4V "^ . 1 » « t • o - "^-^ < > K» .-^^^ o >^ *??^T*' .^^ ^o •*T^- .o') '^^^ *^^f»* ^^^ • • y ^4., r ... / \/^?^V V^^'/ \^^^v : .♦^':^. -.'^iji^** .3''>. \:'W-y V'^^-^-* v'-'^v V'^ • « .*^ '^^.v "^.>%'i' ■^.^"^ .v\.i5^..V ./.'A-i:./^^ ..^\v:»<^..% „4?\.t; ^•^r ■*-.,^* "■^^^ '%/ DUTIES OF MASTEES AND SLAVES EESPECTIVELY : DOMESTIC SERVITUDE AS SANCTIONED BY THE BIBLE: A DISCOURSE, DELIVEItED IN THE GOVERNMENT-STREET CHURCH, MOBILE, ALA, BY KEY. \Y. T. KAMILTOX, D. D., Pastor of said Church. ON SUNDAY NIGHT, DECEMBEE 15, 1844. MOBILE: PUBLISHED BY F. H. BROOKS, V/HOLESALE BOOKSELLER. 1845. * \h\w '01^ u z \ :> THE DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SLAYES. CoLOSs. 4:1. " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." Compare Ephes. 6 : 9. Fully aware though I am, that the subject I have proposed for discussion to-night is one of no ordinary delicacy, and of no little difficulty, on many accounts, yet its importance is such, that I think it ought to be discussed fully and without reserve. Nor can the discus-^. I sion, if discreetly conducted, fail to be beneficial to all parties. It is not to be disguised, that the existence of domestic servitude among us attracts a large share of attention from the citizens of other States where it is no longer /ound. This subject is agitating the country from one extremity to the other. In the non-slaveholding States, it has produced a great excitement among all classes. It has already given birth to a political party, which is daily increasing in strength and influence, — and whose spirit is such as to show that they will never rest, and will leave no stone unturned, until, for the accomplishment of tfieir purpose, they have convulsed the whole country. A like spirit has invaded the church, and has already produced, in more than one ecclesiastical body, stormy discussion and stringent measures, which threaten disruption to the church, and bitter animosity in its dissevered fragments, instead of harmony and love. The great body of the Methodist persuasion has been shaken to its centre by this perplexing subject. Nor has our own beloved church escaped without agitation, and imminent hazard of a second great schism, on this ground. Nor let us deceive ourselves by the idea that all this is the work of a few, a very few rash, ill-informed, and pestilent agitators. It is a very easy thing to class them all toge- ther as hot-headed abolitionists and crazy fanatics ; but to do so is not wise : the averment is not true. I admit that there is a very active, determined, and persevering set of men, the thorough-blooded abolition- ists, who go all lengths in denunciation against the whole South, and against every man who lives here ; and who seem prepared to attempt the extirpation of servitude among us, regardless of consequences. I 4 grant too that these, the prime movers in all the measures of the party, whether political or religious, are few in number. These ultra aboli- tionists arefeiD, but they are resolute and reckless. "With some of this class it was my lot, during my late tour at the North and East, to come in contact; and my deliberate opinion is, that they are craiy quoad hoc. They are monomaniacs ; labouring, on one subject, under a delusion which renders their minds impervious to reason. In my intercourse with them, (for, to avoid them was not always possible,) I have been saluted by epithets neither flattering nor courteous. They have, publicly and privately, through the newspapers and by private letters, denounced me as a thief, a ruffian, a villain, a hypocritical oppressor of the d fenceless ; as one %cho approaches the very altar of God, to solemnize the deepest mysteries of religion, with hands stained and reeking with the blood of the victims of a cruel oppression. And why ? because, and simply because, I live in a slave- holding community ; I minister to a church most of whose members hold slaves; — and instead of teaching my flock that in so doing they 1^ are guilty of grievous sin and must be all damned for ever unless they, at once, set all their slaves free* I am supposed to be myself a slave- hold^, and as such, a partner and abettor of their crime.\ Well ! at all this, bad as it is, we might calmly smile, were this the extent of the evil. But these rabid advocates of universal equality and of immediate emancipation are but a very insignificant portion of that great body of American citizens, who look upon slavery with disapprobation and abhorrence. | There are thousands of thousands in our country, utterly opposed to the violent spirit of Garrison and his followers, who yet look upon this institution as evil, altogether evil, — based on wrong, and most injurious in its tendency ; — who contend that it must be extirpated sooner or later, and that it ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment that shall be found compatible with safety. And among these, there are certainly some of the clearest and coolest heads, as well as of the purest hearts, that this country can boast. Grave and learned divines, intelligent lay officers of the church, nay, dignified ecclesiastical bodies, have, by the passage of solemn reso- lutions entered on their permanent records, pronounced slaveholding to be a deadly sin, inconsistent with all pretensions to piety ; whereupon, they expressly debar from their pulpits all slaveholding ministers, and all pastors of slaveholding churches ; and they shut out from the com- munion-table, and from the church of God, any and every slave-holder. These men may be mistaken ; but they are, beyond all question, sincere and deeply in earnest. Again and again, I myself have been shut out from palpits, which my warm personal friends were desirous I should occupy. I have been reftised subscriptions to our Bethel church, be- cause it was to be erected in a slave-holding citv : and, on one occasion, after having, on the Sabbath, by invitation from the pastor, preached in a certain church, and assisted at the communion-table, I was a few days afterwards, insulted, by the thnisting into my hands of a set of resolutions, (duly attested as having been passed at a church meetintr,) expressive of their abhorrence of slavery and of slaveholders, and ex- pressive also of their conviction that deep repentance and humiliation of spirit before God were required of them, for the ^rfot sin of having recognized a slave-holder as a Christian and a Hiinister, and attended on the dispensation of the word and ordinances at his hands. These resolutions I still have in my possession. All these several considerations combine to place this matter in a very serious light. If these men are right, then we are wrong : and if so, then the southern portion of the church is guilty of a great sin. and her ministers are guilty of a still greater sin, in that thev not onlv forbear to denounce the institution as sinful, and forbear to call upon their hearers to repent of it, and to bring forth finits meet for repentai|:e, by setting all their slaves free at once, but in that they also participate m the guilt of it, as well as connive at it ; since ministers, no less than others, employ slaves as servants ; and whether those slaves be tbeir own property or merely hired, whether obtained by inheritance or pur- chase, matters not, ai to the principle involved. If to hold slaves be a sin, ministers of the gospel ought to know it; and knowing it, they ought to teach it, no matter what might be the legal penalties, or the personal hazard, of so doing. Your laws can never render murder, adultery, theft, or Sabbath-breaking right, because God's word torbids these crimes : and God's authority is paramount. Before Heaven's decisions mere human law must bow. If, then, God's holy word con- demns slavery, the minister of God is bound to condemn it, and to call on his hearers to clear themselves of all participation in it, whatever be the risk attendant on so doing : for what God condemns, human law can never make right. If, on the contrary, God's holy book does not condemn domestic senritude ; if, so far from this, it does distinctly recognize the instits- tion. and lay down directions for the conduct of Christians in both or in either of the relations, as masters or as servants, then the institwtigm is not, in itself and necessarily, sinful, whatever may be the evils indi- viduallv connected with it, or springing from it. If so. then a man may be a servant, or he may be the owner of many servants, and still be a true Christian, a worthy communicant in the church of God; nay, he may be a faithful and useful minister of the gospel. If so, then the oTound assumed by so many Christians and ecclesiastical bodies at the North and the West, in excluding us from their pulpits and from their communion, simply on this one ground, is untenable, and ought to be abandoned. The men who take such ground may be in error, and we, who sincerely believe them to be so, may deplore their error, yet we cannot but respect their consistency and their zeal. Our part should be, to exhibit equal firmness, with a gentler spirit ; by no means returnino- railinor for railing, but contrariwise, forbearance and magna- nimity. But, inasmuch as it is undeniable that by these men our ecclesias- tical standing, our piety, our sincerity, our very honesty as men, are all called into question, I have thought it but right to request your attention to a public discussion of this subject, which I shall aim to present in the light furnished by the Bible, and with all the plainness which the vast importance of the subject, and the weighty duties this relation imposes upon masters, seem to demand. 1 1 take the ground distinctly and emphatically, that domestic servi- tude as found among us at the South (however undesirable it may be in some respects) is not, in itself, sinful. The Bible plainly recognizes it; and the sin op slavery (for there is much sin attending it) springs, not from the nature of the relation, but from the neglect of duty IN THE MASTER. The Command of God is, " Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven .'"I Some have ventured to assert, that the text and other similar direc- tions and like allusions found in various parts of the New Testament and the Old, do not necessarily imply slavery, properly speaking; be- cause those designated as servants may have been hired labourers ; and those called masters, merely the employers ; just as it is now in British families, and in those of our Eastern and Northern States. But no competent judge, no one with the least pretensions to scholarship, will, for one moment, hesitate to admit, that slavery in its most despotic form existed among the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and even among the Jews. Nor can it be denied that the word servant does, in the New Testament, denote a slave, a person held as property by another ; and that the word master denotes one who holds certain of his fellow-men in bondage, just as those terms are now used among us. Now the text, thus distinctly recognizing the existence of slavery, does as plainly im- ply the compatibility of holding slaves, and yet being a Christian; for it is addressed to members of a Christian church at Colosse, and it addresses them as masters of slaves, and tells them their duties as mas- ters. Here then we have, from the pen of an inspired Apostle, and written some years after the ascension of Christ, and after the day of Pentecost and the full establishment of the Gospel-church, an address directed to a church regularly organized under Apostolic authority; and the very terms in which this address, is couched show, that in that church, founded, governed, and instructed by Apostles themselves, were both masters and slaves. The relation is spoken of as existing, as well known and understood. Not one word of condemnation is here found, not a hint of its being wrong to be a master, or of its being an intolera- ble oppression to be a servant; but it is emphatically said, "Masters ought to treat their servants so and so." The inference is plain : slave- holding is not in itself sinful; since, if a master treat his slaves as •Jierein required, he discharges his whole duty as a master; he may continue a master, continue to hold slaves so treated, and yet be a good man, and a worthy member of the church of Christ: which could not be, were slave-holding sinful in the sight of God. Tell us not that the Apostles connived at slavery, because it was rooted in the usages of society and protected by law ; because the community was not yet sufficiently enlightened to receive the whole truth on that subject, and because it would have perilled the very exist- ence of the infant church to declare the real wickedness involved in slavery ; and that, therefore, on the ground of expediency/ the Apostles wrote as they did, apparently sanctioning, what they really condemned ! What ! Are we to believe that the Apostles, the founders of the Christian church, the very men who counted not their lives dear " for the sake of truth and righteousness," suffered themselves to be deterred from a plain duty by fear of consequences ? Are we to believe that they, who en- dured every hardship, braved every danger, and finally shed their blood to advance the cause of truth and goodness in the world, would, from dread of the consequences of denouncing it, tolerate in the infant churches they formed as models for the church in all ages, a sin so re- plete with evil, so enormous and so damning, as hot abolitionists now represent slaveholding to be ? No man in his senses can believe this ! The Apostles certainly addressed slaveholders in such terms as show that they regarded their position as masters, and their duty as Chris- tians, as not at all inconsistent. If honest men, the Apostles would not thus directly sanction what they believed to be wrong. If, in writ- ing their epistles to the churches, the Apostles were inspired of God, then it is plain, that not only did they honestly deem that the master of !;laves micrht be a true Christian, but their decision is a sound one ; and they who now assert that slaveholding is in itself wrong, are assum- ing to be wiser than inspired Apostles, and more benevolent than God himself. If God did not, by revelation through the Apostles, teach us that slavery is wrong, and therefore to be abolished, (as he clearly did not,) then has God no where taught this : for the Apostles were the last men ever found on earth, on whom the spirit of inspiration rested. The zealous friends of immediate and universal abolition, on the ground that slavery is sinful, must first bring proof, clear and indisputable, that thev are inspired of God himself to teach this new doctrine, ere we can consent, at their bidding, to discard the teachings of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and repudiate as utterly sinful, an institution which the Apostles unequivocally recognized as existing in the churches they themselves founded, and as not inconsistent with true piety and the hope of a home in heaven. So plainly does the Bible contemplate the existence of domestic servitude — even in the church — and by its laws provide for its due regulation, and for the correction of abuses likely to spring from it, that a zealous abolitionist lately addressed me thus : — " Prove to me from the Bible that sloveri/ is to be tolerated, and I zcill trample t/our Bible under my feet, as I icould the vilest reptile on thf face of the earth." Such language flows, not from humanity, but from a ferocious pride ; not from reason, but from madness ; not from piety, but from the very spirit of infidelity. The plain matter of fact is, that there ever has been, and there must be, great inequality in the condition of men. The rich and the poor, the powerful and the feeble, the daring and the timid, are every where found among men. In all communities there are superiors and infe- riors, the successful and the unsuccessful, the leaders and the led. Could you, to-morrow, reduce all men to one uniform and perfect level, in condition, in property, and in privileges, not a week would pass away without producing changes utterly destructive of perfect equality. The prudence of some and the follies of others would have already wrought changes ominous of a speedy return to the ordinary condition of society, with all its diversity of ranks and conditions. The bold would overawe, the cunning would outwit their neighbours, the sagacious and enero-etic would accumulate property, and with it power. Masters and servants would, in some form, speedily be found in society as before. In very early times, when society began to increase in numbers, the turbulent passions of men plunged them into conflicts one with another, and the successful parties compelled the vanquished to submit to their ^ control. When wars at length arose, those who fell into the power of 9 the victors were put to death. Afterwards, the couqueror aometimes spared the lives of those falling into his power, bat only to reserre them for hi? own service, or to secure the price they mi^ht brinor when sold to others. Hence the origin of slavery. Captives taken in war were, doubtless, the first slaves : and the lot of seiritude was entailed by in- heritance on all their descendants. Hence we find traces of the exist- ence of slavery, even fi-om the earliest times. Nimrod, the mighty- hunter, is often asserted to have been the first slaveholder. Gen. 10 : 9. Certain it is that long before the time of Moses, slavery existed. Abraham had slaves, and many of them. There were of this class. bom in his house, no less than 300 capable of bearing arms. Gen. 14 : 14. Hagar, the maid of Sarah, whom her mistress surrendered to Abraham in hope of an heir, was an Egyptian slave, Gen. 16 : 3 ; and Ishmael, her son, was by birth a slave also, in contradistinction from Isaac, who was born free, being the son of a free mother. This ad- mitted fact, " Hagar gender eth to bondage — she is in bondage with her children^' is the basis of the Apostle's comparison, between the law and the gospel, Gal. 14 : Ol-^G. The patriarch Joseph was sold by his treacherous brethren, a slave to the Ishmaelite merchants, and by them he was conveyed into Egypt, and there resold to Potiphar. A Xew years later, under the administration of Joseph, as prime-minister to Pharaoh, the whole Egyptian nation having alienated their lands to the crown, to procure the means of sustenance, next sold their personal freedom, and became a race of hereditary serfs, appertaininor to the soil, and passing with it from owner to owno'. Later still, the whole race oi Israel, from the condition of protected guests, were degraded to that of slaves to Egypts monarchs ; they were compelled to work, not for their own advantage, bat at the bidding. and for the profit oi their taskmasters. Samson, when captured bv the Philistines, was redac-ed to the rank of a slave : compelled to labour hard, or to make rude sport, at the pleasure of his masters. The little Hebrew maid, who, in the time of the prophet Elisha (2 Kings, 5 : 2) waited upon her mistress, the wife of Naaman, the Syrian leper, was a slave, a captive taken in war. Unquestionably were most of the ancient heathen nations around the Jews holders of slaves. Such were the Midianites, the Egyptians, and the Canaanitish tribes. We read that Pharaoh bestowed sundry gifts upon Abraham, among which were slaves. " He entreated Abra- ham tcell. for Sarah's sake ; and he had sheep, and ozen, and he-asses, and men-sertants and maidservants.'' Gen. r2 : 16. Abimelech also " took sheep, and oicn, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and gate 10 them to Abraham." Gen. 20 : 14. It is certain, then, that Abraham, the great progenitor of the Hebrew nation, and the friend of God, was a large slaveholder. He seems to have held slaves by inheritance, for he had several hundreds born in his family ; he received some, as gifts, from powerful friends, and others he had, bought with his money. Gen. 17:23; (see also vs. 12. 13.) And yet,— "/a^Aer of the faithful" though he is styled in God's word, — were Abraham now living among us, with all his slaves around him, sealed though they were in God's own covenant by divine command, he would, by modern abolitionists, be excluded from the church, as a cruel, selfish, hard-hearted man, a bloody-handed man-stealer. Moreover, not only was slavery tolerated of heaven in the household of Abraham, but by the laws given to the Jews by Moses, it was ex- pressly allowed, and placed under certain definite restrictions. From Levit. 25 : 39-46 we learn, that between the native Hebrew and the gentile, a marked distinction was established, in relation to this subject. A Hebrew might, through stress of poverty, sell his personal liberty ; but he could not be made a slave. He might bind himself to render service for many years, but he served as one hired, not as a slave ; and on the return of the year of jubilee, he had his freedom restored to him in full. But in regard to the heathen, the case was different. The Jew was allowed by the laws of Moses to purchase men of heathen or gentile origin, as slaves ; to hold them as a possession, as property ; and a servant of this class was called his master's money, i. e. his pro- perty, insomuch that though, if when chastising a servant, that servant should die under his hand, the master subjected himself to a certain penalty ; yet, if the servant so beaten should linger for a day or two, and then die, the master who smote him shoul.d not be punished ; for, (says the Hebrew legislator,) that servant is his master's money. Exod. 21 : 21. Whatever modern abolitionists may say respecting it, the Mosaic law, (which all Christians believe to have been given by in- spiration from God himself,) allowed the most pious Jew that ever lived, to purchase slaves, and to hold them, and treat them as property. That is, the God of heaven did in times of old allow men to make merchandise of their fellow men, of beings made in the image of God. These gentile slaves, thus bought and held as property by the Jews, might be given to other Jews as presents, or sold, or bequeathed to their heirs as a possession. For the bondage of these gentile slaves was perpetual ; — " They shall he bondmen for ever" Levit. 25 : 46; i. e. they and their descendants were a race of hereditary servants, as ours are now. 11 To the servant of Jewish birth the year of jubilee brought full re- storation to freedom ; to the servant of gentile origin the jubilee itself brought no discharge. The Hebrew servant was, like our hired labour- ers, or rather like a modern apprentice, or like a German redemptioner, held to service only for a limited period ; the heathen slaves amono- the Jews, were, like our negro slaves, held in bondage for life, with a reversion of like servitude to all their descendants, for ever. Nor were the ministers of religion debarred from the right of hold- ing men in servitude. Thus we read, Levit. 22 : 10. Jl, "A sojourner with a priest, or his hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing, (i. e. the flesh offered in sacrifice,) but if the priest buy any soul with HIS J^ONEY , he shall eat of it ; and he that is born in his house they shall eat of it." Here, then, the distinction between hired serv- ants and slaves, purchased or inherited, is clearly laid down ; and slaves no less than hired servants, are supposed to be included in the family- establishment of the very ministers of God, the priests officiating at the altars of religion. It seems, then, that Moses, the great lawgiver of the Jews, who talked face to face with God, did not think that holding slaves polluted a man's hands with blood, or disqualified him for serv- ing acceptably in the awful solemnities of religion. As surely, then, as Moses wrote by divine inspiration, did God himself sanction among the Jews, the tolerance of slavery, including the buying and selling of human beings, with their descendants, into perpetual bondage. What God sanctions cannot be in itself, and essentially, evil. Moreover, the laws which God enacted for the treatment of slaves, and the privileges he authorized to be extended to the slaves of his cove- nant-people show, that God looks upon the condition of a slave, (wholly dependent though he be on the pleasure of his master, for his personal comforts,) as not inconsistent with the service of God, and with the hope of salvation. But in reply to this argument drawn from the Mosaic law, it is often urged — " The tolerance of slavery in the Jewish church, furnishes no argument to prove that slavery is lawful note ; because polygamy was tolerated in that ancient church, and yet no one contends for polygamy now ! If we may hold slaves now because Abraham held slaves, and any Jew, hoioever pious, might hold them, then we must authorize poly- gamy now, too, because Abraham, and Jacob, and David, all good men and approved of God, had each of them many wives .'" But to this I answer, the cases are not parallel. Whatever God has once sanctioned cannot be, in itself, and essentially, wrong. God did once sanction the existence of slaveholding and of polygamy both ; and 12 unless God have withdrawn that sanction, and condemned one or the other of these practices, both must be still lawful to this hour. In the case of polygamy, God has withdrawn that sanction, and declared it to be adultery for a man to have more than one wife at the same time. In the case of slaveholding, God has not withdrawn his sanction under the gospel. On the contrary, he has renewed that sanction, by pre- scribing, through his inspired Apostles, the rules by which masters and servants, even when members of the church of Christ, are to regulate their intercourse one with another. If, instead of declaring, as he has done, that ^' iDhosocver putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and marrieth an- other, committeth adultery,'' (and this surely condemns polygamy, for it .is not the putting moay of a wife that constitutes adultery, but the taking of a second wife while the first is living. Unless, indeed, we would maintain that a man may take a second and a third wife in addition to the first, and be no adulterer, so long as he keeps them all ; but the moment he repudiates the first, his taking of a second renders him an adulterer, which were certainly absurd ;) if, instead of this, God had given directions in the New Testament, how a Christian husband should treat his household of three or four or more wives, and how those three or four wives of one and the same Christian husband should treat that husband, just as the Apostles have laid down directions to show how Christian masters should treat their slaves, and how Chris- tian slaves should conduct themselves toward their masters, then we should unhesitatingly admit, that now, just as in the days of Abraham and of Solomon, a man may have several wives and yet be a good Christian, and just as now he may have many slaves, and yet be a truly pious man. As it is, polygamy and slavery were, in the Jewish church, both allowed ; but under the gospel polygamy is condemned ; slave- holding is still recognized as lawful ; and appropriate rules are laid down for the guidance of Christian masters and of Christian servants. " Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal; know- ing that ye also have a Master in heaven." But it is objected again, " The servants spoken of in the New Testament, could not have been like our negro slaves, held in involun- tary bondage ; they must have been either hired servants, or else per- sons bound by voluntary contract, to servitude for a limited period, like our apprentices ; or, possibly, in some cases, bound to serve for the period of their natural lives. It could not have been a hereditary bondage, like modern slavery ; because all claim to hold such slaves, is founded on oppression and injustice. The original title to property 13 in the slaves of this class must have been defective ; and no lapse of time, no repetitions of transfer from one to another, can ever make that title good. The original title must have been fraudulently obtained, and however often transferred, it is, and it must ever be, still invali- dated by the fraud involved in its origin. It is an admitted axiom, that ' the receiver of stolen goods, is as bad as the thief.' He who first made his fellow man a slave, was a man-stealer; he was guilty of op- pression and robbery .: the first purchaser of such slave, became in the very act of purchase, a participator in the guilt of his reduction to slavery ; and with every transfer of title, was transferred also the guilt of that original theft. A man who holds his fellow man in involuntary bondage is, therefore, and must ever be, an oppressor, and a man- stealer. Now the Apostles declare, that ' men-stcalers shall not inherit the kingdom of God ;' consequently the masters to whom the Apostles wrote, were not men-stealers ; they were not slaveholders in the modern sense of the word." The answer to this objection is obvious. If the reasoning here employed be correct, that all involuntary bondage is the fruit of oppres- sion, and that every slaveholder is a man-stealer, then it must be con- ceded that, under the Old Testament dispensation, God did sanction oppression and man-stealing ; for he did expressly permit the purchase, the holding, and the sale of men held to involuntary and perpetual bondage ; and bondage entailed on their descendants. And yet, both in the Old and the New Testament, God does condemn man-stealing as a crime fatal to all profession of piety. Unless then we choose to charge God with injustice and inconsistency both, we must admit that slaveholding does not necessarily involve guilt of any kind ; that a man may lawfully hold his fellow man in involuntary bondage, without beino- thereby stained with guilt of robbery, oppression, or injustice, and the title to property in slaves may be held and conveyed to others, without the attendance or conveyance of the guilt of any crime. If this mio-ht be true in Abraham's day, and in the days of the Jewish Judges and the Jewish Kings, it may be true also in our own day. Certain it is, that in the times of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, this must have been true. The masters addressed by the Apostles in the New Testament, are by them supposed to be capable of discharging their duty as masters and of being good Christians nevertheless. A man-stealer (as these s?ime Apostles teach, see I Tim. 1 : 10; comp. also Exod. 21 : 16, and Deut. 24 : 7) cannot be a good Christian ; therefore, if inspired Apos- tles judged correctly, these masters were certainly not men-stealers. But these masters were most unquestionably slaveholders, in the fullest 14 sense of the word as now used. This all the records of antiquity show. Of the servants of these masters, some they held by inheritance, some thev had bought with money, just as slaves are now bought or inherited. Masters in the days of the Apostles had also a much more absolute power over their servants than we now have over our slaves. They held them as their property, they could sell them, or bequeath them by will, or they could by deed of gift, convey to others their title in their servants : and thev could punish them for their faults, all just as we can ; nav thev could do what we have no power to do, for under certain cir- ctimstances masters could punish their servants with death. This is the kind of slavery existing, under the Roman governments, in the countries where Christian churches were established by the Apostles ; nav existing in those very churches, with the knowledge and the sanc- tion of the Apostles. Thus to hold slaves was, therefore, not equivalent to man-stealing, in the days of the Apostles : if not then, neither is it now. To be a slaveholder, as slavery exists in these Southern States, is not. therefore, at all inconsistent with Christian character, if only the duties of a master be rightly performed on Christian principles. A parent has almost unlimited power over his children. He has patctr to brins them up well or ill, to train them up virtuously or viciouslv. to make them happy or miserable. The mere possession of this power does not make him a tyrant, or a bad man. If the parental power be exercised on Christian principles, the strictest father may be a true Christian. The power to do a thing, and the right to do it, are two quite different things, and do not always go together. The possession of power certainly implies the possibility of its abuse ; and the abuse of power it is, that gives rise to the evils attendant on slaver V. Hence the propriety of rules furnished in the word of God, for directing the conduct of parents and of masters in the exercise of their power in a right manner. Slavery implies the possession by the master of a power over the servant, which may be abused to his detriment ; and therefore the rule, " Masters give unto your servants that ichich is just and equal," &c. The command to do justice implies the possession of patcer, but not of right, to treat unjustly and to withhold that which is equal. Another objection is often urged against the whole institution of slavery, and urged even by good and discreet men, to this effect : — " Slavery, though it may not be expressly forbidden in the Bible, nay, though it may seem to receive indirect sanction from the niles there laid down, is so manifestly contrary to the great law of love, that it cannot be right to uphold it. Just so far as true religion, which teaches us 15 to do unto others as vet \tould they should do uuto us; shaO prevail among men, must the abuses of this iustitutioa become wutniftst, and had to its extirpation. It foUotes, therefore, that no good wum can he. a friend to slarery ; and the. church is bound to attempt the. remooal mf it at one t, just as certainly as benevolence is a Christian dtitu." This objection presents a siiiOTlar coimniitare of truth aad enor. In a certain modified sense the objectioo may be deemed Taiid. The direct tendency of religion is to eradicate rice and to correct all abodes ; and so far as true religion prerails will men discern the abmts attendant on alarerv — and abhor them, and anempt their remoraL Bat the ation, whenever that can be effected without detrimait to them, and with safeiv to the com- munity. Were the question now to be agitated, Shall we safki the introduc- tion of slavery among us ? and more emphatically still. Shall we take measures to fiimish ourselves with domestic servants, by reducing to slavery some of our fellow-men, now free as ourselves ? the great law of love, and sound policy no less, would return a prompt reibsaL But with the question of originating slavery, ot of now first intro- dwang it here, we have, at present, nothing to do. The iustitutioa already exists among us, and, however it may have been originated, the only question for us to ponder is, How, under these circumstances, shall we act I Does the great law of love tbrbid slavery, and require its immediate extinction ? Does that law require that we, because we ourselves, now free, would not like to be reduced to slavery, should instantly set all our slaves free ? This the objector affirms : — this I do emphatically deny. If the law of love nom demands this, it must always have demajMied it, even in the days of Abraham and of Moees. Yet these hoiv men did not think so, as their practice and their laws show ; and those laws God himself sanctioned. Thus to interpret the law of love, is to ovei- straiu its meaning. That law requires us, not to aboiish the exisdug ranks and distinctions of condition in society, but to treat each posoa in a manner suited to our relative positions ; a mann^ such as, w^ie our positions reversed, we might personally desire he would en^loy in 16 treatincr us. That law requires the master, not to set his slaves free, (which would, in many instances, be the greatest unkindness he could show them,) but to treat them humanely and considerately ; to treat them as he, if himself a slave, could reasonably desire to be. treated while he was such. If I see a poor man suffering from want, the law of love requires me, not to strip myself of just one half my substance, and confer it upon him, but to extend to him assistance suited to his wants as a poor man, and to my ability in view of my position in society and the other claims upon me. That is a spurious benevolence which would aim to remove inequali- ties of condition in society. It is assuredly very different from the benevolence of God, which, pure and perfect though it is, tolerates great inequality of condition in society, and great suffering too, which. in our short-sighted wisdom, seems very undesirable ; and tolerates it al- though He is all powerful to remove it at a stroke, if to Him it seemed good so to do. The existence of slavery in society under ceriain circumstances, like that of poverty and pain and all the diversities of condition now found amonerity of the ctAo- nies, or the improvement (moral cr intellectual either) of the neoroes is concerned. The emancipated slaves in those islands are indolent, ignorant, and luxurious : and the fertile lands they encumber are fast returning to a wilderness, their products continuallv decreasinor. as the official returns show. - Sound policy and Christian benevolence do, then, both warn us to teware. So far from demandii^ the immediate emancipation of slaves, regardless of consequences, which, in the present condition of Southern society, could not but be eminently disastrous to all parties, the law of ■Christian love still points to the necessity for leaving this rostitution undisturbed for the present : and it shows the reasonableness of requir- ing humanity and justice in masters, fidelity and submission in slaves; precisely as the in^ired Apostle taught, " Jtfasters. render unto your servants that ithich is Just and equah'^ And again : "' Let as many servants as are under the t/ol'? (this certainlv describes slaves) eount their otrn masters trorthy of all honour, that the name of God be not blasphemed, 6cc. nese things teaei and exhort. If any auni teach othentise. he is proud, knowing nothing. Sic. From such wtthdr-iw THTSELF." 1 Tim. 6 : 1—5. If the Bible is to be our guide on this subject,t then, instead of * See an mteresdng and veiy able amde beumg on tUs snl^ect. and cntideJ - Annexation of Texas," in the Soatfaem Quneiiy Review fcr Ocsober, 1S44. I: is said to be m>m the pen of a yoong bat distmgni^ied member of the Mofaik bar. t So &r ntim bowins to the teachings of leveiaiioo, the nltn abolitkiaBSts c£ oar daj efiace a ^uiit ot ondiagmsed infidelity. Tfaej are faitxo- and maKgnaitt. iLEsaa- ing, withoot prot^ or reason, diat siaveiy is evil, and contiaiy to tbe di c tates of reaaan and the law of lore, tber proceed to cany oat this assaned prinople, MteriT reckless 18 abolitionists excommunicating slaveholders, (as they openly do,) every abolitionist, every one who denies the authority of masters and their right to demand obedience and honour from their servants; every one who teaches that the slave is not bound to obey and honour his mas- ter, and who insists on the immediate abolition of slavery, is proud, knowing nothing ; he does not consent to wholesome doctrine, even to the tmrds of our Lord Jesus, and to the doctrine which is according to god- liness, — and he ought to be cut off from the communion of the CHURCH ; for, says the Apostle, from such unthdraw thyself. So utterly untrue is it that slavery is inconsistent with the law of love. These popular and oft-repeated objections being thus disposed of, we may safely maintain that a man may lawfully hold in bondage man like himself, to serve him. This institution is undeniably recognized in the Bible : it confers on the master certain rights, and it imposes on him also, certain peculiar obligations. The master has a right of property in his servant, so that he may use him, lend him, bequeath him, or even sell him to another.* But this right of consequences. When pressed by arguments drawn from the Bible, they attempt to evade them, by shamelessly per^'erting Scripture, and making it bend to their views by a forced interpretation. AVhen they find th«t still the authority of the Bible is, and ever must be, against them, they scruple not to deny its authority, and blaspheme its Author. An abolitionist, in a letter addressed to me while at the East last autumn, thus expresses himself: " Prove to me that the Almighiij God sanctions slavery, and you prove that He out-herods Herod, He out-juggernauts Juggernaut, He out-satan- izes Satan .'" Can such language be the dictate of piety and love ] The disorganizing tendency of the fundamental principle on which abolitionism rests is sufficiently apparent in the excesses into which many of the ultra abolitionists have rushed. They deny revelation, they desecrate the Sabbath, they repudiate the church and the Christian ministry ; nay, they would for ever blast the chief charm of woman, her retiring modesty, by teaching her to leave her proper sphere, refuse obedience, and demand equality with man, openly standing forth in large public assemblies, to speak, and argue as does man. Their fundamental position, that " all persons are on an entire equality ; that no one person can rightfully exercise authority over another, except so far as that other may he pleased to allow it;' is obviously irrational and dangerous. Fully carried out, it would destroy all distinctions in society, break up every family. and spread disorder, wretchedness, and guilt all around. It cannot, then, be true. * It is surprising to observe how strong, how enduring, how far-reaching, are the prejudices of even good and inteUigent men, respecting this subject. Some years since, when accosted by a well-known abolitionist, with reproaches as being guilty of countenancing slavery, and contributing to perpetuate the sin, by my residence at the South, I replied, that till he should convince me that slavery is a sin, all his admoni- tions were lost upon me ; and I added, " So far as sin is involved in the transaction, 1 could, with as safe a conscience, purchase a good servant offered me, if I needed one, 08 I coidd purrhane a horse, or any thing else." At this he expressed surprise and 19 of property is modified and restricted by the nature of the possession : a man's right in his landis one thing ; in his horse another, in his servant an- other. A man is not allowed to use his horse as he would a log of wood, though both be his own property : he cannot lawfully hack, and cut, and burn a horse as he might a log. The horse is his property to use for his own benefit, in any way consistent with its well-being as an animal ca- pable of suffering and of enjoyment. So also a master has the right of property in his servants, to use them for his own benefit, in any way consistent with their nature as human beings, not only sentient, like mere animals, but also as rational, as accountable beings, having im- mortal SOULS. A man may not lawfully use his servants as if they were mere animals, without souls, and irresponsible to God. He may have the power to do so, but he has not the right ; and no law can ever abhorrence. Some months later, in answer to the inquiries of a friend in New- York respecting my language in that conversation, I repeated this expression in my letter. That letter was shown to another noted abolitionist, and by him an extract containing the obnoxious passage was taken and published in several abolition papers at the North and East. This extract has been republished in various papers again and again, accompanied by sundry comments far from complimentary to my good sense, and my character for humanity and for piety. It is called a horrible sentiment, language out- rageous, indicative of a mind blinded, a heart hardened and a conscience already seared. Of one distinguished minister at the North it is said, he declared he would never again ask me to occupy his pulpit, since I had uttered sentiments so atrocious : of another it is affirmed that, when told I had so expressed myself, he said he regretted I had preached in his pulpit, but that he would never ask me again. Only last week, I received by mail a paper printed at Hartford, Conn., containing a republication of the obnoxious declaration, together with a pointed intimation that I am morally blinded and hardened, not fit to enjoy fellowship with any church. Now, why all this outcry? What is there so outrageous in the expression I used ? The point of comparison was, not the nature or the qualities of a slave and a horse, not the uses to which they might be put ; but simply and only the morality of the act of purchasing the one or the other. The most that can be charged upon me is, perhaps, a disregard of good taste in the selection of the object of comparison. It might have been less offensive to a fastidious delicacy, had I, in that hurried conversation, spoken of buying a house or a Bible, instead of a horse ; but that is all. There either is sin in slavery, or there is not. Where slavery exists, the right to property in a slave may be sold. The purchase of that right is either sinful, or it is not : if not, then there is no more sin in the mere act of purchasing a servant, than there is in any other purchase, no matter what. The point of com- parison is, the morality of the act of purchasing ; not the use to which what is pur- chased is to be put. And yet, because, to convey clearly the idea of my conviction that to such purchase no sin appertains, I happened to select an object for comparison not perhaps in the most refined taste, I am denounced and extensively published as a hard-hearted, unfeeling monster ; just as though I had said that a fellow-man, even if a true Christian, when held in bondage, is no better than a horse, and may lawfully be treated like a beast ! invest him with diut right. So to treat servants is to oppress ihetti cruelly. A master is entitled, 1, To all the service jvhich thejimc, the strength^ or the skill of his sertxxnt, may qtmlify kirn to render. This is implied in the very nature of the servile relation. The ser- vant is the property of his master, so far as that his labour, or his skill in any useful art, must be honestly given for the benefit of his master,, a* if it were for himself'"' doing service tnth good loill ; not with eye" service, as man-plcasers, bitt as reiuUring service unto God." A master is entitled to claim from his servants, 2, Fidelity to his interests. The servant belongs to his master, and is identified with his master's interests. If the master prosper, the servant is benefited : if the master suffer loss, the servant's interests will be affected by that loss. A rio-ht view of his relations would teach a servant, that he can- not sunder his interesis from those of his master ; an