{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_24600/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_24600","id":"gutenberg_24600","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24600","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - American","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Slavery","Slavery -- United States"],"text":"Produced by Bryan Ness, S. Drawehn and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from scans of public domain works at the\nUniversity of Michigan's Making of America collection.)\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note.--Italics in the original are rendered as\n_underscores_. The letter 'a' with a macron is shown as [=a]. Greek\ncharacters in the original have been transliterated and appear as\n+word+. Transliterated Hebrew words appear as #WORD#, using the author's\nown transliteration throughout. (For more on the Hebrew, and a list of\nerrata, see the end of this document.)]\n\n\n\n\n                                                               No. 45.\n\n                      IS SLAVERY SANCTIONED BY\n                             THE BIBLE?\n\n\nIf there is one subject which, above all others, may be regarded as of\nnational interest at the present time, it is the subject of Slavery.\nWherever we go, north or south, east or west, at the fireside, in the\nfactory, the rail-car or the steamboat, in the state legislatures or the\nnational Congress, this \"ghost that will not down\" obtrudes itself. The\nstrife has involved press, pulpit, and forum alike, and in spite of all\ncompromises by political parties, and the desperate attempts at\nnon-committal by religious bodies, it only grows wider and deeper.\n\nBut the distinctive feature of this, as compared with other questions of\nnational import, is, that here both parties draw their principal\narguments from the Bible as a common armory of weapons for attack and\ndefense. On the one side, it is claimed that slavery, as it exists in\nthe United States, is not a moral evil; that it is an innocent and\nlawful relation, as much as that of parent and child, husband and wife,\nor any other in society; that the right to buy, sell, and hold men for\npurposes of gain, was given by express permission of God, and sanctioned\nby Christ and his apostles; that this right is founded on the golden\nrule; and says Dr. Shannon of Bacon College, Ky., \"I hardly know which\nis most unaccountable, the profound ignorance of the Bible, or the\nsublimity of cool impudence and infidelity manifested by those who\nprofess to be Christians; and yet dare affirm that the Book of God gives\nno sanction to slaveholding.\" All these affirmations are fairly summed\nup thus: \"As slavery was practiced by the patriarchs, received sanction\nand legality from God in the Mosaic law, and was not denounced by Christ\nand his apostles, it must have been right. If right then, it is so\nstill; therefore Southern slavery is right.\"\n\nOn the other hand, it is contended that chattel slavery is nowhere\nwarranted or sanctioned by the Bible, but is totally opposed both to its\nspirit and teachings.\n\nIt will be the object of the present discussion to determine which of\nthese opinions is correct.\n\n\n                      SLAVERY DEFINED.\n\nWhat, then, is chattel slavery as understood in American law?\n\n1. It is not the relation of wife or child. In one sense a man may be\nsaid to \"possess\" these; but he can not buy or sell them. These are\nnatural relations; and he who violates them for the sake of gain is\nbranded by all as barbarous and criminal.\n\n2. Not the relation of apprentice or minor. This is temporary, having\nfor its primary object, not the good of the master or guardian, but that\nof the apprentice or minor, his education and preparation for acting his\npart as a free and independent member of society; but chattelism is\n_life_ bondage, for the _sole_ good of the master.\n\n3. Not the relation of service by contract. Here a bond or agreement is\nimplied, and therefore reciprocal rights, and the mutual power of\ndissolution on failure of either in the terms of mutual agreement; but\nchattelism ignores and denies the ability of the slave to _make a\ncontract_.\n\n4. Not serfdom or villeinage. The serf or villein was attached to the\nglebe or soil, and could not be severed from it, deprived of his family,\nor sold to another as a chattel; being retained as part of the\nindivisible feudal community. But the chattel slave is a \"thing\"\nincapable of family relations, and may be sold when, where, or how the\nmaster pleases.\n\nChattelism is none of these relations; its principle is \"property in\nman.\" Its definition is thus given in the law of Louisiana, (Civil Code,\nart. 35:) \"A slave is one who is in the power of his master, to whom he\nbelongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry,\nhis labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, acquire nothing, but what\nmust belong to his master.\"\n\nSouth Carolina says, (Prince's Digest, 446,) \"Slaves shall be deemed,\nsold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law, to be chattels personal in\nthe hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors,\nadministrators, and assigns, to all intents, purposes, and\nconstructions whatsoever.\"\n\nJudge Ruffin, giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina,\n(case of State _v._ Mann,) says a slave is \"one doomed in _his own\nperson_ and _his posterity_ to live without knowledge, and without the\ncapacity to make any thing his own, and to toil that another may reap\nthe fruits.\"\n\nWe now come to the point at issue: Does the Bible sanction this system?\n\n\n                        OLD TESTAMENT.\n\n                      1. _Hebrew Terms._\n\nThe Hebrew terms used in reference to this subject are #AUVADH#,\n_auvadh_, \"to serve;\" the noun, #EVEDH#, _evedh_, \"servant\" or\n\"bondman,\" one contracting service for a term of years; #SAUKIR#,\n_saukir_, a \"hired servant\" daily or weekly; #AUMAU#, _aumau_, and\n#SHIPHECHAU#, _shiphechau_, \"maid-servant\" or \"handmaid;\" but there is _no_\nterm in Hebrew synonymous with our word _slave_, for all the terms\napplied to servants are, as we shall show, equally applicable and\napplied to free persons.\n\nThe verb #AUVADH#, _auvadh_, according to Gesenius, signifies primarily,\nto labor; then, to labor for one's self, for hire, or compulsory labor\nas a captive or prisoner of war. Gen. 2:5, 15; 3:23; 29:15. Ex. 20:9;\n21:2. Next, national servitude as tributary to others; as Sodom and the\ncities of the plain to Chedorlaomer, Gen. 14:4; Esau to Jacob, Gen.\n25:23; the Israelites in Canaan to surrounding nations, Moabites,\nPhilistines, and others, Judg. 3:8; Jer. 27:7, 9. Next, national and\npersonal servitude or serfdom, as of the Israelites in Egypt. Lastly,\nthe service of God or idols, Judg. 3:7, &c. From these and similar\npassages we see that neither the generic nor specific meaning of the\nterm, taken in its connections, implies chattel slavery, but labor,\nvoluntary, hired, or compulsory, as of tributary nations or prisoners of\nwar, whose claim to regain, if possible, their freedom and rights, is\never admitted and acted on; showing that freedom is the normal state of\nman, subjection and compulsory servitude the abnormal and unnatural.\n\nBut it is objected that, though the proper meaning of the verb \"to\nserve\" does not imply chattel slavery, it is certain that the derived\nnoun #EVEDH#, _evedh_, translated \"servant\" and \"bondman\" in our\nversion, is frequently used to designate involuntary servitude, the\nservice of one \"bought with money,\" and therefore a chattel slave. We\nreply, By far the most frequent use of this term, as is well known,\nrepresents either the common deferential mode of address of inferiors to\nsuperiors, or equals to equals, used then and to-day in the East, or the\npolitical subordination of inferior to superior rank invariably existing\nin Eastern governments. Otherwise we have Jacob saying to Esau, \"The\nchildren which God hath graciously given thy\" _slave_; and Joseph's\nbrethren saying to him, \"Thou saidst to thy _slaves_, Bring him down to\nme.\" \"When we came up to thy _slave_ my father.\" Saul's officers and\nsoldiers are his slaves, David is Jonathan's, and _vice versa_; Abigail,\nDavid's wife, is his slave; his people, officers, and even embassadors\nare all his slaves; all are slaves to each other, and none are masters,\nunless it be the king.\n\nHow, then, can we properly define the meaning and status of the term\n\"servant\" in any particular passage? We answer, only by the context and\nthe usage of the particular time and place, so far as known.\n\n                    2. _The Curse of Canaan._\n\nWe first meet with the term \"servant\" in the oft-disputed passage, Gen.\n9:25-27: \"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his\nbrethren.... Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his\nservant.\" ... Now, as we have no state of servitude in the context or\nthe usage of the times with which to compare this, and as only Canaan\nand his descendants are included in the curse, we must look to their\nsubsequent history for the fulfillment of the prophecy, and the kind of\nservitude there implied.\n\nWe find the descendants of Canaan and their land defined in Gen.\n10:15-20. They were not the Africans, as some ignorantly assert, but the\nCanaanites, who dwelt in Canaan, and were there destroyed by the\nIsraelites, or rendered tributaries, except the Gibeonites, who were\ndoomed to be \"hewers of wood and drawers of water,\" the serfs of the\ntemple service. Josh. 9:23, 27. There is not one word of buying and\nselling _individuals_--no chattelism, or any sanction of it; there is a\nperforming of the service of the temple, or paying tribute, but never\nslaves or chattels. Canaan thus became the servant (not slave) of Shem;\nand when afterward Israel was oppressed and rendered tributary to other\nnations, the Canaanites became thus not only \"servants,\" but \"servants\nof servants.\"\n\n                    3. _Patriarchal Servitude._\n\nThe next example of the word \"servant\" brings us to that epoch in\nrelation to which the Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina says,\n\"Slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (who are now in the kingdom of heaven,) to\nthe time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master\nPhilemon, and wrote a Christian and paternal letter to this slaveholder,\nwhich we find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures.\"\n\nThe account we have of Abraham's servants is briefly as follows: That\nhe had men-servants and maid-servants, Gen. 12:16; 14:14; 17:27, (not\n_slaves_, for we have shown above by numerous passages that to give such\na definition to the term \"servant\" is false and absurd, unless sustained\nby the context or the usage of the times;) that they numbered some two\nthousand persons, (reckoning by the number of fighting men among them,\ngenerally one in five of the population,) were trained and accustomed to\narms, Gen. 14:14; could inherit property, Gen. 15:3, 4; in religious\nordinances were perfectly equal with the master, Gen. 17:10-14; had\nentire control not only over the property, but also the heirs of the\nhousehold, Gen. 24:2-10; lastly, they were invariably considered as\n_men_, not slaves or chattels. Gen. 24:30, 32. \"And the _man_ (servant\nof Abraham) came into the house, and he ungirded his camels, and gave\nstraw and provender for the camels, and water to wash his feet and the\n_men's_ feet that were with him.\"\n\n\"But,\" it is objected, \"some of these servants were 'bought with money;'\ntherefore they must have been possessed as 'chattel slaves.'\" This\nconclusion depends partly on the meaning of the Hebrew verb #KAUNAU#\n_kaunau_, \"to buy;\" and asserts that whenever this term is applied to\npersons, it implies the relation of chattel slavery. The primary\ndefinition of the verb, given by Gesenius, is, to erect; then, 1. To\nfound or create; 2. To get, gain, obtain, acquire, possess; 3. To get by\npurchase, to buy.\n\nLet us see the meaning of this term, applied to persons in other\npassages. In Gen. 31:15, Rachel and Leah say of their father, \"He hath\n_sold_ us, and quite devoured also our money,\" referring to Jacob's long\nservice for them; were they chattels? Gen. 47:23, Joseph _bought_ the\nEgyptians; were they chattels? Ex. 21:2, \"If thou _buy_ a Hebrew\nservant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall go out\nfree, for nothing;\" was he a chattel? Ruth 4:10, \"Ruth the Moabitess\nhave I _purchased_ this day to be my _wife_;\" was she a chattel? These\npassages clearly show that the simple application of the term \"bought\nwith money\" does _not_ imply property and possession as a chattel.\n\nThe phrase \"bought with money\" relates, in the case of wives, to the\ndowry usual in Eastern countries; in the case of servants, to the ransom\npaid for captives in war, and paid by the individual on adoption into\nthe tribe; or to an equivalent paid as hire of time and labor for a\nlimited period, either to parents for their children as apprentices,\n&c., or to the individual himself, as Jacob to Laban. Gen. 31:41, \"Thus\nhave I been twenty years _in thy house_; I served thee fourteen years\nfor thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle, and thou hast\nchanged my wages ten times.\" Thus Abraham could acquire a claim on the\nservice of a man during life by purchase from himself; could acquire the\nallegiance of a man and his family, and all born in it, by contract, not\nto be broken but by mutual agreement; and in a few years have a vast\nhousehold under his authority, \"born in his house,\" and \"bought with\nmoney,\" yet not one of them a slave.\n\nAnother general proof already alluded to is, that the terms #EVEDH#,\n\"servant,\" and #NAAR#, _naar_, \"young man,\" are applied synonymously\nand equally to servants and free persons. Gen. 14:24, Abraham calls his\nservants young men, and again in Gen. 17:23, 27. So in Job 1:15-19, the\nterm #NAAR# is applied alike to Job's servants and sons. Also in\nJudg. 7:10; 19:3, 11, 19; 1 Sam. 9:3, 5, 10, 22, and numerous other\nplaces, these terms are applied indiscriminately to servants, showing\nthat they were always regarded as men, never as chattels.\n\nBut we are not left to conjecture in regard to the status or condition\nof Abraham's servants; we will bring proofs showing that it could not\nhave been chattel slavery.\n\nTwo of the fundamental characteristics of chattelism are, The status of\nthe mother decides that of the child, and The slave, being property, can\nnot inherit or possess property. Was this the condition of \"servants\" in\npatriarchal society? If so, then these characteristics brand them as\nchattels; but on the contrary, if no record is found of their being\nsold, (the buying we have already reasonably accounted for;) if the\nchildren of these servants were reckoned free, if they and their\nchildren could inherit property, then even American slave law and custom\ndeclare them free persons, and not chattels personal.\n\nTake the case of Hagar. We read, Gen. 16:1, she was an Egyptian\n\"handmaid, maid-servant,\" perhaps one of those referred to in Gen.\n12:16. Abraham, at Sarah's instigation, makes her his concubine. The\nusual bickering of Eastern harems ensues. Hagar leaves the tribe, is\nsent back by the angel, Ishmael is born, and this son of a slave (?) is\nregarded not only as free, but heir of the house of Abraham. Years pass,\nand the wild, reckless Ishmael is seen ridiculing Isaac, his puny\nbrother and coheir. At the sight, all the mother and the aristocrat\nagain rise up in Sarah, and she cries out to Abraham, \"Cast out this\nbondwoman and her son, for he shall not be heir with my son, even\nIsaac;\" and Abraham, so far from regarding them as chattels personal,\nand selling them south, sends off the wild boy to be the wild, free\nArab, \"whose hand will be against every man, and every man's hand\nagainst his.\"\n\nTake the case of Bilhah and Zilpah, given by Laban (Gen. 29:24, 29,) as\nhandmaids (#AUMAU#) to his daughters Leah and Rachel. Gen. 30:4-14.\nThey become Jacob's concubines, and bear him four sons--Dan, Naphtali,\nGad, and Asher. Here the case is plain; the mothers are \"servants,\" they\nhave children, and these, instead of being (as in similar cases daily at\nthe South) \"reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal,\" are\nrecognized as free and equal with the other sons, Reuben, Judah, &c.,\nand become, like them, heads of tribes in Israel. In these cases,--and\nthey are all which relate to the point at issue,--either the status of\nthese servants _did_ or _did not_ decide that of their children. If it\n_did_, then, by the laws of chattelism, the children being free prove\nthe mother (though servant) to be free; if it _did not_, then the mother\nwas held only by feudal allegiance, while the children were always free.\nIn either case the conditions of chattelism did not exist; they were not\nslaves, but free persons in the same condition as members of wandering\nArab and Tartar tribes to this day.\n\nDid the second fundamental condition of chattelism mentioned above\nexist? The slave, being property, can not possess or inherit property.\nIn Gen. 15:3 we find Abraham complaining to the Lord, \"Behold, to me\nthou hast given no seed, and lo, _one born in my house_ is my heir!\" The\nsame term is used here as in speaking of Abraham's other servants; and\nyet this \"servant\" is declared by Abraham his acknowledged heir. Here\nthere is a manifest contradiction of the conditions of a chattel slave.\nThey can not inherit property; this man could; therefore he was not a\nslave. It is an entirely gratuitous assumption to assert that Abraham's\ndependents were slaves; for similar cases occur daily in nomadic tribes,\nas formerly they did in Scottish clans. If the chief has no child\ncapable of succeeding him in office, he chooses from his dependents some\ntried and trusty warrior, and adopts him as lieutenant or henchman, to\nsucceed him as heir or chief. Just so Abraham, then nearly eighty years\nold, despairing of a son to take his place as chief of the tribe,\nadopted some young warrior (perhaps a leader in the battle of Hobah) as\nhis heir, with the proviso of resigning in favor of a son if any be\nborn. But in the case of Jacob's four sons the conclusion is\nself-evident--children of \"servants\" or \"handmaids,\" yet recognized as\nfree like the other sons, sharing the property of the father equally\nwith them;--the conditions of a state of chattelism did not exist.\n\nThese things prove conclusively that the term \"servant\" never meant\n_slave_ in patriarchal families; that the term \"bought with money\"\nreferred only to feudal allegiance or service for a time agreed on by\nboth parties. These servants could possess and inherit property; their\nchildren were free; they were trained to the use of arms; in religious\nmatters master and servant were alike and equal; and they were always\nconsidered and called _men_, never slaves or chattels,--all which are\ndirectly contrary to the principles and express enactments of American\nslave law, and are the characteristics of free persons even at the\nSouth. Add to this the significant fact that not one word is said in the\npatriarchal records of _selling_ any of these servants, (the only act\nmentioned of selling a human being is that of Joseph by his brethren, so\nbitterly reprobated and repented of by them soon after,) though\nfrequently bought; that no fugitive law existed, in fact could not exist\nin a wandering tribe,--and the natural conclusion is, that they were not\nslaves, but free men and women; and therefore the records of patriarchal\nsociety conclusively deny the existence of chattel slaves or slavery as\none of its institutions.\n\nYears pass, and we find the Israelites reduced to a servile condition as\nthe serfs of the Egyptians. God, in his purposes, allowed them to remain\nthus for a time, and then, instead of sanctioning even this modified\nform of slavery, demanded their instant release; and on refusal, with\nterrible judgments on their oppressors, he led forth that army of\nfugitive slaves, and drowned their pursuers in the Red Sea.\n\n                        4. _Mosaic Laws._\n\nWe come next to the sanction and authority of chattel slavery claimed to\nexist in the laws and economy of these people just escaped from bondage,\nand framed by him who had shown his displeasure against slavery by\nnearly destroying a nation of slaveholders for holding and catching\nslaves. The arguments for this claim are--1. That the term \"servant\" or\n\"bondman\" used in the Mosaic law means chattel slavery; 2. That in\ncertain cases the Hebrews might hold their brethren as slaves for ever;\n3. They might buy slaves from the heathen around, and hold them for\never. These positions, we admit, have some plausibility, and have\ndoubtless had great weight in producing the opinion that chattelism is\nsanctioned by the Bible. We propose to consider the condition of the\nclasses of servants referred to in their order.\n\n1. _Hebrew servants._ These were of four kinds--servants under contract\nor indenture for six years, probably from one sabbatic year to another:\nservants held till the year of jubilee, or \"for ever:\" children born in\nthe house, or hired out by their parents: convicted thieves; and\nafterward, though sanctioned by no law, debtors.\n\nIn respect to the first of these classes, the law is found in Ex.\n21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18. \"If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall\nhe serve, and in the seventh he shall go out _free_, for nothing.\" Here\nthe term \"buy\" can only be applied to the _service_, sold by the servant\nfor six years, (or perhaps to the sabbatic seventh year, as daily or\nweekly service ended with the Sabbath,) for it is applied to a state\nwhich no ingenuity whatever can construe as chattelism.\n\nThe second class of Hebrew servants is mentioned Ex. 21:5, 6. \"If the\nservant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I\nwill not go out free; then his master shall bring him to the judges: he\nshall also bring him to the door or to the door-post, and he shall bore\nhis ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever.\" Deut.\n15:17, the same law adds, \"And also to thy maid-servant shalt thou do\nlikewise.\" But in Lev. 25:39, 40, 53, it is expressly enacted that one\nwho served longer than six years was not to be treated or considered as\nan #EVEDH#, _evedh_, one contracting for a term of years, but as a\n#SAUKIR#, _saukir_, a hired servant, to be well treated and compensated\nfor his services. \"Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant,\nbut as a hired servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee.\" The\nservant must plainly say, \"_I will not_ go out;\" it must be _voluntary_\nservice; but chattelism is involuntary, forced, and directly contrary to\nthe case before us. \"He shall serve _him_ for ever,\" not his sons after\nhim, not giving the right of transfer or sale of service to a third\nperson, \"_He_ shall serve,\" not his wife or children, but himself, till\ndeath, or his master's death, or the jubilee. This, then, was not\nchattelism, for it was _voluntary_, _without purchase_ or sale, _ending\nwith the life of the servant, the master, or the year of release--the\njubilee_.\n\nThe third class of servants--children--appear during minority to have\nbeen, as now in all Eastern countries, entirely at the service or\ncontrol of their parents, and might by them be hired out, Neh. 5:2-6,\nbut, when of age, were of course independent of parental acts and\ncontrol. John 9:21. That the offspring of servants in patriarchal times\nwere free we have already proved; that they were so among the Israelites\nis shown by the case of Abimelech, the son of a maid-servant, Judg.\n9:18, yet free as his brethren, and afterward king of Israel; also of\nSheshan. 1 Chr. 2:34, 35. No service, indeed, could be recognized or\ndemanded, in Jewish law, of grown persons, except as the result of\ncontract or crime.\n\nIn respect to the fourth class, it is plain from the language used that\nonly sufficient service could be required of them to cancel the\nobligation of restitution. Ex. 22:3. \"He should make full restitution;\nif he have nothing, then he shall be _sold_ for his theft;\" in case of\ndebt, Matt. 18:34, \"till he should pay all that was due to him.\"\n\n2. _Servants obtained from the heathen._ These were, first, captives.\nFrom the account of the first taking of captives by the Israelites, Num.\n31:7-47, we learn, verse 7, that they marched into Midian, slew all the\nmales, and seized the women, children, flocks, and herds. On their\nreturn Moses reprimanded them for disobeying God's command by preserving\nthe grown women; and thereupon they killed all but the virgins and\nchildren, reserving them for adoption into the families of the nation.\nIn Deut. 20:14 and 21:10-14, we have these commands and regulations\ngiven, with an express prohibition of the enslavement of these captives,\nin case of repudiation by the captors. \"It shall be, if thou have no\ndelight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou\nshalt not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise of\nher, because thou hast humbled her.\" Now, all slaveholding tribes and\nnations, when they seize captives for slaves, aim to obtain as many\nstrong and vigorous men as possible; must it not, therefore, fairly be\ninferred from this regulation that God, by prohibiting instead of\nsanctioning the most productive mode of slave-making,--the enslavement\nof prisoners of war,--did not intend, but positively prohibited, the\nIsraelites from becoming a slaveholding nation?\n\nSecondly, \"bought with money.\" The law referring to these is Lev. 25:44,\n46. \"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have shall be\nof the heathen round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and\nbondmaids.... And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children\nafter you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen\nfor ever.\" As we have already stated, the Hebrews had but two terms for\n\"servant\"--the generic term _evedh_, one under contract for a term of\nyears, and _saukir_, one hired by the day, week, or year. Now, the term\nhere translated \"bondman\" is the generic #EVEDH#, _evedh_, elsewhere\ntranslated \"servant,\" and therefore should have been thus translated\nhere, unless a different rendering is required by the context. The more\nliteral reading of the Hebrew is, \"And thy men-servants and thy\nmaid-servants which shall be to thee from the nations around you, of\nthem shall ye procure the man-servant and maid-servant.\" What, then, was\nthe difference between the Hebrew and heathen _evedh_?\n\nThis. The Hebrew could only be an _evedh_, a servant by contract, for\nsix years, Ex. 21:2--\"Six years shall he serve, but in the seventh _he\nshall go out free_;\" (longer service could not be contracted for, but\n_must be_ voluntary, Ex. 21:5;) or as a hired servant or sojourner till\nthe jubilee, but _never_ beyond. Lev. 25:10, 39-41. But a heathen could\nbind himself as an _evedh_ for longer than six years; and thus his\nservice, unlike the Hebrew, could be \"bought\" as \"an inheritance for\nyour children after you,\" but, like the Hebrew voluntary \"for ever\"\nservants, they were bondmen for the longest time known by the law--till\ndeath or the jubilee.\n\nIs it objected that the terms \"buy,\" \"possession,\" \"for ever,\" are used,\nand indicate chattelism? We answer, All admit the Hebrew was not a\nchattel; for his service expired at the seventh year, the death of\nhimself or his master. \"_He_ shall serve _him_ for ever;\" but, if both\nlived on, this service, though voluntary, as has been shown, expired\nwith all such claims at the jubilee. Since the same terms, and, as we\nshall show directly, the jubilee, applied equally to both, if it does\nnot prove the one a chattel, it does not the other; therefore both are\nequally voluntary contractors. The service, and not the bodies, were\nbought; and both were equally free at the jubilee.\n\nTwo objects were accomplished by this law. 1st. To permit the Hebrews to\nobtain that assistance in tilling the land, which otherwise they would\nnot have been allowed to do. 2d. To increase the numbers of the\ncommonwealth, since the Hebrews, in obedience to the Abrahamic covenant,\nGen. 17:10-14; Ex. 12:44-49, were bound to circumcise these indented\nservants \"bought with money,\" thus making them part of the household\nduring their period of service, and also naturalized citizens of the\nstate, members of the congregation, partakers of all the rites and\nprivileges common to the mass of the people. Ex. 12:44-9. Num. 15:15-30,\n\"One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for\nthe stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your\ngenerations; _as ye are, so shall the stranger be_ before the Lord.\"\nLev. 19:34, \"The stranger that dwelleth among you shall be as one born\namong you, and _thou shalt love him as thyself_.\" In accordance with the\nfrequently-repeated injunction of this law of equality, they were\ninvariably recognized as citizens, and alike with Hebrew servants, were\namenable to, and received protection from, the laws of the state.\n\nIn further proof of this, and in direct opposition to chattelism, is the\nfact, that the laws regulating the relation of master and servant are\neach and all enacted for the benefit and protection of the servant, and\nnot one for that of the master. Again, when property is spoken of, oxen,\nsheep, &c., the term _owner_ is always used, _master_ never; when\nservants and masters are spoken of, _master_ is always used, _owner_\nnever. Ex. 21:29, \"The ox shall be stoned, and his _owner_ also shall be\nput to death,\" Ex. 21:34, If an ox or ass fall into a pit left\nuncovered, \"the _owner_ of the pit shall make it good, and give money to\nthe _owner_ of them.\" But, Deut. 25:15, \"Thou shall not deliver to his\n_master_ the servant which is escaped from his _master_ unto thee.\"\n\nThe inference from all this is plain. No such thing as property in man\nis recognized in the Mosaic law; but God, finding polygamy and the law\nof serfdom existing among the Israelites, did not see fit to abolish\nthem at once, but so hampered and hedged them about by restrictive\nstatutes as gradually and finally to abolish them altogether.\n\n                    5. _Restrictive Laws._\n\nBut lest oppression should trample upon the rights of the laboring\nclasses, and aim at their enslavement,--which actually happened\nafterward, and was one of the principal items of God's indictment (Jer.\n22:3; 34:8-22) against the Jews prior to their destruction by\nNebuchadnezzar,--three special enactments were made to prevent such\niniquity, and break up any attempt at chattel slavery in the nation.\n\n_First. The law against kidnaping._--Ex. 21:16, \"He that stealeth a man\nand selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put\nto death.\" Thus the one great means of obtaining slaves is forbidden. He\nwho (no matter where) seizes a human being, (no matter whom,) and\nreduces him to involuntary servitude, shall die; for he seeks to take\naway the rights and privileges of freedom, all that goes to make up\nlife; seeks to make property of man, to extinguish the man in the\nchattel.\n\n\"But,\" it is said, \"this only refers to stealing slaves.\" Mark the\nlogic: a man could seize and enslave another with impunity; but if,\nafterward, the father, brother, or friend of the enslaved should attempt\nto rescue him, he must die! Glorious argument for slaveholders and\nslave-catchers! It is also said this refers to Hebrews, not strangers.\nLet God answer. Lev. 24:22, \"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well\nfor the stranger as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your\nGod.\" This is his interpretation of the breadth of the law given in the\npreceding verse, \"He that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.\" The\nlaw, therefore, is unrestricted and universal; Hebrew or heathen, he\nthat killeth a _man_ and he that stealeth a _man_ shall alike die; thus\nputting slavery and murder on the same footing, as equally criminal.\nNow, if God sanctioned slavery, why did he make such an inconsistent law\nas this forbidding it?\n\n_Second. The law concerning fugitives._--Deut. 23:15, 16, \"Thou shalt\nnot deliver to his master the servant which is escaped from his master\nunto thee; he shall dwell with thee, even among you in that place which\nhe shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh him best; thou shalt\nnot oppress him.\"\n\nThere is no equivocation here; \"_thou shalt not deliver_ unto his\nmaster.\" It is imperative; they were to receive him among them as a\ncitizen, and, if need be, protect him from his master; mark, not a\n\"heathen\" or \"Hebrew,\" servant, but the \"servant,\" heathen or Hebrew,\nwhoever should fly from the ill treatment or injustice of a hard master.\nCompare for a moment the Hebrew and American fugitive laws. The Hebrew\nsays, \"Thou _shalt not_ deliver to his master the servant that is\nescaped.\" The American says, \"Thou _shalt_ deliver him up to his master,\nor be fined one thousand dollars, and suffer six months' imprisonment.\"\nThe Hebrew says, \"He shall _dwell_ with thee ... thou shalt _not\noppress_ him.\" The American law says, \"The commissioner who tries the\ncase shall get five dollars if he fails, and ten if he succeeds in\n'delivering to his master' the fugitive, on the simple affidavit of the\nformer that he is his slave.\"\n\nWhat are the deductions from this law of Moses? The return of stray\n_property_ is expressly commanded in Deut. 22:1-3; the return of\n_servants_ is expressly forbidden here; the servant could leave a hard\nmaster at any time, and the state could not compel him to return: it did\nnot recognize the condition of forced, but only voluntary servitude, and\nthus rendered the existence of chattelism impossible.\n\n_The third great protective law was that of the Jubilee._--Lev.\n25:10-55, \"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim LIBERTY\nthroughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a\njubilee unto you, and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and\nye shall return every man to his family.\" ... Here the expression is\nemphatic, no reservations are made, no restrictions allowed. As the\nsound of #YOVAL, YOVAL#, Yov[=a]l, Yov[=a]l, sounded through the land,\nand was echoed back from hill and village, from hamlet and town, the cry\nwas taken up, and borne along by the laboring thousands of Israel, many\nof whom had been toiling under contract for years, by the unfortunate\ndebtor, and those whom poverty had compelled to part with \"the old house\nat home,\" all returned, all were free. \"Liberty, liberty!\"\n\nIt is vain to assume that the benefits of the Jubilee were restricted to\na particular class. To what class? Not the six years' servants; they\nwere freed in the seventh. Not to debtors; there _was no law_ compelling\nthem to serve at all; therefore they could only serve voluntarily to pay\ntheir debts. Not to thieves; they could only be compelled to make\nrestitution of the thing stolen, or its value; that paid, they were\nfree. The only other classes to whom the law could apply were \"all the\ninhabitants of the land\" who served the longest time, the Hebrew \"for\never\" servants, and the heathen servants, thus preventing the\npossibility of the rise and growth of a servile class, the curse of any\ncountry. In this way only can we account for the fact that Jewish\nhistory never mentions the existence of a large servile class, or a\nservile insurrection in Israel, so common and disastrous an occurrence\nin the history of ancient slaveholding communities.\n\nSome object here, that the term \"inhabitants\" implies \"all the Hebrews,\"\nand excludes the strangers, Canaanites, &c.; but by admitting that \"all\nthe Hebrews\" were freed at the Jubilee, they admit that those who, in\nEx. 21:6, are servants \"for ever,\" are also freed, and thus to serve\n\"for ever\" only implies till the Jubilee. If, then, \"for ever\" means\nonly till the Jubilee in one case, it means no more in the other. And if\nwe show that the strangers and Canaanites _were_ considered \"inhabitants\nof the land,\" then the Jubilee referred to Hebrew and stranger alike,\nand both were free. In Ex. 34:12, 15, \"Take heed to thyself, lest thou\nmake a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest;\"\nand Lev. 18:25; Num. 33:52-55, Moses calls the heathen \"the inhabitants\nof the land;\" and as he was likely to understand the meaning of the term\npretty well, he either refers in the Jubilee law to Hebrews, Canaanites,\nand all, or he meant Canaanites and heathen alone, which is still more\ndecisive. Again, in 2 Sam. 11:2-27; 23:39, we find one of these\nstrangers, Uriah the _Hittite_, not only an \"inhabitant\" of Jerusalem,\nbut one of David's best officers, and his wife becoming queen of Israel\nand mother of Solomon; and in 2 Sam. 24:18-25, another, Araunah the\nJebusite is a householder, and more, is praised as acting like a king\ntoward king David, who bought property of him whereon to build an altar;\nand yet, forsooth, they were not inhabitants!\n\nBut, as if to prevent equivocation, Moses defines the phrase \"all the\ninhabitants;\" \"Ye shall return _every man_ to his possession, and ye\nshall return _every man_ to his family.\" Not every Hebrew, but every\n_man_, the same generic term as in the law against killing or stealing\n\"a man;\" it is unqualified and universal. Thus with one blow this noble\nlaw strikes down the two principal sources of social oppression--monopoly\nof land and monopoly of labor. All who had by poverty been compelled\nto part with the old farm and homestead received it back; all claims of\nservice against any person, however mean and humble, were canceled; and\nthe land and its inhabitants were again free as God had made them.\n\nThese accumulated arguments, each separately weighty and forcible, but\ncollectively insurmountable, we think prove conclusively that the form\nof servitude among the Israelites was not chattel slavery, and that\nthere is no sanction or authority for it in the Mosaic laws and\nregulations.\n\nThus in Jewish history we see the Israelites groaning under Egyptian\nbondage, and God's arm outstretched to rescue them when fugitives, and\npunish their pursuers--a warning to all such thereafter; we see laws\nenacted to prevent the existence of chattelism among them, by\nrestricting the master's power, and securing the servant's freedom at\nregular intervals, and the opposite doctrine of equality among men\nasserted; we see the Israelites disobeying these commands, and adopting,\nwith the idolatry of their neighbors, their slavery also, and God's\nfiery wrath denounced on them for it by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,\nand fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar in the destruction and captivity of the\nstate.\n\n\n                        NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n                    _Teachings of Christ._\n\nAges pass, the Jews are restored to their land, but the Roman eagle\novershadows it and all the civilized world. Despotism is enthroned; and\nthe idea that the world and its people are the property of Rome and its\ncitizens is questioned only in murmuring whispers. All the relations of\nRoman life partake of this idea of absolutism; slavery is every where,\nliberty nowhere. Then the glad tidings of Messiah's coming is announced\nto an expectant world. Whom will he side with--the crushed and\ndespairing millions, or the aristocratic and haughty few? Will he adopt\nand develop the idea of equality found in Jewish law, or the principle\nnow ascendant,--\"Might makes right,\"--the Roman slave law? Let him\nanswer.\n\nStanding in the synagogue at Nazareth, the home of his boyhood, amid his\nexpectant friends and relations, he reads (Luke 4:16-21) from Isaiah,\n\"The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to\n_preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the\nbroken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of\nsight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach\nthe acceptable year of the Lord_. And he closed the book and sat down,\n... and began to say to them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in\nyour ears.\" There is his commission and the constitution of his kingdom.\nCan any thing be more explicit?\n\nChrist himself comes with glad tidings for the poor, to destroy slavery\nand oppression, and establish liberty. Rejoice, ye poor, taught hitherto\nthat ye were made only for the service of the rich; there is glad\ntidings for you. Rejoice, captives and slaves, \"bruised\" with the lash\nand fetter; _God_ comes \"to preach deliverance to the captives, liberty\nto them that are bruised, and the acceptable year (the Jubilee) of the\nLord.\"\n\nHow did he fulfill this commission and pledge? No code of laws and\ndogmas, terse and dry, were issued by him for the government of his\nkingdom; but the great principle was proclaimed of a common brotherhood\nas children of God our Father, and of love to him as such. In his sermon\non the mount, the parables of the lost sheep and silver piece, the good\nSamaritan, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican; in his\nprivate teachings to his disciples; and, above all, by his daily example\nhe taught and illustrated, as the leading characteristics of his\nkingdom, love to God, the brotherhood of man, the rights of all, however\npoor, degraded, or despised. More, he makes this idea of brotherhood\nand equality even with himself, the great test in the judgment. Matt.\n25:40, 45: \"And the king shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say\nunto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my\nbrethren, ye have done it unto me.\" What will those who now boast of\ntheir large churches, composed almost entirely of slaves, Christian\nministers, and church members, bought, sold, lashed, and treated like\ncattle, answer the King in that great day?\n\nBut to return: the result of such teachings was soon evident. \"The\ncommon people heard him gladly,\" hung on his steps and words by\nthousands, and hailed him as deliverer; while Scribes and Pharisees,\npriests and rulers, denounced him as \"a friend of publicans and\nsinners,\" only seeking popularity among the masses, to disturb the\npublic peace, and revolutionize the government. Mark, it was not simply\nreligious, but _political_ interference and teaching they charged him\nwith, and on this charge they finally compassed his death.\n\nIn his private teachings to his disciples he strongly inculcated this\ntruth. Striving among themselves for the supremacy, he charges them,\nMatt. 20:26-28, and many other places, \"It shall not be so among you;\nbut whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as\nthe Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister, and to\ngive his life a ransom for many.\" The law thus explicitly laid down, and\nin John 13 enforced by his example, is the very opposite of chattelism.\nIn his church, none were to claim supremacy over others, much less\n_enslave_ them; none to despise labor and the laborer, much less condemn\nothers to it while themselves lived in idleness.\n\nThus Christ, so far from sanctioning chattelism or property in man in\nany shape or form, by precept and example taught the opposite, the\ndignity of labor and the laborer, the common brotherhood of man, and\nconsequent equality, political and religious. Did his apostles indorse\nthis doctrine, or, fearing the result, did they side with the all\nprevalent system of class legislation and slavery?\n\n                    _Teachings of the Apostles._\n\nThe result of their teaching in Judea is given in Acts 4:32-35--\"And the\nmultitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul; neither\nsaid any of them _that aught of the things he possessed was his own_;\nbut they had all things common. Neither was there any among them that\nlacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and\nbrought the prices of the things that were sold and laid them down at\nthe apostles' feet, and distribution was made to every man according as\nhe had need.\" They not only believed in \"liberty, equality, and\nfraternity,\" but practised its extreme--not only equality of rights, but\nequality of property, among the brotherhood.\n\nBut this was comparatively easy in Judea, where the principle of\nequality was already partly recognized, and the existence of chattelism\nprevented by the action of the Mosaic code. The apostles only fairly\ncame in conflict with the spirit of caste and slavery when, filled with\nlove and the Spirit, they entered heathen countries, \"preaching the glad\ntidings of the kingdom,\" and establishing every where the glorious\nbrotherhood of humanity, whose primary law is, \"A new commandment I give\nunto you, That ye love one another as I have loved you. By this shall\nmen know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.\" John\n13:34-5. And Paul expounds it to the Gentiles, 1 Cor. 12:13--\"For by one\nSpirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or\nGentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink\ninto one Spirit.\" Gal. 3:26-28: \"Ye are all the children of God by faith\nin Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ\nhave put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, _there is neither\nbond nor free_, there is neither male nor female; _for ye are all one in\nChrist Jesus_.\" Again, Col. 3:11, \"There is neither Greek nor Jew,\ncircumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free;\nbut Christ is all and in all.\"\n\nCan language be more express and conclusive than this? The distinctions\nhere dissolved by the waters of baptism, and blended into \"one in Christ\nJesus,\" are not, as our southern brethren assert, simply religious, but\nNATIONAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL--slavery, and the spirit of caste and\nclan which upholds it, alike forbidden, and liberty, equality, and\nfraternity, social, political, and religious, proclaimed as the rule of\nChrist's kingdom.\n\nPrinciples like these came upon the world like the morning sunlight,\nscattering the mists of superstitious ignorance, melting the icy pride\nand selfishness of the mighty, permeating all classes and relations of\nsociety with their secret influence, and blending all into one\nharmonious brotherhood of love and peace. Apparently they were subject\nas others to the laws of the state, but in secret were bound by stronger\nties, and governed by higher, nobler laws, than the world outside\ndreamed of.\n\nInstead of the Roman law of marriage, regarding the wife as the\nhusband's slave, he must love her as himself; more, as Christ loved the\nchurch. Instead of the tyranny on one side, and the retaliating\ndisobedience on the other, of the Roman parental relation, it became the\nimage of our heavenly Father's love, and our trusting obedience to him.\nThe relation of slave, \"pro nullo, pro quadrupedo, pro mortuo,\" (as a\nnobody, a quadruped, a dead man,) to his master, became the relation of\nbrethren, the one to render true and faithful service, Eph. 6:5, the\nother never to threaten, Eph. 6:9, much less punish; not to regard them\nas chattels, as under the Roman law, but to give them _just_ and _equal_\ncompensation for their service, Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1, \"knowing that ye\nalso have a Master in heaven,\" \"neither is there respect of persons with\nhim.\" The legal deed of manumission was unnecessary; for as, when master\nand slave land in England, they may remain connected as master and free\nservant, _never_ as master and slave, so, on admission into the\nbrotherhood of the church, the waters of baptism, as shown above,\ndissolved the relation of slavery, and substituted that of freemen and\nbrethren.\n\nAgain, believers were members of Christ's body. He dwelt in them; and\ntherefore every indignity and injury done to them was done to him in\ntheir person. To enslave, buy, and sell them was to enslave, buy, and\nsell Christ himself. \"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of\nthese my brethren, ye have done it unto me.\" Who, then, would dare hold\na brother Christian as a slave? What! make merchandise of the person of\nChrist? Never! the cry of Judas would ring around them as they were\ndriven ignominiously from the church.\n\n\"Why,\" it is objected, \"did not the apostles preach immediate\nemancipation, instead of indorsing slavery by defining its\nduties--'Servants, obey your masters,' &c.? and Paul even sent back a\nslave.\" 1. The primary object of the apostles was not simply \"to preach\nliberty to the captives;\" this was but a branch of the tree planted \"for\nthe healing of the nations.\" Their object was to sow the principles of\nfaith, love, justice, and equality, well knowing that, when these took\nroot and flourished, among the first fruit would be \"liberty to all the\ninhabitants of the land.\" 2. Had this been their great object, they took\nthe best and speediest plan for its accomplishment. Attacking the system\ndirectly, the appearance of the Christian missionary would have been the\nsignal for servile war and untold bloodshed, the slave against the\nmaster, the poor against the rich; and the heathen rulers, eager for a\npretext to crush them, would have denounced them as lighting the torch\nof rebellion and war; and the further spread of the gospel would have\nbeen drowned in the blood of its founders. But they took the very course\nwhich God adopted among the Israelites in regard to servitude, not\ndirectly prohibiting it, but inculcating principles of social equality\nand progress, restricting the master's power, and protecting the\nservant's rights, till, master and slave blended in one, the name of\nslave was lost in that of Christian. 3. The relation and duties of\nmaster and servant are defined by the apostles exactly as they might be\nto-day in England or the free states--as those of men, _never_ as owner\nand property; on the contrary, all ownership of man by other than God is\nexpressly denied. 1 Cor. 6:19, 20, \"What! know ye not that your body is\nthe temple of the Holy Ghost in you, which ye have of God, and _ye are\nnot your own_? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in\nyour body and your spirit, _which are God's_.\" There the ownership is\nclearly asserted; how can man claim it? \"Render to Cesar the things that\nare Cesar's, _and to God the things that are God's_,\" lest you be found\nrobbing God himself. Again, 1 Cor. 7:21, 23, \"Art thou called, being a\nservant? care not for it; but, if thou mayst be made free, (+dynasai\ngenesthai+, canst become free,) use it rather.\" What can be more\nexplicit than this? First, ownership of man is denied even to _himself_,\nmuch more to _another_. Next, the exhortation to slaves is, if they\n_can not_ get free from this great wrong, to bear it as such, but, if\nthey _can_, \"use it rather;\" and the reason given is followed by a rule\nof action to be adopted wherever possible. Verse 23, \"Ye are bought with\na price; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN.\" If this be not express\nprohibition of chattelism, and command to slaves to free themselves from\nit, then the language is totally contradictory and unintelligible.\n\nContrast these laws of Paul with the laws of most of the southern\nstates, forbidding even the master to free his slaves, while states and\nCongress unite in hounding back to whip and task the poor slave who\ndares obey that command; nay, offer large rewards for men, even\nChristian ministers, when attempting to obey it. \"But Paul sent back\nOnesimus to his master, and therefore sanctioned the sending back of\nfugitives.\" We answer, there was no sending back at all. Paul, a\nprisoner, could not send him back: a Jew, he was forbidden by his\nreligion to do so. Deut. 23:15. It was simply a recommendatory letter\nsent with Onesimus, returning voluntarily to Colosse and his master. Let\nus look at the letter. Verse 8 begins, \"Wherefore, though I might be\nmuch bold in Christ to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet, for\nlove's sake, I rather beseech thee. I beseech thee for my son Onesimus,\n... _which in time past was to thee unprofitable_, but now profitable to\nthee and to me; whom I have sent again, ... not now as a servant, but\nabove a servant, a brother beloved,\" &c. Here Onesimus is described as\nhaving been, while heathen, an \"unprofitable\" trouble to his master, and\nhad either run away or been sent away by him. Converted at Rome, Paul\nheard his story, and in his letter, instead of thinking he is doing\nPhilemon a favor, has to earnestly \"beseech,\" almost command, his\nreception as a favor to himself. Not one word of _property_ or _right_\nin him, save the right of love as one of the brotherhood. \"NOT NOW AS A\nSERVANT, but _above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me_, but\nhow much more to thee!\" Onesimus had left the \"slave\" in his heathenism;\nin Christ he became the \"brother\" of Philemon and Paul. Instead of\nsanctioning chattelism, it positively denies it by affirming voluntary\nservice, the equality of men as brethren, to be loved as Christ\nhimself.\n\nThus Christ and his apostles, so far from upholding chattelism in their\nteachings, denounced the ownership of man by any but God, and inculcated\nits opposite--love, liberty, equality, and fraternity--by precept and\nexample. And subsequent history showed the result.\n\nChrist said of the teachings of the Pharisees, \"By their fruits ye shall\nknow them.\" Apply this test to the teachings of the apostles and the\nprimitive churches in regard to slavery. When they went forth, \"darkness\ncovered the earth, and gross darkness the people;\" slavery sat enthroned\nin might over Europe; and the cries of the oppressed millions had only\nhad a hearing on the battle or before the throne of God.\n\nWhen the Reformation came slavery had disappeared in Europe; and the\nvoice of the people was heard asserting their rights, feebly, indeed, at\nfirst, but ever since growing stronger and stronger \"as the voice of\nmany waters.\" What has caused this change?\n\nHistorians, Protestant and Catholic, ascribe it to the influence of the\nchurch, not by direct emancipatory decrees, but, following the example\nof God through Moses, by gradually restricting the master's power, and\nprotecting the slave; by girdling the poison tree till it withered and\nfell, though, sad to say, the ruins still disfigure too much field, of\nthe fair fields of Europe and America.\n\nNo fact is more patent in history than the truth expressed by Paul to\nthe Corinthians: \"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY.\"\nThe whole tendency of the Bible and true Christianity, direct and\nindirect, is to the liberty and advancement, never the slavery and\ndegradation, of man; and those who have attempted to shield the monster\ncurse of our country and age with the garb of the gospel may find too\nlate, when that awful voice shall ring in their ears, \"Inasmuch as ye\nhave done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it\nunto me,\" that Christ came not only \"to preach deliverance to the\ncaptives\" and \"to set at liberty them that are bruised,\" but also \"the\nday of vengeance of our God.\"\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n                        AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY,\n                         28 Cornhill, Boston.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\n                  EXTRACT FROM MR. O'CONOR'S ARGUMENT\n\n          _Before the New York Court of Appeals, on the \"Lemmon\n                             Slave Case.\"_\n\n\n\"I submit most respectfully that the only desire I have manifested here\nor elsewhere, in reference to the question, has been to draw the mind of\nthe court and the intelligent mind of the American people, to the true\nquestion which underlies the whole conflict, and that is the question to\nwhich my friend (W. W. Evarts, Esq.) has addressed the best, and, in my\njudgment, the finest part of his very able argument. * * * My friend\ndenounces the institution of slavery as a monstrous injustice, as a sin,\nas a violation of the law of God and of the law of man, of natural law\nor natural justice; and in his argument in another place, he called your\nattention to the enormity of the result claimed in this case, that these\neight persons--and not only they, but their posterity to the remotest\ntime--were, by your Honors' judgment, to be consigned to this shocking\ncondition of abject bondage and slavery. Why, how very small and minute\nwas that presentation of the subject! My friend must certainly have used\nthe microscope or reversed the telescope, when, in seeking to present\nthis question in a striking manner to your Honors' minds, he called your\nattention to these _few_ persons and their posterity. Why, if your\nHonors please, our territory embraces at the least estimate _three\nmillions of these human beings_, who, by our laws and institutions, as\nnow existing in these states, * * * are not only consigned to hopeless\nbondage throughout their whole lives, but to a like condition is their\nposterity consigned to the remotest times. * * * It is a question of the\nmightiest magnitude. But the reason why I call your Honors' attention to\nits magnitude is this: that you may contemplate it in the connection in\nwhich my learned friend has presented it; that it is a SIN--a violation\nof natural justice and the law of God; that it is a monstrous scheme of\niniquity for defrauding the laborer of his wages--one of those sins that\ncrieth aloud to heaven for vengeance; that it is a course of unbridled\nrapine, fraud, and plunder, by which three millions and their posterity\nare to be oppressed throughout all time. Now, is it a sin? Is this an\noutrage against divine law and natural justice? _If it be_ such an\noutrage, then I say it is a sin of the greatest magnitude, of the most\nenormous and flagitious character that was ever presented to the human\nmind. The man who does not shrink from it with horror is utterly\nunworthy the name of a man. It is no trivial offence, that may be\ntolerated with limitations and qualifications; that we can excuse\nourselves for supporting because we have made some kind of a bargain to\nsupport it. The tongue of no human being is capable of depicting its\nenormity; it is not in the power of the human heart to form a just\nconception of its wickedness and cruelty. And what, I ask, is the\nrational and necessary consequence, if we regard it to be thus sinful,\nthus unjust, thus outrageous?\"\n\n                         *       *       *\n\nDr. Hopkins, of Newport, being much engaged in urging the sinfulness of\nslavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy in Bethlem,\nConnecticut, and while there pressed upon him the duty of liberating his\nonly slave. Dr. B., who was an acute and ingenious reasoner, defended\nslaveholding by a variety of arguments, to which Dr. H. as ably replied.\nAt length Dr. Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience to the\ngolden rule. \"Will you give your slave his freedom if he desires it?\"\nDr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judicious, trusted with\nevery thing, and would not accept freedom if offered. \"Will you free him\nif _he_ desires it?\" repeated Dr. H. \"Yes,\" answered Dr. Bellamy, \"I\nwill.\" \"Call him then.\" The man appeared. \"Have you a good, kind\nmaster?\" asked Dr. Hopkins. \"Oh! yes, very, very good.\" \"And are you\nhappy?\" \"Yes, master, _very_ happy.\" \"Would you be more happy if you\nwere free?\" His face brightened. \"Oh! yes, master, a great deal more\nhappy.\" \"_From this moment_,\" said Dr. Bellamy, \"_you are free_.\"\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's Note, Continued.--The following minor errors have been\ncorrected: the word \"in\" missing before \"spite\" on p. 1 (\"and spite of\nall compromises ...\"), a superfluous quotation mark on p. 5 (\"\"That he\nhad men-servants ...\"), a missing \"d\" in \"praised\" on p. 17 (\"is praise\nas acting\"), \"is\" used for \"in\" on p. 25 (\"now existing is these states\n...\"), and on p. 6, where the first two characters of #NAAR# were\ntransposed. Also note that the author used Ashkenazic pronunciation for\nhis transliteration, and that it would not be considered accurate by\nmodern standards. Alternative transliterations are:\n\n  1. auvadh--avad\n  2. evedh--eved\n  3. saukir--sakhir\n  4. aumau--ama\n  5. shiphechau--shifcha\n  6. kaunau--kana\n  7. naar--na'ar\n  8. Yov[=a]l--Yovel]","title":"Is Slavery Sanctioned by the Bible?","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":10160}