.^^91 
 
 /f^ 
 
E 449 
 .F291 
 
 Copy 1 THE 
 
 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING 
 
 SHOWN BY APPEALS TO 
 
 REASON AND SCRIPTURE 
 
 BY JOHN G. FEE, 
 
 MINISTER OF THE GOSPF.I, IN KENTUCKY. 
 
 NEW- YORK ; 
 PRESfTED RY .JOHN A. GRAY, 79 FULTON, COR. GOLD STREET. 
 
 1851. 
 


 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 SLAVERY SINFUL IN ITSELF 
 
 To some of our readers this proposition may seem self-evi- 
 dent, and a set argument unnecessary ; for if liberty be right, 
 slavery is wrong. But when we remember that throughout 
 the South, the people do not seem to realize its truth; that 
 very many of the clergy maintain that it is right and sanc- 
 tioned by the Bible ; and that ninety-nine hundredths of the 
 Christian ministry in our land claim that it is at least toler- 
 ated by the Bible ; that on the floor of that Convention* which 
 met in our own Statfe last spring, to devise plans for the abo- 
 lition of slavery, it was claimed, by many of the most influ- 
 ential minds, that slavery is not sinful in itself; the reader 
 will see that argument is necessary. If these ministers, and 
 other leading minds, do not know better, they need to be con- 
 vinced. If they do know better, acting as they do, they 
 should be nailed to the wall ; and brief arguments should 
 be put into the hands of the people, by which thus to nail 
 them. 
 
 Again, in all moral reforms, it is essentially necessary tliat 
 we get hold of that greatest of all levers — conscience. This 
 done, the cause will move on, surmounting all difliculties. 
 
 * The Convention alluded to is that which met in Frankfort, Ky. 
 April 25, 1849 
 
 ) 
 
4 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEnOLDING. 
 
 If then we can show that slavery is sinful, and endangers 
 the soul's interests of those practising it, and those winking at 
 it, we may exj^ect that the people will act speedily and effi- 
 ciently ; " for all that a man hath will he give for his life." 
 
 And it is a fact happily confirming the foregoing, that the 
 large mass of those in our State, now struggling for the free- 
 dom of the slave, are moral and rehgious men. Conscience 
 is at the bottom of the move, and conscience we need more 
 fully to enlist. 
 
 Also, as the Christian Church in our land has a controlling 
 influence in modelling the public sentiment and laws of the 
 land, either for good or for evil, it is all-important that her 
 action should be right on this subject. And as she is de- 
 signed to be the salt of the land, to purify it from its vices, 
 it is high time that she was up and doing. 
 
 It should be stated here, moreover, that it properly belongs 
 to the slaveholder to prove that his course is justifiable, and 
 not to anti-slavery men to prove its sinfulness. And that for 
 two reasons : 1st. Slaveiy is a restriction, to say the least, and 
 all restrictions in society require justification. 2d. The civil- 
 ized world regard it as being wrong. 
 
 For both these reasons, the presumption is so strong 
 against slavery, that we should be jiistitied in condemning 
 those who uphold it, imless they can prove it to be right. 
 With strict propriety, therefore, we might confine our atten- 
 tion to proving that the arguments by which they attempt to 
 justify it are unsound. But in order to produce full convic- 
 tion, and that conscience may be fully aroused, we shall at- 
 tempt to show not only the fallacy of their arguments, but also 
 the positive proof that slavery is sinful. 
 
 SLAVERY SINFUL. 
 
 Slavery is not mere bond-service, as that of an ap])rentice, 
 or child bound to a guardian until of adult age. Nor is it, 
 as Paley defines, mere " obligation to do service for another," 
 as of a child to a parent up to adult age — as of one who 
 contracts to serve for a certain sum, up to a given time — as of 
 a citizen who, by constitutional compact, may be required to 
 serve as a soldier or juror : each of these is obligation to do 
 service, but not slavery. Slavery is that relation in which 
 
NATURAL RIGHTS, 5 
 
 one human being is, without his or her consent, made the 
 property of another or other human beings.* 
 
 That this reUition is sinful, is manifest from the following 
 considerations : 
 
 1. Those facts and arguments proving that the reader, or 
 any one human being, has a right to liberty, prove that all 
 other persons, not criminals, have a right to liberty. 
 
 The fact that one man, or race of men, may have more in- 
 tellectual capacity than another man, or race of men, gives 
 no just ground for enslaving the inferior ; otherwise the most 
 intellectual man that exists may have a right to enslave every 
 other man — white and black. 
 
 Nor does the fact that one man has a darker skin, thicker 
 hp, flatter nose, or more knappy hair than another, give a 
 sufBcient and just cause why he should be enslaved ; other- 
 wise he who has a fairer skin, thinner lip, sharper nose, or 
 straighter hair than you or I, may have a right to enslave 
 us ; and the fairest man in the world may enslave every 
 other man. 
 
 Again, bj'' common consent, as right, there are colored 
 men — negroes, who, in the South as well as the North, are 
 fi'ee men, having, by protection of law, personal ownershij?, 
 proceeds of their labor, and other natural rights. 
 
 Then by common consent a black skin, and all the features 
 of the negro, do not of themselves constitute a reason why a 
 man should be enslaved. 
 
 Again, the larger portion of the human family are colored. 
 Is the large majority to be enslaved by the minority, because 
 climate and other local causes have given them a darker com- 
 plexion than that of the few pale faces ?f What presumption ! 
 And yet we often hear it, and that, too, in high 2)laces. 
 
 * That only is a definition which clistiiiguishes the thing or relation 
 defined, from eveiy other thing or relation. 
 
 f The following article is found in the Millennial HaiLinger for May, 
 1850, published by Alexander Campbell, Bethany, Va. : — 
 
 "TuE Different Color of the Jews. — Although the Jew becomes 
 the subject of every form of government, from the autocracy of Russia 
 to the clemocracy of America, he retains his theocratic creed. Neither 
 barbarism the most rude, nor civilization the most refined, has suc- 
 ceeded in altering his peculiar countenance ; for in the back-woods of 
 the New World, and at the court of the British sovereign, he is instant- 
 ly known. Time, that changes all things else, seems to stay his rough 
 hand when he approaches tlie Jew. Compare his lineaments, sculp- 
 t ured in marble and cast in bronze — for the arch and medal of Titus 
 
6 SINFULNESS OK SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 2. In a state of nature, before governments are formed, 
 man, universal man, owns himself — has a right to liberty. 
 Now, whatever violates nature's order must be sinful. 
 
 Noi does man lose his right to liberty by becoming a mem- 
 ber of an organized society. lie has no right to barter it 
 away, and society has no divine light to take it from him — 
 panderers to despotism, in our own State, from a foreign 
 land, to the contrary notwithstanding. [We refer to such 
 men as President Shannon.] 
 
 The province of human government is to protect — not to 
 destroy man's natural rights, but more perfectly secure them 
 to him, as may be shown from the best of authorities ; (which 
 authorities show also that slavery is sinful.) 
 
 The tVamers of our Dechiratiou of Independence said : 
 " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
 created equal, and have certain inalienable rights ; among 
 these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure 
 these rights [not destroy them] governments are formed, 
 deriving their ^ms^ powers from the consent of the governed.^'' 
 
 still exist — with thope of the living Jew, and be convinced of his un- 
 changeableness. This permanence of physiognomy is evidently trace- 
 able to a supernatural cause, which prevents tlie usual modification of 
 features, in order to accomplish an important object. Into this it is not 
 our province now to enter, yet we cannot help remarking that the 
 Jew is a witness, not of one truth, but of many truths. Marvellously 
 does he illustrate the consistency of the original unity of man with 
 the most extensive diversity. His features have been cast in an 
 eternal mould, but his color is dependent on outward causes. JN^atural 
 law is forbidden to operate on the one, but left to take its course with 
 the other. A fixed physiognomy declares the unity of the people, 
 while their diversity of complexion as distinctly manifests the influ- 
 ence of the climate. Every shade of color clothes with its livery the 
 body of the Jew, from the jet-black of the Hindoo to the ruddy white 
 of the Saxon. The original inhabitant of Palestine was doubtless 
 dusky-skinned and dark-haired, but the cooler sky and more temperate 
 air of Poland and Germany have substituted a fair complexion and 
 light hair. On the other hand, the scorching sun of India has curled 
 and crisped his hair, and blackened his skin, so that his features alone 
 distinguish him physically from the native Hindoo. On the Malabar 
 coast of Hindostan are two colonies of Jews — an old and young colony 
 — separated by color. The elder colony are black, and the younger 
 (dwelling in a town called Mattacheri) comparatively fair, so as to 
 have obtained the name of the ' White Jews.' The difference is 
 satisfactorily accounted for by the former having been subjected to 
 the influence of the climate for a much longer time than the latter." — 
 Quarterly Review. 
 
OPINIONS OF DISTINGUISHED MEN. / 
 
 Thus recogniziug the fact that man in a state of nature owns 
 himself; and in entering society he loses not these natural 
 rights, but has a right to their exercise on his own part, and 
 protection of them from others. 
 
 Blackstoue, the most distinguished writer on English law, 
 and whose works are text-books in American jurisprudence, 
 says, " Those rights which God and nature have established, 
 and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and hberty, 
 need no aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in 
 every ma7i than they are ; and no human legislature has 
 power to abridge or destroy them.'''' 
 
 Again, speaking. of these natural and absolute rights, he 
 says : " The primary object of law is to maintain and regulate 
 these absolute rights. When, therefore, human laws or gov- 
 ernments attempt to take away the natural rights of an unof- 
 fending person, they violate the very end for which they were 
 formed ; they attempt that wliich they have no right to do." 
 Blackstone, speaking of those things intrinsically wrong, says : 
 "The declaratory part of municipal law has no force or opera- 
 tion at all." It is of no authority when it violates natural 
 right. For, as he says : "Ijpon the law of nature and reve- 
 Jation all human laws depend. And no human law should 
 he suffered to contradict them ; and should any human laws 
 alloiv or enjoin us to commit a violation of the laws of nature 
 or of revelation, we are bound to violate human law, or else 
 violate both the natural and revealed law." Every innocent 
 man has a right to Hberty now, and no human law may 
 deprive him of it. 
 
 If Indians, or Africans, or any other body of men, white or 
 61ack, should pass laws that the reader, with his family, should 
 be held as slaves, and should actually by force of numbere 
 oubjugate him, and hold his posterity after him as slaves, 
 would he feel for a moment that they had a right to do it? 
 No! Every man is bound to know that slavery is sinful. 
 
 Jefferson, speaking of slavery, says: "Can the liberties 
 of a nation be thought secure when we have removed the 
 only firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that 
 these liberties are the gift of God — that they are not to be 
 violated but with his wrath ? Indeed, I tremble for my coun- 
 try when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot 
 sleep for ever; that, considering numbers, nature, and natural 
 means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange 
 of situation, is among possible events ; that it may become 
 
O .sKVF(jLNE6.-S Ob' SLAVEHOLUING. 
 
 possible by supernatural interference. The Almighty has no 
 attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest." — 
 Notes on Virginia. 
 
 Washington. — " Your pui'chase of an estate in the colony 
 of Cayenne, with a view of emancipating the slaves on it, is a 
 generous and noble proof of your humanity. Would to God 
 a like spirit might difiuse itself generally into the minds of 
 the people of this country." — Letter to La FayettQ, 10th 
 May, 1786. 
 
 And Washington emancipated all his own slaves. 
 
 Monroe. — " We have found that this evil (slavery) has 
 preyed upon the very vitals of the community, and hjis been 
 prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed." — 
 Speech in Virginia Convention. 
 
 William Pinkney. — " It is really matter of astonishment 
 to me, that the people of Maryland do not blush at the very 
 name of freedom. Not content with exposing to the world, 
 for near a century, a speaking picture of abominable oppres- 
 sion, they are still ingenious to prevent the hand of generosity 
 from robbing it of half its horrors." — Speech on Slavery in 
 Maryland House of Delegates, 1*789. 
 
 Patrick Henry. — "It is a debt we owe the purity of our 
 religion, to show that it is at variance with that law which 
 warrants slavery." — Letter to A. Benezet. 
 
 John Randolph. — " Sir, I envy neither the head nor the 
 heart of that man, from the North, who rises here to defend 
 slavery from principle." — Speech in Congress, 1829. 
 
 Thomas J. Randolph. — " It is a practice, and an increasing 
 practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear slaves for market. 
 How can an honorable mind, a patriot and a lover of his 
 country, bear to see this Ancient Dominion converted into 
 one vast menagerie, where men are reared for market like 
 oxen for the shambles ?" — Speech in Virginia Legislature, 
 1832. 
 
 Henry Clay. — " I consider slavery a curse — a curse to the 
 master — a wrong, a grievous tvrong to the slave. In the ab- 
 stract it is all wrong, and no possible contingency can make 
 it right." — Found in a Speech delivered in 1839. His latt 
 letter to Mr. Pindell endorses the same statement. 
 
 Rev. R. J. Breckenridge, of Lexington, one of the most 
 respectable citizens of our State, a man of the first talents, 
 and a prominent minister in the Presbyterian Church, says : 
 " What is slavery as it exists among us ? We reply, it is 
 
OPINION IN A SLAVE STATE. 
 
 that condition enforced by the laws of one half of the States 
 of this confederacy, in which one portion of the community, 
 called masters, is allowed such power over another j^ortion 
 called slaves, as — 
 
 "1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of tlieirowu 
 labor, except only so much as is necessary to continue labor 
 itself, by continuing healthy existence — thus committing clear 
 robbery. 
 
 " 2, To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubin- 
 age, by denying to them the civil rights of marriage — thus 
 breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging 
 universal prostitution. 
 
 "3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of 
 moral and intellectual culture ; in many States making it a 
 high penal offense to teach them to read — thus perpetuating 
 whatever evil there is that proceeds from ignorance. 
 
 "4. To set up between parents and their children an 
 authority higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of 
 God, which breaks up the authority of the father over his 
 own offspring, and at pleasure separates the mother at a re- 
 turnless distance from her child — thus abrogating the clear 
 laws of nature, thus outraging all decency and justice, and 
 degrading and oppressing thousands upon thousands of beings 
 created like themselves in the image of the Most High God. 
 This is slavery, as it is daily exhibited in every slave State." 
 — African Repository, 1834. 
 
 Again he says : 
 
 " Out upon such folly ! The man who cannot see 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." 
 
 Again, in a meeting of the citizens of Fayette county, in 
 
 the court-house, Lexington, in the month of ,1849, 
 
 called to consider the question of the perpetuation of slavery 
 in this Commonwealth, and addressed by Heniy Clay and R. 
 J. Breckenridge, on motion of the latter, the following resolu- 
 tion was adopted : 
 
 " Resolved, That hereditary, domestic slavery, as it exists 
 among us, 
 
 "1. Ls hostile to the prosperity of the Commonwealth. 
 
 " 2. It is inconsistent with a state of sound morahty. 
 
 " 3. It is opposed to the fundamental principles of a free 
 government. 
 
10 sinfulness of slaveholding. 
 
 "4. It is contrary to the rights of mankind." 
 
 A short time previous, on the floor of the Convention 
 which met in Frankfort to devise plans for the aboHtion of 
 slavery, speaking of human rights, he said : "The dearest of 
 all rights to man is a right to himself; and it [slavery] is the 
 most atrocious of all evils." 
 
 This the writer heard and noted at the time. And those 
 who read his able address, as reported, saw similar senti- 
 ments. 
 
 The Synod of Kentucky, in that able address to the Pres- 
 byterians of Kentucky, issued in 1835, said: 
 
 " If slavery be sinful, our duty is to rid ourselves of all 
 participation in the sin which it involves, whether the colo- 
 nizing scheme shall prosper or fail. And that it is sinful is 
 as certain as that the hght of God's truth has shone upon our 
 world." 
 
 Can human testimony make ■ the case stronger ? And it 
 should be remembered that these are Southern men testify- 
 ing — men who cannot be charged with not knowing what 
 slavery is. 
 
 We might add a list of statesmen and divines from other 
 lands, still more numerous : but a few will suffice. 
 
 Adam Clark, in his Commentary, says : " In heathen coun- 
 tries slavery was in some sort excusable ; but among Christians 
 it is an enormity and a crime, for which j^erdition has scarcely 
 an adequate state of punishment." 
 
 John Wesley, speaking of the natural rights of the slave, 
 says : " Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon 
 as he breathes the air ; and no human creature can deprive 
 him of that right which he derives from the law of nature." 
 
 And in view of the fact that slavery deprives man of all his 
 aatural rights, he styles it " the sum of all villauies." 
 
 3. As the Bible is the highest authority, the standard of 
 right and wrong, and the final appeal, we prove that slavery 
 is sinful by its teaching. 
 
 As Milton has suggested, in the primitive grant given to 
 man, God gave him dominion over the fish of the sea, the 
 birds of the air, and the beasts of the field ; but over man he 
 gave not dominion — " man over man he made not lord." 
 
 God's deliverance of the children of Israel out of the hands 
 of the oppressor, in a manner so miraculous and terrific, is a 
 declaration of his abhorrence of the principle of oppression, 
 ioo clear ever to be misunderstood. Hence, immediately we 
 
ARGUMKNT FKOM IllK ULU TK.sTAMKNT. 1 1 
 
 diidtbe inspired lawgiver warning the people " not to oppress 
 the stranger" — those dwelling in the land they were about 
 to take possession of, as well as all other people not Jews. 
 " Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him ; for ye 
 were strangers in the land of Egypt. If thou afflict them in 
 anywise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their 
 (;ry ; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the 
 feword ; and your wives shall be widows, and your children 
 fatherless." All men know that to enslave is to oppress. 
 Afterward, when He gave more specific laws — a code for the 
 whole human family, the ten commandments — in the last one, 
 He guarded all of man's rights, by forbidding man to covet 
 any thing which is his neighbor's. Upon this we remark : 
 
 1. The M'ord neighbor,' as here used, means any one and 
 every one of the human family. This is the primary import 
 of the original Hebrew word, translated neighbor. Further, 
 we know the moral law was not given to protect the rights, 
 or to regulate the conduct of any one class of men towards 
 another, but to protect the rights and regulate the conduct of 
 ALL men. This will not be disputed. Therefore, the word 
 neighbor, as here used, means tuiy one and every one of the 
 human family. 
 
 2. The moi'al law, like every other law, comes not to con- 
 fer riffhts, but to lorotect rights already existing. It pre- 
 supposes that man, as man, has certain rights to be guarded, 
 not given by the Decalogue. 
 
 When the Decalogue was given, the Jews had no civil 
 laws to govern them. They had just come up out of Egypt, 
 and were an unorganized multitude in the wilderness at the 
 foot of Mount Sinai. Yet, when the Decalogue was given, 
 God recognized the fact that man, as man, has natural 
 rights existing prior to the giving of even the moral law 
 itself, and gave the law to protect rights already existing. 
 
 3. Among these rights is that of personal ownership, or 
 liberty. For the moral law, in protecting the right of per- 
 sonal security by the sixth command, the right of personal 
 chastity by the seventh, the right to the proceeds of his 
 labor by the eighth, and the right of character by the ninth, of 
 necessity in the tenth protects the right of personal owner- 
 ship ; for in this all other rights inhere, and cannot exist with- 
 out it. Therefore, to take away personal ownership of an in- 
 nocent man, or even to covet it, is a plain violation of the 
 moral law and, say? Jobri, "th." ■'^■ransgression of the law is 
 
12 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 sin." Therefore, slavery is sinful, for it violates the moral 
 law. 
 
 The error of Dr. Junkin, President Shannon, and many- 
 others, is in overlooking the truth that the moral law pre- 
 supposes and recognizes the right of every man to own him- 
 self; and was given to guard his rights, in common with 
 others, from encroachment by his neighbor. And then, as- 
 suming, as they do, that man has a right to rob his fellow- 
 man of his liberty, and that the word servant, as used in the 
 ten commandments, means slave, they come to the conclusion 
 that the tenth commandment recognizes the right of the 
 master to hold another human being as a slave — as property. 
 What chasms between premises and conclusions I 
 
 In the first place, as we shall show hereafter, the Hebrew 
 word n3jt![ is applied to all classes of servants in the Bible, 
 and the Hebrews could not, at the time the ten command- 
 ments were given, have held any slaves. They were just 
 emerging from the land of bondage themselves, and in no 
 condition to possess involuntary servants. 
 
 Again, even if some covetous man was then robbing his 
 fellow of personal ownership, and the text forbade his neigh- 
 bor to covet that slave, still this is no recognition of a mas- 
 ter's right to hold another man as a slave. For if my neigh- 
 bor has stolen a piece of cloth, it is wrong, a violation of the 
 command, for me to covet it, though he has no right to it. 
 To covet would be an injury to my own heart, and it is light 
 that I should be forbidden to exercise such desires, though 
 the robber's title be bad. 
 
 The moral law, then, as we have seen, condemns slavery. 
 
 But in the Old Testament we have not only general pre- 
 cepts, condemnatory of slavery, but also many specific pre- 
 cepts. 
 
 In the chapter following that in which the Decalogue is 
 found (Exod. xxi. 16), we find a statute, or precept, most 
 sacredly guarding the liberty of man as man. " He that 
 stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his 
 hands, he shall surely be put to death." Doe? any one say 
 this passage means that one riian shall not steal the servant 
 or slave of another mai> ? We answer ; 
 
 1. Then the text would have been written, "He that steal- 
 eth the servant or slave of another man shall be put to death." 
 It is iiot so written, byt forbids stealing any man. 
 
 2. The IJebrew woid which is here translated stealeth, ia 
 
AKCa'ME.NT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 13 
 
 such as is used to designate the robbery of liberty — kidnap- 
 ping. Thus, Joseph, using the same word, say?^, " I indeed 
 was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews." Gen. xl. 15. 
 
 3. Had the text been simply designed to guard the prop- 
 erty tenure of the master, then the statute would have re- 
 quired a property punishment as an atonement. It was a 
 principle in the Jewish law, that when ■pioperty was taken, 
 the thief should return an increased amount of property ; and 
 if he had not property, then he was to be sold until his ser- 
 vices would pay the amount. No such penalty is here affixed. 
 But as the crime was that of robbing a man of his liberty, 
 and as liberty was, and is, a right dear as life, the same pen- 
 alty was affixed as that for taking life. 
 
 Do you say, though the Jew might not seize a free man 
 and rob him of his hberty, yet he might buy from others 
 those who had been robbed of their liberty ? We answer : 
 The statute as really forbade slaveholding as it did slave- 
 making. Not only he that stealeth a man, but if the stolen 
 man " h& found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." 
 And every pereon can see that there was consistency in this. 
 Suppose Moses had passed a law forbidding horse-stealing, 
 and then another allowing the Jew to buy those that they 
 knew were stolen, would it not have been a glaring inconsist- 
 ency, bringing a reproach upon the law and its author, in the 
 eye of the w'hole world? Reader, in your haste to defend 
 despotism, do not charge God with folly. 
 
 Again, God caused another statute to be written : " 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, 16. 
 
 Some interpret this command as applying only to the 
 slaves of foreigners. But if so, the principle is the same, and 
 forbids oppression, or assisting to oppress. 
 
 Again, that assurance might be doubly sure, God estab- 
 lished not only precepts, but national customs, securing lib- 
 erty to all men. " Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and pro- 
 claim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants 
 thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; ;ind ye shall return 
 every man unto his possession, and ye shall return ever\ man 
 unto his family." Lev. xxv. 10. By this statute and national 
 custom all the tendencies to oppression, and possibilities of 
 
M SINFCLNE^t^ OF SLAVKIIOLUING. 
 
 slavery, were broken up. If a Jew or a Gentile were even 
 disposed, they could not sell their service for a longer period 
 than to the jubilee. Never was a nation of people more sedu- 
 lously guarded against the sin of slavery. And this is just 
 what, from the history of the nation, we wou-ld expect. God 
 had just dehvered them from the galling yoke of oppression, 
 and awfully punished the Egyptians for the sin ; and God, 
 who loved his people, guarded them from a like sin and ca- 
 lamity. 
 
 Nations, however, like individuals, sometimes forget the 
 pit from whence they have been digged, break their whole- 
 some laws, and commit outrages on others. So did the Jews 
 in after years. And then we hear God crying, by the mouth 
 of his prophet : " Wo unto him that buildeth his house by 
 unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong '. that useth his 
 neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his 
 work." Jer. xxii. 13. Slavery takes from man his work, with- 
 out giving him an equivalent. God forbids this elem.ent of 
 slavery also. Again, we find this same people had actually 
 brought into involuntary bondage their fellow^-beings. God 
 declares such conduct to be contrary to his commands, and 
 punishes the Jews for the sin, by sending them away into 
 bondage to the Babylonians, that they might learn the sin- 
 fulness of slavery. "^Therefore, thus saith the Lord : Ye have 
 not hearkened unto me in proclaiming liberty, every one to 
 his brother and every man to his neighbor ; behold, I pro- 
 claim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the 
 pestilence, and to the famine ; and I will make you to be re- 
 moved into all the kingdoms of the earth." Jer. xxxiv. 1*7. At 
 another time we find the Jews lamenting the absence of God's 
 blessing, and, hke many of tliis land, fasting and praying ; 
 yet, " smiting with the fist of wickedness," persisting in the 
 enslavement of their fellow-men. God withholds his blessing 
 from them, and tells them that justice and mercy are far more 
 estimable in his sight than these hypocritical shows, or reli- 
 gious ceremonies, without a right state of heart. Eead Isaiah 
 Iviii. 1-6. "Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose 
 the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let 
 the oppressed go free, and that ye break eve-ry yoke ?" No- 
 thing could more clearly show God's abhorrence of the sin of 
 slavery and his approval of freedom. 
 
 Do you say these last cases cited had reference to the en- 
 lavement of Jews ? We ansirer : 
 
ARGUMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. .& 
 
 (1.) Doubtless God would have been as much displeased 
 had the Jews enslaved any other people thaii their brethren, 
 for the rights of one man are as sacred in his sight as the 
 rights of any other man. 
 
 (2.) The gospel tells us the partition wall is broken down — 
 hat there is no difference between Jew and Gentile — that 
 God is no respecter of persons — that he, too, is unchangeable ; 
 and, therefore, if it was wrong for Jew to oppress Jew, it is 
 now equally wrong for any human being to oppress any other 
 human being. 
 
 Do you now say there are other passages which seem to 
 sanction the principle of slavery ? We remark : 
 
 (1.) Ninety-nine hundredths of Bible-readers will admit 
 that the foregoing passages show the general ^jmir^j^/es of 
 the Bible — Justice and Mercy ; and are in accordance with 
 the general tenor of its teachino- in historical incident. 
 
 (2.) A correct rule of interpretation, as is universally ad- 
 mitted, requires that no author be made to contradict himself, 
 and no isolated passages be so construed as to contradict clear 
 and well-defined principles laid down by that author. 
 
 (3.) That when words or isolated passages are susceptible 
 yt two constructions, we must choose that construction which 
 harmonizes best with principles previously laid down. 
 
 Now, the passages you will cite are susceptible of two con- 
 structions — one which you will put on, and one which we 
 shall. And that construction which harmonizes best with the 
 principles which we have seen are laid down in the Bible — 
 that construction must be the correct one. 
 
 Do you begin by saying the Bible declares Canaan was to 
 be " a servant of servants imto his brethren ?'* (Gen, ix. 25.) 
 We answer : 
 
 1. The fulfillment of a prophecy is no justification of those 
 who fulfill it, else the Ishmaelites whose hand was against every 
 man and every man's hand against them, Judas, who betrayed 
 Christ, and the Jews who crucified him, were innocent; for 
 these events were foretold. 
 
 2. The prophecy has had its fulfilment by othes nations 
 long since. 
 
 3. The people whom we are enslaving are not Canaanitiss, 
 The Canaanites were Asiatics, a little tawny, with straight hair, 
 different features and difierent language from those of the peo- 
 ple of Western Africa, from whence our slaves were obtained. 
 The Canaanites were the enterprising men, the shipbuild- 
 
16 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 
 
 crs, the traders and merchants of their agp, as the Sido-riians 
 and Tyrians. They settled the land of Canaan and the is- 
 lands of the Mediterranean. A colony went to Carthage. 
 Tiiese, as historians tell us, had straight hair. 
 
 Phut settled in Afi-ica, and his posterity aud Some o{ the 
 posterity of Cash, as RoUin tells us, migrated westward, and 
 they doubtless were the progenitors of our slaves, but on 
 them no prophetic malediction rested. For the carse was 
 to be upon Canaan, not upon Ham. All the talk we have 
 about the word Ham meaning black, and made so by the 
 curse of the Almighty, is not only without proof — mere as- 
 sertion — but is futile, because Ham is not the person cursed, 
 but Canaan. And then the pro-slavery men affirming, it 
 devolves upon them to prove that these slaves we have are 
 descendants of Canaan. This cannot be done. The oppo- 
 site is easily shown, as above alluded to. 
 
 Do you again bring up Gen. xvii. 12, and say Abraham 
 bought children with his money, and that he held these as 
 slaves, as property, in involuntary servitude ? (for this only is 
 slavery.) We answer: 1. If such were actually bought, we 
 know from the same passage, and other passages, that these 
 children were to be circumcised, and that no male person, 
 uncircumcised, young or old, could be a member of the fam- 
 ilies of the patriarchs. " Thus they were admitted to all the 
 privileges of the Lord." — Watson. 
 
 2. It is clear that the patriarchs, living not in confederacies, 
 with the strong arm of municipal law to aid them, but wan- 
 dering as individuals from country to country, with their 
 hundreds of armed servants, could not have held these ser- 
 vants as slaves — persons held as property in involuntary ser- 
 \nce. From the very circumstances of the case, the servants 
 must have been voluntary in their service. 
 
 President Shannon supposes Abraham had from 1,500 to 
 2,000 slaves in his possession — that is, one man held 2,000 
 human beings, and 318 of them armed, in involuntary bond- 
 age. The boys in the streets would laugh at such absurd 
 conclusions. These children bought, were not held as slaves. 
 
 The mere fact that they were bought does not pro\'e that 
 they were held as slaves, as property. Boaz bought Ruth, 
 Hosea his wife, and Jacob his, but they did not hold their 
 wives as slaves. Nehemiah bought many of his brethren 
 from the Persians (see Nehem. v. 8) ; but he did not hold 
 
ARGUMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1^ 
 
 tbem as slaves, as property, to involuntary service. They were 
 
 restored to freedom immediately. 
 
 Do you present another passage, Lev. xxv. 44-4G, and 
 claim from this, that the Jews bought adult slaves from a 
 third person, and held them as property, and transmitted 
 them and their issue to the children of these Jews ? We re- 
 ply : 1. If these servants had children, it is clear from Gen. 
 xvii. 12, 13, and Exod. xii. 44, that these children and 
 their parents had to be circumcised, and as such were made 
 Jews, "entitled to all the privileges and immunities of Jews" 
 — went out free at the jubilee, as the Jew did. (See Lev. xxv. 
 10.) So there was no hereditary servitude like ours — only a 
 bond-service for a limited time, and that, as we have seen, 
 voluntary. 
 
 2. The Hebrew word ebed^ a form of which, in Lev. xxv. 
 44, is rendered "bondmen," does not, of itself, necessarily 
 designate a slave ; but denotes, as our word servant, a person 
 who does service for anothei-, without regard to the time for 
 which, or the jjrincijjles upon which he does service. Hence 
 it may designate — 
 
 1. One who does voluntary service. (See 1 Kings xii. 7.) 
 "And they spake unto him, saying. If thou wilt be a servant 
 n'2)! ebed) unto this people this day, and wilt serve and 
 answer them, and speak good words to them, then will they 
 be thy servants (D"1AJ! ebeds) for ever. See, also. Gen. xxiv. 
 2 : "Abraham said unto his eldest servant, (13J^ ebed,) that 
 ruled over all that he had." 
 
 2. It may designate those who pay a tax or tributary 
 service to another nation ; as that of the Gibeonites to the 
 Jews, in doing service for the house of God, (see Josh. ix. 23,) 
 yet having their own houses, property and families, and 
 living in their own cities. (See Josh. x. 1 ; Ezra ii. 70 ; 
 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14 ; Nehem. \\\. 73.) 
 
 3. It may designate a slave, as in Gen. xxxix. 17. 
 
 4. It may designate one who binds himself to do service 
 for another, as Exod. xxi. 5, 6 ; or as the Jew who sold him- 
 self, that is, bound himself to perform service to the year of 
 jubilee. (See Lev. xxv. 47.) 
 
 And, in the text under consideration, the word designates 
 the relation, and is translated bondmen, because the time of 
 service was fixed by laio. In becoming servants, they bound 
 themselves, by law, to serve until the jubilee. We said the 
 
18 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 servant hound himself , for from Lev. xxv. 45 we learn that the 
 Jews were to buy, that is, j'j'/'ocMJ-e service, (for this is the pri- 
 mary import of the word rendered " buy,") from the strangers 
 dwelling in their land, as well as those round about them. 
 And the words "children of the stranger," in verse 25, mean 
 ^dult Gentiles ; just as the words "children of Israel," in verse 
 26 mean adult Israelites. Moreover, these persons, called 
 children of the stranger, had " begotten children in the land." 
 (See verse 26.) Of these the Jews were to buy, or procure 
 service. 
 
 Now who sold these strangers ? The Jew dare not seize 
 them, and do so. Such an act was punished with death. 
 (See Exod. xxi. 6.) Then it is clear that they hound them- 
 selves^ or sold their service until the jubilee. Do you say 
 these servants were to be a possession and an inheritance, 
 and, therefore, must have been held as slaves, as property? 
 We reply : The words " possession " and " inheritance " are 
 often used in a different or limited sense, not designating 
 property tenure. God says, concerning Israel, " I am their 
 inheritance, and ye shall give them no inheritance in Israel ; 
 I am their possession." (Ezek. xliv. 28.) Did Israel own or 
 hold God as a slave, as property, because he is called their 
 "inheritance " and "possession?" Certainly not. So pre- 
 vious statutes, as we have seen, forbid the idea that the Jews 
 should have an absolute property tenure in these Gentiles, or 
 strangers. 
 
 Again, Isaiah, describing the return of the Jews from cap- 
 tivity in Babylon, says, " the strangers (Babylonians) will be 
 joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob ; 
 and Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for 
 servants and handmaids." (See Isa. xiv. 1, 2.) The truth 
 taught is that many of the Babylonians would embrace the 
 Jewish religion. To do so, they would have to become cir- 
 cumcised, and members of the family — " would be induced to 
 become proselytes; to be willing to accompany them to 
 their own homes, and to become their servants there." — 
 Barnes. Here possession denotes the service which the Baby- 
 lonians voluntarily rendered to the Jews — "they clave to 
 the house of Jacob." 
 
 Also the word " for ever," in the text under consideration, 
 is not to be used as it generally is, denoting perpetual prop- 
 erty in these servants and their issue. For the master did 
 not live perpetually — the servant did not live perpetually — 
 
ARGCMENT FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. 19 
 
 and, as we have seen, there was no such thing as hereditaiy 
 slavery — i. e., children of servants were not held as slaves, 
 but circumcised and made Jews, "entitled to all the privileges 
 of Jews." Also, the jubilee terminated all bond-service. 
 Josephus says, even the ear-bored servant and his wife and 
 children went out free then. 
 
 The passage, correctly rendered, is as follows : " Always 
 ye shall serve yourselves with them ;" that is, you shall in- 
 variably — always — procure your sei^ants from among the 
 strangers among you, and around you. Barnes gives a 
 similar exposition of the text, and you will see the same in 
 the margin of the Bible published by the Bible Society. 
 
 Thus expounded, the text presents not the Jewish code as 
 simply a retinement of pre\ious barbarisms, still selfish and 
 unjust, but steps at once upon the broad ground of justice and 
 mutual benevolence, and harmonizes with principles and stat- 
 utes previously referred to. 
 
 But did we even grant that the patriarchs, and the Israel- 
 ites under the Mosaic economy, held slaves, that would be no 
 permit to us : for the patriarchs had concubines ; we may not 
 therefore have. 
 
 Under the Mosaic economy, God commanded the Israelites 
 to slay the Amalekites. God, as sovereign, had a right to 
 punish the Amalekites, for their sins, with the sword, if he 
 chose. But may we, therefore, without any such command, 
 go and make war upon an innocent people ? 
 
 Likewise, had God even given the Jews the privilege to go 
 and enslave the Canaanites, because of their sins, we may not, 
 without any such permit, go and enslave the same people, 
 much less an innocent and a wholly different people. For the 
 Africans, whom we are enslaving, are a different race of men, 
 different in form, color, and language, from those Asiatics 
 who did a bond-service to the Jews. 
 
 But do you say the principle of slavery Avas sanctioned ? 
 This we deny. And if it had been, then who shall determine 
 the race, color, or form to be enslaved ? We have not got 
 the people who did service for the Jews, and God has not 
 said in his Word that any color has the right over another 
 color to enslave it. 
 
 Thus, it is clear tha-t none of the isolated passages most 
 relied on sanction slavery; and the plain principles of the 
 Old Testament show it to be sinful. 
 
20 SINFULNESS OF SLAVKIIOLDING. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 In this, we are told that " God hath made of one blood all 
 nations of men." (Acts xvii. IV.) And, that "he is no re- 
 specter of persons." (Acts x. 34 ; Eph. vi. 9.) And Christ 
 has laid down as the foundation of all true religion, and 
 as the rule of our conduct towards him and his children, 
 that we " love the Lord with all our heart, and our neighbor 
 as ourselves. This is the law and the prophets." (Matt. xxii. 
 3*7,40.) And a parallel passage to this last — one meaning 
 the same thing — is : " Whatsoever ye would that men should 
 do unto you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and 
 the prophets" — the substance of all. This is called the Golden 
 Rule, because it is the best one ever framed by which to 
 regulate human conduct ; and one so ^^lain, that all who de- 
 sire to do so, can easily understand it. This rule plainly, as 
 the large class of mankind admit, forbids our bringinr) any 
 man into slavery, or retaining him in it, after he is brought 
 in by others. 
 
 A prominent member in one of the churches of the land 
 was, not long since, attempting to prove slavery right from 
 the Bible. Said a bystander, Avho is not a professed Chris- 
 tian, "Any man who has common sense, knows that slavery 
 is wrong, without a Bible. But let us take the Bible. 
 ' Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye 
 even so unto them.' Can a man act according to this rule, and 
 enslave his fellow-mortal V The member saw the force of 
 the precept, and abruptly remarked : " There is a difference 
 between me and a nigger.^'' But, said the bystandei', "Are 
 negroes not men ?" " Yes," said the member. " Then," said 
 the bystander, " Christ requires you to treat them as men — 
 as you would men should treat you." Here was au end of 
 the argument ; for, as is manifest, if it is wrong to enslave a 
 white man, it is equally wrong to enslave a black man. But, 
 says one, if men's desires are to be the standai'd by which 
 this rule is to be interpreted, then any idle man may dem »nd 
 of me to give him a part of my farm, for which I had tolled 
 hard, saying, " If I were in your place and you were in 
 mine, you would want me to give to you." To this we 
 reply, he has no right to desire his own aggrandizement at 
 the expeaise of another's righteous gains. This would be 
 violating another command, which forbids us to covet auy 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 21 
 
 thing that belongs to another. The meaning of the rule is, 
 "All lawful things ye would that others should do unto you, 
 that do ye unto them." Now, as Wesley said, " Liberty is 
 the birthright of every man — the inalienable right of eveiy 
 man, not a criminal ;" and to desire another to give him his 
 liberty, is not coveting that which belongs to another, but 
 claiming that which by nature and right belongs to himself. 
 The above text, then, condemns slavery. 
 
 Again — the New Testament tells us not to go beyond nor 
 defraud one another in any matter. (1 Thess. iv. 6.) This 
 makes no exception for color, but fixes our duty to all men. 
 To defraud is to take without giving an equivalent — to 
 cheat. When either the master, or society, takes from the 
 slave the proceeds of his labor — when the master, or society, 
 takes from the poor slave his wife, his child, his liberty, does 
 — can the master give an equivalent? Hog and hominy 
 are no compensation for lost manhood. The motto of our 
 forefathers was, " Give me liberty, or give me death." Does 
 the master give an equivalent for lost liberty ? If not, he 
 defrauds his neighbor, he sins against high Heaven, he sins 
 against the person of Christ ; for Christ will say at the judg- 
 ment-day, " Inasmuch as ye did it [acts of unkindness] unto 
 one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it unto me." 
 (Matt. XXV. 45.) 
 
 Again — the New Testament requires : " Masters, give 
 unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing 
 that ye also have a Master in heaven." (Col. iv. 1.) Now, 
 justice manifestly has for its object the securing to man his 
 natural rights, rights which he would have in a state of 
 nature — right to personal ownership or liberty — right to 
 personal security — right to the proceeds of his labor, etc. 
 If, then, the master will give justice to his servant, he cannot 
 hold him as a slave a single moment. Also, in the fore- 
 going text, the apostle requires masters to give to their ser- 
 vants that which is equal — that is, to treat them as a fellow- 
 equal, as you would you or your child should be treated, 
 were you or your child laboring for another man. Do as 
 you would others should do unto you, is what it means ; and 
 in the words of the Synod of Kentucky, in their able address : 
 "If masters complied with the apostolic injunction to them, 
 and gave to their servants, as they are directed to do, ' that 
 which is just and equal,' there would be at once an end of 
 all that is properly called slavery." 
 
22 JINFCLNKSS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 
 
 That the apostle intended to teach that masters who 
 held slaves should give to those slaves their liberty — persotral 
 ownership, is manifest from the fact that, when ' addressing 
 those servants held as slaves, (doubtless by irreligious 
 masters,) the apostle says — " if thou mayest be made free, 
 use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21.) This is proof positive that 
 the aposile considered freedom as a preferable state for the 
 servant, and right for him to have it ; otherwise he would 
 not have urged the servan to take it and doubtless every 
 Christian master would, as far as he could, labor to secure 
 that which was right, and taught as right by the inspired 
 penman. This passage alone proves that liberty is the right 
 of the slave, and that to wthhold it is sin. 
 
 Again, the apostle, speaking to Timothy concerning the 
 law given b}- God through Moses, says : " The law is made 
 for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for man- 
 slayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves 
 with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, 
 and if there be anything contrary to sound doctrine," — the 
 glorious gospel of the blessed God being the standard. 
 (See 1 Tim. i. 9-11.) That slavery was opposed to, or con- 
 demned by the gospel, we have already seen. It is there- 
 fore, by the teaching of the apostle, condemned by the law. 
 But the word here translated " men-stealers" condemns 
 slaveholdiug, directly and expressly. The original Greek 
 word for man-stealer Is afSpaHoSistrji, {andrapodistes,) which 
 is formed from the verb avSpartoSt^u, (andmpodizo,) which 
 means to enslave. (See Robinson.) This is its true and 
 primary meaning. No man will or can dispute this. 
 "Andrapodistes, coming from this verb, means one who 
 makes a slave in any one of the senses of andrapodizo." 
 (See Donnegan.) Ai'SparfoSKjr'tti.j, then, the word used in 
 the text, includes all those engaged directly or indirectly in 
 enslaving their fellow-men, or who hold them in bondage. 
 This interpretation is in accordance with reason and justice. 
 Is not the knowing participant in crime as truly guilty as 
 the perpetrator of the first act? Is not the smuggler of 
 stolen goods as guilty as he who first stole them ? The 
 above exposition has been confirmed by some of the highest 
 ecclesiastical authorities in Christendom. 
 
 In the Confession of Faith of the Presbyteiian Church, as 
 amended by act of the General Assembly of 1794, and ap- 
 pended to the 142d question of the Larger Catechism, will 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 23 
 
 be found the following note in exposition of this text : " The 
 law is made for men-stealers. This crime, among the Jews, 
 exposed the perpetrators of it, as we have seen, to capital 
 punishment, (see Exod. xxi. 16 ;) and the apostle here 
 cliisses them with siRne7-s of the first rank. The word he 
 uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are con- 
 cerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, 
 or retaining them in it. Stealers of men are those who 
 bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, buy, or sell 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 oui-selves, are constituted, by the 
 original grant, lords of the earth. Gen. i. 28." 
 
 Dr. Adam Clark, a distinguished Methodist divine, in his 
 Commentary, has these words on the above text: "Andra- 
 podistais, slave-dealers ; whether those who carry on the 
 trafficJn human flesh and blood ; or those who steal.a person 
 in order to sell him into bondage ; or those who buy such 
 stolen men and women, no matter of what color, or what 
 country ; or the nations who legahze, or connive at such 
 traffic ; all these are men-stealers, and God classes them with 
 the most flagitious of mortals." 
 
 Slaveholding, then, is not only sinful, but classed with sins 
 of the most aggravated character. We have then sustained 
 our position, that the New Testament also condemns slavery 
 and slaveholding. 
 
 Does the objector come up with isolated passages, as objec- 
 tions to our argument ? Then, we again remind him of that 
 plain rule of interpretation, which requires that isolated pas- 
 sages be not so construed as to contradict plain and well- 
 known principles previously laid down in the same book — that 
 an author should not be so construed as to contradict himself. 
 
 That the principles of the Bible condemn slavery, is con- 
 ceded. 
 
 Wayland, a Baptist divine, in his Moral Science, says : 
 "The moral precepts of the Bible are diametrically opposed 
 to slavery." 
 
 Scott, in his Commentary, says : " The principles of both 
 the law and the gospel, when carried out, infallibly abolish 
 Blavery." 
 
 Barnes says : " No candid reader of the New Testament, it 
 
24 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 is believed, can doubt that the principles of Christianity are 
 opposed to the existence of slavery." 
 
 Adam Clark, a Methodist divine, in his Commentary, says : 
 " In heathen countries, slavery was in some sort excusable, but 
 among Christians it is an enormity and a crime, for which 
 perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment." 
 
 Now, every candid man must admit that, the principles of 
 Christianity being opposed to slavery, its p7-actice must be ; and 
 that its specific precepts should be construed in accordance 
 with its principles ; and the individual who construes them 
 otherwise is manifestly in error. 
 
 Let us notice some of these passages. Does the objector 
 begin with Eph. vi. 5-9; Col. iii. 22-25; 1 Pet. ii. 18, 
 claiming from these passages that servants are commanded 
 to be obedient to their masters; and that this proves that 
 masters do not do wrong in enslaving them ? We reply : 
 
 1. As we have already shown the word translated servant 
 in the Old Testament, so we might show that SouTioj, in the 
 New Testament, does not of necessity designate a slave. And 
 yet, before a shadow of argument can be derived from these 
 passages, it must be proved that slaves are here designated. 
 
 2. There is a relation designated by the term servant, 
 which is right; as that of a minor, or bound child to a guar- 
 dian ; a hireling who voluntarily binds himself, contracts to 
 do the lawful bidding of his employer. There were Judaizing 
 teachers, and some Gentile believers, "who, on pretense that 
 they had a sufficient rule of conduct in the spiritual gifts with 
 which they were endowed," affirmed that they were under 
 no obligation to any other authority, and taught others the 
 same. Here was a violation of the obligations of children to 
 parents, wards to guardians, hirelings to employers — relations 
 useful and right. Now, to correct such teaching, and to pre- 
 vent the "name of God and his doctrine" from being blas- 
 phemed in giving (as was claimed by Judaizing teachers) 
 countenance to such insubordination — the violation of relations 
 always admitted to be right — the apostle properly enjoined 
 upon servants obedience, and the command would be just as 
 appropriate, supposing slaves to be unknown. 
 
 3. The injunction to obedience is not without limitation. 
 Should a husband require the wife to murder, or profane the 
 name of God, or steal, she would be under no obligation to 
 do so. The command then to wives presupposes that the 
 requirements are reasonable and riffht ; otherwise she is not 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 26 
 
 under obligation to obey. So, the command to the servant 
 to be obedient presupposes that the master requires only that 
 which is right. The command does not require that we give 
 up our natural rights. Suppose we white men were held as 
 slaves by the Indians or English, would we suppose that the 
 command to servants, " to be obedient to masters," implied 
 that the Indians or English had a right to hold us as slaves — 
 deprive us of liberty ? This prepares us to notice, 
 
 4, The fact that we, as free citizens, are required to bo 
 obedient and honest — " subject to the powers that be" — is no 
 evidence that God recognizes the right, in individual tyrants 
 or governments, to enslave or even oppress us. So the fac^ 
 that servants are required to be obedient, even if those servants 
 be slaves, is no evidence that the master has a right to enslave. 
 We are commanded to " do good to those who despitefully 
 use us," but this does not imply that our enemy has a right 
 to so treat us. 
 
 We are commanded, if our enemy "smite us on one 
 cheek, to turn the other also ;" that is, to bear it patiently, not 
 to resort to individual retaliation. But does this obedience 
 enjoined, and this forbearance imposed, imply that our enemy 
 has a right thus to treat us ? Certainly not. 
 
 Again, the servant is commanded to be obedient not only 
 to the good and gentle, but also to the froward, (trxo^oj, tor- 
 tuous.) 
 
 Does this injunction to obedience on the part of the servant 
 imply that the froward or tortuous master has a right to act 
 so towards the servant ? Certainly not. No more does the 
 injunction to obedience on the part of the servant imply that 
 the master has a right to tyrannize over and rob the servant 
 of his natural right — liberty. One duty is not to be so con- 
 strued as to conflict with another duty. And to construe the 
 duty of obedience, on the part of the servant, so as to yield 
 his liberty, his personal ownership, to the master, is to deprive 
 him of the capacity to perform other duties — as that of wor- 
 shipping God when and where he in conscience may deem it 
 duty, — to perform duties to his own soul, to his wife, chil- 
 and to liis fellov\f-being3. 
 
 Does the objector say, further, that " the servants are de- 
 scribed as being 'under the j^oke,' (1 Tim. vi. 1, 2,) and that 
 this means that they were enslaved ?" We answer : 
 
 1. The word translated servant, as we have shown, does 
 not necessarily denote one who is a slave. 
 2 
 
■^D SINFILNESS OF SLA VEHOLPINO. 
 
 2. Neither is it certain that the phrase "yoke," and 
 "under the yoke," refer to slavery. As used in the New 
 Testament, and apphed to men in every other instance, it 
 designates a vohintary relation ; as, " Take my yoke upon you, 
 and learn of me." So in all other cases. The relation 
 alluded to by the apostle may have been merely a voluntary 
 relation — the relation of minors bound, or of those who had 
 bound themselves, to heathen and Christian masters. This 
 view is the more plausible, from the fact that the apostle 
 urges, as a consideration of obedience and kind regard, that 
 the master was a " partaker of the benefit." 
 
 The relation was such, that master and servant could, with 
 propriety, be termed partners, not in the sense of getting gain, 
 for that is not the meaning of tvcpycaiai {euergesias^ the 
 Greek word here translated "of the benefit;" but in doing 
 good, or conferring benefit. (See Robinson's Greek and 
 English Lexicon.) The presumption is, that " believing mas- 
 ters," not mere professors of religion, would make all their 
 business conduce to the pvomotion of the gospel and the sal- 
 vation of souls. How totally inconsistent is this with the idea 
 that the relation was an involuntary one ! If the law of the 
 land made one Christian a slave to another, the law of Christ's 
 house emancipated him in a moment! Its language was, 
 ''■All ye are hrethrenP "Who does not see that it would be 
 ridiculous for any master of a slave to say to him, " Brother, 
 we shall be able to do a good deal for the missionary cause 
 this year " ? 
 
 3. There w^as a propriety in such instructions, even to 
 those not slaves, from the fact that there were Judaizing 
 teachers, of the party of the Jews called Zealots, who taught 
 that it was not right for any one to yield obedience to those 
 who were not Jews ; especially they taught that this was true 
 with Christians, who were the " Lord's freemen." (See Mc- 
 Knight's comment on 1 Tim. vi. 3 ; Titus i. 10, and his intro- 
 duction to 13th chapter of Romans.) 
 
 It is then by no means certain that the servants alluded to 
 by the apostle were slaves. It is assumption to say they 
 were. 
 
 4. But if it yet be claimed that the servants under the 
 yoke were slaves, and that they were held as such by behev- 
 ing masters, then we reply, Christians could have been slaves 
 to each other only nominally, not really — so, only so far as 
 the claim of the Roman law was concerned — not bv the will 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 2*7 
 
 of the master, as we have seen from the above. The laws of 
 Rome were such that a master could not emancipate legally, 
 only as he took the slave before a magistrate, gave good and 
 sufficient reasons why the slave should be free, and then ob- 
 tained the consent of the magistrate ; which was diflBcult to 
 obtain in a country where the slaves were swarming in tumult- 
 uous thousands, where insurrections had been frequent, and 
 where public sentiment was almost universally opposed to 
 emancipation. (See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i. chap. 2 ; and 
 Bibhcal Repository, vol. vi.) Hence, a master might give up 
 his slave — say to him, " go free," and treat him as such ; yet 
 such slave, as the slaves set free by the Quakers in South 
 Carolina, in opposition to law, would be regarded, by the 
 Roman law, as property still, and, in that sense, under the 
 yoke, but not held so by the Christian master. He could not 
 do so and obey Christ : " Whatsoever ye would others should 
 do to you, do ye even so to them." 
 
 But, it ■«all be said, this proves nothing respecting slaves 
 to those who were not Christians. To this we answer, that 
 obedience to such masters is put by the apostle upon an 
 entirely different footing. The only reason given for obeying 
 such masters was, " that the name of God, and his doctrine, 
 be not blasphemed." A very different reason, surely, from 
 that given iu the other case, and from that given for obedi- 
 ence to parents. " Children, obey your parents in the Lord, 
 for this is right." And yet this command to children is 
 hmited by the phrase, " in the Lord." But slavery knows no 
 such limitation to obedience or object for obedience as the 
 Bible sanctions. The slave is, to all intents and purposes, at 
 the disposal of his mastei', and must obey. Thus says the 
 law. Now, suppose his master command him to violate the 
 Sabbath. Must he do this, in order that the name of God 
 be not blasphemed ? How absurd ! There is a Umit, there- 
 fore, to all the obedience required of servants to their masters 
 in the Bible, and that limit, if allowed by the laws, would 
 make real slavery impossible. 
 
 But let us look still further at the object for which servants 
 should obey their masters. We have seen that there was 
 propriety in the injunction, if addressed to servants not slaves, 
 on account of the false teaching of the Zealots. There was 
 propriety in it also from other circumstances, surrounding 
 the disciples at that time. There was not a free country in 
 the world to which they might flee and be safe ; " on the side 
 
28 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO. 
 
 of oppressors there was power ;" punishment would unavoid- 
 ably follow disobedience, in every instance, even when con- 
 science required them to disobey. Is it strange that the 
 apostles, in such circumstances, should counsel obedience, 
 submission ; especially as it would, in many instances, prevent 
 blasphemy 2 Where we cannot maintain our rights, an at- 
 tempt to do so by resistance becomes wrongs from inexpedi- 
 ency, and results oi ily in contention, and perhaps blasphemy. 
 Such was then the case of the slave, and therefore this in- 
 junction of the apostle was good and right. But by what 
 contortion and wresting cart it be inferred hence, that masters 
 had a right to command such obedience ? Certainly none 
 that will not shock as much the intellect as the moral sense 
 of any upright and discerning man. 
 Now, it being an admitted fact, 
 
 1. That the Bible is an inspired book, wiitten by a mind 
 that does not teach contradictions ; and, 
 
 2. That the plain principles of the Bible (justice, mercy, 
 impartial love) are opposed to slavery ; and, 
 
 3. That isolated passages or precepts must be so interpret- 
 ed as to harmonize with the fundamental principles of the 
 Bible ; and the above constructions harmonizing with those 
 principles ; one of these, or some construction similar, must 
 be the correct one. Certain it is, that the passage ought not 
 to be construed so as to favor slavery. 
 
 Again — Does the Bible teach moral opposites ? Does it 
 teach at one moment that liberty is right, and at the next 
 bi'eath that slavery is right ? Who will assert it ? And yet 
 this is really the position of those who maintain that the 
 Bible sanctions slavery. In their own case, they claim that the 
 Bible sanctions their liberty ; but in the case of another, they 
 claim that the Bible sanctions his enslavement. Such incon- 
 sistencies work out their own cure — show that those who 
 practice them or teach them are in error. 
 
 But does the objector say, " Oh, I don't claim that the 
 apostles sanctioned the enslavement of white men, but the en- 
 slavement of negroes — black people !" Well, let us test this 
 plea also. Now, it will not be disputed, that if the apostles' 
 teaching and practice sanctioned slavery, it sanctioned the 
 slavery of that age — the slavery amongst which the apostles 
 moved. N. B. This slavery was white slavery ; that is, 
 the large portion of those enslaved were as white, and many 
 of them ivhiter than their masters. This will be apparent to 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 29 
 
 every reader, when we reflect that the Romans had no slave- 
 trade to the western coast of Africa, as we have had, but 
 made slaves of those taken as captives in war. And now, 
 who were the nations conquered ? They were Germans, Gauls, 
 Spaniards, Grecians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Syrians, Ai*- 
 menians, — those living in Mesopotamia, Dacia, and the many 
 provinces of Asia Minor. 
 
 And now, what was the com^ilexion of these nations ? Most 
 were as white or whiter than the Romans themselves. So 
 true was this, that the Romans (who were then the conquer- 
 ors of all the nations among whom the apostles moved) des- 
 ignated their slaves from the rest of their citizens by a pecu- 
 liar dress. 
 
 Also, Virginia was claimed as a slave, and she was so fair, 
 that the " modest blush" could be seen on her cheek. She 
 could not have been claimed as a slave, had their slaves been 
 only negroes. 
 
 Also, when the Latins demanded hostages of the Romans, 
 they demanded a number of the daughters of the first fami- 
 lies of Rome. And the Romans took of their slaves and at- 
 tired them in the dress of the females of Rome, and sent them 
 to the Latins, who received them as Romans. This they 
 would not have done, had the slaves been negroes. Scores 
 of such facts might be mentioned, showing that the slaves of 
 the nations among whom the apostles moved and taught 
 were white. If then the teaching and practice of the apos- 
 tles sanctioned slavery, they sanctioned white slavery. Who 
 will claim this ? He that does it, in the language of another, 
 makes himself the enemy of his species. 
 
 But again it is said, " Christ lived in the age of slavery," 
 (but not in the land of slavery,) " and so far as the record goes, 
 he said nothing against slavery . we may therefore infer it is 
 right." We reply : 
 
 1. We know not how often Christ spoke against slavery. 
 We have not on record all that he said. (See John xxi. 25.) 
 
 2. If we may infer that slavery is right, because, " so far 
 as the record goes," Christ spake not against it, then may we 
 infer that he approved the deliberate slaughter of the children 
 of Bethlehem by Herod, and the murder of John the Bap- 
 tist ; for, " so far as the i-ecord goes," he said nothing against 
 these acts. 
 
 It is said, " the apostles labored amongst slavery — why 
 did they not speak against it — in so many words condemn 
 it ?" 
 
30 SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDINO, 
 
 We ask, in return, why they did not speak directly against 
 gambling, piracy, h\irg\&rj, persecution, and gladiatorial shows ? 
 Do you say they did not attempt to specify all things wrong, 
 but laid down principles against all wrong ? So we say they 
 laid down principles opposed to slavery. Again, by the Ro- 
 man law, "The father had power over his son to beat him 
 cruelly, expose his child in infancy to death — pronounce it 
 illegitimate, by refusing to take it formally from the ground 
 and place it in his bosom — could imprison or put to death, if 
 it deserved it." — Hague. 
 
 "The son in his father's house was a mere thing; con- 
 founded by the laws with the movables, the cattle, and the 
 slaves, whom the capricious master might alienate or destroy, 
 without being responsible to an earthly tribunal." — Gibbon. 
 
 So vdth the wife. " The law placed her like a slave at his 
 feet ; and her life hung on his decree," If it was found that 
 she had drunk wine, then the husband might put her to death 
 Tacitus mentions a case in the reign of Nero. Should a Ro- 
 man citizen marry a foreigner, then the husband might, at 
 any whim, alienate her, treat her childi'en as illegitimate, and 
 the Roman law gave to the mother and children no redi-ess. 
 
 Strange as it may seem to some, " so far as the record goes," 
 no one in all the realm of the Caesars is told that these things 
 are wrong — a contravention of the original law of Paradise, 
 which placed the husband and wife on the ground of a true 
 moral equality. We ask, why did not the apostles tell hus- 
 bands and parents not to do these things ? Why did they not 
 speak against them ? Do you say that everybody can see that 
 such things were wrong, and that the apostles laid down rules 
 or requirements, which, if carried out, would destroy all such 
 things? So we answer in reference to slavery — everybody 
 can see it is wrong ; and did we carry out the requirements 
 laid down by the apostles, we should soon do away all slavery. 
 
 Does the objector then ask, " Why did not the apostle tell 
 the servant to try to get his freedom ?" We answer : Some 
 servants, such as minors, bound, and those who had volunta- 
 rily bound themselves for an equivalent, these ought not to 
 seek release. But those servants, whom the context shows 
 to be slaves, to those he said, " If thou mayest be made free, 
 use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 21.) Or, as some good scholars 
 claim, and as the original Greek text will allow, [oxk' n xat 
 Swaaak sxsvdspoi yivsadM ixahov ^^psoat,) " If thou art able to free 
 thyself, use it rather" : thus deciding that freedom is right, 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 31 
 
 and to be sought by righteous means. And this decision 
 of the apostle ought of itself to satisfy any mind that the 
 apostle did not intend to sanction slavery. 
 
 True, some quote the preceding part of the verse : " If thou 
 art called, being a servant, care not for that," as a sanction of 
 slavery. Now, as the phrases, " lay not up treasures on earth," 
 and " take no thought for the morrow," simply mean that we 
 should not place our affections on earthly treasures, and not 
 be more anxious about the things of to-morrow than the in- 
 terests of the soul, so the phrase under consideration means, 
 ' be not more anxious about temporal freedom than spiritual 
 freedom.' And as the phrases alluded to did not hterally for- 
 bid making some provision for the morrow, and for coming 
 winter, so the phrase, " If thou art called, being a servant, 
 care not for it," does not literally forbid desire and efforts for 
 freedom ; because the apostle says, immediately after, " If 
 thou art able to free thyself, choose it rather;" or, as our 
 translation has it, " If thou mayest be made free, choose it 
 rather." 
 
 The apostle did not intend to sanction the withholding 
 liberty from an innocent man, but the case is a most forcible 
 one, teaching the opposite. And hence the language in the 
 23d verse: "Ye are bought with a price," (the blood of 
 Christ,) " be not ye the servants of men." That is, you ought 
 to employ your time and strength in serving God, rather than 
 men. So far, then, as the teaching of the apostle is concerned, 
 there is nothing in it which sanctions slavery, but it rather 
 makes it the manifest duty of every master to secure to the 
 slave that liberty which he ought to employ for the glory of 
 God and the well-being of man. And there is nothing in the 
 teaching of the apostle which forbids the slave peacefully to 
 secure his hberty, if he beheves he can serve God better in so 
 doing. 
 
 Does the objector ask, Why did not the apostles tell masters 
 to free their slaves ? We answer, as Christ did on a certain 
 occasion, by asking another question : " Why did they not 
 tell fathers not to expose their children to death — to do all 
 they could in treating them humanely, and let them have 
 freedom at adult age ?" 
 
 Why did they not tell husbands, if they should take wives 
 from another nation than their own, to treat these wives and 
 their children as legitimate ; and not to put a wife to death 
 for drinking wine ? These things were contrary to the spirit 
 
32 SINFL'LNKSS OK ShAVKHOLDlXG. 
 
 of the gospel, as all will admit. Why, then, did not the 
 
 apostles command fathers and husbands to act accordingly ? 
 
 When the objector answers these questions, we will answer 
 
 his question. 
 
 2. They did tell masters to "give to their servants that 
 
 which is just and equal," which, as we have seen, would 
 
 secure freedom to the slave of every master obeying the in- 
 junction. And we shall soon see that there was no more 
 
 necessity for a specific command on this point, than in refer- 
 ence to many other wrongs. 
 
 Does the objector say they used terms which designated 
 slaves — property tenure in man? We reply: 
 
 (1.) The term SovXoi, Hke our own word servant, designates 
 one who does service for another, irrespective of the time for 
 which, or the principles upon which, the service is rendered. 
 Hence, it is sometimes applied to Christ and the apostles. See 
 Phil. ii. 7, and 2 Cor. iv. 5. Were the apostles and Christ 
 the slaves — the property of any man ? And though the term 
 may also be used to designate a slave — property tenure in 
 man, yet, 
 
 (2.) A great error into which many persons have fallen is 
 that of interpreting the Greek words fiorXoj and xuptoj or 
 5sartotr;ii servant and master, by the Roman law, or our own 
 civil law, instead of the law of Christ. Under the former, 
 these words often denoted property, and property holders in 
 man. Under the latter, the law of Christ, they could denote 
 no such thing. Such relations were a moral impossibility. 
 As well may we suppose, that when they used the Greek 
 words yovivi and tcxvov, parent and child — avri and yun;, 
 husband and wife, they meant by these, property and proper ti/ 
 holders — and by their use, meant to sanction the principle as 
 right. We know that the law of Christ destroyed S2ich rela- 
 tions, and restored the primitive law of moral equality. 
 
 These epistles of the apostles in which the above words are 
 found, were not addressed to the world at large ; nor to mem- 
 bers of the Roman government as such ; but to little bands 
 of Christians, with whom the law of Christ was above all 
 other laws — a community whose fundamental law was, " love 
 thy neighbor as thyself" — " whatsoever ye would that men 
 should do to you, do ye even so to them ;" a community 
 taught to call no man master — "one" (Christ) "is your 
 master, and all ye are brethren." These laws formed a 
 standard by which to regulate all relations of society ; and 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 33 
 
 »mvery could no more exist under such laws, than it could 
 exist in a government which was a literal and pure democ- 
 racy. That men acting on the principles of Roman law held 
 slaves, we admit; but that they, acting on the principles of 
 Christ's law, held slaves, we deny. Under the latter there 
 was no necessity for a specific command requiring husbands 
 not arbitrarily to take the lives of their wives or children; 
 nor to withhold from their servants their Uberly — their natural 
 rights. Under this law it was sufficient to say, " Husbands, 
 love your wives — masters, give unto your servants that which 
 is just and equal" — "do unto others as ye would they should 
 do unto you." And as they destroyed the property relation 
 in the wife and the child, so they destroyed the property 
 relation in the servant. 
 
 The Bible then giving no sanction to slavery, and its funda- 
 mental principles being manifestly condemnatory of it, and 
 slavery being a plain violation of natural rights, it should be 
 conceded to be sinful by every candid mind. 
 
 The large mass of men will, as we believe, decide that 
 gambling, counterfeiting, and highway robbery are nothing, 
 when compared with slavery. The counterfeiter imposes 
 spurious currency on you, and the gambler, by sleight of 
 hand, and perhaps unseen knavery, wins and receives your 
 money, and, in either case, the products of your toil are taken, 
 without giving you an equivalent ; and the Church will dis- 
 cipline the latter, and the courts punish the former ; yet you 
 are still tha owner of your person, left free and able-bodied, 
 and as such, you can toil for more money, minister to the 
 wants of your family, and discharge the duties of a freeman. 
 But slavery not only takes the products of the poor man's 
 toil, without giving an equivalent, but robs him of his liberty 
 — the very capacity to minister to his own or others' want^ 
 and converts him into a mere chattel. 
 
 An elder in one of the churches in our State remarked, 
 not long since, that he was like Dr. Rice and Dr. Junkin ; he 
 thought "the wrong of slavery consisted in its abuse." A 
 
 friend standing by said : "Father R , suppose I should 
 
 meet you on the highway, and, by superior force, take your 
 horse from you, and keep him for my own use, and, though 
 Ishould leave you free to go on, acquire means with which 
 to buy another, minister to the wants of your family, and 
 worship your God as you should choose, yet would not the 
 
 act be sinful ?" " Yes," said Father R . " But if, instead of 
 
 2* 
 
SINFULNESS OF SLAVEHOLDING. 
 
 taking your horse, I had taken you, and made you a slave, 
 deprived you of your liberty, and the very right to possess, 
 would I not have done you a greater wrong ?" "Yes," said 
 
 Father R . "Well, then," said the friend, " is not slavery 
 
 worse than stealing the horse ?" " Yes," said Father R . 
 
 And there is not, perhaps, a candid man in Christendom, who 
 would not admit the same. If the churches should ^ not 
 fellowship him who steals his neighbor's horse, ought they to 
 fellowship him who commits a worse crime ? If they would dis- 
 cipline the smaller, surely they ought to discipline the greater 
 crime. One of the objects of a true Church is to hold up the 
 right and condemn the wrong. If they do not, they become 
 the enemies of righteousness, breaking down the distinctions 
 between virtue and vice, good and evil, leaving nothing to 
 separate the Church from the world, save her outward ritual 
 or ceremony. 
 
 On the floor of that convention which met. last spring in 
 Frankfort, to devise more efficient plans for the removal of 
 slavery, even by those who did not like to admit that slavery 
 is sinful in itself, the concession was made, that this is the 
 feeling of a large portion of the Christian people of this land. 
 It was impressively said : " there is away down in the hearts 
 of a large portion of the Christian people of this land, a feel- 
 ing at war with the institution of slavery. There are many 
 thousand benevolent people in the State, who, I care not what 
 they may say, feel in their hearts that slavery is wrong." 
 Mark, slavery^ not its excrescences or its consequences — 
 but slavery is regarded as wrong. Now, what is the differ- 
 ence between that which is in itself wrong, and that which is 
 sinful ? If wrong, it is unrighteous ; and John tells us that 
 "all unrighteousness is sin." Yea, politicians themselves 
 admit it. Even that man, Thomas F. Marshall, who took so 
 prominent a part in crushing the freedom of the press in 
 Lexington, Ky., on the memorable 1 8th ; when afterwards 
 challenged by a prominent j^reacher of our State to discuss 
 the question whether slavery was not sanctioned by the Word 
 of God, he rephed : " I have too much respect for my God, 
 to attempt to defend him from such a slander." 
 
 Has not Mr. Turner, the perpetualist of Madison county, in 
 his late speech of concessions, in the convention for framing a 
 new constitution, admitted that the buying and seUing of 
 slaves here is no better than piracy — the traffic on the high 
 seas ? a crime punished by our Government with death. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT, 35 
 
 And slavery necessarily exposes the slave to this horrible 
 traflac, whether the master desire it or not. For, in case the 
 master falls behind with his creditore, or dies, the law takes 
 the poor slave, sells him from his wife, his children, his friends, 
 into returnless bondage. And the man or woman who holds 
 a slave, holds him thus exposed. Is this doing as we would 
 be done by ? If not, we are sinning. And if there are non- 
 slaveholders who, by their votes, sanction this traffic, they are 
 guilty of the same sin. 
 
 The Louisville Journal, speaking of slavery, says : " Slavery 
 in Kentucky is a social, moral, and political evil." Now, a 
 moral evil is sin. The Examiner, in its faithful vigilance for 
 admissions of truth, speaking of the Jom-nal, says : " It ac- 
 knowledges the sinfulness of the system — it could not help 
 doing so." 
 
 Now, when politicians and journahsts themselves freely 
 admit that slavery is sinful — a truth proclaimed by our fore- 
 fathers, and written in the "political faith of our nation," 
 almost a hundred years since — we think Christians and Chris- 
 tian ministers ought to admit it with much more readiness 
 and frankness. This hair-spHtting about a thing being wrong, 
 and yet not sinful, looks very much as if a man either wanted 
 candor, or else was afraid an admission of truth would disclose 
 an inconsistency in practice. 
 
 Shall the Christian ministry — the men who, like Christ, 
 their divine exemplar, are anointed by the Spirit of God " to 
 preach deliverance to the captives, to set at hberty them that 
 are bruised, to preach the acceptable year (the jubilee) of the 
 Lord" — (Luke iv. 18) — shall these, the commissioned messen- 
 gers of love and mercy, with Bible in hand, be the loudest 
 and longest defenders of the worst tyranny the sun looks upon 1 
 But to return. When we say that slavery is sinful, we do 
 not mean that every master or mistress, who may sustain the 
 nominal relation of master or mistress, is, in heart, or 
 in the sight of God, a sinner. A master may have under his 
 guardianship minors whom he has willed or recorded free, 
 when such minors shall have arrived at adult age. Or a 
 master may have bought a slave for the purpose of freeing 
 that slave, and has not had time to obtain from the county 
 court a deed or record of the slave's manumission, or time to 
 convey the slave to a land or State where the slave can be 
 free ; or some such relation as the cases referred to, in which 
 the master or mistress holds not the fellow-l>ein^' as property. 
 
36 . , ' , NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 but only in guardianship for a time. Such persons are not 
 guilty of the sin of slaveholding. They are only guardians or 
 redeemers, as Nehemiah, who bought some of his brethren, in 
 order to secure to them theii- freedom. But the law, the com- 
 monwealth, the community of citizens, hold the purchased 
 man as a slave — rob him of his liberty, his personal ownership, 
 and thus create and perpetuate a relation which, as we 
 have seen, is sinful. So that slavery, by whomsoever caused, 
 is always sinful. The community, in making and perpetuating 
 laws which deprive the innocent adult man or woman of free* 
 dom, are the slaveholders and sinnei"S in such cases. But 
 the man who will hunt up shadows, where the reality does 
 not exist, for the purpose of evading the true and j^ractical 
 issue, " whether individual, wilful, and deliberate slaveholding 
 is sinful or not," shows a want of candor, as we believe, a 
 want of common honesty in his investigations for truth. 
 
 .ii!?'"'^ CP co«c,,3. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 OODEl'^'^Daoa