6 f 1^(< THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAYERT, WITH REPLIES TO THE " BIBLE VIEW OF SLAVERY." BY JOHN H. HOPKINS, D. D., BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT; AND TO "A NORTHERN PRES- BYTER'S SECOND LETTER TO MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL," BY NATHAN LORD, D. D., LATE PRESIDENT OP DART- MOUTH COLLEGE; AND TO " X," OF THE NEW-HAMP- SHIRE PATRIOT. By STEPHEN M. VAIL, d. d., Professor of Biblical and Oriental Literature in the Methodist General Bibli- cal Institute, Concord, N. H. " CONTROVEESY IS THE WIND BY WHICH THE TRUTH IS WISNqy B»l "= - JJ l W; <^nCO}i . %. CONCORD FOGG, HADLEY & CO., PRINTERS 1864. Prop, Stephen M. Vail, D. D. Dear Sir .—We the Students of the Methodist General Biblical Institute, having learned tha'- the New Hampshire Patriot has closed its columns against you not allowing you to reply to the late pro-slavery articles of Mr. X., and believing that the Institution of Slavery is at War with the Bible and the best interests of our Country and Humanity, and believing that the publication of your reply to X and others at this time would be useful to the religious community and the Country generally, showing as we understand you do. that the Bible is against Slavery ; we respectfully solicit from you your reply for publication. With Respect, Your Obedient Pupils, J. HENRY OWENS, ) J. T. HAND, V Committee. THEO. L. FLOOD, ^ Concord, Feb. 15, 1864. To Rets. J. HENRY OWENS, ) Committee of Students J. T. HAND, \ of THEO. L. FLOOD, ) Biblical Institute. Dear Brethren : — Wrong ox dishonorable action always fails, in the long run, to compass its ends. If the New Hampshire Patriot had given me as much space as my opponent X. occupied in its columns, this proposed pam- phlet would not have seen the light. The Patriot's refusal to allow me to reply in the way desired, renders it necessary for me to reply in some other form. The form of the pamphlet will be more permanent and Avill in the end reach a larger circle of readers. Thanking you for yoiir kindness, I cheerfully submit my manuscript to you for publication, as you request. Your affectionate Friend and Teacher, STEPHEN M. VAIL. THE BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY. PREFATORY. The question whether the Bible is against Slavery is at this time one of the highest interest. In the providence of God the people of the United States are now called upon to de- cide on the question of the permanent emancipation of four millions of slaves. Until the present rebellion got up and sustained altogether by the slaveholders and their abettors in the southern States, the people were united in the view that the General Government had no power of a political kind over slavery in the States. But now as the seceded States have taken themselves from under the protection of the Con- stitution and Government of the United States, and have re- belled against the government of the country for the sake of the better preserving slavery, their institution is no longer entitled to the protection of the government. And as' a war measure therefore, and as a measure of justice, the slaves in the seceded and rebel States, with some exceptions, were declared to be free men on the 1st of January, 1863, by the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. But many of our fellow citizens still claim that the Pro- clamation is only a war measure, and that its power must cease on the re-construction of the Union, and that the slaves must fall again into their former status. The question of course must be settled by the people themselves of the whole country. If the President and Con- gress to be chosen in 1864, the present year, should be pro- slavery then all the acts of Mr. Lincoln's administration so far as the slaves are concerned might be abrogated, and slavery for the slaveholding States so called would still be the policy of the Nation. The great question before the na- tioA in the coming presidential election must therefore be slavery or no slavery '? As a christian nation receiving the Holy Scriptures as our guide, it becomes a grave inquiry what saith the ScrijJtures on this question ? If the Bible is against slavery it is impor- tant to know it. If the Bible be found, after all the efforts of slavery, to be on the side of Freedom it will be a confirm- ation of its Divinity to the minds of millions, and the Bible will be dearer than ever to the hearts of all mankind. If as many have claimed, it be against human liberty and in favor of oppression, the inference will continue to be drawn by thousands that it is not from heaven. My own belief is that it has been greatly misunderstood, — and such has been the traditional power of slavery over us, that as yet we have only faintly apprehended the truth, — that the Bible is always and every where against slavery. § 1. Introduction. My object in the present publication is to show that the Scriptures are against slavery, both those of the old Testa- ment and of the New, both alike condemn it. By consequence I must show that the recent publications of such writers as Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont, Dr. Lord late President of Dartmouth College, " X " of the New Hampshire Patriot and others, who have written on the pro-slavery side of the ques- tion, are on a sandy foundation without the slightest support from the Holy Scriptures. It is not surprising that a system of iniquity of such pecu- niary and political power as slavery in our country, should find apologists among respectable men, and even among men of reputed learning. But it is a matter of surprise at this late day when this accursed system lias put its cruel hand to the throat of the nation and seeks the destruction of the Re- public, and wlien all loyal slaveholders themselves are seek- ing the destruction of slavery, that such men as Bishop Hop- kins and Dr. Lord yet apologise for it and seek to save it. But it must go down. The nation must and will slough off the horrid excresence. There is no decree in the book of fate more certain than that slavery must now be destroyed. Having long been of the opinion that there was no support for it in the sacred writings, the Holy Scriptures, I here pre- sent a candid review to the country of those passages which have been supposed by the gentlemen named above, and by others, as favoring involuntary servitude among men. In the fall of 1862, soon after the issue of the President's Proclamation, that on the first of January, 1863, he should'de- clare the slaves of rebels free on the ground of military ne- cessity, the young men of the Biblical Institute invited me to preach on the occasion of said proclamation. The sermon was published. It was attacked in the New Hampshire Pat- riot. I replied to the attack, and challenged my reviewer to find a single case of justified sale of a human being in the Scriptures. It was replied that if there were no cases of such sale, that there were laws regulating such sales, and an attempt was made to produce them, to which I replied, and my reviewer then goes on to discuss the subject generally in opposition to my reply. He having occupied some fourteen columns in the Patriot in opposition, while I had occupied but seven, I sought the privilege of further reply and was denied, at least till after the March elections. I am thus compelled to resort to this mode of self-vindication, as well as the vindication of the truth. I would remark further by way of introduction, that I have kept the original Scriptures constantly before me, in all my discussions. Knowing that this must be the ultimate stand- ard of appeal, I have sought to draw light from the Scrip- tures alone. And thus purposely while writing this reply I have not consulted other writers on the anti-slavery side of the question ; but have constantly appealed to the Scriptures themselves. Comparing dark passages with their parallels. thus comparing Scripture with Scripture, and leaving all to be decided by the common sense of my readers. It has been gratifying to me to find, after my reply was written, that there is a substantial agTeemcnt between myself and such writers as Albert Barnes, Charles Elliott, D. D., and G. B. Cheever, D. D. The works of these writers are the most elaborate and most able of any that have fallen into my hands, and in my judgment they present, in general, the true scriptural views on this subject. § 2. What is the meaning of the Hebrew gnebedh ? [Pronounced differently by Hebrew scholars, some calling it ehed, others gnebedh, which I prefer.] Other writers whose attention has not been specifically called to this subject have generally failed to discriminate be- tween slavery and other kinds of servitude. So also the Lex- icographers both of the Greek and Hebrew, e. g. Gesenius says gnehedh generally a servant, who among the Hebrews was also a slave. So Robinson, Lexicon of New Testament, dou- los, a bondman, slave, servant. So others, all so far as I have observed, failing to properly discriminate between the signifi- cation Servant and Slave. From this looseness of defining as Dr. Cheever forcibly says, " The eggs of the Cockatrice are hatched." A Slave is an involuntary, coerced servant, held as property, a chattel personal in distinction from a chattel ma- terial. A servant as distinguished from a slave is a voluntary ser- vant, one who works for wages or a support. This confusion of the two words servant and slave, leads to much erroneous reasoning from Scripture. The condition of a servant is a normal condition, right, and often needful in human society. While the condition of a slave is always abnormal and wrong, and never necessary in human society, except as a punishment for crime. It is a condition born of pride, covetousness, and in a word, of man's evil nature. So St. Chrysostom says : " But if you ask whence slavery has its origin, and why it has entered into human life. * * * I will toll you ; avarice, vulgar display, and insatiable cupidity begat slavery ; since Noah had no slave, Abel had no slave, nor Seth, nor yet those after this." (Horn, in Epist. and Ephes. 22.) The distinction between the two, service and slavery, servant and slave is clearly marked. The fii'st is generic, the second is specific, the first is of labor in general, the second is of co- erced labor. The first may include the second, and when so intended the sacred writers so qualify their language as to leave the reader in no doubt, as for example, when the chil- dren of Israel were called the servants of Pharaoh (gnebedh PargnohJ, we know slaves are meant, from the context. So Joseph was sold into Egypt for a gnebedh, slave, I should render, (Ps. 105: 17); for the account of Joseph's captivity shows, that he was a coerced servant, at least till he was raised to be Pharaoh's Prime Minister. So when Moses is called the Servant of Jehovah (gnebedh Jehovah), we must ren- der Servant of Jehovah and not slave of Jehovah. So David is called tlie servant of Saul [gnebedh Shaool), not slave of Saul, for the context does not show that his service was co- erced or involuntary. The distinction is perfectly plain, and the disregard of it by the pro-slavery writers mentioned above is very strange. § 3. What is the meaning of the Greek " doulos,^^ and Latin " servus ^' '? We might as well say here, that the Latin servus, the Greek doulos, aud the Hebrew gnebedh, correspond to the English word servant, and not to slave. Dr. Lord says, " An ebed at Jerusalem ; a doulos at Athens ; a servus at Rome ; and a slave at Washington, have been as well understood, in those respective representative cities, to mean a chattel personal, as son has been understood to mean the child of his father.* Dr. Lord, I respectfully submit, is not correct, although all the pro-slavery writers, as Bishop Hopkins, Fletcher, and oth- ers, agree with him. Let these gentlemen consider whether it would be proper to render Rom. 1:1, Paul a slave of Jesus * See second letter to ministers of the gospel, p. 48. 8 Christ, doidos in Greek, and servus in Vulgate, or •whether it would be proper to render Is. 52 : 13, (a beautiful prophecy of the Alessiah), " Behold my slave,'^ &g., Hebrew gnebedh^ Vulgate sernus, Sept. pais. Observe further. The Lord Jesus Christ himself is called a dovlos in Phil. 2:7," He took on him the form of a doidos." Does any one dare to say that He, who was found in the form of God took on himself the form of a slave, — an unwilling in- voluntary slave ? Christ was indeed a willing servant to poor lost man. But he was not his unwilling slave, such an idea is not only absurd, it is impious. Yet to such a result the pro- slavery principle leads, and therefore is and must he false. I say, then, that Dr. Lord and others are mistaken when they say that gnehedh is the specific term for slave. K so, then Moses was a slave, for he is repeatedly called gnehedh. See Deut. 34: 5, Josh. 1 : 1, 13, 15, &c. Then Joshua was a slave, for he is also repeatedly called gnehedh, as Josh. 24 : 29, Judges 2 : 8, &c. Then also David was"a slave, for he is called an gnehedh of Saul, 1 Sam. 30 : 13. Dr. Lord, and Bishop Hopkins, and " X, " are simply mis- taken in their declarations that gnehedh is properly a " slave.''' It is the general term for the English " servant. " It is gen- eric, and includes all kinds of servants, and the specific sense must be determined by the context or connection ; — e. g., when the children of Israel are called gnehedh Fargnoh, Ex. 9 : 20, then it means slaves of Pharaoh ; because the context shows that they were compelled to serve Pharaoh against their will, and without wages. When they are called gnehedh Jehovah, we are to render it servants of Jehovah, not slaves of Jeho- vah. So gnehedheem Pavid is servants of David, not slaves, because these servants were clearly voluntary. I suppose the above illustrations will save me from being misunderstood. I would further add that the proper word for slave in Greek is andrapodon, in Latin Manciphm. There is no word in Hebrew which specifically means slave. Now for the interest we naturally feel in the opinions of others I would refer to Barnes on Slavery, p. 70, for his 9 view of the meaning of the Hebrew gnebedh, which these writers so stoutly contend, always means slave. He says, " It is important to bear in remembrance that the use of the term gnebedh, no where in the Scriptures of necessity implies slavery." Again, " for any thing that can be learned from the mere use of the ivord gnebedh, the kind of servitude then existing [in the time of the patriarchs] may have had none of the es- sential elemi)nts of slavery." Now turn to the work of Dr. Charles Elliott, of St. Louis, Mo., on the " Bible and Slavery" p. 33. He says : " The Hebrews used but one word — ebed or abed — to express all the relations of servitude of every sort, abad, the verb means to labor, to worh The noun abed derived from the last means a laborer, a servant. It is applied to a person who performs any kind of service." " The Hebrews had two words to denote female servants, The one was ama, rendered maid servant, bond-maid, maid, bond-woman, maid, etc. The other was Shiphcha rendered hand-maid, bond-maid, maiden, maid servant. As far as the meaning of these words is concerned there is no countenance for slavery. Indeed, the Hebrew language had no single word to denote a slave, and the context, or peculiar phraseology, must be adduced to show that slavery or slave is intended, as no single word will answer this purpose," observe there- fore that Albert Barnes and Charles Elliott, D. D., who have written the ablest books on the Bible and Slavery the age has produced, state the case in precisely the same terms that I have done. § 4. View of the translators of the English version. It is a good cause of gratulation that our authorized Eng- lish Version has in general taken the correct view of the Hebrew. Bishop Hopkins, remarks that the word " slave" occurs but twice in the English Bible. But the Bishop is not quite cor- rect. The word slave is found only once, Jer. 2: 14, "Is 10 Israel a Servant? Is he a home born [5/ayc?]" But here the original gnehedh hayith, does not necessarily imply a slave, and that the translators so understood this, is apparant from the fact that, they have italicised the word slave thereby showing- that it does not belong to the original Hebrew. The word " slaves" in the plural number is found only in the English Bible in Rev. 18 : 13. "In this passage the vota- ries of Babylon or old Rome, the mother of Harlots, lament that no man buyeth their merchandize of gold and silver * * and horses and chariots and slaves [greek Somaton of bodies,] and souls of men." Here doubtless slaves are meant and slavery is hereby branded as one of the abominable sins of the mother of Harlots, who makes merchandise of the " bodies and souls of meny Bishop Hopkins goes on to say that " the term servant commonly employed by our translators has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and Greek originals as a general rule where it stands alone." The trutli is precisely the reverse of this declaration. The term '•' servant'' commonly employed by our transla- tors, never has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and Greek originals when it stands alone, i. e. without being qualified by the context. For example, the Israelites are called " Servants of the Egyptians," here it means slaves, because the context shows that their service was coerced or involuntary. So the case of Joseph. We know he was a slave, because the account given us in Genesis is that he was sold and used as an invol- untary servant. We inquire further : If the Hebrew original word, gnehedh — a man servant — standing alone, means a slave, why did our translators uniformly render it servant ? This word occurs above 600 times in the Old Testament, and according to Bishop Hopkins, means " a slave.'' Yet our venerable and learned translators have never rendered it " slave" in a single instance. This is certainly very remarkable, if the Bishop's doctrine be true. Then we have the terra amah — a female 11 servant — occurring also very frequently, but neither is this ever translated slave. If now we turn to the New "Testament, we find the original terms doulos and doule — man servant and maid servant — oc- curring more than one hundred times ; yet they are never ren- dered slave by our translators in a single instance. I am only now calling attention to the fact that Bishop Hopkins has declared himself against the 47 translators of our Eng- lish Bible. He has set up his authority against theirs on a question of translation. Now we have simply to say, that in our opinion Bishop Hopkins is in the wrong, and the transla- tors' are in the right. And we will proceed to vindicate the translators by an appeal to individual passages, and to the common sense of our readers. Let the point be kept in mind. The Bishop says, " The term servant, commonly employed by our translators, has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and Greek originals." "We appeal to a passage claimed by the Bishop as sustaining his view. Gen. 9 : 25, " Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren." The context shows that this is a prophecy of Noah in re- sard to his ei'andson Canaan. Inasmuch as he was never even a servant of his brethren personally, the reference must be to his posterity. Let us now read the passage with the amended translation of Bishop Hopkins. " Cursed be Ca- naan, a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren." The Bishop, remarking on this passage, says, " The Almighty fore- seeing this total degradation of the race, ordained them — the Canaanitcs — to servitude or slavery, under the descendants of of Shem and Japheth." But the Bishop did not observe that not only the Canaanitcs are slaves, but also that they are the slaves of other slaves. " A slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren." Our question then is, who are these other slaves? The Canaanitcs, the Bishop says, were slaves of the Hebrews. But to whom have the Hebrews been slaves ? " All history," the Bishop says, " proves how accurately the prediction has been accomplished." The Hebrews as a nation were carried 12 into captivity to Babylon, but not into slavery — and as a na- tion -we are not aware that history reveals that they have ever been reduced to that condition. The Bishop must therefore review his translation, for the Jews never have been slaves, even according to his own definition, viz., " Slaves are serv. ants for life, descending to their offspring." History gives no evidence that the Jews have been slaves in this sense. They have been servants indeed in the sense that their nationality is dependent and has been dependent for many ages, and was dependent in the time of our Savi- our, the nation then receiving Roman Governors, and paying tribute to the Romans. But they could not then be said properly to be slaves of the Romans. But they were, it is admitted on all hands servants to the Romans. With this translation of the English version, the prophecy has been fulfilled. But we must deny that it has been ful- filled in the sense of Bishop Hopkins' rendering. We infer then that " servants" is the correct translation, and not '' slaves." Let any man take Cruden's Concordance and read under the word servant, substituting the word slave therefor, and he will find himself led at once into the greatest absurdities : e. ST. " Pharaoh made a feast unto all his* slaves." The Lord will repent himself for his slaves. He will avenge the blood of his slaves. " Paul a slave of the Lord Jesus Christ, &c." It is into such absurdities that Bishop Hopkins leads his fol- lowers and readers. It is only needful to cite one example out of hundreds to refute his declaration, that the " term se?-- vant commonly employed by our translators has the meaning of slave in the Hebrew and Greek originals." § 5. What is the meaning of the term " bond-man," in the Eng- lish Bible ? Our translators have rendered the Hebrew gnebedh, in about 20 instances "bondman." Thus the mere English reader gets the impression that slaves are meant, in such passages, in distinction from servants. But the original word 13 is the same. And it is in my judgment a misfortune that this inconsistency appears in our English Version. Let the Eng- lish reader then be upon his guard lest any inference from this fact be drawn unfavorable to free service, and favorable to the pro-slavery view. I can conceive of no good reason for this variation from the common meaning — servant, unless it be in those cases in which gnebedh clearly refers to involuntary servants, as Deut. 6 : 12, " Beware lest thou forget the Lord who brought thee out of the house of hoiidmeii" — slavery or involuntary servitude in Egypt. See 6 : 21, 7 : 8, and others. I have dwelt longer on this matter of translation, and the usage of the word gnebcdk for the reason that here is the proton pseudos, the beginning of error, on the part of the pro- slavery writers. It does not refer to slavery at all, unless the context requires it, and never, I may say, when it stands alone. § 6. What in a tcord, were the gnebedheem, servants, of the He- brews ? In distinction from the sakir or hired servant, who wrought only by the day and lived with his own family, the gnebedh was attached to the family receiving his support and the sup- port of his wife and children so long as he might wish to stay. Such servants were Eliezer in the family of Abraham, and Belhah and Zelpah in the family of Jacob. See further remarks in following sections. The error of the pro-slavery writers is that they find no place for a class of servants between those hired and those enslaved. § 7. Does the prophecy of Noah prove slavery ? The prophecy of Noah recorded in the ninth chapter of Genesis, seems to be regarded as the corner stone of the pro- slavery argument from the Bible. Hence all the writers un- der review elaborate it and refer to it again and again. Es- pecially Dr. Lord and " X " of the N. H. Patriot. It is to 14 them a precious " douceur'' — a sweet morsel. But let them consider it attentively, and they will see that the hopes they have built upon this passage are entirely illusory. The prophecy with the context reads as follows : Verse 20. And Noah )3egan to be a husbandman, and he planted a Vineyard. Verse 21. And he drank of the wine and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Verse 22. And Ham the father of Canaan saw the naked- ness of his father and told his two brethren without. Verse 23. And Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both of their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father ; and their faces were backward and they saw not their father's nakedness. Verse 24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. Verse 25. And he said, cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Verse 26. And he said, blessed be the Lord God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant. Verse 27. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. The reader will perceive that the point of the prophecy re- lied upon by the pro-slavery interpreters is contained in the 25th verse, " cursed be Canaan a servant of servants shall he he to his breihren." In order to make this apply to slavery they all with one consent give the passage another rendering, and quote a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren. This being assumed without one word of proof, they are on the high road to the conclusion that slavery is divine. And that all the children of Ham, one third of the human family, — the people of Ca- naan, of Arabia, of Egypt, and indeed, of all Africa, are by the divine decree made slaves to Shem and Japheth forever- And these gentlemen seem to enjoy it as though they had real- ly got into the pro-slavery paradise ; and sit back in their easy chairs, and each says, "I have servants [slaves] voider me, and 15 J say to this slave go and he goeth, and to my other slave do this and he doeth it." A truly happy company ! And they are much better Christians than the anti-slavery white trash, the infidel abolitionists around them ! They not only Jcnow more than others of the Christian family, but they are doing vastly more for Christ and his cause. " In a pro- portion of thousands to one !" says Bishop Hopkins. His words are, "J believe that the number of negroes Christianized and civiJzed at the So2ith, through the system of Slavery, exceeds the product of (English and American) Missionary labors in a proportion of thousands to one.:' The venerable Dr. Lord nods his assent to this bit of plantation logic, and little " X " of the New Hampshire Patriot becomes quite vociferous with the glorious idea of extending Messiah's kingdom by bringing its savage tribes under the dominion of slavery. I would sug- gest that he begin with the wild savage rioters of New York city, and the Pennsylvania coal mines ! But we must return to Noah's prophecy. Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. What does it mean ? Evidently that Canaan's descendants, in the far-seeing eye of Jehovah, should be brought down to the condition of servants to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. Canaan was the youngest son of Ham, Cush Mis- raim and Phut, being put before him. Evidently this curse is limited to the descendants of Canaan. But why should this prophecy be uttered at this time ? The ill conduct of Ham had given the occasion, and hence it was proper that it should now be spoken. So far as the account goes. Ham's conduct was only slightly criminal. It was not because of Ham's conduct, nor on account of anything that Canaan had done that this malediction was pronounced ; but simply as a prophecy as to what would be the history of the descendants of Canaan. The tenth chapter of Genesis, the 15th, 16th 17th, 18th and 19th verses, shows who the descendants of Canaan were, and where they settled. Verse 15. And Canaan begat Sidon his first born and Heth, 16 Verse 16. And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, Verse 17. And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, Verse 18. And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite ; and afterward were the families of the Canaan- ites spread abroad. How far they were spread appears from the next verse. Verse 19. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza ; as thou goest unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha, From these sons of Canaan sprang the seven nations of Canaan, who were subdued by Joshua, as we learn from Joshua 12: 7; 8. Verse 7. And these are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan on the west, * * * which Joshua gave to the tribes of Israel for a possession. Verse 8. * '^ ^ The Hittites, the Amorites, and the Canaauites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. These and these alone were the people referred to in the curse, " cursed be Canaan." It had no reference whatever to the other families of the children of Ham. Every one will see who is at all acquainted with Biblical history, how wonderfully tliis prophecy has been fulfilled in the case of the Canaanites. Subdued by Joshua, they have never gained their independence to this day. First, they became .subject to the Jews, then to the Baby- lonians, then the Persians, Greeks and Romans, and for many ages have been subject to the Turks, and are such at the pre- sent hour. They are described by Dr. Robinson as existing at the present day, in the valley of Jordan, and in the low lands along the Mediterranean, in the Plains of Sharon. A poor despised people, servants of the Arab tribes who are at the same time under the Turkish yoke,''^ and it may be said that * The Canaanites were a distinct people and servants to the Jews in the time of Solomon. See 1 K. 9 : 20-22. In Matt. 15 : 22, 59, we have an affecting account of a Canaanite woman 17 the Turks are servants or dependents on the Western Pow- ers, France and England, and have been for nearly half a century. Thus it is that Canaan is a strvant of servants, and Japhet is enlarged and dwells in the tents of Shem. Thus it is that the prophecy is strangely fulfilled in the de- scendants of Canaan. Now we could prove negatively that Hani's other sons have not been and are not subject in this sense to any other people. Misraim settled in Egypt, Phut in Morocco, and Cush in Ethiopia. Egypt, under various dynasties has gener- ally maintained her independence of all foreign powers. And the Negro tribes of Northern, Central and Eastern Africa have also been generally independent, and in no proper sense could be said to have been "servants to Shem and Ja- pheth." The prophecy is fulfilled alone in a non-negro race, the Canaanites of Palestine, and by no other, and has nothing to do with the people of Africa, or the other descen- dents of Ham. The Canaanites were servants after the conquest of Josh- ua. They continued to be servants till the time of our Lord, in the sense of being a subjugated people. They are servants at the present day — voluntary servants, to the people among whom they dwell ; but I have not yet been able to learn that they have ever been enslaved. They are servants in the sense that the Irish people are servants of the English Crown ; but the Irish people are not slaves, nor have the Canaanites ever been slaves, so far as I can learn, in any period of their his- tory. And yet Dr. Lord, Bishop Hopkins, and " X," all unite in the opinion that they were slaves, and not only they but the entire family of Ham was under the curse pronounced only upon Canaan, and that all alike were destined to slave- ry. But in each case the proof is wanting. They give us lordly assertion enough, but an infinitesimal amount of proof, e. g. Dr. Lord says, p. 53 : whose daughter was possessed of a dovil, and who came to our Lord and earnestly besought him to have mercy on her. This incident shows that the Canaanites were still a distinct people in the time of our Saviour, but let us observe that there is no evidence that she was a slave. 2 18 " The offended sire looked only upon the son who had dis- honored him." And how Dr., had poor Ham dishonored his father ? He happened to open his eyes and see him in his disgraceful plight of drunkenness and nakedness, and tm^ned away as any pure minded man would, and yet you add he was " Cairi- ish" of Cainisk propensities, of Cainish associations, and his influence was Cainish. And the conclusion is that all of poor Ham's posterity must therefore be doomed to slavery. All this reasoning and poetry lacks only one thing, and that is terra jirma on which to rest. Fm'thermore, Dr. Lord will have it that there is a con- nection between Cain and Canaan. There is indeed a slight likeness in the sound of the two words, but no connec- tion at all in the etymology or in the meaning. The two men lived two thousand years apart. This is all the connection there is between them ! Cain slew his brother, but Canaan committed no crime, so far as the scriptures tell us. His de- scendants became corrupt and wicked, and thus in the just judgments of God were subject to Israel, but this was not till centuries after the father was in his grave. But the " Histories relate [what histories ?] that the exterminated Canaanites fled in all directions to the wilds of Africa, as ev- idence is not wanting with their Cainish mark [a black skin] upon them." The venerable and learned doctor could not possibly leave out this old wives fable, from his second letter. His reference is to Gen. 4:15. God gave a si o-/^ — oth — to Cain, &c., not put a marh [a black complexion] upon him. For this there is no authority in the usage of the word. — Please, Doctor, look at your Hebrew Bible ! But last of all " X" thinks he has found out the solution, the complete demonstration that slavery is divine, from the prophecy of Noah. And what is this demonstration ? It is briefly as follows : That Noah's prophecy indicated the divine will, — that the di- vine will is right ; — therefore slavery is right, and divine. But 19 is Mr. X, sure that prophecy always indicates the divine will, and that whatever is prophesied is always right ? Take the first prophecy recorded in the Bible, Gen. 3:15: " It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel." Here the seed of the woman, viz : Christ is prophecied of as bruising the head of the serpent. Yery well, this is ac- cording to the divine will, we say. But hoAV about the other part ? " And thou [serpent] shall bruise his [Christ's] heel." Is bruising Christ's heel according to the divine will ? Is that right? You, Mr. X., or your principle, says yes ! Then I say Judas Iscariot did right when he betrayed the Lord, for that was prophesied. Then the devil did right when he en- tered into Judas, for that, also, was prophesied. Then, also, the Jews did right when they crucified Christ, for this, too, was prophesied. To such absurdities this principle leads you. Take another case for illustration. Tlie prophecy of the Lord to Abraham in Gen. 15:13: " And he said unto Abram know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them 400 years." Here is a prophecy that the children of Israel should be enslaved by the Egyptians, and greviously afflicted for hun- dreds of years, and for no fault of theirs. But according to this principle, that prophecy is God's declared will, this en- slaving of Israel for 200 years and upward was all right ! When God punished the Egyptians for doing his will, and that was of course all right. To such absurdities and contra- dictions this principle leads. Need I present you another example ^ Take the prophecy of Jacob, recorded in the forty-ninth of Genesis. Jacob here prophecies some strange things in respect to his sons. He prophecies of Reuben, '''unstable as water, thou shall not ex- cel ;" i. e. it was the will of God that poor Reuben should not excel ! Of Dan he says, " He shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horses heels." This, too, must be the will of God ! — for it is prophecy. Of Judah 20 he prophesies, " his ejes shall be red with wine." This, too, is the will of God. So slavery, drunkenness, robbery, are all according to the will of God, and aU right ! To such folly and wickedness the principle of " X." leads. § 8. Was Abraham a Slaveholder ? The passages relied upon by pro-slavery writers to prove that Abraham was a slaveholder are Gen. 12 : 5, 16, and oth- ers which follow : '• And Abram took Sarai, his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and all the sotds that they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan." " And he [Abram] had sheep and oxen and he asses and men servants and maid servants and she asses and camels." But I submit that there is no evidence in these passages that there were any slaves at all in Abraham's family. They only prove that Abraham had servants, voluntary servants, family servants, attached to him by ties of friendship, and it may be of consanguinity, the}^ without the slightest coercion yielding their services and receiving in return the patriarch's fatherly support and protection. The authority of Abraham may be compared to that of an Arabian Chief or Sheik, whose household is usually made up of voluntary dependents and their families aside from his own wife and children. It could not have been otherwise with a man in his circumstances. There were no laws in the Desert to restrain the runaway, and no fellow slaveholder to help him in case of insurrection. Besides, he was a wise, just and generous character, and could not seek to degrade and oppress his household. God testified of him, " 1 know him, that he will command his children and his household af- ter him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do jus- tice and judgment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen. 18:19. There could not have been any of the oppressions of slavery, there- fore, in the family of Abraham. 21 Job or Jobab was probably a cotemporary of Abraham, and whose possessions and servants were greater than those of Abraham. The spirit in which he exercised his authority as a master is seen in Job 31 : 13, and precludes tlie idea of slavery. We quote from the Hebrew : If I spurn my servant's or handmaid's right In their controversy with me ; Then what shall I do, when God ar'seth ? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him ? Did not he who made him in the womb make him ? And has not o)ie formed us in the womb ? The next passage relied upon is found in Gen. 14: 14, 15. Yerse 14. " And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive he armed his trained servants, horn in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them to Dan." Yerse 15. "And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus." [i. e. to the North of Damascus.] The question is not whether Abraham had servants, but whether he had slaves or involuntary coerced servants, and whether these three hundred and eighteen trained servants who fought so bravely and so successfully for him were slaves. As a general rule slaves will not fight for their masters but against them, and hence the leaders in " the great rebel- lion," have not dared, after three years' fighting, and under the most powerful incentives, to put arms into the hands of their slaves. The slaves in such case would fight against their masters. The whole history of slavery has proved it. The circumstances mentioned then in this brief portion of Abraham's history is as good as demonstration that these ser- vants were not slaves but his voluntary servants, honored , and acknowledged by him as possessed of freedom and equal rights. The next passage which comes in chronological order, and afi'ects the question, whether Abraham was a slaveholder is Gen. 15 : 1, 2, 3. " After these thinffs the word of the Lord came unto Abram 22 in a vision saying, fear not Abram, I am tli}' shield and thy exceeding great reward." " And Abram said, what wilt thou give me seeing I go child- less and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damas- cus?" And Abram said behold to me thou has given no seed ; and, lo ! one born in my house is my heir. The question here is, JVas this Eliezer of Damascus a slave of Abraham ? The fact that he was the steward of Abraham, and his heir in the event of Abraham's dying childless, seems to be at va- riance altogether, with the idea that Eliezer was an involun- tary coerced servant or slave. " X " of the N. H. Patriot tries to avoid this conclusion by accepting the reading of the Septuagint as quoted by Dr. Adam Clark, " as curious." It reads as follows, ho de u-hios Masck tes oiJcogenovs mou houtos Vamaskos Eliezer. The son of Masek, my maid servant is this Demascene Eliezer. Dr. Clark very well quotes it as a curiosity, which " X " in his simplicity takes for solid truth. But the sole authority for this variation from the Hebrew is the Septuagint, which in this case can be regarded of no consequence, inasmuch as the old Hebrew root mashak means to possess, and hence meshek — possession, and hen meshek, son of possession or possessor, hence the translation plainly should be the jwssessor of my house [will be~\ this Demascene Eliezer. In this view there is a universal agreement both among Jewish and Christian interpreters. — The Septuagint gloss is simply unnecessary and unauthorized. Besides it does not matter. If Eliezer was the son of a ser- vant woman, it does not follow that he. was a slave. And further the circumstances and position of this Eliezer clearly show that his service in the family of Abraham was not a co- erced service. It was an honorable, dignified and responsi- ' ble service, and was not likely tlicrefore to be entrusted to a menial slave. Besides, how could he be an heir or a posses- sor of property and yet be a slave ? How can a slave be an owner, who does not own himself? An essential idea of the 23 word slave, is that he belongs to, or is the possession of an- other. Therefore a slave can own nothing, all that he is, and all that he has belongs to his master. Hence the idea of " X " is absurd and ridiculous that this man could be an heir of Abraham, and at the same time a slave ; or the guardian of his son Isaac, and at the same time the slave of his son Isaac. Eliezer was the steward of Abraham, all the property of the patriarch was put into his hands. He was the guardian of his son Isaac, as appears from Gen. 24 : 1, 2, 3 ; we quote, " And Abraham was old and well stricken in age, and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things." 2. " And Abraham said unto liis eldest servant of his house [viz Eliezer] that ruled over all that he had, put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh." 3. " And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell." Now let us look at the circumstances and see whether there is any good ground to believe that this man was a slave — a mere slave. Abraham lived twenty years after this, (Gen- 25: 7,) and Isaac was forty years old, as appears from Gen. 25 : 20, "and Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife ;" and yet this man Eliezer " ruled over all that Abraham had." He even had the guardianship of his son, went to Padan-aram, [Mesopotamia] and selected a wife for Isaac, made rich pres- ents to the lady and the family of Bethuel, conducted the ex- pedition back to Canaan, a distance of several hundred miles, through a desert country, presented the lady to Isaac and told him " all things that he had done," as a faithful steward and friend. If this man was a slave, he was treated very diiBFer- ently from what the slaves of the South are treated, and with a liberality and confidence unknown to slavery. I therefore infer that " X " has made a great mistake in claiming Eliezer to be a slave. There would at least be equal reason in claim- ing Queen Victoria's prime minister to be a slave. 24 A further question bearing on our inquiry ivhether Abraham was a slaveholder is the question as to the status of Hagar, — Was she ff slave ? The account of Hagar and of her connection with the fam- ily of Abraham is contained in the 16th chapter of Genesis. From this chapter it appears that Sarah, Abraham's wife, had no children, and she had come to that advanced period in life which would preclude the expectation of children. Then the account says : Verse 3. "And Sarai, Abram's ivife, took Ha- o-ar her maid, the Egyptian, after Ahram had dwelt ten years in the land oj Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram, to be his wifey Abram took Hagar, and she was henceforth his wife. Yerse 15. And Hagar bare Abram a son, and Abram called his sori' s name which Hagar bare, Ishmael ; and Abram was four-score and six years old when Hagar hear Ishmael to Abram." Hagar therefore was Abram's wife, acknowledged to be such by Sarah, accepted as such by Abram, and the mother of at least one of his children. Now let me ask, was she at the same time Abraham's slave ? Could he sell her ? or could he drive her from his house ? or cease to provide for her as a moral man ? or as a good man ? This fact then sends this impious theory to the winds, that Hagar was his slave. A servant she had been, but now she is more, she is a wife. A secondary wife it is true, but yet a wife, and as such, having all the rights of a wife both legal and moral. This consideration that she was Abraham's wife disposes of another very pious idea of Mr. " X ". He says that the angel of the Lord, who was Jesus Christ, met her in the wil- derness and told her to go back to her mistress and submit herself. Very well. But how submit herself? as a slave? Yes, says he, as a slave. Hence he makes the Lord Jesus a returner of a fugitive slave ! He who said, " break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free," sends back to her bondage this poor panting fugitive ! This is his version, and the ab- surdity as well as impiety of it is apparent. I would observe further that this woman Hagar was a wife 25 of Abram, so recognized by the angel, subordinate indeed to Sarah, but yet a wife of Abram, aud having her rights as such. The angel tells her to return and submit herself, and take her former place in Abram's family. She had her right to sup- port and recognition as a wife to Abram, and it was best un- der the circumstances that she should so do. She did return, not as a slave, but as a wife, subordinate to Sarah, and for 15 years at least lived happily in this relation. Abraham loved Ishmael, and doubtless continued to love his mother. Thir-' teen years passed away, and the rite of circumcision was in- stituted. Abraham was now 99 years old, and Ishmael a lad of 13 years was circumcised, together with his father. About this time Isaac was promised, but Abraham, though he was glad that a son was about to be born to him, now a hundred years old, was yet full of solicitude for Ishmael. And Abra- ham said unto God, " that Ishmael might live before thee. And God said Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed ; and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him." " And as for Ishmael I have heard thee : Behold I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful,