_shade_, therefore he desired it; and like the _hireling's wages_,
because _beyond the grave_, he hoped to reap the fruit of his doings.
Again, Job (xxxi:) finding himself the subject of suspicion (see from
verse 1 to 30) as to the rectitude of his past life, clears himself of
various sins, in the most solemn manner, as unchastity, injustice in his
dealings, adultery, contempt of his servants, unkindness to the poor,
covetousness, the pride of wealth, etc. And in the 13th, 14th, and 15th
verses he thus expresses himself: "If I did despise the cause of my
man-servant, or my maid-servant, when they contended with me, what then
shall I do when God rises up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer
him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him? And did not one
fashion us in the womb?" Taking this language in connection with the
language employed by Moses, in reference to the institution of
involuntary servitude in _that age_, and especially in connection with
the language which Moses employs _after the law was given_, and what
else can be understood, than a reference to a class of duties that slave
owners felt themselves above stooping to notice or perform, but which,
nevertheless, it was the duty of the righteous man to discharge: for
whatever proud and wicked men might think of a poor servant that stood
in his estate, on an equality with brutes, yet, says Job, he that made
me, made them, and if I despise their reasonable causes of complaint,
for injuries which they are made to suffer, and for the redress of which
I only can be appealed to, then what shall I do, and how shall I fare,
when I carry my causes of complaint to him who is my master, and to whom
only I can go for relief? When he visiteth me for despising _their
cause_, what shall I answer him for _despising mine_? He means that he
would feel self-condemned, and would be forced to admit the justice of
the retaliation. But on the supposition that allusion is had to _hired
servants_, who were _voluntarily_ working for _wages_ agreed upon, and
who were the _subjects of rights_ for the _protection of which_, their
appeal would be to "the judges in the gate," as much as any other class
of men, then there is no point in the statement. For _doing that_ which
can be _demanded as a legal right_, gives us no claim to the character
of _merciful benefactors_. Job himself was a great slaveholder, and,
like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, won no small portion of his claims to
character with God and men from the manner in which he discharged his
duty to his slaves. Once more: the conduct of Joseph in Egypt, _as
Pharaoh's counsellor_, under all the circumstances, proves him a friend
to absolute slavery, as a form of government better adapted to the state
of the world at that time, than the one which existed in Egypt; for
certain it is, that he peaceably effected a change in the fundamental
law, by which a _state, condition, or relation_, between Pharaoh and the
Egyptians was established, which answers to the one now denounced as
sinful in the sight of God. Being warned of God, he gathered up all the
surplus grain in the years of plenty, and sold it out in the years of
famine, until he gathered up all the money; and when money failed, the
Egyptians came and said, "Give us bread;" and Joseph said, "Give your
cattle, and I will give for your cattle, if money fail." When that year
was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said, "There is not
aught left in sight of my Lord, but our bodies and our lands. Buy us and
our lands for bread." And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for
Pharoah.
So the land became Pharoah's, and as for the people, he removed them to
cities, from one end of the borders of Egypt, even to the other end
thereof. Then Joseph said unto the people, "Behold! I have bought you
this day, and your land for Pharoah; and they said, "we will be
Pharoah's servants."--See Gen. xlvii: 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25. Having
thus changed the fundamental law, and created a state of entire
_dependence_ and _hereditary bondage_, he enacted in his sovereign
pleasure, that they should give Pharoah one part, and take the other
four parts of the productions of the earth to themselves. How far the
hand of God was in this overthrow of liberty, I will not decide; but
from the fact that he has singled out the greatest slaveholders of that
age, as the objects of his special favor, it would seem that the
institution was one furnishing great opportunities to exercise grace and
glorify God, as it still does, where its duties are faithfully
discharged.
I have been tedious on this first proposition, but I hope the importance
of the subject to Christians as well as to statesmen will be my apology.
I have written it, not for victory over an adversary, or to support
error or falsehood, but to gather up God's will in reference to holding
men and women in _bondage, in the patriarchal age_. And it is clear, in
the first place, that God decreed this state before it existed. Second.
It is clear that the highest manifestations of good-will which he ever
gave to mortal man, was given to Abraham, in that covenant in which he
required him to circumcise all his _male servants, which he had bought
with his money_, and that were _born of them_ in his house. Third. It is
certain that he gave _these servants_ as _property_ to Isaac. Fourth. It
is certain that, as the owner of _these slaves_, Isaac received similar
tokens of God's favor. Fifth. It is certain that Jacob, who inherited
from Isaac his father, received like tokens of divine favor. Sixth. It
is certain, from a fair construction of language, that Job, who is held
up by God himself as a model of human perfection, was a great
slaveholder. Seventh. It is certain, when God showed honor, and came
down to bless Jacob's posterity, in taking them by the hand to lead them
out of Egypt, _they were the owners of slaves that were bought with
money, and treated as property_; _which slaves_ were allowed of God to
unite in celebrating the divine goodness to their _masters_, while
_hired servants_ were excluded. Eighth. It is certain that God
interposed to give Joseph the power in Egypt, which he used, to create a
state, or condition, among the Egyptians, which _substantially agrees_
with _patriarchal_ and _modern slavery_. Ninth. It is certain, that in
reference to this institution in Abraham's family, and the surrounding
nations, for five hundred years, it is never censured in any
communication made from God to men. Tenth. It is certain, when God put a
_period_ to _that dispensation_, he _recognised slaves as property on
Mount Sinai_. If, therefore, it has become sinful since, it cannot be
from the _nature of the thing_, but from the _sovereign pleasure of God
in its prohibition_. We will therefore proceed to our second
proposition, which is--
Second.--That it was incorporated in the only national constitution
emanating from the Almighty. By common consent, that portion of time
stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity, at
Mount Sinai, is called the patriarchal age; _this is the period we have
reviewed_, in relation to this subject. From the giving of the law until
the coming of Christ, is called the Mosaic or legal dispensation. From
the coming of Christ to the end of time, is called the Gospel
dispensation. The legal dispensation _is the period of time, we propose
now to examine_, in reference to the institution of involuntary and
hereditary slavery; in order to ascertain, whether, during this period,
_it existed at all_, and _if it did exist_, whether with the _divine
sanction_, or in _violation of the divine will_. This dispensation is
called the legal dispensation, because it was the pleasure of God to
take Abraham's posterity by miraculous power, then numbering near three
millions of souls, and give them a written constitution of government, a
country to dwell in, and a covenant of special protection and favor, for
their obedience to his law until the coming of Christ. The laws which he
gave them emanated from his sovereign pleasure, and were designed, in
the first place, to make himself known in his essential perfections;
second, in his moral character; third, in his relation to man; and
fourth, to make known those principles of action by the exercise of
which man attains his highest moral elevation, viz: supreme love to God,
and love to others as to ourselves.
All the law is nothing but a preceptive exemplification of these two
principles; consequently, the existence of a precept in the law, utterly
irreconcilable with these principles, would destroy all claims upon us
for an acknowledgment of its divine original. Jesus Christ himself has
put his finger upon these two principles of human conduct, (Deut. vi:
5--Levit. xix: 18,) revealed in the law of Moses, and decided, that on
them hang all the law and the prophets.
The Apostle Paul decides in reference to the relative duties of men,
that whether written out in preceptive form in the law or not, they are
all comprehended in this saying, viz: "thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself." With these views to guide us, as to the acknowledged design of
the law, viz: that of revealing the eternal principles of moral
rectitude, by which human conduct is to be measured, so that sin may
abound, or be made apparent, and righteousness be ascertained or known,
we may safely conclude, that the institution of slavery, which legalizes
the holding one person in bondage as property forever by another, if it
be morally wrong, or at war with the principle which requires us to love
God supremely, and our neighbor as ourself, will, if noticed at all in
the law, be noticed, for the purpose of being condemned as sinful. And
if the modern views of abilitionists be correct, we may expect to find
the institution marked with such tokens of divine displeasure, as will
throw all other sins into the shade, as comparatively small, when laid
by the side of this monster. What, then, is true? Has God ingrafted
hereditary slavery upon the constitution of government he condescended
to give to his chosen people--that people, among whom he promised to
dwell, and that he required to be holy? I answer, he has. It is clear
and explicit. He enacts, first, that his chosen people may take their
money, go into the slave markets of the surrounding nations, (the seven
devoted nations excepted,) and purchase men-servants and women-servants,
and give them, and their increase, to their children and their
children's children, forever; and worse still for the refined humanity
of our age--he guarantees to the foreign slaveholder perfect protection,
while he comes in among the Israelites, for the purpose of dwelling,
and raising and selling slaves, who should be acclimated and accustomed
to the habits and institutions of the country. And worse still for the
sublimated humanity of the present age, God passes with the right to buy
and possess, the right to govern, by a severity which knows no bounds
but the master's discretion. And if worse can be, for the morbid
humanity we censure, he enacts that his own people may sell themselves
and their families for limited periods, with the privilege of extending
the time at the end of the sixth year to the fiftieth year or jubilee,
if they prefer bondage to freedom. Such is the precise character of two
institutions, found in the constitution of the Jewish commonwealth,
emanating directly from Almighty God. For the fifteen hundred years,
during which these laws were in force, God raised up a succession of
prophets to reprove that people for the various sins into which they
fell; yet there is not a reproof uttered against the institution of
_involuntary slavery_, for any species of abuse that ever grew out of
it. A severe judgment is pronounced by Jeremiah, (chapter xxxiv: see
from the 8th to the 22d verse,) for an abuse or violation of the law,
concerning the _voluntary_ servitude of Hebrews; but the prophet pens it
with caution, as if to show that it had no reference to any abuse that
had taken place under the system of _involuntary slavery_, which existed
by law among that people; the sin consisted in making hereditary
bond-men and bond-women of Hebrews, which was positively forbidden by
the law, and not for buying and holding one of another nation in
hereditary bondage, which was as positively allowed by the law. And
really, in view of what is passing in our country, and elsewhere, among
men who profess to reverence the Bible, it would seem that these must be
dreams of a distempered brain, and not the solemn truths of that sacred
book.
Well, I will now proceed to make them good to the letter, see Levit.
xxv: 44, 45, 46; "Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy
bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that
are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your
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." I ask any candid man, if the words of this institution could
be more explicit? It is from God himself; it authorizes that people, to
whom he had become _king and law-giver_, to purchase men and women as
property; to hold them and their posterity in bondage; and to will them
to their children as a possession forever; and more, it allows _foreign
slaveholders_ to _settle_ and _live among them_; to _breed slaves_ and
_sell them_. Now, it is important to a correct understanding of this
subject, to connect with the right to _buy_ and _possess_, as property,
the amount of authority _to govern_, which is granted by the
_law-giver_; this amount of authority is implied, in the first place, in
the law which prohibits the exercise of rigid authority upon the
Hebrews, who are allowed to sell themselves for limited times. "If thy
brother be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not _compel
him_ to serve as a _bond servant_, but as a _hired servant_, and as a
_sojourner_ he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee until the year
of jubilee--_they shall not be sold as bond-men_; thou _shalt not rule
over them with rigor_."--Levit. xxv: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. It will be
evident to all, that here are _two states_ of servitude; in reference to
_one_ of which, _rigid_ or _compulsory_ authority, is _prohibited_, and
that its _exercise is authorised in the other_.
Second.--In the criminal code, that conduct is punished with death, when
done to a _freeman_, which is not punishable at all, when done _by a
master to a slave_, for the express reason, that the slave is the
_master's money_. "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall surely be
put to death."--Exod. xxi: 20, 21. "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 continue a day or two, he shall not be
punished, for he is his money."--Exod. xxi: 20. Here is precisely the
same crime: smiting a man so that he die; if it be a freeman, he shall
surely be put to death, whether the man die under his hand, or live a
day or two after; but if it be a servant, and the master continued the
rod until the servant died under his hand, then it must be evident that
such a chastisement could not be necessary for any purpose of wholesome
or reasonable authority, and therefore he may by punished, but not with
death. But if the death did not take place for a day or two, then it is
to be _presumed_, that the master only aimed to use the rod, so far as
was necessary to produce subordination, and for this, the law which
allowed him to lay out his money in the slave, would protect him
against all punishment. This is the common-sense principle which has
been adopted substantially in civilized countries, where involuntary
slavery has been instituted, from that day until this. Now, here are
laws that authorize the holding of men and women in bondage, and
chastising them with the rod, with a severity that terminates in death.
And he who believes the Bible to be of divine authority, believes these
laws were given by the Holy Ghost to Moses. I understand modern
abolition sentiments to be sentiments of marked hatred against such
laws; to be sentiments which would hold God himself in abhorrence, if he
were to give such laws his sanction; but he has given them his sanction;
therefore, they must be in harmony with his moral character. Again, the
divine Law-giver, in guarding the property right in slaves among his
chosen people, sanctions principles which may work the separation of man
and wife, father and children. Surely, my reader will conclude, if I
make this good, I shall force a part of the saints of the present day to
blaspheme the God of Israel. All I can say is, truth is mighty, and I
hope it will bring us all to say, let God be true, in settling the true
principles of humanity, and every man a liar who says slavery was
inconsistent with it, in the days of the Mosaic law. Now for the proof:
"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee, and in the
seventh he shall go out free for nothing; if he came in by himself, he
shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out
with him; if his master have given him a wife (one of his bond-maids)
and she have borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children
shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself."--Exod. xxi: 2, 3,
4. Now, the God of Israel gives this man the option of being separated
by the master, from his wife and children, or becoming himself a servant
forever, with a mark of the fact, like our cattle, in the ear, that can
be seen wherever he goes; for it is enacted, "If the servant shall
plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go
out free, then his master shall bring him unto the judges, (in open
court,) he shall also bring him unto the door, or unto the door post,
(so that all in the court-house, and those in the yard may be witnesses,
and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall
serve him forever." It is useless to spend more time in gathering up
what is written in the Scriptures on this subject, from the giving of
the law until the coming of Christ.
Here is the authority, from God himself, to hold men and women, and
their increase, in slavery, and to transmit them as property forever;
here is plenary power to govern them, whatever measure of severity it
may require; provided only, that _to govern_, be the object in
exercising it. Here is power given to the master, to separate man and
wife, parent and child, by denying ingress to his premises, sooner than
compel him to free or sell the mother, that the marriage relation might
be honored. The _preference_ is given of God to _enslaving the father_
rather than _freeing the mother and children_.
Under every view we are allowed to take of the subject, the conviction
is forced upon the mind, that from Abraham's day, until the coming of
Christ, (a period of two thousand years,) this institution found favor
with God. No marks of his displeasure are found resting upon it. It
must, therefore, in its moral nature, be in harmony with those moral
principles which he requires to be exercised by the law of Moses, and
which are the principles that secure harmony and happiness to the
universe, viz: supreme love to God, and the love of our neighbor as
ourself.--Deut. vi: 5.--Levit. xix: 18. To suppose that God has laid
down these fundamental principles of moral rectitude in his law, as the
soul that must inhabit every preceptive requirement of that law, and yet
to suppose he created relations among the Israelites, and prescribed
relative duties growing out of these relations, that are hostile to the
spirit of the law, is to suppose what will never bring great honor or
glory to our Maker. But if I understand that spirit which is now warring
against slavery, this is the position which the spirit of God forces it
to occupy, viz: that God has ordained slavery, and yet slavery is the
greatest of sins. Such was the state of the case when Jesus Christ made
his appearance. We propose--
Third. To show that Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that
was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties.
Having shown from the Scriptures, that slavery existed with Abraham and
the patriarchs, with divine approbation, and having shown from the same
source, that the Almighty incorporated it in the law, as an institution
among Abraham's seed, until the coming of Christ, our precise object now
is, to ascertain whether _Jesus Christ has abolished it_, or _recognized
it_ as a _lawful relation_, existing among men, and prescribed duties
which belong to it, as he has other relative duties; such as those
between husband and wife, parent and child, magistrate and subject.
And first, I may take it for granted, without proof, that he has not
abolished it by commandment, for none pretend to this. This, by the way,
is a singular circumstance, that Jesus Christ should put a system of
measures into operation, which have for their object the subjugation of
all men to him as a law-giver--kings, legislators, and private citizens
in all nations; at a time, too, when hereditary slavery existed in all;
and after it had been incorporated for fifteen hundred years into the
Jewish constitution, immediately given by God himself. I say, it is
passing strange, that under such circumstances, Jesus should fail to
prohibit its further existence, if it was his intention to abolish it.
Such an omission or oversight cannot be charged upon any other
legislator the world has ever seen. But, says the abolitionist, he has
introduced new moral principles, which will extinguish it as an
unavoidable consequence, without a direct prohibitory command. What are
they? "Do to others as you would they should do to you." Taking these
words of Christ to be a body, inclosing a moral soul in them, what soul,
I ask, is it?
The same embodied in these words of Moses, Levit. xix: 18; "thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself;" or is it another? It cannot be another,
but it must be the very same, because Jesus says, there are but two
principles in being in God's moral government, _one_ including all that
is _due to God_, the _other_ all that is _due to men_.
If, therefore, doing to others as we would they should do to us, means
precisely what loving our neighbor as ourself means, then Jesus has
added no new moral principle above those in the law of Moses, to
prohibit slavery, for in his law is found this principle, and slavery
also.
The very God that said to them, they should love him supremely, and
their neighbors as themselves, said to them also, "of the heathen that
are round about you, thou shalt buy bond-men and bond-women, and they
shall be your possession, and ye shall take them as an inheritance for
your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be
your bond-men forever." Now, to suppose that Jesus Christ left his
disciples to find out, without a revelation, that slavery must be
abolished, as a natural consequence from the fact, that when God
established the relation of master and servant under the law, he said to
the master and servant, each of you must love the other as yourself, is,
to say the least, making Jesus to presume largely upon the intensity of
their intellect, that they would be able to spy out a discrepancy in the
law of Moses, which God himself never saw. Again: if "do to others as ye
would they should do to you," is to abolish slavery, it will for the
same reason, level all inequalities in human condition. It is not to be
admitted, then, that Jesus Christ introduced any new moral principle
that must, of necessity, abolish slavery. The principle relied on to
prove it, stands boldly out to view in the code of Moses, as the _soul_,
that must _regulate_, and _control_, the _relation_ of _master and
servant_, and therefore cannot abolish it.
Why a master cannot do to a servant, or a servant to a master, as he
would have them do to him, as soon as a wife to a husband or a husband
to a wife, I am utterly at a loss to know. The wife is "subject to her
husband in all things" by divine precept. He is her "head," and God
"suffers her not to usurp authority over him." Now, why in such a
relation as this, we can do to others _as we_ would they should do to
us, any sooner than in a relation, securing to us what is just and equal
as servants, and due respect and faithful service rendered with good
will to us as masters, I am at a loss to conceive. I affirm then, first,
(and no man denies,) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a
prohibitory command: and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new
moral principle which can work its destruction, under the gospel
dispensation; and that the principle relied on for this purpose, is a
fundamental principle of the Mosaic law, under which slavery was
instituted by Jehovah himself: and third, with this absence of positive
prohibition, and this absence of principle, to work its ruin, I affirm,
that in all the Roman provinces, where churches were planted by the
apostles, hereditary slavery existed, as it did among the Jews, and as
it does now among us, (which admits of proof from history that no man
will dispute who knows any thing of the matter,) and that in instructing
such churches, the Holy Ghost by the apostles, has recognized the
institution, as one _legally existing_ among them, to be perpetuated in
the church, and that its duties are prescribed.
Now for the proof: To the church planted at Ephesus the capital of the
lesser Asia, Paul ordains by letter, subordination in the fear of
God,--first between wife and husband; second, child and parent; third,
servant and master; _all, as states, or conditions, existing among the
members_.
The relative duties of each state are pointed out; those between the
servant and master in these words: "Servants be obedient to them who 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 to them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master is
also in heaven, neither is there respect of persons with him." Here, by
the Roman law, the servant was property, and the control of the master
unlimited, as we shall presently prove.
To the church at Colosse, a city of Phrygia, in the lesser Asia,--Paul
in his letter to them, recognizes the three relations of wives and
husbands, parents and children, servants and masters, as relations
existing among the members; (here the Roman law was the same;) and to
the servants and masters he thus writes: "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: and whatsoever you
do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not unto men; knowing that of the
Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance, for ye serve the
Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong he has
done; and there is no respect of persons with God. Masters give unto
your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a
master in heaven."
The same Apostle writes a letter to the church at Corinth;--a very
important city, formerly called the eye of Greece, either from its
location, or intelligence, or both, and consequently, an important
point, for radiating light in all directions, in reference to subjects
connected with the cause of Jesus Christ; and particularly, in the
bearing of its practical precepts on civil society, and the political
structure of nations. Under the direction of the Holy Ghost, he
instructs the church, that, on this particular subject, _one general
principle_ was ordained of God, applicable alike in all countries and
at all stages of the church's future history, and that it was this: "_as
the Lord has called every one, so let him walk_." "Let every man abide
in the same calling wherein he is called." "Let every man wherein he is
called, therein abide with God."--1 Cor. vii: 17, 20, 24. "_And so
ordain I in all churches_;" vii: 17. The Apostle thus explains his
meaning:
"Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised."
"Is any man called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised."
"Art thou called, being a servant? Care not for it, but if thou mayest
be made free, use it rather;" vii: 18, 21. Here, by the Roman law,
slaves were property,--yet Paul ordains, in this, and all other
churches, that Christianity gave them no title to freedom, but on the
contrary, required them not to care for being slaves, or in other words,
to be contented with their _state_, or _relation_, unless they could be
_made free_, in a lawful way.
Again, we have a letter by Peter, who is the Apostle of the
circumcision--addressed especially to the Jews, who were scattered
through various provinces of the Roman empire; comprising those
provinces especially, which were the theater of their dispersion, under
the Assyrians and Babylonians. Here, for the space of seven hundred and
fifty years, they had resided, during which time those revolutions were
in progress which terminated the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, and
Macedonian empires, and transferred imperial power to Rome. These
revolutionary scenes of violence left one half the human race (within
the range of their influence,) in abject bondage to the other half. This
was the state of things in these provinces addressed by Peter, when he
wrote. The chances of war, we may reasonably conclude, had assigned a
full share of bondage to this people, who were despised of all nations.
In view of their enslaved condition to the Gentiles; knowing, as Peter
did, their seditious character; foreseeing, from the prediction of the
Saviour, the destined bondage of those who were then free in Israel,
which was soon to take place, as it did, in the fall of Jerusalem, when
all the males of seventeen, were sent to work in the mines of Egypt, as
slaves to the State, and all the males under, amounting to upwards of
ninety-seven thousand, were sold into domestic bondage;--I say, in view
of these things, Peter was moved by the Holy Ghost to write to them,
and his solicitude for such of them as were in slavery, is very
conspicuous in his letter; (read carefully from 1 Peter, 2d chapter,
from the 13th verse to the end;) but it is not the solicitude of an
abolitionist. He thus addresses them: "Dearly beloved, I beseech you."
He thus instructs them: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for
the Lord's sake." "For so is the will of God." "Servants, be subject to
your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to
the froward."--1 Peter ii: 11, 13, 15, 18. What an important document is
this! enjoining political subjection to _governments of every form_, and
Christian subjection on the part of servants to their masters, whether
good or bad; for the purpose of showing forth to advantage, the _glory
of the gospel_, and putting to silence the ignorance of foolish men, who
might think it seditious.
By "every ordinance of man," as the context will show, is meant
governmental regulations or laws, as was that of the Romans for
enslaving their prisoners taken in war, instead of destroying their
lives.
When such enslaved persons came into the church of Christ let them (says
Peter) "be subject to their masters with all fear," whether such masters
be good or bad. It is worthy of remark, that he says much to secure
civil subordination to the State, and hearty and cheerful obedience to
the masters, on the part of servants; yet he says nothing to masters in
the whole letter. It would seem from this, that danger to the cause of
Christ was on the side of _insubordination among the servants_, and a
_want of humility with inferiors_, rather than _haughtiness among
superiors_ in the church.
Gibbon, in his Rome, vol. 1, pages 25, 26, 27, shows, from standard
authorities, that Rome at this time swayed its scepter over one hundred
and twenty millions of souls; that in every province, and in every
family, _absolute slavery existed_; that it was at least fifty years
later than the date of Peter's letters, before the absolute power of
life and death over the slave was _taken from the master_, and
_committed to the magistrate_; that about sixty millions of souls were
held as property in this abject condition; that the price of a slave was
four times that of an ox; that their punishments were very sanguinary;
that in the second century, when their condition began to improve a
little, emancipation was prohibited, except for great personal merit,
or some public service rendered to the State; and that it was not until
the third or fourth generation after freedom was obtained, that the
descendants of a slave could share in the honors of the State. This is
the _state, condition_, or _relation_ among the _members of the
apostolic churches_, whether among _Gentiles_ or _Jews_; which the Holy
Ghost, by Paul for the Gentiles, and Peter for the Jews, recognizes as
lawful; the mutual duties of which he prescribes in the language above.
Now, I ask, can any man in his proper senses, from these premises, bring
himself to conclude that slavery is _abolished by Jesus Christ_, or that
obligations are imposed by him upon his disciples that are subversive of
the institution? Knowing as we do from cotemporary historians, that the
institution of slavery existed at the time and to the extent stated by
Gibbon--what sort of a soul a man must have, who, with these facts
before him, will conceal the truth on this subject, and hold Jesus
Christ responsible for a scheme of treason that would, if carried out,
have brought the life of every human being on earth at the time, into
the most imminent peril, and that must have worked the destruction of
half the human race?
At Rome, the authoritative centre of that vast theater upon which the
glories of the cross were to be won, a church was planted. Paul wrote a
long letter to them. On this subject it is full of instruction.
Abolition sentiments had not dared to show themselves so near the
imperial sword. To warn the church against their treasonable tendency,
was therefore unnecessary. Instead, therefore, of special precepts upon
the subject of relative duties between master and servant, he lays down
a system of practical morality, in the 12th chapter of his letter, which
must commend itself equally to the king on his throne, and the slave in
his hovel; for while its practical operation leaves the subject of
earthly government to the discretion of man, it secures the exercise of
sentiments and feelings that must exterminate every thing inconsistent
with doing to others as we would they should do unto us: a system of
principles that will give moral strength to governments; peace,
security, and good-will to individuals; and glory to God in the highest.
And in the 13th chapter, from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, he
recognizes human government as an ordinance of God, which the followers
of Christ are to obey, honor, and support; not only from dread of
punishment, but _for conscience sake_; which I believe abolitionism
refuses most positively to do, to such governments as _from the force of
circumstances_ even _permit_ slavery.
Again. But we are furnished with additional light, and if we are not
greatly mistaken, with light which arose out of circumstances analogous
to those which are threatening at the present moment to overthrow the
peace of society, and deluge this nation with blood. To Titus whom Paul
left in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, he writes a
letter, in which he warns him of false teachers, that were to be dreaded
on account of their doctrine. While they professed "to know God," that
is, to know his will under the gospel dispensation, "in works they
denied him;" that is, they did, and required others to do, what was
contrary to his will under the gospel dispensation. "They were
abominable," that is, to the Church and State, "and disobedient," that
is, to the authority of the apostles, and the civil authority of the
land. Titus, he then exhorts, "to speak the things that become sound
doctrine;" that is, that the members of the church observe the law of
the land, and obey the civil magistrate; that "servants be obedient to
their own masters, and 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," _in that which
subjects the ecclesiastical to the civil authority in particular_.
"These things speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority; let no
man despise thee. Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and
powers, to obey magistrates."--Titus i: 16, and ii: from 1 to 10, and
iii: 1. The context shows that a doctrine was taught by these wicked
men, which tended in its influence on servants, to bring the gospel of
Christ into contempt in Church and State, because of its seditions and
insubordinate character.
But at Ephesus, the capital of the lesser Asia, where Paul had labored
with great success for three years--a point of great importance to the
gospel cause--the Apostle left Timothy for the purpose of watching
against the false teachers, and particularly against the abolitionists.
In addition to a letter which he had addressed to this church
previously, in which the mutual duty of master and servant is taught,
and which has already been referred to, he further instructs Timothy by
letter on the same subject: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke
count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi: 1. These were unbelieving
masters, as the next verse will show. In this church at Ephesus, the
circumstances existed, which are brought to light by Paul's letter to
Timothy, that must silence every cavil, which men, who do not know God's
will on this subject, may start until time ends. In an age filled with
literary men, who are employed in transmitting historically, to future
generations, the structure of society in the Roman Empire; that would
put it in our power at this distant day, to know the state or condition
of a slave in the Roman Empire, as well as if we had lived at the time,
and to know beyond question, that his condition was precisely that one,
which is now denounced as sinful: in such an age, and in such
circumstances, Jesus Christ causes his will to be published to the
world; and it is this, that if a Christian slave have an unbelieving
master, who acknowledges no allegiance to Christ, this believing slave
must count his master worthy of all honor, according to what the Apostle
teaches the Romans, "Render, therefore, to all their dues, tribute to
whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom is due, fear to whom fear,
honor to whom honor."--Rom. xiii: 7. Now, honor is enjoined of God in
the Scriptures, from children to parents--from husbands to wives--from
subjects to magistrates and rulers, and here by Jesus Christ, from
Christian slaves to unbelieving masters, who held them as property by
law, with power over their very lives. And the command is remarkable.
While we are commanded to honor father and mother, without adding to the
precept "all honor," here a Christian servant is bound to render to his
unbelieving master "all honor." Why is this? Because in the one case
nature moves in the direction of the command; but in the other, against
it. Nature being subjected to the law of grace, might be disposed to
obey reluctantly; hence the amplitude of the command. But what purpose
was to be answered by this devotion of the slave? The Apostle answers,
"that the name of God and his doctrine (of subordination to the
law-making power) be not blasphemed," as they certainly would by a
contrary course on the part of the servant, for the most obvious reason
in the world; while the sword would have been drawn against the gospel,
and a war of extermination waged against its propagators, in every
province of the Roman Empire, for there was slavery in all; and so it
would be now.
But, says the caviler, these directions are given to Christian slaves
whose masters did not acknowledge the authority of Christ to govern
them; and are therefore defective as proof, that he approves of one
Christian man holding another in bondage. Very well, we will see. In the
next verse, (1 Timothy vi: 2,) he says, "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." Here is a great change; instead of a command to a
believing slave to render to a believing master _all honor_, and thereby
making that believing master in _honor_ equal to an unbelieving master,
here is rather an exhortation to the slave _not to despise him, because
he is a believer_. Now, I ask, why the circumstance of a master becoming
a believer in Christ, should become the cause of his believing slave
despising him while that slave was supposed to acquiesce in the duty of
rendering all honor to that master before he became a believer? I
answer, _precisely_, and _only, because_ there were _abolition teachers_
among them, who _taught otherwise_, and consented not to wholesome
words, _even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ_.--1 Timothy vii: 3; and
"to the doctrine which is according to godliness," taught in the 8th
verse, viz: having food and raiment, servants should therewith be
content; for the pronoun us, in the 8th verse of this connection, means
_especially_ the _servants he was instructing_, as well as Christians in
general. These men taught, that godliness abolished slavery, that it
gave the title of freedom to the slave, and that so soon as a man
professed to be subject to Christ, and refused to liberate his slaves,
he was a hypocrite, and deserved not the countenance of any who bore the
Christian name. Such men, the Apostle says, are "proud, (just as they
are now,) knowing nothing," (that is, on this subject,) but "doating
about questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife,
railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,
and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such
withdraw thyself."--1 Tim. vi: 4, 5.
Such were the bitter fruits which abolition sentiments produced in the
Apostolic day, and such precisely are the fruits they produce now.
Now, I say, here is the case made out, which certainly would call forth
the command from Christ, to abolish slavery, if he ever intended to
abolish it. Both the servant and the master were one in Christ Jesus.
Both were members of the same church, both were under unlimited and
voluntary obedience to the same divine law-giver.
No political objection existed at the time against their obedience to
him on the subject of slavery; and what is the will, not of Paul, but of
the Lord Jesus Christ, immediately in person, upon the case thus made
out? Does he say to the master, having put yourself under my government,
you must no longer hold your brother in bondage? Does he say to the
slave, if your master does not release you, you must go and talk to him
privately, about this trespass upon your rights under the law of my
kingdom; and if he does not hear you, you must take two or three with
you; and if he does not hear them then you must tell it to the church,
and have him expelled from my flock, as a wolf in sheep's clothing? I
say, what does the Lord Jesus say to this poor believing slave,
concerning a master who held unlimited power over his person and life,
under the Roman law? He tells him that the very circumstance of his
master's being a brother, constitutes the reason why he should be more
ready to do him service; for in addition to the circumstance of his
being a brother who would be benefited by his service, he would as a
brother give him what was just and equal in return, and "forbear
threatening," much less abusing his authority over him, for that he (the
master) also had a master in heaven, who was no respecter of persons. It
is taken for granted, on all hands pretty generally, that Jesus Christ
has at least been silent, or that he has not personally spoken on the
subject of slavery. Once for all, I deny it. Paul, after stating that a
slave was to honor an unbelieving master, in the 1st verse of the 6th
chapter, says, in the 2d verse, that to a believing master, he is the
rather to do service, because he who partakes of the benefit is his
brother. He then says, if any man teach otherwise, (as all abolitionists
then did, and now do,) and consent not to wholesome words, "even the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, if our Lord Jesus Christ uttered
such words, how dare we say he has been silent? If he has been silent,
how dare the Apostle say these are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
if the Lord Jesus Christ never spoke them? "Where, or when, or on what
occasion he spoke them, we are not informed; but certain it is, that
Paul has borne false witness, or that Jesus Christ has uttered the words
that impose an obligation on servants, who are abject slaves, to render
service with good-will from the heart, to believing masters, and to
account their unbelieving masters as worthy of all honor, that the name
of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. Jesus Christ revealed to Paul
the doctrine which Paul has settled throughout the Gentile world, (and
by consequence, the Jewish world also,) on the subject of slavery, so
far as it affects his kingdom. As we have seen, it is clear and full.
From the great importance of the subject, involving the personal liberty
of half the human race at that time, and a large portion of them at all
times since, it is not to be wondered at, that Paul would carry the
question to the Saviour, and plead for a decisive expression of his
will, that would forever do away the necessity of inferring any thing by
reasoning from the premises laid down in the former dispensation; or in
the patriarchal age; and at Ephesus, if not at Crete, the issue is
fairly made, between Paul on the one side, and certain abolition
teachers on the other, when, in addition to the official intelligence
ordinarily given to the apostles by the Holy Ghost, to guide them into
all truth, he affirms, that the doctrine of perfect civil subordination,
on the part of hereditary slaves to their masters, whether believers or
unbelievers, was one which he, Paul, taught in the words of the Lord
Jesus Christ himself.
The Scriptures we have adduced from the New Testament, to prove the
recognition of hereditary slavery by the Saviour, as a lawful relation
in the sight of God, lose much of their force from the use of a word by
the translators, which by time, has lost much of its original meaning;
that is, the word _servant_. Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, says:
"Servant is one of the few words, which by time has acquired a softer
signification than its original, knave, degenerated into cheat. While
_servant_, which signified originally, a person preserved from death by
the conqueror, and reserved for slavery, signifies only an obedient
attendant." Now, all history will prove that the servants of the New
Testament addressed by the apostles, in their letters to the several
churches throughout the Roman Empire, were such as were perserved from
death by the conqueror, and taken into slavery. This was their
condition, and it is a fact well known to all men acquainted with
history. Had the word which designates their condition, in our
translation, lost none of its original meaning, a common man could not
have fallen into a mistake as to the condition indicated. But to waive
this fact we are furnished with all the evidence that can be desired.
The Saviour appeared in an age of learning--the enslaved condition of
half the Roman Empire, at the time, is a fact embodied with all the
historical records--the constitution God gave the Jews, was in harmony
with the Roman regulations on the subject of slavery. In this state of
things, Jesus ordered his gospel to be preached in all the world, and to
every creature. It was done as he directed; and masters and servants,
and persons in all conditions, were brought by the gospel to obey the
Saviour. Churches were constituted. We have examined the letters written
to the churches, composd of these materials. The result is, that each
member is furnished with a law to regulate the duties of his civil
station--from the highest to the lowest.
We will remark, in closing under this head, that we have shown from the
text of the sacred volume, that when God entered into covenant with
Abraham, it was with him as a slaveholder; that when he took his
posterity by the hand in Egypt, five hundred years afterward to confirm
the promise made to Abraham, it was done with them as slaveholders; that
when he gave them a constitution of government, he gave them the right
to perpetuate hereditary slavery; and that he did not for the fifteen
hundred years of their national existence, express disapprobation toward
the institution.
We have also shown from authentic history that the institution of
slavery existed in every family, and in every province of the Roman
Empire, at the time the gospel was published to them.
We have also shown from the New Testament, that all the churches are
recognized as composed of masters and servants; and that they are
instructed by Christ how to discharge their relative duties; and finally
that in reference to the question which was then started, whether
Christianity did not abolish the institution, or the right of one
Christian to hold another Christian in bondage, we have shown, that "the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ" are, that so far from this being the
case, it adds to the obligation of the servant to render service with
good-will to his master, and that gospel fellowship is not to be
entertained with persons who will not consent to it!
I propose, in the fourth place, to show that the institution of slavery
is full of mercy. I shall say but a few words on this subject. Authentic
history warrants this conclusion, that for a long period of time, it was
this institution alone which furnished a motive for sparing the
prisoner's life. The chances of war, when the earth was filled with
small tribes of men, who had a passion for it, brought to decision,
almost daily, conflicts, where nothing but this institution interposed
an inducement to save the vanquished. The same was true in the enlarged
schemes of conquest, which brought the four great universal empires of
the Scriptures to the zenith of their power.
The same is true in the history of Africa, as far back as we can trace
it. It is only sober truth to say, that the institution of slavery has
saved from the sword more lives, including their increase, than all the
souls who now inhabit this globe.
The souls thus conquered and subjected to masters, who feared not God
nor regarded men, in the days of Abraham, Job, and the patriarchs, were
surely brought under great obligations to the mercy of God, in allowing
such men as these to purchase them, and keep them in their families.
The institution when engrafted on the Jewish constitution, was designed
principally, not to enlarge the number, but to ameliorate the condition
of the slaves in the neighboring nations.
Under the gospel, it has brought within the range of gospel influence,
millions of Ham's descendant's among ourselves, who but for this
institution, would have sunk down to eternal ruin; knowing not God, and
strangers to the gospel. In their bondage here on earth, they have been
much better provided for, and great multitudes of them have been made
the freemen of the Lord Jesus Christ, and left this world rejoicing in
hope of the glory of God. The elements of an empire, which I hope will
lead Ethiopia very soon to stretch out her hands to God, is the fruit of
the institution here. An officious meddling with the institution, from
feeling and sentiments unknown to the Bible, may lead to the
extermination of the slave race among us, who, taken as a whole, are
utterly unprepared for a higher civil state; but benefit them, it
cannot. Their condition, _as a class_, is now better than that of any
other equal number of laborers on earth, and is daily improving.
If the Bible is allowed to awaken the spirit, and control the
philanthropy which works their good, the day is not far distant when
the highest wishes of saints will be gratified, in having conferred on
them all that the spirit of good-will can bestow. This spirit which was
kindling into life, has received a great check among us of late, by that
trait which the Apostle Peter reproves and shames in his officious
countrymen, when he says: "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or
as a thief, or as an evil doer, or as a busy-body in other men's
matters." Our citizens have been murdered--our property has been stolen,
(if the receiver is as bad as the thief,)--our lives have been put in
jeopardy--our characters traduced--and attempts made to force political
slavery upon us in the place of domestic, by strangers who have no right
to meddle with our matters. Instead of meditating generous things to our
slaves, as a return for gospel subordination, we have to put on our
armor to suppress a rebellious spirit, engendered by "false doctrine,"
propagated by men "of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth," who
teach them that the gain of freedom to the slave, is the only proof of
godliness in the master. From such, Paul says we must withdraw
ourselves; and if we fail to do it, and to rebuke them with all the
authority which "the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" confer, we shall be
wanting in duty to them, to ourselves, and to the world.
THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.
FOOTNOTE:
[229] The property in slaves in the United States is their _service or
labor_. The Constitution guarantees this property to its owner, both in
apprentices and slaves. And the Supreme Court has decided, Judge Baldwin
presiding, that all the means "necessary and proper" to secure this
property, may be constitutionally used by the master, in the absence of
all statute law. The Roman law made the slave of that law, to be, not a
_personal chattel_, held to service or labor only, as is the American
apprentice or slave, but to be a _mere thing_; and guaranteed to the
master the right to do with that _mere thing_, just as he pleased. To
cut it up, for instance, as the master sometimes did, to feed fishes.
Abolitionists are guilty of the inexcusable wickedness of holding up
this ancient Roman slavery, as a model of American slavery; although
they know that the personal rights of apprentices and slaves, are as
well defined and secured, by judicial decisions and statute laws, as the
rights of husband and wife, parent and child.
AN EXAMINATION
OF ELDER GALUSHA'S REPLY TO DR. RICHARD FULLER OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
AFTER my essay on slavery was published in the _Herald_,[230] I sent a
copy of it to a prominent abolition gentleman in New York, accompanied
by a friendly letter.
This gentleman I selected as a correspondent, because of his high
standing, intellectual attainments, and unquestioned piety. I frankly
avowed to him my readiness to abandon slavery, so soon as I was
convinced by the Bible that it was sinful, and requested him, "if the
Bible contained precepts, and settled principles of conduct, in direct
opposition to those portions of it upon which I relied, as furnishing
the mind of the Almighty upon the subject of slavery, that he would
furnish me with the knowledge of the fact." To this letter I received a
friendly reply, accompanied by a printed communication containing the
result of a prayerful effort which he had previously made, for the
purpose of furnishing the very information to a friend at the South,
which I sought to obtain at his hands.
It may be owing to my prejudices, or a want of intellect, that I fail to
be convinced, by those portions of the Bible to which he refers, to
prove that slavery is sinful. But as the support of truth is _my
object_, and as I wish to have the answer of a good conscience toward
God in this matter, I herewith publish, for the information of all into
whose hands my first essay may have fallen, every passage in the Bible
to which this distinguished brother refers me for "precepts and settled
principles of conduct, in direct opposition to those portions of it upon
which I relied, as furnishing the mind of the Almighty upon the subject
of slavery."
1st. His reference to the sacred volume is this: "God hath made of one
blood all nations of men." This is a Scripture truth which I believe;
yet God decreed that Canaan should be a servant of servants to his
brother--that is, an abject slave in his posterity. This God effected
eight hundred years afterward, in the days of Joshua, when the
Gibeonites were subjected to prepetual bondage, and made hewers of wood
and drawers of water.--Joshua ix: 23.
Again, God ordained, as law-giver to Israel, that their captives taken
in war should be enslaved.--Deut. xx: 10 to 15.
Again, God enacted that the Israelites should buy slaves of the heathen
nations around them, and will them and their increase as property to
their children forever.--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46. All these nations were
_made of one blood_. Yet God ordained that some should be "chattel"
slaves to others, and gave his special aid to effect it. In view of this
incontrovertible fact, how can I believe this passage disproves the
lawfulness of slavery in the sight of God? How can any sane man believe
it, who believes the Bible?
2d. His second Scripture reference to disprove the lawfulness of
slavery in the sight of God, is this: "God has said a man is better than
a sheep." This is a Scripture truth which I fully believe--and I have no
doubt, if we could ascertain what the Israelites had to pay for those
slaves they bought with their money according to God's law, in Levit.
xxv: 44, that we should find they had to pay more for them than they
paid for sheep, for the reason assigned by the Saviour; that is, that a
servant man is better than a sheep; for when he is done plowing, or
feeding cattle, and comes in from the field, he will, at his master's
bidding, prepare him his meal, and wait upon him till he eats it, while
the master feels under no obligation even to thank him for it because he
has done no more than his duty.--Luke xvii: 7, 8, 9. This, and other
important duties, which the people of God bought their slaves to perform
for them, by the permission of their Maker, were duties which sheep
could not perform. But I cannot see what there is in it to blot out from
the Bible a relation which God created, in which he made one man to be a
slave to another.
3d. His third Scripture reference to prove the unlawfulness of slavery
in the sight of God, is this: "God commands children to obey their
parents, and wives to obey their husbands." This, I believe to be the
will of Christ to Christian children and Christian wives--whether they
are bond or free. But it is equally true that Christ ordains that
Christianity shall not abolish slavery.--1 Cor. vii: 17, 21, and that he
commands servants to obey their masters and to count them worthy of all
honor.--1 Tim. vi: 1, 2. It is also true, that God allowed Jewish
masters to use the rod to make them do it--and to use it with the
severity requisite to accomplish the object.--Exod. xxi: 20,21. It is
equally true, that Jesus Christ ordains that a Christian servant shall
receive for the wrong he hath done.--Col. iii: 25. My correspondent
admits, without qualification, that if they are property, it is right.
But the Bible says, they were property.--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, 46.
The above reference, reader, _enjoins_ the _duty_ of two _relations_,
which God ordained, but does not _abolish_ a third _relation_ which _God
has ordained_; as the Scripture will prove, to which I have referred
you, under the first reference made by my correspondent.
4th. His fourth Scripture reference is, to the _intention_ of Abraham to
give his estate to a servant, in order to prove that servant was not a
slave. "What," he says, "property inherit property?" I answer, yes. Two
years ago, in my county, William Hansbrough gave to his slaves his
estate, worth forty or fifty thousand dollars. In the last five or six
years, over two hundred slaves, within a few miles of me, belonging to
various masters, have inherited portions of their masters' estates.
To render slaves valuable, the Romans qualified them for the learned
professions, and all the various arts. They were teachers, doctors,
authors, mechanics, etc. So with us, tradesmen of every kind are to be
found among our slaves. Some of them are undertakers--some farmers--some
overseers, or stewards--some housekeepers--some merchants--some
teamsters, and some money-lenders, who give their masters a portion of
their income, and keep the balance. Nearly all of them have an income of
their own--and was it not for the seditious spirit of the North, we
would educate our slaves generally, and so fit them earlier for a more
improved condition, and higher moral elevation.
But will all this, when duly certified, prove they are not slaves? No.
Neither will Abraham's _intention_ to give one of his servants his
estate, prove that he was not a slave. Who had higher claims upon
Abraham, before he had a child, than this faithful slave, born in his
house, reared by his hand, devoted to his interest, and faithful in
every trust?
5th. His fifth reference, my correspondent says, "forever sets the
question at rest." It is this: "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master,
the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee--he shall dwell
with thee, even in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy
gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."
This my distinguished correspondent says, "forever puts the question at
rest." My reader, I hope, will ask himself what question it puts to
rest. He will please to remember, that it is brought to put this
question to rest, "Is slavery sinful in the sight of God?" the Bible
being judge--or "did God ever allow one man to hold property in
another?"
My correspondent admits this to be the question at issue. He asks, "What
is slavery?" And thus answers: "It is the principle involved in holding
man as property." "This," he says: "is the point at issue." He says, "if
it be right to hold man as property, it is right to treat him as
property," etc. Now, conceding all in the argument, that can be demanded
for this law about run-away slaves, yet it does not prove that slavery
or holding property in man is sinful--because it is a part and parcel of
the Mosaic law, given to Israel in the wilderness by the same God, who
in the same wilderness enacted "that of the heathen that were round
about them, they should buy bond-men and bond-women--also of the
strangers that dwelt among them should they buy, and they should pass as
an inheritance to their children after them, to possess them as bond-men
forever."--Levit. xxv: 44.
How can I admit that a prohibition to deliver up a run-away slave, under
the law of Moses, is proof that there was no slavery allowed under that
law? Here is the law from God himself,--Levit. xxv: 44, authorizing the
Israelites to buy slaves and transmit them and their increase as a
possession to their posterity forever--and to make slaves of their
captives taken in war.--Deut. xx: 10-15. Suppose, for argument's sake, I
admit that God prohibited the delivery back of one of _these slaves_,
when he fled from his master--would that prove that he was not a slave
before he fled? Would that prove that he did not remain legally a slave
in the sight of God, according to his own law, until he fled? The
passage proves the very reverse of that which it is brought to prove. It
proves that the slave is recognized by God himself as a slave, until he
fled to the Israelites. My correspondent's exposition of this law seems
based upon the idea that God, who had held fellowship with slavery among
his people for five hundred years, and who had just given them a formal
statute to legalize the purchase of slaves from the heathen, and to
enslave their captives taken in war, was, nevertheless, desirous to
abolish the institution. But, as if afraid to march directly up to his
object, he was disposed to undermine what he was unwilling to attempt to
overthrow.
Upon the principle that man is prone to think God is altogether such an
one as himself, we may account for such an interpretation at the present
time, by men north of Mason & Dixon's line. Our brethren there have held
fellowship with this institution, by the constitutional oath they have
taken to protect us in this property. Unable, constitutionally, to
overthrow the institution, they see, or think they see, a sanction in
the law of God to undermine it, by opening their gates and letting our
run-away slaves "dwell among them where it liketh them best." If I could
be astonished at any thing in this controversy, it would be to see
sensible men engaged in the study of that part of the Bible which
relates to the rights of property, as established by the Almighty
himself, giving in to the idea that the Judge of the world, acting in
the character of a national law-giver, would legalize a property right
in slaves, _as he did_--give full power to the master to govern--secure
the increase as an inheritance to posterity for all time to come--and
then add a clause to legalize a fraud upon the unsuspecting purchaser.
For what better is it, under this interpretation?
With respect to slaves purchased of the heathen, or enslaved by war, the
law passed a clear title to them and their increase forever. With
respect to the hired servants of the Hebrews, the law secured to the
master a right to their service until the Sabbatic year or
Jubilee--unless they were bought back by a near kinsman at a stated
price in money when owned by a heathen master. But these legal rights,
under these laws of heaven's King, by this interpretation, are all
canceled--for the pecuniary loss, there is no redress--and for the
insult no remedy, whenever a "liketh him best" man can induce the slave
to run away. And worse still, the community of masters thus insulted and
swindled, according to this interpretation, are bound to show respect
and afford protection to the villains who practice it. Who can believe
all this? I judge our Northern brethren will say, the Lord deliver us
from such legislation as this. So say we. What, then, does this run-away
law mean? It means that the God of Israel ordained his people to be an
asylum for the slave who fled from heathen cruelty to them for
protection; it is the law of nations--but surrendered under the
Constitution by these States, who agreed to deliver them up. See, says
God, ye oppress not the stranger. Thou shalt neither _vex_ a stranger,
nor _oppress_ him.--Exod. xxii: 21.
His 6th reference to the Bible is this: "Do to others as ye would they
should do to you." I have shown in the essay, that these words of our
Saviour, embody the same moral principle, which is embodied by Moses in
Levit. xix: 18, in these words, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." In this
we can not be mistaken, because Jesus says there are but two such
principles in God's moral government--_one_ of supreme love of
God--_another_ of love to our neighbor as ourself. To the everlasting
confusion of the argument from moral precepts, to overthrow the
positive institution of slavery, this moral precept was given to
regulate the mutual duties of this very relation, which God by law
ordained for the Jewish commonwealth.
How can that which regulates the _duty_, overthrow the _relation_
itself?
His 7th reference is, "They which are accounted to rule over the
Gentiles, exercise lordship over them, but so it shall not be among
you."
Turn to the passage, reader, in Mark x: 42; and try your ingenuity at
expounding, and see if you can destroy one _relation_ that has been
created among men, because the _authority_ given in another relation was
_abused_. The Saviour refers to the _abuse_ of State _authority_, as a
warning to those who should be clothed with _authority_ in his kingdom,
not to _abuse_ it, but to connect the use of it with humility. But how
official humility in the kingdom of Christ, is to rob States of the
right to make their own laws, dissolve the relation of slavery
recognized by the Saviour as a lawful relation, and overthrow the right
of property in slaves as settled by God himself, I know not. Paul, in
drawing the character of those who oppose slavery, in his letter to
Timothy, says, (vi: 4,) they are "proud, knowing nothing;" he means,
that they were puffed with a conceit of their superior sanctity, while
they were deplorably ignorant of the will of Christ on this subject. Is
it not great pride that leads a man to think he is better than the
Saviour? Jesus held fellowship with, and enjoined subjection to
governments, which sanctioned slavery in its worst form--but
abolitionists refuse fellowship for governments which have mitigated all
its rigors.
God established the relation by law, and bestowed the highest
manifestations of his favor upon slaveholders; and has caused it to be
written as with a sunbeam in the Scriptures. Yet such saints would be
refused the ordinary tokens of Christian fellowship among abolitionists.
If Abraham were on earth, they could not let him, consistently, occupy
their pulpits, to tell of the things God has prepared for them that love
him. Job himself would be unfit for their communion. Joseph would be
placed on a level with pirates. Not a single church planted by the
apostles would make a fit home for our abolition brethren, (for they all
had masters and slaves.) The apostles and their ministerial associates
could not occupy their pulpits, for they fraternized with slavery, and
upheld State authority upon the subject. Now, I ask, with due respect
for all parties, can sentiments which lead to such results as these be
held by any man, _in the absence of pride_ of no ordinary character,
whether he be sensible of it or not?
Again, whatever of intellect we may have--can that something which
prompts to results like these be _Bible knowledge_?
Reference the 8th is favorable in _sound_ if not in _sense_. It is in
these words, "Neither be ye called _masters_, for one is your _master_,
even Christ." I am free to confess, it is difficult to repress the
spirit which the prophet felt when he witnessed the zeal of his deluded
countrymen, at Mount Carmel. I think a sensible man ought to know
better, than to refer me to such a passage, to prove slavery unlawful;
yet my correspondent is a sensible man. However, I will balance it by an
equal authority, for dissolving another relation. "Call no man _father_
upon earth, for one is your _father_ in heaven."
When the last abolishes the _relation_ between _parent and child_, the
first will abolish the _relation_ between _master and servant_.
The 9th reference to prove slavery unlawful in the sight of God, is
this: "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his
hand, he shall surely be put to death." Wonderful!
I suppose that no State has ever established domestic slavery, which did
not find such a law necessary. It is this institution which makes such a
law needful. Unless slavery exists, there would be no motive to steal a
man. And, the danger is greater in a slave State than a free one.
Virginia has such a law, and so have all the States of North America.
Will these laws prove four thousand years hence that slavery did not
exist in the United States? No--but why not! Because the statute will
still exist, which authorizes us to buy bond-men and bond-women with our
money, and give them and their increase as an inheritance to our
children, forever. So the Mosaic statute still exists, which authorized
the Jews to do the same thing, and God is its author.
Reference the 10th is: "Rob not the poor because he is poor. Let the
oppressed go free; break every yoke; deliver him that is spoiled out of
the hand of the oppressor. What doth the Lord require of thee but to do
justly, love mercy, walk humbly with thy God. He that oppresseth the
poor reproacheth his Maker." This _sounds_ very well, reader, yet I
propose to make every man who reads me, _confess_, that these Scriptures
will not condemn slavery. Answer me this question: Are these, and such
like passages, in the Old Testament, from whence they are all taken,
intended to reprove and condemn that people, for doing what God, in his
law gave them a right to do? I know you must answer, they were not;
consequently, you confess they do not condemn slavery; because God gave
them the right, by law, to purchase slaves of the heathen.--Levit. xxv:
44. And to make slaves of their captives taken in war.--Deut. xx: 14.
The moral precepts of the Old or New Testament cannot make that wrong
which God ordained to be his will, as he has slavery.
The 11th reference of my distinguished correspondent to the sacred
volume, to prove that slavery is contrary to the will of Jesus Christ
and sinful, is in these words: "Masters, give unto your servants that
which is just and equal." The argument of my correspondent is this, that
slavery is a relation, in which rights based upon _justice_ cannot
exist.
I answer, God ordained, after man sinned, that he, "should eat bread
(that is, _have food and raiment_) in the sweat of his face."
He has since ordained, that some should be slaves to others, (as we have
proved under the first reference.) _Therefore_, when food and raiment
are withheld from him in slavery, it is _unjust_.
God has ordained food and raiment, as wages for the sweat of the face.
Christ has ordained that with these, whether in slavery or freedom, his
disciples shall be content.
The relation of master and slave, says Gibbon, existed in every province
and in every family of the Roman Empire. Jesus ordains in the 13th
chapter of Romans, from the 1st to the end of the 7th verse, and in 1
Peter, 2d chapter, 13th, 14th, and 15th verses, that the _legislative
authority_, which created the relation, should be obeyed and honored by
his disciples. But while he thus _legalises_ the _relation_ of master
and slave as established by the civil law, he proceeds to prescribe the
mutual duties which the parties, when they come into his kingdom, must
perform to each other.
The reference of my correspondent to disprove the _relation_, is a part
of what Jesus has prescribed on this subject to _regulate_ the _duties_
of the relation, and is itself proof that the relation existed--that
its legality was recognized--and its duties prescribed by the Son of God
through the Holy Ghost given to the apostles.
The 12th reference is, "Let as many servants as are under the yoke,
count their masters worthy of all honor. 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." If my reader will turn to my remarks, in my first essay upon
this Scripture, he will cease to wonder that it fails to convince me
that slavery is sinful. I should think the wonder would be, that any man
ever quoted it for such a purpose.
And lastly. My correspondent informs me that the Greek word "doulos,"
translated servant, means hired servant and not slave.
I reply, that the primary meaning of this Greek word, is in a singular
state of preservation. God, as if foreseeing and providing for this
controversy, has caused, in his providence, that its meaning in Greek
dictionaries shall be thus given, "the opposite of free." Now, readers,
what is the _opposite_ of _free_? Is it a state somewhere _between_
freedom and slavery? If freedom, as a condition, has an opposite, that
opposite state is indicated by this very word "doulos." So says every
Greek lexicographer. I ask, if this is not wonderful, that the Holy
Ghost has used a term, so incapable of deceiving, and yet that that term
should be brought forward for the purpose of deception. Another
remarkable fact is this: the English word servant, originally meant
precisely the same thing as the Greek word "doulos;" that is, says Dr.
Johnson in his Dictionary, it meant formerly a captive taken in war, and
reserved for slavery. These are two remarkable facts in the providence
of God. But, reader, I will give you a Bible key, by which to decide for
yourself, without foreign aid, whether _servant_, when it denotes a
relation in society, where the other side of that relation is _master_,
means _hired servant_. "Every man's servant that is bought for money
shall eat thereof; but a hired servant shall not eat thereof."--Exod.
xii; 44, 45. Here are two classes of servants alluded to--one was
allowed to eat the Passover the night Israel left Egypt; the other not.
What was the difference in these two classes? Were they both hired
servants? If so, it should read, "Every hired servant that is bought for
money shall eat thereof; but a hired servant that is bought for money,
shall not eat thereof." My reader, why has the Holy Ghost, in presiding
over the inspired pen, been thus particular? Is it too much to say, it
was to provide against the delusion of the nineteenth century, which
learned men would be practicing upon unlearned men, as well as
themselves, on the subject of slavery? Who, with the Bible and their
learning, would not be able to discover, that a servant bought with
money was a slave; and that a hired servant was a free man? Again,
Levit. xxv: 44, 45, and 46; "Thy bond-servants shall be of the heathen
that are round about you, and of the children of the strangers that do
sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy. 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."
Reader, were these hired servants? If so, they hired themselves for a
long time. And what is very singular, they hired their posterity for all
time to come. And what is still more singular, the wages were paid, not
to the servant, but to a former owner or master. And what is still
stranger, they hired themselves and their posterity to be an inheritance
to their master and his posterity forever! Yet, reader, I am told by my
distinguished correspondent, that servant in the Scriptures, when used
to designate a relation, means only hired servant. Again, I ask, were
the enslaved captives in Deut. xx: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, hired
servants?
One of the greatest and best of men ever raised at the North, (I mean
Luther Rice,) once told me when I quoted the law of God for the purchase
of slaves from the heathen, (in order to silence his argument about
"doulos," and hired servant,) I say he told me positively, there was no
such law. When I opened the Bible and showed it to him, his shame was
very visible. (And I hope he is not the only great and good man, that
God will put to shame for being ignorant of his word.) But he never
opened his mouth to me about slavery again while he lived.
If my reader does no _better_ than he did, at least let him not fight
against God for establishing the institution of "chattel" slavery in his
kingdom, nor against me for believing he did do it. But, reader, if you
have the hardihood to insist that these were hired servants, and not
slaves after all, then, I answer, that ours are hired servants, too,
and not slaves; and so the dispute ends favorably to the South, and it
is lawful for us, according to abolition admissions, to hold them to
servitude. For ours, we paid money to a former owner; so did the Jews
for theirs. The increase of ours passes as an inheritance to our
children, so did the increase of the Jewish servants pass as an
inheritance to their children, to be an inheritance forever. And all
this took place by the direction of God to his chosen people.
My correspondent thinks with Mr. Jefferson, that Jehovah has no
attributes that will harmonize with slavery; and that all men are born
free and equal. Now, I say let him throw away his Bible as Mr. Jefferson
did his, and then they will be fit companions. But never disgrace the
Bible by making Mr. Jefferson its expounder, nor Mr. Jefferson by
deriving his sentiments from it. Mr. Jefferson did not bow to the
authority of the Bible, and on this subject I do not bow to him. How can
any man, who believes the Bible, admit for a moment that God intended to
teach mankind by the Bible, that all are born free and equal?
Men who engage in this controversy ought to look into the Bible, and see
what is in it about slavery. I do not know how to account for such men
saying, as my correspondent does, that the slave of the Mosaic law,
purchased of the heathen, was a hired servant; and that both he and the
Hebrew hired servant of the same law, had a passport from God to run
away from their masters with impunity, to prove which is the object of
one of his quotations. Again, New Testament _servants_ and _masters_ are
not the servants and masters of the Mosaic law, but the servants and
masters of the Roman Empire. To go to the law of Moses to find out the
statutes of the Roman Empire, is folly. Yet on this subject the
difference is not great, and so far as humanity (in the abolition sense
of it) is concerned, is in favor of the Roman law.
The laws of each made slaves to be property, and allowed them to be
bought and sold. See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i: pp. 25, 26, and Levit. xxv:
44, 45, 46. The laws of each allowed prisoners taken in war to be
enslaved. See Gibbon as above, and Deut. xx: 10-15. The difference was
this: the Roman law allowed _men_ taken in battle to be enslaved--the
Jewish law required the _men_ taken in battle to be put to death, and to
enslave their wives and children. In the case of the Midianites, the
mercy of enslaving some of the women was denied them because they had
enticed the Israelites into sin, and subjected them to a heavy judgment
under Balaam's counsel, and for a reason not assigned, the mercy of
slavery was denied to the male children in this special case. See
Numbers xxxi: 15, 16, 17.
The first letter to Timothy, while at Ephesus, if rightly understood,
would do much to stay the hands of men, who have more zeal than
knowledge on this subject. See again what I have written in my first
essay on this letter. In addition to what I have there said, I would
state, that the "_other doctrine_," 1 Tim. i: 3, which Paul says, must
not be taught, I take to be a principle tantamount to this, that Jesus
Christ proposed to subordinate the civil to ecclesiastical authority.
The doctrine which was "_according to godliness_," 1 Tim, vi: 3, I take
to be a principle which subordinated the church, or Christ in his
members, to civil governments, or "the powers that be." One principle
was seditious, and when consummated must end in the man of sin. The
other principle was practically a quiet submission to government, as an
ordinance of God in the hands of men.
The abolitionists, at Ephesus, in attempting to interfere with the
relations of slavery, and to unsettle the rights of property, acted upon
a principle, which statesmen must see, would in the end, subject the
whole frame-work of government to the supervision of the church, and
terminate in the man of sin, or a pretended successor of Christ, sitting
in the temple of God, and claiming a right to reign over, and control
the civil governments of the world. The Apostle, therefore, chapter ii:
1, to render the doctrine of subordination to the State a very prominent
doctrine, and to cause the knowledge of it to spread among all who
attended their worship, orders that the very first thing done by the
church should be, that of making supplication, prayers, and
intercessions, and giving God thanks for all men that were placed in
authority, by the State, for the administration of civil government. He
assigns the reason for this injunction, "that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."
My correspondent complains, that abolitionists at the North are not safe
when they come among us. They are much safer than the saints of Ephesus
would have been in the Apostolic day, if Paul would have allowed the
seditious doctrine to be propagated which our Northern brethren think it
such a merit to preach, when it subjects them to no risk. How can they
expect, in the nature of things, to lead a quiet and peaceable life when
they come among us? They are _organized_ to overthrow our
sovereignty--to put our lives in peril, and to trample upon Bible
principles, by which the rights of property are to be settled.
Questions and strifes of words characterized the disputes of the
abolitionists at Ephesus about slavery. It is amusing and painful to see
the questions and strifes of words in the piece of my correspondent.
Many of these questions are about our property right in slaves. The
_substance of them_ is this: that the present title is not good, because
the original title grew out of violence and injustice. But, reader, our
original title was obtained in the same way which God in his law
authorized his people to obtain theirs. They obtained their slaves by
purchase of those who made them captives in the hazards of war, or by
conquest with their own sword. My correspondent speaks at one time as if
ours were stolen in the first instance; but, as if forgetting that, in
another place he says, that so great is the hazard attending the wars of
Africa, that one life is lost for every two that are taken captive and
sold into slavery. If this is stealing, it has at least the merit of
being more manly than some that is practiced among us.
A case seems to have been preserved by the Holy Ghost, as if to rebuke
this abolition doctrine about property rights. It is the case of the
King of Ammon, a heathen, on the one side, and Jephtha, who "obtained a
good report by faith," on the other. It is consoling to us that we
occupy the ground Jephtha did--and we may well suspect the correctness
of the other side, because it is the ground occupied by Ammon. The case
is this: A heathen is seen menacing Israel. Jephtha is selected by his
countrymen to conduct the controversy. He sends a message to his
menacing neighbor, to know why he had come out against him. He returned
for answer, that it was because Israel held property to which they had
no right. Jephtha answered, they had had it in possession for three
hundred years. Ammon replied, they had no right to it, because it was
obtained in the first instance by violence. Jephtha replied, that it was
held by the same sort of a title as that by which Ammon held his
possessions--that is to say, whatever Ammon's god Chemosh enabled him to
take in war, he considered to be his of right; and that Israel's God
had assisted them to take this property, and they considered the title
to be such an one as Ammon was bound to acknowledge.
Ammon stickled for the _eternal_ principle of righteousness, and
contended that it had been violated in the first instance. But, reader,
in the appeal made to the sword, God vindicated Israel's title.--Judges
xi: 12-32.
And if at the present time, we take ground with Ammon about the rights
of property, I will not say how much work we may have to do, nor who
will prove the rightful owner of my correspondent's domicil; but certain
I am, that by his Ammonitish principle of settling the rights of
property, he will be ousted.
Reader, in looking over the printed reply of my correspondent to his
Southern friend, which occupies ten columns of a large newspaper, to see
if I had overlooked any Scripture, I find I have omitted to notice one
reference to the sacred volume, which was made by him, for the general
purpose of showing that the Scriptures abound with moral principles, and
call into exercise moral feelings inconsistent with slavery. It is this:
"Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, you have done it unto me." The design of the Saviour, in the
parable from which these words are taken, in Matt. xxv, is, to impress
strongly upon the human mind, that _character_, deficient in _correct
moral feeling_, will prove fatal to human hopes in a coming day.
But, reader, will you stop and ask yourself, "What is correct moral
feeling?" Is it abhorrence and hatred to the will and pleasure of God?
Certainly not. Then it is not abhorrence and hatred of slavery, which
seems to be a cardinal virtue at the North. It has been the will and
pleasure of God to institute slavery by a law of his own, in that
kingdom over which he immediately presided; and to give it his sanction
when instituted by the laws of men. The most elevated morality is
enjoined under both Testaments, upon the parties in this relation. There
is nothing in the relation inconsistent with its exercise.
My reader will remember that the subject in dispute is, whether
involuntary and hereditary slavery was ever lawful in the sight of God,
the Bible being judge.
1. I have shown by the Bible, that God decreed this relation between the
posterity of Canaan, and the posterity of Shem and Japheth.
2. I have shown that God executed this decree by aiding the posterity
of Shem, (at a time when "they were holiness to the Lord,") to enslave
the posterity of Canaan in the days of Joshua.
3. I have shown that when God ratified the covenant of promise with
Abraham, he recognized Abraham as the owner of slaves he had bought with
his money of the stranger, and recorded his approbation of the relation,
by commanding Abraham to circumcise them.
4. I have shown that when he took Abraham's posterity by the hand in
Egypt, five hundred years afterward, he publicly approbated the same
relation, by permitting every slave they had bought with their money to
eat the Passover, while he refused the same privilege to their _hired
servants_.
5. I have shown that God, as their national law-giver, ordained by
express statute, that they should buy slaves of the nations around them,
(the seven devoted nations excepted,) and that these slaves and their
increase should be a perpetual inheritance to their children.
6. I have shown that God ordained slavery by law for their captives
taken in war, while he guaranteed a successful issue to their wars, so
long as they obeyed him.
7. I have shown that when Jesus ordered his gospel to be published
through the world, the relation of master and slave existed by law in
every province and family of the Roman Empire, as it had done in the
Jewish commonwealth for fifteen hundred years.
8. I have shown that Jesus ordained, that the legislative authority,
which created this relation in that empire, should be obeyed and honored
as an ordinance of God, as all government is declared to be.
9. I have shown that Jesus has prescribed the mutual duties of this
relation in his kingdom.
10. And lastly, I have shown, that in an attempt by his professed
followers to disturb this relation in the Apostolic churches, Jesus
orders that fellowship shall be disclaimed with all such disciples, as
seditious persons--whose conduct was not only dangerous to the State,
but destructive to the true character of the gospel dispensation.
This being the case, as will appear by the recorded language of the
Bible, to which we have referred you, reader, of what use is it to argue
against it from moral requirements?
They regulate the duties of this and all other lawful relations among
men--but they cannot abolish any relation, ordained or sanctioned of
God, as is slavery.
I would be understood as referring for proof of this summary, to my
first as well as my present essay.
When I first wrote, I did suppose the Scriptures had been examined by
leading men in the opposition, and that prejudice had blinded their
eyes. I am now of a different opinion. What will be the effect of this
discussion, I will not venture to predict, knowing human nature as well
as I do. But men who are capable of exercising candor must see, that it
is not against an institution unknown to the Bible, or declared by its
author to be sinful, that the North is waging war.
Their hostility must be transferred from us to God, who established
slavery by law in that kingdom over which he condescended to preside;
and to Jesus, who recognized it as a relation established in Israel by
his Father, and in the Roman government by men, which he bound his
followers to obey and honor.
In defending the institution as one which has the sanction of our Maker,
I have done what I considered, under the peculiar circumstances of our
common country, to be a Christian duty. I have set down naught in
malice. I have used no sophistry. I have brought to the investigation of
the subject, common sense. I have not relied on powers of argument,
learning, or ingenuity. These would neither put the subject into the
Bible nor take it out. It is a Bible question. I have met it fairly, and
fully, according to the acknowledged principles of the abolitionists. I
have placed before my reader what is in the Bible, to prove that slavery
has the sanction of God, and is not sinful. I have placed before him
what I suppose to be the quintessence of all that can be gleaned from
the Bible to disprove it.
I have made a few plain reflections to aid the understanding of my
reader. What I have written was designed for those who reverence the
Bible as their counsellor--who take it for rules of conduct, and
devotional sentiments.
I now commit it to God for his blessing, with a fervent desire, that if
I have mistaken his will in any thing, he will not suffer my error to
mislead another.
THORNTON STRINGFELLOW.
[The following letter, in substance, was written
to a brother in Kentucky, who solicited a copy of
my slavery pamphlet, as well as my opinion on the
movement in that State, on the subject of
emancipation.]
DEAR BROTHER:--
I received your letter, and the slavery pamphlet which you requested me
to send you, I herewith inclose.
When I published the first essay in that pamphlet, I intended to invite
a discussion with Elder Galusha, of New York; and when I received Mr.
Galusha's letter to Dr. Fuller, I still expected a discussion. But after
manifesting, on his part, great pleasure in the outset, for the
opportunity tendered him by a Southern man, to discuss this subject, he
ultimately declined it. This being the case, I did not at that time
present as full a view of the subject as the Scriptures furnish. I have
since thought of supplying this deficiency; and the condition of things
in Kentucky furnishes a fit opportunity for saying to you, what I said
to a brother in Pennsylvania, who, like yourself, requested me to send
him a copy of my pamphlet.
I do not know that I could add any thing, beyond what I said to him,
that would be useful to you. To this brother I said, among other things,
that Dr. Wayland (in his discussion with Dr. Fuller,) relied principally
upon _two arguments_, used by all the intelligent abolitionists, to
overthrow the weight of Scriptural authority in support of slavery. The
first of these arguments is designed to neutralize the sanction given to
slavery by the law of Moses; and the second is designed to neutralize
the sanction given to slavery by the New Testament.
The Dr. frankly admits, that the law of Moses did establish slavery in
the Jewish commonwealth; and he admits with equal frankness, that it was
incorporated as an element in the gospel church. For the purpose,
however, of destroying the sanction thus given to the legality of the
relation under the _law of Moses_, he assumes two things in relation to
it, which are expressly contradicted by the law. He assumes, in the
first place, that the Almighty, under the law, gave a _special
permission_ to the Israelites to enslave the seven devoted nations, as a
punishment for their sins. He then _assumes_, in the second place, that
this _special permission_ to enslave the seven nations, prohibited, by
_implication_, the enslaving of all other nations. The conclusion which
the Dr. draws from the above assumptions is this--that a _special
permission_ under the law, to enslave a particular people, as a
punishment for their sins, is not a _general permission_ under the
gospel, to enslave all, or any other people. The premises here assumed,
and from which this conclusion is drawn, are precisely the reverse of
what is recorded in the Bible.
The Bible statement is this: that the Israelites under the law, so far
from being permitted or required to enslave the seven nations, as a
punishment for their sins, were expressly commanded to _destroy them
utterly_. Here is the proof--Deut. vii: 1 and 2: "When the Lord thy God
shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and
hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittities, and the
Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites,
and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier
than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee,
thou shalt smite them, _and utterly destroy them_, thou shalt make no
covenant with then, nor show mercy unto them." And again, in Deut. xx:
16 and 17: "But the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth
give thee for an inheritance, _thou shalt save alive nothing that
breatheth_. But thou shalt _utterly destroy them_, namely, the
Hittities, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites, _as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee_."
This law was _delivered_ by Moses, and was _executed_ by Joshua some
years afterward, to the letter.
Here is the proof of it, Josh. xi: 14 to 20 inclusive: "And all the
spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a
prey unto themselves; _but every man they smote with the edge of the
sword until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe_."
"_As the Lord commanded Moses_ his servant; so did Moses command Joshua,
and _so did Joshua_; he left nothing undone of all that the Lord
commanded Moses. So Joshua took all that land, the hills and all the
south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley and the plain,
and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same. Even from the
mount Halak that goeth up to Sier, even unto Baalgad, in the valley of
Lebanon, under mount Hermon, and all their kings he took, and smote
them, and slew them. Joshua made war a long time with all these kings.
There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, _save
the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon_, all others they took in battle.
For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come
against Israel in the battle, _that he might destroy them utterly_, and
that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, _as the
Lord commanded Moses_." In this account of their _destruction_, the
Gibeonites, who deceived Joshua, are excepted, and the reason given is,
that Joshua in their case, failed to ask counsel at the mouth of the
Lord. Here is the proof: "And the men took of them victuals, and asked
not counsel of the mouth of the Lord."--Josh. ix: 14. This counsel
Joshua was expressly commanded to ask, when he was ordained some time
before, to be the _executor_ of God's _legislative will_, by Moses. Here
is the proof--Numb. xxvii: 18-23: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take
thee Joshua, the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thy
hand upon him; and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the
congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. And thou shalt put
some of thine honor upon him, that all the congregation of the children
of Israel may be obedient. _And he shall stand before Eleazar the
priest, who shall ask counsel for him, after the judgment of Urim before
the Lord: at his word shall they go out, and at his word shall they come
in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the
congregation._ And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; and he took
Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the
congregation. And he laid his hands upon him, _and gave him a charge, as
the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses_." These scriptures furnish a
palpable contradiction of the first assumption, that is--that the Lord
gave a _special permission to enslave_ the seven nations. The Lord
ordered that they should be destroyed utterly.
As to the second assumption, so far from the Israelites being prohibited
_by implication_, from enslaving the subjects of other nations, they
were expressly authorized by the law _to make slaves by war, of any
other nation_. Here is the proof--Deut. xx: 10 to 17 inclusive: "When
thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace
unto it. And it shall be if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto
thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein,
shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it
will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou
shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thy
hands, then shalt thou smite every male thereof with the edge of the
sword. _But the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that
is in the city_, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto
thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee. _Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which
are very far off from thee which are not of the cities of these nations.
But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But
thou shalt utterly destroy them, namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites,
the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as
the Lord thy God hath commanded thee._" They were authorized also by the
law, to purchase slaves with money of any nation except the seven. Here
is the proof--Levit. xxv: 44, 45, and 46: "Both thy bond-men and thy
bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are
round about you; (that is, round about the country given them of God,
which was the country of the seven nations they were soon to occupy;) of
them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of
the strangers that do sojourn among you, (that is, the mixed multitude
of strangers which come up with them from Egypt, mentioned in Exod. xii:
38,) of them shall ye buy, and of their 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."
Now, let it be noted that this first law, of Deut. xx: above referred
to, which authorized them to make slaves by war of any other nation, was
executed _for the first time_, under the direction of Moses himself,
when thirty-two thousand of the Midianites were enslaved. These slaves
were not of the seven nations.
And it is worthy of further remark, that of each half, into which the
Lord had these slaves divided, he claimed for his portion, one slave of
every five hundred for the priests, and one slave of every fifty for the
Levites. These slaves he gave to the priests and Levites, who were his
representatives to be their property forever.--Numb. xxxi. These
scriptures palpably contradict the Dr.'s second assumption--that is,
that they were _prohibited by implication_ from enslaving the subjects
of any other nation. The Dr.'s assumptions being the antipodes of truth,
they cannot furnish a conclusion that is warranted by the truth.
The conclusion authorized by the truth, is this: that the making of
slaves by war, and the purchase of slaves with money, was legalized by
the Almighty in the Jewish commonwealth, as regards the subject of _all
nations except the seven_.
The second argument of the Dr.'s, as I remarked, is designed to
neutralize the sanction given to slavery in the New Testament.
The Dr. frankly admits that slavery was sanctioned by the Apostles in
the Apostolic churches. But to neutralize this sanction, he resorts to
two more assumptions, not only without proof, but palpably contradicted
by the Old and New Testament text. The first assumption is this--_that
polygamy and divorce were both sins under the law of Moses, although
sanctioned by the law_. And the second assumption is, that polygamy and
divorce are _known to be sins under the gospel_, not by any gospel
teaching or prohibition, but by the general principles of morality. From
these premises the conclusion is drawn, that although slavery was
sanctioned in the Apostolic church, yet it was a sin, because, like
polygamy and divorce, it was contrary to the principles of the moral
law. The premises from which this conclusion is drawn, are at issue with
the word of God, and therefore the conclusion must be false. The first
thing here assumed is, that polygamy and divorce, although sanctioned by
the law of Moses, were both sins under that law. Now, so far from this
being true, as to _polygamy_, it is a fact that polygamy was not only
sanctioned, when men chose to practice it, but it was expressly enjoined
by the law in certain cases, and a most humiliating penalty annexed to
the breach of the command.--Deut. xxv: 5-9. As sin is defined by the
Holy Ghost to be a transgression of the law, it is impossible that
_polygamy_ could have been a sin under the law, unless it was a sin to
obey the law, and an act of righteousness to transgress it. That
_polygamy_ was a sin under the law, therefore, is palpably false.
As to _divorce_, the Almighty gave it the full and explicit sanction of
his authority, in the law of Moses, for various causes.--Deut. xxiv: 1.
For those causes, therefore, divorce could not have been a sin under
the law, unless human conduct, in exact accordance with the law of God,
was sinful. The first thing assumed by the Dr., therefore, that polygamy
and divorce were both sins, under the law, is proved to be false. They
were lawful, and therefore, could not be sinful.
The Dr.'s second assumption (with respect to polygamy and divorce,) is
this, that they are _known_ under the gospel to be sins, not by the
prohibitory _precepts_ of the gospel, but by the general _principles_ of
morality. This assumption is certainly a very astonishing one--for Jesus
Christ in one breath has uttered language as perfectly subversive of all
authority for polygamy and divorce in his kingdom, as light is
subversive of darkness. The Pharisees, ever desirous of exposing him to
the prejudices and passions of the people, "asked him in the presence of
great multitudes, who came with him from Galilee into the coasts of
Judea beyond Jordan," whether he admitted, with Moses, the legality of
divorce for every cause. Their object was to provoke him to the exercise
of legislative authority; to whom he promptly replied, that God made man
at the beginning, male and female, and ordained that the male and female
by marriage, should be one flesh. And for satisfactory reasons, had
sanctioned divorce among Abraham's seed; and then adds, as a law-giver,
"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, (except for
fornication,) and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and if a
woman put away her husband, and marry again, she committeth adultery."
Here polygamy and divorce die together. The law of Christ is, that
_neither_ party shall put the other away--that _either_ party, taking
another companion, while the first companion lives, is guilty of
adultery--consequently, polygamy and divorce are prohibited forever,
unless this law is violated--and that violation is declared to be
adultery, which excludes from his kingdom.--1 Cor. vi: 9. After the
church was organized, the Holy Ghost, by Paul, _commands_, let not the
wife depart from her husband, but, and if she depart let her remain
unmarried--and let not the husband put away his wife.--1 Cor. vii: 10.
Here _divorce_ is prohibited by _both parties_; a second marriage
according to Christ, would be adultery, while the first companion lives;
consequently, _polygamy_ is prohibited also.
This second assumption, therefore, that polygamy and divorce are known
to be sins by _moral principles_ and _not by prohibitory precepts_, is
swept away by the words of Christ, and the teaching of the Holy Ghost.
These unauthorized and dangerous assumptions are the foundation, upon
which the abolition structure is made to rest by the distinguished Dr.
Wayland.
The facts with respect to polygamy and divorce, warrant precisely the
opposite conclusion; that is, that if slavery under the gospel is
sinful, then its sinfulness would have been made known by the gospel, as
has been done with respect to polygamy and divorce. All three, polygamy,
divorce and slavery, were _sanctioned_ by the law of Moses. But under
the gospel, slavery has been _sanctioned_ in the church, while polygamy
and divorce have been _excluded_ from the church. It is manifest,
therefore, that under the gospel, polygamy and divorce have been made
sins, _by prohibition_, while slavery remains lawful because
_sanctioned_ and _continued_. The _lawfulness_ of slavery under the
gospel, rests upon the sovereign pleasure of Christ, in _permitting it_;
and the _sinfulness_ of polygamy and divorce, upon his sovereign
pleasure in _prohibiting_ their continuance. The law of Christ gives to
the relation of slavery its full sanction. _That law_ is to be found,
first, in the _admission_, _by the apostles_, of slaveholders and their
slaves into the gospel church; second, in the _positive injunction_ by
the Holy Ghost, of obedience on the part of Christian slaves in this
relation, to their believing masters; third, in the _absence_ of any
injunction upon the believing master, under any circumstances, to
dissolve this relation; fourth, in the _absence_ of any instruction from
Christ or the apostles, that the relation is sinful; and lastly, in the
_injunction_ of the Holy Ghost, delivered by Paul, _to withdraw_ from
all such as teach that this relation is sinful. Human conduct in exact
accordance with the law of Christ thus proclaimed, and thus expounded by
the Holy Ghost, in the conduct and teaching of the apostles, cannot be
sinful.
There are other portions of God's word, in the light of which we may add
to our stock of knowledge on this subject. For instance, the Almighty by
Moses legalized marriage between female slaves and Abraham's male
descendants. But under this law the wife remained a slave still. If she
belonged to the husband, then this law gave freedom to her children; but
if she belonged to another man, then her children, though born in lawful
wedlock, were hereditary slaves.--Exod. xxi: 4. Again, if a man marries
his own slave, then he lost the right to sell her--if he divorced her,
then she gained her freedom.--Deut. xxi: 10 to 14, inclusive. Again,
there was a law from God which granted rights to Abraham's sons under a
matrimonial contract; for a violation of the rights conferred by this
law, a _free woman, and her seducer_, forfeited their lives, Deut. xxii:
23 and 24; also 13 to 21, inclusive. But for the same offense, _a slave_
only exposed herself to stripes, and her _seducer_ to the penalty of a
sheep.--Levit. xix: 20 to 22, inclusive. Again, there was a law which
guarded his people, whether free or bond, from personal violence. If in
vindictiveness, a man with an unlawful weapon, maimed his own slave by
knocking out his eye, or his tooth, the slave was to be free for this
wanton act of personal violence, as a penalty upon the master.--Exod.
xxi: 26 to 27, inclusive. But for the same offense, committed against a
free person, the offender had to pay an eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth, as the penalty.--Levit. xxiv: 19, 20, and Exod. xxi: 24 and 25,
inclusive. Again, there was a law to guard the personal safety of the
community against dangerous stock. If an ox, known to be dangerous, was
suffered to run at large and kill a person, if the person so killed _was
free_, then the owner forfeited his _life_ for his neglect,--Exod. xxi:
29. But if the person so killed _was a slave_, then the offender was
fined thirty shekels of silver.--Exod. xxi: 32. In some things, slaves
among the Israelites, as among us, were invested with privileges above
hired servants--they were privileged to eat the Passover, but hired
servants were not, Exod. xii: 44, 45; and such as were owned by the
priests and Levites were privileged to eat of the holy things of their
masters, but hired servants dare not taste them.--Levit. xxii: 10, 11.
These are statutes from the Creator of man. They are certainly
predicated upon a view of things, in the Divine mind, that is _somewhat
different_ from that which makes an abolitionist; and, to say the least,
they deserve consideration with all men who worship the God of the
Bible, and not the God of their own imagination. They show very clearly,
that our Creator is the _author_ of social, moral, and political
inequality among men. That so far from the Scriptures teaching, as
abolitionists do, that all men have ever had a divine right to freedom
and equality, they show, _in so many words_, that marriages were
sanctioned of God as lawful, in which _he enacted_, that the children of
free men should be born hereditary slaves. They show also, that he
guarded the chastity of the free by the price of life, and the chastity
of the slave by the rod. They show, that in the judgment of God, the
life of a free man in the days of Moses, was too sacred for commutation,
while a fine of thirty shekels of silver was sufficient to expiate for
the death of a slave. As I said in my first essay, so I say now, this is
a controversy between abolitionists and their Maker. I see not how, with
their present views and in their present temper, they can stop short of
blasphemy against that Being who enacted these laws.
Of late years, some obscure passages (which have no allusion whatever to
the subject) have been brought forward to show, that God _hated
slavery_, although the work of his own hands. Once for all, I challenge
proof, that in the Old Testament or the New, _any reproof was ever
uttered against involuntary slavery, or against any abuse of its
authority_. Upon abolition principles, this is perfectly unaccountable,
and of itself, is an unanswerable argument that the _relation_ is not
sinful.
The opinion has been announced also of late, that slavery among the Jews
was felt to be an evil, and, by degrees, that they abolished it. To
ascertain the correctness of this opinion, let the following
consideration be weighed: After centuries of cruel _national bondage_
practiced upon Abraham's seed in Egypt, they were brought in godly
contrition to pour out "the effectual fervent prayer" of a righteous
people, to the Almighty for mercy, and were answered by a covenant God,
who sent Moses to deliver them from their bondage--but let it be
remembered, that when this deliverance from bondage to the nation of
Egypt was vouchsafed to them, they were extensive domestic slave owners.
God had not by his providential dealings, nor in any other way, shown
them the sin of domestic slavery--for they held on to their slaves, and
brought them out as their property into the wilderness. And it is worthy
of further remark, that the Lord, _before they left Egypt_, recognized
these slaves _as property_, which they had bought with their money, and
that he secured to these slaves privileges above hired servants, _simply
because they were slaves_.--Exod. xii: 44, 45. And let it be noticed
further, that the first law passed by the Almighty after proclaiming the
ten commandments or moral constitution of the nation, was a law to
regulate property rights in hereditary slaves, and to regulate property
rights in Jewish hired servants for a term of years.--Exod. xxi: 1 to 6,
inclusive. And let it be considered further, that when the Israelites
were subjected to a cruel captivity in Babylon, more than eight hundred
years after this, they were still extensive slave owners; that when
humbled and brought to repentance for their sins, and the Lord restored
them to their own land again, that he brought them back to their old
homes as slave owners. Although greatly impoverished by a seventy years'
captivity in a foreign land, yet the slaves which they brought up from
Babylon bore a proportion of nearly one slave for every five free
persons that returned, or about one slave for every family.--Ezra ii:
64, 65. Now, can we, in the face of these facts, believe they were tired
of slavery when they came out of Egypt? It had then existed five hundred
years. Or can we believe they were tired of it when they came up from
Babylon? It had then existed among them fourteen hundred years. Or can
we believe that God put them into these schools of affliction in Egypt
and Babylon to teach them, (and all others through them,) the sinfulness
of slavery, and yet, that he brought them out without giving them the
first hint that involuntary slavery was a sin? And let it be further
considered, that it was the business of the prophets which the Lord
raised up, _to make known to them the sins for which his judgments were
sent upon them_. The sins which he charged upon them in all his
visitation are upon record. Let any man find involuntary slavery in any
of God's indictments against them, and I will retract all I have ever
written.
In my original essay, I said nothing of Paul's letter to Philemon,
concerning Onesimus, a run-away slave, converted by Paul's preaching at
Rome; and who was returned by the Apostle, with a most affectionate
letter to his master, entreating the master to receive him again, and to
forgive him. O, how immeasurably different Paul's conduct to this slave
and his master, from the conduct of our abolition brethren! Which are we
to think is guided by the Spirit of God? It is _impossible_ that both
can be guided by that Spirit, unless sweet water and bitter can come
from the same fountain. This letter, itself, is sufficient to teach any
man, capable of being taught in the ordinary way, that slavery is not,
_in the sight of God, what it is in the sight of the abolitionists_.