' V '- «£& a9^ ***** *> 
 
 
 .5^ 
 
 O, *0 * t * 4 <\ 
 
 
 A <> -'TV* * «G ^t, - • » * 
 
 r oV 
 
 <>0« 
 
 
 ► » i • • 
 
 £*£&>» y.-^feX £*£&>» / 
 
 aV*^> ■• 
 
 
 
 
Sr °k 
 
 
 
 • • » • A ^ 
 
 5K 
 
 V* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0" .♦•^L'* < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 * <& >,. 
 
THE CONTRAST, 
 
 OR THE 
 
 BIBLE AND ABOLITIONISM: 
 
 AN EXEGETICAL ARGUMENT, 
 
 BY REV. WILLIAM (iRAHAHI, 
 
 Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Oxford, Ohio. 
 
 " The Prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream, and lie that hath my word let him 
 speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord?"— Jer. xxv.-28. 
 
 CINCINNATI : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE DAILY CINCINNATI ATLAS OFFICE. 
 Third Street, opposite Post Office, 
 
 1844. 
 
iff i ( 
 
INTRODUCTORY 
 
 Public opinion is now regarded as the great instrument of moral and 
 ■social reform. Its power in a Government like ours, cannot be questioned, 
 'but we may doubt whether its use is beneficial to the community. The 
 public opinion of modern times, is the opinion of a few, diffused, with great 
 effort, through the multitude ; it is manufactured with reference to a specific 
 result; and in most cases can hardly be distinguished from highly excited 
 party feeling. This method of reform, with its varied means of agitation, 
 has been introduced into the Church, and Christians have felt themselves 
 constrained to employ it, almost to the rending of the Church. Where it is 
 employed, ae a necessary consequence, the Scriptures are in a great measure 
 neglected, and the power and purity of the Chureh arc impaired. The ob- 
 ject of the following Essay is not alone to shew what the Scriptures teach 
 respecting the relation of Master and Slave, in opposition to Abolitionism, 
 but also to recal the attention of Christians to the only effective means of 
 reform — the word of God. This is the lamp to our feet, and the light to 
 our path; it is also our sword, and spear, and shield; our panoply of war. 
 A departure from it injures ourselves and prevents our doing good to others. 
 
 It may be proper to add — that the substance of this argument was a 
 Speech ia the Synod of Cincinnati, (New School) at its late meeting. 
 
ARGUMENT 
 
 The time, when the relation of master and slave, 
 began to prevail in the world, is unknown. From the 
 curse pronounced against Canaan, it seems to have 
 been familiar to Noah ; and hence, many infer its ex- 
 istence before the flood. Job alludes to the slave (in 
 the Hebrew — eved) as belonging to a class, well known ; 
 and by a nice, and appropriate distinction, discrimi- 
 nates between him, and the hireling — (saickeer.) Job 
 vii.-2-" As a servant, — eved, — earnestly desireth the 
 shadow, and as a hireling looketh for the reward of 
 his works. " The hireling, according to the custom, 
 •(which was afterwards a law to the Jews — Deut. xxiv. 
 14, 15,) is represented as earnestly desiring his wages; 
 whilst the slave, receiving no wages, desired only the 
 hour of rest." 
 
 In the time of Abraham, and before the death of 
 Shem, slavery prevailed in Egypt, Canaan and Arabia, 
 and probably among all the nations of the earth. — 
 From the history of the sale and purchase of Joseph ; 
 the readiness with which the idea of selling him, was 
 suggested to his brethren, on seeing the Ishmaelitish 
 merchants; their prompt purchase; their carrying him 
 
6 
 
 to Egypt, as to ;i well known market— the traffic in 
 slaves was evidently well established prior to this 
 transaction. Homer mentions Egypt as still the great 
 market for slaves, in his age. 
 
 Its probable origin. Notwithstanding the many as- 
 sertions to the contrary, I would fain believe, that the 
 relation of master and slave, originated in benevolence, 
 rather than in cupidity, or in cruelty. The ancient 
 law of nations, doomed to death all captives taken in 
 war. Compassion may have suggested slavery as 
 the milder alternative. Such unquestionably, was 
 the motive in the Jewish Law. This positively pro- 
 hibited making captives of the Canaanites, and, in 
 Numbers xxxi. 17, forbade them to spare any of the 
 Midianites, save female infants; and, in Deut, xx. 13, 
 14, in all cases, required them to slay all the men 
 taken in war, and spare only the women and children. 
 The law presumed that the Jewish nation would not 
 prosecute an unjust war; and by consequence, that 
 those of their enemies, avIio had provoked the war, 
 must be put to death; whilst the women and children, 
 as less guilty, should be spared, and made slaves. — 
 The Romans regarded it in the same light. Their 
 writers say, that the word scrims — a slave, (and from 
 which the word servant is formed,) means properly, 
 a person whose life has been spared — clemency had 
 l3een exercised towards him. Probably there are few 
 even among ourselves, who, if placed in a condition 
 similar to that of these captives, w^ould not praise the 
 clemency that spared our lives, though it made us 
 slaves. It is neither the part of justice nor of mercy, 
 to exclaim against a price paid, regardless of the value 
 received. Our laws Have decided that death is a 
 
greater evil, than the permanent privation of libertv, 
 even connected with the solitary cell, and the hard 
 labor of the Penitentiary. 
 
 But the design of the present essay confines us to 
 the history of this relation, in its connection with the 
 Church. And, if Job lived before Abraham, he is the 
 first recorded example, not only in the church, but in 
 the world, of a master owning slaves. 
 
 Job, i. 3. In the schedule of his property, are 
 enumerated, seven thousand sheep, three thousand 
 camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred she- 
 asses, and a very great household. The word here 
 translated household, is more correctly translated, 
 "servants," in Gen. xxvi. 14, — where, in the list of 
 Isaac's property, we have " great store of servants. " 
 Its primary meaning is servitude, bondage; and its 
 secondary meaning, as in both these texts, is bond 
 servants or slaves. Chap. xxxi. 13, he not only repre- 
 sents himself as a master, but appeals to his conduct 
 in that relation, as a proof of his uprightness. " If I 
 did despise the cause of my man-servant, or of my 
 maid-servant, when they contended with me. " Al- 
 most the same sentence that represents Job as owning 
 a great household, or store of servants, declared that 
 " there was none like him in the earth, a perfect and 
 an upright man, one that feared God, and eschewed 
 evil. " 
 
 Abraham. Although there is no valid objection to 
 
 that interpretation of Gen. xii. 5, which makes " the 
 
 souls gotten in Haran " to be slaves ; yet, to avoid a 
 
 protracted criticism, that text is omitted. When he 
 
 was in Egypt, Pharaoh, in restoring Sarah, gave him 
 slaves. 
 
8 
 
 Gen. xii. 16. "And he entreated him well for her 
 
 sake; and he had sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and 
 
 men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses, and 
 
 camels." From Gen. xtv. 14, it is evident that he had 
 
 a great number of servants. For in the war with the 
 
 live kings, when he armed only those born and train- 
 ed in his house, as the most trustworthy, there were 
 
 three hundred and eighteen thus armed. 
 
 In Gen. xvii. 12, where God establishes and seals the 
 the covenant with him, as the father of the faithful, 
 Abraham is recognized, not merely as owning slaves, 
 but also as buying them. Every man child must 
 needs be circumcised ; he that is born in the house, 
 or bought with money, &c. It is added in v. 23, "And 
 Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were 
 born in his house, and all that were bought with his 
 money, — every male, and circumcised them. " Some- 
 time after this, Gen. xx. 14, "King Abimelech took sheep, 
 and oxen, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and 
 gave them to Abraham. " So that Eliezer in describ- 
 ing to Laban the possessions of his master, might well 
 say, Gen. xxiv. 35, — "And the Lord hath blessed my 
 master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath 
 given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and 
 men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels, and 
 asses. " 
 
 Isaac. Of Isaac it is said, Gen. xxvi. 14. "He had 
 
 possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and 
 great store of servants. " Isaac had inherited all his 
 father's property. 
 
 Jacob. It is said of Jacob, Gen. xxx.-43, that "he 
 increased greatly, and had much cattle, and maid-ser- 
 vants, and men-servants, and camels, and asses." It 
 
is then abundantly evident, not only that all the 
 patriarchs possessed men-servants, and maid-servants, 
 but that they had a great number of them. 
 
 Did they hold these servants as property 1 In his 
 invaluable commentary on the laws of Moses, Michae- 
 lis says, Article 123, "The purchase of slaves was so 
 common, that the phrase, ' bought with money,' almost 
 became the common term for a servant, particularly 
 when he was to be distinguished from that superior 
 class of servants, who were born in the family. " 
 
 The intelligent reader of the passages quoted, espe- 
 cially if he connect with them, ancient, uninspired 
 history, relating to the same subject, without the aid 
 of this eminent biblical critic, will be able easily to 
 answer the question for himself. In every schedule 
 of the possessions of the Patriachs, they constitute 
 one item. They are represented as transferable. — 
 Pharaoh and Abimelech gave them to Abraham, with 
 sheep and oxen, and other property, without asking 
 their consent. They were also purchasable— bought 
 with money. They were devisable by will. Eleazer, 
 after stating to Laban his masters great possessions, 
 including men-servants, and maid-servants, says, Gen. 
 24-35, "And Sarah my master's wife bore him a 
 son, and unto him hath he given all that he hath, " 
 not put him in possession, but made him his heir. — 
 That which is transferable either by sale or gift, or de- 
 vise, is certainly property. 
 
 The duration of their servitude. This, in the Patri- 
 archal times, seems to have been unlimited. In his 
 eloquent description of the grave, Job represents it as 
 the only place where the servant is free from his mas- 
 ter. Job iii. 19. "The small and great are there, and 
 
 the servant is free from his master. " When Hagar 
 2 
 
10 
 
 fled from her mistress, and the Lord met her, he said, 
 Gen. xvi. 8, 9, "Hagar, Sarai's maid— whence earnest 
 thou'? Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself 
 under her hands. " Unwillingness to serve, and even 
 flight, occasioned by severe treatment, did not termi- 
 nate the servitude of the slave. A limited slavery 
 was evidently unknown to the Patriarchs ; and, hence, 
 when Moses contrasts the servitude of the Jew, with 
 that of the bondman— eved— he says, Lev. xxv. 39, 40, 
 " thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant. 
 He shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee. '•' This 
 was one point of difference. He refers to the eved, as 
 a class well known. All the servants of the patriarchs 
 were of this class. 
 
 The authority of the master. The idea of property 
 necessarily implies such a degree of control, as may 
 secure the obedience of the servant. In requiring 
 Abraham to circumcise his male slaves, God makes 
 no reference to his giving them any previous instruc- 
 tion, nor was he required to obtain their consent— 
 Gen. xvii. 1 3, 23. It was enjoined upon him, as having 
 authority to enforce submission. When Sarah com- 
 plained of Hagar's conduct, Abraham said, Gen. xvi. 6. 
 "Behold thy maid is in thy hands; do to her as it 
 pleaseth," clearly shewing— that he regarded her as 
 having authority to correct Hagar; a power which 
 Sarah probably exercised with undue severity. \ et, 
 when Hagar fled, because her mistress dealt hardly 
 with her, the Lord sent her back, Gen. xvi. 9, and 
 commanded her to submit herself to the hands of her 
 mistress. Such was the relation of master and slave, 
 in the families of the Patriarchs. The relation was 
 not prohibited, its existence did not impeach their 
 piety. Although Job had men-servants, and maid- 
 
11 
 
 servants, a great household, yet of him, Job i. 8, the 
 Lord said, " Hast thou considered my servant Job, 
 that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and 
 an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth 
 evil. " Had this relation been in itself sinful, would 
 God have said this 1 But Job was a good master ; he 
 " did not despise the cause of his man-servant, or of 
 his maid-servant. " 
 
 The written covenant which made Abraham the 
 parent of the promised seed, which constituted him 
 the Father of the faithful, recognizes him as the owner 
 of slaves, and was made with him as such ; it was 
 sealed by the blood of his slaves, as well as by that of 
 his son. If the relation were itself a sin, could the 
 covenant have made such a recognition ; could such a 
 seal have been applied ? And I cannot but express 
 my astonishment that any, who profess to regard this 
 covenant as the charter of the Christian Church, and 
 which secures to us Gentiles our place, and privileges, 
 and hopes as God's people, should venture so to modify 
 either its form or spirit, as to exclude any man from 
 its privileges, because he is a master, having slaAes 
 born in his house, or bought with his money. The 
 covenant does not require a man to be a master — but 
 with such a modification, is it any longer either to him 
 who adopts, or to him who rejects it, the covenant 
 made with Abraham our father ? 
 
 In the preceding analysis, we find no law controlling 
 the relation of master and slave. It is permitted to 
 exist, according to the established custom of the times. 
 In the Jewish church, however, incorporated as a com- 
 munity, whose divine constitution, and laws embraced 
 their whole civil and religious polity, we reasonably 
 anticipate a different course. Its universal, and long 
 
12 
 
 continued practice ; its effect on the condition of the 
 community, would direct the attention of the Legisla- 
 tor to this relation. This reasonable anticipation is 
 not disappointed. 
 
 Before referring to the laws directly connected with 
 this subject, I will advert to some previous laws, which 
 recognize this relation, as a part of the civil polity of 
 the Church. In the law instituting the Passover— the 
 first and most memorable sacred feast of the church, 
 and typical of the great paschal sacrifice, it is recogni- 
 zed. Ex. xii. 43, 44, " And the Lord said unto Moses 
 and Aaron, this is the Ordinance of the Passover: there 
 shall no stranger eat thereof. But every man's (eved) 
 servant, that is bought with money, when thou hast 
 circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. " In the 
 ten commandments, written for the world, it is also 
 acknowledged. Ex. xx. 10, "But the seventh day is 
 the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not 
 do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor 
 thy (eved) man-servant, nor thy (araa) maid-servant. " 
 And in the 17 verse, " Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
 bor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
 nor his [eved] man-servant, nor his \_ama~] maid-servant" 
 I have given the Hebrew words, translated, man-serv- 
 ant, and maid-servant, because these are the appro- 
 priate words to express male and female slave, in that 
 language. From the recapitulation of the fourth 
 commandment, it appears to have had an especial 
 reference to the slave. Deut. v. 14, 15, after repeat- 
 ing the law, it is added, " that thy man-servant, and 
 thy maid-servant, may rest as well as thou. " The 
 relation is also recognized in the laws for the Jew- 
 ish Priesthood. Lev. xxii. 11. 'But if the priest 
 bin/ any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and 
 
13 
 
 he that is bom in his house, they shall eat of it. " 
 We have now arrived at the period, when this rela- 
 tion was the subject of express law. In Ex. xxi. 2, 7, 
 and xxii. 3, it was enacted, that from various causes, a 
 Jew might be reduced to a state of servitude. He 
 might wax poor, and sell himself; he might be sold 
 for debt, or for theft, when unable to make the legal 
 restitution ; or, a parent might sell his child. But a 
 male Hebrew could not be sold, to serve for more 
 than six years. The law contained a provision, by 
 which hem ight voluntarily relinquish his legal right 
 to release, and then he became a servant forever. If 
 the master of a Jewish servant had given him a slave 
 as a wife, the law Ex. xxi. 4, decided, that the wife 
 and children should remain the property of her mas- 
 ter ; he was to go out by himself. But 5th verse, if 
 the servant, from love to his master, and wife, and 
 children, should plainly say, I will not go out free; 
 then he might become a servant forever. Yet, as in 
 the case of a wife's relinquishing the right of dower 
 with us, this relinquishment of his right to liberty, 
 must be made in the presence of the magistrates, and 
 in a prescribed form. This provision seems to have 
 been introduced, that the husband might not be forci- 
 bly separated from his wife. These laws simply limit 
 the duration of the service ; they say nothing of its 
 mode. In Lev. xxv. the mode is defined, in contrast 
 with the service of the bond slave — (eved.) Lev. xxv. 
 39, * If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
 poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him 
 to serve as an (eved,) a, bond servant; that is, neither in 
 his service, nor in your estimation, shall he rank as an 
 eved. In what respect shall he differ? Verse 40, "As an 
 hired servant, (sawkecr.) and as a sojourner, shall he be 
 
14 
 
 with thee," He was not to be regarded as a slave- 
 property — but as a free man ; " And he shall serve thee 
 to the year of Jubilee." He is not to be held as a pos- 
 session, but a mere temporary usufruct. You own, 
 not the man, but his services, for a limited period. He 
 shall not be required to serve longer than six years ; 
 and in all cases, when the Jubilee arrives, save where 
 he has relinquished the privilege, he must go free, even 
 should he have served only one year instead of six. 
 Verse 42 ; " They shall not be sold as bond men." The 
 literal translation of the passage is, " They shall not 
 be sold after the manner of the sale of bond men." 
 According to Jewish writers,* their slaves were sold 
 by public outcry, and were, ordinarily, placed on a 
 stone, fixed in the market, There was yet another 
 difference. Verse 43 ; " Thou shalt not rule over him 
 with rigor." Thou shalt not require from him, the 
 menial offices, and rigid service, of the slave — cved. 
 These limitations were evidently introduced, like that 
 in Dent. xxv. 3, "lest thy brother be vile unto thee." 
 
 This contrast presents a reflected description of the 
 ered, the bond servant. His positive description is in 
 verses 44, 45, 46 ; " Both thy bond men, and thy bond 
 maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 
 that are round about you ; of them shall ye buy bond 
 men and bond maids." " Moreover, of the children of 
 the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall 
 ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which 
 they begat in your land, and they shall be your pos- 
 session. And ye shall take them for your children after 
 you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be 
 your bond men forever ; but over your brethren, the 
 children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one another 
 
 * Sec Dr. Gill's Commentary on this verso, 
 
15 
 
 with rigor." Such is the legal definition of the eved, 
 and the ama — bond man, and bond maid — among the 
 Jews. Instead of being bound to render only a tem- 
 porary service, and therefore as a hireling, he was a 
 possession ; instead of belonging to his master for a term 
 of years, he was an inheritance to him, and to his 
 children after him, to inherit for a possession ; a bond 
 man forever. It would be difficult to express a more 
 absolute property title. It has been asserted that this 
 title was vacated' by the Jubilee. A very slight exam- 
 ination of the Jewish law, relating to property held by 
 the title of " possession and inheritance ;" and of the 
 influence of the Jubilee, on such property, will suffi- 
 ciently refute this assertion. 
 
 Gen. xvii. 8, is the original deed, conveying the land 
 of Canaan to Abraham and his children. " I will give 
 unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, all the land of 
 Canaan, for an everlasting possession." Here the title 
 is " a 2*)ssession" and it is so styled in numerous pas- 
 sages afterwards. See Lev. xiv. 34, and Deut, xxxii. 
 49. In all these, it certainly means, an absolute, per- 
 petual title. 
 
 When Israel was about to pass through the land of 
 the Edomites, God said, Deut. ii. 5, " Meddle not with 
 them, for I will not give you of their land, no not so 
 much as a foot breadth, because I have given Mount 
 Seir unto Esau for a possession." When the land of 
 Canaan was divided among the twelve tribes, each 
 tribe held by the title of possession, and inheritance. 
 See a law in relation to this, recorded in Num. xxxvi. 
 6-9. When the territory of each tribe was divided 
 among the families, each family held its part as a pos- 
 session and inheritance ; and by this title, the law dis- 
 tinguished this property, from any claim vacated by 
 
16 
 
 the Jubilee. Lev. xxvii. 22-24; "If a man sanctify 
 unto the Lord, any field which he hath bought, which 
 is not of the fields of his possession" etc. Here the 
 purchased field, to which he had and could have only 
 lease-hold title, is distinguished from the fields held 
 from the tribe, by the title of a possession. It is added, 
 "In the year of Jubilee, it shall return to him of whom 
 it was bought, to whom the possession of the land did 
 belong." This was not a title which the Jubilee dis- 
 turbed. Where it affected it at all, it restored and 
 confirmed it ; and when the law defined the eved, as a 
 possession, and an inheritance, it expressed a title, which 
 the Jubilee neither did nor could disturb. Besides, 
 one of the points of difference between the Jewish ser- 
 vant, and the eved, bond servant, is, that whilst the 
 former shall go out at the Jubilee, the latter " shall be 
 a bondman forever" In addition to all this, the Jubi- 
 lee affected only the inJiabitants of the land — the citi- 
 zens. 
 
 The law also permitted the Jews to reserve for slaves 
 a part of the captives taken in war. Deut. xx. When 
 they made war against a city, without the borders of 
 Palestine, they were first to proffer peace ; if the prof- 
 fer was accepted, the city was to be tributary ; but, 
 if not, they Avere to fight against it. And, verses 13th 
 and 14th — 'When the Lord, thy God hath delivered it 
 into thy hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof 
 with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the 
 little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, 
 even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself." 
 In Num. xxxi. is related an instance where the Jews 
 acted in accordance with this law. In that case, as in 
 18th verse, only the female children were preserved. — 
 And of these, a tithe was given to the Levites, and a 
 
17 
 
 part to the High Priest; Eleazar — see verses 40, 41 and 
 47. There were then three sources from which the 
 Jew might obtain bond-servants. They might be 
 bought with money from the heathen, or the stranger 
 born in his house, or taken in war. 
 
 The Jews also had slaves belonging to the temple, 
 and congregation. The Gibeonites were of this class. 
 Josh. ix. 23; "There shall none of you be freed from 
 being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of 
 water for the house of my God.*' In Lev. xxvii. 1 — 8, 
 there is a law, respecting Jews, who should consecrate 
 themselves, as servants to the sanctuary, and also, their 
 estimated value, at different ages, and of each sex. — 
 Persons thus consecrated, were slaves for life, and could 
 only be released by paying the price, at which they 
 were valued. Thus the temple had its servants of 
 both classes — the Gibeonite, who was properly an ered } 
 he and his children were perpetual slaves ; and the 
 self-consecrated Jew, whose children were not involved 
 in his servitude. 
 
 The rank of the eved according to Jeicisli law. He 
 was considered as property. The law defines him a 
 possession, and an inheritance. In Ex. xxi. 21, the law 
 calls him " money."' After saying, if a master smote a 
 servant, and he died under his hand, he should be pun- 
 ished, it adds, " Notwithstanding, if he continue a day 
 or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money." 
 This applies only to the eved ; for the law required the 
 master to treat the Jewish servant, as an hireling; of 
 course he was not permitted to chastise him. This 
 same designation seems to be expressed also in the 
 thirty-second verse of this chapter. After stating, that 
 if an ox was wont to push with his horn, and his owner 
 knew it, and had not kept him confined, and he had 
 
18 
 
 killed a man or a woman, the owner should be ad- 
 judged a murderer, and, either be put to death, or pay 
 a fine for the ransom of his life, it adds, " If the ox 
 shall push a man servant, or maid servant, the owner 
 shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and, 
 (as in the other case,) the ox shall be stoned." Here 
 the owner was not treated as a murderer ; he paid the 
 value of the slave, and the ox was killed. Where a 
 master chastised his slave, and he died under his hand, 
 in verse 20 of this same chapter, it is said "he shall 
 surely be punished," but not as in the laws of capital 
 offences, "he shall surely be put to death." In a word, 
 the slave was not recognized in law, as a man, or wo- 
 man, but as property. 
 
 The Authority of the Master. He had authority to 
 correct his slaves. The law punished him as a male- 
 factor, only when the slave died under his hand. If in 
 chastising a slave, he maimed him, Ex. xxi. 26-27, the 
 slave was made free. But the law fully recognized his 
 authority to chastise. Solomon says, Prov. xxix. 19 — - 
 " A servant will not be corrected by words." As the 
 character of the nation degenerated, their slaves would 
 doubtless be more insubordinate; and seem to require 
 more severe discipline. From the book of Ecclesiasti- 
 cus, it is evident that about the time of the Maccabees, 
 the Jews had learned to imitate their heathen neigh- 
 bors, in cruelty to the slave, as well as in other vices. — 
 See Ecc. xxxiii. 24-28. 
 
 The master had power also to reclaim his fugitive 
 slave. From 1 Kings, ii. 39, 40, it is evident, that the 
 Jews, who told Shimei where his fugitive slaves were, 
 as well as Shimei himself, believed that their law au- 
 thorized the pursuit and recapture of such fugitives.— 
 The law relating to fugitive slaves Deut, xxiii. 15-16 — 
 
19 
 
 u Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant 
 which is escaped from his master unto thee : he shall 
 dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which 
 he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him 
 best," — evidently refers to fugitives from heathen mas- 
 ters. This is its construction by Michaelis, Jahn, and 
 by all the commentators I have seen. To apply it to 
 slaves owned by Jews, would not only conflict with the 
 text itself, but involve the whole law in the absurdity 
 of granting an absolute property in the eved, by one act, 
 and abrogating it by another. 
 
 The master was permitted to sell his slave. This is not 
 only involved in his being a possession and inheritance, 
 but is clearly asserted in the law, which forbids selling 
 "the Jewish servant, as the cved is sold." They could 
 sell each class, though not in the same manner. The 
 only exception to the privilege of selling, is in Deut. 
 xxi. 10-14. — If her master espouse a female captive 
 taken in war, "and it shall be, if thou have no delight 
 in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will : but 
 thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not 
 make merchandize of her, because thou hast humbled 
 her. " 
 
 The probable number of their slaves. From the pecu- 
 liarity of their laws and institutions, it is not probable, 
 that at any period the Jews possessed a great number 
 of slaves ; though the number to be held either by indi- 
 viduals or the nation, was not limited. From Prov. xii. 
 9. — "He that is despised, and hath a servant, is better 
 than he that honoreth himself and lacketh bread. " It 
 seems the Jews considered it commendable to own 
 slaves. This would tend to make the possession of 
 them general. The High Priest and Levites owned 
 slaves ; the Prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 12, had a slave; 
 
3D 
 
 and the father of Saul, "the least family, of the small- 
 est tribe of Israel," owned several. 
 
 Their legal jmvileges. The law protected the life of 
 the slave from the cruelty of his master ; not only by 
 punishing him, if the slave died under his hand, but by 
 granting freedom to the slave, if maimed by him. The 
 exception in Ex. xxi. 21, is based on the legal presump- 
 tion, that the death of the slave was the effect of casual- 
 ty, rather than the intention of the master.. The slave 
 was also entitled to the rest of the Sabbath ; to a par- 
 ticipation in the three annual festivals ; — and if his mas- 
 ter were a farmer, to the rest of the seventh year. — 
 Besides these legal rights and privileges, the laws form- 
 ing the moral character of the master, w T ere also for the 
 benefit of the slave. 
 
 Do the Scriptures, requiring the Jews, to " open their 
 moutJi for the dumb, " to u break every yoke, " and, those 
 of similar purport, intend to condemn or abolish the lair 
 relating to slavery? Under ordinary circumstances this 
 question would mot deserve a moment's notice. No 
 prophet could either condemn the law, or those whose 
 practice conformed to it. A reference to most of these 
 passages will shew that they had no relation to the 
 subject of slavery. The command Isaiah lviii. 6, "to 
 loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy bur- 
 dens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every 
 yoke," explains itself. Bands of wickedness, or wicked 
 bands, are bands contrary to the law. This is true, 
 also of "heavy burdens, oppression, and the yoke." 
 These were violations of the law. Jeremiah explains 
 these wicked bands and yokes. Jeremiah xxxiv. 8-16. 
 It was holding Jewish servants longer than the time 
 prescribed by law, — making an ercd of the Jew. 
 
 Such was the relation of master and slave, accord- 
 
m 
 
 ing to the Jewish law. The relation, as well as the 
 law continued to the time of our Savior. In his excel- 
 lent commentary on the Gospel of John, Prof. Tholuck. 
 says, John xviii. 18, "the servants (douloi) are the 
 domestic slaves of Caiaphas the high priest." The 
 maid, also, to whom Peter denied his Lord, was a slave. 
 This law as has been shewn, denned the slave to be a 
 perpetual property, and as such, gave the master 
 authority to compel his service by necessary correction ; 
 to recapture him if he lied, and to dispose of him by 
 gift, or devise, or sale, as other property. It need 
 scarcely be added that the slave could be attached and 
 sold for debt by the master's creditor. Even the debt- 
 or's children could be sold. See 2 Kings iv. 1. 
 
 The slaves were either bought with money from the 
 heathen, and the stranger, or captives in war, or which 
 was the most prized and trusted class, the children of 
 slaves, those "bom in the house." David makes a 
 beautiful allusion to the intimacy of the latter relation 
 between master and slave. Psalms Ixxxvi. 16 — "give 
 thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thy 
 handmaid." Cxvi. 16 — "O Lord, truly I am thy ser- 
 vant; I am thy servant, and the son of thine handmaid ;" 
 thy eved, the son of thine Ama ; not an eved bought 
 with money, but an eved born in the house. Does 
 infant baptism involve this same principle] 
 
 The question, whether the relation of master and slave, 
 be in itself sinful, has now been abundantly answered; 
 at least to all who believe the Bible, and accord to its 
 author the privilege of explaining his own law. It can 
 not be an offence against God; for it is acknowledged 
 as a lawful relation in the first table of the decalogue, 
 which comprises all the duties we owe to God : neither 
 is it necessarily an offence against man, for in the second 
 
22 
 
 fable, comprising all the duties we owe to man it is also 
 recognized. We cannot suppose that in laws for the 
 Jews, nor for the world, God could introduce or coun- 
 tenance, what is in itself sinful. 
 
 It remains for us to examine the NeAV Testament 
 and learn whether it forbids this relation among 
 Christians. 
 
 In establishing the Christian Church our Savior and 
 his Apostles taught that they did not found a Church 
 essentially new. Christ came to break down the middle 
 Avail of partition, that " the blessing of Abraham might 
 come upon the Gentiles." The covenant, and the law, 
 and the promises, were made the common property of 
 the worlA. From this identity of the two churches, it 
 necessarily follows, that the institutions and ordinances 
 of the Jews belong also to the Christian Church ; un- 
 less they have been expressly altered or abrogated. 
 This inference is so obvious and legitimate ; was so ful- 
 ly admitted by the Apostles, and is so essentially in- 
 volved in all that belongs to Christianity, that I shall 
 not attempt to prove it by argument. * 
 
 Is it not a reasonable supposition that the ancient 
 christians would regard the law which authorized the 
 relation of master and slave in the Jewish church, as 
 also authorizing it among christians. I cannot imagine 
 how they could form a contrary opinion. It was a part 
 of the laws of Jehovah. The Savior, and Prophets, and 
 Apostles had declared the whole system to be perfect, 
 holy, just and good. How could they, if they had the 
 spirit of Christ and his Apostles dwelling in them, con- 
 demn it as unholy, or on their own responsibility, place 
 it among the repealed ordinances. It is frequently as- 
 
 * If the reader desires such proof he will find it in the very able treatise on 
 infant Haptism, hy the Rov. Dr. Woods of the Theological Seminary, Andovcr. 
 
2:5 
 
 serted, that, although this relation is not forbidden in 
 words, yet the whole spirit of the gospel condemns it. 
 We must, in charity, hope, that not a few, who make 
 this assertion, are utterly unsuspicious of its bearing 
 upon the law, and its author. The moral purity of the 
 law is the moral purity of the Gospel, and both are the 
 purity of God himself. 
 
 But the New Testament best explains its own spirit. 
 Does it recognize the relation of master and slave, 
 among the the relations authorized in the Christian 
 Church]. 
 
 The first answer to this question is, the history of 
 the Centurion at Capernaum. Luke vii. 2, "And a 
 certain Centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, 
 was sick." The word, here translated servant, is doulos. 
 The meaning, among the Greeks, was the same with 
 eved among the Hebrews, a slave. In all its compounds 
 and formations, (and they are some twenty or thirty) 
 it retains this essential meaning ; so that there is no 
 word in any language whose meaning is more accurate- 
 ly fixed. It would seem scarcely possible to question, 
 whether the Apostles use it in its proper sense. When 
 it was necessary for them to express an idea, unknown 
 to the Greeks, or one peculiar to the Hebrews, they, as 
 our Missionaries now do, would either form a new word, 
 in accordance with the idiom of the language, or use a 
 familiar word in a modified sense. But every principle 
 of common sense, and every law of speech, would 
 require that, in expressing an idea common to both 
 languages, they should use the word appropriated to 
 that idea in the language in which they spoke or wrote. 
 The slave was familiar to both Greek and Hebrew. — 
 The Greeks also had their appropriate word for hire- 
 ling — misthios. Yet it has been denied that the Apos- 
 
ties used doulos, in iis appropriate sense. Willi what 
 foundation, such denial is made, a very slight examina- 
 tion will show. When the Apostles present the con- 
 trast between freeman, eleul/tcros, and its opposite, dou- 
 los is invariably used. 
 
 Rom. vi. 20 — "For when ye were (douloi) the serv- 
 ants of sin, ye were (ehutheroi) free from righteous- 
 ness. " 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 21 — "Art thou called, being (doulos) a ser- 
 vant," — "but if thou mayest be made (eleutheros) free." 
 
 Verse 22 — " For he that is called in the Lord, being 
 (doulos) a servant, is the Lord's (apeleutheros) freed 
 man. P. 
 
 Gal. iii. 28 — " There is neither (doulos) bond nor 
 [eleuthcros] free. " 
 
 Coloss. iii. 11 — "Where there is neither \_doulos~] 
 bond, nor [eleutheros'] free. " 
 
 See also Eph. vi. 8— Rev. vi. 15 and xiii. 16, and 
 xix. 18. 
 
 In a conversation with the Jews, John viii. 30, 40, our 
 Saviour said, " The truth shall make you free" [using 
 the verb formed from eleutheros.] The Jews at once 
 replied, " We be Abraham's seed, and were never in 
 bondage, [ literally, never rendered the service of 
 slaves] to any man. How then sayest thou ye shall be 
 made free. " They at once seized the contrast. How 
 can we be made elcutheroi if we were never douloi? — 
 The Saviour replied, "Whosoever committeth sin, is 
 [doulos] the slave of sin. " 
 
 These examples make the meaning of doulos in the 
 New Testament, sufficiently plain. It is used as eved 
 was used in the Jewish Church, to express the servi- 
 tude of the Christian to his heavenly master. A dou- 
 los of God, is one who is not his own master; who lias 
 
'>.-» 
 
 been bought with a price. He, his family, his proper- 
 ty, his time, his body and his spirit, belong to God; and 
 he lives, and labors not for himself, but for him, whose 
 property he is. It is true, that no one is, in this sense, 
 the doulos of God, but he, who has voluntarily chosen 
 him as his master. 
 
 Doulos is used, not to express the mode in which this 
 relation was constituted: but the nature of the relation 
 itself. The angels, who remain as they were created, 
 are thedoidoi of God, as really as penitent men. 
 
 The Greeks had other words, expressing some modi- 
 fication of the general idea of slavery, as house-slave, 
 footman, &c. They also used the word pais (boy) as 
 the word boy is now frequently used in Slave-holding 
 States. But the genuine idea of slave, both in classic 
 Greek, and in the New Testament, is expressed by 
 doulos. 
 
 This Centurion, of whom our Saviour said, "I have 
 not found so great faith, not in all Israel, " was then a 
 master. Cornelius, "a devout man, who feared God, 
 with all his house/' was also a master. Acts x. 7, "and 
 when the angel was departed, he called two of his 
 household servants." The word here used, is oiketes — 
 a house-slave. The same word is used, Luke xvi. 18, 
 "No servant can serve two masters." 
 
 Acts xii. 12, 13 — When Peter knocked at the gate of 
 Mary, the Mother of John, Mark, "a damsel came to 
 hearken, whose name was Rhoda." 
 
 The word here translated damsel, is pardiske, a fe- 
 male slave. It is used in the Septuagint, as the trans- 
 lation of ama, a bond-woman. It is used in Gal. iv. 
 22, 30, 31, and is there translated bond- woman. It is 
 the word used in Acts xvi. 16-A certain dmnsel brought 
 
 her master much gain — Also in Luke xii. 45, "And 
 4 
 
§6 
 
 shall begin to beat the men-servants, and maidens" maid- 
 servants. All the Evangelists used it to designate the 
 maid to whom Peter denied his master. These are the 
 only places in which this word is used in the New 
 Testament; and from these, we cannot question the 
 rank of this Rhoda. Rosenmuller and Kuinoel in John 
 xviii. 17 — "Then saith the damsel \_pardiske~] that kept 
 the door," say — "Whilst the heathen made their male- 
 slaves, porters, the Jews not unfrequently devolved 
 this duty on their female slaves. Such was the office of 
 this maid-servant of the high priest, and of Rhoda, the 
 maid-servant of Mary." Besides those instances of its 
 actual existence in the Church, the use which our Sa- 
 viour made of this relation, in the parables, and illus- 
 trations of truth and duty, is inconsistent with the be- 
 lief that he considered it sinful. I will refer to a single 
 parable — Luke xv. The father of the prodigal son, 
 is represented as having (mlstJtioi) hired servants, and 
 also \_douloi] slaves. The command, to bring the best 
 robe, and the ring, and the shoes, was addressed to the 
 [doulous] slaves. The son, "when he came to himself," 
 contrasts his situation, with that of his father's [«jw- 
 thioi] hired servants ; and humbled, and penitent, he- 
 asks to be made, not as his father's slave, but as a hire- 
 ling. Was not the situation of a hireling, in that age, 
 and in such a family, inferior to that of a slave? The 
 self-condemned son chose the lowest place in his father's 
 house, a-s best harmonizing with his sense of ill-desert. 
 The father is presented as a model of benevolence, an 
 eminent illustration of the benevolence and compassion 
 of God towards penitent sinners. In the parable, we 
 see the penitent son— the father weeping with joy em- 
 bracing him, and the family slaves rejoicing with their 
 master. Ts the grouping unnatural? does it violate the 
 
27 
 
 principles of moral right? Certainly had our Saviour 
 regarded the relation of master and slave as sinful, it 
 would not have been introduced here. All these in- 
 stances were probably connected with the Jewish law, 
 and could plead Divine authority. We may still ask, 
 how the founders of the Christian Church treat this 
 relation, as it existed among the Gentiles, and without 
 God's expressed permission. 
 
 The relation of master and slave among the heathen, 
 can be traced to the time of the patriarchs. Probably 
 Job, and Abraham, and Abimelech, and Pharoah, how- 
 ever they differed in the treatment of their slaves, held 
 them by the same tenure. 
 
 The legal rank of the Roman slave may be regarded 
 as essentially his rank throughout the heathen world. 
 The Romans, like the Jews, permitted their own citi- 
 zens to be sold into servitude for debt, or crime, or by 
 their parents. Like them they regarded such servants 
 rather as hirelings, than as slaves, for when their servi- 
 tude terminated, they regained their rank as citizens. 
 The law forbade the stealing and selling a Roman citi- 
 zen. The law, or rather the spirit of this law, seems 
 to have existed as early, and extensively as the practice 
 of slavery. Rachel and J^eah say of their father, Gen. 
 xxxi, 14-15. "Are we not counted of him as stran- 
 gers? For he hath sold us and hath quite devoured 
 also our money." Shewing that only strangers were 
 thus sold. The Roman slave was either taken in war, 
 " bought with money," or ' ; born in the house." Justi- 
 nian's Institutes, 1. 3, 3 — " Slaves are denominated 
 serri, from the practice of our generals to sell their 
 captives, and thus preserve (servare) and not slay them." 
 
 An incident in the later history of the Jews will 
 shew the influence which this practice of selling their 
 
28 
 
 captives had on heathen warfare. Antiochus Epipha- 
 nes was required to pay to the Romans a tribute of two 
 thousand talents. Nicaner, his general, proposed to 
 raise this sum from the sale of the Jews he should cap- 
 ture in a war against that cople. He then sent to the 
 cities and the sea coast, proclaiming a sale of these 
 captives, and collected a large number of slave mer- 
 chants who accompanied his army, prepared to purchase 
 the Jews, when set up to public vendue in the camp. 
 M: Mace, viii, 10, 1L 
 
 There was a constant slave market at Rome. 
 
 " Slaves were held pro nullis, [as nobody;] pro 
 moxtuis, [as dead men ;] per quadrupedibus;." nay, were 
 in a much worse state than any cattle whatsoever. 
 They had no head in the state, no name, title, or regis- 
 ter; tliey were not capable of being injured, nor could 
 they take by purchase or descent ; they had no heirs, 
 and could therefore make no will, exclusive of what 
 was called their "peculium ;" whatever they acquired 
 was their master's ; they could not plead nor be pleaded 
 for ; they were not entitled to the rights and considera- 
 tions of matrimony, and therefore had no relief in case 
 of adultery ; nor were they proper objects of cognation 
 and affinity ; they could be sold, transferred or pawned, 
 as goods; for goods they were and as such they were 
 esteemed ; they might be tortured for evidence ; pun- 
 ished at the discretion of their master, or even put to 
 death by his authority ; together with many other civil 
 incapacities which I have not room to enumerate. Coo- 
 per's Justinian, note, pp. 411. 
 
 In Justinian's Institutes, 1, 8, 1, 22, we find it as- 
 serted even so late as A. D. 533. — " All slaves are in 
 the power of their masters, a power derived from the 
 law of nations; for it is observable among all nations 
 
29 
 
 that masters have always had the power of life and 
 death over their slaves." The next section limits this 
 right among the Romans. " All our subjects are now 
 forbidden to inflict any extraordinary punishment upon 
 their slaves, without legal cause. " Some of the Roman 
 citizens held 20,000 slaves. 
 
 Such was the slavery which the Apostles every where 
 encountered, so soon as they passed the bounds of Judea. 
 Churches among the heathen were to be formed of mas- 
 ters owning slaves, and of slaves serving masters under 
 such laws. How then did they treat this relation? — 
 The answer to this question may be found in their Episr- 
 tles to these churches. They treated it as they treated 
 the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, 
 equally perverted by these heathen. They corrected 
 its abuses, but did not forbid the relation. Both slaves 
 and masters were received into the church, the rela- 
 tion was recognized, and the duties of the master and 
 slave were enjoined. The Apostles addressed slaves 
 as members of the church, and prescribed their duties 
 as slaves. 
 
 1 Cor. vii. 21 — "Art thou called being (doulos) a ser- 
 vant? care not for it." 
 
 Eph. vi. 5, 6 — "Ye servants {douloi) be obedient to 
 your own masters according to the flesh :" not with eye 
 service — but as the servants of Christ, doing the will 
 of God." 
 
 Coloss. iii. 22 — "Servants {douloi) obey in all things 
 your masters according to the flesh ; not with eye ser- 
 vice as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing 
 God." 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 5, 6 — "Let as many servants (douloi) as 
 are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of 
 all honor, that the name of God, and his doctrine be 
 not blasphemed." 
 
30 
 
 Titus, ii. 9, 10 — "Exhort servants (doulous) to be 
 obedient to their own masters, and to please them well 
 in all things, not answering again, not purloining, but 
 shewing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doc- 
 trine of God our Saviour in all things." 
 
 1 Peter, ii. 18 — "Servants be subject to your own 
 masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, 
 but also to the froward." The word translated serv- 
 ants, in this passage, is oiketes, properly a house-slave ; 
 but evidently here used as doulos. These quotations 
 sufficiently show, that slaves were members of the Apos- 
 tolic Churches, and that God enjoined the faithful per- 
 formance of their duties to their masters. 
 
 It is not sin, to be a slave ; but dishonesty, unfaith- 
 fulness, disobedience to lawful authority, is always sin- 
 ful, whether in a slave or freeman. 
 
 There were also masters in the church, and their 
 duties to their slaves were prescribed. Eph. vi. 9-" And 
 ye masters do the same things to them, (the slaves) for- 
 bearing threatening, knowing that your master is in 
 heaven." 
 
 Coloss. iv. 1 — "Masters, give unto your servants that 
 which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a 
 master in heaven." The word translated master, in 
 these verses, ischurias, whose primary meaning implies 
 authority, rather than ownership. Hence some have 
 inferred that in the New Testament kurios does not 
 mean the owner of a slave, properly designated by des- 
 potes. Schleusner (in his Lex. in Nov. Test.) on the 
 word kurios, says : "The distinction which some have 
 made between kurios and despotes, is {nihill) nothing, as 
 examples even in classic Greek plainly teached." It 
 may be added that, if possible, this distinction is still 
 less, in the Greek of the Scriptures. Kurios is the pro- 
 
31 
 
 per translation of the Hebrew word adonai master — 
 and is generally used for it in the Septuagint. Gen. 
 xxxix. 2 — "Joseph was in the house of his master," 
 (kurios.) "And his master," (kurios.) Besides the ku- 
 rios Of a slave, is necessarily, his master. 
 
 1 Tim. vi. 2 — "And they that have believing masters, 
 let them not despise them because they are brethren, 
 but rather do them service, because they are faithful, 
 and beloved, partakers of the benefit." Here the word 
 translated masters, is despoles, whose appropriate signifi- 
 cation is, " the owner of a slave. " Yet it has been 
 asserted that these men were not masters, but were 
 only so called, because they had once sustained that 
 relation, as Gen. Washington retained his title, long 
 after he had resigned the commission that conferred the 
 authority. But the assertion is most obviously unfounded 
 The command is addressed to "as many (doidoi) servants 
 as are under the yoke. 1 '' How could these douloi be un- 
 der the yoke, if these masters had lost their authority"? 
 Besides, in the jjhrase, "but rather do them service,'" 
 the Apostle uses the word, douliou, which as Schleus- 
 ner shews, means "the .service of those who are under 
 the dominion, and in the possession of another whether 
 bought with money or taken in war, or born in the 
 house," the service of slave. The passage then asserts, 
 unequivocally, that these despotes were then masters, 
 and beloved brethren in the Church. 
 
 The epistle to Philemon sustains this position. One- 
 simus, Philemon's fugitive slave, had gone to Rome. 
 Whilst there, he attended the ministry of Paul and 
 was converted. The apostle sent him back to his mas- 
 ter, and in this epistle, earnestly entreats Philemon to 
 receive and pardon Onesimus, who had become a be- 
 loved brother. The epistle is a model of affectionate 
 
?>2 
 
 and eloquent intercession, yet it acknowledges Phile- 
 mon's claim to the services of Onesimus. u Whom I 
 would have retained with me, that in thy stead he 
 might have ministered to me in the bonds of the gospel ; 
 (in chains for the gospel.) But without thy mind, I 
 would do nothing." Though Paul, in chains, greatly 
 needed .some one to minister to him, and found Onesi- 
 mus peculiarly qualified for this service, yet he would 
 not interfere with the legal rights of Philemon, and 
 detain him without his master's consent. This epistle, 
 in the name of Paul and Timothy, is inscribed to "Phile- 
 mon, our dearly beloved" and fellow laborer. It there- 
 fore proves, as do the other epistles, quoted for this 
 purpose, that the apostles did not regard the relation of 
 master and slave as inconsistent with a cx*edible profes- 
 sion of Christianity. 
 
 They prove also, that where this relation existed 
 among the Gentiles, the apostles did not forbid its con- 
 tinuance. They treated it as they treated the relations 
 of husband and wife, of parent and child, among the 
 same Gentiles. They modified, purified, and made 
 them the source of great domestic, and .social, and spi- 
 ritual blessings. In the same paragraph that prescribes 
 the duties of husbands and wives, of parents and chil- 
 dren, the duties of masters and slaves are prescribed. 
 The same code that authorises the one relation, recog- 
 nizes the other. The same epistles that are inscribed 
 to husbands and wives, parents and children as holy, 
 beloved, and faithful brethren, are by the same inscrip- 
 tion, addressed to masters and slaves. Is there then, 
 more reason to doubt wheth er this relation be authori- 
 zed in the Christian Church, than whether it was au- 
 thorized in the Jewish Church'? 
 
 It may be added that the practice of slavery con- 
 
33 
 
 tinued in the Church, from the time of the Apostles, 
 nearly to the time of Luther. In the 14th century a 
 law was passed abolishing slavery in France, but it was 
 generally disregarded. And so late as 1574, there was 
 a commission from Elizabeth of England, respecting 
 the manumission of two of her bondmen.* The cha- 
 racter of slavery in the Roman Empire, may be learned 
 from Justinian's Institutes, published A. D. 533, when 
 the government had been at least, nominally Christian, 
 for almost two centuries. Its earlier history is less 
 offensive. Ignatius, who was contemporary with the 
 Apostles, suffered martyrdom, A. D. 107. On his way 
 to execution, he thus writes to Polycarp : — "Despise 
 not slaves of either sex : yet let them not be puffed up, 
 but serve more faithfully, to the glory of God, that they 
 may obtain a better liberty from God : let them not de- 
 sire to be set at liberty, at the charge of the Church, 
 lest they be found slaves of lust." — Milner's Ch. Hist. 
 vol. 1. p. 152. 
 
 Polycarp suffered martyrdom, A. D. 167. He also 
 was a companion of the Apostles. Whilst the perse- 
 cution was raging, he was induced, by his friends, to 
 retire to a neighboring village. The civil officers, not 
 finding him at his house, seized two of his servants, 
 and by torturing one of them, compelled him to disclose 
 the place of his master's retreat. The same persecu- 
 tion in which Polycarp suffered, visited the churches of 
 Vienne and Lyons. In a letter, giving an account of 
 their sufferings, they say, these were greatly aggravated 
 " by the conduct of their heathen servants. Some of 
 these servants had been apprehended, and they accused 
 the Christians of eating human flesh, and of various 
 unnatural crimes, not fit to be mentioned or imagined." 
 
 * Robertson's Charles V. vol. 1 — notes IX. XX.— where the reader will find 
 many hints on the slavery of the Middle Ages. 
 
 5 
 
This same letter gives an account of a female slave, 
 and her mistress who suffered martyrdom together. — 
 Milner's Ch. Hist. vol. 1, p. 188. Some time after this, 
 we have an account of the martyrdom of Pamphilius, a 
 Presbyter, and that of his servant. They also suffered 
 together. 
 
 I will present another fact connected with this sub- 
 ject, though of later date. It is selected, partly because 
 of its national relation ; and in part, because it suggests 
 a proper course of conduct towards Africa. 
 
 " That Gregory, who was afterwards raised to the 
 Popedom, and is distinguished by the appellation of 
 ' the Great, ' was one day led into the market-place at 
 Rome, to look at a large importation of foreign mer- 
 chandize. Among the articles there, were some boys 
 exposed for sale. There was nothing remarkable in 
 this, for it was the custom every where in that age, and 
 had been so from time immemorial ; but he was struck 
 by the appearance of the boys, their clear skin, their 
 flaxen hair, and ingeneous countenances." On enquir- 
 ing, he learned that they were English, from the Is- 
 land of Britain; and were heathen. He immediately 
 resolved to visit Britain, that he might convert the Eng- 
 lish, but was prevented, by his election to the Papacy. 
 After his election, he sent forty Missionaries to England, 
 and an agent into France to purchase young Anglo- 
 Saxon slaves, and place them in Monasteries, where 
 they might be carefully educated, and prepared to as- 
 sist in converting their countrymen. — Southey's Book 
 of the Church, vol. 1, p. 23. 
 
 We have now completed this biblical investigation. 
 We have shewed that the relation of master and slave, 
 existed in the Patriarchal Church : was recognized in 
 the Abrahamic Covenant : was incorporated with the 
 
35 
 
 entire Civil and Ecclesiastical polity of the Jews : ex- 
 isted in the families of persons whom our Saviour and 
 his Apostles represented and treated as eminently 
 pious : and that in the churches formed by the Apostles, 
 it was the subject of advice and legislation, like the 
 other social and domestic relations. It has also been 
 shewn, that it continued in the church till near the 
 time of the Reformation. 
 
 It will not require a labored exposition of the princi- 
 ples and practical effect of modern Abolitionism, to 
 make the contrast, between it and the Bible, manifest. 
 In shewing this contrast, I do not impeach the intelli- 
 gence or moral principle of Abolitionists, but allow 
 them due credit for both. 
 
 Abolitionism assumes that the relation of master 
 and slave is a sin — a palpable violation of duty to God 
 and man. Its object is to banish this relation from the 
 church and country. 
 
 The effect of this principle, upon Abolitionists, in their 
 connection icith the Church, They can have no chris- 
 tian fellowship with those who sustain the relation of 
 master, because in their opinion, such live in the prac- 
 tice of a scandalous sin. They establish a term of 
 communion, unknown to the Church, since "the begin- 
 ning." One which would exclude Prophet and Apos- 
 tle, and Martyr, and which alike condemns the laws 
 and Lawgiver of the Church. 
 
 They demand that ecclesiastical courts shall condemn 
 as a sin, what the head of the Church has authorized, 
 not only in the charter, but in all the laws that he has 
 ever given for the government of the church. They 
 regard the ministers of Christ, who differ from them 
 on this subject, as unfaithful to their trust, and unwor- 
 thy of the support or confidence of the Church. 
 
36 
 
 The effect on their conduct as citizens. Abolitionists 
 are opposed to the laws, and the government, on the 
 ground of moral principle. They demand a change of 
 the laws, and of the bond of union between the States, 
 and avail themselves of all their political rights, that 
 they may effect this change. They use the "liberty of 
 speech and of the press," in its utmost latitude, and as- 
 sailing the characters of ministers, of churches, of civil 
 rulers, and legislators, that they may create and direct a 
 strong public sentiment in favor of this object. They 
 claim, that in thus using the press and speech, they 
 violate no duty of the citizen, because, if convicted of 
 slander or a libel, they are prepared to submit to the 
 penalty. But then, neither does he who resorts to the 
 club and stone, to avenge these aspersions, violate any 
 duty of the citizen ; for the law also grants him liberty 
 of person and limb, and he uses this liberty as he 
 thinks proper, subject to the penalty of their abuse ! — 
 A principle which makes submission to the penalty, 
 equivalent to obedience to the law, and subverts all 
 government. It would make the inmates of the State's 
 Prison, to be law-abiding citizens, and even Satan him- 
 self is thus converted into a dutiful subject of the 
 divine government. They assume the power to declare 
 civil laws null and void, and absolve officers from the 
 oath, binding them to support the Constitution. They 
 apply to foreign pow T ers, and invite their co-operation. 
 In the "World's Convention" met at London, 1840, — 
 the American delegates offered and advocated resolu- 
 tions, to enlist the aid of the foreign press, that the in- 
 dignation of the world might be excited against this 
 Slaveholding Republic. They stated that the " Amer- 
 ican Abolitionists fell back for assistance on the civili- 
 zed world : that they relied on external application ; ' 
 
 B 
 
and that "the civilized world must erect a wall of ex- 
 terminating fire around American Slavery which should 
 melt the hard hearts of American Slaveholders;" "that 
 they relied on moral power, and by moral power — 
 
 meant political action."* 
 
 Now according to human laws, this was not treason. 
 But does not the conduct of these delegates, toward 
 their own country, bear a very marked resemblance to 
 that of the celebrated Peter the Hermit — toward the 
 Turks? They were preaching up a crusade, and would 
 arouse the press, and the indignation, and political ac- 
 tion of the world against their own country, — that by 
 these means the government may be compelled to 
 adopt the principle of Abolitionists. 
 
 It is easy to perceive the contrast between all this 
 and the principles and practice of early Christians. — 
 Tertullian exhibits a beautiful view of the conduct of 
 Christians toward the civil government, in the Third 
 Century. In his apology for Christians, he says : "We 
 looking up to heaven with outstretched hands, because 
 they are harmless, with naked hands, because we 
 are not ashamed, without a prompter, because we 
 pray from the heart, constantly pray for the Emperors, 
 that they may have a long life, a secure empire, a safe 
 palace, strong armies, a faithful senate, a well morali- 
 zed people, a quiet state of the world — whatever Cresar 
 would wish for himself in his public and private capa- 
 city." And, after significantly hinting at the number 
 of the Christians, and their power to defend themselves, 
 he adds : "We are dead to all ideas of worldly honor 
 and dignity, nothing is more foreign to us than political 
 concerns" This apology was addressed to the perse- 
 cuting Roman Emperors. But even in the days of the 
 
 * See Report of World's Convention in the Philanthropist, 1840, Nos. 19 and 
 22, of 5th vol. 
 
38 
 
 Apostles, some men crept into the Church, actuated by 
 a very different spirit. These were of that class of the 
 Jews, who believed submission to the Roman Govern- 
 ment to be a sin. They reviled the Emperor, and Ma- 
 gistrates, and endeavored to array the church against 
 the civil government, on questions of public right.* Of 
 these it is written 2 Pet. ii. 9, 10 — "The Lord knoweth 
 how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to re- 
 serve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be pun- 
 ished ; but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the 
 lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presump- 
 tuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak 
 evil of dignities." Such conduct not only tends to ex- 
 cite the civil power against the church, but tends to 
 subvert all government, and infuses a spirit of insubor- 
 dination uncontrollable by either human or divine law. 
 
 The effect on the moral influence of Abolitionists. It 
 conveys an unscriptural idea of the importance of civil 
 rights, contrasted with the interests of the soul. 
 
 The providential government of God and his word, 
 teach that man's outward condition is of little impor- 
 tance compared with what involves his eternal condi- 
 tion. "One thing is needful," is the great lesson of God's 
 word and providence. 
 
 The conduct of Abolitionists teaches a different les- 
 son. They concentrate their energies upon another 
 object. They agitate the Church, and the State, 
 threatening each with dissolution if this object be not 
 attained. They desecrate the Sabbath by collecting 
 crowds in political assemblies on that holy day. They 
 advise the slave to violate the eighth commandment, and 
 to disobey all the commands which God has addressed 
 to him as a slave. 
 
 *See Macknight's illustration of 1 3th Romans. 
 
39 
 
 And what is this object, dearer than the integrity of 
 the government, the peace of the church, the sanctity 
 of the Sabbath, and the commands of God] A politi- 
 cal right. What a lesson for the slave, and for the 
 world ! Let this be compared with what God says, 
 on this same subject. 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21 — "Let every 
 man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 
 Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it : but if 
 thou mayest be made free use, it rather." 
 
 Here I cannot but advert to the claims of superior 
 benevolence towards the slave, so confidently made for 
 Abolitionism. We must judge of the benevolence of a 
 plan, not alone from the favor proffered, but also by the 
 proposed means of securing it. There is no benevo- 
 lence in proffering wealth to a poor neighbor, if it must 
 be obtained by fraud or theft. Satan's proposal to grati- 
 fy the fond wishes of Eve, might have been deemed 
 polite and kind, had it not involved the violation of a 
 divine command. Is that benevolence to the .slave, 
 which encourages and aids him to secure his freedom, 
 by violating the command, "to serve his master with 
 all fidelity!" Or is it benevolent to infuse into his mind 
 such notions, as will make his servitude a galling yoke, 
 and disqualifying him for obeying the mandate "to 
 count his own master worthy of all honor." 
 
 The effect on the moral 'power of the Bible. Abolition- 
 ism assumes to demonstrate by a process of inductive 
 reasoning, that the relation of master and slave is a 
 gross sin — a violation of the laws of our being. From 
 this, it follows, by necessary consequence; that no book 
 authorizing this relation, can come, from God. The 
 Christian Abolitionist denies that this relation is au- 
 thorized by the Bible ; and adopts a system of exegeti- 
 cal rules, that make the Scriptures teach according to 
 
40 
 
 his theory. With him, "forever," when applied to 
 servitude, means "to the year of Jubilee," Abraham's 
 "servants, bought with his money," are religious con- 
 verts ; and eved and doulos, instead of meaning slave, 
 mean in fact, only hired servant. The effect of such a 
 mode of interpreting the Scriptures, is obvious. Men 
 learn to believe, that the Bible is an unintelligible book. 
 It ceases to speak to the heart and conscience, with 
 divine authority. The writing upon the wall, may be 
 from God, but the impression is, according to their con- 
 fidence in the interpreter. But there is another class, 
 uninfluenced by a reverence for the Bible, who will 
 welcome a pretext for evading its authority. These 
 will try it by the strict laws of interpretation, and con- 
 vict it of teaching this forbidden doctrine ; and con- 
 demn it, and be freed from its authority. Unless I have 
 been misinformed, these results have already been wit- 
 nessed in not a few instances. But where this result 
 has not been produced, even members and officers of 
 the church frequently say, "if I believed that the Bible 
 authorizes slavery, I would reject it." This is the true 
 issue in this controversy. Whether God, alone, shall 
 decide what is sin ; whether the Scriptures sustained 
 alone, by the name and authority of God, are, and 
 ought to be, the only rule of faith and practice ; or 
 whether, by inductive reasonings, from what may be 
 termed first principles, we also may decide what is sin, 
 and from appeals to human feelings and sympathies, 
 and public sentiment, may obtain another rule of faith 
 and practice 1 Viewing the doctrines of the Bible, 
 and its claims to human credence, as I do, I cannot 
 avoid the conviction that the influence of modern Abo- 
 litionism, is not only injurious to the moral power of 
 the Scriptures, but is also calculated to produce and 
 
41 
 
 nourish the infidelity " of political principle, " the in- 
 fidelity of France — which exhibited to the world the 
 remarkable spectacle of a nation declaring war against 
 the Bible, and proclaiming its author an enemy to the 
 State. 
 
 The effect upon specific precepts of the Bible. Aboli- 
 tionism annuls many precepts of the New Testament, 
 and substitutes its own in their stead. 
 This — says, 1 Cor. vii. 21 — " Art thou called, being a 
 servant, care not for it. But if thou mayest be made 
 free, use it rather." 
 That — teaches the slave to care greatly for it; to care 
 for it more than obedience to God, and for his own 
 soul; and if he be not made free, it bids him by flight, 
 to free himself 
 This — Eph. vi. 5, teaches, " Servants to be obedient 
 unto their masters in singleness of heart, as unto 
 Christ. " 
 That — abhors the idea of comparing the obedience due 
 to the master, with what we owe to Christ ; and 
 teaches that masters are not to be obeyed at all. 
 This — 1 Tim. vi. 1, teaches, "Servants to count their 
 
 own masters worthy of all honor. " 
 That— not only despises masters, but also teaches the 
 
 slaves to despise them. 
 This — Tit. ii. 10, teaches servants not to purloin, but 
 
 to shew all good fidelity. 
 That — teaches them utter faithlessness, even to flight ; 
 aids them to flee, and bids them to steal, if necessa- 
 ry, to assist in their escape. 
 This — 1 Tim. vi. 2 and Tit. ii. 9, commands all minis- 
 ters of the gospel to teach, and exhort servants to 
 perform these duties. 
 
 That — forbids ministers so to teach, and condemns 
 6 
 
42 
 
 those who do it as hirelings, unfaithful, time-servers, 
 and traitors to truth and righteousness. 
 This — says 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4, "If any man teach other- 
 wise, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about 
 questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh en- 
 vy, strife, railing, evil surmisings. ." 
 That — utterly denies this, and claims such as wise and 
 
 faithful ministers of the true gospel. 
 This — enjoins all these duties upon the slave, that he 
 may "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, and 
 that the name of God may not be blasphemed." 
 That — says, that to require such duties from the slave, 
 is a sin ; that it is dishonoring God and the Gospel ; 
 and that his duty is to break his yoke, and escape 
 from all obedience. 
 
 It is a remarkable circumstance, that among good 
 men, whose motto is, " The Bible — the only rule of 
 faith and practice," there should be such a palpable 
 mutilation of the Scriptures. 
 
 If we can erase these texts, we can erase the whole; 
 and if we can substitute these commands, we can make 
 a Bible. What does the Pope claim more than this? 
 
 Such is the influence which a false principle, under 
 the guise of benevolence and piety, exerts upon the 
 belief and practice of good men : and such is the con- 
 trast between the Bible and Abolitionism. 
 
 Abolitionism would exclude from the church, all who 
 have not received its impress. It demands the keys, 
 " that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the 
 mark, or the name of the beast or the number of his 
 name," Rev. xiii. 17.* 
 
 * In the "World's Convention," to which reference has been made, it was 
 moved by an American Delegate, "that Foreign Christians should have no fel- 
 lowship with Ministers from the United States, except those who at home were 
 outspoken Abolitionjsts." Of course the Resolution passed. 
 
43 
 
 It assumes the power of absolving citizens from the 
 oath of allegiance. 
 
 It abrogates divine commandments. Though it does 
 not excommunicate by "Bull" it calls upon the civi- 
 lized world to treat us as an excommunicated nation, 
 till we receive its mark. 
 
 In its periodicals, it publishes an "Index Expurgato- 
 rius, " not of books, but of men — of ministers and 
 statesmen, whom its friends are warned to avoid. 
 
 Though it does not claim the power of burning its 
 heretics in a fire made of faggots, yet, it would draw 
 around them "the indignation of the world" "a wall 
 of exterminating fire, to melt their hard hearts." 
 
 If this spirit had the power of the sword, in what 
 would it differ from "the man of sin," of the thirteenth 
 and fourteenth centuries'? Yet, it demands to be 
 received into the State, as being the very "genius of 
 liberty ;" and into the church, as the very essence of 
 benevolence; dear to God, and consecrated to his cause. 
 So the Grecian horse stood before the gates of Troy, 
 a consecrated offering to a Trojan idol. Trojan hands 
 drew it into the city. It was received with songs, and 
 the sound of trumpets, and great rejoicing. But whilst 
 the citizens slept, the enemies concealed in its bosom, 
 crept forth, and Troy was destroyed. Satan, who is 
 more cunning than Ulysses, is the true author of this 
 mode of deluding and destroying men. "Decipimur 
 specie recti," applies not to writers of poetry alone. — 
 All men are easily "deceived by the semblance of right." 
 The acquisition of knowledge tempted Eve to eat the 
 forbidden fruit. It was by "professing themselves to 
 be wise," that the ancients "became fools, and changed 
 the glory of God, into an image made like man, and 
 beasts, and creeping things." The Pharisee "made 
 
44 
 
 void the law," by saying it is " Corban. " And under 
 the pretext of promoting purity and truth, and godli- 
 ness, the "Man of Sin" has made void both Law and 
 Gospel. Satan well understands how to give to his 
 devices the semblance of goodness : and to connect 
 with them a class of means, fatal to all the interests of 
 the community, by which his device is adopted. We 
 do not believe that Abolitionists design to injure the 
 Church and State. Neither did the Cyprians and 
 Augustines, and Chrysostoms, of the early church de- 
 sign injury. But they effected it, and to such a degree, 
 that compared with what they did, all the oppression 
 and persecutions of her enemies, were nothing. They 
 nourished the man of sin ; they introduced him into the 
 church : they were his sponsors, and on their responsi- 
 bility, he was numbered with the disciples of Christ. 
 
 Shall we not learn wisdom from the past, and try 
 the spirit, whether "it be of God," ere we receive it 
 into the church, or into our hearts. "To the law and 
 to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this 
 word, it is because there is no light in them. " 
 
 It may be enquired — "Where is the remedy for the 
 evils of slavery as it exists in our country; if the prin- 
 ciples of Abolitionism be rejected ? " There are, also, 
 evils connected with our other domestic and social 
 relations. And for all these, the gospel is the sufficient 
 and only remedy. Because it has not yet made the 
 relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, 
 what they should be — shall we abandon the gospel, as 
 inefficacious or insufficient, and adopt remedies of our 
 own devi sings'? Or shall we abandon it, because it 
 appears to be so slow in accomplishing the desired 
 result? When Saul had waited seven days at Gilgal, 
 that Samuel might come, and offer the prescribed sacri- 
 
45 
 
 fice, because he tarried, Saul assumed to himself the 
 office of priest, and offered the sacrifice,. His pretext 
 was, that Samuel delayed his coming. The Prophet 
 said, "thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the 
 commandment of the Lord thy God : thy kingdom 
 shall not continue." — 1 Sam. xiii. 8, 14. Shortly after 
 this, Saul again substituted his own device, for a divine 
 commandment. Then Samuel said, "Behold, to obey 
 is better than sacrifice, and hearken, than the fat 
 of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and 
 stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry ; because thou 
 hast rejected the Lord, the Lord has rejected thee from 
 being King." — 1 Sam. xv. 22, 23. And from that time 
 the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil 
 spirit entered into him. We need patience; and are 
 commanded to exercise it in laboring, as well as in 
 suffering. "Behold the husbandman waiteth for the 
 precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for 
 it, until he received the early and the latter rain. Be 
 ye also patient." 
 
 In the Olympic race — the successful competitor 
 must have complied with all the prescribed rules of 
 the race. It is thus with those, who contend for the 
 heavenly crown. "Though a man may strive, yet is 
 he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." He must 
 neither attempt to shorten the distance, nor change the 
 course. 
 
 But if we compare the effects of the two plans, on 
 both master and slave, it seems hardly possible that any 
 true friend to either, could desire a change in the gos- 
 pel plan, even though it were practicable and lawful. 
 
 Abolitionism proposes, as its consummation, " the 
 immediate and entire emancipation of the slave, be- 
 cause his master has no right to hold him." Admit 
 
46 
 
 this to have been effected through the present efforts of 
 Abolitionists. Will not the master believe that his pro- 
 perty has been forcibly wrested from him? and will 
 he not indulge unkind feelings toward the freed slave, 
 and the Abolitionists ? The slave obtains his freedom, 
 as one who has been long and most unrighteously 
 oppressed. Will it not seem to him a virtue to hate 
 his former oppressors? Can we expect any harmony 
 or interchange of kindly feeling between them? 
 
 But what will be the effect upon the 'political con- 
 dition of the slave? With the ignorance and inexpe- 
 rience of the bondman — he becomes a free citizen, in 
 a community of his fellows. What will be the pros- 
 pects of such a community? 
 
 When the Jews were emancipated from Egyptian 
 bondage, their number was about equal to the number 
 of slaves now in the United States. Yet, with a pros- 
 pect of national prosperity and glory, such as had never 
 been conceived by any other people ; and with influen- 
 ces to humble them, and secure reverence for their 
 rider, and obedience to law — such as were never 
 exerted upon another community ; it was found im- 
 possible to constitute them an independent nation. — 
 The entire generation that had arrived to years of 
 maturity, at the exodus, from Egypt, perished in the 
 wilderness. The next generation required the discip- 
 line of the forty years in the wilderness, ere they were 
 prepared to become a nation. To them Moses said, 
 'And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord 
 thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to 
 humble thee, and prove thee, to know what was in 
 thine heart, whether thou wonkiest keep his command- 
 ments or no." — Deut. viii. 2. 
 
 What then, must be the prospects of the slaves, if 
 
emancipated, on the plan of Abolitionism ') How 
 different from these effects are those of the Gospel ! 
 It takes both master and slave under its supervision, 
 and with its own divine authority prescribes to each his 
 relative duty. It constitutes the master the guardian 
 of his slaves, responsible to his "master in heaven," not 
 only for their kind treatment, but, for their moral and 
 religious culture. It thus provides for the instruction 
 of every slave, by a teacher, who has an interest in his 
 Avelfare, such as no other person can have. What sys- 
 tem of common schools can be compared with this. 
 
 The discharge of his duties will necessarily increase 
 the master's interest in his slave. He learns to regard 
 him as a fellow-being — a man like himself, formed for 
 the glory of God, and redeemed by the blood of the 
 Saviour ; and he seeks his welfare, not only because it 
 is required, but from the fraternal feelings of humanity. 
 
 The gospel has its influence also, on the slave. It ad- 
 dresses him as a man, and sustains the responsibility of 
 man ; — teaching him that his servitude is lawful, it re- 
 moves that sullen dissatisfaction which Abolitionism 
 creates, and which so eminently unfits him for receiving 
 instruction. Now he appreciates and assists his mas- 
 ter's efforts for his culture. He learns to serve, not with 
 eye-service, but as fearing God ; and in his care for his 
 master's interest, and his anxiety, that "he may adorn 
 the doctrines of God his Saviour, he learns the duties 
 and cultivates the habits of a freeman. If it now seem 
 best that he should be made free, the way is prepared. 
 He can now be emancipated, without injury to himself, 
 without the regrets of his master, and without detri- 
 ment to the State. 
 
 Will it be said that "this result can never be accom- 
 plished." Then the question recurs:— Shall we adopt 
 
48 
 
 a plan of on? own devising? Because, from unbelief, 
 we doubt the efficacy of the divine plan ; or from an 
 overweaning estimate of our own wisdom, we feel able 
 to devise one more efficacious, shall we take credit to 
 ourselves for rejecting God\s and substituting our own? 
 But the gospel proposes, and enjoins no plan that 
 may not — shall not be realized, if the church discharge 
 her duty. Let the zeal, manifested in efforts to coun- 
 teract the divine plan, be exerted for its execution ; let 
 the church in the meek spirit of her Redeemer, with 
 entire confidence in the perfection of his law, and an 
 humble reliance on his aid, teach the master and slave 
 according to his word, and who can doubt the result? 
 "If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my 
 people to hear my words, then they should have turned 
 them from their evil way, and from the evil of their 
 doings." If we would do good to others, we must 
 stand in the counsels of the Lord. If we would save 
 our own souls, his word must be "hid in our hearts." 
 "Thus saith the Lord the heaven is my throne, and 
 the earth is my footstool : where is the house that ye 
 build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? — 
 But to this man will I look, even <to him that is poor, 
 and of a contrite spirit, and tremblelh at my wordy 
 
 54 W 
 

 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"of 
 
 ' " ° - 
 
 
 
 
 
 WERT 
 BOOKBINDING 
 
 » "^