(1856) bible slave holding not sinful by hervery doddridge ganse

8/14/2019 (1856) Bible Slave Holding Not Sinful by Hervery Doddridge Ganse

1/90


2/90


3/90

MWhlSLAYEHOLDING XOT mm.

A K K ]P I. ^^T(

^^SLAVEHOLDINd NOT .SINFUL,BY SAMUEL 15. HOWE. D.I).''

BYH. D. GANSE,

M I N I .s r K R O K T H K i: i: F I K I > 1 ( I : T ( ' 1 1 i 1 1 i: 1! ( IIK P. K K n O I, I> , N . .1 .

NEW YOklv:R. *^- B. BPtiNKERHOFF, 103 FULTON STREET.

1856,


4/90

John F. Tkow,rnntri and Slcreotyper. %11 & 319 Un-fitiw iiv

O-rncr of Whit^ street.


5/90

PREFACE.

The pul)lication of tlie following pages will, in tlieview of maDV, sul)j(?ct the author to the doulde iini)Uta-tiou : of vanity, in attempting to instruct the woi-ld upona i?nl)ject that has been so thorou^-hlv discussed : andof foolish fanaticism, in making the attemj^t when men'sminds are so much excited coucernino' it. But if ei'rorhas given itself prominence by a formal statement, themost familiar truths ma}^ fairly be quoted against it.And if men's minds are in a state even of aniiTV excite-ment, the cure of the evil, if it could be found, wouldnot consist in absolute silence, but in counsels so full ofthe wisdom and forbearance of Christ that they mightat once disarm men's j^assious, and relieve their doubts.Xo man will claim to have reached that rare result.But no candid reader of the follow ino- aruument Avilldeny that the writer has sincerely aimed at it. If he hasuttered one word that is wanting in true sympathy forgood men who are seeking to deal with the evils ofslavery in the spirit of the (lospel, let him be con-demned for it. If he has sought to show, in clear buttemperate language, what that spirit demands, even


6/90

those wlio difter from liis views will appreliend nomiscliief from tlieir expression.While the following discussion would not havebeen attempted, but for the publication of the pam-phlet, " Slaveholding not Sinful," and while its directaim is to answer all the arguments therein advanced ;it has, for the sake of securing as much completeness asthe haste of its preparation, and other constant dutieswould allow, touched upon arguments for which therespected author of that pamphlet is not responsible.In most cases the distinction is noticed.


7/90

BIBLE SLAYElIOLDl^d NOT SINFUL

The avp.;umeiit, which it is proposed to review in llie followinjjjpages, is entitled to the most respectful consideration. Notonly the importance of the topic it discusses, but the age andposition of its author, together with his enviable reputationfor piety and candor and sound learning, may w^ell attract toit the interest of tlie Christian connnunity. The Reformed])utch Church, however, may be ex})ected to regard it witlispecial attention. Of all tlie elements of a discussion,"'' asearnest, and, on man}' accoimts, as important as any thathave marked her history, this alone survives. It ofters itsin.ir, luiscavred front, as ''An Argument before the GeneralSynod of the Eeformed Protestant Dutch Church. October,ISS.y The ])ublicatioM of such an argument, followed onlvby cx[iressions of commendation, might naturally be consideredas proving that our Church, as a body, either consents to itsconclusions, or finds it hard to combat them. A large pro-jtortion of our ministers and laymen are unwilling to be thusinterpreted. The desire to express the views of some of theseand the grounds u]ion whicli they rest, has given rise to thefollowing reply.

The argument ol' Dr. Howe is inconclusive to not a fewminds, and for this chief reason, namely ; the indcfiniteness ofits terms. The teiin " slaveholding," or " slavery,"' which isthe fulcrum vt' the whole discussion, is used, without qualiti-

* It eop.ceineil tlie a]>j'lic:ilioii of llio ">iurlli Carolina Claisis of tlic Oei-ni.'iu RefoniifJ Cluircli" for ecclesiastical connoction with the " UeforniedProtestant l)iit


8/90

cation, to desigiuitc the relation between Abraham and hisservant? ; between the IsraeHtes under the law and theirs :between the heathen Romans and theirs ; between the earlyChristians and theirs : and lastly, between our own country-men and theirs. Now it may be true that there runs throughall these relations one constant element ; but there may befifty others that are changing, and each of these changingelements may be as truly essential to the system it charac-terizes, as that other one that is constant in them all. Nowwill tlie single element, upon which the name hinges, con-stitute so real an identity between the difterent systems, thatyou can argue conclusively from the aggregate of one systemto the aggregate of another ? Because the particular slave-holding of Abraham was not sinfid, does it follow, just forthat reason, that the particular slaveholding of any man thatlias ever lived after him, also was not sinful? Is a mereword to have in it all the force of justice and eternal law, andto guaranty the approbation of God to every thing it touches ?This surely will not be pretended. The position of the argu-ment before us must be, that the mere holding a man ininvoluntary servitude, that is, that slaveholding with no addi-tion of gratuitous cruelty is not sinful. But the propositionis not definite yet. For what is this mere slaveholding ? Ifsome man could succeed in reducing one of our own citizensto bonda2;c, and afterwards should treat him with all thekindness consistent with his involuntary servitude, would sucha relation constitute the mere slaveholding which is not sin-ful .'' The answer will doubtless be, no ; and for this reason :that the slave became a slave by wrong and violence, and thatevery day of his slavery repeats and aggravates the wrong othis capture. The very simple proposition ' Slaveholding notsinful,' becomes then not a little complicated, and must takethis formmerely holding as a slave one who is rightfully aslave, is not sinful ; a proposition which hardly needs to b(^proved out of the Bible or any other book ; but which needsto be followed up with a very careful discussion to make itcountenance any actual slaveholding, whether in America orelsewhere. For the practical question immediately arises,


9/90

When is tlie slave rightfully a slave? Just hero cases ofconscience may easily occur. Some of our forefathers, forexample, who received the (Juineamen fresh from the holdof the slave-ship, might possibly have doubted very painfullywhether those men were rightfully slaves. Some of theirdescendants, ^vho have inherited the institution, though theyhold themselves ready to resolve such a difHculty verypromptly, and would by no means own a man who had oncebeen free, still perplex themselves about his children, andcannot decide at what generation the wrong of th;- ancestor's(a[)ture dies out, and the bondage becomes right. Whileothers of them, with consciences perhaps over tendei-, andwith narrow views, can never forget how the relation began,and confess before God that time can never justify it. Now.if the Bible countenances slavery at all, as w'e hold it does,it must have left us the means by which any intelligent andcandid man can clear up all such doubts as these, and decidethe fundamental question above proposed, namely. When isa slave rightfully a slave ? For when he is, of course youmay hold him.The argument before us gives us no hint of the Bible's in-structions upon this point ; and the omission would be not alittle strange, if it were not the rule with arguments uponthat side. Tliey demonstrate conclusively out of the Biblethat slaveholding is not sinfid, and never tell us out of theBible what that sinless slaveholding is. We call the attentionof those who shall construct such arguments for the future, tothis material omission of their predecessors ; and invite themto make their demonstration of the Bible's ajiproval of slaveryintelligible, by incorporating in it the Bible's definition of aslave. We make the request, but it will not soon be granted.Not because such a definition is hard to give ; for we hold thatwhen the Bible teaches morals, it teaches them clearly ; but itwould explode the argument like a bomb-shell. No system ofmodern slavery could stand before it for a moment. If thecandid writer of the pages before us had begun his task withsuch a definition, he would never have prosecuted it, but wouldhave discarded at once the cause he had assumed.


10/90

8

Such a deliuitioii we propose to offer. We wish to show,with all candor and distinctness, wliat kinds of skves andof slaveholding are recognized in the word of God.

Our information must he derived from one of two sources.If the Bihle contains any organic Ltw cif slavery, this mustdefine the Scriptural idea of slavery at once. If no such lawexists, we must seek light from such particular examples ofslaveholding as the Bihle contains.

Does the Bihle furnish any organic law of slavery ? Itdoes not.

The curse iironounced upon Canaan can constitute no suchlaw. It was what it professed to hea curse, a prophecy of evilfulfilled chiefly in the suhjection of the Canaanites to the nationof Israel. If it was intended for a law, it must he a severeone indeed ; for the terms of it are, " a servant of servants shallhe he unto his hrethren." Every reader of the Old Testa-ment knows the force of this expression. When we read oftiie

"heaven of heavens," we know that the highest heaven is in-dicated ; the phrase " holy of holies,"' describes the holiest of

lioly places ; and so *' servant of servants '' must mean themost wretched and degraded of slaves. A sad fate, indeed,does such a law fasten upon " Sidon, Canaan's first-horn, andHeth, and the Jehusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and theArvadite, and the Zemorite, and the Hamathite ;" for theseAvere the descendants of Canaan, [Gen. 10,] and we know ofno others. Let one who wishes for a slave that he may safelyabuse, trace down the easy genealogy to some unlucky scionof the race, and put the law u})on him. Was a more whim-sical plea ever heard of, than that by which this curseU[)on Canaan is made authority fur African Slavery ? It isbut justice to the ai-gumcnt before us to say that it has impli-cated itself in no such folly.The warrant which God gave to Abraham's slaveholdingcan in no sense be called an organic law of slavery, but, atmost, the authorization of slaveholding in that particular in-stance. It may stand as an exam})le, but not as a formal law.If the argument before us contends, as it seems to. that the


11/90

connection of tlie rite of circumcision with slavery gives toslavery itself all the pcrniauence of that rite, and of baptismwhich has taken its place, we claim the privilege of arguings'milarlv from the circumcision of Ishmael, which is said tohave been by divine direction, [Gen. 17, 23.] and from thebroad command that included " every man-child in their gen-erations," and thus to prove a standing law of concubinageand polviiamv. If the New Testament had the effect to con-demn those practices, wdll Dr. Howe admit that there was astanding law for them till our Saviour came ? The simpletruth is, that the circumcision, in neither case, was intended toconfirm any usages or rights of the head of the household, butonly to embrace in God's covenant all the members of it.The Mosaic law of slaverv was an organic law for theeconomy to which it belonged, but no man now makes thecode of Moses the ride of his slaveholding. Those who ])ay thegreatest deference to it, only claim that they are adopting itsprinciples.But something is attempted to be made of theintroduction of the expressions, " man-servant,'" and "maid-servant," into the Decalogue.

Any argument for slavery, that relies upon these expres-sions, is entitled to no consideration till it has jiroved, what theargument before us does not venture even to assert, namely,that the expressions in question are distinctive, and can indi-cate nothinir but slaves. For if the terms are general, andrefer to slavei'v onlv bv the usasie of tlie times, the usacre ofother times may lefer them just as fliirly to any other class ofservants. Just as that very word ' servant ' is constantlvused among slaveholders in our day, both in legal and familiarlanguage, to designate slaves ; and yet. if a slaveholder shouldhav(j need to use the most general and equivocal name forservants of all sorts, he would be forced to use that same ex-pression. Against so loose an argument as that we are con-sidering, we are not called u})on to prove anything ; but we as-sert, and stand ready to prove, that the original terms ior' man-servant ' and 'maid-servant ' in the Decalogue cannot beshown by their etymology to have the least liint of slavery inthem ; and that, so far as their usnge is concerned, the v.li'ilc


12/90

10Hebrew language could not replace them with any currentnames for servants that should not be equally tamted withthe prevailing notion of slavery, if we except only the specificname for a hired servant ; and how well that exclusive termwould have served the purpose of a law primarily intended forslaveholders, every reasonable man can easily decide. Thetruth is, there was no choice of language to be made. Slaverywas so much the rule, that it reduced to its uses every equiv-ocal expression. We hazard nothing in saying that if theterms 'man-servant ' and ' maid-servant ' with all their breadtliof meaning, were to be translated back into Hebrew, the origi-nal terms of the Decalogue would render them more nearlvthan would any others. To decide the perpetual lawfulness ofslavery by the usage which such words obtained under suclicircumstances, is impossible.

But this mere verbal reasoning, on either side, is cnlirelvtrilling. Every man knows that the Decalogue, though a lawfor the race, was adapted in its phraseology to the particularpeople to whom it was immediately addressed. The intro-duction refers to their deliverance from Egypt. The phrase,'' The Lord thy God," so often repeated, has the same na-tional reference. The fifth commandment points as plainly tothe national inheritance in Canaan, as though that land hadbeen called by name : and the fourth commandment refers tothe peculiar terms upon which Gentiles, or strangers, should besuffered to dwell among them. Nay, there is, in the tenthcommandment, a designation of the very beasts of burden thatwere then in most common use. Now, slavery was a nationalpeculiarity, and being ordained of God as such, it was as inno-cent and lawful as any of the rest, but as truly national anddistinctive. The rule in the interpretation of such a code issimply this,That the local and national terms which it em-bodies are, as times and circumstances may change, to be in-terpreted by their nearest equivalents. It is a law which de-fines its meaning, not by abstractions, but by examples. God'srelation to Israel, so peculiar in some of its aspects, stands forhis covenant relation to all his people, Canaan stands for anyland where his people may dwell. The house, and the ox, and


13/90

1]

the nss, for all forms of propert}', and slave, if that be t\\oword, for any lawful servant. The same reasoning that canprove by the bare

fact that a slave was a lawful servant then,that he mnst be such the world over, can prove just as wellthat all the world has a right to the land of Canaan. If theenumeration of raen-servants and maid-servants among arti-cles of property, is thonght to bear npon the question, let theenumeration of the wife in the same list, interpreted as it mustbe by the existing notions of the husband's property in her,hold a wife to the same relation for all time to come ; and letthose who prove out of the Decalogue that slaves are i)ro})erty,maintain the Mosaic arrangement in their inventory of goods ;namely, first the Imuse, then the wife, then the slaves_, andthen the cattle. lut, in fact, the common sense of thewhole Christian world, not excluding the authors of the ar-gument before us, has settled this question, and confidentlydecided that domestics, of wliatever name, are the men-servantsand the maid-servants intended in the Decalogue.

If any one is yet dissatisfied, and insists that the Decaloguedoes give to slavery a standing license ; surely it gives a manno broader claim to his slave than he can have to his cattle,and since the latter claim stands not by mere possession, but byrightful possession, so must the former. If one were susjiectedof having stolen an ox, or of having received it after it wasstolen, he could hardly arrest the iuvestiiration bv nuolino' th(^words "his ox" out of the Decalogue, to prove that a manmight own an ox ; and if a similar suspicion should arise inregard to a slave, a similar quotation of the words '' his slave,'"'if the law contained them, would not bar proceedings. Suchan expression might prove a man's right to hold a slave, whichwe do not deny, but it could not settle summarily that man'sright to that particular slave. If it could, every master anion---us miglit make his servant a slave to-morrow. And so we amthrown back upon the fundamental question : When is a slaverightfully a slave ? Since the Decalogue gives us no means ofdeciding that question, it can be, in no sense, an organic lawof slavery.

For a reason similar to that just alluded to, the New Testa-


14/90

. 12

luent contains no sucli law ; fi)r if it does, since old systemsof slavery die out. as some have done, the organic law ofslavery must leave us at no loss how to institute new ones. Letany man take in his hand the apostle's code of slavery, and gointo any community where the institution is unknown, toteach 1 hem how to found it. Why should he not .^ Whatstanding lav,' is there in the whole Bible, that ought toconfound and paralyze a good man, Avhen he attemj)ts to])ut it in practice ? Let all preachers of the Gospel rebuketheir sinful timidity, and instruct the world out of the NewTestament, how slavery is to begin. The strongest advocateof an apostolic law of slavery will decline the task. Thetiuth is, that at any abstract or contingent slavery theapostles never hint. There is no shred of a j)robability thatthe wonl would have been so much as named among them,if it had not been forced upon them by that actual andformidalde system Avhich tliey found about them.The Bil)le, tlien, contains no organic law of slavery, andthe only warrant that slavery can claim from it, is that of par-ticular examples. For we grant very cheerfully all that theargument before us can be thought to provenamely, thatslavery of some sort is countenanced in the Bible ;underthe Old Testament by express law establishing and defininga svstem of slaveholdino-, and under the New, bv such gene-ral injunctions to masters and slaves as at least tolerated therelation. Now it is true that these examples of authorizedslaveholding may embody principles of universal applicatittn,and, by means of those principles, may have all the efficacyof an organic law ; but it rests with the friends of slavery soto evolve and define such principles, if indeed they exist,that their nature and ap])lication may be fairly seen. Thecase is just this : If the involuntary subjection of one manto another, for the advantage of the latter, were not namedin the Bible at all, the Gospel would raise at least a pre-sumption against it. If it be named, and even approved incertain particular instances, the j^resumption remains againstall other instances, unless they can be shown to be fairlyparallel to these. It is an argument, not under a general


15/90

13

l:nv. but from .inalogy, and the analogy must he shown t(exist. Our work, then, is very simple. It is to discover, ifwe can, the essence of the Divine regulitions concerningslavery, under the Old Testament and under the New. Wesi 1 all then stand ready to admit that any system of slave-lidlding that shall incorporate so much of the spirit of thoseregulations as is clearly essential, has the warrant of God'sWord, and is a khid of slaveholding that is not sinful. Wecannot be asked to admit more.

Slavery, under the Old Testament, whether Patriarchalor Mosaic, was marked by two conditions. The first was thatessential element of control on the part of the master, and in-voluntary obedience upon the part of the slave, without whichit would not have been slavery at all. But to this, anotherelement w^as added, no less marked, and as truly essential tothe system. Every slave, l)y the fact that he was a slave,was entitled to every religious privilege of the new commu-nity into which he entered. He was circumcised ; he was in-structed ; he was to keep the iHiibbath and the feasts ; andwhatever hope of God's lavor might grow out of these o])-pnrtunities, was as fairly open t


16/90

14111 one aspect, indeed, it was enslavement to men ; in an-other, it was adoption by God. It is easy to see whichwas the more important. Now, it was this complex relationthat alone conld claim the ai^jn-obation of God under the OldTestament. He ordained, not the half, hut the whole ; andit w^as such a whole that lie only could ordain it, and mencan never make a copy of it. The circumstances would needto returnthe wall of exclusiveness, with darkness withoutit, and light within it : for if the wall is broken down, andthe light diifused, or even diffusing, one prime condition ofthe relation is wanting. The command, " Go ye into all theworld, and preach the Gospel to every creature," has put anew face upon things. There is no longer a " Jerusalem, inwhich men ought to W'orship," " but in every nation, he thatfeareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him,"The Gospel is a leaven ; it docs not concentrate its influencebut s})reads it, God's method of making men Israelites, wasto take them to Israel. God's method of makins; men Chris-tians, is to send the Gosjiel to them. And even when theremay exist some just occasion to incorporate heathen meninto a Christian nation, the attempt to incorporate them bymeans of slaverj^ cannot plead the warrant of Mosaic slaveryuntil the new system of bondage lias, like that, the author-ity of an express Divine command. It is safe for God todecide upon what terms he will have his religious blessingsdiffused, but it is not safe for men to decide for him. TheMaster has made the rule for his Church, and left no exce})-ti(n" Freely ye have received, freely give." Shame on theman who would sell the blood-bought blessings of tlie Gospelfor sweat and service, and plead Mosaic law for his excuse !Can it be one of the approved processes of the Gospel ofpeace, that every heterogeneous nation, that just calls itself(hristian, is endowed with such a mastership of all theheathen, that it may choose wdiere it will its hewers of woodand its drawers of water ? There is, then, and there can beno identity or resemblance l)etween the essence of Old Testa-ment slavery and tliat of any other slavery that the worldshall ever see. That slavery was instituted solely for its


17/90

If)

own times, just as clearly as was tlie Levirate law or tliecities of refuge. Tliat slaveliolcling was not sinful. It l)e-gan rightfully, in God's distinct command, and it blessed itssubjects infinitely more tlian tbey could have been blessedwithout it. Sucli slaveholding Avould never be sinful ; l)Utwhen shall the world see it ?We have not considered it essential to our argument tiinsist upon those merciful j^rovisions of the law of Moses,which so largely modified the authority of the master and thelabors of the slave. If they should be embodied into the civilhiw of slavery in our land, the friends of humanity wouldbless God for the change, and look for a speedy end of slaveryitself If this very inconsistency between those merciful pro-visions and the principle of American slavery has led to theirexclusion from that system, what is this but a formal confes-sion of the point we are maintaining, namely : that Mosaicslavery does not admit of imitation ? For there is no resem-blance between the law that compensates witli scrupulouskindness for its own severity, and thus maintains both author-ity and mere}', and another law which, to sustain itself at all,nuist legislate, not for mercy, but against it, and build ui)authority at the cost of its subjects.But it is claimed that slavery is recognized in the KewTestament, If Mosaic slavery can be thought to be includedin that recognition, the Gospels alone can have referred to it ;the Epistles certainly did not. If we should grant then, whatcannot be proved, that the Gospels did recognize and evenapprove Mosaic slavery wliilc it was yet lawful, that approba-tion Would no more perpetuate it than would the Saviour'scommand to the leper, "go show thyself to the priest/' per-petuate the Jewish Priesthood. It is not to Mosaic slavery,therefore, tliat the Nev/ Testament argument for slavery hasreference ; but to Gentile slavery. This had no relation tothat system of the Old Testament which God had ordained.It did not grow out of it. It sustained no analogy to it. Itwas a heathen productthe offspring of war, and indolence^and lust. In the words of our author, such heathen slavery" had its origin at a time when the world was full of idolatry


18/90

16

and wicked iiess, and seemed to be fast hastening to the samestate of violence and crime as existed before the flood." [p. 20.]There was nothing in such an origin to indicate the favor ofGod. Still less, if possible was tlierc in the system itself"By the Eonian law, " says Dr. Howe, '"^ he (Philemon) hadthe i)ower to punish his slave, not only with scourges, but alsowith death. " [p. 26.] Shocking details of the enormities towhich that law admitted could easily bo given ; but let the fol-lowing general statement from the pen of the historian. Dr.Robertson, suffice : " Were I to mention the laws and regula-tions of the most civilized States among the ancients concern-ing these unfortunate sufferers, were I to relate the treatmentwhich they met with from persons most renowned for their vir-tue, maxims so inhuman and treatment so barbarous would ex-cite the strongest pity and indignation." '" Now if any singleelement of this system of wickedness and oppression was rightand lawful, that fact is to be proved, and not assumed. Thefair presumption is against the whole. Under these circum-stances the Saviour and the Apostles met it, and whateverlawfulness it has at all, must come from their sanction. Somuch of it as they ap})roved, either directly or by fair implica-tion, surely was not sinful. "What they failed to approve isno better now than it was at first. The process is as sim])leas a sum in subtraction. Given a system of unauthorized op-l)ression ; given those parts of it which God at length docsauthorize ; tiie remainder is unauthorized oppression still.Now we put it upon the friends of slavery to prove thateither the Saviour or his Apostles ever approved a singlefeature of Roman slavery. We shall be told, that they re-cognized it so as to im])ly their ap}trobation, and that theynever condenmed it. Both assertions we deny.They never recogn'^ied it so as to approve it. Those whoclaim that thev did must define their own language, and tellus what was so recognized and apjiroved. Was it Roman sla-very in the gross .^ To that monstrous conclusion, indeed, theargument before us fairlv tends. For that was the slave-'o

^eniinii (111 ilie \V


19/90

17

liolding- of the Centurion, wliom our Saviour commended, with-out a word of rebuke for it, (p. 6 ;) that was the slavcholdiiigconcerning which the apostles

"gave not the slightest inti-mation that it was sinful, " (p. G ;) that was the system to

which Paul sent back Onesimus, though it gave to his master" the power to punish him with death." Has the patternbeen shown us then ? Is Roman slaveholding the slaveholdingwhich is not sinful ? Then let it go down to the end oftime. But the vicious argument runs away with its authors.They surely did not set out to reach that point.

Is there, then, a certain essence of slavery that is to bedistinguished from all the sinful accessories of Roman slavery ;and did the Saviour and the apostles recognize and approvethat essence ? If that be so, then that essence must havebeen either defined or undefined. If it was undefined, who iscompetent to pronounce what the innocent essence of Romanslaveholding was ? How were the early Christians to knowwhen they were passing beyond it into the abuses of slavery ?And if they could guess safely at so loose a rule, how can webe sure that our guess will be as happy ? It is absurd tospeak of the divine approval of a notion that is left free totake a thousand different forms in as many minds. But per-haps that essence of mere slavery was defined. Then where ?Not by the bare terms, " master," and " slave." It is commonindeed, to select the latter of these, and then to turn it intoan abstraction ; and then to define that abstraction with niceanalysis, and so to get rid of all the enormities of any partic-ular form of slaveholding. But will the authors of thatprocess remember, that there were two terms used by theapostles, and that they have chosen only the weakest of theaifor their manipulations? For if zJoOX,o?, by its derivation andintrinsic force, meant only bondman, Kupi,o


20/90

18when these two terms came together, as correhxtes ; as they didia the laws and other writings of those days, and as they didin the Epistles ; the weaker one did not define the stronger,but the stronger the weaker. The relation did not take itsshape from the slave's mere obligation to serve, but from themaster's absolute authority ; and so by usage Kvpio


21/90

19

claimed to have approved them ? We challenge the friendsof this argument to produce any single moral question, of onetithe of the importance of this of slavery, that has ever beensettled, or approached a settlement, upon any such ground.And under sucli circumstances to say tliat the Saviour, or theapostles, approved slavery by recognizing it, is to talk at random.But if we have not the means of knowing in what thatdecisive recognition may consist, we have evidence enough toprove in what it niay not.The mere mention of a questionable act or custom, with-out condemning it, does not approve it. For the sacred nar-rators often mention the grossest sins without express condem-nation, on the ground that they are sufficiently condemnedby general laws. Thus, to be told that the slave of the HighPriest had his ear cut off; or that a certain soothsayingdamsel had masters ; or that a hundred other slaves did orsuffered a hundred other things, will not be claimed l)y anyone to touch very nearly the matter of the right or wrong ofslaveiy.

If such mere mention be transferred from a narrative to aparable, it does not then imjdy approbation of the act or cus-tom thus noticed. For a parable is a narrative of events real orimaginary, designed to illustrate some moral lesson. The ex-cellence of the parable lies in the combination of its truth tolife or nature, with the clear illustration of the lesson proposed.To gain the first result, incidents are often incorporated, thatbear only indirectly upon the second, and the rule for eli-citing moral or doctrinal truths out of a parable, is simplythis ;that the point is never to be forgotten ; and so muchof the narrative as bears directly upon it, may safely be insist-ed upon ; and the rest is very precarious footing. Thus, theparable of the unjust steward, elaborately describes his injus-tice, and never condemns it ; and even commends the stewardhimself But the commendation is of his wisdom ; and hiswickedness must fare as well as it can. So, in other par-ables, our Saviour might speak of slaves and never touchthe lawfulness of slavery, until some distinctive feature ofslavery should be made to illustrate the very principle which


22/90

20the parable was designed to enforce. No such parable canbe found ; not even if we include that one of the unmer-ciful servant, quoted with the rest on page 15 of our author ;which, in truth, has nothing to do with slavery. It concernsthe office of a " man that was a Kino-."Matt. 18. But whilethis limitation of the force of any argument for slavery that isbased upon the parables, is strictly just, it is of little impor-tance, for the reason already alluded to : namely, that whenthose parables were uttered, Mosaic slavery had the full war-rant of God's law. Surely allusions to a custom that mayhave been purely Jewish, and so far right, could have nopossible bearing upon the justice of slaveholding in our day.

Again, a questionable act or custom, is not so recognizedas to be approved, by being made the occasion of a formalcommand or regulation. For existing facts must be met ; andthe prudence that prepares the way of meeting them, in noway pronounces upon the facts themselves. In other words,no lawgiver is to be held responsible for the facts which pre-cede his legislation, and demand it ; but only for such factsas his legislation is adapted to produce. This is most obvi-ously true of such laws as concern the mere endurance of wrong.Such are all those familiar passages of the Gospel which en-join patience under injuries ; the injuries are not legalizedbecause it is a Christian's duty to bear them. And upon thevery same footing with these, stand those strongest injunctionsto slaves, which are quoted so confidently in this discussion ;namely, those that recognize the greatest hardships of slavery.Thus when in 1 Tim. 6 : 1, the " yoke" of slavery is mentioned,for the sake of exhorting the slaves to bear it patiently, thatpassage surely enjoins patience, and obedience ; but it nomore approves that " harshest bondage" which we are toldthat expression describes, than did our Saviour approve thesmiting upon one cheek, because he directed us to turn theother. One cannot but wonder and regret, that in a day likethis, when slavery is so unscrupulous in its pretensions, suchan expression should be quoted, with intensifying comment,as a divine warrant for slaveholding.Again, the passage1 Pet. 2 : 18, while it bids the slaves take it patiently, when


23/90

21

they do well and suffer for it, goes on to compare such patientsuffering to the very suffering of Christ. How monstrous toseparate such a passage from its connection, and to strain itinto a proof of the apostle's approbation of slavery.Just sodoes St. Paul in 1 Cor. 7:21, bid Christian slaves be content-ed with their lot, since they may be acceptable to Christ whetherslaves or freemen. What other counsel could he give a slave,to whom slavery was not a matter of choice, but of necessity ?So far as it might be subject to his choice, tlie apostle coun-selled him not to continue in it. " If thou mayest be free, useit rather." Expressions like these that we have been consider-ing, if they had filled the New Testament, would have recog-nized slavery indeed, but would no more have approved those fea-tures of it to which they referred, than would a book of directionsfor men who had ftillen among thieves, be an apology for robbery.

But it is evident, now, that a positive wrong may, undercertain circumstances, furnish occasion for a course of action,as well as of mere suffering. In that case, the law thatshould define the necessary action, would in no degi-ee coun-tenance the wrong itself Thus the Gospel law of repentancepresupposes sin, but surely does not excuse it ; and the law ofrestitution presupposes fraud, but does not excuse it. For the de-sign of the action enjoined in each case is not to perpetuatethe wrong, but to cure it. Now it is plain that there are somewrongs, the cure of which may be botli prompt and complete.For example, if one has stolen his neighbor's goods, he uniy re-store them, and if it be necessary, fourfold. There are otherwrongs which it needs time to rectify, if they can be rectified atall. For example, if one has struck a blow in passion or malice,it may need the provision of the kindest medical attendance,and the lapse of months to restore the sufferer. And thereis still a third class of wrongs, the cure of which demands notonly time, but the maintenance of some of the forms of thewrong itself Thus, if one has stolen a child, and carried himaway, and then desires to return him ; the child, incredulousor impatient, may struggle upon his way to his father's house,just as he did in leaving it ; so that a mere observer wouldneed to observe very closely, to decide that the man was not


24/90

22

kidnapping the child, even while he was restoring him. Justso, some unscrupulous man may have secured the person of arival, with the design of holding him in prepetual imprison-ment ; a case which no reader of history will find it hard toimagine. After the lapse of months, or of years, the jailermay repent of the wrong ; but by that time the prisoner maybe so enervated in mind and body, that sudden liberty wouldbe his sure destruction. Under such circumstances, it becomesthe duty of the repenting man to take his captive from hisdungeon, to encourage him with the prospect of his speedyliberation, to divert and nourish him and prepare him for it.The former prisoner may submit to the process w^ith cheerful-ness, or, eager for liberty, he may seek it prematurely, and atthe risk of his life. It then becomes the duty of the other torestrain him, till the restoration of his health, or the care ofhis friends, would secure him against the danger. Take anillustration somewhat diflerent. A sea captain being aboutto sail from some island of the Pacific, may, by fraud or vio-lence, detain a youth of the island upon his vessel. Arrivedat the next port, the youth may choose to escape. Has theother, if aware of his pur})ose, a right to yield to it ? Wouldliberty at Canton, be to the ignorant and helpless savage, arestoration of the liberty he had at New Zealand ?Now if a Christian teacher were called upon to express anabstract opinion upon any such act of kidnapping or lawlessimprisonment, he must condemn it utterly. If, on the otherhand, he should come in contact with one of those wrongswhen it should be complete and at its very height, andthen should undertake to counsel both the author and thesubject of the violence, concerning their duty under the cir-cumstances, should he begin to clamor for nothing but lib-erty ? Nay, if the possessor of the stolen child should beabout to give him liberty upon the highway, a hundred milesfrom his father's house, should not his instructor expressly con-demn the mischievous purpose ? And if, in so doing, he couldbe so thoughtless as to drop no word condemnatory of the ori-ginal wrong, could he be fairly quoted as having approved it .^In each of the instances supposed, the restraint, though the


25/90

23same in form, undergoes, at a particular ])oint, a change of itswhole essence. Up to the moment when the author of the wrongseeks to repair it, the restraint is prompted by the grossestselfishness and injustice. From that moment forward, it may-be prompted by the truest Christian benevolence. The firsthalf is absolutely wrong ; the second half, the circumstancesbeing presupposed, may bo absolutely right : not, be it ob-served, by any claim which the perpetrator of the wrong hasacquired by his lawless act, but by the simplest rules ofChristian duty to the sufferer himself In a word, there may besuch sins against personal liberty, as rob a man not only ofliberty, but of the conditions that fit him for it ; and thereparation for such sins must be double ;first, of a fitness forliberty, and secondly, of liberty itselfNow if the enslavement of one class of men to another isa sin at all, it is a sin of this very kind. It has taken arace of men out of circumstances of freedom, which theywere competent to meet ; and it has either destroyed thatcompetency by actual degradation, or it has placed them inthe midst of new circumstances, in which their competencycannot serve them. It diflfers from the instances enumeratedchiefly in thisthat its wrongs demand a longer process tocure them. A short-lived slavery of a single man might berelieved by reinstating him in his former position ; but thelong-continued degradation of a race, with all the artificialsocial usages to which it has given rise, admits of no suchsummary process. Time has wrought the evil ; and timemust cure it. Look, for example, at the slavery with whichthe apostles had to deal. It is a calculation more moderatethan the learned have made, that there was at that day,throughout the Eoman Empire, one slave for every freeman.It was common for single masters to be the owners of hun-dreds. We know that, in some instances, they were theow^ners of thousands. Among these multitudes, of course,every age and condition was represented. Some, indeed,were trained to such employments as quite prepared themfor a state of freedom. Others discharged only such menialduties as left them without the skiU, or character, or fore-


26/90

24

tliought, tliat would fit them to pro\dde for themselves ;for slaves, according to Dr. Howe, (who hardly complhnentsslavery by the statement,)

" are ignorant, unprincipled, im-moral men." Added to these, there were the young, andthe old, and the disabled. By what possibility, consistentwith the plainest laws of Christian morality, could masterssuddenly sunder such relations .^ To disband the slaveswould have been the grossest cruelty, at least to some ofthem. To sell them would only have been to shift the evil,and doubtless to increase it. To have manumitted thoseslaves wlio were competent to care for themselves, while itwould by no means have put an end to slavery, would havethrown, perhaps, scores or hundreds of needy, helpless menu})on the sole energies of the master, and thus have left themas really unprovided for beneath his roof, as they could havebeen amono; strangers. It would have been an act of thesame grade of wisdom and morality with that of a cai)tainof a leaking vessel, who should dismiss his hearty crew inthe long-boat, and leave the passengers to perish, when thepresence and industry of all could have saved the ship.Wealth upon the master's part, indeed, could have met suchan emergency ; but such wealth is not the rule in any com-munity ; and therefore the only security which the slaves, asa body, could have against outright wretchedness, was thepermanence of the household, for a long time to come, in thesame essential form in which the Gospel found it. But toretain this form at all, there needed to be either the cheer-ful consent of the slaves themselves, or the power of con-straint upon the part of the master. In either case, therewould need to be service rendered ; and that for the advan-tage of the slaves themselves. To support them in indolence,would be most mischievous to them, even if it were not im-possible. We have a fair illustration of all the circumstancesat our own door. What most earnest opposer of the systemof American slavery, if he have any trace of wisdom andgoodness in him, could go to-day to the Christian masters ofthe >Suutli, and advise them to disband their slaves ? Whatuntold misery would follow the wicked procedure ? Would


27/90

25lie Tenture to counsel the immediate emancipation of all wlioare well, and skilful, and prudent ? Surely most masterscould make no such distinction Avitli safety to the helpless slavesthey should retain. And thus, even pity for the oppressedcould venture upon no general rule for breaking their bonds.

Under such circumstances, to demand that every opposerof the system of slavery should evince his opposition by ablind demand for emancipation, is an absurdity too gross tobe measured. The slaveholdiug which the apostles foundmight be a sin. But there might be another slaveholdiug,under the common dictates of the Gospel of Christ, thatshould be the very cure and atonement for the first. Andfor that merciful slaveholdiug rules might be given. Tlievery greatness of the former w^rong demanded that theyshould be given. And when they are pronounced in the truespirit of Christ, are we to be told, in triumph, that theyhave endorsed the system ? Does this put the seal of theirapprobation upon the scenes of war and rapine, that alonegave that slavery a beginning ? Does this sanction the ex-isting notion that a slave is a chattel, and not a person ?Does this bid all future ages perpetuate the notion, andsecure the subjects of it, by the same heathenish means ?In the discussion of this matter there is a disregard of theplainest distinctions, so common and so gross, that one canonly wonder at it. The countenance of the apostles extendedto the restraints of slavery, but not to the motives of it.It sustained its form, but there is not a hint of sustainingits principles. In a word, the apostles did, concerningslavery, by express injunction, just what the simple spirit ofour religion would have done if they had not named it.And thus, we assert, as a matter of fact, that there is nota word of aU the apostles' directions concerning slavery, thatcannot be heartily repeated to-day to the Christian mastersand slaves of the South, and that, by men who claim thatthe Gospel of Christ has taught them to hate the principlesof slavery with a perfect hatred.

Here follows a list of them all, not excepting that rebukeof seditious advisers, which the argument before us counts the


28/90

26end of controversy. Let the Ccandid reader take his New Testa-ment and read each passage carefully, and in its connection1 Cor. 7 : 20-23. Eph. 6 : 5-9. Col. 3 : 21-25. Ch. 4 : l'.1 Tim. 6 : 1-3. The reader will observe that the expression"wholesome words, " &c. in the last quoted passage, has refer-ence to all the preceding instructions of the apostle, and notonly to those in the immediate context, which refer to slavery.Tit. 2 : 9, 10. 1 Pet. 2 : 18-23.

In perfect consistency with the principles that have beenillustrated, and with the formal directions just quoted, standsthe agency of the apostle Paul in regard to the return ofOnesimiis. The foots were these. Onesimus, a slave, havinsabsconded from his Christian master at Colosse, came toRome, and there, under the influence of St. Paul, became aChristian. The apostle, having entertained, for a moment,the thought of attaching him to his own person, decided ratherto direct him to return to his master. The slave cheeifullyconsented ; and was dismissed with the letter well known asthe Epistle to Philemon. In that letter is incorporated thefollowing language, in explanation of the apostle's unwillingnessto retain the slave. " Without thy mind would I do nothing ;that thy benefit should not be as it M'cre of necessity, butwillingly, " In that single passage, there is more of the sem-blance of approving the jirinciples of slavery, than in all theNew Testament besides ; for St. Paul calls the service whichthe absconded slave might render, the master's "benefit," orkindness, and holds himself not justified in receiving it with-out the master's consent. Is there not here a recognition ofjust ownership ? Ownership of what ? Of the slave's per-son ? The apostle does not hint at such a thing ; and ifRoman law is to fasten upon his words a meaning whichthey do not at all express, how shall we stop half way,and not make the apostle sanction the master's power overthe life of his slave, as well as over his person ? The truthis, that just as much propriety as there may ever be in a mas-ter's holding a slave, just so much propriety is there in ac-knowledging his claim to the slave's service. Such a claimto service does St. Paul acknowledge, and nothing more. Will


29/90

27

any one explain how the denial of that claim could consistwith any thing hut immediate and universal emancipation ?If the apostle wished for that, it was a wild act to send One-simus hack with such a letter. And if he did not, it wouldhave heen as wild an act to retain him.How far the apos-tle's regard of such a claim to service would have gone in in-clining him to return the person of a Christian slave, or ofany other, into the power of a cruel Pagan master, this casedoes not give us the means of deciding. For one who recog-nizes even a father's authority over his son, would not he theinstrument of returning every runaway son to his particularfother. No candid man can read the Epistle to Philemon,and not he sure that the character of Philemon had more todo with the restoration of his slave, than his mere claim tohis slave's obedience.It is wonderful to see with what paradeof trumpets and heralds this simple incident is marshalled outto do battle for slavery against all comers, while there is not afeature of it that the most consistent foe of slavery wouldnot have been glad to adopt under the circumstances.Our object thus far has been to consider the evidence ofthe New Testament, not against slavery, but for it. And wehave considered every particular passage which the friends of thesystem advance, as containing positive proof in its behalfThe evidence is all in, and it establishes this : That in a daywhen the half of men were slaves, the apostles spoke of sla-very :That when the immediate abolition of slavery was pro-hibited by the plainest principles of the Gospel, and of commonhumanity, the apostles did not abolish it ; but still, that alltheir rules and acts concerning it, were such as the most heartyopposers of the system could have adopted without reserve.And therefore we insist, that the apostles gave no more ap-probation to slavery, than does any other legislator give to anestablished wrong which he legislates to cure. The whole so-cial system, as the apostles found it, was like a fool-hardyman that had sinned against some radical law of health, andwas suffering for it. They were the wise physicians whoadapted their regimen to the disease which it had, and not tothe health w^hich it had not ; the disease itself was no crimeof theirs.


30/90

28If any shall couut this that we have given, a mere theory

of the apostles' relations to slavery ; then it is theory againsttheory. And we are not called upon to estahlish ours, butthe friends of slaveiy must establish theirs. For how standsthe case ? The argument which we are reviewing has under-taken to prove that slaveholding is not sinful ; and has sum-moned the apostles as witnesses. Now if by the term "slave-holding" is intended the maintenance of such of the mereforms of slavery as common Gospel law forbade to be abol-ishedan interpretation of the term wliich the argument neverhints atthen the position is established ; and we only regretthat the terms of it were not made more definite. But if thatword " slaveholding " was intended to include any ideas of amaster's ownership in his slave, as it confessedly was, then wewait for the testimony. Let them elicit it. We take ourstand upon that sound maxim of all philosophy, that a suffi-cient ex])lanation of any fact is a final explanation. If therewas an actual reason upon the very surface of the existingslavery, that satisfactorily accounts for every word and act ofthe apostles concerning it, let those who contend for a con-jectural reason in the heart of the system, make good theirpoint. We ex})lain the apostles' conduct by the undeniable ne-cessities of the casCj common sense and the Gospel being judges.Let those who will have another explanation, find the facts tofit it. The existing facts are exhausted ; they cannot serve them.But we do not attempt to intrench ourselves behind anysuch dialectical right. If we have advanced a theory, westand ready to prove it true. AVe have been insisting upon adistinction between the form and the principle of slavery ;and we have also insisted that the apostles tolerated the one,under circumstances that enjoined it by the common princi-ples of the Gospel, and that would have made it a flagrantcrime to abrogate it. We now undertake to prove that theydistinctly condemned the other. If that point is made good,the relations of the New Testament to slavery, become as clearas noonday.The principle of slavery, according to modern definitionsmay be this or that, as suits the views of the definer.


31/90

29"We shall reach these views in their turn. Bat to judgeof the apostles' actions, we must look at things from tlieirposition. The principle of slavery, in their day, was asclearly defined as any idea could possibly be. And it wasthis ; that the master was the absolute proprietor of theslav^e. This proprietorship embodied different prerogatives.The greatest was the right to take the slave's life. Underthis there was the right to punish or torture him at the master'sdiscretion ; the right to rob the slave of her virtue ; the r-ghtto exact a slave's involuntary and unremunerated labor ; theright to transfer him by sale. These were items more or lessprominent in the monstrous idea. The sum was what has beenalready named, absolute proprietorship. That piinciple ofslavery, be it observed, we extract not only from existing lawsand customs, but from the terms which the apostles them-selves use. If these terms were intended by them to coverany irinciple of slavery at alla thing which we utterly de-nythere was no considei-ation of etymology or usage thatcould restrict them within their constant and recognizedscope. The master was an uLsihitc Lud, and the slave washis property. Now it was pustsiblo for the apostles to doeither of three things : to warrant that proprietorship to itsfull extent ; or to warrant some of its prerogatives ; or to con-demn it utterly. No one will claim that they took the firstcourse. But it is insisted that they took the second ; and weinsist that they took the last, and left master and slave stand-ing, not on any footing of abstract right and obligation, btitof simple Gospel duty under the circumstances.

In proof of tliis we do not present any sweeping lawagainst slaveholding, or any rebuke of the believing centu-rion in the Grospel for holding slaves. And if any are deter-mined still to wonder why this sort of evidence is wanting,let them find a cause which such evidence would serve. Forour part, we hold that a general condemnation of slaveholderswould have been just one remove from a general condemna-tion of parents. The proof that we seek is not against slave-holding, but against the principle of slavery.Are we to look, then, for a formal definition of that principle.


32/90

30with a law against it ? Such a definition, indeed, would have in-cluded no innocent masters ; the blow would have fallen justwhere it was deserved. Why was not such a definition given ?We have no answer to give but this ; that, in fact, the apostlesmet that very principle of absolute proprietorship in every ex-isting social relation, and gave it such a formal rebuke in no in-stance.

It entered into the existing civil government. They expresslyrecognized the government, and did not condemn the despotism.Yet rulers were not too high a mark for the Gospel to reach.

It entered into the marriage relation. By the Roman lawthe husband had power " to chastise " the wife according tohis "judgment or caprice ; he exercised the jurisdiction of lifeand death, and it was allowed that in cases of adultery ordrunkenness, the sentence might properly be inflicted." Thewoman was " so clearly defined, not as a person, but as a thing,that she might be claimed like other movables, by the posses-sion of an entire year." (Gibbon's Decline and Fall, Ch. 44.)

By the same law, even " the adult son of a Roman citizenwas, in his father's house, a mere thing, confounded by the lawwdth the movables, the cattle, and the slaves, whom thecapricious master might alienate or destroy without being re-sponsible to any earthly tribunal." The father's "oxen orchildren, if stolen, might be recovered by the same action oftheft ; and if either had been guilty of a trespass, it was in his(the father's) own option to compensate the damage, or resignto the injured party the obnoxious animal. At the call ofindigence or avarice, the master of a family could dispose ofhis children or slaves ; but the condition of the slave was farmore advantageous, since he regained, by the first manu-mission, his alienated freedom ; but the son was again re-stored to his unnatural father. He might be condemned toservitude a second and a third time, and it was not till afterthe third sale and deliverance, that he was enfranchised fromthe domestic power that had been so repeatedly abused.The majesty of a parent was armed with the power of life anddeath." (Dechne and Fall, Ch. 44.) If any one is startledby these details, and considers them almost incredible, let him


33/90

31

remember that he is less startled by the details of ancientslavery, not because they are less monstrous in themselves, butonly because the discussion of the subject, and some of the ex-cesses of existing slavery, have made them more familiar. To theapostles they could not fail to be well known. The Roman lawwas then the law ofthe civilized world. Every church, to which anepistle was addressed, was under it. St. Paul himself, thoughborn in Asia Minor, was a Roman citizen.If the actualabuses, which grew out of such laws, were less numerous thanthose of slavery, let us consider that natural affection

in somedegree restrained them. They were not less real, nor lessflagrtmt. Now, such absolute authority over wife or childwas as vicious as absolute authority over a servant. But inneither case do we find it formally condemned.Men may explain this fact as they choose. Our own ex-planation is simply this : That any formal exposition of thesocial abuses then existing, would have attacked those abuses,not so much through the consciences of the oppressors, asthrough the passions of the oppressed. For the apostles tohave furnished fuel for a general conflagration, would havebeen an act sanctioned by no principle of the Gospel, and wouldhave barred efiectually and justly the progress of the religionthat admitted it. The Gospel had other means of attackingthe existing evils, no less direct and honest, but safer, surer,and more speedy. These means the apostles used. If any manchooses to call tliis policy, he is welcome to his word. Suchpolicy is the noblest exercise of an enlightened mind and con-science. It is right applied to circumstances.But we are concerned, not with the explanation, but withthe fact itself. We have not made it ; but we find it. Thatfact comi)els all men who revere the Gospel to acknowledgethat, in the apostles' regard, there must have been some suf-ficient way of condemning those notions of absolute powerthat then perverted every social relation, without resorting toa formal specification and rebuke.The end might be gained by means of the general laws ofthe Gospel. In some of the particulars enumerated, it musthave been gained through them, or not at all. Fathers are no-where formally forbidden to seU their sons into slavery, nor bus-


34/90

32bands to chastise their refractory wives. Yet such customsare held to be clearly condemned by the Gospel, even whileit enjoins obedience upon both wives and sons, and recognizesthe authority of husbands and fathers. Nay, the friends ofslavery, who acknowledge the enormity of some of its fea-tures in the apostles' day, cannot find a formal mentionand rebuke of those very enormities. A master is nowheretold, in so many words, that he has no right to kill his slaves,or to deny to them the marriage relation, or to make a cruelseparation of parents and children. But this lack is thoughtto be easily supplied. For we are reminded that " the Biblecondemns all injustice, cruelty, oppression, and violence."(Princeton Keview, Art. Slavery, 1836.) But now that thegates are lifted, and the tide of the Gospel is let in upon theprerogatives of the master, how shall the stream be shut offagain ? The relations which God has established by uni-versal law may welcome even a flood, which, however it maysweep away the wicked products of man's device, can nevertouch the everlasting hills. But how shall the principles ofslavery survive the shock ? The learned and candid writerof the article just now referred to, considers that he hasanswered the question. He maintains that there is an essenceof slavery which the general laws of the Gospel cannot touch,and he thus defines it : " The deprivation of personal liberty,obligation of service at the discretion of another, and thetransferable character of the authority and claim of serviceof the master." He quotes, besides, with apparent appro-bation, the definition of Paley : "I define slavery to be anoblio-ation to la1)or for the benefit of the master, without thecontract or consent of the servant."

But now, one of two things is true. Slavery, as above de-fined, either has the full consent and approbation of thegeneral laws of the Gospel, or it has not. If it has, itsfriends are treating it most unfairly in going about to provethat it only "is not sinful." Who ever heard of an argu-ment among reasonable men to prove that marriage or civilgovernment is not sinful ? The very form of the i)iea, andof the particular arguments that are urged to support it,


35/90

33

confesses, what all disinterested Christendom maintains, thatthe spirit of the Gospel is averse to a relation, which obligesa servant to labor involuntarily " at the discretion of themaster," or "' for the master's benefit." Then we demand,upon what ground is the master's prerogative to exact suchservice, sheltered from the condemnation of the Gospel ? Itwill not be enough to answer, in the language of the re-viewer already quoted, that the apostles did not commandthe masters to set their slaves free. AVe are discussing, notthe fact of bondage, but the principle of itits strict rela-tions to the master's rights ; and, we ask, how is one to dis-criminate so nicely between the right of a man to punishanother at liis own caprice, and the right to extort servicefrom another fur his own advantage ? What so great differ-ence does it make, whether the pain to be inflicted '' at themaster's discretion" is in the skin that has been woundedwith the lash, or in the muscles that have been worn withtoil, or in the mind that revolts from the irksome and hope-less task? For labor, as distinguished from cheerful in-dustry, is one most prominent element of the curse upon sin.It is pain, as much as any pain. What right has a man,arbitrarily, to assign to a fellow-man that dispensation ofGod's justice more than any other ? We are told that otherforms of pain, besides that of involuntary labor, are notessential to " slavery," and therefore are condemned in gene-ral laws. But what is this modern abstraction of ''' slavery"that i)resumes to dictate to the Gospel ? What is this, withits notions of " the master's benefit " and " the transfer ofclaims," that it should stand up against the simplest law ofChrist ? The apostles never heard of such a tiling ; theynever uttered a sentence, or a word, out of which the arbi-trary notion could define itself " Master

" and " slave," intheir day, so far as they defined any principle at all, werethe symbols of absolute power and absolute submission.But the apostles used the words in no such sense. Theytook them as the familiar designation of an actual relation,for which they made rules, so far from any recognition of theconventional authority, that thousands of shrewd but un-

3


36/90

34learned men have studied them, and lived by them, andnever thought of slavery. Show us the barrier which theapostles have erected around the master's prerogative. Showus that sacred corner of the domain of despotism, whichthey have forbidden the Gospel to invade. And the evi-dence must be, not in the toleration of forms which couldnot suddenly be changed, nor in the recognition of suchauthority as the very forms imj)lied ; but in rights that wereindependent of existing circumstances, and might stand forever. Till that evidence is produced, let the Gospel do itsperfect work. Never fear it. There is no mischief in it.The laws of Christ will never mistake a show of justice, orof love, for the essence. Give them all their scope. God'sblessino; on what thev bless ; there is no blessing on whatthey forbid. The terms of their decision shall vary with thecircumstances, but the principles are fixed and can neverchange. There were times, indeed, when God suspended hisgeneral laws of human love and justice, and made men thedirect ministers of his vengeance ; and then a special reve-lation defined the temporary exception. But he held backhis Gosj^el till the fulness of time, that it might be a per-fect law for every age and every i)lacc. The cause that isarraigned before that law, has reached the highest court ;there is no appeal from its decision, unless God shall speakfrom heaven. AVhen that law was announced, every prin-ciple of absolute power received its death-blow ; and onerule took the place of all conventional right. It did notimmake facts, but principles. If a slave was dependent andvicious, no announcement of a law of love could suddenlychange him ; and while it did not, that very law enjoinedthe kind of care and control which his case demanded. Buta master's right to compel involuntary labor, and for hisown benefit, is a principle ; and it is the very province of theGospel to condemn it. If principles like that had been in-tended to endure, there would have been no Gospel. All thereasoning in the world cannot avoid this issue. All the con-ventional names of tyranny that ever were uttered mighthave concentrated themselves in one, and the apostles might


37/90

35liave had need to use it ; but their lips would have been toit like a refiner's fire. It might have stood thereafter for asymbol of facts, but not of principles. The Gospel wouldhave pronounced upon it.And now, what form of authority is this, that venturesto expostulate against this universal law ? Not that of civilgovernment, or of the family, which derives itself from God'sappointment ; but that of slavery, which, at the most, wasonly recognized. So many more prerogatives has that rela-tion, which traces back its heathen origin to violence andwron"", than that which is established by the sanction ofGod.

The fallacy is transparent ; and, if it were not, its friendswould make it so. For their inconsistent efforts to definethe master's prerogative, confess that they themselves can-not decide, where the Gospel's inroads upon it were arrested.So important

a matter as the right to sell the slave, isadmitted into one definition and excluded from another.Have the apostles protected that ? and where ? Are thereany limitations to that right, if it exists, and if so, whatdefines them ? Besides, the so-called definitions, even wherethey agree, leave so much undefined, that the idea is quiteincomplete. There is " obligation of service," and no speci-fied right of enforcing the service ; and, if that is implied,what means of compulsion may tlio right employ, and whatmeasure of compulsion when the means do not easily suc-ceed ? Is all this a question of right, or a question of Gospelduty ? and, if of both, what becomes of the definition of re-served prerogatives ? A father could have no difiiculty here,nor could the master of an apprentice, for each of thesetrace their rights, not beyond the Gospel, but to itnot tosome obligation of the apprentice; or child to labor "for thebenefit " of his superior ; but to an obligation that binds bothparties, to act for the greatest advantage of both. Thecommon Gospel law controls the whole ; but who shall tellhow a man should act in a relation half merciful and halfselfish, based upon absolute right, and yet compelled to con-form to the rules of love ? No human ethics can define the


38/90

36

incongruous compound. Again, neither of the definitions wehave quoted speaks one word of recompense of any form ; arewe to understand that remuneration is excluded from theessence of slavery ? Have the apostles carefully prohibitedit ? Or if it may enter, is it by permission, or by law ?Has the slave a right to it? And if so, to how much?What defines the measure of the uncovenanted justice?Prerogative or the Gospel ? So, too, of mental and religioustraining. Has the master a right to withhold either, and ifnot, how much must he render ^ If the Gospel has a voicein all these questions, will it not, at length, trench somewhatseriously upon the master's right to exact service "for hisbenefit ?" The definitions need to be defined again, and anyheart, with the love of Christ in it, that attempts the task,however it may have blinded itself at first with abstractterms and preconceived opinions, will wear upon the sharpand cold prerogative until it melts away like ice before thesun. The result is sure, and there is no help for it. Somuch of the despotism of the apostles' day, whether ofrulers, or parents, or husbands, or masters, as can stand be-fore the spirit of the Gospel, may stand for ever, and so muchas cannot survive that fair encounter, has met its doom. Nologic can quicken it.But we take higher ground than this. The apostles havenot sent us up and down the Gospel, to gather an estimate ofslavery. If they had foreseen this very abstraction of " slavery "that seeks to find countenance from their words, they could nothave disclaimed the imputation more pointedly than they did.It is to be observed, that whatever formal limitations of thepretended rights of masters the apostles might make, are to belooked for, not in their addresses to the slaves, but only intheir instructions to the masters themselves. The former suf-fered the wrong, and could not control it ; the power was withthe latter. It is remarkable, now, that the whole New Testa-ment, which is so confidently quoted as having approved sla-very without ever condemning it, contains but two isolatedpassages of instructions to masters. Neither of these is in-tended to confer power ; both of them limit it. The phrase-


39/90

37

ology, indeed, is not adapted to inflame the passions of the slaves,but yet it is so distinct in its condemnation of the essence ofslaverv, that the most restricted definition of it cannot standbefore either passage for a moment.The first of these is: Col. 4: 1."Masters, give untoyour slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that ye alsohave a master in heaven." No man can doubt that thesewords were intended to assail the common injustice and crueltywhich entered into the treatment of slaves ; together withthat idea of the master's authoiity, out of which such treat-ment grew. It is to be observed, that the apostle aimed tocorrect the evil by enjoining, not kindness, as he might upon theowner of property, but justice and equity as upon the masterof a man. The words are worth noticing. The first word"just" is the same that is used twice in the ])arable of thelaborers in the vineyard, Matt. 20. " Whatever is right I willgive you ;" where the idea is of just remuneration for workdone. And the word, wherever used, never loses its primaryidea of justice. The other word is a noun, literally meaning"equality," and is used but three times, in the New Testament.The other two instances are in 2 Cor. 8, 14. '"' For I mean not(v. 13) tliat other men be eased and you burdened ; but byan equality, that now at this time your abundance may be asupply for their want, that their abundance may be a supplyfor your want, that there may be an equality." The wordthen covers the idea of an exact proportion between two things ;in the passage in Cor., between the gifts of one church at onetime, and of another church at another ; in the passages be-fore us, between the "giving" of the master and the sacri-fices of the slave. That we may not seem to be relying tooconfidently upon the meaning of a word so seldom employed,take the following example, of the meaning of the adjectivesfrom which the noun in question is derived. In that parablein Matt, already quoted, some of the laborers complain in re-gard to the rest, " Thou hast made them equal to us whichhave borne," &c. In Luke G, 34, lenders are spoken of who ex-pect " to receive as much again." There are no other instancesof the use of the word, in which this idea of exact equality is


40/90

38in the least degree lost. By the use of such terms, we insist,the apostle attacked directly the idea of a master's right toextort from the slave any services for which the slave shouldnot receive, in some form, a full equivalent. If there is anerror in this interpretation, it must be here ; that we regardthe apostle as speaking of absolute justice and equal dealing ;whereas, he was speaking of what it was fit and proper a slaveshould receive. To this we will not answer that he spokewithout qualification, and that he placed the two parties beforeGod as their judge. But we will adojit the phraseologyproposed. Little change will it make in the meaning of theverse, for fitness is not opposed to justice, nor distinct from it ;but is justice itself, adapted to circumstances. Thus, an em-ployer may receive service from a journeyman and from an ap-prentice. It is just, that he reward them both. It is fitting,that he reward the apprentice by instruction and general care,and the journeyman with wages. No man can describe anyrelation, permanent or contingent, in which, under the lawof God, any act can be counted fit and proper, that is not es-sentially just. Circumstances may vary ; and that is only apretended justice that does not make a full account of them.But when they liave all been estimated, and the fitting courseof action has been defined, it is absolute justice that pro-nounces the verdict. No government is entitled to a tittle ofthe goods or service of its subject upon any other score thanthat of a just remuneration ; though it may be fitting, that theremuneration shall take this form, or that. The same is trueof husband and wife, of parents and children, and of theparties in every conceivable, honest relation. Fitness may,in every case, decide the shape which the reciprocal justice is toassume, it can never impair the amount of it. In truth, thereis only one conceivable instance in which what is just or properor fit, can tend to any thing less than the true advantage ofhim to whom it is rendered ; and that is the case of a criminalto whom justice is })unishment ; and even then, so far as thepunishment is remedial, the justice is beneficent. Nay, thevery pain of his exemplary punishment has been compensatedin the security which he has previously enjoyed, under the


41/90

39

very law that inflicts it.* Why shall a slave be put down,not to the level of a criminal, hut beneath it, as Dr. Howneeds to do, in his strained analogy between a master and ajudge ? Wliy should the master of an innocent man be en-titled to do " at his discretion," what the highest judge of theland, with all the authority of civil and divine law to backhim, cannot do to the vilest criminal ; namely, impose in thename of justice, restrictions and i)ains deserved by no fault ofthe sufferer, and in no wav tending to his advantage ? Thething is monstrous. It is a solecism in morals. It is an in-novation in language even. Let those Christian reasoners,who sutler themselves to hold that, in slavery, justice or fit-ness is entitled not only to decide the form of the slave's re-muneration, but to limit the amount of it, show a warrantfor the pretence. The exception, if it exist, is a broad one.Let us have it defined in fair, plain terms. A ck)udy argu-ment from the sufferance of a mere form, when the very jus-tice that is impugned demanded the preservation of that form,will not meet the necessity. We need proof as strong as theproof of a miracle ; and stronger ; for God has often suspended,for a while, the laws of nature ; but this claims a perpetualperversion of his law of morals. Such a case is unheard of,and many men will refuse to believe in it upon any testimony.Till tlie conclusive proof is brought, the clear Avords of theapostle, the analogy of our religion, and the very character ofGod, demand for slaves as for other men, what is absolutelyjust and equal. Sueli a demand upon the apostle's lips, didnot require that the unprovided slave should be dismissed tofreedom, and destruction ; it was the very province of justiceto forbid such an act. It had no reference to some suddensystem of wages. While it bound the conscience of the mas-

* " Tlie Liwfulncss of jmttiiig' a malefactor to death arises from tliis ; tliola^v liy wliicli lie is jiiuiislicd, ^vas iriai.le for liis scriirili/. A murderer for in-stance, has enjoyed the benefit of the very law whiidi condemns him ; it hasbeen a continual jtrotection to him ; ho cannot therefore object aj^ainst it. Batit is not so with the slave. The law of slavery can never be beneficial to him ;it i-i in all cases against him, withont ever bein;; for his advaiita


42/90

40ter to its absolute rule, it could not but leave him a large dis-cretion in applying the rule. But it was to be justice still.Uuder such a rule, the true advantage of the slave counts justas much as the true advantage of the master. There are nosuperior rights for the latter to throw into his scale for amake-weight. In any real or apparput collision between theinterests of the two, the difficulty is to be resolved, not by thepower of the strongest, but by justice to be rendered inthe sight of God. There is only one way, in which a systemof slavery can maintain its essence in the tace of such a rule ;and tliat is by proving its express divine warrant. Mosaicslavery would never have been disturbed by it ; but Komanslavery could hardly hold out so well. The whole heart ofthat unauthorized system was taken out of it by that single text.The other passage referred to, is in Eph. G : 9, where theapostle having exhorted slaves to act toward their masters" as unto Christ " and " as to the Lord, " " doing the will of Godfrom the heart," and anticipating a just judgment, adds, " andye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threat-ening, knowing that your master also is in Heaven, neitheris there any respect of persons with him. " The Greek phrasefor ' respect of persons ' is an exact translation of a Hebrewphrase, very common in the Old Testament. The origin ofit, is thought to have been in the habit of kings to receivewith complaisance such suitors as brought them presents ;but whatever may have been its origin and occasional use, itwas the current phrase with the Old Testament writers fordescribing partiality upon the part of a judge. Thus in Lev.19 : 15, it is said : " Thou shalt do no unrighteousness injudgment, thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, norhonor the person of the rich ; " where the meaning evidentlyis, that the cause of the poorest or of the richest is to bedecided equally by absolute justice. In Deut. 10 : 17, 18,the expression is associated Avith the name of God. " Forthe Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a greatGod, a mighty and a terrible, which regardeth not persons,nor taketh reward. He doth execute the judgment of thefatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger in giving him


43/90

41

food and raiment/* In Job 34 : 19, God is again describedas one tliat " accepteth not the persons of princes nor regard-etli the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work ofhis hands." The phrase is common in the New Testament,and retains the same intrinsic idea of partiality at the expenseof justice or truth. But the passages quoted from the OldTestament are more exactly parallel with that before us,since they speak of God in his character of judge, and remindmen in a position of power, that he will deal with them, andthe subjects of their power, by the rules of an exact justice.The words can have no other meaning here ; for St. Paulat least intended to teach tlie masters whom he addressedthat, in some particular, God, in the final judgment, wouldset them ujjon a level with tlieh* slaves. He could not havereferred to the mere flict of judgment, for no Christian mas-ter needed to be told so solemnly that both he, and his slaveshould, in fact, be judged. Then he must have referred tothe princijiles upon which the judgment should proceed ; andthese are nothing less than justice, embodied in God's standinglaw. Now, there was at that time an assumption of preroga-tive upon the part of masters, well known to all men, towhich tliis language of the apostle most naturally opposeditself And, if silence is so mighty an argument, let it thistime serve the cause of mercy. AVe look for some reservationsome saving clausesome little remnant of the factitiousauthority that may survive the general overthrow. But nota word. The apostle batters the very principle of slavery,but jirovides no defender for it. He deals the destructive blow,but lifts no hand to sustain a beam of the totterino; fabric.The whole superstructure of the master's prerogative fell to-gether. The external relation was intended to remain. Forunder the circumstances justice approved it. The languageassaults nothing but a principle, like that of slavery. Parentand child, ruler and subject, may stand before the impartialJudge with equal acceptance. The rich man, or the strongman, who has used his wealth, or his strength, for the glory ofGod, and the welfare of men, may share in a blessing withthe meek of the earth. The conscientious master who has


44/90

42

sought to fulfil to the ignorant and degraded victims of pastoppression, the perfect law of love, may meet the very com-mendation of him who remembers the benefactor of the leastof his brethren. But the man who employs a master's pre-rogative in wilfully abating God's common law of love andjus'ice, if he has hope for that day, must stand alone. Helives and must be judged by a special law. That God, whois no respecter of persons, must respect him beyond all men,or he shall surely be condemned.But the testimony of the apostles may grow plainer.Surely it would, if we could follow them in their intercoursewith particular masters, and know the spirit of those dailyinstructions, in wliich they adapted general laws to specificcases. But the detailed history that might furnish tliis infor-mation is wanting, and there is just one instance in the wholeNew Testament in which an apostle gives a slaveholder directadvice concerning his slaveholding ; and that is the case ofPhilemon already referred to. There are two features in thatcase ; the agency of the apostle in the return of Onesimus ;and the instructions given to his master in regard to hisreception, and subsequent treatment. We have alreadynoticed the first of these ; let us now notice the second. Theterms of those instructions are sufficiently strildng. ' Thoutherefore receive him, that is my own bowels." (v. 12.) Noreader of the Bible needs to be told that in its figurative lan-guage, " the bowels" represented the scat of the gentler afiec-tions, and thus those afiections themselves; just as " the heart "does in ours, and that this aj)peal must have sounded in the earof Philemon just as it would sound in ours, if the latter ex-pression were substituted for the former. '' For perhaps hetherefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receivehim for ever ; not now as a slave, but above a slave, a brotherbeloved, especially to me, but how much more imto thee,both in the flesh, and in the Lord." (vs. 15, 16.) The brotherlyaflection which these expressions enjoin, might possibly, l)y aperversion of the apostle's meaning, have been limited tosome intangible religious emotion, quite dissociated from adii'cct interest in the personal welfare of Onesimus ; and to


45/90

43forestall that gross mistake, tlie words are added " hoth inthe fiesh, and in the Lord."Again, we have this significantlanguage. " If thou count me therefore a partner, receive himas myself." (v. 17.) The word " partner," though a stricttranslation of the original expression, does not immediatelysuofGiest its full meanino;. Partners in business or pleasurewere thrown much into each other's company, and so partnercame to mean companion. This meaning of the word will notbe questioned ; and the absolute use which is made of it here,requires that signification. The reference in that case,however, is to religious fellowship, and thus the apostlemakes his own true Christian equality with Philemon, de-scribe the reception and permanent treatment which he de-manded for Onesimus. Now no reasonable and candid mancan refuse to admit that all these were the expressions ofwarm feeling, and therefore are not to be pressed to theirmost extensive meaning. The future life of Onesimus wasnot intended to be that of a pet, who should have the free-dom of Philemon's mansion, and a right to its comforts, withno work to do ; but the expressions surely meant something,and the contrast in which the apostle placed them, plainlyshowed how much they meant. " Not now as a slave, butabove a slave, a brother beloved, etc." It was clearly the designof the apostle Paul to relieve Onesimus from just so much ofslavery, as was inconsistent with a regard of his character andperson, identical with that which was due to the apostlehimself Such a rule would not interfere with the mere formof slav

(1856) bible slave holding not sinful by hervery doddridge ganse

Documents