — no, disproves the assumption,— for it is not entitled to the name of ar- gument. Joseph was a minor, and at the disposal of his majors, as all minors now are, and, as far as we can learn, then were, subject to the control of their pa- rents and elder brethren. Elder brethren had more authority then than they have now ; this may account for the sale of Joseph. They might have presented his father as dead, and his elder brethren as his right- ful governors. This supposition agrees with the state of things at that early age, but no other can be recon- ciled to it. His bondage in Egypt was anything but Roman or American slavery. Potipher was an officer 11* 126 in authority, and Joseph was put over all he had ;— was the steward of his house, — next in authority to Potipher. His servitude in the prison was for supposed crime, which supposition rested on the testimony of a perjured woman. What was his age when cast into prison we are not informed; but his freedom had something to do with his service in the house of Poti- pher, for it is not reasonable that so much should be entrusted to an involuntary slave. His involuntary servitude could not last long in Egypt, for no person could be born a slave there, as we have seen, and there was no class of slaves in Egypt, as we have seen in our previous investigations ; and the situation Joseph occupied in his master's house is satisfactory proof, we think, to any reflecting mind, that his invol- untary servitude had ended before he was charged with crime. The servitude of the Israelites has been adduced to prove the early existence of slavery ; but this claim is unworthy of a serious reply. The Israelitish servitude was national and not domestic, and had nothing of the nature of domestic slavery in it. This all must see at a glance. They retained their nation- ality through all their servitude, and the government of Egypt was the master who set task-masters over them. Such cases of oppression and servitude have been but too common amongst nations ; but slavery is a very different things it is making one man the prop- ex ty of another. This was Roman slavery ; that is American slavery ; this was not, nor is not, national oppression, or national servitude. 127 We have now presented, as fully as our limits will permit, the authorities on which we made the declara- tion, some years since, that there was no slavery in the countries in which the churches were located to whom were addressed the epistles in which the duties of masters and servants are specified. We were sat- isfied then that they justified the declaration — we are satisfied yet that we were then right. We have seen a few attempts to prove the reverse, but they have been meagre failures, evidencing a want of acquaint- ance with the subject. If we fail to convince some of the justness of our conclusions, we think they will be convinced of two things : 1. That we have not jumped to our conclusions without examining the sub- ject. 2. That we have rendered the anti-slavery cause important service by our investigation. But we do not see how any impartial mind can come to a different conclusion from ours. We consider the argument of the first and second parts complete without this; but it is well to "make assurance doubly sure." We have no fears that either will ever be answered ; indeed, we do not expect an answer will ever be attempted ; and we felt so confi- dent that the argument was conclusive, that we looked upon this third part as unnecessary. We do not con- sider that the argument of the Old or New Testament against slavery needs this inquiry to establish them ; but still they derive confirmation from it. This, we think, all will admit. This paper has cost us immense labor; and since 128 we first expressed the opinion, that there was no slavery in Asia Minor, to the present time, we have not been in circumstances to give to the world the result of these labors. We spent some time in preparing a work on slavery, in which we intended to give these proofs, but were compelled by ill health to abandon the work, and since we have recovered our health, we have not had the means or time to print until the present.. We think the reasons of the delay called for. We have conversed with quite a number of good, and very intelligent, anti-slavery men, on the subject of this paper, who have expressed fears that we could not sustain the declaration that there was no slavery in Asia Minor,, by any historical evidence ; but they all gave evidence that they had never carefully exam- ined the subject. We have been surprised at the almost universal ignorance on the. subject of the com- mencement of slavery. We have not met with a single person who had examined with any care the position of the early nations on the subject. We have long thought such an examination called for, and should have been glad if some person of more ability and leisure had undertaken it. But we have done the best we could in our circumstances; and we are not without hope that our humble effort will be the means of calling the attention, of those who have the ability and means to make what we have here presented still more conclusive. 129 DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. BY JUDGE S. C. STEPHENS, OF INDIANA. The question then is, what is a slave? 1. An American slave is a human being who is, by wicked and unlawful force, against his will, reduced to a state of civil death, and is considered, held, and treated as property, as merchandize, and as a brute beast. 2. A human being who, by like sinful and unlaw- ful means, and against his will, is deprived of a name, and deprived of the right of belonging to any nation, tribe, kindred, family, or people. 3. A human being who, by the like sinful and unlawful means, and against his will, is rendered incapable of having a husband, a wife, a father, a mother, a child, a brother, a sister, or any other rela- tion more than a brute has. 4. A human being that, by a like sinful and un- lawful means, and against his will, is owned by another human being, as absolute property, as he owns a horse or a hog. And, if a father, he does not own his child, is not as a father of a child, and has no family name that his child can bear, any more than the father of a colt or a pig. And, if a mother, her child is not hers ; it belongs to her owner, and he takes it and disposes of it, when and how he pleases. And as soon as she ceases to feed it at her breast, she has no more right or control over it. She is precisely hehl, 130 viewed and treated as the mother of a colt or calf is, so far as her child is concerned. 5. A human being who, by like unlawful and sin- ful force, and against his will, is rendered incapable of holding, owning, or possessing, as owner, any spe- cies of property whatever. His whole time, his whole services, and all the proceeds of his labor belongs to his owner. If anything is given to him, it belongs to his owner. Not a moment of time belongs to him ; his whole time belongs to his owner. He cannot have a will or a judgment to exercise about anything ; his will and his judgment are in the exclusive control of his owner. He has no heirs, nor is he heir to any person, and, therefore, nothing can descend to him. He cannot make a will, and is, therefore, in all things reduced to a brute beast. 6. A human being who, by unlawful and sinful means, is rendered incapable of making a contract, cannot even make a marriage contract — nor can he perform a contract ; and, therefore, cannot be bound by a contract, any more than a horse can make or be bound by contract. 7. In law and among men there are two species of persons, that is, real persons — human beings — and artificial persons, corporate bodies. Persons, and persons only, can contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, in law and in chancery. A slave can neither contract nor be contracted with, sue nor be sued. This most clearly shows that they are re- duced to brute beasts, and are not persons. 131 8. A human being who, by like unlawful and sin- ful means, and against his will, is stript of all right of self-defence, and who cannot appeal to any tribu- nal, or person in church or state, for the redress of any grievance or abuse whatever. Any free person may whip, wound, beat, bruise, maim or mangle them at pleasure, and when and where they please, and the slave has no redress whatever. He dare not resist the abuse, for it is death by slave laws for a slave to resist a free person. The owner of a slave that is thus whipped, bruised, maimed, abused or mangled, may sue the person that did it for injury done to his property, as he could do if it had been a horse thus beaten ; but the slave has no redress any more than a horse would have redress. 9. A human being who, by like unlawful and sin- ful means, and against his will, can be seized and sold by execution, descends to heirs, may be mortgaged, may be disposed of by will, may be inventoried and sold by administrators or executors. 10. A human being who, by sinful and unlawful means, and against his will, is reduced to his subjec- tion, by which he can know no law or rule of conduct but the arbitrary will, whim and caprice of his owner, and is bound to labor to the extent of his power for his owner while life lasts. He does not own his own life, but is at all times subject to be killed by his mas- ter, and can receive no pay or reward for his services. 11. A human being who, by like unlawful and sin- ful means, is kept as ignorant as a beast, so that he 132 may not know his own rights. And is whipped and abused at the will of his owner, is fed, or starw, clothed or goes naked, at the will of the owner. 12. A human being who, by like unlawful and sinful means, and against his will, is compelled, by the force of his ignorance and nature, to live in the sin of fornication, lewdness, licentiousness, incest, and libertinism. The intercourse upon the large planta- tions is as the intercourse of beasts. They have no knowledge of brother or sister, or father or mother, the children of all being brought up together in the huts called nurseries, separate and apart from the laborers, without any information who mother, or father, or sister, or brother is. 13. Slavery is hereditary, and descends like a beast in the female line, and not like a human being in the male line, forever. CHAPTER IV. THE BEMEDY; ADDRESSED TO THE ANTI-SLAVERY MEMBERS OP SLAVEHOLDING CHURCHES. Slavery is acknowledged by a very large portion o£ the world to be an evil ; and by very many to be an evil in the sense of sin. No one thinks it right in his own case. No justification is offered for it only in its application to second or third persons. We have never known an exception to this remark. The very instincts of our nature revolt at its application to us, — our own sense of individual and personal rights tell us we ought to be free. This instinctive sense of our right to freedom has resisted despotism in all ages, and will continue so to do, until the shout of a world's jubilee shall go up to God in Heaven. No other subject is exciting the civilized world to the same extent at this time, and the church in this nation is convulsed, as with the throes of an earthquake ; and this is also the case with the nation itself. Every effort to allay excitement fans the flame, and the labor of learned ministers to prove slavery right, from the Bible, is leading this nation to reject the Bible as a 12 134 revelation from God ; as the self-evident truth that I have a right to be free, outweighs any evidence I can have that such a Bible is a revelation from the God of Justice. And just as these ministers succeed in convincing men that the Book of God justifies slavery will they be successful in making infidels. Humanity never has been, nor never can be, reconciled to slavery; and the world's peace never will be obtained until this evil is banished from the earth. But what will give to this distracted nation, this agitated world, the convulsed church, the longed for tranquillity ? This is an inquiry of immense moment ; but not of insuperable difficulty. The remedy is with the professing church of God, and nowhere else. The church is the salt of the earth, and the light of the world; it is Heaven's appointed instrumentality to banish sin from the world. It is the only salt, the only light, the one sun of the earth's hope ; God has given no other ; it is this, or none ! The Bible is the text which contains the mind of Jehovah. The practice of the church is the comment on that text, and the only comment. The church is God's appointed commentator — the light of the world. "What it condemns the world will hold in doubt ; what it approves, the world will practice complacently. We have demonstrable evidence of the correctness of this position in the practice of this nation on the subject of slavery, and polygamy, and concubinage. If we go to the Bible to know the mind of the Deity in relation to these two evils, we will find ten times the difficulty 135 to make out a case of condemnation against the latter practices, than we will against the former. Men who are held up as the saints of the Old Testament had more than one wife at the same time, and also concu- bines ; and though the New Testament plainly teaches the doctrine of one wife, it is sparing of its condem- nation of polygamy, except as the one wife doctrine makes it adultery, and condemns it as such. But this condemnation is inferential. This is not the case with slavery. Not an Old Testament saint ever held a slave, as we have seen in our first number, and both Old and New Testament condemn slavery in the most direct and positive manner, classing it with murder in the death penalty of the law ; and its practisers with murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, in the gospel. These facts are fully proved in the first and second parts. Now, for the practice of the church, and the effect of that practice on the public mind or conscience* Not a church of any denomination will give member- ship to a polygamist, except the Mormons ; and all, but a few small and uninfluential christian sects, give membership to slaveholders. The effect is,, a polyga- mist could not be raised to the office of a constable in any portion of the country we have any knowledge of. A slaveholder can be raised to the highest office in the nation. A horse thief, or a sheep thief, can hold no place in any church of this nation ; nor any office dependent on the suffrage of the people. Man thieves can be members of all the large and popular 136 churches of this land, and hold any office in the State of national government. We see what the church approves, the State honors; and what the church condemns, the State frowns upon. The State forms its notions of right and wrong, of reputable or dis- reputable, from the standard of the church. Nor can ijt fee otherwise,, since the church is the divinely author- ized expounder of God's law. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo ! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." Matthew xxviii. 19, 20. Here is the appointment of the church to teach the commandments of God, and this commission extends to the end of the world. The church is God's ap- pointed agent to teach his law to the end of the world ; and if the church be> unfaithful, the nations must be without his law. They may indeed wait for it, but must wait until the church does its duty. There is not a practice which the church refuses to fellowship that the State honors. Some may be suf- fered — none can be honored. If no church in this nation, or in this world, would admit a slaveholder to fellowship, slavery would soon be driven from Christendom. Humanity is against it, the instincts of our nature are against it. Our self- evident convictions are against it ; and if our religious teachings were against it, our consciences would also condemn it, and our hope of life hereafter would bind 13T us to its overthrow, and it would have to die soon, as it would be impossible for it to live through all these opposing elements. The remedy is with the church, and nowhere else but there. The church must be brought to exclude all slaveholders from her fellow- ship. This done, and slavery must die. But as long a3 the church endorses the religious character of slaveholders, slavery may live ; for those whom God's appointed expounders of his law pronounce fit for heaven, will be permitted to live honored on earth, by all who have any regard for that law. And the history of the world shows one fact : a majority of all nations have been under the influence of the reli- gion taught in those nations, whether Pagan, Mahom- medan, Jewish, or Christian ; hence what the religion of a State condemns, a majority of that State will condemn, and what it approves a majority will ap- prove, as the majority of the State is with the religion of the State, if it have any. And where the majority make the laws> as they do in this nation, they will not make laws against, but in unison with their con- sciences ; hence if the religion of this land condemned slavery, it would form a conscience against the evil that would soon force up State action for its overthrow. When men's hope of life hereafter is involved, they will act. Motives drawn from the eternal world have power to hold the heart, but we have no confidence in anything else. \ God's church is composed of his spiritual children, and its collective obligation is but the aggregate of 12* 138 their individual obligations, and what God requires of his church, he requires of each member, so far as individual action can meet that requirement. To deny this position is to affirm that the whole is more- than all the parts of that whole, which is impossible. And here we have the starting point of church reform ; the reform of its members, one by one, until the whole is reformed. As the members of the church see duty, they must do it in the fear of the Lord ; otherwise men are saved in the neglect of duty, which is- opposed to the plainest teachings of God's Holy Word. If slavery must be turned out of the fellow- ship of the church to secure the State action needful for its abolition, the church must refuse to fellowship slaveholders ; and what the church must do, the indi- vidual members must- do; else the church's duty is not the aggregate of the duty of its members, and associations are under obligations that no individual or individuate are accountable for, — obligations which oblige no one ; this cannot be. The beginning is with individuals. Those who see that slavery is sin- ful must refuse fellowship to slaveholders, and labor to give others the light they have to lead them to the same course of action, and thus progress until the whole is brought to refuse to fellowship with slavehold- ers. When this is accomplished, the work is done ^ there is no power on earth that can maintain slavery against the moral power of the church. We look on this great result with peculiar interest, «,nd anti-slavery christians would do anything in their 139 power to produce it. But the beginning is as impor- tant as the end, for the end cannot be readied with- out the beginning : and this is not all ; each step in the progress from the beginning to the end is of equal importance. Some one person must take the first step — make the beginning — or slavery never can be abolished ; and he who refuses to take that step, when he sees his duty, is responsible for all the consequences of the continued enslavement of three millions, for he refuses to begin the only thing that can free them, and the thing which cannot fail of this end. Terri- ble thought ! to appear before the final Judge with the blood of these millions on one's soul ! Far, far better would it be never to have been born, or to be yoked with a millstone and cast into the midst of the sea. But the first step has been taken ; this mighty obligation has been discharged ; and yet the work is not done — progress must be made or the end can never be reached ; and those who see their duty to refuse fellowship to slaveholders, and do not do it, refuse to do what is indispensably necessary to accom- plish this great object, and are in as fearful a condi- tion as those persons we have just described. The guilt of the whole system rests upon their souls ; for they refuse to do what must be done to abolish the entire system. We will illustrate the subject: A large mass is to be raised by a succession of individ- ual actors. The first actor can raise it one inch, which will enable the second to get hold of it with 140 his machinery and raise it another inch, which will enable a third to get hold of it and raise it a third inch, and this will enable a fourth to get hold and raise it a fourth inch ; and in this relation one hun- dred or one thousand are placed. If the first actor refuse to do his part, none above him can do anything for the lifting of this weight ; and if any one refuses to lift the weight his inch, all above him can do noth- ing, and progress stops with the refuser, be him first, last, or middle man ; and the whole responsibility of the failure rests with him. He refused to lift the whole mass, when it was in his hands to be raised, and when if he did not do it no other could. Let this great weight represent slavery, that is, crushing the hearts and hopes of the millions of American slaves — yea, more, their flesh to pomace, and their bones to powder ; and the elevators of it, the anti- slavery christians of this land. Each one has his inch to raise, or hair's breadth, if you please, but that much must be raised by him, if he would be guiltless before God. He who refuses to do his part consents to let these millions be crushed, and must meet the awful responsibility of that consent in the Judgment Day. And though unlike the elevators in the illus- tration, the failure of one to do his duty may not defeat the end, because some other person may sup- ply his lack of service, and the end be reached ; the responsibility is the same ; for refusing to do what would forward the up-lifting of the weight, is to con- sent to let it rest so far as the refuser is concerned. 141 Anti-slavery christians of this day have fearful re- sponsibilities resting on them. I pray the Father of Spirits that they may be the men for the hour ; but if they are not, the work will not be long stopped — if they hold their peace the stones will cry out. Providence has, I am confident, prepared the way for a development in the right directions, on this subject, and if we should count ourselves unworthy, he will turn to others ; it will go on. » If it be the duty of christians to refuse fellowship to slaveholders, they must place themselves where they can perform their duty ; and this brings us to consider their duty in relation to slaveholding churches. If they must not fellowship slaveholders, they must not be members of slaveholding churches ; for this would be to fellowship these persons ; for church fel- lowship is fellowship with the members who make the church. Let us examine this subject in the fear of God and the light of his Holy Word. The first text of scripture I will notice, is Matt, xviii, 15 to 17. In this place we have a plainly com- manded duty to perform to impenitent trespassing brethren ; they are to be to christians as heathen men and as publicans. This duty is imposed not on the church collectively, but on its members individu- ally. "If thy brother trespass against thee" in the singular, "let him be to thee as a heathen man," &c, again in the singular. Now, let us inquire what connection heathen men. and publicans sustained to the worshipers of the true 142 God, in the days of our Savior's incarnation, and what connection have they at this day ? Were they permitted to participate in the holy worship of the Almighty ? No, verily. Are they now permitted to sit at the holy communion to be members of churches, Church sessions, Presbyteries, Conferences, Synods, Conventions or General Assemblies ? These persons had no sort of religious connection with the worship- ers of the true God in the days of the Savior, than which nothing is susceptible of clearer proof. I do not suppose that any will have the hardihood to deny the correctness of this- position. And as the worship- ers of Jehovah had no religious connection whatever, were not allowed to have any with heathen men, neither are christians to have any with impenitent trespassing brethren. The direction of the Savior in this place means that we dissolve all religious con- nection with these impenitent trespassing brethren, and it means nothing else. But it may be plead that these directions apply to personal offenses, and not to offenses which are not personal to us. Be it so^ for the sake of the objector, for the present. But in case the church refuse to disown the impenitent trespasser when he refuses to hear the church, what shall the injured party do in that case ? Shall he obey the church, and fellowship him as a beloved brother, or obey Christ and have no fellowship with him? If he obey Christ -he can have no fellowship with that church, for to do so would be to fellowship the trespasser, who is a part of it which 143 the Savior positively forbid. And we are compelled to withdraw from the fellowship of such a church, or disobey him ; for when we fellowship the church we fellowship its members — they are the church, and we fellowship this trespasser when we fellowship it. Here is ground for secession, where plainly commanded duty can be discharged in no other way. Mark this. " 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 idolator, or railer, or drunkard, or extortioner — with such an one, no not to eat." 1 Cor. v, 11. It may be remarked on this text, that any one of the offenses named brings the offender within the intent and meaning of the prohi- bition ; covetousness and extortion are offenses named, and both these are included in slaveholding ; for if to compel a human being to labor from the cradle to the grave, without compensation, except such sustenance as will qualify him for labor, is not extortion, then the crime never did exist, nor never can. And slavery is more than covetousness (a desire to obtain that which of right belongs to another), it is a taking of that which is rightfully another's, — the high crime of theft or robbery. These crimes form the essential attributes of slavery, if not its essence, and include it in the prohibition of the text — with those who practice these crimes we must not eat. But what are we not. to eat with them? A com- mon meal, or the feast of unleavened bread, or love- feast ? It must be one of these, as I know of no 144 other kind of eating allowed to christians. If we say we are not to eat ordinary food with these char- acters, and that we may eat the Lord's supper with them, we require more care as to whom we would sit at table with in a public inn than at the communion of the body and blood of Christ. And this is not all. We would have to make inquiry when we might go to eat with others, to see if any such persons were at the table ; and if there should be, we should not dare to eat, if the offender was a professor of Christianity. And if we apply the prohibition to the love-feast of the primitive church, we will make the institution of man more sacred than the holy ordinances of Christ. That the prohibition forbids us to eat the Lord's supper with these characters is plain, from the 8th verse : " Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincer- ity and truth." Here the Apostle gives directions how to keep "the feast of unleavened bread" — the feast kept with "unleavened bread" not the eating of a common meal, or the primitive love-feast ; for we know of no feasts kept with unleavened bread but the passover of the la.w, and the eucharist of the gospel. And the Apostle was not regulating Jewish rites, but gospel ordinances ; hence he spoke of the supper of the Lord, and prohibited in the most positive manner eating it with certain characters, among whom slave- holders are undeniably included. From this conclu- sion it is impossible to escape. 145 When the church receives a person to membership, she says by that act that in her judgment that person is a christian ; and her judgment is of great import- ance, for she is not only to judge the world, but also angels ; see 1 Cor. vi, 2, 3. She is God's appointed judge in the case, and this judgment of character must have great influence for good or evil- If it be according to truth, the world will have a safe example ; but if not, the action of the church will be fearfully destructive, for she will have raised a false standard. The reception of members into a church is the highest endorsement of christian character that can be given by that church, for she says by that act these persons are christians ; and to receive the communion of the body and blood of Christ with them, is to acknowl- edge them christians, and to say to the world these are the followers of the Saviour, and to be what they are is to be a christian. Such a testimony by the church of the character of slaveholders is fearful in the extreme. To hold up to a sinning world those who practise the sum of all villainies, as the salt of the earth and the light of the world, is to put darkness for light, and death for life, by the only agent the world has to look to for the instructions of life. And he who communes with the slaveholder says, by that act, to the unsaved, that he regards him as a christian ; for he communes with him in the fel- lowship of saints, and gives the whole weight of his influence to mislead the unsaved. He may indeed lessen the force of this testimony on the few who may 13 146 know or learn from him that he does not regard slaveholders as christians ; but on the many, his testi- mony rests with unbroken force. We see from these considerations the reason, yea more, the necessity of the prohibition under consideration. Some take the ground that we need have no con- cern with whom we commune — if we be right ourselves we have no farther responsibility. We may take the thief, the idolater, the slaveholder, all clotted with human gore, by the arm, and go to the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper, and there, in the nearest visible approach we can make to Christ on earth, hold the closest communion with these characters that can be held out of heaven, and acknowledge them before men, angels, devils, and Jesus, our Redeemer, our brethren in Christ. This is a monstrous position. I once knew a minister of high standing in a slave- holding church, who said he would go to communion with the devil. Those whc take this position cite the example of Christ administering the communion to Judas, and the other disciples eating with him. But they mistake the fact. Judas did not partake of the sacrament with the Savior, or any other person. By comparing Luke xxii, from 14 to 21, with John xii, from 26 to 31, it will be seen that the supper of the Lord was instituted after the eating of the passover, and that Judas left the Savior and his disciples while they were eating the passover. The sop which the Savior gave him was a part of the passover, not a part of the bread and wine of the supper, which was 14*7 not instituted until after the passover was eaten ; and Judas went out immediately after receiving the sop, while the passover was being eaten, and could not be in when the supper was instituted, after it was eaten. The history of the last passover and the institution of the supper is given by the other evangelists, but none of them distinguish as to time, except Luke, He represents them in connection, as do the others ; but the supper coming after the passover, which the others do not give. And the fact that John gives, that Judas went out to sell the Savior while the pass- over was being eaten, proves that he was not there after it was finished, when the sacrament of the sup- per was instituted, and could take no part in it. If I have not misapplied 1 Cor. v, 11, and I am confident 1 have not, christians are positively forbidden to eat the Lord's supper with any but those persons who give scriptural evidence of piety. And to refuse to commune with a man is to refuse to hold church fellowship with him — to acknowledge him to be a christian. i " Wherefore come from among them, and be ye Beparate, saith the Lord ; and touch not the unclean thing [person], and I will receive you. " And I will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2 Cor. vi, 17, 18. The persons from whom we are to come out and be separated from, so as not to touch, are unbelievers of every kind and degree (see verse 14), from the 148 decent neglectors of salvation, to the devotee of an idol's temple ; with none of these are we to be yoked together in the gospel harness. Separation from them, in the sense of the. text, is not in the world, or in the ordinary business of life, but in the gospel yoke — in the service of God — the duties of religion — the fellowship of saints. But suppose the church take these persons into her bosom : What shall the good and the true do ? Shall they suffer themselves to be yoked with these unbelievers, in the service of God — the work of the world's salvation — and disobey God ? Or shall they come out from among them, and be separated from them, as God commands ? To remain in church fel- lowship with such persons is plainly to disobey the Almighty, and to forfeit our right to claim him as our Father — to give up our privilege of being his sons and daughters, than which nothing can be plainer. These are too much to give for the privilege of be- longing to a corrupt church ; yet many are in a fair way to give them all. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them ;" Eph. v, 11. Two things are presented, darkness ivorks and unfruitful works. The mysteries of heathen worship were performed in the night, under the cover of dark- ness, and these the Apostle had a direct allusion to ; and these works of darkness were also unfruitful. There are many associations in this our day, which secretly meet in the night, and clearly come under 149 the description of the text. Whatever shuts out the light of investigation is emphatically a dark work. And this is not only true of societies professedly se- cret, but it is also true of slavery, which shuts the mouths of the slaves, who only can testify to its bloody workings. But the fellowship forbidden is with the workers of these works — we perform wQrks, we fellowship workers. We are not to fellowship the workers of these dark works. But suppose our church take these characters to her bosom ? What shall the faithful do in such a case ? Shall they dis- obey God, and fellowship these darkness workers, or shall they obey him and have no fellowship with them ? If they do they will have to leave that church. It is plain that Freemasonry, Odd Fellowship, and other kindred associations, work in the dark under the cover of secrecy ; and this is also true of slavery, and they are unfruitful, especially slavery ; it is productive of less good and more evil than any other system or practice on earth, except war. How then can we hold fellowship with slaveholders without disobeying this command ? In no wise can we do it. And to remain in a slaveholding church is to disobey this command. "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition he received from us." 2 Thess. iii, C. Here we are commanded in the most solemn manner to withdraiv from every disorderly brother. 13* 150 In 1 Cor. v. 7, that church was commanded to purge out (put away from among them) the evil doer — here to withdraw from him. This command is either given to the church as a whole, or to its members as indi- viduals. The whole church is composed of all its parts, and what the whole is required to do all the parts are required to do ; and as the church is com- posed of its members, we find the duty of the mem- bers in the duty of the church, and vice versa. If the whole church was required to withdraw, every member was required to withdraw from the disorderly brother ; and because every member was required to withdraw, the whole church was required so to do, for all the members were the whole church. So that if the command was given to the church, the duty rested on the individual members. And if the command was given to the individual members, it rested on them ; so that in either case they are called to act. But suppose a majority refuse to obey God, shall that justify the minority in doing the same thing ? Shall the refusal of one man to do his duty exoner- ate another from doing his 1 Surely not. If a church refuse to obey this command, and' keep in fellowship confessedly disorderly persons, what shall the minority do ? What 1 1 Shall they disobey it also, while the declaration is sounding in their ears, " to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams, for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry/' Surely not ! Here is another case where the good and the 151 true might be compelled to secede from a corrupt church, and we will show presently that this case exists. " And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues ;" Rev. xviii, 4. This is spoken of mystic Babylon, and beyond all doubt applies to some corrupt religious as- sociation. All Protestant commentators, so far as we know, apply this to the fallen church of Rome. T'hey- make her mystic Babylon. General charges are brought against Babylon, and specifications given to sustain these charges ; so we have the most exact information as to the crimes of this fallen church. She is charged with fornication — with being the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird ; " her sins " have " reached into heaven.'"' Those charges are truly awful ; it would be thought mon- strous to say these things of the churches of this na- tion ; but when we come to the specifications which make up these charges, we may see that many of the churches of our land are verily guilty. What were the sins which fixed on her these awful charges ? Her " merchandise of gold and silver and precious stones, and of pearls and fine linen, and purple and silk and scarlet, and tliyine ivood and all manner of vessels of most precious wood, and of brass and iron, and mar- ble, and cinnamon and odors, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and 152 wheat and beasts, and sheep, and horses and chariots ; slaves and souls of men.'" Here is the sum. of Baby- lon's iniquity, specifically given. All these specifica- tions, except the last, is but an exhibition of luxury and wine bibbling in which the popular churches of this our land would gain nothing by comparison. We have only to open our eyes to be convinced of this. And the last specification — trading in bodies and souls of men, for the Greek is somaton — bodies, is practiced in the slavebokling churches of this land. They have no advantage here ; I wish it distinctly understood that the original is somaton — bodies, the word is never rendered slaves. Trading in the bodies and souls of men 7 is slave-trading to all intents and purposes, for slaves are men — have bodies- and son fa; they are composed of bodies and souls, and to trade in them is to trade in what they are — to trade in THEM — in their bodies and souls.. But what are we to understand by churches trading in any kind of merchandising ? The mem- bers are the church ; what they do the church does. This is especially true when the whole church permits, allows or sanctions, what they do. The members of Babylon, the great, traded in the bodies and souls of men, and the highest authorities of that church allowed those who did so to retain their membership as good and acceptable brethren. This tells the whole tale. And is not this the case in the slaveholding churches of this highly favored nation? It is ! It is!! The members of these churches trade in the 153 bodies and the souls of men — have at least two hun- dred millions of dollars invested in bodies and souls for whom Christ died, many of whom " are the mem- bers of his body, of his flesh, and of his. bones," Eph. v, 30, " heirs to a crown of glory which fadeth not away." These are sold by members of churches in this land, with " beasts and sheep, and horses and chariots" — yea, more, with hogs — an article that Babylon did not trade in. Babylon did no more. Hell can ask no more. In this main particular Baby- lon is fully equaled, if not excelled, by the slavehold- ing churches of America, and in none of the others do they excel the mother of Harlots. I shudder at this conclusion, but truth compels it. But it is important to our inquiry to know if the slavery of Babylon differed from American slavery ; and if it did, was it more or less sinful ? Mr. "Wesley said that American slavery was the "vilest that ever saw the sun." He is good authority with Methodists. But facts are authority with all. The period of Bab- ylon's trading in slaves must be from about A. D. 1000 to A. D. 1300, or from 1521 to the present time, as these are the only periods the members of the church were engaged to any considerable extent in slavery. The slavery of the first period was the slavery of the church of Rome and the Greek church. That of the second of the whole church, or Roman and Protestant churches with the Greek church. The slavery of the first period differs from our slavery in many important particulars, and the difference is all 154 against us. Then slaves could only be sold "with the soil ; the soil and the slaves could not be separated ; and this is now the case in portions of the Greek church; where the slave was born he laid himself down in death. Under that system families could never be broken up. Husbands and wives, parents and children, could live and die together ; they could lighten each others' burdens by tender sympathies — by interchanges of love. The wife had a husband's bosom to fly to in the hour of distress ; the husband, in his afflictions, a wife's heart to feel for him, and almost to relieve his burdened heart by going into it with hers ; a son, a father's counsel to guide him ; a daughter, a mother's tenderness to care for her, and when heart-broken or afflicted, a mother's ear to listen to the tale of sorrow — a mother's bosom to dry her tears. But none of these sweets mingle in the cup of American slavery. Here the demon hand of op- pression seizes the tender web into which is woven all the sympathy and love of our social natures, and tears it in pieces — separates husbands and wives, parents and children, prostrates all that can impart any joy to life, leaves its victim nothing but existence and its sorrows. Then masters might whip their slaves, but they dare not employ another to do it. Now the master may employ as many unfeeling wretches as he may choose, and by hired hands whip the slave to death. Worse — compel the son to apply the gory lash to the back of the father — the husband to that of his wife. Then slaves were admitted as parties at 155 law ; they could implead their own masters ; then law regulated slavery, and the slave could appeal to it for redress in his own person. Now the slave cannot be a party in any civil suit at law, whatever, — now the avarice, cupidity and lust of the master governs slavery, and from these the slave has no appeal. Then slaves were allowed their oaths against their masters — now denied them against any white person. Then the chastity of female slaves was protected by law ; if a master offered an insult to the virtue of his female slave, she obtained her freedom by making oath to that fact — now, if she do not yield to the criminal desires of her master, she may be whipped, even unto death, if no white person be present, or sold from all she loves into some distant land for a harlot. From these facts, we see that the churches of our day trade in a much worse system of slavery than the churches of any other day or time traded in. And it is also true that slavery in Protestant churches of this day is no better in any respect than in the church of Rome. If it be no worse, it is certainly no better. This text and its context come to the point. God's people are not to remain in fellowship with those who trade in the bodies and souls of men ; and this the members of the slaveholding church of this land do; and this these churches do. To remain in such a church is to disobey God — to be a partaker of her sins — a sharer of her punishments, than which noth- ing can be plainer. We see from the several passages 156 of scripture which we have examined, that churches may become so fallen that christians must withdraw from them to save their souls, if their salvation de- pends on obeying the plain commands of the Lord and of his Christ. But at what rjoint does it become the duty of God's people to come out of a corrupt church ? This is an inquiry of immense importance, and we ought to examine it with fear and trembling, lest we do not find the truth, and miss our way. Whenever we are placed in a position that we cannot obey God we must change that position, be it what it may ; and if we cannot obey God in the church where we find ourselves, when the light of duty shines on our minds we must leave that church, and go where we can perform our duty. This none can deny who believe the way of duty the way of safety — the way of salvation. We have seen in the preceding examination, that God's people are not allowed to hold christian asso- ciations with impenitent trespassers, or to take the holy sacrament with slaveholders ; and we have seen farther, that they are not permitted to be yoked in gospel duties — in O-od's holy service zvith idolaters or unbelievers of any hind — that they are to come out from these so as not to touch them, as yoke-fellotcs, in any of these holy vocations, and that they are to have no fellowship with the tvorkers of unfruitful and dark ivorks, and to withdraw from every disorderly brother, and finally to COME OUT of a church which trades in the bodies and souls of men. 157 None of these things are God's people at liberty to do ; they are positively forbidden to do any one of them. Now when my church connections require me to do all or any of these forbidden things, I must leave that church, for I cannot obey my Maker in it. To stay in it is to do what he positively forbids me to do — is to transgress a positive command — is to commit sin. A church connection which involves me in the com- mission of sin was never instituted hj the Savior — is not a relation of his church, which was instituted to save men from sin, not in sin. When a church provides in "her discipline for taking such persons into her pale as God's people are forbidden to hold religious fellowship with, and re- ceives and retains such persons, then his children which may be in that church must lea,ve it. And when the authorities of a churdi find such persons in her pale and refuse to put them out, God's people must leave that church. And if his people would all obey him, and they surely ought, they would all leave that organization, and leave none in it but those who have determined not to obey Christ. Such persons cannot be the church of the living God, and one of two things must be true, those who obeyed God and left, took the church of God with them, and did not leave it, or he had no church in that organization, and therefore they could not leave God's church ; so that those who secede from such a church are no sense of the word schismatics — the charge of schism rests not on them. 14 158 Churches which admit slaveholders into their pale as acceptable members are those whom God's people must leave to obey their Maker. It is positively im- possible to obey God in such a church ; for we are positively forbidden to hold church relations with such persons, as we have most clearly shown in our previ- ous investigation. To this conclusion we are com- pelled by the irresistible force of the plainest evidence of the word of God. i I ask the reader to weigh impartially, and in the fear of God, the preceding arguments — see if there be any flaw in them — and if this conclusion can be resisted, and if it cannot, inquire what your duty is if you belong to a slaveholding church ; and when you see your duty do it — do it immediately ; you must not hesitate, " for he who hesitates between duty and inclination is undone." Mark this well ! But if the members of your church trade in slaves, as well as hold them, you have a direct command from Heaven to come out of your church. Will you obey God ? Or will you risk the consequences of disobedience for the love of party or sect ? Will you ? If the members of the different churches of this land who believe slavery to be sinful would obey God, and separate themselves from all church connections with slaveholders, and either unite with the anti- slavery churches of this nation, or form others free from connection with this monstrous evil, slavery could not last long. The light of their undivided testimony would be powerful, and the slaveholding churches in 159 the free States, or rather that part of theni which are in the free States, would soon have to separate from their southern brethren, %s they could not keep up their organizations ; for as soon as men become con- vinced of the sinfulness of slavery they would refuse to join those churches, or if in them, would secede, and join with some of the anti-slavery organizations. This would be the inevitable consequence; and the whole church of the free States would be anti-slavery in a very short time. Then the days of American slavery would be numbered ; for the churches of the slave States could not resist the influence of the churches of the free States. Their testimony would be the evidence of interested parties unsustained by any disinterested persons, and this testimony would rot in the sight of all honest inquirers after truth. The southern churches, if separated from their north- ern brethren, would rot, and their influence perish with them. ? i If I have not mistaken my way in the investiga- tion of this momentous subject, the remedy for slavery in this nation, is with the anti-slavery members of the slavehokling churches ; if they obey the plain com- mands of God, this great evil will be removed from this land. The fountains of slavery's tears — the rivers of her blood will be dried up — the bones she has broken shall be made whole, and the crushed and dy- ing hearts and hopes of millions shall live ; and Jeho- vah's wrath be turned away from this blood-guilty nation. And I cannot be more confident of anything 160 which is a matter of faith than I am of the correct- ness of the positions here taken. I ask our anti- slavery brethren to Took af this subject carefully and impartially to see if I am in error. Let not one breath of excitement touch your heart, or any bias of prejudice warp your mind, while looking at this awfully important subject ; *and if you cannot satisfy yourselves that I am in error, then ask yourselves if you love your slaveholding churches more than you love Go*i and these millions of his poor. Are you willing to go to the Judgment with the blood of three milli&ne of slaves an your souls, and you are so going as surely as there is a God. Your position is an aw- ful one ; you must do more good or harm than any other men now living, or perhaps that ever did live. For Heaven's sake, for your soul's sake, for the sake of three millions of souls and bodies, for whom Christ died to make them fellow-heirs with you of life beyond this grave, I call upon you to leave your churches. Leave them at once ; obey God,, save your country, and free the slave — yea, more, much more to you, to save your own souls. And here I will leave this mo- mentous subject, praying in my inmost heart that you may be the men and women for the HOUR. Believe me, dear brethren and sisters,. I have never felt on any subject as I feel on this. Do suffer this word of exhortation, which is but the outpouring of a heart full of compassion for the slave and of love for you. 161 OBJECTIONS TO LEAVING SLAVEHOLDING CHURCHES ANSWERED. Objection 1. We are bound to do all the good we can, and if we can do more good by staying in a slaveholding church than by leaving it, we are bound to stay. Am. It is true we are bound to do all the good we can ; but it is equally true, we can do no good at all by disobeying the commands of God. This would be to sin against God for the sake of doing good. To talk of weighing probabilities of doing good in diso- bedience to God's commands, and to admit that it is possible to do more good by disobeying the Most High than by obeying him, is monstrous in the ex- treme. It binds us to disobey God whenever we judge we can do good by so doing, or rather the more or most good by so doing ; and our frail wisdom is made paramount to the wisdom of Infinity. Obj. 2. We ought to keep slaveholders. \n the church to maintain our influence over them for good, and thus make them better masters, and secure the privilege of doing good to the slave. Am. This abjection goes on the ground that men are saved in their sins, not from them— that the meal is to change the nature of the leaven, and not the. leaven the nature of the meal. Let us apply this doctrine to some other sinners.. We will keep drunk- ards in the churcli to maintain our influence over them, 162 and make them better to their families. We will keep adulterers in the church for the same reason ; if we turn them out they will give unrestrained indul- gence to their passions, and be worse men. We will keep thieves and liars in to secure our influence over them, and make them good men in the end. This is the doctrine which is brought to support church slave- holding. And this is not all ; if we should keep such characters in the church to reform them, we ought to take in such for the ver y same reason,, and extend the arm of the church around an unsaved world. Accord- ing to this objection,, we ought to have all the sinners in the world in the ehureh, to secure our religious influ- ence over them. Is this the doctrine of the Savior ? No, verily. Obj. 3... God owias ancf blesses slaveholding church- es,, souls are awakened and converted in them,, there are many good people in them,, ought we therefore to leave them ? Ans. God does not own the church, but his truitk that is proclaimed in it. It is the truth that God owns and blesses in the salvation of sinners. God had^ a people in. Babylon-^hey were< m&die his people by awakening and conversion^ They, too, were brought to salvation by the outpouring of the holy Spirit ; and this was all in Babylon ; and these persons were good — were God's people up, to the mosaeat the voice* was heard from heaven, "come out of her my peo- ple." If good people may stay in a bad church as llofi^ a& tb.ere are any good people in it, they will stay 163 until there are none to come out — until the leaven of wickedness has leavened the whole lump. Obj. 4. The church is my mother, and it would be ungrateful in me to forsake my mother. Ans. God's children are not orphans ; they have a father as well as a mother. And they are especially bound to obey their father, even God. If my mother, the church, go a whoring after strange gods, even the gods of oppression,, and become so corrupt that I can not follow her and obey my father, God, I must leave her and obey my father. The inheritance of eternad life comes by my father. I must obey him. And I am bound to love my mother, the church, so long as she is true and faithful to my father, God, but no longer. Obj. 5. Mr. Wesley was opposed to secession, and preached a sermon against it. Ans. Mr. Wesley in his sermon on schism preached the very doctrine we have advanced. He says most emphatically, that when a church requires its members to do something forbidden by the word of God, or places them in circumstances in which they cannot do "whsat God's word enjoins, or must do what his word forbids ; then in that case they are not only free to leave that church,, but are bound by the law of the Most High to do it, and to do it immediately. See Sermon on Schism, Vol. II. p. 155, par. 17. This is the doctrine contended for in these pages. We can not stay in slaveholding churches without doing what God's word forbids, or leaving undone what it enjoins ; 164 or both ; hence according to Mr, Wesley's sermon we are bound to leave such churches. Objf 6. If the fact that the sin of slavery is in the church renders it a duty to secede, then the ex- istence of any other sin in the church must force us to the same result; for the reason must be found in the sin, it being a sin to fellowship sinners \ and as there is no church wholly free from sin, we can belong to no church ; and what is the duty of one is the duty of all, on this point, and we can have no church on earth. Am. Secession is not urged because slavery is in the churchy but because it is there by authoritative toleration ; because it is knowingly and publicly suf- fered to exist in the church by the authorities thereof. Did any other sin exist in tlie church under the same circumstances, by the same toleration, and equally known to the church and to the world, it would be the duty of God's people to secede. Suppose an individ- ual member of a church knows that another member is guilty of fornication, and goes to the church with this complaint against his brother, but the proof fails to convince the church of the brother's guilt, and the accused is retained. This would not justify secession, for the church in this case would not sanction forni- cation ; for they would expel him if they had sufficient proof of his guilt. But suppose the accuser convinces the church of the guilt of the accused, and they re- fuse to expel him on the ground that fornicators have a gospel right to be members of the holy church of 165 God. The church in this case would assume the re- sponsibility of justifying fornication, and every mem- ber who would not share in that responsibility would have to secede. This is precisely the ground on which we urge secession for the sin of slavery ; it is not because it has gotten into the churches of this land, and lies there concealed beyond detection, but because it is suffered publicly to exist in those churches, on the ground that it is right in the sight of a Holy God to retain slaveholders in his church. If it can be shown that any other sin exists in these churches by the same public toleration, it will form another unanswerable reason for secession. Obj. 7. If we are bound to secede from a church because it tolerates sin, we are bound to secede from the civil government, for it tolerates sin. Ans. The principles involved in the two cases are not the same. Membership in church is voluntary — in civil society, involuntary. The fellowship of the church is when right ; the fellowship of saints, of re- generated men and women. The fellowship of civil society, the fellowship of all men, saints and sinners. The fellowship of the first, the fellowship of the salt and light of the world ; that of the second, the cor- ruption and darkness of the world. The first is not of the world, but chosen out of it. The second is the world. We must remain in the world until death, we can leave the church at any time. Obj. 8. Necessity is laid upon christians to be members of the church of Christ. 166 Am. This is true, but they can be members of his church and comply with that necessity, without belonging to slaveholding churches or a slaveholding church. There are churches enough in the nation to contain all the christians in it which have no connec- tion with slavery ; and if there were not, enough could be organized, so that this necessity can be met without disobeying the plain commands of the Most High. THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF POLITICAL ACTION. The human mind is very liable to fly from one extreme to another, and we have a striking and fear- ful exhibition of this tendency in the political action of professors of religion in this nation. When this nation was born, the union of Church and State was the great evil of the civilized world. This was the great evil on which its young eyes rested, and from which its virgin heart drew back. To avoid this evil became a leading object — was esteemed a desideratum* But the work, though one of apparent ease, was one of great difficulty. The minds of our statesmen did not properly distinguish between the polity of church or- ganization and the great moral principles on which those politics were based, and were intended to carry into effect. The moral principles on which ecclesias- tical polity rests are the same, the very same, on 167 which civil polity rests. The principles of both are the same, the very same, but the polities look in very different directions, though both look to man. The design of civil polity is a unit, to protect man in the possession of all and every of his natural rights, and the more perfectly it does this, the more fully it answers the great end of its divine ordination. The design of ecclesiastical polity is a unit, to bless men in their state of civil protection, and pour over their hearts the water of life — gladden their spirits with the joys of an immortal hope — purify their souls for the fruition of that hope, and carry them onward and upward to an eternal home of rest in heaven. The design of one is to protect man that he may be blessed, the design of the other is to bless him when protected. But neither of these polities must be separated from the great moral foundation on which they both rest. Do this, and God's design in their institution can no more be reached than a house can be built without a foundation. But in separating their designs, and the polities needful to secure those designs, there is constant dan- ger of separating from the principles on which those polities rest ; and as they both rest on the same, the danger in this case is found in separating the polities from the principles on which they rest, and raising a structure without a foundation, or on a false or im- proper one. This is the great error of this nation — one which is rapidly driving it into political Atheism. The other extreme is run into; to separate the 168 polities^ it was, and still is, judged needful to separate the principles on which these polities rest ; and as they have the same great moral basis, civil polity is separated from moral principle, and consequently from moral responsibility ; and so far as we fall into this error, we err more than deists, for they believe in human responsibility ; we are Atheists. And we have fallen into this error very extensively; and though the work of our nation's redemption from it appears almost hopeless, it must be accomplished, or our nation must perish ; for the God of Heaven is the "planter and builder" of nations, and their " plucker up" and u puller down." Political Atheism is the fruitful womb of sinful political conceptions ; it has given birth to some of fearful proportions, and is still big with others, which are struggling with each other for priority of birth. The sentiment that the Almighty Ruler of the Universe has no right to govern in State affairs — that we are not bound to consult his will in matters of civil polity — is the very poison of perdition itself. It is clearly saying to the God of the Universe, " Thou shalt not rule over us;" and a nation who re- jects God as its moral governor rejects him as its di- vine protector ; and it cannot be saJd of such a nation, " Happy art thou, Israel ! who is like unte thee, people saved of the Lord !" And in the struggles which sometimes take place between nations, such a nation may sometimes be victorious ; this is no proof of divine protection, though so regarded, for nations have generally, if not always, attributed their victories 169 to their God ; l>ut of divine displeasure on tlie other., for disregard of his authority. We would not be understood as favoring, in the most remote degree, the union Of civil and ecclesias- tical polities, but of maintaining a living union between them and the great moral principles on which they are based. We regard civil government as an insti- tution of God, and not a device of man. This insti- tution has a great moral 'basis and a definite design. Its grants of power are from God, and nothing can be rightfully done but what is in the bill of divine charter. All men are equal, and majorities have no right to control minorities further than God has granted them authority. He is the God of both, and the rights of both are hi3 gifts ; and their rights are not only lim- ited by his grant, but secured also. Civil rulers arc as much bound to regard the will of the Almighty as are ecclesiastical rulers ; and for the majority to take from the minority a single God-given right, is to rebel against God — to commit a grievous political sin. Civil government is bound to protect man in the pos- session and enjoyment of every right bestowed on him by his Creator, and it sins against its divine founder when it does not do it ; but when it reaches forth its hand to snatch from man the rights bestowed on him by the Creator, it enters into direct conflict with the great I Am, and must in the end either re- pent or perish. The will of God is as clearly the ruling principle in civil government as in ecclesiasti- cal, and still they ought not, must not be united — 15 170 cannot be without great damage to one or both ; for although they have a common life, they have not the same object or end. The first ends where the second begins, and therefore cannot go with it one hair's breadth without going beyond its own proper work ; and the work of the second lies all forward of where that of the first ends ; and for this reason never can do anything in union with the first without leav- ing its own appropriate work and sphere, and going back of its beginning place and outside of its char- tered limits. They cannot do their appropriate work together, and therefore ought not to be united. The first lifts up the weak from the power of the spoiler, and stands him on his feet in full possession of his God-given rights ; and forbids any and all, in the thunder tones of almighty power, not to humble him again, or take from him even to a shoe-latchet of what has been bestowed on him by his Creator ; and there stands over him with the drawn sword of its power, to smite any who dare to disobey. The second then pours upon him the joys of salvation, — brings over his spirit the baptism of a heavenly life. But the first must protect that the second may bless ; and as it is impossible to do their appropriate work in union, we forbid the bans of matrimony. Civil government is an institution of God, and so is ecclesiastical ; they have a common origin — children of a common parent, under the same parental govern- ment, though assigned very different work ; and as God's law forbids the marriage of brothers and sisters, 171 we forbid the bans between these parties, on the ground of consanguinity, as well as for want of union of work. But those who disclaim against the union of Church and State are practically uniting them, or trying to do the work of both by one. Politicians are trying to make civil government the instrument of blessing man by making banks and tariffs, rail-roads and ca- nals, &c, &c, taking the money of one man and giv- ing it to another, without the consent of its rightful owner ; this is governmental robbery in the sight of God ; and in other countries the sword of civil pro- tection is placed in the hand of ecclesiastical power ; both are equally opposed to God's plan of governing men. Civil government has no hand of benevo- lence ; ecclesiastical government has no sword of pro- tection. We have much coarser ideas of civil govern- ment than many others. It was made to protect — to keep off aggressions, not to bestow favors. It has none to bestow — can have none, unless it steal them. God has assigned this work to another agency. Man is one great family, under the protection of a common parent, and civil government is the watch-dog of that parent, placed at the door of his habitation to guard him from all harm. But ecclesiastical polity is placed in that habitation to pour blessing over his heart. This view of civil government may be considered too restricted to secure the interests of society. It could not carry on the public improvement of the age. But where, we inquire, do the many get the right to 172 touch the rights of the few ? Not from the Bible, ■which contains the charter of civil government ; not from the Declaration of Independence, which declares men have certain inalienable rights, of which they can never be rightfully dispossessed by any agent. What cannot be done by individual and associated en- terprise must be left undone. Admit the principle that the majority may take from an individual, or the minority, a single right which the Creator has invested them with, and the principle is admitted on which all despotisms rest. The rights of the few must give j)lace to the advantages of the many — not the rights- of the many ; for rights bestowed by the Creator never conflict. The old doctrine that civil government is a human association, for mutual benefit, and that men in going into it have to give up some of their rights to obtain the security of the rest, is the infidel foundation of all despotism. It sets aside the Bible r the charter of civil government, and excludes- from it the authority of God, its great institutor and gov- ernor, and makes the will of the ruling power of the association the umpire to decide how much of natural rights must be given up for the good of the world. This ruling power is sometimes a single individual, as in absolute monarchies ; sometimes in a few — a king and nobles ; sometimes in the rich, as in oligarchies ; sometimes in the hands of base majorities of repre- sentatives, as in republics ; and sometimes in the ma- jority of masses, as in the simplest democracies ; but if the ruling power take from the humblest individual 173 the least important right bestowed on him by the Creator ; it is not only an act of despotic aggression on the sacred inclosure of human rights, but of direct rebellion against the Lord most high — an unqualified setting aside of his authority as the Governor of the Universe, in the governing and blessing of his crea- tures. When God's will is regarded, man's rights are secured, and there is no other security for them. The Bible is the charter, and all the charter, and the only charter of human freedom. That the claims of the Creator extend as far as here specified in the government of his creatures is susceptible of the plainest and most positive proof. u But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account in the day of judgment." Matt, xii, 36. " So every one of us shall give an account of himself to God." Romans xiv, 12. " For God shall bring every work into judg- ment, with every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." Eccl. xii, 14. " In the clay when God shall judge the secrets of all men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." Romans ii, 16. " Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the coun- cils of the heart, and then shall every man have praise of God." 1 Cor. iv, 5. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 15* 174 2 Cor. v, 10. " Be not deceived, God is not mocked ; for whatsoever a man soweth the same shall he reap. For he that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting." Gal. vi, 7, 8. " Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me to give to every man according as his work shall be." Rev. xxii,. 13,. i Here we see that the claims of God extend not only to our works, but to every work, and to every idle word,, even to every secret thing ; and the very thoughts of the heart— its secret "councils;" and we also see that man never loses his individual responsi- bility— >each must give an account for himself — re- ceive the reward of his own works. We do not lose our individual responsibility when we act with others, either in Church or State. No ! no ! the claims of God are ever on us — on us in all the relations of life; and his law contains directions for our conduct, and by them we must be governed. ! We may greatly, very greatly, increase our respon- sibility, by acting with others, but we never can di- minish it. Never ! If ten men unite and commit murder — take the life of one man, human laws would hang them all — take ten lives for one life ; and this would, be the case with twenty, or any greater num- ber, within the power of the law to punish. But if a number, too great for the law to overpower, were to unite to kill one man,, or ten men, or one hundred, or one thousand, they would go unpunished, through the 175 weakness of human laws to punish them ; but that would make no difference in the eyes of the Almighty, who can with equal ease subdue one million as one, to the claims of his law, and will as certainly do it as he is God. From his righteous judgment there is no es- cape — there can be none — there ought to be none. But in what principle does the murder of one man become increased in magnitude so as to require the lives of ten, twenty, or one hundred, or one thou- sand, to make legal satisfaction ? If it had been committed by one man, his life would have made legal satisfaction. In the sight of the law, one life can make satisfaction for one murder if but one person be engaged in it ; but if there should be more than one, each one is equally guilty, because each one is equally consenting to what is done. When ten men commit a murder, each man of the ten consents in his heart to do the deed, and does what is necessary for him to do to effect it, and is just as guilty as if he had done it all himself; his heart consented to the whole, and that consent involved him in the guilt of the whole — each one became guilty of all the whole did, because he consented to the whole. When a large number of persons meet for evil purposes, or if united for good ones, undertake some great work of evil, each individual is guilty of all that may be done, though it be ten or ten thousand times as much as his individual powers could accomplish. It is not more than his individual heart could and did consent to, and he did all in his heart — he is guilty of it all 176 in his heart. The consent of the heart is what the divine law recognizes as the doing of the act. This is plainly taught by the Savior in Matt, v, 28, where the lustful look is pronounced adultery in the heart ; and this is also recognized in human laws, and is the principle on which ten or twenty men would be hung for the murder of one. They would all be guilty in their hearts. The heart can consent to a thousand times more good or evil than our limited powers can accomplish ; and the law of God recognizes that con- sent as a doing of ail that good or evil in the heart, and will judge us accordingly. How terribly awful then are the consequences of uniting with a multitude to do evil, either in Church or State. The evil done is not divided by the number engaged in doing it, and each one held accountable for his pro rata share, but each is guilty of all that was done by all, for he con- sented in his heart to all ; he did all in his heart. We would do well to look at our political connections and the responsibility of our political actions in the light of these great moral truths ; and all will do it who are not political Atheists. The great evil of slavery is the creature of law, or legal sufferance. Jurists have defined it to be a legal violation of man's natural rights. Slavery is a creature of law, and can only exist by the force of positive statute law. It is unknown to the law of na- ture, the law of nations, the common law, or the re- vealed law of God. The property relation of slavery is found no where outside of statute law j not so with 177 property in other things. Goods, chattels and lands are recognized as property by all laws. The right of property in these is prior to statute laws ; these may extend some regulations to it, but cannot cre- ate it. If slavery be a sin, those who create and sustain that sin are guilty of it. And as this sin is made and sustained by law, those who make and sustain that law are guilty of this sin, than which nothing can be plainer. And that it is a sin of fearful mag- nitude we have seen. Over three millions of this na- tion are robbed of their God-given rights, and placed where they can neither employ their powers in their own service nor that of their Creator ; for it must be distinctly kept in view, that slavery places the slave where he cannot obey God. Slavery takes the slave from under the will and law of his Creator, and puts him under the will and law of his master, be that will what it may ; it is the law of the slave's life. The master's will rests upon the slave from the cradle to the grave, with a positive absoluteness known in no other case under heaven. Slavery is the perfection of despotism — the monster-birth of rebellion against God on earth. To take one soul for whom Christ died from under the law of his Creator, and away from the knowledge of his Redeemer, and place him where he dare not even spell out the name of Jesus from the sacred word of life,, is doing all that possibly can be done to destroy the soul. No greater offense can be committed against the soul of man, or against 178 its Creator and Redeemer, except murder ; and slavery does this in the case of three millions. To go to judgment with the guilt of one resting on tine spirit would be fearful, but to have all the guilt of these millions is fearful and awful in the extreme ; and this is the case with all those who act with those political parties who politically sustain the system — the thing. They consent in their hearts that these millions shall bleed and die under this terrible crushing despotism, rather than the harmony and success of their political party should be hindered. It is impossible for us to see how such persons can be saved, unless it be on the ground of ignorance. The great political parties of this nation do not propose to do anything against slavery ; this all know that know anything of them. They may claim that they do not intend to do anything for it. This is not enough. The evil exists, and we are bound not to consent to its continuance, and this we do when we consent to the laws which give it being — consent to their continuance. We are morally bound to act po- litically for the repeal of those laws, for slavery will exist while those laws exist. To illustrate this point — the slavery of the State of Kentucky exists in her laws. Those that passed these laws were guilty of the enslavement of the slaves then enslaved ; but the very next Legislature had power to repeal those laws. Had that power been exercised for freedom and the right, slavery would have lasted but one year, but they refused or 179 neglected to do it; and thus consented to what their predecessors did, and become equally guilty with them. Perhaps we can make the point still plainer by supposing a case. Say the present Legislature of this State pass a law to sell all the citizens of Rich- land and Wayne counties into slavery to pay the State debt, and the arm of the State enforces that law, and we are all sold. The buyers know that the next Leg- islature will have full power to repeal that law and restore us to freedom, and they buy us in full view of this fact. Should the next Legislature repeal that law, they do the buyers no wrong — they take from them no property they had in us, even by an unjust law. They only bought an unconditioned right of property in us to the meeting of the next Legislature, and that they have enjoyed. Their property in us after that time depended on the will of the Legisla- ture ; we were bought subject to the contingency of that will. Hope might have been entertained that the Legislature would not repeal that law, and more might have been given for us by reason of that hope, but this could not affect the right to repeal the law. Should the next Legislature refuse or neglect to re- peal the law, our enslavement would continue, and they would be just as guilty before God as the one was that enslaved us. But any succeeding one would have the right to repeal the law and free us without touching any right the law of our enslavement gave our masters. All the right the law give them in us was subject from first to last to the contingency of the 180 legislative will. And this is the case with all slavery — always was the case — always must he the case ; for the power which creates can destroy. But in a country like ours, where the people make the laws through their representatives, the sin of wicked laws rests on them equally with their repre- sentatives. When the people want certain laws, they elect men who they know will vote for such laws ; and when they want certain laws repealed, they elect men who they believe or know will vote for such repeal. And should their representatives pass a "law which they do not like, they will make the repeal of that law a political question, and send men to the Legisla- ture to repeal it. If the Legislature should pass a sinful law, the people must make the repeal of that law a political question, and those who may vote for the repeal will be clear of the sin ; for they have done what they could to undo the wrong, and those who may vote for the continuance of the law, or who do not vote for repeal, do what they can to con- tinue the law, with all its evils — commit all its evils in their hearts, by consenting in them to these evils. This is a fearful crime ; political wrongs are awful wrongs ; they are the concentration of many actors to commit a great act, and each actor brings the guilt of the whole on his soul by consenting to the whole. In the supposed case under consideration, it would be the duty of the people to make the repeal of the un- just and wicked law, under consideration a political question, all, every man who has a vote, would be 181 morally bound to cast his vote for the repeal ; in no other way could he free himself from the guilt thereof. And he would have to do this as long as the law re- mained. It is not a matter of choice whether we vote or not. God has put into our hands in this nation a portion of political power, and he holds us bound to do good with it. It is not enough for us to say we cannot effect the object, and therefore it is not worth while to vote; we have a prior and a more important object to secure — more important to us — to free our own soul of the deep and damning guilt of that wicked law, and let its curse rest on those who might choose to approve of it or let it remain. Anti-slavery men are bound to vote against slavery to free their souls from its deep — its awful guilt. ► [ The way in which this can be done remains to be considered. There are three political parties in this nation. The Democratic, Whig and Anti-Slavery, composed of two divisions, Free Soil and Liberty Party Anti-Slavery voters. They differ in relation to the means to be used for the removal of slavery, but its removal from the country is a primary object with both. But neither Democrats or Whigs propose to do anything against slavery ; its overthrow is not among the articles of their political creeds ; no person can do anything against it by acting with them. Anti-slavery men, who act politically with either of them, give up acting against slavery ; for they put their political power in the hands of a party who they know will not use it for the removal of this great 16 182 evil from trie land ; and in so doing they say the sin may remain, so far as they are concerned. Do these persons believe there is a God and a Judgment day, and that they must meet these wronged, crushed and dying millions, in that day, and hear the Judge say, " Inasmuch as ye did it unto these poor friendless lit- tle ones, ye did it not to me." Reader, weigh this matter well before you cast another vote ; God will bring thee to Judgment. Is slavery a great and cry- ing sin, and are you a professed follower of Jesus Christ, and will you do nothing, yea, worse than noth- ing, to remove it from the land ? Will you ! ! If you unite with those who do not make action against it a part of their policy you do nothing ; but if you act for it, you are guilty of consenting to its wrongs — all its wrongs — -and are going to Judgment with guilt enough on your soul to ruin a nation. And if the Whigs or Democrats are doing anything for it, and you act with them, you consent to do for it what they are doing for it; for you give them your political power to use it for their party purposes, and your giving it is consenting to have it thus used. This is a plain case. These parties passed the Fugitive Slave Law, one of the most horrid enactments that darkens the stat- ute book of any nation ; it is unparalleled in enor- mity. We say they passed it. The members of both houses of Congress who voted for it were of both these parties. More of the one than of the other may have voted for it, but it was not passed by a 183 party vote, nor could it have been ; and those who did vote for it, did not lose caste with their parties ; they were as good Whigs and Democrats as ever. And now that it is passed, neither of them take grounds for its repeal ; many members of each are opposed to the law, but the parties, as parties, are not opposed to it. Its repeal is no part of their political creeds. It is impossible to secure its repeal by acting with them, for neither of them would repeal it if they could, and both of them acting together will not do it. So far from one of them doing it, there is not opposition enough to it in both of them to secure its repeal. They are in action for that law, say what they may in words. But we are morally bound to do what we can for its repeal if it be sinful ; and that it is, thousands upon thousands of both these parties be- lieve. Those who thus believe are bound to use their political power to secure the repeal of that hell-born statute ; and as they cannot do this in their present political parties, they are morally bound to leave them, and go where they can do it ; and as their salvation depends on discharging the moral obligations which rests upon them, the salvation of their souls depends on leaving those parties. We ask the reader to ex- amine this subject in the fear of God, and see if he can avoid this conclusion in any fair way. We are confident he cannot ; and if he cannot, will he sacri- fice his eternal all to the god of party ? Will he dis- obey God at the behest of party. Christian, will you do it ? dare you do it ? For your soul's sake, weigh well this subject. 184 « ♦,* But you are ready to plead that you cannot secure the repeal of this statute by acting with the Free Soil or Liberty Party, for neither of them have strength enough to do it ; and as you cannot secure its repeal by acting with them, you act with the others to secure some other important good. This is the very best plea that can be entered, and we give it a careful consideration. It may be true that you cannot secure the repeal of this statute by acting with anti-slavery men for this object, but you can try ; and you cannot even do this by acting with either Whigs or Democrats ; for if you act with them you must do what they are doing — you cannot do what they are not doing while you are act- ing with them in what they are doing ; this is utterly impossible ; and as neither of them is trying to secure the repeal of this statute, you cannot try to secure it while you act with them. By acting with anti-slavery parties you can not only honestly try to secure the repeal of this wicked statute, but you can free your soul from the awful guilt of the same, which is of infinite importance to you ; but this you cannot do by acting with Whigs or Democrats. The point for you to settle, in view of your final account, is, will you free yourself from the awful responsibility of that statute, or will you support its supporters, and thus bring its tremendous guilt on your own soul ? The hour is at hand, readers, when this point will outweigh a thousand times the interest or success of your par- ties. The immense importance of this question may 185 be now obscured by the blinding influence of party zeal ; but the day and the hour will soon be upon you that will give to it an eternal importance in your esti- mation. Oh ! eternity bound spirits ! look at this awful subject in the light of your final account, and tear yourselves away from atheistical political parties who say in their political actions, " There is no God !" The North, as we showed in a former chapter, has power to free every slave in the nation in a very short time, without occupying any disputed or doubtful ground, and thus dry up the river of tears which is fast filling the vials of the Almighty's wrath, and the showers of blood which are crying day and night in the ears of the God of the poor and oppressed, and sending up blood-stained vapors from the ground, which are clouding our skies with gory mantles, the proper conductors of Jehovah's wrath to our guilty nation. And come it will, unless we repent. But neither Whigs or Democrats propose to adopt a single policy that would in any way lead to the free- dom of the slaves, presently, or even remotely, much less those constitutional measures which would free the nation from this awful crime in a few years. The prohibition of the internal slave-trade would soon free every slave— to stop the extension of slavery would do the same in a comparatively short time, and both would be a blow under which slavery could not exist but for a very short time. That Congress possesses power to do both has been admitted by our best statesmen from the formation of the government. 16* 186 And Congress has acted on the provision of the Con- stitution which authorizes the prohibition of the mi- gration or importation of certain persons after 1808, and prohibited the importation of slaves; and the right to do so has not been called into question in any quarter to the present time ; and the power to prevent the migration of slaves, from place to place in the country, is as full and clear as the power to prevent their importation. It is expressed in the very same language, and has priority of position in the sentence. The exercise of this power would break up the inner- state slave trade, and give slavery a death-blow ; and the right of Congress to do so is not questionable — has not been questioned. But neither of these par- ties propose to exercise any of these constitutional powers, or do the least thing under the heavens to free this guilty nation from this sin and element of political ruin. The blood and tears of three millions of souls, redeemed by blood divine, fall unheeded in their sight ; and their shrieks and cries appear to be music in their ears, while they dance to their party gods ; indeed they are the music to which the dance is shuffled. Christian, is such a party the party for you? But this is not all. They are ready to adopt any policy slavery may need for its perpetuation. Witness the compromise measures, and the present adoption of the principles of that compromise as the platform on which both parties must go in the next Presidential election, Mr, Cass, the leading aspirant for noinina- 1S7 tion by the Democrats, has been careful to set him- self right in the eyes of the slave power. Mr. Fill- more and Mr. Webster, on the part of the "Whigs, are the great champions of the slaveholding interests ; and even Gen. Scott, the Whig favorite of the free States, is the avowed friend of the compromise. In a letter lately written to a friend at the South, he not only claims to be among the early friends and firm sup- porters of that infamous set of measures, for the ex- tension and perpetuation of slavery, but that they could not have passed Congress without his aid. Every candidate named by either party is in favor of that heaven-daring iniquity. The Whigs in the free States are trying to hide from anti-slavery men the position of Gen. Scott, and a mighty effort will be made to get them to sin against God and humanity in voting for him should he be nominated. If slavery be a sin, we cannot vote for any party who will not do what they can to free the nation from that sin without being partakers of it, we do less than we can to free the nation from it. We support the supporters of sin, which is supporting it; and thus we become guilty before God of all the tears and blood shed by the foul system, for we consent to it in our heart, not for its own sake, it may be, but for the sake of party ascendency, which may not be of a cent's interest to us, or even to the country. We do worse than Esau ; he sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and he got it ; but we consent to keep the birthright of three millions from them, and heap on 188 them burdens such as no other human beings ever bore, and get nothing for it at the present ; but we will receive our reward in the awful day of God. We say of no advantage to us or the country, for we have had several changes of the administration of the government, without any perceptible advan- tage or disadvantage to the country. Both parties we regard as occupying the same ground, and the friends of the common country, so far as political atheists can be. The great questions which formerly divided them are now lost sight of; old issues have been ob- literated, and no new ones have been gotten up. The government has immense patronage to bestow, and the successful party can enjoy it; and the masses have no interest in the question which of them shall have it. We regard both as occupying substantially the same ground, and the interests of the country about as safe in the hands of one as the other ; we would not give one shilling for choice ; and this con- clusion is the result of long and careful examination. AVe are aware that party leaders try to make the peo- ple believe that the salvation of the country depends on their being placed at the helm ; if the other party should get or retain the helm, the ship of State will be run on rocks or quicksands, and ruined ; and we are as w T ell aware that they do not believe them- selves, but if they can make the people believe it they will get their votes, and obtain place and office. The device takes with thousands, who, like Uzza, are putting forth their hand to steady the ark, and sin 189 against the Lord Most High by doing wickedly to save the country. A man might as well go to hell for salvation. It may he plead, and you will doubtless hear it plead, that if you vote for either branch of the Anti- slavery party, you will throw your votes away. Ad- mit it for the present ; you will throw the guilt of slavery from your soul at the same time, and stand acquitted before God of aiding the oppressor, and se- cure the advocacy of crushed millions with their Father and your Father, with their God and your God, for your admittance into that home where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest. But vote for those who give their power and your power to the oppressors of mankind, and these mill- ions will stand up in bar to your admission ; their now speechless grief will be eloquent then ; their tears and blood, which now fall unheeded, except by a few, and their scarred backs and benighted souls will all speak then with fearful power, and place their united curses on their oppressors, with all their aiders or abettors, you among the rest ; and all heaven will shout aloud, Amen ! It is not throwing away our votes to throw all these from our souls, and secure the ad- vocacy of all these to plead for admission among the loved ones above — more, the advocacy of our advocate and final Judge, and to hear him say, " Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." Nothing but political atheism can hold men in slaveholding political parties. But. 190 reader, remember that for all these acts God will bring thee into judgment. If our political actions pertained only to this life there might be some force in the plea of losing votes, but inasmuch as we must meet them in the Judgment day, the plea has no force. We must vote so as to do God's will, and if that will aid our party, be it so ; if not, let party sink. God's will must be done by us, or we must sink under his displeasure. We cannot escape — we cannot ! It is always best to do right, and if anti-slavery men and christians had refused from the commence- ment of the anti-slavery struggle to defile their souls with the blood-guiltiness of the pro-slavery parties of the nation, they would now have the control of this question, and could secure the freedom of the slave and the redemption of our beloved country in a very short time. The great prize now to be won on the political chess-board of this nation is the Presidency. The President has offices to bestow, either directly or indirectly, the salaries of which amount to over thirty millions of dollars in every Presidential term of four years ; and the party who can get the President, can get from him the offices and this immense sum of money. The South will vote for no man who is not fully in their interest, and no party can get the Pres- idency without the South ; and to secure this the South must be propitiated. Put if the anti-slavery party had strength enough to secure the Presidency to either of the other parties, both would instantly adopt our principles, and the day of freedom would 191 dawn. The slave would lift his head, and hope would give health to his sick heart ; and this would be the case this day and this hour, if all who believed slavery to be a sin had voted against it, and thus freed them- selves from its awful guilt. The christian must do right, and trust consequences to God. But you may be farther told that if the oppressors do not get their way, they will sever the union of these States, and cause the sun of our proud nation's prosperity to set in a sea of fraternal blood. What of it ? Shall we sin against God, even to save our own lives ? Verily, no ! Duty is ours, consequences are God's. The oppressors are going to ruin now, and they can do no more if we do not go with them, threaten what they may. Their case is now hopeless, and they cannot make it more so ; and we must let go, or perish with them. There can be no escape for "us but in atheism, and can we go there, christian brethren ? Can we ? But all these threats are naught but political tricks and management to carry points. The South would not leave the Union if they could, and they could not if they would. They could not maintain a political existence with three millions of slaves in their midst, with the feelings of humanity everywhere against them ; and a mighty pent up sym- pathy in the heart of the nations of the earth for the slaves, and as near them, too, as England's West In- dia Isles, and the northern Republic of the United States. This the South knows. And the free States of this nation will never give up the freedom of the 192 Mississippi to a Southern Republic, or any other for- eign power under heaven. This nation cannot divide. Its necessities, to say nothing of its conveniences, bind it together by indissoluble bonds. Its dissolution is not thought of by any except a few cracked-brained political fanatics. The Anti-slavery party makes the abolition of slavery its primary object, and proposes to use such means as will certainly effect it if they had the power to apply them. To act with this party is to act against slavery ; of this there can be no doubt. Here we bring our power fully to bear against this evil, and free ourselves from the guilt of supporting it, but this we cannot do by acting with any other party, or by not voting ; and if this blood spot is not wiped from our nation, it will be the fault of those who vote with the Whigs and Democrats, or do not vote at all, and not with those who vote with either division of the anti-slavery party. We regard it as a moral obliga- tion to vote against the crying sin of slavery, as we can do this by voting with the anti-slavery party, and no where else ; we regard it as a moral duty to vote with that party. We do it to save our soul. Repentance is God's prescription to sinners. Those who sin must repent, or eternally perish. This is one of the plainest doctrines of Revelation. And to re- pent is to leave off sinning — to cease to sin. If slavery be a sin, it is a political sin. The injustice has been imposed on the slaves by political action. The chains of slavery have been voted on the slaves, 193 or their enslavement by force without law has been* sanctioned by laws; and by those laws of sanction they are held, and will be held, so long as those laws are unrepealed. The repeal of those laws is repent- ance for passing them, and nothing else is ; and their repeal is political action ; hence the only repentance for the sin of slavery is political action ; there is no other, and those who refuse to repent of sin must perish ; and those who refuse to act politically on the sin of slavery refuse to repent, and must therefore perish. But it may be plead by some that they had noth- ing to do in passing these sinful laws ; be it so. They have much to do with their repeal. Were we to throw a child into the water and you stand where you could lift it out without danger to yourself, it would not do for you to plead that you had nothing to do with put- ting the child in, and stand and look on until it was drowned, and then attempt to justify your- self on the above principle. You are bound to save life when you can do so without endangering your own ; and if you do not do so, you are verily guilty before God and man of consenting thereunto ; and that consent makes you a murderer in jour heart just as much as we are who threw the child in. Others threw the slaves into the whirlpool of despotism, where they perish by thousands yearly, and we have it in our power to lift them out ; if we do not do it we consent unto their death in our hearts — are murderers in our hearts, as much so as those who threw them in. 17 194 Reader, the claims of God and humanity are upon you to vote for the freedom of the slave, and you can do so without injury to yourself or country, in any way ; and if you do not do it, fearful, fearful will he the account you will have to render at the Judgment of the Great God. ' It is contended by some that moral suasion, in contradistinction to political action, will do the work — a correct public opinion without such action is all that is needed. Some take this position who claim the front rank in the anti-slavery hosts, but there is no force in this assumption. It is delusive. If a bare majority were brought to vote for the redemption of the slaves, the work would be done, but all, or nearly all, would have to be brought to do justice and love mercy, before the work could be effected on this prin- ciple ; for as long as the laws authorize slavery, men will be found base enough to avail themselves of the provisions of those wicked laws. And this is not all. Each slaveholder who would free his slaves would have to sacrifice the pecuniary consideration of what his slaves would sell for, but thousands and tens of thousands of voters would not have to sacrifice one , cent; and as soon as a majority of those could be gained who have no pecuniary sacrifice to make in voting for the slave, the laws would be repealed, and the whole system end. But, on the other principle, all would have to be converted to justice, mercy, and the love of God, against their pecuniary interest ; and it is often said that it is difficult to see through a 195 silver dollar, and not said without some truth. We say, on the voting principle, we have no pecuniary interest to blind the eyes and prevent the perception of the truth ; for there are not three hundred thousand persons in the whole nation who have any pecuniary interest in slavery ; so that we have not only a ma- jority who have no pecuniary interest in slavery, but forty-nine fiftieths who are in this condition. And if the truths set forth in these pages were brought before their minds, they would feel their force and would act. We are free to admit that a correct public opinion would do the work in a very Bhort time, or we would rather say a correct public conscience ; but how would it do that work ? By repealing all laws giving life to slavery by political action. If men felt that their salvation was involved, as it really is, in the continuance of slavery, they would soon rally to the battle-cry of freedom, and the power of the oppressor would be broken. Some contend that the constitution of the United States is pro-slavery, and we cannot vote under it without giving aid and comfort to slaveholders. But suppose for the sake of the argument that the consti- tution is pro-slavery, and has been the instrument by which the slaves have been pushed into the whirlpool where they are perishing, would it be a choice to leave them there, over pulling them out with the instrument they were pushed in ? This is the naked question, stripped of all disguise. The constitution authorizes action that would soon put an end to slavery. Shall 196 we take that action or let slavery continue, with all its woes, until such a moral renovation shall be pro- duced as will leave no one base enough to avail him- self of the slave laws to oppress his fellow-man ? This, to our mind, is an exceedingly dark prospect ; and as we have sinned under the constitution, either by perverting it or legally using it, we can see no way to avoid the guilt of impenitence but to repent under it ; for we cannot repent in any other way ; for if men were to become so good as not to use the power given them, no thanks to those who gave it, and who continue the gift of power to do wrong, they would still be guilty before God. Turn the subject as we may, we cannot get free from the moral obligation to repeal those laws, and this repentance is political action. But we deny that the constitution is pro-slavery. We have no sympathy with those who teach that the constitution of our country, or the Bible of our God, gives power to enslave the wife of our bosom, or the children of our love ; and if no grant is given to en- slave our wife and children, none is given to enslave any other man's, for neither knows anything about . the color of the human being. And now, christian reader, what course will you pursue ? Will you give your power to parties who give their strength to the oppressor ? Will you aid to give the mighty screw of despotism another turn, that is now not only crushing the hopes and joys of millions to death, but their heart and flesh to pomace ? 197 Shall the blood of millions of hearts stream afresh to elevate some favorite to the Presidency ? Stop for one moment, and let your mind run forward to the Judgment Day, and meet this fresh stream of life- blood there, to roll over your guilty soul, and then ask yourself, " Dare I meet the awful consequences of a vote for those who favor this terrible iniquity ? Dare I ?" And may God help you to escape from the entanglements of atheistical political parties. All that we have said on the moral obligation of voting for the overthrow of slavery will apply with equal force to the overthrow of intemperance. There is no political party who gives its power to the de- stroyer, though intemperance is sustained by political action. Laws have been passed authorizing men for a small sum to follow the business of human destruc^ tion, and others have followed it without license, but these laws were not party measures ; and it is not, in this state of the question, necessary to make it a party question. But if intemperance be an evil, and we conceive it would insult the intelligence of our read-* ers to undertake to prove that it is, civil government is bound to protect society from it ; that is its object, its divinely assigned work. And every voter i3 mor- ally bound to vote for that protection ; he has no choice in the matter, but to disobey God and die. His Maker requires him to use the power he possesses as a member of civil government, for the protection of society from all harm, and will hold him to a strict account for the use he may make of it. What then 17* ' 198 shall we do to save ourselves from blood-guiltiness in this matter ? Vote for no man who will not give all his power for laws to perfectly protect society against this evil. The Maine law has so far protected society more perfectly than any other that has been tried ; and for the present ought to be the rallying point ; and christ- tians, yea, all men, are morally bound to withhold their votes from any candidate for the State Legisla- ture who will not vote for a similar law, in this and every other State, and to vote for men that will. We are as much bound not to vote for the first as we are not to swear, and to vote for the second, they being right on other moral questions, as we are to pray. We say all men are thus bound, though many refuse to comply with their obligations, and say with Pha- raoh, " Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice?" yet the obligation rests upon them, and they will surely have to respond to it in the terrible day of the Lord. Look at the drunkards' heart-broken wives — look at their sad countenances, and eyes red with weeping. Look at their half-starved and ragged children, as they hide from human view, and weep alone in sad' ness, and exclaim in their young hearts, " Oh ! that my father was not a drunkard [*' Have these — all these, no claims on society ? Must they be sacrificed to the drunkard's thirst and the drunkard-maker's avarice ? Has their God and our God laid us under no obligation to protect them ? Surely he has, and 199 he will hold us to a strict account. But we are not only bound to protect them, but ourselves also. The children of the drunkard are raised in ignorance and vice, and thrown upon society as moral miasms, and we are bound to protect ourselves and our children from such an influence. In doing this we do not touch the rights of any man or party, for rights have their foundation in God — they are his gifts, and he never gave any man a right to injure his fellow-Lcin;:' : there is no such right — there can be no such right. And whatever business injures society, no matter how sanctioned by human laws, is wrong, and the laws which give it sanction wicked, and of no moral obligation, and their makers and supporters are rebels against God, and oppressors of men, and on the high-road to eternal death. The Almighty has ordained human rights, and civil government to protect human beings in the possession of those rights ; and when it fails of this end it becomes wicked just to the extent it fails, and its wicked provisions are not morally binding. They cannot be, for there can be no obligation to do wrong ; this is impossible ; for the Maker of us all has placed us on a common level, and imposed on us the obliga- tions which rest upon us, and the perfections of his nature makes it impossible that any of these imposi- tions can be wrong ; and we cannot impose obligations on each other, for we are all equals ; one has ho more authority than another. There is no obligation to sin — there can be none. Those who bound themselves 200 by an oath to kill Paul were not bound to keep that oath, but to break it ; their salvation depended on their breaking that oath. No human solemnities can make wrong right or right wrong, the distinction be- tween them is as eternal as God. Political atheism is the ground of all trouble on these points. God is rejected from the government of society, and human caprice and cupidity seated on his throne; and the shout raised, " These are thy gods, people of the Lord, Most High !" And, strange to tell*, D. D.'s shout a long and loud Amen ! Nor is human liberty abridged by prohibiting intemperance by law, for the charter of human free- dom is a charter to do right. God gave man liberty to do right, and he is to use his liberty — not to abuse it. Society has a right to restrain any abuse of hu- man freedom, and we cannot have a right to do what others have a right to prevent us from doing. This principle is now admitted and acquiesced in by those who make such an outcry that the Maine law would take their liberty from them. We are not allowed to injure the property or person of another, in certain ways — to violate female chastity ; a man is not allowed to take the life of his wife or child, or even his own ; and if men are pursuing a course which gives any evidence of insanity of mind, though ever so harm- less, and his family is likely to be brought to want by such a course, the court will appoint guardians to take charge of his property, and have it preserved for his family. How much better it would be to cure 201 his insanity, and leave him possessed of its manage- ment. Drunkenness is not only insanity, but madness, which beggars the drunkard's family, and ruins him soul and body ; for the drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And must not the drunkard's fam- ily be protected by law, and his wife preserved from death, through fear of abridging his liberty ? Shall not his insanity, yea, madness, be cured — his property thus preserved ; his wife and children not only pro- tected, but blessed, and his soul and body preserved from the drunkard's grave — from the drunkard's hell, lest the liberty of murderers and madmen should be abridged ? Such objections can have no weight but with political atheists, who believe there is no power over man in civil government. But christian, this is not the case with you ; God has given you power to do something to prevent the overflowings of the de- structive tide of intemperance, and you must use that power or incur his displeasure. Some of our readers may think we are meddling with politics, and out of our sphere as a religious journalist. To this we plead a denial ; the preacher of the gospel of Christ is to teach the doctrines of that gospel — teach all men their duty as moral beings ; and if ever this country perish it will be because its moral teachers do not preach all the gospel. Man's duty as a member of civil government is seldom pre- sented ; hence church members and others do not even dream that the claims of the Almighty are on 202 them at the ballot box or in the legislative hall. This great truth must be known and felt by this great na- tion, or its ruin is inevitable. The pulpit and the re- ligious press must teach man all his duty, as a moral being, in civil as well as in ecclesiastical relations. The strength of truth is its divine connection; and no man can be in church what God intends him to be, without being in the state what he intends him to be. The perfection of the whole depends on the perfect connection of all the parts. We are aware that the mad-dog cry of the union of Church and State will be raised by interested po- litical atheists, but we settled the croaking of this raw-head and bloody-bones in our commencement, and refer the reader to what is said there as our refutation of this objection. We are aware that our claims to public attention are very humble — we belong not to the schools of the philosopher — have no honorary distinction — have no large or influential religious party to give their influ- ence to our humble productions, but we are confident they are true, and what the present state of society wants. Hence we sow in hope, expecting to reap at the Judgment Day. 203 THE NORTH AND SLAVERY. What has the North to do with Slavery? And what is to be done with the slaves when they shall be tree ? • The questions which stand at the head of this ar- ticle are asked by many, with an air of confidence, when anything is said in favor of the abolition of sla- very, which shows that the inquirers think them un- answerable. We propose to show that the North is not only guilty, but principally guilty for the present existence of slavery in this nation ; and that when the Lord shall make requisition for blood, the garments of the free States will be found stiffened with gore ; and also what will be done with the slaves when freed. What abolitionists proposed shall be done. 1. What has the North to do with Slavery f This is a very important question, and we will try to give it a careful consideration. We must understand how slavery is created and sustained before we can see the connection the North has with it. It is now admitted by all jurists and statesmen of any standing, that sla- very is the creature of statute law, and exists by the positive force of such law, and by nothing else. This is undisputed ; hence, we will not consume time in proving it. This is true of slavery every where. In the District of Columbia and the Territories of the United States, slavery exists by the force of laws passed by Congress, or by some other legislative bodv : 204 and adopted by the national legislature — laws over which Congress has entire control, and can annul or repeal at pleasure. We lay this down as an admitted, undeniable, and incontrovertible proposition. We inquire, how are laws passed and repealed, 1 made and unmade by the National Legislature ? By a majority of both houses of Congress, and the appro- val of the President. This all know who know any- thing on this subject. One house is composed of the representatives of the people ; the other, of the rep- resentatives of the States ; and the President is elected by the people. The free States have a large majority in both branches of Congress, and about fifty more electoral votes for President than the slave States have. From this it is evident that the free States have the power to make the President and Vice President ; i. e., the veto power and the casting vote in the Senate ; hence, the free States have the power to repeal all the laws in the District and Ter- ritories, not only without assistance from the slave States, but in defiance of them. But this is not the case with the slave States ; they cannot repeal those laws without northern aid. This is a plain case. Now, we inquire, who is to blame for the existence of an evil, those who can prevent its existence, or those who cannot ? The answer to this question will settle the point under consideration, so far as sectional guilt i3 concerned. We look on all parts as equally guilty ; but when we attempt to make the guilt sectional, then we say the North is principally guilty. 205 There were 30,438 slaves, according to the census of 1840, in the District of Columbia and Territories, 25,717, of whom are in Florida, 11 in Wisconsin, and 16 in Iowa, notwithstanding the ordinance of 1787, and the balance 4,694 in the District. All these were held by laws which Congress can repeal at any time — which the free States can repeal without one vote from the South. But we will be met with this plea ; the guilt of slavery rests on the masters who hold the slaves in bondage. They are guilty, we admit ; but they are not the only persons guilty. We will illustrate this point. A. and B. are walking beside a river, and a lad of ten years of age meets them. A. says to B., I want to drown this boy, and every other boy we may meet, but my arms are paralysed ; I have no strength to catch him or any other, and put him or them into the river ; but you can give strength to my arms to drown this boy, and continue it, so that I may drown all we meet. I wish you to do so. B. imparts the needed strength, and A. drowns the boy. B. contin- ues A.'s strength, and A. drown3 30,438 boys. A. is arrested and tried in a court of justice. What think you will be the punishment he is doomed to suffer ? You answer he must of necessity be hung. Hanging is too good for him. But what shall be done with B. ? Why, hang him too ; he is just as guilty as A. in every sense. A. could have done no evil, had not B. given him the power to do it. Now, this is precisely the relation of the State and the 206 slave-owner. He could never bold a slave, not even for one moment, if the State did not give him power so to do. The slave-owner only exercises the power the State gives him, and that power the State can take away at any time. Now, who is most guilty, the State which gives and continues the power, or the owners who exercise it ? Judge ye. We say they are equally guilty ; but, if there be a difference, the State is the most guilty, for it is the primary cause and agent. But who is the State ? The people — the citizens — those especially who have the right of voting. They make the laws through their representatives, and change them when they please. The representative is but their agent ; they are accountable to God for what he does. He is accountable to them, as their agent, but to God as a moral agent ; and, whenever his constituents require him to do what he conceives to be sinful, his duty to God requires him to resign his office. Should the representatives of the people pass a wicked law without the knowledge or consent of their constituents, the people in that case would be innocent until they could send representatives to re- peal that law ; but, if they should take no action to repeal that law,. and let it remain in force, they would then become guilty. Here their guilt would begin, and it would continue until the law was repealed. This is the true state of the case. From these considerations, it is undeniable that the guilt of the enslavement of the 30,438, God will 207 require at the hands of this nation. And this is not all ; every man who votes for a member to Congress, or President, or member to a State Legislature, who will not in his official capacity act for the repeal of" the laws which enslaves these thousands, is just as guilty before God as the southern slaveholder, and must as truly repent to be saved. Now, we in- quire, what have the voters of the free States been doing, lo ! these many years ? Voting for party can- didates who have continued these slave laws. They were voted for, knowing that they would not lift a finger for their repeal ; and thus the voters have brought on their own souls the awful — the damning guilt of slavery, and ask, at the same time, what have we to do with it ? And this is not the worst ; the ministers of the Gospel who are sent to warn the peo- ple when the sword is coming, have been so fearful of corrupting their sanctums with anything that might have a political bearing, that they have chosen to let the voters of their congregation go to perdition in droves, rather than to have anything to say that might appear like having anything to do with politics, though they, or some of them, could draw on a long face, and say prayers over a hickory club or a coon- skin convention. But for all these things God will bring them to judgment, and awful will be the ac- count they will have to render. But the people of the free States are not only guilty for the slavery that is in the District and Ter- ritories, but for the slavery in the slave States. Con* 208 gress could have secured the abolition of slavery in the States, without attempting to legislate on State slavery, or taking any doubtful or disputed position, and ought to have done it long since. About sixty years since, a member of Congress (Mr. Edgar) in a speech made in the House, estima- ted the average value of slaves at $15. Mr. Clay, a few years since, estimated them at $400 apiece on an average. The great and unparalleled rise in the value of slaves has kept back abolition in the State ; and what produced that increase of value was what prevented emancipation. Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina had societies for the abolition of sla- very, and some of the leading statesmen in those States were engaged in those societies, and expressed confident hope that slavery would soon be abolished — among whom was Washington and Jefferson. The society in North Carolina had forty branches. This was a move among the slaveholders themselves. "While slaves were worth but little, there was no profit in raising them, and the surplus was a burden under which the States groaned for deliverance, and labored to throw off; but, so soon as the growing of slaves became profitable, and a market was opened for the surplus, these States gave up the idea of emancipa- tion, and their societies died. The policy which in- creased the price of slaves was the policy which pre- vented emancipation. The writer of this article recollects when, in his native State (Virginia), slaves brought but from $300 to $500, and then, when they 209 brought from $1000 to $1500. Now, if we can find what produced this increase in price, we shall find what prevented emancipation, and those who caused this state of things are guilty of the continuance of slavery. We desire the reader's serious attention to the investigation of this subject. The Constitution of the United States provides that " The powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peo- ple." — Ninth Art. of the Con. We call on the advo- cates of slavery to put their finger on the clause in the Constitution, which delegates to Congress power to establish slavery any where, or even to the States to do it. No such phrase can be found — no such clause exists. In the fifth Article of the Amend- ments we have the following : "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." And the second paragraph of the sixth Article provides that " This Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any- thing in the Constitution or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding." The point to be settled is, what does the Consti- tution mean by " due process of law f" Three things are here linked in this connection — life, liberty, and 210 property. The Constitution points out the process to be pursued in the cases of life and property. Trial in open court, and by jury, is secured in both cases. See Art. 3 of the Constitution, and 7 of the Amend- ments. Where there is a charge of crime, the facts charged must go to a jury, and the same is true in any case which relates to property of over $20 value. The crime charged may affect the liberty of the per- son arraigned, in which case he must be tried before a jury of his country, and have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, and also the benefit of coun- cil. This is the process of law pointed out in the Constitution itself ; and less than a compliance with its own provisions cannot be a " clue process of law," in the meaning and intent of that instrument. The Constitution gives the process to be pursued, in all cases of arraignment, where life, liberty, or property is involved in the issue ; and a proper observance of this process is a " due course of law" within the mean- ing of the Constitution, than which nothing can be plainer. The term person is the next point of inquiry. Are slaves persons, within the meaning of the Consti- tution ? The ninth Sec. of the first Art. provides that " The migration or importation of such persons els any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight ; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such im- portation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.". 211 In the second Sec. of the first Art., we have the fol- lowing : " Representations and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respec- tive numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." The term persons, in both places, means slaves, and has been so understood, and so acted on by the Government from its organization to the present time. There is no dispute about the term persons, in both these places meaning slaves, there has been none, and there can be none ; as to the meaning of persons in the representative clause, for they are not free per- sons, nor persons bound to service for a term of years, nor yet Indians ; and there were no other persons but the slaves to which the term could apply, and there are no other yet. So that slaves are persons, clearly and undeniably within the meaning of the Constitu- tion. And so far from being deprived of liberty by a due process of law, they have every one been de- prived of it without any process at all, due or undue ; and consequently their enslavement is a plain, direct, and palpable violation of the Constitution. It may be contended that the slaves never were deprived of liberty, for they never possessed it ; but to debar or hinder from enjoying, is to deprive, as well as to take from persons that which they have, and it cannot be contended that the slaves are not 212 hindered or debarred from the enjoyment of liberty, and if they are, they are to all intents and purposes deprived of it. The North has, and always had, power to pass laws to carry out the guarantees of the Constitution, in favor of liberty in complete effect. The great strug- gle of what is called the late compromise, was to se- cure the passage of laws to carry out what the slave- holders were pleased to call the provisions of the Con- stitution in favor of slavery, though that instrument does not contain a single provision of the kind. It was, and still is, the duty of Congress, to pass laws to carry into complete effect the provisions of the Con- stitution, laws which would have secured to every in- dividual known to that instrument, as a person, the enjoyment of liberty, unless he had been deprived of it by due course of law, and as the slaves have not been so deprived., to have restored them to liberty. The North have always had the power, they now have it, to do what the Constitution authorizes on this sub- ject, " To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing pow- ers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." — Art. 1., Sec. 8. The North has always had a majority, and numbers give power. But it may be farther contended that the framers of the Constitution did not intend that this provision should reach to the slaves. We answer, we are not 213 bound by what they intended, but by what they did — the nation is bound by what they did, not by what they might have intended to do. "We are not to go out- side of a law to know what it intends, the intention of a law is to be gathered from the law itself ; this is a fixed principle of interpretation, and any departure from it is not only mischievous but ruinous. And let the framers of our Constitution intend what they may, this clause does reach to the slaves beyond a doubt ; for • it reaches to all persons without an ex- ception, and slaves are persons within the meaning of this great charter of liberty. And if it be better than the framers intended to make it, humanity is the gainer by their blunder. But it ought not to be forgotten that no one, at the time the Constitution was framed and adopted, expected slavery to continue, and few if any desired that it should. To suppose that the sage framers of that instrument should make provisions for the con- tinuance of what a very large majority of them did not wish to have continued is absurd in the extreme ; and to provide for the continuance of what what they did not believe could be continued was impossible ; for it is a fixed law of mind, that we cannot try to do what we believe cannot be done ; we may deceitfully go through the " motions," but the heart is not in the affected effort. The fair and charitable conclusion is, that they intended to do what they did do — make a Constitution for liberty — to promote its blessing with- out the curses of slavery. But let them have in- 2U tended what they may, this is what they did ; and we, the people of the United States, are bound by what they did. It may be still farther contended that the second Sec. of Art. 4 provides for the continuance of sla- very, and overthrows the above positions, which reads as follows : " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into an- other, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor ; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." To this objection we reply, that this provision does not describe either slaves or masters. They are not the persons described, and therefore cannot be brought within the meaning and legal intention of this clause. The persons to be delivered up are per- sons held to service or labor under the laics of the State from which they may have escaped. This does not describe slaves, they are not held to service or labor under the laws of the slave States, nor never were. There is no service or labor due from them to their master in the eye of the law, which their mas- ters can legally impose in a way to create legal par- ties ; and there cannot be a suit for the recovery of a claim of any kind without two parties, and no slave can be a party to any civil suit at law in the United States. There cannot be one party to a civil suit, there must be two, and the claimant is the party to whom there is something due. This word due proves 215 that it is a civil suit at law. What is due to on< party in the eye of the law is owed by the other. The claimant is the party in the eye of the law to whom the service is due, and the person escaping into another State, the legal parti/ who owes that service due ;" and by a suit at law, in the State from which the second party escape, this service can be in force, and on proof that the escaping party owes service to the party claiming the same, the claiming party shall take the other back to the State from which he es- caped, where the claimant can enforce his claim le- gally. This is the undeniable meaning of the provis- ion. But slaves are not held to service or labor under the laivs of any State in the Union ; they are every where held as property, just as horses and cat- tle are held ; they are every where known in law as property, and are called in the law " chattels per- sonal ;" and the master's right to work them grows out of the fact that they are his property. But the laws of the slave States do not bind them to service or labor any more than the laws of Ohio hold our horses or oxen to service or labor. Our right to make them work is found in the fact that they are our property in the eye of the law ; but the law which makes them our property does no more; it does not attempt to regulate or define their services. This is the case with slaves. The right of property carries with it the right to make them serve. They are not known to the law as per- sons held to service or labor, but as persons held as property. And there would be just as much propria 216 ety in saying an Ohio horse or ox was held to service or labor by the laws of Ohio, as to say a slave is so held by the laws of Virginia, or any other slave State. A slave can no more be a party to a civil suit at law than can a horse or an ox. And the service or labor due is due under the law of the State from which the escaping person came to the claimant, who is called " the party" — one party. There must be two par- ties, and the escaping person is the other. These parties are such in the sight of the law. But as a slave cannot be a party in law in any civil matter, any mat- ter involving claim, he cannot be a party in this case ; and if the slave cannot be the second party ', or de- fendant, the first party, or plaintiff, cannot be a slave- holder. It is impossible to bring the slave and his master within the meaning or legal intention of this clause ; and as this never can be done, this provision cannot by any fair construction be made to reach to the slaves. It may be plead that the laws of some of the slave States specify the time the slaves may be made to work each day. These laws do not impose on the slaves any obligation to work that length of time, but interfere with the master's authority, and intends to prevent him from working them longer. The design of these laws are to protect the slaves from the cru- elty of masters, as laws in the free States protect brutes, by providing punishment for cruelties exer- cised on them by wicked masters. But the first im- pose no more obligations on the slaves than the second 217 do on the brutes. They are laws of protection, not of obligation. But there are persons to whom it does apply, per- sons who come fairly within its description — appren- tices and their masters ; these owe service under the laws of the States. The father binds his son to a mechanic for four years, or until he is twenty-one, and the mechanic binds himself to learn his appren- tice his art or trade. The apprentice stays with his master until he is nineteen, by which time he has ac- quired sufficient knowledge of his trade to obtain journeyman's wages; he then leaves his master, and goes into another State. The master follows him, and shows that two years service is due him by the inden- ture he holds from the boy's father, proves the age and identity of the escaping lad. This lad must be given up that he may be taken back to the State where he owes the service, and where the party to whom it is due can compel it by legal force. All such cases are within the descriptions and legal meaning of this provision of the Constitution. We do not say that there are no other persons to whom this descrip- tion will apply ; but we do say that it does not apply to slaves. That the angels in Heaven are not farther from the description of this clause than are the slaves, except they are not men, and slaves are. With this difference it might as well be applied to the one as to the other. It would be impossible to be human, and be farther removed from this description than the the slaves are. 218 The intention of the framers of the Constitution may be again plead as an offset to this view. But we are not to be governed by what they intended, but by what they did. If the constitution fails to describe slaves and masters, as it evidently does, there is no power on earth which can rightfully apply this pro- vision to them ; they must be described before they can be acted on by this clause, j But there is strong evidence of a contrary intention on the part of the framers. When this clause was reported by the com- mittee to the house, it read, " persons held to servi- tude." Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, moved to strike out the word "servitude," and insert the word, "ser- vice" because (he said) the word servitude denoted the condition of slaves, and the word service the condition of free persons owing service. The motion was carried by a very strong vote. Here is a very strong proof that they intended to make it what it is, a provision to return free persons from whom lawful service is due, to some legal party, and not slaves, from whom nothing be legally due to any per- sons, for they have no civil existence in the laws of any of the States. But the North could have secured the freedom of i he slaves without occupying any doubtful or even disputed ground. The ninth section of Art. 1 pro- vides that " the migration or importation of such per- sons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and 219 eight." The same power is here given to prevent migration that there is to prevent importation. The first Congress did do this in the prohibition of the foreign slave trade, and their right to do so has not been called in question ; and the right to prevent the inter-state slave trade is given in the same section with equal clearness, and with priority of position. The expression of this right is as plain as language can express anything. This same power is clearly expressed in the 8th Sec. of Art. 1, where Congress is given power to " regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among (not with) the several States, and with (not among) the Indian tribes." Under this clause, as well as under the migration and importa- tion clause, Congress has full power to prevent the foreign and inter-state slave trade. And if they had exercised the power given by either of these clauses of the Constitution, there would not now be a slave in the United States. If slavery had been confined to the old thirteen states, as it might and ought to have been, and could have been without a single southern vote, the slave States would have found their supply of slaves a burden too intolerable to be born, and would have been compelled to free their slaves to get rid of them. Thus the North, in the exercise of undisputed con- stitutional powers, could have indirectly secured the abolition of slavery, hushed the groans and dried the tears of the millions who are crying to God day and night. And this the North could do yet in a very short time. 220 But Congress has not only neglected to act for the overthrow of slavery, but has established it, though the Constitution gives it no power so to do ; and thie has been the reason which prevented the 'States frorr, abolishing it. But it is not enough to say that Con- gress established slavery without any authority from the Constitution ; they did it in open defiance of the letter and express design of that sacred instrument, as also of its spirit. The Constitution was ordained to "for?n a more perfect union, establish justice (not injustice), insure domestic tranquillity ', provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to us and our pos- terity." Every one of these objects is endangered by slavery, and the establishment of it by Congress is an open war on the letter, spirit and design of the whole Constitution as thus declared. This is a plain case. But has Congress established slavery ? Yes, verily. The slavery in the District and Territories is without authority from the Constitution — exists by violation of the expressed design of that instrument. The laws which authorize it in these portions of our country are unconstitutional, and every one that voted for them perjured himself; for he swore as a member of Congress to support the Constitution, and voting for these laws was a violation of that sacred oath. And this is not all ; every man that has taken his seat in Congress since those laws were passed took an oath to support the Constitution ; but who of them has made an effort to annul these unconstitutional 221 laws ? We lay it down as a truth that an oath to support the Constitution binds us to act against every thing which violates it ; and all who swear to sup- port it, and yet do nothing against those violations, violate their oath ; they do not act for the mainte- nance of that instrument. What support does a man give the Constitution who stands by and sees it vio- lated continually, and never makes the least resist- ance ? But if w.e go beyond the District and Territories, we shall find more, many more instances of the viola- tion of the Constitution for the benefit of the few slaveholders. Eight new slave States have been re- ceived into the Union since the Constitution was adopted, — Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Missis- sippi, Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas. Many, if not all, of these States have been Territories, over which Congress had entire control. When Territo- ries, Congress established slavery in them, and when they applied for admission into the Union, admitted them with their slaves. When they were Territories, Congress could have abolished slavery in them by an- nulling the laws which had been passed before they came under the legislation of the nation. Congress had no constitutional power to maintain these laws, because they had no power to do anything for slavery ; and as the laws of these Territories — laws passed before they came under the control of the General Government — were null when the territories came un- der the National Legislature, it required the sanction. 222 of Congress to these laws to keep them in being. This sanction Congress had no constitutional power to give ; hence, slavery in the Territories of the Uni- ted States always was, and now is, and ever ivill be, unconstitutional. But when these territories applied for admission into the Union, Congress had power to refuse them admission, unless they became free States. This none will deny. But this is not all ; Congress was bound to exercise that power ; the very design of the Constitution demanded it ; and, as Congress has no power to do anything for slavery, they have no power to admit slave States, for this would be doing some- thing for it. The larger part of those eight slave States was carved out of Territory over which no slave State had ever had any jurisdiction. It was purchased by the funds of the nation. The Louisiana purchase, and In- dian purchases, embrace the far greater part of the territories of these States. Thus Congress took the funds of the nation, and bought the great south-west, and then planted it with slavery. That Congress had power to prevent the foot of a slave from being set on the nation's territory, none we think can deny, but if any should, it is at once proven by the prohibition of slavery in the North-western Territory. Congress had the same power to prohibit slavery below 36 J de- grees north latitude that they had above it. AVe now invite attention to the effect of planting the great south-west with slavery, and then admitting 223 it into the Union in separate States, A market was thus formed for the surplus slaves of the old States, which raised the average price from $15 to $400. Thus slave-growing became a profitable business, and deathless spirits were raised for market like cattle, and sold like cattle. More, the slaveholders of the old States were enabled to sell their sons for bond- men, and their daughters for harlots, and get from $1000 to $1500 for their own children ; and many of them did this very thing ! Virginia has received in the last twenty years about $200,000,000 for surplus slaves; Kentucky more than $100,0000,000 ; and other breeding States in proportion. The new States of the South have bought over half a million of slaves in the same time ; these at $600 each would amount to $300,000,000, and at $1000 each to $500,000,000. This, with the addition of what has been done in other ways for the support of slavery, has enabled the old States to hold on to the evil. Had slavery been confined, as it ought to have been, to the old States, long before this time they would have been compelled to relinquish it. The old States have made by the sale of surplus slaves, since the purchase of Louisiana, not far short of $1,000,000,000. Cut off this source of profit, and tax the old States with the burden of the increase, from which they have been freed by selling them into the new States, and receiving for them at the same time the enormous sum above named, to enable them to sustain themselves, o.nd what would have been the 224 consequence ? They must have abolished slavery long since, or, like a millstone round their necks, it -would have sunk them to the bottom of the sea of ruin. This is a plain case. Nothing can be plainer than that the extending of slavery into the new States has been the cause of its perpetuation. Now, what had the North to do with its extension into these new States ? The States now free (we mean of the old thirteen) had a majority of two in the first Congress — of 42 under the census of 1880, and, if we mistake not, 47 under that of 1840, and tlic same majority of electoral votes for President and Vice-President — from which it is undeniable that the North has always had the power to control this sub- ject. But this is not all ; the North had a majority of two in the Senate of the first Congress under the Constitution. The South could not have extended slavery one furlong without the aid of the North ; the North has always had the power to confine slavery to its former limits, and was bound by the Constitution so to do. And, if slavery could have lived in these limits, let it live ; and, if not, let it die. And if it had been thus confined, it would have died, dead, DEAD, long since. But the North did not exercise that power, but powers not given by the Constitution have been exercised, and by that exercise they have extended and perpetuated slavery, and not only so, perjured themselves for the sake of committing this great sin — of bringing the blood of the millions of slaves now sighing under their burdens, robbed of all 225 that the Almighty Ruler bestowed on them for time and eternity, going to the tomb without hope for the most part, and by the most afflicting path ever trod by mortals. Yea, more, dying by thousands before their time. And yet, after all this, we wipe our mouths and ask, with an air of self-complacency, " What has the North to do with slavery ?" The an- swer to this question will be given when the history of time shall be given in, and the Lord Most High make requisition for blood, then it will be seen that the awful evil of slavery has been maintained by the votes of the representatives of the free States, and they and those that voted for them will stand on the very same ground before a righteous Judge that the Southern slaveholders will, who had exercised all the cruelties of the system, for they enabled him to do it. We ask the reader to look at this subject, not as a matter of j)olicy, but as a subject you must meet in the judgment of the' great day, and ask yourself, in view of the account you must then render, if you dare ever give another vote for either of the two great pro- slavery parties of this nation, who have brought the blood of the enslaved millions of our land on this gen- eration, either of which have committed sins enough on this one subject to sink any number of nations. Can you for one moment think of voting for a candi- date who would consent for a moment to act for ei- ther of these parties ? if you can, do not claim to be a believer in the doctrine of future rewards and pun- ishments, for it is next to impossible to believe this 226 doctrine, and act thus. It must be done ignorant^ if done at all, by any true believer in the Holy Scrip tures. You may have acted ignorantly heretofore ; but you cannot do so hereafter. For your soul's sake, look at this awful subject. We might notice many other things which the North has done to render slavery profitable, and thus secure its perpetuity, but our limits will not permit. We leave the subject for the present, being fully satisfied that enough has been said thereon to sat- isfy any impartial mind that the North is chargeable before God for the existence of slavery, not only in the Districts and Territories, but in the States them- selves ; and that northern voters, and their represen- tatives, will have to give an account for its existence in the great and terrible day of the Lord. We now invite attention to the second inquiry, What will be done with the slaves when freed ? We premise first, in answering this question, that colored men are men ; that the slave is a man, and i^ endowed by his Creator with all the rights of a man, and subject to law, just as other men are, and has the same account to give to the same great Ruler, and hence must have the same facilities afforded him t< render that account with joy ; that the principles of the moral government of God make no distinctions all stand in the same relation to him ; and he intendi that all should be governed by the same laws. All human beings, being subjects of law, the laws which are adapted to one class are adapted to all, circum 227 stances being the same, God having made no differ-* ence in the natural relations of his creatures on ac- count of class or country, or in their rights. We lay these down as self-evident propositions. We have every thing done for the management of the slaves when they may be freed that is indispensa- ble to have done. We have laws now for the govern- ment of men of all classes, sorts and kinds, good, bet- ter, BEST,— and bad, worse, WORST; and if the black man is a man, as all admit, he is somewhere in this category ; he is either the best or worst man, or somewhere between them ; and the laws now made wilJ reach him, and govern him when reached. Those who think that laws must be made to govern the blacks, when freed, before it will be safe to free them, have been misled by the idea of class, and class legis- lation, the greatest political heresy of any age. We want no class legislation ; the great Lawgiver has* none, has authorized none, never intended that any should ex- ist. We now have all the legislation we need. There might be some laws passed adapted to the new state of society which freedom would produce. This doubtless would be the case ; but these would not affect the great relations of society. All these are now settled in the laws we have. All that is necessary is to free the black man and make him a subject of law. Govern him by law. Reward him for virtuous conduct — punish him for vicious ; and we have the laws now to do all this ! Let the slave States repeal all their slave laws, and all would be done that is essential. Take the 228 State of South Carolina, for example, and let the le- gislature of that State pass the following act : Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, That all laws of this commonwealth creating, sustaining, or regulating slavery, or having reference to colored persons, are hereby repealed. This bill would put a full end to slavery and all class legislation, and place all where the Almighty intended they should be placed, in the enjoyment of the same rights and privileges, and accountable to the same laws. And all this could be done by passing a bill of six lines. How easy it is to do right ! And it is as safe as it is easy ! More so ; it is always safe — not always easy. " Who shall harm you if ye be fol- lowers of that which is good ?" , This is what we propose to do with the slaves when they shall be freed. Freedom will translate them from things to men in the eye of the law, and, when we get them legal men, we will manage them legally. But a cloud of objections rises which requires attention. I. If they were freed, they would all run here, and we do not want the negroes among us; "for we do not like negroes, no how." This is the most po- tent objection with many, very many, in the free States. We doubt not but that many in the State of Ohio believe that if the slaves were freed to-day, " every last one" of the three millions would be in this State before one month. But, fearful as this objec- tion is to many, it is more false than it can appear fearful. It is false, every word of it. 229 If the colored people "were free, they would not come to the free States, and those that are here would go away. Of the truth of this we have no doubt ; and we ask the reader's careful attention to the rea- sons which give us this confidence in its correctness. Cast your eye on the map of the United States, and you will see that the slave States have more than one-third more territory than the free States. Then look at the last census, and you will see that the free States have over one-fourth more inhabitants than the slave States. This shows that the free States are double as thickly inhabited as the slave States. Add to this, the slave States have the advantage of cli- mate, soil, and commerce, and consequently can yield labor a better reward. Now, that section which can give labor the best reward has not half as many la- borers in proportion to extent as the other has. This would induce laborers to go there as certain as water inclines to run down hill. Nor would laborers incline to go from it to the other any more than water would to run up hill. This one fact would induce the laborers of the South to stay there, and those of the North to go and stay with them. Were slavery abolished now, it would take as much labor to cultivate the South as ever it did, if not as many laborers ; and the landholders would have to have the labor performed ; for they could not live unless their lands were cultivated. They would want as much sugar, • cotton and tobacco raised as ever, and more, if possible ; for they have never 230 raised enough to keep them clear with the rest of tue world. They would be compelled to have at least as much. i But if the colored people come to the North, who would do that labor ? The landholders would be com- pelled to keep the blacks there, or get whites to go and take their places. Now, we inquire, who would go to the South to learn to make sugar and raise cot- ton, and board and lodge themselves in the murky huts of the plantations or quarters at the same time — huts without floors or windows, scats or beds ? These would have to be their dwellings, at least for some time to come, as the landholders are not able to furnish others, and cannot board and lodge their laborers in their own dwellings, for two reasons. 1. They have not room ; they want laborers by the score or hun- dred. 2. The plantations are at too great a distance from their mansions — often several miles. Will the laborers of Pennsylvania or Ohio go there ? No, not one. Will the Yankees go ? Not while they can make wooden clocks, or a hickory tree is left to make into nutmegs. None of these will go ! — not one I Reader, do you think they would ? Would you t No ! no ! — you would be very clear of it. Where, we inquire, would they get laborers ? Could they get them from Ireland or Germany ? Put twenty Irishmen under a southern overseer, and let him attempt to teach them how to make cotton or sugar in southern style, and where would it end ? They would be the end of him before night ! This 231 no one will doubt, who knows the Irish character, or who has any Irish blood in his veins. The German character is distinguished for patience, but the south- ern system of labor would exhaust even Dutch pa- tience ; and press a Dutchman until he turns and says Ich ivill net, and all is over ; you may give him up — not another step will he go? Would English laborers go there ? No, reader. John Bull cannot be pushed into, or in a southern cotton field. No, never. But if these, or any of them, would go, they could not stand the climate. Put one hundred Irishmen on a rice or sugar plantation, and one-half of them will be dead or unable to labor in one year. The blacks can stand the climate, and the whites cannot. Indeed, it is the black man's climate, as proved by the fact that the mortality of the blacks in Charles- ton, S. C, is but two per cent., while it is seven in Boston. We never heard a black man complain of a day being too hot in our life. It is plain that tho slave States must be cultivated by the laborers who are now there, the blacks, or become a wilderness ; so that, if slavery was abolished at the South this day, the landholders would be compelled to keep the colored people there, or abandon "the sunny South." This they would not do ; and hence they would keep them there, if they could, and this they could do, and do it easily too. The colored people would not come to the North if they were free, if they could do as well where they 232 are ; here the climate suits them ; there are the graves of their fathers, and there would be the graves of their former chains and fetters. Around the first they would delight to linger, and on the second to dance. At the South, there would be more labor to be done than laborers to do it ; at the North, less. There labor could, and therefore would, pay better than here ; there many would be begging for labor- ers ; here laborers begging "leave to toil;" there no prejudice exists on account of color ; here much every way ; there would be no competition ; the colored man would have all the labor of the land ; here he could get little or none until every white man had what he could do ; there a black man would be preferred % here a white man. Now, under these circumstances^ would the colored people come here, where there is comparatively nothing for them to do, and where no- body will employ them, while there is a pale face to be had ? Or will they stay where the climate suits them — where they can survey the scenes of their youth — dance on the tombs of their former shackles — gaze on the graves of their fathers and mothers, and raise to their memories lettered slabs — find more work than they can do, and higher wages than can be ob- tained in any other place, and where they would be rather honored than despised for having a black skin ? They will stay ; they will not come here — no ! never — NEVER ! What say you to all this, reader ? Slaveholders are paying more for labor now than 233 is paid for it in the free States. They have to give for field hands from the slave-growing States, on an average, $1,000 ; and these hands do not last longer than six or eight years on an average. Mr. J. Q. Adams stated, on the floor of Congress, that they did not last over five years. $1,000 for six years work would be $166§ per year ; and for eight years $125 per year, and all paid in advance too. Add the interest, which would be $30 per year, will make the first $196}; and second $155. Then add the boarding and clothing at $45 per year, and this is a low esti- mate, and we have 241§ in the one case, and $200 in the other. So that southerners can give higher wa- ges than can be given at the North. The theory here laid down has become a fact of history. There were 386.245 free colored people in the nation, by the census of 1840, 216,678 of whom are in the slave States, and 160,567 in the free States. Now, we inquire, why do not those who are free come to the North ? Why is it that there are so many more free colored people in the slave States than in the free, if they would come here if they were free ? In the single State of Maryland there were 62,- 000 free colored people. Now, if they would all come here if they were free, how does it come that those who could come with the least difficulty do not come ? It may not be known to all that there are laws in the slave States providing that all freed after a certain time shall leave the State in a given time, or be taken up and sold into slavery. The Maryland law, on this 234 subject, was passed while we were in that State. These laws drive the free colored people from those States, and force them to come to the North. Those freed before the passage of those laws, and their descend- ants, are permitted to remain in many of the States ; and these stay with but few exceptions, and few, very few, come here but such as are compelled. But, if slavery should be abolished, those persons of color who are in the free States would, with but few exceptions, go to the South. Those who have property could sell it and buy landed possessions at the South, where they would be free from the sinful prejudice under which they are crushed, and take the stand in society which their virtues and qualifications entitle them to. This would be an inducement for all colored persons to go ; add to this, the climate suits them better, and there would be more there for them to do, and a better reward for doing it, and you have the reasons why they would go. There are not laborers enough now at the South to perform the required labor. This is proven by the fact that the internal slave trade is now carried on extensively to supply the South with labor ; and if slavery should be abolished, the demand for labor would increase. The women would not be in the field as they are now; many would remain in the - houses to take care of their children, and many of the men would go to mechanical trades. These would decrease the laborers of the field and increase the demand for labor. This is the way emancipation worked in the 235 British West Indies. Agents have been sent to our eastern and southern cities to induce the free people of color to go to the Islands to make up the lack of labor. And we have no doubt that if slavery were now abolished, that before five years southerners would visit every colored settlement in the free States to induce the settlers to go South. So much for this objection. II. Another objection is, they would not work if they were free. This is refuted by the history of the West India Emancipations. There was no difficulty in getting the emancipated to work when they were presented reasonable inducements. The fact that in one year they paid $600,000 for land in Guiana, and that those connected with the Wesleyan mission raised about $>80,000 in one year for religious purposes, and that property has risen in the Islands, so that the land will now bring more than slaves and land both would in the days of slavery, are enough on this point. III. But some object that they would kill their masters if they were free. This objection goes on the ground that men will hate us for giving them their rights. Reader, suppose yourself a slave, and we your master, and we should sell your wife and chil- dren where you could never see them, and make you work fourteen hours per day for nothing but as much food as would enable you to work, and very little clothing, and whip you frequently almost to death, and some person should plead with us to free you, 2S6 and we should say in reply, " Were we to give the rascal his liberty, pay him for his work, and give him back his wife and children, he would kill us ; we dare not do it !" What would you think of such reason- ing ? This is the reasoning of this objection. It is a law of nature, that if we would have men our ene- mies, do them wrong ; if our friends, give them their rights. But the West India Emancipations put this objec- tion to rest. In some of the Islands, there were from fifteen to twenty colored persons to one white, and yet not one drop of blood was shed. And this is not all ; several millions of the African race have been freed by general emancipation, in the Islands and the Americas, since the commencement of this century, and all without the shedding of one drop of blood. IV. It is objected that they are too ignorant to govern themselves, and it would not do to free them until they are prepared for freedom. This objection would prevent emancipation now or at any future time ; for they cannot be taught any- thing, not even their A B C's, while they are slaves. They must be freed as they are, or never freed, for they cannot be enlightened until they shall be free. But the abolition of slavery would not put out the light of the sun, moon and stars at the South. The enlightened masters would still be there, and would remain there for some time to come. They and the colored people could carry on government on the principles it has been done in the West Indies and 237 other places where slavery has been abolished. This objection takes the ground that the whites and blacks should be separated the moment slavery ends, which is a great mistake. But if slavery were abolished, the colored people would soon be enlightened. In Antigua, there were one-sixth of the inhabitants re- ceiving instruction in schools in the sixth year of free- dom. This is more than are now in school in Penn- sylvania. This might and would be the case in this country. If slavery were abolished, the christian be- nevolence of this nation would find a rich field for cultivation at its door — one that could be cultivated at less expense than any on earth. Then Sabbath and other schools could be established, and the col- ored people of the South might become as enlightened in twenty years as the people of any other section of the country, if we would do our duty. Then they would be prepared for self-government, should there be no whites among them, which would not be the case perhaps even then. V. It is objected that there is such a prejudice between the two races, that they never could live on terms of civil and religious equality : " make them equal, and they will fight until one or the other be destroyed." This objection takes for granted what remains to be proven ; but we will notice another that is often urged, before we consider this : " Free the colored people, and they will at once intermarry with the whites, and in a short time we will be a nation of mongrels." This would be dreadful, says the ob- 233 jector, " I am opposed to amalgamation." Now let us hitch these objections together, and see if they -will not pull each other to death. The prejudice (hatred) between the two races is so great, that if they were both, free, they would kill one another, BUT they would get married first and then kill. If so, ha- tred induces people to marry. This is a queer thing ! What think you of it, reader ? The prejudice of which we hear so much is either natural or the effect of circumstances. If the latter, remove the cause, and the effect must cease, and the operations of society go on as though all were of one color ; if natural, it will continue. Love draws peo- ple together ; hatred separates them ; and, so soon as the colored people be free, they will incline to go to themselves, and the whites to themselves ; the blacks will go South to a climate that suits them, and the whites will sell out to them, and come North to a cli- mate that will make their pale faces bloom as the rose. Free the colored people now, and before thirty years they would be able to own every acre of land in several of the southern States, and they would do it. These will be the certain workings of freedom, if there be a natural prejudice ; if there be none, tlu-n free the colored people, and remove their ignorance and degradation, and the prejudice will cease, and the operations of society go on as smoothly as if all were one color ; so that our plan would work well. We incline to the view that the colored race would go South, and the white come North, and the working 239 of general emancipation would work the colors apart, and then our friends who are so alarmed about amal- gamation would have to go South to get black hu&- bands or wives ; free the slaves, and then nature will work the whole matter according to her own laws and taste. Emancipation will not only work both ways, but every way ; so it must be a good rule. VI. Many object to emancipation, unless the eman- cipated leave the country. They say, Free them, and send them to Liberia, or some other place, and we will go for emancipation. This objection is answered in the main by the reply to the one just above ; but the reader ought to know that the colored people never can be removed beyond the limits of the United States. We have proved the cost of colonization in Africa, and rating the expense in time to come at much less than half what it has cost in time past, it would amount to eight millions of dollars a year ; for one hundred and fifty years, twelve hundred millions of dollars. This rate of expense would remove one hundred thousand per year, twenty times as many as the Babylonish monarch colonized of the Jews by cap- tivity. This was the largest colonization movement we have any definite account of, and it was less than five thousand. But we would have to send off one hundred thousand per year, for one hundred and fifty years, to get clear of the blacks. This can never be begun, much less finished. We might as well under- take to build a balloon to go to the moon. The colored people must remain in the country as 240 free or slaves, and it is with the free States to say which. If we withhold national legislation from the support of slavery, and leave it to the States, they will be compelled to abandon it in less than ten years. If they remain slaves, they must remain the enemies of the country ; for it is a law of nature to take an interest in that which takes an interest in us. No man can love a country that does nothing, for him. If we free them and give them their rights, they will become the fast friends of the country, ready to fight its battles, yea, die in its defense. Emancipation set- tles the question — will we have the 3,000,000 of slaves, who will be six, yea, twelve millions before some who may read this tract go to their graves, the friends or enemies of the country ? This is an im- portant question for the patriot — one involving the destinies of this nation and the cause of freedom in the world. No one believes that six millions can be kept in slavery, such as ours is, much less tivelve, and if we do not free them, they will free themselves, or perish in the attempt, and we want all to know that we believe, with Mr. Jefferson, that Heaven will not permit them to perish, and we must, in such a contest, sink. The elements are now preparing to take sides with them ; the spirit of freedom, now spreading like light, will call to their aid, when the conflict comes, millions of money and thousands of men ; the sympa- thies of millions will be with them. This question must be met and settled in our day ! Will we meet it with the Almighty on our side, or will we fight 241 against him and perish ? Reader, weigh this subject well. But it is as inexpedient, as it is impracticable, to remove them from the country. They are all wanted where they are ; the South has not one laborer to spare ; and, as it must depend, for a long time to come, on colored laborers, if not always, every one that is taken away by colonization is impoverishing the planters — taking from that section its source of wealth — its laborers ; hence colonization always was, is, and ever must be, the enemy of that section of the country. Here we might leave the subject ; but there is one other objection urged that is in the way of many. " The right of property in slaves." And though this does not lie against the workings of emancipation, it is in the way of emancipation, and we will give it a pass- ing notice. We have seen that slavery is the creature of stat- ute law ; hence slave property is the creature of this law, and must, for this reason, be held by the will of the State. These laws the State has a right to re- peal, and can at pleasure repeal the laws making hu- man beings property. We will illustrate the point. Suppose the Legislature of this State were to pass a law to sell into slavery every person in the town of Mansfield, to raise money to pay the public debts, and enforce the law by the power of the State, what would be the right of property the buyers would have in us ? The right the ^Statc gave them, and none 242 other. But what right, we inquire, would the State give them ? A right to hold us as property until the next meeting of the Legislature, which would have a right to repeal the law and set us all free. Now as rights never conflict, the rights of the Legislature, and the rights of those who might have bought us, could not conflict ; and as the first would have a right to repeal the law on the first day of the session, those who might buy us would have a right to hold us till the meeting of that body. If that body should see proper to continue the law, or let it remain on the statute book, by not exercising their right to repeal it, the right of those who might have bought us would still hold under the law. But it would be for the Legislature to say whether those who bought us should hold us one day longer than the first of their ses- sion. < Slave property is property held, in all cases, by the will of the State, and the State has a right to withhold that will at any moment ; and the moment this is done, the slave is free. This is the true state of the case. Not so with other property — it is held by laws anterior to all State laws, and of paramount authority ; hence the State cannot take our houses and lands from us because the Stato did not give them. The error of this objection lies in placing pro- perty in man on the same basis that property in things is based. If the southern States would exer- 'cise the right to repeal all the slave laws this day, and free every slave, they would not violate the right 243 of a single slaveholder ; so that slavery can be abol- ished at any time the State pleases, without taking from the slaveholders one cent's worth of property that even the law of slavery gives them. This is the true state of the case. The abolition of slavery in the way abolitionists propose would not invade the right of property, it would hold this sacred ; but not only so, it would not impoverish the slaveholders — before five years the value of the slaves would be transferred to the lands. This was the case . in the West Indies, and it would be the case here. Land of the same quality in the slave States, and having the same facilities of mar- ket, will not bring more than half as much as in the free States. Abolish slavery and introduce free la- bor and the price will be the same. The State has a right to abolish slavery though it reduces the slave- holders to beggary. They bought and hold their slave property subject to this contingency, and they can never have any right to complain though they should be made poor. They have placed themselves where they are. Much less can they complain when they would be enriched by taking from them what God never intended them to have ; which was given them by those who had no right so to do ; who sin- ned against humanity and the Lord Most High ; and who must repent by taking away what they have sin- ned in giving, or perish in this great sin. So much for the right of property. 244 We hope that those who may read this article will weigh well what they read, and act for the peace and safety of their own souls. Then -they will act for the good of the master, the good of the country, and the good of the slave. - ^ / ■ vO rf- ' o O v ^ *, \> -^ ^ ^< ^ ' i x° * - c \