CHAPTER IX.Slavery and Religion—Continued.LAW OF MOSES AND SLAVERY.

It is claimed by the advocates of human bondage that in the law delivered by Moses for the government of the children of Israel, until the establishment of the kingdom of Christ, slavery is distinctly recognized, carefully regulated, and unequivocally sanctioned; and hence, that it is an institution upon which Jehovah now looks with approbation. We cannot believe, they argue, that it is wrong for christians to practice what the law of Moses permitted or sanctioned. To this argument we reply:—

1. That many things were allowed by the law of Moses which are strictly prohibited by the law of Christ. That law was imperfect in its character, limited in its application, and temporary in its design. It contained a number of statutes which could by no means be incorporated into the laws of a christian state.

Among the things commanded and allowed by the law under consideration, the following may be specified:—

1. It commanded a Hebrew, even though amarried man, with wife and children living, to take the childless widow of a deceased brother, and beget children with her; Deut., 25: 5-10.

2. The Hebrews, under certain restrictions, were allowed to make concubines, or wives for a limited time, of women taken in war; Deut. 21: 10-14.

3. A Hebrew who already had a wife, was allowed to take another also; provided he still continued his intercourse with the first as her husband, and treated her kindly and affectionately; Exodus 21: 9-11.

4. By the Mosaic law, the nearest relative of a murdered Hebrew could pursue and slay the murderer, unless he could escape to the city of refuge; and the same permission was given in case of accidental homicide; Num. 35: 9-34.

5. The Israelites were commanded to exterminate the Canaanites, men, women and children; Deut. 9: 12; 20: 16-18.

“Each of these laws, although in its time it was an ameliorating law, designed to take the place of some barbarous abuse, and to be a connecting link by which some higher state of society might be introduced, belongs confessedly to that system which St. Paul says made nothing perfect. They are a part of the commandment which he says was annulled for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, andwhich, in the time which he wrote, was waxing old, and ready to vanish away.” (Dr. Stowe.)

Now, will any one pretend that it is proper for a christian, having a wife, to take also the wife of a deceased brother? But the law of Moses authorized this as clearly as any one pretends that it authorized slavery. Is it allowable for a christian to take a concubine or marry three or four wives? But the law of Moses allowed this as distinctly as any one believes that it allowed slavery. Would it be right for a christian to pursue a neighbor who had committed accidental or intentional homicide, overtake and slay him? But the law of Moses justified the Jewish man-slayer as plainly as the most ultra defender of slavery maintains that it justified slaveholding. Suppose we admit, for argument sake, that slavery was authorized by the law of Moses, does it follow as a matter of course, that the law of Christ authorizes it? By no means; for we have seen that the former authorized concubinage, polygamy, extermination of the heathen, and summary vengeance upon the unwitting murderer, all of which things are utterly incompatible with the precepts of the latter. And slavery might very properly be placed in the category of those practices allowed by the law, but prohibited by the gospel. Thus the argument forslavery from the law of Moses proves too much, and therefore proves nothing.

2. But if, as is claimed, the Jewswereauthorized to enslave their fellow men, which we by no means admit, it was by express authority from God, who alone may deprive any of his creatures of the rights with which he has invested them. Express grantsweremade to the “chosen seed,” as for instance, the forcible occupancy of the land of Canaan, and of the cities thereof. Now those grants were not made to Americans, but to the ancient Israelites, and it is neither modest nor sensible for citizens of the United States to act under a charter which they admit was made to an ancient nation, for a temporary purpose. Let the American slaveholder show the sameauthorityfor slaveholding which he maintains the Jew could produce. Has God ever made a grant toAmericansto enslave the Africans?

3. Again, the passage mainly relied upon is found in Leviticus, 25: 44-47; in which the Jews are authorized to procure servants of thenations, (not heathen, forheathenis not in the original) round about them. Now if this celebrated passage be at all to the purpose, it is, as Pres. Edwards has said, “a permission to every nation under heaven to buy slaves of the nations round about them; to us, to buy of ourIndian neighbors; to them, to buy of us; to the French to buy of the English, and to the English to buy of the French; and so through the world. Thus according to this construction, we have here an institution of a universal slave trade, by which every man may not only become a merchant, but may rightfully become the merchandize itself of this trade, and be bought and sold like a beast.” Who is willing to admit the consequences of this construction?

We might here rest the case, because these three considerations, taken separately, or together, destroy entirely the whole force of the argument for American slavery predicated upon Levitical servitude.

We shall now inquire what kind of servitudewasrecognized and regulated by the law of Moses. The particular statute upon which the main reliance is placed, by the friends of slavery, and which is supposed to contain the black and bloodycharterfor the degradation of humanity, is found in Leviticus 25: 44-47, and reads as follows:—

“Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bondmen forever.”[9]

1. The wordslave, it will be observed, does not occur in this passage, nor does bondmen and bondmaids mean anything more than men-servants and women-servants. The wordbond, as we have seen, is gratuitously supplied by our translators, and is not in the original; and the wordservantsmeans no more thanlaborersorworkers. All kinds of servants are described by the term here found, and hence from its use in this place, it cannot be inferred that the persons referred to were slaves. The passage clearly authorized the procurement of servants from adjoining nations, which was a thing perfectly right in itself, and that is all it did authorize.

2. Nor does the fact that the passage allowed thepurchaseof servants, prove that the persons purchased were slaves, or became slaves. Irishmen were, many of them, a few years since, “bought servants.” They were sold to pay for their passage to this country, but the whole transaction was voluntary on the part of the “sons of Erin,” and looked to their benefit. Jacob, as we have seen, purchased Leah and Rachel with fourteen years of labor. Our blessed Savior hath purchased us with his own blood. The idea of chattel slavery cannot be associated with the word buy or bought, as used in the sacred writings, without doing great violence to their meaning. The phrase, “of them shall yebuy” may be properly rendered, “of them shall yeget, orobtainservants.” The word translated buy, in the passage before us, is in other places translated “get” or “getteth.” Thus, “He that beareth reproofgettethunderstanding.” Prov., 15: 32. “He thatgettethwisdom, loveth his own soul.” Prov., 19: 8. But the meaning of the word buy, and sell, as applied to the purchase and sale of men, is definitely settled by its use in the context of the passage which we are examining. It is used in verse 47, “if thy brother wax poor andsell himself” etc. In verse 39, the reading is, “andbe sold.” These passages are intended to convey an idea of the same transaction, and that transaction was nothing more nor less than the voluntary sale of a poor man to a rich one, not as a slave, but as a servant. The sale was made, and themoney was received by the servant who sold himself, with which he released himself and family from pecuniary embarrassment. In this sale and purchase of a man, the idea of slavery is utterly excluded. Now is it probable that the words buy, and sell, in this same chapter, when applied to foreign servants, were used in a totally different sense? To suppose this would be to charge Moses, as Wm. Jay observes, with a fraudulent intent to render the meaning of his law doubtful and unintelligible.

3. Considerable stress is placed upon the phrase, “shall be of theheathen,” as if heathenism was a crime to be punished with a still deeper degradation than idolatry can produce. “The word heathen,” says Mr. Jay, “is gratuitously inserted by our translators instead ofnations, the meaning of the original.”

4. Permission was also given for the purchase of the “children of the strangers.” “‘Children of the strangers’ is an orientalism, for strangers, as ‘children of the East,’ ‘children of the Province,’ ‘children of the Ethiopians.’ Hence, the Jews, instead of buying little boys and girls of their parents, were to buy foreigners residing in the country; and not only foreigners, but their descendants, natives of Palestine.” (Jay.)

5. “They shall be your bondmen forever.” In this phrase is supposed to be found a charter for perpetual, hereditary, hopeless bondage. Mr. Jay very justly remarks upon it as follows: “The preconceived opinions of the translators tempted them to give such a color to this sentence as best accorded with their proslavery theory. Hence this strong expression in the text, while in themargintheliteraltranslation is honestly given, “Ye shall serve yourselves with them forever.” Not a word about bondmen, but merely an unlimited permission, as to time, to use or employ foreigners or strangers.”

The proslavery construction renders the permission absurd, because in the first place it would be impossible for any one man literally to be a bondman forever, unless servitude could be continued in heaven or hell. And, in the next place, it could not continue in the same person in Israel beyond the great jubilee.

Now when this passage in Leviticus 25, is stripped of all the proslavery glosses of the translators, the following is, as the excellent writer just quoted observes, its plain and obvious meaning:—“You may buy of themselves, for servants, men and women who are nativesof the adjoining countries, just as you have already been authorized to buy your own countrymen for servants. You may also buy, for servants, strangers residing among you, and their descendants; and your children after you may do the same. You may always employ them as servants.”

The servitude permitted by the law of Moses has been most grossly misrepresented, and misunderstood. It was not an institution looking mainly to the advantage of the rich and powerful, while it crushed the poor and defenseless into the dust, disregarding their interests and their sorrows, but it was a benificent arrangement intended to relieve the unfortunate and open a door of hope to the Gentile inquirer of the way to Zion. Now observe carefully the following facts:—

1. Servants were not kidnapped or stolen from the surrounding nations. The stealing of a man was made a capital offense. He that stealeth a man and (orit should be) selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Ex. 21: 16. Now, as all the slaves in America have been stolen, those who stole them, and those who hold them, are worthy of death according to the law of Moses.

2. All the servants obtained by the Jews from neighboring nations werevoluntaryservants.This is proved in the following way. 1. Foreign servants, and native Hebrew servants were obtained in the same manner. Native Hebrews became servants (except in cases of crime) by voluntary contract. 2. Obedience to the law of Moses was a condition of servitude in the Jewish state. An idolater was not allowed to remain in the land. And a bought servant was obliged to renounce idolatry, receive the rite of circumcision, and in all things conform to the law of Moses, as his master was required to do. Gen. 17: 10-15. Ex. 23: 15-20. Deut. 16: 10-18. All were required to enter into the most solemn religious covenant. “Ye stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp,from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water; thatthoushouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day.” Deut. 29. But conformity to the law of Moses was voluntary. We cannot conceive that a Jew was allowed to buy a heathen servant against his will, tie him, inflict upon him the rite of circumcision, and then compel him to observe the great feasts ordained by the law,and, otherwise conform to the Jewish religion. Hence the acceptance of a place as a servant in a Jewish family was a matter of choice. 3. Servants were not obliged to remain with their masters. If they saw proper to change their situation, they had a perfect right to do so, just as laborers now have, and there was no fugitive slave law to prevent them from so doing. “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” Deut. 23: 15, 16. From these facts, the conclusion is irresistible that servitude was notforcedupon a foreigner, but voluntarily accepted by him, and that his continuance in that relation was voluntary. How great the contrast between this system and American slavery which utterly disregards thewillof slaves.

3. Foreign servants were to be treated in all respects precisely as native Hebrew servants were to be treated. “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger as for one of your own country, for I am the Lord your God.” Lev. 24: 22.

4. Ample provisions were made for the religious improvement of servants of all classes and especially foreign servants. They were toobserve the sabbath, go up with their masters to the three great annual feasts celebrated at Jerusalem, listen to the reading of the law, and in short enjoy all the advantages of the Jewish religion. Mr. Barnes estimates that in a period of fifty years, not less than twenty three were appropriated to the exclusive benefit of servants, during which time their whole attention might be devoted to the interests of their souls. Does not this indicate that the great design of the employment of foreign servants was religious? Is there the least similarity between this system of servitude and American slavery?

5. Special provisions were made to secure the kind treatment of all foreigners, foreign servants of course included. “Thou shalt not vex a stranger nor oppress him.” “Thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the heart of a stranger.” “Cursed be he that perverteth the judgment of the stranger.” “The Lord your God regardeth not persons. Love ye therefore the stranger.” But does not American slavery vex and oppress the stranger and pervert his judgment? The wide world cannot produce a class of persons who are, or ever have been oppressed, if American slaves are not. The word oppression is too feeble to express the tyranny suffered by the strangers in our land.

6. Servants under the law of Moses could not be sold. No permission was given for the sale of servants. They could not be taken for the payment of debts, or as pledges, or presents.They never were soldor given away. The reason of this is found in the fact that they were not chattels,—they were recognized as men, and had made a contract for service which their masters could not at pleasure annul. We have seen that the trade in slaves is an extensive and lucrative business.

7. The Hebrew law regarded servants as naturally equal to their masters, and hence, they were allowed to marry into their master’s family, and inherit, under some circumstances, their master’s property. Deut. 21: 10-14. A slave is not regarded as a man, can own nothing, and inherit nothing. What a contrast! American slavery, and Hebrew servitude seem to be erected upon totally different foundations.

8. At stated periods the mild form of servitude instituted by the law of Moses expired. A Hebrew who became a servant could not be required to continue in that relation more than six years. And every fiftieth year was a grand Jubilee, at the commencement of which liberty was proclaimed throughout all the land untoall the inhabitants thereof. Lev. 25: 10, 11. Contracts for service, under any circumstances,could not hold beyond that great jubilee. It was a glorious institution, and a type of the proclamation of the gospel. But American slavery knows no joyful jubilee! For three hundred years no proclamation of freedom has been made throughout all this land unto all the inhabitants thereof. No, generation after generation of slaves goes down to their graves indespair! Slavery is without a jubilee.

9. The grand design of the introduction of foreign servants into the Jewish state was their salvation. From a careful examination of this whole subject, we are fully satisfied that the 25th chapter of Lev. contains, as Mr. Smith has said, “the constitution of Heaven’s first Missionary society, by which a door of mercy and salvation was opened to the heathen, through which they could obtain access to the altar of God, find mercy and live.”

It will be observed that a foreigner could obtain a permanent residence in Israel in but two ways,—1st By becoming a servant in a Jewish family, and, 2d By purchasing a house in a walled city. Now, when in connection with these facts, we consider that to the Jews were committed the “lively oracles;” that the only temple of God on earth was erected on Mt. Moriah; that the divinely appointed priesthood and sacrifices were in Jerusalem; and also thata renunciation of idolatry and hearty acceptance of the God and religion of the bible was absolutely required of those foreigners who desired to become servants; that when they did become servants they were blessed with all the precious privileges of the Jewish religion, and after a few years, became, with their families, adopted members of the Jewish state, having all the rights, immunities and honors of the chosen people of God; I say, when all these facts are impartially weighed, they convince us that theendof the provision alluded to for the admission of foreign servants was religious—the salvation of those servants.

And history affords a powerful argument in support of this position. What was the practical operation of the law of Moses in relation to foreign servants? If the pro-slavery view of that law be correct, then history would record the fact that the commonwealth of Israel was a slaveholding commonwealth. It would state that the Jews traded in men, and that this traffic was important. We should read of poor, ignorant, chained idolaters traveling in mournful procession to a great slave pen at Jerusalem, situated under the shadow, perhaps of the temple of God, and from thence into every part of the land. And when our Savior appeared, he would have come into contactwith those wretched slaves, and would have said something about them. Do we find these facts in history? No, not one of them. Jerusalem, thank God, was a free city. Judea a free state. Foreigners were employed from age to age, as servants, but as was contemplated, they embraced the religion of God, became adopted citizens and were fully identified with the commonwealth of Israel. “After circumcision they were,” as Jahn says, “recorded among the Hebrews,” and after the jubilee they enjoyed all the immunities of the children of Abraham. Such was the intention, and such the results of Levitical servitude. Between that system and American slavery there is scarcely any thing in common. Slavery originated in piracy, is a system of savage tyranny, degrading to the intellect, destructive of morality, blasting to hope and happiness, and tending to barbarism and crime. Servitude under the law of Moses, originated in a benevolent desire to open a door of hope to the heathen, was kind and just in its requirements, guarding with extreme jealousy the interest of servants, and admirably calculated to lead their minds to morality, virtue and the knowledge of God. Slavery, therefore, can find no sanction in the law of Moses. Why, if that law were applied to American slaveryit would abolish it. Compel slaveholders to use their slaves as the law of Moses required servants to be used, and you will soon see an end of slavery.

Our Lord’s New Testament is the bulwark of human freedom. Its great, broad, solid truths constitute an impregnable foundation for a temple of liberty capacious enough to hold the entire human race. This is the last book in the world to search in order to find any thing favorable to oppression; and oppressors have usually preferred to “burrow amid the types and shadows of the ancient economy.” An effort has been made, however, to wrest a sanction for the abomination of slavery out of this last and best revelation from heaven, and to convert some passages found in the writingsof the apostles into chains and fetters to bind in hopeless bondage those very persons for whom Christ died.

We will quote the passages usually adduced to prove that it is the duty of some men to be slaves, and of others to be slaveholders.

“Servants, be obedient to them that areyourmasters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” Eph. 6: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. “Servants, obey in all thingsyourmasters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.” Col. 3: 22. “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God andhisdoctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despisethem, because they are brethren; but rather dothemservice, because they arefaithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.” 1st Tim. 6: 1, 2. “Exhortservants to be obedient unto their own masters,andto pleasethemwell in allthings; not answering again; not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.” Titus, 2: 9, 10. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Col. 4: 1.

We will inquire in the first place whether these passages teach that it is the duty of some persons to beslaves. And it may be remarked that if a class of human beingsoughtto sustain this horrible relation, the law requiring them to do so, should be written in the plainest possible manner. If any one should claimmeandmyfamily as slaves, upon a pretense that God had authorized our enslavement, I would demand a warrant for so terrible a degradation, which no reasonable man could question. Let us see whether the scriptures cited proveunquestionablythat to live in a state of slavery is a duty which God requires.

1. It will be seen at a glance that there is not a word said aboutslavesin any of these quotations. The wordslaveorslavesis not once used! And yet these passages, inculcating the duties ofservants, have been rung in the ears of our poorslavesfor the last three hundred years, by hypocritical preachers and slaveholders, as if heaven were chiefly interested and delighted in the perpetuation of an institution which degrades millions of men to a point as low as manhood can possibly descend. The whole gospel preached to slaves is mixed up with this satanic perversion. Even the song of angels announcing “peace on earth and good will to men,” is accompanied to the ear of the American bondman, with the base, coarse corruption,—“Slaves, obey your masters.”

2. The wordservants, used in these scriptures, is not synonymous with the wordslaves, as the preachers of oppression assume. The wordandrapodonmeans slave, but that word, the learned tell us, does not occur in the sacred writings. The worddouloi, used in the above quotations, and translated servants, means precisely what our English word servants means, as that word is understood in free countries. “Our English word servant,” says a good authority, “is an exact translation of the Greek worddoulos. And to translate it into the definite word slave is a gross violation of the original. Our translators of the scriptures have uniformly translated the word doulos into theword servant,neverinto the word slave, and for the reason that it never means slave. The apostles addressed servants in general, but never slaves in particular; and therefore the term slave (andrapodon) is not found in apostolic writings.”

The worddoulosoccurs in the New Testament one hundred and twenty two times,[10]and in no case has it been translated slave. To show the utter fallacy of the assumption that it is synonymous with slave, permit us to supplyslavein a few passages wheredoulosoccurs, instead of servant, for if slave and servant mean the same thing, they may be used interchangeably without violating the sense. “Paul and Timotheus theslavesof Jesus Christ.” “These are theslavesof the Most High God which do show unto us the way of salvation.” “And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God all ye hisslaves, and ye that fear him small and great.” “I am thy fellowslave.” We might extend these quotations indefinitely, but a sufficient number have been given to show the absurdity of the assumption that the words servant and slave describe the same relation. The pro-slavery rendering of doulos, would make slaves of all the redeemed, and of the holy angels, and would, as Mr. Smith remarks, extend the territory of slavery over heaven itself.

3. The phrase “servants under the yoke” means no more than obligation to perform service according to agreement or contract. He who had an engagement with an unbelieving master should perform his contract, or fulfill his obligation with scrupulous fidelity in order that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. The word “yoke” does not necessarily imply slavery. Our Savior said “take myyokeupon you,” but certainly he did not invite any one to become a slave. The word yoke is used in the scriptures to represent the ceremonial law; “dominion of Jacob over Esau, in the matter of his father’s blessing;” political subjugation of the Israelites; the authority of king David over his subjects, etc., etc.; but not in a single passage in the scriptures, unless it be in 1st Tim. 6: 1, does it describe the state of a domestic slave, and the assumption that it means slave in this place is altogether without proof to sustain it.

4. There is one passage in the New Testament addressed to servants which has not yet been quoted. “Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this isthank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.” 1st Pet. 2: 18, 19. In this passagedoulosdoes not occur, butoiketes, which some suppose, meansslave. But of this evidence is wanting. The same word is used four times only in the New Testament, and is, in no case, translated slave. (See Luke 16: 13. Acts 10: 7. Rom. 14: 4. 1st Pet. as above.) In one place it is rendered household-servant, and it seems to be used to distinguishhouse-servants from others. “The word comes from oikos, a house.”[11]

5. If the sacred writers above quoted had intended to address slaves, they would, in the first place, have done so plainly bycallingthem slaves. In the second place the directions would have been applicable to persons in a state of slavery. As to the terms used in the directions, we have seen that they do not apply properly to slaves; and the directions themselves afford proof that they were given to persons who were not chattel slaves. The advice and exhortations imply freedom fromabsolute authorityand a power of choice not compatible with slavery. They are exhorted to perform service “As the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.” Thatis, they were to be actuated by the highest motives, and were not to toil as the servants of men, but of God. Again, they are advised not to “DESPISE” their masters. Such directions have no pertinence, if addressed to human chattels. To whom then were they addressed? We answer, to voluntary laborers or servants who received a compensation for their work. The relations of servant and master or laborer and employer are necessary, legitimate and honorable relations. All men have not the skill to acquire or manage capital, and capital is essential to the accomplishment of great enterprises, to the march of improvement, and the progress of civilization. Capital invested in railroads, canals, machinery, factories, ships, merchandise, etc., requires many laborers to manage it; and the directions we are considering require that those laborers be honest, faithful, pleasant, and industrious in the discharge of the duties they engage to perform. And even though an employer be not a very good man, as is often the case with men of capital, christian servants or laborers are instructed to attend to their duties in the fear of God and in a manner that will recommend to those employers the religion which they profess. Yea, though servants have an engagement with a hard-hearted, overbearing, abusive heathenmaster, the apostles would have them perform their part, with the utmost fidelity, suffering “wrongfully” if need be, for the sake of Christ. These directions are judicious, and their observance would work to the advantage of laborers in all countries.

Now it is clear that those scriptures do not teach unquestionably that it is the duty of some persons to be slaves. If the apostles had said, “slaves be obedient to your masters for you are theirpropertyand they have a right to you and all you can earn,becauseyou are property,” then the matter would have been settled. Then we should admit thatsomemen ought to be slaves, but upon the heels of this admission would follow a question very difficult to settle viz:Who is to obeythe command to be a slave? How is it to be determined who shall become a human chattel and who the owner of said chattel?

But the assertion that God requires men to be slaves is a wicked assertion. It charges God with folly and inconsistency. He desires the elevation of man, but slavery brutalizes him. He encourages the enlightenment of the mind and the expansion of the understanding, but slavery darkens the mind and enchains the understanding. God cannot be pleased with the ignorance, stupor, injusticeand servile wretchedness which are necessary to the very existence of slavery, and hence he can not make it the duty of any man to be a slave, for this would be the same as to make it his duty to be stupid, ignorant and wretched. No, God does not will that any man or woman should be a slave. Man was made in the image of God’s independence and sovereignty. The instinct of freedom is strong in his bosom. It has resisted oppression in all ages, and it will resist it, with God on its side, until it shall triumph!

We will now inquire whether the apostolic addresses to masters authorize some men to sustain the relation ofslaveholders. It should be observed that there are but two places in the New Testament in which the duties of masters are pointed out. Permit us to repeat those duties. “And ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your master also is in heaven.” “Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.”

Is it possible that from these words men will take license to seize their fellows and convert them intoproperty; despoil them of all their rights; deny them an education; banish them from courts of justice; break up their homes;take their wages without compensation; drive them in chain-gangs from state to state, and whip, beat, and abuse them until they perish from the earth? Yes, it is possible. This has been done. “Was there ever,” said Dr. Wayland, “such a moral superstructure raised on such a foundation?* *If the religion of Christ allows such a license from such precepts as these, the New Testament would be the greatest curse that ever was inflicted on our race.” We remark

1. In these directions there is not the slightest intimation that the masters addressed wereslaveholdersand that the servants in their employ were slaves. The term slaveholders (andrapodistais,) is not used in the above passages, and this term is only once found in the apostolic writings.[12]It is found in the following text: “Knowing this that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, forandrapodistais, (slaveholders or menstealers) for liars, etc.” 1st Tim. 1: 9, 10.

And it is not only a fact that slaveholders are not addressed in these passages, butthe directions given are such as no slaveholder in the world can observe. How can a slaveholder give unto aslavethat which isjustandequal? Theslavecan own nothing, will nothing, inherit nothing, and hence it is impossible, in the very nature of the case, for his owner to give him a just compensation for his labor. And theslavehas a just right tohimselftolibertyand the very first honest and enlightened effort of a slaveholder to give to his slave that which is just and equal would result in hisemancipation!Justiceandequalityare incompatible with slaveholding.Injusticeandinequalityare its essential principles. Let us hear Mrs.Stowe’scomment on what Christian legislators have seemed to considerjustandequalwhen making laws for slaves:—

“First, they commence by declaring that their brother shall no longer be considered as a person, but deemed, sold, taken, and reputed, as a chattel personal.—This is “just and equal!”This being the fundamental principle of the system, the following are specified as its consequences:1. That he shall have no right to hold property of any kind, under any circumstances.—Just and equal!2. That he shall have no power to contract a legal marriage, or claim any woman in particular for his wife.—Just and equal!3. That he shall have no right to his children, either to protect, restrain, guide or educate.—Just and equal!4. That the power of his master over him shall beABSOLUTE, without any possibility of appeal or redress in consequence of any injury whatever.To secure this, they enact that he shall not be able to enter suit in any court for any cause.—Just and equal!That he shall not be allowed to bear testimony in any court where any white person is concerned.—Just and equal!That the owner of a servant, for “malicious, cruel, and excessive beating of his slave, cannot be indicted.”—Just and equal!It is further decided, that by no indirect mode of suit, through a guardian, shall a slave obtain redress for ill-treatment. (Dorothea v. Coquillon et al, 9 Martin La. Rep. 350.)—Just and equal!5. It is decided that the slave shall not only have no legal redress for injuries inflicted by his master, but shall have no redress for those inflicted by any other person, unless the injury impair his property value.—Just and equal!Under this head it is distinctly asserted as follows:There can be no offence against the peace of the state, by the mere beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or an intent to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken.” (State v. Manner, 2 Hill’s Rep. S. C.)—Just and equal!If a slave strike a white, he is to be condemned to death; but if a master kill his slave by torture, no white witnesses being present, he may clear himself by his own oath. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!The law decrees fine and imprisonment to the person who shall release the servant of another from the torture of the iron collar. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!It decrees a much smaller fine, without imprisonment, to the man who shall torture him with red-hot irons, cut out his tongue, put out his eyes, and scald or maim him. (Ibid.)—Just and equal!It decrees the same punishment to him who teaches him to write as to him who puts out his eyes.—Just and equal!As it might be expected that only very ignorant and brutal people could be kept in a condition like this, especially in a country where every book and every newspaper are full of dissertations on the rights of man, they therefore enact laws that neither he nor his children to all generations, shall learn to read and write.—Just and equal!And as, if allowed to meet for religious worship, they might concert some plan of escape or redress, they enact that “no congregation of negroes, under pretence of divine worship, shall assemble themselves; and that every slave found at such meetings shall be immediately correctedwithout trial, by receiving on the bare back twenty-five stripes with a whip, switch or cowskin.” (Law of Georgia, Prince’s Digest, p. 447.)—Just and equal!Though the servant is thus kept in ignorance, nevertheless in his ignorance he is punished more severely for the same crimes than freemen.—Just and equal!By way of protecting him from over-work, they enact that he shall not labor more than five hours longer than convicts at hard labor in a penitentiary!They also enact that the master or overseer, not the slave, shall decide when he is too sick to work.—Just and equal!If any master, compassionating this condition of the slave, desires to better it, the law takes it out of his power, by the following decisions:1. That all his earnings shall belong to his master, notwithstanding his master’s promise to the contrary; thus making him liable for his master’s debts.—Just and equal!2. That if his master allow him to keep cattle for his own use, it shall be lawful for any man to take them away, and enjoy half the profits of the seizure.—Just and equal!3. If his master sets him free, he shall be taken up and sold again.—Just and equal!If any man or woman runs away from this state of things, and, after proclamation made, does not return, any two justices of the peace may declare them outlawed, and give permission to any person in the community to kill then by any ways or means they think fit.—Just and equal!”(See Key, pp. 241.)

“First, they commence by declaring that their brother shall no longer be considered as a person, but deemed, sold, taken, and reputed, as a chattel personal.—This is “just and equal!”

This being the fundamental principle of the system, the following are specified as its consequences:

1. That he shall have no right to hold property of any kind, under any circumstances.—Just and equal!

2. That he shall have no power to contract a legal marriage, or claim any woman in particular for his wife.—Just and equal!

3. That he shall have no right to his children, either to protect, restrain, guide or educate.—Just and equal!

4. That the power of his master over him shall beABSOLUTE, without any possibility of appeal or redress in consequence of any injury whatever.

To secure this, they enact that he shall not be able to enter suit in any court for any cause.—Just and equal!

That he shall not be allowed to bear testimony in any court where any white person is concerned.—Just and equal!

That the owner of a servant, for “malicious, cruel, and excessive beating of his slave, cannot be indicted.”—Just and equal!

It is further decided, that by no indirect mode of suit, through a guardian, shall a slave obtain redress for ill-treatment. (Dorothea v. Coquillon et al, 9 Martin La. Rep. 350.)—Just and equal!

5. It is decided that the slave shall not only have no legal redress for injuries inflicted by his master, but shall have no redress for those inflicted by any other person, unless the injury impair his property value.—Just and equal!

Under this head it is distinctly asserted as follows:

There can be no offence against the peace of the state, by the mere beating of a slave, unaccompanied by any circumstances of cruelty, or an intent to kill and murder. The peace of the state is not thereby broken.” (State v. Manner, 2 Hill’s Rep. S. C.)—Just and equal!

If a slave strike a white, he is to be condemned to death; but if a master kill his slave by torture, no white witnesses being present, he may clear himself by his own oath. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!

The law decrees fine and imprisonment to the person who shall release the servant of another from the torture of the iron collar. (Louisiana.)—Just and equal!

It decrees a much smaller fine, without imprisonment, to the man who shall torture him with red-hot irons, cut out his tongue, put out his eyes, and scald or maim him. (Ibid.)—Just and equal!

It decrees the same punishment to him who teaches him to write as to him who puts out his eyes.—Just and equal!

As it might be expected that only very ignorant and brutal people could be kept in a condition like this, especially in a country where every book and every newspaper are full of dissertations on the rights of man, they therefore enact laws that neither he nor his children to all generations, shall learn to read and write.—Just and equal!

And as, if allowed to meet for religious worship, they might concert some plan of escape or redress, they enact that “no congregation of negroes, under pretence of divine worship, shall assemble themselves; and that every slave found at such meetings shall be immediately correctedwithout trial, by receiving on the bare back twenty-five stripes with a whip, switch or cowskin.” (Law of Georgia, Prince’s Digest, p. 447.)—Just and equal!

Though the servant is thus kept in ignorance, nevertheless in his ignorance he is punished more severely for the same crimes than freemen.—Just and equal!

By way of protecting him from over-work, they enact that he shall not labor more than five hours longer than convicts at hard labor in a penitentiary!

They also enact that the master or overseer, not the slave, shall decide when he is too sick to work.—Just and equal!

If any master, compassionating this condition of the slave, desires to better it, the law takes it out of his power, by the following decisions:

1. That all his earnings shall belong to his master, notwithstanding his master’s promise to the contrary; thus making him liable for his master’s debts.—Just and equal!

2. That if his master allow him to keep cattle for his own use, it shall be lawful for any man to take them away, and enjoy half the profits of the seizure.—Just and equal!

3. If his master sets him free, he shall be taken up and sold again.—Just and equal!

If any man or woman runs away from this state of things, and, after proclamation made, does not return, any two justices of the peace may declare them outlawed, and give permission to any person in the community to kill then by any ways or means they think fit.—Just and equal!”

(See Key, pp. 241.)

If slaveholding is an illustration of what St. Paul meant by justice and equality, who can tell what is injustice and inequality? Let itbe understood that a slaveholder cannot give to a slave,while he holds him as a slave, that which isjustandequal, because the greatest injustice and inequality enters into the very nature of the relation of slaveholder. Could a man be ajustrobber or anhonestthief? No, because injustice and dishonesty enter necessarily into the business of robbing and stealing. Even so is it impossible for justice and equality to enter into slaveholding, because, it is in its very nature, robbery, theft, extortion, oppression, and a complication of almost all villainies.

It is clear from the examination of all the passages in the New Testament relating to masters and servants, that those masters were not slaveholders and that those servants were not slaves.

But it will be asked did not slavery exist in the apostles’ days? We answer it did exist. The Roman government tolerated chattel slavery. Why then did not the apostles regulate it by prescribing the duties of slaveholders and slaves? It has been assumed, and justly too, that “slavery no more than murdercanbe regulated. That which is essentially and eternally wrong has nothing in it on which the claim of morality can rest. Morality requires its destruction, not its regulation.”[13]The law ofGod does not point out the duties of liars, adulterers and thieves, because as such, they can have no duties. So God did not attempt to regulate Roman slavery which was a most vile and crushing despotism. He did not intend thatSLAVERYshould be continued, and hence it was not to be regulated but destroyed. We have no evidence in the above passages thatSLAVEHOLDERSwere admitted into the church of Jesus Christ by the apostles.

Slaveholders and the upholders of the infamous Fugitive Slave Law, lay the case of Onesimus to their consciences as a healing unction when dogging down the fugitive slave. In their blindness they assume that Philemon was a slaveholder, Onesimus a slave, and St. Paul a slave-catcher. But not a word of this is true.

1. Onesimus was aSERVANTand not aSLAVE, and Philemon was not aSLAVEHOLDER. The assumption that the one was a slave and the other a slave-owner is altogether without support.

2. Onesimus was notforciblysent back. St. Paul did not arrest him, and send him in chains to Philemon, charging the expense to the government.

3. He was not sent back as aservant, much less aslave. How then? Why as a “brotherbeloved.” “Thou therefore receive him as mine own bowels—* *receive him as myself.” “If he oweth thee ought put that on mine account.” These directions are wholly inconsistent with the idea of slavery. If Onesimus was thepropertyof Philemon, Paul knew that he owed the service of his whole life. But Onesimus was no slave. Had he been a slave Paul would have said, “Receive him not as a slave (andrapodon) but above a slave,” instead of saying, “not as a servant (doulos) but above a servant.” Onesimus was a relative of Philemon, probably a natural brother,—brother “in the flesh;” as may be inferred from Philem., verse 16. He was undoubtedly a young man of great promise, and was not only entrusted with the epistle of Paul to Philemon, but jointly with Tychicus was the bearer of the venerable apostle’s letter to the church at Colosse. On the authority of Calmet, and indeed of Ignatius, it is affirmed that he succeeded Timothy as bishop of Ephesus.

They who affirm that the New Testament writers sanctioned Roman slavery, seem not to be aware of the serious imputation they cast upon that book and its authors. Look at that awful despotism, that you may understand what a savage, scaly, bloody-mouthed beast was welcomed into the church and baptizedwith a Christian baptism, if we may believe the advocates of human bondage.

1. “The (Roman) slave had no protection against the avarice, rage, or lust of the master, whose authority was founded in absolute property; and the bondman was viewed less as a human being subject to arbitrary dominion, than as an inferior animal, dependent wholly on the will of his overseer.[14]

2. “He might kill, mutilate or torture his slaves for any or no offence; he might force them to become gladiators or prostitutes.

3. “The temporary unions of male with female slaves were formed and dissolved at his command; families and friends were separated when he pleased.

4. “Slaves could have no property but by the sufferance of their masters.

5. “While slaves turned the handmill they were generally chained, and had a broad wooden collar to prevent them from eating the grain.

6. “The runaway when taken was severely punished,* * *sometimes with crucifixion, amputation of a foot, or by being sent to fight as a gladiator with wild beasts; but most frequently by being branded on the brow with letters indicative of his crime.

7. “By a decree passed by the Senate, if a master was murdered when his slaves might possibly have aided him, all his household within reach were held as implicated and deserving of death.”

Is it possible that the holy apostles gave their sanction to a system based on such laws?

But all the fundamental principles of revealed religion are against slavery.

1.The character of god.—God isjustand cannot favor a system which disregards all the principles of justice. But slavery outrages every principle of justice: therefore God must be opposed to slavery. God isimpartial,—no respecter of persons, and he cannot be favorable to a system which is based upon partiality. But slavery is a system of superlative partiality: hence God is opposed to slavery. God islove,—and love wills the highest happiness of the intelligent universe, and the removal of every obstruction to the progress of men to that happiness. But slavery obstructs that progress. It is a barbarizing system, necessarily involving millions of men in ignorance, crime and misery: therefore God must will its extirpation. All the divine attributes are hostile to slavery. “Thus saith the Lord, execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of theoppressor.” “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed; judge the fatherless; plead for the widow.”

2.The common origin of man.—The unity of the human race is admitted by all scientific men, and the bible plainly teaches us that “out of one blood hath God made all nations to dwell upon the face of the earth.” Whatever difference of feature, color, intellect or stature, may be found in the various parts of the globe, is attributable to manners, climate, education, and the pleasure the Creator has in variety. Every human being is aman, possessing all the rights of a man. All men are brothers, born into the world on a common level. Hence one man cannot claim his brother and his brother’s family without committing an outrageous insult. If the right to claim belongs to any, it belongs to all, and now whose right shall hold? We say if the right to enslave belongs to any it belongs to all, and how is it to be determined who will sink from the right to own slaves to the condition of aSLAVE? Must the strong reduce to slavery the weak, and thus make might thearbiter? Such a conclusion would be contrary to the plainest dictates of reason. If men have a common parentage, and are brothers, they inherit common rights, and those rights ought to be respected. That systemwhich authorizes one part of the common family of man to plunder another part of their dearest rights—ofalltheir rights, is a wrong system. But slavery authorizes this very thing: therefore slavery is wrong.

3.Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all.—Jesus is the second Adam, and sustains a relation to the human family co-extensive with the first Adam. He is the Mediator, High Priest and Elder Brother of every child of man. All have been purchased with a priceless offering; and hence the claims of Christ are paramount to all other claims, and no one can rightfully become the owner of a fellow-being, unless Christ as Creator and Redeemer first relinquish his claim. A system which should attempt forcibly, and without divine permission, to seize upon the Saviour’s purchase, would be robbery—a robbery of God. But slavery does seize upon the purchase of a Saviour’s blood without divine permission: therefore slavery is robbery—robbery of God.

4.The Moral Precepts of Christianity.—The moral precepts of Christianity condemn slavery. Take for example the golden rule—“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.” Can any slaveholder obey this precept? If that wealthy planter who stands atthe head of a large family, were a slave with all his household, what course would he have his owner pursue? Would he not wish him to grant a deed of immediate manumission to all his family and to himself? Would he not urge the matter as one of immense importance? Is it possible that he could desire to be deprived of liberty, education, permanent family connections, and of the proceeds of his toil? Could any sane man wish to have his sons and daughters grow up in the stupor, ignorance, and miseries of slavery? No, it is not possible. Every sound-minded man would regard the subjugation of himself and family to slavery as a dreadful calamity, and would consider the man who shouldholdthem in that condition as an unfeeling, inhuman tyrant.—Therefore no sound-minded man can hold a slave without violating the golden rule—without doing unto others as he wouldnothave others do to him.

5.The commandments are all against slavery.“Honor thy father and thy mother.” But slavery places the master between the child and the parent, and makes it impossible for the child practically to obey this command, in the performance of those duties which cheer the hearts and lighten the burdens of parents, especially in old age. “Thou shalt not kill.”But slavery authorizes in many cases the killing of slaves. “In North Carolina, any person may lawfully kill a slave who has been outlawed by running away or lurking in the swamps.” “By a law of South Carolina, a slave endeavoring to entice another slave to run away, if provisions, etc., be prepared to aid in such running away, shall be punished with death.” “Another law of the same State, provides that if a slave when absent from the plantation, refuse to be examined by any white person, such white person may seize and chastise him; and if the slave shallstrikesuch person, he may belawfully killed.”—“Thou shalt not commit adultery.” But female slaves are compelled to commit adultery. The law places them wholly within the power of their masters and overseers, and they dare not, they cannot resist their demands. “Thou shalt not steal.” But slavery exists by theft. Every slave is a stolen man. Every slaveholder is a man-stealer. The slave was stolen from Africa, or stolen from his rightful owner, himself, in America. No sophistry can make it plausible that the African slave trade is piracy, and that theperpetuationof slavery is an innocent business. It is theft as clearly to go to the negro hut in Virginia and steal a babe as to go to a hut in Africa and do the same deed.Certainly a child born in our happy Republic is as free in the sight of God as one born under the rule of the King of Dahomey! “All are created free,” hence the holding of any one as a slave istheftpersevered in. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” But slavery does bear false witness against the slave, who is our neighbor. It denies his natural equality, his right to liberty, property—in short, his manhood. This is all asfalseas false can be. “Thou shalt not covet.” But slavery covets not only a man’s property, but the man himself. We see that slavery violates every commandment of the second table of the Decalogue, and indeed violates every precept of the first table, as might readily be shown.

It is clear that slavery receives no sanction from the curse pronounced upon Canaan, from patriarchal servitude, from the law of Moses, nor from the law of Christ. In the light of the divine word it appears a gigantic barbarism, full of hate to the human brotherhood. It annuls the law of God respecting the family and society. It obstructs the progress of education and religion. It is condemned by the whole spirit of revealed religion. Only a devil could pray for its perpetuation and extension. It is not only a sin, but a combination of stupendous sins—“the sum of all villainies,” in the language of Wesley, “an enormity and a crime, for which perdition has scarcely an adequate punishment,” in the language of Clarke. “Slavery,” said the celebrated Jabez Bunting, “is always wrong, essentially, eternally, incurably wrong.”

The christian church ought to be a faithful exponent of the benevolent spirit and doctrines of Jesus Christ. Liberty, truth and humanity, though insulted, betrayed and proscribed every where else, should find within its sacred enclosures a welcome, a refuge and a stronghold. Its watchmen ought to be faithful men, uninfluenced by flattery, uncorrupted by gold, unawed by the popular will. The church ought to be the most independentbody on earth. Standing as it does upon the Eternal Rock, holding the promise of successful resistance against the “gates of hell,” and of certain triumph over all the powers of darkness, the oppressor ought to know that he could not intimidate it by menace, silence its witnesses, win its smiles, or by any means be permitted to set his unhallowed feet within its pale. The church ought to be a terror to slaveholders; and although usage, prejudice, pride, passion, wealth, literature, and the selfish interests of men should all be combined against the oppressed, they should be certain of an unswerving and powerful friend and advocate in the church.

We say such should be the acknowledged and indisputable character and conduct of that body popularly known as the church, because then it would be a faithful exponent of the divine philanthropy of Jesus, of his “good will to men,”—then it would be precisely what the church was when it acknowledged no law superior to the will of God.

We propose now to ascertain the position of the American churches in relation to the slavery question. The most of them have been compelled to take some action on this exciting subject. We shall notice, more especially, the late action of various denominations, both for and against slavery, that the reader may know precisely where each branch of theProtestantchurches of this country, may be found. We do not deem it necessary to exhibit the relation of theCatholicchurch to slavery. We may remark here, however, by the way, that this church, if it be proper to call it a church, is soundly pro-slavery, and is, in America, as it is everywhere else, a staunch advocate of oppression. Few Protestant churches excel the Catholic in slaveholding.

The Presbyterian church (O.S.) stands fully and unequivocally on the side of the oppressor. It is true that a few earnest anti-slavery men may be found in this denomination, but their influence upon it is scarcely felt. They are not able in the least to modify the decided, unfaltering pro-slavery position maintained by the General Assembly. So far as I know, the most ultra friends of slavery are perfectly satisfied with the late ecclesiastical action and influence of this church. It makes no pretensions to anti-slavery. The slaveholder is welcomed to its communion, is authorized to preach and is elevated to the highest posts of honor. At the last General Assembly fifty slaveholding presbyteries were represented. The place of meeting was Charleston, South Carolina. Dr.Lord, author of a celebrated sermon in support of the fugitive slave law, was elected moderator. The General Assembly of 1845, by a vote of 168 to 13, “Resolved, That the existence of domestic slavery, under the circumstances in which it is found in the southern portion of this country, is no bar to Christian communion.”

This church has beenprogressingin the wrong direction. In 1818, before the excision of the Presbyteries which formed the New School body, the General Assembly declared that “the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another was a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature,” “utterly inconsistent with the law of God,” and “totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel.” This was a noble declaration, but slaveholders were not excluded from the church as they should have been, but continued to flock in, until in 1836, aslaveholderpresided over the General Assembly who openly said—“I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to hold my slaves in bondage.”—Since 1836 the General Assembly has been wholly under the control of the pro-slavery interest. Her doctors of divinity have written learned treaties in defense of slavery, andslaveholders are at ease, yea, sleep undisturbed in her communion, and for all that that church is likely to say or do, will sleep on until they find themselves in company with Dives.

When the New School General Assembly was organized only three slaveholding Presbyteries were represented. There are now about twenty. A very large proportion of the ministers and members of this church aresomewhatanti-slavery, and many of themdecidedlyanti-slavery; but the holding of slaves is not made a test of communion. Slaveholders have been and are now flocking into it. Ministers of the sanctuary and members of the General Assembly are slaveholders. Nevertheless, the action of the General Assembly has been such as to keep up an agitation and render the southern portion of the church somewhat restless.

The following resolution was adopted by the General Assembly, which convened at Detroit in 1850:

“That the holding of our fellow-men in the condition of slavery,EXCEPTin those cases where it is unavoidable by the laws of the State, by the obligations of guardianship or the demands of humanity, is an offense, in the proper import of that term, as used in the Book of Discipline, chap. i., sec. 3, which should be treated in the same manner as other offenses.”

Theexceptionsin this resolution are sufficient, especially when explained at the south, to cover almost all cases of slaveholding.

The Assembly of 1853 adopted a report earnestly requesting the Presbyteries in the slaveholding States to lay before the next Assembly distinct and full statements touching the following points:

“1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches under their jurisdiction, and the number of slaves held by them.“2. The extent to which slaves are held by an unavoidable necessity, ‘imposed by the laws of the States, the obligations of guardianship, and the demands of humanity.’“3. Whether a practical regard, such as the Word of God requires, is evinced by the Southern churches for the sacredness of the conjugal and parental relations as they exist among slaves; whether baptism is duly administered to the children of slaves professing Christianity; whether slaves are admitted to equal privileges and powers in the Church courts; and in general to what extent and in what manner provision is made for the religious well-being of the enslaved.”

“1. The number of slaveholders in connection with the churches under their jurisdiction, and the number of slaves held by them.

“2. The extent to which slaves are held by an unavoidable necessity, ‘imposed by the laws of the States, the obligations of guardianship, and the demands of humanity.’

“3. Whether a practical regard, such as the Word of God requires, is evinced by the Southern churches for the sacredness of the conjugal and parental relations as they exist among slaves; whether baptism is duly administered to the children of slaves professing Christianity; whether slaves are admitted to equal privileges and powers in the Church courts; and in general to what extent and in what manner provision is made for the religious well-being of the enslaved.”

The debate on this report and the subsequent action of the southern Presbyteries prove conclusively that the Detroit resolution is utterly futile, and that slaveholding goes on in the southern part of the church without interruption. On this report, Rev. Mr. McLain, of Mississippi said:

“We disavow the action of the Detroit Assembly. We have men in our Church who buy slaves, and work them, because they can make more money by it than any other way. All who can, own slaves; and those who cannot, want to.”

Rev. William Homes, of Mo., said:

“The action of the Assembly of Detroit is null and void; for how can any man be found, not to be included in one or the other of the exceptions contained in it? All claim that their slaveholding is involuntary and justifiable. He concluded by strenuously asserting that the South would not submit to these inquiries.”

Rev. William Terry, of Va., said:

“He could not promise that the Virginia Presbyteries would give any replies to these inquiries. There was no hope, so long as slavery exists, that the church shall be free from it. If it has come to be true that the feeling of the North will not suffer the slaveholding ministers and members to remain in fellowship with the Church, the South will not remain with you. They do not contemplate a disconnection with slavery.”

Since the meeting of the Assembly the Presbyteries in the South have almost unanimously protested against the action in relation to slavery as “inquisitorial,” and have resolved to disregard totally the “earnest request” of the General Assembly. They have also resolved that the agitation of the subject in the Assembly must cease as aconditionof the continued union of the church. Whether the pro-slavery element of this denomination will prevail, so as to “bury out of sight the Detroit resolution, silence the General Assembly on slavery, and make the New School Presbyterian Church a quiet home for those who “buy” “sell” and “work” slaves “because they can make money out of them,” cannot now be determined. We hope not, but knowing the aggressive spirit of slavery, we fear.[15]

It is somewhat difficult to define with any great degree of precision, the position of the Congregational churches in relation to slavery. Many of these churches are actively anti-slavery. The Congregationalists of Ohio, in a convention held at Mansfield:

“Resolved That we regard American slavery as both a great evil and a great violation of the law of God and the rights of man; and that we deem it our sacred duty to protest, by every christian means, against slaveholding, and against any and all acts which recognize the false and pernicious principle that makes merchandise of man.”

The largest representative body of congregationalists which has expressed itself on the question of slavery recently was the Albany Convention which met in 1852. This body adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is the tendency of the gospel, wherever preached in its purity, to correct all social evils, and to destroy sin in all its forms; and that it is the duty of Missionary Societies to grant aid to churches in slaveholdingStates in the support of such ministers only as shall so preach the gospel, and inculcate the principles and application of gospel discipline, that, with the blessing of God, it shall have its full effect in awakening and enlightening the moral sense in respect to slavery, and in bringing to pass the speedy abolition of that stupendous wrong; and that wherever a minister is not permitted so to preach, he should, in accordance with the directions of Christ in such cases “depart out of that city.”

It is believed that Congregationalists generally areprogressingin the right direction.[16]

Back to Index Next