E449 .F9617 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 1 V ^ M * $• Lincoln. 1845." The title of the book is objectionable, if Mr. Wayland is to be regarded as repudiating the idea that the sacred scrip- tures furnish no support for slavery — " Domestic Slavery con- sidered as a Scriptural Institution" — since this title implies that both the writers " consider slavery scriptural." But I have supposed the idea intended by Mr. W. to be that the corres- pondents " considered" — argued the question — in the light of scripture truth; though, if I understand him, he has made admissions which go to a virtual surrender of the argument into his opponent's hands, and allow slavery to be "a scriptural institution." In this I am not alone. Mr. Fuller says, "if slavery was sanctioned in the Old and permitted in the New Testament, it cannot be a sin ; and he who says it is, will answer to God whom he affronts, and not to me." It is our purpose to examine this proud position with care. I shall first consider MR. FULLER'S VIEWS OF SLAVERY AND HIS ARGUMENT. In examining Mr. Fuller's view of slavery, I shall take bis own statement of the proposition which was to be discussed by him and Mr. Wayland, and his own definition of slavery. This, I think, is the only fair way of treating his part of the " Correspondence." " The question before us," says Mr. F., " I suppose to be simply this, Is slaveholding always a sin ?"* It is due to him * 1st Letter to Mr. W., p. 130. a2 b REVIEW OV to say, that, in discussing this proposition, Mr. F. is not, like certain northern opponents of abolition, guilty of descending to such mere quibbles as — " Is that slaveholder chargeable with sin, who would emancipate his slaves if he could, but can not!" "Is he guilty who has resolved to emancipate, and is on his way with his slaves to the North for this express purpose ?" or "he who lives where it is contrary to the law to manumit on the spot, and is too poor to convey them to an- other State, or has mortgaged them for security V &c. He saw that all such suppositions are inapposite to the question, and contents himself with giving such a definition of slavery as comports with his conviction of what is right for him, and therefore, for every other man, to support. For, though he is " unwilling to appear as the eulogist and abettor of slavery, but simply the apologist of an institution transmitted to us by former generations, the existence of which," he says, "I la- ment,"* he soon adds, " I do say it is wrong to pronounce it a moral evil and a great crime in the sight of God."t " If sla- very be a crime necessarily and essentially, the manner in which it was orginated is just nothing at all to the purpose. Slavery is a condition, and if it be one of guilt, then not only is the master bound to clear his skirts of it, without regard to its origin or consequences, but (as with a woman detained in adultery,) it is the duty of the slave — his duty not only to himself but to hi3 master — to revolt and escape." Here Mr. F. frankly and fully admits the correctness and propriety of the abolition doctrines and measures, as held and practiced by the " ultraists," if slavery, in his own definition of it, is sinful. I as fully grant, that, if slavery is not sinful, taking the same definition of it, our doctrines and measures are all wrong, and ought to be abjured. * 1st Letter to Mr. W., p. 128. t p. 129. FULLER AND WAY LAND. 7 I cannot allow this opportunity to pass, without declaring the pleasure I experience in according with Mr. F. in some of his sentiments. " If a good work cannot be carried on by the calm, self-controlled, benevolent spirit of Jesus, then the time for doing it has not come." Perhaps, I might prefer saying, that " then the time for" repenting of wrong feelings, and seeking after the right " spirit" has come ; for the good work ought to be done at any " time," but not with a bad " spirit." " The wrath of man" no more " worketh the righte- ousness of God," in the cause of abolition, I grant, than in holding a slave ; and if the " benevolent spirit of Jesus" can, if Jesus himself could, hold a slave, then Mr. F. is doing right in holding slaves, on the terms of his own definition of slavery, which I will soon lay before the reader in his own words. I suppose, however, that Mr. F. would admit that an evil spirit is not more desirable or virtuous in promoting a bad work than a good one. " That sin must at once be abandoned," adds Mr. F., with strictest truth, '•' is a proposition which admits of no debate. If slavery, then, be a sin, it should at once be abolished " — Here is our doctrine, so bitterly quarrelled with by many at the North, — the ultra abolition doctrine of "immediate eman- cipation, regardless of all other consequences than may ever be expected to follow from obeying the mandate of the Al- mighty ;" for, if divine truth requires, as we believe it does, that the little word "if," of Mr. F.,be stricken out, the doctrine of immediate abolition could not be better expressed than — u Slavery" being " a sin, it should at once be abolished." Mr. F. is no gradualist ; and, erroneous in his views of slavery as I regard him, his error is less pernicious than that of many professed haters of slavery, who, while they declare slavery to be " a most horrid sin," inculcate the heresy that this sin, un- like any other, ought not to be abandoned at once, but ought to 8 REVIEW OF be gradually desisted from. I wonder not at the astonishment expressed by Mr. F. that his antagonist should be guilty of such a heresy. Mr. F., in this particular, honors the sacred scriptures £ar more than his antagonist, who, though calling slavery a sin, had, nevertheless, admitted that God gave spe- cial direction to the Jews to hold slaves, and that the apostles permitted slavery, when Mr. F. replies, " What God sanc- tioned in the Old Testament and permitted in the New, cannot be sin." Mr. F. also justly and indignantly rejects the idea that God ever taught the doctrine of " expediency," as it is set forth and commended by Mr. Wayland. Indeed, there are, in these letters of Mr. Fuller, many val- uable truths which were once believed, inculcated, and prac- ticed at the North; but which, in their "over-heated and inconsiderate zeal" and haste to put down the abolitionists, and to persuade the slaveholders of their trustworthiness in their service, (SovXsia) the "conservators" have sacrificed, though, as it appears, without attaining their object, either at the North or at the South ; for the abolitionists have not been put down, and the slaveholders do not thank these, servile men for their unfortunate abandonment of some of the best known and most valuable truths to aid their cause ; because they fear, perhaps, lest it will necessarily be thought a bad cause whose support or defence requires such sacrifices. Mr. F. certainly neither thanks Mr. W. nor gives him any honorable credit for the admissions he has made, though he gives him to un- derstand that, in making them, he had surrendered the entire argument. I am now reviewing Mr. F. and not Mr. W., or I might express the sorrow I have invariably felt, since the appearance of these letters, that the defence of freedom had not in this instance fallen into the hands of one who had studied the subject w-ith more care, and was possessed of more of the spirit of William Wilberforce, Lafayette, Thomas FULLER AND WAYLAND. H ClarksoQj or Touissaint L' Ouverture. The capacious love of man which animated the hosom of cither of those truly great men, would have conducted him through the discussion with more of honor to himself, and of safety to the oppressed mil- lions, whose ostensible defender this writer assumed to be, without a call from their real friends. But as the argument •has been left in this discussion triumphantly in the hands of the advocate of slavery, the evil must be borne with as much patience as its terrible magnitude will permit. It may, how- ever, seem reasonable that those who have spent many of the best years of their life in toil, and with many sacrifices, and enduring no mengre amount of reproach, to shed light upon the holy cause of human rights, and to retrieve it from the low- condition to which " the love of money" and pride, and licen- tiousness had reduced it, should experience some chagrin on living to see so much of their labor counteracted, and so much of what they had achieved for the slave, wrecked and lost. Just so much more is to be done, before the cause of universal liberty shall be uplifted above the reach of the spoilers, and it must be done. This " Correspondence" renders the duty more imperative. Triumphant as Mr. F. and his friends may regard his argu- ment, not only over that of Mr. W., but over every other, it may be said, without arrogance, that the simple truth, even in the hand of one much his inferior, is too strong for his ingeni- ous sophistry ; and, in humble faith in the God of the oppres- sed, and devoutly imploring his aid, I shall endeavor to expose that sophistry, and to show that his entire argument is reared on a fallacy, and is, therefore, a failure. This fallacy is contained in his definition of slavery, and, therefore, I shall subject that definition to a candid and careful scrutiny. It is given by Mr. F. in the following explicit terms : 41 Slavery is bondage. It is (to give Palev's idea in other lan- A3 10 REVIEW OF guage) the condition of one to whose service another has a right,* without the consent or contract of the servant. The addition you make to this definition is really included in it, the original right involving, of course, all rights necessarily and properly implied." In his introductory letter, he had quoted the definition of Dr. Paley, " an obligation to labor for the benefit of the mas- ter, without the contract or consent of the slave ;" and then remarked, " This is all that enters into the definition of slave- ry, and what ingredient here is sinful?" p. 7. And he had added a very important explanation, denying thai the slavery he approves, necessarily involves the chattel relation, " It is by no means an attribute of slavery that a master may treat his slaves as a chattel ; the Bible forbids this, and every feeling of our nature rises up and must forever and effectually prevent it." " The slave has his rights, many of which are protected by our laws, and all by the Bible." " Property in a slave is only a right to his service without his consent or contract ; and if this be necessarily criminal, then the authority of a father over his child, and of government over its citizens, must be criminal too." p. 9. Fair dealing requires that I allow Mr. Fuller thus fully to explain himself; and, having so done, I return to consider his definition of slaveny, quoted from page 130 of the book. * That Mr. Fuller should have been guilty of thus misrepre- sening " Paley's idea," is astounding ; for" Paley" has given his own " idea" itself 'in this" other language :" " Slavery," said Pa- ley, in the year "■ 1780," probably before Mr. F. was born, " is a dominion and system of laws the most merciless and tyrannical that were ever tolerated upon the face of the earth." He might as well have said that, he gave William Pitt's idea, which was, that " Slavery is incurable injustice. Why is injustice to remain a single hour V Or that of Grotius — "Those are men-stealers (dvSpaifoditf'rcus, 1 Tim. 1 : 10.) who abduct, keep, sell or buy slaves." FULLER AND WAYLANP. 11 To come at a correct and full view of his meaning, it seems necessary that I state here what was Mr. Wayland's " addi- tion" to Mr. Fuller's definition, which, the latter says, " is really included in it." " If the master enjoy this right (to oblige the slave to labor for his benefit, without the consent of the slave,) he enjoys," said Mr. W. very correctly, " also the right to use all the means necessary both to enforce and to render it per- manent. If this right exist, therefore, I do not perceive that any exception can be taken to the sternest laws which have ever been enacted in any of the Southern States, even though they prohibit, under the severest penalties, the education of the negroes, and forbid them to assemble for the worship of God, except under the strictest surveillance." p. 23. So, then, all this " is really included in" Mr. Fuller's definition of slave- ry, and is, of course, " the right" conferred by God on Mr. F., and all other slaveholders, if slavery is, as he claims, an insti- tution recta in se, (essentially good) being established and approved of God. I regard this as the proper place to take notice of the fact that Mr. F., whatever some of his remarks about " a material retrenchment" from this definition may seem to signify to the contrary, goes the whole length in approving and attempting to defend the existing Slavery of this country. His language is strong and even eulogistic of Southern slavery, as the fol- lowing long quotation amply evinces. " As soon as slavery is mentioned in the North, there is conjured up, in the minds of many persons, I know not what confused, revolting combi- nation, and heart-rending spectacle, of chains, and whips, and cruelty, and crime, and wretchedness. But I repeat it, even at the peril of tediousness, that necessarily and essentially — (and in a multitude of instances, practically and actually)— slavery is nothing more than the condition of one who is de- prived of political power, and does service, without his contract A I 12 REVIEW OF or consent, it is true, but yet, it may be, cheerfully and happily and for a compensation reasonable and certain, paid in modes of return best for the slave himself. With what is strictly physical liberty the master interferes no more, in such cases, than you do with a hired servant. The work assigned is confessedly very light — scarcely one half of that performed by a white laborer with you. When that is performed, the slaves (to use an. expression common with them) are 'their own masters.' And if you ever allow us the pleasure of seeing you at the South, you will find slaves tilling land for them- selves, and selling various articles of merchandise for them- selves ; and when you inquire of them some explanation, they will speak of their rights, and their property, with as clear a sense of what is due to them, and as much confidence, as they could if free ; and tell you (to use another of their phrases) that they do all this in their own time." pp. 150, 151. Having given Mr. Wayland this very savory taste of Slave- ry, than which nothing could be more false to the facts which give to Southern Slavery its general character, and having thus hinted that, as Mr. W.had condemned the Abolitionists, he had proved himself not one of them, and, therefore, if he should ever visit "the South," instead of being "hanged," he would be received with " pleasure ;" — Mr. Fuller proceeds with evident glee — " I hope, my dear brother, I have shown that your ethical argument does not hold good." p. 151. That Mr. F. intends to include in his definition of Slavery the existing Slavery of the South, is an essential fact, inasmuch as many readers, among whom is Mr. Wayland, have, by some means, been led to suppose that this is not his view ; but that, disapproving the present system as one great "abuse" of the morally right and pure "principle" of slavery, and, therefore, putting it aside, he would begin anew and cultivate a system worthy, in all its practical details, of that divine FULLER AHD WAYLAND. 13 principle. Mr. F. is, consequently, looked upon as a reform- er, and, indeed, one of the better sort. Between him and Mr. W.,many seem to think, slavery will be demolished. These persons see Mr. Fuller standing near the old tree, axe in hand, ready to hew down the huge, awkward, cragged, mis-shapen thing : they see him eyeing it as a very Bohon Upaz bearing the most deadly fruit. The fruit, the branches and the very trunk itself, are all supposed to be odious to Mr. F., as though he regarded what appears above ground as having been en- grafted by unwise and even wicked men ; but he says no such thing in all of his letters. They grant that he has fallen into a trifling mistake, perhaps, in averring that the root (" the principle") is good : still this is of little moment, since he con- demns " the abuses." But for the grafting, then, the fruit would always have been both delicious and salubrious ; nay, the tree itself would have been pleasant to look upon, and would have spread its cooling foliage over many millions more of " the best conditioned peasantry in the world." Nay, in- deed the very grafting seems to be attributable to the fanati- cism of the Abolitionists. Such readers have misread Mr. Fuller. Mr. Wayland, in particular, has imputed to him a dislike of slavery which, I doubt not, he would disown, if he were to reply to Mr. Wayland's last letter. The grand pre- mise he sets out with, is that God instituted the relation of master and slave ; and his inference to the undeniable con- clusion (if only this premise were sound,) is that the master holds the moral right to govern the clave and use his labor with the profits, without asking the consent of the slave, or allowing him to be a party to the contract, the only parties to which are God and the master, as in the case of parent and child — of civil government and subjects. This is Mr. Fuller's illustration. Now, then, he must show that God in- stitutes and authorizes the slaveholding power as He doea 14 REVIEW or parental nnd eivll authority, before ho can prove the rightful- ness of the relation of owner and slavo. Mr. Fuller's argu- ment involved in his illustration proves too much ; since, if from the right of the parent to the service of his child during his minority, and the parent's right to coerce that service, it is legitimately inferrible that the slaveholder has the right to coerce the slave to labor for him, the same inference applies to coerced labor of any other man as well as of the man now claimed as a slave, for it is easy to claim the service of any oilier man, and then the same right would be established on the same principle. And his comparison of the slave to the sub- ject of State government, is equally unfortunate, since, as it is truly averred in the Declaration of Independence, such gov- ernment " derives its just powers from the consent of the governed" which Mr. F. admits is not the fact in the case of the slave, If, however, it could be shown that God ever did establish the relation of master (owner) and slave, we would now only have to ascertain who are the appointed masters and slaves, as we know who are parents and children, and all controversy would cease. Mr. F. is undoubtedly right in denying that slavery is malum in se, a moral evil in itself, if God ever in- stituted it, as he did institute the parental relation. Pie can, then, institute it among any other people, as it is averred he did among the Jews. In the times of Abraham and Moses, he often made known his will by direct revelation, as by an audible voice from heaven, and in visions, and by inspiration ; but now, since these mode3 are supplanted by his written word and his providence, if his word establishes the principle of slavery, his providence may sufficiently indicate the persons who may rightfully own and be owned, or hold and be held, as master and slave. FULLER AND WAYLAND. 15 I may here remark that I am unable to see any good reason for the distinction Mr. F. seems desirous of making, asserting that slaves are rightful property, but objecting to the applica- tion 10 them of the word "chattels," which the laws of his own State expressly make them, and which they must be, so long as they are slaves, property to be bought and sold just like any other chattels ; and he contends that the Bible gives authority to buy, hold and sell, " transfer," them as '•' property." How then, can he make it appear that the Bible forbids chattelizing a man ? This is obviously a mere quibble unworthy of a logician. But we have another remarkable statement which is, by no means, a quibble, but is the directest contradiction and the grossest absurdity. " A right to the service ^of a man with- out his consent or contract," says Mr. F., " conveys no addi- tional rights but those proper and necessary to this original right. But it is not proper and necessary to this original right that a human being be deprived of any right which is justly his, as an immortal, intelligent, moral, social and fallen creature. Therefore, a right to the services of a man, does not justify any wrong done to his mind, or soul, or domestic relations." Is no wrong done " to his mind, or soul, or domestic relations" in the very fact of " urging him to labor for another by a vio- lent motive, without his contract or consent 1" Does Mr. F. see clearly in what way he himself could so be dealt with, without any wrong done to " his mind, or soul, or domestic relations V The case of the child laboring for his father is infinitely different; for, though coerced, it may be, "by a violent motive," to do his father service, that very service is not for the father's benefit alone, but is designed of God, the benevolent institutor of this relation, to result in the greatest good of the child through the kind discipline of the father, the intellectual and moral training he is required to exercise ] 6 REVIEW OF towards the child, together with ample provision for his health and comfort, while under the parental control, and with heir- ship to the property he is earning. But who will pretend that there exists in the slaveholder's heart any such principle as parental love 1 or that such intellectual or moral training can ever be secured to the slave as parental love secures to the child ? or that such care for his health and comfort will be rendered to a slave, where the chief end of holding a slave, young or old, is the emolument of the owner, as parental love spontaneously bestows 1 or that a slave is ever a lawful heir to the property he accumulates? It is worse than folly to at- tempt to make the cases parallel to any extent whatever. To place the most unnatural of all possible relations, which by Mr. Fuller's own definition is the product of violence, side by side with the most natural and endearing of all relations found- ed in the very constitution of man and so ordered as, more than any thing else, to secure the happiness and improvement of children, instead of proving any analogy, evinces most clear- ly the infinite disparity. It is like placing beauty by deformity, virtue by vice, truth by error, heaven by hell, for the purpose of proving that there is between them no essential difference ; it only elevates the good and the lovely, and makes more con- spicuous the evil and the odious. Nevertheless, Mr. Wayland, commenting on this passage in Mr. Fuller, says : " This, I confess, is to me a new view of the institution of domestic slavery, and I must add that it pleases me incomparably better than any that I have ever seen. Slavery, according to this definition, confers on the master no right whatever, beyond merely that of obliging the slave to labor." " Merely that — it pleases me incomparably better," ts,c. This is a trifle surely — to be " obliged to labor " for " another, urged by a violent motive, without consent or contract," during a whole life — " merely that " ! ! — very pleasing ! and a FULLER AND WAYLAND. 1 i very " new view of domestic slavery," too ! The reader may weep that he was not born to such beatitudes. But, seriously, what there is " new*-' in the " view" given by Mr. F., I do not perceive ; and Mr. W. and others are at liberty to ascribe this acknowledgment to my want of intel- lectual acumen. To me it is the same old " view" always held by slaveholders, or rather it is the defense of their " right" of holding slaves, which has always been given by them. In what essential particular does Mr. Fuller's definition differ from the common definitions given by individuals and legis- latures ? According to Dr. Johnson, " slave signifies one mancipated (taken or seized by the hand) or sold to a mas- ter." The code of South Carolina requires that " slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken and reputed to be chattels per- sonal in the hands of their owners and possessors, their execu- tors, administrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever." See laws of S. C. ; Stroud, p. 22. That " the rights (powers) proper and necessary to (maintain) the original right" of holding a man as a slave, comprehend all that the definition of Johnson and the laws of South Caro- lina assert, can not be denied by Mr. F., since he involves in the " rights necessary," the right of " transfer" or sale, and of prohibiting literary instruction. That which to Mr. W. is so " new," and gives him so much pleasure, to me is the same old scheme employed by men time immemorial, for the purpose, first of making the wrongs they perpetrate seem to themselves right, and then, of persuading the rest of mankind to look with favor or at least with miti- gated severity on their practices. Indeed, what other ground could the slaveholder occupy ? It is, in fact, the ground occu- pied alike by all those who, in any degree, respect religious obligation, and yet adhere to some practice which, by candid and uninterested men, is esteemed a settled immorality ; for. 18 REVIEW OP if there Were no way to shield themselves against a like con- viction of its immoral nature, their conscience accusing them of guilt, they see that its abandonment is inevitable. And who, that exists in the present imperfect state of humanity, is ignorant of frequent and spirit-stirring assaults, under such circumstances, of motives of interest, ease, wealth, pride, pleasure 1 These beset us all, " semper et ubique," and, as a mighty besieging force, they invest the city day and night, vigilantly waiting for an opportune occasion, the sleep of a sentinel, the opening of a gate, the falling of an undermined section in the wall, or cautiously essaying the sinking of a mine, or patiently continuing the siege, till want keen and irresistible shall take part with the assailants and counsel a surrender. It is no calumny, therefore, to suppose Mr. F. exposed, like other men, to such moral enemies. To suppose otherwise, would strangely elevate him above the common liabilities of peccable mortals. No man would ask me to make such a concession. An apostle was aware of " a law in his members, warring against the law of his mind"' and sometimes successfully.* I only desire that neither the reader nor Mr. F. himself will place him above the possibility of * Mr. F. seems to be himself aware of the power of circumstances, instead of truth, in making him a slaveholder and keepir.gr him so. This is not the tirst time he has "done battle" for slavery. In the year 1840, he appeared in reply to an Address to the South sent out by the American Baptist Anti- slavery Convention. In that reply he says, " I am confident, had I been born irl Boston, or New York, I would think ns they (the Abolitionists) do." in this he went farther in his reverence for the power of circumstances than facts seem to warrant, since many a Bostonian and other citizen of the North were in 1840, and are in 1847, as much in error as Mr. F. touching this subject; and no small number born and educated in the midst of Southern institutions and glued to slavery by interest, as Brisbane, Bir- ney, and many others, have broken loose from its enchantments and be- come what Mr. P. calls them, " violent Abolitionists." It is not impossible that Mr. F. may join them yet, if his Northern friends will let him ; and. if he should, he would be among the most " violent" of them all, having more guilt accumulated to act upon his conscier.ee than most others, on account of his zealous advocacy of slavery under his superior light. ] i LLEK AND WAYLAXM. J U error or hold him impeccable. A slaveholder may fall into error and sin as another man. This I consider in point here, because of the peculiar boldness and stringency of his denunciations of Abolitionists (by no means including Mr. W. or the Editor of the Reflector, however*) for his tone is that of one speaking ex cathedra or uttering truths oracular. In his letter introductory to the discussion with Mr. W., he is very direct and explicit, and I am glad of it. " The Aboli- tionists," he gravely observes/' are not among those with whom we can associate. They occupy a position hostile alike to us and to the word of God, and to every principle of charity.' So it appears that, in writing to the Reflector (the Reflector bore it meekly) and to Mr. W., who bowed assent, he was not associating with Abolitionists. This is as true as any thing in his letters. But hear him farther — '-'people who are essentially monomaniacs — with whom neither you" (the Ed- itor of the Christian Reflector) " nor anybody at the North, who loves Christ and the gospel better than self and strife and fanatical intolerance, will long be able to harmonize." p. 12. Very gentle and modest ! It is not strange that the Reflector and Mr. W. sweetly acquiesced. " Par nubile fralrum .'" In all this, the tone of Mr. F. is that of one free from doubt — certain that in so treating us, he '•' was doing God service." Whether, like " Saul of Tarsus," he is destined hereafter to retract his accusations of the disciples cf Christ, it does not become the denounced to determine. God knows, and future historians will, probably, set the matter right. This is all we ask. We are, at present, cashiered — looked down upon as unworthy of being " associates " of such men as Mr. F., the Editor of the Reflector, Mr. W. and " any body at the North, ivho" &c* In return, I will not even venture so much as to * In the " reply" alluded to in the previous Note, speaking of the kind 13 20 REVIEW OF look up and ask, whether we (the thousands of men and wo- men who remain faithful to the slave) do, indeed, merit this- treatment at tlie hands of Mr. F. 1 — or whether either he or his cheerful endorser, Mr. W., is aware of " the spirit he is of" 1 One thing is, however, too obvious to be questioned — our right, in self-defense and in defense of truth and of the character of the God of justice, to demonstrate, if we are able, the unsoundness of his general positions. This we shall not be able to do, if the truth is not on our side ; but, if it is with us, GOD is with us, and the task is, at least, possible. It is high time the truth were every where known on the sub- ject of slavery. This is evinced in a hundred forms, and in no way more clearly than by the fact, which no longer admits of denial, that men calling themselves Christians, now stand rang- ed on opposite sides, each party publicly declaring the other not only erroneous, but supremely so. If an observing world of skeptical persons take the testimony of these parties in the American Churches as worthy of credit, they must conclude the whole to be corrupt, and too corrupt to be the proper expo- nents of a pure religion. Mr. F. is right in saying " that a clear and conclusive declaration of Jehovah's will would have been given, if slav- ery be an awful sin." And on a parallel, I remark that, if slaveholding be a virtue, a no less "clear and conclusive decla- ration" would have been given. And yet without any such " declaration" in support of the practice and with the utmost possible " clear declaration of Jehovah's will against it," Mr. F. asserts the divine right — the divine approval, of slavery ; of missionaries he supposed the "American Baptist Anti-slavery Conven- tion" desired to send to the South, Mr. F. says : " Missionaries— not of the Gospel of God; but of hatred, and insubordination, and bloodshed." In- deed, he went so far as to charge, that we had " warned" the South that we would send such Missionaries. If we ever did give such an intimation, or indulge such an intention, we must have been very wicked men. FULLER AND WAYLAND. '21 and many others do the same, as R. Fur man, D. D., formerly of South Carolina, Thornton Sir ingf allow, a Baptist minister in Virginia, &c. Mr. F., in the reply before mentioned in my Notes, says — " The Holy Ghost, after his (Christ's) ascent, expressly authorized slavery. We view your language, as offering direct insult to the unchangeable and Holy One of Heaven." Thornton Stringfellow asserts that " slavery re- ceived the sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age, and that gospel fellowship is not to be entertained with per- sons who will not consent to it." In perfect harmony with this strain of denunciation, a Baptist minister, of the South, has denounced the speaking against slavery as a" sin against the Holy Ghost." On the other hand, the imputation of slav- ery to God, as its author, or institutor, or approver, has been declared to be " blasphemy" by too many to be enumerated. Then, there are Northern men, who, with Mr. W., " admit that the Patriarchs held slaves," and the Mosaic law tolerated slavery, and the primitive Christian Churches admitted slave- holders as good brethren ; at the same time that they do not grant that slavery is right now. This latter class do more to bring the Bible into contempt than the slavehold- ers can, because, while they call it sinful, they admit Bible authority for slavery at some period of the world. And^ indeed, all such are held in fellowship by slaveholders and reciprocate the kindness. Others at the North go all lengths in supporting slavery as right now. Mr. W. lauds Mr. F. as one of the very best of Christians, and only desires that " all other slaveholders be made just such masters" as he is, and that his " views, so far as he understands them, be carried into practice." Now it is clear that, unless this reciprocal condemnation be terminated soon, by an acknowledgment of the wrong by the party to which it attaches, and this " gross darkness" be dissi- 22 REVIEW OF pated from the minds of Northern apologists and connivers, Christianity will inevitably fall into general disrepute. I know that observers ought to go beyond the professor of religion to the scriptures themselves, with all questions affect- ing the purity of the religion contained in these sacred writ- ings ; yet " ye are the light of the world," is a saying of the Master, and Christians are regarded as bringing out before " the world," in their opinions and practices, " the light" of Christianity. This great question must, then, be settled — whether the Bible does approve or condemn slavery, as de- fined and advocated by Mr. Fuller. To what more solemn, or momentous, or profitable labor can, therefore, the friend of God, of truth, and of humanity devote himself? It is not a question for us to moot, whether the principle of slavery, as stated by Mr. F., seeks any approval in the great principia, or fundamental laws of natural religion which es- tablish the original or constitutional rights of man, as natural justice and benevolence. All agree that by these slavery does not and could not exist. Mr. F. himself evidently admits this, for he says to Mr. W.," I am unwilling to appear in any controversy, which can, even by implication, place me in a false and odious attitude, representing me as the eulogist and abettor of slavery, and not as simply the apologist of an insti- tution transmitted to us by a former generation, the existence of which I lament; for the commencement of which I am not at all responsible ; for the exiinction of which I am will- ing to make greater sacrifices than any abolitionist has made or would make, if the cause of true humanity would thus be advanced." This certainly looks like a condemnation of slavery; yet, strange as it must seem to every one, Mr. F. then goes on — " but which, for all that, I do say it is wrong to pronounce a moral evil and a great crime in the sight ot God." Tn hi3 reply several times before named in my Notes ( FULLER AND WAYLAND. 23 Mr. F. used the following explicit language — " If the question were a political one, about reducing a free people to servitude, I should oppose such an act as firmly as any man." Again, in his letters to Mr. W., " If you had asserted the great danger of confiding such irresponsible power in the hands of any man, I should at once have assented" — "speaking abstractly of slavery. I do not consider its perpetuation proper, even if it were possible. Nor let any one ask why not per- petuate it, if it be not a sin ? The Bible informs what man is, and among such beings, irresponsible power is a trust too easily and too frequently abused." From all we have seen of Mr. Fuller, (and I have not been sparing of quotations from him) we derive the following state- ment of his opinions : 1st. Slavery is contrary to the original laws of justice and benevolence, and, therefore, ought never to have existed — a free people ought not to be reduced to slavery. 2d. The slave power being despotic, " irresponsible power," can never be safely entrusted to any man, and ought never to be, and, therefore, slavery ought not to exist — it ought never to have been instituted. 3d. The abuses under it are such that it ought not now to be perpetuated, but ought to cease. 4th. God did authorize the holding of slaves, not- withstanding it ought not to have been done ; for " irrespon- sible power" ought not to be vested in any man. 5th. God having committed to me this " irresponsible power" which ought never to have been committed to any man, Lmay right- fully use this power, and I think it wrong to call it a sin to use it. 6th. The will of God, instituting, authorizing this rela- tion, is communicated to me in the Sacred Scriptures. 7th. What /have declared to be wrong and, therefore, not fit to exist, no man has a right to call wrong and impute the wrong to me ; but slavery ought to be imputed wholly to the declared will of God, which is, of course, contrary to the die- 24 REVIEW OF tates of natural justice and benevolence ; but God has estab- lished institutions among men which are contrary to justice and love ; and yet he is the God of justice and love, and re- quires that every man love his neighbor as himself, or with im- partial benevolence : — so that I am authorized by the Bible to do that which is contrary to justice and love, and am just and benevolent in so doing, because God authorizes me so to do, which Ke ought never to have done. The reader is now, perhaps, prepared to accord to Mr. F. a remarkable unity and consistency of argumentation. He sets out with the assumption, the main and indeed his only pre- mise, that God confers on man the right to employ all the power necessary to urge by a violent motive his fellow men to labor for him, without the contract or consent of the subjected party ; and every step in his argument proceeds on this as- sumption, and is in perfect keeping with it. I call Mr. Fuller's premise an assumption, not, however, to imply that he declines an examination and support of this premise ; for I grant that he has labored assiduously, I can not say successfully, to prove the assumption, by appeals to the Scriptures. Now we have already seen that, in case he should prove that the Scriptures do sanction slavery by any establish- ment of it, he would only prove, according to his own show- ing, that they establish that which is unjust. But it will be remembered that Mr. F. has forbidden us to inquire what revelation -God would make, and so forecloses all trial of the Scriptures as being a revelation from God, on that strongest of all proof of their divine authenticity, their entire conformity with the principles of natural justice and love, about which, if the Bible itself states correctly, and if men usually judge accurately, conscience is supposed to have some original power of knowing. Let me refer to that very clear and striking passage in the 2d chapter of Romans, which corroborates that FULLER AND WAYLAND. 25 opinion which man has of himself, as a moral and responsible being. " God — who will render to every man according to his deeds — to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. The Gentiles — are a law unto themselves — which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accus- ing or else excusing one another." Who display the law's work, or the work required by the law, written on their hearts, their consciousness joining testimony, their reason- ings holding judicial trial among themselves to condemna- tion, or even successfully defending. A more perspicuous declaration of a constitutional power in the human mind, of discerning right from wrong, could not be uttered, than the Apostle has here written. Indeed, if this power were not possessed by man, he could not be a moral being, a subject of law, or a responsible agent. This power of the mind is analogous to the power of vision in the eye, each requiring light in order to perceive objects, and, under the providence of God, being furnished with light adapted to the nature of the corporeal organ, or the mental faculty. So constituted and so circumstanced, man is capable of judging of the claims set up by the Bible, the Koran, the Shaster, or other book, to be a revelation from God. Mr. Fuller says that " neither Paley, nor any writer on natural theology, has advanced a single idea which had not been advanced long before the Christian era." p. 211. He does not presume to aver, however, that every thing advanced by these writers is true or in agreement with natural justice, which is the only legitimate source of the rights and duties of man. It is true that, " long before the Christian era," the 26 REVIEW OF natural and only proper idea of right had been perverted, and that which was wrong, because unjust, and which, on that account, the "just God" could never make right, had been put for right, in the Scripture sense of "putting darkness for light, and calling evil good" Isa. v. 20. So it is possible to call the bright noonday light darkness, and the deepest shades of midnight light ; but that would not make any essential change in them. It is in this sense I mean to be understood, when I say that God could not make a natural wrong a right. He could never, therefore, by statute or precept, give to any man the "right" of being unjust. He himself does not and never can pos- sess the right of being unjust, and, therefore, can not impart such right to another being. We see here how preposterous it is to employ the word right as Mr. F. does, for to exercise " the right" of being unjust, is the greatest wrong. If we could suppose God capable of being unjust or of giving license to one of his subjects of dealing unjustly with another, he would in our esteem, instantly lose the character of being "just and holy," as we now reverently regard him. So, then, it needs not be further urged that we, and mankind everywhere, are constitutionally possessed of the power of determining, in all cases which come within the circle now supposed, what God has not established as right, because he could not do it, with- out being false to his own eternal and immutably holy princi- ples of righteousness. " God can not lie." Titus 1:2. " He can not deny himself." See, also, Mr, F. quoted p. 20. As the Creator of men, God did give to every one of them a love of liberty ; in other words, the propensity to seek their own good or happiness, which necessarily associates an unwill- ingness to be thwarted in that pursuit by any unjust interfer- ence of another. In perfect harmony with the proper indul- gence of this constitutional propensity, to restrain it within the limits of social justice and to secure its rights, God gave the FULLER AND WAYLAND. 27 K golden rule" and authoritatively established it as one of the two great Constitutional principles, under and in undeviating agreement with which he would and did enact every specific .statute, — " Thou s/talt love tlqj neighbor as thyself." Now who believes that, in any one oT all his specific enactments, the " Just God" has infracted the principle involved in this Constitutional law ? The governments of this world, at the same time that they have, without exception, professed to adhere to the principle of justice, have, every one, more or less, departed, as all know, from their professions. Our own national government is Constitutionally based on this princi- ple. It was declared in 1776, in the clear, unequivocal and strong language of that great State paper which lies now where our lathers laid it, call it " only a rhetorical flourish" or what yoa will, at the foundation of the government of these States. For some time, it was all the Constitution we had; and until it shall be as formally repudiated as it was adopted, whatever frame of government we choose to build, we rear on that same foundation, solemnly appealing to God for the rectitude of our cause. Accordingly, when in 1789- we reared the frame-work of government, now called " the Constitution of the United States " instead of upheaving that foundation, we expressly, though briefly recognized its principles in the "Pre- amble," leaving it, " the Declaration of Independence," as the grand political lexicon of that Constitution. We therefore said — " We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union" (not to make new distinctions among the inhabitants,) " establish justice" (not to subvert it,) "in- sure domestic tranquility" (not to annihilate the family rela- tions, nor make one portion of many families the necessary enemies of another portion, so that the latter should need to go armed by day and sleep on their arms by night, in self- defense,) " provide for the common defense" (not to provide b3 28 REVIEW OF for the defense of one portion of the people only, and plant a standing army over another portion, for the purpose of alienat- ing their " ' inalienable' right to life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness," but for, the " common defense" of all in the possession and exercise and enjoyment of all these " self-evident" rights growing out of " self-evident truths," since nothing is " self-evident" if this is not, that " God hath made of one blood all the nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth," and " endowed all men with" these " rights," and, therefore, it would be unjust and base to leave any of them, among any of " the people of the United States," unprotected;) — "promote the general welfare" (not to make the welfare of an aristocratic few the end and aim of our social compact, at the terrible cost of the life, liberty and happiness of the many, as, to the disgrace of the mother country and other European nations, has been and is the fact ; for we sincerely design and we made " the Declaration" of our design, in 1776, to prove that Republicanism, that govern- ment where the people govern themselves, is better than an Aristocracy, an Oligarchy, a Mixed Monarchy, or a Despot- ism, under one or the other of which " the whole" political '•' creation have groaned and travailed together in pain until now" — it is our design to " promote the welfare" of every man, woman and child in the nation ; for, like God, who has given all men these " inalienable rights," we will be no respect- ers of persons, but whosoever " out of every nation," who shall demean himself as a good citizen, shall find in "this land of the free," a " home," and all of us ready to promote his welfare ;) — " and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to our- selves and our jiosterity''' (not to secure these blessings which we esteem and which it is in the nature of " all men" to esteem above price, above life itself — for we have thrown aside the fear of death to assert this "inalienable right of all FULLER AND WAYLAND. 29 men" — not to secure these blessings to a part, but to the whole, — not " to ourselves" only, but " to our posterity" also, making no distinction between them on account of their maternal descent, or other circumstances ;) " do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of Ame- rica." If, therefore, through error, any article in (his frame- work of government shall be found to infract or in any degree depart from these great and sacred principles or fail of secur- ing these ends, or if any statute shall be enacted inconsistent with them, that article shall be regarded as no part of this Constitution, and that law "shall be null and void." So reads " the Preamble of the American Constitution :" — so just are, therefore, the Principles of this government, and so solemnly avowed before a " Just God" and a jealous and an observing world. Yet, is it not true that not one of these avowed principles of eternal "justice" has been carried out in the administra- tion of the government ? " Look and see, for out of" these principles " ariseth no" slavery — above all, none to the mu- latto and other "posterity" alluded to. Shame and confusion of face verily belong to a nation practically so false to their most solemn convictions and avowal of righteous principles and purposes. But, as I have said, it is not so wilh the gov- ernment of God. " As for God, his way is perfect." Well may He inquire — "Are not my ways equal? — are not your ways unequal?" And well may He " denounce," and not be chargeable with uttering "mad denunciations" — "ye have robbed me, even this whole nation — "" Wo unto him who buildeth his house by unrighteousness and his chambers by wrong ; who useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work." " The hire of your laborers who have reaped down your fields, crieth ;" " for the laborer is worthy of his hire." " Ye have vexed the poor and needy." b4 30 REVIEW OP Your Rulers, " in the midst of the land, are like wolves raven- ing the prey, to shed blood and to destroy souls, to get dishon- est gain. And her Prophets have daubed them (the Rulers) with untempered mortar, seeing vanity and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken. The people of the land have used oppression and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy ; yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. And I sought for a man among them to make up the hedge and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none. Therefore, have I poured out mine indignation upon them ; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath ; their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God." " Shall I not be avenged upon such a people 1" It is thus that God deals with an oppressive and hypocritical nation. " The nation that will not serve thee (Christ) shall perish." Isa. 60 : 12. It gives me no satisfaction to believe that these denunciations are applicable to either the rulers, the prophets, or the people of my native country ; and if, after a calm, sober and thorough investigation of the facts, and an honest comparison of them with the holy and benevolent laws of the government of God, the reader shall be conducted to the conclusion, that they ought not so to be applied, let him visit upon my head the common denunciations of the slave- holder upon " Abolitionists," and 1 will not complain. " Let God be true, but every man a liar." " Fiat justitia, ruat ccelum." In view of the principles of " right" which I have stated and shown to belong essentially to the government of God, it does not seem to require an uncommon amount of sagacity or other intellectual power to determine whether the definition of slavery, adopted by Mr. F., does or does not contain a fatal sophism in the word " right" — " Slavery is the right of the FULLER AND WAYLAND. 31 master to the labor of another, without his contract or con- sent." In order to be consistent with truth, should not the definition read — Slavery is the condition of a person Wrong- fully and Unjustly held and coerced to labor for another without his consent or contract? — or, excluding the qualify- ing words, wrongfully and unjustly, let it read — Slavery is the condition of a person, who without being guilty of crime or misdemeanor, is held by force in the power of another, and urged by a violent motive .to labor for him, without the contract or consent of the former, and without reward. Still, Mr. Fuller's definition is the common definition of slavery. " Usus norma loquendi est." But, though it is agreeable to common usage, it should be observed that this usage is that originated by slaveholders and incautiously adopted by others, until it is heard or read by many who abhor slavery, without any consciousness of the inappropriate locality of the word " right." Probably, to such persons this word so used seems synonymous with authority or power. The absurdity however, of so using the word, will readily appear, if we only say — Slavery in Algiers is the right of Algerines to urge American citizens by a violent motive to labor for them, without the contract or consent of the slaves. Americans instantly demur at the use of the word " right" in such connection. They start back with indignation and astonishment at such a desecration of the word " right." Liberty is our right, and it can never become the right of oth- ers to wrest that right from us, for " all men are born free." So used it would be regarded just as incorrect as if it were applied to the power of the thief, and it should be said that theft is the " right" of one man to bear away the property of another, without his contract or consent and to appropriate it to his own use.* This is precisely Mr. Fuller's " right" of * See the History of the Lacedemonians. 32 REVIEW OF Slavery. And yet I doubt not, even Mr. F. himself, would be as ready as any man to denounce such a misappropri- ation of the word " right," particularly if he were one of the citizens involved in the supposed case. In the same sense, murder is the " right" of the murderer to take the life of his fellow man. Slavery is the right of one man to wrest or withhold from another his liberty by force ; only this, says Mr. F., gently and with supreme complacency. Yes, " merely that," sweetly responds Mr. Wayland. Mr. F. seems evidently to think that he has carved down the huge, uncouth monster of slavery with its " abases" to the very innocence and beauty of a sleeping infant, when he says — " We believe that they" (the precepts of Jesus) " reach every abuse of slavery ; and condemn all intellectual, moral, and domestic injustice. But we do not believe that they make the relation itself sinful, or require, as they must do, if it be a crime, its prompt dissolution. * * It will not do, then, for you (brother Wayland) to conduct the cause as if we had been proved guilty and were put on our defence. This is the ground always taken at the North," &c. p. 166. " Slavery is nothing more than the condition of one who is deprived of political power, and does service without his contract or con- sent, it is true, but yet it may be, cheerfully and happily, and for a compensation reasonable and certain, paid in modes of return best for the slave himself." Miss Martineau lets light into a part of this statement, when she says — " I usually found in conversation in the South, that the idea of human rights was — sufficient subsistence in return for labor." This is all — "slavery is nothing more." I will not ask in the case of any other men, whether justice puts " the right" of making both sides of a bargain imo the hands of one man , the man of power, to use that right for the other party," with- out Ins contract or consent ;" but to Mr. F. I do say with FULLER ANT) WATLAND. 33 solemn emphasis — " Thou art the man !" — if any man is to be held and treated thus — " nothing more." The mirror to see " the right" is here, — " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- self. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you (nothing more) do ye unto them." With this mirror in his hand, however, he discovers in the slavery of others " nothing more" than is sanctioned of God. But let the reader consider that no man can " consent" to be a slave under this definition, ardently as he may desire to be one, because " slavery is without the contract or consent of the slaves, nothing more." Equally impossible, therefore, it is for one, consistently with the law of Jesus Christ, to " con- sent or contract" to make another man a slave. God could not be obeyed by him, if, denying himself as He can not, He should require of any man such consent ; because, if the man were, under such requirement, to " consent or contract" to be a slave, " nothing more," he would not be a slave, because " slavery is nothing more than the condition of one who is deprived, &c, without his contract or consent." So Mr. Fuller's slaves can not " contract or consent" to be his slaves ; for, the moment they should make such " contract" or give such " consent," their condition would not be the condition described in his definition. It is clearly impossible for any man to " consent" to be in " the condition" to which " without consent" is essential, and, therefore, Mr. F. utters the plainest untruth, when he tells Mr. W ., and through him tells the world, that his slaves consent to be such. It they do so con- sent, they are not slaves, but freemen, who have contracted or consented to labor for him for compensation ; and yet they are, by the laws of South Carolina and the claim of Mr. F., his slaves. They are, then, slaves no slaves. If Mr. F. can make out a more monstrous absurdity than this, by piling inference upon inference, which he calls 34 REVIEW OF " sorites," he may be able to show that he utters " nothing more" than the truth in asserting that it is the duty of any man to " consent" to be what, if he should consent to be, he would not be. With due respect for Mr. Fuller's logical abil- ity, I may, without arrogance, challenge his demonstration, by argumentum ad absurdum, a priori, a fortiori, or any other form of argument, of any one illegitimate inference I have drawn from the premises with which he has furnished me. And yet this talented writer (perhaps, I ought rather to say ingenious, for his ingenuity is evidently too much for Mr. Way- land to cope with) rushes with his own definition to the word of God, thinking to find among its moral laws some "express precept" requiring slaves to' submit themselves, (" consent") and obey their masters in all things ; whereas, if such a pre- cept were found there, and the slave should, out of the fear of God or from any other motive, " consent" to be a slave and " care not for it," from that moment he would not be in " the condition" of a slave, as described by Mr. Fuller, as for some time back the reader has seen. Observe the confidence with which, however, he appeals to the Scriptures and the compliment (not " denudation ?") he bestows on whoever may venture to confront him. " He who says, it" (slavery) " is a sin," he avers, " will answer to God whom he affronts and not to me." Certainly, " when contending with" such a spirit as this, I will " not bring against him a railing accusation," but, taking the appeal he suggests, I do solemnly say — '-'• The Lord rebuke thee." I do humbly lookup to thee, thou, who art the God of justice and love, — who hast forbidden every form of oppression and required that all men " do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with God," — who hast expressly commanded the oppressor to " let the oppressed go free and break every yoke," — who hast pronounced a '' woe" upon every one " who useth his neigh- bor's service without wages," and commandest that the em- FULLER AND WAtLAND. 35 ployer shall " give unto the servant that which is just and equal," declaring that " the laborer is worthy of his hire" or " wages," — who hast declared that the time shall ccme when no man shall buy any more the merchandize of those who traffic in " the bodies and souls of men ;" — rebuke the proud : vindicate thine own justice and the honor oi thy throne, in imparting to this oppressor and to all of his associates in that great sin which thy holy soul abhorreth, light equal to their darkness ; and lead them and all of us not into temptation, but deliver them and us from evil, that " thy way may be known upon earth," and that " the man of the earth may no more oppress ;" — " for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever ; Amen." That righteous God, whom I thus address, has long ago taught me thus to pray; and in thus appealing from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, to Him, I always feel approved by Him. But who will dare approach His throne and pray that " Slavery" may continue one year more, or another hour ? God has made it my duty and that of every other man to exert that measure of influence with which we are invested, to " deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor ;" and I, therefore, implore His aid in accomplishing the task, while I humbly " consent" to enter the field at his bidding, not as His slave, but as " free in Christ Jesus," to labor " as under my great Task-Master's eye." In the prosecution of this duty, I shall next examine Mr. Fuller's scripture argument. I shall do this, by no means, for the purpose of proving slavery always and everywhere a sin, for this is already sufficiently manifest, by simply contrasting "the condition" of a slave, every slave, with that condition vouchsafed to all men by the endowment of their Creator, on the principle of natural, eternal, unalterable justice or right, as well as by explicit written revelation. My purpose is, then, 36 REVIEW OF to vindicate the Sacred Scriptures, which their Author has placed in my hands as the only and the sufficient rule of faith and practice, both for myself and all men, and which He has made it my duty, as a minister of Christ, to explain and teach to my fellow men, Mr. Fuller not excepted, so far as my ability extends ; — to vindicate this book of God from the, imputation to it, that in anyway, — in its doctrines, its precepts, or the language by which these are communicated to mankind, it gives any countenance to Slavery, in any form whatever. Here again I am constrained to express the pain I feel on meeting in Mr. Fuller's Letters so much of that which I can not but regard as arrogant assumption and disrespectful treat- ment of men whose opportunities for obtaining knowledge in " philology and history" have been as good as his own, and who are prepared to examine both in open day before the world. Mr. F., moreover, deals in assertions for which he has no authority, touching the manner in which " The Abolitionists" are disposed to discuss the subject of slavery. Hear him : '■' The assertion just mentioned as to the inherent guilt of slav- ery, is the distinctive article with modern abolitionists. But after studying the subject in all its bearings, they have clearly perceived that, if the Hebrew and Greek terms rendered servant in our Bibles really signify slave, there is an end either of their dogma or of submission to the scriptures. Hence, after trying in vain the whole apparatus of exigetical torture, they have, with, I believe, much unanimity, set all philology and history at defiance, and resolutely deny that such is the import of those words." p. 167. The structure of this statement is designed to convey the implication that abolitionists have been driven to the wall by their antagonists, and, there being deprived of their weapons, particularly " philology and history," and even having these FULLER AND WAYLAND. 37 turned against them, they can do no more than stand and " defy and resolutely deny." Mr. F. believes that this is the common fact. There are certainly some things which even he can believe without a " thus saith the Lord" or any other evidence than such shadowy things as imagination begets. Are we able only to " defy and resolutely deny V In a philological inquiry, " what saith the scriptures]" Mr. F. knows that, if a copy of the Bible were put into the hands of a heathen man who had never heard or read of it, or any portion of history having a bearing on what it contains, that heathen would be able, from the scriptures themselves, to gather the mind of God in relation to all of the great princi- ples of the divine government, as they relate to the duties of man towards man. History serves to illustrate many things which are there established, but it establishes nothing. The Bible itself contains history enough, taken in connection with the Bible use of words, to enable the reader to understand what their great Author has revealed as the law of conduct towards God and mankind. Authentic profane history con- tains nothing which is contradictory of or inconsistent with scripture history. Since the Old Testament contains all that is extant of ancient Hebrew literature, it is obvious that Hebrew philology, whether we speak of etymology or use, is necessarily shut up within the limits of the Bible. 1 see in the fact to which allusion is here made, the wisdom of God ; for now, instead of leaving his religion open to perversion by the foisting in upon it of foreign use, he has set bounds by the limits of the language itself. The danger is far less in the case of the Greek of the New Testament, because the reli- gion of God having been established in the Old Testament, the key of interpretation is furnished within the entire Bible. For example, the " virtue" of the Bible is not the " virtue" of either the Greeks or the Romans or the Spartans," but is c 38 REVIEW OF defined by the associated religion. In going into the exegesis of the few passages in the New Testament containing the word virtue, what scholar would seek in the writings of native or heathen Greeks for the meaning of Paul or Peter in their use of this term 1 See Philip. 4:8. 1 Pet. 2 : &. 2 Pet. 1 : 3, 5., ct£S) ABAD have the same orthography in Hebrew, and are distinguished only in pronun- ciation. God uses this word as a verb in the fourth com- 40 REVIEW OF mandment (Exod. 20 and Deut. 5,) in its etymological sense, neither extending its scope nor contracting its meaning, nor in any way limiting its application, except by the time of "six days." " Six days shalt thou labor" [ABAD.] So the Sep- tuagint Greek translation has an equally general word, Spyot (erga,) and the Vulgate Latin, operaberis. This, with- out dispute, is the proper meaning of the word ABAD, the meaning it always has, when used absolutely or without qualifying circumstances. " Six days shalt thou labor" — thou, every person in all ages, " shalt labor," i. e. " do all thy work" appropriate to the six days, or for thy secular purposes. For these purposes " thou shalt labor," or be a laborer " six days" in every seven. Every person — all mankind ought so to labor : — no slave-labor can, therefore, be singled out and enjoined by the word ABAD, more than any sinful labor. If slaves were the persons intended, then no persons, but slaves, are under obligation to obey the fourth commandment, which probably Mr. F. himself would hardly be willing to admit. Such, without any other instance of its use being necessary, is the etymological and proper meaning of this verb ABAD ; and, of course, the same is the radical idea of the same word used as a noun, EBED, a laborer. This will be placed beyond exception or cavil, if we substitute the phrases, do labor, or be a laborer, for the word " labor" — as "six days shalt thou" be a laborer, or do labor. The sense is not altered. This word is often used as a noun with the same general signification : " Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labor." Ps. 104:23. See Prov. 12 : 9 and 11. Eccl. 4: Sand 9. Ps90:10. Prov. 15 : 23. Neh. 4:l,&c. In all these and many other cases we have the etymological idea. The meaning, in one case, is varied by the circum- stance of the labor being bestowed on land for the benefit of imself, the owner and laborer. But nothing is here said or in FTJLL81 AND WAYLAXD. 41 anyway implied of labor performed by one person for another. I do not deny that the word EBED the noun, or ABAD the verb, may be used to express the labor done for another ; but, in such case, the fact that it is done for another is signified by some phrase or circumstance connected, not by this word itself. This proves that the word itself never can express or imply that fact, but signifies only the simple and single idea of labor done, or to do labor, or a laborer. I will, therefore, consult several passages where the word EBED intends one who performs some species of labor for another, or, in other words, a servant. Gen. 24: 34. I am Abraham's servant or laborer. The word EBED signifies no more than a laborer ; but the circumstance that he says he is a laborer of Abraham renders it proper enough perhaps to translate the word into English by one which does of itself signify that relation, i. e. the word servant, though this word '-• not necessary to the idea intended, laborer being sufficient. Gerr. ID: 13. Issachar became a servant or laborer unto tribute. The words " unto tribute" designate what kind of laborer he should be — not a slave surely, yet, as a punish- ment for his sins, a part of the produce of his labor should be - ; tribute" money. Deut. 23 : 15. Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant or laborer which is escaped from his master or employer unto thee. 1st Sam. 29: 3. Is not tins David the servant (slave?) of Saul the king of Israel ? Same chapter v. 9. What hast thou found in thy servant? (slave?) 1st Kings, 11: 2b. Jeroboam, Solomon's servant, (slave ?) lifted up his hand against the king. Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor, and Solomon made him ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph. V. 32. Solomon shall have one tribe for my servant (slave ?) David's sake. Gen. 26: 24, And the Lord said — for my servant (slave ?') Abraham's sake. Num.12: 7. My c2 42 REVIEW OF servant {slave ?) Moses. V. 11. And Aaron said unto Moses, alas, my lord. Here Moses, the Lord's servant, is Aaron's lord, or master, {slaveholder?) the word here ren- dered lord being the common word for master KupiS, {Kurie.) Isa. 42 : 1. Behold my servant, {slave ?) whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth: I have put my spirit upon him, he shall bring forth judgment unto the Gentiles. Here the word EBED is applied to the Son of God, as it is also, Zech. 6: 8. Behold, I will bring forth my servant, {slave?) The Branch. Now let the reader say whether, if the word EBED had in itself the idea of slavery, taking Mr. Fuller's definition of it, it would be possible so to apply the word as in the last case ? Let him think of applying the word slave to the same Adorable Personage, and the shock he will experience at the obvious impiety and blasphemy which would be inseparable from making such an application, will prove to him how egregious must be the blunder, or the ignorance, or the wickedness, which ever could make the Hebrew word EBED synonymous with the word slave. Nay, to confine ourselves within a much smaller circle, how guilty of disgracing the Bible would that man be accounted, who should translate the following passages agreeably with that notion. Gen. 50 : 17. "We pray thee forgive the trespass of the slaves of the God of thy father." Joseph might pos- sibly have " wept when they spake" thus " unto him," but his tears would have been shed for the shame he would have felt that his brethren had become so benighted as to think of God as a slaveholder and his servants as slaves. So, also, render 1st Chron. 6 : 49, " according to all that Moses the slave of God had commanded :" and Daniel 6 : 20, " Daniel slave of the living God ;" and Job 1 : 8 and 2 : 3, "hast thou consid- ered my slave, Job?" and 1st Kings, 1 : 26, " But one, thy slave and thy slave Solomon." Were Moses and Daniel and FULLER AND WAYLAND. 43 Job slaves of God J and was Nathan, the prophet, a Blave ? and Solomon, David's son, a slave of David ] Who, then, are not slaves ? — not enough to be the slaveholders. We have seen that the etymological meaning of the word EBED is a laborer and nothing more, and that by the location of the word or the circumstances attending its use, it comes secondarily to be applied to one who labors or acts for anoth- er ; but, in no case yet adduced, can it possibly bear to be made synonymous with slace. It never can. I freely grant that it may be so connected with qualifying words or phrases, or so associated with circumstances, that it may be applied to a slave in the lowest condition. But the qualifying terms and the circumstances must be explicit, for, if not, the ety- mological being the governing meaning, the presumption must always be that this meaning is retained, until a varied meaning is clearly signified by something out of or extraneous to the word. That this is a law pervading and controhng v\l language, I need not show to even a sciolist. Every body knows it is so. Call it in question, and you unsettle all lan- guage, and render it useless and a mockery. Accordingly, when Noah, awaking from a state of intoxication, as we are told for a warning to other good men " not to look on the wine when it is red," but " touch not, taste not, handle not," when that long-tried righteous man and " preacher of right- eousness," awaking from a fit of drunkenness, for he had " drunk of the wine of his vineyard and was drunken," and having learned that his " younger" (not youngest) son, Ham, had seen him in that shameful condition and told his brethren — when, under these circumstances, he was filled with cha- grin, and would vent his feeling3 of a very natural dislike to the informer, he singled out one of the four sons of Ham (see Gen. 10 : 6,) and anathematized that one, viz. Canaan. Hiu chagrin moved him to pronounce on him the doom of being 44 REVIEW OF a servant of low condition ; and, surely, no greater curse could he pronounce upon the fourth son of Ham than the curse of being a slave, as it is commonly admitted. As I shall examine this strangely misunderstood and misapplied passage of sacred history in its more proper place, I shall here only remark that the words " cursed be" and those which fol- low the word " servants," would seem enough to indicate clearly the kind of servant the speaker, at that peculiar mo- ment, desired his grandson Canaan might be ; and yet he saw that the word EBED, a laborer, would not express what he intended, and, therefore, he employed a form well known to belong to the Hebrew language, when the speaker would express himself with extreme emphasis, " a servant of serv- ants," or a low, degraded laborer, or rather, perhaps, a great laborer — " shall he be unto his brethren," &c. Let those who- prefer it, say slave, I have no objection, so far as this word can have any argumentative bearing. My only object now is to show that, if a slave were intended, it was necessary to use a peculiar form of words to express that idea, even in addition to several other words used for that purpose.* The case of Joseph now presents itself. The word EBED" does by no means prove him to have been sent to Egypt as a slave, for he might have been said to have gone to Egypt as an EBED, a servant, if, on appointment to the office of prime minister of Pharaoh, he had " contracted or consented" to go for that purpose. To prove this I have given sufficient evi- dence before. But the fact that he was sold to the Ishmaelit- ish merchants does imply that he was carried thither as a slave. See Gen. 37 : 28 ; also Ps. 105 : 17. A slave is suck an EBED as is sold, kidnapped, held to service by force, or * It is worthy of some notice hereafter, that the very men who defend slavery as a "condition" favorable to the slave and a blessing, neverthe- less earnestly seek its establishment in the curse of Noah. FULLER AND WAYLAND. 45 aa Mr. Fuller well expresses it, " urged by a violent motive to labor for another without his contract or consent." Mr. F. will find it necessary to add this definition even to the word servant, which, though not like the word laborer, is one who in some way labors for another, and yet is to be understood of a free person, unless circumstantially qualified and so applied to a slave. How much more necessary, then, to add the same definition to the more general word EBED, a laborer, in order to show that the laborer, to use the language of South Carolina law," is in the power of a master to whom he belongs as property, to all intents and purposes whatsoever," and " can possess nothing which does not belong to his master ;" for a slaveholder may hire a free laborer, who would be his serv- ant as strictly, while hired, as though he were his slave, and yet would not be his slave, and neither would it do to call him a slave. Here let attention be given to the remarkable fact, that the word EBED is not once translated slave in the Bible, this word being used only twice in the English version, — once Jer. 2 : 14, where it has no corresponding word in the He- brew, and is, therefore, printed in Italic letters ; — and once Rev. 18 : 13, where it corresponds with tfw^&tTWv (somatone,) meaning bodies. This word ought to have been rendered bodies, and the clause should read — bodies and souls of men ; undoubtedly both words together meaning slaves in this instance, since it requires both a body and a soul to constitute a slave, a man to be made an article of " merchandize," as men were made by " Babylon, the mother of harlots." But let the slaveholder know that the time is coming, when the prophecy contained in this I8lh chapter of the Revelation of John, will be fulfilled. 1 was about to make a quotation or two from thi3 chapter ; but, on giving it a fresh examination, I see it is, as a whole, so applicable to slavery and especially, c3 46 REVIEW OF to a slavery-sustaining church, like the majority of the churches in America, that I think it better to commend the entire chap- ter to the attention of the reader ; only addressing all profes- sors of Christianity in the words of the great angel by whose glory the earth v/as enlightened, and who cried mightily with a strong voice — " Babylon the great is fallen come out of her, my people, that ye may not be partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." If God thus enjoins, who shall dare disobey 1 Will Elder Fuller? The word Slavery not being in the Bible, I shall proceed to examine the words which are by advocates of slavery made to signify slavery, as servitude, service, serve, servile, bond- age, bond-servants, bond-maid, man-servant, maid-servant, &c. Servitude is used but twice. 2 Chron. x. 4, ease the grievous servitude of thy father — the heavy labor, &c. , Kasha being the qualifying word. Lam. i. 3, because of great servi- tude, great labor, &c, Eaba being the qualifying word. Service is used many times. A few instances will be suffi- cient. Gen. xxix. 27, for the service (labor,) thou shalt serve (perform or labor) with (for) me. xxx. 26, for whom I have served (labored for,) thee. Exod. i. 14. And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage (labor,) in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service (labor,) wherein they made them serve (labor,) with rigor (tyranny, oppression.) Ezra vi. 18, for the service of (labor for) God. Jer. xxii. 13. Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness* — that useth his neighbor's service (labor,) without wages, (or pay- ment for it,) and giveth him not for his work. It is sufficient to add that this noun and the verb serve, are in all cases used in perfect keeping with the word servant, all in Hebrew being of the same root, and in no one instance expressing, or imply- ing, within themselves, the idea of slavery, that idea always being suggested by the attending circumstances, wherever it FULLER AND WAYLANP. 47 is associated with the word EBED, ABAD, &c. So also the word servile means laborious, but by no means slavish ; since, when " servile work" was prohibited on certain sacred days, slaves were not addressed, but the people at large. See Lev.xxiii. 7, 8, Num. xxviii., &,c. Gen. xliv. 33. Let thy servant abide instead of the lad, a bondman. The circumstances make it proper to translate the word EBED in this passage, hist servant, and secondly bondman. When alluding to himself Judah used the word EBED, by way of respect to his superior, as though holding himself in readiness to do labor for him, if commanded ; and, when he proposes to substitute himself for Benjamin, the idea is that he will remain in labor or service for Joseph. These circumstances led the translators to use the two words servant and bondman for the one Hebrew word EBED, which fact evinces the necessity of taking into account all the circum- stances attendant on a word, in order to secure an accurate and discretive translation. It is clear, that the word bondman can mean nothing more than servant may mean ; though as the Egyptians held slaves, the word EBED is by this fact, sometimes understood to mean such a servant as is a slave. The servant of John C. Calhoun is presumed to be a slave, for the same reason ; whereas the servant of Daniel Webster is presumed to be a freeman, because this gentleman is not a slaveholder. By all the foregoing facts, in the various uses of the word EBED, we are conducted to a truth essential to the correct decision of the question at issue, viz : whether the Bible, in the words servant, bondman, &,c, contains the authority for holding men in slavery ? The truth is that nothing can be determined for or against the practice by the Hebrew word EBED, alone, of which the English words servant, bondman, &c. are the translation. This is all I need to show, in order c4 48 REVIEW OF to destroy the argument for slavery, founded on the supposi- tion that the " philology" of the Scriptures necessarily teaches that slavery is of divine authority ; and this I cheerfully sub- mit to the judgment of candid men, as settled against whoever desires to find in the Hebrew word EBED itself, the idea, or a " cofor"of the idea of slavery. Now, as the Greek word SouXog is used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, in the same general manner, with the single exception that its etymological idea is that of the word servant — simply a laborer for another person, instead of the broader meaning of EBED 1 , a laborer, whether for himself or another, I need only refer to a few instances of its use to show that it has the general mean- ing I speak of, and the advocate of slavery may find himself stripped of his Greek armor as he is of his Hebrew. The following will, I think, accomplish that end. 1 Sam. xxix. 3. David the servant (doulos) of Saul. Dan. vi. 20. Daniel, servant (doulos) of the living God. Exod. xiv. 31, the Lord and his servant (tkerapone) Moses. Job xlii. 7, as my servant (therapone) Job. Isa. xlii. 1, Jacob my servant (pais,) lii. 13, my servant (pais) shall deal prudently. Zeclr. iii. 8, my servant (doulos) the Branch. 1 Sam. iii. 9. Speak, Lord, for thy servant (doulos) heareth. 1 Kings viii. 28. Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant (doulos.) Dan. iii. 26. Ye servants (douloi) of the Most High God. Acts xvi. 17. These servants (douloi) of the Most High God. Rev. vii. 3, sealed the servants (douloi) of our God. Rom. i. 1 . Paul a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. 2 Tim. ii. 24, the servant (doulos) of the Lord must not strive. 2 Pet. i. 1. Si- mon Peter a servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. Jude i. 1. Jude the servant (doulos) of Jesus Christ. Rev. i. 1. The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave to him to show to his servants (douloi) — signified it by his servant (doulos) John. Can doulos intend slave here ? These could never have FULLER AND WAYLAND. 49 been the uses of the Greek word doulos, if the radical idea or meaning had been a slave, as any one may satisfy himself, who will attempt to translate, in all or any part of the pas- sages quoted, this word, by the word slave or slaves. But the radical idea being servant in its unrestricted sense, it is appro- priate when applied to freemen, and even to Jesus Christ himself. The use of the word in 1 Cor. vii. 22, is so strik- ingly illustrative of the views T have given, that I can not omit its quotation entire. " He that is called, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman; likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant — not slave, I think. If, in the first clause, the word servant, (dvulos) means a slave, this can not be true of it at the close of the sentence. The word may, by associated circumstances, be applied to every species of servants ; but the attempt to attach to it the meaning of slave, as its intrinsic signification, is like finding authority for idol worship in the word God, because this word is sometimes, and very often, applied to the gods of the heathen, which are vanity and a lie. The word God, in the Bible, is always to be taken as meaning Jehovah, for the rea- son that it is in the Bible or book of the true God, unless its connection divert it to something else. So, though more em- phatically, it is with the Hebrew EBED,a laborer, and doulos, a servant, and every other general term used in the Bible ; it must be taken in its independent or leading sense, until limited or varied by associated circumstances, and then, the strongest leading circumstance is, that it is in the Bible, and is to have the Bible sense, unless otherwise defined by special connected circumstances. In pursuing the review of Mr. Fuller's argu- ment, I shall expect to find that argument running parallel with this principle, or exercise the liberty of exposing its depar- ture from it. Of this he can not reasonably complain. What he intends by charging Abolitionists with setting at defiance all history, as well as philology, is too obscure to 50 REVIEW OF allow of more than a very faint conjecture. If his imagina- tion has seen any of us even disposed to deny that slavery did exist, and extensively prevail as far back as the times of the apostles, or Moses, or even Abraham, he has certainly expe- rienced a singular hallucination. In what of all the teachings of history, however, does he get proof that Abraham was a slaveholder ? or Isaac 1 or Jacob ? or Joseph 1 or Moses ? or Joshua? or Samuel] or David ? or Solomon ? or Isaiah? or Malachi ? or Joseph the husband of Mary ? or Jesus Christ ? or Peter? or Paul? or any of the patriarchs, or prophets, or apostles, or primitive Christians ? Here I do confess myself ignorant of any historical proof that those men of God were, any of them, slaveholders. In order to be such, their servants must have been " urged by a violent motive to labor for them without contract or consent." " It will not do then, for" Mr. Fuller " to conduct the cause, as if" Abraham and the rest "■ had been proved guilty of holding slaves, and were put on" their " defense. This is the ground always taken at the" South, " and because" Northern " Christians reply with the Bible in their bands, they are misunderstood, p. 166. " He is bound to make out" his " case, and prove" them "guilty."' I do " resolutely deny" that they were, and that he has shown a particle of proof of the fact ; but he has " resolutely" asserted that they were, and Mr. Wayland, rather his coadjutor than antagonist, has admitted it, and, also, that the Abolitionists are just as guilty as Mr. Fuller describes them. p. 49. I cheerfully admit that Abraham had servants, but not slaves ; and, as I am left to iC prove a negative," I shall endea- vor to ascertain the circumstances which preclude the propriety of calling Abraham's servants slaves; and then go on to oth- ers who stand accused of the same practice. " History" gives sjs some information of the nature of the patriarchal govern- FULLER AND WAYLANP. 5 1 ment ; and the sacred " history" of Abraham is by no means silent touching the relations he sustained to his servants. What I shall prove, is, that the subjects of the ancient patriarchal government were voluntary, and, therefore, free subjects, not slaves. I shall, in the first place, consider what the Scriptures say on this subject. No proof is needed that the entire power for enforcing the authority of a patriarch, was limited to himself in his own proper person ; i. e., there was no power behind himself, like the power of state govern- ment standing ready, in case any of his subjects should mutiny or rebel, to suppress the mutiny or rebellion, and coerce them into obedience. If any analogy is to be found between the patriarch with his subjects, and the slaveholder with his slaves, it must be sought in supposing a case, which is, after all, essentially unlike that of any slaveholder in the world. The supposition is, that a slaveholder asserts his authority over his slaves without any state law giving him authority so to do, or to inflict punishment on them for a disobedience of his will. As though a slaveholder were to take with him a thou- sand or more slaves, men, women and children, and were to remove to some region uninhabited and claimed by no gov- ernment whatever, say some island so circumstanced, or if there were inhabitants, they were such as himself and his slaves, and these acknowledged no allegiance to any govern- ment, and sought protection from none ; neither had they combined to form any compact among themselves, but, at most, entered into a confederacy, not to keep each other's subjects in subjection, but to strengthen themselves against a common foreign enemy, or rather to preserve peace between the people or tribes, lest they should commit depredations upon each other's property, or interfere with each other's rights. See the case of Abraham and Abimclcch, Gen. xxi., cf Abraham and Lot, Gen. xiii., Isaac and Abimelech, Gen. 52 REVIEW OF xxvi., Abraham and Lot, Gen. xiv. 12 — 16, Abraham and Melchizedek, same chap. 18 — 24. Each slaveholder is the sole governor of his slaves. Our slaveholder removes into such an island or other place, and there, unaided of course, he undertakes to " urge his slaves by violent motives," as the whip, the stocks, &c," to labor for him without their contract or consent." Let it be "just such a slaveholder as" Mr. Ful- ler — nay, let it be himself. Now, since he says that the slave- holder's right " does not deprive the slave of any right which is justly his, as an immortal, intelligent, moral, social, and fallen creature," [see p. 152,] let him collect his slaves around him, and distinctly make known to them his views on these points, and then add, that no man,Zfte Bible tells him, ought ever to be entrusted with irresponsible power, and, therefore, he does not consider the perpetuation of slavery proper, even if it be possible, [see p. 157,] but that these are his slaves, and by the Bible, rightfully such ; that he intends to hold them as such, and to "urge them by a violent motive to labor for him. without their contract or consent, it is true," and that he shall compensate them for their labor in modes best suited to their conditions, he being the sole judge of these things. He then orders a part of them to one spot, and others to another spot, to cultivate cotton, rice, corn or other crop. But, instead of obeying these orders, they begin to demur, and " as intelligent, moral, social, and fallen creatures," they assert the right to regulate their own "social" relations, and proceed to depose him from the dignity and authority he has asserted over them. This is quite as supposable as any other part of the supposition. To the use of what " violent motive" will Mr. Fuller resort to " urge" them " to labor for him V He will, as a slaveholder, seize the common" violent motive," the whip, and deal about him the punishment required in a case of so urgent necessity ; surely, no case of greater necessity can be FULLER AND WAYLAND. 53 imagined. Among his thousand slaves, are "three hundred and eighteen trained servants." These are his soldiers on whom he relies for protection against the neighboring slave- holders, among whom he has, like Abraham, come to dwell. Shall hs call out these soldiers, in this emergency, to enforce submission ? " Servants, obey your masters in all things." Since God, by an apostle, has thus explicitly enjoined obedi- ence on " slaves'' (as Mr. Fuller renders the word " servants,") and so conferred " the right" of " urging them to labor by a violent motive," Mr. Fuller must use the power (in this extreme case, if ever,) and he does, like Abraham, " arm his trained servants, three hundred and eighteen men," and command them to assist him in reducing the rebels to submission. Like the servants of Abraham, they are all armed with bows and arrows, or, like the soldiers of modern times, with muskets. They must make a deadly onslaught upon those rebel slaves, if they attack them. But, to the amazement of their kind master, (perhaps, I ought rather to say, to the amazement of Mr. Fuller now,) no rebels are to be found, except the women and children of these three hundred and eighteen soldiers, for these very soldiers are, themselves, the mutinous and rebellious slaves ] Shall they fire upon their own wives and children 1 Sad necessity this ! since Mr. Fuller is so faithful to the " do- mestic relations" of his slaves, and would defend them at every hazard. But who shall reduce the rebels, even though the women and children should all be put to death by their husbands, and fathers, and brothers ? Why, these soldiers must now turn their weapons on themselves ; for obedience must be enforced, where God has by his " Spirit expressly authorized slavery," and required the slave to obey his master, even though he be " froward." So the three hundred and eighteen slaves, learn- ing, from their kind master, their duty to God and him, first 54 REVIEW OF destroy their waves and children, and then themselves. So their master, Mr. Fuller, is obeyed, and stands alone trium- phant over the rebels, still holding aloft with becoming dignity the ensign of his authority, and the " violent motive" by which the fearful rebellion has been quelled, viz. a long whip. The Bible in his left hand gave the authority, and the " violent motive" in his right hand did what ? Drive his soldiers to fight and kill each other 1 But " Abraham held slaves," says Mr. Fuller, and " Abraham held slaves," assents Mr. Way- land, and this Northern man wonders that any one should doubt it — he would " almost as soon doubt whether God gave the Moral Law." [p. 49.] I submit to the reader, whether the analogy between the case of the slaveholder and Abraham is so entire as to remove all doubt of that patriarch being a slaveholder. Amazed as Mr. Fuller and Mr. Wayland may be at the absurdities involved in the above supposed case, to themselves, and not to me, they must ascribe those absurdities, for they unavoidably result from any and every attempt like theirs, to run the alleged parallel between slaves and the servants of Abraham, out to its legitimate consequences. They, probably, supposed there was a parallel. Abraham had servants, so has Mr. Fuller. So, without stopping to inquire whether those servants were alike, hoiding the same relation to their respective masters, or being in the same or a like condition, they assumed all this, and in the parallel run out, in one particular, I have assumed the same thing, and no more. What, then, are the circumstances attending the case of Abraham's servants, which determine their condition, not as slaves, but as free, voluntary subjects of the patriarchal govern- ment 1 I have already alluded to some of them. One is the fact, that Abraham was sustained by no power foreign to him- self; whereas, every slaveholder in the United States is sua- FULLER AND WAYLAID. *5 tamed by the entire power of his state government, backed by the power of all the other slaveholding states, and, if the South are correct in their claims, by the united power of all the states in the land, and even by the power of all the nations of the world who hold confederacy with this nation. Again : Abraham's " trained servants," three hundred and eighteen in number, so far from being slaves, are, by this very word " trained," freemen, the word for " servants" not being found in the corresponding Hebrew. What are we to under- stand by " trained" but soldiers trained? If you will have them trained soldier slaves, then furnish Abraham with the power to hold them as slaves by his single right arm, and to train them as soldiers, and then " to urge them by a violent motive without their contract or consent," to go forth at his bidding to fight his battles. If Mr. Fuller should claim that Abraham's soldiers were his Captives taken in war, on the strength of the word nishba, sometimes rendered in this sense, he must show that our trans- lators were wrong in using the word " trained," and that Abraham, by his own unassisted power, was able both to take three hundred and eighteen men captives, and hold them as slaves, which would be a still more absurd supposition than that in the parallel I drew just now, as it involves the power of reducing freemen to slavery, which calls for more power than to hold them when reduced ; and Mr. Fuller tells us he would as firmly resist as any man this atrocious procedure. It would make Abraham a mighty '* kidnapper," as well as a slaveholder. Again : the fact that Abraham entrusted the courtship of a wife for his son Isaac, to one of his men, called, in- deed, a servant, as he truly was, and as Paul and James and Jude were servants of Jesus Christ, without being hia dares, I think, and the gentlemanly manner in which that D 56 REVIEW OF servant executed that important errand, as well as the great respect with which Eleazer was treated by Rebecca, who called him " lord," drawing the water for his camels with her own fair hands, instead of permitting or commanding him to draw it, and his treatment by her family during his visit, pretty clearly indicate, nay, absolutely prove to every candid reader of the Bible, (do they not ?) that, instead of being a slave, he occupied in the patriarchate the position of prime minister, being a native of Damascus, and no doubt having accepted the appointment as cheerfully as Daniel Webster did the Secretaryship offered him by President Harrison. In case of Abraham's death without issue, some servant was to succeed to the station of Abraham. " And Abraham said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed : and, lo, one born in my house is my heir." This man, " Eleazer of Damascus," is by Abra- ham denominated his " steward," which is equivalent to " Chancellor of the Exchequer" in the British government. This man a slave ? Ste Gtn. xv. 2, 3. If so, call Abraham a slaveholder, not else, unless you can see good reason for making any other of Abraham's servants to differ so essen- tially from this, that, while he was a high officer, as well as a freeman, the rest were slaves. Who will show proof of such distinction ] But we may look beyond the single case of Abraham, to Isaac, and Jacob, and " the twelve patriarchs." Were these men slaveholders'? Does either Mr. Fuller or Mr. Wayland believe they were '? And yet both these teachers of divine truth have said they were. Was Jacob a slaveholder ? Both he and his father had servants ; but were these their slaves, when we behold the master, Jacob, hard at work with his own hands for a long series of years, in the serviqe of Laban, whom he is said to have " served ?" There is the same evi- dence that Jacob was a slave of Laban, as that the servants FULLER AND WAYLAND. 07 of Abraham were his slaves. The word EBED is applied to him and to them. Again, therefore, I may ask, who were not slaves, even up to the highest officers of state ? — up to the prophets and apostles and the Lord Jesus himself ! Men reputed for wisdom are certainly liable now, as in the days of Solomon, to have in their character a sprinkling of folly. Eccl. x. 1 and 7. And now let us look at " the twelve patri- archs." See them going to Egypt again and again for corn, not sending slaves for it, as slaveholders would ; and at length bringing down into Egypt their father, and their wives and children ; and yet, not a word is said of their selling slaves even in their extremity, rather than to sell themselves, as the best and kindest of slaveholders were never known to fail of doing ; for Mr. Fuller and all other advocates of slavery rely much on the words, " for he is his money," in support of their " right" to their slaves as their "property." If this phrase does support that alleged " right," and if the twelve patriarchs held such properly, we should have heard of the sale of " that species of property" in that extremity. But no : they were shepherds, and came into Egypt unattended by any such u property." Yet we hear nothing of the abolition of slavery among them. If, as is probable, they, like their ancestors, had '•'servants," free laborers in their patriarchate, they would naturally leave those hired laborers to return to their own people and business. But to dismiss slaves, whose bodies and souls would have sold high in slaveholding and slave-trading Egypt, and go down like plain, unattended, self-laboring Yankees, and bargain with the government, not with slave- holders after all, to sell themselves for a good consideration to hibor, as freemen, not to allow themselves to be kidnapped by the powerful Egyptians and " urged by a violent motive to labor for them without their contract or consent," — all these facta utterly forbid the indulgence of the idea that the " Patri- KR REVIEW OF archs" were slaveholders, or sustained any relation to then- servants, other than that which freemen may, and often do, sustain to each other. In this view all is harmonious and consistent ; but the notion that these laborers were slaves, involves, as we have already seen, the greatest inconsistencies and the grossest absurdities. I may here call attention to the practice, divinely enjoined, of applying to the servants, equally with the children of the patriarchs, the right of circumcision, that " sign" of God's cove- nant with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac, and which he con- firmed unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting or perpetual covenant. See 1 Chron. xvi., and Ps. cv. Let the reader examine the 13th, 15th, and 17th chapters of Genesis, and he will see that, in regard of both temporal and spiritual good embraced in that covenant, the posterity of Abraham were placed on perfect equality with all those per pons who, by birth or purchase, became members of their families. Gen. xvii. " This is my covenant — every manchild among you shall be circumcised — it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you — every manchild in your gen- erations, he that is born in the house or bought with money of the stranger, which is not of thy seed — and my covenant shall be in your llesh for an everlasting (perpetual) covenant, — and the uncircumcised manchild shall be cut off from (denied the privileges of) his people ; he hath broken (not conformed to the terms of ) my covenant. And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and ail that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised them." This covenant, whatever spiritual blessings it secured and emblematically signified by the earthly, gave to all, who received the " token" of the covenant, a right to habitation and possession in the land promised to Abraham in it. See Gen, FUr.Lr.R AXD WAYI.AXl). 5'J xiii. and xv. All were to be subjects of the patriarchate, or, as we should say, " naturalized citizens ;" but even a son of a patriarch could have no inheritance there, if he bore not the " token."' According to the practice under the patriarchate, a servant or subject stood as " heir apparent" until the patriarch had a son ; the heirship ihen fell to him, and the servant or subject remained, if he chose, the subject but not the slave of the son. How sacredly all the natural rights of the subjects, who became such by being " bought with money of the hea- then round about," were established and guarded under the Mosaic law, we shall see, when we come to the consideration of that law. The reader should assume nothing in advance of scriptural instruction, but bear along with him what of truth he has gathered up from the Abrahamic covenant which continued in force ever afterwards among that people, and, as the constitution of government, pervaded and controlled and illustrated all their laws, whatever outward form the govern- ment assumed, under the patriarchs, under Moses as God's viceroy, or " the Judges" which the people elected, or the kings which God consented to place over them. If they dis- regarded that constitution in their practice, as they often did. it still remained in force, and their disregard of it was always accounted sinful. It is sufficient here to say that under that constitution God was always to be acknowledged as their sovereign, the source of all authority and law. Whatever harmonized with his will was right, and whatever was more or less inconsistent with his will was wrong. The specific forms of government might be indefinitely varied, but the prin- ciples of impartial justice and fraternal benevolence could undergo no change. The patriarchal government was not a novelty in the family of Abraham. " The prevailing form of government during this period" (before the flood) savs Ynhn, '' was probablv the d2 6U REVIEW OF patriarchal. At first (after the flood,) the new race of men seem to have acknowledged the patriarchal (fatherly) authority of Noah and his lineal descendants. But after the dispersion which followed the unsuccessful attempt to build the tower of Babel, Nimrod, the celebrated hunter and hero, laid the found- ation of the Babylonian Kingdom. The kingdom of Assyria was established soon after. The reign of Menes, the first king of Egypt, commenced about the middle of the second century after the flood. About the same time a second (Afri- can) kingdom was founded at Thebes, and about twenty years later, a third at Memphis. In the tenth generation after Noah, while Abraham dwelt in Canaan (from 367 to 467 after the flood,) there were in that country several small states and kingdoms which had been founded by the descend- ants of Canaan, the son of Ham." Among these, though in the land of promise as in a strange land, Abraham lived, "dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob," Heb. xi. 9 ; though God " gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on." Acts vii. 5. These facts prove any thing but slavery existing in the family of the patriarch. Call him king, chief, captain, over voluntary followers or sub- jects, but not a slaveholder " urging" three hundred and eighteen men " to labor for him without their contract or con- sent." And yet Mr. F. boldly asserts that he was a slave- holder, and Mr. W. meekly admits that " Abraham and the patriarchs had held slaves many centuries before" the time of Moses, and " wonders that any should have the hardihood to deny so plain a matter of record," adding — " I should almost as soon deny the delivery of the ten commandments to Moses." Verily, the poor abolitionists are not the only people who are " almost" ready to give up the Bible as no revelation from God, rather than give up their darling opinions ! Here we have " limitations of human responsibility," wiih an einpha- FUILKR AND WAYLAND. 61 ■sis But I am talking out of place, some may think ** out of order," of Mr W., when I should speak only of Mr. Fuller ; yet the assimilations between the two writers are, in fact, so intimate that I am " almost" liable to mistake one for the other. And why should I not, when Mr. W. says — " I fear, with you," (did Mr. F. "fear ?") " that the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies is not accomplishing what was expected. * * * But aside from this case, all history informs us that absolute liberty" (Is that the liberty to which the British slaves were restored in the West Indies 1) " is too violent a stimulant to be safely administered to a race who have long been bred in slavery. All I ask is that the views you entertain, so far as I understand them, be carried out into practice." And yet, in the very same letter, he commented on the doctrine set forth by Mr. F. in the following very severe but very merited terms — " This doctrine is really more alarm- ing than any that I have ever known to be inculcated on this subject. It authorizes them to enslave us, just as much as it authorizes us to enslave them." Is this one of Mr. Fuller's " views," Mr. W. so ardently desires to have " carried out into practice V Why so " alarmed," then 1 Ah, it would be "alarming," if Mr. F. really meant to involve people of light complexion in the " doctrine ;" but, since it is presumable he docs not, his " views" may safely to " us" " be carried out into practice," and " all I ask is that" they may be. " We can both unite in the effort to render all slaveholders in this ccuntry.;'e/s* such masters as YOU." I can not but ask — is this the triumph of Mr. W. over Mr. F., so loudly trumpeted through the land by certain Baptists ? This the man who has come forth to deliver the cause of abo- lition from the unwise treatment of the ultraists ? This the only book which has ever been written in the right spirit and with the adequate ability, setting the truth in so strong a G2 REVIEW OF light before the face of Mr. F. and all the slaveholders, that they must be convinced of their sinfulness and repent and put away their slavery 1 Brethren, had you read these " let- ters" before you made up your minds that Mr. W. had settled the question against slavery forever ? I shall need express no opinion of these letters. They will speak for themselves and for me, before we get through with them. Mr. Fuller writes quite as true a commentary on the real value of Mr. Way- land's argument, as any ultraist would desire to see, when he says — " All half truths are more pernicious than pure false- hood." The Mosaic law comes next under consideration. Mr. F. says — "1. Whatever the holy God has expressly sanctioned among any people can not be in itself a sin. 2. God did expressly sanction slavery among the Hebrews. 3. Therefore slavery can not be in itself a sin." Mr. W. had said — " This grant was made to one people only, the Hebrews. It had respect to one people only, the Canaanites." Mr. Fuller's reply to this point is absolutely unanswerable, if Mr. Wayland's admission is correct. " Not so," says Mr. F., "strangers sojourning among the Hebrews, might be held in bondage as well as the heathen around - r and Hebrews might, in your own words, ' be held in slavery for six years;' and they might, by their consent, (?) become slaves for life. Be it remembered, too, that, long before this, the patriarchs held slaves and not under any grant. c Abime- lech (?) took sheep, and oxen, and men servants, and maid servants, and gave them unto Abraham.' Gen. xx. 14. Pha- raoh, too, enriched him with sheep, and oxen, and he-asses, and men servants, and maid servants." Then, after quoting an opinion of " M. Henry," the last writer ever to be quoted as authority, where any case of doubt exists, he introduces the syllogism I have already quoted. FULLER AND WAYLAND. 63 There can be no reply to Mr. F., if only " Abraham and the patriarchs held slaves," and if God gave the Jews, by Moses, •'special directions" to hold slaves, as Mr. W. had granted. The only possible way of escaping the difficulty (if after all there is any difficulty,) is to show that both writers are alike in error. The kind of servitude under the patriarchate has been examined, and we found ali freemen and not slaves. The gifts of Abimelech and Pharaoh to Abiaham, therefore, constitute no difficulty. I could receive the gift of all Mr. Fuller's numerous slaves, and of all the slaves in the United States, for the purpose of doing as Abraham did, viz : to carry them out of slavery into freedom. Neither Abimelech nor Paraoh was a patriarch, but the one," king of Gerar, and the other, of Egypt." The word patriarch is used only four times in the Bible, and then only in the New Testament. It is there applied only to Abraham and the twelve sons of Jacob, and once to David. Still, from what we are told of Isaac and Jacob, we infer that they held that station. David, though, indeed, a king, is once, by way of respect, not to designate his office, called, " the patriarch David." Acts ii. 29. But, I believe, Abimelech and Pharaoh are never regarded as patriarchs, for they held authority of an entirely different character. If, therefore, they were slaveholders and gave away slaves, these facts are neither proof nor presumptive evidence that the patriarch Abraham in accepting these gifts became a slaveholder; for, his former subjects being free, these would naturally fall into the same condition. None of the patriarchs are ever said to have given away servants, nor to have sold any, unless we except the case of Joseph. The sons of Jacob in selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites,are, I think, usually and justly considered to have set an example for Judas Iscariot, rather than for Christians. This is the only instance among them of selling a man or any human be- d3 64 REVIEW OF ing ; and no instance of such a transaction is recorded of Mo- ses or of any of the Israelites, of his or any subsequent period ; neither is any permission so to do given by the covenant of God with Abraham, nor in the Levitical or Mosaic law, nor afterwards. But under this law, they might " buy" servants; and they did, sometimes, like Isaac and Jacob, " buy" wives, but not slaves. To buy a servant is a very different matter from buying and selling men. Few, perhaps, would blame me for buying all the slaves of the South ; many Northern pro- slavery men might think me doing a good business as an abo- litionist, if I bought them into liberty. So the mere buying of servants does not necessarily imply the act of enslaving them. But to " buy men to sell again," is a " merchandize" in " the bodies and souls of men," and this God abhors, (see Rev. xviii : 11, 12,) because it involves injustice or the wresting from men their rights, which sin may not be involved in merely buying men or women, and is not, where there is equal freedom on both parties in making the bargain, the payment, of course, being made to the man sold. So a man may sell himself and his wife and children together, without being guilty of injus- tice, as was the fact in the families of Jacob and his sons. But this a slave never does and never can do. Jesus bought us off from sin by his most precious blood ; but justice, truth, benevolence, all forbid that he should sell us back into sin again. So I may justly buy men off from some punishments threatened by government ; but 1 should not. Therefore, have the right, at my option, to sell them again, though in some sense they would be mine, — they are my " money" i. e., an equiv- alent for my money. So I may justly buy a minor and pay his father for him, so far as he has a right to the labor or service of his son ; but, without a special agreement, I can not, by either the law of God or the statutes of any righteous human government, sell him to another. And then, I can not buy FULLER AND WAYLAND. 65 him of his father to be mine after he has reached his majority, for the father's right to dispose of him ceases with the minor- ity of the child. Whereas, if, as Mr. Fuller asserts, parental authority and slaveholding power are one and the same thing, or perfectly alike, the child belonging to the father in his mi- nority, the father holds, under God, the right to hold or sell him after he is of age as he did before. It any man may in- nocently hold that son as a slave after he is twenty-one, the father has this right, before any other man, and may inno- sently hold his son as a slave " forever." If the father by divine right does hold his son as his slave during his minority, then no other man can hold that son as his slave at the same time ; and, therefore, the colored fathers at the South have this right in advance of their masters, and may forbid their masters to hold these sons as their slaves. They " cannot serve two masters." Or will Mr. F. relieve himself from this dilemma by pretending that the slave father has no parental right in his son, on account of a higher claim of the master ? Then slavery inevitably interferes with and destroys the " domestic relations" which Mr. F. himself de- clares must always be held inviolate. He says to Mr. W. — " You affirm that the right of the master is irreconcilable with the right of the slave to the blessings of moral and intellectual cultivation, and the privileges of domestic society, which I deny. * * Nor does the absence of the contract or consent of the slave, nor the right of transfer (the right to buy and sell the slave) at all alter the nature and extent of the masters right, more than in the case of a hired servant. The case is analo- gous to that of parents and children. A father," (is this a slave father ? I see not but that it must be,) — " a father" {any father,) " has the right to the services of his child during minority, with- out his contract or consent, and he may transfer that right, as in case of apprenticeship. * * This is the true light in d4 66 REVIEW OF which Christianity would have masters regard themselves. A right lo the services of a man, without his contract or con- sent, does not justify a wrong done to his mind or soul, or domes- tic relations. Slavery may exist without interfering with any man's natural rights, except" (a trifling exception it would be in your own case, would it not, my friend Fuller?) "except personal freedom" — that is, the " urging one man to labor for another, by a violent motive without his contract or consent." For " a father" (every father) has " this domestic," paternal " right," therefore, this right of every father may be violated, without any violation of (without " any wrong done to) his domestic relations." How pliable, how convenient a thing is logic ! Instead of being " the science for the discovery of truth," as some have supposed, it does its work most adroitly and most to the as- tonishment of observers, when error turns slaveholder and violates its proper right to discover truth by " urging" it " with- out its contract or consent, to labor for" him, and yet violates none of its proper (" domestic?) relations." And why is it worse to hold Logic as a slave than to hold " an intelligent, moral, social and fallen creature" in that condition? — espe- cially, since this science, Logic, may be deprived of every one of its rights, and, as we have just seen, be subjected to the severest torture, without awakening in its iron bosom a single regret or drawing from its adamantine eye a single tear ; while this right to "transfer" "asocial creature" is, at the best, liable in its exercise to create more or less of pain in the " transfer" away from wife, husband, child, parent, brother, sister — from all social endearments, to the company of stran- gers, to the hands and " irresponsible power" of such a being as, Mr. F. himself admits, ought never to be entrusted with it, because he is liable to " abuse" it. Now then, did Jehovah, could He, the Holy One of Israel. FtJLLEB AND WAVEAXH. 67 who, as a vigilant and benevolent, impartial Father, careth for and pitieth his children, commit to men this" irresponsible power" which a short-sighted mortal, like Mr. Fuller or Mr. Wayland or myself, is wise enough to see could never be safely commited to any man 1 A priori, universal humanity, uni- versal nature cries out — " It is impossible !" The gods of the heathen are vanity and a lie — for " the gentiles sacrificed to devils under the name of gods, who were supposed to permit slavery among their devotees — the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and other heathen to whom Jehovah, the Bible's God, was " the unknown"— gods cruel, revengeful, unjust. Here the religious theory and the associated moral practice might harmonize: but God our father, whose nature is immutable perfection, whose law is only a transcript of those perfections, " holy, just and good," the friend of the poor and needy, who "abhorreth robbery for burnt offering," who requires the oppres- sor to let the oppressed go free, and do it now — our God could never invest one man with this " irresponsible power." Since Mr. F. says it ought never to be done, I may well say, Jeho- vah never did it. Shall I now be told by Mr. F. that I am beyond my depth, when I pretend to determine what God would reveal, or' ( what the scriptures ought to teach?" lie has himself undertaken to act on this principle, for he has said, as once before quoted, "A clear and conclusive declaration of Jehovah's will would have been given, if slavery be an awful sin." How does he know, better than I, " what the scriptures ovght to teach?" Let him, also, be reminded that he has admitted all I ask, and has done in his " letters" all that I desire to do on this point. He had admitted " that in a dispute with an infidel, the purity o\ the Bible is an overwhelming argument." I am " in a dispute with an infidel ;" I do not mean Mr. Fuller, though I am sure there are important declarations of the Bible he dops 68 REVIEW OF not treat with respect, but another, yet as talented a man aa himself. I, therefore, need and must use " the purity of the Bible as an overwhelming argument." Mr. Fuller seems to be aware that there are other instance? analogous to this, for he talks warmly of certain ". enthusiasts, (?) flaming and furious — hierophants chafing and rampant," to whose " principles the clear permission of God must yield." Mr. Fullers " permission," strangely it may seem to him, seems to these men, call them " enthusiasts" or what you will, as not dc facto, to be found in the Bible, and they, therefore, reject not yet the Bible, but Mr. Fuller's " clear permission ;" and they very naturally and reasonably aver that, if it can be shown, as they do not believe it can, that the slaveholder's interpretation is sound, the Bible cannot be a revelation from God. Instead, therefore, of talking so much of the " fearful responsibility and solemn duty" of the slaveholder in the treat- ment of his slaves, he would much better fulfil the high com- mission of a minister of Jesus Christ, by acting in view of his tremendous "responsibility" for imputing to the scriptures such an impurity as the doctrine of " the right of urging men to labor for others without their contract or consent." The preaching or writing of this doctrine, is repelling many of the most intellectual men in the community from giving in their adherence to a religion represented by its ministers as so cor- rupt. And I solemnly believe that those who impute to Chris- tianity the approval of slavery as an institution approved of God, are dohig more to prejudice the thinking portion of man- kind against the Bible, than all the avowed leaders of infidelity ever have done. Asa minister of Jesus Christ, therefore, I enter my most solemn protestation against this iniquity. I do it in the fear of Him at whose holy tribunal Mr. F. and myself are very soon to meet and give our respective accounts of our stew- FULLER AND WAYLAND. G9 ardslup. And i call on my brethren every where to unite with me in this protestation. But protestation is not the whole of my duty touching this most serious matter. I have begun a vindication of the Holy Scriptures from the foul imputation, and I must proceed, still imploring the aid of my divine In- structor. Never was a question of greater moment laid upon my mind or presented to the judgment and conscience of every citizen in the nation ; for not one is without his responsibility in relation to it. I rejoice that so many feel this responsibility and are beginning to discharge the duty it involves. In examining the Law of Moses I shall need say nothing farther on the signification of the word servant ; yet I wish to keep the subject constantly in view, while considering the cir- cumstances relating to that servitude which was authorized of God ; for it will be seen that these circumstances harmonize with and so confirm the views already expressed. After the word servant, the chief reliance of the advocate of Slavery is upon the words "buy" "possession" and "for ever," all of which, he supposes, so qualify the word "servant" that nothing else can be made of it but slave. To him a He- brew servant is, therefore, a bought slave as a possession for ever. I will first dispose of the last words, " for ever," as these are supposed to qualify the other words. True, though Mr. F. talks loudly about our setting philology at defiance, he makes no attempt at a philological explanation of any of these words, assuming, with apparent confidence, that the use he makes of them is the correct use, probably taking it for granted that a menacing tone will secure a silent acquiescence. This is not unaccountable, since a slaveholder is in the habit of command- ing and being servilely obeyed, not only by his slaves, but by some Northern men nominally free. The words "for ever," like all other words, have both a 70 REVIEW OF radical meaning and a circumstantial use. The same is the case in the Hebrew word LAGNALAM, for ever, as found in the two passages much relied upon in argument for perpetual slavery under the Mosaic law, viz: Exod. xxi: 6 and Lev. xxv : 46. GNALAM or ALAM, a long period. The length of this period is varied by the words in connection, or by the nature of the subject. The word itself determines nothing, therefore, in regard of the duration cf the servitude, even if the words "for ever" were understood to qualify the whole phrase ; but the most natural meaning, Exod. xxi: 6, is always, or this shall always be the law, viz: that ye may buy or obtain servants of (from among) the heathen ; and Lev. xxv. 46, ever after, or during the next period to the following " jubilee," 49 years, or, perhaps, only during the next six years. In any way, it affects not our question, since the agreement or bargain entered into between the master and servant was voluntarily made, and, therefore, forbids the idea of slavery, viz : involuntary, coerced servitude for any duration. If it be claimed that the words for ever mean eternally, whether applied to the period of a slave's service, or to the period of that law's authority, the claim will not suit the pur- pose of the claimant, unless either the relation of master and slave must continue through eternity, or the rule or law must exist for the same very long space, during which, I believe, no slaveholder ever yet either lived, or expected to hold his au- thority over the slave. If, then, the slaveholder will limit the period at all, as by the life of either the master or servant, so will I give it the limit of the general law, which expressly requires that "all the inhabitants of the land shall be free at the year of the Jubilee — so free as not to return to servitude again, unless they renew their agreement to do so. But " they shall be your possession," is thought to give a right of slave ownership. Since, however, God declares himself FULLER AND WAYLANP. 71 the " possession of his people," without being their slave, Ezek. xliv : 28, and since that becomes a man's rightful u posses- sion" which he purchases, paying the rightful owner for it, " without contract or consent" never being any part of such a bargain and purchase, the word gives no support to the idea of coerced servitude. But " of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids," does certainly mean something, says the objector, and that must be slavery. Yes, this means something, but not necessarily slavery ; for it may mean something else ; and every thing we have yet seen and the whole tenor of the word of God require, in order to consistency, that it be so understood that God — the God of the entire Bible, may be seen to be the God of order — " For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace." It is the advocate of slavery, who sets the scriptures at war with themselves, by forcing upon portions of the Holy Word, a meaning which the inditing Spirit never intended. Yet Mr. Fuller is too much " a lawyer" not to be aware that, in inter- preting a legal instrument, as a law or constitution, it is an established judicial rule, to give an " innocent" meaning to such words as may be made to express both an innocent and injurious one. If "Mr. F. would have the most favorable con- struction put upon his 01019 words, most favorable to his char- acter as a just man, — above all, should he have been disposed to put such a construction upon the words of the Bible as leaves the character of God unimpeachable, he would not have been shut up to the necessity of ascribing to God the establish- ment of an institution of which he declares himself unwilling to be considered a "eulogist and abettor," " the existence of which," says he, " I lament, for the commencement of which I am notai all responsible." No : In the "principle" of slav- ery, (that is, as he explains it, the committing to such a being as " the Bible" represents man to be, " irresponsible power,") 72 REVIEW OK Mr. Fuller sees too much danger. So, to escape the odium of doing such a deed, he presumes to throw the responsibility and the odium on God. What more could Voltaire have- done ? What more did he, when it was his avowed purpose to overthrow the Christian religion and make 10 His definition of slavery and Paley's, S 30 Mr. W 's addition to the definition — Mr. F. defends slavery as it is 11 God instituted slavery, Mr. F.'s premise— Slavery like parental and civil government 13 Slave's rights secured — New view to Mr. W. and better, Mr. F. not impeccable 16 Can't associate with abolitionists — No one can, 4 o %/•'.* BOOKBISOISC H * A V *^