authoritatively predicting its existence, have said, "Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." What God visits
men with as a curse cannot be intrinsically good and beneficial.
2. The judgments with which God visited Egypt and her proud monarch, for
refusing to emancipate the Israelites, and for essaying to recapture
them, when let go, and the wages which he caused his people, when
released, to receive for their hitherto unrequited tolls, clearly evince
that he has no complacency in compulsory, unrewarded servitude.
3. The same thing is indicated by the fact that God has, by statute,
provided expressly for the protection and freedom of an escaped slave;
but not for the recovery of such a fugitive by his master. "Thou shalt
not deliver unto his master, the servant which is escaped from his
master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place
which he shall choose.... Thou shalt not oppress him." Now be it, if
you will, that this statute had reference only to servants who should
escape into the land of Israel from Gentile masters; does it not
indicate a strong bias, in the mind of God, to the side of freedom,
rather than that of slavery? And does it not establish the point, that,
in God's estimation, one man cannot rightfully be deemed the property of
another man? Were it otherwise, would not the Jew have been required to
restore a runaway to his pursuing master, just as he was to restore any
other lost thing which its owner should come in search of? Or, to say
the least, would not the Israelites have been allowed to reduce to
servitude among themselves the escaped slave of a heathen master? But
how unlike all this are the actual requirements of the statute. God's
people must neither deliver up the fugitive nor enslave him themselves;
but allow him to dwell among them as a FREEMAN, just "where it liketh
him best." And, in this connection, how significant a fact is it, that
the Bible nowhere empowers the master from whom a slave had escaped to
pursue, seize, and drag back to bondage that escaped slave.
4. That which constitutes the grand fountain of slavery,--the forcible,
stealthy seizure of a man, for the purpose of holding or selling him as
a slave,--was, under the Mosaic dispensation, punishable with death;
and is, in the New Testament, named in connection with the most heinous
crimes. "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in
his hand, he shall surely be put to death." What could more forcibly
exhibit God's disapprobation of one of the distinctive features of
slavery,--compulsion? What more impressively show the value that he puts
upon a man's personal independence,--his right to himself? Now if God
doomed that man to die a felon's death who should steal and sell a
fellow man, can it be that he would hold him guiltless who should buy
the stolen man, knowing him to have been stolen? God's people were,
indeed, allowed to "buy bondmen and bondmaids" of the strangers that
dwelt among them, and of the surrounding heathen. But were they ever
allowed to buy persons whom they knew to have been unlawfully obtained,
and offered for sale in manifest opposition to their own wishes? If they
were not,--and, from the statute just referred to, it seems certain that
they were not,--does American slavery derive countenance from that which
was tolerated in the Jewish church and nation? True, the slaves now held
as such among us were not themselves feloniously seized on a foreign
soil, torn away from kindred, homes, and country, and sold into hopeless
bondage in a strange land; but their sires and grandsires were.
Man-stealing is confessedly the stock out of which has sprung, and grown
to its present dimensions, the vast and overshadowing Upas of American
slavery; and if the Bible brands that stock as pestiferous, must not the
entire tree partake of the noxious influence? Again: if, as competent
critics assert, the popular sense of the word rendered "men-stealers,"
in 1 Tim. i. 10, be "those who deal in men--literally, slave-traders,"
then trafficking in slaves for mercenary ends is, by Paul, ranked among
vices the most abominable; and American slavery is, if possible, more
pointedly condemned by that passage than by the statute found in Ex.
xxi. 16. For who does not know that trading in "the persons of men" has
ever been, and yet is, a main pillar in the fabric of slavery? Indeed,
man-stealing and slave-trading are to slave-holding precisely what the
business of the distiller and of the vendor is to the vice of
intemperance. There is, in either case, a trio of associated evils; and
it is difficult to say which member of either trio is the most repulsive
and harmful.
If, now, it be objected to this argument from the Bible, that the Mosaic
institutes expressly recognize such a thing as involuntary servitude,
and prescribe rules for its regulation, I answer: true, but the
servitude thus recognized and regulated by statute was of a far milder
type than that which is legalized in these American States. For, 1. It
allowed the bondman a large amount of leisure, or time which he need not
devote to his master's service; 2. It made it possible for him to
accumulate a considerable amount of property; 3. It placed him on a
perfect level with his master, in regard to religious privileges; 4. It
gave him his freedom whenever he should be so chastised as to result in
permanent injury to his person: thus operating as a powerful preventive
of inhumanity in chastising; 5. It respected the sanctity of the
conjugal and parental relations, when existing among bondmen, and did
not authorize a compulsory severing of family ties; 6. It made no
provision for the sale of a servant by his Jewish master, nor for any
such domestic commerce in the persons of men as is practised in the
southern States of this Union; 7. It provided for the periodical
emancipation of all that were in bondage; thus aiming a fatal blow at
the very existence of servitude in the Hebrew commonwealth. I may not,
consistently with the necessary brevity of a tract designed for popular
perusal, go into any demonstration of the facts above asserted. For
proof that they are facts, let my readers studiously examine the Mosaic
books, and the Rev. A. Barnes's "Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of
Slavery." I see not how any candid and discriminating investigator can
help being convinced that the servitude which was temporarily tolerated
in the Jewish church, was, in numerous respects, very unlike to that
which exists among us, and far less repulsive.
But suppose, for argument's sake, it had been just as repulsive a system
as ours, would the fact of its having been tolerated under the Jewish
economy prove it to be intrinsically good, and worthy of being
perpetuated? Then, by parity of reasoning, the good men of ancient times
might safely have concluded that certain other practices were good and
would endure, which we know were not good, and were not to last. Had the
question been propounded in Abraham's or in David's day, whether
polygamy and concubinage were approved of God, and would be perpetuated
in the church, it is probable that even the saints of those periods
would have responded affirmatively. The fact that God had so long
allowed his people to practise these things unrebuked, might, to them,
have seemed sufficient proof that these practices were intrinsically
proper, and were to rank among the permanent fixtures of human society.
But were Abraham and David now on the earth, with what changed feelings
would they regard the cast-off system of concubinage and a plurality of
wives. Again: suppose the conjecture had been hazarded, three thousand
years ago, that woman, from being a menial drudge, or a mere medium of
bestial indulgence, would one day occupy the dignified position to which
Christianity has actually lifted her, would not incredulity have lurked
in every heart, and found expression on every tongue? Now there are
plain indications, not only in the Word, but the providences of God,
that he never regarded slavery with complacency, any more than he did
polygamy, concubinage, or the serfdom of woman; and that he never
designed its perpetuity. Scrutinizing that Word and those providences,
one needs no prophetic ken to enable him to predict with certainty,
that, when Christ's millennial reign is ushered in, contraband will be
inscribed on slavery, as it already has been on some other evils that
were once tolerated, not only in society, but in the church of God.
But I shall be reminded here, that, when the apostles were disseminating
Christianity in the Roman empire, there prevailed throughout that empire
a system of slavery more odious and oppressive than ours; and yet that
both slaveholders and slaves were converted and admitted to the church,
without its affecting the relation of master and slave; that the New
Testament instructs the parties how to demean themselves in that
relation, but nowhere enjoins emancipation on the master, or encourages
absconding or non-submission in the slave; in short, that it nowhere
expressly condemns slavery, or intimates that its extermination was to
be expected or desired. In reply to this, I would say,--
(1.) To infer, because the New Testament enjoins obedience on slaves,
and makes no direct attack on the institution of slavery, that it
therefore sanctions the institution, and would have it perpetuated, is
as much a _non sequitur_ as to infer, because God enjoins on men
subjection to existing civil authorities, whatever may be their
character, that he as much approves of a despotic as of a constitutional
government,--of the government of Ferdinand of Naples as of that of
Victoria of England. Nor is it more difficult to comprehend why God has,
in the Scriptures, made no direct assault on slavery, than it is to see
why He has not directly assailed governmental despotisms, or expressed
any preference for one form of government over another. An obvious and
far-seeing wisdom is discernible in this, which it behooves us to
admire, and not unfrequently to imitate. Had the apostles or the
Scriptures openly denounced all absolutism, whether civil or domestic,
it would have aroused unnecessary prejudice and opposition, and diverted
the attention of men from the grand object aimed at in giving the world
a written and preached gospel. God deemed it wiser to reach these evils
through the slow but sure progress of certain great principles laid down
in his Word, than through the medium of specific prohibitions.
(2.) The fact that the apostles received into the church converts who
not only held slaves, but held them under a slave-system that was
awfully despotic, was no indorsement on their part of that odious
system, nor even of the slightest inhumanity on the part of a master
towards his slaves. It does, indeed, prove that a man may be a
Christian, without ceasing to be a slaveholder in form; but not that a
master may indulge in all the legal barbarities of the system, and yet
be a Christian. Merely to sustain the relation of a Christian master for
the good of the slave, or from the necessity of the case, is one thing,
while to advocate and defend this chattel system, and hold in bondage
fellow human beings for personal and selfish ends, is quite another
thing. Nowhere do the Scriptures countenance, or even wink at, the least
degree of inhumanity or injustice in the treatment of servants. So far
from this, they expressly enjoin it on masters to "give unto their
servants that which is just and equal," all the law of disinterested
love would require; accompanying the injunction with the significant
hint, that they themselves have a Master, and that with him there is "no
respect of persons."
(3.) Though the Scriptures do not directly assail the system of slavery,
they indirectly and obviously condemn it, and that very abundantly.
Slavery is indirectly and yet strongly rebuked in such passages of
Scripture as the following: "Wo unto him that ... useth his neighbor's
service without wages." "Is not this the fast that I have chosen, ... to
undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye
break every yoke?" "What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love mercy?" ... "Have we not all one Father? Hath not
one God created us?" ... "And hath made of one blood all nations of men,
for to dwell on all the face of the earth; ... that they should seek the
Lord." ... "God is no respecter of persons." "The people of the land
have used oppression, ... therefore have I poured out mine indignation
upon them." ... "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." "Therefore,
all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so
to them." It needs no unusual acuteness to see, that, were the spirit of
these and kindred passages (for numerous others of the sort might have
been cited) everywhere acted out, slavery would as readily vanish, as do
the icebergs of the North, if perchance they float away into milder
latitudes.
Fifth. To the four reasons already assigned for thinking that slavery
has not God's approbation, and ought not to be perpetuated, I will add
but one more,--its baleful effects. (1). As it respects worldly thrift,
or pecuniary prosperity. It is a fact, that slavery exerts a depressing
influence on the business welfare of any community where it prevails;
and that, other things being equal, slaveholding States can never
compete with free ones in the item of financial prosperity. A necessary
brevity forbids my pointing out the causes of this fact; but my readers
will, without my aid, readily ascertain what they are. Suffice it to
say, it has become a settled maxim of political economy, that there
exists an antagonism between slavery and the highest business prosperity
of any people that tolerates it; and the southern States of this Union
furnish abundant confirmation of its truth. (2.) I will name but one
other thing,--its baneful influence on character and morals. That
slavery tends to debase the character and morals of the slaves will
scarcely be questioned. Apart from the ignorance naturally resulting
from their condition, that condition powerfully tends to render them
sensual, indolent, artful, mendacious, stealthful, and revengeful. But
is the bad moral tendency of the institution limited to the bondmen?
Exerts it no corrupting influence on the hearts, the habits, and morals
of the masters? Is it not its legitimate tendency to foster in them such
vices as indolence, effeminacy, licentiousness, covetousness,
inhumanity, haughtiness, and a supreme regard for self? Of course, I do
not affirm that it uniformly produces these sad effects on the character
of masters. So far from this, there may doubtless be found slaveholders,
who, in all that adorns and ennobles human character, will compare
favorably with the very best men at the North. I think it will be
conceded, however, that the legitimate tendency is to evil, and that the
effects of slavery on the character of its sustainers are, in the main,
disastrous; and that the depreciated state of morals prevailing where
slavery exists is mainly attributable to this as its source. I need not
here enter into detail. Facts are too well known to make this
necessary.
Thus have we contemplated several distinct reasons for believing that
slavery is no good thing,--has not the sanction of Jehovah,--and cannot
with propriety be perpetuated. Its contrariety to nature,--its
antagonism to the moral sense of mankind,--its disgraceful parentage and
manner of support,--its condemnation by the Bible,--and its disastrous
influence on financial prosperity, on character, and on public
morals,--all proclaim that slavery, so far from being a good thing, is a
tremendous curse; yea, more, that it is a stupendous wrong; and hence,
that it should be tolerated in the church of Christ no longer than the
best interests of all concerned may render necessary for a safe
termination.
But it may be, after all, that I have failed to secure the assent of
some of my southern brethren to the justness of the foregoing positions
and inferences. It may be that they still regard the system of bondage
prevailing in their midst as in the main beneficial, defensible from the
Bible, and, with some modifications perhaps, worthy of perpetuity. Well,
brethren, suppose you do thus regard it; and for argument's sake
suppose, too, that you may possibly be right,--that slave-holding may be
in itself the harmless thing which you deem it; ought you not
cheerfully to abandon it, in obedience to a great Bible
principle,--that of refraining from things which are in themselves
lawful, or which your conscience may not condemn, out of regard to the
conscience of aggrieved Christian brethren, or to the prejudices of
those whose salvation you would not obstruct? You are aware, brethren,
that this magnanimous principle Paul both inculcated and exemplified.
You are also aware that a large majority of the Christians now living
regard your cherished institution as unjustifiable, and at variance with
the spirit of Christianity; and, so regarding it, they long for its
extinction, and are grieved with you for cleaving to it so tenaciously,
and refusing to concert measures for its ultimate overthrow. Indeed,
they are more than grieved; they are profoundly agitated by the fresh
developments of the iniquitous system which you are helping to uphold;
and there seems no prospect, while that system endures, of their
becoming tranquillized. A tempest has sprung up and is raging in the
church of Christ,--to say nothing of the civilized world,--which seems
not likely to cease till its cause be removed; and slavery is that
cause. Now I put it to you, brethren, if here be not an opportunity of
exemplifying, on a broad scale, the self-denying and noble principle
which Paul indicates in the words, "All things are lawful for me, but
all things are not expedient;" "Eat not for his sake that shewed it, and
for conscience' sake: ... conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the
other;" "Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant
unto all, that I might gain the more." Have it, if you will, that the
brethren for whose sake you are asked to make this sacrifice are weak
brethren, and their consciences weak. Your obligation to make it is none
the less on that account; for the principle just adverted to
contemplates cases of this very sort. Since the practice which grieves
these weak brethren is one that you can probably abandon without
wounding your own conscience, are you at liberty to undervalue their
conscience by persisting in that which grieves them?
But how much weightier does this argument become, when it is remembered
that the opposers of slavery, besides being exceedingly numerous, have,
many of them, been eminent,--not merely for a conscientious piety, but
for talent, for research, for scholarship, for broad and comprehensive
views of things;--and that the list embraces distinguished southern, as
well as northern men; and men of celebrity in both church and state.
There have been found in the anti-slavery ranks, presidents and noble
men, jurists and legislators, statesmen and divines, scholars and
authors, poets and orators. And, still further to enhance the dignity of
the cause, it should be remembered that several General Assemblies of
the Presbyterian Church of the United States, together with numerous
lesser ecclesiastical bodies, have lifted up their voice in opposition
to slavery, and proclaimed substantially the same views which this
humble Essay has aimed to exhibit. Now if, as we have seen, a
deferential regard should be had to the conscience of aggrieved
Christian brethren, even when they are few and feeble-minded, how much
more, when the aggrieved ones are counted in hundreds of thousands? when
theirs is an intelligent piety and an enlightened conscience? and when,
too, their remonstrance is backed up by a public sentiment that is
wellnigh unanimous through all christendom?
If now, in spite of all these considerations, I still have readers that
say in their hearts, slavery must be perpetuated, they will pardon me
for lingering no longer in the hope of changing their views. I would be
indulged, however, in one parting interrogation. Has it never occurred
to you, brethren, that yours is, on some accounts, a very unfavorable
stand-point from which to form just and disinterested views of slavery;
and that your very position as slave-holders, and your long familiarity
with the system and its evils, may have blinded you to the magnitude of
those evils, and to the great desirableness of their being removed? May
it not be that long use, and self-interest, and the love of power and
ease, have conspired to warp your judgment, blunt your sensibilities,
and cause you to view slavery through a deceptive medium?
Having, as I hope, the cordial assent of the great mass of my readers,
northern and southern, to the foregoing argument against slavery and its
perpetuity, we are now prepared to advance to the last great division of
our subject, and to inquire: What are the duties, positive and negative,
which this subject imposes on American Christians? What does it demand
that we, as Christians, should do, and refrain from doing? This question
subdivides itself thus: What ought we northern and professedly
anti-slavery Christians to do, and not do? And, next, What duties,
positive and negative, does the question devolve on professing
Christians in the slave-holding States?
I. We are to consider what we, the northern and avowedly anti-slavery
section of the American church, ought, in view of this subject, both to
do, and refrain from doing. In reply to the question, What ought we to
do? I would say,--
1. It is not only our right, but duty, temperately and with Christian
courtesy to continue to discuss this great theme, both orally and with
the pen; and especially to endeavor to bring the truth into contact with
the mind and heart of our southern brethren,--if, peradventure, we may
thus persuade them soon to cease their connection with slavery. Freedom
of discussion is one important safeguard of the public weal; and that
must be regarded as a bad, untenable cause which will not bear the test
of a full and free discussion before the world. Free inquiry, too, has
not only preceded all great reformations, but has been an important
instrument in bringing them about. That great moral change known as the
temperance reformation is but one example among many that might be
adduced. If slavery is ever to be numbered in history among the things
that are past, it will be by having Bible light and truth made to
converge upon it, through the lens of free public discussion. Hence,
believing as we do that American slavery is an enormous evil and a
gigantic wrong,--a thing with which the church should cease to have
connection as speedily as may be,--as Christians we may, we must, employ
our tongues and our pens in behalf of the enslaved, till our world
shall cease to contain such a class of men.