fjt 75 ^T t^t *.l 
 
 ^^<&SoJ^^ 
 
 I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 
 
 ?^ 1*^ ■■ ♦-^ '^ ♦> *"*-^ V»^ .A^ N -,, 
 
 itJit Jif ?;♦ ??• •?* iViVifCiV i^ ^ ■ 
 
 ):6 
 
 
 I (JSITED STATES- OF. IMEfilCA. % 
 
THE 
 
 GREAT QUESTION AXSWERED ; 
 
 OR, 
 
 IS SLAA'ERY A SIA^ IN ITSELF 
 
 (PER S E •? ) 
 
 ANSWERED ACCORDING TO THE 
 
 TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 
 
 ^ 
 
 BY J AS. A. ^^LOAN, A. M 
 
 M E M P HI S : 
 
 PRIXTEl) AT THE AVALANCHE SOCTIIEKN BOOK AND .loi! DFFICK, 
 
 BY IIUTTOX, CALLAWAY & CO. 
 
 IS 37. 
 
t.4- 
 
Entered according to Act of Congress in the year of our 
 Lord 1857, by James A. Sloax, in the Clerk's office, in 
 the U. S. Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 IXTRODUCTIOX Page 7 
 
 CHAPTER I.— Puile of Faith and Practice 13 
 
 CHAP. II.— The Relation of Church and State, 18 
 
 CHAP. III.— Sul)ordination or Order in all of God's 
 
 Works 48 
 
 CHAP. IV.— The Origin of Color and Slavery 56 
 
 CHAP, v.- Do the Writers of the Old Testament 
 
 treat Slavery as a Sin in itself? 87 
 
 CHAP. VI. — Examination of Polygamy and Slavery 
 in the Light of the Biljle — Are they 
 treated ahke by the Bible? ll-i 
 
 CHAP. VII.— Does the New Testament Condemn 
 
 Slavery as a Sin in itself? 137 
 
 CHAP. VIII.— The Duties of Masters and Servants, 217 
 
 CHAP. IX.— The Fugitive Slave Law— The Duty of 
 Citizens in relation to it — Is it Con- 
 stitutional ? 249 
 
 COXCLUDIXG REMARKS 281 
 
1 NTIIODUCTIOX. 
 
 'So n-iiK-li bns been lately written on the sub- 
 ject of Slavery, that it would appear to the dis- 
 interested observer that nothing new or addi- 
 tional can be added; still, after all that has been 
 written and said, there are some points which 
 have been to a great extent overlooked by 
 those who have undertaken to discuss the sub- 
 ject. A few writers have attempted to wi'ite 
 in the proper spirit ; to appeal to the pro})er 
 authority ; but this class have taken it for grant- 
 ed that the relation is politically right, without 
 examining carefully into the true or moral re- 
 lation of Master and Slave. In consequence of 
 this, many important (piestions have been left 
 without any other consideration than a mere 
 passing remai'k, thus leaving the real difficulty 
 unreinoved from the mind of the candid in- 
 
•8 IX TRO DUCT I ox. 
 
 quircr after truth. Another class of writers 
 and cleclaimers, liave assumed that the relation 
 is morally and politically wrong — sinful in it- 
 self; and from this view of the subject have 
 •denounced, in the very worst terms, not only 
 the system as a gigantic wrong, but that those 
 who sustain the relation of a Master, are un- 
 mitigated tyrants, unworthy of respect among 
 civdiized men, and beyond the covenanted mer- 
 cies of God. With this class of writers and 
 declaimers we have no controversy; their per- 
 ceptions are all darkened ; they look at all things 
 pertaining to the subject through a false me- 
 dium. On the minds of such men, the clearest 
 logical demonstration falls utterly powerless; 
 tlie brightest light has the same eifect on their 
 vision, as it has on that of a bat — that is, it only 
 makes them blinder. If they should ever see 
 the error of their way, the conviction must be 
 produced by a higher power than that of man. 
 We may, however, occasionally notice the posi- 
 tion and arguments of res|)ectable writers on the 
 •other side; but still, it is not our main object 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 in writing on this niucli mooted point. We 
 wish to write a few })hiin things for the benefit 
 of plain and common people, and especially to 
 discuss the question, "Is Slavery sinful in itself?*' 
 {jper se.) This is the point that one class of 
 writers take for granted as being right; the 
 other class assume that it is wrong; and hence, 
 the honest inquirer is left in doubt after he has 
 waded through works and speeches on both 
 sides of the ({uestion. The stability of our re- 
 publican institutions is threatened by the contin- 
 ual and angry discussions on this Slavery ques- 
 tion ; and while there are many, both at the 
 North and at the South, wlio would be glad to 
 seize on any pretext to pull down the fair tem- 
 ple of liberty, we are fully satisfied that there 
 is a large number, more particularly at the 
 North, who would be more hearty in their co- 
 operation in maintaining the Constitution of 
 their country, if they were fully and conscien- 
 tiously satisfied that it did not uphold and 
 legalize a moral wrong. Many ways and means 
 have been suggested and adopted to bring the 
 
"10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ceaseless agitation of tliis question to an end, 
 but without many bright prospects of success. 
 The clouds still hover around the political 
 horizon, and the mutterings of the distant 
 thunder indicate and tell too plainly that the 
 storm is only gathering new strength to burst 
 with renewed fury. The real difficulty of 
 maintaining quiet on this subject lies far deeper 
 than most of men are willing to admit; it lies 
 in the conscience of men ; it is not so much in 
 head as in heart. The whole truth on the sub- 
 ject may be expressed in a few words. A large 
 number of our brethren at the North are con- 
 scientiously opposed to Slavery ; their opposition 
 arises from principle, but they are living under 
 a social compact — the Constitution — which they 
 believe sanctions a great wrong in sustaining it ; 
 they believe they are doing wrong. It is natural, 
 it is right for every man to free himself as soon as 
 possible, and by proper means, from all unlaw- 
 ful contracts. Xow if we can succeed in con- 
 vincing our Northern brethren that they are 
 not doinir wroiiG: in maintainino; the Constitu- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 tion — ill otlier words, tliat it does not })roteet a 
 system, sinful in itself, then we will have attained 
 our end. There may be a possibility tliat the 
 system is right, and that those wlio earry their ^. 
 opposition to sueh an extent as will result in 
 much greater evils, may be wrong. This is the 
 point to be examined. In pursuing our object, 
 it will be necessary to have a standard to which 
 we can appeal; some rule by which all ques- 
 tions of social and personal duty must be tried. 
 This will lead to an examination of the Scriptures 
 upon the question at issue ; an examination of 
 the "higher law;" the relation of Church 
 and State ; what we owe to God, and what is 
 due to human authority; when it is right to obey 
 God rather than men, and many other questions 
 in which political theologians lead their ad- 
 mirers astray. These things must be examined 
 into first. Then the foundation of all the re- 
 lations of life, such as husband and wife, pa- 
 rent and child, ruler and ruled, citizen of the 
 country and member of Christ's Church, Master 
 and Slave. We will touch briefly on the origin 
 
12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of servitude, the order tliat characterizes all of 
 God's works, and that His ^\ord, or His com- 
 mandments, laws or whatever we may call them,, 
 are made to suit the varied relations which men 
 sustain to them and to each other in their va- 
 rious relations and capacities. We may em- 
 brace some other topics in a general way, but 
 our main design is to reach the question, "Is 
 Slavery sinful in itself*?" That it may be con- 
 ducted in "meekness of wisdom,'' produce 
 peace, remove doubt from the minds of lovers 
 of their God and country, and increase the 
 happiness of both races, is our devout desire 
 and humble prayer. 
 
IS SLAVERY A SIN IN ITSELF? 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 
 
 Max is a dependent being. He did not cre- 
 ate himself; his life is dependent on the will of 
 another. He must go out of himself for com- 
 plete happiness. Every human being comes in- 
 to the world without knowledge. The senses 
 gradually come into active operation ; that of 
 hunger is probably the strongest that is felt for 
 some time; the infant becomes a child, the 
 child a boy, and the boy a man. Still, throuG^h 
 all his years of growth, he is learning from the 
 objects with which he is surrounded ; he gets a 
 knowledge of natural things, that is, from those 
 things which come wnthin the range of his senses; 
 but his duty to God and men must be learned from 
 another source. This can only be learned from 
 the Bible. Men have never learned anything 
 like correct views of their duty to God and to 
 one another, in those countries where they are 
 destitute of the light of divine revelation. 
 
14 RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 
 
 Hence, it is only in Christian countries that men 
 understand their relation to each other. And 
 in Christian lands where men refuse to take the 
 Bible for their guide, they are constantly going 
 astray; advocating error; pro^^agating false 
 systems of morals, and disturbing the peace of 
 society by their wild speculative theories. 
 Many, even in Christian lands, have adopted for 
 the rule of their conduct, what is called utility 
 or expediency ; but it is plain that this rule will 
 be fluctuating ; there is very little certainty, 
 when or where it should be applied; what one 
 man would consider right, another would think 
 a flagrant wrong; what one man would advocate 
 as useful, another would oppose as highly injuri- 
 ous ; what one would consider exj^edient, an- 
 other would disapprove as very unwise. One 
 man's knowledge is much more extensive and 
 thorough than another's. The minds of no two 
 men are exactly alike in all respects ; nor do 
 two men always agree in every particular. From 
 the great variety of mental ability, from 
 the diff'erent degrees of knowledge, and from 
 many other circumstances, it must be plain to 
 the reader that the law founded on expediency 
 or utility, would have to be varied in every in- 
 stance of its application, to suit the capacities 
 
RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 15 
 
 and conditions of its subjects. The principle is 
 self-destructive ; it would have to vary. But the 
 idea of a law or standard, an authoritative rule 
 of action, must be uniform^ or it becomes an 
 exception^ and not a general rule. In plain 
 terms, every man's will would have to be his law, 
 which would set every man at full liberty to do 
 as he pleased, independent of his Maker. All 
 nations have some standard by which they are 
 governed in civil matters. The courts of justice 
 are influenced by the decisions of past times; 
 by the opinion of some distinguished jurist. 
 The legislative body enacts rules or laws, to 
 govern and direct the conduct of the citizen in 
 his civil relations. The executive is governed 
 by the decisions of the court. Good usage es- 
 tablishes a certain manner of speaking, so that 
 there is a rule or standard, that is final in all le- 
 gislative, judicial, and linguistic controversies. 
 There must also be a final arbiter to settle all 
 disputes on moral and spiritual subjects, or it is 
 not worth the time and labor to form an opin- 
 ion, or a judgment on any question in morals. 
 It is not necessary that we should pursue this 
 subject any further, as all candid minds will see 
 at once the importance of having something 
 >vhich we all recognize as authority. The Bible, 
 
1Q RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 
 
 then, is our standard ; to this we desire to bring 
 all questions m morals ; by this we wish to try 
 every relation in life ; by its teachings we are 
 willing to abide, and by it to stand or fall. We 
 appeal not to the prejudice, the passions or cor- 
 rupt conscience of men ; for conscience cannot 
 determine the moral quality of an action unless 
 it have some rule by which to settle that point. 
 The conscience of the heathen do not rebuke 
 them for murdering their infant oflfspring, or 
 their parents, disabled by age ; while the Bible 
 expressly says, "Thou shalt not kill." Neither 
 do we recognize the principle of sincerity as the 
 rule of correct action in morals. A man may 
 be sincere, and prove it by murdering me. That 
 does not make the action right. The heathen 
 is sincere, no doubt, when he bows dowm and 
 worships the idol ; but so far from making idola- 
 try right, it only proves that the devotee vio- 
 lates the first commandment of the moral law, 
 " Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." 
 Sincerity will not, then, do forthe rule ; a man 
 may be sincere and yet be doing wrong. The 
 motive may be bad and the action turn out 
 good; but then the actor loses the approval of 
 a clear conscience. To make an action good, 
 the motive from which such action springs 
 
RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. H 
 
 must be in acnorflance with the revealed law of 
 God, or it is of no value. We are, then, forced 
 to the conclusion that the Bible, the whole 
 Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the safe rule 
 of action; and however we may attempt to 
 conceal the fact, our practice is greatly inilu- 
 enced by our theoretical views of truth, and 
 our religious opinons control our actions to a 
 much irreater extent than we are willin*]: to ad- 
 mit. We then take the Bible — not a paitizan 
 view of it, but as a harmonious whole — as our 
 chart and compass; believing, if we do not 
 throw it overboard, it will conduct us safely in- 
 to the haven of truth. To its sacred pages let us 
 then repair to learn what duty God requires of 
 us; what He has done for our race. Let us ex- 
 amine with care, judge with coolness and im- 
 partiality, study with patience and perseverance; 
 but above all, bow with implicit reverence to 
 the authority of God ; for He can never err while 
 "there is not a just man on earth that liveth 
 and sinneth not." "The human heart is deceit- 
 ful above all things, and desperately wicked.'* 
 
 B^ 
 
18 THE RELATION OF CHURCn AND STATE. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE RELATION OF CDURCH AND STATE. 
 
 The Jewisli Dis;pciis;ition was a tlieocracy; 
 
 tliat is, Jehovah was llie lieacl of the State, as 
 
 well as the Lord of the conscience. From this 
 
 circumstance, idolatry was punished by the civil 
 
 maixistrate, because it involved treason against 
 
 the reigning sovereign. (See Deut. xiii: 6, 8, 9.) 
 
 *'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy 
 
 son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, 
 
 or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice 
 
 %:-e, saying, Let ns go and serve other gods — 
 
 thou shalt not consent unto liim ; neither shall 
 
 thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, 
 
 ncither'shalt thou conceal hi n ; but thou shalt 
 
 surely hill him; thy hand shall be first npon 
 
 liim to put him to death, and afterward all the 
 
 people." God often inilicted severe punishment 
 
 on the Jews for the sin of idolatry, by giving 
 
 them up to the power and dominion of t.he 
 
 lieathen, by whom they were surrounded. 
 
 Wlicn Christ came, he fulfilled all the pro- 
 phecies, concerning the Messiah, contained in 
 
THR RELATION OF CIIURCn AXD STATE. 19 
 
 the 0](1 TestniucMit. I[(^ i eiiiove'd ilie ceromonial 
 ]>:irt of tlie i\l()s;iio l;i\v by liis cU'.-itli, and csiab- 
 •lislRMl ])Iain, siiiipk', and sj>i!iiual ordiimnccs in 
 tbeir place. Tlie theocracy of the Jewish dis- 
 jjensation j).isscd away; and Clirist, as iJic great 
 law-giver of tlie world, sejtaratcd between ihe 
 civil ami ecclesiastical powers, ami pointed out, 
 by his word, teaching, and cxani!)!e, the appro- 
 pi'iate province of each. Tlui great princij)le 
 'of Christianity, as uni'oldcd and explained by 
 Clirisr, is: Njii-lutcrfcrsnce in jyolltlcs on the 
 part of the lalnhters of his f/ospel^ and ohcxU- 
 eace to the cioll autlioritles under lohlch his 
 followers Uv^e. To liis teachings let us now 
 aj^peal ; to his perfect example let us look, in 
 Oi'd.'r that we niiy have clear and scriptural 
 views of <»ar relations io God, as the moral^ind 
 responsible beings ot his righteous govcMnment, 
 and also, that we may learn clearly what duties 
 we owe, as Cin-istians, to the civil authorities 
 undei- which we live. 
 
 We will begin with civil duties, as the lionor, 
 reverence, worship), and obedience which we 
 owe to Goil, fall m:)re naturally and clearly 
 under the teachings of theological and moi-al 
 science. Wli at, then, are tiiC great }»rinfiples 
 taught by Christ, toaching the relation of 
 
20 THE RELATION OP CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 Church and State? He recognized the prin- 
 ciple that civil courts are to settle, between 
 citizens, all disputes about property. We are 
 informed by Luke (xii : 13, 14) that "one of 
 the company said unto liim, Master, speak to 
 my brother, that he may divide the inheri- 
 tance with me." Here, then, the question of 
 settling the riglits of property was faii-ly and 
 plainly presented to Christ for his decision. A 
 man, in a public company, requests that he may 
 interpose his authority, as a teacher and pro- 
 phet, to make his brother give him that part of 
 the property to which he feels that he is justly 
 entitled. Does the Saviour turn aside from his 
 business to decide the matter between the dis- 
 putants ? No ; but replies by asking the ques- 
 tion, "Man, who made me a judge or divider 
 over you?" Who made me a judge to decide 
 civil causes? Who a})p!)ii)ted me an umpire to 
 divide inheritances ? This is not the object of 
 my mission into the woi Id. I did not come to 
 take the civil magistrate's office out of his 
 hands. " My kingdom is not of this world." 
 ^John xviii : 3.'->-o6.) Tiit^ iiolc of Bt'Zi on this 
 passage is so appi'opr.ale, that we gi\e it at 
 length : " Ciirist woidd not, un- three causes, 
 be a judge to divide inheritances. First, for 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 21 
 
 that he would not cherish the carnal opinion 
 which the Jews had of the Messiah. Secondly, 
 for that he would distinguish the civil govern- 
 ment from the ecclesiastical. Thirdly, to teach 
 us to beware of them which abuse the show of 
 the gospel, and also the name of ministers, to 
 their own private advantage." Dr. Whitty 
 makes the following remark on this passage — 
 viz : " It is probable that Christ refused to take 
 this office upon him, . . . chiefly because he had 
 but little time remaining, which he could betttr 
 spend in dividing to them the word of life, and 
 promoting their eternal interest." Dr. Scott 
 says of this comment of Dr. Whitty's : " Tliis 
 reason is at least very forcible, in all similar 
 cases, with ministers of the gospel, if they duly 
 consider the shortness and uncertainty of life, 
 the state of the world, the w^orth of souls, and 
 the immense importance and arduousness of 
 their work." 
 
 We have given these extracts to show that 
 one interpretation of this important event in 
 the life of Christ is not singular, but has been 
 the view taken by the best Biblical scholars. 
 Beza, however, gives the clearest view of the 
 passage. " The carnal opinion which the Jews 
 had of the Messiah," mentioned by him, was 
 
22 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 that the Messiah would appear as a great tem- 
 poral prince, deliver them from the civil do- 
 minion of the Romans, establish his throne in 
 Jerusalem, as the capital of his earthly king- 
 dom, and raise them to a degree of splendor 
 and power far beyond anything they had seen 
 in the palmiest days of David and Solomon. 
 It was evidently this belief of the nature of 
 Christ's mission which prompted the mother of 
 Zebedee's children to make the singular request 
 of him, as narrated in Matthew xx: 20-29. 
 The favor asked was that her two sons might 
 sit, the one on his right hand and the other on 
 his left, in his kingdom. The same opinion, the 
 temporal kingdom of Christ, with places of 
 honor and profit, was in the minds of the two 
 disciples on the morning of his resurrection, as 
 they were going to Emmaus ; they were sad, 
 T)ut the cause of that sadness is clearly devel- 
 oped in the declaration of one of them to Jesus, 
 " We trusted that it had been he w^hich should 
 have redeemed Israel." 
 
 These passages show the expectations of the 
 Jews about the temporal nature of his kingdom. 
 That he did not encourage -this view, may be 
 seen by the reader referring to Matthew xx: 
 20-27; and Luke xxiv: 13-31 ; and John xviii: 
 -33-36. 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 28 
 
 Christ also clearly distinguished between the 
 duties we owe to God and civil rulers. It can- 
 not be plead in favor of State establishments, 
 that such an amalgamation of religion and poli- 
 tics is countenanced by the example of Christ, 
 from the fact that he paid the temple-tax when 
 demanded by the proper person. The Jewish 
 disj^ensation liad not then closed ; all the cere- 
 monies of the Mosaic ritual were still in opera- 
 tion. It was one object of Christ's mission 
 "to fulfill all righteousness;" that is, to con- 
 form to every part of the law. The theocracy 
 had not come to an end : Jehovah was still the 
 recognized head of the State, as well as the ob- 
 ject of true worship. If we keep this last fact 
 in view, we can see the beauty and force of the 
 Saviour's argument that " the children are 
 free ; " that is, exempt from supporting the 
 government by pecuniary aid. "And when 
 they were come to Cajjernaum, they that re- 
 ceived tribute-money came to Peter and said. 
 Doth not your master pay tribute ? He saith. 
 Yes. And when he was come into the house, 
 Jesus prevented him, saying, Bimon, of whom 
 do the kino-s of the earth take custom or tri- 
 bute? Of their own children or strangers? 
 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Then are 
 
24 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 the children free." (Matt, xvii: 24-26.) His 
 argument is this: Kings of the earth do not 
 take tribute of their own children, but of their 
 subjects. "I am the Son of God — the civil 
 ruler of the Jews ; therefore, I am not bound 
 to pay tribute." He argued that he was ex- 
 empt from paying the temple-tax, not because 
 he was the son of Csesar, but because he was 
 the Son of God. Lest any should take excep- 
 tions to his refusal to pay, he waives this privi- 
 lege of exemption ; but, having no money, he 
 ordered Peter to go to the sea, which was close 
 by, and cast in his hook, awd in the mouth of 
 the first fish which he caught, he would find a 
 shekel — enough to pay them both. " Notwith- 
 standing, lest we should offend them, go thou 
 to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the 
 fish that first coraeth up ; and when thou hast 
 opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of 
 money: that take and give unto them for me 
 and thee." (Matt, xvii : 21.) "By which ex- 
 ample Christ teacheth us to avoid the scandal 
 and sinister suspicions of men, though they be 
 groundless, with some detriment to ourselves — 
 especially when we have not means to convince 
 them." * When, however, the question of pay- 
 
 * Whitty. 
 
THE RELATION OF ClIURCn AND STATE. 25 
 
 iiio" tribute to the civil ruler of the country was 
 presented to him, he gave a different answer. 
 The Pharisees and Herodians asked him the 
 question, and desired an answer : " Tell us,, 
 therefore, what thinkest thou ? Is it lawful to- 
 give tribute unto Ca-sar or not ':' He per 
 ceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt 
 ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . He said unto them, 
 Render unto Ga'sar tlie things which are Caesar's, 
 and unto God the things that are God's." 
 (Matt, xxii: 17-21.) To understand tlie ques- 
 tion here propounded, we must look at the 
 character of those who asked it. It is stated 
 by the sacrod historian, (vs. 15, 10,) that the 
 Pharisees "sent out unto him (Christ) their 
 disciples with the Herodians." These two sects 
 were of different opinions on the controverted 
 point of paying tribute to the Roman emperor. 
 The Pharisees inferred from the law of Moses, 
 (Deut. xvii : 15,) — "Thou shalt in any wise set 
 him (a king) over tliee whom the Lord thy God 
 shall clioose ; one from among thy brethren 
 shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayst not 
 set a sTEAXdER over thee which is not thy bro- 
 ther" — that it was unlawful to pay tribute to 
 the Romans, though forcibly reduced to sub- 
 jection under them. This view of the matter 
 
 
 
26 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 suited the rebellious and refractory nature of 
 the Jewish ptOjjle, and was the more popular 
 doctrine. The Herodians took their name from 
 the fact that they were strongly attached to the 
 interests of Herod's family. They w^ere strongly 
 tinctured with infidelity; made their profession 
 of religion subservient to their political inter- 
 ests. Hence, they thought that it was right to 
 pay the tribute to Cttsar. The design was to- 
 get Christ to settle the dispute between them, 
 and thereby ensnare him. Had he given his 
 opinion on the side of the Pharisees, then the 
 Herodians w-ould have accused and delivered 
 him to Pilate, the Roman governor, to be 
 treated as a rebel or traitor. Had he ijiven his 
 opinion simply to pay tribute to Caesar, then the 
 Pharisees would have accused him, before the 
 people, as being an enemy to their civil liberties, 
 and teaching contrary to the law of ]Moses, and 
 requiring passive obedience to the heathen 
 magistrates. They evidently supposed that it 
 was impossible for him to answer their question 
 without encountering a serious difficulty. Christ 
 gave them to understand that he was fully 
 aw^are of their designs. " He perceived their 
 wickedness;" yet he chose to answer their in- 
 (piiry, as an important principle was to be en- 
 
TUH KKLATIOX OF ClIURCII AND STATE. 2T 
 
 •g'rafted on his re}>ly. " HaA'ing, therefore, 
 obtained the coin in whieli the tribute was paid, 
 and drawn them to acknowledge that it was 
 stamped with Caesar's image and name, he ta- 
 citly inferred that Ca'sar was the civil ruler to 
 whom God had subjected them ; and, therefore, 
 as they derived the protection and the benefits 
 of the magistracy from him — of which fact the 
 circulation and currency of his coinage was an 
 evidence — they were not only allowed, but re- 
 quired, to render to him both tribute and civil 
 honor and obedience. .Vt the same time, they 
 must render to God that honor, love, worshij), 
 and service, which his commandments claimed, 
 and which were justly due to him ; and must 
 not disobey him out of regard to any earthly 
 sovereign. His answer condemned equalh' the 
 refractory spirit of the Pharisees, who scrupled 
 obedience to the Roman emperors, under pre- 
 tence of religion, and the time-serving Plerod- 
 ians, who made a compliment of their religion 
 to their prince, and conformed to many heathen 
 customs to please him ; and it is, moreover, of 
 universal application and replete with practical 
 instruction."" "^^ "Christians must obey their 
 magistrates, although they be wicked and ex- 
 
 * Scott. 
 
28 THE llELATIOX OF CnURCU AND STATE 
 
 tortioners, but so . . . that the authority of God 
 may remain safe to him, and his honor be not 
 diminished."! These extracts contain the proper 
 principles on which Christians arc to act — viz: 
 To honor, obey, and respect the civil authority 
 under which their lot, in the providence of God, 
 is cast. The other parts of the Bible are in 
 harmony with the teachino;s of Christ. 
 
 First, civil government is a divine institution, 
 that is, it is the will of God that it should exist. 
 " Let every soul be subject unto the higher pow- 
 ers, for there is no power but of God ; the powers 
 that be are ordainerl of God." (Rom. xiii: 1.) 
 
 Secondly, while government is of God, the 
 form of it is of men. The Scripture, no where 
 enjoins it on men to have one and only o;zeform 
 of civil government. The same kind of civil 
 government will not suit every community; but 
 the Bible does lay down certain principles 
 which are applicable to rulers and subjects, un- 
 der every form in which governments exist. 
 That this position is the correct one, is plain 
 from the varied teachings of the New Testa- 
 ment. Christ taught civil obedience to Caesar, 
 the emperor of the Roman Empire ; Paul recog- 
 nizes the various forrus of human government 
 
THE RELATION OF CIIURCn AND STATE. 29 
 
 AN licii lie " exhorts tliat supplications, pi-ayers. 
 and intercession . . . l)e made for all men ; for 
 
 KINGS, and ALL THAT AllE IN AUTHORITY." (I 
 
 Tim. ii: 1, 2.) Peter in his first epistle, 2d chap- 
 ter, endorses the position when he says, verses 
 13, 14, 17, "Submit yourselves to every ordi- 
 nance of man, for the Lord's sake ; whether it 
 be to the king as supreme, or unto governoks, 
 as unto them that are sent by liim for the pun- 
 ishment of evil doers, and for the praise of 
 them that do well. "Honor the king." From 
 the fact that the Jewish State was a theocracyj 
 the civil magistrate had many rights in relation 
 to religion under that dispensation, Avhich have 
 been repealed by the great law giver, Jesus 
 Christ. It was necessary under that form of 
 the Church and State, that the civil magistrate 
 sliould be a member of the Church ; but this is 
 not an essential qualification now, since Church 
 and State are cleaily separated ; still, it would 
 be better if all, both rulers and ruled, were 
 true Christians. Much information, and many 
 and useful lessons might be learned by civil 
 rulers of the present day, from a careful study 
 of the lives of eminent men, whose lives and 
 mictions are recorded in the Ijible. 
 
 Thirdly, it is the dutv of the civil authoritv 
 c* 
 
30 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AXD STATE. 
 
 to punish evil-doers, and protect the sober and 
 quiet citizens in the enjoyment of all civil rights 
 granted by the constitution of the country; not 
 merely to tolerate^ but to give full religious 
 liberty to all those who contribute to its sup- 
 port, obey its laws, and defend it against the at- 
 tacks of hostile governments. From these prin- 
 ciples naturally arise the inquiry, How far are 
 Christians to obey civil authority '? Hence we 
 will now examine into the nature and extent of 
 that obedience which the Bible commands us to 
 render to our rulers. 
 
 Fourthly, obedience to civil authority is limi- 
 ted, and there are cases in which disobedience 
 is a duty. This position is clear, from the very 
 nature of civil government; it being established 
 for the benefit of those entering into the social 
 compact. Rulers are "• sent by Him (God) for 
 the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise 
 of them that do well." When, therefore, the 
 civil authority fail to punish crimes against the 
 community, when it fails to carry out the pro- 
 visions of the compact, when it refuses to pro- 
 tect the good and obedient citizen in his con- 
 stitutional rights, it perverts the end of its or- 
 ganization, and may be lawfully changed or 
 modified so as to more eft'ectuallv secure the 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 31 
 
 protection of the persons and property of those 
 forming tlie compact. The ordinance of civil 
 government being of divine appointment, whik' 
 the/br;« is left to human wisdom, a communi- 
 ty may change tlie form of their government 
 from a monarchy to a representative, or an oh- 
 garchy or limited monarchy, to any other form 
 that they may deem best suited to their situa- 
 tion or circumstances. A monarchy may be 
 best adapted to certain states of society ; a 
 limited monarchy may suit another state, a 
 o-overnment bv the nobilitv may suit a third, 
 and a representative or republican form may be 
 best adapted to a fourth, so that whatever form 
 is adopted by the community in whicli we live, 
 it certainly is the duty of every Christian to 
 " obey the ^^owers that be," " to submit to 
 every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,-' 
 until that is changed or abolished by those who 
 are governed. This obedience is limited by the 
 written constitution of the country, or by 
 known and established usage, or Avhen the civil 
 authority clearly transcends its authority and 
 requires obedience to laws clearly at war with 
 the revealed will of God. In the United States 
 there can be but little difficulty in ascertaining 
 what is the law of the land. Tlie les^islative 
 
32 THE EELATIOX OP CHURCn AND STATE. 
 
 body makes laws, and it is the duty of the judi- 
 ciary to expound those laws, and whether they 
 are constitutional or not. The Supreme court 
 is a disinterested party, and when it decides de- 
 liberately and settles some great constitutional 
 question, then we doubt the piety of that man 
 who sets up his individual o})inion against it : 
 but more especially is this ^^•rong in the am- 
 bassadors of Christ to be the "first to speak evil 
 of the rulers of their people." These things ap- 
 pear to be plain and easily understood by those 
 who desire to know and do their duty toward 
 the civil authorities of their country. There 
 are cases, however, in which disobedience to civil 
 authority is right; that is in accordance with 
 the teachings of the Bible. The first example 
 of disobedience to which we refer, was that of 
 the midwives in refusing to execute the bloody 
 and murderous command of Pharaoh, king of 
 Egypt. (See Ex. i: 10-22.) "The king of Egypt 
 spake to the Ileljrew midwives: When ye do 
 the oflice, a midwife to the Hebrew women . . .if 
 it be a son, then ye shall kill him. But if it be a 
 daughter, then she shall live; but the midwives 
 feared God and did not as the king of Egypt 
 commanded them, but saved the men children 
 alive." Thev were right in thus refusing: obe- 
 
THE HEL\T10N OF CHUUCH AND STATK. 80 
 
 iliciice, for tlic law of God says expressly, 
 ■'•Thou shalt not kill."" For this ooiiscientioiis 
 respect for the authority of God, they received 
 the king's approval. There is a similar case re- 
 corded, (Kings xxi: 5-15,) in which disobedience 
 to the commands of tlie reigning sovereign 
 would have been justifiable, but \\here obedi- 
 ence secured the murder of Nal)oth, a peaceful 
 citizen, and the consequences were most disas- 
 trous to Ahab, he being slain in battle and the 
 dogs licking his blood in the same place they 
 had licked uj) the innocent blood of Naboth ; 
 tlie dogs also eating tlie tlesh of Jezel)el who 
 had been active in laying the j'lot to secure the 
 death of Xaboth. 
 
 The second case of disobedience is that of 
 Micaiah refusing to prophesy falseh/^ and thus 
 flatter the ambitious designs of Ahab, his lawful 
 sovereign. All the false prophets said to the 
 king, "go up, for the Lord shall deliver it 
 (Ramoth Gilead) into the hand of the king.'' 
 Ahab not being fully satisfied in his own mind, 
 and at the request of Jehosephat, king of 
 Judah, sent for Micaiah, but he was too true to 
 the cause of truth to deceive the king ; al- 
 though he well knew that he would suft'er for 
 his faithfulness. Accordin^rlv Ahab was en- 
 
34 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 raged, and sent the true prophet back to the 
 governor of the city witli the mandate, "Thus 
 saith the king : Put this fellow in the prison 
 and feed hira with bread of affliction, and with 
 water of affliction, till I come in peace." (See 
 1 Kings, 22 ch. God requires of his ministers 
 to speak his word even to kings; to make known 
 his will to men, whether they will hear or 
 whether they will forbear ; to make it dnown 
 faithfully, and leave the consequences to Him in 
 whose hand is the hearts of kings. The third 
 case we notice, will be found in the 6th chapter 
 of Daniel. This decree involved the principle of 
 prohibiting the worship of the true God. Da- 
 rius the king, under the iniiuence of his chief 
 men, signed a decree or law, "That whosoever 
 shall ask a petition of any god or man, for 
 thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast 
 into the den of lions.'- The design of the 
 chief men in securing the j^assage of this law, 
 was to entrap and destroy Daniel ; he, however, 
 refused obedience to this unrighteous act, going 
 regularly into his chamber three times a day. 
 " prayed, and gave thanks to his God, as he did 
 aforetime." The attempt was made to inflict the 
 penalty, but the "Lord sent his angel and 
 stopped the mouths of the lions." He came ofl 
 
THE IIELATIOX OF CIIURCn AND STATE. 35 
 
 unharmed, thus exemplifying tlie declaration, 
 "Who shall harm you if ye he followers of that 
 which is good? (1 Pel. iii: 13.) This was in- 
 terfering with the private worship of one of 
 the best citizens of the kingdom, and expressly 
 interfering with a matter over which civil rulers- 
 have no control. Daniel's religious opinion and 
 practice did not interfere with the discharge of 
 his ofHcial duties, or render him a rebel in any 
 way against the authority of the king. The 
 law originated in envy, and ended in the destruc- 
 tion of its unwise and rash authors. 
 
 The fourth example, will be found in the 2d 
 chapter of Daniel. Xebuchadnezzar, king of 
 Babylon, seems to have conceived the absurd 
 idea, so often advocated and acted upon since 
 his day, of establishing uniformifij in religious 
 things by the force of law. The majority of 
 his subjects were idolators, but in his conquests 
 over the Jews, he had carried some of them as 
 captives to Babylon, Init they carried their re- 
 ligion with them. Still, while there was a va- 
 riety of languages, nations, and people in his 
 great empire, he wislied to establish one reliction. 
 Accordinolv he erected a oTeat imao-e in the plain 
 of Dura, and issued his royal mandate, that on 
 the giving of a particular and public signal, all 
 
36 THE RELATION OP CHURCH AXD STATE. 
 
 peoples, na' ions, and languages were required 
 to fall down and worship the golden image that 
 the king had set, with the penalty annexed^ 
 "Whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, shall 
 the same hour be cast into the midst of a burn- 
 ing fiery furnace." The signal was given, but 
 the three Jews, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed- 
 nego, refused obedience to the king's decree; 
 they were reported to his majesty, arraigned 
 and condemned, but came off unharmed, and 
 secured a law recognizing their God and respect 
 for him. " Wherefore, I make a decree, that 
 every people, nation, and language, which 
 speak anything amiss against the God of Shad- 
 rach, IMeshach and Abednego, shall be cut in 
 pieces, and their houses shall be made a dung- 
 hill ; because there is no other God that can 
 deliver after this sort." These three noble 
 Jews refused obedience to this decree, because it 
 required them to violate the plain command- 
 ments of God, viz: "Thou shalt have no other 
 gods before me." And "Thou shalt not make 
 unto thyself any graven miage ; thou shalt not 
 bow down to them nor serve them." 
 
 The last case which we refer to for an illus- 
 tration of our proposition, is that of the in- 
 spired apostles. They were preaching the doc- 
 
THE RELATION OP CIIURCn AXD STATE. 37 
 
 trine of Christ's resurrection from the dead. 
 ]ilany of the people believed and embraced the 
 gospel as the true system of religion, and that 
 Jesus Christ was really what lie claimed to be,, 
 the true Messiah. The Pharisees were the great- 
 formalists of that day ; the zealots for the rites 
 and ceremonies of the Mosaic law; the Saddu- 
 cees were the practical infidels; they rejected 
 the idea of the future existence of the souls and 
 bodies of men in a glorified state ; they denied 
 also the existence of angels. The civil officers 
 of the Jewish nation, at the commencement of 
 the New Testament Dispensation, were partly 
 from both sects. The Pharisees were opposed 
 to the spread of the gos2:»el because they be- 
 lieved Christ to be an impostor; the Sadducees 
 opposed it because it taught the doctrine of the 
 resurrection, which they did not believe. They 
 united their authority to stop the apostles from 
 preaching the gospel. They arrested, tried and 
 condemned them, and forbid them from propaga- 
 ting the doctrine. To this unjust decree, the 
 apostle ]'efased to yield obedience. The civil 
 rulers " commanded them (the apostles) not to 
 speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus; but 
 Peter and John answered and said unto them. 
 Whether it be right in the sight of God to 
 
 D 
 
38 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AXD STATE. 
 
 hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, 
 (Acts iv: 18-19). Here, then, was a case in 
 which they were to obey God rather than men. 
 
 These exami^les will suffice to show in what 
 cases Christians are justifiable in refusing obedi- 
 ence to the decrees of civil rulers. The cases 
 we have enumerated involve the following 
 points, viz : Murder, lying or refusing to 
 prophesy falsely, refusing to worship idols, try- 
 ing to forbid or prevent the private worship of 
 God, and to prevent the preaching of an impor- 
 tant doctrine of the gospel. 
 
 In all these cases, however, there is one re- 
 markable trait of uniformity in those who re- 
 fused obedience, viz: They simply refused 
 compliance with these unjust laws or command- 
 ments; left their cause in the hands of Him "who 
 judgeth righteously. " They did not revile 
 or abuse the rulers ; but bore patiently the 
 punishment they inflicted, and in every instance 
 they conquered by their meek and patient suf- 
 ferings. The general principle may be drawn 
 from these things, that we are, as Christians, 
 bound to obey the "powers that be," unless 
 they require of us something that is plainly and 
 without diS2Mte, contrary to the revealed will of 
 God. Not every imaginary hobby will justify 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCn AND STATE. 89 
 
 disobedience to civil authority. All abuse, or 
 reviling of the rulers of our people is condemned 
 by both the letter and spirit of true Christi- 
 anity. Obedience to an unjust law is frequently 
 the best way to destroy its effect, or to obtain its 
 repeal. Ci^il rulers, although they may not 
 be religious men, are greatly influenced by the 
 exhibition of a ])roper Christian spirit. They 
 highly respect the Christian character and con- 
 sistent piety of those over Avhom they rule. 
 While it is a principle of human nature, in its 
 corrupt state, that it loves oppositioii in order 
 to justify its errors, if it meets with no oppo- 
 sition, then it frequently becomes ashamed of its 
 errors and cheerfully corrects them. We think 
 these observations are j ustified by every man who 
 has been a close observer of men and things. 
 " Let your moderation be known to all men," 
 is an exhortation which should be praticed by all 
 Cliristians. 
 
 In the preceding portion of this chapter, we 
 have pointed out and established the following 
 propositions, as containing the true scriptural 
 doctrine of the nature, source, and extent of 
 civil authority. We will embody these points 
 in a few short axioms, so that the reader may 
 have a compendium or short summary, by 
 
40 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 which he will be enabled to take in at a glance 
 the teachings of the Bible on this point, and 
 easily retain them in his memory. 
 
 First, there was a nnion of Churcli and State, 
 under the Old Testament dispensation. There 
 was uniformity of faith among the Jews, only 
 when they departed from the faith of their 
 fathers and went and worshipped idols. 
 
 From this union of Church and State, the ci\il 
 magistrate had considerable power over the 
 matters of religion. 
 
 Secondly, That economy passed away with 
 the obedience and death of Christ ; He being the 
 law-giver of his church, separated the civil and 
 political authorities, and established the great 
 principle of non-interference with the forms 
 of hiiraan government he foinid established. 
 From an oversight of this great principle, from 
 often making attempts to establish a theocracy 
 to unite Church and State, under the New Tes- 
 tament dispensation, have originated most of 
 the great errors and wrongs, with which our 
 world has been cursed. There are several es- 
 sential errors, and those of great consequence, 
 growing out of v/rong views of this subject. 
 The union of Church and State, leads to the idea 
 at once, that it m.av work well and 2:0 on v\ ith- 
 
THE EELATIOX OF CnURCH AND STATE. 41 
 
 out any jarring of the parts. There must be 
 uniformity of religious opinions. Tliis drives 
 the conscientious dissenter from takino- any 
 part or interest in the affairs of his government; 
 because a man must first adopt the peculiar creed 
 of the State before he is eligible to office in the 
 State. It has, in all Popish countries led, and 
 will lead even in some Protestant States, to the 
 abominable doctrine of persecution for con- 
 science sake. The fl\ct that a king, emperor, or 
 any other great civil dignitary, is converted and 
 professes the name of Christ and unites with his 
 church, no more gives such a dignitary the right 
 to dictate, or regulate the spiritual affairs of 
 the Church, than any foreigner coming into that 
 king or emperor's dominions, and adopting or 
 embracing the civil laws of the land, would 
 give him the right to usurp the authority of 
 the king. The cases are similar. The king- 
 would tell such a foreigner, that the more fact of 
 his coming into his State and adopting its laws 
 and customs, gave him no right to the throne. 
 This vv^ould be true; but it is equally true that 
 the king has no more power in the church, than 
 any common layman. lie is supreme in civil 
 affairs, but he is inferior to Christ's lawful min- 
 isters in the church.. Honor and respect is due 
 
42 THE RELITIOX OF CnURCH AND STATE. 
 
 to every one in his proper station. Pi'obably 
 the Christian church never was injured more 
 than by the conversion of Constantine the 
 Great. He immediately assumed the leadship 
 of the church, as he was of the State ; divided 
 oif his empire into religious, as well as civil 
 provinces or districts; appointed religious of- 
 ficers over them as he did over the civil districts; 
 and here, no doubt, originated that great and 
 uuscriptural system, called diocesian episcopacy. 
 The Romish hierarchy was modeled after the 
 same plan, and the oppressions, the disabilities, 
 the persecutions, the blood-shed, the martyr- 
 doms, and other evils which have grown up as 
 the legitimate fruit of this spiritual boa-upas, 
 united and backed by the sword of civil power, 
 have shaded the world in darkness for more than 
 one thousand years, and still retards and clogs 
 the wheels of civilization, and carries confusion 
 and mysticism in its mongrel train. So much 
 for erroneous theories of Church and State uni- 
 ted. Let each be supreme in its own legiti- 
 mate sphere. The church is a divine institution. 
 Her mission is to deal with the spiritual inter- 
 ests of men ; to preach Christ crucified to a lost 
 world ; to send the Bible in the native tongue of 
 every people among them ; make known the 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 43 
 
 way of salvation ; to expound the will of God ; 
 teach men their duties in tlie various relations 
 they sustain to each other in life; and enforce 
 those duties and obedience to whom, as Chris- 
 tians and men, they owe respect, by proper mo- 
 tives. Physical force is not allowable by the 
 Bible. The weapons of our warfare, are not 
 carnal, but spiritual. *' My kingdom is not of 
 this world ; if my kingdom were of this world, 
 then would my servant fight, that I should not 
 be delivered to the Jews, but now is my king- 
 dom not from hence." (John xviii: 36.) "Put 
 up again thy sword into his place ; for all they 
 that take the sword, shall perish with the SAvord." 
 (Math, xxvi: 52.). This denoted that those 
 who are pi-ompt to fight and avenge their own 
 cause, only bring mischief and death on them- 
 selves. The history of the church for eighteen 
 centuries, has exemplified that this truth was 
 particularly designed for her benefit. When- 
 ever she has closely adhered to her instructions, 
 followed closely her own proper calling, she has 
 prospered, honored by God, and respected by 
 men. But whenever she has turned aside from 
 her spiritual mission, she has been forsaken of 
 God, and cursed by men. 
 
 We have shown that Christians are allowed 
 
44 THE RELATION 0? CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 to disobey the unscriptural commands of civil 
 rulers ; but this does not prove that it is right 
 to use swords and rifles in defendino; our ima<>'i- 
 nary wrongs. It was mainly owing to the use 
 of the sword in the defence of their principles, 
 that the Huguenots were driven from France, 
 tmd the great Reformation proved an almost to- 
 tal failure in that country. Men have their 
 appropriate spheres; they sustain different re- 
 lations in life. As Christians, they are bound 
 to obey the revealed will of their Master ; as 
 citizens of civil society, and members of the 
 body politic, they may engage with their 
 swords in the defence of civil liberty; but their 
 sword in defence of their religious liberty is 
 not of steel, but the truth of God'^s word. 
 There are cases in which the civil and ecclesias- 
 tical powers will come in conflict, because there 
 are certain things which have a moral and politi- 
 cal aspect. For instance, the matter of mar- 
 riage is a relation having both a moral and po- 
 litical side. Marriao-e between near relations 
 is immoral and wrong; marrying more than one 
 wife is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, 
 therefore, the officers of the church have scrip- 
 tural authority to exclude from the church in- 
 cestuous persons and polygaraists. The civil au- 
 
THE RELATION OF CIIUKCH AND STATE. 45 
 
 Uiorilies have a right to i)unis]i sucli offences; 
 because tliey interfere with, and disturb the 
 peace, purity and happiness of civihzed com- 
 munities. This involves an im})ortant question 
 now before our country's civil jurisdiction. 
 
 We refer to the Mormons, settled on our 
 Western frontier. They are heathens. They 
 pretend that they are the only true Christians; 
 yet reject Christ and the Bible ; expecting to 
 be raised from the dead by their pretended 
 prophet, Joe Smith. They are polygamists. 
 This is about all the reli^-ion, or rather irrelia:ion 
 they have. They reject the laws and repudiate 
 the Constitution of the United States; and 
 hence, we can only invite them civilly to con- 
 form to the laws of the land, adopt our consti- 
 tution, or in case they fail to comply, invite them 
 to leave our territory. In case they refuse to 
 do this, we must employ tlie resources of the 
 nation in confining them to a particular locality, 
 or send them out by force. The whole matter 
 "clearly comes within the jurisdiction of the ci- 
 vil authority of our nation. The Church of 
 Christ has nothing to do with them. They are 
 excluded, so long as they continue what they 
 are. But we will probably resume this point in 
 a future chapter. 
 
46 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 
 
 There can be but little practical difficulty in 
 settling the proper bounds of civil and eccle- 
 siastical authority, where men possess the true 
 spirit of Christ. The great difficulty arises from 
 wicked, unconverted, ungodly and ambitious 
 men entering the ministry of the Church, for 
 the sake of promoting or carrying out their 
 wicked plans, or gratifying their love of pow- 
 er. So long as men remain what they are, such 
 things will happen. Still, civil society is neces- 
 sary, and we cannot dispense with it because 
 there are a few thieves, murderers and forgers 
 in our midst, and because one of these unprinci- 
 pled villains get into some office of honor and 
 profit. Neither can we dispense with the 
 Church, because there occasionally appears a 
 man bearing the name and external appearance 
 of a minister of Jesus ; while it is plain that 
 he has mistaken the place to which he belongs? 
 and is really serving the enemy of all good, in- 
 stead of the King of Peace. Both will con- 
 tinue to the end of time, or as long as men are 
 corrupt in heart and wrong in practice. If all 
 men were really Christians, not nominally so, 
 then there would be no necessity for courts, 
 jails, penitentiaries, or even laws of any kind to 
 protect the person and property of others. The 
 
THE RELATION OF CHURCIT AND STATE. 47 
 
 State, then, in fine, protects the person and prop- 
 erty of all her citizens ; secures to them the 
 enjoyment of all their constitutional rights ; 
 protects Christians in the enjoyment of their 
 religious rights; makes laws to protect the good 
 and to punish evil-doers. The Church sustains 
 her ministry to expound the Bible, to teach her 
 members what are their duties, not only as 
 Christians, but as citizens ; to point out the na- 
 ture and extent of their obligations to the State, 
 and the proper motives from which obedience 
 to the powers that be are to be derived; the 
 consequences of disobedienc?, and disgrace and 
 infamy that such a course brings on true piety. 
 Human government is an ordinance of divine 
 aj^pointment ; so is the Church an institution of 
 divine authority,|haviug the Bible for her stat 
 ute book, and[her great King for her examjDle. 
 
48 SUBORDINATIOX— OEDER IN GOD'S WORKS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 SUBORDINATION, OR ORDER IN ALL GOD'S WORKS. 
 
 A system of complete equality does not seem 
 to be in accordance Avitli the providence of 
 God, or with the Bible. Though not a scrip- 
 tural expression, still it is in harmony both with 
 Providence and Sci'ipture, that 
 
 " Order is lloaven's first law ; and tliis confessed, 
 Some must and ^vill be greater tlian the rest." 
 
 If we commence the examination, and go 
 
 through with the angelic, animal and vegetable 
 
 kingdoms, Ave will find that a gradation runs 
 
 through each class, from the highest to the 
 
 lowest. Mutual dependence of all God's works, 
 
 forms the harmony of the universe. The great 
 
 Jehovah stands as the self-existent and mighty 
 
 Creator of all things. He has no "equal; in 
 
 Him all things live and move and have their 
 
 beino'. To Him all created beino's owe everv 
 
 power, or capacity of enjoyment which they 
 
 severally possess. He has adjusted all the 
 
 parts of his works in such a manner that there 
 
SrBOUDIXATIOX— ()Rl)l-:« IX GOD^S M'ORKS. 49 
 
 is a I'OLi'ular uTaclation from tlie liigliest Arcli- 
 Aiiii'd, down to the lowest Avorm of tlie dust. 
 We read of "Micliael the Arch-Angel." ( Jnde 
 9 eh.) Christ will descend to raise the dead 
 and judge the world. "With a shout, with 
 the voice of the Arch-Angel, and with the 
 truni]) of God." (1st Thes. iv: 10.) Angels 
 are often alluded to, in various parts of the 
 Biljle. Again, the Apostle speaking of this 
 difference among the angels, describes them 
 as consisting of thrones, dominions, principali- 
 ties and ])OW"ers. There are cherubim and 
 seraphim. These things show that there is 
 gradation among the Angels. When we 
 look at the material parts of the world, we 
 find that the sun differs from the moon, in 
 brightness and size; tliat one star " differeth 
 from another star in glory," brilliancy or size. 
 Descending to the vegetable kingdom, we find 
 that there is a wdde difference betw^een the 
 stately "cedar of Lebanon, and the small hysop 
 that sj>ringeth out of the wall;" betAveen the 
 majestic oak, the giant of the forest, and the 
 slender grass that grows at its root. The feath- 
 ered tribe furnishes the same wide variety, 
 from the great eagle, the bird of liberty, doAvn 
 to the little and almost insignificant humming 
 
 E 
 
50 SUBORDINATION— OHDHR IN GOD'S WORKS. 
 
 bird. So also among the fishes, from the mon- 
 ster whale, that makes the great sea boil like a 
 pot, clown to tlie little minnow. If we come to 
 the animal kingdom, the same difference and 
 variety characterizes this large class of crea- 
 tures, from the mighty lion, the king of tl.e 
 forest, down to the mole that burrows under 
 ground. When we look at men we find the 
 same gradation, not only in the size of their 
 bodies, but also a wide range in their intellectual 
 powers; ranging from the mind of a Milton, a 
 Webster or a Calhoun, down to the almost bru- 
 tal Hottentot, that scarcely rises above in- 
 stinct. The giant Patagonian differs widely 
 from the pigmy of the Northern regions. 
 There is also a wide dift'erence among men in the 
 color of their hair, eyes, conformation, and also 
 in the color of their skin, ranging from the white 
 Caucasian, down to the black Ethiopian. It i& 
 plain from these things, that there is a wide dif- 
 ference between created things ; that this va- 
 riety or difference, is not the result of blind and 
 senseless chance ; but that it is the work of an 
 Infinite and All-wise Being, who does all things 
 Avell ; who has made nothing in vain, but has made 
 all things for His own glory. ]N"either is this 
 vast variety, this gradation, this order and de- 
 
SUBORDIN'ATIOX— ORDKR IX (lOD'S WORKS. 51 
 
 peiideiice of all parts on each otber, the work 
 of as many independent and separate beings, 
 but on the contrary, all is the work of One, the 
 only living and true (lod. (iod, then, being an 
 intelligent! and wise Creator, must and did have 
 some great design, worthy of Himself, in crea- 
 ting this wide ditt'erence even in the same order 
 of creatures. What then was this design? It 
 was certainly to show how great He is, to his in- 
 telligent creatures, that they might admire and 
 praise their great Creator. Why then is there 
 found among beings of the same order, so great 
 a variety? Why were not all the angelic host 
 created on an equality? Why was there a dif- 
 ference between Ani>-els and Arch-Ano-els ? 
 Why were there cherubim, or those created 
 *'like to the dlreat One ? " Why a class called 
 seraphim, or "fiery ones?'" AVliy not a per- 
 fect equality among all these spiritual beings ? 
 The only answer that can be given to these, 
 and similar inquiries, is that the all wise God 
 saw fit so to create them, to fill a particular 
 sphere, and that an Arcli-Angel was not de- 
 signed to fill the place of an Angel, nor that an 
 Angel could not fill the iilace of an Arch-Ano-d 
 Avithout disturbing the law of his nature and 
 infringing on the ]>urposes of his Creator, and 
 
52 SrBOKr)lXATloN'— OIlDKil IX <;oi)"S WOl^KS. 
 
 thus attempting to defeat the end of his being. 
 Why Avere not all the iish of the sea created 
 o'l-eat whales ? Why were not all tiie fowls of 
 heaven created noble eagles? Why were not 
 all the beasts created noble, beautiful and strong, 
 like the lion? Simply because such a state of 
 things was not consonant with inhnite wisdom, 
 nor in accordance with the design of creation. 
 An eagle would not be suitable to fill the i)lace 
 of a turkey, partridge, goose, or a common do- 
 mestic fowl called a chicken. A lion would or 
 could not fill the i)lace of the dull ass, or even 
 supi)ly the place of the docile and patient ox. 
 Everything in the animal, vegetable and spirit- 
 ual kingdom, lias its own appropriate place ; 
 and so long as it remains there, the order and 
 harmony of all things de])ending on this subor- 
 dination continues to exist ; but so soon as 
 thei-e is a reversal of this law, confusion, pain, 
 and often death is the result. See how the 
 Angels existed in harmony until they would be 
 Gods ; " then there was war in heaven," and 
 the Angels which kept not their first estate, 
 but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in 
 everlasting chains under darkness, unto the 
 judgment of the great day.'' ( Jude, cli. 0. ) 
 The <{uestiou also arises, why were not men 
 
SIJ50R1)1N'AT1()N— OllDKK IK (iOD'S WnltKS. 0-) 
 
 created eiiual in intellectual and bodily eapaei- 
 lies ■? Why is it tliat some must and will 
 be greater tlian the rest? This would have 
 produced too mucli sameness, and a con- 
 stant strivinn" lor tlie mastery. "Men would be 
 angels." Why were not all created or made 
 with the same color of eyes, hair and skin ? 
 Why so great a vai'iety of color? Tliere must 
 have been some design in this. What was that 
 design? The question here presents itelf, was 
 this difterence in the color of the skin so at the 
 creation of man, or has it been of more rci-ent 
 origin? If more recent origin, wliat was the 
 design of Jehovah in thus making oi- distin- 
 guishing in such a peculiar manner, one class 
 of men from that of anothei-, when all descended 
 from the same parents? That there was an 
 original difference in the intellectual cajtacities, 
 and a taste or pro[>ensity to ])ursue dilferent call- 
 ings, is plain from the lUljle. In the brief his- 
 tory of the human family bef».)re the flood, tin- 
 historian states a few facts, sliowing cleai-ly the 
 variety of taste, and as a natural consequence. :i 
 disposition to seek difr'erent kinds of enqijov- 
 ment. The descendants of Jal>al seemed lo se- 
 lect the past(,>r:d mode of life: '"lie was ijic 
 father of such a- dwell in tents, and <-A' such as 
 
54 SUBORDIXATIOX— OKDER IX GOD'S WORKS. 
 
 have cattle. (Gen. iv: 20.) The posterity of 
 Jubal were incUnecl to be musicians ; " lie \vas 
 the fother of all such as handle the harp and 
 organ. (Gen. iv: 21.) " Tubal Cain was the 
 instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." 
 Theso seem to have had a capacity for the use- 
 ful arts of life, the invention and manufocture of 
 the implements of husbandry, and domestic 
 uses. But that there was a difterence in the 
 color of the skin of the human family at the be- 
 ginning, we neither assert nor believe. We 
 take the Bible for our guide, and we intend to 
 follow its teacliings regardless of the fear or fa- 
 vor of any one. We state then, once for all, 
 and as a preliminary to a proper understanding 
 of our position, that we believe in the unity of 
 the human race, that is, that all the human family 
 originated from the single pair, Adam and Eve. 
 We have no sympathy with the unscriptural 
 theory of different centres of creation ; but we 
 believe with the Bible, that God hath made of 
 one blood (or race,) all the nations of men 
 for to dwell on the face of the earth. (Acts 
 XV ii: 26.) They are all sinners. This shows they 
 are descended from one common parentage. 
 Christ is the savior of bond and free. Tliese 
 with many other reasons, teach clearlv that -dW 
 
SUB0R])1X\T1()X— ORDER IX (iOD'S WORKS. 55 
 
 men have a coiiiinoii origin. There does not 
 appear to have been any distinction of color 
 among tlie hnman race before the time of Xoah. 
 So far as we can discover from the Scriptures, 
 men seem to have been of the same color, up 
 to the time of N'oah. God created Adam a 
 red man. This position is sustained by the 
 ])roper and literal meaning of the word Adam, 
 \iz: "red earth." The human tamily were 
 one in color before the time of Xoah. The 
 world was destroyed by the flood, and tlie 
 earth was afterwards repeopled by the descen- 
 dants of the three sons of Xoah ; and varieties 
 among men may be reduced to three leading- 
 classes, corresponding to the number of their 
 great progenitors after the flood, Shem, Ham 
 and Japheth. The tenth chapter of Genesis 
 contains a list of the names of the various na- 
 tions which have sprung from this triple source. 
 Many of these names can yet be identified in 
 the nations of Asia, Europe and Africa. The 
 other classes which have been made by those 
 who have written on the varieties of the human 
 race, can be clearly traced to an amalgamation, 
 or mixture of the three principal divisions indi- 
 cated before. AVe now lake u}) the main point 
 of our work. 
 
56 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKKV. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKHV. 
 
 The cliftereuce of color which exists ainoiiLitlie 
 various tribes, or divisions of the human family, 
 was believed by learned men for a long series of 
 years, to be the effect of climate. ]>ut this tlieory 
 is now o'enerally abandoned by the learned of 
 the world. The fact of the case will not sus- 
 tain the opinion that the difterence of color is 
 to be attributed to the effects of climate. Tlu> 
 African race has been tlie inhabitant of the 
 mild climate of North America for more tlian 
 a century, without any material cliange of color. 
 While the white men of Europe have lived un- 
 der the intlnence of a tropical sun since tlie first 
 settlement of the country, without any mate- 
 rial change of the color of their skins. It is true 
 the sun tans them^ but Avhen they remove to a 
 mild climate, or keep out of the sun, their skiu> 
 become as white as ever, and the children of 
 these men sliow no proof of being turned blnck 
 
OllKil.N OF Cor.OR AVI) SLAV Kin'. 57 
 
 by living in ;i tropical climate. The theory <»f 
 climate, we say, has been al)an(loned by learned 
 men, as altogether inadeqnate to the prodnc- 
 tion of thiis marked changf, or rather dilt'er- 
 ence in the color of the skin of the different 
 races of the hnman family. There is no ac- 
 count of the immediate creation of the black 
 race. Adam evidently was a red man ; his ver\- 
 name indicates this; and according to the usage 
 of the Hebrew language, proves it to the mind 
 of every competent judge, that the human 
 family are all descended from the same original 
 pair. The lVd)le clearly proves, and the great 
 plan of redemption by one savior proceeds on 
 the same princi[)le. We are then sliut up to the 
 necessity of seeking for the origin of the differ- 
 ent colors among men, in some remarkable 
 cliange that has been brought about by the 
 Providence of God. Xow the (piestion arises 
 in the mind of every lover of truth, in the 
 mind of evei'y intelligent man who belie^'es the 
 Bible to be a revelation of God's will to man, 
 is there any [)ortion of this sacred volume which 
 throws light on this mysterious subject ? To 
 this (piestion we reply, that the Scriptures cer- 
 tainly do throw much light on this ])er[)lexing 
 [)oint. Do you iiKpiire of us in what book. 
 
58 ORIGIN' OF CQLOK AND SLAVERY. 
 
 chapter and verse is tills important liglit to bo 
 found 'i We answer in the nintli chapter of 
 Genesis, from tlie 20th to tlie 25th verse. The 
 difference of color among men evidently origi- 
 nated in the family of Noah. This position is 
 sustained by two unanswerable ai-guments, viz : 
 First, the usasje of the Hebrew lano-ivao-e, or 
 what is called by scholars, the philological argu- 
 ment. And second, by the facts of history. 
 
 First, we notice the philological argument. 
 It is a fact known to every scholar that the He- 
 brew language expresses the nature of the ob- 
 ject, and also that names were frequently given 
 expressive of some distinguishing quality pos- 
 sessed by the person to whom it was applied. In 
 other words there was some feature, or pecu- 
 liarity in the person that gave rise to his name. 
 We will give some illustrations of this position, so 
 that the reader who has not the advantages of a 
 learned education, may be able to judge for 
 himself, by a reference to his Bible, whether 
 we are correct or mistaken in our view of the 
 matter. We have already referred incidentally 
 to the name of Adam, as meaning '"'' red earth.'''' 
 Noah, means "rest." (Gen. v: 29.) Lamech 
 begat a son, "and he called his name Xoah, 
 saying his name shall comfort us, concerning 
 
ORKilX OF COLOR AND SLAVKRY. ')0 
 
 our work and toil of om- liaiuls, because of tlie 
 ground wlncli tlie Lord hath cursed." Melchis- 
 zedek, means "King of lligliteousness;" Melek, 
 nieanino; "King,'' andZedek, "Kigliteousness." 
 Salem, means "Peace;" — Abraham, means 
 "Father of many Nations" — Ab, "Father" — 
 Raheim, " Nations or People." "Neither shall 
 thy name any more be called Abram; but thy 
 name shall be Abraham, for a father of many 
 nations have I made thee." (Gen. xvii: 5.) 
 Isaac, singnities "Laughter;" because Sarah 
 laughed in unbelief at the promise of God that 
 she should have a son in her old age. (Gen. 
 xviii: 12.) "And Abraham called the name of 
 his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah 
 bore to him, Isaac, and Sarah said, God hath 
 made me to laugh, so that all that hear will 
 laugh with me." (Gen. xix: 1, ;5, 6.) Jacob, 
 means "Supplanter;" Dan "Judgment." "And 
 Rachel said, God hath judged me, and also hath 
 heard my voice, and hath given me a son; there- 
 fore called she his name, Dan." These are only a 
 i'iiw of the many instances that might be pro- 
 duced, showing that this is a leading and im- 
 portant principle of the Hebrew language. 
 (We refer the reader for a full number of He- 
 brew words and names, illustrating our proposi- 
 
6(1 ORIGIN OF COLOK AND SLAVERY. 
 
 t.ioM tt) Geii. xxx: 8, 24, also xxxv: 10, 18.) 
 TJicre llacliel called her second son, Ben-oni, 
 that is " the Son of my Grief,'' for she died ; but 
 his father called him, Benjamin, tliat is ''the Son 
 of my Bight Hand." The reader is ready to in- 
 (jiiire of us, what bearing has all this on the sub- 
 ject of different colors among men? We re- 
 ])ly, simply, this, viz : Ham's name means 
 '' Black.'' Gesenius, in his Hebrew lexicon, un- 
 der the word Ham, says, that is " a name of 
 Egypt; probably its domestic name among the 
 Egyptians themselves; but so inflected by the 
 Hebrews, as to refer it to Ham, the son of 
 Xoah, as the progenitor of the Egyptians, as well 
 as other S(nithern nations, (Psalm Ixxviii: 51 ; 
 cv: 23-2 7; cvi: 22.) This word, in the Coptic and 
 Satadic dialects, according to Plutarch, has the 
 signification of blackness and heat. " Ham a 
 son of Xoah, whose posterity are described 
 in Gen. x: 6-20, as occupying the southernmost 
 regions of the known earth ; thus according 
 a})tly with his name — that is, warm, hot." There 
 ]nust, then, have been some peculiarity of color 
 in the skin of Ham, which caused his father to 
 give him the name which he received, and 
 which many of his posterity bore for ages after- 
 wards. Shorn I'cceived his name, because he 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 6t 
 
 was to be the " rcDowiied," or distinguishecl 
 person from wliom Abraliam would spriiig.- 
 Tlie Jewish nation also, came in liisline; and 
 consequently the Savior of sinners, the most re- 
 nowned person who has ever appeared on earth, 
 sprang from the stock of Shem. It is said by 
 learned men who have fully investigated this 
 subject, that Shem means "Red." The name 
 Japheth, the second son of Noah, is derived 
 from a root or word in its simplest form, that 
 means. Fair — Comely — Beautiful. This theory 
 is not mere conjecture, but the philological ar- 
 gument fully sustains the idea that the different 
 colors of the human race originated in the 
 ihmily of Noah. This change was evidently 
 brought about by Him who doeth Ilis Avillin the 
 army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of 
 the earth. He had some wise purpose in A'iew 
 by this arrangement, for "The judge of all 
 the earth will do right." The difference of 
 color was, then, a miracle, wrought by Jehovah 
 for some important purpose. 
 
 According to what we have said, it is plain 
 from the true meaning of the Hebrew, that Shem 
 was red, Jaj^heth white, and Ham black. From 
 these three great progenitors, have sprung all 
 the nations which now dwell on our earth. It 
 
 F 
 
62 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLA.YERY. 
 
 is admitted by the best philological writers on 
 the subject of ethnology, or origin of nations, 
 tliat the variety of color may be reduced to the 
 three wliich we have enumerated. That the 
 other varieties of colors are traceable to a mix- 
 ture, or amalgamation, of these three primary 
 colors. 
 
 Let us now notice, in the second place, W'hether 
 tlie tacts of history confirm or refute this view 
 of the subject. From the tenth chapter of 
 (lenesis, we learn what nations have sprung 
 from the three sons of Xoah. From Japheth, 
 descended most of the white races of Asia 
 jMinor and Europe. "It is supposed," says Dr. 
 Scott, '• by many learned men, and shown at 
 least by probable arguments, that the descen- 
 dants of Gomer, the eldest son of Japheth, set- 
 tled in the northern parts of Asia Minor, and 
 then spread into the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and 
 the adjacent regions ; and that from them the 
 numerous tribes of the Gauls, Germans, Celts 
 and Cimbrians, descended. The Scythians, 
 Tartars, and otlier northern nations, are sup- 
 posed to be descendants of Magog and Tubal; 
 the Medes of Madai ; the lonians, and all 
 the Greeks, of Javan, and the Thracians of Ti- 
 ras. Xearly all the inhabitants of Europe, and 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 63 
 
 probably of America, descended from Japlietli, 
 besides those of the northern regions of Asia. 
 "The Isles of the Gentiles," generally mean the 
 parts of Europe, most known to the ancient in- 
 habitants of Asia. " The Hebrews were de- 
 scended from Sheni by his son Eber." "Besides 
 the descendants of Sliem by Araphaxad, the 
 Persians are supposed to be the posterity of 
 Elam ; the Assyrians and Chaldeans, of Asshur; 
 and the Syrians, Armenians, and many tribes in- 
 habiting Mesopotamia, of Aram ; and the im- 
 mensely numerous inhabitants of the East 
 Indias, China and Japan, may perhaps be con- 
 sidered as the descendants of Joktan, the son of 
 Eber. This appears, from the mention of a 
 mountain in the East, to be the most accurate 
 account of the peopling of the region in the 
 eastern parts of Asia, South of Tartary. It is 
 likewise certain, that many of the Arabians trace 
 back their origin to Ishmael and Keturah.'' 
 These extracts give the localities of the pos- 
 terity of Japheth and Shem. Let us now turn to 
 the same author and look out the locality of the 
 posterity of Ham. Dr. Scott gives, in his com- 
 mentary on the sixth and seventh verses of the 
 tenth chapter of Genesis, all that is really neces- 
 sarv to a clear understanding; of the matter. 
 
64 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 •' From Cash, the son of Hara, the Ethiopians 
 in Africa, and many tribes in Asia, inhabiting 
 }»art of Arabia, and often improperly cahed 
 Ethiopians, were evidently descended. Miz- 
 aim was the ancestor of the Egyptians. Cyre- 
 nians and Lybians ; or the word being plural, it 
 may be the general name of the family or tribe 
 whence they sprang ; and Phut of the Mauri- 
 tanian, in short, all Africa, is supposed to have 
 been peopled by Ham's posterity ; besides the 
 Philistines, Canaanites and Phoenicians." Such is 
 the statement of a man who was no friend of 
 Slavery. It is a notorious flxct all these are black. 
 Here, then, we leave this subject of color. 
 The*two arguments have been presented, and 
 it remains for every reader to form his judg- 
 ment for or against our view, and determine for 
 himself whether it is true or false. 
 
 We are now prepared to enter on, and inves- 
 tigate the Origin of Slavery, or the subordina- 
 tion of one portion of the human family to that 
 of another. Whatever may be said about all 
 men being created free and equal; however 
 men of more feeling than judgment, may extol 
 what they are pleased to call a state of natural 
 liberty ; however unthinking men may laud 
 the praises of imaginary independence or un- 
 
ORI(;iX OF COLOR AND SLAYKRY. 65 
 
 restraiued liberty; lioweYer men attempt to 
 slioNY, or rather assert that all men are equally 
 ondo^Yed with the same intellectual powers : 
 still, not only the Bible, but even stubborn facts 
 show a different order of things. Admitting, 
 which we do freely, that at first, men were 
 etpial by birth, and had an equal claim to " life, 
 liberty and the pursuit of happiness," yet the 
 <|uestion comes up, lias this original equality 
 continued 'i or in other words, has not God, the 
 author of all things, made some important 
 chano'es? and are not these chanjies manifest 
 from His word, and the facts which transpire 
 under His providential government *;' To tlie 
 first of these inquiries we answer in the nega- 
 tiYe ; we say the original equality among men 
 has not been continued. To the second ques- 
 tion, we gi\e an affirmative answer, and say 
 that God has made some important changes in 
 the condition and relations of the different races 
 of the human family, and we are prepared to 
 prove that these changes are manifest from His 
 word and ])rovidential government. We pass 
 over the history of our race during the period 
 that transpired before the flood, and come down 
 to the re-peopling of the world, after that great 
 ivent in the history of man. The different col- 
 
66 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 oi's now foimcl among the Aarious nations of men, 
 not only originated in the family of Xoah, but 
 the subjection of one portion of the race to 
 that of the other, had its bes-innino; in the same 
 family. The sacred writer informs ns that af- 
 ter the flood, "Xoah began to be a husband- 
 man, and he planted a vineyard, and drank of 
 the wine, and was drunken ; he was uncovered 
 within his tent ; " that whilst he lay in this un- 
 seemly condition from the stupefying effects of 
 the wine of which he had too freely drunken, 
 "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the naked- 
 ness of his father," but instead of concealing the 
 matter, as both decency and respect for his 
 father should have directed, his bad disposition 
 led him to give vent to his sinful feelings, and 
 wishing his other brothers to have a part of his 
 imseemly enjoyment, he " told it to his two 
 brethren without." Shem and Japheth did not 
 enter into this improper and sinful sport of their 
 brother, but took means to hide the shame of 
 their fither, and adopted a plan to accomplish 
 that end which manifested the greatest respect 
 for their parent, and at the same time, the 
 feelings of refined delicacy toward their erring- 
 father. " And Shem and Japheth took a gar- 
 ment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. GT 
 
 •went backwrivd and covered the nakedness of 
 tlieir fatlier, and their faces were backward, and 
 they saw not their father's nakedness." Noali 
 remained in his tent until tlie narcotic and in- 
 toxicating eftects of the wine passed oii* "He 
 tlien awoke from his Avine, and knew Avhat his 
 younger son had done unto him, and he said, 
 ''Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall 
 he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed 
 be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall b(> 
 his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and 
 he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ; and Canaan 
 shall be his servant."' (Gen. ix: 20-2 7.) These 
 verses evidently contain the true and authentic 
 record of the origin of the subjectioii of the 
 children and posterity of Ham to the rule of his 
 two other brothers and their descendants. Here 
 also is the destruction of the lavorite theory 
 that all men are born free and equal. It is also 
 plain that Xoah was inspired by the Holy Spirit 
 on this occasion, to point out the will of God in 
 relation to the destiny of his sons. He could not 
 have known of the indecent and sinful conduct 
 of his son Ham from any other source. It was 
 not done in a fit of anger, but the future bless- 
 edness and elevation of Shem and Japheth's 
 posterity is declared also, in so plain terms that 
 
08 OiaGIX OF COLOR AND SLA.VERV. 
 
 all history confirms the solemn and divine nt- 
 tcranccs of the man of God; it could not have 
 been the result of anger, for liis })arental feelings 
 would have prevented him from defrradino- 
 Ham's children for all time to come. The de- 
 claration of Xoah was not merely j)roi3hetical, 
 that is foretellirtg what would he the condition 
 of Ham's posterity, hut it was the announcement 
 of a judicial decree of Jehovah against Ham 
 and his posterity, as 2^ punislwient for his sins. 
 Slavery then, is the res^dt, consequence, or more 
 properly, the judicial punishment of Ilarn >< 
 sin, not a sin in itself, (per se) bnt the punish- 
 ment of sin. We say that this fearful annunci- 
 ation of Jehovah by IN^oah, was a judicial de- 
 cree — not a mere prophesy. To this conclusion 
 we come, because the language here used is 
 >iimilar ; the same word being used in the origi- 
 nal that was employed by Jehovah in making 
 known to Adam the punishment of his disobe- 
 dience. (See Gen. iii: 17.) ''And unto Adam 
 he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the 
 voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of 
 which I connnanded tliee, saying. Thou shalt 
 not eat of it, Cuksed is the gi'ound for thy 
 sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days 
 of thy life ; thorns also and tliistles shall it bring 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKRY. ' 69 
 
 fortli to thee; and thou slialt eat the herb of 
 the field ; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
 eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for 
 out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, 
 and unto dust slialt thou return." This is be- 
 yond dispute, the decree or judicial sentence of 
 Jehovah against our tirst parent for his sin. Is 
 then labor a sin in itself? Is the labor to which 
 Adam and in him his posterity is thus adjudged, 
 a sin in itself? Is the labor necessary to root u]» 
 the thorns, thistles, and noxious plants which 
 the earth, cursed of God for man's sin, so abun- 
 dantly brings forth, a sin V So far from labor 
 being a sin in itself, that is essentially necessary 
 to our subsistence, and a refusal to labor justly 
 and scripturally deprives the slothful individual 
 of the right to a support. "This we com- 
 manded you, that if any man would not work, 
 neither should he eat." (2 Thes. iii: 10.) Still, 
 according to the reasoning of some men, they 
 do wrong, because they make slaves of the chil- 
 dren of Ham who have been adjudged to an 
 inferior station in life, for their great progeni- 
 tor's sin. The same reasoning that would im- 
 peach Jehovah for this sentence against Ham 
 and his posterity, would also impeach his right- 
 eousness for cursing the ground ; — dooming 
 
70 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 men to constant toil to secure a subsistence. 
 It would also impeach Jeliovali's justice for 
 sending pain, disease, and temporal death on the 
 whole human flimily in consequence of Adam's 
 sin. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered in- 
 to the world, and death by six ; and so death 
 passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
 (Rom. v: 12.) We have another illustration of 
 the subordination to which the commission of 
 sin subjects the guilty person, in the case of our 
 first motlier. Slie listened to the voice of the 
 tempter, and disobeyed her great Creator ; 
 took of the fruit of that forbidden tree, whose 
 "'taste brous^ht death into the world with all our 
 Avoe;" and as a punishment she was subjected 
 to the dominion of her husband ; her pains in 
 child-bearing were greatly increased. "Unto 
 tlie woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy 
 sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow thou 
 shalt bring tbrth children ; and thy desire shall 
 be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
 (Gen. iii: 16.) Woman was originally created 
 on an equality with man, but in consequence of 
 her " being first in the transgression," she was 
 not only doomed to great pain and sorrow in 
 parturition, l)ut also to subordination to her 
 liusband. That we are not mistaken in this 
 
ORIGIN 01' COLOR AND SLAVEUV. ,1 
 
 view of the matter, avc will give the oi)inioii of 
 one or two eminent commentators on the jtas- 
 sage we have quoted. Adam Chirk gives tlie 
 following exposition on the ] 6th verse : " I will 
 greatly multiply, or multiphjing I vylllrnxdttpJn ; 
 that is, I will multiply thy sorrow, and multi- 
 ply those sorrows by other sorrow^s; and this 
 during conception and pregnancy; an<l particu- 
 larly in parturition or child-bearing. And this 
 curse has fallen in a heavier degree on the v'o- 
 man than on any o\\\qx female. Nothing is bet- 
 ter attested than this; and yet there is certainly 
 no natural reason why it should be so ; it is a 
 part of her ]iunishment, and a part from which 
 even God's mercy will not exempt hei'. It is 
 added further, thy desire shcdl he to thy hus- 
 band. Thou slialt not be able to shun the great 
 jjain and peril of child-bearing, for thy desire, 
 thy aj^jyetite, shaM he to thy husband, cY//r? he 
 shall rule over thee: though in the creation both 
 were formed with equal rights, and the woman 
 had as much right to rule as the man ; but sub- 
 jection to the will of her husband is one part of 
 her curse ; and so cajjricious is this will often, 
 that a sorer punishment no human being can 
 well have, to be at all in a state of liberty, and 
 under the protection of wise and equal law^."' 
 
72 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 Says Dr. Scott, ou verse 16: "It cannot be 
 supposed, that pain or sorrow would liave been 
 connected with pregnancy, or child-bearing, had 
 not sin been committed ; but now, the Lord 
 threatened to multiply the woman's sorrows, 
 even those of her conception ; so that, in a world 
 of suffering the pains and sufferings of the female 
 sex are thus greatly multiplied — indeed, almost 
 beyond expression. It might, therefore, have 
 been expected, that on this account women 
 w^ould generally prefer the single state, and 
 thus 25i'eY^i>t the increase of the human spe- 
 cies; but God hath so ordered it, that marriage 
 is, notwithstanding, generally chosen even by 
 the suffering sex. The authority of the husband, 
 when exercised uniformly with Avisdom and ten- 
 derness, would have increased mutual felicity; 
 but, by the entrance of sin, it is often converted 
 into unreasonable and unfeeling despotism, and 
 becomes an additional source of misery to A'ast 
 numbers of unhappy females." Henry's note 
 on this verse is the following, viz: "She" 
 (that is woman) "is here put into a state of 
 subjection. The whole sex, which, by creation, 
 was equal with man, is for sin made inferior, 
 and forbidden to nsurp authority. (1 Tim. 
 ii: 11, 12.) The wife particularly is hereby put 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 73 
 
 under the dominion of her hnsband, and is not 
 sxl Juris', at Iter own dis2)osa/; of which see an 
 instance in that law (Numbers xxx : 6, 8) where 
 the husband is empowered, if he please, to dis- 
 annul the vows made by the ^vife. This sen- 
 tence only amounts to that comnumd, " Mlves, 
 he in subjection to your own husbands. But 
 the entrance of sin has made that duty a pun- 
 ishment, Avhich otherwise it would not have 
 been. Those Avives who not only despise and 
 disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, 
 do not consider that they not only violate a di- 
 vine law, but thwart a divine sentence. 
 
 We have been thus full in cur extracts, to 
 show that we are not singular in our expositions 
 of the Scriptures. All these great and good 
 men confirm our position, that God often de- 
 grades, or rather subjects, one class of human 
 beings to the rule or authority of another class, 
 as a punishment for their disobedience to His 
 law. Thus, although man and woman were ori- 
 ginally created equal, yet in consequence of the 
 woman's being "first in the transgression " of 
 God's law, and temi)ting him to sin, she has 
 been subjected to man's authority, and the whole 
 sex is inferior. 
 
 Who, then, can deny the consequence, or con- 
 
74 ORIGIN' OF COLOR AND j^LWERY. 
 
 elusion, that this Avas the judicial sentence of the 
 Great Creator ? However, then, men, under 
 tlie influence of tlieir enthusiastic feelings, may 
 extol and laud the equality of all men, still they 
 are not equal. They were created equal, but 
 sin has entered and destroyed that equality. 
 This inequality is not sin. in Itself^ but the I'esult 
 or punishment of sin. Whatever, then, may 
 have been the equality of Noah's three sons at 
 iirst, it is certain that in consequence of the sin 
 of Ham, he and his posterity are rendered infe- 
 rior to Shem and Japheth and their posterity 
 by the judicial sentence of Jehovah. 
 
 Ham's conduct really deserved death. "Hon- 
 or thy father and thy mother, that thy days may 
 be long in the land which the Lord thy God 
 giveth thee." — Exodus xx : 12. Such is the ex- 
 press laAv of God ; and passages bearing on this 
 point are found scattered throughout both the 
 Old and New Testaments. God pronounced a 
 CURSE on the child that dishonors his parents : 
 " Cursed, be he that setteth lightly his father or 
 his mother; and all the people shall say amen." 
 (Deut. xxvii : ] 6.) Such children forfeited their 
 claim to life, and disrespect to parents "was by 
 the same law a capital crime. (See Deut. xxi: 
 18-21.) So that, according to the law of God„ 
 
ORIGIN' OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 75 
 
 Ham deserved deatli for his unfilinl and impious 
 conduct. But the Great Lawgiver saw fit, in 
 his good pleasure, not to destroy Ham with im- 
 mediate death, but to set a mavh of (Jj'fjrdda- 
 tlon on liim, as he liad done will] the first mur- 
 derer, Cain, that all coming generations miglit 
 know and resjjcct the laws of God. Slavery 
 was, ]n'Operly, a ('omrni'tufion or a change of 
 punishment. Death was the real punishment 
 of the crime, but Jehovah, for reasons satisfac- 
 tory to himself, changed it to a degrading state 
 of continued servitude. This curse of slavei-y 
 evidently was a judicial act, and Xoah pronoun- 
 ced it by the dictation of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 It is further evident, from the manner in 
 which this phrase is used in the Bible, that it 
 was a judicial act, or the sentence of God agahist 
 Ham and his posterity. "Cursed be he," " thou 
 art cursed," and similar expressions are used 
 several times in the books of Moses, and implies 
 that the person or thing thus "cursed" tails un- 
 der the wrath and indignation of God. See 
 examples of this mode of malediction, Gen. iii, 
 14, where God says to the serpent, "Thou art 
 cursed above all cattle and above every beast of 
 the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust 
 shalt thou cat all the days of thy life." TluM-e 
 
76 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERV. 
 
 was degradation in this curse. " Cursed is the 
 ground for thy sake." Here barrenness and the 
 production of noxious weeds are the result of 
 man''s sin on the earth. The reader will find 
 the same mode of expression no less than twelve 
 times in the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy, 15- 
 26 verses. Dr. Clarke has the following note 
 on the loth verse of this chapter, viz : " ' Cursed 
 be the man,' &c. Other laws previously made 
 had prohibited all these things, and penal sanc- 
 tions were necessarily understood; but here God 
 more openly declares, that he who breaks them 
 is cursed — falls under the wrath and indiaiiation 
 of his Maker and Judge."" 
 
 Simeon and Levi were the principal actors in 
 the murder of the Shecemites, and the dying- 
 patriarch, speaking of this deed of blood, says: 
 " Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce ; and 
 tlieir wrath, for it was cruel." And as a pun- 
 ishment upon them, he says, by divine authori- 
 ty, " I will divide them in Jacob and scatter 
 them in Israel." (Gen, xlix: 7.) This literally 
 took place. The tribe of Levi, having no lot 
 of its own but a few cities of refuge, being the 
 priests, they were literally " scattered." The 
 tribe of Simeon had its portion in different parts 
 of Palestine, (see Joshua xix, 1-8) so that they 
 were divided in Israel. 
 
OHKIIX OF COLofJ AND SLAVKI'.V. i < 
 
 It should be noted by the reader that in all 
 these different places the word is in the impera- 
 tive mood, and literally translated is, " Cursed 
 thou above all cattle ; " "Cursed the ground; " 
 ^' Cursed, Canaan ; '' and it should also be borne 
 in mind that the Arabic copy of the books ot 
 Moses reads, " Ham, the father of Canaan,'' in 
 Genesis ix, verses 25, 26 and 2 7, histead of Ca- 
 naan, The following is its version of the i)as- 
 sage, viz: " Cursed be Ilam^ tJie father of Ca- 
 naan. A servant of servants shall he be unto 
 his brethren. * * * Blessed be the Lord 
 Crod of Shem, and Ilan^ the father of Canaan, 
 shall be his servant. * ^ * God shall en- 
 large Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents 
 of Shem ; and Ilarn., the father of Canaan, 
 shall be his servant." This readins: is found in 
 none of the other versions, and is thought by 
 many good critics to be a mere gloss. Let this 
 be as it may, we maintain that the common opin- 
 ion of many commentators that this curse of 
 slavery fell crclffs/rclt/ on the family of Canaan, 
 is erroneous. It is known to all readers of the 
 Bible, and acknowledged by those writers who 
 attempt to maintain this exclusive vicAV of the 
 subject, that a large majority of the descendants 
 of Canaan were destroyed by the Israelites when 
 
78 OEIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 they entered Palestine under Joshua, so that if 
 they were exterininated they could not become 
 servants to the posterity of Shem and Japhetli. 
 This is one reason why we reject this limited in- 
 terpretation. Another reason for the applica- 
 tion of this curse to all the descendants of Ham 
 is founded on the foct tliat all Ham's posterity 
 are either black or dark colored, and thus bear 
 upon their countenance the mark oi iiiferiorif;/ 
 which Grod put upon the progenitor. , 
 
 There is a third reason for the general appli- 
 cation of this malediction to all Ham's children. 
 This is derived from the 7neaning or significa- 
 tion of the names of his four sons, Cush, Miz- 
 raim, Phut and Canaan. We will take them uj> 
 in their order. 
 
 First, Cush means black, or one with a burnt 
 countenance. This conclusion is derived from 
 the fact that the i^eptuogint, that is, the Greek 
 translation of the Old Testament made at Alex- 
 andria, in Egypt, nearly two hundred years be- 
 fore the birth of Christ, renders the word CusJi, 
 Gushite; and its kindred roots, in many places, 
 by the word Ethiopia, Ethiopian. The word 
 Ethiopia being of Greek origin, composed of 
 two words, one meaning black (aith) and the 
 other countenance (ops.) The word Cusli is 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 79 
 
 tliiis rendered in some six ])laces. [See exam- 
 ples in 2d Kings, xix, ; Isa. xxxvii, 9; Esther, 
 i, 1 ; Psalms Iviii, 31.) Cushite is translated 
 Ethiopian four or five times. [See Num. xii, 1.] 
 " Miriam and Aaron spake against JMoses be- 
 cause of the Ethiopian woman whom he had 
 married, for he had married an Ethiopian wo- 
 man. Jer. xiii, 23 : "Can the Ethiopian change 
 his skin or the leopard his spots ? " That we 
 are not mistaken in our view of this point, we 
 will quote the note of Mattliew Henry on this last 
 verse : " Can the Ethiopian change his skln^ 
 that is by nature blacky or the leopard his spots, 
 which are even woven into the skin ? Dirt con- 
 tracted may- be washed off, but we cannot alter 
 the natural color oi haii\ much less of the skin ; 
 and so is it impossible, morally impossible, to 
 reclaim and reform these people." 
 
 Mizraim is the second son of Ham which is 
 enumerated. This word comes from a root 
 which signifies to shut in — to restrain — thus 
 clearly implying subjection to others. 
 
 Phut signifies to despise — to afflict — convey- 
 ing the idea that the people from his stock be- 
 longed to the degraded race of Ham. It is ad- 
 mitted by the best scholars that the descendants 
 ofPliut settled in Africa. Gesenius says, "Phut 
 
80 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLWERV. 
 
 is a proper name of an African people, JSLiuri- 
 tania according to Josephus, in which country 
 Pliny mentions a river Phxt. The Septnagint 
 and Yulgate (the Latin translation of the Old 
 Testament) usually translate the word by the 
 name Lybia." For examples, see Ezek. xxvii, 
 10; XXX, 5; xxxviii, 5. / 
 
 Canaan, the fourth son, means to he hoiccd 
 dov^in — to bring low — to luimhlt any one. See 
 an examj)le in 1st Kings, xxi, 29 : "Seest thou 
 how Ahab hath Juimhled himself before me? " 
 
 Blacky restrained., despised., bor':ed do ten are 
 the words used to express the condition and 
 place of Ham's children. Bearing the mark of 
 degradation on their skin, they are restredned 
 from being on an equality with their more fa- 
 vored brethren ; they are often desxnseel 2xvi\ pre- 
 vented from intermarrying or mingling with 
 the white and red races, and finally they are 
 hov^ed doicn to the authority of their superiors 
 without successful resistance. 
 
 To many these things may appear very singu- 
 lar and strange. Be it so. We have only fol- 
 lowed out what seems to be the teachings of 
 the Bible on this strange but deeply interesting 
 subject. We set out with the determination to 
 take the Scriptures as the "Man of our counsel, 
 
ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 81 
 
 n liglit to our foot, and a lamp to our })at]i,'" 
 through all the dark windings and labarynths 
 of tlie subject before us, and we are still willing 
 to abide by the decisions of Hini whose "judg- 
 ments are past finding out." God, by His de- 
 cree, and in consequence of his sin, has degraded 
 Ham's posterity. The sentence, " a servant of 
 servants shall he be to his brethren,"" has been 
 fully exemplihed in the past history of the three 
 divisions of the human Ihmily. 
 
 We W'ill here, for the sake of those who may 
 not have access to the sources of information, 
 introduce the testimony of several distinguished 
 scholars in relation to the relative positions 
 which the three great divisions of the human 
 species have sustained to each other. We will 
 give the testimony in the oi-der in which it is 
 related in Genesis. First, then, we Avill give 
 the note of Dr. Scott on the 2Gtli verse of the 
 9th chapter of Genesis : 
 
 "The descendants of Shem, in the line of 
 Arphaxad, Eber and Peleg, included all the pos- 
 terity of Abraham ; and the Lord Jesus, ' in 
 whom all the nations of the earth are blessed,' 
 sprang from him. Thus Jeiioa^aii was especial- 
 ly ' the God of Shem.' His descendants com- 
 prised a vast majority of the worshippers of the 
 
82 OrJGIX OF COLOR AND SLAYEilV. 
 
 true God, till the coming of Christ ; and after- 
 wards they were the first and principal instru- 
 ments of bringing other nations to share the 
 blessings of salvation ; so that the other sons of 
 Xoah, when converted to Christianity, are 
 taught to worship and 'bless Jehovah, the God 
 of Shem.' Tiie i)Osterity of Abraham also sul)- 
 jugated or di^stroyed the posterity of Canaan ; 
 and the nations which sprang from Shem by his 
 other sons, have prospered greatly, enjoyed 
 fruitful countries, and been far more civilized 
 than the race of Ham." 
 
 ^'erse 27: "Japheth seems to have been the 
 progenitor of above half the liuman race ; and 
 the |)rincipal success of the gospel, in the calling 
 of the Gentiles, has hitherto been among his de- 
 scendants. Thus God has enlarged Japheth and 
 persuaded him (so some render the word ;/^/^r//) 
 ' to dwell in the tents of Shem,' by receiving 
 the gospel from preachers of Abraham's race, 
 who descended from Shem, and so obtaining ad- 
 mission into the church. The descendants of 
 Japheth have also obtained that dominion under 
 the Greciau and Il;oman Empires, and subse- 
 quent ages, which was for a lon^* time chieliy 
 possessed by tlie posterity of Shem. Indeed, 
 even a o'eneral knowledo;e ot the outlines of his- 
 
OKIGIN OF COLUll AND SJ.AVl'.KV. Ho 
 
 tory, will suificc to satisfy the serious eii([uii-er 
 that the descendants of Canaan have ])een sub- 
 jected t ) those of ISJieni and Japheth, through 
 many o'enerations : and the extraordinary ac- 
 coniplishnient of this prediction, which contains 
 almost a prophetic liistory of tlie world, yindi- 
 eates Xoah from the sus2)icion of haying nttered 
 it from personal resentment, and fully proves 
 that the Spirit of God took occasion, from Ham's 
 misconduct, to reveal his secret purposes for a 
 yery important benefit to i)Osterity, even to this 
 day." 
 
 "The -whole continent of Africa was peo})led 
 principally by the descendants of Ham ; and for 
 how many ages liave the better parts of that 
 country lain under the dominion of the Romans^ 
 then of the Saracens, and now of the Turks i 
 In what wickedness, ignorance, barbarity, slave- 
 ry, misery, live most of the inhabitants? and of 
 the poor negroes, how many hundreds every 
 year are sold and bought, like beasts in the 
 market, and conveyed from one quarter of the 
 Avorld to do the work of beasts in another." 
 
 S^Blslwp JS^eictori. 
 
 " True religion has hitherto flourished very 
 little among Ham's descendants ; they remain 
 to this day almost entire stran<jei-s to Christian- 
 
84 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 
 
 ity; and their condition in every age has re- 
 markably coincided with this prediction." 
 
 [Scott. 
 
 " There never has been a son of Ham who 
 has shaken a sceptre over the head of Japheth. 
 Shem hath subdued Japheth, and Japheth sub- 
 dued Shem, but Ham never subdued either.'* 
 
 [Meade. 
 
 This must be understood with one or two ex- 
 ceptions, for the Egyptians enslaved the Israel- 
 ites, and they made some conquests in Asia. 
 (2 Chron. xii: 2-4.) But while they have ruled 
 over each other with great rigor, their domin- 
 ion over the descendants of Shem or Japheth 
 have been of short duration. 
 
 The reader will notice that in the preceding 
 parts of this chapter we have been careful to 
 distinguish between the nature of a prophetic 
 announcement of a future event by an inspired 
 man, and the judicial sentence of Jehovah when 
 inflicting punishment for crime. This distinc- 
 tion should be carefully noted. There is a dis- 
 tinction and on important difference in the two 
 things. In fulhlling aprophecy the instruments 
 may be, and frequently are, guilty of the most 
 heinous sin. While those wlio carry a judicial 
 
ORIGIJ^ OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 85 
 
 sentence into execution cainiot be cliai'geable 
 with sin, unless they go beyond and abuse the 
 power confided to them. Still there is always a 
 proper distinction between the abuse and legiti- 
 mate use of power. An executive officer is not 
 chargeable with ci'ime for hanging a murderer 
 who has been tried and condemned by the 
 proper authority. \Ye will give an example of 
 the fulfillment of prophecy in which the instru- 
 ments were chargeable with the foulest murder. 
 The prophets of the Old Testament had fore- 
 told the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Christ: 
 all the particulars pertaining to these things had 
 been pointed out. " Why did the heathen sage 
 and the people imagine vain things ? The king 
 of the earth stood up, and the rulers were 
 gathered together against the Lord, and against 
 his Christ; for, of a truth, against thy only 
 child Jesus, wliom thou hast anointed, both 
 Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles 
 and the people of Israel, were gathered together 
 for to do ichatsoever they have and in coun- 
 sel DETEKMIXED BEFOEE tO he doue.''^ (ActS 
 
 iv, 25-28.) While, then, all these combined 
 together to effect the death of Christ to gratify 
 their wicked passions and satisfy their stern 
 zeal, they were guilty of murdering an innocent 
 II 
 
86 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLA.YERY. 
 
 person, for, says Peter to the Jews, (Actsiii, 14, 
 15) "ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and 
 desired a mnrderer to be granted unto you, and 
 KILLED THE Prixce OF LiFE, whoiii God hath 
 raised from the dead." Thus God leaves wicked 
 men to the exercise of their free will ; they act 
 with their own will, fulfill his purposes, and he 
 holds them responsible for their sins. 
 
 On the other hand, the magistrate, as the 
 agent of society, commits no sin in hanging the 
 murderer, for God has decided in his word that 
 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall 
 his blood be shed, for in the image of God made 
 He man." (Geii.ix, 6.) The declaration of Noah 
 was then not a mere prophecy, but the Judicial 
 sentence of Jeliovah against Ham and his pos 
 terity for the father's sin. In holding the 
 descendants of Ham in bondage there is no sin. 
 The power may be abused, but still this does 
 not make the relation of master and slave sinful 
 in itself, any more than the tyrannical and un-^ 
 reasonable exercise of power on the part of the 
 husband over the wife makes the marriao-e rela- 
 tion sinful in itself. The dominion of the 
 husband OA'er the Avife is in consequence of 
 God's judicial decree for the woman's sin. 
 The cases, to our mind, have a strong resem- 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLAVERY. 87 
 
 blanee. The language of prophecy is uttered 
 ill entirely diiferent words from that of a sen- 
 tence. Let the reader remember this scriptural 
 distinction and all will be i^lain to him. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 DO THE WRITERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TREAT SLAVERY 
 AS A SIX IX ITSELF? 
 
 Ty'^e have shown in the last chapter what we 
 believe to be the true and scriptural origin of 
 color among the different families of the human 
 race; the origin of slavery; that it is the 2y^(nish- 
 ment of sin ; and that the announcement of Noah 
 was not merely the foretelling of the place 
 which Ham and his posterity should occupy and 
 the manner in which they should be treated, 
 but it was the sentence of God against him 
 and his offspring, degrading them from an 
 equality with their brethren, and consigning 
 them to perpetual servitude. If this were not 
 the correct view of the matter, then we 
 would expect to find the subsequent writers 
 
8o OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 forbidding this monstrous iniquity, as they did 
 idolatry, murder, adultery, lying and eovetous- 
 ness. But how does the fact stand ':' Do the 
 writers of the Old Testament condemn slavery 
 and slaveholders as open transgressors of God's 
 law ? Where are their anathemas against 
 slaveholders ? Slavery is not condemned in the 
 Old Testament. Is it merely silent on the 
 subject? Let us then examine into the subject 
 and see how the matter is treated by the prac- 
 tice of good men and the direct precepts of 
 law. The important and distinguished slave- 
 holder, who is particularly noticed in the Old 
 Testament, was Abraham, " the father of the 
 faithful," "the friend of God," "in whom all the 
 families of the earth are to be blessed." Abram 
 — as his name at first was — was born 1920 years 
 B, C. Noah cursed or pronounced the sen- 
 tence of Jehovah against Ham and his posterity 
 about 2327 B. C, so that he lived about four 
 hundred (400) years after Noah. The first 
 mention of his possession of servants or slaves 
 is on the occasion of his havinor recovered Lot? 
 his nephew, from the power of Chederlaomer 
 and his associates, who took Sodom and carried 
 oft' Lot as a captive of war with the remainder 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 89 
 
 of the inhabitants. "And when Abram heard 
 that his brother Avas taken captive, he armed 
 liis trained servants, born in liis own house, 
 three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them 
 luito Dan." (Geu. xiv, 14.) About eight years 
 before this event, it appears tliat Abram, with 
 liis family, went down into Egypt on account 
 of a famine wliich overspread the hind of 
 Canaan. It appears, from the record (Gen. xii, 
 16) tliat Abram's property consisted, besides 
 sheep, oxen, asses and camels, of men servants 
 and maid servants. We learn, incidentally, 
 from the first verse of chapter 16th, from what 
 nation or people his servants descended. " Now 
 Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children; and 
 she had an hand-maid, an Egyptian, whose name 
 was Hagar." Ilagar, the handmaid of Sarah, 
 was an Egyptian — one of the children of 
 Ham, as Egypt is called the land of Ham; 
 (See Psalms cv, 23,) showing that at that 
 <3arly period servants wove obtained from the 
 posterity of Ham ; and, although God blessed 
 Ishmael wdth freedom and a numerous seed, still 
 it was the result of his connection with Abram, 
 and not particularly for his mother's sake, but 
 commanded her to " return to her mistress, and 
 
90 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 submit herself under her hands." (See xvii, 20.) 
 The next mention of the matter of possessing 
 servants by Abraliam — for his name Avas 
 changed, to correspond with the promise : Ab, 
 a fither, and Raheim, nations, (see Genesis xii, 
 5) — is the connection with the estabhshment of 
 the covenant of circumcision : " This is my 
 covenant which ye shall keep between me and 
 you, and tliy seed after thee ; every man-child 
 among you shall be circumcised. * * ^< 
 He that is born in thy house, and he that is 
 bouQ-ht with thv monev, must needs be circum- 
 cised. And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, 
 and all that were born in his house, and all that 
 were bought with his money, every male of 
 Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of 
 their foreskin. ♦ ^5^ * ^j^^j j^U ^|^g 
 
 men of his house, born in the house, and bought 
 Avith money of the stranger, w^ere circumcised." 
 (Gen. xvii, 10-13, 23-27. These passages show 
 ibeyond successful refutation, that Abraham was 
 the owmer of slaves : they w^ere not hired ser- 
 vants. There is a remarkable fact coimected 
 with the matter wdiich renders this position cer- 
 tain : that is, the word which is here trans- 
 lated "bought with thy money," is used in tlie 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 01 
 
 same form and applied to the same subject, viz: 
 (Exodus xii, 44) " Every man servant that is 
 bought for money ^ when thou hast circumcised 
 him, then shall he eat thereof." (Levit. xxv, 
 16-51.) See also Levit. xxvii, 22: "If a man 
 sanctify unto the Lord a field which he liatli 
 houglit.'''' Here it is applied to landed property 
 and shows beyond dispute possession for a^)e- 
 cuniary consideration. The word is used as a 
 noun in the 16th Aerse of this same chapter, 
 and is translated "possession." In Jeremiah 
 xxxii, 11, the word is translated "purchase," 
 where it evidently related to the transfer of a 
 piece of land for a pecuniary consideration : 
 "The money was weighed," (verse 10) "the 
 deed witnessed, (see same verse) and the deed 
 is delivered to Baruch for safe-keeping." (See 
 verses 12-15.) The word in the form of a noun 
 is found also in Gen. xxiii, 18, where it is ren- 
 dered " possession," and is there applied to the 
 purchase of the field and cave of Macpelah 
 with its appurtenances, which Abraham bought 
 •of the sons of Ileth for a burial place. The 
 sacred writer states that four hundred shekels 
 was the price paid by Abraham to Ephron for 
 the field and the cave, &c. He states also that 
 
92 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLAVERY. 
 
 it was transferred in the presence of witnesses. 
 The field of Ephron and all the trees that were 
 in the field "were made sure unto Abraham for 
 a 2^ossessio?i in tlie presence of the cliildren of 
 Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his 
 city.'^ (Gen. xxiii, 15-18.) Gesemius' Hebrew 
 and English Lexicon, page 618, says it means a 
 ^'^ thing ^^?^rc'A«5er<^" — "a slave bought with 
 money." (Gen. xix, 12, 13, 27.) We have 
 been thus j^articular on this point to show that 
 the modern notion that Abraham did not own 
 slaves is a mere after-thonght, a perversion of 
 the truth of Bible history, and merely got up for 
 the purpose of covering up the unbelief of 
 those who pretend to respect the Bible and its 
 teachings, and at the same time condemn all 
 who, like Abraham, possess slaves. It appears 
 that Jacob had men-servants and maid-servants. 
 We have thus noticed the practice of the patri- 
 archs to show how they acted about the matter 
 under consideration. We will now pass on and 
 examine in what manner the law of God, as 
 given by the mouth of Moses, treated the sub- 
 ject of slavery. We will class the various kinds 
 of servitude noticed by the great law-giver un- 
 <der their proper heads, so that the reader may 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WTITERS ON PLAYEIIY. 93 
 
 have a clear view of the wliole subject. We 
 will also refer to and quote at length tlie pas- 
 sages, to show that we are sustained in our class- 
 ification by the Scriptures. Calniet enume- 
 rates six difterent ways in which a Hebrew 
 might lose his liberty : first, in extreme ^>oi'<?/'(y 
 they might sell their liberty. "If thy brother 
 be waxed poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt 
 not compel him to serve as a bond-servant." — 
 (Levit. XXV, 39.) Secondly, a father migJit sell 
 his ch lldren. " If a man sell his daughter to be a 
 maid-ser\'ant, she shall not go out as the men- 
 servants do." (Exodus xxi, V.) Thirdly, in- 
 solvent (hhtoTS became the slaves of the credi- 
 tors. " Xovr there cried a certain of the wives 
 of the projjhets untoElisha, saying, thy servant, 
 my husband, is dead, and thou knowest that thy 
 servant did fear the Lord; and the creditor is 
 come to take unto him my two sons to be bond- 
 men." (2 Kings iv, 1.) Fourthly, a thief if he 
 had not money to pay the fine laid on him by 
 law, was to be sold for his profit whom he had 
 robbed. "If a thief be found breaking up, and 
 be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be 
 shed for him : if the sun be risen upon him 
 there shall be blood shed for him : if he have 
 
94 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." 
 (Exodus xxii, 2, 3.) Fifthly, a Hehreva was 
 liable to be taken prisoner in war and sold for a 
 slave. Sixthly, a Hebrew slave, w^ho had been 
 ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew, might 
 be sold by him who ransomed him to one of his 
 0W71 nation. He gives no proof for the tw^o 
 last modes in which Hebrews might be enslaved, 
 and we pass them without any further notice, 
 and go on to notice the different Tcbids of ser- 
 vitude among the Hebrews. 
 
 The Hebrews had several kinds of servants : 
 First — Hebrew slaves, or bond-servants, 
 who could only at the first be bound six 
 years, w^hen they were to be dismissed with 
 presents from their masters; but their children 
 born during their servitude, continued to be 
 their master's property. If they^declined to 
 go free, their master, with an awl, bored 
 their ear to the door-post as a token that 
 they could not thereafter have their freedom. 
 *'If thou buy an Hebrew^ servant, six years 
 shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall 
 20 out free for nothiuG:; if he came in by him- 
 self, he shall go out by himself; if he w^ere mar- 
 ried" — that is, when he was purchased — "then 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. JJO 
 
 his wife shall go out with hiiu ; if liis master 
 have o-iven liiiu a wife, and slie liave borne him 
 sons or daughters, the wife and her cliiklren 
 shall be her master's, and he shall go out by 
 himself; and if the servant shall plainly say, I 
 love my master, my wife, and my children — I 
 wdll not go out free — then his master shall bring 
 him to the judges : he shall also bring him to 
 the door, or unto the door-post, and his master 
 shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he 
 shall serve him forever."" (Ex. xxi, 2-6.) That 
 is, he shall be a servant during the term of his 
 natural life. This certainly is the meaning of the 
 phrase in this connection, if it have any mean- 
 ing at all. The parallel passage is found in 
 Deut. XV, 12-18. The only addition is, that 
 when the servant chose to go out he was not 
 to go out empty, but was to receive liberal pre- 
 sents from his master. (See verses 13 and 14.) 
 '•Thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou 
 shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and 
 out of thy floor, and out of thy w^ine press." 
 If a master struck a bond-servant till he died, 
 he was only punished — not condemned to death. 
 "If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with 
 a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be 
 surely punished ; notwithstanding, if he con- 
 
96 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 tiniie a day or two, he shall not be punished, 
 for he is his money." (Exodus xxi, 20, 21.) — 
 If a master struck out an eye or a tooth of his 
 servant, he was to give him his freedom as a 
 compensation. "If a man smite the eye of his 
 servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, 
 he shall let him go free for his eye's sake ; and 
 if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his 
 maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for 
 his tooth's sake." (Exodus xxi, 20, 27.) "If 
 the ox shall push a man-servant or maid-servant, 
 he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of 
 silver, and the ox shall be stoned." (Yerse 32.) 
 Maid-servants had not the right, or title, to a 
 release at the return of the seventh year, unless 
 the master had defiled her, or he or his son had 
 betrothed a female slave and not kept her as a 
 wife, she was to have her liberty as a compen- 
 sation for the injury she had sustained ; but she 
 was also to receive presents at her departure 
 from the house. " If a man sell his daughter 
 to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the 
 men-servants do; if she please not her master, 
 who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he 
 let her be redeemed. To sell her to a stranger 
 he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt 
 deceitfully with her ; and if he hath betrothed 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLxVVERT. 97 
 
 her unto liis son, ho shall deal willi her after the 
 manner of daughters; if he take him another 
 wife, her food, her raiment and lier duty of 
 marriage, shall he not diminished : and if he do 
 not these three unto her, then she shall go out 
 free without money." (Exo. xxi, T-ll.) If she 
 choose to remain, the same ceremony of borino- 
 her ear with an awl must be performed as in the 
 case of the man-servant who voluntarily became- 
 a servant for life. " And unto thy maid-servant 
 shalt thou do likewise." (Deut. xxv, 17.) If she 
 used her freedom, she was to have liberal pre- 
 sents when she left. (See same chapter, 12-17.) 
 Secondly — there were hired servants^ or 
 those who worked for a stipulated price. Their 
 term of service was three years : they were a 
 kind of apprentices. That this was their term 
 of service, we learn from Isaiah xvi, 14. 
 " Within throe years, as the years of an hire- 
 ling, and the glory of JNIoab shall be con- 
 temned." This also explains another passage of 
 the Bible, viz: Deut. xv, 18. "It shall not 
 seem hard unto thee, Avheri thou sendest him 
 away from thee ; for he hath been worth a dou- 
 ble hired servant unto thee, in serving thee six 
 years." The bond- servant wlio served six years 
 was worth double a hired servant to his master 
 I 
 
98 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 because bis terra of service was double. A bired 
 servant was not allowed to eat of tbe passover, 
 and from tbis circumstance tbey must frequently 
 have been descendants of otber tban tbe Jewish 
 stock, "for no uncircumcised person shall eat 
 thereof." (Ex. xii, 45.) "A foreigner and an 
 bired servant shall not eat thereof;" (same 46th 
 verse) — that is, of tbe passover. They were 
 not allowed to eat of the holy things. "A 
 sojourner of the priests, or an hired servant, 
 shall not eat of the holy things." (Levit. xxii, 
 10.) They were to have their wages paid them 
 so soon as they were due. "Tbe wages of him 
 that is hired shall not abide with thee all night 
 until the morning." (Levit. xix, 13.) 
 
 Thirdly — there were voluntary servants : 
 Joshua was the servant of Moses — Elisha of Eli- 
 jah. There appears to be some difficulty about 
 the length of time some of the Hebrew bond-ser- 
 vants were to serve. It appears from Exodus 
 xxi, 2, that the ordinary length of time for a 
 bond-servant was six years. " Six years he 
 shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out 
 free for nothing." " As an bired servant, and 
 as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall 
 serve thee unto the year of jubilee." (Levit. 
 XXV, 40.) This seems to convey the idea that 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 90 
 
 tlie term of service extended in particular cases 
 to the year of jubilee ; and this occurring every 
 fiftieth year, the term would be very long if the 
 servant happened to be sold a few years after a 
 jubilee had occurred. In this case the poor He- 
 brew^ was to be treated as a hired, and not as a 
 bond-servant. Tlie reason given in the law 
 seems to intimate that the master sliould remem- 
 ber that he had been in bondage himself, and, 
 from this flxct, should be mild in the exercise of 
 his authority. " For they are my servants, 
 which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; 
 they shall not be sold as bond-men." The Is- 
 raelite who was sold to a stranger, or sojourner, 
 might be redeemed by some of his relatives, if 
 they were willing to do so ; or if he acquired the 
 means he might redeem himself by paying the 
 sum wdiich w^ould be considered fair for each 
 year up to the year of jubilee. In case he was 
 not redeemed in either of these ways, he was 
 to have his freedom at the year of jubilee. — 
 (See Levit. xxv, 47-55.) The probable opinion 
 is, that w^hen a Hebrew voluntarily, through 
 poverty, sold himself without any specific limi- 
 tation, or when he was sold for a larger debt, 
 or greater crime, he remained a slave for life, 
 unless the year of jubilee intervened. 
 
100 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 Fourthly — The Hebrews, or Jews, liad an- 
 other class of servants who were properly 
 slaves for life. They w^ere sold, disposed of, and 
 given by wall as an inheritance to their children. 
 This class of slaves was not of the Hebrew 
 stock. "Both thy bond-men and thy bond- 
 maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
 heathen that are round about you ; of tl;em 
 shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids; more- 
 over, of the children of the stranger that 
 do sojourn among you : of them ye shall 
 buy, and of the families that are with you, 
 which they begat in your land ; and they shall 
 be your possession, and ye shall take them as 
 an inheritance for your children after you to 
 inherit them for a possession : they shall be 
 your bond-men forever." (Levit. xxv, 44-46.) 
 This language is too plain to be mistaken. — 
 They were to be bought of the heathen; they 
 were to serve forever — that is, during the 
 period of their natural life ; to be held as a pos- 
 session, the real idea of property, to be trans- 
 mitted to children, as an inheritance. This 
 passage is rather too strong for some men. We 
 then will be compelled to search out the proofs 
 from the Scriptures, that heathens and strangers 
 mean in this connection the descendants of 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 101 
 
 Ham, as our commentators, to which we liave 
 access at this time, witli one exception, dodge 
 the point. Dr. A. Clarke, who is usually a very 
 good expounder of difficult passages, passes 
 these verses toifhoff-t a note. Dr. Scott, who is 
 remarkable, in a general way, for his candor and 
 judicious exposition of the Scriptures, has the 
 following note on verses 44-46, viz: " The Is- 
 raelites Avere pe^'/nzY^ec? to keep slaves of otlier 
 nations — perhaps, in order to typify that none 
 but the true Israel of God participate of that 
 liberty wdth which Christ hath made his people 
 free; but it was also allowed, in order that in 
 this manner the Gentiles might become ac- 
 quainted with ti"ue religion. (Gen. xvii, 10, 
 13, 19.) And, when the Israelites copied the 
 example of their pious progenitors, there can 
 be no reasonable doubt that it was overruled 
 to the eternal salvation of many souls. It does 
 not, however, appear from the subsequent his- 
 tory, that tlie people availed themselves of this 
 allowance to any great extent, for we read but 
 little of slaves from among the Gentiles pos- 
 sessed by them." Tlie secret why the Doctor 
 did not expound these verses with his usual 
 •clearness, Avhy he used and emphasized the 
 word "^;6n7^^7('e 7," ^vill be found in tlie fact that 
 I* 
 
102 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 he was opposed to slavery. This is plain from 
 his note on Gen. ix, 24, 25, from which we take 
 ■the following sentence containing the whole se- 
 cret. The emphasis is onr own. " God has not 
 commanded us to enslave negroes, as he did 
 Israel to extirpate the Canaanites ; and, there- 
 fore, without doubt, he will severely punish 
 the cruel injustice." This is the reason why he 
 used the word ^9e?'m?'^?6C? instead o^ cominanded 
 in his note on Levit. xxv, 44-46. This is what 
 may be properly called dodging the point. We 
 are forcibly reminded of a thing which every 
 school boy has noticed, viz : in reading Greek 
 or Latin authors, accompanied with notes by 
 the editor, when we come to some really diffi- 
 cult passage which needs a note of explanation 
 to assist us in construing, we turn over to the 
 notes, or where a note ought to be, and, behold, 
 there is none ! The editor has found out that 
 the passage is difficult and pursued the wisest 
 plan — to keep a profound and provoking silence. 
 The remark of Dr. Scott " that it was over- 
 ruled to the eternal salvation of many souls," 
 may be true ; but that is not the question now 
 before us. Was the buying of slaves by the 
 Israelites from the heathen 7'ight or wrong f 
 This is the point to be settled. God may and 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 103 
 
 does "make the wratli of man to redound to his 
 praise." (Psahns Ixxvi, 10.) But that by no 
 means proves that the men are mnocent when 
 they fultill the purposes of God. This we have 
 sliown clearly in tlie case of the crucifixion of 
 €hrist. Good 'may come out of slavery, but 
 that does not prove it to be right. The ques- 
 tion now for every rational man to settle is, 
 did God command the Israelites to buy slaves 
 of the heathen ? If He did not condemn the 
 l^ractice, and class it in Ilis law with murder, 
 theft and idolatry, and similar offences, who 
 dare rise up and say that the holding of slaves 
 is a sin in itself, and thus presumptuously dare to 
 correct God Himself? 
 
 From Exodus xxii, 3, we learn that a man 
 Avho was guilty of theft, and was too poor to 
 make restitution, was to be sold for his theft. 
 This is a wise and righteous law, and is not 
 condemned by any one as an unjust punishment 
 for the crime. It is admitted, then, that men 
 may by crime forfeit their liberty, be punished 
 for it, and no injustice done them. All the 
 penitentiaries, workdiouses and jails, are a proof 
 of this fact. Wliy, then, is it wrong to enslave 
 the descendants of Ham, when they have been 
 adjudged by Jehovah Himself to perpetual 
 
104 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 servitude /or their father'' s sin? Ham was 
 guilty of death, as we have shown, and it was 
 a relaxation of the punishment, or, rathei", a 
 commutation of it, that slavery was inflicted on 
 his posterity rather than immediate death. We 
 will now return to the immediate point of the 
 subject of consideration, and here we will quote 
 the note of Matthew Henry on Levit. xxv, 44- 
 46. "They," that is, the Israelites, "might 
 purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that 
 were round about them, or of those strangers 
 that sojourned among them, (except of those 
 seven nations that were to be destroyed,) and 
 might claim a dominion over them, and entail 
 them upon their fiimilies, as an inheritance ; for 
 the year of jubilee should give no discharge to 
 them. (46th verse.) Now this authority, which 
 they had over the bondmen they purchased 
 from the neighboring nations, was in pursuance 
 of the blessing of Jacob, (Gen. xxvii, 29,) let 
 people serve thee.'''' This is the declaration of a 
 man who was an Englishman, and who had no 
 sympathy with the system of slavery, as is plain 
 from his own words. The sentence is found in 
 the same note we have quoted, and is as fol- 
 low^s: "Thus, in our English plantations, the 
 negroes only ai'c used as slaves : how much to 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 105 
 
 the credit of Cliristiaiiity, I sliall not say." The 
 writer would not say how far the credit of 
 Christianity was injured by the practice of ne- 
 gro slavery as it then existed in the English colo- 
 nies, now called the United States, but still he 
 would not say that the system of slavery, as 
 recognized by the law of Moses, in Levit. xxv, 
 44-46, was very similar to it. So, that, one 
 expositor, at least, understands Moses as we do, 
 and does not attempt to pervert it, or obscure 
 the meaning of the text, or divert the mind of 
 the reader from the plain meaning of the law 
 by drawing off his attention to another point 
 altogether, viz : the assumed historical fact that 
 the Israelites did not avail themselves of this 
 allowance to any great extent. " Slavery, uni- 
 versally, in the ancient world, was recognized 
 by the Mosaic institutions." Again — " The 
 condition of foreign slaves was less favorable ; 
 whether captives taken in war, purchased, or 
 born in the family, their servitude was per- 
 petual." (Milman's History of the Jews, vol. 
 i, i^p. 105, 100.) We need not multiply testi- 
 mony on this point, as it is plain to every reader 
 of his Bible, who desires to know the truth. 
 " Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, 
 which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 
 
106 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAYER Y. 
 
 about you." (LeYit. xxy, 44.) Probably the 
 term ''^heathen'''' may need some explanation. 
 It seems to be confined, in the law of Moses, to 
 the descendants of Ham, including the Canaan- 
 ites, 'who were to be destroyed by the Israel- 
 ites. There were seven nations of these to be 
 destroyed. The Israelites were to make no 
 covenants of peace with these devoted nations ; 
 to contract no matrimonial alliances with them, 
 but utterly to destroy them. (See Dent, vii, 
 1-5.) They gradually executed the purpose of 
 Ood against the Canaanites, with one exception, 
 viz : the Gibeonites, who obtained a league of 
 peace with Israel by a crafty plot — by lying and 
 making them believe that they were not of the 
 Canaanitish tribe. For this deception Joshua 
 23ronounced the curse of slavery upon them, as 
 ih^ punishment of their sin. "Xow, therefore, 
 ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be 
 freed from being bond-men, and hewers of wood 
 and drawers of water for the house of my 
 <jrod." (See Joshua ix, 5-37.) This tribe was 
 not only adjudged to slavery, but, terrible to 
 think! they w^ere to be the slaves about the 
 house of God. This is another example of the 
 judicial curse of Jehovah consigning the Gibeon- 
 ites to slavery for their sin. They deserved 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. lOT 
 
 death — were devoted to destruction, but God 
 commuted tlie i)uiii8bmeiit for the sake of tlie 
 oath of tlie elders of Israel. The word heathen, 
 m other parts of the Bible, seems to mean, or 
 rather include, all people not of the Jewish 
 stock. The words "nations," "Gentiles," 
 "heathen," are all the same in the originah 
 Still, Moses, in tlie book of Genesis, x, 5, uses 
 the word expressly in application to the descend- 
 ants of Japheth, or the wliite races. " By 
 these," that is, by tlie sons of Javan, "were the 
 isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands." 
 "Isles of the Gentiles evidently denote Asia 
 Minor and the whole of Europe, which were 
 l^eopled by descendants of Japheth." (Calmet.) 
 And as the descendants of Shem were not au- 
 thorized to enslave the posterity of Japheth, but 
 both were empowered to take servants or slaves 
 of the descendants of Ham, we are compelled 
 to conclude that the term "heathen," in Levit. 
 XXV, 44, was designed to apply only to the 
 descendants of Ham. That the term " heathen" 
 is intended to describe the descendants of Ham 
 more ])articularly, and tliat it is so used also by 
 the authorized translation, is evident from 2d 
 Kings xxi, 2, where it is said that Manasseh 
 " did that which was evil in the sight of the 
 
108 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 Lord, after the abominations of the heathen, 
 whom the Lord cast out before the children of 
 Israel." (See the parallel — 2 Chron. xxxiii, 2.) 
 IS^ow to settle the point before ns. Let the 
 reader ask himself — What nations did the Lord 
 cast out before Israel ? Evidently, the Canaan- 
 ites, who were bej^ond disj^ute the descendants 
 of Ham. But the seven nations to be destroyed 
 did not include even all the descendants of Ca- 
 naan, for he had ten or eleven sons, from whom 
 sprang so many distinct nations, or tribes. (See 
 Gen. X, 15-20.) It is certain that the Sidonians, 
 or Phoenecians, were the posterity of Canaan, 
 and they were not destroyed by the Israelites, 
 for they were not included in the number to be 
 exterminated : they also dwelt near to the land 
 of Canaan. There was also the family, or tribe, 
 of the Hamathites, who dwelt to the north of 
 Palestine. Of these heathen nations the He- 
 brews might purchase slaves. The term stran- 
 ger, as used in the 45th verse, must also be 
 understood as the synonym of heathen, in the 
 44th verse. This is plain from the fact that the 
 Hebrews were not allowed "to vex or oppress 
 the stranger." (See Exodus xxiii, 9 ; Levit. 
 xix, 33, 34.) These strangers must have been 
 the descendants of Esau and Ishmael — the Idu- 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 109 
 
 means and Arabians, and not of the Cushite or 
 Canaanitish stock. Unless this be the true ex- 
 position of the matter, the law cannot be saved 
 from not only a})parent but real contradiction. 
 There is one other point which requires notice 
 before we leave the subject of Jewish slavery. 
 The Jews were not allowed to deliver a fugitive 
 slave to ^heathen master. "Thou shalt not 
 deliver unto his master the servant which is es- 
 caped from his master unto thee ; he shall dwell 
 with thee, even among you in that place which 
 he shall choose in one of thy gates where it 
 liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him." 
 (Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.) Dr. A. Clarke, who was 
 no friend of slavery, says, in his note on the loth 
 verse — " Thou shalt not deliver the servant 
 lohlch is escaped unto thee — that is, a servant 
 who left an idolatrous master, that he misfht 
 join himself to God and to his people. In any 
 other case it would have been injustice to have 
 harbored the runaway." "We cannot su})pose 
 that this law required the Israelites to entertain 
 slaves who had robbed their masters, or left 
 their service without cause, but such only as 
 were cruelly treated and fled to them for pro- 
 tection — especially from the neighboring na- 
 tions." — (Scott.) So that Scott, Avith all his 
 J 
 
110 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLATERY. 
 
 abhorrence for slavery, could not in this case 
 refuse to give a proper interpretation of tlie 
 passage. But the Bible is the best interpreter 
 of itself. We have an example illustrating our 
 view of the passage in 1st Samuel xxx, 11-18. 
 It appears that the Amalekites had invaded and 
 burnt the town called Ziklag. In the absence 
 of the males they- had carried off all the women 
 and children as captives of war. Among the 
 women they had taken David's wives. He with 
 his men pursued the marauders. They found 
 an Egyptian almost famished ; but, on his receiv- 
 ing some nourishment, his spirit came again, or, 
 he revived. On being asked by David who he 
 was, and to whom he belonged, he replied : *' I 
 am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amal- 
 ekite, and my master left me, because three 
 days ago I fell sick." (Verse 13.) David soon 
 discovered that he possessed the knowledge he 
 desired to obtain, hence he asks him — "Canst 
 thou bring me down to this company ? And he 
 said, swear unto me by God that thou wilt 
 neither kill me, nor deliver me into the liands 
 of my master, and I will bring thee down to this 
 company." (Verse 15.) Here, then, was a ser- 
 vant giving the necessary information to the 
 enemy of his master. He belonged to an idol- 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. HI 
 
 ator, and thouglit tliat it was necessary to se- 
 cure bis life and liberty by an oatb from David. 
 This illustrates the true meaning of the law. 
 Besides, the Bible no where encourages slaves 
 to run away from their masters: when they do 
 run away, they are required to return. This is 
 clearly the teaching of the Bible, from the flict 
 that the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, when 
 she fled from her mistress, " Return to thy mis- 
 tress, and submit thyself under her hands." 
 (Gen. xvi, 9.) And Paul sent Onesimus back to 
 Philamon. (See his Epistle to Philamon.) We 
 learn another fact, incidentally, from tlie history 
 we have here recorded. [1 Sam. xxx.] That is, 
 it was customary for the Amalekites to own 
 slaves. The Amalekites were descendants of 
 Esau, one of the sons of Isaac, from the stock 
 of Shem, [see Gen. xxxvi, lo] and this servant 
 was an Egyptian, of ihe stock of Ham, thus 
 showing that it was the custom of the children of 
 Shem and Japheth to take their servants from 
 the descendants of Ham, or the black race. 
 
 There is still another proof that slavery was 
 not treated as a sin in itself] derived from the 
 inoral law. Now, it is admitted by all who re- 
 ceive the Bible, that the law called the ten com- 
 mandments is moral J that it is not temporary in 
 
112 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 
 
 its provisions, but it is binding on all men in all 
 ao'cs and under all circumstances. This is ad- 
 mitted with one single exception: that is, so 
 much of the fourth commandment as relates to 
 the particular day which is to be observed as 
 the Sabbath. It enjoins the seventh day as the 
 one to be observed, wdiereas most of the 
 Christian w^orld observes the first day of the 
 week as the Christian Sabbath, Still, all admit 
 the tnoTcdhj binding nature of the injunction, or 
 law, to observe one-seventh of our tune as a 
 day holy to God. The tenth commandment 
 certainly recognizes the relation of master and 
 slave when it forbids us to covet the man-ser- 
 vant or maid-servant of our neighbor. "Thou 
 shalt not covet thy neighbor's house ; thou shalt 
 not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-ser- 
 vant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his 
 ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." [Exo- 
 dus XX, 17.] Covetousness and possession, or 
 ownership, are correlative or corresponding 
 ideas. Dr. D wight, (Theology, vol iii, p. 526) 
 defines the covetousness w^hich is here forbidden 
 to be, " the propensity forbidden in it is covet- 
 ousness — an inordinate desire of worldly en- 
 joyments; and, particularly, an inordinate desire 
 of such enjoyments when in the possession of 
 
OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 113 
 
 others." It is impossible for me to covet or de- 
 sire my nei'^'iroor's wife unless he has one; so I 
 cannot inordinately desire to enjoy ray neigh- 
 bor's house unless he has or owns a house. I 
 cannot covet a rented house; it is not the renter's 
 property; if I covet the house, I covet it as the 
 property of the owner. On the same principle 
 I cannot properly covet a hired servant. It 
 appears that possession, or ownership, and cov- 
 etousness go together. Why, then, we ask, 
 was this incorporated into the moral code, and 
 property in slaves recognized by Jehovah, if the 
 relation is essentially and morally wrong in it- 
 self? Such seems, to us, to be the teachings of 
 the Old Testament on this vexed question. But 
 the objector comes in with the plea tliat some 
 things were allowed by Jehovah under the Jew- 
 ish dispensation, which are prohibited under the 
 Christian, or New Testament. Among these 
 things which were allowed, but now forbidden 
 in the New Testament, are polygamy and 
 slavery. Let us then examine into these two 
 things, and see wherein they were alike and 
 wherein they differ. 
 
J. 14 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 AN" EXVIIINATION" OP POLY'GAWY AND SLAVERY IX THE 
 LIGFIT OP TEE BlliLB. ARE THEY TREATED ALIKE BY 
 THE BIBLE? 
 
 The importance of this subject must be ap- 
 parent to every one who has informed himself 
 on the vexed question of shivery. The oppo- 
 nents of shivery have classed the two things to- 
 er^ther — have characterized thein as the two 
 "plague spots of our national character." If 
 they are alike — if they were both connived at 
 under the Jewish and Patriarchal dispensations, 
 and both condemned under the New Testament 
 dispensation — then the conclusion that slavery 
 should be abandoned as a sin in itself, is irresist- 
 able ; and, in this view of the matter, every 
 Christian, who now owns slaves, should free 
 them immediately. It will be our aim, in the 
 present chapter, to examine the validity of this 
 position. We have already shown, in the last 
 chapter, that the inspired writers of the Old 
 Testament did not condemn slavery as a sin in 
 itself; so far from doing this, the law, on the 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAYERY. 115 
 
 contrary, laid doxYii regulations by which the 
 iTiattor ^Yas to be treated — recognized the rela- 
 tion as la\Yfid and right, and even authorized 
 the Jews to purchase, hold, and entail them as 
 an "inheritance" on their children. The law 
 recognized them ^i'^, property ; for, when a man 
 smote his servant or his maid with a rod, and 
 he died under his hand, the master was to be 
 punished ; notwithstanding, if immediate death 
 did not follow, and the servant lingered for a 
 day or two, the master was not liable to be pun- 
 ished, and the reason given in the law is the 
 truism that he is his master's property. " For 
 he is his money." (Exodus xxi, 22.) Such, 
 then, was the treatment of slavery by the law 
 of Moses. 
 
 The question then arises — Did the writers of 
 the Old Testament treat ])olygamy as a sin in 
 itself? Was it forbidden by any direct law on 
 the subject? A considerable number of theo- 
 logical writers have labored to show that it was 
 expressly prohibited in the Old Testament, and 
 at the sauTc time admit that Abraham, " the 
 friend of God," "the father of the foithful," 
 David, " the man after God's own heart," and 
 Solomon, " the wisest man," were polygamists. 
 In sustaining this view of the matter all kinds 
 
^16 POLYGAMY AND SLATERY. 
 
 of twisting and screwing liav^e been employed 
 to torture the Scriptures and make them sus- 
 tain the contradictory opinions that the Bible 
 forbids the practice, and, at the same time, the 
 best of men is indulged in it without reproof. 
 The real truth of the matter seems to be that it 
 was recognized in the law and regulated, and 
 not forbidden, for the main passage on which the 
 advocates of the theory we are combatting rely, 
 seems, after all, from its reading, the context and 
 the authorised translation, to be simply a regu- 
 lation of one feature of the subject. The pas- 
 sage is Levit. xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou 
 take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover 
 her nakedness besides the other in lier life- 
 time." The marginal reading of the phrase, " a 
 wife to her sister," is " one wife to another." 
 The textual reading gives the true reading and 
 the proper sense ; and, if it have any meaning 
 at all, it means that a man was not allowed to 
 marry two sisters at the same time. The poly- 
 gamist might have more than one wife, but he 
 w\as not allowed to take but one from the same 
 family at the sa77ie time. This appears to be 
 the natural and plain interj)retation of the pas- 
 sage. The reason of the prohibition is, it would 
 vex the other. The limitation is the life-time. 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 117 
 
 Some of the best expositors give tliis interpret- 
 ation of tlie passage, and we hope to make the 
 whole matter pLaiu before we conchide. In or- 
 der, then, that we may have a clear Adew of the 
 whole matter, we must not confound the laws of 
 God as being founded precisely on the same 
 thing ; hence all intelligent writers find that 
 there must be distinctions made, and the laws 
 of the Bible must, like other statutes, be classi- 
 fied under their proper heads. They, then, 
 generally make the three following distinctions, 
 viz: 
 
 First Class. — Such as were temporary and 
 local. To this class belong all the ceremonial 
 laws — "a system of positive precepts respecting 
 the external worship of God in the Old Testa- 
 ment church — chiefly designed to typify Christ 
 as then to come and to lead them (the Jews) to 
 the knowledge of the way of salvation tlirough 
 him." [Hebrews x, 1.] They principally re- 
 spected sacred persons, places and things, the 
 oflering of sacrifices, the appointment of the 
 Aaronic priesthood, and Jerusalem as the place 
 only where sacrifices could be acceptably offered 
 to Jehovah. These were intended to be iu 
 force till the advent of Christ. Tliey were 
 obligatory on the Jews till tliat period. Having 
 
118 POLYGAMY AND SLAYERY. 
 
 subsei-Yed the purpose of their temporary and 
 local enactment, tliey are repealed and ceased 
 at the death of Christ to be binding on the 
 Jews or any other nation receiyinGf the Bible as 
 the revealed will of God. Under this head may 
 be classed some of the judicial laws of the 
 Jewish nation, as they were a nation separate 
 and distinct from all others: of this kind were 
 those wdiicli concerned the redemption of their 
 mortgaged estates — [Levit. xxv, 13;] the rest- 
 ing of their land every seventh year — [Exodus 
 xxiii, 11;] the appointment of the cities of 
 refuge for the manslayer — [N umbers xxxv, 13;] 
 the appearing of their males before the Lord at 
 Jerusalem three times in the yeai* — [Dent, xvi, 
 16;] and laws of a similar nature. Some of the 
 judicial laws of the Jews are founded in the 
 law of nature; that is, they are founded on the 
 principles of perpetual equity, common to all 
 nations, and are still of binding force. The 
 best laws of civilized or Christian nations are 
 founded on the same general principles of those 
 of the Mosaic economy. 
 
 Secoxd Class. — To this belong such laws as 
 are called natural moral laws. The term moral, 
 when applied to the law of God by theologians 
 and moral philosophers, means that which is 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 119 
 
 perpetually binding, in oi)position to that which 
 is only binding for a time. The Decalogue, or 
 Ten Coniniandnients, are generally ranged un- 
 der the natural moral laws of God ; they grow 
 out of the very nature of God and man, and 
 their relations to each other. So long as God 
 remains God and man remains His rational and 
 responsible creature, these laws will be the rule 
 of duty to man. We cannot conceive of the 
 time or the place where it would not be the duty 
 of men to reverence and love God. Idolatry 
 can never be right so long as Jehovah remains 
 the Ruler of the World, as it is rebellion against 
 Him and treason against heaven. The consent 
 of tlie parties engaged in the crime of adultery, 
 theft or lying can never make such things right. 
 All the laws of the Decalogue are moral natu- 
 ral^ unless it be thai portion of the fourth com- 
 mandment which relates to the day of the week 
 which is to be observed as the Sabbath. It re- 
 quires the seventh day to be kept holy, whereas 
 the large majority of Christendom observe the 
 first day as the Sabbath or day of rest. Still 
 this does not invalidate the position that one- 
 seventJi of our time is to be set apart for reli- 
 gious purposes. The obligation of moral 7ia- 
 tural laws is derived or grows out of the very 
 
120 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 nature of things — the existence of God, his sov- 
 ereignty over his creatures, and the existence 
 of man as a rational, moral and responsible be- 
 ing of Jehovah. Then unless God's nature is 
 changed, or he absolves man from his allegiance 
 and responsibility to Him, the moral law of the 
 ten commandments is binding on all men of all 
 ao'es and nations, at all times and under all cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 Thirdly. — There is still another class of 
 moral la^v s. These are technically called^>os/?/i'6 
 moral laws. The reason why they are called 
 positive^ and thus distinguished from natural 
 TYioral laws, is, they do not derive their author- 
 ity from the nature of things, but solely from 
 the explicit comynand of God. The intermar- 
 riage of near relatives in the early ages of the 
 world's history, is ranked or classified under 
 this head. Thus in the family of Adam, broth- 
 ers and sisters must have intermarried with 
 each other. The practice existed after the flood, 
 for we find from Genesis xx, 12, that Sarah, the 
 wife of Abraham, was his half-sister. Abime- 
 lech asked Abraham why he denied that Sarah 
 was his wife, and said that she was his sister. In 
 justification of his conduct, and attempting to 
 excuse the deception he had practiced on Abim- 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 121 
 
 elech, Abraham replied, "Indeed slie is my sis- 
 er ; she is the daugljter of my father, but not 
 the daughter of my mother, and she became my 
 wife." This connexion mnst have been lawful, 
 and hence there could be no natural immorality 
 in such connexions, or God would never have 
 suffered such a thing to exist, but would have 
 forbidden it as he did idolatry, profaneness or 
 adultery. Such connexions are now unlawful, 
 for God has expressly forbidden the intermar- 
 riage of those who are "near of kin" to each 
 other. [See Leviticus xviii: 6-17.] The very 
 relation in which Abraham stood to Sarah be- 
 fore their marriage is specified in the 9th verse 
 as an unlawful connexion. The nakedness of 
 thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the 
 daughter of thy mother, whetlier she be born 
 at home or born abroad, even their nakedness 
 thou shalt not uncover. To marry any of the 
 connexions mentioned in Leviticus, at this time, 
 is a violation of a law called positive moral. 
 
 \\\ all ages, among civilized, or, rather. Chris- 
 tian nations, the law recorded in the 18th chap- 
 ter of Leviticus, is the foundation of all leofisla- 
 tion regulating the marriage of near kindred. 
 They treat the marriage of those who ;^?arry 
 within the degrees here forbidden, as illegal and 
 
 K 
 
122 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 incestuous. This distinction of tlic laws of God, 
 where tliere is a real difference, is necessary in 
 order to prevent confusion. All distinguished 
 theologians which we have consulted, make the 
 same distinction. Fisher, a Scotch divine, in 
 his explanation of the Shorter Catechism, 2:>art 
 2d, pages 9-21, lays down this point clearly. 
 Dr. Dick, another Scotch divine, has written a 
 number of lectures on theology. It is a stand- 
 ard work. He maintains the same opinion in 
 "Lecture 102, on the Law^ of God." Dr. Ash- 
 bel Green (Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, 
 vol. 1, ])p. 251-2) makes the following remarks 
 on the subject, viz: 
 
 "The laws of God, for the government of 
 men, have some of them been temporary and 
 local, and some of perpetual obligation. The 
 ceremonial and judicial laws of the Jews were, 
 during the continuance of the Mosaic economy, 
 perfectly obligatory on that people — as much so 
 as the precepts of the decalogue. But they were 
 local and temporary. They never w^ere binding 
 on any other people beside the Jews; and not 
 bindinir on them after the advent of the Mes- 
 siah. They were given for a particular purpose; 
 that purpose has been accomplished, and the 
 divine legislator who enacted has repealed them,, 
 and they are no longer laws.. 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 123 
 
 "Bat there are other laws of God, which are 
 of perpetual and universal obligation. These 
 are called moral laws. But here again there is 
 a distinction which deserves to be noticed. 
 Some of these laws are technically denominated 
 moral natural and others moral jxjsit ire. Laws 
 naturally moral are those which seem to derive 
 their obligation from the very nature of things, 
 inasmuch as you cannot conceive that they 
 should be obligatory, while the relations exist 
 to which they refer. Thus you cannot conceive 
 that a rational and moral being should exist and 
 not be under oblis^ation to reverence his crea- 
 tor; you cannot conceive that it should be law- 
 ful for such a creature to disregard and revile 
 the infinitely great and good author of his 
 being. 
 
 "On the other hand, laws positively moral 
 derive their obligation not from the nature of 
 things, but solely from the exj^licit command of 
 God. Thus the intermarriage of brothers and 
 sisters must once have been lawful ; and if so, 
 there is no natural immorality in such a connex- 
 ion. But this connexion has been forbidden by 
 God from a very early period of the world, and 
 is therefore now a violation of a law called moral 
 positive,'''* 
 
124 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 There is no evidence in the Bible that such 
 marriages were expressly forbidden until the 
 law was given by Moses. These principles seem 
 to be sound ; the position is correct ; the dis- 
 tinction of laws clear. The intermarriage of 
 near relations is understood not to have been 
 unlawful — not naturally immoral — but is now 
 positively immoral because God has forbidden 
 such marriages. This appears to us to be cor- 
 rect doctrine in accordance with the facts of the 
 case. Now, on the same principle, we contend 
 that polygamy is a similar case. There is no 
 natural immorality in such a connection, or God 
 would not have suifered such pious men as 
 Abraham, David and Solomon to fall into such 
 enormities, and live in them without rebuke or 
 censure. He jrebuked David for his adultery 
 and the murder of Uriah, by the prophet Na- 
 than, and pronounced the punishment of the 
 crimes of murder and adultery against him. 
 "The sword shall never depart from thy house." 
 [2d Sam., ch. 11 and 12.] The law treated it as 
 adultery in this case because Uriah was still liv- 
 ing when the crime was committed ; but there 
 is not one word of rej^roof against David when 
 Nabal, the Carmelite, was dead, and he took 
 Abigal for his wife, in addition to " Ahiuoam, 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 125 
 
 the Jezerelitess." Yet, if polygamy was forbid- 
 den, it would have been adultery in that case, as 
 well as in that of Bath-sheba. It was regulated 
 in one feature as we have shown. [See Levit. 
 xviii, 15.] "There is no natural immorality in 
 such a connection." But, this connection has 
 been forbidden in the New Testament, and is, 
 therefore, now, a viohition of a law called moral 
 positive. This view of the matter seems to re- 
 lieve the whole subject of many of the great 
 difficulties, with which it is surrounded, on the 
 supposition that it was prohilited under the 
 former dispensation. The view we have taken 
 of it is in accordance with the facts of the case. 
 We will here introduce the testimony of Dr. 
 Dick, to whose lectures on theology we have 
 alreadv referred. He makes the followinp' re- 
 marks on the subject of polygamy. [Lecture 
 105 — commentary on the seventh command- 
 ment.] "As only a single pair was created, it 
 appears to have been the intention of their 
 Maker that a man should have only one wife, 
 and a wife only one husbaiid. In this manner 
 Malachi explains the fact when he says, 'And 
 did he not make one?' — namely, one woman — 
 'yet he had the residue of the Spirit.' 'And 
 wherefore one? That he might seek a Godly 
 
126 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 seed.' [Mai. ii, 15.] Yet, we know that poly- 
 gamy was introduced at an early period, that it 
 was practised by the patriarchs and other pious 
 men, and that it was recognized by the law of 
 Moses, and subjected to regulation. If it was 
 not properly approved, it was tolerated, and we 
 must conclude that at that period there was not 
 such moral evil in it, if it was at all sinful, as 
 was inconsistent with a state of salvation. The 
 case is finally decided by our Saviour, who has 
 forbidden polygamy. It now admits of no 
 apology; and if a man, professing to be a 
 Christian, should take to himself more wives 
 than one, he would not only incur the penalty 
 of human laws, but expose himself to the dis- 
 pleasure of Heaven." 
 
 From this extract it will be seen that Dr. 
 Dick had some doubts about the sinfulness of 
 the practice, for the law of Moses regulated^ 
 but did not expressly forbid it. The Patriarchs 
 and other pious men practised it without re- 
 buke. If we then view it in the same light with 
 the intermarriage of near relations, there is 
 nothing naturally immoral in such connec- 
 tion ; but such connections are now forbidden, 
 and are consequently a violation of a moral 
 positive law. If we take this view of the sub- 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 127 
 
 ject of polygiiiiiy, all tilings are plain ; but take 
 the crround that the connection was in itself 
 sinful, and the Bible is a mass of contradictions 
 — prohibiting a tiling that is sinful in itself, yet 
 never uttering one word of censure against the 
 j^ractice. It will be said, in reply to this view 
 of the subject, that good men often committed 
 sin, and we are not, therefore, to follow their 
 example. Thus Noah was a good man — the 
 only righteous man before God in liis genera- 
 tion — and still he was drunk; we might, there- 
 fore, argue from this that drunkenness was no 
 sin. Abraham sacriiiced the truth by saying 
 that Sarah was his sister instead of his vyife, 
 and, therefore, we might argue that lying was 
 110 sin. David was guilty of adultery and mur- 
 der, but he was " a man after God's own heart ;'' 
 therefore, there is no sin in such things. We 
 have stated these things in their full latitude 
 because they are often brought forward by the 
 opponents of slavery to show that it, although 
 practised by the patriarchs and pious men of 
 old, is a sin, and adduce the examples which we 
 have already stated as parallel cases. Now the 
 question is — are they parallel ? Do the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament class slavery with 
 drunkenness, lying, murder and adultery V Are 
 
128 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 not these last treated and condemned as sin, 
 while the other is authorised and laws laid down 
 for the government of tlie master and slave ? 
 This is the correct statement of the whole mat- 
 ter. We have shown that slavery was not con- 
 demned by the writers of the Old Testament. 
 We will now show that lying, drunkenness, 
 murder and adultery were all expressly con- 
 demned ; that these sins of good men, such as 
 Noah, Solomon, and David, were written for 
 our loarning^ and not for our imitation. The 
 sixth, seventh and ninth commandments con- 
 demn these sins ; of course, we do not say that 
 they were, or are, unpardonable, but they re- 
 quire deep penitence and humiliation, and such 
 is the recorded fact about David. The fifty-first 
 Psalm was written after the commission of his 
 crime, and is usually called a penitential Psalm. 
 This is plain from the title of the Psalm : '' A 
 Psalm of David, when Nathan, the prophet, 
 came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath- 
 sheba." "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, 
 according to thy loving kindness; according 
 unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot 
 out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly 
 from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin, 
 for I acknowledge my transgressions, and my 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 129 
 
 sin is ever before me. Against thee only liave 
 I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.'' 
 [Psahn li, 1-4.] There was evidently a wide 
 difterenee in the case of his taking " Abigail, the 
 Carmelitess," when Kabal, her husband, was 
 dead, in addition to "Aliinoani, the Jezerelitess," 
 and his taking Bath-sheba. In the one case there 
 was no reproof given ; in the other he was 
 charged with the crimes of adultery and mur- 
 der. This shows conclusively that polygamy 
 was not treated as adultery under the Old Tes- 
 tament dispensation. By the law of Moses a 
 drunkard was to be stoned to death. [Deut. 
 xxi, 20, 21] "If the parents shall say to the 
 elders of the city, This, our son, is stubborn and 
 rebellious, he is a glutton and ?. drunkard, and 
 all the men of his city shall stone him with 
 stones that he die." [8ee also Proverbs xxiii, 
 29, 30.] " Woe unto them that rise up early in 
 the morning that they may follow strong drink, 
 that continue until night till wine inflame them," 
 [Isaiah v, 11.] Besides all this, the apostle [1st 
 Corinthians vi, 10] says expressly : "Drunkards 
 shall not inhei'it the Kingdom of God." In 
 Gal. V, 19-21, the same thing is said. We, 
 of course, understand these passages as teaching 
 that the habitual drunkard is excluded from 
 
130 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 Heaven. A man may be overtaken in sin, re- 
 pent, reform and obtain forgiveness; but so 
 long as a man continues a drunkard he is ex- 
 cluded from the happiness of the blessed. 
 Murder is expressly forbidden in the sixth com- 
 mandment ; lying is prohibited in the ninth. 
 Moreover, there was an express law forbidding 
 falsehood. " Ye shall not steal, neither deal 
 falsely, neither lie one to another." [Levit. xix, 
 11.] "All liars shall have their portion in the 
 lake that burnetii with fire and brimstone." 
 [Rev. xxi, 8.] "There shall in no wise enter 
 into Heaven anything that defileth, or worketh 
 abomination, or that maketh a lie." [See verse 
 22, same chapter.] After this examination of 
 the matter, then, who dare say that slavery is 
 classed in the Scriptures with drunkenness, ly- 
 ing, murder and adultery ? Do you dare say 
 that God approvtd the sins of good men ? We 
 have been thus full on these points, as this is a 
 favorite theme for the soj^hist and disturber of the 
 peace of communities to dwell on. We have at 
 tempted to show that there is no parallel between 
 the two cases compared. But, it is assumed that 
 slavery is a sin in itself] then, it is classed with 
 sins which are acknowledged by all to be con- 
 demned. The premises are false — at least one 
 
POLYGAMY AXD SLAVERY. 131 
 
 brancli of the premises — and, of eourse, tlie 
 conclusion is e([ual]y false. 
 
 It only remains now for ns to show that poly- 
 gamy is prohibited in the New Testament. 
 The passage in which it is understood that po- 
 lygamy is forbidden is found in Matthew xix, 
 3-9, inclusive. The Pharisees proposed a ques- 
 tion to Christ for the ])urj)ose of entangling 
 him — to render him obnoxious to the Jews by 
 getting him to decide against the law of Moses. 
 "Is it lawful for a man to })ut away his wife for 
 every 'cause?'" The immediate point which 
 they wished Him to decide was the lawfulness 
 or unlawfulness of divorce. This He settled by 
 referring to tlie original institution of marriage,, 
 that at the beginning God created them male 
 and female. " And said, for this cause shall a 
 man leave father and mother, and shall cleave 
 unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh;: 
 wherefore, they are no more twain, but one 
 flesh. Wliat, therefore, God hath joined to- 
 other, let no man put asunder.-"' They under- 
 stood that by this construction He condemned 
 the provision of the Mosaic law, which allowed 
 them to divorce or put away their wives. 
 They, therefore, ask Him, "Why did Moses 
 then command to o,ive a writinu' of divorcement. 
 
132 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 an<l to put lieraway?" He replies — "Moses^ 
 because of the hardness of your hearts, suiFered 
 you to put away your wives ; but from the be- 
 o-inuino: it was not so." The folio wino" verse 
 (9th) contains the prohibition of polygamy. 
 " Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be 
 for fornication, and shall marry another, com- 
 raitteth adultery ; and whoso marrieth her which 
 is put away doth commit adultery." Whoever, 
 therefore, shall put away his wife, except for the 
 reason or for the commission of the crime of 
 fornication, and shall marry another, is an adul- 
 terer, because his former wife is still living. He 
 would not be guilty of adultery if polygamy 
 were still innocent, for this state of things al- 
 ways contemplates the existence ©f two or more 
 wives at the same time. 
 
 Christ, then, by this inter23retation, or authori- 
 tative decision, has made polygamy a state of 
 continued adultery. All that is necessary to 
 constitute a man a polygamist, according to this 
 decision, is, that he put away his wife without 
 just cause — that she be living at the time of his 
 second marriage. Neither is it necessary that 
 the parties should be living together, for the 
 man that marries the woman who is thus put 
 away, commits adultery because her former 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 133 
 
 liiisbaDd is still living. This is, obviously, the 
 meaning of the ninth verse. There are two- 
 causes in the New Testament for which a man 
 may, lawfully, demand and obtain a divorce ^' 
 that is, infidelity on the part of the wife, or 
 adultery. Tlie woman lias the same right where 
 her husband is uniaitliful, or is guilty of adul- 
 tery. The other cause of divorce is the wilful 
 desertion of either of the parties. " If the un- 
 believing depart, let him depart. A brother or 
 a sister is not under bondage in such cases. 
 But God hath called us to peace." [1st Cor. 
 vii, 15.] For either of these two causes a man 
 may obtain a divorce from his wife, or a woman 
 from her husband, and the innocent party marry 
 the second time and not be guilty of adultery, 
 although the other party may be still living. 
 Dr. Dwight gives, substantially, the same inter- 
 pretation of Matthew xix, 3-9. He says, "J^o- 
 lygcuny is forhlddtn in (this) tJie te,rt. Here, 
 the man Avho puts away his wife, and marries 
 another, is declared to commit adultery. In 
 what does this adultery consist ? Certainly not 
 in putting away the former wife. A man may, 
 obviously, leave his wife, or a woman her hus- 
 band, and yet neither of them be at all guilty 
 of this sin. T/ie adultery^ then, consists in the 
 
134 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 
 
 fact that the man marries a second wlfe^ while 
 the first is living. But, this is always done in 
 polygamy. Polygamy is, therefore, a continued 
 state of adultery. [Theology, vol. 3, p. 420.] 
 Wlierevor the subject of marriage is spoken of, 
 either as a doctrine or precept, there is no inti- 
 mation that marriage is to be between more 
 than one man and one woman at the same time. 
 The terms hushaiid and loife are always used 
 by the writers of the lN"ew Testament — not 
 husbands and wives — in the singidar^ and not 
 in the plural number, when the subject of mar- 
 riage is under discussion. "It is good for a 
 man not to touch a woman ; nevertheless, to 
 avoid fornication, let every man have his own 
 wife^ and let every w^oman have her own hus- 
 hand.''"' [1st Cor. vii, 1-5.] The qualification 
 of a bishop is that he " must be blameless — the 
 husband of one ynfey [1st Tim. iii, 1-7.] 
 There is, then, this distinction made between 
 the matter of polygamy under the Old and New 
 dispensations : under the New Testament it is 
 shown and declared by Christ to be adultery^ 
 and therefore wrong ; under the Old Testament 
 dispensation, polygamy was not treated as adul- 
 tery, for God did not reprove David for taking 
 Abigail, the former wife of Nabal, when he was 
 
POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 135 
 
 dead, altlioiigli he then had Ahinoam. [Sec 
 1st Samuel xxv, 43, and 2d Samuel iii, 2.] But 
 when he had committed sin with Bath-sheba 
 the wife of Uriah, he was reproved by Nathan, 
 the prophet, under the direction and immediate 
 instruction of Jehovah. The sin was not in his 
 taking Bath-sheba — for he then had two wives 
 — but his first defiling her, and then securing 
 the death of her husband. "Xow, therefore,'- 
 says Nathan, "the sword shall never depart 
 from thine house because thou hast despised 
 me and taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to 
 thy wife." [2d Samuel xii, 10.] If polygamy 
 had been treated as adultery, David would have 
 been guilty of the crime hefure he took Bath- 
 sheba, for he then had two wives at least. But 
 polygamy is now forbidden by Christ ; and to 
 take more wives than one at the siune time is a 
 violation of ajmsitive moral law. 
 
 In concluding this chapter, then, we will 
 make a remark or two of some practical impor- 
 tance. It is wrong and contrary to the whole 
 spirit of the Bible to attempt to excuse, or pal- 
 liate, our sin on the ground that another person 
 is guilty of a different kind of sin. Thus many 
 have attempted to justify slavery on the ground 
 that those who oppose it are guilty of great 
 
136 POLYG A M Y A N D SL AY ER Y . 
 
 sins tlieraselYes. If I get drunk it is no excuse, 
 or palliation of ray sins, that my neighbor is 
 guilty of fraud, or theft. His theft does not 
 make ray drunkenness right. If the anti-slaYery 
 man, at the North, refuses to glYe of his means 
 to aid, substantially, the poor at his own door, 
 but spends his sympathy on a class of men who 
 happen to be the bond-serYants of Southern 
 men, that does not make the system of domestic 
 slavery right. It must be established on better 
 grounds than this. We, then, design to meet 
 the question fairly; and, hence, we will by no 
 means substitute a^juse for argumeid. Still, we 
 AYould be prepared to give better advice to 
 others, if we were free from sin ourselves. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 137 
 
 CHAPTER YII. 
 
 DOES THE XEVV- TESTAMENT CONDEMN SLAVERY ASA SIN 
 IN ITSELF? 
 
 We have shown, in a former cliapter, (olh) 
 that sLiveiy was recognized and regulated — nay, 
 that the Jews were authorized to buy shaves of 
 the heathen round about them, and of the stran- 
 gers who sojourned among them; that they were 
 allowed, or authorized, to hold them as a pos- 
 session to tlicmselves and entail them as an in- 
 heritance on their children. The la^Y recoo-. 
 nized them as property, and gave them power 
 to sell them. This is taken for granted; for 
 the man who had purchased a maid, either as a 
 wife for himself, or son, and afterwards changed 
 his mind, he was expressly forbidden to sell her, 
 or to make merchandize of her, "because he 
 had humbled her." "To sell her to a strange 
 nation he shall have no power, seeing that he 
 hath dealt deceitfully with her." [Exodus xxi 
 8.] We have shown that divorce was permitted 
 by the law of Moses. But Christ has shown 
 I* 
 
138 TilE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 and decided that, unless it is done for fornica- 
 tion, or willful desertion, it is sinful, and those 
 who divorce their wives for any other cause are 
 adulterers, and that the man who marries a 
 divorced woman "doth commit adultery." 
 [Matthew xix, 9.] Polygamy was not treated 
 as sinful under the former dispensation, for a 
 woman who was divorced for any cause might 
 become the wife of another man. " Let him 
 write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in 
 her hand, and send her out of his house; and 
 when she is departed out of his house, she may 
 go and be another man's wife."" [See Deut. 
 xxiv, 1— i.] She was not considered an adul- 
 teress, nor the man who married her who "had 
 been put away" did not commit adultery, al- 
 though her former husband was still living. 
 Polygamy, then, under the Xew Testament, is 
 treated as perpetual or contemned adultery by 
 the teaching of Christ, as Ave showed in the last 
 chapter. The law of Moses did not expressly 
 authorize a man to take more than one wife, 
 but it did authorize the Hebrews to buy bond- 
 men and bond-maids. These thinars should be 
 kept in mind by the reader. 
 
 The question, then, comes up, Is slavery 
 forbidden By the teaching of Christ and his in- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 139 
 
 spired apostles? If they did not forbid men to 
 hold slaves, but I'ecognized the relation as law- 
 ful, then the question is forever settled, as it is 
 acknowledged by all, who reeognize the Bible as 
 the will of God, as the rule of faith and prac- 
 tice, that "the New Testament was not given, 
 Hike the Mosaic law, to one people, but to the 
 whole race; not for one period, but for all time. 
 If, therefore, it tolerates slavery really and 
 truly — ii' this is the doctrine of our Saviour, it 
 justifies this institution to all men." [Way- 
 land's Letters on Slavery, p. 78.] We have 
 •quoted this passage to show the views of the 
 ■opponents of the system of slavery. The writer 
 ;admits that if the Xew Testament tolerates 
 slavery — if this is the doctrine of the Saviour, 
 it justifies slavery to all men. Well, then, we 
 are no^v fairly at the point where comes the tug 
 of war. Here is our last refuge, according to 
 the opponents of slavery. We accept the con- 
 dition, and if we are driven from this strong- 
 hold, we must surrender. This we will do 
 only wdien we find that we can no longer main- 
 tain the contest, or when continued resistance 
 would be madness or folly. 
 
 If w^e understand Dr. Wayland in his Letters 
 »on Slavery and his Moral Science, he does not 
 
140 T"E NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 pretend that Christ, or liis ajiostles, liave ex- 
 pressly forbidden slavery in so many words as 
 they did lying, stealing, drunkenness, murder, 
 fornication, adultery, licentiousness, idolatry 
 and covetousness, but that they have laid down 
 certain principles which virtually abolish slavery. 
 If we are not mistaken, this is the position of 
 men wlio receive and reverence the Bible, and 
 are willing to abide by its teachings, but are 
 opposed to the system of domestic slavery. As 
 this is their position, and as Dr. Wayland's 
 '^' Moral Science" is adopted as a text book on 
 the subject of morals in many of our colleges, 
 and as many of our children will read his chap- 
 ter on the "modes in wliich personal liberty may 
 be violated," it seems that we should notice his 
 arguments, if they deserve to be dignified by 
 that name, and remove them out of the way, 
 and then we will be better prepared to examine 
 and appreciate the teachings of Christ and his 
 apostles on the subject. We had not intended 
 to have noticed these things ; but, for the rea- 
 sons already stated, probably, many would be 
 disposed to think that the Doctor's arguments 
 are unanswerable, and that we, therefore, had 
 -dodged them. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 141 
 
 We will now address ourselves to these 
 positions, and attempt to show that they are 
 contrary to the teachings of the Bible, and 
 that liis interpretation of the New Testament 
 makes it contradict and virtually set aside other 
 2)oi-tions of itself. 
 
 A favoi'ite argument with the oi)ponents of 
 slavery may be stated as follows, viz : " It is 
 contrary to the law of nature — it is a violation 
 of the plainest dictates of natural justice. That 
 'all men are created equal, that they are en- 
 dowed by their Creator with certain inalien- 
 able rights ; that among these are life, liberty 
 and the pursuit of happiness.' " This, we be- 
 lieve, is a fail- statement of the argument. 
 What is meant by " the law of nature," we are 
 not sure that we distinctly understand. If by 
 the "law of nature" is meant a state of thino-s 
 unrestrained by the laws of civilized society, 
 then a state of nature, or the law or rule by 
 which thino's are manaojed in such a condition is, 
 that mUjht constitutes rights and the strongest 
 has the dominion — the weak being subjected to 
 the will of the stronij^. This is so in sava^re 
 countries. Slavery, instead of beino: contrarv 
 to such a state, or condition, is one of its ele- 
 ments ; if it does not exist in foinn^ it does in 
 
142 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 reality. So that it is in accordance with a na- 
 tural state ; that is, in a place where the laws 
 of civilization and Christianity are unknown. 
 There is no such thing as true liberty in what is 
 generally called a state of nature. If it is 
 meant by "the law of nature " that there is some- 
 thing in the nature of God and man, and the 
 relation which man sustains to God, that con- 
 demns slavery, then the position is equally false. 
 We are persuaded that the idea is that "all men 
 are created equal^'''' not in mental or physical 
 ability, but all have an equal right by the law 
 of creation to use or enjoy tlie means of happi- 
 ness as they may choose, mirestrained by the 
 will or authority of any creature. This is cer- 
 tainly the meaning that Dr. Wayland attaches 
 to the first sentence of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. [Moral Science p. 207.] If, then, 
 as he would have it, every restraint of society on 
 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is 
 wrong, a man may take it into his head that his 
 happiness is best promoted by stealing rather 
 than working, and no one must say nay, for he 
 has the right to pursue his happiness as he will. 
 " The equality here spoken of is, in the right 
 to use them — the means of happiness — as he 
 will." The absurdity of such a doctrine as this 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 14 
 
 f> 
 
 needs only to be stated to be rejected. We 
 are considering tlie question of slavery in the 
 light of tlie Bible, not by the theories of men ; 
 we, therefore, join issue with the doctrine that 
 "all men are created equal." That such 'icas 
 the case at the begiiniing, before the entrance 
 of sin, no one disputes. That man, and woman 
 too, were created equal, we do not deny ; but 
 we contend that that equality has been de- 
 stroyed, or taken away by the express doing of 
 the Creator himself, and that it was taken away 
 as a punishment for sin. This we have shown 
 clearly in a former part of this work, and the 
 Bible recognizes this subordination of the wife 
 to her husband. " Wives, submit yourselves un- 
 to your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the 
 husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ 
 is the head of the church, and lie is the Sa- 
 vior of the body ; therefore, as the church is 
 subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their 
 own husbands in everything." [Eph. v, 22-24.] 
 "Likewise, ye wives, bo in subjection to your 
 own husbands." [1st Peter iii, 1.] " Wives, 
 submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as^ 
 it is fit, in the Lord." [Col. iii, 18.] Why, 
 then, is it fit that wives should submit them- 
 selves to their own husbands, when they were 
 
1 44 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 both created equal as to the rio-lit to rule 'i 
 Simply because sin has deranged the relations 
 of men ; simply because God has inflicted this 
 subjection on women as a punishment for sin. 
 Whatever, then, may have been the original 
 equality of men and the freedom of their per- 
 sons, God has taken away this freedom as a 
 pnnishinent of sin, and subjected the race of 
 Ham to the will of the other two great divis- 
 ions of the human family. "Cursed be Canaan: 
 a servant of servants shall he be unto his breth- 
 ren." [Gen. ix, 25-27.] 
 
 Xow, the only question is, does the Xew 
 Testament recognize this relation of master and 
 slave by enjoining obedience on the part of the 
 slave? \(q will quote at this time only one 
 or two passages on the subject, as the matter of 
 the mutual duties of masters and slaves will 
 come up hereafter. " Servants, be obedient to 
 them that are your masters according to the 
 flesh, with singleness of your heart, as unto 
 Christ." [Ephes. vi, 5.] " Servants, obey in 
 all things your masters according to the flesh; 
 not with eye service, as raen-pleasers." [Col.^ 
 ch. iii, 22-25.] These things show as clear as 
 anything that all men are not now born equal, 
 as to rank or place in society. " They are en_ 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 145 
 
 dowed by their Creator witli certain inalien- 
 able rights ; among these are Hfe, hberty and 
 the pursuit of happiness." By an "inalienable 
 vio-ht" we understand somethino' that cannot be 
 transferred to another, or taken by another, 
 witliout some injustice. Xo human power, 
 then, has the authority to take away an inalien- 
 able rio-ht. Whatever inalienable riu-ht all men 
 had before the Hood, Ave care not to say. 
 Whatever may have been the original equality 
 of men, and the consequent right to liberty, or 
 personal freedom, they all have not the same ina- 
 lienable right to liberty now. Xo human power 
 has the authority in itself to take away per- 
 sonal liberty, unless authorized by the Creator 
 who gave it. God, then, has taken away this 
 personal liberty of the descendants of Ham, 
 and given the authority to the descendants of 
 Shem and Japheth to hold Ham's posterity in 
 servitude. [Gen. ix, 25.] This dominion of 
 the white and yellow races over the black race 
 was given to them by Jehovah. God inflicted 
 slavery as a punishment of sin. This authority 
 was given before the Mosaic law to the Jews 
 was revealed. It was not a grant to the Jews, 
 but to all the descendants of Shem and Japheth, 
 and then it was not local or temporary. The 
 
146 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 recognition of slavery under the law, or Jewish 
 economy — the authority to bay slaves of the 
 heathen — was only to show the design and pur- 
 pose of God, that his word was in harmony 
 with his expressed purpose. So, that, if there 
 was not a single word said in the New Testa- 
 ment about the matter, there could be no sin in 
 slavery, unless God had withdrawn the grant 
 He had given to Shem and Japheth by Xoah ; 
 but, on the contrary, the New Testament har- 
 monizes with the teaclnngs of the Old Testa- 
 ment on the subject, and the only way to evade 
 this conclusion is to reject both as the will of 
 God to man. The slave has a right to his life. 
 No one can justly take it away without he is 
 guilty of crime, nor has he the right to destroy 
 his own life ; but, certainly, the law of Moses 
 made a difference between the slaying of a ser- 
 vant and that of a free ])erson. " If a man 
 smite his servant or his maid with a rod and he 
 die under his hand, he shall surely be punished," 
 It is not said, "he shall surely be put to death." 
 This phraseology seems to convey the idea that 
 the punishment, though sure, was to be in ac- 
 cordance with the circumstances which made 
 the crime more or less atrocious. This view of 
 the matter is favored by the follov\'ing verse 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 147 
 
 " Xot with standing, if he continue a day oi- two, 
 he shall not be punished, for he is Jtis money. '''' 
 [Ex. xxi, 20, 21.] It could not be supposed 
 that he intended to commit murder, and, as the 
 death of his slave vrould be a considerable loss, 
 so he was not to be punished if the slave lived 
 a day or two after the beating. In the case of 
 the manslaughter of a slave the master was not 
 to be molested, but enjoyed his liberty. On 
 the other hand, when one free person killed an- 
 other, he was to fly immediately to the city of 
 refuge ; he was to have a fair trial, and, if it 
 appeared that the murder was committed "una- 
 wares," or without "enmity," the slayer was to 
 be delivered out of the hand of the avenger of 
 blood, and returned to the city of refuge, 
 where he was to stay within the limits of the 
 city until the death of the priest who was living- 
 there when he entered. Man-slaying — that is. 
 killing a free person by one of the same class — 
 was thus punished by a life-time confinement ; 
 for, if the avenger of blood found the slayer 
 out of his bounds, he might kill him and not be 
 guilty of murder. [Num. xxxv.] 
 
 Thus have we examined this "law of nature" 
 argument, and find it full of Scriptural error. 
 Dr. \yayland professes great respect for the 
 
148 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 Bible, yet he sets the Bible aside and makes a 
 raau's own will the law by which he is to be 
 governed in the pursuit of happiness. " That 
 the equality here spoken of is not of the means 
 of hap})iness, l)nt in the rigid to use tliein as we 
 will is too evident to need illustration.'' [Moral 
 Science p. 207.] Tlie cmpliasis is our own, but 
 it shows the real gist of the declaration, and is 
 an error of great i)ractical magnitude in sound 
 morality. If men have a right to use the means 
 of happiness as they will, then they may pur- 
 sue any course, regardless of the laws of God 
 or man. All that a man has to do is to pursue 
 his own selfish purposes, for he may do anything 
 that his selfish nature may dictate — he has the 
 right to use the means of happiness as he will. 
 This is calculated to cultivate pride, anger, cru- 
 elty, selfishness and licentiousness. If this view 
 of the matter is correct, then every form of evil 
 and excess can be justified, for these are the 
 v'ery things which the depraved and sinful na- 
 ture of men will lead them to pursue. If men 
 wxn^e holy and sinless, then such things would 
 not be dangerous ; but, man being a sinner, 
 there is a necessity for a law to govern him 
 higher than his own depravity. If men were 
 holy, they would not desire to do anything 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 149 
 
 wrong; but, as it is, they must bo prevented by 
 law, and that from the most rigid authority — 
 from no less authority than that of the Creator 
 — from using the means of happiness in sueh a 
 way as to interfere with the lights and happi- 
 ness of others. 
 
 The argument the Doctor draws against 
 slavery from the disastrous eftect it has upon 
 the morals of both parties [page 209] is based 
 on the abuse of the system. All correct logi- 
 cians admit the abuse of a thing is no fair argu- 
 ment against it. On this principle of condenm- 
 ing a thing for the abuse of it, we might 
 contend that there was no suchthino-as g-enuine 
 religion because wicked men i)rofessing it have 
 used it for the gratitication of their own selfish 
 passions and lusts, and under its sacred name 
 have murdered thousands of their fellow crea- 
 tures. The abuses of slavery do not prove that 
 it is a sin in itself It must be shown from a 
 higher source than this ; we, tlierefore, dismiss 
 this argument. 
 
 The next argument, drawn from the effects of 
 slavery on national vealtk^ [p^gf" 210] is a mere 
 matter of expediency^ and proves nothing as to 
 the sin or innocence of the system. This is a 
 matter for those who are encjai^fed in the culti- 
 
150 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON BLAVEKY. 
 
 'vatioii 01 tlie soil to determine for themselves, 
 if men find that slave labor is cheaper than free 
 labor, they are at liberty to use that kind of la- 
 bor, if slave labor is not sinful ; so that this 
 question lies back of that of expediency. If 
 there is no more harm in employing one kind of 
 labor in preference to another, the question, 
 then, is simply one of expediency ; but, if slave- 
 ry is sinful in itself, then, of course, every man 
 that would be innocent will employ free labor. 
 The argument, then, does not touch the point 
 at issue. We dismiss this part of the Doctor's 
 argument, and take up those he draws from the 
 New Testament against slavery. 
 
 "The moral precepts of the Bible are diamet- 
 rically opposed to slavery. They are, 'Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor- as thyself; and all things 
 whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
 you, do ye even so to them.'" [Page 211.] 
 "The application of these precepts is universal." 
 " Our neighbor is every one lohoni ive may bene- 
 Jit,'''' We Avould like to ask the Doctor a few 
 plain questions about this matter. Who is not 
 my neighbor ? Is every one in the world my 
 neighbor ? Do you reply yes, I deny that you 
 are correct. Are my parents my neighbors ? 
 Is my wife, my clrildx my brother, my sister, 
 
ME NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 1 51 
 
 each one my neighbor? Every candid man 
 must say they are not. Neither is my servant 
 my neighbor; he is not my neighboi", he is simply 
 my servant, and my duty to him is not properly 
 embraced in the precept, " Thou shalt love thy 
 neighbor as tliyself." My parents are not my 
 neighbors, and ai-e not embraced in this precept, 
 for the separate command is "Plonor thy father 
 and thy mother." " Children, obey your pa- 
 rents in the Lord, for tliis is right." (Ephes. vi, 
 1, 2.) My child is not my neighbor in the sense 
 of this precept. " Ye fathers, provoke not your 
 children to wrath, but bring them up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." My 
 brother, or my sister — persons born of the same 
 parents — are not properly my neighbors within 
 the design of this precejjt, neither was it the 
 design of Christ so to teach in the parable of 
 the good Samaritan. (Luke x, 25-37.) He 
 has shown us that even a citizen of the same 
 nation is not a neighbor in the true sense of the 
 word when he fails to relieve his brother of the 
 same nation. A neighbor, in the sense of this 
 parable, is one who relieves a fellow man in dis- 
 tress, Avhether he be of the same nation or not. 
 Thus, the man who lives in the same vicinity 
 with me may not be a neighbor in the true sense 
 
152 THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAA'ERY. 
 
 of the word ; whenever he fails to relieve me in 
 my distress he is not a neighbor. Still, this 
 does not prove that my w^ife, my child, or my 
 servant, are each my neighbor. To apply this 
 precept in the sense Dr. Wayland applies it to 
 the subject of slavery, would destroy all the 
 lawful relations of life, confound the distinctions 
 which are made and recognized by the Bible, 
 and make the human race one mass of beings 
 on terms of perfect equality. His interpretation 
 of the precept would be a general levelling of 
 all men, women, children, ruler and ruled, mas- 
 ter and servant, into one confused and undistin- 
 guished mass. This, to our mind, is the clear 
 and logical consequence of his construction of 
 the passage, "God is not the author of con- 
 fusion" — especially of such confusion as this 
 interpretation of his word would produce. We 
 must then interpret the Scriptures so that one 
 passage or part will not conti'adict another. 
 The precept must then be understood so as not 
 to interfere Avith or destroy the established and 
 recojxnized relations of life. To show the com- 
 plete absurdity of the anti-slavery sense of the 
 precept, " tliou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
 self," a simple illustration will be sufficient ; for 
 -example, a friend asks me how my family is. I 
 
TlIE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 153 
 
 reply, my neighbors are all in good health. lie 
 replies, I enquired about the health of yonr 
 faniil]/^ and not about your neighbors:. In an- 
 swer I tell him that Dr. Wayland has taught 
 that my tamily — my children — but especially 
 my servants — are tni/ neighbors. My friend 
 would conclude that I was laboring under some 
 mental derangement, and he would not be very 
 far mistaken about my mental soundness in 
 adopting Dr. Wayland's definition of neighbors. 
 The anti-slavery interpretation of the precept, 
 '' all things whatsoever ye would that men 
 should do unto you, do ye even so to them," is 
 equally absurd with that which we have already 
 noticed. The bearing of this precept on the 
 subject of slavery, according to Dr. Wayland, 
 we suppose to be something like this : If I were 
 a slave and should desire my master to set me 
 free, then I am bound by tiie teaching of this 
 precei)t to free my servant ; or, if I were a 
 child, and should desire to be free from the re- 
 straints and government of my parents, then, 
 as a parent, I am bound to free my child from 
 all restraint, and let him use the means of hap- 
 piness as he will. But, Dr. Wayland says this 
 is not a i:»ropcr ajjplication of the principle, for 
 the child is connnanded to obey his parent. 
 
154 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 '' Children, obey your parents." We also reply 
 that the same authority says : " Servants, obey 
 in all things your masters according to the 
 flesh." Now, it would require all the mental 
 acuteness of Jesuitical casuistry to tell where 
 and in Avhat manner these two commands dif- 
 fered in point of clearness and authority. If 
 the precept, then, extends to the personal lib- 
 erty of the slave, it does equally to the personal 
 liberty of a child to a judge on the bench pass- 
 ing sentence on the criminal — for the judge is 
 bound, according to Dr. Wayland's interpreta- 
 tion of the matter, if lie should desire — he be- 
 ing the criminal — to be set free and exempted 
 from the penalty of the law, to turn the crimi- 
 nal loose. We cannot see how or in what 
 manner these conclusions can be evaded, for. 
 Dr. Wayiand says "that the obligation respects 
 all things whatsoever ?"* Why not to the subver- 
 sion of any other relation as well as that of 
 master and slave ? It is a kind of universal 
 particular obligation that may be applied in one 
 case and not applied in all other similar cases. 
 The truth of the matter is, that if the precept 
 were interpreted and practically observed in 
 Dr. Wayland's sense, it would produce com- 
 plete socialism^ in wdiich all distinctionE — such 
 
TIIK NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAYKRY. 155 
 
 as husband and wife, parent and cliild, ruler 
 and subject, master and servant — would be 
 completely abolished ; all have all things com- 
 mon, viz: wild and foolish, do as you please 
 under the fldse name of liberty. 
 
 That we are not mistaken in our view and the 
 certain consequences which would follow from 
 the particular^ application of the anti-slavery in- 
 terpretation of this precept, let the foUoAving 
 speak for itself: " Xow, were this precept 
 obeyed, it is manifest that slavery could not in 
 fact exist for a single instant. The principle of 
 the precept is absolutely subversive of the prin- 
 ciple of slavery. That of the one," that is, of 
 the precept, " ^s the entire equality of right ; 
 that of the other (slavery) the entire absorption 
 of the rights of one in the rights of the other."" 
 The emphasis is our own, but the teaching is 
 Dr. Wayland's. (Moral Science, p. 211.) 
 
 In order, then, to establish the fact that this 
 precept subverts and overthroAvs slavery, it is 
 necessary lirst to prove that slavery is a sin. 
 The passage, then, must be so understood as 
 not to interfere with the established relations of 
 society. The precept contains a general princi- 
 ple which was intended to apply to all cases of 
 returning good for evil. We are not to be evil 
 
156 TLIE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 because others are evil, not to be unkind to the 
 unthankful and the ungrateful, but we are to 
 imitate God who bestows on us blessings al- 
 though we are unworthy. This is plainly the 
 meaning of the precept, from the illustration 
 which the Savior uses. If my child or servant 
 were to ask me for bread, or meat, and I were 
 to give a stone instead of bread, and a serpent — 
 something unfit for food — I w^ould be a violator 
 of the principle of this prece})t. If I would 
 not desire to be tantalized when hungry with 
 sometliing which is unfit for food, so I ought 
 not to ofier that to another which I would re- 
 fuse myself; for, " if ye, being evil, know how to 
 give good gifts unto your children, how much 
 more shall your Father, which is in Heaven, 
 srive sfood thino-s to them that ask him there- 
 for." As a conclusion, from the fact that God 
 will give us good instead of evil things, " all 
 things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
 to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew vii, 
 7-12.) That this doing good to those that are 
 evil, teaches the abolition of slavery, seems to us 
 at least a deduction by no means justified by 
 the text and its connections. I miofht as well 
 infer that it abolished monarchy, or any other 
 thing which I did not happen to like. In this 
 
THE NKW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 15T 
 
 dislike of slavery lies the whole secret of this 
 construction of the passage by anti-slavery mer. 
 Then, look at the universal confusion such an 
 interpretation would make of other portions of 
 the Bible. This is all the revelation we would 
 need, if Dr. Wayland's view of the matter is 
 the right one. But he had set out to prove 
 that slavery was wroni>- in itself, and if the Xew 
 Testament would not say so in so many words, 
 he would. 
 
 We have shown heretofore that there is a 
 certain order and dependence in all God's 
 works, from the highest archangel down to the 
 lowest worm, and that these thino-s are rccoii'- 
 nizcd by the Bible in the various relations 
 which all tilings sustain to each other. The 
 harmony and continued well-being of the uni- 
 verse depend on keeping everything in its 
 proper place ; and, when anything gets or is 
 put out of its place, confusion follows as a cer 
 tain and necessary consequence. Now, apply 
 this principle to any of the rational creatures of 
 God. When "angels would be Gods," they 
 became devils ; wdien man would be as God — 
 "knowing good and evil" — he became a sinner, 
 and lost communion with God. In the same 
 manner if children are made parents, and usurp 
 
 X 
 
158 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 their authority, they are invading a province to 
 which they have no Scriptural right. If mas- 
 ters make their servants equal with themselves, 
 they will serve them as Hagar did her mistress : 
 they Avill despise them. Among the four sorts 
 of persons that are intolerable, Solomon men- 
 lions a " servant when he reigneth." He is out 
 of his j^lace ; forgets himself, and is, of all oth- 
 ers, most imperious, pompous and insolent; for 
 such a thing the earth is " disquieted and cannot 
 bear it." It introduces confusion and every 
 disorder. 
 
 From all these considerations w^e conclude 
 that the precept which we have been consider- 
 ing is " not diametrically opposed to slavery," 
 and that it was not designed to destroy any of 
 those relations, the mutual duties of which are 
 prescribed in other parts of the New Testament. 
 We will dismiss Dr. Wayland for the present, 
 and proceed to inquire into a correct answer to 
 the question proposed in the beginning of this 
 chapter. 
 
 Does the Xew Testament condemn slavery as 
 a sin in itself? or, has Christ or his insj^ired 
 apostles, either by precept or example, taught 
 that slavery is a sin in itself? And here, before 
 entering on the direct examination of the ques- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY: 159 
 
 tion, we remark that tlie neglect or failure to 
 discharge the duties belonging to or growing 
 out of some relations of life does not prove 
 that relation to be wrong ^ or sinful in itself. 
 Thus, the neglect of the parent to perform the 
 duties he owes to his child does not prove that 
 the relation of parent and child is sinful in it- 
 self; or, the failure of the husband or the wife 
 to perform their proj)er duties does not prove 
 that the relation of husband and wife is sinful 
 in itself: so the failure of the master or the slave 
 to perform their appropriate duties does not 
 prove that the relation is sinful. The neglect 
 of the duties growing out of the relations of 
 life constitutes the sin, and not the existence of 
 these relations. This jumbling of two things 
 which are altogether distinct, has furnished the 
 material for many a senseless tirade against 
 slavery and slaveholders. The question means, 
 Does Christ or his inspired apostles, either by 
 precept or example teach that slavery is a sin in 
 itselfV We say that neither has done so, and 
 that they have neither by precept or by exam- 
 ple condemned the slaveholder or taught that 
 slavery was a sin in itself. 
 
 In the examination of the teachings of the 
 New Testament on the subject of slavery, we 
 
] 60 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY 
 
 will notice two or three distinct points wliicli 
 will prove that slnvery is not a sin in itself. 
 We say, then, 
 
 First — That tJiere are some things revealed 
 in the Old Testament ichlrh are so clear that it 
 was not necessary that they should he repeated 
 or re-ena/^ted in the JSfein Testament. In otlier 
 words, there were some things given to the 
 human family that v\ere not temporary, or 
 local — not confined to the Jewish nation — and, 
 of course, did not pass away with the abroga- 
 tion of the Mosaic economy. As an illustration 
 of this position we may mention two or three 
 examples. The first which we will produce is 
 the right given by Jehovah to men by Noah to 
 punish murder with death. ''Surely your blood 
 of your lives will I require ; at the hand of 
 every beast will I require it, and at the hand of 
 men ; at the hand of every man's brother will 
 I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth 
 man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; 
 for in the image of God made He man." (Gen. 
 ix, 5, G.) On this is founded the right to punish 
 the willful murderer with death. It was not 
 given to th3 Jews, but to the whole race of 
 man, and is of universal application. Every 
 civilized or Christian nation claims this as the 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 161 
 
 autlioiitv for putting to death the murderer. 
 This authority is not repeated in the Xew Tes- 
 tament. Ill accordance witli it the haw given 
 to the Jews by Moses inflicted death for willful 
 murder. (See Numbers xxxv.) 
 
 Secondly — It is admitted by all that the 
 moral law^ contained in the ten commandments 
 is not local, or temporary, but universally bind- 
 ing in every age and upon all men. The fourth 
 and tenth commandments recognize the exist- 
 ence of slavery. The fourth embraced the 
 slave or perpetual bond-man, as well as the mere 
 liired servant, as beino,- entitled to the rest of 
 the Sabbath. " The seventh day is the Sabbath 
 of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do 
 any work — thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 
 nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor 
 thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy 
 gates." (Exodus xx, 10.) The tenth precept 
 (verse 17) is, "Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
 bor's house ; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 
 wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, 
 nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy 
 neighbor's." Now, it will be necessary, on the 
 part of the opponents of slavery, to show that 
 these clauses of the fourth and tenth command- 
 ments have been expressly repealed by the same 
 
 N* 
 
162 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 authority that gave them. This, we are sure, 
 cannot be done ; and, therefore, the New Tes- 
 tament does not treat slavery as a sin in itself, 
 but points out the mutual duties of masters and 
 slaves. 
 
 Now, the simple question is, Does the Old or 
 New Testament prescribe the duties of any 
 relation that is sinful in itself? Does it reofu- 
 late the duties of the idolater as an idolater? 
 No: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before 
 me; thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 
 image." This expressly prohibits it, and ex- 
 pressly says that no idolater, nor covetous per- 
 son who is an idolater, shall inherit the kingdom 
 of God, but declares that idolaters with other 
 characters " shall have tlieir part in the lake 
 that burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is 
 the second death." (Rev. xxi, 8 ; Col. iii, 5 : 
 1st Cor. vi, 9, 10.) Drunkenness, fornication, 
 theft, adultery, revilers, extortioners, effemi- 
 nates, and the abusers of themselves, are ad- 
 judged by the same authority and in the smne 
 place to the same punishment ; all such persons 
 and crimes are expressly condemned, but there 
 is not one word about excluding the slavehold- 
 ers from the kingdom of God. The thing, then, 
 could not be and is not the crime or sin which 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 163 
 
 it is represented and declared to be l)y abolition 
 orators and writers. 
 
 There is one consolation to the Christian 
 slaveholder; it is this: "To his ©w^n master 
 he must stand or fall ;" not to those who set at 
 defiance every law — sacred or human . There 
 is one other consolation : abolition orators and 
 writers are not entrusted with the keys of the 
 kingdom of Heaven. Of this class the slave- 
 holder expects no favors, and of them he has 
 none to ask. We say these things in the fear 
 of God, and with the certain knowdedge that 
 w^e will have to account for all our words and 
 actions to Ilim, who is to be our judge. 
 
 We return to the main question before us. 
 We have shown in a former cha]:>ter that God 
 by a judicial sentence subjected the descend- 
 ants of Ham to those of Shem and Japheth. 
 This subordination of one part of the human 
 family to the other was not made to the Jews — 
 to one people ; it was not local and temporary, 
 but the sentence of Jehovah was passed against 
 the descendants of Ham while the whole race 
 was together ; hence this decree, or sentence, 
 was not confined to one period, or one nation, 
 but it extended to all times and all people. 
 This is true, unless it can be shown that God 
 
^64: THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 has reversed the sentence againt Hani's poster- 
 ity — unless it can be shown that He has annulled 
 his decree, No\v the question is, has He done 
 so ? Has He restored all men to their original 
 equality ? We think that no man will pretend 
 to say that God has changed or reversed the 
 sentence He passed on the descendants of Ham 
 — making them servants to their brethren. If 
 He has not changed this decision, then there is 
 110 necessity to hunt for authority in the New 
 Testament to prove that slavery is a sin in it- 
 self. God has consigned the race of Ham to 
 servitude for the sin of their father^ or as a pun- 
 ishment for the sin of their father. We need 
 not stay to prove that such things are common 
 under the government of God, for all men par- 
 take of a sinful nature in consequence of Adam's 
 sin. " By one man sin entered into the world, 
 and death by sin ; so that death passed upon all 
 men, tor that all have sinned." (Rom. v, 12.) 
 The case of the Jews is a living example of the 
 fact to which we have referred. They are still 
 scattered abroad — still a singular people — " a 
 by -word and a hissing." The awful wrath of 
 God still rests on their fathers' murder of Jesus 
 Christ. But, has God reversed the sentence 
 adjudging the race of Ham to servitude ? If 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 165 
 
 He has, we liave never been able to find tlie 
 book, the cliapter, or verse, in wliieli tlie revo- 
 cation of the sentence is recorded. It is not 
 recorded in tlie Old Testament, for the Jews 
 were authorized to buy ])ond-men and bond- 
 maids of the heathen — of the descendants of 
 Hani. The revocation is not recorded in the 
 New Testament — Dr. Waylaiid being judge. 
 He admits that the Gospel does not directly 
 forbid slavery for certain reasons Avhioh we will 
 notice in the proper place : (Moral Science, pp. 
 214,215.) "All that can be justly said seems 
 to me to be this : the New Testament contains 
 no precept prohibitory of slavery ; this must, J 
 think, be granted." (Letters on Slavery, p. 89.) 
 This concession is all that is necessary to the 
 full establishment of our position. God's ad- 
 judging part of the human family to servitude 
 was not a grant to the Jews, but to the whole 
 remaining part of the race, being given before 
 the Jewish economy came into existence : not 
 being dependent on that economy, it did not 
 pass away with it, unless it is expressly reversed 
 by Christ or his inspired apostles. This has not 
 been done — our "enemies being judges ;" there- 
 fore, it is not sinful in itself to hold any of the 
 descendants of Ham in servitude, or bondage. 
 
166 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 i^^either do we say that a man is a sinner for 
 not holdino- tliera. He commits no sin who 
 does not own slaves, but we contend that the 
 man who does own them, and holds them in 
 bondage, is not guilty of sin. This explanation 
 of the matter is much more satisfactory than 
 that given by Dr. Wayland. He then says 
 (Moral Science, pp. 215, 216) that if God had 
 expressly forbidden slavery in the Xew Testa- 
 ment, "its announcement would have been the 
 signal of servile war ! " God, then, ^vas afraid 
 to touch this peculiar and exceedingly sinful in- 
 stitution because such a procedure would have 
 produced a servile war ! According to this 
 doctrine, then, all that men have to do, in order 
 to prevent their indulgences in sin from being 
 disturbed, is for large numbers to engage in its 
 practice, and thus they may set at defiance the 
 laws and authority of their Creator ; for, if he 
 dares to prohibit their favorite sin, there will be 
 war! " Dr. Wayland's answer to the question, 
 " why was this manner of forbidding it chosen 
 in preference to any other':'""' that is, why God 
 chose to prohibit slavery indirectly, rather than 
 by an express prohibitory law — for this is Dr. 
 Wayland's position and account of the matter — 
 is, beyond controversy, one of the weakest 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAYEKV. 167 
 
 things tliat was ever put on record by that usu- 
 ally clear and intelligent author. We will quote 
 the j^assage at length, so that our readers may 
 see that we do not misrepresent Dr. Wayland: 
 "Why was this manner of forbidding it" 
 (slavery) "chosen in preference to any other ? 
 I reply that this question we are not obliged to 
 answer." Still, he goes on to suggest what may 
 have been the reason of this strange procedure 
 on the jmrt of the Saviour and his apostles. 
 "The reason," says he, ''^ may he that slavery is 
 a social evil; and that, in order to eradicate it, 
 a change must be effected in the society in whic-h 
 it exists : and this change would be better 
 effected by the inculcation of the principles 
 themselves which are opposed to slavery, than 
 by the inculcation of a direct precept. Proba- 
 bly all social evils are thus most successfully 
 remedied." " We answer again, this very 
 course, which the Gospel takes on this subject, 
 seems to have been the only one that could 
 have been taken in order to effect the univer- 
 sal abolition of slavery. The Gospel was de- 
 signed not for one race, or for one time, but 
 for all races and for all times. It looked not 
 at the abolition of this form of evil for that age 
 alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence, 
 
168 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 the important object of its Author was to gain 
 a lodgment in every part of the known world; 
 so that, by its universal diffusion among all 
 classes of society, it might (juietly and peace- 
 fully modify and subdue the evil passions of 
 men,' and thus, without violence, work a revo- 
 lution in the whole mass of mankind. In this 
 manner alone could its object — a universal 
 moral revolution — have been accomplished ; for, 
 if it had forbidden the ei'il^ instead of subvert- 
 ing the prbiciplf: — if it had ]:>roclaimed the un- 
 lawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist 
 the oppression of their masters, it would have 
 instantly arraigned the two parties in deadly 
 hostility tliroughout the civilized worhl ; its an- 
 nouncement would liave been the signal of servile 
 war ; and the very name of the Christian reli- 
 gion would have been forgotten amidst the 
 agitations of universal bloodshed." We have 
 quoted this long extract not because of its in- 
 trinsic merits, but on account of its weakness, 
 and to show the absurdity of the reason here 
 assigned for finding no direct precept in the 
 New Testament against slavery. The whole of 
 it is a tissue of speculation, and is merely said 
 to throw dust in the eyes of the reader, to divert 
 his attention from the real facts of the case, and 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 169 
 
 is merely tlie substitution of a speculative opin- 
 ion about the matter, instead of foots. Let us 
 notice its parts. " The reason may he that 
 slavery is a social evil." Social means, accord- 
 ing to Webster, something "relating to men 
 living in society, or to the public as an aggre- 
 gate body, as .sc)<"/r^/ interests, or concei'ns, social 
 pleasures." A thing, then, is a social evil Avhen 
 it injures the interests of men, or their persons, 
 in an aggregate body. Thus intemperance is a 
 social vice, gaming is a social vice, and, accord- 
 ing to Dr. Wayland, slavery is a social evil. It 
 implies, also, that a great many are engaged in 
 the evil practice : this is necessary to constitute 
 a thing a social evil, or a social good, amuse- 
 ment, or pleasure. 
 
 Xow let us look at the case in the light of 
 faets and history. There were many social evils 
 in existence at the time Christ and his apos- 
 tles lived: such as drunkenness, lewdness, for- 
 nication and theft. The celebrated Spartan 
 law-giver, Lycurgus, made many laws, and, 
 according to one of these, the young were 
 encouraged "to steal whatever they could, pro- 
 vided they accomplished the theft without being 
 detected." (Worcester's Elem. of History, p. 
 20.) Lying was a common and social sin. 
 o 
 
170 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 
 
 "The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow 
 bellies," or gliittons. (Tit. i, 12.) However 
 extensive slavery w^as practiced in tlie time of 
 Christ, there was another social sin of more 
 universal prevalence, and the express prohibition 
 of it was more likely to produce civil or social 
 war than any other form of sin ; it was inter- 
 woven W'ith the very structure of ancient so- 
 ciety ; the laws recognized it ; the greatest 
 statesmen, orators and poets indulged in this 
 evil, or sin ; the lives of human beings were of- 
 ten taken away in its observance ; the vilest 
 lewdness was practiced in connection with its 
 rites; drunkenness was one of its accompani- 
 ments : this universal and monster evil was 
 idolatry. That w^e have not over-drawn the 
 picture the reader has only to read the 1st chap- 
 ter of Romans ; he wnll there see the moral 
 condition of idolaters, and their sins j^ointed 
 out — some of them so gross that it would be 
 indecent even to name them, Now, the ques- 
 tion is, Did the apostles connive at these sins ? 
 Did they merely inculcate principles which are 
 opposed to those social sins ? So far from pur- 
 suing this cow^ardly course, they came out and 
 mentioned these sins by name, and declared 
 that such persons as continued in them would 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 171 
 
 be excluded from tlie kingdom of God. " Know 
 ye not tliat the un righteous sli.ill not inherit the 
 kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither 
 fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, noi 
 effeminates, nor abusers of themselves with 
 mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunk- 
 ards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit 
 the kingdom of God; wherefore, my dearly be- 
 loved, Hee from idolatry." (1st Cor. vi, 9, 10, 
 10, U ; see also Gal. v, 19-21.) All such char- 
 acters are declared to be worthy of the second 
 death — are adjudged to the lake that burnetii 
 with fire and brimstone. " The fearful and un- 
 believing, and the abominable, and murderers, 
 and whoremongers, sorcerers, and idolaters, and 
 all liars, shall have their part in the lake that 
 burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the 
 second death." (Rev. ii, 8.) The apostles met 
 and condemned these gigantic and prevailing 
 social sins ; they called them by their proper 
 names, and pronounced the punishment due to 
 those who practiced them without fear of a clHl 
 'war ; but, when they came to "the social evil 
 of slavery," as Dr. Wayland calls it, lo, and be- 
 hold ! they did not proclaim the unlawfulness of 
 slavery, for it would instantly have arraigned 
 master and slave ao-ainst each other in deadly 
 
1 72 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 hostility ; the announcement of such a precept 
 would have been the signed of servile war! 
 The slaves of that day must have been terrible 
 fellows! Why, they might easily have scared 
 their masters so badly that they would instantly 
 have set them free, when inspired apostles were 
 afraid to say that slaveholders, like other great 
 sinners, were unfit for Heaven, lest the slaves 
 would rise and sweep the very name of the 
 Christian reliction from the world with the 
 streams of universal bloodshed ! That there 
 was real danger of war and opposition to the 
 apostles' preaching against idolatry, no one can 
 doubt who will read the history of the Christian 
 church for the first three centuries of the Chris- 
 tian era. There are no less than ten persecu- 
 tions mentioned by ecclesiastical historians as 
 having taken place within this period. These 
 persecutions were raised and carried on by idol- 
 aters for the purpose of exterminating Chris- 
 tians. For the Romans, though they tolerated 
 all the religions from which the commonwealth 
 had nothing to fear, yet would not suffer the 
 ancient religion of their nation, as established 
 by their laAvs, to be derided, and the people to 
 be withdrawn from it ; yet both of these the 
 Christians dared to do. Nor did thev assail 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 173 
 
 the Roman religion only, but likewise the reli- 
 gions of all other nations. Hence the Romans 
 concluded that the Christian sect was not only 
 arrogant beyond all measure, but likewise un- 
 friendly to the public peace and tranquility, and 
 calculated to excite civil wars. Tacitus, a Ro- 
 man historian, charges Christians with being 
 "haters of the human race," and Suetonius 
 calls them "malignant," because such as could 
 not endure the sacred rites and religion of the 
 Romans, nor those of all the world, seemed to 
 be the foes of mankind and to indulo-e hatred 
 towards all nations. "Another cause of the 
 Roman hostility to Christianity," says Mosheim, 
 (Eccles. Hist., book 1, cent. 1, pt. 1, chap, v,) 
 "was that the worship of so many pagan deities 
 afforded support to a countless throng of priests, 
 augurers, soothsayers, merchants and artists, 
 all of whom were in danger of coming to want 
 if Christianity should prevail ; and, therefore, 
 with united strength, they rose up against it, 
 and wished to exterminate its followers." This 
 attempt to put down the social sin of idolatry 
 was not effected without the loss of many lives. 
 The triumph of Christianity over idolatry cost 
 the life of many a Christian. "That a great 
 many persons, of both sexes, and of every class 
 
174 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 and rank, suftered death for the cause of Christ 
 during the first three or four centuries, no im- 
 partial person who is acquainted with the history 
 of these times can hesitate to believe." (Mos- 
 heim.) That all those engaged in the j^ractice 
 of idolatry were opposed to the spread of 
 Christianity, no person can for a moment seri- 
 ously doubt ; and, that the historian gives the 
 true reasons why there was so much opposition 
 to it, appears and is confirmed by the inspired 
 historian Luke. (Acts xviii, 23-41.) There 
 we are informed that a man " named Demetrius, 
 a silver-smith, which made shrines for Diana," 
 excited a mob against Gains and Aristarchus, 
 and would have destroyed them if the ofiicers 
 had not appeased tliem by telling them "that 
 the great city of the Ephesians was a worship- 
 per of the goddess Diana;" that this worship 
 was protected by law ; therefore, they ought to 
 be quiet and do things in a lawful manner. 
 There was then more danger in expressly pro- 
 hibiting idolatry than slavery, for all ages, ranks 
 and conditions of men, high and low, master 
 and slave, were idolators. But, in the face of 
 all this opposition they preached, testified 
 against its practice, and openly proclaimed that 
 no habitual idolater could ent.^r into the king- 
 dom of Heaven. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 1 75 
 
 If, then, Christ intended to prohibit slavery, 
 He and his apostles took a very ditferent man- 
 ner to condemn this " social sin " to that pur- 
 sued towards other social sins. They forbid 
 them by name, and openly testified against 
 them, and there is no dispute among' the fol- 
 lowers of Christ about the sinfulness of idolatry, 
 drunkenness, lying, stealing, adultery, lewdness, 
 oovetousness, and many similar sins, because 
 these things are expressly forbidden; but, there 
 seems to be an unending controversy among 
 Christians whether slavery is sinful or not. 
 Now, this subject of slavery did not escape the 
 notice of the apostles. It w^as not because they 
 were afraid to speak out against it, that they 
 did not expressly and pointedly condemn the 
 relationship of master and slave, for we have 
 shown that they had everything to fear in con- 
 demning idolatry; still they condemned it, 
 although the testimony for the truth cost many 
 of them their lives. They could not have over- 
 looked the matter because it did not exist in a 
 very bad form, for it is the testimony of all that 
 it did exist in its ^vorst forms. 
 
 The following features of slavery among the 
 Komans, at the time of Christ, is taken from 
 Dr. Wayland's Letters on Slavery, pages 86 
 
176 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 and 87. The author of the "Letters" tells us 
 in a note that they are taken from an article in 
 the "Biblical Repository" for October, 1835, 
 written by the Rev. Professor Edwards, of the 
 Theological Seminary, Andover: 
 
 1. " Slavery was universal throughout the 
 empire, and the number of slaves almost ex- 
 ceeds belief. Some rich individuals possessed 
 10,000, and others even 20,000 of their fellow 
 creatures. In Italy, it is computed, that there 
 were three slaves to ©ne freeman, and that their 
 number in this part of the empire alone was, at 
 that time, more than twenty millions. 
 
 2. "Persons became slaves by being made 
 captives in wcn\ hy purchase from slave dealers, 
 by hirtli^ by the operation of law — as, for 
 instance, in consequence of debt, or as a punish- 
 ment for crime. Ca?sar is said to have taken 
 400,000 captives in his Gallic wars alone. In 
 Delos alone 10,000 slaves were sometimes bought 
 and sold in a single day. 
 
 3. "On the condition of slaves it may be re- 
 marked l\ml^ firstly — the master had the power 
 of life and death over the slave. Secondly — 
 slaves were not permitted to marry. Thirdly — 
 they were permitted to hold no property as 
 their own ; whatever they acquired being the 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 177 
 
 property of tlieir masters. Fourthly — they 
 were exposed to the most unrelenting b.arbarity, 
 being perfectly unprotected by law, and left 
 entirely in the power of their owners. They 
 were liable to every kind of torture, and cruel 
 masters sometimes kept on their estates tor- 
 mentors by profession, for the purpose of pun- 
 ishing their slaves. Burning alive was some- 
 times resorted to, and crucifixion was frequently 
 made the late of a slave for trifling misconduct, 
 or from mere caprice. In fine, a slave was con- 
 sidered in no other light than as a representative 
 of so much value ; hence, it is not wonderful 
 that they should be slain in order to make food 
 for fishes, or that the question should arise, 
 whether, in a storm, a man should sacrifice a 
 valuable horse, or a less valuable slave." 
 
 We add one or two other particulars from 
 Prof Anthon's Manual of Roman Antiquities, 
 page 150 : 
 
 "A slave could not contract a marriage. His 
 cohabitation with a w^oman was called ' a living 
 together ' — not a marriage ; and no legal rela- 
 tion between him and his children was recog- 
 nized." "Slaves were not esteemed as persons, 
 but as things, and might be transferred from one 
 owner to another like any other efl!*ects. Slaves 
 
178 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 could not appear as witnesses in a court of jus- 
 tice, nor make a will, nor inherit anything unless 
 accompanied by a bequest of freedom." 
 
 We liave given these facts, and have taken 
 them from those who are no friends of slavery, 
 to show that the reason why the inspired apos- 
 tles did not prohibit slavery could not have 
 arisen from ignorance of the system. The 
 greater the abuses of the system, the more 
 inexplicable their course towards it — on the 
 ground that it was that monster social evil it is 
 represented to be by Dr. Wayland and all anti- 
 slavery writers. The truth is, we can not see 
 how, on their principles, with the facts of the 
 case before them, the conduct of Christ and his 
 apostles can be at all justified; they must be 
 chargeable with inexcusable neglect of a very 
 important duty. This is the light in which the 
 matter appears to us, taking the anti-slavery 
 view of the subject. AVe therefore reject and 
 repudiate the whole abolition view, and seek the 
 explanation of their conduct in another and 
 simpler reason. The true reason why the in- 
 spired apostles did not prohibit slavery by an 
 express precept was that tJiey had no authorlti/ 
 from the Holy Spirit to do so. They expressly 
 condemned the social evils of idolatry, fornica- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 179 
 
 tion, drunkenness, lying-, theft, adultery and the 
 kindred vices, because they were authorized by 
 the Spirit of inspiration to do so ; they said 
 what they were authorized to say on the sub- 
 ject of slavery — that is, they were authorized to 
 prescribe the mutual duties arising out of the 
 relation of master and slave : they liave done 
 this, and they stop])ed at the point where their 
 authority stopped. The Gospel was not re- 
 vealed to destroy the lawful relations of life, but 
 to remove the abuses introduced into those re- 
 lations by sin. The Gospel was intended to 
 make men better : to make better rulers and 
 citizens ; better husbands and wives ; better 
 parents and children, and better masters and 
 servants. Where it fails to do these things, the 
 fault lies not in the Gospel, but in tliose who 
 preach it, and in those who profess to receive it. 
 This view of the whole matter must commend 
 itself to the sound and calm judgment of every 
 one who will carefully examine into the subject. 
 The question returns, Why did not Christ or 
 his inspired apostles expressly prohibit this 
 " social evil," as it is termed by Dr. Wayland ? 
 We have given what appears to us to be the 
 true reason of this course of procedure on the 
 i:)art of inspired men. God had subjected, by 
 
180 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 
 
 an express sentence, the descendants of Ham to 
 those of Shem and Japheth, and this was given 
 to the human fimily before the Jewish economy 
 came into existence. That economy expressly 
 recognized tlie system of subjection, or servi- 
 tude. Christ came: He found the thing still 
 practiced; it had been authorized by the divine 
 law-giver — by Moses — and, hence, if the thing- 
 was wrong — sinful in itself—it was necessary 
 that He should say so, or direct his apostles to 
 condemn it as unlaw^ful. That He has not done 
 so is conceded by the opposers of slavery. 
 The case is rather a hard one for anti-slavery 
 men who regard the Scriptures as the word of 
 God — the rule of faith and practice. Slavery 
 must be condemned in some way ; if it is not 
 expressly prohibited, then some other method 
 of interpretation must be adopted to DW.Txe the 
 Xew Testament condemn it. Hence, Dr. Way- 
 land (Moral Science, p. 215) attempts to make 
 a distinction as to the ground of obligation. 
 He teaches that the obligation of the child to 
 obey his parent rests on a different ground from 
 that on which the servant is required to obey 
 his master; and, although he informs us in a 
 foot note to page 216 that he has been led seri- 
 ously to doubt " whether this distinction is 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 181 
 
 sustained by the New Testament," still the ob- 
 jectionable doctrine is left in the body of the 
 work to do all the mischief it can possibly do to 
 the prejudice of slavery. We will, therefore, 
 notice it briefly, and attemj)t to show that it is 
 a distinction witliout a difference., gotten up to 
 serve a particular |)urpose. 
 
 "It is," says he, "important to remember 
 that two grounds of moral obligation are dis- 
 tinctly recognized in the Gospel : the first is^ 
 our duty to man as man — that is, on the ground 
 of the relation which men sustain to each other; 
 the second is, our duty to man as a creature — 
 that is, on the ground of the relation which we 
 all sustain to God. On this latter ground " — 
 that is, on the ground of tfie relation which we 
 all sustain to God — " many things become our 
 duty which would not be so on the former" — 
 that is, on the ground of the relation which 
 men sustain to each other. This, then, is the 
 distinction ; let us see how it is carried out and 
 applied to the duties of children and servants. 
 " It is on this ground" — viz : the relation M'hich 
 we sustain to God — "that w^e are commanded 
 to return good for evil ; to pray for them that 
 despitefully use us, and, wd)en we are smitten 
 on one cheek, to turn also the other. To act 
 p 
 
182 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 thus is our duty — not because our fellow-raan 
 has a right to claim this course of conduct of 
 us, nor because lie has a right to inflict injury 
 upon us, but because such conduct in us will be 
 well pleasing to God. And when God ipre- 
 scribes the course of conduct which will be well 
 pleasing to Him, He by no means acknowledges 
 the right of abuse in the injurious person, but 
 expressly declares, 'vengeance is mine, and I 
 iclllrejKiy i% sa'ith the Lord: Now, it is to be 
 observed, that it is precisely upon this latter 
 ground " — that is, .that God requires it, or that 
 it is w^ell pleasing in his sight — " that the slave 
 is commanded to obey his master." This does 
 not touch the point in question, for it must be 
 shoivn first that the relation is sinful in itself 
 before this can be legitimately applied to the 
 subject, yet Dr. Wayland is attempting to show' 
 by this argument that slavery is sinful. This is 
 begging the question. If he had first proven 
 that slavery is a sin, then the application of his 
 principle to the subject w^ould have been clear. 
 But, as the matter is, whatever it may prove in 
 regard to returning good for evil, it has no 
 bearing on a principle, or the point at issue be- 
 tween him and the slaveholder. He must first 
 prove that the slave is returning good for evil in 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 183 
 
 obeying the lawful commands of his mastei', be- 
 fore the argument has any bearing on the point 
 at issue. He migiit say with equal truth and 
 fairness that the child is returnino: ^ood for evil 
 when he obeys the lawful reciuirements of his 
 parents, for they rest prechely on the same 
 ground, although this is the leading object Dr. 
 Wayland had in view in making the distinction. 
 " It " — the obedience to masters — " is never 
 urged like tlie duty of obedience to parents, he- 
 cause it is not ri(jJity Well, let us see how the 
 matter stands in the Scriptures. Children are 
 commanded to obey their parents in the Lord ; 
 the reason given is, "/b/' tJds is right.'''' (Eph. 
 vi, 1 .) Why is it right for children to obey their 
 parents'? Does the obligation arise from the 
 relation in which the parties stand to each 
 other? Dr. Wayland w^ould answer this last 
 question in the affirmative. Or, does the obli- 
 gation arise from the fact that God had said, in 
 the fifth commandment, " Honor thy father and 
 thy mother ? " Is not this the true reason why 
 obedience to parents is right ? The relation in 
 the first place must be right itself, before it can 
 be right to obey. The relation of parent and 
 child is recognized as lawful — that is, in accord- 
 ance with the will of God — and, hence, obedi- 
 ence is rioht. 
 
184 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 The obedience of the slave to his master is 
 urged " because the cultivation of meekness 
 and forbearance under injury will be well pleas- 
 ing to God." A more complete begging of the 
 question never has been exemplitied. Dr. Way- 
 land is trying to account for the fact that the 
 writersof the Xew Testament did not expressly 
 condemn slavery, for fear of a servile war; and 
 that the system is Avrong any way ; and he tries 
 to prove that it is wrong by assuining that it is 
 wrong ; therefore^ it is icromj. But, let us 
 proceed with his distinctions, and see how the 
 Scriptures will settle the point. Thus, servants 
 are commanded to be obedient to their own 
 masters " in singleness of heart, as unto Christ^'''' 
 doing the irill <>f God from the heart.'*' 
 Now, in the name of all that is sacred, we ask 
 on what liigher authority can the obligation to 
 obedience rest than on the ti'ill of God / This 
 is the very foundation on which all obligation 
 rests ; it is the best — it is sure always to be 
 right ; yet, servants are commanded to obey 
 their masters, not from the consideration that 
 the eye of their master is upon them, " not with 
 eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants 
 of Christ, doing the icill of God from the 
 heart — from the proper motive — from the fact 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 185 
 
 that God requires it. We will not pursue this 
 point any further, as it must be plain to every 
 man that there is a distinction made in the two 
 things by Dr. Wayland without any real 
 diiierence. 
 
 Now, if the point at issue between us were 
 the mere question of expedlemyij as to whether 
 it would be better for slavery to exist or be 
 abolished — if the matter Avere one of indiffer- 
 ence as to the holding or not holding slaves, 
 then we might bring in various considerations 
 for or against slavery. Paul says, " all things 
 are lawful for me, but all things are not expedi- 
 ent." (1st Cor. vi, 12.) We are not to abuse 
 our Christian liberty to the offence of our 
 brethren. (1st Cor. viii, 4-11.) Still, so far as 
 the thing is in itself law'ful, it is a matter of in- 
 difference whether we indulge, or abstain ; " for, 
 neither if we- eat are we the better, neither if 
 we eat not are w^e the worse.'' We are not 
 bound to abstain from a course, or from doing 
 anything which is a matter of indifference, un- 
 less our indulgence would become a stumbling 
 block in the way of a weak brother. (Verse 
 9.) Hence the apostle adduces or draws this 
 genoral principle in regard to our conduct about 
 abstaining from or indulging in things Indijftr- 
 
186 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 ent in tJiernselces : " Wherefore, it' meat make 
 my brother to offend, I will eat no tlesh while 
 the world standeth, lest I make my brother to 
 offend." (See verse 13.) " All things are law- 
 ful for me, but all things edify not." (1st Cor. 
 X, 23.) This is the Scriptural rule about things 
 that are indifferent in themselves. Jf Dr. 
 Wayland and his anti-slavery friends would take 
 the ground that slavery is lawful, but not expe- 
 dient — is lawful, but is not for edification, then, 
 probably, there would be some reason or sense 
 in their opposition to slavery ; but they take 
 the "higher" ground that it is ''a moral evil," 
 that it " is a sin [per se) in itself] and this is 
 the issue they have made, and we must meet it. 
 Then, all side issues about expediency, national 
 wealth, its effects on the morals of both parties, 
 do not touch the point at issue. 
 
 Is slavery sinful in itself? this is the ques- 
 tion. We answer no ; it is not sinful, for God 
 in his Word, requires servants to obey their 
 masters, thereby recognizing the relation as 
 lawful and right. Let us take an illustration 
 from Scriptural facts, to show the absurdity of 
 this two-ground doctrine. From the relation 
 of husband and wife it would appear that they 
 were and should be on terms of perfect equality 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 187 
 
 as to tlie riolit to rule, and such appears to have 
 been tlie case in a state of innocence; but sin 
 entered and destroyed this equality, and the 
 Creator, in consequence of tlie woman beino- 
 lirst in the transgression, has subjected her to 
 the will of her liusband. "Thy desire shall be 
 to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
 (Gen. iii, IG.) On what ground, it may be 
 asked, "is the woman commanded"" to be in 
 subjection to her own husbands "Wives, sub- 
 mit yourselves to your own husbands." Surely 
 this obligation to obedience does not arise from 
 the relation Avhich the parties sustain to each 
 other, but obedience is right because God re- 
 quires it. We may apply this in all its force to 
 the relation of master and slave. The ground 
 of obligation does not merely rest on the rela- 
 tion of the parties, but on the expressed will of 
 God. This makes obedience in both cases rioht, 
 and disobedience Avrong. God has subjected 
 the race of Ham to those of Shem and Japheth, 
 as a punishment of the sin of their progenitor. 
 He has not repealed this decision, or reversed 
 the sentence, but has commanded servants to 
 obey their masters — doing the will of God. 
 These illustrations show clearly the absurdity of 
 Dr. Wayland's attempted distinction of two 
 
188 THE NEW TESTAMENr ON SLAVERY. 
 
 grounds of obligation in the Gospel. Such dis- 
 tinction is not authorized by the Scriptures. 
 The Gospel was not given to teach rebellion 
 against lawful authority, nor to break up the 
 lawful relations of life, but to teach each one 
 his proper duty in the place God has assigned 
 him, and the foundation or reason of his duty. 
 To attempt to change the ground of obligation, 
 is to attempt to make that " straight which God 
 hath made crooked" — to teacJt^ rather than 
 ohey^ our Creator. 
 
 We are now j^repared to answer a question 
 which Dr. Wayland propounds to the slave- 
 holder, and which he evidently considers a 
 settler of the whole question. (Moral Science, 
 p. 212.) "Would the master be willing that 
 another person should subject him to slavery 
 for the same reasons and on the same grounds 
 that he holds his slave in bondage? " We an- 
 swer, einp/iatically^ no. And why not ? We 
 reply, God never has given the descendants of 
 Shem or Japheth the right to enslave each 
 other ; or, in other words, God has never sub- 
 ordinated these races to each other as servants. 
 They have no authority to enslave each other, 
 but God has given them the right, or subjected 
 the descendants of Ham to them separately and 
 distinctly. (Gen. ix, 25-27.) 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 180 
 
 Again, on the same page, he asks, '' Wonld 
 the Gospel allow us, if it were in our i)ower, to 
 seduce our fellow-citizens of our own color to 
 slavery ? ■ ' We again, emphatically, answer, 
 that, according to your own conception, the 
 Gospel has not, by express precept, forbidden 
 slavery ; and, hence, it has not changed the sen- 
 tence of God against Ham's posterity, neither 
 has it conferred the right on the posterity of 
 Shem or Japheth to enslave each other, and the 
 question is out of place. AVe have no authority 
 to enslave our fellow-citizens of our own color; 
 we have, however, the right to hold the pos- 
 terity of Ham in bondage. The assertion that 
 "the Gospel makes no distinction between men 
 on the ground of color, or race," is a very silly 
 thing, for this distinction was made immediately 
 iifter the flood and long before the Gospel dis- 
 pensation commenced. The Gos^jel found the 
 distinction already made. You admit that it 
 did not condemn this distinction by an express 
 precept. And we enquire, for what purpose 
 did you ask the question '/ The passage from 
 Acts xvii, 20, that is quoted to sustain the posi- 
 tion that " the Gospel makes no distinction 
 between men on the ground of color, or race," 
 has no application to the point. That passage 
 
190 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 simply proves that all men of nil nations are 
 descended from the same original stock, or what 
 is usually called "the unity of the race." This 
 we have admitted, and are prepared to sustain. 
 But the unity and equaUty of races is a distinc- 
 tion with a difference^ and that difference has 
 been made by the Creator himself. From a 
 w^ant of observing this very simple and plain 
 distinction, thousands of honest men have been 
 led into a radical error on the subject of human 
 rights and personal liberty. The minify of the 
 race would prove its equality also, provided 
 there had been nothing to disturb this equality. 
 vSin has disturbed this equality^ while it has not 
 interfered with its unity. We need do nothing- 
 more than call the reader's attention to the fact 
 that the Creator has subjected the woman to 
 the will of her husband, and the posterity of 
 Ham to that of Shem and Japheth, and both as 
 a punishment for sin. But, it will be said, in 
 reply to this, if this be the true teaching of the 
 Bible, its jjrincii^les are not as liberal as many 
 human productions. " The Gospel of Christ," it 
 will be said, "on the subject of human rights, 
 falls infinitely below the Declaration of Ameri- 
 'Can Independence." 
 
THE NKW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 191 
 
 Let us look into the matter a little further. 
 We make a remark on the introductory sen- 
 tence of the Declaration of Independence : 
 " We hold these truths to be self-evident : that 
 all men are created equal." Those who framed 
 and adopted tliat instrument did not mean that 
 all men, without distinction^ or exception., arc 
 created equal. They simply meant that the 
 ])eople of the American Colonies were equal 
 with their English ancestors; that they had the 
 right to political freedom, or independence, 
 equally witli the mother country — that govern- 
 ment having failed to accomplish the end for 
 which it w^as set up, they had the right to 
 change it and adopt such a one as would best 
 suit their interests — personal and social. In 
 this sense it contained an important }>olitical 
 truth ; is not contrary to the teachings of the 
 Bible, and is in accordance with the facts of the 
 case. The framers of that instrument did not 
 mean that their slaves were their political equals, 
 or that they had the same rights to personal 
 liberty with their masters. If such had been 
 the meaning and construction of that memora- 
 ble sentence, this great Confederacy of inde- 
 pendent States would never have been formed. 
 If W'C have not given the true meaning and 
 
192 THE NEW tp:stament on slavery. 
 
 intent of that sentence, then it does not contain 
 " self-evident truths," fur we have shown that 
 the Creator has taken away certain inalienable 
 rights from one portion of the human family, 
 and given them to the other two divisions of 
 the race. Among these rights which the Crea- 
 tor has taken away, is that of personal liberty 
 from the posterity of Ham. It is not, however, 
 with human productions we have now to deal : 
 it is with the Bible. The "voice of the multi- 
 tude is not always the voice of God," is a maxim 
 of some importance in the investigation of hu- 
 man rights and personal freedom. That men 
 sometimes think they are wiser than God, has 
 been exemplified in the past history of the race. 
 The French, for instance, thought that their 
 Creator was mistaken when he appointed one^ 
 seventh of the time as a day of rest from labor 
 and to be spent in his service. They repudiated 
 the very existence of a God, set up a young 
 woman, and worshipped her as the Goddess of 
 Reason ; and, to obliterate every mark and ves- 
 tige of the Christian religion, they abolished 
 the seventh day, and appointed the tenth as the 
 proper part of time for cessation from labor. 
 What was the result of this mad attempt to 
 teach their Creator and correct his work ? The 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 193 
 
 wildest confusion prevailed. Their goddess ac- 
 cidentally fell and broke her neck. Man and 
 beast broke down under the ten day system, 
 and had to return to the time appointed by the 
 Creator. And we hope that the fanaticism of 
 abolitionism will be destroyed by its own cor- 
 ruptions, and men will be brought to their sober 
 thoughts again, to abide by Avhat God has said 
 and taught in the Scriptures on the subject of 
 personal servitude. Dr. Wayland admits that 
 there is no direct ])recept in the Xew Testa- 
 ment forbidding or prohibiting slavery. Paul 
 says that " Where there is no law there is no 
 transgression," (Rom. iv, 15,) and tliat "Sin is 
 not imputed where there is no law." (Rom. v, 
 18.) With these things before us, then, who 
 dare say tliat the slaveholder is a great sinner, 
 that slavery is a "moral evil," a "sin in itself," 
 and attempt to exclude liim from Heaven when 
 Christ lias not done so ? We ask, who ? and 
 echo answers, who ? 
 
 Dr. Wayland seems determined on makino- 
 slavery a sin, and the slaveholder a great sinner, 
 unless he hold tlie slave, " not o?i the (ivomxd of 
 I'lght over him^ but of obligation to him., for 
 the 2yu'>'pose of accomplishing a jxirticular and 
 specified good.'''' He comes to this conclusion 
 (I 
 
194 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 from many considerations, which appear to him 
 to be unanswerable. Among tlie reasons \vhich 
 lead him to this conclusion, is this, viz : " God 
 has imposed upon men certain obligations which 
 are inconsistent with the existence of domestic 
 slavery." That God has imposed certain obli- 
 gations upon men, and that these obligations 
 are inconsistent with the existence of domestic 
 slavery, he thinks may be easily show^n. Here 
 they are. We will state and answer them one 
 by one, in the order as laid down by him. 
 (Moral Science, p. 213.) Among these things, 
 the Dr. thinks, that "the universal proclamation 
 of the Gospel to all men, without respect to 
 circumstance or condition," is very prominent. 
 Let him speak for himself "He," that is, God^ 
 "has made it our duty to proclaim the Gospel 
 to all men, without respect to circumstances or 
 condition. If it be our duty to prodalm the 
 Gospel to every creature, it must be our duty 
 to give every creature every means for attaining 
 a knowledge of it — and yet, more imperatively, 
 not to place any obstacles in the w^ay of at- 
 tainino; that knowledc^e." Dr. Wavland means 
 by the expression, " It must be our duty to give 
 to every creature every means for attaining a 
 knowledge of his duty," that slaveholders- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVEUV. 195 
 
 sliould learn their slaves to read, and that 
 slavery is wrong because it interferes with the 
 slaves studying reading, writing, geograpliy, 
 and other kindred branches ; in other words, if 
 the slave were taught his duty to God and to 
 his master, according to modern notions of edu- 
 cation, slavery could not exist for a day. This 
 is the true meaning from the latter clause of the 
 extract, " yet more imperatively, not to place 
 any obstacles in the way of their attaininp" that 
 knowledge."" The idea that is prominent in this 
 extract is, that slavery interferes with the 
 slave's understanding the Gospel, because this 
 knowledge would necessarily bring more, which 
 would destroy tlie master's control over the 
 slave altogether ; for, "inasmuch as the accpiisi- 
 tion of the knowledge of his (the slave's) duty 
 to God could not be freely made without the 
 acquisition of other knowledge, which might, if 
 universally diU'used, endanger the control of the 
 master. Slavery supposes the master to have 
 the right to determine how much knowledge of 
 his duty a slave shall obtain, the manner in 
 which he shall obtain it, and the manner in 
 which he shall discharge that duty after lie shall 
 have obtained a knowledge of it. It thus sub- 
 jects the duty of man to (4od entirely to the 
 
196 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 will of man, and this for the sake of pecuniary 
 profit. It renders the eternal happiness of the 
 one party subservient to the temporal happiness 
 of the otlier. And tliis })rineiple is commonly 
 recognized by the laws of all slave-holding 
 countries." (Moral Science, i)age 207.) The 
 whole gist of this position is contained in two 
 points, viz: That the slave's actpiisition of his 
 knowledge of his Maker's will would necessarily 
 lead to the knowledge that his master is doing 
 him wrong in holding him in bondage. He 
 might and would learn from abolitionists this 
 idea, but not from the Bible, for that good book 
 teaches servants to be content with their lot — 
 not conclude, because they have be( ome Chris- 
 tians, therefore, they ought to disobey their 
 masters. To think that tlie Gospel is a declara- 
 tion of tlie universal abolition of subjection to 
 superiors, is tlie doctrine of ^x/vtr^er.y, not of 
 Interpretti'^^ of God's Word. *■' Let every man 
 abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 
 Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it: 
 but, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." 
 (1st Cor; vii, 20, 21.) This passage shows this 
 important point, namely : that clr'd servitude is 
 not inconsistent with Christian liberty. They 
 mav be the Lord's fret ratn who ai'e slaves to 
 
THE NEW Tf:t?TAMENT OX SLAVEltV. 197 
 
 men. Thougli he be discharged from the vas 
 salage of sin, lie is not theretore discharged 
 from his master's service. The doctrine of 
 Paul; then, cuts up by the I'oots Dr. Wayland's 
 bold notion that a knowledge of God's will 
 would lead to other knowledge that would en- 
 danger the control of the master over the slave. 
 This is a palpable contradiction of the whole 
 teaching and tenor of the Scri])tr.res. It is not 
 only contrary to the spirit, but to the hfter of 
 the Gospel. Dr. Wayland rirtiialhj contradicts 
 and overthrows his own position on tliis j^oint. 
 when he says, in another place, (Moral Science, 
 p. 212,) "The Gospel nctthcr rontnifindi^ mas- 
 ters to manumit their slaves, nor autJiorizti< 
 slaves to free themselves from their masters: 
 and, also, it goes further mmX pre.«:'r'ih<s the du- 
 ties suited to both parties in their present con- 
 dition." We are now speaking of the slave's 
 acquiring a knowledge of his Maker's w ill, not 
 treating the matter in the way of a liberal edu- 
 cation in art and science. A man may acquire 
 a very extensive and accurate knowledge of the 
 former, and at the same time not know whether 
 the world on which we li\ e is round or square, 
 whether it stands still or turns round on its axis 
 everv twentv-four hours. Hence, in the sccdiid 
 
108' THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 place, Dr. Wavland evidently assi(/jit« that a 
 man must read, write and do many other things 
 before lie can know anything about whether he 
 is a sinner or not, whether there is a Heaven or 
 a hell, wiiether there is a Saviour or not, and 
 whether it is right to obey God in preference to 
 fanatical ao-itators. 
 
 If, then,' it can be >liown bv tacts that men 
 are 'capable of knowing their Maker's will — that 
 they- ban acquire an extensive and accurate 
 knowdedge of the Scri[)tures — become devout 
 and consistent Christians witliout being even 
 able to read, the objection to slavery tails to the 
 gromid. It is, or should be known, by every 
 person, whether they can read or not, that the 
 art of printing was nut invented till within a 
 f(i\Y hundred years past : that before that time 
 books were very scarce — only a few could pos- 
 !^ess them — from the great expense attending 
 their manufacture — being literally made with the 
 hmid ; for they had to be not only written at 
 first with the pen, but every subserjuent copy 
 liad to be prejtared in the same way. From 
 this fact, and that the books were not written 
 like ours on paper, but on parchment or prepared 
 skins of sheep, the books would necessarily be 
 so expensive that none but a few coidd |)0ssess 
 
THE NEAV TESTAMENT OX .^LAVEKV. 1*1*1 
 
 lliL'iii. There is another lUet to be remembered, 
 growing, as a consequenee, out of that ah-eady 
 stated; it is this: very few persons, compara- 
 tively speaking, could read ; tlie great mass of 
 the people had to dejtcnd on oral instruction 
 for their information about every important 
 subject. This was true of tlie Greeks and Ro- 
 mans, two of the most civilized and intelligent 
 nations of antiquit\'. They learned the poetry 
 of their Homers, their llesiods and Anacreons; 
 the history of their Xenophons, Herodituses 
 and Polybiuses : the logic of their Aristotles, 
 and the oratory of their Demostheneses, their 
 Ciceros, and other great men, not from rcadbuj. 
 but from hearing these things read in their pub- 
 lic assemblies. It will not be denied that the 
 Jews knew as much about the character of God. 
 the nature of his service, the spirituality of his 
 essence, as many common peojile in this age 
 who frequently boast about their learning. The 
 Jews knew more of their Maker's will than 
 many who can read and per\ ert it to suit their 
 selfish and wicked ends ; still, the Jews, as a 
 mass, wert* unable to read. They obtained 
 their knowledge from the law and the pro^^hets 
 Jiclnii read Xo them every Sabbath day in their 
 synagogues. (x\cts xv, 21.) This is a sufficient 
 
200 THE NEW TESTAMENT OS SLAVERY, 
 
 refutation of the abolition objection against 
 slavery. Whether this oral instruction is given 
 to the slaves, wiil be considered in its proper 
 place. Still, if masters sutt'er their servants to 
 grow up in ignorance of the Gos)>el, it no more 
 proves that the relation is sinful in itself, than 
 that of parent and child is sinful because many 
 parents suffer their children to grow up without 
 moral and religious instruction. All that in 
 either case can be fairly said is, that the parties 
 have mglected to discharge the duties God has 
 •imposed upon them. If we were arguing the 
 •t.fipediencji or inexpediency of slavery, then this 
 matter might be urged as an argument why we 
 should abandon slavery, l^ut it does not in the 
 present case touch the point at issue. 
 
 Another argument which Dr. AVayland urges 
 to prove that slavery is a moral or social sin, is 
 derived from the fact that it often violates the 
 -conjugal or marriage relation — it often is the 
 •cause of the separation (jf man and woman, or, 
 to speak more correctly, it frecpiently separates 
 liusband and wife. God "has taught us," says 
 T)r. Wayland. (Moral Science, page 213,) ''that 
 the <'Onji((/al relation is established by himself; 
 that husband and wife are joined together by 
 God, and that man may not put them asunder. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. lJ(ll 
 
 TIr' iiiairiage contract is a contract tbi- lite, and 
 is indissoluble only for one cause." (He ought 
 to have said for tii:o — not only conjugal infidel- 
 ity, but for li'illfid desertion.) "Any system,'' 
 continues he, " that interferes with this contract, 
 and claims to niak(> it anything else than what 
 God has made it, is a violation of His law. Yet. 
 strange to say, God has not, by any express pre- 
 cept, forbidden this system of monster wicked- 
 ness — Dr. Wavland himself beinij: iudii'el God 
 has not forbidden slavery because " its announce- 
 ment would ha\e betn the signal of a servile 
 war!" The more w-e investigate the subject of 
 slavery in the anti-slavery view of it, the con- 
 duct of Christ and his apostles becomes more 
 and more shadowed in mystery, instead of be- 
 coming clearer as we advance. Darkness — 
 Egyptian darkness — covers our pathway I 
 
 The proper <piestion, then, for examination is, 
 Do the Scriptures treat the marriage of slaves 
 in the same light as they do that of free men */ 
 If we show that they do not, then, that slavery 
 is contrary to the law of God, is without foun- 
 dation. The marriage of a bond-man among 
 the Jews was treated differently from that of a 
 free man. The Hebrew servant that served six 
 vears and was entitled to his freedom, could 
 
202 THE NEW TESTAMtNT OX SLAVERY. 
 
 enjoy that freedom, if he were a married man, 
 on condition that he left his wife and children. 
 "If his master have given him a wife, and she 
 have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and 
 children shall be her master's, ar.d he shall go 
 out by himself" (Ex. xxi, 4.) The only con- 
 dition on which the servant could remain with 
 his wife and children was that he became a 
 slave for life. " And if the servant shall plainly 
 say, I love my master, my wife, and my chil- 
 dren, I will not go out free, then his master shall 
 bring him imto the judges ; he shall also bring 
 him to the door, or unto the door-post, and his 
 master shall bore his ear through with an awl, 
 and he shall serve him for ever." (Ex. xxi, 5, 
 6.) Now, taking this law in connection with 
 the fact that God has not forbidden by an ex- 
 press precept the system of shwer}', we may 
 form a Aery correct and equitable judgment on 
 a point that frequently puzzles Christian mas- 
 ters on the subject of separating husband and 
 Avife in case of a removal, or the death of the 
 head of a family. To illustrate the subject and 
 show clearly our view^ of the matter, suppose, 
 for instance, that a man is about to remove to a 
 new country ; he Avishes to take his servants 
 Avith him, but some of the male servants haA'e 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 203 
 
 wives belonging to other men, and, jn'obably, 
 some of the female servants have husbands be- 
 longing to another man. The question with 
 the Christian master is, how shall he manage 
 the matter so as not to interfere with the mar- 
 riage relation of his servants. The case to us 
 seems plain, from the law just quoted from Ex- 
 odus. The equitable plan is simply to give the 
 slave his choice — if he prefer to go with his 
 master and leave his wife and children, the 
 matter is at an end ; if he prefer to stay with 
 his wife and children, it is then the duty of his 
 master either to buy his wufe and the children 
 under age, or sell him to the man who owns his 
 wife — so in the case of the female servants. 
 This is the rule, and it is a just one, resting as 
 it does on the Scriptural principle laid down by 
 Moses, and adopted by most of Christian mas- 
 ters so far as our knowledge extends. The laws 
 of some slave-holding States require that in 
 case of the death of the master without a will, 
 the slaves shall be sold m families. We know 
 this to be true, and we have every reason to 
 believe that it will ultimately be the case in all 
 of the slave-holding States. 
 
 The objection of Dr. Wayland against slavery, 
 arising from the supposed interference with the 
 
204 THE NEW TKSTAMENT ON" t^LAVERY. 
 
 parental relations, will be answered more fully 
 when \ve come to point out the Scriptural du- 
 ties of masters and slav^es. To answ^er it here 
 would be to anticipate that branch of our sub- 
 ject too far. We therefore pass by it w^ith the 
 single remark that God has constituted the 
 master the legal lather and guardian of the 
 children of his servants. This we will show in 
 its proper place. 
 
 We have, we believe, noticed the principal 
 arguments or side issues which Dr. Wayland 
 makes against slavery. We will now notice 
 briefly an argument brought forw^ard by many 
 professedly Christian people at the North. We 
 will have to state the matter from memory, as 
 we have no written document at hand, though 
 we would prefer this mode, as there could then 
 be no ground for complaint that w'e have done 
 the advocates of this opinion injustice. If, 
 then, we clearly understand the matter, the ar- 
 gument is derived from the meaning of the 
 Greek word "c?o^^^os," which is usually trans- 
 lated " servant " in our authorized version of 
 the New Testament. The objector says, when 
 we quote the passage, " servants be obedient to 
 them that are your masters," and similar ex- 
 pressions, that the word servant does not mean 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 205 
 
 slave in the sense in which we use it, for Chris- 
 tians are called in the New Testament the ser- 
 vants — not the slaves of Christ. Therefore, 
 servant does not mean a slave, but simply a 
 hired servant. This, we believe, is a fair state- 
 ment of the matter. It is not worth wliile to 
 dispute about the meaning of the Greek word 
 doulos. Every scholar knows that it means a 
 slave. We will, however, quote one or two 
 authors of acknowledged standing, as expound- 
 ers of the Scriptures. Matthew Henry says in 
 his note on Ephesians vi, 5, that " these ser- 
 vants were generally slaves." Dr. Scott admits 
 the same thing in liis note on the same verse, 
 (Ephes. vi, 5-9.) " In general, the servants at 
 that time were slaves, the property of their 
 masters, and were often treated with great 
 severity." These men had no love for slavery, 
 and, hence, their testimony is the more valuable. 
 The word doulos^ a " servant," or " slave," 
 occurs about one hundred and twenty times in 
 the New Testament, and we have seen that 
 both Henry and Scott say that it means slave, 
 the property of the master. But, says the ob- 
 jector, this cannot be so, for the apostle Paul 
 (Rom. i, 1,) calls himself a servant of Jesus 
 Christ. The aj^ostle James uses the same mode 
 
 B 
 
206 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 of expression. (James i, 1 .) " James, a ser- 
 vant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." 
 (See also Titus i, 1 ; 2d Peter i, 1 ; Jude i.) 
 It is even said of Christ (Phil, ii, 7,) that " He 
 took upon himself tlie form of a servant, and 
 was made in the likeness of men." These are 
 a few specimens of the use of the word as used 
 in the New Testament. The question now 
 arises, What constitutes a man, or Christian, as a 
 servant of Christ, or of God? Certainly one of 
 the things is, that He be subject to the will of 
 God, or Christ — to the will of another. Christ 
 took upon himself the form of a servant because 
 in the work of redemption He was subject to 
 the will of His Father. " My meat is to do the 
 will of Him that sent me, and to finish His 
 work." (John iv, 34.) "Father, if Thou be 
 willing, remove this cup from me ; neverthe- 
 less, not my will, but thine be done." (Luke 
 xxii, 42.) " Lo, I come ! in the volume of thy 
 book it is written of me to do Thy will, O 
 God." (Heb. x, 7.) These passages prove one 
 point beyond dispute, that a servant must and 
 is subject to the will of another. It may be 
 objected that this obedience on the part of 
 Christ was voluntary. Admitted; still this does 
 not destroy the idea of subjection to the will of 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 207 
 
 another. What, then, constitutes a Christian 
 the servant of Christ V There are two ideas 
 prominent in this. First, that he \)q purchased^ 
 and, secondly, tliat he obey the icill of Christy 
 his master. The idea ofpurchaseis very prom- 
 inent in the Scriptures, and is frequently urged 
 as a consideration why Christians should be 
 wholly devoted to Christ's service. " Ye are 
 not your own, for ye are bought with a price ; 
 therefore, glorify God in your body and in your 
 spirit, which are God's." (1st Cor. vi, 19, 20.) 
 The price is very valuable, not being any mate- 
 rial, such as silver, or gold, but His own blood. 
 " Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- 
 deemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
 gold, * * * but w^ith the precious blood 
 of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
 without spot." (1st Peter i, 18.) In these 
 passages the idea of a purchase stands promi- 
 nent. We are tausjht that Christians do not 
 belong to themselves, but arc tlie property of 
 Christ. He has redeemed them, paid the price 
 demanded for their release, so that His purchase 
 extends to the soul as well as the body ; both 
 are included. This conveys the idea of more 
 complete subjection to the will of Christ on the 
 part of his followers, than is even required by 
 
208 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 any master of his servant or slave. All that 
 the master buys and claims is the time of the 
 servant; he does not buy the soul, or claim to 
 control the conscience of the slave. It is left 
 free, and he is at liberty to worship his God as 
 may best suit his own view^s. 
 
 The other idea of a Christian being a servant 
 of Christ is, that he obey hi all things the will 
 of Christ, his master. Paul, at his conversion, 
 enquired, "Lord, lohat wilt thou have me to 
 do ?" (Acts ix, 6.) " He that is called, being- 
 free, is Christ's servant." (1st Cor. vii.) We 
 need not multiply passages to prove this point, 
 as it is conceded bv all who acknowleds^e the 
 Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice. 
 " Whosoever will come after me," says Christ, 
 "let him deny himself, and take up his cross 
 and follow me." (Matthew^ xvi, 24.) The two 
 prominent ideas of subjection are then found in 
 the very Word, and on that point which is se- 
 lected to disprove the doctrine for which we 
 contend. The Sjriptures recognize the principle 
 that the servant is the property of his master — 
 " He is his money," " possession," an inheritance 
 for his children" — and they inculcate ohediotCi 
 on servants to their masters. But, the objector 
 still answers us that the apostle says that Chris- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 200 
 
 tians arc the property of Christ, and fi-oin this 
 consideration should not be the servants of men. 
 "Ye are bought with a price: be not ye tlie 
 servants of men." (1st Cor. vii, 23.) To tliis 
 we reply that a man may be the servant of Christ 
 in a spiritifcd sense, and the servai-it of man in a 
 civil sense, without any contradiction ; in other 
 words, civil servitude is not inconsistent with 
 Christian liberty, "for he that is called in the 
 Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free man." 
 (1st Cor. vii, 22.) The Gospel does not inter- 
 fere with the relations of life, while, in a spirit- 
 ual sense, there is no distinction made on 
 account of the rank or civil condition of men. 
 For " there is neither Jew, nor Greek ; there is 
 neither bond, (slave,) nor free, (free man ;) 
 there is neither male, nor female, for ye all are 
 one in Jesus Christ.'' (Gal. iii, 28.) "Slaves 
 are now the Lord's free men, and free men the 
 Lord'wS sei-vants : and this consideration makes 
 the free humble, and the slave cheerful." 
 (Doddridge.) The Gospel, then, was not in- 
 tended to teach disobedience to those whom 
 God, by His providence, has placed over us, 
 but to be cheerful, obetlient — renderinii' to all 
 that reverence, honor and obedience due to 
 them. He, therefore, that teaches or exhorts 
 
210 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON JjLAVERY. 
 
 slaves to disobey their masters, runaway from 
 their service, because he vainly asserts that the 
 Gospel makes no distinction among men on ac- 
 ■count of race, or color ; such an one " is proud, 
 knowing nothing, but doting about questions 
 ?ind strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 
 strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disput- 
 ings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of 
 the truth — supposing that gain is godliness : 
 from such withdraw thyself." (1st Tim. vi, 4, 
 5.) There is the portrait of an abolition agi- 
 tator drawn at full length by the pen of an 
 inspired apostle; and the very existence of such 
 agitators is a standing proof to us, to be seen of 
 all, that the holy men wrote as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghost. If there were none teach- 
 in<^ disobedience to masters, abusing men who 
 hold slaves, and trying every means to excite 
 servile war, then our proof of the inspiration of 
 Paul would be wanting. We see the man of 
 sin as he describes him : we see scofi'ers denying 
 the Lord that bought them ; we see abolitionists 
 " doting about questions,'' which in no way 
 concern them, for they have no personal or 
 direct connection with slavery ; we see " envy, 
 strife, or contentions, railings," the use of the 
 most offensive e})ithets, " evil surmisings," sus- 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 211 
 
 pieions and jealousies, perverse disputings of 
 lueu of corrupt minds — destitute of the truth — 
 men wlio neitlier know nor eare for the truth, 
 so that their selfish ends are obtained — " sup- 
 posing that gain is godliness'' — that tlieir selfish 
 ends are the highest evidence of piety — pre- 
 tending to be the only friend of the slave — very 
 pious and devout — seeking his spiritual and 
 temporal welfare, while some office is the sole 
 and only end to be gained. "From such witli- 
 <lraw thyself" We see all these things before 
 our eyes, and thus have the best evidence cf 
 the inspiration of the Avriters of the Xew Tes- 
 tament. The last argument which we will 
 notice is founded on the assertion that slave- 
 holders are "men stealers," and, therefore, they 
 should be turned out of God's church on earth, 
 4^ind excluded from His kingdom hereafter. The 
 apostles, (1st Tim. i, 10,) says the objector, 
 classes the man-stealers with the "lawless and 
 •disobedient," with the " ungodly and sinners," 
 with the " unholy an<l profane," with " murder- 
 ers of fathers and murderers of mothers," with 
 " whoremongers and them that defile themselves 
 with mankind," with "liars and perjured per- 
 sons." These characters — especially the last — 
 are declared in other ]»laces of the New Testa- 
 
212 THE NEW rKSTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 ment to be nnworlhy of Heaven. The slave 
 holder /.s^ a man- stealer ; therefore, he is excluded 
 from the kingdom of Heaven. This is a full 
 and fair statement of the argument. The whole 
 gist and sojjliistry of the matter consists in 
 assuraing that the slaveholder is a raan-stealer. 
 Let us see on what ground this assumption 
 rests. Surely some abolition orator is the 
 author of the assertion that slavehok^ers are 
 men-stealers. The Bible does not say so. 
 What I did the inspired apostle mean to say 
 that " Father Abraham " was a man-stealer I 
 Did the apostle Paul mean to say that " Phile- 
 mon, his dearly beloved and fellow-laborer and 
 brother," was a man-stealer, and yet send back 
 Onesimus, his runaway slave ? Certainly Paul, 
 or the anti-slavery man, is mad. Which affords 
 the best evidence of sanity, or insanity, cannot 
 be long a matter of dispute in the mind of 
 every sober and reflecting man. The term 
 needs some explanation to clear it from the per- 
 versions of al)olitionists. The Bible is always 
 the best expounder of itself. Then, a man- 
 stealer, in the Scriptural sense of the word, is 
 one who steals or kidnaps a free man^ to make 
 merchandize of him — that is, steals him and 
 sells him as a slave. This crime was runishable 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 213 
 
 witli death, according to the law of God given 
 by Moses. " He that stealeth a man and selleth 
 him, or, if he be found in bis hand, he shall 
 surely be put to death." (Ex. xxi, KJ.) That 
 we have given the correct interpretation of the 
 law is clear from the parallel passage in Deut. 
 xxiv, 7 : "If a man be found stealing any otWiis 
 bretlircn of the children of Israel., and maketh 
 merchandize of him, or selleth him, then that 
 thief shall die, and thou shalt put away evil 
 from among you." Matthew Henry gives the 
 following note on Ex. xxi, 16: "There is a law 
 against man -stealing. He theit steeds a mem., 
 woman, or child, with a design to sell them to 
 the Gentiles, (for no Israelite would buy them) 
 was adjudged to death by this statute, which 
 is ratified by the apostle (1st Tim. i, 10,) where 
 nien-steeders are reckoned anion o- those wicked 
 ones against whom laws must be made by 
 Christian princes." Such, evidently, is the true 
 meaning of the law. This may be shown from 
 other considerations: First — the Vfe of a ser- 
 veint was not as valuable as that of a/'ree 'inein. 
 To steal a free man, and sell him, w\as to deprive 
 the public of one of its members. Secondly — 
 it was taking away a man's liberty — the liberty 
 of a free-born Israelite — w'hich was next in value 
 
214 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 to liis lite. Thirdly — " it was driving a man out 
 from the inheritance of the land, to the privi- 
 leges of which he was entitled, and bidding 
 him to go and serve other gods." 
 
 To take the abolition view of the two laws, is 
 to make the first one in Exodus an independent 
 statute of perpetual obligation, and the other 
 merely temporary — that is, a law is either tern- 
 ponu'ii or perpetual^ to suit the views of the 
 man who wishes to accomplish a particular pur- 
 pose. To take the ground that Dr. Scott does, 
 that the law in Exodus implied that he who stole 
 any one of the human species^ in order to make 
 a slave of him, should be punished with death, 
 is to pervert, not explain the passage. The 
 emphasis in this quotation is ours. We placed 
 it there for the purpose of showing the absurdity 
 of the forced interpretation which Dr. Scott 
 attempts to put upon it, if the law then applied 
 to " any one of the human species.'''' We sim- 
 ply enquire. Were the Jews of the human spte- 
 cies, or not ? If they were, then there was no 
 necessity or sense in giving the law of Deut. 
 xxiv, 7. That the Israelites did not belong to 
 the human, species, we presume no man will 
 attempt to prove. The truth is, the law of 
 Deut. xxiv, 7, is an e.iposition of that of Ex. 
 
THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 215 
 
 XX, 16. Besides, there is a wide difference be- 
 tween enacting a law to prevent the Jews from 
 steaHng a Hebrew, or free man, and making 
 merchandize of him, and authorizing them to 
 buy bond-men and bond-maids from the lieathen 
 around them and of the strangers who sojourned 
 among them. It is also evident that the law of 
 Exodus xxi, 16, referred to free men, because 
 the bond-men and bond-maids were liable to be 
 sold to the stranger, as well as to men of the 
 Hebrew nation. We admit that it is wrong to 
 steal a free man, and sell him for a slave. 
 
 Many Christians seem to admit that slavery 
 is not wrong under certain circumstances, but 
 will not allow that the New Testament does 
 countenance the idea of its perpetuity. The 
 perpetuity of the system depends entirely on 
 the will of the owner. This is clearly the idea 
 of Paul, as he would not do anything with One- 
 simus without the consent of his master, Phile- 
 mon. [Philemon, verse 14.] "Whomlwould 
 have retained with me, that in thy stead he 
 might have ministered unto me in the bonds of 
 the Gospel ; but icithout tJiy mind would I do 
 nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it 
 were of necessity, but willingly." "Art thou 
 called, being a servant, care not for it ; but, if 
 
216 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 
 
 thou tnayest he made free, use it rather." (1st 
 Cor. vii, 21.] Who, then, was to make the 
 slave free? Certainly, if the master, it was to 
 be his own vohmtary act, for even Dr. Way- 
 land says, or admits that "the Grospel neither 
 commands masters to manumit their slaves, nor 
 authorizes slaves to free themselves from their 
 masters." 
 
 We will now point out the mutual duties of 
 masters and slaves, as laid down in the holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 217 
 
 CHAPTER VTII. 
 
 THE DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 We svt out with the settled purpose to know 
 and follow the teachings of the Scriptures on 
 the subject of slavery, and with the determina- 
 tion to follow out the sacred writers on all 
 points touching the mattei-. Our work, then, 
 would not be complete without pointing out 
 tlie mutual duties growing out of the relation 
 of masters and servants. We have seen, and 
 our opponents admit, that neither Christ nor 
 his inspired apostles have declared that the rela- 
 tion of master is sinful in itself; that the sacred 
 writers have prescribed the duties of the rela- 
 tion ; and, of course, it is the duty of every one 
 to know what his Creator requires of him in the 
 various relations and stations of life. 
 
 We may remark here, again, that the nerjlect 
 to discharge the duty growing out of any rela- 
 tion, and enjoined by God on those sustaining 
 that relation, is altogether a difterent thing from 
 s 
 
218 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 the relation itself. The relation may be lawful 
 and innocent in itself, while those who sustain 
 that relation may fail or neglect to perform the 
 duties of that relation, enjoined by divine 
 authority. The sin may and often does consist 
 in the neglect of the duties, and not in the rela- 
 tion itself. By observing this plain and obvious 
 distinction, no one can be at a loss to see the 
 sophism of Dr. Wayland's remarks, [Moral 
 Science, p. 216,] that "The manner in which 
 the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, 
 therefore, affords no ground for the assertion, 
 that the Gospel authorizes one man to hold an- 
 other in bondage, any more than the command 
 to honor the king, when that king was Nero, 
 authorized the tyranny of the emperor, or than 
 the command to turn the other cheek when one 
 is smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by 
 an injurious man." This argument completely 
 misses the point at issue. All that can be fairly 
 deduced from it is, that Nero was a very bad 
 ruler, that he did not perform his duty as a 
 ruler, but tyrannized over his subjects — abused 
 his power ; but this by no means proves that, 
 therefore, the relation of ruler and subject is 
 sinful in itself This is altogether another 
 matter. On the same ground every relation in 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AM) SERVANTS. 219 
 
 life may be proven to be sinful. All that is 
 neees'sary, then, according to this view of the 
 subject, to justify any one from recognizing a 
 relation as lawful and right, is for one of the 
 parties to neglect the duties appropriate to that 
 relation. This is too clearly absurd. To pursue 
 It further, would be trying to prove a thing 
 which is clear as soon as stated in words which 
 can be understood by the reader. And, nntil 
 Dr. Wayland proves that the slave is returning 
 good for evil in obeying his master's lawful 
 requirements, the latter part of the paragraph 
 which we have quoted is just that much gratui- 
 tous assertion. That many known and lawful 
 duties are neglected in all relations of life, we 
 presume that no man at all conversant with men 
 and things will attempt to deny. The object, 
 then, should be to know our duties ; the rea- 
 sons on which they are based ; attempt to per- 
 form them, and not set ourselves to abuse those 
 who are desirous to know and perform the du. 
 ties which God requires of them ; and God has 
 not required us to reject those whom He has 
 accepted, nor to add to His Word, and thus 
 condemn a relation which he has not con- 
 demned. A great amount of abuse has been 
 expended by anti-slavery men against the sin- 
 
220 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTf>. 
 
 lUlucss of the relation of master and slave. 
 May it not be asked with authority, "vWho 
 hath required this at your hands?" God has 
 not said in His Word that the relation is sinful. 
 He has not authorized uninspired men to say 
 so, and we would calmly and respectfully ask, 
 " By wdiat authority you do these things, and 
 who gave you this authoiity ? " If you reply 
 that the authority is of men, we respectfully 
 but Hrmly decline to obey it, or recognize it 
 as binding in this case. If you say it is of God, 
 produce your proof; i)rove your credentials. 
 This we are satisfied you cannot do, and from 
 this time forth your quarrels must be with your 
 Creator, and not with us. With these prelimi- 
 nary remarks, we now go on to ascertain the 
 duties of masters and servants ; to know what 
 God requires of both parties, and to urge on 
 both masters and servants a faithful perform- 
 ance of the duties God lias mutually enjoined 
 on them. 
 
 1. The Unties of blasters. — There are a few 
 plain and simple duties, so r^sonable in them- 
 selves, and dictated by the light of reason, that 
 the Scriptures say nothing about them ; still, we 
 will point them out. It is the duty, then, of the 
 master to furnish his servants with comfortable 
 
DUTIEH OF MASTERS AND SKUVANTS. 221 
 
 houses, decent clothing — more especially is this 
 incumhent on the master in inclement and cold 
 weather — so that the servant may be fitted lor 
 the proper and full discharge of his duty in la- 
 boring tbr his master. To supply them with 
 plenty of good and wholesome food ; this is 
 plainly reasonable and riglit, as every man 
 knows by his own ex}>erience that it is impossi- 
 ble for either man or beast to lal>or without a 
 sufficient supply of food to keep up the heat 
 and strength of the system which has been ex- 
 hausted and consumed by continued exercise. 
 It is the duty of the master to take care of his 
 slaves when they become old, infirm, or so dis- 
 eased as to render them unable to labor. This, 
 we believe, is generally acknowledged by all 
 slaveholders, and not oidy recognized as a duty, 
 but actually performed. In this respect there 
 is a very wide difference between the slave and 
 the mere hireling. The hireling gets his oir)i 
 food from the family in which he serves ; but, 
 out of his small wages, he has to support his 
 wife and children, clothe himself and clothe 
 and feed both his wife and children. When the 
 hired servant becomes old and helpless, he has 
 jio kind master to take care of him in his declin- 
 ing years; he must take cai'c of himself, Hnc on 
 
222 DUTIE^^ OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 public charity, be dependent on his children 
 who are servants themselves, and have families 
 of wives and children to support besides. It is 
 the duty of the master to nurse and furnish 
 medical aid to his sla\es when they are sick. 
 This is also trenerallv recosrnized and observed 
 by slaveholders. Here, again, the slave has the 
 advantage of the mere hired servant, for he has 
 not only to clothe hiuiself, furnish both food 
 and clothing for his fjimily — if he has one — but 
 to pay out of liis wages the doctor's bill, and, 
 frequently, for a nurse besides ; for, if he stop 
 to labor to nurse his sick family, his wages stop 
 too. There is another point which is recognized 
 as right among all slaveholders, and it is a point 
 in which the slave is far above the mere hired 
 servant ; it is this : in times of great scarcity, 
 when God has withheld the rains and dews of 
 heaven : when the staff of bread has been broken ; 
 when cleanness of teetli threatens to stalk 
 abroad, and famine is upon us, there is no dan- 
 <»-er of the slave suffering for food, or clothing, 
 so long as his master has any credit ; so long- 
 as there can be any provisions secured in any 
 way, the slave is sure of a part with his master's 
 family. When there is a great depression in 
 the market value, when there is a commercial 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEKVANTS. 223 
 
 •convulsion, the master does not suspend opera- 
 tions on liis farm, turn out his slaves to starve 
 or steal ; but he goes on as usual, and attempts 
 to secure, at least, a competence for his family, 
 children and servants. On the other hand, 
 when these crashes come in the commercial 
 world — when labor will not pay, the manufac- 
 turer stops operations, dismisses his operatives, 
 and they must do the best tlu'V can to find food 
 and raiment for themselves and families ; they 
 have no claim on their employer ; he has paid 
 them the stipulated price of their labor; they 
 are free nie/i, and must take care of themselves. 
 This is the Northern side of slavery. 
 
 Slavery may be properly defined to be a ccr- 
 tain relation which hiboi' stuitahis to capitaL 
 Wherever there is capital, there will be servi- 
 tude. You may call this relation /Vee' or iVarc 
 labor — whichever you choose — but it is a mat- 
 ter of very small importance in a j'l'actical vie^^■ 
 whether the service rendered is called voluntary 
 or hicohintary. The man who holds the capi- 
 tal will be the master, in despite of mere names 
 — he is so in reality. The man who labors is 
 the ser\ant, or slave, and his labor is not a mere 
 matter of choice ; he must either labor, and la- 
 bor at the price which the capitalist offers, oi" 
 
224 DUTIKS OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 lie must starve or steal. Xow, so far as the 
 fact is concerned, it is a matter of verv small 
 importance whether tliis is called voluntary or 
 involuntary. We say that tlio hired servant's la- 
 bor is not voluntary, for he would not thus labor 
 if he could help himself. But, the mere fact that 
 a man gets eight, ten, or even iifteen dollars per 
 month for his labor, and out of this has to clothe 
 himself, feed and clothe his family, pay his med- 
 ical bill — that such an one is to be dignified with 
 the jiigh-sounding title of a fire man^ when he 
 is completely and to all practical intents and 
 purposes at the mercy of a money-holder; if 
 this be the boasted liberty of freedom-shriekers, 
 then the free man is only so in name, while the 
 rrolit!/ is wanting. Tliat hired servants get 
 what is just and equal, we do not believe; they 
 •do not get enough to support their families 
 with the common comforts of life. They may 
 get along by hard saving, close counting — pro- 
 vided thev and tlicii- famihes eniov j^ood health, 
 and there is no revulsion in the market; l)at wo 
 be to these/Ve^' ine/t, if such unfortunate events 
 happen. Iftlie innne were changed, the reality 
 would l)e the same. The difference in the two 
 things is this: the slaveliolder gives his slave 
 liis choice either to work, or be ))unished for his 
 
Dl'TIKS OF MASTERS AND SERVANT?. 225 
 
 ilisobedience ; the capitalist gives his servants 
 the clioice to work at his prices, or starve or 
 osteal. Tliis is the tiling as it is; this is the plain 
 reality. The reaJ difference is only in the tnode 
 of pnnishment. This is the great, the vast, the 
 vaunted and the boasted difference between a 
 free liired servant and a bond-man. 
 
 The master is bound to keep the families of 
 servants together until the children become 
 grown, and not then to part them only through 
 unavoidable necessity. The great objection to 
 slavery is that it interferes with the conjugal 
 and 2'f are /it ((I relations; that is, it often separ- 
 ates husbands and wives, parents and children. 
 We have set aside, by the word of God, the 
 objection arising from the separation of husband 
 and wife ; we have shown by a reference to the 
 law that the marriage of a slave, or even a tem- 
 porary bondman was not treated in the same 
 manner as that of a freeman ; that the Hebrew 
 servant could not take with him his family when 
 he went out free; that the only condition on 
 which he could remain with his wife and children, 
 was to become a slave for life to the owner of 
 them ; the master's r((/hf of property was not 
 annnlled l>y the servant's freedom. We have 
 also laid down what we believe to be the Scrip- 
 
i^26 dutip:s of masters and servaxts. 
 
 tural law of equity in case one of the owners 
 wishes to remove to a distant place. In answer- 
 ing the objection we showed what is the duty 
 of the master, and hence any further repetition 
 of this point is unnecessary here. As to the 
 children of the servants, they should not separ- 
 ate them from their jjarents under a certain 
 age, say fifteen years old. If the master is com- 
 pelled to part with his servants, the mother and 
 all her children under the age sj^ecified, should 
 be sold together. Such, too, is to a great extent 
 the practice among Christian masters. The 
 laws of some of the slaveholding States recog- 
 nize the same general princii^le. The children 
 should be kept in the family of their master in 
 order that they may bo cared for, nursed by 
 their mothers, and instructed by their masters 
 on moral and religious subjects. It certainly is 
 the duty of Christian masters to instruct the 
 children of tlieir servants in the great principles 
 of Christianity, to catechise them as they do 
 their own children, to require their presence at 
 ^amily devotion, and when they come to years of 
 reflection, to leave them to choose for them- 
 selves the particular branch of Christ's Church 
 in wliicli they may wish to serve their God. 
 Such appears to us to be the clear teachings of 
 the Bible on this point. 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 2'2T 
 
 "Father Abraham" liad three hundred and 
 eighteen servants, but they were trained or in- 
 titnicted. (Gen. xiv, 14.) We plead his exam- 
 ple as a good man who held slaves, to show that 
 there is no natural immorality in the relation. 
 We must also follow his example, instruct our 
 servant children, set them a good example, exer- 
 cise our authority over them in requiring them 
 to attend on the religious exercises of our fami- 
 lies; then we can plead with God to bring on us^ 
 the blessings he has promised to Abraham and 
 his children, " I know him, (Abraham) that he 
 will command his children and his household 
 after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
 Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the 
 Lord may bring upon Abraham that which 
 he hath spoken of him.'' (Gen. xviii, 19.) 
 This sho\vs clearly that it is the duty of the 
 master to instruct the servant children, and thus^ 
 perform to them the duty of a legal father. We 
 forbear from making any more comparisons- 
 between bound and hired servants, because it is. 
 said that comparisons are odious, and because 
 one evil, if it be an evil, is not justified on the 
 ground that another evil of equal magnitude is 
 practiced by our opponent. We do not then 
 attempt to justify slavery, if it were wrong in 
 
228 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 itself, on the ground that hired servants are in a 
 worse condition than slaves. But when we 
 liave shown that slavery is not a sin in itself, 
 there can be no harm to let our opponents knoAV 
 the grounds on which they stand ; to point out 
 the evils of the system, and give them a hint that 
 they had better pull the beams out of their own 
 eyes before they go about to pull the motes out of 
 their neighbors' eyes. " Let him that is without 
 sin among you cast the first stone at us." 
 Correct the social abuses which are among you, 
 then we may be prepared to hear from you a 
 lecture on our social sin. Until then we say^ 
 "Physician, heal thyself." 
 
 It is the duty of the master to protect the 
 servant from abuse, or ill-treatment, and to have 
 justice done them when they are wronged. 
 This is necessary, because, from their very situ- 
 ation, many low-principled and mean men love 
 to domineer over a servant when they would 
 not have the courage to say one word to men 
 of their own color or standing:. There are also 
 a kind of unprincipled men who would, if they 
 dared, abuse a slave merely to gratify their ill- 
 will towards his master. Still, slaveholders gen- 
 erally would resent an insult offered to their 
 slaves much sooner than if oftered to them- 
 
DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 229 
 
 selves, as such conduct indicates a low and little 
 principle; it becomes contemptible in the mind 
 of a thinking man. When slaves are accused 
 of any crime, we never yet have seen a master 
 refuse to see that they had a fair trial, the bene- 
 fit of counsel and all the available testimony. If 
 convicted, or proved guilty, a greater penalty 
 than the law prescribes cannot be inflicted. 
 This duty arises not only from the fact that the 
 slave is the master's property, but because he is 
 one of his master's household ; tlie master is the 
 guardian ; to him the slave looks for protection; 
 against injury and injustice, and he never looks 
 in vain. If masters err at all on this point, they 
 err in being too merciful. As to masteis just 
 deliberately tying up their slaves and beating 
 them so unmercifully as to cause death, we know 
 nothino- not havino; known a sinole case of the 
 kind in our life, which has been spent in slave- 
 holding States. We have known a few cases in 
 which masters have killed their slaves by strik- 
 ing them while under the influence of passion, 
 but such cases are rare, and men who are in the 
 liabit of beating their slaves unmercifully, are 
 just as much detested at the South as at the 
 Xorth. Hence it is the duty of masters to lay 
 upon servants no more labor than they can rea- 
 
 T 
 
230 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 sonably perform, to allow them time to enjoy 
 the comforts of life, and to preserve to them 
 sacredly the rest of the Sabbath. We fear that 
 many masters will be condemned by their Mas- 
 ter in heaven for robbing him of the Sabbath. It 
 is true that as a general rule, slaves are not re- 
 quired to labor in the field on the Sabbath day 
 for their masters, for the laws of most of the slave- 
 holding States prohibit such things under heavy 
 penalties. But we refer to a practice which is 
 common in some families of making the servants 
 do up odd jobs on the Sabbath, to save a day 
 to the sinful practice of what is known as " Sun- 
 day visiting," and thus the servants employed 
 in the domestic arrangements of the flimily are 
 hindered by over-preparations for the entertain- 
 ment of company on the Sabbath day. Against 
 such practice, whether practiced North or South, 
 we here enter our solemn protest. It is not 
 only depriving our servants of the rest to which 
 God has given them an express claim in the 
 fourth commandment, but is actually a robbery 
 of God, taking that which belongs to him, and 
 appropriating it to our own use. The Egyp- 
 tians made the children of Israel to serve with 
 rigor, and they made their lives bitter with hard 
 bondage; they did set over them task masters 
 
DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 231 
 
 to afflict them with their burdens, and the chil- 
 dren of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, 
 and they cried ; and their cry came up unto 
 God, by reason of bondage, and God heard tlieir 
 groaning; and God looked upon the children of 
 Israel, and God had respect unto them. (Ex. i 
 11, 13; ii, 23, 25.) Xow while God has given 
 the master the right to his slaves, He requires 
 that the master be merciful in tasking them, 
 allow them the Sabbath to rest, and worship 
 Him. Masters should think on these thinQ-s, 
 for they have a Master in Heaven, who will judge 
 every man, master and servant, according to 
 his works, whether he be bond or free. With 
 Him the external or outward distinctions of life 
 is no recommendation or disadvantage, " If ye 
 call on the Father, who without respect of per- 
 sons judgeth according to every man's work." 
 {1st Peter i, IV; also Ephs. vi, 9.) For the 
 author of the Sabbath, and that God has given 
 servants this day, see Ex. xx, 8-11, and 9th and 
 10th verses particularly. " Six days shalt thou 
 labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day 
 is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou 
 shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor 
 thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid 
 servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is 
 
232 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 within tliy gates.'- This sliows cleariy that tlic 
 master has no right to require his servants to do 
 anything tliat is unlawful, or contrary to tlie 
 revealed will of God. We abide by tlie law of 
 our Great Creator. He has said that such things 
 as laboring on His day is contrary to His law. 
 Let, then, God be obeyed. He has given us six 
 days to work, and required us to rest the sev- 
 enth. If not on that seventh day of the week, 
 ouQS(:r(^/(th of our time ; never having given men 
 tlie right to work but .sv*,'' days in the week. Mas- 
 ters sliould make reasonable allowances for fail- 
 ures on the part of their servants to perform every 
 minute thing, as something may and does fre- 
 quently happen that it is impossible to fully 
 comply with the letter of the commandments of 
 their masters. To be too exacting often leads 
 to stu}»id inditference to the master's interest, 
 encourages, or produces the habit of deception 
 on the part of the servant. A harsh, rash, 
 tyrannical, fault-finding master is always a ter- 
 ror to his servants, and destroys rather than 
 secures the confidence of the servant. Every 
 man knows this to be true who ever had the man- 
 agement, either of children or servants. The 
 man who is always scolding and threatening his 
 children or servants is not respected or obeyed 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 233 
 
 cheerfully by either ; but the man who is firm 
 and calm, secures both confidence and respect, 
 and his requirements are cheerfully observed. 
 This course invites and secures confidence. 
 Hence the Apostle exhorts masters [Ephs. vi, 9,] 
 "to forbear threatening, knowing that your 
 Master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect 
 of persons with liim." It is also the duty of the 
 master to correct the faults of servants, and 
 require obedience to their lawful commands, 
 and in case of stubbornness or surliness, to pun- 
 ish them. This should always be sure and cer- 
 tain^ but always just and merciful. The master 
 should never suffer himself to correct or punish 
 while under the influence of passion, or hatred. 
 When done under the influence of passion it 
 partakes more of revenge than punishment or 
 correction, and frequently defeats the ends for 
 which it was inflicted, "A servant," says Solo- 
 mon, " will not be corrected by words, for 
 though he understand he will not answer." 
 [Prov. xxix, 19.] This clearly implies that 
 something stronger than words must be used to 
 bring the stubborn and slothful servant to love 
 and obey his master. The right to inflict cor- 
 poreal punishment for faults is also implied in 
 tlie word, "Command his children and house- 
 
234 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 hold.'" The very idea of government implies 
 the right to enforce obedience. The law author- 
 ized the magistrate to inflict bodily j^unishment 
 on the criminal, although he were a free raan. 
 [Deut. XXV, 2, 3.] The parent is authorized to 
 correct his child. "The rod and rejjroof give 
 wisdom ; but a son left to himself bringeth his 
 mother to shame." [Prov. xxix, 15.] "Correct 
 thy son, and he shall give thee rest ; yea, he 
 shall give delight unto thy soul." So neces- 
 sary is the use of the rod to the proper 
 training of children, that it is said, that " he that 
 spareth the rod hateth his son ; but he that 
 loveth him chasteneth him betimes." [Prov. 
 xiii, 24.] If it is necessary in the family among 
 children, it is equally necessary among stubborn 
 and sullen servants. Hence says Solomon again, 
 " A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and 
 a rod for the fool's l)ack.'' [Prov. xxvi, 3.] The 
 fool, therefore, who will not labor without it. 
 jrive him the rod and make him work. This is 
 doing him and the community both good ser- 
 vice. It often saves the community from sup- 
 porting a lazy, idle fellow, and protects their 
 property from being stolen to sujiport or uphold 
 him in his laziness. 
 
 It is the duty of masters to furnish servants, 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. • 235 
 
 or slaves, with religious instruction, or the 
 preaching of the Gospel on the Sabbath ; correct 
 their immoralities, and make a distinction 
 between the good and faithful, and the vicious 
 and idle. We have shown that it is the duty of 
 the master to instruct them more particularlv 
 when young, and then let them select that way 
 in which they may choose to worship God, when 
 they have come to years of reflection. It will 
 not be a dithcult, but a jjleasant and easy task, 
 to show that the Scriptural examples of good 
 men teach the same doctrine, and we know from 
 the character of the Christian master, that all 
 that is necessary for him to comply is to be sat- 
 isfied and convinced of his duty. We refer again 
 to the example of Abraham, God, in making a 
 covenant with him, included not only his chil- 
 dren, but his servants. He that Avas born in his 
 house, and he that was bought with his money 
 was to be circumcised. [Gen. xvii, 9-14.] The 
 circumcised servant that was bought with money 
 was admitted to the religious feast of the pass- 
 over. [Ex. xii, 44.] God also commended the 
 example of Abraham. " I know Abraham that 
 he will command his children and household 
 after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
 Lord." They arc under the direction of the 
 
236 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 master, tliey form a part of his household, and 
 hence the master ought to care for their spirit- 
 ual welfare. If he cannot instruct them, then 
 he should employ a competent man to give them 
 oral instruction; a man who is competent and 
 apt to teach should be employed, as he will be 
 better qualified to instruct them. We have 
 found by experience that such a man can advance 
 them taster in religious knowledge; he can secure 
 confidence. A minister who preaches to the 
 masters would be a very suitable person to 
 employ. Let the masters pay him to attend 
 expressly to the religious instruction of the ser- 
 vants on the Sabbath day. We are opposed to 
 the practice of employing negro preachers, foi* 
 in a general way they are incompetent to teach 
 from their limited education. Much of their 
 so called preaching is unintelligible jargon; it 
 neither edifies, nor instructs. That there are 
 -exceptions to this rule we cheerfully admit; but 
 we speak of the general results of such preach- 
 ing. Moreover there are always some vicious 
 and bad servants who do not go to preaching to 
 learn, or to be instructed, but for the purpose of 
 getting an opportunity to indulge in some vice, 
 such as drunkenness, gambling, or some similar 
 .■evil practice. P^'rom this source sometimes diffi- 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEIIVANTS. 237 
 
 culties arise wliich draw innocent servants into 
 ii difficulty, and the meetings are broken up by 
 a disturbance, and frequently masters prevent 
 their servants from attending upon such places, 
 to keep them out of a difficulty. Still the plan 
 of having preaching to them by a white minister 
 should not be abandoned. It is clearly the duty 
 of the masters to prevent all disorders, keep and 
 enforce li-ood order. There are a ofreat manv 
 white persons who go to church merely to be 
 going, and are only prevented from disturbing 
 the assembly by the fear of the penalties of civil 
 law. Such persons have to be kept in check by 
 the proper authorities. So also must the vicious 
 and wicked servants. In most of the churches 
 in the Southern States galleries are provided for 
 the accommodation of the servants. If these 
 are not found in all churches, there are gene- 
 rally a few seats set apart in the body of the 
 church for the benefit of the servants. Yet a 
 sermon intended for educated people is of little 
 advantage to our servants. Hence the necessity 
 of the master either instructing them himself, 
 or employing a minister of the Gospel to do it 
 for him. Oral instruction is the best mode for 
 commnnicatino- relioious knowledi^e to the 
 slaves. It is not necessary that they should e\en 
 
238 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 read, in order to acquire a correct knowledge 
 of the attributes of God, the plan of salvation 
 through Christ, and all the practical duties 
 required by the New Testament. We have 
 shown this to be a rational and feasible plan by 
 the example of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, 
 who, as a general thing, could not read, or could 
 not have the opportunity of reading the Scrip- 
 tures and other books for themselves. And it 
 is a fact open and known to all, that those per- 
 sons who are not able to read retain much more 
 of a sermon, and keep it longer than those who 
 can read. The reason of this is plain. Such a 
 person is dependent for all his information on 
 the instruction of others. Hence their attention 
 is wholly fixed on the subject. Neither should 
 the master neglect this duty merely because 
 some ungodly or wicked man is opposed to it. 
 Such a man, if he had his own way would drive 
 every minister out of the land, and burn all the 
 Bibles too, because they reprove his wicked con- 
 duct. Nor should it be neglected on account 
 of the clamor of abolitionists, for we are not 
 responsible to them, or any human power for the 
 religious instruction of our slaA'es, but to God j 
 and if theknowdedgeof the Gospel — we mean the 
 possession of r^al and genuine piety — does not 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 239 
 
 make better servants of them, if it does not make 
 them more faithful, obedient, lionest and n})i-ight 
 then our experience and observation are all at 
 fault. And if the preaching of the pure and 
 simple truths of the gospel tend to break down 
 the system of domestic slavery, we say, let it go. 
 But we have no fears on this point so long as 
 meddlesome men can be prevented from poison- 
 ing their minds with tlieir unscriptural, radical 
 and devilish doctrines. The communication of 
 scriptural truth never does work mischief. To 
 assert that it does is a slander on the Bible. 
 But the whole mischief consists in an improper 
 use of the truth. The mischief is to be found in 
 the corrupt and depraved passions of the human 
 heart, its hatred to the truth and its opposition 
 to God and His holy law. The human heart is 
 " deceitful above all things and desperately 
 wicked," and it often exemplifies its superlative 
 wickedness in using, or rather abusing the trutli 
 to accomplish its own selfish and unlawful pur- 
 poses. And here we wish to enter our testi- 
 mony, viz : That where slaves become really 
 l^ious, they are much better in all the relations 
 of life; they are cheerful, contented and happy, 
 are closely attached to their masters and to 
 their families, and this attachment can only be 
 
240 DUTIES OF mastf:rs and servants. 
 
 destroyed or broken by death. To say that a 
 slave does not love his master — become strongly 
 attached to him and his family — is the lowest 
 slander. It is to injure or misrepresent the 
 slave. It is a violation of the ninth command- 
 ment. "Thou shalt not bear false witness- 
 against thy neighbor." The abolitionists claim 
 the slave as his neighbor, yet he slanders him 
 when he says the slave does not love his master? 
 or is strongly attached to him and his family ; 
 and he should remember who has said that " all 
 liars shall have their portion in the lake that 
 burnetii w^ith tire and brimstone, which is the 
 second death." Beware, then, lest you incur 
 this dreadful penalty. 
 
 The preceding things seem to be what is in- 
 chided by the Apostle when he says, (Colos. iv^ 
 1,) " Masters, give unto your servants that 
 which is just and equal ; knowing that ye have 
 a Master in heaven." Many Christian denomi- 
 nations at the South have missions expressly for 
 the benefit of the slaves, which have thus for 
 been eminently successful. Our Methodist 
 brethren have taken the lead on this point, we 
 believe, and we bid them God speed in their 
 noble \vork. Let masters support and encour- 
 age the Missionary of the Cross, and great good 
 will be the result. 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEllVANTS. 24T 
 
 AYe now advance to tlie next division of our 
 subject, viz : 
 
 2. The Duties of Servant t<^ or Skives to their 
 Masters. — The commandments of God are full 
 and explicit on this point. Servants are retjuired 
 to obey their masters in all things ; to render- 
 obedience, not merely while the eye of the mas- 
 ter is u})on them, but to do so from the fact that 
 it is the revealed will of God ; the highest author- 
 ity known to any human being. "Servants, 
 obey in all things your masters according to the 
 iiesh, not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but 
 in singleness of heart, fearing God." (Colos. iii, 
 22.) By masters eiccorelinrj to tJie flesh is meant 
 masters in this world — earthly masters — in dis- 
 tinction from God, who is the Master of all, both 
 servants and masters. [See Job iii, 17-19.] It 
 is the duty of the servant to count his master 
 worthy of all honor. "Let as many servants as 
 are under the yoke count their masters worthy 
 of all honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
 trine be not blasphemed; and they that have 
 believing masters, let them not despise them, 
 because they are bix'thren ; but rather do them 
 service, because they are faithful and beloved, 
 partakers of the benefit." (1st Tim. vi, 1, 2.) 
 "Which of you having a servant ploughing, or 
 u 
 
242 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 feeding cattle, will say niito him by and by, 
 wlien he is come from the field, go and sit down 
 to meat ?" This would be to reverse the order 
 of things, to change all the relations, and at 
 once put the servant on an equality with his 
 master. "Will he not rather say unto him, 
 make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thy- 
 self and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken ; 
 and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink. Doth 
 he thank that servant because he did the things 
 that were commanded him ? I trow not." [Luke 
 xvii, 7-9.] He has only done his duty ; only 
 performed a service which he owes to his master. 
 Servants are to do the service of their masters 
 with a cheerful and good will. "With good 
 will, doing service as unto the Lord, and not 
 unto men." [Ephes. vi, 5-8.] It is the duty of 
 servants to try to please their masters ; not to be 
 stubborn, sullen, or talking back, or grumbling 
 when told to perform certain things. "Exhort 
 servants to be obedient unto their own masters 'y. 
 and to please them well in all things, not an- 
 swering again." [Titus ii, 9.] They are 
 expressly forbidden to steal from their masters* 
 but on the contrary, fidelity is enjoined on them : 
 "not purloining but showing all good fidelity; 
 that they may adorn the doctrine of God our 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 243 
 
 Savior in all things." This shows plainly that 
 the Christian religion was not designed to break 
 down the relations of life, or to teach servants 
 that they are on an equality with their masters, 
 as anti-slavery men teach ; to show that the gos- 
 pel was not designed to teach rebellion, but 
 submission and respect for those whoni God has 
 in his Providence placed over us in the present 
 life. The servant, then, who is an eye-servant 
 to his earthly master, Avill be either a hypocrite 
 or mere formalist in religion. Those servants 
 who profess to be Christians are under higher 
 obligations to be more obedient to their mas- 
 ters, to set an example before their fellow-ser- 
 vants, than the mere servant who makes no 
 pretensions to religion at all. This is necessary, 
 that men may see that religion is not a mere 
 form, but a reality ; that it makes better servants 
 as well as better masters, and that it increases 
 rather than diminishes the obligation to obedi- 
 ence. Should his master be a Christian also, 
 then on this account he should specially love 
 and obey him. The passage we have quoted 
 already from 1st Timothy, vi, 1, 2, proves these 
 positions to be in accordance with the teachings 
 of the Word of God. If the master is hard to 
 please, threatens, and even punishes more than 
 
244 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 he ouglit to do, this by no means justifies the 
 servant in any act of disobedience or disrespect 
 to his master, but he is to do his best to please 
 him, and leave his case in the hands of a just 
 and righteous God. This is certainly the doc- 
 trine of the New Testament on the point. 
 " Servants be subject to your masters with all 
 fear, not only to the (jood and gentle^ but to the 
 froiL-ard^'''' or morose ; those who would be angry 
 without cause, and use severity when displeased ; 
 " for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience 
 toward God endure grief, suffer wrongfully ; for 
 what glory is it, if, Avhen ye be buffetted for 
 your faults, ye shall take it patiently ; but if, 
 when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it 
 patiently, this is acceptable with God ; for here- 
 unto were ye called ; because Christ also suffered, 
 leaving us an example, that ye should follow his 
 steps." It is no praise for a servant t© be 
 patient when he is punished for his faults. He 
 is no more an object of compassion than a child, 
 a man, or any other criminal that receives the 
 penalty of his offence. The first part of the 
 twentieth verse in the above quotation shows 
 this clearly, and it recognizes the right of the 
 master to correct the f^iults or misconduct of the 
 servant. [Sec 1st Peter ii, 10-25.] The slave, 
 
DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 245 
 
 then, when he is punished for his faults, is not 
 an object over which we are to shed a gallon or 
 two of crocodile tears. This is false sympathy, 
 and if it were carried out, would lead to the ab- 
 olition of every kind of bodily punishment, and 
 would leave every one without government or 
 restraint. This may do for a squeamish and 
 sickly sentimentality, but is of little value in the 
 practical government of this wicked and sinful 
 woJ'ld. Theories may be very beautiful in them- 
 selves, but be utterly worthless when they are 
 to be applied to the actual condition of men and 
 things. If there were no sin in this world, no 
 bad men, then we might get along without 
 any difficulty, but transgressors must be pun- 
 ished, and slaves must be corrected. If the mas- 
 ter is unmerciful, or inflicts the punishment 
 without any just cause, then, under these circum- 
 stances, for the slave to take it patiently, 
 commends him to God. [See latter part of 20th 
 verse.] And it is only in a case of this kind that 
 the example of Christ applies. The Apostle 
 says of that, he "did no sin, neither Avas guile 
 found in his mouth." " He was an innocent per- 
 son." " Who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
 again." He did not abuse his persecutors, and 
 murderers, and attempt to justifv his conduct 
 u* 
 
 «► 
 
246 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 on the ground tliat they were treating him un- 
 justly. " When he suttered he threatened not ; 
 but committed himself to him that judgeth 
 righteously." It is only when servants suffer 
 wrongfully that they can }»Iead witii proper ap- 
 plication the example of Clirist. We commend 
 this passage to some of our anti-slavery friends 
 at the North, who counsel the servant or slave 
 to shoot his master. Servants are not author- 
 ized to steal from their masters. See the 
 example and punishment of Gehazai, (2d Kings, 
 V. 21-27,) for his lying and theft. 
 
 If servants will foithfully do their whole duty 
 to their masters, and truly serve God in their 
 stations as servants, they will be respected, 
 loved and protected by their masters and hon- 
 ored of (lod as well as others; and they will 
 have to acconnt to God for the manner inwhicli 
 they serve their masters on earth. " Knowing 
 that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, tlie 
 same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be 
 bond or free." (Eph. vi : 8.) See also, Gene- 
 sis, 24-th chapter. 
 
 We will now state a summary of the duties 
 of servants or slaves to their masters, and we 
 will ii"ive it in the lano-uao-e of Dr. C. 0. Jones, 
 to whose excellent "Catechism of Scripture 
 
DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 247 
 
 Doctrine and Practice for the Oral Instruction 
 -of Colored Persons," we have been largely in- 
 debted for many important things in this chap- 
 ter. [See pages 127-151.] 
 
 1. " Servants are to count their masters ' wor- 
 thy of all hoaoi^'' as those whom (irod lias placed 
 over them ; '•(clthallfiar^ they invQ to he sub - 
 
 ject to tJiem: and to obey tliem hi all thln(/f< 
 possible and lawful, with (/ood will and with en- 
 deavor to please them weU., so that there may be 
 no occasion for fault-finding or correction, and 
 let servants serve their masters as faithfully be- 
 hind their backs as before their faces. God is 
 present to see, if their masters are not. They 
 must not be eye servants and men-pleasers, but 
 seek in all things they do to ]»Iease God, their 
 Master in Heaven." 
 
 2. "Should they fall into the hands of hard 
 and unjust and unequal masters, and suffer 
 vronfifidly^ their course, according to divine 
 ■command, is to take If patlenthj ; referring their 
 -case to God ; looking to Him for support in 
 their trials, and for rewards for their patience ; 
 and the Lord will surely remend^er them." 
 
 3. "Servants may sometimes suppose that 
 they may, without the displeasure of God, //e^^y 
 wvl deceli'e^ and )itt(d from their i/iasfers. But 
 
248 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 
 
 it is not so. With such God is not pleased ; lie 
 requires tnttli and honesty in all person ><^ un- 
 der all clrcnnistance?).'''' 
 
 4. " Chrlstkui servants should be examples 
 to cdl others ofhonestij and obedience^ otherwise 
 they will bring a reproach upon religion and 
 brand themselves in the eyes of all as hypo- 
 crites. More is expected of tliemthan of those 
 who make no profession." 
 
 5. "Are you a servant? Care not for it. If 
 you are a Christian you are the Lord's freeman; 
 -and if you are unfjiithful in your station, you 
 shall, as well as the men higher and greater than 
 yourself, obtain the crown of life. God places 
 some men in one station and some in another, ac- 
 cording to His will. What he requires is, that 
 every man in his particular station serve Him, 
 
 .^nd all will be well for time and eternity." 
 
THE FIGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 240 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW— THE DUTY OF CITIZENS IN' 
 RELATION TO IT— IS IT UNSCRIPTURAL? 
 
 It would seem to the man who recognized 
 the Bible as the rule by w^hich all moral actions 
 are to be judged, that nothing more would be 
 necessary to secure obedience to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, (which declares [Art. 
 iv, Sec. 2,] that " No person held to service or 
 labor in one State, under the laws thereof, es- 
 caping 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,") than the mere statement of 
 the requirement of that instrument, and a brief 
 proof that this clause of our country's Consti- 
 tution is in accordance with the teachings and 
 spirit of the Scriptures. 
 
 The Fuo^itive Slave Law is based on the above 
 clause of the Constitution of the United States; 
 
250 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 and, if there were no formal law on the subject, 
 this clause is so clear that its meaning cannot be 
 mistaken by any honest citizen who wishes to 
 understand and not pervert the meaning of our 
 national compact. There is another point that 
 is exceedingly clear in this case ; and that is, 
 that all laws made by anti-slavery State Legis- 
 latures to prevent the master from recovering 
 his property, are contrary to the Constitution of 
 the United States. This is not our individual 
 opinion, for the highest judicial authority known 
 or recognized by the Constitution, has declared 
 the Fugitive Slave Law to be constitutional ; 
 and, of course, all laws of the individual States 
 are, by necessity and natural construction, un- 
 constitutional. The decision of the Supreme 
 €ourt of the United States has settled the con- 
 stitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, which 
 is based on the section we have already quoted 
 from the Constitution. To prevent the execu- 
 tion of this law constitutes rebellion against the 
 civil authorities of the country; and this rebel- 
 lion is attempted to be sustained as justifiable 
 on the ground that the law itself and the clause 
 of the Constitution on which it is based, are 
 contrary to all divine laws, and to resist is a 
 <luty all citizens owe to their God. This is the 
 
THE FLCITIVE SLAVE LAW. 251 
 
 objection to the law, if we can clearly under- 
 stand the expressed opinions of the opponents 
 of the law. The supreme judicial tribunal of 
 the nation is openly denounced, and even the 
 professed ministers of the peaceful Redeemer 
 liave counselled opposition and rebellion against 
 tlie supreme authority of the land. 
 
 The only question, then, that properly comes 
 before ns is. Does this Fugitive Slave Law, or 
 this clause of our country's Constitution, con- 
 travene the law of God ? A satisfactory an- 
 swer to this question, it seems to us, should be 
 a final stttlement of the matter in the mind of 
 every conscientious citizen wdio wishes to know 
 the truth ; and, knowing the teachings of the 
 Bible, is W'illing to conform his opinions and 
 conduct to the law of God. There are certain- 
 things, which, if the laws of the land should 
 require of us, we w^ould be under obligation to 
 disobey. When the civil laws come in direct 
 conflict with the laAvs of God, then we should 
 "obey God rather than man." But, in order 
 to justify our disobedience to " the powers that 
 be," tlie matter must be dearly a violation of 
 the revealed will of God, and not a mere matter 
 or point of " doubtful disputation." It should 
 require us to commit murder, worship idols, telL 
 
252 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 lies, say that whioli is not the will of God is His 
 will, or prohibit ministers from preaching some 
 cardinal doctrine of the Bible, such as the resur- 
 rection of Christ, or something e<iually i)lain. 
 Many of tliose who advocate rebellion against 
 tlie Fugitive Slave Law and the Constitution of 
 the nation, suppose that it is just as clear from 
 the Bible that slavery is a sin in itself — if not 
 a prohibited evil — as that murder, idolatry, or 
 swearing falsely, are sins in themselves. But 
 men's opinio}is are not the rule by which others 
 are to be controlled in matters pertaining to 
 the conscience. In matters of mere business — 
 as to the best way a thing may be done — as to 
 speculations in science, or similar things — we 
 may follow human authority. But, when men 
 begin to add their mere opinions to the Bible, 
 and wish others to be governed by them as of 
 equal, if not of higher authority than the 
 Scriptures, we have no more respect for their 
 opinions than we have for any other mere hu- 
 man authority. 
 
 The Bible teaches one thing clearly ; and that 
 is, no inspired writer of it ever did encourage 
 a servant or slave to run away from his master. 
 We have incidentally alluded to this matter. 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2r53 
 
 The matter, now, eomes fairly before us. 
 What, then, are the teaeliings of the Scriptures 
 in relation to fugitives from labor, or tlie service 
 of those to whom such labor or service is due? 
 
 Slavery commenced soon after the flood ; 
 Abraham had over three hundred. Slaves 
 have a corru[)t or sinful nature, as well as other 
 human beings. They soon commenced exhibit- 
 ing their opposition to the control of their' 
 masters; hence, the experiment of runnino- 
 away from them was adopted as the easiest and 
 most expeditious plan of getting rid of the con- 
 trol of the master. The first runaway of whom 
 we have any authoritative account in the Bible 
 was a female, or bond-sorvant. (Gen. xvi, 1-9.) 
 "When her mistress dealt hardly with her, she 
 iied from her foce." While she escaped from 
 the flice of her mistress, she could not, however, 
 get into a place where she was hid from the all- 
 seeing eye of God, for "the angel of the Lord 
 found her by a fountain of water in the wilder- 
 ness — by the fountain in the way to Shur — and 
 he said, " Hagar, Sarai's maid, wdience comest 
 thou, and whither wilt thou go ? " Such were 
 the questions addressed by the angel to this 
 fugitive. She was, no doubt, astonished at this 
 stranger thus addressing her by name ; and, as 
 
 V 
 
254 , THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 Sarai's maid, how did he know lier name, and 
 how did he know tliat she was the property of 
 Sarai? These tilings at once brought forcibly 
 to her mind that she was still in the presence of 
 one who knew her, and, hence, she replies, "I 
 iiee from the face of my mistress, Sarai." Xow, 
 here we have a runaway found by an angel. 
 Let us see how the ano-el manao-ed the case. 
 \Ve can easily imagine how many of the anti- 
 slavery men at the Xorth would have talked to 
 this fug^itive. Thev would have told Hao-ar 
 that her mistress was a brute ; that she was 
 " violatino' the law of nature" in holding* her in 
 
 CD , Cj 
 
 subjection; that she was a "woman-stealer," a 
 " robber," and a " murderer ; " and would have 
 told her that her mistress had no claim to her 
 service ; that any law that would require her to 
 return to her mistress — to live under her tyran- 
 nical sway — was an outrage on the laws of 
 humanity, and expressly contrary to the law of 
 God — for they have, by the acts of their church 
 courts, excluded all slaveholders from their 
 communion, and classed them with robbers, 
 murderers and men-stealers. After this long- 
 speech, they would conclude by squeezing out 
 a little money and starting her oft' to some 
 other nation. But, did the angel of the Lord 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 255 
 
 give Ilagar such instructions ? Let hira speak 
 for liiniself: "And the ano-el of tlie Lord said 
 unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit 
 thyself under her hands." 
 
 We have drawn tliis contrast to sliow the 
 man of plain, common sense, that the conduct 
 of those who counsel disobedience to the civil 
 authorities, when an attempt is made to exe- 
 cute the fugitive slave law, and instruct the run- 
 away slave to shoot his master, is directly in the 
 face, not only of the constitution of their coun- 
 try, but in opposition to the teachings of the 
 Bible. They plead the authority of the " higher 
 law^," and that is equally against them with the 
 civil laws of the nation. It will be said that 
 this occurred in the early ages of the world, 
 Avhen men were ignorant and their information 
 was very limited. We live in the middle of 
 the nineteenth century, when men have become 
 so smart that they must make the Bible teach 
 their view ot the matter or they will throw it 
 away and blaspheme the author of it as unwor- 
 thy of their confidence or respect. 
 
 The Xew Testament, we are told, is against 
 the law. How or where, we have never yet 
 been able to hndthe chapter or verse. Doctor 
 Wayland says, " the Xew Testament neither 
 
256 THE fugitivp: slave law. 
 
 commands masters to manumit tlieir slaves nor 
 authorizes slaves to free themselves from their 
 masters," And a greater than Dr. Wayland or 
 any mere theorist, has by his conduct shown 
 that the fugitive slave law is not contrary to the 
 spirit of the Gospel. The inspired Apostle, 
 Paul, thought t'lat it was his duty to send back 
 Onesimus to his master, Philemon. We are 
 aware that it has been denied by abolitionists 
 that Onesimus was a slave or the property of 
 Philemon, but a denial is not a proof o{\\\q 
 feet. We do not intend to go into a controver- 
 sy with the anti-slavery construction of Paul's 
 epistle to Philemon on the subject, but content 
 ourselves by simply quoting two or three wri- 
 ters who have been considered standards in the 
 interpretation of the scriptures, and who are 
 known to be, if not openly, yet in sentiment, 
 opposed to the system of slavery as it exists in 
 this country. 
 
 llev. Wm. Jay (Works, vol. 2, page 127) ima- 
 gines and puts down the following dialogue as 
 havino* occurred between Paul and Onesimus: 
 
 Onesimus waits on Paul and says: — "Sir, I 
 lately heard you preach, and I am one of the 
 characters you described and condemned." 
 
 "What is vour name? '' 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 257 
 
 *' OnesinuLS." 
 
 '' What arc you ? " 
 
 ■" I was a slave." 
 
 *'And who was your master ? " 
 
 " Philemon, of Colosse." 
 
 "Him I know. But what, Onesimus, brought 
 you here ? " 
 
 " Onesimus weeps. Paul, being at length 
 ' persuaded of his sincerity, would have taken 
 Onesimus into his service, had it not looked like 
 detaining Avhat is deemed another mini's pro- 
 perty. He therefore conscientiously resolves to 
 send him back to Philemon."' 
 
 The emphasis in the foregoing is our own. 
 
 Dr. Scott, whose opinions we have shown to 
 be anything than favorable to slavery, uses the 
 following language about this matter in his pre- 
 face to the Epistle to Philemon : 
 
 " Wlien the apostle was imprisoned at Rome. 
 Onesimus, a slave of Pliilemon, having, as it is 
 generally thought, been guilty of some dishon- 
 esty, left his master and fled to that city, though 
 at the distance of several hundred miles. When 
 he came thither, curiosity, or some similar mo- 
 tive, induced him to attend on St. Paul's min- 
 istry, which it pleased God to bless for his con- 
 verson. After he had i>iven verv satistactorv 
 
'258 THE FUGitlVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 proof of a real cliange, and manifested an ex- 
 •cellent disposition by suitable behavior, which 
 had greatly endeared him to the apostle, he 
 judged it proper to send him back to his mas- 
 ter, by whom he wrote this epistle, in order 
 'to procure Onesimus a more tavorable reception 
 Chan he could otherwise have expected." 
 
 Again, in his note on verses 12th-lGth, the 
 same author remarks : " Onesimus was Fliile- 
 inon's legal property, and St. Paul had required 
 and prevailed with Onesimus to return to him, 
 having made sufficient proof of his sincerity; 
 and recpiested Philemon to receive him with the 
 same kindness as he would his (the apostle's) 
 own son according to the ilesh — equally dear 
 to him as his spiritual child. He would gladly 
 have kept him at Tvome, to minister to him in 
 his confinement, which Onesimus would wil- 
 lino^lv have done, bein<^\ in the bonds of the 
 Gospel, attached to liim from Christian love 
 and gratitude, and as lie knew that Philemon 
 would jo^'fuily have done him any service in 
 person if he had been at Rome; so he would 
 have considered Onesimus as ministering to him 
 in his master's stead. But he would not do 
 anything without his master's consent, lest he 
 should seem to extort the benefit, and Philemon 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 259 
 
 'should appear to act IVoin "necessity" rather 
 than "from a willing mind." He had, indeed^ 
 hopes of derivmg benefit from Onesimus' faith- 
 ful service at some future period, by Philemon's 
 free consent : yet he was not sure this was the 
 Lord's purpose I'especting him, for perhaps He 
 permitted him to leave his master for a season 
 in so improper a manner, in order that, being- 
 converted, he might be received on his return 
 with such affection, and might abide with Phil- 
 emon with such faithfulness and diligence, that 
 they should live together the rest of their lives, 
 as fellow heirs of eternal felicity. In this case 
 he knew that Philemon would no longer con- 
 sider Onesimus merely as a slave, but view him 
 as above a slave — even as a brother beloved." 
 We have quoted this long note because it 
 gives the main points contained in the Epistle, 
 viz: that Onesimus was a runaway slave — the 
 legal property of Philemon ; that the Apostle 
 did not encouraGre him to abuse and resist his 
 master, but to return to him with a letter de- 
 siring for him a more favorable reception on 
 account of the fact tliat the runaway had be- 
 come a Christian ; that although a Christian, 
 that did not free him from the lawful authority 
 of his master; he was still Philemon's slave, al- 
 
260 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 thougli lie had become "the Lord's freeman." 
 The Apostle would do nothing without the con- 
 sent of the slave's master. (See verses 13, 14.) 
 
 Onesimus was Philemon's i<plvltii(d hrotJier^ 
 though in a c'/i'// sense lie was his slave; "in 
 Chi-ist Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greeks 
 there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
 male nor female — for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus." (Gal. iii, 28.) 
 
 Paul sent the runaway back to his master 
 with a letter to secure him a fworable reception. 
 The abolitionist o-ives tlie funjitive some money 
 and a horse to carry him, and starts him oif to 
 Canada or some other place, by the "Under- 
 ground Railroad." Where, then, is the Chris- 
 tian conduct of the abolitionists '/ If Paul was 
 right, they are wrong. If they ai'e right, then 
 Paul was wrong. There is no similarity in their 
 course and conduct. Onesimus, when he ran 
 away from his master and went to Rome, heard 
 the Gospel preaclied. It would be a matter of 
 very great uncertainty whether the fugitive 
 slave, if lie were to go Into many churches north 
 of Mason and Dixon's Line, would hear anything 
 but a tirade of abuse against slaveholders ; and 
 it is very certain tliat, instead of being made 
 better and moi-e useful to his mastei', his mind 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 261 
 
 M'oiild be tilled with all kinds of wild notions 
 about cqiudlfjj^ tyranny, robbery and murder; 
 and instead of bringing a letter of reconimend- 
 ation from some good Christian minister of tlie 
 North, he would liave Sharp's rities in abun- 
 dance and Colt's revolvers without number. 
 
 Tlie case of Onesimus is only another exem- 
 plitication of the fact that the religion of tlie New 
 Testament, instead of making men rebellious, 
 makes them useful or profitable, where they had 
 been before unprofitable. " I beseech thee for 
 my son Oresimus, whom I have begotten in my 
 bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofit- 
 able, but now })rofitable to tliee and to me." 
 (Verses 10, 11.) 
 
 When the fuo:itive slave law was first enacted 
 by the Congress of the United States, nearly 
 every religious body in the North, at their next 
 meetings afterward, denounced the law as un- 
 scriptural, and warned their members against 
 having anything to do with its execution under 
 penalty of suspension or excommunication from 
 the fellowship of the church. Some of tliese 
 ecclesiastical courts merely asserted that the 
 law^ was unrighteous and unscriptural, while 
 some fev/ tried to jfvoi'e the position which they 
 had taken on the subject was in accordance with 
 
262 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 the teachings of tlie Bible: "Thou shalt not 
 deUver unto his master the servant which is 
 escaped unto thee from his master; he shall 
 dwell with thee ; even among you in that place 
 which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where 
 it liketh him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." 
 (Dent, xxiii, 15-10.) This is the proof given by 
 one ecclesiastical C3urt against the unscriptural 
 character of the fugitive slave law. AVe know 
 this, though we cannot now lay our hands on 
 the document itself. Dr. Wayland is of the 
 same opinion. "This precept, I think," says 
 he, (Letters on Slavery, pp. 50, 60) " clearly 
 shows that Moses intended to abolish slavery. 
 How could slavery long continue in a country 
 where every one is forbidden to deliver up the 
 fao-itive slave '? How difterent Avould be the 
 condition of slaves, and how soon would slavery 
 itself cease, were this the law of compulsory 
 bondage among us." 
 
 This, to our stupid comprehension, seems to 
 be a Hat contradiction of the very paragraph 
 before the one we have quoted. We cannot 
 see what the Doctor meant. He says : " Every 
 one must, I think, perceive the unreasonableness 
 of pleading the Jewish laws as authority for an 
 institution so entirelv dissimilar, and so forget- 
 
Tin: FUCilTIVE 5LAVF I,AW. ZUO 
 
 fill of the limitations by which that practice was 
 originally guarded. It' it be said that the Jew- 
 ish commonwealth was so peculiar it is impos- 
 sible to conform ourselves to its laws in this 
 respect, this, I think, establishes tlie very point 
 in dispute, namely: that the Jewish law was 
 made exclusively for that people, and can be 
 pleaded in justification by no other people what- 
 ever." Still, all of Dr. Wayland\s abolition 
 friends at the North j^lead this very passage as 
 jDroof divine against the fugitive slave law. He 
 thinks that every one must see the unreason- 
 ableness of pleading the Jewish laws as authority 
 for an institution so entirely dissimilar." And 
 we equally wonder that he does not enlighten 
 his Northern abolition friends on the unreason- 
 ableness of (pioting this Jewish law as authority 
 as^ainst our fui^^itive slave law, ao^ainst the con- 
 duct of the Angel of the Lord, in sending back 
 Ilagar to her mistress Sarah, and Paul, in send- 
 ing Onesimus back to Philemon. The doctrine 
 of the " higer law," as it is called, is founded 
 on this passage in Deuteronomy, xxiii, 15, 16. 
 We know that Dr. Wayland thinks that Moses 
 intended to abolish slavery by the enactment of 
 this law. Yet that same law-giver taught the 
 Jews in the 25th chapter and 4Gth verse of 
 
2(34 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 Leviticus, that they raiglit buy bond-men and 
 bond-maids of the heathen, and of the strangers 
 that did sojourn among them; that they might 
 have them for a possession ; that they should be 
 their bond-men forever ; and tliat they should 
 give them as an inheritance to their children 
 after them. This looked very much like Moses 
 intended to abolish slavery!! If he did, he 
 pursued just about as strange a course about the 
 matter as Dr. Wayland has taught us that 
 Christ and his apostles took to teach tliat slavery 
 is wrong under the New Testament dispensa- 
 tion. The truth of the matter is, the law in 
 question referred to foreign slaves, to those who 
 ran away from heathen masters. The case of 
 the Egyptian slave found by David's men, which 
 we have noticed in its proper place, shows the 
 serq^tural meaning of the passage in Deuteron- 
 omy. The text itself, when rightly understood, 
 or explained by the true meaning of its own 
 words conveys the idea which wehave advanced. 
 The expression : The servant which is escaped 
 from his master unto thee, contains the key to 
 the whole' law. Who is meant by "thee," in 
 this text? It certainly, in the general language 
 of the law, means the Israelites or Hebrews. 
 This is plainly its meaning from the 14th verse, 
 
THE FL'C^ITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2G5 
 
 and several verses in tlie same eliapter. Let us 
 substitute the abolition construction ot tlie pas- 
 sage and see how the law will i-ead. "Thou, a 
 Hebrew, shalt not deliver unto his master another 
 Hebrew, the servant which is escaped from his 
 master, a Hebrew, unto thee ; he shall dwell with- 
 thee, a Hebrew, even among you, Hebrews.''' 
 This construction of the law is too absurd to be 
 pursued further. We have shown that Dr. A. 
 Clarke gives the same construction that we do. 
 Lest the reader has forgotten the note, we here 
 re-produce it, verse l5th : " TJiou shaJt not 
 deliver the senumt irJilcJi is escaped unto t/iee^'"''^ 
 that is, a servant who left an idolatrous master, 
 that he might join himself to God and to his 
 peo])le. In any other case, it would have been 
 injustice to have harbored the runaway.'" We 
 will quote another author who was no mean 
 scholar, and who was by no means a friend of 
 the institution of slavery. [See Liberty and 
 Slavery, pp. 155, 156.] The first inquiry of 
 course is, says Moses Stewart, Associate Profes- 
 sor of Sacred Literature in the Theological 
 Institution of Andorcr, in regard to these very 
 words, "Where does his master live? Among 
 the Hebrews, or amons; foreiLj:ners ? The Ian- 
 guage fidly develojjs this, and answers the 
 
266 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 question, ' He has escaped from his master unto 
 the Hebrews ; (the text says thee^ tliat is Israel;) 
 he shall dwell uyiththee^ even among you^ in one 
 of thy gates.'' Of course, then, he is an immi- 
 grant^ and did not dwell among them before his 
 flight. If he liad been a Hebrew servant belong- 
 ing to a Hebrew, the wliole face of the thing- 
 would be changed. Restoration or restitution, 
 if we may judge by the tenor of the 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 that 
 the servant is a foreigner.^ and has fled from a 
 heathen master. This entirely changes the 
 complexion of the case. The Hebrews were 
 God's chosen people, and were the only nation 
 on earth which worshipped the only living and 
 true God. In case a slave escaped from them, 
 (the heathen,) and came to the Hebrews, two 
 things were to be taken into consideration, 
 accordino^ to the views of the Jewish leo^islator. 
 The first was, that the treatment of slaves 
 among the heathen was far more severe and 
 rigorous than it could lawfully be under the Mo- 
 saic law. The heathen master ]30ssessed the 
 power of life and death, of scourging or im- 
 prisoning, or putting to excessive toil, even to 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 267 
 
 any extent tliat lie pleased. Not so among the 
 Hebrews. Humanity pleaded thei'e for the 
 protection of the fugitive. The second and most 
 important consideration was, that only among 
 the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to a 
 knowledge and worship of the only living and 
 true God." The authorities, both human and 
 divine, are against the abolition interpretation; 
 their own witnesses testify against them. They 
 must prove that Southern slaveholders are 
 heathen. We suppose that w^ith them this 
 would be a very easy task. The law has no ap 
 plication unless we were tv:!0 instead of on^. 
 nation. And lastly, they must show that the 
 slaves of the Southern States have no means, no 
 oral instructions, or any other way in which 
 they can acquire a knowledge of the worship 
 and nature of the only living and true God. 
 Until these things are done fairly, we hold that 
 passage proves nothing for abolition church 
 courts, which pass resolutions against the laws 
 of the land, instruct their members to disobey 
 the civil authorities, and teach rebellion against 
 the government and laws of the land. They 
 hurl their anathemas against the National Legis- 
 lature for passing laws for the purpose of carry, 
 ing out the provisions of the Federal Compact, 
 
268 THE FUGITIVK SLAVE LAW 
 
 to in-otect till' property of its citizens ; declare 
 that slaveliolders are murderers, robbers, and 
 nien-stealers. Tliey declare in solemn conclave 
 that '' Slaveholding, that is, the holding of unot- 
 fending human beings in involuntary bondage and 
 considering and treating them as property, and 
 subject to be bought and sold, is a violation of 
 the law of God, and contrary both to the letter 
 and spirit of Christianity." [Basis of Union 
 between the Associate Reformed and Associate 
 Churches, Art. xiv, of Slaveholding.] 
 
 While they thus declare with great clearness, 
 what they consider sin in this, they forget that 
 they are teaching rebellion against the laws of 
 the land, and violating openly, and in their col- 
 lective capacity, the plain law of the Bible : " Let 
 every soul be subject urito the higher powers ; 
 for there is no power but of God ; the powers 
 that be are ordained of God." [Rom. xiii, ].] 
 See also verse 2d. "Whosoever, therefore, re- 
 sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of 
 God ; and they that resist shall receive to them- 
 selves damnation, for i-ulei's are not a terror to 
 good works, but to evil." We ask them with 
 all due respect, " By what authority do ye these 
 things? And who gave you this authority?" 
 The mere declaration of an assembly of flillible 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 269 
 
 men, especially when under a mistaken notion 
 that God has authorized them to make and pro- 
 mulgate laws for his church, is woilh no more 
 than the mere opinion of any other erring man. 
 The article on slaveholding, which we have 
 quoted, is of no more binding force on the con- 
 science than the Decrees of the Council of 
 Trent, on the subject of purgatory. The ground 
 on which they rest is precisely the same ; 
 neither being sustained by the teachings of the 
 Scriptures, but both resting on perversions of 
 the Bible. The powers of no church court are 
 'legislative ; that is, no church court has the 
 power to make new laws to sustain a false posi- 
 tion. The power of church courts is simply 
 judicial and executive ; that is, the church has 
 the right to expound and enforce the law of 
 God on those over whom her jurisdiction ex- 
 tends. But still, in all matters the principle is 
 recognized that all such expositions ai'e liable to 
 be discussed by the individual members of that 
 church, whether these expositions are believed 
 to be a perversion of the Bible, or rest merely 
 on human authority. 
 
 This position is clear from the acknowledged 
 principle, called the " right of private judg- 
 ment." Popery is abused and discarded \)\ 
 w* 
 
270 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 Protestants on the ground that it requires men 
 -to surrender their judgment to the Pope and 
 ;priesthood. But, on what higher ground do 
 -all the testimonies, the terms of communion and 
 .the anathemas of abolition church courts rest? 
 They are nothing more nor less than an attempt 
 to dictate to Southern Christians ; and did not 
 these things rest on very slender ground, there 
 would be less noise and 7nore peace among 
 brethren. It is a sound principle — open to be 
 confirmed by the observation and experience of 
 every intelligent man — that Just in proportion 
 'CIS a matter is clearly revealed in the Bible^jitst 
 in the same proportion is there less disjntte about 
 it; and, on the contrary, just in proportion as 
 the assumed 2^osition is not suppjorted hy the 
 JBihle^ just in the same deyree do men become 
 fanatical and unreasoncdtle in its support. 
 This illustrates the position of the abolition 
 wing of the church at the North on the subject 
 of slavery. The Bible clearly condemns idola- 
 try, profanity. Sabbath-breaking, murder, adul- 
 tery, lying, theft, diunkenness, fornication, 
 pride, lust and similar sins, and there is no dis- 
 pute about these things ; on the contrary, 
 neither Christ nor his inspired apostles have 
 condemned nor excluded the slaveholder from 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 271 
 
 the pale of tlie church on eartli, nor from the 
 Ivingdom of glory in Heaven. But, abolition 
 church courts have gotten tlie idea into their 
 heads that they (that is, Christ and his apostles) 
 should have done both ; but, as long as these 
 inspired teachers and wiiters have not done so, 
 they will finish their work for them, and exclude 
 all slaveholders from his church on earth, and 
 thus virtually declare by their actions — if they 
 deny it by words — that they have the right to 
 open and shut the kingdom of Heaven against 
 whom they may not fancy are up to their 
 standard of purity. From all such mere human 
 decrees Ave beg most respectfully to differ. 
 " Who art thou, that judgest another man's 
 :servant ; to his own master he shall stand or 
 fall." "Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O 
 man, whosoever thou art that judgest ; for, 
 wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest 
 thyself; for thou, that judgest, doest the same 
 things." (Rom. ii, 1) 
 
 It would seem that when Christ and his ai)OS. 
 ties have not condemned the slaveholder, aboli- 
 tion church courts should hold their peace, lest 
 they should be found adding to the AVord of 
 God, and expose themselves to the anathemas 
 of Him who is able to destroy both soul 
 
"272 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 and body, and who hath said, " If any man 
 •shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
 him the plagues that are written in this book." 
 (Rev. xxii, 18.) "Let him that standeth take 
 •heed lest he foil." We thus speak because we 
 think that many Northern men have forgotten 
 that they are men, and would assume the pre- 
 rogatives of God. Neither do we say these 
 things in bitterness, but in sorrow. We con- 
 "ceive it to be our duty to " cry aloud and spare 
 not ; to lift up our voice like a trumpet ; to 
 -show" the professed people of God their trans- 
 gressions, and those that would be holier than 
 we their sins. 
 
 When Christ was on earth the tax-collector 
 •asked Peter if his Master paid tribute. " He 
 'saith, yes." And, although Christ showed that 
 He was justly entitled to exemption in ])aying 
 the tribute, yet He commanded Peter to go to 
 the sea, cast in his hook, and in the mouth of 
 the first fish that came up he would find a piece 
 of money which he should take and pay for 
 them both, " lest He should ofiend them " — 
 lest He should appear to be a contrary citizen, 
 a teacher of rebellion ngainst the civil authority 
 of the land. We commend His example to the 
 •attention of abolition church courts at the 
 North. 
 
TlIK FUCilllVK SLAVE LAW. 278 
 
 We now i-etnrn to an examination of the 
 anti-slavery interpretation of Deut. xxiii, 15. 
 This passage is lield to be of nniversal moral 
 obligation. If this be the true view of the pas- 
 sage, then the 46t]i verse of the 25th chapter 
 of Leviticus is also in full force, and authorizes 
 the slaveholder, or the man who may choose to 
 hold slaves, to buy them of the heathen tribes 
 of Africa. The laws are in the same code, 
 given by the same authority, and there is noth- 
 ing to hinder the general application of the one 
 more than the other. Where is the consistency 
 of holding that Dent, xxiii, 15, is of univei'sal 
 moral obligation, and rejecting Leviticus xxv, 
 45, as local and temporary ? When it suits the 
 purpose of the anti-slavery advocate, he holds 
 that the law of Moses is of universal moral obli- 
 gation ; but, when it is against him, and tavors 
 the idea that the Jews Mere authorized to buy 
 slaves — to hold them as property — to entail 
 them as an inheritance on their children — then 
 this is all local and temporary. Consistency, 
 thou art a jewel! The truth is, both of the 
 laws belong exclusively to the Hebrew nation. 
 The one showing that they were forbidden to 
 deliver the fugitive who had left a litathoi 
 master, as we have shown. The other shows 
 
274 THE FUGITIVE SLATE LAW, 
 
 "that slavery was authorized under tlie law of 
 God Gfiven bv Moses: that it was not then con- 
 sidered a sin in itself, and was only an exempli- 
 fication of the truth of the judicial sentence 
 God had passed upon Ham and his posterity 
 before that economy came into existence, and 
 completely overthrows the absurd and silly no- 
 tion that slavery is a sin always and every- 
 where. The law of Levit. xxv, 46, shows that 
 it was not a sin to buy and to hold as property 
 bond-men and bond-maids, and to transmit 
 them as an inheritance to children. The slave- 
 holder does not claim this as the passage which 
 authorizes him to hold slaves. He claims the 
 rioht to hold slaves from the fact that God, bv 
 a judicial sentence, subjected the descendants of 
 Ham to those of Shem and Japheth ; that the 
 Jewish economy, or law of God given by Moses, 
 recognized this sentence as right, and the New 
 Testament has not repealed or reversed it. 
 The conduct of the angel of the Lord in order- 
 ing Hagar to return and submit herself under 
 the hand of her mistress, is opposed to the 
 abolition construction of Ex. xxv, 15; and the 
 example of the apostle Paul shows that it is the 
 •duty of Cliristians, and especially the duty of 
 •Christian ministers, to respect the legal rights 
 
THE FUGITIVK SLAVE LAW. 27 
 
 O 
 
 of the slavelioUler — to return the runaway to 
 liis lawful owner, instead of encoui-aoinir him 
 to shoot his master — furnishing him with deadly 
 weapons, instead of a friendly letter of reeoni- 
 mendation to the favorable regard of his mas- 
 ter; to do this last, instead of encouraging 
 and aiding the fugitive to escape to Canada 
 amid the rigors of a climate that he is utterly 
 disqu:ilitied by his Creator to withstand. There 
 is very little love shown to the poor negro by 
 sendins: him into a frozen region asrainst which 
 lie is unfitted to stand. The hot regions of the 
 South is his native home; and when he is 
 removed from it, he pines away — withers and 
 dies prematurely like the tender orange of his 
 own native clime. It is a mistaken policy — it is 
 i7ihumaiiity instead of philanthropy — thus tO' 
 treat the poor, friendless, simple stranger. 
 
 The Fugitive Slave Law, then, is certainly,, 
 according t<^ the teachings of the Scriptures, 
 not immoral, or wicked. The " higher law" 
 confirms instead of destroys its provisions. It 
 is the duty of all good citizens to respect its 
 provisions ; to see to it that they throw no 
 unnecessary obstructions in the w\ay of the 
 authorized ofiicers in executing it, but to uphold 
 and sustain them in the discharge of their duty.. 
 
276 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 To act otherwise, is to rebel against tlie civil 
 authority of the land ; to abuse the officers, is 
 " to speak evil of the rulers of thy people," to 
 incur the disapprobation of the Creator, to pour 
 contempt upon his word, and condemn the con- 
 duct of his angel and his inspired apostles. 
 
 To refuse to obey the laws of the land requir- 
 ing the rendition of the fugitive from labor to 
 his master, is not only contrary to the example 
 of an inspired apostle, but is worse than heatli- 
 enish. This, to many, may seem a strange, or 
 even rash, assertion. Let us see, then, if there 
 is anytliing in the Bible to sustain our position. 
 
 There was a phice called Gath ; it was a city 
 of the Philistines, and tlie capital of that nation. 
 Achish, the son of Moachah, was the king at 
 the period to which we refer. The Philistines 
 were heathens; that is, they knew little, if any- 
 thing, about the nature and worship of the true 
 God. They were idolaters, for they worshipped 
 Dagon. Achish, king of Gath, lived about the 
 same time A\ith Solomon, king of Israel. Now 
 there was a very bad and troublesome man in 
 Israel, by the name of Shimei. He was so 
 wicked that he cursed David, the king, one day. 
 He threw stones and earth in contempt at 
 David. David, for certain reasons, did not pun- 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 27 T 
 
 isli liiiH, V)Ut he charged Soh^nion to punisli liinv 
 for his iniscoiiduct. Solomon, accordingly,, 
 called Shimei, and told him to l)nild him a 
 house in Jerusalem, and not to leave the city on 
 pain of death. This he agreed to do. But he 
 somehow was the owner of some slaves, and 
 two of them took it into their heads to run 
 away from their master, Shimei, and go to 
 Achish, king of Gath. "And they told Shi- 
 mei, saying. Behold, thy servants be in Gath ; 
 and Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went 
 to Gath — to Achish — to seek his servants. And 
 Shimei went and brought his servants from 
 Gath.'' (1st Kings ii, 3G-40.) Now, this 
 heathen king did not refuse to give up to Shimei 
 his servants; there was no mob — no opposition; 
 but the servants were surrendered without a 
 word. Could not many of the professing Chris- 
 tians learn a useful lesson from the conduct of 
 this heathen king and his sul)jects? We have 
 made out the proof— judge ye what I say. 
 
 There is one more point to which we wish 
 to call the attention of those who are ennao-ed 
 in the low business of i-unning slaves oif to 
 Canada. The Bible recognizes the right of 
 property in slaves. The law of God, given by 
 Moses, expressly says that the servant is the 
 
 X 
 
278 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 master's "money." Piiul, in his epistles, recog- 
 nizes the same thing. " Art thou called, being 
 a servant, care not for it ; for he, that is called 
 in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free 
 man." Here the contrast is between civil bond- 
 age and religious freedom, and nothing is said 
 against the master of the servant. But Paul 
 recognized Philemon's right of property in 
 Onesiraus. The laws of the land recognize the 
 same principle. Now, theft consists in taking a 
 man's property without his knowledge or con- 
 sent. This is done by every abolitionist when 
 he aids, advises, or assists in running off a slave 
 to Canada. He, then, is a thief in the eye of 
 both human and divine law ; and he should 
 remember who has said that no thief shall enter 
 into Heaven. 
 
 Before closing our labor, we deem it neces. 
 sary that we should make a few remarks on the 
 subject of property in slaves. In treating them 
 as personal property — of course they are in many 
 respects different from mere material property — 
 we only claim that their thne^ the Sabbath ex- 
 cepted, belongs to their master. We do not^ 
 neither do we know of any slaveholders who do 
 maintain the position that slaves are property 
 of the same kind and to be treated in the same 
 
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 279 
 
 way with horses, sheep, hogs, or cattle. These 
 are mere dumb beasts ; but our slaves are rational 
 and accountable creatures, and are to be treated 
 as such. But tlie mere trathc in slaves, for the 
 sake of gain, is a practice in which very few 
 Christian slaveholders engage. But, that they 
 are property, and recognized as such both by 
 divine and civil law, is a point that can admit of 
 little dispute among those who desire to know 
 the truth. The Scriptures are much fuller on 
 this point than on the establishment of the 
 mere rlgJit of propert}^ in other things. Even 
 Dr. Wayland (Moral Science, pages 232-234) 
 argues the right of property from other circum- 
 stances, and says, " Xow God signifies to us his 
 will on this subject : 
 
 First. — "By the decisions of natural con- 
 science. This is known from several circum- 
 stances. First: all men, as soon as they begin 
 to think, even in early youth and infancy, per- 
 ceive this relation. They immediately appro- 
 priate certain things to themselves. They feel 
 injured if their control over those things is vio- 
 lated, and they are conscious of guilt if they 
 violate this i-ight in respect to others. Second : 
 the second circumstance is taken from the fact 
 that a class of words, called possessive pronouns, 
 
280 THE FL'GITIVI-: SLAVK LAW 
 
 exists ill all languages. Men can hai-dly talk 
 together for a tew minutes, in any language, 
 without the frequent use of these pronouns. 
 Third: the third circumstanee is taken from the 
 fact that men not only feel the importance of 
 sustaining each other in this right, Init when 
 this right is violated, there is a sense of wrong ;" 
 that is, the man who has violated the right of 
 property, deserves punishment on the ground, 
 not simi)ly in co)isequence of the acf^ but guilti- 
 iiess of the actio) t — that simple restitutioii 
 is not sufficient compensation for the injury 
 done, but panhliriv'nt is due for the crime. 
 "Hence, the Jewish law enjoined te/ tf old resti- 
 tution in cases of tliefl, and modern law inflicts 
 tines, imprisonment and corporeal punishment 
 for the same oftence.'' 
 
 According to this view of the subject — Dr. 
 Wayland being judge — the civil laws of the 
 land are correct in inflicting tines on those who 
 harbor or steal fuoitive slaves. If the aboli- 
 tionists were compelled to pay ten times the 
 value of all the slaves they have stolen, they 
 would be bankrupts ; still, this would not be a 
 higher fine than was imposed on the thief 
 according to the law of (Tod given by Moses. 
 We suppose that most of the slaveholders 
 
THI'] FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 281 
 
 would sell out to tlio abolitionists on these 
 terms. Tliey may have all wc liave at this 
 price. 
 
 The second general argument of Dr. Way- 
 land to show that God wills the possession of 
 property is derived from the "general conse- 
 quences which result from the existence of the 
 relation.'' " The existence and progress of so- 
 ciety, nay, the very existence of our race, de- 
 jjends upon the acknowledgment of this right.'- 
 
 We may remark here that the stability and 
 continuance of this great Confederacy depends 
 to a great extent on the observance of the laws 
 of the land, and to a great extent on the faith- 
 ful observance and execution of those laws wliich 
 relate to the right of pro})erty in slaves. We 
 give the following summary of Dr. Wayland's 
 view of the consequences resulting to society 
 from the non-acknowledgment of the right of 
 property: There would be but little produced 
 beyond the bare necessities of life ; there would 
 be no accumulation ; progress would be out of 
 the question ; and that just in proportion as the 
 right of property is preserved inviolate, just in 
 the same proportion will civilization advance, 
 and the comforts and conveniences of life mul- 
 tiply. Such is a brief summary of his argument 
 
 X* 
 
282 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 on the acknowledgment and preservation of the 
 riglit of property. Xow for tlie argument for 
 the riglit of property derived from the Scrip- 
 tures : 
 
 Third. — "The holy S^rii)tures treat the right 
 of property a^i a tJihig (p-kaowUdged.''^ They 
 do not estahUsJb the right of property ; they 
 merely acknowledge it, "and direct their pre- 
 cepts against every act by which it is violated, 
 and also against tempers of mind from which 
 such violation proceeds. The doctrine of reve- 
 lation is so clearly set forth on this subject that 
 I need not delay for the sake of dweUing upon 
 it. It will be suthcient to refer to the prohibi- 
 tions in the Decalogue against stealing and cov- 
 eting, and to the various precepts in the New 
 Testament respecting our duty in regard to our 
 duty to our neighbors' i)ossessions." 
 
 We suppose, then, that slave-holders are not 
 neighbors; that they have no possessions in 
 slaves which should be respected, but wherever 
 the slaves may be found, they are the lawful 
 prey of abolitionists, and their owners are all 
 " thieves " and " robbers I " This is admirable 
 logic and very scriptural conduct ! I 
 
 " The Scriptures treat of the right of property 
 as a thimx acknowledged," and make laws ac- 
 
TIIK FUGITIVE SLAVK LAW. 288 
 
 /cordingly. But the i^ame authority says that a 
 man's servant is nis money." (Exodus xxi, 20.) 
 'The possessive i)ronoun iiis is not only used 
 here, but the servant is declared to be liis mas- 
 ter's moxi:y, the standard by wliich all property 
 is valued. " Both tJnj bond men and thij bond 
 ,maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
 lieathen that are round about you. * ^' And 
 they shall be i/onr possession; and ye shall take 
 them as an inheritance for your children after 
 you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
 be your bond men forever." (Levit. xxv, 44-6.) 
 This looks rather strange that God, in his law 
 by Moses, should use these possessive pronouns 
 wdiich express the relation of property, in regard 
 to human beings! Christ and his apostles found 
 men owning and claiming the right of property 
 in human beings while on earth, but, terrible to 
 relate, they did not proclaim the unlawfulness 
 -of the matter, " because its announcement would 
 have been the signal of civil war." I ! On the 
 contrary they went on to prescribe the duties 
 growing out of the relation of master and slave, 
 And not only recognized tlio I'ight of property 
 in slaves, but returned a runaway to his master, 
 not being willing to do anything without the 
 mind of the servant's master. "The relation 
 
284 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 of property," says Dr. Waylaiid, " is expressed 
 by the possessive pronouns." The writers of 
 •the New Testament do not merely use tlie 6-///^- 
 ple possessive pronoun on this subject, but they 
 use those tliat are called by fjrammarians em- 
 phfitlc pronouns. "Let as many servants as 
 are under the yoke count tiieih owx masters 
 worthy of all honor." (I Tim. vi, 1.) "Ex- 
 hort servants to be obedient unto their own 
 masters. (Tit. ii, 9.) " Say in a word and ony 
 servant shall be healed." (Luke vii, 7.) 
 
 If Dr. Wayland is correct, that "the rela- 
 tion of property is expressed by the possessive 
 pronouns," then the position we have taken in 
 regard to the descendants of Ham being sub- 
 jected to the will of those of Shem and Japheth, 
 is not only continued, but the rl(/Jit of property 
 of Shem and Japheth in Ham's posterity was 
 also recognized ; for God says to Noah, (Gen. 
 ix, 26-7) "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; 
 and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall en- 
 large Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents 
 of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." 
 ■" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, 
 nor Jiis man servant, nor Jiis maid servant." 
 
 If, then, Christ and his apostles did not con- 
 demn slavery as sinful, but went on and pre- 
 
tup: FL'GITIVE SLAVE LAW. 285 
 
 scribed the duties growing out of tlie relation, 
 did tliey not by this procedure acknowledge 
 the lawfulness of the relation and the validity 
 of the master's claim to his servants just as 
 much as they did by directing precepts against 
 every act by whicli the right of property is vio- 
 lated, acknowledge the right of pro])erty itself? 
 To us, at least, there appears to be a great 6'/;/-!-- 
 ilarity in the two things, even if the right of 
 property in slaves had not been acknowledged 
 in so many words in the Scriptures. The Scrip- 
 tures seem to be plain on this matter, and where 
 men depart from them and try to put their own 
 teachings in the place of the Bible, they usually 
 iret caui^ht in their own craftiness. God knew 
 that men would be (piick and very forward to 
 claim what they considered their own, and 
 hence He saw that there was no necessity to say 
 that tlie claim to property was right. All that 
 lie saw to be necessary was to enact laws to 
 protect tlie right and fix the punislunent which 
 should be meted out to the offender. But He 
 equally foresaw^ that He would subject one part 
 of the human family to the two other divisions 
 of it. He knew from tlie wickedness of the liu- 
 man heart, that servants would be temi)ted to 
 rebel aixainst the authority of their masters, 
 
286 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 
 
 and that men pretending to be the friends of 
 the slave would not only deny the right of pro- 
 perty in slaves, but denounce the master as a 
 thief, a robber, a murderer and a man-stealer, 
 iind use his influence to destroy or break down 
 the master's claim; and hence, foreseeing all 
 these things. He has caused His servants, by 
 whom His will has been made known to men, 
 to be more particular with this kind of property 
 than that to which the right would not be dis- 
 puted. This seems to us to be a natural and 
 ■easy explanation of the matter — at least this 
 explanation is in accordance with the facts of 
 actual revelation. Were we to require of Dr. 
 Way land or any other man, to prove by the 
 Scriptures that God wills the possession of pro- 
 perty, he could not do so, but he would re])ly, 
 '''The holy Scriptures treat of the riglit of pro- 
 perty as a thing acknowledged.'"' This is his 
 answer. He thinks this a good reason. When 
 the slaveholder tells him that God has prescribed 
 the mutual duties of masters and slaves, there- 
 by recognizing the relation as lawful, and tacitly 
 acknowledging the right of property in the 
 slave, why he opens his eyes and says, " it's all 
 stuff! " He reminds us very much of the par- 
 tial judge in the spelling book — the thing loill 
 work one way, but /nnst )wt work the other. 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 28T 
 
 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 In tlie preceding portions of our work we 
 have attempted to show that siihordi nation is 
 the normal, or rather the proper condition of" 
 the race of Ham. The race has been, by the 
 direct act of the reator, placed in subjection to 
 the descendants of Slieni and Japheth, These 
 principles are in accordance not only with the 
 teachings of the Bible, but also in exact har- 
 mony with historical facts, for the negro, left to 
 himself, has never made any considerable ad- 
 vances in the arts of civilized life. The history 
 of Africa, compared with that of Europe, Asia, 
 or America, establish this position beyond suc- 
 cessful contradiction. Facts go to show that the 
 negro is never so happy, elevated, and benefi- 
 cial to liimself, as when under the control and 
 guidance of the superior white man; and all at- 
 tempts to place him on an ecpiality with the 
 white man have been stamped with signal fail- 
 
288 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 lire. Tliere arc a few individual exceptions to 
 this, wliicli we cheerfully admit. But any aili- 
 ficial attempt to place the negro on an equality 
 with white men has been and must be marked 
 Avith a signal faihire. It is an attempt to make 
 that " straight which God has made crooked.'^ 
 It is an attempt to improve His work. It in- 
 volves an absurdity, and of course must and 
 will prove abortive. By the subjection of the 
 slave to the will of his master, " It, (slavery,) 
 tends," says Dr. Wayland, " to abolish in him^ 
 (the slave,) all moral distinctions; and thus fos- 
 ter in him lying, deceit, hypocrisy, dishonesty, 
 and a willingness to yield himself up to minister 
 to the ajjpetites of his master. * * * 
 That such is the tendency of slaver//, as slavery y 
 we think no reflecting person can for a moment 
 hesitate to allow." Again, slavery '' takes from 
 the laborers the natnral stiijiulns to labor, 
 namely, the desire in the individual of improv- 
 ing his condition ; and substitutes, in the place 
 of it, that motive v\hich is the least operative 
 and least constant, namely, the fear of punish- 
 ment without the consciousness of moral delin- 
 quency. It removes as tar as possible, from 
 both parties, (master and slave,) the disposition 
 and motives to frugality. Xeither the master 
 
CONCLUDING REMAHKS. 289 
 
 learns frugality from the necessity of labor, nor 
 the slave from th(; benefits which it confers. 
 And hence, while one i)arty waste from igno- 
 rance of the laws of acquisition, and the oilier 
 because he can have no motive to economy, 
 capital must accumulate but slowly, if indeed 
 it accumulate at all." (Moral Science, p. 210.) 
 As to the correctness of these asscrfwjiti, for 
 they deserve no l)etter name, let fact.^ be sub- 
 mitted. As to slavery taking away the " natu- 
 fai stimulus to laboi-," let any impartial man 
 1 ead tlie liistory of emancipation as it has worked 
 in tl)e British West India Islands. He may 
 read •• Carey's Slave Trade," " Bigelow's Xotes 
 on Jamaica," or ''The West Indiasand North 
 America," by Itobert Baird, A. M., and he can 
 see how far slavery takes away this "natural 
 stimulus to labor." Where theie were once fine 
 sugar and coftee plantations, flourishing cities, 
 there are natural forests, weeds, desolation, 
 empty and deserted houses, and idle machineiy. 
 Tlie most l)usy thoroughfares of former times 
 ha\ e now almost the <piietude of a Sabballi." 
 The emancipated negroes, instead of laboring 
 from a •' natural stimulus to labor," have re- 
 turned to a natural state of savage barbarism. 
 Idleness, dissipation, laziness, for whicli the negro 
 
 Y 
 
290 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 is remarkable, now reign. The free negro now 
 lounges in glorious ease, filtbiness and poverty^ 
 under the refreshing shades of the native forest. 
 As to the lying, deceitful, hyj^ocritical, and 
 thievish propensities of the free negroes, we 
 think that our Northern friends, and those of 
 Oanada, can tell enough without our testimony. 
 We know one thing, and every man knoAvs the 
 same who has lived in a slave State, that the 
 slaves are not one huridredth part as bad for 
 these vices as the free negroes. We may add, 
 too, that nine-tenths of free negroes are drunk- 
 ards, liars, thieves, and lazy. 
 
 As to the moral effects of slaAcry and eman- 
 cipation, we are willing at any time to decide 
 the question by a comparison of our slave pop- 
 ulation in the Southern States with the moral 
 and relisfious condition of the free ne2:roes of 
 the British West Indies. As to Missionary 
 efforts, let the foUowino- extract from Carev's 
 " Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign," suffice. 
 " Missionary efforts in Jamaica are beset at the 
 present time with many and great discourage- 
 ments. Societies at home have withdrawn or 
 dimnished the amount of assistance afforded by 
 them to chapels and schools throughout this 
 island. The prostrate condition of its agricul- 
 
CONCLUDING REMARKS. 291 
 
 tare and coiumerce disables its own population 
 from doing as much as formerly for maintaining 
 the worship of God and the tuition of the young, 
 and induces numbers of negro laborers to retire 
 from estates which hav^e been thrown up, to 
 -seek means of subsistence in the mountains, 
 where they are screened in general from moral 
 training and superintendence. The consequence 
 of this state of matters is very disastrous. Not 
 a few missionaries and teachers, after struggling 
 with difficuUies which they could not overcome^ 
 have returned to Europe, and others are pre- 
 paring to follow them. Chapels and schools are 
 4\bandoned, or they have passed into the liands 
 •of very incompetent instructors." 
 
 Let the statistics of our missionary societies 
 in the Southern States be compared with these 
 •statements, and then we will see in whose favor 
 the facts are. Men — and especially anti-slavery 
 men — think that the negro is very docile, and 
 easily taught : this is the merest humbug. We 
 have tried both white men and negroes. We 
 have preached to the lowest class of white men, 
 and to the highest class of negroes, and we 
 have found, after twelve (12) years' experience, 
 that the sensual has by far the greatest influence 
 over the neirro. We do not believe that he will 
 
292 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 
 
 be responsible to the same degree as the white 
 man, simply because so mucli has not been be- 
 stowed on liitn by his Creator, Where little is 
 given, little will be required. We have found 
 that slaves are more consistent and better Chris- 
 tians than free negroes, and one of the reasons 
 of this is to be found in the tact that thev are 
 not surrounded with the same temptations — to 
 lying, deceit, hypocrisy, drunkenness and dis- 
 honesty — that encompass the free negro. Leave 
 the negro to himself — from the influence of the 
 wliite man — and he will soon return to a state 
 of savage barbarism. 
 
 "The negroes," says Allison, the historian, 
 f^peaking of the British act of emancipation, 
 " who, in a state of slavery, were comfortable 
 iind prosperous beyond any peasantry in the 
 world, and rapidly approaching the condition of 
 the most opulent sei'fs of Europe, have been by 
 the act of emancipation irretrievably consigaed 
 to a state of barbarism^''''' and such would be 
 the result of emancipation in the Southern 
 States. The white population would either 
 leave the negroes to " one long day of unprofit- 
 able ease" — leave them to dream of paradise, 
 or their abolition friends to dream for them — or 
 they would exterminate them without mercv. 
 
L'ONCLl DINC; KKMAHKi;. 298 
 
 J>ut. lot tlio neo'ro drciiui oC ca-^' willioiit 
 labor, and the coiisequciici' would he as it 
 always lias l)e('n — that is, st;n vation, povcity, 
 disease and death \\(>iil<l ho the ro'-Mlt. The 
 iieQ'ro will H'U work witlnmt soiiicthiiiLi' t<Mnake 
 him (h) so. Man is (hxuned {o cat hread in th«.' 
 sweat of his face. This he caimol rex^rse. |[f 
 may dream o\' paradise, hui. while he dreams, 
 the laws of iiatui'e :i\\- sli'i'nly at their work. 
 Indolenee henunihs his feeble iiitelleet, and 
 inflames his j>assious ; ])Overty and m ant are 
 creeping on him: temptation is surrounding 
 Jiim ; and viee. with all hei" motley ti'ain, is 
 winding fast her deadly coils around his very 
 soid, and making him the deviTs slave, to <hi his 
 work upon the eartli. Thus, the blossoms of his 
 paradise hyq f.ne tronis, and its fruits are defith.''^ 
 
 Men must lal>oi'. If tliey will not do so of 
 their own choice, they must Vx? compelled to do 
 :SO, or star\ e. They w ill steal, if others work. 
 This evil Iji'ings the j»unishment of divine and 
 human law. 
 
 Why, then, distuil) a system that is beneiicial 
 to the ])hysical and moial welfare of the negro? 
 WliV remove him fi-om the restraint of Ch)"is- 
 tian and civilized life, and turn him back to 
 Na^■age barbarism, peinn'y, want and starvati<»n. 
 
'294 coNCLUDiNa remarks. 
 
 iiiei-cly for the sake of saying that lie is fret ? 
 Of what advantage is freedom, if men are not 
 competent to use it to their own and their 
 neighbors" good V Why send back a large 
 
 •number of Afriea's benighted sons to a state of 
 worse than heatlienism ? Why take away the 
 comfort they now enjoy, and turn them out to 
 
 : starve, or steal, or to be destroyed by a supe- 
 rior race';' Why all this noise about freedom, 
 
 ^when that boasted freedom would bring anarchy, 
 
 •poverty, sutiering, moral and physical desolation 
 to the negro? Is there any of the spirit of 
 
 ■Christianity in all this agitatk>n ? The exam- 
 
 ,ples of the French revolutionists and the act of 
 British emanci[)ation should be a warning to all 
 abolitionists. 
 
 We are done — our work is finished. We 
 liave s}>oken what we believe to be the truth, 
 
 -and have attem})ted to establish it by the Bible. 
 
 .Let every one jndge for himself. 
 
 Tin: END. 
 
^■: