C ° " ° T C> Jk*^ .•■'•< ■^ C. ° " " * 
 
 v3 
 * O 
 

 
 ^_^ 
 •^ 
 
 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 v^ 
 
 OF THE REV. DR, JUNKIN'S SYNODICAL SPEECH, 
 
 / 7^ 
 
 IN DEFENCE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY; 
 
 
 Delivered September 19th and 20th, and Published December 1843 ; 
 
 WITH AN OUTLINE OF 
 
 THE BIBLE ARGUHENT AGAINST SLAVERY. 
 
 "Out upon such folly! The man who cannot see that involuntary domestic slavery, Jis it 
 exists among us, is founded upon the principle of taking by force that which is another's, has 
 simply no moral sense." Robert J. Breckinridge. 
 
 " It is a debt we owe to the purity of our religion, to show that it is at variance with the law 
 Ihat warrants slavery. Patrick Henry. 
 
 ' O execrable son ! so to aspire 
 
 Above his brethren, to himself eissuming 
 
 Authority usurped, from God not given : 
 
 He gave us, only over beast, fis-h, fowl. 
 
 Dominion absolute ; that right we hold 
 
 By his donation ; but man over men 
 
 He made not lord ; such title to himself 
 
 Reserving, human left from human free. Milton. 
 
 4» 
 
 w* (Hmnnnatt: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE DAILY ATLAS OFFICE, 
 
 OPPOSITE THE POST OFFICE. 
 
 1844. ^ .1 
 

 A REVIEW. 
 
 " TAe Integrity of nur iN'ational Union, vs. ^boURonism: %^n Jlrgwnent 
 from the Bible in proof of the position that believing masters ought to be honored 
 and obeyed by their own servants, and tolerated in, not excommunicated from the 
 Church of God : being part of a speech delivered before the Synod of Cincinnati 
 on the subject of Slavery, September \^th and 20th, 1843, by Rev. Geo. Jimkin, 
 D. D., President of Miam,i University. " 
 
 We have just received, through the politeness ©f the printer, 
 a pamphlet of some 80 pages, hearing the above title. Aboli- 
 tionists have frequently hecn compelled to exclaim, in the lan- 
 guage of Job, " O that one would hear me ! * * * and 
 that mine adversary had written a book! " Accustomed to meet 
 in deliberative, legislative, and we are sorry to add, in ecclesias- 
 tical bodies, no other opponent than a silent but overwhelming 
 vote; and to find all opportunity of advocating the truth cut off 
 by the paltry trick of raising the question of reception, or the 
 man-trap of the Previous Question, they cannot but hail it as an 
 omen of good, and rejoice as in a sure presage of final success, 
 when the defenders of slavery arc compelled to meet them in 
 debate; and especially, when they are willing to stamp their 
 thoughts on the enduring page. Certainly we rejoiced, ( though 
 our joy was mingled with regret for the mischief it would occa- 
 sion,) when first we heard that the notorious sy nodical speech of 
 the President of Miami University, was in the hands of the 
 printer. We regard its publication as an important step 
 toward the thorough and universal investigation of the slavery 
 question, in the Presbyterian Cliurch. Truth loses nothing by 
 free inquiry. The ultimate result of discussion on this subject, 
 the friends of freedom cannot fear. We shall endeavor to pre- 
 
sent to the christian public a complete dissection of the pamph- 
 let before us. Of the soundness or unsoundness of our subject, 
 that public must decide. 
 
 And first, a single remark in reference to the individuals to 
 whom Br. Junkin's pamphlet is dedicated; — tbe Rev. Dr. J. L. 
 Wilson, Rev. J. C. Barnes, Gen. Robert B. Milikin, and C. K. 
 Smith, Esq. That the venerable and esteemed fathers in the 
 ministry, first named, should feel deeply interested in a Bible 
 argument in defence of slaveholders, and that they should 
 request the publication of a synodical speech containing such 
 an argument, is not so singular as lamentable. They believe 
 the Bible; they love the Church of the Redeemer; and how- 
 ever erroneous we may consider their opinions in regard to 
 slavery, we must admit their sincerity, and purity of motive. 
 Of the two last named gentlemen, we cannot refrain from 
 saying that their anxiety for the publication of a Bible argument 
 as to the propriety or impropriety of excommunicating slavehold- 
 ers from the Church, must strike their numerous acquaintances in 
 this region as somewhat marvellous. Had Dr. J. endeavored to 
 prove that certain characters should not be excommunicated 
 from the great Church, as the phrase goes, their concern might 
 have been more easily accounted for. We do not intend, how- 
 ever, to impugn their motives, nor to question their sincerity. 
 We are pleased to learn that even the assaults of abolitionists 
 upon " believing masters," and the fear that these assaults may 
 distract and divide christians, have led these gentlemen to 
 " grieve for the affliction of Joseph." We earnestly hope that 
 their new-born zeal for a biblical argument upon any subject, 
 and their recently discovered interest in the welfare of the 
 Redeemers kingdom, may lead them a step further in the path 
 of duty, namely, to connect themselves with some branch of the 
 visible Church, and to avow, publicly, their faith in that Divine 
 Word whose doctrines concerning slavery they seem so anxious 
 to disseminate. 
 
 Will Dr. J. permit us, in this connexion, to ask him two ques- 
 tions? First, — Is it conceivable that the situation of one of these 
 gentlemen in a certain Board of Trustees should have had any 
 influence in inducing the worthy President to select him as god- 
 
5' 
 
 father to his first western bantling? And second, — Would it 
 not have been singular, if St. Paul, having published his speech 
 before the Synod at Jerusalem, had dedicated it to Peter, John, 
 Burrhus and Seneca? We mean no offence to Burrhus and 
 Seneca by the inquiry. 
 
 A second remark upon the matter contained in the preface. 
 We are sorry that the author has had the unfairness to present, 
 in a dozen lines, a tissue of groundless and ridiculous charges 
 against English and American abolitionists; — what he is pleased 
 to style, his " aggressive movement upon the abolition camp." 
 (p. 4.) Unsustained by the slightest attempt at proof, and there- 
 fore unlikely to meet, as they are unworthy to receive, an 
 answer, they go forth with all the weight of his authority, to 
 produce their effect upon the credulous and unreflecting. If 
 not intended, these gross slanders, (for they deserv^e no better 
 name,) are admirably adapted, to excite the basest passions of 
 the mob. Had they formed a part of his speech, and had he 
 pretended to support them by the shallow arguments and idle 
 assertions which he brought forward in Synod, the antidote 
 would have accompanied the poison. He would then have con- 
 vinced his readers, not, indeed, of the truth of his charges, but 
 of the bitterness of his prejudices, the weakness of his judg- 
 ment, and the strength of his imagination. Should these remarks 
 appear unnecessarily harsh, to any one, let him remember that 
 Dr. J. has not scrupled to accuse hundreds and thousands of 
 American citizens and christians, of deliberate treason, and of 
 leaguing with foreigners for the destruction of our republic! ■ 
 
 We pass now to the Discourse itself. Dr. J. complains of 
 having been bantered into this discussion. " Sir, we have been 
 bantered into this subject. We have been told that we are afraid 
 of the light — afraid to meet the argument — that it would soon 
 be seen, upon the vote to take up, who were afraid of the truth. 
 * * * * What was the effect of this banter upon the 
 house? * * * * The reverend father upon my left could 
 no longer look down with indifference upon the gauntlet at his 
 feet. lie would no longer be bantered by the boys." (p. 6.) 
 " You have seen them in this Synod, daring, and braving, and 
 bantering us." (p. 67.) It was, indeed, asserted upon the floor 
 
of Synod, that those who refused to take from tlie table, at any 
 time, the resolutions of Dr. Bishop, should he regarded as 
 afraid of the light. Alas! that such a remark, such a banter, if 
 you please, should have been rendered necessary! Alas! that 
 members of Synod, deeply convinced of the unspeakable im- 
 portance of discussion and ecclesiastical action in regard to 
 slavery, should be driven to such a resort in order to secure the 
 investigation of a great and momentous subject! When was 
 that remark made? Not until repeated efforts to bring the 
 subject of slavery before the house, had been met, first by a 
 refusal on the part of the Committee of bills and overtures, of 
 which Dr. J. was a member, to report a paper; secondly, by 
 frequent motions to lay on the table, or postpone indefinitely, 
 the paper of Dr. Bishop; then, by a large vote refusing to take 
 it from the table, at a suitable period; and lastly, by labored 
 attempts to prove that when Synod had refused to consider a 
 paper at one time, a majority of two-thirds was necessary to call 
 it up at another. No wonder that after so many shifts and turns 
 to avoid a calm and honest examination of so weighty a matter, 
 a member should assert that he and his friends would regard 
 such conduct, if persisted in, as an acknowledgment of inability 
 to meet the facts and arguments by which anti-slavery principles 
 are sustained. 
 
 The author of this speech assures us that it was not till "left 
 in a lean minority of four," that he buckled on his armor 
 for the contest. " He had been threshing his wheat by the 
 wine presses, to hide it from the Midianitcs ; and being 
 often urged to go forth to battle in this war, he had still 
 declined; nevertheless he had put a fleece of wool upon the 
 floor, to obtain a sign from the Lord. And now, that there 
 seems to be no longer any evasion," (very true, — all manner of 
 evasions had been tried in vain,) "Ae takes it to be the Mastcr''s 
 rvill that he should discuss this subject,''^ 8/c., (p. 6.) — The worthy 
 Doctor's high pretensions to special divine assistance, and almost 
 to absolute inspiration, more modestly asserted in his printed, 
 than in his oral speech, shocked the feelings of his hearers, and 
 provoked audible expressions of disgust. It is somewhat re- 
 markable, that after such professions of divine guidance, and 
 
after ascertaining, by his woolly Jlcecc, that it was the Mastc/s 
 will he should, discuss this subject,''^ he should occupy much 
 precious time of the synod, and some eight pages of his printed 
 speech, in endeavoring to prove that neither he nor the Synod 
 had any business to engage in the discussion! He reminds us, 
 not of Gideon, but of a certain other divine messenger, who, 
 when commanded to go to Nineveh, and cry against it, rose up 
 to flee unto Tarshish ! 
 
 Let us examine these weighty reasons by which the learned 
 President would convince the Synod that it has nothing to do 
 with the subject of slavery. 
 
 "1. Eclesiastical courts, in a free State, have no jurisdiction 
 over slavery. This Synod has no original jurisdiction at all, 
 when viewed in a judicial capacity." * ' * * * In a re- 
 stricted sense. Synod has legislative powers- — such as * * * 
 the devising and recommending of measures of benevolence, &c. 
 which are more legislative than judicial. But here, as before. 
 Synod cannot easily come into collision with slavery, provided it 
 keeps within its own constitutional Hmits. * * * * Why 
 then should we spend our time in discussing, in the abstract, a 
 subject over which we have no jurisdiction in the concrete?" 
 (pp. 7. 8.) 
 
 What are the duties of a Presbytery, and Synod ? for a Synod 
 is but a larger Presbytery. (Form of Gov. B. 1. c. 11.) It is 
 the duty of Presbytery, " in general, to order whatever pertains 
 to the spiritual welfare of the churches under their care." 
 (Form of Gov. B. 1. c. 10.) " The Synod has power, * * * 
 generally to take such order with respect to the Presbyteries, 
 Sessions, and people under their care, as may be in conformity 
 with the word of God, and the established rules, and which tend 
 to promote the edification of the church; and finally, to propose 
 to the General Assembly, for their adoption, such measures as 
 may be of common advantage to the whole church." (F. Gov. 
 B. I. c. 11.) 
 
 Suppose, now, that the Doctor is right; that abolitionism is of 
 the devil; that the Bible does tolerate slavery, and allow slave- 
 holders to remain in the church untouched by discipline. Sup- 
 pose that abolitionists actually are, as the Doctor confidently 
 
s 
 
 asserts, (pp. 67, 68) the tetuphotai spoken of by the Apostle 
 Paul, (1 Tim. vi. 4:) that they are "proud, knowing nothing, 
 but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh 
 envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings, " &€.: 
 that they are the very characters of whom the Apostle em- 
 phatically says to the true Christian, " from such withdraw 
 thyself." Let it be remembered that these tetuphotai are not 
 merely a few strangers, prowling about among our churches, 
 seeking whom they may devour, but that some, aye many of our 
 people, our elders, and even of the ministers of this Synod are 
 themselves become zealous tetuphotai; they maintain the funda- 
 mental principles of "the Abolition movement:" yea more, that 
 they have been laboring for years, and are now laboring to con- 
 vert the whole Synod into a body of tetuphotai; and with such 
 success that an entire Presbytery, one of the largest among us, 
 is, (if we may coin a suitable word,) completely tctuphotized: 
 and what is most lamentable of all, some two or three Presbyte- 
 ries in our connection have actually had the audacity to memo- 
 ralize the General Assembly in favor of tetuphotism! In tliis 
 unhappy, dangerous, and critical state of affairs, the Synod of 
 Cincinnati assembles, "to order whatever pertains to the spiritual 
 welfare of the churches under their care ;" — to "take such order 
 with respect to the Presbyteries, Sessions, and people under their 
 care as may * * * * promote the edification of the church; 
 and to propose to the General .Assembly, for their adoption, 
 such measures as may be of common advantage to the whole 
 church." 
 
 What course, now, is proposed by the President of Miami 
 University? (to use his own favorite circumlocution for ego.) 
 This self-constituted champion of orthodoxy, who once volun- 
 teered to prosecute a brother in the ministry, charged with a 
 heresy perhaps less dangerous than Abolitionism,— what remedial 
 measures does he propose to this Synod for their adoption? — 
 What new excision act does he concoct? What well devised 
 and deep laid scheme to prevent the multiplication of these 
 iexvWAe tetuphotai? Does he advocate immediate obedience to 
 the apostohc injunction to withdraw from, or eject, these "men 
 of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth"? Does he implore 
 
9 
 
 this court of Jesus Christ to rush, like Aaron, between the living 
 and the dead, that the plague may be stayed? — Alas! how 
 are the mighty fallen! — He folds his arms, and declares, that, 
 according to the Constitution, the subject does not fall within 
 the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts! 
 
 But has he not spoken out boldly in defence of "the scriptural 
 relation of master and slave"? Yes — Mdien "left in a lean 
 minority of four"; but, were the wish of that minority "the 
 governing purpose" of the majority, the Synod would indefinitely 
 postpone, without discussion, any paper alluding in any way to 
 the subject of slavery. We dislike to judge our brethren; but 
 verily it requires all the charity we are master of, to believe 
 them sincere in their desperate charges against anti-slavery men, 
 measures, and principles, while they constantly assert that 
 Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies have no business 
 with this whole matter. 
 
 On the contrary hypothesis, that slave-holding is sinful; 
 that it has polluted the Church for centuries; and that it has so 
 far perverted the morals, even of the ministry, that Doctors of 
 Divinity, and Presidents of Colleges, instead of rebuking, 
 actually defend it from the Bible; — it were idle for us to prove 
 that ecclesiastical courts have aright to give it their attention. 
 Besides, what a reflection upon the good sense of the Synod of 
 Cincinnati, and many other Synods, does the Doctor's argument 
 involve! For years past we have discussed the slavery question; 
 and have by repeated resolutions and memorials to the General 
 Assembly, decided that it does fall within our province to debate 
 and act in regard to slavery, whether in the abstract or concrete. 
 We trust the future action of our ecclesiastical bodies will 
 demonstrate that American Oxfordism in regard to slavery, is 
 as disreputable among us, as is English Oxfordism upon 
 theology generally. 
 
 "2. But again, I (Dr. J.) object to this course: because the 
 discussion will most likely degenerate into a mere debate, dispute, 
 or hot controversy. * * * * Is it reasonable to expect 
 that slavery, abolitionism, and colonization will be discussed 
 here with that coolness and soul-subdued temper which their 
 importance demands, and christian courtesy requires? Does 
 
10 
 
 any man in fact expect it"? (p. 9.) — To whom was this extra- 
 ordinary language addressed ? To a Synod of the Presbyterian 
 Church; a high court of the I^ord Jesus Christ; an assembly of 
 inteUigent, and, we trust, pious ministers of the sanctuary, and 
 ruling ofliccrs in the house of our God! And if this question, 
 or any other connected with morals and religion, cannot be 
 debated with something like a proper spirit by such men, and 
 in such a body, where, we ask, shall we find an assembly in which 
 "these exciting topics" may be fully, freely and calmly investiga- 
 ted? — ^^ As for myself^'' says the o])jector, '•! have passed through 
 some stormy scenes," (that, for instance, which occurred at a cer- 
 tain University Exhibition,) "and I have learned by experience, 
 that the more boisterous the elements become, the more perfect- 
 ly all my faculties are at command. Brethren must not infer 
 from my repugnance to this discussion, that individually I (c^r 
 the heavings of the billows and the violence of the blast. I 
 hope I shall be enabled to look the wind in the eye, and always 
 to pull the right oar." (p. 9.) Extraordinary man ! Well, we 
 hope the Synod will patiently pocket the sorry compliment im- 
 plied, and console themselves with the reflection that they have 
 at least one member who can keep his temper! 
 
 In this connection we are reminded that the worthy President 
 has cited the experience of Miami University relative to anti- 
 slavery discussions. "It was early impressed upon my mind," 
 says he, "that this brand had already kindled up a fire which 
 had well nigh consumed Miami University. To such a ruinous 
 degree did the fire burn within her bosom, that the Trustees took 
 up the subject and passed strong resolutions condemnatory of this 
 wild-fire, and commendatory of a more prudent course. Hence, 
 I felt myself called upon, the more earnestly to labor for the 
 suppression of a class of disputations that result in evil, and only 
 evil. The consequence is, peace and kindly feelings between 
 young men from all the States indiscriminately." — (p. 5.) Allu- 
 sion is here made, indirectly, to the liberal, and truly republican 
 policy of a venerable member of Cincinnati Synod, the worthy 
 ex-President of JNIiami University. Doctor J. has been pleased 
 to contrast that policy and its results, with his own; of course, 
 much to his own glorification. Let us look at the facts in the 
 
11 
 
 case; and remind the author of this rude, unfeeling, and unpro- 
 voked assault upon his revered predecessor, that if those who 
 dwell in glass houses will throw stones, thej ha\e no reason to 
 complain when " their violent deaHngs come down upon their 
 own pates." 
 
 The first anti-slaverv society among the students at Oxford, 
 was organized in the fall of 18^. The aggregate number of 
 students during the next year, 1835, was 207. Four years after- 
 wards, during all which time, it is believed, the society existed; 
 and certainly, freedom of speech was among the guarantied 
 rights of the young men, — rthe aggregate attendance of the year 
 1839, was 250. This was the last year but one of Dr. Bishop's 
 presidency. To such an alarming degree had the wild-fire of 
 abolitionism consumed the University, that in four years the 
 number of students had increased from 207 to 250. In the fall 
 of 1S40, the present incumbent was elected. He took the chair 
 in April 1841 ; and began to throw the cold water of his pro- 
 slavery principles upon this destructive fire. One year afferzcard, 
 in 1842, the aggregate attendance of the year was reported at 
 162 students: and in 1843, it was 133. At the present time, if 
 we are correctly informed, somewhere about 100 pupils are 
 connected with the institution. For the facts and figures above 
 stated, we refer to the annual catalogues of the University. 
 We would not be understood to assert that the decreased 
 attendance is owning solely to any single cause: we simply state 
 the facts; and leave the public to judge whether the fire or 
 the water is most likely to destroy the State Institution. Of 
 the "peace and kindly feeling between young men from all the 
 States,*' which is said to exist now, we shall say nothing. As 
 to the strife and unkind feeling between northern and southern 
 students, whose existence and untoward influence are assumed 
 to have been felt from 1834 to 1839, inclusive, — Doctor J. is not 
 competent to give, and the graduates of those days do not need 
 to receive, any information. 
 
 But what, after all, is the strong condemnatory resolution of 
 the Board of Trustees, cited by Doctor J., and published in the 
 catalogue for 1840? ''Resolved, That the President of this Uni- 
 versity be respectfully requested, in the course of his instructions 
 
12 
 
 to the students generally, and more particularly to the Senior 
 class, to inculcate the duty of cultivating an enlarged attachment 
 to our entire country, without respect to its geographical 
 divisions, East or West, North or South ; and also to present to 
 the young men of the University the sacred ohligation to 
 preserve inviolate the supremacy of the constitutional laws of the 
 United States, and of the States in which their lot may be cast." 
 With what propriety such a resolution can be called slrongli) 
 condemnatory- of abolitionism, we leave others to determine. 
 Certainly, the great mass of abolitionists could most cordially 
 have voted for it. 
 
 Those who are somewhat familiar with the history of JNIiami 
 Univei-sity, and with the recent proceedings of its Trustees, are 
 not a Httlc surprised that Doctor J. should have been willing 
 to awaken unpleasant recollections by alluding to any of their 
 resolutions. Had he forgotten that in August, 1843, scarcely a 
 month before the delivery of his Synodical speech, the same 
 Board had '■'Resolved^ That as the JNliami University is a Literary 
 Institution subservient to the cause of Christianity in general, 
 and not that of any particular denomination of the Church of 
 God; it is the will of this Board, hereby decidedly expressed, 
 that in the performance of religious duties in the chapel, " 
 (which, by the way, are conducted solely by the Doctor himself,) 
 "the services thereof should be free from reference to the 
 distinguishing peculiarities of any denomination of the Christian 
 Church?" Had those resolutions escaped his memory which 
 were offered and discussed, but for certain reasons not adopted, 
 and only recorded on the journal for August, 1842? Did they 
 not forbid any professor or officer of the Institution, "so far to 
 forget the dignity of his station as to revile any respectable 
 sectarian body, * * * to perpetrate unseemly buffoonery, or ridicu- 
 lous mimickry, or to rcsoi't to high wrought stage-effect for the 
 purpose of bringing into contempt any respectable religious 
 denomination?" We are not now asserting that there was 
 any just cause for presenting the resolutions of 1842, nor for 
 adopting those of 1843; but certainly "we are entitled to the 
 conclusion" that there was as little occasion for passing that of 
 1839, to which Dr. J. has referred. 
 
13 
 
 We hope that in our remarks upon this topic, we have neither 
 exhibited nor felt any thing of the spirit of Abishai the son of 
 Zeruiah, (2 Sam. xvi: 9;) — if it be otherwise, however, let 
 Shimei remember who cast stones 5 and let our filial love for the 
 venerable head at which they were aimed, be plead in extenua- 
 tion. We have only to add, before passing to Doctor J.'s third 
 reason, that when he tells us how "earnestly he has labored for 
 the suppression" of free discussion, upon slavery. We are forcibly 
 reminded of a certain high personage, a near relation of the. 
 Whore of Babylon, John, Bishop of Basileopolis, as he styles 
 himself, who sent forth a little bull — a sort of bull-calf, we 
 presume,— to bellow against "The N. York Catholic Society for 
 the Promotion of Religious Knowledge;" — a rehgious debating 
 society formed among lay-catholics in that city. "The Church," 
 says he, "in the most positive manner, prohibits all laymen from 
 entering into dispute on points of religion," &c. 
 
 "3. I object to entering upon the abolition controversy here, 
 hecause its advocates are an organized political party. * * * * 
 The relation of master and slave. is a civil relation; it is regulated 
 by the civil law, and always has been; ecclesiastical bodies 
 never had, in all the world's history, any control over it. * * * * 
 Let our church courts throw themselves into the vortex of party 
 politics, then farewell to peace and harmony — farewell lo 
 respectability and pubhc confidence. If individual ministers feel 
 themselves called to soil their cloth in this strife — let them bear 
 the responsibility, and sink alone under the ban of public repro- 
 bation, but let not the Synod of Cincinnati commit the suicidal 
 deed. It. is surely unnecessary for me to dwell in proof of the 
 fact, that Anti-Slavery is a pubhc, organized political party." 
 (pp. 9-11.) 
 
 Had we undertaken to criticise the style of the President's 
 discourse, the phrase ^Hhat Anti-Slavery is a public^ organized 
 political party^^ and others of like construction, might demand 
 attention. But we are engaged in a more important duty. 
 What is the substance of this //t^Vri objection? Slaveholding is 
 a sin, and must therefore be opposed, by the church, with the 
 sword of the spirit. It is a political evil ; and should therefore 
 be remedied by political action. But because, as citizens, we 
 
14 
 
 employ political means to remove political evils, we must not, as 
 christians, use religious measures to purify the church from her 
 pollutions! The cry that "the relation of master and slave is a 
 civil relation, regulated by civil law," and the inference that 
 ecclesiastical bodies can have no control over it, scarcely de- 
 serves notice. The civil law does not require any man to be a 
 slaveholder; though it pcrrnits slavcholding, in some portions of 
 our country. Precisely in the same way is the sale of ardent 
 spirits a business permitted and regulated by the civil law. 
 Must the church be silent, therefore, as to the immorality of the 
 traffic under certain circumstances? Is it not her duty to testify 
 against even "the throne of iniquity," when "it frameth mischief 
 by a law ?" — (Ps. xciv : 20.) May she not forbid her members to 
 "give the l)ottle to their neighbor, and make him drunken also?" 
 Gambling hells, and brothels are "regulated by the civil law" 
 in some countries. Must the church in such countries, decline 
 to rebuke the sins of gaming and whoredom? The exercise of 
 proper church discipline upon irreclaimable slaveholders would 
 doubtless hasten the termination of slavery as a political evil. 
 Shall we, for that very reason, refuse the due application of 
 discipline? Such is the argument under consideration: but, 
 whatever others may say, a Protestant, and especially a Pres- 
 byterian, should hang his head for shame, at the thought of 
 attempting to maintain such a position. Was not the ever- 
 *glorious Reformation intimately connected with political action? 
 "It may be affirmed," (says Smyth, in his recent work on Eccle- 
 siastical Republicanism," p. 112,) "that the spirit of the Refor- 
 mation led to the establishment of the republican form of gov- 
 ernment, in countries where it had never before existed." — ^"The 
 Protestant Reformation," (says Bancroft, Hist. U. S. vol. ii:456, 
 «Scc.,) "considered in its largest influence on politics, was the 
 common people awakening to freedom of mind." "Protestant- 
 ism," (says Carlyle, Heroes and Hero worship, 334,) was a revolt 
 ■against spiritual sovereignties, popes, and much else. Presbytc- 
 rianism carried out the revolt against earthly sovereignties and 
 despotism. Protestantism has been called the grand root, from 
 which our whole subsequent European history branches ouj/, for 
 the spiritual will always body itself forth in the temporal history 
 
15 
 
 of man : the spiritual is the beginning of the temporal." According 
 to the argument we are opposing, Luther should have abandoned 
 the Reformation from the period of the Ratisbon, Torgau, 
 and Magdcburgh alliances; for, "from that hour the cause of 
 Luther was no longer of a nature purely religious; and the 
 contest with the Wittemberg monk ranked among the political 
 events of Europe." — (D'Aubigne.) What ! must the church 
 withhold all avowal of her anti-slavery principles, because they 
 may have a political bearing? How would Zuingle and Calvin 
 have regarded such a doctrine? "Zuingle restored to the people 
 their rights." — (Eccl. Repub. 113.) "Calvin was not only a 
 theologian of the first order; he was also a politician of astonish- 
 ing sagacity, and Montesquieu had reason to say, that Geneva 
 ought to celebrate, with gratitude, the day when Calvin came 
 within her walls. Morals then became pure ; the laws of the 
 State underzoent a thorough change, and the organization of the 
 church was based upon the soundest principles." — (Ibid.) Who 
 sounded "the first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous 
 regiment of women?" John Knox, the noble founder of Presby- 
 terianism in Scotland. Had the Solemn League and Covenant 
 no bearing upon politics? a paper which "bound all its subscri- 
 bers to preserve the reformed religion of Scotland, in doctrine, 
 worship, discipline, and government ; and also to seek the 
 reformation of religion in England and Ireland, according to the 
 word of God, and the example of the best reformed churches; 
 to abolish popery and prelacy; to defend the King's person, and 
 preserve the rights of Parliament and the liberties of the 
 kingdom." — (Alton's Life of Henderson, 509-510.) Were the 
 sainted Henderson, the draughtsman of that Covenant, now living, 
 Doctor J. might hear a reply to tliis paltry objection, that would 
 make his ears tingle. "A tumult in the High Church of Edin- 
 burgh, spread into a universal battle and struggle over all these 
 realms; there came out, after fifty year's struggling, what we call 
 the glorious revolution, a habeas corpus act, free Parliaments, and 
 much elsef — (Carlyle, Heroes, &c., 235.) Was not the West- 
 minster Assembly called together by a political party represented 
 by the majority in the British Parliament; — a party then 
 engaged even in a civil war? Did the reverend fathers of that 
 
16 
 
 Assembly hesitate to obey the summons, because the result of 
 their deliberations would be associated with politics? When 
 our own revolutionary contest commenced, did the Synod of 
 New York and Philadelphia express no opinions which might 
 favor the whig party of America? "The Synod of New York 
 was the very first to declare themselves .in favor of the struggle, 
 a year before the Declaration of Independence, and to 
 encourage and guide their people, then in arms. * * * * They 
 were the first to recognize the Declaration of Independence, 
 when made ; and they materially aided in the passage of that 
 noble act.*' — (Eccl. Rcpub. 143-144 — see also, Hodge's Hist. 
 Pres. Ch. vol. ii. 4Sl,&c.) Away then with the idle pretence 
 that the church must not bear her part in breaking every yoke, 
 and especially in freeing herself from the sin of slavcholding, 
 because a party of American citizens think it their duty to 
 oppose slavery at the ballot-box. If, as is alleged, the Liberty 
 party is "a weak and contemptible one," the less reason have 
 we for regarding it as an obstacle to ecclesiastical action. 
 Whether or not this is its real character, time will determine. 
 
 "4. This controversy places the peace-party, as we may call 
 ourselves in the premises, in a false position. It lays us open to 
 the illogical and unjust, yet plausible inference, that we are 
 advocates of slavery. * * * * We oppose the movements of the 
 abolitionists, chiefly by yielding; therefore, we are deeined and 
 held guilty of pro-slavery. Whereas, we are in truth opposed 
 to slavery, and are doing as much in our respective positions to 
 abate its evils, as our brethren are. We differ from them as to 
 the manner of doing away these evils, whilst we suppose we are 
 much more efficient in the matter of meliorating the condition 
 of the colored race." — (pp. 11-12.) 
 
 '•Being guilty of pro-slavery^^ reminds us of '"'■Anti-Slavery being 
 apolitical party:'' — but we cannot dwell upon the elegancies of 
 composition displayed in this production. That our author, and 
 those who are for '''•doing nothing with all their might''' against 
 slavery, are "the peace party," in a certain sense, we readily 
 admit. They are nearly allied to an ancient Jewish party, who 
 "healed the hurt of the Lord's people slightly, saying Peaccy 
 Peace, when there was no peace ;" ( Jer. vi. 14.) For, alas ! "the 
 
It 
 
 Way of peace they know not." — (Isa. lix. 8.) These breth* 
 ren forget the Scripture they so often quoted in reference to 
 another subject, — ''^Jirst pure, then peaceahle.'' As to the real 
 doctrines of the pamphlet before us, and the question whether 
 they are adapted to work the release of the poor slave, or the 
 perpetuation of his bondage^ any remarks which may be neces* 
 sary, will be more appropriately presented when we shall have 
 examined the author's propositions and arguments. To these 
 we now direct the attention of our readers. It is proper to 
 say, however, that intending, before we close, to present and 
 endeavor to sustain certain propositions of our own, we shall 
 occasionally pass, without notice, such passages of Scripture, 
 quoted by Doctor J., as may be more fitly examined in connec- 
 tion with these propositions. 
 
 The attentive reader of Doctor J»'s labored and extended 
 argument, cannot fail to observe that he has not only neglected 
 to define what he means by the terms, slave and slavery; but 
 that he has either lost sight of, or carefully concealed, their 
 true signification; and in so doing, he has failed to perceive 
 the gist of the whole matter in controversy. Charity, which 
 hopeth all things, inclines us to suppose that, in the plenitude 
 of his Hebrew and Greek, he has forgotten his English ! 
 Roaming through the patriarchal, Jewish and primitive christ- 
 ian churches^ in search of the prototypes of ctur southern bond- 
 men; bewildering himself and his readers with a multitude of 
 ancient abadim, shephahoth, amahoth, douloi, paides, oiketes, and 
 paidiskai, he really imagines, and would fain persuade others, 
 that these uncouth named creatures are the veritable slave-gangs 
 of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. We shall endeavor to 
 supply his deficiency, and thus keep before the minds of all, the 
 real question at issue. That question, now in process of investi- 
 gation among the American churches, is this, and no other: Are 
 the professed christians in our respective connections who hold 
 their fellow-men as slaves, thereby guilty of a sin which demands 
 the cognizance of the church; and, after due admonition, the 
 application of discipline? What do we mean by the English 
 work '•'slaves,'"' as used in this question ? What is a slave, 
 in the American sense of that term? "The term 5/are," says 
 3 
 
18 
 
 Doctor Johnson, "said to be derived from the Sclavi or Slavo- 
 nians, who were subdued and sold by the Venetians, signifies, 
 one mancipated to a master.'^ Mancipation^ on the same autho- 
 rity, is ^^slavcry, involuntary ohligaiion.^^ The I.alin, mancipium, 
 from which the word mancipated is derived, signifies, (1.) proper- 
 ty^ or right of perpetual possession, as la7ids, servants, &c., (2.) a 
 slave. 
 
 A slave, then, is a human being, who is made an article of 
 property; and therefore, like all other property, subject to be 
 bought, sold, transferred, imported, exported, levied upon, given 
 away, delivered over to executors and administrators, or assigned 
 to heirs, wholly at the will of his master: — one who is reduced 
 to this condition, and held in it, without the least regard to his 
 consent or refusal to serve such master. The master's claim to 
 him, as property, rests not at all upon the slave's choice: is not, 
 strengthened by his willingness; nor weakened, much less de- 
 stroyed, by his unwillingness, to be a slave. 
 
 Our statute books establish this definition. "The civil law," 
 says Judge Stroud, " except when modified by statute or by 
 usages which have acquired the force of law, is generally 
 referred to in the slave-holding States, as containing the true 
 principles of the constitution: it will be proper, therefore, to 
 give an abstract of its leading doctrines; for which purpose I 
 use Dr. Taylor's Elements of the Civil Law, p. 429. 'Slaves,' 
 says he, 'were held pro nullls: pro mortuis: pro quad rupedibus. 
 * * * * They could be sold, transferred, or pawned as goods 
 or personal estate; for goods they were, and as such they were 
 esteemed.' * * * * According to the laws of Louisiana 'a slave 
 is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. 
 His master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and 
 his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any 
 thing but what must belong to his master.' * * * ' The slave is 
 entirely subject to the will of his master, who may arrest and 
 chastise him, though not with unusual rigor,' &c. * * * * The 
 cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked 
 among sentient beings, but among things — is an article of 
 property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all these 
 (the slave-holding) states. In South CaroHna it is expressed in 
 
19 
 
 in the following language: 'Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, 
 reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the 
 hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, 
 administrators and assigns, to all intfcnts, constructions and 
 purposes whatsoever.' * * * * qn case the personal property of 
 a ward shall consist of specific articles, such as slaves, working 
 beasts,' &lc — (Act of Maryland, 1798, CI. 12. 12.) In Ken- 
 tucky, by the law of descents, they are considered real estate, 
 and pass in consequence to heirs, ^nd not to executors. They 
 are, however, liable as chattels to be sold by the master at his 
 pleasure, and may be taken in execution for the payment of his 
 debts." — (Sketch of the laws relating to slavery, pp. 21-24.) 
 
 Such, we repeat, is a slave in the American sense of the 
 word; the only sense any way pertinent to the matter in 
 debate. Slavery is the condition of such a person. We are now 
 to inquire whether Jehovah, in his word, tolerates, or has ever 
 tolerated, as innocent, the holding of our . fellow-men in such a 
 condition. This is the main question, the true question, the only 
 question. Men may say what they please about abadim and 
 douloi: but unless they prove that the ehed and the doulos were 
 with the Divine permission, held as property, subject to all the 
 ordinary uses and liabilities of property; bought, sold, and held 
 without the least regard to their own will in the matter; — talk 
 long and learnedly as they may, they do but prove that they 
 have not yet apprehended the real nature of the question under 
 discussion. That a kind of servitude existed in the families of 
 the patriarchs; — that it was not merely permitted, but even 
 sanctioned, by the Divine Lawgiver, among the Jewish people, 
 no one denies. But what was the nature of that servitude? 
 Was it precisely, or even in its chief features, analogous to 
 American slavery? Abolitionists maintain the negative. Let 
 those who choose to defend slavery, and to sooth the troubled 
 conscience of the slave-holder; to protect them from the cen- 
 sures of the church, and the terrible threatenings of Holy Writ, 
 maintain the affirmative: but let them fairly join issue, march 
 up to "the imminent, deadly breach," and plant (if they can,) 
 their victorious standard on the walls of the citadel. Let them 
 cease to glorify themselves in their easy triumphs over men of 
 
20 
 
 straw. With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to our 
 author's propositions. 
 
 "Proposition 1. Slavery existed during the peiiod over which 
 the old Testament histch-y extends.'" — (p. 16.) To support this 
 proposition, five examples are adduced. 
 
 1. The case of Joseph. That Joseph was a slave, in the 
 proper sense of that term, we cheerfully admit, lie was made 
 an article of property: was bought and sold just as were the 
 "spices, balm and myrrh;*' and this, without the least regard to 
 his own will. But what assistance the case of Joseph can 
 render to one who would prove that God did not disapprove such 
 slavery, we are at a loss to divine ; especially when we remember 
 Joseph's solemn declaration, — "Indeed I was stolen away out 
 of the land of the Hebrews," (Gen. xl. 15;) and Jehovah's 
 command, — "he that stealeth a man and sellcth him, * * * shall 
 surely be put to death," (Ex. xxi. 10.) But we arc assured that 
 "the Ishmaelitcs did not steal him. *■ * * * His brothers stole 
 him from their own father, and sold him." — (p. 17.) Ah, indeed! 
 but Joseph says he was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews. 
 Was Dothan, "a town twelve miles north of Samaria," (Calmet,) 
 out of the land of the Hebrczvs? And did his brothers whip him 
 away to Dothan, from his father's house in Hebron? If Joseph 
 knew, they stole him, who carried him from his native land, — the 
 Ishmaelitcs. The Doctor contradicts the plain jstory of the 
 Hebrew slave himself, to give plausibility to the inference that 
 the purchase and sale of freemen is not man-stealing. A 
 worthy object, truly! 
 
 2. The " souls " that Abram, Sarai, and Lot "had gotten in 
 Haran," (Gen. xii. 5.) Some able critics, ancient and modern, 
 Jewish and Christian, have contended that the Hebrew word 
 asUf " gotten, " " expresses the instrumentality used in the 
 conversion of the souls whom they had brought with them 
 from Haran." Doctor J. misrepresents, and then ridicules the 
 argument used on the floor of the Synod in defence of this 
 interpretation. We shall not here insist upon it. It is not 
 necessary to our argument; for, admitting the correctness of 
 his criticism, and granting that these "souls" were servants, whom 
 Abram and others had acquired, "or bought with money;" does 
 
21 
 
 it follow that he bought them of any other than themselves, or 
 against their will? or that he held them as property which he 
 might sell to the highest bidder? — that is, that they were slaves? 
 Scriblerus, in his treatise on Logic, informs us "that there cannot 
 be more in the conclusion than there was in the premises." 
 
 3. The slavery of the Israehtes in Egypt, Ex. i. 13, 16. (p. 
 22.) We deny, and it has not been proved, nor can it be, that 
 the Israelites were held as the individual property either of 
 Pharaoh or of his people. That they were wickedly oppressed, 
 and in a condition of cruel bondage, is very true. But grant 
 that they were slaves: will any one undertake to prove, by 
 their history, that God tolerates slavery? If he do, let the 
 bloody Nile, and the croaking frogs in Pharoah's bedchamber, 
 and the lice upon man and beast in all Egypt, and the swarming 
 flies, and the dying cattle, and the boil with blains upon every 
 living thing that was Egyptian, and the grievous hail and the 
 fire that ran along the ground, and the mighty thunderings, and 
 the locusts covering all the land, and the thick darkness that 
 might be felt, and the wailings of the whole nation of oppressors 
 over the corpses of their first-born, answer his argument. We 
 shall not. Had this been Dr. J.'s proposition, "that oppression 
 existed in very ancient times; that it was abhorred of God, 
 and punished with the most fearful plagues," the history of 
 the Israelites in Egypt might have been appealed to as most 
 conclusive proof! 
 
 "4. The next instance, wherein slavery is recognized as a 
 relation existing, I shall mention, is in the fourth and tenth 
 commandments. ' Thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy 
 son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, 
 nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is Avithin thy gates.' 'Thou 
 shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy 
 neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his 
 ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.' In both these 
 precepts ownership in and control over, the man-servant and the 
 maid-servant, is spoken of in the same language as ownership in 
 the ox and the ass. In the latter, it is clear that covetousness 
 could not exist, but where real ownership existed." (pp. 53, 54.) 
 
 If it had been or could be proved that ebed and amah, man- 
 
22 
 
 servant and maid-servant,) necessarily signify a male or female 
 slave; and if it had been shown that the Hebrews held slaves 
 by the permission of Heaven, then, indceed, we must admit that 
 these commandments recognize the existence of slavery, and 
 protect the master's claim of property in human flesh. That 
 neither of these is true, we shall prove in the sequel. As for 
 the argument from the 10th commandment, the only one offered 
 here to show that the servants were really property; it proves 
 too much, and therefore nothing. They must have been property, 
 slaves — or they could not be coveted ! Then the wife, too, must 
 be property, a slave, or she could not be coveted ! In both these 
 precepts, ownership in, and control over, the wife, the son, and 
 the daughter, is spoken of in the same language as ownership 
 in the man-servant and the maid-sen ant. If the man-servant 
 is property, because he is called thine, just as thy ox, and thy 
 ass; by parity of reasoning, thi/ wife, thy son, thy daughter are 
 property. If the wife may be coveted, though not the property 
 of her husband, why may not the servant? And what becomes 
 of the assertion that "covetousncss could not exist but where 
 real ownership existed?" Cannot a bound-boy, or a bound-girl, 
 who is merely indented to his master for a term of years, be 
 coveted? But in this case the master has a property-right, not 
 in the flesh and blood of his apprentice ; but in his talents and 
 services for a given period; and the servant is a bond-man, — an 
 ebed, — but not a slave. 
 
 "5. The Gibeonites furnish a fifth example. * * * * Here note, 
 [1.] They were reduced to perpetual slavery — they and their 
 children. [2.] This was a punishment for their sin. Their 
 lives had been forfeited. They knew that they were devoted 
 to death, and preferred slavery to death." — [p. 24.] 
 
 The facts in regard to the Gibeonites appear to have been 
 these. [1.] They were a very numerous people. They had 
 four cities, Gibeon, Chephirah, Kirjath-jearim, and Beeroth. 
 [Josh. ix. 17.] One of these, Gibeon, is described as a "great 
 city, as one of the royal cities," and "greater than Ai; and all 
 the men thereof were mighty."— [x. 2.] Now Ai had 12,000 
 inhabitants, [viii. 25.] 
 
 [2.] They probably remained in their own cities for a long 
 
23 
 
 time: how long we cannot say. Evidently they continued there 
 after they "had made peace with Israel," [x. 1 ;] for there were 
 they attacked by the five kings of the Amoritcs, [x. 5;] and 
 successfully defended by Joshua. The fact that "Kirjath-baal, 
 which is Kirjath-jearim" is mentioned as "a city of Judah," [xv. 
 60,xviii. 14;] and "Gibeon, Beeroth, and Chephirah," as "cities 
 of Benjamin," [xviii. 25, 26,] will not disprove it. For Jebusi 
 or Jerusalem is classed with the cities of Benjamin, [xviii. 25, 
 36,] though long inhabited by unconquercd Canaanitcs, [Judg. 
 i. 21 ;] — Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Tannach, and Megiddo, 
 with those of Manasseh, [Josh. xvii. 11, 12,] though "when Israel 
 was strong, they did not utterly drive out their inhabitants, but 
 put them to tribute," [Judg. i. 27, 28;] — and Rehob, Zidon, &:c., 
 with the cities of Asher, [Josh. xix. 24-31 ;] though the last 
 named was never possessed by the Asherites; but always inhab- 
 ited and held by the Zidonian Canaanites. In later times, the 
 Gibeonites seemed to have been removed from, or to have exchan- 
 ged, their possessions. They probably did not reside in Kirjath- 
 jearim when the ark of God was there; [1 Chron. xiii. 5, 6; 2. 
 Chron. i. 4 ;] nor in Gibeon, when the tabernacle was pitched in 
 that city; [1 Kings iii. 4, 5. 1 Chron. xxi. 29. 2 Chron. i. 3-6, 13.] 
 After the return from Babylon, the children of Gibeon, Kirjath- 
 jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, are numbered with "the men 
 of the people of Israel," in distinction from the Nethenims, who 
 are regarded as descendants of the Gibeonites. [See Ezra. ii. 
 20, 25, 43-58. and Neh. vii. 25, 29,46-60.] The prophets of 
 Gibeon, too, [Jer. xxviii. 1,] were, most likely, Jews. Still, the 
 Gibeonites had their own possessions and cities. The whole 
 tenor of the narrative respecting Saul's war of extermination 
 upon them, and of the vengeance subsequently inflicted on his 
 family, implies, that in the time of David they were a distinct 
 people, having their own business, and pursuing their own 
 interests. Indeed, their cities are expressly mentioned, [Ezra, 
 ii. 70.] "So the Priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, 
 and the singers, and the porters, and the JVcthenims^ [the given, 
 f/cz)o^erfoncs, thatis,to the temple service, as the word Nethenims 
 signifies,] dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities." This 
 passage might seem to countenance Bishop Patrick's supposition, 
 
2^4 
 
 that they "were dispersed into the cities of the Priests and 
 Levites.*' [Quoted in M. Ilenrj, Josh. 9.] But Nehemiah 
 records the same event in somewhat different language: "So the 
 Priests, and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and 
 some of the people, and the Xcthcnhm^W[\({ all Israel, dwelt in 
 their cities^'' &c. [vii. 73;] from which we as naturally infer that 
 the Ncthcnims had cities to themselves, as that the priests and 
 common Israelites had. If, however. Bishop Patrick's supposition 
 be correct, our argument is unaffected. They dwelt in their own 
 houses, keeping together their own families, and occasionally 
 "serving at the altar, out of the profits of which, it is probable, 
 they were maintained.'' — [Henry.] 
 
 [3.] The Gibeonitcs were not reduced to personal slavery; nor 
 were they rendered the private property of the Israelites. In 
 other words, they were not slaves. When Israel found that the 
 Gibeonites were neighbors, "all the congregation murmured 
 against the princes. * * * * And the princes said unto them, Let 
 them live; but let them be hewers of wood and drawers of 
 water wnto all the congregation.''^ [Josh. ix. 18-21.] But "Joshua 
 called for them, and he spoke unto them, saying, * * * * There 
 shall none of you be freed from being bond-men, [cbrd,'] and 
 hewers of wood and drawers of water ybr the house of my God.'''' 
 (vs. 22, 23. M. Henry well observes, "The princes would 
 have them slaves to all the congregation, at least they choose to 
 express themselves so, to pacify the people; but Joshua mitigates 
 the sentence^ho^ in honor to God, and in favor to the Gibeonites: 
 it would be too hard to make them every man^s drudge; if they must 
 be hewers of wood and drawers of water, than which there 
 cannot be a greater disparagement, especially to citizens of a 
 royal city, yet they shall be so to the house of my God, than 
 which there cannot be a greater preferment." Let it be 
 observed, also, that the Hebrew word, cbcd, bond-mrm, only, is 
 employed. There is no mention of the amah or shiphhah, 
 "?naiV/-servant: nor is there the slightest reason to believe that 
 any service was required of the female Gibeonites. If verse 27, 
 be appealed to as against this position, — "and Joshua made 
 them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the 
 congregation, and for the altar of the Lord," — let Henry remove 
 
25 
 
 the difficulty : "They were employed in such services as required 
 their personal attendance on the altar of God, ifec. * * * * They 
 were herein servants to the congregation too ; for whatever 
 promotes the worship of God, is a real service to the common- 
 wealth. " 
 
 Let any one read 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14, and believe, if he can, 
 that the Gibeonites were the personal property of the Hebrews. 
 " Saul sought to slay them, in his zeal to the children of Israel 
 and Judah." (vs. 2.) A singular zeal, truly, for the welfare of 
 his subjects, which would lead him to catch and destroy all their 
 slaves! What would the reputation of that statesman be worth, 
 who should propose such a measure in his zeal for the interest 
 of our southern slaveholders? If these people were not slaves; 
 but property holders in the cities of the priests; or, as is more 
 probable, possessed of cities and farms of their own, the policy 
 and conduct of Saul would be precisely like that of the Georgian 
 legislators in expelling the poor Cherokees, that they might seize 
 their houses, lands, and gold-mines; popular enough with their 
 constituents, but abhorrent to God. King David "called the 
 Gibeonites, and said unto them, * * * * what shall I do for you ? 
 and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless 
 the inheritance of the Lord?" A high honor, verily, for the 
 King to ask the slaves' blessing upon the Lord's inheritance ! 
 And they said, " Let seven men of SauFs sons be delivered unto 
 us, and we will hang them up unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul." 
 What! do the slaves wish to insult their masters by hanging 
 seven sons of his majesty, their late king? hanging them with 
 their own hands; and in Gibeah, too, Saul's native place? Yes, 
 nothing less will satisfy them: and what is more astonishing, 
 the reigning monarch says, " I will give them. " Seriously, no 
 man in his senses, not previously resolved to find slavery in the 
 Bible, would ever dream that these Gibeonites were the slaves 
 of Israel. 
 
 4. The only servitude imposed upon the Gibeonites was 
 the discharge of the menial services in the temple; and these 
 services were performed by a small number of their males, 
 drafted, from time to time, for that purpose. The preceding 
 facts »d references prove this: we on., add, that but a s^al. 
 
26 
 
 part of their number could possibly find employment in the 
 temple, at least, on all ordinary occasions. Reasonably enough, 
 therefore, does Bishop Patrick think that they "came up with 
 the Priests and Levites, in their courses, to serve at the altar." 
 (Quoted in Henry.) 
 
 In view of this plain statement of Scripture facts relative to 
 the condition of the Gibeonites, what apology can be offered 
 for the christian minister, in a free state, who can coolly compare 
 the conduct of Joshua toward these people, with that of "some 
 church in Virginia which owned slaves, hired them out, and 
 appropriated the product towards paying their minister's salary;" 
 about which, he says, "a great noise has been made !" (p. 24.) 
 True; he adds, " I am not to apologize for such cases." But 
 he does apologize, and says, "It might hence be inferred that 
 slave labor" (that is, unpaid labor.) "in building a church, in 
 cleaning and keeping it, may not be a soul-damning sin, even 
 
 under the gospel!" How refreshing to turn from the (we will 
 
 not characterize it by the term it deserves)— the speech — ^of such 
 a northern man with worse than southern principles, to the 
 "Letters on Slavery," by the Rev. J. D. Paxton! He was a 
 genuine Virginian, pastor of the Cumberland Congregation, 
 once a slaveholder; but he emancipated his bondmen, because 
 he "believed slavery morally wrong." Compelled to abandon 
 his charge, for having told them "too much truth at once," in 
 regard to the sinfulness of slaveholding, he addressed them these 
 "Letters." "The congregation," says he, "in their associated 
 capacity own a number of slaves — about 70. They are hired 
 out from year to year, and the proceeds are the chief item with 
 which they pay the salary of the pastor." Mr. P. saw the 
 wickedness of such conduct, and said to his people. "I was 
 greatly desirous of adopting some plan for improving the condi- 
 tion, and bringing about the liberation of the slave property 
 held by the congregation." (Let. p. 11.) Verily, there is more 
 to be hoped from southern slaveholders, than from their northern 
 apologists. 
 
 "Proposition II. The law of Moses permitted the Hebrews to 
 buy their brother Hebrews and to retain them in bondage or 
 slavery, six years." (p. 30.) Three passages are quoted in proof. 
 
27 
 
 Ex. xxi. 2, If thou buy an Hebrew servant — an ehed — six 
 years he shall serve; and in the seventh, he shall go out free for 
 nothing. — Ex. xxii. 3, if he (the thief,) have nothing (wherewith 
 to make restitution) then he shall be sold for his theft. Lev. 
 XXV. 39, If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
 poor, and be sold unto thee, &c. The practical operation of 
 these laws is illustrated by reference to 1 Kin. iv. 1, and Matt, 
 xvjii. 25. 
 
 Here we have a strange jumble of passages; two of which 
 have no relation to the proposition they are brought to sustain, 
 and none of which has any bearing upon the main question. 
 Ex. xxi. 2, undoubtedly proves that a Hebrew might buy a 
 Hebrew man, his brother. But to buy implies to pay for. Now 
 when a Hebrew bought a free Hebrew, not sold for crime, to 
 whom did he pay the money? This vital point the Doctor has 
 not condescended to notice. We hope to prove, in due time, 
 that the money was paid to the person purchased: and assuming 
 this, for the present, we would inquire whether that man is a 
 slave, who voluntarily disposes of his services, to a neighbor 
 under whose roof he is to dwell, during a definite and brief 
 period, and for a stipulated sum which he receives in hand ? If 
 he is, then does Ex. xxi. 2, prove that "the law of Moses permitted 
 the Hebrews to buy their brother Hebrews and to retain them 
 in bondage or slavery for six years." 
 
 Ex. xxii. 3, might have some connection with the proposition 
 under which it stands, if the author had shown that the thief 
 must be sold for six years; neither more nor less. But this is 
 not the fact. No definite period of service is assigned by the 
 law, and for a very good reason: common equity requires that 
 the thief should he sold only for that period of time in which his 
 services would equal in value the amount which he should have 
 restored. "If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; 
 he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. 
 * * * * If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether 
 it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. * * * if he 
 have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." (Ex. xxii. 1-4.) 
 Now suppose a sheep to be worth a month's labor. A and B 
 each steal a sheep; and both are taken in the act. The theft 
 
28 
 
 being found in their hands alive, the law requires them to pay 
 double. A has a flock of his own; he gives back the stolen 
 animal, and another, and escapes. Unfortunate B is pen- 
 niless: he restores the stolen sheep, but cannot give double: 
 he must therefore, be sold. For what length of time? The 
 President of IMiami University, we suppose, would say. For six 
 years. An infant school prattler Would reply. Till he can pay 
 a sheep's worth of work; — that is, for a month. And any jury 
 of twelve honest men under heaven, would decide that the infant 
 scholar was right, and 'the President wrong. Were Doctor J.'s 
 exposition of the law correct, how unequal would be the divine 
 legislation ! The rich thief escapes with a trivial loss of property. 
 The poor wretch, more liable to temptation, and with fewer 
 motives to resist covetous desires, must lose his liberty for half a 
 dozen years! The man who stole an ox, and killed it, must 
 restore five oxen. lie who seized a sheep, if it was found in 
 his possession, must restore two sheep. The Divine Lawgiver 
 makes as much difference in the punishment of the two, as there 
 is between one sheep, and four oxen. Our Doctor of Divinity, 
 sitting in judgment on the case, would consign both the criminals 
 to slavery for six years! 
 
 After all, this law cannot prove slaveholding to be justifiable, 
 except as a punishment for sin. Every one admits that servitude, 
 for a given period, may be a proper penalty for crime: and yet 
 it may be sinful to enslave the innocent. 
 
 We shall explain Lev. xxv. 39, in another connection. Suffice 
 it to say here, that Doctor J.'s assumption in regard to the servant 
 spoken of,— "he is sold for debt," — is wholly gratuitous. The 
 law neither says nor implies any thing of the sort. 
 
 Upon 2. Kin. iv. 1, the autiior says, "The widow of a 
 prophet called upon Elisha with a most pitiful complaint; her 
 husband, a man of God, died in debt, 'and the creditor is come,' 
 says she, 'to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen.' — Most 
 cruel and distressing: as if the creditor should come upon the 
 widow of his pastor, as soon as he was dead, drive her from the 
 parsonage, and take her sons to make bondmen of them. Now 
 Elisha does not object against the legality of this course. For 
 aught that appears, this right and power exists [exist] in" the 
 
29 
 
 creditor." — We should be glad to see the law, if there be one, 
 authorizing parents to sell their children for debt, or creditors 
 to seize them. Ex. xxi. 7-11, of which we shall speak 
 hereafter; give no such authority. "The Romans, Athenians,' 
 and Asiatics in general," says Dr. A. Clarke, "had the same 
 authority over their children that the Hebrews had." (But he 
 does not inform us how or where they obtained it.) "Romulus 
 gave the Romans power to cast them into prisons, beat, employ 
 them as slaves in agriculture, sell them for slaves, or even take 
 away their lives. (Dion. HaUcarn.) Numa Pompilius enacted 
 that if a son married with his father's consent, his father could 
 not sell him for debt. Diocletian and Maximian forbade 
 freemen to be sold for debt. The ancient -Athenians had the 
 same right over their children as the Romans: but Solon 
 reformed this barbarous custom. So the people of x\sia, and 
 Lucullus tried to check it by moderating the laws respecting 
 usury." — Now the advocates of slavery may try hard to prove 
 that the statutes which God gave to the Jews were as barbarous 
 a§ those of the heathen round about; and that Jehovah made 
 laws similar to those which Solon had the humanity to repeal: 
 but their only proof will be an appeal to the pi-actice of the 
 Hebrews, during corrupt periods of their history. 
 
 Nch. v: 1 — 13, is cited by our author. "This law of sale, 
 was much abused at times, and led, by its abuse, to great 
 oppression. * * * * But these abuses — this rigid severity, 
 show that the law tolerated the sale," &c. (p. 31.) — What 
 were the facts here? Some of the poor, having borrowed 
 money in times of scarcity, were compelled to "bring into 
 bondage their sons and their daughters, to be servants, [abadim.) 
 And Nehemiah was very angry when he heard their cry, and 
 these words. And he set a great assembly against them. 
 (He held an abolition meeting.) And he said unto them, we, 
 after our ability, have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which 
 were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your 
 brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? These rich men are 
 cliargcd, not with usury or covetousness, but with attempting to 
 buy 5ons, as servants; and with having actually purchased 
 daughters, whom they did not betroth unto themselves: — thus 
 
30 
 
 taking advantage of their parents' necessities. It is worthy of 
 note that the sons of the poor had not yet been sold; but the 
 parents feared they should jet be compelled to sell them. 
 This is evident. from the language of vs. 5. "and some of our 
 daughters are brought into bondage already." — What followed? 
 "Then they held their peace, and found nothing to answer." — 
 Strange indeed! What, nothing to answer! Why not turn 
 to the law of God authorizing parents to sell their children 
 to pay debts, and creditors to buy them? Doubtless, they 
 would have done so if they could. — The fact is, the Jews 
 frequently adopted the wicked customs of their heathen 
 neighbors. The nobles and nabobs had just returned from 
 Chaldea, where slave-holding was practised without rebuke; 
 and they thought it would be well to make slavery one of 
 their own "domestic institutions." But the people, knowing it 
 to be an innovation on their rights, took the alarm; and 
 that good old abolitionist, Nehemiah, soon destroyed the 
 prospects of the pro-slavery party in Judea. 
 
 Even if the contrary were true, and the creditor, (2. Kin. iv: 
 1,) were requiring "the rigid enforcement of his right," were 
 these two sons to be made slaves? Were they to become 
 property, articles of traffic, to be sold again by the creditor at 
 pleasure? There is no evidence of this. Justice would require 
 that in this, as in the case above mentioned, the sons should 
 labor for the creditor until, by their service, they had paid 
 their fathers debt; and no longer. Whether that time were 
 a month, a year, or ten years, this was all the creditor seems 
 to have claimed: for when the widow sold the oil which Elisha 
 had miraculously supplied, she paid the debt, and the lads 
 were free. — So in the last case cited by Dr. J., Mat. xviii : 25, ^ 
 &c. The servant was "delivered unto the tormentors till he 
 should pay all that was due unto his Lord." 
 
 "Proposition III. This state of servitude — this relation of 
 master and slave, might, in certain cases, become perpetual for 
 life." (p. xxxii.) — For the present, we shall content ourselves 
 with a simple denial of this assertion, the grounds of which 
 denial shall be exhibited in the proper place. 
 
 A few remarks, however, may be necessary, upon the 
 
31 
 
 doctrine incidentally advanced in the Doctor's exposition of 
 the first proof under this head; Ex. xxi: 4. If his master 
 (the, master of a Hebrew six years' servant,) have given him a 
 wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and 
 her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by 
 himself. "Now this wife," says Dr. J.," given by the master, 
 might be a Hebrew maid servant, or a Gentile : and it matters 
 little which; for a Hebrew girl, sold by her father, did not go 
 out free at the end of six years: (verse 7,^ * * * But the 
 presumption is, and the assumption we are entitled to, that the 
 wife given by the master was a Gentile or a heathen slave; 
 concerning whom there can be no doubt (as we shall see) that 
 she was a slave. Now, in this case the law is explicit, the 
 children are slaves when the mother is. We have heard a 
 great deal said about the barbarity of the law maxim, pars 
 sequitur ventrem^ as containing a doctrine too horrible and vile 
 to be spoken in the English language. Brethren ought first to 
 enquire whether a doctrine is taught in the Bible, before they 
 allow themselves to be horrified by it. Now, Mr. Moderator, 
 you know, and every scholar in this Synod knows, that the 
 Latin law maxim, is read in plain English, in Ex. xxi.: 4, — "the 
 wife and her children shall be her master's, — pars sequitur 
 ventrem — a slave mother makes a slave child. There it is in 
 the word of God, and our horrified brethren dare not deny it." 
 (pp. 32, 33.) The learned Doctor uttered a doleful 
 jeremiad, before Synod, upon the degeneracy of our ministry 
 in respect to literary attainments. Few, now-a-days, could read 
 Turretin! When the Presidents of our Universities mistake 
 pars (a part,) for p«r/Ms the (ofispring,) what wonder that their 
 pupilsc annot read Turretin, or even Liber Primus? 
 
 Quid piieri faciant, errat quuni etiam Doctor?* 
 
 We should consider this blunder a fault of the printer, had 
 not the author committed the same error during the delivery 
 of his speech. "If the master have given a wife," <kc. Was 
 this wife a Hebrewess or a Gentile? No matter wliich, says Dr. 
 J., "for a Hebrew girl, sold by her father, did not go out free at 
 the end of six years." He forgets that such a Hebrew girl 
 
 *Quid domini faciant, audent quum talia fures? — Virgil. 
 
32 
 
 could not be given to the servant by liis master, but was 
 betrothed by himself or his son. (Ex. xxi: 8-11.) If this wife 
 was a Hcbrewess, she had become a six years' servant undejp the 
 statute, Deut. xv: 12. If a Gentile, she had been bought 
 according to the law, Lev. xxv. 44., and was engaged 
 to serve till the year of jubilee. In the latter case, too, she 
 must have been a proselyte; for the spirit of the law, Deut. vii. 
 1-4, forbade the marriage of an Israelite with a heathen. 
 The Hebrew man had served his six years. During his time of 
 service, his master, had given him one of hisifemale servants as 
 a wife. Shall she go out with her husband? Shall the 
 husband's rights take precedence of the master's, or the master's 
 of the husband's! If the woman were a Hcbrewess, and if 
 her six years had expired at the same time with her husband's, 
 there could be no question that she went out free, and no 
 legislation would be needed in that case. But if her six years 
 had not expired, which would be almost universally the case, 
 then the law decides that the husbaud's authority must yield 
 to the master's: the wife shall be her master's, not her 
 husband's: in other words, the subscqiioit contract between the 
 servant and the woman, shall not annul the prior contract 
 between the master and the woman. 
 
 The same principle applies, if the wife were a proselyted 
 Gentile, whose contract with the master would not terminate 
 until the jubilee. In either case, the woman was her master's 
 servant, but not his property; any more than she would have 
 been her husband's property, if she had gone out with him. In 
 both cases, the children are to remain with the mother rather' 
 than with the father. For she has an equal right to them with 
 her husband: she has a home for them in her master's house; 
 which he has not; — (he had sold himself through poverty:) and 
 the master, at whose expense they have been maintained during 
 their tender years, has a right to be recompensed by their labor 
 in riper years. Besides, if the mother were a Hebrew woman, 
 the eldest child could not be more than Jive years old; they 
 would need the mother's more than the father's care; and both 
 she and her children would go free before the eldest was six. 
 In no case, however, was the marriage annulled ; nor were the 
 
wife and little ones separated from the husband and father. 
 The Jewish master could not sell the woman, nor her offspring: 
 and the servant would naturally remain in the neighborhood of 
 his family; perhaps laboring as a hired servant in the house of 
 his master. What necessity is there for supposing, with some 
 commentators, that God allowed Hebrew servants that legal 
 fornication which the Romans called contubernium? The whole 
 law, while scrupulously mindful of the masters rights acquired 
 by previous contract with a female servant, is marked by the 
 benevolence of Him "who taketh the lambs in His bosom." 
 
 "Proposition IV. The Hebrews were permitted by their law, 
 to buy servants from the heathen, to hold them in perpetual 
 servitude; and to transmit them as hereditary property to their 
 children." (p. 37.) "This is a compound proposition," says our 
 author, " and may be broken down into three distinct parts." 
 We add, that while no one denies the first part of this proposi- 
 tion, the second and third parts may be "broken down" so as 
 never to rise again: which charitable work we shall endeavor 
 to perform in the sequel. 
 
 "Proposition V. A very considerable degree of severity, in 
 the treatment of servants, was indulged in during the Old 
 Testament times." (p. 39.) 
 
 What the author can have in view, in attempting to sustain 
 this proposition, we cannot conceive; unless, indeed, he has 
 resolved to show how far a christian minister dares venture to 
 represent the word of God in the most odious light. If he 
 means that a just degree of severity, a severity not inconsistent 
 with the law of love, was, with the approbation of Heaven, 
 employed in the management of servants, the proposition is a 
 very harmless one: and were the admission of any use to the 
 Doctor, we would grant that the same thing was true in regard 
 to the treatment of children! If he means to say that in the 
 Old Testament times, even good people sometimes fell into a 
 passion, and used unjust severity, and even cruelty, toward their 
 dependents; for which God was angry with them; he is engaged 
 in a very easy, but needless business. But if he would intimate 
 that the Father of mercies, the God and Father of all flesh, 
 allowed those whom he had chosen to be a special people, and a 
 
34 
 
 holy people unto himself, (Deut. vii. C,) to employ unjust severity 
 and cruel treatment toward their inferiors, — all the reply that 
 can be necessary, is, an expression of mingled contempt and 
 indignation at the assertion, and of profound pily for its author; 
 who, in his zeal to defend American slavery, has charged God 
 so foolishly. We might pass this proposition without further 
 notice; but the examples which have been adduced as proof, 
 demand some attention. 
 
 1. The case of Sarai is cited, who "dealt hardly" with Hagar. 
 (Gen. xvi. 1-9.) The original is, zvaaitcanncha Snrai, "and Sarai 
 afflicted her;" anah signifying, to afflict, &c. "She was abused 
 and maltreated," says Doctor J., "to such a degree, as to induce 
 her to flee to the wilderness. * * * * "VYe can form no idea of 
 this affliction but by referring to other passages where the word 
 is used." (pp. 39, 40.) The following are then cited: Isa. liii. 
 7. He (Christ) was oppressed and he was afflicted. Job xxx. 
 11, Because he hath loosed my cord and ajjiictcd me. Ex. i. 11, 
 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters, to cjjlict them 
 with their burdens. "We cannot but conclude," he adds, "that 
 this affliction was corporeal, and exceedingly hard to bear." 
 
 But why not quote Gen. xv. 13? And he said unto Abram, 
 Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that 
 is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 
 (zoeinnu) four hundred years. And also that nation whom they 
 shall serve ivill I judge, (that is, punish.) Ex. i. 11, might have 
 been illustrated by Ex. iii. 7, 8, And the Lord said, I have surely 
 seen the affliction (eth-oni) of my people which are in Egypt, and 
 have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters, for I know 
 their sorrows: and am come down to deliver them out of the 
 hand of the Egyptians. As good old Job has been summoned to 
 testify in this case, it may not be amiss to hear "ane word mair" 
 from him: [xxxiv. 28,] So that they [the wicked, mighty men] cause 
 the cry of the poor to come unto him, [God,] and he heareth the 
 cry of the afflicted, \aniyyim.'] How truly was this declaration, 
 so consolatory to the oppressed, verified in the case of Hagar! 
 "When Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. And 
 the angel of the Lord founjl her by a fountain of water in the 
 wilderness. * * * And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence 
 
35 
 
 comest thou? And whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee 
 from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the Lord 
 said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under 
 her hands. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will 
 multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for 
 multitude. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold 
 thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name 
 Ishmael, because the Lord hath heard thy offlictmi, [aneyck.'] And 
 she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her. Thou God 
 seest me : for she said. Have I also here looked after him that 
 seelh me? Wherefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi." 
 
 How does Doctor J. represent this angelic visit? Leaving 
 wholly out of sight his message of mercy, he describes "the 
 mighty Redeemer," like some Kentucky slave-catcher, as having 
 come down from heaven, simply to defend the rights of the 
 master, to restore the fugitive slave! "The angel of the Lord 
 found her. This is none other but the angel Jehovah, the 
 mighty Redeemer. * * * Jlnd zvhat zoas God's message to her? 
 Like a modern abolitionist, did he give her wings to fly, and bid 
 her be off from such cruelty and oppression ? Did he hire some 
 Vanzandt, to conceal her in his wagon, and hurry her away 
 towards Egypt, * * * or toward some frozen Canada, to suffer 
 in an inhospitable climate? * * * And the angel Jehovah said 
 unto her. Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her 
 hands. Such is Jehovah's command, to a poor, abused and 
 afllicted runaway African slave. How different the counsels of 
 Infinite Wisdom, from those of modern abolitionism!" [p. 40.] 
 And as if he labored to present the story in the most repulsive 
 features possible, he adds, "The phrase, under his hand, [Ex. xxi. 
 20,] may throw some light on the instruction of the angel to 
 Hagar, when he tells her to submit herself under the hands of 
 her mistress. It undoubtedly implies the use of the hands in severe 
 correction!''' The Lord Jesus, then, came from the throne of 
 glory, to tell the poor, "abused and maltreated" slave to return 
 and receive further severe correction from the hands of her 
 enraged mistress! And this was ^^God^s message to herP^ Not 
 one word of comfort! Not a single intimation to Sarai that she 
 was doing wrong! And this was the God "who heareth the cry 
 
36 
 
 of the afflicted !" A more awful and horrible misrepresentation 
 of the blessed word and character of God, it has seldom been 
 our misfortune to read. 
 
 Let us look at the truth of the case. [1.] ITagar was not the 
 slave, but the wife of Abram. [Gen. xvi. 3.] She was pregnant 
 by him; and in a delicate, if not dangerous situation. At Sarai's 
 own suggestion, she had become a secondary wife. [2.] Sarai, 
 offended at her pride, which, under the circumstances, was very 
 natural, but of course sinful, — afflicted her. [3.] God has 
 promised to hear the cry of the afflicted; and he fulfilled his 
 promise; not sending an angel, but coming personally. He calls 
 her "Sarai's maid," "as a check to her pride: though she was 
 AhrarrCs voife, and as such, obliged to return, yet he calls her Sarai's 
 maid to humble her." — (Henry.) He tells her to return, and 
 submit herself under the hands of her mistress; for the secondary 
 wives were subject to the principal wife. So says Josephus; who, 
 being himself a Jewish priest, and conversant with oriental 
 customs, was perhaps as well qualified to judge of this matter 
 as the President of JMiami University. Speaking of Zilpah 
 and Leah, who stood in precisely the same situation to Jacob, as 
 Ilagar to Abram, he says, "Zilpah was handmaid to Leah, and 
 Bilhah to Rachel, bi/ no means slaves, but however subject to their 
 mistresses.''^ (Antig. B. L c. 19, §8.) The Saviour then adds these 
 words of consolation: that the child in her womb should be a 
 son; that she should be safely and happily delivered; that by this 
 son she should become the parent of an innumerable posterity, — 
 the very blessing given to the father of the faithful; and that her 
 seed should be invincible, — a promise not made respecting the 
 seed of Abram by Isaac. He condescended, also, to name her 
 unborn child; and to remind her of his gracious visit, and his 
 attention to the cry of her affliction, called him Yishmael, that is, 
 God will hear. No wonder that after an interposition in her 
 behalf, so kind, timely, and honorable, Hagar too set up her 
 Eben-ezer, calling the Lord £/-;-o/,the visible God; and the well 
 where he had appeared to her, Bccr-lahai-r-oi, the well of him 
 that liveth and seeth me. And let it be remembered, that all 
 this while, Abram, though the father of Ishmael and of believers, 
 received no heavenly visit, no divine promise respecting his 
 
37 
 
 future son; and that so far as we know, Jehovah never appeared 
 to him nor spoke with him during the fourteen years following. 
 How different the air of the Scripture harrative, from that of 
 the Speech before us! How forcibly we are reminded, by 
 every circumstance, of His loving kindness, and regard for the 
 oppressed, who . afterwards said, in the law of Moses, " Any 
 widow, (almanah, fo7-snkc7i one, and Hagar was very like such an 
 one when her husband said to Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy 
 hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee.) — "Any widow, or fatherless 
 child 7/e shall not afflict, {lo theannun.) If thou afflict them in 
 any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their 
 cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the 
 sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fath- 
 erless. " — (Ex. xxii. 22-24.) "How different the counsels of 
 Infinite Wisdom," from the representation of these modern 
 anti-abolitionists! Such is a fair specimen of the manner in 
 which the Scripture is perverted, for the defence of slavery, by 
 a Doctor of Divinity, a master in Israel! Tell it not in Gath; 
 publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of 
 the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised 
 
 triumph. * * * * I am distressed for thee, my brother 
 
 Junkin- 
 
 2. Ex. xxi. 20-21, is the other ^roo/ cited to sustain this fifth 
 proposition. "If a man smite his servant, (abhdo,) or his maid, 
 (amatho,) with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely 
 be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he 
 shall not be punished: for he is his money. * * * * Here we 
 see extremely violent whipping; and, if death follow immediate- 
 ly, the master shall be punished, to what extent the law does 
 not define. But, if the slave survive the beating a day or two, 
 the man-slayer goes with impunity — 'he shall not be punished.' 
 The reason of this impunity is stated — 'for he is his money.' 
 It is presumed that the interest of the master will be, in all 
 ordinary cases, a sufficient guarantee to the safety of his own 
 purchased slave." — (p. 41.) 
 
 It must be admitted that this law, as it appears in our English 
 version, would seem to be a hard one for the poor servant, but 
 we think it has been satisfactorily shown by Weld, in his Bible 
 
38 
 
 Argument against Slavery, that when viewed in the language in 
 which it was dictated by Jehovah, like all his other laws, it 
 bears the impress of infinite wisdom and equity. Taking it as 
 an isolated statute, with the expository remarks of Dr. J., we 
 are led to the conclusion that a Hebrew master might beat his 
 servant so inhumanly as to cause his death in twenty-four hours, 
 and yet be wholly unpunished. Can this be a law of Ilim 
 with whom there is no respect of person ? In view of the law 
 as thus interpreted, perhaps, the Legislature of North Carolina, 
 in 1798, passed the following act: '^That if any person shall 
 hereafter be guilty of wilfully and maliciously killing a slave 
 * * * * he shall be adjudged guilty of murder, and shall suffer 
 the same punishment as if he had killed a freeman: provided 
 always, this act shall not extend * * * * to any slave dying 
 under moderate correction.''' — (Stroud's Sketch, p. 37.) Yet this 
 act is an improvement upon its supposed model; for if the 
 correction were immoderate, the murderer must suffer the same 
 punishment as if he had killed a freeman: but Dr. J. assures us 
 that the Hebrew law did not define the punishment, tho' the 
 slave died under his master's hand ! 
 
 An attempt is made to relieve the evident harshness of the 
 law, as thus explained, by telling us the legislator "presumed 
 that the interest of the master would be, in ordinary cases, a 
 sufficient guarantee to the safety of his own purchased slave." 
 But what protection had the servant in those extraordinary cases, 
 in which the master's interest would 7iot be a sufficient safe-guard 
 of his servant's Ufe; — the very cases in which he would need 
 legislative protection? This suggestion, therefore, will not 
 remove the difficulty. The Divine Law-giver could not but 
 know the fact, attested by the history of all slave-holding 
 communities, that when the passions of the master are aroused, 
 the fear of pecuniary loss will not always induce him to spare 
 his victim. How many slaves have been deliberately murdered 
 by their masters, in our own country! The very existence 
 of laws, such as that which we have just quoted, proves the 
 occurrence of such crimes: for laws are not passed to punish 
 crimes never committed. (See Stroud's Sketch, p. 39, and the 
 note.) Well, knowing, then, the violence of fallen man "dressed 
 
39 
 
 in a- little biief authority;" and how little revenge would heed 
 the thirtj pieces of silver lost by its gratification; did He leave 
 the poor bondman unprotected, in the hands of an infuriated 
 tyrant, who might, with impunity, kill him by moderate correction ? 
 Credat, Judasus Apella. Non ego. 
 
 Let us consult the original statute. [1.] "If a man smite 
 his servant or his maid," &:c. The ebed and the amah here 
 mentioned, might be Hebrews, (Ex. xxi. 2, ebed Ibri;) or of 
 foreign birth, (Lev. xxv. 44.) Nothing in the law confines its 
 application to persons of one class, or of the other. The 
 servant might be a husband and father: the maid, a wife and a 
 mother. 
 
 [2.] Notice the instrument employed in correction: "with a 
 rod," \_Shebet;'\ not a deadly weapon, but a stick suitable for 
 inflicting chastisement. Compare the following passages in 
 which shcbet occurs: Isa. x. 15, As if the rod should shake 
 itself against them that lift it up, &c. xxviii. 27, The fitches 
 are beaten out with a staff, and the cummin with a rod. 
 "Cummin is a plant much like fennel; and which produces 
 blossoms and branches in an umbellated form." [Rob. Calmet.] 
 The rod used for threshing it, was, therefore, a gmall stick. 
 Mic. V. 1, [Hcbr. iv. 14,] They shall smite the judge of Israel 
 with a rod upon the cheek. — Not with a club, surely. — Lev. xxvii. 
 32, Whatsoever [of the flock, &c.,] passcth under the rod, — 
 namely, which the shepherd carries to govern the sheep. Mic. 
 vii. 14, Feed thy people with thy rod. — If, in the use of such 
 an instrument, the master whipped his servant till he died 
 "under his hand," the weapon itself proved the infliction of 
 many stripes, with savage cruelty, and a determination to take 
 hfe. 
 
 [3.] In this case, the master shall "surely be punished," 
 says our translation: but the original is, nnkam yinnakcm, he, [the 
 servant,'] mnst assuredly be avenged. — For proof that nakam 
 signifies to avenge, and generally, if not unifornlly, implies the 
 taking of ///r, consult the following among other passages: Gen. 
 iv. 15, Whosoever shall slay Cain, vengeance shall be taken on 
 him l^yukkom'] seven-fold. iv. 24, If Cain shall he avenged 
 \^yukka'm\ seven-fold, &c. — Joshua x. 13, And the sun 
 
40 
 
 stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged 
 themselves [adyikkovil upon their enemies. Judg. xv. 7, 8. 
 And Samson said, * * * * yet zoill I he avenged of you, 
 \nikkamtQ &c. * * * * And he smote them hip and thigh, 
 with great slaughter; xvi. 28. Samson's last prayer was, 
 That I may at once be avenged [weinnakemah nekani] of the 
 Phihstincs, for my two eyes. 1. Sam. xiv. 24, Cursed be he 
 that eateth, &c. * * * * that / may be avenged \iiikkamti] on 
 mine enemies, xviii. 25, The King desireth a hundred 'fore- 
 skins of the Philistines, to be avenged [Ichinnakeni] of t!ie King's 
 enemies, xxiv. 13, The Lord avenge me of thee, {unckamani.) 
 2. Sam. iv. 8, Behold the head of Ishbosheth, * * * * the 
 Lord hath avenged my lord the King this day of Saul and of his 
 seed, [wayyittcn * * * * nckamoth, hath given vengeances.] 2. 
 Kin"^ ix. 7, And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy 
 master, that / may avenge [ivenikkamti] the blood of my 
 servants, the prophets, &c. Jer. v. 9, Shall not my soul be 
 aveno-ed [tlulhnakkem'] on such a nation as this? Verse 29, the 
 same words. Jer. xlvi. 10, For this is the day of the Lord God 
 of Hosts, a day of vengeance^ that he may avenge himself of his 
 adversaries, [ ?/om nekamah lehinnakem;'] and the sword shall 
 devour, &c. * * * * and be made drunk with their blood, &c. 
 
 We are told that the law does not define the extent of the 
 master^s punishment, [p. 41.] When God declares that the 
 deliberate murder of a servant must assuredly be avenged, one 
 who carefully examines the divine system of laws given by the 
 hand of Moses, will scarcely be at a loss to determine the 
 nature of that vengeance. Compare Lev. xxiv. 17, 21, 22, and 
 he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death * # * * he 
 that killeth a man, shall be put to death. Ye shall have one 
 manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own 
 country: for I am the Lord your God. Num. xxxv. 30, 31-33, 
 Whoso killeth any person^ the murderer shall be put to death by 
 the hand of witnesses * * * * moreover, ye shall take no satis- 
 faction for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, but 
 he shall be surely put to death. * * * * So shall ye not pollute 
 the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the 
 land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but 
 
41 
 
 by the blood of him that shed it — Would not the blood of a 
 servant defile the land, as certainly as that of a master? 
 
 (4.) This law provides for another case; namely, that of a 
 master who beat his servant with a rod, so that he died, not 
 under his hand, but after a day or two. Our version says, "he 
 shall not be punished" ; and Doctor J. asserts that he escaped 
 with impunity. — Let us examine this point. — There are various 
 kinds of homicide. First, wilful murder, which is justly reckon- 
 ed a capital crime. Secondly, manslaughter: then, justifiable, 
 and accidental homicide. We are not aiming at legal 
 exactness, in this general classification. The Mosaic code, 
 like every other equitable system of criminal jurisprudence, 
 recognizes these distinctions. It institutes an inquiry into 
 the intention of the manslayer; and assigns different penalties, 
 according to the nature of the offence committed. In 
 proof of this, consult the whole law relative to the cities of 
 refuge, Num. xxxv. particularly verses 20-24; and Deut. xix. 
 
 In the case under consideration, the master could not be 
 regarded as a wilful murderer. lie did not intend to kill his 
 servant. This appears, first, from the fact that the servant did 
 not die under his hands. Had he designed to kill him, 
 or had he acted under the impulse of ungovernable passion, 
 he would have- beat him to death upon the spot. Secondly, 
 the kind of instrument employed, favored the conclusion that 
 he did not intend his death. Compare Num. xxxv. 16, If he 
 smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a 
 murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. And if he 
 smite him with throwing a stone wherewith he may die, and he 
 die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. 
 Or if he smite him with a hand weapon of wood wherewith he 
 may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely 
 be put to death. — Now this master used no such deadly weapon; 
 but a rod. The presumption was therefore in his favor. — 
 Thirdly, "he (the servant) is his money;" haspo hu; his silver is 
 he. This cannot be taken literally: he was not his master's silver^ 
 nor his shekels and gerahs. When Christ says of the sacra- 
 mental bread. This is my body, he means, this represents my 
 body. So the servant represented his master's money. The master 
 6 
 
42 
 
 had given money for him, that is, for his service; as will be fully 
 proved hereafter. Now, if he killed him, the money was paid, 
 but the service could never be obtained. The interest which 
 he had in his servant's life, therefore, afforded, in this case, 
 additional presumptive proof that he was not a wilful murderer. 
 For however little the fear of loss might influence an infuriated 
 master, the circumstances already adverted to, prove that this 
 man was not actuated by hate or revenge. On the contrary, 
 he was in such a state of mind, that he might weigh the conse- 
 quences, and consider the pecuniary loss to himself, if he killed 
 his servant. — These circumstances, taken together, acquit the 
 master of deliberate wilful murder: the law therefore declares, 
 not that "he shall not be punished," but, lo yukkam, he, or it, (the 
 servant, or his death,) shall not be avenged; that is, in the same 
 sense in which nakam had been just used in the previous verse; 
 the master's life shall not be taken. That he must suffer such 
 punishment as should be awarded by the judges who tried the 
 case, and acquitted him of capital crime, there can be little 
 doubt, when we remember that blood defiled the holy land ; and 
 that even he who slew a man unawares, and was not his enemy, 
 neither sought his harm, must flee to the city of refuge, and abide 
 there unto the death of the High Priest, on pain of death by the 
 hand of the avenger of blood. (Num. xxxv. 22", 28.) 
 
 It may be supposed that the loss of the servant's labor was a 
 sufficient, and therefore, the only penalty. Let it be considered, 
 however, that the man who smote out his servant's eye or tooth 
 inachertentJy, was obliged to set him free for his eye or tooth's 
 sake; that is, to suffer the loss of his service. [Ex. xxi. 2G, 27.] 
 We say, inadvertently; for if that cruelty were purposely 
 inflicted, a more severe punishment was enjoined. "If a man 
 cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be 
 done unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: 
 as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him 
 again. * * * * Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for 
 the stranger, as for one of your own country; «fcc., (Lev. xxiv. 
 19, 22.) Now if the man who unintentionally knocked out his 
 servant's tooth, lost his future service; surely equity would 
 
43 
 
 impose a heavier penalty on him who unintentionally, but 
 perhaps from want of due care and consideration in chastise- 
 ment, took his life. Does the Hfe deserve no higher protection 
 than a tooth? Are they reckoned of equal value by the Divine 
 Lawgiver ? 
 
 The above interpretation of this whole law will be confirmed 
 by examining it in connection with the laws immediately 
 preceding and following. [1.] "If men strive together, and 
 one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, 
 but keepeth his bed: if he rise again, and walk abroad upon 
 his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay 
 for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly 
 healed." [Ex. xxi. 18, 19.] [2.] "If a man smite his servant, 
 &c., with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be 
 punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he 
 shall not be punished," &c., (verses 20, 21.) [3.] "If men 
 strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart 
 from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely 
 punished, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon 
 him: and he shall pay as the judges determine." (verse 22.) — 
 In our version, it is simply said, in regard to the criminals 
 mentioned in the second and fourth cases, "he shall surely be 
 punished:" while in the third, we read that the master "shall 
 not be punished;" apparently, the same sentence of acquittal as 
 in the first case, where the law says, "he shall be quit." The 
 original Hebrew accurately distinguishes these several offences, 
 by the penalty affixed to each. First, "he that smote him shall 
 be quit,'''' wcnikkah, — the verb nakah signifying, to be pure, 
 innocent; and in Niphal, as here, to be free from punishment. 
 (Gibbs' Man. Lex.) Secondly, the wilfully murdered Servant, 
 shall as we have seen, assuredly be avenged, (nakom yinnakem.) 
 Thirdly, in the case of the master guilty, not of murder, but of 
 manslaughter, the law says, not, nikkah, he shall go unpunished^ 
 as in verse 19.; but, lo yukkam, the servant shall not be 
 avenged, by taking the master's life. Fourthly, in regard to 
 him who accidentally kills an unknown child, the law decides, 
 not indefinitely, "he shall be surely punished;" hut anosh yeanesh, 
 he shall surely he fined : anash meaning to mulct, fine, punish by 
 fine or forfeiture. (Parkhurst.) 
 
44 
 
 So much, then, for the only proofs brought to sustain this fifth 
 proposition, "that a very considerable degree of severity in the 
 treatment of servants, was practiced in Old Testament times." 
 But we cannot pass from this topic without expressing our 
 sincere regret that Doctor J. should have thought it his duty to 
 attempt the proof of such a proposition. Is this "the suffering 
 truth" of the day? Is too great lenity in the treatment of 
 slaves, tlie crying sin of the South? Arc the thousands of poor, 
 unhappy creatures now held in bondage by the members of our 
 own church, so idle and disobedient, through the undue relaxa- 
 tion of discipline, and the disuse of the cowhide, that the 
 President of (what was once) the leading literary institution of 
 the free West, must stoop from his dignity, indirectly to encour- 
 age these masters in imitating what he supposes to have been 
 the patriarchal and Jewish custom, and in employing a very 
 considerable degree of severity? — But we leave him to the 
 reproaches of his own conscience. 
 
 "Proposition VI. That God has nowhere in the Old Testa- 
 ment PROHIBITED slavery. There is no command to this 
 amount, 'Masters, let your servants go free.' The relation of 
 master and slave is nowhere condemned as a sin, and forbidden 
 to exist. * * * * If the relation of master and servant, in 
 perpetuity or for life, be in itself and apart from all cruelties 
 and abuses of power, a horrible sin in the sight of God, let us 
 have a text from the Old Testament to condemn it." (p. 43.) 
 
 Our author, in the course of his remarks upon 1 Tim. vi. 1-5, 
 takes occasion to give a learned criticism upon zugos,.ol, motah, 
 mozenayim^ &,-€.; the Greek and Hebrew terms for yoke, balances, 
 &c.; in which he absolutely demonstrates that the yoke is an 
 emblem of genuine slavery! "Under the yoke," says he, "a 
 phrase which undoubtedly signifies bondage, deep and degraded 
 slavery, * * * a symbol of bondage, a type of slavery, (p. 63.) 
 * * * Thus it is clear, that to be under the yoke, is to be in a 
 state of slavery. To have the yoke broken off is to be made free.'''' 
 (p. 64.) About half an hour, during the delivery of the speech, 
 was consumed, not to say wasted, in yoking the Synod with this 
 doctrine. We are glad to find that certain hints which were 
 thrown out, have led the Doctor to shorten his yoke, and thus 
 
45 
 
 make it somewhat easier to bear. If any of the member's 
 had previously hesitated to concede what they might deem so 
 disputable a doctrine, surely the long array of passages adduced 
 and expounded, and the Doctor's peculiarly lucid and logical 
 reasoning, must have dissipated every doubt! Certainly, all 
 scholars must hereafter admit, that if there be any reliance on 
 the ars crilica, our author has shown conclusively, that the yoke 
 typifies not servitude, merely, but slavery. At any rate, we are 
 decidedly, converts to this nezv opinion; which, w^e hope, will 
 be embodied in the next edition of the Comprehensive Com-' 
 mentary. 
 
 But unfortunately for this sixth proposition, which deserved 
 a better fate than to fall by the hand of its father, one of the 
 passages to which we are referred, is Isa. Iviii. 6. Is not this 
 the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, 
 to undo the heavy burdens, and to Jet the oppressed go free, 
 and that ye break every yoke, (motah.) The Septuagint 
 renders it thus: Ouchi toiauten nesteian exelexamen legei kurios, 
 alia lue panta sundesmon adikias, dealue slraggalias haion sunal- 
 lagmaton, apostelle tethrausmenous en aphesei, kaipasan sungraphen 
 adikon diaspa. I have not chosen such a fast, saith the Lord : 
 but loose every bond of unrighteousness, untie the cords of forced 
 contracts, dismiss the oppressed by an act of emancipation, and 
 tear ifi pieces every unjust written agreement. — Now, if the 
 yoke is an emblem of slavery, and if language can convey 
 definite ideas, the Lord declares, in this passage, his abhorrence 
 of slavery, and requires immediate emancipation: yea, more; 
 he refuses to hear the prayers of those who neglect to liberate 
 their slaves. If it be asked. How could the Lord require the 
 immediate release of all slaves, when he had himself estab- 
 lished laws tolerating slavery? — we answer, he had established 
 no such laws. If it be asked, How could the Jews have slaves 
 to liberate, if their law allowed no slavery? — we reply, they 
 could as easily imitate their heathen neighbors in slave-holding, 
 as in any other sin. 
 
 This application of the passage, the Doctor heard at Synod ; 
 and in his printed speech replies to it as follows: "The projihet 
 is correcting abuses in the context referred to. As in the days 
 
46 
 
 of Nehemlah, the Hebrews had generally disregarded the laws 
 relative to their treatment of slaves: they did not release at the 
 end of the sixth year, nor even at the jubilee — they treated 
 their Hebrew servants with rigor, contrary to law. These 
 illegal exactions he w'ould correct. The law forbid the Hebrew 
 to make his brother serve with rigor, this Isaiah would restore — 
 'to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens.' 
 The law ordered the servant to be set free, of whom the master 
 had broken a tooth. Or destroyed an- eye : this the prophet 
 enforces, 'and to let the oppressed — the broken, as it signifies, 
 go free:' that is, for his eye's or tooth's sake. The law made 
 all Hebrew slaves free at the end of six years; and here the 
 prophet, like Nehemiah, enforces the law: 'Let every man, 
 who is entitled by law to his freedom, go free — break ye off 
 every yoke.' To infer from the general term '•every yoke,' that 
 those who were not by law entitled to freedom, must obtain 
 it, is not to interpret, but to per\'ert the prophet's language." 
 (p. 65.) 
 
 Tliis cxposilion demands a few remarks. (1.) The author 
 asserts what he should have proved, when he says that the clause 
 "break every yoke," applies to the Hebrew six years' servants 
 only. Neither the words themselves, the text, nor the context, 
 authorize any such conclusion. He refers us, indeed, to Neh. 
 V. 1-13; and intimates that Nehemiah and Isaiah were engaged 
 in the same work of correcting abuses relative to Hebrew 
 servants. There is this important difference, however, between 
 the passages: Nehemiah tells us expressly that he was speaking 
 of Hebrew servants; (vs. 1, 2, &c.,) while Isaiah says no such 
 thing. But grant that the passages arc parallel: — Nehemiah's 
 language is point-blank against Doctor J.'s exposition. The 
 law, as we have seen, allowed the conditional sale of a daughter, 
 who was to become the wife of her purchaser; (Ex. xxi. 7;) but 
 we do not find that Jewish parents were authorized to sell their 
 sons. Yet this was done in the days of Nehemiah. Taking 
 advantage of the necessities of the times, these ancient oppres- 
 sors bought girls as servants, not as wives; and were about 
 to purchase poor boys also. It is not intimated, that these 
 children w ere held more than six years. On the contrary, the 
 
47 
 
 probability is that the parents complained to Nehemiah very 
 soon after the transactions took place. And what does he say? 
 "We, after our ability, have redeemed our brethren^ the Jews, 
 which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your 
 brethren? Or shall they be sold unto us?" (v. 8.) He docs not 
 reprove the rich Jews for holding their brethren beyond the 
 legal period; but for the simple fact of holding them at all. 
 And if this passage be parallel to Isa. Iviii. 6, and expository 
 of it, then are we certain that the prophet is here condemning 
 all kinds of involuntary bondage, whether practised under or 
 without the forms of law. 
 
 (2.) The learned President is surely joking, — putting us off 
 with a pun instead of a proof, — when he tells us in his usual 
 chaste and flowing style, "the law ordered the servant to be set 
 free, of whom the master had broken a tooth, &c.: this the 
 prophet enforces, 'and to let the oppressed — the broken^ as it 
 signities, go free;' — that is, for his eye's or his tooth's sake." 
 The poor slaves whose teeth had been broken out by their 
 master's cruelty, were the retzutzim, the oppressed, the broken^ 
 were they? Partly broken, they were, undoubtedly; — broken 
 as to their teeth. But will the Doctor assert, in sober earnest, 
 that the Hebrew word here used, specially denotes persons 
 w^hose teeth or eyes are knocked out? We are aware that the 
 margin reads, "broken," for "oppressed;" and that the word 
 ratzatz sometimes has that signification: as, for instance, in 
 Ps. Ixxiv. 14, Thou breakest the heads of the Leviathans in 
 pieces. But were the broken-headed Leviathans, those, particu- 
 larly, whose teeth or eyes were knocked out?— So, Isa. xxxvi. 
 6, Lo, thou trustest in the stafT of this broken reed, on Egypt, 
 &;c., xlii. 3, A bruised reed shall he not break, &lc. The 
 worthy Doctor reminds us of Crambc, the chum of Martinus 
 Scriblerus, of whom his biographer says, "As for Crambe, he 
 contented himself with words, and if he could but form some 
 conceit upon them, was fuUi/ satisfied- Thus Crambe would tell 
 his instructor, that all men were not singular. * * * * When he 
 was told that a substance was that which was subject to accidents; 
 then soldiers, quoth Crambe, are the most substantial people in 
 the world. Neither would he allow it to be a good definition 
 
48 
 
 of accident, that it could be present or absent without the destruction 
 of the subject; since there arc a great many accidents that destroy 
 the subject, as burning docs a house, and death a man." Even 
 so docs our Doctor "form a conceit*' upon the word '•'•broken :'' 
 "let the oppressed — the broken — go free; that is, those whose 
 teeth are broken outP'' — Risum tcncatis, amici? — And this is the 
 critic who talks of abolitionists " twisting and wrenching the 
 Scripture!''— (p. 63.) 
 
 The verb rat:at:, from which comes relzutzim, "the oppressed,'' 
 is evidently used "In a nictaphorical sense; to break, crush, 
 oppress greatly." (Parkhurst.) Compare the passages cited in 
 his Lexicon: Deut. xxviii. 33, The fruit of thy land, and all 
 thy labors, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up: and 
 thou shalt be oppressed and crushed [ashuk weratzutz] always. 
 Judg. X. 8, And that year, they vexed and oppressed {warotzctzii] 
 the children of Israel. 1 Sam. xii. 3, 4, Behold, here I am: 
 witness against me before the Lord, and before his anointed; 
 whose ox have I taken? or" whose ass have I taken? or whom 
 have I defrauded ? wh.om have I oppressed [ratztzothi?!^ — To 
 these add the following: '2 Chron. xvi. 10, and Asa oppressed 
 [waratztzetz'] some of the people the same time. Job xx. 19, 
 Because he hath oppressed [ritztzatz] and forsaken the poor. 
 Am. iv. 1, Hear this word, ye kinc of Bashan, that are in the 
 mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush 
 [harotztzofh'] the needy; which say to their masters, Bring, and 
 let us drink. The Scptuagint renders ratzatz by tethrausmenous ; 
 from thrauo; which signifies, to break in pieces, to bruise, to 
 crush to pieces, to grind, [Donnegan:] but never, that we find, 
 to knock the teeth out! Will Doctor J., in the second edition of 
 his speech, favor us with a reference to the other passages in 
 which retzutzim means slaves that have lost their teeth or eyes? 
 [3.] Our author interprets the clauses, "to loose the bands of 
 wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens," as a restoration of "the 
 law which forbade the Hebrew to make his brother serve with 
 rigor." Did he not observe that his favorite term, yoke^ is 
 contained in one of these clauses; that "to undo the heavy 
 burdens" is, hatter aguddoth motah, to untie the knots of the yoke, 
 that is, "the cords inserted into the wooden parts of it;" [Park- 
 
49 
 
 hurst;] and that this expression conveys the same general idea 
 as the last clause, "break every yoke?" Why, then, does he 
 expound it so differently? 
 
 (4.) We are told that ''•every yoke''' is a general term, which 
 must not be pressed too strongly; but interpreted according to 
 the critical canon relative to all general expressions; such as, 
 "Servants, obey your masters mall things;" "Render them all 
 honor," &c. But are such terms never to be taken strictly? 
 When David says, "I hate every false way," (Ps. cxix. 104,) does 
 he mean that there are some false ways which he did not hate ? 
 When he tells us that mankind "are all gone aside," (Ps. xiv. 3,) 
 does he not mean that "there is none that docth good, no, not 
 one?'''' Is there not a multitude of similar cases? By what 
 authority, then, does Doctor J. decide that "every," in Isa. Iviii. 
 6, belongs to the former, rather than the latter class of general 
 terms? — that "break every yoke," signifies, break a fcia yokes, 
 only, namely, those on the Hebrew six years' servants v»'ho have 
 been kept beyond the legal time; but let the yoke remain on 
 others till they have served the full period; and on the car-bored 
 Hebrews, and the heathen, forever? In fact, he has, with 
 amusing inconsistency, decided the contrary; and assured us 
 that "every," is to be construed strictly. He applies the com- 
 mand, "break every yoke, " to the Hebrews whose term of 
 service had been illegally protracted: and was not every one of 
 these to be emancipated? This command, therefore, according 
 to his own exposition, implies, that servants held according to 
 law were not under the yoke, — that is, were not slaves. We 
 -are authorized to assert, then, that Isaiah Iviii. G, is an act of 
 immediate emancipation, passed by the Court of Heaven, in 
 favor of all the slaves in Israel.* 
 
 * We beg leave to introduce, here, a brief piece of Ecclesiastical history, 
 and correspondence, which may confirm our exposition of the passage in 
 question. In the year 1833, our General Assembly addressed a letter to, the 
 United Secession Church of Scotland, part of which is as follows: "Allow us 
 just to solicit your particular attention to a minute of the proceedings of our 
 present Sessions, in which we recommend to our own churches, and take 
 leave to invite those of other communions, to set apart the first Monday in 
 January next, as a season of special prayer, with fastings, for the conversion 
 of the world to God."— (Min. Gen. Assemb. 1834, pp. .57-59.) The United 
 Secession Church wrote a reply, dated Glasgow, March 1, 1834; in which they 
 7 
 
50 
 
 Having now passed in review all Doctor J.'s propositions 
 which have respect to the Old Testament, we proceed to his 
 arguments from the New Testament. His general positions 
 are stated in these words: — 
 
 " I. There is not a sentence in the New Testament, which 
 expressly forbids the having, and holding of a slave. " 
 
 " H. There is not a sentence in the New Testament, Avhich, . 
 
 speak thus: "Dear Brethren, *■ * * * Since we know that God heareth not 
 sinners, it is the more incumbent upon those who have received the truth, in 
 the love of it, to pray for sinners, and to make prayers and intercessions for all 
 men, that they may be saved, — not only for men of every rank, but of every 
 kindred and nation : and since we know that if there is any thing in our hearts 
 inconsistent with equity, or with the object for which we pray, God will not 
 hear us, let us see to it that our hearts condemn us not in our prayers, so as to 
 destroy, or even impair our confidence : let our fasting be such as the Lord hath 
 chosen, accompanied icith the undoing of every burden not imposed by the revealed 
 will of God, and the breaking of every yoke not compatible with the nature and 
 design of the gospel dispensation. These suggestions we have been induced 
 to present, * * * * simply as an indication of our views on a most important 
 subject, which we consider as intimately connected with exertions for the 
 spread of the gospel. * * * * We have deeply lamented the organization, 
 among professed christians, of a system of slavery worse than that which 
 existed among the heathen, and have long deplored the accumulation of guilt 
 it has brought on our native country. Having, as a Court, petitioned Parlia- 
 ment against it, and recommended the same measure to all our congregations,''^ 
 (Surely they are not aware of the evils to be feared from connecting religious 
 and political action I Will not Doctor J. send their leading men a few copies 
 of his speech; or, at least, of his four arguments against the introduction of 
 the slavery question into Ecclesiastical bodies?) ***** «<we cannot but 
 earnestly entreat our dear brethren in Christ to co-operate with us, and with 
 all who are associated to obtain the abolition of the system wherever it exists." 
 This reply embodied, unintentionally, the keenest satire upon our supreme. 
 Ecclesiastical Court, as well as upon our whole church. To appreciate it, we 
 must remember that sixteen years previous, the Assembly of 1818 had said to 
 the world, "ff e consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race 
 by another, as a gross violation of the m,ost precious and sacred rights of human 
 nature; as utterly inconsistent unth the law of God, which requires us to love our 
 neighbor as we love ourselves ; and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit and prin- 
 ciples of the gospel of Christ,^'' Sec. No wonder that when the Assembly of 1834 
 received this letter, it hung its head for shame. Thank God I we had virtue 
 enough to blush. The answer was in these words of humble confession : "We 
 receive in kindness your observations on the subject of slavery. They are 
 the reproofs of friends, and are like precious oil. We hope they may make us 
 more sensible of the evils of the system, and rouse us to new and increased 
 exertions to remove the iniquity from among us. We are verily guilty in 
 
51 
 
 by a fair and just interpretation according to the rules of 
 grammar, gives ground for tlie logical inference, that the 
 simple holding of a slave, or slaves, is inconsistent with christian 
 profession, and christian character." — (p. 45.) 
 
 The first of these assertions is in the mouth of all pro-slavery 
 men. They deem it an irresistible argument. "If," say they 
 in the language of this pamphlet, (p. 44,) — "If our opposing 
 brethren had written the New Testament, or any one book of 
 it, would you not expect to find a strong, plain, and unequivocal 
 testimony against slavery, in it?" And yet we find no such 
 testimony; no single sentence that, in so many words, declares. 
 It is sinful to hold human beings as property. 
 
 May we not fairly turn this argument against our opponents? 
 If Dr. J. had written the New Testament, or any one book of 
 it, would you not expect to find a strong, plain, and unequivocal 
 assertion of the right of property in man ; and a declaration that 
 holding unpaid, involuntary servants, for life, and bequeathing 
 them to one's children, is entirely consistent with christian 
 character? — But there is another very short and simple answer 
 to the question asked us. The opponents of slavery will produce 
 just such a passage as is desired, when the advocates of slavery 
 shall have found a similar express declaration of scripture 
 against horse-racing, gambling, dancing, theatre-going, house- 
 burning, the exhibition of the Grecian and Roman games, 
 gladiatorial combats, piracy, &c. &c. — TertulHan thought it 
 necessary to write a tract, De Spectaculis, and eloquently to 
 
 THIS MATTER. ***** Moral means are those on which we are constrained 
 chiefly to rely. These we are bringing into operation; and it is believed that 
 the friends of man and the friends of God are beginning to feel on this great 
 point, more sensibly than they have hitherto felt, and to act more efficiently 
 than they have hitherto acted, in removing this trespass from among us. It 
 
 HINDERS OUR PRAYERS, AND TILL THIS STUMBLING BLOCK OF OUR INIQUITY BE TAKEN 
 AWAY, WE CANNOT EXPECT THE GOSPEL OF OUR BLESSED SaVIOUR TO EXHIBIT ALL ITS 
 
 POWER IN THE CONVERSION AND SANCTiFicATioN OF MEN." Memorable acknowl- 
 edgment I — But what an awful, commentary upon this public and solemn 
 declaration, is the subsequent action of the Assembly, in regard to slavery! 
 During the nine years which have pagsed since 1834, that body has uniformly 
 laid upon the table, anti-slavery petitions from members. Presbyteries, and 
 Synods; and indefinitely postposed the whole subject as often aa it has been 
 forced upon them! 
 
52 
 
 inveigh against attending the pnhlic shows. Why did not Paul 
 as expressly condemn these spectacles? They Averc exhibited 
 in every principal city of the Roman Empire. The temples 
 and the amphitheatres were perhaps the first buildings which 
 met his c}^e, as he entered Ca^sarca, or Antioch, or Corinth, or 
 Rome. Herod the Great huilt a theatre in Jerusalem, and a 
 vast amphitheatre in the plain; where he celebrated games 
 every fifth year, in honor of Caesar, to the great scandal of 
 pious Jews; as Joscphus informs us, (Antiq. R. xv. c. 8, § 1.) 
 Why did not Christ or his apostles denounce this innovation, 
 which they must have heheld with grief and indignation? 
 Witherspoon wrote a treatise against the stage. Why did not 
 Peter pen a single paragraph? Such questions may be multi- 
 plied indefinitely — Shall we be told that gladiatorial combats 
 are forbidden by the command, "Thou shalt not kill?'' Slave- 
 holding is equally forbidden by the law, "Thou shalt not 
 steal." Does the injunction to "redeem the time," condemn 
 attendance upon theatrical exhibitions? As certainly does the 
 golden rule, "Do unto others as ye would that they should do 
 •unto you," forbid one man to hold another, against his will, as 
 property, subject to be bought and sold like a beast of burden. 
 The fact is, the Rible was not given to be an Index Rcrum 
 Prohibitarum, a complete catalogue of all the crimes that ever 
 had been or would be committed. If its Divine Author has 
 given us comprehensive general principles, of easy, natural, and 
 universal application, accompanied with such specifications as 
 show that application; and if these principles condemn every 
 thing that is contrary to the law of love; we presume too much 
 on our own wisdom when we imagine that it would have been 
 far better to have mentioned this, that, or the other sin, in 
 express terms. — Neither Christ nor his apostles asserted, in so 
 many words, the right of mankind to liberty of conscience, and 
 of speech: but, in spite of earth and hell, they exercised those 
 rights. They did cry out against the despotic governments of 
 the day: but they established a republican form of government 
 in the church. Living in an empire where there were at least 
 as many, if not twice as many slaves, as free inhabitants; (See 
 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Romam Empire, c. 2;) that 
 
wisdom which dwells with prudence forbade them to enrage a 
 government naturally hostile, bj declaring war, in j)lain terms, 
 against the whole system of slavery: but they established the 
 church on principles, by whose natural operation, the rich and 
 the poor met together, and the servant was free from his 
 master. The church was Christ's kingdom; destined to break 
 in pieces and destroy all other kingdoms; and, in their destruc- 
 tion, to overthrow every species of tyranny and oppression. 
 
 In support of his two general propositions. Dr. J. presents, 
 and defends five subordinate propositions. 
 
 "1. That the Greek word, doulos, usually translated servant, 
 properly and commonly means a person held to service for 
 life — a slave.'''' (p. 45.) — This we shall pass without remark, 
 for the present. 
 
 "2. The second subordinate proposition, with an inference, is, 
 that Paul advises servants to abide quietly in their condition. 
 This he could not do if the relation of master and slave was in 
 itself a sin." (p. 50.) 
 
 The learned President is very fond of syllogisms; or, as they 
 are called by a friend of ours, who is often intolerably "6oref/" 
 with his sophistry, under this form, — si/A/gisms. If we are 
 correctly informed, the antiquated dialectics of the schools are 
 his hobby. Indeed, during the delivery of this very speech, he 
 could not refrain from giving the Synod a specimen of the 
 
 barbarous, jargon, — Barbara, Cclarent, Darii, Fcrio, 8^'c 
 
 Suppose we throw the substantial argument of this proposition 
 into the form of a syllogism, employing the reductio ad absurdum 
 against ourselves. 
 
 Paul advises slaves to abide quietly in their condition. 
 
 But the master who holds a slave, sins. 
 
 Therefore Paul advises servants to do wrong! 
 Compare this logic with the following: 
 
 Peter advises servants, when bufFetted for doing well, to 
 bear it patiently. 
 
 But it is sinful to buffet one for doing well, 
 
 Therefore Peter advises servants to commit sin ! 
 This reminds us of the famous syllogism of Crambe. "Corne- 
 lius told him that he was a lying rascal; that an universale was 
 
54 
 
 not the object of imagination, and that there was no such thing 
 in reaht)', or a parte rei. But I can prove (quoth Cranibe) that 
 there zire clysters a parle 7'ei, but clysters are U7iiversales; ergo. 
 Thus I prove my minor. Quod aptum est inesse mnltis, is 
 an tiniversale by definition: but every clyster before it 
 is administered has that quaHty; therefore every clyster is 
 an universal c.^^ (Pope's Works, vol. iv.)— By the way, 
 we recommend to the students of Miami University who may 
 study logic, the Codicillus, seu Liber Memorialis, Martini 
 Scribleri, — particularly, Crambe's Treatise on Syllogisms, in 
 chapter vii. — But to return from this digression: who docs not 
 see that the fallacy of the Doctor's argument lies in the clause, 
 "if the relation of master and slave be in itself a sin." — 
 Abolitionists affirm that such a relation is sinful; that is to say, 
 the master who holds his fellow-man as a servant, without regard 
 to his will, and as property, commits sin. But docs it follow 
 that the slave sins in being forcibly held in that relation, or by 
 voluntarily remaining in slavery, when he cannot escape with- 
 out doing more harm than good? It is sinful to persecute; 
 but not to be persecuted: to smite the innocent on the right 
 cheek; but not for the smitten to turn the other also: to hold 
 a slave; but not to be held in slavery; nor to advise another 
 to remain in that condition, rather than bring reproach on the 
 gospel. And this is precisely what the apostle does, in the only 
 passage referred to, — 1 Cor. vii. 20, 21. Let every man abide 
 in the same calling wherein he is called. Art thou called 
 being a servant? Care not for it; (but if thou mayest be made 
 free, use it rather.) For he that is called in the Lord, being 
 a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also, he that is 
 called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a 
 price; be ye not the servants of men. 
 
 Here observe, [L] That the person addressed is the slave 
 of a heathen master. The apostle speaks, (vei'se 10,) to the 
 married, both parties being christians. lie addresses "the 
 rest," (verse 12,) "If any brother have a wife that believeth 
 not," &c. "and the woman which hath a husband that believeth 
 not," (verse 13.) In the same connection, he exhorts the slave 
 having an unbelieving master, (verse 21.) So Scott and 
 
Whitby: "The design of the apostle * * * * ig [q inform 
 them, that their Christianity did not exempt them from their 
 secular relations to heathens, the believer still continuing in 
 his conjugal relation, and in the same relation of a servant to 
 his heathen master." ['2.] He commands the slave to abide 
 in the condition in which the grace of God found him. But 
 for what reason? Because he was the real and rightful proper- 
 ty of his master? Because the slave-holder invaded none of 
 the servant's inherent rights? Because slave-holding was inno- 
 cent and lawful? Had any of these things been true, how 
 natural, how proper, not to say how necessary, that the apostle 
 should assert them. They would have been the best possible 
 reasons for the duty enjoined. Had the slave been the 
 property of his master, in the sight of God, he would have 
 had no more right to carry himself off, tlian to steal any other 
 part of his master's goods and chattels. But Paul gives not the 
 remotest hint of such a right of property. He states the 
 ground of his injunction in all the cases referred, (verse 15,) 
 "God hath called us to peace;" and (verse 16) to do good and 
 not injury to the souls of unbelievers with whom we may be 
 providentially connected. "For what knowest thou, O wife, 
 whether thou shalt save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O 
 man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" And equally, How 
 knowest thou, O slave, whether thou shalt save thy master? 
 Altho' he had a right to liberty, and was bound to accept it 
 when offered, ("if thou mayest be made free, use it rather,") 
 yet, to obtain it, under ordinary circumstances, by flight, or by 
 open resistance, w^ould produce any other result than '•'•peace^''' 
 would prevent him from laboring for his master's salvation; 
 would prejudice the unenhghtened minds of heathen slave 
 holders against Christianity; would induce them to forbid their 
 unconverted slaves from attending christian worship, or conver- 
 sing with religious people, lest they, too, should become, first 
 christians, and then fugitives; and linally, would afford apparent 
 reason for the popular clamor, that the apostles designed to 
 "turn the world upside down." To avoid these injurious 
 consequences, Paul exhorts such servants to sacrifice their 
 rights, that the gospel might be honored. And this he could 
 
56 
 
 do with perfect propriety: for altho' we dare not, through fear 
 of consequences, neglect our duty; we may, for a sufficient 
 reason, rcUnquish our privileges — Far enough, then, is this 
 apostolic injunction from recognising the right of property in 
 man, — the lawfulness of slave-holding. 
 
 In the following words, (v. 23,) "Ye are bought with a price; 
 he not ye the servants of men;'' the apostle probably adverts to 
 the redemption of the soul by the blood of Christ, as in ch. vi. 
 20; and therefore forbids the redeemed to "be blindly followers 
 of men, conforming to their opinions.'" — (Bloomficld.) But 
 when our author, after representing abolitionists as insisting 
 "that 'be yc not servants of men,' is a natural servitude," — 
 roundly asserts that "such a construction is not only violent, but 
 it is disingenuous^ S^x. * * * J\ o commentator ever entertained 
 such an idea: until modcrii abolitionism invc?itcd it, the zvorld, I 
 presume, tms ignorant of such a co7istruetion ;'"' [p. 53,] — he allows 
 his zeal to outrun his discretion. Those eminent expositors, 
 Whitby, McKnight, and Doddridge, (to omit others,) have 
 adopted the very interpretation which Doctor J. so unceremo- 
 niously rejects. "Are ye bought out of servitude by the charity 
 of christians? Return not again to the service of unbelievers." 
 [Whitby, vol. 2, 138.] "Ye were bought with the price of 
 Christ's blood: become not the slaves of men, by selling your- 
 selves to them." [oMcKnight.] In this sense, only, as forbidding 
 frecdmen from again becoming slaves, voluntaiily, was this 
 passage quoted by abolitionists on the floor of Synod; and Dr. 
 J. docs them the highest injustice when he represents them as 
 "abusing it to the encouragement of slave insurrections." [p. 
 54.] It is a stale and hackneyed slander upon anti-slavery men, 
 picked up from the filthiest sewers of defamation, that they 
 "encourage slaves to cut their master's throats." 
 
 " 3. The third subordinate proposition, with an inference. 
 The New Testament recognizes some masters as good men — 
 true and faithful believers: therefore, the relation of master 
 and slave, may exist, consistently with christian character and 
 profession." [p. 53.] 
 
 We shall notice, at present, only the first proof under this 
 head ; that drawn from Mat. viii. 9, «fec., the case of the 
 
i)7 
 
 centurion. If our author intended merely to say that some 
 slaveholders have been eminent christians, we should not deny 
 the assertion. But he evidently means to teach that slave- 
 holding is not sinful, because some good men have held slaves. 
 Let us allow, for argument's sake, that the centurion was a 
 slaveholder; and resort again to the use of the syllogism. The 
 Doctor's argument will run thus: — 
 
 The Centurion was an eminent believer. 
 
 But he held slaves. 
 Therefore slaveholding is consistent with christian character. 
 
 If this be logical reasoning, then we may arrive at some 
 singular conclusions, from Scripture premises. 
 
 Abraham was the father of the faithful. 
 
 But Abraham lied to Abimelech. 
 Therefore lying is consistent with christian character. 
 
 Noah was an eminent preacher of righteousness. 
 
 But Noah got drunk. 
 Therefore drunkenness is consistent with ministerial character. 
 
 Lot was one to whom the Lord was merciful. 
 
 But Lot became intoxicated, and lay with his two daughters. 
 Therefore intoxication and incest are consistent with christian 
 character. 
 
 Why the old lady's logic was equal to this: — 
 
 Solomon was the wisest man. 
 
 Samson was the strongest man. 
 Therefore Jonah was in the whale's belly! 
 
 Is the Doctor satisfied with syllogistic reasoning? Cannot he 
 discover that the piety of "the captain" will not sanctify all his 
 practices? Does he not perceive, that, even granting he M^as a 
 slaveholder, Christ's commendation of his faith will not prove 
 the rightfulness of slaveholding? 
 
 " 4. The fourth subordinate proposition. The New Testament 
 recognizes the existence of slavery." (p. 54.) This is connected 
 with the next proposition; and depends upon the same proof. 
 
 "5. The fifth subordinate proposition. — The New Testament 
 prescribes the duties of servants to their muster, and of masters 
 to their servants — enjoining obedience to the one, and kind 
 treatment from the other." — (p. 54.) 
 8 
 
58 
 
 We pass this proposition also without remark. All tlie pas- 
 sages cited to sustain it, will be fully examined in their proper 
 place. We cannot, however, forbear to notice the gross 
 slanders which the author has been pleased, in this connection, 
 to heap upon abolitionists. "Modern anti-slavery doctors," says 
 he, "teach that slaves may and ought to disobey their masters — 
 to run off, to steal their master's, or any other person's horse, 
 saddle, bridle, food, clothing, any tbing tbat may be necessary 
 to facilitate tbcir escape. Such morality may be found in the 
 abolition journals of the day. * * * * Now we put it to oitr 
 brethren^ whether this course of conduct, in cbristian slaves, is 
 not much more likely to win their masters * * * * to embrace 
 the doctrine from which it springs, than the stealing, and running 
 off, which they recommend.'''' — (pp. 55, 56.) " The morality of 
 modern abolitionism * * * * recommends the slave to disobey, 
 to steal, to run olf," &c. [p. 60.] These charges are made in 
 general terms; against abolitionists as a body. And although 
 met and refuted, on the floor of Synod, and their utter falsity, 
 as far as the great body of abohtionists are concerned, plainly 
 demonstrated, Doctor J. has not scrupled to repeat them, mere 
 assertions as they are, in his printed speech. True, a few 
 individuals, a local society or two, may have advocated such 
 doctrines; but they have, in multiplied forms, been disavowed, 
 opposed, denounced, by the mass of abolitionists throughout the 
 country. We cannot conceive how any honorable motive could 
 prompt the author to reiterate these miserable accusations. 
 
 The pamphlet closes with a reply to an argument, offered on 
 the floor of Synod, by an esteemed brother. "One excellent 
 brother," says the author, "seeing no room for denial, proceeded 
 to argue this against me, admitting the position I have elaborated^ 
 as true.'''' — (p. 73.) Now the fact is, brother Steele, who is the 
 individual referred to, precededT)oc\.or J. in the order of debate; 
 and therefore could not have admitted a position which had not 
 been elaborated. How sadly, (though, we doubt not, uninten- 
 tionalh%) that brother's real sentiments are misrepresented by 
 Doctor J., may be seen by examining a series of able articles 
 in the Baltimore Literary and Religious Magazine, [vol. 3, and 
 vol.4;] correctly attributed to his pen. The argument offered 
 
59 
 
 by brother S., is thus mlstated by Doctor J. "All things which 
 involve many great and crying moral evils, ought immediately 
 to be abandoned and aboHshed. But slavery, as it exists and is 
 practised in the United States, involves many great and crying 
 evils. Therefore, &c." [p. 75.] Doctor J. replies, that the 
 marriage and parental relation, and even civil government, 
 involve many great moral evils; and should therefore, by parity 
 of reasoning, be abolished: and he adds, "Before you can infer 
 that slavery ought to b6 immediately abolished, you must prove 
 that it necessarily involves many great and crying moral evils." 
 (p. 77.) Now this was, in fact, the very argument of Mr. S.; 
 (we say this on his own authority;) and a most conclusive 
 argument it is. " Slavery," said he, '"'' necessarily involves great 
 moral evils." So said the General Assembly of 1818, whose 
 language he quoted. After depicting those evils, they add, 
 "Such are some of the consequences of slavery; consequences 
 not imaginary — but which connect themselves with its very exist- 
 ence.'''' (Digest. 342.) So says the truth itself. Grant, what 
 Doctor J. has endeavored to maintain, that A may justly hold 
 B as property, as he holds his land, cattle, &c.; and it necessa- 
 rily follows that A m:iy justly sell B to be separated from his 
 wife; and B's children, to be severed from their parents. B 
 and his family may be rightfully divided among the heirs of 
 A; or sold by executors to pay his debts. Thus the claim to 
 property in human flesh conflicts with the marriage and parental 
 rights; and tramples them under foot. Rightly, therefore, did 
 our brother argue that a system founded on the claim of proper- 
 ty in man, should be immediately abolished. 
 
 With a heavy draught upon the patience of our readers, we 
 have passed in review the various propositions and arguments 
 of Doctor J. We beg their continued attention, while we 
 endeavor to establish, on our part, the following propositions: 
 
 1. That the Servants of the Patriarchs were not 
 
 SLAVES. 
 
 2. That the servitude permitted by the Mosaic system, 
 was not slavery. 
 
 3. That the apostles did not tolerate sl vveholding in the 
 christian church. 
 
60 
 
 4. That the Bible condemns, and positively forbids slave- 
 holding. 
 
 We wish our readers to remember, in the outset, the true 
 meaning of the word slave. Due attention to it is a matter of 
 vital consequence in this whole discussion. Every kind of 
 servitude is not, under all circumstances, slavery. Subjection, 
 entire subjection, even perpetual subjection, not only in act, but 
 even when every thought is brought into obedience, will not 
 always constitute slavery, if that subjection be voluntary. Dr. 
 J. seems surprised with such a statement. "We are told," says 
 he, "that voluntary servitude is not slavery. To my utter, but 
 agreeable surprise, this was distinctly and strongly avowed on 
 the floor of Synod, by the principal debater on the abolition 
 side of the house. * * * Let us look at so large a concession 
 from our opponents. It is more than I expected. For, [1.] it 
 maintains, that the moment the man consents to become an cbed 
 forever, he is not an ebcd at all. Let slavery become volunta- 
 ry, and it is no longer slavery. * * * Then, ['i.J Charles Clay is 
 not a slave. His master sg-id to him, when in Canada, 'Charles, 
 you arc now a freeman, I have no power to take you to the 
 United States and keep you as a slave.' But Charles chose to 
 come back. He felt that American slavery is better than British 
 freedom. * * * Then, [3.] all that is necessary, according to the 
 brethren's own showing, to restore the slaves of the South to 
 freedom, is to treat them so kindly, that they will voluntarily 
 abide with their masters." — [p. 33, 34.] 
 
 Let us examine this flimsy sophistry. The Jewish servant, 
 in the case referred to, (pp. 32, 33.) must "plainly say, I love 
 my master, my wife, and my children; 1 zvill not go out free. 
 Then his master shall bring him to the judges: he shall also 
 bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post: and his master 
 shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve 
 him forever." (Ex. xxi. 5, 6.) Now upon what rests the 
 master's claim to him after this transaction? Clearly, upon 
 the servant's free choice; a choice which the law requires to 
 be expressed publicly, before the judges. Suppose such a 
 master were called to establish his right to the service of such 
 an ebedf before a Jewish court: how would he prove it? By 
 
61 
 
 showing that he had once paid money for him, — as indeed he 
 had? (Ex. xxi. 2.) No: but by reference to the record of 
 his choice to serve him until the year of jubilee; and his 
 avowal of that choice when his ear was bored in the presence 
 of the Magistrates. The servant's deliberate act of will was 
 the oyily legal foundation of the Jewish master's claim to his 
 service. The moment he consented to become an ebcd forever, 
 he was an ebed, but not a slave. Far otherwise is it with 
 "Charles Clay," and the other southern bondmen who may 
 choose slavery rather than freedom. Were their masters 
 required to establish their right to A, B, and C, they would 
 appeal, not to their choice of slavery; but to the money paid 
 for them, and the laws of the land allowing them to hold 
 purchased slaves, willing or unwilling, as property. Cannot 
 the Doctor's usually acute mind perceive the difference 
 between the cases? We say that servitude is not slavery, in 
 which the choice of the servant is the sole foundation of the 
 master's claim to control: and on the other hand, that condi- 
 tion is slavery, in which the master's legal right to hold and 
 dispose of his servant, rests in no degree, upon the servant's 
 will. The former is the definition of Jewish servitude: the 
 latter, of American slavery. Let the slaves of our country be 
 held as servants, only when they have given their colisent, and 
 on the ground of that consent, and we freely grant that they 
 would be slaves no longer. Bearing this distinction in mind, 
 and especially the true meaning of the term slavc^ let us pro- 
 ceed with our argument. 
 
 Propositiox I. The servants of the patriarchs w ere not 
 
 SLAVES, 
 
 Preliminary. The Hebrew words ebed, a man-servant^ and 
 amah, or shiphhah, a maid-servant, employed in reference to the 
 patriarchal and Jewish seroants, do not necessarily, nor even gen- 
 erally, denote slaves. This, Doctor J. seems to admit. " The 
 word ebed * * * in itself properly signifies a worker, a laborer, 
 a person who does work of any kind at all, for another. It is 
 very similar to our word servant.''^ [p. 25.] And yet, through- 
 out his argument, wherever he meets with this word, he speaks 
 of it as meaning a slave, and nothing else. (Sec his remarks 
 
62 
 
 on the fourth and tenth commandments, &€.) Indeed, if cbed 
 does not mean slave, but scn-ant, his whole argument from the 
 Old Testament is worthless. A few remarks, therefore, upon 
 these words, arc necessary. The term cbcd is used with great 
 latitude of application in the Hebrew Scriptures: its significa- 
 tion is, a person who serves another, without respect to the length of 
 time, for which, or the principle on zchich, he renders service. 
 It is employed to denote, 
 
 1. Frequently, a scrvatit of God; one who does the will of 
 God from the heart. Ex. xiv. 31, believed the Lord, and his 
 sercant {cihdo) Moses. Lev. xxv. 4*i, they (the Israelites) are my 
 servants (ki-abda). 2 Kings, ix. 7, my servants, (abda,-^ the 
 prophets, * * and * * all the servants (abdc) of the Lord. 
 Job i. 8, my servant [abdi] Job. Ps. Ixxxvi. 2, Preserve thy ser- 
 vant, labdcka,'] O Lord. — Ixxxix. 3, [Ilebr. 4,] I have made a 
 covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David, my servant, 
 [abdi.] This passage is applicable to Christ; [see Ilebr. i. 5.] 
 To argue that cbcd, in such connections, means a slave, because 
 believers are bound to render perpetual service to God, is to 
 trifle. A note of admiration, an elevation of the eye-brows, is 
 a sufficient reply. — A sailor who visited a display of fire-works, 
 was thrown, by some accidental explosion, to a considerable 
 distance, and lodged in a cabbage garden. Supposing this to be 
 a part of the exhibition, he jumped up, rubbed his eyes, and 
 eagerly exclaimed, "I wonder what he will show next?" — 
 AVhen D. D.'s undertake to prove, in defence of slavery, that 
 David was God's slave, because he said, "I am thy servant, thy 
 servant, the son of thy hand-maid," we rub our astonished eyes, 
 and involuntarily ask ourselves. What will they attempt next? 
 
 2. Spoken of one''s self, by w"ay of respect toward superiors. 
 Gen. xviii. 3, And Abraham said [to one of his three guests,] 
 my lord, * * * pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant 
 [abdeka.] xix. 2, xxxii. 18, [Heb. 19.] They he thy servant 
 Jacob's — xlii. 10, to buy food are thy servants come — xliv. 24, 
 thy servant, my father, &c. 
 
 3. To denote the subjects of a king, prince, &c. Ex. ix. 20, 
 he that feared the Lord among the servants (abedc) of Pharaoh. 
 Gen. xlvii. 19, 25, Buy us * * and we * *" will be servants 
 
63 
 
 unto Pharaoh: — that is, we will hind ourselves in suhjection to 
 Pharaoh, as our lawful sovereign. They were then his subjects; 
 but they came under new and more solemn obligations. The 
 supposition that God, by an act of special providence, enabled 
 Joseph to render the Egyptians the personal property of Pha- 
 raoh, to be sold and disposed of at his pleasure, would have 
 suited admirably the principles of the British Stuarts, respecting 
 the divine right of kings. In this age, it hardly needs a grave 
 refutation. Were it true, Joseph would stand pre-eminently 
 infamous as the only prime minister who ever reduced all his 
 fellow-subjects to the condition of purchased slaves of their 
 sovereign.— Compare 1 Sam. viii. 17, And ye [the people of 
 Israel] shall be his (Saul's) so-vants, and 1 Kings, xii. 7, And 
 they [the old men, official advisers of Rehoboam,] spake unto 
 him, saying. If thou wilt be a servant [cbed] unto this people 
 this day, * * * * then they will be thy servants [abadim] forever. 
 The elders of Israel seem to have thought that a good king 
 must be, in a certain sense, the ebed of his own subjects. 
 
 4. Closely connected with this sense is that of military retain- 
 ers — 1 Sam. XXV. 10, And Nabal answered David's servants, 
 [abede,] see verses 40, 41, and compare verse 12, where they are 
 called David's young men [_naare Daioid.) From verse 13, it is 
 clear that they were part of his armed warriors. Compare 
 Esau's company. Gen. xxxii. 6, xxxiii. 1, xxxvi. 6. 
 
 5. Spoken of courtiers, civil and military officers, <^t.. Gen. 
 xl. 29, Pharaoh made a feast unto all his officers, [abadav.] 
 See xli. 10, and compare xl. 2-7, where they are called 
 sarisim, eunuchs, which cannot be taken strictly; for one of 
 them, Potiphar, was married, compare xxxix. 1 ; 2 Kings 5, 6. 
 Naaman my servant. Now Naaman was "captain of the host 
 * * * a great man with his master." [verse 1.] 
 
 6. This word is applied to the Gibeonites, [Joshua ix. 23,] 
 who, as we have seen, were not slaves. 
 
 We have not noticed the use of ebed in reference to the pa- 
 triarchal and Jewish servants; for its meaning, when thus used, 
 is the matter in controvorsy. The student of the Hebrew 
 Bible is aware that the word has, almost universally, one of the 
 above significations. In a multitude of cases it would belong to 
 
64 
 
 the second class. Doctor J. quotes Trommius as authority for 
 the fact that this word is translated 612 times, in the Septuagint, 
 by the Greek, pa/s. Bat pais^ primarily, mean? a child; a son 
 or daughter; and sometimes olticcr, attendant. So in Matthew 
 xiv. 1, Herod the tetrarch said tois paisin autou, to his courtiers. 
 "This word by a use frequent in the Septuagint, is supposed to 
 denote friends. But it rather signifies ministers^ officers, [namely, 
 of the court.''] [Bloomfield.] — "Wherever mention is made of 
 the 'servants' of a king or prince, the term is, for the most part, 
 to be understood of counsellors,, &c. The leading idea is not 
 that of sercitudc, as upderstood among us at the present day." 
 (Bush, on Gen. xxiv. 2.)-" As to the term obed^ servant^'' says the 
 same author, it comes from abad, to serve, which is applied 
 variously to the serving of worshippers, of tributaries, of domes- 
 tics, of Levites, of sons to a father, of subjects to a ruler, of 
 hirelings, of soldiers, of public officers, &c. With a similar 
 latitude, the derivative noun is applied to all persons doing 
 service for others, irrespective of the ground or principle on " 
 which that service was rendered. * * * * fo interpret it 'slave,' 
 or to argue, from the fact of the words being used to designate 
 domestic servants, that they were made servants by torce, worked 
 without pay, and held as articles of property, would be a gross and 
 gratuitous assumption.'''' [Notes on Ex. xxi. 2.] 
 
 In a {ew cas(5s, cbed undoubtedly, means, a slave; where the 
 masters were heathens: as Gen. xxxix. 17, The Hebrew ser- 
 vant {haebed ibri,) — Joseph. We may perhaps add Gen. xx. 14, 
 for Abimclech gave away some of his servants: Ex. ix. 20, 
 "where the servants of the Egyptians are mentioned: and Deut. 
 xxiii. 15. — But historical facts, and the laws defining his con- 
 dition, must prove that the patriarchal or Hebrew ebed was a 
 slave: or it cannot be proved. 
 
 Doctor J. lays great stress tipon the fact that the ebed (servant,) 
 and the sakir (hired ser\ant,) are contrasted, (pp. 26-29.) Ex. 
 xii, 44, 45, Lev. xxii. 10, 11-xxv. 39, 40, are cited in proof. 
 We are assured, also, that cbed is never translated wis/Aoto, in 
 the Sept.; nor sakir, doulos. Now no one contends that the ebed 
 and the sakir belonged to the same class of servants. There 
 was an important distinction between them. 1. The sakir 
 
65 
 
 labored during a period, fixed, not by law, but by special 
 contract. He seems never to have engaged for a longer time 
 than three years. Compare Isa. xvi. 14, Within three years, 
 as the years of a hireling (sakir.) xxi. 16. Lev, xxv. 53. Hence 
 the Hebrew six years' servant is said to have been worth double 
 a hired servant to his master. (Deut. xv. 18.) 2. He was paid 
 daily, or at least at short intervals according to contract. "Thou 
 shalt not oppress a hired servant (sakir) that is poor and needy, 
 whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that are in 
 thy land within thy gates; at this day thou shalt give him his 
 hire, neither shalt the sun go down upon it, for he is poor, and 
 setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, 
 and it hd sin unto thee. (Deut. xxiv. 14, 15.) 3. He maintain- 
 ed, with his earnings, a separate family. This was the chief 
 characteristic of his class. Hence, he was forbidden to eat the 
 passover with his employer's family, for he formed no part of it, 
 and might be uncircumcised. (Ex. xii. 43-45.) For the same 
 reason he was prohibited from eating 'the holy thing,' when in 
 the priest's service : for the holy thing was for the priest and his 
 family, of which he was not a member. (Lev. xxii. 10, 11.) In 
 short, the sakir resembled the hired servant with us. 
 
 The ebed was a servant of another class; hut not therefore a 
 slave. 1. His term of service, (when that service was not the 
 punishment of theft,) was fixed, by law, at six years. [Ex. xxi. 
 2; Deut. xv. 12.] And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a 
 Hebrew woman^ be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; 
 then in the seV'Cnth year thou shalt let him go free. Compare 
 Jer. xxxiv. 12-14. He might extend the period of service, 
 if he pleased, to the year of Jubilee. — [Ex. xxi. 5, 6; Deut. 
 XV. 16, 17.] 2. Instead of daily wages, he received a sum 
 agreed upon between his master and himself, at the beginning of 
 his engagement. This was called "the money of his purchase." 
 [Lev. xxv. 51.] If the ebed was a minor probably the money 
 was paid to the parents, as in the case of a Hebrew girl sold 
 by her father. — (Ex. xxi. 7.) He received, in addition, food, 
 clothing, a home, &c. Finally, if he be left at the end of six 
 years, he was "furnished liberally out of the flock, the floor, the 
 wine-press, &c — (Deut. xv. 14.) 3. Unlike the sakir, the ebed, 
 9 
 
66 
 
 and his family, if he had one, became a part of the master*;* 
 family. They lived in his house, cat at his table, and were 
 subject to his control, just as were his children. Hence, the 
 ehed might eat the passover with his master's household; for, if 
 a Gentile, he must have been circumcised when he entered 
 upon service. — (Ex. xii. 44: compare verse 48, where it appears 
 that the Jew, like the stranger, must not cat the passover unless 
 all his males were circumcised.) Hence, also, the priest's cbcd^ 
 being part of his family, might cat of "the holy thing," altho' 
 "a sojourner of the priest," even if he were a Hebrew of royal 
 rank, was forbidden to partake. — (Lev. xxii. 10, 11.) If the 
 ebed's claim to partake, rested on the fact that he was the 
 priesfs property, then the priest's dog had an equal right to eat 
 of the holy thing. For the same reason, and not because he 
 was a piece of property, the cbed and not the sakir, is men- 
 tioned in the fourth commandment, which is addressed to the 
 master and head of a family; who is bound to prevent the 
 violation of the Sabbath by any of its members. — (Ex. xx. 10.) 
 It does not follow from the language of this command, that the 
 servants, any more than the children, were, like the cattle^ 
 held as property by the father of the family; but only that 
 they were under his control, in short, the ebcd and amah, 
 among the Hebrews, were very like the bound-boy and the 
 bound-girl, among us. 
 
 We shall not dwell upon the other terms, amah and shiphhah. 
 If ebed does not necessarily mean a slave, it is needless to con- 
 tend about these. A remark or two, however, may be proper. 
 Hagar is called shiphhah, a hand-maid, ( Gen. xvi. 1, ) and 
 haamah, the bondwo'man, xxi. 10. Ishmael is styled ben-haamnh, 
 the son of the bondwoman, xxi. 10. Zilpah is called shiphhah, 
 (Gen. xxix. 24:) and Bilhah, (verse 29.) The latter is spoken 
 of as amathi, 'my maid," [Gen. xxx. 1.] Now Hagar, Bilhah, and 
 Zilpah were evidently in the same condition in life, — subordinate 
 wives. If Abram calls Hagar "Sarai's maid," even after he had 
 married her; if the angel gives her the same title, and requires 
 her to return to her '-'■mistress •''' Moses makes the same distinc- 
 tion between Rachel and Leah on the one part, and Zilpah and 
 Bilhah on the other part. "And he [Jacob] rose up that night, 
 
67 
 
 :and took his two zoives^ and his two women-servants,^'' S/c (Gen. 
 xxxii. 22; Heb. 23.) What were these two women-servants? 
 The testimony of Josephus has been already cited : "Now each 
 of these had hand-maids, by their father's donation. Zilpah 
 was hand-maid to Lea, and Bilha to Rachel, doulai men oudamos, 
 hupotetagmeyiai de, &/•€. hy no means s/az>€5, but however subject 
 to their mistresses." [Antiq. B. I. c. 19, § 8.] This statement 
 of Josephus is confirmed by the fact, that even when Abraham 
 was offended with Hagar, and Sarah highly exasperated, they 
 seem never to have thought of selling her; nor does she appear 
 to have feared such a thing. When the crisis arrives, and 
 Hagar's conduct can no longer be endured, God says, "Cast 
 out the bond-woman ;" and Abraham dismisses her with provision 
 sufficient for her support. — (Gen. xxi.) 
 
 Argument 1. The social condition, the treatment, and the 
 privileges of the patriarchal servants, forbid the supposition that 
 they were regarded as property ; on a level, in this respect, with the 
 flocks and herds they attended. 
 
 We have just seen that female servants were sometimes taken 
 by their masters, as subordinate wives. Eliezer of Damascus, 
 the steward of Abraham's house, was his heir, in default of issue. 
 [Gen. XV. 2, 3.] To the eldest servant of his house, probably 
 Eliezer, the patriarch commits that most delicate and important 
 business of selecting a wife for Isaac. He was now forty years 
 of age; old enough, one would think to go a-courting for him- 
 self. But this duty usually devolved upon the parent; and 
 because of his inability, "the servant, the elder of the house," 
 as he is honorably entitled, sets out in search of her upon 
 whom Isaac's future happiness would so much depend. Isaac 
 does not object to this arrangement; nor does he seem to have 
 had the right of refusing the lady whom the servant might 
 select. Arriving at Nahor, "the servant, haebed, (Gen. xxiv. 5,) 
 informs Rebecca that Abraham is his master, [verse 27.1 The 
 fair damsel hastes to tell her mother's house. Immediately, 
 Laban "runs out to the man;" and knowing that he was a 
 servant, thus addresses him: "Come in, thou blessed of the Lord, 
 wherefore standest thou without ? For I have prepared the 
 house," [quite an honor to the poor fellow, if he were a slave,] 
 
68 
 
 " and room for the camels." I>aban himself then ungirds and 
 feeds the servant's camels; brings water to wash his feet, and 
 food for him and his men. But he must tell his message before 
 he will eat. Accordingly, he thus begins his speech: ^^ Ebcd 
 Abraham anoki, Abraham's servant, am I." — Do they treat him 
 with less ceremony and respect, after so candid a confession of 
 his rank? Do they thrust him into the kitchen to lodge with 
 menials? Even his master could hardly have been more hon- 
 orably entertained. Surely the air of the whole narrative 
 contradicts the supposition that this man was a slave, in the 
 proper sense of the term. 
 
 Argument 2. Abraham, on a certain occasion, armed his servants, 
 and led them to battle. This he xcould never have done, hud they 
 been slaves. 
 
 "When Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, 
 he armed his trained [servants,] born in his own house, three 
 hundred and eighteen, and pursued tliem unto Dan." — (Gen. 
 xiv. 14.) Had these young men been the children of parents 
 whom Abram had "gotten," bought, at Ilaran or elsewhere, 
 without their consent; whom he had dragged from their friends 
 and native country; whom he ranked with his cattle; whose 
 children, (these very lads,) he had seized, at birth, as his legal 
 property; would Abraham have dreamed of arming them, and 
 leading them so far from home as Dan. tlie further extremity 
 of Canaan? If he had ])een so silly, would they have returned 
 with him? Or rather, would they not, in the present unsettled 
 state of the country, while his brother was a captive, and his 
 neighbors were fully employed in defending themselves, have 
 improved the opportunity to turn their arms against their mas- 
 ter, and recover their own and their parent's liberty? In 
 vain are we amused, as wc were at Synod, with cock-and-bull 
 stories of Southern slaveholders, who, on an emergency, have 
 armed their slaves with scythes. There may have been a case 
 of this kind; but the situation of such scythe-l)caring slaves 
 would be immensely different from that of the patriarchs. The 
 American slaves, into whose hands an inconsiderate master 
 might put deadly weapons, well know that a powerful national 
 government exists, prepared to put down a scr^il'^ i»"^«irrection; 
 
, 69 
 
 and that although they might succeed hi putting a few of their 
 oppressors to death, a certain and more terrible death would 
 speedily overtake them. Abraham and his servants dwelt 
 alone; strangers, in a strange land. Abandon the absurd idea 
 that these three hundred young men were slaves; and the whole 
 story is plain, probable, and conformable to present oriental 
 customs. They were hanikav yelide betho, his instructed ones, the 
 sons of his house, [xiv. 14.] The verb hanak signifies "Initiated, 
 instructed, that is, in the religion and worship of the true God." 
 [Parkhurst.] Compare Prov. xxii. G. Train wp [hanok} a child 
 in the way he should go," &c. Abraham had taught them and 
 their parents, by example as well as precept, "to do justice and 
 judgment," [Gen. xviii. 19.] Such a household he need not 
 fear to arm for the rescue of a brother. " This mode of prepa- 
 ring for battle," says Burder, " and these manners, still prevail 
 in the East, where the soldiers of a chief are often children of the 
 house.'''' — [Quoted in Comp. Com.] 
 
 Argument. 3. The servants of the patriarchs became such hif 
 their own voluntary act. Therefore they were not slaves. 
 
 (1.) Buying a human being, of a third person, against his 
 will, was, according to patriarchal morals, man-stealing. — 
 Through the envy of his brethren, Joseph was sold to a com- 
 pany of Midianite merchants. Like the whore of Babylon in 
 later times, these men "traded," occasionally, "in the bodies and 
 souls of men." (Rev. xviii. 13.) The whole circumstances, (Gen. 
 xxxvii.) show that the transaction was a common one with them. 
 The poor boy was unwilling to be sold. Doubtless he wept, 
 and plead with his brethren to spare him, and restore him to 
 the bosom of his aged father. They remembered, afterward, 
 "the anguish of his soul, when he besought them, and they 
 would not hear." (Gen. xlii. 21.) Every generous, every 
 fraternal feeling, was stifled, in their bosoms, by envy and 
 jealousy. The Midianites were prompted by no envious feel- 
 ing: but such scenes were usual with them. Slave-trading, as is 
 always the case, had steeled their hearts. They hoped the 
 little fellf)w would soon stop blubbering; and forget his father's 
 house: or if he should not, what cared they, provided they 
 made fifty per cent, on their bargain. — Many years after, 
 
70 
 
 Joseph, in prison, relates his story to the officers of Pha- 
 roah, and says, ^^Indeed I zoas stolen aicay out of the land of the 
 Hcbrcios :'''' ki-gunnoh' giinnabti, — the intensive form, — most 
 assuredly I was stolen. Compare the same word in the eighth 
 commandment, (Ex. xx. 15;) Lo tignob, Thou shalt not steal. — 
 We have already shown that the Midianitcs were the men- 
 thieves who stole him away out of 'the land of the Hcbrczvs. — 
 They, doubtless, considered the purchase and sale of Joseph a 
 fair transaction, done "in the honest way of business," as old 
 Tom Turnpenny would say. And Dr. J. seems to think that, 
 ^'according to the notions of the age" (p. 1) it was all well 
 enough! Joseph, however, regarded it as, most assuredly, man- 
 stealing. And certainly, the • great-grandson of Abraham was 
 acquainted with the piinciples and practice of his progenitors. 
 
 (2.) The patriarchs had not the physical power to compel 
 involuntary service: their servants were therefore voluntary, 
 both in the commencement and in the continuance of their 
 servitude. Abraham and his descendants were surrounded by 
 heathen tribes. They had no fixed habitations, no continuing 
 city. Their immense flocks and herds, were necessarily scat- 
 tered over the country, frequently fifty or sixty miles from home. 
 (Gen. xxxvii. 12-17.) The servants were chiefly engaged in 
 attending these flocks. There were no patrols in the land: 
 there was no constitutional compact for the delivery of fugitives: 
 nor were thousands of citizens leagued to suppress an insurrec- 
 tion. Canada was all around them; within a day's or an hour's 
 journey. How easy for them to escape under such circumstan- 
 ces! How certain that they would have escaped, had they not 
 been voluntary servants! 
 
 (3.) The patriarchal servants were required to receive 
 circumcision. — We have an account, (Gen. xvii.;) of a solemn 
 covenant transaction between God and Abraham. This 
 covenant was, in its nature, temporal, — "I will give unto thee, 
 and to thy seed after thee * * * all the land of Canaan," &c.; 
 and spiritual, — "I will establish my covenant between me and 
 thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an 
 everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after 
 thee.^'' Of this covenant, circumcision was "the token." (verse 
 
71 
 
 10.) Every adult, therefore, who was circumcised, cntercdy or 
 professed to enter, into a solemn engagement to take the Lord 
 as his God forever. Upon whom, now, does Jehovah command 
 this token to be placed? "He that is eight days old shall be 
 circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he 
 that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, 
 must needs be circumcisecV (Gen. xvii. 12, 13.) There were, 
 in Abraham's family, many adults, doubtless, who had been 
 bought with money. Suppose he bought them without their 
 consent, of the heathen round about, — of any one who chanced 
 to have a slave, and to need money. They continue in the 
 belief and practice of idolatry; at least so far as they dare. — 
 The conduct of their master would but poorly recommend his 
 religion to their acceptance. They still prefer the gods of 
 their fathers to the God of their oppressor. Abraham lectures 
 them upon the necessity of doing justice and judgment: but 
 what care they for homilies on justice from one who has stolen 
 them, and is daily pocketing their earnings? As much as 
 southern slaves care for ^^massa's fornHy wusship^'' and we all 
 know what that means. — The Lord sees the real state of their 
 heart: he knows that altho' they may unite with Abraham in the 
 observance of outward forms, yet they detest him and his reli- 
 gion. And still when entering into a solemn covenant with the 
 patriarch, he commands all these involuntary and unconverted 
 slaves to become parties to this covenant, and to receive the 
 token upon their flesh! Will they, nill they, Abraham must 
 arm himself with the shears, and place upon them, by force, the 
 SIGN OF A LIE, the scal of a covenant to which, in heart, they 
 refuse their assent! And this was a standing law to all the 
 masters in Israel: a law of that Being who "abhors the sacrifice, 
 where not the heart is found!" To such a conclusion are we 
 forced if we assume that the servants of the patriarchs were 
 involuntary. Our opponents see this: and one of them had the 
 hardihood to assert, before the Synod, as a proof of the extent 
 of Abraham's power as a master, "that he could compel his 
 
 slaves to make a profession of religion!" Brethren, let the 
 
 old, haggard Mother of harlots and abominations maintain such 
 a doctrine. The Bible, and the God of .the Bible, abhor it. 
 
72 
 
 Shall wc be told that slaves might be circumcised without 
 their consent, as well as infants? The latter did indeed receive 
 the seal of the covenant zvillwut a consent which it wns physi- 
 cally impossible to obtain ; but not against their will. Unable 
 to choose for themselves, their parents might properly acknowl- 
 edge for them those obligations to God under which thev were 
 placed by their birth. Not so with adults. Those who are "of 
 age" must "speak for themselves." — If the servants of Abraham 
 were voluntary; if they were bought with their own consent, and 
 of themselves; if none were purchased but those who chose to 
 abandon idolatry, and learn to serve the living and true God; in 
 short, if Abraham's family were, as we have reason to believe, a 
 pious household; then was it an act, not of justice merely, but of 
 condescension, love, and mercy in Jehovah, to allow them a 
 part in his covenant with the father of the faitiiful. Indeed, 
 their very admission as parties to such a covenant, was a distinct 
 recofjnition of the fact that they were not articles of property; 
 but men; rational, accountable beings; standing before God, on 
 an equality with their master; fellow-heirs with him of the 
 promised land; alike partakers of the divine promises, and pil- 
 grims to the heavenly Canaan. 
 
 Argument 4. The patriarchs never sold their servants, nor gave 
 ihem away, nor transferred them to their heirs: therefore they were 
 not slaves. 
 
 We are repeatedly told by Moses that the patriarchs 
 had servants bought with money: but not a single passage 
 occurs from which we can possibly infer that they ever sold 
 a servant. Wealthy masters sometimes exchanged presents. — 
 *' Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-se)-vants, and 
 women-servants, and gave them unto Abraham." [Gen. xx. 14.] 
 Courtesy would seem to require the latter, as rich as he was 
 generous, to return the compliment in kind. But he would 
 teach the king of Gerar a lesson respecting the rights of sub- 
 jects: "and Abram took sheep and oxen" on/y, "and gave them 
 to Abimelech." [xxi. 27.] Abraham gave "gifts" to his sons 
 by Ilagar and Keturah; but no servants, [xxv. 5, C] Isaac 
 gave no slave to Jacob, when he went to Padan Aram to seek 
 his fortune. Jacob selected she-goats, and he-goats, and ewes. 
 
73 
 
 ■and rams, and camels with their colts, and cows, and hulls, and 
 she-asses, and foals, all which he sent "by the hand of his 
 servants," as a present to Esau, [xxxii. 13.] Would not the 
 servants themselves have been as acceptable? He sent to the 
 unknown Governor of Egypt, "a little balm, and a little honey, 
 spices, and myrrh, and nuts, and almonds." xliii. 11.] Wliy did 
 he not send a few servants? He must have known that slaves 
 were very saleable commodities in Egypt. He probably had 
 thousands, as say our writers on Biblical antiquities: they must 
 have been burdensome to him in that time of famine; and the 
 Governor had fodd in abundance for them. They would have 
 been " better off" there. Strange, indeed, that the happy 
 thought never entered old Jacob's head ! Nor were servants 
 transmitted by the patriarchs to their heirs. We have 
 authority, on this point, that will be conclusive with some of 
 our opponents. "The servitude of Abraham's family was not 
 transmitted to posterity. It is said, Abraham gave all that he 
 had unto Isaac. But unto the sons of the concubines that 
 Al)raham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from 
 Isaac his son, while he yet lived? We are not informed what 
 became of Abraham's servants, but there is not the slightest 
 evidence that any body ever had authority over them but him- 
 self and Isaac." (If Isaac seems to have inherited his father's 
 servants, it is only because he remained at the old homestead, 
 and needed to engage their services in keeping the flocks and 
 herds which they had kept for his father.) " Would Isaac 
 transfer them to Esau, who sold his birthright? Certainly not. 
 Nor did he give them to Jacob. When Jacob M^ent down into 
 Egypt, 'with all- that he had,' even the sci-vants he brought with 
 him from Padan Aram did not go with him. All the souls that 
 went down were seventy, — all of whom were his own children 
 and grandchildren. — [Gen. xlvi. 27. Ex. i. 5.] " * 
 
 Agreeable to this is the testimony of the Jewish rabbins, who 
 say "that slaves were set free at the death of their master, and 
 did not descend to their heirs." (Rob. Calmet.) Dr. J. asserts 
 that "the seed of Abraham carried their slaves with them down 
 
 ["^ Relations and Duties of Servants and Masters.— By J. L. Wilson, D. D. 
 p. 17, 18.] 
 
 10 
 
to Egypt. " — (p. 23.) But if Jacob had such a multitude of 
 slaves as he must have had if he inherited all those of his 
 ancestors, how comes it that his ozcn sons, and no others, go to 
 Egypt, with their sacks and asses, to buy corn? Do American 
 masters leave their slaves idle at home, and send their boys to 
 mill? 
 
 Before we pass to the second proposition, it may be proper to 
 answer the question, "May we not infer that the servants of the 
 patriarchs were slaves, because we find them classed with cattle, 
 &c.? — For instance. Gen. xii. 16, And Abraham had sheep, and 
 oxen, and hc-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she 
 asses, and camels." Answer (1.) We may as well conclude that 
 servants were irrational, and quadrupeds; because they are rank- 
 ed with these animals. ('2.) If servants are property, because 
 classed with camels, &c.; then a wife is property, for she is 
 mentioned in connection with the ox and the ass, [Ex. xx. 17.] 
 (3.) The servants are evidently distinguished from the property, 
 in some cases. "And Abram, &c. * * took * * all the sub- 
 stance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten 
 in Haran.'* — [Gen. xii. 5.] " And Lot also, who went with 
 Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents, and the land was not 
 able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their 
 substance was great." — [Gen. xiii. 5, 6.] Th6ir herdmen are 
 mentioned separately, [verse 7.] [4.] When the wealth of the 
 patriarchs is spoken of, servants are not mentioned: but only 
 when their greatness is described. " Abram was very rick 
 [kabed, heavy,] in cattle, and silver, and gold."' — [Gen. xiii. 2.] 
 Why are not slaves added to the list? If he had "thousands," 
 they were the most valuable, as well as burdensome part of his 
 property. No Southerner would omit his slaves in an account 
 of his wealth. The Shechemites say, "Shall not their cattle, 
 and their substance, and every beast of theirs be ours?"' — (Gen. 
 xxxiv. 23.) They make no mention of Jacob's slaves. Compare 
 (Gen. xxxi. 16-18. Deut. viii. 12-17. Josh. xxii. 8. 1 Sam. xxv. 
 2. 2 Chron. xxxii. 27-29. Job. i. 3; xiii. 12 — with Gen. xxiv. 
 35; xxvi. 13, 14; xxx. 43; xxxii. 4, 5; xxxvi. 6, 7. 
 
 Proposition II. The servitude permitted by the MosAic 
 
 SYSTEM, WAS NOT SLAVERY. 
 
 Argument I. We may prove this proposition from the 
 
75 
 
 admissions of our opponents, and the character of the Divine 
 Law-giver. "I remark," says Doctor J., "that God has nowhere 
 sanctioned slavery. To sanction is to approve of and command 
 as a thing that is right, and that ought to be. * * * On the 
 contrary, I take the distinction before alluded to, that the Bible 
 tolerates slavery. Now toleration is beaiing with — enduring a 
 thing; and it implies that the thing is viewed as an evil. Job 
 tolerated his biles, and the foolish behaviour of his wife. We 
 tolerate evils that cannot be instantly removed. * * * * Be patient, 
 Brethren! God has tolerated this dreadful evil more than thirty 
 centuries of years. And he has tolerated yet worse evils. lie 
 has tolerated you and us, with all our sins and corruptions upon 
 us," &c. (pp. 43, 44.) Doctor J. trifles; he plays upon words. 
 God has, indeed, tolerated, borne with us and our sins; but then 
 he has constantly condemned our sins, and declared them to be 
 that abominable thing which his soul hateth. So he tolerates 
 many evils which he does not see fit to remove; and testifies 
 against them. But, if our author be correct, God has tolerated 
 slaveholding, for thirty centuries, and has not spoken a word in 
 the Old or New Testament to condemn it. Slaveholding is not, 
 therefore, in his estimation, to be classed with moral evils. But, 
 say our opponents, it is a natural evil, to be ranked with war, 
 &c. "Presbyterians * * * could not deny the lawfulness of the 
 relation between servants and masters, no more than they could 
 deny the lawfulness of war, when 'the powers that be' said there 
 should be war." — [Relations and Duties, &c., pp. 30, 31.] — 
 Admit this; and let us reason upon the admission that slavery is 
 not a moral but a natural evil. Still it is, in its own nature, 
 evil, only evil, and that continually. God may bring good out 
 of it; as he may cause war to produce beneficial results; but, 
 in itself, it is an evil. Hear the confession, upon this subject, of 
 a distinguished Kentuckian, himself a large slaveholder, — one 
 who has enjoyed abundant opportunities to know the truth of 
 his assertions; — I mean Cassius M. Clay. "Slavery is an evil to 
 the slave, by depriving of * * * liberty. I stop here — this is 
 enough of itself to give us a full anticipation of the long cata- 
 logue of human woe, and physical and intellectual and moral 
 debasement, which follows in the wake of slavery. Slavery is 
 
76 
 
 an evil to the master. * * * * It corrupts our offspring by 
 necessary association with an abandoned, degraded race. * '^ 
 It is a source of indolence and destructive of all industry. * * 
 The poor despise labor, because slavery makes it degrading. — 
 The mass of slaveholders are idlers. * * It is the mother of 
 ignorance. * * * It is opposed to literature even in the higher 
 classes. * * It is destructive to all mechanical excellence. 
 
 * * It is antagonistic to the fine arts. * * It retards popu- 
 Lition and wealth. * * * It impoverishes the soil. * * It 
 induces national poverty. * * It is an ill to the free-laborer. 
 
 * * Where all these evils exist, can liberty, constitutional 
 liberty, live? No indeed, it cannot, and has not existed in 
 conjunction with slavery 1" Such is a picture of the tendencies 
 and results of American slavery, drawn by a master hand; and 
 such, all history assures us, have been the consequences of 
 slavery in every age, and in every land. 
 
 Now even our opponents will grant that no wise, and espe- 
 cially no righteous legislator, if called on to frame a code of 
 laws for the government of a non-slaveholding community, 
 would deliberately introduce into that community, a system 
 replete with such enormous evils. Even were he legislating for 
 a nation of slaveholders, he would make no arrangements for 
 the extension and perpetuation of slavery; but, on the contrary, 
 he would adopt measures, if not for its immediate, at least for 
 its gradual abolition. He would check and restrain the system 
 by every justifiable means. What, then, was the situation of 
 the Israelites, in respect to slavery, when the just, and good, 
 and holy God gave them, by the hand of Moses, a complete 
 civil, political, and religious constitution? Just fifty days before, 
 they had set out from Egypt, where, for a century or more, they 
 had felt the woes of bondage; and in the ruin of Egypt, had 
 seen its fatal consequences to the oppressor. If they themselves 
 were slaveholders, when they stood around Mount Sinai, to 
 receive the law from tlieir Deliverer, surely never were a people 
 in more favorable circumstances for its immediate and total 
 abolition. But they were not slaveholders. Our author has, in- 
 deed, asserted the contrary; but he has contented liimself with 
 assertion. The sacred historian gives not the least ground for 
 
77 
 
 the inference that a single servant, mucli less a slave, accom- 
 panied Jacob and his sons into Egypt. — (See Gen. xlvi. 6-27.) 
 Doctor J. allows that if they had slaves there, the Egyptians 
 seized them. — (p. 23.) As for "the mixed multitude," (Ex. xii. 
 38,) he asserts, without the least probability, that they were 
 Jewish slaves who chose to follow their masters. The Hebrew, 
 ert'b rab, a great mixture, 'denotes persons of mingled extraction, 
 Jewish and foreign; and those who have mingled with a people 
 to whom they do not belong. Compare Num. xi. 4. "The 
 mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the 
 children of Israel also wept again," &c. *The sons of the 
 Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian," [Lev. xxiv. 
 10,] probably belonged to this class of persons. Neh. xiiii. 3, 
 Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they 
 separated from Israel all the mixed multitude. Jer. xxv. 24, 
 The kings of the mingled people that dwell in the desert. INI. 
 Henry describes this mixed multitude as composed of fortune- 
 hunting or curious Egyptians, who wished to see what would 
 happen to the Israelites, and probably soon quitted them, to 
 return home. There is not, therefore, a shadow of proof that 
 the Israelites had a solitary slave among them, when before 
 Mount Sinai. If it be said that servants bought with money 
 are mentioned, Ex. xii. 44, we reply, that the law then given 
 was evidently, in part, prospective. Compare vs. 25-48, &c. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the only perfect Law-giver 
 bestows on his chosen people, the only body of civil enactments 
 that ever came from heaven. And, strange to say, the very 
 first statutes promulgated, are those, in which, {if our opponents 
 rightly interpret them,) he deliberately introduces the evil of- 
 slavery! We say, introduces, for it is not true that he barely 
 tolerated, a pre-existing system as "we tolerate evils that we 
 cannot remove." It did not pre-exist: and if it had existed, he 
 could have removed it. Even granting that for which, as wc 
 have seen, there is not a shadow of proof, — that the Israelites 
 were already a slave-holding nation — can it be believed that the 
 Wisest and Best of Law-givers, the Avenger of the oppressed 
 in every age, who had just delivered the Israelites from the 
 yoke of bondage, and who well knows "the physical, moral, and 
 
78 
 
 intellectual evils" uniformly produced by slavery, instead of 
 adopting some restrictive measures, some gradual emancipation 
 laws, would point out the mode of obtaining slaves from abroad, 
 [Lev. XXV. 44- IG;] authorize the Hebrews to purchase of the 
 heathen round about; and thus multiply and perpetuate these 
 dreadful evils? — Pro-slavery men are therefore shut up to the 
 necessity cither of maintaining that slavery is in no sense an evil, 
 or of abandoning their position that the Mosaic system of servi- 
 tude was a system of slavery. We shall endeavor to prove that 
 it was an institution, most just and kind to the servant; most 
 equitable and beneficial to the master. 
 
 Argument 12. Adults, not guilty of crime, became servants only 
 by SELLING THEMSELVES. — To this vital point, Dr. J. has devoted 
 only half a dozen words — "/Ac miserable subterfuge, that he sold 
 himself'' [p. IG.J We shall see with what propriety he 
 substitutes a sneer for sober argument. If it be not true, let 
 those who deny it, show us of whom tlicy could be legally 
 bought. "And if thy brother that dwcllcth by thee be waxen 
 poor, and be sold unto thee," (Lev. xv. 29.) No crime is here 
 mentioned. The man is too poor to maintain a separate family: 
 he must become a servant. Now who is authorized to sell him? 
 In some parts of our country, such persons may be sold by the 
 overseers of the poor; tho' not as slaves. Were there such 
 officers among the Hebrews, who might dispose of this poor 
 man? — The Jewish poor-laws were of another sort. (See Lev. 
 XXV. 35.) — Were the elders of the gate allowed to sell him? 
 Might any rich neighbor catch the pauper, sell him to the 
 highest bidder, and pocket the money! Show us the law for 
 such "a fair business transaction." If there is no such law, then 
 we need no Daniel to tell us that the poor Hebrew sold himself, 
 to some wealthy neighbor, who could employ and maintain him 
 and his family. 
 
 So says the law itself, (Lev. xxv. 39,) And if thy brother 
 that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee. — 
 The Hebrew is, wenimkar, and sell himself unto thee. The 
 verb 7iakar signifies, to sell, and, in the Niphal, as here, to be sold, 
 or to sell one's self The Niphal species of verbs is used, 
 either, "(1) as the passive of Kal, or (2) to express an action. 
 
79 
 
 performed by the subject upon himself or reflexive * * * * Gram- 
 marians are not agreed as to what should be considered the 
 primary signification." (Nordheimer § 14-1.) — Again, verse 
 42. They shall not be sold {yimmakeru^ sell themselves,) as 
 hondmen. In both these passages the original verbs may be 
 translated with the reflexive sense; and so have our translators 
 rendered the same word, in the same form, (verse 47.) And 
 if a sojourner or a stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother 
 that dwclleth by him wax poor, and sell himself (wcnimkar) unto 
 the stranger, &c. But in verse 48, tho' the same transaction is 
 spoken of, they fender the word in the passive, "After that. he 
 is sold {nimkar, hath sold himself) he may be redeemed," &c. 
 And indeed he was sold — by himself Compare verse 49, or 'if 
 be able, he may redeem himself (wcnigal, Niph. of gaal, to 
 redeem.) How could this Hebrew whose poverty led him to 
 sell himself, ever be "able to redeem himself," unless he had 
 received of the stranger "the price of his sale?" (verse 50>) 
 It may be said that, in this case, he was certainly able to redeem 
 himself, at any time, and therefore needed not that "any nigh 
 of kin," (verses 48, 49,) should redeem him. So he was; he 
 might have redeemed himself the hour after his sale, if he had 
 no other use for the money he had received: but what would 
 he gain by a transaction that would reduce him to the same 
 situation of helpless poverty as before? The law contemplates 
 his obtaining from his master the price of his labor in advance, 
 and investing it in such a manner, that, in the course of a few 
 years, he might be able to refund the money, and have some- 
 thing left to support his family. — Again, Deut. xv. 12, And if 
 thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold 
 (yimmaker, sell himself) unto thee, &c. Neh. v. 8, We, after 
 our ability, have redeemed, (kaninu have bought, but not for 
 slaves, our brethren the Jews which were sold unto the heathen; 
 and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold 
 (wenimkeru, sell themselves) unto us? — alluding to this custom of 
 servants selling themselves, Elijah says to Ahab, Thou hast sold 
 thyself to work iniquity. 1 Kings, xxi. 20, compare verse 25. 
 There was none like Ahab, which did sell himself to work 
 wickedness. 2 Kings, xvii. 17, The Jews sold themselves to do 
 
80 
 
 evil, &c. Isaiah 1. 1, Behold, for your iniquities have yc sold 
 yonrschcs, (nimkartcm.) hi. 3, Ye have sold yourselves for 
 nouo-ht, &c. Compare a similar expression, Ro. vi. 16, o 
 paritanete hcautous doulous cis hupakorn, Sic. to whom ye yield 
 yourselves servants to obey, &c — Prof. Bush, in his Notes on 
 Ex. xxi. 2, makes tiicse remarks. "The following instances of 
 the use of the term {kanah, to buy,) will go to show that its sense 
 is modified by the subjects to which it is applied, and that it 
 docs not by any means ncccssavily convey the idea of the He- 
 brew servants being bought and sold as goods and chattels, as 
 they are under system of modern slavery, especially in our 
 country." lie then cites a number of passages. "Here, as 
 the service among the Hebrews was for the most part voluntary, 
 the 'buying a HcbreAv servant' may as legitimately imply the 
 buying him from himself, that is, buying his se)-vices, as any other 
 mode of purchase. Indeed, as there is no positive proof that 
 Hebrew servants were ever made such or kept in that condition 
 hv force, against their own consent, except as a punishment for 
 ciimc, the decided presumption is, that such is the kind of ''buying^ 
 here spoken of."" And so Scott, on the same passage: "The 
 Hebrews sometimes sold themselves * * through poverty." 
 Maimonides, a learned Jewish rabbi, (quoted by Bush,) speaks 
 of the Jews as selling themselves. 
 
 Argument 3. Hebrew girls could be sold by their parents ; but 
 not for a period extending beyond the years of maturity, when they 
 zoere to be married by their purchaser, or by his son. — ^"And if a 
 man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out 
 as the men-servants do. If she please not her master, who hath 
 betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to 
 sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing 
 he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed 
 her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of 
 daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her rai- 
 ment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. And 
 if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free 
 without money. (Ex. xxi. 7.) This law allowed the sale of a 
 daughter, as a female-servant (leamah.) She was not a slave, 
 however: for, [I.] She was purchased in her maidenhood, to 
 
81 
 
 become her master's wife at womanhood. She was to serve till 
 the age of maturity, and no longer. After that period, the 
 master must marry her; or she might claim redemption. For, 
 surely, her master might not keep her five, ten, or fifteen years 
 after she was marriageable, still deluding her with promises of 
 marriage, and thus prevent her from obtaining freedom. If he 
 betrothed her to his son, it was on the same condition, — that 
 the marriage should be consummated when she should arrive 
 at mature age. — (2.) The fact that she was purchased of her 
 father does not prove that she was the property of her pur- 
 chaser. Wives were commonly bought by their husbands, 
 even though they were never to serve as hand-maids. So Boaz 
 bought Ruth: "moreover, Ruth the Moabitess * * * have I pur- 
 chased to be my wife." [Ruth iv. 10.] Hosea says of his 
 wife, "Lo, I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for 
 a homer of barley, and a half-homer of barley." [iii. 2.] — 
 Jacob paid fourteen years' labor for Leah and Rachel. [Gen. 
 xxix. 15-29.] His wives say of their father, "He hath sold 
 us," &c. (xxxi. 15.) Shechem offered to buy Dinah: "What 
 ye shall say unto me, 1 will give." (xxxiv. 11, 12.) David paid 
 a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, for Michael the daughter 
 of Saul. "The king desireth not any dowry (mohar) but," &c. 
 I Samuel, (xviii. 24.] Compare Ex. xxii. 16, and if a man 
 entice a maid that is not betrothed, and he with her, he shall 
 surely eiidow her Imahor, purchase her] to be his wife: — with 
 verse 17: and Deut. xxii. 28, 29. If a man find a damsel that 
 is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie 
 with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her 
 shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she 
 shall be his wife, &c. A similar custom prevailed among the 
 ancient Greeks: See Homer's Iliad, ix. 146, philcn anaednon, a 
 mistress obtained without the usual gifts, xi. 243, polla d^edoke, 
 xvi. 178-190, muria edna, xxii. 472, epei pore muria edna — See, 
 also, the purchase of a husband, Eurip. Medea, 230: 
 
 Panton d' hos' est empsucha, kai gnomen ecliei, 
 Gunaikes esmen athliotaton phuton: 
 Has prota men dei chrematon huperbolo 
 Posin priasthai, despoten te somatos. 
 
 Herodotus, (Lib. 1, cap. 196,) tells us that the Babylonians 
 11 
 
82 
 
 and others sold girls for reives, at public auction. ^^j\omoi de 
 autoisi hade katesteatai, ^r. In my description of their laws, I 
 have to mention one, the wisdom of which I must admire; * * * 
 In each of their several districts this custom was every year 
 observed: such of their virgins as were marriageable, were at 
 an appointed time and place assembled together. Here the 
 men also came, and some public ofliccr sold by auction the 
 young women one by one, beginning with the most beautiful 
 * * * taking it for granted that each man married the maid he 
 purchased." [Beloe's translation.] The remains of a similar 
 custom existed among the ancient Germans: Dotcm non uxor 
 marito, scd uxori maritus, offert. Intersunt parentes et propin- 
 qui, ac munera probant; «fec. (C. C. Taciti, Gcrmania, xv;ii.) — 
 Indeed, the history of our own country is not without example 
 of wives. purchased for forty pounds of tobacco, apiece: but no 
 one ever dreamed that they were therefore the actual property 
 of their husbands. — (3.) She was not a part of the master's 
 chattels; and therefore he may not sell her. "To sell her unto 
 a strange nation he shall liavc no power," (verse 8.) {Icam 
 nakeri.) "He was not allowed to marry her to another person, 
 dr to sell her into another family. Thus the words rendered 'a 
 strange people,'' are generally understood, because it is supposed 
 that no Hebrew slave could be sold to a Gentile." (Scott.) — (4.) 
 If he have betrothed her unto his son, he must treat her, in all 
 respects, as one of his own daughters. 
 
 Argument 4. The heathen were bought as servants, only with 
 their own consent. The law respecting servants of this class, is 
 found. Lev. xxv. 44—46. Both thy bond-men (abdeka,) and 
 thy bond-maids (amatheka,) which thou shalt have, shall be of 
 the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy 
 bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the 
 strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and 
 of their families that are with you, which they begat in your 
 land: and they shall be your possession {ahuzzah.) And ye 
 shall take them for an inheritance [hithnahaltem) for your chil- 
 dren after you, to inherit them for a possession, and they shall 
 be your bond-men forever, (leolam bahem faabodu:) but over 
 your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule over one 
 
83 
 
 another with rigor, {bepharek.) — If there were any slaves among 
 the Hebrews, they were persons brought into slavery under the 
 provisions of this act. It therefore demands our most careful 
 examination. Evidently the law permitted the Hebrews to buy 
 heathen servants: but of whom, — and how? Upon the answer 
 to these questions depends the whole controversy, so far as ser- 
 vants of this class are concerned. When a southerner buys a 
 slave, he buys of a third person who claims the slave as his 
 property. If the purchaser asks the consent of the slave, — a 
 thing rarely thought of, — it is not that he may have a legal title 
 to him. The negro is a chattel. He is not considered as enti- 
 tled to a will of his own. He is not a party to the transaction 
 by which he changes masters. Now if we can show that the 
 heathen sold himself io the Hebrew, or at least consented to be 
 sold, before the new master could have a title to him, and in 
 order to the very existence of that title, we demonstrate that 
 his condition, be it what it might, was not that of slavery. This 
 we shall attempt to show. 
 
 (1.) From whom were these heathen bought? From foreign 
 princes? But is there a shadow of proof that the heathen 
 princes round about Judea were a sort of Guinea chiefs, who 
 made merchandise of their subjects? Did the rich and power- 
 ful Gentiles sell their poor and defenceless neighbors? And 
 were God's chosen people permitted to buy them? Jehovah 
 has said, "Rob not the poor because he is poor: neither oppress 
 the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and 
 spoil the soul of those that spoiled them." (Prov. xxii. 22.) — 
 Would he allow the Jews to open a market for these spoiled 
 and afflicted ones ; and thus indirectly sustain a system of 
 robbery, in which they dared not engage directly? The 
 advocates of slavery can devise but one answer, accordant 
 with their views; namely, that the heathen round about were 
 slave-holders: that they had captives taken in war, &c. whom 
 they might sell to the Jewish purchaser. We admit that some 
 servants of this sort might be bought of the heathen who 
 claimed to be their masters: and shall prove, presently, that 
 even such persons could not be held by the Hebrew, without 
 their consent. But this answer will not meet the difficulty. 
 
84 
 
 The law does not authorise the purchase of those only who 
 ^"cre already enslaved by the heathen, but the heathen them- 
 selves; and the foreigners resident in Judca. We have a right 
 to conclude, therefore, that the heathen were bought of thrm- 
 selves; since they could not be obtained justly, if at all, of any 
 third person. 
 
 (2.) It is manifest, upon the face of the law, that resident 
 strangers were upon the same footing with the heathen abroad, 
 in respect to its operation. "Moreover, of the children of the 
 strangers, [that is, the descendants of the strangers; as, 'your 
 brethren the children of Israel,' [verse 4G] means adult Israel- 
 ites,] that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of 
 their families," &c. [verse 46.] Of whom would a Hebrew buy 
 a stranger? The Jewish magistrates had no power to sell them 
 to any nation who might wish to purchase. Undoubtedly, the 
 poor stranger sold himself. [The rich stranger might buy even 
 a Hebrew, under certain conditions.] And this will be placed 
 in a clear light by a simple argument. If our national govern- 
 ment should, by law, authorize native Americans to buy the 
 German and Irish immigrants now in this country; to buy them 
 of any one but themselves; and that, whether they were willing 
 or unwilling to be sold; and such law were extensively reduced 
 to practice; would any man expect a large immigration of that 
 class of persons, in future? AVould not such a law and such 
 practice effectually check their immigration? Would not all 
 the Germans and Irish who remained unbought, flee the country 
 instantaneously? And if, at the same time, we professed great 
 anxiety for their temporal and spiritual welfare; and an earnest 
 solicitude to promote their immigration, that they might escape 
 the despotism of the old world, and share our civil and religious 
 liberties; would not mankind say that our legislation and our 
 professions were strangely inconsistent? Is there, in the history 
 of nations, a single instance, of a statesman, who, in order to 
 promote the ingress of foreigners, proposed to reduce the immi- 
 grants to slavery? Apply these remarks to the case in hand. 
 The Divine Law-giver desired and encouraged the settlement of 
 seriously disposed Gentiles in the Holy Land. Witness the 
 following statutes. In a multitude of cases, they were expressly 
 
85 
 
 placed under the protection of the same laws with the Hebrews. 
 Lev. xxiv. 22, Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the 
 stranger, as for one of jour own country. Num. xv. 29, Ye shall 
 have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for 
 him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the 
 stranger that sojourheth among them. Deut. xvi. 18, 19, Judges 
 and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, * * * and 
 they shall judge the people with just judgment. Thou shalt 
 not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, &c. xxiv. 
 17, 18, Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, 
 * * * but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bond-man in 
 Egypt. Among the curses uttered from Mount Ebal, was this, 
 [Deut. xxvii. 19,] Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment 
 of the stranger, &:c. — Strangers were permitted to offer sacrifices 
 
 to the Lord Lev. xxii. 18-25, Whatsoever he be of the house 
 
 of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation 
 for all his vows, and for all his free-will offerings, which they 
 will offer unto the Lord for a burnt-offering, &c. Neither from 
 a stranger's hand [ben nakar, the son of an alien,'] shall ye offer 
 the bread of your God at any of these, &c. A ready way was 
 opened for the naturalization of foreigners, and their incorpora- 
 tion into the Jewish church — Ex. xii. 48, 49, And when a 
 stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to 
 the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him 
 come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in 
 the land: * * * One law shall be to him that is home-born, and 
 unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Compare Num. 
 ix. 14. Provision was made for the support of poor strangers. 
 Of the Sabbatical year, it is said, [Lev. xxv. 6,] The Sabbath 
 of the land shall be meat for you; for thee, and for thy servant, 
 and for thy maid, and for thy hired-servant, and for thy stranger 
 that sojourneth with thee, &c. — Deut. xiv. 28, 29, At the 
 end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of their 
 increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: 
 and the Levite, * * * and the stranger, and the fatherless and 
 the widow which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat 
 and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all 
 the work of thy hand which thou doest. (Compare xxvi. 12, 
 
86 
 
 13,) xxiv. 19-23, When thou cuttcst down thy harvest in the 
 field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the held, thou shalt not go again 
 to fetch it: it shall he for the stranger, ♦fee. When thou heatest 
 thine olive-tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall 
 be for the stranger, 6cc. When thou gathcrest the grapes of 
 thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterwards: it shall be for 
 the stranger, &c. And thou shalt remember that thou w^ast a 
 bond-man in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to 
 do this thing. Compare Lev. xxv. 35, — Strangers were invited 
 to participate in the holy festivities of Israel. Of the feast of 
 weeks, the law says, [Deut. xvi. 11,] thou shalt rejoice before 
 the Lord thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, * * * 
 and the stranger, &c. Of the feast of tabernacles, the same 
 words, [verse 14.] The oppression of strangers was positively 
 forbidden, Ex. xxii. 21, Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor 
 oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. — xxiii. 
 9, Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the 
 heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of 
 Egypt, llow touching an appeal to their individual and 
 national recollections! The law enjoined kindness and love 
 toward the stranger. — Deut. x. 17-19, The Lord your God is 
 God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and 
 a terrible, who regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: he 
 dotli execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow; and 
 loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. Love ye 
 therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 
 Lev. xix. 33, 34, And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your 
 land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with 
 you shall be xinto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love 
 him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. I 
 am the Lord your God. Such was the spirit of the Hebrew 
 law in respect to foreign residents. Idolatrous Gentiles, indeed, 
 and those guilty of other aggravated crimes, were not permitted 
 to enter the holy land. But such foreigners as would submit to 
 the general laws of the country, (Ex. xx. 10. Lev. xviii. 26,] 
 though they might be unwilling to receive the rite of circum- 
 cision, were studiously invited by the most favorable statutes 
 ever adopted by any people, in respect to immigrants. And 
 
87 
 
 for this policy there was good reason. The knowledge of the 
 only true God was confined to Judea: the time had not yet 
 come for commanding the church to go out into all the world, 
 and preach the truth to every creature: the principal means of 
 converting the heathen, therefore, was, to invite them, by these 
 special statutes, to take up their abode among the people of 
 God ; and thus say to them, as Moses said to Hobab, Come with 
 us, and we will do you good: for the Lord hath spoken good 
 concerning Israel. [Num. x. 29.] Now can any candid student 
 ot the Mosaic system believe that the same Legislator who 
 invited foreigners into the country, by such provisions of law 
 as we have quoted, subjected those who accepted his invitation, 
 to be reduced to slavery; to be bought and sold, like beasts of 
 burden, without their consent, and even against their will? to be 
 held forever, and their children after them, in any such condition 
 as that of American slaves? to be ranked in the same category 
 with the lands, houses, cattle, and other hereditary property of 
 the native citizens? The supposition is the extreme of absurdity. 
 Undoubtedly, the law contained in Lev. xxv. 44-4G, must be 
 interpreted in consistence with the spirit of the other laws rela- 
 tive to strangers: and since it says nothing to the contrary, we 
 must conclude that, like the Hebrew servants, they voluntarily 
 sold themselves. 
 
 But the law styles the Gentile bought-servant the possession 
 [ahnzzaJi] of his master, and adds, " Ye shall take them as an 
 inheritance [hithnahaltem] for your children after you," «&c. 
 Doctor J. compares verse 41, "unto the possession [ahuzzath] of 
 his fathers shall he return," &c., and says, "In short, this word 
 is invariably used to signify ownership in landed estates," &c. 
 (pp. 37, 38.) To show the meaning of nahal, to acquire as an 
 inheritance, he compares Num. xxxiii. 54, "Ye shall divide the 
 land by lot for an inheritance, {hithnahatem eth-haarctz •) and 
 xxxiv. 13, We do not deny that ahuzzah, when applied to 
 lands, houses, &c., denotes property, in the literal sense of the 
 word: nor that yiahal means, to acquire or leave for an inheri- 
 tance, as such property is usually left. But have they the same 
 signification when applied to persons? Must they not be taken 
 in a sense more or less literal, according to the subject to which 
 
88 
 
 they relate? Compare Ezek. xliv. 28, And it shall be unto them 
 for an inheritance (lenahalah.) I (Jehovah) am their inheritance 
 (nahalthom:) and ye shall give them no possession (ahuzzah) in 
 Israel: I am their possession., (ahuzzathom.) Num. xviii. 20, And 
 the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in 
 their land, ncitlier shalt thou have any part among them: I am 
 thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. — 
 Here, the same words which, in Lev. xxv. 45, 4G, denote inher- 
 itance and possession, are employed in two senses; the one 
 literal, the other figurative. Applied to God, they cannot signify 
 actual property possession; but they are necessarily limited by 
 their subject. In the same figurative sense, believers are called 
 the inheritance of the Lord: Ps. xxviii. 9, Save thy people, and 
 bless thine inheritance (nahalathcka,) xciv. 14, The Lord will 
 not * * * forsake his inheritance. See Ex. xxxiv. 9. Deut. iv. 
 20. ix. 26-29. xxxii. 9, &c. The word nahalah is applied by 
 subjects to their kings; 2 Sam.xx. 1, We have no part in David, 
 neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. Compare 1 
 Kin. xii. 16. We are fully authorized to conclude, therefore, 
 that "the terms inheritance and possession, when applied in the 
 Scriptures to persons, are not to be taken in their primary sense 
 as applied to things; but in a secondary or topical sense, which 
 is to be determined by the connection." The heathen bond- 
 men were the possession of the children of Israel, "in a limited 
 and secondary sense, which must be determined, not by the 
 expressions themselves when used in reference to other objects, 
 but bi/ the established laws and usages of the country, in respect to 
 persons in their condition.^'' — (See Letters of the Gen. Con. of 
 Maine, (Cong.) to the Presby. of Tombigbee, p. 55.) These 
 laws, as we have seen, regarded the stranger, not as a thing, but 
 as a man, possessed of "certain inalienable rights" which the 
 Hebrew was bound to respect. JehoVah threatened to "be a 
 swift witness" against those who "turned aside the stranger from 
 his right." 
 
 The position that Gentile servants were bought, only with 
 their own consent, is fully sustained by a consideration of the 
 religious duties demanded of such servants. Willing and cheer- 
 ful services, and those only, are required and accepted by the 
 
89 
 
 Lord. Such services could not be expected, nor reasonably 
 asked, of heathen, purchased against their will, and held in 
 perpetual slaverj^ To suppose the contrary is to insult the 
 Majesty of Heaven. — But the heathen, or stranger, who 
 became a bond-man, was required, (1.) To be circumcised; 
 (Ex. xii. 48, 49;) that is, to receive the token of a covenant 
 in which the party solemnly avowed the Lord to be his God 
 forever. What a mockery,, to put such a token upon an invol- 
 untary slave! (2.) This covenant was occasionally renewed; 
 (Deut. xxix. 10-15.) (3.) To eat the paf^sover, and unleavened 
 bread seven days: (Ex. xii. 44,) Every man-servant that is 
 bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then 
 shall he eat thereof. Compare verses 15, 19. Seven days 
 shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever 
 cateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off 
 from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or 
 born in the land. Compare Num. ix. 6-14. [4.] To attend 
 the public feasts with rejoicing; (Deut. xii. 10-12.) And ye 
 shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye and your sons, 
 * * * * and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, &c. 
 How could involuntary servants rejoice before a God whom 
 they had not chosen ? The thought reminds one of the 
 slaves, compelled with the cat-o'-nine-tails, to dance on board 
 ship, during the middle passage. Compare xvi. 10-15. [5.] 
 To receive religious instruction; [Deuteronomy xxxi. 10-13. 
 Joshua viii. 33-35 . [ 6. ] To offer sacrifices ; [ Exodus 
 xxiii. 14-17;] Three times in the year all thy males 
 shall appear before the Lord God. [verse 15,] And none 
 shall appear before m3 empty. Compare Deut. xvi. 16, 17, 
 where the phrase, "all thy males," is seen to include servants; 
 (verses 11 and 14, and Num. ix. 13.] Now could such duties 
 be, with justice, forcibly imposed on slaves? As well might 
 christian masters now-a-days compel their slaves to make a 
 profession of religion, receive baptism, conduct family worship, 
 and partake of the communion. But if the heathen servant 
 was purchased of himself, and with his own consent, that con- 
 sent was a virtual abandonment of idolatry, and choice of the 
 Lord's service. Nor can it be justly objected that such servants 
 
90 
 
 were bribed into the Jewish church. It was one thing for a 
 Hebrew to oflcr a heathen a bribe, as an inducement to become 
 a bond-man and a proselyte; and quite another thing, to refuse 
 to buy any Gentile who did not cordially prefer Judaism to 
 Paganism. And here it may be proper to adduce the testimony 
 of Maimonides: "Whether a servant be born in the power of 
 an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the 
 master is to bring them both into covenant. But he that is 
 born in the house is to be entered upon the eighth day, and he 
 that is bought with money on the day in which the master 
 receives him, unless the slave be unwilling. For if the master 
 receives a grown slave, and he be unwilling, his master is to 
 bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by 
 love and kindness, for one year; after which, should he 
 refuse so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than the 
 twelve months, and the master must send him back to the 
 strangers whence he came; for the God of Jacob will not 
 accept any other than the worship of a willing heart." — 
 [Quoted in Stroud's Sketch, page G3, from Gill's Exposition.] 
 
 It is but candid to admit, before leaving this topic, that Gen- 
 tile servants seem to have been in a condition, in some respects 
 inferior to that of Hebrew servants. [1.] They were never 
 purchased for six years; but always till the Jubilee. [2.] No 
 mention is made of Hebrew servants, even when their ears 
 were bored, laboring for the children of their master; whereas, 
 if the master of a Gentile died before the jubilee, he was 
 inherited by the children, and retained until his whole time of 
 service expired. (Lev. xxv. 46.) 
 
 Argument 5. The servitude of every class of persons was 
 limited. — That the service of one class of servants was limited 
 to a period of six years, is expressly declared by the law; (Ex. 
 xxi. 2. Deut. xv. 12.) — In regard to a second class, the law 
 is equally explicit; (Lev. xxv. 39-43,) And if thy brother that 
 dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou 
 shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, (lo-thaabod bo 
 abodath abed, literally, thou shalt not serve thyself with him with 
 the service of an ebed.) But as an hired servant {sakir,) and 
 as a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto 
 
91 
 
 the year of jubilee. And then shall he depart from thee, both 
 he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own 
 family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 
 For they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land 
 of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bond-men [/o yimmakeru 
 tnimkerdh abed, they shall not sell themselves with the sale of 
 an cbcd.^ Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt 
 fear thy God. — This" statute is entirely distinct from that in Ex. 
 xxi. 2, &c. Deut. XV. 12, &c. It relates to another class of 
 persons. According to the latter, the servant is bought for six 
 years, but may, at pleasure, extend the time of service, and 
 become a servant "forever." In the former, no mention is made 
 of a six years' engagement, nor of having the ear bored as a 
 mark of continued servitude. The law in Deut. provides that 
 the 'servant, going free at the end of six years, shall not be sent 
 away empty; but shall be furnished liberally out of the flock, 
 the floor, and the press. Nothing is said of his returning to his 
 own-possession. That in Lev. makes no provision for furnishing 
 *'the brother" liberally, when he departs; but expressly declares 
 that he "shall return unto the possession of his fathers." A 
 servant of the one class was, and was called, an ebed; Ex. xxi. 
 2, If thou buy an Hebrew servant, (ebed ibri.) A servant of the 
 other, could not be sold with the sale, nor be compelled to serve 
 'With the service of an ebed. Some commentators suppose that 
 the six years' servants were sold for debt or crime; and that the 
 other class sold themselves through poverty. [So Henry.] But 
 the laws afford no reason for this distinction. The liberal 
 provision allowed the six years' servant when his time had 
 expired, shows that he too was poor, and by no means agrees 
 with the supposition that he had been sold for crime. Dr. 
 Crothers, in his " Gospel of the Typical Servitude, " has 
 clearly proved that the law, in Ex. xxi. contemplated the sale 
 of younger brethren who were not land-holders: while the statute 
 in Lev. xxv. 39, provided for the Jirst born, the possessor of 
 "the inheritance of his fathers," who, from poverty, had been 
 compelled to part with his real estate until the jubilee. We 
 refer our readers to the pamphlet above mentioned, for a full 
 exhibition of the argument upon this passage. It is evident, 
 
92 
 
 therefore, that Doctor J. is entirely at fault when he supposes 
 that in Lev. xxv. 39-42, a contrast is drawn between 
 Hebrew servants and "foreign slaves," who might be sub- 
 jected to "rigorous treatment."' [p. 28.] The contrast is 
 really between Hebrew servants of one class, and Hebrew 
 and heathen servants of another class. The inference that 
 Genlile bond-men might lawfully be treated " with rigor^ " 
 {bcpharek, oppression, cruelty, mochlho, Septuagint, the word 
 used, Ex. i. 13, to describe the Egyptian cruelties towards 
 the Hebrews,) because one sort of Hebrew servants might 
 not, is worthy the head and the heart of a pro-slavery D. D. 
 On the same principle the ancient Doctors of the Law 
 inferred from the command. Thou shalt love thy neighbor, 
 (Lev. xix. 18,) the right to hate their enemy. (See Mat. v. 43, 
 and Bloomlicld's Notes.) 
 
 Two classes of servants yet remain to be mentioned. Ex. 
 xxi. 2-6, If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he 
 serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If 
 he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were 
 married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master 
 have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daugh- 
 ters, the wife and her children shall be her masters, and he 
 shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, 
 I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out 
 free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges: he shall 
 also bring him unto the door, or unto the door-post: and his 
 master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall 
 serve him forever, {leolavi.) Compare Deut. xv. 12-18, and he 
 shall be thy servant forever (olam). And also unto thy maid 
 servant shalt thou do likewise. — Lev. xxv. 44-40, And ye 
 shall take them (the heathen and the strangers) as an 
 inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a 
 possession, they shall be your bond-men forever, {leolam bahem 
 taabodu, literally forever of (or with) them shall ye serve your- 
 selves.) — The term of service of both these classes is expressed 
 by the same word, olam, translated, forever; and Dr. J. insists 
 that the ear-bored Hebrew, as well as the Gentile, were slaves 
 for life. We will not say that "no commentator ever enter- 
 
93 
 
 tained such an idea;" but we will say, that Josephus, (Antiq. 
 B. 4, c. 8, § 28.) — Jahn, (Arch. § 351, 1.) — Carpenter (in his 
 Guide to the Study of the Bible.) — Scott, Henry, Barnes, and 
 every writer on Jewish law accessible to us, contradict his 
 assertion, and affirm that at least all servants of Hebrew descent 
 were freed on the year of jubilee. Bush contradicts himself. 
 The learned Bishop Horseley says, that the man is ignorant of 
 Jewish technical terms who does not know that the expression, 
 ''forever^ in this connection, means no more than to the year of 
 jubilee. However, we appeal, not to critics and commentators, 
 but to the written word itself; and we assert that both the 
 Hebrew ear-bored servant, and the bond-man of the Gentiles, 
 were released from servitude by the year of jubilee. 
 
 The word olam does not necessarily imply perpetual servitude. 
 Our author's reply to this assertion is rant — mere rant. " We 
 are told," says he, "•by a brother who did not thus argue when 
 dealing in debate with a Universalist, * * * that forever means 
 only to the year of jubilee — the servant of the bored ear goes 
 out at the jubilee. To this I answer, [1.] Suppose his six years' 
 service ended a short time before the jubilee — say a month — 
 then forever means just thirty days? Is this interpretation of 
 Scripture language; or is it gross perversion? Could Ballou 
 himself, or Ballou's master desire any thing better? \( forever 
 means but thirty days, or ten days, or one day, then rejoice, all 
 ye devils and damned spirits; rejoice, ye thieves, and liars, and 
 drunkards, and profane swearers, and Sabbath breakers; for 
 behold we bring unto you glad tidings — we proclaim in hell a 
 Universalist jubilee: you shall be punished indeed /orcrcr; but, 
 glory be to licentious criticism, forever means but thirty days, or 
 one day! Do you believe it, Mr. Moderator? Is there a devil 
 in hell so foolish as to believe it!"— [p. 35.] Now all this is 
 supremely silly; and Doctor J. has too much sense not to know 
 it. The primary signification of olam is, eternity^ unlimited dura- 
 tion. "So Gesenius, in the third edition of his Hebrew Lexicon, 
 '-olam, eteryiity^^ which is the only definition he gives." In this 
 sense it is used. Gen. xxi. 33, the everlasting God: Ps. ciii. 17, 
 The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting. Jer. 
 xxxi. 3, I have loved thee with an everlasting love. So is it 
 
94 
 
 applied to future happiness and punishment, Dan. xii. 2, Some 
 [shall awake] to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlast- 
 ing contempt. Such is the meaning of olam in all passages 
 where the context, or the nature of the subject, does not require 
 a limitation. Hence, in arguing with a Universalist, no scholar 
 ever did, or ever would say that in every place where it occurs, 
 it necessarily means eternity; hut that it retains its primary 
 and proper sense wherever a secondary sense is not absolutely 
 required. Now there is nothing in the word of God, whatever 
 there may be in the fancies of men, which demands a restricted 
 meaning when olam is applied to the duration of future punish- 
 ment; but positive proof to the contrary is abundant. Gcsenius 
 adds, "that the expression in Hebrew, as among us in common 
 hfe, is often used in an inaccurate manner, i. e. when merely a 
 very long space of time is denoted. So it is applied to the 
 Jewish priesthood; to the Mosaic ordinances; to the possession 
 of the land of Canaan; to the hills and mountq,ins; to the earth; 
 to the time of service to be rendered by a slave,'^ <^c. — [See Stuart's 
 Exeget. Essays, pp. 47-52.] Parkhurst says that olam denotes 
 "sometimes the period of time to the Jubilee," and cites in proof 
 the passages under consideration, Ex. xxi. 6, Deut. xv. 17. In 
 fact, according to Doctor J.'s own interpretation, the word 
 "forever,"' is taken in a secondary sense. Must the ear-bored 
 Hebrew be a slave, literally, leolam — throughout eternity? Oh 
 no, says the Doctor; but tis long as he lives. And could he not 
 perceive that, by his own showing, olam might denote a period 
 of one day? for the man might die the day after his ear had 
 been bored. We may add, that a secondary signification is 
 required in every passage cited by the author, [pp. 35, 3G.] The 
 Hebrews held their possessions, not strictly forever; but during 
 their abode in the land, and the continuance of the Mosaic 
 institutions. "Suppose," says he, "that (the slave's) six years' 
 service ended a short time before the jubilee — say a month." — 
 ^V^ell, we suppose that in such a case, the Hebrew zvould not have 
 his ear bored; for he was induced to submit to that ceremony by 
 his love for his wife and children, whose term of labor bad not 
 yet expired. But if the jubilee were so near, his family would 
 shortly be free; and he might dwell with them without becoming 
 
95 
 
 a servant. In short, the Doctor's argument is founded upon the 
 supposition that olam can never, be taken in a Umited sense : 
 how idle and erroneous a supposition, every intelligent man 
 can see. 
 
 But what authority have we for saying that olam, as used in 
 Ex. xxii. 6, Deut. xv. 17, and Lev. xxv. 46, must mean " the 
 period of time to the jubilee?" We answer, that the law of the 
 jubilee required the emancipation of every servant. — Lev. xxv. 
 9, 10, Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the jubilee to sound, 
 on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement 
 shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And 
 ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout 
 all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof, [lekol yoshbeha, to all 
 inhabiting her, that is, the land.] Does the phrase lekol z/oshbcho, 
 in this connection, denote descendants of Abraham only; or docs 
 it include all who dwelt permanently in Judea, under the pro- 
 tection and government of the laws of the land? If the latter, 
 then the Gentile servants, who had of course been circumcised, 
 and who were in one sense Hebrews, though not Hebrews of 
 Hebrews, [Phil. iii. 5,] enjoyed the benefit of the jubilee release. 
 This question must be determined by a comparison of passages. 
 The verb ?/asAa6 signifies, to sit; to settle; to fix one's abode; to 
 inhabit a place or country. In some of its forms it is employed 
 in the following Scriptures: — [1.] In those which refer to all 
 who dwell upon the face of the earth: Ps. xxxiii. 8, Let all the 
 inhabitants [yoshbel of the world stand in awe of him. Verse 14, 
 He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. Ps. xlix. 1, Ixxv. 
 3. Isa. xviii. 3. xxiv. 1, 5, 6, 17. xxvi. 9, 18. xxxviii. 11. xl. 22. 
 Jer. xxv. 29. Lam. iv. 12. [2.] In those which speak of all 
 who reside in a particular city or region, making no distinction 
 between native citizens, and those strangers who may have a 
 permanent abode there : Ex. xv. 14, 15. Sorrow shall take hold 
 of the inhabitants of Palestina. * * * All the inhabitants of 
 Canaan shall melt away. Num. xiii. 32, The land through 
 which we have gone to search it, is a land that eatcth up the 
 inhabitants thereof. (Not the Canaanitcs only, but all who did 
 or might thereafter dwell there.) Josh. ii. 24, All the inhabitants 
 of the country do faint because of us. xvii. 11, 12. Jud. i. 19, 
 
96 
 
 27. V. 23. X. 18, he shall be head over all the inhabitants of 
 Gilead. 2 Kin. xix. 26. Isa. x..l3, I (the king of Assyria) have 
 removed the bounds of tlic people, * * * and have put down 
 i[ie\T inhahitants^ &,-c.^ xx. 6. xxiii. 2,6. xlii. 10, 11. Jer. x. 17. 
 xxi. 13. xxii. 23. xxiii. 14. xxvi. 15. xlviii. 19, 43. xlix. 8, 30. 
 1. 31. li. 35. Ezek. xxix. 6. Mic. i. 11, 12, 13, 15. vi. 12, 16. 
 Zeph. ii. 5. Zech. viii. 20, 21. (3.) The same word is employed 
 in passages which declare the total destruction of all who reside 
 in a city, country, «fcc.: Gen. xix. 25, And he overthrew those 
 cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of those cities, 
 (kol-yoshbe.) (Were Lot and his two daughters the only stran- 
 gers resident in Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zcboim?) Lev. 
 xviii. 25. Deut. xiii. 15. Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants 
 of that (idolatrous Jewish) city with the edge of the sword, 
 destroying it utterly, and all that is therein. (Would idolatrous 
 Gentiles in that cit}' be spared, on the ground that they were not 
 inhabitants?) Jud. xxi. 10. Isa. v. 9. vi. 11. Until the cities 
 be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and 
 the land be utterly desolate. Jer. ii. 15. iv. 7. ix. 11. x. 18. 
 xiii. 13. xix. 12. xxi. 6. I will smite the inhabitants of this city, 
 both man and beast, xxvi. 9, This city shall be desolate without 
 an inhabitant. Compare the fulfilment, xxxiii. 10, The streets 
 of Jerusalem are desolate, without man, and without inhabitant^ 
 and without beast, xxxiv. 22. xliv. 22. xlvi. 19. 1. 35. Compare 
 verses 39, 40, The utter desolation of Babylon; and li. 29, To 
 make Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant. Am. i. 5, 8. 
 Zeph. ii. 5. iii. 6. It is certain that when God executed the 
 threatening, that he would "sling out of the land all the inhabi- - 
 tants of Judea,'' the Gibeonites and other Xethenim, who were 
 "strangers," and the bond-servants of the Hebrews were carried 
 captive as well as native Israelites. (See Ezra. ii. 1, 43-58, 65. 
 Neh. vii. 6, 46-60, 67.) Were these circumcised and proselyted 
 Gentiles "inhabitants of the land," when Jehovah, by Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, blew a trumpet of vengeance; but not inhabitants 
 when his trumpet of mercy uttered its silver sounds on the day 
 of jubilee? Was this the manner of the God of the land? (4.) 
 This word is used to denote persons expressly declared not to 
 have been citizens, properly speaking, of the land in which 
 
97 
 
 they dwelt: Gen. xlv. 10, Joseph said to his father, Thou shalt 
 dwell {yashabta) in the land of Goshen, * * * thou and thy 
 children, &c. Certainly they became yoshheha, " inhabitanls 
 thereof." Yet compare Ex. xxiii. 9, Ye know the heart of a 
 stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. 1 
 Chron. ix. 2, Now the first inhabitants [yoshbirn] that dwelt in 
 their possessions in their cities, were, the Israelites, the priests, 
 Levites, and the A''ethenims. Here the Nethenim, though Gen- 
 tiles, and perhaps uncircumcised, are expressly called inhabitants 
 of the land. 
 
 On the ground, then, of the almost if not absolutely uniform 
 use of the word in question, we have a right to interpret the 
 law of the jubilee in its natural sense, as giving liberty to all 
 classes of servants. But there are other reasons, equally 
 forcible, for adopting tlie same conclusion. The jubilee 
 trumpet proclaimed " liberty throughout all the land unto all 
 the inhabitants thereof." Was this merelj^ an annunciation of 
 the truism that all the freemen in Israel were free? Or was 
 it a declaration of independence to those who had been in a 
 state of servitude? Now, if, as Doctor J. asserts, the servant 
 bought of the heathen or stranger, and the ear-bored Hebrew, 
 were excluded from the benefit of this proclamation, who enjoy- 
 ed it? Who was set free on the jubilee? Not the six years' 
 servant; for his case was provided for by another statute. The 
 class of poor elder brethren, mentioned. Lev. xxv. 39-43, were 
 not freed, for they had never been " sold with the sale of an 
 ebed; but were as the hired servant or sojourner. The servants 
 who had sold themselves to the stranger, might be, and probably 
 would be, redeemed before the jubilee. Strange provision — 
 this of the jubilee ! Men went throughout all the land, [a land 
 in which, as we are assured, there were thousands of slaves,] 
 blowing the trumpet and proclaiming liberty — to nobod}' — to 
 the free; — leaving the slaves, and their children — slaves forever! 
 What a solemn farce! equaled in the history of mankind, only 
 by the conduct of our republican slaveholders, who, on the 
 Fourth of July, publicly read, in every city, town, and hamlet 
 of their land, the Declaration of our fathers, "that all men are 
 created free and equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, 
 13 
 
98 
 
 among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; " 
 and on the fifth, drive to the cotton-fields their twenty-five 
 hundred thousand slaves! Was the jubilee trumpet intended to 
 tantalize the poor bond-men? to be a cruel mocking of their 
 misery ? And that no circumstance of singularity might be 
 wanting to this jubilee trumpet-blowing, the proclamation was 
 made on the tenth day of the seventh month; and on the fifteenth 
 day of the same month, five days afterward, the men-servants 
 and the maid-servants must assemble with their masters, in the 
 place which the Lord should choose, and "rejoice in the feast"' 
 of tabernacles ! [ Deut. xvi. 13-16. Lev. xxiii. 27, &c. ] 
 With the sound yet tingling in their ears, which had announced 
 the freedom of all but themselves; these bond-men would be in 
 fit mood, surely, to rejoice with their masters! What havoc 
 does "the defender of the faith" of slaveholders make with the 
 holy and just and good law! When Jehovah bade the trumpet 
 shout Liberty! Liberty! to all the inhabitants of the land, that 
 trumpet gave no uncertain or unwelcome sound. It gave the 
 ebed and the amah, whether Jew or Gentile, abundant reason to 
 rejoice, and to bless God for a constitution which taught and 
 enforced the equal rights of humanity. Afe we asked why 
 these servants should be so happy in the termination of a volun- 
 tary engagement ? The apprentice is glad when his time of 
 indenture is completed; and calls himself free, though he was 
 never a slave. 
 
 Once more; — The jubilee was typical. The trumpets were 
 blown on the eve of the great day of atonement. That atone- 
 ment was typical of the blood that cleanseth from all sin, [1 
 Jno. i. 7;] that was shed for the remission of sins; and not for 
 ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. — [1 Jno. ii. 2.) 
 The liberty trumpets, whose glad sound gave freedom to all the 
 servants in Judca, prefigured the proclamation of that "liberty 
 wherewith Christ maketh his people free;" even those who had 
 yielded themselves servants (doulous) to sin and satan. (Ro. vi. 
 16*) Satan was a master of their own choice: so was the servant 
 of the Jew self-sold. Now, by whom is this deliverance enjoyed 
 which our blessed High Priest hath purchased with his own 
 blood? Is it not by those who have made a covenant with him 
 
99 
 
 by sacrifice? [Ps. I. 5.] And had not the servant bought of 
 the heathen or the stranger made a covenant with God? Did 
 he not carry its seal upon his body? Had he not confirmed it 
 with the annual recurrence of the paschal feast? Had he not 
 gone up to the sanctuary of the Lord, ten days before the 
 jubilee, that he might attend "the holy convocation," and pre- 
 pare for the solemnities of the great atonement? — (Lev. xxiii. 
 23, &c. Deut. xvi. 9-16.) Were not his sins typically atoned 
 for, with those of the people whose God he had chosen for a 
 portion? And shall he be refused the typical freedom conse- 
 quent upon that atonement? Then shall the humble Gentile 
 who trusts in the atoning blood of Christ, be left under the 
 power of the devil, to be carried captive by him at his will! — 
 Thanks be to God! the holy and just and good law taught better 
 things. "Let not the son of the stranger, that hath joined him- 
 self to the Lord, speak, saying, the Lord hath utterly separated 
 me from his people. * * * The sons of the stranger, that join 
 themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of 
 the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath 
 from polluting it, andtaketh hold of my covenant: even them will 
 I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house 
 of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be 
 accepted upon mine altar; for my house shall be called a house 
 of prayer for all people.'''' — [Isa. Ivi. 3-7. 1 Kin. viii. 41-43.] 
 
 We close this argument with the language of the venerable 
 father first named in Doctor J.'s dedication: "Provision was 
 made for universal emancipation every fiftieth year. * * * Some 
 contend that because the law of emancipation is found in the 
 tenth verse, (Lev. xxv.) and the law of bondage in verses 44-46, 
 the jubilee did not reach those who had been bought of the 
 heathen, or of the strangers who sojourned in the land! What! 
 not reach them, when they were circumcised and inhabited the 
 land as much as any Hebrew servant, male or female, whose 
 ear had been bored with an awl! They might as well tell us 
 that the Babylonish captivity will take place after the latter- 
 day glory, because it is written subsequently in the book of 
 Malachi, ch. 4. * * * Verily, he must be a blind guide who 
 decides the import of a law merely from the place where it stands 
 
100 
 
 in the statute book. * * * The year of jubilee, commencing on 
 the great day of atonement, typified Hhe acceptable year of the 
 Lord," or the gospel dispensation — 'good tidings of gue.vt joy 
 TO ALL PEOPLE.' But if the sweet sound of the jubilee trumpet 
 meant no deliverance to the servants bought from the heathen, 
 then it very poorly represented 'the good things to come' — now- 
 proclaimed by the gospzl trumpet, to the chief of sinners. Tell 
 me, for whose special benefit was the year of jubilee appointed? 
 * * * * Por the benefit of all sei-vants, not otherwise provided 
 for? Unless you can show that they did not inhabit the land! 
 The language of the statute is explicit and full. 'And ye shall 
 hallow the ffticth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the 
 land, unto all the inhabitants thereof? To servants, not to 
 free inhabitants. — 'A jubilee, a sweet sound of trumpets, shall 
 that fiftieth year be unto you.' '" — [Relations, &:c. of Servants 
 and Masters : — By J. L. Wilson, D. D. Tlie italics are his 
 own.] 
 
 Argument 6. Every class of servants among the Jews, received 
 wages. The law says, (Lev. xix. 13,) "Thou shalt not defraud 
 thy neighbor, {rea,) neither rob him, " and adds, as a specifica- 
 tion, " The wages of him that is hired (sakir) shall not abide 
 with thee all night until the morning." Undoubtedly, Jeremiah 
 introduced no new principle, unknown to the Mosaic system, 
 when he said, " Woe unto him that buildeth his house by 
 unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his 
 neighbors (rea) service without wages, and giveth him not for 
 his work." (xxii. 13.) Was the servant bought of the heathen, 
 or of the stranger, considered as a neighbor? Let the law 
 answer: Thou shalt love thy neighbor {rea) as thyself. — (Lev. 
 xix. 13.) Compare verse 34, But the stranger that dwelleth 
 with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou 
 shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of 
 Egypt, &c. See also verse 17. Ex. xvi. 17. Prov. xxv. 17, 18. 
 Mat. vi. 43. xxii. 36-40. Indeed, the specification given above 
 relates to a sakir, who might be an uncircumcised stranger. — 
 [Deut. xxiv. 14.] This point settled, we ask, would it be robbery 
 and oppression, using a neighbor's service without wages, to buy 
 him against his will, of a third person ; and to reduce him and 
 
101 
 
 his posterity to perpetual slavery? Would that master satisfy 
 the demands of the law, who gave his servant food, clothing and 
 lodging, only ; and that, not according to contract with the 
 servant, nor to an amount that would be a full recompence for 
 his labor, — but at his own pleasure? These are the wages given 
 by our American slaveholders; and do they comply with the 
 requirements of the divine law? We cannot give a better 
 answer than that .of R. J. Breckinridge: "Out upon such folly! 
 The man who cannot sec that involuntary domestic slavery, as it 
 exists among us, is founded upon the principle of taking by force 
 that which is another's, has simply no moral sense.'''' We do not 
 say that the ehed received daily wages, as did the sakir: but that, 
 in some form, he received what he himself agreed to serve for. 
 
 Argument 7. Servants might hold property ; and ivcre sometimes 
 the heirs of their masters. — Saul's servant had money of his own, 
 (1 Sam. ix. 8.) Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, made 
 David a present of two hundred loaves of bread, a hundred 
 bunches of raisins, a hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of 
 wine. (2 Sam. xvi. 1.] lie had twenty servants of his own* 
 [ix. 10.] David afterwards divided all the property of Saul's 
 house, between Ziba and his master, (xix. 24, 30. Compare 
 ix. 9.) "Gehazi the servant {naar, but called ebed, verse 25,) 
 of Elisha, received of Naaman two talents, [about £700 or 
 $3000; Scott.] [2 Kings, v. 22-26.] This his master did not 
 take from him; but he seems to have expected that he would 
 expend it for "olive-yards, vineyards, sheep, oxen, men-servants, 
 and maid-servants." [verse 26.] Mat. xviii. 23-34, illustrates 
 the condition of Jewish servants. The servant said, "Lord, 
 have patience with me and I will pay thee all." How could 
 he do this if he, and his, and his earnings, already belonged 
 to his master? The same servant had his debtors, [verses 28, 
 30,] whom he might imprison for money due to him. We 
 have already shown that they offered sacrifices; which implies 
 the possession of property. 
 
 As to their heirship, see Gen. xv. 2, 3; and the case of 
 Ziba, already referred to. 1 Chron. ii. 34-41, "Now Sheshan 
 had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant (cbcd,) 
 an Egyptian, whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his 
 
102 
 
 daughter to Jarha his servant to wife; and she bare him Attai," 
 &c. Prov. xvii. 2, A wise servant shall have rule over a son 
 that causcth shame, and shall have part of the inheritance 
 among the brethren. It would seem, from tiiis passage, that 
 the Hebrews, customarily, made good servants fellow-heirs 
 with the children. — Compare with this characteristic of 
 Hebrew servitude, the fact, that in our country, "Slaves have 
 no legal rights of property in things real or personal; and 
 whatever property they may acquire, belongs, in point of law, 
 to their masters." [Stroud's Sketch, Prop. 5, 45.] See, also, 
 Louisiana Civ. Code, Art. 35, "A slave is one who is in the 
 power of a master to whom he belongs. * * * He can do 
 nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anylhing, hut what must 
 belong to his master,"' [p. 22;] and the laws of South Carolina, 
 Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, Mississippi, and 
 Kentucky, (pp. 45-49.) 
 
 Argument 8. There is no proof that Jewish masters were 
 permitted to sell their servants. — The onus probandi lies upon 
 those who affirm the contrary. Let them produce a law 
 authorising such sale; or a single instance, from all Jewish 
 history, of actual practice under such a law. An apparent 
 exception to our general statement may be found in Deut. xxi. 
 10-14. The Hebrew soldier who saw "among the captives" 
 a beautiful woman might marry her. If she became disagreea- 
 ble to him, he might divorce her, as he might a Hebrcwess, 
 but, "thou shalt let her go whither she will; * * * thou shalt 
 not sell her at all for money; thou shalt not make merchandise 
 of her, because thou hast humbled her. " May it not be 
 inferred, that, if he had not humbled her, he might have sold 
 her? Without denying the correctness of this inference, we 
 remark, (1.) That this woman, with all her class, was not 
 originally "a servant bought with money," but a captive. — 
 They were obtained in a manner wholly different from that 
 in which all other servants, whether of Hebrew or heathen 
 origin, were procured. (2.) They were not only captives, 
 but criminals; that is, they belonged to a community, which, 
 as a community, were regarded and treated as guilty of crime. 
 They suffered under the great law of "social liability," for 
 
103 
 
 the offence of their rulers; just as "the captive that was in the 
 dungeon," and "the maid-servant behind the mill," suffered for 
 the offence of Pharaoh. (Ex. xi. 4, 12, 29.) These captive 
 women belonged to a city that had given the Israelites occasion 
 to prosecute a just war. This must be granted, because God 
 had authorised the war, and "had delivered their enemies into 
 their hands." [Deut. xx. 12, 13, xxi. 10.] Before beseiging 
 their city, too, the Israelites had "proclaimed peace" to these 
 enemies, on reasonable grounds, [xx. 10, 11.] They had 
 refused peace; and thus had aggravated their original offence. 
 At the command, and with the help of God, the city had then 
 been captured; all the males put to the sword; and these women 
 with their children taken prisoners, who were now expiating, 
 by servitude, the national guilt. Now the question we are 
 arguing, and the great practical question to be answered by the 
 American church and people, is, not whether criminals may be 
 punished with imprisonment for a time, or for life; with hard 
 labor in a penitentiary, or the chain-gang; with slavery, or with 
 death. This all admit. The Constitution of our own free 
 State declares that "There shall be neither slavery nor involun- 
 tary servitude in this State, otherwise than for the punishment 
 of crimes;' &^-c. [Art. 8, sect. 2.] The question is, whether 
 persons chargeable with no crime, or only 
 
 guilty of a skin 
 
 Not colored like our own, 
 
 may be justly held in perpetual, involuntary servitude. In this 
 part of our argument we are proving that the INIosaic system 
 never maintained the affirmative: and the case of these prison- 
 ers of war can never establish the contrary. [3.] These 
 captives were, of course, freed at the year of jubilee. (4.) — 
 Let it not be forgotten that these "women and little ones, (the 
 very words excite our sympathy,) were placed, by Jehovah, 
 under the protection of his innumerable statutes relative to 
 "the widow and the fatherless." " Ye shall not afflict any 
 widow or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and 
 they cry at all unto me, 1 icill surely hear their cry; and my 
 wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and 
 your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." (Ex. 
 xxii. 22, 23.) 
 
104 
 
 Argument 9. Servants wsi-e not subject to the liabilities of 
 property. — A few particulars may be specified. [1.] Children 
 were sometimes taken for tlieir parents' debts: but there is no 
 instance of servants seized by creditors for .the debt of their 
 master. See Neh. v. 1-5. Isa. 1. 1. 2 Kings, iv. 1. Mat, xviii. 
 
 25. In this latter case, the servant who could owe some 
 millions of dollars, ten (thousand talents.) would most proba- 
 bly have some servants. He and his wife and children are 
 threatened with sale; but no allusion is made to selling his 
 servants. [2.] Various kinds of property were levied on by 
 creditors: servants were not. Flocks, asses, oxen, (Job xxiv. 
 2, 3;) the bed, (Prov. xxii. 27;) landed estate, Lev. xxv. 25, 
 28;] houses, [Lev., xxv. 29,30.] Mat. v. 40. [3.] Property 
 of all sorts was given in pledge: servants were not. Ex. xxii. 
 
 26, 27. Deut. xxiv. 10-13. [4.] Lost property was to be 
 restored by the finder: runaway servants were not. [Compare 
 Deut. xxii. 1-3, with xxiii. 15, 16.] [5.] It was customar}' to 
 give presents to friends, or superiors. 1 Sam. x. 27, 2 Kings 
 viii. 8, 2 Chron. xvii. 5.] A large variety of things is enumera- 
 ted; see (Gen. xlv. 22, 23. 1 Sam. xvi. 20, xxv. 18. 2 Sam. xvi. 
 1. 1 Kings, xiv. 3, xv. 18, 19, xvi. 8. 2 Chron. xxi. 3, besides 
 the passages already quoted under the same head relative to 
 patriarchal servitude.) But servants are nowhere included in 
 these lists of presents made by the Hebrews, though the heathen 
 sometimes gave them away. (Gen xx. 14.) — Since, therefore, 
 servants were not subject to the ordinary uses of property, we 
 may reasonably conclude that they were not property. It may 
 be asked, wh}- damages were paid the master, in case the 
 servant were injured, rather than to the scn^ant himself. "If 
 the ox shall push a man-servant, or maid-servant; he (the owner) 
 shall give unto the master thirty shekels of silver," &c. (Ex. xxi. 
 32.) Does not this law recognize the servant as his masters 
 property? No. The master had paid a full price for his 
 service. If the latter were injured, the loss fell on the former. 
 And, if the servant were killed, the master was bound to 
 support the servant's family. 
 
 Argument 10. The Hebrew Lawgiver punishes man-stealing 
 with death. — There are two statutes to this effect. If any man 
 
105 
 
 be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, 
 and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief 
 shall die; and thou shalt put evil from among you. (Deut. 
 xxiv. 7.) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if 
 he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Ex. 
 xxi. 16.) (1.) The crime forbidden is that of stealing a free- 
 man, Hebrew or foreigner. Why is it made capital? What 
 constitutes it so heinous an offence that nothing but the life 
 of the thief can satisfy the demands of justice? Was it the 
 personal violence done to the victim in his seizure? Assault 
 and battery were otherwise punished. Was it the secrecy 
 with which he was carried off? The offence would have been 
 more insolent, had he been stolen at mid-day. Was it the fact 
 that he was sold to the Gentiles, where his soul would be 
 periled by their idolatries? The penalty was the same, if he 
 were found in the hand of the man-stealer. Wherein, then, lay 
 "the exceeding sinfulness of this sin ?" It was a crime commit- 
 ted against the inherent and inalienable rights of mankind: a 
 practical denial of that foundation principle of all liberties, the 
 right of a man to himself. It was making a man a chattel, 
 merchandise, property. It was "using a neighbor's service 
 without wages," and against his will. It was covctousness 
 laying the corner stone of the Temple of Slavery. Let the 
 man-stealer die, said the Law-giver: and when he said it, he 
 pronounced the doom of slave-holding, and proclaimed the 
 equal and eternal rights of man. More than three thousand 
 years ago, from the summit of Sinai, Jehovah published, in 
 these words, the great, leading principle of our Declaration of 
 Independence. And did that same Legislator who placed this 
 "law of liberty" almost in the very front rank of his statutes, 
 proceed to estabUsh, or even to tolerate, a system of compulsory 
 servitude, of perpetual slavery? a system which must necessarily 
 violate that very principle? (2.) If the stolen man was found in 
 the hand of the thief, this law secured his immediate emancipa- 
 tion. When his captor had just paid the highest penalty of the 
 law, what Jew would venture to seize, or to retain him? (3.) 
 But in case the man-stealer had sold him, not a word is said 
 about his emancipation. How shall we account for this? Had 
 14 
 
lOG 
 
 he not the same right to instant Hberation, as if he were found 
 in the hand of his captor? Undoubtedly. And yet, while 
 even in this case the thief is executed, the man stolen seems 
 to be passed unnoticed. Why is not search made for him? 
 Why is not the purchaser punished? He must have learned 
 from the slave himself, that he was stolen: and is not the 
 receiver of stolen goods as bad as the thief? We can conceive 
 of but one way to account for this apparent oversight. The 
 victim, if sold, must have been sold to a heathen, and carried 
 into a foreign country. "^Vo Israelite zcould buy him,''^ as Henry 
 justly observes. AVhy? — Because they dared not buy, for they 
 were not allowed to hold, an involuntary servant unconvicted 
 of crime. Had he been bought by a Hebrew, doubtless the 
 law would have required his emancipation: but having been 
 fold to a foreigner, he was without the jurisdiction of Hebrew 
 Magistrates. 
 
 Argument 11. Fugitive servants were not to be restored to their 
 masters. — 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: thou shalt not oppress 
 him. (Deut. xxiii. 15, IG.) This law is fatal to the doctrine of 
 our opponents. Like the flaming sword at the gate of Paradise, 
 it turns every way. It must refer, either to servants of Hebrew 
 masters who escaped from one part of the country to another; 
 or to heathen servants who fled into Judea. (1.) If it related 
 to the former, it is proof positive that compulsory servitude did 
 not exist jn Israel. The unwilling servant had only to escape 
 to a neigh'boring town, or district, and he was free. (2.) But 
 this law was intended, doubtless, for the benefit of heathen 
 servants. It protects slaves; and there were no slaves in Judea 
 to need its protection. That slavery existed among the sur- 
 rounding heathen, is implied in the act itself. And why should 
 heathen servants, who escaped from their masters, he received 
 with open arms by the Hebrews; be allowed a residence in the 
 city of their choice; and be protected from oppression? Why 
 were they forbidden to restore them, when their masters demand- 
 ed their delivery? Because heathen legislators, knowing or 
 
107 
 
 caring litlle about the rights of man, had established slavery in 
 their respective countries. Their usual servitude was compul- 
 sory : and the Divine Legislator forbid his people to countenance 
 a system which compelled the poor and defenceless to toil for 
 the rich and powerful. (3.) If the chosen people of God had 
 none but voluntary servants, who sold themselves; if these 
 servants were protected in life and limb; if they were treated 
 with great kindness; if their service continued for six years 
 only, or at farthest to the jubilee; if they were paid a stipulated 
 price in hand, and received competent maintenance; — if these 
 things were true, (and we have shown that they were,) these 
 heathen rulers, beholding the contrast between slavery, as it 
 existed among them, and Jewish servitude, would recognise the 
 justice and humanity of that law which forbade such masters to 
 countenalice the claim of slave-holders by restoring their 
 runaways. They would have no inducement to pass laws of 
 retaliation; and might even restore servants to those who would 
 not return slaves. (See 1 Kings ii. 39, 40.) But on the suppo- 
 sition that slavery existed in Judea, this statute protecting 
 heathen fugitives would be inconsistent with the system of 
 which it formed a part, and destructive of it. If Jewish 
 servitude and heathen slavery were alike founded on the claim 
 of property in man, and on the principle that might gives right, 
 the neighboring princes could not but see the manifest injustice 
 of such a law: they would be compelled, in simple self-defence, 
 to adopt retaliatory measures; and their dominions would 
 become a sanctuary for Jewish slaves, as was Judea for those of 
 the heathen. But whoever considers the limited extent of the 
 holy land; that its northern, eastern, and southern boundaries 
 were imaginary lines; and that three times a year the body of 
 the Israelites were at Jerusalem, cannot fail to perceive that by 
 the natural operation of their own law, the Hebrews would soon 
 be relieved of their involuntary servants. 
 
 So much, then, by way of proof that the system of servitude 
 sanctioned by the Mosaic law, was not slavery. We pass, now, 
 to the New Testament; an examination of which will establish 
 our next position. 
 
 Proposition III. The apostles did not tolerate slave- 
 
108 
 
 HOLDING IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.— To undcrsland the course 
 of the apostles in regard to slavery we must consider the circum- 
 stances under which they were called to act. Gibbon, as we 
 have already said, estimates the population of the Roman 
 Empire in the time of Claudius at 120,000,000. (Dec. and 
 Fall, c. 1.) Of this vast multitude, 07ie half, according to that 
 writer, or tzco-thirds, according to Robertson, were slaves. They 
 were found in almost every province of the empire. A single 
 citizen sometimes possessed 20,000 slaves. As many as 10,000 
 a day were sold in Tarsus of Cilicia. Immense slave-marts 
 were established in many of the principal cities. "Timaeus, 
 perhaps with some exaggeration, asserts that Corinth had, in 
 early times, before Athens had reached her supremacy, 460,000 
 slaves." The system of slavery was not merely tolerated, but 
 sanctioned by the law of the land. It was interwoven .with the 
 whole frame-work of society. The slave was the absolute 
 property of his master; who had the jus vilae ct necis the right of 
 life and death, over him. Slaves were forbidden to marry free 
 persons. Their food and clothing depended upon the master's 
 pleasure. The farm slaves were shut up at night in crgastula 
 (prisons.) The old and infirm were frequently exposed, when 
 they became burdensome. Even Cato adopted this custom. 
 No law fixed the amount of labor to be exacted. Obedience 
 was enforced by severe discipline. The rod, the whip, thongs, 
 scourges loaded with lead, chain-scourges, the equaleus, lyre 
 strings, the ungula and forceps, the rack, throwing from the 
 Capitoline rock, mutilation, crucifixion, burning alive, were 
 the instruments and modes of punishment employed. Vedius 
 Pollio fed his fish with the flesh of his menials. Slaves were 
 proverbially addicted to lying. Fur, thief, was once synony- 
 mous with slave. The females were extremely licentious. * — 
 These facts present a horrible state of things; and, at first 
 thought, we might suppose that the apostles must have openly 
 denounced a system productive of such terrible consequences. 
 But let us call to mind their situation. Their master had said, 
 
 * For these and similar facts, see Adams' Rom'". Antiq.; Hume's Essay on 
 the populousness of ancient nations; an article on Roman slavery, in the 
 Bible Repository, vol. 6; and Tytler's Historv, vol. !, &c. 
 
109 
 
 "Behold 1 send you forth as sheep in the midst of zoolves: be ye 
 therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware 
 of men; for they shall deliver you up to councils, «fec. * * * 
 and ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." — 
 (Mat. X.) He had forewarned them of persecution and a violent 
 death. His predictions were shortly fulfilled. The kings of 
 the earth set themselves, and the rulers took counsel together 
 against them. The apostles preached every where at the 
 hazard of their lives. Every church they planted w^as a 
 "little flock" surrounded by a multitude of ravening beasts. 
 Wicked m€n busily circulated the report that these christians 
 designed "to turn the world upside down;" and the result 
 was that they were "every where spoken against." In such 
 circumstances, to have waged a public war against slavery; to 
 have taken the stand and employed the active efforts now 
 adopted by abolitionists, would have been, (humanly speaking,) 
 to have drawn upon their devoted heads immediate and utter 
 destruction: and that without even the remotest prospect of 
 benefiting the poor slaves. But we may be asked, was not 
 idolatry a universal sin, sanctioned by law, and intimately 
 connected with the government? Yet the apostles fearlessly, 
 publicly, and everywhere denounced it. — True: but the cases 
 are by no means parallel. Let it be remembered that the 
 empire contained from sixty to eighty millions of slaves, whose 
 wrongs were enormous and accumulated: that their masters 
 were in constant fear of insurrection: that a project to clothe 
 slaves in a peculiar manner had been abandoned, from dread 
 of showing them their numerical superiority: that the slaves 
 were proverbially foes; totideni esse hostes, quot servos. (Sen. 
 Ep. xlvii. quoted in Bib. Repos. 6, 428:) that many insurrec- 
 tions had occurred in different parts of the empire: that 
 scarcely a century before the apostles' days, 70,000 slaves had, 
 for six years, maintained the field in Sicily; of whom 20,000 fell 
 in battle, and the rest were crucified: that B. C. 73, a servile 
 war had raged, for three years, in Italy; during which time 
 several Roman armies had been defeated, and Rome it-self 
 threatened; and that, at length, Spariacus, with from one to two 
 hundred thousand slaves had miserably perished. Let these, 
 
no 
 
 and similar facts be remembered; and let it be considered that 
 there was no christian public sentiment to appeal to: none of 
 the modern facilities by which to excite a nation to a righteous 
 course of policy: that the only advocates of freedom and 
 righteousness were a handful of despised men: that the Divine 
 blessing could be expected only in the prudent use of appoint- 
 ed means: and we may easily discover why the apostles did 
 not avow, and should not have avowed, openly, and before the 
 whole Roman world, the absolute duty of immediate and 
 universal emancipation. Reason and Scripture alike forbade 
 them to destroy themselves by a course that would benefit 
 
 nobody. 
 
 On the same principle, Paul, predicting the fall of the 
 
 Roman Empire before the rise of the man of sin, veiled his 
 meaning under these turns, "only he that now letteth will let, 
 until he be taken out of the way."' (2 Thess. ii. 7.) But io 
 the christians he spoke more openly: "Remember ye not 
 that when I was with you I told you these things?" — "The 
 Roman Empire, united under one potent government, and 
 extremely jealous of all other authority and power, prevented, 
 &c. * * * But it would not have been prudent for the apostle 
 explicitly to mention it, in an epistle for general perusal; * * 
 however most of the fathers so far understood liim, as to declare 
 that Antichrist would not come, till after the downfall of the 
 Roman Empire." (Scott.) — We need not expect, therefore, 
 in the New Testament, a direct declaration of the fact that 
 man cannot hold property in man; nor that immediate emanci- 
 pation is a christian duty. Much less are we to anticipate a 
 bold denunciation of the Roman laws respecting slavery; or 
 any public and repeated assertion of the rights of Roman 
 slaves. The apostles were not wanting in moral courage; nor 
 were they indifferent to the wrongs of humanity: but they 
 could not do impossibilities. The Saviour would not throw 
 himself from the pinnacle of the temple; and confide in the 
 angels to preserve him. (Mat. iv.) Paul was not authorised 
 to scuttle the ship in which he was carried to Rome; and trust 
 to the Lord to keep it from sinking. Nor would the apostles 
 heve been justified in publicly preaching, to a heathen worlds, 
 
Ill 
 
 doctrines, whose diffusion, in the state of society then existiiig, 
 would have been the signal for universal insurrection and 
 bloodshed. They did all that could consistently be done, under 
 the circumstances, when they inculcated such principles among 
 christians, as are inconsistent with the existence of slavery; and 
 used such language as implies that members of the church 
 ■were not, and could not be, slave-holders. They were not 
 called to legislate for those out of the church. "For what 
 have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not 
 ye judge them that are within? But them that are without, 
 God judgeth." (1 Cor. v. 12.) 
 
 That the spirit of Christianity, as presented by the apostles 
 to their converts, did restrict the rights which christian masters 
 had over their slaves, by the Roman law, is admitted on all 
 hands. The law, as we have seen, allowed masters to put their 
 slaves to death; to extort testimony upon the rack; to punish 
 them with dreadful tortures: to turn out the old slave to die on a 
 dunghill, &c. Might the christian master claim and exercise 
 all these legal rights ? The Roman law said, " Inter servos et 
 liberos mairimonium contracti non potest; contuberriium potest.^^ A 
 freeman may live with a slave, but not marry her. Was this 
 legal fornication tolerated in the church? The property of the 
 slave belonged, by law, to his master. Was this considered just 
 among christians? Could a christian master sell his slave at 
 pleasure, because the law allowed it? The law regarded the 
 slave as his masters property. Did the christian master con- 
 sider his servant as a chattel, a piece of property, a part of 
 his estate? Our opponents will grant that, in some of these 
 respects, the precepts of Christianity forbade what the law of the 
 land allowed. We contend, that, without express precepts in 
 every case, the spirit of Christianity restricted the christian 
 master, in respect to all the rights above mentioned. Especially 
 do we insist, that, while the Roman law, regarded the slave, as 
 in the language of Aristotle, (Polit. I. G,) ktcma kai organon ton 
 despotou empsuchon, property and a reasoning tool in the hands 
 of his master; the christian law taught, with Saint Augustine, 
 non oportet christianum possidere servum quomodo equum aut 
 argentum. It does not become a christian to own a servant as 
 
112 
 
 he would his horse or his money. (See the quotations in the 
 Bib. Rep. vol. 6.) And this we shall attempt to prove in the 
 following pages. 
 
 To arrive at the exact teachings of the New Testament in 
 regard to slavery, we most ascertain the meaning of the words 
 doulos, despotes, and kurios. 
 
 1. Doulos. "This word," says Doctor J., "properly and 
 commonly means a pereon held to service for life — a slave." (p. 
 45.) Now we maintain, on the contrary, that doulos is not 
 the definite Greek term for slave, but andropodon; and that 
 doulos strictly signifies, one who is subject, in some respects, to 
 another, a servant, as our translators of the New Testament 
 have uniformly rendered it. 
 
 That andrapodon is the definite word for slave, may be seen 
 by consulting Homer's Iliad, vii. 472-475. Herod, lib. i. cap. 
 66, 155, 156, 161, lib. iv. cap. 203, v. 27, vi. 9, 23. viii. 29. 
 Xenophon's Anab. (Cleveland's ed.) p. 8, line 30; p. 162, line 
 10; p, 174, fine 18; p. 179, hne 29; p. 198, line 8; p. 217, line 
 12; p. 219, Une 20; p. 220, line 5, 20. Cyropcdia, lib. 8. 
 
 For examples of the classical use of doulos, <fec. in the sense 
 of a servant, a subject, subjection, &;c. where the persons to 
 whom the terms are applied were not slaves, see Herod, lib 1, 
 c. 95, 120, 129, 139, the Persians are called douloi of the 
 Medes, until they gained the ascendancy, c. 164, 169, 210. 
 lib. 2, c. 1. lib. 4, c. 20, comp. 72. lib. 6, c. 32. lib. 7, c. 39. 
 Xerxes calls Pythius, a Lydian prince, his doidos, lib. 8, c. 
 102. Artemisia, addressing Xerxes, calls Mardonius, the Persian 
 general, doulos, lib. 9, c. 122. See, also, Anab. p. 201, line 
 20. — We may add the testimony of Potter, in his Grecian 
 Antiquities, [p. 59.] "Slaves, as long they were under the 
 government of a master, were called oiketai; but after their 
 freedom was granted them, they mere douloi, not being like the 
 forme?; a part of their master^s estate, but only obliged to some 
 grateful acknowledgments, and small services, such as were 
 required of the metoikoi, [resident foreigners,] to whom they 
 were in some few things inferior," &c. 
 
 As to the New Testament use of this word. Dr. J. labors to 
 show that in all cases, "the idea of continuous, perpetual servir 
 
113 
 
 tilde is included." [p. 46.] We dissent from his general state- 
 ment, classificatiorr, and conclusions; and shall take the liberty 
 to present our own. — According to Greenfield's Schmidius, the 
 word doulos occurs 122 times in the New Testament. Of these, 
 19 are parallel; and the remaining 103 may be classed as 
 follows: 
 
 1. Applied to servants of men; 
 [1.] Of Jewish masters, 
 
 [2.] Of masters generally without distinction, 
 [3.] Of a Gentile master, [Mat. viii. 9,] 
 [4.] To christians as servants of each 
 
 other, [Mat. xx. 27, 2 Cor. iv. 5,] 
 
 2. To the servants of God and Christ, 
 
 3. To Christ as the servant of God, [Phil. ii. 7,] 
 
 4. To the servants of sin and Satan, 
 
 5. Used indefinitely, [Rom. vi. 16,] 
 
 6. To those "under the elements of the world." 
 [Gal. iv.] I 
 
 47 times. 
 
 18 " 
 
 1 « 
 
 2 « 
 28 « 
 
 1 " 
 
 4 " 
 
 1 " 
 
 103 « 
 Now we assert that in 84 of these 103 cases of the use of 
 doulos^ the word denotes ser-vants who were not slaves: and that 
 it has the same signification in some of the other 19 cases. It 
 is employed upward of 40 times in the discourses of our Saviour. 
 Being himself a Jew, living in Judea, and addressing Jews, it 
 is altogether natural and probable that he should draw his 
 illustrations from Jewish customs and institutions. When he 
 compares the kingdom of heaven to a king who would take 
 account of his servants, [douloi, Mat. xviii. 23.] &c. we have a 
 right to infer that he speaks of servants in the Jewish sense of 
 the word. Doulos^ in such cases, corresponds with ebed; and 
 we have already proved that the Jewish servants were not 
 slaves. Dr. J., indeed, supposes the contrary. Referring to 
 the passage just quoted, he says, "The master, like many in 
 our day, had entrusted much of his property to his servants * * 
 and thus, one of them was found to have acted unfaithfully — he 
 had squandered bis lord's money. His master, just as masters 
 
 now do. commanded him to be sold, and his wife and children. 
 15 
 
114 
 
 Now, if doulos does not express the relation of slavery, * * * * 
 how can we understand the transaction ? And if it be said, he 
 was sold under the law which makes indebtedness a crime, 
 rendering the debtor obnoxious to sale, then we have slavery 
 recognised. Take it either way, you have the relation of per- 
 petual servitude." [pp. 46, 47.] Such criticism is truly amusing. 
 The good Doctor is determined that this doulos shall be a slave; 
 and, to prove him such, he supposes absurdities, misrepresents 
 the text, and contradicts himself. — This man was one of tlie 
 servants of a king; and, as RosenmuUer says, Ubi do rcgibus 
 agitur, servi dicuntur omncs subdili, sed precipue, qui sunt in 
 aulico ministerio, &c. All the king's subjects are called his 
 servants, but especially his ministers. So Grotius. One of his 
 treasures, (Kuinoel.) Some petty prince (Dr. A. Clarke.) — The' 
 sum due proves that he was no slave, in the ordinary sense: "ten 
 thousand talents," (verse 24.) If this be taken literally, and 
 the talents were of silver, the debt was more than ,320,000,000, 
 or if the gold talent, some $300,000,000. (Dr. Clarke.) Sup- 
 posing, with Bloomfield, that murion denotes merely a great 
 number of talents, still, significatur infinita pecuniae vis, an 
 immense amount of money is intended. (Rosenm.) Yes, 
 says our' Doctor, "his master, like many in our day, had entrust- 
 ed much property to his servants!" — The order to seH the 
 servant and his family proves that he was no slave. Dr. J. 
 views it differently. "His master, just as masters now do, com- 
 manded him to be sold," &c. Do southern masters sell their 
 slaves, who owe them more than they can pay.!* We should 
 like the mathematical professor at Oxford, or Jack Downing, 
 "to cipher up," and show the President how much they would 
 gain by selling their own property to pay themselves ! When a 
 farmer's mare runs away with, and destroys, his carriage, does 
 he sell her and ^er colt, pocket the money, and rejoice that his 
 loss is fully recompensed? Well, says the Doctor, if not a 
 slave before he was sold for debt, he was afterward; so either 
 way you have perpetual servitude. Alas! even this refuge 
 fails: for, first, the servant zms not sold at all. Secondly, had 
 he been sold, the Doctor has admitted that he could be sold 
 but for six years, (pp. 30, 31;) and thirdly, he was a doulos 
 
115 
 
 7 
 
 before he was even threatened with sale; so that a man may 
 be a doulos, though he is not a slave. Q. E. D. 
 
 We pass the second class of servants of men; for their 
 condition is the matter in controversy; and the third, "the 
 captain's servant, " as unimportant. In the fourth class of 
 passages, christians are called the servants of each other. — 
 Paul said to his hearers, "We preach not ourselves, but Christ 
 Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your set-vants for Jesus' sake." 
 Was he the slave, of his converts? Christians are called, (28 
 times,) the servants of God and Christ. And "they are life 
 servants ;" says Dr. J., "bound under the most absolute authori- 
 ty to honor and obey and submit to his commands. * * They 
 are his forever. Moreover, they were umcilling, when he 
 bought them with a price; and they were unwilling until he 
 changed them by his law, &c. They are servants forever, "under 
 the yoke." (p. 46.) Such fallacies, built upon the literal use 
 of figurative language can deceive no one. The professed 
 christian, whose own consciousness does not teach him that he 
 is no slave, "has need that one teach him again which be the 
 first principles of the oracles of God." (Heb. v. 12.) We 
 only remark, (1) that christians choose their own master; (Josh, 
 xxiv. 15, 22; Mat. xi. 29, 30;)— (2) that they receive the 
 highest wages, (Heb. xi. 26;) — (3) that they are expressly said 
 to be "no longer servants (doulos,) in the servile sense. (Jno. 
 XV. 15, comp. Gal. iv. 4-7;) — (4) that Dr. J. expressly contra- 
 dicts himself, when proving the meaning of doulos from its 
 opposite, cleutheros: and Christ, who says, "If the son shall 
 make you free, ye shall be free indeed," (Jno. viii. 34-36;) 
 whereas Dr. J. assures us they are slaves still; arid have only 
 changed masters: — [5] that if christians on earth are slaves, 
 so are saints and angels in heaven, [Rev. xxii. 3;] and as the 
 Doctor proves that all wicked men are the slaves of Satan, it 
 follows, that God and the devil are the only free beings in the 
 Universe; all others, in heaven, earth or hell being slaves to one 
 or the other! 
 
 Again, Christ took upon him the form of a servant [Phil. ii. 
 7,] comp. Isa. xlii. 1, Behold my servant, [abdi^ whom I uphold, 
 &c. We shall not trifle with the good sense of our readers, 
 
116 
 
 by proving that Christ was not the slave of his father. — The 
 servants of sin and Satan are voluntary. They choose their own 
 master; they are content with his wages, "the pleasures of sin 
 for a season;*' they nnay leave his service witliout warning; and 
 his claim to them rests only upon their own choice. — Lastly, in 
 Ro. vi. 16, the apostle gives the definition of doulos. It means, 
 not necessarily a slave, but one who submits to another: no 
 matter for what time, or upon what conditions. 
 
 2. Despotcs. This word ^'■properly denotes the possessor, or 
 master of slaves; one who rules as a master over his slave, with 
 xincontrolcd power, a despot. A proprietor, as of a horse," &c. 
 [Donnegan.] Ile'derives it from poicin^ to cause; and deos, fear, 
 or desmos, a chain. So Passou: "The commander, especially 
 of slaves; a householder, dominus; with anax, in an address to 
 slaves, a despot; unlimited commander^ who rules his subjects as 
 slaves; a possessor, owner, as of a horse." Compare despoina, a 
 mistress of the slaves in. the family; desposune and despoteia, 
 unlimited authority. [Donn. and Pass.] — In the New Testa- 
 ment, despotes is used ten times. [1.] Applied to God and 
 Christ, as exercising unlimited dominion: Lu. ii. 29; Ac. iv. 24; 
 2 Tim. ii. 21; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Jude iv.; Rev. vi. 10. [2.] To 
 men, 1 Tim. vi. 1-2; Tit. ii. 9; 1 Pet. ii. 18. Of these passa- 
 ges we shall speak presently. 
 
 3. Kurios, "A proprietor; a possessor; a master; one who has 
 power or authority over others — in reference to that over slaves, 
 despotes is used; kurios, for a father, a husband, a divinity.^'' — 
 [Donnegan.] Compare kuria kureia, &c. — In the New 
 Testament, kurios is applied, [1] several hundred times, to the 
 Saviour. It was a favorite title by which the disciples address- 
 ed him. [See Jno. xiii. 13.] [2.] To men, as owners of 
 inanimate things; Mat. xv. 27, the dogs eat the crumbs of their 
 master's table. — To men, considered as having authority over 
 other men, who, yet, were not slaves; Mat. vi. 24; 13, 27; 18, 
 25; 21, 30, the son says to the father, "1 go, sir, [kurie.'] 25, 11 
 the foolish virgins call the bridegroom, kurios: but he replies, "I 
 know you not." Lu. xvi. 3-8, the faithless steward calls his 
 master, kurios. That the steward was not a slave, &c. verses 
 3, 4. Lu. xix. 33, And as they were loosing the colt, the 
 
117 
 
 owners [kurioi] said, &c. "The sense is, those who had power 
 over it, including the servants of the owner."' [Bloomfield.] 
 John xii. 21; Ac. xvi. 30; 25, 26, Festus appHcd the term to 
 the Roman Emperor. 1 Pet. iii. 6. Sarah called her husband 
 kurios. — To men, considered as having a control over their 
 servants; Eph. vi. 5, 9; Col. iii. 22; iv. 1. 
 
 We are now prepared to state this general result: (1.) Dou- 
 los is a general term, denoting one in some respects subject to 
 another person. It is properly translated, as in our English 
 Bible, servant^ — not slave. It may mean slave also, if the 
 connexion require it; since all slaves arc douloi, though all 
 douloi are not slaves. [2.] The proper term for slave-holder, 
 is despotis. [3.] The usual term for a master, who is not a 
 slave-holder, is kurios. 
 
 Argument 1. The apostles uniformly address christian masters 
 as kurioi; but they call heathen masters despotes, slave-holders. 
 
 In Eph. v. 22. Paul exhorts wives to be subject to their 
 own husbands; [verse 4,] husbands to love their wives; [6, 1,] 
 children to obey their parents; [verse 4,] fathers to train up 
 their children in the fear of God; [verse 5,] servants, {hoi douloil 
 "be obedient to them that are your masters [kurioisl according 
 to the flesh;" [verse 9,] "and ye masters [kuriosi do the same 
 thing unto them, * * * knowing that your master [kurioil also 
 is in heaven." Evidently, the persons in these different rela- 
 tions are addressed as in the church. — So in Col. iii. wives are 
 addressed, [verse 18;] husbands, [verse 19;] children, (verse 20;) 
 fathers, (verse 21;) ^'-servants, {douloi,) obey in all things your 
 masters {kuriois) according to the flesh, (verse 22;) '■'•masters, 
 {kurioi) give unto your servants that which is just and equal; 
 knowing that ye also have a master, [kuriosi in heaven. — In 
 both these passages, the relation of christian masters to their 
 servants is compared with that of Christ to his people; not 
 however, to convey the idea that both have unlimited domin- 
 ion; for then the word despotes would have been used; but, on 
 the contrary, to show that christian masters exercised an 
 authority, lawful, just, regulated by the law of love, founded on 
 the consent of the servants, and employed with a constant 
 regard to the best interests of their dependents. — If it be said 
 
118 
 
 that some of these Ephesian and Colossian doului were, in all 
 probability, slaves, belonging to heathens, and that the seheathen, 
 as well as the christian masters, are called kuriqj; we answer, — 
 the apostle seems purposely to select that word, as including 
 both sorts of masters: for all slave-holders are masters; though 
 all masters are not slave-holders. 
 
 Turn now to the passages in which masters are called despo- 
 ■tai. Tit. ii. 2, that the aged men be sober, &c. ; the aged 
 women, likewise, &c., (verse 3;) the young women, (verse 4;) 
 young men, {\cvse Q\) "exhort servants {donlous) to be obedient 
 to their own masters (despotais):'^ but no address to these dcspotai 
 follows. Why? — They were slaveholders, as their name imports; 
 and therefore, not in connection with the church. So, 1 Pet. ii. 
 10, servants, (oiketai.) be subject to your own masters (despotais) 
 with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the 
 froward. Here we find no exhortation to the despotai; though 
 afterwards, wives, [iii. 1,] and hisbands,\\\\. 7,] are instructed in 
 their relative duties. Will it be urged, that, in this last passage, 
 despotai includes both christian and heathen masters; that the 
 former are "the good and gentle," and tlh2 latter, "the froward?" 
 There is no ground for such a conclusion. Many heathen 
 slaveholders were doubtless "good and gentle," just as are. 
 many non-professors, and even infidels, in our own time and 
 country. Henry Clay, in his notorious Richmond speech, 
 represented himself as a "good and gentle" master, and spoke 
 of his slaves as "fat and sleek." And surely our author must 
 allow that he is such, after commending, as he docs, the choice 
 of "Charles Clay." Again, 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2, Let as many servants 
 (douloi) as are under the yoke count their own masters (despotas) 
 worthy of all honor, &c. Here, undoubtedly, the (despotai) 
 were slaveholders, for their servants were under the yoke; and 
 heathen, for they are contrasted, in the next verse, with 
 " believing masters." 
 
 But we shall be told that our whole argument is overthrown 
 by this very passage; for here, "believing masters" are despotai, 
 also. "And they that have believing masters, (pistons despotas,) 
 verse 2. — The candid enquirer, who has observed that in every 
 other passage relative to this subject, the apostles distinguish 
 
119 
 
 the terms despotai and kuriot, applying the one to slave-holders, 
 and the other to christian masters, will be readj to ask why 
 they are here used indiscriminately. Is there not a cause? 
 And a careful examination of the text, with the appUcation of 
 the ordinary rules of criticism, will satisfy him that ''believing 
 masters" were not slave-holders; though, in this solitary passage 
 they are called despotai. (1.) The context shows that the 
 servants of believing masters were not slaves. "Let as many 
 servants as are under the yoke," &c. This evidently implies 
 that there are some servants (doulous) not under the yoke: just 
 as the expression, (Jno. i. 12,) "But as many as received 
 him," &c. imphes that some did not receive Christ. Now, to 
 be "under the yoke," as Dr. J. has super-abundantly proved, is 
 to be a slave. Paul teaches, therefore, that some douloi were 
 slaves, and some were not, but were servants. That the latter 
 class were servants of christian masters, is proved by the next 
 verse; "And they that have believing masters," &c.: in the 
 Greek, Hoi de pistons echontcs despotas. The conjunction, de, 
 marks an antithetic sentence. (Stuart's Gr. Gram. § 150, 5.) 
 The subject in verse 2, is contrasted with that in verse 1. The 
 servants who have believing masters are in a different situation 
 from that of those under the yoke. The latter are commanded 
 to serve their own masters, that the gospel be not reproached: 
 the former, because their master? are faithful and beloved 
 brethren. The one, are douloi stiW under the yoke, — slaz-cs: the 
 other, douloi not under the yoke, — servants. The masters of the 
 former, were heathen, who did not recognise their slaves as 
 brethren: those of the latter, believed that their servants were 
 created by the same heavenly father; descended from the same 
 common earthly father; redeemed by the same Saviour; and, if 
 christians, travelling to the same eternal home; and therefore, 
 members, not only of the brotherhood of man, but of the 
 christian fraternity. The very exhortation that serv^ants, whose 
 equality was thus recognised by their masters, should not 
 despise them, shows the radical difference between their relation 
 in servitude, and that of slaves. No such command is given to 
 the latter. Now, the apostle having shown that the servants of 
 believing masters were not slaves, it follows that such masters 
 
1:20 
 
 were not slave-holders ; and Paul would mislead neither Timothy 
 nor his other readers, if, for once, he called them, not "believing 
 kurioi^'' but "believing despotdi.^^ Indeed, the epithet, "believ- 
 ing," would prove to a primitive christian, that despotes was taken 
 in an unusual sense. 
 
 (2.) Let it be observed, also, that these believing despotai 
 had once been heathens, and slave-holders. Even our oppo- 
 nents do not argue, if we understand them, that, members of 
 the primitive church who had not held slaves previous to their 
 conversion, might, after connecting themselves with the church, 
 become slave-holders: but only, that converted slave-holders 
 were not required to emancipate, before making a profession of 
 religion. These masters, then, had long been despotai. Becom- 
 ing christians, they became kur,ioi. It is no unusual thing, 
 however, to designate a man by a name or title once familiar to 
 him, though now no longer, "strictly, or at all, appropriate. — 
 Thus we are told that the lame walk, the deaf hear, (Mat. 
 xi. 5;) "the dumb speak," (ix. 33;) "the dead stand before 
 God," (Rev. XX. 12.) So Rahab is called "the harlot," even 
 when her faith is represented as exemplary. If we say that 
 our village contains ten drunkards, and ten reformed drunk- 
 ards, would any one understand us as saying that the latter 
 were drunkards still? Precisely such a license does Paul 
 employ, when he speaks of despotai, and believing despotai. 
 
 Having given the above directions to slaves, and servants, the 
 apostle adds: "If any man teach otherwise," &c., "he is proud, 
 (tetiiphotai,) knowing nothing, but doting about questions and 
 strifes of words," &:c. There is reasohto believe that he alludes 
 to some Judaizing christians who were inculcating a sort of level- 
 ling doctrine in the church; denouncing, not slavery, merely, 
 but all human government, and all submission to pagan autho- 
 rity. Josephus informs us, that some of the Jews thought it a 
 wicked thing to own, besides God, any mortal masters, (Jew. 
 War, B. II. c. 8, § I.) "Their Rabbins thought it unbecoming 
 any Jew to be a bond-slave to an heathen, or idolator." (Whitby, 
 2, 408.) These opinions they were probably propagating among 
 the believing slaves of heathen masters. (So Scott, Whitby, 
 Bloomfield, &;c.) 
 
121 
 
 Every great moral, political, or religious revolution is accom- 
 panied, in the present corrupt state of human nature, by 
 excesses, and extravagances, of which it is the occasion rather 
 than the cause. No sooner was the christian church founded, 
 than heresies began to appear. Wolves in sheep's clothing, 
 men who said they were apostles, but were liars, (Rev. ii. 2,) 
 usurping the christian name, propagated the most licentious 
 principles; and the abominations of gnosticism brought reproach 
 upon genuine Christianity. The fanaticism of Munzer and the 
 Anabaptists would never have been heard of, but for the labors 
 of the reformers. The efforts of the friends of freedom to check 
 the usurpations of Charles I., terminated in the temporary 
 success of Cromwell and the fanatics. The religious contro- 
 versies of those times, gave rise to the Seekers, the Ranters, 
 the Behmeniles, and a swarm of other enthusiasts. What 
 extravagancies followed, in many places, the great revival of the 
 18th century! But how unjust, how unreasonable, to charge 
 these follies and heresies on the real advocates of truth and 
 righteousness! The great anti-slavery movement of the last 
 fourteen years, has not escaped the lot of all violent agitations 
 of the public mind. In its progress it has occasioned, or been 
 connected with, various heretical doctrines and sects, political 
 and religious. The women's-rights party; the no-government 
 party; the Fourier-association party; the anti-Sabbath, the anti- 
 church, anti-ministry, anti-Bible, anti-common sense party, have 
 been, more or less, associated with the great anti-slavery party. 
 To a limited extent they have had common advocates. But 
 their wild and wicked fantasies are no more chargeable upon 
 the abolitionists, as a body, than were the fooleries of Carlstadt, 
 upon the reformers. As Luther said of him and his followers, 
 so the mass of anti-slavery men say of these factions, — '^JVe slap 
 their spirit on the snout.^^ 
 
 Doctor J., however, unable to distinguish between a great 
 popular movement of the humanity of Christendom, and a few 
 local and petty extravagancies; — between the heavings of the 
 vast ocean, and the scum upon its billows; — fixes his eye upon 
 a handful of fanatics; describes them as the real abolition party; 
 and "finds the origin of aboUtionism in the vanity, self-conceit 
 16 
 
122 
 
 and puffed up pride of the human heart." — (p. 67.) Misapply- 
 ing the language of Paul, he says, "If any man teach opposite 
 to these doctrines, if he teach modern anti-slavery doctrines, 
 such as abound in their publications and speeches, he is tetupho- 
 tai — proud we have it translated. But I appeal to every Greek 
 
 * * * * 
 
 scholar, if it do not mean vain^ p^^ffi^d vp, self-conceited^ 
 puffed up with vain pride and contemptible self-conceit," &c. 
 (pp. 67, 68.) We cannot dismiss this matter without remark; 
 and Dr. J. cannot complain, if we "say some things extremely 
 unpleasant, that may come with blistering severity." For when 
 we remember that such men as Wesley and Jonathan Edwards^ 
 in former days, — Dr. Bishop, Dr. Crothers, and Father Dickey, 
 in our own time and neighborhood, — and hundreds of the best,, 
 wisest, and most patriotic christians and citizens of this and other 
 lands, have maintained the great radical principles of abolition- 
 ism, — who that knows Doctor J. can hear him assert that those 
 principles "find their origin in the vanity, self-conceit, and puffed 
 up pride of the human heart," and refrain from applying the 
 words of the poet, 
 
 " wad some power the giftie gie him, 
 To see himsei.f as others see him; 
 It wad frae sic a blunder free him, 
 And foolish notion !" 
 For if every one who is chargeable with "vain pride and con- 
 temptible self-conceit" is to be ranked with the tetuphotai, then, 
 heaven help the President of Miami University. — Garrison, 
 indeed, "the father of modem abolitionism!" Does Doctor J. 
 know that Garrison's "Liberator" was commenced in January, 
 1831; and that in 1830 the Synods of Cincinnati and Indiana 
 adopted the following resolution, which contains the chief article 
 of the abolition creed? "Resolved, That the buying, selling, 
 • or holding a slave, for the sake of gain, is a heinous sin and 
 scandal, and requires the cognizance of the church judicatories," 
 &ic.— (See Chr. Intellig. vol. 2, 339.) Some of the fathers in 
 our own Synod have been preaching this doctrine for a quarter 
 of a century. Let Doctor J. study the facts, principles, and 
 history of the anti-slavery enterprise; and he will never again 
 display his ignorance by calling Garrison the father, and Abby 
 Kelley the dry-nurse of abolitionism. 
 
123 
 
 Argument 2. The apostles, when exhorting slaves to obedience, 
 never enforce their exhortations by reminding them that they were the 
 rightful property of their m,asters : nor do they, directly, or indirectly, 
 recognize the right of property in man. We have said doulos 
 properly means a servant; but, being a general term, it includes 
 slaves. Many of the persons called douloi, in the New Testa- 
 ment, were doubtless the converted slaves of heathen masters, 
 whose civil condition was not affected by their conversion. — 
 They, as well as other servants, are exhorted to obey their 
 masters: but on what ground? We need not occupy space 
 here. Let any one read Eph. vi. 5-8; Col. iii. 22-24; 1 Tim. 
 vii. 1; Tit. ii. 9, 10; 1 Pet. ii. 18-25; and he will see that the 
 reasons for obedience are such as these: that servants may 
 please God; that they may receive from him the reward of the 
 inheritance; that the name of God, and his doctrine, be not 
 blasphemed; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our 
 Saviour in all things; that they may imitate the patience of 
 Christ; &:c. Never once is their masters' right of property in 
 them adduced; although, as we have already said, such right, if 
 it existed, would afford one of the most natural and forcible 
 arguments for submission on the part of the slave. But does not 
 Paul regard Onesimus as Philemon's property, when he says, "I 
 would have retained him with me, that in thy stead he might 
 have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: but without 
 thy mind would I do nothing?" He does not, Onesimus was a 
 doulos of Philemon; not necessarily a slave, but a servant; one 
 who was under some just and legal obligations to serve his 
 master; to what extent, or for what time, we know not. By 
 his flight, and perhaps in other ways, he had wronged Philemon; 
 and it was Paul's duty to enjoin his return, that Onesimus might 
 discharge his obligations, or be legally released from them by 
 his master. 
 
 Argument 3. Men-stealers are ranked, by the apostle Paul, with 
 the worst criminals. "The law is made for the lawless and dis- 
 obedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and 
 profane, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for 
 manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves 
 with mankind, for menstcalcrs, for liars, for perjured persons,'* 
 
124 
 
 &c. — (1 Tim. i. 9, 10.) The original word for manstealers is 
 andrapodistes. Andrapodoii, as we have shown, is the definite 
 term for slave. From this noun is formed the verb andrapodidzo, 
 "to make a slave, to capture in war and sell as a slave, to seize 
 and sell freemen as slaves, to exercise the trade of a slave-mer- 
 chant, to kidnap." — (Donnegan.) From the verb is formed 
 andrapodistes, which signifies, "one who makes a slave in any 
 of the senses of andrapodidzo.^'' — (Ibid.) The remarks already 
 made upon Ex. xxi. 16, are applicable here, and need not be 
 repeated. We only add, that our Confession of Faith once con- 
 tained the following note. The General Assembly of 1794, by 
 their committee. Dr. A. Green, John B. Smith, James Boyd, 
 Wm. M. Tennant, N. Irvin, and Andrew Hunter, appended it 
 to the 142nd question of the larger catechism. "1 Tim. i. 10. 
 The law is made for manstealers. This crime, among the Jews, 
 exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment; (Ex. xxi. 
 17;) and the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first 
 rank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends 
 all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into 
 slavery, or in retaining them in it. Ilominum fares, qui servos 
 vel libros abducunt, retincnt, vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of 
 men are those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or 
 buy them. To steal a freeman, says Grotius, is the highest kind 
 of theft. In other instances, we only steal human property; but 
 when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who, in 
 common with ourselves, are constituted, by the original grant, 
 
 lords of the earth Gen. i. 28." 
 
 Argument 4. The traffic in slaves is recorded as one of the crimes 
 of Babylon the Great. The slave-trade as naturally accompanies 
 the system of slavery, as the shadow does the substance. The 
 history of slavery, in all ages, proves them to be inseparable. — 
 And indeed, if the arguments of Dr. J. establish the divine 
 allowance of the one, they equally prove the permission of the 
 other. If the Jcavs, and primitive christians had a right of 
 property in their servants, they had, of course, a right to sell, as 
 well as to buy them. Hence follows the slave-trade. But the 
 trade in ^^slaves, and the souls of men," (Prov. xviii. 13,) is 
 charged as swelling the guilt of the Romish apostacy. Can we 
 
125 
 
 suppose that the same traflic was practised among the early 
 christians? * 
 
 Argument 5. The love of freedom^ of each other, and of man, 
 which prevailed in the primitive church, J orbids the supposition that 
 slavery was tolerated among them. — "The principles of both the 
 law and the gospel," [says Scott, on 1 Tim. vi. 1,] "when carried 
 to their consequences, will inftillibly abohsh slavery." Our 
 opponents fully admit this. There is no need, say they, of 
 preaching. aboHtionism. Let the pure and simple gospel be 
 proclaimed among our southern brethren, and slavery will cease 
 to exist. We grant it: for we beheve that the simple gospel, 
 so far as this subject is concerned, is abolitionism. And do we 
 assume too much when we assert that the primitive christians, 
 as a body, did, in their personal conduct, "carry to their conse- 
 quences the principles of the law and the gospel," to an extent 
 seldom since realized? We think not. "To believe, to suffer, 
 and to love," says Milner, "was the primitive taste." Read the 
 following account of their temper and conduct; and ask if 
 slave-holding could co-exist with it. "Among the various 
 features in the character of the primitive christians, there is 
 none so eminently claims our admiration as their mutual love. 
 All the details transmitted to us of their social intercourse, and 
 their public conduct, bespeak the lively operation of this chris- 
 tian spirit. And when we read of * * their ready disposition 
 to render every one his due, the high condescending to those of 
 low degree, the poor giving their tribute of respect to those 
 whom Providence had placed in a more exalted station, and all 
 vying, with amiable rivalry, to promote each other's happiness 
 and welfare, we perceive the strong grounds of the proverbial 
 observation of the heathen, 'Behold how these christians love 
 one another' ! * * Bound to each other by ties infinitely holier 
 and dearer than any that belong to the world, they looked upon 
 themselves as members of the same common family. Every 
 time they met, either in their own houses or in their public 
 assemblies, they interchanged the kiss, as a badge of fellowship, 
 and token of the warmest affection. Though totally unconnect- 
 ed by ties of consanguinity, they addressed each, according to 
 their respective age and sex, by the name of father, mother, 
 
126 
 
 brother, sister. Though naturally separated by distinction of 
 rank and diversity of color, nothing could cool or prevent the 
 reciprocities of their mutual love. The knowledge of the 
 simple fact, that any one was a follower of Jesus, changed him 
 at once from a stranger into a friend; creating a union between 
 them not be described by the cold, selfish friendship of the 
 world; and to them belongs tlie peculiar distinction of realizing 
 a state of society which many philosophers had often delighted 
 to picture to their fancy, and w^ishcd for in vain, the idea of a 
 community united by no other bond than the golden chain of 
 universal love. * * Many of the sufferers for the cause of 
 religion, were sent to labor, like slaves, in distant and unwhole- 
 some mines. Thither the benevolence of their brethren 
 followed them. * * * Nay, many even undertook long and 
 toilsome pilgrimages, in order to comfort and support these 
 victims of oppression. * * Nothing could repress the ardent 
 ■wish to pour the balm of consolation into the hearts of men, 
 ■who were suffering the worst species of slavery for the sake of 
 the truth. Many in private life expended every thing they 
 could spare from the bare support of life in the purchase of 
 Bibles, and, on every suitable occasion, distributed them to the 
 poor. * * One man is recorded to have sold himself into the 
 family of a heathen actor, and continued for years cheerfully 
 performing the most servile offices, till having been the instru- 
 ment of converting the whole f^^mily to Christianity, he received 
 from the grateful converts the reward of his liberty. The same 
 individual, learning that the Governor of Sparta had fallen into 
 dangerous errors, offered himself again as a slave, and contin- 
 ued for two years in that situation, when his zealous efforts for 
 the converson of bis master being crowned with success, he was 
 no longer treated as a servant^ but a brother beloved in the Lord. * * 
 Many wealthy individuals, on their conversion to Christianity, 
 sold their estates, and betaking themselves to manual labor or 
 to the preaching of the Word, devoted the price of their labor 
 to benevolent purposes. * * * In the general intercourse of 
 society, the primitive christians, acting according to the rules of 
 scripture, were careful to render to all their dues, and to practise 
 every thing that is just, honest and of good report." (See Cole- 
 man's Christ. Antiq. pp. 384-396.) 
 
127 
 
 Barnabas, in the Catholic epistle attributed to him, which is 
 supposed to have been written about A. D. 70-80, says, "Thou 
 shalt not be bitter in thy commands toward any of thy servants 
 that trust in God, lest thou chance not to fear him who is over 
 both; because he came not to call any with respect of persons; 
 but whomsoever the spirit had prepared." (§ 19.) 
 
 It appears from numerous testimonies that the charity of 
 christians, in the early ages, was employed in purchasing the 
 freedom of converted slaves. Says Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. 
 To sullcgomenon para to procstoti ephitithetai, kai autos 
 epikourei orphanois, kai cherais, kai tois en desmois ousi. — 
 And Tcrtullian, Apol. Hae quasi desposita pietatis sunt; nam 
 inde non epulis, nee potaculis dispensatur, sed egenis alendis, 
 humandisque et pueris et puellis, re ac parentibus destitutis. 
 Et si qui in metallis, et si qui in insulis, vel in custodiis, &c. 
 The sabbath collections were devoted, among other charitable 
 purposes, to redeeming christian slaves. To this Ignatius 
 alludes in his epistle to Polycarp, § 4, Doulous kai doulas, &c. 
 "Overlook not the men and maid servants; neither let them be 
 puffed up; but rather let them be the more subject to the glory 
 of God, that they may obtain from him a better liberty. Let 
 them not desire to be set free at the public cost," &c. (Archb. 
 Wake's Trans.) Says Clement, in his I Ep. to the Corinthians, 
 § 55, Epistamatha pollous, &c. We know how many among 
 ourselves have given up themselves unto bonds, that thereby 
 they might free others from them. Others have sold themselves 
 into bondage, that they might free their brethren, with the 
 price of themselves. Upon which Cotelerius notes. Ad horum 
 exemplum postea B. Paulinus Nolanus prassul subiit voluntariam 
 servitatem, ut hlium viduas liberaret; &c. — Such were the 
 principles, such the spirit, such the conduct of primitive chris- 
 tians. In the midst of churches inspired with such love to God 
 and to man, such unbounded benevolence, such hearty self 
 sacrifice, could members claim and hold their fellow-men, their 
 fellow-christians, as property, as chattels, articles of which they 
 might buy and sell at pleasure? We cannot believe it: and 
 upon this single argument we are willing to rest the whole 
 controversy relative to the apostolic churches. 
 
128 
 Proposition IV. The principles of the Bible condemn, 
 
 AND positively FORBID SLAVERY. 
 
 Having already protracted our remarks far beyond our origi- 
 nal intention, we shall forbear any extended comment on the 
 passages adduced under this head. At another time, we may 
 perhaps endeavor to do t^iem more justice. 
 
 1. God ""is the original owner of all that exists. Every thing 
 is his by right of creation. Having created all the other works 
 of his hands, belonging to this earth, last of all Jehovah made 
 man out of the dust, to be the lord of this lower world. "And 
 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: 
 and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over 
 the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, 
 and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." 
 (Gen. i. 26, comp. verse 28-30.) Compare the grant to Noah 
 and his posterity, (ix. 2;) and Ps, viii. G-8. Here we have 
 the original title deed, by which, only, man can claim a right of 
 property in any thing. The child of God, he has inherited, by 
 will, this noble patrimony. But in this d«ed. 
 
 He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl, 
 
 Dominion absolute; that right we hold 
 
 By his donation; but man over man 
 
 He made not lord: such title to himself 
 
 Reserving, human left from human free. 
 We no where find that God has given the Saxon a right of 
 property in the Indian and African; the white, in the black; the 
 rich and powerful, in the poor and defenceless. God only is 
 the lawful despotes; not a slave-holder, but a Being possessed of 
 unlimited authority over all creatures, animate and inanimate, 
 rational and irrational. The human despotes, the true slave 
 holder, 
 
 to himself assuming 
 
 Authority usurped from God not given, 
 
 claims a title and a power which can belong only to the Creator. 
 He is a stronger brother, who dissatisfied with "the portion that 
 falleth to him," seizes his own brethren, and adds not onl}' their 
 portion, but themselves, to his estate. Does the Father approve 
 €uch conduct? 
 
 When the Constitution of the United States gives to Con- 
 gress certain specified powers, it clearly withholds all other, not 
 
129 
 
 specified. When God gives us a right of property in inani- 
 mate and irrational creatures, he evidently declares that we 
 have no right of property in each other. 
 
 2. The Bible unequivocally asserts the natural equality of 
 men. It tells us that we are descendants of a common father; 
 placed under the same great law of moral obligation ; responsi- 
 ble to the same judge; hastening to be tried at one awful 
 tribunal. In the oldest book of the Bible, Job, who, as our 
 modern Doctors assure us, was a slave-holder, recognises this 
 equality. "If I did despise the cause of my man-servant or of 
 my maid-servant, when they contended with me; what then 
 shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what 
 shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb 
 make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?" (xxxi. 15.) 
 "Hg,ve we not all one Father," asks Malachi; "hath not one God 
 created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against 
 his brother," &c. (ii. 10.) And Paul says, "God hath made of 
 one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the 
 earth." (Ac. xvii. 26.) — Now this principle of the unity, the 
 brotherhood of the race, utterly forbids one man to call another 
 his property. 
 
 3. The great law of love, and the golden rule, lay the axe at 
 the root of slavery. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
 THYSELF." (Lev. xix. 18.) Compare the Saviour's comment, 
 Lu. X. 25-37. — "Therefore all things whatsoever ye 
 
 WOULD THAT MEN SHOULD DO TO YOU, DO YE EVEN SO TO 
 
 them: for this is the law and the PROPHETS." (Mat. vii. 
 12.) — The apostle's command, "If thou mayest be made free, 
 use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21,) implies that freedom is a better 
 a more desirable state, than slavery. It therefore lays the 
 the christian master under obligation to place his slave in that 
 preferable condition. By the way, what a lofty, magnanimous, 
 and truly heroic sentiment is that of Dr. Junkin's, (p. 34.) 
 ^'American slavery is better than British freedom.'''' Notliing ad 
 captandum^ there, reader! It is the eloquent out-pouring of a 
 noble soul, boldly declaring its preference of "Ao^ and hom- 
 miny^'' to mere physical, intellectual and moral liberty! Happy 
 the University over whose destiny presides a man capable of 
 uch lofty aspirations! 17 
 
130 
 
 4. The right of servants to wages is repeatedly asserted, 
 both in the Old and New Testament. Compare Jer. xxii. 13, 
 Col. iv. 1, Jas. V. 1-4. But this right necessarily precludes 
 the right of property. Dr. J. and his fellows may quibble as 
 they please; they may cite Prof. Ycthake to prove that "just 
 and equal" means food and clothing: but a grain of common 
 sense will explode them and their logic, and convince us that 
 this law of Christ requires every master to give his laborers a 
 fair compensation. Common sense decides that the servant's right 
 to wages is founded upon his right to himself which cannot co-exist 
 with another''s absolute right of property in him. Nor does the 
 amount of wages depend upon the master's pleasure. Common 
 equity tells us that "tV takes two to make a bargain."*^ 
 
 5. We have already sufficiently shown that the servitude 
 permitted by the Bible, does not interfere with these great 
 principles which annihilate the foundation claim of the slave 
 holder. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Just as the preceding pages were prepared for the press, we 
 received the following communication from the venerable Dr. 
 Bishop, which, with the accompanying letter, we here present 
 to the public. 
 
 My Dear Friend: 
 
 I make free to forward you a few of my Christmas 
 thoughts on the Eight hours speech. If it is agreeable to you, and 
 if you shall be convinced that it will be of any service, either to 
 you, or the good cause, you may have them printed and published 
 in the form in which they now stand, at the close of your full 
 and particular reply * * * * Provided we have come to the same 
 result, it may be a benefit to the cause, with some minds, to see 
 that the very same conclusions may be obtained by a somewhat 
 different arrangement, or different mode of reasoning. * * * * 
 * * * * May the Lord bless and direct and support you. 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 R. H. BISHOP. 
 
 Oxford, Ohio, Dec. 26th, 1843. 
 
 SUMMARY REVIEW. 
 
 Doctor Junkin's late pamphlet, of 79 pages, demands some 
 attention; for — 
 
 I. A publication of this kind must be very acceptable to 
 the many, both within and without the visible church, whose 
 consciences are somewhat awakened as to the inconsistency 
 of American slavery with christian character, and christian 
 standing. 
 
 II. The form in which the argument is presented, is exceed- 
 ingly plausible; and yet, 
 
 III. The whole argument, from beginning to end, is decep- 
 tive: — only fallacy upon fallacy. 
 
132 
 
 SPECIFICATIONS. 
 
 I. The title of the pamphlet is a deception. It assumes 
 that all who are in any way opposed to American slavery, are 
 opposed, of course, to the union, and peace, and prosperity, and 
 existence of these United States. This is far from being matter 
 of fact. 
 
 II. There is a deception in the use of the terms tolerate and 
 toleration^ as used in the title page and elsewhere. These terms, 
 when connected with law and government, must always, when 
 they mean any thing, mean that the persons or things enjoying 
 the benefit of toleration, arc more or less under the protection 
 of law and government, as something that is good, and not 
 evil. 
 
 III. The facts, as stated in the case of Joseph, furnish a 
 good argument in behalf of American slaveholders. They 
 stand thus: Joseph's brethren stole him, as they had no legal or 
 moral right to dispose of him in the manner they did: but the 
 Ishmaelites, and Potiphar, gave a fair market price for him; 
 therefore their title in him, as their property, was good ! 
 
 IV. The argument to prove that Abraham was a large 
 slaveholder, is from its very nature, only a shadow. Mere 
 verbal criticism must, in all cases, be very inconclusive reason- 
 ing, as to historical matter of fact. 
 
 V. No satisfactory proof can be offered that Hagar was a 
 slave, in the modern sense of that term. All that can ever be 
 known from the history, as it stands, is: — that Hagar was for a 
 period of some 14 or 15 years a member of Abraham's family, 
 in a dependent situation; and that on one occasion, and that 
 under very peculiar circumstances, she was, for a few months, 
 very ill-used hoth by Sarah and Abraham. 
 
 YI. It is roundly asserted that Jacob and his family had 
 slaves when they went down into Egypt, and that they were 
 deprived of them by their task-masters, when they themselves 
 were reduced to personal slavery. All the facts upon record, 
 in the history of Jacob, are in direct opposition to this asser- 
 tion. 
 
 1. Laban having hotly pursued Jacob as a runaway, for 
 seven days, and having at last overtaken him, did not, among all 
 
i 133 
 
 his omer accusations, charge him with having carried away any 
 of his servants or slaves. 
 
 2. Jacob's children, by his two handmaids, are everywhere 
 spoken of, so far as birth and standing are concerned, as on a 
 perfect equality with his children by Rachel and Leah. 
 
 3. Hamor and Shechem, in giving an inventory of what 
 they and their tribe would gain, by having Jacob's family incor- 
 porated with themselves, make no mention of servants, either 
 male or female. 
 
 4. In all the after movements of Jacob and his family, no 
 mention is made of servants. Jacob, like an Ohio farmer with 
 a large family, appears uniformly to have made his sons and his 
 grand-sons attend personally to their own work, and to his work, 
 as he himself had done from his boyhood. 
 
 5. In the whole story of Joseph there is no mention made 
 of servants;/ and when the famine brought the ten sons, once 
 and again to Egypt, to buy corn, they had no servants attending 
 theiji. Nor had they any slave, either young or old, to bring to 
 the Egyptian slave-market. They brought money in their hand 
 to give in exchange for corn. 
 
 G. We have, in the xlvi. chapter of Genesis, the names and 
 the number of Jacob's family when they entered Egypt: but no 
 mention is made of servants of any kind. Nor in Jacob's last 
 will and testament, given in full in chapter xlvii. do we find any 
 servants belonging to the estate, to be divided as a blessing 
 among the sons and grand-sons. 
 
 VII. The whole of the argument in support of Proposidon 
 lY., is, from its very nature, fallacious, because it is an attempt 
 to establish an historical fact, by mere verbal criticism; and 
 because, also, in that criticism, there is contained a gross viola- 
 tion of a common sense rule; viz: that the exact meaning of 
 any verb, must always be determined by the nature of the noun 
 which it governs. Thus, the President of the United States, 
 and Queen Victoria, both possess the supreme authority in 
 their respective countries ; but the Queen also inherits her 
 possessions. The one possesses for life; the other only for a 
 very hmited period. And yet each is invested, for the time 
 being, with nearly equal power; and in both cases, the most 
 
134 
 
 of the sovereign rights which they possess and exercise, arc 
 inalienable. Again, a mechanic may possess his shop on rent, 
 and his tools and a large portion of his custom by inheritance. 
 His tools are always at his own disposal, unless in the hands of 
 the sheriff; but his custom depends upon a thousand contingen- 
 cies, over which he has very little control. Hence it follows, 
 that the real situation of the bond-men among Jews can never 
 be ascertained by mere verbal criticism. But, whatever was 
 the nature of the servitude of that portion of their bond-men 
 who were originally from the heathen, it is evident that their 
 situation was essentially different from that of those who were 
 slaves in other nations. 
 
 1. Their bond-men were very soon so incorporated into the 
 families to which they belonged, as to be perfectly at home. — 
 Hence, 
 
 2. In no period of Jewish history, do we hear o/ any dread 
 of danger from tbis class of the population; as there was con- 
 tinually from the slave population of such places as Sparta, and 
 Rome, and Italy. 
 
 3. A large portion of the history of the Jews, as well as 
 many of their judicial arrangements, were typical of the 
 developement of the great plan of salvation, in New Testament 
 days. Hagar, the Egyptian bondage and deliverance, the 
 Jubilee, the cities of refuge, &c. &c., are specimens of this. 
 Hence, it is highly probable that all the arrangements respecting 
 bond-men from the Gentiles, were of tbis nature. 
 
 4. It is extremely probable, that the term forever, in the 
 law respecting Gentile bond-men, did not qualify the possession 
 of individuals, but the continuance of the system, till the end of 
 the Old Testament dispensation. We have no evidence that 
 hereditary servitude existed in any form among the Jews, unless 
 in the case of the priesthood. Even when children were taken 
 to satisfy the debt of the father, the servitude must have ended 
 when the debt was extinct; and in every case, of course, the 
 personal servitude of any individual ceased, when he was taken 
 out of the hand of the creditor by death. 
 
 The argument in support of Proposition IV, closes with a 
 flagrant fallacy in the application of Isa. xiv. 2, to the subject. 
 If this and similar passages from the Old Testament prophecies 
 are figurative, their application in support of American slavery 
 is illogical, because it is using terms in two different senses in 
 the same argument: and, on the other hand, if they are to be 
 understood and applied literally, then all the Gentiles will, in 
 the days of millenial glory, be reduced under the Jews to a state 
 of domestic slavery, such as we have in these States! 
 
 Hence, every just view which can be taken of Jewish bond- 
 men, will lead to the conclusion, that there is nothing in the 
 
135 
 
 whole arrangement which can furnish any warrant or authority 
 for such a system of servitude as American slavery has been, and 
 is, and ever must be, wliilc it exists. The system is necessarily 
 a moral evil, in direct and open opposition to the authority of 
 God, and to all social and moral relations. 
 
 VIII. The argument from the fourth and tenth command- 
 ments, is a mere begging the question at issue. It assumes 
 without any proof, and even in the face of opposite proof, 
 direct and plain, that there was no kind of servitude among 
 the Jews, but that of slavery in the modern sense of the term. 
 Nay, more; if this argument is good for any thing, it proves 
 equally, that so far as men-servants and maid-servants are 
 concerned, these commandments were made and ordained and 
 published, only for the slave-holder and his slaves. 
 
 IX. In the argument from the meaning and application of 
 the Greek word, doidos^ in proof of Proposition VI., there are 
 at least these fallacies. 
 
 1. In a large portion of the passages referred to, these terms 
 are used figuratively, while the question at issue is about an 
 historical fact. Hence, the argument contains^ another ^ gross 
 violation of a common sense rule of logic; viz: that in all 
 reasoning, whether mathematical or moral, every term used 
 must be used in exactly the same sense, in every part of the 
 argument. But, 
 
 "2. Even admitting the correctness of all the criticism 
 employed, the whole of the figurative applications of these 
 terms, in the passages referred to, are only illustrations of some 
 abstract doctrine respecting the state, or character, or privileges, 
 or punishments of saints, or sinners. But an illustration, howev- 
 er clear or proper, is no logical argument, any more than a 
 witticism or a pun is. The question before us is not about the 
 propriety or force of a rhetorical illustration. It is a plain 
 matter of fact question; viz: Did our Lord, or his apostles, or 
 did any members of the first christian churches, buy or sell or 
 hold human beings as chattels, as many who are now called 
 christians do, in America? Hence, the whole of what is 
 advanced under that head is irrelevant, and a deception: — the 
 very point at issue is misunderstood. 
 
 X. So far as argument is concerned, all the facts stated 
 respecting the extent, and universality, and evils of slavery in 
 the Roman Empire, and throughout the world, in the days of 
 the apostles and their coadjutors in preaching the gospel, and 
 in estabHshing churches among the Gentiles, may be admitted; 
 and yet the question at issue be just where it was. The ques- 
 tion is not. What was the state of morals and religion in the 
 Roman Empire, or in the Pagan world, in the days of the 
 apostles? — but the question is. What was the character of the 
 
13G 
 
 churches organised by these men, at this period? Were any 
 of the churches formed by the apostles, slave-holding churches, 
 such as we have in America? It falls upon those who are in 
 the opposition, to give us direct and positive proof that there 
 were at this period such churches, and such members. The 
 prabability is strong, that there were, at that period, and for 
 many generations after, no such churches, and no such members. 
 
 1. The whole tenor and tendency of every thing belonging 
 to the gospel, and to christian institutions, are in direct opposi- 
 tion to almost every thing connected with American slavery. 
 
 2. The apostles gave and enforced directions, plain and 
 exphcit, to believing masters, — the kurioi\ — and to believing 
 servants: but they never addressed, directly, unbelieving 
 masters, — the dcspotai, — or unbelieving servants. 
 
 3. The duties to their servants, whether believing or unbeliev- 
 ing, directly enjoined upon believing masters, are of such a 
 nature, that, if they were punctually and faithfully performed, 
 they would naturally abolish slavery in every christian family, 
 in less than one generation. These duties and directions are 
 still enjoined and addressed, by the same authority, to every 
 christian church, and to every christian man; and if they were 
 understood, and honestly attended to, the results would be just 
 what they were in the apostolic days. 
 
 4. It will not be easy to prove, that either the Roman law, 
 or the Roman government, ever threw any obstacle in the way 
 of masters manumitting their slaves. 
 
 5. There were, in early periods, christian men and christian 
 churches, who were distinguished for purchasing slaves, that 
 they might be restored to a state of freedom. 
 
 6. A bull from ''his holiness*' the Pope, in 1539, was neces- 
 sary to sanctify the traffic in African and heathen slaves, then 
 first carried on by the Portuguese. This is strong presumptive 
 evidence that the*^ristian church, as a body, had no connect- 
 ion with slavery, previous to that period: nor is there any 
 evidence that the form in which slavery exists in America was 
 attempted to be defended by scripture, previous to that papal 
 edict. His present holiness at Rome has issued another bull on 
 the same subject; but of entirely different character. This is 
 one of the remarkable facts in the history of the present day: 
 and may we not begin to hope that the Protestant churches of 
 every name, and every Protestant man, will unite heartily with 
 the Roman Catholics, in this great and good work; and that the 
 whole christian community will be speedily rid of every relic of 
 this evil, — this enormous and highly aggravated sin. 
 
 lil* 
 
LEJa'12 
 

 
 
 
 
 :^'iv>' 
 
 
 
 0' 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 WW - V^'^. 
 
 
 s- 
 
 
 • ^^ 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 0' 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 4 c 
 
 ^^-^^J 
 
 
 

 
 "o k" ;^v^ 
 
 ^^-^^^ 
 
 ^0 ^P;, "•'^* .V °^ »"<' A^ V. "^ .<J>^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^. '* 
 
 .^q. 
 
 
 i' , 
 
 
 'vPS' 
 
 
 wv 
 
 ■p 
 
 
 
 
 
 W3/jr N. MANCHESTER, 
 • ■ INDIANA 46962 
 
 
 '***/r^. *- ^,<>