Slavery and Religion--Continued.
NEW TESTAMENT AND SLAVERY.
Our Lord's New Testament is the bulwark of human freedom. Its great,
broad, solid truths constitute an impregnable foundation for a temple
of liberty capacious enough to hold the entire human race. This is the
last book in the world to search in order to find any thing favorable
to oppression; and oppressors have usually preferred to "burrow amid
the types and shadows of the ancient economy." An effort has been made,
however, to wrest a sanction for the abomination of slavery out of this
last and best revelation from heaven, and to convert some passages
found in the writings of the apostles into chains and fetters to bind
in hopeless bondage those very persons for whom Christ died.
We will quote the passages usually adduced to prove that it is the duty
of some men to be slaves, and of others to be slaveholders.
"Servants, be obedient to them that are _your_ masters according to
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as
unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants
of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing
service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether
he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them,
forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven;
neither is there respect of persons with him." Eph. 6: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
"Servants, obey in all things _your_ masters according to the flesh;
not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart,
fearing God." Col. 3: 22. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and
_his_ doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters,
let them not despise _them_, because they are brethren; but rather do
_them_ service, because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the
benefit. These things teach and exhort." 1st Tim. 6: 1, 2. "_Exhort_
servants to be obedient unto their own masters, _and_ to please _them_
well in all _things_; not answering again; not purloining, but showing
all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour
in all things." Titus, 2: 9, 10. "Masters, give unto your servants that
which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
Col. 4: 1.
We will inquire in the first place whether these passages teach that
it is the duty of some persons to be _slaves_. And it may be remarked
that if a class of human beings _ought_ to sustain this horrible
relation, the law requiring them to do so, should be written in the
plainest possible manner. If any one should claim _me_ and _my_ family
as slaves, upon a pretense that God had authorized our enslavement,
I would demand a warrant for so terrible a degradation, which no
reasonable man could question. Let us see whether the scriptures cited
prove _unquestionably_ that to live in a state of slavery is a duty
which God requires.
1. It will be seen at a glance that there is not a word said about
_slaves_ in any of these quotations. The word _slave_ or _slaves_
is not once used! And yet these passages, inculcating the duties
of _servants_, have been rung in the ears of our poor _slaves_
for the last three hundred years, by hypocritical preachers and
slaveholders, as if heaven were chiefly interested and delighted in
the perpetuation of an institution which degrades millions of men
to a point as low as manhood can possibly descend. The whole gospel
preached to slaves is mixed up with this satanic perversion. Even the
song of angels announcing "peace on earth and good will to men," is
accompanied to the ear of the American bondman, with the base, coarse
corruption,--"_Slaves_, obey your masters."
2. The word _servants_, used in these scriptures, is not synonymous
with the word _slaves_, as the preachers of oppression assume. The word
_andrapodon_ means slave, but that word, the learned tell us, does not
occur in the sacred writings. The word _douloi_, used in the above
quotations, and translated servants, means precisely what our English
word servants means, as that word is understood in free countries. "Our
English word servant," says a good authority, "is an exact translation
of the Greek word _doulos_. And to translate it into the definite word
slave is a gross violation of the original. Our translators of the
scriptures have uniformly translated the word doulos into the word
servant, _never_ into the word slave, and for the reason that it never
means slave. The apostles addressed servants in general, but never
slaves in particular; and therefore the term slave (andrapodon) is not
found in apostolic writings."
The word _doulos_ occurs in the New Testament one hundred and twenty
two times,[10] and in no case has it been translated slave. To show
the utter fallacy of the assumption that it is synonymous with slave,
permit us to supply _slave_ in a few passages where _doulos_ occurs,
instead of servant, for if slave and servant mean the same thing, they
may be used interchangeably without violating the sense. "Paul and
Timotheus the _slaves_ of Jesus Christ." "These are the _slaves_ of the
Most High God which do show unto us the way of salvation." "And a voice
came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God all ye his _slaves_, and
ye that fear him small and great." "I am thy fellow _slave_." We might
extend these quotations indefinitely, but a sufficient number have been
given to show the absurdity of the assumption that the words servant
and slave describe the same relation. The pro-slavery rendering of
doulos, would make slaves of all the redeemed, and of the holy angels,
and would, as Mr. Smith remarks, extend the territory of slavery over
heaven itself.
3. The phrase "servants under the yoke" means no more than obligation
to perform service according to agreement or contract. He who had an
engagement with an unbelieving master should perform his contract,
or fulfill his obligation with scrupulous fidelity in order that the
name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. The word "yoke" does
not necessarily imply slavery. Our Savior said "take my _yoke_ upon
you," but certainly he did not invite any one to become a slave. The
word yoke is used in the scriptures to represent the ceremonial law;
"dominion of Jacob over Esau, in the matter of his father's blessing;"
political subjugation of the Israelites; the authority of king David
over his subjects, etc., etc.; but not in a single passage in the
scriptures, unless it be in 1st Tim. 6: 1, does it describe the state
of a domestic slave, and the assumption that it means slave in this
place is altogether without proof to sustain it.
4. There is one passage in the New Testament addressed to servants
which has not yet been quoted. "Servants be subject to your masters
with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward
God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." 1st Pet. 2: 18, 19. In this
passage _doulos_ does not occur, but _oiketes_, which some suppose,
means _slave_. But of this evidence is wanting. The same word is used
four times only in the New Testament, and is, in no case, translated
slave. (See Luke 16: 13. Acts 10: 7. Rom. 14: 4. 1st Pet. as above.) In
one place it is rendered household-servant, and it seems to be used to
distinguish _house_-servants from others. "The word comes from oikos, a
house."[11]
5. If the sacred writers above quoted had intended to address slaves,
they would, in the first place, have done so plainly by _calling_
them slaves. In the second place the directions would have been
applicable to persons in a state of slavery. As to the terms used in
the directions, we have seen that they do not apply properly to slaves;
and the directions themselves afford proof that they were given to
persons who were not chattel slaves. The advice and exhortations imply
freedom from _absolute authority_ and a power of choice not compatible
with slavery. They are exhorted to perform service "AS THE SERVANTS
OF CHRIST, DOING THE WILL OF GOD FROM THE HEART." That is, they were
to be actuated by the highest motives, and were not to toil as the
servants of men, but of God. Again, they are advised not to "DESPISE"
their masters. Such directions have no pertinence, if addressed to
human chattels. To whom then were they addressed? We answer, to
voluntary laborers or servants who received a compensation for their
work. The relations of servant and master or laborer and employer are
necessary, legitimate and honorable relations. All men have not the
skill to acquire or manage capital, and capital is essential to the
accomplishment of great enterprises, to the march of improvement,
and the progress of civilization. Capital invested in railroads,
canals, machinery, factories, ships, merchandise, etc., requires many
laborers to manage it; and the directions we are considering require
that those laborers be honest, faithful, pleasant, and industrious in
the discharge of the duties they engage to perform. And even though
an employer be not a very good man, as is often the case with men of
capital, christian servants or laborers are instructed to attend to
their duties in the fear of God and in a manner that will recommend to
those employers the religion which they profess. Yea, though servants
have an engagement with a hard-hearted, overbearing, abusive heathen
master, the apostles would have them perform their part, with the
utmost fidelity, suffering "_wrongfully_" if need be, for the sake of
Christ. These directions are judicious, and their observance would work
to the advantage of laborers in all countries.
Now it is clear that those scriptures do not teach unquestionably
that it is the duty of some persons to be slaves. If the apostles had
said, "slaves be obedient to your masters for you are their _property_
and they have a right to you and all you can earn, _because_ you are
property," then the matter would have been settled. Then we should
admit that _some_ men ought to be slaves, but upon the heels of this
admission would follow a question very difficult to settle viz: _Who
is to obey_ the command to be a slave? How is it to be determined who
shall become a human chattel and who the owner of said chattel?
But the assertion that God requires men to be slaves is a wicked
assertion. It charges God with folly and inconsistency. He desires
the elevation of man, but slavery brutalizes him. He encourages the
enlightenment of the mind and the expansion of the understanding, but
slavery darkens the mind and enchains the understanding. God cannot be
pleased with the ignorance, stupor, injustice and servile wretchedness
which are necessary to the very existence of slavery, and hence he can
not make it the duty of any man to be a slave, for this would be the
same as to make it his duty to be stupid, ignorant and wretched. No,
God does not will that any man or woman should be a slave. Man was made
in the image of God's independence and sovereignty. The instinct of
freedom is strong in his bosom. It has resisted oppression in all ages,
and it will resist it, with God on its side, until it shall triumph!
We will now inquire whether the apostolic addresses to masters
authorize some men to sustain the relation of _slaveholders_. It
should be observed that there are but two places in the New Testament
in which the duties of masters are pointed out. Permit us to repeat
those duties. "And ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing
threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven." "Masters give
unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also
have a master in heaven."
Is it possible that from these words men will take license to seize
their fellows and convert them into _property_; despoil them of all
their rights; deny them an education; banish them from courts of
justice; break up their homes; take their wages without compensation;
drive them in chain-gangs from state to state, and whip, beat, and
abuse them until they perish from the earth? Yes, it is possible.
This has been done. "Was there ever," said Dr. Wayland, "such a moral
superstructure raised on such a foundation? * * If the religion of
Christ allows such a license from such precepts as these, the New
Testament would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted on our
race." We remark
1. In these directions there is not the slightest intimation that the
masters addressed were _slaveholders_ and that the servants in their
employ were slaves. The term slaveholders (_andrapodistais_,) is not
used in the above passages, and this term is only once found in the
apostolic writings.[12] It is found in the following text: "Knowing
this that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless
and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy
and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with
mankind, for _andrapodistais_, (slaveholders or menstealers) for liars,
etc." 1st Tim. 1: 9, 10.
And it is not only a fact that slaveholders are not addressed in these
passages, but _the directions given are such as no slaveholder in the
world can observe_. How can a slaveholder give unto a _slave_ that
which is _just_ and _equal_? The _slave_ can own nothing, will nothing,
inherit nothing, and hence it is impossible, in the very nature of the
case, for his owner to give him a just compensation for his labor. And
the _slave_ has a just right to _himself_ to _liberty_ and the very
first honest and enlightened effort of a slaveholder to give to his
slave that which is just and equal would result in his _emancipation_!
_Justice_ and _equality_ are incompatible with slaveholding.
_Injustice_ and _inequality_ are its essential principles. Let us hear
Mrs. STOWE'S comment on what Christian legislators have seemed to
consider _just_ and _equal_ when making laws for slaves:--
"First, they commence by declaring that their brother shall no
longer be considered as a person, but deemed, sold, taken, and
reputed, as a chattel personal.--This is "just and equal!"
This being the fundamental principle of the system, the following
are specified as its consequences:
1. That he shall have no right to hold property of any kind, under
any circumstances.--Just and equal!
2. That he shall have no power to contract a legal marriage, or
claim any woman in particular for his wife.--Just and equal!
3. That he shall have no right to his children, either to protect,
restrain, guide or educate.--Just and equal!
4. That the power of his master over him shall be ABSOLUTE, without
any possibility of appeal or redress in consequence of any injury
whatever.
To secure this, they enact that he shall not be able to enter suit
in any court for any cause.--Just and equal!
That he shall not be allowed to bear testimony in any court where
any white person is concerned.--Just and equal!
That the owner of a servant, for "malicious, cruel, and excessive
beating of his slave, cannot be indicted."--Just and equal!
It is further decided, that by no indirect mode of suit, through a
guardian, shall a slave obtain redress for ill-treatment. (Dorothea
v. Coquillon et al, 9 Martin La. Rep. 350.)--Just and equal!
5. It is decided that the slave shall not only have no legal
redress for injuries inflicted by his master, but shall have no
redress for those inflicted by any other person, unless the injury
impair his property value.--Just and equal!
Under this head it is distinctly asserted as follows:
There can be no offence against the peace of the state, by the mere
beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty,
or an intent to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not
thereby broken." (State v. Manner, 2 Hill's Rep. S. C.)--Just and
equal!
If a slave strike a white, he is to be condemned to death; but if a
master kill his slave by torture, no white witnesses being present,
he may clear himself by his own oath. (Louisiana.)--Just and equal!
The law decrees fine and imprisonment to the person who shall
release the servant of another from the torture of the iron collar.
(Louisiana.)--Just and equal!
It decrees a much smaller fine, without imprisonment, to the man
who shall torture him with red-hot irons, cut out his tongue, put
out his eyes, and scald or maim him. (Ibid.)--Just and equal!
It decrees the same punishment to him who teaches him to write as
to him who puts out his eyes.--Just and equal!
As it might be expected that only very ignorant and brutal people
could be kept in a condition like this, especially in a country
where every book and every newspaper are full of dissertations
on the rights of man, they therefore enact laws that neither he
nor his children to all generations, shall learn to read and
write.--Just and equal!
And as, if allowed to meet for religious worship, they might
concert some plan of escape or redress, they enact that "no
congregation of negroes, under pretence of divine worship, shall
assemble themselves; and that every slave found at such meetings
shall be immediately corrected _without trial_, by receiving on the
bare back twenty-five stripes with a whip, switch or cowskin." (Law
of Georgia, Prince's Digest, p. 447.)--Just and equal!
Though the servant is thus kept in ignorance, nevertheless in his
ignorance he is punished more severely for the same crimes than
freemen.--Just and equal!
By way of protecting him from over-work, they enact that he shall
not labor more than five hours longer than convicts at hard labor
in a penitentiary!
They also enact that the master or overseer, not the slave, shall
decide when he is too sick to work.--Just and equal!
If any master, compassionating this condition of the slave, desires
to better it, the law takes it out of his power, by the following
decisions:
1. That all his earnings shall belong to his master,
notwithstanding his master's promise to the contrary; thus making
him liable for his master's debts.--Just and equal!
2. That if his master allow him to keep cattle for his own use, it
shall be lawful for any man to take them away, and enjoy half the
profits of the seizure.--Just and equal!
3. If his master sets him free, he shall be taken up and sold
again.--Just and equal!
If any man or woman runs away from this state of things, and, after
proclamation made, does not return, any two justices of the peace
may declare them outlawed, and give permission to any person in the
community to kill then by any ways or means they think fit.--Just
and equal!"
(_See Key, pp. 241._)
If slaveholding is an illustration of what St. Paul meant by justice
and equality, who can tell what is injustice and inequality? Let it be
understood that a slaveholder cannot give to a slave, _while he holds
him as a slave_, that which is _just_ and _equal_, because the greatest
injustice and inequality enters into the very nature of the relation of
slaveholder. Could a man be a _just_ robber or an _honest_ thief? No,
because injustice and dishonesty enter necessarily into the business
of robbing and stealing. Even so is it impossible for justice and
equality to enter into slaveholding, because, it is in its very nature,
robbery, theft, extortion, oppression, and a complication of almost all
villainies.
It is clear from the examination of all the passages in the New
Testament relating to masters and servants, that those masters were not
slaveholders and that those servants were not slaves.
But it will be asked did not slavery exist in the apostles' days? We
answer it did exist. The Roman government tolerated chattel slavery.
Why then did not the apostles regulate it by prescribing the duties
of slaveholders and slaves? It has been assumed, and justly too,
that "slavery no more than murder _can_ be regulated. That which
is essentially and eternally wrong has nothing in it on which the
claim of morality can rest. Morality requires its destruction, not
its regulation."[13] The law of God does not point out the duties
of liars, adulterers and thieves, because as such, they can have no
duties. So God did not attempt to regulate Roman slavery which was a
most vile and crushing despotism. He did not intend that SLAVERY should
be continued, and hence it was not to be regulated but destroyed. We
have no evidence in the above passages that SLAVEHOLDERS were admitted
into the church of Jesus Christ by the apostles.
Slaveholders and the upholders of the infamous Fugitive Slave Law,
lay the case of Onesimus to their consciences as a healing unction
when dogging down the fugitive slave. In their blindness they assume
that Philemon was a slaveholder, Onesimus a slave, and St. Paul a
slave-catcher. But not a word of this is true.
1. Onesimus was a SERVANT and not a SLAVE, and Philemon was not a
SLAVEHOLDER. The assumption that the one was a slave and the other a
slave-owner is altogether without support.
2. Onesimus was not _forcibly_ sent back. St. Paul did not arrest
him, and send him in chains to Philemon, charging the expense to the
government.
3. He was not sent back as a _servant_, much less a _slave_. How then?
Why as a "brother beloved." "Thou therefore receive him as mine own
bowels-- * * receive him as myself." "If he oweth thee ought put that
on mine account." These directions are wholly inconsistent with the
idea of slavery. If Onesimus was the _property_ of Philemon, Paul
knew that he owed the service of his whole life. But Onesimus was no
slave. Had he been a slave Paul would have said, "Receive him not as
a slave (_andrapodon_) but above a slave," instead of saying, "not as
a servant (_doulos_) but above a servant." Onesimus was a relative of
Philemon, probably a natural brother,--brother "in the flesh;" as may
be inferred from Philem., verse 16. He was undoubtedly a young man of
great promise, and was not only entrusted with the epistle of Paul to
Philemon, but jointly with Tychicus was the bearer of the venerable
apostle's letter to the church at Colosse. On the authority of Calmet,
and indeed of Ignatius, it is affirmed that he succeeded Timothy as
bishop of Ephesus.
They who affirm that the New Testament writers sanctioned Roman
slavery, seem not to be aware of the serious imputation they cast upon
that book and its authors. Look at that awful despotism, that you may
understand what a savage, scaly, bloody-mouthed beast was welcomed into
the church and baptized with a Christian baptism, if we may believe
the advocates of human bondage.
1. "The (Roman) slave had no protection against the avarice, rage, or
lust of the master, whose authority was founded in absolute property;
and the bondman was viewed less as a human being subject to arbitrary
dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of
his overseer.[14]
2. "He might kill, mutilate or torture his slaves for any or no offence;
he might force them to become gladiators or prostitutes.
3. "The temporary unions of male with female slaves were formed and
dissolved at his command; families and friends were separated when he
pleased.
4. "Slaves could have no property but by the sufferance of their
masters.
5. "While slaves turned the handmill they were generally chained, and
had a broad wooden collar to prevent them from eating the grain.
6. "The runaway when taken was severely punished, * * * sometimes with
crucifixion, amputation of a foot, or by being sent to fight as a
gladiator with wild beasts; but most frequently by being branded on the
brow with letters indicative of his crime.
7. "By a decree passed by the Senate, if a master was murdered when his
slaves might possibly have aided him, all his household within reach
were held as implicated and deserving of death."
Is it possible that the holy apostles gave their sanction to a system
based on such laws?
But all the fundamental principles of revealed religion are against
slavery.
1. THE CHARACTER OF GOD.--God is _just_ and cannot favor a system which
disregards all the principles of justice. But slavery outrages every
principle of justice: therefore God must be opposed to slavery. God
is _impartial_,--no respecter of persons, and he cannot be favorable
to a system which is based upon partiality. But slavery is a system
of superlative partiality: hence God is opposed to slavery. God is
_love_,--and love wills the highest happiness of the intelligent
universe, and the removal of every obstruction to the progress of
men to that happiness. But slavery obstructs that progress. It is a
barbarizing system, necessarily involving millions of men in ignorance,
crime and misery: therefore God must will its extirpation. All the
divine attributes are hostile to slavery. "Thus saith the Lord, execute
ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand
of the oppressor." "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the
oppressed; judge the fatherless; plead for the widow."
2. THE COMMON ORIGIN OF MAN.--The unity of the human race is admitted
by all scientific men, and the bible plainly teaches us that "out of
one blood hath God made all nations to dwell upon the face of the
earth." Whatever difference of feature, color, intellect or stature,
may be found in the various parts of the globe, is attributable to
manners, climate, education, and the pleasure the Creator has in
variety. Every human being is a _man_, possessing all the rights of
a man. All men are brothers, born into the world on a common level.
Hence one man cannot claim his brother and his brother's family without
committing an outrageous insult. If the right to claim belongs to
any, it belongs to all, and now whose right shall hold? We say if
the right to enslave belongs to any it belongs to all, and how is it
to be determined who will sink from the right to own slaves to the
condition of a SLAVE? Must the strong reduce to slavery the weak, and
thus make might the _arbiter_? Such a conclusion would be contrary to
the plainest dictates of reason. If men have a common parentage, and
are brothers, they inherit common rights, and those rights ought to be
respected. That system which authorizes one part of the common family
of man to plunder another part of their dearest rights--of _all_ their
rights, is a wrong system. But slavery authorizes this very thing:
therefore slavery is wrong.
3. JESUS CHRIST IS THE REDEEMER OF ALL.--Jesus is the second Adam, and
sustains a relation to the human family co-extensive with the first
Adam. He is the Mediator, High Priest and Elder Brother of every child
of man. All have been purchased with a priceless offering; and hence
the claims of Christ are paramount to all other claims, and no one can
rightfully become the owner of a fellow-being, unless Christ as Creator
and Redeemer first relinquish his claim. A system which should attempt
forcibly, and without divine permission, to seize upon the Saviour's
purchase, would be robbery--a robbery of God. But slavery does seize
upon the purchase of a Saviour's blood without divine permission:
therefore slavery is robbery--robbery of God.
4. THE MORAL PRECEPTS OF CHRISTIANITY.--The moral precepts
of Christianity condemn slavery. Take for example the golden
rule--"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto
you, do ye even so unto them." Can any slaveholder obey this precept?
If that wealthy planter who stands at the head of a large family, were
a slave with all his household, what course would he have his owner
pursue? Would he not wish him to grant a deed of immediate manumission
to all his family and to himself? Would he not urge the matter as
one of immense importance? Is it possible that he could desire to be
deprived of liberty, education, permanent family connections, and of
the proceeds of his toil? Could any sane man wish to have his sons and
daughters grow up in the stupor, ignorance, and miseries of slavery?
No, it is not possible. Every sound-minded man would regard the
subjugation of himself and family to slavery as a dreadful calamity,
and would consider the man who should _hold_ them in that condition as
an unfeeling, inhuman tyrant.--Therefore no sound-minded man can hold a
slave without violating the golden rule--without doing unto others as
he would _not_ have others do to him.
5. THE COMMANDMENTS ARE ALL AGAINST SLAVERY. "Honor thy father and
thy mother." But slavery places the master between the child and the
parent, and makes it impossible for the child practically to obey this
command, in the performance of those duties which cheer the hearts and
lighten the burdens of parents, especially in old age. "Thou shalt not
kill." But slavery authorizes in many cases the killing of slaves.
"In North Carolina, any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been
outlawed by running away or lurking in the swamps." "By a law of South
Carolina, a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if
provisions, etc., be prepared to aid in such running away, shall be
punished with death." "Another law of the same State, provides that if
a slave when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by any
white person, such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the
slave shall _strike_ such person, he may be _lawfully killed_."--"Thou
shalt not commit adultery." But female slaves are compelled to commit
adultery. The law places them wholly within the power of their masters
and overseers, and they dare not, they cannot resist their demands.
"Thou shalt not steal." But slavery exists by theft. Every slave is a
stolen man. Every slaveholder is a man-stealer. The slave was stolen
from Africa, or stolen from his rightful owner, himself, in America. No
sophistry can make it plausible that the African slave trade is piracy,
and that the _perpetuation_ of slavery is an innocent business. It is
theft as clearly to go to the negro hut in Virginia and steal a babe as
to go to a hut in Africa and do the same deed. Certainly a child born
in our happy Republic is as free in the sight of God as one born under
the rule of the King of Dahomey! "All are created free," hence the
holding of any one as a slave is _theft_ persevered in. "Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbor." But slavery does bear false
witness against the slave, who is our neighbor. It denies his natural
equality, his right to liberty, property--in short, his manhood.
This is all as _false_ as false can be. "Thou shalt not covet." But
slavery covets not only a man's property, but the man himself. We see
that slavery violates every commandment of the second table of the
Decalogue, and indeed violates every precept of the first table, as
might readily be shown.
It is clear that slavery receives no sanction from the curse pronounced
upon Canaan, from patriarchal servitude, from the law of Moses, nor
from the law of Christ. In the light of the divine word it appears a
gigantic barbarism, full of hate to the human brotherhood. It annuls
the law of God respecting the family and society. It obstructs the
progress of education and religion. It is condemned by the whole spirit
of revealed religion. Only a devil could pray for its perpetuation
and extension. It is not only a sin, but a combination of stupendous
sins--"the sum of all villainies," in the language of Wesley, "an
enormity and a crime, for which perdition has scarcely an adequate
punishment," in the language of Clarke. "Slavery," said the celebrated
Jabez Bunting, "is always wrong, essentially, eternally, incurably
wrong."