Forgot your password?
New user?
Document Actions
The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery (XHTML)
by
things
—
last modified
2006-02-22 23:47
A religious tract of biblical disputation published in Columbus, Ohio, in 1837 by Goodsell Buckingham, a local Methodist antislavery lecturer. Digitized by the Antislavery Literature Project.
Size 86.0 kB - File type text/html
Click here to get the file
File contents
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="undefined">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>THE BIBLE VINDICATED</title>
<style>
<!--
h1
{text-align:center;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Palatino Linotype";
color:gray;}
h2
{text-align:center;
page-break-after:avoid;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Palatino Linotype";}
p.MsoBodyText, li.MsoBodyText, div.MsoBodyText
{text-align:center;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent, li.MsoBodyTextIndent, div.MsoBodyTextIndent
{text-indent:36.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.MsoBodyText2, li.MsoBodyText2, div.MsoBodyText2
{font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
p.MsoBodyTextIndent2, li.MsoBodyTextIndent2, div.MsoBodyTextIndent2
{text-indent:36.0pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" lang="EN-US" xml:lang="EN-US">
<div class="Section1">
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>THE</span></b></p>
<h1><span style='color:windowtext'>BIBLE VINDICATED</span></h1>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>FROM THE</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>CHARGE OF SUSTAINING</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>SLAVERY</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>BY</span></b></p>
<h2>G. BUCKINGHAM</h2>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>_________________</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>COLUMBUS</span></b><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>:</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>PRINTED AT THE TEMPERANCE ADVOCATE
OFFICE;</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-family:"Palatino Linotype"'>1837</span></b></p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>This is an annotated edition of the original text of
G. Buckingham’s <i>The Bible Vindicated from the Charge of Sustaining Slavery</i>,
printed in Columbus, Ohio in 1837. Original spelling, punctuation and page
citations have been retained; minor typographic errors have been corrected.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoBodyText">This electronic edition has been prepared for the Antislavery
Literature Project, Arizona State University, a public education project
working in cooperation with the English Server, Iowa State University. Digitization has been supported by a grant from the Institute for Humanities
Research, Arizona State University. </p>
<p class="MsoBodyText2" align="center" style='text-align:center'>Editorial
annotation by Joe Lockard. Digitization by April Brannon. All rights reserved
by the Antislavery Literature Project. Permission for non-commercial
educational use is granted.</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[blank page 2]</p>
<h1><span style='color:windowtext'>Introduction</span></h1>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> Goodsell
Buckingham’s <i>The Bible Vindicated on Charges on Sustaining Slavery</i> was
an entry into the biblical disputation that was becoming a central feature of
anti-slavery and pro-slavery argument by the 1830s. Unlike many texts from
this debate, the present tract did not emerge from a familiar publishing house
in Boston or New York, but rather from the offices of an obscure provincial
temperance newspaper located in Columbus, Ohio. It represents an amalgam of
reform and religious engagements, typical of much antislavery literature of the
period. </span></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> The tract,
which evidences a self-taught knowledge of biblical Hebrew, examines a broad
variety of primarily Old Testament verses to demonstrate differences between
slavery as practiced among the ancient Hebrews and slavery in the American
South. The author’s purpose lies in proving to bible-cognizant readers that
not only are the two systems incongruent, but that the terms of biblical
slavery provide for eventual freedom. Therefore, the Southern system of
perpetual slavery opposes the more liberal terms of slavery in the pastoral
world of the Hebrew tribes. Buckingham measures the claim that the Bible
authorizes slavery, which was a consistent theme of pro-slavery apologetic
literature, against a social profile of slavery as it appeared in the Old
Testament.</span></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Later
in the text, Buckingham deals more briefly with the New Testament in order to
juxtapose characteristic conditions of Southern slavery with cautionary New
Testament verses. After his exegesis of biblical texts, he concludes "American
slavery is enormously criminal, sinful in the pure light of the bible, and the
way to get rid of it is clearly pointed out in that good book." (p. 22)
An end to slavery is thus an end to catastrophic national sin that opposes
divine commandments, a sin that can be remedied only with emancipation.</span></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>Buckingham
calls, among other points, for immediate emancipation of slaves; payment of
fair wages for labor; establishment of marriage ceremonies and personal
chastity among ex-slaves; and a religious mission to freed slaves to provide
them with churches, schools, and ministers. Adopting an attitude common among
both religious and secular whites, Buckingham viewed blacks as living within a
"great darkness" (p. 22) that required moral reform and uplift from
benevolent whites. </span></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>This
relatively brief text reflects the religious character of antislavery debate in
Ohio, and through counter-example seeks to contradict the bible citations
employed by pro-slavery advocates. It is the work of an obscure grassroots
moral reform activist, determined to disprove any citation of the bible in
support of slavery.</span></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent2">Buckingham was born in Carthage, Ohio, in 1810, and
lost his father at age three. His mother kept store and raised him to age
eleven, when she sent him to preparatory school at Ohio University. He
remained as a storekeeper in Zanesville until he married in 1831 and moved to
Mansfield, Ohio, where the death of his firstborn child brought about a
religious conversion. After moving again to McConnelsville and achieving some
financial success, Buckingham joined the Methodist Conference and became an
advocate of abolitionism during the late 1830s when Methodism was in the midst
of schism over the slavery issue. The present tract is from this period, and
was written with the assistance of Reverend T.D. Weld. Buckingham ran twice
for public office as an anti-slavery candidate, one for Congress and once for
lieutenant governor, without success. Throughout the 1840s, Buckingham was an
anti-slavery lecturer in Ohio. Although once a distillery manager, he also
campaigned for temperance. After his business failed, Buckingham came to
Washington at the start of the Lincoln administration and obtained a
responsible administrative position in the Treasury through the influence of
his anti-slavery colleague, Salmon P. Chase. After the war, he took positions
in Chicago and in southern states, then underwent successive failures and
bankruptcies as a publisher and grain merchant. As he concluded in his
autobiography, "My life has been checkered." (p. 42) </p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>For
further information, see <i>Autobiography of G. Buckingham</i> (New York:
Wynkoop and Hallenbeck, 1884). </span></p>
<p><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> —
Joe Lockard</span></p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[unnumbered page 3]</p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'> <b><span
style='font-size:14.0pt'>THE BIBLE VINDICATED</span></b>.</p>
<p align="center" style='text-align:center'>____________________</p>
<p><b><span style='font-size:16.0pt'>I</span></b>N
the day of final judgment, every man will be called upon to give an account of
the "deeds done in the body,<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>"</span> whether they are good or whether they be evil. "It should consequently be
the aim of christians, to ascertain their duty on all questions of importance,
that there may no "blood be found in their skirts." The duty of the
church on the subject of American slavery, is the object of our research in the
following pages. It must be determined, by the voice of God, speaking to us
through Divine revelation. That is the only infallible rule of faith and
practice, and by it we are always safe in governing our lives. That the bible
both justifies and perfectly furnishes rules to regulate servitude, we do not
wish to deny. The question to be settled is, was Jewish servitude of such a
character as to justify American slavery? There were Hebrew and Gentile
servants, distinguished from hired servants: they were "bought with
money." Did these persons sell themselves and receive an equivalent for
their services? Or were they stolen by others, sold and, compelled to
involuntary service, without wages? The following passage is doubtless the
strongest one afforded by the bible, which slaveholders and their apologists
claim to justify the relation of master and slave.</p>
<p>Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46. "Both
thy bondmen and bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that
are round about thee; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of
the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy
and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and
they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them for an inheritance for
your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your
bondmen forever; but over, your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not
rule, one over another with rigor."</p>
<p>We are gravely told, that this
text proves, both that the Jews might buy slaves of the heathen and strangers,
and perpetuate slavery by transmitting them to their children as property
"forever." This proved, they have established a similitude between
Jewish servitude and American slavery, sufficient to justify the continuance
of the latter, until some plan is spread before the public, wiser and better in
the opinions of our opponents than immediate repentance. If this be not the
object of those who <span style='text-transform:uppercase'>trouble</span> the
bible, what can be? (Abolitionists would never have disturbed the question of
Jewish servitude, unless pro-slavery men had attempted to prop themselves in
iniquity by declaring it the same in principle with American slavery.)</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 4]</p>
<p>We are, however, quite unwilling
to believe their assertion, and therefore say, slavery is always sin. It is
denied, and the bible is called up to develop a system of <span
style='text-transform:uppercase'>slavery</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>,</span> which has calmly reposed in the tomb for eighteen hundred years. A simple
comparison between the legal treatment of Jewish servants and American slaves,
would be sufficient to cover the holders of the latter with everlasting infamy,
and should summon the "mantling blushes" of deepest shame to the
cheeks of slaveholders and their apologists. But we intend to do more—"to
carry the war into the enemy's camp;" and prove not only that there was no
slavery on Jewish soil, but that American slavery, in "the light of the
word of eternal truth, is most detestable; and must forever" suffer under
the withering anathemas and anger of Almighty God.</p>
<p>We lay down as our hypothesis,
sustained by the text alluded to and "every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God," the following propositions.</p>
<p>I. The Jews were not allowed in
any case to buy, either the heathen or strangers who, had been reduced to
slavery; by which we mean involuntary bondage, without crime.</p>
<p>II. They could not hold a man as
property at all, much less establish <i>everlasting slavery</i>.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">III. Heirs could not claim services from servants of
legators, except upon contracts limited by the Jubilee.</p>
<p> IV. Servants were in the main treated as
children or equals; no authority appearing in the bible, for using them as our
Southern slaves.</p>
<p>These are startling positions to
those who believe that slavery is not always wrong. And we confess our
diffidence in asserting them, when we know how many <i>great names</i> are
opposed to us. Before we proceed to the proof, however, let us inquire, What is
a slave? In the language of the Roman law, (when our Saviour was on the
earth,) a slave was one "without name," and counted "pro nullis,
pro mortuis, pro quadrupedibus:" that is, <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>"</span>for
nobody, for dead, for four footed beasts." In the language of the Louisiana
law, "a slave is one who is in the power of his master to whom he belongs.
The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and his labor; he
can do nothing, acquire nothing, but what must belong to his master." The
South Carolina law adjudges slaves to be "chattels personal in the hands
of their owners, possessors and assignees, to all intents, purposes, and
constructions whatever," and this is said to be "forever." In
all the States he may be sold at the will of his master. Such an one is a
slave. With voluntary servitude, or the servitude of minors, we wage no
opposition, assured that the danger to be apprehended from them, is both small
and remote. Slavery, involuntary servitude, interminable bondage, labor without
compensation, ''reaping down fields and wages kept back by fraud,"
invasion of the marriage rights, destruction of the family relation, mental
degradation, hopeless ignorance, heathenizing curtailment of religious
privileges, chastity annihilating systems, are what we hate, for God hath
taught us thus. We attempt not to prove there was no protracted servitude,
among the Jews—not that master is</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 5]</p>
<p>an unholy title, not that a man may not buy or sell
services, not that one man should not serve another in a menial relation; but
that God did in holy anger, fulminate death the portion of any and every one
who held his fellow man a <i>slave</i> in the common sense of that term. But
to proceed with the subject.</p>
<p>First. The Jews could not in any
case, buy either the heathen or strangers, who had been reduced to involuntary
bondage without crime.</p>
<p>The moral law of God is, in all
its bearings, like its glorious Author; immutable everlastingly. Not one of its
provisions has ever been changed. Men should therefore be exceedingly cautious,
how they make assertions, which conflict with either the letter or spirit of
that law; for Christ says, Math. v. 17, 18, 19, "'Till heaven and earth
pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these commandments, and
shall teach men so, shall be called the <i>least in the kingdom of Heaven</i>:
but whosoever shall do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of
Heaven." One of those enactments, concerning which he spake thus, was
delivered by Jehovah amid the awful solemnities of thundering and darkness upon
Mount Sinai, and reads thus: "And he that stealeth a man and selleth him,
or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." Ex. xxi.
16. Apply this to America—enforce its provisions, and how soon would every
slaveholder " open the prison doors to them that are bound," and
"let the oppressed go free?" Because every slave in the land is
either a <i>stolen</i> man or, what is no better, his descendant. "Men
stealers! The worst of all thieves; in comparison of whom highway robbers and
housebreakers are innocent; and <i>men buyers</i> are exactly on a level with <i>men
stealers</i>."—<i>John Wesley</i>. If the first stealing be morally
wrong, all the logic in the world can never render, <i>just</i> the sale of
stolen men or their descendants, though repeated through a succession of ages,
sufficient to exhaust our knowledge of numbers. This law was promulged
immediately subsequent to the exhibition of a succession of stupendous miracles
revealing the illimitable majesty of Almighty God; all performed for the
deliverance of his chosen people from an oppressive bondage. As it is of vast
importance, and will be again referred to in the prosecution of our subject,
let us ascertain the extent of its meaning, that we may not err in its
application. And to do this correctly, we must find a scriptural instance of <i>man
stealing</i>, to know precisely what is condemned. In Genesis, xl. 15, we learn
that Joseph was <i>stolen</i>; and by comparing the manner in which he was
reduced to slavery, with that process which crowds the "middle
passage" between Africa and America with its miserable victims, we may
without the possibility of erring discover the applicability of the law, (Ex.
xxi. 16,) to the system of American slavery. And,</p>
<p>1. Joseph was forcibly taken
prisoner by his brethren—1. So are Africans.</p>
<p>2. Joseph was sold to slavery—2.
So are Africans.</p>
<p>3. Joseph was carried into a
foreign land by the mercenary wretches</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 6]</p>
<p>who bought him, and sold to Potiphar—3. So are Africans
carried into a foreign land, and sold to the Potiphars of Christian America.</p>
<p>The analogy is complete—both are
alike condemned. This "infernal traffic in human flesh" has continued
with us two hundred years. Yet, though Joseph says he was stolen—and the bible
threatens death to men stealers-and American slaves, are made such in the
identical manner he was, there are found some followers of Jesus, who say
slavery is not sin; that the great Southern <i>Market-house</i> for "souls
of men" is a <i>holy temple</i>, and its keepers are the <i>sacred
depository of the Holy
Ghost!! </i></p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">O slavery, what hast thou done! Do not, we beseech you
dear brethren, accuse the Holy One of describing <i>stealing men</i> (Joseph
interpreting) on one page of his blessed book, on the second fixing death as
its just reward, and on the third dictating to Moses a perpetual charter for
the commission of that very crime. Never was a law more plainly opposed to an
iniquitous practice, than was this of Jehovah against slavery—and it applies,
in its unchangeable nature, with unabated force to American slavery. </p>
<p> There are but two modes of
reducing men to slavery—(involuntary bondage without crime.) The first is
stealing them, as Joseph was, which we have described, and it is not only
condemned by the bible, Ex. xxi.16, but is declared piracy by the laws of every
christian nation, with a single exception. The second is by compelling to
unrequited toil, through legal and physical force, on the soil of one's birth.
And this is as plainly condemned in the bible as the former Jeremiah xxii. 13,
"Wo unto him that useth his neighbor's service without wages, and giveth
him not for his work" "Rob not the poor because he is poor; neither
oppress the afflicted in the gate; for the Lord will plead their cause, and <i>spoil
the soul</i> of those that spoiled them." Prov. xxii. 22. Every American
slave comes under one of these modes; and so would Jewish <i>slaves,</i> had
there been any.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Most hateful in the sight of God, is oppression in
every form, but particularly so when imposed upon the "stranger," or
"widow or fatherless," that might "sojourn" in their land;
the very class this from which the Jews, were to "take their bondmen and
bondmaids." He solemnly and repeatedly warns them against it in the
following passages. Deut. xxv. 17. "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of
the stranger, nor of the fatherless," &c. Ex. xxii. 21, 22, 23, 24.
"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him…If thou afflict them in
any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry. And my
wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall
be widows, and your children fatherless." Levit. xix. 33, 34, "The <i>stranger</i> that dwell with you shall be unto you as one born among you and <i>thou shalt
love him as thyself,</i> for ye were <i>strangers</i> in the land of
Egypt." Also, Ex. xxiii. 9, thus urging them to mercy, from a remembrance
of their own wrongs, while in bondage. An appeal, the most cogent possible, is
this.</p>
<p>The Jews might purchase servants
both from the heathen and strangers. The latter were doubtless free from the
characteristic word</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 7]</p>
<p>"sojourner" applied to them in the charter. And
the heathen, who were bought for bondmen, must also have been free, else the
Jews would be partakers in the iniquity of the <i>man stealer.</i> Hebrews were
not permitted to steal them, and to buy them of such as had stolen them would
be no better. "For he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil
deeds," 2 John. i.11. If indeed Hebrews could buy men stolen, enslaved
against their will, why buy at all? It would be easier and no more criminal to
steal them themselves, and save money. They had the <i>power to</i> <i>enslave</i> those "sojourning" among them, and might have done it; but this would
have been oppression, and they were forbidden by "ye shall <i>buy</i>."
The conviction is irresistible that those "bondmen and bondmaids"
whom the Jews "bought with money," sold themselves (if of age, or
were sold by their parents during minority) upon the equitable principles
practiced every day by northern freemen.</p>
<p>We here assert as probable, from
the different constitution of society, that a much larger proportion of our <i>free
citizens</i> in the free States, are in servitude, than was among the Jews.
Foreigners sold to pay their passage to America, apprentices and laborers
agreeing for protracted service—all upon the same basis, value for value, a
given amount of labor for a given sum, so many years for what was considered an
equivalent. </p>
<p>Again. This service must
positively have been voluntary, and not only so but more favorable to the
servant than the master; else why so strange a license as the following would
prove to every servant in the country: "Thou shalt not deliver to his
master the servant which has escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell
with thee, among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates,
where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him," Deut. xxiii. 15,
16. How would slavery vanish away, as the morning cloud before the rising sun,
if there stood incorporated in our National Constitution, such a regulation as
the foregoing, found embodied in the Jewish <i>Slave Code!</i> As the Russian
ways were crowded with the self defeated thousand of Napoleons' army, so would
our ways be thronged with flying myriads of Southern slaves.</p>
<p>But it is asserted that the Jews
certainly could make slaves of captives taken in their wars with the Canaanites!
The <i>proof </i>is all against, assertion only in favor of this. Joshua was
commanded <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>"</span>to save alive nothing
that breatheth"—<span style='font-size:10.0pt'>"</span>thou shalt
utterly destroy them," Joshua ix. 24, and Deut. xx. 16, 17, 18. He was
however deceived, and in one instance commuted the righteous sentence of God
(death) to servitude. The character of that servitude is clearly set forth in
the following passages: 1 Kings ix. 20, 21, Judges i. 28, 29, 35, 2d Samuel
viii. 2, 8, 14, by an examination of which we find this relation. A Tribe
tributary to the Jews in consideration of certain privileges. The Gibeonites
paid this to the Jews in a national capacity, in labor instead of money.
"Hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation of Israel."
It was the price of their life, and cheaply was the purchase made; for there is
not the slightest indication of personal servi-</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 8]</p>
<p>tude, individual slavery! The Gibeonites still occupied
their own city, doubtless dwelt in their own houses, and preserved inviolate
the sanctity of the family relations. As the Canaanites had no good objection
to urge against the exterminating anathema of the Almighty, having deserved
death by their sins committed against the preaching of Abraham, this
arrangement of Joshua's was <i>tender mercy</i> instead of oppression. So much
for slavery among conquered enemies, claimed by the real pro-slavery of the
South, and unwittingly echoed by their apologists in the North. There is one
text in the Bible, which approaches justification of slavery, nearer than all
others. It is Deut. xxi. 10th, &c. A Hebrew might take a beautiful female
captive home and marry her as his lawful wife. If he did not this she was
free!!</p>
<p>Once more. That Hebrew servants <i>sold
themselves</i> is perfectly clear. Lev. xxv. 47, <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>"</span>And
if a sojourner, or stranger, wax rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by
him wax poor, and <i>sell himself</i> unto the stranger," &c. he might
either be redeemed or serve, just as long as a heathen servant could a Jew,
until the Jubilee. Now if a Hebrew servant <i>sold himself</i> as a
"bondman" for the longest possible period, why is it not more than
probable, the Heathen and strangers did the same? A stranger would not of
course have the right to steal or enslave a Hebrew; that would be wrong. And
the Hebrew was both forbidden to do it to one of his brethren and to a
stranger; for he was taught to "love the stranger as himself," Lev.
xix. 33, 34. In other words, to do unto a stranger as he would, that a stranger
should do unto him. This would effectually preclude the Hebrew from interfering
with the rightful freedom of the "heathen and sojourner" in any
purchases of services from them. Every description of servants then <i>sold
themselves</i> into <i>voluntary servitude</i> for a specified period, instead
of <i>being sold as slaves into perpetual slavery.</i> Who can with moral
rectitude sell freemen but themselves?</p>
<p>God gave us only over beast,
flesh, fowl, </p>
<p>Dominion absolute; that right we
hold</p>
<p>By his donation; but man over men</p>
<p>He made not lord; such title to
himself</p>
<p>Reserving, human left to human
free.<i>—Milton.</i></p>
<p>What is the object of stealing men? To enslave them.
"And he that stealeth a man, &c." shows that slavery, involuntary
bondage without crime, could not exist on the soil of Palestine." </p>
<p>We will now show in what manner
servants might be obtained. </p>
<p>First. A Hebrew might sell
himself to a Hebrew, for six years, if reduced to extreme poverty, Lev. xxv.
39; or to a stranger until the Jubilee, Lev. xxv. 47, 50.</p>
<p>Second. A father might sell the
services of his daughter during her minority, or to be the wife or daughter in
law of the purchaser, Ex. xxi. 7. A custom strange to us in part, but
perfectly right and aptly illustrated by the sale of Leah and Rachel, by Laban,
their father. Gen. xxix. ch.</p>
<p>Third. Thieves might be sold to
pay the person injured by their theft, if they had not property sufficient.</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 9 ]</p>
<p>Fourth. Children were detained
with their mother, where a man obtained his freedom before his wife; but
nothing in the law to separate the husband from the remainder of the family, if
he chooses to remain with them until the Jubilee, Ex. xxi. 4. Some think
children could be sold to pay the debts of insolvent parents. This idea is
founded upon 2d Kings, iv. 1. But finding not only no "thus saith the
Lord," but in my opinion a strong condemnation of the practice of
sundering families forcibly without crime, I deny the legality of the
procedure, and demand better evidence. Were this true, it would not assist to
stand erect the falling pillars of pretended right, upon which reclines the black
American Colossus, slavery. Having now enumerated every way described by the
bible, in which men might become "servants or bondmen," and none of
them coming in conflict with our first position, that "the Jews were not
authorized in any case to buy a man reduced to involuntary servitude without
crime," we proceed to the second.</p>
<p>II. The Jews could not hold a <i>man </i>as <i>property</i> at all, much less establish everlasting slavery. And,</p>
<p> 1. Three things are always
necessary to constitute a fair transfer of property. (1) A seller, (2) a buyer,
(3) the thing sold. In every purchase of servants among the Hebrews, the seller
was the first, the buyer the second, and the services sold the third. This is
true, because we have shown that no involuntary servitude could be tolerated
among them, except for crime, theft. How utterly at variance with these truths
are American manners! The <i>soul driver,</i> the planter, and the poor slave,
here form the necessary trio in the transaction of enormous iniquity.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent"> 2. Two ideas always attach to property in itself
considered, viz: absolute control over it by the owner, unless the superior
rights of others are injured by his management; and, the power to transmit, by
will or sale, to successive holders. Now, neither of these can be established
in reference to Jewish servants, because nearly one half of their time was
given them by law, and complete liberty to all every fiftieth year.</p>
<p> 3. It is ridiculous to talk of
property holding an unrestrainable <i>right</i> in property. Though masters in
the South, may sometimes grant "pecunisms" to their slaves, yet their
legal right of property in the time, labor, soul and body of the slave, must
and does positively absorb all other rights. But servants mentioned in the
bible could not only hold property uncontrolled by their masters, but every act
of becoming a servant was accompanied by a demand for property, which the buyer
must pay to the servant before he could have any kind of claim upon him.</p>
<p> 4. <i>No man has the moral
right to sell himself as property</i>. It is freely granted, that a master had
an interest in the services of his bondmen, for he had "bought" them,
and they were his money." So have masters now. Every where they have the
same pecuniary interest in the bodies, souls and services of foreigners
"bought with money," free laborers and apprentices, which the Jews
had in their "servants and bondmen." Yet this interest is far from
amounting to property in</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 10]</p>
<p>the "flesh and blood," and "souls of
men." The bodies of all men belong, with their souls and every ransomed
power, to God, and him alone. "Every soul is mine, saith the, Lord."
"The earth is the Lord’s, with the fullness thereof," says David and
Paul; "Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price." Every where
that the ownership of man is hinted at in the bible, he is claimed by his
Creator. Who else can? God gives him his bodily and mental powers for his</p>
<p>own happiness, good, and to glorify his maker. Of course no
man is at liberty to impair or oppose this right of God in him, or transfer it
to another, as property; for "he is not his own." And no man can
rightfully buy such a right unless of God himself; he being the true owner of
all men. No man then has the moral right to sell himself, becoming property,
thereby throwing off the restraints of the Almighty, and fastening upon himself
the shackles of sinful man.</p>
<p>And now we shall show, that even
the mild and equitable servitude authorized among the Jews, could not be
perpetuated. And,</p>
<p>1. Six years in every case,
closed the services of a Hebrew to a Hebrew; or forty-nine at the utmost, a
Hebrew to a stranger, Lev. xxv. 47, 50.—Jeremiah xxxiv. 13, 14. "Thus
saith the Lord, the God of Israel; I made a covenant with your fathers in the
day that I brought them forth, out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondmen, saying; at the end of seven years, let ye go every man his brother a
Hebrew which <i>has been sold unto thee</i>; and when he hath served thee <i>six
years</i>, thou shalt let him go free from thee," Here the reader will
perceive the same phrase is used in reference to a Hebrew, as in the case of a
heathen, "has been sold unto thee;" but nothing is more clear than
that <i>services</i> alone were sold for a limited season or period. Our
opponents do not, cannot resist the plainness of this proof, but say the
heathen! and strangers! were certainly to be slaves "forever." If
they could be equally candid in reference to the heathen and the Jew, there
exists in the bible just as good proof, that periodical liberty, was offered to
the former, as the latter. It is found, Levit. xxv. 9,10. "Then shalt thou
cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound, on the tenth day of the seventh
month; in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet to sound throughout
all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and <i>proclaim liberty
throughout all your land, unto all the inhabitants</i> thereof; it shall be a
Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye
shall return every man unto his family." Not an individual excepted,
heathen nor Jew, "liberty to all the inhabitants of the land." This
law was fundamental. While Ex. xxi.16, fenced slavery out of Judea, Levit. xxv.
9, 10, prevented abuses of the privilege granted, Lev. xxv. 44, 45, 46; and
while the Jubilee was preserved, perpetuity of servitude was completely
prevented. It was wise, glorious and important. Primarily typical of the
liberty, proclaimed by Christ and his apostles, after the grand atonement had
been made, by the Saviour "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree."
This is clear from the analogy between the two. When the Jubilee trump was
sounded, liberty was offered to all. So when Jesus had died, had finished the
atonement, and "ascending </p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 11]</p>
<p>on high led captivity captive," and had crowned his
apostles with pentecostal fire, liberty from sin, through faith, the benefit of
his death, was offered to all who would accept. Again: The trump was to sound
"on the tenth day of the seventh month," the day when atonement was
to be made by the high priest for the sins of the people, which is acknowledged
by all to be the very manifest type of Christ's death and atonement for the
spiritual bondage of the "whole world." Thus the Jewish atonement
typified the death of the Saviour; and the Jubilee most beautifully adumbrated
the proclamation of "glad tidings which shall be to all people." Mr.
Parkhurst says, "It is a lively prefiguration of the grand consummation of
time, which will be introduced in like manner by the trump of God, 1 Cor. xv.
52," when the graves shall burst in the general resurrection. Now, how
could the Jubilee be typical of this liberty offered in Christ to all, or that
granted positively to all the dead in the "glorious morn," unless
"every inhabitant in the land" was entitled to freedom from
servitude? Both the typical character of the Jubilee, and the plain language
of the text, rivet the true impression upon the mind, "<i>there was no
perpetual servitude among God's chosen people.</i>"</p>
<p>But we are told by sticklers for
slavery, that the text says of the heathen and strangers, they shall be your
bondmen "forever." Let us see how much "forever" is. Unless
this term be applied to an individual servant, it does our opponents no good.
For if applied to the system of buying servants from the heathen, whatever
might be the length of service, it would bring no revenue to the argument for
perpetual bondage; the Jubilee interrupting the <i>servitude,</i> but not
affecting the <i>system</i>. But it could not apply to individuals (though from
the manner the passage is translated, such at first sight appears to be its
design) first, because it contradicts fact, viz: the life of the individual
could not continue "forever." Second: A positive law comes in
conflict with this application, viz: the Jubilee, declaring all contracts for
servitude at an end. But again: Apply this term "forever," (which
every biblical scholar knows to be often a limited one, sometimes applying to
things temporal, sometimes eternal,) to an individual, and the period indicated
by it was either closed at the Jubilee, or the plain text of that institution,
"<i>all </i>the inhabitants of the land," only meant "a <i>part </i>of
the inhabitants of the land." Let the term "forever" refer to
the <i>system</i> of purchasing "bondmen and bondmaids" from the
"heathen and stranger," (as in fact it really does); and the word of
God is reconciled with itself, which in this case can be done in no other way.
The apparent discrepance between Leviticus, xxv. 10, and the 46th verse of the
same chapter, vanishes.</p>
<p>Again: The term
"forever" is usually applied to things of considerable duration, so
much so as to give an idea of perpetuity. It may relate, in perfect accordance
with this sense, to the system of servitude, but cannot to individuals. We give
a different reading to the text to show our idea in addition to what has been
said.</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p> [page 12]</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section2">
<p> <i> Common translation.</i></p>
<p>"And ye shall take them for an inheritance for your
children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your bondmen
forever."</p>
<p><i> Paraphrase.</i></p>
<p>"And ye shall" forever continue to "take them
for an inheritance, &c. and <i>they</i>" not your brethren the <i>Hebrews</i> "shall forever be your bondmen."</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section3">
<p> "The passage seems to mean," says an able
writer, "that the Hebrews might by successive purchase, continually
possess that kind of servants, and not, that they might hold the same
individuals for life." We once more assert the fact, that no contract for
service could be valid beyond the Jubilee supported in this view by the
positive <i>“all”</i> before noticed, as superior in its weight, to the
accommodating term "forever." There is no real force in this phrase,
so much harped upon by those who would even fasten upon the Holy One, the
charge of sanctioning slavery in his moral law, if they could thereby abolish
abolitionism. (Let those only clothe themselves with this <i>garment</i>, who
are fitted by it.).</p>
<p> One more argument in favor of the first member of our
second head.</p>
<p> 5. The position that God allows men to be enslaved, we
think presents him in a most unenviable predicament of inconsistency, which we
know is impossible in fact. By his law he demands our undivided service; and
this charge would make it appear, that he had resigned a part of that right to
the task master or slave owner. God would not invest, we think, <i>nay has not
invested</i>, an arm wielded by a wicked heart, with unlimited and despotic
sway, over his fellow man. No never! for He is wisdom and love and mercy. That
the pecuniary interest of the master comes in contact with the religious duty
of the slave in innumerable instances, is a fact so notorious, that it requires
no proof. As a consequence of this, an accredited correspondent of the "<i>Presbyterian,</i>"
writing from Alabama, declares them "emphatically a neglected race;"
and the Kentucky and Tennessee divines, have recently attested to the almost
universal denial of religious privileges to the slaves, though they have the
same right to the instructions of the sanctuary, with whites, and their souls
require the light of divine truth to prepare them for the great day of accounts,
just as much, yea more than do those of the whites. This state of neglect is
very general; and how absolutely irreconcilable with probability, is the idea
of "goods and chattels" prescribing religious liberty, as a condition
of continued service! Property dictating to its owner. No. A <i>slave</i> has
no acknowledged civil or religious rights. God would not found an institution,
investing the control of an owner in one man, and imposing the subserviency of
property on another, as from the natural laws of the human mind, it would
produce results so disastrous to morals, as above described, and that too so
general, and <i>unavoidable by the best legal control in existence.</i> No
man, in the light of the word of God, would throw away his dearest rights,
because it involves palpable sin; they must be torn from him by the hands of
ruthless oppressors. The very relation of master and slave, instituted for
gain, pleasure or profit, is sin, only sin, always sin in itself.</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 13]</p>
<p>6. It is objected that the
phrase, "of them shall ye buy your bondmen and bondmaids," is proof
that property was bought.</p>
<p>"We must be careful low we
understand the terms "bought and sold" in the scriptures. Excepting
the priests, Joseph " bought" <i>all the Egyptians, </i>and they sold
themselves unto him. See Gen. xlvii.19 and 23. They were bought for servants.
"Were they therefore Joseph's "goods and chattels?" like the
Southern slaves? " Jacob bought his two wives, for they say themselves of
their father, “He hath sold us," Gen. xxi. 15. Were they therefore his
slaves? Mere goods and chattels? Boaz bought Ruth. Was she a slave? To
"buy with money" does not always mean to purchase property in
scripture phraseology. See Ex. xxx. 12, and xiii. 13, 14, 15. "Redeem the
first born," literally "buy" the first born. Cain signifies to
"buy." Eve said "I have gotten," literally
"bought," a man of the Lord, Gen. iv.1. So according to
slaveholders’ logic, Eve was the first slaveholder—good old mother Eve; and the
Lord the first trader. When our Southern slaveholders undertake to show how
ancient their system is, let them go to the bottom. The Lord a slave trader!
Eve a slave buyer! Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, good old slaveholders! &c.
and so on. Who can doubt, but that slaveholders are of the patriarchal line!!
Doubtless they are the <i>people</i>, and we poor <i>fanatics </i>ought to be
expelled from the church, for not "walking in the steps of those good
bondmaids," so far from proving that <i>slaves </i>were thus obtained,
supports a directly contrary opinion, and fully reveals the fact that the
principles of common honesty were sustained in obtaining servants, as we shall
just now show. It will be granted that the “strangers and their children which
do sojourn among you,” spoken of in the text, must have been free. The very
term "sojourn" indicates this characteristic, as it means "to
dwell for a short time in a place" while traveling. These were persons
from it was appointed to the Jews to "<i>buy</i>"<i> </i>their
"bondmen and bondmaids." Now the Israelites, as has already been
seen, were forbidden from oppressing the "stranger," and therefore
God commands them to "buy" bondmen of them. Mark the force of the
expression, "of them shall ye <i>buy</i>," not steal, your bondmen.
Ye shall not oppress them, ye shall "buy." Not compel them to an
unwilling service, (as southerners generally do) ye <i>shall </i>"<i>buy.</i>"
Ye shall not <i>enslave,</i> forcing them into bondage, ye "shall
buy" your servants justly. Shall not sunder the family ties, without
consent of parents and children. Ye "shall buy" of them on fair
contract. Anything short of this would be grievous oppression; and so deeply
concerned was the God of all goodness, for the welfare of the stranger, that he
utters that thrilling denunciation against those who would dare oppress them,
"If they cry at all unto me. I will surely hear, and my wrath shall wax
hot against you, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall be
widows and your children fatherless," Ex. xxii. 22, 23, 24. So much for
"buy" and sell. Our second position that the Jews could not hold men
as property at all, much less establish everlasting slavery, being established;
we pass to notice, thirdly, heirs</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 14]</p>
<p>could not claim services from servants of legators, except
upon positive contracts limited by the Jubilee.</p>
<p> Our opponents say children were to have the servants of
their parents for an inheritance. We answer, heirs would of course claim the
fulfillment of contracts with their parents. Justice would require this,
because those services would be a part of the estate, "his money."
But these words, "and ye shall take them for an inheritance for your
children after you, to inherit them for a possession," mean any thing else
as soon as that slavery was to be perpetual among the Hebrews. An
"inheritance," 'tis true, generally means a legacy from a friend, and
a possession is commonly applied to property; but not always, by any means.
Instance—He who drinks much rum, inherits disgrace and an early death, as his
"possession;" but the sober man has an "inheritance" of
long life with honor, as his "possession." These terms may express in
a lively and forcible manner, certain privileges. Thus, the
"inheritance" of Christ's humble followers will be a
"possession; in the skies incorruptible. As "bondmen" would be a
necessary part of community, the children of Israel were " forever"
to have the privilege of "possession" by "buying" them of
the "heathen and stranger," and this was to be their
"inheritance." I know not what language could have portrayed more
awfully than that we have quoted, the fixed determination the Almighty, to
blast and wither, with his fierce vengeance, the Jewish nation, if they should
forcibly take the innocent "stranger or heathen" as property for an
inheritance and "possession" for their children after them, and will
them as <i>slaves</i> to their heirs "forever," for surely there can
be no greater oppression, than that of enslaving a man. See Ex. i. 13, 14, and
iii. 9. Every other wrong dwindles into insignificance when compared with this.
Give me liberty or give me death, said Patrick Henry. Ten thousand voices
echoed, "Give me liberty or give me death." 'Twas a noble saying. It
rolled with gathering force through the nation, until the voice of one man was
the thundering proclamation of millions, and was hurled, with defiance, at
European despots on the eastern shore of the Atlantic. It lit up the fire of
the revolution, which disinthralled us from a foreign yoke, and is destined to
burn in the bosom of all the real friends of liberty, until "every yoke
shall be broken," and all the "oppressed" upon the American
continent go free. O thou Lord God of the oppressed! speed that day.</p>
<p>But once more. The Jews could not
have understood the terms "inheritance and possession" as we
understand them, when applied to property, for with all the claims of our
opponents to perpetuity, when speaking of <i>Jewish slavery! </i>there was a
law, (well understood by them broad in its extent, positive in its
requirements, plain in its phraseology, which shouted liberty upon every hill,
rung it through every valley of the holy land, and in the twinkling of an eye
removed every restraint that the master could legally fix upon the
"servants and bondmen." What kind of property is that which owns
itself fully at short intervals? What perpetuity! that which is periodical and
numbers forty nine years!!! Every case of servitude was begun upon a </p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 15]</p>
<p>mutual agreement, and must close on the return of the
Jubilee. Hebrew servants! heathen bondmen, strangers at service, "<i>all
the inhabitants of the land,</i>" partook of the general release: every
bond was broken, and if any were oppressed, they all went free. This is all the
individual "inheritance and possession" that the <i>children! </i>could
possibly have in the bones and sinews of the poor <i>heathen slaves! </i></p>
<p> Again: Speaking of our Saviour,
the apostle says, "by whom and for whom were all things created," and
again, "who made all things for his own pleasure." Could it be
pleasure for the merciful Jesus, to see his redeemed rendering an unrequited
and unwilling service to a tyrant? Common sense says no. And let all the
righteous say amen. This leads us to consider and prove,</p>
<p>4. Jewish servants were in the
main treated as equals or children, not a shadow of authority appearing in the
word of God, for treating them as are our Southern slaves.</p>
<p>1. Their service was always
voluntary—unless convicted of crime. This is indubitable from the following
text, before quoted, Deut. xxiii.15, 16, "Thou shalt not deliver to his
master the servant, which is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell
with thee <i>among you*</i> in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy
gates which liketh him best; thou shall not oppress him." Unfurl to the
States, a banner with this inscription, and <i>slavery is dead.</i> The land
would be darkened with flying thousands, who long to escape from their masters.</p>
<p>2. They might hold property over
which the master had no control. For the counterpart of this, see the Southern
slave codes generally.</p>
<p>3. They had the civil rights of
citizens in the congregation of Israel. Southern slaves have none.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">4. If the master smote out an eye or a tooth,
freedom was the price. How is it south? Death is almost the only emancipator
there.</p>
<p>5. The various public feasts,
Sabbaths, convocations, &c. gave Jewish servants rest for very near one
half of the time.</p>
<p>How much rest, how many feasts
and sabbaths, have Southern slaves?</p>
<p>6. Jewish servants sometimes
married their masters children!</p>
<p>7. It was the duty of Hebrews to
teach the law of God to their families. Is this made the duty of masters in
the South, by law? No. In some of the slave States, laws are made against
this effect.</p>
<p>8. Husbands and wives could not
be forcibly separated under the Jewish law. It is done daily in the South.</p>
<p>9. Jewish servants worshipped in
common, in the same church with their masters. <i>This is not even permitted
in the North generally, much less in the South.</i></p>
<p>We here insert an article, from
the pen of Rev. George Storrs, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, upon the
patriarchal treatment of servants.</p>
<p>*In reading this, I fancy I hear a colonizationist exclaim, <i>horrible! </i> right among them! What amalgamators!!</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 16]</p>
<p>"Abraham had servants bought with money." "We
find one an heir to his estate; see Gen. xv. 3. Another ruled over all that
Abraham had, Gen. xxiv. 1, 2, sent to choose a wife for Isaac, v. 4. He seems
to have had charge of Isaac himself, v. 6. Rachel salutes him with " my
lord," v. 18. What a lovely slave! He inquires for a place to lodge in her
father's house, v. 23. What a saucy slave! Ask for a place to lodge in a
planter's house! Why not go to the 'negro quarters?' When our slave holders
can show us, if they were to die childless, their slaves (goods and chattels)
would be heirs to their estates; that they send them to choose wives for their
sons: that they rule over all they have, &c.; then it will be time for us
to grant that they have Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for their examples." The
treatment of minors, was that of children—and adults that of equals.</p>
<p> Objections of various kinds have been made to the
idea just thrown out; some arising from one text, some another. We notice two
of the strongest, and assure the reader, that quite as signal a refutation is
the destiny of all others, as he will perceive happens to these. It is said
that Hebrews might treat their servants with a rigor more severe than would be
justifiable to their children. This idea arises from the closing clause of the
text, "but over your brethren <i>the children of Israel</i> ye shall not
rule, one over another, with rigor." And how does this apply to the
"stranger" or the "heathen?" Personal treatment is not
intended at all, but it was designed to add weight to the already implied
injunction, to buy their "bondmen" exclusively from heathen and
strangers. Another objection is taken from Ex. xxi. 20, 21., "If a man
smite his servant or his maid with a<i> rod</i>, and he die under his hand, he
shall surely be punished, (or avenged,) notwithstanding if he continue a day or
two, he shall not be punished, (or avenged) for he is his money." This law
is quoted to build up the idea of the existence of <i>slavery </i>among the
Jews; and indeed to hold out a still more barbarous principle, viz: because the
servant is called "his money" he had a right, <i>uncondemned, </i>to
flog his slave to any extent, even to death, so that it did not occur during
the infliction of the punishment.</p>
<p>Even Southern slave laws are more
merciful than the <i>Jewish slave code,</i> according to this interpretation.
It is horrible. But instead of authorizing cruelty, this regulation is
perfectly just, and would doubtless <i>be the very rule of action, in our own
Courts of Justice,</i> if a master should use the <span style='font-size:10.0pt'>ROD</span> so severely upon one of his "servants" or "bondmaids"
maids" (apprentices,) as to produce death. It was applicable to Hebrew as
well as Gentile servants; indeed, our translators being the judges, it was <i>positively
confined to Hebrew servants</i>, for they call heathen servants "bondmen
and bondmaids"—and how will it comport (according to the exposition of our
opponents) with, "over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not
rule one over another with <i>rigor."</i> Let the wicked have his own way
and he will surely destroy himself. Let the pro-slavery advocates have their
own way, and they make God say on one page of the bible, "over your
brother Hebrew you shall not rule with rigor," and on the very next,
"you may flog him to any extent you please, so that he does not die
instantly, for he is your</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 17]</p>
<p>money." O shame! cover them quickly. There is indeed
no more authority for whipping a servant, developed in this passage, than
masters have and of right ought to have, all over the world. The rod must
sometimes be used on refractory young, servants and children, both male and
female, and this law was made to guard the persons of Jewish servants against
the abuse of this practice, instead of authorizing masters to whip severely.
"He is his money." In the very same sense are apprentices "the
money" of masters now; and this phrase is used to show that interest was
added in this case to other motives for preserving both the life and bodily
powers of the servant. If the servant died under the rod, the master lost his
life, (Ex. xxi. 12;) but if he lived "a few days" (for this is the
meaning of the original translated "a day or two") it was possible
some other cause produced the catastrophe, and life is so valuable that it
should not be taken unless upon indisputable evidence of actual and
premeditated murder. "Malice aforethought" is our legal term, and it
was doubtless drawn from Ex. xxi. 12, 13, 14. The Lord prefers reserving a
decision in such dubious cases, for his own management, or day of final
accounts and judgment, when unerring scrutiny will do right. It is better that
two guilty persons should escape human justice, than that one innocent, should
be punished.</p>
<p class="MsoBodyTextIndent">Three things described in this law, form an
important reason, for sparing the life of the master. Taken together, they
produce strong presumptive evidence, that he did not design to take the life of
his servant.</p>
<p>1. The instrument used is not a
deadly one—a rod.</p>
<p>2. The continuance of life, for
some days. </p>
<p>3. The pecuniary interest, which
he had in the labors of the deceased.</p>
<p> Another objection is, the Hebrew <i>six year
slaves</i>, were stiled "servants," while, the heathen, "<i>forever</i>"<i> slaves</i>, were called "bondmen." Let it be offered in any shape,
it is of no force at all, for <i>the original of servants and bondmen, is every
where precisely the same;</i> the variation is only an arbitrary arrangement of
the translators. Every Hebrew scholar knows this is true. The design of the
translators was to keep up a distinction, between Hebrew and heathen servants,
which really existed. What that difference was, we are not told; but we
conjecture, from a collation of various passages, referring to this subject,
that it was in the length of time, for which they might serve, or in the kind
of labor to be performed—probably both. Whatever it was, we are assured it
involved neither oppression nor injustice, for the rule was established by one,
who hateth perversion of judgment. The distinction between Hebrew and other
servants, is developed as strongly in Lev. xxv. 39, 40, as in any other
passage.</p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p>[page 18]</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section4">
<p><i> Common translation</i></p>
<p>"And if thy brother, that dwelleth by thee, be waxen
poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond
servant; but as a hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and
shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee."</p>
<p><i> Literal translation</i></p>
<p>And if thy brother by thee, be waxen poor, and be sold unto
thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve with the service of a servant; as a
hired servant, as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, shall serve thee unto the
year of Jubilee.</p>
</div>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:auto' />
<div class="Section5">
<p>Even the tenth commandment of the Decalogue has been charged
with supporting the pro-slavery opinion of the bible, in our presence, <i>by a
minister of the gospel!!</i> It is, however, too puerile and wicked an
objection, to notice farther, than to say, if coveting a servant, there means
coveting property, coveting another's wife, does also.</p>
<p>Both are false in fact. Noah's
curse of Canaan, has often been quoted, to prove the enslavement of Africans to
be in accordance with prophecy! and therefore right! It is as absurd as wicked.
Those of the American slaves, who have escaped the discoloring tinges of
Southern amalgamators, are the descendants of Mizraim, Cush and Phut, who
settled in Africa, while Canaan settled in Palestine. This is universally known
to be true, being the combined testimony of biblical critics and commentators.
To satisfy the reader as to the residence of Canaan's descendants, I refer to
Genesis, x. 15 to 19, and Joshua, ix. 1. Abraham is cited as an example of
slaveholding. "He had servants bought with money." This is true. But if
they were slaves, and would be the property of his legal heirs, how comes it,
that one of then is said to be his heir, and would of course, own all the rest
of the slaves! Again: if they were slaves, where had they all gone to (1800 or
2000 of them) when Jacob, his lineal descendant and heir, went into Egypt, a
few years afterwards. Not one of them was left, of all that number. Objections
against the construction, which abolitionists put upon the bible, may be urged
in great number; but the grand cause of them all, is about here. The Pope
issued his bill, some hundreds of years since, announcing the strict morality
of the slave trade. Since that, slavery has prevailed extensively in Great
Britain, France and America, as well as many other powers, with which we are
commercially connected, and has produced wide spread, deep seated, and almost
unconvertible pro-slavery prejudices. The nations involved in the sin, have
"screwed to the sticking point" God's holy word, to calm the throes
of disturbed consciences.</p>
<p>And yet the very men, who fly to
the bible now, to prove slavery right, are compelled to turn upon themselves,
and in one breath say, "<i>God did sanction slavery</i> among the
Jews," but "<i>we are as much opposed to slavery</i> as any body
else." This is truly one work of supererogation, if slavery was ever
right, and God does not require it of them. We advise them, therefore, as men,
to avow their principles and advocate the perpetuity of American slavery; the
abolition of which, say they, will be attended with untold and unimaginable
horrors throughout the land. The truth is, if <i>slavery</i> was <i>ever</i> morally right,</p>
<br clear="all" style='page-break-before:always' />
<p style='text-autospace:none'><span
style='letter-spacing:.1pt'>[page 19]</span></p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'>it is <i>now; </i>for we fearlessly assert, that no purer morality is inculcated in the
bible, than we find developed in the Decalogue.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> And now,
we believe it a cheering truth, that, although very many good and great men
have fallen into the snare set for<sup> </sup>them, by the enemies of liberty,
and advocates for despotism; and have plead for the rightful existence of
slavery, under the Jewish dispensation, there was no such thing there; but a
mild and healthful servitude, regulated by laws of the purest possible
character, for they were Divine. Our proofs have been, the laws imposing death
as the penalty of man stealing, and forbidding Hebrews from returning or
delivering servants to masters, from whom they had escaped. The general laws
against oppression and requiring<span style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'> </span>mercy.
The established treatment of servants. The establishment of the Jubilee giving
liberty to all the inhabitants of the land, every fiftieth year, and the
positive immorality of selling one's self, into perpetual slavery. These are
from the old testament, and are palpable. If suffered to prevail in our highly
favored country, they would chant, in solemn, but gladdening tones, the final requiem
of American slavery, which<i> John Wesley </i>declares, "the vilest that
ever saw the sun." Before passing from the old, to the new testament, we
subjoin references, to a few passages, which the reader may examine, if he
wishes.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'> 1. Treatment of servants. Ex. xii. 43, &c.; xxi.7, &c. 26,
27<i>. </i><span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv">Deut. vi. 6 to 9; xii. 11, 12; xvii. 18; xvi. 13, 14,
15; xv. 12, 13, 14; xxiii. 15, 16. 1 Samuel, ix. 22. Genesis, xv. 3; xxiv. 1,
2, 4, 6, 18, 23.</span></p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'><span lang="sv" xml:lang="sv"> 2. Oppression. Ex. iii. 9; xxii. 21; xxiii. 9. Judges,
x. 12. Lev. xxv. 14, 17; Deut. xx. 14; xxvii. 7. 2 Kings, xiii. 4. Psalms, x.
18; xii. 5; lxii.10; liv. 3; exix. 1, 21. Prov. xxii. 22, 16; xiv. 31; xxviii.
3; iii. 31; xxviii. 16. Eccles. iv. 1; vii. 7. Isaiah, i. 10 to 20; xxxiii.
15; iii. 12; xiv. 4; li. 13; 1viii<i>. </i>6. Ezekiel, xviii. 7, 12, 16.
Jeremiah, xxii. 3, 13; showing old testament kindness to the poor. </span>A
comparison, and we have done. The Hebrews were compelled to make brick for
Pharaoh, and received, we suppose, about the same wages with Southern slaves.
Though whipped, they were not sold to individuals, nor were their families
dismembered. God called this oppression, Ex. iii. 9, and condemns oppression in
more than a hundred places. Is American slavery as bad, as was Egyptian
bondage? Yes, and much worse. Is it probable then, that he hated one and still<i> </i>loves the other? He either loves or hates American slavery. Which, reader,
do you suppose? There can be but one answer. And now, which will you do, hate
with God, or love with man? Even the purity of our blessed Saviour's
ministration, has been assailed, by the unblushing advocates of slavery. I pray
they may be forgiven, in consequence of their ignorance. </p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'> I. It is said, that, although slavery in its most awful form,
prevailed under the Roman government, Christ and his apostles too, tacitly acknowledged
the rectitude of the system, by admitting slave-holders into the church, and
retaining them in that character, without censure. We answer to this</p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'> 1. It proves too much for our opponents. If Christ <i>sanctioned</i></p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 20] </p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'>slavery, by
remaining silent upon the subject, he sanctioned the laws, regulating the
system, for there is not in the new testament, a word of condemnation for them.
What were those laws? Two or three, were as follows. A slave was struck out
of the list of moral agents, and consigned to that of brutes. A slave might, at
any time, be killed by his master, without punishment. A slave might be sold
twice, by the same master, before he could claim his freedom.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'> 2. The fact that a practice is not condemned <i>by name, </i>is no
reason at all that it is right. Under the argument of our opponents, the
midnight gambler, and the Sabbath breaker, may escape rebuke. The owners of
theaters, the performers themselves, and those who waste their time and money
in nightly attendance upon these demoralizing representations, may still drink
the "shed blood" and eat the "broken body" of the crucified
Redeemer worthily!! Burglary, counterfeiting, forgery, horse racing and
polygamy, are likewise passed by the Saviour and his apostles, without
condemnation, except by implication. No christian, can justify any of these
practices, on the ground that silence is preserved respecting them. <i>The
iniquitous features of every leading vice are condemned, and among others, </i><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>SLAVERY</span> <i>does not escape the fiery ordeal of
the new testament morality. </i>The main characteristics of American slavery,
are all made criminal by the new testament.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 1. Slave
laws allow the separation of man and wife, by the order of the master.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N. T. </i>"What
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," Matthew xix.6.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 2. Slave
laws forbid the slaves from worshipping God by themselves.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> <i>N. T</i>.
"Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together," Heb. x. 25.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 3. Slave
laws exact labor without wages, in millions of instances.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> <i>N T. </i>"The
hire of the laborers which have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept
back by fraud, crieth," &c.<i> </i>James, v. 1 to 6.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 4. Slave
laws shut out the knowledge of letters from the mind of the</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> slave.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N.
T. </i>Search the scriptures.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 5.
Southern slavery encourages the stealing of men on the coast of Africa; for
though prohibited by the laws of the land, they are still smuggled in.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N. T. </i>"The law was made for murderers, men-slayers, <i>menstealers,</i>"<i> </i>&c. (alluding to Ex. xxi. 16.) classing them among the vilest criminals
of the earth.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 6. Slave
laws in North Carolina, make it penal, to give or sell a slave any book, even
the bible! In Georgia and Louisiana, <i>a free black </i>may be fined, whipped,
imprisoned, and in the latter State, even put to death, for<i> </i>instructing
his own children to read the pathway to eternal life!!</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N. T. </i>"Wo unto
you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge," Luke, xi. 52.
"Ye fathers bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord," Ephesians, vi. 4.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 7. The
new testament condemns the selling of one's self into slavery,</p>
<br clear="all" style='page-break-before:always' />
<p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 21] </p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'>much more,
one man selling another. "Ye are not your own: ye are bought."</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> 8. It is
the testimony of all candid slave-holders, and we positively know from the very
nature of things, that slavery encourages general licentiousness.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N. T. </i>In many places condemns adultery and fornication.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> The slave
laws of <i>Ohio, </i>and the constitution of the United States, allow
slaveholders to carry freemen in irons to the South.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> While
the writer was engaged in preparing this pamphlet, two poor slaves passed
through the village of Mansfield, (his residence) in chains! to slavery. They
had escaped from their "better condition!" <span style='letter-spacing:
.3pt'>at Cincinnati, while passing down the river, </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'>to the Southern market, </span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>and in endeavoring to let their wives know where
they were, the owner! </span><span style='letter-spacing:.15pt'>(O! how can I
write owner?) </span>according to this <i>biblical! </i>American system,
learned their place of residence, and sent the soul catchers for them. They
found the slaves in their "<i>more miserable</i>" condition,
comfortable in freedom. They were unwilling to permit the poor fellows to
suffer under such a burthen as freedom, and therefore, swore they were slaves,
and carried them back to their master; destined doubtless to cruel and
unrequited toil, till death shall emancipate them. This is the tender mercy of
American slavery! Oh my country! how long can God withhold his anger and fierce
vengeance? I have since learned that one of the men engaged in taking them, was
the landlord of the Stage house, in Gratiot, Muskingum county, Mr Price. A degenerate
adopted son of Ohio, whose name should be cast out as vile.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'><i> N.
T. </i>Do unto others, as you would that others should do unto you.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> These
are a few of the points in which American slavery, bids defiance to the
Almighty. They are the necessary consequences, the almost universal fruits, of
established slavery every where. Other courses of treatment are exceptions.
They are all pointedly condemned in<sup>,</sup> the new testament. And is any
one now prepared to say slavery is not touched by the Saviour's and apostles
instructions ? We have studiously avoided allusion to cruel treatment of the <i>persons </i>of slaves. The <i>system </i>is sufficiently horrible, to every well
instructed mind, without any appeal to sympathy.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> Many
attempts have been made to sustain the morality of slavery, from instructions
given to servants in the new testament. There is not, however, a single
passage, which may not, with perfect propriety, be addressed to servants and <i>slaves</i> too, without sanctioning slavery in the remotest degree. Every attempt of the
kind has been met and foiled a thousand times unanswerably.</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> If
those who brought the first slaves into Virginia were guilty, were not those
who purchased them also guilty? And how are those, who have since advocated
and supported the system less guilty? * Human</p>
<p style='text-autospace:
none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>*<span style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Wm.
Pinckney said of American Slavery, in the Maryland House of Dele</span><span
style='letter-spacing:-.15pt'>gates, 1789, "Founded in a disgraceful
traffick, its continuance is as shameful as </span>its origin. <span
style='letter-spacing:-.1pt'>Eternal infamy awaits the abandoned miscreants,
whose selfish souls</span></span></p>
<br clear="all"
style='page-break-before:always' />
<p style='text-autospace:none'>[page 22] </p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'>laws generally recognize the
principle, the aiders and abettors in crime are obnoxious to the punishment of
the offended power. Why not apply the rule to the case under consideration?
There is no reason, but that we will not. American slavery is enormously
criminal, sinful in the pure light of the bible, and the way to get rid of it
is clearly pointed out in that good book. "Cease to do evil."
"Times of ignorance God winked at, but now calleth on all men every where
to repent;" with many other passages urging immediate repentance for
every sin, and declaring that the "wrath of God abideth on the children of
disobedience." But stop not with forsaking sin; "bring forth fruits
meet for repentance." Cease inflicting these wrongs—</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By establishing the
marriage ceremony among the blacks:</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By paying them fair wages
for their labor:</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By protecting them in
their personal and religious rights: </p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By securing to the females
personal chastity:</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By giving tack to them the
key of knowledge:</p>
<p style='text-autospace:none'> By allowing them to manage
their own earnings: