§
ă
º
§§
+3 #: #####
:#;
§
*
#
;
º
3.
}
:
§§
i
#
:
;
*
4.
wº;
i
§
º
:*
|
i
i
j
...?
§
*:
;
;
i
#
s:
§#
;
§
#
:

§§§§
¿?
¿
-$$$$
¿
§§§§
·**¿¿.*
*æ:ș;§�
§§§§
§§§§§
§§§§）;
、
:- ！ ,，…if（ſtraeae-№r：###+++???-+++++++++++++++++++++++++++######rºſſfirſtă, -}}
É!!！!!!!!!!!！!!!!!！!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!！!!!!!!!!！¿|-
§§•ī£p.'，·- -' : ）!}{E8№：38$£®£®©®°¶√≠√∞∞∞£§§Ķ~~ ~--~
§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§:' : , ， !.!.--R]ÎÏÏĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪİIĮĮĶĶĹŇ
ſae
§§
§
ITIM
§
iſſ
&ķ-·-· №ți
ğ¿ģ, ， Iſſ=;±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±），
§§§§§§、、、。、、。。.- ... ſtºj
§§-·） º !！!
£-¿·-ſ！
;?№ſ
ği
ñ.
iñ
¿
§§§§§§
§
§§§§§
§§
¿
iſ:
Sºrrº
É
f
}}
§ſ=
ģ
§ §§
Sºº-Kº
ºrrºr º
Yºſhiin
HTTTT
§
İ
T
IIT
ānī
#
'Fºº
ĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪŤĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪĪff

\{A :V
CAA $.
VA-1
OF THE
|NEW TESTAMENT
A-
ON
S L A V E R Y.
Exchange Oher' in College
Mar. 23, 1 }} →
BY JOSEPH. P. THOMPSON,
OF THE BROADWAY TABERNACLE CHURCH,
NEW YORK :
PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH H. LADD, 22 BEEKMAN STREET.
1856.
G-U-

:
:
;
T H E
NEW TESTAMENT CODE
SLAVERY.
EPHESLANS 6 : 5–10.
“SERVANTS, be obedient to them that are your masters accord-
ing 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 to them, forbearing
threatening; knowing that your Master also is in heaven;
neither is there respect of persons with Him.”
THE epistle to the Ephesians contains the Christ-
tian code for domestic life. The same for substance
is repeated in the epistle to the Colossians. Hus-
bands and wives, parents and children, masters and
servants, are severally instructed in their personal
and relative duties. To study these duties, to
preach upon them, to practice them, is as much a
part of the Gospel as to study, preach, and practice
the primary duties of repentance and faith. The
first sermon of Christ at Nazareth was not a dis-
Tº ºf F: º, Fºr , º,
.* 3. i * £2. ſº. T-
Ir, 3. - * :
..?' .*... ... *- : *. 5 *...*
4,”
,-
**
*
4 THE NEw ºf AMENT ON SLAVERY.
course on theology, but a plea for humanity, and a
promise of blessings to Society, especially to its
inferior classes, through his mission of grace.
The law of Christianity in the relation of master
and Servant, the nature of that relation, and the
reciprocal duties of master and servant under the
Gospel ; are presented in the text as an essential
point in the regimen of a Church of Christ, and in
the application of Christianity to human society.
It has been arbitrarily assumed, that because the
relation of master and servant is treated of in the
same connection with the marriage relation and the
parental relation, it rests upon the same natural and
moral grounds with these fundamental relations of
human life. Hence it is argued that the abuses of
SLAVERY are no more valid as an objection against
the system of Slavery, than abuses of the marital
and parental relations are valid against the insti-
tution of marriage. Since all have to do in some
form with the relation of master and servant, and
since the institution of Slavery now demands the
sanction and support of the Federal Government,
and the suffrages of all citizens of the United States,
it behooves us carefully to examine the Gospel code
touching that relation. The question is not one of
mere abstract morality, nor of political economy or
expediency, but a question of practical Christianity.
TWhat does the New Testament teach concerning
the relation of master and servant &
That the New Testament recognizes the existence
of Slavery as a fact, is plain from various allusions


THE NEw TESTAMENTºšI.AVERY. 5
to that institution, especially in the letters of Paul,
and from the instructions given to both masters and
slaves. Does then Christianity acknowledge the
propriety of that institution, or in any wise give to
Slavery its sanction? Does Slavery, as it existed in
the Roman empire, find any warrant in the New
Testament? Is it there recognized as a rightful
institution, whose abúses only call for condemnation,
in the same way that an abuse of power by the hus-
band or the father is condemned without invalidat-
ing the institution of marriage? Is the essence of
the relation of master and servant the same with
that of husband and wife, and of parent and child?
—and are the abuses of that relation to be treated
as only upon a level with abuses of the tenderest
relations of life 2
In answer to these questions I shall show,
1. That in the Apostolic age, Slavery eacisted
purely as a creature of the Roman law.
2. That in defining the duties of the respective
parties in that relation, the Apostles nowhere acknow-
Zedge the rightfulness of Slavery under the law of
God.
3. That by placing the parties in that relation
wnder the higher law of Christian love and equality,
the Apostles decreed the virtual abolition of Slavery,
and did in time abolish it wherever Christianity
gained the ascendency in society or in the state.
These theses embody the code of the New Testa-
ment, and the practice of the Apostles with respect
to Slavery in the Roman empire.

6 THE NEwºšTAMENT on slaveRx.
SIA.VIERY INOT NORMAL INTOR IDIVINE.
1. In the Apostolic age Slavery existed purely as
a creature of the Roman law. It was not a normal
condition of society, nor was it instituted by the
command of God, or derived from his revealed
Word; but it was an institution of Roman society
created by the civil law.
The family institution exists everywhere as the
normal condition of society. It grows out of the
very nature of things; the distinction of the sexes,
with their correlative instincts and affections. Mar-
riage is a law of nature which lies at the foundation
of human society. From this institution arises by
the same law of nature, the relation of parents and
children. All this is normal. It belongs to the rule
or principle of man's existence. It is that without
which mankind could not exist. All the rudiments
of society are in the family; and the education and
even the continuance of the race depends upon these
fundamental relations of husband and wife, and
parent and child.
But will any one presume to assert this of the
relation of master and slave? Does this come into
the same category with the relation of husband and
wife, as a normal condition of society, a part of the
natural law under which Society itself exists? Then
there has been no such thing as society in New-
York since July 4th, 1827, when domestic Slavery
was abolished by an act of the Legislature, passed


SLAVERY NOT NORMAIºDIVINE. 7
ten years before. Then, in order to have a true
normal condition of society here, we must reëstablish
Slavery. Then, in order to the constitution of so-
ciety in Kansas, Slavery must be there established
as its corner-stone. Then there is no true civiliza-
tion in England, France, or Germany; but Russia
and Turkey are the only civilized nations of Európe,
these alone having the element of domestic Slavery.
Will any sane man pretend that Slavery is a nor-
mal state of society?—that the relation of master and
slave belongs to a right and healthy constitution of
society, just as the relations of husband and wife,
and parent and child, are necessary to the existence
of society? Marriage was the original basis of so-
ciety in Eden, and is its normal condition every-
where; the relation of parent and child is a natural
consequence of this; but the relation of master and
slave is wholly artificial and arbitrary. It is set up
by power and then constituted by law; but does
not spring from nature. Even the code of Justinian
declares that Slavery is “contrary to natural right,”
and that “all men by the law of nature are born
in freedom.”
Moreover, as Slavery in the Apostolic age did not
exist, as indeed it never can exist by natural law, so
neither was it instituted by the command of God, Qr
derived from his revealed Word. Marriage is not only
an ordinance of nature, but was also a positive insti-
tution of the Creator in Paradise. Slavery, we have
seen, is not, in any case, an ordinance of nature. Is
it, then, a positive institution of the Creator ? Did

8 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
Jehovah ever ordain it, or give to it his sanction?
And if so, was Roman slavery derived from any
previous ordinance or sanction of the divine law Ż
Domestic servitude existed in the patriarchal age,
and under the Hebrew commonwealth. But it did
not originate in a command of God, nor is there any
evidence that God approved of it as an institution of
'Society, but much evidence to the contrary.
THE **CURSE ON HAMI.”
Men who either do not read the Bible at all, or
who read it very carelessly, are prone to speak of
the posterity of Ham as doomed by Jehovah to
perpetual slavery. What endless changes have been
rung upon the “accursed seed of Ham.” But
there is no such curse in the Bible, nor has any such
curse ever been fulfilled upon the children of Ham,
as such. Cush was the oldest son of Ham, and his
son was NIMROD, the mightiest name of that dim
antiquity, and the founder of that Assyrian empire
which for ages ruled all western Asia, and which
once and again carried terror into Palestine and
Egypt. The growth of all this grandeur and power
from cities founded by a grandson of Ham, and
peopled by his descendants—a power that shook
the earth, and whose memorials outlast the ages
—surely does not verify the curse of perpetual bond-
age said to have been pronounced upon the posterity
of Ham. The fact is, that no such curse was ever
pronounced.

Open the Bible at the 9th chapter of Genesis,
and the 24th verse, and you there read that “Noah
awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger
son had done to him; and he said, cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren.”
Now Canaan was Ham's youngest son—as Ham
himself was the youngest son of Noah—and the
curse was pronounced upon Canaan by name, and is
three times repeated. “You, my youngest son,
have put me to shame before your brethren; you
shall feel the punishment of this in the degradation
of your youngest son; he shall be put to shame
before his brethren, and his posterity shall feel in
their bones the curse of their dishonored ancestor.”
Turning now to the 10th chapter of Genesis, (vv.
15–21,) we find the boundaries of Canaan’s settlement
accurately defined. It was the land afterwards so
well known as the land of Palestine, reaching along
the coast of the Mediterranean, from Sidon to Gaza,
and eastward to Sodom and Gomorrah. None of
the posterity of Canaan settled in Ethiopia. When,
900 years after, the Israelites, the descendants of
Shem, conquered the land of Canaan, and made
hewers of wood and drawers of water of all who were
not slain in battle, then was fulfilled that old pro-
phetic denunciation: “Blessed be the Lord God of
Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.” The only
cºurse ever pronounced upon any of the posterity of
Ham was fulfilled in the subjugation of the Canaan-
ites by the Israelites, about 1500 years before Christ.
And this, like all slavery in the earliest times, was
I+

10 THE NEwºsta MENT ON SLAVERY.
the enslavement of whites. The institution of slavery
in the East was not based upon a distinction of color.
If ever you hear a man, even though he be styled
a Doctor of Divinity, justifying African slavery from
the curse denounced upon Ham, do you advise him
to go to the nearest Sabbath-school, till he can read
and understand the Bible.
SERVITUDE; UNIDIEHE THE PATRIARCEIS.
As to the Patriarchs, the recorded fact that Abra-
ham and Jacob had bond-servants is no more evi-
dence that God approved of Slavery, than the record-
ed fact that each of these patriarchs had two wives
is proof that God approves of bigamy, or the record,
twice made, and without censure, that Abraham
equivocated about Sarah, is proof that the Bible
Sanctions lying.
When we shall see a modern slaveholder arm his
318 servants, and lead them hundreds of miles, over
mountain, river, and desert, into a foreign and
unsettled country, where no law or power can bind
them to his service—when we shall see him thus
heading his own trained and equipped household,
for the rescue of an unfortunate kinsman, and divid-
ing with them the spoils of war, we may begin
to trace in that slaveholder some resemblance
to the patriarch Abraham.* Or when we shall see
some modern planter commissioning his chief Serv-
ant to go hundreds of miles beyond the leach of
* Gen, 14 : 13–17.

# -
SERVITUDE UNDER THE PATRIARCHS. 11
plantation laws, equipped with dromedaries and
laden with jewels and gold—having every facility
for escape—yet trusted to choose a wife for his mas-
ter's son, and to negotiate the marriage-contract,”
then again we may discern the features of patri-
archal slavery in the slavery of modern times. How
palpable it is that Abraham did not hold his servants
as chattel-slaves. He was himself but a sojourner in
the land of Canaan. No local law would guard his
rights as a master.
But aside from the utter want of parallelism be-
tween domestic servitude under the patriarchs and
modern chattel-slavery, shall we make no account
of the greater light enjoyed in our times? It has
been aptly said, that “if Abraham were now living
among us, he would be put into the penitentiary for
bigamy.”f Shall we"go back to study morality in
the twilight of the patriarchal age 2 Those modern
slaveholders who seek to cover themselves with the
mantle of the patriarchs, remind one of the ignorant
and superstitious peasantry of Italy, who, when
their vines were blasted, offered a special prayer to
the “most holy patriarch Noah,” invoking his inter-
cession, on the ground that he was the special patron
of the vine, and familiar with its qualities. If we
are to copy the patriarchs in points where their
example is not commended or enjoined in the
Bible, then let us have the “patriarchal institutions”
entire—inebriety, equivocation, deception, bigamy,
polygamy, as well as slavery. Nay, nay. It is the
Gen. 24. + Rev. L. Bacon, D.D.
º
*
*
*
+.
i.
*
jº,
*...,
t
I2 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
glory of the Bible that it is so great, so good, so
2true in itself, so instinct with the sense of justice
and of right, that it can afford to record, without
comment, the failings of the best of men, and leave
us to judge these by its own infallible standard.
THE MOSAIC CODE.
The laws of Moses did not introduce Slavery
among the Jews. The story of Joseph is evidence
that Slavery then existed throughout Arabia and
Egypt. In making laws for a semi-barbarous and
intractable people, Moses suffered many things be-
cause of the hardness of their hearts. A careful
study of his code demonstrates that “the Mosaic
statutes respecting the relatiºn of master and slave
are obviously modifications and amendments of a
previously-existing common-law, and are designed
to meliorate the condition of the slave, to protect
him from oppression, and to promote the gradual
disuse and abolition of slavery.”
By that law, kidnapping, or the stealing of men to
make them slaves, which was the origin of all the
Slavery in this country, was a capital crime. “He
that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found
in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”
By that law a fugitive slave was not to be re-
turned to his master. By that law a slave maimed
by his master, a female slave violated by her mas-
ter, were entitled to freedom, and the master was
*Slavery, by L. Bacon, p 29. Michaelis vol. 1, p. 9.
THE MOSAIC CODE. 13
held responsible for any act of severity to a slave.
By that law slaves were to have the same religious
privileges with their masters. By that law the Hebrew
slave was set free every seventh year, and there was
an emancipation of all poor and oppressed Israelites
every fiftieth year. The ranks of slaves were
recruited from thieves, debtors, and captives in
war; but the slave was always treated as a person ;
the laws were altogether in his favor; and perpetual,
wnmitigated Chattelism, was a thing unknown
among the Hebrews.
The enslaving of the heathen was permitted to
the Israelites under certain regulations. By the
law of nations in the earliest times, they had a right
to enslave or to kill all captives taken in.war. The
laws of Moses modified and humanized this bloody
common-law. And if the Israelites were allowed to
hold bondmen from among the heathen with some-
what more of rigor than they could hold a Hebrew
servant, this, like the conquest and subjugation of
Canaan, was part of the special judgment decreed
by Jehovah against idolaters, and inflicted through
Israel as his chosen people. We laugh at the
absurdity of those who would find in the command
given to Joshua to exterminate the Canaanites, a
divine warrant for the Puritans and their descend-
ants to exterminate the aborigines from this conti-
nent. But is that any greater absurdity than the
logic which finds, in a special and restricted permis-
sion, given to the Hebrews to hold heathen bond-
Servants, a perpetual divine warrant for chattel-
slavery?
14 THE NEW TESTA’MENT ON SLAVERY.
I. A. T E R J E WIS H L E G IS I, ATIO N.
The regulations of the Mosaic Code had their
natural and designed effect. They made the care
of slaves so much a burden to the master, they
made the rights of slaves so prominent and so valid,
that even the mild and modified form of Slavery
tolerated by the Mosaic law, gradually died away.
The fact that Solomon levied upon the remnant of
the Canaanites for bond-service in building the
Temple, shows that even his roll of “servants born
in his house,” could not have been great.* There
is no evidence that the Hebrews in Palestine, ever
engaged in the foreign slave-trade. The Prophets
denounced the abuses of Slavery, and urged the
abolition of the system.f
The traditionary Jewish laws upon this subject,
codified by the pious and learned Maimonides, are
instructive, as showing the increasing leniency of
the system in the latter times of the Hebrew com-
monwealth. This code required that an adult slave,
purchased by a Hebrew from an idolater, should be
circumcised; but this must be done with the free
consent of the slave himself; otherwise he must be
returned to his heathen master. If voluntarily cir-
cumcised, he was entitled to the privileges of a prose-
lyte in the house of Israel. The code required that
the master should be kind to his slave, and not let
*1 Kings 9:20, 21.
+ See Isaiah 1:17: “Relieve [or righten] the oppresged;"58: 6, “Let the
oppressed go free; break every yoke;” also Jer. 84, etc.
# See Appen diac A.
SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 15
his yoke weigh too heavy on him. “He must find
him in sufficient meat and drink, and must not abuse
him either by word or deed, nor rebuke him with
rage; but must speak to him mildly, and must give
him time to offer his defense in case of culpability.”
How manifest is it that the slave was a person
owing service, and not a mere piece of property.
The law favored manumission or emancipation upon
the soil, in a variety of ways. A converted slave;
that is, a circumcised Gentile, could claim his free
dom of the magistrates if his master sold him to an
idolater, or to a proselyte of the gate; or could
assert his freedom by running away. Such a slave
residing in Judea, recovered his freedom if his
master sold him to any person whatever out of the
land of Judea—even to a Jew in the adjacent parts
of Syria. He could not be taken out of the land of
Judea by his master without his free consent. The
converted slave of a Hebrew residing in a foreign
country, who escaped into Judea, must not be given
up to his owner. Thus we see that the traditionary
laws of the Hebrews, carrying out the spirit of the
Mosaic code, tended to ameliorate the condition of
bondmen, and finally to abolish all involuntary ser-
vitude, except for crime.*
SLAVERY IN TEIE TIME OF CIEIRIST.
It is a fact worthy of notice in this connection,
that the four Gospels contain scarce one allusion to
Slavery as yet in existence among the Hebrews.
* See further in Appendia: A.
§
* -
# *
16 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
In some of his parables our Lord draws his illustra-
tions from servants, using the term Öovãog, (doulos,)
which in the Greek classics ordinarily denotes a
slave. But in New Testament usage that term of it-
self proves nothing as to the nature of the service;
and some of these very illustrations seem to forbid
the idea of a bond servant.* Only three cases are
mentioned in the Gospels of persons having servants
who may be supposed to have been slaves; and but
one of these is at all positive; namely, the Roman
centurion, who held his servants by Roman law. The
term Öovãog is applied to the servants of the Caper-
naum nobleman, and the servant of the high-priest
whose ear Peter cut off; but beyond this indeter-
minate word nothing is intimated of the condition
of either.
Some have inferred from the silence of the Gos-
pels upon the subject, that Slavery among the He-
brews had entirely ceased before the time of Christ.*
This is not quite correct; for an incident in the life
of Gamaliel, the famous Rabbi of that day, shows
that he had bond-servants; and sundry allusions in
* In Matthew 18:23–35, we read of a servant (doulos) who owed his lord
ten thousand talents, and was forgiven the debt. This servant (doulos)
then seized upon a fellow-servant, (doulos,) and cast him into prison, for a
debt of a hundred pence. The term doulos is used throughout, but the
transaction hardly comports with the idea of bond-service.
So in the parable of the talents, (Luke 19:12–26,) the term doulos is used
throughout, but the confidential relations of the servants to their lord, the
trust reposed in them, the reward given to the faithful, the curt reply of the
negligent servant—these several details do not comport with bond-service,
certainly not with modern Slavery.
t See in Barnes, Kitto, Jay Weld, Hagu, º, and others.
SLAVERY IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 17
the Mishna and in Josephus, show that Slavery
did exist to a limited extent among the Jews in
Palestine till their expulsion under Hadrian. But
it is certain that in the time of Christ very few slaves
were held in Judea by Hebrew masters. The Jews
as a people were subjugated and impoverished; He-
brews were no longer made slaves, except as a pun-
ishment for theft; and only the wealthy families, who
in that agricultural country were comparatively few,
could afford to purchase slaves of the Gentiles. Our
Lord and his disciples seldom came in contact with
such families, and as his mission was distinctively to
the house of Israel, the few proselyted bond-serv-
ants living in comparative freedom and ease in the
houses of the great, would hardly come under his
special notice. At the great marriage-feast in Cana,
where all were Jews, there were no slaves, but only
waiters, (Ötakovot.) In the family of Lazarus, where
Jesus was intimate, Martha did the house-work.
The Savior made his teachings specific only with
reference to evils that came immediately under his
eye, while he laid down principles that apply to.
every form of evil. To sum up all, then, on this
point, Slavery existed among the Hebrews in Judea,
in the time of Christ, much as it exists in New-Jer-
sey at this day. We learn from the census that
there yet remain in that State 236 slaves; but one
is hardly ever reminded that Slavery exists in New-
Jersey. As to the Romans in Judea, Christ seldom
addressed specific instructions to them upon any
point whatever; but labored among his own nation.
18 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
He is silent with respect to gladiatorial shows,
to idolatrous rites, and the barbarities of war.
Will any one infer that he approved of these?
We may, therefore, dismiss Hebrew servitude and its
code as having virtually passed away at the date of
the New Testament. It had so much declined in
Palestine, was so far inoperative, that it had ceased
to be conspicuous as an element in the social state
of the Jews.
FOMAIN SLAVERY.
That with which we have to do in the New Tes-
tament—that system with which the Apostles came
in contact, when they went forth from Judea to
preach the Gospel throughout the known world—
was Roman Slavery, which existed neither by nat-
ural law, nor by any divine appointment or sanction
whatever, not even as derived from the books of
Moses, for the Romans did not go to these for their
institutions—but was purely a creature of the
Boman law.
What, then, was the origin of this Slavery, and
what were its essential features 2 Roman Slavery
was the fruit of military conquest. As the Romans
extended their territory, they found it necessary, in
order to retain their conquests, to reduce to slavery
the captives taken in war. The very term servus, a
slave, is said by the code of Justinian to be derived
from the fact that captives were preserved alive and
sold, instead of being put to death. The conquered
ROMAN SLAVERY. 19
were considered as booty; and persons, as well as
cattle and things, were distributed among the con-
querors, or were sold for the benefit of the state.
Hence, slaves came to be treated as cattle or chat-
tels—capitalia, goods movable or immovable,
such as flocks, herds, and other possessions;–a thing
unknown in Hebrew law. After the final defeat of
the Samnites by the Romans, 36,000 prisoners of
war were sold as slaves.” In the first Punic war,
20,000 prisoners were taken and sold. The victory
over the Cimbri yielded 60,000 captives. The Gal-
lic wars of Caesar are said to have furnished 400,000
prisoners for slaves. These were of various nations.
Slavery was not then based upon distinction of
color as marking an original inferiority of race,
according to the doctrine of recent times; it did
not claim a divine sanction in the curse on Ham—
the Romans knew nothing of Noah or his posterity;
it was based solely upon power—the power of law-
less violence to subdue numerical or physical weak-
Il CSS,
The taste for idle luxury engendered by the Sud-
den acquisition of large and fertile territories, and
the creation of a servile class to cultivate without
wages the immense estates of the wealthy citizens
of Rome, encouraged also the foreign slave-trade as
a branch of commerce. Not only was the interior
of Africa ravaged to supply the market of Rome,
• * Wiebuhr (Hist. vol. iii.) distrusts Livy's figures, and even decimates
them; but he considers the number of slaves in Capua to have been very
\arge.
20 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
but Asia Minor, Sardinia, Spain, and Britain, yielded
cargoes of slaves to build the public works of the
capital, to serve her wealthy citizens, and to gratify
the brutal passions of the mob by fighting with
wild beasts in the arena. The island of Delos was
the great centre of this traffic; sometimes 10,000
slaves were transhipped there in one day.
Roman slavery made no distinction between the
descendants of Ham, and those of Shem and
Japhet. It rested upon conquest. Slave mer-
chants always accompanied the Roman armies. So
many slaves were brought from Asia Minor as the
spoils of war, that “Phrygian” became as common
a name for slave as “African” is in our day.
When Caesar invaded Britain, the taunt that the
conquest was worthless was met by pointing to the
slaves brought from that island—“Not a scruple of
silver; but many slaves.” Roman slavery made our
ancestors its prey; though Cicero thought the
Britons so inferior to the Asiatics, that they were
not worth buying. I doubt not that in the monu-
ments of ancient Rome that we now visit with curi-
ous eyes, in the ruins of temples, of aqueducts and
basilica, and in the paved ways and arches of vic-
tory, are courses of brick and stone that were laid
by the sweat and toil of our ancestors, during the
four hundred years when British slaves were mer-
chantable goods upon the Tiber.
The growth of this system in the Roman republic
is admirably portrayed by Bancroft, in his essay on
“The Decline of the Roman People.” The in-
ROMAN SLAVERY, 21
stitution of Slavery, and the monopoly of land and
labor, gradually deprived the country of that mid-
dling class between the extremes of wealth and pov-
erty, which are the real strength of a nation. The
Romans went to war, leaving slaves to till the
fields. “Instead of little farms studding the country
with their pleasant aspect, and nursing an independ-
ent race, nearly all the lands of Italy were engrossed
by large proprietors, and the plow was in the
hands of the slave.”* All trades were acquired by
them, and they were hired out by their masters for
gain.
Tiberius Gracchus, a pure-minded patriot, sought
to remedy this evil by an Agrarian law. This much
abused law was simply a Homestead Bill. “It was
designed to create in Italy a yeomanry: instead of
slaves, to substitute free laborers; to plant liberty
firmly in the land; to perpetuate the Roman Com-
monwealth, by identifying its principles with the
culture of the soil.”? The wise law of Gracchus
had met the approval of the people, and was to be
decided by the Senate. This body was made up of
patrician slaveholders; yet some reasonable com-
promise was hoped for, even from them. But
Slavery, true to its instincts of violence, took up the
bludgeon when argument failed. The reformer
Gracchus, who had dared to assail the system, was
beaten to death with clubs by its “gallant” defend-
ers, upon the steps of the capitol, and his corpse
was dragged through the streets and thrown into
* Bancroft Miscellanies, p. 280. t Bancroft, p. 286.
22 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
the Tiber. Modern chivalry has not even the poor
merit of originality.
Such was the bloody triumph of Slavery in Rome.
All the evils that Gracchus had predicted ensued.
The bone and sinew of the nation perished in foreign
wars, and Rome counted only aristocratic idlers,
free paupers, and innumerable slaves. The lands
were impoverished; work and trade were consid-
ered ignoble; and nearly all the business of society
—its commerce, its trades, its arts, its amusements—
all were conducted by slaves for the profit of their
masters. Thus free labor was rooted out by a ruinous
competition. Then followed servile wars; and thus
the way was paved for that despotism which ren-
ders the names of Tiberius and Nero forever execra-
ble. Slavery sucked the life-blood of the Roman
Republic. Let not the history of her fate be the
prophecy of ours.
Since Roman Slavery originated in force, its radi-
cal idea was the right of the strong to oppress and
degrade the weak. Hence, from the outset, it dif.
fered from Slavery among the Hebrews in this—that
while the Hebrew law of servitude regarded the
slave as a person under limited obligations to his
master, the Roman regarded him as a thing, a chat-
tel, entirely at his master's disposal. Let this distinc-
tion be carefully noted. It is the radical distinction
between the Slavery which had obtained among the
Hebrews, but had almost ceased to be in the time
of Christ, and the Roman Slavery which every-
where met the eye of the Apostles in their mission-
ROMAN SLAVERY, 23
ary tours. Cicero and other Roman publicists of
the first authority, in their definition of the term
servi, include horses and mules as well as slaves;
and by the Roman law slaves were taxed in the
property of the master, along with houses, lands,
beasts, and bronze money.
Liddell, one of the most careful writers upon
Roman history, thus describes the condition of the
Roman slaves: “They had no civil rights; they
could not contract legal marriage; they had no
power over their children; they could hold no pro-
perty in their own name; their very savings were
not their own, but held by consent of their masters;
all law-proceedings ran in the name of the master.
For crimes committed they were tried by the pub-
lic courts, and the masters were held liable for the
damage done, but only to the extent of the slave's
value. To kill, maim, or maltreat a slave, was con-
sidered as damage to his master, and could only be
treated as such. No pain or suffering inflicted on
a slave was punishable, unless loss had thereby
accrued to the owner.” Says Bancroft: “In the
eye of the law, a slave was nobody. No protection
was afforded his limb or his life, against the avarice
or rage of his master; the female had no defense
for her virtue and her honor; the ties of affection
and blood were disregarded.”?
This is Chattelism; these are laws not for persons,
but for chattels ; not for men, but for things. We
have seen that the Hebrew law cared for the slave
* Wol. 1,454. +Mis. p. 302.
24 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
—protected his person, gave him redress against
injuries inflicted by the master, and especially guard-
ed the sanctity of marriage and of female virtue. The
Roman law reversed all this. There was no legal
marriage among slaves; the children of the mother
were born to her condition; a slave could not testify
in court; if a master was slain in his house, by an
unknown hand, all his slaves were put to death with-
out trial. Tacitus narrates an instance in which
four hundred slaves were put to death, on the sus-
picion that one of them had murdered his master.
One could hardly believe the cruelties said to have
been inflicted upon slaves, had not Roman Slavery
survived to our time, to witness against itself. The
whip was always at hand. If a slave spoke or
coughed without permission, he was flogged. If a
maid committed the least blunder in the toilet of
her mistress, her back must feel the thong or the
heated iron. Scourges loaded with lead, or furnish-
ed with prongs, the yoke, the brand, the pincers,
the rack, were common modes of torture. There
were torturers by profession, to whom masters
sometimes sent their slaves for the refinements of
cruelty. Cato, the moralist of Rome, was accustom-
ed to exercise himself, after supper, by flogging such
of his slaves as had not waited properly upon the
table. Worn-out slaves were turned out to die.
Sometimes a slave was crucified or burnt alive, at
the caprice of his master.”
* Bib. Repos. vol. 6, Art. Roman Slavery, p. 422. Also Blair; and Mſich-
elet's “Roman Republic.”
DID CHRIST SANCTION SLAVERY I' 25
Such was Roman Slavery, and this is the Slavery
which, IN ITS ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF CHATTELISM, and
with many of its horridincidents, has been transmit-
ted to our times, and exists upon our soil.” There
was, however, one relief in the ancient system, which
is wanting in its modern representative. In the ear-
lier history of Rome the manumission of slaves upon
the soil was frequent. Masters were accustomed to
feward favorite slaves with their freedom, and these
freedmen had civil rights; some of them even
became eminent as poets, artisans, and statesmen.
Even the barbarism of Rome did not make expatri-
ation a condition of emancipation. About the year
of Rome 430, personal slavery for debt was abolish-
ed by law.f
Such was Slavery as it existed in the time of
Christ and his Apostles; a creature of the Roman
law, the offspring of force, and sustained by cruelty
and terror.
IXII) CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES SAINCTION
SLAVERY P
II. The question now arises, did Christ and the
Apostles Sanction this system? I might well leave
it to your moral sense to answer that question.
The Bible disciplines our moral sense to the intent
that we may judge of right and wrong without the
aid of specific precepts. Apply that moral sense to
* For proof, see Appendix C.
? Arnold, Hist. p. 816, Am. Ed.
2
26 THE NIEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
the "case before us. You see what was Roman
Slavery. Do you believe—can you believe—dare
you so much as harbor the thought that Christ and
his Apostles ever could have sanctioned such a sys-
tem 2 You know better. Every man who has a
conscience knows better.
Yet it is argued that they did sanction this Sla-
very, because they are silënt as to the system and
its evils, and because they gave instructions to those
who were in the relation of master and slave, as
constituted by the Roman law.
These arguments were urged upon the floor of the
General Assembly, (New School,) at its session in
New-York, in May, 1856.
Said a Southern divine, and a Northern one
echoed it: “I affirm that slavery is one of the social
relations of men. It is like husband and wife, pa-
rent and child, older and younger, teacher and scho-
lar, magistrate and citizen, merchant and clerk, cap-
tain and soldier, sovereign and people. These rela-
tions of life are expressly ordained of God; or they
exist in that social economy which is the result of
Divine Providence. In all these there is service. This
service is found to be either voluntary or involun-
tary, and, as to duration, brief or protracted. There
is either restraint or liberty in them all. In them
all there is a liability to oppression. The common
talk of oppression in the relation of master and slave
is just as applicable to all these social relations.”
* Speech of Rev. Dr. Ross. The fallacy of Dr. Ross lies in the assump-
tion that the relation of master and servant can exist only under a syste B
DID CHRIST SANCTION SLAVERY P 27
Such was the language uttered by ministers of
Christ in that Assembly. Is it true? Is this the
Gospel of the grace of God?
In reply to this argument, I take the position that
£n défining the duties of master and servant, the
New Testament nowhere admits the rightfulness of
Roman slavery under the law of God.
With respect to the alleged silence of Christ and.
his Apostles upon Slavery and its evils, Iremark first
that they were not wholly silent on that subject,
and, Secondly, that their silence gives no sauction to
the system.
We have already seen that Christ hardly came in
contact with the institution of Slavery—for it was
no longer prominent among the Jews to whom his
mission was mostly confined. He laid down general
principles; but commented only on specific evils
that existed around him. And yet Christ laid the
axe at the root of Slavery, as at the root of Despot-
ism, in his first sermon at Nazareth, when he said:
“I am come to preach glad tidings to the poor; to
preach deliverance to the captives; to set at liberty
them that are bound; to proclaim a jubilee from
God.”
Christ bore witness against Slavery, when he de-
nounced all pride and ambition, covetousness and op-
pression of the poor. Christ reásserted the unity
of the race; the equality of all men before God;
He reënapted the law of Sinai, “Thou shalt love thy
of Slavery. Whereas, the dependence of labor upon capital makes that a
natural relation everywhere. His illustration proves nothing for Slavery
28 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
neighbor asthyself;” and expounded this by the pre-
cept, “ TWhatsoever ye would that men should do to
$you, do ye even so to them.” Who ever heard of
an advocate of Slavery so in love with the system,
that he would have others do to him as he does to
àe helpless slave?"
Was James silent when he said: “Go to, ye rich
men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall
come upon you. Behold the hire of the laborers
who have reaped down your fields, which is of you
kept back by fraud, crieth ; and the cries of them
which have reaped, are entered into the ears of the
Lord of Sabaoth.” Are these cries of the oppressed
that pierce the heavens and reach the ear of God—
silence 2 / Was Paul silent when he said: “The
law is made for murderers, for adulterers, for men-
Stealers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there be any
other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed
God???
But he was silent, it is said, as to the abolition of
Slavery. “He did not denounce it as an evil or a
sin.” Did he therefore sanction the system? The
argument proves too much. If silence as to Slavery
argues an approval of the system, then silence as to
its enormities argues an approval of these as a part
of the system; and silence as to other organic laws
and evils in the Roman empire argues that these
also were sanctioned, or at least allowed. Here,
then, let us consult facts in other relations.
THE DOMIESTIC CODE OF ROME. 29
THE DOMESTIC col) E OF ROME.
In the Roman empire arbitrary power was not
vested only in the holder of slaves. Every Roman
father possessed that power equally with the master.”
When a child was born, it was left to the father to
decide whether it should live or die. The infant was
placed upon the ground. If the father took it up, he
signified his intention to rear it; if he let it lie, it was
exposed in the street or by the river to perish, or to
be taken up by some stranger, who might then
claim it as his slave. If the father claimed the child,
his power over him was as absolute as that of the
master over the slave; and it continued through life
unless the son was formally emancipated, and made
a citizen. The earnings of the son could be claimed
by the father; who had also the right to scourge his
son, to sell him into slavery, to imprison him, to
banish him, to put him to death.
This was the relation of father and son by Roman
aw. Gibbon thus describes it: “In the forum, the
senate, or the camp, the adult son of a Toman citi-
zen enjoyed the public and private rights of a per-
son; in his father's house he was a mere thing ;
confounded by the laws with the movables, the cat-
tle and the slaves, whom the capricious master
might alienate or destroy, without being responsible
to any earthly tribunal. At the call of indigence
{
* This illustration was first suggested to me by the admirable essays of
Rev. W. Hague, D.D., on Christianity and Slavery. I believe that this use
of it is original with him.
30 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
or of avarice, the master of a family could dispose
of his children or his slaves. According to his dis-
cretion, a father might chastise the real or imaginary
faults of his children by stripes, by imprisonment,
by exile, by sending them to the country to workin
chains among the meanest of his servants. The
majesty of a parent was armed with the power of
life and death; and the example of such bloody
executions, which were sometimes praised and never
punished, may be traced in the annals of Rome be-
yond the times of Pompey and Augustus.*
Nor was this all. The husband had much the
same power over the wife, which the master had
over the slave, and the father had over the son. In
law the wife was nothing. The husband, if he fan-
cied himself injured, could inflict corporeal punish-
ment upon his wife, and if she was guilty of wine-
drinking or infidelity, with certain formalities he
could put her to death. Indeed, the authority of
the husband over the wife in pagan Rome was quite
up to the notions of some modern divines as to a
husband's rights.} -
Such was the family despotism which existed in
the Roman Empire in the time of Christ and his
apostles. And yet the New Testament is entirely
silent with respect to this bloody code of domestic
law. Nowhere in that book can you find a com-
mand, “Husbands do not whip or kill your wives;”
nowhere can you find a command, “Fathers, do not
* Decline and Fall, vol. iii., p. 169,
t See specches in General Assembly (N.S.) for 1856.
O
TIII. DOMESTIC CODE OF ROME. 31
*
Scourge your sons, nor sell or torture them, nor send
them into exile, nor put them to death.” Nowhere
do you find a protest against this domestic tyranny
of law and custom as contrary to the Gospel of
Christ. Nowhere do you even find an allusion to
it as an evil to be done away. What then P Did
Paul Sanction that horrible tyranny of the husband
and the father? Does his silence respecting the
Roman law of domestic life show that he either ap-
proved or tolerated that law 2 Is that your logic 2
Remember that this tyranny of the husband over
the wife, and of the father over the son, was just as
much established by law, as was the power of the
master over the slave. If therefore the silence of
the Apostle as to slavery and its evils is an evidence
that he sanctioned Roman Slavery, then his silence
as to this household despotism is evidence that he
sanctioned that. We are told, that “there were
60,000,000 slaves in the Roman empire, and yet Paul
says nothing against slavery.” So were there mil-
lions of wives and sons in that empire, living under
domestic tyranny, and yet he says nothing of
their oppressions. And yet there was never a
more flagrant violation of the law of God than
the Roman law of the family. The defense of
Roman Slavery from the alleged silence of the New
Testament concerning it, proves too much, and falls
to the ground.
In the time of Paul the brutal sports of the arena
were common in the Roman empire. Trained gla-
diators, or captives and criminals, were set to fight
f
f
32 THE NEW. TESTAMENT ON SLAVIERY.
wild beasts or to fight one another in the amphi.
theater, for the amusement of the multitude. Paul
was perfectly familiar with these gladiatorial shows;
indeed, some suppose that he himself was once com-
pelled to fight with beasts at Ephesus. He some-
times draws his illustrations of the Christian warfare
from these contests of the gladiators. Yet he is
Silent as to the barbarous tendencies of such sports.
Did he therefore sanction them? Is that your logic 2
INO RIGHT OF SUFFERA.G.E IN EOME}.
Slavery in the Roman Empire existed by virtue
of the civil law. But in the time of the Empire, the
people had no voice in making the laws, and could
do nothing whatever to change or abolish them.
This rested solely with the Emperor. And in the
time of Paul, freedmen had come to be regarded by
slaveholders as a nuisance, and restraints were im-
posed upon masters who might wish to emancipate
their slaves. In the reign of Nero surely, the people
had no sovereignty, no elective franchise, no legis-
lative power. They were restrained in their personal
liberties, so that there was almost nothing which
they could do legally for the removal of slavery. In
such circumstances silence does not imply assent.
Besides, the epistles of the New Testament were not
tracts published to act upon society at large, but
manuscript letters sent to little companies of per-
Sons to instruct them in their duties. Hence we are
INSTRUCTIONS TO SERVANTS. 33
not to look to them for a general discussion of public
affairs.
This consideration has great significance. We
are apt to conceive of the New Testament in primi-
tive times, as being before the public much as it is in
our day; forgetting not only that it was not then a
printed book, but also that it was not even a book
reduced to form by the final arrangement of the
sacred Canon. The Apostles wrote letters to local
assemblies of believers, which were composed gen-
erally of poor and uninfluential persons, and these
letters were first read in these assemblies, and then
copies were multiplied by hand. Keeping in view
the persons whom they addressed and their object
in writing, we cease to wonder at their Omission of
many topics relating to Society at large.
INSTRUCTIONS TO SERVANTs.
But it is said that the Apostles give instructions to
parties in the relation of master and slave, and
thereby give an implied Sanction to Slavery itself.
Precisely the opposite of this is true. Whatever in-
structions they give to parties implicated in the
system, they nowhere admit the rightfulness of
Slavery under the law of God, but often imply the
contrary.
In prescribing the relative duties of husbands and
wives, and of parents and children, the New Testa-
ment distinctly sets forth the divine authority of
marriage and the parental relation. In giving in-
2%
34 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY:
structions to rulers and subjects, the New Testa-
ment teaches the divine authority of civil govern-
ment, though it does not give a divine right to parti-
cular rulers or to particular forms of government.
… But in giving instructions to masters and servants
the New Testament does not speak of Slavery as
existing by the appointment or authority of God;
you can not find in these instructions one word in
vindication of Slavery, or one word in approval of
the relation of master and slave as a desirable rela-
tion for either party. They are simply told how to .
conduct themselves in a relation established by laws ,
above their control. This omission is significant.
Let us see now, how far these apostolic precepts
look toward an approval of Slavery. “Art thou
called, being a servant 2" Does the grace of God
come to you in the lowly condition of a bondman 2
“Care not for that.” Do not fret and chafe that you,
who are called to be a son of God and an heir of hea-
ven, called to sit with Christ and to judge angels, are
here held in bondage by a fellow-man; abide patient-
ly in your lot. “But if thou mayest be free”—if
you have the opportunity to gain your freedom—
“ USE IT RATHER.” Does that look like a sanc-
tion of Slavery 2 g
Paul had no such opinion of the happy lot of a
slave as to advise him to continue thankfully in that
condition, if he could change it. Peter says: “Ser.
vants, be subject to your masters with all fear, (that
is, the fear of God;) not only to the good and gentle,
but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy,
y
x:
.*
&
INSTRUCTIONS TO SERVANTS. 35
if a man for conscience sake toward God, endure
grief, suffering wrongfully.” Does that look like
an approval of the system? Then did the Apostle
approve of the conduct of Pilate and the Jews
towards Christ, whom he holds up to those abused
slaves as an example of patience in suffering. His
argument to the servant is not based at all upon the
lawfulness or desirableness of his lot, but upon the
example of Christ. “Because Christ also suffered
for us, leaving us an example, that ye follow in his
steps.” g
There is a tone of compassion in all the instruc-
tions of the Apostles to servants, which is far from
indicating an approval of Slavery. They did not
meet in ecclesiastical assemblies to argue the advan-
tages of a state of servitude; how good a thing it
is that such poor, ignorant creatures have masters
to care for them; how superior their lot is to that
of the freedmen around them; no, when the Apostles
speak of servants, there is a tone of humanity
toward such as are in bonds; they address them as
in a condition hard to be borne; but since the
providence of God—mark, not the moral preference
but the providential will of God, which suffers so
much evil in the world—since this suffers them
to be in that condition, they should be meek, and
patient, and faithful, “that by well doing they may
put to silence the scandal of foolish men” about the
licentiousness of the Gospel. They were not to lie
or steal, or be idle, because they felt themselves
to be oppressed; they were to obey even hard mas-
36 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY,
ters, not because the law of God had set these mas-
fers over them, not because God had instituted
Slavery and put them in bondage as the best possi-
ble condition for them and their children; not be-
cause God approved of that condition; but because
ſas Christians they were bound, in whatsoever state
they were, to honor Christ and his cause. If a
Christian was a prisoner, he must honor Christ as
Paul did in his bonds; and if he were a slave, he
must do the same. John Bunyan must not lie or
kill his keeper because he is cast into Bedford jail;
he must be a well-behaved prisoner. Was his im-
prisonment therefore just 2 *
Did Christ indorse the administration of Herod
and Pilate by paying tribute money? Did Paul
indorse the bloody reign of Nero, by exhorting
Christians to be peaceable, law-abiding citizens? No
more does he indorse Roman Slavery by the in-
structions he gives to servants. On the contrary
he condemns that system in the very tone of these
instructions: “Servants, be obedient to them that
are your masters according to the flesh.” Why?
Because they have bought you and have a right to
your services? Because they have reared you and
taken care of you? Because the law requires this
of you? Because you have no rights as men? Be-
cause God has set up Slavery for your good? No,
but “as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God
from the heart; with good will doing service to the
Lord—AND NOT TO MEN.” They are to ennoble the
lowly condition in which they are placed, with the
INSTRUCTIONS TO MASTERS. 37
dignity of the Christian doing in all things the will
of God. Where is Slavery approved, where is the
Roman law of Slavery admitted tº be right by the
law of God in any counsel or instruction given to
those in that relation? Nay, the foundation of that
whole system, which was CHATTELISM, is knock-
ed away by every precept that addresses the slave
as a MAN, bought with the blood of Christ and ac-
countable to God. The servant is brought under
moral responsibility, which a chattel can not feel.
INSTRUCTIONS TO MASTERS.
III. But there are instructions to masters as well as
to slaves, and these lead me to my last position; name-
ly, That by ignoring the Roman law of Slavery, and
placing both master and servant under the higher
law of Christian love and equality, the Apostles de-
creed the virtual abolition of Slavery, and did in
time subdue it, wherever Christianity gained the
ascendency in Society or in the State.
Christianity was a kingdom within a kingdom.
Penetrating through all forms of government and of
society, it gave its law directly to the soul; and
then, working from the individual outward, it lea-
vened and renovated society and its institutions. It
did not work by Social revolution as a means to an
end, but produced social revolution as a necessary
consequence of its transformation of the individual.
But it is a great fallacy to suppose that because the
result to be effected by Christianity was gradual
38 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
and remote, therefore the principle tending to that
result was left to a gradual development. The prin-
ciple which should regulate society, and which in
time would reform society in the mass, was laid down
at the outset as the Supreme law for the individual.
Because the process of social transformation
must needs be slow, the necessity for that transfor-
mation, and the principles by which it must be
effected, were not left to be gradually discovered in
the future. No individual was suffered to hide him-
self under the shadow of society; to plead that an
evil or abuse with which he was implicated was a
Social evil that time must cure, and to take advan-
tage of the delay in reforming society, to indulge a
little longer his own complicity with the wrong.
No ; the law that was to permeate and revolutionize
Society was given as a law to the individual believer,
the moment he entered the kingdom of God. He
could not cross the threshold of that kingdom until
he bowed his will to the supremacy of that ºw.
THE LAW OF CHRIST.
The Apostles have nothing to say specifically
against the abuse of wives by their husbands, or of
children by their parents; they do not legislate
against specific evils of slavery, or against the sys.
tem as a whole;—Why? Bécause they and their
Master have given to every Christian a law which
renders all such acts incompatible with fellowship
in the kingdom of God. Paul does not assail
TIIE LAW OF CHRIST. 39
the Roman code; he does not blindly butt against
what he could not move; but he gives to Christians
a law that lifts them out of the pale of that code in
all their intercourse with one another. They must
still live under Roman law, and make the best of it;
but that is not to be their standard or their shield.
“Dare any of you, having a matter against an-
other, to go to law before the unjust, and not before
the saints 37° How could a Christian take advan-
tage of the Roman law to enslave another, or to
exact of him unrequited labor P The rights of mas-
ter and servant must be adjusted, not before the
heathen, but before the saints; not by the Roman
slave-code, but by the law of Christ. And what was
that law “ONE is your Master, even Christ, and
ALL YE ARE BRETHREN,” “A new com-
mandment I give to you, that ye love another; ever,
as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
Christians were a peculiar people. They formed
a spiritual society apart from the world—fellow-citi-
zens of the commonwealth of Israel. In this relation
they ceased to be under the Roman law as their
source of right or rule of action. Hence the relation
of master and servant was at once lifted out of the
plane of the civil law into the higher plane of
Christian love. The outward relation constituted
by law might not cease, it might not be possible
legally to terminate this, but the essence of Slavery
was abolished by the fundamental law of Christianity."
See how the Gospel transforms this Roman chattel
into a Christian man: “Masters, render to your Serv-
40 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
ants that which is just and equal.” Treat them as
your equals in all the essential rights of men—as hus-
bands, as fathers, as laborers worthy of their hire, as
rational and immortal souls, give to them EQUAL-
ITY.” These words are the death-blow of Roman
chattel-slavery. They are good where slavery does
not exist—for every relation of master and servant ;
but they abolish slavery at a stroke. And these
words are enforced by a solemn reference to the
judgment—“knowing that both your and their Mas-
ter is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons
with Him.” And then, on the other hand, the ser-
vant made free by the Gospel is not to plume him-
self on that, nor to set himself upon his dignity;
but to be voluntarily humble and faithful in his posi-
* Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Princeton, whose learning and orthodoxy none will
dispute, and whom none will accuse of “abolitionism,” thus comments on
this passage in his recent work on Ephesians.
“Give to your servants that which is just and equal. That is, act
towards them on the principles of justice and equality. Justice requires that
all their rights as men, as husbands, and as parents, should be regarded.
And these rights are not to be determined by the civil law, but by the law of
God. “As the laws,” says Calvin, ‘gave great license to masters, many as-
sumed that every thing was lawful which the civil statute allowed; and such
was their severity that the Roman emperors were obliged to restrain their
tyranny. But although no edicts of princes interposed in behalf of the slave,
God concedes nothing to the master beyond what the law of love allows.”
Paul requires for slaves not only what is strictly just, but Tºv igórnta.
What is that? Literally, it is equality. This is not only its signification,
but its meaning. Slaves are to be treated by their masters on the princi-
ples of equality. Not that they are to be equal with their masters in author-
ity or station, or circumstances; but they are to be treated as having, as
men, as husbands, and as parents, DQUAL RIGHTs witH THEIR MASTERs.
It is just as great a sin to deprive a slave of the just recompense for his labor,
or to keep him in ignorance, or to take him from his wife or child, as it is to
act thus towards a free man. This is the equality which the law of God
demands, and on this principle the final judgment is to be administered.”
THE LAW OF CHRIST. 4l
tion, not quitting a master because that master is
declared to be his equal. “They that have believ-
ing masters, let them not despise them because they
are brethren.” How could a chattel despise its
owner P. How would that caution sound in the ears
of modern slaveholders? What Southern church
would tolerate such an exhortation to its slaves 2
Hear now the decree of the Apostle Paul for the
abolition of Slavery: “As many of you as have
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. You
are all alike covered with Christ's righteousness and
radiant with his glory. Each and every one of you
is Christ. And now shall the Christ here oppress
and injure the Christ there 2 Shall one soul, made
bright with the glory of Christ, soil and trample
under foot that glory in another ? Nay, ye have
each and all, put off self and put on Christ ;-there is
neither Jew nor Greek—there are no favorites in this
spiritual commonwealth; there is neither bond nor
*
*In 1 Tim. 6: 1, 2, Paul makes a distinction between two classes of serv-
ants. First, those still “wnder the yoke,” that is, having heathen masters, are
to be submissive and obedient, from a regard to the honor of God. Secondly,
those having “believing masters” are not to despise those masters, because
Christianity has taken away their legal prečminence, and reduced them to a
common brotherhood with their servants. Does not this argue the virtual
emancipation of every slave whose master became a Christian 2
The case of OneSimus is in point. He wished to return to his once legal
master, whom probably he had defrauded when he ran away. Paul certi-
fies his conversion, assumes his debts, and exhorts Philemon to receive
him, “not now as a Servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved.” For
Philemon to have done otherwise would have been contrary to the Gospel.
IPaul might have retained Onesimus, and would have done so had he not felt
that Philemon could be trusted to treat him as a brother. Onesimus, if he
ever was a slave, did not return as such.
42 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
free—no distinctions of caste are here allowed; there
is neither male nor female—no tyranny of the
stronger sex over the weaker, no special privileges
whatever in this kingdom; for ye are all ONE in
Christ Jesus.” Truly has it been said that “this
law of Christ was the law of laws. Its authority.
was imperial. Its decision was ultimate. Where
the law of the empire was at variance with the law
of Christ, who can doubt to which Christians would
yield the supremacy?”
EESULTS AND DUTIES.
The principle of equality which the New Testa-
ment lays down for the government of its disciples,
wrought out the abolition of Slavery first in the
Church, and by the Church throughout the Roman
Empire. According to Neander: “Christian mas-
ters looked upon their servants no longer as slaves;
but as their beloved brethren. They prayed and
sang in company; they could sit at each other's
side at the feast of brotherly love, and receive to-
gether the body of our Lord.” Church-laws were
made in favor of slaves. Even the sacred vessels
of the Church were sold for their redemption; and
in the reign, of Constantine the emancipation of slaves
was performed as a religious act in the churches
and on the Sabbath. Guizot testifies that “the spirit
and genius of Christianity abolished slavery through-
* Hague. Christianity and statesmanship; to which I would again refer
the reader for a masterly treatment of this whole subject,
RESULTS AND DUTIES. 43
out the world,” and even Gibbon admits the facts,
though he withholds from Christianity its meed of
praise. The law of Christ is a law of emancipation.
What, then, is the application of this law to our
circumstances and times? The system of Slavery
which exists in this country is the Roman system of
chattelism. It does not descend from the patri-
archs or the Israelites. It originated in lawless vio-
lence; it is upheld by force and terror.” This system
is as incompatible with Christianity as was the
Slavery that existed in Apostolic times. It is radi-
cally hostile to the Gospel of Christ. What then is
the duty of Christians toward it 2 Those who live
where the system exists, are bound to free themselves
and their churches from all connection with the sys-
tem of chattelism and forced service. They may not
be able at once to do away with the law of Slavery
in the State; but they should practically abolish in
the Church the distinction of bond and free, and
give to the slave his equal rights as a man. Till
Christians at the South do this, are they not respon-
sible for the sin of the system of Slavery P
We ask this in all Christian candor and charity;
and we ask them to do no more than Christians at
the North have done. When Newport, R.I., was
a center of Slavery and the slave-trade, and the
wealth of its citizens came mainly from that source,
the church of Dr. Samuel Hopkins passed this re-
solve: “That the slave-trade and the slavery of
the Africans as it has taken place among us, is a
* Appendix C.
44 THE NIEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
gross violation of the righteousness and benevolence
which are so much inculcated in the Gospel; and
therefore we will not tolerate it in this church.”
And the church, in face of society, carried out that
resolution in its discipline. When Southern churches
practically come up to that standard, Slavery will
speedily cease.* *
But WE also have a duty in this matter. Ex-
cept so far as by political or ecclesiastical action
we have Sanctioned it, we are not indeed respon-
sible for Slavery where it is; we can not inter-
meddle with it by positive legislation; we must
have large charity for those who are in it; we must
not judge them by our light. We must speak to
them always in Christian love.
But whatever allowance we make for those who
are involved in the system by law, custom, or inher-
itance, we can make none for those who would carry
it to curse a soil saow free; and we can make no ex-
* Dr. Hopkins of Newpºse being much engaged in urging the sinfulness
of Slavery, called one day at the house of Dr. Bellamy in Bethlem, Connec-
ticut, and while there pressed upon him the duty of liberating his only
slave. Dr. B., who was an acute and ingenious reasoner, defended
slaveholding by a variety or argueºnts, to which Dr. H. as ably re-
plied. At length Dr. Hopkins proposed to Dr. Bellamy practical obedience
to the golden rule. “Will you give your slave bis freedom if he desires it?”
Dr. B. replied that the slave was faithful, judislous, trusted with every
thing, and would not accept freedom if offered. “Will you free him if he
desires it?” repeated Dr. H. “Yes,” answered fºr. Rellamy, “I will.”
“Call him then.” The man appeared. “Have you a good, kind master?”
asked Dr. Hopkins. “Oh! yes, very, very good.” “And are you happy?”
“Yes, Master, very happy.” “Would you be more happy, if *ou were
free?” His face brightened; “Oh yes, Master, a great deal more exppy.”
“From this moment,” said Dr. Bellamy, “you are free.” Go thov, and do
likewise. (See “Life of Bellamy,” Congregational Board.)
I&ESULTS AND DUTIES. 45
cuse for ourselves if we do not our utmost to hinder
that. Excuse! Suppose you were asked to join in
a foray to capture slaves in Africa, could you find
an excuse for that ? Suppose a party who had done
this should ask you to participate in the spoils, and
to give your influence to keep in Slavery those whom
they had seized ? Could you' find an excuse for
that ? Never could you excise yourself if you did
not repudiate and oppose the outrage. Just such
an outrage you, as a citizen of the United States,
are asked to Sanction. Can you excuse yourself if
you do not your utmost to hinder it?
No question of practical Christianity is so impera.
tive upon us to-day as this. Christianity and Slavery
can not live together. They have now met face to
face upon a virgin soil. We know that in the end
Christianity must triumph. We know that Slavery
must go down; but this nation, like Rome, may first
go down in the struggle. The prayers and efforts of
Christians alone can avert a catastrophe which the
madness of rulers is hastening on. You can not
make this a question of party measures or of political
expediency. It is a question of vital, practical
Christianity between your soul and God. If you
thrust it aside, it will haunt you in night-dreams;
and it will face you in “That Day.” The day shall
come when all party platforms, measures, and reso-
lutions shall be burnt with fire, and all human work
and institutions shall be dissolved. Then shall you
stand face to face with the slave before Him who
is no respecter of persons. The question then will
46 THE NIEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY.
be: “What did you to secure for this man the
blessings of freedom and of the Gospel? When the
destiny of millions trembled on the slip of paper you
cast into the ballot-box, how did you decide that
destiny ?” Beware lest the sentence come: “Inas.
much as ye did it not to the least of these my breth-
ren, ye did it not to me. Depart from me, ye
workers of iniquity.”
APPENDIX A. 47
APPENDIX A.
FOR the gratification of the curious reader I here subjoin an
extract from the Hilkoth Aabadim, or “Slave Code,” of the Rab-
binical Law. For this, as well as for valuable suggestions
touching the laws of Servitude among the Hebrews, I am in-
debted to the courtesey of the learned and estimable Dr. N. Y.
Raphall of New-York, whose reputation as a scholar is common
to both hemispheres.
The Mishna, as is well known, embodies in a written form the
old traditions of the Rabbins touching the laws of Moses. It is
a digest of such Jewish traditions as were of general authority
in the second century of the Christian era, when these were
reduced to writing by Rabbi Judah, surnamed the Holy.
The schools of Babylon and Jerusalem severally appended to
the Mishna, their own commentaries...These are known as the
two Gemaras. The Mishna, with the Babylonian Gemara or
notes, forms the Babylonian Talmud. The same Mishna, with
the Jerusalem Gemara or comments, forms the Jerusalem Tal-
7mud. That of Babylon, as the more ancient and complete, has
the greater authority. In the twelfth, century the learned
Maimonides made a digest of the laws of the Talmud. His work
codifies both the Mishna and the Gemara, both the text of tra-
dition and the commentaries thereon, and is a standard work
among the Jews. The date of the traditions themselves is not
to be confounded with the date of their compilation in the
Mishna.
Thus much premised concerning the authority of these tradi-
tionary laws among the Jews, I now give a fair specimen of the
laws of slavery in detail. It must be borne in mind that these
are not a part of the Mosaic code—not laws of divine appoint-
ment—but the interpretation and application of the Mosaic code
by the teachers of the Jewish nation, after the captivity. But
while they exhibit traces of human imperfection, they also show
the benign influence of the legislation of Moses. The history of
the ancient world can not show another code of slavery so hu-
mane as this.
“Extract from Hilkoth Aabadim.
“Laws relating to slaves, from the “Shoolkan Aarook,” “Digest of Rab"
bºy, Aft iii. To reh #g º § #. . º:
. It is a positivo commandment (Gen. 17: at the OWImer Of Slaves
is bound to have thern circumcised. § he neglects this duty, the Beth-din
48 APPENDIX A,
*
(magistrates) must perform it. This applies equally to those born in his
household and those bought. The first named to be circumcised on the
eighth day after birth, the others on the day of purchase.
“2. If an adult slave be purchased from an idolater, the question must
be put to him, ‘Art thou willing to become an Israelitish bondman or not?'
If he consents, he is to be instructed like any other proselyte, and bathed as
Such.
“3. If the adult slave purchased from an idolater refuses to become an
Israelitish bondman he is not to be compelled. The buyer may retain him
twelve months, but not longer, and must before the expiration of that period
sell him to a Gentile. Such is also the law in countries where Jews are not
permitted to make converts. The buyer of a slave may, however, at the
time of purchase, declare to him his intention not to circumcise him, in
which case he may retain the heathen slave as long as he pleases. Children
are to be bathed by order of the magistrate. If a converted slave be
manumitted he must again be bathed as a freeman. The master does not
acquire a durable right over the body of his heathen slave until he has
bathed him for servitude. If the slave takes advantage of his master, and
bathes first, (of his own accord,) declaring himself a free convert, he becomes
free but remains debtor to his purchaser, and must refund the amount paid
for him gradualiy as he earns the means. If the magistrates or any private
individual cause the slave to bathe and declare himself free, they must re-
fund the purchase-money to the buyer. But, if an individual has, by mere
advice, induced the slave to do so, the adviser is free from responsibility.
“12. He who circumcises slaves pronounces the benediction, “Blessed be
thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who hast sanctified us to cir-
cumcise bondmen.” Where the slave is an adult, the operator must cover
his nakedness before he pronounces the benediction.
“17. The slave who has been bathed and circumcised becomes an Israel-
ite, and is held to the same performance of his religious duties as women
and children are. Such a slave may be held to extreme hard work; but,
though the law permits it, piety and reason direct that the master should be
kind to his slave, and not let his yoke weigh too heavy on him. He must
find him in sufficient meat and drink, and must not abuse him either by
word or deed, nor rebuke him with rage, but must speak to him mildly, and
must give him time to offer his defense, (in case of culpability.)
“22. Whatever the slave earns or acquires or has given to him, belongs to
the owner. Even when the gift was made with the express stipulation that
it should be exempt from the control of the owner. The only exception is
where the gift is made with the express stipulation “to recover thy freedom,”
in which case the owner may refuse the proffered ransom, but it does not
become his property unless he sets free the slave.
“26. The slave recovers his freedom either by payment of the sum at
which his owner rates him, or by the owners maiming him in either of the
twenty-four principal members, (ten fingers, ten toes, two ears, and the two
§. of a woman,) the eyes and the teeth, or by the owner's giving him his
freedom. .
“44. A letter of manumission must either be handed to the slave before
competent witnesses, or the signature of the owner must be attested by com-
petent witnesses. If the owner manumits the slave, but dies before he has
signed the letter of manumission, the heir is compelled to sign it. If a slave
who has been carried away by heathens, or who runs away, is absent so long
that the owner has given up the hope of recovering him, he can not, in case
of his coming back, be again held to servitude, but the magistrates compel
...the owner to grant the slave a letter of manumission.
“69. The offspring of a heathen slave, by her Hebrew master, remains a
slave; but the offspring of a converted slave, by her master, is free. It is
held, however, that though he be, to all intents and purposes, free, he can not
marry a free-born woman until he has obtained a letter of manumission.

APPENDIX A. 49
“70. A slave whom his owner has united in wedlockºwith a free-born
woman, or one on whose head the owner has placed phylacteries, or who, by
order of his owner and in his presence, has read three verses of the law be-
fore the congregation, or who, by order of his master, has performed any re-
ligious duty incumbent only on free men, becomes free. . The magistrates
are to compel the owner to grant him a letter of manumission.
“74. In order to be valid the manuuſission must be attested in writing; a
verbal declaration is of no validity, except in the case of a man on his death-
bed, whose declaration that he has granted or doth grant freedom to his slave
is sufficient; should the owner die before the letter of manumission can be
prepared, the magistrates compel the heirs to grant it.
“77. If an owner on his death-bed directs, ‘Let my bondwoman N. N.
henceforth be exempt from work,' she remains a slave, but the heirs can not
force her to labor. If the direction was, ‘Let her be well treated,’ the heirs
can only compel her to do such work as is agreeable to her. In neither case
can they sell her . An owner who, on his sick-bed, bequeathes his property
to his slave, but subsequently recovers, retains his property, but must grant
freedom to his slave, because he has already become considered as a free
II].8m.
“81. A converted slave who is sold to an idolater or proselyte of the gate,
(one who has not entered into the covenant of circumcision,) becomes free, so
that, if he runs away from his purchaser, his former Hebrew owner has no
claim on him. Should he not escape, the Hebrew owner is compelled by the
Imagistrate to redeem him, provided the ransom to be paid does not exceed
ten times the amount of the suum the slave was sold for, and the owner must
then grant him a letter of manumission, so that he can marry a free-born
woman. Some hold that when a converted slave has been mortgaged to an
idolater, he may with impunity take so much of his Hebrew owner's effects
as will free him from heathen bondage.”
The following paragraphs are from the Mishna;-Treatise Gittin,
Chap. 3, Sec. 6.
“82. A converted slave who is sold to a master residing out of the land of
Judea, either in Syria or Ptolemais, or any other foreign place, recovers his
freedom, and the buyer is compelled by the magistrate to grant him a
letter of manumission. Even though the buyer plead, ‘I only require his
services within the land of Israel, his plea is not to be received.
“84. The owner of a converted slave in Judea, can not carry him out of
the land without his consent, though he may sell him to another Hebrew.
A converted slave, the property of a Hebrew, residing in a foreign country,
who escapes into Judea, is not to be given up to his owner. Such a slave
recovers This freedom, but remains a debtor to his former owner for the
amount at which he is rated. If the owner residing abroad refuses his con-
sent, the magistrate grants the slave an attestation, and he is free.”
Such was the later code of slavery among the Hebrews.
While it retains some features of rigor, in accordance with the
prevailing spirit of the Israelites toward the heathen, yet how
marked is its benignity in comparison with heathen codes of
slavery. How carefully throughout is the slave regarded as a
person having natural and inalienable human rights to be pro-
tected by the law—and never as a chattel to be held solely at the
will and for the profit of the master.
3
50 APPENDIX B.
APPENDIX B.
IT is evident, from Josephus, that slaves were held in the
family of Herod the Great. His brother Pheroras refused the
hand of a daughter of Herod, because he was enamored of a
female slave. Female slaves in the household of Antipater were
put to torture because they were suspected of being privy to his
conspiracy against the crown. See Bell, Jud. B. I, chap. 30.
After the death of Herod, “Simon, one of the palace-servants,
presuming on the symmetry of his figure, and his full stature,
assumed the diadem.” (Jos. de Bell, Jud. B. II., chap. 4.) Ta-
eitus, however, does not speak of Simon as a slave. (L. V. $9.)
But these instances do not prove the continued existence of
Slavery among the Jews in the time of Christ. The pretensions
of Herod to Jewish lineage, were never fully conceded. His
father was an Idumean, and his mother a woman of Arabia. He
was a usurper in Judea, and while he humored the Jews as far
as possible, with a view to consolidate his power, yet his own
tastes and customs were not Jewish.
There are facts, however, which prove conclusively that slaves
were occasionally held by Hebrews in Judea, in the time of
Christ. I am indebted to Dr. Raphall for the following examples.
The first is that of R'Gamaliel, the teacher of Paul (the grandfather
of the compiler of the Mishna) and his slave Tabbi. The passage is
in the Mishna;-treatise Berachoth, chap. ii. §7. “When his
slave Tabbi died, he (R. Gamaliel,) received visits of condolence.
His disciples said to him: ‘Hast thou not taught us, Rabbi, that
visits of condolence are not to be received for slaves?' He
answered them: ‘My slave Tabbi was not like other slaves: he
was pious.’” This expression shows that R' Gamaliel was not
the only slaveholder then in Judea.
In the Mishna, Aboth, chap. 2, $7, we find that Hillel, the
ancestor of R' Gamaliel, (and appointed President of the Sanhe-
drin by Herod the Great about 30–36, B. C. E.,) preaching
against the abuses of his time, says: “Increase of bond women
causes increase of fornication. Increase of bondmen causes
increase of theft.” Remarks which prove not only the prone-
ness of owners to increase the numbers of their slaves, but
also the depravity of character generally imputed to slaves.
In the Mishna tr: Ketuboth, chap. iv. §5, we read: “These
are the kinds of work which the woman is bound to do for her
husband. She must grind corn, and bake, and wash, and cook,
and suckle her child, make his bed, and work in wool. If she
APPENDIX C. 51
brought him one bondwoman, she need not grind, bake, or wash;
if two, she need not cook nor suckle her child; if three, she
need not work in wool nor make his bed; if four, she may sit in
her easy chair.” In the same Mishna, chap. viii., §5: “Should
aged bondmen or bondwomen fall to her (the wife) by inheritance,
they are to be sold to purehase land of which he (the husband)
enjoys the usufruct. But R' Simeon ben Gamaliel saith: “She
can forbid the sale, because they (aged slaves) are an ornament
to her father's house.’” Dr. Raphall adds:
“The fact that slavery existed in Judea from the return of Ezra and the
exiles from Babylon, till the expulsion of the Jews under Hadrian, has never
been questioned among us.”
But while these occasional allusions to slavery in the Mishna
show that it still lingered in Judea in the time of Christ, it is
the opinion of learned Jews that Slavery had then ceased to be
prominent in the nation. Indeed, this is evident from the silence
of all contemporaneous history as to Hebrew Slavery, and from
the humiliating circumstances in which the Jews then were as
a tributary people. They did not adopt Roman laws and usages;
neither could they fully carry out their own. These considera-
tions, together with those urged in the text, satisfactorily explain
the silence of Christ as to slavery. There is no proof that He
really came in contact with it; and so far as it existed among
the Jews it was soon to perish with their whole polity.
APPENDIX C.
I HAVE no wish to exaggerate the evils of Slavery as it exists in
the Southern States of this Union. I know that there are many
humane masters, who treat their own slaves with kindness, and
who frown upon acts of cruelty. But after all, the law defines the
system to be one of pure CHATTELISM. The slave is not a person
but a chattel. The Russian serf can not be alienated from the
soil on which he was born. His master may change, but the
serf lives on in his hut with his family. But when the kind
master of a Southern plantation becomes bankrupt or dies, the
law looks upon his slaves as marketable property, and sells them
to any purchaser, regardless of local and family ties. The sum
of all the evils of slavery lies in that one fact;-before the law
the slave is not a reasonable person, having inalienable human
52 APPENDIX C.
rights, but a thing held for the use of the master; and this is
Roman Slavery as contradistinguished from Hebrew servitude.
I do not charge upon Southern slaveholders as a class, all the
barbarities of the Roman code. Yet every cruelty recorded of
that system has been perpetrated upon slaves at the South,
either by mob violence, or by some unprincipled master or over-
seer, who has escaped punishment through some fiction of the
law. *
For fuller details of the Roman Slave-law, I refer the reader
to Blair's “Inquiry into the State of Slavery among the Romans,”
Edinburgh edition. As a means of comparison let him take
Stroud's “Sketch of the Laws of Slavery.” The “Key to Uncle
Tom's Cabin,” page 207, presents the following items:
“Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be
OHATTELs personal in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their exe-
cutors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes
whatever.—2 Brev. Dig. 219. §rinces Dig. 446. Cobb's Dig. 971.”
“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs.-Lou."
Civil Code, art. 35. Stroud's Sketch, p. 22.”
“Such obedience is the consequence only of uncontrolled authority over
the body. There is nothing else which can operate to produce the effect.
The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the
slave perfect.—Judge Ruffin's decision in the Case of The State v. Mann.
Wheeler's Law of Slavery, 246.”
“It is clear that -laves have no legal capacity to assent to any contract.
With the consent of their master, they may marry, and their moral power
to agree to such a contract or connection as that of marriage can not be
doubted; but whilst in a state of slavery it can not produce any civil effect,
because slaves are deprived of all civil rights.”
“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The
master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry and his labor; he
can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong
to his master.—Lou. Civil Code, Article 35. Stroud, p. 22.
“According to Judge Ruffin, a slave is “one doomed in his own person, and
his posterity, to live without knowledge, and without the capacity to make
anything his own, and to toil that another may reap the fruits.”—2. Wheeler's
Law of Slavery, p. 246. State v. Mann.”
“All the acquisitions of the slave in possession are the property of his
master, notwithstanding the promise of his master that the slave shall have
certain of them.—Gist v. Toohey, 2 Rich. 424.”
“A slave paid money which he had earned over and above his wages, for
the purchase of his children, into the hands of B, and B purchased such
children with the money. Held that the master of such slaves was entitled
to recover the money of B.-Ibid.”
!
, ，-*
（±√（√∞∞∞· * {|
- - - - - - -·į
�-
·{
}
!
| of
|
3 9015 005:14 0762.
|
|
≡
¿、
§§§§
}，:$（'#::
§§§§
}，
wae
¿
¿
№
§
ķ














ī£32，5 × × ×*******
23 %）， º...- ***
» +:-èº:！！！！！
& & ***************** ? ***: *）; y
Ž（**）（.*）&ººººº-
§§§§
***********$£§！！！！.?）（ *）， § 3. §
*$';};&ț¢, 3¢， $t，-+ ~-
-…- .-.-.-.-±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±,±，±），
•:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::：:：:
§§§§§§§§§§§§Ě:-
¿?§§§§
{{:}};$£§§
Ķ
ť
#èſºğÈ
§§
§§§§