SfiiJfSfSJffJfEIiSWipfiiit ""f*-" 
 
 I'ilStlB <itbuit">( 
 

 
 ^^ ... 
 
 
 
 
 ,0 % 
 
 
 
 > A*^ " " " ♦ <^ 0» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'J^ 
 
 
 
 0^ *o 
 
 
 

 
 'o • * 
 
 
 ...- / V^^v^\/ %'^^*/ t^y^'^^'''.^'^ 
 
 
 
 
 • » 1 
 
 
 " ' • • • ^v '-o 
 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 FUGITIVE SLAVE LA¥; 
 
 TRIED BY THE 
 
 OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH P. THOMPSON 
 
 Pastor of the Broadway Tabernacle ChurcL 
 
 [reprinted from the new ENGLANDER for NOV., 1850.] 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 MARK H. NEWMAN & Co., 199 Bkoapway. 
 
 1850. 
 

 ^■■r 
 
 
 NEW haven: 
 
 PRINTED BY B. L. HAMLEN, 
 
 Printer to Yale College. 
 
The Scriptural portion of the following argument was first de- 
 livered as a discourse in the Broadway Tabernacle, on Sabbath 
 evening, Sept. 22nd, and was repeated, by request, on Sabbath 
 evening, Oct. 13th. On its first delivery it was prefaced with 
 the following remarks, which it may be important to preserve in 
 this connection. 
 
 Whatever may be thonght of the lawfulness or the expediency 
 of introducing the general subject of slavery into the pulpit, 
 there can be no question that the treatment due to fugitives from 
 slavery is a legitimate topic for discussion there. That is a sub- 
 ject of which the Bible treats, and in making it a subject of dis- 
 course I am not preaching politics but am preaching the Gospel; 
 applying the principles of the Bible to an important public inter- 
 est. The subject legitimately belongs to the pulpit, and politi- 
 cians should be careful how they tamper with it, lest they betray 
 an ignorance of the principles of Biblical interpretation and of 
 the spirit of Christianity, as gross as that ignorance of political 
 affairs which they are prone to charge upon ministers of the 
 Gospel. The treatment of fugitive slaves has indeed been made 
 a political question ; but it was a Biblical question and a question 
 of morality long before it was dragged into the arena of politics, 
 and it was legislated upon by the King of heaven and earth ages 
 before the Congress of the United States had an existence. The 
 discussion of it in the church, therefore ; is not to be tabooed by 
 the captious cry of 'Politics and the Pulpit.' The claim of 
 Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah was made a political ques- 
 tion by those who could not or would not comprehend the spirit- 
 
ual character of his mission, and he was crucified under the pre- 
 tense that he was guilty of treason. The disciple is not above 
 his master, and the servants of Christ should not be deterred from 
 the discussion of any moral .question by the hue and cry of poli- 
 ticians. The question before us, is not a political question, but 
 a question of Biblical interpretation. 
 
 It is also a practical question. With slavery in general, — ex- 
 cept where it exists in territories belonging to the national gov- 
 ernment — we of this locality have no direct concern. But the 
 treatment of fugitive slaves is with us a personal matter — a ques- 
 tion of almost daily interest. In the houses of some who hear 
 me, fugitives from slavery are often harbored ; while others are 
 accustomed to contribute money to help such fugitives on their 
 way. As a pastor, therefore, knowing, or at least suspecting 
 such practices to exist among my congregation, it is my duty to 
 expound to them the teachings of the word of God respecting 
 fugitives from slavery, that those who are accustomed to hide the 
 fugitive, or to aid his escape, may be led to desist from this course 
 if it is wrong, or may be confirmed in it if it is right. There 
 are also many who for the first time are inquiring thoughtfully 
 and conscientiously about their duty Vv'ith respect to fugitive 
 slaves, and who are disposed to be guided in the matter not by 
 mere human enactments, but by the word of God. 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 Passed by Congress, September, 1850. 
 
 Among the measures passed toward the close of the late ses- 
 sion of Congress, and known as the "Compromise" or "Peace" 
 measures — which after lumbering in the Senate for months in 
 the shape of an omnibus, were at length worked through the op- 
 position of North and South in disjointed fragments — was a Bill 
 to amend the act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from jus- 
 tice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters." 
 This act is famiharly called the Fugitive Slave Law, yet the 
 term slave or slavery does not once occur in it. The phraseolo- 
 gy of the act is "fugitives from service or labor," "persons ow- 
 ing service or labor," &c., after the phraseology of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, which says, (Art. IV. Sec. 2.) "No 
 person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws there- 
 of, escaping into another, 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." This studious avoidance of any verbal 
 recognition of slavery in the very act M'hich is framed for the se- 
 curit'y of the institution, is quite significant ; it shows that the 
 public sentiment of the world forbids the inconsistency of an 
 avowed legislation for slavery in a free republic, and that the 
 abettors of slavery have not the shamelessness to face that sen- 
 timent. 
 
 With the provisions of this law the reader is already familiar; 
 but we shall here give an abstract or analysis of the act as an 
 introduction to some considerations drawn from the Scriptures 
 upon the treatment due to fugitives from slavery. 
 
 Theirs/ section authorizes and requires all commissioners of 
 the circuit courts of the United States in whom are vested the 
 powers of a justice of'the peace in respect to offenders, for any 
 crime or offense against the United States, to exercise and dis- 
 cbarge all the powers and duties conferred by this act. 
 
6 The Fugitive Slave Lmo. 
 
 The second section provides that the superior court of each or- 
 ganized territory of the United States shall have the same power 
 to appoint commissioners to take acknowledgments of bail and 
 affidavit, and to take depositions of witnesses in civil causes, 
 which is now possessed by the circuit court of the United States, 
 and those commissioners also are required to perform like duties, 
 with the former, under this act. 
 
 Section third empowers the United States courts, both circuit 
 and superior, to enlarge the number of commissioners in order 
 the better to carry into effect this act. 
 
 The fourth section gives to said commissioners concurrent ju- 
 risdiction with the judges of the circuit and district courts of the 
 United States over persons claimed as fugitives from service, ac- 
 cording to the provisions of the act. 
 
 By section Jifth it is made the duty of all marshals and deputy 
 marshals to obey and execute all warrants and precepts issued 
 under the provisions of this act, when to them directed, under 
 the penalty of one thousand dollars for each instance of refusal, 
 or neglect, or of the value of the fugitive in case he shall escape 
 from custody. This section likewise authorizes the marshals to 
 appoint agents and to summon the posse comitatus to assist them 
 in executmg the law. 
 
 The sixth section authorizes the claimant of a fugitive, or his 
 or her agent or attorney, to pursue and reclaim such fugitive, to 
 seize and arrest him either with or without process; requires the 
 court, judge, or commissioner before whom the case is brought, 
 to determine it in a. summary manner; makes the deposition or 
 affidavit of the claimant taken either in the state in which the 
 arrest is made or in the state in which he resides, satisfactory 
 proof of the fact that the person arrested owes him service or la- 
 bor, and makes also the mere affidavit of the claimant proof of 
 the identity of the fugitive ; declares that " in no trial or hearing 
 under this act shall the testimony of the alleged fugitive be ad- 
 mitted in evidence ;" and authorizes the claimant, upon receiv- 
 ing a certificate from the court, judge, or commissioner, to use 
 all necessary force to take back the fugitive to his own state. 
 
 The seventh section provides penalties for any attempt to har- 
 bor, conceal or rescue a fugitive. As this may be a matter of 
 personal interest to the reader, we give the section entire. 
 
 Sec. 7, And be itfwiher enacted, Tliat any person who shall knowingly and 
 willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or 
 any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such 
 a fugitive from service or labor, either witii or without process as aforesaid ; or 
 shall rescue or attempt to rescue, such fugitive from service or labor, from the 
 custody of such claimant, his or her agent or attorney, or other person or per- 
 sons la^vfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the autJior- 
 ity herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person so ow- 
 ing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such 
 
The Fugitive Slave Laiv. 7 
 
 claimant, his ag^nt or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized 
 as aforesaid ; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the dis- 
 covery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that 
 such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either 
 of said offenses, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and 
 imprisonment not exceeding six niontlis, by indictment and conviction before 
 the District Court of the United States for the district in whicli such offense 
 may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, 
 if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States ; 
 and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party in- 
 jured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars, for each fugi- 
 tive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt, in any of the dis- 
 trict or territorial courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offense 
 may have been committed. 
 
 By the eighth section the marshals, their deputies, and the 
 clerks of the courts acting in the case, are declared to be entitled 
 to the fees for similar services in other cases, and a special pro- 
 vision is made that a commissioner hearing snch a case shall re- 
 ceive a fee of ten dollars if the alleged fugitive isdehvered over, 
 and Jive if he is not, and that any person or persons appointed 
 by the commissioner to execute his process shall receive Jive dol- 
 lars for each person he or they may arrest and take before the 
 commissioner, and also such additional fees as the commission- 
 er shall deem reasonable for the incidental expenses of keeping 
 the fugitive in custody. 
 
 The ninth section provides that a sufficient force shall be de- 
 puted by the marshal to ensure the safe delivery of the fugitive 
 to the claimant in his own stale, whenever an affidavit is made 
 by the claimant that he fears an attempt to rescue the fugitive 
 from his hands ; the expense of transportation to be paid out of 
 the treasury of the United States. 
 
 The te7ith section makes the transcript of a record of any 
 court of record in any stale, territory or district of the United 
 States, duly authenticated, sufficient proof of the fact of the es- 
 cape from service of the person therein described, and that record 
 with an affidavit of the claimant to the identity of the alleged 
 fugitive shall be a sufficient authority for the surrendry of the 
 fugitive according to the former provisions of the act. 
 
 Such for substance are the provisions of this act. They should 
 be studied and analyzed by every citizen, for every citizen has a 
 direct personal interest in the law. There is no man north of 
 Mason and Dixon's line who may not be required to act as a 
 slave-catcher, under the fifth section, which commands all good 
 citizens "to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution 
 of this law," and who may not be subjected to the penalties pro- 
 vided by the seventh section, for any overt act of sympathy or 
 succor to the fugitive. Should the venerable ex-President Day 
 be passing by at the moment when a marshal or any of his sub- 
 alterns is attempting to arrest an alleged fugitive, he could be 
 
8 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 summoned by the officer to aid in the capture, and should he re- 
 fuse to render that aid, for thus " knowingly and willingly ob- 
 structing" the arrest by his example, influence and lack of service, 
 and at least " indirectly" aiding, abetting and assisting the escape 
 of the fugitive, he would be liable to a fine of one thousand dol- 
 lars and to imprisonment for six months, and also, in case of the 
 actual escape of the fugitive through his refusal to aid in the ar- 
 rest, to a further penalty of one thousand dollars " by way of 
 civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct." Per- 
 haps the venerable ex-Professor at Andover would be saved by 
 his exegesis from incurring the penalties of the law, and yet we 
 incline "to think that if a fugitive slave stood before him hi the 
 concrete, his humane feelings and his intense love of liberty 
 would get the better of his exegesis, and he would be the last 
 man to help to send back a fellow man to that state of slavery 
 which he has denounced with such indignant eloquence. Rath- 
 er would he say to the slave-catcher, — we use his own language 
 on a kindred point — "I would hold out my right hand to have it 
 cut off, sooner than lift it up for such a [purpose]. I would not 
 have upon my conscience the guilt of turning God's image, (re- 
 deemed by the blood of his Son, and made free by the Lord Je- 
 sus Christ himself,) into goods and chattels. I would not bring 
 
 on my soul that guilt, for ten thousand worlds To fine 
 
 a man in the enormous sum of $1,000, to imprison him more- 
 over for six months, and then subject him to a civil action be- 
 sides, for injury done to the master— and to do all this merely be- 
 cause of an interference which humanity pleads for, although the 
 law condemns it, is Turkish justice, not American — at any rate 
 not New England justice." To the honor of Prof. Stuart we 
 believe that no where would a fugitive slave be more safe than 
 on Andover hill ; and yet for harboring him, or even refusing to 
 aid in arresting him, the man whose name is venerated wherever 
 learning and picly are esteemed, must submit to fines and im- 
 prisonment. This is one feature of the law. 
 
 It is remarkable that the bill has no provision against mistake, 
 and no penalty for arresting and enslaving a freeman. It requires 
 but the collusion of two men to seize a freeman in the streets of 
 Ne.w York or of Boston, to drag him before a commissioner, to 
 make affidavit of his escape from service and of his personal 
 identity, and in one hour that freeman shall be in the custody of 
 an armed force on his way to the slave-coffles of Bruin and Hill, 
 to be sold to the rice plantations of the South. For such an out- 
 rage, entirely feasible under this law, there is no penalty and no 
 redress. True the sufferer has his action at common law for false 
 arrest ; but if he should ever get back from bondage, how shall 
 he, poor and defenceless, maintain such an action against the 
 United States power that oppresses him ? The law rides over the 
 
The Constitutionality of the Lmv. 9 
 
 ricfht of trial by jury as if the plain of Riinnemede were a fiction, 
 and ignores the Habeas Corpus, as if the conrt of High Com- 
 mission were established by the Constitution of the United States. 
 It applies to apprentices at the north no less than to slaves at the 
 south. 
 
 One of the most infamous features of the law is its appeal to 
 the mercenary feelings of the commissioner against the liberty 
 of the alleged fugitive, and to like feelings in the rabble against 
 the liberties of a class of their fellow citizens. Five dollars re- 
 ward, with incidental expenses ad libitum, to whoever shall ar- 
 rest a fugitive whether he shall prove to be a fugitive or not ; five 
 dollars to the commissioner for hearing each case, and ten dollars 
 for each case of conviction ! Never was a bill more adroitly fram- 
 ed to array the baser passions of men against the instincts of hu- 
 manity and the claims of justice ; never was a bill more adroitly 
 framed to give to the abettors of slavery absolute power over per- 
 sonal liberty, and over all the guards and bulwarks which centu- 
 ries of condict on the field of battle and in the hall of legisla- 
 tion have reared about that liberty. Of the constitutionality of 
 such a law we do not purpose here to speak. That will be tested 
 ere long before the proper tribunal upon some case of resistance 
 designed for that very purpose. The Constitution of the United 
 States (Art. IV, Sec. 2) declares, that "no person held to service 
 or labor in one state, mider the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
 shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be dis- 
 charged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on 
 claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
 But it is a question whether the Constitution, which provides 
 (Art. VII, Amended) that, " in suits at common law, where the 
 value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 
 trial by jury shall be preserved," can allow the liberty of a man 
 to be put in jeopardy without the judgment of his peers; or 
 whether the instrument which declares (Art. V, Amend.) that 
 ''no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, with- 
 out due process of law," will recognize a law dispensing with 
 trial by jury in such cases as come within the intent of the 
 phrase "■ due prnress of law;" or whether the declaration in Art. 
 I, Sec. 9, made without exception of persons, that "the privilege 
 of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, 
 in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public satety may require it," 
 will admit of a standing exception against any class of persons 
 livina; under the government of the United States. 
 
 These cpiestions we leave to be determined by the proper au- 
 thority, enduring meanwhile, as best we may, the disgrace of the 
 fact, that the federal government of the United States is the only 
 government in the civilized world that reduces to slavery by force 
 of law, men bom under its protection and innocent of crime, 
 3 
 
10 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 while the border government of a British province affords to 
 thousands of men, women and children, flying from this oppres- 
 sion, tlie welcome of a free but inclement clime. 
 
 The morality of the fngitive slave law is with us a question 
 of higher moment than its constitutionality. The treatment of 
 fugitives from slavery is a question of morality ; it is also a scrip- 
 tural question, for it was a subject of positive enactment in the 
 civil constitution which Jehovah gave to the peofile of Israel, In 
 that code we read, " Tlinu shall not deliver to his master the ser- 
 vant which is escaped from his master to thee ; he shall dwell 
 with thee, even among you in that place which he shall choose in 
 one of thy gates irJicre it liketh him best ; thou shall not oppress 
 him.y (Dent, xxiii, 15, 16.) 
 
 The meaning of this command is so obvious to an unsophisti- 
 cated reader, that it does not seem to admit of dispute or even of 
 a difference of opinion. Upon the face of it is seen the sfurit of 
 the Mosaic institutes toward slavery. Those institutes prohibited 
 man-stealing and trafficking in Hebrew slaves, (Ex. xxi, 16, and 
 Lev. XXV, 39-47) ; they provided for the manumission of slaves 
 at brief and stated intervals ; they secured to slaves many do- 
 mestic, civil and religions rights and privileges; they guarded 
 the life and the person of the slave from violence and abuse; 
 they restricted the system of slavery at every point, with a view 
 to the relief of the servant and the final overthrow of the sys- 
 tem itself; and in this spirit and for this purpose — as a restraint 
 upon the cruelty of masters, and as a means toward the abolition 
 of slavery — they prohibited the delivery of a fugitive. But this 
 view of the precept above quoted, so natural, and so entirely in 
 accordance with the legislation of Moses, or rather of Jehovah 
 through Moses, in reference to slavery, is rejected by some dis- 
 tinguished exegetes, who regard the precept as a local statute and 
 not a law of universal application. The following is Professor 
 Stuart's comment on the passage : 
 
 " The first enquiry of course is : Where does his master live ? Among the 
 Hebrews, or amona^ foreignei-s ? The language of the passage fully develops 
 this, and answers the question. He " has escaped from his master unto the 
 Hebrews (the text says — thee, i. e., Israel ;) he shall dwell unlUfihec, among; you 
 
 in one of thy gates." Of course, then, he is an imm^rant and did not 
 
 dwell among ther.i before his flight. If he had been a Hebrew servant, belong- 
 ing to a Hebrew, the whole face of the thing would be changed. Restoration 
 or restitution, if we may judge by the tenor of other property laws among the 
 Hebrews, would have surely been enjoined. But be that as it may, the lan- 
 guage of the text puts it beyond a doubt tliat the servant is a foreigner, and 
 has fled from a heathen master. This entirely changes the complexion of tlie 
 case. The Hebrews were God's chosen people, and were the only nation on 
 earth which worsjiiped the only living and true God. On this ground, as they 
 were the living depository of the oracles of God, great preference was given 
 to them, and great caution exercised, to keep them from all tangling alliances 
 and connection with the heathen. In case a slave escaped from them and 
 came to the Hebrews, two things were taken into consideration, according to 
 
Prof. Stuart on Dent, xxiii, 15. 1-1 
 
 the views of the Jewish legislator. The first was, that the treatment of slaves 
 among the heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than it could lawfully be 
 under^the Mosaic law. The heathen master possessed the power of life and 
 death, of scourging, or imprisoning, or putting to excessive toil even to any 
 extent that lie pleased. Not so among the Hebrews. HumnnHij pleaded for 
 the protection of the fugitive. The second and most important consideration 
 was, that only among the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to the knowl- 
 edge and worship of the only living and true God. The clause which says : 
 " Thou shalt not oppress him," of course means, that he shall be denied none 
 of the privileges of a resident in the land, and that he shall not be subjected 
 to peculiar taxation or labor. The verses before us do not say, that such a 
 refugee servant shall be circumcised; but the admission of him to the privi- 
 leges of a freemen implies this. The servants of Hebrews, whether of do- 
 mestic or foreign origin, were all to be .circumcised, Gen. 17; 12-15. Of 
 course the admitted denizen, in the present case, would be required to comply 
 with such an injunction. By the right in question he became mcorporated 
 into the Jewish theocratical commonwealth, and therefore entitled, as even 
 bond-men were, to all its religious privileges. Moses, tlierefore, would not 
 suffer him to be forced back into the darkness of heathenism, nor allow that 
 he should be delivered up to an enraged heathen master. Was he not in the 
 right ? 
 
 " But we now put the other case, viz : that of escape from a Hebrew master, 
 who claimed and enjoyed Hebrew rights, is not the case greatly changed ? 
 Who would take from him the property which the Mosaic law gave him a right 
 to hold ? Neither the bond-man himself, nor the neighbor of his master to 
 whom the fugitive might come. Reclauiation of him could be lawfully made, 
 and therefore must be enforced. 
 
 " With this view of the matter before us, how can we appeal to the passage 
 in question, to justify, yea, even to urge, the retention of fugitive^ bond-men in 
 our own country ?' We are one nation — one so-called Christian nation, 
 Christianity is a national religion among us. I do not mean that all men are 
 real Christians, or that Christianity is established by law ; but I mean, that im- 
 measurably the greatest part of our population. North and South, profess to re- 
 spect Christianity, and appeal to its precepts as a test of morals, and as fur- 
 nishing us with the rules of life. What state in the Union does not at least 
 tacitly admit Christianity to hold such a place. 
 
 " \Vhen a fugitive-bondman, then, comes to us of the North, from a master 
 at the South, in what relation do we of the North stand to the Southern mas- 
 ter? Are our fellow-citizens and brethren of the South to be accounted as 
 heathen in our sight? No, this will never do. I know not what the proportion 
 of real Christians in the South may be, compared with those of the North; 
 but this I do know, from personal observation made at the South, to some ex- 
 tent, and from a considerable acquaintance with people of the South, that 
 there are among them many warm hearts and active hands in the cause of true 
 Christianity. There is no state where such persons may not be found, and 
 many of them too. A bond-man, fleeing from them to us, is a case of just the 
 same kind as would have been presented among the Hebrews, if a Hebrew 
 bond-man had fled from the tribe of Judali to that of Benjamin. We do not 
 jsend back the refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe. There is 
 many a Christian master there, and many too who deal with their servants as 
 immortal beings. It may be, that the fugitive has left a severe and cruel mas- 
 ter, who will wreak his vengeance upon him for escaping. And it may be, 
 also, that if the fugitive takes up his abode here, he will find those who will 
 maltreat him, and defraud him, and do other grievous things. Crimes of this 
 sort have not as yet quite vanished from the North. But be the master as he 
 may, since we of the North are only other tribes of the same great common- 
 wealth, we can not sit in judgment on cruel masters belonging to tribes differ- 
 ent from our own, and having by solemn compact, a separate and independent 
 
12 Tlte Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 jurisdiction in respect to all matters of justice between man and man, with which 
 no stranger can on any pretence whatever intermeddle. We pity the restored 
 fugitive, and have reason enough to pity him, when he is sent back to be de- 
 livered into the hands of enraged cruelty. But if he goes back to a lenient 
 and a Christian master, the matter is less grievous. The responsibility, how- 
 ever, for bad treatment of the slave, rests not in the least degree on us of the 
 North. The Mosaic law does not authorize us to reject the claims of our fel- 
 low countrymen and citizens, for strayed or stolen property — property author- 
 ized and guarantied as such by Southern States to their respective citizens. 
 These states are not heathen. We have acknowledged them as brethren and 
 feUow citizens of the great community. A fugitive from them is not a fugitive 
 from an idolatrous and polytheistic people. And even if the Bible had neither 
 said nor implied anything in relation to this whole matter, the solemn compact 
 ■which we have made, before heaven and earth, to deliver up fugitives when 
 they are men held to service in tlie state from which they have fled, is enough 
 to settle the question of legal right on the part of tiie master, whatever we 
 may think of his claim when viewed in the light of Christianity." — Conscience 
 and the Constitution, pp. 30-33. 
 
 The first point in this interpretation is the emphasis put upon 
 the word thee, which makes it refer not to the Hebrews individu- 
 ally, but to the Hebrew nation collectively. The stress of this 
 whole argument to prove that the injunction is not absolute and 
 universal, but refers only to a special case, lies in the assumption 
 that the pronoun thee relates to the Hebrew commonwealth, and 
 not to each and every member of that commonwealth. As there 
 is nothing in the construction of the Hebrew that requires this 
 interpretation, an English reader who will take pains to compare 
 this with other similar forms of expression in the laws of Moses, 
 is competent to decide whether this interpretation is probable from 
 usage and the context, or whether it is an instance of special 
 pleading to make out a case. Thee, says Prof. Stuart, means 
 Israel, i.e. Israel collectively, the nation and land of Israel; that 
 it often has this meaning we do not dispute ; but his argument 
 claims that in the passage under consideration it has this meaning 
 only, to the exclusion of any other ; whereas there is no proof 
 that the word does not in this, as in many other cases, refer to 
 Israel partitively as well as collectively, which of course would 
 spoil his reasoning. The fifth commandment is an example of 
 this usage : Honur thy fai Iter and thy mother, that thy days may 
 he long upon the land which the Lord, thy God giveth thee. Now 
 though the land was given to Israel as a nation, it was also given 
 in sections to each individual Israelite, and this command and 
 promise have reference not to tlie nation collectively, but to each 
 individual of the nation. Honor tliy father and thy mother, is a 
 command not to Israel but to each Israelite ; that thy days may 
 be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, — the 
 land in whicli thou as an Israelite hast an inheritance. The 
 nation as such was required by statute to enforce filial respect and 
 obedience; but the fifth commandment was strictly personal in 
 its application. Here then is a sentence of precisely the same 
 
Prof. Stuart on Deiit. xxiii, 15, 13 
 
 construction with that in Deiit. xxiii, 15, in which the word 
 thee denotes not Israel as a nation but each individual of 
 the nation. And what proof is there that it has not the same 
 meaning in that place also ? Examples of this partitive sense 
 of the word thee in such commandments might be multiplied 
 to almost any extent. We give but two or three in addi- 
 tion. •' Thou shall not remove thy neighbor's landmark, which 
 they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou 
 shalt inherit in the land the Lord thy God giveth thee to pos- 
 sess it." (Dent, xix, 14.) Here of course thee refers to each in- 
 dividual owner or heir in the land of Israel. " Every man shall 
 give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God 
 which he hath given theef i.e. each man. (Deut. xvi, 17.) The 
 same phraseology is used in precepts regulating the conduct of 
 the Israelites toward each other. "Thou shalt not see thy, 
 brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them : 
 thou shalt in any case bring them to thy brother. And if thy 
 brother be not nigh to thee — (does this mean if thy brother does 
 not dwell in the land oi Israel?) — if thy brother be not nigh to 
 thee — (is not a near neighbor) — or if thou know him not, then thou 
 shalt bring it to thine own house, and it shall be with thee (with 
 whom? — Israel? or with the land of Israel? — or with this man, 
 in his own house?) it shall be with thee until thy brother seek 
 after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again." (Deut. xxii, 1,2.) 
 These instances will suffice to show that the use of the word 
 thee in the passage under consideration does not prove that the 
 precept relates solely to fugitives from surrounding nations to the 
 land of Israel, but may refer as well to fugitives from one part of 
 Israel to another. If it had been intended to apply solely to the 
 former, we can not but think that it would have been made thus 
 explicit by a qualifying clause; that it would have read " Thou 
 shalt not deliver to his master the servant, which is escaped to 
 thee from his master" — -from any of the nations which are 
 round about thee. Such a phrase is used in another instance 
 where it is even superfluous: " Ye shall not go after other gods, 
 of the gods of the people lohich are round about you.'''' Why 
 was not this explanatory clause inserted ? The precepts of Moses 
 are given with much precision ; and s|)ecial care is taken to dis- 
 criminate in various ways between different classes of servants 
 and the claims of their masters upon them. Why then if Moses 
 meant only t\igitives from among the heathen, did he not say so 
 in a single word. But what has Moses said? He has given an 
 unqualified injunction not to return the fugitive servant to his 
 master ; it is so plain that he that runs may read, and the obvious 
 reading accords with every man's humane feelings and moral 
 convictions, and with the entire legislation of Moses upon this 
 subject, which, as Prof. Stuart says, " provided for many mitiga- 
 
14 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 tions of the usual rigors of slavery." And the utmost that the 
 ingenuity of learning can do to counteract this obvious meaning — 
 the meaning which every man's heart tells him must be true — 
 is to torture and twist that little word thee, so as to make it limit 
 a command which is universal in its spirit, its reason, and its 
 terms, and limit it against liberty, and against the genius of the 
 Mosaic institutes which guarded and promoted liberty. We sub- 
 mit whether common sense is not better than learning so em- 
 ployed ; yet it is not learning, it is not criticism, that begets such 
 an interpretation, and sacred learning and the science of Biblical 
 criticism should not be held accountable for it. 
 
 The ancient Hebrew doctors took a different view of this pas- 
 sage from that which Prof, Stuart has taken. They applied it 
 to the case of Judaized servants of Hebrew masters, when threat- 
 ened with removal from the land of Judea; as well as to fugi- 
 tives from heathen masters. According to Selden, no mean au- 
 thority in Hebrew antiquities, if a Hebrew master removed from 
 the land of Israel to any other country, he could not compel his 
 servant to go with him, if that servant was a Hebrew or had be- 
 come in faith a Jew ; and if the master should attempt to compel 
 his servant to go with him and the servant should flee from him, 
 the servant was safe in any part of Israel ; the whole larid and 
 every part of it was his sanctuary. The master could not re- 
 cover a fugitive in such a case.* Thus the Hebrew doctors made 
 a broader application of (he command in Deut. xxiii, 15 than is 
 given to it by Prof. Stuart ; yet there seems to be no just ground 
 for even the limitation which they put upon it. 
 
 Count Pastoret, in his elaborate history of legislation, under- 
 stands this prohibition to surrender the fugitive to be universal ; 
 and his opinion is the more valuable because it comes from one 
 accustomed to the interpretation of laws, and who wrote not as 
 a theologian, nor as a controversialist, but as an historian. Allud- 
 ing to the servant who had been enfranchised by six years ser- 
 vice, he says, " It is for such an one, or rather for all slaves, (the 
 Scripture does not particularize,) that the Lord forbids the Israelite 
 with whom one of these shall take refuge, to deliver him to his 
 master, and commands to let him rest in the city which he shall 
 choose as an asylum. "f This opinion is fortified by quotations 
 from Jewish authorities. 
 
 The author of the article in Kitto's Cyclopasdia on Hebrew 
 slavery, quotes this very passage to prove that among the He- 
 brews, "servants had the power of changing their masters, and 
 of seeking protection where they 'pleased.'''' Dis. Scott, Marsh, 
 Wayland, and other judicious interpreters, take the same view. 
 
 * De Jure Nat. et Gent, juxta Discipl. Hebr. b. vi, c. 8, p. 745. 
 ■j- Histoire de la Legislation, Tom. iii. 
 
Prof. Stuart on Dent, xxiii, 15. 15 
 
 The learned, therefore, do not all agree with Prof. Stuart in his 
 interpretation of this passage, and as we have before said, the un- 
 learned are competent to judge for themselves of its meaning. 
 Was it not an universal law, designed to give the slave security 
 against the cruelty of his master, and, by rendering slavery inse- 
 cure, to hasten its final abolition? 
 
 It is important to notice in this connection, that this is the only 
 law respecting fugitives to be foinid in the institutes of Moses. 
 Prof. Stuart assumes, or rather guesses, that there was a different 
 law relating to the servants of Hebrew masters, but he does not 
 tell us where it may be found, and we are sure that it can not be 
 found in the Pentateuch. He says, '-if the fugitive had been a 
 Hebrew servant, belonging to a Hebrew, the whole face of the 
 thing would be changed. Restoration, or restitution, if we may 
 judge by thetenor of the other property-laws among the Hebrews, 
 
 would have surely been enjoined Reclamation of him 
 
 could be lawfully made, and therefore must be enforced." But 
 where is the law under which reclamation could be made? Why 
 do we not find it in the statute-book ? Why did not Prof Stuart 
 produce it? He argues that fugitives could have been recovered 
 under the properiy-\a.ws given by Moses. But was this so? 
 Were slaves among the Hebrews regarded as property, in such a 
 sense that they could be recovered under a mere property-law in 
 which they were not named ? Have not slaves always been re- 
 garded as a peculiar species of property requiring special legisla- 
 tion ? Suppose that the Constitution of the United States, in- 
 stead of providing for the return of "fugitives from service," 
 simply provided that property taken without permission from 
 one state to another should be restored to its rightful owner; 
 would any man dream of recovering a fugitive slave under such 
 a law ? Though slaves are regarded as property in the states in 
 which they are held, a fugitive slave could not be reclaimed un- 
 der any national law relating to strayed or stolen property, but 
 only under a specific law relating to slaves. There was no such 
 law among the Hebrews, and no property-law could by any pos- 
 sibility cover the case. The servant of a Hebrew was the prop- 
 erty of his master in a very limited sense, — the property was in 
 his service rather than in his person. If a Hebrew, he could go 
 free after six years service, and his master must provide him an 
 outfit ; if a foreigner, though the Hebrews had permission to 
 make continual drafts upon the heathen for slaves (Lev. xxv, 46, 
 where 'for-ever' refers not to individual slaves in perpetuity, but 
 to slaves in perpetuo from a certain class), yet he too might go 
 free in the year of jubilee, when liberty was to be proclaimed 
 "throughout all the {aud^ to all the inhabitants therenf'' {Lev, 
 xxv, 10.) Such a proclamation at the south every fiftieth 
 year, would materially change the character of slave-property. 
 
16 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 Moreover the foreigner enslaved among the Hebrews, by em- 
 bracing the Jewish rehgion, became entitled to many immunities 
 in common with Hebrew servants. It is absnrd to suppose that 
 slaves held by such a tenure could have been reclaimed as fugi- 
 tives under any property-law in the statute book of the Hebrew 
 nation. Moses never regarded slaves as "chattels" or "things;" 
 least of all did he so regard Hebrew servants, who could them- 
 selves hold property; and yet it is of such that Prof. Stuart says, 
 they could have been reclaimed under p?-operty-\a\vs. This is di- 
 rectly against the Mosaic laws on slavery. There was but one stat- 
 ute applicable to fugitive servants, and that prohibited their being 
 sent back to the master m any case, or upo?i any conditinn what- 
 ever. It was the design of Moses by this and every other law 
 upon the subject, to abolish slavery at the earliest day. 
 
 This law is as binding in its principle and spirit now as then : 
 the reason for it still exists, and there is no safer canon of criti- 
 cism than that which has always been a favorite canon with 
 Prof. Stuart, ^^ manente ratiojie, rnatiet ipsa /e.r." Prof. Stuart 
 assigns two reasons for making such a law in favor of fugitives 
 from among the heathen. " The first was. that the treatment of 
 slaves among the heathen was far more severe and rigorous, than 
 it could lawfully be under the Mosaic law. The heathen master 
 possessed the power of life and death, of scourging, or imprison- 
 ing, or putting to excessive toil, even to any extent that he pleas- 
 ed. Not so among the Hebrews. Humanity pleaded, then, for 
 the protection of the fugitive. The second and most important 
 consideration was, that only among the Hebrews could the fugi- 
 tive slave come to the knowledge and worship of the only living 
 and true God." 
 
 But he argues that our relations to the South are not analogous 
 to the relations of the Hebrews to the surrounding heathen, but to 
 the relations of the different tribes of Israel toward each other. 
 " A bond-man, fleeing from them to us, is a case of just the same 
 kind as would have been presented among the Hebrews, if a 
 Hebrew bond-man had fled from the tribe of Judah to that of 
 Benjamin. (But we have seen that in such a case there was no 
 law by which a fugitive could be reclaimed.) We do not send 
 back the refugee from the South to a heathen nation or tribe. 
 There is many a Christian master there, and many too who 
 deal with their servants as immortal beings." Very true ; there 
 are Christian masters scattered through the South. And so in 
 the course of time there were many devout and kind Hebrew 
 masters scattered among the surrounding heathen nations. Will 
 Prof. Stuart inform us whether a fugitive to " Mee," from a He- 
 brew master residing in a heathen nation, should have been de- 
 livered up to his master or protected from him? According to 
 his view of i\\Q property-la-ws among the Hebrews, such a fugi- 
 
Professor Stuart on Americati Slavery. 17 
 
 live must have been surrendered to his master ; but that would 
 have been to send him out of thee — " land of Israel," which Prof, 
 Stuart admits, was expressly forbidden. How could this conflict 
 of laws have been adjusted ? 
 
 But passing this, we will proceed to test the law in Deut. xxiii, 
 15. by the principle that a law stands while the reason for it re- 
 mains. The reasons given by Prof. Stuart for such a law touch- 
 ing the slaves of heathen masters are — 1. That slavery exist- 
 ed in a much worse form among the heathen than among the 
 Hebrews ; and 2. That among the heathen, slaves could not 
 come to the knowledge of God. 
 
 Is then the condition of slaves at the south in any respect like 
 that of slaves among the heatlien in the time of Moses? Upon 
 this point Prof. Stuart shall be our witness; he has visited the 
 South, and his testimony on this point may be presumed to be 
 impartial. In the same pamphlet from which the previous ex- 
 tracts were made, he says, " As existing among us, slavery has 
 taken its worst form ; it degrades men made in the image of their 
 God and Redeemer, into brute-beasts, or (which makes them still 
 lower) converts them into mere goods and chattels.'" 
 
 Does then the law which forbade the Hebrews to send back a 
 fugitive slave to a servitude " more severe and rigorous" than that 
 which was tolerated by Moses, require or permit us to send back 
 a fugitive to slavery in " its worst form ?" 
 
 " In this form of slavery," he continues, " all the sacred, social 
 relations of life are destroyed. Husband and wife, parent and 
 child, brother and sister, are not known in law, nor protected nor 
 cognized by it. In conformity with this, these relations are 
 every day severed by some slave-dealers, without regard to the 
 feelings of the wretched beings who are torn asunder; and all 
 their parental, conjugal, and filial sympathies, are the subject of 
 scorn if not of derision. No invasion of human rights can be 
 worse than this; none more directly opposed to the will of God, 
 inscribed upon the pages of the Scriptures, and on the very na- 
 ture of mankind." And does a law that prohibited the surren- 
 der of fugitives from heathen masters, sanciion or permit the sur- 
 render of men and women who have fled to us from such a state 
 of brutality and cruelty as is here described ? 
 
 But to proceed with Prof. Stuart's specification of the evils of 
 American slavery. " As the inevitable consequence of this, the 
 mass of slaves must live, and do live in a virtual state of concu- 
 binage ; which, so far from being restrained, is often encouraged 
 for the sake of increasing slave property." A further consequence 
 of this violation of the conjugal relation is, " a widely diffused 
 profligacy and licentiousness ;" of which the Professor says, " If 
 there were no other argument against slavery, this alone would 
 be amply sufficient to secure the reprobation of it, in the eyes of 
 
 3 
 
18 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 every impartial and enlightened Christian man." Shall we then- 
 compel men and women who have taken refnge among ns, and 
 who are living in the sacred relation of husband and wife, to re- 
 turn to this horrible state of profligacy and pollution? Does not 
 '■^ HumaniUj plead for the protection of the fugitive?" If there 
 was anything worse than this in heathen slavery in the time of 
 Moses, we know not what it could have been. 
 
 But we must not forget the second reason which Prof. Stuart 
 assigns for the prohibition to surrender fugitives from heathen 
 masters ; viz. that among the Hebrews alone could the slave 
 come to the knowledge of the true God. Now, according to 
 Prof. Stuart, what is the prospect that a slave at the South will 
 come to the knowledge of God? "Ignorance profound, and 
 nearly universal, is the inevitable lot of the great mass of all who 
 are held in bondage. In some of the states, the learning even 
 to read is forbidden ; thus contravening, with a high hand, the 
 command of Heaven to search the Scriptures." In such a case, 
 obedience to a human law is crime ; it is treason against the 
 Majesty of heaven and earth. [Let us hear Prof. Stuart, by the 
 way, on the " higher law." " There is a law then, higher than 
 human law. There is a case — and of that case, not Prof. Stuart 
 only but any slave on a southern plantation is a competent judge 
 — there is at least one case or class of cases, in which " obedience 
 to a human law is crime ;" and why ? Because " it is treason 
 against the Majesty of heaven and earth." Let Prof. Stuart 
 
 be heard on the " higher law" of conscience ! '' Not 
 
 only the temporal, but the eternal welfare of the slaves is often 
 grievously neglected." And does a law which forbade the send- 
 ing back of fugitives into heathen ignorance, require or permit 
 us — who are commanded to give the Gospel to every creature — 
 to send back our fellow men to a state in which " ignorance pro- 
 found" shall be their "inevitable lot," in which they shall be 
 forbidden to read God's word, and in which in all probability 
 their eternal welfare will be ^'grievously neglected?^' 
 
 Such is American Slavery as depicted by Prof. Stuart.* But 
 is there no mitigation of the picture ? May we not discriminate 
 in favor of Christian masters ? Alas ! the horrid picture has no 
 relief; for says the Professor, " Slavery in its best attitude in our 
 country, even among humane and Christian masters, is a de- 
 gradation of a whole class of the community, beloiv their proper 
 rank as men." Well may he exclaim, " Enough, and more than 
 enough, on this painful — this revolting subject. When a true 
 hearted Christian runs his eye over such an assemblage of evils, 
 which of necessity stand connected with our present system of 
 slavery, is it possible that he can have a doubt as to what Chris- 
 tianity demands?" 
 
 * For the preceding quotations, see Conscience and the Constitution, pp. 
 104-106. 
 
Prof. Stuart on American Slavery. 19 
 
 We thank Prof. Stuart for alluding to the demands of Chris- 
 tianity in such a connection. He elsewhere expresses still more 
 strongly what is here implied ; viz, that the principles of Chris- 
 tianity against slavery supersede all the precedents in its favor 
 alleged from the Old Testament. " If we appeal to the patriarchs 
 to justify slavery, then why not appeal to them in order to justify 
 polygamy and concubinage ? Undoubtedly they neither thought 
 nor intended to do wrong in either of the cases that are before 
 lis. But this will not justify us in imitating them. The Gospel 
 
 has given us better light Perhaps we may see, before 
 
 we are through, that slavery is as little commanded or even per- 
 mitted by the highest form of Christianity, as those practices. . . 
 What Christ has commanded is our rule ; and not what the pa- 
 triarchs did, who lived when the light was just beginning to 
 dawn."* This may serve as an offset to what Prof. Stuart seems 
 to teach on page 32, of our obligation by compact to respect 
 " the legal right of the master, whatever we may think of his 
 claim wheti vieivsd in the light of Christianity f' and also to his 
 own narrow interpretation of Dent xxiii, 1.5. If that command 
 had originally the limits which Prof. Smart would assign to ir, 
 then by his own showing the principles of Christianity have en- 
 larged its margin, or have even superseded it altogether by their 
 clearer light. 
 
 But that command had no such limitation. Words are to 
 be taken in their fullest meaning, unless there is something in 
 the nature of the subject, or iu the context, or in the specific 
 reference and occasion, or in the usage of the writer, to restrict 
 that meaning. This principle lies at the foundation of all our in- 
 terpretation of language. Elspecially does it apply to the interpre- 
 tation of laws ; it is the only safe and just rule by which a statute 
 can be interpreted. Now here is a law which in its language is 
 absolute and universal ; — nothing could be more so. " Thou 
 shalt not deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from 
 his master to theeJ' It is impossible to frame a proposition more 
 general than this. There is no class of servants specified; it 
 reads, " the servant," which is any servant. The law makes no 
 distinction in favor of a class of masters, and it makes no pro- 
 vision for compensating the master. It declares without any 
 qualification, that the fugitive servant shall not be surrendered to 
 kis master, whoever that master may be. So the law reads ; and 
 it must be taken as it reads, unless good reason can be shown to 
 the contrary. But what warrant is there for limiting the appli- 
 cation of the law ? There is none in the language itself, none in 
 the usage of the author, none in any specialties of the case, none 
 in the context, none in any known facts, none in the subject for 
 
 * Conscience and the Constitution, pp. 25-26. 
 
20 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 which the law was made. The law as it stands, is in perfect har- 
 mony with all the legislation of Moses with respect to slavery. 
 Says Pastorct, •'• Among no people have slaves received so much 
 of the kind superintendence of law as among the Hebrews. 
 Moses conformed to an existing state of things in tolerating sla- 
 very, but by keeping it within strict limits, he sought to harmo- 
 nize its rigor with the benevolence of the Supreme. Slavery 
 among the Hebrews terminated by redemption, by enfranchise- 
 ment, by due course of law, by the death of the master, if a 
 Gentile or proselyte, and by his death without issue, if a He- 
 brew." Is it credible that the author of such a code for the 
 regulation of slavery — a code which, by the severest penalties, 
 guarded the servant from the oppression and cruelty of his master, 
 and which provided in so many ways for the emancipation of the 
 servant, both voluntarily and compulsorily on the part of the 
 master — is it credible that the author of such a code regarded 
 servants as chattels, and left them in any case to be disposed of 
 by the laws of property ? Did he who with his own hand wrote 
 that man was made in the image of God, regard man diS property 
 or a thing 7 The laws of Moses were given in the wilderness, to 
 a people just escaped from bondage, and who therefore had no 
 slaves ; they were given in anticipation of the introduction of 
 slavery among that people when they should come to be settled 
 as conquerors in Canaan ; they were given to restrain the lust of 
 conquest and oppression, and to hedge in as much as possible the 
 natural tendency of the emancipated to retaliate upon others the 
 cruelties of their own bondage, — to prevent the Israelites from 
 becoming to each other aad to the Canaanites what the Egyptians 
 had been to the Israelites; they were given in order, by a quali- 
 fied and an onerous permission, to secure the overthrow of a sys- 
 tem which, as the times and the people were, could not have 
 been shut out by an absolute prohibition. And as the crowning 
 act of legislation for the ultimate overthrow of an evil tolerated 
 from necessity, it was decreed that no fugitive from slavery 
 should ever be delivered up to his master. The slave was at 
 liberty to escape from his master whenever he desired to better 
 his condition, and in whatever part of Israel he should choose an 
 asylum, there was he to be allowed to remain without molesta- 
 tion. Such was the only statute in the Hebrew institutes re- 
 specting "fugitives from service." It is an honor to the wisdom 
 and the benevolence of its author ; and shows that we should 
 neither "consign Moses over to reprobation," nor "regard him as 
 an igtioramus/^ however much Prof. Stuart's comments upon the 
 Hebrew law-giver might dispose us to either. The principle of 
 that law remains, — eclaircised by the Golden Rule of Christianity 
 into a law for all time : "thou shalt not deliver to his master 
 
 THE SERVANT WHICH IS ESCAPED FROM HIS MASTER TO THEE." 
 
Teachings of the New Testament. 21 
 
 Should the slaveholder here ask, what redress we would give 
 to one whose slave has escaped from him, we would commend 
 to him the wisdom of Diogenes. When a slave ran away 
 from Diogenes he would not pursue him, but observed, that it 
 would be a frightful thing if Diogenes could not do without the 
 slave, since the slave could do without Diogenes. Let the master 
 prove himself to be as independent as the slave ; and if the slave 
 cares nothing about him, let him show the world that he cares 
 nothing about the slave. 
 
 But it is claimed that we have the example of an Apostle for 
 sending back a slave to his master, and therefore that this is a 
 Christian duty. We will let Prof. Stuart state the case. 
 
 " What did Paul do at Rome ? A slave of Philemon, at Colosse, ran away 
 and came to Rome. There he was converted to Christianity under Paul's 
 preaching. The Apostle was so pleased witli him, that he was desirous to re- 
 tain him as a friend and a helper. Did he tell the slave that he had a right, 
 nay, that it was his duty, to keep away from his master, and stay Avith him ? 
 Not at all. He sent back Onesimus, the slave, to his master, (Phil. v. 12,) and 
 he tells tlie master, tlxat he could not venture to retain Onesimus without know- 
 ing whether he would consent, v. 14. ' Perhaps,' says the Apostle, ' he de- 
 parted for a season, tiiat tliou shouldst receive Mm forever.^ He then expressed 
 his ardent desire that Onesimus may be treated with great kindness, and as a 
 Christian ought to be treated. 
 
 " What now have we here ? Paul, sending back a Christian servant, who 
 had run away, to his Ctiristian master ; and this even when Paul had such an 
 estimation of the servant, that he much desired to keep him as a helper, while 
 he himself was in bonds for the gospel's sake. Yet he would not continue to 
 flo this, although it was so desirable to him. He enjoins it upon Onesimus to 
 return to his master forever. This last phrase has reference to the fact, that 
 Paul supposed that the sense of Christian obligation, which was now enter- 
 tained by Onesimus, would prevent him from ever repeating his offense. And 
 all this too, when Philemon, being an active and zealous Christian, would in a 
 moment have submitted to any command of Paul respecting Onesimus. Why 
 then did Paul send him back ? There is only one answer to be given, viz., 
 that Paul's Christian conscience would not permit him to injure the vested rights 
 of Philemon. He could not think of keeping the servant, even to minister as 
 a friend to his own necessities while in prison. Paul's conscience, then, like 
 his doctrines, was very different from that of the abolitionists. Paul's con- 
 science sent bacic the fugitive slave ; theirs enco%irages him to run away, and 
 then protects him in the misdeed, yea, justifies, applauds, glorifies him, as a 
 noble, independent fellow. The conscience of Paul sends back the fugitive, 
 without any obligation at all on the ground of compact; theirs encourages and 
 protects his escape in tlie face of the most solemn national compact." — Con- 
 science and tlie Constitution, pp. 60, 61. 
 
 In considering the case of Onesimus, the first question which 
 arises is, Was Onesimus a slave in the common acceptation of 
 that term 1 
 
 There can be no doubt that Onesimus had run away from the 
 service of Philemon, a citizen of Colosse in Phrygia, and had 
 come to Rome, where Paul was at that time a prisoner, though 
 not in close confinement. Onesimus had seen Paul at the house 
 of his master, and either being in want, or desiring to see a fa- 
 
22 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 miliar face, or becoming thoughtful on the subject of religion, or 
 for some unknown reason, he came to Paul, who received him 
 kindly and instructed him till he was brought to repentance and 
 faith in Christ, and who then sent him back to Philemon, with a 
 letter of intercession and commendation. In this way he is in- 
 troduced to us, and all our knowledge of him must be derived 
 from this epistle. In v. 16 of the epistle, there is an allusion to 
 the relation which had subsisted between Onesimus and Phile- 
 mon. Paul exhorts Philemon to receive Onesimus " not now as 
 a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved." It is plain 
 therefore, that Onesimus had been a servant of Philemon ; and 
 the question is important, what that state of service was. Was 
 Onesimus a slave, in our sense of the word ; — i. e., " a-person who 
 is wholly subject to the will of another; — one whose person and 
 services are wholly under the control of another." We do not 
 affirm that he was not a slave ; but no one, with any pretensions 
 to scholarship, would attempt to prove that Onesimus was a slave, 
 from the mere fact that he is spoken of as a servant, [dovlov.) 
 
 The whole question here turns upon the meaning of the Greek 
 word dovloi, {doulos,) which in our version is translated by the 
 term, servant. This meaning is to be ascertained from a com- 
 parison of the places in which the word is used in the New Tes- 
 tament, and from the common use of the term in Greek writers 
 with respect to a then existing class of society. We shall con- 
 sider it, therefore, exegetically and historically. 
 
 If we should speak of one as a slave there would be no mis- 
 taking his position ; the term itself would define it. But if we 
 should speak of one as a servant, it could not be known from the 
 word whether he were a slave or a voluntary servant ; for though 
 every slave is a servant, not every servant is a slave. Or if we 
 should speak of one as having been a slave or a servant in a 
 remote period, e.g., in feudal times, one could not fully understand 
 his position till he had learned something of the state of society 
 and the modes of service at that time. Now we afiirm of the word 
 dovlog, as commonly used in the New Testament, that it does not 
 answer genericaUy to the English word slave, but rather, as it is 
 given in the English Bible, to the word servant. This will be 
 plain from a few examples. In Matt, xx, 27, Christ says to his 
 disciples, " whosoever will be chief among you, (f'a™ if.mv dovlo?,) 
 let him be your servant ;" but the disciples of Christ do not sus- 
 tain toward each other the relation of slaves. Acts ii, 18. " And 
 on my servants, {jov; dovlov; /nov,) and on my handmaidens, I will 
 pour out in those days of my Spirit ;" but God does not call his 
 people his slaves. 
 
 Acts xvi, 17. " The same," i. e. the female soothsayer at 
 Philippi, " followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, these men 
 are the servants of the most high God, {doikoi rov deov,^ which show 
 
Was Onesimus a Slave ? '^3 
 
 to us the way of salvation." How absurd to have called them 
 slaves ! Rom. i, 1. " Paul a servant of Jesus Christ" {dovlo: 'ir/. Xo. ) 
 Was Paul the slave of Christ or his willing servant ? Again and 
 again he speaks of himself as the servant of Christ, using always 
 the same word. 
 
 So James begins his epistle (i, I), ''• James a servatit {doHog) 
 of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." In the first verse of the 
 Apocalypse this word is twice used : suppose we should read that 
 verse thus — " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave 
 to him, to show to his slaves things which must shortly come to 
 pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel to his slave John." 
 Does not every one see the violence of such an interpretation ? 
 
 In the same book the prophets (x, 7) and the martyrs (xix, 2) 
 are called the servants of God. Did their relation to God resemble 
 that of s/aues, or of free-servants? Yet they were dovXoi. To 
 crown all, we read in Rev. xxii, 3, that in heaven " there shall be 
 no more curse ; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be 
 in it ; and his servants shall serve him." Will the condition of 
 the redeemed in heaven be in any respect analogous to that of 
 slaves upon earth ? Yet they will be the servants (tJocAot) of God. 
 
 It is evident therefore that the generic meaning of the term 
 dpvlo; is expressed not by the word slave, but by the word ser- 
 vant. It is often applied to the voluntary service of the follow- 
 ers and worshipers of God, and of the followers and ministers 
 of Christ, implying obedience, devotedness, fidelity and the like, 
 but without the remotest allusion to a state of slavery. The 
 fact therefore that Paul speaks of Onesimus as a dovXo; is not in 
 itself proof that Onesimus was a slave, any more than Paul was 
 a slave, or anything like a slave when he called himself a dovlog 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ. The generic meaning of the word in 
 the prevailing usage of the New Testament is servant and not 
 slave, though in some instances the context requires that the lat- 
 ter meaning should be given to the word. 
 
 It is a significant fact in this connection, that while the word 
 Sov)m; occurs one hundred and twenty-two times in the New Tes- 
 tament, it is not once translated in our Bible by the term slave, 
 but always by the term servant, except in one or two instances 
 where the word bondman is used to heighten a contrast. The 
 qualifying clause in 1 Tim. vi, 1, under the yoke (Sovloi vnd ';vy6v) 
 shows that 8ov).oi, alone did not define a state of servitude. In 
 the opinion of the scholars who made oar excellent version the 
 word doHo; does not mean specifically a slave, but a servant in 
 general ; and this opinion has the more weight because the trans- 
 lation was made long before the morality of slavery began to be 
 discussed in England, while slave-trading and slave-holding were 
 practised by Christians without compunction, and therefore the 
 word servant was chosen by the translators for philological rea- 
 
24 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 sons only, — not because they had a point to carry, but because 
 that word expressed the meaning of the original. 
 
 De Wette, who perhaps stands at the head of German exposi- 
 tors for critical knowledge and philological accuracy, translates 
 the word dovlnc, not by the German word sclave or slave, but by 
 the word knecht, which means a man-servant, especially one em- 
 ployed upon a farm, — and also a workman or journeyman at a 
 trade. The precise difference between the two terms is this ; 
 " the right of a master over a knecht can extend only so far as 
 to require from him that labor or service which he has pledged 
 himself to render : but the sclave is not only bound to do every 
 kind of labor for his master, but all he has or acquires, nay, even 
 his own person is subjected to him."* This eminent scholar, so 
 nice in the selection of words, in choosing a term to express the 
 meaning of the Greek dovU^, rejects sclave and takes knecht^ the 
 word which is used also in the German version of the New Tes- 
 tament. And since De Wette lived in a country where the sub- 
 ject of slavery is not agitated as it is with us, we have every rea- 
 son to regard this as his unbiassed opinion as an interpreter : 
 indeed, he was too jealous of his reputation as a scholar to have 
 allowed any personal prejudice to have biassed him upon such a 
 point. 
 
 From the philological view of the case we turn to another, 
 viz. : the historical view. What light does the institution of 
 slavery as it actually existed among the Greeks shed on the point 
 before us? We say among the Greeks, because Philemon was a 
 Greek, and a citizen of a Grecian state, and although at the date of 
 this epistle the Roman empire extended over Asia Minor, it is not 
 probable that in domestic institutions the Rortian law superseded 
 as yet the laws and usages of conquered provinces, any more than 
 the Roman mythology and worship superseded theirs. We know 
 that in Judea social customs and institutions were not molested 
 by the conquerors ; and we certainly should not form our idea of 
 Greek slavery at this period from the code of Justinian, of a much 
 later date. The Greek slave was commonly in a better condition 
 than the Roman, and was more frequently manumitted. Roman 
 slavery was slavery in its most absolute form, giving the master 
 unconditional control over the person, the services and the life of 
 the slave ; but this power was somewhat restrained, and the 
 whole system ameliorated, by the enactments of several of the 
 emperors. The slave could not hold property ; yet in large bus- 
 iness transactions, which were sometimes committed to his care, 
 apecidium was allowed him. Among the Greeks, or at least in 
 Athens and in some affiliated states, the life and person of the 
 slave were protected by law ; a person who struck or maltreated 
 
 * Adler's Lexicon, 
 
Slavery among the Greeks. 25 
 
 a slave was liable to an action ; and a slave could not be put to 
 death without a legal sentence. If a master was cruel, the slave 
 could take refuge in the Theseion, and there remain till he could 
 procure his transfer to a new master ; for any one who conducted 
 himself too harshly toward his slaves was by law compelled to 
 sell them. A slave could even indict his master for assault and 
 battery, and men were put to death for crimes against their bond- 
 men as for crimes against their fellow citizens. Slaves were often 
 hired out by their masters to work in mines, in agriculture, or in 
 manufactures; and in such cases they sometimes worked on 
 their own account, paying their masters a certain sum, or a per- 
 centage. In this way slaves sometimes amassed considerable 
 property. Slaves acquired by conquest remained fixed to the 
 soil, like the serfs in feudal times, but those obtained by purchase 
 could be transported from place to place. Such in general was 
 the state of slavery among the Greeks.* 
 
 We come now to a fact of much importance to the case in 
 hand. Archbishop Potter of Canterbury, in his Greek Archaeol- 
 ogy — a work which passed rapidly through six editions in Eng- 
 land, and was translated into foreign languages — speaking of 
 slavery in Athens, says, " Slaves, as long as they were under the 
 government of a master, were called oixhui, (oiketai,) but after 
 their freedom was granted them, they were dovlot, {douloi,) not be- 
 ing, like the former, a part of their master's estate, but only 
 obliged to some grateful acknowledgments and small services, 
 such as were required of the ftiionfoi, to whom they were in some 
 few things inferior ; but seldom arrived to the dignity of citizens, 
 especially if they had received their freedom from a private per- 
 son, and not upon a public account."! This testimony is the 
 more reliable from the manner in which it is introduced. Bishop 
 Potter wrote his antiquities upward of a century ago, before the 
 modern discussions about slavery, and therefore without any bias 
 from these ; his work is one simply of antiquarian research, and 
 in giving an account of slavery as it existed in Athens, he makes 
 incidentally the remark quoted above. He is not trying to settle 
 the meaning of dnHo; — that does not seem to have been in his 
 mind — but in writing a history of Athenian slavery, he finds 
 that there were two classes of sexvants, one called oiyJiui,, who 
 were absolute slaves, and another called dovlm^ of which were quoti- 
 dam slaves, — -freed-men or servants under limited obligations, — 
 a class lower than the native born citizen, but higher than the slave. 
 He states the fact, and gives his authority by citations from the 
 Greek classics. But this fact does not rest upon the sole authority 
 of Archbishop Potter. Escheyiburg in his Manual of Classical Lit- 
 
 * Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens, and St. John, History of the Man- 
 ners and Customs of Ancient Greece. f Vol. 1, p. G8. 
 
 4 
 
26 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 erature — a work of high authority — makes nearly the same state- 
 ment, " The slaves," he says, using the term dovlot generically, 
 " were of different sorts, those belonging to the public, and those 
 belonging to private citizens (oixsiut). The latter were com- 
 pletely in the power of the master, and were often treated with 
 great severity. Yet they sometimes purchased freedom by their 
 own earnings, or received it by gift as a reward for merit. Public 
 slaves also were often set at liberty, when they had rendered the 
 state some valuable service. Freedmen very seldom, if ever, 
 obtained the rights of citizens, and loere still termed doUoi.'^* 
 
 Other standard writers on Greek antiquities give the same view. 
 Prof Edwards of Andover — who has written the most thorough 
 and elaborate article upon Slavery in Ancient Greece which has 
 yet appeared in this country, an article which has been repub- 
 lished and extensively circulated in Great Britain — adopts with- 
 out qualification the statement of Potter that the dov/.oi were not 
 a part of their master's estate, but were only required to render 
 some small services, and that the name dovXoc was applied to slaves 
 ^^ after their freedom was granted the7n.^^f 
 
 Anacharsis, describing slavery amotig the Greeks, says : — 
 
 " The laws gave protection to the slave ; but when slaves were intelligent or 
 had promising talents, interest guarded them better than the law ; they enriched 
 themselves by obtaining a part of the salary they received from one and an- 
 other. These profits being multiplied, put them in a position to procure pro- 
 tection, to live in revolting luxury, and to join insolent pretensions to base 
 
 ideas No one could injure another's slave, under severe penalties. 
 
 .... When a slave was freed, he did not enter into the class of citizens, but 
 of domicilii, who resembled citizens in tlieir liberty, and slaves in the little 
 consideration they enjoyed. The domicilii to the number of about ten thousand, 
 were strangers fixed with their families in Athens, for the most part employed 
 in trades or in the marine service, protected by the government, without par- 
 ticipating in it ; free but independent ; useful to the republic, which dreaded 
 them because it dreaded liberty when separated from a love of country; de- 
 spised by the people who were jealous of tlie distinctions of citizenship. These 
 had each to choose from the citizens a patron who became responsible for their 
 conduct, and paid into the treastiry a yearly tribute of twelve drachmas for the 
 head of the family and six for their children. They lost their property when 
 they did not comply with the first, and their liberty if they did not comply with 
 the second ; but if they rendered signal service to the state, they obtained ex- 
 emption from tribute."! 
 
 XenopJwn, in his Athenian Republic, says : — "The licentiousness of slaves 
 and of aliens at Athens is excessive ; none are allowed to strike tliem ; nor ■will 
 the slave yield to the freeman." .... He also speaks of the importance of 
 " an equality of rights to slaves and freemen." 
 
 St. John speaks of a class of serfs in Crete, lying off the coast of Phrygia, 
 analogous to the domicilii of Anacharsis ; who "were compelled to furnish the 
 body of the citizens a certain sum of money, together with a part of their flocks 
 
 and herds and agricultural produce These were sufficiently numerous 
 
 and powerful to inspire their masters with dread." .... In Thessaly, also, 
 there was a large class of " voluntary villeins'^ who cultivated the land subject 
 to a yearly tribute.§ 
 
 * p. 180. t Bib. Rep., Vol. V, p. 155. t Travels, Vol. 11. 
 
 § Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece, Vol. Ill, pp. 62, 64. 
 
Slavery among the Greeks. 27 
 
 The same author gives an extended vocabulary of names applied to slaves 
 according to their condition. With reference to the distinction refen-ed to by 
 Potter, he says : — " Chrysippos makes a distinction between oixi-frji and SoUKoi, 
 but without much foundation ;" but he then adds, " the term oixitiqi [and the 
 same would hold true, therefore, of hoii%oi\ was applied to any person employed 
 about a house, whether slave or free"* 
 
 Some lexicographers, we are aware, regard slave as the primi- 
 tive meaning of dovXog ; and where authorities differ, we would 
 not hazard an opinion. But the facts adduced above cannot be 
 gainsaid ; and these fully establish our position on the subject, 
 viz., that so various were the classes of servants among the 
 Greeks, and so various the uses of the term ^ocAoc, that the appli- 
 cation of that term to Onesimus by no means proves that he was 
 a slave. Is not the presumption rather that he was a servant in 
 some other capacity ? especially as it is intimated in the 18th 
 verse that he was in debt to Philemon, which would have been 
 more likely if he was a hired servant, than if he was absolutely 
 a slave. We do not affirm that he was not a slave ; but it would 
 be well for those who are eager to testify their regard for Apos- 
 tolic example by sending back fugitives from slavery, and espe- 
 cially for those political journalists who read homilies upon this 
 as a Christian duty, to settle first the point whether Onesimus 
 ever was a slave. Till this is done we might rest the argument, 
 for the burden of proof lies on the other side ; but we are willing 
 to waive this advantage and proceed to a second query. 
 
 Did Paul send back Onesimus authoritatively to his master ? 
 We will admit, for the sake of- the argument, that Onesimus was 
 a slave. Did the Apostle use any authority or coercion in order to 
 return him to his master? There is no evidence that Paul even 
 urged Onesimus to return to Philemon. Nothing could be plainer 
 than that the return of Onesimus was voluntary. Paul, himself 
 a prisoner, could use no force to restore a fugitive servant to his 
 master. Paul was neither a commissioner from the court, nor a 
 marshal, nor a deputy marshal, nor a szi6-commissioner, empow- 
 ered to summon the posse comitatus to arrest a fugitive, and under 
 a thousand dollar bond to have him delivered over to his master; 
 nor was he under the temptation of a five dollar fee to inform of 
 a fugitive and secure his arrest. Whatever Paul did to promote 
 the return of Onesimus to Philemon was simply in the way of 
 advice and of friendly offices between the two. The phrase 
 " whom 1 have sent again," requires nothing more than this ; for 
 Paul uses the same of his fellow-laborers, who were at different 
 times his willing messengers to the churches, e. g.^ "I suppose it 
 necessary to serid to you Epaphroditus my brother, and com- 
 panion in labor." (Phil, ii, 25.) " All my state shall Tychicus de- 
 
 * Manners and Customs of Ancient Greece, Vol. Ill, p. 27. 
 
^ The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 clare to you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and 
 fellow-servant in the Lord : whom T have se?it to you for the 
 same purpose, that he might know your estate." (Col. iv, 7, 8.) 
 There is no evidence that Onesimus was sent in a manner differ- 
 ent from that in which Epaphroditus and Tychicus were sent by 
 Paul upon errands of love. It is evident, that Paul did not at 
 once send back Onesimus to his master ; — not till Onesimus was 
 converted, and had been for some time " profitable" or useful to 
 himself as a ministering brother. He does not seem to have 
 thought of sending him back until this change took place in his 
 character. He did not, therefore, send him back simply because 
 he was a "fugitive held to service" in another state, nor did he 
 send him by authority or any manner of constraint. 
 
 The whole letter of Paul to Philemon is entirely consistent 
 with the supposition that Onesimus had proposed to return. This 
 he may have been led to do by the change which had taken 
 place in his character, causing him to feel that he had wronged 
 Philemon by robbery or fraud, or by some abuse of trust for which 
 he desired now to make reparation ; or he may have wished to 
 rejoin his family and acquaintances at Colosse, or he may have 
 been pinched for the means of living in a strange city. It is 
 quite evident that Onesimus went back willingly or he would not 
 have gone at all — for nobody compelled him to return. The 
 utmost that Paul could do was to urge him to go back, and there 
 is no proof that he did even this, or anything more than to second 
 the proposal of Onesimus himself to return. Paul undertook to 
 negotiate with Philemon for the return of Onesimus in order to 
 make his return easy and pleasant. Here again it lies with those 
 who argue from this example for the compulsory return of fugi- 
 tives — to give the proof. 
 
 Our third inquiry is. In what character and for what intefit 
 was Onesimus sent back to Philemon? Was he sent back to be 
 again a dodlog, to live in the same capacity as before? Did Paid 
 send him back to be made a slave ? To answer this question 
 satisfactorily we need only to read with care a (ew sentences of 
 the letter to Philemon. " Wherefore," says the Apostle, " though 
 I might be much bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is con- 
 venient" — though I might command what is proper to be done 
 toward Onesimus, and even detain him here with me, " yet for 
 love's sake, I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the 
 aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ," — an old man, a 
 prisoner, might reasonably expect favors from a Christian friend, 
 — " I beseech thee" as a personal favor, for my son Onesimus, 
 " whom I have begotten in my bonds" — who has been converted 
 by attending on my preaching in the prison, " which in time 
 past was to thee unprofitable," — a negligent and a fraudulent ser- 
 vant — " but now profitable," disposed to be useful *' to thee and 
 
Was Onesimus sent back to Slavery 1 29 
 
 to me : whom I have sent again ; thou therefore receive him, that 
 is mine own bowels" — one dear to me as a son, — " whom I would 
 have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have minis- 
 tered to me in the bonds of the gospel," rendering such friendly 
 offices as you yourself would do if here. " But without thy 
 mind would I do nothing ;" I would not keep him without thy 
 free consent; "that thy benefit" — the good which your servant 
 would do to me — "should not be as it were of necessity, on your 
 part, but willingly y This language does not imply that Phile- 
 mon had a hold upon Onesimus as his slave, for it is such lan- 
 guage as one gentleman of honor and delicacy would use toward 
 another with respect to a servant in any capacity. Suppose the 
 servant of an old friend of the writer in New Haven should come 
 to New York and enter into his service as a domestic ; and while 
 in that relation should become converted, and then should ac- 
 knowledge that he or she had left New Haven wrongfully, in vio- 
 lation of a contract, or by dissimulation and fraud. Suppose it 
 was a girl or a boy who- had been bound out to that friend and 
 whose time had not yet expired. Would it be honorable in the 
 writer to keep the servant in such circumstances? Should he 
 not write to his friend and say, " Your servant is at my house, is 
 much changed in character and of great value to me ; but being 
 now willing to return to you, I would on no account detain him 
 or her without consulting your pleasure." The language of Paul 
 is perfectly consistent with the supposition that Onesimus was 
 not a slave, but a freedman held by contract to certain services, 
 which by running away he had failed to perform. 
 
 Paul next suggests that the temporary loss of Onesimus may 
 in the end be a gain to Philemon, since he will now return with 
 a much improved character — " For perhaps he therefore departed 
 for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever." — But how 
 should he receive him ? " Not now as a servant," not as a slave 
 surely, not even as a 8ovlog, a servant bound in any sense, "but 
 above a dovlov — a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much 
 more to thee, both in the flesh — as a part of thy domestic estab- 
 lishment — and in the Lord." Whatever Onesimus had before 
 been as a doUoi^ that he was not to be hereafter. " If thou count 
 me therefore a partner, — or an intimate friend — receive him as my- 
 self." Paul wished moreover to have the past cancelled, so that 
 Onesimus might be introduced to the confidence of Philemon, 
 and so he adds, " If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee aught, 
 put that on mine account ; I Paul have written it with mine own 
 hand, I will repay it." Is it not probable that Onesimus had 
 previously sustained the relation of a confidential servant, in 
 which he had been unfaithful, and now Paul would not have 
 him required even to make good that deficiency of service, but 
 received as a brother in Christ ? It is palpable that Paul in send- 
 
30 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 ing back Onesimus did not eren dream that he should become a 
 slave. Whatever relation he may hitherto have sustained to 
 Philemon, in whatever capacity he may have served him, it was 
 the wish of Paul that he should not be treated as in that inferior 
 relation, but received as a Christian brother and an equal. Such is 
 the plain sense of the letter ; such the impression which it makes 
 on every candid mind. This is also the interpretation of the 
 ablest Biblical commentators, such as UeWette of Germany and 
 Mr. Barnes of our own country. The view of the latter is so 
 appropriate that we will give it in his own words. 
 
 " It would be impossible for Philemon to comply with the wishes breathed 
 forth in this letter, and meet exactly the desires of Paul in the case, and yet 
 retain Onesimus as a slave, or regard him as property, as a ' chattel' — as a 
 ' thing.' For if he had been formerly a slave ; if this is the fair meaning of 
 the word SwXoj — then this is expressly declared. Thus in v. 16 he is com- 
 manded to receive him not now as a servant — ovxin wj bovXav, If he had been 
 a slave before he did not ivish that he should be received as such now, 
 or regarded as such any longer. How could Philemon comply with the 
 wish of the Apostle and yet regard Onesimus as a slave ? The very at- 
 tempt to do it would be directly in the face of the expressed desire of Paul, 
 and every moment he held him as such he would be disregarding his wishes. 
 He desired him to receive and treat him, in all respects, as a Christian brother 
 — as one redeemed, as a man : — above a servant, a brother beloved! How could 
 he do tliis, and yet regard and treat him as a slave ? Is it treating one as a 
 Christian brother to hold him as property ; to deprive him of freedom ; to con- 
 sider him an article of merchandize ; to exact his labor without compensation ? 
 Would the man himself who makes another a slave suppose that he was treated 
 as a Christian brother, if he were reduced to that condition ? Would he feel 
 that his son was so regarded if he was made a slave ? There are no ways of re- 
 conciling these things. It is impossible for a master to regard his slave as, in 
 the proper and full sense of the phrase, ' a CJiristian brother.'' He may, indeed, 
 esteem him highly as a Christian ; he may treat him with kindness ; he may 
 show him many favors ; hut he regards him also as his slave ; and this fact 
 makes a difference wide " as from the center thrice to the utmost pole" in his 
 feelings toward him and other Christians. He is 7iot on a level with them as a 
 Christian. Tlie notion of his being his slave mingles with all his feelings to- 
 ward him, and gives a coloring to all his views of him. He can not but feel, 
 if he himself is under the influence of religion, that that slave, if he were 
 treated in al] respects as a Christian, would be as free as himself; would have 
 a right to his time, and skill, and liberty ; would be permitted to form his own 
 plans, and to enjoy the avails of his own labor ; and would be secure from the 
 possibility of being sold. 
 
 " Suppose now that Paul, after a short interval, had actually come to the 
 residence of Philemon, as he expected to, and had found him regarding and 
 treating Onesimus as a slave, Avould he have felt that Philemon had complied 
 with his wishes? Did he ask this of him? Did he not request just the con- 
 trary ? Would it not be natural for him to say to him that he had not received 
 him as he wished him to ? And how would Philemon reply to this ?" 
 
 Paul desired Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would re- 
 ceive himself, or his son. If Paul had visited Philemon, would 
 Philemon have clapped chains upon him and have sent him out 
 into the field to work under the lash ? or would he have held 
 him to any sort of compulsory service ? Would Philemon have 
 
Who was PhileQUon ? 31 
 
 given such a reception to Timothy the adopted son of Paul ? 
 No more could he have treated Onesimus as a slave. 
 
 Our last inquiry relates to the character of Philemon, to whom 
 Onesimus was returned. This is an important link in the chain 
 of argument. If Onesimus was a fugitive slave and was sent 
 back as such, — which we do not at all admit, — to what sori of a 
 master was he returned ? Philemon was a Christian ; a convert 
 of Paul, and an intimate personal friend of the Apostle. In this 
 very letter Paul requests him to prepare for him a lodging against 
 his next visit to Colosse. Paul knew him well, and had so much 
 confidence in him as a kind and candid Christian man that he 
 was willing to trust Onesimus in his hands. Onesimus knew 
 him also, and was willing to go back and to put himself at the 
 disposal of Philemon. If then Onesimus was a slave, the fact 
 that he was sent back, with his owti consent, to such a master, 
 gives no warrant for sending back by force every fiigitive slave 
 to any and every master. The example of Paul jidmits of no 
 such latitude. 
 
 We have now examined the four sections of the' Fugitive 
 Slave Bill of the New Testament. Under the first section it is 
 doubtful whether the bill treats at all of fugitive slaves. The 
 term dovlog does not prove it, and there is no evidence that Onesi- 
 mus was a slave. Under the second section, it is plain that no 
 authority or coercion was used to restore the fugitive slave, if 
 such he was. 
 
 Under the third section, it is evident, that the fugitive was not 
 sent back to be again a slave, if such he was before, but to be a 
 freeman, a friend, and a brother in Christ : While from the fourth 
 section it appears, that he was sent back to one who recognized 
 his own obligations to Christ, and who would treat him atjcord- 
 ing to the law of justice and the kind spirit of the gospel. 
 
 We are quite willing that this New Testament Bill should be 
 compared section by section with any Fugitive Slave Law of a 
 later date. We do not think there has been any improvement 
 upon the original bill as drafted by Moses and illustrated by Paul 
 — though we are living in a free country and in the middle of 
 the nineteenth century. Upon that bill we take our stand. That 
 is our law as Christians in relation to this matter. And now 
 what is the utmost that the example of Paul requires or even 
 warrants with respect to the surrender of fugitives from service? 
 Admitting that Onesimus was a slave, — of which there is no 
 adequate proof — what is the utmost which that example requires 
 of a Christian citizen ? A fugitive comes to a Christian citizen, 
 one who is a Christian minister, (for we wish a definite and strong 
 case,) and expresses a desire to return to his master ; that master is 
 known to be a benevolent and Christian man ; the slave is quite 
 
32 7 Vie Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 willing to trust himself in his hands, but wishes this minister to aid 
 his return and to intercede for him with his master that he may 
 be freed from certain liabilities. The minister complies with the 
 request, and sends him back to his master, his own friend, with 
 the earnest request that he will receive and treat him as a Chris- 
 tian, — ^just as he would treat himself. In such a case he might 
 perhaps feel that he was imitating Paul. But suppose a man 
 comes to him and says ; 
 
 " Sir, I am a run-away slave, will you not help me to a place 
 of safety." 
 
 " A run-away slave ! And do you come to me, a minister of 
 the gospel, to countenance you in running away from the mas- 
 ter whom God has placed over you ? It is my duty to send you 
 back as Paul sent back Onesimus." 
 
 "Ah sir," he replies, " but I am a Christian, and for the love of 
 the Savior who bought us with his blood, I pray you have pity 
 upon me." 
 
 " A Christian indeed ! And do you not know that it is the 
 duty of servants to obey their masters, and that it is your duty 
 to return to yours?" 
 
 " But, Sir, my master is cruel, and I carry with me the marks 
 of the lash and of the brand ; I can not have the Bible ; I am 
 torn away from my wife and children ; how can I go back to be 
 whipped and tortured and made wretched ? I had rather die 
 first." 
 
 " Well, if you will not be persuaded, I must try other means ;" 
 — so seizing him by the collar, this minister of Christ calls to 
 the bystanders, the posse comitatus, " What, ho ! here is a run- 
 away slave, help me to secure him for his master." And with 
 that they bind the struggling fugitive with ropes, and drag him 
 to a commissioner to await the appearance of a claimant ; and 
 having thus discharged his duty to " Conscience and the Consti- 
 tution," he draws upon the treasury of the United States for five 
 dollars and expenses as by law provided. Now is he not a saint ? 
 Does he not walk in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul ? Is he 
 not a glorious representative of the spirit of Christianity? Is he 
 not a worthy follower and minister of the Lord Jesus Christ? — 
 The slave indeed expected different treatment from a minister of 
 Christ, but he did not know how much light has been shed upon 
 the gospel duty of catching negroes, by the discussions of poli- 
 ticians and other learned and godly men. 
 
 Does any one believe that the man who wrote this epistle to 
 Philemon would be a slave-catcher under modern law? Would 
 Paul have laid hands upon James Hamlet to force him back to 
 slavery ? He would have rotted in jail first. In the time of 
 Paul, the Roman law respecting fugitives was stringent and se- 
 vere. A runaway slave could not be lawfully received or har- 
 
A Slave-catching Minister. 33 
 
 bored ; to conceal him was fiirtum — theft. The master was 
 entitled to pursue the fugitive, and it was the duty of all the 
 authorities to aid in his arrest ; there was also a class of men 
 called ftigitivarii, — a despicable class, as such men must ever 
 be, — whose business it was to recover fugitives; and yet Paul 
 retained Onesimus for some time as his own servant, and finally 
 sent him back only when he was willing to go. As Christians 
 we dare not, in this matter, go beyond the example of the Apos- 
 tle Paul. 
 
 But what if the laws require us to go farther and make it penal 
 for us to recognize a fugitive slave as a man and a Christian, and 
 to minister to his necessities. How shall we regard such a law ? 
 That is a question which every man must answer for himself ac- 
 cording to the light which God has given him. We will answer 
 it by asking another. The constitution of the republic of Chili 
 establishes the Roman Catholic religion as the religion of the 
 state to the exclusion of all others. Suppose that there was such 
 an article in the Constitution of the United States — how ought 
 we to regard it ? Suppose the law of the land, instead of guard- 
 ing religious liberty, should require all citizens to worship accord- 
 ing to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church — how ought we 
 to act under such a law ? Or suppose that Congress should pass 
 an act legalizing polygamy or kidnapping, should we feel bound 
 in conscience to carry out its provisions ? These questions may 
 help to show that not every thing which is passed into a human 
 statute is binding on the conscience before God. But how shall 
 we act toward an unrighteous law — a law demanding what con- 
 science and the word of God forbid ? We know how the Puri- 
 tans acted under the oppressive measures of Laud and the tyran- 
 nical Stuarts, and we are accustomed to praise them, as does 
 Hume, as the fathers of civil and religious liberty. We know 
 how the martyrs and confessors of the Christian faith in all ages, 
 have acted under laws that did violence to their religious convic- 
 tions. These have been orderly and peaceable citizens, support- 
 ing government, making no rebellion, but choosing to suffer the 
 penalty of unrighteous laws, rather than to sin against God by 
 obeying such laws. Nearly all that is noble and heroic in history, 
 nearly all that has been accomplished for the emancipation and 
 the progress of the race, stands connected with the decision, the 
 self-denial and the suffering of these conscientious, these "obsti- 
 nate" men. As to what is duty toward fugitives from slavery, 
 let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. The laws of 
 the free states know no such thing as a slave ; and for our part, 
 living where personal liberty and life are made secure, we shall 
 never acknowledge any man in the streets of our abode to be 
 anything but a man, having the same right to walk the streets 
 and breathe the air, the same right to protection in life, liberty. 
 
 5 
 
34 The Fugitive Slave Law. 
 
 and the pursuit of happiness, that God has given us. If to act 
 on such a principle be an iniquity to be punished by the judge, 
 then do we accept the penaUy; saying with Paul before Festiis, 
 "for if I be an oifender, or have committed anything worthy of 
 death, I refuse not to die." The fugitive shall have bread; he 
 shall have money; he shall have shelter; though at the cost of 
 fines and imprisonment. 
 
 Some will denounce such language as treason, and will thereat 
 fly into paroxysms of eloquence about the Constitution and the 
 Union. We are quite willing to take our stand by Prof. Stuart, 
 and say, " In such a case, obedience to a human law is criuje ; it 
 is treason, against the Majesty of Heaven and earth." The Pro- 
 fessor applauds Dr. Palmer of Charleston, S. C, for having told 
 Gov. Hayne, " that he should not obey the law" which forbade 
 him to teach the blacks to read ; a law which the Professor thor- 
 oughly denounces as " unlawful, anti-Christian," and "an inva- 
 sion of the high prerogatives of Heaven's court." In this matter 
 of treason, therefore, we find ourselves in excellent company both 
 at the North and at the South. Bnt is it treason simply to refuse 
 to obey a civil law, while we offer no violence, stir up no rebell- 
 ion, but accept its penalty and thus render a passive obedience? 
 The Quakers have uniformly refused to obey any law relating 
 to military service ; yet the (Quakers are everywhere most 
 peaceable and orderly citizens. The Constitution itself is an 
 amendable instrument, and in order to procure its amendment, if 
 that is required, we must discuss the bearing of laws enacted to 
 carry out its provisions, and if those laws are opposed to con- 
 science, then must we peaceably but firmly oppose such laws, and 
 suffer till the hour of full redress. 
 
 Some are perplexed because they do not find in the epistle to 
 Philemon an express prohibition or denunciation of slavery, inas- 
 much as the epistle throughout borders upon the subject, and the 
 occasion would seem to have been a fit one for expressing the 
 mind of the Spirit with regard to this institution. But if Phile- 
 mon was not in any proper sense of the term a slave-holder, there 
 was no occasion to advert to the subject of slavery in a letter to 
 him ; and even if he was a slaveholder, would not tlie apostle have 
 been less likely to discuss the general subject of slavery in a fa- 
 miliar letter to a friend than in his more formal letters to the 
 churches? In this letter the Apostle plainly teaches Philemon 
 his own duty, and gives him instructions which, if followed, 
 would soon cause him to cease all connection with slavery; and it 
 was doubtless better to approach him thus upon the side of per- 
 sonal friendship and Christian principle and affection, than to give 
 him an argument against slavery in the abstract. Christ and the 
 Apostles were more concerned to introduce principles into the 
 world than to apply those principles to specific institutions ; the 
 
Conscience and Law. 35 
 
 application of principles was left to time ; they were infused into 
 society like leaven, and the progress of light and inquiry makes 
 more palpable the meaning of tlie precepts of the gospel and the 
 extent of their application. It is so wuh slavery. The princi- 
 ples of the gospel are opposed to it. Its doctrine of the unity and 
 the essential equality of the human race — the doctrine of a true 
 and universal brotherhood among all men made of one blood by 
 one Father; its doctrine of redemption for all alike, and of the 
 absolute equality of all believers, in rights and privih^ges; its pre- 
 cepts of charity, of justice, and of humility; its golden rule, and 
 its doctrine of man's immortality — these are all diametrically op- 
 posed to slavery, and these can not prevail without overthrowing 
 slavery, wherever and however it exists ; therefore it is that 
 slavery hates the Bible, and therefore it is that we must oppose 
 slavery with the Bible. But first of all we must retrieve the Bible 
 itself from the dishonor put upon it by those who would use its 
 toleration of evils in remote ages, because of the hardness of meti's 
 hearts, to bolster up oppression in this nineteenth century. Let 
 all Christians act up to the Bible in their spirit and conduct to- 
 ward all mankind, and by personal holiness and impartial benevo- 
 lence conspire to render complete and universal the reign, already 
 begun, of truth, liberty and love — the reign of the Redeemer, who 
 came, according to the sublime promises of inspired prophecy, to 
 preach deliverance to the captives and the opening of the prison 
 doors to them that are bound. 
 
54 W 
 
•> o 
 
 
 » - ,aO 
 
 .0 
 
 1^ . t • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'bV 
 
 
 
 V »L^1% -o. 
 
 . .* ^ 
 
 
 
 > ♦ 4? «>>■, •'^ 
 
 %.^" '' 
 
 
 
 • «o 
 
 

 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ ^*^-* .# 
 
 
 
 
 %/ 
 
 i^' "- /,-^;;'.% '°'5^^'> y.-^i--«